The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20131308 Ver 1_Other_20140324WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS Hand Existing Existing Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural Site Station Structure Fillln Fillln in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream No. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 12+35 / 44+7g LT FILL 2.50 0.74 ' 1 24+22 / 24+57 RT FILL <0.01 1 30+15 / 32+g0 RT FILL 0.05 0.09 2 48+45 LT FILL <0.01 <0.01 3 50+85 LT FILL <0.01 <0.01 4 89+25 FILL 0.01 <0.01 5 90+10 7 109+22 FILL 3.20 0.79 6 110+05 FILL 0.02 <0.01 7 191+39 LT FILL <0.01 0.01 8 112+g0 FILL 0.03 0.01 � 9 113+25 / 118+g0 FILL 1.02 0.26 10 127+75 FILL 0.01 <0.01 11 134+35 FILL 0.05 0.02 12 137+70 RT FILL 0.09 0.04 13 141+10 l"OTAL TAKE FILL 0.07 14 146+00 RT EXCAVATION <0.01 <0.01 14 147+73 / 157+50 FILL 1.80 0.46 ' 14 148+73 -L- Box Culvert 0.01 82 14 148+73 LT/RT Bank Stabilization � 0.01 50 15 169+g4 FILL 0.02 <0.01 15 170+30 / 172+g0 FILL 0.39 0.07 0.11 16 179+05 FILL <0.01 17 184+35 FILL <0.01 <0.01 18 13+00 RT -Y1- FILL 0.01 19 25+60 LT FILL <0.01 0.01 � TOTALS: 9.27 2.50 0.12 0.01 82 50 �' �� Site 15 - Fill in Surface Water Pond z�� . , �� Revised 3131/OS PARCEL NO. 1 1 2 1 2 3 6 15 11 12 s 15 ��' ��' �� 1VAMES AND ADDRESSES NAIvfES ADDRESSES WEYERHAEUSER DB 317 PG 323 WEYERHAEUSER DB 317 PG 323 KATHLEEN V.'SNELL DB 278 PG 443 WEYERHAEUSER DB 317 PG 323 KATHLEEIV V. SNELL DB 278 PG 443 JOHN M. DOUGHTY DB 334 PG 237 ALBEMARLE ACRES, LLC DB 445 PG 437 DAVID R. PAYNE DB 442 PG 352 PEA RIDGE CONVENIENCE DB 358 PG 175 STORE,INC ELMER & RUSHA F. NORMAN LOTS 3, 4, � ALBE�AARLE ACRES, ��C� DB 445 PG 437 LAWRENCE PARKS DB 442 PG 352 SI'F'E NO. 1 2 3 � � � � : Utility Permit Drawing Sheet �� of �� ,_ :� . NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting ` ' � " Concurrence Point 2 � � , TIP Project No. R-3620 � Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(252) - ' � WBS Element 34548.1.1 PROPOSED NC 32 CONNECTOR US 64 TO THE INTERSECTION OF NC 32 AND NC 94 WASHINGTON COUNTY , March 16, 2006 Transportation Builcling � Board Room (First Floor) � � - Purpose of Today's Meeting: � The purpose of this meeting is to pro�ide information to the NEPA/404 Merger Team in order to reach Concurrence Point 2(alternatives to be carried forward for detailed environmental studies). Concurrence ,on alternatives carried forward will be requested. _ � � Agenda for Meeting: � Project Description ♦ Discussion of Alternatives � � ♦ Comments and Questions ` Project Development Engineer: Scott A. Gentry , (919) 733-7844 ext. 242 " , s�entry�a),dot.state.nc.us ' Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement Concurrence Point No. 2: Alternatives Carried Forward Project Name/Description: TIP Project No.: VVBS Element: Proposed NC 32 Connector from US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94, Brunswick County R-3620 34548.1.1 The following alternatives are to be carried forward for detailed survey: ♦ Alternative 1 � � �� ♦ Alternative 2 ♦ Alter e 3 ♦ Alter ' 4 ♦ Alternative 5 The Merger Project Team has agreed with Concurrence Point 2 on this date, March 16, 2006. USACE FHWA � NCWRC NCDWQ NMF SHPO NCDOT USFWS NCDCM NCDMF BEVERLYEAVES PERDUE GOVERNOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENI' OF TRANSPORTATiON Novembet 3, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO: File EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. SECRETARY fl�� ' FROM: Kristine A. O'Connor, P.E. Pmject Planning Engineer Pmject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch SUBJECT: Minutes of Concurrence Point 4B Meeting, Proposed NC 32 Connector from US 64 to t�e Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94, Washington County, WBS No. 34548.1.1, Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(252), TIP Project No. R-3620 A Concurrence Meeting was held on October 20, 2011 at 10:45 a.m. in the Structure Design Conference Room located at the Cenhuy Center - Building A in Raleigh. In attendance were: Ron Lucas Bill Biddlecome Gary Jordan Cathy Brittingham David Wainwright Travis Wilson Chandrakant Sura Bob Capehart Kristine O'Connor Phil Harris Chris Manley Mark Laugisch Mazk Staley Gary Lovering Steve Cummings MAILINO ADDRE33: NC Der,wr�Nr OF TwwsrorsTnTan PROJECT DEV0.0PI.ENT RND ENVIRONMENTqI AtNLY51S 1548 FUL SERJICE CEMER Rn�eicH NC 27699-1548 Federal Highway Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service N.C. Division of Coastal Management N.C. Division of Water Quality N.C. Wildlife Resowces Commission NCDOT-Congestion Management NCDOT-Division 1 NCDOT-PDEA NCDOT-PDEA-Natural Envimnment Unit NCDOT-PDEA-Natural Environment Unit NCDOT-Roadside Environmental Unit NCDOT-Roadside Environmental Unit NCDOT-Roadway Design NCDOT-Utilities 7�er'qr�: 919-707-6000 FAX: 919-2504224 W�SITE KKW.NCOOT.ORG/OOH�PHECONSTRUCT/PE/ LOCATION: Cewnmv CenteR auinwo A 1000 BirtcH fLoce Dnrve RUEicH NC 27810 r Meetin¢ Puroose• This was the seventh meeting in the NEPA/404 Merger Process for R-3620. The purpose of the meeting was to review the 30% hydraulic plans as part of Concurrence Point 4B. T'he initial CP 4B meeting was held on July 20, 2011, but since the agencies had concems regarding the proposed use of 4:1 side slopes in wetlands, a second CP 4B meeting was held. Discussion• Bill Biddlecome opened the meeting with an introduction of attendees. Kristine O'Cormor briefly reviewed the pmject hislory since the last CP 4B meeting, including the proposal by NCDOT to use 4:1 side slopes in some wetland areas, as opposed to the 3:1 side slopes that had originally been proposed and concurred upon as an avoidacice and minimization measure as part of CP 4A. At the time that the CP 4A concuaence form was signed, however, the final fill height of the new facility had not yet been determined and NCDOT did not ]mow what the updated wetland and stream impacts would be at that point. At the previous CP 4B meeting on 7/20/1 l, NCDOT's Roadway Design 8c Hydraulics Units had pmposed the use of 4:1 side slopes between Stations 12+00 and 44+80 - L and Stations 90+00 and 119+00 in order to avoid the use of guardrail. Kristine noted that the last quantified wedand impacts were calculated at the CP 3— LEDPA meeting. At that time, Altemative 1 was determined to have 193 acres of wetland impacts, which includes a 25-foot offset of the slopes stakes. Currently, the wetland impacts for Altemative 1 with 3:1 side slopes and guardrail are shown as 11.3 aeres, while the use of 4:1 side slopes without guardrail would result in wetland impacts of 11.9 acres. Both of these updated numbers were calculated using a 10-foot slope stake offset. Gary L.overing went through the materials from AASHTO's 2004 "A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways" (the Green Book) and the 2002 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide that he had provided to the Mcrger team prior to the meeting regazding the safety issues related to the use of guardrail, particularly on two-lane facilities. He also noted that though NCDOT would not be using 3:1 side slopes in all wetland areas, minimization was still done on this proj�t by adjusting the pmfile of the roadway to minimize the fill heights with respect to the groundwater. Fill heights were held to 4-feet above the existing grade. Steve Cummings expressed concem about the relocation of utility poles that were designed to be placed directly behind the guardrail. Gary confirmed that these poles would have to be placed just outside the edge of the 30-foot Cleaz Recovery Zone. Gary noted that he didn't think there were any existing power poles that would be adjacent to the proposed road, but that there may be an existing crossing which should not be affected by the proposed change to 4:1 side slopes. . ,. Both Travis Wilson and Bill Biddlecome stated that they found the use of 4:1 side slopes acceptable and suggested that NCDOT should revise the CP 4A concurrence form after removing the commitment to use 3:1 side slopes in all wetland areas. Bill cautioned NCDOT to avoid a blanket commitment to use 3:1 side slopes in all wetland areas in the future; this will hopefully prevent revisions to the original CP 4A commitments agreed upon by the Merger team. Concurrence• The team agreed to remove the commitment regarding the use of 3:1 side slopes in all wetland areas from avoidance/minimization measures on the CP 4A form and resigned it. Conclusion: Concurrence among attending team members was achieved. Actions to be completed by NCDOT before the CP 4C meeting include: ➢ Obtain concurrence on the revised CP 4A form from all Merger team members who did not attend. If any recipient of the meeting minutes would like to add comments or feels that a comment is erroneous or needs to be expanded, please feel free to contact Kristine O'Connor by phone at (919) 707-6034 or by email at kaoconnor(cr�,ncdot.gov. ` Wainwright, David From: O'Connor Kristine A Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:00 PM To: William.J.Biddlecome@usace.army.mil; Wainwright, David; militscher.chris@epa.gov; garyJordan@fws.gov; Brittingham, Cathy; Wilson, Travis W.; Ron.Lucas@dot.gov; Gledhill- earley, Renee; Lane, Stephen Cc: Cail, William G; Lovering, Gary R; Cox, Charles R; Rivenbark, Chris; Lusk, Elizabeth L; Manley, Chris; Capehart, Bob; DeCola, Rick; Staley, Mark K; Clawson, Larty D; Kite, Steve; Aboulhosn, Nadia; Stoddard, Thomas S Subject: R-3620 CP 46 Meeting Prep Attachmeots: R-3620 Guardrail Discussion 2.pdf; R-3620 Guardrail Discussion 1.pdf Good morning everyone, I hope you've all received the notification regarding the second R-3620 4B meeting to be held on October 20, 2011 at 10:45 AM. In preparation for this meeting, I've coordinated with Hydro and Roadway to provide you some additional information regarding wetland impacts and the use of guardrail. After recalculating the wetland impacts based on both a 3:1 side slope scenario (with guardrail) and a 4:1 side slope scenario (without guardrail), our new impacts are as follows: 3:1 (with guardrail) - 11.3 acres 4:1 (without guardrail) - 11.8 acres Keep in mind that these impacts include all the fill, excavation and mechanized clearing that will take place in the wetlands. An offset of 10-feet from the slope stakes was used for these calculations. Please note that these numbers are a good bit lower than our previous estimate of 19.3 acres of wetland impacts as included in the FONSI. Also attached to this email are two files from AASHTO design manuals (the Green Book and the Roadside Design Guide) that provide some information regarding the use of guardrail. If possible, please review these materials prior to the 10/20 meeting and let me, Gary, or Galen know if you have any additional quest3ons or requests. Thank you, Kristine Kristine A. 0'Connor, P.E. Project Planning Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Physical Address: Century Center - Building A 1000 Birch Ridge Drive Raleigh, NC 27610 (919) 707-6034 (919) 250-4224 (F) "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look what they can do when they stick together!" 1 Cru�s Srttion Elen+entv channel or fill slape. On this rounded shoulder, any vahicle would stnnd nearty level es neeefed cu facili[ate Hre changes end other repairs. 'Ihe vemcal wrve shouW not be less than I 1 m[3 ft] long, and utleastthe inner 0.6 m[2 ft] ofthe shoulder should be held althe superelevated slope. The shoulder slope on ihe altemate section of E�chibi[ 4-2C is a planur section with multiple breaks. Superelevation is advantageoas for traffic opererions on less developed arterials, as well es for nrtal highways and urban fretways; however, in buih-up arcas, the combination of wide pavements, proximity of adjacenl developmcnt, control of cross slope and proLk for d[sinage, freque�y of ttoss streets, and uther urban Yeanues combine w make superelevation impractical or undesirable. Usualty, superolevatian is rwt provided on local streets in residcn[ial, commerciul, or industrial areas. For further infortnation on superelevation, refer �o Chapter 3. TRAFFIC BARRIERS General Conslderations Treffic barriers ere used to preve�rt vehicles 16at leave the traveled way from hitring an object that has y�eater crash severiry potentiel then the bamer itself. Bccause bartiers are e source of crash pocential themeelvea, their use shauld be cacePolly considered. For more detailed infartnation regerding traffic barriers, refer ro the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (10). Research continues to develop improved and more rost�fr�mtive bamers. The criteria discussed heroin will urtdoubtedly be refined and emended in thc fuNre. Tharefore, the designer should «main curren� on new barrier concepts and criteria 'fraffic bamers include both longitudinal barrieis aod c'ash cushions. The primary function of longitudmel berriers is to redirect errant vehicles. The primary function of cresh cusM1ions is to decetcmte errant vehicles to a stop. Longiputinal bartiers are located along the roadside and in medians. Bridgc perapets or rails arc covered in AASHTO design critene end specifications for highway bndges. Longrtudinal barricrs are generolly drnored as one of three rypes: flexible, semirigid, or rigid. The major ditFerence between these types is the amount of bs�rier detlectian �haC tekes place when G�e bamer is xtruck. Fleaiblc bartier systems undergo wnsiderable dynarnic deflectiun upon impact and genernlly impose lower impact forces on the vehicle Ihan semirigid and rigid yystems. The resis�ance of this system is derived from tensile furce �n the longitudinal member. Within the impact zorte, [he cable or beams [ear aw'ay fiom the support post upon impact; Ihus, the post offers negligible resistance. However, ihc posu outside Ne impact zone provide suff�cicnt resistance to keep [he doflcction of ihe tongitudinal member within an acceptablc limit. This system is designed primarity ro wntain rather then redirect the vehicle and needs more lateral deerance frorn fixed objeccs due to Ne deflectiun during impact. 33! �I�elrr, oAnemrn,,,li"nJ.��Id.Sn(on� TABIE 1.1 Firet hermful eve,rt }ixed-obJect fetelltles by ob�xt type FLKED � YEAR OBJECf 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1J98 IH99 BouWcr 82 96 90 93 87 y0 91 Bridgd Ovcrpass 448 4aa 459 435 431 4(12 409 Building 100 77 77 62 96 78 91 Cuncrete 8arricr 229 183 22Y 221 ?39 259 280 CuIreNDin:h IJ59 1.3R0 1,476 IA37 1,396 1,491 1,4d1 Cutb/Wall 810 8:i0 921 947 915 N23 7i3 Em6unkment l,060 1,143 1,269 1,239 1,166 1,206 I�68 Fence 397 .t4I 432 478 429 473 512 Guerdfail 1,128 1,125 1,191 1,137 1,159 7;248 1,185 Impatt Altcnmior 23 ?B 35 26 19 19 2d Sign or Light Suppon 471 453 580 fi34 SIA 504 546 TmHShrub 3,035 3,014 3,198 3,128 3,220 ),2?fi 3,3A8 UlilitpYole 1,271 1,096 I,US 1,096 1,111 I,(192 :.070 Othu Fixcd Objec�r, 575 587 S&t 5E9 533 506 508 O�her PoleJ Suppcxt 701 350 359 4Ua 359 312 352 Total Fa�ahties 11,292 11.2t7 12,015 11.90(+ 11.69? IIJ31 11,9(RS end projxts. KnoWlWgcablc �asign, pranically appiial el lhc local level, oKers �he greates[ poteniial Ibr u con- tfnuatly impmved uansporwtion svslem. REFERENCES i Ross, H. E., Jr, D.4 SicAing, aid R. A. Zimmrs. Narionu( Lnnpemtivc Hishwav Res¢arch Reyurl 330.' R<com�nenJrd YrvK�edures for the Saf¢ryYerformnnce Fvnfuaion af Highrvay Fru- lure.v. Tronspottution Research 8oud, Wasliing- ton. DC, 1993. 2 Michic, J. D. Natiana! Cooperorine Nighmay Nerearch Progronr Re�wn 130.� RernnnnenAtd Procedures for the Safery Per%rmance Ev�fua- �ian ofHigh�ray Appurxu:anoe. Transporwtion ReSearchAomd. Washingmn, DC, 19R1. ts ,2 RuruhiJr /)raign (iwde NCH RP Re�wrt 750 Dresents spe.:ific impac.wnditions Cor conducung vehicle crash tesis. The candiuuns include vehicle mass (weigh[J, speed, eppronch ar.gle, and point on the wfery feature ro be hit. Standard test vehicic rypes arc defined fnr sm¢II pusnengercwv, xtnndurd'/i-lon pickup ;ruck,, sing)e-uni� van [rucks, vactodvan-type traiter uni[5. nnd tractodtanker nailer units.'l7ie impnc� s�eedx : ungc from 35 !010(1 kmlh lapprozinatety 20 to 60 mph� und uppmxh anglcx vary Fron: D to 25 dcgrccs. Thc spc- cific NCHRP Report 350 [est conditions and evalualion crireria for eech rype ol'rpadvide device ur<summeri�ed in the chaptr.s thnt adArrss that rype of device. The repon iLself ix ouo-of-print hut ca� he vicwed nnd dnw•nloadM (rom �he following web site� h« p:/! www4.nouonalacademies.org/Irb/crp.nsf/ NCHRP+projeus. From this eite, NCHRY Repon JSOcan be found by clicking ou Area 22. [hen on Project 22-7. The file �s vcry largc und ic primxrily intrnded lor reseerch personncl who cnnduct ihc acwal aash tutting. '1.5 TNE APPLICATION OF TXIS OUIDE This publication is iniended to present in(ormatiun un Ihc Iulext slate-of-Iht-practice in roadside .snfely. The con- ccpts, designs. aqd phibsophiu presented in the follow- tng chapters can not, and sMmld n<x, 6e included in Iheir mtality un every sir,gle pmject. Each project is unique and offers an indrvidunl oppottuniry ro enhanm �Fut par- ticular roadside env:ronmenl from a saf'e1y penpective. 'fhc guidelinea preycnted in ihis publication flrc most applicable to nex� cons�mction or major reconswcuon prujects.'[hwe projeclx, which nlien ircludc signifcant changes in horizonlel or cetticnl alignment, oHer tlK Srear ut oppoetunity for implementing muny of �he rondside wfety enhuncemenls precented in Ihis da:umenL Fur re- surfacing, rchsbi!italion, or resrorn�ion (3R) p%IK�s, the primary emphasis is gemrally placeJ nn ihe mudway i�� self to maintain thc swcmral integriry of the pavement. fe will generally be rccessuy to sekctively incoGxrute rwd- side safcty guidelines on JR prujecls only ttt Iwations wherc �he greatest sakty benefn cun be malized. Because of ihe unpwf 3R OtiKcts end Ihe limiied nawre n( mos� cchabilitation programs, Ne identiCication of attas �hm offer rhe grwtest sefety enhancemenr poren�ial is enticul Acciden� cepurt>, site invesiigaiiuns, and maintenance �-ceorik uffer sWning puintti for iJenli(ying Ihese Ip;a- ;ions. 'Ilic imperrtancc af rk�igning Ihe rw�d�i�lc ro be ex dear ae prac[ical can be secn by notir,g which objec[s anC slope conditions are most freqnen[ly azsociarcd wi[h Fuml run- oH-the-road cq�shtv, Table I.I shDx�s Ihe numbefs �f fe- talities in tM1e Unimd Statcs from 1993 eo 1999 resulting (rom collisions with specific roadside oblu�s or slope 1d mnditionx. 7his infonnation wus o6leincd thruugh lhe National Highway Traffic Sakcy Administmtion's (NH'CSA1 Famiiey Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and idemifics Lhe hrsl twrmful event in a seriex ui events re- sulting in n f+�ml crnsh. ln some casrs, the firs[ hnrmful event is nlso iden[ified xs lhe mosl harmful evenL For example, if a molnnst sdika a tree, the impac:t with ehe vee is likely m be classified as botl: the fvse and mosl harmful eveni. On �he aher hand, if the flrst hnrniPol e��ent Is slrik- ing ¢n embankmeo4 the mose hacmful even[ is often o rolluvec FARS data for eaoh Smte can be eccessed di- rcctly at hlip://u�ww-1'an.nhtwa.JoLguv. TLe urtxwnt oFmunetuy resuurces available faall toad- side Snfety enhancemenrs is limited. The nbjectiae of de- xigners has tn be N maximize roedside safcty on n syslem-wide 6uis wi;li the given funds. Accomplishing Nis objective means uddresning Ihose specifc roadsidc Fen[ures thae can con[nbu�e [he mon ro the snfery en- he�uemene oRhnt ir.dividual highway projec[. If the inclu- sinn of Ihc highesl Icrcl of ruadxide dusign crileria is rou- li nely reyuimd in uch highway design pmjec[, regardless of cost or safery effxtiveness, it is likely Ihat system-wide vfety may stny atalic ur may be degraled. 71iis potenlial will ceMinly exist if utl�cr roadsiJt needs are not imoroved 6ecause funds were not juAiciously applicA to the most viable safery enhnncemene need Given the fac� that objeas nnd slope changes mus� be invuduced ae varying points oH �he pavemen� edge. thc enhancement of rouiside ufeiy involws sclecting the "besP' choice among several aseptabie design ahema- tives. The experience gained from decades of seluling dcsign nllcmntivcs, thc rc.camh donc on vchicic dynam- ics, end �hc mchnological ndvnncrs in inomriuls offus Me pottntial for mainluining and rnhaneing one ul the .nfe.i no�ional Imnsporcation sysroms in exislence. This docunx.nl is inlended lo repixsen[ ihe spectrum of commonly a�ailable roedside dcxign ultemaGvcs. In mos� casc.s, ihesc ahcrnativcs hevc shown signiRean[ 6enefi�c under appropriamly selected field conditiuns. Muny oF the� roadside enhanmments have, uvrr time. dUnon5lrattd Iheir abi lity in the field ro improve moAs�de sx(cty condni<rn5. In m&ny ercac, [his publicntion strives �o give ihe advamages and disadvnnmges of roaAside technology. Wilh this infurtnalion, Aenigners can make morc knw�IcAgeable dceisians nbunt Ihe bts[ applicalions Por individual projects. It siwidd be noteA �hae no �nemp� is mode, or impl ieA, �u otfer every single madvi� enlwme- menl design techniquc or technology. Fnally, fhis publicaeion is not intended co be used as a standard or a policy ste�emcnt. This docume�e fs muJe evaJabk [o be a resource for currcnt informotion in Ihc elea of mndside design. Agmcia may choose ro use this infofma[ion as one rekrence upon which tu build lhe rcad- sidc design criterin bevt suiteJ m their petticular Ixation 0 99 98 �1597 �ISflJ o h P P n �o �nal I�i31 S =: c _ 3� [76� O 79 �G3) T �, tsi � c Yew �a �o � �ss� � I+tii 2i z� �}31 l351 �� II �ZF� j21j ��II�Ii :� ' � � a a P S C O T S U FIGURE 1.7 Traflic MtalHy rale per bllllon ve�Icie kflometaro [milea] 6y yaar 'f.2 TME FORGIVINO ROADSIDE GONGBPT 'Chmugh dcwdrs ui experic�c and rescarch, �hc ap- plicuion of �he fcxgiving roadside coneept haz ban ¢- Tixrt are many reasons why a vehicle will le:wve the pa�e- fined ro the poinl where rnadside deaign is un inregr�l p�rt mrnt and rneroach un lhe r�udside, iricluding- of Iraacpixlaliun design crireriu. Design optiona for re- ducing rondside obaeacla, in order of preferona. ere as • dnve� (atigucor inactention (olbws: � excessive speed • drivingunderthefn8ucnceofdmgsaralcdwl � crosh nvoiAance • roadway ronditions such us ice. mnw, nr min • vehiclecomponentfai:ure • poorvisibility Rcgardlc5sof lhc rcnsun for u vchidc Iwving Nc rcud- way, a medside environmenl ftee of fized objcciz with awble, flnttened slopa enhnnces �he opportunity for rc- ducing crssh xveriry. The fo�iving roadside concept al- Iows Por crtant vchicics kaving thc roadwxy and sup- pons a roadside elesign where [he serious consequences of such on incidcn� arc rcduccd. 1. Remo�etheoMmcle, 2 Redesign the ubc[ecle so it can be safely Ire- vtrsed. 3. Rcicu4 thc obxl�cic to a puin[ whcm il is Icss IikN� tn be s;ruck. 4. Reduce Impact ser_r�.ly by using an appmprate hrrrka�v: �' decicr. 5. Shieldlheo6staclewiMaloogitudinWhafficbar- rrcr designed for rcdirection or use a craxh eush� ian. G Oelinwte the obstacle if Ihe aAo�e alternari��es nrc mt apprnprinte. One on-ra:Away satety fzature �ha� is Aecoming more pmvalenl nutionwide vn lucilities ezpericncing a signi�- cunl numb�x oY mn-off-the-roAd cruhes is [he use of trans- verse milled shoulder rum6le s�nps ro supplement pove- ment edge Ilnes. lhe� indenla[inn. in the roadway shoul- Jerc akri mixur.sts �hruueh noise and vibraiion that their Subject: Team Members: Minutes from Interagency Hydraulic Design Review Meeting on July 20, 2011 for R-3620 in Washington County Bill Biddlecome- USACE Gary Jordan- USFWS Travis Wilson-NCWRC David Wainwright-NCDWQ Chris Militscher-EPA Cathy Brittingham-DCM Ron Lucas-FHWA Elizabeth Lusk-NCDOT-NEU Chazles Cox-PDEA Bob Capehazt-Division 1 GENERAL NOTES: (present) (present) (present) (present) (present) (present) (present) (present) (present) (absent) Participants: Galen Cail, NCDOT Hydraulics Larry Clawson; NCDOT Hydraulics Gary Lovering, NCDOT Roadway Rick DeCola, NCDOT Roadway Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT NEU Chris Manley, NCDOT NEU Mazk Staley, NCDOT REU Steve Kite, NCDOT WZTC Nadia Aboulhosn, NCDOT PDEA T'homas Stoddazd, NCDOT STIP There was diswssion on side slopes in wetlands throughout the project. Some areas thru wetlands aze presently proposed with 4:1 without guazdrail (versus 3: i with guardrail). It is understood this is not a typical scenario and is unique to a 21ane facility. However, we wanted to propose for evaluation pending all the other factors considered including fill height, safety, quality of wetlands, additional impacts, stormwater treatment, etc. Below aze a few advantages based on Hydraulics and Roadway perspectives. From a hydraulics perspective the 4:1 grassed slopes can provide better infiltration if the road superelevation requires shoulder berm gutter (SBG). The use of SBG is typically proposed where 2 or more lanes flow toward the low side of the road and particulazly where fill heights aze 5' or greater. This is used to minimize potential erosion on slopes. With SBG stormwater will be concentrated and dischazged at an outlet point whereas without SBG stormwater will be able to spread out over grassed shoulders. From a roadway perspective guardrail can be an obstacle and potential safety hazard, especially on a 21ane facility where shoulder widths aze at a minimum. Guardrail is designed to deflect trafiic, not stop it, and on narrow facilities has the potential to deflect vehicles into oncoming trafiic. A 4:1 provides a wider azea for recovery. The use of guardrail with minimum shoulders also limits the available area needed for broken down or abandoned vehicles. There is also the issue of guazdrail cost and maintenance. There are 3 significant wetland areas along the project where this would have the greatest effect. Below aze locations of each and the associated additional impacts with 4:1 side slopes: Sta 12+00 to 44+80 —L- -- 0.25 acre increase (avg 1.6' width per side over 3280') Sta 90+00 to 119+00 —L- -- 0.26 acre increase (avg 2.0' width per side over 2900') Sta 148+00 to 158+00 —L- -- 0.14 acre increase (eliminated, see note below) T'hrough these larger wetland azeas the use of 4:1 side slopes results in approximately 0.51 acres of additional fill in wetlands over a stretch of 1.2 miles. Note: Since the review meeting 3:1 slopes with guardrail is provided through entire wetland Sta 148+00 to 158+00. See below "Sheets 13 & 14". Sheet 4: -It was discussed whether ditches could be used in wetlands if there is an existing ditch, as long as bottom of ditch elevation is maintained or more shallow. Response was that need to avoid to extent practical and use only if necessary with specific site justification. Sheet 11: There was discussion on the validity of some of the straight, wetland boundaries. Sheets 13 & 14• Around the proposed 1@ 12' X 7' box culvert 3:1 slopes with guarcirail aze proposed. Note: Since the review meeting 3:1 slopes with guardrail is provided through entire wetland (from approx. Sta 148+00 to 158+00). This will require SBG but plan to tie into inlets at proposed 36" equalizer pipes. This will a11ow energy dissipation of stormwater in the inlet versus at an outlet. It was also stated that this may be one of the higher quality wetlands on the project. Sheet 15 & 16: -It was discussed that stormwater storage/treatment will be investigated in the azeas where the existing road will be abandoned and removed. Meeting adjourned WETLAND PERNiIT IMPACT SUMMARY WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS Hand Existing Existing Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural Site Station Structure Fill In Fiil In in Clearing ' in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream No. (FromlTo) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetiands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 Aerial Power & Tel -L-11+67 TO 20+25 < 0.01 0.23 2 -L-24+17 TO 37+33 Aerial Power & Tel � 0.01 0.33 3 -L-40+14 TO 50+g5 Aerial Power & Tel 0.03 4 -L-174+�5 TO Aerial Power, Tel & CATV 174+43 0.02 5 -L-178+g5 TO U/G Tel lines by open cut 179+45 0.01 0.01 0.01 6 -Y1-12+02 TO U/G Tel lines by open cut 12+08 < 0.01 � -Y1-25+30 TO U/G Tel lines by open cut 25+�$ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 TOTALS: < 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.63 0.00 <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note : Revised 3f31lOS �`;/CC : L. .1��!�.a.a�rr�.� �T�fl$�d �t��es ��r�m�nt of ��h� I��e�� FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post O�ce Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 February 25, 2010 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmentai Analysis 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598 Dear Dr. Thorpe: f �B �f 20it3 G�`�'1S(Oi� 0� N'a�"+1tAY$ " P�A-OFFlC� 4� �J,�;'lii�hL E�l+ffRONM�NT This letter is in response to your letter of February 10, 2010 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Depariment of Transportation that the proposed NC 32 Connector from US 64 to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 in Washington County (TIP No. R-3620) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered red wolf (Canis rufus). These comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). The restored red wolf population in North Carolina is listed as federally endangered, but as an experimental nonessential population. For Section 7(a)(2) purposes, the red wolf is treated as "threatened" on National Wildlife Refuges, but as "proposed for listing" on private lands. The action area for the project occurs entirely within private lands. Given the "proposed for listing" status for the species on this project, this informal consultation serves the purpose of providing concurrence with your biologica�l conclusion should the status of the red wolf change on private lands. Based on available red wolf population and home range data, project plans and designs within our files, and given the fact that no red wolf pack home ranges currently overlap the action area, the Service concurs with your determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red wolf. We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been � S1i1Si�lECi. ?vf0 TEiliiliil y0U illai 0�711�at1uL"S itil�er ��ciian 7 c�i�sultatioii �ust �e r��r�si�er�� if tl� new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-4520 (Ext. 32). � �, Sincerely, � ��, ; ` ,. . �: : ��' � �'�� l:-- Pete Benjamin Field Supervisor cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC " Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC Jolin Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC Wainwright, David From: Wainwright, David Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 427 PM To: Chris Manley ��: Tracey Wheeler Subject: R-3620 Impacts Chris, I have been reviewing the application for R-3620 and have a few questions regarding the impacts. I notice that there appear to be severel streams, listed as "15 NEU;' that will have pipes extended or placed in them. These impacts from these pipes do not appear on the impact summary sheet. This puzzled me, so I went to the 4C meeting plans, and these areas are shown as wetlands; I suspect they were considered linear wetlands at the time in 2011. The final JD was signed by Bill in 2012, and I'm guessing they were changed to streams at this point. However, if this is the case then the impacts need to be shown appropriately. More specifically (stations are approximate): • Site 4 - 45+20 • Site 4 — 89+20 • Site 6 —130+00 • Site 8 —112+50 • Site 10 —128+00 • Site 15 —170+00 • Site 17 —184+50 • Site17—Y210+00 • Site 18 - Y2 16+20 Could you please verify this? If these need to be calculated as impacts, please send an updated impacts summary table. Another question, are the utility impacts going to occur prior to the roadway construction? The impacts are presented in a separete table and need to be included in the 401, but they appear to overlap the construction impacts. If they are going to occur prior to the road construction, then I will permit them as shown and assume that these areas will be cleared once for utilities and again for construction; if they are going to occur during construction, then they should be teased out from the construction impacts and recalculated to be more accurete (hopefully this makes sense). David Wainwright NCDENR, Division of Water Resources Transportation Permitting Unit 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Phone:(919)707-8787 Fax:(919�733-1290 David. WainwriRht@ ncdenr.eov Email mrrespondence m and from Ihis address is subject [o the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disdosed to Ihird parties unless Ihe content is exempt by s[atute or other regulation. `'� Please consider the environment before printing this email. 4 � � Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Project Review Form T'his project is being reviewed as indicated below: Re ional Office Re ional Office Area In-House Review Asheville � Air Soil & Water � Mazine Fisheries Fayetteville � Water V Coastal Management Mooresvilie � Aqu'ifer Protection �, Wildlife DpT Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources •y ��l� . • . wate�+Resour�w � �rir�tal,�Iealth _ Wilmington � Pazks & R�reatfotr Waste NI�Ut — , �„� Winston-Salem � Water Quality ]>pT _ Radiation Protection Air Quality _ Other , Manager Sigo-Ofi/Region: Date ImHouse ReviewedAgency: Response (check all applicable) _ No objection to project as proposed _ No comment Ins icient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments) � /� �� RETURN TO: Me(ba McGee Environmental Coordinator 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 �r�c��4e �Op�, .°-�nrH' 6 ?��9 D _"`�b,�,��a ., ..