R2721A_Agency Review Meeting Minutes_3-14-23_FINAL

Complete 540 Agency Review — March 14, 2023
Meeting Minutes
R_77'71 A
Personnel: Nikki Thomson, Rob Ridings (NCDEQ DWR), Eric Alsmeyer (USACE), Ben Lowry, Aaron Harper,
Donald Pearson, Earl McKee, Raymond Gibbs, Walter Jordan, Adam Richard
1. Permit Site 35/33 (STA 47+00 to 55+00 -YS- Lt and STA 14+00 to 16+00 -YSA- Lt)
Compliance Audit February 23rd: Inlet & outlet at 48-inch RCP (under relocated Kildaire Farm Road) is
stable. Diversion channel below pipe outlet requires regular monitoring/maintenance to address fabric
tears. On 3/6/23, the JV inquired about piping the flow that was originally permitted to be placed in a 3-
foot, rock lined, lateral base ditch. The viability of this request was forwarded to the Agencies who
requested to visit the Site during their monthly compliance review.
Agency Review March 14tn
• JV expressed their interest in piping the flow from the 48-inch RCP, along the west side of current
detour for Holly Springs Road to the junction box and pipe ultimately flowing to a 66-inch pipe
discharging the stream along Ramp A (east of Holly Springs Road), rather than constructing the
rock lined ditched. Their intent is to extend the fill slope into private property for the expressed
purpose of wasting material. Preliminary numbers show 100-150 thousand cubic yards; JV will
know exact fill amounts upon final design.
• Rob stated he was willing to issue an "In Field Modification" rather than require a formal
modification submittal provided the following information is provided:
o Plan set showing the proposed changes (both stream/wetland impact sheet and buffer
impact sheet
o Approved Erosion Control plans, including "work in the dry' provisions
o Full reclamation plan (as requested/required by Ben)
o Stormwater management plan to demonstrate no loss in treatment
o Revised hydraulic design including drainage structure locations
o Better clarification on the justification/purpose and need (please note, Rob expressed
that wasting excess material is not a sufficient reason to necessitate piping a daylighted
section of stream)
o In -field mod is contingent upon no increase to total permanent and total temporary
impacts; the proposed in -field mod will be for ONLY a change in design (otherwise a
formal mod will be required)
• Eric stated a written modification will be required; however, he is willing to process this request
via email
o Eric requires all the same information as Rob requested and also expressed the need for
better clarification on the justification/purpose and need; daylighting stream channels is
an "avoidance and minimization" technique for the purposes of meeting NEPA
requirements and 404(b)(1) guidelines

o USACE authorization is contingent upon no increase to total permanent and total
temporary impacts; the USACE will ONLY consider a change in design, not the impact
footprint (otherwise a formal mod will be required)
• JV will need to clarify specific work required at Permit Site 33 related to the pipe system design.
There cannot be impacts beyond the currently permitted area.
• All the supporting documentation/justification needs to be supplied to the RE's office which will
ultimately be shared with NCTA Environmental Staff for review and comment
• NCTA Environmental Staff will submit final documentation for modification request to the
Regulatory Agencies for their review and concurrence.
2. Permit Site 36/37 (STA 202+00 to 204+00 -L-)
Ongoing Concerns (since Oct/Nov 2022) and Compliance Audit February 23rd: Unauthorized fill has occurred
within the mechanized clearing area and beyond within the off -site wetland area. The agencies observed the
site on 2/14/23 and are requiring a formal restoration and reforestation plan for the unauthorized fill.
Recommended removal of the silt fence within the off -site wetland area to alleviate impounded water (in
agreement with REU). Toe protection has been installed incorrectly and is located approximately 1.5' into the
mechanized clearing area. Additional consultation with the USACE and DWR is required on whether the toe
protection should be left (and accounted for with the unauthorized fill) or removed and installed per plan.
The 54" pipe riprap outlet pad needs to be adjusted to surveyed limits utilizing Class I rock per plan. Toe
protection west of the 54" pipe is not slated for installation until adjacent slopes can be worked; limits of
mechanized clearing have been surveyed.
Agency Review March 14tn
• Confirmed that dissipator pad was installed incorrectly and needs to be adjusted to meet
permitted plans
• USACE and DWR are requiring a formal Restoration Plan for this Permit Site
o Agencies and NCTA Environmental had not seen Draft Reforestation plan at time of
Agency Review; plan draft sent to NCTA Environmental afternoon of 3/13
o Plan must include elevations confirming pre- and post -construction contours, estimated
quantities of fill within both the mechanized clearing and unpermitted wetland
boundaries, reforestation activities to include seed and live stakes (with appropriate
measurements and acreage for both), and an assessment of the additional impacts of the
fill to anticipated wetland function (possibly to include a re -do of hydro calculations since
the anticipated functional loss of the wetland may now require a different drainage plan
for the outlet of the 54" pipe aimed at it)
o As a reminder, the planting plan should include live stakes rather than bare root seedlings
(due to inundation)
o Acceptable tree species (due to significant inundation at this location) would include Salix
nigra (Black Willow), Cornus amomum (Silky Dogwood), and Platanus occidentalis
(American Sycamore).
o Acceptable grass species (due to significant inundation at this location) would include
Carex vulpinoidea (Fox sedge), luncus effusus (Soft rush, NC Ecotype), Polygonum

pensylvanicum (Pennsylvania smartweed), Dichanthelium clandestinum (Deer tongue),
and Sparganium Americanum (Eastern bur reed).
o Pump impounded water level down within this area to allow for access and planting;
ensure bypass pumping isn't pulling sediment; impounded water may be sent to adjacent
lateral base ditch which outlets at downstream end of Culvert at Site 36.
o The plan must also include continuous monitoring for the lifetime of the project to
evaluate the success of reforestation and restoration of wetland functionality
o Draft plan will be reviewed by NCTA Environmental staff and will be returned to RE's office
with comments to be addressed by JV
o Finalized plan is to be submitted to the Regulatory Agencies for approval
o Planting window ends on 3/15, however the USACE and DWR agreed to allow additional
time for the completion of restoration activities; therefore, this plan and the restoration
work must be completed within the next 30-days (i.e. no later than April 15t")
• The USACE is not requesting a permit modification at this time. DWR is withholding judgment on
whether or not a formal permit mod will be required until they can review the formal Restoration
Plan.
o DWR is also requesting an Action Plan from the JV/RE teams on how losses like this can
be avoided moving forward
• Both agencies expressed that installed toe protection could remain in place; however, permit
plans must be updated to show the change in location and the amount of additional wetland fill
must be enumerated (in square feet and acres)
• Further disturbances to this permit site could result in punitive action
• Regulatory Agencies agreed that the standing water could be pumped down to the adjacent
lateral base ditch to accommodate planting
o Care must be taken to not pump sediment from the pockets of standing water
• Stabilization of surrounding area including median and portions of the roadbed were discussed
3. Permit Site 8 (Channel change, STA 80+25 to 83+00 -L- Rt)
Compliance Audit February 23rd: At the outlet of the adjacent 6-foot x 8-foot RCBC, silt has deposited in
the rip rap dissipator and the adjoining rip rap lined base ditch due to the downstream channel change
causing impoundment of flow during storm events. The elevation of the relocated channel is controlled
by the existing Town of Holly Springs sewer line which crosses this channel perpendicularly.
Agency Review March 14tn
• Conversations with Regulatory Agents centered around the impounded/impeded flow
downstream of the existing RCBC due to the elevated channel change;
o existing Town of Holly Springs sewer line under the channel change controls the
grade/elevation of the channel change
o this elevation is impounding water at the outlet of the culvert which is creating a pool
where sediment is accumulating
• Discussions occurred regarding what options are available to improve stream flow through the
elevated area where the sewer line crosses under the channel relocation

• Survey shots are required along the channel change from the sewer line back to the culvert and
then upstream of the culvert to assist with the conversation and decision making of what to do
• JV will coordinate with Gannett Fleming to furnish some possible solutions
• Regulatory Agencies would like to continue discussion for options
4. Permit Site 26 (STA 166+50 to 168+00 -L- Rt)
Sediment loss from March 121h rain event: Approximately 0.8-inches of rain on March 121h. Routine
weekly EC inspection found stormwater created scour around and under the 30-inch RCP located at -Y5
RPC (STA 10+00 +/-). Sediment discharged into the wetland area on and off the right-of-way. Estimated
2-3 cubic yards of material extending approximately 200-feet from the toe of slope.
Agency Review March 14th
• Regulatory Agencies review clean up efforts and overall were ok
o Vacuum or otherwise clean up material (silty/soupy sediment) in mechanized clearing
area off toe of slope and in wetland area immediately below toe of slope
o Roadside Environmental agreed that pockets of additional material could be removed
o DWR offered %-inch depth as guidance for when to retrieve material
• Improvements to toe protection and stabilization of slopes were discussed
• Discharge of active 30-inch RCP is currently blocked by silt fence with flow diverted to SSCFO
(location of loss)
• Completion of this pip and dissipater pad will help improve drainage
• Once sediment is retrieved from mechanized clearing area, surrounding elevations will be
necessary to determine if wetland area is lower than the surrounding area
o This information will be shared with the USACE to determine if organic material is
required to return this location to pre-existing contours
• Plywood and sandbags will be added to structure 1611 to prevent stormwater from leaving the
junction box and adding to the sediment issues
• Area below this location will continue to be monitored to determine if skim layer of material left
behind reconcentrates and requires retrieval
• Reinstallation of slope berms, stormwater runoff management and temporary seed/mulch
discussed to help limit risk