20190992 Ver 1_U2719_Hydro_4C_Meeting_Minutes_20190723

TO: Paul Atkinson, PE
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
FROM: Josh Massrock, PE / James Rice, PE (HDR)
DATE: June 24, 2019
SUBJECT: U-2719 — 4C Meeting Minutes (07/16/2019)
Merger Team Attendees:
Eric Alsmeyer US Army Corps of Engineers
Rob Ridings NC DWR
Robert Patterson NC DWR
Support Staff and Meeting Attendees:
Paul Atkinson
NCDOT - Hydraulics
Josh Dalton
Sungate
Mark Staley
NCDOT — REU (via phone)
Nikki Thomson
NCDOT - Division 5 Division Environmental
Mitchell Wimberly
NCDOT - Division 5 Division Environmental
Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT — ECAP (via phone)
Heath Wadsworth
Gradient
Troy Carter
The Lane Construction Corporation
Jeff Moore
The Lane Construction Corporation
Jeremy Hogan
The Lane Construction Corporation
Ethan Marshburn
The Lane Construction Corporation
Vickie Miller
HDR
Eanas Alia
HDR
Taylor Carter
HDR
James Rice
HDR
Pete Thompson
HDR
Josh Massrock
HDR
The meeting was opened with introductions and turned over to Josh Massrock. The PDF
drawings were projected on the screen and the following agenda items were presented to all in
attendance.
The italicized text indicates notes from the meeting discussion.

General
• 4C Meeting held on June 20, 2019
• I-440/US 1 widening from south of SR 1313 (Walnut St.) to north of SR 1728 (Wade
Ave.). Approx. 6.0 miles.
• 4 major interchanges: Jones Franklin Rd, Western Blvd, Hillsborough St, and Wade Ave.
2 FEMA streams: Walnut Creek and House Creek.
• Located within the Neuse River Basin, buffer rules will apply to jurisdictional streams
and ponds.
• Five proposed Stormwater BMPs — dry detention basins
• Ditches have been designed to meet grass swale criteria to the maximum extent practical.
• Team is proposing that many of the steep pipes and culverts will not be buried, pipes
being buried will be identified on plans.
• DB Team proposes to perform early clearing, no grubbing, in non jurisdictional areas
(interior to interchange).
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
• Page 5 of 5 was revised to show a single dry detention basin on plan sheet 20
(Hillsborough Street)
o Comments:
■ The 1 " orifice on dry detention basin #S was noted as possibly being a
maintenance issue, a 2 " minimum orifice is desirable. The Design Team
will revisit the dry detention basin design to try and get a 2 " minimum
orifice.
WETLAND/STREAM PERMIT SET
PSH 11— SITE 1
• Site 1 (SAK-1)
o Assumed this impact as a total take due to the existing 24" being filled and flow
being redirected downstream.
o Comments:
■ Eric Alsmeyer indicated that stream SAK appears to be affected by Walnut
Creek and would most likely stay jurisdictional post construction. HDR
will revise impacts to call for permanent impacts to riprap, TS 10' past
riprap.
PSH 12 — SITES 2-5
• Site 2 (WK)
o Mechanized clearing due to proposed 2' lateral base ditch.
o Comments:
■ It was noted to be cautious during construction to avoid excavation
through wetland area.
2

• Site 3 at Inlet (SX-P; Walnut Creek)
o Temporary impact due to culvert clean out. Retaining wall used to minimize
impacts
o Comments:
■ No comments
• Site 3 at Outlet (SX-P; Walnut Creek)
o Temporary impact due to culvert clean out. Permanent impact due to bank
stabilization for the outlet of the 72" supplemental pipe. Retaining wall used to
minimize impacts
o Comments
■ No comments
• Site 4 (SW-P)
o Temporary and permanent impact due to riprap in stream at 72" inlet and 48"
outlet.
0 72" culvert is not buried, inlet/outlet protection uses class `II' riprap for
stabilization purposes, to convey normal flow
o Receives 48" RCP system
o Geotextile on banks only, riprap flush with streambed
o Comments:
■ Eric asked if all the rip rap was needed in stream SW. Team stated that
the rip rap was needed for stabilizing the stream in the impact areas and
that the stream is currently filled with rip rap. Eric mentioned that stream
impacts should be temporary surface water impacts since stream is
currently lined with rip rap.
■ It was noted the inlet of the 72 " culvert was labeled as "Culvert Outlet
Stabilization ", HDR will change label to "Culvert Inlet Stabilization ".
• Site 5 (OWD)
o Proposed ramp-YIORPA- and roadway fill
o Pond to be drained; isolated non jurisdictional therefore no buffers
o Comments:
■ Eric asked if an ADJ was needed for pond OWD. Chris Rivenbark said he
would check with Jason Dilday if this would be required.
Basin
• L 1 B 252+00 RT —Dry Detention Basin # 1
o Receiving drainage from mainline, Jones Franklin Road, inside Loop A and inside
Ramp D
o No existing stormwater control measure in current location; proposed basin detains
16 acres with built upon area totaling 7.6 acres (2.9 acres of which are new
pavement).
o Comments:
■ Eric Alsmeyer asked if an ADJ was needed for pond OWD. Chris
Rivenbark said he would check with Jason Dilday to verify.
■ Question was asked to the design team if bioretention was considered for
water quality along project. HDR indicated that the basins treated large
areas and that bioretention basins were unlikely to fit within current
project footprint.

PSH 14 — SITES 6-11
• Site 6 (WF)
o Roadway impacts of fill and mechanized clearing: 2:1 sides slopes with barrier wall
used to minimize impacts
o Comments:
■ No comments
• Site 7 (ST-P)
o Culvert cleanout temporary impact; outlet stabilization — stabilizing scour hole
o Proposed 1.5:1 reinforced slopes to minimize impacts
o Comments
■ No comments
• Site 8 (SV-I)
o Bank stabilization due to existing stream erosion along banks
o Steepened slopes to 1.5:1 to avoid relocating stream SV and impacts to Kaplan
Park
o Comments:
■ No comments
• Site 9 (SU-I)
o Bank stabilization due to existing stream erosion along banks
o Grade channel banks to 2:1 with class `I' riprap and geotextile only on proposed
banks
o Comments:
■ No comments
• Site 10 (WJ)
o Grade channel banks to 2:1 with class `I' riprap and geotextile only on proposed
banks
o Comments:
■ No comments
• Site 11 (WI)
o Grade channel banks to 2:1 with class `I' riprap and geotextile only on proposed
banks
o Stream entering WI with Q 10 = 4.96 cfs and V 10 = 1.45 fps
o Comments:
■ No comments
Basin
• L1 283+00 RT — Dry Detention Basin #2
o Receiving drainage from mainline, discharging to Simmons Branch (ST-P)
o No existing stormwater control measure in current location; proposed basin detains
7.3 acres with total BUA being 3.1 acres (NBUA = 1.1 acre).
o Drainage has been revised from the 4B meeting to direct more water into DDB #2.
0

• Pond reconstruction being performed under City of Raleigh contract. No surface water
impacts to White Oak Lake (Pond OWC) anticipated from U-2719 project.
• Comments:
o Question was asked if the project team was aware of LET date for the White Oak
Lake pond reconstruction. The Team was given dates from the City of Raleigh as
the bid opening in July 2019 and a project duration to last approximately 16
months.
o Question was asked if we could divert more water into DDB #2. It was mentioned
that the DB Team has directed more water into this basin since the 4B meeting
but the roadway grade flows away from the basin and directing more water to this
basin is not feasible.
PSH 17 — SITE 12-14
• Site 12 (SS-P)
o Channel improvement for 90" fiberglass pipe (not buried) at inlet and bank
stabilization
o Comments:
■ Question was presented to the Team with regards to maintaining the
water flow while tunneling the proposed culvert. Jeff Moore said that
water will flow through the existing culvert since the proposed culvert
is being tunneled off line.
• Site 13 (SR-P)
o Outlet (90" Fiberglass(not buried), 120" Fiberglass (not buried), 120" Fiberglass
(not buried) , 2' standard base ditch) channel stabilization with class `II' riprap
o Y25RA and roadway fill. 98 LF of existing 96" CMP removed further upstream to
daylight the stream before reentering the proposed 120" fiberglass pipe
o Open channel through Ramp B gore area
o Comments:
■ It was noted that there were numerous utilities in this area and if the
permits incorporated any impacts due to utilities. James Rice stated
that most utilities are being designed in this area and no additional
impacts to jurisdictional resources due to utilities are anticipated.
Most utilities will be relocated using very deep bores.
• Site 14 (SO-P)
o Y25RD and roadway fill. 6' base stream relocation with class `I' liner placed flush
with natural ground.
o Stream SO is being daylighted for approximately 825 LF that was previously being
pipes through a 66" RCP (not buried)
o Comments
■ No comments
PSH 18 — SITES 14-16
• Site 14 (SO-P)
o Roadway fill 1.5:1 and guardrail for minimization. 6' base stream relocation

0 18" CSP W/ELBOWS bank stabilization with geotextile and class `I' riprap only
on the banks.
0 18" CSP W/ELBOWS bank stabilization with geotextile and class `I' riprap only
on the banks.
0 66" RCP (buried 1') slope at 4.85% bank stabilization and removal of existing 42"
RCP
o Retaining walls used on both sides of Ligon Street to reduce impacts to stream,
NCSU property (south), and residential properties (north)
o Channel improvement at 66" RCP inlet
o Riprap at stream on banks and bed, keyed -in, for trenchless installation 30" welded
steel
o Comments:
■ Vickie Miller asked if the agencies would prefer to label the pieces to
the Site 14 impacts as A,B,C, etc to help clarify the impacts. It was
preferred to keep the impacts to Site 14 lumped together as currently
shown.
• Site 15 (SP-P)
o Proposed road and roadway fill. 30" CSP (not buried).
o Jurisdictional limits adjusted to no longer include length of ditch filled with rock
and debris
o Comments:
■ No Comments.
• Site 16 (SN)
o Outlet protection for 36" welded steel pipe and 36" CSP
o Comments:
■ No Comments
PSH 20
Basin
• Y30LD 16+82 RT — Dry Detention Basin #3
o Receiving drainage from mainline, Hillsborough St, Ramp A, Loop A, and Loop D,
discharging to a 4' base ditch running along Hillsborough Street.
o No existing stormwater control measure in current location; proposed basin detains
18.4 acres with total BUA being 5.6 acres (NBUA = 1.3 acre).
o DDB combined with basin originally located at Y30 32+50 LT in order to increase
the drawdown orifice size.
• No impacts to pond OWA.
• Comments:
■ OWA — question of jurisdiction and the AJD. Stream was outside of
project limits and will not be impacted.
PSH 21— SITES 17 and 18
• Site 17 (SC-P)
0 8x8 culvert extension and 65 LF culvert outlet stabilization with class `II' riprap
keyed -in
o Dewatering impacts at inlet
n

o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 18 (SAN-P)
o 2' lateral base ditch tying into SAN-P and SC-P. Lateral ditch receiving water from
24" CSP W/ELBOWS
o Comments:
■ Question was raised of how the stream and ditch tie into each other.
Josh explained that the stream and the proposed ditch are approx. the
same elevations the two would confluence together before flow gets to
House Creek.
Basin
• Y35LP 15+40 RT — Dry Detention Basin #4
o Receiving drainage from mainline, Ramp B, and Loop B, discharging to existing
36" CMP crossing under Wade Ave and into House Creek (SC-P)
o Proposed basin detains 19.3 acres with total BUA being 11.2 acres (NBUA = 5.6
acre).
o DDB is heavily constrained by both inlet and outlet elevations due to connection to
the existing 36" CMP.
o Comments:
■ No Comments
Basin
• Y35RD 18+50 RT — Dry Detention Basin #5
o Receiving drainage from Wade Ave, Ramp C gore areas, and Ramp D gore areas,
discharging to natural draw where existing 30" RCP is being replaced.
o No existing stormwater control measure in current location; proposed basin detains
18.4 acres with total BUA being 5.6 acres (NBUA = 1.3 acre).
• Dry Detention Basins 4 and 5 replace four existing measures according to the Preliminary
Hydraulic Report (8-26-2017). BMP#1 (R-4436ED) treats 6.2 acres with 1.1 acres
impervious. BMP#2 (R-4436ED) treats 4.0 acres with 0.8 acres impervious. BMP#3 (R-
4436ED) treats 2.0 acres with 1.1 acres impervious. BMP#4 (R-4436ED) treats 1.6 acres
with 0.6 acres impervious.
• Comments:
o No Comments
PSH 22
• Site 19 (SE -I)
0 48" RCP (not buried) extension and outlet stabilization
o Comments:
■ The type of impact at the inlet is unclear. Josh explained that the inlet
was temporary surface water impacts for dewatering, Team will shift
TS to make more visible at inlet.
7

PSH 28
• Site 20 (SW-P)
0 14x7 Culvert (not buried) and bank stabilization, riprap and geotextile on banks
only
o Comments:
■ Label culvert box size on plansheets
BUFFER PERMIT SET
• Intent was to keep the same Site numbers as the wetland and stream permit drawings
PSH 6
• No buffers — included for reference as resources are nearby but not impacted.
o Comments:
■ No Comments
PSH 11
Jurisdictional Stream
• Site 1 (SAK)
o Temporary Impact
o Proposed 18" CSP Outlet
o Comments:
■ Buffers may reduce due to shortening of the impact area.
PSH 12
• Site 2
o Wetland - No buffers
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 3 (SX)
o Allowable Impact - Ditch tie in and access for culvert clean out and bank
stabilization at outlet.
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 4 (SW)
o Allowable Impact - 72" supplemental culvert and 48" culvert outlet
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 5
o Pond - No buffers
o Comments:
0 No Comments

PSH 14
• Site 6
o Wetland - No buffer impacts anticipated from U-2719 project
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 7 (ST)
o Allowable Impact for dewatering/construction
o Permanent impact for ditch tie in and installation of DDB outlet pipe.
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 8 (SV)
o Mitigable Impact for re -grading and stabilizing stream banks
o Comments:
■ Vickie mentioned that this area is currently being maintained and mowed.
It was decided that the Team did not have to take impacts for those areas
being maintained Areas where no vegetative buffer currently exists we can
subtract from buffer impact.
• Site 9 (SU)
o Mitigable Impact for re -grading and stabilizing stream banks
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 10
o Wetland - No buffers
o Comments:
■ Identified as a wetland within a buffer
• Site 11
o Wetland - No buffers
o Comments:
■ Identified as a wetland within a buffer
PSH 17
• Site 12 (SS)
o Allowable Impact — Installation of 90" culvert. Area needed for tunneling operation
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 13 (SR)
o Allowable Impact — Installation of 120" culvert. Area needed for tunneling
operation and outlet stabilization
o Comments:
0

■ Needs to be mitigable because over 113 acre rather than allowable as
shown.
PSH 18
• Site 14 (SO)
o Mitigable Impact — Stream relocation due to roadway fill.
o Allowable Impacts for culvert outlets, we considered this a perpendicular impact
o Ligon St. impacts are allowable because it is a perpendicular crossing.
o Comments:
■ Revise pipe outlets as mitigable rather than allowable as shown. These
are stormwater outlets.
■ Ligon stays as allowable because stream is in perpendicular crossing
• Site 15 (SP)
o Mitigable Impact — new 30" Culvert new driveway location
o Comments:
■ Allowable impact because it is perpendicular crossing and under 113 acre
impact.
• Site 16 (SN)
o Allowable Impact for 36" Welded Steel Pipe and 36" CSP
o Mitigable Impact - Roadway fill adjacent to buffer
o Comments:
■ No Comments
PSH 20
• Reference only to show no buffer impacts to pond OWA
PSH 21
• Site 17 (SC)
o Allowable Impact — 8x8 RCBC extension and outlet stabilization
o Comments:
■ No Comments
• Site 18 (SAN)
o Mitigable Impact - 2' base lateral ditch
o Comments:
■ No Comments
PSH 22
• Site 19 (SE)
o Allowable Impact - 48" RCP extension and outlet stabilization
o Comments:
■ No Comments
10

PSH 28
• Site 20 (SW)
o Mitigable Impact - 14x7 RCBC new location
o Comments:
■ Revise as allowable because less than 113 acre and perpendicular.
PSH 40
• Site 21 (SC)
o Mitigable Impact - Bank stabilization as directed in RFP
o Comments:
■ No Comments
11