20140762 All Versions_Meeting Minutes_20100127

a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
p@RDWIRDO
JAN 2 7 2010
DM - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY E PURDUE
GOVERNOR
,January 5, 2010
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Merger Team and Meeting Participants
Joseph Qubain, NCDOT - PDEA
EUGENE A CONTI
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting for Concurrence Point 2a (CP-2a)
R-2915, Widening of US 221, from US 421 to NC-88 in Jefferson
Watauga and Ashe Counties
A merger meeting was held on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 1:00 p.m., in the Transportation
Building Board Room for the subject project. The meeting attendees were as follows:
Monte Matthews US Army Corps of Engineers
Donnie Brew Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Amy ELII1SS NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Brian Wrenn NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Early NC Department Cultural Resources / SHPO
Craig Hughes High Coimtry RPO (via phone)
Trent Beaver NCDOT / Division 11 Construction Engineer
Teresa Hart NCDOT /PDEA
James Bridges NCDOT / PDEA
Carla Dagnino NCDOT / PDEA /NEU
Erin Cheely NCDOT / PDEA / NEU
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT / PDEA / NEU
Herman Huang NCDOT / PDEA /HEU
Susan Lancaster NCDOT / Roadway Design Unit
Michael Orr NCDOT / Transportation Planning Branch
Cooper Sellers NCDOT / Transportation Planning Branch (via phone)
Galen Cail NCDOT / Hydraulics
Bill Elam NCDOT / Hydraulics
Mack Bailey NCDOT / Structure Design
Bruce Klappenbach NCDOT / Structure Design
Caleb Smith NCDOT / HEU / Archaeology
Frank Vick Parsons
Todd McAulliffe Parsons
Ed Robbins Parsons
Page 1 of4
Monte Matthews opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and requesting meeting attendees to
introduce themselves.
Donnie Brew stated that the NCDOT team - including hydrology, biologists and consultants - had
previously met to refine the hydraulic recommendations to ensure that both the hydrology and
environmental considerations were included in selecting the recommendations to be presented. This
should result in a more refined product.
Frank Vick gave an overview of the project, its history, purpose and need, study area, environmental
constraints/issues, design issues, costs and other project information via a Power Point presentation.
The presentation included a site-by-site discussion of various hydraulic structures along the project.
Sites I and IA
Donnie Brew commented that most of the time, a culvert is much less expensive than a bridge to
construct and maintain. Further, a culvert will last longer before it needs to be replaced. He added
that unless an environmental benefit is obtained through the use of a bridge, it would be hard to
justify the cost of a bridge versus a culvert.
Marella Buncick pointed out that this stream has trout in it, and that any decision would require
downstream information before it could be made. She also indicated that a bridge almost always
provides an environmental benefit and that since the previous work done on US 421 upstream from
the location of Site IA impaired the stream, it makes sense to do something with a wider hydraulic
opening. She added that there were issues with flooding associated with this creek.
Marla Chambers said she preferred a bridge. Joseph pointed out that the costs of a bridge, including
mitigation, are roughly the same as a culvert for this location.
Marella Buncick said that if the culvert is put in, it is basically a culvert from US 421 through this
site and there is not enough daylight for the stream. If cost is not an issue, then the bridge should be
utilized.
Donnie Brew asked Trent Beaver what the division preferred. Trent Beaver said division preferred a
culvert because of maintenance costs and a bridge will have to be replaced before a culvert
Chris Militscher asked what the impact savings was for a bridge versus a culvert. Frank Vick said
there were no impacts for a bridge, versus 140 feet for a culvert. Chris Militscher asked that a
decision be deferred until Site 8 is discussed.
Site 2
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
Site 3
Marla Chambers indicated that it might be a good idea to conduct this meeting in the field. She
added that the project presents the one opportunity to repair things that are currently not working
hydraulically. Marella Buncick commented that there is more going on, environmentally, in the
vicinity of the existing culvert than can be determined through the available pictures, aerials, and
mapping. Marla Chambers indicated this site might be a good site for a wildlife crossing, and that
they should be considered in this project.
Joseph Qubain asked if a field visit would help the team make decisions, and the team said it would.
It was agreed that, if possible, the team would agree on some sites that were not complex, and visit
the remaining sites. So far, Sites I and 3 were identified as sites that would be visited in the field.
Page 2 of4
Site 4
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
Site 5
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
Site 6
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
Site 7
After some discussion, the decision was postponed pending the site visit.
Site 8
Chris Militscher indicated that this site has it very large drainage basin (11.5 square miles) and
would need to be reviewed in the field. Trent Beaver and Susan Lancaster said that if a bridge was
constructed, the Y-line would have to be realigned.
After sonic discussion, the decision was postponed pending the site visit
Site 9
Upon NCDOT's recommendation, it was agreed to retain the existing bridge and to add a parallel
new bridge for the widening part of the road.
Site 10
Upon NCDOT's recommendation, it was agreed that two new bridges be built.
Site 11
Marella Buncick commented that Old Fields Creek is a trout stream, and that it is not a good idea to
put a trout stream through a long culvert and that hopefully some of the impact can be reduced.
Joseph Qubain pointed out that the impacts are based on the worst case scenario, and that hopefully
slope stakes can be brought in to reduce impacts.
No objections were raised to the recommendations made, however the team wanted to visit the site
in the field to see if deficiencies can be fixed.
Site 12
Marella Buncick said she encouraged minimization as much as possible at this site. No objections
were raised to the recommendations made, however the team wanted to visit the site in the field to
see if deficiencies can be fixed.
Site 13
After some discussion, the decision was postponed pending the site visit.
Site 14
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
Site 15
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
Page 3 of 4
Site 16
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
Site 17
After some discussion, the decision was postponed pending the site visit.
Site 18
No objection to NCDOT's recommendation. The team decided that the existing culvert be extended.
At the end of the meeting, Joseph Qubain summarized the decisions that were made by the team,
- Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16 & 18, recommendations as made by NCDOT were approved.
- Sites 11, 12 & 15, recommendation were approved, but the sites will be visited during the field trip.
- Sites 1 and 1 A, 3, 7, 8, 13, and 17, a decision was postponed pending site visits.
Joseph Qubain will coordinate for a field trip. Due to the winter weather and daylight issues, it was
agreed that the visit will take place in late February or March. The concurrence point form will be
distributed and signed at that point.
Minutes prepared by Todd McAulliffe (Parsons), reviewed and edited by Joseph Qubain (NCDOT).
The foregoing constitutes our understanding of the matters discussed and the conclusions
reached. If there are any questions, corrections, omissions, or additional comments please advise
the author within five working days after receipt of these minutes.
cc: Meeting Participants
Project File
Page 4 of 4
FW: R-2915 CP2A Meeting Minutes Page I of I
FW: R-2915 CP2A Meeting Minutes
Euliss, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:48 PM
To: Carrillo, Sonia
Please add to the file. Thanks.
From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:43 PM
To: Qubain, Joseph
Subject: RE: R-2915 CP2A Meeting Minutes
There is no mention in the meeting minutes about DWQ's concern for potential impacts to the mitigation site that ties
into the main channel at the outlet of the culvert at site 1A. I know there was some concern from DOT as to whether
this was a true mitigation site. As I said in the meeting, I would like the history of the stream mitigation to be
determined prior to the field meeting, and DWQ's concerns clearly stated in the minutes.
Thanks,
Amy Euliss
From: McAulliffe, Todd [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:46 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Chambers, Marla J.; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Qubain, Joseph
Subject: R-2915 CP2A Meeting Minutes
Attached please find the meeting minutes for the Merger Team meeting held on December 15, 2009 for Concurrence
Point 2A. Please let me know if you have any comments. Thanks, Todd.
<<R-2915 Meeting Minutes CP2a.doc>>
Todd McAulliffe
Planner
PARSONS
919.854.1351 (Direct)
919.854.1345 (Main)
919.851.2103 (Fax)
https://mail.ne.gov/owa/?ae=lteiii t=IPM.NoteRid=RgAAAADMSzt-c(19W2T.IHI4%2bmA%2f/"... 1/7/2010