Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051764 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20031030e.,a SfATF °~ `, w+°,na ~..„ .~,~~. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR October 28, 2003 WETLANDS l 401 GROUP OCT 3 0 2003 WATER QUALITY SECTIOJ~ Ll'NDO TIPPETT SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Beth Smyre ~"E'._~l` ~~,`Vt~t- Project Development Engineer Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch SUBJECT: Improvements to SR 1158 (Airport Blvd.), from NC 42 to US 264, Wilson County, Federal Aid Project STP-1158(2), State Project 8.2341801, WBS Element 34981.1.1, T.I.P. Project U-3823 A concurrence meeting for the subject project was held in the Transportation Building on August 14, 2003. The following people were in attendance: Doug Jeremiah Rob Hanson Charles Cox Beth Smyre Randy Turner Michael Turchy Jimmy Eatmon Jerry Page Dennis Etheridge Randy Henegar Eric Alsmeyer John Hennessy Travis Wilson Gary Jordan Chris Militscher Ron Lucas Project Development & Environmental Analysis (PD&EA) PDEA PDEA PDEA PDEA-Office of Natural Environment PDEA-Office of Natural Environment Division 4 Division 4 Division 4 Hydraulics U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N.C. Division of Water Quality N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Administration The meeting commenced at 9:OOAM. Following introductions, Charles Cox introduced Beth Smyre as the new Project Planning Engineer, replacing Doug Jeremiah. MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-733.3141 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-733-9794 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 U-3823 Concurrence Meeting Minutes October 28, 2003 Doug then summarized the project and opened the floor for questions and/or comments from the attendees: Discussion on Concurrence Point 3 • Doug noted that the alignment at the southwest end of the project had been shifted. This change was made in order to reduce the impacts to property owners at that end of the project. Chris Militscher asked why the impacted farmland was not considered unique; Doug Jeremiah stated that because the project falls within either the municipal limits or the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) limits for the City of Wilson, the farmland does not qualify for prime and/or unique status. Doug further explained that the ETJ is a planning boundary that the city expects to annex in the future and can currently have jurisdiction over zoning. The issue of a bridge versus culvert design was then discussed. Gary Jordan asked if the wildlife crossing that was addressed in the culvert option was addressed in the other alternatives. Doug Jeremiah stated that the wildlife crossing was addressed in Alternative 1 with the inclusion of equalizer pipes as was discussed in earlier meetings. Eric Alsmeyer asked if the $310,000 cost included everything in the culvert design. Doug stated that the figure includes both the culvert extension and the equalizer pipes. When asked about the number of equalizer pipes, Randy Henegar responded that there would be three. pipes. Gary asked if the $310,000 estimate included the $150,000 referred to in Issue 2. Eric then asked how much should be added to the construction cost in Alternatives 1 and 2 to reflect three culverts. Randy H. stated that it should cost $150,000 for all three. Gary stated that he liked the plan being proposed, but that he wanted to clarify the costs. Randy H. stated that adding the third pipe is a design issue, and that any increased cost (approximately $50,000 for the third pipe) would be added to Alternatives 1 and 2. Since it was unclear at this time whether a third equalizer pipe could be placed, Rob Hanson asked if this is a question that should be ieft for the Point 4B discussion. Eric pointed out that a caveat, stating that the agencies would need the design as soon as possible, could be put in Point 3. John Hennessy stated that he would prefer not to sign any conditional concurrence points. Gary stated that a third culvert might not even be necessary due to additional development along the project alignment. Randy. H. said that he could design the second and third pipes side-by-side and would commit to that if needed. • John Hennessy asked if there was an error in Table 1 of the August 14, 2003 concurrence memo; the number of relocations listed was not consistent with the curb & gutter versus shoulder discussion later in the memo. Doug Jeremiah stated that there was an error and that there would be four relocations on all of the alternatives that include shoulder sections. John stated that he would like to see all of the relocations on the plans. U-3823 Concurrence Meeting Minutes October 28, 2003 John Hennessy asked how much additional land was needed for the shoulder alternatives. Jerry Page stated that the shoulder alternatives impacted several more structures than did the curb and gutter designs. While there is not much difference between the roadway typical sections for the two, the back slope required for the shoulder section increases the amount of land needed. There are four relocations in the shoulder sections and only one relocation in the curb and gutter alternative. Currently there is a revised design that attempts to minimize the impacts to houses. Chris Militscher asked if it had been decided that there would be a curb and gutter along the entire project, as he and John had previously asked for a combination of the two. Jerry stated that once the City of Wilson annexes the area, developers would be required to put in curb and gutter sections. For that reason, NCDOT opted to put a curb and gutter section along the entire alignment. Doug Jeremiah noted John's comments on this issue. from a previous concurrence meeting, that John agreed to the use of curb & gutter sections if NCDOT incorporated offsite drainage into its stormwater treatment design. Randy Henegar presented a stormwater analysis of the project; he proposed three, possibly four, stormwater basins along the alignment. He noted that the current road does not have significant offsite drainage, and that there are several locations suitable for basins and other stormwater management features. He then emphasized that anyone wanting to connect into NCDOT's system would have to provide their own treatment. John Hennessy mentioned that hazardous spill basins would likely be required; Randy H. said that NCDOT does not disagree, and hazardous spill basins will be included in the design. John also questioned whether the City of Wilson has to have a stormwater protection program as a result of the Neuse Buffer Rules. Jerry Page said that the population is not likely high enough to warrant that requirement. John Hennessy asked if Randy Henegar's proposal accounted for full build-out along the project. Randy H. said that at this time, he had only looked for suitable basin locations and had not sized anything. He added that developers would have to have a stormwater management plan for their properties, as they would not be allowed to overload the system. John asked if NCDOT is required to accept stormwater from new development; Randy H. replied that NCD01' does not have to accept additional stormwater input, nothing that any new development would involve diverting flow into the roadway's drainage basin. Rob Hanson asked if the agencies were comfortable with the curb and gutter alternatives, given the stormwater control measures that NCDOT has incorporated in the design. Travis Wilson noted that the curb and gutter alternatives were less expensive than the shoulder sections in the two bridge designs; however, the cost of curb and gutter alternative was greater with the culvert design. Doug Jeremiah stated that the numbers were correct, based on the latest cost estimate. Jerry Page noted that the cost of removing the existing culvert was included within the cost of the bridge designs. Chris Militscher stated that he would like to see the total costs presented, including the right-of--way costs. Doug Jeremiah stated that the right-of--way costs were not presently available. Jerry noted that the additional width and home condemnation costs were not included in the construction estimate. Travis stated that U-3823 Concurrence Meeting Minutes October 28, 2003 the total costs should be included because the right-of--way costs can make a significant difference in the total. Eric Alsmeyer stated that the right-of--way costs would be good to include, but that they were not ultimately necessary to decide on an alternative. John Hennessy stated that he would like to see the total costs in future estimates. Doug Jeremiah estimated that right-of--way costs would be approximately $1,000,000 for the curb and gutter alternatives and approximately $2,000,000 for the shoulder alternatives. • Travis Wilson asked if the road would need to be raised for installation of the culvert. Randy Henegar stated that the road is already being raised in that location due to the tie-in for the railroad. Travis asked what bridge clearance could be provided under the proposed design; Randy H. replied that the road would need to be raised again to provide more than 3-4 feet of vertical clearance. Doug Jeremiah added that this would cost approximately $200,000 per additional vertical foot. Rob Hanson. reminded everyone that the existing culvert is a relatively new one, and NCDOT believes its age should be taken into consideration in the decision. NCDOT would like the agencies to consider what is really gained by building a new bridge when the structure is still relatively new. Gary Jordan noted that on a recent site visit, all five barrels of the current culvert had flow; this condition is not good for providing wildlife passage. Gary was, however, pleased with the proposed culvert designs. Chris Militscher stated that he preferred a long bridge that would accommodate future development, especially from a stormwater management perspective. He reminded everyone that the longer bridge alternative also yielded the least amount of net wetland impact. Both Chris and John Hennessy questioned the accuracy of the buffer impact numbers provided in Table 4 of the August 14, 2003 memo; John stated that he would partially base his decision on these numbers. Jerry Page stated that while the culvert extension was only on one side of the alignment, bridge construction would impact buffer on both sides, due to the nature of the phased construction; additionally, the bridge impacts include the removal of the existing culvert. Gary Jordan noted that the impact numbers might be lower now because the utility company has done some clearing in these wetlands. • Travis Wilson asked if there would be equalizer pipes included in the short bridge alternatives. With such a low vertical clearance, Travis stated that the bridges would not provide the best wildlife passage. Randy Henegar stated that no pipes were included with the bridge alternatives. Travis noted that because the existing culvert usually has flow in all of the barrels, there is no space for dry passage. Randy Turner stated that this was definitely a high quality riverine wetland in a rural area that is quickly becoming urbanized. He felt that NCDOT has missed an opportunity for a higher bridge that would provide a wildlife corridor in a future urban area. He wanted serious consideration given for a larger hydraulic opening, particularly for use as a wildlife crossing. Eric Alsmeyer stated that there is a major change in the wetland from one side of the road to the other; Randy Turner added that this would provide a potential opportunity for wetland restoration and enhancement. U-3823 Concurrence Meeting Minutes October 28, 2003 • Chris Militscher stated his preference for Alternative 6; this alternative includes the replacement of the existing box culvert with a bridge 475 feet in length and includes a curb and gutter section along the entire alignment. Rob Hanson mentioned that if either Alternatives 5 or 6 were selected, there would be an excessive amount of tax dollars spent on the project. NCDOT is obligated to consider these additional costs. Chris noted that Alternative 6 would not likely require an Individual Permit, whereas the other alternatives would. Ron Lucas stated that he did not feel the environmental benefits of a longer bridge did not justify the increased cost for Alternatives 5 and 6; he preferred Alternative 4. Travis Wilson stated that he would concur with any of the bridge alternatives because he was not convinced that the equalizer pipes would provide an adequate wildlife crossing. Chris finally stated that he would sign Alternative 4 if it was the one desired by the rest of the agencies. • John Hennessy stated that he would drop the request for a shoulder section and would agree to Alternative 4. John wanted it noted that any stormwater management should account for future development, but that this issue tabled until the hydraulic review meeting; Eric Alsmeyer reminded him that the management system currently only accounted for the road itself. It was decided that the designs would be discussed with Concurrence Points 4B and 4C. John stated that he would like to see equalizer pipes with the bridge design, but that he would wait and discuss it in the Concurrence Point 4 discussion. John would also like to see the flood studies to determine the need for equalizer pipes. Due to time limitations, the meeting concluded without a discussion on Concurrence Point 4A. Concurrence Point 3 was approved by the merger team; Alternative 4 was selected as the designated Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). This preferred alternative would replace the existing box culvert at Bloomery Swamp with a bridge 200-feet in length and would include curb and gutter section along the entire alignment. The signature page, stating the preferred alternative, is attached to this memo. Attachment cc: Meeting Participants Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., PD&EA Roger Sheats, Environment, Planning, and Local Governmental Affairs Anthony Roper, P.E., Acting Division 4 Engineer Section 404/NEPA Merger O1 Interagency Agreement Concurrence Point No. 3 LEDPA 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 t1-3$23 ~ ;~.L~ Vic--c;~C?-~~6~ LEDPA Selection: Alternative 4 - The project team has concurred with the above alternative as the least enviroru-nentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). NAME ~~ ,~ ~- /ynu~ AGENCY DATE NCDOT ~ jt~~ 3 NC WRC ~ ~~/ -U3 FHVVA ~ ~~~-~3 USFWS ~ ~~ zoo3 NCDWQ ~ i~o3 ~;'~ EPA `c3- 14 -c~3 USACE /r/''