20100362 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20090415

Subject: Minutes Gom Interagency 4C Permit Drawing Review Mecting
On April 13, 2009 for U-4007B in OnSIOW County
Team Members:
Brad Shaver-USACOE
David Wainright-NCDWQ
Travis Wilson-NCWRC
Steve Sollod-NCDCM
Steven Lane-NCDCM
Gary Jordan-USFWS
Kathy Matthews-EPA
Chris Militscher-EPA
Ron Lucas-FH WA
Chris Rivenbark-NEU
John Merritt-NEU
David Harris-REU
Bryan Taylor-Roadway
General Comments:
(present)
(present)
(absent)
(present)
(present)
(absent)
(present)
(absent)
(absent)
(present)
(present)
(absent)
(absent)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Frank Fleming, Sungate Design Group
Jackson Provost, NCDOT Division 3
Mason Herndan. NCDOT Division 3
Kevin Bowen, NCDOT Division 3
Mark Staley, NCDOT-REU
Todd 1MU ray, NCDOT Roadway
Marshall Clawson started the meeting by introducing the project and stating that the purpose of
the meeting was to review the final hydraulic design and show that the commitments made at the
4A and 4B meeting were met. After introductions, Mr. Clawson then handed the meeting over to
Frank Fleming. Mr. Fleming proceeded with discussion of site numbers for the interchange.
The wetland system through the interchange on sheet #6 sites will be consolidated into one site.
The site will be site 43. Mr. Fleming then proceeded by going through project site by site and
fielding questions and comments for each site.
Plan Sheets 5-Site #1
Mr. Shaver asked if the impacts had increased from 413. Mr. Fleming staled the impacts have not
increased. The permits now show ditches that connect to the existing stream. Mr. Fleming
stated that these ditches are replacing existing ditches that are being filled by the proposed
widening. Ms. Matthews asked if any of these ditches arejurisdictional. Mr. Fleming responded
that none of the ditches are jurisdictional.
Plan Sheet 6-Site #2
Mr. Fleming noted the wetland system that is located Right of Y2-SBL will considered a total
take and impacted. There was agreement.
Plan Sheet 6-Site #3 (Old Site #3,#4,#5,#6)
This site is the wetland system that is being crossed by-L-, Loop 1 A, Ramp 1 A, and widening
of Y 1-SBL. Site #3 is now what was Site it's 3, 4, 5, & 6. It was discussed to revise the site
numbers but retain the station breakout and quantities in the summary sheet, as is. Mr. Fleming
requested on an open issue concerning how to show and calculate impacts to Site 43 through the
interchange. After Mr. Shaver, Mr. Rivenbark, and Division 3, discussed impacts and
mitigation, it was decided the following. The areas between YI-SBL (Marine Blvd.) and Ramp
Y I and the area inside the loop will not be a total take. The area between -L- and Loop 1 A will
be a total take. These areas will not be filled or cleared and no mitigation is required. The
impact from roadway fill will be documented in the suumlary but the area not being filled will
only be documented in the remarks on the summary. The area upstream of-L- also will not be a
total take.
It was discussed to change the hatching for pavement and embankment removal on Hawkside
Drive. Also add a note to "Remove Embankment to Natural Ground".
Plan Sheet 7: Site #4 and #5 (OLD Site #7 & Site #8)
Mr. Fleming discussed the combining of Site #7 & #8. It was decided to leave as is.
No other comments.
Plan Sheet 8-(No Site)
Mr. Shaver asked why there wasn't a sheet #8 in the permit package. Mr. Fleming stated that
Sungate Design had received a new wetland file which eliminated any impact. Upon
investigation, Sungate Design received the file on 3/27/09 from Dan Duffield of Hydraulics.
There was discussion between Mr. Shavcr and Mr. Rivenbark concerning verification. Mi`.
Rivenbark stated the area was verified by a co-worker of Mr. Shavers.
Plan Sheet 9-Site #6 (Old Site #9 & #10)
Mr. Shaver reminded Mr. Fleming that the ponds called Site #10 and Site #14 (Sheet #13) are
not jurisdictional. "['here is no need for the sites. Mr. Fleming advised that DWQ needs to see
this on the permit somewhere. It was decided to explain the filling of stonnwater ponds in the
remarks in the summary. Mr. Wainwright asked i f these ponds have been discussed with the
storinwater group of DWQ. Mr. Clawson stated that the ponds have been discussed with DWQ-
Stonnwater.
Mr. Herndon expressed that the sliver wetland on the right of-L- at Site 46 (old Site 49) should
be a total take. There was agreement. The additional area will be shown in the remarks of the
sununary sheet.
Plan Sheet 10-Site #7 (Old Site #11)
No comments
Plan Sheet 12-Site #8 (Old Site #12)
Mr. Fleming discussed the procedure for. drawing the limits of impact to the Welland left of
100+00 Y-1 A. Mr. Fleming also stated the label will be revised to "Limits of Wetland Impact
Drawn To Potential Effects Of Replacing Roadway Ditch." There was agreement.
Plan Sheet 13: Site #9 (Old Site #13 & #44)
No comments (Site #9)
As discussed before, Sitc #14 will be removed. This is an impact to a stormwater pond. Mr.
Clawson stated that the impact has been coordinated with Stormwater Group of DWQ. The pond
impact will be d0001T1e11ted in the remarks of the summary.
Meeting Adjoined
Subject: Minutes From Interagency 4C Permit Drawing Review Meeting
On April 15, 2009 for U-4007A in Onslow County
Team Members:
Brad Shaver-USACOE
David Wainright-NCDWQ
Travis Wilson-NCWRC
Steve Sollod-NCDCM
Steven Lane-NCDCM
Gary.Jordan-USFWS
Kathy Matthews-EPA
Chris Militscher-L-PA
Ron Lucas-FHWA
Chris Rivenbark-NEU
,John Merritt-NEU
General Comments:
(present)
(present)
(absent)
(present)
(present)
(absent)
(present)
(absent)
(absent)
(present)
(present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Josh Dalton, Sun-ate Design Croup
Mason Herndon, NCDOT Division 3
Jackson Provost, NCDOT Division 3
Todd Murray, NCDOT Roadway Design
Kevin Bowen, NCDOT Construction Unit
Mark Staley, NCDOT REU
Marshall Clawson started the meeting by introducing the project and slating that the purpose of
the meeting was to review the permit drawings. Mr. Clawson then handed the meeting over to
Josh Dalton. Mr. Dalton proceeded thirough the project sheet by sheet explaining the proposed
sites and impacts to streams and wetlands.
Site l:
There is a small wetland impact at this site. No continents.
Site 2:
Mr. Dalton noted that there is a stream impact and wetland impact at this site. Ms.MaUhews
asked why the wetland between Loop A and Ramp A was hatched as `mechanized clearing'. Mr.
Dalton explained that after clearing 10 feet from the top of the proposed new channel and fill
slopes there would only be a sliver of wetland left.
Site 3:
Mr. Dalton noted that there is a large wetland impacted by the proposed Ramp B. Therc was a
discrepancy in the. wetland limits. The plan sheet that contained the enlarged view of the site
showed the wetland closed off adjacent to the proposed right-of-way line. The plan sheet that
shows the entire interchange showed the wetland continuing away from the project limits. Mr.
Rivenbark and Mr. Merritt stated they would verify the correct wetland limits. Mr. Shaver stated
that if the wetland was closed off and did not continue away from the project. the remaining
wetland should be considered as a total take. If the wetland continues, then the impact was fine
as depicted.
Several agency members asked if the wetland inside Ramp B would be protected. Mr. Shaver
requested adding a commitment to the permit application that mowing would not occur inside the
remaining wetland limits. Mr. Provost stated that current mowing guidelines are to mow 10 feet
outside shoulder points and to ditch limits so this should not be an area that would be mowed.
Mr. Flerndon stated that blaze orange fencing would be used during construction to delineate the
wetlands.
Site 4:
Mr. Dalton stated that Site 4 consisted of a small wetland impact. No comments.
Site 5:
Site 5 consists of a small wetland impact. This impact will now be included with Site 2 impacts.
Site 6:
Site 6 consists of a small temporary stream impact at the outlet of the existing box culverts.
Impacts also include stream impacts to Scales Creek and UT to Scales Creek. Since these
impacts are all part of Scales Creek, they will now be included with Site 2 impacts. No
comments.
Site 7:
Site 7 consists of a large wetland impact. This site will now be referred to as Site 5. No
comments.
Site 8:
Site 8 consists of jurisdictional stream and wetland impacts. This site will now be referred to as
Site 6. Mr. Shaver requested that the small remaining portion of the wetland to the north be
considered a `take'.
Site 9:
Site 9 consists of a large wetland impact. "['his site will now be referred to as Site 7. Mr. Shaver
requested that the small remaining portion of the wetland to the left of station 43+50 -L- be
considered a `take`. There also appears to be a stray wetland line bisecting the wetland.
Site 10:
Site 10 consists ofa wetland impact right of station 56+50.-L-. There appears to be a stray
wetland line that crosses the proposed roadway. Mr. Rivenbark and Mr. Merritt stated they
would verify the wetland limits in this area. This site will now be referred to as Site S.
I
A
Site I1:
Site 1 I consists of a small pocket wetland impact left of station 58+50 -L-. Mr. Dalton stated
that this small wetland has been included as a `total.take'. This site will now be referred to as
Site 9. No continents.
Site 12:
Site 12 consists of a small temporary jurisdictional stream impact left of station 66+00 -L-. Mr.
Wainright asked for an explanation of the stream path. Mr. Dalton stated that the stream flows
Prom the east toward the west and enters an existing 36" RCP loll ol'station 65+57 -L-. This pipe
then flows to a blind junction box of which the location was unable to be determined. The flow
eventually reaches the existing 60" RCP and outlets the system right ofstation 17+18-Y5-.
This site will now be referred to as Site 10. No comments.
Meeting adjourned.