U-4734_4C_Meeting Minutes_Draft

En�ineering
DRAFT
Hydraulic Permit Review 4C Meeting Minutes
Project:
Date:
Location:
Time:
U-4734 Macy Grove Road Extension
May 17, 2017
NCDOT Century Center - Structure Design Conference Room C
9:00 to 10:00 AM
Minutes Authored by: Kyle Stoffer ICA Engineering
Attendees: Trent Cormier - ICA Engineering
Kyle Stoffer - ICA Engineering
Galen Cail - NCDOT Hydraulics
By Phone:
Brett Abernathy-Div. 9
Marla Chambers - NCWRC
Amy Euliss - Div. 9
April Norton- DWR
Jim Mason - NCDOT-NES
James Lastinger - USACE
Dave Wanucha- DWR
AI Blanton- Div. 9
Monte Matthews- USACE
Gail Cail began the meeting with introduction. Trent Cormier provided a brief description of the
project and then walked through the Wetland and Surface Water Impact Drawings and then
The Buffer Impact Drawings.
There are three jurisdictional features where stream or wetland impacts occur.
• Stream and Buffer Site 1 is on UT to Reedy Fork Creek is a 2@ 7' x 7' Reinforced
Concrete Box Culvert
Stream and Buffer Site 2 is on Reedy Fork Creek is a two span Prestressed Concrete
Girders bridge (1 @ 100', 1@ 80')
Stream Site 3 is a jurisdictional stream that begins at the outlet of a 24" clay pipe.
Sites 1 and 2 have also have riparian buffer impacts since they are located in the Cape Fear
River Basin above Lake Jordan. Site 3 drains to the Roanoke and is not included in the Buffer
Impact Drawings. The following comments and decisions were reached.
Storm Water Manaqement Plan (SMP) Sheet
Amy Euliss asked to add a statement in the SMP regarding the 24" storm drain pipe that has a
direct, untreated, connection to the RCBC on Site 1. For Site 2, she requested that within the
Waterbody Information block we indicate that no deckdrains are discharging into over any
water bodies.
Plan Sheet 4
No wetland and surface water or buffer impacts. However, since there is a riparian buffer and a
jurisdictional stream located on the sheet it will be added to the final permit impact drawings.
Plan Sheet 5(Stream and Buffer Site 1)
5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100 • Raleigh, NC 27607 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Hydraulic Permit Review 4C Meeting Minutes
TIP U-4734
Page 2 of 2
Marla Chambers asked why the culvert inlet and outlet channel improvements were different.
Trent Cormier stated the inlet channel detail design creates a new channel that ties into the
existing stream and streamlines the flow to the proposed RCBC. The outlet channel detail was
designed for an improved transition back into the existing stream. Mr. Cormier also stated the
7' RCBC barrels widths and channels improvements widths match the existing channel widths
upstream and downstream of the proposed RCBC.
Plan Sheet 6(Stream and Buffer Site 2)
It was stated the bridge is a commitment from a previous merger meeting as the proposed
structure even though the drainage area is only 1.2 square miles. Marla Chambers asked if the
significant impacts due to fill in the wetlands would create a blockage or disconnect the
wetlands and if the wetlands be restored after construction. Trent Cormier said the ponds
have shallow berms that will likely be breached during construction and the impacts are shown
as worst case for the construction of the bridge and temporary crossing.
Ms. Chambers had a follow up question concerning how the site will be left after construction
and if a commitment could be made to restore the wetlands. Ms. Euliss stated the contractor
will have to stabilize the project area and the wetlands will likely reform or reconnect after
construction, but no commitment would be made to restore the wetlands. The commitment to
remove the fill related to the temporary stream crossing will be added to the permit application.
The Division confirmed that the sewer line will be relocated. Galen Cail and Amy Euliss stated
that additional impacts may be required to accommodate the relocated sewer line.
Plan Sheet 11(Stream Site 3)
Trent Cormier explained no buffers are on Stream Site 3 because the site is located in the
Roanoke River basin. He said the clay pipe was being replaced because it was undersized
and clay is not suitable under a proposed roadway. Dave Wanucha noted the existing scour
hole located at the existing pipe.
Impact Summarv Sheet
Amy Euliss asked if the culvert impact length at Site 1 included the existing stream that is
being filled. Trent Cormier said yes it should be included in the culvert total and he will verify it
is included in the summary sheet as permanent fill and not bank stabilization.