R-2553 Kinston Bypass (3)

SNC
TATE OF ORTHAROLINA
DT
EPARTMENTOFRANSPORTATION
PMCAJ.T
ATCRORYNTHONY ATA
GS
OVERNORECRETARY
MEETING MINUTES
RE: STIP Number R-2553, Kinston Bypass, Lenoir County, North Carolina
Discussion on Hydraulic Recommendations and Natural System information to be
presented at CP2A. November 21, 2013.
To: Project File
From: Susan Westberry, URS
Date: March 27, 2014
A meeting was held November 21, 2013 at 2:00 PM in the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA) CCB Large Conference Room at the NCDOT Century
Center. Attendees of the meeting are listed below:
Gary Jordan USFWS
Tom Steffens USACE
David Wainwright NCDWR
Travis Wilson NCWRC
Ted Devens NCDOT PDEA
Richard Hancock NCDOT PDEA
David Johnson NCDOT NES
LeiLani Paugh NCDOT NES
Jay Twisdale NCDOT Hydraulics
Morgan Weatherford NCDOT NES
Chris Werner URS
Susan Westberry URS
Purpose of Meeting
The purpose of the meeting was to review natural system information developed by NCDOT NES,
for use in making CP2A decisions for hydraulic crossings.
MAILING ADDRESS: T: 919-707-6000 LOCATION:
ELEPHONE
NCDOTFAX: 919-250-4224 CC,BA
EPARTMENT FRANSPORTATIONENTURY ENTERUILDING
PDEA1000BRD
ROJECT EVELOPMENT AND NVIRONMENTAL NALYSISIRCH IDGE RIVE
W:
EBSITE
1548MSCR NC 27610
AIL ERVICE ENTERALEIGH
://..//E
HTTPSCONNECTNCDOTGOVRESOURCESNVIRON
R NC 27699-1548
ALEIGH
/P/.
MENTALAGESDEFAULTASPX

General Overview
David Johnson began the meeting by sharing the ‘Remote Wetland Quality Assessment Site
Report’ that NCDOT NES developed as a tool to rate each crossing. This report will be
completed for each crossing along the project. The report includes the crossing number,
ecoregion, associated wetland size and width, current structure size, proposed structure size,
corridor number, stream order, USGS HUC, watershed area, stream width, and stream
designation.
Each assessment begins under the assumption that no stressors are present for hydrology, water
quality, or habitat. These parameters are only deemed stressed if evidence is present. The form
provides opportunity to comment on the state of each crossing and list any assumptions. Stressors
and attributes are documented through the use of GIS layers. Terminology, thresholds, and
criteria are based on definitions provided in NCWAM manual, Version 4.1.
Crossing Examples
Mr. Johnson worked through an example form for Crossing #326 which was broken into two
assessment areas (AA-1 and AA-2). General notes from the example are as follows:
Lateral ditch effect is taken into consideration, leaving no wetland on the south side (AA-
1).
The aquatic condition is stressed – incised 6’ or more for AA-1.
The north side (AA-2) contains adjacent wetlands and no channel incision is present.
Comments Regarding Methodology and Process:
Less than 72” crossings can be immediately discounted and do not need to be included.
This method will allow for an electronic/virtual review for questionable mid-sized
crossings.
Methodology will work well as a comparative tool for different crossings along the same
stream. It can be used to view floodplains along entire systems, and allow designers to
identify areas where floodplains may be most suitable to cross (pinch points, narrow
floodplains).
Would be helpful if the age of existing structures were provided.
The methodology was developed to help categorize and assign relative value to the system
at each crossing as a means of reducing the number of sites that would require field visits.
NES’ methodology reviews natural systems crossings based on proposed structure size
and natural system connectivity and quality. The goal of this approach was to develop a
system of grouping crossings into ‘types’ such as small, low quality and large, high
quality systems. The approach assumes that the minimum hydraulic recommendations
would be accepted by the Merger Team for smaller, low quality, low connectivity
systems. Additionally, for areas where the minimum hydraulic recommendation includes
a bridge, preliminary bridging decisions could be made at CP2A and revisited at CP4A if
need be. This approach leaves mid-sized crossings with varying quality and connectivity
combinations as potential crossings requiring field visits.
Proposed Strategy for CP-2A Meeting:
Office review of all crossings of remaining Detailed Study Alternatives.
Gain agreement that the hydraulic recommendations for more minor crossings be
accepted. These would include the 72” or smaller single-barrel culverts and make
preliminary decisions on the recommended bridge limits.
NCDOT will propose the recommended hydraulic minimum for all single and double-
barrel culverts. Later the dept will be open to any requests for “floodplain pipes” that

double as wildlife crossings - in wildlife corridors that the merger team feels are justified
for these retrofits.
NCDOT will propose the hydraulic minimum for triple-barrel culverts and bridges;
however will be open to thoughts/input from agencies.
Due to pragmatic concerns that alignments are likely to shift somewhat, that road
elevations could change as well, and to address potential agency discomfort with locking-
in CP2A decisions at this time: The CP2A concurrence form will specifically identify that
the Merger Team will review CP2A decisions at CP4A.
Go through alternative-by-alternative or system-by-system to make decisions on the
remaining crossings.
Decide which sites require a field visit.
Action Items
KMZ/KML file should be sent to agencies prior to the meeting so that photos can be
reviewed.
NCDOT to send electronic package and plan/profile before the CP-2A meeting.
The Merger Team would benefit from more than two weeks to review the packet.
Minutes prepared by Susan Westberry, URS. If there are any questions or edits, please contact
Susan Westberry at URS at [e-mail] or 910-343-5994.