20130223_U2524D_Interagencyminutes4C_Final__20160128

Subject: Minutes from CP-4C Hydraulic Design Review Meeting on December 9, 2015 for U-
2524D in Guilford County
Team Members:
David Bailey - USACE (present)
Felix Davila — FHWA (present)
David Wanucha - NCDWR (Telephone)
Travis Wilson - NCWRC (Telephone)
Dr. Cynthia Van Der Wiel - EPA (absent)
Gary Jordan - USFWS (absent)
Participants:
Patty Eason, NCDOT Division 7(Telephone)
Tatia White, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Katrina Hazel, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Korey Newton, NCDOT SMU
Keith Paschal, NCDOT SMU
Matthew Lauffer, NCDOT Hydraulics
Mark Staley, NCDOT REU
Lisa Feller, NCDOT PDEA
Carla Dagnino, NCDOT NES
Erin Cheely, NCDOT NES
Don Proper, NCDOT Utilities
Jamie Byrd, HNTB
Ben Carroll, HNTB
The Project is a portion of Greensboro-Western Loop from east of US 220 (Battleground
Avenue) to east of Lawndale Drive.
The meeting began at 8:00 am.
GENERAL NOTES / COMMENTS
• HNTB advised that the current U-2524D project was originally part of the U-2524C project.
• HNTB advised that the 4B Meeting for the original U-2524C project was held on January 25,
2006 and provided Meeting Minutes from the meeting.
• USACE stated that inlets / outlets requiring channel realignments will require mitigation and
should not be labeled as bank stabilization on the impact summary sheet.
• USACE advised that the date of the Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was 2/5/2014.
• NES advised that it will provide Hydraulics permit drawing review comments for
incorporation before the end of the year.
• NES advised that the Permit Application should be completed in late February or early
March 2016.
• NES/ Hydraulics request that buried or not buried labels be place on all pipe/culverts that are
conveying jurisdictional stream in the plan and profile view.
• HNTB will incorporate updated FS file sent post 4C.
• USACE stated via email on 1/26/16, that the current designs propose considerably greater
stream impacts than those authorized in the original permit. As such, 30 days will be
required to advertise the proposed modifications on public notice.
Page 1 of 3

Sheet 5 (Site 1):
Site l:
• Concerns were expressed about the stability of the proposed standard base ditch. HNTB
advised that the outlet pipe was designed flat to reduce outlet velocities. The base ditch
is also lined with rip-rap to maintain stability.
• HNTB will provide a bank stabilization detail where the proposed ditch intersects the
jurisdictional stream.
Sheet 6 (Site 2):
Site 2:
• USACE stated that the pipe outlet channel will require 2:1 mitigation and should not be
shown as bank stabilization.
• HNTB will turn on hazardous spill basin labels.
Sheet 7 & 8 (Site 3):
Site 3:
NES and USACE stated that a jurisdictional stream is missing from the plans near -L-
Sta. 458+00 RT. HNTB will add this impact as Site 3A upon receipt of the updated FS
file. USACE stated that no mitigation will be required for Site 3A.
USACE requested Hydraulics/HNTB provide the length of stream that will remain post
construction.
o Approx. 780 LF of existing stream will remain undisturbed post project.
o USACE requests a functional assessment be performed using the NC Stream
Assessment Method to determine if compensatory mitigation for indirect impacts
is warranted.
HNTB advised that the stream and pipe crossing locations will be updated in the revised
FS file.
NCDOT Utilities stated that there is a conflict with the JB w/ MH right of -L- Sta.
468+50. HNTB will coordinate with NCDOT Utilities to eliminate the conflict.
Sheet 9& 9B (Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9):
• All agreed that aquatic passage through the proposed culverts is unreasonable and
therefore culverts 1, 2, and 3 should not be buried.
• HNTB will add a note to the culvert profiles stating "RCBC not buried due to stream
stability concerns and a lack of aquatic passage".
• All Agency Members agreed that grade control structures upstream of the culvert inlets
may be required in the future if site inspections during construction identify stream
stability concerns.
• USACE advised that all culvert channel improvements will require 2:1 miiigation and
should therefore not be shown as bank stabilization.
• NES requested HNTB label bank stabilization, channel improvements and flood plain
benches on the plans where applicable.
• Concerns were expressed about stream stability at confluence directly downstream of the
outlets of Culverts 2 and 3. HNTB advised that Class `P rip-rap had been used to
stabilize the banks and protect from degradation.
• USACE advised that mitigation at Site 7 will be 1:1.
Page 2 of 3

• USACE advised that mitigation will not be required for Site 8.
Sheet 10 (Site 9, 10, & 11):
Site 9:
• USACE stated that all impacts will require 2:1 mitigation and no bank stabilization
should be shown.
• NCDOT Utilities questioned whether the downstream utility crossing will be needed for
future maintenance. NCDOT Utilities will coordinate this will the City of Greensboro.
Site 10: NES requested bank stabilization detail for Site 10.
Site 11:
• HNTB questioned whether the mechanized clearing impacts should be extended to the
R/W. USACE requested the extent of impacts remain at the standard lOft offset to
eliminate the potential for a total take. REU stated that they were comfortable with the
current extent of the impacts.
Sheet l0A (Site 12):
Site 12:
• Concerns were express about the 1.Sft drop in the downstream junction box. NCWRC
stated that they were ok with the current designs.
• USACE advised that Bank Stabilization was acceptable at 72" RCP outlet.
Closin� Statements
• HNTB agreed to have revised permit drawings submitted by January 31, 2016.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00am.
Page 3 of 3