19961190 Ver 4_401 Application_20181114

qqp-
'V
ATKINS �
Raleigh, North Carolina 919-828-3433
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date:
11/14/2018
1 Job #:
1 100041454
Attn:
Jennifer Burdette
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
X Document
Data
Copy of Letter
Maps
Prints
No. of I Description
4 1 Permit Modification request for SAW 199501141 West Fork Eno River Reservoir
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
Change Order
Plans
Samples
Specifications
Other
X For approval Approved as submitted Resubmit Copies for approval
X For your use Approved as noted Submit X Copies for distribution
As requested Returned for Return Corrected prints
corrections
REMARKS: One copy of the permit modification request for the referenced project. Four copies have been
delivered to the USACE field office for their review and distribution to other agencies for comment.
Marie Standwitz, Town of SENDER
CC: Hillsborough SIGNATURE:
RECIPIENT SIGNATURE: tc
o��od�
D
14r�Sq20188

ATKINS
November 9, 2018
Samantha Dailey
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Atkins North America, Inc.
1616 East Millbrook Rd, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.atkinsglobal.com/northamerica
Re: SAW 199501141: Request for Extension and Permit Modification for the Town of
Hillsborough - West Fork Eno Reservoir Phase 2 project in Cedar Grove, Orange County, NC
Dear Ms. Dailey,
Atkins North America, acting as an authorized agent for the Town of Hillsborough,
respectfully requests your authorization to modify permit 199501141 (see Book 286 Page
297) associated with the West Fork Eno Reservoir (WFER). The purpose of this letter is to
request a permit extension until July 31, 2020, as well as to provide updated information
on final roadway impacts now that design is nearly complete, an update on the Phase II
wetland mitigation, as well as a status of the bald eagle coordination with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). For your ease of use, we have separated this request into the
following sections: Permit Extension, Revised Impacts, and Supporting Information.
Request for Extension
Following on to coordination that occurred between Atkins and Mrs. Jean Gibby (USACE)
from April 5, 2018, and a meeting held with you on April 9, 2018, the Town of Hillsborough
is requesting an extension to the permit through July 31, 2020. The initial permit lifespan
extends until December 20, 2018. Per our earlier meetings, issues such as final impact
totals from the roadway elements, the Phase II wetland mitigation, and the status of the
bald eagle disturbance permit will each be addressed in the sections contained below.
The justification for the extension is that all the major outstanding construction elements
are ongoing, and additional time is needed to facilitate the financing and construction
schedules. As described herein, the final outstanding permit conditions from the initial
authorization of the permit will be addressed by original expiration date of the permit, so
an extension will simply allow the Town to obtain additional financing for the roadway
construction and accommodate the revised construction schedule. The Efland Cedar Grove
Road improvements have recently finished, and the Mill Creek and Carr Store road
improvements could not be undertaken simultaneously because they were part of the off-
site detour of Efland Cedar Grove. The dam construction improvements previously
described in our October 2017 submittal are also underway, with an anticipated
completion date of March 2019. Once the dam improvements are completed, the dam will
Pagel of 8

ATKINS
be physically capable of impounding water to the proposed Phase II elevation, but
coordination with the NC Office of Dam Safety, as well as the construction for Carr Store
and Mill Creek roadway improvements will keep the reservoir below the proposed Phase II
elevation as needed during the construction of those construction elements.
Revised Impacts
For the purposes of this request, the road improvements needed to bring the rural
roadways around the reservoir to an elevation above the Phase II normal pool will be
referred to as the Efland Cedar Grove Road crossing, the Mill Creek Road crossing, and the
Carr Store Road Bridge Replacement (Figure 1). Minor transportation improvements
associated with Phase II were previously discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the project, but the details of which were not covered in the original permit (SAW
199501141).
All impacts to Waters of the United States (WOUS) associated with each of these road
improvements were previously authorized in the original permit as flooding impacts
resulting from Phase II. This requested revision modifies the schedule and the impact type.
Since no new areas of impact are proposed, the mitigation required for these impacts are
described in Special Permit Condition (x). Please see the "Proposed Mitigation" section for
discussion of the Town's proposal for Phase II mitigation to satisfy Special Permit
Condition (x).
Efland Cedar Grove Road
Final design details were previously provided for Efland Cedar Grove Road in an April 22,
2016 submittal that was authorized through a letter from Eric Alsmeyer on June 24, 2016.
The Efland Cedar Grove Road improvements have recently been completed, with the final
construction close-out walk through occurring on October 5, 2018.
Page 2 of 8

Request for Permit 199501141 Modification for the Town of Hillsborough
carr Store
-� to
Mill Creek
— 2222-- ---
1 Project Location
1
S:,urcvsyEsnNERE. DeLomre.
USGS�In`,ierfiap, increment P
Corp., NRE ry: Esdi Japan—,
ME.n.,E2 China !Hong Kong};'-.,
Esn �iha��aa�d . Mapr*ndia. G
`OpenSneellSAap cmb bulors. and
Efland Cedar 11
LLege,pnd 0 1.000 2.000
Feet
way Improvement Limits
I Wetland Mitigation (Existing)
I (Existing) II (Proposed)
Street Map Sourdes: Esn, HERE. DeLorme. USGS.li tennap, increment P Corp, NRCAN
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong). Esn ;Thailand! Maorrylnca 0
OpenStrectMap contributors, aced the GIS Use, Comnuniiy
V1 PROJECT LOCATION err Re FIGURE
z Permit 199501141 Modification for the APR 2016
Y WFER Reservoir Phase 2 w
Orange County, North Carolina t" = 2000'
'D004i454
Page 3 of 8

Request for Permit 199501141 Modification for the Town of Hillsborough
Table 1 summarizes the impacts for the Carr Store and Mill Creek roadway improvements
to facilitate the Phase II normal pool.
Table 1. Summary of impacts
to waters of the U.S. associated with modificotion to permit 199501141
Fill
Temporary
N/A
N/A
Feature
77
0.01
Mill Creek Site 2A
Wetland
Open Water Open Water
Tributary
Tributary
Project
Nemo
Permit
Impact
Road
Impact
Impact
shoreline
Impact
Impact
Component
Feature Type Drawing
Type
Duration
Acreage
Acreage
Length
tmwth
Acrea[a
35
Site 1A
Open Water
Fill
Temporary
N/A
0.15
120
N/A
N/A
Carr Store
Site 1A
Open Water See
Fill
Permanent
N/A
0.02
70
N/A
N/A
Road
Site 111
Open Water Appendix 1
Fill
Temporary
N/A
0.2
166
N/A
N/A
Site 111
Open Water
Fill
Permanent
N/A
0.06
175
N/A
N/A
Site 2A
Tributary
Fill
Temporary
N/A
N/A
N/A
77
0.01
Mill Creek Site 2A
Tributary See
Fill
Permanent
N/A
N/A
N/A
44
0.01
Road
Appendix 1
Site 2B
Tributary
Fill
Temporary
N/A
N/A
N/A
35
0.01
Site 28
Tributary
Fill
Permanent
N/A
N/A
N/A
44
0.01
TOTAL
0
0.43
S31
200
0.04
Table 2. Summary of Neuse River Riparian Buffer Impacts associated with modification to permit 199501141
Project feature Name Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone 1
Buller Zone Buffer Zone 2
Componeft (ft^2)
1awe)
2 (ftA2)
(acre)
Carr Store Road Site IA/10 23,086.80
0.53
20,473.20
0.47
Mill Creek Road Site 2A/2B 9,147.60
0.21
6,098.40
0.14
36,386.00
0.74
31,107.20
0.61
Carr Store Road and Mill Creek Roads
The April 22, 2016 submittal also provided preliminary impact updates for the Mill Creek
culvert replacement and the Carr Store culvert removal and bridge installation. With this
letter, we seek to revise those impacts with the final design and impact numbers. Please see
Attachment 1 for the final permit drawings, and reference Tables 1 and 2 for the final
impacts to waters of the U.S. from these roadway improvements.
Similar to Efland Cedar Grove Road, all impacts reported for these road improvements
(sees Table 1 and 2) were previously authorized by the original permit. Rather than being
flooded by the construction of the Phase II reservoir pool, the impacts are now proposed to
occur from road improvements prior to the Phase II flooding. While the construction
schedule for these road improvements has not been finalized, the Town estimates that they
will occur at some point between April 1, 2019 and July 2020. Since these impacts were
originally permitted as flooding impacts associated with Phase II construction, no new
mitigation is proposed (see Special Permit Condition (x)).
Page 4 of 8

ATKINS
Supporting Information
Bald Eagle permits
As discussed in the latest September 20, 2016 information update and other preceding
submittals, the Town of Hillsborough has been performing annual monitoring around the
vicinity of the WFER reservoir screening for bald eagle nests. In previous years, two nests
have been identified and tracked (see Figure 2). During the 2018 monitoring, the inactive
nest was no longer observed, likely falling out of its host tree during the preceding year
when it was observed inactive and degraded. After corresponding with the USFWS that the
formerly inactive nest had deteriorated and no longer required any bald eagle related
permitting, the Town submitted a Eagle Nest Disturbance Permit application in June 2018
for the remaining, active nest. The application and an email with the current status of the
review at the front of the attachment are provided to you with this submittal, which is
included as Attachment 2. No other alternative bald eagle nests have been identified. Once
coordination with the USFWS for the Disturbance Permit is complete, the trees within the
660 -foot protective buffer around the nest will be cleared with the remainder of the Phase
II pool area in accordance with the clearing plan provided as part of the application in
Attachment 2.
Conditional Letter of Mapping Revision (CLOMR)
The CLOMR letter has been submitted and approved. The CLOMR letter of acceptance from
the NCFPMP is provided as Attachment 3.
Mitigation
In the June 2016 permit modification, the proposed Phase 2 mitigation was approved,
which included a surplus of 1.8 acre of wetland credits from the completed Water Quality
Impoundments developed for Phase 1 mitigation, and 7.8 acres of wetland credits from the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. This mitigation would offset the 5.7 acres of
wetland impact for Phase 2 described in Special Permit Condition (x) of the original permit.
Page 5 of 8

ATKINS
Note: The inactive nest has been deemed destroyed in 2018 so that it no longer exists. It is
no longer included in bald eagle permitting coordination.
Page 6 of 8
CMI 1 {
u
0 Inactive Nest: -79.171, 36.153
• Active Nest: -79-182, 36-158
330 Foot Buffer
660 Foot Buffer
- Phase I (Existing)
Phase II Clearing Limits
Mss A
P,eos,etl By
Feaaiea °ar
[hn B�:
RC lRE
Nest Location
and Surrounding Land Use
Ry
��,�.�
l nll S
*�� f
E��
West Fork Eno River Reservior Phase 11
2
Da
1
5 t1'� t'
ORANGE COLNTf NORTH CAROUMA
warc M
Page 6 of 8

ATKINS
Table 3. Summary of wetland mitigation for Phases I and I/ of the West fork Eno Reservoir. In the "Credit
Transaction" column, wetland impacts are tracked using red, while mitigation credits are tracked using
black.
Credit
Phase Item Description Transaction
A Phase I Mitigation Created from Water Quality Impoundments 15.8
Phase I B Phase I Impacts (Special condition: section n. Book 286, Page 301) 14
C Phase I Remaining Mitigation Credits (A -B) 1.8
D Phase 11 Impacts (Special condition: section x: Book 286, Page 303) 5.7
Phase II C Phase I Remaining Mitigation Credits 1.8
E Phase II Remaining Impact (D -C) 3.9
Total F Phase II Required Mitigation Credits (E * 2) using 2:1 Ratio 7.8
The Town of Hillsborough has recently reviewed available mitigation bank credits on
September 10, 2018 in the Neuse 01 River Basin and has determined that wetland
mitigation credits are not currently available. The NC Division of Mitigation Services has
subsequently extended their acceptance (see Attachment 4), and the Town proposes to
move forward making the mitigation payment to NCDMS once this modification and permit
extension are authorized. As stated in earlier documents, the wetland mitigation for Phase
I, as well as the stream and riparian buffer mitigation for Phases I and II have already been
satisfied (see Special Permit Condition (y)).
If you wish to schedule a meeting at the project site, please contact me at 919-431-5255 or
[e-mail].
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If any additional information is needed,
please do not hesitate to contact me (919-431-5255)
Sincerely,
Matt Cusack
Atkins North America, Inc.
Cc (electronic):
Rob Ridings, NC DWR
Jennifer A. Burdette, NC DWR
Marie Stranditz, Town of Hillsborough
Dean Goodison, Atkins
Page 7 of 8

ATKINS
Attachment 1: Detailed Permit Drawings for Carr Store and Mill Creek Roadway
Improvements
Attachment 2: Bald Eagle Disturbance Permit Application, submitted to USFWS in
June 2018
Attachment 3: Issued LOMR for WFER Phase II
Attachment 4: Mitigation acceptance extension letter from N.C. Division of Mitigation
Services, September 2018
Page 8 of 8

Request for Permit 199501141 Modification for the Town of Hillsborough
Attachment 1:
Detailed Permit Drawings for Carr Store and Mill Creek Roadway Improvements

r-4
Not to Sco/e
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
ORANGE. COUNTY
LMAIIUN: M JUU4 ((;ARR STORE RD.) AND SR 1343
(MILL CREEK RD) WEST OF INTERSECTION
WITH SR 1357 (EFLAND CEDAR GROVE RD.)
TYPE OF WORK: WIDENING, RESURFACING, GRADING,
DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURES.
-L- STA /6+11.09
BEGIN PROJECT
-L- STA 11+50.0
FA
r
END CONSTRUCTION `` \�
-Yl- STA 20+85.00 v
SITE #2 � ��►
j � c
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION / BEGIN CONSTRUCTR
-Yl- STA 12+90AO -YI- STA 26+75.00
c /• ��
L
E
L
L
0
L
Jy /
N
3
O
L
0
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II
c
♦ 1
DEAN GOODISON, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
I \ r
V
Y \ END I
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT \ \
I
/ \
/ BEGIN
SR \ \
PROJECT !f-0aRs o4
/ a I
86
yU
c
�/
OZP
m o W Lake
�' Orange'
�mv
V = 60 MPH
PLANS
/
kR0 C
/
w�
50 25 0 50 100
o/w
VICINITY MAP
Not to Sco/e
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
ORANGE. COUNTY
LMAIIUN: M JUU4 ((;ARR STORE RD.) AND SR 1343
(MILL CREEK RD) WEST OF INTERSECTION
WITH SR 1357 (EFLAND CEDAR GROVE RD.)
TYPE OF WORK: WIDENING, RESURFACING, GRADING,
DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURES.
-L- STA /6+11.09
BEGIN PROJECT
-L- STA 11+50.0
FA
r
END CONSTRUCTION `` \�
-Yl- STA 20+85.00 v
SITE #2 � ��►
j � c
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION / BEGIN CONSTRUCTR
-Yl- STA 12+90AO -YI- STA 26+75.00
c /• ��
L
E
L
L
0
L
Jy /
N
3
O
L
0
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II
c
♦ 1
DEAN GOODISON, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
PROJECT ENGINEER
CLINT MORGAN, PE
V
GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
O
ADT 2013 = 1,000
50 25 0 50 100
c
I I i I I
``
V = 60 MPH
PLANS
w�
50 25 0 50 100
o/w
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
uQ
°w
LN
Q
to 5 0 10 20
FUNC CLASS = MAJOR
COLLECTOR
_�
z
O� A
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
SUB REGIONAL TIER
z29+45.97
FORK ENO RNER
EG/N BRIDGE
- STA 18+86.03
,(
ooRe�ADI /
END BRIDGE
-L- STA 20+02-90 END PROJECT
—L— STA 26+!
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY PROJECT = 0.262 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURE PROJECT = 0.022 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT = 0.284 MILES
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH CONTACT: MARIE STRANDWITZ
TOWN ENGINEER
Prepprps In the Offlae of.
1616 EAST V ROOK ROAD, SUITE
ATKI NS (919)0876-68888RA L , NORTH CAAONCB EES 27600-9
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
DEAN GOODISON, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
PROJECT ENGINEER
CLINT MORGAN, PE
LETTING DATE:
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
k.
IrwnRwn wsl.-r tvYp4s M M
.C. 1
RAW IRW.N6 I.A.Mlp1.Mp p�q�yN
TO 4'C'
_i
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
J
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 8
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED

W
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
N N WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT "'� POOL EDGE` n PERMIT DRAWING
C S '
N � WEST FORK `s'- ": SHEET 2 OF 8
ENO RESERVOIR �
8(io
N 89°57'3i°
SITE #1 I � f S 89°52'36' E 159.40'
5 f 43.71'
WN 0 HILLSBOROUG i TOWN OF 1 1
OB 81 PG 118 HILLSBOROUGH
H4LSBOROUGH PB 7 PG 131 Pg 7i1PC PG 127 FAYE 0. KIRBY
1981 P�t�f-- '1 PR P. NO L POOL EDG `� i DB 6366 PG 75
77 PG 127 �99r�, W T FORK O RESERVOIR Bl �~ o z PB 116 PG 124
•OS co
1 1 woos
SITE TO W
N N W
R o c
c
T W
TpE }K
ODS
c
c
5" C,
D
F
6. POE POE
S
F F F w 9- 31°37'11' E R , // G
10.76
' \ .. /
41 15"
REMOVE
(TB)
HW EI�641 Ar — G
—S_ 2GI-D
–S 31°3 11" E
— GRED TL - _ _� 7_ _ — rT YPE
�2 M 7 L
�TYP
G
F S
Q / s TDE
Z TO HILLSBOR GH
DB I PG 118
PB 7 PG 131
� R `
Cp
% p°
n �Qj
a O�SIE 1 B TO N OF HILLSBOROUGH
/ �� T ` DB 1981 PG 121
1 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH �o`�. PB 77 PG 127
a MARK A. HARRIS TRUSTEE DB 1981 PG 121 PROP. NORMAL POOL EDGE
55 PENNY W. HARRIS. TRUSTEE PB 77 PG 127 WEST FORK ENO RESERVO
X25 05 DB 1579 PG 567 PROP. NORMAL POOL EDGE A�
PB 77 PG 127 WEST FORK ENO RESERVOIR
J�J� DENOTES RESTORATION OF
° ��`2 1 SURFACE WATER FROM
W A �550 25 0 550 100 CULVERT REMOVAL
,a
It! stiRf f
Qw
04 DENOTES IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATER
?_
N

P C6
Q
N
w N
5
H4,LSBOROUGH
1981 P'G—I24-... ti
77 PG 127 � \
s
F
N AU
C
WN 0
PB
PR P. NO L POOL EDG
W T FORK O RESERVOIR
SITE 1
r v F F
\ (TB
TL -
e z s ` TDE
/
CD
��.
0
/ c F 2
6 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH /
5,5a MARK A. HARRIS TRUSTEE DB 1981 PG 121PB 77 PG 127
(i
PENNY W. HARRIS. TRUSTEE _
X25 $`' DBPB1579 PPG 12 E
67 WOP FOR
K ENO RESERVOIR
o DS
E
c 50 25 0 50 100
PQ�QQ-
Pte'
BUFFER ZONE IMPACTS PERMIT
HILLSBO
81 PG 118
7 PG 131
I
F �
\
JG
SITE #1 �-
�
E
s
S31°37'11\
10.7 6'
1_ GH \
I
f N
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
�P PROP. NORMAL � �
5 POOL EDGE n PESRHMEET D OWINgG
WEST FORK
ENO RESERVOIR
10 NS
S 89°52'36' E 159.40'
4 3.71'
TOWN OF 11
HILLSBOROUGH
PEI
77 77 PC PG 122 7 FAYE 0. KIRBY
DB 6366 PG 75
z PB 116 PG 124
0
N
WOODS ;, LAw
N LAJ
W
R o c
W �
c
ESI ►�� • • �.`
� f •
y
�i
r �
TOWN 0'F HILLSBOROUGH
DB 1981 PG 121
PB 77 PG 127
PROP. NORMAL POOL E
WEST FORK ENO RESE
d�
Ile
®DENOTES BUFFER ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS

k1
2
F
rDCI I Ti _7
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
LSITE #2
SITE 2A
� s
R C�
s
y -
oo^
1
Nu
�G
PDE
OP. RMAL P 2�ES
L EDGE -
ST F RK ENO RVOIR
I
T REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO,
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 4 OF 8
G
N 360 40' 09.211
GREU TL -3
F s F
F TDE
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATER
I

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
1
Z BUFFER ZONE IMPACTS PERMIT PSHEIETI5 OFI8G
1S
15 to SITE #2
�s
SITE 2A
JS
�s s
=�T--
T -3
F
>>o G moo F
a
w
E
n
0
0
in
30 15 0 30 60
6
F
N 36° 40'9.2" E
GREU TL -3
s F
TDE
� p6'
eon s
DENOTES BUFFER ZONE 1
MITIGABLE IMPACTS
DENOTES BUFFER ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS

150 140
130 120 110 '1100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20...... 1D 0 1D 20 30......40 So 60 7A so 110 120 130 140 150
1
_: -� Xy7•ry1
An
PERMIT DRAWING
:---- -- --:-- --
SHEET --6--0E--8-
65Ct
-. _ _ ...- .. _ -- ; --- --- --- .. . -650..
- .... ........... — 642.8 �,t\. - ...... ------ ------ 610.
y Marv:
63Q ........:........:.... :... EXISTING -RIGHT -OF-WAY
-
- - --------- - -- - ..;.... - - • - - ;-....- ---- ...-- - ..... •�--------------- �•-------�--......-�- ---- --:-•.630..
PROPOSED TEMPORARY END BUFFER ZONE 2 IMPACTS—
DRAINAGE EASEMENT ; BEGIN BUFFER ZONE 2 IMPACTS
620 ..:... ....:... PROPOSED- -RIGHT.OF-WAY-'--------- --------- :..------- :......
GFN
-6,E--OUFFER-Z-ONE-2-IMPAEIS--------•----------- -- :.
-- ..---...:. .
END BUFFER ZONE 2 IMPACTS
......-- ------B-EG--I-N
-----BEGIN BUFFER ZONE 1 IMPACT$
:-
-EXISTING- RIGHT -OF WAY--- -----------;
END BUFFER ZONE 1 IMPACTS:
BEGIN STREAM IMPACTS;
- ..... - ----- �- -------------•-- - .....---- -•- - -----• :
. ............. -
:BEGIN TEMPORARY
END STREAM IMPACT$
20 -� 0.00:
ORARY S1REAM IMPACTS
PROPOSED RIGHT CSF WAY
------ -----
M ---- --
SITE #1 END: TEMPORARY STREAM
(TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT)
. - : `O
0060
.. 650
. 0.060
.. .-- . --- 650..
11.
_ _
— — — — -- — r PROPOSED : TEMPORARY
.6412--=--------=--------- -----.-- -- :---------:- ------ : p : _ _
- 43 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 640
--
:PROPOSED
EXISTING RIG O PROPOSED RIGHT OF :WAY
. �.
a ^---�—
HT F WAY
N 630—:��........ �-� - ---� -T ------ ..... . --- --- -- ---
9 -
END BUFFER ZONE 2 IMPACTS _630 -
BEGIN
�- BUFFER ZONE 2 IMPACTS
END TEMPORARY ; BEGIN BUFFER ZONE 2 IMPACTS
610--: -- STREAM..IMP-ACTS...--- --- '----- . .. END:-BUFFER.-ZONE-.-2--IMPACTS :..
(TEMPORARY : BEGIN BUFFER ZONE 1 IMEACTS ----.
DRAINAGE EXISTING: RIGHT; OF WAY
'EASEMENT)
...................... ..........
E PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY :...... ; -..... ------ -------- --- ----• ------•------- ------
END BUFFER :ZONE 1 IMPACTS :18+50.00:
....... ---------------- BE-GIN--TE-MPO•RARY-STREAM':- IMPACTS ------- ;.......... -1 ...... ......... ------------------------, ....._--------- .... --- . -- . -- ------
SITE #1
150 140 130 120 110 100 9.0 8D 70 60 5.0 40 30 20 10 0 1p 20 30 40 5.0 6.'0 70 [to 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

910
150 140 130 -120------110 -----100-- ---. ..... g0- -- 7A- -- 60- ----5A 40.... 30 20 lb 0 lb 20 30 40 50 60 7.0 HO 100 110 120 130 140 150
--------- ----------- ------ 90
------ - - - > ............. — . ... ...... -------- ----- ----
-- -- -- ---...
PERMIT DRAWIt;JG •
:. -SHEET"7--GF--8---- --
0 140 130 120 110 100 9.0 QO TO 40 50 40 g0 20 10 0 10 20 3D 40 50 60 70 &0 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS— BUFFER ZONE IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
1A
Station
(From/To)
17+44 / 20+71
Structure
Size /Type
Temporary and Permanemt Stream Impacts
and Buffer Impacts
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation in
Non -Riparian
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing in
Non -Riparian
Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Buffer Zone
1
Impacts
(ac)
0.22
Buffer Zone
2
Impacts
(ac)
0.16
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
0.02
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
0.15
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
70
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
120
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1B
18+29 / 21+79
Temporary and Permanemt Stream Impacts
and Buffer Impacts
0.31
0.31
0.06
0.20
175
166
2A
15+07 / 17+52
Temporary and Permanemt Stream Impacts
and Buffer Impacts
0.13
0.09
0.01
0.01
44
77
2B
16+31 / 17+54
Temporary and Permanemt Stream Impacts
and Buffer Impacts
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.01
44
35
TOTALS:
0.74
0.61
0.10
0.37
333
398
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE COUNTY
Carr Store Road
PERMIT DRAWING
ATN Revised 3/31/05 SHEET 8 OF 8

ATKINS
Attachment 2:
Bald Eagle Disturbance Permit Application, submitted to USFWS in June 2018

Cusack, Matthew T
From: Resee Collins <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 6:54 PM
To: Cusack, Matthew T; Ulgonda Kirkpatrick
Cc: Cogdell, Benjamin E; Goodison, Dean R; Marie Strandwitz
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: West Fork Eno Tree Clearing- Eagle Nest
Matthew,
This permit application is in the final stages of processing. We have quite an application backlog and are working
through them as quickly as possible.
There have been no additional questions about the application so far.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Resee Collins
Eagle Permit Coordinator
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Migratory Bird Program, Southeast Region
1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
Office: [phone] Mobile: [phone]
For more information on eagles in the Southeast Region, please visit: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/
"We have o choice to use the gift of our lives to make the world abetter place." -Dr. Jane Goodall
From: Cusack, Matthew T [ mai Ito: matt. cusack(a)atkinsgloba1.coml
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:40 PM
To: Kirkpatrick, Ulgonda; Resee Collins
Cc: Cogdell, Benjamin E; Goodison, Dean R; Marie Strandwitz
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: West Fork Eno Tree Clearing- Eagle Nest
Good afternoon,
Can you please advise on the status of the Town of Hillsborough's bald eagle disturbance permit request discussed
below?
We are finalizing our preparation of a Clean Water Act permit modification, of which the bald eagle coordination issue is
one of the open permit conditions.
I would like to provide a current summary of the bald eagle permit acquisition, and am wondering if any additional
review or questions of the application have come about.
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
Matt

Matthew T. Cusack Pws
Senior Project Manager/Senior Scientist
North America
Mid -Atlantic EcoSciences
%o 919-431-5255 Q 919-800-1234 OL
/Hair. rmobr of M W64ari @w
1616 E. Millbrook Road, Suite 160 Raleigh, NC 27609
INTELLIGENT MOBILITY
Improving the pedestrian
journey for safer roadways.
Read Ate feh Abad's article
+0 ATKINS
WC-PL&VAU 1 ftwoWd*OwIWC LOW na" Company
From: Kirkpatrick, Ulgonda <ulgonda [e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 4:52 PM
To: Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: West Fork Eno Tree Clearing- Eagle Nest
10-4, understood! Thanks for clarifying. Have a nice weekend.
Ulgonda Kirkpatrick
USFWS Migratory Bird Division
Mailing Address:
MIGRATORY BIRD PERMIT OFFICE
1875 CENTURY BOULEVARD, NE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345
352-406-6780 cell (MAIN)
For more information on eagles in the Southeast Region, please visit: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:50 PM Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Ulgonda,
Thanks again for your note!
In our previous discussions, I came away thinking that we needed a Disturbance Permit specifically because we would
be clearing within the 660 -foot buffer around the nest.
If the clearing starts in October 2018 and extends until April 2019 (approximately) for the project as a whole, it does
seem likely that at some point during that period the contractor will be ready to clear within the projected eagle buffer.
At that time, I understand the Town's preference to be nest monitoring during the clearing activities, as the monitoring
activities are anticipated to be less costly than remobilizing the contractor.
My discussion of Option 2 below were steps that the Town would consider AFTER monitoring per the permit did
indicate that the clearing was disturbing the eagles and the Service required us to cease clearing as a result. If the
Service would be open to other permit conditions, we would be interested in discussing them further.
My apologies for not being clear in my earlier email. I am also happy to discuss on the phone if you have additional
questions.
Cheers,
Matt
Matthew T. Cusack Pws
Senior Project Manager/Senior Scientist
North America
Mid -Atlantic EcoSciences
V 919-431-5255 Q 919-800-1234
A260. murdw or So YNC-Lneft GOW
1616 E. Millbrook Road, Suite 160 Raleigh, NC 27609

0
3NC•LAYAL1lY
INTELLIGENT MOBILITY
+ Improving the pedestrian
journey for safer roadways.
Read Ate feh Abod's orticte
ATKINS
%rhc-d*vWCt.%d;
Company a@O@
From: Kirkpatrick, Ulgonda <ulgonda [e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 4:43 PM
To: Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]>; Resee Collins <resee [e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: West Fork Eno Tree Clearing- Eagle Nest
It sounds like if you went with option 2 you wouldn't need a permit by avoiding disturbance. Do
you want to go the route of the monitoring guidelines vs a permit?
Ulgonda Kirkpatrick
USFWS Migratory Bird Division
Mailing Address:
MIGRATORY BIRD PERMIT OFFICE
1875 CENTURY BOULEVARD, NE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345
352-406-6780 cell (MAIN)
For more information on eagles in the Southeast Region, please visit: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/
4

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:40 PM Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]> wrote:
Good morning Ulgonda,
Thank you for your note! We appreciate that you are taking a look at this.
We are aware that the Town's permit has not been issued, and have not performed any clearing within the 660 -foot
protected buffer around the eagle nest. In fact, there hasn't been any clearing completed yet while the Town is
finalizing contractor selection. Our goal right now will be to start the clearing and avoiding causing a disturbance while
clearing so that they don't move their nest to another location, especially to an area that would trigger a nest take
permit rather than the disturbance permit for which the Town has applied.
Please see below for an updated project summary relevant to your consideration of the Town's application.
Prosect Summary
The Town of Hillsborough has bid the tree clearing contract, and expects the successful bidder's contract to be
approved by the Town Council meeting schedule for October 8, 2018. Once the contract is approved, we anticipate
the general clearing to start very quickly thereafter. As you will note in the Town's application, most of the project's
clearing involved for Phase II of the reservoir normal pool occurs outside of the protected buffer around the eagle
nest. Our intent is to give the nesting pair as much time as possible to nest and rear their young before working in the
vicinity of the nest. That way, the chance of any disturbance resulting in them abandoning the current location and
building a new nest elsewhere will be as low as possible. Once all of the other clearing is completed, the Town will
consider one of two options, depending on the time of year. Option 1 would include clearing within the protected
buffer after chicks have been successfully fledged, while Option 2 would include active nest monitoring per the eagle
guidelines during nesting season. If the clearing in Option 2 triggers is found to trigger a disturbance during the
monitoring, then Town would consider their options at that time, which may include remobilization after nesting
season or adding the clearing into contracts for the roadway portions of the reservoir project that would be
completed on a different schedule. Hopefully, these issues won't come to pass and the clearing will go smoothly.
Based upon the contractor's current schedule, the Town anticipates needing to use Option 2 but later in the nesting
season when the eagle pair will be committed to their chicks.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of this, or have additional questions.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Matt
Matthew T. Cusack Pws
Senior Project Manager/Senior Scientist
North America
Mid -Atlantic EcoSciences
919-431-5255 ® 919-800-1234
fiba maubw of dw WWOL"do Orsi
1616 E. Millbrook Road, Suite 160 Raleigh, NC 27609
INTELLIGENT MOBILITY
Improving the pedestrian
journey for safer roadways.
Read Ate feh Abad's article
0 ATKINS
Si7t.. •LAVAL111 " r iarSl lural Company @11900

From: Kirkpatrick, Ulgonda <ulgonda [e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 10:48 AM
To: Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]>
Cc: Resee Collins <resee [e-mail]>
Subject: West Fork Eno Tree Clearing- Eagle Nest
Hello,
Has the tree clearing around the eagle nest occurred? I just now received the application for
the disturbance permit and I wanted to touch base to see if the work has already been done.
Also, is there going to be any other construction work within 660ft of the nest that we need to
be aware of? I didn't see anything in the application but wanted to double check.
If the eagle pair moves as a result of the clearing, which I'm assuming has been done, but
they are able to renest nearby successfully then it makes issuing this permit difficult because
I'm not sure what we're actually permitting.
If the clearing hasn't been completed then we can obviously include that in the permit
conditions and grant the permit for 1 year in case there are weather delays, etc.
PIs let me know what you think. Thanks!
Ulgonda Kirkpatrick
USFWS Migratory Bird Division
Mailing Address:
MIGRATORY BIRD PERMIT OFFICE
1875 CENTURY BOULEVARD, NE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345
352-406-6780 cell (MAIN)
For more information on eagles in the Southeast Region, please visit: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/

I)-_ c- a I a - � -I � t _ h c _ f i I C, arc r : I If I C c ri t I � to c _ ,- . I I cl - pyo_ ctc :. I-� I ic, the <dd, c , s , c F n , disc-- natic,n c " .h I s cc n) n, -, kation n E ctt,
:jll A U(JIE-IvJse E-. 1) cE­d I ,[I. Ili ( 1111 q �dlh Jii r 11,11 l,tci I ; E7 I I y t, rid I, a Tt I: In pa (-,I I (,.) i pw
Alki r GIOLJ.3 ., SNC: L�-cak�Gic, p It c, In 0, Nr L111,'A' (j Rlt-gi�, Fre., 0 frE7 41�') Re, e_svesque Otjee.. Mc I z-
Ou, ec
canaCa. 117/ 1/3 A is4 o' A*,,, Ins Group c-,--r,)n cs cgistc-cd n ttic U, i_ ­d K ncdcm anc ocatic-E; Ercu-c the evollc Ca, be 'cunc I a
hftp:/Avww.atkinsolobal.com/site-services/Ciroup-company-registration-details
Cow:ioer ',e e'lvim ': en'. d,A ri. I- e :; ai L , iE-: vc),, reafl:y

ATKINS
f9fa111rr of the SNC I R,dhn Gou{,
Project No.: 100041454
Resee Collins
Migratory Bird Permit Office
1875 Century Blvd., NE
Atlanta, GA 30345
June 12, 2018
West Fork Eno Reservoir Bald Eagle Disturbance Permit
Dear Ms. Collins
Atkins North America, Inc
1616 East Millbrook Road
Suite 310
Raleigh
NC 27609-4968
Tei: [phone]
Direct no: 919.800 1234
[e-mail]
www.atkinsglobal.com/northamerica
Please find the enclosed Bald eagle disturbance permit application and supporting compliance
materials associated with construction for the expansion of the West Fork Eno Reservoir located in
Hillsborough North Carolina.
Enclosure 1: Signed eagle disturbance permit application (22.26) including responses to all Section E
questions from the application, documentation of fee exempt status (W-9 Form), Figures 1
and 2, and photographs from 2017 and 2018 aerial helicopter surveys.
Enclosure 2: Related compliance information associated with Section 404 Clean Water Act permit
1995001141, including the most recent correspondence with USFWS Migratory Bird
Division-Ulgonda Kirkpatrick's agreement that further bald eagle permitting for a second,
inactive nest is no longer required, additional threatened and endangered species
clearance, as well as the latest U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit modification
authorization.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. usack
Senior Project Manager/Senior Scientist
Mid -Atlantic EcoSciences
Registered office: 4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 700, Tampa FL 33607, United States

ENCLOSURE 1

Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form
U4� Click here for addresses.
Return to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Attn: Resee Collins
!Migratory Bird Permit Office
1875 Century Blvd., NE
!!!Atlanta, GA 30345
OMB Control No. 1018 - 0022
Expires 1/31/2019
Type of Activity: Eagle Take — Associated With
But Not the Purpose of an Activity (Incidental take)
0 New Application
❑ Requesting Renewal or Amendment of Permit #
Complete Sections A or B, and C, D, and E of this application. U.S. address may be required in Section C, see instructions for details.
See attached instruction pages for information on how to make your application complete and help avoid unnecessary delays.
A. Complete if applying as an individual
La. Last name
l .b. First name
l.c. Middle name or initial
l.d. Suffix
2. Date of birth (mm/dd/yyyy)
3. Occupation
4. Affiliation/ Doing business as (see instructions)
5.a. Telephone number
5.b. Alternate telephone number
5.c. Fax number 15.d.
E-mail address
B. Complete if applying
on behalf of a business corporation, public agency, Tribe or institution
I.a. Name of business, agency, tribe, or institution
].b. City
l.b. Doing business as (dba)
Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina
Le. County/Province
Government
2. Tax identification no.
North Carolina
3. Description of business, agency, or institution
55-6001246
United States
Local Municipality
4.a. Principal officer Last name
2.b. City
4.b. Principal officer First name
4.c. Principal officer Middle name/ initial
4.d. Suffix
Peterson
Hillsborough
Eric
27278
r2eCoZnty/Province
range
5. Principal officer title
6. Primary contact name
Town Manager
Eric Peterson
7.a. Business telephone number
7.b. Alternate telephone number
7.c. Business fax number7.d.
Business e-mail address
919-296-9421
919-732-1270
919-644-2390
[e-mail]
C. All appffcants complete address information
l.a. Physical address (Street address; Apartment #, Suite #, or Room #; no P.O. Boxes)
101 E. Orange St.
].b. City
l.c. State
l.d. Zip code/Postal code:
Le. County/Province
Lf. Country
Hillsborough
North Carolina
27278
Orange
United States
2.a. Mailing Address (include if different than physical address; include name of contact person if applicable)
101 E. Orange St. attn: Eric Peterson
2.b. City
2.c. State
2.d. Zip code/Postal code:
fCountry
Hillsborough
North Carolina
27278
r2eCoZnty/Province
range
[United States
D. All applicants MUST complete
1. Attach check or money order payable to the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE in the amount of see attached fee schedule) nonrefundable processing feel
Federal, Tribal, State, and local government agencies, and those acting on behalf of such agencies, are exempt from the processing fee — attach documentation offee
evem t status as outlined in instructions. 50 CFR 13.11 (d))
2. Do you currently have or have you ever had any Federal Fish and Wildlife permits?
Yes ❑ If yes, list the number of the most current permit you have held or that you are applying to renew/re-issue: Now
3. Certification: I hereby certify that I have read and am familiar with the regulations contained in Title 50, Part 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the other
applicable parts in subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 50, and I certify that the information submitted in this application for a permit is complete and accurate to the
best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that any false statement herein may subject me to the criminal penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Signature (in blue ink) of applicant/person responsible for permit (No photocopied or stamped signatures) Date of signature (mm/dd/yyyy)
Please continue to next page
Form 3-200-71 Rev. 12/2016 Page Iof 6

SECTION E. EAGLE TAKE — ASSOCIATED WITH BUT NOT THE PURPOSE OF AN ACTIVITY
(EAGLE NON -PURPOSEFUL TAKE)
(Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 50 CFR 22.26)
Note: A Federal eagle non purposeful take permit authorizes the disturbance or other take of eagles where the take results from
but is not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. Permits are available to individuals, agencies, businesses, and other
organizations. This permit does not authorize possession of any eagle, eagle parts, or eagle nests. Please read "What You Should
Know About a Federal Permit for Non -Purposeful Eagle Take" and the pertinent regulations at 50 CFR 22.26 before you sign and
submit your application.
Please provide the information requested below on a separate sheet of paper. You should be as thorough and specific as possible in
your responses. Incomplete applications will be returned, delayed or abandoned Processing time depends on the complexity of
the request and completeness of the application.
Although you may submit supplemental documents that contain the required information, you must respond to each application
requirement below speci>tcally in a single attachment that includes all and only the information required by the application.
Enumerate each response in accordance with the question numbers below. Please do not send pages that are over 8.5"x 11 "or
DVDs.
1. The name and contact information for any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee(s) who has provided technical assistance or
worked with you on this project.
2. The species and number of eagles that are likely to be taken and the likely form of that take (e.g., disturbance, other take).
3. The dates the activity will start and is projected to end. If the project has begun, describe the stage of progress.
4. A detailed description of the activity that will likely cause the disturbance or other take of eagles.
5. An explanation of why the take of eagles is necessary, including what interests will be protected by the project or activity.
6. Maps, digital photographs, county/city information, and latitude/longitude geographic coordinates of the proposed activity.
7. Maps, digital photographs, county/city information, and latitude/longitude geographic coordinates of eagle -use areas in the vicinity
of the activity, including nest site(s), roost areas, foraging areas, and known migration paths. Provide the specific distance and
locations of nests and other eagle -use areas from the project footprint.
8. If the projected take of eagles is in the form of disturbance, answer the following two questions:
a. Will the activity be visible to eagles in the eagle -use areas, or are there visual buffers such as screening vegetation or
topography that blocks the view?
b. What is the extent of existing activities in the vicinity that are similar in nature, size, and use to your activity, and if so, what is
the distance between those activities and the important eagle use areas
9. A detailed description of all avoidance and minimization measures that you have incorporated into your planning for the activity
that you will implement to reduce the likelihood of take of eagles.
10. You must retain records relating to the activities conducted under your permit for at least 5 years from the date of expiration of the
permit. Please provide the address where these records will be kept.
11. You are responsible for ensuring that the permitted activity is in compliance with all Federal, tribal, State, and local laws and
regulations applicable to eagles. Have you obtained all required State or Tribal permits or approvals to conduct this activity?
Indicate "Yes," Have applied," or None Required." If "Yes," attach a copy of the approval(s). If "Have applied," submit a copy
when issued.
12. If you have received technical assistance for your project from your State wildlife agency, please provide the name and contact
information for the individual(s).
13. Disqualification factor. A conviction, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, for a felony violation of the Lacey Act, the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act disqualifies any such person from receiving or exercising
the privileges of a permit, unless such disqualification has been expressly waived by the Service Director in response to a written
petition. (50 CFR 13.21(c)) Have you or any of the owners of the business, if applying as a business, been convicted, or entered a
plea of guilty or nolo contendere, forfeited collateral, or are currently under charges for any violations of the laws mentioned
above? Indicate "Yes" or "No." If you answered "Yes" provide: a) the individual's name, b) date of charge, c) charge(s), d)
location of incident, e) court, and f) action taken for each violation.
Additional requested content has been included with this Permit Application Form as Attachment A.
Form 3-200-71 Rev. 12/2016 Page 2 of 6

Fee Schedule for Eagle Take - Associated with but not the purpose of an Activity
Activity/Requirement
Fee
Amendment fee
5 -year Permit Review Fee
Eagle Incidental Take - Lag -
term
$36,000
No Fee
$8,000
Eagle Incidental Take - SIM-
$500 - Non-conur»
$150 -Non-commercial
term
$2,500 - Commercial
$500 - Commercial
Form 3-200-71 Rev. 12/2016 Page 3 of 6

PERMIT APPLICATION FORM INSTRUCTIONS
The following instructions pertain to an application for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or CITES permit. The General Permit Procedures in 50
CFR 13 address the permitting process. For simplicity, all licenses, permits, registrations, and certificates are referred to as a permit.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete all blocks/lines/questions in Sections A or B, and C, D, and E.
• An incomplete application may cause delays in processing or may be returned to the applicant. Be'sure you are filling in the
appropriate application form for the proposed activity.
• Print clearly or type in the information. Illegible applications may cause delays.
• Sign the application in blue ink. Faxes or copies of the original signature will not be accepted.
• Mail the original application to the address at the top of page one of the application or if applicable on the attached address list.
• Keep a copy of your completed application.
• Please plan ahead. Allow at least 60 days for your application to be processed. Some applications may take longer than 90 days to
process. (50 CFR 13.11)
• Applications are processed in the order they are received.
• Additional forms and instructions are available from hqp://vertnits.fws.gov/.
COMPLETE EITHER SECTION A OR SECTION B:
Section A. Complete if applying as an individual:
• Enter the complete name of the responsible individual who will be the permittee if a permit is issued. Enter personal information that
identifies the applicant. Fax and e-mail are not required if not available.
• If you are applying on behalf of a client, the personal information must pertain to the client, and a document evidencing power of attorney
must be included with the application.
• Affiliation/ Doing business as (dba): business, agency, organizational, or institutional affiliation directly related to the activity requested
in the application (e.g., a taxidermist is an individual whose business can directly relate to the requested activity). The Division of
Management Authority (DMA) will not accept doing business as affiliations for individuals.
Section B. Complete if applying as a business, corporation, public agency, Tribe, or institution:
• Enter the complete name of the business, agency, Tribe, or institution that will be the permittee if a permit is issued. Give a brief
description of the type of business the applicant is engaged in. Provide contact phone number(s) of the business.
• Principal Officer is the person in charge of the listed business, corporation, public agency, Tribe, or institution. The principal officer is
the person responsible for the application and any permitted activities. Often the principal officer is a Director or President. Primary
Contact is the person at the business, corporation, public agency, Tribe, or institution who will be available to answer questions about the
application or permitted activities. Often this is the preparer of the application.
ALL APPLICANTS COMPLETE SECTION C:
For all applications submitted to the Division of Management Authority (DMA) a physical U.S. address is required. Province and
Country blocks are provided for those USFWS programs which use foreign addresses and are not required by DMA.
Mailing address is address where communications from USFWS should be mailed if different than applicant's physical address.
ALL APPLICANTS COMPLETE SECTION D:
Section D.1 Application processing fee:
An application processing fee is required at the time of application; unless exempted under 50 CFR13.11(d)(3). The application
processing fee is assessed to partially cover the cost of processing a request. The fee does not guarantee the issuance of a permit. Fees
will not be refunded for applications that are approved, abandoned, or denied. We may return fees for withdrawn applications prior to
any significant processing occurring.
Documentation of fee exempt status is not required for Federal, Tribal, State, or local government agencies; but must be supplied by
those applicants acting on behalf of such agencies. Those applicants acting on behalf of such agencies must submit a letter on agency
letterhead and signed by the head of the unit of government for which the applicant is acting on behalf, confirming that the applicant will
be carrying out the permitted activity for the agency.
Section D.2 Federal Fish and Wildlife permits:
List the number(s) of your most current FWS or CITES permit or the number of the most recent permit if none are currently valid. If
applying for re -issuance of a CITES permit, the original permit must be returned with this application.
Section D.3 CERTIFICATION:
The individual identified in Section A, the principal officer named in Section B, or person with a valid power of attorney
(documentation must be included in the application) must sign and date the application in blue ink This signature binds the applicant
to the statement of certification. This means that you certify that you have read and understand the regulations that apply to the permit.
You also certify that everything included in the application is true to the best of your knowledge. Be sure to read the statement and re -read
the application and your answers before signing.
ALL APPLICANTS COMPLETE SECTION E.
Please continue to next page
Form 3-200-71 Rev. 12/2016 Page 4 of 6

APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PERMIT
Paperwork Reduction Act, Privacy Act, and Freedom of Information Act — Notices
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), please be advised:
The gathering of information on fish and wildlife is authorized by:
(Authorizing statutes can be found at: http://www.ecfr.gov and htttp://www.fws.gov/pennits/]tr/Itr.html.)
a. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668), 50 CFR 22;
b. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), 50CFR 17;
C. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), 50 CFR 21;
d. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361, et. seq.), 50 CFR 18;
e. Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916), 50 CFR 15;
f Lacey Act: Injurious Wildlife (18 U.S.C. 42), 50 CFR 16;
g. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (TIAS 8249), hilp://www.cites.or&/, 50 CFR 23;
h. General Provisions, 50 CFR 10;
i. General Permit Procedures, 50 CFR 13; and
j. Wildlife Provisions (Import/export/transport), 50 CFR 14.
2. Information requested in this form is purely voluntary. However, submission of requested information is required in order to process applications for
permits authorized under the above laws. Failure to provide all requested information may be sufficient cause for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to deny the request. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
3. Certain applications for permits authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1374) will be published in the Federal Register as required by the two laws.
Disclosures outside the Department of the Interior may be made without the consent of an individual under the routine uses listed below, if the
disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. (Ref. 68 FR 52611, September 4, 2003)
a. Routine disclosure to subject matter experts, and Federal, Tribal, State, local, and foreign agencies, for the purpose of obtaining advice relevant to
making a decision on an application for a permit or when necessary to accomplish an FWS function related to this system of records.
b. Routine disclosure to the public as a result of publishing Federal Register notices announcing the receipt of permit applications for public comment
or notice of the decision on a permit application.
C. Routine disclosure to Federal, Tribal, State, local, or foreign wildlife and plant agencies for the exchange of information on permits granted or denied
to assure compliance with all applicable permitting requirements.
d. Routine disclosure to Captive -bred Wildlife registrants under the Endangered Species Act for the exchange of authorized species, and to share
information on the captive breeding of these species.
C. Routine disclosure to Federal, Tribal, State, and local authorities who need to know who is permitted to receive and rehabilitate sick, orphaned, and
injured birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; federally permitted rehabilitators; individuals seeking
a permitted rehabilitator with whom to place a bird in need of care; and licensed veterinarians who receive, treat, or diagnose sick, orphaned, and
injured birds.
f Routine disclosure to the Department of Justice, or a court, adjudicative, or other administrative body or to a party in litigation before a court or
adjudicative or administrative body, under certain circumstances.
g. Routine disclosure to the appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, local, or foreign governmental agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing,
or implementing statutes, rules, or licenses, when we become aware of a violation or potential violation of such statutes, rules, or licenses, or when we
need to monitor activities associated with a permit or regulated use.
h. Routine disclosure to a congressional office in response to an inquiry to the office by the individual to whom the record pertains.
i. Routine disclosure to the Government Accountability Office or Congress when the information is required for the evaluation of the permit programs.
j. Routine disclosure to provide addresses obtained from the Internal Revenue Service to debt collection agencies for purposes of locating a debtor
to collect or compromise a Federal claim against the debtor or to consumer reporting agencies to prepare a commercial credit report for use by
the FWS.
5. For individuals, personal information such as home address and telephone number, financial data, and personal identifiers (social security number, birth
date, etc.) will be removed prior to any release of the application.
6. The public reporting burden on the applicant for information collection varies depending on the activity for which a permit is requested. The relevant
burden �or an Eagle Non -Purposeful Take (standard) permit application is 16 hours, and 6 hours for a standard amendment. For an Eagle Non -
Purposeful Take (programmatic) permit application, the relevant burden is 452 hours and70 hours for an amendment. 'his burden estimate includes
time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data and completing and reviewing the form. You may direct comments regarding the
burden estimate or any other aspect of the form to the Service Information Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 222, Arlington
Square, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington D.C. 20240.
Freedom of Information Act — Notice
For organizations, businesses, or individuals operating as a business (i.e., permittees not covered by the Privacy Act), we request that you identify any
information that should be considered privileged and confidential business information to allow the Service to meet its responsibilities under FOIA.
Confidential business information must be clearly marked 'Business Confidential' at the top of the letter or page and each succeeding page and must be
accompanied by a non -confidential summary of the confidential information. The non -confidential summary and remaining documents may be made
available to the public under FOIA [43 CFR 2.26 — 2.331.
Form 3-200-71 Rev. 12/2016 Page 5 of 6

PSH & WlLDLiFB
SERVICE
1
Migratory Bird Regional Permit
Offices
FWS
AREA OF
MAILING
CONTACT
REGION
RESPONSIBILITY
ADDRESS
INFORMATION
Region 1
Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon,
911 N.E. 1 Ith Avenue
Tel. [phone]
Washington
Portland, OR 97232-4181
Fax [phone]
Email pernitsR1MB(a ws.goi,
Region 2
Arizona, New Mexico,
P.O. Box 709
Tel. [phone]
Oklahoma, Texas
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Fax [phone]
Email permirsR2MB(�fivs�or
Region 3
lows, Illinois, Indiana,
5600 American Blvd. West
Tel. [phone]
Minnesota, Missouri,
Suite 990
Fax [phone]
Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
Bloomington, MN
Email tern tsR3MB(a,s.kor
55437-1458
Effective 5/31/2011
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Region 4
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
P.O. Box 49208
Tel. [phone]
Mississippi, North Carolina,
Atlanta, GA 30359
Fax [phone]
South Carolina, Tennessee,
Email pe»nirsR4MB(a%fivs.Qov
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico
Connecticut, District of
Columbia, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
Tel. [phone]
Reg 5 ion
New Hampshire, New Jersey,
P.O. Box 779
Fax [phone]
New York, Pennsylvania,
Hadley, MA 01035-0779
Email pernitsRSMB(d� 'vs.gor
Rhode Island, Virginia,
Vermont, West Virginia
Colorado, Kansas, Montana,
P.O. Box 25486
Tel. [phone]
Region 6
North Dakota, Nebraska,
DFC(60154)
Fax [phone]
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Denver, CO 80225-0486
Email permirsR6MB(a75vs. >ov
1011 E. Tudor Road
Tel. [phone]
Region 7
Alaska
(MS -201)
Fax [phone]
Anchorage, AK 99503
Email 1r�7MB(afivs.*)
2800 Cottage Way
Region 8
g
California Nevada
Room W-2606
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Sacramento, CA 95825
EmailpemntsRmIB(a./ir__
Form 3-200-71 Rev 12/2016 Page 6 of 6

ATTACHMENT A
SECTION E. EAGLE TAKE—ASSOCIATED WITH BUT NOT THE PURPOSE OF AN
ACTIVITY (EAGLE NON -PURPOSEFUL TAKE) (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 50
CFR 22.26)
1. The name and contact information for any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee(s) who
has provided technical assistance or worked with you on this project.
Ulgonda Kirkpatrick (Primary Contact)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Division
Southeast Region
PO Box 49208, Atlanta, GA 30359
321-972-9089 office (Main)
352-406-6780 (cell)
John Hammond (Secondary Contact)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
PO Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636
919-856-4520 office (Main)
919-856-4520, ext. 28 (Direct)
John Stanton (Secondary Contact)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Field Office
PO Box 329, Columbia, NC 27925
252-796-2400 office (Main)
Emily Wells (Secondary Contact)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
PO Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636
919-8564520 office (Main)
919-8564520, ext. 25 (Direct)
John Ellis (Secondary Contact)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
PO Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636
919-8564520 office (Main)
919-8564520, ext. 26 (Direct)
2. The species and number of eagles that are likely to be taken and the likely form of that take
(e.g., disturbance, other take).
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). This permit application applies to the non -purposeful take
of one nesting pair of bald eagles that may be disturbed due to the large-scale tree removal
associated with dam construction and raising of the pool to the Proposed Phase Il elevation of the
West Fork Eno Reservoir (WFER).
3. The dates the activity will start and is projected to end. If the project has begun, describe
the stage of progress.

Construction activities beyond the 660 -foot buffer began in March of 2018—these activities
include structural modifications to the reservoir dam, vegetation clearing for the borrow area, and
roadway improvements to Efland Cedar Grove Road. Tree clearing within the eagle nest
disturbance zone is scheduled from August through September of 2018.
4. A detailed description of the activity that will likely cause the disturbance or other take of
eagles.
The Town of Hillsborough (Town) proposes to expand the West Fork Eno Reservoir (WFER) by
raising the normal pool elevation from 630 feet (mean sea level) to 643 feet (mean sea level). All
trees located in areas proposed for inundation by the new Phase II elevation will need to be
cleared to prevent tree mortality. This is a common practice for reservoirs to reduce the biological
oxygen demand within the water column of the new reservoir, as well as avoid safety hazards of
dead and dying trees located near the water's edge. The Town seeks to avoid the potential risk of
new nesting activities by eagles, as any new nests within the Phase 11 limits prior to raising the
pool elevation of the reservoir would result in the need for a direct take to accommodate project
construction. This vegetation clearing activity is proposed to occur more than 100 feet from an
active bald eagle nest tree, but is not proposed to remove the nest tree directly since it is beyond
the Phase II clearing limits. Additionally, a spoil borrow area to support roadway construction
activities is proposed beyond the Phase 11 elevation and greater than 900 feet from the existing
eagle nest location. All vegetation clearing activities within the vicinity of the nest will be
undertaken outside of the nesting season for the bald eagle in North Carolina.
5. An explanation of why the take of eagles is necessary, including what interests will be
protected by the project or activity.
Approximately 198 acres of forest is proposed to be cleared to facilitate the WFER expansion,
including 2.6 acres of forest within 330 feet of the active bald eagle nest. The expansion of
WFER is warranted to increase the capacity of the reservoir, which serves as the Town's drinking
water supply and is authorized by an existing Section 404 Clean Water Act permit (1995001141
issued to the Town on October 21, 1998). The large-scale habitat alteration associated with forest
clearing surrounding the reservoir may agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that causes or may
cause nest abandonment, but this risk will be mitigated by performing vegetation clearing
activities outside of the nesting season for bald eagle. There will remain suitable forest resources
protected in perpetuity along the Phase II shoreline to accommodate bald eagle nesting into the
future.
6. Maps, digital photographs, county/city information, and latitude/longitude geographic
coordinates of the proposed activity.
The West Fork Eno Reservoir is located in Cedar Grove, North Carolina, approximately six miles
from the Town of Hillsborough within Orange County. The coordinates of the crest of the dam
spillway are 36.148 N, 79.173 W.
See included figures and digital photographs.
7. Maps, digital photographs, county/city information, and latitude/longitude geographic
coordinates of eagle -use areas in the vicinity of the activity, including nest site(s), roost
areas, foraging areas, and known migration paths. Provide the specific distance and
locations of nests and other eagle -use areas from the project footprint.

A search area of 24 square miles (2 mile buffer from the existing WFER shoreline) was estimated
as bald eagle foraging and roosting areas. This search area was surveyed by helicopter on April
16, 2018; no additional eagles or nest were identified outside of the WFER limits. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database has not identified any additional bald eagle element
occurrences within the estimated foraging and roosting areas. However, the WFER search area is
within the Atlantic Flyway corridor and is known to host a variety of migrating birds each spring
and fall. According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) bald eagle
nesting success and territory occupation has steadily increased in North Carolina since their
reintroduction in 1982. Jordan Lake (35.737 N, 79.024 W), located in Chatham County North
Carolina (approximately 20 miles to the south of WFER) is home to the largest population of bald
eagles in North Carolina -4 active nests and 10-20 individuals; per the Audubon Society.
8. If the projected take of eagles is in the form of disturbance, answer the following two
questions:
a. Will the activity be visible to eagles in the eagle -use areas, or are there visual buffers
such as screening vegetation or topography that blocks the view?
A minimum forested buffer of 100 feet will extend outward from the Phase II clearing limits
which will be protected in perpetuity as part of the Section 404 Clean Water Act permit
conditions. This buffer will include the location of the active bald eagle nest. Other than the
temporary construction disturbance, the final built condition is proposed as a forested buffer
surrounding the reservoir, maintaining desirable habitat for bald eagles.
b. What is the extent of existing activities in the vicinity that are similar in nature, size,
and use to your activity, and if so, what is the distance between those activities and the
important eagle use areas?
Existing land uses in the vicinity of WFER consist of rural -residential and agricultural use,
interspersed with forested areas. Agricultural lands consist of both croplands and large
acreages of pasturelands. Forested areas consist of pine plantation, abandoned fields and
timber clearcuts undergoing successional regeneration, and mature pine, hardwood, and
mixed pine hardwood stands. Lake Orange is slightly smaller than WFER and is located
approximately 1.8 miles to the east. A significant portion of the Lake Orange shoreline
contains residential development in the form of houses, docks, and maintained lawns.
9. A detailed description of all avoidance and minimization measures that you have
incorporated into your planning for the activity that you will implement to reduce the
likelihood of take eagles.
To minimize the potential for eagle take at this nest location, the Town will implement a 100 -foot
upland forested buffer surrounding the Phase II shoreline to preserve suitable nest habitat. Based
on technical guidance from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the Town will perform tree clearing
and construction outside of the eagle nesting season. Tree clearing within the eagle nest
disturbance zone will begin the first week of August and shall be completed no later than the last
day of September. All equipment associated with the tree removal will be staged within the Phase
II clearing limits.

10. You must retain records relating to the activities conducted under your permit for at least 5
years from the date of expiration of the permit. Please provide the address where these
records will be kept.
Records to be retained at the Utilities Administration Office.
101 E. Orange St., Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
11. You are responsible for ensuring that the permitted activity is in compliance with all
Federal, tribal, State, and local laws and regulations applicable to eagles. Have you obtained
all required State or Tribal permits or approvals to conduct this activity? Indicate "Yes,"
Have applied," or None Required." If "Yes," attach a copy of the approval(s). If "Have
applied," submit a copy when issued.
Have applied. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) requires the submittal
of an Application Endangered Species Permit after the successful issuance of any Federal permits
pertaining to threatened or endangered species.
12. If you have received technical assistance for your project from your State wildlife agency,
please provide the name and contact information for the individual(s).
Shari Bryant
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Piedmont Region Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program
1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
919-707-0220
13. Disqualification factor. A conviction, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, for a
felony violation of the Lacey Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act disqualifies any such person from receiving or exercising the privileges
of a permit, unless such disqualification has been expressly waived by the Service Director
in response to a written petition. (50 CFR 13.21(c)) Have you or any of the owners of the
business, if applying as a business, been convicted, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere, forfeited collateral, or are currently under charges for any violations of the
laws mentioned above? Indicate "Yes" or "No." If you answered "Yes" provide: a) the
individual's name, b) date of charge, c) charge(s), d) location of incident, e) court, and f)
action taken for each violation.
No.

i .-
NOV 0 2 2017
Form
WMU
Rpr. •fax a. er
Give Form to the
(Rev. December 2014)
"*S=" identifiicatrn-,&�61er and Certification
requester. Do not
send to the IRS.
I Name (as shown on your income tax return). Name is required on this line; do not leave this line blank.
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
N
2 Business name/disregarded entity name. It different from above
m
rn
as
o
3 Check appropriate box for federal tax classification; check only one of the following seven boxes:
❑
4 Exemptions (codes apply onlyto
c
IndividuaUsole proprietor or El Corporation E] ❑ TrusVestate S Corporation ❑ Partnershipcertain
entities, not individuals; ee
-member
v
single LLC
instructions on page 3):
`o
E] Limited liability company. Enter the tax classification (C=C corporation. S=S corporation, P=partnership) ►
Exempt payee code (if any)
15
Note. For a single -member LLC that Is disregarded, do not check LLC; check the appropriate box in the line -member owner. above for
tax classification of the single
Exemption from FATCA reporting
1the
V
O Other (see instructions)► GOVERNMENT
code (f any)
(R•pbs ro•c"WO m. WW wtsd. Me 1) S)
5 Address (number, street, and apt. or suf a no.)
Requester's name and address (optional)
137 N. CHURTON STREET, PO BOX 429
11 City, state, and ZIP code
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
7 List account numbers) here (optional)
I axPaYer Iaentii'leation Number IN
Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. The TIN provided must match the name given on line 1 to avoid Social security number
backup withholding. sole For individuals, this is generally your social security number (page However, fora
resident ellen, sole proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the Part 1 Instructions on page 3. For other
entities, it Is your employer identification number (EIN). If you do not have a number, see Now to get a
TIN on page 3. or
Note. If the account is in more than one name, see the instructions for line 1 and the chart on page 4 for I Employer Identification number
guidelines on whose number to enter. I I
©113 0113 0' Mi©
Under penalties of perjury, I certify that:
1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer Identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me); and
2. 1 am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b)1 have not been notified by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am
no longer subject to backup withholding; and
3. 1 am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (defined below); and
4. The FATCA code(s) entered on this form (if any) indicating that I am exempt from FATCA reporting is correct.
Certification instructions. You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding
because you have failed to report all Interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions, item 2 does not apply. For mortgage
interest paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, contributions to an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), and
generally, payments other than Interest and dividends, you are not required to sign the certification, but you must provide your correct TIN. See the
Instructions on page 3.
General Instructions
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code unless otherwise noted.
Future developments. Information about developments affecting Form W-9 (such
as legislation enacted after we release k) Is at www.irs.gov1tw9.
Purpose of Form
An individual Or entity (Form W-9 requester) who is required to file an information
return with the IRS must obtain your correct taxpayer identification number (TIN)
which may be your social security number (SSN), Individual taxpayer identification
number OTIM, adoption taxpayer Identification number (ATIN), or employer
identification number (EIN), to report on an Information return the amount paid to
you, or other amount reportable on an information return. Examples of Information
returns include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Form 1099 -INT (interest earned or paid)
• Form 1099 -DIV (dividends, including those from stocks or mutual funds)
• Form 1099-MISC (various types of income, prizes, awards, or gross proceeds)
• Form 1099-B (stock or mutual fund sales and certain other transactions by
brokers)
• Form 1099-S (proceeds from real estate transactions)
• Form 1099-K (merchant card and third party network transactions)
' • Form 1098 (home mortgage interest), 1098-E (student loan interest), 1098-T
(tuition)
• Form 1099-C (canceled debt)
• Form 1099-A (acquisition or abandonment of secured property)
Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S. person (including a resident alien), to
provide your correct TIN.
N you do not return Form W-9 to the requester with a TIN, you might be subject
to backup withholding. See What is backup withholding? on page 2.
By signing the filled -out form, you:
1. Certify that the TIN you are giving is correct (or you are waiting for a number
to be Issued),
2. Certify that you are not subject to backup withholding, or
3. Claim exemption from backup withholding If you are a U.S. exempt payee. It
applicable, you are also certifying that as a U.S. person, your allocable share of
any partnership income from a U.S, trade or business is not subject to the
withholding tax on foreign partners' share of effectively connected income, and
4. Certify that FATCA cods(s) entered on this form Of any) Indicating that you are
exempt from the FATCA reporting, is correct. See What is FATCA reporting? on
page 2 for further information.
Cat, No. 10231X Form W-8 (Rev. 12-2014)

Prepared By: Prepared For
T7 Vicinity Map
AT I N 5 West Fork Eno River Reservior Phase II
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Dw" By: BEC
FIGURE
Ckd By:
MTC
Date:
4/30/2018
Project No.:
100041454
�• �_�� _ _ ��_��,��y�,.,owv,.._vvr.n_rnz_nanuesigmuu-commonwutbwAmhagle_igures_2018T ig1_Vicinity_M ap.mxd

Prepared By: Prepared For
Bald Eagle Nest Locations
T7
ATKINS T� �
�,'C West Fork Eno River Reservior Phase II
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Dwn By:
BEC
FIGURE
Ckd By:
MTC
Date:
5/30/2018
2
Project No
100041454
..... ...... .wn_.r_Wins..,..gn,,..un,roa_wrtn_rn2_rlanuesigmou-common\lStMxDtEagle_ligures_201BtFig2_Eagle Nest_Lwations—d

i • � t '— , '�• yam, e r � � t �� . •4 � '�
11 AL
1 47
Nor
r .�4r i fit}' r v ti
fitAW /fk

• ( yYA tL i.• f .i f� t:. y�(
�'• s` 3q 'r1t
Iiz#r r
Bald eagle chicks (2) on nest (orange line) during April 2018 Bald eagle observed in the immediate vicinity of active nest
aerial survey. during April 2018 aerial survey.
2 of 2

ENCLOSURE 2

Cogdell, Benjamin E
From: Kirkpatrick, Ulgonda <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 3:44 PM
To: Cusack, Matthew T
Cc: Goodison, Dean R; Cogdell, Benjamin E; Eric Peterson; Daphna Schwartz
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Bald eagle agency coordination
If there is no nest to remove then you don't need a permit, sorry about that I meant to clarify the nest removal part.
Thnx,
UK
Ulgonda Kirkpatrick
USFWS Migratory Bird Division
Mailing Address:
MIGRATORY BIRD PERMIT OFFICE
1875 CENTURY BOULEVARD, NE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345
321-972-9089 office (MAIN)
For more information on eagles in the Southeast Region, please visit: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Cusack, Matthew T <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Ulgonda,
As usual, it helps when I attach the memo I reference! It appears I did not attach that last time. Sorry for the confusion!
Please see attached.
We appreciate your guidance. I am clear on how it pertains to the active nest (Nest B). The question I had is whether
we need to also continue with a take permit for the inactive nest (Nest A) that had been previously identified, deemed
to be inactive, has degraded over the last three seasons, and ultimately is now gone from the tree in which it previously
resided. Confirmation on whether the take permit is still applicable for that, or whether we could attach the memo that
sent you the other day as evidence that the nest as gone so we could proceed alone with the disturbance permit for
the active nest.

Thanks for your help!
Cheers,
Matt
Matthew Cusack, PWS
Group Manager
Mid -Atlantic Sciences
ATKINS
1616 E. Millbrook Road
Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Email: Matthew.CusackCabatkinsglobal.com
Web: www.atkinsglobal.com/northamerica www.atkinsglobal.com
From: Kirkpatrick, Ulgonda [mailto:ulgonda [e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 3:26 PM
To: Cusack, Matthew T <matt.cusack@atkinsglobaLcom>
Cc: Goodison, Dean R<Dean.Good ison@atkinsglobaLcom>; Cogdell, Benjamin E
<Beniamin. [e-mail]>; Eric Peterson <Eric.Peterson @hillsboroughnc.gov>; Daphna Schwartz
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Bald eagle agency coordination
Hello,
If the project will disturb nesting eagles then yes, a permit would be applicable. If you can do the work (within 660 ft
and 330ft), outside of nesting season, when the birds are not present, and the project will not have lasting disturbance
impacts a permit would not be needed. I don't recall the specifics but I thought it was just an expansion of the
reservoir, correct? If so, I'd recommend doing the work w/in 330ft when the birds are not present (outside of nesting
season), and using the monitoring guidelines for work between 330ft-660ft during the nesting season. The work is
supposed to be stopped/altered if disturbance is detected using the monitoring guidelines, thereby avoiding the need
for a permit. You can access them via the link below my signature.
Let me know if you'd like to discuss further.

Ulgonda Kirkpatrick
USFWS Migratory Bird Division
Mailing Address:
MIGRATORY BIRD PERMIT OFFICE
1875 CENTURY BOULEVARD, NE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345
321-972-9089 office (MAIN)
For more information on eagles in the Southeast Region, please visit: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Cusack, Matthew T <matt.cusackgatkinselobal.com> wrote:
Hi Ms. Kirkpatrick,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to reinitiate the conversation about the bald eagle nest/s at the Town of
Hillsborough's West Fork Eno River Reservoir Project in Orange County, NC.
As a brief summary of our previous conversations, there have been two eagle nests that we have coordinated about
for this project. One was inactive and being discussed for a take permit so that it could be removed, and the other one
is active and proposed for a disturbance permit so that tree clearing could occur near the tree but not directly remove
it.
During our 2018 surveys to confirm that no new nests were identified, we were not able to identify the inactive nest
anymore. It appears that it has continued to degrade year over year, and now the nest is no longer in its host tree. Our
question is whether a take permit is still required or not. Attached you will find some supporting information for your
review, and then I would like to schedule a call with you at your convenience.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Matt

Schmid, Jeremy L
From: Wells, Emily <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:37 AM
To: Schmid, Jeremy L
Subject: Re: West Fork Eno River: INC help
Hi Jeremy,
Thank you for your email and question about the Cape Fear Shiner. It is not known to be in the Eno Watershed,
and therefore you can use the county list for the CLOMR, and do not need to do CFS surveys for this project. I
am not sure why the IPAC is saying you need to include it at this time.
Thanks!
Emily
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Schmid, Jeremy L<Jeremy. Schmid@ atkins global.com > wrote:
Hi Emily,
I am helping out with the ESA component of our CLOMR submittal and had a question. I used IPaC to get a
list of resources in our project area and the Cape Fear shiner came up. It does not show up on the county listing
for Orange County http://www.fws. ov/raleigh/species/cntylist/oran eg html but does in the IPac report that
I've saved here http://ecos.fws.jzov/inac/project/53VA7-7DSTN-CLDIU-M2HGR-SZU661/resources. I also
looked at the species occurrence map and they do not appear to be north of Interstate 40. I wasn't sure which
source to use when including in the CLOMR submittal. We did have mussel surveys conducted on August 18,
2014 by Catena but no fish surveys were performed. Do we need to conduct surveys for the Cape Fear shiner?
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.
Thanks!
Jeremy
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Scientist, EcoSciences East

ATKINS
1616 East Millbrook Road, Raleigh, NC, 27609 1 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Cell: [phone]
Email: ieremv.schmidaatkinsalobal.com I Web: www.atkinsolobal.com I Careers: www.atkinsalobal.com/careers
Twitter: www.twitter.com/atkinsolobal I Facebook: www.facebook.com/atkinsalobal
Linkedln: www.linkedin.com/comr)any/atkins I YouTube: www.youtube.com/wsatkinsolc
This email and any attached fi.es are corfidertia and copyright protected. If yo.: are not the addressee. any dissemiranon of this cor- mw scat on is s! ictly
prohioited- tlr,less otherwise expressly agreed in wriVng, nolhlno stated,n tnis communication shat be legal binding.
The ultimate parent company of the AtKins Group is WS Atk-ns plc. Registered it England No. 1885686. Registered GfSce Woodcote Grove. Ashley Road,
Epsom, Surrey K 118 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the united Klnodom and locations around the world car be found a'
httoJ/www atkinsalobal com/site-services/orouo-comoanv-registration-details
Consider the environment. Rease dor't grin? this e-mail un'ess you rea'ly need to
The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats; however no
technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats. Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an
email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email.

West Fork Eno River Reservoir Phase ll
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Orange County, North Carolina
Reach 5 during survey efforts
Prepared For:
ATKINS
Atkins Global
5200 Seventy Seven Center Drive STE 500
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Prepared by:
The
Catena
Group
410B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
September 29, 2014

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Waters Impacted.................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Description.................................................................. 2
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)............................................................... 2
3.1.1 Characteristics...........................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Survey Efforts.................................................................................................................. 5
3.3 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey.............................................................................. 5
3.4 Methodology.................................................................................................................... 5
3.5 Results.............................................................................................................................. 5
3.5.1 Reach 1...................................................................................................................... 7
3.5.2 Reach 2...................................................................................................................... 7
3.5.3 Reach 3...................................................................................................................... 8
3.5.4 Reach 4...................................................................................................................... 8
3.5.5 Reach 5...................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Discussion/Conclusions....................................................................................................... 9
5.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................. 10
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Hillsborough proposes to expand the West Fork of the Eno Reservoir in northern
Orange County, North Carolina. The Federally Endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon, DWM) is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as occurring in the
Neuse River Basin in Orange County. This portion of the Neuse River Basin may provide
habitat for the Federally Endangered/ State Endangered DWM, the State Endangered Atlantic
Pigtoe (Fusconia masoni) and Green Floater (Lasmigona subvirdis), and the state Special
Concern Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta) (LeGrand et al. 2012). Due to potential impacts
resulting from the expansion of the existing reservoir, a freshwater mussel survey was requested
by USFWS and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) in the proposed new reservoir pool
in the West Fork Eno River. The WRC recommended mussel surveys be conducted within the
entire 5,300 linear feet of stream that will be inundated by the proposed project.
As such, The Catena Group, Inc., (Catena) was contracted by Atkins to conduct these freshwater
mussel surveys.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Within the surveyed area, the West Fork Eno River contains a variety of habitat ranging from the
impounded backwaters of the existing reservoir to a small headwater stream. As such, sections
with similar habitat characteristics were divided into reaches as described in Section 3.5 and
depicted in Figure 1.
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION
3.1. Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)
3.1.1. Characteristics
The DWM was originally described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914)
subsequently placed it in the genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1919) placed it in a monotypic
subgenus Prolasmidonta, based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller
(1977) believed the characteristics of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and
renamed the species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (198 1) retained the genus name
Alasmidonta and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus
Pressodonta (Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of this species,
which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has two lateral teeth on the
right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other laterally dentate freshwater mussels
in North America normally have two lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The
DWM is generally small, with a shell length ranging between 25 mm (1.0 inch) a`nd 38 mm (1.5
inches). The largest specimen reported by Clarke (198 1) was 56.5 mm (2.2 inches) long, taken
from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. The periostracum is generally olive green to dark
brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or salmon colored towards the umbonal
cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with the females having a swollen region on the
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 2

posterior slope, and the males are generally flattened. Clarke (198 1) provides a detailed
description of the species.
Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage
(glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based upon laboratory
infestation experiments, Michaelson and Neves (1995) determined that potential fish hosts for
the DWM in North Carolina include the Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and the
Johnny Darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (200 1) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted
for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM was confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the Peticodiac
River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina. Occurrence records
exist from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in 11 states and 1 Canadian
Province (USFWS 1993). When the recovery plan for this species was written, the DWM was
believed to have been extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina
(USFWS 1993). The most recent assessment (2007 5 -Year Review) indicates that the DWM is
currently found in 15 major drainages, comprising approximately 70 "sites" (one site may have
multiple occurrences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely
on relict shells. It appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are
declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any
individuals in follow-up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut appear to be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed
affected by the recent floods of 2005 is uncertain (USFWS 2007).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range -wide assessments of remaining DWM populations, and
assigned a population status, to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size,
number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed were
considered "poor", and two others are considered "poor to fair" and "fair to poor" respectively.
In North Carolina, populations are found in portions of the Neuse and Tar River basins; however
it is believed to have been extirpated from the main -stem of the Neuse River.
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately two meters wide),
with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been described that range
from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). In North Carolina, DWM often
occur within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types
used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition.
3.1.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non -point
discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. With the exception of the Neversink River
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 3

population in New York, which has an estimated population of over 80,000 DWM individuals,
all of the other populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of
isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the
surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic
event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as
flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated with
highways, railroads, or industrial -municipal complexes.
Siltation resulting from substandard land -use practices associated with activities such as
agricultural, forestry and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been documented to be
extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing
potential exposure to other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking
and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high
mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project
decimated a population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith
1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna and recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two
miles below points of chlorinated sewage effluent (Goudreau et al. 1988).
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely
affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate
possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of
Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of
the river basins within the DWM's range have been impounded and this is believed to be a major
factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986, USFWS 1993).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the DWM. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food
and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black,
Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes
in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those
of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least
20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river supporting
DWM populations.
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 4

3.2. Survey Efforts
Surveys were conducted by Catena personnel Tom Dickinson and Tim Savidge on August 18,
2014.
3.3. Stream Conditions at Time of Survey
The survey area in the West Fork Eno consisted of varying habitat conditions described in
Section 3.5. During the effort, flow was low and running clear, with the exception of a short
section near the outflow of a pond after a short period of rainfall. An extensive, mostly mature
hardwood buffer surrounds the majority stream in the survey reach, with some agricultural fields
surrounding.
3.4. Methodology
Mussel surveys were conducted from Carr Store Road (SR 1004) to a point above the forecasted
Phase II pool (Figure 1). All habitats were searched, concentrating on the stable habitats
preferred by the target species. The survey team spread out across the stream into survey lanes.
Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods
were employed, particularly in streambanks under submerged rootmats. Freshwater bivalves
were recorded, photographed, and returned to the substrate. Timed survey efforts provided
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each species. Relative abundance for freshwater snails
was estimated using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
3.5. Results
A total of 9.67 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with two species of
freshwater mussel, the Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata) and the Eastern Floater (Pyganadon
cataracta) being found. Representative photos of these mussel species from the survey can be
found in Appendix A. Also found during the surveys were the aquatic snails Pointed
Campeloma (Campeloma decisum) and the Mimic Lymnea (Pseudosuccinea columella).
Neither the DWM nor other target state listed species were found during the survey efforts.
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 5

West Fork Eno Reservoir Vew August2014 Figure
The Mussel Surveys �He
Catena Survey Reaches o 50 100 Melm
Group
- _ Orange County. North Carolina Joe No
_ 3367
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 6

3.5. 1. Reach I
This most downstream reach was under the greatest influence from the existing impoundment,
displaying little discernible flow and conditions more lentic than lotic. Habitat consisted of pool,
slackwater, and slow moving run. The channel ranged from 5-10 meters wide with stream banks
0-1 meter high that ranged from stable to exhibiting minor erosion and undercutting near the
upstream extent. Substrate was dominated by unconsolidated sand with silt, mud, and woody
debris in depositional areas. Patches of rocky cobble and coarse sand were present, especially
near the upstream extent and in runs. Bank habitat consisted of clay, silt deposits, rootmats, and
a few rock outcroppings. Surveys were conducted for 2.5 person hours during which the species
in Table 1 were located.
TAhln 1 ('PiTF fnr Frachwatar M,.ccalc - D-6 1
Scientific Name
Common Name
#
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lli do corn Janata
astern Elli do
77
30.8/hr
Pyjzanodon cataracta
rastern Floater
12
4.8/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
seudosuccinea columella Mimic Lymnea
P -C
3.5.2. Reach 2
Habitat in this reach consisted of mostly shallow run punctuated by the occasional pool. The
channel ranged from 4-5 meters wide with approximately 1 meter high banks that exhibited some
erosion and undercutting. Substrate was dominated by sand, with gravel and cobble common in
runs and silt in depositional areas. Bank habitat consisted of clay and rootmats. Surveys were
conducted for 2.5 person hours during which the species in Table 2 were located.
Tsshls± 2_ CPiTF. far Frachwatar Muccalc ;n Daaoh I
Scientific Name
Common Name
#
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lliptio complanataastern
Elliptio
73
29.2/hr
ganodon cataracta
Pastern Floater
7
2.8/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Cam eloma decisum
ointed Cam eloma
—
R
seudosuccinea columella
Mimic Lyrnnea
R
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 7

3.5.3. Reach 3
Habitat in this reach consisted of a sequence of run and pool that exhibited significant instability.
The channel ranged from 5-6 meters wide with approximately 1-2 meter high generally unstable
banks. Substrate was dominated by sand, silt, and clay. Scouring and newly deposited sediment
bars were common. Breeched beaver (Castor canadensis) dams and other evidence were
observed throughout. Surveys were conducted for 1.5 person hours during which the species in
Table 3 were located.
Table 3. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 3
Scientific Name
Common Name
#
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elliptio com Janata
astern Elliptio
21
14.0/hr
[Pyganodon cataracta
rastern Floater
3
2.0/hr
3.5.4. Reach 4
This reach consisted of an open wetland meadow with a narrow, meandering stream channel that
was presumably the remnants of a large beaver impoundment/wetland complex on the stream.
Evidence of a large breeched dam was present at the downstream extent. The channel was 2-3
meters wide with 1-2 meter high generally unstable banks. Substrate was dominated by sand and
silt. Surveys were conducted for 1.0 person hour during which only shells of the Eastern Elliptio
were found.
3.5.5. Reach 5
This reach was consisted of a sequence of riffle, run, and pool habitats upstream from the
influence of significant beaver activity. The channel was 3-5 meters wide with mostly stable
banks up to 1 meter high. Substrates consisted of sand and pebble, clay banks, and common
rocky outcrops and associated cobble. Surveys were conducted for 2.17 person hours during
which the species in Table 4 were located.
Table 4. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 5
Scientific Name
Common Name
#
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elliptio complanata astern Elliptio
18
8.3/hr
yganodon cataracta astern Floater
1 shell
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Cam eloma decisum ointed Cam eloma
P -C
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 8

4.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports a freshwater mussel fauna of two common
species; no other mussel species were found. While other species were not found during this
survey, appropriate habitat is present; thus there is the potential for additional species to occur
within the area. The Eastern Elliptio and Eastern Floater found during this effort are known to
occur and proliferate in impounded habitat conditions under the appropriate circumstances and
therefore may provide a source stock for population expansion in the Phase II reservoir. A slow,
staged filling of the impoundment pool may facilitate conditions where the adaptation and
survival of these individuals are more likely.
The DWM was not found during this survey and is only known from a single shell reportedly
found in the Eno River. A biological conclusion on potential impacts to the DWM is provided
below.
Biological Conclusion Dwarf Wedgemussel: No Effect
Based on the survey results, and the presence of an impoundment between the project area, and
the portion of the Eno River where DWM has been reported, project construction is not expected
to impact this species. The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological
Conclusions and as such, it is recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence
with the finding of this document.
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 9

5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta,
and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.Robinson,
John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula mandensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents on
Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Lea, I. 1829. Description of a new genus of the family of naiades, including eight species, four of
which are new; also the description of eleven new species of the genus Unio from the
rivers of the United States: with observations on some of the characters of the naiades.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3[New Series]:403-157, p1s. 7-14.
LeGrand, H. E., Jr., Finnegan, J.T., Hall, S.P., Leslie, A.J., and Ratcliffe, J.A. 2012. Natural
Heritage Program list of rare animal species of North Carolina 2012. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 160pp.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
Master, L. (1986). Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list
as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American
nd
freshwater invertebrates. 2 edition. Academic Press.
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 10

Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. 1995. Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 14(2):324-340.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K. S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 189 pp.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account
of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):xvi-384, 21 pis.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh -water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum 22(1205):501-1044.
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Parts
I—III. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan, xii + 1540 pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
USFWS 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater mussels.
USFWS 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the southeast United States (The Red
Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt
Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
USFWS 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts. 527 pp.
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 11

USFWS 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta,
GA: 47.
USFWS 2007. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5 -Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS Hadley, MA.
Appendix A: Specimen Photographs
Elliptio complanata found in the surveyed reach
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 12

Pyganadon cataracta found in the surveyed reach
Atkins West Fork Eno Reservoir Mussel Surveys September 2014
Catena Job# 3361 Page 13

Schmid, Jeremy L
From: Berzinis, Rebecca W
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Schmid, Jeremy L
Subject: FW: West Fork Eno Reservoir Phase 2 - Mussel Survey Report
Rebecca Berzinis
Senior Scientist
ATKINS
Find out more about what we do and how we do it — www.atkinscilobal.com
5200 Seventy Seven Center Drive, STE 500, Charlotte, NC, 28217 1 Direct: [phone] Cell: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] I Web: www.atkinsolobal.com I Careers: www.atkinscilobal.com/careers
Twitter: www.twitter.com/atkinscilobal I Facebook: www.facebook.com/atkinsolobal
Linkedln: www.linkedin.com/comr)any/alkins I YouTube: www.youtube.com/wsatkinsl)lc
From: Jemigan, Emily [mai Ito: [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:02 PM
To: Berzinis, Rebecca W
Cc: Oglesby, John F; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: West Fork Eno Reservoir Phase 2 - Mussel Survey Report
Hi Rebecca,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. Sarah and I have been out of the office at different times
lately and haven't had a chance to catch up on this project until recently. We appreciate the findings report and
do not have any concerns with what was found.
Thank you,
Emily
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Berzinis, Rebecca W <Rebecca. Berzinis @ atkinsplobal.com> wrote:
Emily,
See the attached final report on mussel surveys for WFER.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-Rebecca
Rebecca Berzinis
Senior Scientist, EcoSciences East

ATKINS
5200 Seventy Seven Center Drive, STE 500, Charlotte, NC, 28217 1 Direct: [phone] Cell: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: rebecca.berzinisCa)atkinsglobal.com I Web: www.atkinsqlobal.com/northamerica, www.atkinsglobal.com
From: Jernigan, Emily [mailto:emily iernigan fws.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 3:02 PM
To: Berzinis, Rebecca W
Cc: Oglesby, John F
Subject: Re: West Fork Eno Reservoir Phase 2 - aquatic surveys
Hi Rebecca and John,
Thanks for following up with the details of the meeting and summarizing my voicemail. I agree that your
summary and email information are accurately portraying our (FWS) comments regarding the aquatic species
surveys and potential outcomes. I would also like to include Sarah McRae's information on there since you
have Rob's. Her email is Sarah [e-mail] and her phone number is 919-856-4520 x 16. If you would
please copy her and I on any findings that Catena has during their surveys we would really appreciate it.
Thanks so much and let me know if there are any other questions that come up along the way.
Talk to you soon,
Emily
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Berzinis, Rebecca W <Rebecca.Berzinis @atkinsglobal_com> wrote:
Emily,
Thanks for your return call. Just confirming your voicemail that the FWS would support the state's request to conduct
mussel surveys in West Fork Eno River upstream of the existing Phase I pool and within the footprint of the proposed
Phase 2 pool. Our proposed methods are below.

You are correct in the assumption that flows will be maintained in the Eno downstream of the reservoir during
construction of Phase 2. With that being the case and no federally listed species downstream of the dam, we will not
sample mussels downstream.
There are records for the state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) in West Fork Eno River upstream of
the existing Phase I pool and within the footprint of the proposed Phase 2 pool. Also, there are records for the federal
species of concern and state endangered Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), the state threatened creeper (Strophitus
undulatus), and the state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) in West Fork Eno River downstream of the
dam.
• Atkins will conduct a mussel survey in the West Fork Eno River within the proposed footprint of the Phase 2 pool.
• The survey will include appropriate mussel habitat starting at the bridge at Carr Store Road (SR -1004) and move
upstream through the footprint of the proposed Phase 2 pool.
• Mussel surveys will be conducted between April 1 and October 31, prior to raising the water level to the Phase 2
pool.
• Rob Nichols with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission will be contacted at [phone] or
[e-mail] prior to any mussel surveying activities.
• If any state -listed mussel species are found during the survey, they will be salvaged and relocated to appropriate
habitat downstream of the dam and below SR -1004.
• There is a single record of a dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in the Eno River watershed. Therefore, if
species with federal protection status are encountered, sampling activities will cease and findings reported immediately
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at [phone] and Rob Nichols with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission at
[phone] (office) or [phone] (cell). If a dwarf wedgemussel is encountered, the mussel will be held live in a
mesh bag at the capture location. Information to be collected includes pictures, coordinates, and text description of the
capture location. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be on site to
examine animal if found.
Please let me know if I have captured any details incorrectly.
Thanks,
-Rebecca
Rebecca Berzinis
Senior Scientist, EcoSciences East
ATKINS

5200 Seventy Seven Center Drive, STE 500, Charlotte, NC, 28217 1 Direct: [phone] Cell: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: rebecca.berzinisOatkinsalobal.com I Web: www.atkinsolobal.com/northamerica, www.atkinsolobal.com
Tnis ernair and any attached Iles a•e con`�deniial and copyriglc praected. If you are not the addressee. any cisser iration of th e coram-nicat,on is s'.r-ctly
prchibited. Unless othe,wise exp•ess y agreed in wri",ing. nothing stated in this con-rr,!nication shat be legally bindro
I ne ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. I teg'stered in Knglanc leo. 1885586, i ieg's:erec. O`fice Woodcoie Grove. Ashley I load Eosor-..
Surrey KT 18 bf3W. A list of wholly owned Akins Groap companies registered in the Un:ted Kingdom and locations aroenc the world can be found at
httol/www atkinsalobal com/site-services/oroup-company-registration-details
Consider the environment. I'lease don't pr,nt t -ds e mai' unless you really need to.
Emily Jernigan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27363-3726
[phone] ext. 25
The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats; however no
technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats. Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an
email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email.
Emily Jernigan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27363-3726
[phone] ext. 25

The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats; however no
technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats. Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an
email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email.

To:
File
From: David O'Loughlin Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] Date: August 21, 2014
Ref: Hillsborough Reservoir, Orange cc:
County
Subject: Results of Protected Species Habitat Evaluations and Surveys
On August 18 and 19, 2014, Atkins biologists David O'Loughlin and Jeremy Schmid conducted thorough
visual surveys within suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata) using overlapping transects to ensure visual coverage of all areas. Habitat for both
species exists within the project study along roadways and small utility corridors. No occurrences of
Michaux's sumac or smooth coneflower were found in the project study area. A review of the NCNHP
database dated July, 2014 revealed no known occurrences of either species within 1.0 mile of the project
study area.
The Biological Conclusion for both species is No Effect.
Attachment 3 WFER T&E Memo 8-19-2014
N
Z
Y
G

to
Z
Memo
To: File
From: Jeremy Schmid Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] Date: July 28, 2015
Ref: West Fork Eno River Reservoir, cc:
Orange County
Subject: ESA Compliance
The purpose of this memo is to provide documentation of ESA compliance for Phase 2 construction of the
West Fork Eno Reservoir (WFER). Atkins and the Town of Hillsborough have been in coordination with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies to satisfy requirements listed in the ESA. Comment from
the services was unavailable so responses to the six questions listed in the guidance have been provided
below.
1) The Town of Hillsborough proposes to expand the WFER by raising the normal pool elevation to 643
feet (mean sea level). Construction will consist of modifying the dam and spillway, clearing for the
Phase 2 pool, and roadway modifications where public roads cross the reservoir.
2) The area around the WFER consists of a rural farming community with forested and
maintained/agricultural land cover. All construction will take place on Town of Hillsborough property.
The proposed Phase 2 construction of the WFER would involve raising the current water level to an
elevation that would cause tree mortality in trees currently located near the water's edge. All trees
located below the proposed new Phase 2 elevation will need to be cleared.
3) As of June 8, 2015 the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists three federally protected
species for Orange County (Table 1). A brief description of the species' habitat requirements
follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Habitat requirements for this species is based on the current best available information from
referenced literature and/or USFWS.
Table 1: Federally protected species listed for Orange County.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
lasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
Yes
No Effect
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
No Effect
Echinacea laevigata
Smooth coneflower
E
es
No Effect
T — Threatened
E - Endangered
Dwarf wedgemussel
USFWS optimal survey window: year round
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the dwarf wedgemussel is known from the Neuse
and Tar River drainages. The mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to
moderate current and sand, gravel, or firm silt bottoms. Water in these areas must be well
oxygenated. Stream banks in these areas are generally stable with extensive root
systems holding soils in place.
CLORMR memo

(A
Z
Ment®
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Catena Group's biologists surveyed the study area for dwarf wedgemussel on August 18, 2014. See
Attachment 2 for details.
Michaux's sumac
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May -October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows in
sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well -drained sands or sandy loam soils with
low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy swales and
depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained
railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by
blowdowns and/or storm damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to
moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained
clearings undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from
mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing,
clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside shoulders and utility
easements. Surveys were conducted by Atkins biologists David O'Loughlin and Jeremy Schmid throughout
areas of suitable habitat on August 18 and 19, 2014. Surveys were performed by walking overlapping
transects of all suitable habitat areas and visually surveying the area for plant occurrences. No individuals of
Michaux's sumac were observed. A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2014, revealed no known
occurrences of either species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Smooth coneflower
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: late May -October
Habitat Description: Smooth coneflower, a perennial herb, is typically found in meadows, open woodlands,
the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands, cedar barrens, dry limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and
roadside and utility rights-of-way. In North Carolina, the species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium -
rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell, Misenheimer,
and Picture soil series. It grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little competition in the herbaceous
layer, and periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that prevents
encroachment of shade -producing woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody succession is held in
check, it is characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower in the study area occurs in areas along roadways and small utility
corridors. Detailed surveys for smooth coneflower were performed by Atkins biologists on August 18 and 19,
2014. All areas of suitable open habitat were surveyed, with particular attention being paid to areas of
neutral to basic soils. Habitat was systematically walked and visually surveyed, and overlapping transects
were employed to ensure coverage of all habitat. No occurrences of coneflower were found. A review of
NCNHP records, updated July 2014, indicates no known smooth coneflower occurrence
within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Bald Eagle
A known breeding pair of bald eagles have established multiple nests along the WFER.
An active nest was located on a survey conducted February 19, 2014 with a mating pair of
bald eagles. An aerial survey by helicopter to find any secondary nests was conducted on
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
EXCELLENCE SINCE 1936
CLORMR memo

I^
Z
Memo
March 12, 2015. The mating pair was found occupying a secondary nest on the opposite side of the reservoir
(photo evidence available). An eagle nest take permit is currently in progress.
4) See Question #3 response.
All trees located below the proposed new Phase 2 elevation will need to be cleared due to tree
mortality from the water level being raised. Leaving the trees containing bald eagle nests causes a
safety emergency for the eagles as the nest trees are located below the Phase 2 water level. This
would eventually kill the nest tree and be a safety concern for eggs and/or chicks when the tree
eventually falls. The situation was not foreseeable since the breeding pair moved into the area after
construction of the reservoir.
5) See attachments
6) See attachments
Please find the following Attachments enclosed for your review:
Attachment 1: IPac Report:
A: IPac Resources Report
B: Email correspondence with USFWS removing Cape Fear shiner from inclusion found in report
Attachment 2: Mussel Surveys
A: Atkins Mussel Survey Final Report
B: Email correspondence with USFWS regarding mussel surveys
Attachment 3: Atkins Protected Species Habitat Evaluations and Surveys
Attachment 4: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission concurrence
Attachment 5: Bald Eagle Protection Act
A: Meeting Minutes from Conference Call with USFWS 4-17-2014
B: Meeting Minutes from Conference Call with USFWS 6-29-2015
CL.ORMR memo

F.,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
June 24, 2016
Regulatory Division/1200A
SUBJECT: Action ID SAW -2014-00299
Mr, Kenny Keel
Town of Hillsborough
Post Office Box 429
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mr. Keel:
Reference the Department of the Army (DA) permit (Action ID 1995001141) issued to the
Town of Hillsborough on October 21, 1998, authorizing the discharge of fill material into the
West Fork of the Eno River associated with the construction of a dam and subsequent flooding
the West Fork of the Eno River and several of its tributaries for the purpose of constructing
Phases 1 and 2 of a municipal water supply reservoir. Reference also your April 29, 2016
modification request, submitted on your behalf by Atkins North America, Inc., for revised
impacts and proposed mitigation for Phase 2 of the reservoir construction. The revised impacts
are for 0.375 acre of fill impacts which were authorized as flooding impacts in the original
permit. The proposed Phase 2 mitigation is for 1.8 acre of wetland credits from the completed
Water Quality Impoundments, and 7.8 acres of wetland credits from the North Carolina Division
of Mitigation Services, to provide compensatory mitigation for 5.7 acres of wetland impact for
Phase 2.
We have reviewed the requested modification, and determined that it is appropriate and
reasonable, and that no public notice is required for this modification. Therefore, the permit is
hereby modified to authorize revised wetland impacts of 0.04 acre, as shown on the enclosed
undated Permit Drawings, Sheets 1 through 7 of 7, submitted by e-mail on 4/29/2016. In order to
compensate for the 5.7 acre of wetland impacts associated with Phase 2, additional mitigation
shall be provided a) by debiting of the remaining 1.8 acre of wetland credits from the completed
Water Quality Impoundments; and b) in accordance with the provisions outlined on the most
recent version of the attached Compensatory Mitigation Responsibility Transfer Form (7.8 acres
of NCDMS wetland credits). The requirements of this form, including any special conditions
listed on this form, are hereby incorporated as special conditions of this permit authorization.
In addition, the permit is conditioned as follows: The permittee shall not begin vegetation
clearing for the Phase 2 construction, exclusive of clearing for the road improvements, prior to
the additional bald eagle survey during the winter of 2016/2017, that is required by the

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), nor prior to the approval of an Eagle Fest Take
permit from the USFWS, to ensure compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act.
All other conditions of die permit, including the expiration date of December 31, 2018,
remain applicable.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], ext. 23.
Sincerely,
J/V on"&
)7C#0
in P. Landers Sr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
Enclosures
Copy Furnished w/enclosures:
Mr. Matt Cusack
Atkins North America, Inc.
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
Copies Furnished w/o enclosures:
Ms. Jennifer Burdette
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Pete Benjamin
US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

ATKINS
Attachment 3:
Issued LOMR for WFER Phase II

o�4"rx�Fti Federal Emergency Management Agency
T Washington, D.C. 20472
s�
o� ''' North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
Cooperating Technical Partner
November 20, 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Mark Dorosin
Chairman, Orange County Board of
Commissioners
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Dorosin:
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case No.: 17-04-6259R
Community Name: Orange County, NC
Community No.: 370342
We are providing our comments with this enclosed Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) on a
proposed project within your community that, if constructed as proposed, could revise the effective Flood
Insurance Study report and Flood Insurance Rate Map for your community.
If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please contact the Floodplain Administrator for your
community. If you have any technical questions regarding this CLOMR, please contact the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) at [phone], or the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll free at I-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP). Additional
information about the NFIP is available on FEMA's website at
hLtp://www.fema.eov/notional-flood-insurance-Rrogmm, and additional information about the NCFMP is
available at htti)://www.ncfloodmAps.com.
Sincerely,
Patrick "Rick" F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
List of Enclosures:
John K. Dorman
Program Director
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
Conditional Letter of Map Revision Comment Document
cc: Ms. Bonnie B. Hammersley, County Manager, Orange County
Mr. Michael D. Harvey, Planning Supervisor, Orange County
Mr. Kenneth P. Keel, P.E., Engineering and Utilities Director, Town of Hillsborough
Mr. Dean R. Goodison, P.E., CFM, ATKINS North America, Inc.
Mr. Steve Garrett, CFM, LOMC Manager, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
Mr. John D. Brubaker, P.E., CFM, NFIP Coordinator, North Carolina Emergency Management

' Page 1 of 7 I Issue Date: November 20, 2017Case No.: 17-04-6259R CLOMR-APP
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
COMMENT DOCUMENT
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BASIS OF CONDITIONAL REQUEST
Orange County
BRIDGE
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
North Carolina
DAM
WEIR -DAM CHANGES
(Unincorporated Areas)
FILL
UPDATED TOPOGRAPHIC DATA
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY NO.: 370342
IDENTIFIER
NC -17-581 - Proposed West Fork Eno River Reservoir
APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: 36.148.-79.173
Improvements
SOURCE: Other(ArcGIS) DATUM: NAD 83
AFFECTED MAP PANEL
TYPE: FIRM' NO.: 3710984700K DATE: November 17, 2017
TYPE: FIRM NO.: 3710984800K DATE: November 17, 2017
• FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map
TYPE: FIRM NO.: 37109B5700K DATE: November 17, 2017
FLOODING SOURCE AND REACH DESCRIPTION See Page 2 for Additional Flooding Sources
West Fork Eno River - from approximately 2,000 feet below the West Fork Eno River Dam to approximately 4,600 feet upstream of Carr Store Road (SR -1004).
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Flooding Source Proposed Project Location of Proposed Project
West Fork Eno River Dam Modification Project will modify the reservoir spillway along the West Fork Eno River,
Fill Placement raising the normal pool of the reservoir, in order to increase the capacity of
this water supply reservoir. This project will also replace the box culvert at
Bridge Modification Carr Store Road with a 110 -ft single span bridge across West Fork Eno
River
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO FLOOD HAZARD DATA
Flooding Source Effective Flooding Proposed Flooding Increases Decreases
West Fork Eno River Zone AE Zone AE Yes None
BFEs' BFEs' Yes None
' BFEs - Base (1 -percent -annual -chance) Flood Elevations
COMMENT
This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) comment regarding a request for a CLOMR for the project described above.
This document is not a final determination; it only provides our comment on the proposed project in relation to the flood hazard information shown on the effective
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map. We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective flood hazard information for your
community and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP, Your community is responsible for
approving all floodplain development and for ensuring that all permits required by Federal or State/Commonwealth law have been received. State/Commonwealth,
county, and community officials, based on their knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction in the Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to inundation by the base flood. If the State/Commonwealth, county, or community has adopted more restrictive
or
comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria.
This comment is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll
free at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Additional
Information about the NFIP is available on the FEMA website at httpsJ/www.feme.gov/national-flood-insurance-program.
ftbfck'Rick• F. Sacblbit, P.E„ Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 17-04-6259R 104

Page 2 of 7
Issue Date: November 20, 2017
Case No.: 17-04-6259R
:LOMB -APP
E� aR7'.yF,
Federal Emergency Management Agency
�.�•
Washington, D.C. 20472
t�.vn seg
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
ADDITIONAL FLOODING SOURCES AFFECTED BY THIS CONDITIONAL REQUEST
FLOODING SOURCE(S) AND REACH DESCRIPTION
West Fork Eno River Tributary 3 — at the Confluence with West Fork Eno River to a point approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with West Fork Eno River.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Flooding Source Proposed Project Location of Proposed Project
West Fork Eno River Tributary 3 Dam Modification Project will modify the reservoir spillway along the West Fork Eno River,
Fill Placement raising the normal pool of the reservoir, in order to increase the capacity of
this water supply reservoir. This project will also replace the box culvert at
Bridge Modification Carr Store Road with a 110 -ft single span bridge across West Fork Eno
River. This project increases the backwater flooding elevations along West
Fork Eno River Tributary 3,
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO FLOOD HAZARD DATA
Flooding Source Effective Flooding Proposed Flooding Increases Decreases
West Fork Eno River Tributary 3 Zone AE Zone AE Yes None
BFEs' BFEs Yes None
BFEs - Base (1 -percent -annual -chance) Flood Elevations
COMMENT
This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) comment regarding a request for a CLOMR for the project described above. This
document is not a final determination; it only provides our comment on the proposed project in relation to the flood hazard information shown on the effective National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) map. We reviewed the submitted data and the data used to prepare the effective flood hazard information for your community and determined that
the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain development and for
ensuring that all permits required by Federal or State/Commonwealth law have been received. State/Commonwealth, county, and community officials, based on their
knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety may set higher standards for construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to inundation
by the base flood. If the State/Commonwealth, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take
precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria.
This comment Is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll
free at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -677 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue. Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Additional
Information about the NFIP is available on the FEMA website at https:/twww,fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program,
Patrick 'Rick' F. SacWWt, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 17-04-6259R 104

Page 3 of 7
Issue Date: November 20, 2017
Case No.: 17-04-6259R
CLOMR-APP
` Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
To determine the changes in flood hazards that will be caused by the proposed project, we compared the hydraulic modeling reflecting the proposed
project (referred to as the proposed conditions model) to the hydraulic modeling used to prepare the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) (referred to as the
effective model). If the effective model does not provide enough detail to evaluate the effects of the proposed project, an existing conditions model must
be developed to provide this detail. This existing conditions model is then compared to the effective model and the proposed conditions model to
differentiate the increases or decreases in flood hazards caused by more detailed modeling from the increases or decreases in flood hazards that will be
caused by the proposed project.
The table below shows the changes in the 13FEs:
BFE Comparison Table
Flooding Source: BFE Change (feet) Location of maximum change
West Fork Eno River
Existing vs.
Maximum increase 3.0 Immediately upstream of Carr Store Road
Effective
Maximum decrease None Not applicable
Proposed vs.
Maximum increase 8.7 Immediately upstream of the West Fork Eno River Dam
Existing
Maximum decrease None Not applicable
Proposed vs.Maximum
increase 10.0 Immediately upstream of the West Fork Eno River Dam
Effective IMaximurn
decrease None Not applicable
Flooding Source: BFE Change (feet) Location of maximum change
West Fork Eno River Tributary 3
Existing vs.
Maximum increase None Not applicable
Effective
Maximum decrease None Not applicable
Proposed vs.
Maximum increase 1.8 at the confluence with West Fork Eno River
Existing
Maximum decrease None Not applicable
Proposed vs.Maximum
increase 1.8 at the confluence with West Fork Eno River
Effective
Maximum decrease None Not applicable
This comment is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll
free at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Additional
Information about the NFIP is available on the FEMA website at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program.
Patrick'Rick" F. Saoblblt, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 17-04-6259R 104

l Page 4 of 7(Issue Date: November 20, 2017 (Case No.: 17-04-6259R CLOMR-APP
er�ttr.yF
T
Federal Emergency Management Agency
�r
Washington, D.C. 20472
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
I COMMUNITY INFORMATION (CONTINUED) I
Increases due to the proposed project that exceed those permitted under Paragraphs (c)(10) or (d)(3) of Section 60.3 of the NFIP regulations must adhere
to Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations. With this request, your community has complied with all requirements of Paragraph 65.12(a) of the NFIP
regulations. Compliance with Paragraph 65.12(b) also is necessary before FEMA can issue a Letter of Map Revision when a community proposes to
permit encroachments into the effective floodplain that will cause BFE increases in excess of those permitted under Paragraph 60.3(c)(10).
NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b)(7) requires communities to ensure that the flood -carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any
watercourse is maintained. This provision is incorporated into your community's existing floodplain management ordinances: therefore, responsibility
for maintenance of the altered or relocated watercourse, including any related appurtenances such as bridges, culverts, and other drainage structures,
rests with your community. We may request that your community submit a description and schedule of maintenance activities necessary to ensure this
requirement.
comment is based on the Flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll
at 1-677-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Additional
mation about the NFIP is available on the FEMA website at https://www,fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program.
Patrick'Rlck' F. Saeblblt, P.E., Sranch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 17.04-6259R

Page 5 of 7Ilssue Date: November 20, 2017 Case No.: 17-04-6259R CLOMR-APP
\�F qA RT,
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
7AND Vit'
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
I COMMUNITY INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
DATA REQUIRED FOR FOLLOW-UP LOMR
Upon completion of the project, your community mast submit the data listed below and request that we make a final determination on
revising the effective FIRM and FIS report. If the project is built as proposed and the data below are received, a revision to the FIRM
and FIS report would be warranted.
• Form 1, entitled "Overview& Concurrence Form". Detailed application and certification forms must be used for requesting final
revisions to the maps. Therefore, when the map revision request for the area covered by this letter is submitted, Form 1 must be included.
If as -built conditions differ from the proposed plans, please submit new forms, which may be accessed at https://www.fema.gov/mt-2-
application-forms-and-instructions, or annotated copies of the previously submitted forms showing the revised information.
• Form 2, entitled "Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form." Hydraulic analyses for as -built conditions of the base flood and the non -
encroachment stations, must be submitted with Form 2.
• Form 3, entitled "Riverine Structures Form."
- Hydraulic analyses, for as -built conditions, of the base flood; the 10 -percent, 4 -percent, 2 -percent, and 0.2 percent annual chance
floods; and the regulatory floodway, together with a topographic work map showing the revised floodplain and floodway boundaries.
Please ensure that the revised information ties in with the current effective information at the downstream and upstream ends of the
revised reach.
• An annotated copy of the FIRM, at the scale of the effective FIRM, that shows the revised floodplain and floodway boundary
delineations shown on the submitted work map and how they tie into the floodplain and floodway boundary delineations shown on the
current effective FIRM at the downstream and upstream ends of the revised reach.
• As -built plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, of all proposed project elements.
• A copy of the public notice distributed by your community, stating its intent to revise the regulatory non -encroachment areas, or a
signed statement by your community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions.
• Documentation of the notification to property owners who will be affected by any widening/shifting of the base floodplain and/or any
BFE increases along the West Fork Eno River and West Fork Eno River Tributary 3.
comment is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll
at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Additional
mation about the NFIP is available on the FEMA website at https://www.feme.gov/national-flood-insurance-program.
Pehldk *Rick" F. Sacblbli, P.E., 9rrneh Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 17-04-6258R

l Page 6 of 7Ilssue Date: November 20, 2017 (Case No.: 17-04-6259R CLOMR-APP
R I
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
J
D';V
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
I COMMUNITY INFORMATION (CONTINUED) I
• Evidence that your community has, prior to approval of the proposed encroachment, adopted floodplain management ordinances that
incorporate the increased BFEs and revised floodway boundary delineations to reflect the post -project conditions, as stated in Paragraph
65.12(b)
• An officially adopted maintenance and operation plan for the West Fork Eno River Dam. This plan, which may be in the form of a
written statement from the community Chief Executive Officer, an ordinance, or other legislation, must describe the nature of the
maintenance activities, the frequency with which they will be performed, and the title of the local community official who will be
responsible for ensuring that the maintenance activities are accomplished.
• FEMA's fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and
maps may be accessed at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/frm_fees.shtm. The fee at the time of the map revision submittal must
be received before we can begin processing the request. Payment of this fee can be made through a check or money order, made payable
in U.S. funds to the National Flood Insurance Program, or by credit card (Visa or MasterCard only). Please forward the payment, along
with the revision application, to the following address:
North Carolina MT -2 LOMC Depot
Attn: Steve Garrett
4218 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 276994218
or submit the LOMR using the Online LOMC portal at: https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/onlinelomc/signin
After receiving app-opriate documentation to show that the project has been completed, FEMA will initiate a revision to the FIRM and
FIS report. Because the flood hazard information (i.e., base flood elevations, base flood depths, SFHAs, zone designations, and/or
regulatory floodways) will change as a result of the project, a 90 -day appeal period will be initiated for the revision, during which
community officials and interested persons may appeal the revised flood hazard information based on scientific or technical data.
comment is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information exchange (FMIX) toll
at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-5426. Additional
mation about the NFIP is available on the FEMA website at hftps:t/www,fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program.
Pairick'Riok` F. Saeblbit, P.E., 9raneh Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 17-04-6259R

Page 7 of 7 Issue Date: November 20, 2017 Case No.: 17-04-6259R CLOMR-APP
?�11' Federal Emergency Management Agency
-- 1,
Washington, D.C. 20472
No S,
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
COMMENT DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY REMINDERS
We have designated a Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) to assist your community. The CCO will be the primary liaison between
your community and FEMA. For information regarding your CCO, please contact:
Mr. Jesse Munoz
Director, Mitigation Division
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV
Koger Center— Rutgers Building
3003 Chamblee Tucker Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
[phone]
This comment is based on the flood data presently available. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) toll
free at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877 -FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426. Additional
Information about the NFIP is available on the FEMA website at https:/twww.fema.gov�/n�ati�onal-flood-insurance-program.
Patrick "Rick" F. Saebibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration 17-04-6259R 10'

ATKINS
Attachment 4:
Mitigation acceptance extension letter from N.C. Division of Mitigation Services, September
2018

"agmapn Services
EMVIR®MMEMTAt OUALITT
September 11, 2018
Kenny Keel
Town of Hillsborough
PO Box 429
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RO) ('00PER
MICHAEL S RFGAN
Expiration of Acceptance: March 10, 2019
Project: Permit 199501141 Mod. for WFER Reservoir Ph2 County: Orange
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G. S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
-.-Neuse
Impact Location Impact Type Impact Q1
03020201 Riparian Wetland 3.9
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Matt Cusack, agent
Sincerely,
J B Stanfill
Man
Asset agement Supervisor
State of Nonh Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. )ones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T