20160980 Ver 1_401 Application_20180927

Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
January 31, 2018 Ver 2.3
Please note: fields mark ed with a red asterisk * below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are answered.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E-PCN, all you need to do is right-click on the document and you can print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/0/edoc/624704/PCN%20Help%20File%202018-1-30.pdf
A. Processing Information
County (or Countie s) whe re the proje ct is locate d:*
Is this proje ct a public transportation proje ct?*
1a. Type (s) of approv al sought from the Corps:*
1b. What type (s) of pe rmit(s) do you wish to se e k authorization?*
This form may be Corps to initiate the standard/individual permit process. Please contact your Corps representative for submittal of standard permits.
All required items that are not provided in the E-PCN and be added to the miscellaneous upload located at the bottom of this form.
Nationwide Pe rmit (NWP) Numbe r:
NWP Numbe r Othe r:
1c. Type (s) of approv al sought from the DWR:*
1d. Is this notification sole ly for the re cord be cause writte n approv al is not re quire d?*
For the re cord only for DWR 401 Ce rtification:
Johnston
Yes No
This is any publicly funded by municipal,state or federal funds road, rail, airport transportation project.
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
27 - Re storation
List all NW numbers you are applying for not on the drop dow n list.
check all that apply
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit Riparian Buffer Authorization
Individual Permit
Yes No
For the re cord only for Corps Pe r mit:
1e . Is payme nt into a mitigation bank or in-lie u fe e program propose d for mitigation of impacts?
1f. Is the proje ct locate d in any of NC's twe nty coastal countie s?*
1h. Is the proje ct locate d in a de signate d trout wate rshe d?*
Link to trout information: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Agency-Coordination/Trout.aspx
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
1c. Primary Contact Phone :*
1d. Who is applying for the pe rmit?
2. Owner Information
Yes No
If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program.
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
Daniel Ingram
[e-mail]
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
Owner Applicant (other than owner)Agent/Consultant
(Check all that apply)
2a. Name (s) on re corde d de e d:
2b. De e d book and page no.:
2c. Re sponsible party:
2d. Addre ss
2e . Te le phone Numbe r:
2f. Fax Numbe r :
2g. Email Addre ss:*
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
01732-0151
(f or Corporations)
City
Smithfield
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27577
Country
Street Address
2350 Wilsons Mills Road
Address Line 2
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
1a. Name of proje ct:*
1b. Subdiv ision name :
1c. Ne ar e st municipality / town:*
1d. Dr iv ing dire ctions *
2a. Prope rty Ide ntification Numbe r:
2b. Prope r ty size :
3a. Applicant is:
3b. Name :
3c. Busine ss Name :
3d. Addre ss
3e . Te le phone Numbe r:
3f. Fax Numbe r :
3g. Email Addre ss:*
Agent
Other
If other please specify.
Daniel Ingram
(if applicable)
City
Raleigh
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27605
Country
Street Address
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Address Line 2
[phone]
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[e-mail]
C. Project I nformati on and Pri or Project History
1. Proj ect Information
Meadow Spring
(if appropriate)
Smithfield
If it is a new project and can not easily be found in a GPS mapping system. Please provide directions.
To access the Site head east on NC 70 from the Town of Wilson Mills, turn right onto Wilson Mills Road and head south for approximately
1.5 miles.
2. Proj ect Identi fication
(tax PIN or parcel ID)
169500-74-6294
2c. Proje ct Addre ss
2d. Site coordinate s in de cimal de gre e s
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey-grade GPS device) after the decimal place as
appropriate, based on how the location was determined. (For example, most mobile phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to
map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal place.)
Latitude :*Longitude :*
3. Surf ace Waters
3a. Name of the ne are st body of wate r to propose d proje ct:*
3b. Wate r Re sour ce s Classification of ne are st re ce iv ing wate r:*
Surface Water Lookup
3c. What r iv e r basin(s) is your proje ct locate d in?*
R iver Ba s in Lookup
4. Project Descriptio n
4a. De scribe the e xisting conditions on the site and the ge ne ral land use in the v icinity of the proje ct at the time of this application:*
(in acres)
60.93
City
Smithfield
State / Province / Region
NC
Postal / Zip Code
27577
Country
Street Address
2350 Wilsons Mills Road
Address Line 2
35.54659
ex: 34.208504
-78.344386
-77.796371
Neuse River
WS-IV and NSW
Ne use
4b. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 e xce rpt from the most re ce nt v e rsion of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the proje ct site . (for
DWR)
4c. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 e xce rpt from the most re ce nt v e rsion of the publishe d County NRCS Soil Surv e y map de picting the proje ct site .
(for DWR)
4d. List the total e stimate d acre age of all e xisting we tlands on the prope rty:
4e . List the total e stimate d line ar fe e t of all e xisting stre ams on the prope rty:
4f. Explain the purpose of the propose d proje ct:*
4g. De scribe the ov e rall proje ct in de tail, including indire ct impacts and the type of e quipme nt to be use d:*
The Meadow Spring Mitigation Site is a stream, wetland, and buffer project located within a primarily rural
watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina. The Site is located in the
Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, 14-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201100050
(USGS, 2012). The Neuse River watershed (HUC 03020201100050) was identified as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian
buffer restoration. The Neuse TLW encompasses 52 square miles of watershed area. Thirty-seven percent of land
is used for agriculture including 13 animal operations. Seventeen percent of the area is developed approaching a
five percent imperviousness total.
The project area totals 60.93 acres and is comprised of one primary perennial stream that flows west to east to a
confluence with the Neuse River and has several adjacent wetlands and hydric soil areas. There is currently 7,392
linear feet of stream and 27.67 acres of existing wetlands. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI)
depicts three wetland areas within the site. There is a pond mapped as PUBHh (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom
Permanently Flooded Diked/Impound) on the west end of the project. And there are two large wetland areas
mapped on the east end of the project as PSS1C (Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally
Flooded) and PFO1C (Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded). Wetland delineation
identified five additional riparian wetlands in the project area as well as additional areas of hydric soils.
The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossing. The project is divided
into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern portion of the project includes
stream reaches S1, S2, S5, S6a and S6b, as well as, wetlands WA and WB. This northern section also has an
existing agricultural pond that will be drained and re-established as wetland. The southern portion of the project
includes Reaches S7, S9, S11, S12 and S13 and wetlands WD, WE, WF, and WG.
In general, all or portions of S1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S11 do not function to their full potential. Current land use
within the easement area is livestock grazing with access to all of the stream reaches and wetlands. Vegetation is
heavily disturbed due to the livestock. The surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped land, and single-family
homes. Livestock grazing has resulted in unstable stream banks and significant down cutting. The surface soil
layer and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding. Having been channelized in the past, some of
the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural
operations. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of
trees or shrubs and active pasture is directly adjacent to both banks of the existing channel. Habitat along the
majority of the restoration reaches is poor with little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or
protection for other aquatic species.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Figure_3_MS_USGS Map.pdf 1.6MB
File type must be pdf
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Figure_2_MS_NRCS Soil.pdf 1.28MB
File type must be pdf
27.67
(intermittent and perennial)
7,392
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural
stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in-stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be
hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during flooding events. The
design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005), and criteria that are developed
during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives, such as restoring the riparian buffer with
native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating invasive species.
The design approach for the Meadow Spring Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The analog
method involves the use of a “template” stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same location as the
design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create the features of the design
design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create the features of the design
reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar between the design
and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods in an effort to identify the design
discharge.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I/Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II,
Enhancement Level III and Buffer Enhancement. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a
single-thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above,
published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. As a
result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows and a restored riparian buffer will
provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this coastal plain watershed.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the reference reach
based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow Hydrographs, regional curves and flood frequency
analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull and other significant storm events.
Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as bankfull or dominant discharge)
was determined, and the subsequent design was based on this calculated discharge. Design parameters
developed through the analyses of reference reach data and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling were confirmed
using the Stable Channel Design function components within HEC-RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream design
was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat features were derived
from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat features, excavated floodplains,
and in-stream structures such as rock a-vanes, log sills, brush toes, log j-hooks, log toes, and log drops were
used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the
stream’s energy. Bank stability will also be enhanced through the installation of live stakes that include native
species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), silky willow (Salix sericea), and
Cottonwood (pupulus deltoides).
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the
new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs where necessary. The floodplain will be
planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous water quality and ecological
benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare-root
plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants
where possible. The stream and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a permanent conservation easement.
Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, S7, S9, S11, S12 and S13
A combination of Priority I and Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II, Enhancement
Level III, and Preservation is proposed along the primary project channel to address existing impairments,
particularly floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, nutrient input and buffer degradation. The watershed that drains
to the upper end of the project is approximately 36 acres, and land use is primarily agricultural.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach S1, beginning at the northern limits of the proposed conservation
easement. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion, and provides a variety of
aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is severely degraded with row crops and active pasture directly adjacent to
the channel. The project will involve revegetating the buffer with native vegetation for a minimum 50-foot width.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S2 which will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing log
cross vanes and sills. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach and will be planted with native
riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log
grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-stream habitat and stability
Priority I and II Restoration is proposed for Reach S5 to address historic straightening, buffer degradation and
livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley,
backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring hydrology to historically
drained wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation.
Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control
structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the
downstream end of the reach is 36 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S6A to address historic straightening, buffer degradation,
impoundment, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within
the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, removing the existing
dam embankment and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be
established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody
vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-stream
habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 97 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S6B to address historic straightening, buffer
degradation, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring hydrology to
historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian
vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade
control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at
the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach 6B which will include stabilization of
localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point bars, removal of invasive
4h. Ple ase upload proje ct drawings for the propose d proje ct.
5. Jurisdictio nal Determinations
5a. Hav e the we tlands or stre ams be e n de line ate d on the prope rty or propose d impact are as?*
Comme nts:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional de te rmination, what type of de te rmination was made ?*
localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point bars, removal of invasive
vegetation and buffer restoration. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach and will be planted
with native riparian vegetation. A 70-foot easement break is proposed for an existing utility easement at the end of
S6B. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S7 to address channel entrenchment, bank-cutting, and invasive
vegetation. The design approach will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing log vanes, log sills,
brush toes, and regrading grading point bars. A well-established buffer already exists, but in the areas where
dense Chinese Privet is found, it will be treated, the large stems manually removed, and supplemental planting will
occur. The invasive treatment will be conducted throughout monitoring. A 68-foot easement break is proposed for
an existing ford crossing. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 278 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
improvements, and channel preservation. As in Reach S7, the Chinese privet will be treated, large stems manually
removed, and then supplemental planting will be done in these areas. The invasive treatment will be conducted
throughout monitoring. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach and will be planted with native
riparian vegetation. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 337 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S11 to address historic straightening, entrenchment and buffer
degradation. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley,
backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and improving hydrology to historically
impacted wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation.
Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control
structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the
downstream end of the reach is 379 acres.
Preservation is proposed for Reach S12 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer preservation, and
channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
Preservation is proposed for Reach S13 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer preservation, and
channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
Wetland Restoration
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement is proposed. In wetlands WH, the non-jurisdictional area,
hydrologic restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, will be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel to
restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re-constructing a stream channel at a
higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions within the old channel, and the
removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the restoration of a natural floodplain
surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction and long term agricultural use, a shallow ripping
of the surface along the contour to a depth of eight to ten inches is called for to create adequate porosity for
infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic relief, and improve vegetative survival and growth.
As part of the wetland re-establishment in wetland WI, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond will be removed. The
construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. The stream will
be reconnected to the floodplain and in addition to out of bank events the large perennial spring will serve as a
source for hydrology for the re-established wetlands. Retention and storage within the floodplain will be returned
to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod.
In wetland WF-B, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland enhancement. This wetland has been impacted by
channel incision and active management for agriculture in the past. The wetland mitigation treatment will primarily
be reconnection of the stream to the floodplain and replanting disturbed areas. These activities should result in a
much healthier, better functioning wetland.
In wetland WG, the large disturbed Neuse River floodplain area, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland
enhancement in the areas that will be planted and an enhancement credit ratio of 5:1 in the areas not being
planted. This wetland has been actively managed for agriculture and waterfowl through drainage manipulations
and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation treatment will primarily be re-planting the disturbed areas, plugging the
main ditch, and removing existing berms within the wetland. These activities will result in a large floodplain slough
with a diversity of microhabitats.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
2018-09-20_MS_Mitigation_Plans.pdf 29.22MB
File type must be pdf
Yes No Unknown
Cor ps AID Numbe r:
5c. If 5a is ye s, who de line ate d the jurisdictional are as?
Name (if known):
Age ncy/Consultant Company:
Othe r:
5d. If ye s, list the date s of the Corps jurisdictional de te rminations or State de te rminations and attach docume ntation.
5d1. Jurisdictional de te rmination upload
6. Project History
6a. Hav e pe rmits or ce rtifications be e n re que ste d or obtaine d for this proje ct (including all prior phase s) in the past?*
7. Future Project Plans
7a. Is this a phase d pr oje ct?*
Are any othe r NWP(s), re gional ge ne ral pe rmit(s), or indiv idual pe rmits(s) use d, or inte nde d to be use d, to authorize any part of the
propose d proje ct or re late d activ ity? This include s othe r se par ate and distant crossing for line ar pr oje cts that re quire De par tme nt of the
Army authorization but don’t re quire pre -construction notification.
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Whe re are the impacts associate d with your proje ct? (che ck all that apply):
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. Site # - Re ason for impact *2b. Impact type *2c. Type of we tland *2d. We tland name *2e .
Fore ste d *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition *
2g. Impact
are a *
Preliminary Approved Unknown N/A
Example: SAW-2017-99999
SAW-2016-01989
Je re my Schmid
RES
A jurisdictional determination request was sent to the USACE on January 23, 2017 and a site visit was conducted with the USACE on June
22, 2017.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
JD Submittal_MeadowSpring_reduced.pdf 7.15MB
File type must be PDF
Yes No Unknown
Yes No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
Wetlands Streams-tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
W1 - Stre am and We tland
Re storation
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1 - Culvert,
dew atering, etc)
T
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Non-Tidal Fre shwate r
M arsh
We tland B No Corps
(404, 10) or DWR (401,
other)
0.400
(acres)
2g. Total Te mporary We tland Impact
2g. Total Pe rmane nt We tland Impact
2g. Total We tland Impact
2h. Comme nts:
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. Re ason for impact *3b.Impact
type *
3c. Type of impact *3d. Stre am name *3e . Stre am
Type *
3f. Type of
Jur isdiction *
3g. Stre am
width *
3h. Impact
le ngth *
S1
S2
S3
S4
** All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square fe e t:
3i. Total pe rmane nt stre am impacts:
W2 - Fill
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1 - Culvert,
dew atering, etc)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Non-Tidal Fre shwate r
M arsh
We tland B No Corps
(404, 10) or DWR (401,
other)
0.010
(acres)
W3 - Stre am Re storation
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1 - Culvert,
dew atering, etc)
T
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
He adwate r Fore st We tland F Ye s Corps
(404, 10) or DWR (401,
other)
1.270
(acres)
W4 - Stre am Re storation
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1 - Culvert,
dew atering, etc)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
He adwate r Fore st We tland F Ye s Corps
(404, 10) or DWR (401,
other)
0.350
(acres)
W5 - Fill
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1 - Culvert,
dew atering, etc)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Riv e rine Swamp
Fore st
We tland G Ye s Corps
(404, 10) or DWR (401,
other)
0.020
(acres)
W6 - Fill
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1 - Culvert,
dew atering, etc)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Riv e rine Swamp
Fore st
We tland G Ye s Corps
(404, 10) or DWR (401,
other)
0.030
(acres)
1.670
0.410
2.080
Wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the existing wetlands will be minimized by
the restoration plan. Creating a new stream channel and enhancing existing channels will only impact wetlands
slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along
the stream banks. There will be over a 10 acres net benefit to wetlands within this site area.
Stre am Re ach S6A
Re storation
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing
1)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Re location S6A Pe re nnial
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)
Corps 7
Average
(feet)
1,220
(linear feet)
Stre am Re ach S5
Re storation
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing
1)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Re location S5 Pe re nnial
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)
Corps 5
Average
(feet)
215
(linear feet)
Stre am Re ach S6B
Re storation
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing
1)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Re location S6B Pe re nnial
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)
Corps 8
Average
(feet)
1,150
(linear feet)
Stre am Re ach S11
Re storation
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing
1)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
Re location S11 Pe re nnial
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)
Corps 15
Average
(feet)
906
(linear feet)
0
3i. Total te mporary stre am impacts:
3i. Total stre am and tributary impacts:
3j. Comme nts:
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individually list
all open water impacts below.
4a. Site # - Re ason for
impact *
4b. Impact type *4c. Name of wate rbody *4d. Activ ity type *4e . Wate rbody type *4f. Impact
are a *
4g. Total te mporary ope n wate r Impacts:
4g. Total pe rmane nt ope n wate r impacts:
4g. Total ope n wate r impacts:
4h. Comme nts:
6. Buf f er Impacts (f o r DWR)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. Individually list all buffer impacts below.
6a. Proje ct is in which prote ct basin(s)?*
6b. Impact Type *6c. Pe r or
Te mp *
6d. Stre am name *6e . Buffe r mitigation
re quire d?*
6f. Zone 1
impact *
6g. Zone 2
impact *
3,491
0
1123
Impact is due to relocating stream to natural valley which will provide a net gain in ecological function to the stream
and wetland system. After stream relocation and restoration: Stream Impact 1, the existing stream length is 1,220
linear feet (LF), and the new length will be 1,350 LF, Stream Impact 2, the existing stream length is 215 LF and the
new length will be 231 LF, Stream Impact 3, the existing stream length is 1,105 and the new length is 1,176,
Stream Impact 4 the existing stream length is 906 LF, and the new length will be 1,045 LF.
O1 - Pond Re mov al We tland
Re -e stablishme nt
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
NA
(if applicable)
De wate ring Pond 1.39
(acres)
O2 - Ditch Plugging We tland
Re -e stablishme nt
Map label (e.g. Road Crossing 1)
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
NA
(if applicable)
Fill Ditch 0.07
(acres)
0.00
1.46
1.46
As part of the wetland enhancement and restoration, this pond will be removed and the stream will be relocated
into the natural valley within the pond bottom.
Check all that apply.
Neuse Tar-Pamlico
Catawba Randleman
Goose Creek Jordan Lake
Other
B1 - Stre am Re location
Location and Exempt, Allow able, allow able w /
mitigation
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
S6A No 26,325
(square feet)
7,179
(square feet)
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Te mporary impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Pe rmane nt impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total buffe r impacts:
6i. Comme nts:
Supporting Docume ntation - i.e . Impact M aps, Plan She e t, e tc.
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Spe cifically de scribe me asure s take n to av oid or minimize the propose d impacts in de signing the proje ct:*
1b. Spe cifically de scribe me asure s take n to av oid or minimize the propose d impacts through constr uction te chnique s:*
B2 - Stre am Re location
Location and Exempt, Allow able, allow able w /
mitigation
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
S6B No 4,456
(square feet)
2,676
(square feet)
B3 - Stre am Re location
Location and Exempt, Allow able, allow able w /
mitigation
P
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
S11 No 17,740
(square feet)
12,628
(square feet)
0.00 0.00
48,521.00 22,483.00
48,521.00 22,483.00
See Figure 4 for buffer impact locations. Although there is an impact to the buffer where the stream channel will be
constructed, the buffer as a whole across the site area will be greatly benefited by planting and protection of the
project (net benefit of 1,279,355 sq ft).
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Impacts_Map_Combined.pdf 6.73MB
Figure_1_MS_Existing Conditions Map.pdf 1.57MB
File must be PDF
E. Impact Justifi cati on and M itigation
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were
considered when designing the Meadow Spring Mitigation project. This project should uplift the ecological quality
of streams and wetlands on site. The existing channel length is 7,392 LF. The proposed project will result in 7,658
LF of stream.
Stream Mitigation
Proposed Reach Mitigation Type Existing Length (LF) Proposed Length (LF)
S1 Enhancement II 250 250
S2 Enhancement I 500 500
S5 P1 / P2 Restoration 215 231
S6A P1 Restoration 1,220 1,350
S6B P1 Restoration 1,150 1,176
S6B Enhancement I 165 167
S7 Enhancement I 1,035 990
S7 Enhancement I 452 440
S9 Enhancement III 665 675
S11 P1 Restoration 906 1,045
S12 Preservation 380 380
S13 Preservation 454 454
Total 7,392 7,658
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Doe s the proje ct re quire Compe nsatory M itigation for impacts to Wate r s of the U.S. or Wate rs of the State ?
2b. If this proje ct DOES NOT re quire Compe nsatory M itigation, e xplain why:
NC Stream Temperature Classification Maps can be found under the Mitigation Concepts tab on the Wilmington District's RIBITS website.
*** Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section .***
1. Dif f use Flow Plan
1a. Doe s the proje ct include or is it adjace nt to prote cte d riparian buffe r s ide ntifie d within one of the NC Riparian Buffe r Prote ction
Rule s?
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here.
If no, e xplain why:
2. Sto rmwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT proje ct subje ct to compliance with NCDOT’s Indiv idual NPDES pe rmit NCS000250?*
2b. Doe s this proje ct me e t the re quire me nts for low de nsity proje cts as de fine d in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?*
To look up low density requirement click here 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2).
1. Enviro nmental Do cumentation
1a. Doe s the proje ct inv olv e an e xpe nditure of public (fe de ral/state /local) funds or the use of public (fe de ral/state ) land?*
2. Vio lations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in v iolation of DWR Wate r Quality Ce rtification Rule s (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolate d We tland Rule s (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or
DWR Surface Wate r or We tland Standards or Riparian Buffe r Rule s (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
2b. Is this an afte r-the -fact pe rmit application?*
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior
to turning stream flow into a segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the
project construction. Additionally all work in wetlands and streams will be conducted during dry conditions and/or
with mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be made to preserve individual high value trees located within the
stream restoration area.
Yes No
This project's impacts are majority temporary and are minimal compared to the overall net benefit that will be accomplished with this project
to the wetland, stream, and buffers.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Fl ow Plan (requi red by DWR)
Yes No
No increase in impervious surface.
Yes No
Yes
No
G. Supplementary Information
Yes No
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this proje ct (base d on past and r e asonably anticipate d future impacts) re sult in additional de v e lopme nt, which could impact
ne arby downstre am wate r quality?*
3b. If you answe re d “no,” prov ide a short narrativ e de scription.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is se wage disposal re quire d by DWR for this proje ct?*
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Co rps Requirement)
5a. Will this proje ct occur in or ne ar an are a with fe de rally prote cte d spe cie s or habitat?*
5b. Hav e you che cke d with the USFWS conce rning Endange re d Spe cie s Act impacts?*
5c. If ye s, indicate the USFWS Fie ld Office you hav e contacte d.
5d. Is anothe r Fe de ral age ncy inv olv e d?*
5e . Is this a DOT proje ct locate d within Div ision's 1-8?*
5f. Will you cut any tre e s in orde r to conduct the work in wate rs of the U.S.?*
5g. Doe s this proje ct inv olv e bridge mainte nance or re mov al?*
Link to the NLEB SLOPES document: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
5h. Doe s this proje ct inv olv e the construction/installation of a wind turbine (s)?**
5i. Doe s this pr oje ct inv olv e (1) blasting, and/or (2) othe r pe rcussiv e activ itie s that will be conducte d by machine s, such as jackhamme rs,
me chanize d pile driv e rs, e tc.?*
5j. What data source s did you use to de te rmine whe the r your site would impact Endange re d Spe cie s or De signate d Cr itical Habitat?*
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this proje ct occur in or ne ar an are a de signate d as an Esse ntial Fish Habitat?*
6b. What data source s did you use to de te rmine whe the r your site would impact an Esse ntial Fish Habitat?*
Yes No
Yes No
There is a conservation easement that will protect this site from future development and is intended to benefit the
downstream water quality.
Yes No N/A
Yes No
Yes No
Raleigh
Yes No Unknown
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database
Yes No
NOAA Essenstial Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Reso urces (Corps Requirement)
Link to the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
7a. Will this proje ct occur in or ne ar an are a that the state , fe de ral or tribal gov e rnme nts hav e de signate d as hav ing historic or cultural
pre se rv ation status (e .g., National Historic Trust de signation or prope rtie s significant in North Carolina history and archae ology)?*
7b. What data source s did you use to de te rmine whe the r your site would impact historic or arche ological re source s?*
7c. Historic or Pre historic Information Upload
8. Flo o d Zone Designatio n (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEM A Floodplain M aps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
8a. Will this proje ct occur in a FEM A-de signate d 100-ye ar floodplain?*
8b. If ye s, e xplain how proje ct me e ts FEM A re quire me nts:
8c. What source (s) did you use to make the floodplain de te rmination?*
M isce llane ous attachme nts not pre v iously re que ste d.
*
I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
I agree that submission of this PCN form is a “transaction” subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the “Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act”);
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the “Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act”);
Yes No
NC SHPO GIS Database
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
SHPO_RESPONSE.pdf 32.65KB
File must be PDF
Yes No
Some of the reaches are located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain but outside of the Neuse River floodway.
Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River floodway for the wetland enhancement portion of the
project. These grading activities will be limited in size and will result in no net increase of fill within the floodway.
This information was conveyed to the Floodplain Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of
Smithfield. It was agreed that the impacts were insignificant and could not be accurately modeled. Therefore, a No-
Rise or CLOMR will not be required for this project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While
designing the Meadow Spring project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of the
adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed design, and no detrimental
impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final FEMA coordination in the permitting phase
of the project.
FEMA GIS Server (https://hazards.fema.gov/gis/nfhl/rest/services). Panel 3720169500K effective 6/20/2018
M iscell aneous
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Meadow Spring PCN Cover Letter DWR.pdf 104.87KB
Meadow Spring PCN Cover Letter DWR.pdf 104.87KB
Meadow Spring PCN_Form and Supplemental.pdf 311.92KB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Si gnature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name :*
Signature
Date
Jamey McEachran
9/27/2018
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
September 21, 2018
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Ms. Higgins,
RE: Nationwide 27 Permit Application- Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Dear Ms.Higgins,
Resource Environmental Solutions is pleased to submit a Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) for the Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (“Site”). The Site is located
within a primarily rural watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North
Carolina, about three miles north of Smithfield. The Site area exhibits diminished hydrology and habitat
value as a result of past and on-going agricultural activities. The Site will involve the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams and wetlands in the Neuse River basin. The Site has been
designed in concurrence with the Meadow Spring Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of
natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in-stream habitat. The floodplain
areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during
flooding events. Total wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project are 2.08 acres with a net benefit
of over 10 acres. Total stream impacts resulting from the proposed project are 3,491 linear feet but will
result in 3,802 linear feet of restored stream. And the open water impacts resulting from project are 1.46
acres but will be restored to a more natural wetland complex.
The attached PCN package includes PCN Form, supplemental information, supporting figures, design
plans, and an updated JD submittal package with the updated aquatic resource inventory table and
updated JD Waters of the US Map.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1056 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Daniel Ingram
Project Manager
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. _____________
DWQ project 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: Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? Yes 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
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
Yes No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
Yes 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 No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC’s twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. Yes No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
2b. County:
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County
Smithfield
Stephenson 1997 Family Limited Partnership
01732-0151
2350 Wilsons Mills Road
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
27
Page 2 of 10
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: Agent Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Daniel Ingram
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1062
[e-mail]
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
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: Longitude:
1c. Property size: acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. 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:
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
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? Preliminary Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? Yes 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.
169500-74-6294
-78.344386
60.93
Neuse River
WS-IV and NSW
Neuse River - 03020201
See the Supplemental Information and the existing conditions maps (Figure 1: Existing Conditions, Figure 2: NRCS Soils Map, and Figure 3: USGS
Map).
27.67
See the Supplemental Information
See the Supplemental Information.
RES
A jurisdictional determination request was sent to the USACE on January 23,2017 and a site visit was conducted with the USACE on June 22, 2017.
35.54659
7,392
The JD has been requested.
Jeremy Schmid
Page 4 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):
Wetlands Streams – tributaries Buffers 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
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g.Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
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
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Stream & Wetland Rest.
Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh No Corps 0.4
No Corps 0.01
Yes Corps 1.27
Yes Corps 0.35
Yes Corps 0.02
Yes Corps 0.03
2.08
Wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the existing wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan.Creating a
new stream channel and enhancing existing channels will only impact wetlands slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the
addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks. There will be over a 10 acres net benefit to wetlands within this site area.
Relocation S6A PER Corps 7 1,220
S5 5 215
S6B 8.4 1,150
S11 15 906
3,491
Impact is due to relocating stream to natural valley which will provide a net gain in ecological function to the stream and wetland system. After stream
relocation and restoration: Stream Impact 1, the existing stream length is 1,220 linear feet (LF), and the new length will be 1,350 LF, Stream Impact 2,
the existing stream length is 215 LF and the new length will be 231 LF, Stream Impact 3, the existing stream length is 1,105 and the new length is
1,176, Stream Impact 4 the existing stream length is 906 LF, and the new length will be 1,045 LF.
T
P
T
P
P
P
Fill
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration
Fill
Fill
Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Headwater Wetland
Headwater Wetland
Riverine Swamp Forest
Riverine Swamp Forest
P
P
P
P
-
-
Relocation
Relocation
Relocation
Choose one
Choose one
PER
PER
PER
-
-
Corps
Corps
Corps
-
-
Page 5 of 10
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
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)
O1
O2
O3
O4
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1
P2
5f.Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. 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 you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.Project is in which protected basin? Neuse Tar-Pamlico Catawba Randleman Other:
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
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
6h.Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
NA Pond Removal Pond 1.39
NA 0.07
1.46
As part of the wetland enhancement and restoration, this pond will be removed and the stream will be relocated into the natural
valley within the pond bottom.
Choose one
Stream Relocation S6A No 26,325.29 7,178.8
Stream Relocation S6B 4,456.26 2,675.99
Stream Relocation S11 17,740.33 12,627.58
48,521.89 22,482.39
See Figure 4 for buffer impact locations. Although there is an impact to the buffer where the stream channel will be constructed, the
buffer as a whole across the site area will be greatly benefited by planting and protection of the project (net benefit of 1,279,355 sq ft).
P
P
-
-
Ditch Plugging
Choose one
Choose one
Ditch
Choose
Choose
Choose one
P
P
P
-
-
-
No
No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
)
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
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 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
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:
Type:
Type:
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:
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.
See Supplemental Information
See Supplemental Information
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Choose one
Page 7 of 10
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 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 8 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
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 No
1b. 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? %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
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?
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
Phase II
NSW
USMP
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? Yes No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
Coastal counties
HQW
ORW
Session Law 2006-246
Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? Yes No
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
No increase in impervious surface.
0
No increase in impervious surface.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land? Yes No
1b. 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
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Yes No
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.)
Comments:
Yes No
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,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
Yes No
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes 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 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.
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.
Page 10 of 10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat? Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts? Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
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?
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
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
_______________________________
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)

Date
Raleigh
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
NCSHPOGIS Database
See supplemental information.
FEMA NFHL
PCN Supplemental Information

Meadow Spring Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Nationwide Permit 27
Pre-Construction Notification

Name and address of the Applicant:
Resource Environmental Solutions
c/o Daniel Ingram
302 Jefferson Street. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

PCN Supplemental Information-Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project

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 Meadow Spring Mitigation Site is a stream, wetland, and buffer project located within a primarily rural
watershed with limited residential development in Johnston County, North Carolina. The Site is located in
the Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, 14-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03020201100050 (USGS, 2012). The Neuse River watershed (HUC 03020201100050) was identified as a
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland,
stream, and riparian buffer restoration. The Neuse TLW encompasses 52 square miles of watershed area.
Thirty-seven percent of land is used for agriculture including 13 animal operations. Seventeen percent of
the area is developed approaching a five percent imperviousness total.
The project area totals 60.93 acres and is comprised of one primary perennial stream that flows west to east
to a confluence with the Neuse River and has several adjacent wetlands and hydric soil areas. There is
currently 7,392 linear feet of stream and 27.67 acres of existing wetlands. The USFWS National Wetland
Inventory Map (NWI) depicts three wetland areas within the site. There is a pond mapped as PUBHh
(Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded Diked/Impound) o n the west end of the project.
And there are two large wetland areas mapped on the east end of the project as PSS1C (Palustrine Scrub-
Shrub Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) and PFO1C (Palustrine Forested Broad -Leaved
Deciduous Seasonally Flooded). Wetland delineation identified five additional riparian wetlands in the
project area as well as additional areas of hydric soils.
The easement is separated by an existing power easement and three agricultural crossing. The project is
divided into northern and southern portions by the existing power easement. The northern portion of the
project includes stream reaches S1, S2, S5, S6a and S6b, as well as, wetlands WA and WB. This northern
section also has an existing agricultural pond that will be drained and re-established as wetland. The
southern portion of the project includes Reaches S7, S9, S11, S12 and S13 and wetlands WD, WE, WF,
and WG.
In general, all or portions of S1, S2, S5, S6, S7, S9, and S11 do not function to their full potential. Current
land use within the easement area is livestock grazing with access to all of the stream reaches and wetlands.
Vegetation is heavily disturbed due to the livestock. The surrounding land use is farm land, undeveloped
land, and single-family homes. Livestock grazing has resulted in unstable stream banks and significant
down cutting. The surface soil layer and underlying subsoil are exposed by the channel eroding. Having
been channelized in the past, some of the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they
naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition
where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture is directly adjacent to both
banks of the existing channel. Habitat along the majority of the restoration reaches is poor with little woody
debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic species.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream/wetland
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of
natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in-stream habitat. The floodplain
areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during
flooding events. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005), and
criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives, such as
PCN Supplemental Information-Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project

restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating invasive
species.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The design approach for the Meadow Spring Site is to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a “template” stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same
location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create the features
of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar
between the design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods in an
effort to identify the design discharge.
The Meadow Spring Site will include Priority I/Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement
Level II, Enhancement Level III and Buffer Enhancement. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate
the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference
site described above, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic
and hydraulic analyses. As a result of the restoration of planform and dimension, frequent overbank flows
and a restored riparian buffer will provide the appropriate hydrology and sediment transport throughout this
coastal plain watershed.
Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the reference
reach based design. A combination of methods (including Hydraflow Hydrographs, regional curves and
flood frequency analysis) were used to calculate flows received by the channel for bankfull and other
significant storm events. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as
bankfull or dominant discharge) was determined, and the subsequent design was based on this calculated
discharge. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data and hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling were confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function components within HEC-
RAS and through spreadsheet tools.
Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream
design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat features
were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat features ,
excavated floodplains, and in-stream structures such as rock a-vanes, log sills, brush toes, log j-hooks, log
toes, and log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by
dissipating and redirecting the stream’s energy. Bank stability will also be enhanced through the installation
of live stakes that include native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
silky willow (Salix sericea), and Cottonwood (pupulus deltoides).
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent
to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs where necessary. The
floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous
water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination of grading,
erosion control matting, bare-root plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering),
structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream and adjacent riparian areas will be
protected by a permanent conservation easement.
Reaches S1, S2, S6A, S6B, S7, S9, S11, S12 and S13
A combination of Priority I and Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level II,
Enhancement Level III, and Preservation is proposed along the primary project channel to address existing
PCN Supplemental Information-Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project

impairments, particularly floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, nutrient input and buffer degradation. The
watershed that drains to the upper end of the project is approximately 36 acres, and land use is primarily
agricultural.
Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach S1, beginning at the northern limit s of the proposed
conservation easement. The channel is stable throughout, except for a few minor areas of erosion, and
provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is severely degraded with row crops and active
pasture directly adjacent to the channel. The project will involve revegetating the buffer with native
vegetation for a minimum 50-foot width.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S2 which will include stabilization of localized erosion by
installing log cross vanes and sills. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach and will
be planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody
vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-
stream habitat and stability
Priority I and II Restoration is proposed for Reach S5 to address historic straightening, buffer degradation
and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the
natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and restoring
hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with
native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody
debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and
stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 36 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S6A to address historic straightening, buffer degradation,
impoundment, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel
within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
removing the existing dam embankment and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A
minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of
the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be
installed along the bed to improve in-stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 97 acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for the upstream portion of Reach S6B to address historic straightening,
buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. The design approach will include meandering the proposed
channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain,
and restoring hydrology to historically drained wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and
planted with native riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody
vegetation, woody debris and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in-
stream habitat and stability. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for the downstream portion of Reach 6B which will include stabilization
of localized erosion by installing log sills, increasing radius of curvature, regrading point bars, removal of
invasive vegetation and buffer restoration. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach
and will be planted with native riparian vegetation. A 70-foot easement break is proposed for an existing
utility easement at the end of S6B. The drainage area at the downstream end of Reach 6B is 171 acres.
Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reach S7 to address channel entrenchment, bank-cutting, and invasive
vegetation. The design approach will include stabilization of localized erosion by installing log vanes, log
sills, brush toes, and regrading grading point bars. A well-established buffer already exists, but in the areas
PCN Supplemental Information-Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project

where dense Chinese Privet is found, it will be treated, the large stems manually removed, and supplemental
planting will occur. The invasive treatment will be conducted throughout monitoring. A 68-foot easement
break is proposed for an existing ford crossing. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is
278 acres.
Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach S9 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
improvements, and channel preservation. As in Reach S7, the Chinese privet will be treated, large stems
manually removed, and then supplemental planting will be done in these areas. The invasive treatment will
be conducted throughout monitoring. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along the reach and
will be planted with native riparian vegetation. The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 337
acres.
Priority I Restoration is proposed for Reach S11 to address historic straightening, entrenchment and buffer
degradation. The design approach will include meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley,
backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to its floodplain, and improving hydrology to
historically impacted wetlands. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established and planted with native
riparian vegetation. Because much of the buffer is devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris
and log grade control structures will be installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability.
The drainage area at the downstream end of the reach is 379 acres.
Preservation is proposed for Reach S12 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
Preservation is proposed for Reach S13 which will include removal of invasive vegetation, buffer
preservation, and channel preservation. This channel will be protected from future impacts.
Wetland Restoration
Because of the sites observed soil characteristics and landscape position, a combination of wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement is proposed. In wetlands WH, the non-jurisdictional area,
hydrologic restoration, at a credit ratio of 1:1, will be accomplished by plugging the existing incised channel
to restrict drainage and allowing a natural hydroperiod to return. In addition, re-constructing a stream
channel at a higher bed elevation in the natural valley, backfilling to create shallow depressions within the
old channel, and the removal of spoil from pond excavation along the floodplains will aid in the restoration
of a natural floodplain surface relative to the surrounding landscape. Due to compaction and long term
agricultural use, a shallow ripping of the surface along the contour to a depth of eight to ten inches is called
for to create adequate porosity for infiltration and storage, provide microtopographic relief, and improve
vegetative survival and growth.
As part of the wetland re-establishment in wetland WI, at a credit ratio of 2:1, the pond will be removed.
The construction of a farm pond has altered surface drainage and placed spoil across the floodplain. The
stream will be reconnected to the floodplain and in addition to out of bank events the large perennial spring
will serve as a source for hydrology for the re-established wetlands. Retention and storage within the
floodplain will be returned to a natural state having an increased hydroperiod.
In wetland WF-B, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland enhancement. This wetland has bee n
impacted by channel incision and active management for agriculture in the past. The wetland mitigation
treatment will primarily be reconnection of the stream to the floodplain and replanting disturbed areas.
These activities should result in a much healthier, better functioning wetland.
PCN Supplemental Information-Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project

In wetland WG, the large disturbed Neuse River floodplain area, a credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for wetland
enhancement in the areas that will be planted and an enhancement credit ratio of 5:1 in the areas not being
planted. This wetland has been actively managed for agriculture and waterfowl through drainage
manipulations and tree clearing. The wetland mitigation treatment will primarily be re-planting the
disturbed areas, plugging the main ditch, and removing existing berms within the wetland. These activities
will result in a large floodplain slough with a diversity of microhabitats.

1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project:
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts
were considered when designing the Meadow Spring Mitigation project. This project should uplift the
ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site. The existing channel length is 7,392 LF. The proposed
project will result in 7,658 LF of stream.
Stream Mitigation
Proposed Reach Mitigation Type Existing Length (LF) Proposed Length (LF)
S1 Enhancement II 250 250
S2 Enhancement I 500 500
S5 P1 / P2 Restoration 215 231
S6A P1 Restoration 1,220 1,350
S6B P1 Restoration 1,150 1,176
S6B Enhancement I 165 167
S7 Enhancement I 1,035 990
S7 Enhancement I 452 440
S9 Enhancement III 665 675
S11 P1 Restoration 906 1,045
S12 Preservation 380 380
S13 Preservation 454 454
Total 7,392 7,658

1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction
techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be
constructed prior to turning stream flow into a segment. This approach allows minimization of the
impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally all work in wetlands and streams
will be conducted during dry conditions and/or with mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be
made to preserve individual high value trees located within the stream restoration area.

F. Supplementary Information
8.b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
Some of the reaches are located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain but outside of the Neuse River
floodway. Grading activities are proposed within the Neuse River floodway for the wetland
enhancement portion of the project. These grading activities will be limited in size and will result in
no net increase of fill within the floodway. This information was conveyed to the Floodplain
Administrators of both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield. It was agreed that the impacts
PCN Supplemental Information-Meadow Spring Stream Mitigation Project

were insignificant and could not be accurately modeled. Therefore, a No-Rise or CLOMR will not be
required for this project. Hydrologic trespass is a not a concern for this project. While designing the
Meadow Spring project, appropriate measures were taken to eliminate hydrologic trespass of the
adjacent agricultural fields. The adjacent land use will not be affected by the proposed design, and no
detrimental impacts are expected beyond the easement limits. RES will verify final FEMA
coordination in the permitting phase of the project.
S6B
S7S6AS
1
1
S
2
S9S13S5
S 1 2
S1
S8WG
WF
WB
WB WC
WD
WA
WE
0 700350
Feet
Figure 1 - Existing Conditions Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Existing Stream s
Ditches
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
©Date: 9/19/2018
Drawn by: JRM
Checked by: DI
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Figure 1_Meadow Spring Existing Conditions Map.mxd1 inch = 700 feet
PowerlineEasement
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 2. NRCS Soil Survey Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
©Date: 9/19/2018
Drawn by: JRM
Checked by: xxx
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Meadow Spring NRCS Soil.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 3 - USGS Topographic Map
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
©Date: 9/19/2018
Drawn by: JRM
Checked by: DI
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Meadow Spring USGS Map.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
4
1 2
3
0 800400
Feet
Figure 4 - Impacts Map - Index Sheet
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Map Index
©Date: 9/19/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Meadow Spring -Impacts Map Index.mxd1 inch = 800 feet
W1
O1
B1
S1
S2
W2
O2
WB
WBWA
S6A
S
2
S
1
S50 200100
Feet
Figure 4a - Impacts Map - Sheet 1
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Existing Top of Bank
Proposed Top of Bank
Impact Type
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Buffer Impact Zone 1
Buffer Impact Zone 2
Open Water Impact
©Date: 9/20/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Meadow Spring -Impacts Map - SHEET1.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Impact Number (Mitigation ID) Impacted Area/Length
W1 (WB)0.4 ac
W2 (WB)0.01 ac
S1 (S6A)1,220 ft
S2 (S5)215 ft
O1 1.39 ac
O2 0.07 ac
B1 - Zone 1 26,325.29 sqft
B1 - Zone 2 7,178.8 sqft
B2
S3
WC
WD
WES6B S7
0 200100
Feet
Figure 4b - Impacts Map - Sheet 2
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Existing Top of Bank
Proposed Top of Bank
Impact Type
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Buffer Im pact Zone 1
Buffer Im pact Zone 2
Open Water Impact
©Date: 9/20/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Meadow Spring -Impacts Map - SHEET2.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Impact Number (Mitigation ID)Impacted Area/Length
B2 - Zone 1 4,456.26 s qft
B2 - Zone 2 2,675.99 s qft
S3 (S6B)1,150 ft
W3
W4
B3
S4
W4W4W5
WG
WF
WE
S11S9S7S13
S12
0 200100
Feet
Figure 4c - Im pacts Map - Sheet 3
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Existing Top of Bank
Proposed Top of Bank
Impact Type
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Buffer Im pact Zone 1
Buffer Im pact Zone 2
Open Water Impact
©Date: 9/20/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Meadow Spring -Impacts Map - SHEET3.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Impact Number (Mitigation ID)Impacted Area/Length
W3 (WF)1.27 ac
W4 (WF)0.35 ac
W5 (WG)0.02 ac
S4 (S11)906 ft
B3 - Zone 1 17740.33 s qft
B3 - Zone 2 12627.58 s qft
W5W5W5W6
WG
0 200100
Feet
Figure 4d - Impacts Map - Sheet 4
Meadow Spring Mitigation Site
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 60.93 Ac.
Existing Top of Bank
Proposed Top of Bank
Impact Type
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Buffer Im pact Zone 1
Buffer Im pact Zone 2
Open Water Impact
©Date: 9/20/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Meadow Spring (bank site)\MXD\PCN\Meadow Spring -Impacts Map - SHEET4.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Impact Number (Mitigation ID)Impacted Area/Length
W6 .03 ac