A-0009C 01-07-20 Project Team Meeting Minutes_final

5 Stantec Meeting Minutes
NCDOT STIP No.A-0009C
Project Team Meeting
01.07.2020, 2pm
Attendees
Wanda Austin (NCDOT Division 14) Gary Sneed (EBCI)
Dave McHenry(NCDOT Division 14) Derek Tahquette (EBCI)
Josh Deyton (NCDOT Division 14) Mike Bolt (EBCI)
Ted Adams (NCDOT Division 14) Robert Wilcox(Cherokee DOT)
Aaron Williams (FHWA) Elizabeth Toombs (Cherokee Nation)
Crystal Amschler(USACE) Donna Dancausse (Facilitator)
Monte Matthews(USACE) Stacy Oberhausen (TGS/NCDOT PM)
Claire Ellwanger (USFWS) Jay Twisdale (TGS)
Amy Mathis (USFS) Randy Henegar(TGS)
Amanetta Somerville (USEPA) JJ LaPlante (TGS)
Amy Chapman (NCDWR) Amy Sackaroff(Stantec)
Kevin Mitchell (NCDWR) Mike Lindgren (Stantec)
Marla Chambers (NCWRC) Amber Coleman (Stantec)
Renee Gledhill-Early(NCSHPO) Joshua Adams (Stantec)
Rose Bauguess (Southwestern RPO) Emily Love (Stantec)
Becky Garland (Graham County) Thomas Hoppe (Stantec)
Lynn Cody(Graham County) Alexa Kennedy(Stantec)
Purpose:To provide the project team with updates that have occurred since the November 20, 2019
Concurrence Point (CP) 2A merger meeting, discuss recent questions from team members, and discuss
upcoming coordination meetings
Design Options:Stantec presented the current design options.At the CP 2A merger meeting, Stantec
noted design work in progress in Robbinsville and near the NC 28/NC 143 (NC 28 Relocation)
intersection.
The September 2019 hydraulic design for R-1E included a long bridge crossing at Tulula Creek, Site 1. In
order to reduce impacts, R-1E Refinement was developed, which resulted in Hydro Site 1B. Further
design and subsequent coordination with local officials determined R-1E Refinement unnecessary.
Detailed studies of R-1E with a bridge >200-feet proceeded.
The NC 28 Relocation resulted from the Stecoah Heights community and environmental stakeholders'
input. NC 28 is currently on the shady side of the mountain and is susceptible to prolonged unsafe
winter weather conditions. In order to daylight this portion of NC 28 to sun exposure,the NC 28
Relocation was proposed and is referred to as B-1. B-2 refers to improve existing option of NC 28 in this
area.
11 Page

Stantec Meeting Minutes
Proposed Typical Sections: Division 14 presented an overview of the proposed typical sections for the
project. It has been previously communicated that the project would have a two-lane typical section
with passing/climbing lanes where suitable.The purpose of the project is to improve mobility and
reliability in the project area,which includes passing/climbing lanes for a 2+1 typical section. Impacts
presented at Concurrence Point 2A will be reviewed to ensure they are representative of the 2+1 typical
section.
• United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) inquired if information would be provided about
structures that may have changed as a result of the 2+1 typical section.
o Team will make sure the CP 2A table is based on the current design.
o Team will provide information about where passing/climbing lanes were incorporated
due to traffic and where they were incorporated due to purpose and need.
o Team will provide graphics that show how the cross sections transition throughout the
project will be prepared.
Hydraulic Site 2:TGS Hydraulics noted that the hydraulic whitepaper was sent out on December 20,
2019. Based on the traffic analysis completed in December 2019, the existing lanes at this site are
sufficient and therefore no improvements are required at this crossing.
• See attached for cost estimates:Detour Site 2 Preliminary Estimate
Hydraulic Site 8:TGS Hydraulics presented a comparison between the bridge and culvert options
proposed at this site. The bridge would require a temporary on-site detour with a bridge which would
cost approximately$3.8 million.The total cost for the bridge option would be approximately$5.9
million.The 2-barrel 10x8 box culvert would cost approximately$1.4 million. The bridge would require
the grade of the existing roadway to be raised by 9 feet, creating a hump/crest in the road.An option for
a triple barrel box culvert which would allow for the outer barrels to be used as animal passage was
discussed. Impacts are based on a 35-foot buffer of the slope stakes.
35'OFFSET LINE
LENGTH pus'
PRELWJNARY 1:
LENG111-1-4r
am
EXISTING 3@84"CMP oy /✓ ' _ _
�pP _ 35'OFFSET LINE
SWEETWATER CREEK /
IMPACTS(3801 — BEECH CREEK TB
IMPACTS(1391
WETLAND IMPACTS
Pam' (YELLOW)0.31oc TOTAL
/ PRELIMINARY SLOPE STAKES
Post Meeting Rendering:Site 8 Culvert Impacts
2IPage

5 Stantec Meeting Minutes
35'OFFSET LINE
MAINLINE WETLAND
L,CULVERT'., IMPACTS BLUE]
C
LE."1 0.46ac TOTAL
��
EXISTING 3@84"CMP o � i -_
\ g?. ..ter
35'OFFSET LINE \ �/ _ __7" _. _
y _
�; ., - _-__ DETOUR WETLAND
f _ IMPACTS(GREEN)
SWEETWATER CREEK _ 0.09oc TOTAL
IMPACTS(380') _ / � 35'OFFSET LINE
py�/ ;�' FROM MAINLINE SS
O, !1, \ TB
A ., 35'OFFSET LINE
FROM DETOUR SS
/r! ,,, PRELIMINARY SLOPE STAKES
Post Meeting Rendering:Site 8 Bridge Impacts
• Slide 12, USACE inquired about the symbology.
o TGS Hydraulics noted that the red and green dashed lines represented the slope stakes,
while the maroon line represented the slope stakes plus 35-ft.
• USACE inquired about why the grade would need to be raised and whether this was due to
floodplain requirement.
o TGS Hydraulics noted per NCDOT guidance, the grade would need to be raised in order
to achieve minimum freeboard (clearance between the water surface and bridge)
allowing the bridge to be useable in the event of a 50-year flood. If the existing grade
was maintained,the low chord of the bridge would be sitting close to the ground and
would not convey the 50-year flow.
• USACE requested schematics (showing banks,waterlines, bridge/culvert, surface water
elevation)for the bridge and culvert designs to see where the base of the channel is with
regards to the top of bank floodplain. The schematics do not need to be detailed to CP 4B level.
o See following pages for post meeting schematics
3IPage

® Stantec Meeting Minutes
A-0009C — SITE 8
224-0 GRAHAM EX.3@72" CMP
FIELD SKETCH
IMPROVE EXISTING
2230
2220 PRELIMINARY CU_VERT
2•1110"x13'RCBC
FEMA 100 YEAR BASE PR[5P.(WM
FLOOD ELEV. DC GRADE PER LLDAR
2210 TB TB Y )fr
1802_/
2190 \'`
\tXAI[Nc. :347,112" CMP
WSEL PER FIELD
N.G. J US FArF OF VISIT{218191
2180 PRELIMINARY 2@10'x$'RC
REPROJECTED ON ED
ROADWAY CENT E
NOTES:
-11 1.AR REF a' n VERTICAL DA UM AVD 83
16 17 18 19 20
Post Meeting Schematic:Site 8 Culvert Option
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
A-0009C — SITE 8
2240 GRAHAM EX.3@72" CMP
FIELD SKETCH
IMPROVE EXISTING
2230
2220 Pt (WARY M!PI. J 2530' _ -- ��°��.JVIi'
BRIDGE = 155
ummuig-
1100 YEAR : S FL••;7 ELEV. II I PROP.GRADE
— I EX.GRADE PER MAR
if II T _.
:...,.
2190 \
\EFISTWG 30,•772" •
WSEL PER F- .
ON • OF VISIT[918191
A ca:.M BA• ARY 2• -
M7,1"- ECTED O
—�� .v. .Y CFN .i i.
•TES
1 I■• REF Na iU • I • I. -UM I 8.
16 17 18 19 20
Post Meeting Schematic:Site 8 Bridge Option
4IPage

5 Stantec Meeting Minutes
• North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) inquired about the permanent impacts of
a bridge that would require mitigation.
o TGS Hydraulics noted there would only be parallel stream impacts to Sweetwater Creek
associated with the bridge option.
• USACE noted that the slides had reduced costs for parallel impacts compared to what was
presented in the December whitepaper.
o TGS Hydraulics noted that the impacts presented in the slide ($399,494 of parallel
impacts for the bridge option) were correct and that the meeting minutes would serve
as the amendment.
• USACE inquired about the difference in costs presented at this meeting and CP 2A.
o TGS Hydraulics noted that the costs at CP 2A were not comparing apples-to-apples.
Additional work was completed following CP 2A to refine the costs, including generating
quantities for the additional earthwork, pavement,guardrail, etc. NCDOT's estimating
group generated the costs based on the quantities provided.
• USACE inquired if the costs presented for all bridge options at CP 2A were conservative.
o TGS Hydraulics noted that the costs presented in November were solely for construction
of the bridge and that additional costs, such as detour routes, were not calculated,
therefore all bridge costs looked at in more detail would increase.
• USACE inquired about why the costs for the detour bridge were high.
o TGS Hydraulics noted that the bridge option would require an on-site detour to maintain
traffic. This would require a significant amount of earthwork, pavement,guardrail, and a
120-ft detour bridge.
o FHWA inquired if providing calculations used to obtain costs estimates would assist.
• USACE confirmed.
• See attached for cost estimates:Detour Site 8 Preliminary Estimate
1` --
EXIST!". . %3 M&j T �,t nIt s .S I0 * %oI '� �r r ,,.
-h
3, 1$ s r tT a_,
l - �
ATOUA
,I I , • IMPACTS
' tl 09.TQTALSWEETWATER CREEK r �V r - ;t«�-''
IMPACTS [3801 y' a f frr r OFFSET LINE
FRC,' MAINLINE SS 4.
-- /' .,- R t ',/,-' . ;:lot ! *� ' �.:„ 5 +b. u- w •"''•,• 35'OFFSET L3NE
- ... .V r _ 7f ' r i$' { f 1.---,yt h'.' ,. �n,yw . -1 ROM DE I 0 U R SS
k ' _ :� Aa �.
Site 8 Detour Bridge
• USACE inquired if a detour is needed for a culvert.
o TGS Hydraulics noted that it would be phase constructed.
SIPage

Stantec Meeting Minutes
• USACE inquired if a bridge could be stage constructed.
o Division 14 noted that due to the grade difference, it would not be possible to stage
construct the bridge.
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) inquired if there were other
engineering options such as a smaller or lower bridge not constrained by FEMA regulations that
may require a design exception.
o Division 14 noted that if the bridge was lower, it would not provide the required
capacity of flow. In order for water to pass,the grade would need to be raised.
A-0009C - SITE 8
2240 GRAHAM EX.3(c 72" CMP
FIELD SKETCH
IMPROVE EXISTING
2230
2220 'RE,IMINA2Y MIN.?.RIDGE
AT EXISTING GRADE
FEMA 100 YEAR BASE PROP.GRA..DE
FLOOD fLE�'. 1 ,1 //r9( GRADE PER LIDAR
221C \TB TBf)f iso2x
--4t
219C
1 EXISTING S(2 72 CMP
WSEL PER FUME
N.3 @ LYS FAZE OF VISPT{9/1819)
218C PRELIMINARY 2410'x6'ROC
Rk'RC.EC1ED ON PROPOSED
R:ADWAY CENTERLINE
NOTES:
1)LIDAR EE►ERENCE9 VERTICAL DA-UM NAVE 88.
16 17 18 19 20
Post Meeting Schematic:Site 8 Bridge at Existing Grade
• NCWRC inquired if 9 feet was the optimum or minimum that the grade would need to be raised.
o TGS Hydraulics noted that this is the minimum amount that the grade would need to be
raised.
• Facilitator inquired about the concerns over not having a bridge.
o USACE noted that they prefer to see a bridge where possible and it's difficult to
understand hydraulically why a bridge is not feasible. Beech Creek is in good condition
and they prefer to maintain free flow if possible.
• TGS Hydraulics noted that low flow would be maintained in the center barrel with a triple barrel
option.
o NCWRC noted this option would be fine if a bridge wasn't feasible and affordable.
NCWRC agrees with keeping the base flow in one barrel.There are concerns over fish
passage with a culvert.
o Stantec inquired whether a greensheet commitment for a triple barrel culvert should be
added to the environmental document.
Wage

Stantec Meeting Minutes
■ TGS/NCDOT PM noted if a triple barrel is agreed upon and a new CP 2A form is
signed,then a greensheet commitment is not necessary.TGS/NCDOT PM
suggested moving forward with a double barrel since the stream would be
contained within one barrel.There were no objections.
• USACE noted that the proposed roadway is three lanes at this crossing and inquired if it could be
reduced to two lanes.
o TGS/NCDOT PM noted that it could not be reduced to two lanes.
o USACE inquired if they were comfortable that this could be justified at this point.
■ TGS/NCDOT noted they were.
• USACE noted they could make a preliminary determination on what structure needs to be here,
but additional information on passing/climbing lanes is needed.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) inquired about the time frame for
additional information.
o Stantec noted these items are top priority and additional information will be provided
within a couple of weeks.
Hydraulic Site 27:TGS Hydraulics presented a comparison between the bridge and culvert options
proposed at this site. Baffles could be incorporated during final design.The proposed box culvert would
be on 6.5%grade. Stantec noted that a bridge is not feasible at this location due to the 8%grade and 30°
curvature required. The bridge would go from a tangent to a curve, which is an undesirable situation.
There would be problems tying back into existing NC 28.
N i
PRELIMINARY SLOPE'STAKES
DRIVEWAY
a 83R TRIG.SBI
get IMPACTS (144')
5R 1239 OG4TjO,y - - --- PRE IMII'NARY
RCB CULVERT
CARVER BRANCH ___ SR 1239 35'OFFSET LINE
IMPACTS O4951 - -- DRIVEWAY
•
�TB\
STECOAH HEIGHTS
35'OFFSET LINE ENTRANCE
TRIG.SBD
IMPACTS (651 i
- - CARVER BRANCH _
PRELIMINARY SLOPE STAKES Y SITE 21 IMPACTS (581')' TRIB-SBJ
IMPACTS (821
35'OFFSET LINE
Post Meeting Rendering:Site 27 Culvert Impacts
• NCWRC noted that the culvert option is unacceptable to them as the length and grade is unlikely
to allow for fish passage. NCWRC requested additional information and discussion on the NC 28
relocation and what the outcome would be if the existing road is not relocated.
o TGS Hydraulics noted there are culverts with similar slopes on 1-26 that allow for fish
passage.
7IPage

Stantec Meeting Minutes
o USACE agreed neither a bridge nor culvert is desirable, but a bridge appears unfeasible
from a design standpoint.A final decision is not being made at this point.
A-0009C SITE 27
GRAHAM NEW CROSSING
FIELD SKETCH
:4 11 ALTERNATIVE NC28_3R-RELOCATION
46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Post Meeting Schematic:Site 27 Culvert Option
• USACE noted that the NC 28 relocation has not been resolved and needs to be looked at
separately. This alternative would need to be examined in comparison to other alternatives at
CP 2.
o NCWRC noted this seems like a separate alternative.
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noted the Core Team is agreeable to revising CP 2
forms to include the NC 28 Relocation, B-1, as a separate option.
• NCWRC noted an on-site field meeting might be helpful at this point.
o USACE noted they saw several of these sites during their JD walkthrough.
o TGS/NCDOT PM inquired about interest from the rest of the project team. None was
expressed.
• TGS Hydraulics noted the length of the box culvert could possibly be shortened by
approximately 100 feet and the channel could be relocated outside of the construction limits.
• Division 14 noted that evaluation of more fish data in Carver Branch would be helpful.
o See attached:A-10 Culvert Research Summary;A-0009C Fish Passage Desktop Study
Due to time constraints,TGS/NCDOT PM suggested wrapping up the information presented from
the white paper and setting up follow-up weekly meetings. The Project Team agreed to meet every
Wednesday from 1:00-2:30pm for the next several weeks to continue the discussion on the CP2A
sites and other topics that were not fully addressed in this meeting.
Wage

Stantec Meeting Minutes
Action Items/Next Steps:
• Stantec to present graphic displaying typical section locations along the project corridor at next
project team meeting.
• TGS Hydraulics to reexamine hydraulic crossing impacts based on 2+1 typical section.
9IPage