20211838 Ver 1_Pre-Filing Meeting Information_20211220

Subject: Minutes of the Interagency Hydraulic Permit Review (4C) Meeting on
April 18, 2019 for R-4705 Martin County
Participants:
Team Members: Support Staff:
Chris Rivenbark, NES (not present)
Kyle Barnes, USACE (present) Jamie Heath, ME RPO (not present)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (not present) Robert Patterson, DWR (present)
John Abel, Division (present)
Ken Riley, NMF (not present) Barry Hobbs, Division (present)
Shane Staples, NCMF (not present) Gretchen Byrum, Division (present)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (not present) Clay Willis, Division (not present)
Chris Militscher, USEPA (not present) Ryan Shook, Division (present)
Amanetta Somerville, USEPA (not present) Jason Dilday, NCDOT EAU (present)
*Garcy Ward, DWR (present)
Renee Glendhill-Earley, SHPO (not present) Consultant Team
Bill Elam, Wetherill Eng. (present)
Forrest Brooks, Wetherill Eng. (present)
*Ricky Greene, Stantec (present)
Andrew Nottingham, MI Eng. (present)
Bob May, Wetherill Eng. (not present)

*Via telephone
Bill Elam opened the meeting by going around the conference room with each attendee introducing
themselves. He began presenting the current permit and buffer drawings sheet by sheet and site by
site. Each site was discussed and questions and comments were recorded.

Items discussed are summarized by Buffer and Permit Sites as follows (Plan Sheet numbers are
given for reference):

Buffers:
1. Stream SA was brought up. It was re-confirmed from 4B that this stream does not require buffer
setbacks.
2. Sheet 5: Site 1, Stream SB (Buffered Stream); No comments other than turning on Swale
treatment boxes.
3. Sheet 8: Site 2, Stream SC (Buffered Stream); Replacing 2 @ 72”x44” CSPA with 2 @ 7’x5’
RCBC buried 1 foot. No comments other than turning on Swale treatment boxes.
4. Sheet 28: Site 3, Stream SK (Buffered Stream); No comments other than turning on Swale
treatment boxes.
Permits: General comments included removing the mechanized clearin g legend from all sheets, adding
any missing stream/wetland labels, and adding wetland/stream names to the Wetland Summary sheet.
1. Sheet 4: Site 1; No comments
2. Sheet 5: Site 2; No comments
3. Sheet 8: Sites 3, 3A, and 3b; It was questioned as to whether the division would prefer hand
clearing vs. mechanized clearing outside the toe of fill. It was discussed potentially a 5’ offset
as opposed to a 10’ offset.
Further, the culvert phasing was discussed. It was questioned by Wetherill Engineering if a
diversion channel or bypass pipe and pump system would be preferred. It was decided that a
pipe and pump with cofferdam (sheet piles) would be sufficient.
4. Sheet 9: Sites 4 and 5; Hand clearing width outside of fill was again discussed. It was requested
that the toe protection detail label be copied to this plan sheet. It was questioned if the dissipator
pad was needed at the outlet of the cross pipe. It was explained by Bill Elam that this is common
practice for hydro to protect outlet conditions.
5. Sheet 10: Sites 4, 5, and 6; The 3:1 vs. 2:1 side slope conversation from 4B was revisited. It was
explained that 3:1 was ideal for roadway’s design, and that the impacted footprint did not change
significantly enough for such a large design change. Again, the hand clearing limits outside the
toe of fill was questioned.
6. Sheet 12: Site 7; The 2@24” pipes were questioned in the replacement of the 18” existing pipe.
It was explained by Bill Elam that the new pipe sizes were required due to drainage area (original
pipe undersized) and restrictions in regards to cover over the pipe.
7. Sheet 15: Site 8; It was requested that the temporary impacts to surface waters be pulled in to a
10’ limit past the permanent impacts. Kyle Barns requested that this area be looked into to see
if stream realignment would be more conducive to this area due to the sharp conveyance of the
stream and ditch. Note: After further discussion in the meeting, it was decided that based on the
low velocities in the channel and the group’s preference to leave the outfall as is, the pipe angle
would not be changed. The proposed design will maintain the existing patterns.
8. Sheet 20: Site 9; No comments.
9. Sheet 26: Site 10; It was pointed out that the site label on the blow-up page was mislabeled.
Wetland WL was questioned from the previous plan sheet (25), but it was confirmed that this
wetland was not impacted within the project boundaries.
10. Sheet 29: Site 11; This site was questioned due to the dual 36” pipes being implemented in the
place of a single 18”. Bill Elam explained that the new system would improve drainage in the
area as well as improve service of the road. Again, cover was an issue for pipe size, hence the
dual pipes. It was requested that a pipe arch be considered before finalizing plans. Note: An
arch pipe was investigated. There is not an arch pipe that provides sufficient area but also has
the minimum required cover to use in lieu of the dual 36” pipes.
11. Sheet 31: Site 12; It was requested that the temporary impacts to surface water hatching be pulled
back to 10’ past the permanent impacts on both sides of the road.
12. Sheet 33: Site 13; It was requested that the temporary impacts to surface water hatching be pulled
back to 10’ past the permanent impacts.
13. Sheet 34: Sites 14 and 15; Originally, Site 14 was discussed in 4B. The JS feature (SN) continues
as a ditch line until it empties into stream SM. This was reassessed, and will be further evaluated
as to if this ditch line should be considered a Non-mitigable feature or a JS stream. Current
impacts treat ditch as part of SN.
It was noted that the Blow-up page was mislabeled.
14. Sheet 42: Site 16; It was noted that the Blow-up page was mislabeled.
15. Sheet 43: Site 17; It was noted that the Blow-up page was mislabeled.
After further consideration, John Abel responded for the Division stating that they did not want
clearing outside of the toe of fill, unless there were specific reasons. Erosion control measures and
Rip Rap along channels among others will be taken into account.