Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20141169 All Versions_Draft Meeting Minutes 03132014_20140415 Draft Minutes of the Wetland Permit Drawing Review (4C) Meeting on March 13, 2014 for R-2514D. US 17 From South of NC 58 to the New Bern Bypass in Jones And Craven Counties. Participant: Team Members Other Attendees Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics (present) Johnny Metcalfe, NCDOT Division 2 Thomas Steffens, USACE (present) Gordon Cashin, PDEA-NES Gary Jordan, USFWS (absent) Terry Clelland, Structures Management Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present) Chris Underwood, NCDOT -NES David Wainright, NCDWQ (present) Mark Staley, NCDOT-REU Ron Lucas, FHWA (absent) Marc Shown, Hydraulics Chris Militscher, USEPA-Raleigh (absent) Jonathan Moore, Hydraulics Steve Sollod, NCDCM (absent) Danny Gardner, Roadway Design Support Staff Colin Mellor, NCDOT-NES Brian Yamamoto, PDEA (present) Matthew York, Hydraulics Chris Rivenbark, PDEA-NES (present) David Harris, REU (absent) Ed Eatmon, Division 2 (absent) Jim Speer, Roadway Design (present) Omar Azizi, Stuctures Management (absent) The 4C meeting held on 3-13-14 began with introductions and Randy Henegar (NCDOT) giving a brief overview of the project. He also noted that on 5/16/13 there was an Informational Meeting at which was discussed the taking the –L- line over SR 1337 (Goshen Road) and the reconfiguration of the bridge over the Trent River in order to get more effective area under the structure. The latter of these revisions included an additional wetland impact. The permit was then reviewed site by site. Mr. Henegar then started a permit review at Site 1. Site 1: Hydraulics will label and provide a detail for the bank stabilization at the end of the 48” RCP. There will be no rip- rap placed in the bottom of the stream. This will be the case at all other locations requiring bank stabilization throughout the permit. Site 2: This wetland site will be a total take. It was requested that the areas outside of the impacts not be hatched as fill, but be included in the area shown on the summary sheet. A note will be added to the summary sheet that this wetland is a total take. Site 3: It was requested that 5 ft. of mechanized clearing be shown around the proposed piers in the wetland. Hydraulics will add to drawings and revise summary sheet. It was also noted that the two 48” pipes under the soil road to the cemetery would be replaced with a 2@ 8’ x 8’ RCBC. Site 4: It was requested that 5 ft. of mechanized clearing be shown around the proposed piers in the wetland. Hydraulics will add to drawings and revise summary sheet. This is the site where the Trent River bridge has been reconfigured, as previously noted. Site 5: This site involves installing a 36” RCP equalizer pipe. Hydraulics indicated that the inverts of this pipe would not be buried. This will be the case for all equalizer pipes in this permit. Site 6: No Comments. Site 7: No Comments. Site 8: A question arose as to why there was not an equalizer pipe at this site. Hydraulics indicated that the runoff in this area drains predominantly away from the proposed roadway. The wetland remnant on the East side of the roadway will be considered a take and the impacts and a note will be added to the summary sheet. Site 9: Hydraulics noted that there will be bank stabilization at the outlet of the 54” RCP and that it will be labeled and a detail added. Site 10: There was a question about the toe protection on the west side of the roadway between Sites 9 & 10. Hydraulics stated that the toe protection was needed to protect the fill from erosion due to adjacent runoff. The 5’ berm has been added to force the runoff toward the respective pipes at the two sites. Site 11: No Comments. Site 12: Hydraulics noted that the feature being conveyed through the 30” RCP @ STA. 502+00 was not a JS stream. There were no additional comments at this site. Site 13: Hydraulics indicated that TDE at the 36” RCP outlet will be removed. NES will advise as to whether or not the stream has buffers. Site 14: No Comments. Site 15: Hydraulics stated that the TDE at the outlet of the 78” RCP will be removed. Site 16: Hydraulics noted that the TDE at the outlet of the 42” RCP will be removed. NES will advise as to whether or not the stream has buffers. Site 17: No Comments. Site 18: It was requested that the impacts between the –L- line and the service road slope stake be shown as mechanized clearing. Hydraulics will revise the permit drawings and update the summary sheet. Site19: It was indicated that the wetland in between the –L- line and service road should not be considered a total take. No additional comments. Site 20: It was indicated that the wetland in between the –L- line and service road should not be considered a total take. No additional comments. Site 21: It was discussed that all drainage is going to the existing 66” RCP under –Y10RPD-. It was stated that there have been issues in the past at the outlet of this pipe, but that they are currently stabilized. Hydraulics noted that the pipe is properly sized for the drainage area. Site 22: No Comments. Site 23: This site involves the construction of a new bridge and the widening of the southernmost existing bridge over Deep Gully. Deep Gully is on the Jones-Craven County line with Craven County being to the East. NES will determine whether the wetlands at this site are CAMA wetlands. It was requested that some type of energy dissipation be employed at the outlet of the 24” pipe left of STA. 626+50. Hydraulics will investigate and add appropriate dissipation. Hydraulics will show 5 ft. of mechanized clearing around the proposed pier and update the summary sheet. Hydraulics will also depict any impact due to construction (i.e. work pads, work bridge, etc.) on the permit drawings and update summary sheet as needed. The USACE suggested that we briefly get back together to review Site 23 once Hydraulics and Construction has a chance to review how the bridges will be constructed over Deep Gully. Once this review is completed Randy will set up a meeting with the USACE and DWR.