20130918_U2525b 4c FINAL meeting minutes_ 03-21-2013_20130415

Minutes of the Interagency Hydraulic Design Review (4c) Meeting on March 21, 2013 for U- 2525B,
Guilford County
Participant: Team Members:
Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics (present)
Andrew Williams, USACE (present)
Amy Euliss, NCDWQ (present)
Kevin Fischer NCDOT Strictures (present)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (absent)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (absent)
Chris Militscher, EPA (telephone)
James Speer, NCDOT Roadway (present)
Patty Eason, NCDOT Division 7 (telephone)
Felix Davila, FHWA (absent)
Beverly Robinson, NCDOT PDEA (absent)
David Harris, NCDOT REU (absent)
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT PDEA (present)
Other Attendees
Danny Gardner, NCDOT Roadway
John Gauthier, NCDOT Roadway
Paul Fisher, NCDOT Hydraulics
Shawn Harris, NCDOT Hydraulics
David Shaeffer, USACE
Steve McKee, NCDOT Utilities
Greg Price, NCDOT PDEA
Lisa Feller, NCDOT PDEA
Marls Staley, NCDOT REU
Phil Harris, NCDOT NES
Randy Griffin, NCDOT PDEA
Brett Feulner, NCDOT PDEA
Pete Allen, NCDOT PDEA
Michael Abuya, NCDOT TRB
Jamshid Hafshejani, NCDOT Util.
It should be noted that the 30% Hydraulic Design Review (4b) meeting for this project was held on 9/24/2008.
The 4C meeting commenced at approximately 10:15 a.m. Randy Henegar ( NCDOT Hydraulics Unit) conducted
the meeting and began reviewing the project sheet -by -sheet taking comments from the attendees. Comments
were as follows:
Mitigation Plans: The Mitigation Plans will need to be updated to the current standards. Response: Randy
Giffin will coordinate this work.
2. General: All Plan Sheets need to be checked to ensure that Jurisdictional Streams are labeled "JS"
Response: done
General: USACE requested that each Site No. be linked to the Wetland Number in the document. Response:
NES will provide this documentation in the Permit Package.
4. General: DWQ requested that for each multi- barrel culvert, note if sills are used on the plan sheets.
Response: done
Plan Sheet 45: Partition Site 3 into 3A, 313, 3C, etc. Also, do a "total take" on the wetlands near —L- Sta.
46 +50 (Lt.) Response: done
6. Plan Sheet 47: Check to see if the various wetland sites for Site No. 5 between the project slope stake line and
Stream Mitigation Site No. 2 are a "take" or not. Response: These sites will be a total take.
Page 1

7. General: Several Blow -Ups may be needed in tight spaces throughout the plans to ensure clarity. Field Plans
are typically on a small scale. Response: Six (6) sheets have been added to the Permit Drawings showing
Blow -ups of the following Sites: 1, la, 1b, 2, S, 5a, 5b, 6, 6a, 7, 22, 22a, 22b, 26, 27, 28 and 35.
8. Plan Sheet 48: Use Bank Stabilization at pipe outlets in Jurisdictional Streams for Site 9 and throughout the
project. Response: done
9. Plan Sheet 49: Break Site 10 into two separate sites (10 -A and 10 -13). Response: done
10. Plan Sheet 413: Show the non - jurisdictional pond near —L- Sta. 164 +00. Response: done
11. Plan Sheet 414: The stream south side of —Y9- is mitigable. The stream north side of —Y9- is not mitigable.
Also, DWQ would like the bank stabilization extended on the south side of —Y9 -. Response: done
12. Plan Sheet 419: Near —L- Sta. 240 +00 (Lt.) a Permanent Check Dam will be installed just inside the R/W
line. This stream will be reclassified as Intermittent (from Perennial) and will have a 1:1 Mitigation Ratio.
Response: done
13. Plan Sheet 433: The general comment was made that NCDOT will attempt to install Stormwater controls
inside the loops wherever possible. Hydro agreed to raise the invert and install a rip rap berm at the inlet
inside the loop on this sheet. Response: done
14. Plan Sheet 437: Site 35 will need a "Blow -Up" for clarity. Response: done
15. The Corps of Engineers questioned whether Concurrence Point 3 needed to be resolved prior to issuing a
permit. Response: Lisa Feller will provide the Corps with documentation from a previous meeting
addressing this issue.
No further comments were recorded, and the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Subsequent to the March 21, 2013 Meeting, NCDOT received comments from NCDWQ regarding the Mitigation
Plans.
For the areas that will be excavated down to the floodplain, soil amendments need to be added for
vegetative success. I think there is a detail for this, but it is not incorporated into the discussion in the Site
Plans. Response: done
2. Site 2: It is stated that "special attention must be also given to the possible change in flow regime in this
system as it may be influenced by storm water runoff from the proposed roadway." Please elaborate on
what this means for the design. Response: done
3. Site 5: As we discussed in the meeting, there is a "potential road" labeled on the plans. Please determine
what this road is. Also, if there is no road, can you acquire the right of way between the road and the
mitigation site, and incorporate it into the Mitigation Plan? Response: done
Page 2

Subsequent to the March 21, 2013 Meeting, NCDOT also received comments from USACE regarding the
Mitigation Plans.
NCDOT will need to indicate why it is environmentally preferable to provide on -site mitigation instead of
through EEP. Response: clone
2. For each stream that is being "relocated" or restored, we will need the appropriate USACE stream score
and /or the mitigation ratio that was determined (if it was determined) during the site visit. This will assist
us in determining if the relocation may provide all the appropriate mitigation or if additional credits will
need to be purchased through EEP. Response: done
NOTE: NEU will address each of the above comments in detail with the respective agencies.
Page 3