20141127 Ver 1_401 Application_20160316

Environmental
Quality
February 17, 2016
Karen Higgins, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
Re: Permit Application- Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site, Chatham County (DMS Design -
Bid -Built Project)
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Raleigh Regional Office for review. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding this plan (919-707-8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
— ^Nothing Compares
State of North Orolina I Environmental Qu<rli,y
1601 Mall Service tenter I Raleigh, North Carolina 2 7699-1 601
919-707 8600

Environmental
Quality
February 17, 2016
Danny Smith, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
NC DEQ Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
Re: Permit Application- Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site, Chatham County (DMS Design -
Bid -Built Project)
Dear Mr. Smith:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Please
feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919-707-8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Cc: Karen Higgins
Sincerely
Lin Xu
!`'Nothing Compares.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center i Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707-8600

o/aoF�w,��arFq pG
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
[:]Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
2b. County:
Chatham
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Siler, NC
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
NC Division of Mitigation Services
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
DB: 1233 PG: 849
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NCDENR — Division of Mitigation Services
Contact: Tim Baumgartner, Deputy Director
3d. Street address:
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
3e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
3f. Telephone no.:
919-707-8543
3g. Fax no.:
919-707-8976
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: State agency
4b. Name:
Tim Baumgartner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
NCDENR- Division of Mitigation Services
4d. Street address:
217 W. Jones St, Suite 3000A
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f. Telephone no.:
919-707-8543
4g. Fax no.:
919-707-8976
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Jeff Keaton
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c. Street address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27606
5e. Telephone no.:
919-851-9986
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 13

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
PIN# 8775-11-1240
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.814158° N Longitude: 79.435411' W
1 c. Property size:
Final protected easement acreage will be 11.2 Acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Mud Lick Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class WS -III
2c. River basin:
Cape Fear River Basin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: Land use within the Mud Lick creek watershed is predominantly forest and agricultural production. Disturbed
areas within the watershed consist primarily of tillage for new crop production. There are no signs of impending land use
changes or development pressure that would impact the project in the Mud Lick creek watershed.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
The project site includes five jurisdictional wetlands that total approximately 0.185 acres.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3,750 ft
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal of the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of project stream channels, and
floodplains through enhancement and restoration activities and to establish/protect riparian buffers.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Stream enhancement and restoration would be achieved through natural channel design. Stream enhancement would
include minor bank stabilization, fencing out livestock, and planting of a native riparian buffer as appropriate. Restoration
activities would involve excavation of new channel and floodplain, installation of instream structures, and planting a native
riparian buffer. Trackhoes will be used for in -stream work and wetland grading. A conservation easement has been
recorded on project streams, wetlands and additional riparian buffer.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes El No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Ian Eckardt — Wildlands
Name (if known): David Brown with USACE reviewed and
Engineering
verified jurisdictional areas delineated by Wildland
Other:
Engineering.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Jurisdictional Determination was issued by Andrew Williams of the USACE on June 19, 2014. A copy of the approved
Jurisdictional Determination is included in Appendix 5 (Action Id. 2014-00736).
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for❑Yes
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
®No El Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 13

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries
❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question
for each wetland area impacted.
2a. Wetland
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
impact number —
Type of jurisdiction
Permanent (P) or
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Temporary T
if known
DWQ — non -404, other
acres
W1 — Wetland A
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
[J No
❑DWQ
W2 — Wetland B
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
E] No
❑DWQ
W3 — Wetland C
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
❑No
❑DWQ
W4 — Wetland D
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
El No
❑DWQ
W6 — Wetland F
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
E] No
❑DWQ
W7 — Wetland G
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
❑No
❑DWQ
W8 — Wetland J
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
El No
❑DWQ
W9 — Wetland O
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
EJ No
❑DWQ
W10 — Wetland R
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
❑No
❑DWQ
W11 — Wetland S
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
El No
❑DWQ
W12 — Wetland S
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑P❑T
El No
❑DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
Page 5 of 13

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ PST
Enhancement
North Branch -
® PER
® Corps
10.4
327
Reach 1
❑ INT
® DWQ
S2 ®P ❑ T
Restoration
North Branch -
® PER
® Corps
10.4
297
Reach 1
❑ INT
® DWQ
S3 ®P ❑ T
Restoration
North Branch -
® PER
® Corps
8.3
577
Reach 2
❑ INT
® DWQ
S4 ❑ POT
Enhancement
East Branch
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4.3
168
S5 ®P ❑ T
Restoration
East Branch
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4.3
317
S6 ❑ P ®T
Enhancement
Mud Lick Reach
® PER
® Corps
18.2
623
-
❑ INT
® DWQ
S7 ❑ P ®T
Enhancement
Mud LickReach
® PER
® Corps
24.6
693
2—
❑ INT
® DWQ
S8 ❑ P ®T
Enhancement
Mud Lick Reach
® PER
® Corps
22
748
3—
❑ INT
® DWQ
S9 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3750
3i. Comments:
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number—
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
Page 6 of 13

5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet )
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
B1 ❑ PEI T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ PEI T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project will use natural channel design techniques throughout to have an overall positive impact restoring stream
function and habitat by improving bed features in the streams and establishing flood storage. Wetland impacts were
avoided during design.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
Wetland areas inside the limits of disturbance not proposed for rehabilitation or re-establishment will be flagged with
safety fence during construction to avoid unintended impacts
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project.
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is located in the Catawba River Watershed (HUC
03050102) where only the mainstem of the Catawba River is protected by the NC
❑ Yes ® No
Riparian Buffer Protection Rules. The project is not located on or adjacent to the
mainstem of the Catawba River.
Page 9 of 13

2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project involves the restoration and
enhancement of on-site jurisdictional stream channels and wetlands. No increase in impervious cover will result from the
construction of this project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
® Yes El No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
® Yes ❑ No
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 7 of the
mitigation plan.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream and wetland mitigation project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively impact
downstream water quality. The project area will be protected in perpetuity from future development through a
conservation easement.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 11 of 13

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
®Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases were
utilized to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species for Chatham County, NC.
Approved categorical exclusion form and correspondence with the resource agencies are included in Appendix 6 of the
mitigation plan.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — Essential Fish Habitat Mapper website was used to
determine the project wasn't located in or near an area designated as Essential Fish Habitat. The NCWRC responded
on 8/2/13 and didn't anticipate the project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic or terrestrial wildlife
resources (see correspondence in Appendix 6 of the mitigation plan).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and North Carolina Tribal Historic Office (THPO) were contacted
regarding the presence historic properties or cultural resources within the project area. SHPO responded on 9/3/13 and
stated they were aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project (see correspondence in Appendix 6
of the mitigation plan). No response was received from the THPO thus it's assumed that they are unware of potential
historic resources that would be impacted by the project.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Mud Lick Creek is mapped in a Zone AE Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) The DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included in Appendix 8. The project will be designed to
avoid adverse floodplain impacts within the Mud Lick Creek floodplain or on adjacent parcels. A floodplain development
permit has been approved for the project.
There are no hydrologic trespass concerns or risks associated with the proposed project activities.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Chatham County FIRM Panel 8764
Page 12 of 13

Lin Xu, Permit Review Engineer
NCDENR-DMS
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
Date
.i/i7lig

Environmental
Quality
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Sharon Jones
Lin Xu 1_x
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
February 17, 2016
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Mud Lick Creek Site in Chatham County (DMS IMS # 93482). The activities associated
with this restoration project involve stream restoration related temporary stream and
wetland impact. To conduct these activities the DMS must submit a Pre -construction
Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for review and
approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00 for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from DMS Fund # 2984, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919-707-8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Karen Higgins, DWR
Cindy Perry, DMS
Nothing Compares'."-.�
State of Noith Carolina I Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 276991601
919-707-6600

5.....i Project Location Project Streams
� Easement Area Mud Lick Creek Reach 1
i
Parcels Mud Lick Creek Reach 2
Existing Wetlands Mud Lick Creek Reach 3
®
North Branch Reach 1
1 North Branch
North Branch Reach 2 M i
East Branch 1
4
001
,v�o Reach 1
1De
ti Reach 2 xSyh`r 1 / t•
tai �e
ReacROW 0
h 1 �o t,�l�r�� yoo� •
a c
Reach 2
XS3 Yool "
' 1 x
1 �
GreeK *'
Reach 3 M�d`i�k Easement 1
1 Break I
e �
e j
o i
Easement
Break
ilk
--------------
1 1 AINqD ism 40
� r�
/
` 1 k/
•� 1
AL
� 1
� 1
Figure 6 Hydrologic Features Map
Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet Mitigation Plan
*VV I 1 1 1 I EEP #93482
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

ktww
WIL,DLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 17, 2015
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest. NC 27587
RE: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site — Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit 03030003; Chatham County, NC
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
We have reviewed the written comments from the IRT on the Mud Lick Creek mitigation plan and have revised
the plan accordingly. Written responses to each of the IRT's comments are included below. The responses
follow along with the original order of the comments which are highlighted in bold text. Upon concurrence
regarding the items below, we will submit a final revised mitigation plan for your records.
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 12 December, 2014:
1. Why was South Branch not considered for restoration? Why was this reach not analyzed for effects on
water quality to the Main Branch? No discussion of South Branch is even made so it is difficult to understand
if this reach will have a significant or negligible effect on the restoration of the Main Branch. This just seems
like a glaring omission of information to me especially if the same impacts are occurring here as with the rest
of the site. It appears that the South Branch may only be an intermittent channel at best but it is receiving
runoff from much of the property as evidenced by aerial photos.
The easement which was closed in 2005 only includes 66 LF of South Branch. When the project was reinitiated
in 2013, the acquisition of additional easement on a significant portion of South Branch was not an option. The
planting plan does include planting the portion of South Branch that is within the easement. Text indicating that
no work will be done on South Branch has been added to Section 4.6.
2. Table 4, Page 5: NCDWQ Stream ID scores do not match those found in the field data sheets of Appendix 3.
This has been corrected.
3. Channel Stability, Page 9: It is unclear why Wildlands chose to use an outdated version of the HEC -20. The
2001 version has been superseded by a 4th edition (2012).
While it is duly noted that a more recent version of the HEC -20 publication is now available, the metrics used in
the field evaluation of the channels have not changed since the 2001 version. Therefore, no change has been
made to the mitigation plan text related to this comment.
4. Table 6, Page 10: Recommend making correction/clarification to Reach names by adding the Reach #.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] - fax [phone]o6 • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

This issue referred to was related to a table formatting error which has been corrected.
5. Section 5.1, Page 11: Recommend adding basic information about streams when discussing 404 regulatory
considerations. Basically, there should be some discussion of delineation of streams, distance to nearest
TNW and description of the flow permanence and how determined; NCSID 4.11.
Text has been added to Section 5 to address this comment.
6. Table 7, Page 12-13: Recommend adding NCWAM scores to wetland summary information table.
DMS no longer uses NCWAM to assess wetlands for mitigation projects. References to NCWAM have been
removed from the mitigation plan.
7. Table 8, Page 14: Recommend adding State Listing/Status to Listed Species in Chatham
Co., NC.
State listings are typically not included in mitigation plans since that information is not necessary for
permitting. Some counties have numerous state level listed species which could add a lot of verbiage for no
reason. We are trying to control the verbiage of mitigation plans and only present necessary information,
therefore no text has been added.
8. Section 5.4, Page 15: Cultural Resources left blank (assuming information is forthcoming or should 5.5 and
5.6 actually be 5.41 and 5.42?)
The Cultural Resources information was complete, the error was with the heading numbering. This has been
corrected.
9. Table 11b, Page 18-19: Correct UT to Cane Creek heading.
The heading has been corrected to UT to Cane Creek.
10. Table 12, Page 21: Recommend adding sub -rows denoting the extra work in approach
(riffle construction), mitigation ratio (1:1) and resulting proposed credit for applicable project
components.
This comment is unclear and not enough information on what exact changes are requested has been provided.
In addition, we prefer to leave the table as is because:
a. In the current form the table presents the typical information.
b. The table already has a lot of information, and quite a bit of additional information could make the
table difficult to understand.
c. It appears that all of the information requested is presented in either the current form of the Table
or the mitigation plan text.
11. Table 13 and Section 8.2, Page 22-23: Table and paragraph percentages for reserve credits based on
bankfull events do not match. Table lists 10% and Section 8.2 lists 15%.
The text in Section 8.2 has been changed to 10%.
12. Section 9.1, Page 23: No discussion on effect that South Branch existing conditions are having on the
watershed and justification for not including it in the mitigation plan.
Please refer to the response for question #1 above.

13. Page 27 - 28 Competence Analysis: Has the sponsor considered an analysis of the floodplain or flood
prone area to ensure the flood plain itself will remain stable during various flooding conditions?
Yes, it was a consideration during design of the stream and floodplain and development of the erosion and
sediment control plan. Based on past experience, if sites are properly stabilized during and after construction
and floodplain drainage is designed properly to prevent rill formation, floodplain erosion is not a problem. In
addition, there is no particular reason to expect unusual floodplain erosion on this site such as a very steep
longitudinal valley slope.
14. Page 30: Recommend the sponsor consider doing some sort of analysis of soil density to ensure
effectiveness of disking and improving tree survivability.
Disking is not proposed for this site since surface roughening to retain water for wetland hydrology is not
necessary.
15. Table 18, Page 31: Recommend including brief corrective actions concerning damage repairs following
beaver dam removal. It is likely that even small impoundments will kill riparian vegetation and create
sediment traps that will need to be mitigated for.
DMS Sites are monitored multiple times per year and an active contract exists for beaver control when needed.
If the extent of vegetative impact is such that supplemental planting is deemed necessary, this will be
implemented to meet mitigation criteria.
16. Section 11.1.4, Page 32: Mention credits as they pertain to bank -full events.
Text has been added to Section 11.1.4 to refer the reader to the discussion of credits held in reserve until two
bankfull events are documented.
17. Section 12.2.6, Page 36: Recommend adding information on how volunteer species/stems will be
addressed by vegetation monitoring and estimations of survival."
Volunteers within monitoring plots will be documented (species/height) and counted separately from planted
stems. Vegetation survivability estimates will be based on planted stems but may include discussion of
volunteers, if appropriate.
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, 9 February, 2015:
1. I'm comfortable with what EEP has provided. Some additional information on the number, placement, or
protocol for vegetation plots would have been valuable, but I'm not too concerned.
It appears that no additional text is necessary for this comment so no text revisions related to this comment
have been made. However, a figure has been added to show the location of vegetation plots and other
monitoring plan components.
Ginny Baker, NCDWR, 9 February 2015
1. The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site appears to be a good candidate for stream mitigation through
restoration and enhancement techniques.
No response necessary.

2. There are some inconsistencies in the description of the Enhancement II work to be
completed along the Mud Lick Creek reaches that should be revised. In the Determination of Credits
section (Page 23, 7.1.1) stream bank repair work was referred to as being "extensive" whereas in the Grading
and Installation of Structures section (p. 32, 9.6.1, first paragraph) the bank repair work as being
"limited". Please indicate approximate number and/or percent of the bank work to be repaired in the Ell
section of Mud Lick Creek, the drawings appear to show 20-25% of the bank will be repaired.
The text in Section 9.6.1 has been changed and the word "limited" has been replaced with "specific." The
percentage of channel treated with re -grading is approximately 38%. This has been added to Section 7.1.1.
3. DWR will require cross-section monitoring in the Ell sections that will have bank work repair as per the
2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines that say "Channel stability should also be evaluated when the mitigation
project alters the bankfull channel" as the Mud Lick Creek project proposes to. DWR also believes the
higher 1:1.5 Ell ratio warrants additional monitoring and success requirements. Please add cross section
monitoring and similar success requirements (stability and bankfull events) as described for the
restoration stream reaches to the Ell stream reaches proposed for bank repair (Success — Sections 11.1.1 and
11.1.4, Monitoring — Section 12.2.1). Please show approximate location of cross-sections for Restoration
and Ell bank repair stream sections in a figure.
Channel stability will be assessed in this reach and incorporated in the monitoring plan as suggested. One cross
section will be monitored for each of the three Mud Lick Creek reaches. The text in all three sections mentioned
in the comment has been updated to include monitoring a cross section on each reach of Mud Lick Creek where
bank re -grading is proposed. The monitoring plan figure has been added.
4. Please define the "*' shown in the Total Released column on Table 13, p 25.
A footnote has been added to explain the purpose of the asterisk.
5. Please show the approximate location of vegetation monitoring plots, indicated in Section 12.2.7, on
a figure.
The monitoring plan figure has been added.
6. In Supplementary Monitoring Plan, Section 12.4.2 (p. 41), DWR recommends measuring specific
conductance which accounts for temperature variation. A permanent stadia rod also needs to be installed
at the 5 water quality monitoring stations to record the stream water level for each water quality
monitoring event. The physio -chemical water quality parameters cannot be accurately compared without this
information as stream flow and levels will affect the parameter analysis results. The installation of a flow
meter could also be helpful although not required. DWR is also concerned about the limited number of
sampling events proposed for a "statistical" analysis. An alternative suggestion to addressing the limited
number of samples for statistical analysis would be to remove year 4 sampling and change the sampling from
two to three times each season (base flow, storm flow, mid flow) for baseline, year 2 and year 7. This
would result in 36 water quality monitoring events rather than 32."
Conductivity was a parameter that was included in the Mit plan Revision distributed to the IRT on 2-2-2015. We
have changed this to specific conductance. The concern over a sufficient amount of data for a given period
during monitoring is understood and was considered with an attempt to balance against cost. In terms of flow
groups, DMS plans to have a continuous stage recorder (and crest gauge for peak verification) for monitoring in
Mud Lick Creek along with a rain gage. That in combination with Doppler rainfall estimates for the surrounding
area will provide the data necessary to apply a sampling event at a given location to a given "flow
group" However, it may be unrealistic to capture enough data for 3 flow bins for each season, therefore DMS

suggests 2 flow groups "base flow" and "elevated flow" for these purposes and will drop the year 2 time point as
opposed to year 4. The text has been updated as necessary in Section 12.4.2 to reflect these changes.
Please contact me at 919- 851-9986 ext. 103 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager
[e-mail]
cc: Mr. Jeff Schaffer
sent via email: [e-mail]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: 24 April, 2015
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Mud Lick Creek Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW -2014-
00736; DMS Project #93482
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Mud Lick Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 9
February, 2015. (Please note that the review period for this project was extended to allow for an on-site
review and revisions to the draft mitigation plan.) These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it
is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office
at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does
not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if
issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval
for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of
mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of
the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919-846-2564.
Sincerely,
HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE. 1 Digitall,,19ned by HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
DN:c U5, -U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
258339165 ou=USA,—HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 201 S.04.24 17:57:59 -04'00'
Andrea Hughes
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeff Schaffer, NCDMS
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands Engineering

e� �r
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
CESAW-RG/Tugwell April 2, 2015
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project - NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan
Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal
during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Project, Chatham County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW -2014-00736
NCEEP #: 93482
30 -Day Comment Deadline: February 9, 2015 (This date was revised based on concerns
associated with the initial mitigation approach and to permit on-site reviews)
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 12 Dec, 2014 (Please note these comments were provided in response
to the first version of the draft mitigation plan, which was updated and redistributed on 2
Feb, 2015):
1. Why was South Branch not considered for restoration? Why was this reach not analyzed
for effects on water quality to the Main Branch? No discussion of South Branch is even
made so it is difficult to understand if this reach will have a significant or negligible
effect on the restoration of the Main Branch. This just seems like a glaring omission of
information to me especially if the same impacts are occurring here as with the rest of
the site. It appears that the South Branch may only be an intermittent channel at best
but it is receiving runoff from much of the property as evidenced by aerial photos.
2. Table 4, Page 5: NCDWQ Stream ID scores do not match those found in the field data
sheets of Appendix 3.
3. Channel Stability, Page 9: It is unclear why Wildlands chose to use an outdated version
of the HEC -20. The 2001 version has been superseded by a 4th edition (2012).
4. Table 6, Page 10: Recommend making correction/clarification to Reach names by adding
the Reach #.
5. Section 5.1, Page 11: Recommend adding basic information about streams when
discussing 404 regulatory considerations. Basically, there should be some discussion of

delineation of streams, distance to nearest TNW and description of the flow
permanence and how determined; NCSID 4.11.
6. Table 7, Page 12-13: Recommend adding NCWAM scores to wetland summary
information table.
7. Table 8, Page 14: Recommend adding State Listing/Status to Listed Species in Chatham
Co., NC.
8. Section 5.4, Page 15: Cultural Resources left blank (assuming information is forthcoming
or should 5.5 and 5.6 actually be 5.41 and 5.42?)
9. Table 11b, Page 18-19: Correct UT to Cane Creek heading.
10. Table 12, Page 21: Recommend adding sub -rows denoting the extra work in approach
(riffle construction), mitigation ratio (1:1) and resulting proposed credit for applicable
project components.
11. Table 13 and Section 8.2, Page 22-23: Table and paragraph percentages for reserve
credits based on bank -full events do not match. Table lists 10% and Section 8.2 lists
15%.
12. Section 9.1, Page 23: No discussion on effect that South Branch existing conditions are
having on the watershed and justification for not including it in the mitigation plan.
13. Page 27-28 Competence Analysis: Has the sponsor considered an analysis of the
floodplain or flood prone area to ensure the flood plain itself will remain stable during
various flooding conditions?
14. Page 30: Recommend the sponsor consider doing some sort of analysis of soil density to
ensure effectiveness of disking and improving tree survivability.
15. Table 18, Page 31: Recommend including brief corrective actions concerning damage
repairs following beaver dam removal. It is likely that even small impoundments will kill
riparian vegetation and create sediment traps that will need to be mitigated for.
16. Section 11.1.4, Page 32: Mention credits as they pertain to bank -full events.
17. Section 12.2.6, Page 36: Recommend adding information on how volunteer
species/stems will be addressed by vegetation monitoring and estimations of survival."
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, 5 February, 2015:
1. I'm comfortable with what EEP has provided. Some additional information on the
number, placement, or protocol for vegetation plots would have been valuable, but I'm
not too concerned.
Ginny Baker, NCDWR, 9 February, 2015:
1. The Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site appears to be a good candidate for stream
mitigation through restoration and enhancement techniques.
2. There are some inconsistencies in the description of the Enhancement II work to be
completed along the Mud Lick Creek reaches that should be revised. In the
Determination of Credits section (Page 23, 7.1.1) stream bank repair work was referred
to as being "extensive" whereas in the Grading and Installation of Structures section (p.
32, 9.6.1, first paragraph) the bank repair work as being "limited". Please indicate
approximate number and/or percent of the bank work to be repaired in the Ell section
of Mud Lick Creek, the drawings appear to show 20-25% of the bank will be repaired.

3. DWR will require cross-section monitoring in the Ell sections that will have bank work
repair as per the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines that say "Channel stability should
also be evaluated when the mitigation project alters the bankfull channel" as the Mud
Lick Creek project proposes to. DWR also believes the higher 1:1.5 Ell ratio warrants
additional monitoring and success requirements. Please add cross section monitoring
and similar success requirements (stability and bankfull events) as described for the
restoration stream reaches to the Ell stream reaches proposed for bank repair (Success
— Sections 11.1.1 and 11.1.4, Monitoring — Section 12.2.1). Please show approximate
location of cross-sections for Restoration and Ell bank repair stream sections in a figure.
4. Please define the "' shown in the Total Released column on Table 13, p 25.
5. Please show the approximate location of vegetation monitoring plots, indicated in
Section 12.2.7, on a figure.
6. In Supplementary Monitoring Plan, Section 12.4.2 (p. 41), DWR recommends measuring
specific conductance which accounts for temperature variation. A permanent stadia rod
also needs to be installed at the 5 water quality monitoring stations to record the
stream water level for each water quality monitoring event. The physio -chemical water
quality parameters can not be accurately compared without this information as stream
flow and levels will affect the parameter analysis results. The installation of a flow meter
could also be helpful although not required. DWR is also concerned about the limited
number of sampling events proposed for a "statistical" analysis. An alternative
suggestion to addressing the limited number of samples for statistical analyisis would be
to remove year 4 sampling and change the sampling from two to three times each
season (base flow, storm flow, mid flow) for baseline, year 2 and year 7. This would
result in 36 water quality monitoring events rather than 32."
N-4�D
TUGWELL.TODD.JASON.10484292
93
2015.04.02 10:16:37 -04'00'
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division

(0 4
[Mud Lick Creek Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Bas > > 03030003
0 180 111 711 1 111 1411
Feet
N
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIOI
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAWI
Chatham County, North Carolina
for
NCDEQ Division ®f
Mitigation Services
PLANTING PLANS
June, 2015
Stream Origins
Stream Latitude Longitude
North Branch N 35' 48' 53,73" W79025'56.95"
East Branch N 350 4846.31" W 790 25' 56.17"
Mud Lick Creek N 35® 48'50,97" W 790 26' 07.48"
Title Sheet 0.1
Planting Plan 1.0
Details 2.0
Project Directory
Surveying:
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
P.O. B®x 41023
Raleigh, NC 27629
David S. Turner, PLS
919-8751378
Engineering:
Wildllaffnds Engineering, Inc
License N0. P-0831
312 West Millbrook Road, Smite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N Allen, PE
919-851-9986
Owner:
NCDEQ Division ®1
Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Jeff Schaffer
919-707-8976
DEQ Contract N®. D 14001i
DMS 1D N®. 93482
C N
rr�� � Of tp a0
d
�
uoqw Z o?oiN
Q� aam�
aZ E
rti w 3 LL
m
ti 9
VL
040280
5—Z 4—IS
Q
b
14 s�
U
14 U
U
a�
a�
DO
2

*Area for bare root planting = 9.6 acres
d PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR
\ REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES
ONLY. NOT FINAL SURVEY.
�d
d
� '1d
9
%
Buffer Planting Zone \ y
See Detail 1, Sheet 2.0.
3� 3U� 3J
I\ �
V
u /
Q U
m
\ m
� � x
CE GE
` GE /
°F /f
o V
�J
a>' < 7 3U
�X
A \
�O \
A�
V GE /
0' 80' 160' 240'
(HORIZONTAL)
ti 9
v SEAL
040280
-
9,y�N01
GFA N L Pv
2
Buffer Planting Zone
Bare Root
Species
Common Name
Max
Spacing
lndiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Stratum
# of Stems
Size
Acer rubra.
Red Maple
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
20%
Fraxvpennsylvanan
Green Ash
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"4.0"
Canopy
20%
ica
Platanus
Sycamore
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"4.0"
Canopy
20%
occidentalis
Acer "'gond'
lh—lder
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
20%
Cerci..anad'n—
Redbud
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
20%
100%
*Area for bare root planting = 9.6 acres
d PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR
\ REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES
ONLY. NOT FINAL SURVEY.
�d
d
� '1d
9
%
Buffer Planting Zone \ y
See Detail 1, Sheet 2.0.
3� 3U� 3J
I\ �
V
u /
Q U
m
\ m
� � x
CE GE
` GE /
°F /f
o V
�J
a>' < 7 3U
�X
A \
�O \
A�
V GE /
0' 80' 160' 240'
(HORIZONTAL)
ti 9
v SEAL
040280
-
9,y�N01
GFA N L Pv
2

BUFFER WIDTH
VARIES
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR
SHALL HAVE A
BANKFULL
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
NOTES:
CROSS-SECTION,
AND SHALL BE
12INCHES LONG,
4 INCHES WIDE 1.
ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
Oyu. wyyJv�/ AAAyv RESTORED c
`I
AND I INCH THICK
AT CENTER.
PLANTING AREA SHALL BE DISKED,
CH NNEL
AS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING.
2.
ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY
HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
ROOTING PRUNING
TO INSURE SURVIVAL.
SPACING PER
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED
PLANTING PLAN
TO AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO
Section View
PREVENT J -ROOTING.
0
/�\/'\\//\lll��fff/iii\j���//\ /\ \�\//\✓/
//\✓�/\/�/\\/\ %�\//�✓/�\//��,��/
\:�\: /�/�\\/ \^�\\\//`\\�
�\// \ \/\\R�l\
/
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES
SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE
TO CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM
INTO THE SOIL TO THE
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO
IN FRONT OF THE
FULL DEPTH OF THE
THE PLANTING HOLD. THEN
UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
FULL DEPTH OF THE
THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL
SEEDLING AND PUSH THE
BLADE.
PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE
HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID
BLADE AND PULL BACK ON
THE SEEDLING BACK UP TO
BLADE HALFWAY INTO THE
THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
THE HANDLE TO OPEN
THE CORRECT PLANTING
SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH
POCKETS AROUND THE
THE PLANTING HOLE. (DO
DEPTH (THE ROOT COLLAR
THE HANDLE FORWARD TO
ROOT.
NOT ROCK THE SHOVEL
SHOULD BE 1 TO 3 INCHES
CLOSE THE TOP OF THE
BACK AND FORTH AS THIS
BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE).
SLIT TO HOLD THE
CAUSES SOIL IN THE
GENTLY SHAKE THE
SEEDLING IN PLACE.
PLANTING HOLE TO BE
SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE
COMPACTED, INHIBITING
ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT.
ROOT GROWTH.
DO NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE
ROOTS J -ROOTED.
]Bare
]Root Planting
2.0 Not to Scale
E
X
6IU �I
T
0

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2014-00736 County: Chatham U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-CRUTCHFIELD CROSSROADS
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Agent: Ian Eckardt
Address: Widllands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 27203
Telephone Number: 704-332-7754
Size (acres) Nearest Town Crutchfield Crossroads
Nearest Waterway Mud Lick Creek River Basin Deep. North Carolina.
USGS HUC 3030003 Coordinates Latitude: 35.8130659856579
Longitude: -79.43478304149
Location description: The site is located approximatelv 1,500 feet northwest of the Silk Hope Liberty Road, Siler
City Snow Camp Road in the community of Crutchfield Crossroads, Chatham County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). 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.
B. Approved Determination
_ 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.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property 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.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on 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.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
Page 1 of 2

published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Andrew Williams at 919-554-4884 x26 or
And rew.E.Williams2(&usace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Streams identified as S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6 are relatively permanent waters
(RPWs) and are unnamed tributaries to Mud Lick Creek (Stream S1), an RPW. Mud Lick Creek is a tributary to
the Rocky River, an RPW. The Rocky River is a tributary to the Deep River, a traditionally navigable water
(TNW). The Deep River flows to the Cape Fear River, a navigable water of the United States. The Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) of the unnamed tributaries and Mud Lick Creek were indicated by the following physical
characteristics: clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, scour and
the destruction of terrestrial vegetation. Wetlands A,B,C,D,E,F meet the hydrophytic vegetation, wetland
hydrology, and hydric soil criteria of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement. Wetland A abuts Stream S1. Wetland B, C and F are adjacent to
Stream S1. Wetland D abuts Stream S5. Wetland E is adjacent to Stream S2.
D. Remarks: None
E. 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 del ineation/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.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 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:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 by August 18, 2014.
**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:/Ljc�
Date: June 19, 2014 Expiration Date: June 19, 2019

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://re ulatoa.usacesurvey.coi-n/.
Copy furnished:
Todd Tugwell
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at littp://www.usace.army.mi]/Missions/CivilWorks/Reg_alatoryPro�—�raniandPermits.asl)x or
Corns regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
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 II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the 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 pen -nit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pennit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard 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 forn and sending the forn 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.
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Ian Eckardt, Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
File Number: SAW -2014-00736
Date: June 19, 2014
Attached is:
See Section below
01
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ennission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at littp://www.usace.army.mi]/Missions/CivilWorks/Reg_alatoryPro�—�raniandPermits.asl)x or
Corns regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
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 II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the 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 pen -nit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pennit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard 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 forn and sending the forn 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 lI of this form and sending the form to the district 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.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Andrew Williams
CESAD-PDO
3331 Heritiage Trade Drive, Suite 105
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
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 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 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

�I
.gyp
- CRIB
lDP9/
Wetland E i ��
♦ �, +••`'
' oee� � i DP3 a'a` ,w,•+I` �
Y- / �A �AP
�IN: Vllatlarid B.'
West DP4 j -0 ,• ds/ �
Branch Wetland F i '-=--DP2 DP10 DP11 61
a
i �J ,
(S5) Ch •
Wetland C DP6 iol ,•�+ Wetland A
DPI J
Wetland D �DP:
i��w r ti
w�
DPS j - DP13 `
�• DP7 ♦�♦
DP15 South
j
$6 Branch 3 =`
(S4)
Ej
` 5