20051764 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20021003

d..~ SfATr u
'A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR ~~ SECRETARY
October 3, 2002 II,}5 ~ ~'
~' ~ ~ Q~ L~
MEMORANDUM TO: File ~
~ w~~~UU,~~ in s~cTi^~,
FROM: Doug Jeremiah ~®' ~--~------_..__._...__,~_._ __
Project Development 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 Transportation
Building on May 15, 2002. The following people were in attendance:
Doug Jeremiah
Rob Hanson
Charles Cox
Lindsey Riddick
Jimmy Eatmon
Robin Little
John Hennessy
Jerry Page
Jim Trogdon
Randy Henegar
Eric Alsmeyer
Randy Turner
David Cox
Howard Hall
Christopher Militscher
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPAR iMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGN.NC 27699-1548
PDEA
PDEA
PDEA
PDEA
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
PDEA
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.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:
General Discussion
• Doug Jeremiah said that the purpose of this meeting is to agree on alternatives to be
°'°t`ai'fied forward, and that no LEDPA would be designated in the Environmental
Assessr~~l. The LEDPA will be chosen after a design public hearing is held. Rob
`Hanson said that the options would be to carry forward all three alternatives, two
alternati~!es~ or just one.
Doug Jeremiah explained the changes in the project alternatives since the last team
meeting. Equalizer pipes have been added to the "extend culvert" alternative. A 200-
foot bridge alternative was added based on recommendations of Randy Turner.
Randy feels that the railroad crossing upstream of Airport Blvd. may limit the
benefits of additional bridging. The railroad crossing is a bridge 165-170 feet in
length and may constrict the flow of floodwaters.
• Eric Alsmeyer pointed out that the numbers calculated for "wetlands restored"
include green areas on the figures and areas underneath the proposed bridges minus
the stream's area.
Hazardous Spill Detention Basins
• David Cox asked if hazardous spill detention basins would be required for this
project. John Hennessy replied that, he had requested that basins be included at
Bloomery Swamp. John feels that the proximity of the crossing to the drinking water
intake downstream and location of the industrial park require installation of basins.
Randy Henegar asked John how many spill basins would be necessary. John replied
he does not see how less than four basins would be sufficient. Randy pointed out that
the guidelines list placing sandbags in the ditch as a method of controlling a spill.
Randy added that the Department tries to site these basins in areas where the access
can be controlled in order to limit vandalism. John replied that yes, he understands
that sometimes this is difficult, but we need to do it anyway. John said he draws a
hard line when it comes to protecting drinking water..
• Rob Hanson asked if this was the appropriate time to discuss the basins. John
Hennessy replied that we can talk about it later, but he brought it up early to show
NCDOT how important it is. Eric Alsmeyer asked if the curb & gutter /shoulder
selection would affect the basin discussion. Doug Jeremiah pointed out that the
basins are being used on the adjacent NC 42 widening with curb & gutter so this
should not preclude use of basins. Randy Henegar said that as he gets further into the
design, he would be ready to talk specifics at the point 4A/4B meetings.
2

• Jim Trogdon asked if 2 basins could be used instead of 4 because he felt that could be
accomplished with curb & gutter. Randy Henegar said he prefers curb & gutter if we
are going to install basins. Jim is concerned about impacts to wetlands caused by the
basins. John Hennessy replied that impacts to wetlands are a secondary concern when
it comes to spill control.
Eric Alsmeyer asked if equalizer pipes could be added to the 200-foot bridging
option. John Hennessy asked Eric if he would consider giving enhancement credits if
the pipes were included. Eric felt that he could consider it given the existing
causeway. Eric said that equalizer pipes would make the culvert and 200-foot bridge
look more attractive when compared with the 475-foot bridge.
Chris Militscher asked what structures over Bloomery Creek were located upstream
and downstream. Jerry Page answered that the railroad bridge upstream is
approximately 170-feet in length, and a bridge on NC 42 downstream is
approximately 150-feet in length.
Doug Jeremiah said that NCDOT has talked about offering a kind of preservation
effort along with the culvert alternative, such as a wetland tract preservation with
some of the money saved from not pursuing a bridge alternative. Eric Alsmeyer said
that the Corps can not require any mitigation in addition to those necessary from
NCDOT's impacts. Rob Hanson said that this idea was brought up in a discussion
about what would be best for the environment. Eric Alsmeyer said that this proposal
could not be considered in the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation scheme.
Doug Jeremiah suggested that NCDOT carry forward the culvert and 200-foot bridge
alternatives. Eric Alsmeyer feels that we should carry forward the 475-foot bridge as
well unless everyone agrees it is not worth of further consideration.
'Randy Turner said that there is no doubt about the benefits from a 475-foot bridge,
but it will cost more. Randy noted that this area is considered a high quality resource.
He said that if this were a bridge replacement project, he would urge the planning
engineer to put a bridge back in that zeroes out the impacts from the approachway
improvements. However, if a culvert was in place, he would not carry forward that
argument unless there was an extenuating circumstance. Randy feels that it would be
irregular and unusual to require NCDOT to replace a culvert as part of a widening
project with a bridge that zeroes out impacts. Eric Alsmeyer feels that we should
carry forward the 475-foot bridge because he feels it is the best option for mitigation.
^ Randy Turner said that the pine plantation on the east side of Airport Blvd. at
Bloomery Swamp is at a higher elevation and would not be flooded for a long period
of time, thus further limiting the benefits of the 475-foot bridge.
Howard Hall asked if there are other locations on the project where impacts to
wetlands occur. Eric Alsmeyer replied that a small amount of impacts occur at an

unnamed tributary south of Bloomery, but those wetlands are not of the same quality
as Bloomery Swamp.
^ Charles Cox asked about the relation between the pine plantation and the high quality
wetland system. Randy Turner said that it was still part of the entire high quality
wetland system at Bloomery Swamp, but an area of less quality within it. Randy
Turner said that the area underneath a bridge would still serve as a wetland, even
without the vegetative growth. John Hennessy interjected that the functionality and
benefits of wetlands underneath the bridges is the major reason why DWQ doesn't
require mitigation for bridging over wetlands.
^ Howard Hall asked how the proposed alternatives handle flooding. Randy Henegar
replied that the culvert is designed to handle the 100-year flood, with less than 1-foot
of backwater. Randy added that the bridges would probably have no backwater.
^ Chris Militscher said that he was under the impression that the Corps was supposed to
look at the decision on whether to bridge or culvert in light of the surrounding
watershed and existence or culverts or bridges. Chris added he felt that since the
Airport Blvd. crossing is flanked with bridge crossings, that we should put in a bridge
here. David Cox and John Hennessy said their decision to recommend a bridge or
culvert is not dependent on the surrounding structures, but rather an individualized
approach to each particular crossing. Eric Alsmeyer added that he feels even if there
were culverts close to this location that the system would benefit from replacing this
culvert with a bridge.
Curb & Gutter/ Shoulder
^ David Cox wanted to know what the benefit of having both curb & gutter and ditches
is. Doug Jeremiah replied that the ditches are only constructed where off-site
'drainage would reach the roadway. Randy Henegar added that NCDOT prefers to
keep our roadway runoff separate from offsite drainage. John Hennessy said that
NCDOT would be responsible for treating the offsite runoff if it was commingled
with the roadway runoff. Eric Alsmeyer asked if the two systems would be
reconnected after development occurs. Jim Trogdon answered that they would be
reconnected, but developers would be required to obtain an easement from NCDOT
and we can require them to treat their runoff to our standards.
^ Eric Alsmeyer asked if additional fill slopes would occur with a shoulder section.
Doug Jeremiah answered that the fill slopes would be similar in the locations where
ditching is in addition to the curb and gutter.
^ John Hennessy asked why the developers would be required to install curb and gutter
on Airport Blvd. Jim Trogdon and Jerry Page replied that the City of Wilson includes
this requirement as part of their development ordinances.
4

^ Chris Militscher said he was concerned about providing curb and gutter when the
development has not occurred yet. Chris feels that the private developers should bear
the costs of curb and gutter installation rather than FHWA and NCDOT. Jim
Trogdon says that development of the northern half of Airport Blvd. will occur first.
Jim says his main concern is that we address the water quality issue with our project
if we know it will be curb and gutter eventually. Jim noted that developers deal with
different people at the Corps and DWQ and are not held to the same standard that we
are. By planning for it now, we can obtain the appropriate amount of right of way
necessary for runoff treatment.
^ Jim Trodgon said that if we determine a section should be shoulder, then we should at
least obtain a permanent drainage easement to not lose the benefit of the shoulder
section should curb and gutter be installed in the future. Chris Militscher said he is in
support of carrying forward a combination of curb and gutter and shoulder sections.
^ John Hennessy agrees that with the planned development and inevitable use of curb
and gutter (as required by the City), he can come off of his demands for shoulder
section if NCDOT incorporates the offsite drainage into its stormwater treatment
design. John would like NCDOT's designs to include treatment for offsite drainage
in the form of grass swales, flow spreaders, and basins to handle future development.
John feels we should get the necessary right of way to run swales and/or flow
spreaders along the entire roadway to handle the buildout. Randy Henegar feels that
treating offsite drainage is possible as long as there is not too much of it.
^ Jim Trogdon feels that the treatment systems should be kept separate for the roadway
runoff and offsite runoff. John Hennessy interjected that he feels we should look at
combining them. Jim replied that in light of the future NPDES Phase II monitoring,
he would prefer to keep his pollution separate from the offsite pollution. Robin Little
asked John what the difference would be if they are treated equally. John replied that
'there isn't a difference and it is fine to look at keeping them separate. Jim said that
we might end up having both streams empty into the same detention basins.
^ David Cox asked about what standards the developers would be held to when they
connect to NCDOT's stormwater system. Jim Trogdon answered that if the natural
flow reaches our system, we are responsible for receiving it. NCDOT would permit
an encroachment. NCDOT can charge the developer to upgrade our system. Randy
Henegar said the developers could be required to maintain their existing release rate.
^ Randy Henegar promised to look at treating the offsite drainage during the design
phase, but could not commit to specific measures at this time. John Hennessy said in
that case, he could not come off of his shoulder recommendation at this time.
Agreement Reached
• The team agreed to carry forward all six alternatives as outlined on the signature sheet
(attached).
5

Updates Since Concurrence Meeting
The Environmental Assessment (EA) has been approved and will be distributed
shortly. All six alternatives were discussed in the document. No mention was made
of a combination of curb & gutter and ditches. However, this does not preclude the
selection of such an alternative by the merger team, as long as it is analyzed in the
FONSI.
Note to merger team members: please make note that the next concurrence meeting
for this project will likely be held in February, as long as the design public hearing
has been held. You will be notified once a firm date has been scheduled.
Attachment
cc: Meeting Participants
Greg Thorpe, Ph. D
Janet D'Ignazio
Len Hill, P.E.
Ron Lucas, P.E., FHWA
6

Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Design Alternatives
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-3823
Design Considerations: A five-lane facility (four-lanes at Bloomery Swamp), widened
asymmetrically, with:
Carry Forward Structure
Culvert w/equalizer pipes Drainage
Curb & gutter
Culvert w/equalizer pipes Shoulder
200-foot bridge Curb & gutter
200-foot bridge Shoulder
475-foot bridge Curb & gutter
475-foot bridge Shoulder
The project team has concurred on this date of May 15, 2002 with the concurrence point
for the proposed project as described above.
NAME

AGENCY DATE

~T
~~~
~ ~SIoZ
t~~ 7 f ~'i, y COrp~o~ ~~ i~i~i°r~ ~ /~
~1 s ~ ls~ j =.~ ~ ~'~ t~ 2
,~
uSEp~ ~~~s/~z.
;_
,~
~~~~~ ~
5/IS~O.2
-~
~~~- -~~
~1