20181097 Ver 1_PCN_MemoResponse_Dogtown_20191115

ID#* 20181097 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 11/18/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/15/2019
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Katie Webber
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20181097
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Dogtown Stream Mitigation Bank
County: Catawba
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Information
File Upload: PCN MemoResponse_Dogtown.pdf 348.81 KB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kathleen Webber
Signature:*

M E M O R A N D U M

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT and NCDMS
FROM: Katie Webber – RES
Brad Breslow – RES
DATE: November 15, 2019
RE: Response to Dogtown Stream Mitigation Project NCIRT Comments during 30-day
Mitigation Plan Review
USACE Action ID #SAW-2017-00608

General RES Comments:
Based on feedback from the IRT, RES has updated the approaches on DT2, DT4, and S1-B. RES split DT2 into
two reaches, DT2-A and DT2-B, each with several distinct mitigation approaches. The downstream portion of
DT4 was removed from crediting because RES did not control both stream banks in this reach. Finally, S1-B
was reduced to Enhancement III due to limited functional uplift associated with the depth of the channel.
Mac Haupt, NCDWR:
1. In the future, DWR would like it mentioned in the Executive Summary and in one of the first sections
if there are any other conservation easement components or credits that is associated with another
program. For example, Figures 10a and 10b shows riparian buffer associated with a separate
conservation easement, which is probably associated with the Duke Coal Ash settlement program.
A statement in the executive summary and in Section 1.1 has been updated to be clarify this project’s
relationship with the existing water quality improvement project that it abuts. There is an adjacent, but
unrelated, water quality improvement project in the vicinity of the Dogtown Stream Restoration Project
that will provide continuity of protection along the main stem of Bakers Creek.

2. Table 2- it appears that RES or one of its entities owns the parcels where the project is being developed.
The plan later states (Section 3.3) that the area outside the project area would likely re main in
agricultural use. DWR believes it is important to structure the design as to future watershed
development. An agricultural watershed would lead to one set of BMPs while development of
subdivisions might suggest different BMPs. Which of these scenarios does RES believe is most likely
to evolve and what allowances have been included into the design to account for these possible
scenarios?
RES anticipates the watershed will realize increased urbanization in the future, however, the parcel area
outside the conservation easement will likely remain in agricultural use. RES has proposed a design
that will promote long-term stream stability for this anticipated watershed condition by restoring
floodplain connection, re-establishing and protecting wide, vegetated buffers, and installing grade
control structures. There is limited opportunity for BMPs on this project because most reaches enter
the project limits as intermittent or perennial steams.

3. Please provide a map of the locations of the cross sections for the existing conditions.
A cross section location map has been created and is located in Appendix B.

4. Section 6.2- DWR is concerned with the proposed design of reach S1-B. Table 6 shows reach S1-B
having a BHR of 3.9. While the design sheet (S17) shows this reach’s top of bank to be an average of
6-8 feet above the thalweg. This reach is proposed as E2. The functional uplift of planting would be
greatly reduced for this channel as opposed to S1-A. DWR requests that RES reconsider the design of
this 400 foot reach.
The updated Dogtown prospectus had proposed restoration further downstream than it is currently;
however, after walking the reach and doing more reconnaissance, it made more sense from a
construction perspective to stop the proposed work at the existing ford. RES realizes the functional
uplift in this portion of the reach is low as designed, so we have adjusted the treatment type below the
ford from EII to EIII at a ratio of 7.5:1.

5. Section 6.2 – Sediment Supply- DWR questions whether reaches S1-A and B and DT3 are threshold
channels. Given the drainage area, it would seem these channel may likely have more alluvial
characteristics. Please explain why RES believes these reaches are more threshold-like with regard to
sediment supply (in addition to the verbiage provided in the mitigation plan).
The reaches in question contain few depositional features leading RES to believe that sediment loading
is at or below the existing reach sediment transport capacity. The proposed reaches were designed with
a competency above the existing bed material. Although the transport capacity will be reduced by
reconnecting the channel to its floodplain the sediment loading from bed and banks within the project
should also be significantly reduced by buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and stream stabilization
activities. Based on these observations and design criteria, RES does not anticipate a sediment supply
large enough to promote a dynamic alluvial channel. RES does anticipate deposition during backwater
events from Bakers Creek but expects this deposition to be transported through the reaches in a
relatively short timeframe after backwater subsides.

6. From the design sheets (S2) it appears RES is removing the middle pond and building a channel through
to connect to the two other pond reaches. DWR likes this approach. Please verify that RES intends to
build channel to connect the upper and lower ponds. In addition, the design sheets also stream work
through the large powerline crossings. DWR also likes this approach.
RES has breached all three ponds and intends to build a channel through all three pond bottoms.
Existing contours shown on plans now reflect the breached condition.

7. Design sheet S5 shows reach DT2 as Enhancement 1. However, virtually no work is being performed
except for at the end of the reach. DWR suggest that this reach be a different ratio, and should likely be
measuring credit through valley length versus stream centerline since it appears no definitive stream
channel may exist.
In response, we reviewed the DT2 design and generally agreed that a blanket Enhancement I crediting
approach was not justified. We decided to split DT2 into A and B reaches to allow for a more detailed
crediting approach. Reach DT2-A (Plan Sheet S5), will be the reach originally named DT2, and DT2-
B (Plan Sheet S6) will be the reach that originates in the power easement.

The work proposed in the upstream section of DT2-A is outside of the jurisdictional limits of the
existing stream, and the majority of proposed work in DT2-B will occur within an existing power line
easement. Therefore, no credit will be received for these areas despite the work we propose. To
compensate for this work, we are proposing to receive Enhancement II credit (2.5:1) for the length of
the reach between the upstream and downstream restoration areas on the DT2-A reach. We expect that
the work proposed on the headwaters of both reaches will reduce the sediment load in DT2-A bringing
it closer to an equilibrium with sediment transport capacity.

We are now claiming restoration on the downstream portion of DT2-A where we are plugging the
diversion channel and restoring flow through the valley into the existing pond bottom. This approach
will improve the sediment transport capacity of DT2-A which will promote stable channel dynamics
upstream of the proposed restoration.

8. Design sheet S6- shows a steep slope with no structure to assist with slowing erosion. Please explain
how grading alone will arrest this erosion?
RES has modified the design in this area to incorporate structures. The structures will start above the
conservation easement to arrest concentrated flow, and will step water down to the existing bed of DT2-
A.

9. For the lower reach of DT3 DWR would like to know the width of the floodplain (bench) that will be
provided.
Proposed contours have been added to the plansheet and show the floodplain bench widths. The
floodplain at the confluence of DT1 and DT3 is 90 feet wide.

10. The Waters of the US Map shows a wetland feature WF that seems to show some potential for wetland
restoration. Since RES or its entities owns the entire parcel, and the soils have the potential to include
wetland areas, has RES considered pursing any wetland restoration/credit given the constant need in
Catawba 01?
RES had considered including a wetland component as part of this Project. In June of 2016, RES hired
a Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS) to survey the site for wetland restoration potential. Soil survey findings
included that the floodplain has soils that are generally moderately well to well drained sandy loam and
lack hydric indicators within the upper 12-inches of the soil surface. Therefore, the LSS concluded that
the Project to be lacking appropriate soil conditions for wetland restoration or mitigation. We have
relied on his work in making our determination to not pursue wetland restoration potential onsite.

11. After examining Design Sheet S21, DWR believes a more appropriate ratio for reach S3-A would be
at least E2 (2.5:1).
The design will remain the same, but the treatment has been revised to Enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio.
Section 6.2 and Table 15 have been updated to reflect this change.

Todd Tugwell & Steve Kichefski, USACE:
1. Recommend that the planting list of tree species (Table 13) be revised to re duce the amount of Green
Ash to no more than 5% due to the impending impacts from the Emerald ash borer.
Green ash has been replaced by water oak on the planting list.

2. Recommend the addition of other live stake species to reduce the percent of black willow used as live
stakes (currently 60%).
Black willow was reduced to 40%, cottonwood to 30%, and elderberry was added at 30%.

3. Section 3.4 (p6&7) - Consultation with the Cherokee Nation and UKB, both federally recognized tribes,
will be needed prior to finalizing/permitting this bank. The Corps will complete this action. Also, what
portions of the project site were determined to have suitable habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf and
Schweinitz’s sunflower? Provide brief summary of staff experience in surveying for those two species
and why an April 12th survey date, which is outside the typical late August -early October survey
window, was suitable for surveying for this species. Brief additional information will be needed for
NWP27 permit issuance regarding the NLEB.
In response to the comment, RES revisited the Project to survey for Schweinitz’s sunflower on October
7, 2019 during the recommended survey window of late August to October. Suitable habitat for
Schweinitz’s sunflower was very limited on-site as most disturbed field edges on-site were within
riparian areas and tended to be wetter than the habitat preferred by the sunflower. Lookalike species
including wing stem, Jerusalem artichoke, and New York ironweed were observed; however, no
individuals of the surveyed plant were observed. During the April 12, 2017 survey, suitable habitat for
the dwarf-flowered heartleaf was found along slopes on the project streams; however, no individuals
were observed.

RES staff that perform species surveys have previous experience in the identification, documentation,
and mapping of threatened and endangered species, or are led by a staff member with previous
experience. Prior to conducting the surveys, staff reviewed key characteristics of the species as well as
keys for field identification, and also reviewed lookalike species to limit mis-identification.

RES consulted with the USFWS IPAC (October 9, 2019) key in regard to the NLEB, where a “May
Affect” determination was given. Approximately 3 acres of trees will be cleared to support this project
in construction. Over 30 acres will be planted. Documentation is included in Appendix G. RES will
provide any necessary information as required.

4. Section 6.3 (p30) - Depending on the species and density, treatment of invasive species may be required
within the project area, not just within the limits of grading as stated.
Clarification has been added into Section 6.3 in regard to invasive species treatment within the project
area.

5. Under Performance Standards on Page 34, surface flow for streams states that it will be monitored to
document "intermittent or seasonal surface flow". Please note that channels that are not intermittent,
jurisdictional channels will not receive stream credit, regardless of the presence of seasonal surface
flow.
Clarification has been added to Section 7.1. RES understands that jurisdictional channels that do not at
a minimum meet an intermittent flow regime will not receive credits, regardless of flow.

6. The inclusion of station numbers on the proposed mitigation credit Table 14 is appreciated.
Station numbers have been added into Table 14. Table 14 has been renumbered Table 15 due to a
table addition in the plan.

7. The draft plan mentions livestock exclusion or addressing livestock access in several locations, however
no mention of fencing to be installed. To clarify, will any fencing be utilized or just removal of livestock
from the adjacent property. Verify if all old fencing be removed from the CE?
Future land use plans for the Property are not yet determined; however, the land is likely to remain in
agriculture for the foreseeable future. If livestock remain on any portion of the Property such that would
otherwise allow access to the Conservation Easement Areas, adequate livestock fencing would be
installed to exclude them from the CE Areas. Any currently existing fencing will be removed and/or
relocated outside of the CE Areas.

8. Section 13 – Generally detail what items are included and their cost estimates for the maintenance and
contingency costs under the monitoring financial assurances estimate.
Table 19 has been updated to detail monitoring costs, and maintenance and contingency costs. Table
19 has been renumbered Table 20 due to a table addition in the plan.

9. In some areas, existing roads that lead to crossings that are proposed to remain go through proposed
easement areas. Please ensure that any existing roads be relocated outside easement boundaries.
Language was added to Section 4.2 to clarify the above as applicable. RES understands that any
existing farm roads that remain within the conservation easement will need to be permanently blocked
during construction and rerouted outside the easement boundaries.

10. Please update the map of proposed monitoring activities to include fixed photo plots.
Fixed image locations will exist at each cross section, each vegetation plot, and each stage recorder/flow
gauge. This has been added to the monitoring map (Figures 12a and 12b).

11. The maintenance plan included in Table 18 states that routine channel maintenance may be conducted
throughout the monitoring period. Please note that the IRT prefers that in-steam modifications to the
channel bed and banks and vegetation growing in the channel (other than live stake planting) not occur,
especially during the last few years of monitoring. This ensures that the IRT has an opportunity to
observe the true trajectory of the site without manipulation.
RES understands, and this detail has been added to Table 18. Table 18 has been renumbered to Table
19 due to the addition on a table in the plan.

12. In areas where wetlands will be disturbed by site work (e.g., Sta. 16+00 on trib DT1-B), please ensure
that impacts have been minimized to the extent possible and that remaining impacts are accounted for
the in the permit application. Additionally, the mitigation plan needs to include a statement that explains
how impacted wetlands will be replaced on site by the project.
Wetland impacts associated with restoration and enhancement efforts will be both permanent and
temporary. Wetland impacts associated with the project are primarily located along the fringes of the
open water ponds that are being removed in order to support stream restoration. We anticipate wetlands
have a potential to re-establish within the floodplain(s) of the restored channels. RES has minimized
wetland impacts during the design process, and all impacts will be accounted for in the Nationwide
Permit 27 application. A sub-section has been added to Section 3.4 to discuss impacts associated with
the Project.

13. For reach DT1-A & B, please expand on the discussion regarding how the streams within the pond beds
will be handled specifically with regard to existing sediments and removal of the dam (e.g., is the entire
dam proposed for removal? Will it be necessary to bring in new fill to construct the stream channel?)
Also, please specify that the pond beds will be replanted and with what species, if different from the
planting list. The Corps likes that channel restoration/dam removal will be completed even through
portions of the project outside the credit earning areas.
RES breached the three ponds during the summer of 2019 per the attached dam breach plans. The
breaches included removing the middle portion of the dams such that a minimum floodplain width that
satisfies Priority 2 requirements is maintained; a removal width equal to the beltwidth plus three times
the proposed channel width. Since the ponds have been drained and channels constructed through the
breaches to maintain positive drainage, RES does not anticipate removing a significant amount of
muck/sediment during construction. However, if during construction portions of the old pond bed are
still too wet to work in, the wet soil will be excavated, mixed with spoil obtained from the dam and
berm removals, and placed back within the pond bed at proposed grades.

The pond beds will be replanted as a part of the proposed work. Although the planting areas are not
differentiated across the site, our ecologists will provide verbal recommendations to our planting crew
in order to ensure species are adjusted to site circumstances.

Thank you for your feedback on the portions of the project outside the crediting areas.

14. Clarify the buffer width for the south side of DT4 in the proposed EII reach from Station 14+07 to
16+53 and the justification for the 2.5:1 credit sought for this reach.
The easement in this location abuts another parcel and cannot be adjusted. Upon review of this
comment, RES agrees with Corps and has removed this reach from crediting and re-run the non-
standard buffer width tool on this section to reflect the change. This has been removed from the plan
and the mitigation plan.

15. Additional small areas of planting may be needed outside planting areas depicted on the design sheets
P1/P2/M1/M2 such as gaps in vegetation such as around DT3-B and to the west of Bakers Creek South.
Please verify and/or update.
The planting area has been updated to include these areas. The planting area increased from 30.72 acres
to 32.4 acres.

16. Plan Sheet S17 labels Reach S1-B as EIII while Section 6.2, Table 14 and Figure 10a Concept Map
North notes it as EII. Correct for consistency and detail why 2.5:1 ratio is justified considering no
channel work is done and only a portion of the buffer will be planted. Some of the buffer portion that
will be planted is part of additional credit being sought as part of the non -standard buffer width
calculation.
The updated Dogtown prospectus had proposed restoration further downstream than it is currently;
however, after walking the reach and doing more reconnaissance, it made more sense from a
construction perspective to stop the proposed work at the existing ford. RES realizes the functional
uplift in this portion of the reach is low, so we have adjusted the treatment type below the ford from
EII to EIII at a ratio of 7.5:1.

17. Detail why a 2.5:1 EII ratio is appropriate for the portion of Bakers Creek within the southern project
area, but north of the crossing (Station 46+85 to 59+30) and the southern EII portion of DT3,
considering no channel work or planting is to be done and a portion of that area is part of additional
credit being sought as part of the non-standard buffer width calculation.
This crediting scenario is based on riparian buffer plantings and cattle exclusion. Of the areas defined
above, at least 50% of the riparian areas of these reaches is being planted.

18. Review of the design sheet for reach S3-A does not seem to match the proposed activities described in
the mitigation approach. It appears that the bank will be laid back in three spots, brush toe installed in
two locations, and riffle enhancements in two areas, but the majority of the channel does not have any
proposed work. Please justify the requested E1 ratio for this reach or revise the ratio to reflect the
amount of uplift proposed.
The design will remain the same, but the treatment has been revised to Enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio.
Section 6.2 and Table 15 have been updated to reflect this change.

19. The mitigation plan references an easement area of 59.13 acres, but the letter from the long term steward
(Unique Places to Save) references a 54.92 acre mitigation site, which does not include the 10.46 acre
Duke Carolinas et al. Mitigation Order site. First, please explain the discrepancy between the size of
the bank site. Second, the endowment funding appears to be for both the Duke site and the mitigation
site. Please note that the estimate for the costs of the long-term steward should not include the Duke
site, and the endowment must be handled separately, so that there are not common funds applied to
both sites. All of the stewardship activates for the mitigation site must be independent from the Duke
site. Also, since the stewardship approval letter will be updated and was provided June 2017 make sure
all endowment cost estimates are updated if needed.
RES has coordinated a new agreement that does not include the Duke site in its engagement letter. The
letter is attached.

20. Does the Dogtown Site design take into consideration the trend of residential development that is
increasing adjacent to the site and in the watershed, as can be seen immediately to the north, west and
southeast on recent aerials? Would any additional changes in design, bmp’s, etc. need to be incorporated
to adapt to this change in land use?
RES anticipates the watershed will realize increased urbanization in the future, however, the parcel area
outside the conservation easement will likely remain in agricultural use. RES has proposed a design
that will promote long-term stream stability for this anticipated watershed condition by restoring
floodplain connection, reestablishing and protecting wide, vegetated buffers, and installing grade
control structures. There is limited opportunity for BMPs on this project because most reaches enter
the project limits as intermittent or perennial steams.

Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk * below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are answered.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E-PCN, all you need to do is right-click on the document and you can print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/0/edoc/624704/PCN%20Help%20File%202018-1-30.pdf
County (or Countie s) where the proje ct is locate d:*
Is this project a public transportation project?*
1a. Type (s) of approv al sought from the Corps:*
1b. What type (s) of pe rmit(s) do you wish to se e k authorization?*
This form may be used to initiate the standard/individual permit process with the Corps. Please contact your Corps representative concerning submittals for standard permits. All required items that
are not provided in the E-PCN can be added to the miscellaneous upload area located at the bottom of this form.
1c. Has the NWP or GP numbe r be e n v e rifie d by the Corps?*
Nationwide Pe rmit (NWP) Numbe r:
NWP Numbe rs (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type (s) of approv al sought from the DWR:*
1e . Is this notification sole ly for the re cord be cause writte n approv al is not re quire d?
*
For the re cord only for DWR 401 Ce rtification:
For the re cord only for Corps Pe rmit:
1f. Is this an afte r-the -fact pe rmit application?*
1g. Is payme nt into a mitigation bank or in-lie u fe e program propose d for mitigation of impacts?
Acce ptance Le tte r Attachme nt
1h. Is the proje ct locate d in any of NC's twe nty coastal countie s?*
A. Processing Information
Catawba
Yes No
This is any publicly funded by municipal,state or federal funds road, rail, airport transportation project.
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
Yes No
27 - Restoration
List all NW numbers you are applying for not on the drop dow n list.
check all that apply
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit Riparian Buffer Authorization
Individual Permit
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program.
Yes No
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
FILE TYPE MUST BE PDF
1j. Is the proje ct locate d in a de signate d trout wate rshe d?*
Link to trout information: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Agency-Coordination/Trout.aspx
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
1c. Primary Contact Phone :*
1d. Who is applying for the pe rmit?*
1e . Is the re an Age nt/Consultant for this proje ct?*
2. Owner Information
Yes No
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
Katie Webber
[e-mail]
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
(Check all that apply)
Yes No
2a. Name (s) on re corde d de e d:*
2b. De e d book and page no.:
2c. Re sponsible party:
2d. Addre ss *
2e . Te le phone Numbe r:*
2f. Fax Numbe r:
2g. Email Addre ss:*
Colonel Land, LLC
3337/1168
(for Corporations)
City
Raleigh
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27605
Country
USA
Street Address
302 Jefferson Street
Address Line 2
Suite 110
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[e-mail]
2a. Name (s) on re corde d de e d:*
2b. De e d book and page no.:
2c. Re sponsible party:
2d. Addre ss *
2e . Te le phone Numbe r:*
2f. Fax Numbe r:
Environmental Banc & Exchange LLC
3397/1430
(for Corporations)
City
Raleigh
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27605
Country
USA
Street Address
302 Jefferson St
Address Line 2
Suite 110
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
1a. Name of proje ct:*
1b. Subdivision name :
1c. Ne are st municipality / town:*
2a. Prope rty Identification Numbe r:2b. Prope rty size :
2c. Proje ct Addre ss
2d. Site coordinate s in de cimal de gre e s
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey-grade GPS device) after the decimal place as appropriate, based on how the location was
determined. (For example, most mobile phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal place.)
Latitude :*Longitude :*
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the ne are st body of wate r to propose d proje ct:*
3b. Wate r Re source s Classification of ne are st re ce iv ing wate r:*
Surface Water Lookup
3c. What riv e r basin(s) is your proje ct locate d in?*
3d. Ple ase prov ide the 12-digit HUC in which the proje ct is locate d.*
River Basin Lookup
4. Project Description and History
4a. De scribe the e xisting conditions on the site and the ge ne ral land use in the v icinity of the proje ct at the time of this application:*
2g. Email Addre ss:*
[e-mail]
C. Project I nformation and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
Dogtown Stream Mitigation Bank
(if appropriate)
Conover
2. Project Identification
(tax PIN or parcel ID)
375309060630 & 375305291678
(in acres)
198.730 & 70.2
City
Conover
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
28613
Country
USA
Street Address
4328 C & B Farm Rd
Address Line 2
35.763832
ex: 34.208504
-81.185640
-77.796371
Bakers Creek
Class C
Catawba
030501011400
4b. Hav e Corps pe rmits or DWR ce rtifications be e n obtained for this project (including all prior phase s) in the past?*
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 e xce rpt from the most re ce nt v e rsion of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the proje ct site . (for DWR)
4e . Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 e xce rpt from the most re ce nt v e rsion of the publishe d County NRCS Soil Surv e y map de picting the proje ct site . (for DWR)
4f. List the total e stimate d acre age of all e xisting we tlands on the prope rty:
4g. List the total e stimate d line ar fe e t of all e xisting stre ams on the prope rty:
4h. Explain the purpose of the propose d proje ct:*
4i. De scribe the ov e rall proje ct in de tail, including indirect impacts and the type of e quipme nt to be use d:*
The Dogtown Mitigation Site (Project) is located in Catawba County approximately four miles north of Conover, NC. Consisting of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and disturbed
wooded areas, the Project’s total easement area is approximately 59.13 acres within the overall drainage area of 4,095 acres. The Project has two separate portions along Bakers
Creek and in between those portions is a conservation easement for a water quality improvement site. While each site has been developed independently of the other, the combined
easements will result in greater continuity of protected corridors along the main stem of Bakers Creek. Grazing livestock have historically had access to all stream reaches within the
Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the
Project area. The stream channels include Bakers Creek and seven unnamed tributaries, split into twelve reaches based on proposed treatment type.
Reach S1 is in the northern project area and flows south from Swinging Bridge Road (SR 1515) through an active pasture towards Bakers Creek. This reach is a G-type sand and
gravel bed channel with a slope of less than 1%. The drainage area is approximately 427 acres and is dominated by agricultural land use. The valley transitions from a washed-slope
form at the upstream end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end. Channel buffers have been reduced to less than 10 feet in multiple locations along the reach and livestock
have historically had direct access to the channel. A 72” CMP conveys the channel under SR 1515 and has formed a four-foot-deep scour hole at its outlet. This bed scour combined
with increased sediment loads from limited buffers and livestock access have produced a bed material that is almost completely mobile.
Reach S2 is located along the northeastern portion of the project and flows west into Reach S1. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 71 acres, and the land use is a
mix of residential and farm land. S2 is divided into two reaches. The upstream section, S2-A, is an E-type channel with buffers greater than 50 feet and no livestock access. The reach is
slightly incised, with stable vegetated banks. S2-A has a stable gravel bed that exhibits good bed form diversity and grade is controlled by downstream bedrock outcrops.
The downstream section, Reach S2-B, is a G-type channel with limited to no buffers and livestock have direct access to the stream. The channel has minimal bank vegetation and no
bedrock grade control was observed along this reach. This combined with livestock impacts has produced a highly unstable stream with limited bedform diversity or aquatic habitat.
Reach S3 is located 0.3 miles south of S2 and flows west from the project limits into Bakers Creek. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 132 acres and is dominated by
active pasture. S3 is divided into two reaches. The upstream reach, S3-A, is a G-type channel with vegetated buffer widths ranging from 0 to 30 feet with livestock having direct access
to the channel. The majority of channel banks are vegetated with localized areas of instability where vegetation is lacking. The channel bed has previously downcut, but has been
stabilized by bedrock outcrops in multiple locations along this reach.
The downstream section, Reach S3-B, is a C-type channel with limited to no buffers. The channel has limited bank vegetation and no bedrock grade control was observed along the
reach. This combined with livestock impacts has produced a highly unstable stream with limited bedform or aquatic habitat.
Reach DT1 is comprised of three in-line farms ponds in active pasture that livestock frequently use. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 67 acres and is dominated by
active pasture. It flows east to its confluence with DT3. The reach was divided into 2 sections with
DT1-A representing the section upstream of DT1 and DT1-B representing the section downstream of DT1. Reach DT1-A has no channel as it is totally impounded. DT1-B is half
impoundment with the other half consisting of an incised sand and gravel bed stream. The channel is actively degrading with no bedrock grade control observed. The bed composition
is coarse sand with a relatively low sediment load and a channel slope of 1% to 2%, and the valley is moderately sloped.
Reach DT2 is located in the southwestern part of the project. This reach is a headwater stream that is recovering from past land use impacts. The lower reach of this stream is relatively
stable and has substantially recovered to form a naturalized headwater system although sediment loads from upstream erosion continue to impact this reach. The upstream reaches of
DT2 continue to have actively eroding headcuts that produce significant sediment loads. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 14 acres.
Reach DT3 is located in the northwestern portion of the southern project area and flows south past its confluence with DT1 and into Bakers Creek. The approximate drainage area of
the reach upstream of the DT1 confluence is 480 acres, and the drainage area downstream of the confluence is 549 acres. The watershed land use is a mix of forest, pasture, and rural
residential. The reach is divided into two sections based on channel morphology. The upstream section (Reach DT3-A), is a slightly incised gravel bed stream. The bed profile is stable
and controlled by downstream bedrock outcrops. The channel appears to be managing an increased sediment load caused by livestock access and upstream land use. Reach DT3-A
has buffer widths greater than 50 feet with adequate vegetation on channel banks and through the riparian area.
The downstream portion of the stream (Reach DT3-B), is in active pasture with little to no buffers. This reach is an incised sand and gravel bed stream with channel slopes less than
1%. The valley transitions from a washed-slope form at the upstream end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end. This stream is actively degrading with no bedrock grade
control observed. The combination of limited riparian vegetation and livestock access has produced unstable bed and banks, resulting in increased sediment loads.
Reach DT4 is located in the southeastern part of the project. This channel flows southwest to Bakers Creek through active cattle pasture on the right bank and a wooded buffer on the
left bank. The total drainage area is 100 acres and has a land use mix of forest, medium density residential, and pasture. This reach is an incised gravel bed stream with a low sediment
load and a channel slope of 0.5% to 3%. An existing residence is located in the left overbank just upstream of the project. The channel transitions from a narrow valley at the upstream
end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end.
Bakers Creek is a severely incised, third order, sand and gravel bed stream located in the southern area of the project and is contiguous with the water quality easement to the north.
There is a thin strip of trees on both sides of the banks and cattle have access to the entire bank. The channel is incised 5 to 7 feet below the existing terrace and exhibits the typical
regional expression of past valley infilling and subsequent channel down-cutting associated with historic land-use alterations. The bed profile is relatively stable, and the channel is now
adjusting to its current position and sediment loads. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 4,095 acres.
Yes No Unknown
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Figure 2 - USGS - Dogtown.pdf 1.15MB
File type must be pdf
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Figure 4 - Soils Map - Dogtown.pdf 4.4MB
File type must be pdf
0.98
(intermittent and perennial)
11112
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways with the appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. 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. 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, removal of livestock and treating invasive species.
4j. Ple ase upload proje ct drawings for the propose d proje ct.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Hav e the we tlands or streams be e n de line ate d on the prope rty or propose d impact are as?*
Comme nts:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional de te rmination, what type of de te rmination was made ?*
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach
applies a combination of analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed
treatment activities may range from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full restoration, natural design
concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that
provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape. Any abandoned channels will be filled, however, vernal pools will be left where possible to provide habitat and
groundwater recharge. A mix of rock and log structures will be added to all restoration and enhancement I reaches to provide bank stability, grade control, and bedform diversity.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
Bakers Creek totals 1,215 linear feet of Enhancement II to address livestock access and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities will include removal of invasive species, livestock
exclusion, and buffer planting to a minimum of 50 feet. A 30-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate an existing bridge that is to be maintained.
Reach S1-A totals 1,034 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration. The restoration will begin as Priority II restoration just downstream of the NCDOT Right of Way. A Priority II approach
was chosen in this area to maintain the capacity of the existing 72” CMP. The design will shift the channel alignment to the right floodplain and transition to a Priority I approach as the
stream moves down valley. The last 400 feet of restoration transitions bank to a Priority II approach as the design ties back into the existing channel. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be
established along the reach and livestock will be removed.
Reach S1-B totals 538 linear feet of Enhancement II to address livestock access and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities will include removal of invasive species, livestock
exclusion, and buffer planting to a minimum of 50 feet. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate an existing ford crossing which will be rehabilitated
as part of the proposed project.
Reach S2-A totals 407 linear feet of Enhancement III. Enhancement activities will include invasive species treatment, supplemental planting, and buffer protection to a minimum of 100
feet.
Reach S2-B totals 869 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration. After the first 200 feet, this reach will transition from a Priority II to a Priority I approach for the remainder of the reach
that will ultimately confluence with S1-A. The channel will be shifted from its existing alignment and into the natural valley. The upstream limits of restoration were determined based on
severe bank erosion currently threatening several large oak trees, and the presence of a relic channel in the center of the valley. A 90-foot wide easement break is proposed along this
reach to accommodate a proposed crossing and an existing overhead utility.
Reach S3-A totals 383 linear feet of Enhancement I to address localized channel instability, buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. Enhancement activities will include installation of
grade control structures, stabilizing the banks, planting the buffer, and excluding cattle. In-stream structures such as rock sills, brush toes, and constructed riffles will be installed for
stability and to improve habitat. Habitat will further be improved through buffer plantings to a minimum of 50 feet and livestock exclusion.
Reach S3-B totals 801 linear feet of Priority II Restoration and 153 linear feet of Enhancement II at the tie-in with Bakers Creek. Restoration begins on this reach just downstream of a
large bedrock outcrop which has prevented the upper portions of the reach from downcutting to the extents seen in the restoration portion of the reach. Restoration will involve shifting
the channel into the right floodplain and excavating a new Priority II floodplain. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the existing alignment and profile prior to the Bakers
Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers Creek and is within the
floodway. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate a proposed crossing. The
proposed crossing was sized to allow the proposed stream to function as designed.
Reach DT1-A totals 630 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. The two pond dams located along this reach will be breached several months prior to the construction of the proposed
channel. The proposed channel will then be constructed in the drained pond bottom. During channel construction any unsuitable material located within the belt width of the proposed
channel will be removed and replaced with material from the dam excavation. A 175-foot easement break at the downstream end of this reach was included to accommodate an existing
power easement. No crossings are proposed within this break.
Reach DT1-B totals 1,175 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. One large pond dam on this reach will be breached during a similar timeframe as the ponds on DT1-A. The proposed
channel will then be constructed in the drained pond bottom. During channel construction any unstable material located within the belt width of the proposed channel will be removed
and replaced with material from the dam excavation. The portion of the reach not within the existing pond bottom will be shifted to the right overbank area and a Priority I approach will
be utilized to tie into proposed DT3. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate a proposed crossing. The proposed crossing was sized to allow the
proposed stream to function as designed.
Reach DT2 totals 575 linear feet of Enhancement I. The enhancement approach for this reach will be two phases. First is to stop the increased sediment loading by grading the two
large headcuts out by flattening the channel slope into the ephemeral channel. Steep banks will also be flattened and vegetated; however, some steep banks will not be regraded as
they have been stabilized by large trees and are not actively eroding. The next phase is to plug the threshold channel currently bypassing the reach around the existing pond and then
connect DT2 to proposed DT1. This will increase the sediment capacity of DT2 allowing sediment to be transported through the reach. This reach does not have any proposed
easement breaks but is adjacent to the easement break outlined in DT1-A.
Reach DT3-A totals 761 linear feet of Preservation. Preservation activities will include protecting minimum 100-foot buffers on each bank.
Reach DT3-B totals 1,292 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration and 75 linear feet of Enhancement II at the tie-in with Bakers Creek. Priority I restoration is proposed for the portion
of this reach upstream of its confluence with DT1. The channel will be shifted to both the left and right overbanks. A 235-foot-wide easement break is proposed along this portion of the
reach to accommodate a proposed crossing and an existing power easement. The proposed crossing was sized to allow the proposed stream to function as designed. Downstream of its
confluence the proposed reach will transition to a Priority II approach as it ties back into the existing channel. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the existing alignment
and profile prior to the Bakers Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers
Creek and is within the floodway. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer and livestock exclusion.
Reach DT4 totals 1,216 linear feet of Priority II Restoration. A Priority II approach will be utilized on this reach to prevent hydraulic trespass. The proposed channel will be shifted into the
right overbank and will reconnect with the existing channel at its confluence with an existing linear wetland. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the existing alignment and
profile prior to the Bakers Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers
Creek and is within the floodway. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer and livestock exclusion. No crossings or easement breaks are proposed on this
reach.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
File type must be pdf
Yes No Unknown
Corps AID Numbe r:
5c. If 5a is ye s, who de line ate d the jurisdictional are as?
Name (if known):
Age ncy/Consultant Company:
Othe r:
5d. List the date s of the Corp jurisdiction de te rmination or State de te rmination if a de te rmination was made by the Corps or DWR.
5d1. Jurisdictional de te rmination upload
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phase d proje ct?*
Are any othe r NWP(s), re gional ge ne ral pe rmit(s), or indiv idual pe rmits(s) use d, or intende d to be use d, to authorize any part of the propose d project or re lated activ ity? This
include s othe r se parate and distant crossing for line ar proje cts that re quire De partme nt of the Army authorization but don’t re quire pre -construction notification.
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Whe re are the impacts associate d with your proje ct? (che ck all that apply):
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
"W." will be use d in the table be low to re pre se nt the word "wetland".
2a. Site #*(?)2a1 Reason *(?)2b. Impact type *(?)2c. Type of W.*2d. W. name *2e . Fore ste d *2f. Type of
Jurisdicition *(?)
2g. Impact
are a *
2g. Total Te mporary We tland Impact
2g. Total Pe rmane nt We tland Impact
2g. Total We tland Impact
2h. Comme nts:
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Example: SAW-2017-99999
SAW-2017-00636
Jeremy Schmid
RES
Confirmed PJD was received on May 24, 2017. Revised materials have been provided as apart of this permit application. Revisions include survey stream lengths of the Project.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Dogtown PJD SAW-2017-00636 - REVISED.pdf 8.41MB
File type must be PDF
Yes No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
Wetlands Streams-tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
W1 Pond Removal P Bottomland Hardwood Forest WA No Corps 0.106
(acres)
W2 Pond Removal P Bottomland Hardwood Forest WB No Corps 0.128
(acres)
W3 Pond Removal P Bottomland Hardwood Forest WC No Corps 0.049
(acres)
W4 Stream Enhancement P Bottomland Hardwood Forest WD Yes Corps 0.008
(acres)
W5 Stream Enhancement T Bottomland Hardwood Forest WD Yes Corps 0.057
(acres)
W6 Stream Restoration T Bottomland Hardwood Forest WE Yes Corps 0.052
(acres)
W7 Stream Restoration P Bottomland Hardwood Forest WE Yes Corps 0.008
(acres)
W8 Stream Restoration -
Channel Plug
P Bottomland Hardwood Forest WF Yes Corps 0.020
(acres)
0.109
0.319
0.428
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted.
"S." will be used in the table below to represent the word "stream".
3a. Reason for impact *(?)3b.Impact type *3c. Type of impact *3d. S. name *3e . Stre am Type *
(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction *
3g. S. width *3h. Impact
le ngth *
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
** All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square fe e t:
3i. Total pe rmane nt stre am impacts:
3i. Total te mporary stre am impacts:
3i. Total stre am and ditch impacts:
Overall wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the existing wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. W1,
W2, and W3 impacts will be due to the breaching of three dams which will drain the existing pond in order to return the stream system to the historic
hydrologic condition which will likely impact the current water table and influence the location of these fringe wetlands. However stream restoration
efforts and planting of the floodplain should allow for re-establishment and expansion of these wetlands and then protection in perpetuity through a
conservation easement which will result in overall benefit to the wetland function in the area. Impacts W4-W8 are associated with stream enhancement
and stream restoration and have been minimized to the extent possible during the design process. Moreover, the permanent wetland impacts
associated with stream restoration and enhancement (WD, WE, and WF) are only within the proposed top of bank footprint. It is anticipated that the
riparian wetland function of these areas will improve, and wetlands have the potential to re-establish, due to the increased floodplain connectivity of
the Project streams. Temporary impacts associated with the same wetlands are associated with stream restoration activities.
Stream Restoration Permanent Relocation S1-A Perennial Corps 9
Average (feet)
1,034
(linear feet)
Stream Restoration Permanent Relocation S2-B Perennial Corps 10
Average (feet)
873
(linear feet)
Culvert Installation - Pipe Permanent Culvert S2-B Perennial Corps 10
Average (feet)
36
(linear feet)
Culvert Installation - Grading Temporary Other S2-B Perennial Corps 10
Average (feet)
20
(linear feet)
Ford Installation Temporary Other S1-A Perennial Corps 9
Average (feet)
20
(linear feet)
Stream Enhancement Temporary Bank Stabilization S3-A Perennial Corps 9
Average (feet)
100
(linear feet)
Stream Restoration Permanent Relocation S3-B Perennial Corps 10
Average (feet)
763
(linear feet)
Culvert Replacement - Pipe Permanent Culvert S3-B Perennial Corps 10
Average (feet)
24
(linear feet)
Culvert Replacement -
Grading
Temporary Culvert S3-B Perennial Corps 10
Average (feet)
20
(linear feet)
Stream Restoration Permanent Relocation DT3-B Perennial Corps 15
Average (feet)
1,177
(linear feet)
Culvert Replacement - Pipe Permanent Culvert DT3-B Perennial Corps 15
Average (feet)
10
(linear feet)
Culvert Replacement -
Grading
Temporary Culvert DT3-B Perennial Corps 15
Average (feet)
20
(linear feet)
Stream Enhancement Temporary Stabilization DT2-B Perennial Corps 22
Average (feet)
100
(linear feet)
Stream Enhancement Temporary Stabilization DT2-A Intermittent Corps 8
Average (feet)
100
(linear feet)
Stream Restoration Permanent Relocation DT2-A Intermittent Corps 22
Average (feet)
196
(linear feet)
Stream Restoration Permanent Relocation DT1-B Intermittent Corps 5
Average (feet)
1,130
(linear feet)
Culvert Installation - Pipe Permanent Culvert DT1-B Intermittent Corps 5
Average (feet)
30
(linear feet)
Culvert Installation - Grading Temporary Culvert DT1-B Intermittent Corps 5
Average (feet)
20
(linear feet)
Stream Restoration Permanent Relocation DT4 Perennial Corps 12
Average (feet)
1,053
(linear feet)
0
6,326
400
2336
3j. Comme nts:
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individually list all open water
impacts below.
4a. Site #*(?)4a1. Impact Re ason 4b. Impact type *(?)4c. Name of wate rbody (?)4d. Activ ity type *4e . Wate rbody type *4f. Impact
are a *
4g. Total te mporary ope n wate r Impacts:
4g. Total pe rmane nt ope n wate r impacts:
4g. Total ope n wate r impacts:
4h. Comme nts:
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Spe cifically de scribe me asure s take n to av oid or minimize the propose d impacts in de signing the proje ct:*
1b. Spe cifically de scribe me asure s take n to av oid or minimize the propose d impacts through construction te chnique s:*
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Doe s the proje ct re quire Compe nsatory M itigation for impacts to Wate rs of the U.S. or Wate rs of the State ?
2b. If this proje ct DOES NOT re quire Compe nsatory M itigation, e xplain why:
NC Stream Temperature Classification Maps can be found under the Mitigation Concepts tab on the Wilmington District's RIBITS website.
*** Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section .***
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Doe s the proje ct include or is it adjace nt to prote cte d riparian buffers ide ntifie d within one of the NC Riparian Buffe r Prote ction Rule s?
Stream impacts associated with stream restoration (S1, S2, S7, S10, S15, S16, and S19) are all permanent impacts associated with the relocation of
the stream reaches to the natural valley and to restore proper dimensions to the stream which will provide a net gain in the ecological function to the
stream and wetland system. After stream relocation and restoration, the total existing length of stream will increase from 10,005 linear feet to 11,446
linear feet of stream.
The temporary impacts that are due to enhancement (S6, S13, and S14) treatments and are inclusive of adding structures or grading stream
channels to improve stream stability in those reaches. These impacts are short term during the construction time period and will not have long-lasting
negative effects on the stream but will result in overall benefit to the stream functionality.
Impacts associated with culvert replacement, installation, and ford installation will consist of both permanent and temporary impacts. Permanent
impacts associated with these activities (S3, S8, S11, and S17) are due to adding in culverts or increasing culvert lengths at crossings. The temporary
impacts associated with culvert installation and replacement (S4, S9, S12, and S18) are simply due to grading and installation activities and will not
have long-term effects. One ford crossing will be installed as apart of this project, and will result in one temporary impact (S5)
O1 Pond Removal P PA Drainage Pond 0.66
(acres)
O2 Pond Removal P PB Drainage Pond 0.35
(acres)
O3 Pond Removal P PC Drainage Pond 1.57
(acres)
0.00
2.58
2.58
Three dams will be breached (PA, PB, and PC) and one stream channel will be cut through the pond bottom to resotre the stream system to its historic
hydrologic stream and wetland complex system. These areas will be planted and become part of the riparian buffer.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were considered when designing the Dogtown
Mitigation project. A survey of the site was completed and taken into account during the design so that large impacts were taken into account. This
project should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site.
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior to turning 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.
Yes No
This is a stream restoration project and therefore, compensatory mitigation is not required as the entire basis of the project is to restore for impacts to aquatic resource.
F. Stormwater M anagement and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here.
If no, e xplain why:
2. Stormw ater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT proje ct subje ct to compliance with NCDOT’s Indiv idual NPDES pe rmit NCS000250?*
2b. Doe s this proje ct me e t the re quire me nts for low de nsity proje cts as de fine d in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?*
To look up low density requirement click here 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2).
Comme nts:
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Doe s the proje ct inv olv e an e xpe nditure of public (fe de ral/state /local) funds or the use of public (fe de ral/state ) land?*
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in v iolation of DWR Wate r Quality Ce rtification Rule s (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolate d We tland Rule s (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Wate r or We tland Standards or
Riparian Buffe r Rule s (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this proje ct (base d on past and re asonably anticipate d future impacts) re sult in additional de v e lopme nt, which could impact ne arby downstre am wate r quality?*
3b. If you answe re d “no,” prov ide a short narrativ e de scription.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is se wage disposal re quire d by DWR for this proje ct?*
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this proje ct occur in or ne ar an are a with fe de rally prote cte d spe cie s or habitat?*
5b. Hav e you che cke d with the USFWS conce rning Endange re d Spe cie s Act impacts?*
5c. If ye s, indicate the USFWS Fie ld Office you hav e contacte d.
5d. Is anothe r Fe de ral age ncy inv olv e d?*
5e . Is this a DOT proje ct locate d within Div ision's 1-8?*
5f. Will you cut any tre e s in orde r to conduct the work in wate rs of the U.S.?*
5g. Doe s this proje ct inv olv e bridge mainte nance or re mov al?*
Link to the NLEB SLOPES document: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
5h. Doe s this proje ct inv olv e the construction/installation of a wind turbine (s)?**
Yes No
Although this site is within the Catawba River basin, protected buffers of the Catawba are only applicable to the mainstem below Lake James and along the mainstem lake in the
Catawba River Basin
Yes No
Yes No
G. Supplementary Information
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
This project will not result in an additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there will be an increase in water
quality within the project, due to the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, and the
establishment of a conservation to be protected in perpetuity.
Yes No N/A
Yes No
Yes No
Asheville
Yes No Unknown
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
5i. Doe s this proje ct inv olv e (1) blasting, and/or (2) othe r pe rcussiv e activitie s that will be conducte d by machine s, such as jackhamme rs, me chanize d pile driv e rs, e tc.?*
5j. What data source s did you use to de te rmine whe the r your site would impact Endange re d Spe cie s or De signate d Critical Habitat?*
Consultation Docume ntation Upload
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this proje ct occur in or ne ar an are a de signate d as an Esse ntial Fish Habitat?*
6b. What data source s did you use to de te rmine whe the r your site would impact an Esse ntial Fish Habitat?*
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
Link to the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
7a. Will this proje ct occur in or ne ar an are a that the state , fe de ral or tribal gov e rnme nts hav e de signate d as hav ing historic or cultural pre se rv ation status (e .g., National Historic
Trust de signation or prope rtie s significant in North Carolina history and archae ology)?*
7b. What data source s did you use to de te rmine whe the r your site would impact historic or arche ological re source s?*
7c. Historic or Pre historic Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEM A Floodplain M aps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
8a. Will this proje ct occur in a FEM A-designate d 100-ye ar floodplain?*
8b. If ye s, e xplain how proje ct me e ts FEM A require me nts:
8c. What source (s) did you use to make the floodplain de te rmination?*
Comme nts
M isce llane ous attachme nts not pre v iously re que ste d.
*
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 :*
Yes No
USFWS Database and Natural Heritage Program Database and Public notice period to allow for comments from the USFWS. We also performed a
USFWS online project review which resulted in a self-certification. This is attached.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
MA Verification Letter_ Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) Consultation and 4(d) Rule Consistency 2019-10-09.pdf 248.67KB
File type must be PDF
Yes No
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
Yes No
NC SHPO GIS Database
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
SHPO_Response_Dogtown.pdf 111.6KB
File must be PDF
Yes No
Multiple Project reaches are located within the FEMA 100-year flood zone (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of flooding) and the FEMA Floodway.
No grading is proposed within the FEMA Floodway; therefore, no FEMA permits will be required for the Project. A Floodplain Development Permit will
be obtained from the Catawba County Floodplain Administrator prior to project construction. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent
properties upstream or downstream of the project.
The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 3753 (map number 3710375300J) and Panel 3754 (map number
3710375400J), effective date September 5, 2007.
M iscellaneous
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Dogtown_PCN_Figures.pdf 13.3MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
Signature
Date
Kathleen Webber
11/14/2019