20091149 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20080723

NEPA/404 Agency Consultation Meeting

TIP Project No._R4900

WBS No. 40224

Proposed Interchange at the Intersection of

US 74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway)
and NC 242 (Haynes Lennon Highway)
Columbus County

July 23, 2008
PDEA Conference Room

Purpose of Meeting:

The purpose of this meeting is to respond to the EPA's comments on the Federal
Environmental Assessment (EA) and to determine whether or not this project needs to be
put into the Merger process.

Project Planning Engineer: Kristine O. Graham, P.E.
[phone] extension 311
[e-mail]

V\

v\

1

1. MERGER COORDINATION

A project meeting was held on October 25, 2007 with NCDOT, DWQ, and USACE
to discuss the wetland impacts on this project and to determine whether or not it needed to
go into the Merger process. At this meeting, it was decided that NCDOT would need to get
an Individual Permit because of the wetland impacts. However, both Richard Spencer and
Rob Ridings agreed that there is no real need to put this project into Merger. There are no
other major impacts on this project other than wetlands. Coordination between the

agencies would be done at the public notice stage.

II. PURPOSE & NEED

A. Safe

Improving safety at this intersection is the primary purpose of this project. From
2002 to 2005, there were eleven total crashes reported at this location, including eight angle
crashes. From 2005 to 2008, there were thirteen crashes reported at this intersection, ten of
which involved injuries. Not only is the US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 intersection included
in the North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program (NCHSIP), it has the highest
number of crashes and greatest severity index of all intersections on US 74 in both
Columbus and Robeson Counties.

The EPA requested that a comparison be made between crashes at this intersection
and a statewide average for a similar facility. However, comparisons to a Statewide Crash
Average are only available for individual sections of roadway. NCDOT does not collect
this information at intersections.

B. Ca ad

Traffic forecasts were completed for the years 2005 and 2030. The traffic volume
for US 74/NC 130 was approximated as 11,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2005 and is
projected to increase to approximately 19,000 vpd in 2030. In 2005, NC 242 had a traffic
volume of 1,200 vpd, while in 2030 the traffic was projected to increase to 2,100 vpd. The
US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 intersection is the main intersection accessing the Town of
Evergreen. By the year 2030, both the northbound and southbound shared left-tum, right-
turn, and through movements will operate at LOS F.

EPA feels that a full diamond interchange is not justified in terms of capacity and
system efficiency. However, it should be noted that increased capacity is not the primary
objective of this project. After the construction of the interchange, the traffic carrying
capacity of this facility will be improved, as will the level of service, but this is merely a
secondary benefit of improving the safety conditions of this roadway.

EPA commented that no traffic comparisons to other intersections along US 74
were provided and therefore, the capacity analysis information included in the
Environmental Assessment could not be considered as substantial justification for the

project. In the full capacity analysis report, additional information on other intersections is
included, however, given the nature of NCDOT's planning process, it would be highly
inefficient and costly to perform a full capacity analysis on all intersections along the I-74
corridor when only the necessary immediate few are currently being addressed.
Eventually, all intersections along this corridor will be either converted to interchanges,
overpasses, or dead-ended, and at the appropriate time, capacity analyses will be
performed.

EPA was also unclear about the increases in traffic flow for this intersection as
predicted in the traffic forecast. Given that NC 242 and US 74/NC 130 are separate types
of facilities carrying different types of traffic, it is not prudent to compare the growth rates
of their traffic flow. NC 242 will experience increases in traffic flow due to the influx of
through traffic in this area, despite a general decline in local population rates. NC 242 and
US 74/NC 130 will provide a major throughway to coastal areas to the southeast, including
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties.

C. Interstate Initiative

US 74 is Strategic Highway Corridor #24. As part of the Strategic Highway
Corridors initiative, US 74 is scheduled to be upgraded to interstate status. In order to meet
the long-term goals set for this program, it is necessary to improve the existing conditions
of this roadway so they will be in accordance with federal interstate standards. Though
there are no projects currently denoted in the TIP to upgrade this section of US 74 to an
interstate, it is still necessary to make improvements to the access points as funding
becomes available. Because of funding constraints, it is unrealistic to assume that NCDOT
could upgrade the entire corridor within the scope of one TIP project. Therefore, the scope
of the I-74 project must be broken down into manageable sections. It is inevitable that the
entire corridor will eventually become an Interstate route and will need to be upgraded
sooner as opposed to later.

III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The alternatives considered for this project consist of "no build", a standard
diamond configuration interchange, and a modified diamond configuration interchange.
Due to the significant number of wetland impacts that would occur as a result, the standard
diamond configuration interchange alternative was dropped from further consideration
early in the planning process. It was determined that the modified diamond configuration
would minimize the impact to the wetlands located adjacent to the intersection without
compromising the integrity of the design.

EPA does not agree that changing the design footprint from a standard diamond to a
modified diamond is substantiated avoidance and minimization. For this particular project,
however, the modified diamond and standard diamond alternatives were the only
reasonable and feasible alternatives that would meet the necessary design standards
required by FHWA.

Given that the need for safety improvements at this intersection was evident, no
other intersections were considered under this TIP project. The EPA was concerned that no
comparisons were made to other intersections in the vicinity, but the primary goal of this
project was to reduce the number of collisions and injuries that occur at this particular
intersection. Other locations for an interchange upgrade were not evaluated because their
safety needs weren't as immediate. Additionally, NCDOT's planning process does not
allow for a full-scale evaluation of several different projects sites to determine which one
will be included in the TIP.

EPA was also concerned as to why a full range of alternatives were not provided in
the EA. Signalization would defeat the purpose of the US 74 facility, which is a freeway,
and therefore requires nearly continuous movement in order to serve its intended function.
Any other option, such as increased turning lanes or roadway improvements would merely
be a temporary fix and would not solve the problem in the long run.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Adverse impacts to the human and natural environment were minimized through
the development of alternatives. As per federal, state, and NCDOT policy, appropriate
measures were taken to reduce the impact of this project on the natural environment
through avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. Due to the presence of these resources in
all quadrants surrounding the US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 intersection, avoidance of the
stream and wetlands is not possible. Efforts were made to minimize wetland impacts for
this project by revising the standard diamond interchange to a modified diamond design. In
addition, by putting the interchange loops inside of the ramps and eliminating the ramp in
the southeast quadrant (Quadrant D), efforts were made to reduce impacts to the natural
environment. Prior to final design and permitting, further avoidance and minimization will
be performed.

EPA commented on the statement in the EA regarding compensatory mitigation.
This is a standard statement that is included in all environmental documents and merely
indicates that NEU does not make assumptions regarding the amount of wetland impacts
and the necessary mitigation at this stage in the planning process. This will be handled at a
point later on in the project.

EPA also had concerns regarding terrestrial forest impacts, jurisdictional water
impacts, indirect and cumulative impacts, prime farmland impacts and the value of the
transportation benefits of this project versus the impacts to the wetlands and stream.