20140762 Ver 1_R-2915E_4B_Meeting_Minutes_20170620

Memorandum o f Meeting
Date: June 7th, 2017
Place: NCDOT, Structures Conference Room
Team Members: Felix Davila (FHWA) — Absent
Steve Kichefski (USEPA) - Phone
Marella Buncick (USFWS) — Phone
Marla Chambers (NCWRC) — Absent
Dr. Cynthia Van Der Wiele (USEPA)
April Norton (DWR) - Phone (for Dave Wanucha)
Others Present: Bill Zerman, PE (NCDOT Hydraulics)
Jeff Meador, PE (RK&K)
Alexis Stys, EI (RK&K)
Mark Staley (NCDOT-REU) - Phone
Carla Dagnino (NCDOT-EAU)
Trent Beaver, PE (NCDOT — Division 11) - Phone
Joe Laws, PE (NCDOT — Division 11) - Phone
Subject: NEPA\404 Merger Team - Concurrence Point 4B Meeting
R-2915E — US 221 from US 221 Bypass to US 221 Business/NC 88 in
Jefferson, Ashe County
The Concurrence Point 4B Meeting for R-2915E in Ashe County was held on June 7th, 2017 in
accordance with NCDOT policy. The meeting was held in the Structures conference room. The
following items were discussed and conclusions reached:
Bill Zerman opened the meeting with introductions and a brief description of the project. Jeff
continued by providing a summary of the preliminary drainage design at each jurisdictional
feature on the plans. The following comments and decisions were reached.
Sheet 4: Jeff explained the differing colors on the plan sheet, pink being project R-2915D that is
currently under construction. It was also requested to receive the permit impacts from R-2915D to
avoid double counting impacts between the two projects. No comments on Sites 1 and 2, both
propose the removal of existing R-2915D drainage. Site 2 includes a buried 42" pipe with no drop
in the pipe. Velocities entering all wetlands should be stable (V10 less than 2.0 fUs)
Sheet 5: No jurisdictional features
Sheet 6: Jeff explained both sites 3& 4 included rip-rapped energy dissipator basins to help
lower the outlet velocities. April noted that Dave wanted to ensure these locations are non-
erosive. Jeff pointed out that ditch designs for site 5 will be sure to include velocities entering the
wetland lower than 2 feet per second. The plans show a JS stream leaving the existing 24" CMP
at site 3. This stream is not jurisdictional and will be removed from the plans. At site 5 there is a
jurisdictional stream leaving the existing 18" CMP that is not shown but will be added to the plans.
Sheet 7: Jeff explained that site 6 included jurisdictional streams and wetlands both up and
downstream. The stream begins at a spring approximately 230 feet upstream of the proposed
crossing. He also indicated a drop structure is proposed near the outlet to lower the velocity
exiting the pipe. The group agreed that NCDOT would coordinate with Marla Chambers to get her
opinion on the site. Carla pointed out there is an additional Jurisdictional stream that is not shown
that will be added to the plans at the outlet of the proposed 60 " pipe.

Sheet 8: Jeff noted there was a proposed ditch to tie down to the stream at site 7. Marella noted
the angle of the proposed ditch would be entering an outside bend and asked if this ditch could
be realigned. Jeff responded that this could be done.
Sheet 9: Jeff noted at site 8 that Bill had recommended the removal of the rip rap on stream
banks (detail X). The attendees agreed this rip rap could be removed due to the low velocity in
the proposed ditch. Jeff then pointed out the difficult design of site 9 with multiple springs and
jurisdictional features traveling down a very steep hill. Carla noted that both spring/JS
combinations upstream of S136 were not jurisdictional streams, only wetlands. April asked if
impacts would be to buffalo creek or just a tributary. Jeff noted there to be a small unnamed
tributary just at outlet 0907, therefore impacts will not occur to Little Buffalo Creek. An additional
site is recommended to be added on sheet 9 at the outlet of the existing pipe near proposed box
0911. There is a 1.5' head cut at the outlet of the existing pipe and it is proposed to be plugged &
filled, therefore some temporary impacts will be required during construction to re-grade the head
cut.
Sheet 10: Jeff explained the decision to retain the existing 66" CMP, which has been
recommended by RK&K to have a smooth lining installed within. It was pointed out that temporary
impacts will be needed for the upstream and downstream end during lining install, so a site will
need to be added (site 11A). Bill also requested the addition of riprap at the outlet of this existing
pipe and to also line the stream with embedded riprap for further stabilization. Jeff noted that at
site 10 there is a proposed preformed scour hole. Bill requested a standard rip rap pad to be
installed instead. Attendees agreed to replace the preformed scour hole with standard rip-rap.
Carla informed the attendees that site 12 was not a jurisdictional feature and should be removed.
Steve questioned the quality of the stream at site 13 where a jurisdictional stream will be a total
take with a proposed riprap lined standard ditch. April noted that a portion of Buffalo creek is a
trout stream and she will need to review this area with Dave. Marella asked if site 13 was
connected to the pond. Jeff responded by stating the system is believed to attach to a
neighborhood upstream but the entrance was not found. Cara informed the attendees that the
stream was not listed for a work moratorium, and asked to have agencies double check the list is
up to date. Attendees agreed the current design was sufficient.
Sheet 11: Site 14B was noted to connect to the existing pond and Jeff explained the existing pipe
was well undersized. The existing pipe was currently laid at about 14%, therefore Steve
commented that the current design seems sufficient to not be buried and include a drop structure.
Sites 15 & 16 did not have any comments, however Jeff asked Carla if she believed the stream to
begin where it was shown on the plan sheet or if it extended up into the wetland (S143a & W117).
Carla shared that she believed the beginning of the stream to be shown at the correct location.
Site 17 was noted to have no jurisdictional features upstream and Jeff explained that during the
field visit, the exiting pond at the outlet of the system was dry. DWR and NCDOT Division staff do
not know the current condition of the pond. Bill recommended the extension of the rip rap further
outside the slope, to add PDE and keep proposed pipe outlet at the current location.
Sheet 12: At site 18, Bill requested to have the outlet pipe be realigned straighter and to have the
outlet be ditched down to the current location of the jurisdictional stream. Attendees agreed to this
design. At site 19, Jeff noted that a possible drop structure might be later incorporated into the
design near the outlet of the pipe due to the current poor condition of the existing outlet, which
attendees agreed was fine due to there being no jurisdictional feature upstream.
Sheet 13: Site 21 includes retaining the existing 48" CMP and adding a smooth liner. Steve noted
that the existing pipe was over 400' long and therefore fish passage will be difficult through such
a long stretch. Marella agreed that there is probably not much passage and that the current
design with a drop structure is okay.

Sheet 14: The stream shown parallel to the roadway from 812+50 to 814+50 left is not
jurisdictional and should be removed from the plans. There is a stream at Y36 11+50 right that
will not be impacted that needs to be added to the plans. Jeff explained that site 22 includes a
buried 66" pipe with a junction box but no drop structure. The proposed pipe slopes are 8% (HW
to JB) and 0.5% (JB to outlet). Bill asked the attendees if we would in fact want to bury this pipe
due to the steep slope. He stated as a rule of thumb, he usually uses a max of 4% slope for pipe
burial. Marella asked if there was any way to place baffles in the concrete pipe. Bill responded
that there was not a w ay to put baffles in a concrete pipe. Carla noted that Naked Creek has no
work moratorium and was not designated as TR. April noted that Dave had a question as to if the
area was HQW. Steve requested that further investigation into the quality of water be done at this
site and to keep the current design until 4C discussion. At site 23 Jeff noted that RK&K will add
riprap to the outlet of the existing pipe to insure stability, attendees agreed.
Sheet 15: At site 24 Jeff explained the design which includes a new 60" RCP buried 1.0' and
removal of the existing pipe upstream of the crossing. Wetland W 123 will be a total take.
Sheet 16: At the culvert on Sheet 16, Jeff explained that the current culvert would be retained
and two additional 7'x4' cells would be added parallel to the exiting one to provide additional
capacity. One of the two existing barrels will have a sill added to confine normal stream flow to
one of the existing barrels (water can currently flow in both). The invert of the two new barrels will
match the sill height.
Sheet 17: Wetland W 125 will be a total take.
Upon the conclusion of the 4B meeting, it was determined that NCDOT will coordinate sites 6 and
22 with Marla and double check with Dave at DWQ.
R:�Fiydraulics\DOCUMENTS\R-2915E_4B Meeting Mirmtes.doc