The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140073 Ver 1_Closeout Summary 2018_20180529NC DMS Closeout Report Project Type: Buffer Mitigation Closeout: 2018 Project Name Green Valley Farm Site DMS Project ID 95012 Full Delivery Contract # 003994 Institution/Contract Date 7/14/2011 Basin Cape Fear 8 -digit CU 03030003 County Randolph Applicable Buffer Rule (s) 15A NCAC 0213.0252 Non -Diffuse Flow Area Removed: Memo or W.S. calculation NA Date Planted 6/2012 Date of Supplemental Plant 4/2016 Protection mechanism http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs- public/Mitigation Services/Document Management Library/Property/Property Portfolio/95012 GreenValleyFarmsSite PD 2012.pdf Easement Acreage 11.37 Stewards DEQ Stewardship Program Encroachments & Resolution NA Accepted for transfer to stewardship Y Asset Table Success Criterion Table 1. Projec t C:ompoments end-lfid atian Credits Project Component Success Criteria per Success Criteria Met C�-eem Vallel.. FRanuplr County Approved Mitigation Plan Riparian Buffer 320 stems per acre D115 Project ID Number 0039Site 95012 • 5 plots/transects Md,ptlon Credits Steam Ripadm Wetland Ian-IIpanan Biffer N±M2t MN- UtrllMt PhOSpLromouS Wetland Offiet Nuji mt Offie Type WA N/A NIA MA DUA I IN/A Restoration MA NIA Totals NIA NA NIA NIA N/A I NIA 415,176 s ff_ NIA NIA Project C'alnpanents F,estoratian �r- StatiammgI F-istinaFaataae Approach FestorationAaea Reach ID Location UZ "PL FIL Restoration (square feet) Mitigation Ratio un-alent F,eacb UT1 Nr'A 2-450 NSA Buffer Ii2l. M 1:1 Restoration Reacb UT2 NIA 1,156 N/A Buffer 115,434 1:1 RestoNhDn Rea -ch UT3 NIA 1,105 N/A Buffer 100.185 1:1 ReStorahDla Reac-h UT4 N. A 590 N -A Buffer 49.6-;S 1:1 Restanahan C'nmFoment Surnrnatiou Restoration Level Streamamara Wetland Non -Riparian lhiffer land (acres` (knearfeet) R6L-rme Non eIme Wetlmd (aaes) (s gume ket) Festorait]on N/A N A NIA NA 412,176 NIA Fmhancemem N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA Enhancement N/A hUA NIA N/A NIA NIA Fmhancement U N/A IIIA NIA N/A NIA NIA Ueation N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA NA Fnsernation NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA -QUA Ekgll Qaalirj, N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA IIIA Free ennation Success Criterion Project Component Success Criteria per Success Criteria Met Approved Mitigation Plan Riparian Buffer 320 stems per acre Yes — 11/11 > 320 st./ac. • 5 plots/transects Green Valley Asset Map Date: October 2017 Figure 2. Current Condition Flan View Green Vailey Farms Riparian Buffer Restoration Site Monitoring YeaF 5 Randolph County, North Carolina DMS Project !D# 043994 C. 300 400 £00 Feet 1 inch = 40C f -e: fires Vegetation Data: The tallest eight trees were averaged, representing 320 stems/acre. Table 7. CC'S Stem CountTotaland Plauted nithlaithout Lil estakes by Plot ant] Species Greeu Valle, Randolph Count DAIS Project ID Number 003994 -DAIS Site 9=012 Current Plot Data f MV5 20171 Tahte 6. MF -,au Buffer i egetntiau T.0 G—VMIl r,Reuddp6Cmmn- Dl1iS Prn'ect m Dumber 003994 DABS Site 95412 � � �� Plot Riparian Nolunteers per Total Buffer Stems Acre Stems Success Criteria Average Tree Height cm' 1 445 0 445 Yes 1156 2 486 1255 1740 Yes 846 3 1093 607 1700 Yes 1063 4 809 1416 2226 Yes 866 5 445 557 1012 Yes 833 6 728 324 1052 Yes 711 " 324 40 364 Yes 681 8 405 0 445 Yes 583 9 728 0 728 Yes 450 10 405 0 405 Yes 444 11 567 162 728 Yes 631 Prro' ct At- 585 397 986 Yes 751 The tallest eight trees were averaged, representing 320 stems/acre. Table 7. CC'S Stem CountTotaland Plauted nithlaithout Lil estakes by Plot ant] Species Greeu Valle, Randolph Count DAIS Project ID Number 003994 -DAIS Site 9=012 Current Plot Data f MV5 20171 � � �� lel � � �� • � � �� + � ��+. � F �� • F � �� • + � �� IF 0 000 0 0000 0 0 Appendix A: Project Correspondence — DWR Buffer Viability Letter and or DWR Approval or BMP As -built Package. SM i a y" T ®L North Carolina Department of Environment and Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen K Sullins Governor Director Kristie Corson NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Re: Hockett Dairy Buffer Mitigation Site Green Valley Farms Buffer Mitigation Site Randolph County Dear Ms. Corson: Natural Resources Dee Freeman Secretary November t0, 2011 The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Winston-Salem Regional Office has reviewed the Minutes submitted by EBX submitted to EEP on October 6, 2011 (attached). These minutes accurately summarizes all discussions conducted during a site visit to the Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer Mitigation Sites as well as all follow up correspondence. The Division concurs that that the proposed buffer planting areas as depicted in the attached October 6, 2011 minutes and maps should qualify for buffer restoration credits in the Randleman Lake watershed provided that the plantings are shown to meet the buffer mitigation success criteria established in 15A NCAC 02B .0252. If you have any questions related to our comments or this mitigation project, please feel free to contact me at 336-771- 4964 or sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov. Cc: DWQ-WSRO North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office Location: 585 Waughtown St. Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107 Phone: 336-771-50001 FAX: 336-771-45301 Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 Internet: vnwi.nmaterquality.org An Equal Opportunity lAfflrmatve Action Employer Sincerely, Sue Homewood DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office One NorthCarolina Naturally HOCKETT DAIRY AND GREEN VALLEY FARMS DWQ SITE VISIT SUMMARY On September 1, 2011 NCDWQ met with NCEEP, EBX; and WK Dickson personnel to review the eligibility of the proposed Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer Mitigation sites in Randolph County, NC. The meeting attendeeswere: • Sue Homewood, NCDWQ Surface Water Protection, Winston-Salem Regional Office • Tim Baumgartner, NCEEP, Full Delivery Manager • Martin Hovis, EBX • Daniel Ingram, WK Dickson The NCDWQ comments for each project site are summarized below. This memorandum also presents EBX's response to the NCDWQ comments. Overview maps are attached for Hockett Dairy and Green Valley Farms Buffer Mitigation Sites to illustrate comments listed below and to further depict locations in question from NCDWQ. HOCKETT DAIRY UTI —Ms. Homewood (NCDWQ) agreed that buffer restoration would be advantageous at this location due to the immediate proximity of Randleman Lake and the direct nutrient and sediment input from the cattle operations. However, Ms. Homewood felt this drainage lacked a defined channel and was not subject to the Randleman Buffer rules. Ms. Homewood stated that if the channel was contained in a gully such as the one on the back of the upstream darn, then the channel would qualify for buffer restoration credit. Ms. Homewood also stated that she could not define the top of bank location and would not be able to establish the buffer zones. For these reasons Ms. Homewood felt the drainage feature was not suitable for mitigation. She did state that if a channel formed by the end of the five-year monitoring then the credits would be allowed. This results in a loss of 0.20 acres of buffer restoration and continued degradation of Randleman Lake. EBX feels this determination is not appropriate for several reasons. The contributing watershed is 17.6 acres at the downstream end. Recent research by NCDWQ in this ecoregion (Carolina Slate Belt -A) has shown that stream channels form at a mean watershed size of 11.2 acres and intermittent channels are present in 75 percent of 14.47 acre watersheds (Mapping Headwater Streams: Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream Model Development and Spatial Application North Carolina Division of Water Quality Final Report for Federal Highway Administration Contract: Feasibility Study WBS: 36486.4.2, January 29, 2008). The upstream pond (Farm Pond 1) also provides hydrologic storage limiting channel forming flows. WK Dickson personnel observed- seasonal stream flow in UTI during the fall of 2010 and winter of 2011. Lastly, Keith Hockett, principle dairy farmer, stated that the UTI channel was formerly Bullied from cattle access and dam failures but was repaired at the request of NCDWQ. There is a defined drainage swale with FACW and OBL vegetation. EBX proposes the extent of the hydrophytic vegetation be considered the channel and buffer restoration be allowed for 50 feet extending outward from that point. Farm Pond 1 — Ms. Homewood agreed that buffer restoration would be advantageous at this location due to the immediate proximity of Randleman Lake and the direct nutrient and sediment input from the cattle operations. However, Ms. Homewood felt that Farm Pond 1 lacked a connection to a downstream water body due to UTI not being subject to the Randleman Buffer Rules. As a result, Farm Pond 1 is not subject to the Randleman Buffer rules. For these reasons Ms. Homewood felt the pond was not suitable for mitigation. She did state that if UTI was contained in a defined channel then the Pond I buffer restoration credits would be allowed. This results in a loss of 0.50 acres of buffer restoration and continued degradation of Randleman Lake. In addition, a supplemental planted area (not for credit) of 0.63 acres is located adjacent to the proposed buffer restoration and would not be included in the project if no buffer credit is allowed on Farm Pond 1. NCDWQ had previously recommended planting this denuded area during a farm inspection. EBX feels this determination is not appropriate for the reasons discussed above. UTI should be considered an intermittent stream and subject to the Randleman Buffer Rules. This would allow allowing buffer restoration on Farm Pond 1. UT2 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.52 acres ofUT2 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. Farm Pond 2 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 0.46 acres of Farm Pond 2 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. UT3 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.44 acres of UT3 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules, Farm Pond 3 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 0.54 acres of Farm Pond 3 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. UT4 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 4.35 acres of UT4 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. UT5 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.00 acres of UT5 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. UT6 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 1.78 acres of UT6 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. GREEN VALLEY FARMS UTI - Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 3.55 acres of UTI buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. UT2 — Ms. Homewood agreed with the Technical Proposal that the proposed 2.65 acres of UT2 buffer restoration is allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer Rules. UT3 _ of UT3 Rules. UT4 —] feature M14 state that if a channel form would be allowed, This re degradation of Randleman that the lower 190 linear le: the Randleman Buffer Ruh EBX feels this determinatii watershed is 19.2 acres. R Belt -A} has shown that strc and SpE Federal 29,200 the chaff defined personn 2011 an (intermi EBX pr buffer r acres allowable and appropriate under the Randleman Buffer the top of )n Ms. She did on is allowable and appropriate under of buffer restoration, everal reasons. The contributing Q in this ecoregon {Carolina Slate ,an watershed size of 11.2 acres and 9 of and Legend Stream Not Subject to Randleman Rules Per NCDWQ ..... Ephemeral Channel Intermittent Streams Perenial Streams Proposed Water Line 0 Proposed Well Location 6 Proposed Livestock Watering System ® Crossings X x x Proposed Easement Fencing Proposed Stream Buffer Easement Targeted Parcels Proposed Stream Buffer Restoration = 11.09 BMLIs (Acres) Buffer Area Not Subject to Randleman Rules Per NCDWQ = 0.70 BMLIs (Acres) X.-..... �. 9feet ,, Water Resources Environmental Quality March 24, 2017 Mr. Brian Hockett Resources Environmental Solutions, LLC 302 Jefferson St, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secretary S. JAY ZIMMERMAN Director Subject: On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Randleman Lake Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0250) Subject Property: Green Valley Farm Buffer Mitigation Site Dear Mr. Hockett: On February 23, 2017, at your request, I conducted an on-site determination to review the upper portion of UT4 located within the subject project area for a stream determination with regards to the above noted state regulations. You were present during the site visit. At the time of the site determination the upper 400 feet of UT4, as shown on the attached Monitoring Plan View, was determined to be an intermittent stream and therefore_is subject to the Randleman Lake Buffer Rules. Additionally, the riparian restoration that was constructed adjacent to this stream is viable for buffer mitigation credit provided that the vegetation condition meets success criteria. The owner (or future owners) should notify the Division (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any future correspondences concerning this property. This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the Division or Delegated Local Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that dispute a determination by the Division or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" surface water from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60 -day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. The Division recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days. {'tithing Compares7_. State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality 450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 1 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105 336-776-9800 This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have any additional questions or require additional information, please contact me at 336-776-96923 or sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, Sue Homewood Winston-Salem Regional Office Enclosures: Green Valley Farm Buffer Map Cc: H. Needham Hockett Jr. c/o Brian Hockett (via email) Lindsay Crocker, DMS (via email) Katie Merritt, DWR Buffer Mitigation Coordinator (via email) DWR electronic file 2014-0073 DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office