20151065 Ver 1_Pre App Meeting Notes_20140717

Memorandum of Meeting
Date: July 17, 2014
Place\Time: NCDOT, Structures Unit Conference Room, 1:00 PM
Participants: David Bailey - USACE
Dave Wanucha — DWR DENR
Travis Wilson —NCWRC
Ahmad Al-Sharawneh — PDEA
—Deanna Riffey — NCDOT PDEA NES 4-
Pete Allen — NCDOT PDEA NES
Gary Jordan - USFWS
Stephen Morgan - NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
— Amy Billings - NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Lonnie Brooks —NCDOT Structures Unit
—Karen Capps - NCDOT Trans. Prog. Management
Mark Staley — NCDOT REU
Ron Wilkins — NCDOT Utilities
Ed Reams — NCDOT Utilities
Cheryl Evans —NCDOT ITS & Signals
-Patty Eason — NCDOT Division 7 Construction Engineer (phone
in)
-- Chris Kirkman — NCDOT Division 7 Resident Engineer (phone in)
Heather Fulghum — Division 7 Right of way (phone in)
Cody Hix - Flatiron
Nancy Scott — Catena Group
—' Randy Turner — Catena Group
Tommy Peacock - RK&K
Matthew Cook - RK&K
--Tina Swiezy — RK&K
Subject: NEPA\404 Merger Team — Concurrence Point 413 Meeting for
I-5110 — I-.73 Connector, Guilford County
The 30% Hydraulic Review was held in order to reach agreement on concurrence point
413 for the I-73 Connector in Guilford County. The following items were discussed and
conclusions reached:
David Bailey opened the meeting with an introduction and then turned the meeting over
to Matthew Cook. Mr. Cook asked for introductions. Following this, he led a brief
description of the project.
The entire project as let to the Flatiron / Blythe Development Company Design -Build
Team includes I-5110 and R-2413A&B. R-2413A&B have already been through the
interagency review process and have 401 and 404 permits. The purpose of the meeting
was to achieve 4B concurrence for I-5110.

The R-2413A&B do not use buffer filtration design. R-2413A&B do not fall under the
Jordan Buffer Rules due to the Merger 01 Process (413) and the NEPA document
(FONSI) being completed prior to the effective date of the Jordan Buffer Rules.
According to previous meetings between NCDOT and DWR, Jordan Buffers would only
apply to changes that occur outside the LEDPA corridor. Changes are possible within the
corridor that would not be subject to Jordan Buffers. I-5110 would still require buffer
filtration and adhere to the regulations.
Mr. Cook then proceeded to review the project on a sheet by sheet basis. For purposes of
clarity, the streams were highlighted on the projected set as blue for USGS blue lines and
green for Soils Map blue lines.
Sheet 4-7: No jurisdictional features affected. Mr. Cook pointed out that a pond on
sheet 7 will be affected (-L- 60+00 LT), however the D -B Team had received a letter
from DWR stating that it was not jurisdictional. He also stated that he would like to
come back to these sheets following the entire review of the plans due to a pipe / RCBC
proposed tie on sheet 4.
Sheet 8: There is a jurisdictional stream (SD) affected at —L- 76+66 LT. The
jurisdictional call begins under the fill slope, so the proposed pipe will not be buried. The
intermittent swale does not show up as a blue line on the USGS or Soils maps and will
not have buffers. There are two stormwater retention basins on either side of the
jurisdictional stream that are not jurisdictional. The one at —L- 75+00 LT will be drained
because it is under the proposed roadway footprint. The one at —L- 79+00 LT will not be
drained because it and its infrastructure are completely outside the proposed NCDOT
right of way.
Sheet 9: There is a jurisdictional stream (SC) affected at —L- 87+50 LT & RT. The
jurisdictional call begins within the gore area between —L- and FLY- at the outlet end of
an existing pipe under Caindale Dr., so the proposed pipe will not be buried. The
intermittent swale shows up as a blue line on the USGS and Soils maps at the outlet end
of the existing 36" pipe under Caindale Dr. It is also a blue line on the USGS map
upstream of the Caindale Dr. crossing. Mr. Cook pointed out that buffers were used
downstream of Caindale Dr. for the stream, however they were not used upstream of the
pipe. He pointed out and showed a picture upstream of the area. It is a golf course with
no evidence of a swale. Everyone agreed that the buffer lines were correct as shown.
There is a wetland (WJ) affected at —L- 87+50 LT. It is completely under the roadway
footprint and will be a total take.
Sheet 10-11: No jurisdictional features affected. Mr. Cook pointed out that a pond on
sheet 10 will be affected (-FLY- 35+25 LT), however the pond is not jurisdictional. Mr.
Cook showed pictures of the pond and stated that it was a stormwater retention pond.
Sheet 12: No jurisdictional features affected. There is a jurisdictional stream (S73) that
runs along —Y2- 43+00-48+00 LT. The perennial swale shows up as a blue line on the
USGS and Soils maps under the full slope of —FLY-. While the FLY- alignment affects
the stream, and this alignment is part of the I-5110 project, the permit impact was

accounted for in the R -2413A permit (R -2413A Site 1). Buffers are not shown along the
stream until the proposed I-5110 right of way crosses it. Mr. Cook stated that during
discussions with NCDOT, it was decided that this was the best way to differentiate
between the I-5110 and R -2413A projects and the need for buffers in the 1-5110 project
but no buffers in the R -2413A project. The note `Buffer zone lines shown for the
purposes of I-5110" was shown on the plans and will also be on the permit drawings.
Sheet 13: There is a jurisdictional stream (S73) affected at —FLY- 56+75 LT. This is
due to a proposed 60" RCP outlet. The perennial swale shows up as a blue line on the
USGS and Soils maps. It is shown with buffers up to the point it crosses the existing R -
2413A right of way line. For reasons similar to those listed on Sheet 12, the buffer zone
lines stop at the existing right of way line.
There is a pond (P6) affected at FLY- 55+00 LT & RT. Although it is basically a
stormwater retention pond, it is fed by a jurisdictional stream (S75) and is considered
jurisdictional. S75 shows up as a blue line on the Soils map only, so buffers are placed
around the pond. The 60" RCP that conveys drainage from one side of the alignment to
the other will be buried one foot. The wetland (W44) and stream (S75) that feed the pond
will not be impacted. The Environmental Assessment stated that approximately 0.25ac of
impact were to be expected. However, the pond will be a total take (appr. 0.43ac) since it
is inside NCDOT right of way as it enters the project footprint. Mr. Cook showed
pictures and video of the area. The pond is predominately dry. No special measures need
to be taken when draining the remainder of the pond.
There are several wetlands in the area (W41, W42, W43, and W44). None will have
impacts. There is also another stream (S74) in the area. It will not be impacted.
Sheet'14: There is a jurisdictional stream (S77) affected at —FLY- 65+50 RT. This is
due to an extension of an existing 72" pipe. The perennial swale shows up as a blue line
on the Soils map only. It is shown with buffers on the right side of the —FLY- alignment.
It is not shown with buffers on the outlet end on the right side of the —Y1- alignment
since that alignment is considered as part of the R -2413A project. Mr. Cook pointed out
that due to a rock outcropping in the stream approximately 4.5' tall 45' upstream of the
existing pipe, the stream drops drastically and created the need for a CSP instead of a
RCP. Also since the D -B Team is tying to an existing pipe, the proposed pipe will not be
buried.
Sheet 15-16: No jurisdictional features affected.
Mr. Cook then asked everyone to return the sheets 4-7. A major component of I-5110 is
construction of an airport taxiway bridge for Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTI).
The D -B Team is constructing the bridge and not the taxiway. Due to the grade required
by PTI for the bridge and the need for the I-73 facility to go under the bridge, there is
about 800,OOOcy of cut that needs to occur (in excess of 50' vertical in some areas.) In
order to meet construction deadlines, the D -B Team has been allowed to begin
construction in this area as long 'as no jurisdictional features are affected. This began two
weeks earlier.

Cutting this low required the D -B Team to outlet drainage to a different location since the
roadway facility is well below the existing outfalls. This is why the D -B Team is
proposing taking drainage from approximately —L- 76+66 to 24+00 to the RCBC that
runs under existing Bryan Blvd. It is a 3@ 8'x6' RCBC with a 1.2' sill in the first and
third cells. Mr. Cook showed a picture of the RCBC. It does not receive average daily
flow in the first or third cells. The system that carries the roadway drainage to this
location will enter the side of the third cell with a 54" CSP. No jurisdictional features
will be affected, however the drainage will still go through filtration due to the stream at
the RCBC having buffers. There is a conservation easement and wetland near the RCBC,
however the D -B Team is taking the appropriate measures for construction of the system
to either: A) stay out of the conservation easement and wetland; or, B) stay out of the
wetland and follow through with the USACE if limited construction work space will be
required inside the conservation easement.
This concluded the review of the plans: Mr. Bailey reiterated that no jurisdictional
features need to be affected during work at the existing RCBC under Bryan Blvd.
Stephen Morgan asked if, due to the nature of the 4B review and minor amount of
comments if the 4C meeting could possibly be canceled. Mr. Bailey said he still wanted
to hold the 4C meeting. Everyone agreed that following a review of the 4C permit
drawings it might be able to be canceled, however it will still be on the agenda in case we
need it. No formal field review will occur.
The meeting was adjourned.
4� qIII�►4
`rJ a.cc r�c--r4-
42 c� S
RUiydraulicsWOCUMENTSH-5110 4B Mmutes.doc