Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC 215 (3) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PATRICK L. MCCRORY ANTHONY J. TATA GOVERNOR SECRETARY Revised Concurrence Point 2/2A Stream Crossings Review for STIP Project R-2594 Meeting Summary NC 215 from US 64 at Cherryfield to SR 1326 South of Balsam Grove, Transylvania County, Federal Aid Project No. STP 215 (1), State Project No. 8.1000601, STIP Project No. R-2594 WBS Element 34475.1.1 DATE: January 12, 2014 A NEPA/404 Merger Team meeting for the subject project was held on November 13th, 2013, at 1 PM in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Structure Design Conference Room in Raleigh. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a project update and to obtain concurrence on Concurrence Points 2, Alternatives to be Carried Forward for Detailed Study and 2a, Proposed Crossing Structures for the subject project. Theresa Ellerby (NCDOT) welcomed the Merger Team members and led the introductions. Ms. Ellerby then acknowledged that Artie Wilson (Transylvania County) had requested an opportunity to make a statement on behalf of the Transylvania County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Wilson thanked the members of the Merger Team for all their work over the years, and said that the Transylvania County Board of Commissioners was in support of “New Location Alternative 3b”, believing that the alternative will provide significant safety improvements. Mr. Wilson also said that the County is eager for the project to move forward. Project Overview Ken Gilland (Baker) reviewed the meeting agenda (attached), noting that there were a lot of topics to address during the meeting. Mr. Gilland then proceeded provide an overview of the project history and development of the project alternatives. The project is designed to provide safety improvements for NC 215 from US 64 to Macedonia Church Road (SR1326) in Transylvania County. The project is located partly within the Pisgah National Forest and is part of a Forest Heritage Scenic Byway. The existing 5.9 mile road consists of a two-lane, narrow, curvy, section of mountain roadway. The Merger Team was reminded of the previous Merger Meetings: • Concurrence Point 1 and 2 – October 2000 • Concurrence Point 2a Field Meeting – November 2002 2 • Concurrence Point 2a – November 2004 • Revised Concurrence Point 2a – August 2007 • Merger Team Informational Meeting, December 2012 Topics from December 2012 Information Meeting Mr. Gilland reminded the Merger Team that discussion at the 2012 informational meeting led to several questions or issues that the team felt needed to be addressed before the project could move ahead: • USFS concerns regarding impacts from the typical section and related concerns regarding construction waste disposal sites on USFS lands • Questions regarding bicycle use of Existing NC 215 • Pyritic (hot rock) concerns • Aquifer impacts • Would new location or “spot improvement” alternatives meet the Purpose and Need of the project • The Merger Team also asked if there were adverse effects to historic resources under all of the proposed build alternatives Revised Typical Section, and Construction Waste Disposal Sites The typical section has been revised from the initially proposed twelve-foot lanes with eight-foot shoulders, to eleven-foot lanes with six-foot shoulders (two-foot paved and four-foot gravel). The revision was made to address USFS concerns about impacts from the wider typical section initially proposed. Marla Chambers (WRC) stated her opinion that the new typical section is still too wide for the amount of travel on the road. Ms. Ellerby noted that an agreement had been reached previously (during the December 2012 Informational meeting) to modify the typical section, and that this item was included on the agenda as a point of clarification . Mr. Gilland mentioned that the road is a NC Route, and that design standards had to be met. Kevin Moore (NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit) noted that new projects are designed to meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design standards. Ms. Chambers acknowledged the fact that the group had already agreed upon the new eleven-foot typical section, but asked that the record show that WRC is opposed to the new typical section being carried forward. Karen Compton stated that USFS has approved this typical section. A draft of proposed disposal sites is under development. Karen Compton (USFS) noted that many locations that would appear to be suitable waste sites are often high probability areas for archaeology. She will coordinate with USFS archaeologist Rodney Snedeker to get more input. Ms. Compton observed that a location identified as an archaeological site eligible for protection under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) would not necessarily be ruled out for a waste site, because “preservation in place” (i.e. buried in place) may be an appropriate treatment. Ms. Compton reminded the group that the USFS was initially opposed to allowing construction waste to be located on USFS lands. However, due to the information contained in the Constructability Report and the time estimates related to transport and disposal of waste, the USFS has agreed to consider waste sites on USFS lands, but only for the “Improve Existing Alternative”. Pyritic (Hot Rock) Concerns Chris Militscher (USEPA) asked if there were issues related to pyritic rock and what field work had been conducted. Jody Kuhne (NCDOT, Geotechnical Unit) reported that a sub-surface inventory was conducted for the 3 “Improve Existing Alternative” in 2001. However, some work had been done prior to that time by Eastern Federal Lands on a new location alternative”, but the work was not done to the same level of detail, and the alignment was not exactly the same. Based on Mr. Kuhne’s review, there are no pyritic rock concerns based on work conducted in 2001 and previous work by Eastern Federal Lands. When asked if estimates on fill had been completed, it was noted that the estimates would be completed for the preferred alternative, and would be included in the upcoming Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Bicycle Use of Existing NC 215 Jennifer Harris (NCDOT PDEA) clarified that due to concerns regarding impacts from the proposed typical section, none of the alternatives under consideration will include additional paved widths for bicycle lanes. Ms. Harris noted that automobiles and bicycles will continue to “share the road” on NC-215. Brian Burch (Division 14) agreed that this had been accepted. Potential Aquifer Impacts. There are no regional aquifers in the project area. The project could affect areas of jointed rock that are used for residential wells. Ability of the new location alternatives” or “spot improvements” to meet the Purpose and Need of the project. These questions were addressed during the Safety Review discussion, which is summarized at greater length below. Historic Resource Adverse Effects. The “Improve Existing Alternative” as redesigned has no adverse effect on the Summer Cottage Historic District, based on an effects determination on December 21, 2010. During the same meeting, it was determined that there are adverse effects to Gloucester Gap Road for both of the new location alternatives. The “New Location Alternative 3b” does avoid direct impacts to high and moderate integrity areas of Gloucester Gap Road, but does impact the sense of setting for the resource and would increase traffic noise in the area. The Merger Team agreed that the questions from December 2012 had been addressed, with the exception of the spot improvements issue, which will be evaluated by NCDOT. Information Updates Natural Systems Field Surveys. Tom Barrett (Mulkey) and Dave Danley (USFS) discussed the status of USFS species and the data analysis of a rare liverwort species (Drepanolejuaunea appalachiana). One occurrence of the microscopic species was found during sampling. To date, 14 total occurrences of the species have been found across the planning unit. The biological evaluation of the species is under development, and a viability determination is anticipated within the next few weeks. Surveys to see if other populations of the species can be found in the vicinity of the project are ongoing. Mr. Danley noted that the species had no defined habitat types but may have a preferred microclimate. Ms. Buncik (USFWS) asked if the habitat for the species is a specific microclimate. Mr. Danley stated that impacts to the microclimate, rather than to the single tree on which the species was found, could impact the species; however, the specific microclimate has yet to be determined beyond the southern escarpment for certain parts of the Appalachians. Bat Surveys Heather Wallace (NCDOT NES) told the Merger Team that two male Northern long eared bats (Myotis Septentrionalis) had been netted during July field surveys in the Cherryfield area near the southern terminus of both new location alternatives. The species was proposed for listing as threatened or endangered as in 4 October 2013, and could be listed as early as October 2014. Ms. Buncick stated the current status of the species could be addressed via a conference on whether the proposed federal action might have an impact on the species. Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) stated that FHWA is developing a plan on how to address status of the species.. Ms. Buncick recommended that the species be treated as listed, noting that USFWS hopes to have management procedures in place by the end of December, 2013. Ms. Buncick observed that the new location alternatives were in suitable habitat for the bat, and recommended surveys for hibernacula (caves, mines, or structures) for all alternatives. Safety Review. Brian Murphy (NCDOT Traffic Safety) discussed the safety review that was developed to evaluate the proposed build alternatives. He summarized the safety review methodology, based on the Highway Safety Manual. This was the third project in North Carolina to be analyzed using this method. He stated that, based on the analysis, under a No-Build Scenario, it was anticipated that there would be 16 crashes per year on existing NC 215. If the “Improve Existing Alternative” were chosen, the estimated crash rate would be reduced to 7 crashes per year on the upgraded facility. If either of the new location alternatives were chosen, the total (combined) crashes per year on existing NC 215 and the improved facility were estimated to be 6 crashes per year. Mr. Militscher asked if this estimation included an increase in animal crashes. Mr. Murphy stated that the existing methodology did not include animal crash estimates. For a review of the likelihood of animal crashes for a specific area, NCDOT would likely examine crash data for the nearest comparable facility, which in this case would be existing NC 215. During the most recent five-year period, there were no listed animal crashes in this area, however it was noted that in rural areas animal crashes are not always reported. “Spot Improvements” to existing alignment. Several Merger Team members had previously asked about the ability of “Spot Improvements” to the existing alignment to meet the Purpose and Need of the project. Mr. Murphy said that because NCDOT had developed the safety review model, it will be possible to examine quantitatively, the degree to which specific spot improvements might meet the Purpose and Need of the project. NCDOT is in the process of scheduling a field safety review of the NC 215 site to examine potential problems areas, noting that accidents on existing NC 215 are not highly concentrated. Upon completion of the review he will present his findings to the group for their review. Marella Buncick stated that the agencies would be willing to participate in a field evaluation of spot improvements if it would be helpful to NCDOT. Lori Beckwith (USACE) agreed that they would be willing to attend a field meeting as well. The team agreed to have NCDOT staff only at the field meeting and the findings reported at a later date. Alternatives to Be Studied in Detail NCDOT requested that the “New Location Alternative 3b” be added as an alternative to be carried forward. The Merger Team suggested that “Spot Improvements to the Existing Alignment” should also be added as an alternative to be carried forward. NCDOT agreed to revisit this decision after the spot improvement safety analysis was completed. Ms. Buncick stated that, after the results of the spot improvements analysis, it may be possibl e to drop some of the existing alternatives. Amy Chapman (NCDENR) stated multiple spot improvements could be pursued. At this meeting, concurrence was not reached on the alternatives to be carried forward; therefore NCDOT will schedule a future meeting with the Merger Team to reach concurrence on this issue. 5 Crossing Structures Crossing structure alternatives for “New Location Alternative 3b” were presented to the Merger Team. Ms. Chapman asked if bottomless culverts could be used. Mr. Kuhne stated that at this time, NCDOT cannot definitively establish that bottomless culverts are possible. Bedrock contact is required for the placement of culvert footings, and the soils in this part of the mountains are deep in some areas. He noted that investigations for crossing structures are not typically done at this phase of the design process; rather they are done during final design. However, based on the previous borings that NCDOT developed along the alignment for the “Improve Existing Alternative” and the borings done along a new location corridor for the 1998 Environmental Assessment (see discussion earlier in the meeting), it appears that there is greater near-surface bedrock on the “Improve Existing Alternative” than on the new location alternatives. Mr. Moore observed that many of the proposed culverts were very long, noting that his experience has shown that even if three out of four culvert end points have bedrock contact, construction requirements for a bottomless culvert will not be met. Based on available data to date, it appears that construction of bottomless culverts is highly unlikely along this project. Therefore, when weighing culverts versus bridge crossings, the culverts should be considered to be not bottomless. The Team agreed it understood this assessment Ms. Beckwith stated that there was a substantial difference between bottomless culverts and other types of culverts, that a properly designed bottomless culvert crossing would not be considered a stream impact. She also noted that due to the high quality nature of the streams that USACE would likely require 3:1 mitigation for stream impacts. Discussions were initiated for determining the appropriate structure for Big Mountain Branch on “New Location Alternative 3b.” Given the length of the a bridge, the location of the alternative at a higher point in the landscape than “New Location Alternative 3a” and the high costs of the bridge, NCDOT recommended a culvert at this location. Ms. Ms. Chambers stated that she prefers bridging in all locations on new alignment, however she was not comfortable making a stream crossing determination at this time. At this time, the team agreed that a further meeting was appropriate to reach decisions on concurrence and the meeting was adjourned. Action Items  USFS will supply NCDOT with a timeline on the viability determination for the liverwort species (Drepanolejuaunea appalachiana)  NCDOT will conduct a field safety review for spot improvements on the existing alignment  There will be another Merger Team meeting for Concurrence Points 2 and 2a once we have completed the field safety review and spot improvements analysis  NCDOT will continue to coordinate with USFS and USFWS on sensitive species issues  NCDOT will develop bottomless culvert and other major crossing recommendations, but additional field work is not anticipated at this time.