20040271 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20020620 (2)

HYDRAULICS DESIGN & PERMIT DRAWINGS REVIEW
MEETING, ROWAN COUNTY I-2511CB
9-19-02
Team Members: Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT PDEA(PRESENT)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ(PRESENT)
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE(PRESENT)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC, (PRESENT)
Marella Buncick, USFWS, (ABSENT)
Chris Militscher,EPA, (ABSENT)
Particpants: Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics
David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics
Roger Thomas, NCDOT Roadway
Diane Hampton, NCDOT Div. 9
Jerry Parker, NCDOT PDEA
Greg Crosby, NCDOT Hydraulics
Subject: 4C Meeting
Randy Henegar opened the meeting going over the general outline of the permit, and
pointed out some of the points made from the meeting on June 20, 2002. Randy Henegar
stated that the Natural Stream Design still had some work left to be done. Elizabeth Lusk
and Randy Henegar then proceeded to go over each permit site.
Site 1: Marla Chambers brought up the question about diversion channels being used
when installing small pipes and the impact that these diversion channels may cause.
Randy Henegar and David Chang said that it depended on the site and that in some cases
the pipes could be laid in the wet, but in some cases depending on the location of the
stream a diversion channel may be necessary to keep the channel on a good alignment.
Site 2: Elizabeth Lusk said it was intermittent with mitigation ,and along with Eric
Alsmeyer said the sight should be rechecked by PDEA and Hydraulics for additional
impacts.Make adjustment in permit drawings if needed.
Site 3:Elizabeth Lusk pointed out the non jurisdictional and the jurisdictional part of the
stream. Make adjustments in permit drawings if needed.
Site 4: No mitigation at this site.
Site 5: Randy Henegar handed out additional information on the channel change and
natural stream design.Randy Henegar discussed the Morphological Table and the
characteristics of the existing creek and how they compared to the reference stream(Big
Branch, Surry County) and the differences between them. A question was asked about

why stream relocation was put at its current location and about the placement of ramps,
service roads and bridges because of the impact these locations will have on Town Creek.
Roger Thomas explained why ramps and service roads have been revised due to right
of way constraints and design standards. The stream relocation was put in the center of
the floodplain and meets the criteria for natural stream design. Randy Henegar talked
about the borings that were taken on natural ground along the stream relocation ,and how
close bedrock would be to the proposed bed of stream relocation.
Also discussed was the stockpiling of bed material from the existing creek so it may be
used in the bed of the proposed stream relocation.
Site 6: Elizabeth Lusk says there will be fill in wetlands. Perennial stream and that there
should be an impact. Site should be looked at again by PDEA and Hydraulicse
Site 7: No comments
Note: Address Design Build (July contract) and submitting Floodway Modification.
Some sites where the wetlands extend just outside the fill slopes will be considered
a total impacted area.
Site 8: Question of why service road was located where it was. Roger Thomas said he
would look into it; and report back to team members.