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.