20150187 Ver 1_More Info Received_20150511

From: 8obZaraecki <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May ll'ZUl58:4lAK4
To: 8urdette, Jennifer a
Subject: DARAR Variance (DVVR#15 Ul87)_S&E[ Variance Response_5 8 ZUl5_(corrected)
Attachments: DararVariance-Response-5-8-2015 (DWR#15 0187).pdf
Importance: High
There was a typo in our soils report. We've corrected it and included it in the attached response
package. Please discard the one sent on Friday and replace it with this one.
AOhZarz8Cki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
From: Bob Zarzecki
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 12:26 PM
To:'Burdette ]ennifera'
Subject: RE: Darar
I suspect that you have been following H760. It has been approved by the House and sent to the
Senate and passed the 1st reading. It's looking like it's heading towards approval. If approved as it
currently stands, I believe it would exempt this property from the buffer rules. The Darars are ok
pushing their request to the September meeting pending the final outcome of this bill, if DWR and the
WQC/EMC agrees to do so.
AOhZarz8Cki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
From: Burdette,]ennhera
Sent: Wednesday, April 15,20155:13 PM
To: BoUZarzeck
Subject: RE: Oanar
I'm cannot put the project on hold pending draft legislation, but can certainly can extend the deadline for additional
~'
information until May 8

Environmental Consultants,
8.112 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27615 • Phone: [phone]
sandec.com
May 8, 2015
S&EC Project # 12409
To: N.C. Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Jennifer Burdette
Archdale Building — 9t' Floor
512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604
From: Bob Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A.
Re: Darar Property Major Variance — DWR # 15-0187
Belhaven, Beaufort County, NC
On behalf of the owners, Mohamed Ali and Reem Darar, we provide the following
additional information in response to and as requested within your March 13, 2015 letter
(attached). Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Your application indicates that the property owners were not aware of the Tar -
Pamlico Buffer Rule when they purchased the home and began remodeling, but
contends that constructing the addition and deck outside the riparian buffer
would not be possible on the west side of the home due to reservation of an area
for future septic system repair and would not provide river, front views from both
inside and outside of the home if the addition and deck were adding to the north
side of the home. A review of aerial photographs of the home prior to the recent
modification shows that the main structure of the home was remodeled as well as
the addition of a room and deck on the south side. Prior to the recent
modifications, the home included a concrete patio and screened porch on the
south side overlooking the river. Because the existing home provided river front
views from both inside and outside of the home, this office believes that the home
could have been remodeled and expanded without impacting the riparian buffer if
the proper permits were obtained prior to beginning construction on the project.
Please provide a map of the interior layout of the home prior to the recent
modifications, a map of the current layout of the home and an explanation of why
the home could not have been remodeled and expanded while maintaining the
home's existing footprint within the riparian buffer.
Page 1 of 4

Requested pre and post construction home layouts and aerials photos are
provided. The photos are from 2011 and the survey was from the recorded plat
map dated 1997. The Darars purchased the property in 2013. The main home
modifications were done by the previous owners prior to the Darars purchasing it;
most likely sometime between 2011 (date of aerial photo) and Fall of 2013 (when
the Darars purchased the home).
The Darars have stated to us that:
"There seems to be a lot of confusion on what exactly was done to the house when
we bought it. I believe the photographs that they are looking at are too old. It is
mentioned that there was a screened porch enclosed and a bedroom added. That
was all done prior to our purchase.
The house was a 3 bedroom when we bought it and it still a 3 bedroom now. We
did not go out of the original footprint on either side of the house. On either side
of the house we were confined to keep the original footprint due to the existing
septic tank on one side and the proposed new location for the septic tank on the
other side.
There was no screened porch. I'm assuming the previous owner had already
enclosed it to be the now sitting room. The bath was already there. It was a
laundry room bathroom. The carport had been enclosed as an expansion to the
existing bedroom but hadn't been finished. We finished it when we bought the
house. Also there are 2 bathrooms on the other side. One as master and one
guest, also existing. We never left the footprint of the house except with the
sunroom.
This is what was done to the house (since we purchased it): new windows
installed on either side of the house, siding taken off and rotten wood removed
and replaced on one side of the house (west side, between us and the neighbors),
new deck installed on the front where there was evidence of an existing deck
before, enclose portion of the new deck into a sunroom. "
The layout of the home at the time they purchased it allowed limited views out the
south and partial east sides of the home from the family room and sitting room
(pre-existing screened porch). There were only the remnants of a pre-existing
deck outside. The additions the Darars added provide west, south and eastern
views from the new sunroom and south and eastern views from the deck.
2. Please indicate whether the property includes a private well or is connected to a
municipal nater supply.
Per the 2013 septic pen -nit provided in the application, the property utilizes a
"public" (county) water supply (no private well).
Page 2 of 4

In our pre -application meeting with your environmental consultant, Bob Zarzecki
of Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc., Division staff indicated that a BMP
to treat stormwater runoff would not be required if the infiltration rate of the soil
is sufficient to prevent stormwater runoff from discharging directly to the river.
Your application states that the property is mapped as Tarboro sand on the
Beaufort County Soil Survey. Due to the large scale of soil survey mapping, an
on-site evaluation must be completed to determine if the soil is mapped correctly.
Please provide a description of the on-site soil by a licensed soil scientist. If the
description of the soils on-site indicates that the soil is not anticipated to infiltrate
stormwater runoff, a BMP to treat stormwater runoff from an area of the existing
home equivalent to the amount of riparian buffer impacted by the addition and
deck will be required.
Mr. Don Wells (N.C. Licensed Soil Scientist No. 1099) of S&EC, PA evaluated
the soils on all four sides of the existing home. His report is attached. It appears
that the infiltration rates of the soil are sufficient to prevent stormwater runoff
from discharging directly to the river. The main portion of the home has been as
it is today for many years, and there was only a small addition of impervious
surface added for the sunroom, which was completed a year ago or more now.
There is no evidence of rills or erosion suggesting that a direct discharge of
stormwater runoff to the river.
4. Past major variances approved by the Environmental Management Commission,
in which application for the riparian buffer impact is made after -the -
,fact, have
included a proposal to improve to water quality. Please explain how approval of
the project would provide an improvement to water quality such as proposing to
relocate the existing septic system that is currently within the buffer to the repair
area or providing wastewater pretreatment to improve the performance of the
existing septic system within the buffer.
The current system was not found to be failing. Relocating the septic system to
the repair area at this time would not leave a future repair area available if the
current system was found to be failing in the future, with exception of an
expensive, high maintenance pre-treatment system or pump and haul system. The
owners would like to maintain the existing system and repair area as they are, due
to prohibitive costs associated with a pre-treatment system and to maintain an
onsite repair area.
If the house is ever damaged by a storm and needs to be rebuilt, the county will
require the existing septic system to be abandoned and the new system within the
repair area to be installed.
The buffer impacted by the new sunroom and deck provided very limited
functions to water quality. The area was only partially covered in grass with no
woody vegetation. It was already impacted by an existing concrete slab and deck
and stairs. Also, in reviewing historical aerial photos, there is clear evidence that
Page 3 of 4

the area was heavily used for storage. The buffer mitigation payment proposed by
the applicant should go far greater to improving water quality within the basin
than the protection of this previously impacted buffer.
5. Your application proposes payment to NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) for purchasing buffer mitigation credits. NCEEP issued a conditional
acceptance letter stating that EEP will only accept payment if the mitigation is
allowed to occur within the 8 -digit HUC or two 8 -digit HUCs that are adjacent to
the 8 -digit HUC in which the project is located. The consolidated buffer
mitigation rule (15A NCAC 02B.0295) requires a 2:1 ratio be applied to the area
of mitigation required when the mitigation site is located in an adjacent 8 -digit
HUC relative to that of the proposed impact site. Please provide an acceptance
letter that would apply the correct location locational mitigation ratio if the
mitigation is not located within the 8 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
Requested acceptance letter is attached.
It's our hopes that the responses above and attachments provide sufficient information for
you to complete your review of this variance request. If not, please don't hesitate to
contact us.
Attachments:
• DWR Request for Additional Information March 13, 2015
• Pre and Post Aerial Photos & Home Layout Exhibit
• S&EC Soil Evaluation April 30, 2015
• EEP Acceptance Letter (revised)
Page 4 of 4

IGS
Z7 Y
4 A
WDENR I MAR 18
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
March 13, 2015
Mohamed Ali and Reem Darar
1205 Kinsdale Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Darar Property Major Variance
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Darar:
i
2015 Li
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
DWR # 15-0187
Beaufort County
On February 19, 2015, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application
dated February 18, 2016 [sic], requesting a Major Variance of the Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer
Rule from the Division for the subject 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:
Your application indicates that the property owners were not aware of the Tar -Pamlico
Buffer Rule when they purchased the home and began remodeling, but contends that
constructing the addition and deck outside the riparian buffer would not be possible on
the west side of the home due to reservation of an area for future septic system repair
and would not provide river front views from both inside and outside of the home if the
addition and deck were adding to the north side of the home. A review of aerial
photographs of the home prior to the recent modification shows that the main structure
of the home was remodeled as well as the addition of a room and deck on the south
side. Prior to the recent modifications, the home included a concrete patio and
screened porch on the south side overlooking the river. Because the existing home
provided river front views from both inside and outside of the home, this office believes
that the home could have been remodeled and expanded without impacting the
riparian buffer if the proper permits were obtained prior to beginning construction on
the project. Please provide a map of the interior layout of the home prior to the recent
modifications, a map of the current layout of the home and an explanation of why the
home could not have been remodeled and expanded while maintaining the home's
existing footprint within the riparian buffer.
Division of Water Resources — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www rlmateroualitY.orci
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

Moahamed Ali & Reem Darar
DWR# 15-0187
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 3
2. Please indicate whether the property includes a private well or is connected to a
municipal water supply.
3. In our pre -application meeting with your environmental consultant, Bob Zarzecki of Soil
and Environmental Consultants, Inc., Division staff indicated that a BMP to treat
stormwater runoff would not be required if the infiltration rate of the soil is sufficient to
prevent stormwater runoff from discharging directly to the river. Your application
states that the property is mapped as Tarboro sand on the Beaufort County Soil Survey.
Due to the large scale of soil survey mapping, an on-site evaluation must be completed
to determine if the soil is mapped correctly. Please provide a description of the on-site
soil by a licensed soil scientist. If the description of the soils on-site indicates that the
soil is not anticipated to infiltrate stormwater runoff, a BMP to treat stormwater runoff
from an area of the existing home equivalent to the amount of riparian buffer impacted
by the addition and deck will be required.
4. Past major variances approved by the Environmental Management Commission, in
which application for the riparian buffer impact is made after -the -fact, have included a
proposal to improve to water quality. Please explain how approval of the project would
provide an improvement to water quality such as proposing to relocate the existing
septic system that is currently within the buffer to the repair area or providing
wastewater pretreatment to improve the performance of the existing septic system
within the buffer.
5. Your application proposes payment to NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for
purchasing buffer mitigation credits. NCEEP issued a conditional acceptance letter
stating that EEP will only accept payment if the mitigation is allowed to occur within the
8 -digit HUC or two 8 -digit HUCs that are adjacent to the 8 -digit HUC in which the project
is located. The consolidated buffer mitigation rule (15A NCAC 0213.0295) requires a 2:1
ratio be applied to the area of mitigation required when the mitigation site is located in
an adjacent 8 -digit HUC relative to that of the proposed impact site. Please provide an
acceptance letter that would apply the correct locational mitigation ratio if the
mitigation is not located within the 8 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B.0259, 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.

DWR# 15-0187
Request for Additional Information
Page 3 of 3
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 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit, 1617 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Buffer 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 Jennifer Burdette at 919-807-6364 or [e-mail] if you have
any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Superisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
cc: Bob Zarzecki, Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., 8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite
104, Raleigh, NC 27615
DWR WaRO 401 file
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit file

40,
QO,
a° , � ,' rhe •il � ti.`i / `,�/
4erial Photo December 31, 2011
dome layout from recorded plat map dated "revised July 14, 1998"
Vote: The current owners did not modify the west side of the home. This was done by previous owners
Sometime between 2011 (date of aerial photo) and when the current owners purchased it in 2013.

,�. '.'
•
^i_1 •
Aerial Photo April 26, 2014
Home layout from new survey plat map provided in variance application. Room layout approximated.
Note: The only changes the current owners made to the footprint of the home was the addition of the
sunroom over a portion of a pre-existing concrete slab and remnants of a pre-existing deck, and the deck
and steps over a portion of the remnants of a pre-existing deck.
o' `� 12,246.95 sq. fl. 5 29°51'01"W
n oh 13.84'
S.wd.stk. - I" x I " / 7r
arso, ( 32" above grade )
ss�o
o*4�r�
69141
Colo, j
°Crete
TIM rrr�rrii �
5.wds0
32" ab
59"E S.Mag.
4.00' (bulkhead cap)' i
IPS
NIPS hh
At
NPS 72x40'1?" 30' I rt"rr, ! 1 ��
N 70°09'01 "W 4g zS
23.25'
NPs N 810262 7"W
1°2627"W 47.46'
NPS

Environmental Consultants,
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27615 • Phone: [phone]
sandec.com
Mohamed Ali and Reem Darar
1205 Kinsdale Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
May 8, 2015
S&EC Project #12409.S1
Re: Soil Series Evaluation on 734 Old Pamlico Beach Road, Belhaven, NC.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Darar:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) has performed a limited soil series evaluation on the
above referenced property. This was performed at your request as part of the preliminary planning
process in order to determine if the soil series that is shown on the Beaufort County Soil Survey is
mapped correctly for this property. The fieldwork was performed on April 27, 2015.
SoWSite Evaluation Methodolo>iy
The site evaluation was performed by advancing hand auger borings to a depth of 4 to 6 feet around
the existing house (see attached Figure 1 map provided by client). The soil boring locations were
based on; site access, identifying possible buried utilities (water sewer, electricity) and to provide
coverage on the lot for the soil evaluation process. The soil morphological conditions were described
at these locations using standard techniques outlined in the "Field Book for Describing and Sampling
Soils" published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS, 2002). A detailed soil profile
description from each boring location is included in Attachment 1 to this report.
Soil/Site Conditions
This site is located in the Coastal Plain geological area consisting of alluvial and marine sediments.
The property is located adjacent to the Pamlico River therefore stream terrace influence is noted and
expected for the soil development. According the Beaufort County Soil Survey, this area is mapped as
a Tarboro soil series. The Tarboro soil series is a very deep somewhat excessively drained soil due to
being mostly loamy sand and sand to a depth of 60 + inches. The field investigation revealed that the
soils at this site are not classified as a Tarboro soil series.
The soils located on this lot have been slightly disturbed with areas of fill material placed over the
underlying natural soil. The surface soil does have a fine sandy loam to loamy sand soil texture and it
ranges from 6 to 18 inches deep. These types of soil textures do offer some initial soil infiltration of
precipitation. Again, it appears this surface soil material is fill and based on the characteristics, it may
have been on the lot for a long period of time as some degraded shell fragments were observed in two
of the soil borings. In most areas on the lot, the fine sandy loam surface soil is over the natural
occurring loamy sand soil. Within the lower soil profile, the soil texture range from a loamy sand to
sandy clay loam to a clay and the water percolation rate will vary according to these soil textures.

The soil on the west side (SB -I location) of the house has approximately 18 inches of fine sandy loam
fill over the natural soil. This natural soil has a loamy sand texture down to 28 inches and then it
changes to sandy loam texture, and then to a sandy clay at 42 inches below current land surface.
Below this sandy clay layer is a firm, plastic clay layer and it was noted at 48 inches below land
surface. The soils on the east side of the house appear to have been mostly disturbed which could be
associated with the on-site septic field. The surface soils on the east side (SB -2 location) have a loamy
sand texture and the lower soil profile is a mix of sandy loam and clay down to a depth of 36 inches.
At this depth, a fine sandy loam spodic (organic) layer was noted. The soils on the north side of the
house (SB -3 location) are similar to the soil on the west side. There is a fine sandy loam mixed fill
surface to a depth of 18 inches. From 18 to 32 inches, the soil has a loamy sand texture, From 32 to
36 inches, it changes to a sandy clay loam/sandy clay texture then changes to a firm, plastic clay at 36
inches below land surface. The soils on the south side (SB -4) have also been disturbed, most likely
associated with the bulk head that is constructed adjacent to the Pamlico River. The surface soil in this
location has a fine sandy loam texture to a depth of 6 inches. Then from 6 to 20 inches, there is a
mixture of clay and sandy clay loam soil with some layers of loamy sand noted. This mixed soil is
above a clay layer which extends to 48 + inches below land surface.
Maximum Instantaneous Application Rate:
Given that the soil type on this lot is variable, Table I (see attached) provides some the typical ranges
of soil infiltration rates as a function of texture and slope. Most of the surface soil textures
encountered on the site fall into the fine sandy loam classification. Additionally, the site is relatively
flat so the slopes of 0 to 3% would apply to this lot. Therefore typical instantaneous application rates
for initial rainfall infiltration could be 0.5 to 1.0 in hr's. The infiltration rates noted in Table I was
obtained from the Sprinkler Irrigation Association, Sprinkler Irrigation (1969). S&EC has not made
any on-site measurements for soil infiltration, the numbers referenced above are used only as a general
guide and with the fill observed on this lot, the in-situ rates could be different than what is shown in
the table. If requested or needed. S&EC can perform soil infiltration measurements on this lot.
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA is pleased to be of service in this matter and we look forward to
assisting in the successful completion of the project. Please feel free to call with any questions or
comments.
Sincere
Soil &
Don W
Licenst
9-15

Table 1
Typical ranges of soil infiltration rates by soil texture and slope.
Source: Sprinkler Irrigation Association, Sprinkler Irri ag tion (1969)
* For good vegetative cover, these rates may be 25-50% greater. For poor surface
conditions, rates may be as much as 50% less.
Basic Infiltration Rate (in/hr)*
-----------------------------------------
Slope
Texture
0-3%
3-9%
9+%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sands
1.0+
0.7+
0.5+
loamy sands
0.7-1.5
0.5-1.0
0.4-0.7
sandy loams and fine sandy loams
0.5-1.0
0.4-0.7
0.3-0.5
very fine sandy loam and silt loam
0.3-0.7
0.2-0.5
0.15-0.3
sandy clay loam and silty clay loam
0.2-0.4
0.15-0.25
0.1-0.15
clay and silty clay
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.15
< 0.1
Source: Sprinkler Irrigation Association, Sprinkler Irri ag tion (1969)
* For good vegetative cover, these rates may be 25-50% greater. For poor surface
conditions, rates may be as much as 50% less.

ckv
Vail.
'O
8 0.281 Ac. -a
:t.s.n A 52rf11911V
lzss
Y 7►7rwr -a.,
law
14
�� 11
N srasiow
N 77'0.071Y p2t
zsia-
� _ M177k7Tfl �+,ee
Pamlico River
Darar Property
734 Old Pamlico Beach {toad
Beaufort County, NC
Project 0: ' Swle:
1240e.s1 NTS
Project s Figure 1 - Sketch Map- Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Date: �
im
Mgr.: ow 4•28.15 Soil Boring Locations 8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104.• Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone]•[phone]
-" T1 Web Page www SandEC.com

Attachment 1.
Soil Boring Profile Description
SB -1, Area west of house
Horizon &
Depth
Texture, &
Structure
Munsell Color
Notes
A
0 — 18 in
Fine Sandy Loam, to
Loamy Sand
Single Grain
10 YR 4/2
10 YR 6/3
10 YR 3/2
Mixed Fill
Top Soil
Shell Fragments
BA
18 — 20 in
Loamy Sand
Single Grain
10 YR 3/2
Buried Natural Soil
E
20 — 28 in
Loamy Sand
Single Grain
2.5 Y 7/3,
Spodic Layer
B
28 — 42 in
Sandy Loam
Weak Single Grain
2.5 Y 6/6
10 YR 4/1 Mt
Btl
42 — 48 in
Sandy Clay
Weak Blocky
10 YR 5/6
Bt2
48 — 66+ in
Clay
Massive - Structureless
10 YR 5/2
7.5 YR 5/8 Mt
Firm, Plastic
SB -2, Area east of house
Horizon &
Depth
Texture, &
Structure
Munsell Color
Notes
A
0 — 6 in
Fine Sandy Loam, to
Loamy Sand
Single Grain
10 YR 4/3
Mixed Fill
Top Soil
BA
6 — 36 in
Sandy Loam
Mixed with Clay
2.5 Y 4/4
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 6/2
10 YR 5/8
Disturbed Sub Soil
Mottled
Bh
36 — 48 in
Fine Sandy Loam
Single Grain
10 YR 2/1,
Spodic Layer
C
48 — 55+ in
Fine Sand Loam
Single Grain
2.5 Y 4/2

SB -3, Area north of house
Horizon &
Depth
Texture, &
Structure
Munsell Color
Notes
A
0 — 18 in
Fine Sandy Loam
Single Grain
10 YR 2/2
10 YR 3/3
Mixed Fill
Top Soil
Shell Fragments
BA
18 — 32 in
Loamy Sand
Single Grain
2.5 Y 6/4
Buried Natural Soil
Btl
32 — 36 in
Sandy Clay Loam to
Sandy Clay
Weak Blocky
2.5 Y 5/6,
Firm, Plastic
Bt2
36 — 54 + in
Clay
Massive - Structureless
2.5 Y 6/2
2.5 Y 7/3 Mt
2.5 Y 5/1 Mt
Firm, Plastic
SB -4, Area south of house
Horizon &
Depth
Texture, &
Structure
Munsell Color
Notes
A
0 — 6 in
Fine Sandy Loam
Single Grain
10 YR 6/3
Mixed Fill
Top Soil
Btl
6 — 20 in
Clay/Sandy Clay
Disturbed
10 YR 3/2
10 YR 5/1
Mixed Soil
Bt2
20 — 48 + in
Clay
Massive - Structureless
2.5 Y 7/4
2.5 Y 7/1
5 YR 5/8
Firm, Plastic

ALT4i`KtAwwA
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Mohamed Ali
Reem Darar
1205 Kinsdale Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
Project: Darar Major Variance
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
March 11, 2015
Expiration of Acceptance: September 11, 2015
County: Beaufort
This is a revised acceptance letter; it replaces one issued dated February 20, 2015. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts
associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that
participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also cowlly with all
other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity includina SL 2009-
337: An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatory Mitigation Banks as amended by S.L. 2011-343.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In -
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.neeep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation
are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is determined by
permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
*The EEP does not currently have riparian buffer mitigation credit available in the 03020104 hydrologic unit (huc). EEP
proposes to use credits from an adiacent hue to meet this mitij!ation requirement. Per 15A NCAC 0213.0295, a 2:1 locational
ratio is required to use mitigation in an adiacent huc. Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the
compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
[phone].
cc: Bob Zarzecki, agent
Sincerely,
a4u
Jain B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] Internet www,nceep.net
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part from recycled paper
River Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres) Buffer I Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non -Riparian Coastal Marsh
Im act
Tar -Pamlico
03020104*
0 0
1 0
0
0 1 0 587 0
*The EEP does not currently have riparian buffer mitigation credit available in the 03020104 hydrologic unit (huc). EEP
proposes to use credits from an adiacent hue to meet this mitij!ation requirement. Per 15A NCAC 0213.0295, a 2:1 locational
ratio is required to use mitigation in an adiacent huc. Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the
compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
[phone].
cc: Bob Zarzecki, agent
Sincerely,
a4u
Jain B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] Internet www,nceep.net
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part from recycled paper