20161221_Email from DOT regarding Alternative 3 & 5_20130627

Wainwright, David
From:
Wainwright, David
Sent:
Monday, July 01, 2013 9:59 AM
To:
Gillespie, Allyn K; Biddlecome, William J SAW; Wheeler, Tracey L SAW
( Tracey .L.Wheeler @usace.army.mi1); Wilson, Travis W.; garysjordan @fws.gov; Chris
Militscher (militscher.chris @epa.gov) (militscher.chris @epa.gov); Fritz Rohde
(fritz.rohde @noaa.gov); Hart, Kevin; joakes @mideastcom.org; Gledhill - earley, Renee
Cc:
McInnis, Jay; McFalls, Eddie (EDDIE.MC FALLS @aecom.com); Rivenbark, Chris; Stanton,
Tyler P; Atkinson, Paul; Capehart, Bob; Jennings, Jerry D; Edge, Donald W; Emory, Scott
L; O'Connor, Kristine (Kristine.00onnor @aecom.com); Johnston, Mark
(Mark.Johnston @aecom.com)
Subject:
RE: R -5311 CP2A
K i m,
know e I i m i nati ng Alte rnative 3 & 5 we re b ri ef ly d i scussed at the C P 2A m eeti ng. I have revi - -• the ! • f i I es fo
project, and I would like more information before I make a decision on dropping Alternatives 3 & 5. As you state, there
are more wetland impacts associated with Alternatives I & 6 then with Alternatives 3 & 5. The difference could be
upwards of +• acres, which is significant for ! • . I understand that FHWA •r- to fund 3 & 5 because
4(f) impacts; however, I don't have a good record of what these impacts are, I also do not have a good record of the
potential environmental justice impacts, or impacts to community facilities reflected in the table.
Therefore, prior to making a decision, I would appreciate a more thorough explanation of what the actual potential
impacts to the Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School and the Pleasant Plains Church would be, a better explanation of the
potential EJ issue and who and to what extent the impacts would occur, and an explanation of the impacts to the
community facilities.
Thanks
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
David.Wainwright @ncdenr.gov
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
n- Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Gillespie, Allyn K
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:35 AM
To: Biddlecome, William J SAW; Wheeler, Tracey L SAW (Tracey. [e-mail]. mil); Wainwright, David; Wilson,
Travis W.; gary_jordan @fws.gov; Chris Militscher (militscher.chris @ epa.gov) (militscher.chris @ epa.gov); Fritz Rohde
(fritz.rohde @noaa.gov); Hart, Kevin; joakes @mideastcom.org; Gledhill - earley, Renee

Cc: McInnis, Jay; McFalls, Eddie (EDDIE.MCFALLS @aecom.com); Rivenbark, Chris; Stanton, Tyler P; Atkinson, Paul;
Capehart, Bob; Jennings, Jerry D; Edge, Donald W; Emory, Scott L; O'Connor, Kristine (Kristine.00onnor @aecom.com);
Johnston, Mark (Mark.Johnston @aecom.com)
Subject: R -5311 CP2A
Hi Merger Team:
Thanks for all of you who attended our field meeting on Tuesday a week ago. Along with the stream crossings, we also
briefly discussed Alternatives 3 and 5. These are the two alternatives that involve improving the section of existing US
13 which has no control of access between SR 1212 (Shortcut Road) and the northern NC 461 intersection. There are
three historic properties located along this portion of US 13. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have no adverse effect on the
Newsome -Hall House but would have an adverse effect on the Pleasant Plains Rosenwald School and Pleasant Plains
Church. Both alternatives would require right of way from these historic properties, which are protected by Section
4(f). The school is on one side of the road and the church is on the other, so there's no way to widen to a different side
of the road to avoid the properties. In addition, both Alternatives 3 and 5 would relocate 60 houses, compared to 3
houses for Alternatives 1 and 6. Alternatives 1 and 6 would not require property from any of the historic properties.
Alternatives 3 and 5 would, however, affect less wetlands but more streams than Alternatives 1 and 6. The table below
compares the four alternatives studied in detail for the project.
Table 1: R -5311 Preliminary Impacts by Alternative
Resource
Alternative 1
Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Project Length (miles)
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.9
Relocations
Residential
3
60
60
3
Business
0
4
4
0
Total
3
64
64
3
Minority /Low Income
Populations—
Disproportionate Impacts*
No
Possible
Possible
No
Historic
Properties (adverse effect)
0
2
2
0
Community Facilities
Impacted **
0
2
2
0
Section 4(f) Impacts
0
2
2
0
Prime Farmland (acres)
58.7
68.9
62.2
51.5
Wetlands (acres)
114.9
76.5
48.3
83.5
Streams (linear feet)
1,141
1,101
1,101
1,171
Floodplain Impacts (acres)
0
0
0
0
Federally Protected Species
0
0
0
0
* Impacts defined as disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low income populations.
** Impacts to schools, parks, churches, fire stations, cemeteries, etc.

As you are all probably aware, Section 4(f) stipulates that land can be used from a historic property only if there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to such use. Because we have two feasible and prudent alternatives in Alternatives 1
and 6, FHWA will not be able to approve the selection of Alternative 3 or Alternative 5. Because we know now that we
won't be able to select either of these alternatives, we'd like to drop Alternatives 3 and 5 at this time. We will discuss
these alternatives in the EA, but we will not present them at the public hearing.
If everyone is in agreement with dropping Alternatives 3 and 5, we'll distribute a revised CP 2 form for approval. Please
let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Kim Gillespie
Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT -PDEA
(919) 707 -6023
®rrail . corrpspordpnce to acid 'rori this spndpr is subJpct to thp N.C. ;Public Records _aw and may by disclos d o Hiiird par ips.