20160787 Ver 1_Information Letter_20100127

Wainwright, David
From: McInnis, Jay ([e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 3:14 PM
To: Biddlecome, William J SAW; [e-mail]; Gary [e-mail],
[e-mail], Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail],
david.wainwright@ncmail, net
Subject: R-3826 (NC 125 Williamston Bypass)
Attachments: R3826_ALT1Acompare.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The last merger team meeting for the proposed NC 125 Williamston Bypass was held back in October of 2005. The team
concurred that Alternatives 1, 2N and 4 should be studied in detail. The EA was completed in April 2009 and these three
alternatives were presented to the public at a hearing held on September 17, 2009.
Two farmers own the majority'of the land crossed by Alternatives 1 and 2N between SR 1420 (McCaskey Road) and
existing NC 125 northwest of Williamston (nearly half the project length).
At the hearing, these farmers expressed concern that Alternatives 1 and 2N would severely disrupt their operations. They
asked that NCDOT reconsider Alternative 2S, which was dropped from consideration in 2005 following detailed
environmental surveys. NCDOT staff explained to the farmers that Alternative 2S would affect more wetlands, homes and
streams than some of the alternatives still being considered. We explained that modifications to Alternatives 1 and 2N
could be looked at to reduce impacts to the farms.
Following the hearing, we looked at a modified alignment for Alternative 1 which would have less affect on these farms.
Modifications were made to Alternative 1 because it would affect less wetlands, streams and homes than Alternative 2N.
The alignment for Alternative 1 was only modified on the two farms so as not to increase impacts to other property
owners.
This modified alignment for Alternative 1 will affect 0.02 acres more wetlands and approximately 174 feet less streams
than the original alignment. This modified alignment for Alternative 1 gets outside the Alternative 1 corridor, however.
I wanted to let you all know about this alignment we've looked at in response to public comments and see how you think
we should handle this procedurely. Do we want to treat this as a new alternative, or do we want to treat this as a tweak to
Alternative 1? I've attached a pdf showing the corridors for our detailed study alternatives along with the modified
alignment for Alternative 1, which we are calling Alternative 1A. Below is a table comparing the impacts of all the
alternatives.
Alternative
1 IA 2N 4
Residential Relocatees 9 9 11 15
Business Relocatees 1 I 1 2
Wetlands Affected (Acres) 1.59 1.62 3.15 3.28
Streams Affected (Feet) 596 422 1,191 257
Open Water Impacts (Acres) 0 0 0 0
Protected Species Habitat? No No No No
Effect Protected Species? No No No No
Effect Historic Properties? No No No No
I would like to hold a CP 3 meeting and possibly discuss CP 4A for this project on the February 23rd concurrence meeting
day. I'd like to know how the merger team thinks we should handle this new alignment as I prepare the handout for the
meeting.
Thanks,
Jay McInnis
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.