20160787_Meeting Minutes_20120803

Subject: Minutes from the Interagency 411 Concurrence Meeting for Hydraulic Design
July 26, 2012 for R -3826 in Martin County
Team Members:
Ron Lucas - FHWA
David Wainwright - NCDWQ
Chris Militscher — EPA (Phone)
Bill Biddlecome — USACE
Gary Jordan — USFWS
Travis Wilson —NCWRC
Other Participants:
Marshall Clawson - Hydraulics
Dan Bacon - USACE
Gary Jordan — USFWS
Gary Lovering— Roadway
Marls Staley - REU
John Richards — PDEA
Omar Azizi — Strictures
John Merritt — NES
Phil Harris — PDEA/NES
Bob Capehart — Division I (Phone)
Jonathan Henderson, HDR
James Rice, HDR
Amanda Cochran, HDR
Josh Massrock, HDR
General introduction of the project was initiated by Marshall Clawson. Introductions were made
by all in attendance. James Rice, HDR hydraulic design engineer initiated the review by
describing the overall project.
Each plan sheet was then reviewed.
Sheet 4:
No comments.
Sheet 5:
No comments.
Sheet 6:
No comments.
Sheet 7:
James Rice stated that guardrail will be drawn in for the 3: 1 slopes and that the hydraulic design
includes boxes discharging into a preformed scour hole for the shoulder berm gutter that will be
needed along the guardrail.
Bill Biddlecome asked if the 30" equalizer pipes will be buried.
Page 1 of 4

Marshall Clawson stated that equalizer pipes are not buried.
Sheet 8:
Bill Biddlecome stated that the stream showing up was considered a JD (UT 10) in the FONSI.
John Merritt confirmed with Bill that the JD expired in 2009 and would need to be updated.
NEU is to verify the stream based on the new requirements of ordinary high water. Updated file
is to be provided to the Team when verified.
Sheet 9:
No comments.
Sheet 10:
No comments.
Sheet 11:
No comments.
Sheet 12:
Bill Biddlecome asked about the access and farm land acquisition which were issues from the
farmers discussed from previous concurrence meetings. Gary Lovering stated that roadway has
revised alignment to help minimize the impact to farmland. Bill Biddlecome asked for the
impact of farmland.
Bill Biddlecome asked if the culvert was aligned with the stream.
James Rice responded that the culvert is aligned with the stream based on HDR's field survey.
Bill Biddlecome asked about the previous commitment to look at slopes steeper than 3: 1 in this
area. Marshall Clawson responded that the Division did not want slopes steeper than 3:1 due to
concerns with erosion and stability of the steeper slopes.
Sheet 13:
Marshall Clawson noted the blue dashed line outside the ROW and stated that it looks like it
corresponds to wetland site WC. Marshall stated that if it is a wetland site that the wetland shape
is usually closed. This wetland is not impacted by the project.
Sheet 14:
No comments.
Page 2 of 4

Sheet 15:
No comments.
Conclusion:
Marshall initiated a discussion of stream lengths and differences in stream designation from the
original design to the alternative that is currently proposed. The current stream lengths and
designations do not match the FONSI due to the new alignment.
John Merritt stated that he would make a field visit to verify JD.
Marshall Clawson said that the 4C meeting would tentatively be late 2013 to early 2014.
Division proposed a question to the agencies about flattening out the side slopes at the wetland
on Sheet 7 due to maintenance and safety concerns. Chris Militscher stated that the division has
already made the commitment to use 3:1 slopes from the 4A meeting. The discussion concluded
with the team providing impact numbers to compare the 3:1 slopes and guardrail impacts with
the 4:1 slope without guardrail impacts and a decision would be made after looking at the impact
numbers.
Meeting Adjourned
Impact numbers to wetland WM as calculated by HDR (Plansheet 7)
4:1 slopes without guardrail
Permanent fill in wetlands = 0.61 AC
Mechanized Clearing = 0.12 AC
3:1 slopes with guardrail
Permanent fill in wetlands = 0.56 AC
Mechanized Clearing = 0.12 AC
Note: The 4:1 side slopes are also going to require some additional ROW or easement compared
to the 3:1 slopes.
Page 3 of 4

The following cross section is an example of the differences between 3:1 side slopes with
guardrail (shown in red) and 4:1 side slopes without guardrail (shown in purple).
S.S. 75.25
o.
Page 4 of 4
3, 4:7
S.S. 75.13