U-2800 4B Buffer Minutes

Memorandum of Meeting
Date: November 8, 2012
Place \Time: NCDOT, Hydraulics Unit Conference Room, 2:00 P.M.
Participants: Amy Euliss — NCDWQ
Jim Mason - NES
Rachelle Beauregard - NES
Marshall Clawson - NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Byron Kyle - NCDOT Trans. Prog. Management
Kenny Haynes — Blythe Development
Ivy Kimbrough — Catena Group
Brandon McInnis — RK &K
Matthew Cook - RK &K
Tina Swiezy — RK &K
Subject: NEPA \404 Merger Team — Concurrence Point 4B Meeting for
Buffers
U -2800 — Macy Grove Rd., Forsyth and Guilford Counties
The 30% Hydraulic Review was held in order to reach agreement on concurrence point
4B for the Macy Grove Rd. extension in Forsyth and Guilford Counties. The following
items were discussed and conclusions reached:
Matthew Cook proceeded to review the project on a sheet by sheet basis. He pointed out
that the project is along the Randleman Basin and Jordan Basin divide. For purposes of
clarity, the streams were highlighted on the projected set as pink for USGS blue lines,
green for Soils Map blue lines, orange for required buffer filtration ditches, and yellow
for extra buffer filtration ditches.
Sheet 4: No buffers affected.
Sheet 5: No buffers affected. Mr. Cook wanted to confirm two locations. The USGS
and Soils Maps showed a blue line running between —Y1- and —RPC-, however it was not
shown as a jurisdictional stream in the file. It was confirmed that no buffers are at this
location. The same situation occurs at —L- 27 +50 RT and runs though sheet 17. It was
confirmed that no buffers are at this location.
Sheet 6: Buffer affected at —L- 56 +00 LT due to roadway slope stakes. The 24" cross
pipe at this location will not be buried since the ditch at the inlet is not considered
jurisdictional. Mr. Cook wanted to confirm another location. The Soils Maps showed a
blue line —YS- 44 +00 LT, however it was not shown as a jurisdictional stream in the file.
It was confirmed that no buffers are at this location. There was much discussion about
outlet 40617 discharging on to a steep slope and how to avoid this. Marshall Clawson
finally suggested discharging it via pipe directly to the outlet of pipe 40612. The loss of
buffer filtration will be explained in the Stormwater Management Plan.

Sheet 7: No buffers affected. 40702 ties to a CB that discharges in to a jurisdictional
stream that has buffers. For this reason, the drainage entering 40702 will be filtered.
Sheet 8: No buffers affected. Amy Euliss asked that the buffer zone lines be extended —
Y2- 18 +00 LT.
Sheet 9: Buffer affected along —Y2- 28 +00 — 29 +50 RT due to roadway slope stakes.
Sheet 10: Buffer affected along —Y2- 29 +50 — 41 +00 RT due to roadway slope stakes.
The buffers should be shown as they continue through the wetland. They can remain
openended at —Y2- 41 +00 LT. Buffer affected —Y2- 35 +00 LT due to a ditch tie -in.
It was also determined that buffer lines should not be shown over existing maintained
roadway facility. This is considered project -wide.
Sheet 11: Buffer affected on both sides of I -40 Business at appr. —Y2- 45 +50.
Sheet 12: No buffers affected.
Sheet 13: No buffers affected.
Sheet 14: No buffers affected.
Sheet 15: No buffers affected. Mr. Cook wanted to confirm one location. The Soils
Maps showed a blue line —YS- 10 +50 LT and RT, however it was not shown as a
jurisdictional stream in the file. It was confirmed that no buffers are at this location.
Sheet 16: Buffer affected along —Y7- 18 +00 — 20 +00 due to the roadway facility.
Sheet 17: No buffers affected. See note for sheet 5.
The meeting was adjourned.
R ,HVdraulies DOCLTI\EENTS U -2800 aB Buffer Mamtes.doe