20190061 Ver 1_U-4700A 4C Minutes_20191217 (2)

Carpenter, Kristi
From: Audrey Burnette <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:22 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave
Subject: RE: [External] U-4700A 4C Minutes
Attachments: U-4700A Hydro 4C Meeting Minutes.pdf
• External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Please see revised minutes. I spoke with Andrew. And he agrees that the fill is associated with the bridge and all
impacts for the bridge are allowable.
Thank You.
Please le me know if you have additional concerns.
Audrey Burnette, PE, CFM
Project Manager, Water Resources
RK&K
8601 Six Forks Road
Forum 1, Suite 700
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Direct 1 [phone] M
[phone] F
www.rkk.com
E121F31
RESPONSIVE PEOPLE I CREATIVE SOLUTIONS
Note Our New Address!
From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:30 AM
To: Audrey Burnette <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] U-4700A 4C Minutes
I'm not seeing my comments incorporated in revised minutes. See email below. Thanks.
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
1

NC Department of Envirionmental Quality
336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
[e-mail]
NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27106
From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 12:54 PM
To: Audrey Burnette <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] U-4700A 4C Minutes
Audrey,
I would also like a note in the minutes and on permit impact summary sheet that identifies the "Use" within
the "Table of Uses" (in the Buffer Rule) that applies. Thanks.
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Envirionmental Quality
336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
[e-mail]
NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27106
From: Audrey Burnette <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 10:12 AM
To: Andrew Nottingham <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Bassette, Tim <[e-mail]>; Sanderson, Mike
<[e-mail]>; Cheely, Erin K <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Stutts, David S <[e-mail]>; Sowell, Bryan K
<[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; McSwain, Jacqueline <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Bryan, Roger D <[e-mail]>; claire [e-mail]
Cc: Brandon McInnis <[e-mail]>; Tina Swiezy <[e-mail]>; Matthew Lamy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] U-4700A 4C Minutes
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Please find attached the 4C Meeting Minutes. Please review and provide comments by 12/16/2019. Please let me know
if anyone has been left off the email that needs to review these minutes.

Thank You in advance for your cooperation.
Audrey Burnette, PE, CFM
Project Manager, Water Resources
RK&K
900 Ridgefield Drive
Ste. 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Direct 1 [phone] M
[phone] F
www.rkk.com
RESPONSIVE PEOPLE I CREATIVE SOLUTIONS
"RK&K" and "RK&K Engineers" are registered trade names of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, a Maryland limited liability partnership. This message contains
confidential information intended only for the person or persons named above. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
sender by return email and delete the message. Thank you.
RK&K is an equal opportunity employer that values diversity at all levels. RK&K does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
(including pregnancy), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, parental status, military and
veteran status, and any other characteristic protected by applicable law. Consistent with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended and other nondiscrimination laws and authorities, we also note that RK&K does not discriminate in its selection or retention of subcontractors on
the grounds of race, color, or national origin. We also note that RK&K will ensure that Minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and not
be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.

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 Class CA (critical area watershed).
Sheet 17: Erin said that the stream at site 8 is so small that fish passage is not a concern. 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 (which has since been distributed). 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 1 B. We are not authorized by the project's Biological Opinion 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 pipe outlet 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. The sites will be flagged during construction. Claire requested that NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) re -
delineate and re -flag the Environmentally Sensitive Site before construction activities begin.
Buffer Impacts Sheet 15: Dave Wanucha requested that mitigable impacts hatching be added to the legend. In addition,
Dave asked that we add to the Buffer Impact Summary Table the "Use" that applies from the "Table of Uses" from the
Catawba Buffer Rules (15NCAC 02b.0243). Upon examination of the "Uses" from the "Table of Uses" it has been
determined that ALL the impacts associated with the BRIDGE are Allowable. The Buffer Impact Summary Table will be
revised and a note added in the "Notes" section. Dave 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