The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19980260 Ver 3_R-2247EB 4B Meeting Minutes FINAL_20190405sTv 100 � MEETING MINUTES DATE: March 19, 2019 CLIENT: NCDOT PROJECT: R-2247EB Winston-Salem Northern Beltway Interchange at US 52 (Future I-74) MEETING LOCATION: NCDOT Roadway Design Conference Room, Building A STARTING TIME: 8:00 am ENDING TIME: 10:00 am SUBJECT: 4B Merger Meeting Minutes Meeting Attendees Robert Patterson, NCDEQ-DWR Dave Wanucha, NCDEQ-DWR (via phone) Nicholle BraspennickY, USACE Marla Chambers, NCWRC Amy Euliss, NCDOT-Division DEO (via phone) Craig Lee, NCDOT-Hydraulics (via phone) Michael Shumsky, NCDOT-Design Build Jon Nance, NCDOT-Design Build Andy Hussey, NCDOT-Design Build Bill Barrett, NCDOT-EAU John Jamison, NCDOT-EPU Mike Sanderson, NCDOT-EPU Mark Staley, Roadside (via phone) Matt Adams, Blythe Construction Luca Pellegrini, Blythe Construction Richard Hiner, Wood PLC (via phone) Eddie Vance, STV Adam Alvey, STV Mark Pugh, STV Note: Discussion and comments from meeting are in blue General • Project Overview • Plan Sheet 4— Begin Project at North End of US 52 • P1an Sheet 17 — End Project at South End of US 52 • P1an Sheet 12 — Tie to U-2579DEF (Winston-Salem Outer Beltway) • Plan Sheet 13 — Future Beltway Project R-2247EA • Plan Sheets 7, 8& 9— Project Encompasses Current Design-Build Project R-2247EC 960 WESTTRADf STREET, SUITE 715 AN EMALRYEf-OWNED [pMAANY PApVIOINGQUAl1TYSEAV7CE5IN[f 1412 I CHARLQTTE, P!C 28:202-11AA f704! 372-1885 FAX: (7041 372-3393 sTv 100 e�r r.� ■ Blyth Construction has both Design-Build Contracts (R-2247 & EC) ■ Proposed drainage for EC Project is shown as existing on EB Plans • Project located within the Yadkin River Basin. There are no specific stormwater requirements, but will use maximum extent practicable • Identified 2 potential locations for stormwater basin which are under review • Culverts 10 Large Culverts on the Project ■ Including 3 extensions ■ 2 replacements ■ 5 new crossings ■ 2 FEMA (Grassy Creek) ■ Use streambed riprap protection if outlet velocity is greater than 10 fps ■ Use energy dissipator if outlet velocity is greater than 15 fps • Avoidance and Minimization Reduced earthwork (million cubic yards of borrow to balanced on-site) ■ Lowered interchange/reduced footprint ■ Eliminated a new continuous 1200' culvert (Ramp & Loop B) • Retained 350' open channel inside Loop B • Retained 100' minimum open channel between culverts Shifted Ramp DB and Loop D away from Grassy Creek ■ Eliminated Ramp DB crossing over Grassy Creek ■ Reduced 1600' mainline culvert to 1200' • Based on preliminary design reduced stream impacts by 20% • General Comments ■ Culverts that will not be buried should be called out on plans as "Do Not Bury" and those that are to be buried should be noted as such. For permitting phase a table is to be developed listing all culverts and noting whether they are buried or not; and including buried depth. ■ Any buried culvert should consider using sills to avoid head-cutting. If we are burying a new RCBC then we will provide sills but if it is an extension that is currently buried without sills, then using sills may not be possible due to hydraulic constraints. ■ Provide inlet and outlet details which display the culvert and channel cross section on Permit Drawings (4C Plans). ■ Use geotextile liner under rip rap in channel changes unless there is a flood bench. In that case, use Class II stone on the toe of the bench and coir fiber matting on the bench. If bench is built on fill material, use riprap. ■ Riprap outlet pads should be flush with the streambed. ■ Marla Chambers w/ NCWRC mentioned several times to assess using low-flow and high- flow ban-els for multiple-barrel culverts. SHT 4 Culvert extension up and downstream for Beaver Dam Creek (QQQ) • Team currently evaluating a retaining wall to avoid utility conflict on downstream end which will reduce impacts Impacts to 2 small tributaries (PPP & SSS) from embankment Discussion about adding sills and backfilling existing culvert extension: sTv 100 � Amy Euliss opposed backiill existing culverts running under US 52 d e to the difiiculty getting equipment into the culvert and the high cost to the department. If the hydraulic capacity allows sills to be added, the culvert will fill in on its own over time. Provide a cross section of the culvert showing the floodplain in the permit plans. Craig Lee is open to further discussion of sills based on meeting design flow SHT 5 SHT 6 SHT 7 Culvert extension up and downstream for Muddy Creek (UU) • Adding a supplementa160" trenchless pipe for capacity • Team currently evaluating a retaining wall to avoid utility conflict on downstream end which will reduce impacts Impacts to small tributary (000) from embankment Same comments as sheet 4 No Jurisdictional Impacts Evaluating a U-shaped retaining wall to avoid utility conflict at tributary (WWW) Tributary TT and W49 are impacted from EC Section (Site 1) • Additional impacts from SB 52 split on downstream end Discussion on method to distinguish new EB impacts from previous EC impacts • Perhaps a note or table at each site • Use different hatching or shading • STV will provide an example prior to submittal SHT 8-A • Tributary LLL is impacted from EC Section (Site 2) • No additional impacts anticipated SHT 8-B • Tributary SS and W50 are impacted from EC Section (Site 4) • Additional impacts due to NB 52 tie in will be included SHT 8-C • Tributary LLL is impacted from EC Section (Site 2) • Additional impacts from SB 52 split will be included SHT 8-D SHT 9 Tributary SS and W26 are impacted from EC Section (Site 6) • Additional impacts from SB 52 split will be included for impacts to wetland and stream (SS, W48 and W26). Amy F,uliss recoinmended that W26 be a total take Show EC riprap pads Note: Plan sheet 9 was revised after posted for agency review; an updated sheet was provided at the 4b meeting. • Revised cross pipe location • Elevations did not work with preliminary layout • Tie to new 42" trenchless pipe from EC Section • Generally positive co�nnlents about revised cross pipe location SHT 9-A • Tributary III is impacted from EC Section (Site 7) • No additional impacts anticipated SHT 9-B sTv 100 � • New impacts to tributary DDD and W30 ` • New impacts to tributary WW • Replacing existing 72" CMP with 7'x7' RCBC • It was noted that this is a long culvert (approx. 1,200'), so will not be buried. • Also, Amy requested that for the 4c plans, that appropriated details be included (e.g. for bank stabilization). • Preliminary stormwater basin • Replace 30" CMP outfall pipe SHT 9-C • Impacts to tributaries VV and III • Drainage from cross pipe diverted from III to VV • It was requested that the Stream Form for Stream V V be checked to see if there was any biology in the stream. The Stream Form is attached with Lines 20-24 outlined. It is noted that the stream assessment was conductcd "abovc culvcrt," which should bc a good justification to not providc fish passage. • Impacts to W42 SHT 9-D • 4 culverts replaced single 1200' culvert • Culverts buried 1' • Reduced total impacts • Amy Euliss recommended arming the banks in-between the culverts, for short segments (100' or less), and for any segments that are currently incised and unstable. • Culverts do not need to be buried SHT 10-A • Realigned Ramp DB out of Grassy Creek floodplain and eliminated culvert • Reduced length of 7'x7' RCBC from 1600' to 1200' • Culvert not buried because of length • Preliminary starmwater basin inside Loop D • Chccic to scc if adding a bench is possible (may not be due to already large cut) SHT 11-A&B • Approximately 550' double RCBC buried 1' w/ 1' flood bench (Grassy Creek) • Riprap lined channel change (Is riprap bottom preferred?) • Single 7'x6' RCBC buried 1' • Show detail at tributary culvert outlet and make sure it flows to low portion of channel change, not to the bench • Amy requested that the side slope of the bench be armored with Class 2 riprap. We need to ensure that the larger rock is used to line the benches, especially at the lowest rocks on the bench. • Malce sure that the outfall ditch along slope prior to bridge is stable; possibly add riprap protection to the toe of slope SHT 12 • No Jurisdiction Features SHT 13-A • Downstream culvert from sheet 9-D • Channel change (Riprap?) • No impacts to W34 and W35 • Amy stated that there will be impacts to W34 for the tie-in. • Impacts to W43 Impacts not in functional design sTv 100 � • Riprap line the channel change • Amy Euliss recommended that W43 be a total take • Grass hatching missing in wetland SHT 14-A • W29 is an abandoned stormwater basin • Breach dam and provide stable channel to Grassy Creek • Impacts to tributary ZZ • Bank stabilization at Grassy Creek • Discussion about abandoned stormwater basin being a permitted NPDES basin • Note: Per an email from Joe Fogarty, PE (City of Winston-Salem), there is no record of a stormwater feature at this location; most likely an old sediment basin left in place after construction. A copy of the email will be attached to these minutes. SHT 14-B • Replace existing 36" CMP with trenchless pipe • Bank stabilization only • Ties to 48" RCP pipe system SHT 14-C • Extend existing 9'x9' RCBC (Grassy Creek) SHT 15 • Inlet end of 1200' 7'x7' RCBC SHT 16 • No Jurisdictional Impacts SHT 17 • No Jurisdictional Impacts From: Shumsky, Michael J <mshumsky@ncdot.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 4:05 PM To: PELLEGRINI Luca; ADAMS Matthew; Robbins, Mark; Vance, Edward; Bailey, Stacey Cc: Euliss, Amy; Lee, Craig J; Capps, Karen B; Archer Sr, Wright; Nance, Jon G Subject: FW: [External] RE: stormwater feature impacted by R-2247EB **This e-mail is from outside SN*" For your records. Michael J. Shumsky, PE Design-Build Engineer Design-Build Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation 919 707 6627 office mshumsky(a�ncdot.qov 1595 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1595 ^� r � '�� , : J�`�.r �p -, � -�_>; -, . Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Patterson, Robert D <robert.patterson@ncdenr.�ov> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:48 PM To: Euliss, Amy <aeuliss@ncdot.gov>; Lee, Craig J<cllee@ncdot.gov>; Shumsky, Michael J <mshumsky@ncdot.�ov> Cc: Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Nicholle.M.Braspennickx@usace.army.mil>; Barrett, William A<wabarrett@ncdot.�ov>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.�ov> Subject: RE: [External] RE: stormwater feature impacted by R-2247E6 Sounds good. Thank you for verifying! Robert D. Patterson, P.E. Stormwater Engineer 919-707-3880* � Robert.Patterson@ncdenr.gov � *Notenewnumberasoflan.30,2019 https://deq.nc.�ov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permittin�/transportation-permitting NC Dept. of Environmental Quality � DWR Transportation Permitting 512 N. Salisbury St., 12`h floor � 1617 Mail Service Center � Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Euliss, Amy Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:26 PM To: Patterson, Robert D<robert.patterson@ncdenr.�ov>; Lee, Craig J<cilee@ncdot.�ov>; Shumsky, Michael J <mshumsky@ncdot.�ov> Cc: Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Nicholle.M.Braspennickx@usace.army.mil>; Barrett, William A<wabarrett@ncdot.�ov>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.�ov> Subject: FW: [External] RE: stormwater feature impacted by R-2247EB Robert, I reached out to the City of WS after our 4B meeting this morning. They have no record of a permitted stormwater device at the approximate location on the attached map. Unless you have any objections, we will proceed with the feature as a wetland and not a permitted post construction stormwater device. Michael, Can you share this email and Robert's response with the rest of the Design Build team? Thanks. Craig, Can you add a note to the meeting minutes? Thanks. For referenced this is for wetland W29 on plan sheet 14-A or R-2247EB. Amy Euliss Division 9 Environmental Officer North Carolina Department of Transportation 336 747 7802 office aeuliss(a�ncdot.gov 375 Silas Creek Parkway Winston Salem, NC 27127-7167 ,..,,;, . ^�.1��. �: �r��,�/' ;, . -�� . �iY�> -• � . From: Joe Fogarty <josephf@cityofws.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:19 PM To: Euliss, Amy <aeuliss@ncdot.gov>; Keith Huff <keithhl@cityofws.org> Cc: Shumsky, Michael J<mshumsky@ncdot.�ov>; Lee, Craig J<cilee@ncdot.gov>; Barrett, William A <wa ba rrett@ ncdot.�ov> Subject: [External] RE: stormwater feature impacted by R-2247EB External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an � attaChment to report.spam@nc.gov Amy, We have no records of a Stormwater feature tied to a permit at this location. My initial assumption is that it is likely an old sediment basin that was just left in place after the construction of the development it may have served. Rega rds, Joe Fogarty PE City of Winston-Salem Stormwater Engineer City Hall — Suite 53 101 N. Main Street, Winston-Salem NC 27101 Tel: (336) 747-6961 E-mail: iosephf@citvofws.or� From: Euliss, Amy <aeuliss@ncdot.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:43 PM To: Keith Huff <keithhl@cityofws.org>; Joe Fogarty <josephf@cityofws.or�> Cc: Shumsky, Michael J<mshumsky@ncdot.�ov>; Lee, Craig J<cllee@ncdot.gov>; Barrett, William A <wa ba rrett@ ncdot.�ov> Subject: stormwater feature impacted by R-2247EB CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Keith and Joseph, NCDOT is impacting a feature as part of the WS beltway that has a riser pipe. We need to know if this is a stormwater feature that is tied to a permit. It is currently unmaintained and overgrown. DWR is asking us to research if there is a permit tied to it. If it is a permitted device, I also need to know if it was a Phase II requirement. I have attached a screen shot of the approximate location. Thanks. Amy Euliss Division 9 Environmental Officer North Carolina Department of Transportation 336 747 7802 office aeuliss(a�ncdot.gov 375 Silas Creek Parkway Winston Salem, NC 27127-7167 ,,.urr , '�;r={- � : `� r�� '� � -�Y�>�r -,� �: Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. � V NC DW Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 �%v 0�, �e �ci; fl ; Date: � �..r ProjecUSite: Z2 ��. � Latitude: �6� ��y Evaluator: r) r� } l��a�T� County: �, h Longitude:�� 3,OI� � Total Points: � �-- Stream Determination (c' Other Stream is at least intermittent �/` � Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial e.g. Quad Name: if 2 19 or perennia! if 2 30` 1 A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = :t 1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-pool sequence 4. Particle size of stream substrate 5. Active/relict floodplain 6. Depositional bars or benches 7. Recent alluvial deposits 8. Headcuts 9. Grade control 10. Natural valley � 11. Second or greater order channel a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrolog (Subtotal = 12. Presence of Baseflow 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 14. Leaf litter 15. Sediment on plants or debris 16. Organic debris lines or piles 17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? C. Biology (Subtotal = S .� '0 0 � 0 0 0 ri7 � Weak 1 1 .� 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� �. � � � �r; 2 2 1 1 2 18. Fibrous roots in streambed � 2 � 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed � 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance 6 � 2 21. Aquatic Mollusks � 2 22. Fish 0.5 1 23. Crayfish � 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 25. Algae 0 .5 1 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 � "perennial streams may also identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: � �. �;.� p , a �' �� .� �� '�% �� Yes=3 � 3 3 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 3 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Sketch: