20211026 Ver 1_R-2511CP2andCP2Aminutes_20130222

DocuSign Envelope ID:23FC5E53-02D2-4F82-8C4C-88922EED420F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT McCRORY ANTHONY J.TATA
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 20, 2013
Memorandum To: File
DocuSigned by:
From: Joseph Miller P.E. Loc. Ahlt-
Project Planning Engineer A24640833A9E4B6...
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
SUBJECT: January 31, 2013 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting for Proposed
Widening of US 17, Beaufort/Martin Counties,
TIP Project R-2511, WBS Element 35494.1.1
A CP2 and CP2A merger meeting was held on January 31, 2013 at the Washington
field office of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The following persons were in
attendance:
Bill Biddlecome US Army Corps of Engineers
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service
David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality
Gary Ward NC Division of Water Quality
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Justin Oaks Mid-East Rural Planning Organization
Craig Freeman NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Paul Atkinson NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Shawn Mebane NCDOT Division 1 Resident Engineer
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, Office of Natural Environment
Chris Manley NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, Office of Natural Environment
Jay McInnis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Unit
Joseph Miller NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Unit

DocuSign Envelope ID:23FC5E53-02D2-4F82-8C4C-88922EED420F
Office Meeting
• Jay McInnis began by stating that although the merger team has reached
concurrence already on Concurrence Point 2, he would like to discuss Section 4,
where there are still two alternatives, and see if an alternative can be selected for
that section based on the impacts of the preliminary design. He also mentioned
that the merger team concurred on a"best-fit" alignment for Sections 5 and 6, but
two preliminary designs were prepared. He said he wanted to present the impacts
of the two preliminary designs to the merger team for their information.
• Jay McInnis explained east and west side alternatives for Section 4 and the
avoidance of the National Register-eligible Griffin's Hatchery. Both alternatives
would affect the same amount of wetlands and streams.
• A question was raised about the funding for the project. Does Section 4(f) apply
to Griffin's Hatchery? Mr. McInnis explained that right of way and construction
of the project are currently state-funded, but that there has been interest in
accelerating the project by using Garvey Bonds. A federal document is being
prepared in order to allow flexibility in the type of funding. Because of the
federal document, Section 4(f) does apply to the project.
• Bill Biddlecome asked if the team was OK with the avoidance alternative for
Section 4. All agreed.
• Mr. McInnis explained that impacts have been calculated in Sections 5 and 6 for
both east and west side widening. The merger team has already concurred on a
"best fit" alignment for these sections, but it can be discussed further since the
impacts of widening to either side are available.
• During the discussion, a possible error was discovered in Table 1 of the handout.
It appears that the number of relocatees for the two Section 5 alternatives have
been reversed. Table 1 indicates that west side widening would relocate two
homes while east side widening would not relocate any homes. This contradicts
what is shown on Figure 2. Following the meeting, it was confirmed that the
numbers on Table 1 are reversed. The east side widening alternative in Section 5
would relocate two homes while the west side widening alternative would not
relocate any homes.
• The consensus of the group was that NCDOT will select the "best-fit" alternative
for Sections 5 and 6, as the merger team had originally concurred.
• Bill Biddlecome asked the group if they were in agreement with the CP2
decisions. There were no objections. Mr. Biddlecome signed the CP2 sheet and
passed it around for signatures.
2

DocuSign Envelope ID:23FC5E53-02D2-4F82-8C4C-88922EED420F
• Mr. Biddlecome mentioned a structure at the beginning of the project that is
actually a part of project R-2510. The group agreed to look at it during the field
visit.
• Joe Miller mentioned structures 3 and 4. Travis Wilson commented saying as
long as they're not perched, they will be fine.
Field Meeting
• Site 1
Questions were raised by team members about how the existing box
culvert and pipe would be extended with two pipes. There were concerns
regarding extending a square culvert with a round pipe. Paul Atkinson explained
that it could be done.
The merger team concurred with the recommendation to retain and extend
1 @ 48"RCP and 1 @ 6' x 4' RCBC with 2 @ 60"RCP.
• Site 2
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing 22-foot bridge with 3 @ 8' x 7'
RCBC. Travis Wilson stated he would like to see a bridge or a pipe arch at this
site. Mr. Atkinson explained that there is probably not enough cover for an arch.
Mr. Wilson asked why a bridge could not be provided. Mr. Atkinson mentioned
the proposed culvert will provide a larger opening than the existing bridge.
Mr. McInnis explained there is not enough room to provide guardrail for
the bridge approach between the end of the bridge and the nearby intersection. A
bridge will require relocating the intersection and possibly taking a house.
Mr. Wilson stated he would like to see a bridge at this location, but he
doesn't want to take a house. Mr. Wilson and Gary Jordan asked NCDOT to
look more into bridging without moving the —Y- line. If that is not possible, a
large 1 barrel culvert or arch is preferred. They asked if an aluminum culvert
could potentially be used at this location. There was also discussion about adding
supplemental pipes.
NCDOT will investigate a bridge further and the possibility of a one barrel
aluminum culvert, as requested by the merger team. The merger team agreed that
this could probably be resolved through e-mails without having another meeting.
3

DocuSign Envelope ID:23FC5E53-02D2-4F82-8C4C-88922EED420F
• Site 3
The merger team concurred with the recommendation to retain and extend
the existing 1 @ 8' x 3' RCBC.
• Structure 4
The merger team concurred with the recommendation to retain and extend
the existing 2 @ 8' x 6'.
Travis Wilson asked NCDOT to consider replacing the structure during
final design due to the age of the structure.
4