20090049 Ver 2_More Info Received_20131001

oq - ooLkq U;-
c�
w m nt
PROGRAM
September 30, 2013
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater
Compliance and Permitting (Webscape) Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650.
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Glade Creek II Amended Stream Mitigation Plan
EEP Design- Bid -Build Project No. 92343
Alleghany County
DWQ # 09 -0049 v2
To Whom It May Concern:
EEP has received Sue Homewood's letter dated September 3, 2013 to Mr. Lin Xu, requesting
additional information on the Glade Creek II mitigation project in Alleghany County. EEP has
discussed each of the items with our designer, Confluence Engineering, and is providing you
with responses per their letter attached, below each item. Also attached is the DWR letter of
September 3, 2013. I am enclosing three copies of this letter with attachments, as requested.
Also attached is the Nationwide Permit 27 re- verification letter from the USACE dated July 29,
2013.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (828) 545 -7057 or email me at
harry.tsomides gncdenr.gov .
Sincerely,
Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
NCDENR -EEP D ARA(�'J
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102 �9
Asheville, NC 28801
2013 1
I
Pro" Ow Staff ALA
R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -707 -8976 / http: / /portal.ncdenrorg/web /eep

Confluence Engineering, PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville, NC 28801
828.255.5530
September 19, 2013
Mr. Lin Xu
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Subject: Additional Information - Mitigation Plan Addendum
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 92343
HUC 05050001
Alleghany County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Xu:
We have reviewed the request for additional information from the NC Division of Water Quality dated
September 3, 2013 and we offer the following responses:
1. The Division believes that one year of monitoring is insufficient to suggest the Glade Creek project
as a reference reach for this proposal. That is a valid comment, but Glade Creek is now in its third
year of monitoring and has remained stable while meeting all success criteria thus far. Furthermore,
we're not relying heavily on the reference reach for design guidance. Design discharge and other
design parameters were taken largely from on -site data and 1 think we adequately supported our
design approach. We do not propose changing the mitigation plan addendum or the design approach.
2. As noted during the original project submittal, the Division continues to have concerns regarding the
proposal for UTI. The Mitigation approach outlined on Page 5 of the Mitigation Plan notes that UTI
is impacted by upstream cattle. Proposals for preservation and restoration for UTI will not address the
main source of issue of concern and source of pollution within this tributary. The Division has
questions about the potential uplift for this tributary. True, there may be upstream water quality issues
that are not addressed by the project, but this is a common challenge and could be said for any project
that has upstream impacts beyond the conservation easement. We consider the proposed work on UTI
to be the most appropriate level of intervention and believe that the proposed design will provide the
maximum uplift given the project constraints.
3. The Division has concerns that relocation of UTI through a floodplain soil and through a wetland
area may cause piping through the soil and /or displacement of the water into the wetland. If upon
completion of this project a stream no longer exists within the created UTI channel mitigation credits
may not be able to be assigned to the tributary. One of the goals of the UTI relocation is to promote
better stream to floodplain interaction and restore wetland D through both grading and increased
hydrologic input. At a 2.2% slope and with a defined channel, the chances of base flow piping through
the bank seem pretty slim. As further justification for the UTI relocation, the existing channel joins
Glade Creek at a pool where the bank height is greater than 6 feet and the tributary has down -cut to
meet the Glade Creek elevation. The relocated UTI channel will join Glade Creek at a riffle where
the thalweg elevation is 2 feet higher, allowing for a less abrupt profile transition at the downstream
end. The relocation away from the western property line will also allow for a much wider riparian

Additional Information
Glade Creek II Restoration Project
Page 2 of 2
buffer than now exists; the current buffer at the downstream end of UTl is less than 10 feet wide.
Regarding mitigation credit discussions, those presented in the mitigation plan addendum are
projections and actual credit requests will be made based on what construction is actually done and
what monitoring data indicate.
4. The amendment proposes preservation credit to the upper portion of UTI . This section of channel
does not provide adequate buffer within the conservation easement to provide for preservation credits.
In addition, due to the immediate upstream cattle activity, the Division does not believe this tributary
would be of sufficient quality to indicate preservation credit. Depending on site conditions following
construction, we may add supplemental planting in this reach as an enhancement approach.
5. Wetland D has been proposed for restoration credit, however due to the amount of "valley fill" to be
removed to expose hydric soils, the Division believes the proposed plan would indicate this area as
creation credit, rather than restoration credit. What is being proposed is considered to be the best in
terms of resource uplift. We can address the restoration vs. creation credit question at project
closeout, depending on what actual field conditions dictate.
6. It appears that with the relocation of UT has the potential to remove hydrology from the lower
portion of Wetland A. Please clarify whether this portion of wetland was included in the calculations
for preservation of Wetland A and explain how hydrology will be preserved when the tributary will be
rerouted through Wetland D. Yes, it was included in the calculations. The idea regarding hydrology is
to restore stream to floodplain connection. We would partially backfill the abandoned U77 channel
but maintain a flow path from the channel plug to the downstream portion of the wetland.
7. It appears that Wetland A was noted as a riparian wetland dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The
Division questions whether preservation is the appropriate proposal for this wetland. Ifsite conditions
warrant, we will add supplemental planting as an enhancement approach.
We trust that these responses provide the additional information the Division is requesting, but please
feel free to call me if we need to discuss these.
Sincerely,
Confluence Engineering, PC
Andrew Bick, PE
Principal
Cc: Mr. Harry Tsomides

•..... FWA
NCCRI R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Programs
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder John E. Skvada, III
Governor Director Secretary
September 3, 2013
DWQ # 09 -0049 v2
Alleghany County
CERTIFIED MAIL #7012 2920 0000 3656 2063
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Attn: Lin Xu
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 -1652
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Glade Creek II Amended Stream Mitigation Plan
Dear Mr. Xu:
On July 30, 2013, the Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs (Division) received your
application dated July 30, 2013, requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division for your
project. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be processed. The
application is on -hold until all of the following information is received:
1. The Division believes that one year of monitoring is insufficient to suggest the Glade Creek
project as a reference reach for this proposal.
2. As noted during the original project submittal, the Division continues to have concerns regarding
the proposal for UT1. The Mitigation approach outlined on Page 5 of the Mitigation Plan notes
that UT1 is impacted by upstream cattle. Proposals for preservation and restoration for UT1 will
not address the main source of issue of concern and source of pollution within this tributary.
The Division has questions about the potential uplift for this tributary.
3. The Division has concerns that relocation of UT1 through a floodplain soil and through a wetland
area may cause piping through the soil and /or displacement of the water into the wetland. If
upon completion of this project a stream no longer exists within the created UT1 channel
mitigation credits may not be able to be assigned to the tributary.
4. The amendment proposes preservation credit to the upper portion of UT1. This section of
channel does not provide adequate buffer within the conservation easement to provide for
preservation credits. In addition, due to the immediate upstream cattle activity, the Division
does not believe this tributary would be of sufficient quality to indicate preservation credit.
5. Wetland D has been proposed for restoration credit, however due to the amount of "valley fill"
to be removed to expose hydric soils, the Division believes the proposed plan would indicate
this area as creation credit, rather than restoration credit.
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Locabon 585 Waughtown St, Winston Salem NC 27107 e
Phase 336 - 771.50001 FAX 336 - 771416301 Customer Service 1- 877 - 623.6748 �_ C yarolina
Internet www ncwaterquahty org J� 194 all
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

NCEEP
DWQ# 09 -0049 v2
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 2
6. It appears that with the relocation of UT1 has the potential to remove hydrology from the lower
portion of Wetland A. Please clarify whether this portion of wetland was included in the
calculations for preservation of Wetland A and explain how hydrology will be preserved when
the tributary will be rerouted through Wetland D.
7. It appears that Wetland A was noted as a riparian wetland dominated by herbaceous
vegetation. The Division questions whether preservation is the appropriate proposal for this
wetland.
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. If all of the requested information is not
received in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter, the Division will be unable to
approve the application and it will be returned. The return of this project will necessitate reapplication
to the Division for approval, including a complete application package and the appropriate fee.
Please respond in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter by sending three copies of all
of the above requested information to the Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater— Compliance and Permitting
(Webscape) Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Water Quality Certification Rules for this
activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North Carolina General
Statutes and Administrative Code.
Please contact me at 336 - 771 -4964 or Sue. Homewood @ncdenr.sov if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
Winston -Salem Regional Office
cc: Tasha McCormick, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office (via email)
DWR WSRO 401 files
DWR Webscape Unit

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: 2009 -00589 County: Alleghanv USGS Quad: NC -Glad Valley
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Lin Xu
Address: 217 West Jones Street. Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone No.: 919 - 707 -8319
Size and location of property (water body, road name /number, town, etc.): The project site is located
along Glade Creek within a 14 acre NCEEP project located off of US Highway 21 and Barrett Rd.
east of Sparta. NC. Coordinates are: 36.476969 N. - 81.061886 W.
Description of projects area and activity: This is a re- verification of the proposed project due to
revisions to the initial restoration elan and engineering design. The project consists of restoration
of 2471 If of stream channel associated with the generation of credits for use in the Statle ILF
mitigation program (NCEEP) and has been redesigned to include additional bioengineering
techniques rather than the previously authorized hard - structure impacts.
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 #
NWP /
GP #
Open Water ac
Wetland ac
Stream 1
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
GladeCmek RI
27
1200
GladeCreek R2
27
1074
UT R2
27
197
Impact Totals
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. ac
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. l
Required Wetland
Mitigation ac
Required Stream Mitigation (If)
Additional Remarks and/or Special Permit Conditions:
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions and your updated Mitigation Plan Addendum - Final, submitted on 15 July, 2013. Any violation
of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee 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 determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), 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 Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Tyler Crumbley at 919 - 846 -2564.
Corps Regulatory Official Tyler Crumbley Date: 29 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 determination 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 permit
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 Glade Creek. Glade Creek flows to the New River, a
Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW)
Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination 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 determination. 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 Crumbley, 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 submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. **

Corps Regulatory Official: Tyler Crumbley
Issue Date: 29 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:
CESA W -RG -A /Alexander;
Lin Xu, NCEEP

Permit Number: 2009 -00589
Permit Type: NW 27
Name of County: Alleghany
Name of Permittee: Lin Xu
Date of Issuance: 29 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

Applicant: Lin Xu File Number: 2009 -00589 Date: 29 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
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, 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 Permit 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 determinations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit
be modified accordingly. You must complete Section lI 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 permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined 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 Permit, 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 Permit 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 determinations associated with the permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms 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 form 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.
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 information that is already in the administrative record.
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 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8801
Phone: [phone]