Interagency Merger Process Team Meeting Concurrence Point 2A Revisited .
Interagency Merger Process Team MeetingConcurrence Point 2A Revisited:Bridging Decisions and Alignment ReviewKinston Bypass ProjectLenoir, Craven and Jones Counties, North CarolinaSTIP Project No. R-2553WBS Element No. 34460Purpose of the MeetingThe purpose of this meeting is to revisit bridging decisions made during the April 17, 2014,Concurrence Point (CP) 2A: Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review Interagency MergerProcess Team (Merger Team) meeting and associated information meetings.In 2008, the North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team (ILT) established the KinstonBypass project as a GIS pilot project as a means to test and evaluate streamlining the projectdevelopment process by utilizing GIS data for alternative development, alternative analysis,and selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative. The minutes from the November 21, 2013, Merger InformationalMeeting (attached), requested NCDOT be “open to reevaluating bridge lengths after theLEDPA/Preferred Alternative has been selected and more detailed information will beavailable.” and, “For CP2A, known areas requiring bridging will have approximate lengths;however, following the selection of the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, specific bridge lengthswill be reevaluated.”On February 19, 2020, at CP3, Alternative 1SB was identified as the LEDPA/PreferredAlternative (Figure 1). Following the selection of the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, streamand wetland delineations were performed, and preliminary designs were completed. Thepreliminary designs are a refined version of the design presented in the June 2019 StateDraft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and at the associated August 2019 PublicHearing. Due to design refinements, on October 14, 2021, a revised Hydraulics AspectReport was also developed for the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative. Below (and attached) arethe findings of the revised report:Table 1 lists the drainage area identification number and size for the 23 crossings that wereevaluated for Alternative 1SB. This evaluation resulted with: 13 drainage areas requiring a box culvert (2 of which require a triple box culvert –crossing #s 12-4 and 48)3 drainage areas requiring a bridge (crossing #s 004, 305, 110)Figures 2 and 3 show the locations of the drainage areas which correspond to locationsrequiring box culverts and locations requiring bridge crossings, respectively.Bridge Maps have been created for the 3 drainage areas requiring a bridge and 2 drainageareas requiring triple box culverts, which show the preliminary designs plan and profile view.Information also shown includes the floodway boundary, 100-Year Flood Fringe, 500-YearFlood Fringe, and delineated streams and wetlands. Copies of the bridge and culvert maps
are included in the Appendix. This new information is being provided to you to reviewand provide comments.NCDOT-Proposed Approach to CP2A for the Kinston Pilot ProjectTo facilitate your understanding of this information request, the following is a high-levelsummary of the approach agreed upon at CP2A. Per coordination with the Merger Team atthe Merger Informational Meeting on November 21, 2013, and at the “CP2 Revisited” MergerMeeting on January 16, 2014, a conceptual approach for information to be presented andused for the facilitation of the CP2A Merger Meeting was agreed upon. This approach, whichis presented in Exhibit 1 below, included reviews of natural system crossings based onproposed structure size and natural system connectivity and quality. The goal of thisapproach was to make the “easy” and most of the “medium” CP2A decisions with the dataavailable at that time and to make preliminary recommendations for the “hard” decisionswhich would be revisited once detailed field studies and designs were prepared for theLEDPA/Preferred Alternative. The matrix shown in Exhibit 1 details that bridge lengths andtriple box culvert lengths would be determined following selection of the LEDPA/PreferredAlternative.Exhibit 1: GIS Pilot Project Approach for CP2AHydraulicRecommendationLow QualityLow ConnectivityLow QualityHigh ConnectivityHigh QualityLow ConnectivityHigh QualityHigh ConnectivityPipes less than gle Barrel EDPADouble Barrel BoxCulvertPre‐LEDPADecide Pre‐LEDPA Decide Pre‐LEDPA Decide Pre‐LEDPAon Individual basis on Individual basis on Individual basisTriple Barrel BoxCulvertPre‐LEDPADecide Pre‐LEDPA Decide Pre‐LEDPAon Individual basis on Individual basisBridge DPAPost‐LEDPAAt the time the decision matrix was developed (Exhibit 1), team members requestedclarification so that decisions could be made in context of a proposed approach. The outlineshown below details the proposed approach to CP2A, and how it fits into the mergermilestone process. Pieces of the approach that have been completed to date are shown initalics.From the CP2A Merger Packet:Kinston is one of three projects identified for the use of GIS during the scoping and planningprocess. With CP2A approaching, the intent of the outline below is to clarify how CP2Adecisions will “fit” into the merger milestone process for this pilot initiative.
An Interagency Letter of Intent (LOI) signed in December 2012, states:“The scope of the initiative includes determining the practicality of using GISto identify issues of significance and eliminating detailed alternatives forselection of preferred alternative/LEDPA for agreed-upon pilot projects.”In the spirit of the LOI, below is listed an outline approach to CP2A decisions in the contextof overall merger milestones (starting after CP2):1. Generate GIS-based data and subsequent analysis of natural systems.2. Develop minimum hydraulic recommendations based on engineeringconsiderations.3. First CP2A meeting: Office review of all crossings of remaining Detailed StudyAlternativesa. Make the “easy” decisions on pipes and culverts.i. Pipes under 72”ii. Culvertsb. Establish any sites of interest that the team would like to see in the fieldbefore any preliminary decision is made.4. Second CP2A meeting: Field visit to look at sites of interest.5. Make decisions on any remaining bridge lengths and culvert sizes & extensions.a. Possibly a third CP2A meeting if necessary.6. Sign a CP2A Concurrence Form which indicates that these decisions arePRELIMINARY and can be revisited post-LEDPA - after a preliminary design andfield delineations are completed, and updated impacts are quantified.7. Based on preliminary CP2A decisions, generate cost and natural resource impactsfor each crossing site.8. Include relevant site cost and impact data into the summation for each remainingDetailed Study Alternative, so that the SDEIS (and eventual LEDPA decision)reflects a reasonably-accurate cost and impacts assessment for each alternative.9. Publish a SDEIS, hold public hearing(s), and accept comments on the document.10. Merger Team makes a CP3 LEDPA decision based on the inter-agency agreementto make this decision based on GIS-level data, as well as a developed range ofalternatives.11. Complete stream and wetland delineations in the field (for the LEDPA design).12. Complete a Best-Fit preliminary design on the LEDPA alternative, continuing toavoid and minimize impacts as practicable.13. Based on the Best-Fit preliminary design (which may change previous crossinglocations and/or highway elevations depicted at CP2A) and the updated stream andwetland locations and boundaries: Establish whether it is appropriate to “Revisit theCP2A decision” for any sites.14. As part of the normal CP4A Minimization approach, revisit any CP2A decisions asapplicable. Update design and impacts.15. Publish a SFEIS which describes the project and the preferred alternative (LEDPA).Receive comments.16. Select the recommended alternative and publish the ROD.
All previous (prior to CP3) Merger Packets, concurrence forms, and presentations areavailable in the Agency Coordination Plan aft-eis/R-2553 Kinston Bypass Agency Coordination Plan.pdf).CURRENT PROJECT SCHEDULEDistribute State Final EISState Record of DecisionRight of Way Acquisition Begins (C Section)Construction Begins202220232025/20262029
APPENDIX
13reek123)")"aCFigure 1:Applicant's Preferred Alternativek903t neCree 258t entSwifCo n PITT COUNTYGREENE COUNTYWAYNECOUNTYGriftonLegend)"118)"148Study Area)"11rNeuse Rive)"903 Secondary Roadek14855Municipal Boundary11BeCounty BoundarykBarwickStation Rd)"AlbertSugg RdeeCrSu JimttonRd55ar)"Global TransPark (GTP))"Cre55)"La Grangeing)"Me Willasl ieeyRd70NC HighwayGTP)"Fall903RailroadUS Highway70BYP Alternative 1 - Upgrade Existing withShallow Southern BypassKinston 70BYP7070BUSeuNseveRirCRAVEN COUNTY11)")"55ellCasw RdnStatioNeuse River 70Dover)"550ethwuoS)"55)"58)"11orkR 70)" This map is for reference only.Sources: AECOM, CGIA, City of Kinston,Craven County, ESRI, HPO, Jones CountyLenoir County, NCDCM, NCDEQ, NCDOT, NCEM,NCOnemap, NRCS, USFWSd9033MilesCove CityeFysWLENOIR COUNTYseekt Cr1.5258JONES th Carolina58)"DUPLIN COUNTY41GeorgiaSouth CarolinaProjectLocation
GREENE COUNTYPITT COUNTYFigure 2: CulvertLocations)"GTPm)"148Nee ekp CrLegenderS toRiveus58)"G u W h i t e MashmRuSwna11Creekn yton!Proposed Box Culvert Crossing!Retain Existing Culvert (Extendas Needed)Study AreaBRunrieryAlternative 1 SBStreamRailroad)"148)"glli nCre ekJero Ruic hCounty)"Fa5555nUS HighwayNC HighwaySecondary RoadLENOIR COUNTY Waterbody70BUS! 12!!2!505W304hit elaceAlterGlobal TransPark (GTP)hH e atnchaBrn a tive1Floodway 70BYPSBMunicipal Area307)"312wnch b errhit55ysttM o a mpSwley's C r eek)"a nc hWSt r a aBreus Reri veBrN!!311!308ill11M!'!112!ampGum S wCre ekFloodplainCRAVEN COUNTY012,000Feet48 !516 70ekCre)"55So uth w est)"58)"11JONES COUNTYThis map is for reference only.Sources: CGIA, NCDOT, NCDENR, NCFPM,Craven County, NCDCM, NCEM, Lenoir County,Pitt County, Kinston Planning Department,NCOneMap, NCWRC, NCSHPO,EPA, USFWS,USDA, NRCS, DWQ, ESRI and URS.VirginiaTennesseeNorth CarolinaGeorgiaSouthCarolina
GREENE COUNTYFigure 3: )"11NeGu Wh ite MashmRuSwnay to nStonreekC!ery RunBriProposed Bridge CrossingMaintain Existing Bridge (NoModification Anticipated)Maintain Existing Bridge (withPotential Widening and/orProposed Ramp/Service Rd.Bridge)Study AreaAlternative 1-SB)"148g Cree kJerinStream)"Ruc ho)"l linFa5555RailroadUS HighwayNC HighwayLENOIR COUNTY Secondary Road70BUS!305kl ternative 1 S BM)")" ekC re58)"t12,000Feetam p)"070S outhw e sMunicipal AreaCRAVEN COUNTY yley's C r eekp s5511wbec h rrt'Mot mSw ahit55an c h110Br!illvFloodwayWu s e RitrmotnaryuAWaterbodyFloodplainSt r a a nBrNeer11CountyGum S wCreeRiveTribl ac e!)"Whit e70BYP4Global TransPark (GTP)hH e at c hnBr aThis map is for reference only.Sources: CGIA, NCDOT, NCDENR, NCFPMCraven County, NCDCM, NCEM, Lenoir County,Pitt County, Kinston Planning Department,NCOneMap, NCWRC, NCSHPO,EPA, USFWS,USDA, NRCS, DWQ, ESRI and URS.JONES COUNTYVirginiaTennesseeNorth CarolinaGeorgiaSouthCarolina
TABLE 1: PRELIMINARY HYDRAULIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAJOR(1) CROSSINGSDATE:10/14/2021PROJECT NUMBER:R‐2553 Kinston BypassWBS ELEMENT #:PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Kinston BypassNAME:ALT ID (2)ROUTESTATIONLONGLATSTREAM/WETLAND IDFalling CreekUnnamedDetailedNone46.5 2‐3@40' bridges2.98 12'x6' eNoneNone2.24 None1.41 1@6'x4' RCBC1.69 None2.08 None1.48 None1.43 1 24" RCP1.09 None1.41 None1.41 None3@12'x11' RCBC1@8'x8' RCBC1@9'x8' RCBC1@10' x 8' RCBC1@10'x7' RCBC1@8'x8' RCBC1@8'x8' RCBC1@8'x8' RCBC1@8'x8' RCBC4505LL2320 3312‐1312‐2L2 Ramp AY3LLLY5LA1C1Y5 RPAA1C1Y5 RPAN/A68 00454 50607 00620 5028 00641 5026 5023 23638535.2345335.23609435.235373L905 0035.2191348L1035 0035.223119516‐2L1097 0035.2187335Y10 Ramp BN/AY1067 75Y10 Ramp AN/AL1111 50Y10 Ramp DN/AY10 Ramp CN/AL480 516‐9305Number, Size, Structure Type‐77.692803 Falling Creek‐77.674406 Stream SJ‐77.73161 Stream SA112Number, Size, Structure Type1.72 6.5x4 box culvert35.2669435.229658MINIMUM RECOMMENDED STRUCTURENone233 00818 50EXISTING STRUCTUREUnnamedLLFEMA STUDY DRAINAGETYPEAREA (Mi 2)9'x8' RCBC withwingwallsretain existing, add 2bridges 3@40'‐4"12'x8' RCBC2110STREAM NAMEStream SJStream SOStream SOStream SUStream SVStream SVStream SXStream SVStream SVNotesReplace existing, 1' to be buried.Retain existing bridges, add two for aux. lanesReplace existing, 1' to be buried.Minimum structure size by Q is 7.5'x7.5'; matchup and downstream structure sizes. 1' to beburied.Replace existing, 1' to be buriedNew location, 1' to be buried.New location, 1' to be buried.New location, 1' to be buried.Replace existing 24" pipe, 1' to be buried.New location, 1' to be buried.New location, 1' to be buried.New location, 1' to be buried.‐77.543182 Southwest CreekSouthwest CreekDetailed‐77.517401 Mill BranchMill BranchNone‐77.474747 Tracey SwampTracey SwampLimited‐77.454464 Stream SANUnnamedNone2 bridges, Upstreamretain existing, add 1bridge 1@56', 1@55',bridge, 1@56', 1@55',1@56'; Downstream1@56'Retain existing, add additional bridge for servicebridge 3@ 52'6"56.1roadretain and extendRetain and extend existing (sized for 50 year2.3 2 barrel 7'x6' RCBC2@7'x6'currently)retain and extendRetain and extend existing (sized for 50 year5.02 3@7'x7' RCBC3@7'x7' RCBCcurrently)Replace with 7'x7'0.79 1@5' RCPRCBCReplace existing pipe, 1' to be 859‐77.449953‐77.454361‐77.63601UnnamedGum SwampGum SwampGum SwampGum SwampUnnamedNeuse RiverNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneDetailed0.82 None2.37 CM Ellipse 12'x7'2.34 None1.87 2@5'x7'1.85 None0.61 None2700 NoneNOTES:(1) Major Crossings ‐ conveyance greater than 72" pipe (This table should be used for Merger CP2A concurrence.)(2) Provided in planning documentStream SANGum SwampGum SwampGum SwampGum SwampStream SAMNeuse RiverInstall new 7'x7' RCBC1@11'x8' RCBC1@11'x8' RCBCRetain as‐is1@10'x8' RCBC1@6'x7' RCBC7115' bridgeNew location, 1' to be buried.Relace existing pipe, 1' to be buried.New location, 1' to be buried.Retain existing pipe. No need to extend.New location, 1' to be buried.New location, 1' to be buried.New Location
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPAT MCCRORYANTHONY J. TATAGOVERNORSECRETARYMINUTES FROM THE MERGER INFORMATIONAL MEETING ONNOVEMBER 21, 2013To:Project FileFrom:Ted Devens, PEDate:February 5, 2014Subject:STIP Number R-2553, Kinston Bypass, Lenoir County, North CarolinaA Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Process Team (Merger Team) Informational Meeting washeld at 10:30 AM, Thursday, November 21, 2013 in the NCDOT Century Center Complex StructureDesign Conference Room. Those in attendance are shown on the attached sign-in sheet.Purposes of MeetingThe purpose of the meeting is to provide a project update to the Merger Team including theidentification of a new alternative, review the new 2012 Kinston Travel Demand Model and 2012Traffic Forecast, and to discuss the next steps in the Merger Process.Merger Meeting SummaryTom Steffens initiated the meeting with introductions. Ted Devens then reviewed the agenda andcorresponding meeting presentation. Major discussion points are shown below. With regard to the new alternative (Upgrade Existing US 70 with Shallow Bypass), it wasnoted that NCDOT has spoken to the local officials and business community about this newalternative and to date all feedback has been supportive.When discussing the new 2012 Kinston Travel Demand Model, it was requested thatadditional information be provided at the upcoming CP2 Revisited meeting includinggeneral breakout of the type of traffic (local, through, freight, etc.). Additionally for thismeeting, it was requested that when discussing amount of traffic being “drawn” fromexisting US 70, clarification be provided to better elaborate on what is “significant” andhow it is relevant when discussing meeting the Purpose and Need for the project.With regard to potentially eliminating alternatives at the upcoming CP2 Revisited meeting,the following was suggested:MAILING ADDRESS:NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTERRALEIGH NC 27699-1548TELEPHONE: 919-707-6000FAX: TURY CENTER, BUILDING A1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVERALEIGH NC 27610
R-2553: INTERAGENCY MERGER TEAM INFORMATIONAL MEETING MINUTESNovember 21, 2013Page 2 of 3o The same level of information will need to be prepared and presented for existingDetailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) and the new alternative (Upgrade Existing US70 with Shallow Bypass).o Impact information presented at the November 2011 CP2 meeting should beprovided for the 17 DSAs and for the new alternative (Upgrade Existing US 70 withShallow Bypass).o Applicability of the travel demand model and traffic forecast to the DSAs should bediscussed as well as a review of the model assumptions included in the previous and2012 travel demand models. This information should also be included in the MergerPacket.o Given the recent coordination with FEMA regarding impacting Hazard MitigationGrant Program (HMGP) properties, if any preliminary corridors were eliminated atCP2 due to impacting a HMGP property, they should be reconsidered as a DetailedStudy Alternative.o If alternatives were eliminated at CP2 using the results of the 2009 Traffic Forecastthey should be reevaluated per the 2012 Traffic Forecast and reconsidered as aDetailed Study Alternative. A discussion was then held on CP2A and how the Merger Team wanted to address the factthat since this is a GIS Pilot project, certain information that is typically available at CP2Awill not be available.o Given bridge lengths are directly related to impacts and overall cost, which willultimately be used to select the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, it was suggested theproject should have a CP2A meeting rather than having a combined CP2A/4Ameeting. This recommendation was based upon the Merger Team suggesting thatinitial bridge limits could be set now with the data available as long as NCDOTwould be open to reevaluating bridge lengths after the LEDPA/Preferred Alternativehas been selected and more detailed information will be available. It was noted,given this is a pilot project; NCDOT will be flexible and consider additionalstewardship efforts following the selection of the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.o For the purposes of evaluating DSAs within the State Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) NCDOT will continue to work with members of the Merger Teamto develop specific methodologies and approach for holding CP2A. This willinclude a matrix depicting areas where straight-forward decisions can be made nowand specific areas where decisions need to be made regarding culvert versus bridge(which may require site visits at CP2A). For CP2A, known areas requiring bridgingwill have approximate lengths; however, following the selection of theLEDPA/Preferred Alternative, specific bridge lengths will be reevaluated. Notestaken on the screen during the meeting are attached.o Given it was determined a CP2A meeting will be held and concurrence will berequested, the Concurrence Form will be prepared to document the methodologyused to make the decisions which will be adequate for evaluating the DSAs in theState DEIS.
R-2553: INTERAGENCY MERGER TEAM INFORMATIONAL MEETING MINUTESNovember 21, 2013Page 3 of 3Next Steps NCDOT will continue to work with members of the Merger Team to develop specificmethodologies and approach for holding CP2A.Action Items NCDOT will schedule the CP2 Merger Meeting and prepare/distribute the Merger Packet.After CP2, NCDOT intends to move directly to a series of CP2A Merger Meetings.Minutes Prepared by Kory Wilmot, URS. If there are any questions or edits, please contact ChrisWerner, URS Project Manager, at (919) 461-1470 or christopher.werner@urs.com. Participantcomments or edits on these draft minutes are welcome until February 20, 2014, at which time finalminutes will be prepared and distributed.
The purpose of this meeting is to revisit bridging decisions made during the April 17, 2014, Concurrence Point (CP) 2A: Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review Interagency Merger Process Team (Merger Team) meeting and associated information meetings. In 2008, the North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team (ILT) established the Kinston
team xl team 2. t050710-f xl team 3. t050907-f xl team xl team 4. t050912-f xl team xl team 5. t050825-f xl team xl team 6. t050903-f xl team. 2 7. t050914-f xl team xl team 8. t061018-f xl team 9. t061105-f xl team name xl team 10. t060717-f xl team xl team 11. t070921-f xl team xl team xl team 12. t061116-f xl team. 3 13. 020904-f name/# xl .
which systematically reviews ex-post evaluations of the impact of merger decisions by EU competition authorities. Ex-post merger evaluations (or merger retrospectives) estimate . of merger decisions, introduce the relevant methodologies, and provide a framework for identifying errors in merger decisions.
Impact Evaluation of Merger Decisions (2011) Economic Evidence in Merger Analysis (2011) Remedies in Merger Cases . Cross-Border Merger Cases held by the Competition Committee (Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement) in October 2013.
Merger Decision's Correctness Based on a LEAR study on ex-post merger evaluation for the UK Competition Commission (CC) - link We analyze the merger among two major book resellers in the UK Waterstone's and Ottakar's (Aguzzoni et al., 2013) It was cleared by the UK CC in 2006 We look at the price effect of the merger at different levels (local and
The evaluation of competitive merger e ects is an important topic for rm managers and an- . In this case, the merger impact is heterogeneous across merging rms and the response parameter of interest is correlated with the merger variable, such that the . Firms make their decisions whether to merger or not in anticipation of the expected .
May 18, 2017 · BIA National Aviation Plan BIA Regional Aviation Plans BIA Agency/Unit Aviation Plans 1.7.3 Guides Interagency Aerial Ignition Guide (IAIG, PMS 501) Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide (IASG, PMS 505) Interagency Airspace Coordination Guide (IACG) Interagency Airtanker Base Operations Guide (IATBOG, PMS 508) File Size: 1MB
whereby Merger Sub would merge with and into Wyeth (the "Merger"), with Wyeth surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer. The Wyeth stockholders voted in favor of the Merger on July 20, 2009 and the Merger w
Why the AMC’s are Trivial Brandon Jiang January 24, 2016 1 How to Use this Document This could possibly be used as a sort of study guide, but its main intent is to of- fer students some direction to prepare for this contest other than just doing past problems. Note that it is assumed that the reader is mathematically capable of understanding the standard curriculum at school. If not, the .
