20190397_R-2566B Merger CP2A Minutes 10-15-2015 Draft_20151112

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT MCCRORY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
October 14, 2015
Meeting Participants
Beverly Robinson
NICHOLAS 7. TENNYSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Minutes of Merger Meeting — Concurrence Point 2A
R-2566B — Improvements to NC 105 from Clarks Creek Road
(SR 1136) in Foscoe to NC 105 Bypass (SR 1107) in Boone
Watauga County, North Carolina
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 2:45 p.m., a meeting was held in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation Century Center Structures Design Conference Room C in Raleigh,
NC for the subject project. The meeting attendees were as follows:
Meetin� Participants
Mitch Batuzich
Vance Blanton
Greg Brew
Doug Calhoun
Marla Chambers
Pam Cook
Marissa Cox
Jason Dilday
Renee Gledhill-Earley *
Teresa Gresham
Herman Huang
Bryan Key
Steve Kichefski
Michael Kiselak
Monte Matthews
Bob May
Stephen Morgan
Beverly Robinson
Daniel Sellers
Tony Spacek*
FHWA
Kimley-Horn
NCDOT-Roadway
NCDOT-Structures
NC WRC
NCDOT-TPB
NCDOT-NES
NCDOT-NES
SHPO
Kimley-Horn
NCDOT-HES
NCDOT-Roadway
USACE
Kimley-Horn
USACE
Wetherill Engineering
NCDOT-Hydraulics
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-TPB
Kimley-Horn

Mark Staley NCDOT-REU
Jeanie Tyson NCDOT-Roadway
Dave Wanucha NCDWR
Cynthia Van Der Wiele USEPA
*Participated via phone
Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to identify major drainage structure locations and approximate structure
lengths, and review the preliminary alignment for each alternative (Concurrence Point 2A).
Handouts
• CP2A Merger Packet
• PowerPoint presentation slides
Summary
Ms. Beverly Robinson opened the meeting, stated the purpose of the meeting, and asked attendees to
introduce themselves. She then handed the meeting over to Ms. Teresa Gresham.
Ms. Gresham reviewed the information provided in the Merger packet. Information for CP 2A had
previously been distributed in May 2015. At that time, the proposed structures appeared straightforward
and an in-person meeting was not determined to be necessary. Following distribution of the packet,
however, several comments were received that required additional research and redesign of the major
hydraulic structures. At the same time, the hydraulic technical memorandum was completed, and three
additional major structures were identified. Therefore, an in-person meeting is being held to discuss all of
the previous and new information in order to reach concurrence on CP 2A for Project R-2566B.
The project limits are 5.5 miles, from Clarks Creek Road to NC 105 Bypass. However, to meet the project
purpose and need, improvements were determined to be necessary only along 4.5 miles of that corridor,
from Old Shulls Mill Road to NC 105 Bypass. Therefore, hydraulic structures have been evaluated only in
that 4.5-mile section.
Ms. Gresham noted that the presentation includes reference to terrestrial wildlife passage, whereas the
packet only includes reference to aquatic wildlife passage. The comments received from the agencies
following the distribution of the CP 2A packet in May 2015 were not definitive, although the solutions
proposed by NCDOT are relative to both.
She noted that two structures had been removed after being determined to be minor structures, and the
remaining structures were not renumbered. The locations of the remaining structures are shown in the
merger packet. Discussion and decisions related to each structure are summarized below.
TIP Project R-25668
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point 2A Page 2 of 5

Structure 1 Discussion
The Merger team did not have any concerns about Site 1.
Structures 2 and 4 Discussion
Ms. Marla Chambers stated that she is concerned that the slope of the structure may be too steep for aquatic
passage. She asked for the definition of sills and baffles as they relate to this project. Mr. Vance Blanton
stated that there will be 2-foot tall sills and baffles, with the sills on the edges and baffles in the middle.
They can include multiple ridges, depending on the length. The culverts will be sunk lower than the base
of the stream bed 1 foot so that silt can build up around the sills and baffles without encroaching into the
stream flow.
Ms. Chambers also asked about addressing wildlife passage at this location, since the culvert will be too
small for many animals. Ms. Gresham asked Ms. Chambers about the separation required between wildlife
passage locations, adding that the Watauga River bridge would accommodate wildlife passage nearby. Ms.
Gresham also noted that a crash study reviewed animal crashes, and concluded there had been very few in
past years. Ms. Chambers agreed to the proposed structures, but noted it was appropriate to consider
measures to help ensure animal crashes do not increase when the road is widened.
Dr. Cynthia Van Der Wiele asked why the stream classes for Structures 2 and 4 are listed as Not Applicable
on Table 2 in the merger packet. Attendees instructed that the unnamed tributaries should take on the same
classifications as their receiving stream. Therefore, the UTs to Laurel Fork should be classified as "C, Tr."
Ms. Gresham acknowledged this and said the necessary changes will be reflected going forward.
Structure 6 Discussion
The proposed structure has two 12' x 7' barrel culverts with 2-foot tall sills and baffles, which will replace
the three smaller culverts that are currently in place. A bridge had been considered but was determined by
the design team to be substantially more expensive due to the grade of the roadway, and is therefore not
recommended by NCDOT.
Ms. Chambers expressed concern that the two barrel culverts will not accommodate the 35-foot wide
stream, and would like the bridge option be pursued instead of the culvert. She also stated that there is lack
of consistency with the definition of stream width in Merger and permitting information (in all projects).
Ms. Gresham stated that the stream measurements in the NRTR measure top of bank and wet width, but
that most of the planning documents use the top of bank as the most conservative limit for avoiding impact.
The table presents the top of bank, but the hydraulic structure designs were based on the wet width. She
said that stream measurements will be more adequately defined as the designs move forward.
Mr. Stephen Morgan said that NCDOT proposed to replace the three existing culverts rather than extended
due to less-than-ideal structural integrity and remaining lifespan. Mr. Steve Kichefski asked how the flow
is anticipated to be split between the proposed culverts. Mr. Morgan responded that the low flow of the
stream currently goes mostly through one of the three existing culverts, so it is expected that all or most of
TIP Project R-25668
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point 2A Page 3 of 5

the low flow would be accommodated by one of the two proposed culverts. The split between the two
barrels would be in approximately the same location as an existing rock outcropping currently splits the
stream. The barrels are currently proposed to be 12 feet wide, but may be enlarged to up to 15 feet wide if
appropriate.
Ms. Chambers asked the Merger team to support replacement of the culvert with a bridge to better
accommodate terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. She showed pictures of the existing structure and surrounding
area on the projector to illustrate her concerns with flow and wildlife passage. Mr. Morgan responded that,
after reviewing the photographs, he still thinks the two proposed barrel culverts are appropriate for the
stream. Mr. Kichefski said that he thinks the culvert design is acceptable as long as normaUlow flow is
properly designed for.
Ms. Chambers said she is not sure if baffles would sufficiently help with aquatic passage since the slope is
greater than 4%. Mr. Kichefski said that there appears to be trout passage currently, so aquatic passage may
not be as issue. The proposed culvert would lower the slope slightly compared with the existing culvert.
Attendees discussed the potential for including fencing for wildlife (specifically deer) to assist in wildlife
passage through this site.
Ms. Gresham said that she previously spoke with Ms. Marella Buncick on the issues, and Ms. Buncick said
that she would recommend a bridge rather than a culvert, but understood the issue of the cost of a bridge at
this location.
Ms. Robinson asked if the Merger team had specific recommendations for this site. After additional
discussion, Ms. Gresham suggested proceeding with the two-barrel design. NCDOT will continue to
evaluate the culvert design during future phases of the project to be sure the overflow barrel is sufficient
for terrestrial wildlife passage and that the low flow barrel is designed appropriately for sediment transport
and aquatic passage. Additional changes will be presented to the Merger team during CP 4 meetings.
Structures 7a and 7b
The structures at Sites 7a and 7b are on private property so limited information pertaining to them is
available at this time. She said that the design team will work to obtain additional information in the future
to assist with decision making. Dr. Van Der Wiele asked if right-of-way (ROW) is being purchased at these
locations, adding that it might make evaluating and designing them easier. Ms. Gresham responded that
since the preliminary slope stakes only impact a small section of the parallel pipe, it might not be necessary
to buy ROW. Dr. Van Der Wiele raised concerns about whether the water features are jurisdictional and
about fish passage at these sites.
The group decided that more information about the sites will need to be obtained in order to adequately
address concerns. Mr. Morgan stated that a bridge at these locations is probably not feasible, but the
possibility of box culverts and relocations might need to be examined in the future. Ms. Chambers added
that trout have been found in small urban streams in the Boone area, so they could potentially be found at
these locations.
TIP Project R-25668
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point 2A Page 4 of 5

Mr. Blanton noted that there are inconsistencies in naming convention between USGS and FEMA for some
features in the area, and USGS names have been used for Merger materials.
Dr. Van Der Wiele proposed to change the wording for 7a and 7b to better reflect that more study is needed
at these sites. Ms. Gresham agreed to remove "retain existing structural steel pipe" for 7a and 7b from the
concurrence form.
Pubiic Access
Members of the public and local officials have previously requested consideration of a public access point
at the Watauga River bridge. Many members of the public currently use the stream for fishing and
recreation, but often park or walk on private properties to do so. Ms. Gresham summarized input from
Daniel Cabe (NCWRC) regarding public access at the Watauga River bridge, many reasons which also
apply to the Laurel Fork crossings. These are listed in the Merger packet. Merger members agreed not to
include public access as part of the project.
Finai Discussion
Ms. Gresham continued on to discuss the schedule for the project. She noted that the Watauga River bridge
is scheduled for ROW and construction on a different schedule than the rest of R-2566B. The entire project
will continue to be studied together through the EA and FONSI, and will likely be split in final design.
Attendees asked how the two proj ects will be handled through the permit process. Ms. Gresham responded
that NCDOT will coordinate with the permitting agencies, and will provide more information to the Merger
team as decisions on the schedule are made.
Mr. Kichefski said that he would like a conversation on jurisdictional determination (JD) documentation to
take place in the future.
Conciusion
The Merger team agreed with the proposed major drainage structures as listed on the form provided, with
the change to Sites 7a and 7b (removing "retain existing structural steel pipe" from both).
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
TIP Project R-25668
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point 2A Page 5 of 5