20000874_Meeting Minutes_20020827

Subject: Draft Minutes from Interagency Permit Drawing 4C Review
Meeting on August 27, 2002 for R -2231 (US 220 Bypass),
Richmond/Montgomery County
Team Members: Richard Spencer, USACE
John Hennessey, NCDWQ
David Cox, NCWRC
Howard Hall, NCFW (Absent)
Alice Gordon, PD & EA
Participants: Marshall Clawson, Hydraulics
Galen Cail, Hydraulics
Doug Taylor, Design Services
Randy Turner, PD & EA
Frank Fleming, Sungate Design
Stacey Bailey, Greenhorne & O'Mara
Tina Swiezy, RK & K
The meeting began with the distribution of the permit review agenda. Agency
representatives stated they would need more ample time to thoroughly review the permits.
However, if their previous comments had been addressed and subject revisions
incorporated, they did not see a problem getting permit approval. The
question/comments discussed at the meeting are summarized as follows:
1) Pipe slopes; Richard Spencer asked whether pipe inverts had been provided on the
permit plan views. It was stated that pipe slopes are shown for all cross pipes at
stream crossings. This was deemed acceptable.
2) 2:1 Side Slopes: On R -2231 A, Site IIA, John Hennessy questioned why 2:1 side
slopes (w/ guardrail) could create more impact than flatter side slopes (w /o guardrail).
It was explained that the use of guardrail requires an additional shoulder width of 3"
This often produces more impact than if a flatter slope was used, especially in shallow
fill situations. It was also pointed out that the whole wetland area was shown as
impacted, regardless of slope. This was deemed acceptable.
3) Natural Stream Desi : On R- 2231B, Site 6, and R- 2231CB, Site 3 & 6, it was
discussed that a field review of the reference reaches had taken place on 8/21/02 with
Dave Penrose (DWQ), Galen Cail, and Frank Fleming. From discussions with Dave
about the trip, John felt the reference reaches for the R- 2231CB section were accepted
but riot for the R -2231 B section. He said Dave wanted to use another reference reach
for this section. Galen and Frank both stated that, although Dave wanted this site to

— -- - - be investigated as a doss reference; we did not believe it was-to-be used to modify the
existing design. It was decided Dave Penrose would need to be consulted and the
topic further discussed with him. Also, John said the R -223 I CB morphological tables
would need to be completed.
4) Preformed Scour Holes: On R -2231 CA, Site I and N, Sta 173+00—L- (Lt) and
190 +40 —L- (Lt), respectively, it was proposed by John to use preformed scour holes.
It was stated they would be incorporated into the design.
5) A Basins: John wanted to know if the A basins were to be retained after
construction. It was explained the basins would be permanently retained.
6) R -3303 Permit: The preliminary permit for R -3303 was discussed. There was
debate whether the design and permit would need to be complete for this project
before the permit could be issued for R -2231. It was decided this issue would need to
be discussed at a higher level.