U2579DEF_Hydro_4B_Meeting_Minutes_DRAFT.doc

TO: Craig Lee
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
FROM: Brian Steffen, PE / James Rice, PE (HDR)
DATE: August 14, 2018
SUBJECT: U-2579 DEF - 4B Meeting Minutes
Meeting Attendees:
Robert Patterson, NCDEQ-DWR
Dave Wanucha, NCDEQ-DWR (via phone)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Claire Ellwanger, USFWS
Bill Barrett, NCDOT-EAU
Carla Dagnino, NCDOT-EAU
David Stutts, NCDOT-SMU
Michael Shumsky, NCDOT-Design Build
Thomas Terry, NCDOT-Design Build
Craig Lee, NCDOT-Hydraulics
Amy Euliss, NCDOT-Division 9(via phone)
Mark Staley, NCDOT-Roadside Environmental (via phone)
Travis Padgett, Blythe Development
James Rice, HDR
Brain Steffen, HDR
Jonathan Henderson, HDR
Will Moody, HDR
Vickie Miller, HDR
Kathleen Bell, HDR
Edward Vance, STV
The meeting was held on August 8�h, 2018 from 9am to 12pm in the NCDOT Hydraulics
Conference Room. The meeting was opened with introductions and the following items were
covered with James Rice facilitating. A full set of PDF drawings was projected on screen as well
as via skype for those on the phone to follow along. These resources will be made available to
all attendees. The meeting attendees sign in sheet is attached.
The USACE was not represented at the meeting; however, Brian Roden-Reynolds was contacted
and it was determined that the meeting would move forward and a separate discussion with Brian
would be available if needed prior to 4C.
The italicized text indicates notes from the meeting discussion.

General
• Future I-74 Winston-Salem Northern Beltway from west of NC 66/SR 4000 to US 311.
Approx. 7.0 miles of a six lane divided highway in new location.
• 3 major interchanges: University Parkway, Germantown Rd, and Baux Mountain Rd. 1
bridge over Mill Creek.
• Hydraulic analysis was based on the Winston-Salem Land Use Plans, corridor discharges
were developed primarily on the assumption of single family residential areas except in
the vicinity of University Parkway where some commercial development is expected
• Located within the Yadkin River Basin, there are no specific stormwater requirements for
this area, but will follow MEP.
• Basins have been added where possible.
o Turbidity MDL in this basin.
• Stormwater Basin locations are still under review. Steep terrain and proximity to water
table may limit use in some cases.
o Design team is awaiting geotech borings in these locations.
• Median ditches may provide some treatment as well as grass swale treatment for many of
the ditches.
• Some outlets of large pipes and culverts have high velocities due to steep terrain.
Additional rip-rap placed in the bed of the jurisdictional streams is shown for mitigation
of velocities. Rip-rap in streams will be embedded flush with existing stream bed.
• Many of the steep pipes will not be buried.
• Due to steep culverts, we have proposed baffles at 25' spacing that have been backfilled
with rip-rap. These were reviewed on a case by case basis to see if there is any benefit
during the meeting review.
o tISFWS noted culverts 300'-400' or more are barriers for fish passage; however,
stated that it is site and species specific as to which species will navigate long
culverts.
• All pipe/culvert sizes are preliminary and may change.
• Box culverts have been used instead of pipes in some areas for maintenance purposes.
• Photos of many of the sites were available during plan sheet review, but not all field work
is complete yet.
o Add notes on plans to indicate whether the pipe is buried or not.
o Add labels for 4C plans indicating the start of jurisdictional streams if located on
plans or just outside.
PSH 4
• Potential impact due to PUE
o Will revisit at 4C based on design
PSH 5-A
Jurisdictional stream Impacts
• Site 1 (ES-S 1)
o Roadway Impacts: 2:1 side slopes w/ guardrail used to minimize impacts
0 54" pipe — 8501f. 1.75% slope. Pipe is not buried due to steepness and long length
Wetland Impacts
• Site 1B (ES-Wl), 1C (ES-W2), 1D (ES-W43)
2

o Due to roadway fill for ramp, loop, and mainline
YlLPD 14+00 LT
o Media filter basin location
o Receiving drainage from loop and University Parkway
PSH 5-B
Jurisdictional stream
Site 1(ES-Sl), Site 2(ES-67), Site 3(ES-65), Site 4(ES-S2),
o From embankment rip-rap for proposed culverts and roadway fill
Site 1— Rip-rap in stream for larger velocity, will be embedded
o Consider filling in A Quadrant due to multiple pipes, steep terrain, eliminate
guardrail which is a hazard, and reduce risk for sediment loss. Stream is unstable
and has vertical banks in area where we would keep it open.
■ Length of pipes indication no aquatic passage is likely here.
■ Discussions about options at this site included straight lining channel and
adding rip-rap to stabilize the stream. The final decision by all parties is to
pipe the entire thing. This will aid in long term stability.
■ Pipe and culvert do not need to be buried. Look into fZattening the system or
the last section of the system to dissipate energy.
Wetland Impacts
• Site 2A (ES-W46), Site lA (ES-W44)
o Due to roadway fill where 2:1 slopes and guardrail used to minimize impacts
• YlLPA 16+50 LT - Media filter basin location
o Treating University Parkway, mainline, and YlLPA
■ Request from DWR to add a forebay and rip-rap berm if basins change to dry
detention.
PSH 5-C and 5-D - No impacts to jurisdictional features
PSH 6
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 5 (ES-S3)
o Intermittent, JS starts just off the page, has steep terrain.
0 455 ft long Box Culvert. 1.6% slope. Bank stabilization at culvert inlet and outlet
channel protection for proposed culvert keyed into stream bed
■ Conversation on culvert grade. If culvert is not buried, request from DEO to
add a rock sill to the inlet. DEO will provide detail.
■ Aquatic passage is questionable at this length. Final decision was to not bury
the pipe and eliminate baffZes
■ Concern over 18" and 24" pipes discharging into stream. Ditches can't be
continued to stream bed due to steep slopes (slope can't be above 10%).
Outlet the 18" into the old channel just left of the culvert outlet and rip-rap
to the confZuence. This will act as a dissipater before it meets the larger
channel. Come up with something creative for the 24" outlet.
■ Add embedded rip-rap at culvert inlet.
3

Wetland Impacts — L 78+00 LT
• Site SA (ES-W47), Site SB (ES-W45)
o Roadway fill and ditch impacts
PSH 7-9 - No impacts to jurisdictional features
PSH 10
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 6 (ES-S4 (Trick-um Creek)) - Perennial
o Proposed 42" RCP-N — 550' and steep slope — Not buried.
■ Look into ditching along wetland so there's one inlet.
Site 7(ES-SS (Trib to Trick-um Creek)) - Intermittent
o Proposed 5'x7' culvert buried 1', 330' long at 1.6% slope
o Outlet channel protection on proposed culvert outlet and embankment rip-rap on
culvert inlet.
o Large tree located at ditch outlet is currently stabilizing the culvert inlet channel.
■ Change label on plans from Trick-um Creek to Trib to Trick-um Creek.
■ Agreement to not bury. No baffZes needed.
■ Decision to bring the channel fZat from behind the tree into the culvert. Line
the new channel with rip-rap. Include permanent impacts all the way to the
start of the stream.
Site 8 (ES-S6) - Perennial
o Proposed 54" and 30" outlets and dry detention basin location. Awaiting boring
logs.
o Outlet channel protection on proposed culvert outlet and embankment rip-rap on
culvert inlet.
Wetland Impacts
• Site 6A (ES-W3)
o Roadway Impacts: 2:1 side slopes w/ guardrail used to minimize impacts
■ Both wetland and stream impacts in this location for permitting.
■ Illustrate the wetland as a total take for permitting.
PSH ll-A
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
Site 9 (ES-S7) — mostly perennial
o Proposed 54" and 42" — Assumed not buried 4.5% slope
o Outlet protection in stream bed and banks
0 2:1 and guardrail for minimization
■ Do whatever is needed for non-erosive velocities at the outlet. Can be energy
dissipater, plunge pool, etc.
■ Final decision to pipe the entire thing. Add a drop box for energy dissipation
and an OTCB for overland fZow.
PSH 11-B
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
Site 8 (ES-S6)
0 54" Pipe under —Y3RPB- and —L-. 6.8% slope.
C!

Wetland Impacts
• Site 8A (ES-W38)
o Roadway Fill
PSH ll-C
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 8 (ES-S6)
■ Inlet of 54" pipe under —Y3RPB- Not buried
Wetland Impacts
• Site 8B (ES-W4)
o Proposed 42" RCP-N outlet, and 15" RCP-III outlet at spring locations
o Looking at rip-rap in wetland at the outlet of 42" pipe. 6.8% slope.
■ Rip-rap is for velocity control.
■ NCDOT Hydraulics to check to see if energy dissipaters can be used in
wetlands due to maintenance. DEO okay with an energy dissipater as long
as it will sheet fZow out.
■ Design team to see if a drop box and energy dissipater is enough. If not, a
ditch will be added from the 42" outlet to the 54" inlet.
■ Wetland may end up as a total take.
PSH ll-D
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 9 (ES-S7)
o Spring site and 42" under proposed roadway
PSH 12
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 10 (ES-S8)
o Embankment rip-rap at outlet and in stream bed
0 48" pipe not buried
o Location of pipe inlet based on larger drainage area of the breached pond.
■ Concern over 18" potential driveway pipe downstream of the outlet but
outside of ROW. NCDOT Hydraulics to look into this during design review
and determine how far this is carried off the project and how it should be
handled.
Wetland Impacts
• Site l0A (ES-W36), Site lOB (ES-W37)
o Roadway Impacts: 2:1 side slopes w/ guardrail used to minimize impacts
PSH 13
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 11 (ES-S9) — jurisdictional upstream
o Embankment rip-rap for basin outlet and 54" cross pipe
o Not burying pipe
o Proposed location of dry detention basin
■ 24" pipe coming onto ROW is perched. Suggestion to add a drop box near
the ROW.
Wetland Impacts
• Site 1lA (ES-W33)
5

o Roadway Impacts: 2:1 side slopes w/ guardrail used to minimize impacts
■ Total take because cutting off hydraulics
PSH 14 - No impacts to jurisdictional features
PSH 15
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 12 (ES-S58) - comes out of Pond 9(P9). Perennial
o Proposed stream relocation with ditch block
o Lined with class I rip-rap
Wetland Impacts
• Site 12A (ES-W31)
o Roadway Fi112:1 and guardrail for minimization
PSH 16
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 13 (ES-S 10) - Intermittent in wetland, perennial outside the wetland
o Proposed 5'x7' culvert buried 1', 233' at 2.25% slope
o Embankment rip-rap for inlet of culvert and channel protection at the outlet with
embedded rip-rap
■ BaffZes not needed
■ Concern about velocity at outlet. Look into a channel modification at inlet
due to channel turn.
■ Concern over stormwater outlet into non jurisdictional channel. Pre vs post
will be run in this area. May look into out-letting into the side of the culvert.
PSH 17
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 14 (ES-S13)
o Embankment rip-rap for outlet of 54" contractor design
■ Straighten rip-rap pad at outlet.
o Pipe at 3.9% so not proposing to bury the pipe.
Pond Impacts — Grubs Lake
• Site 14A (ES-P2)
o Roadway Impacts. Pond to be drained. Location and stabilization of channel to be
adjusted in the field as needed
o Will provide additional coverage for top of pond. Doesn't appear to have a
jurisdictional feature upstream of the pond
■ Design Build Team to come up with a plan to drain the pond by 4C.
■ Pond is jurisdictional. Line pond as .IS on plans.
■ TDE if just draining the pond. PDE will be needed otherwise. Include
additional plan sheet to illustrate full pond area.
■ NCDOT owns the property the pond is located on. Questions on whether
easements should be drawn if DOT owns the property. Design Build Team
has had experience on other projects that line work is still expected but will
check with ROW agent. If not, a label will be added to plans indicating DOT
ownership.
�

PSH 18
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
Site 15 (ES-S 14) - Intermittent
o Proposed 7'x7' culvert buried 1', 390' at 1.4%
o Embankment rip-rap at inlet and channel protection at culvert outlet
■ Does not need to be buried or have baffZes.
Wetland Impacts
• Site 15A (ES-W28)
o Roadway Fill
0 2:1 slopes with guardrail for minimization
PSH 19-A
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 17 (ES-S 16)
o Proposed 7' x 7' RCBC, 770' with baffles at 1.8%
o Embankment rip-rap at Inlet
■ Concern over 30" out-letting to ditch then to stream.
ditch to ensure stability.
Suggest to rip-rap this
Pipes connecting to the culvert are to pick up low points in the ramp.
PSH 19-B
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 16 (ES-S15)
o JS starts in interchange
PSH 19-C
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 16 (ES-S15)
o Proposed 54" RCP inlet and outlet protection, not buried
0 42" Outlet Ditch - realigned outlet ditch to line up with existing stream
PSH 19-D
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 17 (ES-S 16)
o Outlet protection for 7' x 7' RCBC
PSH 20
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 18 (ES-S68)
o Proposed 42" RCP outlet —
alignment
o Embankment rip-rap at outlet
Not buried due to steepness and JS starts under
Site 19 (ES-S 19)
o Proposed 6'x7' culvert buried 1', 273' at 1%
o Embankment rip-rap and outlet channel protection
o Removing 24" CMP downstream of culvert outlet
■ Add a sill to the inlet if culvert is buried and bac�ll with native material.
Site 20 (ES-S20)
o Removing 2 x 72" CMP
�

o Large scour hole present due to undersized pipes
o Will improve floodplain and floodway width
o Downstream of Mill Creek crossing
■ Turn around will be moved to the other side of the stream. Concern over
whether this will impact the wetland. Preliminary designs show they will be
minor but will have final design by 4C.
■ Request to rip-rap the channel. Look at upstream and downstream slopes to
determine if there will be any head cutting issues. Ensure stability of the
channel at this location.
PSH 21
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 21 (ES-S53)
o Embankment rip-rap and bank stabilization for lateral base ditch
o Need to do a stream relocation due to bridge pier
• Site 20 (ES-S20) Mill Creek
o No anticipated impacts to Mill Creek due to bridge construction. This is hauling
break point
o Embankment rip-rap and bank stabilization for lateral base ditch
■ Due to FEMA and span length there was no opportunity to avoid the area of
stream relocation at the bridge foundation.
■ If there's a possibility that temporary impacts may be needed for stream
crossing then go ahead and permit for it. Don't want to hold up construction
later on.
■ A lot of beaver activity in this area. Design Build Team to talk and determine
if beaver dams need to be removed prior to construction. NCDOT has a
team to help with this, just provide information to the DEO.
PSH 22
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 22 (ES-S52)
o Embankment rip-rap at 36" outlet
o Not burying — not JS upstream
PSH 23
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 23 (ES-S21)
0 6X7 RCBC, 230' at 2.6%
o Inlet and Outlet Protection for RCBC
■ If the jurisdictional stream ends just outside of the page, no need to bury and
baffZes are not required. Team will check on jurisdiction.
■ Design Build team to look into angling the channel change.
• Site 24 (ES-S22) - Intermittent
o Proposed channel relocation at outlet
• Site 25 (ES-S23)
o Proposed tail ditch at 30" RCP outlet; however, profile has been adjusted and may
not need tail ditch anymore
PSH 24
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts

Site 25 (ES-S23)
o Proposed tail ditch at 30" RCP outlet
Site 26 (ES-S24) — JS ends on the page.
o Proposed 6X6 RCBC, 352' at 2.4%
o Rip-rap in stream at outlet
■ Does not require baffZes and does not need to be buried.
PSH 25
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 26 (ES-S24)
o Embankment rip-rap at RCBC inlet
PSH 26
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 27 (ES-S25) - Perennial with pond upstream
o Proposed 7x7 RCBC, 244' at 1.3%
o dry detention basin
o Embankment rip-rap at inlet, rip-rap in stream at outlet
■ Pipe to be buried but baffZes are not required.
• Need to add site for (ES-S26) for inlet bank stabilization
■ Intermittent at the top, perennial by the confZuence
■ Design Build Team to look into relocating a piece of S26 to better align the
channel at culvert inlet.
PSH 27-28 - No impacts to jurisdictional features
PSH 29 (Point where proiect overlaps with the C Proiect Sites 1 to 5)
Wetland Impacts
• Site 28 (ES-W6)
o Roadway Fill
Permit Sites 1-S of the C project were modified under R-22478 and U-2579 (Application dated
October 2, 2017, 404 Permit Modification dated .Ianuary 22, 2018 and 401 Permit Modification
dated December 21, 2017). These are available in NCDOT Permits Folder online. Will discuss
these sites at 4C.
PSH 30
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 29 (ES-S48)
o Proposed 54" RCP outlet protection
■ Concern about pipe skews. Conversation about better aligning the pipes and
breaking up the huge stormwater system.
■ This part of the job lines up with the C section. Fills are 60' in this area so
other options are not feasible.
Wetland Impacts
• Site 28 (ES-W6), Site 29A (ES-W7), Site 29B (ES-W8)
o Roadway Impacts: 2:1 side slopes w/ guardrail used to minimize impacts
G

PSH 31
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 30 (ES-S27)
o RCBC inlet and outlet protection and proposed media filter
o Embankment rip-rap for lateral base ditch
PSH 32-43 - No impacts to jurisdictional features
PSH 44
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 31 (ES-S60) rip-rap and proposed ditch tie in
PSH 45-49 - No impacts to jurisdictional features
PSH 50
Jurisdictional Stream Impacts
• Site 32 (ES-S 17)
o Proposed supplemental culvert on existing triple barrel RCBC
o Stream improvements and proposed lateral ditch tie in
■ A lot of sedimentation upstream and downstream. Proposed design is to
direct the stream into new barrel and use the existing three barrels as
overfZow. Channel improvements will clean out sedimentation as well as
create a bench.
PSH 51-56 - No impacts to jurisdictional features
4C will tentatively be scheduled for October 10, 2018.
10