HomeMy WebLinkAboutUS 13/US 158 (2)s„a SW[ o?
y-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 5, 2008
Memorandum To File
o`?
0
o? ?,9N2 "
0?9 / j
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
From Olivia J Farr
Project Plammng Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT February 18, 2008 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting for proposed
widening of US 13-US 158, Gates/Hertford Counties, TIP Project
R-2507A
A merger meeting was held on February 18, 2008 at the NCDOT Highway
Building The following persons were in attendance
Bill Biddlecome US Army Corps of Engineers
Kathy Matthews US Environmental Protection Agency-Raleigh
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency-Raleigh
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service
Cathy Brittmgham NC Division of Coastal Management
Jim Hoadley NC Division of Coastal Management
David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Earley State Historic Preservation Office
Chris Rountree Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization
Ann Whitley Peanut Belt Rural Planning Organization
Barry Hobbs NCDOT Division One Construction
John Lansford NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
James Speer NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Office of Human Environment
Ed Lewis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Office of Human Environment
Amy James NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Office of Natural Environment
`
vVI tiP'r
Elizabeth Lusk
r
`
? r '
°'' Th
a`
'St
dd
d
; ,<<
• om
s
o
ar
Wesley Brown
Olivia Farr
Jay McInnis
Protect Background
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Office of Natural Environment
NCDOT Program Development Branch,
TIP Development Unit
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
A NEPA/404 Merger Meeting for Concurrence Point 1 was held on July 19, 2007
The purpose and need of the project was agreed to by the team members It reads, "The
purpose of the project is to reduce traffic congestion and improve travel time and safety
along US 13-158 in the project area "
General Discussion
Bill Biddlecome with the US Army Corps of Engineers opened the meeting with a
review of the project's location and roll call Following the roll call, the meeting was
turned over to Olivia Farr with the Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch
Ms Farr explained the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the alternatives for
the project and reach concurrence on alternatives for detailed study (Concurrence Point
2) She pointed out that the impacts from both east side and the west side widening
would be discussed
Ms Farr stated the project is approximately five miles long and the typical section
is four 12-foot lanes with a 46-foot median and 8-foot grassed shoulders, with four feet of
the shoulders paved She went over the schedule for the project
Ms Farr said a no-build alternative would not meet purpose and need She
explained that widening along the existing would meet purpose and need The project
has been divided into eight sections in order to show the approximate impacts for the East
Side and West Side alternatives The impacts to delineated wetlands, jurisdictional
streams and relocatees were given for each section The impacts were referenced in a
table for the merger team to compare and agree on which side to widen in each section
Cathy Brittmgham with the N C Division of Coastal Management asked about
the width of the existing right of way in Section 1 Olivia Farr and John Lansford with
the NCDOT Roadway Design Unit explained the existing right of way is 300 feet west of
the Chowan River Bridge to the US 158 intersection Ms Brrttmgham stated the existing
right of way had not been cleared Mr Jordan with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
commented that there was a lot of cleared land to the east of the Chowan River
Renee Gledhill-Earley with the State Historic Preservation Office wanted to know
the total width of the typical section John Lansford replied the width was 110 feet
Chris Milrtscher with the US Environmental Protection Agency asked if the impacts were
based on the 110-foot typical, 300-foot existing right of way or the corridor width Jay
McInnis with the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch said
the impacts were based on roughly 150 feet James Speer with the NCDOT Roadway
Design Unit said he thought they were based on slopes stakes plus 25 feet Mr McInnis
agreed to slope stakes plus 25 feet Ms Brittingham wanted to know if that was 150 feet
Mr McInnis said it varies in some areas
Chowan River Crossing
Travis Wilson with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission asked if the existing
Chowan River bridge would be replaced Ms Farr replied it would not be Cathy
Brittingham said that was the recommendation, but the merger team has not reached
concurrence on bridging yet Mr McInnis said the current bridge is in good shape so it
will be used
Travis Wilson asked if a bridge or stream crossing would anchor an alternative
Ms Brittmgham noted the 1993 EA listed the sufficiency rating for the Chowan River
bridge as 72 8 with a remaining life of 30 years, while the sufficiency rating listed in the
CP 1 packet is 71 8 with a remaining life of 22 years Since the sufficiency rating,
basically, remained the same, but the life of the structure dropped by eight years, Ms
Brittmgham questioned when the structure had last been checked Mr McInnis said
structures are checked every two years Ms Brittmgham questioned the fact the rating
had not changed over a 14-year period Mr Speer explained that Bridge Maintenance
could make improvements to the structure that would cause the sufficiency rating to go
up Ms Brittingham said that once the project is built, the life span of the bridge could
be only ten years Mr McInnis and Mr Speer explained there could be a maintenance
project on the structure in ten years that would change the rating and that the lifespan was
not necessarily tied to the sufficiency rating Mr McInnis said DOT is not planning on
replacing the existing bridge
Mr Biddlecome inquired if the calculated impacts took into account any
structures Mr McInnis said the impacts do not take into account any structures that
would be presented at 2A Mr Biddlecome said it was his understanding the merger
team could ask that it be looked at as an alternative and, if so, would it be looked at Mr
McInnis said that would be presented at 2A Mr McInnis said the thought is from the
sections, which are there now, that there are areas that could be designed without having
to look at both sides of the road
Alternatives Discussion
Section 1
Mr McInnis said DOT's preference for Section 1 is widening to the west He
added this is the area with additional right of way on both sides of the existing road Mr
Milrtscher wanted to know where clearing was being done Mr Jordan said there seems
to be more cleared area on the west side Mr McInnis said there is a gas line on the west
side Ms Farr added there is a natural gas high-pressure valve on the west side about a
3
mile north of the Chowan River Bridge Mr Milrtscher said EPA could support west side
widening through this section
Ms Brittingham questioned, if the new Chowan River bridge was longer, would it
make a difference which side the bridge was on She referenced the CPI meeting and the
discussion about which side the new bridge should be on in order to keep from
undermining the end bents She said she was assuming being on the west side would be
better, if the new bridge was longer than the existing bridge Mr McInnis commented he
wasn't sure if it would make a difference Ms Brittmgham asked if the merger team is
eliminating an option by choosing either the west side or the east side Jay McInnis said
he didn't think so
Bill Biddlecome said there is a stream south of the river, which on the west side is
fairly narrow, and on the east side is impacted with more adjacent wetland Chris
Militscher said as far as straight numbers go there is not much difference between east or
west widening in Section 1
David Wainwright with NC Division of Water Quality said his concern was being
able to widen a large slope along the stream with east side widening He thought
widening to the west side would be better
Jay McInnis asked if everyone was in agreement with widening to the west side in
Section 1 Everyone was in agreement
Section 2
Jay McInnis said NCDOT's preference in Section 2 was widening to the east side
because it would impact less wetlands and fewer houses
Chris Milrtscher said he was hesitant about going out with a public notice or a
NEPA document in terms of the public's reaction One alternative or the no-build
alternative is not much of a choice to the public He asked if DOT had gotten a feel for
what the public preferred Olivia Farr said the public seemed to want the project, but
people said to not take their house Mr Militscher said in this area three houses are
significant The consensus of the group was to widen to the east side
Sections 3 and 4
Jay McInnis said in Sections 3 and 4 that DOT did not have a preference In
Section 3, east side widening would impact less wetlands, but west side widening would
impact fewer homes Mr McInnis suggested continuing to look at both sides Chris
Militscher preferred going to the west in order to save three homes and staying to the
west in Section 4 to save an acre of wetlands
Bill Biddlecome asked if the team was in agreement to drop the east side
widening in Sections 3 and 4 The merger team agreed
Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8
Chris Milrtscher commented he had no preference with Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 He
said the sections are very similar and it is a matter of what other impacts DOT might
want to avoid Mr McInnis said DOT's recommendation for Section 5 is to widen to the
east because of the historic property DOT has no preference for Section 6 For Sections
7 and 8 DOT recommends widening to the east because there are fewer houses Mr
Militscher was fine with staying to the east for traffic control issues unless there was a
quality issue with the wetlands Ms Gledhill-Earley questioned what would be done at
Sections 4 and 5 in regards to the Story property Mr McInnis said Section 4 would
allow room to transition back to the east by Section 5 and miss the Story property
Ms Gledhill-Earley inquired whether or not the cemetery, located on the east side
of US 13-158, is part of the farm Ms Farr said the cemetery was a considerable distance
off the road on the east side Ms Gledhill-Earley asked if the Story property is on both
sides of the road Mary Pope Furr of the Human Environment Unit said they have not
completed surveys Ms Furr said the property may be discontinuous or it may actually
cross
Mr Jordan wanted clarification that DOT's preference for east side widening is
Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 Mr Militscher said the wetland impacts are a little less than the
west side Mr Jordan said he was fine with dropping the west side in those four sections
Mr Wilson said he did not have a preference on those four sections Mr Biddlecome did
a roll call of the signatory agencies for their approval of dropping the west side widening
for Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 The agencies were in agreement with dropping west side
widening in those sections
Meeting Summary
The merger team concurred on east or west side widening for the following sections
Section 1 - West side widening
Section 2 - East side widening
Section 3 - West side widening
Section 4 - West side widening
Section 5 - East side widening
Section 6 - East side widening
Section 7 - East side widening
Section 8 - East side widening
The team agreed a Concurrence Point 2A field meeting is needed
Concurrence Point 2 was signed by the team members present A copy of the signed
concurrence form is attached to this memo
5