Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180839_CP 4A Meeting Minutes_20150401�=- n� u �� �� L aV %. I 6V E E R a� € C❑ N 5 L.1 L i�i�, fV �' S MEETING NOTES To: FILE FROM: Bobby Norburn, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants DATE: April 1, 2015 SLJBJECT: Concurrence Point 4A Merger Meeting for Proposed Improvements to SR 1217 (Colington Road), feom End of Road to US 158, Dare County, TIP Project R-5014 The Concurrence Point (CP) 4A merger team meeting for the subject project was held on March 12, 2015 in Structure Design Conference Room C at NCDOT Century Center. The purpose of the meeting was to reach concurrence on CP 4A (Avoidance and Minimization) for the Colington Road Improvements project Meeting attendees are listed below. A summary of the meeting follows. MEETING PARTICIPANTS Cathy Brittingham NCDCM Greg Daisey NCDCM Rob Hanson NCDOT — PDEA Keith Hanson NOAA Fisheries (b�r telephone) Jerry Jennings NCDOT — Division 1 Gary Jordan USFWS Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey Susan Lancaster NCDOT — Roadway� Design Gary Lovering NCDOT — Roadway Design Ron Lucas FHWA Jay McInnis NCDOT — PDEA Shawn Mebane NCDOT — Division 1 John Merritt NCDOT — NES Bobby Norburn Mulkey Travis Potts NCDOT — Roadway Design Joseph Qubain NCDOT — PDEA Shane Staples NCDCM (by telephone) Cynthia van der Wiele USEPA (by telephone) David Wainwright NCDWR Angela Welsh Albemarle RPO (by telephone) Tracey Wheeler USACE Clay Willis NCDOT — Division 1 MEETING SUMMARY Tracey Wheeler opened the meeting and asked meeting participants to introduce themselves. Meeting participants were provided with a copy of the concurrence meeting packet. Bobby Norburn then delivered the CP 4A presentation. The following is a summary of questions and comments received from meeting participants during the meeting: ML�LKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROA❑ CaRY, NC 'Z751B P❑ BOM 331'Z7 RA�EiGti, NC 27636 PH: j1�J-85i-1412 �ax: 414-851-1918 WWW.MLi�KEVINC.COM Project Design/Avoidance and Minimization Rob Hanson noted the proposed seven-foot paved shoulders east of Colington Drive are unusual, but are a compromise based on e�sting conditions along the corridor. The exisring road is narrow and houses are located relatively close to the road along much of the corridor. A multi- use path, as desired by locals, would normally be ten feet-wide and separated from the road. This would cause substantial impacts to adjacent residences. Tracey� Wheeler noted the total footprint of the proposed project is smaller than it would be with a separate multi-use path. Gary Lovering discussed the Division 1 project to remove the hairpin curve at Colington United Methodist Church. He noted the new location portion of that project stopped at the point where it tied into the existing road. The rest of the dark green area shown on Figure 2B indicates resurfacing of e�sting pavement. The preliminary design for the proposed project proposes to further realign Colington Road on new location through this area, but the existing road will be left in place to provide access to homes. Alternatively, the driveways for some of these homes could be extended to the new road, but this would increase wedand impacts. David Wainwright noted the proposed design appears to be taking half of wetland WE and might be considered a total take. Mr. Lovering said two of the primary roadway improvement goals for the proposed project are to flatten out the worst curves and improve site distance. Unfortunately, several of the areas in need of these rypes of improvements also happen to be adjacent to wetlands. As a result, some areas in need of improvements aYe not being addYessed in order to reduce overall wetland impacts. Improving bicycle and pedestrian safety by providing adequate paved shoulders is another primary goal of the proposed project. However, if some of the worst curves are not addressed, the wider shoulders for bicycles and pedestrian will not be as effective. He would like the merger team to keep the project purpose in mind when looking more closely at the potential wetland impacts. Specific locations where the proposed improvements were designed to avoid or minimize wetland impacts, as well as locations where the decision was made to not implement improvements in order to avoid additional wetland impacts, should be presented in the avoidance and minimization measures. Cathy Brittingham said if NCDOT can show some of the needed improvements were not pursued to limit impacts, it will help with permit approval. Mr. Wainwright asked how much the grade of the road will be raised to reduce roadway flooding. Mr. Lovering responded the grade would be raised appro�mately two to three feet in some locations where flooding is a problem. Ms. Brittingham said the floodwaters overtopping the road may be providing hydrology to some of the wetlands along the south side of Colington Road. She is concerned raising the grade of the road will impact some of these wetlands. This issue may need to be further investigated at CP 4B. She thought one solution could be to place equalizer pipes under the road in some locations if they would fit. It was discussed the roadway grade is only being raised in a few spots, and overtopping occurs several times per year as a result of wind tides. It was noted Colington Road provides the only access to a relatively large residential area on Colington Island and emeYgency access is a major conceYn when the road floods. Ron Lucas said because of the limited scope of the project, FHWA thought the avoidance and minimization measures listed in the handout were sufficient. Protected S�ecies Gary Jordan discussed Table 5 in the handout (Federally-Protected Species in Dare County). There is no habitat or nesting habitat for the five turtle species in the project study area. Mr. 2 Jordan would be agreeable to a No Effect determination for the turtles from USFWS's perspective, but would leave the in-water effect determination up to NOAA Fisheries. • Mr. Jordan stated he was not aware of any inland records for the roseate tern and the determination for this species is generally No Effect for inland projects. NCDOT NES will re- verify the project information related to this species. • Mr. Jordan said the West Indian manatee is likely the only species that should have a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination. However, if there is no work in the wateY, the determination for this species could also be No Effect, unless the project creates sedimentation issues. Mr. Jordan noted later if the water level is less than appro�mately 1.5 meters in depth, then NCDOT does not have to be concerned about manatees being present Ms. Brittingham asked if the estimated 0.3 acre SAV impact was based on actual existing vegetation or the broad definirion of SAV habitat. Shane Staples responded estimated impacts are based on the SAV survey that was performed. Ms. Brittingham said mitigation for impacts to SAV is very difficult, so impacts should be avoided and minimized as much as possible. NMFS does not typically permit any impacts to SAV. NCDOT will take a closer look at the preliminary design in the vicinity of the SAV along the Colington Creek shoreline (Figure 2E) in order to attempt to avoid these impacts. CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs� • Ms. Brittingham noted there are other CAMA AECs in the project study area that may be impacted beyond the AECs currendy included in the impacts summary table (Table 2). Ms. Brittingham suggested just including CAMA wetlands on the summary table. To clarify information included in the table, change the row labeled as CANIA Areas of Environmental Concern Impacts to CAMA Wetland Impacts. Change the row labeled Wetlands to Non-CAMA Section 404 Wetlands Impacts. It was noted surface waters classified as Public Trust Waters included in the CAMA AEC impacts in the impacts summary table, must be navigable by a canoe with reasonable portage to fit this classification. • Ms. Brittingham noted CAMA coastal shoreline is also classified as CAMA AEC. CAMA coastal shoreline areas include a 75-foot offset from the normal high water level of estuarine waters and a 30-foot offset from the normal high water level of inland public trust waters. Additional avoidance and minimization measures may also be needed to reduce impacts to this area. • It was discussed whether impacts to wetland WG shown in Table 4 should be deleted because a Division project already impacted this wetland. [Note: it �ar�,r ,rub.reguently deter�nined that 1�etland 1�G �arc�.r previou.rly impacted by the Divi.rion 1 project. Table 4 of tbe handout �ara.r updated to shaav na impact to thi.r avetland and total avetland i�npact.r zvere adjustecl accordin�.J • Ms. Britringham stated there are Section 404 wetlands that are not classified as CAMA wetlands, but all CAMA wetlands are also Section 404 wetlands. It was noted the impacts to non-CAMA Section 404 wetlands is appro�mately 1.5 acres. For the purpose of the CAMA permit application, Ms. Brittingham said surface waters, CAMA wetlands, and non-CAMA Section 404 wedands should be broken out separately�. • Ms. Brittingham asked NCDOT to coordinate with the subconsultant that performed the initial AEC determination before the field meeting to see if they have any records of communication with the NCDCM field representative related to verification of the AEC determination. 3 Additional Avoidance and Minimization Measures • Ms. Brittingham said additional avoidance and minimization measures should be considered in CAMA AECs. For example, use of 2:1 or 1.5:1 slide slopes with reinforced geogrid, or sheet piling. She said reinforced geogrid slopes were used on the second bridge to Oak Island at Davis Canal (STIP No. R-2245). • Ms. Brittingham asked why the avoidance and minimization measures related to design standards in sensitive watersheds and the in-water work moratorium had been removed from the original meeting handout provided to the merger team. She said she was fine with the removal of the design standards in sensitive watersheds, but questioned why the other measure was removed. • It was discussed that NCDOT's typical period for the in-water work moratorium was from April 1 to September 30, as opposed to the February 15 through September 30 period requested by NCDMF. Mr. Staples added the moratorium requested by NCDMF depends on the type of in- water work being performed, as well as whether or not SAV is present. In areas where SAV is present, the in-water work moratorium may need to be extended, but a moratorium may not be needed at all if no SAV is present. Also, the depth of the water in the work area is a factor. If the water is approximately two to three feet deep, SAV is more likely to be present. Mr. Lovering said the in-water work would probably just consist of rip-rap placement. It was determined the potential in-water work moratorium would be further discussed during the upcoming field meeting, and the measure could potentially be deferred until Concurrence Point 4B. • Ms. Wheeler asked NCDOT to provide the merger team with informarion on how much the wetland impact is able to be minimized using the alternative methods discussed, such as using 1.5:1 or 2:1 slopes, sheetpile, or rip-rap, prior to the field meeting. She noted any reductions achieved are important in high quality CAMA coastal wetlands. • Mr. Lovering said he needs to have further internal discussions before NCDOT can commit to using some of these alternative methods. Rip-rap may actually be a more preferred method for this project. Mr. Lovering said he does not want to commit to shoring as a way to further reduce wetland and SAV impacts at this time. NCDOT will look at the design modifications discussed to determine the potential amount of impact reduction. However, he does not expect substantial reductions because of the low fill heights. • Ms. Brittingham asked if the proposed footprint could be further reduced along the remainder of the project corridor, similar to the proposed cross-secrion to the west of Colington Drive. Mr. McInnis responded the proposed typical section is narrower to the west of Colington Drive because traffic volumes are substantially less on this section. The wider cross-section is needed to the east of Colington Drive for traffic operations and safery purposes because of the additional traffic. Ms. Brittingham suggested adding this as an additional explanarion as to why the project footprint cannot be reduced to the east of Colington Drive. • Ms. Brittingham said NCDCM could do further research on what techniques would be preferable in SAV areas to reduce impacts if impacts are unavoidable. For example, based on the nature of the SAV impacts, would sheetpile be preferable to rip-rap or stabilized fill? It was discussed that usually the agencies require avoidance of SAV areas, or at a minimum bridging. General Comments • The suggestion was made to revise the purpose and need statement to include safety. � • In response to a question from Ms. Wheeler, it was explained that Blount Bay is not a Primary Nursery Area (PNA), but part of it is a Special Secondary Nursery Area. Ms. Britringham said based on the CAMA AEC impacts, she wants to have an on-site merger team meeting before NCDCM concurs on CP 4A. Mr. Staples and Cynthia van der Wiele agreed there should be an on-site meeting. The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred on a No Adverse Effect determination for the Wright Brothers Memorial properry. FHWA intends to use HPO's concurrence as a basis for a de �ninimi.r finding for the Memorial property under Section 4(�. Ms. Brittingham noted HPO will comment on the CAMA permit application. The National Park Service appears to be agreeable with the current preliminary design, but no agYeement has been Yeached and coordination is ongoing. • Ms. Wheeler said even though it appears impacts to the Colington Cut mitigation site (Figure 2C) can be avoided, she would like to look at the condition of the site during the field meeting and discuss how any potential impacts would be handled. She said the site was not accepted by USACE as suitable mitigation because there was a phragmites infestation. ACTION ITEMS NCDOT NES will re-verify the appropriate biological conclusion for protected species based on USFWS's feedback. 2. NCDOT will investigate the potential preliminary design modifications discussed in order to attempt to eliminate impacts to SAV and further minimize wetland impacts. Prior to the field meeting, NCDOT will provide the merger team with information on the potential amount of wedand and SAV impact reductions. 3. NCDCM will further research what techniques would be preferable in SAV areas to reduce impacts if impacts are unavoidable. 4. NCDOT will add information on locations where the proposed improvements were designed to avoid or minimize wetland impacts, as well as on locations where the decision was made to not implement improvements in order to avoid additional wetland impacts, to the avoidance and minimization measures section of the handout and CP 4A concurrence form. 5. NCDOT will contact the subconsultant that performed the initial AEC determination to obtain any records of communication with the NCDCM field representative related to verification of the AEC determination. 6. NCDOT will add information to the meeting handout indicating the proposed typical section is narrower to the west of Colington Drive because traffic volumes are substantially less on this section, and that the wider cross-section is needed for traffic operations and safety purposes to the east of Colington Drive because of the additional traffic. 7. After the above information is gathered and updated, prior to the field meeting, the handout package will be edited and made available to the merger team. 8. NCDOT will coordinate with the merger team to schedule the field meeting. cc: file 2014062.02 Meeting Participants Renee Gledhill-Earley, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)