The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110060 Ver 1_NCDOT Div 9-14 Monitoring Report Comments for 2016-Final_20170306Water Resources ENVIPONMENTAI �VPLITY Mr. Randv Griffin NC Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 MSC Raleigh, NC 276°9-1548 ROY COOPER Gnvrrnnr MICHAEL S. RECAN .SPClP(Qf�� S. JAY ZIMMERMAN Otmc�or March C6, 2017 Subject: NC Division of Water Resources comments on the N� Department of Transportation Annual 2016 Mon�torirg Reports for Divisions 3-14. Dear Mr. Griffin: The following review comments are for the NC DOT annual monitoring reports submitted to NC DWR as per requirements of the permit conditions associated with each TIP. Thank you for your timely submittal of the monitoring reports. Review comments were generated from review of the monitor plans as well as site permit files, site inspections, and any other site specific meetings or communication. All site specific comments are listed below. Mitigatior sites have bee� ebserved to be r,�issin� signage (ofter alor.g the back side a�4ay from the road) as wzs discussed in ±he DecemSer 19, 2016 !etter to DO? regarding on-site mitigation. Signag� is needed to demarcate and ensure better protection of the conservation easement and mitigated natural resource permiited by DWR to offset the transportation project impacts. Appropriaie signage is required for sites proposed fur doseoui in 2017 ar�d future years. The addition ef th= mitigation retio to most monitoring reports as requested last yezr was noted. DWR suggests putting the ledger in table formai and including all relative information related to micigation type, size, and crediting for the mitigation site (see below) for consistency. Title i�fo - site name, TIP, 8 digit HUC Mitigat'son Type (Stream [warm/cool/cold) OR Wetland [Ncn-Riverine Riparian, Riverine Riparian, Non- Riparian] OR Bufierj Size (as-built size) Mitigation Method (Restoration, Relocation, Enhancement, EI, EII, Preservation, Creation) Mitigation Ratio Credits Generated Credit Adjustments I.if apphcable) Total Site Credits Credits DeoitNd on Curr=nt Proiect �Nothing Compares,..` StareofNorthCarolina I EnvironmentalQuality I Water Resources 5¢ N. Salisbury 5treet I 1611 MailService Cen[er I Raleigh, NC27699-i611 9I9.707.4000 Credits Debited on Other Projects and which projects Credits Remaining It was noted in some of the monitoring reports that <180 days had passed between planting and the first monitoring event. Please be reminded that the 2003 Guidance requires five years of monitoring and the ACOE 2013 Compensatory Mitigation Site Update requires "vegetation to be in the ground for at least 130 days prior to the initiation of the first year of monitorin�'. Sites that are monitored just three months after planting will result in only 4 years and 3 months of monitoring. In regards to crediting for future projects, it should a!so be noted that Enhancement Level II stream (typically cattle removal, vegetation planting in the buffer, occasionally minor bank work or a structure addition) and Enhancement Level I projects (typically some bank improvement or addition of structures or both and planting of the buffer} have been generelly credited differently for DMS and bankers; EII at 2.5:1 and EI at 1.5:1. Projeds that have very minimal improvements proposed (e.g. solely live staking the bank and removal of exotia) have also received 5:1 for EII. DWR would like to see more consistent crediting for future DOT projects in regards to identifying the difference between sites that are Enhancement I and Enhancement II and not lumping all stream enhancement into one category of enhancement at 2:1. Additionally, DWR does not see the need for cross section monitoring for EII sites that had no bank work done (see Division 12 comments) a�d would be open to this being removed from projects that have a mitigation plan already approved. Any proposed changes to approved mitigatian plans should be reviewed by all agencies for consensus first. Please contad the DWR NCDOT Mitigation Coordinator, Ginny Baker at 919-707-8788 with any concerns or questions regarding site comments or these can be discussed at the upcoming DOT Division 9-14 annual Mitigation Monitoring Report meeting. Sinr.erely, Amy Chapman, DWR Transportation Permitting Branch Supervisor amv.chaqman@ncdenr.�ov, 919-707-8784 DIVISION 9 Yadkin River (TIP I-2304A, DWR# 20040275) - DWR has no significant concerns with the Yadkin River site although it was noted during the site visit that there were some bare areas and planted trees were not nearly as vigorous in the SW and higher elevation side of the site. Overell the site appears to be meeting success criteria. Please continue monitoring. DIVISION 12 UT to Pourth Creek ([I-40 — I-77 Interchange] TIP 1-3819A, DWRii 20113044) — The October 2016 site visit showed that signage is needed on the entire back side and there have been issues with trespassing as indicated by three sets of vehicle tracks. If the restoretive measures for UT to Fourth Creek were solely planting of the buffer and removal of cattle with no bank work (essentially EII) then DWR does not believe it is necessary to continue the cross-section monitoring and would recommend dis�ontinuing. During the site visit it was observed the northern half of the UT to Fourth Creek is already heavily �Nothing Compares�.�. StateofNorthCaroGna I FnvironmenralQualrty I Water Resources 5R N. Salisbwy StreM � 16II Mail Service Crn[er � Raleigh, NC 2 769 9-1611 919.707.9000 forested. Has this area been planted according to the planting plan in the report? Assuming the planting plan was followed, please also incl��de a vegetation monitoring plot in this area. Vegetation monitoring should be continued and supplemental planting pursued as is proposed. The mitigation olan dated February 15, 2012, says macroinvertebrate monitoring was to be do�e but this is not included in the monitoring report. For Section 2.1, vegetation success, remove "restorative wetlands" in the first sentence as this does not apply to this projeM. Has it been determined if this site will be impacted during Phase II? ?lease continue monitoring DIVISION 13 Crooked Creek and Middle Fork Creek (TIV B-4183, DWR#020130060) — Signage is needed. The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and a DWR December 2016 site visit. Please schedule a site visit for closeoui review. Jacktown Creek (TIP B�191, DWR# 20040385) - It appears a lot of water and sediment has been moving through the channel which has caused widening, bank sluffing, and down cutting. The crossvanes have mostly been buried. Repairs were proposed for 2016 at Station 12+50 and discussed at the 2015 monitoring report meeting but these were not mentioned in the 2016 monitoring report. Will these be done and have the bank pins at 12+50 been reviewed recently? The buffer vegetation and signage looked good. Please schedule a site visit to review these concerns in the field. U519 Improvement sites, DWR� 20071134 DWR understands that there was to be a 50% credit reduction for new utility lines that were proposed in 2014 and presented at a meeting in Asheville. Please see the attached table and drewings for restoretionjrelocation Sites C, E, F, J and N. These sites generated existing utility stream impacts with the original pre-restored/relocated stream channel pattern rather than us�ng the restored/relocated stream channel pattern. Since the original stream c�edits for each scream were based on the length of the restored stream and there wEre �ot cred',t rzd�ctions applied to existing uiilities in 2007 the� the change in credit value due moving utility lines should be based on the restored/relocated stream channel pattern, not the original steam channel pattern. DWR would like to request a single table be compiled for with the following information for DWRit 200711134: TIP Site Name Mitigation Type(s) at Site restoretion/relocation/restoretion, Enhancement, Preservation mitigation ratio per mitigation type credits ratio for each mitigation type credit earned credit adjustments - notation on credit adjustment due to relocation of utilities. Please as provide this information for sites scheduled to be closed out in 2017 {R2518A and R2518B) and any other U519 sites that as-built information is available for. TIP R-2518A, DWR# 20071134 Baily Brench Site D— Comments for December 2016 letter. The upper section along Lower Bailey Brench Rd has a two-foot drop that could prohibit aquatic passage, otherwise the site appears to have a stable �Nothing Compares� StateofNotthCarolina I FnvironmentalQualtty I Water Resources SR N. Salisbwy 5treet � 1611 Mail 5ervice Center � Ralegh NC 2 76 9 9-1611 919.707.9000 stream with established vegetation. Please explain the discrepancies in the debit ledgers, MY1-MYS — say'The Bailey Branch Site D stream mitigation site did not receive credit due to the site being purchased as a Permanent Drainage Easement (PDE�:' MY6-MY7 —"The entire 82 linear feet of Bailey Brench Site D stream mitigation site located within NCDOT's right-of-way was used for the R-2518A project to compensate for unavoidable stream impacts". Holland Creek Site M- The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based or monitoring reports and a DWR December 2016 site visit. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. ivy Gap Branch Site N— Additional signage is needed along US19 and the back side. Bank erosion was noted during a DWR site visit in December 2016. The vegetation appears successful although DWR does have some conc�rns with the stream bank area at bank pin 4 and would like to review the other three bank pin areas tnat were monitored at the closeout site visit. Middle Fork Creek Site A- Signage is needed along the preservation section, back side of the section by Beech Glen Road and all of the smatl upper piece on the SE side of US 19. The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and a DWR December 2010 site visit. Please schedule a site visit for closeout. Middle Fork Creek Site E- The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and DWR site visit in Dec 2016. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. Middle Fork Creek Site I— It was noted during a DWR field visit to Middle Fork Creek Site I that there is bank stabilization also at the bend just downstream of PP#4 (the lowest full outer bend) which DWR recommends also be reviewed for potential repairs since repairs are already planned. What is the time schedule for planning and executing stream bank remediation to Middle Fark �reek Site I? What future manitu� ing is planned ;�r this si±e? P�ease verify if the mowed path observed along the right buffer (west buffer) was the area that was treated for Lezpedeza in 2014, ar was thi� a rnore recent encroachment? 1"his area did not appear to be planted. Please include Middle Fork Creek Site I in the field visit schedule during the closeouts for the other US-19 Improvement sites. Preservation Sites —See above comments on signage. DWR has no further cornments on the monitoring report, please schedule a site visit for closeout review. Turkey Branch Site J— Comments from the December 2016 letter - The site has been encroached along the right buffer, fencing and signage and some replanting is needed. Additionally, the stream feature had some charecteristics of a linear wetland. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review contingent on the above items being addressed. UT to Middle Fork Creek Ske B- The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and a DWR site visit in Dec 2016. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. UT to Middle Fark Creek Site C- Please see the above comments on credit adjustment error. The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and a DWR site visit in Dec 2016. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. UT to Middle Fork Creek Site F- Comments from the December 2016 letter - The plan sheet indicates this channel starts at the fence line. In the feld, the channel piantings and signage start at the stakes �Nothing Compares�_ StareofNorthCarolina I FnvironmenralQuality I Water Resources SRN.Salisbwy5treet � 16llMailServiceCenter � RaleghNC27699-1611 919.707.9000 about 30 to 40 feet lower down. Please check this discrepancy and correct the plansheet and stream footage as necessary prior to closeout review. TIP R-2518B, DWR# 20071134 Bald Creek Site 1- Comments from the December 2016 letter - The back side of this site needs to be signed. The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and DWR site visit in Dec 2016. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. eald Creek Site 3—There is some minor fence damage from mowers, additionally the back side needs signage. The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and a DWR site visit in Dec 2016. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. Bald Creek Site 4— Have there been any other issues with beaver noted in 2016? What is the current situation with Mt Pleasant Baptist church that had requested a Seledive Vegetation Removal (which DOT denied) so their sign could be seen as was discussed at the 2015 monitoring report meeting? DWR would like to ensure there will not be issues with encroachment after closeout. The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on a DWR site visit in Dec 2016 and monitoring reports. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. Bald Creek Site 8- Comments from the December 2016 letter, the back side of site needs signage. The 2016 Monitoring Report figure for XSS does not show the 2016 results that are shown in the table associated with the Figure, XS Area changed from 29.13 to 4338 sq ft after repairs. The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and DWR site visit in Dec 2016. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. DWR would like to review the repaired area prior to closeout. Phipps Creek Site 11- The site appeared stable and to be meeting performance criteria based on monitoring reports and DWR site visit in Dec 2016. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. U7 to Bald Creek Hydro Site (Site 7) - Comments from the December 2016 letter - There is a headcut approximately 30 feet below the top of the channel. Below the headcut the channel spreads out and turns into a linear wetland with no bed and bank and a predominance of herbaceous vegetation including cattail. Please schedule a site visit for closeout review. UT to Cane River Site 12 —Comments from the December 2016 letter - The left buffer has a flatbed trailer and hay bales parked inside the easement. This section 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. Please schedule a site visit, the aforementioned concerns will need to be addressed prior to closeout. Please note that during a 2014 field review visit there were also issues with encroachment from the adjacent landowner. DWR recommends fencing the entire left buffer to avoid these re- occurring issues with encroachment. �Nothing Compares� State of North Carolina I EnNronmenWl Quallty � Water Resources SRN.SalisburyStreM I 1611Mail5erviceCenter I RaleighNC27699-16t1 919.707.9000 TIP R-2519A, DWR# 20071134 Georges Fork Site 26 - Comments from the December 2016 letter - 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. Bank erosion and undercutting is occurring. Are repairs planned for station 486+00 noted in the monitoring report? DWR would recommend using a bank pin to monitor this area. Has the control access fence been extended to avoid the encroachments discussed during the 2015 monitoring report meeting? Please continue monitoring. Plum Branch Site 33 - Comments from the December 2016 letter - The stream is stable. Vegetation is sparse, some dead livestakes noted, supplemental planting should be considered. Please continue monitoring. Plum Branch Tributary Site 32 - Comments from the December 2016 letter - The culvert is perched and has caused sediment and algae build-up. Very few trees were noted. Will the reforestation planned for 2017 be done throughout the site? DWR recommends resetting the clock on Plum Brench Tributary. Please continue monitoring and include a site visit during the 2016 closeouts of the other US19 mitigation sites. Shoal Creek Site 29 - Comments from the December 2016 letter - The stream appears stable, planted trees noted, some additional livestakes could be helpful. Please continue monitoring. East Prong Hunting Creek (TIP U-25506, DWRp 20103017) —Please list the stream footage restored at 1:1 for Site 3 and Site 4 in the debit ledger. Is the lower part of East Prong Horn at Site 3, that is not being credited, still within a conservation easement? Please show the entire conservation easement on the site map and indicate the sections that are credited and non-credited. What percent of the site is receiving supplemental planting? DWR may want to recommend additional monitoring since this site was only to be monitored for 3 years. In addition, it was noted in this report that the site was planted in March 2015 then monitored in June 2015. Please see above comments related to monitoring length. DIVISION 14 West Fork Pigeon River (TIP 8-3187) - No site specific comments, please keep monitoring UT's to Hominy Creek (TIP I-5402, DWR# 20120309) —Please correct the •equation (change 106/2=80 to 160/2=80) in the Debit Table. At the 2015 monitoring meeting, putting the results of the benthic monitoring, as proposed the Mitigation Plan with "no success criteria required", in the monitoring report for 2016 was discussed (see 2015 meeting minutes for Division 9-14), but these results were not in the plan. Was the monitoring done and can it be added as an addendum or put in the 2017 plan? �Nothing Compares� StareofNorthCarolina I EnvironmentalQualiry I Wattt Resources SRN.Salisbury5treet I 16llMailServiceCenter I Raleigh.NC27699-1611 919707.9000 If you have any questions, please contact Virginia Baker at (919) 707-8788 or virginia.baker@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, �.��n.�,-�'�, S. ay Zimmerman, Director Division of Water Resources CC: Virginia Baker, NC Division of Water Resources Dave Wanucha, NC Division of Water Resources, Mooresville Regional Office Donna Hood, NC Division of Water Resources, Winston-Salem Regional Office Kevin Barnett, NC Division of Water Resources, Asheville Regional Office Crystal Amschler, US Army Corps of Engineers Steve Kichefski, US Army Corps of Engineers Lori Beckwith, US Army Corps of Engineers Andy Williams, US Army Corps of Engineers Monte Matthews, US Army Corps of Engineers Todd Bowers, Environmental Protection Agency Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service Amy Euliss, NCDOT Division 9 Environmental Officer Trish Beam, NCDOT Division 12 Environmental Supervisor Roger Bryan, NCDOT Division 13 Environmental Supervisor David McHenry, NCDOT Division 14 Environmental Supervisor lason Elliott, NCDOT, Natural Environment Engineering Group Byron Moore, NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Matthew Green, NCDOT, Roadside Environmental Unit -' �'Nothing Compares -��. $Ieh�oiNorthCarolina I ['nviraunentolQuality I Warer Npsuurces SI2N.SalisburySlrect i 161!MaIlSerimCenter f Rald�h,NC27619-toll HI2"i0'7'1p00