The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130187 Ver 1_401 Application_20140930Pat McCrory Governor irtMim-EAWWR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael Ellison, Director Ecosystem Enhancement Program cop, MEMORANDUM. )"- b TO: Cindy Perry l FROM: Lin Xu Lx SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee 401 Permit Application DATE: September 22, 2014 a oUA� John E. Skvarla, III Secretary The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a wetland restoration and enhancement project for UT to Millers Creek Site in Duplin County (EEP IMS # 95719). 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: Cyndi Karoly, DWR 1652 Mail 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 z ao13ocg� Office Use Only Corps action ID no DWQ project no Form Version 1 4 January 2009 2��f� Page 1 of 10 0— 7 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form A. Applicant Information 1. Processing la Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps ® Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit lb Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number. 27,13 or General Permit (GP) number 1c Has the NWP or GP number been venfied by the Corps? ❑ Yes ❑X No 1d 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 ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization le Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401 Certification ❑ Yes ❑X No For the record only for Corps Permit ❑ 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 ❑ Yes ❑X No 1 g Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h below ❑ Yes ® No 1h Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes ❑X No 2. Project Information 2a Name of project UT to Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 2b County Duplin 2c Nearest municipality / town Magnolia, NC 2d Subdivision name Magnolia, NC 2e NCDOT only, T I P or state project no NCEEP # 95719 3. Owner Information 3a Name(s) on Recorded Deed William Jeffrey Hatcher and wife Susan King Hatcher 3b Deed Book and Page No Original 1501 pg465 Easement 1761 pg881 Deed 27pg160 Correction 1761 pg881 3c Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable) ICA Engineering, Inc 3d Street address 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100 3e City, state, zip Raleigh, NC 27607 3f Telephone no 919 -851 -6066 3g Fax no 919- 851 -6846 3h Email address kmckeithan @icaeng corn 2��f� Page 1 of 10 0— 7 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a Applicant is ❑ Agent Q Other, specify NCDENR -Ecosystem Enhancement Program 4b Name Tim Baumgartner 4c Business name (if applicable) NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Project - 4d Street address 217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A Mail 1652 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 4e City, state, zip Raleigh, NC 27603 4f Telephone no 919 707 8543 4g Fax no 919 707 8976 4h Email address Tim Baumgartner @ncdenr gov 5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a Name Katie McKeithan 5b Business name (if applicable) ICA Engineering, Inc 5c Street address 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100 5d City, state, zip Raleigh, NC 27607 5e Telephone no 919 851 6066 5f Fax no 919 851 6846 5g Email address kmckeithan @icaeng corn Page 2 of 10 B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification 1a Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID) 247100987405 lb Site coordinates (in decimal degrees) Latitude 34 894467 Longitude -78 067625 1c Property size 15 944 acres 2. Surface Waters 2a Name of nearest body of water to proposed project Millers Creek 2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water C, SW 2c River basin Cape Fear 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 The majority of the Site was once used as an agricultural field but has been recently planted in loblolly pine Land use within the drainage area for the UT consists of hardwood forest (58 percent), urban land (Town of Magnolia) (25 percent), pine plantation (10 percent), agriculture (6 percent), and open water (1 percent) 3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property 7 91 3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property 3,200 3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project Stream and wetland mitigation Restore 2,100 existing linear feet of the UT (2,679 restored feet), native riparian buffer, and 8 77 ac riparian wetlands 3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used Standard construction equipment will be utilized to construct the channel and fill ditch and pond See Mitigation Plan for more information 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / project (including all prior phases) in the past? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown Comments 4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? 0 Preliminary ❑ Final 4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Name (if known): Wes Fryar /Nick Howell Agency /Consultant Company Land Management Group (LMG) Other 4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation August 8, 2013 See Mitigation Plan Appendix B 1 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination 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? ❑ Yes ® No 6b If yes, explain Page 3of10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 C. Proposed Impacts Inventory 1. Impacts Summary 1 a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply) ❑X Wetlands X❑ Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction 2. Wetland Impacts If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted 2a Wetland impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary T 2b Type of impact 2c Type of wetland 2d Forested 2e Type of jurisdiction Corps (404,10) or DWQ (401, other) 2f Area of impact (acres) W1 P Excavation Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps 024 W2 P Fill Bottomiand Hardwood Forest No Corps 002 W3 P Excavation Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps 008 W4 P Excavation Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps 001 W5 P Excavation Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps 002 W6 P Excavation Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps 001 2g Total Wetland Impacts: 0 523 2h Comments See Table 1 for complete list Total Wetland Impacts includes complete list from Table 1 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 3a Stream impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) 3b Type of impact 3c Stream name 3d Perennial (PER) or intermittent (INT)? 3e Type of jurisdiction 3f Average stream width (feet) 3g Impact length (linear feet) S1 P Stabilization UT to Millers PER Corps 97 2,100 S2 P Fill UT to Millers 3 INT Corps 8 615 S3 Choose one - S4 Choose one S5 Choose one S6 Choose one 3h Total stream and tributary impacts 2.715 31 Comments Existing channel is 2,100 linear feet Restored channel is 2,679 linear feet 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 indivi ually list all open water impacts below 4a Open water impact number Permanent (P) or Temporary T 4b Name of waterbody (if applicable) 4c Type of impact 4d Waterbody type 4e Area of impact (acres) 01 P Pond Fill Pond 077 02 Choose one Choose 03 Choose one Choose 04 Choose one Choose 4f Total open water impacts 077 4g Comments 5. Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below 5a Pond ID number 5b. Proposed use or purpose of pond 5c Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d Stream Impacts (feet) 5e Upland (acres) Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated P1 Choose one P2 Choose one 5f Total: 5g Comments - 5h Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no 51 Expected pond surface area (acres) 5j Size of pond watershed (acres) 5k Method of construction 6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below If any impacts require mitigation. then vou MUST fill out Section D of this form 6a Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑X Other Cape Fear 6b Buffer Impact number — Permanent (P) or Temporary T 6c Reason for impact 6d Stream name 6e Buffer mitigation required? 6f Zone 1 impact (square feet ) 6g Zone 2 impact (square feet B1 Yes /No B2 Yes /No B3 Yes /No B4 Yes /No B5 Yes /No B6 Yes /No 6h Total Buffer Impacts: 61 Comments 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 proposed plan is to restore the UT to Millers Creek in a new location, which requires filling the existing channel and excavating a new channel Avoidance and minimization measure include surveying all existing 10" dbh and greater trees and then routing the proposed alignment around these specimens to the extent practical, avoiding existing wetlands where possible lb Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques Erosion control measures such as a pump around operation with silt bags, silt checks, erosion control matting, seeding and mulch will be implemented during construction Earthwork is anticipated to be minimal since the bankfull channel will be reconnected to the original floodplain for the entire length of the restoration 2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State 2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State? ❑ Yes ❑X No 2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply) ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps 2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Mitigation bank El Payment to in -lieu fee program ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a Name of Mitigation Bank 3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Choose one Type Choose one Type Choose one Quantity Quantity Quantity 3c Comments 4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program 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 14 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 Zone 6c Reason for impact 6d Total impact (square feet) Multiplier 6e Required mitigation (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 1 5 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 la Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ❑X No within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? lb If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Stormwater Management Plan 2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0 2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes ® No 2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why. There is no impervious surface within the project area, and the project will not result in the creation of any impervious surface A buffer area will be planted with native vegetation, and any disturbed areas will be seeded 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 local government's jurisdiction is this project? ❑ Phase II ❑ NSW 3b Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs ❑ USMP apply (check all that apply) ❑ Water Supply Watershed ❑ Other 3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No attached? 4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review ❑Coastal counties ❑HQW 4a Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ORW (check all that apply) ❑Session Law 2006 -246 []Other 4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No attached 5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ 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 Yes ❑ No use of public (federal /state) land? 1 b 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 ❑X Yes ❑ 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 Q Yes ❑ No ) See Appendix 134 of Mitigation Plan for Categorical Exclusion 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 2B 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 ❑Yes ❑X No additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 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 4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility No wastewater will be generated from the proposed project, sediment will be filtered from water before it is discharged downstream of the project Page 9 of 10 PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009 S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ® No habitat? 5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act Yes ❑ No impacts? 5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted Raleigh 5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? Correspondence with FWS www fws gov /raleigh /species /cntylist/duplin html The threatened or endangered species for Duplin county are American alligator and red - cockaded woodpecker Suitable habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker, in the form of mature stands do not exist on -site 6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? Correspondence with USFWS and NOAA 7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes Q No status (e.g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? Correspondence with NCSHPO 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? 7_0 Yes ❑X No 8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements 8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM maps of the Site Tim Baumgartner T? Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Date Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided Page 10 of 10 r-i v H i \ N % 'Rt ct N w�q N r-I rq Ln m m N O O O O O O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO �, , o V O O M m d L N Q H C i+ L) O L i m E O +- H '-1 O -a O C:) Z H a, aCJ VI aaaaaaaaaaa3 h N O N o H H 0 Ln N L L L L L L L L L L L L 0) T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N H U D V V U U U U U U U U U C F- OD N 01 0) -O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z H H Vf H N H N N H VI N L L L L L L L L L L 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C L m L m L m L m L m L m L m L m L m L m L m o E E E E E E E E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +-' +� +1 �. +. 4� +1 +.l U >a. O O O O O O O O O O O N H m m m m m m m m m m m mm CL E C C C C C C C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - 00 o m C m m m m m m C C > i > > > > > > N m U m m a U U U U U V a T N i` X— W V U- X LLJ X LU X LL X LU X LU X Lu U U m c Z > d U U U C L m m a a E o v E E aL, °- - E L a 2 c c a f- a F- a a a a a a. a H F- Q E o CL 0)) r r m -q Ln lD I- 0000 0000 41 > ?-I >-I >N D Ln > N > C > > > > > Ica September 17, 2014 Engineering Ms. Kristin E. Miguez Project Manager Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652 RE: DENR — Ecosystem Enhancement Program Unnamed Tributary to Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to CORP Comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan (August 15, 2014) Ms. Miguez: As per the Memorandum for Record dated August 15, 2014, we have reviewed and addressed CORPS' review comments as follows: 1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 14 July, 2014: a. The plan is not clear regarding areas of wetland restoration on the site. No proposed asset map was identified. Response: Figure 8 Asset Map Overview has been added in Section 5.0 Determination of Credits. b. Table 4 indicates that a total of 8.2 acres ofwetlands are to be "restored" (note this is a mathematics error; it appears the number should be 8.7). However, the table indicates that 2.5 acres are mature woods. While a lower ratio (1.25:1) is proposed, it appears that this would be wetland enhancement, with the associated 2:1 ratio. Response: Table 4 has been revised to more clearly depict the Site's Credit Summation and Project Components. Please note that wetland restoration credits are now depicted as being obtained through four (4) distinct areas on -site; each with its unique mitigation ratio. These include: • Drained Wetlands (Pines) • Drained Wetland (Mature Woods) • Drained Wetland (Berm/Spoil Along Existing Channel) • Pond These four wetland restoration areas have been included in an attempt to more clearly depict restoration credit ratios on the Site. Additionally, an expanded explanation of the reasoning for restoration credit ratios has been included within Section 5.0 Determination of Credits and shown below: "A discussion was held with the IRT concerning the removal of spoil /waste material from historic wetlands adjacent to the UT and pond. The IRT mentioned that waste material spread over wetlands adjacent to ponds typically is able to generate restoration credits if the action has occurred "recently (5 to 15 years) ". It is of note that the pond was excavated in 2007, which was 7 years ago. Therefore, removal of waste material from adjacent to the Pond (and over hydric soils) is being proposed as wetland restoration at a 1:1 ratio. Additionally, a discussion was held 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27607 • 919.851.6066 • www.icaeng.com regarding the removal of spoil berms over drained hydric soils adjacent to the UT. Spoil berms adjacent to the UT were placed over hydric soils in historic wetlands. These berms will be removed and used as fill into the exiting UT. Removal of the berms within riparian hydric soils is proposed to be restored at a 1:1 credit ratio. Land within the current footprint of the pond will be filled with overburden that was spread over historic wetlands adjacent to the pond. The existing pond is a jurisdictional surface water based off of the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination; however, it has been documented that a ditch was in the place of the current footprint of the pond prior to the pond being excavated. The ditch was draining hydric soils and presumably riparian wetlands. ICA proposes restoration credits within the footprint of the Pond at a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1, per the definition of rehabilitation under the premise of restoration as defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule. " c. The location of proposed vegetation plots should be included on a figure, to ensure that all community types will be accurately represented. Response: Figure 9 Monitoring Overview has been added in Section 8.0 Monitoring Requirements. Vegetation Plots are also depicted on Sheets PL -1 and PL -2 with the community types. d. It appears that areas outside the conservation easement will remain as pine plantation. The plan should include provisions for controlling pine within the easement during the monitoring period, as it is going to be a problem and could potentially impact planted species. Response: The following was added to Section 8.4 Vegetation Monitoring Standards: "Should an abundance of any non planted exotic, invasive or nuisance species including pine trees be identified during the visual assessments, it will be noted in the Annual Monitoring Report. If the exotic, invasive or nuisance species appear to be hindering the survival of planted species, a Plan of Corrective Action will be determined in concurrence with NCEEP and the USACE. " e. An additional comment: Assuming that the pond is a jurisdictional water, conversion of the pond would be enhancement as well, as it is converting one type of jurisdictional water to another. I believe this is how this has been handled at other sites. Response: The following was added in Section 5.0 Determination of Credits: "Land within the current footprint of the pond will be filled with overburden that was spread over historic wetlands adjacent to the pond. The existing pond is a jurisdictional surface water based off of the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination; however, it has been documented that a ditch was in the place of the current footprint of the pond prior to the pond being excavated. The ditch was draining hydric soils and presumably riparian wetlands. ICA proposes restoration credits within the footprint of the Pond at a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1, per the definition of rehabilitation under the premise of restoration as defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule. " 2. Todd Bowers, USEPA, 17 July, 2014: a. Page 50, last paragraph: Please state the tree size is 12 inches and greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) within the buffer surveyed. Could be confused with tree height. There also seems to be an inconsistency between the size of trees surveyed to remain on site for the stream restoration portion of the project. ICA surveyed all trees greater than 12 inches (assuming dbh) and the proposed condition graphics that display trees with 10 inch or greater dbh. Please correct for consistency. Response: Section 7.1.1 UT to Millers Creek has been revised to indicate trees 10 inches and greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) within the buffer were surveyed. b. Page 52: Include in summary of activities that the planting of native riparian buffer will also minimize encroachment of invasive plant species. Response: The fifth bullet under 7.1.3 Summary of Activities was modified as follows: "Planting a native riparian buffer will promote terrestrial, aquatic and semiaquatic foraging, propagation, and cover habitat; connect the UT's native riparian corridor from the Site; minimize encroachment of invasive plant species, and enhance the floodplains ability to uptake nutrients and settle other pollutants from above bankfull events. " c. Page 53: Need some resolution on what to call giant cane /switch cane (Arundinaria gigantean or tecta) listed on page 51 or if giant cane referred to is switch cane. Response: All references to cane have been revised to giant cane (Arundinaria gigantean). d. Page 54: Change Myrica cerifera to Morella cerifera for consistency with planting plans on Table 8 (p. 64) and pages 5951597. Response: Change has been made. e. Page 63: Change stream bank planting density to read "one stem per four feet" or `four foot spacing" to conform with Table 8 which has the correct spacing for live stakes (3-4' spacing). Response: Modification has been made to Section 7.3.3 Planting Plan. f. Page 63: Table 8 Planting Plan is generally inconsistent with the graphics of the proposed planting plans on pages 595 and 597. Species percentages and stems planted are not aligned well between the Table and graphics. Response: Planting Plan sheet tables (PL -1 and PL -2) have been revised. g. Page 67: The last paragraph statement on vegetation performance standards are unclear. Does this mean monitoring can be terminated if density is greater than 260 stems /acre (year 5 standard) and the average height is greater than 10 feet (year 7 standard)? Does this apply to only planted stems or volunteers? Why have a year 7 standard for density then? Is this in case stem density is greater than 260 stems /acre and tree height average is less than 10 feet? Please provide an example or clarify in the document. Response: Second paragraph under Section 7.6 Vegetation has been removed. h. Page 72 and 73: Recommend a threshold and corrective action strategy to deal with invasive vegetation within the riparian buffer zones and restored wetlands (ex: >5% density or visual confirmation of severe encroachment). Response: See response to Ld. 3. Travis Wilson, NCWRC, 18 July, 2014: a. The IRT conducted a site visit at this location in February 2013. Recalling conditions at that time, WRC questions the necessity of the proposed mitigation approach. Although significant portions of the stream buffer could be improved by converting the adjacent pine plantation to an appropriate natural community, the majority of the buffer on the west side is appropriate. Furthermore, the stream did not appear to be unstable or incised to a degree that significantly impacted stream function. There is also an extensive beaver impoundment at the upstream boundary of this site, which would also attribute to the reduced evidence of overbank flooding. The likelihood of beaver dispersing into this reach after construction and vegetation conversion is high, resulting in vegetation loss, structure failure, filling of the channel, and overall difficulty in determining project success. This project may best benefit from a lighter approach. Response: A beaver and muskrat eradication program was implemented in 2012 through a contract with Duplin County Soil and Water Conservation. Duplin County contracted with the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Service (WS) to complete the project. No beaver activity has been noted over the last year. The site will be monitoring for beaver activity throughout the monitoring period. Should beaver activity re- appear on the site, APHIS WS or similar contractor will be contacted for removal. Beaver monitoring is discussed in Table 10. Monitoring Requirements and Section 8.2 Stream Monitoring Standards. 4. Todd Tugwell, USACE,11 August, 2014: a. No proposed assets map is included so it is not possible to tell what areas are proposed to generate credit on the site. Do these areas match up with drained hydric soils? Also, where are monitoring wells proposed to be located? Response: Figure 8 Asset Map Overview has been added in Section 5.0 Determination of Credits. Confirmed Hydric Soils are shown on Figure 8 in all areas proposed for Riparian Wetland Restoration. Figure 8 depicts riparian wetland restoration boundaries, drained hydric soils and gauge locations. Figure 9 Monitoring Overview has been added in Section 8.0 Monitoring Requirements that also depicts monitoring gauge locations. b. In Section 5, Determination of Credits, the table shows wetland restoration of 6.2 acres at a 1:1 ratio, and also wetland restoration of 2.5 acres of mature woods at a 1.25 :1 ratio, but the table is confusing, as it labels credits as restoration acres. Please change the table to show credits or RMUs rather than "Restoration footage or Acreage". Response: Table 6. Please see response to comment Lb above. c. The credit release schedule in Section 6 shows a 5 year schedule for stream credits (Table 6), but the site is to be monitored for 7 years (per Section 8). Please update this table to be consistent with the 7-year credit release schedule. Response: Table 4. Determination of Credits has been revised per comment. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call (919.851.6066). Sincerely, ICA Engineerin Inc. N' J illiams, PE, PLS, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM Cc: File e�� KUM North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory Governor Cyndi Karoly, Branch Manager Division of Water Resources 401 Wetlands Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650 Michael Ellison, Director Ecosystem Enhancement Program September 22, 2014 John E. Skvarla, III Secretary Re: Permit Application- Unnamed Tributary to Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Duplin County (EEP Full Delivery Project) Dear Mrs. Karoly: Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another copy has been sent to the Wilmington Regional Office for review. 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 Lin Xu Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package Final Mitigation Plan Permit Application Fee Memo CD containing all electronic files 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652 Phone: 919 - 707 -89761Internet: www.ncdenr.gov An Equal opportunity 1 Affnmative Action Employer - Made in part by recycled paper NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pat McCrory Michael Ellison, Director Governor Ecosystem Enhancement Program September 22, 2014 Jim Gregson, Surface Water Protection Supervisor NC DENR Wilmington Regional Office 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 John E. Skvarla, III Secretary Re: Permit Application- Unnamed Tributary to Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Duplin County (EEP Full Delivery Project) Dear Mr. Gregson: Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319). Thank you very much for your assistance. Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package Final Mitigation Plan Cc: Cyndi Karoly Sincerely Lin Xu 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652 Phone: 919 - 707 -89761Internet: www.ncdenr.gov An Equal Opportunity 1 Afin arbye Action Employer - Made m part by recycled paper DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: September 2, 2104 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the UT to Millers Creek Mitigation Plan; SAW -2013- 00386; NCEEP Project # 95719 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 UT to Millers Creek Mitigation Plan, which closed on July 19, 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, which is considered approved with this correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which 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. Issues identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. 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 prompt 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. Sincerelv. �� Todd Tugwell Special Projects Manager Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW -RG -W /Greer Kristen Miguez, NCEEP Lin Xu, NCEEP Jeff Schaffer, NCEEP TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.1048429293 2014.09.02 15:19:24 - 04'00' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: CESAW- RG /Tugwell 15 August, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: UT to Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Site - 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(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCEEP Project Name: UT to Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Site, Duplin County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2013 -00386 NCEEP #: 95719 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 19 July, 2014 1. Eric Kulz, NCDWR, 14 July, 2014: • The plan is not clear regarding areas of wetland restoration on the site. No proposed asset map was identified. • Table 4 indicates that a total of 8.2 acres of wetlands are to be "restored" (note this is a mathematics error; it appears the number should be 8.7). However, the table indicates that 2.5 acres are mature woods. While a lower ratio (1.25:1) is proposed, it appears that this would be wetland enhancement, with the associated 2:1 ratio. • The location of proposed vegetation plots should be included on a figure, to ensure that all community types will be accurately represented. • It appears that areas outside the conservation easement will remain as pine plantation. The plan should include provisions for controlling pine within the easement during the monitoring period, as it is going to be a problem and could potentially impact planted species. • An additional comment: Assuming that the pond is a jurisdictional water, conversion of the pond would be enhancement as well, as it is converting one type of jurisdictional water to another. I believe this is how this has been handled at other sites. 2. Todd Bowers, USEPA, 17July, 2014: • Page 50, last paragraph: Please state the tree size is 12 inches and greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) within the buffer surveyed. Could be confused with tree height. There also seems to be an inconsistency between the size of trees surveyed to remain on site for the stream restoration portion of the project. ICA surveyed all trees greater than 12 inches (assuming dbh) and the proposed condition graphics that display trees with 10 inch or greater dbh. Please correct for consistency. • Page 52: Include in summary of activities that the planting of native riparian buffer will also minimize encroachment of invasive plant species. • Page 53: Need some resolution on what to call giant cane /switch cane (Arundinaria gigantean or tecta) listed on page 51 or if giant cane referred to is switch cane. Page 54: Change Myrica cerifera to Morella cerifera for consistency with planting plans on Table 8 (p. 64) and pages 595/597. • Page 63: Change stream bank planting density to read "one stem per four feet" or "four foot spacing" to conform with Table 8 which has the correct spacing for live stakes (34 spacing). • Page 63: Table 8 Planting Plan is generally inconsistent with the graphics of the proposed planting plans on pages 595 and 597. Species percentages and stems planted are not aligned well between the Table and graphics. • Page 67: The last paragraph statement on vegetation performance standards are unclear. Does this mean monitoring can be terminated if density is greater than 260 stems /acre (year 5 standard) and the average height is greater than 10 feet (year 7 standard)? Does this apply to only planted stems or volunteers? Why have a year 7 standard for density then? Is this in case stem density is greater than 260 stems /acre and tree height average is less than 10 feet? Please provide an example or clarify in the document. • Page 72 and 73: Recommend a threshold and corrective action strategy to deal with invasive vegetation within the riparian buffer zones and restored wetlands (ex: >5% density or visual confirmation of severe encroachment). 3. Travis Wilson, NCWRC, 18 July, 2014: • The IRT conducted a site visit at this location in February 2013. Recalling conditions at that time, WRC questions the necessity of the proposed mitigation approach. Although significant portions of the stream buffer could be improved by converting the adjacent pine plantation to an appropriate natural community, the majority of the buffer on the west side is appropriate. Furthermore, the stream did not appear to be unstable or incised to a degree that significantly impacted stream function. There is also an extensive beaver impoundment at the upstream boundary of this site, which would also attribute to the reduced evidence of overbank flooding. The likelihood of beaver dispersing into this reach after construction and vegetation conversion is high, resulting in vegetation loss, structure failure, filling of the channel, and overall difficulty in determining project success. This project may best benefit from a lighter approach. 4. Todd Tugwell, USACE, 11 August, 2014: • No proposed assets map is included so it is not possible to tell what areas are proposed to generate credit on the site. Do these areas match up with drained hydric soils? Also, where are monitoring wells proposed to be located? • In Section 5, Determination of Credits, the table shows wetland restoration of 6.2 acres at a 1:1 ratio, and also wetland restoration of 2.5 acres of mature woods at a 1.25:1 ratio, but the table is confusing, as it labels credits as restoration acres. Please change the table to show credits or WMUs rather than "Restoration footage or Acreage ". • The credit release schedule in Section 6 shows a 5 year schedule for stream credits (Table 6), but the site is to be monitored for 7 years (per Section 8). Please update this table to be consistent with the 7 -year credit release schedule. /s/ Todd Tugwell Special Projects Manager Regulatory Division