HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071470 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20070503Subject:
Team Members:
Meeting Minutes from Interagency 4C Hydraulic Permit Review
on April 18, 2007 for R-263 5C in Wake County
Eric Alsmeyer-USACE
Rob Ridings-NCDWQ
Travis Wilson-NCWRC
Gary Jordan-USFWS
Chris Militscher-EPA
Kathy Matthews-EPA
George Hoops-FHWA
Jennifer Harris-NCTA
Shannon Sweitzer-NCTA
Elizabeth Lusk-NEU
Rachelle Beauregard-NEU
Greg Price-NEU
Brian Yamamoto-PDEA
Chris Murray-NCDQT DEO
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Galen Cail, NCDOT Hydraulics
Josh Dalton, Sungate Design Group
Brenda Moore, NCDOT Roadway
Thad Duncan, NCDOT Roadway
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT Structure Design
Mark Staley, NCDOT Roadside Env
Timothy McFadden, NCDQT Alt Delivery
Nilesh Surti, NCDOT Alt Delivery
Jim Cooper, EcoScience
Anne Redmond, HNTB / NCTA GEC
Craig Deal, HNTB / NCTA GEC
Donna Keener, HNTB / NCTA GEC
Tracy Roberts, HNTB / HNTB GEC
Martha Register, Arcadis
Denise Cauley, NCTA
Introduction: Jennifer Harris of the NC Turnpike Authority opened the meeting by stating
that issues related to the toll plazas would be discussed prior to turning the meeting over
to NCDOT for review of the permit drawings.
Schedule: Ms. Harris stated that the permit application (being prepared by NCDOT)
would be submitted by NCTA in July and NCTA hopes permits will be issued by
November. The Design-Build contracts would be awarded in January 2008 for Section C
and June 2008 for Sections A&B. Construction would begin on all sections in August
2008. The project is expected to be open to traffic by Fall 2011.
Reevaluation Report: Ms. Harris stated that the EIS Reevaluation Report is scheduled to
be completed in July. Chris Militscher asked whether the Reevaluation Report would be
circulated for agency review. Ms. Harris stated that it would not be circulated for agency
review but copies of the Reevaluation Report will be available.
Toll plazas: Donna Keener stated that toll plaza locations have been located to optimize
traffic and toll operations and with consideration to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts. Small parking areas will be provided adjacent to the cash collection facilities and
are expected to be needed only temporarily.
Stream/wetland impacts: Mr. Militscher asked about wetland and stream impacts
resulting from the footprint of the toll plazas. Ms. Harris responded that there are
May 3, 2007 Page 1/6
approximately 180 feet of stream impacts and '/4 acre of wetland impacts due to the toll
plazas.
CLOMR: Ms. Harris stated that five CLOMRs would be needed for Section C.
Utility relocations: Shannon Sweitzer stated that assessment of utility relocations was
underway. Permitting issues associated with utility relocations would be handled as
permit modifications by the Design-Build team. Eric Alsmeyer clarified that permit
modifications would be needed for impacts attributed to utilities not accounted for in the
initial Individual Permit.
Triangle Parkway: Mr. Alsmeyer asked when the public hearing would be held for
Triangle Parkway. Ms. Harris stated that it would be held in June or July.
Following discussion of the toll plazas, Ms. Harris turned the meeting over to NCDOT
for a review of the permit drawings.
PERMIT DRAWING REVIEW
General Comments:
Provide a more legible vicinity map. Possibly break up into 2 or 3 sheets at larger scale
using county maps instead of USGS Quad Map. Include site map(s) of larger scale on
8.5"x 11" paper. Increase the size of the site identification labels.
Provide hydraulics detail sheet(s), BSR profiles and Natural Stream Design info in final
permit.
Note on plans BEGIN JD, where applicable. Chris Murray requested to label the non-
jurisdictional "stream" sections. It was determined that it would be better to just turn off
the planimetric lines instead, so the only stream lines on the plans are those verified and
located as jurisdictional streams.
Where ponds are to be breached, show approximate breach location and details. Make
sure enough easement is provided.
Sheet 4:
Look at adding a berm downstream of the cut slope to eliminate the need to drain the
pond downstream. If the pond is drained, make sure to show impact to the JS downstream
if necessary.
It was noted that the wetland right of -L- is a total take due to draining by the proposed
roadway cut slope.
May 3, 2007 Page 2/6
Sheet 5:
Eric Alsmeyer asked if both streams right of station 320+00 were JD and it was stated
that only the one hatched was JD. He stated the section that conveys stormwater would
not count as stream restoration.
There was discussion of the agencies and NCDOT reviewing the NSD site.
It was noted that a wetland impact was missed at the beginning of the stream restoration.
NEU will provide additional wetland delineation coverage.
Chris Murray stated if it is a wetland then consideration should be given to extending the
riprap ditch to the confluence with the jurisdictional stream. Check velocities.
Eric did not prefer the alignment of the culvert outlet to the outlet channel.
Sheet 6:
Need table showing isolated ponds/wetlands included with permit application - (NEU
will provide.)
Add PDE around energy dissipator located right of -Y8-. Energy dissipater will be
checked for accurate scale. Ensure energy dissipater is kept within the r/w fence.
Make site labels larger. Possibly cut sheet into 4 larger sheets.
Sheet 7:
A wetland is located at the outlet of the pond. NEU will provide delineation coverage.
Add "Breach Dam" note.
Sheet 8:
Add riprap ditch to outlet of 15" pipe through pond.
A JS is located downstream of the pond. NEU will provide delineation coverage.
Sheet 10:
Add PDE at outlet of 60" pipe and around berm. Add TDE around channel block.
Investigate removal of PFSH at outlet of 18" pipe left of station 403+00.
May 3, 2007 Page 3/6
It was discussed whether wetland Sta 406+00 RT should be total take. Since it will still
receive hydrology, it will not be shown as total take.
Sheets 12 and 13:
At the ditch in wetland, check on the limits of the ditch excavation and mechanized
clearing.
Mechanized clearing is shown outside the wetlands.
Remove "remove beaver dam" notes.
Remove TDE's
Sheet 14:
It was asked if the line near the pond was a JS. Greg stated that is was not.
Add mechanized clearing at bridge spill through abutment if within 10 feet of wetlands.
Check stability at 30" outlet Sta 461+50 RT.
Sheet 15:
Show site larger. Make "Site 15" larger.
Chris Murray - Extend riprap at outlet of culvert to limits of channel change.
Extend JS impacts further upstream and label "begin JS". Check wetland impact limits.
Sheet 17:
Look at adding riprap to channel banks upstream of the culvert to limits of temporary
diversion channel.
Label stream as Bachelor Branch.
Add mechanized clearing at matchline between fill slope and stream to be filled to
provide access.
Sheet 18:
Investigate using an energy dissipator at outlet of 30" right of 527+00 -1-.
Add mechanized clearing at outlet of culvert right of channel.
May 3, 2007 Page 4/6
It was stated no JD at pond.
Sheet 20:
Remove skimmer basin and easement. JD at this site.
Sheet 21:
Is TDE needed around pond to be drained? Marshall stated that it was already NCDOT
property.
Sheet 22 and 23:
Need to extend mechanized clearing on SE and NE quadrants of bridge. Also,
mechanized clearing is shown outside the wetlands at the SW quadrant of bridge.
Greg stated a JS is located right of station 592+00. Label on permits.
Show bridge on profile.
Sheet 24:
No comments.
Sheet 25:
Greg stated that only one JD stream is at this site so other piece needs to be removed.
Sheet 26:
Chris Murray requested adding riprap at inlet of culvert.
Sheet 27:
No comments.
Sheet 28:
Beaver pond will not be drained. Revise drainage to eliminate ditch into wetlands.
Remove riprap and impacts to stream and wetlands and investigate need for energy
dissipater.
Discussion on the Town of Cary's East-West Connector project. It was stated there is no
detailed design at this time.
May 3, 2007 Page 5/6
Sheet 29:
Make SITE labels larger.
Sheet 30:
No comments.
Sheet 31:
Chris Murray requested adding riprap at inlet of culvert.
Eric Alsmeyer stated that the impacts to the inlet of the culvert might not be considered
permanent.
Meeting Adjourned.
May 3, 2007 Page 6/6
Subject:
Team Members:
Minutes from Interagency 4B Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
on June 15, 2005 for R-2635C in Wake County
Eric Alsmeyer-USACE (present)
Christina Breen-NCDWQ (present)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC (present)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (absent)
Chris Militscher-EPA (present)
Ron Lucas-FHWA (present)
Rachelle Beauregard-ONE (present)
Brian Yamamoto-PDEA (present)
Chris Murray-NCDOT DEO (present)
Terry Wyatt-NCDOT/Admin (present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Galen Cail, NCDOT Hydraulics
Vince Rivers, NCDOT Hyraulics
Josh Dalton, Sungate Design Group
Brenda Moore, NCDOT Roadway
Thad Duncan, NCDOT Roadway
Roger Kluckman, NCDOT Roadway
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT Structure Design
Tracy Parrott, NCDOT Div 5
Wally Bowman, NCDOT Div 5
A general comment was made to eliminate any rip rap in stream beds.
A number of ponds will be impacted. Need to make sure soundings have been done at
these sites to ensure accurate fill/cut limits. Also, consider ponds as locations for basins.
A number of wetland boundaries are located along steep topo. ONE will investigate.
Sheet 5:
Discussed options of box culvert w/ stream relocation design versus a bridge. Box
culvert is estimated as a 4 barrel and the stream relocation would be approximately 400'
Bridge will need to be approximately 900' long.
Sheet 7:
It was discussed that the wetland below the pond dam may be impacted in order to breach
the dam. There was discussion on whether to show as "total take".
Sheet 8:
Need additional coverage/plotting of jurisdictional stream around Sta 377+50 -L-.
Investigate improving the outlet angle of pipe Sta 379+50 -L- Lt. Possibly using a JB.
Sheet 10:
It was stated pipe culverts are proposed for the two jurisdictional stream crossings.
Sheet 12 & 13•
It was stated a box culvert is proposed for the jurisdictional stream crossing.
It was stated backwater from beaver dams is present at the site. May result in future
dewatering issues during construction.
Sheet 14:
It was stated a bridge is proposed for the White Oak Creek crossing.
Sheet 15:
It was stated a box culvert w/ overflow pipe is proposed for the jurisdictional stream
crossing.
Sheet 17:
It was stated a box culvert is proposed for the jurisdictional stream crossing.
Sheet 18:
It was stated a box culvert is proposed for the jurisdictional stream crossing.
Sheet 23:
It was stated a box culvert is proposed for the jurisdictional stream crossing.
It was stated backwater from beaver dams is present at the site. May result in future
dewatering issues during construction.
Sheet 24:
Investigate using a lateral base ditch to combine the two tribs at the inlet so one inlet
culvert can be used.
Sheet 26:
Is was observed that McCrimmon Parkway is presently being built. Updated topo was
requested.
Sheet 28:
It was stated a bridge is proposed for the Panther Creek crossing.
It was stated backwater from beaver dams is present at the site. May result in future
dewatering issues during construction.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY
R-2635C
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This document is to serve as the Stormwater Management Plan for one section of
the Western Wake Freeway (TIP R-2635C). This section consists of a six-lane freeway
from south of US 64 to NC 55 in Wake County. This project consists of three new
interchanges (US 64, Green Level Road, and NC 55) and includes approximately 7.26
miles of new location freeway. The highlight of this project is a 735 foot bridge that
spans the White Oak Creek and adjoining wetlands.
CONTACT INFORMATION
For any questions about this Stormwater Management Plan, please contact:
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Attn: Marshall Clawson, P.E.
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Telephone: (919) 250-4100
IDENTIFY PROJECT INVOLVEMENT
The Western Wake Freeway is located in the Cape Fear River Basin, which is
currently not subject to Buffer Rules. All streams located within the project area are
classified as WS-IV and NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Major stream crossing on
this section include Tributary to Reedy Branch, Clark Branch, Bachelor Branch, Jacks
Branch, Panther Creek, Morris Branch, and Nancy Branch.
The following commitments related to stormwater management have been made
in the Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement:
A bridge will be constructed over White Oak Creek to minimize impacts to the
stream and the associated wetlands. The bridges will be constructed so that
pedestrians and bicyclists can travel under the structures along greenways planned
at this location.
Slopes in wetland areas will be constructed at a ratio of 2:1, where possible, to
minimize impacts.
Stormwater drainage systems will be designed for the project in accordance with
the requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program.
Bridge deck drains will not be discharged into surface waters.
The NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the protection of surface waters
will be strictly enforced during construction to minimize sedimentation. Other
design features such as vegetated berms and swales will be considered and
incorporated into the roadway design where appropriate to mitigate any potential
transfer of toxins or other nutrients into surface waters.
These project commitments are in addition to the General Nationwide Permit
conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit Special Conditions, Section 401 Water Quality
Certification Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT'S
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, and General Certification
Conditions.
EVALUATE POTENTIAL IMPACT
All stormwater outfalls were analyzed for BMP's based on the following criteria:
¦ The proximity of the discharge point to the receiving stream. Is this a direct
discharge or is there sufficient area for dilution?
¦ The pre and post construction runoff volumes.
¦ The ratio of the impervious surface of contributing highway area to the total
watershed of the receiving stream.
¦ Preventive BMP's that are employed.
¦ Value of the water resource.
¦ The 2-year velocity for stormwater treatment.
¦ The 10-year velocity at stream and wetland outfalls for non-erosive velocities.
SELECT AND IMPLEMENT BMP'S
Grassed Swales
BMP selection for this project mainly consisted of grass swales, preformed scour
holes, and energy dissipator basins. According to Natural Resource Conservation Service
Soil Survey Maps, the roadway corridor mainly consists of Creedmoor-White Store soil
association which consists of moderately well-drained soils located along broad ridges
and hilly areas near drainageways. Due to the presence of moderately well-drained soils
and the relatively flat roadway grade, it was determined that infiltration rates using
grassed swales would be high. Flow velocities in the 2-year storm were determined for
all grass swales to verify that runoff velocities were less than 2.0 feet per second at all
locations possible, which would provide adequate nutrient removal before reaching
outfalls. The 10-year storm velocities were also calculated at all stream and wetland
outfalls to ensure that non-erosive velocities were achieved. If velocities at outlets were
deemed erodible, preformed scour holes or energy dissipator basins were specified. It was
assumed that non-erosive velocities and diffuse flow are obtained if velocities are less
than 2.0 feet per second in the 10-year storm. Grass swales were also designed to provide
adequate length for treatment of 100 feet per acre of drainage based on NCDENR-
DWQ's guidelines. All slopes on the project are a maximum of 2:1 with the majority of
typical cut ditches at 3:1.
Preformed Scour Holes
At outlets where grass swale treatment was not an option, Preformed Scour Holes
(PSH) were specified to provide diffuse flow. All of the PSHs were located are far as
possible from jurisdictional streams and wetlands. PSHs were only used on pipe sizes
18-inches or less and have been designed per NCDENR-DWQ's guidelines.
Energy Dissipator Basins
At outlets for pipe sizes larger than 18-inches, energy dissipator basins were
specified to provide diffuse flow. All of the basins were located are far as possible from
jurisdictional streams and wetlands.
Stream/Wetland Bridges
This section of the Western Wake Freeway includes several bridges over streams
and associated wetlands. The White Oak Creek crossing (located on Sheet 14) consists
of a 735-foot long bridge that entirely spans the stream and associated wetlands. The
north bound bridge will have deck drains outside of the wetland and stream limits and the
south bound bridge will have an enclosed drainage system to carry the stormwater
outside of the wetland limits.
The Panther Creek crossing (located on Sheet 23) consists of a 270-foot long
bridge. This bridge does not entirely span the wetlands, but was originally shown as a
box culvert in the Environmental Impact Study. During design, a bridge was deemed
necessary in order to meet requirements of North Carolina Floodplain Mapping. No deck
drains will be utilized on this bridge.
The Jacks Branch crossing (located on Sheets 12 and 13) was also originally
shown as a box culvert in the Environmental Impact Study. This structure was changed
to a 270-foot bridge during the design process to bridges due to the new flood studies that
were completed by North Carolina Floodplain Mapping. The new studies included Non-
Encroachment Widths that were not present in the previous FEMA FIS studies. No deck
drains will be utilized on this bridge.
A commitment was made in the planning process for the Nancy Branch crossing
(located on Sheet 28) to span the wetlands on the south end and span the proposed East-
West Connector (by the Town of Cary) on the north end. This resulted in a bridge 305
feet long. No deck drains will be utilized on this bridge.
Avoidance and Minimization
All fill sections located in the vicinity of streams or wetlands utilize 2:1 slopes.
This allows for considerable reduction in stream and wetland impacts as the footprint of
the roadway fill is reduced.
At approximately station 316+85 (Sheet 5), the existing stream is skewed severely
to the roadway alignment. During the design phase, it was determined that by relocating
the stream on the upstream side of the roadway, the culvert could significantly be
shortened. This design and skew allowed the culvert to be shortened by approximately
285 feet and allow for a stream relocation of 640 feet at the inlet of the culvert.
CONCLUSION
This Stormwater Management Plan represents a low maintenance, environmentally
sensitive, and effective plan for handling the stormwater runoff from the project area.