20210461 Ver 1_U5813_Final CP4C Meeting Minutes_HNTB Response to Comments_20210302

Page 1 of 4
U-5813 CP-4C MEETING MINUTES
Interagency Permit Drawing Package Review Meeting

State Project: U-5813, US 64 from Asheboro Bypass to East of I-73/I-74/US-220
Meeting Date: October 21, 2020
Date: November 5, 2020
Location: GoTo Meeting

Attending:
=

On 11/23/20 HNTB provided response to comments provided within these minutes. Those responses
are shown in RED.

Minutes
James Byrd, HNTB Hydraulics Section Manager, welcomed everyone to the meeting and handled introductions of
the project team. Attendance was confirmed and the Permit Drawing Package was displayed on screen using the
GoTo Meeting platform to facilitate discussions.

Digital pdf copies of the U-5813 Permit Drawing Package were provided to meeting attendees on the NCDOT xfer
site at this link: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/4B4CMtgPkgDraw/U-5813%204C/

The meeting continued with a page flip of the Permit Drawing Package beginning with the Stormwater
Management Plan (SMP) followed by a site by site review.

General Comments
• It should be noted that this project “is not” in Merger. This meeting was held following the CP4C Meeting
format to facilitate interagency discussion while providing a review of the Project Drainage Designs and
Permit Drawing Package.

Participants:
Reuben Blakley, PE (NCDOT – Div. 8 DCE)
Rex Badgett (NCDOT – Div. 8)
Pam Williams (NCDOT – PMU)
Terry Farr, PE (NCDOT – PMU)
Melanie Nguyen, PE (NCDOT – PMU)
Jennifer Hernandez, PE (NCDOT – PMU)
Paul Atkinson, PE (NCDOT – Hydraulics)
Krishna Sedai, PE (NCDOT – SMU)
Tucker Martin, PE (NCDOT – Utilities)
Chris Rivenbark (NCDOT – ECAP)
Jason Dilday (NCDOT – ECAP)
Jennifer Parish, EI (NCDOT – REU)
Mark Staley, EI (NCDOT – REU)
Dan Robinson, PE (Kimley Horn – Hydraulics GEC)
Jordan Bendl, EI (Kimley Horn – Hydraulics GEC)
Roy Tellier, PE (HNTB Roadway)
John Hornbeck, PE (HNTB Roadway)
James Byrd, PE (HNTB Hydraulics)
Paul Cameron, PE (HNTB Hydraulics)

Team Members:
Rob Ridings, NCDWR (present)
Robert Patterson, NCDWR (present)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (not present)
Felix Davila, FHWA (not present)
James Lastinger, USACE (not present)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (not present)
Amanetta Somerville, USEPA (not present)

Page 2 of 4
SMP
• Robert Patterson led off the discussion with revisions needed on the SMP. This included updating the
stream classification for the UT to Cedar Fork Creek to HQW, WS-II from the Class C designation shown.
Comment incorporated.
• Rob Ridings added that the correct classification is included on the project Green Sheet and has been well
documented. He further added that there are potential design implications of the classification change
and that HNTB will need to provide designs that meet the design criteria to the maximum extent
practicable (MEP).
HNTB has updated the SMP and looked at all sites draining to the UT to Cedar Fork Creek to maximum
treatment opportunities. Site 4 has been updated to include some grassed swale treatment where
allowable. Going forward, the erosion control plans will be designed to High Quality Water standards.
• HNTB responded that it would update the SMP accordingly and make sure that Erosion Control Designs in
the area of concern are designed to the standards for Sensitive Watersheds.
• Robert Patterson requested that HNTB revisit the Swales portion of the SMP and delete any listed
features that are clearly not swales such as Channel Relocations.
o HNTB acknowledged the direction and advised that it would update the table.
The swale table has been updated to only include features that meet swale criteria and don’t
carry any live flow.
• Prior to this meeting, Robert Patterson provided an e-mail requesting that the implementation of
Hazardous Spill Basins be investigated for the portion of the project that drains into the UT to Cedar Fork
Creek watershed. This e-mail is attached to these minutes.
o At the conclusion of the meeting Dan Robinson advised that hazardous spill basins are not
required since the project is approx. 1.5 miles upstream of the Critical Area (CA).
o Robert Patterson conceded that while DWR cannot enforce the use of hazardous spill basins,
they would like to see more treatment provided for Sites 2 through 5.
o HNTB advised that they would investigate additional treatment options along with the site
comments provided below.
Treatment options investigated. It has been confirmed that hazardous spill basins are not
warranted and provide NCDOT unwanted maintenance issues.
• At the conclusion of the meeting Rob Ridings reiterated several key points that included the following:
o Keep investigating treatment options and maximize swale placement.
o Confirm that the erosion control plan will be developed to sensitive watershed standards
resultant of the revised UT to Cedar Fork Creek classification.
o When submitting the permit package, designs/plans for locations such as Site 4 should include
provisions to keep banks stabilized and vegetated to the extent possible. This includes the use of
coir fiber beyond limits of geotextile shown in ditch details and notes to develop thick stand of
native vegetation on overbanks.
Channel change details have been updated in response to comments. This includes channel
changes at Site 2 and Site 4. The Class II Rip Rap in Detail 10 (site 4) extends to top of bank
(shallow channel change on steeper slope) so no additional matting has been called for. The
same applies to Channel Change Detail 23 Detail 11 (site 2) has been updated to include coir fiber
to top of banks.
o For any questions or concerns, contact Rob directly and he will provide any necessary
information. He will also provide the Standard Project 401 Conditions for HQW and WS-II for the
design team’s use.
 The above noted Standard Project 401 Conditions were provided on 10/21/2020.

Site 1
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
• There were no questions or comments provided.
• James Byrd added the beginning of the project ties to the recently completed NCDOT Design Build Project
R-2536 (Asheboro Bypass).
Page 3 of 4
o Roy Tellier advised that the Permit Drawing Package is showing the up-to-date FS File.

Site 2
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
• No questions or comments were provided.

Site 3
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
• Special attention was given to this location to avoid impacts on the downstream property and the existing
3 @ 54” RCP culverts.
Site 3 (Cont.)
• Rob Riding asked the design team to consider other options for pipe outlets that would avoid direct
untreated discharges into the stream if possible.
o Of particular concern was the discharge directly into the proposed RCBC via a 36” RCP.
o James Byrd advised this outlet point was chosen to minimize impacts to Parcel 20.
o James Byrd added that in addition to the SBG that’s being drained, this outlet also included
runoff from line ahead that’s being treated in grass swales.
o James Byrd advised that designs in this area would be revisited as requested but added that
limiting factors at this location such as existing topography and ROW constraints may dictate that
current designs remain.
Additional investigations completed for Site 3. It has been confirmed that the best option is to route the
pipe outlet through the culvert sidewalk due to ROW concerns on Parcel 20 and downstream property
impacts.
• Krishna Sedai asked for confirmation that the proposed 36” RCP will outlet into the side wall of the
proposed RCBC.
o James Byrd confirmed the design and noted that other options weren’t viable due to NCDOT
direction that impacts to Parcel 20 be minimized/avoided to the extent practicable.

Site 4
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
• James Byrd noted that the proposed culvert is steeper than ideal and added that the proposed designs
match the existing conditions.
• Rob Ridings mentioned maximizing potential treatment of the outfall at the beginning of Permit Drawing
Sheet 9.
o HNTB advised that it would revisit this area for potential design revisions.
System 0802 has been redesigned to discharge line ahead at -L- 57+00 Rt. This allowed 70 linear feet of
grass swale treatment for the outfall previously discharging directly into the HQW.

Site 5
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
o Downstream impacts are resultant of repair work being done to retain the existing pipe.
o Upstream impacts are the result the driveway near the culvert inlet.
• No questions or comments were provided.

Site 6
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
o Proposed impacts are the result of an existing pipe being replaced along with the placement of
adequate outlet protection.
• No questions or comments were provided.

Site 7
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
Page 4 of 4
o Proposed impacts are the result of the improvements to Ramp A.
• There were no questions or comments provided.

Site 8
• James Byrd provided a description of the impacts at this location.
o Proposed impacts are the result of the improvements to Ramp D.
• There were no questions or comments provided.

This is our understanding of items discussed and decisions reached. Please contact us if there are changes or
additions.

Submitted by,
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Paul Cameron, PE