20051764 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20020215

~~CCe.w ~n1F"
~l'~ ,A
~',: f~..
F
.®~. ~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 13, 2002
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRET.~Rl'
MEMORANDUM TO: File s ,~_
FROM: Doug Jeremiah ~P
Project Developmen Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.) to a multi-lane
facility, from NC 42 to US 264, Wilson County, Federal
Aid Project STP-1158(2), State Project 8.2341801, T.I.P.
U-3823
A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held in the Century Center on
December 12, 2001. The following people were in attendance:
Doug Jeremiah
Rob Hanson
Ron Lucas
Undrea Major
Teresa Hart
Mary Frazer
Randy Davis
Jimmy Eatmon
Robin Little
John Hennessy
Jerry Page
Jim Trogdon
Jerome Nix
Eric Alsmeyer
David Cox
Tom McCartney
Christopher Militscher
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
PDEA
FHWA
PDEA
PDEA
PDEA
Division 4 Design
Division 4 Operations Engineer
Division 4 Environmental Officer
NC Division of Water Quality
Division 4 Design Engineer
Division 4 Engineer
Hydraulics
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: VINVWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

The meeting commenced at 9:00 AM
After an introduction and project description by Doug Jeremiah, the floor was
opened for questions and/or comments from the attendees:
Discussion on Purpose and Need
• Eric Alsmeyer asked about the difference between the current construction cost
estimate and the TIP construction cost estimate. Doug Jeremiah responded that this
happens fairly often as TIP estimates are often made prior to the project development
process and are not always updated in a timely fashion.
• John Hennessy questioned the validity of the traffic projections predicting a ~-fold
increase in traffic. Robin Little and Jim Trogdon stated the planned development
~1 (Heritage Place, etc.) towards the Airport Blvd./US 264 area. Jim also reiterated that
~` this location is on the fringe of the urban boundary of Wilson and they are looking to
expand it. The four corners of the US 264/Airport Blvd. intersection are among the
hottest four corners of real estate in Wilson right now.
• John Hennessy asked if infrastructure had been extended down to the Heritage Place
area. Jim Trogdon stated that water and sewer service has been extended along SR
1158 (Airport Blvd.) to Heritage Place from the direction of NC 42.
• Eric asked where the second driveway connection would be for the planned
residential area of Heritage Place. Jim Trogdon responded that the second connection
would either be on Airport Blvd. via the Westwood Road Extension or closer to the
US 264 intersection. The requested driveway connection near the railroad tracks has
been denied because of the possibility of bridging in the area. The Westwood Road
Extension would traverse Bloomery Swamp connecting with Merck Rd. at the
intersection with Airport Blvd. This would probably be achy-constructed street.
• John Hennessy asked if the Westwood Extension had been factored into the traffic
projections. Doug Jeremiah replied that it had not because it is more of an idea now
and not definitive.
The signed purpose and need statement is attached to these minutes.
Discussion on Upgrade Corridor
• The merger team agreed to look at widening the existing roadway
Discussion of the Design Considerations
Design considerations discussed included bridging versus culvert, curb-and-gutter versus
shoulder section, and some other asymmetrical widening issues.

Bridging vs. Caslvert
• Jerome Nix noted the existing culvert has only overtopped during the Hurricane
Floyd event since its construction.
• John Hennessy asked to look at the cross-sectional area of the stream and culvert.
• John Hennessy asked about the soil composition in the area of Bloomery Swamp.
Mary Frazer responded that the soils in the area are sandy-clay loom type, a hydric
soil.
• Doug commented the red areas presented in Figure 7 were those impacted by the fill
from the proposed widening, that the purple area was the extended culvert, and the
wetland delineations were indicated by the blue speckled areas.
• John Hennessy asked about the designation of the water. Mary Frazer answered that
it is designated as a water supply. Mary Frazer stated that about 6000 ft. down
Bloomery Swamp you would reach a critical water supply designation. John
Hennessy stated that DWQ reserves the right to require hazardous spill detention
basins beyond the 1-mile limit. When public health is at issue, this right may be
exercised to project drinking water.
John Hennessy feels that with afive-fold increase in traffic, and the presence of an
industrial park, the likelihood of a hazardous spill is increased. Considering the
proximity to the drinking water supply, he will probably recommend hazardous spill
catch basins.
• Jerome stated water treatment measures would be used to meet BMPs because of the
nutrient buffer rule requirements. Robin Little asked if the same structure could be
used for hazardous spill control and water treatment? John Hennessy replied that
nutrient removal is not the same as spill control. John Hennessy says they prefer to
err on the side of caution when it comes to drinking water supplies.
• Doug Jeremiah explained that for Alternate 4 the green areas are wetlands added on
either side of the bridge. The pink areas between existing wetlands and underneath
the proposed bridge are included in the wetlands restored estimate.
• Eric Alsmeyer noted-some green areas were adjacent to non-wetland areas. Jerry
Page stated that these areas are those predicted to be wetlands restored.
• Eric stated that he feels the benefit to the system by bridging from the culvert to the
railroad is not as much as bridging on the other side of the culvert. Eric proposed
moving the bridge towards NC 42 as he indicated on the aerial.
• Robin Little asked if any channels are present in the swamp system. Mary Frazer
pointed out that a few meandering channels exist that coalesce at the culvert. Robin
stated the importance of improving flow and restoring dynamics to the system.

• John Hennessy stated that he feels agrade-separated crossing of the railroad would be
cost-prohibitive. He also agrees generally with Eric Alsmeyer's bridge proposal.
• John Hennessy commented that the bridge cost estimates seem higher than he is
normally accustomed to. He claims that $1 million/acre of wetland impacts is the
average cost he is familiar with. Doug Jeremiah responded that the same squad in
Design Services performs these estimates statewide using standardized unit costs. He
offered to provide more information on the cost estimates at the next meeting. Jerry
Page stated that the other items are included in the cost estimate beyond the actual
bridge, including fill/culvert removal.
• Eric Alsmeyer asked about the difference in impacts between his proposal and
Alternative 6. Doug Jeremiah responded that impacts may be reduced because the
wetlands to the south of the Alternative 6 bridge towards NC 42 would not be taken
with Eric's proposal. The costs will be similar because the lengths are essentially
identical.
Asymmetrical Widening Issues
• Doug Jeremiah stated the second stream crossing in the project, which is located
farther towards NC 42 near some farms. Jerry Page stated that either a graveyard or
wetland area would be effected by the widening project in the vicinity of this stream
crossing because they are located on opposite sides of the road.
• John Hennessy asked if widening to the wetlands side would necessitate the
relocation of the house on that side. Jerry Page answered that the same property
owner owns that house, which is a rental property, the house across the road, which is
his permanent residence, and the graveyard. Jerry Page stated that he is trying to
minimize relocations, impacts to wetlands, and avoid the graveyard. At the very
least, the front yard of the rental home will be impacted, but more likely a relocation
will be required if the graveyard is avoided.
• John Hennessy commented that he isusually willing to allow sere wetland impacts
in-el-to prevent relocations~but fiat he is not in favor of relocating a house in order
to miss a graveyard. Jerry Page agreed, but stated that since the property owner is the
same in this case, he is in favor of missing the graveyard and impacting the rental
property.
• Chris Millitscher asked if any analysis had been done on Section 4(f) issues or
farmland impacts. Doug Jeremiah noted that SHPO concurrence has been reached
already on both historic architecture and archaeological issues. Please see the
Miscellaneous section at the end of these minutes for more information on the
farmland impacts.
Curlyand-(;idler Lssues

• Doug Jeremiah noted that the City of Wilson has requested acurb-and-gutter section.
Jim Trogdon stated that curb-and-gutter minimizes the amount ofright-of--way needed
from property owners. Jim also noted that the NC 42, Merck Rd., and US 264 all
have curb-and-gutter sections connecting with SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.).
,~ ,_. .. ;W ;.~. ,~,;
• John Hennessy std that he do~sz~~~~ ~ ~y curb-and-gutter. However, if a house
would be taken, he could be supportive ofcurb-and-gutter. He stated that hydrologic
design would be easier with a shoulder in order to comply with the buffer rules. He
cited problems with collecting stormwater at one point and then trying to diffuse that
flow. y
• Jerry Page noted that the land in the area is flat and would require big roadside
ditches, resulting in an expansion of the typical section. Jerome Nix commented that
he agreed with John on using curb-and-gutter to avoid relocations, but beyond Merck
Road a shoulder section would make it easier for the Department to comply with the
buffer rules.
• Robin Little commented that bridging would concentrate the discharges in that area
just like acurb-and-gutter section.
• John Hennessy prefers to see shoulder sections wherever curb-and-gutter is not
necessary to protect someone's home or business.
• Jim Trogdon asked if we could look at measures with curb-and-gutter that would treat
and control the flow. John Hennessy responded that the treatment efficiency of a
stormwater detention basin is not going to be equivalent to sheetflow. Mary asked if
treatment efficiency would be improved if flow was sent through wetlands rather than
a basin?
• Chris Millitscher asked about the cost comparison of curb-and-gutter versus shoulder
section? Jerry Page responded that right-of--way acquisition costs are more with a
shoulder section and construction is more with curb and gutter. The upfront costs are
similar, but added maintenance costs required by a shoulder section make it more
costly over the long-term.
• John Hennessy does not see any relocations necessary north of Merck Rd. He would
like to see an alternative that uses shoulder sections except in those places where
relocation would be necessary. He feels that future businesses can adjust to the
shoulder sections. It is different when you would take someone's existing business.
• Doug Jeremiah said that several options would be brought up for discussion at the
next team meeting, including John's suggestion, acurb-and-gutter section up to
Merck Rd., and acurb-and-gutter section along the entire road.

Rob Hanson wants to carry ahead the bridging entire wetlands alternative, which
would grade-separate the railroad crossing, because of previous concerns about the
train crossing.
Updates Since Concurrence Meeting
After the meeting was held, I realized that the accident data presented to the team was
incorrect. This data was compiled including the existing intersection of SR 11 ~8
(Airport Blvd.) with NC 42. This intersection is being reconfigured as part of U-
3472, and accident data from this intersection should not be included in the analvsis
for this project. The total accident rate including this data vas 938.6 accidents/100
million vehicle miles. New data obtained after the meeting does not include this
intersection. The accident rate from Oct. 1998 -Sep. 2001 not including this
intersection is 188.61 ACC/100MVM. The average accident rate for similar two-lane
roadways statewide is 261.9 ACC/100MVM.
• The community impact assessment done for this project indicates the project is
exempt from the Farmland Policy Protection Act because it is located in an area
targeted for urban development by the City of Wilson. It should also be noted that
each of the project alternatives would essentially have the same impacts on any
farmland, except for shoulder sections, which would take more land area.
Regrettably, the minutes of this meeting were unable to be distributed earlier. I
delayed the distribution so I could receive the new accident data and additional
capacity analysis. I expected receiving the capacity analysis by now and including it
with these minutes. Unfortunately, this information has still not been received.
Therefore, it will be included with information for the next team meeting.
Please make note that the next concurrence meeting for this project will be held on
Wednesday, May 15"', at gam in the Board Room at the Transportation Building in
downtown Raleigh.
Attachment
cc: Meeting Participants
Bill Gilmore, P.E.
Janet D'Ignazio

Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1 Purpose and Need
Project Title: Widening of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard) from NC 42 to US 264 to Multi-
Lanes, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2), State Project 8.2341801, TIP
U-3 823
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project: The purpose of the project is to improve traffic
flow, level of service (LOS), and safety on this section of SR 1158 (Airport Boulevard).
Supporting data for the purpose and need for this project is contained in information
provided by NCDOT at the project team meeting held on December 12, 2001.
The project team has concurred on this date of December 12, 2001 with the concurrence
points for the proposed project as described above.
AGENCY DATE
n~ C a ~U a' /~ rt/v~
:l SFws /Z .~- c'~
n/C~/~C ~2 0/
~r c ~~[ 12 ~I Z a f
~sq~~,P s ~f~ ;kte' s ~a ~ ~
~~~~- i~!~~~
~~ ~~~ NAME

Attachment l
MEMO TO: FILE
FROM: Jerry P. Page, PE
Division Four DDC Engineer
DATE: July 2, 2003
SUBJECT: Project 8.2341801 (U-3823) Wilson County
Widening of SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.) from NC 42 to US 264
Meeting Notes for Post-Hearing Review
A Post-Hearing Review for the above mentioned project was held on June 17, 2003 in the
Photogrammetry Conference Room. The following people were in attendance:
Dennis Ethridge Division 4
Jimmy Eatmon Division 4
Jerry Page
Jay Bennett
Doug Jeremiah
Charles Cox
Doumit Ishak
Charles Mullen
Len Hendricks
Nathan Phillips
Kirby Warrick
Tinnette Hales.
W. M. Petit
Wendi Johnson
Eugene Tarascio
Rob Hanson
Division 4
Roadway Design
PD&EA
PD&EA
Traffic Control -Signals
Traffic Control
Public Involvement
Traffic Engineering
Right of Way
Right of Way
Program Development (TIP)
Division 4
Geotechnical Unit
PD&EA
Comments received from the public hearing were discussed individually. The following
is a list of items mentioned and discussed related to the public responses:
• It was noted that the new crossover policy will require a minimum spacing of
1200' between intersections. At the Airport Rd./US 264 Bus. intersection,
concrete islands should be extended through the full turn lane lengths as an
absolute minimum. Nathan Phillips stated Traffic Engineering would like to
have these islands extend through the tapers as well.
• It was noted that the culvert option would allow for much easier maintenance
of traffic during the project and smoother transitions involving the railroad
crossing work.

Attachment 1
• It was noted the railroad crossing would include raised islands, signals, and
gates.
• It was noted that the proposed parking area for the new ball field at Wilson
Christian School would be impacted. The school's engineer has been made
aware of this by NCDOT.
• Mr. Urah T. Williamson stated in his public response that he was in favor of
the curb & gutter option. He stated that it would be safer for the school
traffic.
• Mr. John T. Perry stated in his public response that he was opposed to the
project as shown and felt like a more symmetrical alignment would be
desirable. He stated that the Department was showing favoritism to two other
property owners. It was noted that Mr. Perry wants to build on his property,
but may currently have asub-standard lot. The alignment as shown at the
hearing will avoid a graveyard that will be impacted if the alignment is shifted
to reduce impacts to Mr. Perry.
• Mr. Ralph Ellis stated in his public response that he was opposed to the
project as presented. He wants to see alignment moved away from his
property.
• It was noted that properties need to be checked for existing septic systems
that, if impacted, could result in buyouts.
• It was noted that Right of Way would need 14 months for acquisition (18
months if more relocatees are identified)
• General discussion followed concerning maintaining a minimum of 100' of
right of way and being aware of proposed intersection locations as it pertains
to future development. It was noted that the alignment would be reviewed to
lessen Impacts to affected properties.
After this, the meeting was concluded.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
JPP/

V
v
rn
^
O
O
rn
N

_. _
__ -__ ~ ,` j k w
..
l k
,ti I
,. ,
- } 4 ` . , k
_._~r~._, ~ ~ ~
j 4
r .J ~_. ~ -.1 ~ I ~tl y ~
1 ~ k
~~ I ) k k
t • O
1
I
,., w k
~ _ ~i I f' T
} ~ 4 k (~
I, I ~' A 4
~ ~ k .Z
t ~ ,~
t k ~~'
k k ~ I I k
11 k ~ k
~ I M
h /
~.~ hI t k k M
.'x~~ ~ N
`~ ~~ ~~
k
k
~. ~ Fi
^~ k
f
/tom k +
~ ~ y I k k
..
__
~: ter. ,~,,.4..

V
O ^
0
°o ~'!
N
O
0
o~~a~

O O
O O
Z z z rn rn
v v v v

rn ~ rn ~-° D
rn
0 n ~ rn
v v ~ z

k
4 k ~ _ _ _ _ / l`~

'
~
t ~ .
~
t., 1 .
///E Lf Z.
k _
k ~~'
\
k k' C trtl k i_~~~i ~..~~
~ k ~) _
k
,~ L

4 k

'"`~~-C~ k ~
k k
1,
k
4`~~ ~ M
- ..
_. --
L~~ T/
k __ i
.- ~ ~ ~ ~~ } k
- -
_
M 4,~ ~
~
)
y {
f ~ k
k
Ik k /
`
1J
f
~
~ t 1 k k
~
~, 't k~
.
R, ~
~~~ . ~
~ 1 k ~
~
k {{{!ll k k

,
k ~
~ i~
3
k k

~,7~
I`11

~

r, r
~
k k

k k ~
k _
~
~

/~ ~ ~.
~ _.,

~
,J
,
1 ~ -
'
k k k ~ . ~ k k l~
~, E~ _- -
tt
J
k 4 k k (~
k k k C fi}
k k i,rv,
k I I I _ ...~
I k
~ k .
,s~~,~•,,•~;~
k k 4 } 'i',1
.
. k k k k )
{~}
,
I

I
I~ k ,~ k
(.
k k k 4. k ~ I k kk
k k k 4 k
~~-,
k k «
~ I I
I~
`I I I
I M
`
k
1 {~ 4~
k
k
k; k k k k k •k ~~
~ ~ I`M k
k ~`
I I k
'!
kk ;k k k ~,

k
k I
I k k k
I k
k 'k k
'
k
k 4k k /•
~ ' I I k k k ~` ~~.
-k '~` ~k ~ I I k k k
k } V
v
4
I I I k ~.~,.J
~
/ k
~` ..~
k
k
4 / ~ I ~ I k
k
4. M ~` k
,.Y ..
~ ~ -}
I k k .,,~
4 k 4
s ~ i I ~, k `~~ ~~
I +~
T 17 Z

V ,
O
c ~ ~„ 70
~
m ~ ~
~
~ ~
O
r

~ r ~ ~
~7o
~ v
v < y
`^
O~
~0 Z N D N
v
z Z y
~n ~~ °
D--IOyO
~
-AC o
v?z
~°~~
_
C ~ of~
m~ Qcv
Uf
~ H~
N
~ H
~w ~ v o
v~
~ ~
N
~` ~ z
k
k
~" k k 4
k ,
. %' M ~` k
k k k k
y-~ ~ i k kk k k k
k k k
k
k k k k k k ~:..~,
k k M
k k ~~~
k 'Sr.'
k . k k k
k k /
~ k
.~k~r
~ 15 '
"i
~ ~, ~ ~
}~ ~ ~ 4
~~ k
.~ ~ k k
..1~
t_.
J 4 f " i~
s".
r M ~~ y k
k ~ k
~ ~ c
~, "+ k
r'~
F" ( k k
~ f,, k ~
• k
~~ k k ~` f
f' k k
,..
.~ k.. .~-
f rte. --k , k
k k k k+r
~ k
k
k k
:.,. S M
~~~ ~
t I I h
I (~
i/. 1
I; ~ I ~ ~
~~.. ~ r
j ~ f- ~~
1I ~;
I ~~
~~# ~ ,~
I I ~~~ k k
~. -'~ k + +
k k
k ;
i I a k
~~ ~~o~~ t ~ ~ k k
I I ~ + k ,
k k
k
II k k
,~, k
I I I ~ ~ k
I I I k k k
I I k ~ k
i I ~ ~ k
I~ ~ kk M -~
. -~ II k kk £ k M O
I I~ k ,.
M 4
I~ k C
I ~ k k
f k k
k
k k
I
i