20140762 Ver 1_R-2915E_Draft_4C_Meeting_Minutes_Final_20180321

Memorandum of Meeting
Date: March 21 st, 2018
Place: NCDOT, Structures Conference Room
Attendees: Steve Kichefski (USEPA) - Phone
Marella Buncick (USFWS)
Marla Chambers (NCWRC)
Dave Wanucha (DWR) - Phone
Bill Zerman, PE (NCDOT Hydraulics)
Matt York, PE (NCDOT Hydraulics)
Jeff Meador, PE (RK&K)
Alexis Stys, PE (RK&K)
Scott Blevins, PE (RK&K)
Carla Dagnino (NCDOT-EAU)
Ramie Shaw (NCDOT — Division 11) - Phone
Joe Laws, PE (NCDOT — Division 11) — Phone
Subject: NEPA\404 Merger Team - Concurrence Point 4C Meeting
R-2915E — US 221 from US 221 Bypass to US 221 Business/NC 88 in
Jefferson, Ashe County
The Concurrence Point 4C Meeting for R-2915E in Ashe County was held on March 21St, 2018 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 design and previously discussed features at each
jurisdictional site 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
permitted currently under construction. Once coloring was explained, there were no further
questions about Site 1. At Site 2A, Marella requested to have embedded rock at the outlet bed
looked into since she was concerned with energy dissipation. Jeff explained that the proposed
pipe was buried and the junction box was not a drop structure. Additionally, it was explained that
the current designs velocity is under the 15 ft/s which is considered the threshold for scour, Bill
agreed and that updating this outlet would set a precedence. After discussion, it was decided to
monitor this site after the pipe construction to decide if embedding rock in the channel would be
warranted. Carla noted that Site 2B was labeled as bank stabilization on the impact summary
sheet. Detail AF would need to be called out at the inlet end of the site if there is truly
stabilization, updates to the plans are needed at similar situations along the project to ensure the
summary table and plan view match.
Sheet 6: Jeff explained that since the 4B meeting, both sites 3& 4 have had the energy
dissipaters removed after redline drainage review. Marla commented on the "retain & install
smooth lining" label on the cross pipe at site 3, stating that this will not help with slowing down the
velocity in the pipes. Joe and Matt agreed that the material of the liner has been discussed but
not finalized. Matt explained that the lining won't be concrete but that the smooth liner increases
the capacity in the pipe even though we would be decreasing the size of the existing pipe. Jeff
noted that smooth liner is approximately the same roughness as a concrete pipe. Carla explained
that the jurisdictional stream leaving Site 5 was added to the plans after confirmation from Erin
Cheely (NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit) following the 4B meeting.

Sheet 7: Jeff noted at Site 6 that Dave had conducted a field visit here and noted that the land
owner had trapped the spring, leaving a minimal aquatic habitat and that a drop structure would
be warranted. Bill noted at site 6 that the proposed cross-pipe used to be a 60" jurisdictional
cross-pipe. Alexis explained that it was requested during hydraulic review from Matt to separate
the BDO and the HW to cross separately, lowering the jurisdictional crossing to a 42" pipe. Jeff
explained that there is now a dry detention basin designed on sheet 7 which has no jurisdictional
features nearby but helps minimize the impact to a downstream pipe. Marla questioned that Site
6B forks into two jurisdictional features downstream and it was confirmed to be correct. It was
requested to move the HW to be directly at the fill slope line to ensure the headwall is within the
"V" created from the toe protection.
Sheet 8: Carla asked at Site 7 if bank stabilization would be necessary but was decided against
due to the low velocity and flat elevation in the proposed ditch. Jeff also noted that the proposed
ditch is aligned to better fit the streams current direction of flow.
Sheet 9: Jeff explained how the current jurisdictional features have been agreed upon at Site 9
after NEU confirmation after the 4B meeting. Marla asked what the temporary impacts were
regarding at Site 8B, which Jeff explained was due to the existing 24" CMP being plugged/filled
and the regrading of the existing headcut.
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. Temporary impacts were added
at the inlet and outlet of the lined existing pipe due to installation of this smooth liner. Carla
requested that the inlet end of the Site 11 be labeled with A, B, & C for the 3 differing streams
coming in to the headwall and to make sure the impact summary sheet reflects these values. It
was also requested to add a label to the plans to ensure the outlet of the existing 66" pipe has the
riprap embedded in the channel stream. Marla requested to know the condition of the exiting 66"
pipe that traveled under the private property rock quarry. Joe explained that the video inspection
could not get past the "possible junction box" labeled on the plans so condition was not
confirmed. It was requested that the label for site 10 be moved closer to the impact to help clarify
the right side of the roads impacts. Joe requested the addition of a spring box near the outlet of
the plugged and filled 18" CMP at site 13 C. This site was discussed as a possible total take due
to the removal of the water but it was agreed that the site is likely to be a spring and the addition
of a spring box should be sufficient and help minimize impacts. Marella asked if Site 12 ties down
to the headwall, which Jeff explained it does not tie to the headwall but does provide bank
stabilization down to Little Buffalo Creek.
Sheet 11: Sites 14, 15 and 16 had no comments. Carla noted that Site 17B needed impacts
added to the impact summary sheet, separating out the pond impacts from the stream.
Sheet 12: No comments on Site 18. Marla asked why the pipe at Site 19 wasn't outleting at the
entrance to the stream outside the fill slope. Alexis explained that the field survey uncovered a
large headcut and an unstable outfall so it was determined that laying a pipe and repairing the
outlet condition would be best. Carla asked to add a line to the impact summary sheet for the
bank stabilization provided. At Site 19, it was requested to have the wetland boundary line appear
better on the plans and to show the small JS tying all the way down to the larger JS.
Sheet 13: Site 20 and 22 had no comments. Site 21 was requested to show velocity on the plans
and add rip rap in the channel due to the possibility that the area will always stay wet.
Sheet 14: Site 23 had no comments. Carla requested at Site 24 to have the separate streams be
called out for clarity (Site 24 A, B, C, & D) and to have the impact summary sheet updated
accordingly with labels for tributary and creek names. At Site 25, Marla asked if both barrels are
used in the existing double culvert. Jeff confirmed that they are and showed pictures from a field
visit. He also explained that in order to add a Sill, that a design would need to be included for

additional barrels due to the stream being a FEMA site and the restriction of not further impacting
the surrounding homes in the floodplain. Marella asked if we were extending the triple existing
cross pipes outleting to the rip rap at embankment near the culvert outlet (Site 25B), which Jeff
confirmed we were not.
Sheet 15: Marella requested Site 26A to install embedded rip rap in the proposed ditch where the
existing 18" CMP will be removed to daylight the jurisdictional feature. The removal label was also
requested to be turned on at Site 26A. Carla requested at Site 26B & Site 27 to have the two
streams be broken out (Sites 26B & C, Site 27A & B) and updated in the impact summary sheet.
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. Jeff noted the label on
the plan sheet which states there will be a proposed 2' concrete sill inset 1' to confine normal
stream flow to 1 barrel. No comments were made on Site 28. Carla noted that Site 29 should not
be called out as bank stabilization. Marella explained that she would prefer the removal of the
entire 24" CMP traveling to Naked Creek. Jeff explained that we have to stay off of the existing
park property to avoid a section 4F impact.
Sheet 17: Jeff explained that the layout of the system on sheet 17 has changed since 4B due to
the removal of the impact on the park property. Since the existing 18" CMP will be plugged and
filled causing dewatering of the wetland, it was requested to have the wetland be total take. Bill
confirmed that the wetland can be called a total take without the requirement of ROW on the park
property.
Upon the conclusion of the 4C meeting, it was requested by Dave Wanucha to back check the
bank stabilization call outs and ensure that each stream section has its own quantity on the
impact summary sheet. David also requested to have a separate sheet compiled in the permit
application to include where there are drop structures and which boxes will be tying to buried
pipes.
R:\Hydraulics\DOCUMENTS\R-2915E_4C Meeting Minutes.doc