20140762 Ver 4_13 - R-2915D 4C Meeting Minutes_20190918

Minutes from the Interagency 4C Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
R-2915D in Ashe County
September 11, 2013
2:45 PM — 4:15 PM
Team Members:
Monte Matthews, USACE
Marella Buncicke, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Amy Euliss, NCDWQ
Mitch Batuzich, FHWA
Chris Militscher, EPA
Minutes:
(absent)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(absent)
(phone)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, Hydraulics
Will Hines, Sungate Design Group
Brad Smith, Sungate Design Group
Bruce Klappenbach, Structure Design
Tatia White, Roadway Design
Piotr Stojda, Roadway Design
Erin Cheely, PDEA
Carla Dagnino, NES
Vincent Rivers, Hydraulics
Andrew Williams, USACE
Jeremy Goodwin, Roadside Environmental
Trent Beaveer, Division 11 (phone)
General Comment: It was asked that the drawing of small impacts be blown up in size to
make seeing the impact easier.
General Comment: In the Summary Sheet, break out streambank stabilization.
General Comment: In the Stormwater Management Plan, be more specific on the location
of the grass swales.
Sheet 4:
No comments.
Sheet 5:
No comments.
Sheet 6:
Site 3: Label as Site 3A and 3B.
Site 3B: Label temporary impacts. The JS should be a Temporary Impact.

Site 4: Where does the JS start? In the Summary Table, show wetlands as a total take.
USACE asked if a blow up of the drawing could be provided.
Site 5: If the Lateral V-ditch ties into the JS below OHW, then need to show as an
impact.
Sheet 8:
Site 6: Investigate using a sill in one of the 84-inch cross -pipes. Investigate using a
cross -vane downstream of the outlet.
Sheet 10:
Site 8: Do we need a Streambank Stabilization Detail? Why is the existing 18-inch pipe
shown in red?
Sheet 11:
Site 11: Show Streambank Stabilization as a permanent impact.
Sheet 14:
Site 13: The Summary Sheet shows mechanized clearing, but the Permit Drawing does
not. USACE asked if a blow up of the drawing could be provided.
Sheet 15:
Site 14: How will the inlet channel be constructed? Is additional easement needed?
There is also a JS shown on the west side that should have impacts shown. The riprap at
the outlet should be a permanent impact.
Site 15: The riprap at the outlet should be a permanent impact.
Sheet 16:
Station 607+50 -L- Left: Use a riprap pad instead of on banks only.
C}1PPt 17.
Site 17: Label as Site 17A and 17B. Streambank stabilization should be a permanent
impact.
Sheet 18:
Site 23: It appears that the FS file has not been updated to show a JS on the downstream
end of the 24-inch cross -pipe. Need to show a temporary impact for the pipe cleanout.

Sheet 19:
Station 645+00 -L- Right: The question was asked if the blue line was a JS. Based on the
WET file, it is not.
Sheet 20:
Site 25: The riprap at the outlet should be a permanent impact.
Sheet 21
Site 26: How will the bevel at the inlet end of the box culvert be constructed? Are any
temporary impacts needed to be shown? Investigate using a sill in one of the barrels.
Site 29: Revise Detail to show a floodplain bench.
Site 30: Leave as mechanized clearing.
Station 670+00 -L- Right (Structure 2129): Place inlet of proposed 30" pipe on grade in
order to avoid draining wetland.
Sheet 22
No Comments.
Meeting adjourned.