Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190214 Ver 3_I-5986A 4B Minutes final 20200331_20200416 I-5986A 4B Interagency Concurrence Point Meeting Minutes RK Avvp S.T. WOOTEN Date: March 11,2020 Meeting Minutes: March 31, 2020 Location: NCDOT Structures Conference Room Time: 8:00 AM Attendees: Paul Atkinson—NCDOT Hydraulics Matthew York—NCDOT Hydraulics Chris Rivenbark—NCDOT EAU Alex Gaddie—NDOT EAU Michael Penney—NCDOT DBU Tyler Stogner—NCDOT DBU Glen Mumford—NCDOT DBU Kristy Alford—NCDOT SMU Mike Sanderson—NCDOT EPU Felix Davila—FHWA Jay Twisdale—TGS Engineers Jonathan Bivens—ST Wooten Andy Barry—ST Wooten Thomas Bowers—ST Wooten Tony Houser—RK&K Matthew Cook—RK&K Brent Huskey—RK&K Via Telephone: Joanne Steenhuis—NCDWR Robert Patterson—NCDWR Steve Kendall—NCDOT Div. 6 Jim Rerko—NCDOT Div. 6 Scott Pridgen—NCDOT Div. 6 Greg Price—NCDOT Div. 6 Michael Wood—Three Oaks The 30% Hydraulic Review was held in order to reach agreement on concurrence point 4B for the 1-5986A I-95 widening project in Cumberland County. The following items were discussed and conclusions reached: Matthew Cook introduced the DB Team for the project. The project is broken up in to three design segments. This is a design build (DB) project that was awarded August 2019 to the team of ST Wooten (contractor)and RK&K(prime engineer). The project is approximately 15.4 miles from north of the NC 24/1-95 interchange to south of the Harnett/Cumberland county line. He stated that the DB Team was also awarded 1-5877, however the team was given fully designed signed and sealed plans with a permit. This 4B meeting is only to discuss 1-5986A, not 1-5877. The 25%roadway plans for the project have been approved. The hydraulics design has been submitted to NCDOT and is currently under review. This project currently has an approved corridor permit. The DB Team will be submitting a permit modification once the 4C meeting is held and the plans/impacts are completed. Mr. Cook stated that the original environmental features study corridor as shown in the environmental documents was not large enough to include the project footprint. NCDOT Division 6 has coordinated obtaining additional features for the DB Team and the jurisdictional determinations with the agencies. Several of the new features provided (streams and wetlands) do not currently have names. NCDOT will coordinate providing those to the DB Team. Plan sheet 4-7 • No impacts. Plan sheet 8 • Stream with no name along-LSB-56+00-66 LT: Impacts due to proposed pipe outfall. • Everyone discussed the use of riprap in the channel bottom of jurisdictional streams. Mr. Cook asked if all jurisdictional stream locations that had riprap should not place riprap on the channel bottom and place a note on the T.I.P.Project I-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction S.r.WOOTEN RK Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina plans for"on banks only". Joanne Steenhuis said that it was the call of the hydraulics engineer if it was needed or not. It is not a blanket call for all locations. She also asked that riprap been installed flush with the stream bed when required (key-in). Mr. Cook said they would check each location. Plan sheet 9 • Stream with no name at-LSB-72+00: Impacts due to proposed 66"WS pipe (inlet end) and 66" RCP(outlet end). The existing RCBC will be retained, and the new pipe will be used as an overflow pipe, not buried. • Reese Creek-1:See notes for plan sheet 10. • Wetland with no name along the north bound 1-95 off ramp to Murphy Rd.: Impacts due to proposed 66"WS pipe (inlet end). • Wetland WA: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. Mr. Cook stated that throughout the project,the Team has called for toe protection along fill slopes adjacent to wetlands. The toe protection would help with stabilization of the fill slope due to the anticipation of water constantly present beside it. The toe protection at these locations is not needed to protect against erosion due to flow against it. It is being installed due to constant water next to the fill slope and only placed on the fill slope, not in the mechanized clearing locations beyond the slopes. • Wetland with no name along Sanderosa Rd.: No impacts. • Wetland WB: No impacts this sheet. Plan sheet 10 • Reese Creek-1/2: Impacts due to anticipated bridge. This location was listed in the contract documents as an area that the DB Team should analyze more closely and offer construction alternatives to NCDOT following award of the project. The DB Team has provided NCDOT with three options: o Replace the RCBC under 1-95 with a bridge for ultimate buildout for future lanes along with replacing the downstream RCBC under Murphy Rd.with a bridge. o Replace the RCBC under 1-95 with a bridge for current proposed construction along with replacing the downstream RCBC under Murphy Rd.with a bridge. o Replace the RCBC under 1-95 with an RCBC along with replacing the downstream RCBC under Murphy Rd. with a bridge. NCDOT Hydraulics agreed with the DB Team assessment that a bridge on 1-95 with a bridge at Murphy Rd.was the best option. Currently NCDOT is deciding which bridge on 1-95 to move forward with. The DB Team will show impacts that are required given the most current roadway plans at the time the permit modification will be submitted. If decisions by NCDOT necessitate the plans to change, a permit modification for this area will be submitted. • Stream SA: Impacts due to proposed 30"WS pipe. This pipe will not be buried since the jurisdictional stream does not continue downstream of the pipe. Ms. Steenhuis asked if the proposed pipe could be moved to line up with the entrance to the existing pipe. Mr. Cook stated that the new pipe needed to be installed by bore and jack methods since the fill height was great. In order to maintain flow,the existing pipe must be kept in place with the new pipe offset. • Wetland WA: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. Impacts due to proposed 30"WS pipe under-Y1NB-. There is the potential for impacts due to the bridge on Reese Creek. • Wetland WB: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. Impacts due to proposed 66"WS pipe. Impacts due to proposed 36" WS pipe. Robert Patterson asked if the proposed 36"WS pipe could be shortened to minimize impacts in the wetland. Mr.Cook said they would check the existing ground elevations and see if it could be done. There is the potential for impacts due to the bridge on Reese Creek. Jonathan Bivens suggested shifting the proposed 66" WS pipe and the proposed 36"WS pipe so that they were not on top of the existing pipes at these locations. • Wetland WC: Impacts due to proposed 30"WS pipe. • Wetland WD: Impacts due to proposed 30" WS pipe and ditch construction. Plan sheet 11 • No impacts. Plan sheet 12 • Wetland WH: Impacts due to proposed roadway cut. This will be a total take. • Wetland WE: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch. This will be a total take. /VP T.I.P.Project 1-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction S.T.S.T.WOOTEN l�K- K. Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina Plan sheet 13 • Stream SB: Impacts due to proposed 2 @ 36" RCP. This pipe will not be buried since it is not jurisdictional upstream. • Wetland WH: Impacts due to proposed roadway cut. This will be a total take. • Wetland WF: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. This will be a total take. • Wetland WG: No impacts. Plan sheet 14 • Wetland WI: Impacts due to proposed roadway cut. This will be a total take. Plan sheet 15 • Wetland WJ: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. This will be a total take. • Wetland WK: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch. Mr. Cook said he believed they could remove the ditch causing some of the impact. • Wetland WL: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditches. Plan sheet 16 • Wetland WJ: Impacts due to proposed roadway cut. This will be a total take. Plan sheet 17-18 • No impacts. Plan sheet 19 • Baker Swamp: Impacts due to proposed 54"WS pipe. The existing pipe will be retained, and the new pipe will be used as an overflow pipe, not buried. The design at this location is being finalized and might require additional riprap at the pipe outlet at-Y4-. • Wetland WR: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch. • Wetland WS: Impacts due to pipe clean out. • Wetland WO: Impacts due to proposed roadway cut and proposed 54"WS pipe. The existing pipe will be retained, and the new pipe will be used as an overflow pipe, not buried. • Wetland WN: Impacts due to proposed 54"WS pipe. • Wetland WM: No impacts. Plan sheet 20 • Baker Swamp: Impacts due to proposed 66"WS pipe. This pipe will not be buried since the short jurisdictional stream section downstream will be completely impacted by a riprap pad, and the upstream section is located completely inside an interchange gore area. • Wetland WO: Impacts due to roadway cut/fill and proposed 30" RCP. • Wetland WP: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WO: Impacts due to roadway fill and proposed 66"WS pipe. • Wetland with no name along-YSRPA-39+00: Impacts due to roadway fill. A 36" RCP equalizer will be used at this location. Chris Rivenbark asked if this should be considered a total take. He said that if the project was not removing the hydrology of the wetland and that at least 0.25ac of wetland was not impacted that it might not be considered a total take. Mr. Cook said that the hydrology would remain and that they would check the area impacted. If it is considered a total take the plansheet would only show hatching for what is impacted with the impact summary table reflecting the filled acreage due to the project and the additional total take acreage noted at the bottom. • Wetland WX: Impacts due to roadway fill. Ms. Steenhuis was concerned about the ditch running next to the wetland possibly draining it, however Mr. Cook stated that the existing pattern has a ditch running along 1-95 and the wetland with the wetland still functioning. The Team is matching this pattern, and the wetland will continue to be fed as it currently is. • Wetland WV: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WW: Impacts due to roadway fill. The remaining non-impacted wetland area inside-Y5LPD-will be considered impacted. • Wetland WR: No impacts. T.I.P.Project I-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction 0, S.r.WOOTEN RK[ K. Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina Plan sheet 21 • No impacts. Plan sheet 22-23 • Stream SC: Impacts due to proposed 2 @ 8'x8' RCBC and channel ties. The question was asked why the culvert channel ties are so long. Due to traffic control and maintaining lanes for 1-95 traffic,the proposed RCBC needs to be installed offline, not in the existing RCBC location. This necessitates tying the new channels back to the existing channels in a manner that minimizes scour. With this stream on a skew, it is more difficult to tie in quickly. The proposed channel bottoms will be checked to see in riprap is necessary, however the new channel banks will definitely use riprap and fabric. • Mr. Cook stated that the existing jurisdictional stream info did not extend the limits of the stream very far off the project site. He asked if the Team could extend the stream limits up and downstream due to the RCBC channel tie- ins. The Team survey, QL2 data, and aerials would all be used to supplement the information. Everyone was OK with this. Plan sheet 24-26 • No impacts. Plan sheet 27 • Stream SD: Impacts due to proposed 2 @ 10'x7' RCBC and channel ties. Mr. Cook showed a new channel tie-in for this proposed channel that is shorter than the original option presented in the submittal to the agencies. It was discussed that stream impact lengths would be based on prevailing direction of flow and would not include fingers since this is considered a single stream. The proposed channel bottoms will be checked to see in riprap is necessary, however the new channel banks will definitely use riprap and fabric. The question was raised be several why the new RCBC location was not on the opposite side of the existing RCBC. The potential for easier channel tie-in and less wetland impact could be on the opposite side. Mr. Cook said he would investigate and move it if possible. Mr. Rivenbark said that it might be helpful to justify in the Stormwater Management Plan as well as the permit modification why the RCBC is being built offline. • Wetland WZ: Impacts due to proposed 2 @ 10'x7' RCBC, channel ties, roadway fill, a proposed 15" RCP, and ditches. • Wetland WY: Impacts due to proposed 2 @ 10'x7' RCBC, channel ties, pipe removal, and ditch. Plan sheet 28-30 • No impacts. Plan sheet 31 • Stream SE: Impacts due to proposed 11'x7' RCBC and channel ties. The proposed channel bottoms will be checked to see in riprap is necessary, however the new channel banks will definitely use riprap and fabric. • Wetland WAB: Impacts due to proposed 11'x7' RCBC channel tie. • Wetland WAA: No impacts. A pipe system (instead of a ditch) has been installed to eliminate impacts. From this point forward, Brent Huskey led the discussion on each plan sheet. Plan sheet 32 • Wetland WAC: Impacts due roadway fill, 15" RCP and 24" RCP outlets. • Wetland WAF: Impacts due to roadway fill. This is a total take. Plan sheet 33 • Wetland WAF: Impacts due to roadway fill. This is a total take. • Wetland WAG: Impacts due to roadway fill and proposed 30" RCP outlet. Plan sheet 34 • Wetland WAH: Impacts due to proposed 2 @ 48" RCPs and ditch. Mr. Huskey explained that the Team tried to minimize the amount of ditch required through the wetland as much as possible by designing it extremely flat while Ati4 T.I.P.Project I-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction S.T.S.T.WOOTEN RK[ K. Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina still providing positive flow. Jay Twisdale asked about the existing pipe just downstream of the proposed 2 @ 48" RCPs/ditch. It is shown as an overgrown pipe in the planimetrics. Mr. Cook said that they could investigate and work with NCDOT to replace it since it is very close downstream. The size of the ditch feeding it would limit the amount of Q that would reach it, but the size of the pipe could be maximized to the size of the ditch. Plan sheet 35 • Stream SF: Impacts due to proposed 12'x6' RCBC and channel ties. The proposed channel bottoms will be checked to see in riprap is necessary, however the new channel banks will definitely use riprap and fabric. This channel is jurisdictional only on the outlet end. • Wetland WAK: Impacts due to roadway fill, ditch, and proposed 12'x6' RCBC channel tie. • Wetland WAI: Impacts due to roadway fill, ditch, and proposed 12'x6' RCBC channel tie. Plan sheet 36 • Wetland WAK: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WAI: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WAL: No impacts. • Wetland WAJ: No impacts. This wetland is directly adjacent to WAI, but after reviewing the NRTR it is believed that the impacts in this area are in wetland WAI, not WAJ. Plan sheet 37-39 • No impacts. Plan sheet 40-41 • No impacts. Ms. Steenhuis asked about the easement shown through the pond at-L-492+00 LT. Mr. Cook said they would check if the easement is required. The NRTR shows the pond as not being jurisdictional. Plan sheet 42 • Wetland WAM: Impacts due to roadway fill. Plan sheet 43 • Wetland WAN: Impacts due to roadway fill and ditch • Wetland WAO: No impacts. Plan sheet 44 • Stream SG: Impacts due to proposed 8'x7' RCBC and channel ties. The proposed channel bottoms will be checked to see in riprap is necessary, however the new channel banks will definitely use riprap and fabric. There was discussion concerning the skew of the proposed RCBC and the channel ties. Mr. Cook said that several factors were taken in to account. It was the Team's intention to have no impacts to the pond upstream even though stream SG is extremely close. The proposed RCBC alignment was set to alleviate the angles of both parts of stream SG entering it. The proposed RCBC is skewed to maintain the existing drainage in the median to keep drainage off the work site and to maintain the existing RCBC outlet until construction is complete. Steve Kendall asked that adequate inlet protection be provided at the proposed RCBC due to the channels. • Mr. Cook stated that the existing jurisdictional stream info did not extend the limits of the stream far enough off the project site to tie in the upstream proposed RCBC channel. He asked if the Team could extend the stream limits upstream due to the RCBC channel tie-ins. The Team survey, QL2 data, and aerials would all be used to supplement the information. Everyone was OK with this. • Wetland WAP: Impacts due to ditch and proposed 8'x7' RCBC channel tie. • Wetland WAQ: Impacts due to ditch. Plan sheet 45-46 • No impacts. "i4/ T.I.P.Project I-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction S.T.S.T.WOOTEN RK[ K. Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina Plan sheet 47 • Stream SH: Impacts due to proposed 9'x7' RCBC and channel ties. The proposed channel bottoms will be checked to see in riprap is necessary, however the new channel banks will definitely use riprap and fabric. There was discussion concerning the skew of the proposed RCBC and the channel ties. • Wetland WAS: Impacts due to ditches and proposed 9'x7' RCBC channel tie. • Wetland WAR: No impacts. Plan sheet 48 • Wetland WAT: Impacts due to ditch. • Wetland WAR: No impacts. Plan sheet 49 • Wetland WAT: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WAU: No impacts. Plan sheet 50 • Stream SI: Impacts due to proposed 72" RCP. No sill will be included on the pipe. • Wetland WAL: Impacts due to ditch. • Wetland WAW: Impacts due to roadway fill, ditches and proposed 72" RCP. • Wetland WAV: Impacts due to roadway fill, ditches and proposed 72" RCP. Plan sheet 51 • Wetland WAX: Impacts due to ditch. Plan sheet 52 • Stream SJ: Impacts due to proposed 7'x7' RCBC and channel ties. • Wetland WAX: No impacts. Plan sheet 53 • Wetland WAY: Impacts due 2 @ 30" RCPs. • Wetland WAZ: Impacts due to ditch. • Wetland WAZ: No impacts. Plan sheet 54 • Stream Black River: Impacts due to proposed bridge and roadway fill, and 15" RCP outlet. In the areas of impacts that are not considered linear to Black River, a permanent surface water acreage impact will be included, but no linear impact. An example is along-L-676+50 RT. • Wetland WAZ: Impacts due proposed bridge, roadway fill, and 15" RCP outlet. Plan sheet 55 • Stream Black River: Impacts due to roadway fill that will be considered a permanent surface water acreage impact but no linear impact. • Wetland WAZ: Impacts due roadway fill and 15" RCP outlet. Plan sheet 56 • Stream Black River: Impacts due to roadway fill that will be considered a permanent surface water acreage impact but no linear impact. • Wetland WAZ: Impacts due roadway fill and ditch. Plan sheet 57 • No impacts. ,7 T.I.P.Project 1-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction S.T.S.T.WOOTEN RK[ K. Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina Plan sheet 58 • Wetland WBB: Impacts due roadway cut(cut is outside wetland, only mechanized clearing impact). • Wetland WBA: No impacts. Plan sheet 59 • Wetland WBC: Impacts due to ditch (ditch is outside wetland, only mechanized clearing impact). It was noted that the wetland should be checked for a low channel running through it. Plan sheet 60 • No impacts. The existing channel is not jurisdictional. Plan sheet 61 • Stream SK: Impacts due to proposed 72" RCP. No sill will be included on the pipe. • Wetland WBD: No impacts. Plan sheet 62-65 • No impacts. Plan sheet 66 • Stream with no name-Y5-45+00: Impacts due to extension of existing 2 @ 7'x8' RCBC on upstream (-YS- LT) end. • Mr. Cook stated that the limits of the existing jurisdictional stream info might not extend far enough off the project site to tie in the upstream proposed RCBC channel. He asked if the Team could extend the stream limits upstream due to the RCBC channel tie-ins. The Team survey, QL2 data, and aerials would all be used to supplement the information. Everyone was OK with this. • Wetland with no name-Y5-38+00 LT: Impacts due to roadway fill, 15"CMP outlet. • Wetland with no name-Y5-35+50 LT: No impacts. • Wetland with no name-Y5-37+00 RT: No impacts. Plan sheet 67 • Wetland with no name-Y5-55+00 LT: Impacts due to roadway fill, 15"CMP outlet. • Wetland with no name-Y5-62+00 LT: Impacts due to roadway fill, 15"CMP outlet. • Wetland with no name-Y5-49+00-58+00 RT: No impacts. • Wetland WT: No impacts. Plan sheet 68 • Wetland with no name-Y5-64+00 LT: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WT: Impacts due to ditch. • Wetland WU: Impacts due roadway fill, 24"WS pipe • Wetland WS: No impacts. • Wetland WR: No impacts. Plan sheet 69 • Wetland WS: Impacts due to existing pipe cleanouts. Plan sheet 70 • Wetland WO: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WN: Impacts due to roadway fill and ditch. • Wetland with no name along-YSB-and -Y5C-: Impacts due to roadway fill. • Wetland WV: No impacts. Plan sheet 71 • Wetland with no name along-YSB-: Impacts due to roadway fill. /VP T.I.P.Project I-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction S.T.S.T.WOOTEN l�K[ K. Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina Plan sheet 72-82 • No impacts. After completing the review of the plans, Mr. Cook asked if anyone was interested in a field visit to see the sites and project. No one felt it necessary to review the project in person. Note:A couple weeks after the 4B meeting, Deanna Riffey supplied the Team with the names of the jurisdictional features that were shown as "No Name"throughout the 4B drawings. These names will be shown in the 4C permit drawings. The meeting adjourned. R:\Hydraulics\DOCUMENTS\Permit\I-5986A 4B Minutes.docx T.I.P.Project I-5986A/1-5877-1-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction S.T.S.T.WOOTEN R�[ K. Cumberland and Harnett Counties,North Carolina