20161221_CP3 Meeting Minutes_20150123

p���� AECOM 919-854-6200 tel
!�= 701 Corporate Center Drive 919-854-6259 fax
Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 28607
www.aecom.com
Memorandum
To:
CC:
Subject:
From:
Date:
Meeting Attendees
File
Pages: 5
CP 3 Meeting - US 13/NC 11 Improvements, WBS No. 45492.1.1,
Federal Aid No. NHS-0070(154), STIP Project R-5311
Mark Johnston, AECOM Deputy Project Manager
January 23, 2015
The Concurrence Point 3— Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
meeting for STIP Project R-5311 was held on November 20, 2014 at 10:00 A.M. in the NCDOT
Structure Design Conference Room C, at the Century Center.
Meetinq Obiective
The purpose of the meeting was to seek concurrence on the LEDPA and present minimization and
avoidance design refinements performed to date.
The following people attended the meeting:
Cathy Brittingham
David Wainwright
Travis Wilson
Cynthia Vanderwiele
John Thomas
Gary Jordan
Justin Oakes
Ron Lucas
Clay Willis
Shawn Mebane
Chris Rivenbark
Tyler Stanton
Mark Staley
BenJetta Johnson
Lee Cowhig
Gary Lovering
Christopher Lee
Tina Snell
Rob Hanson
Kim Gillespie
Jay Mclnnis
Maria Baez
Paul Atkinson
Brian Murphy
Tammy Germiller
Eddie McFalls
Mark Johnston
NCDENR — Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh
NCDENR — Division of Water Resources
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Peanut Belt RPO
FHWA
NCDOT Highway Division 1
NCDOT Highway Division 1
NCDOT Natural Environment Section
NCDOT Natural Environment Section
NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit
NCDOT Congestion Management Section
NCDOT Transportation Engineering Associates Program
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT PDEA Unit
NCDOT PDEA Unit
NCDOT PDEA Unit
NCDOT PDEA Unit
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit
NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit
AECOM
AECOM
1

I��V�
Discussion
John Thomas (USACE) initiated the meeting with a brief description of the project, which was
followed by an introduction of those in attendance. Mr. Thomas attended in lieu of Tracey Wheeler
(USACE), who was unavailable for the meeting. Following introductions, Mark Johnston (AECOM)
presented a summary of the detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and their associated impacts and
discussed the basis for NCDOT's identified preferred alternative.
Several topics were key to discussion of the LEDPA and are described in detail below.
Cultural Resource/Communitv
It was noted DSAs 3 and 5, which widen the roadway along existing NC 11 and US 13, will
adversely affect historic resources along the project (Newsome Hall House, Rosenwald School,
and Pleasant Plains Baptist Church)
DSAs 3 and 5 negatively impact cohesion of the Pleasant Plains community, which would be
bisected by the alternatives with a 4 lane median-divided roadway. DSAs 1 and 6 avoid
community cohesion impacts to the Pleasant Plains community by bypassing it on new location.
DSAs 3 and 5 both have 54 residential relocations each, while DSAs 1 and 6 have only one each.
It was also noted DSAs 3 and 5 would each potentially displace 75 graves from the Pleasant
Plains Baptist Church cemetery. DSAs 1 and 6 will not displace any graves.
The DSAs were presented at a Public Hearing held on June 9, 2014. Feedback favored DSA 1
which received the most public support with 17 favorable responses, followed by DSA 6 with 11
favorable responses. No respondents opposed DSAs 1 or 6. No respondents supported DSAs 3
or 5, while 11 respondents opposed them.
Wetland Impacts
It was mentioned that all impacted wetlands are non-riparian. Travis Wilson (NC Wildlife
Resources Commission) described the habitat value of the impacted resources as low quality.
When comparing DSAs, it was stated the new location alternatives (1 and 6) had more wetland
impacts than existing widening alternatives (3 and 5).
It was also noted, the freeway/expressway alternatives (1 and 3) have a large portion of their
wetland impacts related to the common interchange design at NC 11/NC 11. However, with
these respective alternatives, it was explained wetland impacts were reduced by a combined total
of 31.9 acres at the intersections of NC 11/NC 561 and NC 11/NC 11 through minimization and
avoidance efforts, where the interchange configurations were changed to half-clover designs. Mr.
Thomas said it would be favorable to find additional ways to minimize the footprint of the
interchanges, thus further reducing associated wetland impacts. Gary Lovering (NCDOT
Roadway) explained the interchanges were likely reduced as much as possible, though further
examination of the designs would be considered where feasible.
2

I��V�
A lack of available EEP wetland mitigation sources within the project watershed was noted by Mr.
Wilson . Further, it's likely mitigation will need to come from other watersheds. Jay Mclnnis
(NCDOT PDEA), Chris Rivenbark (NCDOT Natural Environment), and Tyler Stanton (NCDOT
Natural Environment) stated there may be opportunity for some onsite mitigation. The comment
was made that while mitigation sources (or lack thereof) are notable, they should not affect
alternative selection during this point of the merger process, since mitigation is ultimately a
permiting issue.
Safetv Benefits and Concerns
It was noted when comparing the DSAs, the safety benefits of superstreet DSAs (5 and 6) were
approximately half as effective as the freeway/expressway DSAs (1 and 3). Alternative 1 has the
highest potential safety benefit of the four DSAs (52% decrease in predicted crashes from No-
Build).
Safety concerns were widely discussed because of the high rate of severe injury and fatal
crashes at the intersections of NC 11/NC 561 and NC 11/NC 11. Brian Murphy (NCDOT Traffic
Safety) noted drivers were choosing bad gaps resulting in collisions. Further, he described a
number of spot improvements NCDOT has made at the intersections in an attempt to improve
safety, all met with failing or marginal results. Ultimately, the eastern leg (SR 1213 — Old NC 11
Road) of the NC 11/NC 11 intersection was terminated as a temporary provision to reduce
accidents.
The area has a long line of sight with open right of ways. Rob Hanson (NCDOT PDEA) described
the driving corridor as rural without a large number of intersections. It was further suggested,
because of the long distances drivers can see at the intersections, motorists were looking past
nearby approaching traffic, resulting in collisions. Further, Mr. Johnston noted the existing
roadway in this area experiences very high truck percentages (as much as 26%). Both Gary
Lovering and NCDOT Division 1 stated grade separations (interchanges) were the best solution
for the unique safety concerns at these intersections.
Other
It was mentioned additional service roads are not anticipated to be constructed since they are not
cost effective for locations along this project.
NCDOT Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1, a freeway alternative partly on new location, was identified by NCDOT as their
preferred alternative. NCDOT selected this alternative due to its safety benefits (highest of the
DSAs), it has the lowest residential relocations of the DSAs, has no impacts to community
cohesion, and no adverse effects to historic resources. It was noted by the merger team
Alternative 1 has the highest wetland impacts of the four DSAs. Jay Mclnnis acknowledged the
higher wetland impacts but noted, because of the unique safety concerns of the project, the
safety benefits of Alternative 1 best meet purpose and need. He also noted Alternative 1 had the
most public support. Further, Mr. Mclnnis explained when considering Alternative 1 as the
3

I��V�
NCDOT's preferred alternative, wetlands were the only detrimental impact in comparison to the
many benefits of Alternative 1.
Concurrence
After discussing the above mentioned topics, the merger team was unable to reach concurrence on a
LEDPA.
The general response of each merger team representative is noted below.
FHWA
Ron Lucas concurs with Alternative 1 as the LEDPA. Further, he noted FHWA cannot support
DSAs 3 and 5 going forward, because of adverse effects to historic properties along the
alternatives that are also protected by Section 4(f).
NCDOT
Division 1, Roadway Design, and PDEA support Alternative 1 because it best meets purpose and
need (safety).
USACE
Mr. Thomas stated compelling arguments were made justifying support of Alternative 1.
However, because he is not the project manager, he suggested NCDOT representatives review
the presentation with Tracey Wheeler (USACE) and DWR to seek concurrence. He noted
Alternatives 1 and 3 best meet purpose and need and should therefore be considered and
compared. Also, he suggested further considerations be made to Alternatives 3 and 5 to
minimize wetland impacts associated with interchange designs.
USFWS
Gary Jordan would not concur with Alternative 1 as the LEDPA because of wetland impacts.
However, he noted USFWS would not oppose Alternative 1 because of safety benefits and would
abstain from LEDPA concurrence.
NCWRC
Travis Wilson expressed concern about wetland mitigation sources for any alternative with
wetland impacts. He explained EEP did not have adequate resources within the project
watershed to provide mitigation.
NCDNR — DWR
David Wainwright deferred concurrence until NCDOT, USACE, and DWQ coordinate and review
the CP3 presentation and impacts.
NCDNR — DCM
Cathy Brittingham explained the project was not within an area of environmental concern (AEC)
and did not need a CAMA permit. It will require a federal consistency review. She noted
NCDNR — DCM would follow DWR and NCWRC for a concurrence decision.
4

I��V�
USEPA
Cynthia Vanderwiele explained since Alternative 6 was a viable alternative with less wetlands
than Alternative 1, she could not concur with Alternative 1 as the LEDPA. Cynthia noted EPA
would support Alternative 6 as the LEDPA or abstain from concurrence.
Peanut Belt RPO
Justin Oakes concurred with Alternative 1 as the LEDPA on the basis of safety.
Conclusion
A LEDPA concurrence has not yet been reach by the merger team. NCDOT will coordinate with
USACE and DWR to discuss what additional information can be provided to assist these agencies in
reaching a decision. This information will be shared with the entire merger team.
The above minutes are AECOM's understanding of the meeting's proceedings. If you have any
questions or additions to these minutes, please either call or email Mark Johnston at [phone]
or , or Ms. Kim Gillespie at [phone] or .
5