R-2577A 4B Minutes Final

R-2577A 413 Interagency Concurrence Point Meeting Minutes
Date: June 12, 2019
Location: NCDOT Structures Conference Room
Time: 3:00 PM
Minutes Authored By: Jonathan Whittington
Attendees: John Jamison - NCDOT Env. Policy Unit
Amy Euliss - NCDOT Division 9 DEO
Garrison Seitz - NCDOT Division 9
Claire Ellwanger - USFWS
Marla Chambers - NCWRC
Via Telephone:
Connie James - NCDOT Division 9
Dave Wanucha - DWR
Robert Patterson - DWR
Rif K
Eric Alsmeyer - USACE
Erik Seiler - NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Tony Houser - RK&K
Brent Huskey - RK&K
Jonathan Whittington - RK&K
John Jamison opened with discussing an email he sent the previous week regarding Concurrence Points 3 and 4A. There have been some
design changes and per his conversations with USACE and DWR in May of 2019 it was decided that the concurrence forms should be re-
signed with some slightly amended language. Revised forms will be sent out via Docusign.
Brent Huskey then began to go through the 4B plan set.
Plan Sheets 4-5: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on these sheets.
Plan Sheet 6: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on this sheet.
Amy Euliss stated to add a History Property Boundary around the Church (located on top right side of plan sheet). John Jamison added to
make sure this boundary is placed on all versions of Plan Sheet 6.
Plan Sheet 7: There are currently no surface water or wetland impacts on this sheet.
Amy Euliss stated that the proposed 36" pipe outfall near stream SFJ may require Temporary Impacts when we get to 4C.
Plan Sheets 8-9: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on these sheets.
Plan Sheet 10: There are currently no surface water or wetland impacts on this sheet.
There was discussion about the pond located in the lower right side of the plan sheet. Brent Huskey stated the pond is not Jurisdictional per
the JD, and Amy Euliss added that the pond is a little amenity pond, that it is not related to stormwater.
Plan Sheet 11: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on this sheet.
Plan Sheet 12: Site #1 UT to Lowery Mill Creek, SFC: Stream SFC runs west to east through the project and is currently conveyed in a
42" RCP under -Y9- and through a 48" RCP under -L- at 100+92. This will be called out as Site 1. This crossing is identified in USGS and
soil survey mapping and is being identified as jurisdictional in the JD. Since this crossing is in the Yadkin River Basin the proposed ditches
entering the stream do not have to meet the design criteria for buffer filtration. There will be stream impacts on the up and downstream sides
of the site.
Page 1 of 4

Brent Huskey stated that the existing 42" and 48" pipes are undersized based on future land use hydrology calculations, and that the
recommendation for replacing or supplementing an additional pipe is dependent upon the Division's preference for open -cut or bore and jack.
Connie James said the Division's preference at this site is bore and jack.
Brent Huskey stated the stream slope is 2.5% and Amy Euliss said the pipe could be buried with sills. Amy also said that if the pipe will be
buried, to have a riprap pad in the bottom of the channel at the inlet and outlet. Use a ditch detail with riprap embedded in the channel bottom
backed with a geotextile lining. This is to retain the channel bed elevation near the pipe.
Amy Euliss stated that while the label SFD is shown on the plan sheet, the linework for the stream is not shown. It comes out of the wetland
WJA.
Eric Alsmeyer expressed concern about the angle of attack on the inlet side of the crossing. He said losing more stream length would be a
negative, but we also want the site to be stable.
Marla Chambers asked about the stream base width, which is 4 ft, and asked to make sure to have adequate pipe size for fish passage.
Amy Euliss stated that another location of impacts will be required on the outlet side due to Bank Stabilization for the proposed ditch tie-in.
This could still be part of Site 1, but add A, B, C, etc. to the site label. Erik Seiler also suggested adding bank stabilization to the other side of
the stream, opposite of the ditch tie-in.
Site #2 UT to Lowery Mill Creek, SFB: Stream SFB runs northwest to southeast through the project and is currently conveyed in a single
barrel 6' x 6' RCBC under -L- at 107+43. This will be called out as Site 2. This crossing is identified in USGS and soil survey mapping and is
being identified as jurisdictional in the JD. Since this crossing is in the Yadkin River Basin the proposed ditches entering the stream do not
have to meet the design criteria for buffer filtration. There will be stream impacts on the up and downstream sides of the site.
The existing single barrel 6' x 6' RCBC is in good condition and will be retained and extended. The existing RCBC is not buried and therefore
the proposed culvert extensions will also not be buried.
Amy Euliss stated to add a note to the permit application that the existing culvert is not embedded and that it is not being replaced. Also note
on the plan sheet that the culvert extensions will not be buried.
Eric Alsmeyer asked about the proposed ditch linework shown near the channel realignment on the outlet side. He also asked that the
proposed ditch on the right side of the stream be angled towards where the proposed realignment ties -in.
Plan Sheets 13-14: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on these sheets.
Plan Sheet 15: Site #3 UT to Lowery Mill Creek, SFA: Stream SFA runs west to east through the project and is currently conveyed in a
30" HDPE under -Y14- at 13+32. This will be called out as Site 3. This crossing is identified in USGS and soil survey mapping and is being
identified as jurisdictional in the JD. Since this crossing is in the Yadkin River Basin the proposed ditches entering the stream do not have to
meet the design criteria for buffer filtration. There will be stream impacts on the up and downstream sides of the site.
The existing 30" HDPE will be replaced by a 60" RCP not buried because of the stream slope of 6.5%.
Amy Euliss said to armor the inlet and outlet channel bed due to the steep stream slope. However, if the stream is already lined with bedrock
then riprap would not be needed.
Marla Chambers asked if a cross vane would be possible to prevent head cutting. Amy stated that rock sills or riprap pads are the options
available, and that she prefers riprap pads on projects that have no natural channel design. Amy also said she likes to have a token rock sill
quantity in case it is needed in the field.
Site #4 Lowery Mill Creek, SEW: Stream SEW runs north to southeast through the project and is currently conveyed in a triple barrel
7' x 10' RCBC under -L- at 140+20. This will be called out as Site 4. This crossing is identified in USGS and soil survey mapping and is
being identified as jurisdictional in the JD. Since this crossing is in the Yadkin River Basin the proposed ditches entering the stream do not
have to meet the design criteria for buffer filtration. There will be stream impacts on the up and downstream sides of the site.
The existing triple barrel 7' x 10' RCBC will be replaced by dual bridges. The bridges will be skewed 120 degrees and have identical span
arrangements of 1 @ 105', 1 @ 60', for an overall length of 165'. The spill through abutments will have slopes of 1.5:1 normal to the abutment
cap and will be lined with Class II riprap.
Page 2 of 4

The left side of the stream will have a setback of approximately 20' from the top of bank to abutment toe to maintain the floodplain width found
up and downstream of the crossing. This setback area will not be lined with riprap to provide an area for animal crossing. The right side of
the stream will have a setback of approximately 5' from the top of bank to abutment toe for slope stability and to match the overbank width up
and downstream of the crossing.
Erik Seiler stated to add bank stabilization at all ditch tie-ins around the bridge crossing.
Eric Alsmeyer asked to make sure that the proposed interior bent is at the top of bank and not in the stream. He also stated to continue the
bank stabilization up the stream for any area underneath the proposed bridge. His area of concern was the upstream side of the crossing.
Dave Wanucha asked how we would approach the construction of this crossing. Tony Houser stated we would build the upstream bridge first
since there is no existing traffic there. Then we would remove the existing culvert and then build the downstream bridge.
Plan Sheet 16: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on this sheet. This sheet shows the U-2579B project which has been recently
constructed.
Plan Sheet 17: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on this sheet. This sheet shows the U-2579B project which has been recently
constructed.
Amy Euliss stated to add shading or hatching and note there are impacts from U-2579B. Amy also stated that the detour crossing for U-
2579B now incorporates natural channel design. Brent clarified that the existing two barrel Tx 6' RCBC is recent construction.
Plan sheets 18-20: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on these sheets.
Plan Sheet 21: Site #5 UT to Martin Mill Creek, SET: Stream SET runs southwest to northeast through the project and currently runs
adjacent to the existing road. This will be called out as Site 5. This area is identified in USGS and soil survey mapping and is being identified
as jurisdictional in the JD. Since this area is in the Yadkin River Basin is does not have to meet the design criteria for buffer filtration. There
will be stream impacts as well as total take of wetland WHQ and most of wetland WHP.
Plan Sheet 22: Site #6 Martin Mill Creek, SES: Stream SES runs northwest to southeast through the project and is currently conveyed in a
single barrel 5' x 5' RCBC under -L- at 229+10. This will be called out as Site 6. This crossing is identified in USGS and soil survey mapping
and is being identified as jurisdictional in the JD. Since this crossing is in the Yadkin River Basin the proposed ditches entering the stream do
not have to meet the design criteria for buffer filtration. There will be stream impacts on the up and downstream sides of the site.
The existing single barrel 5' x 5' RCBC is in good condition and will be retained and extended. The existing RCBC is not buried and therefore
the proposed culvert extensions will also not be buried. The existing outlet is perched approximately 2' above the channel bottom. The
proposed extension will not be perched. The existing culvert is undersized based on future land use hydrology calculations so a 48" RCP will
be added. This 48" pipe will act as a high flow pipe and will sit on a floodplain bench.
Amy Euliss stated to add a note to the plan sheet that the existing culvert is not embedded and that it is not being replaced. She also asked
to line the outlet channel bottom with riprap due to the scour noted at the existing outlet.
Plan Sheet 23: There are currently no surface water or wetland impacts on this sheet. Amy Euliss stated to add a History Property
Boundary around the Drive -In (located on top left side of plan sheet).
Plan Sheets 24-26: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on these sheets.
Plan Sheet 27: Site #7 Left Fork Belews Creek, SEL: Stream SEL runs south to north along the left side of the project and currently runs
adjacent to the existing road. This will be called out as Site 7. This area is identified in USGS and soil survey mapping and is being identified
as jurisdictional in the JD. Since this area is in the Roanoke River Basin is does not have to meet the design criteria for buffer filtration.
There will be stream impacts from the outfall of a 48" pipe.
Amy Euliss said to note the point where stream changes from Intermittent to Perennial, if that location is on the plan sheet. She also asked to
add a label where the JS starts. Amy said the 48" RCP would not need to be buried since the JS stream is not flowing through it.
Plan Sheets 28-30: There are no surface water or wetland impacts on these sheets.
Amy Euliss asked when to expect the 4C meeting. Brent Huskey said it would most likely be September. The Let Date for this project has
recently pushed back, so we are now requesting a 4C meeting in October 2019.
Page 3 of 4

Amy Euliss said to Eric Alsmeyer that this is a Phased IP, so they will be permitting projects A, B, and C together.
The meeting adjourned.
11ral-srv02\v2\Projects12016116162_NCCenLSA\H01_R2577A_US158\Design\Hydraulics\DOCUMENTS\Permits\4B\R-2577A4B Minutes Final.docx
Page 4 of 4