R-5777C 4C Meeting Minutes.pdf

Minutes from the Interagency 4C Hydraulic Design and Permit Review Meeting
R-5777C - Craven County
NCDOT CCA Structures Conference Room Col. C4 (Teams Hybrid)
December 13, 2023
Team Members:
Tom Steffens, USACE
(present)
Garcy Ward, NCDWR
(present)
Susan Locklear, NCDWR
(present)
Stephen Lane, NCDCM
(present)
Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
(present)
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
(present)
James Harrison, NCDEQ
(not present)
Amanetta Somerville, EPA
(not present)
Renee Gledhill -Earley, NCDNCR
(not present)
Minutes
Participants:
Cadmus Capehart, NCDOT Division 2 DCE
Jordan Scott, NCDOT Division 2 Assist. DCE
Brad McMannen, NCDOT Division 2 RE
Byron Kyle, NCDOT DBU
Malcolm Watson, NCDOT DBU
Todd Lapham, NCDOT DBU
Paul Mohler, NCDOT EAU
Deanna Riffey, NCDOT ECAP
Mike Sanderson, NCDOT EPU
Ray Lovinggood, NCDOT HU
Kristy Alford, NCDOT SMU
Dylan Clark, NC OSA
Mandy Posgai, NC OSA
Luan Cao, NC SHPO
Allyson Conner, USFS
Chris Rivenbark, RK&K
Paul Cameron, HNTB
Jon Nance, Mott MacDonald
Pete Distefano, Balfour Beatty
Keith Nixon, Balfour Beatty
Kevin Bailey, STV
Adam Freeman, STV
Joshua Kotheimer, STV
Chris Sheldon, STV
Brian Elam, Sungate Design Group
Jake Stanovich, Sungate Design Group
Mike Sanderson opened the meeting and introductions were made by all in conference
room attendance and on Microsoft Teams.
Kevin Bailey provided a brief overview of the project's purpose and roadway design
elements.
Brian Elam proceeded through the wetland and surface water and buffer drawings for
both project roadway and utility impacts.

General
• Ray Lovinggood asked who the lead agency was for the project.
o It was discussed and ultimately Tom Steffens replied that it was the
FHWA.
• Susan Locklear asked if the NC-SELDM Catalog had been used for the project.
o Brian Elam replied that a preliminary run had been set up but not
completed project wide. He identified that treatment for the project would
be provided via grass swales and 6 dry detention basins.
o Susan asked if at a minimum that the largest, most critical crossings could
be evaluated using the NC-SELDM Catalog.
o Brian Elam replied that Sungate Design Group would use the tool and
review output on several of the larger jurisdictional crossings.
o It was mentioned that the project may pre -date NC-SELDM.
• Dylan Clark remarked the Office of State Archaeology would work with the
NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit regarding historic cemeteries within
impact areas and buffers.
• Chris Rivenbark requested that all quantities shown in the impact summary tables
be shown to the thousandth, which differs from guidance found in the current
version of NCDOT's Permit Drawing Guidelines.
• Deanna Riffey mentioned that someone from REU needed to review the permit
drawings and recommend any additional quantities that may be needed for hand
clearing.
o Chris Rivenbark remarked that a token increase would be around 10%.
o Kevin Bailey mentioned that he already had REU listed to receive the
revised permit drawings incorporating the comments made during the 4C
meeting.
• Brian Elam asked about showing buffer zone lines in the Wetland and Stream
Permit Drawings.
o Tom Steffens and Garcy Ward said to leave the lines in the plan set.
■ Decision is consistent with statement in the current NCDOT
Permit Drawing Guidelines, "Riparian Buffer Zones should be
reflected on the wetland / stream permit plan view".
Wetland and Stream Permit Drawings
Stormater Management Plan:
• Garcy Ward asked if rock checks could be added to the swale ending at 25+70 -
SRY4B- RT on PSH 17, which showed up orange in the SMP.
o Brian Elam confirmed that Sungate Design Group would add water quality
rock checks at this site.

Site 1 (Sheet 3 of 87):
• Garcy Ward asked if the median ditch goes over top of the culvert.
o Brian Elam responded that the median ditches on both sides of the culvert
(Upstream: Between -L- and-SRY1B-; Downstream: Between -L- and -
SRY1C-) flow over top of the RCBC and reviewed on permit drawings
sheet 9.
• Deanna Riffey asked if the inlet channel could be identified as bank stabilization.
o Discussed that the channel is being relocated and could not be described as
only bank stabilization. Inlet channel detail to remain as shown.
• Tom Steffens asked if the ditch, right of the culvert inlet channel, was lined with
rip rap.
o Brian Elam responded that the last 180ft of the ditch was rip rapped due to
the steeper grade.
• Deanna Riffey asked if the portion of the existing channel upstream of the inlet
channel needed bank stabilization.
o The area was reviewed and discussed. Ultimately it was decided that the
inlet channel and rip rap would remain as currently shown.
• Tom Steffens asked if the boundary to the cemetery on roadway sheet 5 would be
marked. If so, notation should be added to the plans.
o Cadmus Capehart expanded the question by asking the confidence of the
current cemetery boundary.
o Paul Mohler said that he had placed the boundary based on gps points.
o Byron Kyle said that L&S would check and verify the location of the
boundary.
■ A follow up virtual Teams meeting was held on 12115 with Byron
Kyle, Kevin Bailey, Paul Mohler, Joshua Kotheimer, Brian Elam,
Jon Nance and Adam Freeman. Byron mentioned that that a
shapefile was available delineating the GPSpoints. The shapefile
will be compared to the Final Survey to verify consistency.
Site 2 (Sheet 3 of 87):
• Garcy Ward mentioned the wetland boundary polygon had changed since the 4B
meeting.
o Brian Elam mentioned there were 2 wetland files for the project. One used
gps points to delineate the wetland boundaries (R-5777C_WET.dgn),
whereas the other used survey shots to establish the boundaries
(r5777c_nat wet s.dgn).
o Byron Kyle confirmed that the "wet s" file used survey shots to establish
the wetland boundaries.
o Tom Steffens noted that the permits should show the surveyed wetlands.
Site 3 (Sheet 10 of 87):

• Brian Elam mentioned that the provided set of permit drawings did not include a
representative cross section sheet for the site 3 wetland impacts. A cross section sheet
will be added in the final permit drawing for site 3.
• No additional comments.
Site 4 (Sheet 10 of 87)
• No comments.
Site 5 (Sheet 13 of 87):
• Brian Elam stated that during preliminary permit drawing reviews a potential for
reducing wetland impacts was identified inside the -Y1- Loop D alignment, where 4:1
fill slopes were currently being used.
o Cadmus Capehart stated that 4:1's were preferred by NCDOT for
maintenance and slope stability.
o Tom Steffens asked which quantity was being reported in the
summary.
■ Brian Elam replied that the 4:1 quantity was being reported.
o Garcy Ward noted that DWR does not typically allow slopes shallower
than 3:1 within wetland areas.
o Deanna Riffey asked if this was the only area on the project where a
4:1 slope was being used in a wetland. Brian Elam responded that it
was.
o Cadmus Capehart confirmed that using 3:1 slopes in the -Y1- Loop D
area, with toe protection, would be acceptable.
• In preliminary permit drawing reviews, Chris Rivenbark identified a potential
wetland restoration site where existing Stately Pines Road splits wetland WE.
o Tom Steffens asked if there were any other similar situations on the
project. Brian Elam stated that there were not. The limited potential
acreage of restoration was discussed.
o Cadmus Capehart said that he would prefer not to have a permanent
easement in the area requiring maintenance.
o All concurred to leave the 3ft base ditch as shown.
Site 6 (Sheet 13 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 7 (Sheet 13 of 87):
• In regard to the-SRYIDY3C- pipe crossing, Tom Steffens asked how the
contractor could pump from the mechanized clearing area to the hand clearing area
for excavation.

o Pete Distefano replied that since it is a low flow area, a machine would not
be needed.
o Deanna Riffey asked if excavation is expected in the area and what was
happening with the small portion of wetland outside of the easement.
■ Brian Elam replied that no excavation is expected in the hand
clearing area and that the small portion outside of the easement
would not be impacted during construction and is outside of right
of way and construction easement.
o Tom Steffens stated to leave the area as hand clearing but would need to
be reviewed during construction if methods of dewatering change.
Site 8 (Sheet 29 of 87):
• Deanna Riffey asked if the outlet channel for the most upstream box culvert under
-L- could be described as bank stabilization.
o Garcy Ward expanded on the question by asking if the rip -rap would be
placed below the ordinary highwater mark, and if so, then it should be
shown as a stream impact and not described as bank stabilization.
o Brian Elam explained the proposed culvert outlet channel detail shows rip -
rap to be embedded below the channel bottom, therefore it would be
below the ordinary highwater mark.
o The decision to leave the detail as shown was agreed upon by everyone
and the stream impact, for the outlet channel of the -L- box culvert, would
not be described as bank stabilization.
• Brian Elam mentioned that the provided set of permit drawings did not include a
representative cross section sheet for the site 8 wetland impacts. A cross section sheet
will be added in the final permit drawing for site 8.
Site 9 (Sheet 29 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 10 (Sheet 29 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 11 (Sheet 36 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 12 (Sheet 40 of 87):
• Garcy Ward wanted to verify that the unburied 60" pipe would be at bed elevation
and not perched.
o Brian Elam confirmed the pipe would be at bed elevation and not perched.

• Garcy Ward asked about what was happening with the special grading median
ditch ending —50' short of the inlet side of the 60" pipe.
o Brian Elam confirmed that the ditch was above the pipe and ties to the
typical median ditch between -L- and the service road.
• Meeting attendees were informed that the inlet side PUE would be going away
since PNG would be responsible for obtaining PUE for their gas line relocation.
o Chris Rivenbark remarked that it was typical to account for any utility
relocation impacts that are required for construction of the project.
■ Stephen Lane agreed and said any impacts caused by the project
need to be shown and accounted for despite the responsible party.
• Stream / wetland and buffer impacts associated with utility
relocations will be shown and separate Utility Permit
Drawings.
o Paul Mohler said the area to the plan view right side of the inlet needed to
be cleared with the NC Forest Service, regarding Section 106 properties.
■ A follow up virtual Teams meeting was held on 12115 with Byron
Kyle, Kevin Bailey, Paul Mohler, Joshua Kotheimer, Brian Elam,
Jon Nance and Adam Freeman. Potential encroachment into
Archaeological Site 31 CV241 at permit Site 12 was discussed.
Paul Mohler stated no additional investigation of the
archeological site would be necessary if the limits of construction
remained within 65ft of the existing right of way. There will need
to be high visibility fencing installed along the easement line to
protect the archeological site from additional impacts.
Site 13 (Sheet 40 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 14 (Sheet 45 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 15 (Sheet 45 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 16 (Sheet 54 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 17 (Sheet 58 of 87):
• No comments.

Site 18 (Sheet 62 of 87):
• Deanna Riffey asked if the outlet channel should be noted as bank stabilization.
o Brian Elam confirmed that since the channel was being relocated, the
proper detail and notation was used.
Site 19 (Sheet 62 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 20 (Sheet 66 of 87):
• Tom Steffens asked that the quantities be divided between what is permanent
wetland fill and what will be total take due to loss of function (2:1 vs. 1:1
mitigation).
o Deanna Riffey had the same request.
o Both expressed a desire to add notes to plans or summary to indicate what
portion applied to what ratio.
o Garcy asked if we should shade the area that will be a total take. Chris
Rivenbark recommended not shading or hatching the total take area,
stating that on past projects if a wetland area has been hatched in the
plans, it indicates to the contractor that it is ok to impact.
o Everyone agreed that the note in the summary table should be amended to
state that the total take acreage is not accounted for in the impact summary
table and add "Fill MIT=2:1" and "Total Take MIT=1:1".
Site 21 (Sheet 73 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 22 (Sheet 77 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 23 (Sheet 82 of 87):
• No comments.
Site 24 (Sheet 82 of 87):
• No comments.
Impact Summary (Sheets 84 — 87)
• No additional comments.

Buffer Permit Drawings
Site 1 (Sheet 2 of 13):
• Garcy Ward asked what the ditch clean out notes included.
o Brian Elam said it included lowering the ditch bottom to provide positive
slope for filled in ditches and that the side slopes in the existing ditch were
flat.
o Everyone agreed that a note be added to indicate that slopes "3:1 or
flatter" should be used.
• Deanna Riffey asked if the inlet side of the culvert was included.
o Brian Elam stated that Goodwin Creek, upstream of US 70, was not
subject to the Neuse River Buffers.
o Deanna Riffey inquired about the reason it was not buffered upstream of
US 70.
o Brian Elam commented that it either did not show up as a blue line in the
USGS map or a brown line on the soils map. Josh confirmed this was
consistent with the PJD and NRTR.
Site 7 (Sheet 3 of 13):
Garcy Ward asked if the top portion of the impacts could be reduced.
o Chris Rivenbark asked if a gap should be shown around the existing
utilities.
■ Deanna Riffey had the same concerns.
o Everyone agreed that the impacts would remain as shown.
• Garcy Ward asked that transition stone be shown for the roadway drainage system
entering the buffer on the right side of the outlet.
o Brian Elam replied that transition stone would be added.
Site 8 (Sheet 6 of 13):
• Deanna Riffey asked if impacts within the buffers to the wood line was needed.
o Susan Locklear asked if there would be disturbance in the area.
■ Garcy Ward commented that if it would be disturbed, then the
impact must be shown.
■ Chris Rivenbark remarked that despite the area being maintained
as it is now, the use of the buffer would change from utility to
roadway. Therefore, it should be shown.
o Everyone agreed that the area discussed would remain hatched as buffer
impacts.

Site 11 (Sheet 7 of 13):
• No comments.
Site 12 (Sheet 8 of 13):
• Brian Elam stated that the PUE and construction easements at the site would be
reduced in the final permit drawing set, thus reducing the buffer impacts.
Site 13 (Sheet 8 of 13):
• Garcy Ward remarked that the existing gravel to proposed gravel driveways did
not need to be shown. He added that existing soil driveways to proposed gravel
did need be shown.
o Brian Elam confirmed that these changes would be made throughout the
project.
■ Adjustments to buffer impacts for existing driveways applied to
Site 1, Site 13 and Site 16.
Site 14 (Sheet 9 of 13):
• No comments.
Site 16 (Sheet 10 of 13):
• See Site 13 comments above.
Site 23 and 24 (Sheet 11 of 13):
• Garcy Ward and Chris Rivenbark requested the mitigable quantities be moved to
the allowable quantities for site 24.
o Garcy Ward remarked that moving the PUE clearing required for utilities
should not cause the quantities to be pushed over due to different use.
Utility Wetland and Stream Permit Drawings
Site 4 (Sheet 2 of 14):
• No comments.
Site 6 (Sheet 4 of 14):
0 No comments.

Site 10 (Sheet 7 of 14):
• Chris Rivenbark asked for all of the utility pole impacts to be shown as fill in the
wetland and to report the area based on the size of the proposed utility pole
symbol.
o Stephen Lane agrees.
o Brian Elam said Sungate Design Group would change the quantities as
requested.
Site 25 (Sheet 9 of 14):
• No comments.
Site 20 (Sheet 10 of 14):
• No comments.
Site 24 (Sheet 13 of 14):
• No comments.
Impact Summary (Sheet 14 of 14):
• Chris Rivenbark said to keep the utility pole impacts as a note due to power pole
structures being accounted for differently.
Utility Buffer Permit Drawings
General
• Garcy Ward asked if there were any areas where the PUE buffer impacts were
strictly underground or aerial.
o Each PUE area within a buffer was looked at and determined that both
underground and aerial impacts were present at each site.
Site 7 (Sheet 2 of 7):
9 No comments.

Site 8 (Sheet 4 of 7):
• No comments.
Site 12 (Sheet 5 of 7):
• This site will be going away. See "Site 12 (Sheet 40 of 87)" comments under the
"Wetland and Stream Permit Drawings" section above.
Site 23 (Sheet 6 of 7):
• No comments.
Impact Summary (Sheet 7 of 7):
• Chris Rivenbark asked for all the checks under the "type" column be removed.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Kevin Bailey mentioned that the USACOE 404 permit
application needed to be submitted by mid -January to maintain the schedule.
Meeting Adjourned.