CP2A meeting minutes (2)

e;
;.:;.
Transportatlon
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ATTENDEES
PAT McCRORY
Governa�
N[CHOLAS J. TENNYSON
Secretary
March 4, 2016
Meeting Participants/ Invitees �
Joseph Miller, P.E. �
Project Planning Engincer
January 26, 2016, Concurrence P'4�t 2A Meeting for US 158 (Shortcut Road),
fi•om east of NC 34 (Shawboro Road) at Belcross to NC 168 (Caratoke Highway),
Cainden- Currituck Counties, TIP Project R-2574
NAME
Tracey Wheeler
Cynthia Van Der Wiele
Gary Jordan
Garcy Ward
Travis Wilson
Shane Staples
Joseph Miller
Jay McInnis (phone)
Mack Bailey (phone)
Tyler Stanton
Chris Rivenbark
Shawn Mebane
Craig Freeman
Nishant Shah
Trent Cormier
Mark Reep
INTRODUCTION
UNIT/REPRESENTING
USACE
USEPA
USFWS
NCDWR
NCWRC
DCM
NCDOT — PDEA
NCDOT — PDEA
NCDOT — SMU
NCDOT — NES
NCDOT - NES
NCDOT - Division 1
NCDOT — Hydraulics
NCDOT — Hydraulics
ICA Engineering (HDR � ICA)
ICA Engineering (HDR � ICA)
Ema�L
tracey.l.wheeler cr,usace.army.mil
vanderwiele.c n�(n�epa. o�v
�arx jordan cr f'ws.gov
garc .�rd�ncdenr.�
travis.wilson(cr�,ncwildlife.org
shane.staples cr,ncdenr.gov
josephmiller�,ncdot. o�v
jmcinnis(a�ncdot.gov
mbaile�2�ncdot. o�v
tstanton�ncdot.gov
crivenbarkn,ncdot. gov
cmebane(a�ncdot.gov
cafreeman2(cr�,ncdot. o�v
nmshah 1(a�ncdot. gov
trent.cormier�hdrinc.com
mark.ree�a,hdrinc.com
A Concurrencc Point 2A (CP 2A) Meeting was held on January 26, 2016 at the NC Cooperative
Extension office in the Currituck County Center in Barco. It was followed by a field review of the
project site. Joseph Miller (NCDOT — PDEA) opened the meeting by welcoming attendees. A
merger package containing project information was tnade available by email prior to the meeting,
and hard copies were available at the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to review
preliminary aligtunents and bridging decisions.
�Nothing Compares��_
State of North Carolina � Department of Transpu�7ation � Project Development and Cnvironmental Analysis
I000 [3irch Ridge Drive � 1548 Mail Service Cenier � 2aleigh, NC 276)9-1548
919-707-6000

REVIEW OF ALIGNMENTS AND BRIDGING DECISIONS
The meeting began with a review of the detailed study alternatives and their preliminary impacts.
These include north side, south side, or best fit widening alternatives within six sections of the
project as shown in Tables 1 and 2 of the handout. Major topics discussed within each section of
the project are described below.
Section 1 (South side widening)
• South side widening is expected to require one relocation and no streams, wetlands, or
surface waters. No other comments were offered for Section 1.
Section 2 (Best fit widening)
• Tracey Wheeler (USACE) commented that the Section 2 information presented in Table 2
of the printed handout had been revised since the handout was emailed to the Merger Team
before the meeting. She commented that the Merger Team should be notiiied of all
information updates prior to meetings. The handout originally showed impact numbers for
both north side and best fit alternatives. However, the merger team had agreed to best ft
widening at CP 2 so the handout was revised to show impacts for one best fit alignment in
Section 2.
• The best fit widening has a common alignment from Section 1 near SR 1204 (Whitehurst
Lane) to Bridge #1 over Run Swamp Canal (Site 1). From Bridge #1 to east of Bridge #9
over Run Swamp Canal (Site 2), the alignment transitions to either north side widening or
best fit widening in Section 3.
• Best fit widening is expected to require one relocation, 10.8 acres of wetlands, and 3.7
acres of surface waters and no streams.
• Bridge #1 (Site 1) over Run Swamp Canal is 45 feet long. At the meeting, NCDOT
proposed this bridge be replaced by dual bridges 90 feet long.
• Bridge #9 (Site 2) over Run Swamp Canal is 70 feet long. At the meeting, NCDOT
proposed this bridge be replaced by dual bridges 110 feet long.
Section 3(North side or Best iit widening)
• North side widening is expected to require 13 relocations, 0.64 acre of Great Swamp
Natural Heritage Area, 0.1 acre of wetlands, and 1.0 acre of surface waters.
• Best iit widening is expected to require 10 relocations, 0.63 acre of Great Swamp Natural
Heritage Area, 0.3 acre of wetlands, and 0.7 acre of surface waters.
• A corrugated metal pipe (CMP) arch exists at Site 3(Drainage Canal #1). This is proposed
to be replaced by a reinforced concrete box culvert.
• Site 3 stream impacts presented in Table 3 are 276 feet for north side widening and 336
feet for south side widening. These do not match the impacts shown in Table 2. [After the
meeting, the Table 3 stream lengths were confirmed to be the total lengths within the
preliminary footprint (25 feet beyond the slope stakes), and include the lengths within the
existing culvert. The Table 2 values will be updated.]
• Tracey Wheeler asked whether other blue line streams shown on Figure 1B require
structures at least 72-inches in diameter. NCDOT representatives noted these locations
require smaller structures.
• Cynthia Van Der Wiele (EPA) noted that refinements in other locations could identify
further minimization of impacts. Jay McInnis (NCDOT — PDEA) commented that during
public involvement, property owners will likely request NCDOT to consider refinements
R-2574 CP 2A Meeting Minutes 2

to minimize impacts. He suggested that further refinements should be addressed during
the future CP 4A meeting, and the Merger Team agreed.
NCDOT believes best fit widening is mare desirable in Section 3 to reduce relocations.
NCDOT asked if the Merger Team would agree to eliminate north side widening. The
Merger Team did not object to removing north side widening from the detailed study
alternatives in Section 3.
Section 4 (South side widening)
• This section passes through Great Swamp, North River Game Land, and Great Swamp
Natural Heritage Area.
• South side widening is expected to require no relocations, 41.8 acres of Great Swamp
Natural Heritage Area, 9.0 acres of North River Game Land, 19.3 acres of wetlands, no
streams, and 14.2 acres of surface waters.
• Three CMP's at Sites 4A, 4B, and 4C are proposed to be retained and extended. These are
equalizer pipes, and there is no distinct channel. The existing pipe sizes meet the hydraulic
design opening requirements.
• Cynthia Van Der Wiele questioned whether the existing pipes would be sufficient to handle
future hurricane events and climate change issues. NCDOT representatives noted that the
preliminary hydraulic analysis indicates that the existing pipes are sufiicient to
accommodate a 100 year flood event. Based on input from Division 1 staff, there is no
history of US 158 flooding in this area.
• Travis Wilson (NCWRC) and Gary Jordan (USFWS) noted that US 158 is a barrier across
the Great Swamp. In North Carolina, the highest incidents of vehicles striking black bears
occur on US 158 in the project area and near Coinjock. They requested the project include
options to increase permeability for wildlife passage within the Great Swamp. More
specific options would be discussed during the field review.
• Travis Wilson also noted that U-turn locations should be removed within the limits of the
Great Swamp.
Section 5 (South side widening)
• South side widening is expected to require five relocations, less than 0.1 acre of North
River Game Land, 0.1 acre of wetlands, 156 feet of stream, and 0.1 acre of surface waters.
• No other comments were offered for Section 5.
Section 6(South side and Best fit widening)
• South side widening is expected to require 23 relocations, 0.3 acre of wetlands, no streams,
and 0.4 acre of surface waters.
• Best fit widening is expected to require 18 relocations, 0.4 acre of wetlands, no streams,
and 0.6 acre of surface waters.
• NCDOT believes best fit widening is more desirable in this area to reduce relocations.
• NCDOT asked if the Merger Team would agree to eliminate south side widening. The
Merger Team did not object to removing south side widening from the detailed study
alternatives in Section 6.
FIELD REVIEW OF MAJOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
R-2574 CP 2A Meeting Minutes

The meeting resumed with a feld review of major drainage structures within the Great Swamp
(Sites 4A, 4B, and 4C) and Run Swamp (Sites 1 and 2). The drainage canal east of SR 1148 (Site 3)
was not reviewed in the iield.
Run Swamp — Sites 1 and 2
• Travis Wilson and Gary Jordan requested a wider offset on each side of the Run Swamp
Canal (without rip rap) to improve wildlife permeability.
Bridge #1 (Site 1)
• At Bridge #1 (Site 1) over Run Swamp Canal, they requested lengthening the bridge from
90 feet to 100 feet (up to the maximum allowable span lengths) to add 5 feet to the offset
on each side of the bank that would not contain rip rap.
• The spans would need to be spaced to keep the piers out of the center of the channel.
Bridge #9 (Site 2)
• At Bridge #9 (Site 2) over Run Swamp Canal, they requested lengthening the bridge from
110 feet to 130 feet (5 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other) up to the maximum
allowable span lengths.
• The spans would also need to be spaced to keep the piers out of the center of the channel.
Great Swamp — Sites 4A, 4B, and 4C
• The project team visited Sites 4A and 4C. Site 4A is located on the west side of Great
Swamp and Site 4C is located on the east side of Great Swamp. Because Site 4B is located
midway between the other two pipes and has similar site conditions, the project team did
not visit Site 4B.
• Travis Wilson and Gary Jordon requested additional openings be considered to increase
wildlife permeability within the Great Swamp.
• They asked NCDOT to identify a few locations where dry box culverts could provide a
minimum height of 5 feet for bear passage. This could be addressed using 6-foot by 6-foot
culverts, buried 1 foot.
• The proposed roadway grade should provide minimal cover over the culverts to reduce the
amount of fll in surface waters and wetlands. Fencing could help to direct wildlife to the
structures.
• PDEA - NES staff requested information from NCWRC regarding bear strikes in the
project area.
CONCL I/SIONS
The Merger Team did not object to removing north side widening in Section 3 or south
side widening in Section 6 from the detailed study alternatives reached during CP 2.
NCDOT agreed to investigate potential dry box culvert locations in Great Swamp and
potential bridge length increases in Run Swamp.
PDEA - NES staff agreed to coordinate with Travis Wilson to obtain more specifc data on
bear strikes in the project area.
R-2574 CP 2A Meeting Minutes 4

�
Post Meeting
Following the iield meeting, NCDOT staff inet internally and agreed to provide dual bridges 100
feet long at Site 1 and dual bridges 120 feet long at Site 2.
At Sites 4A, 4B and 4C, NCDOT and ICA will investigate providing either a corrugated pipe arch
or 6-foot by 6-foot box culvert between Sites 4A and 4B and between Sites 4B and 4C, or one 60-
foot long bridge at Site 4B.
NCDOT will share the results of the investigation at Site 4 with the merger team by email and
distribute the updated CP 2A form for electronic signatures.
The revised CP 2 concurrence form will also be distributed to the merger team for electronic
signatures. If you have comments on these minutes, please provide them to me at
josephmiller�a,ncdot. o�v or 919-707-6031 by March 16, 2016.
JM/mr
Attachments
R-2574 CP 2A Meeting Minutes
F�