R-2911WM

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum to: Meeting Participants
From: Phillip Todd, NCDOT
Prepared by: Elizabeth Scherrer
Subject: Davie County, Minutes for Springer Tract Agency Meeting,
TIP No. R-2911 WM
PARTICIPANTS:
Beth Barnes NCDWQ 919-715-8394 [e-mail]
Gene Nocerino NCDOT 919-715-1454 [e-mail]
Chris Militscher USEPA - Raleigh 919-856-4206 [e-mail]
Marella Buncick USFWS - Asheville 828-258-3939 ext. 237 [e-mail]
Marla Chambers NCWRC 704-485-2384 [e-mail]
Kurt Cribb Catawba College 704-637-4206 [e-mail]
Fred Alexander USDA-NRCS Davie Co. 336-751-5011 [e-mail]
Todd St. John NCDWQ 919-733-9584 [e-mail]
Eric Alsmeyer USACE 919-876-8441 ext. 23 [e-mail]
Andy Abramson The Land Trust for Central NC 704-647-0302 [e-mail]
Laura Fogo USFWS - Pee Dee NWR 704-694-5334 [e-mail]
John Wear Catawba College Ctr. for Env. 704-637-4738 [e-mail]
Philip Todd NCDOT 919-715-1467 [e-mail]
David Springer Property owner 336-988-8235
Elizabeth Scherer EcoScience Corp. 919-828-3433 [e-mail]
Grant Lewis EcoScience Corp. 919-828-3433 [e-mail]
March 17, 2003
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
An agency meeting was conducted on February 11, 2003 to discuss jurisdictional
wetland and stream issues at the Springer site, as well other agency
considerations. The meeting provided a forum for input by the various interested
parties and entities. The Springer site is being considered as a mitigation site by
NCDOT. Catawba College has an interest in the Springer site as an educational
and research opportunity, and the Land Trust for Central North Carolina is
interested in the site as an extension of a large Yadkin River corridor easement.
Federal and State wildlife agents were concerned with the value of the site as
wetland and waterfowl habitat.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NO
Major topics of discussion during the meeting are summarized below.
• Stream jurisdictional status
Eric Alsmeyer (USACE) concurred that two streams shown on the USGS
topographic quad, and on the Davie County soil survey, are intermittent and
unimportant. The one perennial stream (called Stream 1 in the agency packet)
was not seen by Mr. Alsmeyer during the meeting, and will be seen at a later
date. Todd St. John (NCDWQ) determined that data forms prepared by
EcoScience Corporation supported a perennial stream call; however, he was
interested in the location of data collection in support of the forms. Additional
benthic work may be necessary to determine the point where the stream
becomes perennial verses intermittent. Although Mr. St. John wanted more
information as to the flow regime in the stream, he indicated that the stream
was a good candidate for stream mitigation. He determined that the other two
streams are intermittent and may be altered for mitigative purposes.
Subsequent benthic sampling of Stream 1 by Mr. Ward Elis of EcoScience
indicated Stream 1 as intermittent from its source to the point of the ford
crossing (approximately 1000 feet), and perennial from that point to its mouth
(approximately 1100 feet). EcoScience noted in conversations with Mr. St.
John that salamanders had been found within the entire stream reach of Stream
1. Therefore, from a NCDWQ perspective, Stream 1 is perennial from its
source to its confluence with the South Yadkin River (approximately 2100
feet).
• Wetland jurisdictional status
Eric Alsmeyer (USACE) agreed with the locations and general sizes of hydric
soils in forested areas as determined by EcoScience Corporation. Other
locations of hydric soils (for example, in pasture areas) were determined to be
candidates for wetland restoration, enhancement, and/or creation.
• Stream enhancement credit through vegetative buffers
ESC presented an option of increasing vegetative buffers from 20 to 60 feet to
200 feet adjacent to the Yadkin and South Yadkin Rivers to generate
enhancement credit along approximately 10,500 linear feet of river channel.
The EPA and USACE generally agreed to allowing flexible credit ratios for
buffer planting; however, Mr. Alsmeyer (USACE) indicated that regulatory
guidance is expected on this issue in the next few months. Mr. St. John
(NCDWQ) indicated that he would not be able to render a decision on the
buffer issue until he discussed the matter with other regulators in his office.
After subsequent discussions, it was determined by Todd St. John of NCDWQ
that stream mitigation credits would be given if the entire floodplain of the
Yadkin and South Yadkin Rivers are replanted.
• Educational and research opportunities
Catawba College, in coordination with the Land Trust, NCWRC, and USFWS
would like to perform various wetland and landscape enhancement and
creation activities at the Site. Research and learning opportunities would be
offered to students and staff at the college. These activities can be coordinated
with the goals of the Land Trust for Central North Carolina. The College can
work with the Land Trust in administration and enforcement of the planned
conservation easement. Mr. Andy Abramson with the Land Trust was
interested in leaving some portions of the floodplain un-forested for public
access and/or other recreation activities. Easement alternatives to
accommodate these activities should be considered.
Beth Barnes noted that NCDOT should have more conversations with the
College about the proposed land uses for areas upslope of the floodplain and
water intake.
• Land Trust and easement considerations
The Land Trust for Central North Carolina is assembling a large easement area
on the Yadkin River corridor. The organization is interested in extending the
easement onto the Springer site. If an easement on Mr. Springer's land is
acquired by NCDOT, the Land Trust would be the recipient and administrator
of the easement at the end of the five-year mitigation monitoring period.
• Wildlife considerations
The wildlife agencies showed interest in shallow, mainly open wetland areas
on the Springer site as waterfowl habitat. Habitat for other wetland species,
such as amphibians and wetland flora, was also discussed. The wetland
preservation, enhancement, and restoration goals proposed by EcoScience
Corporation are largely consistent with those of the wildlife agencies.
However, EcoScience Corporation would normally plant bottomland
hardwoods at higher densities than optimal for waterfowl, due to mitigation
requirements. Discussions with NCWRC and USFWS indicate that emergent,
herbaceous vegetation would be preferable in shallow, open-water
impoundment areas. However, further agency discussion may be necessary
prior to generation of mitigation credit in a freshwater, open-water/emergent
and herbaceous vegetated wetland.
• NCDOT mitigation goals
NCDOT is interested in receiving mitigation credits for stream preservation,
buffer enhancement, and stream restoration on the Springer site. Wetland
preservation, enhancement, and restoration are also proposed. The proposed
work on Stream 1 does not appear to conflict with the goals of any of the
participants present at the meeting. Buffer enhancement along the Yadkin and
South Yadkin Rivers may extend to 200 feet, depending on allowed
enhancement credits. Planting of this buffer would not interfere with work on
the interior wetlands, and is therefore consistent with the participants' goals.
NCDOT may restore, enhance, and/or create approximately 9 to 10 acres of
wetlands on-site, depending on allowed mitigation credits. The wildlife
agencies are interested in maximizing the amount of wetlands on-site. The
amount and nature of wetlands to be created, enhanced, or restored on-site will
depend on mitigation value and on further input from the USACE, NCDWQ,
and the wildlife agencies.
If any meeting participants find this memorandum to be in error, please contact
Elizabeth Scherrer at (919),828-3433.
s from Review of Springer Tract
Subject: Mtg Min
utes from Review of Springer Tract
Date. Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:19:14 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Eric Alsmeyer <[e-mail]>,
Marella Buncick <[e-mail]>,
"Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>, Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>,
Marla Chambers <chambersmj @vnet.net>,
"Gene J. Nocerino" <GJNocerino @dot. state.nc.us>,
Andy Abramson <[e-mail]>,
Chris Militscher <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Happy St. Patrick's Day to everyone. Thank you for attending
last month's meeting to review the Springer Tract. Your time and
comments at our meeting on the tract were very beneficial to
NCDOT and to the other parties NCDOT is working with on this
project. I think we have the workings of a very good project
from several perspectives and meeting multiple objectives of the
parties involved in the project.
Attached to this email is a copy of the meeting minutes from our
review last month of the Springer Tract.
If you have any questions, additional comments or corrections,
please contact Elizabeth Scherrer (919-828-3433) or myself
(919-715-1467).
Name: 1-Springer Tract --
Feasibility Agency Mtg
Minutes.doc
Type: Microsoft Word
-- Feasibility Agenc?Mtg Minutes.doc. Document
(application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with
message
1 of 1 3/21/2003 9:36 AM
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Johnson Site
Iredell County, North Carolina
Agency Review
Project No. 02-KC-02
Tip No. R-2911 WM
State Project No. 8.1631802
NOW3gkI7bnb
oooz 9 p .lbw
4089 1001SONV43M
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Office of Natural Environment
April 2003

I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) initiated the Johnson Site Mitigation
Feasibility Study in November 2002 to evaluate the feasibility of restoring a degraded section of
' an unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek (UTLHC). The purpose of the potential mitigation
project would be to compensate for unavoidable stream and buffer impacts in the Upper Yadkin
River Basin resulting from planned NCDOT Transportation Improvement Projects.
1 2.0 METHODOLOGY
The Johnson Site assessment was divided into three components: initial coordination, a
constraints evaluation, and a comprehensive field investigation.
The initial project coordination included meetings with the landowner and the county Natural
Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) agent. The intent was to discuss the operation of the
farm and the functional needs of the landowner in order to minimize/avoid disturbances that
could be caused by the proposed project. Further, the landowner participation in the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was discussed with the NRCS agent to assure that no
overlap would occur.
' All available information regarding project site constraints was acquired and reviewed. This
included information about hazardous wastes, utilities and easements, cultural resources, and
rare/threatened/endangered species. In addition, any physical characteristics and conditions that
' have the potential to constrain the restoration design and/or implementation were documented
during the field investigation.
The field investigation included a morphological assessment and classification of the subject
stream (Rosgen Level II), photograph-documentation of existing conditions on the subject
property, and the review of a potential wetland restoration area adjacent to the subject stream (soil
borings and documentation of hydrologic indicators and sources).
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
' The project site is part of a 197-acre parcel owned by Mrs. Lottie Johnson. The property is an
active dairy with several structures for housing livestock and storing farm machinery, feed, and
equipment. The primary land uses on the property include the dairy operation, rangeland,
' agriculture (small grain), and forest. Little Hunting Creek and Hunting Creek form the western
and southern property boundaries, respectively.
' Local geology consists of intrusive and metamorphic rocks of the Inner Piedmont Belt. These
include metamorphosed granitic rock with biotite, gneiss, and schist in nearby areas.
Predominant soil types located within the project watershed include Chewacla soils (Cw), Colfax
sandy loam (CxB), and various soils from the Cecil Series (CcC, CcE, CfB, CfC, CfD, CgC,
CsE). Lesser areas of Lloyd loam (LmE) and Hiwassee loam (HwC) were indicated in the
southwest portion of the watershed.
' UTLHC is a first-order, perennial stream that drains in a south-southwest direction across the
subject property before joining Little Hunting Creek. It is located within USGS Hydrologic Unit
03040102, in a non-targeted portion of the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority

Sub-basin 03-07-06. The drainage area of the project reach at the upstream limits is 0.08 square
' miles. An additional 0.09 square miles (0.17 square miles total) drain to UTLHC before its
confluence with Little Hunting Creek.
The UTLHC project reach includes a total of 2,850 linear feet of perennial stream channel (Refer
to Figure 1 - Existing Conditions). The reach begins at a barbed wire fence near the northern
property boundary (Station 0+00). It flows due south for approximately sixty feet before being
joined from the east by Tributary #1 (TI). T1 is incising with several nick points indicating
active headward erosion. Mature woody vegetation typifies the composition of the riparian zones
in this area; however the vegetation begins to thin out (becomes grass dominated) as the valley
narrows adjacent to the west stream bank.
' UTLHC continues south, southwest for approximately two hundred thirty-five feet (to Station
2+95) before reaching a low water ford. The stream crosses under a fence below the ford.
Herbaceous and small woody vegetation has grown over the stream and riparian areas in this
section. Further, there is a noticeable change in the stream morphology as the channel narrows
substantially downstream of the ford. Following cross-sectional measurements, it was
determined that this reach classified as an incising "E5" stream type based on Rosgen, 1996.
UTLHC flows southwest from this point (to Station 6+40) before exiting the fenced area. In this
reach, the channel continues to incise with downstream progression transitioning between an
incising "B5" and a "G5c" as the stream becomes entrenched. The riparian area consists of small
' woody vegetation with interspersed larger trees along the west side of the channel, before
extending beyond the fencing into an active pasture. The east side of the channel is characterized
by small woody vegetation. There is a large animal waste lagoon approximately thirty-five to
fifty feet from the centerline of the channel.
Beyond the fence line, cattle have complete access to UTLHC. The channel changes to an
"175/176" stream type. Severe bank erosion has resulted from the animal traffic. Bed degradation
is evident and sedimentation from bank erosion, as well as hill slope erosion is widespread. Two
tributaries (T2 & T3) enter UTLHC in this reach. T2 is a small, spring-fed intermittent reach that
has experienced erosion from poor grazing management and overland flow. T3 begins from a
four-inch PVC pipe (thirteen feet exposed) that serves as the overflow outlet for a farm pond that
is elevated to the west of this area. Minimal riparian vegetation (several large trees) is present
along either tributary.
' From the fence line at Station 9+40, the stream becomes moderately entrenched as it continues in
a southwest direction for approximately one thousand thirty-five feet (to Station 19+75). The
stream transitions from an "F5/F6" to a "135c" type. The height of the banks reduces the ability
' of cattle to access the channel throughout the majority of this section; however, access becomes
more frequent as the valley widens near Station 17+00. UTLHC flows through a forty-eight inch
corrugated metal pipe (CMP) under a small road leading to the southwest portion of the subject
' property.
UTLHC flows west, southwest from the culvert through an actively farmed area (small grain).
' The stream is pinched along the toe of the roadway slope of Hunting Creek Road, then turns
south before its confluence with Little Hunting Creek near Station 28+50. The stream has down
cut through the majority of this reach, but several large bedrock features have slowed the bed
degradation. Nonetheless, base level lowering from Little Hunting Creek has caused this section
' to be steeper than the other portions of UTLHC.

, An

• r
?Y
T
•

t ? *?s
SF
?

'?yy??

,Fy

,yam

V` r

\

N

6 iAft Bs
q 1
? r
? 'r'hs a1,
Y

!C? r/
!
Johnson Site Mitigation Feasibility Stud
Figure 1. Existing Conditions
Legend
~a ' 0 Nickpoint Potential Wetland Study Area
Utility Pole Pond N
-
Bedrock Outcrop Waste Lagoon
r Utility Easement
Bedrock Cross Vane
Fence
Headcut :Cross Section
Debris Jam N Streams
Bedrock Step Feature
w{" y 100 0 100 200 Feet
• ' ? ; i t Source, 2002 Aerial Photographs - Iredell C°O4' n Mapping DePartmeni
-Scale: 1:1200.. 1" = 100'

A portion of the project site was also evaluated for wetland mitigation potential. The area is
' approximately 0.45 acres and is located on a hillside adjacent to the right streambank between T2
and T3 along the study reach. Two borings, to a depth of 36", were completed and profile
descriptions were developed. None of the soils (Colfax) in the examined area are considered
' hydric or secondary hydric according to state or county soils lists. An assessment of the soil
properties also indicates that insufficient depleted (reduced) conditions occur in the upper 12
inches for the soils to be considered hydric for the purposes of restoration. Likewise, the
examination of the site indicates that hydrology is derived from surface runoff and groundwater
' seeps; however, the site gradient is sufficiently steep to prevent the development of hydrologic
conditions required for wetland restoration.
4.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT
' The narrow nature of the valley as well as the landowner requirements regarding adjacent land
use serve to laterally confine the stream and reduce the belt width available for restoration.
Therefore, a Priority 3 approach to restoring the stream to a stable form is most appropriate. This
strategy would involve restoring the stream generally within the existing stream corridor/belt
' width through adjustments to the stream dimension and profile.
Based upon existing stream characteristics such as slope, entrenchment ratio, and bed materials
' composition, the goal will be to restore a stable 135c stream type. In-stream structures would be
incorporated to reduce the burden of energy dissipation on the channel geometry. Cross vanes
would be installed as grade control structures to create step-pool bed morphology and provide
' vertical stability. Degraded, eroding banks would be stabilized by excavating the upper portion to
a flatter slope, installing native woody plantings, and using J-Hook Vanes (J-Vanes) to decrease
near bank shear stress and influence secondary circulation in the near-bank region. Further, the
in-stream structures would promote efficient sediment transport and produce/enhance in-stream
' habitat.
The proposed stream dimension, pattern, and profile would be based on the detailed
' morphological criteria and hydraulic geometry relationships developed from an appropriate
reference stream. However, typical 135c Stream Morphological Criteria are provided in Table 1.
Based on a width-to-depth ratio of 15 and a bankfull cross-sectional area of 7 square feet, the
' bankfull width of the proposed 135c channel would be approximately 10 feet. The corresponding
mean and maximum depths and width of the flood prone area would be 0.7 feet, 1.0 foot, and
17.0 feet respectively.
' The following site improvements have been included as a part of the mitigation concept and deal
specifically with animal management (in particular, cattle exclusion) in the restoration area:
' Three stabilized stream crossings will be installed to provide access for the cattle to pasture
isolated b) the incorporation of the riparian buffers and exclusion fencing. Rock fords,
fenced on either side to exclude cattle from accessing the waterway, are recommended
measures for these crossings.
• Offline wavering devices will be installed at a minimum of two locations as depicted in Figure
2. Wells, pumps, and any underground services required to provide these resources at these
' locations will be included as part of this improvement.
• Cattle exclusion fencing will be installed around all restored riparian areas.
1

'l

I

I

Restoration Alternative I consists of the above components and a fifty-foot forested riparian
buffer on both sides of the restored stream for the length of the stream restoration activities
(Figure 2). The buffers will extend from the proposed bankfull elevation. Existing forested areas
along the roadway embankment of Hunting Creek Road will be preserved in their current
condition.
Based upon the components proposed, Restoration Alternative 1 offers 2,210 linear feet of
potential stream restoration. This includes approximately 5.4 acres of riparian buffer. Utilizing a
standard 1:1 credit ratio for in-kind mitigation within the same watershed as the impact(s), it is
anticipated that this alternative could produce as much as 2,210 credits for stream mitigation
purposes.
Tahh- 1 Tvniral R5r Ctream MnrnhnlnuienI Criteria.
Parameters Values *
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 1.4-2.2
Width/Depth Ratio (Wekf/dhkf) > 12
Sinuosity (K) > 1.2
Water Surface Slope (S) < 0.02
Meander Width Ratio: Belt Width / Bankfull Width 2.0-8.0
Ratio: Pool Spacing/ Bankfull Width 4.0-5.0
Ratio: Radius Curvature / Bankfull Width Highly Variable
Ratio: Meander Length / Bankfull Width Highly Variable
Bed Materials (1350) (mm) 0.062-2.0
0 From empirical data developed by Rosgen (1996).

%
1 \ P ?? ? 5
'r.

Johnson Site Mitigation Feasibility Study
Figure 2. Restoration Alternative 1
Legend
' W Offline Watering Devices 50-foot Buffer from Top of Bank
? • ?, ` ?? ? O -
t +? Cattle Crossing Pond
_ Waste Lagoon
* 14 Approx. Stream Alignment
Cattle Fence
100 0 100 200 Feet
\,: Source: 2002 Aeriol Photographs - /redell Counrv Mapping Dep.,", t S-1, 1:1200, 1" - 1,0'
Johnson Site Agency Review
Photograph Log
r 7^
Z f •
w `?i r ? ,T??,r X ?t k
fit

M1 ?'
x ?+ +k Y f'. n f
r

jD
! n {
a` / r 2 s ? ym rt, .?. k jr
\ ?? S _ - t », F?r t ?i r? ? 2+ sn ? J? •? 11 }I r?,1D: t+, a^?ati'+.?j ?tjr'f 4, ? ? `a
fr , ._ ?d ..? ..aLr ?aSia .._. .,-"?? . ,??...t i -s... _ . ea5., -k. a.a a. ? ..ra :', . .vSai ?•-?_Std]., + --.. .vw z . _:
Cattle access the stream below Station 6+40. Stream is highly unstable below "fenced out" area.
a`??1.i.,1 +?+?45:, *? ,-?:i ?(.f .. l?%,, - I ? i] 1 ? ,? •ilPl. brs `-

k. a ' ,y
. a 4'• •? i i i?.. ,` ? .iz °'ff' '??d t r /9"• f ? t t'..i- 'i,G^, ''i'}
y - rr?r
•? ?M. k _? `+v ,n m? 9 ! !?/?. ?? ";? k,. r \ `.{ Ufa{. 4?i' .?
'`,+ ? ?; ??y f?Ar ?.??ii• ? •? Ir?d?. 'y ?t? ki r ? ti'' - ,ltl.4y,-t ?.t
14
rjM' z? t1., l L1 l??i
ft.
°-k Y
L . ar _
f i' l I.I Y 4? `? i
` I 1

Looking upstream at Station 6+40 (fence line). Proposed stream restoration activities would
begin at this location.
Tributary 2 (T2), looking northwest. This system is fed by seeps from the hillside.
Tom- t_
66?? B
.. F?

ti

Johnson Site Agency Review
Photograph Log
Cross section T2-1, looking downstream. Cattle have access to each of the tributaries on the west
side of UTLHC.
1
I

I

I
I

Johnson Site Agency Review
Photograph Log

Elevated view of cross section 4, near Station 7+53.
Confluence of Tributary 3 (T3) with UTLHC.
Johnson Site Agency Review
Photograph Log

1

I

T3 looking downstream towards the confluence with UTLHC.
Fence line at Station 9+40. This fence divides the cattle groups.
t Johnson Site Agency Review
Photograph Log

I

r

I

I

Cattle access/damage to the hill slope from Station 9+40. This disturbance provides high
sediment suppl} to the system.
Looking southwest, view of potential buffer restoration area, adjacent to the east side of UTLHC.
Johnson Site Agency Review
' Photograph Log

I

I

Cross section 9 (Station 27+48).
Confluence of UTLHC with Little Hunting Creek. Downstream project limits.
- ® Stem
i
a
PROGRAM
July 7, 2006
Mr. Steve Lund
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-2911A, US 70 Relocation from SR 2318 (Fanjoy Road) to the
Iredell-Rowan County Line, Iredell County; Yadkin River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03040102; Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region
References: USACE Individual Permit issued August 17, 2004 (Action ID
Number 200430596)
NCDWQ Individual Permit issued May 11, 2004 (Project Number
040289)
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the additional compensatory stream mitigation for the
unavoidable impact associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the
NCDOT's mitigation request letter dated June 19, 2006, compensatory stream mitigation
from EEP is required for approximately 377 feet of additional stream impacts.
EEP previously accepted impacts for this project totaling 1,817 feet of stream and
0.27 acre riverine wetlands. The USACE and NCDWQ issued 404/401 Individual
permits on August 17, 2004, and May 11, 2004, respectively, authorizing the wetland and
stream impacts listed above. The required amount of wetland and stream mitigation was
provided by EEP at the end of the transition period. The additional compensatory stream
mitigation required for this project will be provided in accordance with the Memorandum
of Agreement between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
N. C. Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers signed on
July 22, 2003. EEP commits to implement sufficient compensatory stream mitigation up
to a 2:1 ratio to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA
year in which this project is permitted. If the impacts change from the above listed
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
j -P"
amount, then this mitigation strategy letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation
strategy letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Uliam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-291 1A
July 7, 2006
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-2911A, US 70 Relocation from SR 2318 (Fanjoy Road) to the
Iredell-Rowan County Line, Iredell County
References: USACE Individual Permit issued August 17, 2004 (Action ID
Number 200430596)
NCDWQ Individual Permit issued May 11, 2004 (Project Number
040289)
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the additional compensatory stream mitigation for the
subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated June 19, 2006,
the impacts are located in CU 03040102 of the Yadkin River Basin in the Central
Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream: 377 feet
EEP previously accepted impacts for this project totaling 1,817 feet of stream and
0.27 acre riverine wetlands. The USACE and NCDWQ issued 404/401 Individual
permits on August 17, 2004, and May 11, 2004, respectively, authorizing the wetland and
stream impacts listed above. The required amount of wetland and stream mitigation was
provided by EEP at the end of the transition period. The additional compensatory stream
mitigation required for this project will be provided in accordance with the Memorandum
of Agreement between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
N. C. Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers signed on
:5"' NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
4
July 22, 2003. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory stream
mitigation to offset the additional impacts associated with this project by the end of the
MOA year in which the permit modification is issued. If the above referenced impacts
amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a
new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Wi
D. Gilmore, P.E.
C
EErector
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2911A -Additional