20061819 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_20170119

NOT AN INSTRUMENT PROJECT
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek Wetland Restoration Site
DMS Project Number 97063
Robeson County, North Carolina
April 2016
Prepared by:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
This report was written in conformance with the DOD and EPA 40 CFR Part 230 (Final Rule) and the April 2003 US
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................4
2.0 Performance Standards.....................................................................................................................4
2.1 Vegetation........................................................................................................................4
2.2 Hydrology..........................................................................................................................4
3.0 Monitoring Plan................................................................................................................................5
4.0 Maintenance & Contingency Plan........................................................................................................6
5.0 Baseline........................................................................................................................................6
Appendices
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity & Reporting
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Asset Map
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View
Site Photos
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Planted Species
Table 7 Vegetation Density
Appendix D. As -Built Plan and 2015 Monitoring Gauge Data
Figure 4 As -Built
Figures 5a -5c Monitoring Gauge Data
Appendix E Clarifications
IRT Comment Clarifications
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
2

**THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK**
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Black Gum Creek Project (the site) is a wetland rehabilitation and preservation project constructed for the NC
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to fulfill non -riparian wetland needs in the Lumber River Basin 03040203
Catalog Unit. The project is located in northwest Robeson County, approximately 6 miles north of Maxton, off Modest
Rd (Figure 1). This project includes rehabilitation of non -riparian wetlands and preservation of existing forested and
ponded wetlands (Table 1).
The Project site is a former agricultural field, located on an inter -stream divide between the Lumber River and Black
Gum Swamp, surrounded by forested areas and agricultural parcels. The site was altered since the mid -80s, which
included ditching and clearing.
The site contains approximately 9.940 acres exhibiting wetland hydrology and soils (Wetland 1), but initially was
lacking in hydrophytic vegetation, lending itself to a rehabilitation restoration approach using the definitions provided
in 40 CFR Part 230 (Final Rule). Additionally, there are two jurisdictional wetland communities on the site, as
confirmed by an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) by the US Army Corps of Engineers on January 6, 2016,
leading to a preservation approach to provide wetland restoration equivalents (RE). These preservation areas
include 23.042 acres of a successional wetland and forested hardwood flat in the Southern section of the project
(Wetland 2) and 51.382 acres of forested hardwood flatlpocosin and open water/wetland habitat in the northern
section of the project, for a total of 74.424 acres of preservation (Figure 2). These acreages have been updated from
the Mitigation Plan to As -Built stage due to GIS geometry calculation.
Wetland restoration activities included planting the rehabilitation areas in March 2016 with 5,010 bare root species
from the Hardwood Flat Forest Community (NCWAM, v. 4.12010) as well as other similar species found in the
adjacent forested wetland community. There were six (6) different species selected to reflect the target vegetative
community.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The Lumber River Basin Restoration Priorities state that the goals for the Black Gum Creek 14 -digit HUC are:
• Replacing buffer
• Repairing channelized streams
• Preservation of existing resources.
The following specific project goals, as stated in the Mitigation Plan, include:
• Restoring a hardwood flat vegetation community
• Expanding forested wetland complex
The success of these project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
• Plant native tree/shrub species
• Preserve existing hardwood flat/pocosin wetlands
2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
2.1 Vegetation
An average density of 260 stems/acre must be surviving after five years of monitoring. Upon completion of planting in
March 2016, eight (8) permanent vegetation plots were installed and initial plant stocking was performed to determine
species composition and density (Appendix C, Table 6). Vegetation was monitored using the Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) protocols level 2 monitoring.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
4

2.2 Hydrology
The site will present continuous saturated or inundated hydrologic conditions for at least 8% of the growing season
during normal weather conditions. A "normal" year is based on NRCS climatological data for Robeson County, using
the 30th to 70th percentile thresholds as the range of normal. The growing season for Robeson County, using the
50% chance of higher than 28 F method, is from March 22th through November 5th, 228 days (WETS Table,
Robeson County). Hydrologic performance will be determined through evaluation of automatic recording gauge data
supplemented by documentation of wetland hydrology indicators as defined in the 1987 USACE Delineation Manual,
daily data will be collected from automatic wells over the 5 -year monitoring period.
Five (5) continuous monitoring groundwater gauges were installed to provide pre -restoration conditions, and data
was downloaded to provide one more year of pre -restoration data for this as -built report. Data from the 2015 growing
season for monitoring gauges 3, 4 and 5 is provided in Appendix D. Gauges 1 and 2 were destroyed, presumably by
a bear, and the data from these two gauges was not recoverable.
3.0 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a
project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, population of DMS
databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding project close-out.
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Groundwater
Quantity and location of
Groundwater monitoring gauges with data
Yes
Hydrology
gauges will be determined
annual
recording devices will be installed on site; the
in consultation with DMS
data will be downloaded on a quarterly basis
Quantity and location of
Monitoring
Yes
Vegetation
vegetation plots will be
Years 1,
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
determined in consultation
2,3,4,5
Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols
with DMS
Exotic and
nuisance
Semi-annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will
vegetation
be mapped
Project boundary
Semi-annual
Mapping of vegetation damage, boundary
encroachments
The first scheduled vegetation monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project
completion. Monitoring will occur in years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The survivability of the vegetation plantings will be
evaluated using a 100m2vegetative sampling plots randomly placed in the planted areas.
Groundwater elevations will be monitored to evaluate jurisdictional wetland hydrology. Verification of wetland
hydrology will be determined by automatic recording of well data collected within the project area.
Permanent photographic reference points will be established to assist in characterizing each site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of site conditions. The location of each photo point will be marked in the monitoring plan and
the bearing/orientation of the photograph will be documented.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
5

Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each year are completed. The
report will document the monitored components and include all collected data and photographs. Each report will
provide the new monitoring data and compare the most recent results against previous findings. The monitoring
report format will be similar to that set out in the most recent DMS monitoring protocol.
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
DMS shall monitor the site and conduct a physical inspection of the site a minimum of once per year throughout the
post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site
components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in
the first two years following site construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Remedial Measures
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure survival. Routine vegetation
Any remedial activities performed will be
Vegetation
maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting.
documented in the annual monitoring reports.
The site will also be evaluated to ensure diffuse flow is still occurring.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may
Site Boundary
be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other
Any remedial activities performed will be
means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.
documented in the annual monitoring reports.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired
and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
5.0 BASELINE
Baseline monitoring components were established in 2016. A total of 5,010 woody stems were planted by Bruton
Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2016. Upon the completion of planting in March 2016, initial plant stocking density
and composition were verified. See Table 6 in Appendix C for the list of species and number of each planted. In
addition, DMS staff randomly selected and established eight (8) 100 square meter (mz) vegetation plots. See Figure
3 in Appendix B for plot locations and Table 7 in Appendix C for information on plot density.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
6

APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND TABLES
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063

Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Black Gum Creek, DMS Project ID# 97063
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
Mitigation Components
Stream
Non -riparian
Riparian Wetland Wetland
Nitrogen
Buffer Nutrient
Phosphorous Nutrient
Offset
Type R
RE
R RE R RE
Acres
9.940 74.424
Total Credits
6.627 7.442
...........................................................
...............................................
..........................
Project Components
Project Component
Stationing/
Location
Existing Approach
Footage/Acreage
(PI, Pit etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Mitigation
Acreage Ratio
Wetland 1
9.940
R
9.940 1.5
Wetland 2
23.042
RE
23.042 10
Wetland 3
51.382
RE
51.382 10
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
linear feet
Riparian Wetland Non-
acres acres
Buffer
(square feet
Upland
acres
Riverine Non-
Riverine
Restoration
(Rehabilitation)
9.940
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
-
Preservation
74.424
High Quality
Preservation
R=Restoration, RE= Restoration Equivalent
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Data collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Institution Date
NA
Jul -05
404 permit date
NA
NA
Restoration Plan
NA
Jan -16
Site Planted
NA
Mar -16
Mitigation Plan / As -built Baseline
r-16
r-16
Year 1 Monitoring
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Year 2 Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Kristin Miguez 910-796-7475
Year 3 Monitoring
Kristin Miguez 910-796-7475
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Designer
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
Primary planting plan POC
Kristin Miguez 910-796-7475
Survey Contractor
Landmark Surveying, Inc.
PO Box 839, Graham, NC 27253-0839
Survey contractor POC
Doug Yarbrough - 336-263-1294
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197, Fremont, NC 27830
Planting contractor POC
Charlie Bruton - 919-242-6555
Monitoring Performers
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Kristin Miguez 910-796-7475
Wetland Monitoring POC
Kristin Miguez 910-796-7475
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063

Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Project Information
Project Name Black Gum Creek
County Robeson
Project Area (acres) 147.47
Project Coordinates (lat. & long.) 79019'44" W 34049'12" N
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Coastal Plain
River Basin Lumber
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -Digit 3040203
USGS Hydrologic
Unit 14 -Digit
3040203020010
DWR Sub -basin 03-07-51
Project Drainage Area (ac) N/A
Project Drainage Area % Impervious <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 50% Forested, 41 % Agriculture
Existing Wetland Summary Information
Parameters 1 2 3
Size of Wetland (acres) 9.940 23.042 51.382
Wetland Type Non -riparian Non -riparian Non -riparian
Mapped Soil Series Rains & Plummer/ Plummer/Osier & Rutledge
Osier Rutledge
Drainage Class Poorly & Very Poorly Very Poorly Drained Very Poorly Drained
Drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Hydric
Source of Hydrology Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation
Hydrologic Impairment None None None
Existing Vegetation Crops Successional Forested
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0% 07 07
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the U.S. Section 404
Yes
Yes
Jurisdictional
Determination
Waters of the U.S. Section 401
Yes
Yes
Jurisdictional
Determination
Endangered Species Act
N/A
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act
N/A
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMAFloodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
10

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
11

Figure 1. Vicinity Map
l
„ r
'' .. � . aa., rue { - ii'k �... �� �� a — t .■ _ �" � - _.- _ �� ^, � " ..
1 w J
3 I �. �•� ' g } 1T.
iT
- 111
t
Site Directions from Raleigh:
�. 7 r�,, • Take 1-95 S to Exit 41, NC -59
s." �;,' • Turn Right on NC -59
�I
- 7,F_4 After 0.7 mile turn left onto Shipman Rd
�` �; �° ° / • After 1.0 mile turn right on US 301-5
i'`�.; �, t , _ - • After 2.4 miles turn right onto NC -71 S
• After 6.6 miles turn right onto NC 20/W Main St.
..0 1.25 5 1,1i1?s • After 5.8 miles turn left onto N Old Wire Rd
.- `r • After 11.0 miles continue onto Modest Rd
..":,;; • After 1.6 miles turn right onto Winston Rd
t.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
12

I
0 300 600 1,200 Feet

04.x;: ,
1 " = 500'

z
ds,
i
2
�t
r
x
f f�
z
ds,
2
�t
r
x
z

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Black Gum Creek, DMS Project IN 97063
Planted Acreage: 9.9 acres
Easement Acreage 14
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
0.0%
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 14
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
16
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
16

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
17

Table 6. Planted Species
Black Gum Creek, DMS Project IN 97063
Scientific Name
Common Name
Number Planted
% of total planted
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
835
16.67%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
835
16.67%
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
835
16.67%
Beltula nigra
River Birch
835
16.67%
Plantanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
835
16.67%
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
1 835
1 16.67%
Table 7. Vegetation Density
Black Gum Creek, DMS Project IN 97063
Total: 5,010 100%
Current Plot Data (MY0 2016) Annual Means
Scientific Name
97063-01-0001
97063.01-0002
97063.01.0003
97063-01.0004
97063-01.0005
97063-01-0006
97063-01-0007
97063-01-0008
MY0(2016)
Common Name Species Type PnoLSP-all T PnoL P -all T PnoL P -all T PnoL P -all T PnoL P -all
T PnoLSP-all T PnoLSP-all T PnoLSP-all T PnoLSP-all IT
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
3 3
3 3 3
3
12
12
12
5
5
5
6
6
6
2 2
2 1 1
1 2 2
2 34 34
34
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2 2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
3 3
3 4 4
4 1 1
1 16 16
16
Cornus amomum
s ilky dogwood
Shrub
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
5 5
5
4 4
4 16 16
16
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Igreen ash
ITree
9 9
91
1
1
1
11
3
3
31
1
1
1 3 3
3 16 16
16
Platanus occidentalis
jAmericansycamore
Tree
3 3
3 4 4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
3 3
3 4 4
4
20 20
20
Quercus michauxii
swarnp chestnut oak
iTree
3 3
3 3 3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
2 1 1
1 12 12
12
Unknown
I
IS hrub or Tree
1 1
1
1 1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRE S)
Species count
Stems perACREJ
21 21 21 10 10 10
1 1
0.02 0.02
61 61 61 31 31 31
849.81 849.81 849.81 404.71 404.71404.71
17
51
6881
17
1
0.02
51
6881
17
51
6881
15
51
6071
15
1
0.02
51
6071
15 16 16 16 14 14 14 11 11 11 11 11 11 115 115 115
1 1 1 1 8
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20
51 51 51 51 51 51 51 41 4 41 51 S 51 71 71 7
6071647.51 647.51647.51566.61 S66.61 566.61 445.21 445.21445.21445.21 445.2 445.2 581.7 581.7 581.7
Type = Tree, Shrub, Livestake
P = Planted
T = Total
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
18

APPENDIX D
AS -BUILT PLAN and 2015 MONITORING GAUGE DATA
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
19

ti

Figure 5a. Monitoring Gauge #3
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
a
3 -lo.o
a
c
O
o
c -15.0
s
c
a
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
35.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
4 W N W O M h 4 V 6 N
N O N O N O :i O ci m .-1 N .—I N O N
0 0 0 N N M M C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r W W Oat 0 O O
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o -1 �
ftR ELL Date
Date Time Depth (in)
-Longest Period Meeting Requirements
-Required Depth
-Growing Season
Black Gum Creek Hydrology Monitoring -2015 Pre Data
Groundwater Gauge 3
Growing Season Days: 228 (Mar 22 — Nov 5)
Success Hydroperiod Percent: 8%
Required Number of Days Meeting Requirements: 18
Longest Period Meeting Requirements: 41
Hydroperiod Percent: 17.98%
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
21
1.2
1
0.s
0
E
d
0.6 c
O
0.2
0
M

Figure 5b. Monitoring Gauge #4
2
0
-5
-10
Black Gum Creek Hydrology Monitoring -2015 Pre -Data
Groundwater Gauge 4
-25
-30
-35
o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O O o
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
`OtL1 W N O mO W
O 0 O O O N
O N
NN N M 7 0 N N 0 tip h h n W 0_1 O O
O 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O rl ci
Daily Precipitation (in) Date
- Date Time Depth(in)
-Longest Period Meeting Requirements
-Required Depth
-Growing Season
Growing Season Days: 228 (Mar 22 — Nov 5)
Success Hydroperiod Percent: 8%
Required Number of Days Meeting Requirements: 18
Longest Period Meeting Requirements: 46
Hydroperiod Percent: 20.18%
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
22
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
c
0.6
E
4
0.5 0
0
0.4 .n
a
a`
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Figure 5c. Monitoring Gauge #5
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
a
m
3
a
c
5 -15.0
t�
0
s
y -20.0
O
-25.0
-30.0
35.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\97 \ \ \O \ \W
0 1 0 O O O 1 \N
ON
�/_i t\D t_p r r r W W Q_1 G`1 O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Daily Precipitation (in) Date
Date Time Depth (in)
Longest Period Meeting Requirements
-Required Depth
-Growing Season
Black Gum Creek Hydrology Monitoring- 2015 Pre -Data
Groundwater Gauge 5
Growing Season Days: 228 (Mar 22 — Nov 5)
Success Hydroperiod Percent: 8%
Required Number of Days Meeting Requirements: 18
Longest Period Meeting Requirements: 63
Hydroperiod Percent: 27.63%
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
23
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
'0
E
d
0.5
0
'a
0.4
a`
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

APPENDIX E
CLARIFICATIONS TO IRT
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
24

This project is not an Instrument Project and as such, a formal response to comments was not
provided prior to the completion of the Final Mitigation Plan. Several of the concerns brought
forward below were subsequently discussed with members of the IRT. For clarification
purposes, a detailed response is being provided as part of the Baseline Monitoring Document.
Todd Bowers, USEPA, February 19, 2016:
1. General comment: Well-documented past site activity, comments, letters and recent
progress towards establishing this site as a wetland bank. However, many questions arise
based on some lack of definitive information to those who have not been on-site with the
IRT. Disclaimer: I have not been on-site or in any discussions with the IRT concerning
this project. I realize this project has a lengthy history and many approaches have been
considered that I have not been privy to.
Response: This project was originally submitted to the Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS, then EEP) as a Full Delivery Project that included a combination of stream and
riparian wetland restoration. Upon further review, staff decided this was not an
appropriate approach. Staff met on-site with Todd Tugwell, Tyler Crumbley, Mickey
Sugg and David Bailey on 4/15/2013 to discuss the project. At the conclusion of the site
visit, it was decided that the areas exhibiting both hydric soils and wetland hydrology
were suitable for non -riparian wetland rehabilitation. In addition, the areas where wetland
hydrology was restored and planted were acceptable for wetland restoration. DMS later
determined that restoring wetland hydrology to some of the drained hydric soils was not
feasible due to the potential for hydrologic trespass. The project as presented and
planted now offers a combination of non -riparian wetland rehabilitation and preservation.
2. The goal of "repairing channelized streams" is not being addressed by this mitigation
plan. In fact it appears that stream restoration is now not being considered per the letter
dated July 2, 2104 from the NCDMS (formerly EEP).
Response: The goal of "repairing channelized streams" is referring to one of the goals
for the overall watershed as listed in the Lumber River Basin Restoration Priorities
document. Correct, stream restoration is no longer part of this project.
3. With regard to the large amount of area being classified as "preservation" there seems to
be a lack of information pertaining to:
a. Hydrology baseline data for the preservation areas
b. The effect of ditching on the wetlands being considered for preservation and
restoration
Response: DMS has not collected baseline hydrologic information for the wetland preservation
areas, however our consultant did complete a Feasibility Study of the site in 2014. The study
included both a soils delineation and reconnaissance of the ditches on site. Ditch cross-
sections and profiles showed that these ditches have minimal slope, and two to four feet of
standing water were encountered at the time of the site investigation. This indicates that even
though these ditches are positively draining the site, the normal flow moving through them is
minimal and they are not likely having a significant impact on the local water table.
4. Please have the provider supply the IRT with a shapefile outlining the conservation
easement of the site.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
25

Response: The location of the conservation easement is provided in the Mitigation Plan.
5. Why is the easement boundary, especially with regard to the center portion of the site
where no wetlands will be established or preserved, much larger than the acreage of the
mitigation?
Response: DMS acquired the easement necessary for the project as it was originally
presented to include both stream and wetland restoration. The project scope and footprint has
since been reduced to include only non -riparian wetland rehabilitation and preservation.
6. What, if anything, will happen with the on-site ditches since stream restoration is not
being considered?
Response: The ditches are not intended to be maintained or otherwise manipulated.
They will be monitored for beaver activity and managed as appropriate throughout the
monitoring period.
7. 1 am a little troubled that we are considering 10 acres of "successional wetlands" for
preservation credit. The sponsor should consider a higher ratio or justify how the
wetlands considered for preservation are functioning in a manner similar to or provide the
habitat of reference wetlands in a similar location (non -riparian on an interstream divide).
Response: DMS is applying a credit ratio of 10:1 for the wetland preservation on this
project instead of a ratio of 5:1 which has been used for high quality wetland
preservation. These areas are exhibiting wetland characteristics, including successional
vegetation, and DMS is of the opinion that this area is best suited for preservation credit.
8. The sponsor should provide some sort of demonstrable imminent threat towards the areas
being considered for preservation.
Response: The areas being considered for preservation were surrounded by or adjacent
to land that was being used for agricultural production. The threat that these areas could
be converted to agricultural or other uses was removed when DMS acquired the
conservation easement.
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, 29 February 2016:
1. The ditch map located in the section with the Jurisdictional Determination should also be
placed forward in the document just before the Mitigation Plan View. This is one of the
most crucial pieces of information for this project because all the ditches remain open and
leads the reader to why this project is primarily preservation and rehabilitation.
Response: The map was added as Figure 2.7 — Existing Hydrology Features in the final
Mitigation Plan. Ditch locations are also shown on Figure 3 of the Baseline Monitoring
Document.
2. During the site visit today (February 29th, 2016) it was noted that beaver had blocked the
culvert on the western boundary of the property (about a 1/3 of the way down). It may be
advisable to remove the beaver just before and while the tree planting is going on and
after for a period of time to allow the trees to adjust before being inundated.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
26

Response: DMS has coordinated with APHIS for the removal of dams and management
of beavers at the site.
3. Determination of Credits-DWR agrees with the preservation ratio (10:1) since the site is a
mixture of early successional and mature stands. However, the rehabilitation is proposed
at 1.5:1 and DWR believes a more appropriate ratio is 2:1 (the rehabilitation areas are
adjacent to open ditches, are currently already naturalizing, and other sections represent a
very narrow band around jurisdictional wetlands).
Response: DMS presented the proposed 1.5:1 credit ratio for wetland rehabilitation to
the IRT at a meeting on July 22, 2014. There was no indication from the IRT that this
credit scenario was not acceptable, and no formal meeting minutes were generated.
DMS deemed the ratio as approved and proceeded with crediting of the wetland
rehabilitation assets at the 1.5:1 ratio.
4. DWR does not concur with granting any preservation credit for wetlands that contain
ditches. Please check your asset map to make sure that many of the preservation areas do
not overlap with ditches on site.
Response: The wetland preservation areas were all deemed jurisdictional by the
USACE. A feasibility study conducted by our consultant indicated that "even though
these ditches are positively draining the site, the normal flow moving through them is
minimal and they are not likely having a significant impact on the local water table.
However, they do serve to hold and help drain surface water during storm events."
5. The northeastern portion of the preservation is open water and should be noted as such on
the Mitigation Plan view. DWR believes that this limited habitat is beneficial to the
overall site ecology and should be included in the credit.
Response: Noted, this area is likely inundated related to beaver activity in the large
canal that splits the site. DMS will make note of this area in the Baseline Monitoring
Report.
Andrea Hughes, USACE, March 10, 2015:
1. The Black Gum Creek Wetlands aerial with ditch locations and wetland boundaries (in
the JD section) indicates that Ditches 1-5 are located within the boundaries of the
conservation easement area. The mitigation plan indicates that these areas cannot be
filled due to the potential for hydrologic trespass. Will these ditches be maintained in the
future?
Response: There is no intent to maintain these ditches. They will be monitored for
beaver activity and managed as appropriate throughout the monitoring period.
2. Section 8.0: Vegetation success is contingent upon survival of 260 planted stems/acre at
Year 5 monitoring.
Response: Correction has been made.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
27

3. Section 10.0: Please provide the name of the party responsible for long-term
management.
Response: This is a State -held conservation easement that is anticipated to be
managed by the DEQ Stewardship program.
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Black Gum Creek 97063
28