Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201515_Meeting Minutes_20080522 r NC 87 IMPROVEMENTS (TIP NO. R-2561) NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING Stantec CONCURRENCE POINT NO.2 Meeting Date: May 22, 2008 Place/Time: NCDOT Board Room, Raleigh 10:30 am Attendees: Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency Rob Ridings, NC Division of Water Quality Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission Terry Gibson, NCDOT Division 6 Tracey Pittman, NCDOT Division 6 Jim Rerko, NCDOT Division 6 Nadia AI-Dhalimy, NCDOT Geotechnical Unit Mohammed Mulla, NCDOT Geotechnical Unit Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT Office of Human Environment Cheryl Hannah, NCDOT Office of Human Environment Tris Ford, NCDOT Office of Human Environment Caleb Smith, NCDOT Office of Human Environment Jerry Snead, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit Rob Hanson, NCDOT PD & EA Branch Leon Hussey, NCDOT PD & EA Branch Kim Gillespie, NCDOT PD & EA Branch Rob Hanson, NCDOT PD & EA Branch Jay McInnis, NCDOT PD & EA Branch Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment Amy James, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit Nya Boayue, NCDOT Roadway Design Branch James Speer, NCDOT Roadway Design Branch Omar Azizi, NCDOT Structure Design Unit Thomas Stoddard, NCDOT TIP Development Unit James Upchurch, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch David Wasserman, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Don Eggert, Cape Fear RPO Joel Strickland, Mid-Carolina RPO Donna Dancausse, Federal Highway Administration Andrea Dvorak-Grantz, Stantec Paul Koch, Stantec Amy Sackaroff, Stantec Distribution: Attendees Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC Department of Cultural Resources PURPOSE OF MEETING: To obtain concurrence on alternatives to be studied in detail (Concurrence Point 2). MAY 22, 2008 MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 5 Reference: NC 87 Improvements - Concurrence Point 2 ITEMS OF DISCUSSION: The following paragraphs summarize the discussion and decisions resulting from this meeting: The meeting opened with a brief introduction by Kim Gillespie who then turned the meeting over to Paul Koch. Mr. Koch presented a slideshow that detailed project information including the project's purpose & need and status. Mr. Koch reviewed the preliminary build alternatives, which include: 1) widening existing NC 87 from the Elizabethtown Bypass to US 74-76; and, 2) widening existing NC 87 from the Elizabethtown Bypass to NC 11 west of Riegelwood then widening NC 11 to US 74-76. He noted that, because of this approach, a large portion of the project is common to both preliminary build alternatives. [Later, Mr. Koch briefly discussed a third design option that was studied after it was suggested at the First Citizens Informational Workshop. This option included a new location section from NC 87 to US 74-76 west of NC 11. This option was subsequently eliminated from future study after a preliminary traffic analysis determined that it would not alleviate traffic issues in the Riegelwood area.] PROJECT SECTIONS: Mr. Koch described the methodology for the examination of design options. The project was divided into 22 sections and both east and west side widening were examined along existing NC 87 and NC 11. Mr. Koch noted the sections vary in length and were developed to group areas with potential impacts and to create breaks at logical transition points (i.e. points with curves in the existing road where the preliminary build alternatives' designs could more easily transition from east to west or west to east). Mr. Koch also noted that the impact summary table included in the original information package had been revised. An updated table was distributed to meeting attendees. Mr. Koch also noted that the revised table identifies sections where widening to one side versus the other would create less total impacts consistently in each category (i.e., streams, wetlands, relocations, and right-of-way). Mr. Koch explained that the methodology for the meeting would be to review each section and discuss which design options (east, west, or both) would be retained for each section. The meeting progressed into a discussion of the 22 widening sections. For each section, Mr. Koch detailed the potential impacts and displayed slides of each widening option before opening the discussion for comments. - Section 1: Mr. Koch stated that the east side would be better from a construction standpoint, noting that it would more easily align with the end of the Elizabethtown Bypass. It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section, as impacts from each widening option were approximately equal. - Section 2: It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section because it would affect less homes than the western option. - Section 3: Mr. Koch noted that the eastern side has less likely impacts. It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section. - Section 4: Mr. Koch noted that the eastern side has less likely impacts. It was agreed StanteC that the eastern option would be retained for this section. - Section 5: Mr. Koch noted that the eastern side has less likely impacts. It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section. MAY 22, 2008 MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 5 Reference: NC 87 Improvements - Concurrence Point 2 - Section 6: In response to a question asked by Mr. Militscher, Jay McInnis stated that a symmetrical option could be considered for this section. Both the eastern and western options were retained for this section. It was also requested that the wetland impact quantities shown in the table be checked. [Wetland impact quantities for Section 6 were checked and resulted in the addition of 1.17 acres of wetland impacts to the eastern option for Section 5, the addition of 0.71 acres of wetland impacts to the eastern option of Section 6, the subtraction of 0.92 acres of wetland impacts to the western option of Section 5, and the addition of 0.92 acres of wetland impacts to the western option of Section 6. These revised quantities are shown in the attached tables. It is noted that the eastern option for Section 5 still has less likely impacts than the western option.] - Section 7: It was agreed that both eastern and western options would be retained for this section. - Section 8: Mr. Koch noted that the eastern side has less likely impacts. It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section. - Section 9: It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section. It was requested that the church and cemetery impacts shown in the table be checked. [Impact quantities were revised to show that there are no church or cemetery impacts associated with the western option for Section 9 and that there is one church and one cemetery impact associated with the western option for Section 10.] - Section 10: Mr. Koch noted that the eastern option has less likely impacts. It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section. - Section 11: It was agreed that both eastern and western options would be retained for this section. - Section 12: Mr. Militscher requested that both widening options be retained, noting the eastern option's potential to affect bus traffic and traffic circulation at East Arcadia Elementary School. It was agreed that both the eastern and western options would be retained for this section. - Section 13: Mr. Koch noted that the eastern option has less likely impacts. It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section. - Section 14: The Merger Team initially discussed selecting the western option this section. During the discussion, Mr. Wilson asked if shifting from the east to west to east for Sections 13, 14, and 15 would be feasible from a design standpoint. Jim Speer responded that it was feasible. Mr. Hanson noted construction cost would likely be higher if the alignment shifts from one side to the other. It was then agreed that both the eastern and western options would be retained for this section. - Section 15: It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section because it has less likely impacts to wetlands and streams. It has one more relocation Stantec than the western option, but there is potential for this number to be reduced. - Section 16: It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section due to the higher number of relocations associated with the western option. MAY 22, 2008 MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 5 Reference: NC 87 Improvements - Concurrence Point 2 - Section IT Mr. Hanson asked if either of the options could be eliminated based on public involvement. Don Eggert noted that the County would prefer the eastern option because they've received a grant to upgrade the park on the western side. It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section. - Section 18: It was agreed that the western option would be retained for this section given its considerably lower amount of stream impacts. - Section 19: It was agreed that both design options would be retained for this section. - Section 20: It was agreed that both design options would be retained for this section. - Section 21: It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section given its lower wetland impacts and relocations. - Section 22: It was agreed that the eastern option would be retained for this section given its lower wetland impacts, stream impacts, and relocations. GENERAL DISCUSSION: In addition to commenting on the widening sections, general observations were made and questions asked about the project throughout the discussion. - Mr. Militscher noted the large amount of farmland within the project study area and potential access issues widening would create for farmers. Mr. Koch stated that this was brought up by the public during the first Citizens Informational Workshops. Access needs for farmers will be investigated as project development continues. - In response to a question asked by Mr. Militscher, Mary Pope Furr stated that a historic architecture survey had not been conducted for the project and that the slideshow displayed available GIS data. Mr. McInnis stated that the design options would be revisited if new information is found during the historic architecture surveys. - In response to a question asked by Dewayne Sykes, Mr. Koch stated that the bridge sufficiency ratings were not included in the presentation materials, but that the proposed right-of-way is wide enough to allow for bridge replacements if necessary. - In response to a question asked by Mr. Militscher, Mr. Koch stated that no improvements are programmed for NC 11 separate from the NC 87 Improvements project. - In response to a question asked by Mr. Militscher regarding the proposed interchange sizes, Mr. Koch responded that the interchange designs at US 74-76 are designed to freeway standards and that the proposed interchanges for NC 87 and NC 11 were designed to accommodate the area's truck traffic. Mr. Koch stated that this is the largest area of turning movements and superstreet intersections are not optimal for these movements. Mr. Militscher responded by asking if there are options to minimize the interchange footprint, to which Mr. Koch stated that this would be studied during preliminary design. In response to Mr. Militscher asking if a clover leaf configuration ${an{ec would be feasible, Mr. Koch noted that a clover leaf interchange would create a larger footprint than the proposed interchange design. MAY 22, 2008 MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 5 Reference: NC 87 Improvements - Concurrence Point 2 - In response to a question asked by Travis Wilson regarding the project's schedule, Rob Hanson listed upcoming project items including the development of preliminary designs, hydraulic analysis, and a field meeting for Concurrence Point 2A, summarizing that these activities would likely be accomplished within approximately the next seven months. - Mr. Militscher stated that he would like to view the high quality wetland and stream systems of the project study area. - Mr. Militscher noted absentee Merger Team members (USACE, USFWS, SHPO) and requested that NCDOT follow-up with these team members. - Mr. Militscher asked about access control for the proposed project and right-of-way width. Mr. Koch responded that the project is being designed as partial access control, which is one right-in/right-out driveway access per parcel and is designated as an Expressway as part of the NC Strategic Highway Corridors program. Mr. Koch also stated that the proposed right-of-way is between 200 and 250 feet. In response to a follow-up question by Mr. Militscher regarding the proposed 46-foot median width and the potential for guardrail use, Mr. McInnis stated that the width is typical for rural expressways and that guardrail is normally used in freeway design. Mr. McInnis stated the Riegelwood area would have a narrower median width of 23 feet. CONCLUSIONS: The meeting concluded with the Merger Team agreeing on the design options to be carried forward for detailed study as shown above. The concurrence form was circulated and signed by all team members present. A copy of the concurrence form is attached to this summary. ACTION ITEMS: Stantec to re-examine wetland impact quantities shown in the revised table for Section 6 and church and cemetery impacts for Section 9. See revised tables (attached). CORRECTIONS & OMISSIONS: This summary is the writer's interpretation of the events, discussions, and transactions that took place during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or corrections please inform Kim Gillespie at 733-7844 ext. 247 or klgillespie@ncdot.gov within seven days. Paul R. Koch, PE Project Manager paul.koch@stantee.com P R K/acs cc: File Stardim Attachments NEPA1404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT Concurrence Point No. 2: Design Options for Detailed Study PROJECT NO./TIP NO./ NAME/DESCRIPTION: Federal Aid Project Number: NA State Project Number: WBS Element 34466.4.1 TIP Project Number: R-2561 t TIP Description: NC 87 Improvements from US 14-76 to NC 87 Bypass (Elizabethtown Bypass), Columbus and Bladen Counties The Project Team concurred on this date of May 22, 2008 that the following sections, as shown in the CP2 meeting handout (May 2008) be carried forward for detailed study. SECTIONS COMMON TO BOTH NC 87 AND NC 87/NC 11 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES Section 1 East Ubvil; Section 9 East 44"* Section 2 East IMM16 Section 10 East Wwl Section 3 East a11e!!~ Section 11 ' East West Section 4 East AGoe~ Section 12 East West Section 5 East 4 0MKk Section 13 East 40M Section 6 East West Section 14 East West Section 7 East West Section 15 East *VW Section 8 East AlIkeir. SECTIONS SPECIFIC TO NC 87 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVE ONLY Section 16 East ~IMet!! Section 17 East 11~1ee4Section 18 AieeM? West SECTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE NC 87/NC 11 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVE ONLY Section 19 East West Section 20 East West Section 21 East WNW Section 22 East 1dAft US Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency CL" US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC Department of Cultural Resources NCDENR, Division of Water Quality / NC Department of Transportation w~.. CX . l?~~-<-e NC 87 East and West Alternatives Revised June 1, 2008 WETLANDS STREAMS RELOCATIONS ALTERNATIVE WILL REQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM Section National Sections Highway Length Wetlands (ac) Streams (ft) Home Business Historic Park Church Cemetery School (mi) Prop SECTIONS COMMON TO BOTH NC 87 AND NC 87/NC 11 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES 1 East NC 87 0.80 6 1 1 West NC 87 0.80 7 2 East NC 87 5.87 6.59 997 4 2 West NC 87 5.87 11.77 988 11 1 3 East NC 87 0.98 0.30 195 3 West NC 87 0.98 0.41 287 4 East NC 87 1.29 0.80 250 1 4 West NC 87 1.29 1.30 465 2 1 5 East NC 87 0.94 1.44 125 2 5 West NC 87 0.94 2.13 304 4 6 East NC 87 1.09 2.79 6 West NC 87 1.09 1.85 1 7 East NC 87 1.18 2.84 683 7 West NC 87 1.18 1.88 115 2 8 East NC 87 1.93 2.08 240 1 0 8 West NC 87 1.93 2.22 1,038 1 9 East NC 87 0.62 1 1 9 West NC 87 0.62 0.01 0 0 10 East NC 87 0.98 0.24 425 1 10 West NC 87 0.98 0.30 519 1 1 1 11 East NC 87 1.33 0.97 185 4 11 West NC 87 1.33 0.13 8 12 East NC 87 3.20 0.71 1,150 3 1 12 West NC 87 3.20 3.61 1,463 4 13 East NC 87 1.88 0.65 3 13 West NC 87 1.88 1.00 89 10 14 East NC 87 1.47 1.39 531 9 14 West NC 87 1.47 2.00 142 5 15 East NC 87 1.18 3.37 500 15 15 West NC 87 1.18 3.86 789 14 East Subtotal 24 74 24.17 5,281 50 1 1 1 West Subtotal 32.47 6,199 69 1 1 1 1 1 SECTIONS SPECIFIC TO NC 87 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVE ONLY 16 East NC 87 2.23 1.65 140 8 16 West NC 87 2.23 0.28 155 15 17 East NC 87 1.59 0.11 210 6 2 1 17 West NC 87 1.59 0.13 102 9 2 1 1 1 18 East NC 87 2.14 1.83 1,265 6 1 18 West NC 87 2.14 1.89 525 6 East Subtotal 5.96 3.59 1,615 20 2 2 West Subtotal 2.30 782 30 2 1 1 1 * Impact quantities are based on the proposed right-of-way for each preliminary build alternative. Where applicable, sections with less likely impacts are identified in italics. Shaded cells denote corrected quantities. NC 87 / NC 11 East and West Alternatives Revised June 1, 2008 WETLANDS STREAMS RELOCATIONS ALTERNATIVE WILL REQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM Section National Sections Highway Length Wetlands (ac) Streams (ft) Home Business Historic Park Church Cemetery School (mi) Prop SECTIONS COMMON TO BOTH NC 87 AND NC 87/NC 11 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES 1 East NC 87 0.80 6 1 1 West NC 87 0.80 7 2 East NC 87 5.87 6.59 997 4 2 West NC 87 5.87 11.77 988 11 1 3 East NC 87 0.98 0.30 195 3 West NC 87 0.98 0.41 287 4 East NC 87 1.29 0.80 250 1 4 West NC 87 1.29 1.30 465 2 1 5 East NC 87 0.94 1.44 125 2 5 West NC 87 0.94 2.13 304 4 6 East NC 87 1.09 2.79 6 West NC 87 1.09 1.85 1 7 East NC 87 1.18 2.84 683 7 West NC 87 1.18 1.88 115 2 8 East NC 87 1.93 2.08 240 1 0 8 West NC 87 1.93 2.22 1,038 1 9 East NC 87 0.62 1 1 9 West NC 87 0.62 0.01 0 0 10 East NC 87 0.98 0.24 425 1 10 West NC 87 0.98 0.30 519 1 1 1 11 East NC 87 1.33 0.97 185 4 11 West NC 87 1.33 0.13 8 12 East NC 87 3.20 0.71 1,150 3 1 12 West NC 87 3.20 3.61 1,463 4 13 East NC 87 1.88 0.65 3 13 West NC 87 1.88 1.00 89 10 14 East NC 87 1.47 1.39 531 9 14 West NC 87 1.47 2.00 142 5 15 East NC 87 1.18 3.37 500 15 15 West NC 87 1.18 3.86 789 14 East Subtotal 24.17 5,281 50 1 1 1 West Subtotal 24.74 32.47 6,199 69 1 1 1 1 1 SECTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE NC 87/NC 11 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVE ONLY 19 East NC 11 0.92 2.54 1,013 13 19 West NC 11 0.92 3.33 750 13 20 East NC 11 1.17 265 2 1 20 West NC 11 1.17 0.01 135 3 21 East NC 11 0.97 756 7 21 West NC 11 0.97 0.92 756 10 22 East NC 11 1.78 3.29 1,711 15 1 22 West NC 11 1.78 7.06 2,014 17 1 East Subtotal 4.84 5.84 3,745 37 2 West Subtotal 11.33 3,655 43 1 Impact quantities are based on the proposed right-of-way for each preliminary build alternative. Where applicable, sections with less likely impacts are identified in italics. Shaded cells denote corrected quantities.