The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140547 Ver 1_401 Application_20140523Pat McCrory Governor e_ 0 1 'o 5 47 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael Ellison, Director Ecosystem Enhancement Program MEMORANDUM: TO: Cindy Perry FROM: Lin Xu J X SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee 401 Permit Application DATE: May 21, 2014 John E Skvarla, III Secretary The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a stream restoration and enhancement project for 601 East Site in Union County (EEP IMS # 95756) The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream restoration related temporary stream impact To conduct these activities the EEP must submit a Pre - construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for review and approval The DWR assesses a fee of $570 00 for this review Please transfer $570 00 from Fund # 2984, Account # 535120 to DWR as payment for this review If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be reached at 919- 707 -8319 Thanks for your assistance cc Eric Kulz, DWR 1652 Mall Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652 Pnone 919 - 707 -89761 Internet www ncdenr gov An =qua] Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - Woe in Dart Dy recycled paper MI-INA 20 1 40 5 47 NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory Governor Eric Kulz Division of Water Resources 401 Wetlands Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650 Michael Ellison, Director John E Skvarla, III Ecosystem Enhancement Program Secretary May 21, 2014 Re: Permit Application- 601 East Stream Restoration Project, Union County (EEP Full Delivery Project) Dear Mr. Kulz: Attached for your review are two sets of copies of 401/404 permit application package and mitigation plans for 601 East stream restoration project in Union County. A memo for the permit application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919- 707 -8319) Thank you very much for your assistance Sincerely 'XL-1 lleov� Lin Xu Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package (2 originals) Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals) Permit Application Fee Memo CD containing all electronic files 1652 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652 Phone 919 - 707 -89761 Internet www ncdenr gov An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper RED c IIV,r 20140547 �oF WA��9Q MAY 0 2014 o Office Use Only M NC ECOSYSTEM Corps action ID no WHANCEMENT PMOORAk4 DWQ protect no Form Version 1 4 January 2009 Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form A. Applicant Information 1. Processing 1a Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps ❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit 1b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 27,33 or General Permit (GP) number 1c Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ❑X No 1 d Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply) 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express X❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization 1e Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ because written approval is not required? 401 Certification ❑ Yes ❑X No 1f Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program 1g Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1h below 1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? 2 Project Information 2a Name of project 601 East Stream Restoration 2b County Union County 2c Nearest municipality / town Pageland, SC 2d Subdivision name N/A 2e NCDOT only, T I P or state project no 3. Owner Information 3a Name(s) on Recorded Deed Howey, Franklin W Jr 3b Deed Book and Page No DP 3572, Pg 813, DP 4769, Pg 339 3c Responsible Party (for LLC if N/A 3d Street address P 0 Box 429 3e City, state, zip Monroe, NC 28111 -0429 3f Telephone no 3g Fax no 3h Email address For the record only for Corps Permit ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X No Page 1 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 I ►� n iiel", U 4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a Applicant is ❑ Agent 4b Name Mr Tim Baumgardner 4c Business name Af NCDENR EEP �nnLn., hl..� ❑X Other, specify Full Delivery Provider responsible for permit 4d Street address 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A 4e City, state, zip Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 4f Telephone no 919 - 707 -8543 4g Fax no 919 - 707 -8976 4h Email address j Tim Baumgartner @ncdenr gov 5 Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a Name Design Consultant - Becky L Ward, P E 5b Business name (d applicable) Ward Consulting Engineers, P C 5c Street address 4805 Green Road, Suite 100 5d City, state, zip Raleigh, North Carolina, 27616 -2848 5e Telephone no 919 - 870 -0526 5f Fax no 919 - 870 -5359 5g Email address bward @wce -corp com Page 2 of 10 B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification 1a Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID) 1b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees) Latitude 34 839339 1c Property size 2. Surface Waters 2a Name of nearest body of water to proposed project 2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water 2c River basin 03156017 B, 03156017C Longitude 80 425628 1278 acres Lanes Creek Class C Rocky River Basin 3. Project Description 3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application Please see documentation attachment 3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property 0 32 3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 4,300 3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project Please see documentation attachment 3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used Please see documentation attachment 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / 0 Yes ❑ No Unknown project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments Stream determinations were made IRT Meeting 4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? ❑ Preliminary ❑X Final 4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company USACOE Name (if known) Other 4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation Locations of Ephemeral, Intermittent, and Perennial stream determinations were made by state agencies during the IRTR meeting on 1 -29 -2013 meeting minutes are attached 5. Project History 5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past? ❑Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown 5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions 6. Future Project Plans 6a Is this a phased project? 6b If yes, explain ❑ Yes ❑X No Page 3 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 C. Proposed Impacts Inventory 1. Impacts Summary 1a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply) 0 Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries 0 Buffers ❑ Open Waters El Pond Construction 2. Wetland Impacts If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland question for all stream sites Impacted 2a 2b 2c this L3a am Impact umber area impacted Wetland Impact number Type of Impact 3d Perennial (PER) or Type of wetland yp 2d Forested 2e Type of�urisdiction Permanent (P) or 3g Impact nent (P) or Corps (404,10) or Tempo a T jurisdiction stream length porary (T) DWQ (401, other) W1 P Fill Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh No No No Corps Corps W2 P Wetland to Stream W3 P Stream to Wetland W4 T Construction Access (feet) Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh S1 P Corps Restoration & El Tanyard Branch Y Corps Choose one Choose one No Yes /No I Yes/No Corps _ W5 Choose one W6 Choose one 2h Comments See documentation attachment 2f Area of Impact (acres) -00085 -00615 0 101 -0087 29 Total Wetland Impacts- 0 056 3 Stream Impacts If there are perennial or Intermittent stream Impacts (Including temporary Impacts) proposed on the site, then question for all stream sites Impacted complete this L3a am Impact umber 3b Type of Impact 3c Stream name 3d Perennial (PER) or 3e Type of 3f Average 3g Impact nent (P) or Intermittent INT ( ) jurisdiction stream length porary (T) width (linear INT (feet) feet) S1 P Restoration & El Tanyard Branch Y Corps S2 P Restoration & El Tanyard Branch PER 421 Corps ==2,822 S3 P Culvert Tanyard Branch PER Corps 102 S4 P Fill Tanyard Branch PER Corps 280 S5 - Choose one S6 - Choose one 31 Comments 3h Total stream and tributary impacts 3,625 See documentation attachment Page 4 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 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 individuall list all o en water im acts below 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e Open water Name of waterbody impact number (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody Area of impact (acres) Permanent (P) or Temporary T type 01 - Choose one Choose 02 Choose one Choose 03 - Choose one Choose 04 - 4g Comments 5. Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, then cot 5a 5b 5c Pond ID number Proposed use or purpose of pond P1 P2 5g Comments Choose one Choose one 5f Total: Choose one Choose 4f Total open water impacts Mete the chart below 5d 5e Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland Flooded I Filled I Excavated 5h Is a dam high hazard permit required? Yes No 51 Expected pond surface area (acres) 5j Size of pond watershed (acres) 5k Method of construction Flooded I Filled I Excavated If yes, permit ID no 6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, below If aiy then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts impacts require mitt anon, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form � Neuse � Tar - Pamlico E] Catawba E] Randleman ❑ Other 6d 6e 6f 6g Stream name Buffer Zone 1 Zone 2 6a Project is in which protected basin? 6b Buffer Impact number — 6c Reason for impact Permanent (P) or mitigation impact impact Tem ora T required? (square (square feet feet 61 - Yes /No B2 - Yes /No B3 Yes /No B4 Yes /No B5 - Yes /No 136 - Yes /No 6h Total Buffer Impacts: 61 Comments Tanyard Branch is not located in a protected basin The stream restoration project will establish 50 foot stream buffers a entire restored stream corridor within a conservation easement that will be vegetated Page 5 of 10 D. Impact Justification and Mitigation 1. Avoidance and Minimization 1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed Impacts in designing project The purpose of the project is to restore the stream and to establish buffers along the project corridor The existing wetland were avoided as much as possible with the stream relocation along the edge of the wetlands Permanent culvert crossings were minimized to two locations one each above and below Landsford Road Fill of the existing channel below where the stream was diverted to the relic channel was limited to a 50 foot distance beyond the conservation easement for the farmer to access his eastern fields 1b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed Impacts through construction techniques The project will be constructed from the top of the channel down and will be stabilized daily as work progresses Normal flow will be pumped around the active work area and where possible the new channel will be constructed off line The construction equipment will work on the edge of the wetlands to minimize impacts The area within the conservation easement where construction equipment has tracked will be ripped to promote vegetation success Contractor will access the active channel only at existing permanent or at proposed temporary crossings 2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State 2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes No Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State? 2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply) ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps Mitigation bank ❑ 2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Payment to In -lieu fee program ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a Name of Mitigation Bank Type Choose one Quantity 3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Choose one Quantity Type Choose one Quantity E4C ents lete if Makin a Payment to In -lieu Fee Pro ram 4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached ❑ Yes 4b Stream mitigation requested linear feet 4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature Choose one 4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only) square feet 4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested acres 4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested acres 4h Comments 5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan Page 6 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) —required by DWQ 6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? ❑ Yes ❑X No 6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the amount of mitigation required 6c 6d 6e Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 15 6f Total buffer mitigation required: 6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund) 6h Comments Page 7 of 10 E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 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 ❑Yes X❑ No lb If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included'? If no, explain why ❑ Yes 0 No 2. Stormwater Management Plan 2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 1% 2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes ❑X No 2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why This project has minimal impervious area and is a stream restoration project 2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan 2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? 3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a In which I22a1 government's jurisdiction is this oroiect? 3b Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs apply (check all that apply) 3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached? 4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review 4a Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply (check all that apply) 4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been attached? 5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? 5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? N/A ❑ Phase II ❑ NSW ❑ USMP ❑ Water Supply Watershed ❑ Other El Yes ❑ No ❑Coastal counties ❑HQW ❑ORW ❑Session Law 2006 -246 ❑Other ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes rj No Page 8 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 F. Supplementary Information 1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) la Does the project Involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the use of public (federal /state) land? ❑X Yes ❑ No lb If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑Yes ❑X No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)? 1c If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter) ❑Yes ❑ No Comments 2. Violations (DWQ Requirement) 2a Is the site In violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑Yes ❑X No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 0200)? 2b Is this an after - the -fact permit application? ❑Yes ❑X No 2c If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s) 3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future Impacts) result In additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ❑Yes ❑X No 3b If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative Impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description This project includes stream restoration and the removal of land from current farming practices which will be converted to 50 foot buffers The land adjacent to the stream has been historically farmed It is possible in the distant future that this area may develop into residential use as the adjacent towns expand 4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from N/A the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility Page 9of10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (C PHave oject occur in or near an area with federally prote checked with the USFWS concerning Endangere 5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted 5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your si Habitat? See Section 4 2 of the Environmental Resources Technical Report for a des Checklist for the project in Appendix B of the Mitigation Plan 6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essen 6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your si The NOAA EFH mapper was used to confirm the absence of EFH See the A the Mitigation Plan 7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requir 7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federa governments have designated as having historic or cultural p status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties North Carolina history and archaeology)? orps Requirement) Y Yes No cted species or ❑ X❑ J Species Act ❑X Yes ❑ No Asheville to would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical caption of the site evaluation See teh Approved Categorical Exclusion tial fish habitat? ❑ ❑ Yes X❑ No 7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? The NC Historic Preservation Office website (ww hpo dcr state nc us) was searched and no sites were listed for this property In addition, no architectural structures or archaeological artifacts were noted during preliminary surveys at the site 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? Yes X ❑ ❑ No 8b If yes, explain how protect meets FEMA requirements Tanyard Branch flows into Lanes Creek Lanes Creek is a FEMA regulated stream The changes in the Tanyard Branch stream alignment within the floodplain of Lanes Creek was modeled in the Lanes Creek HEC -RAS model A No -Rise was submitted to Union County for approval by Ward Consulting Engineers, P C 8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodmaps site (www ncfloodmaps com) was searched for FEMA floodplain limits Lanes Creek HEC -RAS models were obtained from the NC Geospacial Data office in Raleigh Tim Baumgardner Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is Drovided I Page 10 of 10 5 -1-& /y Date Documentation for Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form B Project Information and Prior Project History 3a Project Descnption The historic land use at the project site has consisted primarily of agricultural row crops Additional land use practices, including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation and the relocating, dredging, and straightening of Tanyard Branch have contributed to unstable channel characteristics and degraded water quality Current conditions at the 601 East Stream Restoration Site contains incised channels with unstable banks and a small to no riparian buffer Just south of Landsford Road the stream has been impacted by the presence of invasive exotic plants The uppermost reach of Tanyard Branch is in a confined valley with a steep slope Recent improvement on Pageland Highway (US 601) has caused significant degradation of the ephemeral and intermittent segments of the stream in recent years The lower segment of the project is separated by 1,100 feet of stream that is located to a substantially wooded buffer not included in the proposed project The lower reach consists of a straightened channel that has been diverted from its original location within the floodplam 3d Explain the purpose of the project The purposes of the proposed project are to restore stable channel morphology and proper sediment transport capacity, improve local aquatic and terrestrial habitat and diversity within the restored channel and vicinity, and improve flood flow attenuation on -site and downstream The project goals include the following 1 Reduce water quality stressors originating in and around the project area affecting the project reaches and downstream watercourses, which includes populations of the Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) and the Carolina Creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), both listed species of concern Specifically, this will involve a Reducing turbidity and sediment loading b Input reductions of nutrients and crop protection chemicals c Improving thermoregulation 2 Improving aquatic habitat quality and diversity within the project reaches 3 Improving recruitment of in stream fine organic matter (FOM) to the near term and both FOM and large wood in the long term 4 Improving terrestrial habitat diversity and quality in the vicinity of project reaches 5 Establishing habitat continuity between the reach headwaters and Lanes Creek 6 Improving flood flow attenuation and floodplam interaction The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives Ward Consultmg Engmeeis, P C 1 601 East Stream Restoration January 2014 PCN Documentation Objectives Relative Support of Stated Goals High Mod Low Restore or enhance reach pattern, dimension, and profile 6 2 3 Stabilize eroding stream banks 1,2 Install stream structures to maintain grad and improve bedform complexity 2 6 3 Implement BMP detention devices on lateral agricultural drainages g 1 Install a diverse, native riparian buffer 1 -5 6 Remove invasive and /or exotic plant species 4 5 Secure a protective conservation easement and establish fencing as needed 1 -6 3e Describe the overall protect in detail including the he type of equipment to be used The stream restoration proposed for this project has been selected to minimize the impact on adjacent land The stream has been designed to incorporate enhancement practices where it is beneficial to the stream Where restoration was determined to be warranted, consideration was given to which reaches could best be served by maintaining as much of the existing channel pattern as possible The ephemeral channel has been designed with protective buffers and BMPs to trap incoming excess sediment within the channel to aid in stabilizing the upper most reach of the project and address existing stressors Tanyard Branch has been designed with two reaches in both the upper and lower parts of the project The top of the upper reach from the ephemeral channel to the existing woods at the spring house has been designed as a Type B4 stream Below the woods to Landsford Road the stream has been designed as a Type C4 The lower reach has been designed as a Type C4 from the wood line for a distance of approximately 1078 feet The last 480 feet of the stream has been designed as a Priority 3 restoration, Type B4, to transition the stream through a deeply incised reach to Lanes Creek Through the restoration of the existing streams the stream pattern, profile, and dimension will be adjusted to allow the stream to efficiently transport its water and sediment load through a combination of changes to the channel dimension, pattern and profile To aid in long -term stabilization the installation of structures and vegetation will be an important part of the restoration plan The restoration reaches will include the installation of rock, brush, and wood structures Brush toe structures will be installed within the perennial stream on selected meander bends to provide bank stability and aquatic habitat Constructed riffles will be used for grade control to prevent head cut formation Log vanes with rootwads will be installed in two meander bends in the lower reach to direct the flow away from the outside of the bend and provide toe and bank protection On -site material including brush, logs, and bed material will be used to the maximum extent possible In- stream structures will be designed to improve aquatic habitat The restoration stream work will include the use of track hoe excavators, dump trucks, loaders, and pumps to pump around base stream flow Ward Consulting Engineers, P C 2 601 East Stream Restoration January 2014 PCN Documentation C. Proposed Impacts Inventory 2 Wetland Impacts 2h Comments An existing stream runs through the center of the wetlands identified on site dust above Landsford Road The existing wetlands excluding the area of the existing stream is estimated to be approximately 0 32 Acres The proposed stream will be constructed on the edge of the existing wetlands A clay plug will be installed at the top of the relocated stream to aid in diverting the water to the new channel This plug will impact 0 0085 Ac of wetlands -W1 The new stream location will impact approximately 0 0615 Ac of existing wetlands - W2 The existing stream has been estimated to comprise and area through the wetlands of approximately 0 101 Ac The existing stream will be converted to wetlands due to the stream relocation to the edge of the wetlands -W3 With the relocation of the channel no net loss of wetlands will be caused by this project Additionally it is expected that future wetlands will develop along the channel length in areas that are between the existing wetlands and the new stream channel and in other areas along the channel length where functional uplift has been obtained with the proposed channel design The construction of the new channel is expected to temporarily impact approximately 0 087 Ac of wetland area that is adjacent to the new channel -W4 All construction activities will be conducted to impact the least amount of wetland areas possible Exhibit A attached shows the delineation of the proposed impacts within the existing wetland area 3 Stream Impacts 31 Comments The project includes stream restoration and enhancement to the intermittent and perennial stream reaches on the project site The project is separated by Landsford Road with Reaches 1 and 2 located south of the road and reaches 3 and 4 north of the road Within the lower reach the existing active channel will be relocated into the relic channel The total existing stream length corresponding to the restored stream length corridor is 3345 feet of existing active and relic channel Diverting the channel from the existing location in reach 3 to the relic channel will require 280 feet of existing active channel to be filled The fill area will be required for the proposed alignment within the conservation easement and the fill is required to be extended 50 feet beyond the conservation easement to provide a farm access to the eastern farm fields (S4) The total length of proposed restored stream length is 3,772 feet The intermittent channel is located in Reach 1 of the project Restoration of the channel through a PI approach will impact 336 feet of existing channel and EI approximately 85 feet of existing channel (S1) The perennial channel begins at station 11 +95 Reaches 2, 3, and 4 include restoration and enhancement of the existing channel The project component chart below shows the restoration approach for the project reaches Project Component Chart Ward Consulting Engmeeis, PC 3 601 East Stream Restoration January 2014 PCN Documentation Project Component -or- Reach ID Stationing/Location Existing Footage /Acreage Approach (PI, Restoration -or- Restoration Restoration Footage or Ivlltigahon Ratio PII etc) Egmvalent Acreage Buffer establishment Reach A Ephemeral 5+45-7+60 215 and BMP sediment 215 1 5 import reduction Reach la Intermittent 7+60-11+10 336 P1 R 350 1 1 Reach lb Intermittent 11 +10 —11+95 85 Enhancement E1 85 1 15 Reach lc Perennial 11+95 — 13 +50 136 Enhancement E1 155 1 15 Reach 1 d Perennial 14+00 —22+00 790 PI R 800 1 1 Reach 2a Perennial 22+.00 —22+40 40 Enhancement E1 40 1 1 5 Reach 2b Perennial 22 +80 —24+00 125 Enhancement El 120 1 1 5 Reach 2c Perennial 24+00 —31+24 669 P1 R 724 1 1 Reach 3a Perennial 43+06 —46+60 80' active channel P1 R 368 1 1 112' relic channel Reach 3b Perennial 47+20— 53 +70 502' relic channel P1 R 650 1 1 Reach 4 Perennial 53 +70 — 58 +50 470' relic channel P3 R 480 1 1 The stream impacts (S2) will include stream restoration PI and EI approaches in Reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4 Two farm crossings are proposed for the project site requiring culverts to be installed in the stream The first culvert is located in Reach 1 between I and I The crossing will be a single 36 inch diameter concrete pipe The second crossing is located in Reach 3 and will consist of twin 42 inch pipe culverts 52 feet in length The culvert impacts have been identified as number S4 Exhibit B attached identifies the impacts corresponding to the stream impact chart on an overall layout of the project site Ward Consulting Engineers, P C 4 601 East Stream Restoration January 2014 PCN Documentation 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 50 50 50. 25 +75 J C 25+20 CLASS I MIX (77P.) ?s Q cl� 11a II +' "I �yl. PROPOSED 3 F „ CLAY PLUG D4 WETLAND IMPACT= 370 SQ. FT.) @b \ d� 410 MIKA REACH 2c - TYPE "C" D 2 d. D1 } m STONE AND LOG 4 CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE 23 EXISTING STREAM 470 LF X10'= 4,70Q SQ. FT. 31+45 STA HOW T N PLAN OF STREAM C NVERSION TO WETLAND =4,400 $QQ. FT. � X45 AS SHOWN ON PLAN Y' CF ,7r I LOCATION I cF END CONSERVATION rn l \ FRANKLIN o . HO EY, JR. EASEMENT F \ D.B. 3574,,PG 813 STA 31- 4 / cE O EXISTING WETLANDS BEYOND STREAM LIMI S/ fi \ �F 0.32 ACRES / 1 CJ1 EXISTING 10' 1 FxIS-r OP OF BANK FUNCTION y0 PLACE MATTING ON'--, \� (125+45 to 25 +70= 240 sq. ft. OUTLET SIDE OF BASIN Q 25 +80 to 25 +90= 80 sq. ft. Existing We Inds= 14,808 sq. ft. 26 +35 to 27 +50= 870 sq. ft. Stream Conversid' t Wetlands= 4,400 sq. ft. (4)29+05 to 30 +50= 1490 sq. ft. Wetland Conversion to0S Tam= -2,680 sq. ft. Total= 2,680 sq. ft. Proposed Clay Plug Impacts =,tO70 sq. ft. Wetlands Post Project= 16, 158 s",= 0.37 acres No Net Loss of Wetlands CENTERLINE Ib`i di'9Ga 1--i V ?L: 4,.i CENTERLINE ANTLPIPATED FUTUR WETLANDS=850 SQ. FT,,:.-.,, 40 20 0 40 80 Half Size Scale: 1" =40' TEMPORA FOR CON 26 +00 26 +25 26 +50 26 +75 27 +00 27 +25 27 +50 27 +75 28 +00 28 +25 28 +50 28 +75 29 +00 29 +25 29 +50 29 +75 30+00 30 +25 30 +50 30+75 31 +00 31 +25 FULL SIZE PLAN - HORIZONTAL SCALE - 1" = 20' VERTICAL SCALE - 1" = 2' HALF SIZE PLAN -HORIZONTAL SCALE - 1 " = 40' VERTICAL SCALE - 1" = 4' U R N J a F- < a co C U 517 w Q 516 �44 Z Z lY1 I{ 00 J O li W &t U m 0�_-1 d "0 z K N ��I�yyyy 'O m .rte• W C .[•!I N � MM�r O ^Iw No J (�L earn m ❑ v il. ' f .,.�• N N co ULL �� LL l0 Z E MZ ILLI ;i�ihH�l "� I11� ii'• +� � iii �i`tlJy ilia C N = o U m ' �, W4 O] It m IMPACTS DWG NAME: tUCTION Con .fion Plan and Profile 509 26 +00 26 +25 26 +50 26 +75 27 +00 27 +25 27 +50 27 +75 28 +00 28 +25 28 +50 28 +75 29 +00 29 +25 29 +50 29 +75 30+00 30 +25 30 +50 30+75 31 +00 31 +25 FULL SIZE PLAN - HORIZONTAL SCALE - 1" = 20' VERTICAL SCALE - 1" = 2' HALF SIZE PLAN -HORIZONTAL SCALE - 1 " = 40' VERTICAL SCALE - 1" = 4' U R N J a F- < a co C U 517 w Q 516 Z Z 0 00 J O 514 W &t U DATE: 14 JAN 2014 —J LL O "0 z K N ��I�yyyy 'O m .rte• W C .[•!I N � MM�r O ^Iw No J (�L earn m ❑ v D f .,.�• N N co ULL �� LL l0 Z E MZ ILLI CV C N = o U m PROJECT NAME: v LI p 10 O O] It 601 East 510 DWG NAME: I J a F- < Q U C U 517 Q 516 Z Z 0 00 J O 514 Sri + U DATE: 14 JAN 2014 —J LL O M = REVISIONS: wp O 512 Z ti + Z Q CV PROJECT NAME: Q O --I 0 519 r 518 J a F- < Q U C U 517 Z O 516 Z 0 515 514 DATE: 14 JAN 2014 513 REVISIONS: 512 511 PROJECT NAME: 601 East 510 DWG NAME: Con .fion Plan and Profile 509 SCALE: As Nawd 508 CONSTRUCTION PLAN SET 507 SHEET NO. 31 +50 / / / / / / 50 LF S3 CULVERT T / PERMAJJENT FORM / CROSSING o r RE1 REACH lb 'pp-3 / INTERMITTENT tr o� REEP�RN ♦ ♦ ♦ y rA LAT. 3 7° 4.839339 N /f LONGi 080.4256274° W I / / / ACT STA 4 / 8£OrN r 0 ZARY NSTRUCTIUN ACCESS / 1 w STA 42+92 STA 31 +24 \ el I I I fA> _ / I I I -S `7 1� L❑ E RE CH / f E 1 1 �II \ rILL APPROXIMAIr S4 i� TO RELL(rCHANNE AND. 1 1 4 TO PROVIDE F 1 CR SSING T 'E� M Fit LEGEND —- EXISTING CENTERLINE EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CENTERLINE s� PROPOSED TOP OF BANK PROPOSED CONTOURS ► ROOT WAD FLCODPLAIN SILL `_ ROCK CROSS VANE ROCK A -VANE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE ® GRADE TRANSRION PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT - - -- PROPERTY LINE --ten- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WETLAND RESTORATION CD WERAND PRESERVATION ® TREE TO BE REMOVED MATCHLINE CLAY PLUG SINGLE WANG ROCK VANE -=-- RIGHT OF WAY CONSERVATION EASEMENT TM— TREE PROTECTION 000000 ROCK OR BRUSH TOE -+i- TEMPORARY SILT FENCE -�- BRUSH LINE WETLAND EDGE 300 130 0 300 600 HALF SIZE SCALDS 1' =300' A - _ i.l 0 N N c C? N •r.l o Xv� Ob G W 7 N W� easyo6 on 4�°1!N bcti d Oq iUCD v � d W0%99 rte' W Q Y Z H W w 0 U Q 0 0 W Z C3 c5 W-1 % Z O � U Z C3 W t7 Z W :3 WAM 14 JAN 2014 1 601 East lvw_l Legends and Symbols Sh" 1• -300' EXIBIT —B REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CESAW -RG /Crumbley 6 January, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: 601 East- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCEEP Project Name: 601 East Stream Restoration Project, Union County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -00265 NCEEP #: 95756 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 3 January, 2014 1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR. 19 December. 2013: • As stated for previous projects, DWR continues to have concerns regarding restoration, particularly P1 restoration, on incised intermittent channels (project proposes 350 LF of P1 on Reach 1a). Our concern remains that constructing an offline channel at a higher elevation can sometimes result in removing the groundwater discharge altogether, converting a jurisdictional intermittent channel into a non - jurisdictional ephemeral feature. It should be noted that credit loss (and the potential need for compensatory mitigation) could result if the proposed work results in the conversion of an intermittent stream to an ephemeral feature. DWR wants to ensure the written record for this project includes our concern. 2. T. Crumbley, USACE, 2 January, 2014: • The District concurs with the comment provided by NCDWR with regard to Priority 1 restoration on incised intermittent channels. During the field meeting on 29 January, 2013 several issues with the project were discussed: a. There was concern from NCIRT on disconnecting the intermittent section of Reach 1a (above cross - section #1) from the groundwater source. It was stated that credits will not be generated on reaches that have been converted from intermittent to ephemeral. b. It was suggested by the NCIRT to quantify the on -site sediment loss /bank erosion prior to restoration and potentially tie a performance standard to incorporate on- site reduction versus watershed input. c. USFWS suggested planting dense shrubs along with trees on the outside /around the BMP on ephemeral section of Reach 1a to prevent additional rill or gully formation. Specifically utilizing species that will attenuate sediment. d. USFWS also suggested that a neotropical migrant bird study be conducted prior to construction. • A brief discussion on impacts to existing wetlands is presented in the Draft plan, but any impacts (eg. filling, draining, converting) to current waters of the U.S. (streams, wetlands and open waters) must be accounted for and discussed in the Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) and the loss or conversion of those waters must be replaced on -site. (the conversion of ponds to stream is considered an impact, but the functional uplift provided allows for this conversion to be conducted under NWP 27. These impacts do, however need to be accounted for in the PCN). • Section 9, pg. 46. Performance Standards: Should reference the "Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and Wetland Mitigation" Dated November 7, 2011. (Section IV C.) *All monitoring and performance standard requirements need to comply with this EEP /District guidance unless the project was instituted prior to the release of this guidance* /s/ Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist, Regulatory Division DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: 21 January, 2014 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the 601 East Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2013 - 00265; EEP IMS # 95756 Mr. Tim Baumgartner North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Dear Mr. Baumgartner: The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT) during the 30 -day comment period for the 601 East Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 3 January, 2014. These comments are attached for your review. Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan. However, the minor issues with the Draft as discussed in the attached comment memo must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the addressed comments. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at 919- 846 -2564. Sincerely, Digitally signed by %y CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUTR Y.1007509975 Date: 2014.01.21 09:13:10 - 05'00' Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW -RG /H. Wicker CESAW- RG -A/S. Kichefski NCEEP/P. Wiesner REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 CESAW -RG /Crumbley 6 January, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: 601 East- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCEEP Project Name: 601 East Stream Restoration Project, Union County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -00265 NCEEP #: 95756 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 3 January, 2014 1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 19 December, 2013: • As stated for previous projects, DWR continues to have concerns regarding restoration, particularly P1 restoration, on incised intermittent channels (project proposes 350 LF of P1 on Reach 1a). Our concern remains that constructing an offline channel at a higher elevation can sometimes result in removing the groundwater discharge altogether, converting a jurisdictional intermittent channel into a non - jurisdictional ephemeral feature. It should be noted that credit loss (and the potential need for compensatory mitigation) could result if the proposed work results in the conversion of an intermittent stream to an ephemeral feature. DWR wants to ensure the written record for this project includes our concern. 2. T. Crumbley, USACE, 2 January, 2014: • The District concurs with the comment provided by NCDWR with regard to Priority 1 restoration on incised intermittent channels. During the field meeting on 29 January, 2013 several issues with the project were discussed: a. There was concern from NCIRT on disconnecting the intermittent section of Reach 1a (above cross - section #1) from the groundwater source. It was stated that credits will not be generated on reaches that have been converted from intermittent to ephemeral. b. It was suggested by the NCIRT to quantify the on -site sediment loss /bank erosion prior to restoration and potentially tie a performance standard to incorporate on- site reduction versus watershed input. c. USFWS suggested planting dense shrubs along with trees on the outside /around the BMP on ephemeral section of Reach 1a to prevent additional rill or gully formation. Specifically utilizing species that will attenuate sediment. d. USFWS also suggested that a neotropical migrant bird study be conducted prior to construction. • A brief discussion on impacts to existing wetlands is presented in the Draft plan, but any impacts (eg. filling, draining, converting) to current waters of the U.S. (streams, wetlands and open waters) must be accounted for and discussed in the Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) and the loss or conversion of those waters must be replaced on -site. (the conversion of ponds to stream is considered an impact, but the functional uplift provided allows for this conversion to be conducted under NWP 27. These impacts do, however need to be accounted for in the PCN). • Section 9, pg. 46. Performance Standards: Should reference the "Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and Wetland Mitigation" Dated November 7, 2011. (Section IV C.) *All monitoring and performance standard requirements need to comply with this EEP /District guidance unless the project was instituted prior to the release of this guidance* Digitally signed by � CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUT RY.1007509975 Date: 2014.01.21 /s/ 09:13:34 - 05'00' Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist, Regulatory Division