20190230_Final 4B meeting minutes_20141117

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
^-,EP' ^R^W^,^ OF T/~ANuxO^~xA^/O/n
PATMCCK0DY ANTHONY lTATA
Oorcmvox SECRETARY
November 17, 2014
To: Ron l.uoue Jason Moore,PE
Travis Wilson Emily Murray, PB
Tracey Wheeler Shawn Mebane, PE
Cynthia Van Der VViole Cbdo8jvcuhazb
Gary Jordan Charles Cox, PE
David Wainwright David Harris, Y6
Corey Boungoci`PII
From: Paul Atkinson, PE
Project Manager—TIP East
Sn6icci: Final minutes n{the 30Y6 Hydraulic Design Review(413)Meeting on October 22,
I014 for R-250Z]0: [JSl58 from SRl3l2 (St. John Church Road)to8Kl]33 (Mt. Carmel
Road)East uf Jackson io Northampton County.
The^^40"Meeting for R-2582I)was held on October 22, 20|4a1y:3OAyWio the NCI]01C Structure Design
Conference Room, at the Century Center Complex in Raleigh,NC. The following were in attendance.
Participant: Team Members Other Attendees
Ron Lucas,FBWA(absent) Mark 9taley,NCDOT-REU
Travis Wilson,NCW&C(prcacn8 Steve 3vkeo,NCD0l-8vdruo\ioa
Tracey Wheeler,O8ACE(orcoonA Matthew Ymrk`NCDUT-Hvdrmliuo
Cynthia Van Der Wie|e' BPA.(present) Kchb 9umcbuL NCDO7,-SMD
Gary Jordan,USEVV8 (present) Phil Harris,MCD0T-PDEA
David Wainwright,DWR(orcouut) John Merritt,NCD0T-NES
Bryan Key,Y4CDDT-RDWY
Support Staff Craig Frcornuu,NCI][>T-Fk'douUuo
Jason Moore,NCI}OT-Koudvvuy Design(ubmcnt)
Emily Muouy,NCDOT-SMO (present)
Shawn Mebane,NCD0T-Divioioul (po:eunA
Paul Atkinson,NCI)OT-l{vdran|iou(prumcnt)
Chris Riveobodk,NC[)DT-NES (present)
Charles Cox,NCDOT-PDE&/uhemU
David Harris,NCDOT-REU (uboonh
Corey Bouaquct,DJCI)0T-l) iUdoe(ubocnd
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: e19-707-670 LOCATION:
mu DEPARTMENT o=TRANSPORTATION pxx: 919-250-4108 CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
HYDRAULICS UNIT BUILDING
1sou MAIL SERVICE CENTER w^EBmnE: m«vWm000ronGIDny/ /oxn BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699'15e0 RALEIGH NC

The"413"Meeting began with Paul Atkinson(NCDOT-Hydraulics) giving a brief overview of the project and that
he would go through the project sheet by sheet.
Mr. Atkinson then started a project review at roadway sheet 4.
Sheet 4:
There are wetlands on both sides of the roadway. The proposed design will utilize a 3 @10'x10' RCBC which
will replace the existing 3 @8'x9' RCBC. There is no plan to place sills in the proposed culvert due to the swamp
upstream and downstream and no well-defined channel upstream. There will be toe protection along the fill slope
in the wetlands and rip rap will be placed at the ends of the roadway ditches before entering the wetlands. DWR
commented on the"SEE DETAIL"notes on the plan sheet, to make sure to include the details when plans are
completed.
Sheet 5:
No comments.
Sheet 6:
Hydraulics is replacing the existing ditch on the left side of the roadway. The proposed ditch will be adjacent to
the wetlands and is not anticipated to go within the wetlands. USACE asked whether there will be clearing out
past the fill slope along the edge of ditch. Hydraulics stated there will most likely be mechanized clearing 5'
outside of the edge of ditch.
Sheet 7:
DWR commented on this sheet and many others showing two wetland lines. Paul explained the wetland file was
updated due to the original wetland file not extending far enough originally. The difference in the symbology has
been noted and will be corrected.
Sheet 8:
No comments.
Sheet 9:
No comments.
Sheet 10, 11, 12:
No jurisdictional features.
Sheet 13:
The affected wetland area will be a total take due to its being almost entirely within the fill slope.
Sheet 14, 15, 16:
No jurisdictional features.

Sheet 17:
Hydraulics is proposing to add a 2 span bridge parallel to the existing 3 span 120' bridge. Due to the skew of the
channel the proposed bridge will be 200' long. Hydraulics is not anticipating any impacts to the stream with this
bridge other than possibly a small area near the bridge bent. The stream is a jurisdictional stream downstream of
the existing bridge but is not upstream. Wetlands will be impacted by the proposed fill slope. USACE questioned
whether there would be impacts to the jurisdictional area upstream of the bridge due to bank stabilization. For
now the banks seem fairly stable but should the need arise then bank stabilization will be added. NES noted that
the stream could be a JS stream upstream and that a labeling error could have made the line not show. NES will
check if the stream is a jurisdictional stream upstream.
Sheet 18:
Along the right side of the road a pond is being shown as wetlands and is impacted by the fill slope. Toe
protection will be added along the fill slope to protect it from erosion in the wetland areas. A jurisdictional stream
channel is being covered by the proposed roadway fill, so the channel will be shifted outside of the proposed road
and set in a lateral base ditch. USACE asked if Hydraulics would create any streaminess along the ditch,but due
to the terrain the ditch will be a fairly straight channel. DWR asked what the length was of stream being
relocated, to which Hydraulics responded an estimate of 800-900 ft. A 36"RCP equalizer pipe is proposed
between the wetlands.
Sheet 19:
DWR and USACE questioned what the length of the JS stream will be left natural after relocating the stream.
The remaining natural stream length was estimated to be around 310' long. NES provided DWR with the width
of stream as being 2' to 6' wide with a bank height of 2' to 7'. It was noted that according to available
information,the JS designation begins at the outlet of the existing cross pipe.
Sheet 20,21,22,23:
No jurisdictional features.
Sheet 24:
A total take of wetlands is anticipated along the right side of the proposed roadway. Toe protection is proposed
along the fill slope in the wetlands on the left side to prevent erosion due to the flow being directed towards the
roadway fill slope.
Sheet 25:
No jurisdictional features.
Sheet 26:
DWR asked whether or not this was where the crossing of the Chowan and Roanoke River basins were.
Hydraulics does not know at this time but will look and verify. After the meeting, it was determined that the
boundary divide for the Chowan and Roanoke river basins occurs on roadway sheet 26.
Sheet 27:
No Comments.

Sheet 28:
The proposed 1400' bridge over Ramsey Creek begins on sheet 27 and continues on this sheet. Hydraulics stated
that the information on hand does not show the stream as a jurisdictional stream. DWR asked NES to see if the
stream was a JS stream due to the fact that it was a named stream. NES stated that the stream is listed as a
perennial stream and so Ramsey Creek is a JS. DWR asked how the bridge would be constructed. Structures
Management recommended a work bridge based off the span lengths shown. DWR requested that the work
bridge be shown on the 4C plans/permits and impacts be accounted for. DWR also requested that NCDOT check
to make sure that the work bridge could be used. DWR and USACE noted that there have been problems in the
past with contractors deviating from the permitted work bridge. Hydraulics stated that they will consult with the
Division and show the work bridge accordingly. NCWRC asked for the vertical clearance on the proposed bridge
which was over 30' from natural ground to road grade.
Sheet 29,30:
No jurisdictional features.
Sheet 31:
Fill slope will impact wetlands along the left side of roadway. Toe protection is provided for erosion control
along fill slope. Flow from wetlands will be picked up in 36"pipe. The pipe will be placed at the natural ground
elevation on the inlet end and not buried. DWR requested to note that pipe is not buried. Hydraulics responded
that standard practice is to only note those pipes that are to be buried, and if not so noted, it is understood that the
pipe will not be buried. Additionally, design inverts will be provided on the Summary Sheet in the plans.
Sheet 32:
No jurisdictional features.
Sheet 33:
Wetlands impacted by roadway fill for proposed roadway. Rip rap will be placed at the outlets of the proposed
ditches ending prior to entering wetlands. Toe protection is proposed along the fill slope in the wetlands on the
left side to prevent erosion due to the flow being directed towards the roadway fill slope. A 42"cross pipe at
station 876+30 -L-is proposed to keep the existing wetlands connected.
Sheet 34:
Fill in the wetlands adjacent to proposed roadway, and rip rap will be placed at the outlets of the proposed ditches
ending prior to entering wetlands.
Sheet 35:
A 3@ 8'x6' RCBC is proposed to replace the existing 3@ 73"x55"pipe arches. The short channel realignments
at the inlet and outlet were necessary to tie the culvert to the existing channel at the fill slope,resulting in less
impacts than if the culvert were replaced at the existing location. NCWRC asked how many low flow barrels
there would be. A low flow barrel will be constructed in the middle barrel of the culvert. The existing upstream
channel is approximately 8'wide. NCWRC also asked if there would be sills on both sides that are backfilled
with natural material. Hydraulics answered yes. There will be fill placed in the wetlands on both sides of the
proposed roadway.
Sheet 36,37,38:
No jurisdictional features.