Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutU-5713-R-5777A&B 4B Meeting Minutes_FINAL Minutes from the Interagency 4B Hydraulic Design and Permit Review Meeting U-5713/R-5777 - Craven County NCDOT Structure Design Conf. Room C January 17, 2020 Participants: Team Members: Preston Hunter, NCDOT Division Engineer Tom Steffens, USACE (present) Cadmus Capehart, NCDOT Division 2 DCE Garcy Ward, NCDWR (present) Heather Lane, NCDOT Division 2 Assist. DCE Robert Patterson, NCDWR (present) David Kramer, NCDOT Division 2 Utilities Stephen Lane, NCDCM (present) Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT EAU Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM (present) Mike Sanderson, NCDOT EPU Amanetta Somerville, EPA (not present) Wendi Johnson, Gannett Fleming John Mintz, NCDCR (not present) Eddie Bunn, Gannett Fleming Lindsay Ferrante, NCDCR (not present) Jamie Byrd, HNTB Renee Gledhill-Earley, NCDRC (not present) Matt Foster, HNTB Curtis Weychert, NCDENR (not present) Josh Sommer, Balfour Beatty Travis Wilson, NC WRC (not present) Kevin Bailey, STV Adam Freeman, STV Michael Iagnocco, STV Joshua Kotheimer, STV Josh Dalton, Sungate Design Group Eric Leonhart, Sungate Design Group David Talbert, Sungate Design Group Minutes: Josh Dalton opened the meeting and introductions were made by all in attendance. Kevin Bailey provided an overview of the project limits and roadway design. The current project schedules have the 4C Meeting on April 15, 2020 and June 5, 2020 as the target date for submittal of the USACOE 404 permit application. Due to the accelerated design-build project schedule, drainage design continued after plans were uploaded to the Agency members. After plans were uploaded, revisions to the drainage were necessary due to existing field conditions and revisions to roadway layout. Areas where drainage was revised were noted during the meeting. Hard copies of the revised plans were provided to the Agency members at the meeting. Eric Leonhart proceeded through the project plan sheets 4 through 11 and David Talbert proceeded through plan sheets 12 through 22: General  Tom Steffens requested showing JD nomenclature on the permit drawings for all wetland and jurisdictional streams.  Garcy Ward/Robert Patterson – The design must provide some level of pre- treatment prior to discharge to any blue line stream. Provide diffuse flow outside the Zone 2 buffer wherever possible. In those instances, the buffer provides the treatment. For grassed swales, the criteria is 100’ of grassed swale per acre of drainage area. All alternatives for treatment should be exhausted as the state looks at each discharge separately. Josh Dalton asked if it was acceptable to overtreat stormwater with larger basins on other portions of the project where additional right-of-way was available in order to offset areas where treatment would require taking of homes. Garcy stated that this provided little benefit as the state looks at each discharge point separately. Post meeting discussion with Garcy Ward - if design cannot meet treatment requirements, it could trigger the need for a variance; wider swale bottoms could gain additional treatment capacity.  “Skull and crossbones” symbols were noted throughout the plans. Kevin Bailey explained that the symbol meant that there were potential contaminated soils located somewhere on that parcel. The mapping and determination of the contaminated soils is ongoing and will be completed prior to the right-of-way phase. If excavation occurs within a contaminated soils area, the soils must be handled according to the RFP and Green Sheet commitments. If a drainage system is located within the contaminated soils area, the system must be sealed.  The project will require a DCM Consistency Review. Cathy Brittingham agreed the Team could use the previous Havelock Coastal Consistency Determination submittal as an example. The Consistency Review will not be required if the project qualifies for a General Permit 31 instead of an Individual Permit.  Heather Lane noted the CE document will be updated prior to the permit application to address any updates to protected species and any other required updates.  Chris Rivenbark noted that mitigation would likely be provided through DMS.  Label pipes inverts that will be buried and the depth. Plan Sheet 4:  No comments. Plan Sheet 5:  Eric Leonhart – Existing 66” RCP will be retained and extended. The inverts are not buried and therefore the extended inverts will not be buried. Garcy Ward – Make sure this does not result in a perched pipe. This needs to be noted in the permit application.  Tom Steffens – Why is toe protection being used in the wetlands? Eric stated that the toe protection will only be placed on the slope.  Robert Patterson – Can 36” pipe outlet to the wetlands instead of a direct connection to the 66” pipe? Eric stated the Team would investigate. Plan Sheet 6:  Tom Steffens asked if the 48” pipe outlet could be shifted away from the wetland right of station 35+50 -SRY21C-. Eric noted that this ditch may need to be piped due to the size of the ditch and impact to homes. Robert Patterson asked how far the system would be piped. Garcy Ward stated that treatment will be needed prior to the buffer. After much discussion, it was agreed that the ditch would remain from station 35+50 to approximately station 46+50. The pipe system will outlet at station 59+50 to a ditch to the culvert inlet. This will provide the maximum amount of grass swale treatment practicable without additional taking of homes. Plan Sheet 7:  No comments. Plan Sheet 8:  Tom Steffens asked what the purpose of the toe protection on Y21 was. Eric stated that the toe protection will only be placed on the slope. Tom asked if equalizer pipes were needed. Eric said cover may be an issue. NCDOT agreed the Team could use multiple 24” pipes for equalizer conditions if needed. Eric noted the ditch within the wetland limits along Y21 would be eliminated.  Tom asked about ditch impacts to the wetland left of station 16+00 -Y21RPB-. Josh Dalton noted the Team would reduce the ditch depth if possible or use a pipe across the wetland limits.  Robert Patterson asked how the existing stormwater pond in quadrant B would drain. Josh stated the Team would investigate further and tie pond outlet to system as needed.  Tom noted the fill slope lines cross the stream at the box culverts. Eric noted slope stake line would tie to the wing walls in the final plans.  Josh Dalton noted that the 18” pipe in quadrant C would be connected to the side wall of the box culvert. Garcy said that was acceptable as long as treatment is provided.  Josh noted the class II rip rap would be removed in the straight portions of the culvert channel relocations with coir fiber matting used instead.  Tom asked why the equalizer pipe was removed from the wetland in quadrant D on -SRY21D-. Eric noted that the 36” pipe would not fit under the road. NCDOT said it was acceptable to use two 24” pipes if needed.  Garcy asked that the buffer lines downstream of quadrant A be shown further downstream.  Garcy questioned what feature was at the 48” pipe left of station 279+00 -L-. Mike Iagnocco noted this was stream SD on the west side of Highway 70 and tributary TE on the east side and that neither feature should have buffers. Plan Sheet 9:  Eric noted the box culvert inverts will be buried 1’ with sills and baffles.  Joshua Kotheimer noted that stream SF should not have buffers.  Tom requested the 6’ base ditch include a bend with rip rap on the banks at the box culvert inlet.  Garcy asked about treatment for the system that outlets left of station 287+00 -L-. Eric noted that treatment will be provided prior to the buffer.  Tom reminded the Team to include fill in wetland impacts for rip rap pads in wetland limits. Plan Sheet 10:  Tom asked about the 60” pipe and what was draining to the box culvert. Eric noted there is a proposed lateral ditch along the service road with a cross pipe (on the matchline which is difficult to see) that drains to an inlet and then connects to the proposed box culvert.  Garcy asked if the system outlet left of station could be moved outside the buffers. Eric stated the drainage would be revised to move the outlet beyond the buffer limits. Plan Sheet 11:  Joshua Kotheimer noted that the JS line in wetland WAF should be removed.  Tom stated the 2’ lateral based ditch along SRY22A needs to have non-erosive velocities at the wetland limits. Plan Sheet 12:  Tom asked how treatment would be provided for the direct connection to the 54” cross pipe. David Talbert noted the Team would try to redirect these inlets to swales along the service road if possible.  Garcy asked about the pipe along the service road -SR1- that connects to the 54” cross pipe. Eric explained that the existing ditch left of station 17+60 -SR1- flow toward the road (not away like the flow arrow indicates) and this pipe was picking up that drainage. Plan Sheet 13:  No JS or wetland features on this plan sheet. No comments. Plan Sheet 14:  Tom noted the 42” pipe in quadrant C goes nowhere in his set of plans. Josh Dalton explained some issues with the railroad outfalls that were found during field visits. The drainage design in this area is being reworked to avoid potential increases to the railroad outfalls. Stormwater basins are likely in quadrants A and B to provide stormwater quality treatment and stormwater quantity control. Plan Sheet 15:  No comments. Plan Sheet 16:  Joshua Kotheimer noted that stream SG is mapped west of the railroad and does not extend to the east side of the railroad. The buffers should be removed from the plans left of station 406+00 -L-. Plan Sheet 17:  No comments. Plan Sheet 18:  Garcy field reviewed and concurs with the JD package. Stream SA is buffered to the limits shown in the JD package which ends at the driveway.  Scott’s Creek is an AEC – CAMA jurisdiction ends at Williams Road. No impacts are currently anticipated to Scott’s Creek. Plan Sheet 19:  No comments. Plan Sheet 20:  A new wetland and AEC has been identified left of -RPC55-. Joshua Kotheimer explained that the shoreline and associated buffer was an inland water (30’ buffer) and not coastal and not subject to the CAMA 75’ buffer Note: post meeting, DCM confirmed that Scott’s Creek is designated as Inland Waters, therefore, the Public Trust Shoreline AEC extends 30’ from the normal water level of the creek. DCM made a field visit to the site post meeting with Nathan Howell of Three Oaks Engineering. It was determined during the meeting that the outlet of the existing 24” pipe under the off ramp from US 70 to US 17 is located approximately 15’ from Scott’s Creek and is within the Public Trust Shoreline AEC. Replacing or upsizing the 24” pipe in the existing location as part of the project would require a CAMA Major Permit, however, the proposed pipe location, as shown in the updated plans provided at the meeting, would be outside of the AEC and would not trigger a CAMA Major Permit.  David Talbert explained efforts to move discharge formerly associated with the existing 24” pipe to outside of the AEC buffer. Stephen Lane stated the pipe as shown shouldn’t require a CAMA permit.  Need to show buffer zones associated with the AEC and wetland limits on plans.  DCM questioned whether sturgeon issues are a concern. Plan Sheet 21:  Tom noted the ditch left of station 19+50 -SRY21C2- will impact the wetlands. Eric stated this section of ditch can be piped to avoid the impact. Plan Sheet 22:  No comments. -Meeting Adjourned.