The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-4440 (2)Needmore Road / R‐4440 – Informational Presentation Review Meeting Minutes 1 Needmore Road / TIP#: R‐4440 Agency Informational Meeting November 13, 2013, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. NCDOT Century Center Structures Large Conference Room Attendees: Elmo Vance, NCDOT ‐ PDEA Frank Vick, RK&K Elizabeth Workman‐Maurer, RK&K John Conforti, NCDOT – PDEA Donna Dancaussee, FHWA Amy Billings, NCDOT‐ Hydraulics Kevin Moore, NCDOT ‐ Roadway Jody Kuhne, NCDOT – Geotechnical Brian Burch, NCDOT – Division 14* Carla Dagnino, NCDOT – Natural Environment Sajid Hasan, NCDOT – WZTC Mike Sanderson, NCDOT – NCDOT Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT – NES Keith Dixon, NCDOT‐ Western Planning Quang Nguyen, NCDOT – SMU Brian Lipscomb, NCDOT‐Hydraulics Amy Simes, NCDENR Mark Staley, NCDOT‐REU Amy Chapman, NCDENR – DWR Linda Pearsall, NCDENR‐ NHP Marella Buncick, USFWS Lori Beckwith, USACE Henry Wicker, USACE Jesse Gilstrap, NCDOT – WZTC Phillip Moore, Southwestern RPO Jennifer Harris, NCDOT‐ PDEA Renee Gledhill‐Early, SHPO* Chris Militscher, USEPA* Marla Chambers, NCWRC* (* present by teleconference) Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting was to accomplish the following:  Update the merger team on the current status,  Confirm that the questions have been adequately addressed,  Provide information pertaining to revising the Purpose and Need and the Environmental Assessment,  And to gain consensus on how to move forward. Summary: Mr. Vance began the meeting with introductions and a quick overview of the meeting’s purpose. Ms. Workman‐Maurer went through a brief timeline presentation of events that have occurred since the approval of the Environmental Assessment (EA). Mr. Kuhne gave a review of the geotechnical recommendations, the reasoning behind those recommended slope stakes, and their implications to the Needmore Road / R‐4440 – Informational Presentation Review Meeting Minutes 2 alternatives discussed in the EA. Ms. Dancaussee facilitated the meeting by capturing the major concerns as different discussions came about. Distributed prior to the meeting were the “Response Notebooks”, agenda, concurrence point 1 meeting minutes, and three PowerPoint presentations. Discussions: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pointed out that there has been a lack of understanding with how the geotechnical recommendations apply to the five alternatives studied in the EA. There have been no applications of these recommended slopes to the preliminary designs of the five study alternatives. This will be further addressed if and when the project moves forward. Mr. Vick stated that a newer alternative has been considered that incorporates retaining walls and other design measures to avoid impacts to unstable soils, hot rock and the Little Tennessee River. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) stressed the need to address the Dedication of the Needmore Tract as a Nature Preserve. Due to particular conditions placed upon funding sources, the paving of Needmore Road may be limited or may not be permissible. This dedication changes the future direction of the project in many ways. RK&K noted that the 1997 Right‐of‐Way (ROW) Agreement giving NCDOT the additional ROW area to construct the road had occurred prior to the dedication. It is unclear who truly owns the donated ROW now. Attorneys will need to clarify the ownership of the ROW. USEPA and USFWS noted that all state‐owned lands will become part of the preserve. The dedication document states “all state‐owned lands lying within the designated areas are hereby dedicated as a nature preserve to be known collectively as the Needmore Game Land Nature Preserve...said state‐owned land, shall be held, maintained and used exclusively for said purposes.” Also written is the following, “Existing roads that occur within or form a boundary of the Primary Area may be maintained by grading of the roadbed, replacing culverts, or adding stone as needed in order to maintain the integrity of the road for vehicular use”. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) commented that there is a GIS shapefile containing the boundaries of the dedicated preserve. It is available for distribution to the project team. USEPA asked “If the alternatives impact the mountainside and stay out of the jurisdictional areas, will a Section 404 Individual Permit be needed?” United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) stated that there are about 10 culvert crossings, a bridge replacement, and Section 10 waters, so it is very likely that an Individual Permit is needed. USFWS pointed out that during the EA timeframe, the Tellico Bridge replacement was not part of the project. Now it is. The spotfin chub uses Tellico Creek regularly. Therefore the bridge replacement may affect critical habitat for this species. What are the implications to the Tennessee Valley Authority waters? Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) asked that research be done on similar situations elsewhere. What are the successes, failures, opportunities, or challenges? This information can help determine a viable solution for this area. USACE recommended engaging local interested groups to help find a solution. On the US 421 project, a community group developed several viable alternatives. The Southwestern Rural Planning Organization (RPO) could assist in the establishment of this community group. There are a number of interested parties; the project is locally controversial. Division 14 commented that the County Commissioners provided resolutions supporting Alternative C (pave in place) as the preferred alternative. Needmore Road / R‐4440 – Informational Presentation Review Meeting Minutes 3 Southwestern RPO says that prioritization may affect funding for this project. He anticipated that Needmore Road would not be a high priority with the new prioritization. NCWRC has a draft management plan for the dedicated preserve. There may be stipulations included in this plan that address road construction. USEPA would like a copy of the draft plan. Funds that went into the Needmore Tract include the following:  Clean Water Trust Funds  Recovery Land Acquisition Funds $2 M  North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Mitigation (NCDOT) $7.5 M  Nature Conservancy  Other donations Questions include the following if impacts occur to the preservation area:  Do any of these contributors require a reimbursement of funds?  What are the stipulations/conditions of the funding sources?  How would mitigation to a mitigation site be handled?  Is the project permittable with the funding conditions and Section 7 potential jeopardy?  What does the deed state?  What credits have been debited from NCEEP for mitigation already? USFWS asked that once the answers are obtained they should be well documented so that this topic is not revisited in future years with new staff. NCDOT indicated that the prioritization process will begin in February 2014 when RPO’s and Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) submit projects for prioritization. Scoring of these projects based upon various factors will occur thereafter. The results will be published in the Draft STIP 2014. Division 14 remarked that the maintenance budget for Division 14 covers only routine maintenance activities along the project. These activities include fixing potholes, scraping, fixing clogs in culverts, etc. At this time, there are no funds available for additional improvements. Questions arose about the fate of the project and if the Tellico Creek bridge will be replaced as a different project if needed. NCDOT mentioned that the bridge will likely run into the same issues with the dedicated preserve, and that regardless of the R‐4440 project, there needs to be resolution on the ownership of the ROW and restrictions to the use of dedicated lands. Three key players (NHP, NCDOT and WRC) were identified to begin the investigation of rights and restrictions of the dedicated preserve. These players will identify tasks, milestones, and select the persons to be involved as the process evolves. A Team Update Meeting will be held on January 22, 2013 to provide updates and address new concerns.