US 221 Rutherfordton Bypass (8)

SEAR
(?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
May 13, 2009
MEMORANDUM TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Jameelah El-Amin, PE
Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
0
moo]` ?y G,
EUGENE A. CONT
SECRETARY .y
SUBJECT: April 21, 2009 Merger Team Meeting for Proposed US 221 Rutherfordton
Bypass, Rutherford County, TIP Project R-2233B
A merger team meeting was held on April 21, 2009 for the proposed project. The
following people were in attendance:
Steve Lund US Army Corps of Engineers
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resource Commission
David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality
Renee Gledhill-Earley DCR/SHPO
Ricky Tipton NCDOT Division Thirteen
Joshua King Isothermal RPO
Roger Thomas NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Brian Robinson NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Sterling Ragland NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Jay Twisdale NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Erin Harrington NCDOT Congestion Management Unit
Elise Groundwater NCDOT Congestion Management Unit
Cooper Sellers NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Richard Tanner NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Carla Dagnino NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Tristam Ford NCDOT Human Environment Unit
Teresa Hart NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Jay McInnis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Jameelah El-Amin NCDOT Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS: - TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOU-!- WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENT ER WEBSITE. W VDORDOT.STATEWC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 276991548
The purpose of this meeting was to gain concurrence on the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) (Concurrence Point 3) for
the project.
PROJECT STATUS
The last merger team meeting was held on October 15, 2009. At that meeting, the
team concurred on all bridging decisions (Concurrence Point 2A).
In January 2009, NCDOT held a Corridor Public Hearing to present the current
alternatives to the public.
In March 2009, NCDOT held a post-hearing meeting to discuss all four current
alternatives. At that meeting, NCDOT staff selected Alternative 3 as NCDOT's preferred
corridor.
LEDPA DISCUSSION
Jameelah El-Amin stated that NCDOT's preferred alternative is Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 would be constructed mostly on new location. NCDOT prefers Alternative
3 because it best serves the purpose and need of the project with comparable impacts to
the other alternatives. Alternative 3 would affect 11 more homes and I more business
than the alternative with the least number of homes and business relocatees. It would
affect 0.2 more wetland acres than the alternative with the least wetland impacts and
3,329 feet more streams than the alternative with the least amount.
Renee Gledhill-Earley of the State Historic Preservation Office asked if comments
were received at the public hearing about Alternative 3. It was stated that there were no
comments received for or against Alternative 3 at the public hearing. Alternatives 4 and
US 74A were the most favored at the public hearing. The Town of Rutherfordton
supports Alternative US 74A and the Town of Spindale supports Alternative 4.
There was some discussion about two subdivisions that will be impacted by
several of the alternatives. Roger Thomas of Roadway Design stated the Ellington
Heights subdivision was an older and more established subdivision, while Sparks
Crossing is a new subdivision that was built within the last two years.
Chris Militscher of the US Environmental Protection Agency asked how the
prime/important farmland impacts were calculated. Jameelah El-Amin stated the
farmland impacts listed in the table are based on 1/3 corridor width. Chris stated the
importance of using NRCS criteria to distinguish between prime farmland soils and prime
farmland.
Chris Militscher of the US Environmental Protection Agency asked about the
projected level of service (LOS) D on Alternative US 74A. Jay McInnis explained that
Alternative US 74A only has LOS D on the widening section, the other sections of the
alternative would have a LOS B or better. Marla Chambers of the US Wildlife Resource
Commission asked why Alternative US 74A had a LOS D. Roger Thomas explained that
the low LOS is caused by the signalized at grade intersections on the widening portion of
US 74A. He also noted that this portion of US 221 from the South Carolina state line to
I-40 would be the only portion with signalized intersections. The majority of the US 221
corridor would be a superstreet with partial control of access.
There was a discussion about whether or not the US 74A Alternative met the
purpose and need of the project. Chris Militischer and Steve Lund of the US Army Corps
of Engineers agreed that the US 74A Alternative does meet the purpose and need of the
project and therefore should be carried forward. Jay McInnis stated one of the worst
intersections in the project area is the US 74A and US 74 Business/US 221A intersection.
The US 74A Alternative would tie into this intersection. Josh King of the Isothermal
RPO stated this intersection also has a lot of pedestrian traffic that should be taken into
consideration. Chris Militscher asked what could be done from a design standpoint to
improve the US 74A Alternative. Roger Thomas stated several constraints that make
improving the US 74A Alternative difficult. Jay McInnis mentioned the main concern
with the US 74A Alternative is the possibility of needing a future bypass of the bypass.
Steve Lund stated his concern with the US 74A Alternative is how it will function
in the design year (2030).
Chris Militscher stated the stream impacts of Alternative 3 are approximately 20%
higher than the average stream impact per mile for projects in this part of the State.
Alternative US 74A has overall lower impacts than Alternative 3 and cost less. Both
alternatives meet the purpose and need of the project. Steve Lund agreed that both
Alternative 3 and US 74A meet the purpose and need of the project even though US 74A
does it minimally.
A discussion comparing and contrasting Alternative 3 and Alternative US 74A
resulted in the merger team asking for more documentation on why Alternative 3 should
be chosen over Alternative US 74A for the LEPDA.
Josh King noted the Town of Ruth, Rutherfordton and Spindale all have different
preferred alternatives.
The merger team agreed to drop Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 from further
consideration. PDEA agreed to provide additional documentation on Alternative 3 and
Alternative US 74A. A LEDPA was not selected.
JME