20201864_R-5705AB_Avoidance_Minimization_Permit_Impact_Final Meeting Minutes_04-14-2020_20200414

Final Meeting Minutes

Subject: R-5705A, B &C Impacts, Avoidance, and Minimization Meeting
Project: 46377.1.2 (STIP No.: R-5705A) Harnett County
NC 55 from South of SR 1532 (Oak Grove Church Road) to NC 210

Project: 46377.1.3 (STIP No.: R-5705B) Harnett & Wake Counties
NC 55 from NC 210 to SR 4809 (Jicarilla Lane)

Project: 46377.1.1 (STIP No.: R-5705C) Wake County
NC 55 from SR 4809 (Jicarilla Lane) to NC 42 in Fuquay-Varina

Venue: Online go-to meeting

Meeting Time: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:00 PM

Attendees:
Nicole Hackler NCDOT PMU [e-mail]
Jennifer Evans NCDOT PMU [e-mail]
Kim Gillespie NCDOT PMU [e-mail]
Deanna Riffey NCDOT ECAP [e-mail]
Christy Huff NCDOT Division 6 [e-mail]
Greg Price NCDOT Division 6 [e-mail]
Steve Kendall NCDOT Division 6 [e-mail]
Paul Atkinson NCDOT Hydraulics Unit [e-mail]
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT ECAP [e-mail]
Liz Hair USACE [e-mail]
Joanne Steenhuis NCDEQ-DWR [e-mail]
Garrett Reavis NCDOT Trainee [e-mail]
Jeff Moore KHA [e-mail]
Dan Robinson KHA [e-mail]
Jordan Bendl KHA [e-mail]
Tommy Register TGS [e-mail]
Jay Twisdale TGS [e-mail]
Randy Henegar TGS [e-mail]
Rusty Lassiter TGS [e-mail]
Burke Evans TGS [e-mail]

Meeting Purpose:
The purpose of this meeting was to address the agencies questions and concerns
with the wetland, stream and pond impacts on projects R-5705A, R-5705B and R-
5705C. More specifically the amount of fill and ditches in wetlands on the R-5705A
and R-5705B projects was discussed.

1 | Page

Meeting Introduction:
The meeting started with a brief overview from Kim Gillespie of the project’s three
components R-5705A, B, and C. It was noted that we have 65% plans for R-5705C
project, however, we are not moving forward with R-5705C as it has been
suspended. She went on to give the history of the merger process. She discussed the
purpose and need agreement as well as the May 2018 Merger Screening meeting
where NCDOT met with the agencies USCOE and NC DWR. At this meeting they
agreed to remove the project from the merger process due to a lack of competing
resources and only 2 alternatives. Once the entire Merger Team agreed to remove
the project from the Merger Process, the group also agreed NCDOT would come
back to NC DWR and the Corps with a “Merger-like” meeting to discuss avoidance
and minimization and 30% hydraulic review prior to permit submittal.

Discussion Highlights

R-5705A Introduction:
Jeff Moore started the R-5705A portion of the meeting by asking the agency
representatives if there were specific areas of concern or if they preferred to go site
by site for each area of impacts. The agency’s main questions dealt with the overall
amount of fill in wetlands and the reasoning behind ditches in wetlands. They
requested the firms to discuss each area site by site. Listed below are the main
topics of importance that arose from the entire discussion followed by a breakdown
of each site’s discussion.

 General
o Kimley-Horn to provide copy of .KMZ file to Liz. (Note: Kimley-Horn
sent Liz Hair a copy of the R-5705A.kma file the afternoon of the
subject meeting.)
o The final wetlands are currently being surveyed to be added to the
final survey file.
o The let date for R-5705A and R-5705B is October 2022.

 Topic 1: Standard Minimization fill slope grade
o A discussion arose on fill slope minimization in wetlands
o 3:1 fill slopes were recommended by Geotech for safety and stability
o Paul Atkinson reiterated that 3:1 is the standard for minimization for
project east I-95.
o 2:1 slopes were not used on the R-5705A project due to standard
design criteria and Geotech recommendations. 3:1 slopes are easier
to construct, safer, and more stable. Also, the R-5705A portion does
not contain excessive fill heights with guardrail worth warranting 2:1.
o Action item:
 For moderate to large wetland sites, Kimley-Horn will ensure
3:1 is being used.

2 | Page

 Topic 2: Clearing in Wetlands
o Agency representatives were provided with an initial preliminary
impact estimate plan set for R-5705A which contained the hatchings
that would typically be on permit drawings. Drawings were provided
to NCDOT on 2-11-20 for distribution.
o Kimley-Horn noted there have been some revisions to the plans
(specifically a lot of driveways removed) since the plans were
provided to the agencies. Kimley-Horn also stated the plans are only a
rough estimate of the draft/final permit drawings.
o Concerns were discussed and addressed regarding the proposed
mechanized clearing and offset to where the clearing was proposed.
o Kimley-Horn initially estimated that typical mechanized clearing for
the contractor to work would be extended to the proposed right of
way or approximately 10’ beyond the proposed fill slope or back of
ditch.
o Hand clearing should be used within wetland boundaries at a 10’
offset for all back of ditches and all toe of fill slopes.

 Topic 3: Total Take – Remnant Wetlands
o A discussion began on remnant wetland pieces for areas where the
impact was very large either due to intersections, large fills, and
smaller isolated wetlands
o If less than ¼ acre of wetland remains and there isn’t hydrology to
feed the remnant of the wetland, consider the wetland to be a total
take.
 Do not show the impact hatching for the remnant area on the
plans to prevent contractor from unnecessarily disturbing the
area.
 Include a note on the summary table stating additional impact
is due to wetland total take.
 Topic 4: Driveway access point
o Wherever possible, move access points away from wetlands.

o Site by Site Summary

R-5705A
o Site 1
 Small amount of clearing, ditch avoids wetland. No comments
o Site 2
 Upstream: Comment concerning ditch through wetland was
explained that we are matching natural drainage patterns and
there is an existing ditch at the toe of slope which needs to be
replaced at the new toe of slope. There is also a significant
amount of offsite water that needs to be picked up.
3 | Page

 Downstream: Ditch stops before wetland to mimic natural
/existing conditions.
o Site 3
 Impacts are from replacing existing cross pipe due to widening
roadway into wetland. No comments.
o Site 4
 Impacts are draining upstream pond due to roadway safety
and maintenance concerns. Downstream JS is being filled over
due to widening of road. No comments.
o Site 5
 Impacts are from replacing existing cross pipe due to widening
roadway into wetland. No comments.
o Site 6a
 It was explained proposed ditch through wetland is to match
the existing drainage patterns and convey offsite water. The
existing ditch at the toe of slope drains through the wetland
and is being pushed out and replaced. No comments.
o Site 6b
 Environmental agencies requested photos of the area to be
shown. Field photos were pulled up showing braided stream
through the wetland and ditch along toe of slope through the
wetland. Natural/existing conditions were matched as much as
possible and toe protection used at some portions to avoid
unnecessary impacts.
o Site 6c
 Kimley-Horn remarked that Site 6C is part wetland and part
pond. The wetland hatching impacts shown on plans is likely
correct, but pond/wetland limits need to be updated by TGS
environmental or in the final surveyed WET file.
 Pictures were pulled up and it appeared the boundary of the
pond had a fringe wetland.
 Proposed ditch is matching existing ditch running at toe of
slope which is getting pushed out due to widening.
o Site 7
 Small amount of clearing with no other impacts. No comments.
o Site 8
 Ditch to be pulled back to remove impacts completely. No
other comments.
o Site 9a
 It was prefaced that the large amount of impacts is due to the
complexity of this area with multiple intersections and grade
point tie-ins which made avoidance and minimization hard to
achieve.
 Decision to drain pond was commented on. Pond will be
drained primarily due to its location and elevation which
creates a backwater condition on the proposed 48” RCP outlet.
4 | Page

To allow the proposed 48” pipe to operate efficiently, the area
downstream of it will need to have a ditch graded that can
convey the storm flows. This proposed ditch will result in the
draining of this existing pond and impacts to adjacent
wetlands. Some fill from new roadways also impacts the pond
and wetlands.
 It was also noted for TGS environmental to update/complete
wetland boundary around this site as it may have been cut
short due to being outside the original study area.
o Site 9b:
 Small amount of JS impacts and clearing. Effort was made to
pull pipes back, clear ditch through old roadbed, and slow
water down before entering existing JS to minimize impacts.
No comments.
o Site 10
 Comment on driveway impacts – response was driveway
impacts are no longer there due to driveway being removed
 Comment to move access point out of wetland
 The excavation through the wetland was explained. It is for the
roadway cut ditch which was unavoidable due to the steep
topography and super elevation orientation of the roadway
corridor.
o Site 11
 Small amount of fill over JS due to widening. No comments.
o Site 12
 Filling over an entire pond and portion of wetland ditch due to
new roadway corridor. No comments.
o Site 13
 Impacts are from fill and new roadway corridor passing
through a JS. There is an existing 48” CMP that conveys JS
under a soil farm path road is being replaced. Proposed ditches
match existing ditches that run along the soil road all the way
through the wetlands. No comments.
o Site 14
 Site 14 is further down on the soil farm road from site 13. The
cause for the impacts and reasonings behind drainage
decisions are identical to what was stated in site 13 above. No
comments.
o Site 15
 Impacts are due to filling over a wetland ditch. The proposed
ditch at the outlet is so that the ditch can mitigate the increases
in flow to the neighboring property. The ditch is only being
widened not deepened. No comments.
o Site 16
 Impacts were explained for each quadrant. In two of the
quadrants the drainage pipe outlets were pulled back outside
5 | Page

the wetland boundary. In the third, a pond was being filled in
by the roadway slopes and a ditch was proposed to convey
runoff across new earth fill. The other quadrant’s ditch runs
right along the wetland boundary and not completely through
it to try and match existing conditions.
 Comment was on driveway impacts which have now been
removed due to the replacement of the driveway with an
access point (to be placed outside of wetland boundary).
o Site 17
 Site 17 has the largest pond on the project to be drained. The
background for this decision that was coordinated with NCDOT
was explained. The pond was a man-made feature contained by
a weir wall located just upstream of a Corrugated Metal Arch
Pipe (CMAP) cross pipe under Gardner Road. Photo’s were
requested of the pond and outlet and helped the agencies
understand the rationale behind the decisions.
 The decision to drain the pond was made in coordination with
NCDOT Hydraulics Staff. The decision was based on the fact
that the new roadway would bisect the pond and having
standing water on both sides of the roadway would create an
undesirable condition. If the pond were to remain, the
associated fill slopes would need to be rock plated on both
sides of roadway. As a result, the downstream weir condition
would create a maintenance concern that could increase
backwater onto the roadway if debris became an issue. In
addition, the Department decided to close Gardner Road,
remove its existing culvert and adjacent weir wall, and create a
new channelized stream section in the old stream bed.
Draining the pond would create a potential muddy pond
bottom area that may not effectively drain to the proposed 7’ x
7’ RCBC. Therefore, fill material was proposed in portions of
the drained pond to appropriately create a base channel and
floodplain to direct storm flows through the proposed RCBC.

o Site 18
 Impacts are due to roadway filling over an existing wetland
swale feature. The drainage upstream was systemized due to
berm ditches and had to be conveyed as a system through the
wetland and cross the road. No comments.
o Site 19
 Impacts are from the new roadway corridor passing through a
large wetland. A 54” RCP is needed to convey the water under
the road. Since no existing ditches or large amounts of offsite
runoff were approaching the toes of each fill along the -Y- line,
avoidance and minimization efforts included toe protection
6 | Page

and ending the ditch before the wetland boundary. No
comments.
o Site 20
 Impacts are due to a new -Y- line connection passing through a
wetland. Since no existing ditches or large amounts of offsite
runoff were approaching the toes of each fill along the -Y- line,
ditches were ended before the wetland boundary in an attempt
of avoidance and minimization. No comments.
o Site 21
 Site 21 contains two jurisdictional streams converging with
wetland boundaries around them. The impact that appears to
be a ditch through the wetland is actually a channel change to
allow the tributary JS to convey safely around the portion
being filled over. No comments.

R-5705B
o Sheet 4
 Site PN - Pond PN is being drained. The proposed design
reestablishes the channel.
 SAE and SAF, both JS streams, meet under proposed fill
 Jurisdictional streams will be labelled as such once the FS file
has been updated for the entire project.

o Sheet 6
 Inlet at drainage structure 0611, we shallowed up the ditch
where it meets the pipe inlet.
 Fill slopes are 3:1’s through WBD.

o Sheet 7
 TGS ended the ditches prior to wetlands where possible.

o Sheet 8
 Existing ground falls at ~4% at WBH, so TGS has proposed a
ditch to prevent erosion in this area due to the steep
topography.

o Sheet 9
 Culvert at SAD: fill slopes have been steepened to 2:1
shortening the culvert by ~45’.
 TGS proposes a rip rap lined ditch on the right side through
WBF as it conveys ~19-20 CFS to prevent erosion through the
wetland.
 Ditch at PM stops prior to the wetland.
 Any mechanized clearing will be shown on the final plans and
permit drawings.

7 | Page

o Sheet 10
 Due to the amount of drainage in SAB, TGS proposed draining
PL and continued the ditch through the wetland. A JS drains
from the 18” pipe at the outlet of the pond to the left of the
sheet.
 Flow arrows will be shown once the FS file is updated.
 A Noise Study is expected to be complete on March 31, 2020.
 Draining PK and reestablishing the channel. PK drains to a
small base ditch. No wetlands were present at the outlet.
 PK appears to be isolated from any wetlands. Will be
considered surface water impacts and will not require
mitigation.

o Sheet 11
 TGS proposed ditches to maintain the drainage at the toe of the
fills. TGS proposed shoulder berm gutter and discharged the
stormwater into ditches away from the wetlands.

o Sheet 12
 We are filling in wetland WBA.

o Sheet 13
 TGS will revisit reducing the ditch at the inlet side at SZ.
 Ditch at WAY is steep and needs to be maintained as shown.
Natural ground is as steep as 9% in this area.
 Coming down to SW, TGS proposed the rip rap lined ditch on
the right due to the volume of drainage (~20 CFS).
 Access points will be adjusted outside of the wetland areas
where possible.
 TGS will adjust the ditches on the right side at SW to minimize
impacts to WAW.

o Sheet 14
 TGS proposes a rip rap lined ditch at WAT due to a very large
volume of drainage, tying to an existing creek bed.

o Sheet 17
 TGS is replacing an existing pipe which may have temporary
impacts to WAQ. The PUEs have not been confirmed to be
needed at this time.

o Sheet 21
 TGS is proposing a ditch cleanout at WAN.
(After meeting note: TGS determined that the ditch cleanout
will not be required and has removed it from the plans.)

8 | Page

o Sheet 22
 TGS proposes the rip rap ditch at WAV due to a large volume of
drainage at this location.

Additional General Discussion

o Need to discuss with Geotech to see if there are other areas where we can go
steeper than 3:1. 3:1 slopes are considered minimized and are easier to build
and maintain. (After meeting note: Division 6 followed up with USCOE & NC
DWR on 3-20-2020. They are fine with 3:1 slopes with the exception of RCBC
designed with 2:1 slopes.)
o A phased permit application will be submitted for all three projects (R-
5705A, R-5705B, & R-5705C). Since R-5705C has been suspended, the
application for this portion will only show slope stakes plus 25’.
o Updated plans for R-5705B will be sent out for review prior to submittal of
final permit application.
9 | Page