The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181416_Meeting Minutes_20140122TIP Projects R-25306, B-4974 and R-2527 NC 24 — 27 Widening, Stanly and Montgomery Counties Concurrence.Points 3 and 4A Meeting Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), Avoidance & Minimization of Jurisdictional Impacts and Agency Comment Resolution January 22, 2014 AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Meeting Purpose 3. Brief Project Background and Project Status 4. Alternatives Summary 5. Median width comparison 6. Environmental Assessment Agency Comment Resolution 7. Concurrence on the LEDPA / Signing Forms � 8. Concurrence on Avoidance & Minimization / Signing Forms 9. Summary 10. Adjournment TIP Proiects R-2530B, B-4974 � R-2527: Concurrence Points 3 and 4A Meeting January 22, 2014 Page 3 Table 2 below shows a summary of the environmental effects of the project alternatives. See Attachment 1 for updated wetland and stream impacts tables and a new pond impacts table. TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS � IMPACT CATEGORY PROJECT STUDY ALTERNATIVE TOTAL . • - IMPACTS A B-1 B-4 C R-2530B B-4974, B-4974, R-2527 A+B1+C A+B4+C Alt.l Alt.4 Natural Resources Impacts � Federal Listed Species Habitat Yes Yes Yes Yes � Yes Yes 100-Year Flood Plain and No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodwa Im acts Wetlands (number of 3/ 0.58 2/ 0.08 1/ 0.02 21 /� 26 /� 25 /� crossin s/acres 0.88 1.54 1.48 Stream Crossings (number / 14 / 7/ 7/ 26 / 47 / 47 / linear feet) 4,347 1,478 1,575 5,881 11,706 11,803 Water Supply Critical Areas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rare Plants * Yes No No Yes Yes Yes USFS Forest Land (acres) ** 0 0 0 50 50 50 Human Environment Impacts Residential Relocations (number) 19 6 5 8 33 32 Business Relocations (number) 18 7 3 2 27 23 Low Income/Minority Population No No No No No No Cemeteries/Graves (number of yes / 0 No No No Yes / 0 Yes / 0 graves im acted) Historic Structures *** 0 1 1 0 1 1 Archaeological Sites 3 0 0 3 6 6 Section 4(� Im acts No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Traffic Noise Impacts (receptors) 19 2 2 9 30 30 /Noise Sensitive Areas Air uali Within an Attainment area Ph sical Environment Im acts Railroad Crossings (number) 0 0 0 1 1 1 Farmland � No No No No No No Potentially Hazardous Materials 1 � 2 2 4 23 23 Sites (number) lvcrr�;�: • All impacts, but the USFS Forest Land acreage, are based on preliminazy design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. The USFS Forest Land acreage is based on preliminary proposed right of way limits. • * Rare plants include Schweinitz's Sunflower, Georgia Aster, Large Witch Alder and Smooth Sunflower. • ** USFS Forest Land acreage was recalculated based on updated forest boundaries. • *** The Swift Island Ferry / James B. Garrison Bridge (Existing Bridge 51) is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. TIP Proiects R-2530B. B-4974 8 R-2527: Concurrence Points 3 and 4A Meeting January 22, 2014 Page 4 NCDOT's recommended LEDPA design and bridge replacement alternatives are described below: • R-25306, Section 1— NC 740 to SR 1731— "Best FiY' -Asymmetrical Widening to the South — 23' Raised Median • R-25306. Section 2— SR 1731 to SR 1720 -"Best Fit" -Asymmetrical Widening to the North — 46' Median • R-2530B. Section 3— SR 1720 to SR 1818 -"Best FiY' Asymmetrical Widening to the South — 46' Median • R-2530B, Section 4— SR 1818 to west of SR 1778 -"Best Fit" Asymmetrical Widening to the South (Tie to B-4974, Alternative 1) — 46' Median or -Asymmetrical Widening to the North (Tie to 8-4974, Alternative 4) — 46' Median • B-4974. Section 5— west of SR 1778 to east of NC 73 Altemative 1- South side widening, rep/ace Bridge No. 51 or Alternative 4- Replace in place, replace Bridge No. 51 • R-2527. Secfion 6— east of NC 73 to SR 1134 -"Best FiY' Asymmetrical Widening to the North — 46' Median • R-2527, Section 7— SR 1134 to SR 1550 -"Best FiY' -Asymmetrical Widening to the North — 46' Median Avoidance and Minimization Measures utilized durinq preliminarv desiQn: • 2:1 slopes were used at culvert crossings and wetland areas, • �fee4-sFio _ , • On project R-2530B between SR 1739 (McNeil Road) and SR 1818 (Stony Mountain Road), the grade from Sta. 213+00 to Sta. 235+00 was adjusted to avoid the need to realign the road, thus minimizing impacts to homes, wetlands and streams in this area. • On R-2527, SR 1150 (River Road) was not realigned to meet at a common point on NC 24-27 to minimize impacts to an adjacent stream crossing and development in the area. Median width comparison: See Attachment 2. Environmental Assessment Aqencv Comment Resolution Concurrence on the LEDPA and on Avoidance � Minimization / Siqninq Forms Summarv & Adiournment: The next Merger 01 Team Meeting for this project will be Concurrence Point 4B, 30% Hydraulic Design Review. ATTACHMENT 1 Uudated Imnacts for Streams. Wetlands and Ponds For project R-2530B, there are 4,347 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.58 acres of wetland impacts. See Table 3 for stream impacts and Table 6 for wetland impacts within the R-2530B project study area. For project B-4974, Alternative 1, there are 1,478 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.08 acres of wetland impacts. For project B-4974, Alternative 4, there are 1,575 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.02 acres of wetland impacts. See Table 4 for stream impacts and Table 7 for wetland impacts within the B- 4974 project study area. For project R-2527, there are 5,881 linear feet of stream impacts and � 0.88 acres of wetland impacts. See Table 5 for stream impacts and Table 8 for wetland impacts within the R-2527 project study area. For the entire project study area, there are 0.54 acres of pond impacts as shown in Table 9. TARi.E 3: STREAM IMPACTS IN THE R-2530B PROJECT STUDY AREA ` STREAM PRELIMINARY LENGTH IN DESIGN STREAM STREAM STREAM NCDENR STATUS . DWQ STUDY IMPACTS (FEET) ID NAME CLASSIFICATION SCORE AREA ALTERNATIVE: FEET BEST FIT DITCH UT, Mountain Creek - - 290 12 St-AN 02 UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 30.5 788 237 St-B UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 32 475 208 St-C UT, Mountain Creek Intermittent 26.5 255 57 St-CC UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 33 515 28 St-E UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 32 396 69 St-EE UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 30.5 527 113 St-F UT, Mountain Creek Perennial -- 799 157 St-FF UT, Mountain Creek Intermittent 24.5 392 130 St-GG UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 35.5 310 267 St-HH UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 30.5 619 150 St-I UT, Mountain Creek Intermittent 28 1867 1544 St-M UT, Jacobs Creek Perennial 36.5 3730 994 St-N UT, Jacobs Creek Perennial 40 676 381 TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS FOR R-2530B 4,347 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. TABLE 4: STREAM IMPACTS IN THE B-4974 PROJECT STUDY AREA NCDENR STATUS �WQ LENGTH IN STREAM STREAM NAME SCORE STUDY ID CLASSIFICATION AREA St-Q UT, Jacobs Creek Perennial 34.5 662 St-R UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 31.5 884 St-T UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 29 821 St-U UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 33 1445 St-V UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 34.5 1255 SG UT, Pee Dee River ' Intermittent 26. 242 SH UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 32.5 386 TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS FOR B-4974 iTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet - rRC��nnvr+R i DESIGN STREAM IMPACTS (FEET) ALTERNATIVES: 1 4 42 124 243 241 62 158 158 408 695 382 129 112 149 150 � ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 5: STREAM IMPACTS IN THE R-2527 PROJECT STUDY AREA STREAM PRELtMINARY LENGTH IN DESIGN STREAM DWQ STREAM STREAM NCDENR STATUS STUDY �p NAME CLASSIFICATION SCORE AREA �MPACTS (FEET) (FEET) ALTERNATIVE: BEST FIT SA Rock Creek Perennial 42.5 1,123 186 SB-1 Rock Creek Perennial 40 903 � � � 7 SB-2 UT, Roc Creek Perennial 32.5 643 151 � SC Dumas Creek Perennial 43 521 109 Intermittent / SC-1 UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 26 1,807 1372 SD Clarks Creek Perennial 41.5 531 145 SE UT, Lick Fork Creek Perennial 44.5 530 127 SF-A Lick Fork Creek Perennial 40.5 524 135 SF-A1 UT, Lick Fork Creek Intermittent 30 60 60 SF-B Rock Creek Perennial 48.5 517 155 SH-1 UT, Pee Dee River Intermittent >19 81 8� SJ UT, Wood Run Intermittent 20 210 109 SL-A UT, Cattail Creek Perennial 33.5 627 114 SM-1 UT, Rock Creek Intermittent 24 553 �8$ SM-2 UT, Rock Creek Perennial 35 554 �72 SN UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 39.5 753 28� SO UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 37 747 � 22 SP UT, Clarks Creek Perennial 40 521 108 SR UT, Lick Fork Creek Intermittent 24.5 507 171 SU UT, Lick Fork Creek Perennial 39 343 267 SW-B UT, Lick Fork Creek Intermittent 29 672 147 SW-C1 UT, Roc Creek Intermittent 27.5 664 193 SX UT, Lick Fork Creek Perennial 37.5 1,567 339 SY-A UT, Roc Creek Perennial 40.5 2,335 729 SY-B Smith Branch Creek Perennial 43 902 196 SZ UT, Smith Branch Creek Intermittent 27.75 749 107 TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS FOR R-2527 5,881 rv� i ts: impacts are aasea on preuminary aesign siope scaKe umits pius �5 Teet. ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 6: WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE R-2530B PROJECT STUDY AREA PRELIMINARY DESIGN WETI.AND WETLAND WETLAND AREA WETLAND IMPACTS'(ACRES) ID WETLAND RATING IN STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES: TYPE Acres BEST FIT 8 Riverine No Form 1.20 0.43 10 Riverine No Form 0.36 0.12 WA Riverine No Form 0.033 0.03 TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS FOR R-253D6 0.58 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake Ifmfts plus 25 teet. • Information is unavailable for items marked with "No Form". TABLE 7: WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE B-4974 PROJECT STUDY AREA WETLAND AREA � PRELIMINARY DESIGN WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ID TYPE RATING �N STUDY AREA ALTERNAT,IVES: (Acres) 1 4 17 Riverine No Form 0.11 0.06 ' 0 WB Riverine 32 0.020 0.02 0.02 TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS FOR B-4974 0.08 0.02 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. • Information is unavailable for items marked with "No Form". TABLE 8: WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE R-2527 PROJECT STUDY AREA PRELIMINARY DESIGN WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND AREA WETLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ID TYPE RATING IN STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVE: (Acres BEST FIT WBB Riverine 20 0.152 0.14 WE Riverine 19 0.011 0.01 WEE Non-Riverine 18 0.308 0.04 WF Riverine 25 0.101 0.03 WFF Riverine 31 0.601 0.04 WGG Non-Riverine 22 0.251 0.05 WH Riverine 18 0.007 0.01 WHH Riverine 31 0.019 0.02 WJ Riverine 18 0.003 <0.01 WM Riverine 30 0.012 0.01 WN Riverine 30 0.017 0.01 WNN Riverine 16 0.306 0.09 WP Non-Riverine 30 0.092 8:� 0.092 WPP Non-Riverine 18 0.057 <0.01 WR Non-Riverine 30 0.099 0.03 WS Riverine 19 0.054 0.02 WT Non-Riverine 16 0.166 � 0.11 WU-1 Riverine 19 0.018 0.02 WU-2 Riverine 39 0.123 0.11 WZ Riverine 18 0.076 0.02 WZZ Non-Riverine 19 0.037 <0.01 TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS FOR R-2527 � 0.88 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 9: POND IMPACTS IN THE ENTIRE PROJECT STUDY AREA . IMPACTS (ACRES) ID AREA IN STUDY ALTERNATIVE: AREA Acres BEST FIT A 0.20 0.04 B 0.28 0.28 C 0.13 <0.01 D 0.21 0.21 TOTAL POND IMPACTS 0.54 NoTES: Impacts are based on prefiminary design slope stake limits plus z5 teet. 4 STIP R-25306, B-4974 � R-2527: Environmental Assessment Aaencv Comments Resolution Environmental Assessment Comments Review: ♦ EPA: ■ Question: Efforts to minimize impacts to HQW and Water Supply Critical Areas need to be identified by the transportation agencies. Quantification of impacts to floodplains also need to be quantified prior to the next Merger concurrence meeting. Answer: • No fill in the floodplain is expected. • NCDOT will comply with all FEMA regulations. ■ Question: The extent of the impact to the water supply critical areas is not quantified in the EA. This information should be provided to EPA prior to the next Merger concurrence meeting. Answer: • The critical. area (CA) water source in the project area is the Pee Dee River/ Lake Tillery. Hazardous spill basins are needed within 0.5 mile from a CA water source. See the following tables below for impacts within and outside of 0.5 mile from the CA source. WATER SUPPLY CRITICAL AREA IMPACTS STREAM LENGTH R-25306 8 R-2527 WITHIN 0.5 MILE STREAM PRELIMINARY FROM CA WATER STREAM NAME IN STUDY AREA DESIGN STREAM SOURCE (PEE ID (FEET) IMPACTS (FEET) DEE RIVER/ LAKE ALTERNATIVE: TILLERI�? BEST FIT DITCH UT, Mountain Creek 290 12 No St-AN 02 UT, Mountain Creek 788 237 � No St-B UT, Mountain Creek 475 208 No St-C UT, Mountain Creek 255 57 No St-CC UT, Mountain Creek 515 28 No St-E UT, Mountain Creek 396 69 No St-EE UT, Mountain Creek 527 113 No St-F UT, Mountain Creek 799 157 No St-FF UT, Mountain Creek 392 130 No St-GG UT, Mountain Creek 310 267 No St-HH UT, Mountain Creek 619 150 No St-I UT, Mountain Creek 1867 1544 No St-M UT, Jacobs Creek 3730 994 No St-N UT, Jacobs Creek 676 381 No SA Rocky Creek 1,123 186 No SB-1 Rock Creek 903 117 No SB-2 UT, Rocky Creek 643 151 No , SF-B Rocky Creek 517 155 No SH-1 UT, Pee Dee River 81 81 No TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS 5037 TIP Proiects R-2530B, B-4974 8 R-2527: Agency Comments Resolution January 2014 Page 2 Answer (cont'd): B-4974 STREAM WITHIN 0.5 MILE PREL'IMINARY STREAM NAME LENGTH IN DESIGN STREAM FROM CA WATER STREAM STUDY SOURCE (PEE DEE ID AREA �MPACTS.(FEET) RIVER/ LAKE (FEET) AL1 ERNATIV 4S: TILLERY)? St-Q UT, Jacobs Creek 662 42 , 124 No St-R UT, Pee Dee River 884 243 241 No St-T UT, Pee Dee River 821 62 158 Yes St-U UT, Pee Dee River 1445 158 408 No St-V UT, Pee Dee River 1255 695 382 Yes SG UT, Pee Dee River 242 129 112 No SH UT, Pee Dee River 386 149 150 No TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS 1478 1575 TOTAL IMPACTS WITHIN 0.5 MILE FROM CA 757 540 NOTES: - Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. ♦ US Department of Aqriculture — Forest Service: ■ Question: Disclose the impacts to streams (linear feet), wetlands (acres), flood plain impacts, federally listed species habitat, rare plants, archeological sites, tra�c noise impacts, railroad crossings, and potentially hazardous material sites located on NFS lands. Also, provide impacts to the Long Leaf Pine forest areas and the roadway length within the NFS boundaries. Answer: STREAM IMPACTS IN THE UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST PRELIMINARY � STREAM DESIGN STREAM DWQ LENGTH IN STREAM STREAM NCDENR STATUS �p NAME CLASSIFICATION SCORE STUDY AREA IMPACTS (FEET) (FEET) ALTERNATIVE:z , BEST FIT r SJ UT, Wood Run Intermittent 20 210 109 SN UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 39.5 753 28� SO UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 37 747 122 SD Clarks Creek Perennial 41.5 531 145 SW-B UT, Lick Fork Creek Intermittent 29 672 147 SX UT, Lick Fork Creek Perennial 37.5 1,567 339 SY-A UT, Rock Creek Perennial 40.5 2,335 729 SF-B Rock Creek Perennial 48.5 517 155 UT, Smith Branch 107 SZ Creek Intermittent 27.75 749 Total Impacts = 2,134 feet u TIP Proiects R-2530B. B-4974 � R-2527: Agency Comments Resolution January 2014 Page 3 , Answer (cont'd): WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST PRELIMINARY DESIGN WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND AREA WETLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ID TYPE RATING IN STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVE: Acres BEST FIT WH Riverine 18 0.007 0.01 - WS Riverine 19 0.054 0.02 WHH Riverine 31 0.019 0.02 WFF Riverine 31 0.601 0.04 WGG Non-Riverine 22 0.251 0.05 WPP Non-Riverine 18 0.057 <0.01 WEE Non-Riverine 18 0.308 0.04 Total Impacts = 0.19 acre FLOOD PLAIN IMPACTS ➢ No fill in the floodplain is expected. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES HABITAT IMPACTS r ➢ After LEDPA RARE PLANTS ➢ See updated TES(Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive) & LR(Locally Rare) Species Surveys. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IMPACTS ➢ After LEDPA TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS: ➢ There are no impacted receptors in the Uwharrie National Forest. RAILROAD CROSSING IMPACTS ➢ Unknown - Final design will be completed by the railroad company. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ➢ No hazardous material sites are located on UNF land except Site 23 on NC 109 beside the railroad tracks is in close proximity. LONG LEAF PINE IMPACTS ➢ 12.7 Acres ROADWAY LENGTH WITHIN THE UNF BOUNDARIES ➢ 3.76 miles TI_P_Proiects R-2530B, B-4974 8� R-2527: Agency Comments Resolution January 2014 Page 4 ♦ NCWRC: Question: There are two WRC facilities within the project study area, the Swift Island public boating access area and the Troy Depot. Impacts to these facilities should be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Minimization efforts during design and further coordination with WRC personnel prior to construction will be necessary to allow continued access to these sites through project completion. Answer: • See Figures 2 and 3 for details. Public Hearinq / Public Comments Review: The Combined Public Hearing was held on June 21, 2012 at the Stanly County Commons Commissioner's Room in Albemarle. The hearing was well attended with 86 citizens, 1 U.S. Forest Service representative, 6 City of Albemarle representatives, 3 Albemarle City Council members, and 1 Piedmont Triad Regional Council representative. Major concerns and comments are discussed below: Members of the Albemarle City Council expressed concern over the proposed design between NC 740 and Sweet Home Church Road. The City Council has received comments from business owners that believe the proposed 4-lane median divided design will be detrimental to their business. The City Council has voted unanimously to request that NCDOT consider using a 5-lane typical section for this portion of the project. If this is not possible, they request that the number of cross-overs be increased to help alleviate the concerns of the business owners. NCDOT staff discussed using a 5-lane section for the portion of the project between NC 740 and Sweet Home Church Road, but decided to move forward with the 4-lane median divided design that was shown on the hearing maps. This decision was based on the facilities' designation as a Strategic Highway Corridor, the design year traffic projections, the design speed, and the noted safety benefits of a median divided facility. Additional directional left- overs will be investigated during right of way plan preparation. ■ Multiple concerns were expressed regarding the Swift Island Bridge replacement. Most people preferred Altemative 4. The Stanly County Board of Commissioners voted not to acquire the Swift Island Bridge from NCDOT. Other groups in the area are expressing interest in the possibility of taking over the bridge. ■ Multiple concerns were�expressed concerning the proposed median-divided section and the placement of left-over and U-turn bulb locations throughout the length of the project. The placement and addition of intermediate directional left-overs will be investigated during right of way plan preparation. ■ Multiple concerns were expressed regarding provisions for bicycles and pedestrians throughout the length of the project. NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the municipalities, Stanly County, and Montgomery Counry. � � `�.`.:t" `'� �;j,i�t"�;` �c �¢�+'' � '". y��'' `'�y�^%t��'�'`` ''? �., n�:, • � , r � i q4t";4w� �f E ,-„''.r''�.,s� `�, �`` 4�.�* �� `''{ , `'ti o �� u tt , �� .. � _ • _i } �� '. ,.� � ! �: � i -:� � � �f � �� ' � � �. � � \�� j � _ , � "` �1� � ` � S x i ( � ,1 �� k��}4r 8 ,, '�q !„d�"'�I � ,.+ n 1�, ( �� F.,. � ` {�' � � �o;�� (�1 �� `� � �� , � F; �'� � �' �� ` �L ��f��t'� l� - „ � t� �� ` �, / I� � � ' -�i w� „�} Y��`�;',{ -- i��_ r''! � �:��r �, �Igi� i'��( `� j'� ` � � � r�(�I �t �ii �_ 'i �'`;,,�. +�� *3"Lkii �{ I""til: ' ' _.. ��y, `-.� t �f�� i i�� ..! y l� t �:-�-�� ' 11 — � � .� '{�'#�� ix� �� - � ---(�° �,,�f�Q E l �� w y� z ji� ' � i , -I- �Ra� . � I � � C� �s� — .� r � r�� .' _ i � - - t� `� �, �_ � 'I i�'.-,,,r �� S 1 . . � `.. !c r, ,i�.. i J~ ,�+�`� •rr\` ¢ � � �� _ _ c( - �. t ' 1_� � � �_ / /�y/� `� t ti � } � �" x�! _ � � � _ l _ __.: �1 ! � f ..�� .i � Y : ��. r� I' ti �g. ,. " L �, �..- _' /" N. � i � . � E, -I I t � y � •� _� _ I' ' .a�� 5�n -� . � �- 1� � - I ' . . °f � �.` � ., '� .. � '''�.` s f} �: ..� �iR' �� 3 Yb�� ' „1—) . . -. ` � . � +!j Q4 j iy�..iF �1' 'I �i � \�y� �{ �. I ; J\k4 '� e �4f t�. � � v::� ,. P� j � � � ,f / t . �--""'" bi �! . �� .b�� t'S �— � � l, ' \ "�' , '/\ \ ��' �` � i� f'� ti 1� \a � �' Yy �� t .� � �.:, ., 1� �J— a .±�`� / � � � ^�� ¢ *r� f� 1 a'; A i � � � � . . _ � y q ....-�rt,i� / � .; �c�/ti 1 3 � II • _ - � 5 `(., .�,, � - � . �/. �y �M ./n +.�'�,a, }�' `t I I �.. � \ \3.a � .y s�}� � .i,.: '�. �{ � �� ' -- � tl. � � K� a /�...�", 4Y. ? -1 :� � � � � 1 �s ti f � � � � �,�� *� �..-� z z , r t } . r r , • . �.� r� � � a '��`h"� ��G�,a-,_�-Yy.— .J f � � y�. ' C i��4._��'�t .�-K :l'L s ��8� .,- �. t � b , 1 �<< �� l��y , ''�� r � � �� f ,,� � ��r � � �F� '�. ' �` y;; � O �':x`;,''�� ' � ' 4 z . r � , „ �y"l. � • - � . � � � �� c• �,;�y�", �.�a� �'�i � iG � . ,�� +` � � .a ,. �� . 1 ` �.. ("� j+ �SS!f -��1��'�r �#��' � •: y� jzlt} t_ ..�,�f T�.y�` � i.aA a� .Gti" ,�� n � • � f �,�.� ; =`� ` � � � � .: , .1 1, 1'i '� f g��{ . � � r *'�kr V `� '�i 1 � �x t � Y }i;w., .,t 1 1 l✓ ' i'�^7" "Y5.4 • w 'wt �^ t �1 '� 1� f �1'�s 3 '� r ��Rit" � 5 � � �. . ! � � � (� • \ �C,iY-�' "�t1 �¢ �'. t ..,i'-! � � �'"+Isi;� �SS. �i� � i;.�?��'� � ` "'° ��"�.J�L R" C Yt� �i.�`!�'. �:s � i c ��?Y y�s��t�� C��%.� �.'��• . ��4��?-�' ! ., �� a:�. i. �,�#' Hre ..if ^� � :• } • i�'srS` '�.. r "f ' ,. � 'aw. C 5 � � ��_ �, � � � � � � � "J -, ��'� �. h. .- � 3 �� ]. � l � R� 't'1:4 h ��-'�'� �� <� W r � t � o� n� i` C"pi�*.,' .\ 7 i� �j �,r � s�„ ... yey, `C �: �` �e' � � `�4' � � , r �. � �� , � / �� ' � I � � ( � ��+C� , ,{ � F )�+9 . + i.' �JV�:. 1�L,'y7 }�3 i%�S �.., � �� f f t , - �'� 1 , i�� .� � , y � � � � �`', 0 ''i , '�1 � , i '_" j � `� t � ��, f � � !E' ;� / _`� � si � .. I � ��+1f �1� _ ,, � �, .: .�.' . -R. r.. �p. `i��+' ''� _�' . �t� �i ##1}�> � /� � � ,R �.•,,; %y� �� y _ ,_�� ,*y,.��, � �'.�.� ' � f%I � � � �. �: ' ��4 >r � �7' j \ � .. r.,... � � ' ' i �\�� r � � � � d� � --.. � /\�Y � ;�i �, / \ `�,. r} . � \ �� .` f � ;. � 1'" "� � a �p � ,t /' � , ,,., . __ �� j� ` r � � Jj� � � ��(� / r, � � �,1r �� ;�� ,�;;�, � � 1 � � �� ;, . �ti -' ' .�, ` r � ,.,� «� c�"n� t -' ? , �,, � �,� r1. 8.� , • .y +�„ �` �„ � � � �� jR�� -c'�7''ij,�'t'��,,�� s `:�� Y��*".��'�-� � rf1t".ti ��`� � ., T �\ t 4�t �* \ �J � t'�}� � : � C y � y,,�`�r�"� � i��' � i � t '4-r� � 7�� 1 � � ^ � I {DE ll ` ' ,�1 `��'� • , ; t '`� , `. . �\ j j •}a,i + y .. � -. ` �;��itt�.{y� � ', , _ � ,�i`y�t�af��s — I `. ;t� # ��' = 1 � ' �q,. � , _,, .�� :� �� __ � .. II ., .. . _�'.l.��t7 �'�j _ Il I� � ��;�,.. � ._.�"'�. �;!� r'•— / � � ' � _.�� / E �� r �� 1 l + f � , � � :' I ' !_�� l ; I 1 � , I I 1{ ----'_' + 't}1 /� / t �; - � 7�:; ! ---- � ,� r` ., �� ,�; � /r� -�, �' � ,,� � . �� k �. �� l k � ' �%/ .ct'l.v "c e A„�`�"` � _ �� 1 �' y�?N�'� Y �/ ^� v¢' � ' � / � .: h: �� .r F �, r�-� r;�}�, -; n:.f ' 4 a- � Y. '�.��x :,"�ts'�`'�'`�r"Y,�,�'" '�`�A' ��t 3�y � � ��`' '� 4 �.1� i . �a� � �� p ' d 1y� .�^{-� �� n'��'(t � �1� r � �'�, . , r 'F U ��.� . .� *�' •, �S � 7`�p. � ��y j$ .:�A'.�'(�t#�,:•' � 4 1' � 4.)�it �'1 . � � �� . � � ;�� f t,r ;�� y.,�+' s�+;.� �` � �. �'.�^�, i .'' V �( 'y��'3. . ,�.- k �%�. .� �L �`�4� .. 4 1C. - �, 4- 1 � ,��;,� �� yryf ��. • ��y•, � TIP Projects R-2530B, B-4974 and R-2527 NC 24 — 27 Widening, Stanly and Montgomery Counties Concurrence Points 3 and 4A Meeting Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), Avoidance 8� Minimization of Jurisdictional Impacts and Agency Comment Resolution January 22, 2014 Meetinq Purpose The purpose of today's meeting is to select the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), Concurrence Point 3, for these projects. Also, additional avoidance and minimization measures not included in the alternative analysis phase will be discussed, Concurrence Point 4A. An Environmental Assessment for these projects was approved on December 23, 2011 and distributed. TIP Description The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Draft State Transportation Improvement Program (STtP) includes a highway project in Stanly County (TIP Project R- 25306) from NC 740 in Albemarle to the west end of the Pee Dee River Bridge, the Pee Dee River Bridge replacement project in Stanly County (TIP Project B-4974), and a highway project in Montgomery County (TIP Project R-2527) from the east end of the Pee Dee River Bridge to the proposed Troy Bypass (TIP Project R-623) west of the city of Troy. All three projects are being studied under one NEPA study. A multi-lane facility is proposed in the STIP; therefore, a four-lane median divided facility with a 23-foot raised median from NC 740 to SR 1731 (Sweet Home Church Road) and a 46-foot depressed median from SR 1731 to the proposed Troy Bypass will be studied for these projects. The proposed projects are approximately 14.6 miles long depending on the alternative chosen. It is anticipated that 150 — 200 feet of right of way will be required to accommodate the proposed improvements. Partial control of access will be obtained. All intersecting roadways will cross the highway at-grade; no grade separations or interchanges are proposed. See Figure 1 for the Vicinity Map. Purpose of and Need for the Proiects The purpose of these projects is to improve traffic flow and level of service (LOS) on the section of NC 24-27 through the project study areas and to maintain a bridge across the Pee Dee River that addresses the needs of highway users. The needs to be addressed by these projects include: • Transportation deficiencies exist along NC 24-27 in the project study areas which are projected to increase substantially by the year 2035. • Bridge No. 51 over the Pee Dee River is considered structurally deficient and is eligible for the Federal-Aid Highway Bridge Program. • Maintain and improve the mobility and connectivity functions of the NC 24-27 corridor as part of the Strategic Highway Corridor Vision and the North Carolina Intrastate System. Proiect Status • The CP1 and CP2 meeting was held on August 12, 2008, and concurrence was reached. • The CP2 meeting was continued on December 11, 2008, and concurrence was reached. • Public Involvement Occurrences and dates: Citizens Informational Workshops for R-2530B and R-2527 were held in 2004. A Citizens Informational Workshop for all 3 projects was held on November 18, 2010. TIP Proiects R-25306, B-4974 8 R-2527: Concurrence Points 3 and 4A Meeting January 22, 2014 Page 2 • The CP2A meeting was held on February 2, 2011. • The Environmental Assessment was signed on December 23, 2011. • A Design Public Hearing was heid on June 21, 2012. • The CP3 and CP4A meetings are scheduled for January 22, 2014. • Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) - FY 2014 • Right of Way acquisition - R-2530B & B-4974: FY 2016 and R-2527 is Unfunded • Construction - R-2530B: FY 2018, B-4974: FY 2019 and R-2527 is Unfunded Alternatives Summarv View the Design Public Hearing Maps at the following links: http://ncdot.qov/download/proiects/publichearinqs/r2530b phm 1.pdf http://ncdot.qov/download/proiects/aublichearinqs/64974 phm 2.pdf http://ncdot.qov/download/proiects/publichearinqs/R2527 phm 3.pdf http://ncdot.qov/download/proiects/publichearinqs/R2527 phm 4.pdf http://ncdot.qov/download/aroiects/publichearinQS/R2527 phm 5.pdf The "Best FiY' alignment alternative was analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for projects R-25306 and R-2527. This altemative widens NC 24-27 at tocations that "best fiY' the current road location and surrounding land uses. "Best fit" locations were evaluated and selected to improve the existing road alignment, minimize impacts, and permit maintenance of traffic during construction. Two alternatives were analyzed in the EA for project B-4974. Alternative 1 consists of replacing Bridge No. 51 with a new bridge south of the existing bridges, and Alternative 4 consists of removing the National Register-Eligible Bridge No. 51 and replacing it with a new bridge along the existing roadway alignment. On August 6, 2012, the Stanly County Board of Commissioners voted not to take over Bridge No. 51; however, on November 21, 2013, the Land Trust for Central North Carolina offered to take ownership of the historic bridge once NC 24-27 is widened and a replacement bridge is constructed. Table 1 below shows estimated project costs for the project alternatives: TABLE 1: PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Pro'ect Number Ri ht of Wa Cost Construction Cost Pro'ect Cost R-2530B: Tie to Alternative 1 $10,620,830 $26,100,000 $36,720,830 Tie to Alternative 4 $9,482,460 $26,100,000 $35,582,460 B-4974: Alternative 1 $1,665,000 $14,700,000 $16,365,000 Altemative4 $1,588,150 $12,100,000 $13,688,150 R-2527 $3,089,790 $34,600,000 $37,689,790 If B-4974, Alternative 1 is selected as LEDPA, the total proiect cost for the right of way acquisition and construction of projects R-25306, B-4974 and R-2527 is approximately: $36,720,830 + $16,365,000 + $37,689,790= $90,775,620 If B-4974, Alternative 4 is selected as LEDPA, the total proiect cost for the right of way acquisition and construction of projects R-2530B. B-4974 and R-2527 is approximately: $35,582,460 + $13,688,150 +$37,689,790 = $86,960,400 The estimated cost to demolish Bridge No. 51 will cost an additional $2,700,000 which is not included in the costs stated above. This cost minus necessary repairs will be given to the Land Trust of Central North Carolina for future maintenance costs. TIP Proiects R-25306. B-4974 8 R-2527: Concurrence Points 3 and 4A Meeting January 22, 2014 Page 3 Table 2 below shows a summary of the environmental effects of the project alternatives. See Attachment 1 for updated wetland and stream impacts tables and a new pond impacts table. TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IMPACT CATEGORY PROJECT STUDY ALTERNATIVE TOTAL C6�.{,{.. �n Q'ar.�.-- IMPACTS A B-1 B-4 C R-2530B B-4974, B-4974, R-2527 A+B1+C A+B4+C Alt.l Alt.4 Natural Resources Impacts Fedcral Listed Species Habitat Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 100-Year Flood Plain and - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodway Impacts .°r:�� Wetlands (number of 3/ 0.58 2/ 0.08 1/ OA2 21 /}�-� 26 /.�2 25 f-�-�d crossin s/acres) 0•�8 /•S Stream Crossings (number / 14 / 7/ 7/ 26 / 47 / 47 / linear feet) 4,347 1,478 1,575 5,881 11,706 11,803 Water Supply Critical Areas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rare Plants * Yes No No Yes Yes Yes USFS Forest Land (acres) ** 0 0 0 50 50 50 Human Environment Impacts Residential Relocations (number) 19 6 5 8 33 32 Business Relocations (number) 18 7 3 2 27 23 Low lncome/Minority Population No No No No No No Cemeteries/Graves (number of yes / 0 No No No Yes / 0 Yes / 0 aves im acted) Historic Structures *** 0 1 1 0 1 1 Archaeological Sites 3 0 0 3 6 6 Section 4(� Impacts No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Traffic Noise Impacts (receptors) 19 2 2 9 30 30 /Noise Sensitive Areas Air Qualit Within an Attainment area Ph sical Environment I acts Railroad Crossings (number) 0 0 0 1 1 1 Farmland No No No No No No Potentially Hazardous Materials 1 � 2 2 4 23 23 Sites (number) NOTES: • All impacts, but the USFS Forest Land acreage, are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. The USFS Forest Land acreage is based on preliminary proposed right of way limits. • * Rare plants include Schweinitz's Sw�flower, Georgia Aster, Large Witch Alder and Smooth Sunflower. • ** USFS Forest Land acreage was recalculated based on updated forest boundaries. • *** The Swift Island Ferry / James B. Garrison Bridge (Existing Bridge 51) is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. TIP Proiects R-2530B, B-4974 � R-2527: Concurrence Points 3 and 4A Meeting January 22, 2014 Page 4 NCDOT's recommended LEDPA design and bridge replacement alternatives are described below: • R-25306, Section 1— NC 740 to SR 1731— "Best FiY' -Asymmetrical Widening to the South — 23' Raised Median • R-25308, Section 2— SR 1731 to SR 1720 -"Best FiY' -Asymmetrical Widening to the North — 46' Median • R-25306, Section 3— SR 1720 to SR 1818 -"Best Fit" -Asymmetrical Widening to the Soufh — 46' Median • R-25308, Secfion 4— SR 1818 to west of SR 1778 -`Best Fit" -Asymmetrical Widening to fhe South (Tie to 8-4974, Alfernative 1) — 46' Median or -Asymmetrical Widening to the North (Tie to 8-4974, Alternative 4) — 46' Median � 8-4974, Section 5— west of SR 1778 to east of NC 73 -Alternative 1- South side widening, replace Bridge No. 51 or -Alternative 4- Replace in place, replace Bridge No. 51 • R-2527. Section 6— east of NC 73 to SR 1134 -`Best FiY' -Asymmetrical Widening to the North — 46' Median • R-2527, Section 7— SR 1134 to SR 1550 -"Best FiY' -Asymmetrical Widening to the North — 46' Median Avoidance and Minimization Measures utilized durinq preliminarv desiqn: • 2:1 slopes were�sed at culvert crossings and wetland areas, . i �� r�-i ��----- �- � �--_ -- - _�,� • On project R-2530B between SR 1739 (McNeil Road) and SR 1818 (Stony Mountain Road), the grade from Sta. 213+00 to Sta. 235+00 was adjusted to avoid the need to realign the road, thus minimizing impacts to homes, wetlands and streams in this area. • On R-2527, SR 1150 (River Road) was not realigned to meet at a common point on NC 24-27 to minimize impacts to an adjacent stream crossing and development in the area. Median width comparison: See Attachment 2. Environmental Assessment Aqencv Comment Resolution Concurrence on the LEDPA and on Avoidance 8� Minimization / Siqninq Forms Summarv � Adiournment: The next Merger 01 Team Meeting for this project will be Concurrence Point 4B, 30% Hydraulic Design Review. ATTACHMENT 1 Uadated Impacts for Streams, Wetlands and Ponds For project R-2530B, there are 4,347 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.58 acres of wetland impacts. See Table 3 for stream impacts and Table 6 for wetland impacts within the R-2530B project study area. For project B-4974, Alternative l, there are 1,478 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.08 acres of wetland impacts. For project B-4974, Alternative 4, there are 1,575 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.02 acres of wetland impacts. See Table 4 for stream impacts and Table 7 for wetland impacts within the B- 4974 project study area. For project R-2527, there are 5,881 linear feet of stream impacts and 1.66 acres of wetland impacts. See Table 5 for stream impacts and Table 8 for wetland impacts within the R-2527 project study area. For the entire project study area, there are 0.54 acres of pond impacts as shown in Table 9. TABLE 3: STREAM IMPACTS IN THE R-2530B PROJECT STUDY AREA STREAM PRELIMINARY LENGTH IN DESIGN STREAM STREAM STREAM NCDENR STATUS DWQ STUDY IMPACTS (FEET) ID NAME CLASSIFICATION SCORE AREA ALTERNATIVE: FEET BEST FIT DITCH UT, Mountain Creek - - 290 12 St-AN 02 UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 30.5 788 237 St-B UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 32 475 208 St-C UT, Mountain Creek Intermittent 26.5 255 57 St-CC UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 33 515 28 St-E UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 32 396 69 St-EE UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 30.5 527 113 St-F UT, Mountain Creek Perennial -- 799 157 St-FF UT, Mountain Creek Intermittent 24.5 392 130 St-GG UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 35.5 310 267 St-HH UT, Mountain Creek Perennial 30.5 619 150 St-I UT, Mountain Creek Intermittent 28 1867 1544 St-M UT, Jacobs Creek Perennial 36.5 3730 994 St-N UT, Jacobs Creek Perennial 40 676 381 TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS FOR R-2530B 4,347 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. TABI,F. 4: STREAM IMPACTS IN THE B-4974 PROJECT STUDY AREA STREAM PRELIMINARY DWQ LENGTH IN DESIGN STREAM STREAM STREAM NAME NCDENR STATUS SCORE STUDY IMPACTS (FEET) �p CLASSIFICATION AREA ALTERNATIVES: FEET 1 4 St-Q UT, Jacobs Creek Perennial 34.5 662 42 124 St-R UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 31.5 884 243 241 St-T UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 29 821 62 158 St-U UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 33 1445 158 408 St-V UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 34.5 1255 695 382 SG UT, Pee Dee River Intermittent 26 242 129 112 SH UT, Pee Dee River Perennial 32.5 386 149 150 TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS FOR B-4974 1,478 1,575 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet r:��rr:��:�u�� TABLE 5: STREAM IMPACTS IN THE R-2527 PROJECT STUDY AREA STREAM PRELIMINARY LENGTH IN DESIGN STREAM DWQ STREAM STREAM NCDENR STATUS STUDY ID N�E CLASSIFICATION SCORE AREA IMPACTS (FEET) (FEET) �TERNATIVE: BEST FIT SA Rock Creek Perennial 42.5 1,123 186 SB-1 Rock Creek Perennial 40 903 � � � SB-2 UT, Rock Creek Perennial 32.5 643 151 SC Dumas Creek Perennial 43 521 109 Intermittent / SC-1 UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 26 1,807 1372 SD Clarks Creek Perennial 41.5 531 145 SE UT, Lick Fork Creek Perennial 44.5 530 �27 SF-A Lick Fork Creek Perennial 40.5 524 135 SF-A1 UT, Lick Fork Creek Intermittent 30 60 60 SF-B Rock Creek Perennial 48.5 517 155 SH-1 UT, Pee Dee River Intermittent >19 81 8� SJ UT, Wood Run Intermittent 20 210 109 SL-A UT, Cattail Creek Perennial 33.5 627 114 SM-1 UT, Roc Creek Intermittent 24 553 188 SM-2 UT, Roc Creek Perennial 35 554 � 72 SN UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 39.5 753 281 SO UT, Dumas Creek Perennial 37 747 �22 SP UT, Clarks Creek Perennial 40 521 108 SR UT, Lick Fork Creek Intermittent 24.5 507 171 SU UT, Lick Fork Creek Perennial 39 343 26� SW-B UT, Lick Fork Creek Intermittent 29 672 147 SW-C1 UT, Roc Creek Intermittent 27.5 664 193 SX UT, Lick Fork Creek Perennial 37.5 1,567 339 SY-A UT, Rock Creek Perennial 40.5 2,335 729 SY-B Smith Branch Creek Perennial 43 902 196 SZ UT, Smith Branch Creek Intermittent 27.75 749 107 TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS FOR R-2527 5,881 rvc� i ts: impacts are tiasea on preuminary design siope staKe iimits pius 15 teet. ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 6: WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE R-2530B PROJECT STUDY AREA PRELIMINARY DESIGN WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND AREA WETLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ID WETLAND RATING IN STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVES: TYPE Acres BEST FIT 8 Riverine No Form 1.20 0.43 10 Riverine No Form 0.36 0.12 WA Riverine No Form 0.033 0.03 TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS FOR R-2530B 0.58 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. • Information is unavailable for items marked with "No Form". TABLE 7: WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE B-4974 PROJECT STUDY AREA WETLAND AREA PRELIMINARY DESIGN WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ID TYPE RATING �N STUDY AREA p�TERNATIVES: (Acres) 1 4 17 Riverine No Form 0.11 0.06 0 WB Riverine 32 0.020 0.02 0.02 TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS FOR B-4974 0.08 0.02 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. • Information is unavailable for items marked with "No Form". TABLE 8: WETLAND IMPACTS IN THE R-2527 PROJECT STUDY AREA PRELIMINARY DESIGN WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND WETLAND AREA WETLAND IMPACTS (ACRES) ID TYPE RATING IN STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVE: (Acres BEST FIT WBB Riverine 20 0.152 0.14 WE Riverine 19 0.011 0.01 WEE Non-Riverine 18 0.308 0.04 WF Riverine 25 0.101 0.03 WFF Riverine 31 0.601 0.04 WGG Non-Riverine 22 0.251 0.05 WH Riverine 18 0.007 0.01 WHH Riverine 31 0.019 0.02 WJ Riverine 18 0.003 <0.01 WM Riverine 30 0.012 0.01 WN Riverine 30 0.017 0.01 WNN Riverine 16 0.306 0.09 WP Non-Riverine 30 0.092 0.87 WPP Non-Riverine 18 0.057 <0.01 WR Non-Riverine 30 0.099 0.03 WS Riverine 19 0.054 0.02 WT Non-Riverine 16 0.166 0.11 WU-1 Riverine 19 0.018 0.02 WU-2 Riverine 39 0.123 0.11 WZ Riverine 18 0.076 0.02 WZZ Non-Riverine 19 0.037 <0.01 TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS FOR R-2527 1.66 NOTES: Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. ATTACHMENT 1 TABLE 9: POND IMPACTS IN THE ENTIRE PROJECT STUDY AREA IMPACTS (ACRES) ID AREA IN STUDY ALTERNATIVE: AREA (Acres) BEST FIT A 0.20 0.04 B 0.28 0.28 C 0.13 <0.01 D 0.21 0.21 TOTAL POND IMPACTS 0.54 Impacts are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus 25 feet. 4 ATTACHMENT 2 R-2530B,B-4974 and R-2527 Median Width Comparison Using the North Carolina functional classification system, NC 24-27 within the Albemarle city limits (R-2530B) is classified as an urban principal arteriaL Through the remainder of the project area (R- 2530B, B-4974 and R-2527), NC 24-27 is classified as a rural minor arterial. The strategic highway corridor vision for NC24-27 in the project area is that NC 24-27 be improved to an expressway. The proposed typical section from NC 740 to SR 1731 (Sweet Home Church Road) within the Albemarle city limits is a four-lane divided facility with a 23-foot raised median which transitions to the proposed typical section for the remainder of the project area which is a four-lane divided facility with a 46-foot depressed median from SR 1731 to the proposed Troy Bypass, west of Troy. Reasons whv a 46' median is the NCDOT standard for a rural highwav: • The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends median widths of 50' to 100' for rural highways; therefore NCDOT's 46-foot median design already demonstrates a good-faith attempt to balance environmental stewardship with SAFETY and functionality. • Reduced total crash rate: An increased median width reduces the total crash rate by providing a driver recovery zone. This zone provides a driver with more reaction time to recover prior to striking an object, barrier, or drainage ditch invert. • Reduced Crossover Crash Rate: Increased distance between opposing travel lanes reduces the "crossover rate" into opposing traffic, which reduces severe, head-on crashes. • A 46-foot median provides adequate lateral deflection for a guardrail or median cable-barrier. • Constructability reasons — increased distance between opposing lanes simplifes and reduces cost of construction on widening projects; especially when the grade of the highway has to be raised. • lmproves drainage by providing a median ditch that is deep enough to adequately drain the subgrade. Narrower medians do not achieve this and require a positive drainage structure to drain the subgrade and protect the integrity of the pavement structure. Positive drainage features are more expensive and can fail over time. • Adequate width to place rumble strips on both inside and outside shoulders • Improved turning radii for protected turning lanes and u-turns • Minimizes driver fatigue due to a more "open" cross-section and greater separation from opposing headlights at night Comparative Pros of a 23' raised median highwav: • Reduced footprint Comparative Cons of a 23' raised median highwav: • Decreased recovery width, thus higher total crash rate • Decreased median width, thus higher crossover crash rate � Inadequate lateral deflection distance for a median cable-barrier system • Constructability problems on widening projects; especially when the grade of the highway has to be raised. • Unable to fit rumble strips on inside shoulders • Introduces geometric constraints for turning lanes, u-turns, and other median breaks • Increased driver fatigue Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement Concurrence Point No. 3: Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) Prolect Name/Description: NC 24-27, Widen to multi-lanes from NC 740 in Albemarle in Stanly County to the Troy Bypass, west of Troy, in Montgomery County TIP Proiects: R-2530B, B-4974, and R-2527 WBS Nos.: 34446.1.6, 39922.1.1, and 35572.1.1 Least Environmentallv Damaqinq Practicable Alternative (LEDPA): Based upon the current project development information, the Project Team has concurred that the following checked alternatives are the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA): R-25306, Section 1— NC 740 to SR 1731 —"Best Fit" ❑ Asvmmetrical Wideninq to the South — 23' Raised Median Comments R-25306, Section 2— SR 1731 to SR 1720 —"Best Fit" ❑ Asvmmetrical Wideninq to the North — 46' Median Comments: R-25306, Section 3— SR 1720 to SR 1818 —"Best FiY' ❑ Asvmmetrical Wideninq to the South — 46' Median Comments: R-2530B, Section 4— SR 1818 to west of SR 1778 —"Best FiY' ❑ Asvmmetrical Wideninq to the South(Tie to B-4974, Alternative 1)-46' Median ❑ Asvmmetrical Widenina to the North(Tie to B-4974, Alternative 4)-46' Median Comments: Concurrence Point No. 3 Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement Page 1 of 2 B-4974, Section 5— west of SR 1778 to east of NC 73 ❑ Alternative 1- South side wideninq, replace Bridqe No. 51 ❑ Alternative 4- Replace in place, replace BridQe No. 51 Comments: R-2527, Section 6— east of NC 73 to SR 1134 —"Best Fit" ❑ Asvmmetrical Wideninq to the North — 46' Median Comments: R-2527, Section 7— SR 1134 to SR 1550 —"Best FiY' ❑ Asvmmetrical Widening to the North — 46' Median Comments: The Project Team has concurred on this date of January 22, 2014, on the above mentioned alternatives as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for TIP Projects R-2530B, B-4974, and R-2527. USACE NCDOT Date Date USEP Date USFWS Date FHWA NCDWR Da[e Date NCWRC NCDCR Date Date PTRPO Date USFS Date ....� Concurrence Point No. 3 Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement Page 2 of 2 Da[e Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement Concurrence Point No. 4A: Avoidance and Minimization Proiect Name/Description: NC 24-27, Widen to multi-lanes from NC 740 in Albemarle in Stanly County to the Troy Bypass, west of Troy, in Montgomery County TIP Proiects: R-25306, B-4974, and R-2527 WBS Nos.: 34446.1.6, 39922.1.1, and 35572.1.1 Avoidance and Minimization: Based upon the current project development and design information, the jurisdictional impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been utilized: • 2:1 slopes were used at culvert crossings and wetland areas, • 8-foot shoulders were used instead of 10-foot shoulders, • On project R-2530B between SR 1739 (McNeil Road) and SR 1818 (Stony Mountain Road), the grade from Sta. 213+00 to Sta. 235+00 was adjusted to avoid the need to realign the road, thus minimizing impacts to homes, wetlands and streams in this area. • On R-2527, SR 1150 (River Road) was not realigned to meet at a common point on NC 24-27 to minimize impacts to an adjacent stream crossing and Development in the area. Comments: The Project Team has concurred with the avoidance and minimization measures for TIP Projects R-2530B, B-4974, and R-2527 on this date of January 22, 2014. USACE USEPA FHWA NCDOT_ Date USFWS_ Date NCDWR Date Date Date Date NCWRC NCDCR Date Date ' .'• USFS �..� Date Date Concurrence Point No. 4A Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement Page 1 of 1 Date