20110060 Ver 1_DOT On-site Visits Mitigation_20161219

Environm en t al
QUQ�ItY
December 19, 2016
Mr.lason Elliot
Nortn Caroiina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Cer.ter
Raleigh, NC 27694-1598
Subject: DOT onsite visits 2016 Comments/Questions for Di•dision 13
Uear Mr. Elliot,
PA'f MCCRORY
� �,. ;e�:,�,�
UONALD R. VAN DER VAART
;e;:rec:uy
JAY ZIMMERMAN
D�vR Direcior
DWR (Ginny Baker and Kevin Barnett) visited many of the the on-site DOT mitigation projects for
Division 13 in October and November 2016. It was noted that a number of the sites are missing signage
along the back side / areas not adjacent to the road. Signage is needed to demarcate and ensure better
protection of the conservation easement and mitigated natural resource permitted by DWR to offset the
transpottation projeci impacts. Appropriate signage is required for sites proposed for closeout ir. 2U17.
Comrnents, Guestior�s, and coiicerns regerding Uivision 23 s�tes reviewed in tha fi21d -are li;tzd below.
B-4183 (DWR 20130060) Crooked Creek and Middie Fork Creek-Signage is ne2ded.
B-4191 (DWR 20090385) Jacktown Creek - It appears a lot of water and sediment has been moving
through tiie channel which has caused widening, bank sluffing, ar�d down cutting. The crossvanes have
mostly been buried. Repairs were proposed for 2016 bur +hese were no± menti��ed in the 2016
monitoring report. �Mil! these be done? The buffer vegetation ard signage leoked goed.
R-2518A (DWR 20071134)
Baily Branch Site D-The lower section next to the homes need sigr.age. ?he upper section along Lower
Baiiey Branch Rd has a 2 foot drop that couid deter aquatic passage.
Holiand Creek Sice M Freservation Sites - No questions or concems noted in fleid.
Ivy Gap Slte N- Signage is needed, primarily along the back side. Some undercutting noTed north of the
utility crossing.
PAiddie Fork ::re2� Si?e /',- Sianage is needed alon; ±he presen�aticn sectlon, beck side o! the se:iier. by
Beech Glen Road and all of the small upper piece on the SE side of US 19.
tvliddie Fork Creek Site E- No questicns or concerns noted in fiield.
"�'Nothing Canapares -_
$tare ot Noeh � Izmilns I F.uvironmental l�9iiry-
t( i I M1tai! Se!v�ce�Center'i Kzle��n.K�r.ih Cn:n;in, 27599-It� I
919-70'AOpp

Middle Fork Creek Site I- A vehicle wide path has been mowed just inside the conservation easement
along the right buffer. Repairs are needed along the middle outer bend (just below XS4) on the left bank.
This bend is unstable and actively eroding. The last full bend Qust above X52) at the lower end on the
left oark is aiso unstatrle but could probably be repairecl with matting and livestakes. The CE sign at ehe
lower end by the Future Tba road has been knocked down.
Preservation Sites— Preservation sites shouid be signed completely, both on the front side adjacent to
the road and on the backside.
Turkey Branch Site J—The site has been encroached along the right buffer, fencing and signage and
some replanting is needed.
UT to Middle Fork Creek Site B— No questions or concerns noted in field.
L'T to PJliddle �ork Creek Site C— No Gu2stiors or concer�s noted in field.
UT to Middle Fork Creek Site F—ihe plan sheet indicates this channel starts at the fence line. In the field
the channel plantings and signage start at the stakes about 30 to 40 feet lower down. Please check this
discrepancy and correct the plansheet and stream footage as necessary.
�-zsiss �DwR zoo�iisa)
Bald Creek Site 1—The back side of this site needs to be signed.
Ba!d Creek Site 3—The mowers recently had worked on the right-of-ti�ay on this site and have damaged
the fence plus even with the fence and signage some of the trees were trimmed. Signage is needed on
the back side.
6ald Creek Site 4— No questions or concerns noted in field.
Bald Creek Site 8— Back side of site needs signage.
Phipps Creek Site 11— No questions or concerns noted in field.
UT to Bald Creek Hydro Site 7—There is a headcut approximately 30 feet Celow the top of the channel.
B�low the headcutthe channel spreads out and turns into a linear wetland with no bed and bank and a
predominance of herbaceous vegetation including cattail.

R-2519A (DWR 20071134)
UT to Cane River site 12 —The left buffer has a flatbed trailer and hay bales parked inside the easement.
This sedion of the easement should be fenced and signed as it has been encroached in the past (pallets
were inside the easement during the last field review in 2014�. The planting plan indicates both the right
and left buffer were planted but field observations indicated the upper part of the left buffer where the
encroachment was noted has not been planted nor does it appear plantings were ever done along the
right buffer which was already forested.
Georges Fork Site 26 — Plantings and signage are needed. The stream was unstable in sections where the
structures appear to be in the wrong location for the channel geomorphology. eank erosion and
undercutting is occurring.
Plum Brench Site 33 —The stream is stabie. Vegetation is sparse, supplemental planting or livestakes
should be considered.
UT to Plum Branch Site 32 —The culvert is perched and has sediment build-up. Very few trees noted,
supplemental planting is needed.
Shale Creek Site 29 —The stream appears stable, planted trees noted, some additionai livestakes could
be helpful.
Thank you for your time and effort. If you have any questions, please contad Ginny Baker at (919) 707-
8788 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
�'
'' "�
my Chapma
CC: Randy Gri�n, NC Department of Transportation
Ginny Baker, NC Division of Water Resources
Kevin Barnette, NC Division of Water Resources
Lori Beckwith, ACOE Division 13
Marla Chambers, WRC
Marella Buncick, FWS
Todd Bowers, EPA
Roger Bryan, Division Environmental Supervisor Division 13
File Copy