20130428 Ver 1_401 Application_20130413

Moores Creek Environmental & Natural Resources, LLC
750 Moores Creek Road
Lexington, Virginia 24450 2 0 1 3 0 4 2 8
540 - 319 -9044
April 18, 2013
Ms. Karen Higgins w
North Carolina Division of Water Quali4
NC DWQ, WBSCP Unit SF&ID
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Q
s
Reference: Request for 401 Water Quality Certification
Hiller - Keziah Family LLC Stream Restoration D § \Y"
South Church Street at University Drive
Burlington, Alamance County, North Carolina
Moores Creek Project 2013 -1 [APR 26113
Dear Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of Hillier - Keziah Family LLC, Moores Creek Environmental & Natural Resources, LLC
(Moores Creek) is submitting this request for a 401 Water Quality Certification for stream and
wetlands restoration under a NWP 27. The restoration will be conducted in association with the
removal of several man -made water impoundment and control structures on a parcel of land
located at the corner of South Church St. and University Drive in Burlington, North Carolina.
Based on The Final Notice published in the Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / on Tuesday,
February 21, 2012, NWP 27 is the appropriate permit to authorize this activity.
The subject site contains an array of un- maintained and failing water control structures which
include:
an approximately 200 foot long and 12' high earthen dam;
two smaller earthen dams /berms with concrete control weirs;
a man -made, by -pass stormwater ditch approximately 550 feet in length; and,
an approximate 250 foot long spillway that carries the 'by -pass' stormwater across the
lower main earthen dam
Safety inspections of the property indicate that the spillway channel is undergoing an
accelerated process of subsurface piping that will likely lead to failure of the earthen dam (see
attached materials). Expedient actions are needed to decommission the spillway along with a
breach of all impoundment structures. Both municipal stormwater (City of Burlington) and
North Carolina Dam Safety officials have been briefed on site conditions. The site owners are
seeking a nationwide permit in order to move expediently forward with the remedial /restoration
plans for the site.
As background, after the passing away of the long term owner and resident, the site was tied up
in estate matters without clear authorization or the resources needed to address the deficiencies
associated with the dam and impoundments. Now that those matters have been resolved, the
owners seek to quickly move forward to remove risks to life and property through the restoration
the original hydrology of the site. The most practical solution, consistent with the urgent needs
of the project, as well as constraints arising from the new Lake Jordan Buffer Rules, is to
decommission all man -made structures and restore the original stream and valley runoff
relationships. Engineering and regulatory constraints make it imperative that, when the main
dam is breached, the existing spillway be abandoned so that all storm water can be safely

Request for 401 Water Quality Certification
Hiller - Keziah Family LLC Stream Restoration
Burlington, Mamance County, North Carolina
conveyed through two engineered breach zones on the upper and lower main impoundment
structures. An engineered restored stream channel is needed to responsibly convey waters
across the property. This approach insures the protection of downstream waters and wetlands
from the potential erosion and wash out of the old pond bottom sediment. It also protects
existing wetlands on the tract and provides the appropriate means for spring fed groundwater
base flow contributions to supplement and sustain stream hydrology. It should also be noted
that the proposed voluntary managed stream restoration approach follows the recommended
interagency protocols for small dam removals in North Carolina as outlined by the U.S. rmy
Corps of Engineers Office in Wilmington.
The proposed project entails a full restoration of the stream and valley bottom hydrology to
conditions that existed prior to the creation of the impoundments and dams around 1943. The
attached detailed restoration plan illustrates broad increases in both stream and wetlands
resources. The increases include both functional value and quantity as measured by standard
objective parameters. All actions proposed follow the Interagency Guidelines for Stream
Restoration in North Carolina and incorporate reporting, monitoring, and contingency obligations
with an array of perform2 ante -based success criteria. It is our hope to take preventative
actions following the review of this application by early March or April. Delays in beginning this
restoration could have serious public consequences.
The jurisdictional areas were delineated by ECS in April 2008. Mr. Andy Williams with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers verified the delineation on April 2, 2008. Ms. Sue Homewood with
NCDWQ visited the site on April 17, 2008.
Additional information concerning the proposed project is contained in the attached PCN
application and restoration plan. Please feel free to contact me at (540) 319 -9044 or via email
at deeneasOgmail.com if you have questions concerning this information.
Sincerely,
Creek Environmental & Natural Resources, LLC
Wise Pffl. Neas, LSS, PWS
Principal
Attachments
$570 Water Quality Certification Fee
2

AGEM AUTHORIZATION
This form auttwriM Moores Creek Envrionmental & Natural Resources, LLC to act as agent in
*earn and wetland matters ftkKfing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina
Division of Water Quality fief! verification and permit application.
Project Name (if applicable)
and Property Address: fff //fo �le 7-1
a yvc c r'"• {•'l.�
Owner Information
Name:
flu -'th 57`• ;. Uh i yerrSY).r R .
Telephone Number
Fax Number 4 • C Ottif
E-mail Address:
Date _ L ` I Q-1
7-o w6" if YVIA4i 67kt. ce rk
0-eas-er
or rt s u.L TzG "1 fi �f 7hR -o• o w K a�cl r{ ss
berl(Se Neas
U 0 r e Cfe e. L &v,- r o m-e n-0
�00(5-p- creed- Pj-
LA ��5" IV 4, dq' SD
r�

`O�QF W a 7-F9p�
> r
O � t
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
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
1 d. 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
1 e. 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
If. 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
—'
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
Yes No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes –No.
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
illier- Keziah Family LLC Stream Restoration
2b. County:
klamance
2c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Burlington
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Hillier Keziah Family LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
Dd Bk 2962 Dd Pg 0603
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Anne Hillier, Manager
3d. Street address:
P.O. Box 235
3e. City, state, zip:
Dozier, Alabama 36028
3f. Telephone no.:
86- 931-4356
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Gerry Turf [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009

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. AgentlConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Denise M. Neas
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Moores Creek Environmental & Natural Resources, LLC
5c. Street address:
750 Moores Creek Road
5d. City, state, zip:
Lexington, Virginia
5e. Telephone no.:
40 -319 -9044
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Parcel ID #8844486139 DB 422, PG 77
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
T Latitude: 36.079575 Longitude: 79.525
1 c. Property size:
10.25 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Michaels Branch /Back Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class WS -V; NSW
2c. River basin:
Cape Fear
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Two man -made ponds (an upper pond and a lower pond), formerly used for recreation, and a man-made diversion
itch are present on the site. The upper and lower ponds are approximatley 0.903 and 2.869 acres in area,
respectively. The site is bounded on the west by University Drive and on the north by South Church Street. The area
surrounding the site is developed with a retail shopping center, residences and a medical office.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: - 0.57 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Currently, there are - 250 linear feet of a degraded gully; - 550 linear feet of man -made diversion ditch; and, - 272 linear feet
of culverted stream channel on the site.
Page 3of10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The site and its aquatic resources have been degraded by two poorly designed and maintained earthen impoundments an
an inappropriately located man -made diversion ditch. The dams and man -made diversion ditch were constructed
approximately 70 years ago. Prior to that time an unnamed tributary to Michaels Branch/Back Creek crossed the site. Both
he dams and the diviersion ditch pose considerable safety concerns. The main dam on the lower pond impound
approximately 20 acre feet of water and has an approximately 14 foot head. This dam is located approximately 140 feel
upstream of the heavily traveled University Drive. In the event of a dam failure, there is a risk that University Drive will be
overtopped.
The man -made diversion ditch abuts the northern side of the lower pond. This ditch contains water that flows from east to
est. The dirversion ditch discharges into a degraded gully on the western side of the property. The diversion ditch convey
water from the upstream dam impoundment around the downstream pond and dam along the right side of the downstream
pond. The ditch's right bank (looking upstream) serves as a dam since the water level is approximately four to nine fee
higher on the pond side than on the diversion ditch side of the embankment. The location of the manmade diversion ditch is
undeseriable since flow along the base of an earthen embankment can erode the toe of the embankment. Erosion has already
occrred along the toe of both earthern embankments. This can cause instability of the downstream slope which can lead to
failure of the embankment. The ditch is a low quality, man -made perennial feature with little aquatic value.
The purpose of the project is 1) to permanently resolve the safety issues associated with the earthen impoundments and the
man -made diversion ditch and 2) to restore to a natural watershed condtion approximatley 1,400 linear feet of an unnamed
ributary to Michaels Branch/Back Creek. To facilitate this restoration, the dams, approximately 272 linear feet of culvert, 240
feet of open pond 'plug flow', 550 feet of man -made diversion ditch and 250 feet of an unstable, eroding gully will be replaced
by a naturally- meandered stream. Conservation buffers will be established along the restored stram channel to provide water
quality improvements and protections consistent with the City of Burlington Riparian Buffer Ordinance. In addition, the
project includes the creation, restoration and enhancement of approximatley 0.84 acres of riparian wetlands on the easier
portion of the site. This will result in an approximate 30% increase in wetlands.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will 1) permanently resolve the safety issues associated with the earthen impoundments and the man -mad
diversion ditch, and 2) restore to a natural watershed condtion approximatley 1,400 linear feet of an unnamed tributary t
Back Creek. The dams, approximately 272 linear feet of culvert, 240 feet of open pond 'plug flow', 550 feet of man -mad
diversion ditch and 240 feet of an unstable, eroding gully will be replaced by a naturally - meandered stream. Conservatio
buffers will be established along the restored stream channel to provide water quality improvements and protection
consistent with the City of Burlington Riparian Buffer Ordinance. In addition, the project includes the creation, restoratio
and enhancement of approximatley 0.84 acres of riparian wetlands on the eastern portion of the site. This will result in a
approximate 30% increase in wetlands. Graders, loaders, trackhoes, trucks, excavators, etc. will be used to remove the
dams, grade the site and construct the stream channel. The stream and wetland restoration is described in detail in the
Stream Restoration Plan prepared by HARP.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Yes No Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
Comments:
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
The jurisdictional areas were delineated by ECS in Apri
2008. Mr. Andy Williams with the U.S. Army Corps o
Engineers verified the delineation on April 2, 2008. Ms. Su
Homewood with NCDWQ visited the site on April 17, 2008.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
preliminary. Final
of determination was made?
A written JD was not issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
ECS Carolinas, LLP
Michael T. Brame
Other: NA
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Mr. Andy Williams - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - April 2, 2008; Ms. Sue Homewood - NCDWQ - April 17, 2008. A written JID
was not issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
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 Ng,
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
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.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f. Area
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments: This is a stream restoration project. The project will increase the quantity and quality of wetlands on the site
This will result in an uplift in aquatic function and improved water quality on, and downstream of, the site. Please refer t
the Stream Restoration Plan prepared by HARP.
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.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
3h. Total stream and tributary
impacts
3i. Comments:
A man -made diversion ditch and an erosion gully are present on the site. The diversion ditch/gully were constructed on the
site in conjunction with the creation of two man -made ponds approximatley 70 years ago. The ponds were created fo
recreational purposes. The diversion ditch and erosion gully will be restored to their natural positon and conditon. This
restoration will result in an uplift in aquatic function and improved water quality on, and downstream of, the site. For details
please refer to the Stream Restoration Plan prepared by HARP.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
02
03
04
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
Two man -made ponds were constructed on the site approximatley 70 years ago for recreational purposes. Dam removal will
precede restoration of the area to a naturally- meandered stream condition.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
P2
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
Neither ponds nor lakes will be constructed as part of this project.
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, th en you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
Neuse Tar - Pamlico Catawba Randleman Other: Jordan
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:
Since this is a stream restoration, the project is exempt from the City of Burlington Riparian Buffer Protection Ordinance.
However, buffers will be established and maintained along the restored stream channel in general accordance with the
Ordinance. Details of the proposed buffers are summarized in the Stream Restoration Plan prepared by HARP.
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
This is a stream restoration project. There are no impacts associated with the project. Instead, the project will result in an
uplift in aquatic value.
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: Not Applicable
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.
No
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:
S. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
Yes No
buffer mitigation?
----
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.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(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: Since this is a stream restoration, the project is exempt from the City of Burlington Riparian Buffer Protectio
Ordinance. However, buffers will be established and maintained along the restored stream channel in general accordance
with the Ordinance. Details of the proposed buffers are summarized in the Stream Restoration Plan prepared by HARP.
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
Yes No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
This is a stream restoration project. Impervious surfaces will not be created.
Yes No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
Yes 11P.
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
This is a stream restoration project. Impervious surfaces will not be created. Therefore, a stormwater management plan is
not required.
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 governments jurisdiction is this roject?
City of Burlington
Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally4mplemented stormwater management programs
NSW
USMP
apply (check all that apply): This is a stream restoration project.
Water Supply Watershed
Impervious surfaces will not be created. Therefore, a stormwater
Other:
management plan is not required.
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
Yes No NA
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
Coastal counties
HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
ORW
(check all that apply):
Session Law 2006 -246
Other: NA
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
Yes No NA
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
Yes No NA
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
Yes No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state /local) funds or the
Yes No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
Yes No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. 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.)
Yes No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
Yes No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
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
Yes No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream restoration project. This project will not adversely impact downstream water quality. Instead, it will
increase the aquatic value of the site and the downstream waters. This uplift in aquatic value is detailed in the
Stream Restoration Plan.
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.
Since this is a stream restoration project and not one associated with development, sewage will not be created.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
Yes No
habitat?
_2 .
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Yes No
impacts? See 5d Below.
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?
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service list of threatened and endangered species in Alamance County, North Carolina.
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?
The NCDENR has designated the watershed that includes the site as Class WS V; NSW. The endangered species list doe
not identify protected fish species that inhabit waterbodies at or near the site. The site currently contains two man -mad
ponds and a manmade diversion ditch. There are no naturally occuring, high quality waters present on the site. Based or
our knowledge of the site, the project does not occur in, or near, an area designated as 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
Yes No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
--�
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The majority of the site contains two manmade ponds and a man -made diversion ditch that were constructs
approximately 70 years ago. ECS has visited the site many times. We have not observed historic structures
arrowheads or other artifacts on the site during our visits.
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:
The western portion of the site, along the tributary to Michaels Branch /Back Creek, is located in the 100 -year floodplain
According to officials with the City of Burlington, the FEMA floodplain is being remapped in this area. Upon completion o
the mapping, FEMA related concerns related to this restoration effort, if any, will be modeled and resolved prior to beginnin
construction. No significant changes in floodplain storage or floodway conveyance regulated by FEMA are anticipated. Thi
project does not create impervious surfaces. Details are included in the Stream Restoration Plan prepared by HARP.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA website and information provided by City of Burlington officials.
Ed (SE M- N E/tS
do �
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature (Agent's
Date
�_-
signature is va=MV if an authorization letter
from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

MIL
I
h
t � "ta*"ante Mc R.
Park
�i
R
1 ti
N
"Y- £ SOURCE.
s USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
GIBSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
QUADRANGLE
DATED 1970, REVISED 1994
SCALE: 1"=2,000'
r
1
l� l
a
St NxrkA Ch .,
Pare _
k � •1
1
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
HILLIER - KEZIAH FAMILY
ffiLLP STREAM RESTORATION
CHURCH STREET /UNIVERSITY DRIVE
a BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
�; [ MIA-1181 ECS PROJECT NO. 09.15848
77
�N�
I
�
t
f
MIL
I
h
t � "ta*"ante Mc R.
Park
�i
R
1 ti
N
"Y- £ SOURCE.
s USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
GIBSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
QUADRANGLE
DATED 1970, REVISED 1994
SCALE: 1"=2,000'
r
1
l� l
a
St NxrkA Ch .,
Pare _
k � •1
1
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
HILLIER - KEZIAH FAMILY
ffiLLP STREAM RESTORATION
CHURCH STREET /UNIVERSITY DRIVE
a BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
�; [ MIA-1181 ECS PROJECT NO. 09.15848

IL /.
i. 1,ov
cbR2 NA--
\AM
• .,LbS
-A A,
Wd
IdU2
X1 - ON C L EGE
MoB
wd.
-b
,.qhure 1b62
ELON' OLL
V 'I Lbs b
�,c BY
Ll I
41
Wd
LLE
?
MU_. \, I — -
CiC2 Rb / — - T
Ad( .
Tes
mb
k ar 1..y,(5�r' ...f1 �t , ! 11_ .. ��'.. -�n� ^'%:'.q? A(V
Al
:� %! #1s. ��� ' \ I;: i�, I d
U-U' i
Cb
4E 2
ct
SITE 't (141,
JW3
3
juL
G3
U lib
J77.
Wd
AdB
k
A- 4M,
LL t3
51;�424,
ms
r
10?
14
L
SOURCE: FIGURE 2
A
1 .7741
s USDA SOIL SURVEY OF SOIL MAP
ALAMANCE COUNTY HILLIER-KEZIAH FAMILY
SHEET NO. 13 UP STREAM RESTORATION
ISSUED APRIL 1960 CHURCH STREET/UNIVERSITY DRIVE
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
NOT TO SCALE CAFMW ECS PROJECT NO. 09.15848

THE STREAM/WETLAND/POND LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN DELINEATED BY ECS
AND VERIFIED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON APRIL 2, 2008 AND BY THE NCDWQ ON APRIL 17, 2008.
Legend
le � Approximate Location of Stream
qlwl� Approximate Location of Wetland
q111111► Approximate Location of Pond
DP 1 O Approximate Location of Data. Point
,b
" ECF SOURCE:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM
ALAMANCE COUNTY GIS WEBSITE
AND FIELD NOTES PREPARED BY
ECS PERSONNEL
NOT TO SCALE
EULLP
CAROLINAS
FIGURE 3
STREAM /POND/WETLAND LOCATION MAP
HILLIER- KEZIAH FAMILY
STREAM RESTORATION
CHURCH STREET /UNIVERSITY DRIVE
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
ECS PROJECT NO. 09.15848

THE STREAM/WETLAND /POND LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN DELINEATED BY
ECS AND VERIFIED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON APRIL 2, 2008 AND BY THE NCDWQ ON APRIL 17, 2008.
I SB 1 -22 1
WBA 1 -5
I PA 1 -53 1
I PAA 1 -25 1
Legend
I SA 1 -6 1
WA 1 -12 1
01 � Approximate Location of Stream
® Approximate Location of Wetland
qvmho� Approximate Location of Pond
SB 1 -30 Flag Number/Location
SOURCE:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE
ALAMANCE COUNTY GIS WEBSITE
AND FIELD NOTES PREPARED BY
ECS PERSONNEL
NOT TO SCALE
4-
Flag Information
® Stream /Pond Flag
Wetland Flag
Stream Flags = 28
Pond Flags = 78
Wetland Flags = 20
Total Flags =126
FIGURE 4
STREAM /POND/WETLAND
FLAG LOCATION MAP
HILLIER- KEZIAH FAMILY
STREAM RESTORATION
CHURCH STREET /UNIVERSITY DRIVE
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
ECS PROJECT NO. 09.15848

. DATA FORM
' ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
OBL
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
❑ Aerial Photographs
Project/Site: Hillier -Keziah Family Stream Restoration
Project No:
Date: April 11, 2008
Applicant/Owner: Hillier- Keziah Family, LLC
❑ Water Marks
County: Alamance
Investigators: ECS Carolinas, LLP
09 -15848
State: North Carolina
Field Observations
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Plot ID: DP -1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? HYes W N o Community ID: Overgrown Field
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? []Yes ® No Field Location: View Figure 3
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
Salix nigra
Black willow Sap OBL
Alnus serrulata
Brnnk -side alder San FACW+
Juncus roemeranus
Herb
OBL
Primary Indicators
❑ Aerial Photographs
❑ Inundated
Needlegrass rush
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100% FAC Neutral: 100%
(excluding FAC -) I Numeric Index:
Remarks.
The dominant vegetation is
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators
❑ Aerial Photographs
❑ Inundated
❑ Other
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Water Marks
® No Recorded Data
❑ Drift Lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations
❑ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators
Depth of Surface Water. 0"
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
H
Water - Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2"
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
® FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 1"
❑ Other lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are present.
(Wetform) Page 1 of 2

' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands
Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Hillier- Keziah Family Stream Restoration Project No: Date: April 11, 2008
Applicant/Owner. Hillier- Keziah Family, LLC
County: Alamance
Investigators: ECS Carolinas, LLP
09 -15848 State: North Carolina
Plot ID: DP -1
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam
Map Symbol: Wd
Mapped Hydric Inclusion? ®Yes ❑ No
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic endoaquults
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: ®Yes ❑ No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix Color
Mottle Color
Mottle
inches
Horizon
unsell Moist
unsell Moist
Abundance/Contrast
Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc.
0 -12"
2.5Y 4/2
10YR 5/6
20%
Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gle ed or Low Chroma Colors
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicators are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Myes LJ No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? XYes
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ❑ No No 117
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
The three wetland criteria are present. The sampling point is located within a wetland.
(Wetform) Page 2 of 2

DATA FORM
' ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
Indicator
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Stratum
Project/Site: Hillier - Keziah Family Stream Restoration
Project No:
Date: April 11, 2008
Applicant/Owner: Hillier - Keziah Family, LLC
❑
County: Alamance
Investigators: ECS Carolinas, LLP
09 -15848
State: North Carolina
Rubus betulifolius
Herb
Plot ID: DP -2
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Myes LJ No Community ID: Overgrown Field
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? ❑Yes M No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ❑Yes ® No Field Location: View Figure 3
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common)
Stratum
Indicator
Plant Species (Latin/Common)
Stratum
Indicator
Festuca s .
Herb
FACU
❑
Aerial Photographs
Fescue s .
❑
Rubus betulifolius
Herb
FAC
Other
Blackberry
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑
Water Marks
® No Recorded Data
❑
Drift Lines
❑
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations
❑
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators
Depth of Surface Water: 0"
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Water - Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12"
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
❑ FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12"
n Other (Exulain in Remarks)
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50%
(excluding FAC -)
FAC Neutral:
Numeric Index:
Remarks:
50% of the vegetation is hydrophytic.
HYDROLOGY
LJ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Primary Indicators
❑
Aerial Photographs
❑
Inundated
❑
Other
❑
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
❑
Water Marks
® No Recorded Data
❑
Drift Lines
❑
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations
❑
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators
Depth of Surface Water: 0"
❑ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
❑ Water - Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12"
❑ Local Soil Survey Data
❑ FAC - Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12"
n Other (Exulain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are not present.
(Wetform) Page 1 of 2

' DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: Hillier - Keziah Family Stream Restoration
Project No:
Date: April 11, 2008
Applicant/Owner: Hillier - Keziah Family, LLC
County: Alamance
Investigators: ECS Carolinas, LLP
09 -15848
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: DP -2
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam
Map Symbol: Wd
Mapped Hydric Inclusion? ®Yes ❑ No
Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic endoaquults
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: ❑Yes ® No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix Color
Mottle Color
Mottle
inches
Horizon
(Mansell Moist
unsell Moist
AbundancelContrast
Texture, Concretions, Structure etc.
0 -12"
10YR 4/4
0%
Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol
❑ Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
177 soil indicators are not present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Myes ® No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? UYes N
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑yam No No
Hydric Soils Present? Flyes M No
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology and hydric soil indicators are not present. The sampling point is not located within a wetland.
(Wetform) Page 2 of 2