The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20220880 Ver 1_I-3306A_20141218_20141218 December 18, 2014 James Mason Central Region Environmental Specialist NCDOT Natural Environment Section 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 RE: TIP I-3306A: Widening of Interstate 40 (I-40) from west of the I- 40/Interstate 85 (I-85) split to the Durham County Line SEPI Project #EN12.012 USACE and NCDWR Field Verification Meeting Minutes – March 7, 2014 Attendees: James Mason – NCDOT Jason Dilday – NCDOT (2/27 only) David Bailey - USACE Dave Wanucha – NCDWR Chris Flowers – SEPI Sean Clark – SEPI (2/26 only) Kim Hamlin – SEPI Summary: On February 26-27th, 2014, the attendees listed above met on site to verify the presence/absence of jurisdictional features, confirm intermittent to perennial break points, and determine mitigation ratios for each feature should it be impacted and compensatory mitigation required. The list below details findings from the field meeting. Table 1 lists features that will receive a mitigation ratio of 1:1. All other features will receive a mitigation ratio of 2:1. 1. Pond SPP: This feature received surface water from Ephemeral channel E9 (off project) and from overland flow. No noticeable outlet from the pond was located during the field review. David Bailey will verify jurisdiction of the pond for USACE. David Wanucha will verify buffer subjectivity of the pond for NCDWR. 2. E9: This feature is an ephemeral channel that connects to Pond SPP. David Wanucha will verify buffer subjectivity of this feature. The cut stormwater conveyance flowing at the time of the meeting located north of the natural valley will be evaluated for buffer subjectivity by NCDWR. 3. E10: This feature was verified as being ephemeral and is not subject to NCDWR buffers. 4. SLL/SRR: There was a question as to whether SLL was depicted on the Orange County soil survey or if SRR was depicted. It was determined in the field that SLL would be the buffered feature and therefor SRR is not- subject to buffers. 5. E14/E15: These features were verified as being ephemeral and are not subject to NCDWR buffers. Comment [DJW1]: The pond is not subject to Jordon buffer rules because 1) it does not appear on maps; and, 2) because the stream that does appear on the map is ephemeral (and was likely impacted in some way due to previous construction/development resulting in the pond). Comment [DJW2]: E9 is ephemeral and not subject to the Jordon buffer rules. The cut channel/ditch is not subject to the Jordon buffer rules because it is manmade and does not show up on maps. Comment [DJW3]: OK Comment [DJW4]: OK 6. E4/E17/E18: These features were verified as being ephemeral and are not subject to NCDWR buffers. 7. WJJ: It was determined in the field that this feature is not an isolated wetland, but adjacent. 8. SUU: It was determined in the field that this feature should be changed from ephemeral to intermittent; therefore, the feature is subject to NCDWR buffers 9. Marginal wetland area near SV: It was determined in the field that this feature was not a jurisdictional wetland 10. E2/E19: These features were verified as being ephemeral and are not subject to NCDWR buffers. 11. WD: This feature was determined to be a wetland with a drainage pattern connecting to a culvert. 12. E21: This feature was determined to be ephemeral up slope to a point where it became intermittent and jurisdictional for approximately 130ft. From the downstream point of the intermittent section, the feature became ephemeral again with connection to feature SC. The intermittent section of this feature is now called SXX and is subject to NCDWR buffers. 13. SB: This feature is an intermittent stream lined with rip rap. David Bailey will verify a mitigation ratio of 1:1 14. SD: There was a question as to whether this feature is depicted on the Orange County soil survey. It was determined in the field that the feature was not on the soil survey, it is ephemeral, and not subject to NCDWR buffers, but that it is jurisdictional and can be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1. 15. E7: This feature was verified as being ephemeral and is not subject to NCDWR buffers. 16. Cates Creek: David Bailey confirmed that the impoundment of Cates Creek is jurisdictional wetland as opposed to open water. Dave Wanucha will verify whether or not buffers will be applied to the impounded wetland. 17. SM/E16: Feature SM is intermittent in the upstream portion where the water flows above ground. The underground sections are not jurisdictional, but do provide connection to the lower portions of the stream. E16 separates the upper portion of SM from the lower portion. E16 was verified as being ephemeral and is not subject to NCDWR buffers. The lower portion of SM scored a 47.5 on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Following the completion of the meeting the lower portion of SM was flagged and the points collected with a Trimble GeoXH. David Bailey verified that the upper portion of SM (approximately 117 lf) would receive a 2:1 mitigation ratio and the lower portion (approximately 317 lf) would receive 1:1 mitigation ratio. 18. E23/E30: These features were verified to be non-jurisdictional and not- subject to buffers. 19. SYY(E12): This feature was determined to be jurisdictional and subject to buffers and was therefore renamed “SYY”. 20. SW: This feature was verified as being ephemeral on the upstream section and is not subject to NCDWR buffers. The downstream, perennial section will be buffered and is jurisdictional. 21. SCC (East- and Westbound): The upstream section of this feature begins on the westbound side of I-40, flows into a culvert under the road, and Comment [DJW5]: OK for all these. Comment [DJW6]: Yes the impoundment is subject to the Jordon buffer rules per the memo below: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_libr ary/get_file?uuid=a5fa38d5-d631-40bc- be40-1d8d3e78fcad&groupId=38364 Comment [DJW7]: I would add that both portions of SM are subject to buffer rules. Comment [DJW8]: OK Comment [DJW9]: And scored a 24 on NCDWR form. Comment [DJW10]: OK then exits the culvert on the eastbound side of I-40. The upstream section is near a stormwater BMP pond. It was determined in the field that the upstream (westbound) section will receive a 1:1 mitigation ratio, while the downstream (eastbound) section will receive a 2:1 mitigation ratio. The feature does appear on the Orange County soil survey and is subject to NCDWR buffers. 22. WV: This feature drains into the upstream (westbound) section of feature SCC. The feature seems to be an overflow channel for the nearby stormwater BMP pond as it is lined with rip rap. It meets the 3 required wetland parameters; however, it is a man-made feature and likely not- jurisdictional. David Bailey will verify the jurisdiction of this feature. 23. WW: This feature is an upland depression near a stormwater BMP pond. There is no direct connection to the BMP; however, overland flow from this feature may reach the BMP. David Bailey will verify if the feature is considered isolated. 24. SMM: This feature was changed from ephemeral to intermittent during the field visit. The feature received a score of 20 on the NCDWQ form. It was determined in the field that this feature would be subject to NCDWR buffers and would receive a 1:1 mitigation ratio. 25. E1: This feature was verified as being ephemeral and is not subject to NCDWR buffers. Table 1. Streams receiving a mitigation ratio of 1:1 Stream Mitigation Ratio SB 1:1 SD 1:1 SM (Lower section) 1:1 SCC (Westbound/Upstream section) 1:1 SMM 1:1 The Jurisdictional Features Map submitted with the Natural Resources Technical Report submitted on January 8th, 2014, served as the basis for the meeting. This above represents the changes and additions made to the determinations represented on that map. Sincerely, Chris Flowers Environmental Project Manager Comment [DJW11]: Check your East and Westbound reference directions. They seem to be backwards. In other words you wrote“…the upstream section of this feature begins on the westbound side of I-40…”, but it should be written as the “eastbound”. The same goes for your other east/westbound references in this bullet. Comment [DJW12]: Again the feature drains into the upstream “eastbound” section. Comment [DJW13]: It actually scored 25 pts. Comment [DJW14]: OK Comment [DJW15]: Eastbound