U-5733_CP2A_Meeting Summary_FINAL_08292019

OF NORTH C,q NC 111 (Catherine Lake Road) Extension
Y HOGy
STIP Project No. U-5733
Section 404/NEPA Merger Meeting
hr OF TRpNf'Q- August 28, 2019
NC 111 (Catherine Lake Road) Extension from US 258 (Richlands Highway) to
SR 1308 (Gum Branch Road)
MEETING SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 28, 2019
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., field visit to follow
Place: Division 3 Resident Engineer's Office, 295-B Wilmington Highway,Jacksonville, NC 28540
Name Agency Email address Phone
Brad Shaver USACE [e-mail] 910-251-4611
Amanetta Somerville* USEPA [e-mail] 404-562-9644
Gary Jordan USFWS gars [e-mail] 919-856-4520
x32
Joanne Steenhuis NCDEQ DWR [e-mail] 910-796-7306
Travis Wilson NCWRC [e-mail] 919-707-0370
Stephen Lane NCDEQ DCM [e-mail] 252-808-2808
x208
Curtis Weychert* NCDEQ DCM [e-mail] 252-808-8050
Deanna Trebil Jacksonville Urban MPO [e-mail] 910-938-5073
Krista Kimmel NCDOT—Division 3 [e-mail] 910-341-2000
Mason Herndon NCDOT—Division 3 [e-mail] 910-341-2036
James Byrd* HNTB [e-mail] 919-424-0437
Kat Bukowy HNTB [e-mail] 919-424-0441
Brian Blackwell* HNTB [e-mail] 919-424-0452
Kase Schalois HNTB [e-mail] 919-424-0410
Robert Turnbull ESI [e-mail] 919-617-9153
*Attended by phone
NCDOT opened the meeting with introductions. HNTB went on to describe the location of the project
and the previously agreed upon purpose and need for the project. In addition, HNTB reviewed the
proposed alternatives agreed to during Concurrence Point (CP) 2, Detailed Study Alternatives. Following
this brief introduction,the meeting moved on to the discussion of the major hydraulic sites for each of
the proposed alternatives. Site 3 was not discussed as it will not be affected by any of the three
alternatives.
Site 2 is the proposed bridge over the New River for proposed Alternatives 1A and 113. HNTB explained
that the minimum bridge length spans the floodway. It may or may not have a "no rise" effect once the
location of the bridge piers is known. This would be determined under a more intensive hydraulic
analysis. The Merger Team asked what the difference [in length] is between the floodway and the
floodplain. HNTB stated that the floodway is approximately 2,500 feet wide and the floodplain is
11Page

approximately 3,900 feet wide. NCDOT noted that the floodplain is outside of the wetland boundary.
The distance from wetland boundary to wetland boundary is approximately 3,500 feet. If the bridge
spanned the wetlands it would be a savings of approximately 4.0 acres. US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) asked if the wetlands on the west side of the river were emergent, based on the aerial. ESI
responded that that area is clearcut, not emergent wetland. USACE and NC Division of Water Resources
noted that the hog farm at Site 2 may have had a Notice of Violation.
The Merger Team then discussed Site 4,the crossing of the New River by Alternative 2. HNTB noted
that the width of the floodway in this location is approximately 941 feet and the floodplain is
approximately 1,285 feet. It is approximately 1,400 feet from the western wetland boundary (WBR)to
the easternmost wetland boundary (WBM). Wetlands WBR and WBM have a NCWAM score of"High".
NCDOT indicated that it would be comfortable spanning wetland WBR with the bridge, but not WBM
due to the field between it and the river. The Merger Team requested to see the area during the field
visit.
HNTB explained that stream at Site 1, crossed by Alternative 1A only, is a FEMA-limited detail study,
which means that it has an "area of non-encroachment" similar to a floodway. A 7-foot by 8-foot
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) is recommended in this location. USACE and NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) expressed their concern at necking the floodplain down to 8 feet.
HNTB stated that additional pipes could be added for overflow.
The Merger Team expressed no concerns with Site 5.
Site 6 recommends replacing the existing three pipe culverts with three 8-foot by 10-foot RCBCs. USACE
indicated that they would prefer to see a bridge. Jacksonville Urban Metropolitan Planning Organization
(JUMPO) noted that the location flooded during both Hurricanes Florence and Matthew and that they
would also prefer a bridge. HNTB noted that a single-span box beam bridge could be used that would be
approximately 100 feet in length. However, because Bachelor's Delight Swamp is a trust water,the road
grade would also need to be raised.
NCDOT noted that if Alternative 2 is not chosen as the Preferred Alternative, another project (STIP
Project No. U-5973) is programmed to widen Gum Branch Road. This would be another opportunity to
replace the culverts with a bridge. STIP Project No. U-5973 is programmed for construction in fiscal year
2027. This project, U-5733, is not in the current STIP. NCDOT ask JUMPO which project would be
preferred and JUMPO responded that both projects are in the Long-range Transportation Plan working
together. However, U-5733 is preferred because it provides more/additional mobility and connectivity
within Onslow County.
The pre-meeting ended and it was decided among the group to visit Sites 1, 2,4, and 6. At Site 1,
NCDOT agreed to keep the proposed culvert and add arch pipes that are 4 feet or larger, as appropriate,
in the floodplain on the west side and on the east side if it will work. In the field the floodplain appears
to fairly narrow. At Site 2, NCDOT agreed to bridge from wetland boundary to wetland boundary; a
distance of approximately 3,500 feet. At Site 4, NCDOT agreed that it would bridge from wetland
boundary to wetland boundary with an additional 10 feet on either side for animal passage. This is due
to what appears to be a beaver impoundment in wetland WBM. At Site 6, NCDOT agreed to provide a
bridge that would be the length required for the hydraulic opening plus an addition 10 feet on either
side to allow animal passage.
2 1 P a g e

Table 6. Major Hydraulic Structures' Recommendations, Cost Estimate, and Potential Impacts by Alternative
EXISTING ALTERNATIVE 1A ALTERNATIVE 1B ALTERNATIVE 2
NCDWR STREAM/ STRUCTURE (Southern Alternative) (Southern Variant Alternative) (Middle Alternative)
SITE ROUTE STREAM NRTR STREAM WETLAND STREAM DRAINAGE
NO NAME MAP ID INDEX SIZE CLASS AREA Number, Potential Potential Potential
NUMBER (ft/ac) Size, Recommended Stream/ Recommended Cost Stream/ Recommended Cost Stream/
Structure Structure Cost Estimate Wetland Structure Estimate Wetland Structure Estimate Wetland
Type ImpactZ ImpactZ ImpactZ
1@7'x8'
NC 111 UT to New 2,042/ RCBC with 2 459 ft/
1 Extension River SDB/WCE 19-(1) 19.5 C; NSW 538 ac None CAPA Arch $658,000 1.0 ac
Pipes3>-4'
NC 111 New River 7,820/ Bridge min .4 0 ft/ Bridge min .4 0 ft/
2 New River 19-(1) C; NSW 111.2 sq mi None 5_ $20M S_ $20M
Extension (SB)/WDA 126.1 length -3,500 0 ac length -3,500 0 ac
3 NC 24 UT to New ST 19-(1) 3,072 C; NSW 2.17 sq mi 2 @ 8 x 9
River RCBC
New River 7 820/
NC 111 (SB)/ Bridge min
4 Extension New River WBR/ 19-(1) (WBR)5.0/ C; NSW 99.8 sq mi None length - 1,400'
WBM $7.8M 0 ft/0 ac
(WBM)7.7
SR 1308 UT to
Bachelors SBE6/ 103"x 71" 1 @ 7'x 7'
5 (Gum Delight WgH 19-5 903/0.2 C; NSW 388 ac CSPA RCBC $290,000 0 ft/0 ac
Branch Rd)
Swamp
SR 1308 Bachelors Bachelor's
Delight 3 @ 137"x Bridge min s
6 (Gum Delight 19-5 528 C; NSW 8.5 sq mi 7- $554,545 0 ft
Branch Rd) Swamp Swamp 87 CMPA length - 100'
(SDK)
NOTES:
(1) Major Hydraulic Structures-conveyance greater than 30 square feet.
(2) Impacts based on slope stake limits plus 40 feet.
(3) Arch pipes will be placed in the floodplain on the west side and on the east side if there is space. Impacts do not include the additional arch pipes.
(4) Gray shading indicates that this Site is not crossed by the alternative.
(5) This is the length of bridge required to span both wetland boundaries.
(6) All streams except Stream SBE are perennial. Stream SBE is intermittent.
(7) At the CP2A meeting(August 28, 2019) it was agreed that the bridge length would be the minimum required for hydraulic conveyance. This will not be determined until the hydraulic modeling is complete.
(8) Cost based on a 100' long bridge.