20020672_Meeting Minutes_20120509

Section 404 /NEPA Merger Project Team
Design Sections 1, 2A, 2B — Concurrence Point 4B Meeting
Meeting Minutes
Design Build TIP No. R- 3329/R -2559
Monroe Connector /Bypass
From Near I -485 at US 74 to
US 74 Between the ToN -,ns of Wingate and Marshville
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
Date: Mav 9, 2012
Time: 9:00 AM
Place: Structure Design Conference Room, Century Center
Present:
Ms. Christy Shumate, HNTB \NCTA
Ms. Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Mr. Tommv Peacock, RK &K
Mr. Jeff Meador, RK &K
Ms. Tina Swiezy, RK &K
Mr. Matthew L. Cook. RK &K
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA (call in)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Polly Lespinasse, DWQ
Mr. David Wainwright, DWQ
Mr. Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Mr. Larry Thompson, NCDOT Division 10
Mr. Tim Boland, NCDOT Division 10
Mr. Scott Koeppel, MBC
Mr. Lindv Hallman, MBC
Mr. Michael Wood, The Catena Group
Ms. Ivy Kimbrough, The Catena Group
Ms. Liz Hair, USACE (call in)
Mr. Rick Baucom, NCTA
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Amv Simes, NCDENR
Mr. Michael Turchv, NCDOT - NEU
Mr. Marshall Clawson, NCDOT — Hvdraulics
Mr. Bill Zerman, NCDOT — Hvdraulics
Mr. Zak Hamidi, NCDOT — NCTA
Mr. Mark Stalev, NCDOT — REU
Mr. Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT — SMU
The 30% Hydraulic Review was held to in order to reach agreement on concurrence point 4B for the US
74 Monroe Bypass in Mecklenberg \Union Counties. The 4B review was completed for the portion of the
project from Station 95 +00 to 648 +00. This station range includes design sections 1, 2A, and 2B. The
following items were discussed and conclusions reached:
Matthew Cook began the meeting giving a brief status review of the project and the meetings held thus
far. He reiterated that the field meetings for the remainder of the project will be held on May 22 and (if
needed) May 30.
Jennifer Harris asked that everyone introduce themselves. Following introductions, Ms. Harris gave a
synopsis of the recent events affecting the project due the pending lawsuit. NCTA and the Design -Build
Team intend to continue to work on the design of the project. However, NCTA will not submit the permit
modifications to the agencies at this time due to the appeals court riling. Marella Buncick asked, due to

the lawsuit, that written authorization be provided by FHWA that talks and meetings between NCTA and
the agencies can continue and are appropriate.
Mr. Cook gave an overview of the design section 2A on the project public hearing maps. He then went
through the project to discuss impacts to streams and wetlands on each sheet.
Sheets 13 -14: No impacts.
Sheet 15 -16 (W19, S31c): Orig. Site 9, Prop. Site 101, -L- 262 +00; A portion of a wetland will be
impacted by the fill slope. S3 1c will be a total take. The existing drainage pattern will be mimicked by a
Lateral Base Ditch. The stream (S3 1c) ties to S28c on Site 102.
Sheet 16 (W17, S28a): Orig. Site 9, Prop. Site 102, -L- 265 +50; 2 @9'x7' RCBC. The RCBC has a
slope of 0.65% and will be buried 1.0' with a 2' sill in the left (facing downstream) cell. Due to the
shallow slope, baffles were not designed. Marla Chambers asked that we look at this site in the field to
determine if baffles are needed since Mr. Cook stated that the existing stream width is only (typ.) 4.0'. A
portion of a wetland will be impacted by the fill slope. Polly Lespinasse asked that the lateral base ditch
along the left (outlet end) tie to the stream instead of across the RCBC bench.
Sheet 17 (S34): Orig. Site 10, Prop. Site 103, -L- 293 +50; RCBC. The RCBC at this site is still being
designed. Mr. Cook stated that the D -B Team was concerned about impacting strictures just upstream of
the project and had been waiting for additional survey data that was provided earlier in the week.
Sheet 17 (S36): Orig. Site 11, Prop. Site 104, -L- 298 +00; Ditch and 3 -36" RCP. Mr. Cook stated that
the D -B Team was concerned about impacting strictures just upstream of the project and had been
waiting for additional survey data that was provided earlier in the week. Two of the 36" RCPs would be
used as overflow devices for the ditch. The stream does not become jurisdictional until downstream of
the project. The impact is due to removal of an existing pipe downstream of the project. The 3 -36" RCPs
would not be buried.
Sheet 18 (S37c. S37d, P9): Orig. Sites 12 and 13, Prop. Site 105, -L- 370 +50 - 374 +00; RCBC. The
RCBC at this site is still being designed. Given the nature of the stream, the Monroe Bypass, Seacrest
Shortcut Rd., and a service road in the area, the drainage design in this area has been difficult. The D -B
Team felt that the best RCBC design and way to enter the stream downstream of the project was shown
and allowed for the downstream channel tie to enter more smoothly than if we had lengthened the RCBC
and angled it to go under all 3 alignments. Ms. Buncick asked if the 2 -60" RCPs under Seacrest Shortcut
Rd. could tie directly to the RCBC. Mr. Cook stated that the opening was needed to allow drainage to
enter the RCBC from a lateral base ditch along the —L -; also it would present design, constriction and
maintenance issues to create a stricture that ties two pipes of this size to a RCBC. Liz Hair asked that we
visit this site in the field.
Sheet 19 (P10): Orig. Site 13, Prop. Site 106, -L- 376 +25; The pond will be a total take. No additional
comments.
Sheet 20 (W22b, W25, S38a, S38b): Ong. Site 14, Prop. Site 107, -L- 392 +50, -L- 396 +00; 10'x6'
RCBC. The RCBC has a slope of 0.78% and will be buried 1.0'. Due to the existing width of the stream
2

(6.0') and shallow slope, baffles were not designed. A portion of wetland W22b will be impacted by the
fill slope and RCBC. Wetland W25 will be a total take.
Sheets 21, 82 -85: No impacts.
Sheet 86: No Orig. Site 4, Prop. Site 108, - SR107- 14 +00; The pond will be a total take. No additional
comments.
Sheets 87: No impacts.
Mr. Cook gave an overview of the design section 1 on the project public hearing maps. He then went
through the project to discuss impacts to streams and wetlands on each sheet.
Sheets 4 -6: No impacts.
Sheet 7, 75 (S14b, S14c, S14d, S14e, S15a, S15b): Orig. Sites 1 and 2, Prop. Site 1, -L- 140 +00, -Y111-
18+50-24+00; RCBC and overflow pipe. The RCBC and overflow pipe at this site are still being
designed. The D -B Team intends to remove the existing 3 -66" RCPs under US 74. The RCBC will tie
with a special stricture to an existing 120" CMP that nuns underneath a property downstream. The
overflow pipe will continue somewhat parallel to the 120" CMP outside the downstream property parking
lot and tie to the stream. This portion of the Monroe Bypass is elevated approximately 20'.
Sheet 8 (S16a): Orig. Site 5, Prop. Site 2, -L- 152 +50; The stream enters a 30" RCP. However
planimetrics shows the pipe exiting in to the existing US 74 median and no call on the JS. The stream
will be impacted by the fill slope. We are performing additional surveys in this area.
Sheet 9 (S17a. S17b, S17c, S19): Orig. Site 7, Prop. Sites 3 and 4, -L- 176 +00; RCBCs. The RCBCs at
this site are still being designed. The stream will continue to flow to its current location. The existing
pipes conveying it under the new alignments will be removed. Mr. Cook pointed out that the D -B Team
realigned the alignments and the project is now avoiding wetland W 10 north of the project which was an
original permit site.
Sheets 10 -12: No impacts.
Sheet 75 (WX800): Orig. Site 1, Prop. Site 5, -Y111- 11 +50- 14 +50; RCBC and overflow pipe. A
portion of a wetland will be impacted by the fill slope. No additional comments.
Sheets 76 -77: No impacts.
Sheet 78 (SX 504, WX207): Orig. Site 6, Prop. Site 6, -SR16- 11 +50; A portion of a wetland and stream
will be impacted by the fill slope. No additional comments.
Sheet 79: No Orig. Site 4, Prop. Site 7, -Y112- 28 +00; A portion of a wetland will be impacted by the fill
slope. Ms. Hair asked that the reasoning for this new impact be explained since it was not part of the
original permit. Mr. Cook stated that the new impact might be due to the multi -use concrete path. Ms.
Harris will look in to the reasoning behind this impact.

Sheets 80 -81: No impacts.
After a short break, Jeff Meador gave an overview of the design section 2B on the project public hearing
maps. He then went through the project to discuss impacts to streams and wetlands on each sheet.
Sheet 22 (S039C): Orig. Site 15, Prop. Site 150, -L- 424 +00; A 3 @12'x8' RCBC with two 48"
floodplain pipes is proposed at this location. The culvert will be buried 1' and the two outer cells will
have sills. The proposed ditches at the site will be adjusted to avoid the floodplain benches at the culvert.
Sheet 23 (5043): Orig. Site 16, Prop. Site 151, -L- 433 +00; Two 66" pipes are proposed at this location.
One pipe will be buried 1' and the other pipe will be raised above the streambed to direct normal flow to
one pipe.
Sheet 24: No impacts.
Sheet 25 (S052A, 5053, W032): Orig. Site 17, Prop. Site 152, -L- 473 +00 to 484 +00; The existing
stream at 474 +50 right will be relocated into a vegetated ditch adjacent to the right side of the roadway.
The feature will not cross the proposed roadway. A 72" RCP buried 1' will be provided at 483 +00 right.
The wetland at 474 +00 left will also be impacted by the project. The existing channel from 477 +00 to
482 +00 left will remain and will not be filled. Liz Hair requested that the team visit the site at the May
22nd field meeting.
Sheet 26: No impacts.
Sheet 27 (5047): Orig. Site 18, Prop. Site 153, -L- 512 +00; South Fork of Crooked Creek will be
bridged. The bride will not cause any direct impacts to the stream. There will be minor impacts to tie
proposed roadway ditch to the stream. Rip rap will be placed on the floodplain under the proposed deck
drains to minimize erosion from the deck drainage. Deck drains will not be placed directly over the
stream channel.
Sheet 28 (5055, WX822): Orig. Site 19, Prop. Site 154, -L- 515 +00; A 2 @8'x8' RCBC is proposed at
this location. One barrel of the culvert will have a sill at this location and the culvert will be buried 1'.
The existing stream is 4' wide. The project team will visit the culvert during the May 22nd field meeting
and determine if baffles are needed. The proposed ditches at the site will be adjusted to avoid the
floodplain benches at the culvert.
Pond P25 is also located on this sheet. At this time no impacts to the pond are anticipated.
Sheet 29: No impacts.
Sheet 30: No impacts. Jeff Meador noted that the proposed design along Willis Long Road has been
revised to eliminate impacts to S064b and WX823 that were shown in the original permit application
(Original Site 24A).
Sheet 31: No impacts.
4

Sheet 32 (S068B, S068C): Orig. Site 24, Prop. Site 155, -L- 586 +50; A 12'x7' RCBC is proposed at this
location. The culvert will be buried 1'. The existing stream is 4' wide. Baffles are planned for this
culvert.
Sheet 32 (5069): Orig. Site 25, Prop. Site 156, -L- 591 +00; A 60" RCP is proposed at this location. The
pipe will be buried 1'. Marella Buncick raised concern about potential erosion at the NE corner of the
crossing. Jeff Meador noted that the proposed ditch will be flattened to the extent possible to minimize
erosion.
Sheet 33 (S070B): Orig. Site 26, Prop. Site 157, -L- 605 +50; A 72" RCP is proposed at this location.
The pipe will be buried 1'.
Sheet 34 (5071): Orig. Site 27, Prop. Site 158, -L- 614 +00; A 66" RCP is proposed at this location. The
pipe will be buried 1'.
Sheet 35 -36: No impacts.
Sheet 88 -92: No impacts.
Sheet 93 (P23): Orig. Site 23, Prop. Site 159, -Y204- 13 +50 Lt; Rock fill will be placed in the existing
pond within the proposed right -of -way. The entire pond will not be drained. Roadway drainage will be
discharged to the pond in the proposed condition to match the existing condition.
Sheet 94: No impacts. Jeff Meador noted that the proposed design along Rocky River Road has been
revised to eliminate impacts to 5047 that were shown in the original permit application (Original Site 21).
Sheet 95: No impacts. Jeff Meador noted that the proposed service road has been revised to eliminate
impacts to S058c and W050 that were shown in the original permit application (Original Site 22).
Sheet 96: No impacts.
5

N: ,Projects 2010`,R3329 1\lonroe Bypass Admin,Meetings Agency bltgs, Minutes `,R -3329 R -2559 Sections 1 2A 2B_4B Meeting 05- 09- 2012.doc