The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190214 Ver 4_Pre-Filing Meeting Information_20211019 T.I.P. Project I-5986A / I-5877 - I-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina I-5986A 4C Interagency Concurrence Point Meeting Minutes Date: May 13, 2020 Meeting Minutes: May 27, 2020 Location: Virtual conference held via GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/850316941 Time: 8:00 AM Attendees: Liz Hair – USACE Joanne Steenhuis – NCDWR Robert Patterson – NCDWR Loretta Barren – FHWA Paul Atkinson – NCDOT Hydraulics Matthew York – NCDOT Hydraulics Chris Rivenbark – NCDOT EAU Deanna Riffey – NDOT EAU Wes Cartner – NCDOT EAU Mark Staley – NCDOT REU Michael Penney – NCDOT DBU Glen Mumford – NCDOT DBU Kristy Alford – NCDOT SMU Mike Sanderson – NCDOT EPU Rusty Marsh – NCDOT Div. 6 Jim Rerko – NCDOT Div. 6 Scott Pridgen – NCDOT Div. 6 Greg Price – NCDOT Div. 6 Jason Salisbury – NCDOT Div. 6 Donna Jackson – NCDOT Alternative Delivery Jay Twisdale – TGS Engineers Jonathan Bivens – ST Wooten Andy Barry – ST Wooten Mike Merritt – RK&K Tony Houser – RK&K Matthew Cook – RK&K Brent Huskey – RK&K Alexis Burke – RK&K Michael Wood – Three Oaks Nancy Oberle – Three Oaks An interagency concurrence point meeting was held in order to reach agreement on concurrence point 4C for the I‐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, 1, 2, and 3. 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 / I‐95 interchange to south of the Harnett / Cumberland County line. He stated that the DB Team was also awarded I‐5877, however the team was given fully designed signed and sealed plans with a permit. This 4C meeting is only to discuss I‐5986A, not I‐5877. The right of way roadway plans for the project have been accepted by NCDOT as well as the hydraulics design. This project currently has an approved corridor permit. The DB Team will be submitting a permit modification request in the near future. Mr. Cook stated that the DB Team has requested additional jurisdictional feature coverage for the area around the Murphy Road interchange and asked about the status of that information. Greg Price stated that the information was still being worked on by NCDOT and will be provided at a later date. Mr. Cook stated that the impact summary table had been revised since it was submitted to the agencies two weeks prior to the 4C meeting. Most of the permit impact sites now have a single line in the table showing the associated impacts. This was done to streamline the impacts and provide a consistent table. Deanna Riffey asked that every jurisdictional feature have its own permit site number and line in the table. Joanna Steenhuis and Liz Hair said they preferred it as it was now shown. The impacts are also shown to the thousandths decimal position which the Merger Team agreed was preferred. The group then began reviewing the permit drawings. T.I.P. Project I-5986A / I-5877 - I-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina Permit drawing 8 of 163  Site 1: Stream DC. Impacts due to proposed pipe outfall. Permit drawing 10 of 163  Site 2: Stream SV‐1, SV‐2; wetland WCB. 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). Impacts at the ends of welded steel pipes installed by bore and jack methods throughout the project (as this one will be) used a standard 50’ x 30’ bore pit area to determine impacts. This area was used on both the bore end and receiving end. This is because the contractor is unsure at this time which end will be the best for the boring end. Jim Rerko asked that the temporarily impacted bore pit locations be restored to natural conditions when construction is complete.  Site 3: Reese Creek‐1; wetland WA. Impacts due to existing pipe cleanout. See additional notes for permit drawing 16. Permit drawing 16 of 163  Site 3: Reese Creek‐2; wetland WA. Impacts due to 18” RCP and roadway fill. 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 I‐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 I‐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 I‐95 with an RCBC along with replacing the downstream RCBC under Murphy Rd. with a bridge. NCDOT agreed with the DB Team assessment that a bridge on I‐95 with a bridge at Murphy Rd. is the best option. The supplemental for this work is currently under review by NCDOT. 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.  Site 4: Stream SA; wetlands WA, WC. Impacts due to proposed 30” WS pipe. This pipe will not be buried since the jurisdictional stream does not continue downstream of the pipe.  Site 5: Wetland WB: Impacts due to proposed 66” WS pipe. Ms. Steenhuis asked if impacts due to the control access fence will be included. Chris Rivenbark said that those impacts are generally not included since they are minor in nature and only minimal clearing would occur for them. Jonathan Bivens said that the equipment used to install the fence generally did not create a large disturbance.  Site 6: Wetlands WB, WD. Impacts due to proposed 36” WS pipe. Permit drawing 20 of 163  Site 7: Wetland WH. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. This will be a total take.  Site 8: Wetland WE: Stream impacts due to proposed 2 @ 36” RCP. Wetland impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch. This will be a total take. Permit drawing 23 of 163  Site 7 (continued): Wetland WH. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. This will be a total take.  Site 9: Stream SB; wetland WF: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch. This will be a total take. Permit drawing 26 of 163  Site 10: Wetland WI. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. This will be a total take. Permit drawing 29 of 163  Site 11: Wetland WJ. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. This will be a total take. The slope stakes have been revised since the production of the 4C drawings. Wetland WK will no longer be impacted.  Site 12: Wetland WL. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditches. Michael Penney stated that NCDOT is currently reviewing this location and several other locations for the possibility of including shoulder berm gutter and T.I.P. Project I-5986A / I-5877 - I-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina its associated drainage. The DB Team has not been given the notice to proceed with this option. The drawings will be updated accordingly if necessary following NCDOT’s decision. Permit drawing 34 of 163  Site 11 (continued): Wetland WJ. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. This will be a total take. Permit drawing 36 of 163  Site 13: Wetland WR. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 14: Wetland WR. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch.  Site 15: Wetland WO. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and 54” WS pipe. The 54” WS pipe will be installed 1’ higher than the invert of the existing 42” RCP at this location to serve as an overflow pipe. Stream Baker Swamp‐2 is impacted by a 66” RCP (not buried), at this site as well but is reflected on drawing 43.  Site 16: Stream Baker Swamp‐1; wetland WN. Impacts due to proposed 54” WS pipe. The 54” WS pipe will be installed 1’ higher than the invert of the existing 42” RCP at this location to serve as an overflow pipe. A general conversation was held at this point in the meeting regarding geotextile fabric under riprap. It was decided by the NCDOT Division and Merger Team that fabric would not be used under riprap in jurisdictional streams, including the banks and stream bottom. It will continue to be used in non‐jurisdictional channels and for bank stabilization. Paul Atkinson noted that the approved Culvert Survey Reports did not need to be revised based on this comment, only the plans. Also discussed was how to call out impacts due to riprap in jurisdictional channels. If riprap is used in the base of a channel as a stabilization measure, and the channel has not been realigned, the length of the riprap pad will be called out as “Structure Stabilization” on the impact summary. If riprap is on the banks only, and the channel has not been realigned, it will be called out as “Bank Stabilization” on the impact summary. Neither “Structure Stabilization” or “Bank Stabilization” will require mitigation. Permit drawing 43 of 163  Site 15: See notes from drawing 36.  Site 17: Wetland WQ: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch.  Site 18: Stream Baker Swamp‐3; wetland WP: Impacts due to proposed roadway fill, 60” RCP (not buried), and 66” RCP (not buried). The 60” RCP Is not buried since it is part of a median system and is not jurisdictional upstream. The 66” RCP 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.  Site 19: Wetland WCG. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. A 36” RCP equalizer will be used at this location. This wetland will be considered a total take on the impact summary. However, the wetland will not be hatched outside of the interchange along ‐Y5LPD‐ LT. A note on the impact summary will state what is actually impacted by the project.  Site 20: Wetland WX. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 21: Wetland WV. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 22: Wetland WW. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. The remaining non‐impacted wetland area inside ‐ Y5LPD‐ will be considered impacted on the impact summary, however it will not be hatched. A note on the impact summary will state what is actually impacted by the project. Permit drawing 52 of 163  Site 23: See notes from drawing 54. Permit drawing 54 of 163  Site 23: Stream SC‐1, SC‐2. Impacts due to proposed 2 @ 8’x8’ RCBC and channel ties. The RCBC is buried 1.0’ with a 1’ sill in the right cell. Permit drawing 57 of 163  Site 24: Stream SD‐1, SD‐2; wetlands WY and WZ. Impacts due to proposed 3 @ 10’x8’ RCBC, channel ties, and ditches. The RCBC is buried 1.0’. The impacts have been revised since the production of the 4C drawings to exhibit excavation where the new RCBC channel ties through the wetlands. The permanent stream impact overall length is based on a perpendicular length to the roadway alignment from the ends of the existing RCBC to the new channel T.I.P. Project I-5986A / I-5877 - I-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina ties. Mike Wood stated that during their field research the stream boundaries along this site should more accurately be classified as wetlands. Ms. Hair and Ms. Steenhuis agreed that Three Oaks could reevaluate this site to better represent the channel in the RCBC area and wetlands beyond the channel. The GPS coordinates for the wetlands will be provided to RK&K to determine the jurisdictional impacts. Permit drawing 60 of 163  Site 25: Stream SE‐1, SE‐2; wetland WAB. Impacts due to proposed 10’x7’ RCBC, channel ties, and ditch. The RCBC is buried 1.0’ with a 1’ sill 5’ in length. The fill in wetland impact under the RCBC channel will be changed to excavation. A note for the sill will be added to the pipe profile on drawing 62.  Site 27: Wetland WAF. Impacts due to roadway fill. This is a total take. From this point forward, Brent Huskey led the discussion on each plan sheet. Permit drawing 63 of 163  Site 26: Wetland WAC. Impacts due proposed roadway fill, 15” RCP and 30” RCP.  Site 27: Wetland WAF. Impacts due to roadway fill. This is a total take. Permit drawing 67 of 163  Site 27 (continued): Wetland WAF. Impacts due to roadway fill. This is a total take.  Site 28: Wetland WAG. Impacts due to roadway fill and proposed 30” RCP outlet. Permit drawing 71 of 163  Site 29: 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 still providing positive flow. Further downstream from the 2 @ 48” RCPs, an existing overgrown pipe will be replaced with a 48” RCP. After field research the DB Team determined that this is the largest pipe that can physically fit in the channel. The impacts will be due to the installation of the pipe. There will be no impacts to wetlands where the existing pipe currently lays; impacts will be temporary wetland impacts beyond the ends to the existing pipe.  Site 57: Wetland WAG. Impacts due to pipe plug construction. This site will be renumbered to Site 48. Permit drawing 75 of 163  Site 30: Stream SF; wetlands WAI and WAK. Impacts due to proposed 12’x6’ RCBC, channel ties, and ditches. The RCBC is not buried since the crossing is not jurisdictional east of I‐95. The impacts have been revised since the production of the 4C drawings to exhibit excavation where the new RCBC channel ties through the wetlands. Robert Patterson pointed out that the median trunkline ran through several sheets and asked if it could possibly outlet to the outside earlier. Mr. Huskey said that they tried to do so, but the elevations of the system required extending it to the RCBC at ‐L‐ 423+50. Permit drawing 79 of 163  Site 30 (continued): Wetlands WAI and WAK. Impacts due to roadway fill. Permit drawing 82 of 163  Site 31: Wetland WAM. Impacts due to roadway fill. Permit drawing 85 of 163  Site 32: Wetland WAN. Impacts due to roadway fill and ditch. The impacts have been revised since production of the 4C drawings due to the ability to tighten up the slope stakes. The pipe profile (drawing 90) and label on the plan view will note that the RCBC is buried 1.0’. Permit drawing 88 of 163  Site 33: Stream SG‐1, SG‐2, SG‐3; wetlands WAP and WAQ. Impacts due to proposed 8’x8’ RCBC, channel ties, and ditch. The RCBC is buried 1.0’. The temporary impacts along the service road near the existing 2 @ 66” RCPs have been extended due to construction of the pipe plugs. T.I.P. Project I-5986A / I-5877 - I-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina Permit drawing 92 of 163  Site 34: Stream SH‐1, SH‐2; wetland WAS. Impacts due to proposed 10’x7’ RCBC and channel ties. The RCBC is buried 1.0’. Permit drawing 96 of 163  Site 35: Wetland WAT. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch. Permit drawing 99 of 163  Site 35 (continued): Wetland WAT. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. Permit drawing 102 of 163  Site 37: Stream SI‐1, SI‐2; wetlands WAV and WAW. Impacts due to proposed 72” RCP, buried 1.0’, proposed roadway fill and ditches. Mr. Cook asked if the same structural stabilization call‐outs should be used on the inlet end of crossings like this one. It is a large 72” headwall. Ms. Hair said the inlet end should not use the structural stabilization call‐out. Permit drawing 106 of 163  Site 38: Wetland WAX. Impacts due to ditch. Permit drawing 109 of 163  Site 39: Stream SJ‐1, SJ‐2. Impacts due to proposed 7’x7’ RCBC and channel ties. The RCBC is buried 1.0’. Permit drawing 112 of 163  Site 40: Wetland WAY. Impacts due to 2 @ 30” RCPs (not buried).  Site 41: Wetland WAZ. Impacts due to ditch. Permit drawing 116 of 163  Site 42: Stream Black River; wetland WAZ. Impacts due to proposed bridge, roadway fill, and 15” RCP outlet. A permanent surface water linear impact will be included where the fill slope extends into the water. The bridge pier square footage impacts will be listed as a note on the impact summary sheet. Mr. Wood stated that during their field research the stream boundaries along this site should more accurately be classified as wetlands. Ms. Hair asked if there was standing water in those areas. Mr. Wood said they were wooded. Ms. Hair and Ms. Steenhuis agreed that Three Oaks could reevaluate this site to better represent the channel in the RCBC area and wetlands beyond the channel. The GPS coordinates for the wetlands will be provided to RK&K to determine the jurisdictional impacts. An example is along ‐L‐ 676+50 RT. Jay Twisdale asked that the temporary causeway depiction on the bridge profile on drawing 118 be updated to show the causeway extending to the proposed piles. Permit drawing 121 of 163  Site 42 (continued): Wetland WAZ. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 43: Wetland WAZ. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. Permit drawing 123 of 163  Site 43 (continued): Wetland WAZ. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 44: Wetland WAZ. Impacts due to proposed ditch. Permit drawing 126 of 163  Site 45: Wetland WBB: Impacts due to proposed roadway cut (cut is outside wetland, only mechanized clearing impact). Permit drawing 129 of 163  Site 46: Wetland WBC. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill and ditch tie to existing ditch running through the wetland. Permit drawing 132 of 163 T.I.P. Project I-5986A / I-5877 - I-95 Widening and Interchange Reconstruction Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina  Site 47: Stream SK‐1, SK‐2. Impacts due to proposed 72” RCP, buried 1.0’. Permit drawing 135 of 163  Site 48: Wetland WCK. These impacts will be removed. This site will be removed from the set.  Site 49: Stream SY‐2. Impacts due to extension of existing 2 @ 8’x8’ RCBC on upstream (‐Y5‐ LT) end. Permit drawing 138 of 163  Site 50: Wetland WCJ. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill, 15” CMP outlet.  Site 51: Wetland WCI. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill, 15” CMP outlet. Permit drawing 141 of 163  Site 51 (continued): Wetland WCI. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill, ditch.  Site 52: Wetland WT. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 53: Wetland WU. Impacts due proposed roadway fill, 24” WS pipe, and 24” RCP. Permit drawing 145 of 163  Site 54: Wetland WS: Impacts due to existing pipe cleanouts. Permit drawing 149 of 163  Site 15 (continued): Wetland WO. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 16 (continued): Wetland WN. Impacts due to roadway fill and ditch.  Site 55: Wetland WCE. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill.  Site 56: Wetland WCE. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. Permit drawing 154 of 163  Site 56: Wetland WCE. Impacts due to proposed roadway fill. 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. Ms. Riffey asked if there were any jurisdictional impacts due to utilities. Mr. Cook stated that they did not have any at this time. The design and coordination are still ongoing. Mr. Bivens stated that the Team is working together to ensure avoidance and minimization measures are being incorporated into the utility design to the maximum extent practicable. If any impacts are deemed required for construction, and if they are not incorporated prior to submittal of the permit modification for the agencies’ approval, a separate permit modification request will be submitted at a later date. The meeting adjourned. R:\Hydraulics\DOCUMENTS\Permit\I‐5986A 4C Minutes.docx