20190061 Ver 1_U-4700A Hydro 4C Meeting Minutes_20191210

U-4700A 4C Interagency Concurrence Point Meeting Minutes
Date:
November 21, 2019
Location:
NCDOT, Structures Conference Room C
Time:
9:OOam
Attendees:
Andrew Nottingham — MI Engineering
Audrey Burnette — RK&K
Matt Lamy — RK&K
Tim Bassette — NCDOT BSG
David Stutts — NCDOT SMU
Called -In:
Dave Wanucha — NCDWR
Loretta Beckwith — USACE
Jeff Wyatt — NCDOT Div 12
Claire Ellwanger — USFWS
Jackie McSwain — NCDOT Div 12
Erin Cheely — NCDOT ECAP
Marla Chambers — NCWRC
Mike Sanderson — NCDOT EPU
Tharu Koshy — Stantec
Courtland Hoffman — RK&K
Bryan Sowell — NCDOT Div 12
Touger Yang — NCDOT Div 12
Josh Gentry — RK&K
Roger Bryan — NCDOT Div 13
The 4C Interagency Concurrence meeting began with introductions. The following items were discussed, and conclusions reached:
Project Narrative/brief overview given.
Sheet 6: Erin requested that the riprap pads at site 1 would be adjusted to be shown on the banks of the stream rather than
in the stream. Audrey confirmed that the riprap would be adjusted for final permit drawings. Add note to replace existing
concrete apron and replace with riprap pad at outlets for Site 1. It was also mentioned that the system discharging to the
stream at -L- 32+00, RT would need to be shown as a permanent impact if there is bank stabilization here. Make this site
1 A.
Sheet 10: Audrey explained a sill was added so normal flow is achieved through one barrel. A low flow pipe was added for
FEMA compliance. There is no rise in the FEMA model. It was mentioned that the FS file needs to be updated to show both
existing culverts as 10' x 10'.
Sheet 14: Audrey confirmed that site 3 consists of only temporary impacts. Marla commented on the angle of the 66" and
78" entering the new 8' x 8' RCBC and whether this would affect fish passage at site 4. It was mentioned that there is a drop
of about 10 feet in the proposed system, so fish passage will not be possible. It does not seem likely that there is any fish
passage through the existing system. Erin asked to better label Inset B to show that it is part of site 4 rather than site 5.
Audrey explains that an energy dissipator was added to the end of the 8' x 8' RCBC before water discharges to the existing
railroad culvert at site 5. Detail Z shows this energy dissipator. There is a Hazardous Spill Basin proposed on this sheet.
Sheet 15: Erin questioned the rectangle under the first bent. Audrey explains that this is a temporary pipe and should not be
shown on the permit drawings. She will remove the pipe but will show it on the temporary work pad detail and noted clearly.
Andrew said that temporary work bridges might be preferred over temporary work pads due to the variability of water level.
Josh said that the constructability review had concerns with temporary work bridges, which is why work pads are being
used. Marla questioned the bent spacing and whether boats would be able to travel between them. Audrey explained that
existing bent spacing is being matched on the proposed bridge. She also explained why the excavated floodplain bench
under the bridge is necessary for HEC-RAS modeling.

Sheet 16: Audrey explained that proposed bridge will be constructed from the existing bridge and will not require temporary
work pads. Hazardous spill basin is being installed since Catawba River is used for drinking water.
Sheet 17: Erin said that the stream at site 8 is so small that fish passage here would not be important. She could not find
the detail callout, and Audrey said that a callout to Detail L will be added to this ditch. Erin said that the end of the proposed
ditch that is being shifted would need to be considered a stream relocation with embedded riprap and no geotextile in the
bottom of the stream. A stream relocation detail will need to be added. Erin also said that the ditch in Inset B will need bank
stabilization. The impacts will need to be changed from temporary to permanent.
Sheet 18: JS starts at pipe outlet. It was mentioned to make sure bank stabilization is shown correctly per the comments on
site 1.
Sheet 23: Erin said she is in process of reviewing the updated wetlands file. She asked if the temporary impact should be
extended to easement line at site 10. Audrey said that the impacts are a specific distance from the headwall. Make sure all
inlet and ditch labels are turned on for site 11 and 11A. Audrey explained that alternating baffles will be installed in the
RCBC which will allow fish passage.
Sheet 23A: Tim mentioned the EPB site lb. We are not authorized to do any construction within the boundary. He said this
is a poor -quality site with invasive species and plants are in alluvial deposits. Audrey said outlet pipe will be moved to tie
into the proposed 8' x 8' RCBC to limit the riprap near the EPB. She will adjust impacts to end before the EPB site. Andrew
said that the easement lines need to be adjusted so that they are not impacting the EPB. Claire said she will flag the site
during construction.
Buffer Impacts Sheet 15: Dave requested that mitigable impacts hatching is added to the legend. He also asked to
investigate if the equipment staging area should be allowable impacts. Erin asked if tree clearing along the bridge would be
considered buffer impacts. Andrew explained that it would not be since this is an existing roadway fill slope.
Upon conclusion of the 4C meeting, it was requested by Andrew to round the stream impacts to the nearest foot for stream
impacts and to the nearest one -hundredth of an acre for wetland impacts.
R:\Hydraulics\DOCUMENTS\Permit\U-4700A Hydro 4C Meeting Minutes.docx