20190230_Meeting Minutes_20131004

DRAFT Minutes from the Interagency 4B Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
State Project 34472.1.4 (R-2582A)inNorthamptonCounty
F.A. Project: NHF-158(7)
Meeting Date: September19, 2013
Minutes Date: October 4, 2013
Team Members:Support Staff/Other Attendees:
Tracey Wheeler, USACE(Present)Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT-PDEA NES (Present)
Gary Jordan, USFWS(Present)John Merritt, NCDOT-NEU (Present)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC(Present)Paul Atkinson, NCDOT Hydraulics(Present)
Ron Lucas, FHWA (Absent)Omar Azizi, NCDOT –SMU (Present)
Chris Militscher, EPA (Absent)Scott Emory, NCDOT Div.1(Present)
David Wainwright, NCDWR(Present)Jerry Jennings, NCDOT Div. 1 (Absent)
Bill Stephens, URS (Present)Jason Moore, NCDOT Roadway (Absent)
Dennis Hoyle, URS (Present)Bryan Key, NCDOT Roadway(Present)
Claudia Lee, URS (Present)Robert O’Dell,NCDOTRoadway(Present)
David Harris, NCDOT Roadside (Absent)
Charles Cox, NCDOT-PDEA (Absent)
Corey Bousquet, NCDOT Utilities (Absent)
Sonia Carrillo, NCDWR (Present)
Project Description:
R-2582A is located in Northampton County and consistsof improving US 158to a 4 lane facility with a
typical 46’ median from NC 46 just west of I-95 in Roanoke Rapids to just east of SR 1312 (St. Johns
Church Road). The project is approximately 8.4 miles long with approximately 5.4 miles wideningalong
the existing roadway and approximately 3.0 miles on new location.
Minutes:
The “4B” Meeting for R-2582A was held on September 19, 2013 from 2:45 PM to 4:15 PM in the NCDOT
Structure Design Conference Room C, at the Century Center Complex in Raleigh, NC.
Introductions were made by all in attendance.
Bill Stephensprovided a brief description of the project andproceeded through the 4B Hydraulic Redline
Plans dated September2013.
General:
-It was noted that the current jurisdictional delineations have expired due to their age and that re-
verification is currently underway by NCDOT.
-Cross pipes in jurisdictional streams up to 48” will be buried below the stream bed elevations 20% of
their diameter. Pipes over 48” will be buried 1’ below the stream bed.
-URS noted that the proposed drainage design currently shown on the 4B plans is preliminary and
subject to change as the design progresses.
Sheet 5:
-Impacts include project fill in wetlands and a jurisdictional stream.
-Existing stream water sourcewasquestioned onthe JS(jurisdictional stream)on this sheet. URS
indicated that the stream currently receives flow from the north side of the existing roadway as well
14
R-2582AHydraulics Design 4BMeeting NotesPage of

as the south side of the roadway. Flow from the south side of the roadway (inlet end of the existing
cross pipe) is from existing roadway ditches.Existing flow patterns will be maintained in the
proposed design.
-It was questioned if only the channel on the north side of the project was considered jurisdictional.
Currently the JS designationreceived from NCDOT showsthe channel on the north side of the
roadwaybeginning at the outlet end of the existing cross pipeas a JS.
Sheet 7:
-Wetlands present on the south side of the project. No impacts anticipated. No comments.
Sheet 8:
-Project impacts include fill in wetlands and a jurisdictional stream (Arthur’s Creek). An existing box
culvert is proposed to be extended.
-It was questioned if sills could be added to the culvert to reduce the flow width.This culvert is being
extended and the existing culvert has no sills. Adding sills to this culvert would reduce the flow area
that is currently being provided and wouldcause increases in flood elevations upstream.
-It was questioned if the check dam in the lateral ditch atthe inlet end of the culvert willhave stone
placed in the stream. URS indicated that bankstabilization will be called for here to protect the
stream bank at the ditch to stream transition and rip rap will be placed down to the stream bed.
Sheet 9:
-Currently no jurisdictional features located on this sheet.
-The inlet location of the proposed pipe at structure no. 0905 was questioned. URS has not completed
field work or drainage design at thislocation to determine the correct inlet location.
Sheet 12:
-Project impacts include fill in wetlands and a jurisdictional stream.
-It was noted that the stream and wetlands on this sheet likely extend further north across the proposed
projectareathat what is currently shown. NCDOT NESindicated that this area would be studied
during the re-verificationof wetlands
-It was questioned if the proposed cross pipe at –L-Sta.142+30+/-would drain the wetlands on the
south side of the project. Since the existing stream currently extends across to the north side of the
project and the proposed pipe will be located in the stream, the wetlands would not be drained by the
proposed cross pipe.
Sheet 13:
-Project impacts include fill in a jurisdictional stream.
-The drainage features and structures on the right side of the project and –Y5B-were discussed. URS
indicated that this area appeared tobe an existing storm water treatment device and that the outlet
pipe was failing and collapsing into the existing outlet ditch.URS has contacted the property owner
and the County concerning this device and its purpose and neither had anyhistory or information. A
representative from the NCDWR will check tosee if they have any information on the structure.
24
R-2582AHydraulics Design 4BMeeting NotesPage of

Sheet 16:
-Project impacts include fill in wetlands and a jurisdictional stream.
-It was questioned if the wetland area to the east side of –Y9-would be considered a total take.
USACE indicated that if there was no connectivity between wetlands across the project and there was
0.25 acres or less of undisturbed wetlands left within the project area, the total wetland area may be
considered a total take.This determination will be made after the re-verification of wetlands.
-It was questioned whether the wetland areacontinues further east of –Y9RPA-than what is currently
shown. This area should be checked during re-verification of wetlands.
-URS indicated that the stream that flows from west to east through the interchange area would be
piped and relocated through the project area. In the current preliminary design, the stream is
proposed to be carried around the south side of LoopA through the wetlands by way of a proposed
channel or ditch.
Sheet 17:
-Small area of wetlands located on the south side of the project. No impacts anticipated. No
comments.
Sheet 19:
-Project impacts include fill in wetlands and a jurisdictional stream.
-URS indicated that there were 2 separate channels on the north side of the project at the inlet end of
the proposed cross pipe and that the one on the left (west) appeared to be the main flow channel even
though it was smaller than the other channel.URS intends to shift the pipe inlet into the main
channel.
-URS recommends that the fill slopes in this area be revised from 4:1 to 3:1 to reduce impacts to the
wetlands.
-URS indicated that the defined stream channel on the south side of the project does appear to end in
the wetland area as shown on the plans.
Sheet 21:
-Wetlands located on the north side of the existing roadway. No impacts anticipated. No comments.
Sheet 22:
-Project impacts include fill in wetlands and a jurisdictional stream (Trouble Field Creek). The
existing box culvert is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new box culvert.
-It was asked if URS could transition the stream less abruptly at the tie between the relocated channel
and the existing channel on the outlet end of the proposed culvert.URS will adjust the design to
show a less abrupt transition.
-Low flow sills were recommended for this culvert to mimic the natural channel width.
-URS indicated that the design of the box culvert will include burying the culvert 1’ below the stream
bed.
Sheet 25:
-Small area of wetlands located on the north side of the existing roadway. Currently no impacts
anticipated. No comments.
34
R-2582AHydraulics Design 4BMeeting NotesPage of

Sheet 29:
-Project impacts include fill in wetlands.
-It was asked if the toe protection shown on the south side of the project was impacting the wetlands
and if so could it be removed. This is a location where there is a proposed lateral ditch ending at the
wetland boundary and the general slope of the natural ground is toward the proposed fill slope.
Typically a lateral ditch along the fill slope would be continued to protect the fill slope from erosion.
However since this is a wetland area, toe protection is being recommended instead of a lateral ditch
to reduce impacts to the wetlands.
Sheet 31:
-Area of wetlands located on the north side of the project. No anticipated impacts. No comments.
Sheet 32:
-Two areas of wetlands located on the north side of the project. No anticipated impacts. No
comments.
Sheet 34:
-Project impacts include fill in wetlands and a jurisdictional stream. This sheet is the end of R-2582A
and the beginning of R-2582B. The fill in wetlands and stream occurs on the R-2582B section of the
project.The existing box culvert shown on this sheet occurs on the R-2582B section.
-The description of the pond located on the north side of the projectand whether it would be impacted
by the projectwas questioned. URS indicated that it appeared to be an old farm pond and that
impacts would be evaluated as the project hydraulic design progresses.
No further comments.
Meeting adjuourned.
44
R-2582AHydraulics Design 4BMeeting NotesPage of