Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191006_Meeting Minutes_20080513 T~z~-~,cll URS MEMORANDUM To: Concurrence Point 2A/4A Merger Meeting Attendees From: Peter Trencansky, PE Project Engineer Date: May 13, 2008 Subject: Meeting Minutes to 2A/4A Meeting I-40/I-77 Interchange Improvements Project No. I-3819 WBS No. 34192.1.2 Federal Aid No. IMS-40-2 Attendees: Kathy Matthews - United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Steve Lund - US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) David Wainwright - North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Marella Buncick - United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Marla Chambers - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) Renee Gledhill-Earley - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Jill Stark - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Ron Lucas - FHWA Teresa Hart, PE - North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Project Development and Environmental Analysis (PDEA) Undrea Major - NCDOT, PDEA James Bridges, PE - NCDOT, PDEA Kristina Solberg - NCDOT, PDEA Erin Cheely - NCDOT, PDEA Carla Dagnino - NCDOT, PDEA Dan Grissom - NCDOT, Division 12 M.L. Holder - NCDOT, Division 12 Michael Orr - NCDOT, Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) David Keilson - NCDOT, TPB Marshall Clawson, PE - NCDOT, Hydraulics Unit Robert J. Stroup, PE - NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit Clayton Walston - NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit Karen McCauley, PE - NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit Herb Turner - KO & Associates David Waller - KO & Associates Peter Trencansky, PE - URS Corporation Joanna Harrington - URS Corporation A Concurrence Point 2A/4A meeting was held on May 13, 2008 in the NCDOT Transportation Building boardroom at 1:00 pm. The primary purpose of this meeting was to achieve Merger Project Team Concurrence on Points 2A (Bridging and Alignment Review) and 4A (Avoidance and URS Corporation - North Carolina 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400 Morrisville, NC 27560 Tel: 919.46 1.1100 Fax: 919.461.1415 TTRS Concurrence Point 2A/4A May 13, 2008 Page 2 Minimization) for the proposed I-40/1-77 Interchange improvements. The meeting was the first merger meeting of this project. Undrea Major of NCDOT began the meeting by starting introductions and explaining the purpose of the meeting. He then turned the presentation over to Peter Trencansky of URS Corporation. Mr. Trencansky began the presentation by giving a brief history of the project. The design of the project has changed since the signing of the EA in 2006 due to the raising of the grade along 1-40 to elevate the roadway above the 100-year flood elevation. Mr. Trencansky explained the purpose and need of the project, which is heavily concentrated on traffic deficiencies. Safety is also an issue, as there are closely spaced interchange and multiple weaving movements due to the cloverleaf interchange, wrong-way entries onto the interstate, and fatal accidents. Mr. Trencansky explained the range of alternatives that were considered for the project, including several wetland avoidance alternatives that were evaluated due to the high quality system in the southwestern quadrant of the interchange. The two detailed study alternatives were the four-level turbine interchange and the four-level offset interchange, with the four-level offset alternative being selected as the recommended alternative. Renee Gledhill-Earley of SHPO asked about the service road located to the north of the I-40/I-77 interchange in the northeastern area of the project. Marla Chambers of WRC stated that there may be secondary and cumulative impacts to the stream and wetland in this area due to attracting development. Kathy Mathews of the EPA also felt there was concern for indirect and cumulative impacts because it will cause the property owner to have to cross the wetland to gain access to the service road. Mr. Trencansky explained that there is no additional access to this area due to the service road, and the road will actually be farther from the interstate, probably making it less desirable for development. Ms. Chambers stated that there needs to be further evaluation of the area to determine if there can be less of an impact, and David Wainwright of DWQ stated that it will be difficult to get this project permitted since the service road deadends at a wetland. It was decided that the impacts associated with the service road would be discussed in more detailed later in the meeting. Mr. Trencansky then went over the impacts to each resource ID identified in the hydraulic table and attached maps. He explained that the impacts to streams and wetlands have increased from the EA impacts due to the new NCDOT directive to calculate impacts based on a 25-foot buffer from the slope stakes line as opposed to the 10-foot buffer used for the EA. He explained that Wetland 15, with a 92 rating, is the highest quality system in the project study area. The area has been bridged as much as design would allow, and impacts have increased slightly since the EA due to the raising of the I-40 and 1-77 grades. He also explained that all bridges in this area span the entire floodway. Mr. Trencansky explained that the stream that feeds Wetland 15 is impacted and will be relocated outside of the fill slope. Ms. Mathews asked where the stream location would be, because she is concerned that the relocation could drain the wetland. Marshall Clawson of NCDOT explained that the relocation would be at the same elevation, just moved over. Mr. Trencansky added that this would be analyzed more at Concurrence Point 4B. Steve Lund of the USACE asked about the total impacts of this wetland, and Mr. Trencansky noted that the impacts total 2.41 acres. Erin Cheely of NCDOT asked Mr. Trencansky if the impacts at site 23 could change due to the culvert planned at this site, and Mr. Trencansky stated that impacts are probably already encapsulated due to the 25-foot buffer. Mr. Trencansky stated that sites 9 through 11 will span the entire floodway, and site 25 only has 2 square Me Concurrence Point 2A/4A May 13, 2008 Page 3 feet of impact. These impacts may be avoided during final design. Mr. Trencansky then discussed site 14. During the initial phase of construction, a "flyunder" will be constructed. The current plan is to bring US 21 traffic north and have a connection to the flyunder to separate traffic to US 21 from the interstate traffic. This will maximize safety and traffic operations. This design will probably have an impact on the entire wetland at site 14, as well as the stream. Figure 10 shows a change in design that will be made to make the impacts of the final design consistent with the design and impacts from the preliminary design. There will be further avoidance and minimization once the design revision takes place, which will probably reduce the impacts from 1,470 linear feet to approximately 1,000 linear feet. Ms. Chambers asked about lane widening. Mr. Trencansky explained that I-40 and 1-77 will be going from 4 lanes to B lanes, with this widening attributing to most of the impacts to streams and wetlands. Mr. Trencansky stated that Figure 9 includes impacts not included in the EA (Tributary to Gregory Creek). This will probably be a short extension of a culvert. Mr. Trencansky noted that concerns among agency members at this meeting seem to be more about avoidance and minimization. The bridge lengths will probably not change. Therefore, he suggested that the team agree that Conncurrence Point 2A has been accomplished and continue with a more in-depth discussion of avoidance and minimization, to try and reach concurrence. Mr. Major addressed site 21 at the service road, which was discussed earlier in the meeting, and the hearing map was projected on the screen. Ms. Mathews addressed concern for areas that are labeled as stream relocation that are actually culverts, specifically at site 19. This area is also a 303(d) watershed, and stressed that there needs to be innovative stormwater control so that water quality issues will not be significant. Mr. Wainwright agreed that the water quality must not get worse, and a more detailed discussion needs to be held at Concurrence Points 4B and 4C. Jill Stark with FHWA asked if the stream at site 14 was a candidate for a retaining wall. Mr. Trencansky explained that due to the new design on Figure 10, the crossing will be relatively perpendicular. This eliminates a parallel impact, so a retaining wall would not work. The discussion returned to the service road on Figure 8. Ron Lucas of FHWA proposed that the service road be lengthened to reach the southwestern parcel. Then the property would not be forced to cross the wetland. Mr. Clawson stated that this could increase stream impacts. Ms. Mathews asked if there needed to be paved access to the parcel. Mr. Trencansky stated that the need for access is based on history and coordination with the property owner. It was suggested that the proposed alignment of the service road be shifted north, and Mr. Trencansky stated that there may need to be a small group meeting with the property owners if the access is revised. Ms. Chambers stressed that NCDOT needs to take responsibility for the wetland in this area, and consider redesigning or moving the service road. James Bridges of NCDOT asked the team if there was agreement to have NCDOT Roadway Design workup a revision north of the current design location for the service road. Dan Grissom suggested cutting off access and paying for the property. Mr. Trencansky stated that it would be worth it for NCDOT to find out the price of the property, as it may be more expensive to go this route. Mike URS Concurrence Point 2A/4A May 13, 2008 Page 4 Holder of NCDOT explained that it may be more effective to buy the property, since a developer will most likely buy the property back and not want a service road at that location. He also suggested that providing access on the west side of the wetland, as opposed to the east side, would allow the wetland to be bridged. The road would then turn south before the stream, eliminating any stream impacts, and the wetland would be bridged at its narrowest point. It was agreed that there would be concurrence on avoidance and minimization if a commitment was added to the signature sheet in reference to the service road site. Therefore, a commitment to present the best option at this site at the Concurrence 4B meeting was included in the concurrence signature sheet as follows: • Resource ID 21 will be evaluated to further minimize impacts including studying relocating the service road to the north, to the south (including bridging the wetland) or purchasing the affected property. The concurrence form for points 2A and 4A were then signed by all Merger Team members, with the exception of Renee Gledhill-Earley who had to leave the meeting early. NCDOT will coordinate with Ms. Gledhill-Earley to attain her signature on the concurrence form. The meeting was then adjourned.