20080879 Ver 2_WRC Comments_20130822

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:19 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: NWP27_2008- 01711_Logan Creek_EEP.pdf
08- 0879v2 for laserfiche
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Programs Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater -
Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:30 PM
To: Kulz, Eric; Barnett, Kevin
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler SAW
Subject: RE: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks, Eric. We have issued the 404 (on July 30), with special conditions. See attached.
Todd
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Kulz, Eric [mailto:eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:23 PM
To: Barnett, Kevin
Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
See below.
I'm guessing that unless we have issues with the design, we should probably just go ahead and
issue. My comments below are mainly editorial, and pertain mainly to the ultimate quality of
the site as a mitigation site. Also, please include the following in your 401:
Approval of the restoration plan and issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification means
that DWQ has determined that the proposed activity will not remove or degrade significant
1

existing uses of the surface water (15A NCAC 2H .0506(a)). The issuance does not represent
an approval of credit yield for the project.
I have copied Todd Tugwell with USACE to get his thoughts on these issues.
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Programs
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Barnett, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:15 AM
To: Kulz, Eric
Subject: FW: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Barnett - Kevin.Barnett @ncdenr.gov <mailto:Kevin.Barnett @ncdenr.gov>
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
N

2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: 828 - 296 -4500
Fax: 828 - 299 -7043
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Clemmons, Micky [mailto:Mclemmons @mbakercorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Barnett, Kevin
Cc: Clemmons, Micky
Subject: RE: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Kevin,
I appreciate the opportunity to address comments quickly through this means. My comments
follow:
* that the original plan discussed the presence of some wetlands within the
floodplain of Logan Creek, but the new plan did not appear to address these. They are shown
on the plan sheets, and the PCN notes approx. 2 acres of WLs on the site, but the plan does
not address potential impacts to the wetlands. Could you clarify on the status and final
disposition of these wetlands?
After everything was settled with Lonesome Valley we had to remove that stream footage that
was no longer available for our project and modify the conservation easement boundary. When
we got into that process the EEP and State Property Office decided that they wanted us to
remove anything that was not generating mitigation credit This is a tiresome issue with EEP
sites. Stream and wetland systems are integrated systems, and especially in the mountains
where they are uncommon, the right thing to do is integrate them into the project. I guess
there is not much we can do about that.. Since the wetlands were not providing any
mitigation credit they had us remove them. There are some small areas of wetlands that may
still be within the stream buffer but it is incidental as we were not trying to ensure that
we protected these areas within the conservation easement as we had done originally. This
does not address the issue of impacts, even temporary impacts, to the wetlands within the
buffers. No wetlands are shown in Section C (Proposed Impacts Inventory) of the PCN.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me but at that point I just wanted to resolve the issues and
move on so I did whatever they instructed us to do.
* Section 10.0 - Long -Term Management. The plan says the project will go to the DENR
stewardship, but then goes on to say that it may instead go to the Highlands- Cashiers Land
Trust. Could you clarify which entity will hold the conservation easement and manage the
restoration properties?
3

To be honest I cannot say who will hold the conservation easement long -term. As it exists
right now the site would go into what EEP has called their Stewardship Program. However,
everything that I have heard in the last couple of years indicates that they are beginning to
feel, or understand, the burden that this will be. I believe that they are shifting towards
trying to determine if there is a legitimate conservation organization (Land Trust) within a
project area that can take on the long -term stewardship. This is not new and has always been
an option that is spelled out in the conservation easement deed. In this case, even though
it falls under the original guidance in place when the project was contracted by EEP, I am
pointing out to EEP that the Highlands- Cashiers Land Trust already has easements in place on
this property and that Baker would be willing to discuss long -term stewardship with them if
EEP desires. So either entity could end up holding it but if I were betting on it, I believe
that EEP will work out a deal with HCLT to have them provide long -term stewardship. I don't
know if this is an issue or not, I just noted the inconsistency.
* Section 10.0 - . The agency is concerned about the level of management of the
trails in the future, as the buffers are fairly narrow at some points, and the presence of
trails may actually compromise stream stability(see plan sheet 14 of 26).
The trails that exist on this property now are simple paths through the woods. They have no
mulch or other material applied to them and we believe that this is what the developers
intend to continue. We did have discussions about what could be applied and made clear that
only natural trail treads were acceptable. Trails may appear close to the channel at spots
on this plan sheet but for almost all of what is shown, it is outside the easement, so
greater than 30' from the channel. There is some minimal length of trail that is closer to
the channel. We have observed these trails since 2005 when we started working at this site
and have observed no streambank issues caused by trail use. To say there should not be
trails is to deny one of the principals for having the conservation easement, which is that
it is established for the quiet enjoyment of the natural area. The conservation easement was
established with this landowner based on the idea that they could maintain existing trails
since they are for quiet enjoyment and do not contradict the easement intent. As with all of
the easement any activity or impact from the adjoining landowners that is deemed negative to
the purposes of the easement will have to be addressed by Baker within the 5 yr monitoring
period and by EEP after that to maintain stream stability. Does not address the concern that
at some point the HOA or other party might decide to widen or "improve" the trails based on
neighborhood complaints.
* Some of the proposed buffers do not meet the mitigation guidelines. Has there been
a discussion regarding credit adjustment?
I assume that you are saying that the buffer is less than 30 feet in some areas. We
established this buffer in a more reasonable time (strictly my opinion) when the total buffer
was considered Wrong. Project was instituted well after the 2003 Stream Mit Guidelines. and
agencies were not penalizing providers when the back of a meander bend fell within 25 feet of
the easement boundary. While I understand that is what is happening now, that was not the
intent when the mitigation guidance was established. Now I sound like the old man who points
to the good old days and in some ways I guess I am. But to answer your question, we have
modeled a 30' buffer off of our top of bank line and it is less than 30' in a couple of
places on the main channel for a short distance. My hope is that there will be some
consideration for those areas greater than the minimum width and those might offset any
negative impacts to credits. My understanding is that these decisions on credits typically
happens at closeout. We have a formula that addresses this. EEP knows how to apply it. If
greater than 5% of the total stream length, either in one piece or aggregate, has less than
the minimum buffer width, credits can be deducted.
* Logan Creek supports wild trout, including brook trout. No construction should
occur within the trout spawning season (October 15 - April 15).
4

Not news to me; I think we state this within the plan. Given that we will not get your 401
permit until the end of August, we are most likely going to wait to start construction until
April 16. It doesn't make much sense to work for 1.5 months, closedown and then start back
in spring.
Again, thanks for this opportunity to comment quickly. If you have any further questions
please let me know and I will respond ASAP.
All the best,
Micky
Micky Clemmons
Asheville Office Principal
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road; Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Office: 828 - 350 -1408 x2002
Mobile: 828 - 734 -7445
Description: Description: cid :image001.png @01CA20B2.68537D50
From: Barnett, Kevin [mailto:kevin.barnett @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Clemmons, Micky
Cc: Cranford, Chuck
Subject: RE: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Good afternoon Micky:
I only have a few questions about this project, and was hoping that they were easily resolved
via e -mail (for timeliness sake).
* that the original plan discussed the presence of some wetlands within the
floodplain of Logan Creek, but the new plan did not appear to address these. They are shown
on the plan sheets, and the PCN notes approx. 2 acres of WLs on the site, but the plan does
not address potential impacts to the wetlands. Could you clarify on the status and final
disposition of these wetlands?
5

* Section 10.0 - Long -Term Management. The plan says the project will go to the DENR
stewardship, but then goes on to say that it may instead go to the Highlands- Cashiers Land
Trust. Could you clarify which entity will hold the conservation easement and manage the
restoration properties?
* Section 10.0 - The agency is concerned about the level of management of the
trails in the future, as the buffers are fairly narrow at some points, and the presence of
trails may actually compromise stream stability(see plan sheet 14 of 26).
* Some of the proposed buffers do not meet the mitigation guidelines. Has there been
a discussion regarding credit adjustment?
* Logan Creek supports wild trout, including brook trout. No construction should
occur within the trout spawning season (October 15 - April 15)
Thanks for your attention to these questions / concerns. I look forward to your response.
Best regards,
kevin
Kevin Barnett - Kevin.Barnett @ncdenr.gov <mailto:Kevin.Barnett @ncdenr.gov>
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: 828 - 296 -4500
Fax: 828 - 299 -7043
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Clemmons, Micky [mailto:Mclemmons @mbakercorp.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:56 PM
To: Barnett, Kevin
Subject: RE: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
6

OK, well I knew that you had done our projects in the past and then in trying to review the
new changes you all are dealing with I saw that Susan was assigned Jackson Co. and assumed
that she would deal with the PCN. Mostly, I was just trying to figure out where it is in the
process. Thanks for the update and if you have any questions let me know.
Micky
Micky Clemmons
Asheville Office Principal
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road; Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Office: 828 - 350 -1408 x2002
Mobile: 828 - 734 -7445
Description: Description: cid :image001.png @01CA20B2.68537D50
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Barnett, Kevin [mailto:kevin.barnett @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:43 PM
To: Clemmons, Micky
Cc: Wilson, Susan A
Subject: RE: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Good afternoon Micky:
I am assigned this project for review ( I get special projects like mitigation banks, EEP,
etc)
I will be providing comments in the next day or two regarding this project.

Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin Barnett - Kevin.Barnett @ncdenr.gov <mailto:Kevin.Barnett @ncdenr.gov>
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: 828 - 296 -4500
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Clemmons, Micky [mailto:Mclemmons @mbakercorp.com]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:41 PM
To: Wilson, Susan A
Subject: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Susan,
The DENR website indicates that you are the contact for 401 permitting by the DWR in Jackson
County. I submitted a PCN permit application for the above referenced EEP Full Delivery
project back at the first of July. I wanted to check with you to see if you received this
information and if you have had a chance to review it. Given the realignment that has gone
on within DENR I wanted to be sure that this application was still "on the radar ". Please
let me know what the status is if you can.
Thank You,
Micky Clemmons
s

Asheville Office Principal
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road; Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Office: 828 - 350 -1408 x2002
Mobile: 828 - 734 -7445
Description: Description: cid :image001.png @01CA20B2.68537D50
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
0

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: 2008 -01711 County: Jackson USGS Quad: NC -Big Ridge
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Jeff Jurek (NCEEP)
Address: 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone No.: 919 - 707 -8976
Size and location of property (water body, road name /number, town, etc.): The project site is located on
Logan Creek and several unnamed tributaries within the Lonesome Valley residential community
located off of Highway 64 and Lonesome Valley Rd. northwest of Cashiers, NC. Coordinates are:
35.134867 N, - 83.062511 W.
Description of projects area and activity: The proiect consists of restoration and enhancement of 4,965
If of stream channel associated with the generation of credits for use in the Statle ILF mitigation
program (NCEEP)
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 27
Summary of Authorized Impacts and Required Mitigation
Impact ID 4
NWP /
GP 4
Open Water (ac)
Wetland (ac)
Stream (lfl
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Logan Reach 1
27
3650
Logan Reach 2
27
1050
UTI Enh. I
27
56
UT2 Enh. I
27
82
UT3 Enh. /Rest.
27
47
UT4 Enh. I
27
66
UT6 Rest.
27
14
Impact Totals
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. (ac)
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. (If)
Required Wetland
Mitigation (ac)
Required Stream Mitigation (If)
Additional Remarks and /or Special Permit Conditions:
All comments and proposed conditions of the attached North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission letter dated 13 June, 2008 are hereby incorporated as special conditions of this
permit.
Any portions of the project that have less than a 15' wooded riparian buffer width on one
side of the stream within the CE will not receive credit on that side of the stream (ex: Sta.
7 +50 sheet 15) . Additionally, any portions of the project that have less than a 30' wooded

riparian buffer shall be subject to potential stream credit reductions including those areas
with cleared walking trails.
Culverts greater than 48 inches in diameter will be buried at least one foot below the bed of
the stream. Culverts 48 inches or less shall be buried at an appropriate depth to maintain
aquatic passage as defined in Final Regional Condition 3.6 attached to this NWT.
Your work is authorized by the above referenced pen-nit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions and your Final Mitigation Plan (updated May, 2013) and submitted on 19 July, 2013. Any
violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the perinittee to a stop work
order, a restoration order and /or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and /or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the
authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to detennine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals /permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Pennit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Tyler Cr unbley at 919- 846 -2564.
Digitally signed by
CRUM BLEY.TYLER.AUTRY.1
yC 1c..K✓t? 00]5099]5
Date: 2013.0].3012:08:24
Corps Regulatory Official Tyler Crumbles 04'00' Date: 30 July, 2013
Expiration Date of Verification: 18 March, 2017

Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ❑ Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the
permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this detennination may be relied upon for a
period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
C. ® There are waters of the US and /or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the pen-nit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued _. Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: The site contains stream channels that exhibit indicators of ordinary high
water marks. The stream channels on the property are UTs to Logan Creek and Logan Creek proper. UTs flow to
Logan Creek, which flows to the Horsepasture River, which flows to the Toxaway River, which flows to the
Savannah River, which is Section 10 Navigable.
Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/detennination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for
the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland
conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or
anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Appeals Information: (This information does not apply to preliminary determinations as indicated by paragraph A.
above).
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional detenmination. If you are not in agreement with that
approved jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will
find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Tyler Crunbley, Project Manager
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the
criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of
the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60
days from the Issue Date below.
* *It is not necessary to subunit an RFA foram to the Division Office if you do not object to the detenmination in this
correspondence.

Digitally signed by
CRUMBLEY.TYLER.AUTRY.1007
�0 Lzvtiv`I 509975
`J
Date: 2013.0 7.30 12:08:38
Corps Regulatory Official: Tyler CruiubleX oaoo
Issue Date: 30 July, 2013 Expiration Date: Five years from Issue Date
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Electronic Copy Furnished:
CESAW -RG -A /Beckwith;
Lin Xu; NCEEP
Micky Clemmons; Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.

Permit Number: 2008 -01711
Permit Type: NW 27
Name of County: Jackson
Name of Permittee: Jeff Jurek
Date of Issuance: 30 July, 2013
Project Manager: Tyler Crumbley
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the
permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: CESAW -RG
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to
permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit, and required mitigation was
completed in accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

t ( {
t. rt #
S} f S t t t
( # k
3 {{
Y _.>♦ {__ f:.. r I } _. \ � l... ..S _ � _ .. _,.T. _ l � _,_. .. � t f f f f f f f
r. - -� i:: }ffffffffff.
4 fffffffffff.
t... -. � 1S sffffffffff.
syyc {t( ( it fffffffffff
Y iiffffffffffffff.
jj i3. fffffffffff.
( �
#s -�. ffffffffffffff.
t S.
�
�
�
.ffffffffffffff.
ffffffffffffff.
t (' I. -" ffffffffffffffff
#r i_ .ffffffffffffffff.
i if ffffffffffffffff.
,. i., Siffffffffffffffff.
:.{ t ,.J .ffffffffffffffffff.
S• __. #.ffffffffffffffffff.
� - !}��!}{{ l f .... ffffffffffffffffffffff
.r ' /' � f ,.. fffffffffffffffffffff
f. .fffffffffffffffffffff.
t F.S.. f. fffffffffffffffffffff.
k <. �fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
.ffffffffff/ / /.- . /- ... / /fF -. /fff // / /- - - -. /. i. fff . /ifffffffffffffffffffffffff.
i -.. ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
t �f, �., �, fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
.t t' - - -.. t -.. Sffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
t -.,. 5ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff .�
r { �._,f. fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
f. iffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
{ { fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
r J fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
1. fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
{g {...- fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
l --./--./ ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
i t -, ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
{f... fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
�I.
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
(r r`.fl. ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
1 t ff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
Applicant: Jeff Jurek File Number: 2008 -01711
Date: 30 July, 2013
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal: of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.anny.mil/CECW/Pages/reg_jnaterials.aspx or
Corps regulations at33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pennit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the
Standard Pennit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit,
including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional detenninations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the pen-nit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit
be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be
received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future.
Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the pen-nit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having detenmined that the permit should
be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your
reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pennit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the
Standard Pennit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit,
including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional detenminations associated with the permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you may
appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending
the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide
new information.
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this
notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This foam must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding
the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which
may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information
for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION I1- REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of
the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the
administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide
additional information to clarify the location of inforination that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and /or the appeal process
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
you may contact:
also contact:
Tyler Crumbley, Mitigation Specialist
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
USACE, Regulatory Division
CESAD -PDO
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Wake Forest, NC 27587
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
919 - 846 -2564
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to
conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site
investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Tyler Crumbley, 69 Darlington Avenue,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD -PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8801
Phone: [phone]

'Lz=�711 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
June 13, 2008
Ms. Loretta Beckwith and Mr. Steve Lund
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
SUBJECT: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Nationwide 27 Permit Application
Logan Creek Stream Restoration, Jackson County
Dear Ms. Beckwith and Mr. Lund:
Baker Engineering requested on behalf of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) a letter of
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) for a 404 Permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I have visited the project area. Comments from the
Commission are provided under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661- 667d).
Restoration and enhancement work is proposed on 4,895 feet of Logan Creek in the Lonesome Valley
subdivision near Cashiers.
Logan Creek supports wild trout, including brook trout. Project construction may harm trout if it occurs
during the spawning season.
The Commission is pleased to see plans to use logs and root wads for in- stream structures. These
materials provide complex habitat for fish and invertebrates and woody debris is a habitat type already
common in the creek. Logs may prove more stable than rock as well because of the sandy stream bed and
banks.
Much of the riparian area of Logan Creek is densely vegetated with rhododendron, dog hobble, and other
shading and bank stabilizing vegetation. The loss of this vegetation for project construction is a concern.
However, it appears most of the highly intrusive priority 1 work will occur in the middle section of the
creek where there are openings into pasture. Nevertheless, as noted in plan, the Commission recommends
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

NCEEP, Logan Creek Page 2 June 13, 2008
Jackson County
incorporating as much as possible the existing channel alignment to minimize the loss of desirable
vegetation.
The use of sills that curve back and connect to the opposite bank from vanes is recommended. Stream
flow is often deflected, rather than focused to mid channel, if vanes are only single -armed and do not
incorporate these "hooks ". This deflection causes degradation of inside point bars. The sandy substrate
in Logan Creek may promote this. The grade control provided by sills also helps keep the desirable scour
pool habitat below the vane from aggrading. Staggered boulders alone will usually not accomplish this.
The Commission can concur with a permit for the project if the following recommended conditions are
attached and used to help conserve fish and wildlife resources:
I. The Nationwide and Final Regional Conditions are adhered to. As specified by Final Regional
Condition 1.2, work does not occur from October 15 to April 15 to protect trout spawning.
2. Only clean, large, angular rock, root wads, logs, or other natural stream design materials and
techniques are used for bank stabilization. Materials are not placed in the stream channels in a
manner that overly constricts stream flow or that impedes aquatic life movements during low flow
conditions.
3. Rock, sand, or other materials are not excavated from the stream channels except where necessary to
construct structures or to reestablish a natural channel according to reference information. These
materials are unstable in flowing -water and are unsuitable for bank stabilization
4. Only existing and actively eroding areas are stabilized. Grading and backfilling is minimized and tree
and shrub cover retained where possible to ensure long term availability of stream bank cover for
aquatic life and wildlife. Backfill materials are obtained from upland sites.
5. Sediment and erosion control measures are used and maintained until all disturbed soils are
permanently stabilized. All bare soil is seeded as soon as possible after ground disturbance and
erosion control matting is used with seeding on disturbed stream banks. Matting is secured with
staples, stakes, or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. Tall fescue is not used along streams.
6. In -water excavation is conducted in dry work areas whenever practical. Sandbags or other diversion
structures are used where possible to avoid excavation in flowing water.
7. All heavy equipment operated near streams is inspected and maintained regularly to prevent
contamination by fuels, lubricants, or hydraulic fluids.
8. Hydroseed mixtures and wash- waters do not reach streams.
9. Disturbance of riparian vegetation is kept to a minimum. Where disturbance for temporary access is
necessary, trees and shrubs are cut and the stumps and roots left to resprout. Disturbed stream banks
and the widest possible zone outward from the restored stream channel are planted with native trees
and shrubs (e.g., silky dogwood, rhododendron, dog hobble, red maple, silky willow, tag alder, black
willow, sycamore). This will help provide long -term bank stability and stream shading. Note, silky
dogwood, silky willow and black willow can be planted as live stakes collected during the dormant
season. Cuttings should be randomly planted on four (4) foot centers from the waters edge to the top
of the bank. Trees should be planted on ten (10) to twelve (12) foot centers. Stream banks in these
areas are also seeded with a native seed mix with a temporary nursery crop of wheat, millet or other
grain.
10. If pasture along the streams will be used for grazing, then fencing is used on the field side of the
stabilization zone /s to prevent livestock from entering the replanted areas and the streams.

NCEEP, Logan Creek Page 3 June 13, 2008
Jackson County
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Pending availability of field staff,
the Commission may inspect the work site during or after construction. If there are any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452 -2546 extension 24.
Sincerely,
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Mr. Guy Pearce, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mr. Mickey Clemmons, Baker Engineering