20160847 Ver 2_PCN Form Submission_20190321

DWR
IDIOM n of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
tial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
C Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned * Version#*
20160847 2
Is a payment required for this project?*
* No payment required What amout is owed?*
* Fee received r $240.00
r Fee needed - send electronic notification r $570.00
Reviewing Office* Select Project Reviewer*
Central Office - [phone] Mac Haupt:eads\dmhaupt
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Cloud and Banner Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Brad Breslow
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
3/21/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Back Creek
Basin
Cape Fear
Water Classification
water supply II, High quality waters
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
36.143777
Longitude:
-79.271535
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
FA. Processing Information U
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Alamance
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
* Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
rJ Nationwide Permit (NWP)
F- Regional General Permit (RGP)
F Standard (IP)

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
N/A
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
1e. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
O Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
W Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Environmental Banc and Exchange
2b. Deed book and page no.:
3547/0109
2c. Responsible party:
Brad Breslow
2d. Address
Street Address
N NC 119 HWY
Address Line 2
CKY
Mebane
Postal / Zip Code
27302
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Kimes Chapel Missionary Baptist
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2312/590
State / Ffovince / Pagion
NC
Country
us
2f. Fax Number:
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
2031 N NC 119 HVVY
Address Line 2
City
Mebane
Postal / Zip (ode
27302
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Kimes Chapel Church
2b. Deed book and page no.:
114/510
2c. Responsible party
2d. Address
Street Address
2031 N NC 119 HVVY
Address Line 2
Cay
Mebane
Postal / Zip Code
27302
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Brad Breslow
3b. Business Name:
RES
3c.Address
Street Address
302 Jefferson Street Suite 110
Address Line 2
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27605
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality / town:
Mebane
2. Project Identification
State / Prwince / Pegion
NC
Country
us
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
us
2f. Fax Number:
State / Rwince /Region
NC
Country
us
3e. Fax Number:

2a. Property Identification Number:
2b. Property size:
9827-00-2518
59.76
2c. Project Address
Street Address
N NC 119 HWY
Address Line 2
qty
State / Rwince / f�egien
Mebane
NC
Postal / Zip axle
Country
27302
US
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Back Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
water supply II, High quality waters
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Cape Fear
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
03030002
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The Cloud and Banner Mitigation Site (the Project) is a stream, wetland, and buffer project located within a watershed dominated by agricultural, forested and low -intensity residential
land use in eastern Alamance County, North Carolina, approximately three miles North of Mebane.
The Project is within the Haw River Basin and Jordan Lake Watershed, in the Cataloging Unit USGS HUC 03030002, 12 -digit USGS Hydrologic Code 030300020405. The Project area is
contained within three parcels, where the conservation easement covers a total of 59.76 acres. Back Creek is the main hydrologic feature in the Project. There are also four unnamed
tributaries and seven wetland areas included in the Project. Land use at the Project is characterized by regularly harvested hayfields, abandoned pasture, and disturbed bottomland
forest. The total drainage area at the downstream limits of the Project is 9,292 acres (14.52 mi2). The land use in the project watershed is approximately 50 percent forested, 45
percent agricultural, four percent residential, and one percent open water. Due to its location and proposed improvements, the Project will provide numerous ecological and water
quality benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin.
There is currently a total of 8,043 (7,529 of that linear feet are being used to generate credit) existing linear feet of stream on-site, made up of Back Creek and four unnamed tributaries
(Ui2, UT4, UT5, and UT6) that drain to Back Creek. There are 11.16 acres of existing wetlands within the Project (WA, WB, WC, WD, WE, WF). Furthermore, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map depicts six areas of wetlands within the project limits. In the northeast corner there is a small area of PEM1A (Palustrine,
Emergent, Persistent, Temporarily Flooded) to the east of Back Creek. Near the southern boundary there are two areas of PEM1Ad (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Temporarily
Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched) to the west of UT4 and a portion of a PFO1A (Palustrine, Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded) near the confluence of UT6 and
Back Creek.
In general, all or portions of Back Creek, Uig, UT4, UT5, and UT6 do not function to their full potential. Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of
impacts from historic land uses, and water diversion. Having been channelized in the past, some of the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would
have prior to alteration. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition, where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs. Habitat along the majority of the restoration
reaches is poor with little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic species.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2X11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 4 - USGS.pdf
2.38MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 3 - Soils Map.pdf 6.97MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
11.17
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
8043
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The objective for this stream, wetland, and buffer mitigation project is to restore and enhance design natural waterways with the appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that
Wil provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for the existing streams and wetland complexes. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream
characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and
storage during flooding events. Furthermore, wetland re-establishment and enhancement activities will include: reconnecting low-lying areas of hydric soil with the floodplain along
restoration reaches, creating a rough soil surface to aid infiltration, and planting native tree species. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance, and criteria
that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives include restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and
treating invasive species.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*

The Project will include the following treatments for project streams: Priority I and II Restoration, Enhancement Level 11, Enhancement Level III, and Preservation. Additionally, the project
will include the following wetland treatments: re-establishment, enhancement, and preservation. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a single -thread meandering
channel with parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows and a restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport
throughout this watershed.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the reference reach -based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow
Hydrographs, regional curves and flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull and other significant storm events. Through this hydrologic
analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based on this calculated discharge. Design
parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function components
within HEC -RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs
of desirable habitat features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat features and in -stream structures such as log grade controls,
brush toes, log vanes, log toes, log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank
stability may further be enhanced through the installation of brush mattresses, live stakes and cuttings bundles.
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from onsite to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel, installing channel
plugs where necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks
will be stabilized using a combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e., bioengineering), structure placement, and sod
transplants where possible.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
Back Creek
Enhancement Level II is proposed along Back Creek to address existing impairments, particularly, floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, and buffer degradation. The watershed that
drains through the project is approximately 14.3 square miles, and land use is primarily forested and agricultural. The project will address limited instream habitat and bank erosion by
grading existing banks to reestablish bankfull depth and installing bank protection and habitat measures in select areas. The riparian buffer will also be revegetated along the entire
reach, on both banks, to a minimum width of 75 feet, and up to and exceeding 150 feet in some sections. A 63 -linear foot reach break is proposed downstream of the existing Ur2
alignment to allowfor an existing ford crossing to be retained and rehabilitated. Near the confluence of UT2, Back Creek partially flows outside of the easement boundary for 399 feet
before it re-enters the boundaries. This section of Back Creek will not generate credit but will receive Enhancement Level II treatment. Preservation is proposed for the last 621 linear
feet, before Back Creek ultimately leaves the conservation easement.
Reach Uig
A combination of Preservation, Priority I Restoration, and Priority II Restoration is proposed for Reach Ur2 to address existing impairments, particularly aggradation, degradation, bank
erosion and floodplain dislocation. The UT2 watershed is approximately 51 acres, and land use is an even mix of forest and rural residential.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of UT2 (designated as UT2-A). The restoration approach will involve meandering the proposed channel within the natural
valley, installing grade control/ habitat structures, backfilling the existing stream and excavating a newchannel. A minimum buffer width of 50 feet will be provided for all portions of the
reach.
Preservation is proposed for the portion of UT2 (designated UT2-B) located within the existing wetland (Wetland D).
Priority II Restoration is proposed for UT2 just downstream of the existing wetland. This reach (designated as UT2-C) will have a 79 -foot crossing that will not be used to generate credit
but will receive Restoration treatment. The restoration approach will involve meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley, installing grade control/ habitat structures,
backfilling the existing stream and excavating a newchannel. A minimum buffer width of 50 feet will be provided for all portions of the reach. Downstream of Wetland F, 115 linear feet of
UT2-C flows outside of the easement boundary where Enhancement Level I treatment will be conducted but not be used to generate credits.
Reach UT4
A combination of Priority I Restoration and Priority II Restoration is proposed for Reach UT4 to address existing impairments, particularly degradation, bank erosion and floodplain
dislocation. The UT4 watershed is approximately 73 acres, and the land use is heavily forested.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for UT4, however the restoration approach will transition from Priority I to Priority II as the stream profile lowers to tie to Back Creek. Both restoration
approaches will involve meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley, installing grade control/ habitat structures, and backfilling the existing stream. The Priority I portion of
stream will be reconnected to its natural floodplain, and a newfloodplain will be excavated for the Priority 11 section of stream. A minimum buffer width of 50 feet will be provided for all
portions of the reach. A 24 -linear foot easement break is proposed in the middle of the reach to accommodate a proposed ford crossing.
Reach UT5
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach UT5 to address existing impairments, particularly buffer degradation. The UT5 watershed is approximately 155 acres, and the land use is
heavily forested. A minimum buffer width of 50 feet will be provided for all portions of the reach. Treatment along UT5 will mostly consist of riparian buffer planting along the right bank,
and invasive species treatment.
Reach UT6
A combination of Restoration and Preservation is proposed for Reach UT6 to address existing impairments, particularly degradation, bank erosion, and floodplain dislocation. The UT6
watershed is approximately 32 acres, and land use is an even mix of forest and rural residential.
Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of UT6 (designated as UT6-A). This will include the installation of grade control structures to step down to the floodplain/wetland area,
where the stream dissipates into Wetland E, as well as floodplain grading/reconnection along the right bank. Preservation is proposed for UT6 (designated as UT6-B beginning at its
intersection with the existing wetland and extending to the confluence with Back Creek. Furthermore, there is a portion of UT6 between the restoration and preservation treatments that
hits the floodplain and dissipates into the wetland; this area was determined to be non -jurisdictional during the IRT site visit and no credits will be sought for this portion of the reach.
Wetland treatments are as follows:
Wetland A- Wetland A is proposed as preservation and will benefit from the channel filling of the old UT4 alignment during Restoration and allowing reconnection of the hydrologic
system to the wetland restoration component of Wetland B.
Wetland B - Portions of Wetland B are proposed for re-establishment, while some are proposed for enhancement. Those areas being re-established will benefit from the Priority I stream
restoration treatment along UT4. Activities will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley, installing grade control/ habitat structures, backfilling the existing
stream, and creating shallow depressions within the old channel. Additionally, this area will be planted with native tree and shrub species commonly found in Bottomland Hardwood
Forests. The areas being enhanced in WB will benefit from the adjacent wetland preservation and by providing connectivity to the restoration component of Wetland B.
Wetland C - Portions of Wetland C are proposed for re-establishment, while some are proposed for enhancement. Those areas being restored will benefit from the plugging of several
ditches in the wetland, and the planting of native tree and shrub species commonly found in Bottomland Hardwood Forests. The area being enhanced will also be planted and benefit
from the plugging of adjacent ditches.
Wetland D - Portions of Wetland D are proposed for re-establishment, while some portions are proposed for preservation. Wetland D will benefit from the restoration that is proposed for
the upstream portion of UT2. This will include removal of an undersized 15 -inch CMP and corresponding crossing that have caused significant sediment deposition upstream. The
existing spoil pile located along the right bank from the crossing downstream to the intersection of Ur2 will also be removed. Moreover, portions of wetland D that are not forested will be
planted with native tree and shrub species commonly found in headwater forests.
Wetland E and F - Wetlands E and F are proposed for preservation only, these areas will remain intact.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
App_E 2019-02-27_CB_REV Mit_Plans.pdf 41.47MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
s Yes
C No
Comments:
Supplemental information is included in this submittal
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
r Unknown

Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): George Lankford
Agency/Consultant Company: George Lankford, LLC
Other:
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
Cloud and Banner PJD-Supplemental Info.pdf
Cloud and Banner Site_PJD Submittal_06.13.2017_reduced.pdf
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
6.04MB
811 MB
C Yes (-- No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
WA
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
V Wetlands 17 Streams -tributaries 140 Buffers
r- Open Waters r" Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.318 0.071
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.389
2h. Comments:
Wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the eAsting wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. Creating a
new stream channel and enhancing eAsting channels will only impact wetlands slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the
addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks. Construction in these areas will remove the invasive species. There will be a total of 0.389
acre of wetland impacts, of Mich 0.071 -acre will be permanent impacts, and the remaining 0.318 -acre is made up of temporary impacts. Although
there are wetland impacts associated with the Project, the Project proposes the wetland re-establishment of 6.88 acres, and wetland enhancement of
1.21 acres; therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
3. Stream Impacts
2al Reason(?)
2b. Impact type * M
2c. Type of W. *
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area*
W1
Stream Relocation
TBottomland
Hardwood Forest
WA
Yes
Corps
0.057
(acres)
W2
Stream Relocation
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WA
Yes
Corps
0.001
(acres)
W3
Fill
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WB
Yes
Corps
0.009
(acres)
W4
Fill
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WC
No
Corps
0.005
(acres)
WS
Stream Relocation
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
fID
Yes
Corps
0.170
(acres)
W6
Stream Relocation
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WD
Yes
Corps
0.016
(acres)
W7
Stream Relocation
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WF
Yes
Corps
0.091
(acres)
W8
Stream Relocation
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WF
Yes
Corps
0.015
(acres)
W9
Stream Relocation
P
ffHa rdwood Forest
WE 7]Yes
Corps
0.025
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.318 0.071
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.389
2h. Comments:
Wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the eAsting wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. Creating a
new stream channel and enhancing eAsting channels will only impact wetlands slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the
addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks. Construction in these areas will remove the invasive species. There will be a total of 0.389
acre of wetland impacts, of Mich 0.071 -acre will be permanent impacts, and the remaining 0.318 -acre is made up of temporary impacts. Although
there are wetland impacts associated with the Project, the Project proposes the wetland re-establishment of 6.88 acres, and wetland enhancement of
1.21 acres; therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
3. Stream Impacts

31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts: 31. Total temporary stream impacts:
1,378 45
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
1423
3j. Comments:
Impacts due to the relocation of the stream to its natural valley will provide a net gain in ecological function to the stream and wetland system.
Restoration is proposed to address channel degradation and bank erosion along these reaches: Stream Impact 1, where the epsting length is 320
linear feet (LF), and the new length will be 329 LF; Stream Impact 2, where the epsting stream length is 206 LF and the new length will be 516 LF; and
Stream Impact 3, where the ebsting stream length is 852 LF and the new length will be 1,083 LF.
Due to the removal of epsting culverted crossings (S4 and S5), temporary impacts will occur to a minimum of a 15 -linear foot area on either side of
both wasting culverts, totaling 30 -linear feet of temporary impacts at each site. The impacts are needed to support removal of the culverts. After the
removal of the culvert, ford crossings will be installed at the locations and surface stream flow will be restored across these areas.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
F Neuse
F Catawba
F Goose Creek
F Other
r Tar -Pamlico
F Randleman
P Jordan Lake
6b. Impact Type 6c. Per or Temp 6d. Stream name 6e. Buffer mitigation required? 6f. Zone 1 impact 6g. Zone 2 impact
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h.1
❑
�
4,830
3,623
133
(?)
Jurisdiction*
]
No
length*
S1
Relocation
Permanent
Relocation
LT2-A
Intermittent
Corps3
320
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S2
Relocation
Permanent
Relocation
F
Intermittent
Corps10
206
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S3
Relocation
Permanent
Relocation
L T4
Intermittent
Corps10
852
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
�
Ford crossin 9
Tem ora
p ry
Other
Back Creek
Perennial
Cors
p
35
15
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
S5
Ford Crossing
Temporary
Other
Back Creek
Perennial
Corps
35
30
Average (feet)
(linear feet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts: 31. Total temporary stream impacts:
1,378 45
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
1423
3j. Comments:
Impacts due to the relocation of the stream to its natural valley will provide a net gain in ecological function to the stream and wetland system.
Restoration is proposed to address channel degradation and bank erosion along these reaches: Stream Impact 1, where the epsting length is 320
linear feet (LF), and the new length will be 329 LF; Stream Impact 2, where the epsting stream length is 206 LF and the new length will be 516 LF; and
Stream Impact 3, where the ebsting stream length is 852 LF and the new length will be 1,083 LF.
Due to the removal of epsting culverted crossings (S4 and S5), temporary impacts will occur to a minimum of a 15 -linear foot area on either side of
both wasting culverts, totaling 30 -linear feet of temporary impacts at each site. The impacts are needed to support removal of the culverts. After the
removal of the culvert, ford crossings will be installed at the locations and surface stream flow will be restored across these areas.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
F Neuse
F Catawba
F Goose Creek
F Other
r Tar -Pamlico
F Randleman
P Jordan Lake
6b. Impact Type 6c. Per or Temp 6d. Stream name 6e. Buffer mitigation required? 6f. Zone 1 impact 6g. Zone 2 impact
B1
P 11
LFI2-A
No
1,308
8,719
132
P
LrT2-C
No
4,830
3,623
133
P
LFI -4
No
3,939
11,390
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Temporary impacts: 0.00 0.00
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Permanent impacts: 10,077.00 23,732.00
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total combined buffer impacts: 10,077.00 23,732.00
61. Comments:
Although there are impacts to the buffers where the stream channel will be constructed, the buffer as a whole across the site will be greatly benefited
by the planting and protection of the project.
Supporting Documentation
Figure 7 - Project Impacts.pdf 5.94MB
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
u

1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were considered Men designing the Cloud
and Banner Mitigation project. This project should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site. The existing channel length is 8,043 LF
(7,529 of which is considered inside the project area). The proposed project will result in 8,593 LF of stream (8,079 LF will be used to generate
mitigation credit). The wasting wetland area within the easement is 11.27, and the proposed wetland area is 18.04.
See tables in attachments to this submittal
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior to redirecting stream flow into a
segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally, all work in wetlands and streams
will be conducted during dry conditions and/or With mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be made to preserve individual high value trees located
Within the stream restoration area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r^ Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This is a mitigation project which will generate net uplift and compensate for impacts on-site.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r' No
What type of SCM are you providing?
r Level Spreader
F_ Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHWT)
F' Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
F_ Other SCM that removes minimum 30% nitrogen
rJ Proposed project will not create concentrated stormwater flow through the buffer
Diffuse Flow Documentation
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
C Yes r No
Comments:
This is a mitigation project which will not result in net changes to impervious area. Additionally, the project will a)perience a net uplift due to the nature of the work, including
reconnecting stream channels to their floodplains and planting forested buffer along the streams on-site.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes C No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
U
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
r Yes C No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in any additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there will be an increase in water
quality within the project, due to the restoration and enhancement of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, and the establishment of a
conservation easement to be protected in perpetuity.

4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
f Yes r Nor N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
r Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS IPaC & Natural Heritage Program Database
Consultation Documentation Upload
USFWS letter 01.26.17 RES Cape Fear UMB.PDF 37.4KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO GIS Database
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
SHPO letter.pdf 70.39KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that a majority of Back Creek and associated floodplains are located within a Zone AE
flood area, with significant portions of the project located within the FEMA floodvoy. Back Creek is named East Back Creek in the FEMA Flood
Insurance Study. it is a FEMA Limited Detailed Studied Stream and is subject to all applicable floodplain development permitting requirements. A
hydrologic analysis will be completed on the existing and proposed conditions of this reach. it is not anticipated that a No -Rise or a Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) will need to be prepared for the Project.
The Site can be found on the following Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels:
3710981700J (effective date: 9/6/2006)
3710982700K (effective date: 2/2/2007)
3710981600K (effective date: 11/17/2017)
3710982600L (effective date: 11/17/2017)
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*

The Site can be found on the following Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels:
• 3710981700J (effective date: 9/6/2006)
3710982700K (effective date: 2/2/2007)
3710981600K (effective date: 11/17/2017)
3710982600L (effective date: 11/17/2017)
Miscellaneous
Comments
Please see the attached compiled PCN submittal and cover letter
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Cover Letter USACE.pdf 45.01 KB
Cloud&Banner_PCN Submittal_Digital.pdf 6.09MB
Signature
W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Bradley Breslow
Signature
Date
3/21/2019