U3326AB

DRAFT MINUTES OF INTERAGENCY 4B MEETING
MEETING FOR PROJECT U-3326 A&B, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
HELD ON 03/12/2008
Team Members:
Participants:
Andrew Nottingham NCDOT Hydraulics Unit (Present)
Andrew Williams USACE (Present)
Gary Jordan USFWS (Absent)
Travis Wilson NCWRC (Absent)
David Wainwright NCDWQ (Present)
Chris Militscher EPA (Absent)
Kathy Matthews EPA (Present)
Donnie Brew FHWA (Present)
David Harris REU (Absent)
Jim Speer Roadway (Present)
Quang Nguyen Structures (Present)
D. Linwood Stone PDEA (Absent)
Rachelle Beauregard NEU (Present)
Patty Eason Division 7 (Present)
Karen Gulledge NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Jim Mason NEU
Karen Reynolds PDEA
Danny Gardner Roadway
Piotr Stojda Roadway
DOT began the meeting at 1:30 P.M. with an overview of the project.
Sheet 4:
No comments
Sheet 5:
Hydraulics noted that there were two jurisdictional streams on this sheet, both being
Unnamed Tributaries to Lake Reidsville. NEU noted that the label for stream 15 & 16
were incorrect. Stream 15 is the longer section of stream shown on the plans and stream
16 the shorter section. Hydraulics discussed that the existing 36" rcp was not adequately
sized for the drainage area and that NCDOT would bore/jack a supplemental 42" steel
pipe alongside the 36" pipe.
Hydraulics discussed the location and size (left of -L- station 34+00, long and
rectangular) of the Hazardous Spill Basin. Hydraulics noted that all of the roadway
drainage would be taken to the basin except for a very short section between -L- station
36+00 to 38+00 Rt. This section of roadway drainage will go to a roadway ditch, which
will transition into a 2.0' Lateral Base ditch from -L- station 34+50 to 36+00 Rt. DWQ
questioned that the Lateral Base ditch appeared to just stop at the Match Line.
Page 1 of 6

Hydraulics stated that there would be a transition from the Lateral Base ditch to the
roadway ditch and would be shown on the final plans.
PDEA inquired about the length of the pipe(s), and Hydraulics replied that the existing
36" pipe would be extended on both ends to the fill slope.
Sheet 6:
No comments
Sheet 7:
No comments
Sheet 8:
No comments
Sheet 9:
No comments
Sheet 10:
Hydraulics discussed Stream 18 -Unnamed Tributary to Lake Reidsville and that it is
basically being piped to the outlet as it is now, with only a few short areas where it is not
piped. The stream starts on Sheet 11 near -L- station 105+00 and flows in an excavated
channel and through several pipes before crossing the Main line.
USACE inquired about the amount of stream impacts -approximately 248' of linear
impacts due to the project design. Hydraulics states that the proposed drainage system
from -L- station 91+00 to 95+00 Rt. will take the roadway drainage around and down -
Y8- to outlet into a Lateral Base ditch running parallel to -Y8A-. USACE asks whether
NCDOT is diverting water from Stream 18. Hydraulics says, no, because this is mostly
roadway drainage and not really feeding Stream 18. The main flow for Stream 18 comes
from the right (from Sheet 11).
The existing pipe system will be retained and there will be a 42" rcp pipe that outlets to a
energy dissipater (not shown on plans).
Sheet 11:
No comments
Sheet 12:
DWQ inquired about the detention ponds on this sheet and whether NCDOT will be
affecting them. Hydraulics states that the ponds will remain undisturbed by the proposed
drainage systems.
Page 2 of 6

Sheet 13:
Hydraulics discusses Stream 14 -Unnamed Tributary to Little Troublesome Creek.
There is currently a 66" rcp pipe located there. NCDOT proposes to extend the pipe on
both the inlet/outlet and to relocate the channel on the inlet side and outlet side.
USAGE inquired about the proposed stream relocation, other possible designs, and the
possible use of retaining walls. USAGE also questions whether there is going to be a
pedestrian pathway/greenway along the fill slope. Hydraulics says that alternative is no
longer being used and that there is room on the berm for a sidewalk.
Hydraulics states that the current topography is very steep on the outlet side and there are
concerns about the stability of the fill slope. NCDOT looked at the possible use of 1.5:1
fill slopes but due to the topography and stability concerns decided to use 2:1 fill slopes.
A retaining wall is not a good alternative because it would cost a lot more money to build
and there would still be issues concerning stability.
Hydraulics discusses the other possible design option would be to add a JB at the existing
outlet and then pipe to the existing stream. USAGE, EPA, and DWQ prefer leaving the
stream as open as practicable instead of piping it. Hydraulics states that, as far as R/W is
concerned, that it might be less costly to pipe it because of the amount of R/W that would
need to be purchased to construct/maintain the outlet channel.
USAGE states that at this site, the most practical means possible should be used for
avoidance/minimization and notes that this stream is listed as having impacts over 300'.
Impacts over 300' will require an Individual Permit.
EPA has concerns about the drainage system that is being discharged at the inlet of the
pipe without any kind of treatment. The current system appears to outlet further away
from the inlet and some treatment is available before reaching the stream. EPA would
like to know if the pipe outlet can be moved away from the inlet. Hydraulics says that it
will be hard to discharge elsewhere, but that NCDOT will look into other possibilities.
USAGE, EPA, and DWQ question whether there will be some sort of armoring/rip rap in
the proposed outlet channel due to the sharp angle of the stub-out pipe. Hydraulics says
that there will be rip rap on the banks of the channel. USAGE, EPA, and DWQ want to
make sure that the channel remains stable during & after construction.
Sheet 14:
Hydraulics discusses Stream 13 -Little Troublesome Creek (LTC), noting that it is in a
Detailed Flood study. Hydraulics discusses that our proposed drainage system to the
north of LTC will outlet to grass swales before discharging into LTC. The system on the
west side of the Main line will discharge to a grass Swale and then be picked up by a pipe
and discharged into the existing 54" rcp. The system on the east side of the Main line
will discharge to a grass Swale as well and then to a rip rap lined ditch (not shown on the
plans) to the creek.
Page 3 of 6

The drainage system on the south side of LTC and the east side of the Main line will
discharge to PSH's (not shown on the plans). The system on the west side of the Main
line will discharge directly into the 54" rcp.
EPA wants to know how much drainage is coming to LTC from the north. Hydraulics
states that it starts from about the middle of Sheet 15. EPA asks if it would be possible to
continue the grass swale (north side of LTC, west of Main line) to the creek to allow for
further treatment. Hydraulics says that NCDOT will look into this, but if this is done, the
wetlands will be impacted. EPA also wants to know if there is possibly an option to
create a retention basin for the discharge or any other way to treat the discharge besides
these small swales.
EPA states that LTC is listed on the 303d list and asks what the impairments are.
Hydraulics states it is on the 303d list for impaired biological integrity due to impervious
surfaces. EPA does not like the proposed system (on south side of LTC, west of Main
line) going directly into pipe because it receives no treatment. Prefers that some of the
discharge is taken across the road and outlets to the PSH's. NCDOT will look into this
option.
Sheet 15:
No comments
Sheet 16:
Hydraulics discusses Stream 12 -Unnamed Tributary to Wolf Island Creek and the steep
topography around the existing stream. This steep topography makes it very difficult to
relocate the stream. NCDOT proposes to pipe the stream through a series of man
holes/pipes and then astub-out at the outlet tying into the existing stream. Bedrock is
present in the streambed.
NEU states that the labeling of the streams on the plans is incorrect. There is a short
section of stream on the east side of the Main line that is intermittent and at the outlet of
the 24" pipe, the stream becomes perennial. This is also where Stream 12 begins. The
other feature depicted as a stream to the south of the 24" pipe is just a drainage ditch
picked up by the Location & Surveys Unit.
DWQ inquired as to the length of stream impacted via the pipe system. Hydraulics states
that from the end of the existing 24" rcp, there are approximately 185' of stream impacts
due to the proposed design.
USACE inquired as to whether there will be any rip rap or energy dissipation at the outlet
of the proposed 30" pipe. Hydraulics states, yes there will be rip rap at the outlet and
there is bedrock in the streambed downstream.
Page 4 of 6

Sheet 17:
Hydraulics discusses Streams 10 & 11 -Unnamed Tributary to Wolf Island Creek. The
NCDOT will be extending the 42" rcp on -Y13- with a 54"rcp. The 54" rcp crossing the
Main line will be extended via Junction Boxes in order to align more with existing
stream.
NEU states that Stream 11 is intermittent between -Y13- and the 54" cross pipe and
Stream 10 is perennial from the outlet of the existing 54" pipe.
Sheet 18:
Hydraulics discusses the 7' x 7' RCBC and Stream 8 -Unnamed Tributary to Wolf
Island Creek. The existing RCBC will be extended on the upstream & downstream sides.
The slope of the channel downstream is fairly steep. The existing culvert is on a 1.32%
grade.
USACE inquires about headcuts due to the steepness of the downstream channel.
Hydraulics states that there is bedrock in the channel downstream, which should
eliminate any headcuts. USACE inquires about stream impacts to Stream 9 -Unnamed
Tributary to Wolf Island Creek, which is intermittent. Hydraulics states that it isn't
possible to relocated due to steep topography.
EPA inquired about rip rap at the pipe outlets. Hydraulics states that there will be rip rap
and ditches from the outlets to the stream.
Sheet 19:
No comments
Sheet 20:
Hydraulics discusses the 2@8' x 8' RCBC and Stream 7 -Unnamed Tributary to Wolf
Island Creek. The existing RCBC will be extended on the upstream & downstream sides.
The fill slopes are proposed to be 1.5:1 in order to reduce the stream impacts and to
shorten the amount of culvert extension needed. The existing culvert is on a 0.34%
grade.
USACE noted that previous stream impacts were listed at 215'. Hydraulics states that
because NCDOT is using 1.S:lslopes, the impacts will be reduced to approximately 80'.
EPA inquired about the pipe outlets -will they have rip rap and/or ditches. Hydraulics
states that there will be rip rap and ditches from the outlets to the creek and will be shown
on the final plans.
Roadway also inquired about what was happening at the outlet of Stream 6 -Unnamed
Tributary to Wolf Island Creek (Sheet 20/21). Hydraulics states that the existing 24" rcp
is going to be extended and relocated in a rip rap lined lateral base channel from the pipe
outlet to the existing stream.
Page 5 of 6

Sheet 21:
No comments
Sheet 22:
No comments
Sheet 23:
Hydraulics discusses the 2-60" structural plate pipes extensions on streams 4 & 5, both
Unnamed Tributaries to Wolf Island Creek. Streams 4 & 5 come together downstream
of the existing pipe outlets at a nick point. There is sporadic bedrock located in the
streambed downstream of the nick point.
The pipes will be extended via Junction Boxes into an endwall at the outlet. There will
also be a rock energy dissipater located at the outlet.
NEU states that the labeling for Stream 17 -Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary 4
to Wolf Island Creek is incorrect. The label should point to a small section of stream that
runs across -Y20B- near station 14+00. NEU also notes that the label for Stream 3 -
Unnamed Tributary to Wolf Island Creek is incorrect. It should point towards the feature
left of -Y21RpB- station 11+00.
Sheet 24:
Hydraulics discusses the 6' x 6' RCBC and Stream 3 -Unnamed Tributary to Wolf
Island Creek. The culvert will be extended on the upstream and downstream sides. The
existing culvert is on a 2.7% grade.
EPA inquired if there is any rip rap at the outlets of the pipes to either side of the culvert.
Hydraulics states that there will be rip rap and short sections of ditches down to the creek.
Sheet 25:
Hydraulics discusses the 5' x 6' RCBC and Stream 1 -Unnamed Tributary to Wolf
Island Creek. The culvert will be extended on the upstream and downstream sides. The
existing culvert is on a 1.34% grade.
EPA inquired about rip rap at pipe outlets. Hydraulics states that there will be rip rap and
short sections of ditches to the creek at all the pipe outlets shown on the final plans.
Sheet 26:
No comments on this sheet other than to verify the stream that crosses -Y 10- near station
13+00. This stream is not shown on any of the alternatives. There is also a pond located
upstream of the creek.
Sheet 27 thru 29:
No comments
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 P.M.
Page 6 of 6