20021356 Ver 1_Complete File_20020827

O
WATER
QG
r
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 12, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested ?. j
Mr. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager /
PDEA- Office of the Natural Environment
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: §401 Water Quality Certification Application for Lincoln County; Proposed Improvements to NC
150 from Gaston-Lincoln Co. Line to West of Indian Creek, State Project No. 8.1830402, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-150(3), TIP No. R-617BA, DWQ Project No. 021356.
Dear Mr. Bruton:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a §401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned-, project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required
for making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
¦ The proposed compensatory mitigation is inconsistent with DWQ's Flexible Stream Mitigation Policy
(May 2000). This document s:attached to this correspondence. Additional mitigation will be
necessary.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 211.0507(a)(3), the permit application will remain on hold until we are supplied
the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of Water
Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers continue to place the
permit application on hold.
We look forward to working with you to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele at
919.733.5715.
Sincerely,
pc: USACE Wilmington Regulatory Office
John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
.NC_bE
F W q Michael F. Easley, Governor
0 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?O? QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
pj Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
O `C
DWQ Project No.- vat I `? Lounty:
Applicant: RC O 12
Project Name 17
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:

Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer- It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicantrs CertHication
I, /? Z , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and d' igence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved p1 ps an?gecificgtions, and other supporting materials.
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
ff this project was designed by a Certified Professional
1, , as a duly registered Professional (i.e.,
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized
to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permitee hereby state
that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction
such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting materials.
Signature Registration No. Date
D
@ ?f?q?l c
AUG 0 1 2006
WE"ANOS AND STORUWATER BRANCH
N EN
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 276042260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax). httpJ/h2o.enr statejr-whicwAands/

WArFR
Q?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
October 2, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe. Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: NCDOT response to DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification issued for R-617BA, Lincoln County
On August 12, 2003, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality issued a §401 Certification for the above
referenced project. On September 29, 2003 the NCDWQ received a letter from NCDOT (dated September 5, 2003)
addressing each of the conditions of the §401 Water Quality Certification issued on August 12, 2003. Please note that
NCDOT is responsible for complying with all of the conditions of the §401 Water Quality Certification. The response
to condition #1 indicates that there may be some confusion on the part of NCDOT.
¦ In Condition # 1, please note that 15A NCAC 2B.0216(3)(b)(i)(G) does refer to public roads. 15A NCAC 02B
.0104 (m) also applies to road projects in that it discusses the implementation of water supply classifications and
echoes the requirements of the water quality standards for class WS waters.
¦ The statement "Stormwater should be directed at non-erosive velocities through the 30-foot vegetative buffer,
grass-lined swales or retention basins (or other site-appropriate means) and not routed directly into streams unless
the Applicant provides evidence that this in not practicable or feasible." was written as a condition of the §401
Certification in order to ensure that the intent of 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(G) is met. If there are design
issues that need to be discussed, please contact Cynthia van der Wiele (919.733.5715) to set up a meeting.
¦ Please note NCDWQ has obtained a copy of the acceptance Letter from the EEP confirming that the EEP will
assume responsibility for satisfying the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project. A copy of this
letter was not enclosed with the September 5, 2003 correspondence from NCDOT.
¦ NCDWQ has noted the statement of "NCDOT will comply with this condition as written" for the §401 Water
Quality Certification conditions # 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify any questions. If the NCDWQ can be of further assistance, please contact
Cynthia van der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
Sincerely, y
Jo Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
Cc:
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Randy Turner, NCDOT, ONE
Chris Riverbark, NCDOT, ONE
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (hD:Ilh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748

09-30-'03 15;17 FROM-DENS-EEP 9197152219 T-102 P01 U-159
"4 0r
North Carolina Department ? p???
Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
August 28, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center ?'?
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
FILE COPY
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Project: NC 150 Improvements
TIP#: R-0617BA
County: Lincoln County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Frogram (EEp) will
provide compensatory mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by
you to EEP in a letter dated June 27, 2003, the impacts requiring EEp Mitigation are located in
Cataloging Unit 03050102 of the Catawba River Basin in the Southern Piedmont Eco-Regidn,
and are summarized below.
Stream Impacts. 432 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the subject project
will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 919-715-22I 8
Sincerely,
A
William b. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: John Hendrix, ,U'SACE-Asheville
John Dorney, Division Of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File No. R-0617BA
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1652
An 1?4ual Opportunity 1.4ffum`ative Action Employer
µSTiVjy
Mas
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMEN'T' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 5, 2003
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Attention: Mr. John Dorney
Wetlands/401 Supervisor
Dear Sir,
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
!x
ETLAD/401 Gffij F;
SEP 2 9 2003
WATER QUALITY ECTION
Subject: R-617BA response to DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification:
DWQ Project No. 021356
On August 28, 2002 a permit application for TIP Project no. R-617BA (DWQ Project no.
021356) was submitted to DWQ. This letter addresses conditions in 401 Water Quality
Certification dated August 12, 2003 for the improvements to NC 150 in Lincoln County. A copy
is attached for your convenience.
1. The waters of the State impacted by this Project are classified as WS-IV. In accordance with
15A NCAC 2B. 0216(3) (b) (i) (F), 30 foot vegetative buffers are required along all perennial
waters indicated on the most recent versions of the USGS 1:24, 000 scale topographic maps
or as determined by local government studies. Additionally, in accordance with 15A NCAC
2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(G), storm water should be diverted away from surface waters and the use
of Best Management Practices should be maximized, particularly those relating to the
control of sedimentation and erosion along the construction corridor and storm water runoff
from the completed transportation facility. Storm water should be directed at non-erosive
velocities through the 30 foot vegetative buffer, grass-lined swales or retention basins (or
other site-appropriate means) and not routed directly into streams unless the Applicant
provides evidence that this is not practicable or feasible.
Please be advised that the most recent version of the Lincolnton West, NC USGS 1:24,000
scale topographic map shows the streams crossed by this project as intermittent streams
(see Figure 1). Additionally, the following statute [15A NCAC 02B .0104 (m)] was written
to specifically address NCDOT projects.
"The construction of new roads and bridges and non-residential development shall
minimize built-upon area, divert stormwater away from surface water supply waters as
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
much as possible, and employ best management practices (BMPs) to minimize water
quality impacts. To the extent practicable, the construction of new roads in the critical
area shall be avoided. The Department of Transportation shall use BMPs as outlined in
their document entitled `Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters' which is hereby incorporated by reference including all subsequent
amendments and editions."
Therefore, NCDOT feels the current design complies with this condition. The latest
BMPs have been incorporated into the design. No critical areas will be affected.
In addition, we want to bring to your attention that the aforementioned paragraph (G)
specifies only that the developer shall minimize built-upon surface area, divert runoff
away from surface waters and maximize the use of BMPs. It does not address non-
erosive velocities, etc. as noted in your condition 1.
2. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the
end of the growing season following completion of construction. NCDOT will comply with
this condition as written.
3. The culverts shall be designed and installed to allow for fish and other wildlife movement as
well as prevent headcutting of the streams. NCDOT will comply with this condition as
written.
4. NCDOT must submit a plan for written DWQ approval to address any headcutting that will
occur as a result of this project. The structures at stream crossings associated with this
project will be installed in a manner to prevent any headcutting from occurring as
noted in condition 3 above. Therefore, there will be no need for the NCDOT to submit
plans for written DWQ approval to address any headcutting.
5. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be
planted when practical. If rip-rap is necessary, it must be limited to the stream bank below
the high water mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water. Rip rap
shall not be placed in the stream bottom. NCDOT will comply with this condition as
written.
6 Compensatory Mitigation:
NCDOT proposes to use Indian Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County, adjacent to R-
617BA and owned by NCDOT. The 480 linear feet of stream enhancement meets the
NCDWQ qualifications for 4:1 ratio for 120 linear feet of credit. NCDOT will comply
with this condition as written.
Based upon agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the
NCDENR, NCDOT and the USA CE Wilmington District" (MOA), it is understood that
the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will assume responsibility for
satisfying the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project. The remaining 432
linear feet of impacts to jurisdictional streams will be provided by EEP. The NCDOT
received an acceptance letter from EEP dated August 28, 2003. A copy is enclosed
for your convenience.
7. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed
"Certificate of Completion "form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the 401
Certification has been completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form
and return it to the 4011Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion
of the project. Please included photographs upstream and downstream of each structure to
document correct installation. NCDOT will comply with this condition as written.
If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely
M '
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT/mcr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, USACE, Asheville
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Cambers, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Michael Penney, P.E., PD & EA
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E., EEP, Raleigh
0
it
CD

N
UP
r-
C04
CD z
F
0
m
v
m
t
ft*4
00
D
r
n
0
iw?
0
O
c
rt
m
WATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
F
9
? Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G
\Q
E? 7
5 Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
17 .? Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
August 12, 2003
Lincoln County
DWQ Project No. 021356
TIP Project No. R-617BA
Improvements to NC 150 from Gaston-Lincoln Co. Line to West of Indian Cree
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions, EEP
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
000,4
% 1 2003
Q't
McRA
CT DEVELQ
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, incur the
following impacts:
¦ 0.64 acres of wetlands;
¦ 1,089.2 linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams, of which 551.2 linear feet require
mitigation;
¦ 0.40 acres of surface waters.
These impacts are necessary. to constructing the improvements to NC 150 from the Gaston-Lincoln
County line to west of Indian Creek in Lincoln County. The project should be constructed in accordance
with your application dated August 28, 2002 and subsequent information dated September 10, 2002 and
June 27, 2003.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 3404 corresponding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Number
14. In addition, you should acquire and comply with any other federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, and Non-
Discharge as well as the Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the
accompanying 404 permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us, in writing, and send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval
letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project
(now or in the future) exceed one acre, or if stream impacts exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions
listed below.
1. The waters of the State impacted by this Project are classified as WS-IV. In accordance with 15A
NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F), 30-foot vegetative buffers are required along all perennial waters
indicated on the most recent versions of the USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic maps or as determined
by local government studies. Additionally, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(G),
storm water should be diverted away from surface waters and the use of Best Management Practices
should be maximized, particularly those relating to the control of sedimentation and erosion along the
construction corridor and storm water runoff from the completed transportation facility. Storm water
should be directed at non-erosive velocities through the 30-foot vegetated buffer, grass-lined swales

North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
August 12, 2003
Lincoln County
DWQ Project No. 021356
TIP Project No. R-617BA
Improvements to NC 150 from Gaston-Lincoln Co. Line to West of Indian Creek
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions, EEP
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, incur the
following impacts:
¦ 0.64 acres of wetlands;
¦ 1,089.2 linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams, of which 551.2 linear feet require
mitigation;
¦ 0.40 acres of surface waters.
These impacts are necessary. to constructing the improvements to NC 150 from the Gaston-Lincoln
County line to west of Indian Creek in Lincoln County. The project should be constructed in accordance
with your application dated August 28, 2002 and subsequent information dated September 10, 2002 and
June 27, 2003.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 3404 corresponding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Number
14. In addition, you should acquire and comply with any other federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, and Non-
Discharge as well as the Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the
accompanying 404 permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us, in writing, and send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval
letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. N total wetland fills for this project
(now or in the future) exceed one acre, or if stream impacts exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions
listed below.
1. The waters of the State impacted by this Project are classified as WS-IV. In accordance with 15A
NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F), 30-foot vegetative buffers are required along all perennial waters
indicated on the most recent versions of the USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic maps or as determined
by local government studies. Additionally, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(G),
storm water should be diverted away from surface waters and the use of Best Management Practices
should be maximized, particularly those relating to the control of sedimentation and erosion along the
construction corridor and storm water runoff from the completed transportation facility. Storm water
should be directed at non-erosive velocities through the 30-foot vegetated buffer, grass-lined swales
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
wATFR
Q6
??
or retention basins (or other site-appropriate means) and not routed directly into streams unless the
Applicant provides evidence that this is not practicable or feasible.
2. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
3. The culverts shall be designed and installed to allow for fish and other wildlife movement as well as
prevent headcutting of the streams.
4. NCDOT must submit a plan for written DWQ approval to address any headcutting that will occur as a
result of this project.
5. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be planted
when practical. If rip-rap is necessary, it must be limited to the stream bank below the high water
mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water. Rip rap shall not be placed in
the stream bottom.
6. Compensatory Mitigation:
¦ NCDOT proposes to use Indian Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County, adjacent to R-617BA
and owned by NCDOT. The 480 linear feet of stream enhancement meets the NCDWQ
qualifications for 4:1 ratio for 120 linear feet of credit.
¦ Based upon agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the NC DENR,
NCDOT and the USACE Wilmington District" (MOA), it is understood that the NC DENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will assume responsibility for satisfying the
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project: The remaining 432 linear feet of impacts
to jurisdictional streams will be provided by EEP.
7. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed
"Certificate of Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401
Certification has been completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form
and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon
completion of the project. Please include photographg upstream and downstream of each
structure to document correct installation.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.7315715.
Sincerely,
Klimek, P.E.
Attachment
Pc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Offic
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Bill Gilmore, NC Ecological Enhancement Program
Central Files
File Copy
RE: Public Notice
imap://cynthia.vanderwiele%4Odwq.denr.ncmail.net@c...
Subject: RE: Public Notice
From: "Lund, Steven W SAW" <[e-mail]. miI>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:49:39 -0500
To: "'Cynthia Van Der Wiele"' <cynthia.vanderwiele @ ncmail. net>
Cynthia,
After reading through the file, talking with Chris Rivenbark and going over some old field notes, I was able
to confirm that this project could be authorized by NW 14. So there won't be any public notice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele [maiIto: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 4:06 PM
To: Steven W Lund, SAW
Subject: Public Notice
Steve,
Have you sent out a Public Notice for R-617BA? We (DWQ) had placed the
project on hold due to unresolved issues with EEP. We are being
directed to go ahead and allow use of EEP for mitigation.
Cynthia
1 of 1 8/11/20031:31 PM
0? WATER Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Uj 7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 8, 2003
Lincoln County
DWQ Project No. 021356
TIP Project No. R-617BA
NC 150 from Gaston-Lincoln Co. Line to west of Indian Creek
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality staff has reviewed your submittal of supplemental information for an
Individual §401 Water Quality Certification for the aforementioned project on June 27, 2003. This project
will remain on hold until:
Issues relating to use of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) have been resolved.
To date, an MOU has not been signed with DENR. Until that MOU has been developed
and signed, DWQ will be unable to permit the utilization of the EEP for this project. Use
of the Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) to provide compensatory mitigation for this
project is acceptable to DWQ. However, the Indian Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln
County will need to be available to WRP. In addition, DWQ's comments on the mitigation
plan dated September 16, 2002 will need to be addressed before the mitigation site is
constructed.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(3), the permit application is placed on hold until we are supplied the
necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of Water
Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers continue to place the
permit application on hold.
We look forward to working with you to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have
any questions, please telephone Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.1786.
o R. Dorney
I ""I
W ter Quality Certifi do Program
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Coleen Sullins, DWQ
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
File Copy
t Cf F
N. C. Division of water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
pone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (hftp://h2o.enr.state.no.us/ncwetlands)
[phone] (p
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
NCDOT Project R-617BA (NC 150) Lincoln Cc
Subject: NCDOT Project R-617BA (NC 150) Lincoln Co.
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:57:35 -0400
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
To:. "Steven W Lund, SAW" <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Steve and John,
NCDOT Project R-617BA (NC 150) in Lincoln Co. was placed "on hold"
requesting more information due to the compensatory mitigation being
inconsistent with our Interim, Internal DWQ Policies on Stream
Mitigation Options & Monitoring (May 2000) back in September 2002.
NCDOT responded with a letter (received here on June 27th) stating that
they are using EEP for mitigation.
It is my understanding that:
1. The MOA has not been signed yet regarding EEP.
2. EEP is required to send an acceptance letter for this project with a
specific mitigation site to be used as compensatory mitigation before a
permit/401 WQC can be issued.
3. The USACE must approve the use of the mitigation site specified by
the EEP.
Have you received this project? Have you been contacted by EEP
regarding a mitigation site for this project?
John-- I wanted to keep you in the loop that NCDOT had just sent in a
project using EEP...I want to be sure that I am proceeding correctly
(and whether the project should be placed on hold due to reasons 1-3
listed above).
Thanks!
Cynthia
c ._ - .
Van Der Wiele, doctoral candidate <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1 of 1 7/1/03 5:41 PM
P
NA?TEo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EAsLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 27, 2003
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2 ???(o
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
WER QUALITY SECTION
qS .
aqo,
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Supplemental Compensatory Mitigation Proposal for the Proposed Improvements
to NC 150 from the Gaston- Lincoln county line to west of Indian Creek. Lincoln
County. TIP R-617BA. Federal Aid Project No. STP-150(3),
State Project No. 8.1830402.
This letter serves as a supplemental mitigation proposal to the original Nationwide 14 application
dated August 28, 2002 for the proposed improvements to NC 150 from the Gaston- Lincoln
county line to west of Indian Creek. The Department received a letter from NCDWQ dated
September 16-20.02 placing the original permit application on hold. The hold letter stated that
the?roposed compensatory mitigation was inconsistent with DWQ's Interim, Internal DWQ
Policies on Stream Mitigation Options and Associated Macrobenthos Monitoring (May 2000).
Summary of Project Impacts: The proposed project will involve permanent fill, excavation, and
mechanized clearing in five different wetland sites which are further itemized in the summary
sheet (sheet 10 of 11) of the permit drawings. The total wetland impact for the project is 0.64
acre. The total impacts for jurisdictional surface waters associated with the project are 1089.2
linear feet and 0.4 ac including intermittent andperennial impacts.
TABLE 1. R-617 BA Wetland Communities,
1 PFO1F
2 PFO1C
4 PFO1C
5 PFO1C
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
WETLANDS J 401 GROUP

, and Total
T ., S
51 0.23
33 0.21
60 0.14
43 0.06
TOTAL 0.64
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
Ap
The project will impact 0.64 acres (Sites 1, 2, 4, and 5) of jurisdictional wetlands.
The "Acres Impacted" column in Table 1 reflects permanent fill, excavation, and mechanized
clearing in wetlands as presented in the summary sheet (sheet 12 of 12). Method III clearing,
which is clearing 10 ft beyond the fill slope stakes, will be used throughout the project.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters: Four stream crossings will have impacts that exceed 150
linear feet (Sites 2, 3, and 4) however, only two crossings (Sites 2 and 3) will impact perennial,
biologically significant streams. Table 2 lists the linear feet of channel loss for each stream
determined to be perennial and requiring mitigation. Neither of the intermittent streams were
determined to require compensatory mitigation during an onsite meeting with Steve Lund
(USACE) on November 17, 2000. Details for all jurisdictional impacts are also listed on the
summary sheet with the previously provided permit drawings (sheet 12 of 12). The total linear
impacts for jurisdictional surface waters associated with the project are 1,089.2 linear feet (0.4 ac
surface area) including intermittent and perennial impacts. Compensatory mitigation will be
offered for 551.2 linear feet of impacts to perennial streams.
TABLE 2. R 617BA Surface Water Impacts Requiring Mitigation
Srte, a c $od'
I^"- [
.;
3ex,

retin

f&e&re

, er
nfit

3 Number
k. .. ; F ed
1k ? Impacts
Vi Type
t
?#
y , near, i
2 Unnamed tributary to 11-129-8-(6.5) 288.7 pipe NWP 14
Indian Creek culvert
3 Unnamed tributary to 11-129-8-(6.5) 262.5 pipe NWP 14
Indian Creek culvert
TOTALS 551.2
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland and surface water
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order
5660.1A (Preservation of the Nations Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and
values provided by wetlands. These directives require that new construction in wetlands be
avoided as much as possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate
impacts to wetlands.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to
provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts.
Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
OP
AVOIDANCE: All wetland areas not affected by the project will be protected from unnecessary
encroachment.
1. No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be
allowed in wetlands or near surface waters.
MINIMIZATION: Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts. Minimization techniques were implemented as follows:
1. Alignment: The project was realigned to reduce impacts at Sites 4 and 5. The original
alignment would have permanently impacted 4.43 ac at these sites. The shifted
alignment reduced impacts to 0.2 ac.
2. Slopes: Fill slopes in wetlands are at a 2:1 ratio.
3. Best Management Practices: Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control
Best Management Practices (BMP) for the protection of surface waters and wetlands
will be enforced.
4. 100-Year Flood Plain: For FEMA floodplain crossings, structures were sized to limit
the headwater increase to less than one foot or to protect structures from being
flooded, whichever was lower. The proposed project does not constitute a significant
encroachment to the floodplain. A flood hazard evaluation discussion was presented
in the EA in Section IV-17 and Figure 10.
COMPENSATION: The primary emphasis of the compensatory mitigation is to reestablish a
condition that would have existed if the project were not built. As previously stated, mitigation
is limited to reasonable expenditures and practicable considerations related to highway operation.
Mitigation is generally accomplished through a combination of methods designed to replace
wetland functions and values lost as a result of construction of the project. These methods
consist of creation of new wetlands from uplands, borrow pits, and other non-wetland areas;
restoration of wetlands; and enhancement of existing wetlands. Where such options may not be
available, or when existing wetlands and wetland-surface water complexes are considered to be
important resources worthy of preservation, consideration is given to preservation as at least one
component of a compensatory mitigation proposal.
FHWA STEP DOWN COMPLIANCE: All compensatory mitigation must be in
compliance with 23 CFR Part 777.9, "Mitigation of Impacts" that describes the actions that
should be followed to qualify for Federal-aid highway funding. This process is known as the
FHWA "Step Down" procedures:
1. Consideration must be given to mitigation within the right-of-way and should include
the enhancement of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands in the highway
median, borrow pit areas, interchange areas and along the roadside.
r
2. Where mitigation within the right-of-way does not fully offset wetland losses,
compensatory mitigation may be conducted outside the right-of-way including
enhancement, creation, and preservation.
NCDOT proposes to offer the Indian Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County as a portion of the
compensatory mitigation for impacts resulting from project construction. The Indian Creek
Mitigation Site is adjacent to R-617BA and is owned by NCDOT. The mitigation plan for this
site has been completed and copies were forwarded with the original permit application.
Resource agencies visited the proposed site on May 29, 2002. As noted in Indian Creek
Mitigation Plan, the 480 linear feet of stream enhancement includes riparian buffer re-vegetation
and fencing to keep horses off of the property. This enhancement level meets the NCDWQ
qualifications for 4:1 ratio for 120 linear feet of credit. Table 3 reflects a full accounting of the
site including an additional 3,120 linear feet of stream preservation and 0.9 ac of Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest wetland preservation not included in the original mitigation plan.
Table 3. Ledger for the Indian Creek Mitigation Site
Rea m rgerit Ike ater ; 'Scrub-`' ant" 's'' ram` t
'nrest 4 ands Forest Shrub ,Enhancemcut= Preservation' Preser?anon"-
yCrentton . ttcE
in Preservation` .:Prese atioti 'Oinear' feet) (1inaear feet L'/Enhancement'
y Asa
1.5 1.7 4.8 0.6 480 3,920 14.9
-ABased upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District" (MOA), it is
understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal
Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in
Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during the EEP transition period which ends on June 30, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 1, the remaining necessary compensatory mitigation
to offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act
will be provided by the EEP. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets
already in existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. The Department has avoided and
minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as described above.
The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 432 feet of jurisdictional streams will be offset by
compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP program.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is requested that these activities be permitted under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14.
By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a 401 General Water Quality Certification from the
NC Division of Water Quality. We are providing seven copies of this revised permit application
to the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC Division of Water Quality.
0

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
VCB/mcr
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Cambers, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., EEP, Raleigh
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Michael Penney, P.E., PD & EA
W A T FRQG
7
?_ n?,d
o ?
September 16, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL: Return receipt requested
Mr. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager
PDEA- Office of the Natural Environment
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: §401 Water Quality Certification Application for Lincoln County; Proposed Improvements to NC
150 from Gaston-Lincoln Co. Line to West of Indian Creek,, State Project No. 8.1830402, Federal
Aid Project No. STP-150(3), TIP No. R-617BA, DWQ Project No. 021356.
Dear Mr. Bruton:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a §401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required
for making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
¦ The proposed compensatory mitigation is inconsistent with DWQ's Internal, Interim DWQ Policies
on Stream Mitigation Options and Associated Macrobenthos Monitoring (May 2000). This document
is attached to this correspondence. By our calculations, the proposed stream enhancement could be
credited at a 5:1 ratio since it consists of buffer planting and protection. The proposed preservation
does not meet the provisions of the above-mentioned policy. Therefore it is of little to no value for
compensatory mitigation for DWQ. In summary, additional compensatory stream mitigation will be
necessary for this project. Please call John Dorney at 733-9646 if you would like to discuss how
DWQ's Stream Mitigation Policy relates to this (and other) projects.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(3), the permit application will remain on hold until we are supplied
the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of Water
Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers continue to place the
permit application on hold.
We look forward to working with you to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele at
919.733.5715.
=iii R. Do y
ater Qua] ty Certi cation Program
pc: USACE Wilmington Regulatory Office
John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
NC DWQ's Wetlands Uni
7
NCDEHRI
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmmito.hti
Wetlands/401 Cerf''ication U
Certifications and Draft Certifications
Interim, Internal DWQ Policies on Stream Mitigation Options and Associated
Macrobenthos Monitoring
May 10, 2000
N.C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Water Quality Certification Program
The following interim, internal policies for stream mitigation and associated macrobenthos
monitoring in addition to stream restoration were developed by DWQ staff (401/Wetlands and
Wetland Restoration Program) at a meeting on January 24, 2000 and then revised at meetings of
a review group (DOT, City of Charlotte staff and consultants, WRP, WRC and 401/Wetlands) on
February 24 and 14 March 2000. The following interim, internal options for stream mitigation. are
meant to present additional options to satisfy the stream mitigation requirements in 15A NCAC2F
.0506 (b)(6) for the 401 Water Quality Certification Program. DWQ staff anticipate that these
interim, internal options will be presented to a larger multi-agency group including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers during the summer of 2000 once that group is established. This interim,
internal policy may then be modified by DWO following the work of this larger group and public
comment. Until that time, this interim, internal policy is effective as of May 10, 2000. The general
guidelines in this interim, internal policy are subject to modification by the Director of DWQ if -a
particular proposed` stream mitigation plan does not show an overall water quality and aquatic life
benefit which offsets the loss of water quality and aquatic life uses from a particular project.
1., Watershed Management
A. Watershed Restoration/Enhancement
Entire watershed - Applicants must model the entire watershed for hydraulics, erosivE
forces and pollutant sources and then select/locate BMPs. DWQ staff will review the
modeling and BMPs to verify the accuracy of the models as well as the selection, size
and location of BMPs.
Watershed size - Should be larger than 1/2 square mile (i.e. focus on perennial
streams).
Targeting watershed - Should be 303(d) list, HQW/ORW, Trout, Water Supply, etc.
Mitigation should occur with same general type of watershed (i.e., urban watershed
(defined as within an ETJ) versus rural watershed)
Ratios 2:1.`
Accounting - Count stream length below BMPs to the downstream end of
improvement. BMPs must be designed and installed properly according to DWQ (and
other) BMP Design Manuals. Restoration (1:1 ratio) and preservation (10:1 ratio) will t
1 of 7 9/12/02 3:56 PIv
NC DWQ's Wetlands Uni http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmmito.hti
counted for separately. Long-term protection of the riparian corridor is encouraged an(
may receive preservation credits.
Up-front, pre-release of credits - 15%o pre; 10% for each of the 1st and 2nd years; 15°.
for each of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th years; with 20% held for release at end. This release
schedule assumes that there is a showing of a trend of success. Crediting will begin
upon completion of the initial BMP. Preservation and restoration lengths to be release,
immediately upon plan approval.
Success criteria - Pre-agreed upon goal to demonstrate improvement. The specific
success criteria will be developed on a case-by-case basis by DWQ and the applicant
Pre and post monitoring, within and below watershed. Annual monitoring is required.
Monitoring - Required within and below watershed. Monitoring will include analysis of
tree survival to meet 320 trees per acre or other ecologically appropriate goal using
permanent quadrats, herbaceous cover evaluated with photos, geomorphology
including bank stability, macrobenthos and fish (see attached "Technical Guide
Summary -`Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols For Stream Restoration
Projects "), and a habitat assessment form. Water chemistry will be limited in scope
and focused on pollutants of concern in that watershed.
Reporting - Annual reporting on BMP success, monitoring, credit' balances and any
corrective measures will be sent to DWQ for written concurrence.
B. Watershed Preservation
Protect' forested, naturally vegetated or able to be naturally vegetated, and presently
unprotected watershed from development, mining and logging. Protection for the
watershed shall be through fee simple purchase and/or conservation easement.
Preservation provides long term protection for a stream segment or watershed and
therefore has a role in stream mitigation. However DWQ's other major goal is water
quality improvement and replacement of aquatic life uses which are unavoidably lost.
Therefore DWQ may limit the use of preservation in the context of stream mitigation
since 'aquatic life uses are not being replaced with preservation.
Ratio - 10:1. DWQ will consider other ratios for streams with unusual flora or fauna
(i.e., rare or endangered species) or highly valuable water quality.
Accounting - Total stream length (perennial and intermittent).
Monitoring - Not needed.
Reporting - A final report with copies of the protection mechanism and description of
the protected area will be sent to DWQ for written concurrence.
2. Stream Restoration
Definition - Stream restoration is defined as "the process of converting an unstable,
altered or degraded stream corridor, including adjacent riparian zone and floodprone
areas to its natural or referenced, stable conditions considering recent and future
2 of 7 9/12/02 3:56 Pb
NC DWQ's Wetlands Uni
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetIands/stnyLmito.hti
watershed conditions. This process also includes restoring the geomorphic dimension
pattern and profile as well as biological and chemical integrity, including transport of
water and sediment produced by the stream's watershed in order to achieve dynamic
equilibrium":
Buffer (wooded) widths - Goal of 50 feet in piedmont/coastal plain and 25 feet in
mountains on each side measured from the top of bank. Smaller buffers may be
possible under unique situations. Conservation easements or similar mechanisms are
required to provide long term protection.
Ratio -1:1. DWQ will consider other ratios in unusual situations.
Monitoring - Monitoring will include analysis of tree survival to meet 320 trees per acr(
or an other ecologically appropriate goal using permanent quadrats, herbaceous cove
evaluated with photos, geomorphology including bank stability, macrobenthos and fist
(see "Interim, Internal Technical Guide Summary - Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring Protocols For Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects, dated May 10,
2000", and the "Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, Version
1.0, dated May 2000"), and a habitat assessment form.
Reporting- Annual reporting with an as-built plan, monitoring and any corrective
measures will be sent to DWQ for written concurrence.
Examples - Add stable pattern, dimension and profile to a channelized stream; add
pools and riffles with in-stream structures.
3. Stream Enhancement
Definition Stream enhancement is the process of implementing; certain stream
rehabilitation practices in order to improve water quality and/or ecological function.
These practices are typically conducted on the stream bank or in the flood prone area
Enhancement activities may also include the placement of in-stream habitat structure:
Buffer (wooded) widths - Goal of 50 feet in pied mont/coasta I plain and 25 feet in
mountains on each side measured from the top of bank. Smaller buffers may be
possible under unique situations.
Ratios - These will vary since there are various degrees of enhancement. The
following are guidelines - vegetation planting only, 5:1; vegetation planting plus
in-stream structures and/or livestock exclusion, 4:1; vegetation planting plus changes
to two of the following - pattern, dimension and profile, 3:1. A conservation easement
or similar mechanism is needed to provide long term protection.
Monitoring - Monitoring will include analysis of tree survival to meet 320 trees per acr(
or another ecologically appropriate goal using permanent quadrats, herbaceous cover
evaluated with photos, geomorphology including bank stability and a habitat
assessment form.
Reporting-Annual reporting with an as-built plan, monitoring and any corrective
measures will be sent to DWQ for written concurrence.
3 of 7 9/12/02 3:56 PIS
NC DWQ's Wetlands Uni
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmmito.hti
Examples - Fencing out livestock; plant wooded buffer without stream or streambank
modifications; install habitat structures; daylighting channel without altering pattern,
dimension and profile with planted buffer and instream structures.
4. Streambank Stabilization
Definition Streambank stabilization is defined as the in-place stabilization of a
severely eroding streambank. Stream stabilization measures that consist primarily of
"hard" engineering, such as concrete lined channels, rip rap, or gabions will not be
considered as restoration or enhancement in most cases.
Buffer (wooded) widths - Irrelevant.
Ratios- Zero except streambank stabilization would count as mitigation when it is
necessary to protect the remainder of the project. Streambank stabilization can be no
more than 5% of the project and then will be counted at a 5:1 ratio. Also riprap shall b(
installed only at bankful stage unless the need for more riprap is convincingly shown.
Monitoring - None.
Reporting- Annual reporting with an as-built plan, monitoring and any corrective
measures will be sent to DWQ along with the report for the larger project.
Examples- Add riprap, gabions and/or concrete to streambank'.
5. Stream/Buffer Preservation
Definition - Stream/buffer preservation is defined as the protection of a relatively
undisturbed stream and its associated buffer through purchase and/or conservation
easement beyond that presently required by a regulatory program. Also preservation
should be 1) only a small percentage of project (< 10%) and part of a larger project, o
2) as identified by NHP, WRC, WRP, TNC, etc. as needing preservation. Preservation
provides long term protection for a stream segment or watershed and therefore has a
role in stream mitigation. However DWQ's other major goal is water quality
improvement and replacement of aquatic life uses which are unavoidably lost.
Therefore DWQ may limit the use of preservation in the context of stream mitigation
since aquatic life uses are not being replaced with preservation.
Buffers - In basins with buffer rules, buffers should be at least 300 feet on each side c
the stream. In non-buffered basins, buffers should be at least 50 feet on each side of
the stream.
Ratios: 10:1. DWQ will consider other ratios in unusual situations.
Monitoring - None.
Reporting-- A final report with copies of the protection mechanism and description of
the protected area will be sent to DWQ for written concurrence.
6. Other options
4 of 7 9/12/02 3:56 PTV
NC DWQ's Wetlands Uni
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmmito.hti
Other actions which result in demonstrable stream improvements may also be eligible
for stream mitigation crediting on a case by case basis. These options would have to
be beyond those measures required by regulations and should be part of a local
watershed restoration plan. These other options can provide long term protection for a
stream segment or watershed and therefore have a role in stream mitigation. However
DWQ's other major goal is water quality improvement and replacement of aquatic life
uses which are unavoidably lost. Therefore DWQ may limit the use of these other
options in the context of stream mitigation since DWQ needs to ensure that aquatic Iif(
uses are being replaced. These options must receive case-bay-case approval from the
Director of DWQ and must include monitoring which demonstrates the water quality
and aquatic life benefit of the project. As such, DWQ is most interested in projects that
target waters with impaired water quality.
INTERIM, INTERNAL TECHNICAL GUIDE SUMMARY
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING PROTOCOLS
FOR COMPENSATORY STREAM RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 PROJECTS
(Updated 16 March, 2001)
The 401 Certification process is a verification by the Division of Water Quality that a given project will n
degrade Waters of the State or otherwise violate water quality standards. Specific monitoring requiremer
for stream restoration can be written into each 401 Certification and can be used by regulatory agencies
determine the ecological functions or recovery of stream reaches being disturbed. This interim, intern
guidance describes the basic principles of benthic macroin vertebrate (or aquatic insects) ecology as
monitoring tool and how this tool will be used in compensatory stream restoration projects. At this poil
these data will not be used to determine the regulatory success or failure of a particular project. Howev
DWQ believes that these data are essential to demonstrate the biological benefit of stream restoration. The
data will address the following information needs:
• These data will be collected to demonstrate whether the mitigation has successfully replaced the
ecological function of the stream reach being restored.
• Monitoring a wide variety of projects should reveal which stream restoration and enhancement
techniques result in biological benefit.
• These data will help DWQ and local water pollution control staff to identify any watershed-scale
problems in the stream and thereby aid in stream restoration.
• These data may eventually aid in the development of numeric success criteria for stream restoration
and enhancement projects statewide.
The need for macrobenthos monitoring for stream restoration in the future will be assessed by DWQ bas,
on these data. If stream restoration data are found to not yield useful information, the DWQ will reassess tr
policy to determine whether continued macrobenthos monitoring is needed.
5 of 7 9/12/02 3:56 Ph
NC DWQ's Wetlands Uni
1. Re ug lato1y Requirements.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/strmmito.hti
• Biological monitoring will be required for all projects (except as noted below) that have more than
1000 linear feet of compensatory stream restoration or enhancement level 1. Biological monitoring
requirements will be recommended on a case-by-case basis for projects having linear feet
measurements of greater than 500 and less than 1000 feet. High priority will be given to sensitive
watersheds, such as HQW, ORW, water supply watersheds and those watersheds that contain rare or
endangered aquatic species. Monitoring. plans will not be a mandatory requirement for compensatory
stream restoration projects affecting 500 or less linear feet.
• An analysis of a subset of up to 80 restoration and enhancement level 1 projects will be conducted.
These analyses will be conducted by ecoregion and stream size. Specifically, up to five surveys will 1
conducted within 8 ecoregions [Mountain (western mountains and blue ridge), Central Appalachians
(essentially the New River Basin), Western Piedmont (inner piedmont and Charlotte Belt), Slate Belt
Triassic Basin, Eastern Piedmont (inner coastal plain and eastern piedmont), Sand Hills, and Coastal
Plain (outer coastal plain and tidewater)] and two stream sizes (small first and second order systems,
and larger streams). The required macrobenthos monitoring on these 80 sites will be supplemented
with monitoring including that for tree survival, vegetation cover, geomorphology including bank
stability, and habitat assessment on all restoration projects. DWQ will select these projects to monitor
in order to get a representative sample within these ecoregions.
• Monitoring plans will include station descriptions; however, data typically will be collected from
stations above the restoration reach and within the restoration reach. A monitoring location below the
restoration reach is a DWQ option. Data from within the restoration reach should be collected from tl
existing channel prior to disturbance (or at a regional reference location if impractical to collect prior
to disturbance) and must be collected within the relocated channel during all subsequent surveys.
• Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys should be conducted prior to restoration or enhancement followec
by at least three years after restoration or enhancement excluding the year immediately following
restoration. All data need to be collected during similar seasonal periods for each year of analysis.
• The Qual-4 collection method should be used to collect samples from small mountain or piedmont
streams which have a catchment size of less than one square mile and are 1St or 2nd order systems.
• Data analysis and choice of metrics should be consistent with protocols developed by the Biological
Assessment-Unit of the Division of Water Quality. These protocols are described in the Standard
Operating Procedures manual for the Unit.
• Protocols for the collection and analyses of fish population structures to assess stream restoration
projects will be developed cooperatively by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of
Water Quality.
• Reports summarizing survey results should be submitted to the Division of Water Quality /Wetlands
Unit within 60 days following survey completion.
II. Re gu l?ry Recommendations.
• This Technical Guidance suggests that the applicants locate a regional reference location in addition
an upstream reference location. It is assumed that a regional reference location can be applied to
several restoration projects within a specific ecoregion. Data from these locations are intended to hell
applicants with the analysis of seasonal' trends in biological information.
• The Division of Water Quality is currently collecting Qualitative, or semi-quantitative samples to
assess water quality perturbations. This guidance promotes the use of these collection methods;
however, quantitative methods of collection also may provide accurate estimates of ecosystem functi
and recovery. At the current time, DWQ cannot require quantitative collection methods; however,
DWQ does recognize the utility of these collection methods.
6 of 7 9/12/02 3:56 P1b
NC DWQ's Wetlands Uni
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmmito.ha
• It is recommended that benthic macroin vertebrate samples be collected from mountain and piedmont
streams during the summer months (June-September) and from coastal plain swamp streams during t
winter/spring (January-March).
• An assessment of channel materials is essential to understanding the biological function of streams.
The practical use of pebble count information has been described in the literature and is listed DWQ
Stream Restoration Manual as an assessment tool. DWQ recommends that pebble counts be conduct(
at each of the biological monitoring locations. These data will then be correlated to benthic
macroinvertebrate data.
• DWQ recommends that applicants implement a QA/QC program to insure the quality of biological
data.
III. Funding of Monitoring Projects.
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program is considering the establishment of a monitoring fund
whereby applicants could contribute a set fee for monitoring for stream restoration projects. This fee would
then be used to conduct all of the required monitoring at a number of sites. Alternatively, monitoring could
be done by trained in-house staff or trained consultants following the protocols outlined earlier.
The Wetlands/401 Water Quality Certification Unit of the Division of Water Quality - North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. For more information please call [phone] or write NC DENR/Division of
Water Quality, Wetlands Unit, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621. For information or comments on
this Web Site please email Todd St. John - "todd.st.john @ ncmail.net"
7 of 7 9/12/02 3:56 PM
Proposed mitigation for R-617BA
Subject: Proposed mitigation for R-617BA PY
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:41:00 -0400 FILE CO
From: Chris Rivenbark <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Steve Lund <[e-mail]>
CC: John Hendrix <[e-mail]>,
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Bruce Ellis <[e-mail]>, Randy Turner <mrturner@dot. state.nc.us>
Steve,
I am preparing the permit application for R-617BA in Lincoln County and I wanted to provide a little
information pertaining to our discussion this morning concerning compensatory mitigation. Total impacts
for the proposed project are: 552 ft of perennial streams (two separate crossings) and 0.69 ac of wetlands
(five different wetlands). Each of the of crossings involves less than 0.5 ac of impacts therefore we are
planning to apply for NW 14's.
NCDOT has purchased a property adjacent to the proposed highway, that you and I looked on 11/17/00,
for the purpose of stream and wetland mitigation. The property (Indian Creek Mitigation Site) currently
has wooded areas and pasture used by horses. The site also has jurisdictional wetlands and borders the
south bank of Indian Creek (WS-IV). Approximately 650 ft of wooded buffers exist along the south bank.
However, roughly 700 ft on the south bank does not have wooded vegetation. The north bank of Indian
Creek at this site belongs to another property owner who has expressed interest in a conservation easement
on her property. A mitigation plan is being prepared at this time and should be available by June 2002.
We feel that this property has several factors contributing to its potential including :
• adjacent to highway project- onsite mitigation
• in kind wetland mitigation
• located in a Protected Water Supply Watershed
• in NCDOT ownership
• adjacent landowner interested in conservation easement
• horses damaging stream banks- property will be fenced
The attached table provides a breakdown of the potential stream and wetland mitigation on the property.
Using linear stream mitigation ratios from the USACE draft Stream Mitigation Guidance Manual, the site
appears to be within the acceptable ranges for the proposed impacts from the project. Please review this
information to determine if you feel the site may be sufficient to propose as compensatory mitigation for
impacts from R-617BA. I have carbon copied Cynthia Van der Wiele and John Hendrix for their review
as well.
Thank you and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Chris Rivenbark
Natural Systems Specialist
NC Department of Transportation
[phone]
I of 1 4/16/02 10:51 AN

TABLE 1 - AVAILABLE MITIGATION AREAS
INDIAN CREEK SITE
LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
.....................................................................................................................................................................
WETLAND MITIGATION
WETLAND CREATION:
• Headwater Forest 1.5 acres
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT:
• Emergent Wetlands 1.7 acres
PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS:
• Headwater Forest 3.9 acres
• Scrub-Shrub 0.6 acres
• TOTAL 4.5 acres
TOTAL WETLAND ACREAGE 7.7 acres
.....................................................................................................................................................................
STREAM MITIGATION
STREAM ENHANCEMENT:
• Riparian Buffer Restoration South Bank and Preservation
of Indian Creek North Bank 700 feet (1.6 acre)
STREAM PRESERVATION
• South Bank and North Bank of Indian Creek 650 feet (1.5 acre)
TOTAL STREAM DISTANCE 1,350 feet (3.1 acres)
........................................................................................................................................................................
UPLAND ENHANCEMENT:
• Planting of Upland Buffers
6.4 acres
INDIAN CREEK WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
Lincoln County, North Carolina
R-0617
FILE COPY
The intended purpose for the Indian Creek Site is to provide onsite mitigation to offset impacts to
wetlands and streams associated with the proposed new alignment of NC 150 (R-0617). The 20-
acre Site is located southwest of Lincolnton on SR 1177 (Pleasant Grove Church Road) and is
presently owned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Until recently, its land
use was primarily pasture. Existing communities and acreages are presented in Table 1. The
wetlands on the Site were delineated and then confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers on
April 29, 1997.
Table 1: Indian Creek Natural Communities
NATURAL
COMMUNITIES WETLANDS
(AC) UPLANDS
(AC) TOTAL
(AC)
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest 3.9 2.8 6.7
Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest - 2.1 2.1
Scrab-Shrub Community 0.6 - 0.6
Emergent Community 1.7 - 1.7
Pasture Community - 8.9 8.9
TOTAL 6.2 13.8 20.0
Several mitigation components are proposed to develop the Site into a more complete and
ecologically significant system (Table 2). Current plans involve the conversion of certain
deforested uplands to wetland communities, restoration and preservation of riparian buffer, and
the enhancement and preservation of uplands. As contiguous components of a larger ecosystem,
areas of proposed wetland creation and enhancement should be viewed from the perspective of
the cumulative contribution to the overall value of the wetland ecosystem rather than the
individual values. Enhancing and preserving the riparian buffer along Indian Creek will preserve
and restore a forested connection between the existing and proposed wetlands and Indian Creek.
This connectivity will provide a more extensive wildlife corridor on and off-site.
TABLE 2: CONCEPTUAL PLAN
INDIAN CREEK SITE
LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
.....................................................................................................................................................................
WETLANDS 7.7 acres
WETLAND CREATION
• Headwater Forest
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
• Emergent Wetlands
WETLAND PRESERVATION
• Headwater Forest
• Scrub-Shrub Wetlands
• TOTAL
.....................................................................................................................
STREAM
STREAM ENHANCEMENT (RIPARIAN BUFFER)
• South Bank of Indian Creek
STREAM PRESERVATION (RIPARIAN BUFFER)
• South Bank of Indian Creek
• North Bank of Indian Creek
UPLANDS
• Enhancement (through planting)
• Preservation
1.5 acres
1.7 acres
3.9 acres
0.6 acres
4.5 acres
1,280 feet (3.0 acres)
475 feet (0.6 acre)
805 feet (0.9 acre)
1,280 feet (1.5 acres)
10.8 acres
7.6 acres
3.2 acres
o? T,o? x 'r +
Off
h
a
9
r Os TRAMS
Natural Communities Map

X-1

?? •• ?
? '? a"
4S ?
?
"
om. y ? ? ?p"?
s;x `
T
rv

'? VI

£ p' •
...
?. XX

Legend

hidiui Creek Site
- Wetland Cnatbn
.' Wetland Ehharuem era
??. Wetland Presernation
`.
Upland Buffer Enhancement
Upland Preservation
Rp avian Buffer Enhancement
R4) avian Buffer Pre servatbn
-Fill
-Proposed NC 150
Ckade CantolStnutae
60 0 60 120 F
Scale (ft)

?
LL
w

M.
?
M
Cf top r ?.
A
'L o
a
Mitigation Plan
Js e???
aµ SL47p°
ti
021356
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 28, 2002
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
t.
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 14 APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 150 FROM THE GASTON- LINCOLN COUNTY
LINE TO WEST OF INDIAN CREEK. LINCOLN COUNTY. TIP R-61713A.
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-150(3), STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1830402.
Attached is the application packet for the subject project. NCDOT proposes to make
improvements to NC 150 from the Gaston- Lincoln county line to west of Indian Creek in
Lincoln County. The project is approximately 2.1 miles in length and will consist of a new
location four-lane divided roadway with no median to a 46 foot grassed median. The proposed
right-of-way ranges from approximately 230 feet to 470 feet for the project. The analysis of
alternatives and the environmental impacts are discussed in an Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact signed, July 12, 1993 and January 31, 1994, respectively. The
project will not impact any Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers included in the list
of study rivers (Public Law 90-542, as amended)
Summary of Project Impacts: The proposed project will involve permanent fill,
excavation, and mechanized clearing in five different wetland sites which are further itemized in
the summary sheet (sheet 10 of 11) of the attached permit drawings. The total wetland impacts
for the project are 0.64 acres. The total impacts for jurisdictional surface waters associated with
the project are 0.4 acres and 1089.2 linear feet including intermittent and perennial impacts.
C__

Summary of Mitigation: A detailed description of the avoidance and minimization
measures is described later in this application. NCDOT proposes to mitigate for stream and ?__D ---i
wetland impacts by using the Indian Creek Mitigation Site.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW-NCDOT-ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was submitted by the NCDOT in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA was approved on July 12, 1993. A Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved on January 31, 1994. The EA explains the
purpose and need for the project, provides a description of the alternatives considered, and
characterizes the social, economic, and environmental effects. After the EA was approved it was
circulated to federal state and local agencies. Copies of the EA and FONSI have been provided
to regulatory review agencies involved in the approval process. Additional copies will be
provided upon request.
R-617BA is in complianc'` ith `23 CFR Part 771.111(f) which lists the FHWA
characteristics of independent utilo 6? iproject:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
JURISDICTIONAL STATUS
The proposed project will impact four wetland sites and four surface waters. Wetland
delineations were conducted by NCDOT biologists using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands were verified by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) on April 29, 1997. In addition, the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) rating system was applied to each wetland site. Each wetland was also classified
according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification (Cowardin, 1979)
system.
Jurisdictional Wetlands. The wetland vegetation was similar throughout the project. The
forested sites (PFO 1 C) supported basically the same vegetation, but in different successional
stages. The herbaceous and vine layers contain Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum). Tree species included
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and water oak (Quercus phellos). Table 1 shows the wetland communities, quality analysis, and
acres of impact for each site.
TABLE 1. R-617 BA Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis, and Total
Site Cowardin Classification DWQ Rating Acres Impacts
1 PFO 1 F 51 0.23
2 PFO1C 33 0.21
4 PFO 1 C 60 0.14
5 PFO 1 C 43 0.06
TOTAL 0.64
PFO1F - Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Semipermanently Flooded
PFOI C - Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
The project will impact 0.64 acres (Sites 1, 2, 4, and 5) of jurisdictional wetlands.
The "Acres Impacted" column in Tables 1 reflects permanent fill, excavation, and mechanized
clearing in wetlands as presented in the summary sheet (sheet 12 of 12). Method III clearing,
which is clearing 10 ft beyond the fill slope stakes, will be used throughout the project.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters: Four stream crossings will have impacts that exceed 150
linear feet (Sites 2, 3, and 4) however, only two crossings (Sites 2 and 3) will impact perennial,
biologically significant streams. Table 2 lists the linear feet of channel loss for each stream
determined to be perennial and requiring mitigation. Neither of the intermittent streams were
determined to require compensatory mitigation during an onsite meeting with Steve Lund
(USACE) on November 17, 2000. Details for all jurisdictional impacts are also listed on the
summary sheet with the permit drawings (sheet 12 of 12). The total impacts for surface waters
associated with the project are 0.4 acres. The total linear impacts for jurisdictional surface waters
associated with the project are 1,089.2 linear feet including intermittent and perennial impacts.
Compensatory mitigation will be offered for 551.2 linear feet of impacts to perennial streams.
TABLE 2. R-617BA Surface Water Impacts Requiring Mitigation
Site Water Body DWQ Index Perennial Structure Permit
Number Impacts Type
(linear ft)
2 Unnamed tributary to 11-129-8-(6.5) 288.7 pipe NWP 14
Indian Creek culvert
3 Unnamed tributary to 11-129-8-(6.5) 262.5 pipe NWP 14
Indian Creek culvert
TOTALS 551.2
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Plants and animals with Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of February 26, 2001 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists two federally
protected species for Lincoln County.
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) and dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) in the EA. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service issued a letter of concurrence with the "No Effect" status dated August 31,
1993. Due to the time that has lapsed since the original survey, areas that provide suitable
habitat were re-surveyed on May 20-21, 2002 to insure that the project will not impact any
federally protected species. NCDOT Natural Systems Specialists Chris Rivenbark and Rachelle
Beauregard conducted surveys for both species. Neither Michaux's sumac or dwarf-flowered
heartleaf was observed during the survey. Therefore, the biological conclusion of "No Effect"
remains valid for each of these species.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
. There are four historic sites and one historic district throughout the entire R-617 Project
that were determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It was
determined that the proposed project would have no effect on the Roberts Log House, Indian
Creek Railroad Bridge, or the Kelly-Link Farmstead. The Benjaja Black Farm Complex and the
Crouse Historic District are considered outside the area of potential effect. This determination
was issued by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 2, 1993. A copy of this
letter is located in Appendix C of the EA for this project.
An archaeological survey for the entire R-617 project resulted in the identification of 32
historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. The study assessed all 32 archaeological sites as not
significant. The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a letter dated December 13, 1991,
responded that all 32 sites were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. A copy of this letter is located in Appendix C of the EA for this project.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland and surface water
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order
5660.1A (Preservation of the Nations Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and
values provided by wetlands. These directives require that new construction in wetlands be
avoided as much as possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate
impacts to wetlands.
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all
remaining wetland impacts required by current regulations. Avoidance measures were taken
during.the planning and EA/FONSI phases; minimization measures were incorporated as part of
the project design.
AVOIDANCE: All wetland areas not affected by the project will be protected from
unnecessary encroachment.
1. No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be
allowed in wetlands or near surface waters.
MINIMIZATION: Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts. Minimization techniques were implemented as follows:
1. Alignment: The project was realigned to reduce impacts at Sites 4 and 5. The original
alignment would have permanently impacted 4.43 ac at these sites. The shifted
alignment reduced impacts to 0.2 ac.
2. Slopes: Fill slopes in wetlands are at a 2:1 ratio.
3. Best Management Practices: Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control
Best Management Practices (BMP) for the protection of surface waters and wetlands
will be enforced.
4. 100-Year Flood Plain: For FEMA floodplain crossings, structures were sized to limit
the headwater increase to less than one foot or to protect structures from being
flooded, whichever was lower. The proposed project does not constitute a significant
encroachment to the floodplain. A flood hazard evaluation discussion was presented
in the EA in Section IV-17 and Figure 10.
Compensatory Mitigation: Through use of flexible stream mitigation, NCDOT proposes
to offer the planned Indian Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County as compensatory mitigation
for impacts resulting from project construction. The Indian Creek Mitigation Site is adjacent to
R-617BA and is owned by NCDOT. The mitigation plan for this site has been completed and
copies are being forwarded with this permit application. Resource agencies visited the proposed
site on May 29, 2002. Once constructed, the Indian Creek Site will consist of 7.7 ac of wetland
mitigation, 1,280 ft of stream mitigation, and 10.8 ac of uplands. NCDOT is pursing a
conservation easement that would preserve an additional 1,724 ft of Indian Creek and plans to
contact another property owner to protect approximately 695 additional ft of the stream. Table 3
reflects a full accounting of the site.
Table 3. Ledger for the Indian Creek Mitigation Site
Headwater Emergent= Headwater Scrub- Stream Stream
Forest Wetlands' Forest Shrub ' Enhancement Preservation
Creation Enhancement Preservation Preservation (linear feet) (linear feet)
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac)
Beginning 1.5 1.7 3.9 0.6 480 800*
amount
(Proposed) 1.5 1.7 3.9 0.6 480 800*
Used for
TIP R-
617BA
Remaining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
amount
* This amount does not include approximately 2,419 ft of additional preservation NCDOT is currently
pursuing which is not discussed in the mitigation plan.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is requested that these activities will be permitted under Section 404 Nationwide Permit
14. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a 401 General Water Quality Certification from
the NC Division of Water Quality. We are providing seven copies of this application to NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC Division of Water Quality. Please find
attached a copy of the check to the NC Division of Water Quality for the 401 Certification fee in
the amount of $475.00.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
R1?----
V. Char s Bruton, Manager
PDEA-Office of Natural Environment
VCB/mcr
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Cambers, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. Michael Penney, P.E., PD & EA

1 Laa
a

i ?.
I ?
y
sldese Ilege _

O or
?
Y
- on q Vi ew
I I? 20
1 %1c r MIS
7 /y `
?
S ) m
I
7
rl m
over
5prings
Elni
nnell ) ' I MAm
Sprin Hi 9 f ` e„?Claremon Calawb . Troutm H.
an
'
I?
fF r
77\??
E o Fu )7
10
R':7 . Oswalt

acob6

7• 1 Newton S'

art
`
own Aerl S ,

ep

p
J
T?a A6 8 p
q
7
10 g
-
u I1
11

f )b
O Maiden
6 ' ok
S
I Vale
' t
_
\a\ 311
0
7 0(
1
Toluca
' L C
N ' Mount
2 IReep Ville k
/ 3 1 r
•elwood 6+Lincolnton g o d dnvtll rnanpe ° 1 0 .
?r74 6 a eoger r] ,7 Corneli
.-..f allston tb
Idate
C lty lion 3 w F? Caldw
e
tal
A S
1
se
' 18 \ f - _ lon
e
) 7
- 2 Lowesvdle r
II
Q
S Hl Male ,1
e ;4
Cherry!flle
I7 untt
e
OQu blt 7 Wat 7 1 ?1 Lu ,a ountain
A > .
N 7a
rl
.
webs G
Be emer

Ir t
7 1 o bat as ` s? 7) 16
21
=
I
b
{t>yy r K1nes I C t • '
z
y
) ). ' o'"?a? e° unt Hall
moun
Sat ersonl , e

,nqs ,la

?
t1
7; I -
)
0
i
_ _ _ .. Gast 'is it r
el i
is /?__ * •_.
Scale of Miles
0 to 20 30
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometers
.. One lltt7l ap "w"tey 13 miles and approximately 2 t kilometers

.1 .. i
7 •r, '? a '1M
.
1 .7 f,?a
.7 \ *1 • .
_
: LI
• R t10.1

COLNTON _
OGEII: '
,° I?
JN y' r` f.4 a,a 7/ t•''•• n0? .137 I ?.
U :•
<:
I
1? r PAS ,o
163
240
1• LOCI ` .f ,,\ YJ '?
c?M. ?`t'4?
,,•,' •..y la 74
.a 1 s,,
T ua:
' 1119 .,11.. 121_,
f o
70 71 PAS i sat
36 -•-
s
R2oSE?T
A S T 0= N o C
SCALE
3 a Mites
rv . o-Qa -- 1? 2
14 uM 3r2 Rs. Al Km 4. gm
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY LINCOLN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1830402 (RIAUBA)
p NC 130 FROM GASTON CO. LINE
TO WEST OF INDIAN CREEK
REVISED JULY 1999
SHEET J OF 19.

°o. u
Ze
'o kn
n
m
?.
dg
d
tu-
N
LL.
0
W W I. LI
00
IT V l
l3
~ ,¦
of of
N N << ?y
!! V N
Q. W ?.
++ v+ dr "7
A. O
f-
LLJ V)

W
I- '
(n
Hb OlS+Z Y.Ls ZA3il1
=)18 OIS+L V.LS A3VI °o
`
N p
?_
W N N
C? ~_ u
vo,v NO ? t/1 Y
J1014
oS
0 0
V) I
co
o?
do
W ?
Q
N ,L
mm
°ooo
t +
J J
W
i- ?
In
(3voa 3snga:)
69LI bS IOU
?1NC? N'
yob
7
<<<<4S-'lo
esO?
?d
GPsSpN o
/
?o

i
z
O

m z z zz
o
Z O ;r.
W
°
z c

00

w

e

w
® z 0 06 , ?n
O
L U
Z E.;
U O E., cJ
A ? o ?3 w
U Ga ? ~ O
? W
x
z z
W
.a
U
0
0
O
O
N
b

LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
WL PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48"
® DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUC TURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
. (POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION

IN WETLAND
® ¦
DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER ROOTWAD
* DENOTES MECHANIZED
*
*
*
*
* * * CLEARING

-? -- ---- DITCH Ana

RIP RAP
?- FLOW DIRECTION
TB;
-_ TOP OF BANK AD
5 JACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
WE IF AVAILABLE
-- EDGE OF WATER
- -c - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
X X X X X LIVE STAKES
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
BOULDER
-m PROP. RIGHT. OF WAY E2D
- - NO - - NATURAL GROUND --- CON FIBER ROLLS
- - PL- - PROPERTY LINE
E - TEMP. CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LINCOLN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1830402 (RO617EA)
NC 150 FROM GASTON CO. LINE
TO WEST OF INDIAN CREEK
SHEET -?s OF II
OOOfz o
0
pp J
h<-p'3 - C ? C1 ?n ? Q
NJW W ?y/J? Q
-? o
. W~' E
a-uv? I m y00
J1-NW I N =
<J2d
JJ100 ? J
+ u
Q © N
© ? A
N
Q u x
Q N ? +
Q ? z a
?- VI N \
Q m Q W
awl
N h \ W
Q© Q Q H1 g ?
Q Q d
} 1
00641
Q ? Q d?
Q Q .nor ?
1 a
u I Q?
? o
O I N X
Q I W $
N `\
a
c CL
W I ?
i
o

3
x
z o?

o z c:<
0 0 0 co oo W o

0-4
U A ? O Ga
z
z
D C
z ?
U
E J
F
b 3 N
? z z
c
J ?
.a U
r?
h h
Ca D
Lt. t
W
J
U
O
N
O
O

as
o _ z
1.0
F" v, 4 '? cwLl
a U U .?
d z py C Z c'
z O P A U ri)
U d Z 0
E-' O Z ?w o w
9 z O O L!1
a z U ww
G O J p? a ?
U ?
z U
w
J
Off/ ?I ?=7
o I ? v/
_ Imo' U
!
/ L 2
J H
7 u
a z
o .. N ? • w w
?µOb£fZ ?I ,? a ?" U
/ID
EpR
w m? ?.?a
p Dv? AU
!
i
!
J
x
0
U
Z

1
,
,
1
z w
o z?

a0 Z c°v
Z
v O
z
F o z 00 c? w
O
o z o 0 Ow
a z z v 0? w

U ? O W
z E.
w
U

N
C-4

z O
b
? O
?
A
?J

z

J

a N
z z? z
F U
? a ? ca

0 0 0
? ?

A v
A i A U
•

I.
z
o z?
aw ® Z ?
z E-, ??
® c U
z ?'
H a -
?? ,- r
? c6
A :>
z ? zF
w
a
U
k? O
N /
I °
J °
I?
I e ?m ( O
I o
00/tf Ir m I
I I C
a
_? NV Y
41
a
CL-
a \? _ \ ao H
\ 060+ f u N
?
as
I W U
\ F
J Z
A vU,
z
o zw
O 3 H ? ®V ?
0
> E-4
rj)zti?
F p J o p cz,
C O ®;
E-H F
W ? a W ? W ?
O ,°(i w
z z
Uf .
I
? I
Q.
I
N O
J ?
i N ?' • • ? • N
O 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. CL I
I I
j \ l_ _?? v N I =
41
z
?. 009+ f, w °
\ ? N
?? , I I z z? x
1 ?+
V) Z
? ' , ? 1,1 ?I I F F ? F cC
°
z z
? ?, ,?/•• I I A A vii A U
LCI
LLI
1

l.n
W
J
U 1
O a
W
N
Q
off
o
O v N -
N
r
-1 \<
J
W
W
Z ,v ? d
r_
° O I
Q W ?
N
y I ? H ? I /
a 009,1
f
o z
_

3
® CM
? U
o
H o z t o o
w
o z o
00 A
O U EH O F
A A 9 ° ?? Ct" W
Ci '4 O W

y
A
z
F
ra
a
z
F
z°
b A
LL
W
J
U
O
N
O
E
O
NO.
2
3
4
5-
6
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
C & M LAND CO. #6
LARRY GENE CHAPMAN
PEGGY. JEAN NEAL
CLAUDE ELMORE
DAVID F. MAUNEY
ALMA T. SPEACLE
P.O. BOX 1388
LINCOLNTON, NC 28093
6003 WHITEWATER DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28214
RRI
CROUSE, NC 28033
P.O. BOX 42
CROUSE, NC 28033
RT. 5, BOX 486
CHERRYVILLE, NC 28021
RT.I, BOX 193
CROUSE, NC 28033
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I
I LINCOLN COUNTY
J
PROJECT: 8.1830402 (R0617BA)
ITC 150 FROM GASTON CO. LINE
TO WEST OF INDIAN CREEK

11

It
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
SITE NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
I C & M LAND CO. #6
2 LARRY GENE CHAPMAN
3 PEGGY JEAN NEAL
4 CLAUDE ELMORE
P.O. BOX 1388
LINCOLNTON, NC 28093
6003 WHITEWATER DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28214
RRI
CROUSE, NC 28033
P.O. BOX 42
CROUSE, NC 28033

N C

o
O 0
Q W
w

O
0
Q
?
O
0
o
m
IL co Z LL
o 0
Q?
?
y?j
0O?
oz=
2_
0 co
0
O
-
F
N0 0
W Z U W H
G o 00 W O
I
LL n
z
a ZO
z

H
W
W
x
- tlJ

cc
v
Ii
cc
Co ?? Q v Q S 0
i

M
Co

:E ? ? 0 O O O

LL a

O C ? 0
? CO
to

U ,..
C L to 0 N
W
d ?
c
o
?
= O

a
° ? co d
' ? ?

? -
w v E a co %0 0
"'

3 =
V

h
O c W
C O
.-
O
O =
= a o c

3=
car o o '
0 ?
0 g
LL Z C O 0 0 C;

N ? ? _ Q
p
O o O O O
v
p. ?

Q
>
m= Q
V
O p
O
?"?
3
W =
O _
Z y

m

= mr COD
`8
0
0
?°

o
c
O
O ,
c
m w w a a s a
? m a a a
? N a a a. a s

N
O
sQ
g

fA ll N N m M ! 7

N Z N N ?
a m z o
w
>
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 021356
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
Z Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by .17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Proposed improvements to NC 150
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): R-617BA
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Lincoln Nearest Town: Crouse
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
NC 150 from Lincoln-Gaston County line to west of Indian Creek.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): see attached list
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Pasture or open fields, forested areas, rural neighborhoods
7. Property size (acres): approximately 61.5 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake):
Indian Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Construction of new location highway project
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: backhoe, crane, bulldozers,
heavy-duty trucks
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: rural, agriculture
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Jurisdictional wetlands were verified by Steve Chapin of the Asheville Field Office on April 29,
1997. Stream determinations and mitigation requirements were provided on November 17, 2000
by Steve Lund also of the Asheville Field Office.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application:
This section of the project as well as the remaining sections of the project (BB, C, & D) will each
have independent utility therefore each would function with or without the completion of other
sections.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
Page 5 of 13
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Type of
Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

See attached sheet

T Last each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc.. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.81 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.64 ac
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
2 pipe 288.7 UT (Indian Creek) 3 feet Perennial
2 fill 160.8 UT (Indian Creek) < 1 foot Intermittent
3 pipe 262.5 UT (Indian Creek) 4 feet Perennial
4 pipe 180.4 UT (Indian Creek) < 1 foot Intermittent
4 pipe 196.8 UT (Indian Creek) < 1 foot Intermittent

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
Page 6 of 13
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 1,089.2 feet
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
2 fill 0.07 UT (Indian Creek) stream
2-A fill 0.25 UT (Indian Creek) pond
3 fill 0.05 UT (Indian Creek) stream
4 fill 0.02 UT (Indian Creek) stream
4 fill 0.02 UT (Indian Creek) stream

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding,-drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): E] uplands 0 stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The original alignment for the proposed highway would have impacted 4.43 ac of wetlands at
sites 4 and 5. The project was realigned which reduced impacts at those sites to 0.2 ac. No
staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be allowed in wetlands
or near surface waters. Fill slopes at stream and wetland crossings are 2:1. Stream crossings are
perpendicular. See section III of the EA for additional information.
Page 7 of 13
T
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Through use of flexible stream mitigation, NCDOT proposes to offer the planned Indian
Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County as compensatory mitigation for impacts resulting
from project construction. The Indian Creek Mitigation Site is adjacent to R-617BA and is
owned by NCDOT. The mitigation plan for this site has been completed and copies are
being forwarded with this permit application. Resource agencies visited the proposed site on
May 29, 2002. Once constructed, the Indian Creek Site will consist of 7.7 ac of wetland
mitigation, 1,280 ft of stream mitigation, and 10.8 ac of uplands. NCDOT is pursing a
conservation easement that would preserve an additional 1,724 ft of Indian Creek and plan
s
to contact another property owner to protect approximately 695 additional ft of the stream.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
A
Page 8 of 13
I
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): n/a
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No R
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No Fj
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes [:] No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 9 of 13
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Lone t extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
n/a -
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in. order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Impervious area will increase as a result of the construction of the new roadway. NCDOT
BMP's for the protection of surface waters will be followed throughout project construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
n/a
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes F? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes Fj No
al
Page 10 of 13
K
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
n/a
w-
g 23 6 Z
Applicant/Agent's Signature Da e
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 11 of 13
Section III
(Question # 5)
Western terminus N350 24.941'W810 19.106'
Site 2 N350 25.300' W81° 18.452'
Site 3 N350 25.366' W81o 18.193'
.
Sited .: N350 25.335' W81° 17.597'
Eastern terminus N350 25.417' W81° 17.373'
Section VIII
(Question # 1)
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
I Fill 0.2 no 550 forested
1 excavation 0.01 no 550 forested
1 Mech. clearing 0.02 no 550 forested
2 Fill 0.15 no 70 forested
2 excavation 0.05 no 70 forested
2 Mech. clearing 0.01 no 70 forested
4 Fill 0.12 yes 770 forested
4 excavation 0.01 yes 770 forested
4 Mech. clearing 0.01 yes 770 forested
5 Fill 0.05 no 760 forested
5 Mech. clearing 0.01 no 760 forested

JW 2 f
MITIGATION PLAN
INDIAN CREEK SITE
LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER: R-0617WM
021356
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
August 2002
,.??,
' INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 3
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, SITE HISTORY, AND LAND USE ........................................................... .. 3
' 2.2 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... .. 3
2.2.1 Water Bodies ........................................................................................................... 3
' 2.2.2 Waterways ...............................................................................................................4
2.2.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... .4
2.3 SOILS ............................................................................................................................. .. 4
' 2.4 NATURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ......................................................................... .. 6
2.4.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest .............................................................. . 6
2.4.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) ............................................. 7
' 2.4.3 Scrub-Shrub Community ......................................................................................... 8
2.4.4 Emergent Community ............................................................................................. . 8
2.4.5 Pasture Community ............................................................................................... 10
' 2.5 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ................................................................................................ 10
2.6 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN ........................ 11
2.61 Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) ................................................ 11
' 2.62 Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) ...................................................................... 12
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN ..................................................................................................... 14
' 3.1 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.1 Creation ................................................................................................................ 15

' 3.1.1.1 Hydrology .........................................................................................................
3.1.1.2 Soils ................................................................................................................... 15
16
3.1.1.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 16

' 3.1.2 Enhancement .........................................................................................................
3.1.3 Preservation .......................................................................................................... 16
17
3.2 STREAMS ....................................................................................................................... 17
' 3.3 UPLANDS .......................................................................................................................
4.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS. 18
20
' 5.0 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................... 20
5.1 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................. 20
5.1.1 Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 22
5.1.2 Success Criteria .................................................................................................... 22
5.2 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................. 22
5.2.1 Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 23
' 5.2.2 Success Criteria .................................................................................................... 23
5.3 CONTINGENCY ............................................................................................................... 23
' 6.0 MITIGATION VALUE .................................................................................................. 24
7.0 DISPENSATION OF THE PROPERTY ..................................................................... 24
' 8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................25
' NCDOT Page i 0810912002

C

C
i

C
r.

7

INDIAN CREEK
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................. 2
FIGURE 2 - SOILS ........................................................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 3 - NATURAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 4 - MITIGATION PLAN .................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 5 - DELINEATED WETLANDS, REFERENCE WETLAND, AND GAUGE LOCATIONS ....... 21
TABLES
FIGURES
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
TABLE 1 - NATURAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................. 6
TABLE 2 - FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR LINCOLN COUNTY, NC .............................. 11
TABLE 3 - AVAILABLE MITIGATION AREAS ............................................................................... 14
NCDOT
Page ii
08/09/2002

n

1

H
f

F
n

L
L
J

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to use onsite mitigation to
' offset the impacts to existing streams from construction of NC 150 (TIP Project Number R-0617)
in Lincoln County, North Carolina. The 20.0-acre parcel (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian
' Creek Site" or "the site") is located adjacent to Indian Creek along NC 150, southwest of
Lincolnton in Lincoln County (Figure 1).
' The Indian Creek Site is owned by the NCDOT and has recently been used for horse pasture.
The Site is bordered to the north by Indian Creek, to the west by SR 1177 (Pleasant Grove
' Church Road), and to the south and east by maintained yard or pasture.
' Mitigation components planned for the Indian Creek Site consist of the conversion of certain
deforested uplands to wetland communities, enhancement of emergent wetlands, preservation of
headwater wetlands, restoration and preservation of riparian buffer, enhancement and
preservation of uplands, and the placement of conservation easements on mitigation areas.
' Immediate plans to provide onsite mitigation credits consist of-
• Creation of approximately 1.5 acres of headwater wetlands from presently deforested uplands
' through minor grading,
• Enhancement of approximately 1.7 acres of existing emergent wetlands through planting,
' • Enhancement of existing wetlands through in-stream grade control in a non jurisdictional
intermittent tributary to Indian Creek,
• Preservation of approximately 4.5 acres of headwater wetlands and scrub-shrub wetlands; 3.9
' acres and 0.6 acres respectively,
• Enhancement of approximately 1,280.0 feet (3.0 acres) of stream through 480.0 feet (0.6
' acres) of buffer restoration and 800 feet (2.4 acres) of buffer preservation, and
• Enhancement of 6.4 acres of uplands through planting and preservation of 4.4 acres of
' existing forested uplands for a total of 10.8 acres of upland buffer.

NCDOT Page 1 0810912002

I

I
0

J
H
n

r

0
0
C
L

11
w
i
i
INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
BURKE
COUNTY
•-.,__?
C?iaW
._.? BAS COUNTY
REDELL

c, p-COUNTY
}'•-,
0 LINCOLN COUNTY \'?

? ~
V._
' . ?., _. ._ _ _ _ (1( x0
GA$TON COUNTY '7 wu
SITE ?
- -- - ---- \\ ;' ee
4
?..._.._.....
m

1y179 ° 1180 1177 1232m c
I
- , 1228,
1 1 8 Labo ato
1180 A • d ??`
Q .°? Creek O
A
1169 Crouse
?• t ..
1 176 Creex..
1 1 71 1 73 - • ?[
17
_---------------- _._._._._._,_._._._._._._ ._.-- f _ _ _ _ _ J.
INDIAN CREEK WETLAND
f MITIGATION SITE
I

a?
SCALE: i' = 5000'
INDIAN CREEK SITE MAP
? CATAWBA RIVER BASIN FIGURE I
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
LINCOLN COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT Page 2 0810912002
f

w

w

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, SITE HISTORY, AND LAND USE
The Indian Creek Site is located in the south-central portion of the Southern Piedmont
' Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Elevations on the Site range from approximately
760.0 feet above mean sea level (msl) along Indian Creek to approximately 800.0 feet above msl.
The Site is bordered to the north by Indian Creek, to the west by SR 1177 (Pleasant Grove
Church Road), and to the south and east by maintained yard or pasture. The property is currently
used for pasture. Historical aerial photography from 1938 indicates the same land use on the site
' that is present today.
1 2.2 WATER RESOURCES
2.2.1 Water Bodies
' One small ephemeral pool, located in the scrub-shrub community, exists on the Indian Creek
' Site. It is located in the northwestern portion of the site approximately 150.0 feet east of
Pleasant Grove Church Road and 100.0 feet south of Indian Creek. It comprises an area of less
than 0.1 acre.
The regional water table remains within several feet of the ground surface throughout much of
' the year. Because of this sustained high water table, the water level within the ephemeral pool is
maintained primarily via groundwater discharge. At the time of the site investigation, the water
' level in the pool ranged from approximately 1.0 to 15.0 inches. The water level is supplemented
by precipitation and, less frequently, by major periodic flooding when Indian Creek overtops its
banks. The ephemeral pool does not have a direct outlet to Indian Creek.

0
NCDOT Page 3 0810912002
' INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
2.2.2 Waterways
The Site is bounded to the north by Indian Creek. Indian Creek is a fourth order perennial
' stream where it adjoins the property. Indian Creek has a sandy substrate with a bankfull depth of
approximately 5.0 feet, bankfull width of approximately 39.0 feet, and a depth from the top of
' bank to the channel bed of approximately 10.0 feet. It appears that Indian Creek is incised
within the historic floodplain. Consequently, overbank flooding is rare.
1
2.2.3 Groundwater
LIII

The Soil Survey of Lincoln County, North Carolina (USDA, 1995) reports depths to the seasonal
high water table ranging from 0.5 foot (in areas underlain by Chewacla loam) to greater than 6.0
feet (in areas underlain by Pacolet sandy clay loam).
2.3 Sous

H

C

According to the Soil Survey of Lincoln County, North Carolina (USDA, 1995) soil mapping, the
Indian Creek Site is entirely underlain by non-hydric soils, some of which have hydric
inclusions. Non-hydric soil units mapped within these areas by the Lincoln County Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) consist of Chewacla loam (0 to 2 percent slopes), Helena sandy
loam (1 to 6 percent slopes), Pacolet sandy clay loam (2 to 8 percent slopes), Rion sandy loam (2
to 8 and 8 to 15 percent slopes), and Riverview loam (0 to 2 percent slopes) (Figure 2).
Soil borings taken during field investigations confirmed the SCS soil mapping. The soil borings
taken within the jurisdictional wetlands were hydric and therefore assumed to be a hydric
inclusion of the mapped Chewacla soil. Mitigation activities will primarily involve the
Chewacla soils. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained with a seasonal high water table at
a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. The main limitations of this soil series are wetness and frequency of
flooding.
Mitigation activities are not recommended in the Riverview soil series that is located on the
levee adjacent to Indian Creek. This soil type is a very deep well drained soil. It consists mostly
of depositional material from historic overbank flooding. Attempts to include these areas in
wetland creation risk the drainage of the existing wetlands.
NCDOT Page 4 0810912002

0
C

J
1

7

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND WII7GATION PLAN
FIGURE 2 - SOILS
? p^,ATN C?
c: a
Figure 2
N?
}?i oft
Sails
bf 1a/.'?:
NC'DOT
Page S
8/9/2002

J

u

i

j

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
2.4 NATURAL VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale
and Weakley, 1990) was utilized to categorize the site's natural vegetation communities. Natural
communities identified during site investigations consist of Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype). Disturbed and less developed
areas, not categorized by Schafale and Weakley, include scrub-shrub, emergent, and pasture
communities. The communities and the acreages of wetlands and uplands in each community
are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1 - NATURAL COMMUNITIES
NATURAL
COMMUNITIES WETLANDS
(AC) UPLANDS
(AC) TOTAL
(AC)
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest 3.9 2.8 6.7
Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest - 2.1 2.1
Scrub-Shrub Community 0.6 - 0.6
Emergent Community 1.7 - 1.7
Pasture Community - 8.9 8.9
TOTAL 6.2 13.8 20.0
2.4.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is located in the floodplain of Indian Creek (Figure
3) and comprises an area of approximately 6.7 acres. Approximately 3.9 acres of this
community is a delineated wetland (verified April 29, 1997 by Steve Chapin of the US Army
Corp of Engineers (USACE) (Figure 3). The hydrology of the wetland in this community is
largely driven by groundwater and supplemented by over-land flow and precipitation.
Vegetation along the south bank of Indian Creek from the bridge to approximately 480.0 feet
downstream consists of only a narrow strip, approximately 10 feet wide. Consequently, it is
proposed that 50 feet from the top of bank (0.6 acres) be restored to a Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest Community to provide an effective riparian buffer. The soils in this area include
Chewacla and Riverview.
1 NCDOT Page 6 0810912002
J

0

0

J

F

J
n
H
n

H
INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
The canopy is composed of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), river birch (Betula nigra),
sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). Saplings and shrubs
within this community consist of ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), tag alder (Alnus serrulata),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), red maple, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), green
ash, box elder (Acer negundo), and sweet-gum. Herbs and vines include wild onion (Allium
canadense), strawberry (Fragaria sp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), bamboo (Smilax
laurifolia), and grape (Vitis sp.).
2.4.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
' As described under Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990), Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forests (Piedmont Subtype) occur on lower slopes,
' steep north-facing slopes, ravines, and occasionally drained small stream bottoms, on acidic
soils.
' On the Indian Creek Site, the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) occurs largely
on slopes grading to the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (Figure 3) and comprises an
' area of approximately 2.1 acres. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within this community.
The soils are composed of Pacolet sandy clay loam.
' The canopy of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is dominated by post oak (Quercus stellata),
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), sweet-gum, red maple, willow oak (Quercus phellos),
' princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), rock chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak (Quercus
alba), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), scarlet oak (Quercus
' coccinea), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). Dominant saplings include ironwood,
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), eastern red cedar, American holly (Ilex opaca), and black
cherry (Prunus serotina). The shrub layer is not well developed. Where present, the herbaceous
' layer is comprised of rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild onion, Christmas fern, aster (Aster
sp.), St. John's-wort (Hypericum sp.), crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), bloodroot
(Sanguinaria canadensis), and spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata).

NCDOT Page 7 0810912002
F
!I

I

H
r
n

0

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN

0

n

0

J

H

n
0

2.4.3 Scrub-Shrub Community
The scrub-shrub community occurs on the western portion of the Indian Creek Site and
comprises an area of approximately 0.6 acre. The entire 0.6-acre area is a jurisdictional wetland
(verified April 29, 1997 by Steve Chapin, USACE) (Figure 3). The wetlands are surrounded by
a pasture community to the north, west, and south, and an emergent wetland community to the
east (Figure 3). The soils in this community are mapped as Chewacla loam (UDSA, 1995).
The sapling and shrub layer in this community is composed of tag alder, elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), green ash, red maple, silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), black willow (Salix
nigra), rose (Rosa multiflora), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and button bush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis). The herbaceous layer is dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus),
false nettle, sedge (Carex sp.), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), and meadow-beauty (Rhexia mariana). The edges of this community are dominated
by blackberry (Rubus sp.).
2.4.4 Emergent Community
On the Indian Creek Site, jurisdictional emergent wetlands occur as a successional community
within the northwestern and central portion of the Site and comprise an area of approximately 1.7
acres (verified April 29, 1997 by Steve Chapin, USACE) (Figure 3). It occurs in the central
portion of the property between the scrub-shrub community and the Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest (Figure 3). This community is degraded due to horse grazing. As a result of this
degradation, it is proposed that this, community be enhanced by removal of the horses, gating
access points to limit outside disturbance, and planting of vegetation. All horses have been
removed from the property since March 2002.
The shrub and herbaceous layer of this community consists primarily of rose, blackberry, bulrush
(Scirpus sp.), rush, aster, nightshade (Solanum carolinense), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), false
nettle, and sedges.
NCDOT Page 8 0810912002

J

0
u

0

H
n

INDIAN CREEK
WETIr1ND MITIGATION PLAN
FIGURE 3 - NATURAL COMMUNITIES
"' 'b.
r t r 'n

lpppp- --, r,
G •4c4 rh C4
Figure 3
N -
v
Natural C onun untie s
4 ?4
h. t
NCDOT
Page 9
8/9/2002

r
t

0
n

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
2.4.5 Pasture Community
The pasture community includes 8.9 acres of open, grassy area (Figure 3). The pasture
community is typified by grass (Poaceae), nightshade, blackberry, foxtail grass (Alopecurus sp.),
dandelion (Taraxacum sp.), dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), aster, broom sedge
(Andropogon virginicus), wild onion, and thistle (Carduus sp.).
2.5 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT
Wildlife habitat on the Indian Creek Site consists of open, forested, and edge areas. Although
fragmented the forested areas provide good cover. The riparian area is the only portion of the
Site that provides a forested wildlife corridor to off-site forested areas.
Mammalian species directly observed or indicators of mammalian species observed (tracks,
burrows, and scat) on the Indian Creek Site include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and various small rodents.
Birds observed onsite include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), red-bellied woodpecker
' (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), belted kingfisher (Ceryle
alcyon), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), blue jay
' (Cyanocitta cristata), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), common flicker
0

7

(Colaptes auratus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), white throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), golden-crown kinglet (Regulus
satrapa), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), gull (Laridae),
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), Canada goose (Branta
canadensis), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), and American woodcock (Scolopax minor).
Reptiles and amphibians observed onsite include northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon),
southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and
spring peeper (Hyla crucifer): Invertebrate species observed include crayfish (Cambaridae),
Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), and mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera).
1 NCDOT Page 10 0810912002

I I
C

F

0
0

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
' 2.6 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
' Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered, threatened, proposed endangered,
' and proposed threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 31 May 2002, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service lists two federally protected species for Lincoln County (Table 2). No reports of
' federally protected species on or in the vicinity of the Indian Creek Site are contained within the
current database maintained by the North Carolina Division of Natural Heritage (as updated
' through April of 2002). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for
this species is provided in the following section.
TABLE 2 - FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR LINCOLN COUNTY, NC
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Threatened
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
' portion of its range.
t 2.6.1 Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora)
' Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Date Listed: April 14, 1989 (Threatened)
' Characteristics:
This species has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus Hexastylis. The
' flowers of most individuals are less than 0.4 inch (1.0 centimeter) long, and their sepal tubes are
narrow, never more than 0.2 to 0.3 inch (0.6 to 0.7 centimeter) wide even in flower. Flower
' color usually ranges from beige to dark brown; sometimes it is greenish or purplish. The flowers
are jug-shaped, and the plant's dark green leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, and leathery. Plant
' stalks are long and thin, originating from an underground root. Another name for this species is
dwarf-flowered wild ginger.
' Habitat:
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes
' (usually north facing); in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams; and along the slopes
NCDOT Page 11 0810912002

F

J

11

F

I

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
' of hillsides and ravines. Soil tYPa is the most important habitat requirement. The species needs
' Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam soils to grow and survive.
Provided the soil type requirement exists, the plant can survive in either dry or moderately moist
habitat. For maximum flowering, the plant needs sunlight in early spring. Creekheads where
' shrubs are rare and bluffs with light gaps are the habitat types most conducive to flowering and
high seed production. Seed output is lowest in bluff populations with a lot of shade.
Threats to Species:
' Timber harvesting, urbanization, conversion from woodlands to pasture, reservoir construction,
pond construction, trash, and insecticide use are threatening the remaining populations. The
eight populations in Greenville, South Carolina are all endangered by residential, industrial, and
' commercial expansion. The largest population in South Carolina (1,400 plants) once contained
over 4,000 plants, but this population was reduced by reservoir construction in Spartanburg.
' Any use of insecticides in or around plant populations could reduce flies, thrips, and ants, thus
decreasing the likelihood of plant pollination.

0
J

Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was
reviewed (as updated through April 2002), and no populations of the species were recorded in
the project vicinity. The project area was investigated on July 9 and 10, 1992 and May 21 and
22, 2002 in areas of suitable habitat. Suitable habitat is present in the form of north facing slopes
on Pacolet soils in the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest described in Section 2.4.2. This area of
suitable habitat will not be affected by grading activities or other forms of manipulation. There
were no findings of dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) at the time of the field
surveys. Consequently, the biological conclusion is "No Effect".
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
2.6.2 Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Listed: September 28, 1989 (Endangered)
Characteristics:
Michaux's sumac is a dioecious shrub grovang to a height of 0.06 to 0.31 feet. Plants flower in
June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of 4 to 5 parted greenish-yellow to white flowers.
NCDOT Page 12 0810912002

r
C
0

r

n
n

C

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
Fruits, produced from August through September, are red densely short-Pubescent druPes 0.25
' inch across. Most populations, however, are single sexed and reproduce only by rhizomes. The
entire plant is densely pubescent. The deciduous leaves are composed of 9 to 13 sessile, oblong
leaflets on a narrowly winged or wingless rachis. The acute to acuminate leaflets have rounded
' bases and are 1.5 to 3.5 inches long and 1.0 to 2.0 inches wide. They are simply or doubly
serrate.
' Habitat:
' This species prefers sandy, rocky, open woods and roadsides. Its survival is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often found with other
members of its genus as well as with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). There is no longer
' believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types-
Threats to Species:
This species is threatened by loss of habitat. Since its discovery, 50 percent of Michaux's sumac
habitat has beerf lost due to its conversion to silvicultural and agricultural purposes and
' development. Fire suppression and herbicide drift have also negatively impacted this species.
' Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was
' reviewed (as updated through April 2002) and no populations of the species were recorded in the
project vicinity. The project area was investigated on July 9 and 10, 1992 and May 21 and 22,
2002 in areas of suitable habitat. Suitable habitat is present in the form of maintained roadside
' and disturbed edge in the pasture areas adjacent to existing forest and fence lines. These areas of
suitable habitat will not be affected by grading activities or other forms of manipulation. There
' were no findings of Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) at the time of the field surveys.
Consequently, the biological conclusion is "No Effect".
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
u
ICJ

1 NC'DOT Page 13 0810912002
INDIAN CREEK

n
n

P

C
0

I I

C

WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN
Mitigation components planned for the Indian Creek Site consist of the conversion of certain
deforested uplands to wetland communities, enhancement of emergent wetlands, preservation of
headwater wetlands, restoration and preservation of riparian buffer, enhancement and
preservation of uplands, and the placement of conservation easements on mitigation areas (Table
3). Immediate plans to provide onsite mitigation credits consist of:
• Creation of approximately 1.5 acres of headwater wetlands from presently deforested uplands
through minor grading,
• Enhancement of approximately 1.7 acres of existing emergent wetlands through planting,
• Enhancement of existing wetlands through in-stream grade control in a non jurisdictional
intermittent tributary to Indian Creek,
• Preservation of approximately 4.5 acres of headwater wetlands and scrub-shrub wetlands; 3.9
acres and 0.6 acres respectively,
• Enhancement of approximately 1,280.0 feet (3.0 acres) of stream through 480.0 feet (0.6
acres) of buffer restoration and 800 feet (2.4 acres) of buffer preservation, and
• Enhancement of 6.4 acres of uplands through planting and preservation of 4.4 acres of
existing forested uplands for a total of 10.8 acres of upland buffer.
TABLE 3 - AVAILABLE MITIGATION AREAS
MITIGATION COMPONENT AMOUNT
Wetlands 7.7 aces
Wetland Creation
Headwater Forest 1.5 acres
Wetland Enhancement
Emergent Wetlands 1.7 aces
Wetland Preservation
Headwater Forest 3.9 aces
Scrub-shrub Wetlands 0.6 acres
Stream 1,280 feet (3.0 acre)
Stream Enhancement (Riparian Buffer)
South Bank o Indian Creek 480 feet 0.6 acre
Stream Preservation
South Bank o Indian Creek 800 feet (0.9 acre)
North Bank of Indian Creek
- 1,280 feet 1.5 acres)
uplands 10.8 acres
Enhancement 6.4 acres
Preservation 4.4 acres
NCDOT Page 14 0810912002
H
L

u
F

17
0
n

I

INDIAN CREEK
3.1 WETLANDS

F

H

n
REMAND MITIGATION PLAN
On the 20.0-acre Indian Creek Site, there is opportunity for preservation, enhancement, and
creation of wetlands.
3. 1.1 Creation
Approximately 1.5 acres of headwater wetlands will be created on the Indian Creek Site through
excavation (approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet) (Table 3). Excavation will take place immediately
north of the existing emergent wetlands extending 50.0 to 150.0 feet toward Indian Creek. The
proposed wetland creation areas are shown in Figure 4.
The elevations of the creation areas will be graded to the approximate elevation of the existing
wetlands, thus the targeted hydrologic regime will be that of the existing wetlands.
3.1.1.1 Hydrology
A seasonally inundated or saturated hydroperiod will be the p>amary hydrologic regime provided
for the proposed headwater wetlands community. In accordance with Table 5 of the Corps of
Engineers' Wetlands Delineation Manual, field criteria to be used to determine the presence of
this seasonally inundated to saturated hydrologic regime will be saturated conditions within a
major portion of the root zone (i.e., within 12.0 inches of the surface) for between 5.0 to 12.5
percent of the growing season in most years.
The dominant component of the water budget for these areas 1%111 be groundwater provided by
' grading to intercept the seasonal high water table. Groundwater monitoring during the growing
season will be required to determine the groundwater elevation across the site. The remainder of
' the water budget will be derived from precipitation and effecti-ve utilization of drainage from the
proposed highway. To maximize the stormwater contribution and prevent drainage from the site,
it is recommended that the lateral drainage adjacent to SR 1177 be filled, and a clay plug inserted
' at its confluence with Indian Creek.
i

NCDOT Page 15 0810912002
L

ll?

0

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
3.1.1.2 Soils
No new soils will be introduced to the Indian Creek Site for mitigation. It is recommended that
' the existing topsoil be utilized for planting substrate within the proposed mitigation areas by
removing, stockpiling, and replacing it after grading activities. This procedure is recommended
' because the existing soil holds seed stock of the existing flora, and it will provide a nutrient rich
soil for planting, thereby reducing the need for excessive fertilization or the transportation of
topsoil to the site. If additional topsoil is needed, it may be possible that some can be removed
' from the location of the proposed new alignment of NC 150.
3.1.1.3 Vegetation -
' The proposed headwater wetlands will be planted with a mix of trees in the form of bare root
seedlings. Planting of species using dormant plant stock will be performed between December l
' and March 15. Trees will be planted within proposed headwater wetlands to provide a minimum
stem count of 680 stems per acre. This translates to plantings roughly on 8.0-foot centers. Tree
' species to be planted will be derived from the following list (as available):
• River birch (Betula nigra) a Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana).
' • Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) * Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
• Water oak (Quercus nigra) • Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
' • American elm (Ulmus americana) • Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
H
P
F

3.1.2 Enhancement
Enhancement is proposed in the 1.7 acres of existing emergent wetlands and in the
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (Figure 4). In the emergent areas, enhancement will
entail diversion of drainage and the planting of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology will be
enhanced through roadway design, increasing the existing drainage area by approximately 3.0
acres. This diversion of drainage into the existing wetland will aid in the filtration of the runoff
before it reaches Indian Creek. Vegetation will be enhanced by planting the same tree species
recommended in the creation areas (Section 3.1.1.3). Vegetation enhancement in these emergent
wetlands NN-ill enhance wildlife habitat in terms of both food and cover. Vegetation enhancement
NCDOT Page 16 0810912002

0

n

0
0

H

C'
r
0
0
u

F?]

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
will also aid in the succession of this community to its' climax. By encouraging a climax
community in this area, a more significant wildlife corridor will be established.
Enhancement in the forested community will involve installing a grade control structure in the
non jurisdictional intermittent stream that flows into Indian Creek in the eastern portion of the
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. This grade control will prevent an existing headcut,
located in the uplands portion of this community adjacent to Indian Creek, from migrating
upstream into the wetlands. Without such enhancement, this feature could eventually facilitate
the draining of the existing wetlands. Further enhancement consists of exclusion of horses from
the site.
3.1.3 Preservation
This mitigation component entails the preservation of existing wetlands on the Indian Creek Site.
This property was purchased by the NCDOT and dedicated as mitigation to preserve the existing
wetlands"arid associated habitat in perpetuity. Through such means, approximately 3.9 acres of
existing headwater wetlands and approximately 0.6 acre of existing scrub-shrub wetland, for a
total of 4.5 acres, will be preserved (Figure 4). Stewardship options are discussed in Section 7.0
of this report.
3.2 STREAMS
The Indian Creek Site and the adjacent property offer stream enhancement through riparian
buffer restoration and preservation. The Indian Creek Site provides 480.0 feet (0.6 acre) of
riparian buffer restoration through planting. Planting is proposed 50.0 feet from the top of the
bank in open areas with the same canopy species present in the Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest described in Section 2.4.1. The site also provides 800.0 feet (0.9 acre) of riparian
buffer preservation on the south bank of Indian Creek. The adjacent landowner, Ms. Barbara K.
Heafner, has expressed interest in a conservation easement to preserve a 50.0-foot wide riparian
buffer on her property immediately north of the Indian Creek Site. This riparian buffer on the
' north side of Indian Creek consists of mature canopy species also present in the Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest described in Section 2.4.1. The NCDOT has surveyed the buffer area
and is currently negotiating conditions of an easement. A conservation easement on the Heafner
property would provide 1,280.0 feet (1.5 acres) of riparian buffer preservation on the north bank
of Indian Creek. Ms. Heafner's property and the Indian Creek Site will together provide
' approximately 3.0 acres of riparian buffer restoration and preservation (Figure 4).
NCDOT Page 1- 0810912002

r

F

C

LI

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGA77ON PLAN
' 3.3 UPLANDS
' The upland areas are located in the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, Mesic Mixed
' Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), and pasture community. Presently the upland areas total
10.8 acres (Figure 4).
' This mitigation component requires the removal of horses from the site, gating access points to
the property to limit outside disturbances, and the planting of 6.4 acres of the upland pasture
areas. Vegetation enhancement of the upland areas will provide a buffer to all wetlands and
enhance wildlife habitat by providing a more expansive forest ecosystem.. Approximately 1.2
' acres of uplands will be left open to encourage early successional old field plant species, as well
as provide edge habitat for animals. Additionally, 4.4 acres of forested uplands can be preserved
on the site.
Trees will be planted within the recommended upland areas to provide a minimum stem count of
' 68U `stems per acre. This translates to plantings roughly on 8.0-foot centers. Tree species to be
planted will be derived from the following list (as available):
' • White oak (Quercus alba) • Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
• Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) • Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
' • Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) • Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
• Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) • Black cherry (Prunus serotina)

i
NC'DOT Page 18 081091200'

m
i
At-
I
...
p C b b co I I r~ •
na sv o a CD b G7 b Cri n ? (r4
CDC C to ' t? cD
n o
p CD 0 a co
n CD 0 R
15
00 CD p
0 5
m
L

1
11

C

1
INDIAN CREEK
4.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
The reference wetlands for the proposed headwater wetlands creation component consists of the
wetlands within the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and the existing emergent wetlands
located within the central portion of the site, as described previously in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.4
(Figure 5) respectively. The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest wetlands and the emergent
wetlands references comprise an area of approximately 3.9 acres and 1.7 acres respectively. The
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest wetlands will be a reference for vegetation due to its
current level of succession or mature canopy. The emergent community will be a hydrology
reference due to its proximity to the proposed creation areas. To date, hydrologic monitoring
within the reference wetland consists of data from groundwater monitoring gauges monitored
February through May (2002).
5.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of wetland compensation (creation) efforts will be performed for five years or until
success criteria are satisfied. Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, hydrology
and vegetation.
5.1 HYDROLOGY
Automated groundwater monitoring gauges utilized to monitor hydrology on the Indian Creek
Site were designed and placed in accordance with specifications in the Corps of Engineers'
Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (VW Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August,
1993). Groundwater monitoring gauges installed are Remote Data Systems, Inc. model RDS
WL-408 automated groundwater monitoring gauges. These automated groundwater monitoring
gauges will continuously record water level data along a 40.0-inch gradient.
To monitor groundwater levels, RDS WL-409 (40.0-inch) automated groundwater monitoring
gauges have been installed within potential creation areas (proposed headwater wetlands),
enhancement areas, and existing wetlands (Figure 5). To monitor surface water elevations, one
RDS WL-406 groundwater monitoring gauge was mounted above-grade on a wooden pole. The
' pole was appropriately anchored to ensure its stability. The bottom of the unit was set at ground
level. In this configuration, the RDS WL-40V groundwater monitoring gauge is capable of
1
' NCDOT Page 20 0810912002
1

1

1
7

i

i
i
i
INDIAN CREEK
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
NCp M .
Figure 5
o'
,,yy Delineated Wetlands, Reference Wetland, and
?fiA O ?
>,.F T ?' Gauge Locations
NCDOT Page 21 0810912002
FIGURE 5 - DELINEATED WETLANDS, REFERENCE WETLAND, AND GAUGE LOCATIONS
L -1

F

fl
n

7
7
C
I I
H

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
recording water levels 40.0 inches above the ground surface. The purpose of this above-grade
unit is to monitor depth and duration of inundation in the existing wetlands. An Infinity@ rain
gauge was also installed onsite.
5. 1.1 Monitoring
Following installation, the continuous-logging automated groundwater monitoring gauges,
surface gauge, and the rain gauge were adjusted to record once daily. The gauges will be in
operation throughout the year, and data will be downloaded at intervals sufficiently spaced to
provide effective monitoring and assessment of success criteria for hydrology.
5.1.2 Success Criteria
For compensatory areas proposed to support headwater wetlands, hydrological success criteria
will be defined as inundated or saturated soil conditions within a major portion of the root zone
(i..., within 12.0 inches of the surface) for greater than or equal to 10.0 percent of the growing
season in most years. This is based on the approximate percentage of continuous wetland
hydrology from groundwater gauge data available within the reference wetland from the
beginning of the growing season, March 22, through May 29 (30 percent of the growing season).
Areas supporting the aforementioned wetland hydrology regimes are required to support a
prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.
Groundwater monitoring gauges were installed in the existing wetlands. Groundwater
monitoring gauges installed within the existing wetlands will be compared to groundwater data
collected from those gauges installed within compensatory wetlands to assess the degree to
which the wetland mitigation goals are met.
5.2 VEGETATION
Monitoring methods for vegetation within compensatory areas have been developed in
accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (1993). A general discussion of the compensatory wetlands monitoring
plan is provided in the following sections.
NCDOT Page 22 0810912002

u

H

7
0
INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
5.2.1 Monitoring
After planting has been completed, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting
' methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Permanent photography
stations will be established at selected vantage points to provide a visual record of vegetation
' development over time.
' During the first year after planting, the Indian Creek Site will receive cursory visual evaluation
on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted trees by nuisance species.
Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed after each growing season
' until vegetation success criteria is achieved.
' Vegetation sampling plots Rill be established within the compensatory mitigation areas.
Monitoring plots will be established and permanently located, providing a representative sample
of `ahe-site. Vegetation monitoring plots will be correlated with hydrological monitoring sites :in
' most cases to allow for point-source data of hydrologic and vegetation parameters.
' 5.2.2 Success Criteria
' Success criteria have been established to verify that wetland creation areas support vegetation
necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria are dependent upon the
density and growth of characteristic forest species. For the forested wetlands, a minimum count
' of 320 trees per acre must be achieved within three years of initial planting and a minimum count
of 260 trees per acre must be achieved within five years of initial planting.
5.3 CONTINGENCY
' In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, appropriate
contingency measures will be identified and implemented. If success criteria are not satisfied,
' appropriate contingency measures will be identified in coordination with the appropriate
agencies. In the event that the specified wetland hydrology success criteria are not achieved
during the monitoring period- the only practicable contingency measure would entail minor
' grade adjustments. Should grade adjustment not be feasible. redefinition of mitigation goals and
strategies will be required. Redefinition of mitigation goals and strategies would be carried out
' in close consultation with the Corps of Engineers and other it volved agencies
NCDOT Page D 0810912002

7

L

D

H
0

C
i
P

' INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MMGATION PLAN
' 6.0 MITIGATION VALUE
' The proposed compensation is to serve as flexible stream mitigation for impacts caused by NC
' 150 (TIP Project Number R-0617). With the construction of NC 150, the Indian Creek Site's
functions and values increase even more due to the increase in impervious surface within the
watershed. The primary value of the proposed mitigation is the enhancement, preservation, and
' creation of approximately 20.0 acres of riparian ecosystem. This riparian ecosystem, to be
protected in perpetuity, will not only provide valuable habitat to a diverse assemblage of flora
and fauna, but will also serve as a contiguous wildlife corridor along Indian Creek.
As contiguous components of a larger ecosystem, areas of proposed wetland creation and
' enhancement should be viewed from the perspective of their cumulative contribution to the
overall value of the wetland ecosystem rather than their individual values. Presently the Indian
' Creek Site consists of communities of varying succession, with good aquatic habitat, water
storage, and pollutant removal. However, with the creation and enhancement of additional
' wetlands, these functions and values will become even higher. These higher functions and
values may result from being a larger, less fragmented community. This larger community will
provide a more extensive area for forage and cover for wildlife as well as provide a larger
' capacity for water storage.
' By restoring and preserving the riparian buffer along Indian Creek, connectivity will be restored
between the wetlands and Indian Creek, a permanent surface water. This connectivity will
' provide a more extensive wildlife corridor on and off-site.
7.0 DISPENSATION OF THE PROPERTY
' No plan for dispensation of the Indian Creek Site has yet been finalized. Parties, which could
provide responsible stewardship of the site, include non-profit conservation organizations (such
as the Nature Conservancy), local governments (Lincoln County), land trusts, or continued North.
' Carolina ownership xvith state agency management. Covenants and/or deed restrictions will be
implemented to ensure responsible management and protection of the site in perpetuity.

I I
NCDOT Page 24 0810912002

L

H

C

11

INDIAN CREEK WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
8.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
' Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
' Martof BS, W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Re tilp es of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press. 264 pp.
' N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management. 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands Report No. 96-01. EPA 904B-
94/001.
' N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Element Occurrence Search Report: Lincoln County,
North Carolina. http://www.ncsparks.net/php/search.html. Updated April 2002.
Peterson RT, editor. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America.
' 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 384 pp.
Radford AE, Ahles HE, Bell CR. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Schafale MP, Weakley AS. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District. Compensatory
Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines. 1993
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District. Memorandum of
Understanding Between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 8 October 1998.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Corps of Engineers Intermittent Channel Evaluation Form.
' U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of
Lincoln County, North Carolina. January 1995.
' U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. Lincolnton West North Carolina Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-
minute series).
' NC.'DOT Page 25 0810912002

r

H

C

I I

7
I J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
INDIAN CREEK
WETLAND MITIG.4 HON PLAN
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Lincolnton West, North Carolina, National Wetlands
Inventory Quadrangle (7.5-minute series),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services.
2001. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Lincoln County. Updated 22 March
2001. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html
Webster WD, Parnell JF, Biggs WC. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
NCDOT
Page 26
08/091-1" ?'

1
F

J

1
1

C

`r
?_ sl
?•y?r'• 7W,Mh
CN.N AT G
'PROJECT** 8.1830405 R-0617BA
r r
r w `"
m D D I\ I q .*
g- og 00
oo Aws
N p o s DD Z::4
I? oo I.
0 rn bD
Z r m
O ?? ? ?? < I tv
I? R
D a Z_ ?¢
D D C m o C k
g g og Z+
b o o 1 w x, g a
a v o o Z 3: L. FO 1R\\ to CO
Im I" y
0? ca
1 v N N (? (rte A \ ODA / 4, ?..'"
e n n e n n x =n
n
v O th p 0 pN A b w t!A
C o c o y m o
r o ° as
rn '?
o m ?m = N y
z N
=°g D
YM 52 PM
° z ` SI ' O
m
v
s
OD z H ss o `?? ??
how
0
^^ 1.1
O Oo m hOM O 0 ` J ~
II II y m+o , O tv +J
w w = b 1c
y ?00
t
C) ®
m
LIM SG 2+Sio m ??y I oil
y Z
m C?
n til
3 b rj c: ® '-'
m
10
%oll
x xr ??
14 b-N
zp a
z g.
?.
ti ?y
Op
Z
•Rf r-" O Z N
?C?•7 ?µ A ? r r ? Z?
?v Y r ? eX m
n
ti ? o O DD
? .i
x ++
zz rrl: D N N
FO m m
m m
xx y
H n::. <: 1A
to ?i< co w to ON.
a':f O O M
2i
OT ??
th
LHI

m
m

m m m
• ?
a
? ?1
\s
? ? w ?

p
A
Va
i
p
p
A
A
p
p
A
N
?
?

0 0 0 0
m
i

S

1

u

H

t

A l z
-1
o O
C
C

° Zm

m
0, r,0
y +
°c

e D
Nor
o
s °
o,;0 m =?
II
m ?x
x !?0
`
_? a x\kAlC
`
A nom k?
o Sr
X

I
N
'

S

7i O
O

XO
q v
??
?
yg i??O
y? ? ?
? y> H
???' Xm
m
y
l

X

G 1 1
"I-,,
22
?i
N
rnrn
rrn
rr,
J 4
0
I°
ko
?n
w
N
F
(Nh,
n ?Ilb?ll
Illnll
I rn

I I?'

II I

I _
-L` ._
I ? II II I I 3b ?N -
I g
I nt ? II ?
II ?Il
ill ?xll
y ? I I / ?\.

I?
I
I
Im
I
m
I I
?m
l?
m
Im ?
I
I m
i
Q 0- 1+000
O
'to.1+0902
/+/00
1+200
0-
1II ?
8INI II II M
?
•a
? 11 11 11 II
/0
0-

x
wL tn?t„ E- ?"Iw?? o
U1tw??
uuun? r^uuuu?
tton O I?
O}?bowp 1 p?GSbtn!
?l?jprv m N ??+jtn?
SVJ Lo. I ?
cn??l?p
^'ulluu
rn?yl?p? r
uu'lu?
?b o
I

n
n
A + L ?
A
a
ut

?(O

y
I v?zy?pv
`f nl
?- p II II"11-ILA.
O 11 ??p??0
'
'
I
p v
u ull ° uN
O o
a
b???
a,'??u, `C
o
cp to
?Q
t p`?g
,
r
,

cn?y?p?
m II II " II
11 N °
8• U
y
y H
uuu°?
WV
AZ
?b
y
n?'1
I
m;8
rrI U
y?y y?
z +
? lWii3
? r
7
? L
MATCH SHEET 4 STA /f220
I /4A 2 ?1
' y
I
I ?/Z o
b b'
FOP
r ' FOP FD 12FDPS
1
I
I n I O
y I 1+300
?? rv I
I O ?
Cl) VrnOp s
O.
O
7N07 OSb P
z
I 1 I
og ?
1 I I ?
OQ O O? ? ?
2
0
?o
I W
°I
W
@ I
Tm {
N
j
i
{
nl

1 A
'ZO?ti
3 m

X \

6r
ly .

+ T11U
uWi3 '? ????
a'
? W +
W + @ cWn
1
? ?, rn 3 ? ?o ro '

?
2

/

? y
° I

I?
I
I
j N I o ?
o I
N +

W
1 N ??
I V ? N V
I
I L' A ?
?T V 2,C
9BC
Fs
9p
9 t\t i2 ? L
Q E? 4jl {
S A? ?
m

m
tic

i

rn
??
c
FDP 72
do 2°?
z?
.6 e? m c `
IF
dl5 9 13314S H310

{
{
I
{
. I
-130- 3
c?
g
Fm- a Io. b
Zia
//
/2
1+400
o°
0o
no
V)
0
a-4
'
v o
r D
o2r
?? m?D

m
v
o=
m
7y \
O/ C
O / /7
3
W
B
w
?' I
. 1
'< (n
y
? I
N `
N /
? o , I I N y
n

2 3 °
I
w
2 I V ?

n mm
m
no
3p
?iym \ \

u
a, Ln
c„ d
?P
4.g w nj
b
_? ay
4 .CD
-;
Z

ivo
33 m

r?i
N
r
?70
..?

fg:1
A r
n u II u?
u ? o
gv{',
OU6 90+1. 1S:
w
q
p ? ?w
b
?y
? oa

MATCH SHEET 5 STA 1+560
o ` p
DOS' ? VI/ 5 ? p l
o\c I ti \:
cl I I , + I
/R o\c0a I ? ^?C I
I?

\my \
I
\
.p \
\
\ !2
I F r
\ \ I

m
'I \
\
? \

00 \ \

?m I
2
0200 ? I ? O n
/
N,
yg k
Ise N \
?\
i a n W ;
`I. o I o o ` o '
m
O _
T+ m
I N E 7?0 0 l
m A
7TI0
nm
I

C3 1
q o mr 0
I
I mr
p p

X2 o

m
Tl o
` c-
1 ?? c m C
'?
??

I
o o
0 o

p
o

Ml MT m

O Min.
w
Min. 3.
9 I
0 0- O 0.3m ° O 0.3m
m Mox. m Mox.

q + \+ I / /+/
\
??
00 ok\
C'Ol
71-
p5 +
0
NN / / /+
. /2
Q, 1 ?4,1
?
o_ N O Lttv
Oo GO
n
m
00 `? n0
rfT1
Q \ ' /
as cD
Nor ?. I
° r r n
n° ^r \ `\ k
3 074 O / I
?m \
k
+ n 'r-
0 ?F
P v,
O - I
O ??a m? "?W + n
A A
\w I
4 0
I

v
T
m i
m o
m m
Q
g
4
?f
/ 1 F? f
CP \
Nr
?m<
y
no
I r A
mx
0
0
a
\
I\
/I/
N
2
O

p 1
/z 11
DPS
? ¦; N -
O II
1I m
i1 z
a 1
N ?
O
y
'D
- o
7nz? W O
1
I
\ 1?
\ \ I
\ I
3-
ON
I
I
I
1
I
Z
3
I y
Ij
I
I
??NmN I?
Na?
? y W
N O ?
y
A
0

a Vj
• r o
/2
DPS I 1
mmcil
?Nr
?a
°avNil
yU W.
N O A
;Nv
zl
s
n ?
? V I
1 I
i I
UN
O
N
MATCH SHEET 7 STA 1+900

Q
\
\q
\
\ \ q
,a
Qp \ \
O

o

\
m? ? Rio I I \
\
m I 1 fQ \ I F

N?
??
i2 q
a m?
?
o ! oc
n `
?
00

oN I
m?11

16
0 0

=0-n
7n0
.
.
r?
?
mn
a

C: C -Ti
o
0
m
°
.?
° P- O 0.15.
Mlm.
0.3m
Max.
0700 z
O

?-sj S
?
C
l7
y • O
+/
+/
A
2p
f\
t\
O
?r, CLi
no

\ 2. ?m _
Wo ° y
m
r

\ y ? -ADC
\
\
{
? O A 3 rl'1
J
{
\ >
0 W-
ra
R \ \ V
1
W \ \
0 0
iO z O
?\ m ?
O
D
?
\ \
3 n? \
m2 \ IpI II
?
O
?
\ r
o

pp 0
\ m
\

?\O
x\

X00

rNmaEO
v?o?mym
;zW o

n'1
0.
0
y
=
o
P o
m m o

m Jl
°, W no r
;m r
m o

m
W
y m
n
m Z
tIQ
O n 3 rm
N D v
?
000

+ ao . mr
P W O

anv I
m 9m n II n
? 33 33 m=

o?
ym
a
Imr Q
n
II II II II v
n,?g 10
a ?
Vt?
(fl
11 II II II V
II C
1
Q
?NV??
?OF
mN ?O
tilm?l: ?
??roo33
m W
Nrpm
N n ; O
f7
1
I'(CV IJIUIV l,r ll-VVVCU UVVIVCrz-')"IF V/ r /-V 1l V/ I /v Il. LL L/ / I w n viii v, , v u??• •n v ,•.v. .. -• -- --

'
MI 7 mn? Q
w= Air ' m MATCH SHEET 6 STA
A <P' o
?I I *<yp?1nvi ?l O ? NOm `n3 .?' ? ?
A3 a 0°? ~o o?? -I- in w I ND3vai ?A tvfTCl^, f~
-I m_ p 3 rD?'' \ I 3 m hr
016
it F
II O "+
0
VI?(71?? r?n O ' O _ _ N ? Q
i . fp
t W N m1 }
y° -.n<I~n
t1J10C3 '^v,p o
/ c d I _ H g° a
?! / ' / / < 200 ^ ? l + 0. m { m
°000 / // / © oy I +?y a /E mym Wg? mOw ?r
ZZm; w ?1 o O?
m m<N C D
O DP /FC) (Am ??
/ B(?. eT +I `/E xtiO ITy spy °
O / l (AO rn o a 3 f O
l2 v3 w m? Z 1a>17 mIO o Dzp
+
\ \ a I m r o C C
Q O \ N w v r ?° n o
oy°aa / ' ?o oo` +974.49 °
\d \ ?a ,2d / ?? I •n P 3 3
Al?
?0P ae ?a `0 3 ? / ?
+ \ \ \ F?\ ors /6? y?a^ 9 r c
s0O p y Q I +
a \/ a doo m< v I \
2t00
tq \ \ \ qQ / {??a ?° 3 Q +?Z
57 x OX
p TT of + ° - rn
110 r. MF :n
ya?mo2 N spo / ?? 3? E3?\
© an aa 'T pu
-nm OHO I m <m
° , a? / r a For r9 t ?7 r
/ yV? ,?? m TI-
y'OOed NzOh? H } f' r
h \ \ z 0 f' " O -l
4p v I c 9 I ° o `L O
+ V \n ? ? 3 o r ?
6? \® W A .per 3s>m
(3t 0 ' © Q D
it I _ O 3 0 3 N
w V ?1? V-?D
unll,lcn
II `N`p
O
rn
uullu?
?O
?nz??Dv
rnuuuu?
II
? II II II II ?
II O
V
y
O-x
22 0
X
•IS? 0Wo 0 m \ \Q 3\? tia d 1I+ soo f a a = -0
\ °/` \ G r a /n2 t
Ro? y \ sh ?0 S ?' \ DD
g 0 ©\ =mt d`
Op?i ?3 \ \ Rio Q
3 d `rn 2+/00 Ac,
y C D'n
V Gc ` (? l ' w
?n
!rri
A
N
4
N
A
nA
o '2
aR
?$
NI
ro?_ % ?-rod,

i t a?`0 ??? oA
I
? ro??-?- v?? ?Iw

?A ,

I N N \ Fy \ / ?
3
\ O
a \ O
b ?? ?3 ,h n rn2 , / / \ ?gysd•
f o r
? ^ O ?W ` ? / / ? \ \ 90 \ .+ Soo
' mOm ?? J ` ` ' / W? O \ \ 09 \\
410
' O r? p m r I
?+ F
W + ''' ? ?, s t? + Q Q
ey \ z
S l/+ / \ y\oo 41 2f2? O \+
2 ?
+
S \10.4 / m J Q \
\ ms 0
+
+
N ' o FOPS //I m + +"
O m c / 'rte Z?
?„ `" / gait ?< z
MATCH sH
A 2 z
11240 Q': n Z
o
It I
I

ok,7+0 133HS

< (D(=
<M
M--4

-TI
r-
c
l
z i
0

V)

:Em
>

00,
WON
-
00 1-
Z-A
ll?
000 0, 'M

ACAO >
-+
0
>
VN?
N oll
000

?rnm

z
0

a 10 CD
> >
1,
N
+ 10 rn i=
10
Im ?L'

a ---4 -

T O
rL x 0
0
mo
T
0 >M
-
+
4 r
I
Lt)>
0 MF=
0
.
. 0
1 Z
0
CO P
P 0 ?
c c
>
?b 0
0
3.
. o

NPO
+ + r

rn rn
< <

STA
TA-,
?D Ul
"b
IN
rr,
X
Az?
8
p
C3

:nrno
:n(Al
ji
'406
0

(A
:n

L4
? F
-
li

p
Q/
A
TV
rz
0
'DPr
7
/10
<m
'DZ,>
Ln
F-<
C) --j-0
ca CP rr, m
rnm
in vi to ,*()3 'A'O'
m 20
zmr
K- T
0
4 Rn ?J;

m ca
z 'a (--4 se a

Cl)
ca E!?-
rn +
A
O
rn mvo r
m I

W-0 m

m MCD
V.
t. 0
Fm
Zo

N)

:n MO
noP
tnc :
00
(n

(A
M
rDPs
rn

47C
9 S7-4 14580
2"500
a I
,CA
0.
(_1 c c
oz
5r Zm
a
0 m
-M
4
0 ca--i
C3
0
0 0 mr
0
?,
c
c
0
z
0
0,
c c
0 31
+
>
2 m
0 m
0 o,
o I -+ > (::)
1'4 Q 0 Co
0 0 mr-
x 0
cl a
71 11
c
z
c
0
ILI
0,
33
- ?4- 0)
0?)- U
z
700,
c c
00 ZM
0(-)
?4rm
On---
>
+ +
010, 8
0.00
5r 01
A ig
_lz
!V
0
c
z ca
0>0
0 (n m
o'
(A
C) C')r-
C)
Z5
Iz
5

X

;nm

z
(.4

0
;n a
R

'z
- X,
?
,
+36
! P
?
. x

BY LUCAIION AND SUHVLYS ON PAKCLL 288 AND 26 - B8 - 0/122102
OSS+Z Is g 133HS H?1dW
Np 2+600
II ` 1

I?
Q

,?
iy fAU
P D
n0 + 4
N C
OC
JDm oc
(/) -
mD pa
r
N N N
4 +
C T7 N oc'
?r rr
mR
0.15.
Mtn.
0.3m
Q
/ a ? + 2+700
Tp
p? ?3 ? me
? 4 °m 4
-i

\301, l n=
r
C3
3cn3
? ?mz
t
3corno

rnr
C
N
m
i
m
rn
y
O

?w
Q?
w +„a
-4T I ;N?
A
Cy SyFFT /o I 1
STq 2?y2p

2fQn„
O?.
cn?ti?p?
m11UIIII?
u ? o
uuu°un?,
0
Qo ?.? I
2+800 L b I
rri u u 11 11 cn
II ? p I
?41ai I
Vo
y
R/ WHICHI SWAS DEDICATED AND TO v?R ENE ED APMAN XISBBP RIGHT 022/02 AY
" nr ir'-"..-.•.
1
Ge g
H l R
?? f7
Wu

N01dW
3N5 ?c

n
O(A
6 13
Z dlS mm
W
m
F
m
?
O
W

I
N
I
0Z6+
(J \
`
? p
to
a H
m N
T
}
r \ \
C+ p
03 y n
r
N n
\
ja
VN N
Z
y
O N
s
? ; ? ? \ \ (wl ?D t0 rn ? `o ?
n o 0 (2 ` \` b y 247 ?i w
n° Q \ 0. \so\ 3 rn u
? ro {NQ \ D \
mm \ r n \ \
O + -I -n N a \ \ N N i Z
tn.D o \ ?a0 \ \ \ > n 00
=r `? ` ?y? \ `\ N no_ _
? •,zmL,` -\ N=om \ \ \ O? ZN
O LNA ? 00 O
n b r 3 pp ` O hm
f7
11rI C 1 / \ \ 00
IIMIII \ w + r
33 .. .. 1 \ \ \ - a? Oar
i n a ul e o 1?2 `\ \ z ? a
A =
i `o N\ \ • 0 R N
1
a + 0 0 0 \ mm ?
c ? OeN N \ \ \ \ N N °°?
Zm
° °+n? a * a? 3 \ \ \
m
S m
io r
v C ~m
L L
r N 10 "mm,
nm
aN
OO Norm
p 3 ly -i? I ; z p
N; y
II II II x ? w
fmn A 1
o a 1
3 3 V- I ?r
a ao
.. .. .. .. I on A 1
I
0
?p 'IpV?Nj mNl~f O C . +04371 \ 11 II II II Q
II II III bV -ninmz F IpI O
II A?NO I QVj Cn0 V N l S4w ul
'mom
? \ n amvai
z =i
x I y
Q 6.49
s
?I y cq yl y? ?JI I I I 3
II q (? O `C
PoLyljWw
v W O? I< 1 ? N c.+ + ?~
P £
° n
3t?j
s
0
N
is r \
:jD
3 ? ? N W .. I ??mA
a
rn??1rD? Q? I Q?p / / w°m
II II.II II ? W vl . 11 ? w I ?N1
?O(pN?n' I `IC Q ~? / N mr o x
0 >D r ~ N ul
? w I o m (? 3
wp C,
H C*)
?? * ti$ 0m 2 Cy,/
cn ' W3 j h10 SS?? { I _ 1 1
w w ? O 90 0 > N ~? C IwI
S'. d m? / m ? ? p Ibl ° ? II
\ A ° N :)D I Q IA I © wsl I
- - II u,m +?m I I I I
_"v ._ I Ibb N2 0 { I ?Iwl
30m TAPER
I © +? I . 9 j 3 m { I I
E 300 CONC 3 E \ ? lfl NC
y a N ??E?iN_
y - 300 CON V N I I 550 CONC 1 1
` O O O
71 75 A `` ?? \ \ „n I I
n X t
o '
cnDyrp? W \ 4? k?k S 2
0 3'
mu IIhIII O ?b Wmm ~ O O .igQ?
II \171?? k? L, a On c? -? II ? 30m T,q,° p Q ^??,Ej'
?QV?iI?jQQt-_ O f O 3 m 3* I v / + } e "Zoo
I /
k I I W N
3 12p0 W ?k
& BSI \
11
y I I ?
7- k
k

I w
' d
' O.w`.
+ W
mss:
I
?I n 3
O
o W
.

?
N c)
MATCH SHEET
STA ? I r
-tl0 0

4m
d y

m
mai
o
f
56
x
I' ITUM M/TJ. L LAUUL L LMUITL I U /vl UU/ - ODr

y - ?O
< z

n 9O
m m . y
s O
m= C c /
om a o
v ° _
r
° . ?, z /
IM
p
m O ,
,
zp
c m o So ti 0-0
C1?
Q,
. Q
n y •
p r W
w ° + r
-I
o W
+ '?
y °
v
D
10 14 <D N _
m x? m Tl ?? r
- Ai Oaf _
v r
n
ID? N A¢?
$
? N
3 3 3 . y i o.
; = 33 m I
N
y

+ z
O.
cc
Do
y
>
w 0 z
01
c c
R on

° r

p m
N -

o

I

0

0

°
>m
r m

°
n r
a
+ p
-I
w
-
o
r
D
I
>o
o `? o
o
n I-
?. °
A
I
N=

N
IA N
~ 3 3 ooT
m .
'
~ m-
yyy V)
II
II
11 I
O
I
N p A ??

i1 o tn?-I?D?
m
?
1 ° II 11 „ II ?
p
0
m
"
I pp?pp?
(
K
N?
rrrl
0 -
ln
?
W
I Rr O
o C VVl

I ?'
v co
o
1
_
g
0
6n
.
.
° v`-' Q 0.3m
7 3 Max.
Nr r
U
11 ?
II II
0
N l?n?A
$A
?a'

y ??y
u11??UCn
4
1._InV.._O
C y
O
m =
r ?m
G
N
m
m
0
0
N

MAT Cy SHEET /0
STA 3"260
1
1 3 z
/
x
A- i
p { K
N I
o >
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I?
I
I
A
2 3"3610
I /
W /
/
k ?
I N5 WO?m2 / p
' ?? oc2j? k / 4l
a 3 k
6 /
tE
t k?W *TlA
I /
1 K-
k ?
i
I k w
f399.8g k .? o fQ
Q
3+40
O t, NN' k
NN;p I / /
Z N s/ \\ ? 1\1 ? ,,
?t y VK-
\\ cN, $ K-
I \ 4
\ Y,
\
I \ ""U
nmD

1``
i
1
I
1
I
lk/
/
/
/
//?A
K- \
i
1?1
0

0
0
I I yc--

W?71
Nye ? I
Q? 0

I
l
1
l
1
b
nl
.1 cz?L -I
T
?p'$O ZW
w? ?O
? N
I
I
I

\ V1
r y r
FOPS NypPo
NZr~
a Ny=
:n rno
yN
L. IA A_
N
? A 1
a
o
O ' I n
N ?. II
dls Z? 1 NS HO1dW
03
m
R/W REVISION - CHANGED PARCEL 32 (LEFT OF CENTERLINE) OWNER

1
N I
'

1 /

I
V
I
N ?
I a *?
g2o

n? 1
n I
rn I
? N
N ?
I Ih
I`

m
c?
i
15s
I C
I = 1
?- ' II N
f
o I
------------------
0
0
3f600 70

- CHANGED ACCESS POINT ON PARCEL 33•
ON PARCEL 34ZFFROMDBRENDA M USNEYT 0 ? ? ES I MAUNEY CHANGED NAME FROM ALMA SPEAGLE A
PROPERTY LINES RELATED TO EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY - BBP - 07122102
? S
Vf r ,: _? yATC y SHEET // ST
? -Ic??ymqq II „ A 3 f620 ? `?
I II IIN II III p l 'I I m
Sy,? 1J? olVOI'???'
$v ?,t?a N ? omo ? eN „ N ? o ?
N /
W
,o a ? N ? o
z
R1
II II I, II v m II II II I, to W ti mmrn 06 Q, O a ?x /' FOP O
O (?jl V d II ?1.T1? I O /n' R 2 /4.0 7 I Y.o.
_-- r N N 1 FOP 7_1 I a
II U --
oNo??'?.? ? 1 1 ?-
$•ra rv
3+700
_
p x
11 1 II „ r I + X X X II o
y s r x--x
/ W = X?x-x?-x? I
•}?V po x _
?? Ib Qt + a? ?} Q X? X?"-'??x ? `" N PJTIO
N I o
C*) W zoo ww s w , x
rn
O
LIP
r
?p yl rII Du b v ` I _? N w o III • MF
_ m n N
r II' O Mg 3 n Y T,
` 1? ` ' X-), V m?w o? •- - - - J? v m la CN
4? o4736.04 3b 3.6 NmN? I / voo a _ ??
00
?'C V ~ ? ? m O.ISm
y?y N I / / y o+ Mox.
r c r / / rq ,r.,,1? 3
? VI / o -co
N T
II II v ' nNW I / / _ oN
II IIO ?yA / W NN Mn
p?N? NNE ti / 04 z + A ?° r Z. Oaf ~mm
X. I 1 09 / ?^oo o z-Di r °m
rn? 3 o ' m
o
=ms I o ,1 0 ?''m O `? o -+ 0
S2 a cnr
q own { ° X22 Q o.. b <D o
%
? = I ? a 1 N /F O 0.3m
??N?O c.t9iy r ' ? /E he : ? a 3 0° ? , a' uox.
bbbcwi,?? a ??o ' 3+800*' m=
p I g - ;'
p)? OHO i Li i??/ in Ni m + o+
OO ? 0_?3
a ? o O + r p n a
/. , ?R1ma N!~n 1 O 0 6 I ?- N 7 N, ZRl
W ;+? ° / ZI t?DO om Oci ?a0
i W ulor ?, / O N I-m 00 3 c"fTt
(D / n
-Z X
_ OmR-20m °X $ m2 ??° o I ?„ p ;
o °
x,m
(BmOFFSE <
rr __ 3-0 So/L ?O 7 1 m 'aD W II 11 II
? -? O? - - - -1 DD ?• ? 0 O.ISm r
v,
?? \ / / ?i0 05 - O _ II X `Y n •c, 1' tAn. ~ I' N
+cmi 0 0.3m ?pp
0-
/ A'ti A0 '4 y A=p 3 n o+ Mox. 3 3 3 3 m=
` J.
m== Q?H II I Vl.? 3
,0
v Y/ +846.43 n n+ yE 7__ /( n a m
6367, C* Kn
3 Po' y, oo o
\ 7a •s,, '? <
r n "' D
ay a o' ? s T I , ov°pi a
\ w ro +? - - 4, { A Q
+'p ? <D
_ Z510 C, - - - 3.0 SOJL - ?- 0D x
IM ? 7 oa
-r zvno m??
? ? do _0
\?? 3 N _ _ ' m 111000
+?mtnr ? \so
(A rn P,
ff,/A GF ` i- Q I •?_ l0 to I " o v A r 3 3?3 $,y
co ?\ \+ V1N b ai I o
?l0 tp
:n m ?N =NCO 3+90
as
??y \ ~3x(?
p? ++ r
Ln Of \ ~y I NO z
`? ;gz oo `ti zm \
3 f ? X a . TJ m o ~--1 O
C? o + s x _
z 1 no P w I I N uC N<D
lw O r
rLr!. v 0 O
'flso \-Azom? r v: I (?/?I mmav ??ci
zxr
It.
T?CP +\ ? \ m CN ,Y106, ? m.
+93592 roc, g gg?+rc m O
r`?o \ ?? + 3b ? ? ? ?kl
(?(p?
O O .n T 60 y? li O?t9i0 °
No?rn o
"x= o 11930
5 N?1d?

m
m
e
o S
t
\„
?m
m
8
*,
?
m
4tim h
tNj1 ~
N

FAM
1
A19t ?I?
Z0 0
m
>,
? .n a z
Zz z
PIW REVISION '- CHANGED PARCEL 44 TO PARCEL 60; CHANGED NAME
OF PARCELS 36 (SPEAGLE), NO PARCEL NUMBER (DELLINGER) PARCEL 41Z (LYNN), PARCEL
A77 /AAAGT/Al) Tn Al('nnT nFn1rATFn N('nnT R/w Tn PARCFI. 40 (JENKINS) - BBP - 07122102
?-t ? m?
II II II ++ to
bbb??
ID
MA7
-C
H SHE T ?2 STq 3fg
I'I 60
w y
LQ
?? low I ?
II II II " v 1+ II
N,AQ/l\.O 11 II p
D v
II II 11
II
M A, l
CAM g m?
`A C
^N
rn ?
C N
N I
I N
A
d +
i $
0 O
n
m
d
o '? I
I
m ? I
n N I
y ? I
'D
nN
rnm
mym
xN y
rrl
y p rn
N
rnN
r ? ? +
ter
N-' 90
If II p a
?n2 I a wag o a
w
$???0'`' N 'aft' \ ? la \ ? h
N ? 1 /' ? w 1 ? Ir I ?
I ? , 'Q $ n r I ® $ 6 ?i
r i , / / ? v II {i3 N ? /
y i
Of
\ ? `W N ~ I
0 10 03 10
o I ? 131
NOO r I y Im
O (/ 1 ° ? O Ir N
Im IILLJJII
I ? Iw?1
I I 2 y,/
O B a a l {{;3 z? a N
1 ? +
Cl
1
I ? y m +
ao
a ? t a `I aN +
° ° I I ?I
® \ \ +? {?I I ?z II
\ NC I r +
\\\ f3 Of a ? Z yp i W$ ono
----I- z?cN---_ 0 11?
Q I Nw$ Zm
10
?- a -Qa II
r a° Jn
cl m/ t
m1 ti? II
N I
Y /
ON
1 I m A /.
mr N
?' t 1
I = I
I
l , I _ II
T + II
I ?^
1 I? .
A
l /6° I ? ANN {¦i
I 150 ?ZI I ?I yN l
m „NW
1 ( 1 _ y I myB
p I Z
? ,/ 1 9? X ?O i IO Kom
a
N I 2O> A I n IbV
A DO '0
F S O I 1"
? N ` ' v
rn?"P p? tl I 1 Noz 0 i
If II 11 II' w I I I;'z^z
IIvv x I rn 'o
'I Q W S
NiZ
s$?$ O I I o z a o
_uj
III.. Nis
O f? I 1028 I lm as
?I ti I ?Ir Ny
r
1* 1 I v a
11. II '1 III ? ?3 I ? Im
ct'.,??`Q1v I? dW
W +b dls b? 13-114S 1401
a $iC
p 2 O
m?

?T
o?
G ?@@
N.wp LK
'n N
NN ?
YO
NP
aw
41p
tat
ih
1 ? N
/ n
o b,
y u ??
Ov
r^'
4+/00
4+200

?k

1+300
? n
dw `
v
N II
o$
Z
rn?
1 o E
y 0o`
I ° C
o 00
z
c? N n ? ? ?
O 0
0
C O o v
p o
,
n.. o
w
'A EI, ? oho m
l,
V y' ? m ;
? m
w N ?

i ^
P N
y yT
?C ?.
l p
-
Z
0 > m
m O
c
II + ? no
O
a O
o rv
o

o

o N ??
p w o
< An m
N ? O N
ml-
1 0
y 93 m=
O
m 0
f
-1 m 1?
z
0
-lol

R/W REVISION - ADDED PARCEL 42ZA (ERIC JENKINS) - BBP 07122102
.u,r xfn,ttix

?w
w?
0
0
y
A
d
d
Z

0
MATCH SHEET 13 STA 4+300
U ; 1S8 5?? J
P, OL
1 ri f ?}
1 I x
I ? I Q N
I I I ?' f z
1 I o°N x
I 1 * f ?X?X??k
1 i I w ??
? I I ICJ ? . Kf NNEI
I o ?U I ? ° ? '? ?? f
m o Val
y. ?x
I I
I ? )+, CONC
o
I ti
I io Q?B
I ?
10 o
F
I ? O A
I ?°
I ?
o
I ? ? I I
I a I I
,r
LYPOTSfa.44491720

? I
1
I
I
NI
?m
? O
N ,n
m
0
0
N

(xQ*V?
V

8

N
N? A5m
0. N
o?
Hm

?A
mV

Y
ro ,
ro
t
KM AT ,g700S?71: ????
rn
'I II " u
OW
`4
?`
I X

O
R+ o

W
,
V b
I? X
rrl

11
O?
N ?O?W

O

y ?

" I ? x
?
rn
A
W N
pp??
x
0 I ? xf
y ~ `
I _

Q3 ? Ste" x?X20WWX--»X---__
66 6
57
?
06.0 w3

5 6
?
O
+ €3
r €3 €3

O
??
? n
' p H TR

I O J/
` GQ p
0 1O / / h0 /p ti

ANW
MATCH SHEET 5 STA /+/00
0
0
m
m
m
m
y
a
t
r*
e o
R/W REVISION - CHANGED NAME ON PARCEL 52 FROM RALPH ELMORE TO ILL
HOUSERSHANGED NAME ON PARCEL 51 FROM MARTY INOLE TO MANFRED CALDWELL;
.. P A-, l /r, iii AAl C-ncn l+nl rMA/C/ / 1 - ppf) - !///V 00 7nn7
c
c. A7 RI0tlw",
'11 -ZA3al- 085+£ Vl VbS*y vLa
d" Ala .e. S1113"O0ll do e 1
W -ST =g olagoj -ielild
w wo=P'xoni
w -In=0 •uIw
elclol$ %BT T 2 lo.n*DN
l 91D0S ok +oN )
Ho110 ,A, lVb31Vl
rF 11VJQ
n7.a+s
HLJGJLU Lf'I,JL/pLlY/ /V / nl wLL Jl Ilvl /vl ,v_ci vr-u_ci.F a-u-?
X ` ?
ll
II ? ?st? /

.
I
N
f
4f C1 a ?I 0N00 b'f 0
X

1 0N00
I
?
0 ? 5 I 0N00 OOC ? n ?`
x

X aelf
O

lH7 00X1 ?

I
0 NB Si
x of
X
N

F 0? 1
S
?
c z fl 3
a re s l oti° I ?
z ` l
t

o
NO I
V u~i
s CS x-
x X lN0 XOj?
?
? `? $

(j?

14
? ? ?O ?
N0.7 I99 I fi
I ?} ?
I s
a
?

Q ? t3
w
© 47 1
?}
f

a I a e si

I

W ?
V1 ?
l ? I a

} a - o
< w
N
x OOZI x-
_?
MATCH SHEET /0 STA 1+360
cn???pv
rnuu°u?
u? w o
d
I
g ?? cn
y
0
i
m
y
N
Ja
cn???p
? ll ll 8 ll
86, I
y
F
SJ
+20.254 AND/ 20J83, C/OHANGED PARCEL STATION ERLENE SELLARS2TO?TED BE L NGERN- BBP .l, '07122102

C
iN A??17WN7.p?h
N
O 1 tl Z
N
II
a 1µ
Mp
tip
D
7 p N
m

Q
o

N
l

o n Z

?

8
o I
7TIp
DfTI
c °r
cy ?
afTl

i N
o
o g?
I N
D
rrl_ +
MD
ND
r c or'-
0 N
?N
<
oho m
?
m
o' .. -per _
g+ C
?°
m
O.ISm z p x
f++
°

p

p

m v
=
m-
ox.

? a T

m m
0
C Z
p
C
a o
a
D

M-4

?
'a^ 0
a
?D
N o ?z v+
n 'r
W p
K
? x
'Danv m 1
r
-1
3 3 3 a j
\b\ ?
\y\ 2
W b
w ? I
A ya '
3 w z
UI n
O Q IJ
a o'
n
CQQ Q ? I c00n
o
a Q y?f n
°z
c?Qa??a
C?f
J

? J 7? I IA N
m9
C Irn n
m?
Ir0
` Ire

as yr _
i
o
O ?3 ? I N o
I n

O
?i
i
y
2N ::D--i-c>-v
'hrn 11 -
? No?WV
OVoQ:
(A VACA,
r
oJ?
O'
Q
~? I
xI
n
N n
I I L.I m>
T
?
3+100 I+000
) 0 0
$ Q
°2 ME
Q
r
a
?1 y1m+fA
n mmra-
ppzr
2
3+200
X_
7105
%-<-\
\ yd
X N?
X Z`
k`dy5
pg?
?o
m?

?s
Am
b
0
N
fJ
N
t
V+
P
N
N
m
d
?k BAY
\k?

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office 021356
'
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143 j
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
S CTION
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 14 APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 150 FROM THE GASTON- LINCOLN COUNTY
LINE TO WEST OF INDIAN CREEK. LINCOLN COUNTY. TIP R-61713A.
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-150(3), STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1830402.
Attached is the application packet for the subject project. NCDOT proposes to make
improvements to NC 150 from the Gaston- Lincoln county line to west of Indian Creek in
Lincoln County. The project is approximately 2.1 miles in length and will consist of a new
location four-lane divided roadway with no median to a 46 foot grassed median. The proposed
right-of-way ranges from approximately 230 feet to 470 feet for the project. The analysis of
alternatives and the environmental impacts are discussed in an Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact signed, July 12, 1993 and January 31, 1994, respectively. The
project will not impact any Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers included in the list
of study rivers (Public Law 90-542, as amended)
Summary of Project Impacts: The proposed project will involve permanent fill,
excavation, and mechanized clearing in five different wetland sites which are further itemized in
the summary sheet (sheet 10 of 11) of the attached permit drawings. The total wetland impacts
for the project are 0.64 acres. The total impacts for jurisdictional surface waters associated with
the project are 0.4 acres and 1089.2 linear feet including intermittent and perennial impacts.
August 28, 2002
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Summary of Mitigation: A detailed description of the avoidance and minimization
measures is described later in this application. NCDOT proposes to mitigate for stream and
wetland impacts by using the Indian Creek Mitigation Site.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
D
I
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was submitted by the NCDOT in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA was approved on July 12, 1993. A Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved on January 31, 1994. The EA explains the
purpose and need for the project, provides a description of the alternatives considered, and
characterizes the social, economic, and environmental effects. After the EA was approved it was
circulated to federal state and local agencies. Copies of the EA and FONSI have been provided
to regulatory review,.agencies involved in the approval process. Additional copies will be
provided upon rece
Z ..
R- i iImpfiance with 23 CFR Part 771.111 (f) which lists the FHWA
. A.,
characteris ics of independ : t utility of a project:
(1?)' :.h ;, - sects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
{2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
JURISDICTIONAL STATUS
The proposed project will impact four wetland sites and four surface waters. Wetland
delineations were conducted by NCDOT biologists using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands were verified by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) on April 29, 1997. In addition, the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) rating system was applied to each wetland site. Each wetland was also classified
according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification (Cowardin, 1979)
system.
Jurisdictional Wetlands. The wetland vegetation was similar throughout the project. The
forested sites (PFO 1 C) supported basically the same vegetation, but in different successional
stages. The herbaceous and vine layers contain Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum). Tree species included
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and water oak (Quercus phellos). Table 1 shows the wetland communities, quality analysis, and
acres of impact for each site.
TABLE 1. R-617 BA Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis, and Total Im
Site Cowardin Classification DWQ Rating Acres Impacts
1 PFO 1 F 51 0.23
2 PFO 1 C 33 0.21
4 PFO 1 C 60 0.14
5 PFO 1 C 43 0.06
TOTAL 0.64
PFO1F - Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Semipermanently F
PFOIC - Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
The project will impact 0.64 acres (Sites 1, 2, 4, and 5) of jurisdictional wetlands.
The "Acres Impacted" column in Tables 1 reflects permanent fill, excavation, and mechanized
clearing in wetlands as presented in the summary sheet (sheet 12 of 12). Method III clearing,
which is clearing 10 ft beyond the fill slope stakes, will be used throughout the project.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters: Four stream crossings will have impacts that exceed 150
linear feet (Sites 2, 3, and 4) however, only two crossings (Sites 2 and 3) will impact perennial,
biologically significant streams. Table 2 lists the linear feet of channel loss for each stream
determined to be perennial and requiring mitigation. Neither of the intermittent streams were
determined to require compensatory mitigation during an onsite meeting with Steve Lund
(USACE) on November 17, 2000. Details for all jurisdictional impacts are also listed on the
summary sheet with the permit drawings (sheet 12 of 12). The total impacts for surface waters
associated with the project are 0.4 acres. The total linear impacts for jurisdictional surface waters
associated with the project are 1,089.2 linear feet including intermittent and perennial impacts.
Compensatory mitigation will be offered for 551.2 linear feet of impacts to perennial streams.
TABLE 2. R-617BA Surface Water Impacts Requiring Mitigation
Site «ater Body DWQ Index Perennial -S-tructum7 Permit
Number lmpacts Type
(linear ft)
2 Unnamed tributary to 11-129-8-(6.5) 288.7 pipe NWP 14
Indian Creek culvert
3 Unnamed tributary to 11-129-8-(6.5) 262.5 pipe NWP 14
Indian Creek culvert
TOTALS 551.2
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Plants and animals with Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of February 26, 2001 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists two federally
protected species for Lincoln County.
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) and dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) in the EA. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service issued a letter of concurrence with the "No Effect" status dated August 31,
1993. Due to the time that has lapsed since the original survey, areas that provide suitable
habitat were re-surveyed on May 20-21, 2002 to insure that the project will not impact any
federally protected species. NCDOT Natural Systems Specialists Chris Rivenbark and Rachelle
Beauregard conducted surveys for both species. Neither Michaux's sumac or dwarf-flowered
heartleaf was observed during the survey. Therefore, the biological conclusion of "No Effect"
remains valid for each of these species.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
. There are four historic sites and one historic district throughout the entire R-617 Project
that were determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It was
determined that the proposed project would have no effect on the Roberts Log House, Indian
Creek Railroad Bridge, or the Kelly-Link Farmstead. The Benjaja Black Farm Complex and the
Crouse Historic District are considered outside the area of potential effect. This determination
was issued by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 2, 1993. A copy of this
letter is located in Appendix C of the EA for this project.
An archaeological survey for the entire R-617 project resulted in the identification of 32
historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. The study assessed all 32 archaeological sites as not
significant. The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a letter dated December 13, 1991,
responded that all 32 sites were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. A copy of this letter is located in Appendix C of the EA for this project.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and
physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland and surface water
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order
5660.1A (Preservation of the Nations Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and
values provided by wetlands. These directives require that new construction in wetlands be
avoided as much as possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate
impacts to wetlands.
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all
remaining wetland impacts required by current regulations. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and EA/FONSI phases; minimization measures were incorporated as part of
the project design.
AVOIDANCE: All wetland areas not affected by the project will be protected from
unnecessary encroachment.
1. No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be
allowed in wetlands or near surface waters.
MINIMIZATION: Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts. Minimization techniques were implemented as follows:
1. Alignment: The project was realigned to reduce impacts at Sites 4 and 5. The original
alignment would have permanently impacted 4.43 ac at these sites. The shifted
alignment reduced impacts to 0.2 ac.
2. Slopes: Fill slopes in wetlands are at a 2:1 ratio.
3. Best Management Practices: Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control
Best Management Practices (BMP) for the protection of surface waters and wetlands
will be enforced.
4. 100-Year Flood Plain: For FEMA floodplain crossings, structures were sized to limit
the headwater increase to less than one foot or to protect structures from being
flooded, whichever was lower. The proposed project does not constitute a significant
encroachment to the floodplain. A flood hazard evaluation discussion was presented
in the EA in Section IV-17 and Figure 10.
Compensatory Mitigation: Through use of flexible stream mitigation, NCDOT proposes
to offer the planned Indian Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County as compensatory mitigation
for impacts resulting from project construction. The Indian Creek Mitigation Site is adjacent to
R-617BA and is owned by NCDOT. The mitigation plan for this site has been completed and
copies are being forwarded with this permit application. Resource agencies visited the proposed
site on May 29, 2002. Once constructed, the Indian Creek Site will consist of 7.7 ac of wetland
mitigation, 1,280 ft of stream mitigation, and 10.8 ac of uplands. NCDOT is pursing a
conservation easement that would preserve an additional 1,724 ft of Indian Creek and pans to
contact another property owner to protect gpproximately 625 additional of the stream. Table 3
re ects a u accounting of the site.
Table 3. Ledger for the Indian Creek Mitigation Site
Headwater Emergent Headwater Scrub- Stream Stream
Forest Wetlands Forest_ Shrub Enhancement Preservation
Creation Enhancement Preservation Preservation (linear feet) (linear feet)
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac)
Beginning 1.5 1.7 3.9 0.6 480 800*
amount
(Proposed) 1.5 1.7 3.9 0.6 480 800*
Used for
TIP R-
617BA
Remaining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
amount
* This amount does not include approximately 2,419 ft of additional preservation NCDOT is currently
pursuing which is not discussed in the mitigation plan.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is requested that these activities will be permitted under Section 404 Nationwide Permit
14. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a 401 General Water Quality Certification from
the NC Division of Water Quality. We are providing seven copies of this application to NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC Division of Water Quality. Please find
attached a copy of the check to the NC Division of Water Quality for the 401 Certification fee in
the amount of $475.00.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
R 1?----
V. Char s Bzuton, Manager
PDEA-Office of Natural Environment
VCB/mcr
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Cambers, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. Michael Penney, P.E., PD & EA
f
.310
321A.: ..? l.. a.d to U _ ,10,,.. .?? ....._ 47 1
r L .k, Lai On
R?d,..? 116 ?' `
flaese Ileee _
° '
0f
oneview
Em I I ?
• ?y ?Ic r
S l m
7
t ts pr Elrri
over ca m
rnes
nnell r ' t Am
Sign Hi 9 ?fi? • ^t0laremon Calawb t / H.

ork
( Troutman
E
F
i 77 •x??o i 7 3 l0 'Pi«7 . Oswalt
` R• 4
`??S
8 dro f Fork 7 11
artown Newton Aernl s bee
1
a
T?,fa A`' g " B q F
J
10 tJ n
? w 21
Maiden -
vale
I c
oke 1 01
?\\ 311
10
Toluca
' L Mount
N
' C
'
2 (Read v lie 3 I
S I
' 6+Lincolmon
elwoo0
'
• C dsonvd4 ° Tnanele rlO Oavld.'
2
tt
\
?77t 6 a
_. allston 15 13 ,, Corneli.
Bo`Qer
ity lion F•
i

idale , C se a
d.
' S tf taboo

• 3 I
Lowe:one 2
II
1 Hr Aoati
?, unit
Cherryville I;q=? ex, '
t 11
oQu Ole r W ac • 7 1
tl Stf
l 1
?'? r Luna ounf^,
oa
s \ 1
7 A N
7a
a 1 r Stanlerr 'k'r u?
1
?
a'
t
G.
a
Be me.
a C't`
i?
a r Ir
tuK n , T
6 >
i7 21
:
u t 6 !z
Holly 3 z
7 ob'1'?4-c
Z
e
gslk
, am
r ' a ? eeK\,?
Moun fu , : 2 ?
l
1
f , Pat^rsonf •
a 7; ! -
°
s ?r
G
st ? it
e
i
`
Scale of miles
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale °f Kilometers
. One Irlal aWrounatey 13 nines and approximately 21 kiarneters.

s v >'?2N f
.
<.` ? .,. . r
D
.1
.? 11p.
2
t
f ?
? ate.. ?y
." ..
. ?
? Goe
t
.2 \ Ji.t•s .
.
,, : U t?V ry
COLNTON % -,• '? .a• ,°1/
tsa
L!2 1lJZ ::
11 ?'`

.f U21 4Jon
P257 .Y y . ? rev
:. <
o s
.
•?
C
° ? i. ?O tat
rK .., _?
JK F 9 1
1.4711.
3

?? '
;a 1 p
`" '°
163-`
,

s •
t .
d...? m
\ 240
1? \
74 ;.

r
Lob-

? ??
r?-•I.n - 11 r c.. ?Clo.rf tOie
70 71
36
jaPoS6c-T ? 1:
s
A T O= N o C
SCALE
1 0 1 2 3 t Antes
r? - spate _
i.bua? jr2kea '?.81Ga•
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY LINCOLN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1850402 (RfAl7BA)
- I A ?S NC 130 FROM GASTON CO. LINE
TO WEST OF INDIAN CREED
REVISED JULY 1999
SHEET 1 0 F M

u
y
W
N
aft?
fb ?
m

•
a

N
IL Qo
0
W W W
(n
ri of
N N <? ?y
!! V \
W `.
as ds`V70
A.
0
sD

LI
N 7

4,.
M
W
V)
H`7 OIS+Z VIS ZA3b1 \ o
=)18 OIS+Z V1S AM
J
N Fo
?_
W N N
OYob NO V) N
IZ sNv tr a
-m- r
LLJ
yJb
7
014
?d
e ao
00
LtOL"IS o ?
ad " ?G
0S SON o
m m wN?
oo°o
0+t
m
i?
o z?

? m x

®
®

O 0
®

Q
?

o
H ? z ? :>

U A

W

U

0
0

O
O

O
N

b

0
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L
WETLAND
WL
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48"
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE
CCC"LLLLl? DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
. (POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
I DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER ROOTWAD
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
+
+
"
•
•
+
* CLEARING
DITCH
RIP RAP
?-- FLOW DIRECTION
TIB- TOP OF BANK 5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
- - WE- - EDGE OF WATER IF AVAILABLE
- -c - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
X X X X X LIVE STAKES
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
---?- PROP
RIGHT OF WAY
BOULDER
.
- - NO- - NATURAL GROUND --- COIR FIBER ROLLS
- - PL- - PROPERTY LINE
E -TEMP. CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- _ D -WATER SURFACE N. C. DEFT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LINCOLN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1830402 (RO617BA)
NC 150 FROM GASTON CO. LINE
TO WEST OF INDIAN CREEK
SHEET -S OF III

abfa ".

J \ ?
O J N
.
Q
. N
' J N
pp
N JW
W co
?o5i
J ? N W
<J21
"coo
d ?
Q
Q ?
N
p m p
d E3 ? ?
Q J
Q N
? a
f3 d a
006+1
0 0 ?o?
a
0
u
W
Vl
• m
W? o
i
°
z?

F @ ? U U o
? ° x
? x ° o ?
?a z
F v ° t7 ? ?

0 O
0 z
0
?
o°
w ;,
°
a ? z >
A A ? o 3 ? F

U

? -4
O c
-a
U
.
z . z E.
0
z
z ?
H
b 3 N
Cf? z z
c
? x
U
O G
LL •
w
U
O
N
O
O

o z a?
., w
Z ;I; O cv A U
U " ? Z
E' z"
O O w c c:.
9 z o O Ll1
0. O Z U w W
G > F' , a fFzl
w
/• o
.? `? •?.. ? rata ¦..,?, ? ? o
?M 1? a
? oo a 4.
•i \ O
O
1
I
W
•• / a ¢
J N
I u
?° •? " ? w w
fz°° } a N
06-
x 1 \
Y.
/ ? SH ?f tZ ?? a .a H U
.. Ena a .? a ? W
a ? ? W z
a °z
W
q AvAi AU
•
•
x
s r
r F
O
U
Z
l f' C3

1
!
I
I
z w
o z?
U c1

z m

H

IO o z

0 %W
A
w

0

w

O
g O U
Z w o
a ?
? v w [? ?
3
A
U
-4 O V
w

w
J
U

b N
C?4

O
b
? O

N
z
e
J
W y
a N
z
z z? ?
x
?_ d Q w
w ?tWi z
z z z?
A A cn A U
•

A

z w
o z
4 ?. ?+ ® U c
F O z o O c:, 8 cz.
® z O aC ? ° ?
z ? zF
U
b O
I °
Q /
W Q o I ?
0
001+E' m '
I ?.
I.
I Q 1
l
3 •Y` ?
3
a \
OL.
ct? \` o F
_ 060f w " I ?
N I ? U
\ a z C
D =)

W
g N 009+5
W V
0-
w
N
N
U
m
V) Q
9
? I
00
i I \
-N
o w
z?

x -? U
z zZ
x o ?
Z ?D

?
?
U S ao

o
? ?
a
o w w
? 3 w
x
w
U ? ? ~ ® w

w
a

O

0
CL
l?
I
l?
I
I
I
I
1
e
Z N
z z? z
d
F U
? ? v w z
zz °z G zz ?
A Av?i AU
« +
•

w
J

V ? .
O a
w
N I

I

006+f
,?
=
-
Q ? u
?
u
I
0

I i

r
u ? W
N
LLI

?
1
w

w u
`
CD i
Q N
co
I /

LI)

o

F N Qa ,? W

o -4 u C>
3 F
? o
? cli
z ? 0
?
° ?z
o z
J w
?" o 9 A
U w >?

4z 4
> "T,
0
z - zr
z
0
A
z
a
F
L-7
a
z
a
u
O
z
V
0
LL
4
<L
W`
U
O
N
O
r
O
NO.
I
2
3
4
5
6
C & M LAND CO. #6
LARRY GENE CHAPMAN
PEGGY JEAN NEAL
CLAUDE ELMORE
DAVID F. MAUNEY
ALMA T. SPEACLE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LINCOLN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1830402 (RO617B A)
ITC 150 FROM GASTON CO. LINE
TO WEST OF INDIAN CREEK
SHEET 10 OF 11.
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
P.O. BOX 1388
LINCOLNTON, NC 28093
6003 WHITEWATER DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28214
RRI
CROUSE, NC 28033
P.O. BOX 42
CROUSE, NC 28033
RT. 5, BOX 486
CHERRYVILLE, NC 28021
RT.I, BOX 193
CROUSE, NC 28033
u

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
SITE NO. NAMES
1 C & M LAND CO. #6
2 LARRY GENE CHAPMAN
3 PEGGY JEAN NEAL
4 CLAUDE ELMORE
ADDRESSES
P.O. BOX 1388
LINCOLNTON, NC 28093
6003 WHITEWATER DRIVE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28214
RRI
CROUSE, NC 28033
P.O. BOX 42
CROUSE, NC 28033

C
,^
h
O C E
Lo
n
co
O
co
W in (D
U

c
o
=
°
F ? U

a m
M art
°
O
O
N

tu X t a
E co co
W U

w U.
d to cc,
?
a

N
C W
C O
r
O
O v
IL °
o
3=
O
C
Z O O r r
Z

..
LL O O
G
O

0
ppp
4
?
C
Q ???ea p $ o

V
o
c
c o
c

N o
M S O
?1 O O O O
W C
O
z
g y
=?

E
r
3 a
F- C
y
C
c L co
?
O
O
N
LL? O C C O O
a a s
m a a a
N a a a 0. 11
55
?? 8 5?
r
r r
N
O
O

8

O

+ N N N m
N
LL N
y

a5 Z N CV T ?J O
y
j o

C CO m

r z 16
0
jQ 0tr
U
O
?0 c
Z LL

?LL
$ <to
Nco >
0z co 0Oa
> Z =

C) 0

co
22

O
co U m
o
?
80 w ??
ttlI
i U 0
jr
z?

LL
O
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 021356
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 14
3. If this- notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Proposed improvements to NC 150
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): R-617BA
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Lincoln Nearest Town: Crouse
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
NC 150 from Lincoln-Gaston County line to west of Indian Creek.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): see attached list
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Pasture or open fields, forested areas, rural neighborhoods
7. Property size (acres): approximately 61.5 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Indian Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Construction of new location highway project
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: backhoe, crane, bulldozers,
heavy-duty trucks
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: rural, agriculture
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Jurisdictional wetlands were verified by Steve Chapin of the Asheville Field Office on April 29,
1997. Stream determinations and mitigation requirements were provided on November 17, 2000
by Steve Lund also of the Asheville Field Office.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application:
This section of the project as well as the remaining sections of the project (BB, C, & D) will each
have independent utility therefore each would function with or without the completion of other
sections.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
Page 5 of 13
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Type of
Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

See attached sheet

T List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding. .
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.81 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.64 ac
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
2 pipe 288.7 UT (Indian Creek) 3 feet Perennial
2 fill 160.8 UT (Indian Creek) < 1 foot Intermittent
3 pipe 262.5 UT (Indian Creek) 4 feet Perennial
4 pipe 180.4 UT (Indian Creek) < I foot Intermittent
4 pipe 196.8 UT (Indian Creek) < 1 foot Intermittent

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
Page 6 of 13
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 1,089.2 feet
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbod
(if applicable) y Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
2 fill 0.07 UT (Indian Creek) stream
2-A fill 0.25 UT (Indian Creek) pond
3 fill 0.05 UT (Indian Creek) stream
4 fill 0.02 UT (Indian Creek) stream
4 fill 0.02 UT (Indian Creek) stream

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): E] uplands - F-1 stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The original alignment for the proposed highway would have impacted 4.43 ac of wetlands at
sites 4 and 5. The project was realigned which reduced impacts at those sites to 0.2 ac. No
staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be allowed in wetlands
or near surface waters. Fill slopes at stream and wetland crossings are 2:1. Stream crossings are
perpendicular. See section III of the EA for additional information.
Page 7 of 13
h
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream . Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Through use of flexible stream mitigation, NCDOT proposes to offer the planned Indian
Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County as compensatory mitigation for impacts resulting
from project construction. The Indian Creek Mitigation Site is adjacent to R-617BA and is
owned by NCDOT. The mitigation plan for this site has been completed and copies are
being forwarded with this permit application. Resource agencies visited the proposed site on
May 29, 2002. Once constructed, the Indian Creek Site will consist of 7.7 ac of wetland
mitigation, 1,280 ft of stream mitigation, and 10.8 ac of uplands. NCDOT is pursing a
conservation easement that would preserve an additional 1,724 ft of Indian Creek and plans
to contact another property owner to protect approximately 695 additional ft of the stream.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be

Page 8 of 13
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401 /Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): n/a
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No F-I
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No F]
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes E] No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 9 of 13
0
A
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
c.v„o . UALCHus UUL ?,v ieet perpenaicuiar nom near oanx or channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
n/a
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Impervious area will increase as a result of the construction of the new roadwav. NCDOT
BMP's for the protection of surface waters will be followed throughout project construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
n/a
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes [:] No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
Page 10 of 13
A
R
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
n/a
?/Z3 6 Z
Applicant/Agent's Signature Da e
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 11 of 13
Section III
(Question # 5)
Western terminus N350 24.94!'W810 19.106'
Site 2 N350 25.300' W81° 18.452'
Site 3 N350 25.366' W81° 18.193'
Sitej,. N350 25.335' W9P 17.597'
Eastern terminus N350 25.417' W81° 17.373'
Section VIII
(Question # 1)
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
I Fill 0.2 no 550 forested
1 excavation 0.01 no 550 forested
1 Mech. clearing 0.02 no 550 forested
2 Fill 0.15 no 70 forested
2 excavation 0.05 no 70 forested
2 Mech. clearing 0.01 no 70 forested
4 Fill 0.12 yes 770 forested
4 excavation 0.01 yes 770 forested
4 Mech. clearing 0.01 yes 770 forested
5 Fill 0.05 no 760 forested
5 Mech. clearing 0.01 no 760 forested
image 744x440 pixels
Subject: Indian Creek Mitigation Site Visit, Lincoln County
Date.: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:11:34 -0400
From: Chris Rivenbark <[e-mail]> FILE COPY
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "Hendrix, John W SAW" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Becky Fox (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Cynthia Van Der Wiele (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Ron Linville (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Marella Buncick (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
Wendee Smith <[e-mail]>
We are planning to meet at the Indian Creek Site at 11:00am. I
would estimate we will be there for 1 to 1.5 hrs. I've attached
a couple of maps showing the site location. From NC 150 in
Crouse travel north on Pleasant Grove Church Rd. (SR 1177)
approximately 0.53 mi until you come to the bridge over Indian
Creek. The site is on the east side of Pleasant Grove Church Rd.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Chris Rivenbark
Natural Systems Specialist
NC Department of Transportation
[phone]
1 of 2 5/21/02' --
JPEG image 744x440 pixels
-- r ? `?==' ? `r' 140+1=?1 -'- 1F • ono bra. + ..
r `
r f x?
z
Ofi "'Y
,
n,
_1 r' 126
_t 18 x
%
y(
ns[vdm•: '? y 150 r` stj
1?
- r` Indian Creek
.yf i 4 ? f 1 F s
Mitigation Site US 321r',
1001
?- ? ?eborato
18-
< r
x _
15 t L
'i
0 130
- 3 r 't ? _,_,y S i f 1 1
1 3 Grouse -- ;:
- - - - .__ °
`Lincoln County
_ 1 ' rg'?sho
?.
a ;1 ty
`
SitnCoun "? -
Ga
0
7-4 High S
m .,
t
n
,,?3}{}S r } ??? 1 155
fe?I?Y1C111 s•._ 1 `'?' x -Sj I .F,...: 1.... Y 1 = ,.}
1
79
Ch"erryville
- r n. tf
150
2 of 2 5/21/02 3:46 PTY
-? Z

n
m
z
c
3
W
m
o
o .
c
0 <
0
N n

N m
?
o y
o
N ?
m
o'v
z
09
0
z
4
n
2
O
n
m
? n
3
Ln O

O C
z
-i
O
v

co c

_-J m

o ?
?E
m
n
J

U1 C
z
O -i
O

Z
O
N
w
N
J
Ij
00
z
n
v
m
D
32
n
"o
?X
ro
on
c>
?z
0o
a
O
z
v
m
0
0
0
N
i
N
O
O
N
LO
c--I
LO
M
r-i

-

i