20071134 Ver 5_Meeting Minutes_20100217

J D
BEVERLY EAVESPERDUE
GOVERNOR
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
CONTRACT NUMBER:
COUNTY:
T.I.P. No.
SUBJECT:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OCTOBER 8, 2009 EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
34445.4.1, 34445.4.2
State Funded
C202107
Madison, Yancey
US-19 From 1-26 in Madison County to SR 1336 (Jack's
Creek Rd.)
R-2518A,R-2518B
Meeting Minutes for wall deletion request
A meeting was held at 1:30 on October 12 and at 9:00 am on October 13, 2009 to discuss and
present NCDOT's request to delete a wall located at station 100+80 to 103+80 on the above project.
Randy McKinney opened both meetings with introductions and an explanation of NCDOT's
request. The request is to delete a wall located at station 100+80 to 103+80. The wall is proposed
to be replaced with a 1700 mm Aluminized Corrugated Steel Pipe (ACSP) to pipe an existing
stream located in this area. Then a fill would be constructed with a grassed 2:1 slope. The driving
factors for the request are Safety to the public due to the proximity of the wall to the traveling
public, lack of maintainability, and cost difference. Randy McKinney gave each of the attendees a
copy of a revised plan sheet showing the proposed change along with a breakdown showing the cost
savings by deleting the wall. The savings after all anticipated cost will be 4,358,000 dollars.
Randy McKinney explained that in the permit process NCDOT had committed to a wall to protect
the stream area. At that time NCDOT anticipated a small toe wall approximately 10-20 feet in
height. As the design progressed and Geo Tech. studies were completed it was determined that due
to current poor soil conditions that in order to support the wall a rock buttress was need to prevent
wall settlement and failure. Due to the needed buttress and proximity of the stream and roadway the
wall height and length increased. The designed wall is approximately 1000' in length and ranges
from 85' to 100' in height. This greatly increased the cost of the wall.
A question, answer, and comment session followed the explanation in each meeting. The follow are
comments, questions, and response from each attendee:
Brian Wrenn stated that he thought that this is an example of poor planning by NCDOT and that
something like this should be caught and addressed prior to construction. Randy Henegar stated
that due to the timing of the final design completion and the let of the project it was simply never
addressed until construction began. Mr. Wrenn asked how many feet of stream would be affected
and how NCDOT planned to mitigate the impact. Jamie Lancaster stated that there would be
approximately 1,200 feet of actual stream impact as taken off of the plans and photos. NCDOT
plans to go through EEP and pay for the impacts. Mr. Wrenn ask at what ratio. Mr. Lancaster
stated 2:1. He also discussed credits that could be obtained or that had been obtained for the project
originally. There was a discussion on the ratio that NCDOT should pay. Mr. Wrenn asks that
NCDOT propose a payment ratio or combination to him for review. Mr. Lancaster agreed.
Marla Chambers also stated that NCDOT should address these issues before construction. Mrs.
Chambers ask what type of surveys had been conducted for the project in this area to determine
aquatic life etc. Randy Griffin explained what studies and or surveys had been conducted by
NCDOT or consultants. Roger Bryan stated that there are no fish in this section of stream. Mrs.
Chambers stated that she understood the reasoning behind the request and that this is a large section
of stream impact and ask if NCDOT has looked at any other options. Mrs. Chambers ask
specifically about ideas such as changing alignment both horizontal and vertical, changing wall
locations, changing slopes, etc. Mr. McKinney stated that prior to making the request to delete the
wall NCDOT has looked into changing slope steepness, changing fill requirements to all rock thus
allowing even steeper slopes, looked into piping the stream and constructing a natural stream design
adjacent to the bottom of the fill, changing alignments to shift the roadway, constructing smaller
shorter walls, etc. Mr. McKinney explained that in order to not affect the stream the slope would
have to be much steeper than is allowed which would cause the slopes to fail. Roadway design has
looked into changing the alignment early in the design process and due to the large cuts in this area
and design criteria this option is not feasible due to safety, design standards and cost. The option of
a shorter wall was looked at and due to topography the wall heights changed very little and little to
no stream was saved verses the pipe option. The natural stream design due to the steep slopes and
gradient would not produce a stable stream. Mr. Lancaster stated that this area is not a good
candidate for natural stream design and that there would be future problems. Mr. McKinney stated
that NCDOT has looked at every option and the propose option is the only viable option.
Mike Parker stated that there is a section of stream that NCDOT does not own above the sectionin
question. He asks if it would be possible to acquire this section as mitigation for a portion of the
impacted stream. Mr. Lancaster stated that he would look into. Mr. Parker asks that NCDOT look
into areas adjacent to the project to see if there is a possibility of acquiring any other section. Mr.
Lancaster stated that there is a section of stream further West in the project that has been
constructed but was not credited due to R/W issues. NCDOT is looking into acquiring R/W in this
area to receive credit.
Marella Buncick stated that she was not happy with having to address this issue and that NCDOT
should have addressed this before construction. She stated that she does understand why NCDOT
is making the request. Mrs. Buncick asks for a few design changes to make the change acceptable.
Mrs. Buncick asks that hydraulics look into adding drop boxes or some measures to slow the
velocity of the water exiting the pipe. She also asks about the possibility of eliminating the energy
dissipater at the outlet end. Mr. Henegar said he would look into the design and see what changes
he could make to reduce the outlet velocity of the pipe. Mrs. Buncick stated that if the areas were
looked into and the appropriate changes are implemented she would be okay with the request.
Mr. David Baker asks that the design changes be looked into and a revision made if necessary. Mr.
McKinney asks what the next step would be. Mr. Baker said that NCDOT should put together the
formal request and distribute out to the merger team members for their input. An email response of
each person's comments would be sufficient. Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Hemphill, and Mr. Henegar
agreed that they would look into the changes, put together a modification request and send out. Mr.
McKinney explained the need for urgency on this request. With the project under contract there are
issues with holding up the contractor for any extended length of time. Mr. Bryan asks what a
realistic time frame for an answer would be. Mr. Baker and Mrs. Buncick both agreed that NCDOT
needs to get the package together as fast as possible to send out. Mr. Baker ask that NCDOT be
very clear and plain spoken as to the request, options that have been looked into, method of
mitigation, letter from EEP stating they will accept, monitoring requirements, and any relative
information. The more information the better. Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Henegar said they would
start work immediately and would turn out a package as soon as possible.
The meetings were adjourned.
Randy McKinney PE
Resident Engineer
File