20071212 Ver 1_Application_20070712

07-1212
~ ~ l_
July 12, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403
ATTN: Kim Garvey, Regulatory Project 1~lanager
C ~5 ~~/]
uV~
Jv~ 12 za D
OI
~~~~u~i
~'R~
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide 27 Authorization for the Implementation of the
Brown Nlarsh Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Robeson County
Please find enclosed with this letter the following items:
1) Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Form (6 copies to DWQ);
2) Conservation easement plat (6 copies to DWQ);
3) Detailed Restoration Plan (6 copies to DWQ), including Categorical Exclusion
4) Restoration Plan Approval Letter from NCEEP (6 copies to DWQ);
~) Letter from SHPO (6 copies to DWQ);
6) Check in the amount of $47.00 (DWQ only)
Project Purpose and Description
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with important information about the Brown Marsh
Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (SITE). The owner/applicant, Restoration
Systems, LLC (RS), is proposing stream and wetland restoration at the Site to assist the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling its mitigation goals in Lumber
River Basin Cataloging Unit 03040204. The SITE is located approximately 3 miles east of
Rowland in Robeson County within the USGS Hydrological Unit 03040204037010 (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-07-55) of the Lumber River Basin
(Figures 1, 2). The SITE is characterized by active row crop production of corn and tobacco and
forest fringes. Under existing conditions, SITE stream reaches (Northern and Southern
tributaries to Contrary Swamp) are characterized as highly incised, straightened, eroding
channels. Agricultural practices constitute major point sources of pollution and on-going
sedimentation;'erosion. Additional stream impacts include bank collapse, changes in stream
power, sediment transport and loss of characteristic riffle,'pool complex morphology. Site
floodplains and historical wetland functions have been preempted by deforestation, vegetation
maintenance, agricultural chemical application, stream channelization, and groundwater draw-
down from stream channel downcutting. Land use within the upstream watershed is very similar
to that in the immediate project area...rural agricultural interspersed with narrow bands of forest.
Less than l0% of the watershed is impervious.
Pil~~t Ntill • 1101 Haynes St.. Suite 107 • Ralei~~h. NC 2760-1 • u~~~~ti~.re~,turatiuns~-stems.r~,m • Phune 919.755.9~4~)O • Fax 919.7».9-t9_'

Kim Garvey, USAGE
July 12, 2007
Page 2
The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel at the historical location of the stream; 2) enhancement of water quality functions in the
on-site, upstream, and downstream segments of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation
buffer along restored stream channels; 4) reestablishment of historic wetland functions; 5)
restoration of wildlife functions associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream, and 6)
restoration of aquatic habitat to support a more diverse aquatic community. The proposed
restoration plan is expected to produce approximately 5,004 stream mitigation units (SMUs)
from the restoration of SITE tributaries, and approximately 5 nonriparian (riverine) wetland
mitigation units (WMUs).
Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Portions of two unnamed, degraded perennial stream channels (Northern UT and Southern UT)
will be impacted in order to accomplish restoration goals. Implementation of stream restoration
methodologies and execution of stream restoration designs will involve constructing new
channels adjacent to existing channels, followed by diversion of natural stream flow into new
channels. Recharging new channel with stream flow will occur only after new channel is
stabilized. Pump around methods are likely to be employed, where juxtaposition of new and old
channels require dewatering portions of the existing channel while new channel construction is
underway. Pump around protocols involve the use of hydraulic pump(s) to divert stream flow to
a lower section of existing stream during critical phases of channel construction.
Table 1. Effect of Restoration on Stream Lengths
REACH EXISTING CHANNEL
LENGTH (If) POST-Mitigation CHANNEL
LENGTH (lf)
Northern UT 2,700 4,465*
Southern UT 442 539
TOTALS 3,142 5,004
Note: Figure excludes approximately 60-ft long culvert at crossing of farm road.
Each of the existing stream channels will be backfilled following activation of newly constructed
channels. Stream restoration design focuses on establishing morphological attributes that will
facilitate overbank flooding frequencies to sustain and enhance riparian community development
within the 50-ft wide buffer areas.
Justifications for Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Each of the degraded stream channel reaches will be restored to greater functionality and these
restoration efforts will increase total stream length by approximately 1,862 linear feet.
Furthermore, as the result of proposed drainage ditch filling and stream channel restoration,
wetland hydrology will be restored to more than 5 acres of hydric that are now functioning as
nonjurisdictional uplands.

Kim Garvey, USAGE
July 12, 2007
Page 3
Protected Species
Based on the most recently updated (May 10, 2007) county-by-county database of federally
listed species in North Carolina posted by the USFWS at http://nc-es.f~r,~s.~ov,!es;'countvfr.html,
3 federally protected species are listed for Robeson County. The following table lists the
federally protected species for Onslow County and indicates if potential habitat exists within the
Site for each.
Careful evaluation of habitats within the site by walking reconnaissance confirmed that there is
no suitable habitat for any of the listed species. The habitat matrix is a corn field with drainage
channels coursing through the field and narrow wooded fringes adjacent to the property. As the
result of this evaluation, the project will have No Effect on any listed species.
Federally Protected Species for Onslow Co
Habitat
Status Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Present
* Conclusion
Within Site
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) Yes N/A
Redcockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac Rhus michacrxii E Yes No Effect
*E (Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"); T (Threatened = a taxon
"likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"); T S/A
(Threatened (SiA) = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed For its
protection; these species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.)
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed and no known
NCNHP element occurrences have been documented within 4 miles of the Site.
No pine-dominated forested habitat will be impacted by project implementation so it is
reasonable to conclude the project will have No Effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker. While
habitat for Michaux's sumac is only marginally available along the existing stream banks and
forest ecotones at the outer perimeter of the project, scientifically sound surveys were conducted
for this species and it can be reported without question that the species is not present within the
Site, or within habitat adjacent to the Site. Based on the results of the surveys it is reasonable to
conclude that the project will have No Effect on Michaux's sumac.
Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of

Kim Garvey, USACE
July 12, 2007
Page 4
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR
60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
RS submitted a letter to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on July 31, 2006,
requesting a search be conducted of archival records for the SITE. SHPO responded on August
23, 2006 (see attached) that no known recorded archaeological sites occur within the SITE. This
documentation provides confirmation that the project is in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Your time and consideration in reviewing the enclosed material is greatly appreciated. Should
you have any questions about the project, please call me at 919-755-9490. Thank you.
Sincerely,
..-
~~~~ , ~~
M. Randall Turner
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ (6 copies)
Enclosures

.,
.,~.~3
a I
:'^2(9G;: ~l ~A
June 25, 2007
Paul Parker
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Restoration Plan Review for the Brown Marsh Swamp Stream Restoration Project
Lumber River Basin - CU# 03040204
Robeson County, North Carolina, Contract No. # D06038-A
Dear Mr. Parker:
On December 17, 2007, Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) submitted a Restoration Plan for the
subject site. After discussions between Restoration Systems and EEP, the EEP requested that the
US Corp of Engineers (COE) provide a site review and onsite comment prior to proceeding with
approval of the restoration plan. A site review including the COE, EEP, Restoration Systems,
and Ko Engineering was conducted on June 14, 2007. Comments from the COE from that
meeting indicated that the site would provide substantial uplift and there were no concerns that
existed to move the project further.
The plan proposes to restore two (2) unnamed tributaries (Northern UT and Southern UT) to
Contrary Swamp and nonriverine wetlands. Appropriate vegetation will be planted along the
riparian corridor(s). Successful completion of the project will restore the channelized degraded
streams to a more natural stable condition and provide a riparian buffer that will improve water
quality and establish/enhance wildlife habitat.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has completed its review of the restoration plan
and has no additional comments at this time. Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits
and/or certifications and complete the implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation
project (Task 4). A copy of this letter should be included with your 401/404 permit applications.
For the purpose of obtaining approval of the erosion and sedimentation control plan for this
project, I have also attached a memorandum confirming that Environmental Banc and Exchange,
LLC is the Owner and Financially Responsible Party, and has full operational control for all
matters pertaining to construction of this project. Please sign and attach this memorandum to the
Financial Responsibility/Ownership form of the erosion and sedimentation control plan
application. Failure to do so may delay approval of the plan.

/~
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time. I
can be reached at [phone], or email me at g_u~pearce(a~ncmail.net.
Sincerely,
c
~ tt. Qo
Guy C. Pearce
EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor
CC: Files
,; r, . ,

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
07-1212
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
~~~ any pantcutar uem is not appucante to trits project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing ~-a .y'
`:,~ _
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^ N/A
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^ N/A
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), the
N/A D ~ U V
[I. Applicant Information O
~u~ 1 2 zoo?
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: John Preyer DENt~2 • VvA7Ek QU:~~17Y
HAIR! Aun nT H
Mailing Address: Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street
Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: 919-755-9490 Fax Number: 919-755-9492
E-mail Address: ipreyer(a~restorationsystems.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: NI. Randall Turner
Company Affiliation: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mailing Address:_ 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: (9191755-9490 Fax_Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:__ randy~restorationsystems.com
l;pdated t I i ?005
Page l of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USAGE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Brown Marsh Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 1916-O1-020
4. Location
County: Robeson Nearest Town: Rowland
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Raleigh proceed
south on I-40; take I-95 southwest to NC 130 just south of Rowland; proceed south on
NC 130; turn right on Butler Road approximately 3 miles south of I-95: site is
immediately on right.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34°29'31.85"N 79°16'26.87"°W
6. Property size (acres): 20.25 (conservation easement)
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Contrary Swamp (Drains to Hayes Swamp
then to Little Pee Dee River)
8. River Basin: Lumber
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http:i h2o.enr.state.nc.usiadmin,~maps; .)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the
time of this application: Site is a 30+ acre subset of a much larger agricultural field
complex in which corn. tobacco and other row crops are cultivated Pine-mixed forest
Updated t l 1 ?005
Page 2 of 8

plantation lies immediately adjacent to site along the eastern and southwestern
boundaries.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The primary
objectives of this restoration project are to restore existing degraded stream channel
reaches (northern and southern tributaries to Contrary Swamp) and to restore wetland
functionality to a 5-acre matrix of hvdric soils. Efforts will reestablish pattern, profile
and dimension that will ensure long term stability to these historically relevant drainage
features. Five acres of hvdric soils within the farm field will be restored as jurisdictional
wetlands after blocking two drainage ditches that deprive the area of sufficient
hydrology; the prospective wetland will be planted with wetland species common to the
region. Similarly, riparian buffer areas (at least 50' on each side of stream channel)
will be planted with species that are ecologically relevant to such ecotones. Monitoring
activities, including vegetation, hydrology and stream geomorphics will follow
implementation.
Equipment that will be utilized to implement the restoration plan may include, but is
not limited to track hoes, front end loader, dump trucks, and bulldozers.
1 1. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Restoration Systems is proposing stream and
wetland restoration at the Brown Marsh Swamp site as a full delivery project to assist
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program in fulfilling its mitigation goals
for the Lumber River Basin.
[V. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations andlor permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.No previous permits have been obtained or requested for this project
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application. No.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Updated l I l 300
Page 3 of 8

Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Two stream reaches, each within
tributaries to Contrary Swamp, will be impacted during project implementation.
Proposed impacts to these stream reaches are: Northern Tributary (2,700 lfl; Southern
Tributary (442 lfl. No other jurisdictional streams or wetlands will be impacted by
project activities. While a total of 3,142 if of existinE stream channel will be impacted
during restoration activities, the result of this effort will be an increase of 1,862 If of
functional and stable stream channel.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding. N/A
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es~no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
TYPe of
Perennial o Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name
Impact ~
Intermittent` Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) . Before Im act (linear feet
(acres)
Unnamed Trib to
Northern Trib
Contrar Swam Fill Perennial 12 2,700 0.74
Southern Trib Unnamed Trib to Fill Perennial 7
5 442 0
08
Contrar Swam . .
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 4,100 0.82
Updated I I 12005
Page 4 of 8

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc. N/A
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number
(if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, Impact
(indicate on map) bay, ocean, etc.) (acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.82
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.82
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 3,142
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Existing, degraded stream
channels wilt be restored using Rosgen Priority II methods. Work will impact
approximately 3,150 if of impaired stream reaches. Post-restoration length of restored
Updated I I 1200
Page 5 of 8

stream channels will increase to approximately 5,000 l£ In addition, more than 4 acres of
riparian wetlands will be restored to functionality by restoring hydroloEV and wetland
plant components to hydric soil complex.
VIII. 1•Iitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us; ncwetlandsistrmyide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http: h2o.enr.state.nc.us, ~~ rp-'index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
N/A
Updated I l I ?005
Page 6 of 8

Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
[X. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes (funds from FHWA); No federal (ands
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
A CE document has been prepared per FHWA guidance (See Appendix in Restoration Plan)
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No
See attached letter from the NCEEP.
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers. N/A
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone l .
Updated l l I ?005
Page 7 of 8

3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 1 SA NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. No impervious surface currently exists within
the Site and no impervious surface will result from the restoration activities. A sediment
and erosion control plan approval will be obtained from the Division of Land Resources
prior to construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (1 SA NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http:iih2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The primary Eoals of this stream and wetland restoration protect focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat Proposed
activities will not be a factor in local land-use decisions that might result in development.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
-, _~
;!~ ~ ~~'l,~ r ~ ~% r~ ~^~~~l~f July 12 2007
---~ -tom ~-~
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated I l l 2005
Page 8 of 8

Robeson Count
North Carolina
PROJE(
~~ ~~~ AREA
3a,
501
1137
2460
2504
} ~- 2435
t 2495
Sot
Sat
1139
13
2464
2516
~y
2494
2492 2462
PROJECT
~~ A-REA
~~.
`~~ 2493
2465
,~~
```
,,~ Q 2465
t~,\ ~jc> 2492
~~~ ;°l
or. ,, ~
~~ ,~` 2491 ~3
2462
2490
Vicinity Map
i ' I Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
/ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers Date: L0~07 F"~gure: 1
!0!1 SCRAUB ()R., SUITE #1202 RALElGR, Y.C. 27606
(9!9) 85/-6066
2463

..:} ~~
~ f ~
:
~.
~ ~ --
~' • ~ 2492

. P~~3 T _.
. ~ ~~~-F
t1 '~
s ~ . tl

\..
s ~
i. i
i

~ ~
-

_
. . f Y<
~
x ~
' r a :xYi
w _. ~, ~
_ ._ - - -
-
-
~;,
r .,
2493 ~
-
- __ _
~
- _
_
J IS~
{/'~~
»~
•
p •
.,
~ r
1,p . ~
w ~~ ~ ~ t1~ ~ ~-.

g,,_ _ ...M,~~;~~~r
~~
~ . 2465 6` .
~
F,CIIs 3
~~ . . ~ ~
///
'
~~
~
• ~ ~ ~
~ ;. .
rt K
s. ~ ~ ~'z_~~.as= _
s

A

-. j
?~`1. • • i ~~
• .
~ b~ '. 6 •
r ~ ~'...
' /
a
V
• ~~
/
~

,
,~,~ ..

a
_ -- ~,
.

,.

_...~x
.
~~
~
- ~~

_
~ .,
~
f
!
.,._
.a ~,.
,.. .
• y- ~.~
2492
~~
{
~

_ ~ .
~ ~

4
N

3
~ ~
w
~Y ~ ~ Y

i
.,

+. "j

K.
!

~
~.
2491
~, ~
~`~

:°

„
'
,~

`~>~ ,
~'
,
a
LEGEND
Robeson County
Northern UT Watershed ~ North Carolina
(725 Ac.)
Southern L,rT Watershed
(ll7 Ac.)
Project Area
' 0 1000 2000
~~I~I~I~I
FEET
Watershed
i ~ Map
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. Robeson county, North Carolina
Consulring Engineers
rou scxaua DR., SUITE M202 RdLSIGx, .Y. C. 27606 Date: L08'07 Figure: 2
[phone]

~,~~v ~ ~~~~~
~ ,~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbcck, Adminiatruar
Michael F. Easley. Governor Office of ~ircftives and Fiisrcm
I.isbeth C:. Evan, 5ecretan~ I3i«~sion of Fisrotieal Resources
~eifrey j. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Ditrttor
:august 23, 2006
Paul Pazker
Restoration Systems, LLC
Pilot Mill
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 2760
Re: EEP, Brower tiiarsh Stream & Wetland Restoration, Robeson County, ER 06-2122
Dear i~ir. Parker.
Thank you for pour letter of July 31, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If ,you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck ~~ ~n ~ ~~ l
Location Alailing Addtsss Telephone/Fax
ADbQNISTRATION 5tl' N Blount ~treer, Raleigh NC 4GI' Mail Scnice (:enter, R:ilcigh N(:2'G99-4111' (919)?33--i?G?i'33-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount ~trcct, Raleigh NC 4111? Alail $enice Center, RalctiGh NC 2?C>99-4G1' (919)?3.i-GS-t?!715-~tioi
SUR4'El & PLANNING 515 V Blount Jtreet. Raleigh, \C 4(il? Mail Scnicc Center, Raleigh \C 27699-461? (919)?33-G545:'7l5 48(11