20180839_R-5014 CP4A On-Site Merger Meeting Summary_20150820

Meeting Participants
Bobby Norburn, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
August 20, 2015
Concurrence Point 4A On-Site Merger Meeting for Proposed Improvements to
SR 1217 (Colington Road), from End of Road to US 158, Dare County,
TIP Project R-5014
The on-site Concurrence Point (CP) 4A merger team meeting for the subject project was held on
July 30, 2015 in the Commissioners Room of the Kill Devil Hills Town Hall. The purpose of the
meeting was to conduct an on-site review of the project corridor and reach concurrence on CP 4A
(Avoidance and Minimization) for the Colington Road Improvements project. Meeting attendees are
listed below. A summary of the meeting follows.
Paul Atkinson NCDOT – Hydraulics Unit
Johnny Banks Mulkey
Cathy Brittingham NCDCM
Greg Daisey NCDCM
Kathy Herring NCDOT – NES
Gary Jordan USFWS
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Susan Lancaster NCDOT – Roadway Design
Gary Lovering NCDOT – Roadway Design
Ron Lucas FHWA
Jay McInnis NCDOT – PDEA
Shawn Mebane NCDOT – Division 1
John Merritt NCDOT – NES
Bobby Norburn Mulkey
Joseph Qubain NCDOT – PDEA
Shane Staples NCDCM
Mark Staley NCDOT – Roadside Environmental Unit
Cynthia Van der Wiele USEPA
Garcy Ward NCDWR
Angela Welsh Albemarle RPO
Tracey Wheeler USACE
Paul Williams NCDOT – Division 1
Travis Wilson NCWRC
Matthew York NCDOT – Hydraulics Unit

Joseph Qubain opened the meeting and asked meeting participants to introduce themselves. He
noted the field review meeting was a follow-up to the March 12, 2015 CP 4A meeting, as requested by
the merger team. Meeting participants were provided with a copy of an updated concurrence meeting
packet. Bobby Norburn reviewed the changes in the project packet and status since the
March 12, 2015 CP 4A meeting:
Safety was added to the project’s purpose and need per the suggestion of the merger team at the
March 12, 2015 meeting.
CAMA and Section 404 wetland information was updated in the handout and figures.
Typical section information was updated as discussed in the handout and shown on Figures 3A
and 3B.
The impacts summary table (Table 2) was updated to show impacts based on the original design,
the modified design with 3:1 side slopes, and a modified design with 2:1 side slopes. In addition,
CAMA wetlands impacts, non-CAMA Section 404 wetlands impacts, CAMA coastal shoreline
impacts, and NCDOT mitigation sites impacts were added to the table. All impacts shown in
Table 2 are based on slope stakes plus 25 feet. There would be no impacts to SAV or NCDOT
mitigation sites based on the actual slope stakes.
At the request of NCDCM, information on CAMA coastal shoreline was added to the Coastal
Area Management Act section at the bottom of page 3. CAMA coastal shoreline is based on the
mean high water level plus a 75-foot offset.
Table 4 was updated to show wetlands impacts with the original design and modified designs.
The shading in the table indicates a reduction in wetland impacts due to minimization efforts.
Figure 2E shows one of the more substantial design modifications for reducing wetland impacts.
This figure shows the original design and the modified design (with 3:1 side slopes) in the vicinity
of Wetlands WO and WP.
The SAV section on page 8 was updated to discuss impacts to SAV with the modified design
based on slope stakes plus 25 feet, as well as to indicate the actual slope stakes would not impact
SAV.
The NCDOT Mitigation Sites section was added (page 8) to discuss the Colington Cut and
Colington Creek sites. This section discusses impacts to the mitigation sites with the original and
modified designs based on slope stakes plus 25 feet, and also discusses that the actual slope stakes
would not impact the mitigation sites. These sites were also added to the figures.
Avoidance and minimization measures (Section 3.0) were updated to reflect the wetland impacts
reductions as a result of the modified design with 3:1 side slopes, as well as the modified design to
resurface only through the Memorial property.
Although the typical section through the Memorial property was revised based on further
coordination with NPS so that Colington Road will only be resurfaced, it is expected the revised
design will also have No Adverse Effect on the Memorial.

2 of 7

The following is a summary of questions and comments received during the meeting:
Tracey Wheeler asked why there was a change to the typical section through the Wright Brothers
Memorial Property. Jay McInnis responded the National Park Service (NPS) expressed concern
with the loss of trees and the right-of-way required for the previously proposed typical section,
which included a multi-use path on the south side of Colington Road. NPS representatives
requested the minimum design that would meet the project’s purpose and need be implemented
through the Memorial property. Since there is a multi-use trail for pedestrian and bicycle use
through the Memorial property on the north side, and that section of Colington Road is neither as
curvy nor as prone to flooding, it was determined resurfacing only would be sufficient through the
Memorial property between Baum Bay Drive and approximately 900 feet east of Veterans Drive.
Cathy Brittingham asked if it was necessary to have 10-foot shoulders on both sides of the road,
or if it would be sufficient to provide the wide shoulder on only one side of the road to reduce
impacts to adjacent wetlands. Mr. McInnis responded the original typical section for the project
included four-foot paved shoulders; however, public feedback indicated a desire for a multi-use
path. It was determined a multi-use path would cause extensive property impacts, so a two-way
paved bicycle path on only one side of the road was considered. However, having two-way
bicycle traffic would cause safety issues at driveways along the corridor. There would also be a
similar safety concern with two-way bicycle traffic if only one paved shoulder was provided.
Cynthia Van der Wiele added bicycles are required to follow traffic laws, so implementing two-
way bicycle traffic on one side of the road would violate the law.
Ms. Wheeler said she has concerns about potential impacts to the mitigation sites as a result of the
wider cross-section with ten-foot paved shoulders on both sides. Mr. Norburn responded the
mitigation site impacts shown in Table 2 of the handout represent impacts for slope stakes plus 25
feet. However, the actual slope stakes for the current preliminary design do not impact either
mitigation site.
Ron Lucas asked if looking at making the corridor more bicycle friendly started before comments
were received from the public related to bicycle and pedestrian safety along the road. Mr.
McInnis responded that four-foot paved shoulders were initially proposed to accommodate
bicyclists. The proposed paved shoulder width was increased to seven feet (which is atypical)
based on local interest and the volume of users. Mr. McInnis added that a one-foot-wide painted
stripe between the travel lanes and the paved shoulders is also included in the typical section to
further increase safety for bicyclists.
Ms. Wheeler asked how much of the additional typical section width is related only to bicycle
accommodations. Mr. McInnis responded an extra three feet on each side of the road is for
bicycle accommodations.
Ms. Wheeler asked about the shoulder width on the two existing bridges along the project
corridor. Mr. McInnis responded the shoulders on the bridges are narrower (four feet) than the
shoulders proposed for the remainder of the project corridor. However, the bridges are relatively
new (built in 1994) and the expense associated with widening the shoulders on them is a factor.
Ms. Brittingham and Ms. Wheeler asked if four-foot shoulders are sufficient on the bridges, could
four-foot shoulders also be used along the rest of the corridor. Susan Lancaster responded
Colington Road is a relatively curvy road with narrow eleven-foot lanes. In addition, there are
many vehicles towing boats along the corridor. Four-foot paved shoulders allow less room for
3 of 7

vehicles passing bicycles, whereas seven-foot shoulders allow for more separation between
vehicles and bicyclists.
Ms. Brittingham asked if the proposed shoulder width could be reduced in certain areas along the
project corridor where there are greater wetland impacts, or in areas where there would be impacts
to SAV or high quality surface waters. Mr. McInnis responded using reduced shoulder widths
may be possible in certain locations. Gary Lovering said reduced shoulder widths could not be
used in curves because of bicycle safety concerns. NCDOT will investigate the use of reduced
shoulder widths on the approaches to the existing bridge structures.
Ms. Brittingham pointed out the Section 404 and CAMA portions of Wetland WL are reversed on
Figure 2D. It was discussed that several of the other CAMA/Section 404 wetland boundaries
shown on the figures also appear to be incorrect. John Merritt will coordinate with NCDCM to
make corrections to the wetland boundaries, as needed.
Ms. Brittingham noted the CAMA Coastal Shoreline is not an issue with this project.
It was noted some portions of the project corridor are still quite curvy with the current
preliminary design. Mr. Lovering responded increasing the design speed to 35 or 40 mph on
some of the worst existing curves was evaluated, but this would cause extensive relocations. As a
result, the design speed was left at 30 mph in these locations. He noted the proposed
improvements include clearing trees in certain areas to improve site distance. Mr. Lovering stated
balancing impacts to natural resources and homes with proposed safety improvements is a
challenge on this project. He noted this is a safety project not just for vehicular traffic, but also
for bicyclists and pedestrians. Based on this, he would be very uncomfortable reducing the width
of the proposed shoulder.
Ms. Brittingham said she would like a commitment to be added to the CP 4A concurrence form
stating there will be no impacts to mitigation sites or SAV. Mr. Lovering responded he is not
comfortable with making any promises there will be no impacts to SAV.
Ms. Van der Wiele asked if a living shoreline could be built. Travis Wilson and Ms. Brittingham
responded that was not possible in this case because habitat already exists and SAV is present.
Ms. Wheeler said she is not sure if the Colington Cut site was established just for CAMA wetlands
mitigation, or if it was established for Section 404 wetlands mitigation as well. She said Section
404 wetlands can contain phragmites. If it was established purely for CAMA wetlands impacts,
USACE would not be involved with this site. Mr. Wilson asked if NCDCM accepted the
mitigation site. Ms. Brittingham said the site was established as a mitigation site for CAMA
wetlands impacts back when there was zero tolerance for phragmites; therefore, the site was
reviewed and at the time was not accepted due to the presence of phragmites. Even though the
site may not have been accepted by CAMA, it does not mean there is not an expectation the site is
to be protected. Mr. Merritt said he would follow-up on the status of the Colington Cut site. He
said the site manager had told him the site was not accepted for CAMA wetlands mitigation, but
he did not ask if the site was used for Section 404 wetlands mitigation.
Ms. Wheeler asked about the avoidance and minimization measure related to avoiding impacts to
the manatee. Mr. Jordan said this measure was not needed and could be deleted.
Mr. Lovering discussed the likely ramifications of using various side slopes for the proposed
project based on the soil types in the project area. With 1:1 or 1.5:1 side slopes, plating would be
necessary. With 2:1 side slopes, it is likely sloughing would eventually occur. However, 3:1 side
slopes will hold up in project area soil conditions. He said based on the low elevations in the
4 of 7

project area (i.e., one to two feet above sea level), increasing the side slope from 3:1 to 2:1 leads to
only an approximately six inch decrease in the width of impact. However, this increase in the side
slope could cause a maintenance problem, which could result in greater impacts in the future.
Ms. Wheeler said 2:1 side slopes should be considered in areas adjacent to SAV or wetlands if
impacts would be reduced.
Ms. Brittingham asked if the wetlands impacts table could be updated to be more precise when
showing “<0.1 acres” of impact. She asked if the acreage impacts could be shown to two
decimals, or converted to square feet, so the agencies can see the actual amount of impact
reduction. Mr. Merritt responded these impacts could be converted to square feet, but we do not
want to be misleading as to the accuracy of the impacts because they are based on the preliminary
design. In addition, the impacts shown include the 25-foot buffer for a safety margin.
Mr. McInnis said the impacts could be shown as requested and a caveat could be added to discuss
they are based on the preliminary design. Ms. Brittingham added since they are making
preliminary permitting decisions, they want to be careful they understand the level of impacts as
precisely as possible.
It was determined the following sites would be reviewed during the field portion of the meeting:
SAV along Colington Creek (Figure 2H); Colington Creek mitigation site (Figure 2G); and
Colington Cut mitigation site and adjacent SAV (Figure 2D).
Colington Creek SAV (Figure 2H)
-Mr. Lovering discussed that the goal is to hold the existing riprap line or existing shoreline
with the proposed widening. Shane Staples said this would be acceptable to NCDCM. It was
discussed that the existing shoulder width looks sufficient to accommodate the proposed
widening without impacting the adjacent SAV. However, NCDOT will consider using 2:1
side slopes, if needed, to avoid or minimize SAV impacts in areas where riprap is already
present. It was also discussed that the riprap may need to be extended further along the
shoreline with the proposed improvements. Ms. Brittingham responded the extended riprap
should not be placed in SAV. Mr. Lovering said extending the riprap along the bank in the
Colington Creek area may cause impacts to SAV close to the bank. It was discussed NCDCM
would need to know the extent of any such impacts before it could agree to them. NCDOT
will also consider using 2:1 side slopes, if needed, to avoid or minimize SAV impacts in areas
where future riprap is allowed to be placed.
-Ms. Wheeler said she would like NCDOT to consider equalizer pipes in this area to reduce
impacts to the wetlands adjacent to the south side of the road. Water currently periodically
flows across the road in this area, which likely helps to create and maintain the wetlands on
the south side. With the road improvements these wetlands will continue to need periodic
inundation to be maintained. Mr. Merritt suggested NCDOT NES confirm the hydrologic
source for these wetlands before a decision is made to install equalizer pipes.
-NCDOT NES will determine the hydrologic source for the wetlands on the south side of
Colington Road adjacent to Colington Creek prior to CP 4B. A commitment will be added to
the CP 4A concurrence form to examine the use of equalizer pipes in this area if it is
5 of 7

determined these wetlands are a result of, or are sustained by, the overtopping of Colington
Road by Colington Creek.
-Ms. Brittingham said if the SAV would be impacted by the current proposed preliminary
design, it would be better to widen the road to the other side. Avoiding SAV impacts should
take priority over potential impacts to the wetlands on the south side of the road.
Colington Creek Mitigation Site (Figure 2G)
-It was noted the mitigation site is shown in the wrong location on Figure 2G. There is a
roadside sign marking the location of the mitigation site near the west end of the bridge. The
location shown on Figure 2G is based on GIS data obtained from the NCEEP. NCDOT
NES will investigate the error in the GIS data.
Colington Cut Mitigation Site (Figure 2D)
-A small parking area near the western end of the bridge (across from Schoolhouse Road) and
a paved path to provide access for people fishing along the shoreline was noted during the
field review. Ms. Brittingham requested that parking and access to this recreational area be
maintained with the proposed improvements. Mr. Lovering responded access to the
recreational area will be maintained. Some of the existing parking area could potentially be
impacted, but the impact could be mitigated by possibly providing marked parking spaces. It
was noted NCDOT distinguishes between formal and informal recreational site access
facilities. A commitment to determine the ownership of the parking area and recreational site
access path will be added to the CP 4A concurrence form.
-The presence of phragmites was noted at the mitigation site. It was discussed that it is likely
years past the monitoring period for this site. NCDOT NES will research the history of the
site.
-Mr. Qubain will verify with NCEEP if NCDOT received credit for this mitigation site.
1.NCDOT Roadway will investigate the use of reduced shoulder widths on the approaches to the
existing bridge structures.
2.NCDOT Roadway will consider using 2:1 side slopes, if needed, to avoid or minimize SAV
impacts in areas where riprap is already present, or where future riprap is allowed to be placed.
3.NCDOT NES will coordinate with NCDCM to correct the GIS data for the Section 404/CAMA
wetland boundaries so the figures and impact calculations can be updated.
4.NCDOT NES will further investigate the history and current status of the Colington Cut
mitigation site.
5.NCDOT NES will update the GIS data for the location of the Colington Creek mitigation site so
the figures and impact calculations can be updated.
6.NCDOT NES will determine the hydrologic source for the wetlands on the south side of
Colington Road adjacent to Colington Creek prior to CP 4B. A commitment will be added to the
CP 4A concurrence form to examine the use of equalizer pipes in this area if it is determined these
wetlands are a result of, or are sustained by, the overtopping of Colington Road by Colington
Creek.
6 of 7

7.A commitment to determine the ownership of the parking area and access path to the recreational
area adjacent to the Colington Cut bridge will be added to the CP 4A concurrence form.
8.The commitment to implement USFWS’s guidelines for avoiding impacts to manatees will be
removed from the CP 4A concurrence form.
9.NCDOT NES will contact NCDCM to obtain a copy of the memorandum written by Shane
Staples related to the implications of impacts to SAV and e-mail a copy of the memorandum to
meeting participants at today’s meeting.

NCDOT will provide updated project information and an updated concurrence form to merger team
members via e-mail when the Action Items are addressed.

cc: file 2014062.02
Renee Gledhill-Earley, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office

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 Joseph Qubain at [e-mail] or the writer in writing within seven
days.

7 of 7