20031306 Ver 1_Complete File_20030324

Sheperd's Tree Mitigation Site Permit; Iredell County
Subject: Sheperd's Tree Mitigation Site Permit; Iredell County
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:59:23 -0500
From: Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Ernest L Mitchell <[e-mail]>
CC: Mark Stafford <[e-mail]>,
Jean Manuele <[e-mail]>,
Phillip Todd <ptodd @dot. state.nc.us>,
"cynthia.vanderwiele" <[e-mail]>
Ernie,
Per the site visit on Tuesday March 18, 2003 with ACOE, I am
documenting our conversations, as well as a schedule of events
and items that need to be addressed in order to secure the
permits for the proposed activities.
1. It was agreed that the Department would apply for a NW-27 and
NW-33 simultaneously since all affected areas are owned by
NCDOT. The NW-27 will secure the permit in order for NCDOT to
turn the flow on Duke Energy property during the final phase of
construction this summer. The NW-33 will secure the permit for
Duke to temporarily place a culvert within Duke R/W on NCDOT
property for the purpose of constructing the new tower on the
eastern most portion of the site.
2. Duke Energy is to provide a detailed work plan and
description of all activities associated with the temporary pipe
proposal. This would include the following: need for
installation, size, length, back fill material, fabric, location,
stabilization of streambanks and floodplain after construction,
etc. Also a detail for installation should be included. A
detailed description of long-term maintenance, long-term access
(Portable Bridge), etc. should also be included. NCDOT will
cut/paste this information in the application for the NW-33.
3. Duke Energy is to provide a response to the Department's
request to relocate the flow on the Duke Property on the corner
of Tripplet Road and Cornflower Road, in order that the
Department can apply for the NW-27 to accomplish this work.
4. Duke Energy is to provide a copy of the pertinent information
on the NW-33 permit application, such that the Duke and NCDOT can
co-apply for the appropriate permit.
As soon as the above information is received, NCDOT will complete
the permit application and formally apply for each with the
appropriate agencies. Phillip Todd will be coordinating the
permit application for the Department.
If you have any questions regarding the items mentioned above,
please call Phillip Todd @ [phone] or myself @ (919)
715-1425.
Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>
Natural Systems Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1 of 2 5/8/03 3:35 Pb
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. James Hauser
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1528 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1528
NCDENR
January 3, 2001
Subject: Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site Plan, Iredell County, State Project No. 6.769001T,
TIP No. R-2239
Dear Mr. Hauser:
This letter is in reference to the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site Plan listed above. The Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The NC
Department of Transportation wishes to use this site for current and future mitigation for
highway project impacts. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the
aforementioned document:
1. The 19 October 2000 correspondence from NCDOT notes the lack of control (easements) on
both sides of Third Creek. The use of Third Creek as an appropriate mitigation site is
critically jeopardized by not having easements for both sides of the stream.
2. The DWQ questions why Third Creek will not be restored and if the NCDOT has the legal
means to relocate the stream off Triplett Road (SR 2362).
3. Riparian zones need to be 50 feet on each side; the mitigation plan (page 31) states that it is
30 feet for perennial and 15 feet for the intermittent stream.
4. The selection of the reference reach is not acceptable. The reference selected was a much
smaller stream in the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. It appeared to have a higher
gradient. Additionally, the mitigation site is located in the western piedmont, while the
reference site is located in the Sandhills. A reference reach is needed in the same
physiographic region. Page 1 of the report correctly states that the site is located in a
piedmont/mountain bottomland forest. Page 28 states that Pee Dee NWR was selected due
to "similar geographic characteristics" (i.e., geology, landscape position, topographic relief,
watershed land use and land cover)". The Pee Dee NWR does not have similar geology, soil
types or plant communities as the mitigation site. The DOT should perform appropriate
research (literature review) to support the choice of reference. The DWQ must approve of
the reference reach.
5. The Shepherd's Tree mitigation site lacks sufficient hydrology to meet USACE criteria for
jurisdictional wetland hydrology. NCDOT proposes to remedy this situation by propping up
the groundwater, which is currently escaping from the site due to a sand lens beneath the
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
upper clay/loam surface. The DWQ questions the viability of the installation of a low
permeability barrier (bentonite slurry mix) between the majority of the site and the creek,
from the surface to a depth of approximately 20 feet, as a means of counteracting the water
table drawdown associated with the historic excavation of the Third Creek stream channel.
Therefore, DWQ is concerned that the site would have an insufficient quantity of water to
prevent the long-term establishment of a bottomland hardwood forest. Over time, the tree
roots will penetrate the barrier and the barrier is unlikely to be maintained in perpetuity.
NCDOT should provide substantial evidence from the literature or from modeling that this
technique works to begin with, and that it has long-term feasibility.
6. How will the Mitigation Plan address upstream sources of stress and potential causes of
instability within this reach of Third Creek?
7. NCDOT proposes this site for wetland mitigation credits, however, only secondary hydric
soils are present on the site. There are some Chewacla soils present. A soils analysis of the
site should be conducted in order to determine which areas are eligible for restoration or
enhancement versus creation credits.
8. The Monitoring and Success Criteria as noted in §4.2 are extremely vague. Please refer to
the DWQ Guidance documents for detail. These can be downloaded from our website
[http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/NDbranch/wetland/stnngide.html]. Please note that DWQ
guidance is also provided for monitoring benthic macroinvertebrate community structure.
These surveys need to be conducted at appropriate monitoring locations prior to and post
construction. The monitoring plan should also the biological laboratory conducting the
surveys.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. Due to the major concerns with the Shepherd's
Tree Mitigation Site, the NCDWQ is placing the project on hold (pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h
.0507(a)(4)), and will not allow its use as mitigation for highway projects until these matters are
addressed. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires that
appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated
uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Cynthia
Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: Jean Manuel, USACE
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
David Cox, NCWRC
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Central Files

I TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Description .............................................................................. ..1
1.2 Watershed Characteristics .............................................................. ..1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Vegetative Communities ................................................................ ..5
2.2 Soils ................................................................................................ ..5
2.3 Hydrology/Hydraulics
2.3.1 Surface Water ..................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Groundwater ...................................................................... 15
1 3.0 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................17
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...........................................................................2
Figure 2. Site Boundary ..........................................................................3
Figure 3. Watershed Boundary ...............................................................4
Figure 4. Existing Communities .............................................................6
Figure 5. Soils Map ................................................................................7
Figure 6A. Hydric Soils ..........................................................................10
Figure 6B. Soils Boring Location Map ...................................................1 l
Figure 7. Site Surface Hydrology .........................................................14
Figure 8. Monitoring Gauges ...............................................................16
TABLES
Table 1. Soil Characteristics .................................................................9
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Soil Profile Descriptions
Soil Test Report
Appendix 2. Rainfall Data
Groundwater Hydrographs
Water Quality Report
Appendix 3. Key Branch Site Photographs
Appendix 4. Mitigation Potential
Appendix 5. Potential Preservation Properties

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents background information of the site, including existing plant community types,
hydrology, and soil conditions, that was developed between May 1999 and November 2000. This
information was derived from detailed field investigations, desktop analysis of current and historic
aerial photographs, review of USGS and USFWS mapping, and landowner interviews.
1.1 Site Description
The Key Branch mitigation site, occupying approximately 111 acres is located between Lower
White Store Road (SR 1252) and Mineral Springs Church Road (SR 1240), west of Mineral Springs
in Anson County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The site is easily accessed from the west via an
established dirt farm road leading from Lower White Store Road (SR 1252).
The position of the Key Branch site in the watershed is characteristic of piedmont bottomland
forests and associated communities. The site is currently under agricultural use and has been
substantially altered from its original community makeup in support of this activity. Current land
cover includes riparian forest, agricultural fields, early successional palustrine emergent wetlands
(PEM 1 C) and early successional palustrine forested wetlands (PFO 1 C).
The hydrology of the subject site has been altered. Currently, Key Branch bounds the site to the
west, flowing from south to the north. Brown Creek bounds the site on the east, flowing from south
to north. There are two ditches running in an east-west direction that connect Key Branch with
Brown Creek laterally. One of the two ditches forms a part of the southern boundary of the site and
the other ditch forms the northern boundary. The site's surface and groundwater has been deranged
by a longitudinal ditch network draining from the south to the north, with an additional lateral
draining influence by a leveed borrow-pit in the southwest end of the site. Additional major
alterations to the site's hydrologic regime include the channelization, dredging and leveeing of Key
Branch and Brown Creek, reducing water quality and wildlife habitat.
1.2 Watershed Characteristics
The site is situated in the 030710 sub-basin of the Yadkin River watershed, located in the Piedmont
physiographic region of North Carolina and drains approximately 50.06 mil or 32,041 acres (12966
hectares) (Figure 3, Watershed Boundary Map). The watershed is predominantly rural with
significant drainage originating from silvicultural and agricultural land. The topographic relief of
' the watershed is approximately 316 feet (96 meters) ranging from 590 feet (180 meters) above mean
sea level (MSL) in the southwestern portion to 274 feet (83 meters) MSL in the watershed's
northeast portion. Watershed land use is dominated by agriculture, silviculture, and rural
residential.
The study area is found within the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040104 and DWQ sub-basin 030710.
According to the NCDWQ, the water quality rating for this section of Brown Creek is Class C.
Class C waters designated "best usage" is for aquatic life propagation/survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture.'
L
1 Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC, 1992.