20100752 Ver 1_More Info Received_20110301

11??
,???.. J ? ee•Si.V1°?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
#ft? ?
44R
I ??>1
'mss%?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4%,
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
ATTN: Mr. Monte Matthews
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TTPPETT
SECRETARY
l o?®15 2-
Subject: REVISION to Application for Individual Section 404 Permit and 401
Certification for the widening of US 321 from SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) to
US 221 at Blowing Rock; Watauga and Caldwell Counties; State Project No.
6.739001T; NCDOT Division 11; TIP No. R-2237C, WBS Element No.
34402.2.6
Reference: - Application for Individual 404 Permit and 401 Certification (dated
September 3, 2010)
- DWQ Letter dated December 3, 2010
- USACE Letter dated December 2, 2010
Dear Mr. Matthews:
This Application Revision is being submitted to augment the previously submitted application
referenced above. This Revision includes responses to comments received in letters from the
DWQ and from the USACE, as referenced above, and corrections/clarifications to the original
application. This Revision application package consists of the cover letter, attachments for the
responses to the USACE comments, a revised EEP acceptance letter, and Revised Permit
Drawing Sheets (including revised Wetland Permit Impact Summary sheets) along with the
applicable corresponding revised roadway plan sheets.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH INC 27699-1598
February 23, 2011
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH INC 27610-4328
Responses to DWQ Comments (Letter dated December 3, 2010)
Response to DWQ V bulleted item:
NCDOT has revised the culvert at Site VII. The revision includes the placement of a riprap
bench to a height of one foot above the southern sill of the culvert. See Revised Permit Drawing
Sheets 24-26 of 45, and 40 of 45, and the applicable corresponding revised roadway plan sheet
number 16. There is no change in impacts.
Response to DWQ 2nd bulleted item (and NCWRC comment from October 15, 2010 email):
The permit drawings for Site IV have been revised to depict the existing stream connecting
directly to the relocated portion of the stream. On the original drawings, there was a disconnect
between the two sections of stream. See Revised Permit Drawing Sheets 12-14 of 45 and the
applicable corresponding revised roadway plan sheet number 11. There is no change in impacts.
Response to DWO 3`d bulleted item (and NCWRC comment from October 15, 2010 email):
A four-foot base ditch has been included at Site IX to create a direct connection to Middle Fork
Creek. The permit drawings for Site IX have been revised accordingly. See Permit Drawings
Sheets 31-33 of 45. The connection should be able to be constructed with no additional impacts
to the streams.
Response to DWQ 4 ° bulleted item:
At Site X in the original application submittal, UT3 to Middle Fork Creek was proposed to be
piped to the stormwater system. The impacts at this site did not include impacts that would have
occurred to the downgradient segment of UT3 to Middle Fork Creek located between US 321
Business and Middle Fork Creek (this segment of UT3 to Middle Fork Creek was not included
on the design plans). Due to the grade at the pipe outlet on the west side of US 321 Business,
riprap is proposed to be placed in the stream channel to reduce erosion, resulting in a net increase
of 10 if of permanent stream impacts to UT3 Middle Fork Creek (Note: 98 if of stream impacts
were avoided). See Revised Permit Drawing Sheets 34-36 of 45, and the applicable
corresponding revised roadway plan sheet number 19. The revisions at Site X are summarized
below (and presented in revised Table 4 of this application):
Site X Permanent Stream Impacts:
- UT3 to Middle Fork: 59 If (revised from 49 If)
- UT4 to Middle Fork: 25 if (unchanged)
Total for Site X = 841f (revised from 741f)
Site X Temporary Stream Impacts: <0.1 ac (unchanged)
NOTE: the temporary stream impacts increased 5 if (from 14 if to 19 If); however, this
had no effect on the acreage of temporary impacts, which remain unchanged.
Page 2 of 11
Responses to USACE Comments (Letter dated December 2, 2010)
Response to USACE Item #1:
The Preferred Alternative's current jurisdictional impacts are presented in Revised Table 2 (page
7 of 11 of this Cover Letter). The impact table from the FEIS (Table S-1) is included in the
Attachment. The most current impact quantities for relocations on the Preferred Alternative are
14 residences and 12 businesses. The updated construction cost estimate is $50.4 million. All
other impact estimates remain unchanged since the 2006 FEIS/2007 ROD.
Response to USACE Item #2:
Prior to the Merger Team's concurrence on CP 2, NCDOT spent four years (1995-1999)
developing a Bypass Alternatives Study. During this time, there was much public involvement,
so that interested citizens could have a voice in the alternatives to be carried forward for detailed
study. The first Merger Team meeting was held November 4, 1999 for the purpose of concurring
on CP 1 and CP 2. Concurrence was not reached for either concurrence point because additional
information (a functional assessment) was requested. This information was sent to the team in
February 2000. The letter from March 15, 2000 transmitted to the team a comparison of
alternatives that included the findings from the functional assessment. This letter was amended
on November 11, 2000 (see attached) to explain how the preliminary designs, completed for the
project alternatives in 2000 for use in the Draft EIS, reduced the impacts for the alternatives.
While the table attached to the November 11, 2000 amendment does not reflect these reduced
impacts, the impact table included in the Draft EIS does. The Merger Team's discussion and
concurrence on the LEDPA was based on the impacts in the Draft EIS, not those in the March
15, 2000 memo or the November 11, 2000 memo.
At a January 18, 2001 Merger Team meeting, the Team agreed to CP 2. The Team agreed to
carry forward the Widening Alternative and Bypass 1 for detailed study. The Team did not agree
to carrying forward Bypass Alternative 4 because it was not feasible from the perspective of the
natural resource agency representatives. Nevertheless, NCDOT explained to the Team that it had
an obligation to study Bypass Alternative 4 in detail in the Draft EIS because it was the only
acceptable option to the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock. The NCDOT carried forward this
alternative in full recognition of the fact that many agencies said they could not endorse it as
LEDPA.
On January 15, 2003, the Team reached concurrence on the Widening Alternative as the LEDPA
(CP 3). In making the LEDPA decision, the Team was looking at the impacts as reported in the
Draft EIS (as opposed to the cited 2000 table). The LEDPA selection was based on the
following, as excerpted from the May 21, 2003 minutes:
If the Green Park Historic District were not affected, the Widening Alternative would
clearly be the least environmentally damaging alternative.
• The magnitude of the impact to the Green Park Inn Historic District by the Widening
Alternative is not enough to outweigh the resulting negative community and
environmental impacts of either Bypass Alternative I design.
Mitigation opportunities exist with the Widening Alternative. Landscaping,
revegetation, replacement and installation of new rock walls, and burying utilities are
Page 3 of 11
examples of initiatives to compensate for impacts to the Town of Blowing Rock.
However, it would be extremely difficult to mitigate the damage to the natural
environment, the surrounding hillside, and the local neighborhoods by a bypass
alternative.
Note: Bypass Alternative 4 was not addressed in the above comparison nor at the
meeting because of two factors: 1) the inclusion of Bypass Alternative 4 in the DEIS was
at the initiative of the NCDOT and the FHWA but was not approved as a Detailed Study
Alternative by the Merger Team at Concurrence Point 2; and 2) the NCDOT did not plan
to pursue Bypass Alternative 4 as its preferred corridor because of its impacts to the
natural environment, its impacts to the Blue Ridge Parkway, its cost, and the objection of
the resource and regulatory agencies.
The Team agreed to an alternative with more jurisdictional impacts because of home/business
relocations and community impacts associated with other alternatives. Also, the Team was
highly opposed to Alternative 4 from early on (they would not agree to cant' it forward as a
Detailed Study Alternative) because of the way it would introduce a road into a rural, road-free
area, bisect undeveloped, natural habitat and scar the mountainside. This was in spite of the fact
that one design option for Alternative 4 had 0.1 ac of wetland impact. Clearly, the Team was
considering factors other than jurisdictional impact quantities in the decision-making.
The above reasoning is not affected by the changes to the stream and wetland impact estimates
that have occurred since the LEDPA selection.
Response to USACE Item #3:
NCDOT's Congestion Management section has reviewed the new traffic projections, and the
need for the project remains unchanged. Even with the lower volumes, the roadway is expected
to continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service in the future if the project is not built.
The higher volumes in the Town limits, the steep grades south of the Town limits, and the heavy
truck volumes all contribute to the ongoing need for the widening. Congestion Management
conducted a new, detailed level of service to identify any design detail modifications. No
changes are being made to the design based on the outcome of the new analysis, so the impact
quantities remained unchanged.
Response to USACE Item #4:
The first site was the culvert replacement near the new fire station. At this location NCDOT
received an MOA (2a) on 8/25/09 (NC Floodplain Mapping [NCFMP] Invoice Reference #
20090825-8). The Invoice was paid 8/27/09 $2000.00 with a payment reference # 2001162792.
NCDOT lowered the Q100 Water Surface Elevation (WSEL), submitted a revised FEMA flood
model to NCFPM and received a FEMA approval through the MOA process. NCFPM manages
the program for FEMA in NC.
There is also a lateral encroachment around the Shoppes of the Parkway. NCFMP indicated that
since this was a lateral encroachment nothing will be required by FEMA. Kevin Rothrock
(Planning Director for the Town of Blowing Rock) was contacted about the need for a
Community Development Permit. Mr. Rothrock indicated that the town would not require
anything from DOT, as long as DOT is in compliance with FEMA Regulations.
Page 4 of 11
Responses to Chetola Resort Comments (Letter dated November 11, 2010)
(referenced in USACE Letter dated December 2, 2010)
Chetola Resort Comment #1:
During discussions, Mr. Terry Bradshaw, Right Of Way Agent with NCDOT, pointed out an area
located in Site X at the border of Site XI that is right at the dam holding back Chetola Lake (one
of the four bodies of water that begin the New River). The engineers back in Raleigh had not
noticed that the dam also serves as a road and is an emergency access to the resort and they
(having never had the advantage of visiting the site) had closed off the entrance with the grading
and a guard rail. This entrance is also used to bring big equipment out on the dam when repairs
are necessary. Looking at the plans you have sent, I cannot tell for sure with my lack of
expertise, but it appears that this has not yet been corrected.
NCDOT Response:
Due to the widening of US 321, it was necessary to relocate the US 321 Bus/US 221 intersection.
As a result, proposed US 321 in the vicinity of the US 321 Bus/US 221 intersection is
approximately 16feet higher than the road across the dam. Maintaining the access, as it
currently exist, was not feasible. The Department is investigating the feasibility ofproviding
access to the road across the dam by utilizing the existing US 321 Bus/US 221 roadway.
[Greg Brew, PE - Roadway Design Unit can be contacted to address questions/comments
regarding this NCDOT response].
Chetola Resort Comment #2:
In Site X and XI, we have reviewed the drainage plans and have some concern as to how the
storm water will be released at the base of our dam area and its potential long term erosion
effects on both the island and shoreline at the base of the dam as well as the trout waters above
and below this dam.
NCDOT Response:
At both Sites X and V the existing drainage patterns are being maintained to the maximum
extent practicable. At Site X the existing stream and roadway runoff are being discharged
through a 36" Corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP) onto a rip rap dissipater pad and into the existing
jurisdictional stream. There is no increase in discharge at this site from the existing to the
proposed condition, therefore no increase in erosion is anticipated. At Site XI the 18" CSP is
being discharged onto a rip rap dissipater pad in a flat area near the creek in order to reduce
the outlet velocity from the pipe. No adverse impacts due to erosion are anticipated.
No adverse impacts to trout waters are anticipated, and Best Management Practices, including
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (DSSW), will be used throughout construction.
[Marc Shown, PE - Hydraulic Design Unit can be contacted to address questions/comments
regarding this NCDOT response].
Chetola Resort Comment #3:
In the North East area of Site X at the curve in the road the proposed plan will move the road
over several feet making it necessary to build an expensive, large retaining wall within a couple
feet of Chetola Lake. When we physically reviewed the site with Mr. Bradshaw that day, we all
noted that this plan would make it necessary to cut down the timber that acts as a buffer to the
Lake and Resort and its construction so very close to the shoreline would potentially disturb this
trout stocked lake. In looking at the proposed plan further we all noted that if the road was
Page 5ofII
moved over affecting the opposite side instead of this lake site, it appeared that the land
necessary was available without having to deal with the huge granite outcropping along the
roadside (though this may have not been evident if aerial photos were used).
NCDOT Response:
Several factors went into determining the location of the US 321 Bus/US 221 intersection. These
factors included the number of lanes, access to property on both sides of US 321, the location of
the median crossover, impacts to property on both sides of US 321, traffic maintenance, and the
existing alignment of US 321 and US 321 Bus/US 221. In addition, there is enough of an
elevation difference between US 321 Bus/US 221 and the lake that we would not be able to shift
the alignment enough to eliminate the retaining wall. Taking into consideration all of the
constraints and the current stage of the design, we feel that it is best to proceed with the
proposed design. [Greg Brew, PE - Roadway Design Unit can be contacted to address
questions/comments regarding this NCDOT response].
Responses to Rosemvr Corporation Comment (Letter dated November 16, 2010)
(referenced in USACE Letter dated December 2, 20101)
Rosemvr Corporation Comment:
H.H.C. Co., Inc. (d/b/a Rosemyr Corporation) is unconditionally opposed to the NCDOT's
condemnation plans for the realignment of Main Street at 8684 Valley Blvd., Blowing Rock, NC
as being proposed as part of the widening of US 321 in Blowing Rock, NC. The NCDOT's
condemnation plan proposes a taking that is excessive and will result in the loss of our Tenant's
(Broyhill furniture) front lawn which has several historic trees; some measuring over 6 feet in
diameter. In addition a retaining wall is proposed that will obscure the visibility of the building
and will create concerns with the drainage and the potential to now flood our building and
property. Last, but not least, is the loss of the signature sign for this Tenant's building. Due to
the new right of way proposed for the front and the side of the building, relocation of this
signature sign is extremely limited. The frustrating part is that it is unnecessary.
In conversations with local NCDOT personnel, HHC believes that the proposed realignment of
US 321 Business (Main Street) and Trillium Lane could be shifted southward to lessen the
impact on our building and property. We note that this shift southward would not have a
negative impact on any other property owner. Further, safety will not be jeopardized as the
intersection is to be signalized. HHC has continually requested NCDOT to reconsider its
planned configuration. We would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the NCDOT
designers and work toward an agreeable solution; however at this time we have no other recourse
than to oppose the plan.
NCDOT Response:
It should be noted that the proposed design was presented at the public hearing well before
KKC. Co., Inc. purchased and developed the property. As a result of the development, the
Department is investigating the feasibility of shifting the US 321 Business alignment to minimize
impacts to the development. It appears that impacts to the property can be reduced from what is
currently proposed. We will continue to coordinate with KKC. Co., Inc. representatives to
work towards a solution that is acceptable for both parties. It should be noted that a traffic
signal is not proposed at the US 321 and US 321 Business intersection.
[Greg Brew, PE - Roadway Design Unit can be contacted to address questions/comments
regarding this NCDOT response].
Page 6 of 11
Summary of Jurisdictional Impacts
Table 2 has been revised below. The permanent stream impact value for the Yadkin - Pee Dee
River Basin (975 If) has been corrected from the 1,002 if erroneously listed in the original
application, and the permanent stream impact value for the New River Basin has been revised to
reflect the net increase of 10 if of permanent stream impact at Site X. Table 2 has also been
revised to exclude the pond impacts presented in the original application, as they are non-
jurisdictional surface waters. The Wetland Permit Impact Summary Sheets (Revised Permit
Drawing Sheets 44-45 of 45) have also been corrected to note these as non jurisdictional
impacts.
Revised Table 2 - Summary of Impacts
14??i4 S V11y.
l• { ?4 P Td `}3`c`'" 4 ?
l .3*: ??t ?f fa.C'.. 4rSxbN'+tfm i*?'
e
" ?rr(?tN'S kirk a vy '*.,y"]i?
?
v
e
` and s.t
Permanent Wet rmanent.Stream y
P Temporary Stream.'
Riv
r Basm
X? e xisYLt? (ac), ,??dr3
w (lt)
t
y y (ae) w ,

110M z
;
?
;, IN ) Jj.
'
>J?? N h
Yadkin-Pee Dee 0.13 975 0.03
New 0.06 671 0.02
Totals 0.19 1,646 0.05
i/ Values are based on rounding, due to some of the individual impacts being <0.01 acre.
Summary of Mitigation:
As noted in the original application, all mitigation will be provided by the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP). A revised EEP acceptance letter, corresponding to the revised
mitigation requirement, is attached (see Tables 3 & 4 for stream mitigation determinations).
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
Revisions to the Impacts to Waters of the U.S. section are described below.
Surface Waters
Based on the net increase of 10 linear feet of stream impact at Site X, permanent impacts are
proposed on 1,646 (revised from 1,636) linear feet of jurisdictional streams: 975 linear feet
within the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin and 671 (revised from 661) linear feet within the New
River Basin. Temporary impacts are proposed on 0.05 acre (283 If) of jurisdictional streams.
This revised linear footage does not change the area (0.05 acre) of temporary impacts presented
in the original application.
Table 4 has been revised to reflect the change in the permanent stream impact to UT3 to
Middle Fork Creek at Site X. There have been no revisions to the impacts presented in
Table 3. Additional revisions have been made to Tables 3 and 4 to include the linear footage of
temporary stream impacts, and to present the mitigation requirements more concisely.
As noted in the original application, permanent impacts are proposed on 0.02 acre of a non-
jurisdictional pond (Impact Site VIII in the original application). The Wetland Permit Impact
Summary Sheet (Permit Sheet 44 of 45) has been corrected to note that this is a non-
jurisdictional impact.
Page 7 of 11
Revised Table 3. Impacts to jurisdictional streams in Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (IIUC 03040101)
Srte I' Stream Type / Impact Impact = , n 1VItngahon

No Station No
? Stream Name
=
7
* r r x,
fClassrficatronX Impact?Type
t
i ,
?
?r Length'
Acreage s a?
Regnrrement;ti
,y
G ,
F s , ,
r
,4 t_ .10- TE '24 t u..
USACE
385+70 to UTl to Bailey Perennial / Perm. fill 294 if &DWQ
I
389+45-L- Camp Creek C; Tr
Temp. fill 361f <0.01 ac.
USACE
Bailey Camp Perennial / Perm. fill 119 if & DWQ
II 403+30-L-
Creek C; Tr
Temp. fill 33 if <0.01 ac.
UTl to Perennial / USACE
Perm. fill 53 If
Yadkin River C; Tr & DWQ
USACE
442+00 to Perm. fill 150 If & DWQ
III
444+00-L- UT2 to Perennial /
Yadkin River C; Tr ize 10 if a, DWQ
ion
stabil
Temp. fill 43 If 0.01 ac.
USACE
444+65 to UT2 to Perennial / Perm. fill 317 If & DWQ
IV
449+50-L- Yadkin River C; Tr
Temp. fill 461f 0.01 ac.
USACE
Perm. fill 22 If
& DWQ
UT2 to Perennial /
V 451+40-L-
Yadkin River
C; Tr Barilc
10 if
DWQ
stabilization
Temp. fill 6 If <0.01 ac.
Total,Tem ore `y-1m acts ' r 164 1fg 0 03
E r°+? i `
,
Permanent_Impacts_
Tofal 975`
If<
; -;
.
l .
.
' S
ImpactsRegmring DWQ'Mrngat on (1 1°;;
Permanen[ 975 if, ° t- 9751f I
.
?
. .
.
r- ermanent,Impacis RequlrrngITSACE Mttrgat on (2 1)., '?< 955 1f;Sr.;. ,' 10 If' "Y
" Mitigation for bank stabilization impact required by DWQ - not required by USACE.
Value based on rounding, due to some of the individual impacts being <0.01 acre.
' Mitigation proposed by NCDOT (based on mitigation required by the USACE exceeding the amount required by DWQ).
Page 8ofII
Revised Table 4. Impacts to jurisdictional streams in New River Basin (HUC 05050001)
Or x Stream Type v
ia' A `

Stte,

-"

E" ?
f'D ti +a)t? Im act ?,--`r

P
act
I
m
P tMth

gahon
;
*

No §tatron No.
k ' Stream Name
- ,
s k ?,
, Impact Type a
h
r =
Length r a o I
Acreager
Requireme
-. , w
i
; "
4-,
F
?
t
7
' 4
Classtficanon .
c,
x'
? sr ,
p
s . .e:.
3 s
.
495+20 to UTl to Perennial / USACE
498+15-L- Middle Fork WS-IV: + Perm. fill 2941£ _ &DWQ
USACE
Perm. fill 128 if _
&DWQ
Perennial /
VII 523+33.5-L- Middle Fork
WS-N:+ ]lank ?
321f
-
DWQ
stabilization
Temp. fill 261f 0.01 ac.
USACE
119 if
UT2 to Perennial / Perm. fill & DWQ
LX 540+20-L- Middle Fork WS-IV: + 141f - N/A
Temp. fill 10 if <0.01 ac.
USACE
UT3 to Perennial / Perm. fill 59 If & DWQ
Middle Fork WS-N: +
X 553+50
L Temp. fill 19 if <0.01 ac.
-
- USACE
UT4 to Perennial / Perm. fill 251f & DWQ
Middle Fork WS-N: +
Temp. fill 19 if <0.01 ac.
XII
561+56-L-
I
UT5 to
I
Perennial /
Temp. fill
45 If
0.01 ac.
Middle Fork WS-N: +
TemporaryImpacts: 511911f a .002
4 `
. _ r a„
Total Permanent Impacts:; S' s 67 J

Mingation:'
Permanent.ImpactsReu
qu3ngNo
t
__
a
,
„,
,_.
hb Permanent•ImpactsR'equrnngDWQMitigatton(11):;
r` 657 of
; ;,
MiGgaGon (2 1): `
Permanent Impacts Reijuiring US ACE 6251E r 1;2501f'
:
Middle Fork - Middle Fork of the South Fork of the New River.
F Mitigation for bank stabilization impact required by DWQ - not required by USACE.
area determined to have been already impacted - no mitigation required by USACE or DWQ.
value based on rounding, due to some of the individual impacts being <0.01 acre.
Mitigation proposed by NCDOT (based on mitigation required by the USACE exceeding the amount required by DWQ).
. Revised impact. Note: this is the only revision to the impacts presented in the table in the original application.
Wetlands
There are no changes to wetland impacts in this revised application. Permanent impacts are
proposed on 0.19 acre of riparian wetlands, comprised of the placement of 0.13 acre of
permanent fill, the excavation of 0.03 acre, and the mechanized clearing of 0.03 acre. Of the 0.19
acre of impact to riparian wetlands, 0.13 acre occurs in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin (HUC
03040101) and 0.06 acre occurs in the New River Basin (HUC 05050001). There will be no
temporary impacts to any wetlands.
Page 9 of 11
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization:
Design revisions were incorporated to minimize impacts to UT3 to Middle Fork Creek. The
revisions included allowing UT3 Middle Fork Creek to flow to its existing channel downgradient
of US 321 Business, rather than piping the stream to the stormwater system. The redesign results
in an additional 10 If of permanent stream impact but avoids approximately 98 If of permanent
impact to the downgradient section of UT3 to Middle Fork Creek located between US 321
Business and Middle Fork Creek.
Compensatory Mitigation
All mitigation for the project will be provided by 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. Compensatory mitigation for this project consists of the following:
Compensatory Stream Mitigation:
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streams on the project total 1,646 (revised from 1,636 in
original application) linear feet. The DWQ requires mitigation for 1,632 linear feet of stream
impact (975 if in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin and 657 if in the New River Basin) at a 1:1
ratio (totaling 1,632 if of stream mitigation). The USACE requires mitigation for 1,580 linear
feet of stream impact (955 If in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin and 625 if in the New River
Basin) at a 2:1 ratio (totaling 3,160 if of stream mitigation). As the USACE mitigation
requirement exceeds that of the DWQ, NCDOT requested mitigation from EEP to meet the
USACE mitigation requirement.
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation:
There are no changes to the compensatory wetland mitigation in this revised application. To
have all mitigation information presented, the wetland mitigation information from the original
application is included below.
Compensatory mitigation has been acquired through EEP for the 0.19 acre of wetland impacts.
Of the 0.19 acre of wetland impacts for which mitigation will be provided, 0.13 acre of wetland
impact is within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (HUC 03040101), and 0.06 acre of wetland
impact is within the New River Basin (HUC 05050001).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
This Revision to the original Application is hereby submitted for a Department of the Army
Individual 404 Permit as required for the above-described activities. We are also hereby
requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ. We are providing five (5)
copies of this application modification to the NCDWQ for their review and approval.
Page 10 of I1
A copy of this permit application and its distribution list will be posted on the NCDOT website
at http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/pernvt.htrrl
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Mr. Bill Barrett by
telephone at [phone] or by e.mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: NCDOT Permit Application Standard Distribution List
Page 11 of 11
Attachments for Responses to USACE Comments
y
V
a:.
m
C
L
Q
O
C
O
L
C
a
E
0
U
L
R
C.
C
.i
0)
A
m
F
t S ` '
$
9
.U. O
O O
O O
O O
?
Y E O O O
p v o o 0
s r z oo
?, -
N o
N Q
o ? o

4 1 ni
> O v1 ? V
? m

3
? m
T
V
?
? 9 O O O O

p C
_ O O O ?
?
O N U c
J O O O U
° W O
G ?..?. v O
z L D\
f.9 -
?D O
[? O
V O O
6 6 ? o V O

F Y
F

. - 77

L
s PO
3?h
v
o
0
0
°
c

V 0 0 0 _
d ?.. x? U K^ m O O O YD
N
U ? C1
G _.{. `W m v m mO N O N O 0 0

?
R
? C V
'3 a
O
N
b
U
0
N
cn
O
°' E .
E a
u o ? av us 0
- o
m
co >
Y
?
?
v U ^
N w N
m .Y
:d
•*4 u u
G m i.a. ? F y ? ." U[ ? 0 0 0 O N

Y
G v m au c
-° m .
6'
°
m
? ? ? o °'
s 0 0
t a a o
0.3
.
y°? N ° ? o rn o
m
D s5 sus o
?, m
O N ?, 3

} ?
4
' FF
.
o
4?
.,
r.
w F4
3
? l o o vY
o p. 9 c :
.,? t m ?. v u v N t y C _. w O

G?
]W- _
Q C 3 0 0
A
CG ? -g U h p C
C °? m p._ O
0 O
0 O
0 N E op
Q
? U
_
T
A O y w
Y. .bi •E N CC '
F.'
A
d p, M O C '
O] t+l
N N
N Vl
? 0 O O z
? t dy . i.
G• F 0 3
a
° .L N y
3 F
W
P d
Z ?l . E L d•
3
° s
9 S
9 O a
o
.. r, oo
Es P] acs
E? m ? ;?
?'u
U ?
? M
°
,°°
? ?
S d r o m X0.
1
, m
4
9
55 M I4 1a- N
t d
9 > '
`
A
L
W 00 DO ? .
Y

?
?f °

z '•

+ LLB LLB {S.?
O
O N N
G r z c
h d
E
? ? D
D y N
SY y y _
y
9
o
d C
O m va ii
m
K v)
Z)
i k m .] U $
u u 9 A o d ._ W
rU ?`j O w ti Uo 3 a 3 "> >Qo ° h n
O' i
?
V7 G ?

v. 0 Du] .F. ?. o' U E NQF"D z • •
m . m
e: C F
U
h
d
d
L
U
Q
L'
O
y
.L
a
8
C?
G
rl
d
?-O
K, SY
?' t.
v .^ r3
o W
p QO
E y
G
?i r v o> .a

" O O
K W
y N1 V V O O
A
+?
f 0 ? L' a ?
.
...
0 0 O O O tD y
W C O
«
U W 9 ' C A
.U. U L
d O
.
"
'\ m d O r
j
y
N O
% O z
? i . ? Ow C N O N 9 ? ?
U U 2
4< , -, p N O O R v
i
? m W m F U C, C

is ? x N ' ^ 3 w °p °
.
? d m°:' ? U N x y y? 0 ? N C p
i
>. .. ? p N U O V . v
i U .p Q C O C y C
?
?3n ?
Q ° C a
O O b O O O o0 .-. w
0
N W O V C ?
° U 4 O
i? ? O
d
N
O
N N "
9 a X>
p ? z
O C
0 r4 p
W ai U C
U
U
C

N (? .p N NO ._
U p 3 O C
2 .^ OON Li. T
apLL p Q O
? "xx m p w '
? } E
n , o
d
i r C1 hi
Ly E r
_' .-. O V]
7 W
Q U ?Q .^
-' C C
E
C

T .
a .
'O O 0
ran U N N O ^
O
U
U
? TI Y? O U ?? C > 'O O N
f. C .. _ p

W U V O a U w
O w
0 W
O V v .p O ?'j w
C U U U '«
9 a O p N N y y R O U p
V ?• ?• V
? z
v
rx O
N
Q O 0 L
W A
°S P ,
U-
> > lv r, ,
td O
? IL y 4
.
ON N tl' N d N N
c
> ? U
f C N L
m
? d > y
>
O
? m
( I ` 4 m ? Q ,j O?
a?
y
c
O
Y

a .0 ul
U Y
i ;" S a U c o v d c
Y
ob :? LQ Q N V Q N?
=G 7? U
CL ,?[I]
v 1 y
p
=
f by ? Q U'O S a N O O O N '? U C N j 9 } }
ON N ?
y « > y9
" ?
tY ? ? Q w ?? r
?
2 !
? ?
e, O O d d u p v C
N aL3
°?
f{ R r p, .^ A G ap?R O v? m
? m C ? a a 'T 6'?

i
x 9
a
W
G ?
A ? o U
?? r,
p
U ?
C U L .

u?a
,'
y?
a .o m E _
? m

• O
C
d E IS '
?"rv L+= C.. r4.E C4 •L• O O O N = p
r
33 J
} E
} 0. v
C
o Q
a: ? _?
3
3
0
0 0 g
> z
i; y
e ?
E j C ? m N p ' °
? v cJ N d a y
2. , T
? M h E v
vim , ? s ri p

i_=s ue- ci

#
5
? Q

?
°j Em
`.
a E

'
i
4
V .J' t0 : ?
N
v ; ^ r
n
m p
i k
W G C r°i?
?
N O
y C > itl
'O O T'
y U
C
R W W W t
2

+ze ?,
- ? r1 N
?
? o
< ti C a
°?
3
ti c ?
?

'Y ? ? " O a.
y U a a
L C C U
U? ". G ? tea-' a O ? 'O .? ? ? V W y cS' U U
?,
'
' ? ? m E ° °
°
m
?* . ti .
7- v ? 3 o N c rv c y c y d p ? °' oan c ,a
a o0 c cv' c? m .? ro o o n n o c
`°
` a m vi
U '> > 7 .: « o o x m co c U 3
?r?a m? o
a
3 z E ? m a u.
4 r
> ?'
,, o
W, cii U
N
V
m
A
d
w
0
C
O
L
R
G.
O
U
c?
G
H
h
A
J ?
i O R
{ J j W y
L O ,SJ y E Y j G,
0 Y
t
u O V o L L
3 O A N ? .
!.3 : o O
a ` m
E?
. .E h W E
v r u a u
. ,q E 0 0 E v ^I N en o

' z
i ?> ?*
;. ? ? u cEi mac o m c> v °
o U ao3o W
wl

7

.. >,
p n,
"
` ° 0 t° 3 w m m o 0 0 o
U Y
? o
v E .E v W m 3 j a V
h ? ¢ O D N' d C G
N E ? N V O
O Y . .C
L O
O z
* L 0 0 w Y ^_ O L Y w z

am?

7„, 9 r,

s F

cS'o' o
%
c

C
? I 9 9 ^
> V U O ..J y
= O y N C
T
N
o
0

Q
a
Oa
O _
^ O
W
V
y m A O W G
E
V N
I
vN
k0 C
0 O
O
E - ? '
4? C v: O N 'O
7 U !) 9 z C

_ N
V E J F L m
a e=r?. O

¢
?
90 y
N V
'? m
y V ? Y
E'D 7 N
°
°
' N
Y
2?? m S
c
o 3

T v m
, ... L o
d 0°
L w m y
ro
A

5
'
'O V
O
N
Y
t O v u O Q'
} u . ?
Q r
n N
U
t d A C N
O
E
b .--
N N
V D`
kD 0 V
?? 9 L C 9 N . E
U N .
1 . z 'O

ept v y>. y v v Wit.. .O v 'id' 0 T
?oae 'E v
E a w a c. `? .o x 3
k

I C? O 0 N U U 9 U m
E C V ' °? °O v U C N O

i.
U
t 9
L 5;
V Q
.E
N
O
O
N
'0
m
V? yt C
O?y
w ._
vw
O???VN
' O ..
N
4ry '?'?
9 ,
C M
0 0 C
,
N
as: .-....?3.« C4
S p m
a +r''7 S' ?,A
> k, u

?Ji `
?h
a o aci o E _` o of °` 0 0
°.
£?
O z z
z
'^ z z
¢
t

t){r ?? 9 U
J
{? .T.
`%
G
¢ G
3
A N
_
N (J
N

o°o
'
v
s
°
° E d
° w
xp,
a s
d
'
°
c v
x
s
3
dw :°
z
z ?
w ¢1

2
o
°

u
._
w m
= p

c

o

,y y
U
k {r
`? f
G C y
C O U
t0 ,
O CL ?
L H U
o Z'. " D F F .' 6 O G O y o .C t V Q

"}. k!:

?
?O

'
O
C
w U N V
N 'U

U`
3 .

E...

V
'

V
>

Q
,
+m ::
' o o ._ o m J ° 0 0 o K o 'C o p v 0
•.-?..<'. zUm Uu.C y xC zujzU = a F ° Q z

W Z
> Q
y
d
r
LQ
C
L
C
it
a
0
U
Lei
0
rl
F
} 'GSO ? d
t ^.
r m ?
? ]
M ? .y W C
? f CO> T y9 '
: .
.
. U U .v l: x m O ^ d W0-1
t i s 07 O O V C ro V 'O ?n V O p L C F ,?
f Z: z F N ?' O vt O N U O
_
b : E o o ?'

?l ,
U ? y
O
£ a
L y E
w
7
a Q °?
,+d m ?

tw n
f?l E'> y c
? a . _ .o
3
fA - n
? G
U C
.E
r. U U wY ? o N U W
_ ? _ O

U O p A L U ?
y E ° i ? ^C

N
LO
.
.
4 V 'S

1 .: > U G m 9

U
?. ty U y
m U GO = ?
O U N r? O O N G U
9 'ns ?= z. .? O ? p ? v z

m ,
y ,+e c E
} ? v

^.L
.y N

< ? 9 U

r
.m
s,. N b
o m b0 y
ate. ? ? v h c 'd

,;: ,Q ? O O M 9 N N ? O R c O
G
U
g z o ? ? D ? z
V ?
L ? . 7

N

L W_ ? W
N
00 O ?
00 iy U F U y
a0 X b
E
. U N
O
t?
c d
E
O
r ?9??' Z d .G. vG N y O O p p ,
? El .O v V
>? i
> J O ?
t ^LI
L Q
U y
? ? m O
G W O

z? z °u h v a c
`I

i 9 i
1'
4 pp
c pp
c
N
,x
,,i W U U N N N N N U Q
G^^:
ir O O O O O y w
k O O O O z
.
p d z z z z z W z z z z

z a,' W
,
r
T ?. y

"
° o m `V' E g `d E E -
u a u L
n
o
,". x x
w _
'
m
O o
f
0-2 y o C C 4 a0 F m "
LL y n 9
T CCU op U o U Y U O V) y t V1 y U = E a n v U Q 9 .U.:
w 7
r m L y m ° °_ ?' ?' v a E " o
? m `
' `° a m _ u?
°o
r c
'o
E m
o =
m
O
O m
'
m Lm,
y o o 0 9 o
n v

E
;, c .:
?.
o ?.
`
=; c 3 y.> 3>> oa ? t J
6n. xw ? atU? aUp ainw 3 .
°.v c e
o<
m L) ,
tt .
m f o p C

.ice.
R
C
L
v
Q
O
O
0
Vi
O
E
O
U
L
a
E
E
a
rl
d
F

10
i .3° C
O
T F E
O
N O u CCO O
'` C a m

co o
'aJ

A-A v
'
m v
R
'o
E v
_

??
v CY'
r C G G pp C
? m y w C _
ry 0? C O
.
i ? 4
a- ry L
m E v z° ? 2 ? ? 3 N

S T ?_ G r? spya,
O° a y G
y
O? a?

m ? ? T
O U9 U? C? y
C-' p O
R m
V

v
`° u E `

j o
R u c.E
.c
kacEo"' c
=?c°'c Z o c
l
t? ' N c m
? v o
E 'L ?^ ri
,?
' ._ .
C. c o c ? v
ao'
. D
d u
IX O U O
O ? 0
?° Q'L

k W
O x '
C! u ? 0I
U p
om O j
T
G zy
' V .? O 0 0 M C
Y
" U -' U
N
? •,) m C 7°
? - U rn W G O y
F R ? C° O N O O W d

Q
0:1 m o ?
c a ,,, 3 m ?
°
y
E E O U y o
C ? ? o
v v
9
O m= '0 0
t`
? T p T
.
O O
U ?., c
3
R
° E c _T vi
t
' O ^ I , .1 = 9 3. N ?
o y E O? u
N p
, X
? ??
U 9
> U
2 G N ~
.r C G%
N ^ 0-
S>) .-5 2 O? A?
c c7 u 0 q g r? _ a 3
r•:4. ? r. O ?. V u
f ?'

. V T ? y
R
,
e m?3 .c E0M ?
y
€ 01 ?
. d W- N O '5 O O M o o
y. ttl
; U
N O? u p? w4 L V Vl ? U N N
T
s`
a p .
w yrn °' moh
E Zc N3 `? a °
.
..
Q O7 U U .
E
?
3 9 -or C5
£ T u L C N? V .
0 ?
6 p N } y cJ 0 V

? ? .. u N O u
- E ? 9 y t
" O N T C
? ®' N
U U O U
a C O
k... ? W
U O
? T C
O
-r b ry ?° a? 9
x
? j
a G

•

?? p C

3 F D N'u
t
p
u

?
p

L:,
1
r ?
o 14
d
9
a?
? 3 c
?
v
a`0i
e
a
i
Q °
L V
L
W G' rO p?
pa
L'€ Y- J
c
w y M
R O F
64

f
?a
9 i j+
V ?' ? N
. c t? c E c v o c
(, o m ,
pa 9 i :n O u
U 0 O O O O O O
r
kn OrL?,x.:. Z p
E„ U Z. ,Z z z
W
y
R^ '$'kQ$t}'. 'O
k+

- ? O O 0.? t
11JT ?
?' ? m u " 2 y
t4
''
° a >.
E 9
e
co 9 a E c .
c E v
c D v
y c
p >

rU.
2 c

v o

v

u y
..
i
r ? 1 u
> c 2 2 R ° 2 v = p n ?

W "" ? U U
? e s
n
t#i.
4
s r £ ? T
. _
y
,
++F i e z pp9 L
C m'

G O
u

as d t l O ? Y N
o ? m ? ?

} 4 ti N nl
? y

e m ?. m
T 35 vi
1 q - O
U
x? t Q
E

S T

5
W v
7 i

1
xrb 1
e0
0 4
C R G
?? y
L
U
p

U
?.
q 6 ? ?n
?C

L
t

= c
T
CO
F o
l;zv,,, [£ a v
t N
M U

h y
l l

-u
00
p C
C1
.fl . L
y y

3;:m O
=
'ej

s L
? Q; ..
N
.R x.L
h " V1
r
`

4 Ur ^
'? e Z U

Zx¢ i=

J
y --
j:
i T t E

CIA

ti U ' i2 2
m c
c _ 6

d
i
L
d
W
O
C
O
O
U
L
C?
G
H
_V
W
H
=goo
rt.nc
To: DISIRIBU'lION
From: John Page
Date: March 15, 2000 (amended November 11, PIXV)
Subject: Comparison of Alternatives
DISTRIBUTION: David AndersonSiue Ridge Parkway
Memorandum
Fefix Davila FHWA
Leigh Lane NCDOT -- PDEA
Greg Brew NCDOT - Roadway Design
Ed Davis NCDOT •- PDEA
Jeff Lackey NCDOT -- REU
John Hennessy NC Division 61 Water Quality
Renee Glodhill-Earley SHPO
April Alperin SfiPO
Lee Tippets NCDOT
Tom Kendig NCDOT - Roadway Design
Steve Lund Corps of Engineers
Ted Bislerfold US EPA
Jay Tomlinson NCSU
At the November 4, 1999 NEPA/404, Merger Meeting, John Hennessy, the
representative from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, requested that the
comparison of the widening alternative and four bypass alternatives be augmented
by a comparison of water resource impacts: It was agreed by merger meeting
participants thatsuch a comparison was essential to the completion of consensus
on alternatives. Attached is a Functional Assessment of water resource involvement
for the five alternatives.
The assessment notes 24 jurisdictional systems, including 34 streams and scvon vegetated
wetlands and ponds along the five alfematives, The Division of Water Quality stream
classification and evaluation procedure was used to assess strram function. tho streams
are defined as high gradient step-pool; low gradient riffle-pool;.and headwater seep. None
of the three are more important than the other in terms of ecological functional attributes.
Thus, linear distance is appropriate for use in making both quantitative and qualitative
comparisons. 't'wo methods were used to assess wetland functions, the General. Welland
Functional Procedure and Lire NC Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Welland
Rating System. The General Assessment Procedure focuses on the ecological valuo of
jurisdictional systems, while; the DENT procedure focuses on wafer quality.
'The findings of the functional assessment in relation to the 1994 design for the
widening allemative and the 199B designs Tor the bypass alternatives were used to
compare the live alternatives from a water resource impact perspective. Water
resource findings in combination with cost, earthwork, cornmunq impact, historic
resource impact, and visual impact findings from alleirrativcs aRrdies conducted
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
a a
-- too
MAM
DISTRIBUTION
March 15. 2000 (amended November It, 2!X)0)
page 2
from 1995 to 1998 are presented as a comparison of alternatives in the paragraphs
below and in the attached table. This comparison is presented at a level of detail
appropriate for the selection of alternatives to be evaluated in hill in a Draft
Environmental Impact SlaternenL.
In summary, the water resource data in combination with the other comparison
factors re-alfirms the NCDOI's recommendation at the November 4, 1999 meeting
that-the widening aitomativo, Bypass Alternative 1, and Bypass Alternative 4, should
be evaluated in detail in the DEIS,
The widening would have tho least impact on water resources. 11 isalso . the
alternative currently preferred by the NCbOT because is (Treats the purpose and
need at the lowest cost. It will, however, pass through the Green Park Historic
District, The potential exists for substantial short-term (during construction) and
long-term adverse social, economic, and visual impacts,
Bypass Alternalive 1 would have the least impact on water resources of all the .
bypass alternatives, although the wetland affected by the 1998 design is one of the
highest quality in the project area, scoring 87 of 100 under the General Functional
Analysis arid 62 of 100 under the DEM rating systerri. The prcfiminary design
completed in 2000 for evaluating this alternative in the DEIS avoids this wetland
impact, by moving the alignment to an Area with fewer wetlands and bridging them
and the associated stream, the 2OW design also reduces stream impacts by
moving the alignment away from the tributary that Pa.fa(Ie1s Possom Hollow 16ad,
eliminating most of the assocated 1,825 feet of stream impact. A Bypass.
Alternative I also would avoid impacts to section 4(f) resources and the. Federal
Highway Administration wants to Include this alternative on those grounds. It is also
the lowest cost bypass alternative involving the least earthwork. The public is
universally concerned about the associated' community and visual impacts.
Bypass Alternative 2 also would avoid section 4(f) resources. It would have a
stream impact similar to Bypass Allernative 1, but the greatest wetland impact The
wetland affected is also of high quality, scoring 81 of 100 under the General
Functional Analysis and 64 of 100 under the DEM rating system. Bypass Allornativo
2 would involve substantially more earthwork and adversely affect the Blowing Rock
Assembly Grounds, a church camp. Much of the camp's woods and trail system
would be lost. One aspect of the camp's programs is environmental awareness
retreats. This function would be lost with Bypass Alternative 2. Also, the road
would be readily viewed born the camp's buildings. The public is universally
concorned about the associated community and visual impacts, thus, the NCDOT
does not recommend that it ho earned forward into The DEIS.
Bypass Alternatives :3 and 4 would have substantially grealer impacts on steams
than the other alternatives, with 4 affecting the greatest length of stream.
Alternative 3 would not affect an jurisdictional wetlands. The quality of the
wetlands affected by alternative 4 wcuid be less than those along the other bypass
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
-- --?roo
Teaks
DISTRIBUTION
March 15, 2000 (amended November 11, 2")
page 3
alternatives. These alternatives would involve far more substantial cost and
earthwork, with associated habitat disturbance, than the other alternatives. Bol
alternatives would be within the viewshed of the Slue Ridge Parkway, including
Thunder Hill overlook. Parkway officials are very concerned about the potentia
visual impact of these alternatives. The Federal Highway Administration plans
make a determination of whether the visual impacts are substantial enough to t
considered a constructive rise. The Seclion 4(f) resource originally affected by
these alternatives has been altered by its owner and is no longer eligible for thr
Nation Register of Historic Places. The public is universally concerned about If
community impacts associated with Bypass Alletnative 3. Bypass 3 would hav
same church camp related impacts as Sypass 2. Thus, the NCOOT does not
recommend that Bypass, Alternative 3,be carried forward into the DEIS. With
Bypass Alternative 4, the combination of cost,. earthwork, and rural community:
visual impacts are also of concern to the NCDO'f. The alternative, however; ha
support of a substantial segment of Blowing Rock stakeholders, Thus; the NCC
plans to evaluate it in detail in The DEIS, Two preliminary, designs were develoc
in 2000 for Bypass' Alternative 4. Both include additional bridges along the Btu,
Ridge flank. One alternative is almost all bridge. These revisions were made tt
help balance the earthwork in the first case and to address visual impacts in th
second. Both also wift have the affect of bridging additional furisdicafional sere.
and reducing stream impacts from that of the 1998 design.
e-mail: pagai0pawodd com
direct tine: 919-468.2130
Enclosure
e: Reggie Scales.
task no.: 3145-01,01.04
file no.: 3145-2.7,7
J:V"NNING1lJS 3210S Part IMdministrationWtic-c Mailing Lists\Alternativec Comparison 2-002.4
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

O t 61 d V
U
r
Q O O
N
Or m M N 0a0 d

0 0 3m.m;c
N
L N m
N ?
m
o'c.. G 9

n
N co 0
0
n
V c O
?
'
69 .- N
n m r O
t;m O)o 0cN
N O 6 a s '_ C m 0-0
? O O x V N' U a
N
O
.G
L?
m°>
m >
xm???°U9

a
w a X ? m
c i 6 ° m d = a o c o x m

m
u
(
N
N .
m
N
i` m
N V3 M m cr
C 0) O`
n
O
U°
M ° 01
mm.N3 Ec
-- o at
O
L N m
'

r m ,c N
> 5 m
no m j B O G rtr
c c
m
O
F
.
?
m
n

V ('? O N m =? CO O p V 6 Y
C N N U V [6
?
" V

fn
t7
m
m ?
m
O
.?-. m c rn O
o mar ,v_rZCEcca
Lacimbwas a`rC
i
r c
m
m
s
=
.osa m
t°i
+ rn m C O U
m yr m '_ u 'n w aNi u 3 c v m `° c
"
C« N OOo
°'M U
m O UY
=V Of c C
iam
0 L
cm m ?nTU0.-0
o;a0
-i o k E m od° m E E a u m
3 a ?m c 03
c c Y
n'

y C pp c
o
O) O V V 00 0 m O
-= m
? L E c m u C V C L ?C
y

U a N O

p
S}
N m
N p
V
N N
N
a

a V

o m o N
E a m

u E
C U ? ? N
o c E °
N 3° m
C
- u N a -° d

m o ma E i _
.
7 G
J > 2 .
7 'ti p Qr ' G. m
N cC
R N 0 G
r { iir >. 5 . . • • t3

O 0 n1
? O
N 7
',q j 0
? s
b
o o 4 m b= •6 .? v
?. vp -C 7 ?,y O - b Y N y C eaf W. O
b .c O a q U' 6 iv of U q 01

_o _n

M m O ti
? a CO
9?
N .C h O?
9) m ? .?.
111 W .C b

R PJ =),ji
-O

Q N m¢
C[
N Vo U` 4'15
U
_
N y C T
'A
?.
G
j m m

i?
. @ n-

s7 'NO _ T ad'i
0 CD

.O 2 0
m 2
. o W X--
CL
1
71
0 10
C
C L)
N CJ N, U C 'U O V
c
4'1 B
' i0 O d ?.
'O 0 N O m ? ??
U
p Y N b S1 C1
O N .
;S '[3 .
N
0
.
. .
m 3 c0 0
Q C1 0 = w ?
q
C G..€L U ' ?.] N al
O dd
X C

•q A ad C

UL - y, c
p W
O C!
04 N .
16
E O

L U cb
-
N U in
a
c
tti
m U.
2 >
-C O=. N y O m U O.. ? .y'9 C6 C? X.
d °J. :1 O = iAS in tR .G' C !L U 'G Sb d
O L O '
? ?

4-
r;N
S? fl3 CJ
5
C
4? .
?
ACC Px RO O.?L
Fn
d F>
[V
?
y t6 _.
C W C j.'? M Uf m C C V' N
_ N
N .
?. U
Y U ? s' N d 1 Qi
SJ. G) N y 'C U 4I V)". N
Ci
y
J w
4
u N
D
O .
a
` 1 w p N.
. ?
L i? Q]
' .O
CL C7 t w O m
V OC u CL. c 0 moo

4
E

[J
N
U
W
IV co
Q

0 J

O
U ca
Cp N N
w ? >
Ql q
v
t.?
m g
m.Z
n
G bG
as ?
j
C O
U
> C+
c_
c •C
m
m N.
Q
D ?q
m?
m
C
O
Cbi
p W
Ex
4
N
y ?
l N
'4
W
t
w ?
C
4
.H
m m
q¢
m
G
O O
y
oz
U h
O
b C?
c o
w n
y
45
rt-*V-
November 23, 2010
Mr. Greg 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 Mr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-2237C, US 321 from SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) to US 221 at Blowing Rock, Watauga and
Caldwell Counties; New and Yadkin River Basins
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide the
compensatory stream and riparian wetland mitigation for the unavoidable impact associated with the above referenced
project. Based on the information supplied by you on November 4, 2010, the impacts are located in CU 05050001 of the
New River Basin and 03040101 of the Yadkin River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region, and are as
follows:
Stream Wetlands Buffer
IMPACTS / MITIGATION UNITS Cold Cool Wann RW NRW CM Zone 1 Zone 2
Impacts -New 05050001 NM 657 0.06
Mitigation Units- New 05050001 u to 21 1,250 0.12

Impacts -Yadkin 03040101 NM 975 0.13
Mitigation Units - Yadkin 03040101 u to 2:1 1,910 0.26

Impacts - Total Pmied 1,632 0.19
1
N
Mitigation Units-Total Proect u to 2:1 3,160 0.38
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter issued on August 2 and 30, 2010.
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory stream and riparian wetland mitigation credits to offset the final
permitted impacts associated with this project in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010. If the above referenced
impact 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, ??4&
?lz? ?J
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Monte Matthews, USACE - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2237C Revised 2
RP?St0YG1 L9... EG AA"... Pro" Our Stag
-?A
MUM
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.noeep.net
DETAIL OF SILLS
-L- STA. 523 +33.51
2 @ II Ft. X 8 Ft. RC13C
MIDDLE FORK
(not to scale)
T
BtIF.
1
DETAIL OF SILLS AT INLET
AND OUTLET
(not to scale)
11 F7. 11 F.
NOTES
1. Bed moteriaiplaced In the culvert shollbe
natural stone with a gradation size similar
to that of Class 'S'riprap. Bed material
Is subject to approval by the Engineer.
2. Sills are to be 1.0 Ft. wide and cast
separately and attached by dowels.
3. Top of sillshould match stream bed
elevation In stream.
p 1?
gU
o.
0. v>

0
z N

F
<

6 ?
N
W
c
v
N ? U
C
O 6

Z
O O G N
Fz z 3 0
y O_ a
N n
m
3 m
m
o 3

U
z

y

°m
U) E v) 0 0 o v o ° 0 0 0
o
?I

o g's

IL d m9

i
U) °zav
-

co

e

6 T T ] > T 5

I
I
I

, 2

? E c
m
'
?
i
w r
o a

OI d N d
O
N 6 ry? M ? V V O O
r h N
U X L E r
¢a w
c>-

O) d ? U
m
W in N d?? N N O S ? N ? N N M O
W L
E
3 V
a

w
U ?

m F a 0 0 0° . 0 0

Q
? c
y
? N? N U N
O
O
O
O M
O ? C)
O V
O ?

a E
U

d m a
? c c

W

Z N = C
?
O
O
??
U
N j ? O O
Q L
U O O
W U c
?

3 a N
o
? N
N
M
U
Z '- m O O Q O
U
w 3 Z
g ?
r
3 ? U
d C = ?

3 ?

z
C N Q
c c? n Z m
t6 = N U O O O O
E LL N N O O O O
a 3
z
0 z
0 z
0

m a a a a J w ? U J a s
U m ? m Ir Fn U
K fn
U
U U K F F m F
N X
y N M u°i Y z Y Y
Z J Z Z '
Q J Q Q
m LL m N m
p 0 J J 0 J 0 J J ? J J 0 J
=
O t O h O O O u 7 O O O N ? O O
' E n v c? o o ?p u? a N ? v u?

N N OI fh N V st O N N

+
W
O
LL O 9 O V V V ? N 07 m ? N M
_. M (?J V' V V V a V ? ? N In N
U
J
- ?? F
(n Z
p ? U o
r

0
y o
O N
F
a
U o
?
, F
K N 't ?
Q ?' .] N
W ¢ Q N
N
U C
y
N U V

?
O
z G 0
SW
M
r

w
° U
N
O U
z
o
w
m

r
o p
I

n

?
l
?
s

o ?a N

h

O
w

0

N

F-
O
F- E

U' p
6
m E ?
?
y N w

Zm0
OJ d ?
d
w nE=
N o m m v rn
t
o
¢ E
U F-
w
C
D) d N d
C C U C?
y .J
N M
?
l0 6
E ? In N
N
¢ ?
WV
a

¢ N

E m-
3

0

0

0

0

0
} K N a m 0 0 0 0 0
d' H
-
Q
C
N
7 N? N U O 0 0 O
N E
U
U a

a
m N
'
C
C N U

o:
W o N
d N O) 9

Z v m
t 0
0
W
C y
O
-p
C
j
N U
O
N
-
N
v
N
X >

N
U
i
c
s
E
LL N "
F
3
C N
d a
C
C
C
N _ A ? ?
O d
O
ELL dam- 0 0
d
a
o
d o a
a a W a
9 F ? a U U ° a
U ? W J ? ? W J
>
W
a N ro N
p = J J J
O C N O O O
}
t0 O` O ? N

J
? o X
- X X X F
Uz O
F
Z
K
F-
u ICI
P
5
`R
n
euxxx )xrcarx
J
yyS
E
a'
).K4(. x
LYIMNE IIYI! 6? HIS(d)K'.?'Slfl1LT
oNN
q CIO II I u l
?!s
1
I
_ I
U.x _ 17
7l I
I
I ?? I

OM
1 1 1 1 1
4oJ??
?a
:Y
?x
?t
S
I,j ` 1 1
440 JI Cc -?v
vll 1111 //
aQ?JhK ///
1 1 1 1 1
QoJ?¢

h

a =

Q

W
W

J
°
;
a E

ep °a 1
h ,°, ?
1 4
, oo?
??N ?f g \
9
j 33
W

W
W
? N N
2
4
0

}} Jppp}
muuuuu
a4oJ??
\ :\
Idiv
T
0 \h
g , /p a
I
a
? .v
its j
N?
m
J NN
nom ?i
Siu 1111
dQOJh?
I /
?(JJ k !i
amlI I I)? f. ?. ?y SBu'
J
uu„uu
<QJI Ct
Yu„un
ull„OU
QOJh?

iel
I I
? ?
5
???®
e? \
tl

?'
$ C
? J
I^

1
6
J a$?6 a 9m
?\
,?p w;r I ?xd r? ame N
d ? ??
I I I ? x
I ?? OWi ?? ? G
/

h /
/
d\ /

g
* gg

0
0

'I9 Fl3GMnN 7906Vd ONV -PWN SONN0.UH3dCWd Wl it u,wve -v r
S olswv
f
i
/
_J
o// /
f3a / % M

?r
P \ \ ?_ y 8/ 133HS 33S 3N17 Polm

G N y3 ?x.; ? of e 1 1 1 1 ? 8
I N p
N)_ ? a {? ?? 1
Ma o o
"q? 00 ?o
1 1 1 1 e?'°cf? ._
00
S/
I Q 0 135 11 -?cop
d,
\4 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 2 -`?Sass
a`f HL
.+ aQO?tirc Nid - e ?o- r
iki
3 L
. N
q.?
may= S v _

/ -
G
f !
I Q Saar,
ON 13S

ffis
a
Q
W
I
a \?
I 1
e
d alv
S ><
cy-
c?S
0
a
z
a e.
s'
ss g?
J
Q d?
WY_Y
F?
O
I
W
qJ
W I?NM
ol?i???? I d Hp1
7nnnnuu
aQa JY.C r
IBC ID Y e
?I IQ
9 S
I ? uo /
J
®=xge
.sss
H
W
I I
M '1
I I I
O ? O
4 W W
A
W '''~NF
' tu to
¦N NN
S
x
M/
II
II

1
a
0
z
W
ty??
pW I
? I I
I 1 I
zNMN
V = 1=/1
2WW
W

b?
O?
Jm? e
Q
O
N
s
P
'921
-19

0119019 '061 fend W /Om A N6li OuICGo p 9m" WIYI J sNl'tM M NO/H
1?3HS
E ?/ 335
- \ 3N/7 H?jVn
k O I ? O ? Dip ? I 1, I 8 I ;
g I,
? I I Q?
o II i I
1 ? ?I 'I ? I ?• m 4
1 I I ?Io
o ? 0 1 II
? m ?t ? r I /a
? to I
n?1 a vi 5 ? sss I f I 41 , I e o = ? <:
?= as s?
rw a u "
a $I = Wu
WIZ
46
FO i
eY /
8 0? /
a/ /
tai / M
?I
pQ/
G3 ?l11
Ile
- I
a ?I £
o

o

W ?

?Q ^Q J
1
O

w
t
I O
4 Qay
Jy
4 $ ? 1
?
011 J?
` J Q \
o?u- I
WwW
I't 'N

W
14

/
G3
i
t O

ll?

b
i
?I
i I
li
II
?.J
S
6

1'
a

(I
I
?I
4 I
I
\ 'IlI
W
H

.o

69 7306dd NO MM d0 1IIOIN 3H1 ON19WHO 40 SISISNOO NOISIA3H 3H1

$O
f2i
B
R
Wig y
K` y
/
a
?E
a?
N
°s
s
1 ?
\ 1
O?
a?
m L
a. a u?
w-
yt?
?x
\ ?' III I
I' I?I?I I
1 / I ?I? d la
J III l ? ??
I II/
1 I??i1?lii 11
1 I II I I
1
I ll??Jl 114
?/l?l 111 If l ??I11111'1 It
11I?I??1111 II
Ikl???1??11 II
I ., I I
c,I1jII ,'I'I
40
" it
z/
IIII? l
I /I
III I I
?I I I
?II ? t
16
lit, I It
IIII,
h'?1V{N
n
„M
d
\ M ?
I
i? 'll I
y
W o
r
LL
u?w

a?
ga :?
wu W:
3G =d
w
I \
??? I1 IS

4
f
r?
?y6
?o
I
?I
/SIT
II

a
g
I
a
a,a
I ?
I
J ? I
I ?
NIu}NI?
WWW
W
?yH
W
W
h yWjH
g
.I 1 r \\ ? '? \\?g I 1 \
1 I 1 I??Y? d
I I , ,? 1
lad
gyp} e a
map 9 G
J?o Jo Q
e
Q • I
N ?
4

t O
g
rd

J?

amP N
dd
y

2
P1
1,\
\ I 1

17?

?I 1 ?I? I i cl f
II /
11111 ? \ /
111111 ? ?- \ /?
\ i LL

ms's

F I- /

69 33,%Yd NO ,NM A 1H9N! 3H1 ONIDWHJ 40 SJSlSNOJ NO/5/A36/ 3HJ
SNors"

e
'a
a 4 b
s °' $
a
0

W ? 3

?
L
C
I
43T.?
I 1 w
y
oo 65 a tn
b
N iNl N
H
i=T

I I
r
? / ?F b 9
I
O ?? ?t 1
Z VVV s
p ®?
r2
®
S. q
?? III n
C3/

n
'O1
61
\ I
\ s I
` r
' ? I I
C
1'.d \ I
33S 3N17
5
d

III ? ?
I iii i i ? I I B I
IIII I
°
I
Id ', sl? II
\ III I I ?, ° .. ..
II. o \ ill --..
?" Ip ilI I ? - ?
' I I ?p .3550.1`1'
P i o ® ? \ o
III li III I „05? ?\ ?
I III ? 00? ?" ®•` 11 a may. r.W
III I? '°1S ?o°^`O?A
3507
I II Z ° ` l?
I
Z 4, I Q ® i?? q "?
\ I III ? o of ?
I ?• liBP .3542.64'
M\ \ I ? II • ? ? B J @"
/
? B `J Y ? tOP .3533.=4'/
•??
II WA
_Il:s acvy: ? 'I ¢ I ? ?fA
• T $ ? III i
@a I II X E
l tl' III I OWN
ry .? it I,? W
I -?g
x Ng I IIII4 . e°
?a
I I ? ?e
_lY ee7 / / .r 1 1 _ ? MF rr 17
° o¢
Ia
OW 1«
g"
0 0?
v? ys„
4? ? ty & i
w N
J? Ii c
wW?
~a, ? o
po' yy
4]
4? K c

a?
ze
s

8 P
h

r?J ?M?
w
?i>
I I

44
?
o
opp
N
N
Ne
•?
=
=W

1
' III_ I
?11$p iii 1 n
? ??I lfil i? II
?_7
\?? II I
11 ZI

1ot/ r m
loll l '` / ?IIII I l i I I(\I
IfTj( ? ? . l•r??% / $III IIIIII ??`:\I? \ g?? ? IIIf
II \ S/ b ?\ \\`'1\\??? ? z \ 1119
I III // ?-- \I \\ I
j 1` J s \\\\\ A pp IIII
?'y \ / \ I\\ V I I I II 1 II
I
0
o ,
I
s• r ? 1 ?? I[, I II.
I€? 1?\ 1 rte- II ??
1? \???I III /?? / I
14 Illl ?i'?
?? 71$? III IT1?? \ c
? 111j11 I III P
11111111 I
® /III?III11??'MITI ??
, ?IIIII?°I e 1
1
/ 1 II I
MA CH
?1 V,

3N/7 'H0lyW

6 I
8g /
II I ? %\
i
\v
a
le _ al/, 111
Y
II ,IIII/
Al
III. I I ??11(I / p
ICI s
rygll}I? 5 ? E ;?// .
a 'I
I I • ? e ' `
r g7?-1``)
' y
/
I. .6 r? ®ly \\
1 3558?'
s
_ >w
aw pj
6 W? O
r7 F?
z?
o
e

¢5 s $
J
N
H
FQ-
N
0
u.
\u
o,
\ L
L
W W K X 0.
J W ? I
J? V `ec
y W
a`??? maw
Y

-N
NN
V?

U
J
J
r
J
a
w
UU
W
Z
In
H
J
O
U
ti
O
0
1 4 `?
b ?\?L
N
I .
I i II
I
II
I
I i
I II ii
Ii I
II
I
.

ilk Sy
I 7z
J15-RCPT
I_
179 F-
IV 2 D W
N
2
U L
Q
a
000 /
m
C3
O
O
tn

FN
2P
w
?u
wa
wm
,O
II
II II ??
?1 \
I \
1 1 FF
o \
1
3 1
i
? I
? w I
w
m
LL
N
s 3 \N Q
p 5 L T u z \\ 1
N1 U U LLJ
0 ZW \ a
h` `\\ Z\ Q
00
\\ °
35JO3•45/ esr \\ o°?o//p
LT 0 \\ ° LT
I N I \' "
3 S Q ?
Q LTA , i
a ti° °? 522/
p\P50 j LT//
F Top ?3533.44'/
o • LO i .
\ CK LO oQ .
z
O?
H
omo
I

I aN
W
o W
N
0

I
? SS
I u
I m°
I L U
I
7
z
0
z
a
O J
? r
r
I W

W
W
V?
0° za
U O Z
? as
? T T
w
W
F-
a
3
Z >- w
C:: U
co Q Q
F
fr = W
U O?
W ? O
CL a W N O
CO w L N
W U W H
O O U
Oa ~
Q
Zff Zd
W
WD
OU) O?
0
0
W
J
Q
U
_U
d
a
CD
L
6
z h
ti ? 01 U w
JE
Qa a?
d ae OZ 133HSe 33S
3N17 HJIM $$ ppp
:IN I
g / a I II; III .p /
1 N ? J I I I ? '00
N ?
I Vf C)MI T'n =? ?„ ?
??> is
a. U)
N IM't N 1`; i 0 8 ° I i I 11 01
=L= ? \ \b I r ° / 0
Vf 1A Vf $ 1 \ \ b y / I%
LI d ??
SA ? Ia $ io I a
' : I I 16 I
? QII° I I I 1? I .I?i ?
01
d
tl O
\\ 'I tlI ?. I5 ` 1 .`
sss ' I ? e , ?
10 o
? i fox , y
>; ?''? I I I r i
'^? ' y I o j ? ?' ®b
amP ? / ' 3€ 'o d
ma I u
? W
°0 4m I
W
?I I I
'I
Q \ 1I ?'r/ I ?I.? III i ? o?
? ?,\ ? I 1 R P Ill ?o
s y ? If ;I', I I '=o
? I I i I I', I I _; o?
± 3 . I
d \ ,® Qa4
s
?? E? ? 6 III I1i1 j ? ?
e \\ ?` 8/ 133HS 335 3NO HO1VW
I
H
SEEEIIB>38f if SSESN??1f SE 53WI1SASS44E 4E
3
u
331-IS 33S 3N/7 Hoivn

Ia a a ? ?
?
/
a
3

I I.i
a ,
r> rC
? `
:
J III

NvMlN V1 Y 1`11``
??? ? R 111jY
b y H ? \\
?)
? I
11
?
?N? s \
l\
\
W ? \
111
ti 6v
s
P
c?
Q4
Z
s_
°
w<?
s?
°; € r i ?I \\ olk A \
yh yy r
/-g?
I - r ?gcci ? ?'?
as
I? III ti / / /1 1 1\Y/
5 / I \
11 ?
?q I? 19;' I rr \ I I
rl 1'.lil --I11 1?3 ( 5
Q
I I ?I1 y?? /
III ill '? I - 1 ?
h I dl k

I ?f'/?III I I I? '? / I I I II '
's ? r/` - I / ?/(11 IIIIIIII Intl
1 II{ \ I '. \ 11¢l ( i (l//??' / Imo' ? I ?I' I III i.
\IgO?s \ ? u? /? , r ?? , 11? 1 ? o, I
I y \\\ // ?I I t l y e I ?? IIII w I I II? //? / ?o
\
ncc

i
? sl ? ? ? ;III ?I ? ? I
6 F
II I I ' ? 1- I I ?>
u J
N
N IWW 1U 0 3 I _ " ?l in
,z -K
Q I ?
. [Ya v? itI I Zo I I
I I ? I I. F I I w
vela
b gco ?3 0,' 1 oa W 11
I II d i I a.
I d O I 1
N w I ) o
I1
?Q
W ?
o
W -
° oo I ? t 4 ? ?
q? I I a
V)
~ I a ry I I 'i N 'Z" W
_ O i s ti I N L X la
do / w wc? oaf
° obi 3 i2c I a z d> L LC) z a ? N o
,9 -3 LLJ LL,
m En I x O W
-i W O W V)
In
/ U w F3 ?? WW J w
I-Q ~U
w / Z Enj G• z ?O O3 w IC-) LL Oa
CA u W
V) z ry?m s \LL W ?? ?WU7 O? Q
I m i II O
co W U
/ / / !'S 3 LL V7
o- W J _U
z Y U =
SS '?r?'-.. ? W z ml 9^ I N Li ?
/ .
_ 6 -0I k I I I W < U
Z Q
A
Y`
n
V
Z
8/ 1?JNS SSS SNl7 14DI 'N
SS SESEEEEEe