Loading...
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