US 13/US 158 (12)

Memorandum of Meetang
Date November 16 2011
Place\Time NCDOT Structures Umt Conference Room 3 00 P M
Participants , Bill Biddlecome USACE
Travis Wilson — NCWRC
David Wainwright — NCDWQ
Gary Jordan — USFWS
Chris Militscher — USEPA
Cathy Brittingham DCM
Bill Zerman NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Andy Young NCDOT Trans Prog Management
Trace Howell — NCDOT REU
Mark Laugisch — NCDOT REU
Mark Staley — NCDOT REU
Amy James — NCDOT NEU
Bob Capehart — NCDOT Div 1
� Clay Willis — NCDOT Div 1
Mark Osenbaugh — E V Williams
Sam Blevins — McLean Contracting
Michael Wood — Catena Group
Ivy Kimbrough — Catena Group
Tommy Peacock RK&K
Mike Merritt — RK&K
Matthew Cook RK&K
Brad Boggs — RK&K -.
Sub�ect NEPA\404 Merger Team — Concurrence Point 4B Meetmg
R 2507A — US 13 / US 158 Widening Hertford and Gates
Counties
The 30% Hydraulic Review was held in order to reach agreement on concurrence point
4B for the US 13 / US 158 widening in Hertford and Gates Counties The following
items were discussed and conclusions reached
Matthew Cook opened the meeting wrth a brief description of the pro�ect He then
proceeded to review the pro�ect on a sheet by sheet basis The site numbers that will be
used m the future 4C package were used to distinguish the sites since there is a large
number of sites on the pro�ect
Sheet 4 No �urisdictional features affected Mr Cook stated that the beginning of the
pro�ect is bemg reworked due to a request by NCDOT to widen the median to 46 south
of the Ramp B and C tie ins on sheet 6 This would cause the pro�ect to lengthen in the
southern direction beyond sheet 4 Tommy Peacock clarified this and showed the group
the area in question on a roll plot hanging in the room Mr Cook stated that the D B

Team will investigate the area to ensure no �urisdictional features are affected however
none are expected in the lengthened portion Chris Militscher and Cathy Brittingham
asked if the pro�ect to the south was in the TIP schedule Andy Young stated that rt is
not
Sheet 5 No �urisdictional features affected
Sheet 6 Wetland affected —Y 39+00 47+25 RT extending to sheet 35 (site 1) Mr
Cook asked if the wetland area inside the new quadrant B should be considered a total
take Inrtial response from B�11 Biddlecome and Mr Milrtscher was that general practice
is to consider it a total take since it is inside an interchange Mr Militscher asked the
general size of the area in question Mr Cook stated that impact areas have not been
finalized however the remaining area inside Ramp B should be approximately an acre
Mr Milrtscher asked how the wetland is fed and Mr Cook stated that rt was the team s
assumption that it is fed by roadside ditches The group decided to not consider this area
a total take
Wetland affected —Y 42+00 LT (site 36) It will be a total take
Stream affected —L 41+50 LT and 45+00 LT (site 2) The existing 36 RCP will be
filled and a new 48 welded steel will pipe be installed by bore and �ack The 48 WS
will be buried 1 0 Mr Cook stated that given the nature of the existing topography the
existing pipe and the installation of the new pipe a�unction box would be required at the
upstream end to offset the new pipe from the old one Mr Biddlecome verified that the
existing pipe is being filled given the deep nature of its location Mr Militscher asked
what was to be done with the concrete lined ditches leading to the site on the upstream
side Mr Cook stated that the intention was to leave them Mr Cook also pomted out
that retaimng walls are being used on both sides of the road to mimmize impacts He said
that blow ups of this site will be included in the 4C package
Sheet 7 Wetland affected —L 50+00 RT (site 36) Mr Cook said that a blow up of this
site will be included in the 4C package
Sheet 8 Chowan River affected by piers of the proposed Chowan River bridge (site 4)
Mr Cook described the bridge and stated that the proposed piers would all line up with
the existing piers on the existing bridge The bridge length matches what was agreed
upon in the 2A C P meeting (ll21 ) Ms Bnttingham asked if the construction would
be top down Sam Blevins stated that floating barges would be used for the construction
Sheet 9 Chowan River affected by piers of the proposed Chowan Rlver bridge
Wetland affected —L 78+50 105+70 RT (site 5) Mr Cook pointed out that a retaimng
wall is being used on the right side of the road to mimmize impacts
Sheet 10 Wetland affected —L 78+50 105+70 RT (site 5)
Sheet 11 Wetland affected —L 78+50 105+70 RT (site 5)
Wetland affected —L 106+70 130+10 RT (site 6)
Sheet 12 Wetland affected —L 106+70 130+10 RT (site 6)

Wetland affected —L 114+65 LT (srte 7) This impact is to allow for construction of the
proposed 60 RCP It will only be mechanized clearing Mr Cook pointed out the new
equalizer pipe being installed He stated that throughout the pro�ect all existing culverts
were being replaced with culverts of equal or larger size No pipes in wetlands will be
buried
Sheet 13 Wetland affected —L 106+70 130+10 RT (site 6) °
Wetland affected —L 133+55 135+20 RT (site 8)
Wetland affected —L 136+45 138+25 RT (site 9)
The equalizer was point out ( L 128+00)
Sheet 14 Wetland affected —L 136+45 138+25 RT (srte 9)
Wetland affected —L 140+75 146+50 RT (site 10)
Wetland affected —L 141+05 148+25 LT (site 11)
Wetland affected —L 148+65 164+75 RT (site 12) �
Wetland affected —L 150+30 161+�0 LT (site 13)
The equalizer was pointed out ( L 143+00)
Sheet 15 Wetland affected —L 148+65 164+75 RT (site 12)
Wetland affected —L 150+30 161+70 LT (srte 13)
The equalizers were pointed out ( L 151+90 L 157+00)
Mr Militscher asked about the locations of the turnarounds Mike Merritt stated that they
were placed at distances of 800
Sheet 16 Wetland affected —L 148+65 164+�5 RT (srte 12)
Wetland affected —L 163+10 164+30 LT (site 14)
Wetland affected —L 166+15 CL (site 15) This will be a total take
Wetland affected —L 170+35 174+45 LT (site 16)
Wetland affected —L 170+45 174+20 RT (site 17)
The equalizer was pointed out ( L 173+00)
Sheet 17 Wetland affected —L 177+50 178+50 RT (site 18)
Wetland affected —L 179+50 186+40 RT (site 19)
Wetland affected —L 179+80 184+40 LT (site 20)
Wetland affected —L 186+75 189+15 RT (site 21)
Wetland affected —L 187+80 188+95 LT (site 22)
The equalizers were pointed out ( L 180+00 L 183+00)
Sheet 18 Wetland affected —L 186+75 189+15 RT (site 21) �
Wetland affected —L 193+85 200+00 LT & RT (site 23) This is the Buckhorn bridge(s)
crossing Mr Cook described the bridges stahng that the southbound bridge (190 87') is
longer than the northbound bridge (109 ) due to the curved alignment The bridge length
matches what was agreed upon in the 2A C P meeting (110 ) Ms Brittingham asked if
the construction would be top down Mark Osenbaugh said it would be Ms Brittingham
also asked if the channel is navigable She stated that in a field visit in March 2009 rt was
determined navigable and considered AEC Mr Cook distributed pictures from August
2011 that showed a dry bed under the bridge and no defined channel Amy James stated

that it is a�urisdicrional stream The group noted that the channel can be wet at times and
dry at times but did not think it was navigable
Michael Wood stated that a field review with DCM was planned near the time of the 4C
Meeting in accordance with the requirements of the RFP and this would be one of the
visrted srtes All agency personnel would be welcome to come and make a final
determination on the channel
Mr Cook stated that the bridge will be a single span The fill slope under the bridge at
one location is approximately 3 from the stream edge The D B Team stated that the
bridge and abutment can be constructed without encroaching in to the stream at this
locahon All in attendance agreed that a temporary fill in surface water would not be
needed and that the construction of the bridge will stay out of the stream The wetlands
will be affected however the stream will not
Wetland affected —L 197+25 198+65 RT (site 24) This will be a total take
Sheet 19 Wetland affected —L 206+55 209+40 LT (site 25)
Wetland affected —L 207+10 209+10 RT (site 26)
Wetland affected —L 211+65 218+75 LT (site 27)
The equalizers were pointed out ( L 208+00 L 212+50) Mr Cook distributed
pictures of the swale downstream of the equalizer at —L 212+50 as it was photographed
in August 2011 He then showed a picture taken November 2011 The swale has been
dug out approximately 4 0 in the ground resulting in standing water
Sheet 20 Wetland affected —L 211+65 218+75 LT (srte 27)
Wetland affected —L 215+70 217+30 RT (site 28)
Wetland affected —L 221+80 226+35 RT (site 29)
Wetland affected —L 223+65 237+05 LT (site 30)
The equalizer was pointed out ( L 226+00)
Mr Cook pomted out the drtch at —L 220+25 LT It drains towards the roadway facilrty
In rts existing state rt looks like rt(according to the plans) should meet a cross pipe at —
L 216+45 No pipe was observed in the field It was determined in the field that the
ditch eventually transitions from a 4 depth to nothing as it disperses into the wetland at
approximately —L 215+75 LT The proposal from the D B Team is to ditch through the
wetland from the locahon the ditch meets the fill slope to the wetland it currently feeds
Bill Zerman asked if the exishng elevations could be met Mr Cook stated that the drtch
would be less than 0 30% in slope however the area had been surveyed extensively and
the existing elevations would be held at the drtch tie points The wetland would in no
way be drained by the ditch The current pattern would be maintained This was agreed
upon by all in attendance
Sheet 21 Wetland affected —L 223+65 237+05 LT (site 30)
Wetland affected —L 231+20 233+85 RT (site 31)
Wetland affected —L 240+05 244+30 RT (site 32)
Sheet 22 Wetland affected —L 240+05 244+30 RT (srte 32)
The equalizer was pointed out ( L 242+00)

Sheet 23 Wetland affected —L 255+30 255+40 LT (site 33)
Mr Cook stated that the ditch at —L 256+65 RT has been labeled different wavs in
different files The original wetland file the D B Team received and a file provided by
Mr Young on November 10 2011 show rt as a �urisdictional stream A file provided by
Ms James on November 8 2011 does not show it as a �urisdictional stream Mr Cook
stated that he checked the NRTR and it is not labeled as a �urisdictional stream in it
either Ms James stated that it is not�urisdictional
Sheet 24 No �urisdictional features affected
Sheet 25 Wetland affected —L 286+80 288+90 RT (site 34)
The equalizers were pointed out ( L 287+20)
Sheet 26-28 No�urisdictional features affected
Sheet 29 Wetland affected —L 342+15 344+90 LT (site 35)
Stream affected —L 341+65 LT & RT (srte 35) Mr Cook stated that this stream has
been labeled different ways in various files also Ms James verified that it is indeed a
�urisdictional stream on both sides of the road It is a tributary to Jady Branch Mr Cook
said that it will be a 72 RCP buried 1 0
Sheet 30-34 No�urisdictional features affected
Sheet 35 Wetland affected —Y 39+00 47+25 RT extending to sheet 6(site 1)
Sheet 36 37 No �urisdictional features affected
Additional comments / quest�ons
Ms Brittingham asked if we expected any early utility work in upland areas Mr Cook
stated that at this time we don t expect any however we do not have plans from the
utility compames yet If any early upland work is needed all agencies would be
contacted prior to any land disturbance Any impacts from them will be included in the
package
Mr Biddlecome stated that a Sechon 10 would be needed for the new AT&T line
installed under the Chowan River
Ms Brrttingham asked when we anticipated the 4C C P meetmg Mr Cook stated
January 2012
Mr Biddlecome asked about the Coast Guard permit Mr Wood stated that we planned
on submitting all permits at the same time
The meeting was ad�ourned
R\Hyd a I cs\DOCUMENTS\R 2507A 4B M tes d