20160299_RE R2536_ENV_SEC2 - 4B Meeting Minutes_20151130

Wanucha, Dave
From: Matthew Cook <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 12:13 PM
To: Lauffer, Matthew S; Elam, William H; Capps, Karen B; Blakley, Reuben; Tina Swiezy;
Andy Williams; Gary Jordan; Dilday, Jason L; Staley, Mark K; Mike Merritt; Michae)
Prince; Jake Stone; Wanucha, Dave; Cynthia Van Der Wiele; Jim Eisenhardt; Brent
Huskey; Shah, Hemal J; Kelley, Jennifer L; Shumsky, Michael J
Cr. Keith Skinner; Thompson Arthur; Wright Brothers
Subject: RE: R2536_ENV_SEC2 - 4B Meeting Minutes
Attachments: Concurrence Point 4B Sec2 Meeting Minutes 111215.docx
�
Attached are the final meeting minutes for the Asheboro Bypass Section 2 Concurrence Point 4B meeting that was held
on November 12, 2015. Thank you.
RK&K
900 Ridgefield Dr., Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.878.9560 P � 919.653.7350 D
www. rkk. com
�� � U �-�U �� � U �-�I- o,J
RESPONSIVE PEOPLE I CREATIVE SOLUTIONS
From: Matthew Cook
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 2:28 PM
To: Matt Lauffer <[e-mail]>; Bill Elam <[e-mail]>; Karen Capps <[e-mail]>; Reuben
Blakley <[e-mail]>; Tina Swiezy <[e-mail]>; Andy Williams <[e-mail]>;
Gary Jordan <[e-mail]>; Jason Dilday <[e-mail]>; Mark Staley <[e-mail]>; Mike
Merritt <[e-mail]>; Michael Prince <[e-mail]>; 'Jake Stone' <[e-mail]>; Dave
Wanucha <[e-mail]>; Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>; Jim Eisenhardt
<[e-mail]>; Brent Huskey <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>;
'[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Michael Shumsky <[e-mail]>
Cc: Keith Skinner <[e-mail]>; Thompson Arthur <[e-mail]>;
Wright Brothers <[e-mail]>
Subject: R2536_ENV_SEC2-4B Meeting Minutes
�

Please see the attached draft meeting minutes for the Asheboro Bypass Section 2 Concurrence Point 4B meeting that
was held on November 12, 2015. Please send any comments on the minutes to Michael Shumsky
(rrr�sh_u_rrr�s_ky(c�_n�dcrt.:.�ca.v) and Matthew Cook (rrr��ca.ca.k_(c�_rkk.._�ca.rrr�) by Wednesday, November 25, 2015. Thank you.
RK&K
900 Ridgefield Dr., Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.878.9560 P � 919.653.7350 D
www.irkk.�t�m�
_ ........................................................
�� � U �-�U �� � U �-�I- o,J
RESPONSIVE PEOPLE I CREATIVE SOLUTIONS
"RK&K" and "RK&K Engineers" are registered trade names of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, a Maryland
limited liability partnership. This message contains confidential information intended only for the person or
persons named above. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return
email and delete the message. Thank you.

Project:
Date:
Location:
Time:
R-2536 (Asheboro Southern Bypass and Zoo Connector)
November 12, 2015
NCDOT Century Center— Structures Design Conference Room
1:00 to 5:00 PM
Minutes Authored by: Matthew Cook, RK&K
Attendees: Jason Dilday — NCDOT NES
Jennifer Kelley — NCDOT Design Build
Mark Staley — NCDOT REU
Matt Lauffer— NCDOT Hydraulics
Bill Elam — NCDOT Hydraulics
Reuben Blakley — NCDOT Div 8
Hemal Shah — Transportation Planning
Michael Prince — Asheboro Bypass Constructors
Jake Stone — Asheboro Bypass Constructors
Michael Merritt — RK&K
• / / �I
/II �
YP i''�� i i�' ii�a�
B aSs Ci�/ Il ! ��
� ��� � ���r�
,,, '�
Karen Capps — NCDOT Design Build
Gary Jordan - USFWS
Andy Williams - USACE
Dave Wanucha — NCDENR DWR
Cynthia Van Der Wiele - USEPA
Matthew Cook — RK&K
Jim Eisenhardt — RK&K
Brent Huskey — RK&K
Tina Swiezy — RK&K
The 30% Hydraulic Review was held to in order to reach agreement on concurrence point 4B for the US 64 Asheboro Bypass in Randolph County. The 4B
review was completed for Design Section 2: -L- 210+00 to 465+00 and the Zoo Connector. The following items were discussed and conclusions reached:
Tina Swiezy began the meeting with a brief overview of the project and introductions were made. She also gave a summary of the project limits to be
discussed during the meeting.
Matthew Cook provided a summary of the preliminary drainage design at each jurisdictional feature on the plans. The following comments and decisions
were reached.
Plan Sheet 18 (Stream SE-AB): No impacts on this sheet. Mr. Cook stated that the jurisdictional stream starts 19' past the outlet of the 30" RCP at —L-
314+00 RT.
Plan Sheet 19 (Stream SC-AB and Wetland WF-AB): Stream SC-AB will be temporarily impacted so that an existing 24" RCP can be removed at —L- STA.
233+00 LT. The existing pipe will be replaced with a channel that matches the existing stream. The wetland will be impacted by the roadway facility but not
considered a total take since it is fed by SC-AB.
Plan Sheet 20 (Streams SA-AB and SB-AB, Wetlands WA-AB, WB-AB, WC-AB, WD-AB, WE-AB and WF-AB, Pond PA-AB): Pond PA-AB, Wetland
WA-AB, WB-AB, WC-AB, WD-AB and WE-AB will be total takes due to roadway fill. The existing pond will have a conveyance running on each side of the
roadway fill with both running in a riprap lined channel. The riprap channel on the left will be directed into a 48" RCP that crosses the —L- alignment and ties
to stream SB-AB. The riprap channel on the right runs along the fill slope and ties to stream SB-AB at the same location of the 48" RCP outlet. The 48" RCP
will not be buried at either end due to the proposed riprap lined ditches that tie to the pipe. Wetland WF-AB will not be a total take since SC-AB will still feed
the wetland. David Wanucha asked if natural stream design in this area is an option. Mr. Cook stated there will probably not be any natural stream design
due to the steep existing contours in some areas and the need to line the channel with riprap due to stability requirements. Jason Dilday stated that since the
pond is a total take, stream SA-AB at —L- 236+00 should be considered a take even though the project is not impacting it due to loss of flow. The question
was asked if a cross pipe should be installed to not split the flow on both sides of the roadway. Matt Lauffer and Reuben Blakley preferred not installing a
cross pipe.
Plan Sheet 21 (Littler River, Wetlands WM-AB and WN-AB: Little River will be bridged with dual bridges at —L- STA. 252+50. This is a FEMA regulated
stream. WN-AB will be a total take due to roadway fill and the new bridge. Wetland WM-AB is not high quality. There will be small impacts to Little River
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII\ II�IIIIIRIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIFflllrllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII TII' No. R-253G: US G4 Asheboro Southern Bypass and Zoo Connector
���������������������������������������� BROiHERS R�+C;.:�C��������������������������� 64

R�ci7�s� I 2
with rip rap transitions being installed at the ends of lateral ditches that tie into Little River. Gary Jordan stated that riprap in the lateral ditch could impact
wildlife crossing. It was stated that the riprap will only take up 10' of the ditch and will be placed on the bank of the stream to provide dissipation for the flow
in the ditch so the wildlife crossing will not be impacted. Mr. Cook stated that per guidance from the Division mechanized clearing will be used under and
around the bridge instead of hand clearing. Asheboro Bypass Constructors will assist in placement of a temporary bridge crossing. Temporary stream
impacts will be estimated at the bridge crossing as a preventive measure. It was suggested that we review this site in the field.
Plan Sheets 22 (Stream SR-B): SR-B starts on plan sheet 23 and flows onto plan sheet 22. It starts under —Y4RPB-, flows under —L-, and outlets the
project in a 48" RCP at the fill slope of —Y4RPC-. The 48" RCP will not be buried in the channel since the stream does not become jurisdictional until it
outlets the system. Andy Williams stated to make it clear on plans and in the permit application if pipes are being buried or not.
Plan Sheet 23 (Streams SR-B, SWW-B, SW-B and SZ-B): SR-B flows onto plan sheet 22. It starts under —Y4RPB-, flows under —L-, and outlets the
project in a 48" RCP at the fill slope of —Y4RPC-. The 48" RCP will not be buried in the channel since the stream does not become jurisdictional until it
outlets the system. SWW-B starts under —Y4LPD- and exits at the fill slope of —Y4LPD-. A 30" RCP outlets into SWW-B and is not buried in the channel
since it does not become jurisdictional until it outlets the pipe. SW-B, starts off the project and ties into a rip rap channel that runs down the fill slope of —
Y4RPA- and ties in to SZ-B that flows through a double barrel 7'x7' RCBC with a 2' sill in the high-flow barrel and a 1' sill with 6" baffles in the low-flow barrel.
A general comment was made to provide blow up areas of impacts on all interchange sheets.
Plan Sheet 24-25: No jurisdictional features.
Plan sheet 26 (Streams SBB-B and SCC-B): Stream SB-B is conveyed across the project with a 66" RCP that is buried 1.0'. WP-B will be partially
impacted by the roadway fill. SCC-B becomes jurisdictional at —L- 337+50 LT under the roadway footprint. It will be conveyed by a 30" RCP that is not
buried since the stream begins under the roadway footprint.
Plan Sheet 27 (Stream SDD-B): SDD-B enters the project near matchline —L- 354+00 on this sheet. See Sheet 28 for a description of the impact.
Plan Sheet 28 (Streams SDD-B, SEE-B, SFF-B, SGG-B and SHH-B): SDD-B enters the project near matchline —L- 354+00 on this sheet. It is conveyed
across the project with a 54" RCP that is buried 0.9' (20% of the opening). SEE-B is conveyed across the project with a 54" RCP that is buried 0.9' (20% of
the opening). Mr. Lauffer suggested using a headwall with a sill on this pipe to prevent headcutting. He stated he would check with Travis Wilson, Wildlife
Resource Commission, if this was acceptable. Mr. Cook stated that they are still working on the layout of this pipe in order to minimize the cut required to
install it. SHH-B is conveyed across the project with a 60" RCP that is buried 1.0'. SGG-B enters SHH-B under the roadway fill. It is conveyed along sheet
28 and 29 in a riprap lined channel and a 30" CSP. SEE-B, SHH-B, and SGG-B all feed SFF-B. SFF-B is not impacted by the project.
A discussion was held regarding installing cross pipes on the project. Mr. Cook stated that rock is throughout the project and the ability to bury the pipes in
jurisdictional streams is a concern. Mr. Williams stated that generally you need to ask for a waver if you are not going to bury a pipe that conveys a
jurisdictional stream. The field personnel (DEO) contacts the USACE to make the change. Jim Eisenhardt asked if a statement could be written in to the
permit allowing for non-burial of pipes in jurisdictional streams if extensive rock is encountered. The agencies would still be notified. Mr. Williams stated that
this is a possibility, and Gary Jordan agreed with this method as well.
Plan Sheet 29 (Stream SGG-B): SGG-B begins under the roadway fill at —L- 369+00 RT. It continues on to sheet 28 and enters SHH-B under the roadway
fill. It is conveyed along sheet 28 and 29 in a riprap lined channel and a 30" CSP.
Plan Sheet 30 (Streams SII-B, SPP-B and SQQ-B, Wetlands WSS-B, WTT-B and WU-B): SQQ-B will be impacted by construction of the roadway fill at —
Y9FLY- 11+50 LT and also by a ditch tying roadway drainage to it. It does not need to be conveyed around / through the project; it continues to head north
away from the project. SII-B is not impacted in the gore area near —L- 406+00 RT until it hits the fill slope at —L- 407+00 RT. It will be described on sheet 31.
WTT-B is a total take under the roadway footprint and due to construction. WSS-B and WU-B are not impacted on this sheet.
Plan Sheet 31 (Streams SII-B and SKK-B, Wetland WU-B): SII-B runs through the interchange gore area and begins being impacted near matchline —L-
407+00 on this sheet. It is currently shown as being conveyed across the project with a 72" RCP that is buried 1.0'. Due to an agreement with the Division,
all crossings requiring 72" pipes on the project that are not time sensitive in construction nature are going to be installed as 6'x7' RCBCs. To tie the outlet to
the stream at —L- 409+00 LT, Mr. Williams suggested a channel be installed in size that matches SII-B. This will be an excavation in weltands (WU-B). WU-
B is impacted by the roadway footprint but is not a total take. SKK-B is not impacted.
Plan Sheet 32 (Stream SJJ-B): No Impacts on this sheet. The jurisdictional stream starts approximately 33' outside the ROW.
Plan Sheet 33 (Streams SKK-B, SLL-B and SNN-B, Wetlands WNN-B, W00-B and WPP-B): SKK-B runs through the project and is Tantraugh Branch. It
is conveyed in a 3@9'x7' RCBC with outside cells using 2' sills for high flow and a central cell using a 1' sill and 6" baffles for low flow. SNN-B is impacted
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIRIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIF{IIIlrlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TII' No. R-253G: US G4 Asheboro Southern Bypass and Zoo Connector
��������������������������������������" BROTHERS R�������������������������,�����,��j��������������������������������������������� 64

R�ci7�s� I 3
by the RCBC tie-in upstream to SKK-B. Mr. Williams asked if we could change the angle of the RCBC to tie further downstream in a straighter section. Mr.
Cook stated that if that happened, additional stream would be impacted. SLL-B is currently shown as being impacted under the roadway fill and being
conveyed in three 30" RCPs under —Y10 END- and a 48" RCP under the —L- footprint. NCDOT has requested a pipe arch be used under —Y10 END- and is
currently being investigated. The remainder is being conveyed in a 48" RCP to limit impacts that would occur to SNN-B and WNN-B if it was ditched along
the fill slope. Mr. Cook stated that the 48" RCP is meant to only carry the average daily flow in the channel. Higher storms would leave the channel and feed
the RCBC. Mr. Williams agreed with this design for conveying the stream. W00-B and WPP-B are total takes under the roadway footprint.
Plan Sheet 34 (Streams SA-C and SB-C, Ponds PG-B and PH-B): PG-B is a total take since it is inside the NCDOT right-of-way. Mr. Cook asked if the
NCDOT planimetric boundary should be used or the wetland file boundary. Mr. Dilday said to use the NCDOT planimetirc file boundary. SA-C is not
impacted. Tina Swiezy suggested tying SB-C to the 54" RCP on the next sheet with a channel. SB-C will be impacted with a temporary impact due to the
channel. PH-B will be a total take.
Plan Sheet 35 (Stream SC-C, Wetland WA-C, Pont PG-B): PH-B will be a total take. SA-C and SB-C from sheet 34 are conveyed across the project in a
54" RCP that is buried 0.9' (20% of the opening). It will tie to SC-C. WA-C and PA-C will not be impacted. Bill Elam asked if TDE needed to be added
around PA-C in case it needed to be cleaned out during construction. Mr. Blakley stated that it would not be needed. A right of entry agreement could be
used instead. Mr. Lauffer suggested adding a headwall with a sill to the 54" RCP. Mr. Cook stated that SD-C on this sheet is considered part of the project's
Section 3A and was covered in a previous 4B meeting (October 21. 2015).
Plan Sheet 68-69: No jurisdictional features.
Plan Sheet 70 (Stream SS-B): Stream SS-B becomes jurisdictional as it leaves an existing 24" RCP at —Y4RPB- 31+50 LT. It is picked up in a 30" pipe
extended beyond the existing 24" RCP with a junction box. It outlets to the gore area and then enters a 36" RCP to be conveyed under —SERRD3-. It is not
buried since the stream begins under the roadway footprint. A stormwater retention pond is located adjacent to the stream but does not impact it.
Plan Sheet 71 (Streams ST-B): ST-B is shown in the wetland file provided to the team as only a short portion of stream at —Y- 73+00 RT. Mr. Cook asked if
it should continue to the existing 36" RCP under the road. It is also like this on the next sheet at —Y4- 77+00 LT. The stream is jurisdictional perpendicular to
the project but not parallel to it. Mr. Dilday said he would check the jurisdictional determination. The existing 36" RCP will be extended on both ends to allow
the stream to continue. It will be conveyed in a riprap lined channel downstream (sheet 72). The riprap was necessary for stability due to the steep existing
contours in the area. It was suggested that we review this site in the field.
Plan Sheet 72 (Streams ST-B, SU-B and SV-B): For ST-B, see sheet 71. SV-B and SU-B enter an existing 4'x5' RCBC at —Y4- 80+50 RT. The RCBC will
be extended on both ends to continue to allow stream passage. The RCBC will not be buried.
Plan Sheet 73 (Stream SXX-AB, Wetland WZZ-B): No impacts on this sheet. The jurisdictional stream and wetland are outside of the right-of-way.
Plan Sheet 74: No jurisdictional features.
Plan Sheet 75 (Streams SAA-B and SWW-B, Wetlands WXX-B and WYY-B, Pond PC-B): SAA-B is conveyed under —Y5- with a 3@10'x7' RCBC with
outside cells using 2.5' sills for high flow, and the inside cell using a 1' sill and 6" baffles for low flow. SWW-B feeds SAA-B and ties in to it under the roadway
footprint. SWW-B is conveyed in a 48" RCP. Ms. Swiezy noticed that the 48" RCP discharges the flow in to a cell that is used for high flow and would not
accommodate the average daily flow due to the 2' sills on either end of that cell. Several options were offered to remedy the situation: 1) shift the RCBC
slightly and make the low flow cell the far right cell (facing downstream) so that the 48" RCP could discharge in to it; 2) Ditch SWW-B to the RCBC entrance
(making sure to take the ditch around, not through, the high flow bench); 3) Allow SWW-B to terminate at the fill slope, line the fill slope with riprap, and let it
meander along the fill slope to the RCBC on its own. Ms. Swiezy did not prefer option 1 since the design had already been submitted to NCDOT for review.
Mr. Cook did not prefer option 3 since he was unsure if it would erode the fill slope and create a scour hole / maintenance problem. It was decided that this
site would be reviewed in the field to make a better determination. WXX-B will be impacted due to the roadway footprint. WYY-B and PC-B are not impacted
by the project.
Plan Sheet 76-78: No jurisdictional features.
Plan Sheet 79: No jurisdictional features anticipated, however the D-B Team is awaiting additional survey to complete the design.
Plan Sheet 80 (Streams SKK-D and SMM-B, Wetland WMM-B): SKK-D is conveyed under the existing NC 159, Zoo Parkway. —Y9A- does not impact
SKK-D. However, due to the alignment of —Y9A-, a new 36" RCP must be installed to take the drainage from one side of existing NC 159 to the other. Tying
the 36" RCP to SKK-D will cause an impact.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIRIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIF{IIIlrlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TII' No. R-253G: US G4 Asheboro Southern Bypass and Zoo Connector
��������������������������������������" BROTHERS R�������������������������,�����,��j��������������������������������������������� 64

R�ci7�s� I 4
Plan Sheet 81 (Stream SII-B): No impacts on this sheet. The jurisdictional stream starts approximately 72' past the outlet of 30" RCP.
Plan Sheet 82 (Pond PA-D): PA-D is inside the right-of-way for the project. It will be drained and ditched in a riprap lined ditch along the toe of the fill slope
to a 48" RCP at —Y9- 15+00 LT. The entire pond will be placed in TDE to allow for it to be cleaned out if needed during construction.
Plan Sheet 83 (Stream SH-D, Wetland WZZ-D): SHH-D becomes jurisdictional under the roadway footprint. It is fed by the pond on sheet 82 (PA-D). The
pond will be drained and ditched in a riprap lined ditch along the toe of the fill slope to a 48" RCP at —Y9- 15+00 LT. The 48" RCP is not buried due to SH-D
not being jurisdictional upstream of the project and the pond flow being conveyed in a riprap lined ditch. WZZ-D will not be impacted.
Plan Sheet 84 (Stream SG-D): SG-D is North Prong Richland Creek and is a FEMA regulated stream. It is conveyed in a 2@14'x10' RCBC with one cell
using a 1' sill and 6" baffles for the low flow and the other cell using a 2' sill for the high flow. The wetland upstream of the RCBC is not named and will not be
impacted.
Plan Sheet 85: No jurisdictional features.
Plan Sheet 86 (Stream SF-D, Wetlands WD-D and WE-D): WD-B will be a total take under the roadway footprint. Mr. Cook stated that WE-D would not be
impacted, however it was decided to consider it a total take due to possible drawdown affects and construction affects. SF-D is conveyed across —Y9- in a
42" RCP buried 0.7'. Mr. Lauffer asked that the drainage from 2G1 #8603 exit in a pipe to the entrance of the 42" RCP, not under —Y9- to 2G1 #8604.
Plan Sheet 87 (Stream SCISD-D): SC/SD-D is currently shown as being conveyed across the project with a 72" RCP that is buried 1.0'. Due to an
agreement with the Division, all crossings requiring 72" pipes on the project that are not time sensitive in construction nature are going to be installed as 6'x7'
RCBCs. Mr. Wanucha asked if natural channel design could be used at the entrance and exit of the RCBC. Mr. Cook stated that this could be investigated
at the entrance, however it would cause additional impacts at the outlet. Ms. Swiezy suggested using riprap toe protection along the fill slope —Y9- 74+50 —
79+00 LT due to the nature of the stream leaving the banks and entering the floodplain.
Plan Sheet 88 (Stream SCISD-D): A more free-flowing natural stream design will be utilized to convey SC/SD-D across the existing zoo entrance. The
existing pipes will be removed and the new channel installed with a more sinuous design as shown. The systems in the round-about and -NC159_SPUR- will
be modified to outlet to a single point at the new channel tie-in to the existing channel.
Plan Sheet 89-92: No jurisdictional features.
Other Discussion
A field meeting was previously scheduled for November 16-17, 2015. The sites from this 4B meeting include the following:
• Plansheet 21: Little River
• Plansheets 71-72: ST-B
• Plansheet 75: SWW-B
The only site from the previous Sections 1 B and 3A 4B meeting held on October 21, 2015 that required a field visit was on Plansheets 12-13 for SO-AB/SI-
AA. It was agreed that we would meet at the NCDOT District office (300 DOT Dr. Asheboro, NC) at 9:00 AM.
N:\Projects\2014\R-2536_Asheboro_Bypass_DB�Admin\Meetings\11122015 Concurrence Point 4B Sec 2\Concurrence Point 4B Sec2 Meeting Minutes 111215.docx
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIRIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIF{IIIlrlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TII' No. R-253G: US G4 Asheboro Southern Bypass and Zoo Connector
��������������������������������������" BROTHERS R�������������������������,�����,��j��������������������������������������������� 64