Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180839_R-5014 Final 4B Meeting Minutes 20160914_20160914Transportation September 14, 2016 To: Ron Lucas Travis Wilson Tracey Wheeler Kyle Barnes Cynthia Van Der Wiele, PhD Gary Jordan Garcy Ward From Amy Chapman Stephen Lane � Paul Atkinson, PE ��-.-.--.. Project Mauager — TIP East PAT McCRORY Governor NICHOLA5 j. TENNYSON Secretary Gary Lovering, PE Greg Dickey, PE Shawn Mebane, PE Bo Hemphill, PE Chris Rivenbark Jay A. McInnis, PE Mark Staley David Harris, PE Cathy Brittingham Subject: Final minutes of the 30% Hydraulic Design Review (4B) Meeting on August 17, 2016 for R-5014: SR 1217 (Colington Rd.) from dead end to US- 158 Croatan Highway in Kill Devil Hills in Dare County. The "4B" Meeting for R-5014 was held on August 17, 2016 at 9:45 AM in the NCDOT Hydraulics Conference Room, at the Century Center Complex in Raleigh, NC. The following were in attendance. Participant: Team Members Ron Lucas, FHWA (absent) Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present) Garcy Ward, DWR (absent) Cathy Brittingham, NCDCiVI (present) Cynthia Van Der Wiele, EPA (phone) Stephen Lane, NCDCM (absent) Tracey Wheeler, USACE (absent) Gary Jordan, USFWS (present) Support Staff Gary Lovering, NCDOT-Roadway Desian (present) Shawn Mebane, NCDOT-Divisioii 1 (absent) Greg Dickey, NCDOT-SMU (absent) Paul Atkinson, NCDOT-Hydraulics (present) Bo Helnphill, NCDOT-Utilites (absent) Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT-NES (present) David Harris, NCDOT-REU (absent) Jay A. McInnis, NCDOT-PDEA (present) Mark Staley, NCD�T-REU (present) � �Nothing Compares�-t.�_ State of North Carolina � De��tment of Transpoitation � Hydraulics Unit 1020 Birch Ridge Drive � 1590 Mail Service Center � Raleigh, NC 27699-1590 919-707-6700 T Other Attendees Monte Matthews, USACE Greg Daisey, NCDCM Kyle Barnes, USACE Amy Chapman, DEQ Dock Rosenthal, NCDOT-TPB Kelvin Martin, NCDOT-Utilities Janaki Patel, NCDOT-Hydraulics Craig Freeman, NCDOT-Hydraulics Angela Welsh, Albemarle RPO (phone} Randy Midgett, Division 1 District Engineer (phone) Ken Riley, NMFS (phone) The rneeting began with PDEA explaining that the 4A form had not been signed at the 4A meeting because the Park Service wanted to add a Multiuse Path to the project. The form has since been distributed to be signed by DocuSign. The "4B" Meeting began with Craig Freeman (NCDOT-Hydraulics) giving a brief overview of the project and that he would go through the project sheet by sheet. Craig then started a project review at roadway sheet 4. Sheets 4, 5: No comments. Sheet 6: Proposed roadway ditches will tie into an existing system. There is a cross pipe that outfalls to the canal, ultimately going into the sound. NES will check if the canal is jurisdictional. DEQ asked if there is any kind of treatment. The roadway ditches will be designed at minimum or less than minimwn slope with 3: l side slopes and are expected to meet grass swale criteria. Sheet 7: Roadway ditches will outlet to wetland locations or existing outlets with rip rap if needed to slow velocities at the outlet. USACE asked if the rip rap will be iu wetlands; which they will not be. DEQ asked if the drainage will go into a jurisdictional stream. The outlet is into a jurisdictional stream and will meet swale criteria. NCDCM wanted to know about CAMA wetland impacts. Exact impacts to CAMA wetlands cannot be determined at this time because these are only conceptual plans but will minimize impacts as much as possible. NCDCM requested that impacts to CAMA wetlands be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable, including consideriug steepening the fill slope and any other appropriate measures if needed. DEQ asked what the drainage area was for the crossing; however the drainage area is indeterminate. USACE asked about lengths on pipe eXtensions; this is not known at this time and exact lengths will be determined during final design. NCDCM requested that existing use of Public Trust waters be maintained. Sheet 8: A pocket of wetlands at -L- station 71+50 will be mostly filied in due to the proposed alignment with an equalizer pipe between the two wetlands. Craig asked wltether this would be considered a total take, to which USACE replied it would be. Given that, Craig responded that the pipe size would likely be reduced from the current 36" equalizer pipe size to an appropriately sized pipe based on hydraulic design. NES would like the acreage of total take to be noted on the Impact Summary Sheet. USACE asked if it will show as a total take, and NES replied yes but mitigation ratios would ileed to be decided. Sheet 9: The existing bridges are gou�g to be retained and the proposed grade will tie into the existing bridges. NCDCM said there was some discussion as to whether there were one or two existing mitigation sites; currently only one is marked on the plans. NCDCM stated that the mitigation site (Colington Cut) should be marked and avoided. USACE will investigate whether it was used for mitigation. It was agreed that this issue would be resolved outside the "4B" meeting. SAVs are not impacted. After the meeting, NCDCM provided the following comments: According to NCDCM records, NCDCM determined ui 2003 that 0.09 acres of the Colington Cut mitigation site was successful. This left a deficit of 0.41 acres of restored coastal marsh wetland mitigation associated with the Colington Cut wetland mitigation site. In subsequent years, the DMS (referred to as the EEP at that time), provided a debit to account for the deficit at Colington Cut. However, because NCDOT received 0.09 acres of credit for successful Coastal Marsh wetland mitigation at this site, this existing mitigation site should be maxked on the work plan and permit drawings, and impacts to the mitigation site should be avoided. It is NCDCM's understanding that NCDOT abandoned the unsuccessful portions of the Colington Cut mitigation site, not the entire initigation site. If impacts to the Colington Cut and Colington Creek mitigation sites can be avoided by the R-5014 project, then there won't be a need to delve further into the details (such as where precisely is the successful 0.09 acres at the Colington Cut mitigation site). Sheet 10: There are pipe extensions and roadway ditches ending in wetland areas which may require rip rap to make sure they are not erosive. NCDCM requested that impacts to CAMA wetlands be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable, including considering steepening the fill slope and aliy other appropriate measures if needed. Also, NCDCM requested that existing use of Public Trust waters be maintained. NCDOT will minimize impacts as much as practicable. Sheet 11: No comments. Sheet 12: The cross pipes will be retained and extended. Roadway ditches outlet into existing outlets. 3:1 slopes will be used. DEQ asked, what is the length of the ditches to which Hydraulics responded, the ditch on sheet 12 is roughly 500 feet in lengtl�. NCDCM asked if there will be impacts to the Colington Creek Mitigation Site. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to Colington Creek Mitigation Site. There may possibly be excavation required to replace the existing pipe which may outlet into the wetland; additional surveys will be conducted to determine if this is the case. USACE asked whether CAMA has agreed with it being a mitigation site; NCDCM indicated they will check. Aftet� tl�e meeting, DCM submitted these comments: DCM accepted the Colington Cut mitigation site as successful in a letter to NCDOT dated October 15, 1999. Sheet 13: No cominents. Sheet 14: Ditches will outlet into wetlands with rip rap at the outlet if needed. NCDCM stated that it is unusual to have fill in SAV areas and mitigation will be required for any impacts. NMFS has concerns about the extents of the seagrass limits and the existing surveys. There was discussion at the July 2015 on-site meeting and there was agreement to hold the toe of slope (line of rip rap} to avoid SAV impacts. Roadway Design stated the fill slope in SAV as currently shown may not be accurate and will investigate and correct as necessary. USEPA is concerned about sensitive resources and aesthetics for stabilizing side slopes and asked if anything other than rip rap could be used. Other options will be evaluated. USACE asked about what the total impacts are, but they are unknown at this stage in design. NCDCM would like to have another meeting about this site before 4C. This meeting will be coordinated through NCDOT Roadway Design and the agencies. Sheet 15: Roadway ditches will end at wetlands. USACE pointed out that in identifying existing mitigation sites, more research should be done for private mitigation sites, and that there may be a preservation site on the Go Kart property. NCDCIVI stated that it is unusual to have fill in SAV areas and mitigation will be required for any impacts. Sheet 16: A pedestrian bridge has been roughly sketched into the 4B plans. The bridge provides drainage for the ditch between the roadway and multiuse path. Rip rap will be used to ensure the velocities are nonerosive at the outlet. Roadway asked if the ditch on the back side of the path was needed or can water run over the multiuse path. This will be discussed further between Hydraulics a�id Roadway Design. Sheets 17, 18, 19, 20: No jurisdictional features. General Comments: NCDCM asked if there will be utility relocation impacts on this project. Utilities confinned there will be utility relocations. NCDCM wants utility impacts included at 4C but NES stated that this will depend on the utility permit scl�edule and may not be complete by 4C meeting. NCDCM stated a fisheries moratorium will probably be on this project. NES said there will be a couple of moratoria. April 1-September 30 is primarily an SAV moratorium for in water work. NMFS said growth of seagrass is from April 1-September 30 and NMFS would request and in water work moratot-iwn from April 1-June 30. There will be no detours; the work will be done in staged construction. After the meeting: NCDCM concurred with an in-water work moratorium from April 1 to September 30 to protect nursery habitat in waters adjacent to the project area during periods of high biological productivity.