20170525_DRAFT R-5703 30% Hydraulic Review Meeting Minutes - 12-5-16 (002)_20170120

Minutes from the 30% Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
R-5703 in Lenoir County
December 5, 2016
NCDOT Division 2 Office
10:30 AM —12:30 PM
Agency Members:
Tom Steffens, USACE
Garcy Ward, NCDEQ-DWR
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Minutes:
(present)
(present)
(present)
Participants:
Maria Rogerson — NCDOT Division 2
Bill Kincannon — NCDOT Division 2
Jay Johnson — NCDOT Division 2
Paul Atkinson — NCDOT Hydraulics
Craig Freeman — NCDOT Hydraulics
Dwain Hathaway — Michael Baker
Mark Pierce — Michael Baker
Terry Burhans — Michael Baker
Will Hines, Sungate Design Group
Josh Dalton, Sungate Design Group
Dwain Hathaway opened the meeting with a brief history of the project turned the
meeting over to Will Hines who proceeded through the 30% Hydraulic Design plans
sheet by sheet.
General Comments:
• Tom Steffens commented that the Corps prefers no rip rap in the bed of jurisdictional
stream channels throughout the project. Paul Atkinson responded that rip rap would
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for each outlet.
Sheet 4:
• Will noted that the existing pipe is listed as a 36" diameter pipe (sta. 69+42 -L-) but
was field verified as a 42" diameter pipe.
Sheet 5:
No comments.
Sheet 6:
• Garcy asked what type of water treatment would be provided for stormwater:
o Grassed median and grassed swale treatment will be provided for on-site
stormwater throughout the project based on 100 LF of swale per acre of
drainage area.
o A dry detention basin will be located in the gore area between Ramp A,
Loop A, and L.
• The 42" cross pipe (sta. 90+80 -L-) conveys off-site drainage through the project.

Garcy asked whether the buffers within Loop A would be replanted. He stated that
since the use of the buffer is changing from agricultural to transportation the entire
buffers could be considered an impact (but not a stream impact). NCDOT responded
that the buffer areas within the project would actually be improved. In the existing
condition, the buffers are disturbed every crop cycle right to the top of stream bank.
With the project, the buffers would be allowed to reestablish vegetation.
Sheet 7:
No jurisdictional streams.
Tom Steffens asked if the project is backing water up on anyone.
Will Hines explained the existing drainage patterns. The drainage on the north side of
the road will be kept on the north side and the drainage on the south side of the road
will be kept on the south side. All of the stormwater eventually drains to the outfall
left of station 147+00 -L-.
Sheet 9:
. � .
Additional surveys are being completed for the service road extension across Parcel8
to Parcel9. A cross pipe will be added under the service road extension just
downstream of the proposed 60" pipe (sta. 147+12 -L-).
The channel on Parcel 8 north of -SERVl- is not jurisdictional.
Sheets 10 & Sheet 11:
Tom Steffens asked if the channel upstream of the existing 48" pipe under SR 1004
(Hugo Road) and the proposed 42" pipe under -L- (sta. 169+14) was a jurisdictional
stream. It was confirmed that this section is jurisdictional but not buffered. The
buffers start on the downstream side of the existing 48" pipe outlet on -Y3- (Hugo
Road).
Tom asked if rip rap was proposed in the channel bed at the outlet of the 42" cross
pipe (sta. 169+14 -L-). Will stated that it was proposed in the bed since that portion of
the stream was not jurisdictional. Any rip rap that extends into the adjoining stream
will be counted as a permanent impact.
Sheet 12 & Sheet 13:
• Tom asked which direction the ditch flows on the south side of the road (right of sta.
179+00 -L-) near the outlet of the proposed 30" RCP. Will noted that it appears to
flow away from the proposed road toward the southwest based on field surveys.
Sheet 14:
• Will noted that the roadway design was shifted toward the north to keep fill from
encroaching into the adjacent stream buffers for minimization of impacts.
• Tom noted that if riprap is placed in a wetland, then it's a permanent impact.

• Garcy asked if diffuse flow would be provided at the outlet of the 24" cross pipe (sta.
208+37 -L- right). Will noted that all stormwater from the pipe will be treated prior to
the buffer and the flow would be too large to provide diffuse flow.
Sheet 15:
Construction of the Stonyton Creek bridge will be completed from a work bridge.
Will noted that the stream location in the WEX file does not match the FS file or
Sungate field surveys. The wetland boundaries will need to be updated to correspond
with the correct stream location.
• No deck drains are specified on the Stonyton Creek Bridge.
Sheet 16:
No comments.
Sheet 17:
�
• Will noted that the jurisdictional stream (right of sta. 250+00 -L-) does not start until
downstream of the project. There is an existing head cut at the start of the JS. A base
ditch will be proposed from the new pipe outlet to the start of the JS.
Sheet 19:
The 66" cross pipe (sta. 268+48 -L-) will be buried 1' below stream bed.
Garcy asked what the side slopes were for the median ditch section. The typical
sections were checked and the side slopes verified as 6:1.
Tom asked if the channel adjacent to the roadway on the south side was jurisdictional.
Will noted that it was not a JS.
Sheet 20:
• Will stated that equalizer pipes were specified approximately every 250' across the
wetlands with no burial of inverts.
• Tom noted to make sure that rip rap pads located in wetlands are included in
permanent impacts. (All sheets)
Sheet 21:
• No comments.
Sheet 22:
The high point of the existing ditches (right of sta. 314+10 -L-) is within the fill slope
limits.

Sheet 24:
• The wetland at parcel 35 (left of sta. 337+00 -L-) should be considered a total take.
• There was a discussion regarding how to show the buffer lines at the existing 48"
pipe crossing for SR 1727. Paul Atkinson stated that the buffer lines should be arced
across the road, but not included as impacts through the transportation facility.
• Tom asked if the sloping abutment adjacent to the stream would be rip rap (sta.
341+50 -L-). Will stated it would be rip rap but the toe of slope is 10' from the top of
stream bank.
• The bridge end bents are now skewed. Plans will be updated in permit drawings.
• Is there access for maintenance between the sloping abutment and stream? Yes, there
is 10' from the toe of slope to the top of stream bank.
Sheet 25:
• The FS does not match the WEX file for the large wetland. The wetlands and streams
need to be corrected in the FS file. Upstream of the roadway, the stream is braided
and not well defined. The 54" pipe inlet (right of sta. 18+50 -YBRPB-) was located in
the lowest area based on Sungate field surveys.
• The EA Document shows a buffered JS (33� located in the wetland at the east side of
interchange (left of sta. 20+50 -YBLPD-). The FS file will need to be revised to show
the stream location.
• Riprap as toe protection might cause scour. It was agreed to add a ditch from the
proposed 24" pipe outlet (left of sta. 13+50 -YBLPC-) through the buffer to the
stream.
• Will noted that a dry detention basin is proposed between Ramp A and -L- (left of sta.
360+00 -L-). Tom stated that the wetland in this area should be a total take.
Sheet 26:
• Will noted the inverts of the 72" pipe under -SERV1- (sta. 16+24 -SERV1-) will be
buried 1' below the stream channel bed.
Sheet 27:
• Wetlands are shown in the channel upstream of the 2— 18" pipes (right of sta. 38+22
-Y1-). The channel will be cleaned out and impacts shown in the permits.
Sheet 29:
• The stream left of station 28+50 -YB- was not included in the EA Document. Is this
jurisdictional? Buffers? NCDOT to verify and provide updated FS/WET files as
necessary.

Sheet 30:
• Wetlands impacted by driveway (-DR4-).
• Tom asked where the hydrology for the wetland originates. Will stated that it
originates from the existing roadway ditch.
• The wetland boundary looks odd near -DR4- since it is depicted as a straight line.
Additional surveys are needed to extend the wetland boundary beyond the project
limits. NCDOT to provide updated FS/WET files as necessary.
• Tom asked if wetland will be maintained or should it be considered a total take. It
was agreed that if the hydrology could be maintained, the wetland would not be
considered a total take.
• The channel located left of -YB- is not jurisdictional.
Meeting adjourned.