20220880 Ver 1_Hydro_4B_minutes_final_20220316_20220316

Project: I-3306A/ W-5707C I-40 Design Build

TO: NCDOT Hydraulics Unit

From: James Rice, PE

Meeting Location: NCDOT Century Center

Date: Feb 9, 2022

Subject: I-3306A/ W-5707C 4B Concurrence Plans Review Agenda

General
 Introductions and sign-in sheet
 Attendees:
o James Rice, HDR
o John Jamison, EPU
o Drew Baucom, Lane
o Mike Batten, HDR
o Mike Sanderson, NCDOT
o Bojan Cvijetic, NCDOT Division Residents Office
o Brook Anderson, NCDOT Hydraulics
o David Chaparro, Lane
o Chris Lamm, Lane
o Ryan Conchilla, NCDWR 401 unit
o John Cuff, NCDOT Alternate Delivery
o David Bailey, USACE
o David Webb, NCDOT Hydraulics
o Kaitlin Helms, HDR
o Jennifer Parish, NCDOT Roadside Environmental
o Joseph Lowe, NCDOT
o Malcom Watson, NCDOT design build
o Mark Staley, NCDOT Roadside Environmental
o Michael Turchy, NCDOT EAU
o Jon Nance, NCDOT Design Build
o Robert Patterson, NCDWR 401 unit
o Patty Eason, NCDOT Division construction
o Timothy McFadden, NCDOT Design Build
o Taylor Carter, HDR
o William Snell, NCDOT
o Natalia Womack, HDR
o Travis Wilson, NCWRC
o Will Moody, HDR
o Glenn Mumford, NCDOT Roadway
o Wes Cartner, NCDOT EAU

 I3306A/ W-5707C I-40 Widening from I-85 in Orange County to the Durham County
line with 4 interchange modifications

o I-85 Interchange
o Old NC 86 Interchange
o New Hope Church Road Interchange
o NC 86 Interchange
 Buffers – Neuse and Jordan Lake
o Currently showing buffer offset lines
o For permits we will add the existing transportation facility line to determine impacts
 Still working through potential stormwater basin locations
o Steep terrain adjacent to streams
o Proximity to water table may be a concern. Will be starting Geotech drilling in the
next couple of weeks which will give a better idea of water table
 Focusing on discharging stormwater outside the buffers where possible and flattening
ditch slopes to meet grass swale criteria where possible.
 Majority of impacts related to crosspipes
o RFP required increasing design storm from the 50-yr storm to the 100-yr storm for
major crossings
 This required supplementing many of the larger box culverts
o All CMP pipes need to be replaced
o RFP requires all cross drainage to be conveyed with a single pipe with the
exception being the box culverts.
 Doesn’t allow for smaller pipes to be supplemented
 Due to steep terrain, some outlets of large pipes and culverts have high velocities. We
tried to mitigate with a combination of junction boxes and additional rip rap. We are
anticipating that the rip rap placed in the bed of the jurisdictional streams will be
embedded flush with existing stream bed.
 Based on the steep terrain and the smooth steel pipe that will have to be utilized for bore
and jacks, burying may not be ideal.
o Discussion on each pipe as we review plans.
 All pipe/culvert sizes are preliminary and may change.
o Currently working with the Hydraulics Unit and Division to try and reduce or
eliminate some of the larger supplemental pipes.
 We have completed our field work, so photos should be available for individual sites
upon request.
 Schedule is very important for this job, so we would like to discuss at the end of the
meeting opportunities for early work in upland areas, away from Jurisdictional Resources
prior to permit issuance.
 General Comments
o David Bailey made a General Comment regarding Jack and Bore operations in
wetlands - For wetlands that have Temporary Impacts due to Bore and Jack pits,
will need a robust wetland restoration plan for those areas.
o When NCDOT is NOT burying pipes that carry a jurisdictional stream, those pipes
must be marked on the plans as "not buried" since we are not complying with
general condition 11. It's my recommendation that since we have so much burial
variability with this project, as well as the heavy operations necessary to install
these pipes, it is probably a good practice to indicate "buried" or "not buried" on
all pipes carrying jurisdictional resources. That clarity also helps provide
assurance to the agencies the project will be constructed as permitted.

Discussion on Typical section
 Keeping the existing concrete slabs
 Minimizing work on the outside wherever possible
o Steepened slopes to avoid sliver fills – Rock Plating Detail 2A-9
o Raising headwalls on 2 culverts
PSH 4
 Stream Rocky Run
o Existing 8’X7’ RCBC
o Widening for the Ramp to stay on I40
o 1.5:1 Rock Plating Slope Protection and 3.0’ HW extension to minimize culvert
impacts to existing 8’x7’ RCBC
o Most likely temporary impacts to the stream for construction of the Headwall and
tying in slopes
 Wetland WA
o Potentially impacted due to temporary impacts for culvert headwall installation and
Erosion Control
 David Bailey asked if head wall extension could require temporary impacts. James said
yes temporary impacts are potentially anticipated for this operation, more detail
anticipated for 4C meeting regarding temporary impacts for dewatering.
 Robert Patterson pointed out HWQ water supply critical area for one of the streams and
to keep this in mind while working through the design, and this applies to any pipe inlets
we are keeping and any new outlets we are adding. One of the existing discharge points
looks like it’s going down a steep slope and asked if there needs to be something to
convey that water without eroding the slopes. James said this would be evaluated in the
final design. James stated that there are existing 8 inch outfalls that are corrugated metal
that will be replaced with standard boxes that are less likely to fail.
 Robert Patterson also asked if there will be any grass swales in the median any more and
pointed out that Rocky Run is a water supply critical area. He also reminded to us to
keep in mind existing pipe outlets and any we are adding. One of existing discharge
points looks like it is going down the steep slopes. James said the existing grass swales
would be removed during the widening. Robert said the project is losing a lot of
treatment with this operation and wanted to know if the Division had looked at a
permeable friction course. James said the DB Team would discuss with the Division.
 Ryan Conchilla asked about the Wetland WA at Rocky Run Creek and if it connects to
the stream. James said the Wetland boundary file shows it is not connected, but it’s
possible that it is connected in the field. Then Dave Bailey (Corps) indicated that he
participated in the JD, and if the drawing shows the wetland stopping before the stream,
that is probably accurate, probably a natural levee.
PSH 5
 Retaining as much of existing systems as possible
 Replacing shoulder berm gutter outlets in the same location.
 Stream SA
o Existing 6’X6’ RCBC
o Dual Supplemental 60” pipes under the Ramp to be placed on created floodplain
bench.
o Impacts up and downstream to tie in the floodplain bench
 Wetland WE
o Starts on the sheet but majority on next page

o Anticipate temporary impacts due to grading and supplemental pipe installation.
 Wetland WB
o Starts on the sheet but majority on next page
 David Bailey asked if a detail on the plan sheets showing the floodplain bench could be
provided as has been done on other projects (i.e. matted and vegetated or rock bench).
James said this detail could be provided on the 4C/permit plans consisting of a cross
section showing upstream and downstream.
PSH 6
 Stream SA
o Existing 8X8 Box culvert
o Supplemented with an 84” pipe on a created floodplain.
o Impacts up and downstream to tie in floodplain bench
 Stream SB
o Existing 48” CMP
o Replaced with 78” Bore and Jack
 Steep slope (5.33%)
 Due to high velocities adding junction box on outlet end to flatten last
part of the pipe.
 Approximately 700’ of stream upstream of the inlet, then goes into a
large pipe network.
 Discussion on burying or not
 Rip rap anticipated to be placed in the bed of the constructed channel.
 Will also impact Stream SA
 Stream SC
o Existing 48” RCP
o Replaced with 84” Bore and Jack
 Existing culvert tied to 8’X8’ RCBC but now have to take it to the
outside.
 Steep slope (3.7%)
 Due to high velocities adding junction box on outlet end to flatten last
part of the pipe.
 Discussion on burying or not
o Existing 42” CMP
o Replaced with 78” Bore and Jack
 Pipe must be replaced offline
 Still working through which side would be easier for bore pits
 Will need to tie in new channel up and downstream.
 Steep slope (2.5%)
 Discussion on burying or not
 No additional impacts anticipated upstream of this crossing
 Wetland WB
o Impacts to create the floodplain bench and potential bore pit for 84” supplemental
pipe
 Wetland WC
o Impacts for bore pit for 84” supplemental pipe
 Wetland WE
o No major impacts anticipated on this sheet. Most impacts associated with PSH5
 Wetland WK
o No major impacts anticipated

 Wetland WL
o No major impacts anticipated
 Wetland WL
o No major impacts anticipated, potential impacts for tying in new channel for
crosspipe
 Travis Wilson said 2-2.5% slope or steeper on a smooth pipe will not retain material if
the structure won’t have baffles in it. Travis said he would be more concerned with outlet
stability instead of retaining material. Travis said aquatic organism passage isn’t being
disregarded, but it may have a far greater construction impact and cost to accommodate
aquatic organism passage since the geometry is limited due to the nature of the project
(widening vs. new location). Travis said Rip rap should be in channel bed and should be
pressed into the substrate instead of just piled into the outlet scour protection area, and
would like to see this detail in the Permit submittal. James agreed and said rip rap would
be placed at the stream bed elevation flush, not just piled up at the end. Corps prefers no
drop in boxes. Travis said boxes normally have a lip designed in them anyway, but no
drop designed into them otherwise. James asked if there is a number on pipe steepness
that could be used to determine if box should be buried or not. Travis said from his
experience anything over 2.5% and 200 ft long the material will not hold in a smooth
walled pipe, but if pipe has a little roughness or can put in baffles then burying would be
OK. James said most pipes are 2.5% or steeper. James said guidelines suggest baffles at
2% or steeper, but with smooth steel pipe baffles are not feasible.
 David Bailey said he understands that the new pipe will have to be installed over to the
side of the existing pipe. There are small pipes that appear to be channel abandonment
where the existing pipe flows out into the existing channel and it will no longer get flow
or function so the Corps would look at this as a permanent impact because of fill or loss
of hydrology. The Corps noted several crossings that have this scenario where there
would be permanent impact to the end of the rip rap.
PSH 7
 Wetland WD
o No major impacts anticipated. Currently conflicting with noisewall. Will look to
minimize or eliminate the impacts to this wetland.
PSH 8
 No jurisdictional features on this page
PSH 9
 No jurisdictional features on this page
PSH 10
 No jurisdictional features on this page
PSH 11
 Stream SD
o Existing 30” CMP
o Replaced with 48” Bore and Jack
 Relocating new pipe perpendicular to reduce length and keep impacts
for bore pits outside the jurisdictional features
 Utilizing JB to help turn the water in the ditch
 Jurisdiction begins at outlet of the pipe
 Do not anticipate burying pipe
 Wetland WLL
o No impacts anticipated

 Since JS starts at the end of the pipe JS would start at new pipe outlet and rip rap would
be embedded along the entire ditch. Ditch at outlet would be treated as a stream.
PSH 12
 Stream Cates Creek
o Existing 7’X7’ RCBC
o Supplemented with a 72” pipe on a created floodplain.
o Impacts up and downstream to tie in the floodplain bench
 Wetland WLL (Continued)
o No impacts anticipated
 Wetland WF
o Impacts to create the floodplain bench and potential bore pit for 84” supplemental
pipe
o JS line inside wetland boundaries, working to resolve the issue.
 Wetland WH
o No impacts anticipated – outside the ROW
 Area beaver impounded from time to time. NWR and corps wanted the stream to be
shown through there. The wetland hatching will be cut out where there is stream
channel.
 Not jurisdictional on the upstream side. James agrees, no JS label, will not be shown in
blue for Permit submittal.
PSH 13
 Stream SF
o Existing 8’X6’ RCBC
o No anticipated impacts on this sheet
PSH 14
 Stream SF
o Existing 7’X7’ RCBC
o Supplemented with a 72” pipe on a created floodplain bench.
o Impacts up and downstream to tie in the floodplain bench
o Located offline to help with impacts due to bore pits for bore and jack pipe
 Stream SE
o Minimal impacts to this stream.
o Stream located adjacent to Ramp C will make construction difficult.
o Trying to reduce the number of direct discharges into the stream
 Going from 6 to 3
 Stream SG
o Existing 48” RCP
o Replaced with 78” Bore and Jack
 Slope (1.0%)
 JS ends 500 ft upstream
 Not a very defined channel upstream, flow is mainly overland
flow from the ROW fence to the pipe inlet
 Discussion on burying or not
o Travis Wilson asked if stream was intermittent or perennial? David Bailey said it
went into larger flat wetland system and lost its channel there. James shared
photos of the stream. Travis said if it was borderline intermittent or perennial / not
a channel, Corps and DWR would lean toward inlet stability to make sure no head
cut that could affect quality of the system as opposed to prioritizing aquatic
organism passage. David agreed that if the pipe was buried then it might create a

channel that would affect the wetland so he agrees with keeping it at grade. James
said follow up would be provided at 4C with photo logs. David said something
more robust for temporary wetland impacts may be needed at this location on the
plan sheets (mentioned fabric).
 Currently not anticipating any improvements downstream.
 Wetland WG
o Impacts for bore pit for 78” pipe and tying in channel for new pipe
 Wetland WP
o Impacts for bore pit for 78” pipe and tying in channel for new pipe
 David Bailey asked if SF flowing to the right, SE flowing to the left then they come
together? James said yes. David asked if new trenchless installation pipe will take all or
most flow from SF and existing box will carry flow mostly from SE? James said
supplemental pipe will be set 1 ft above low flow so the low flow for SF and SE will still
flow through box culvert, high flows for both of them will flow through the supplemental
culvert.
 David Bailey pointed out to make sure we capture portion of channel abandoned
downstream
 James Rice stated that boxes will be shown to represent anticipated impacts from bore
pits.
PSH 15
 Stream SJ
o Ties to stream SK at inlet of existing 54” CMP
o Impacts for bore pit for 78” pipe and tying to existing channel
o May require some extra grading to tie into new pipe
 Stream SK
o Existing 54” CMP
o Replaced with 78” Bore and Jack
 Slope (1.7%) Length approximately 200’
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity
 Discussion on burying
 Travis Wilson said slope and length of pipe approaching borderline, but
he suggested burying this pipe.
 Stream SZZ
o Minimal impacts anticipated. May have some minor impacts depending on how far
the rip rap on Stream SK are taken.
PSH 16
 Stream SK (Continued)
o Direct Discharges are being moved outside the buffers where possible.
PSH 17
 Stream SM
o Retaining the existing system the discharges into the stream
o Existing stream has rip rap and is stable
o Do not anticipate any additional impacts at this outlet
o Ryan asked if this stream should be connected, and David Bailey verified it was
correct as displayed.
 Stream SR
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet
PSH 18
 Stream SM (continued)

o Impacts due to new pipe in Stream SL may impact this stream
o Need to further evaluate bore pit locations
 Stream SR (Continued)
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet anticipated although it gets close to the
supplemental pipe. May need to look at extending the 72” pipe to stay off the
outside meander.
 Stream SL
o Existing 42” RCP
o Replaced with 72” Bore and Jack
 Steep Slope (2.5%) even by adding length
 Do not anticipate burying the pipe
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity and to help turn
water
 Discussion on burying
o Existing 24” RCP being replaced with a 42” Bore and Jack
 Impacts to tie back in
 Do not anticipate burying pipe
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity
o Trying to reduce the number of direct discharges
 Stream SO
o No impacts to this stream
PSH 19
 Stream SL (Continued)
o Replacing 30” RCP with 48” bore and jack, impacts associated with tying in new
channel
 Locating bore pits away from jurisdictional areas as much as possible.
 Upstream of existing 30” is not jurisdictional, do not anticipate burying
o Reducing number of direct discharges from the roadway
o The channel that is downstream of the 24” pipe at station 183+00 is not
jurisdictional.
 Wetland WO
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland.
 David Bailey had a general question about non JS upstream of road and JS on
downstream of road. Any benefit to embedding rip rap in ditch before JS it ties to?
Travis Wilson stated from wildlife perspective, in these areas where there is no JS
upstream he is ok with rip rap pad instead of embedding it.
PSH 20
 Stream SL (Continued)
o Becomes Stream SN at inlet of culvert
o Impacts on SL for tying in floodplain bench and bore pits
 Stream SN
o No impacts anticipated upstream
o Existing 7’X6’ RCBC
o Supplemented with a 66” pipe on a created floodplain bench.
o Impacts up and downstream to tie in the floodplain bench
o Located offline to help with impacts due to bore pits for bore and jack pipe
o Junction box utilized to help turn the water
 Wetland WN
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland.

 Utilizing steepened slopes to limit impacts
PSH 21
 New Hope Church Road Interchange
o Footprint is essentially the same
 Stream SN (Continued)
o Replacing existing 36” CMP with new 36” CMP
 Rip rap to tie in and stabilize new connection
 Wetland WN (Continued)
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland.
PSH 22
 Stream SS
o Existing 48” CMP
o Replaced with 72” Bore and Jack
 Steep Slope (3.5%)
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity and to help turn
water
 Discussion on burying
 Rip rap in channel due to velocity and being a new channel
o Combined with Stream SBB on the outside of the project instead of in a JB under
the project
 Stream SBB
o Existing 36” RCP that tied to Stream SS under the alignment
o Impacts due to tying in new channel
 Wetland WQ
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland.
 James- Add note of slope and length on the pipes that we have agreed to not bury.
PSH 23
 Stream SYY
o Existing 30” CMP
o Replaced with 42” Bore and Jack
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity
 Not jurisdictional upstream so do not anticipate burying
PSH 24
 Stream SU
o No impacts to this stream
 Stream ST
o No impacts to this stream
 Stream New Hope Creek
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet
PSH 25
 Stream New Hope Creek (Continued)
o Existing 4@13’x12’ RCBC
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet anticipated – Utilizing steepened slopes
o May require tying new ditch from 30” stormwater outfall.
PSH 26
 No jurisdictional features on this page
PSH 27
 Stream SV
o Existing 48” CMP

o Replaced with 84” Bore and Jack
 Slope (1.0%)
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity and to help turn
water
 Discussion on burying
 Rip rap in channel due to velocity and being a new channel
 Wetland WT
o Will investigate adjusting outlet channel to miss this wetland
 David Bailey asked if it would it be better to keep the pipe as straight as possible. James
stated from a debris standpoint it is better to keep them straight. David was interested to
see what Travis has to say but constructability may be a driving factor. Travis Wilson
had dropped off at this point.
 Send Travis an email with a screenshot to see if it would be preferred to keep pipe
straight and turn the channel at the outlet. Include David in email. Response from
Travis: The preference here would be to remove the junction box and construct a short
channel to connect into the exist stream. From a connectivity standpoint that should
function the best.
PSH 28
 Stream SW
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet
PSH 29
 Stream SW (Continued)
o Ties to Stream SX at the pipe inlet
o Impacts to tie in new channel to new pipe
 Stream SX
o Existing 54” RCP
o Replaced with 84” Bore and Jack
 Slope (1.0%)
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity
 Discussion on burying
 Rip rap in channel due to velocity and being a new channel
 Looking into tying the existing 24” pipe to the culvert inlet at Stream SX
 David Bailey said the Corps would not have any problems with ditching from the inlet to
the culvert.
PSH 30
 Stream Old Field Creek
o Existing 8’X8’ RCBC
o Supplemented with an 84” pipe on a created floodplain.
o Impacts up and downstream to tie in the floodplain bench
o Still coordinating if and where we can supplement
 Sanitary Sewer line on the left side
 Duke Tower on the right side at the outlet
 Utilizing JB to help turn the water
 Wetland WS
o Impacts associated with new ramp.
o SBG outlet to replace the existing outlet
 Downstream end utilizing steepened slopes and extending the headwall to reduce
environmental impacts and impacts to Duke Transmission Tower

 David Bailey pointed out that the supplemental pipe had a note to be buried. James said
that the note will be removed.
 David Bailey inquired about impacts to wetland WS. James said these impacts are
unavoidable due to new ramp.
PSH 31
 Stream SY
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet
 Stream SAA
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet – Utilizing existing storm system
 Stream STT
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet
 Stream SUU
o No impacts to this stream on this sheet
PSH 32
 Stream SCC
o Existing 48” RCP
o Replaced with 84” Bore and Jack
 Slope (0.6%)
 Discussion on burying
 Rip rap in channel on outlet due being a new channel
 Wetland WV
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland.
 Wetland WW
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland.
o Currently adjacent to a cut slope, any concerns with new cut slope?
 David Bailey wanted to point out the segments of channel to be abandoned and taken into
account.
PSH 33
 Stream SDD
o Existing 36” CMP
o Replaced with 72” Bore and Jack
 Slope (2.3%)
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity
 Discussion on burying
 Rip rap in channel on outlet due being a new channel
 Wetland WKK
o Can investigate pulling ditch back to avoid impacts to the wetland
 Wetland WX
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland
 Piping along alignment to eliminate a crossing – not jurisdictional up or downstream of
this crossing
 David Bailey requested that we send Travis Wilson an email with a screenshot to see if it
would be preferred to bury the pipe. Response from Travis: The standard is to bury,
therefore in this type situation where it is right on the “line” I typically request to bury.
PSH 34
 Wetland WJJ
o Showing minor impacts, will investigate pulling slopes in to avoid if possible.
 Wetland WY
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland

 David Bailey asked if there were existing and proposed cut slopes. James said that they
were
PSH 35
 Wetland WZ
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland

PSH 36
 No jurisdictional features on this page
PSH 37
 Stream SEE
o Existing 48” outlet that we are retaining
o Adding rip rap in the gap between the existing outlet and the rip rap that is out there
now
o Utilizing steepened slopes to avoid additional impacts
 David Bailey made a permitting note - as appropriate, when existing stream degradation
is present, if the stream quality does not warrant 2:1 mitigation, a lower ratio can be
considered with supporting documentation (e.g. NCWAM forms).
Michael noted that we can hopefully identify those areas at the 4C meeting, and discuss
with the Merger Team as appropriate.
PSH 38
 Stream SEE (Continued)
o Existing 48” RCP
o Replaced with 78” Bore and Jack
 Slope (1.5%)
 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity
 Discussion on burying
 Rip rap in channel on outlet due being a new channel
 Can Vary the inlet channel to reduce slope to avoid rip rap if possible.
 Stream SGG
o No impacts anticipated at this stream. Will look at pulling back channel
improvements before the stream confluence.
 Stream SFF
o No impacts anticipated at this stream.
 David Bailey noted that it looks like wetland WAA should be calculated as a total loss.
PSH 39
 Stream SEE (Continued)
o Retaining existing systems
o Do not anticipate any impacts for this stream on this sheet
PSH 40
 Stream SEE (Continued)
o Retaining existing systems
o Do not anticipate any impacts for this stream on this sheet
 Wetland WBB
o No impacts anticipated for this wetland
PSH 41
 Stream SEE (Continued)
o Existing 54” CMP
o Replaced with 108” Bore and Jack
 Slope (1.5%)

 Utilizing JB at the end to reduce slope and velocity
 Discussion on burying
 Rip rap in channel on outlet due being a new channel
 Can Vary the inlet channel to reduce slope to avoid rip rap if possible.
 Wetland WCC
o Slope stakes show encroaching on the wetland boundary, but slope stakes are
basically on top of fill slope. Wetland extends up the fill slope, may need to look
into validity of this shape.
 David Bailey noted this pipe would be a good candidate to keep buried, 300’ realignment
channel and carrying water a long distance, question for Travis or Gary any concern that
plain flat bottom channel is going to be ok for wildlife passage given how long it is. Just
check to make sure there aren’t any concerns from them on that. CC David and Ryan
with the State on that email. Response from Travis: Yes. However I don’t know the
slope of the channel so it’s hard knowing to what extent you need to add or can add
structures. Even if the slope is relatively flat structures will help to maintain channel
dimensions. This will be a fairly sediment starved reach coming out of the culvert but
there will be debris and some sediment movement over the 300’. Providing structures,
will aid in maintaining geomorphology while moving that material downstream.
Otherwise you risk having a homogeneous reach with little channel formation that tends
to clog with debris and vegetation. Also, don’t over-widen the channel. Structures will
allow the construction of an appropriate channel dimension that will be stable during
higher flows.
PSH 42
 Stream SHH
o Existing 24” RCP
o Replaced with 42” Bore and Jack
 Not jurisdictional upstream – do not anticipate burying
 Slope (2.0%)
PSH 43
 Stream SII
o Utilizing existing 36” outfall
o Do not anticipate any impacts to this stream on this sheet

PSH 44
 Stream SJJ
o Do not anticipate any impacts to this stream on this sheet
 Wetland WII
o Do not anticipate any impacts
 Wetland WDD
o Do not anticipate any impacts
PSH 45
 Stream Old Field Creek
o Do not anticipate any impacts to this stream on this sheet
 David Bailey mentioned that there may be an area along the YLine that was potentially
outside the PJD area and asked Michael Turchey if anyone has been out to delineate it.
Michael believes that they did. Michael is still investigating and David asked Michael to
send any information he has.
PSH 46
 No jurisdictional features on this page

Discussion on Utilizing General Permit
o Agreed that GP 31 or GP 50 would be applicable.

4C will tentatively be scheduled for April 20, 2022