HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR 1660 and SR 1662DAFT ~-MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CC1N:.,Ut_TANTe"a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Meeting Participants
FPOm: Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Date: November 19, 2007
SUbJeCt: Merger Concurrence Point 3 Meeting: Transportation improvements in the vicinity
of SR 1660 (Sher Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) south of US 64/23/441,
Macon County, NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
A NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team meeting on Concurrence Point 3 was held for the subject
project on November 15, 2007 in the board room of NCDOT's Highway Building. Meeting
attendees are listed below. A summary of the meeting follows.
David Baker U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville video link)
James Bridges NCDOT -PDEA
Dionne Brown NCDOT -PDEA
Marella Buncick U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (via Asheville video link)
Conrad Burrell NCDOT -Board of Transportation (via Asheville video link)
1~larla Chambers N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (via Forsyth Tech video link)
Carla Dagnino NCDOT -PDEA/NEU
Mark Davis NCDOT -Division 14
Mike Fendrick Parsons Brinckerhoff
Colista Freeman Mulkey
Steve Gurganus NCDOT -PDEA/HEU
Teresa Hart NCDOT -PDEA
Erin Hendee NCDOT -Congestion Management
John Hennessy N.C. Division of Water Quality
Judy Joines NCDOT -Right of Way
Tim Jordan Mulkey
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Gary Covering NCDOT -Roadway
Undrea Major NCDOT -PDEA
Kathy Matthews U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ron McCollum NCDOT -Roadway
Mark Mickley Mulkey
Chris Militscher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Raleigh
Don Moore NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering
Charles Nicholson Tennessee Valley Authority (via telephone)
Joel Setzer NCDOT -Division 14 (via Asheville video link)
Jerry Snead NCDOT -Hydraulics
Katina Thompson NCDOT -TIP
Jamie Wilson NCDOT -Division 14 (via Asheville video link)
Brian Wrenn N. C. Division of Water Quality
Ml1LKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD GARY, NC 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGI-I, NC 27636 PH: 919-H51-1912 FAx: 919-651-1910 WWW.MLJ LKEYINC.COM
:DRAFT
Undrea Major opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. In addition to those in
attendance at the Raleigh location, several individuals joined the meeting by video from Asheville,
North Carolina, and Forsyth County, North Carolina. Extra copies of the information packets
mailed to the Merger Team prior to the meeting were available. Addendum packets of information
were sent electronically to the Merger Team one day prior to the meeting and were provided at the
meeting.
Mr. Major turned the meeting over to Liz Kovasckitz. Ms. Kovasckitz gave a PowerPoint
presentation that reviewed the project and alternatives development history, and summarized public
comments received during and after the public hearing. She also noted that updates (included in the
addendum packets) had been made to project information, as follows:
• Suitable habitat information for federally-protected species was updated for the Appalachian
elktoe and the little-wing pearlymussel.
• Structure cost estimates were updated in the Major Stream Crossings table.
• State-listed species, floodplain impacts, residential displacements, and farmland impacts were
updated in the Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives table.
• Construction cost estimates were updated.
• Public comment summaries were updated.
The proposed traffic signal removal and superstreet concept were eliminated from the project based
on public input. The Mayor of Franklin and the Macon County Commissioners officially support
Alternative A. NCDOT recommends Alternative C with the roundabout option.
Ms. Kovasckitz also noted that the Town of Franklin has an updated zoning map, which was
approved November 5, 2007. Zoning in the project area consists of residential areas, commercial
areas, and a large area of mixed medical, institutional, cultural, and residential. The zoning map is
available on Franklin's website (http://franklinnc.com/).
Discussion that followed the presentation is summarized below by topic
Chris Militscher asked to be shown the locations of the residential displacements along Alternatives
C and D. Ms. Kovasckitz pointed them out on the mounted displays and alarge-scale aerial. She
noted that the relocations are based on cut and fill lines. The final design will try to minimize
relocations.
Marla Chambers stated that it is not clear what the benefit of the project is, based on the traffic
information. Mike Fendrick, who conducted the traffic analysis, stated that although little or no
improvement is shown for intersections under the build condition, levels of service, traffic flow, and
traffic delay do improve somewhat for US 64 and US 441, which are projected to lose approximately
10,000 vehicles per day to the proposed project. He also noted that both the build and no-build
analyses assumed the worst-case scenario; development is built-out in the design year. Joel Setzer
stated that access to the community college, library, and middle school is of great benefit to the area,
even if design year traffic does not reflect significant improvement.
'~
Mr. Militscher asked if bicycle and pedestrian accommodations had been included in the project,
since local plans favor the facilities. Ms. Kovasckitz stated that the proposed typical section includes
2
DRAFT
a four-foot paved shoulder and noted that local officials have not requested birycle or pedestrian
facilities for this project. Undrea Major added that in order to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities
in the project, local officials would have to officially request them and participate in cost-sharing. He
added that it is not too late in the process for local officials to request the facilities. Mr. Militscher
asked if the comments received from the mayor or county commissioners mentioned including bike
or pedestrian facilities in the project. Ms. Kovasckitz responded that they did not.
Marella Buncick expressed concern that only a qualitative ICE was completed for the project. She
indicated that it would be difficult to make a decision based on the current analysis. She asked for
more definitive information, including any land use plans that have been done. Ms. Kovasckitz
stated that NCDOT is planning to conduct a quantitative ICE for the permitting phase. She noted
that similar development assumptions would be made between the four build alternatives; therefore,
impacts would likely be similar.
Mr. Militscher stated that he, too, is concerned about unspecified ICES. Mr. Major responded that it
is difficult to take into account development that has not yet been planned or approved. Brian
Wrenn stated that he would like to have information about buffers and development regulations that
the Town of Franklin and Macon County would impose on new development. He added that if this
project and development is of great importance to the local governments, they should be willing to
commit to providing some specific development regulations. Ms. Kovasckitz suggested that since
any proposed development will need to go through local approval and potential rezoning requests,
the focus should be on the known information. This information includes the community college
and library, which desire additional access. Ms. Chambers suggested that abuild-out scenario could
be done for the ICE, since it was done for the traffic analysis.
~i ~6C "hN IIx"". ~{
7
Ms. Chambers stated that cost and environmental impacts are too great, and the project is not
justified and should not proceed.
Conrad Burrell explained that the project was initiated for the purpose of additional access to the
new community college campus and library, which currently has only one access in and out. Ms.
Chambers suggested that extension of and improvements to the existing Siler Road should have been
included as an alternative to provide this access.
Steve Gurganus stated that the community college now plans to include a high school on the
campus.
Mr. Wrenn asked about the quality of the stream crossed by Alternative D. Mark Mickley responded
that water quality is lower upstream because of the cattle pasture. Quality improves downstream, as
it nears the river.
Mr. Wrenn wanted to verify that Alternatives A, B, and C did not include improvements to existing
Siler Road. Ms. Kovasckitz responded that Siler Road would not be improved with those
alternatives, but improvements to the Wiley Brown Road/Dowdle Mountain Road intersection east
of the river are included in all of the alternatives. Other proposed improvements to the US 64/441
and SR 1701 intersection east of the river were strongly opposed by the public and were eliminated
from the project.
Ms. Chambers asked about other improvements suggested by the public. Mr. Major stated that one
suggestion was to build a new interchange on US 64/441 between the bridges and existing
DRAFT
interchange. Because there is not enough room to build the interchange and ramps in that area, this
suggestion was not taken into further consideration. Ms. Kovasckitz added that other suggestions
included widening of existing Siler Road, improvements at Wells Grove Road, and improvements to
US 441.
Mr. Militscher expressed concern that approximately half of the commenting citizens oppose the
project.
David Baker stated that if NCDOT intends to pursue Alternative C with the roundabout option,
then the project can likely be taken out of the NEPA/404 Merger Process because there are no
stream or wetland impacts associated with that alternative. Kathy Matthews cautioned that it is
difficult to say that there will be no impacts to streams or wetlands, even if the bridge completely
spans the river. Mr. Wrenn and John Hennessy added that if there are and construction impacts to
streams or wetlands (temporary or permanent), the project will have to return to alternatives analysis
during the permitting process. Gary Covering suggested that the Merger Team assume that there are
temporary impacts and keep the project in the Merger Process. Mr. Hennessy responded that based
on the current information, it appears the project could be taken out of the Merger Process and that
USACE and DWQ would only be commenting agencies on the NEPA document. Teresa Hart
stated that she would prefer to keep the project in the Merger Process for now.
Mr. Major asked the Merger Team members to provide their concurrence recommendations on
Alternative C with the roundabout option. The result is as follows:
USACE - No vote (no permit needed from USACE)
USEPA -Non-concurrence
USFWS -Non-concurrence
TVA -Abstain
DWQ - No vote (no permit needed from DWQ)
SHPO -Not present
WRC -Non-concurrence
NCDOT -Concur
Any Merger Team member who abstained or did not concur must submit a brief explanation to the
Merger Team via email within five (5) business days of the meeting. Ms. Hart stated that due to the
Thanksgiving holiday, Team members should submit their briefs by November 30, 2007. (Post-meeting
note: Ms. Hart emailed the Merger Team later the same day to provide additionalguidance for these email briefs.)
The meeting was adjourned.
cc: 2004213.10 3.5 Documentation notebook
LK/cf
4