20160366 Ver 2_401 Application_20170317

Environmental
Quality
March 21. 2017
Karen Higgins, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
ROY COOPER
Governor
Re: Permit Application- Martin Dairy Mitigation Project, Orange County (DMS Full
Delivery 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
1 k -4A
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

Environmental
Quality
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Sharon Jones
Lin Xu LX
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
March 21, 2017
ROY COOPER
Governor
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Martin Dairy Mitigation Project in Orange County (DMS IMS # 97087). The activities
associated with this restoration project involve stream restoration related temporary
stream 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 # 2981, 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
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

Environmental
Quality
March 21, 2017
Danny Smith, Regional Supervisor, Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NC DEQ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
ROY COOPER
Governor
Re: Permit Application- Martin Dairy Mitigation Project, Orange County (DMS Full
Delivery 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.
Sincerely
/
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
State of North Carolina 1 Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 1 1601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
919 707 8600

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form -- Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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
1 f.
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
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
2b.
County:
Orange
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Hillsborough, NC
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Martin, Ted H. & Ruby;
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
DB 4973 PN 348 & 341,
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NCDENR - North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
Contact: Tim Baumgartner, Deputy Director DMS
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 12
PCN Form -- Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent Other, specify:
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, NIC 27603
4f.
Telephone no.:
919-707-8543
4g.
Fax no.:
919-707-8976
4h.
Email address:
Tim. [e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Win Taylor
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
497 Bramson Court, Suite 104 1
5d.
City, state, zip:
Mt. Pleasant; SC 29464
5e. Telephone no.:
843-277-6221
5f.
Fax no.:
843-212-2101
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 12

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
PIN# 9896830483, 9896839111
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.123353° N Longitude: 79.003978° W
I c. Property size:
Final protected easement acreage will be 11.14 Acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Buckwater Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class WS -IV;
2c. River basin:
Neuse: 03020201
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: The project area is located within a rural watershed of Orange County, NC. Martin Dairy and UT1 have been
impacted by straightening, past agricultural activities, and historic livestock grazing. The streams run through historic
pasture and have a history of straightening and ditching. While the streams within the project site are not named/
Wildlands assigned the names Martin Dairy Creek and Unnamed Tributary 1 (UTI) to facilitate labeling and
communication in the mitigation plan and for the life of the project.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property.-
roperty:The
Theproject site includes four jurisdictional wetlands, approximately 2.85 acre in size.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 1,814 linear feet of perennial channel within the project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal for the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel
within Martin Dairy Creek and UTI through restoration activities and riparian buffer re -vegetation.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of new channel and floodplain, excavation of
riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in -stream structures. A trackhoe will be used for in -stream work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes E] No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
® Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Win Taylor— Wildlands Engineering
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation_
A Request for Jurisdictional Determination was approved by Samantha Dailey of the USACE on December 9, 2016. A
copy of the approved Jurisdictional Determination is included in Appendix 5 (Action Id. SAW -2016-00874).
S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
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 3 of 12
PCN Form -- Version 1,3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1, Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
X Wetlands Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open `•,2aters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
r:umber —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404. 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non-404. other)
(acres)
Tem ora (T`
I
W1- Wetland A
Floodplain
See p
E Yes
Z Corps
0.007
P Z- T
Grading
Zi DWQ
i
Excavation —
VV2-Wetland A
construction of
Seep
❑ Yes
Z Corps
0.003
Z, P F1
restored stream
® No
® DWQ
channel
Corps
0.197
N3- Uvetiand B
Floodplain
See p
❑ Yes
+
❑ P T
Grading
V
Z, No
iZ DWQ
Excavation —
W4- Wetland B
construction of
Seep
F1 Yes
® Corps
0.184
® P ❑ T
restored stream
® No
® DWQ
channel
V5- Wetland C
Flccdpl �n
Seep
El Yes
iZ Corps
0.355
❑P� ZI T
Gradin
i
Z No
oZ DWQ
Excavation —
r
_
bV6- Wetland C
construction of
Seep
❑ Yes
Z Corps
0.226
� P f7 .,
restored stream
® No
® DWQ
channel
W7- Wetland D
Gravel Drive
See p
`! Yes
Z Corps
0.014
® P E] T
Creation
No
Z DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.986
2h. Comments: Permanent impacts to wetlands areas were avoided to the extent possible during the design phase.
Permanent impacts will occur where excavation is necessary to construct restored channels. Permanent impacts will total
0.427 acres which represents approximately 15% of the site's existing wetlands. Temporary impacts include floodplain
grading to restore floodplains to historic elevations resulting in floodplain connectivity. On site wetlands are significantly
degraded and the project will result in an overall net uplift in wetland function. Furthermore, the enhanced wetlands will be
protected by a permanent conservation easement.
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. 0
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)
,Zi PER ZI Corps
S1 F-1P T
Restoration
Martin Dairy Creek I I l INT ' �i DWQ
.
8.6-14
1,676
S2 ❑ P T
Restoration
UT! to Martin Qw PER ;' Corps
Dairy Creek ❑1 INT DWQ
5.7
138
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 1,814
Page 4 of 12

3i. Comments: Impacts to on-site streams include restoration activities and will result in a net gain of 321 linear feet of
perennial stream channel and will promote ecological uplift to the degraded aquatic and riparian resources at the Site.
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.
Open water
impact number–
Permanent (P) or
—Temporary
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
52.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose
of pond'
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
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).-
acres):5k.
5k.Method of construction:
Page 5 of 12

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
i
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then
complete the chart below.
If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. if an.y impacts require mitigation; then
you MUST fill out Section D
of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse
El Tar-Pamlico ❑Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
6b.
6c, 6d.
6e.
6f.
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone i impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary 'T'
impact
required?
El Yes
81 ❑P❑T
No
❑ Yes
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
F-1 Yes
B3 ❑,P❑T
No
i
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project constitutes a positive impact, restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features in the streams
and establishing flood storage. Wetland and buffer habitat will also be enhanced through replanting of native vegetation.
Biodegradable coir fiber matting and native vegetation will be used to stabilize the newly graded banks throughout the
project,
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.
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
❑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 7 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by QWQ
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
t
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:
Page 8 of 12

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 Neuse River Watershed (HUC 03020201)
❑ Yes ❑ No
which isn't included with the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules.
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 9 of 12
PCN Form Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 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 N Yes C 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.) iiX Yes ] No
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 7 of the l
mitigation plan.
i
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, E Yes ,Z No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .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 ir, Yes Xi 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 restoration and enhancement project and will not cause an increase in development nor will
it negatively impact downstream water quality.
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 10 of 12
PCN Form Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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?
Utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases in order
to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species for Orange County, NC. There are 11
federally endangered or threatened species listed for Orange County including: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose),
atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia mason), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), savannah
lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), carolina creekshell (Villosa vauganiana), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and the
michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Review and comment from the USFWS was requested on potential project impacts to
threatened and endangered species. The USFWS commented that "the subject project is not likely to adversely affect any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated habitat, or species currently proposed for listing."
Correspondence with the USFWS is 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 NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) was contacted for comment related to fish and wildlife issues
associated with the proposed stream mitigation project. The NCWRC responded on 515116 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) was contacted regarding the presence historic properties or cultural p
resources within the project area (see correspondence in Appendix 6 of the mitigation plan). j
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑Yes ® No
i
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Martin Dairy Creek and UT1 are not mapped within a FEMA
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). There are no hydrologic trespass concerns or risks associated with the proposed
project activities. The NC DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included in Appendix 7 of the mitigation plan.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panel 9896
Page 11 of 12

Tim Baumgartner �` / 'moi Date
-Depu Director, NCDENR - DMS ��/!
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant�Agent's Signature /
Age-;Cs sigra ire is •va!?d on-.iy `tf an authorization fetter from the applicant
is rovided.";
Page 12 of 12

r
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
March 14, 2017
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Martin Dairy Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW -2016-
00874; DMS Project #97087
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 review for the Martin Dairy Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on February 20, 2017. 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 questions regarding this letter,
the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at ('919)-
554-4884
919)-
554-4884 extension 59.
Sincerelv,
HUGHES.ANDREAMADE.1 Digital ";-S.Yoe-r,rerNDREAD D,oU_1PKIaou=JSA,
c—HUGHES.ANDREA. WADE.1258339165
2583391 65 Date: 2017.03.14'. 1.23:50-04'00'
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Jeff Schaffer, NCDNIS

j_ r fi 1
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Hughes
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
February 24, 2017
SUBJECT: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30 -day Mitigation Plan
Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review
Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: Martin Dairy Mitigation Site, Orange County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW -2016-00874
NCDMS #: 97087
30 -Day Comment Deadline: February 20, 2017
Mac Haupt and Virginia Baker, NCDWR, February 15, 2017:
1. The Martin Dairy Mitigation Plan appears to be a straightforward project with a work
plan and approach that aligns with the project goals.
2. On Page 22, performance standards for MY7 (210 planted stems per acre) should be
listed in section 9.2 as they are in Table 14.
3. For clarity, DWR recommends stating that full monitoring reports will be submitted in
years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 in Section 10.0, Monitoring Plan. This section refers to the DMS
Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015) which has the DMS Stream and Wetland
Monitoring Guidelines — February 2014 listed as a "companion" document. The February
2014 DMS Guidelines has complete monitoring reports only required for years 1, 3, 5,
and 7.
Todd Bowers. USEPA. February 17. 2017
Recommend the sponsor gather some sort of biological data to establish baseline water
quality conditions of the site even if it is assumed to be not -functioning. A change in
macroinvertebrate community populations can indicate an uplift in water quality after
several years of monitoring and while this does not have to be tied directly to a
performance standard, it would allow the sponsor to possibly reclassify the
physiochemical and/or biological functions from NR to another category to demonstrate

uplift. Without this information, it is a dubious position to conclude that the stream
(Martin Dairy) is "Functioning" when only 3 of the 5 categories are rated and only two
are showing actual uplift in function.
2. Page 22: Section 92 Vegetation. Please include the performance standard for MY 7
(usually 210 stems, acre). This will conform to Table 15 on page 24.
3. Please have the sponsor provide a contingence plan to deal with beavers (Castor
canadensis) and associated damage they may cause to the project.
4. Page 27: Table 18b. Is the sponsor suggesting credit for buffer within 50 feet of the
stream bank? This would seem to suggest that credit is being given for the 20 feet within
the required stream riparian buffer zone.
5. Recommend adding either Corylus americana or Carpinus carolinana to the riparian
buffer planting plan to add understory/sub-canopy diversity.
6. Overall the plan appears to be low-risk, fairly straightforward, appropriate and adequate
to perform a successful restoration of the streams and riparian buffer on-site.
Andrea Hughes, r'SACE, February 20, 2017
1. Page i3, Design Channel Morphological Parameters: The plan states that ranges of
pattern parameters were developed «. ithin the reference reach ranges with some
exceptions (JIWR, Re) based on best professional judgement and knowledge from
previous projects. The proposed design IWR is 2.4 and the design Re is I.S. For a
C/E4 stream design we typically expect a MWR of no less than 3.5 and Re of no less than
2.0. Please explain the specific reasoning for deviating from the reference standards.
Also, please provide the flood prone width.
The technical document indicates the utility poles will be relocated outside the easement.
The current plan does not mention moving the utility poles. Also, the mitigation plan
indicates a short distance of restoration belowthe culvert on Reach 1 before the utility
easement break. Given the short distance bordered by a road crossing and utility
easement, we have concerns with potential impacts and long term sustainability for this
small reach. We advise beginning the project below the utility crossing.
3. Page 21, Section 9.0: Please remove the last sentence in the first paragraph regarding
early termination.
4. Page 22, Section 9.2: Please note that final success criteria (at year 7) is 210 stems per
acre and the monitoring period is 7 years. Also, please remove the third paragraph
regarding early termination.
Page 25, Section 11.0: Under long term management, you must specify the long term
manager. If the long term manager will be the NCDEQ stewardship program then please
remove (or 3" party if approved). If NCDEQ will not serve as the long term manager,

please provide the name and contact information for the 3" party. If NCDEQ will be the
long term manager, you should remove or revise the third sentence to state that NCDEQ
will assume responsibility for funding of long term management activities.
6. Design Sheet 2.0, Planting Plan: Please remove Tag Alder from the planting plan (Alnus
serridata).
HUGHES
Digitally signed by
65
.ANDREA.
DNGc US, o=U.SAGoverrnment, ou' DoD,
WADE.1258339165
cn=HUGHES.A DREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2017,02.24 09:23:33 -05'00'
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

WILDLANDS
March 17, 2017
Katie Merritt
NCDEQ— Division of Water Resources
RE: DWR review comments of Mitigation Plan
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site (DMS #97087)
Neuse 03020201, Orange County, NC
Dear Ms. Merritt,
We have reviewed the comments on the Mitigation Plan for the above referenced project dated
February 9, 2017 and have revised the Mitigation Plan and plan set based on these comments. The Final
Mitigation Plan is submitted with this letter including the revisions discussed herein. Below are
responses to comments. For your convenience, the comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
1. Section 8.7 Vegetation and Planting Plan — page 20: Recommend stating types of stems (trees,
shrubs, combo) that will be planted and that "at least 4 species will be planted" — Rule 0295.
Cite Rule 0295 as 'Which became effective November 1, 2015" since there wre 2 iterations of
that rule.
The first paragraph in Section 8.7 has been updated to include the above comments.
2. Section 9.2 Vegetation Performance Standards — page 22: Add the following statement to
decipher between the vegetation performance standards of the IRT and those of buffer credit
generating areas. "The final performance standard within buffer restoration areas generating
riparian buffer mitigation credits shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree speces
or four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, where no one species is greater than
50% of stems". Note that DWR must also provide written approval of vegetation success of
buffer restoration areas generating buffer credit before monitoring can be terminated.
These statements have been added to the third paragraph in Section 9.2.
3. Section 10.0 Monitoring Plan — page 22:
a. DMS has a "NC Division of Mitigation Services' Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
Buffer Annual Monitoring Report Template (ver. 1.0) dted Feb. 2, 2014. Is there a
difference between this template and the one referenced in this section?
This section has been updated. We have decided to submit two individual monitoring reports for
simplicity. The buffer and nutrient offset report will follow NCDWR guidelines for buffer and nutrient
monitoring. The stream restoration portion will follow the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template
dated (April 2015). This way all buffer reporting will be in compliance with NCDWR standard reports
and alleviates any possible differences in report formats between the divisions of NCDEQ.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

q, I 4:*Wb,
WILDLANDS
Based on Rule 0295, " The mitigation provider shall submit written annual reports ... for a
period of five years after completion of the activities...". According to text in 10.0, it's
not clear when DMS would be proposing the completion of monitoring for the buffer
generating areas. Is the project, as a whole, on a 7 year cycle or a 5 year cycle? If DMS
intends to bring DWR a closeout request for this project based on 5 years of vegetation
monitoring, they need to state that clearly in this section.
Sections 9.2 and 10.0 have been updated to clearly state that NCDMS intends to request closeout
for buffer credits after five years of monitoring. The stream monitoring will continue for seven
years.
c. Table 15: Based on "Note 4", there are 5 total written annual reports that are going to
be spread out over a 7 year period.... which is fine... as long as DMS knows that DWR
won't close out the project until there are 5 written annual reports. As this is written,
buffer mitigation cannot be closed out prior to year 7.
Note 4 was updated to clarify that two separate reports will be submitted to NCDMS and
NCDWR. NCDWR will receive an individual report including monitoring of all buffer activities in
years 1,2,3,4, and 5 so that buffers may close out after five years. A separate report will be
submitted to NCDMS for the stream restoration portion of the site in years 1,2,3,5, and 7.
4. Section 13 Determination of Credits — page 26:
a. Typo—Table 18b should be "17b"
This has been fixed.
b. Table shows 30'-100' instead of TOB — 100' as shown in Concept Map. It should be
shown in table 17b as "TOB —100"' and square feet to be measured accordingly from
TOB back 100' for full credit. If there are any areas less than 30' or 20' within the
easement, then you would show that acreage on a spearate row with the applicable
of full credit as provided in the Rule 0295. Use the columns and descriptions to
complete your asset table.
The table has been updated to show TOB -100'.
c. Verify the assets in 17b with Figure 11 (Concept Map) because the acreages do not
match.
The Concept Map has been updated to the correct acreage, which matches Table 17b.
d. Verify the service area where buffer credits from this project can be provided in the last
row of the table.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

q, I ZO':*Wb'
WILDLANDS
The service area has been updated in Table 17b.
5. Appendix 4 — Contains pertinent Figures/Maps including the Riparian Buffer Concept Map and
Monitoring Components Map. Verify the assets in 17b with Figure 11 (Concept Map) because
the acreages do not match.
Figure 11 (Concept Map) has been updated with the appropriate acreage to match table 17b.
6. Appendix 6 Plan Sheets — Sheet 2.0 is the Planting Plan which contains planting zones and
species lists. DWR recomments not planting Tag Alder on buffer restoration sites adjacent to
NSW waters.
Tag Alder has been removed from the planting plan.
If you have any questions please contact me at [e-mail], [phone] x 106.
Sincerely,
f
Angela Allen, P.E., Project Manager
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
I. Z [_. IV E 1 111 -
MarchI1 t;
March 17, 2017
Andrea Hughes
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: IRT Review Comments for Mitigation Plan
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site (DMS #97087)
Neuse 03020201, Orange County, NC
Dear Ms. Hughes,
We have reviewed the comments on the Mitigation Plan for the above referenced project dated March
14, 2017 and have revised the Mitigation Plan and plan set based on these comments. The Final
Mitigation Plan is submitted with this letter including the revisions described herein. Below are
responses to each IRT member's comments. For your convenience, the comments are reprinted with
our response in italics.
Comments from Mac Hauat and Vireinia Baker. NCDWR (February 15. 201
1. The Martin Dairy Mitigation Plan appears to be a straightforward project with a work plan and
approach that aligns with the project goals.
Thank you.
2. On Page 22, performance standards for MY7 (210 planted stems per acre) should be listed in
section 9.2 as they are in Table 14.
The first paragraph has been corrected to show a final vegetation survival rate of 210 stems per
acre.
3. For Clarity, DWR recommends stating that full monitoring reports will be submitted in years
1,2,3,5, and 7 in Section 10.0 Monitoring Plan. This section refers to the DMS Annual Monitoring
Template (April 2015) which has the DMS stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines —
February 2014 listed as a "companion" document. The February 2014 DMS Guidelines has
complete monitoring reports only required for years 1,3,5, and 7.
This section has been updated to state full monitoring report will be submitted in years 1, 2,3,5,
and 7. Also, separate reports for monitoring associated with buffer credits will be submitted to
NCDWR in years 1,2,3,4, and 5.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
Todd Bowers. USEPA (February 17, 201
1. Recommend the sponsor gather some sort of biological data to establish baseline water quality
conditions of the site even if it is assumed to be not -functioning. A change in macroinvertebrate
community populations can indicate an uplift in water quality after several years of monitoring
and while this does not have to be tied directly to a performance standard, it would allow the
sponsor to possibly reclassify the physiochemical and/or biological functions from NR to another
category to demonstrate uplift. Without this information, it is a dubious position to conclude
that the stream (Martin Dairy) is "Functioning" when only 3 of the 5 categories are rated and
only two are showing actual uplift in function.
This project is intended to address three of the five categories within the pyramid as they have
the highest degree of obtainable and measurable success. It is of the opinion of Wildlands that a
statistically significant difference in physicochemical and biological data and indicators would
not be achievable cluing the monitoring period. Additionally, lack of baseline water quality data
in this watershed does not allow for a statistically sound comparison of pre- and post restoration
conditions. However, the Division of Mitigation Services has chosen to do an independent
evaluation of the water quality on site with their own sampling protocol and we hope that will
yield valuable information. That sampling protocol is outside of the scope of this mitigation plan.
2. Page 22: Section 9.2 Vegetation: Please include the performance standard for MY7 (usually 210
stems/acre). This will conform to Table 15 on Page 24.
The first paragraph has been corrected to show a final vegetation survival rate of 210 stems per
acre.
3. Please have the sponsor provide a contingency plant to deal with beavers (Castor canandensis)
and associated damage they may cause to the project.
Table 1 in Appendix 7: Maintenance Plan, has been updated to include the removal of beaver
dams and potential trapping of beavers, if appropriate, during the monitoring period.
4. Page 27: Table 18b. Is the sponsor suggesting credit for buffer within 50 feet of the stream
bank? This would seem to suggest that credit is being given for the 20 feet within the required
stream riparian buffer zone.
An error in this table (now 17b) has been corrected. Buffer Area A is TOB —100'. There is credit
given to the 20 feet within the required buffer zone. This follows standards set by current buffer
rules (15A NCAC 02B .0295(n)(2)(B), € and (n)(4)) that became effective November 1, 2015.
5. Recommend adding either Corylus americana or Carpinus caroliniana to the riparian buffer
planting plan to add understory/sub-canopy diversity.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

q, I Z0':*Vb'
WILDLANDS
The existing project site to be planted is an open pasture. The viability of understory species
planted in full sun is low and has not been successful in past projects. We anticipate understory
species to volunteer from neighboring existing riparian buffers.
6. Overall the plan appears to be low-risk, fairly straightforward, appropriate and adequate to
perform a successful restoration of the streams and riparian buffer on-site.
Thank you.
Andrea Hughes, USACE (February 20, 2017)
1. Page 13, Design Channel Morphological Parameters: The plan states that ranges of pattern
parameters were developed within the reference reach ranges with some exceptions (MWR, Rc)
based on best professional judgement and knowledge from previous projects. The proposed
design MWR is 2.4 and the design Rc is 1.8. For a C/E4 stream design we typically expect a MWR
of no less than 3.5 and Rc no less than 2.0. Please explain the specific reasoning for deviating
from the reference standards. Also, please provide the flood prone width.
The purpose of this section is to explain our deviations from references above the minimums we
found in the data and this has been clarified in the report. Appendix 4 includes the full range of
our reference data for this project. The MWR of our two reference reaches had minimums of 1.0
and 2.3, however we have found that for CIE channels, it should be kept above a minimum of 2.4
to naturally dissipate energy through meander bends during high flow events to limit impacts of
shear stress on streambanks. The rationale for Rc ratios is similar. Our reference data had Rc
ratios as low as 1.1 but past project experience led us to use a minimum of 1.8, well above some
of the existing references. The lower limits for MWR and Rc are based on values used for many
years on many successful designs.
In the final designs, we were able to achieve MWRs at the higher end of the appropriate ranges,
3.2 and above on Martin Dairy, and 2.7 and above on UT1 (due to a more confined valley). The
Rc ratios in the final designs utilized the entire range of appropriate values..
Floodprone width data is located in Appendix 4 in the comprehensive geomorphology tables.
2. The technical document indicates the utility poles will be relocated outside of the easement.
The current plan does not mention moving the utility poles. Also, the mitigation plans indicates
a short distance of restoration below the culvert on Reach 1 before the easement break. Given
the short distance bordered by a road crossing and utility easement, we have concerns with
potential impacts and long term sustainability for this small reach. We advise beginning the
project below the utility crossing.
The relocation of utility lines was proposed during the technical proposal phase of the project.
After meetings with the utility company it was determined not to be feasible. As explained in
Section 8.8, the maintenance easement for the utility line is very low risk. There is direct access
to all utility poles on site via a gravel drive on the property. The stream has been designed in this
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

q, zltv�
WILDLANDS
I ".![_killl I h1,1l�
section with a riffle that could sustain the impact from an emergency vehicle if access were
required. Therefore, the only difference in the function of this section will be lower -growing
vegetation with potential for periodic maintenance. Considering this information, we would
prefer to proceed with the project limits as shown in the current plans. No credit is being
requested within the easement limits.
3. Page 21, Section 9.0: Please remove the last sentence in the first paragraph regarding early
termination.
This sentence has been removed.
4. Page 22, Section 9.2: Please note that the final success criateria (at year 7) is 210 stems per acre
and the monitoring period is 7 years. Also, please remove the third paragraph regarding early
termination.
The first paragraph has been corrected to show a final vegetation survival rate of 210 stems per
acre. The third paragraph has been removed.
Page 25, Section 11.0: Under long term management, you must specify the long-term manager.
If the long term manager will be the NCDEQ stewardship program then please remove (or 3rd
party if approved). Of NCDEQ will not serve as the long term manager, please provide the name
and contact information for the 3rd party. If NCDEQ will be the long term manger, you should
remove or revise the third sentence to state that NCDEQ will assume responsibility for funding
of longterm management activities.
NCDEQ will be the long-term manager for this project. The statements above have been removed
from the text to reflect that.
6. Design Sheet 2.0, Planting Plan: Please remove Tag Alder from the planting plan (Alnus
serrulate).
Tag Alder has been removed from the planting plan.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [e-mail] or [phone] x 106.
Sincerely,
E
Angela Allen, P.E., Project Manager
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2016-00874 County: Orange U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Caldwell
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Land Owner: Mr. Ted Martin and Ms. Ruby Martin
Address: 7205 Schley Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Applicant: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
Address: 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Agent: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Win Taylor
Address: 497 Bramson Court, Suite 104
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
Size (acres) 9_5 Nearest Town Hillsborough
Nearest Waterway Buckwater Creek River Basin Neuse
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 36.12329
Longitude: -79.00402
Location description: The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site is located on an approximate 9.5 acre tract of land near
Hillsborough in Orange County, North Carolina. Orange County, North Carolina Parcel Index Numbers: 9896830483 and
9896839111. Waters on-site drain into Buckwater Creek, an indirect tributary of the Neuse River.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including
determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other
resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that
would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33
USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the
permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective
presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction overall of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is not sufficiently
accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters of the U.S. on your
property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to
obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC §

1344). Unless there is a change in 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 waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish
this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by
the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA 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 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.
Basis For Determination: On June 13, 2016, Wildlands Engineering, Inc. submitted a preliminary jurisdictional
determination (JD) to our office for review. Representatives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. participated in an on-site field verification conducted on July 28, 2016. During this investigation
the Corps requested additional information required to accuracy describe and delineate waters within the Martin Dairy
Mitigation Site. Final revisions were received by our office on August 5, 2016.
Based on a review of the June 13, 2016 report submitted to our office, on-site field verification on July 28, 2016, and final
revisions received on August 2016, this office has determined that 1,840 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 2.848 acres
of emergent wetland are present within the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site proiect boundary. Refer to the enclosed Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Form, Aquatic Resource Table, and Figure 3 Site Map for a detailed summary of waters on-site.
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 delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdiction determinations as indicated in B and
C above).
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdiction 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
Phone: [phone]
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
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
DAILEY.SAMANTHADigitally signed by
DAILEYSAMAN HA.J.1387567948
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
387567948 ou=USA,cn=DAILEY.SAMANHAJ.1387567948
Corps Regulatory Official: . J.1 Date: 2016.12.0912:09:08-0500'
SAMANTHA DAILEY
Date of JD: 12/09/2016
Expiration Date of JD:
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://cofpsmgpu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0.

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: NC Division of Mitigation Services
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
File Number: SAW -2016-00874
Date: 12/09/2016
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.gM.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ug latorLProgramandPemiits.gyx
or Corps 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 permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the 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
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
CESAD-PDO
Attn: Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Samantha Dailey, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
December 9, 2016
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Land Owner: Mr. Ted Martin and Ms. Ruby Martin
Address: 7205 Schley Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Applicant: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
Address: 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Agent: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Win Taylor
Address: 497 Bramson Court, Suite 104
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, Martin Dairy Mitigation Site, North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services, Orange County, SAW -2016-00874
D. PROJECT LOCATIONS) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Orange City: Hillsborough
Center coordinates of site (tat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.12329°N, Long. 79.00402° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body: Buckwater Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 1,840 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 2.848 acres.
Cowardin Class: PEM
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10 waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLIES):
® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: December 9, 2016
® Field Determination. Date(s): July 28, 2016
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit
applicant or other affected party who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other
general permit verification requiring "pre -construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby
made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which
does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD
could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that the applicant has the

right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit
authorization; (4) that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the
applicant's acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is practicable;
(6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any
form of Corps permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on
the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal
court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as
is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or
individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal,
jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary to make
an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters
on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the subject project site, and identifies all aquatic
features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply - checked items should be included in case
file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.,
submitted a Jurisdictional Determination Request on June 13, 2016, with revisions received on August 5, 2016.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24E, NC -Caldwell
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey: October 31, 2016.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Corps of Engineers SimSuite — July 27, 2016.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): June 13, 2016 Jurisdictional Determination Request.
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should
not be relied upon for later iurisdictional determinations.
DAILEY.SAMANT
HAII387567948
Digitally signed by
DA I LEY.SAMA NTHAJ.1387567948
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government,
ou=Do D, ou=PKI, ou=USA,
cn=DAI LEY.SAMANTH AJ.1387567948
Date: 2016.12.09 12:11:22 -05'00'
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
N
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
Impracticable)

Table 1. On-site Aquatic Resources identified within the
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
SAW -2016-00874
Site Number
Latitude
(ON)
Latitude
(OW)
Estimated Amount of
Aquatic Resources in
Review Review Area
Class of Aquatic Resource
Linear Feet
Acres
Martin Dairy
Creek
36.124811
79.003791
Perennial
1,702
-
non -section 10, non -wetland
UT1
36.124074
79.003574
Perennial
138
-
non -section 10, non -wetland
Wetland A
36.121275
79.004516
Seep
-
0.013
non -section 10, wetland
Wetland B
36.122015
79.004170
Seep
-
1.430
non -section 10, wetland
Wetland C
36.124474
79.004046
Seep
-
1.283
non -section 10, wetland
Wetland D
36.121242
79.003963
Seep
-
0.122
non -section 10, wetland

Proposed
Delineated Wetlands
I
h�
Data Points
` SCP 1
• � r
SCP 2
UT1
DP 4
Y
d �
d
u
c
t
m
DP2
DP 5
Wetland A
Wetland
r Y
40
WILDLANDS
k P ENGINEERING
0 150 300 Feet
I I I
Figure 3 Site Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse 03020201
Orange County, NC