HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140762 All Versions_R2915C_Interagencyminutes4C_Final_20150810
Subject:
Final Minutes from CP-4C Hydraulic Design Review Meeting on June 10, 2015 for R-
2915C in Ashe County. These minutes also include follow-up conversations on
several issues since the CP-4C Meeting.
Team Members: Participants:
Bill Zerman, NCDOT Hydraulics
Andrew Williams - USACE (present)
Tatia White, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Steve Kichefski - USACE (present)
Doug Calhoun, NCDOT SMU
Mitch Batuzich - FHWA (present)
Trent Beaver, NCDOT Division 11 (phone)
David Wanucha - NCDWR (present)
Mark Staley, NCDOT REU
Marla Chambers - NCWRC (present)
Erin Cheely, NCDOT NES
Cynthia Vanderwiel - EPA (phone)
Jamie Byrd, HNTB
Marella Buncick - USFWS (present)
Ben Carroll, HNTB
The Project is a portion of US 221 from north of South Fork New River to south of NC 194.
The meeting began at 9:30 am.
GENERAL NOTES / COMMENTS
HNTB advised that the sheet numbers referenced in the 4B Minutes were no longer correct.
This is due to the removal of the original Sheet 4 from the plans.
HNTB advised that Sheet 20 would be permitted under the R-2915D project.
HNTB stated that detail sheet 2-E, which contains the details for sheet 13 was previously
omitted from the permit drawings. HNTB provided copies of sheet 2-E to all in attendance.
NCDOT NES stated that the permit drawings title sheet needs to be revised to read Old Field
Creek not Old Fields Creek.
USACE advised that the presence of the Northern Long-Eared Bat was still being determined
in the project area. If a presence is found, construction restrictions will be imposed during the
maternity season.
USACE stated that all constructability impacts need to be shown and accounted for on the
permit drawings.
USACE stated that the proposed impacts for this project have increased from the preliminary
permit drawings. NCDOT NES stated that this was caused by the addition of several
jurisdictional features to the project since the preliminary permit drawings were prepared.
USACE requested thorough explanation be included in the final permit package.
A follow-up 4C meeting, to discuss outstanding issues, was tentatively scheduled for August
2015.
The follow-up CP-4C Meeting is scheduled for 8/12/15.
o
Page 1 of 7
Sheet 4 (Site 1):
Site 1:
NES advised that the jurisdictional stream shown at Site 1 in the 4B plans is no longer
considered jurisdictional.
NCDOT Hydraulics requested that mechanized clearing in wetlands be extended to the
Right of Way.
NES stated that Site 1 is considered a “total take”. NES advised HNTB to note any “total
take” on permit drawings and the impact summary sheet. It was decided that additional
impacts associated with a “total take” would not be hatched but would be counted as
permanent fill in wetlands.
USFWS questioned the note “Stream has been replaced w/ 24” HDPE”. HNTB stated
that approximately 100ft of the existing stream had been piped and filled by the property
owner. It was decided that this area was not relevant to the proposed project.
Sheet 5 (Site 2A, Site 2B, & Site 3):
Site 2A:
NCDOT NES stated that the jurisdictional stream under the proposed fill originates at an
existing spring. NCDOT Hydraulics advised that a spring box should be added to the
designs.
NCDOT NES advised that this site is a “total take”.
Site 2B:
NCDOT Hydraulics stated that temporary stream impacts should be extended to the C/A
line.
NCDWR questioned why the permanent stream impacts quantified for Site 2 were more
than the detailed pipe outlet channel. HNTB stated that additional impacts were added for
the approaching stream.
Site 3: No Comments.
Sheet 7 & 8 (Site 4 & Site 5):
Site 4: No Comments.
Page 2 of 7
Site 5:
HNTB stated that 1.5ft drops had been designed in the proposed junction boxes as agreed
to at the September 11, 2013, 4B Meeting.
USFWS and NCWRC expressed concerns that the 1.5ft drops and high velocities could
eliminate fish passage.
USFWS stated that they will determine if fish passage is present in the existing
o
stream/culvert and advise.
If fish passage is found to exist in the current conditions, USFWS stated that they
o
will determine if there is a precedent of fish passage through culverts of similar
slope and length.
All agreed if existing passage and precedent for future passage is found, designs
o
will be revisited during the follow-up 4C meeting in August 2015. If fish passage
is not observed and no precedent is found, the current designs will not be revised.
Division inspected the existing 1 @ 5’ x 4’ RCBC and advised that it should be
o
replaced.
The following comments were received from NCWRC via e-mail on 7/16/15:
o
Fish passage is no longer a concern for this stream.
o
The stream is ORW so we need to make sure that pipe outlet velocities
o
are non-erosive and that the stream is stable at the pipe inlet and outlet.
Sheet 9 (Site 6 & Site 7):
Site 6: No Comments.
Site 7:
NES advised that the jurisdictional stream should be extended to the outlet of the existing
24” RCP in the FS file. HNTB stated that additional stream impacts will be quantified
upon receipt of the updated FS file.
An updated FS file was provided to HNTB on 7/28/15 that showing the extension of S52.
Sheet 10 (Site 8 & Site 9):
Site 8: No Comments.
Site 9:
USACE requested a blow-up of the proposed impacts be provided.
Page 3 of 7
Sheet 11 (Site 10, Site 11, Site 12, Site 13A, & Site 13B):
Site 10: No Comments.
Site 11: No Comments.
Site 12: No Comments.
Site 13A:
HNTB advised that the existing RCBC has been deemed structurally deficient and could
not be maintained in the proposed condition.
USFWS and NCWRC expressed concerns over fish passage, stream stability, and
construction impacts.
NCDOT Division 11 stated that construction will begin soon for a similar crossing
o
on R-2237C. However, the current project schedule does not allow time for the
success of the R-2237C crossing to be evaluated.
Based on R-2237C NCDOT Division 11 estimated the costs of the trenchless
o
construction 84” WSP would be $1,400 /ft. with an estimated progression of 5 -
10 ft./ day.
Several alternatives were discussed including revising this crossing to a bridge,
o
rehabilitating and extending the existing culvert, and using a larger pipe and
constructing a low flow channel inside the pipe.
HNTB and NCDOT Hydraulics will discuss potential alternatives for discussion
o
at the follow-up 4C meeting.
Per discussions with Hydraulics, both the Welded Steel Pipe (WSP) and
o
Structural Plate Pipe (SPP) sections will have 1’ high baffles added.
The baffles for the WSP will be added after the pipe is installed through
the existing roadway embankment.
Site 13B: No Comments.
Sheet 12 (Site 14 & Site 14B)
Site 14: No Comments.
Site 14B:
NES stated that this site should be added as a result of revisions to the FS file.
Sheet 13 (Site 15, Site 16, Site 17, Site 18, Site 19, Site 20, & Site 21)
Site 15: No Comments.
Page 4 of 7
Site 16:
NCDOT Hydraulics requested that temporary stream impacts be extended to the C/A line.
NCDOT Roadway Design stated that Division has requested existing -Y8- (Ira Jordan
Rd.) be retained as is, which would require a culvert realignment. HNTB and NCDOT
Hydraulics will discuss design alternatives and coordinate with the RDU.
USFWS requested that the culvert be designed to contain low flows in one barrel not two
as in the current designs and existing conditions.
NCDOT SMU advised that a span of 14 – 15ft is the maximum span allowed by
o
their current standards.
HNTB advised that the existing channel is approximately 20ft wide at the inlet and
o
outlet of the proposed culvert.
HNTB, NCDOT Hydraulics, and NCDOT SMU will review available
o
alternatives.
SMU advised that the maximum span for the RCBC is 15’.
o
Preliminary hydraulic models for a 2 @ 15’ x 11’ RCBC indicate that
o
the crossing would meet FEMA MOA guidelines.
NCWRC, USFWS and NCDWR have advised that the revised RCBC size
o
and alignment are acceptable.
Site 17:
NCDOT Hydraulics requested that a label for Stream Rebuild Detail AK be added to the
permit drawings.
Site: 18:
NCDOT NES requested this site be split into Site 18A & 18B to separate the impacts to
S71 and S70.
NCDOT NES advised that a small portion of S70 exists on the north side of Y9 that
should be hatched with permanent impact and accounted for in the impact summary.
o
USFWS expressed stability concerns about the proposed 90intersections between the 30”
and 18” cross pipes.
HNTB advised that the 30” RCP outlets into a Class ‘I’ Riprap lined channel and
o
the 18” RCP outlets onto a Class ‘I’ Riprap pad so stability should not be a
concern.
Site 19:
NCDOT NEU advised that Site 19 should be split into “a” & “b” to separate out bank
stabilization to Old Fields Creek (S56) from the 48” RCP in S72.
Site 20:
NCDOT NES advised that this site is a “total take”.
Site 21: No Comments.
Sheet 14 (Site 22)
Page 5 of 7
Site 22:
USACE requested a blow-up of the proposed impacts be added to the permit drawings for
clarity.
Sheet 15 (Site 23, Site 24, Site 25A, & Site 25B):
Site 23:
NCDOT NES stated that this stream is classified as intermittent.
Site 24: No Comments.
Site 25A: No Comments.
Site 25B:
USFWS expressed concerns about the stability of the berm ditch proposed to tie Site 25B
to Site 25A.
NCDOT NES and HNTB stated that the stream flow is minimal and that the berm
o
ditch should function effectively.
Sheet 16 (Site 26 & Site 27):
Site 26:
NCDOT NES advised that the wetland at this site is a “total take”.
Site 27: No Comments.
Sheet 17 (Site 28):
Site 28: No Comments.
Sheet 18 (Site 29 & Site 30):
Site 29:
NCDOT Hydraulics requested that temporary fill in wetland impacts be added to the C/A
line.
After some discussion it was decided that the impacts would remain as currently
o
shown.
Page 6 of 7
Site 30:
NCDOT Hydraulics requested that mechanized clearing limits be limited to 10ft beyond
construction and the remaining impacts be revised to temporary fill in wetlands.
After some discussion it was decided that the mechanized clearing impacts would
o
be reduced to 10ft and no other impacts would be shown.
Sheet 19 (Site 31):
Site 31: No Comments.
Sheet 21 (Site 32):
Site 32: No Comments.
Closing Statements
All parties agreed that a follow-up meeting was needed for further discussion of design
alternatives. The follow-up 4C was tentatively scheduled for August 2015.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00pm.
Page 7 of 7