Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutUS80BridgesReport.pdfGEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION One Georgia Center, 600 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone: (404) 631-1000 Russell McMurray, P.E., Commissioner March 30, 2016 Ms. Kelly Finch, Branch Chief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division, Coastal Branch 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue Savannah, Georgia 31401-3640 ATTN: William Rutlin Re: Transmittal of Practicable Alternatives Review Report, GDOT P.I. No. 0010560, Chatham County, SR 26/US 80 at Bull River and Lazaretto Creek Dear Ms. Finch: Please find the attached Practicable Alternatives Review (PAR) Report for the proposed Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) P.I. No. 0010560, which is located approximately 15 miles east of downtown Savannah, Georgia in Chatham County. The project would replace and widen the deficient bridges on State Route (SR) 26/US 80 over Bull River and Lazaretto Creek. The project also would widen the SR 26/US 80 between bridges and elevate the roadway by one foot along the 15,000 feet of causeway most susceptible to flooding. The purpose of the proposed project is to construct improvements on SR 26/US 80 from just west of Johnny Mercer Boulevard to just east of Lazaretto Creek that consist of replacing the two existing deficient bridges and addressing operational, safety, and multimodal needs. Eight alignment alternatives along the existing corridor are being considered with the goal of identifying a preferred alignment that balances constraints. These alternatives represent the combinations of two options for each of the project’s three primary sections, north or south of the existing alignment: replacing the Bull River Bridge, widening the SR 26/US 80 roadway, and replacing the Lazaretto Creek Bridge. The alternatives are named by their respective north-south options, as NNN, NNS, NSN, NSS, SNN, SNS, SSN, and SSS. The conditions of most constraints are common or similar to all alternatives described below. All alternatives would temporarily impact 4.54 acres of wetlands due to matting during bridge construction at Bull River (3.33 acres) and Lazaretto Creek (1.21 acres). All alternatives avoid permanent impacts to 120 linear feet of streams by bridging them and removing the existing structures. In addition, all alternatives present constructability issues along Bull River Bridge. All alternatives would require frontage from Fort Pulaski National Monument through coordination with the National Park Service. In addition, all alternatives would have an unavoidable impact to frontage along the historic US 80 alignment. The construction cost of all projects would be similar with a difference of less than one percent between the estimated costs of the most expensive and least expensive alternative. The alternatives do differ in the magnitude of permanent impacts to wetlands, consisting of one estuarine intertidal emergent salt marsh located along both sides of the project corridor. A summary of permanent wetland impacts is listed below: Alternative NNN would permanently impact 8.36 acres of wetlands. Alternative NNS would permanently impact 8.91 acres of wetlands. Alternative NSN would permanently impact 10.74 acres of wetlands. Alternative NSS would permanently impact 11.29 acres of wetlands. Alternative SNN would permanently impact 8.36 acres of wetlands. Alternative SNS would permanently impact 8.91 acres of wetlands. Alternative SSN would permanently impact 10.74 acres of wetlands. Alternative SSS would permanently impact 11.29 acres of wetlands. Based on these preliminary impact calculations, an Individual Permit is anticipated after additional studies, minimization, and design phases. Based on its minimization of impacts to wetlands as well as cultural resources and utilities, Alternative SNN is recommended as the preferred alignment. Page 2 P.I. No. 0010560, Chatham County March 30, 2016 Enclosed for your review is the PAR Report with accompanying information. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact Christopher Goodson at 404.631.1850 (cgoodson@dot.ga.gov) or David Hedeen at 404.631.1419 (dhedeen@dot.ga.gov) at the Office of Environmental Services. Sincerely, Eric Duff State Environmental Administrator ED/AC/bda Attachment cc: David Moyer, GDOT PM Andrew Cobb, GDOT NEPA Analyst Christina Schmidt, GDOT Scheduler Lisa Westberry, GDOT Mitigation Sandy Lawrence, GDOT Cultural Resources Will Smith, EPD, E&S Unit Bradley Smith, EPD, Wetlands Management Unit Skye Stockel, EPD, CRD Jennifer Giersch, FHWA Eric Sommerville, USEPA Chris Coppola, USFWS Anna Yellin, GADNR WRD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF GEORGIA PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES REVIEW REPORT SR 26/US 80 at Bull River and Lazaretto Creek P.I. No. 0010560 Chatham County, GA Distribution: US Army Corps of Engineers Federal Highway Administration US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish & Wildlife Service Georgia DNR, Environmental Protection Division Georgia DNR, Coastal Resources Division DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF GEORGIA OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES REVIEW REPORT SR 26/US 80 at Bull River and Lazaretto Creek P.I. No. 0010560 Chatham County, GA GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION The proposed Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) project is located east of Savannah on State Route (SR) 26 / US Highway 80 (US 80), as the only highway access onto Tybee Island in Chatham County, Georgia (see Figure 1). Existing SR 26/US 80 serves as a boundary between two watersheds: the Lower Savannah River watershed [Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03060109] on the north side and the Northern Coastal watershed (HUC 03060204) on the south side. The project is included in the Fiscal Year 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by the Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO) for scoping and preliminary engineering. No official right-of-way (ROW) or construction schedule has been determined. Additional funding has been identified in GDOT’s long-range plan, which would be ready to program for ROW and construction upon successful completion of the scoping and preliminary engineering (including this PAR process and NEPA). This project proposes to replace the bridges at Lazaretto Creek and Bull River with two-lane bridges that include 10-foot-wide paved shoulders and a barrier-separated, 10-foot-wide crossing for pedestrians and bicycles on the north side. Additionally, the project would include safety, operational, and multimodal improvements on the SR 26/US 80 roadway between bridges and at both ends. The proposed roadway improvements include 10- foot-wide paved shoulders and sections of 10-foot-wide multiuse trail to connect with the existing McQueen’s Island Trail. The project would also elevate the SR 26/US 80 roadway along portions that are prone to flooding. The total project length, from just west of the Johnny Mercer Boulevard intersection to just east of Lazaretto Creek, is approximately six miles. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed project is to construct improvements on SR 26/US 80 from just west of Johnny Mercer Boulevard to just east of Lazaretto Creek that consist of replacing the two existing deficient bridges and addressing operational, safety, and multimodal needs. The bridge and roadway improvements on SR 26/US 80 at Tybee Island have been considered for more than 25 years. The Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO) completed a 2012 US 80 Bridges Replacement Study funded by a grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The study concluded that travel between Tybee Island and the mainland is currently limited on these bridges, especially for alternative transportation modes. These limitations are a particular challenge during tourism season (particularly weekends during warm weather) and special events that are held on the island throughout the year. In addition, the existing narrow width hinders emergency access and traffic flow during incidents on the bridges or highway. Other safety and operational needs include raising the roadway sections that have experienced occasional flooding during high tides and reducing accident frequencies at adjacent land uses between the bridges where entrances lack turn lanes. Figure 1: Project Location Map Replacement of the existing structures is identified in the purpose because the Lazaretto Creek Bridge already is rated as deficient, while the Bull River Bridge rating continues to decline with an expected deficiency rating early in the design life of the project. Efforts to rehabilitate the bridges would not be practicable, given the existing conditions and the requirement to maintain traffic as the only route on and off Tybee Island. Replacing both bridges allows for long-term improvements and more options to minimize impacts at a similar cost to attempting shorter term rehabilitation. With accident frequencies higher than statewide averages, the US 80 corridor between the bridges also has locations where conflicts occur as traffic merges from passing lanes and attempts turns into the entrance of Fort Pulaski, marinas, and other adjacent land uses. Existing and proposed characteristics of the bridges and roadway are shown in Tables 1-3. Table 1: Existing Roadway and Bridges Description Structure Current Posted Speed Existing Typical Section Existing R/W Width Bull River Bridge 55 MPH 30 feet wide with 2 12-foot lanes and 3-foot shoulders Varies - 150 feet to 325 feet SR 26/US 80 roadway 55 MPH 2 12-foot lanes with sections of passing lane; no left-turn lanes; no median Varies – 150 feet to 325 feet Lazaretto Creek Bridge 55 MPH 28 feet wide with 2 12-foot lanes and 2-foot shoulders Varies - 150 feet to 325 feet Table 2: Proposed Roadway and Bridges Description Structure Proposed Design Speed Proposed Typical Section Proposed R/W Width Bull River Bridge 55 MPH 52 feet wide with 2 12-foot lanes and 10-foot shoulders; 10-foot-wide barrier separated trail on north side Varies - 150 feet to 325 feet SR 26/US 80 roadway 55 MPH 2 12-foot. lanes with 12-foot shoulders (10 feet paved); left- and right-turn lanes at McQueen’s Island Trail access, Fort Pulaski entrance, and Lazaretto Creek Boat Ramp; 10-foot trail with 8-foot grassed buffer would tie to McQueen’s Island Trail on north side Varies – 150 feet to 325 feet Lazaretto Creek Bridge 55 MPH 52 feet wide with 2 12-foot lanes and 10-foot shoulders; 10-foot-wide barrier separated trail on north side Varies - 150 feet to 325 feet Table 3: Existing and Proposed Roadway Structures Structure ID #Length (feet) Deck Width (feet) Sufficiency Rating W/L ID Bull River Bridge (existing)051-0065-0 3,534 30 61 W/L 1 Lazaretto Creek Bridge (existing)051-0066-0 1,433 28 42.45 W/L 1 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Field surveys were conducted to identify waters of the U.S. and other natural resources, as described in the Ecology Resource Survey Report (Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc., 2016). Three waters of the U.S. exist in the project area. In addition to Bull River (Perennial Stream 2) and Lazaretto Creek (Perennial Stream 3), most of the corridor is surrounded by one estuarine intertidal emergent salt marsh (Wetland 1). Wetland 1 contains suitable habitat for the federally-listed shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus), red knot (Calidris canutus), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), wood stork (Mycteria americana), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), as well as the state-listed American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Carolina diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin centrata), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), and least tern (Sternula antillarum). In addition, other protected resources also occur in the project area. History surveys, background research, and a preliminary archaeology survey were conducted to identify resource protected under Section 106 (Edwards- Pitman Environmental, Inc., Historic Resource Survey Report, 2015; research and field surveys, 2015 – 2016). Based on the research and surveys, a combination of overlapping boundaries is located throughout the project area. The land on both sides of SR 26/US 80 between the bridges is owned by the US Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS) as Fort Pulaski National Monument (FOPU). While the estimated ROW ranges from 150 to 325 feet, much of the adjacent land is under management of NPS with easements granted to GDOT for the roadway. In addition, remnants of the Old US 80 historic highway extend along the north side before merging onto the existing alignment east of Bull River, continuing for the length of the project. In addition to the roadbed, contributing features for the eligible resource include historic trees along both sides. Palmetto trees (Sabal palmetto) and oleander (Nerium oleander) were planted as part of the original landscaping plan during the road’s construction in the 1930s. These trees are considered contributing resources within the historic boundaries of the US 80 corridor. In March 2016, the GDOT arborist conducted a count of historic palms on each side of the US 80 roadway. The FOPU and US 80 boundaries overlap with each other on both sides of the existing roadway, along with Wetland 1 boundaries that come within a few feet of the existing pavement. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (BEST FIT – ALL RESOURCES/CRITERIA CONSIDERED) Preliminary Alternatives Considered and Eliminated Following previous GDOT studies, the CORE MPO completed a feasibility report for bridge and roadway improvements along SR 26/US 80 between Savannah and Tybee Island in 2012. The CORE study evaluated several preliminary alternatives for the roadway and bridges. The following preliminary alternatives were considered and eliminated. Widen one or both existing bridges. This treatment does not address one of the study’s purposes, which is to correct the substandard conditions of the existing bridges. The Lazaretto Creek Bridge scored below 50 on its bridge sufficiency rating and is a candidate for replacement. The Bull River Bridge scored a 61 on its bridge sufficiency rating and is not an immediate candidate for replacement. However, it is thought that the bridge would need to be replaced in the short term (within 20 years), which would create a greater future expense. Construct additional parallel bridges. Adding parallel lanes to the bridges would not decrease congestion as long as the causeway remains a two-lane roadway. Ultimately, traffic data does not support the need to expand capacity on the roadway on a regular basis. In addition, added lanes on each bridge would increase the impact on the natural environment relative to other alternatives. Finally, reuse of the existing bridges is not sufficient for the purpose of correcting substandard conditions. Construct four lanes on bridges and causeway. A previous GDOT alternative from a 2003 concept was also evaluated in the CORE study for comparative purposes. This alternative would widen the causeway to four lanes, include 10-foot paved shoulders, would widen the existing bridges, and would construct an additional bridge parallel to each of the existing bridges for a total of four lanes. Traffic data does not support the need to expand the roadway to four lanes on the bridges or on the causeway. In addition, by keeping the existing bridges in place, this alternative would not address the need to improve the substandard condition of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge. Construct narrow multimodal improvements. Instead of a 10-foot paved and bikeable shoulder, this alternative would provide a 6.5-foot paved and bikeable shoulder and a 3.5-foot grassed shoulder. The narrowed paved shoulders raised safety concerns for bicyclists and for emergency responders tending to accidents along the roadway. The reduced paved width would not address safety needs to provide emergency access on the shoulders. No-build alternative. Under this alternative, no improvements would be made to the existing roadway and bridges would not be improved or replaced. Regular maintenance would be required to maintain connectivity from the mainland to Tybee Island. This option was dismissed as it would not meet the project’s need and purpose. Safety and operational concerns would remain, including the shutdown conditions during accidents on the bridge or highway and continued flooding at low sections during certain high tides. Alternatives Under Consideration Through the CORE study, a preferred concept was identified and adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Commission with input from a broad range of local stakeholders. The preferred concept “would replace Bull River Bridge and Lazaretto Creek Bridge with new bridges having two lanes, ten-foot shoulders, and a barrier- separated multi-use path, would increase the paved shoulder on the road between the two bridges to ten feet, would provide turn lanes at the entrances to McQueen’s Island Trailhead and Fort Pulaski National Monument, would raise the elevation of low spots, and would provide bicycle and pedestrian connections from bridges to existing trail.” The CORE recommendation has been refined by GDOT and its consultant team into a series of construction alternatives for comparison. Given the nature of the surrounding constraints and complexities of the bridge replacements, the two primary options are to construct improvements either north or south of the existing facilities in three sections: replacing the Bull River Bridge, widening the SR 26/US 80 roadway, and replacing the Lazaretto Creek Bridge. The proposed typical sections for the bridges and roadway are shown below. Temporary and permanent impacts were estimated along with other potential benefits or constraints, within each section for north and south options. Bull River Bridge The proposed bridge would be 3,534 feet long and 52 feet wide with two 12-foot travel lanes, 10-foot shoulders, and 10-foot barrier separated bike/pedestrian accommodations on the north side. Two historic resources are present in the vicinity of the existing bridge: the historic US 80 roadway alignment and the Fort Pulaski National Monument. Two options for placement of the new Bull River Bridge were considered (see Figures 4a-4d): New bridge to north: While avoiding permanent stream impacts, this alternative would impact approximately 0.03 acre of wetlands for installation of pile bents. It would also impact approximately 530 linear feet of the historic US 80 roadway alignment. There are four remnant bridge piers within the historic US 80 roadway alignment in Bull River. These piers are located approximately 110 feet north of the existing bridge. Other constraints include transmission lines over Bull River adjacent to the historic piers, with a tower holding these lines being set within the river. These conditions raise constructability safety concerns when considering the need to maneuver barges with cranes around the old piers and utility tower with transmission lines overhead. New bridge to south: While avoiding permanent stream impacts, this alternative would impact approximately 0.03 acre of wetlands for installation of pile bents. This alternative would also impact approximately 850 linear feet of the historic US 80 roadway alignment. There is a marina approximately 115 feet south of the existing bridge, which may cause constructability issues for the movement of construction barges. A condominium town adjacent to the marina on the western bank of the Bull River would be avoided, with potential need for a retaining wall. SR 26/US 80 Roadway The resources along the roadway sections are shown in Figures 3a-3m. Some patches of shell middens and maritime forest along the SR 26/US 80 west and east of Lazaretto Creek support populations of Florida privet (Forestiera segregata), a state-listed plant species. Four historic properties are present along the US 80 roadway: the Tomlin Property near the western terminus, the FOPU frontage, the historic US 80 roadway alignment, and the historic Savannah & Tybee Railroad ROW. The proposed project would raise the lowest points along the roadway from its current elevation of 6.5 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 7.5 feet AMSL to reduce the incidence of tidal flooding. Elevating the roadway by one foot would increase the width of disturbance by four feet on each side to accommodate the shoulders at the 4:1 slope ratio. The impacts of this increase are included in the wetland estimates. Hydraulic modeling scheduled in 2016 will confirm the exact dimensions needed for the elevation increase. Widening to north: While the majority of construction would occur within the existing ROW, the preliminary construction limits encroach into Wetland 1 at several locations. As a result of these encroachments, this alternative would impact approximately 6.92 acres of Wetland 1, mostly in small slivers along the north side of the widening. A small portion of Wetland 1 on the south side of the existing edge of SR 26/US 80 (approximately 0.28 acre) would be impacted by elevating the roadway by one foot along 15,000 linear feet of roadway. Roadway elevation would require shoulders sloped at a 4:1 ratio. This would widen the shoulder four foot past the edge of pavement on the south side of SR 26/US 80. Approximately six occurrences of Florida privet are present. The alignment fully coincides with the historic US 80 roadway, resulting in approximately 22,000 linear feet of impacts. It would impact approximately 1.6 acres (2,200 linear feet of frontage) of the FOPU property near the eastern end of the Bull River, in the vicinity of the McQueen’s Island trailhead, and near the western end of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge. This option would also impact approximately 0.17 acre of the historic Savannah & Tybee Railroad ROW near the western terminus and in the vicinity of the Fort Pulaski entrance. Widening to south: While the majority of construction would occur within the existing ROW, the preliminary construction limits would encroach into Wetland 1 at several locations. As a result of these encroachments, this alternative would impact approximately 9.30 acres of Wetland 1, mostly in small slivers along the south side of the widening. A small portion of Wetland 1 on the north side of the existing edge of SR 26/US 80 (approximately 0.36 acre) would be impacted by elevating the roadway by one foot along 15,000 linear feet of roadway. Roadway elevation would require shoulders sloped at a 4:1 ratio. This would widen the shoulder four foot past the edge of pavement on the north side of SR 26/US 80. Approximately 13 occurrences of Florida privet are present along the SR 26/US 80 roadway east and south of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge. The alignment fully coincides with the historic US 80 roadway, resulting in approximately 22,000 linear feet of impacts. It would impact approximately 1.24 acres (1,840 linear feet of frontage) of FOPU property near the eastern end of the Bull River, in the vicinity of the McQueen’s Island trailhead, and near the western end of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge. This option would also impact approximately 0.08 acre of the historic Savannah & Tybee Railroad ROW near the western terminus and in the vicinity of the Fort Pulaski entrance. Lazaretto Creek Bridge The proposed bridge is 1,433 feet long and 52 feet wide with two 12-foot travel lanes, 10-foot shoulders on each side, and 10-foot barrier separated bike/pedestrian accommodations on the north side. The resources at the existing bridge are shown in Figures 5a-5d. Wetland 1 is present at either end of the existing bridge. Lazaretto Creek (Perennial Stream 3) is the only stream in the vicinity of the bridge. The area supports a population of Florida privet, a State-listed plant species. Three historic properties are present in the vicinity of the Lazaretto Creek Bridge: the FOPU frontage, the historic US 80 roadway alignment, and the historic Savannah & Tybee Railroad ROW. In addition, a small cemetery and eligible archaeological site exist on the south side of SR 26/US 80 east of Lazaretto Creek. New bridge to north: This alternative would impact approximately 1.41 acres of Wetland 1. It would also impact approximately 450 linear feet of the historic US 80 roadway alignment. Approximately four occurrences of Florida privet are present. New bridge to south: This alternative would impact approximately 1.96 acres of Wetland 1. It would also impact approximately 400 linear feet of the historic US 80 roadway alignment. Approximately 14 occurrences of Florida privet are present. This alignment would not impact the cemetery or archaeological site. The project design for this option may include a retaining wall to reduce the disturbance near the site. With the similarities in protected resources, design challenges, and proposed project elements, the three sections are interchangeable, allowing for eight combinations of build alternatives. All would share many factors and assumptions for project implementation, as summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Factors and Assumptions Common to All Alternatives Factor/Assumption Description Bridge Design Two 12-foot travel lanes (both directions) 10-foot bikeable shoulders (both directions) 10-foot paved walk/bike accommodation paralleling but separated from the adjacent road by a concrete barrier on outside of westbound lane (north side) Roadway Design Two 12-foot travel lanes with 10-foot paved/bikeable shoulders 10-foot paved walk/bike accommodation paralleling but separated from the roadway by an 8-foot grassed buffer, from Bull River Bridge to improved connection with existing McQueen’s Island Trailhead Removal of designated passing lanes Turn lanes into the McQueen’s Island Trail parking lot, Fort Pulaski National Monument, and Lazaretto Creek Boat Ramp Sea Level Rise Roadway sections at or below 6.5 feet AMSL would be raised to 7.5 feet AMSL (approximately 15,000 linear feet) with 4:1 slopes on each side (partial impacts are unavoidable on both sides regardless of alternatives) Historic Trees Historic palmetto and oleander plantings remain as contributing features along both sides of the historic Old US 80 corridor. The unavoidable combination of widening on one side and increase in roadbed elevation with slopes would require removal and replanting of a similar number of trees on both sides of the roadway regardless of alternative. Ongoing coordination with NPS, SHPO, and FHWA will determine level of historic resource effects and appropriate mitigation. National Park Service Any construction would involve FOPU frontage, requiring close coordination with NPS for NEPA clearance. Level of potential Section 4(f) documentation would be the same regardless of alternative as an unavoidable frontage impact, to be determined by GDOT and FHWA with NPS input to verify official property limits. Temporary Bridge Impacts Construction of any alternatives for the replacement structures at Bull River and Lazaretto Creek would require either work bridges or matting of hydric soils. To account for worst-case temporary impacts, estimated areas and costs for matting are included each alternative. Constructability All alternatives would have certain constructability challenges, particularly at Bull River. Issues have been identified for constructing on north or south sides, with reasonable measures available to address issues. Relevant costs have been included in preliminary estimates for each applicable alternative. Mitigation All alternatives would impact Waters of the U.S. and would require mitigation under a Section 404 Permit. Method of compensatory mitigation would be the same regardless of alternative. One option in consideration is restoration on nearby Bird Island (owned by GDOT). Otherwise, marsh credits from an approved compensatory mitigation bank would be purchased. Credits would be similar range in cost for all alternatives; therefore, mitigation costs are not included in estimates. A summary of preliminary impacts by section is shown in Table 5. Field delineations in 2015, approved historic resource boundaries (with SHPO concurrence in October 2015), and preliminary alignment files from February 2016 are the basis of the calculations. Ac - Acre Alt - Alternative EFH- Essential Fish Habitat FOPU - Fort Pulaski National Monument lf - Linear Feet N/A - Not Applicable NWA - Proposed National Wilderness Area ROW - ROW RR - Railroad Table 5: Environmental Resource Alternatives Analysis Section/Alternative Wetlands Estimated Impacts (Ac.) Temporary Impacts Streams Estimated Impacts (ac/lf.) Protected Species Present? Section 106 Resources (lf and/or ac.) Historic Trees Adjacent Potential Section 4(f) Other Constraints Alt. Length (miles) North Side 0.03 3.33 ac. matting 0 / 60 (bridged at 800 feet wide) None 850 lf Historic US 80 Roadway; FOPU (adjacent) N/A FOPU, US 80 EFH; NWA (adjacent); Constructability (historic bridge piles, utility tower); Utilities (transmission lines, tower) 0.67 Bull River Bridge South Side 0.03 3.33 ac. matting 0 / 60 (800 feet wide) None 530 lf Historic US 80 Roadway; FOPU (adjacent) N/A FOPU, US 80 EFH; NWA (adjacent); Constructability (temporary use and/or relocation of marina) 0.67 Widen to the North 6.92 None 0 Forestiera segregata Tomlin Property (adjacent); 22,000 lf Historic US 80 Roadway; 1.6 ac. FOPU; 0.17 ac. Savannah & Tybee RR ROW 116 FOPU, US 80 NWA (adjacent to small corner just east of Bull River) 4.92 SR 26/US 80 Roadway Widen to the South 9.30 None 0 Forestiera segregata Tomlin Property (adjacent west of Bull River Bridge); 22,000 lf Historic US 80 Roadway; 1.2 ac. FOPU; 0.08 ac. Savannah & Tybee RR ROW 78 FOPU, US 80 NWA (adjacent to roadway between bridges) 4.85 North Side 1.41 1.21 ac. matting 0 / 60 (400 feet wide) Forestiera segregata 450 lf Historic US 80 Roadway FOPU (visual); Savannah & Tybee RR ROW (visual) N/A FOPU EFH 0.27 Lazaretto Creek Bridge South Side 1.96 1.21 ac. matting 0 / 60 (400 feet wide) Forestiera segregata 400 lf Historic US 80 Roadway; Cemetery (adjacent); FOPU (visual); Savannah & Tybee RR ROW (visual) N/A FOPU EFH 0.27 The north and south design options for each of the project’s three sections are interchangeable, allowing for comparison of eight build alternatives. The alternatives are designated by north (N) or south (S) for each of the three components from west to east (Bull River, SR 26/US 80 Lazaretto Creek). The resulting eight build alternatives are compared from end to end below: NNN, NNS, NSN, SNN, SNS, SSN, and SSS. Some of the constraints related to Waters of the U.S. are common to all alternatives described below. All alternatives would avoid permanent stream impacts with bridge replacements over Bull River and Lazaretto Creek. All alternatives would temporarily impact 4.54 acres of wetlands due to matting during bridge construction at Bull River (3.33 acres) and Lazaretto Creek (1.21 acres). All alternatives replacing Bull River Bridge north of the existing structure (Alternatives NNN, NNS, NSN, and NSS) would permanently impact 0.03 acre of wetlands. The eight alternatives are summarized in Table 6. Table 6: Build Alternatives and Waters of the U.S. Alternative Wetlands Impacts (ac) Streams Present (ac/lf crossing) Alt. Length (miles) Construction Cost* NNN 8.36 0/120 (bridged)5.85 $60,960,821 NNS 8.91 0/120 (bridged)5.67 $60,732,244 NSN 10.74 0/120 (bridged)5.85 $61,115,891 NSS 11.29 0/120 (bridged)5.67 $60,887,314 SNN 8.36 0/120 (bridged)5.98 $60,907,510 SNS 8.91 0/120 (bridged)5.80 $60,678,932 SSN 10.74 0/120 (bridged)5.98 $61,062,580 SSS 11.29 0/120 (bridged)5.80 $60,834,002 * Excludes ROW and mitigation cost. In addition to constraints imposed by Waters of the U.S., all alternatives present constructability issues on the north and south sides of the Bull River Bridge: historic US 80 bridge piers and utility transmission lines are present on the north side of the existing bridge, and a marina is located on the bridge’s south side. All alternatives would require a small take of land from FOPU boundaries due to a one-foot elevation of the SR 26/US 80 roadway. In addition, all alternatives would have an unavoidable impact to frontage from the historic US 80 alignment. All alternatives would cross the edge of the Savannah and Tybee Railroad ROW boundary. Finally, all alternatives that include the south bridge option over Lazaretto Creek (Alternatives NNS, NSS, SNS, and SSS) may include a retaining wall between the historic cemetery and the roadway. The following are descriptions of each of the eight alternatives with their comparative impacts on Waters of the U.S. Alternative NNN – Alternative NNN would replace the Bull River Bridge to the north, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the north, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the north. This alternative would impact a total of 8.36 acres of Wetland 1, which represents the lowest impact to wetlands (along with Alternative SNN). Alternative NNS – Alternative NNS would replace the Bull River Bridge to the north, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the north, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the south. This alternative would impact a total of 8.91 acres of Wetland 1 represents the third-highest impacts to wetlands (along with Alternative SNS). Alternative NSN – Alternative NSN would replace the Bull River Bridge to the north, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the south, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the north. This alternative would impact a total of 10.74 acres of Wetland 1, which represents the second-highest impact to wetlands (along with Alternative SSN). Alternative NSS - Alternative NSS would replace the Bull River Bridge to the north, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the south, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the south. This alternative would impact a total of 11.29 acres of Wetland 1, which represents the highest impacts to wetlands (along with Alternative SSS). Alternative SNN - Alternative SNN would replace the Bull River Bridge to the south, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the north, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the north. This alternative would impact a total of 8.36 acres of Wetland 1, which represents the highest impacts to wetlands (along with Alternative NNN). Alternative SNS – Alternative SNS would replace Bull River Bridge to the south, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the north, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the south. This alternative would impact a total of 8.91 acres of Wetland 1, which represents the third-highest impacts to wetlands (along with Alternative NNS). Alternative SSN – Alternative SSN would replace Bull River Bridge to the south, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the south, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the north. This alternative would impact a total of 10.74 acres of Wetland 1, which represents the second-highest impacts to wetlands (along with Alternative NSN). Alternative SSS – Alternative SSN would replace Bull River Bridge to the south, widen the SR 26/US 80 roadway to the south, and replace the Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the north. This alternative would impact a total of 11.29 acres of Wetland 1, which represents the highest impacts to wetlands (along with Alternative NNS). RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the proposed project include the preferred Alternative SNN. This alignment provides for a safe, efficient roadway while minimizing impacts to ecological and cultural resources. In addition to Alternative SNN resulting in the least amount of impacts to waters of the United States, it minimizes adverse effects to Section 106 cultural resources, avoids residential/commercial displacements, and minimizes ROW, and transmission pole relocation costs. Alternative SNN provides for a safe, efficient roadway and necessary bridge replacements while minimizing impacts to historic and ecological resources. ATTACHMENTS:Figure 2a – 2m: Alternatives with Waters of the U.S. Figure 3a – 3m: Alternatives Comparisonwith Resources Figure 4 – Detailed Comparison with Resources (Bull River) Figure 5 – Detailed Comparison with Resources (Lazaretto Creek) PREPARED BY: Todd Barker, Martin Rose, Dan Ashworth (Adrian Collaborative, LLC) INITIAL AGENCY CONCEPT MEETING October 29, 2014 SR 26 / US 80 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT LAZARETTO CREEK AND BULL RIVER Chatham County, PI # 0010560 Summary of Meeting These notes are organized in the outline of the meeting agenda. Comments/questions are highlighted, generally in the order they were introduced by attendees during the discussion except where grouped into the relevant topics for consistency. I. WELCOME (2:05 PM) – David Moyer II. INTRODUCTION OF EACH ATTENDEE a. Tom Ziegler introduced TY Lin team (Primary Consultant) b. Todd Barker introduced Adrian Collaborative team (Subconsultant) c. See sign in sheet for full list of attendees (23) III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION David explains that we are in the scoping phase to determine if GDOT can come up with a practical project. • QUESTION: (City of Tybee Island) What does “scoping” mean and why does it take 3 years? ANSWER: (David and Tom) Scoping is looking at what is feasible, what the needs are, and issues that may arise in the process. Tom elaborated that what we do is more involved and detailed than a feasibility study. Further description included that scoping is about 40% of the entire design process. It occurs across 3 years due to the various phases that are required such as surveying, environmental, and public involvement. • QUESTION: Where does environmental process fit in to the design process? ANSWER: Tom and Todd explained that the environmental process is part of the design process and that ROW and construction cannot begin until the environmental document is approved. Tom explained that the project is more than bridge replacements and includes entrance enhancements at Ft. Pulaski, widening along the roadway for shoulders, multi-use trail, and looking at roadway elevations where flooding has been an issue. • QUESTION: (City of Tybee Island): What about flooding in particular areas along the project? 1 INITIAL AGENCY CONCEPT MEETING October 29, 2014 ANSWER: Yes, the team will be looking at this very closely and coordinating with the Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard to discuss the potential for elevating the road/bridges and by how much. IV. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA (Tom Ziegler) a. Typical Sections i. Two lanes with enhanced shoulders and additional lanes for turning movements at Ft. Pulaski, trail entrance and boat ramp. b. Functional Classification i. Rural Principal Arterial c. Traffic Conditions i. Though not four lanes, we will be ensuring that emergency vehicles can pass utilizing the shoulder when there is a traffic incident on the causeway or bridge. ii. QUESTION: (City of Tybee Island) How will this project help the bottleneck at Johnny Mercer Blvd.? ANSWER: (Tom Ziegler) Though it is not a part of the concept now, this doesn’t mean it will not be looked at within our studies to some extent. Any opportunity the City has to raise concerns about traffic should be expressed, so that adjustments can be made accordingly. He reiterated that this meeting/process is quite unique as many times the first Concept Meeting occurs after much of the design work has been done. d. Structures i. Two bridges, both to be replaced in this project. However, the improvements do extend to the approaches and US 80 section in between. e. Design Variances/Exceptions i. We do not have these identified, but we will identify potential variances and exceptions before the first concept meeting. V. RIGHT OF WAY DISPLACEMENTS/RELOCATIONS a. Few property owners will be involved. The National Park Service (NPS) owns 90% of the project land, with GDOT leasing the current US 80 ROW. Because GDOT does not own any of the land that the road is on and the land’s status as a national monument, acquiring additional ROW will require extensive coordination with NPS and, ultimately, an act of Congress. 2 INITIAL AGENCY CONCEPT MEETING October 29, 2014 b. COMMENT: Goal of the City of Tybee Island is to connect Marsh Hen Trail to the bike/ped improvements on the bridge. Connecting these trails would provide access for transportation, not just recreation. For example, service industry workers who may not own a vehicle would be able to bike from Wilmington Island to Tybee. c. QUESTION: When do those ROW discussions happen? ANSWER: In scoping but not until after designers define the footprint. Because the project receives federal funding, no official ROW acquisition activities are permitted by law to begin before the EA/FONSI is signed and approved. VI. UTILITIES a. George Shenk (GDOT) Michael Richardson (Comcast) and Rick Long (GA Power) – George said that everyone would want any utilities that are hung on the current structures to be hung on future structures. Widening to the north should be avoided. i. GA Power’s biggest concern is impact to the overhead transmission line that runs from Wilmington to Tybee, as well as any construction impacts. This transmission line of provides the sole source of power to the island. ii. There is an ATT communications line on the south side of the bridges and causeway. VII. ALTERNATES CONSIDERED AND REASONS FOR REJECTION a. The MPO study identified several alternatives that will be reviewed in this new contract; some will be rejected very quickly such as a four-lane highway. Factors to consider will be the key resources that could be affected depending on the north/south alignment. It may or may not be symmetrical expansion on north and south sides. VIII. LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, CONCERNS, & PERMITS REQUIRED a. (Todd Barker) The natural, cultural, historical resources all make this area so unique and challenging in terms of the environmental process for the project. With federal funding, the project must meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A series of studies will be conducted including ecology, history, archaeology and underwater archaeology. Air and Noise are a part (though not crucial) of the overall process. 3 INITIAL AGENCY CONCEPT MEETING October 29, 2014 b. Within NEPA, the project is proposed as an Environmental Assessment, with an anticipated Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI). High levels of controversy or significant impacts could move the NEPA process into a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Given the NPS ownership of most of the land and the Ft. Pulaski status, the project also will require a separate EA/FONSI in NPS format (unless the project is elevated to an EIS by FHWA with NPS as a cooperating agency). The authorized GDOT scope anticipates the need for a separate NPS EA/FONSI that is parallel to, and coordinated with, the GDOT process. c. Section 4(f) explanation: Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act severely limits any transportation project from causing impacts to publicly-owned parklands and wildlife refuges and historic properties regardless of ownership. This project has all of the possible Section 4(f) resources in one place. COMMENT: NPS pointed out that portions of the NPS property are proposed to be named a wildlife refuge. d. Indirect and Cumulative impacts (ICI) will also be studied. Given the recent publicity and concerns about flooding and sea level rise (SLR), those types of issues will be studied within a more robust ICI analysis. e. COMMENTS: NPS indicated that its NEPA requirements included a more stringent assessment of climate change and adaptation issues than FHWA requirements. A City Council Member brought up the recent flooding related article and expected sea level rise (Tybee is working on a Climate Change Action Plan) and wanted to ensure that the NEPA documents will include discussion of sea level rise (11inches over the next 30 years is what climate scientists agree on). Todd acknowledged that the topics will be addressed, including coordination with data from the UGA research and Jason Evans. Adrian Collaborative has a technical background in sustainable natural resources and will make sure NPS and local stakeholder concerns about SLR are included in the studies. i. Related to SLR and addressing the long-term flood potential, David Moyer brought up the issue that the soil that is in the project corridor is shifting and may not be stable enough to support the load of an elevated roadbed. We may have to be very creative as to not to build a raised road only to have it sink lower than it was originally. QUESTION: On the low spots, would a sophisticated culvert system eliminate the pressure on the sensitive/insecure spots? ANSWER: The geotechnical specialists on the TY Lin team and with GDOT will address this option and related issues during the project. IX. PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING Todd Barker explained the goals of the overall public involvement program and differences between the two major public meetings, known as the public information open house 4 INITIAL AGENCY CONCEPT MEETING October 29, 2014 (PIOH) and public hearing open house (PHOH). He clarified that these meetings and comments made are a part of the public record. Zach Adriaenssens (GDOT Office of Environmental Services) said that because of all of the resources involved, this project is just “a stone’s throw away” from being an EIS, so it is important to have early and frequent coordination to keep the project from derailing and becoming delayed through a long EIS process. Encouraging local participation and consensus will help assure that the records reflect strong local support. David Moyer brought up Bird Island as a potential mitigation credit option, confirming that GDOT purchased land previously when the project was planned with a larger footprint anticipated. Given the smaller footprint proposed for the shoulder widening alternatives instead of a four-lane highway, the Bird Island property may offer a means to provide additional land to NPS after GDOT addresses the mitigation for the Section 404 permits. Todd clarified that the discussion of mitigation comes in to play with the permitting process, with several state and federal permits required before construction begins. While a mitigation plan is not in the current scope, the EA will identify required mitigation while future phases of the project will get into details on how to best use Bird Island as a mitigation site. X. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE a. (Tom) Several activities are already underway including the public involvement plan, surveying, and background research. From today’s discussion, concept development will continue over the next several months. b. (David) Current funding gets us to a certain point, so the future schedule is dependent on funding. Right now we are trying to get the EA/FONSI completed by 2017 – which would put construction starting a few years later depending on the NPS easement process with Congress. XI. OTHER PROJECTS IN AREA a. National Park service is replacing its bridge to Ft. Pulaski in the coming year. The discussion of the bridge replacement in Ft. Pulaski and the need to coordinate any shifts of this and entrance improvement that may be included in our project. Also, NPS has completed an EIS and Record of Decision for its Ft. Pulaski master plan, which did anticipate some kind of improvement on US 80. Copies of the study will be available for the project team. XII. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ATTENDEES a. COMMENT: This project was brought up at a legislative conference and many of the legislators were familiar with the project and so this may be helpful in securing funding in 2017. i. Clarification: the MPO already has committed PE money for FY 2017; any additional leveraged funding gets us further into the full project development. 5 INITIAL AGENCY CONCEPT MEETING October 29, 2014 There were general comments from many attendees about the great leadership by the City, the County, and MPO for getting funding and coordinating public involvement up to this point. b. QUESTION: (Mayor Buelterman): When was the traffic study done? ANSWER: The existing traffic conditions and basic scope of the previous study were explained. Peak seasonal conditions have led to local complaints. c. ANSWER: We cannot build based off of the worst case – and in traffic studies, we measure average daily traffic. Generally, 14,000-16,000 is the level of average daily traffic on a two-lane highway where you look at capacity addition. However, if we are only looking at tipping over 14,000 in seasonal peak incidents, it is very hard to make a case to improve US 80 with four through lanes. i. Ideas discussion: dropping the right lane to be a right turn only to Johnny Mercer Boulevard. Matt Bennett (GDOT program manager) explained that short-term solutions can be considered and implemented outside of and prior to the main project. Operational issues can be confused with capacity issues. Even before the project is constructed, short-term improvements such as the Johnny Mercer intersection could be effective to address traffic concerns that have been expressed to the mayor’s office. ii. QUESTION: Also what about a bridging the whole section? ANSWER: GDOT would not have the money for a total bridge alternative– a toll as a way to pay for this could be an option, but that could hurt business on the island. d. (COMMENT) Citizens Advisory Committee could be a good idea. ANSWER: While the previous MPO feasibility study included a CAC, the GDOT scope does not continue with the formal coordination. Instead, the project team will be available for informal stakeholder coordination throughout the environmental study. e. QUESTION: How will we pay after the design phase? Who will pay for construction and ROW? ANSWER: The funding picture is complicated, and it could involve many ideas and sources such as the MPO process, state funds, and federal transportation funds. The federal funding is scarce now while a new transportation bill remains undone in Congress. Mayor Buelterman wants to know who he needs to appeal to starting now, to get the funding. Tom McQueen (GDOT Planning) offered to coordinate with the mayor’s office to explain the funding scenarios and appropriate contacts to make. f. Chatham County is concerned about McQueens Trail and impacts on the lead up to Bull River. 6 INITIAL AGENCY CONCEPT MEETING October 29, 2014 g. NPS wants to build consensus as much as possible, but has a higher level of environmental policy/regulatory requirements. There may be frustration in going through their process, but they want to be full partners in this project. h. Jane (MPO) encouraged the team to include something better than just a shoulder -- this will have to be well documented in order to justify a protected trail XIII. CONCLUSION (3:40 PM) 7 SR 26 / US 80 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT LAZARETTO CREEK AND BULL RIVER Chatham County, PI # 0010560 October 29, 2014 Meeting Attendees Name Organization Phone Email 1 Laura Rich Acosta Fort Pulaski National Monument 912-786-5787 x104 laura_rich_acosta@nps.gov 2 Melissa Memory Fort Pulaski National Monument 912-786-5787 melissa_memory@nps.gov 3 Brian O’Connor TY Lin International 678-235-3630 brian.oconnor@tylin.com 4 Stenka Vulova Adrian Collaborative 404-514-5909 stenka@adriancollaborative.com 5 Joseph Capello GDOT 912-651-2144 jcapello@dot.ga.gov 6 Martin Rose Adrian Collaborative 530-723-8256 martin@adriancollaborative.com 7 Wanda Doyle Mayor Pro Tempore Tybee 912-667-9844 wandaddoyle@gmail.com 8 Bobby Dollar GDOT 404-631-1920 rdollar@dot.ga.gov 9 Zach Adriaenssens GDOT OES 404-631-1650 zachadriaenssens@dot.ga.gov 10 Heather Hatzenbuhler Adrian Collaborative 404-245-3247 heather@adriancollaborative.com 11 Matt Bennett GDOT 912-291-7404 mabennett@dot.ga.gov 12 Deb Barreiro GADNR CRD 912-266-3695 deb.barreiro@dnr.star.ga.gov 13 Michael Richardson Comcast 912-658-4788 michael_richardson2@cable.comcast.com 14 Rick Long GA Power 912-547-0660 rlong@southernco.com 15 George Shenk GDOT Utilities 912-530-4408 geshenk@dot.ga.gov 16 Paul Wolff Tybee City Council 912-844-0222 tybeedjo@bellsouth.net 17 Tom McQueen GDOT Office of Planning 404-031-1785 tmcqueen@dot.ga.gov 18 Todd Barker Adrian Collaborative 678-469-1600 todd@adriancollaborative.com 19 Jane Love CORE MPO/Chatham MPC 912-651-1449 lovej@thempc.org 20 Dean Collins TY Lin International 404-275-7487 dean.collins@tylin.com 21 Tom Ziegler TY Lin International thomas.ziegler@tylin.com 22 David Moyer GDOT 404-291-5880 dmoyer@dot.ga.gov 23 Jason Buelterman Mayor, Tybee Island buelterman@hotmail.com CONCEPT MEETING December 6, 2016 1 SR 26 / US 80 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT LAZARETTO CREEK AND BULL RIVER Chatham County, PI # 0010560 Summary of Concept Team Meeting I. WELCOME (9:00 AM) – David Moyer a. David gave a brief introduction of the project and the background. Stated the project is in the concept development phase and passed on to T.Y. Lin (TYLI) II. INTRODUCTION OF EACH ATTENDEE a. Tom Ziegler introduced himself as Project Manager for TYLI b. Brian O’Connor introduced himself as Team Lead on for TYLI c. All attendees introduced themselves. III. PROJECT CONCEPT REPORT REVIEW (TYLI) TYLI reviewed the draft concept report from the beginning and stepped through each section for comments. The project type, PI Number, GDOT District number, County, Federal Route Number, State Route Number, Signature boxes, and Area Type were all reviewed. There were no comments IV. PROJECT LOCATION MAP (TYLI) Review the project location and the attached project location map. There were no comments V. PLANNING AND BACKGROUND (TYLI) a. Project Justification Statement i.There were no comments b. Existing Conditions i.There were no comments c. Other projects in the area i.There was a comment to remove the 0013271, M004634, and M005485 projects as they were completed or did not apply to the project. PI 0009915 was under construction at the time of the meeting and should remain on the list. PI 0010582 was requested to be added to the list of projects. CONCEPT MEETING December 6, 2016 2 d. MPO i.There were no comments e. Congressional District(s) i.There were no comments f. Federal Oversight i.Comment was made that this is not a PoDI project, this is an exempt project and needs to be changed to exempt g. Projected Traffic i.Comment was made that the traffic data was a little old. The mayor of Tybee asked if GDOT could use the existing traffic counters the island had at the end of Lazaretto Creek Bridge as an accurate traffic counter. The concept traffic information was left so that it matched the approved traffic projections and minimal growth is anticipated. h. Functional Classification (Mainline) i.There were no comments i. Complete Streets i.There were no comments j. Is this a 3R Project? i.There were no comments k. Pavement Evaluation and Recommendations i.There were no comments VI. DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL (TYLI) a. Description of the proposed project i.There were no comments b. Major Structures i.Comment was made that the sufficiency of the ID#051-0065-0 bridge needs to be lowered. See SIA Sheets CONCEPT MEETING December 6, 2016 3 ii.Proposed width on both bridges is too small based on the concept typical section. Needs to be 59.5 ft. wide. c. Mainline Design Features i.Conversation regarding the median width came up. Discussions were held about adding a buffer between the lanes due to head on collisions in the corridor. A 4’ offset striped median with rumble strips was suggested. This idea was introduced during the VE Study. UPDATE: This offset median was incorporated into the final concept layouts for approval. d. Major Interchanges/Intersections i.There were no comments e. Lighting required i.There were no comments f. Off-site Detours Anticipated i.There were no comments g. Transportation Management Plan Required i.There were no comments h. Design Exceptions to FHWA/AASHTO Controlling Criteria anticipated i.There were no comments i. Design Variances to GDOT Standard Criteria anticipated i.There were no comments j. VE Study anticipated i.There were no comments VII. UTILITY AND PROPERTY (TYLI) a. Railroad Involvement i.Comment was made that the cable is Comcast b. SUE Required i.SUE is included in the project scope. c. Public Interest Determination Policy and Procedure recommended CONCEPT MEETING December 6, 2016 4 i.Comment was made that yes needs to be checked d. Right-of-Way (ROW) i.There were no comments e. Location and Design approval i.There were no comments f. Impacts to USACE property anticipated i.There were no comments VIII. CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS (TYLI) a. Issues of Concern i.Comments were made regarding the lack of mitigation credits in the area and this may be the biggest challenge for the project. Bird Island was mentioned as a possible location for credits but erosion on the island may be eliminating this as a viable alternative. b. Context Sensitive Solutions Proposed i.There were no comments IX. ENVIRONMENTAL & PERMITS (TYLI) a. Anticipated Environmental Document i.There were no comments b. Level of Environmental Analysis i.There were no comments c. Water Quality Requirements i.There were no comments d. Environmental Permits/Variances/Commitments/Coordination anticipated i.Comment was made that the check marks did not print with this report and Team Lead needs to make sure this is fixed for future plots. e. Is a PAR Required i.There were no comments CONCEPT MEETING December 6, 2016 5 f. Environmental Comments and Information i.There were no comments g. History i.There were no comments h. Archeology i.There were no comments i. Air Quality i.There were no comments j. Noise Effects i.There were no comments k. Public Involvement i.There were no comments l. Major stakeholders i.There were no comments X. CONSTRUCTION (Brian O’Connor) a. Issues potentially affecting constructability/construction schedule i.Comment was made regarding the constructability of the Bull River bridge and how going to the north would make it more difficult to construct due to the existing power lines next to the river. Going to the South would be ideal but could potentially affect the marsh/wetlands more. Decision was made to go to the South as the preferred alternative and everyone was in agreement the final preferred alternative is South at Bull River, North along the causeway, and North at Lazaretto Creek. b. Early Completion Incentives recommended for consideration i.There were no comments XI. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE (TYLI) a. Initial Concept Meeting i.There were no comments CONCEPT MEETING December 6, 2016 6 b. Concept Meeting i.Comment to put the concept meeting date in here for this meeting. c. Other Coordination to date i.There were no comments d. Project Cost Estimate Summary and Funding Responsibilities i.Comment was made that in the attachments there was a typo in the GDOT cost estimate for the ROW. Should be the $313,000. XII. ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION (TYLI) a. Alternative selection i.As discussed in the Construction Section, the preferred alternative will now be set to South at Bull River, North along the causeway, and North at Lazaretto Creek. Need to update the description in the preferred alternative box. XIII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS/SUPPORTING DATA a. Concept Layouts with Typical Sections i.Update these to the new preferred alternative of South at Bull River, North along the causeway, and North at Lazaretto Creek. b. Detailed Cost Estimates i.Update the ROW GDOT form with the correct ROW number c. Traffic Diagrams i.There were no comments d. SI&A Report(s) i.Reports need to be updated to the latest e. Minutes of Concept Meeting i.There were no comments f. PIOH Response Letter, Summary Table i.There were no comments XIV. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ATTENDEES CONCEPT MEETING December 6, 2016 7 i.Comments were made regarding the parking lot for the access to the beginning of the trail be coordinated with the construction of the new bridge going onto the Ft. Pulaski Island. Can the parking lot be moved over to the west side of the Bull River Bridge or in front of the Fort Pulaski entrance to alleviate the traffic turning movements along the causeway? The Ft. Pulaski representative was there and was very open to a discussion regarding this subject and possibly moving the toll booth onto the Fort side of the island to help alleviate the traffic build up along SR 26/US 80. The trail access will be discussed at a later date with the Fort and the Department. XV. CONCLUSION (12:00 PM) GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION One Georgia Center, 600 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone: (404) 631-1000 Russell R. McMurry, P.E., Commissioner June 13, 2016 Georgia Department of Transportation One Georgia Center 600 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Re: Responses to Open House Comments for PI# 0010560, Chatham County, S.R. 26/U.S. 80 @ Lazaretto Creek and Bull River, Project Number: 0010560 Greetings, Thank you for your comments concerning the proposed project referenced above. We appreciate your participation and all of the input that was received as a result of the November 17, 2015 Public Information Open House. Every written comment received and verbal comment given to the court reporter has been made part of the project’s official record. Although we have been considering the valuable input for the past several months, we apologize for the delay in sharing these comments and responses. Several topics required further progress in our studies and design so that we could address them more completely. Part of our answers are based on decisions or findings over the past two months. Continuing community outreach will be a part of our ongoing efforts on the project over the next year and beyond. A total of 180 people attended the open house on November 17. Of the 106 respondents who formally commented, 54 were in support of the project, 12 were opposed, 18 were uncommitted, and 22 expressed conditional support. The attendees of the open house and those persons sending in comments within the comment period raised the following questions and concerns. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has prepared this one response letter that addresses all comments received so that everyone can be aware of the concerns raised and the responses given. Please find the comments summarized below (in italics) followed by our response. • The proposed sidewalk and bicycle lanes are an important and needed part of this project. – 36 comments Improved connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists are important goals of the project. The proposed design includes paved shoulders and a 10-foot multi-use path, separated from travel lanes by barriers on the bridges and a grass buffer along the roadway section where the trail is proposed between Bull River and the McQueen’s Island Trail access area. • S.R. 26/U.S. 80 should be widened to a four-lane road. – 37 comments The S.R. 26/U.S. 80 project has been discussed through numerous studies over a 20-year period, including the most recent Coastal Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO) planning study in December 2012. The CORE MPO is comprised of local and regional officials, including representatives from the City of Tybee Island. Due to factors including key environmental resources, average daily traffic, and overall expense, a four-lane highway was rejected as a practicable option within the current project scope. • S.R. 26/U.S. 80 should not be widened to four lanes. – 11 comments At this time, the project proposes a two-lane highway with improved paved shoulders for the entirety of the corridor. The proposed project is recommended by a planning study approved by the CORE MPO in December 2012. Engineering, environmental and hydraulic studies will be performed during the next phase of the project, which could result in changes to the proposed concept. However, current data supports a two- lane highway option. • Emergency vehicle access is a concern. S.R. 26/U.S. 80 would benefit from the inclusion of a lane for emergency vehicles in the event of a traffic incident. – 17 comments The proposed project includes 10-foot paved full-depth shoulders on both sides, which would allow emergency vehicles access and/or provide a lane to detour traffic during an incident response. • Opposing traffic lanes need to be separated by a barrier. The bike/pedestrian lane also needs a barrier to be separated from car traffic. – 12 comments The project team will investigate the addition of a median barrier. Safety is a central focus of all future improvements made to S.R. 26/U.S. 80; a barrier could impede access during emergency situations. However, the proposed multi-use bike/pedestrian path would be separated from travel lanes by a barrier on the bridges and a grass buffer along the roadway section. • The existing passing lanes need to be removed. – 5 comments The proposed concept would remove the existing passing lanes on S.R. 26/U.S. 80 between Bull River and Lazaretto Creek. • If rumble strips are included on the shoulders, it is requested that they be installed in a skip pattern and on or as close as possible to the fog line. – 2 comments Options for rumble strips within the shoulders, including those suggested by local cyclists, will be considered during the design phase following selection of a preferred alternative. The bike/pedestrian lane/trail should be widened to 12 feet. – 1 comment The proposed project includes a 10-foot, multi-use trail, which would be a significant amenity for residents and visitors alike. The bicycle/pedestrian width will be investigated. However, any increase in the width would have additional impact on the adjacent environmental resources. • The entrance to Fort Pulaski National Monument and the Rails to Trails entrances should be improved by including dedicated turn lanes. – 3 comments The proposed concept includes dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at the entrance of Fort Pulaski, McQueen’s Island Trail access, and the Lazaretto Creek Boat Ramp. • The project should be shifted to avoid encroachment on marina and condominium properties. – 2 comments At this time, alternatives have been proposed which could potentially shift the project to the north or south. The alternatives will be studied for engineering and environmental issues to determine the best overall layout that would meet federal regulations and minimize impacts. Landmarks and resident concerns will be considered during the alternatives process. • The bridges need to be raised in order to accommodate shrimping boats, and the width between pillars must be at least 150 feet to accommodate outriggers. – 1 comment The geometry of the bridges will be fully determined after further engineering, environmental and hydraulic studies are completed. The proposed height and clear span width will be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard. • Drainage improvements along the highway with culverts to improve tidal flow are necessary. Flooding is a significant concern; the height of the road needs to be taken into consideration. – 17 comments To ensure appropriate road height and any profile change along the corridor, hydraulic studies will be performed during the next phase of the project in summer/fall 2016. Concerns over recent flooding incidents are being taken into consideration. Recently, GDOT determined that approximately 2.8 miles of U.S. 80 would need to be raised at least to the approximate elevation on the island (7.5 feet above mean sea level), which would be an increase of 12 to 18 inches in the lowest spots along the existing pavement. • Intersection treatments need to be considered for whenever cars, cyclists and pedestrians interact. – 1 comment Local GDOT staff is consulting with Chatham County staff to investigate interim safety improvements at existing intersections separately from this project. The proposed project will incorporate the most current bike/pedestrian intersection treatments. The contact for the interim improvements is Cynthia Y. Phillips, GDOT District Traffic Engineer (912-530-4410, located at 204 North Highway 301, Jesup, Georgia 31545). • The project should support the extension of the McQueen’s Island Trail to the Lazaretto Creek bridge. – 2 comments The extension of McQueen’s Island Trail is not within the current project scope; therefore, it will need to be evaluated independently. As part of this project, GDOT will coordinate with the local officials on connecting the proposed bike/pedestrian facilities to the existing trail network. • The project should include a twin-bridge design at each bridge location. New bridges should be constructed adjacent to the existing bridges. – 2 comments The existing bridges must be replaced based on their aging conditions. To maintain traffic during construction, replacement bridges need to be built at least partially adjacent to the existing ones. The existing structures then would be removed after the new ones are open to traffic. The project proposes wider two-lane replacement bridges with paved shoulders in both directions and a barrier-separated, multi-use trail along the north side. • The speed limit needs to be lowered on S.R. 26/U.S. 80. – 12 comments The project team recognizes that the speed limit is an item of concern for residents and visitors to Tybee Island. Travel speeds along the corridor and safety standards will be examined to determine the appropriate speed limit on the improved highway. • Signage should be improved at Bull River and Lazaretto Creek and throughout the project corridor. – 5 comments The signing and pavement marking will be designed to meet current standards. Specialty signs will be investigated for unique project circumstances. • Lighting should be improved along S.R. 26/U.S. 80. – 1 comment Lighting improvements will be investigated along the corridor to improve overall safety and aesthetics of the road. However, lighting could have a negative impact on ecological resources within the adjacent marshland. • Enforcement of traffic laws along S.R. 26/U.S. 80 needs to be improved through an increased police presence. – 3 comments Traffic enforcement on S.R. 26/U.S. 80 is a collaborative responsibility of the Savannah-Chatham Police Department and the Tybee Island Police Department. This comment has been forwarded to local law enforcement officials for their consideration. • The impact of the project on various environmental resources (wetlands, terrapins, etc.) is a concern. – 6 comments Extensive environmental studies are being conducted along the project corridor to identify the best overall layout to meet federal regulations. One of the goals of the project team is to minimize the impact to the surrounding environmental resources. • The timeline of the project is a concern. Solutions to traffic concerns and all other issues should be expedited. – 10 comments Realizing the importance of the proposed operational and safety improvements, GDOT is committed to completing the project as quickly as possible for residents, visitors, and local businesses. The surrounding natural, historical, and archaeological resources present a unique challenge. Based on the status of S.R. 26/U.S. 80 as a Federal Highway and State Route located within National Park Service land, the project is subject to additional regulation. Completing all environmental and design requirements on the shortest achievable schedule is a high priority for GDOT. • Safety is a concern. The top design priority of the project needs to be the protection of the drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians who use the road. – 22 comments Safety is a top priority of the project team. Every effort will be made during design to provide the safest and most cost-effective solution that addresses vehicular traffic as well as cyclists and pedestrians. • Specific routine maintenance along existing S.R. 26/U.S. 80 is necessary, as is removal of invasive species along the road. – 2 comments This comment has been passed on to the local GDOT area office responsible for maintenance. Again, thank you for your comments. We look forward to engaging more with local stakeholders, the general public, and resources agencies as we complete studies in the coming months. Should you have further questions, comments or concerns, please call the project manager, David Moyer, at 404-291-5880 or the environmental analyst, Andrew Cobb, at 404-631-1255. Sincerely, Eric Duff State Environmental Administrator ED/TB cc: David Moyer, GDOT Project Manager (via email) PDF for Project File; Hardcopy to General Files CATEGORY COMMENT # NATURE OF COMMENT RESPONSES Roadway Design 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 31, 37, 42, 43, 50, 57, 59, 60, 62, 68, 71, 72, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101*, 105*, 110* Support for the bike and pedestrian improvements proposed in the project Improved connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists are important goals of the project. The proposed design includes paved shoulders and a barrier-separated multi-use path. Roadway Design 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 30, 31, 32/32a, 41, 43, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 59, 63, 66, 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 98, 104* Want the road to be 4 lanes The SR 26/US 80 project has been discussed through numerous studies over a 20-year period, including the most recent CORE Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning study in December 2012. The CORE MPO is comprised of local and regional officials which includes representatives from the City of Tybee. Due to factors including key environmental resources, average daily traffic and overall expense, a four-lane highway was rejected as a practicable option within the current project scope. Roadway Design 4, 6, 12, 19, 43, 53, 65, 69, 71, 74, 77, 79, 80, 85, 86, 94, 97 Expressed concern about emergency vehicle access and support the inclusion of a lane for emergency vehicles in the event of a traffic incident The proposed project includes 10-foot paved full-depth shoulders on both sides, which would allow emergency vehicles access and/or provide a lane to detour traffic during an incident response. *Comment appeared on letterhead of an organization, official, or agency in response to the PIOH. CATEGORY COMMENT # NATURE OF COMMENT RESPONSES Roadway Design 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 42, 43, 51, 53, 57, 60, 63 Request a barrier between opposing traffic lanes and to separate the bike/pedestrian lane The project team will investigate the addition of a median barrier. Safety is a central focus of all future improvements made to US 80; a barrier could impede access during emergency situations. However, the proposed multi-use bike/pedestrian path will be separated from travel lanes by a barrier on the bridges and a grass buffer in all other areas. Roadway Design 14, 22, 23, 47, 65 Want the passing lanes to be removed The proposed concept would remove the extra lanes. Roadway Design 9/9a, 71 Asks that if the shoulders have rumble strips that they be installed in a skip pattern and on top of or as close as possible to the fog line Proposed rumble strips would meet bicycle accommodation guidelines. Roadway Design 20 Requests that the bike/pedestrian lane be widened to 12 feet The proposed project includes a 10-foot, multi-use trail, which would be a significant amenity for residents and visitors alike. The bicycle/pedestrian width will be investigated. However, any increase in the width would have additional impact on the adjacent environmental resources. Roadway Design 23, 47 Requests for improvement of the Ft. Pulaski entrance by having wider dedicated turn lanes The proposed concept includes dedicated left and right turn lanes at the entrance of Fort Pulaski, rails to trails, and Lazaretto Creek boat ramp. (Responses regarding Fort Pulaski and rails to trails turn lane concerns are combined in letter.) *Comment appeared on letterhead of an organization, official, or agency in response to the PIOH. CATEGORY COMMENT # NATURE OF COMMENT RESPONSES Roadway Design 35, 58 ROW Concern – one would like a northwest option, the other prefers a south option. At this time, alternatives have been proposed which could potentially shift the project to the north or south. The alternatives will be studied for engineering and environmental issues to determine the best overall layout that would meet federal regulations and minimize impacts. Landmarks and resident concerns are a consideration in the process. Roadway Design 89 Requests for improvements to drainage along the highway with culverts to allow for better tidal flow Hydraulic studies will be performed during the next phase. Study results will be utilized to determine any profile change along the corridor. (Responses regarding drainage and flooding concerns are combined in letter.) Roadway Design 91 Suggests adding a turn lane for the rails to trails area just east of Bull River The proposed concept includes dedicated left and right turn lanes at the entrance of Fort Pulaski, rails to trails, and Lazaretto Creek boat ramp. (Responses regarding Fort Pulaski and rails to trails turn lane concerns are combined in letter.) Roadway Design 100 Requests that intersection treatments be considered wherever cars, cyclists, and pedestrians interact Local GDOT staff are investigating interim safety improvements at existing intersections. The long-term improvements would incorporate the most current bike/pedestrian intersection treatments. Roadway Design 15, 105* Requests GDOTs support in the extension of the McQueen’s trail to the Lazaretto Bridge The extension of McQueen’s Trail is not within the current project scope, and will need to be evaluated independently. GDOT will coordinate with the local officials on connecting the proposed bike/pedestrian facilities to the existing trail network. *Comment appeared on letterhead of an organization, official, or agency in response to the PIOH. CATEGORY COMMENT # NATURE OF COMMENT RESPONSES Roadway Design 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 48, 60, 81, 90, 94 Do not want a four lane alternative considered At this time, the project proposes a two-lane highway with improved paved shoulders for the entirety of the corridor. The proposed project is recommended by a planning study approved by the CORE MPO in December 2012. Engineering, environmental and hydraulic studies will be performed during the next phase of the project, which could result in changes to the proposed concept. However, current data supports a two-lane highway option. Bridge Design 44 Asks that the height of the bridges be raised to accommodate shrimping boats and also that the width between pillars is made to be at least 150ft to accommodate outriggers. The geometry of the bridges will be fully determined after further engineering, environmental and hydraulic studies are completed. The proposed height and clear span width will be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard. Bridge Design 7, 73, 80 Support two parallel bridges at each location. The SR 26/US 80 bridges at Bull River and Lazaretto Creek are currently on the GDOT replacement priority list. The existing condition of both bridges renders continued, long- term use infeasible. The project proposes single, two-lane replacement bridges with a barrier-separated, multi-use trail at each location. Bridge Design 6, 22, 23, 34, 44, 46, 50, 67, 71, 73, 77, 79, 88, 90, 97, 101* Expressed concern about flooding and want the proposed height of the bridge to take into consideration projected flood days, sea level rise, etc. In order to ensure appropriate road height, hydraulic studies will be performed during the next phase of the project. Concerns over recent flooding incidents are being taken into consideration. (Responses regarding drainage and flooding concerns are combined in letter.) CATEGORY COMMENT # NATURE OF COMMENT RESPONSES Traffic 1, 2, 17, 22, 39, 46, 47, 58, 61, 64, 66, 73 Request that the speed limit be reduced on US 80 The project team recognizes that the speed limit is an item of concern for residents and visitors to Tybee Island. Travel speeds along the corridor will be examined and the national standard for posted speed applied. Traffic 34, 64, 86, 95, 98 Want signage to be improved at Bull River and Lazaretto Creek and throughout the project corridor The signing and pavement marking will be designed to meet current standards. Specialty signs will be investigated for unique project circumstances. Traffic 1 Requests that lighting be improved along US 80 Lighting improvements will be investigated along the corridor to improve overall safety and aesthetics of the road. However, lighting could have a negative impact on environmental resources. Local Government / Other 17, 47, 73 Want enforcement of traffic laws improved along US 80 through an increased police presence Traffic enforcement on SR 26/US 80 is a collaborative responsibility of the Savannah-Chatham Police Department and the Tybee Island Police Department. GDOT will forward this comment to local law enforcement for consideration. NEPA 21, 23, 27, 60, 73, 89 Expressed concern about the impact of the project on various environmental resources (wetlands, terrapin, etc.) Extensive environmental studies are being conducted along the project corridor in order to identify the best overall layout to meet federal regulations. One of the goals of the project team is to minimize the impact to the surrounding environmental resources. Planning/Schedule 5, 8, 26, 32a, 40, 53, 54, 61, 69, 78 Expressed urgency in addressing the overall issues in the project corridor GDOT is committed to completing the project as quickly as possible for residents, visitors, and local businesses. The surrounding natural, historical, and archaeological resources present a unique challenge. SR 26/US 80 is a Federal Highway and State Route located within National Park Service land, and therefore the project is subject to additional regulation. CATEGORY COMMENT # NATURE OF COMMENT RESPONSES 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 29, 32/32a, 43, 46, 53, 54, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 90, 91, 94, 101* Concerned about safety and want protection of the drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians to be the top priority in designing the project Safety is a top priority of the project team. Every effort will be made during design to provide the safest and most cost effective solution. 27, 28 Requests additional landscaping maintenance along US 80 This comment will be passed on to the local GDOT area office responsible for maintenance. *Comment appeared on letterhead of an organization, official, or agency in response to the PIOH.