The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVer _COMPLETE FILE_19941114 State of North Carolina Department of Environment I Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr" P.E.. Director BA - - ~J~ DEHNR November 14, 1994 Mr. Richard A. Gallo State Conservationist USDA SCS 4405 Bland Road Suite 205 Raleigh, N.C. 27609 FILE COP~ Dear Mr. Gall Re: Post Minimal Effect Determination James Stocker, Ecosystem Farms, Inc. Duplin County In response to your 24 October 1994 letter to David Harding, please find enclosed a joint application from for 404 Permit/401 Certification. It appears that this project would require both actions since it impacts more than one acre of wetland. The action on the 401 Certification will constitute the N.C. Division of Environmental Management's review of this project. Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ornery Gall.mem cc: David Harding Central Files P.O. Box 29535. Rcieigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Telephone 919-733-7015 FAX 919-733-2496 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service 4405 Bland Road Suite 205 Raleigh, NC 27609 October 24, 1994 Mr. David Harding Division of Environmental Management PO Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 Dear Mr. Harding: Attached is a copy of a request for a Post Minimal Effect Determination from Mr. James Stocker, Ecosystem Farms, Inc., in Duplin County. Please review this request and give me your recommendations relative to approval of an exemption to the Swampbuster provision of the Food Security Act. Our biologist, Hank Henry, has visited this site and can be reached at (919)790-2894 if you have any questions. I appreciate your assistance in this evaluation process. iCh~rdA. G~ State Conservationist Attachment rn rn 0: ~: 1:4 rn ~ m! cc: Hank Henry Mike Sugg ~ . . .Jnitltd States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service P. O. Box 277 Kenansville, NC 28349 Telephone 919-296-2121 Subject: CPA-FSA Minimal Effect Determination- Ecosystem Farms Date: 08/09/94 To: Cecil Settle Acting State Conservationist SCS, Raleigh NC 27601 File Code: 180 I have received a minimal effect request from Mr. James Stocker Ecosystem Farms, Inc. The area in question is on tract 72152. The total wetland area is approximately 1.2 acres that is divided into three parcels of 0.68 acres, 0.4 acres, and 0.2 acres. Mr. Stocker has cleared 60+ acres of land and this is the only areas that were wetland. These wetland areas are presently classified as CW94 but the areas are minimal in size. This initial request for a wetland determination was initiated by a 569 from ASCS on 12/16/94. Several field visits have been made and a determination was issued 311/94. That determination was appealed and a reconsideration detemination was issued 6/8/94. Mr. Stocker then mistakenly sent his request for a minimal effect to David Combs on 07/0l/94 and David subsequently forwarded the minimal effect request to me on 07/19/94. Attached is the minimal effect worksheet. If you have any questions please contact me. 1Y1/~~ r. f\U Michael E. Sugg District Conservationist cc: David Combs, AC ~'"i '\{j r2 \ ""'.\ \\. ~L3~\ \\\ \)~\ ..\ \ '\ ~ \ ('r~ I) i99A. \\\ \\\\ 1 "'i"..... ~ I \t\; \, \ o.J~ \\v,\ \\ ; 'v \ . \.\\ \ ------ u-~ - . . 1. Type of wetland converted. ~ 0 ~ c! 5~ 0 ~~... ~ G N N R l~;,.(c.... J; r,.. (a...)'; Example: Cowardin classification. -v T 2. Hydrological conditions of the wetland at the time of conversion and at present: . quantity of water present /Jr..... 't k...g MI~Ut...o <J""Vo^i :;f ~......r-h.<.<< WfJ.J-e.r. c;4CA.. ar-q,u . outlet information (elevation and type).....L~&. '.5(,).i'i' .t ..' . condition of the drainage system, if present ~. , ;~: 9.';.d~ i^. ~ui ., ~ r...~ ~ ' . size of the contributing watershed ~ c.J~;.\lol(.,;w I . size of the basin Ni R \.J , r- +to v . depth of water. - Nt ~ . 3. Climatological data prior to the conversion: . precipitation records for the year of the conversion N 0 l A v i'\ I <. ~ 7kJ . precipitation records available for 10 or more previous years . precipitation records for period during the conversion . other pertinent climatological data relevant to hydrology. 4. Vegetative condition at the time of conversion: . species composition . plant density . community diversity . age of community. Cv-,:iu\l-v.. ~ll~ci \G-n&' -! l~~ k~ r-Q.\ .,~,-,,"~ '.j S. Available maps, photographs or slides depicting the wetland prior to, during. and after the conversion. 6. . Crop history information: . crop history of wetland for 5 years prior to conversion ~O~~. "'~~~ lJ\.n 1 \lJoo~\..~-"':~. . crop history of contnbuting watershed 5 years prior to conversion. . agronomic practices used for previous 5 years in the contributing watershed. 1. Soil information: I . soils of the contributing watershed - I;\j d r..[; (~ ~ W 4 6 j."....J~ . soils of the converted wetland. - \kid A - Wo~~ ~ 8. Records on re-establishment of vegetation during the period of conversion. N ~ U ~ TO /t4.-r I ~ rL A~~. Example: Seeding. planting, or natural re-establishmenL 9. Efforts to restore the converted wetland: . method of restoring wetland hydrology t-.I) n. t ~ - 0 ~~~, ~ ? ~ ol N -toi t I') , . method of restoring wetland vegetation. /~ (0-1-(' D ~y~/Jt~\~~ ~ () ~CO $..t/tY!2.-f\.-l j-tLLUJ4, '-' ;{.C- (18o-V-NFSAM, Third~d., March 1994) 516-15 ,./ . ~ Minimal Effect Evaluation and Worksheet ~~.o- Tne following procedure describes the technical approach required in order to conduct a minimal effect evaluation. The approach involves the functional assessment of the wetland proposed for modification. the consideration of secondary on-site wetland impactS, and a cumulative wetland impact evaluation in the surrounding watershed. reference is made to Appendix 527.06 for the wetland fuI!ctional assessment procedures. Step 1. Identify and characterize the wetland to be impacted as follows: We.tland Determination cw q <I ../ ~ J' If,~ ~ (attach determination worksheets and maps) Wetland Description Hydrogeomorphic Classification ~~ r I. 2 ~II v:... 3 ~.~ a."'~c:..r Size of wetland impact area Is the impact area a portion of a larger contiguous wetland area (irrespective of tract boundaries)1 )J. -e. S If yes, size of larger wetland area i DC.! AC.:-t ~ Attach diagram or map depicting proposed manipulation and impact area. Step 2. Conduct an. on-site functional assessment of the wetland ~ing guidance provided in Appendix 527.06. A comparison site may be used in place of an on-site evaluation only if the wetland has been converted or disrurbed to the extent that an assessment of typical functions for the wetland is not feasible. For example, if the wetland is n.ormally cropped, then the functional assessment should be performed on-site, as it is the normal or typical functional attributes of the wetland that must be discerned. However, if the wetland is typically undisturbed or infrequently :rapped, and the disturbance or cc::lversion of the wetland is an unusual condition, then it is appropriate to use a comparison site to conduct the functional assessment. Summarize the functional assessment on the FunctioI;1al Assessment of Impact Area Section of the Minimal EffectS Worksheet. (18G-V-NFSAM, Third Ed... March 1994) 526-57 --- ..,~ ~_65 MlnJrnaf Effects Worksheet Functional Assessment of Impact Area Impact Ass~s.s~entl HYDROLOGICAL - NO t:~ /: (. (...--(" Function E~~;ng function of Direct Impact Iadirect Impact impact area(.I"u (Function affected or (Function affected prescnt) 2 eli...ift::orcd)3 or eliminated on adjaa:nt or , assod2ted wedaads )3 Short-term surfaa: water storage: Loag-term surface water storage V clocty reduction Subsurface storage of surface water Moderation of off-site groundwater discharge BIOGEOCHEMICAL - NO 6 ~-F c.G 1"" Biogcocbemica1 traDSformation & pr~,ing Removal of dissolved elemcnts &. compounds Partic:u1atc rctcDtion - . Organic: carbon exports Storage of soil organic: carbon (histisols) Storage of soil organic: carbon . (spodosols) VEGETATION Characteristic: plant community e, Osaractcristic detrital biomass Vertic:a1 habitat strUdlUC e Continued on nc: ~ lCoosider all aspectS of the proposed activity, including future conditions in a minimal effect agreement. %F rom functional assessment worksheet.:J - attach 3( + )increase;( - )reduced;( e )elimiLatecl 526-58 (18Q-V-NFSAM, Third Ed., March 1994) '. ~ . . /' 4 wn..DLIFE Wildlife habitat qualiey, inlC:rspcrsiol1 & connec".iviry - Vertebrate species abundance Invertebrate species abundance Step 3. Dete:-m1ne and record whet~er more than a minute fraction of the wetland will be directly or indirectly affected by the alteration or elimination of the identified functional attnbutes. a. If tbe wetland is < 100 acres in size, will more than 1% of the wetland area be directly affected? yes _no_ b. If the wetland is > 100 acres in size, will more than 1 acre be directly affected yes..:L-no ho..>-''T ~'" 3 SC.f~ ~ 'i-o~ {.2- +<.,. Step 4. Determine and record whether other wetlands within a 2-mile radius of the site have been converted (irrespective of the circumstances predicating the conversion) since December 2.3,1985. yesV no_ Step s. Minimal Effect Determination a. If one or more wetland functions will be eliminated due to the proposed activity, and: i. Through direct and indirect means, more than a minute fraction of the wetland will undergo this loss (i.e., Step 3 was answered yes); or ii. The loss will add to cumulative wetland losses in the area (i.e., Step 4 was answered yes); then the effect is not minimal. b. If a significant number of identified functions are reduced due to the proposed activity, and: . i. Through direct and indirect me:ms, more than a minute fraction of the wetland will undergo this loss (i.e., Step was answered yes); or ii. The loss will add to cumulative wetland losses in the area (i.e., Step 4 was answered yes); then the effect is not 1)1inimal. c. If wetland functions are not eliminated or reduced as described in Steps 5(a) and (b) above, then: the effect is minimal. (l80-V-NFSAM, Third Ed~ March 1994) 526-59 . /~:v-""~ ..~,...,.........tIl'~~~~~!.~.,...........-. ~~- , . ..-~( ,. . . .. . ,. ,. _.........~~- PU&lh