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.