20190328 Ver 1_Project_Approval_Recommendation_SF-250141_20181009_20190307

NCFMP and NCDOT MOA Project Review
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project TIP / ID:
W BS:
DOT STR. INV. # (6-digit):
Initial Submittal Date:
MOA Approval Target Date:
Project LET DATE:
DOT Project Manager:
DOT Design / Review Eng:
Private Engineering Firm:
PEF Design Engineer:
FEMA/FMP STATUS
SF-250141
17BP.6.R.75
250141
11/7/2017
5/7/2018
W. Galen Cail
Jon L. Moore
Atkins North
America
Nadia A. Mata
Status (MOA TYPE):
If MOA Type 3a or 3b, CLOMR case number:
Type of Study (detailed, limited, redelineated):
Effective Model on File? (Yes or No):
Effective Model Format (HEC-RAS, HEC2):
Model Version No.:
Proposed Model Format (HEC-RAS, HEC2):
Model Version No.:
PROJECT SPECIFIC NOTES (pre-model review)
LOCATION INFORMATION
Stream Name (on FIRM Panel):
River Basin :
Regulating City:
Regulating County:
Division:
Community ID Number:
Latitude (in decimal degrees):
Longitude (in decimal degrees):
South River
Tributary 1
Cape Fear
Cumberland
06
370076
35.16288
-78.65943
Route Number:
Road Name (on FIRM Panel):
Effective FIS date:
Panel Number (4-digit):
Panel Effective Date:
Published section # up/down
stream
2d
N/A
Li m ited
Yes
H EC-RAS
3.1.2
H EC-RAS
4.1.0
SR 1819
Stewart Road
6/18/2007
1500
1/5/2007
121 / 096
This project has a maximum increase of 0.1-ft and a maximum decrease of 0.1-ft, thus it qualifies as a
Type 2d MOA.
FMP/DOT NOTES AND REVIEW COMMENTS:
(DOT staff.• Add any pertinent notes/from FMP/DOT coordination meetings/correspondence.J
1. Please use the latest version of the FEMA Coordination Documentation Form available
from the NCDOT website. Per the latest version, please replace the row titles "In-House
or PEF Project?" and "Consulting Firm" with "Private Engineering Firm" and "PEF Design

Engineer" respectively along with the correct responses as Atkins North America and
William K. Jernigan, Jr. under GENERAL INFORMATION.
Atkins Response: Latest FEMA coordination form has been downloaded from NCDOT
website and has been updated with this submittal.
Na �urther comrr�ents is���ed.
2. Please verify and correct the latitude as 35.16288 and the longitude as -78.65943 on the
FEMA Coordination Documentation Form to be consistent with the CSR.
Atkins Response: Latitude and Longitude has been updated in the FEMA coordination
form to be consistent with the CSRs.
No further comments issuec�.
3. Please correct the effective date of FIS as 6/18/2007 on the FEMA Coordination
Documentation Form.
Atkins Response: Effective date on the FEMA coordination form has been updated.
Nc� Further cc�mments issued.
4. It appears that the tie-in sections upstream and downstream of the project should be 121
and 096, respectively. Please verify and update the FEMA Coordination Documentation
Form as necessary.
Atkins Response: FEMA Coordination form has been updated to show 121/096 as the
upstream and downstream tie-in cross sections.
No further comments issued.
5. Please include page numbers in the Narrative document.
Atkins Response: Page numbers have been added to the narrative. Updated narrative
document is included with this submittal.
^Eb: ����tl��r �c�mm�nts is���d.
6. The Revised model has the culvert size as 20.53' x 9.4167'; depth of blockage is 1.51';
culvert invert is 118.29'. These numbers differ from the values provided in the Narrative
document. The CSR shows the proposed invert as 119.3'. Please verify and update as
necessary.
Atkins Response: We have updated the revised conditions HEC-RAS model for Stewart
Road Culvert dimensions to 25.3' X 8.75' with 1 foot of blockage and Invert elevation set
at 119.29'. Comparisons sheet has been updated based on latest model results.
No further comments issued.
7. In the BFE Comparison Table, please verify & correct the base WS value for the Revised
model at XSs 10719.7, 10072, and 10032.3 as 131.6, 131.3, and 131.3 respectively; the
project impact at these XSs should be corrected as 0.1-ft, 0.2-ft, and 0.4-ft respectively.
The table given in the Narrative under "Revised Model" section should be corrected
accordingly. The maximum increase in base WS is 0.4-ft due to the project. Please revise
the Conclusion section of the Narrative and the CSR as necessary.

Atkins Response: After addressing the 15t road of MOA review comments, model results
comparison of revised and corrected effective water surface elevations show maximum
decrease in WSEL as -0.2 feet and there are no increases in WSEL. Therefore, this MOA
will be submitted as Type 2a.
The revised model shows a maximum decrease of 0.1' (after rounding) instead of 0.2'
noted in the comparison table, BSR, and Narrative. Please verify and update as necessary.
Also, it appears that this project qualifies a type 1 instead of a type 2a mentioned in the
submittal files. Please verify and update the project type in the submittal files and submit
a no-rise certification as required for a type 1 project.
The above comment should be addressed in conjunction with comment #11. If there are
any changes in the results after addressing comment #11, please revise as necessary.
After addressing comment #11, it was clear that the maximum increase in elevation is 0.1
feet. Therefore, entire MOA package has been revised to show a maximum increase of 0.1
feet and is being submitted as MOA Type 2d. The project specific notes above state
incorrectly state that "project has a maximum increase of 0.1-ft, thus it qualifies as a Type
1 MOA". This should be revised to say it qualifies as a Type 2d MOA.
No further comments issued.
8. The "Hydraulic Modeling Narrative" section of the Narrative document mentions that the
expansion ratio used is 4:1. But the expansion ratios in the HEC-RAS model are 1:1. Please
verify and update as necessary.
Atkins Response: Hydraulic Modeling Narrative section of the narrative document has
been updated to show 1:1 expansion ratio.
Nt� f�lrther comrn�rte ��sued.
9. Please verify the reach lengths at XSs 10720 and 9845.8 in the Corrected Effective and
Revised models and update as necessary.
Atkins Response: Reach lengths in the hydraulic model have been updated at XSs 10720
and 9845.8. Hydraulic model was rerun using HEC-RAS version 4.1.0 and BFE comparisons
spreadsheet has been updated and included with this submittal.
No further comments issued.
10. The Title Sheet has the creek name as Unnamed Creek instead of South River Tributary 1.
Please check and revise as necessary.
Atkins Response: The creek name has been checked/verified. The Title Sheet has been
updated to show the creek name as South River Tributary 1.
No further comments issued.
11. 2"d Round Comment: Please justify the right ineffective area at XS 9845.8 in the Corrected
Effective model or revise as necessary. Since the upstream structure overtops on the right

overbank area, it appears that the ineffective area should be inactive (same as in the
Re�,�isec4 m�d�l). Please verifi�r and revise as necessary.
The corrected effective model ineffective flow elevation on the right overbank has been
adjusted to be consistent with the structure upstream at XS 9845.8. Revising the
ineffective flow elevation revised WSEL slightly. An updated comparison table has been
included with this submittal. Updated comparison shows that the maximum increase in
WSEL is 0.1 feet. Therefore, entire MOA package has been revised to reflect MOA Type
2d, associated with a maximum increase of 0.1 feet.
No further comments issued.
FINAL DETERMINATION:
SF-250141 is recommended for approval as a Type 2d MOA.
This project has a maximum increase of 0.03-ft (0.1-ft after rounding). The Narrative confirms
that there are no insurable structures adversely impacted by this project.
r� , �i. � 4�i
Rahish Khatri, PE Date 10/9/2018
Project Engineer
`\���111111I����i
.�` �� H �'� R ��,
`� O.•'F�ESS�.O�����
� ?.�Q•,y�
= S 'y • =
:a EA� y;r _
- 03g88 � '-': �
� • �
r � 1
�• �
�i�'yi�,' Gf N E�Q`' � \`�
��ii�sH'ICH P�����