20141169 All Versions_Draft Meeting Minutes_20140305

SNC
TATE OF ORTH AROLINA
DT
EPARTMENTOFRANSPORTATION
PMCAJ.T
AT CRORYNTHONY ATA
GS
OVERNORECRETARY
March 4, 2014
To: Thomas SteffensGary Jordan
Travis WilsonChris Militscher
Steve SollodDavid Wainwright
Jim SpeerJackson Provost
Ed EatmonChris Rivenbark
Brian YamamotoRon Lucas
David HarrisStephen Lane
From:Paul Atkinson, PE
Project Manager –TIP East
DraftMinutes of the Permit Drawing Review “4C” Meeting for R-2514B:
Subject:US 17
from South of Belgrade at SR 1330/SR 1439 to North Maysville.
The “4C” Meeting for R-2514Bwas held on February20, 2014 from1:00 PM to 2:00 PM in the NCDOT
Hydraulic Design Conference Room at the Century Center Complex in Raleigh, NC. The following were
in attendance.
Participants:Team MembersSupport Staff
Paul Atkinson, NCDOT Hydraulics (Present)Jim Speer, Roadway Design (Present)
Thomas Steffens, USACE (Present)Jackson Provost, Division3 (Present)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (Present)Ed Eatmon, Division 2 (Present)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (Present)Chris Rivenbark, PDEA-NES (Present)
Steve Sollod, NCDCM (Present)David Harris, NCDOT-REU(Absent)
David Wainwright, NCDWR(Present)Brian Yamamoto, PDEA (Present)
Chris Militscher, EPA (Absent)
Stephen Lane, NCDCM (Present)
Ron Lucas, FHWA (Absent)
Other Attendees
John Lansford, Roadway Design(Present)Gordon Cashin, PDEA-NES (Present)
Sonia Carrillo, NCDWR (Present)Terry Clelland, NCDOT-SMU (Present)
Paul Harris, NCDOT-NES (Present)Mark Staley, NCDOT-REU (Present)
Erik Seiler, NCDOT Hydraulics (Present)David Candela, Division 3 (Present)
Christopher Lewis, NCDOT Hydraulics (Present)
MAILING ADDRESS:LOCATION:
T: 919-707-6700
ELEPHONE
NCDOTFAX: 919-250-4108CCC
EPARTMENT FRANSPORTATIONENTURY ENTER OMPLEX
HUBB
YDRAULICS NITUILDING
1590MSC1020BRD
W:..//
AIL ERVICE ENTERIRCH IDGE RIVE
EBSITE WWWNCDOTORGDOH
RNC 27699-1590RNC
ALEIGHALEIGH

The 4C meeting began with Paul Atkinson (NCDOT-Hydraulics) giving a brief introduction of the project
and handing out permit sheets that had changed since the original drawings had been posted, including the
showing ofwork bridges.Paul went through the permit drawings, discussing each permit site by plan
sheet. Specific comments are listed below byroadwayplan sheet number.
Sheet 4-6:
No comments
Sheet 7:
Paul Atkinson stated thatSite 3in the 4B meetingwas originally planned to have a ditch through the
wetlands and it was asked if the ditch could be moved. Paul confirmed that the ditch was shifted outside
ofthe wetlands and no longer runsthrough it. In addition, Site 4also hadaditch that originally ran
through the wetlandsin the 4B plansand Paul confirmed that the ditch was also shifted outsideofthe
wetlands.
Sheet 10:
Paul Atkinson stated, for Site 6, there were two ditches that originallywereshownrunning through the
wetlandsin the 4B meeting to which USACE requested that Hydraulics avoid ditching through the
wetlands. Hydraulics replaced the ditches with toe protection to prevent erosion of the fill material in the
final design.In addition,Paul mentioned that bank stabilization was added to both ends of the pipes.
Sheet 12:
No comments
Sheet 13:
Paul Atkinson stated, for Site 9, the pipe is not buried 1’ because it is not in a jurisdictional stream.Tom
Steffens(USACE)asked if impacts were calculated to include inlet and outlet structures on the 48” pipe.
Paul Atkinson said that the rip rap pad was counted as permanent and some temporaryimpactsbeyond
that.
Sheet 14:
David Wainwright(NCDWR)asked what the difference was for Site 10 in the updated drawings
compared to what was in the original drawing.Christopher Lewis(NCDOT-Hydraulics)said that the
only change was that the updated drawing shows the temporary work bridge.Steve Sollod(NCDCM)
asked if that could be updated online as well. Paul Atkinson said that the permit package would be
updated online and everyone would be notified when the changes are available.
Sheet 15 & 16:
Paul Atkinson stated that in the 4B meeting, Hydraulics anticipated the need for deck drains, but was able
to eliminate the need for deck drains during final design for the bridges over the White Oak River and
Higgins’ Branch.

Sheet 18:
Paul Atkinson asked if the drawingshowing “Permanent Surface Water Impacts”is correct for Site 13 as
shown.Tom Steffens said to call it permanent impactsdue to the amount of work being done.There was
thena group discussion about the relocation of the canal at Site 13. A conclusionwas drawn that where
there is pipe or rip rappermanentimpacts should be shownand if there is no pipe or rip rap, and the new
channel has similar geometry to the existing, those impacts should be countedas relocationin a note on
the Wetland Impact Summary Sheet.
Sheet 19
David Wainwright asked if the 18” and 84” pipes that meet at the ditch at Site 14 have high velocities and
if so, would that be a cause of concern for scour. Chris Lewis said that there should not be any issues
with the velocities at the outlets of the pipes. The 18”pipeis replacing an existing 15”Corrugated Metal
Pipewhich currently trickles out water.In addition, the 84” pipesare laid extremely flat and function
more for water storage.
Sheet 20-21:
No comments
Sheet 22:
Chris Rivenbark (PDEA-NES) posed the question to the group about counting impacts at Site 16 as
relocation. It was decided that the impacts should be counted as permanent impacts due to one bank
being lined with rip rap.