U-2800 4B Stream Minutes _2_

Memorandum of Meeting
Date: November 8, 2012
Place \Time: NCDOT, Strictures Unit Conference Room, 11:00 A.M.
Participants: John Thomas - USACE
Amy Euliss — NCDWQ
Chris Militscher — USEPA (phone in)
Marla Chambers — NCWRC
Felix Davila — FHWA
Vince Rhea — PDEA
Phil Harris - NES
Jim Mason - NES
Rachelle Beauregard — NES
Marella Buncick - USFWS
Marshall Clawson - NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Bill Zerman - NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
David Stutts — NCDOT Strictures Unit
David Hering - NCDOT Trans. Prog. Management
Byron Kyle - NCDOT Trans. Prog. Management
Marls Staley — NCDOT REU
Keith Raulston — NCDOT Div. 9
Kenny Haynes — Blythe Development
Michael Wood — Catena Group
Ivy Kimbrough — Catena Group
Tommy Peacock - RK &K
Brandon McInnis — RK &K
Matthew Cook - RK &K
Tina Swiezy — RK &K
Subject: NEPA \404 Merger Team — Concurrence Point 4B Meeting for
Streams and Wetlands
U -2800 — Macy Grove Rd., Forsyth and Guilford Counties
The 30% Hydraulic Review was held in order to reach agreement on concurrence point
4B for the Macy Grove Rd. extension in Forsyth and Guilford Counties. The following
items were discussed and conclusions reached:
Tommy Peacock opened the meeting with introductions and a brief description of the
project. John Thomas asked is we were permitting both U -2800 and U -4734. The
consensus was that it would be a phased permit. Felix Davila asked if there were still two
roundabouts. Brandon McInnis explained that in the preliminary design two roundabouts
and ramps were proposed from Macy Grove Rd. to East Mountain St. This design did
not require a signal on Macy Grove Rd. The plans were revised to include only the
western most roundabout and ramp with a signal now required on Macy Grove Rd. The
plans were revised by NCDOT before they were given to the proposers for the Design

Build Pursuit. The traffic was checked by the Design Build Team to confirm that the
intersection on Macy Grove Rd. and the roundabout on East Mountain St. would work at
an acceptable level. This change reduced constriction cost and impacts. Marla
Chambers asked about the shorter roads at the beginning of the project. Mr. McInnis
explained that they were service roads for the properties adjacent to the project.
Matthew Cook then proceeded to review the project on a sheet by sheet basis. He
pointed out that the project is along the Randleman Basin and Jordan Basin divide. For
purposes of clarity, the streams were highlighted on the projected set as pink for USGS
blue lines and green for Soils Map blue lines.
Sheet 4: No jurisdictional features affected.
Sheet 5: No jurisdictional features affected. Amy Euliss asked about placing all
stormwater BMPs outside the right -of -way in Permanent Drainage Easement (PDE),
referencing the ditch at —L- 27 +70 RT. Marshall Clawson stated that a ditch used to tie to
an existing outfall as in this case was not considered a stormwater BMP. However the
portion of the ditch that is lined with riprap would be in PDE.
Mr. Cook stated that there are 4 pipelines that pass through the project on this sheet
(2 @36 ", 1 @30 ", 1 abandoned). Due to the footprint of the roadway facility going on top
of the pipes in new locations, the pipes would need to be encased and the carrier pipes
reinstalled. This would occur under —RPC -, -RPD -, and —L -. The initial cost provided by
Williams Pipeline would be $11 million. This has caused NCDOT and the Design -Build
Team to consider additional options. One option includes bridging the gas lines. In any
case, there is a chance that this sheet will look different in the 4C meeting due to this
situation. There are no jurisdictional features in the areas the pipelines would be affected
by the project.
Sheet 6: No jurisdictional features affected. Mr. Cook pointed out that the pipe outfall
and riprap pad at —L- 56 +20 RT would not extend in to the jurisdictional stream. The
pipe would not be buried since the JS call is downstream of the project.
Sheet 7: No jurisdictional features affected.
Sheet 8: No jurisdictional features affected.
Sheet 9: No jurisdictional features affected.
Sheet 10: There is a jurisdictional stream affected on right side of I -40 Business at appr.
—Y2- 35 +50 RT. There is an existing 48" pipe that needs to be extended due to the
roadway facility. The outlet of the existing pipe is appr. 3' below the channel elevation it
ties to 50' downstream. By extending the pipe to the toe of the proposed fill slope, we
cannot meet the elevations of the jurisdictional stream. The elevations appr. 500'
downstream are even one foot above the outlet pipe elevations. Appr. 400' downstream
is a wetland as well. By showing pictures of the area and the nature of the channel banks
upstream and downstream, Mr. Cook showed that there is an overabundance of sediment
that has deposited over time in the jurisdictional stream which has caused the elevations

to increase. The elevation of the outlet pipe has remained the same and is
consequentially lower than the downstream elevations.
Several options were investigated and discussed. Mr. Cook showed what by guidelines
and calculations would be required: a 114' by 80' riprap energy dissipator. This is
unfeasible since it would require digging out the jurisdictional stream for 114' and lining
it with riprap. He opened the discussion up for options. One option involved installing a
new pipe by bore and jack under the facility and tying further downstream since the new
invert in of the bore and jacked pipe is roughly the same as an elevation in the stream
downstream. Mr. Cook pointed out that 1) the pipe capacity would be greatly diminished
(virtually nothing) since it would have to be laid almost completely flat; 2) the ability to
get the bore and jack equipment in place would be very difficult given the road slopes
and would end up affecting the jurisdictional stream even more; 3) The cover for the pipe
would need to be checked since we would be raising it up close to the bottom of the
subgrade; 4) it would be difficult to maintain erosion control during the process; 5) it
would be extremely difficult to maintain flow in the existing jurisdictional stream during
the operation. The stream itself cannot be dredged to allow the elevations to work since
1) it is jurisdictional; 2) it would require dredging through a wetland. There was no
evidence of the existing pipe being undersized or of flooding in the areas upstream.
Another option discussed involved raising the outlet headwall elevation and using a 1.5:1
fill slope in the area to limit the pipe extension length. This might still require some
digging of the channel. After much discussion, Mr. Cook agreed to work on the area and
provide NCDOT Hydraulics with an option. A field meeting was suggested to look at the
site.
There is a wetland affected at —Y2- 39 +00 RT. The jurisdictional stream will not be
affected here.
Sheet 11: There is a jurisdictional stream affected on both sides of I -40 Business at appr.
—Y2- 45 +50.
Mr. Cook explained that the inlet of the existing pipe needs to be extended due to the
roadway facility. The existing inlet elevation is higher than the stream upstream (appr.
0.8'). For this reason, the pipe is being extended to an elevation that will provide the
channel an opportunity to enter the proposed pipe even though the proposed pipe will
need to be virtually flat. In doing so, the fill slopes in this area can not be 2:1. They will
be appr. 2.5:1.
At the outlet end, the existing pipe needs to be extended as well. If it ties to the existing
channel at the toe of the fill slope, it would discharge almost directly in to a bend in the
stream. Mr. Cook suggested angling the pipe and extending if further downstream to a
straighter section of stream. Even though this would be a greater stream length impact,
there is less chance for the stream banks to be adversely affected. The consensus was
that this is OK. The outlet for a 2GI at —Y2- 47 +50 RT will now tie to the junction box at
the pipe extension mentioned above instead of having its own outlet point.
Sheet 12: No jurisdictional features affected.
Sheet 13: No jurisdictional features affected.

Sheet 14: No jurisdictional features affected. Mr. Cook asked if there was a JS call for
the stream labeled SI in the planning documents ( -Y2- 94 +00 LT) since it was not
represented in the digital file provided to the Design -Build Team. Jim Mason said he
would check on it.
Follow Up: Mr. Mason confirmed that it was not a jurisdictional stream.
Sheet 15: No jurisdictional features affected.
Sheet 16: There is a jurisdictional stream affected under the new —Y7- alignment. Ms.
Euliss asked about the stability of the stream. Mr. Cook gave dimensions and showed a
picture that was taken recently in the field depicting a stable channel. He provided
calculations showing that the post - project condition would not greatly affect the channel
versus the existing pre - project condition. He stated that we are trying to retain as much
of the existing system in the area as possible.
Sheet 17: No jurisdictional features affected. Mr. Cook asked if the pond shown at —Y9-
19+00 LT should be shown as jurisdictional (even thought the Team is not impacting it)
since it is listed as non - jurisdictional in the planning documents. Mr. Mason confirmed
that since it is isolated and non - jurisdictional in the documents, the JS linestyle should be
removed.
Due to the nature of the site on sheet 10, it was decided that a meeting should be held in
the field to look at it prior to the 4C meeting. Michael Wood agreed to send out an email
and coordinate the time within the next few weeks.
The meeting was adjourned.
R ,HVChaulic, DOCLTI\EENTS`,U -800 aB Stream Mamtes.doc