Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201086 Ver 1_GMisc_U5026_R5720_Interagency_Permit_Meeting_Minutes_4_16_2020_20200825TO: Chad Coggins NCDOT Division 4 DEO FROM: James Rice, PE (HDR) DATE: April 15, 2020 SUBJECT: U-5026/R-5720 4B/4C Concurrence Meeting Project: STIP U-5026/R-5720 – Rocky Mount Design Build Attendees: Bill Marley – FHWA Eric Alsmeyer – USACE Rob Ridings – NCDWR Robert Patterson – NCDEQ Rachel Evans – NCDOT Division 4 Chad Coggins – NCDOT DEO Gordon Cashin – NCDOT - XXX Joseph Furstenberg – NCDOT Bike & Ped Kim Moore – NCDOT Utilities Perry Keeter – NCDOT Div. 4 Resident Engineer Corey McLamb – NCDOT Div. 4 Construction Engineer Andrew Musselman – S&ME Mike Sanderson – NCDOT EPU Randi Gates Douglas Wheatley – HNTB James Byrd – HNTB Jessica Kuse – HNTB Ronda Early – HNTB Matt Foster – HNTB Jeremy Whitehurst – Barnhill Contracting James Rice – HDR Tom Miller – HDR Paul Robbins – HDR Warren Lamb – HDR Kyle Stoffer – HDR Watson Weatherly – HDR Cole Pierce – HDR Jackson Garvey – HDR Vickie Miller – HDR Presentation Materials: • Jurisdictional Waters Impact Drawings and Buffer Impact Drawings Project Discussion: The meeting was opened by Chad Coggins who introduced the project followed by a roll call. James Rice led the discussion on the 4C plans. The PDF drawings were projected via the online meeting and the following items were presented to all in attendance. The italicized text indicates notes from the meeting discussion. General Project Details • The project being reviewed is the U-5026/R-5720 Rocky Mount Design Build. • U-5026 proposes constructing an interchange on I-95 at Sunset Avenue where it is currently grade separated. Sunset Avenue will be widened between Old Carriage Road (SR 1603) and Halifax Road (SR 1544) and the existing collector-distributor along I-95 at US 64 will be extended to the south of the proposed interchange. 2 • R-5720 proposes widening Eastern Avenue from Red Oak Road (SR 1003) to N. Old Carriage Road (SR 1603). • Project is located within the Tar-Pamlico river basin, buffer rules will apply to jurisdictional streams. • At this point the 100% Hydro has not been approved, but we have been working with NCDOT and HNTB to coordinate on the design especially in the permitted areas. • Ditches have been designed to meet grass swale criteria to the maximum extent practical. • The 4A Avoidance and Minimization Meeting minutes were reviewed and were discussed, if warranted. • Utilities have been reviewed and no additional impacts are anticipated as a result of utility relocations. • The focus of the meeting was on the wetland and buffer sets but 4B sets were available if needed. • Photos and comps were available if requested. WETLAND/STREAM PERMIT SET 2D-1 – Details • Details for all sites located on 1 sheet for reference. • Details numbered by plan sheet PSH 4 – SITE 1 • Site 1 (SZ) – was a recent addition to the project. This stream was not part of the original NRTR or other studies. We have given it the label of SZ to avoid potential confusion with other streams within the project. o There is a scour hole at the outlet end of the 6’X4’ box culvert. o The scour hole will be filled in to the level of what was the existing stream bed level. o Detail 4-1 shows the stream and banks being lined with rip rap, but will be keyed into natural ground. o Bank stabilization and scour hole protection. 47 lf of permanent stream impacts anticipated o 10 lf of temporary impact for construction Comments: No comments PSH 5 and 6 – SITE 2 • Site 2 (SA) Perennial o Stream jurisdiction starts at existing 48” RCP outlet o Tying to the existing 48” pipe coming from the stormwater basin o The outlet of the 48” pipe will not be buried o Bank stabilization will have rip rap on the banks only, none in the channel (Detail 6-4) o Eric Alsmeyer had a question prior to the meeting as to why impacts had changed since the 4B sets  Cross section of the area was presented 3  Slopes are still at 4:1. We can look at adding guardrail and 3:1 slopes to reduce impacts.  Going to 3:1 would save approximately 15 ft of impacts o Roadway fill results in 142 lf of anticipated permanent impacts o Bank stabilization results in 20 lf o 10 lf of temporary impacts for construction • PA & PB - Stormwater basins were considered non-jurisdictional and no impacts Comments: Eric appreciated the second look at changing the slopes to reduce impacts. Eric also asked if we pull the slopes back then will we be able to adjust the pipe so that it isn’t at a bad angle. James responded that we can look at shifting boxes to better align with the channel. Rob asked for clarification on the two basins on the bottom of the page as he wanted to make certain we aren’t impacting those basins since they are treating stormwater. James shared that they will look at pulling in those slopes to avoid the basins. PSH 6 – SITES 3 AND 4 • Site 3 (SB) –Perennial (R-5720) o Installation of 10’ x 7’ RCBC o Existing culvert is 2 @ 5’ X 6’ RCBC. One barrel has silted in and constricts the flow to 5 feet wide. o Existing channel up and down stream where the new channel relocations tie, the stream is approximately 10 feet wide, so a single barrel culvert 10 feet wide will be utilized to better match the existing stream width. o Culvert will be buried 1 ft. No sills anticipated since culvert slope = 0.45% o Backfill for culvert to be native material stockpiled from the existing streambed in the impacted areas. o Channel relocation will not have rip rap in the bed. Only banks will have rip rap. o Culvert results in 137 lf of permanent impacts o North side (LT) channel relocation results in 88 lf of anticipated permanent impacts o South side (RT) channel relocation results in 20 lf of anticipated permanent impacts o 10 lf of temporary impact for construction for each channel relocation (north and south) Comments: Eric asked about the location of the culvert location and possibly reducing stream impacts. James explained that it is to keep the culvert in use during construction and shifting to the right would have impacted the wetlands. Constructability was the main reason we went to the left rather than the right. Stream relocations were going to be difficult either way. Eric asked what type of bed material is in the existing stream. James shared a photo which illustrated the bed. Eric was concerned with the small grain size of the material. Chad said they would not fill the culvert up to the sill but could backfill with rip rap if the agencies prefer. Rob had similar feelings as Eric. The agencies agreed to the option proposed by Chad during the meeting to backfill and allow the native material to fill in the top couple of inches. • Site 4 (WA) o Roadway fill – Max slope of 3:1 utilized 4 o Per Eric Alsmeyer note prior to the meeting, a note will be added to the plans stating that wetland WA extends beyond the NCDOT easement. o Anticipated roadway fill impacts include 0.13 ac of permanent fill o 0.04 ac of mechanized clearing in wetlands o <0.01 ac due to excavation associated with the channel relocation on the north side of the road Comments: No comments PSH 8 • Stormwater basin (PC) - Considered non jurisdictional and will not be impacted PSH 15– SITE 5 • Site 5 (SB) Intermittent (U-5026) o Existing pipe will be replaced with a 48” RCP o Stream jurisdiction begins at pipe outlet o Pipe will not be buried o Outlet protection will have rip rap in the bed of the stream, but rip rap will be embedded to the level of natural ground. See Detail 15-1 o Outlet channel protection will result in an anticipated 16 lf of permanent impacts and 4 lf of temporary impacts o Pipe extension will result in an anticipated 45 lf of permanent impacts o 4A: design avoids residential relocations on Gardenia Circle and doesn’t impact the permit site. • No impacts to Wetland WZ Comments: No comments PSH 16 – SITES 6 and 7 • General Discussion on Sites 6 and 7 o The plans show Stream SF (perennial) flowing into Stream SD (intermittent), which appears to be a mistake after some digging. SD is perennial and will be updated. • Site 6 (SF) Perennial o Stream SF starts at the outlet of the existing 54” pipe under Freight Road o Not planning to bury the new 54” pipe o Channel relocation was shifted away from the alignment to avoid utility impacts o 60” bore and jack under I-95. This pipe will be buried 1 ft o Permanent impacts associated with channel relocation due to roadway fill are anticipated to be 1139 lf o 49 lf of temporary impacts for construction – Consider permanent? Also inside Duke Easement – Check with Chad Comments: James asked if the agencies were ok with not burying the pipe. Eric and Rob agreed. Eric asked if it is flat where the stream relocation will be. Tom Miller stated that it is fairly flat in that area. • Site 7 (SD) Perennial o Discussion on the concept for the access road and proximity to Stream SD. • This was a concept was provided by the developer through NCDOT 5 • Roadway is still in the process of refining the design, we just wanted to present what we had at the time • Roadway will continue to refine the design with minimization of impacts to the stream in mind. o Roadway fill results in 54 lf of permanent impacts o Bank stabilization is anticipated to result in 70 lf of permanent impacts o 8 lf of temporary impact for construction Comments: Eric asked about the right of way and James deferred to Paul Robbins on this area. Paul stated that the goal is to provide a developer access. This was a change that came about a week after we submitted the previous sheets. This is a new concept recently provided by a developer which was added to the project. The agencies shared that they don’t typically permit for future development and authorize those impacts until the developer is ready to move forward, as it is not the typical process. We will revisit this at a later date. • Beginnings of Site 12 that shows up on Plan Sheet 22 – Will discuss on PSH 22 • No impacts to Wetland WJ • Stormwater Considerations at the interchange o Transmission Tower located in left loop. Need to avoid impacts to this transmission tower. o Sunset Ave is the ridge line for these watersheds. Trying to maintain existing drainage patterns. To North is Stoney Creek, to the South is Maple Creek o Utility corridor limits ability for stormwater devices on the left side of the road. o For significant treatment in the right loop, would need to carry drainage across bridge. Comments: No comments PSH 21 – SITES 8 and 9 • Site 8 (WL)-extends to PSH 22 as well o Replacing existing 36” pipe with 42” bore and jack o Not anticipating burying the 42” pipe o Will work through final design and with construction team to make sure we have enough room within the shown impact for bore pits. o Toe protection through wetlands o Roadway fill impacts are anticipated to include 0.06 ac of permanent fill, 0.06 ac of mechanized clearing, and 0.04 ac of hand clearing o Additional HC for installation of C/A fence – Deferred to Chad who explained it was to install the C/A fence and the Division prefers to permit the area so that there isn’t an issue later for that Comments: Eric requested clarification on whether we would be doing all of the hand clearing as illustrated. Chad answered that it is probably not needed but gives them the option if they need to for safety clearing or need to install the fence. Chad explained that the division prefers to do this as an extra measure. Eric said they don’t typically illustrate the impacts for installation of the C/A fence. Eric feels that if it is illustrated as impact then the contractor may take more liberty in actually impacting the area. He also shared that it doesn’t necessarily appear as minimization of impacts. The key will be what is told to the contractor at the Pre-Con meeting and need to highlight that hand clearing is only done if it is needed in these areas. 6 • Site 9 (WO) o Outlet end of 42” bore and jack o Non-erosive velocities entering wetland o Roadway fill impacts include 0.24 ac of permanent fill, 0.07 ac of mechanized clearing, and 0.14 ac of hand clearing in wetlands o Additional HC for installation of C/A fence Comments: No comments • Site 14 (WN) o Additional HC for installation of C/A fence Comments: No comments • Site 15 (WK) o Additional HC for installation of C/A fence Comments: No comments PSH 22 – SITE 10-12 • Site 10 (SE) o Stream SE begins at the outlet of the existing 36” pipe o Replacing existing 36” pipe with a 48” bore and jack. o Not anticipating burying the 48” pipe o Crossing I-95 at 90 degrees and tying in to the existing channel with channel relocation o Rip rap at embankment on outside bend. No rip rap in channel per detail 22-1 o The ditch tie-in results in 44 lf of permanent impacts – taking impacts to ROW line Comments: No comments • Site 11 (WT) o Toe protection in the wetland o Roadway fill and cut impacts due to the base ditch include 0.38 ac of permanent fill, 0.96 ac of excavation, 0.03 ac of mechanized clearing, and 0.06 ac of hand clearing in wetlands o Will need additional HC for installation of C/A fence Comments: No comments • Site 12 (WB) o Roadway excavation impacts include 0.95 ac of excavation, 0.17 ac of mechanized clearing, and 0.17 ac of hand clearing in wetlands o Significant cut through the wetland – See cross section X-173 o Due to roadway design, not able to raise the grade, so constrained to the point that this is the best option at this point. o Ran Skaggs at this location – We have a ditch that is 4 ft deeper than existing which after looking at Skaggs would be approximately 40ft offset from ditch. 7 Comments: James highlighted that the ditch in this area is 4’ deeper than the existing ditch; however, the wetland is fed from the top of the plan sheet (west to east) and that when we looked at Skaggs the impact would be around 40’. Vickie shared that there are a number of ditches in the wetland that are not currently draining it. Eric said he was ok with the way it is currently illustrated. Rob stated that it appears we have taken the impacts to the CA and the wetland may be impacted some by the ditch but doesn’t anticipate that much. Eric requested to see the cross section and noted the 3:1 slope. Eric agreed that there may be some impact but not that much based on the topography and slopes. PSH 23 – SITE 13 • Site 13 (SC) Intermittent to the west and Perennial to the east o A 48” RCP will be installed perpendicular to the roadway o 48” pipe not anticipated to be buried o Will work to make sure can install within shown impacts o Stormwater pond upstream o Prior to the meeting Eric Alsmeyer sent a note about impacts due to the proximity to the lateral base ditch adjacent to Wetland WQ and need for additional PDE or other impacts. • Will probably need to add some additional easement for the construction of the ditch which may require additional HC or MC o 49 lf of permanent impacts and 32 lf of temporary impacts are anticipated to the intermittent portion of the channel o 77 lf of permanent impacts are anticipated in association with roadway fill on the east side of the roadway as the channel is placed in the ditch. o Channel relocation on the east side of the roadway is anticipated to result in 31 lf of permanent impacts and 15 lf of temporary impacts due to tying in the ditched section to the existing stream. Comments: Eric reviewed this due to drainage and agreed that the flow was from the north side or the channel so he didn’t think this one would be impacted from the channel relocation. Rob not worried about hydrology so much as the room needed for construction. He felt we didn’t have enough area to construct. James agreed and we will update this to provide additional PDE for construction and maintenance. General Discussion: Eric wanted to discuss the type of permit and permit schedule. James explained that we anticipate a June submittal for the Permit Application. Chad shared that we would set up a pre application meeting in order to determine the mitigation ratios and such prior to submitting the application. Eric noted the upcoming changes to the GP 31; however, the schedule for that is still unknown and that we should continue with an IP based on the construction schedule. Chad agreed that due to schedule we were proceeding with an IP. Eric left the meeting prior to the buffer site review. SMP Discussion Comments: Robert shared that he thought it was a good job with maximizing area for grass swells within the proposed corridor. 8 BUFFER PERMIT SET Each buffer site was not reviewed but Rob stated that there are only two locations at Site 7 and Site 13 where he had questions. PSH 16 – SITE 7 • Site 7 (SD) Perennial o Mitigable – perpendicular crossing o Total buffer impacts – 0.47 ac o Rob sent an early comment noting the sheet was previously not adding up correctly. The table was updated and sheet to show the revised hatching as Mitigable. Rob also noted that due to potential changes discussed in the Wetland/Stream plans regarding the developer road that this area may change again. PSH 23 – SITE 13 • Site 13 (SC) Intermittent and Perennial o Mitigable – perpendicular crossing o Total buffer impacts – 0.46 ac o Rob sent an early comment that plans were hatched incorrectly as Allowable. The sheet has been revised to reflect this change to mitigable. Meeting Adjourned