20141169 All Versions_Draft Meeting Minutes_20120628

a a STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
To: Brian Yamamoto
Chris Militscher
Chris Rivenbark
David Wainwright
David Harris
Ed Eatmon
Gary Jordan
June 28, 2012
Jim Speer
Omar Azizi
Ron Lucas
Steve Sollod
Travis Wilson
Thomas Steffens
From: John W. Twisdale, Jr., PE
Assistant State Hydraulics Engineer - TIP
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
Subject: Draft Minutes from the Hydraulic Design Review "4B" Meeting for R- 2514C:
US 17 from North of Maysville to South of NC 58 in Jones County.
The "413" Meeting for R -2514C was held on June 20, 2012 from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM at the
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit Conference Room at the Century Center Complex in Raleigh, NC. The
following were in attendance:
Team Members: Thomas Steffens, USACE (PRESENT)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (PRESENT)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (PRESENT)
Steve Sollod, NCDCM (PRESENT)
David Wainwright, NCDWQ (PRESENT)
Chris Militscher, EPA (PRESENT)
Ron Lucas, FHWA (ABSENT)
Jay Twisdale, NCDOT Hydraulics (PRESENT)
Support Staff: David Harris, NCDOT REU (ABSENT)
Jim Speer, NCDOT Roadway (PRESENT)
Omar Azizi, NCDOT Structures (PRESENT)
Brian Yamamoto, NCDOT PDEA (ABSENT)
Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT NES (PRESENT)
Ed Eatmon, NCDOT Division (PRESENT)
Participants: Amy Simes, NCDENR (PRESENT)
Karen Compton, USFS (PRESENT)
Art McMillan, NCDOT Hydraulics (PRESENT)
Brook Anderson, NCDOT Hydraulics (PRESENT)
Rachel Evans, NCDOT Hydraulics (PRESENT)
Danny Gardner, NCDOT Roadway (PRESENT)
Travis Potts, NCDOT Roadway (PRESENT)
Gordon Cashin, NCDOT NES (PRESENT)
Mark Pierce, NCDOT PDEA (PRESENT)
Mark Staley, NCDOT REU (PRESENT)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
HYDRAULICS UNIT BUILDING B
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORGIDOH1 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1590 RALEIGH NC

Meetina Minutes
The meeting was conducted by Jay Twisdale, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit. He began the meeting
with introductions and a brief overview of the project. He stated that the design is at 30%
completeness and that the conceptual drainage design has been reflected with a lateral 3 foot
base ditch that has a 5 foot berm. Jay continued the meeting by discussing the drainage layout
on each plan sheet with an emphasis on jurisdictional sites and wetland areas. Below are the
specific comments and discussions for each plan sheet.
Sheet 4 -8
Jay Twisdale stated that the intent of the drainage design is to maintain existing drainage
patterns and to minimize wetland impacts. He noted that this section of the project has a
conceptual design reflected as a lateral 3 foot base ditch with a 5 foot berm on the western side
of the project in order to reestablish the existing drainage pattern in that area. He also noted that
the Croatan National Forest is directly adjacent to the eastern side of the project at this section of
the project. He stated that there are no proposed ditches along the eastern side to minimize
wetland impacts.
Sheet 9
Jay Twisdale stated that this plan sheet is similar to the previous five plan sheets. He mentioned
that there was a transition in this area to a v ditch. He also stated that there are no proposed
ditches on the eastern side of the project to minimize impacts to the wetlands that are part of the
Croatan National Forest. He also mentioned that there will be some proposed ditch work on the
western side of the project at the tie -in for — DRV2A- in order to maintain existing drainage flows
of those ditches associated with the privately owned drive.
Tom Steffens asked if the ditches on the western side would really be causing the impacts as
represented on the plans. Jay Twisdale responded that the design has not been completed and
that he anticipates that wetland impacts will be less. It was agreed that the actual wetland
impacts will be reviewed during the permit review.
Travis Wilson expressed his concerns over the controlled access and animal fence limits. He
stated that the current fence schematic could cause animals to be trapped on the roadway due to
the western side fencing being shorter than the eastern side. He stated that he wants both sides
to be the same length and in line with each other. Travis Wilson recommended that for safety
reasons the eastern side fencing be shortened to match the proposed western side fencing
length. Karen Compton agreed with him that this was the best option considering that the
western side could not be extended.
Sheet 10
Jay Twisdale stated that there are no proposed ditches on either side of the road to minimize
wetland impacts in this area. He also stated that the existing privately owned road on the western
side of the project has roadside ditches that are functioning and flowing away from the project fill.
Someone posed a question concerning access for the fill slope which is shown outside of the
proposed right of way and control access fence at the Croatan National Forest. Mark Pierce
responded that he was certain that we have access to the fill slope. Karen Compton agreed.
Sheet 11
Jay Twisdale stated that there are no proposed ditches on the eastern side of the project in order
to minimize wetland impacts. He also stated that proposed ditches will be picked up again on the
western side in order to maintain existing drainage patterns.
Page 2 of 6

Mark Pierce requested that Omar Azizi discuss the wildlife crossing. Mark also stated that he
believes that what has been designed far exceeds the original commitment. Omar Azizi stated
that the crossing will be 120 feet in length from fill face to fill face and exceeds the minimum 60
foot requirement from toe of fill to toe of fill. Mark Pierce added that the actual toe of fill to toe of
fill distance will be approximately 75 -80 feet. Jay Twisdale asked what the vertical clearance of
the structure will be. Omar Azizi responded that it will be 10 feet.
Sheet 12
Jay Twisdale stated that this plan sheet was similar to previous. He stated that there are no
proposed ditches on the eastern side of the project in order to minimize wetland impacts. He also
stated that proposed ditches will be continued on the western side in order to maintain existing
drainage patterns. He mentioned that this is where the completed design begins and that details
are shown for clarification.
Travis Wilson had same comment for fences and recommended that the eastern side fencing be
shortened to match the proposed western side fencing length.
David Wainwright asked why the 36" RCP was being buried 0.5 feet especially since it was not in
a jurisdictional area. Steve Sollod made the comment that this was not a CAMA county. Brook
Anderson responded that it was designed to be buried because wetlands were present. There
was some discussion over it needing to be buried and Jay Twisdale agreed that the pipe could
be raised.
Sheet 13
Jay Twisdale stated that this plan sheet was similar to previous. He stated that there are no
proposed ditches on the eastern side of the project in order to minimize wetland impacts. He also
stated that proposed ditches will be continued on the western side in order to maintain existing
drainage patterns.
Tom Steffens asked about the dimensions and depths of the proposed ditches. Brook Anderson
responded that the topography is very flat and that the proposed ditches have similar slope,
depth, and capacity of existing ditches. Tom Steffens asked if there will be outlet protection at
the ends of pipes. Jay Twisdale responded that there will be rip rap outlet protection.
Sheet 14
Jay Twisdale stated that this plan sheet was similar to previous pages. He stated that proposed
ditches will be continued on the western side in order to maintain existing drainage patterns. He
also stated that this page is where the wetlands end and proposed ditches would begin on the
eastern side of the project at the edge of the Blue Rock Structures property line. Steve Sollod
asked if this ditch was tying to an existing ditch. Brook Anderson confirmed that the proposed
ditch picks up the existing ditch that runs along the property line and conveys this flow down the
proposed ditch which maintains existing drainage flow.
David Wainwright brought up that the drainage divide between the White Oak and the Neuse
River basins was located approximately in the middle of this plan sheet.
Sheet 15
Jay Twisdale stated that on this plan sheet proposed ditches will be used to maintain existing
drainage patterns. Ditches will not be used in wetlands on the eastern side to minimize wetland
impacts. No other comments were made.
Sheet 16
Page 3 of 6

Jay Twisdale stated that on this plan sheet proposed ditches are being used to maintain existing
drainage patterns. He stated that there will be a channel change to the jurisdictional stream at
approximately station 182 +00 right. Tom Steffens was concerned that the pipe located near the
channel change would be capturing the flow of the jurisdictional stream and re- routing it across
the roadway to the western side of the project. Jay Twisdale responded that the invert elevations
of the pipe are set to prevent that. The pipes inverts allow for positive drainage and prevent
backflow from the jurisdictional stream. He also mentioned the pipe at approximately station
181 +00 and the one located at approximately 173 +00 would work in parallel to convey water to
the jurisdictional stream and away from the roadway.
David Wainwright requested that the buffer zones be arched at the beginning of the jurisdictional
stream. Brook Anderson commented that we usually stop the buffer zones at the toe of fill. Chris
Rivenbark commented that arched buffer zones were done in the past but currently we do not do
it; he also stated that even if the buffer zone is arched around the beginning of the jurisdictional
stream those areas beyond the toe of fill would be exempt. After some discussion, Jay Twisdale
agreed to arch the buffer zone around the end of the jurisdictional stream.
David Wainwright expressed his concerns about the channel relocation of the jurisdictional
stream and the rip rap used to line the side slopes. He asked if it was possible to shorten the
impacts to this section of the stream. Jay Twisdale responded that this channel change was
designed to minimize impacts. The channel change is located 10 feet from the toe of fill.
Sheet 17
Jay Twisdale stated that on this plan sheet proposed ditches are being used to maintain existing
drainage patterns. He stated that there is a jurisdictional stream at station 195 +00 right that
proposed ditches will be impacting. This stream has vertical side slopes due to wooden retaining
walls that have been installed from the existing roadside ditches to some distance (it extends
380 feet) downstream. Jay Twisdale stated that the retaining wall structure will be removed
within our right of way and a rip rap lined standard base ditch will be used as a tail ditch to tie
into the jurisdictional stream.
David Wainwright requested that the buffer zones be arched at the beginning of the jurisdictional
stream. Jay Twisdale agreed to arch the buffer zone 50 feet around the end of the jurisdictional
stream.
Tom Steffens is concerned about the 24" CMP located just downstream of the 36" RCP located
at station 191 +34. Jay Twisdale responded that beyond the right of way line it is the downstream
property owner's obligation to convey water. Tom Steffens asked if this implies that more water
was being added to this stream. Brook Anderson and Jay Twisdale confirmed that the water
being conveyed to the stream matches the existing drainage patterns.
David Wainwright asked what type of lining will be used in the roadside ditches. Jay Twisdale
responded that all roadside ditches will be grass lined. David Wainwright approved of this.
Sheet 18
Jay Twisdale verified that there are no jurisdictional streams or wetlands. No other comments
were made.
Sheet 19
Jay Twisdale verified that there are no jurisdictional streams or wetlands. No other comments
were made.
Sheet 20
Jay Twisdale verified that there are no jurisdictional streams or wetlands
Page 4 of 6

Tom Steffens expressed his concern that there was no driveway tie for a property owner near
station 226 +00 left. Danny Gardner confirmed that there is no driveway tie because this area is
controlled access. Mark Pierce commented that there was a driveway tie on the plans earlier in
the planning. Jay Twisdale and Ed Eatmon wrapped up the discussion that this is a matter for
right of way and that options for this property include buying the property or providing a service
road.
Sheet 21
Jay Twisdale verified that there were no jurisdictional streams or wetlands. No other comments
were made.
Sheet 22
Jay Twisdale stated that on this plan sheet proposed ditches will be used to maintain existing
drainage patterns and that no ditches will be used in wetlands to minimize impacts. He stated
that at the site of the proposed equalizer pipe, which is located in the middle of the wetland, that
either the ditches need to continue through the wetland or toe protection should be used on the
fill slope. Tom Steffens commented that he would prefer the use of toe protection on the fill
slope. He also stated that the equalizer pipe should be sized appropriately and that the ditches
should end before the wetlands.
Sheet 23
Jay Twisdale stated that on this plan sheet proposed ditches will be used to maintain existing
drainage patterns and that ditches will not be used in wetlands to minimize wetland impacts. Tom
Steffens expressed his concern about the proposed ditch on the eastern side of the project
impacting a wetland (this is at station 269 +40 RT). Jay Twisdale stated that the drainage
proposed in this section of the project is still conceptual and has not been designed yet. He also
commented that the ditch could be shortened so it would not drain the wetland. Jay Twisdale
also stated there appears to be a natural crest at station 270 +70 RT and it may be possible to put
the ditch crest there draining some water back to the wetland. Tom Steffens stated that he would
prefer if the ditch crest occur at that location and allow for some water to drain back to the
wetland.
Sheet 24
Jay Twisdale verified that there were no jurisdictional streams or wetlands. No other comments
were made.
Sheet 25
Tom Steffens asked if a parallel stream located at the end of the project was a jurisdictional
stream. Jay Twisdale, Brook Anderson, and Rachel Evans confirmed that this parallel stream
was not a jurisdictional stream, but that it would drain to a perpendicular stream that is a
jurisdictional stream and which is located at the beginning of R- 2514D. No other comments were
made.
Sheet 26
Jay Twisdale stated that on this plan sheet proposed ditches will be used to maintain existing
drainage patterns and ditches will not be used in wetlands to minimize wetland impacts. Some
discussion arose over the purpose of this driveway upgrade which was separate from the rest of
the project. Mark Pierce confirmed that this had been secured with the property owners. Karen
Compton confirmed that this was to replace access that will be lost when the project cuts off the
existing access via Forest Service Road #204 further north on US 17.
Sheet 27
Page 5 of 6

Jay Twisdale verified that there were no jurisdictional streams or wetlands. No other comments
were made.
Discussion on Wildlife Crossings
Gary Jordan brought up the topic of the wildlife crossing. He wanted to clarify whether or not
animal fencing was proposed for underneath the wildlife crossing. Jim Speer, Danny Gardner,
and Mark Pierce clarified that the fencing was shown on the plans and would continue
underneath the crossing and tie into the proposed animal fencing on the opposite side of the
roadway.
Travis Wilson requested if larger pipes could be used in the area to aid with wildlife crossings at
fill embankments. He stated that these pipes should have micro - topography which means they
would need to be backfilled and could not use 36" pipes or smaller. Mark Pierce commented that
this has been talked about in the past. He thinks that there should be coordination and guidance
on this matter. All are in agreement that the grade should not be raised for these additional pipe
crossings. Gary Jordan commented that these pipes are very necessary for the crossings of
reptiles and amphibians in these areas, especially wetland areas. He mentioned Dennis Herman
as a good resource. Someone mentioned that the Oak Island Project has many good examples
of this style of wildlife crossing though there are significant differences between the two facilities.
It was also decided that there should be another meeting to focus on the design of these
additional wildlife pipe crossings, specifically spacing, sizing, day lighting, climate /moisture, etc.
Those that need to be included in this meeting were specified as Jay Twisdale, Karen Compton,
Gary Jordan, Travis Wilson, and Dennis Herman. Danny Gardner agreed to provide pdf files to
Hydraulics Unit of the subject area. Consensus was reached that a meeting should be scheduled
when the participants would already be in town for another meeting. PDFs of the proposed plans
in this area of the project have been sent to Karen Compton, Gary Jordan, and Travis Wilson.
cc: Amy Simes
Karen Compton
Art McMillan
Jay Twisdale
Brook Anderson
Rachel Evans
Danny Gardner
Travis Potts
Gordon Cashin
Mark Pierce
Mark Staley
Page 6 of 6