R-2553 Kinston Bypass Merger Information Meeting ROM_Final

ACOM Imagine it.
`V Delivered.
Minutes
Meeting name Meeting date Attendees
R-2553 Kinston Bypass November 13,2018 Tom Steffens, USACE Len White,Division 2(Via
Merger Information Heather Lane,Division 2 Phone)
Meeting Amanetta Sommerville, EPA(Via Phone) Donna Dancausse, FHWA
Gary Jordan, USFWS Steven Lane,NCDCM(Via
Time Location Garcy Ward, NCDWR Phone)
10:00 AM NCDOT Century Chad Davis, Eastern Carolina RPO/Down Robert Patterson,NCDNR
Center East RPO(Via Phone) Leigh Lane, EL Robinson(Via
Project name Renee Gledhill-Earley,SHPO(Via Phone) Phone)
R-2553 Kinston Bypass Cathy Brittingham,NCDCM Douglas Parker, EL Robinson
Preston Hunter, Division 2 Kory Wilmot,AECOM
Jeff Cabaniss,Division 2 Drew Joyner,AECOM
Hon Yeung, Division 2 Susan Westberry,AECOM
Jay Johnson,Division 2(Via Phone) Ashley Bush,AECOM
Ref Action Responsible
01 Project team to provide aquatic data to USFWS prior to CP3 or dropping alternatives AECOM
02 Project team to add riparian buffer and AFSA information to impact table and provide to NCDWR AECOM
03 Project team to post Comment Response Memo as soon as possible AECOM
04 Division 2 to work with Maintenance to generate flooding hotspots Division 2
05 USACE to continue working with Cultural Resources to address mass graves USACE-HPO-NCDOT
06 Project team to request input on dropping a few alternatives after all requested information is AECOM-Division 2
provided
07 Project team to contact Collin Mellor regarding Executive Order 80 and Flooding Memo. AECOM-Division 2
A Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Team (Merger Team)informational meeting was held at 10 AM, Wednesday,
November 13, 2019 in the NCDOT Century Center Complex Structure Design Conference Room.
Purposes of Meeting
The purposes of the meeting were to accomplish the following:
• Provide a project update to the Merger Team on the project, including information related to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement(DEIS)and a summary of the public hearing and comments received at the public hearing.
• Identify any information that the Merger Team may need before moving forward to Concurrence Point(CP)3.
Merger Meeting Summary
Tom Steffens(USACE)opened the meeting with the purpose of the meeting and introductions. Preston Hunter(Division 2)
followed introductions with the NCDOT-Division 2 expectations for the meeting. P. Hunter stressed the importance of the
Kinston Bypass project, recapped recent milestones, and encouraged agencies to share their thoughts.
Kory Wilmot then went through the presentation that included project background and updates and a summary of public
engagement activities and comments received on the DEIS and at the public hearing (see attached).
After the conclusion of the presentation,Tom asked the meeting attendees if there is any additional information the Merger
Team would like to see before CP3 in February to help them pick the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA). Major discussion points are shown below.
• Gary Jordan (USFWS)commented that three new species are expected to be added to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Threatened and Endangered Species List: the Atlantic Pig Toe(not yet listed anticipated before CP3), Neuse River
1

Minutes
R-2553 Kinston Bypass Merger Information Meeting
Waterdog (to be listed around May 2020), and the Carolina Mad Toe(to be listed around May 2020).These new
species were not considered in the DEIS. He would like to see survey information at the crossings for those three
species, as there is no information right now. It was noted that the winter is not a good time of year to conduct surveys.
• G. Jordan asked if there were mussel surveys done for this project. He noted that many of the species cannot be
surveyed between now and CP3, so the information he would like to see will not be available. C. Brittingham asked if
USFWS would be able to select a LEDPA without the mussel surveys. G. Jordan responded that he would have to
check historical information but is not certain that he could make an informed decision.A. Sommerville asked when the
best time would be to survey. G. Jordan suggested any time but winter. Susan Westberry(AECOM)asked if historical
data or modeled information could be applied. G.Jordan said whatever information can be provided would be helpful.T.
Steffens asked if providing information and possibly setting up meeting with USFWS would help make a decision. G.
Jordan agreed.T. Steffens confirmed that NCDOT can put that information together and provide it to USFWS before
February.
• Amanetta Sommerville(USEPA)mentioned the Foss Farm Road Community, which was identified as an environmental
justice community in the DEIS and asked whether or not Alternative 31 would impact that community. Kory Wilmot
(AECOM)confirmed that two-thirds of the homes would be taken as currently drawn due to the standard right-of-way
widths that were used to determine impacts in the DEIS. It is likely that the width could be narrowed if that alternative is
selected.A. Sommerville asked if there had been any changes made to the public hearing maps. K.Wilmot confirmed
that's there have not been any changes to the public hearing maps.
• Cathy Brittingham (NCDCM)stated it would be helpful for NCDOT to prepare responses to comments prior to CP3
(confirmed). She also mentioned that she is struck by comments of Lenoir County's Sherriff's Office regarding flooding
issues and links to Executive Order 80. C. Brittingham suggested the project team produce a narrative or discussion
about Executive Order 80. She noted there is no specific rule requirement, but it seems beneficial to look at. K. Wilmot
explained the flood impact analysis that was done last year, and the recommendation was made that further detailed
studies be done on the LEDPA. K.Wilmot also confirmed the comment response memo will be posted to the project
website, emailed to those that provided an email at the public hearing, and mailed to those that commented but did not
provide an email.
• Garcy Ward (NCDWR)mentioned adding riparian buffer numbers in the impact table would be helpful.AECOM agrees
to add numbers into the impact table.
• Renee Gledhill-Earley(HPO)noted that she is paying attention and the HPO concerns are outlined in the comments
provided on the DEIS. She also noted there will need to be a sit down to develop a method to deal with civil war
combatants and other unmarked remains that are likely present near the Wyse Fork Battlefield.T. Steffens notes
USACE and HPO have been discussing the topic internally to see if there is a process to follow that has been used on
other projects; however, the USACE agrees that a process be developed. R. Gledhill-Earley mentioned she hopes that
the project will not have to run across unmarked remains but that given the high probability and potential for economic
development around the project(indirect and cumulative effects), a process needs to be in place. C. Brittingham asked
if said process would need to be in place before CP3 or after.T. Steffens confirmed that it would be after but far-
reaching beyond this project. He further explained a plan would have to be developed regardless of whether the
alternative selected affect remains or not.
• G. Jordan asked if there will be any attempt between now and February to drop a few alternatives.T. Steffens asked if
G. Jordan felt strongly about any particular alternative getting dropped. G.Jordan clarified that he is assuming NCDOT
has a few they would prefer. P. Hunter answered stating that from a departmental stand point,Alternative)UE does not
appeal to NCDOT due to the number of impacts. P. Hunter also noted the southernmost alternatives(35 and 36)are
also not likely choices for NCDOT due to their high cost despite meeting the purpose and need. He notes that the other
alternatives are all viable from NCDOT's perspective. C. Brittingham noted that, according to the presentation,
Alternative 1 UE was popular for the Public, so NCDOT would need to provide justification for dropping it.
• G. Jordan noted that USFWS does not generally like the alternatives that are farther out from urban areas due to the
sprawl that can be created around projects. G. Jordan noted that he is in favor of dropping out alternatives 35 and 36.
• Len White noted the in-town alternative(1 UE)was the only one that still flooded, and U.S. 70 is a major evacuation
route. P. Hunter confirmed that statement is correct. Robert Patterson (NCDWR)asked if the flooding statement
included the shallow bypass(1 SB). P Hunter stated that the Y-line access for the shallow bypass(1 SB) 11/55.
AECOM
2

Minutes
R-2553 Kinston Bypass Merger Information Meeting
interchange will still have flooding issues, especially during flash flood events east of Kinston, but that the shallow
bypass alternative(1 SB)itself remains dry.
• Drew Joyner(AECOM)asked if the team would be comfortable eliminating a couple of alternatives via email if they are
provided the data asked for over the course of the meeting.T. Steffens confirmed he thinks it would be a good idea. D.
Joyner suggested the project team send out the information and if it needs to be discussed further at CP3,then no
alternatives will be dropped via email and all alternatives will be discussed at CP3 as originally planned.
• C. Brittingham reiterated the importance of the flooding issue, stating that having some sort of flood rating system may
help in the discussion of eliminating alternatives especially if that alternative is popular with the public.The project team
agreed to investigate formulating a rating system based on the Flooding Memo. P. Hunter agreed to talk to the NCDOT
Division 2 Maintenance Office to see where the problem areas are and if they might be able to be accessed during a
flooding event based on historical data.
Upon no further concerns or question, T. Steffen reviewed the to-do list generated from the meeting discussion:
1. Project team to provide endangered species data on the soon to be listed species to USFWS prior to CP3 or
dropping alternatives.
2. Project team to add riparian buffer and AFSA numbers to impact table and provide to NCDWR.
3. Project team to post Comment Response Memo to the project website.
4. NCDOT Division 2 to work with the Maintenance Office to identify flooding hotspots.
5. USACE to continue working with HPO to develop a policy or plan to address potential mass graves related to
the Battle of Wyse Forks.
6. Project team to request input on dropping a few alternatives after all requested information is provided.
7. Project team to contact Collin Mellor regarding Executive Order 80 and Flooding Memo.
T. Steffens closed the meeting reminding the Merger Team that the formal CP3 will be in February.
Meeting adjourned at 11:09.
AECOM
3

12/3/2019
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Transportation
11116,
GL
R-2553 Kinston Bypass Project
Craven, Jones, and Lenoir Counties, NC
STIP Project No. R-2553
Post-DEIS/Public Hearing Informational Meeting
November 13, 2019
ncdot.gov
Presentation Overview
• Introductions
• Purpose of the Meeting
- Project Update
• Project Review
— Project Study Area,Alternatives,
Packet
• Impact Summary Table
• Public Hearing Overview
• Comments on the Project
— Agency Comments
— Public Comments
Transporlalion
1

12/3/2019
ncdot.gov
Project Update
Technical studies completed since last Merger Meeting
• Historic Architecture Eligibility Evaluation Report—October 2017
• Revised Terrestrial Archaeological Resources Predictive Model—October 2017
• Hydraulic Analysis Report—October 2017
• GIS-Based Natural Resources Technical Report—November 2017
• Traffic Capacity Analysis Report—November 2017
• • Relocation Reports—December 2017
• Agency Coordination Plan—January 2018
• Public Involvement Plan—January 2018
• Air Quality Report—January 2018
• Traffic Noise Report—January 2018
• Community Impact Assessment—June 2019
• Economic Impact Assessment—June 2019
• Land Use Scenario Assessment—June 2019
Transportation
ncdot.gov
Project Update
• Draft Environmental Impact Statement
— Published on June 19, 2019
— Notice of Availability posted in Federal Register on July 22, 2019
— Distributed on July 22, 2019
— Comment period through September 6, 2019
• Public Outreach Efforts
— Website Launch on July 19, 2019
— Flyers distributed on August 6 and 7, 2019
— Postcards mailed on July 26, 2019
— Media presence on radio, news outlets, and social media
Transportation
2

12/3/2019
ncdot.gov
Project Review
The proposed Kinston Bypass would `
reduce traffic congestion and delays LaGrange ��� 4
that exist along a 20-mile segment of �'� K;ns,o� LENOIR
et
U.S. 70 between LaGrange and Dover = 1 � COUNTY
in Lenoir, Jones and Craven counties ` CRAVEN
while also helping regional travel. COUNTY
�*_•.�� Dover
• Length: 22 miles D7 �,�
• Facility Type: 4-lane divided freeway ,. �'•`
Legend �,
• Access Control: Full mPro;mtAan"atin. "
—USM
• Alternatives: 12 1 upgrade existing, COUNTY
5a,taroad
11 new location) Local Road
svaauw>nnar MI 58
Municipal Boundary
Oceunq Boundary No:to Scale
Transportation
ncdot.gov
KINSTON,E3
BYPASS-_/ STIP No.R-2553 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
..•
Orange Alignment—Anernauves WE&1SB P.n..Alignment—Aklemati es 63&66
,f .— IJ
I bead Allga11111n1 AIOim*nve6 11&17 Blue Allpni roil=Alhmiiaws 51 E 52
A ..e_,.,. - A an tin-,
Yellow Alipnmsnt—Allemedvas 31 8 32 Purple Alignment—Artematwes 35 8 35 '
•
•
Transportation
3

12/3/2019
ncdot.gov
Impact Summary Table
1
ilternatice tltnrnative Alternative Alternative Alternative alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative alternative
ILL 1S13 II 12 31 32 35 36 51 52 63 65
General = _
Length(miles) 24.5 24.5 26.5 26.7 25.3 25.5 28.6 28.3 25.9 26.1 25.6 _ 25.4
Utility coat(9) $12,830,000 $10,800,000 $9,130,000 $9,430,000 $7,840,000 $8,080,000 $8,620,000 $7,980,000 $7,930,000 $$880,000 $7,880,000 _ $7,630,000
Right-of--way cost(9) $183,070,000 $123,710,000 $78,330,000 $85,050,000 $63,340,000 $66,990,000 $65,490,000 $64,200,000 $54,560,000 $57,380,000 $64,010,000 $61,180,000
Construction cost($) $245,900,000 $292,800,000 $284,100,000 $299,000,000 $284,200,000 $288,900,000 $290,400,000 $297,800,000 $296,200,000 $275,800,000 $355,900,000 $358,900,000
Mitigation cost($) $12,940,000 $12,250,000 $12,130,000 $13,390,000 $12,290,000 $13,550,000 $13,940,000 $12,810,000 $11,720,000 $12,980,000 $13,440,000 $12,180,000
Total cost($) $455,190,000 $440,010,000 $384,140,000 $407,320,000 $368,120,000 $377,970,000 $378,900,000 $383,240,000 $370,860,000 $356,490,000 $441,680,000 $440,340,000
ioeconomic Resources
Residential(#) 125 162 95 101 76 92 130 113 97 113 98 80
Business(0) 137 67 35 40 30 37 32 27 26 32 36 30
Total(9) 262 229 130 141 106 129 162 140 123 145 134 110
Communities(a) 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3,
Environmental Justice 4 6 2 3 2 3 5 4 4 5 4 3
residential areas(a)
•
Schools(a) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Churches(a) 9 6 1 1 1 1 t 1 0 0 1 1
Cemeteries(a) 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 1
NCNHP managed 6.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
areas(ac)
. Prime farmland(ac) 282.2 302.3 392.5 422.4 404.3 434.0 432.4 415.2 410.3 440.1 420.5 390.6
Farmland of statewide 172.2 222.5 236.8 210.2 263.7 236.6 203.4 225.6 224.4 198.3 218.2 243.7
importance(ac)
Farmland of unique 53.3 53.3 56.8 56.8 51.7 51.7 47.3 47.3 48.8 48.8 51.7 51.7
importance(ac)
7
ncdot.gov
Impact Summary Table
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
IUE ISB II 12 31 32 35 36 51 52 63 65
Physical Resources
Noise receptors impacted 38 56 34 37 41 44 23 21 24 27 41 38
Hazardous materials sites(#) 18 9 9 10 7 8 6 5 5 6 8 7
Cultural Resources i i
Section 106 adverse effects 2 2 3 4 6 7 2 1 1 2 6 _ 5
Archaeological sites-high 649.8 829.3 628.9 753.6 590.3 714.3 626.1 526.3 516.8 641.8 668.4 542.8
probability(ac) _
Archaeological sites-low 570.6 480.1 684.4 583.9 688.0 588.4 816.9 883.1 756.4 657.2 664.7 763.9
probability(ac)
I
I
Stream crossings(#) 43 44 45 50 41 45 42 40 38 42 45 41
' Stream length(ft) 32,057 33,112 26,771 33,864 26,620 33,699 31,295 24,888 23,638 30,717 31,368 24,289
100-year floodplain(ac) 358.6 147.7 95.2 83.9 109 97.7 52.1 62.3 73.4 62.1 139.1 150.4
•500-year floodplain(ac) 75 130.8 23.9 23.9 21.7 21.7 40.2 40.2 46.2 46.2 29.2 29.2
Total Boodplalns(ac) 433.6 278.5 119.1 107.8 130.7 119.4 92.3 102.5 119.E 108.3 168.3 179.E
Floodway(ac) 35.6 0.6 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
v Riparian wetland 74.1 41.2 68.5 55.1 66.5 53.2 41.6 55.4 60.4 47.1 74.5 87.9
Non-riparian wetland 11.8 24.2 49.4 37.4 60.1 48.1 107.4 116.4 81.8 69.8 37.7 49.7
t Total wetland impacts(ac) 85.9 65.4 117.9 92.5 126.6 101.3 149 171.8 142.2 116.9 112.2 137.6
1
7
1 8
4

12/3/2019
ncdot.gov
2019 Public Hearing
Open House -+ - •
August 17tn 19t" and 20th
Formal Public Hearing
August 20th 1
-....._ - .......i . .
•
• 101 attendees on August 17th - '
• 92 attendees on August 19th
• 265 attendees on August 20th - _ _ Y_ - — _
—
=ma
• 15 attendees spoke at the Public Hearing _ ■�, i
• 109 total comments received (written and oral)
ncdot.gov
Alternative Preference
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 ,
15
15
7 51
0 0 0 0 0
y0 JF' ,y1 ,y'L .51 .3'L .hh 36 hti yti ra3 bh
.oeti .�ti ca a came ca a ce a ca,e cage cage came came ca)e
c'°` o'°` e� e� e� e� e� ei e� e� e� e�
vsc
silc,
vs„
vs,
10
1
... .... ,.... .„ ..... _. . . . ..- s, .ter
5

12/3/2019
ncdot.gov
Comment Subject
60
50 48
40 —
30 - -
23 23
20
10 I I I Ill . . , , • . . 1 1 1
O`o¢ a°`y ac�5 ac�5 acw5 ac�5 ,.° \\ ¢ o``y' 6e c 0`5`Q?
`oo
eeeee 8, e e O yQ¢
$\\ ,\•a \ •tQoJr \ o c�c ooa` yQ• FccQc
<coo '2cica c yak•os
`mac G°c
aca
el¢�\
11
ncdot.gov
Resource Agency Commenters
• Received 9 from Federal and State agencies about DEIS/DEIS Review Comments
• Federal Agencies
— US Environmental Protection Agency
— National Marine Fisheries Service
— US Coast Guard
— US Fish and Wildlife Service
• State Agencies
• — NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
• State Historic Preservation Office
• Natural Heritage Program
— NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management
• Underground Storage Tanks Supervisor
• Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
— NC Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management
12
III t
6

12/3/2019
ncdot.gov
Local Agency Commenters
Received 6 comments from local agencies/organizations
— Lenoir County Commissioners
— Lenoir County Office of the Sheriff
— Jones County Commissioners
— Mayor of Dover
— Wyse Fork Volunteer Fire and Rescue
• — Neuse River Regional Water and Sewer Authority
13
ncdot.gov
Discussion
14

12/3/2019
ncdot.gov
Discussion Topics
• Is there any additional information the Merger Team
would like to see to make a decision at CP 3?
• Any questions on alternatives?
• Would the Merger Team feel comfortable to eliminate
any alternatives at this time?
• Are there any concerns about any alternatives?
• When will the official CP 3 meeting be held?
15
8