20160977 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20190916

fires
September 13, 2019
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 7740
Main: 713.520.5400
Samantha Dailey Mac Haupt
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Regulatory Division 512 North Salisbury St.
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Raleigh, NC 27604
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Nationwide 27 Permit Application- Bucher Mitigation Site
Dear Ms Dailey and Mr. Haupt,
The Bucher Mitigation Site (the "Project') is a stream project located within a semi -urban watershed with
increasing development pressure spreading from Durham in Durham County, North Carolina,
approximately seven miles northeast of Durham. The Project area exhibits reduced hydrology and habitat
value as a result of past impoundment and timbering activities. The Project will involve the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of two main perennial streams and several of their tributaries within the
Neuse River Basin Upper Falls Lake Watershed. The Project has been designed in concurrence with the
NCDWR Bucher Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank.
The objective for this mitigation project is to restore and design natural waterways through stream
complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria agreed upon in the mitigation plan. Accomplishing this objective entails the
restoration of natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat.
The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and
storage during flooding events. Total wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project are 4.03 acres.
Total stream impacts resulting from the proposed project are 3,002 linear feet. And the open water impacts
resulting from project are 12.24 acres but will be restored to a more natural stream/wetland complex. The
total buffer impacts in zone one is 169,011.00 square feet and in zone two is 62,970.00 square feet.
However, overall there will be a much greater benefit to the riparian buffer from tree planting and livestock
exclusion.
The attached PCN package includes PCN Form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1062 or
bbreslowC&res.us if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
RES, LLC
Brad Breslow
Regulatory Manager
res.us

DR
02*10n of Water R"Ourc"
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance into the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned *
Version#*
20160977
1
Is a payment required for this project?*
* No payment required
What amout is owed?*
* Fee received
r $240.00
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
r $570.00
Reviewing Office* Select Project Reviewer*
Central Office - [phone] Mac Haupt:eads\dmhaupt
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Bucher Mitigation Site
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Brad Breslow
1 b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
9/16/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Rocky Branch
Basin
Neuse
Water Classification
WS -IV, NSW and WS -N, NSW, CA
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
36.035494
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Durham
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Longitude:
-78.786872
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
V Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
F Section 10 Permit (navigable ureters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
P Nationwide Permit (NWP)
F- Regional General Permit (RGP)
r- Standard (IP)
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
P 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
1e. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
F Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
19. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
C Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
EBX Neuse I, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
7837-746;7944-213;8121-190
2c. Responsible party:
EBX- Neuse I, LLC
2d. Address
Street Address
412 N 4th Street
Address Line 2
Suite 300
city
Baton Rouge
Postal / Zip Code
70802-5523
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Cheek, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
5373-174
State / Province / R icn
LA
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
r Yes r No
rYes rNo

2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
4915 Cheek Road
Address Line 2
City
Durham
Postal / Zip Code
27704
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
29. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Jamey McEachran
3b. Business Name:
3c.Address
Street Address
302 Jefferson Street
Address Lim 2
Suite 110
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27605
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Durham
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
0863 -04 -43 -0124;0863 -03-21-2222;0863-
State / Rwince / ftagion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Rwince / Iiagion
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
01-20-8206;0863-01-00-9568;0863-03-22-
2b. Property size:
5163;
92.7
2c. Project Address
Street Address
3132 Redwood Road
Address Lim 2
city
State / Ftwince / Fdegion
Durham
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
27704
USA
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Rocky Branch
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
WS -IV, NSW and WS -IV, NSW, CA

3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Neuse
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
030202010404
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*

The project easement totals 92.7 acres and is comprised of two perennial streams, and their associated tributaries that ultimately drain into Falls Lake Reservoir a half mile downstream.
There are five wetlands on site that have been delineated and visited by the USACE. The project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area starting at downstream Reach (BU1)
of Pettys Lake (BU2, BU3, and BU4) and follows along Rocky Branch (BU6, BU7, BU9, MB1, M133) until it flows out of the easement area and drains into the Falls Lake Reservoir. The
Project includes one main tributary (CH1, CH3, CH6, and CHB) that flows into Rocky Branch and multiple unnamed tributaries off of these main stems (131.110, BU11, CH2, MB2, MB4, and
MB5). The easement is separated by a powerline easement below Pettys Lake and three other proposed crossings designed to reduce the impacts of future development
The total drainage area of the project is 614 acres (0.96 mi2). The Project's drainage area is primarily wooded with pockets of agricultural fields and lowdensity residential lots.
Development pressure from Durham is quickly reaching the Project watershed. The Project landowner is currently working with a developer to plan a high-density residential
neighborhood surrounding the project. Protection and restoration of the nutrient sensitive water and water supply IV Project streams that drain directly to the Falls Lake Reservoir would
provide a buffer against present and future stressors within the watershed.
Reach BU1 is an intermittent channel with a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (41 acres) flowing north into Pettys Lake. The upstream portion of this reach is a C-type channel with a
sand and gravel bed and has stable banks exhibiting little to no bank erosion. The upstream portion of the reach is surrounded by a wetland on both banks. The downstream portion of
BU1 transitions to a G -type channel with a sand and gravel bed. The channel is mildly incised but no significant instability was observed. There is an existing culvert crossing located
near the end of BU1. The riparian buffer is in fair condition and consists of young hardwoods and pines. Buffer width ranges from 30 to 100 feet.
Reach BU2 correlates to the southern finger of Pettys Lake and extends past reach BU3 to Pettys Lake Dam. Pettys Lake is an impoundment approximately 14 acres in sire and was
constructed between 1961 and 1972. There is a thin wooded buffer that borders the lake on all sides except along the dam.
Reach BU3 correlates to the western finger of Pettys Lake, beginning at a farm path along the western project boundary and ending at Reach BU2. There are two culverts located at the
upstream end of the reach; one culvert acts as an outlet to the small pond upstream of the farm path while the culvert to the north conveys flows under the path from a ditch that
parallels the small pond on the north. There is a thin wooded buffer that borders the lake on all sides except along the dam.
Reach BU4 correlates to the northern finger of Pettys Lake and confluences with proposed reach BU2 upstream of the existing dam. There is a thin wooded buffer that borders the pond
on all sides except along the dam.
BUB flows northeast beginning downstream of the Pettys Lake Dam and flows east past the active spillway to its confluence with BUT The reach has a drainage area of 0.23 square
miles (150 acres). The portion of the reach between the dam and the active spillway has been dislocated from the watershed by the dam. Though this area has a limited drainage area
it does receive significant groundwater from the surrounding wetlands. This reach is a C-type channel with localized areas of bank erosion in areas of high sinuosity; however, the
channel is stable, appropriately sized with floodplain connection and is providing significant habitat. The riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide along the entire reach and is
composed of young hardwoods with localized areas of privet.
Reach BU7 is a perennial channel with a drainage area of 0.27 square miles (171 acres), flows east beginning downstream of BU6 and ending at its confluence with BU9. This E -type
channel has a bed comprised of cobble, boulders and sand. The channel is appropriately sized with adequate pattern and floodplain connection and is providing significant habitat. The
majority of the reach is relatively flat with slopes less than one percent however, approximately 260 linear feet of stream in the lower half of the reach has a slope greater than five
percent. The riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of hardwoods and pines with localized areas of privet.
Reach BU9 is a perennial channel that flows to the east from BU7 past a confluence with BU10 and BU11 to M131 with a drainage area of 0.33 square miles (214 acres). The channel is
entrenched with irregular and eroding banks observed throughout the reach. The bed is composed primarily of sand and exhibits little to no bedform diversity. This reach is an E -type
channel that approaching a G -type channel along most of the reach. A mix of bed aggradation and degradation were observed with the aggradation driven by sediment inputs from
bank erosion and the overall watershed. The riparian buffer consists of a full canopy of young hardwoods and pines, averaging over 100 feet wide.
Reach BU10, an intermittent channel with a drainage area of 0.03 square miles (19 acres), flows north into reach BU9. Reach BU10 is a 300 linear feet G -type channel, its bed is
comprised of sand and gravel and its average slope is 0.0347 ft/ft. The upstream portion of the channel is braided with irregular banks and the downstream portion is oversized and
actively down cutting. The riparian buffer is comprised of mostly young pines and scattered hardwoods, averaging over 100 feet in width.
Reach BU11 is an intermittent channel with a drainage area of 0.01 square miles (9 acres), flows south into BU9. The upstream portion of the reach is a C-type channel but transitions
to an E -type channel as it moves down the valley. The average channel slope is four percent and the channel bed is primarily comprised of sand. The channel is actively down cutting
and is a significant sediment source to downstream reaches. The riparian buffer is comprised of young hardwoods and pines, averaging over 100 feet in width.
Reach CH1 is a perennial channel with a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (46 acres) that flows north to CH3. This E -type channel has an average slope of 0.8% with a bed
composed of coarse sand. Bedrock grade control was observed in several locations along the reach. Bed and banks exhibit localized areas of severe instability. The riparian buffer
averages over 50 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of pine, hardwoods and localized areas of privet. A small section of the right buffer beyond the 50 feet is open field.
Reach CH2 is a perennial channel with a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (44 acres) that flows north to the confluence of CH1 and CFO. This E -type channel has an average of 1.6%
with a bed composed of coarse sand. The channel bed and banks are stable throughout this reach. The riparian buffer averages over 50 feet wide along the entire reach and is
composed of pine, hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
Reach CH3 is a perennial channel with a drainage area of 0.14 square miles (90 acres) that begins at the downstream end of CH1 and CH2 and flows north to CH6. This E -type channel
has an average slope of 0.7%. The channel bed is a mix of sand, gravel, and bedrock grade control was observed in several areas along the reach. Channel bed and banks are stable
with localized areas of erosion along the reach. The riparian buffer averages over 50 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of pine, hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
Reach CH6, a perennial channel, flows to the north connecting reaches CH3 and CHB. This G -type channel is moderately entrenched with localized areas of severe bank erosion. The
channel bed is predominantly coarse sand and exhibits limited bedform diversity. The riparian buffer averages over 50 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of mostly pine,
a few scattered hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
Reach CH8 is a perennial channel with a drainage area of 0.28 square miles (178 acres) that flows north beginning at a headcut, which marks the end of CM, and continuing to the
confluence with MB1. This G -type channel exhibits moderate to severe bed and bank erosion throughout the reach. The channel bed is predominantly coarse sand and exhibits limited
bedform diversity. The valley is narrow in the upper segments and widens as it approaches the confluence with M131. The lower end appears to have been historically channelized. The
riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of mostly pine, with a few scattered hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
Reach MB1, a perennial channel with a drainage area of 0.39 square miles (250 acres), flows northeast from BU9 past a confluence with CH8 to MB3. The E -type channel is mildly
incised, and the bed is covered with coarse sand deposition (minimum of 6 inches thick) with no bedform diversity. The reach exhibits moderate to severe bed and bank erosion
throughout the reach. Bank instabilities and associated erosion is moderate throughout. The riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of
pine, hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
Reach MB2 is an intermittent channel with a drainage area of 0.03 square miles (22 acres) that begins at the edge of an agricultural field and flows to the east to the confluence with
reach MB1. This E -type channel has a coarse sand bed with limited bedform diversity. The upper portion of the reach is stable while the downstream portion of the reach is actively
down cutting with localized areas of severe bank erosion. The riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of pine, hardwoods and localized
areas of privet.
Reach MB3 is a perennial channel that flows to the east and is the most downstream reach of the project. Both reaches MB4 and M135 enter the channel near the middle of the reach
and the furthermost downstream section of the reach becomes the border of the easement. The drainage area for the upstream portion of the reach is 0.66 square miles (421 acres)
and increases to 0.96 square miles (614 acres) for the downstream portion of the reach. The channel is slightly oversized and sediment deposition throughout the reach is high
resulting in low bedform diversity. However, there are some steeper sections where the substrate coarsens, and cobble is prevalent. Overall, lateral bank instability is moderate with a
few localized areas of severe bank erosion. The riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of pine, hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
Reach MB4 is an intermittent channel with a drainage area of 0.13 square miles (81 acres) that flows north into reach MB3. This E -type channel has a channel bed composed primarily
of sand that is predominantly stable. The riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide along the entire reach and is composed of pine, hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
Reach MBS, an intermittent channel with a drainage area of 0.02 square miles (11 acres), flows south into reach MB3. The E -type channel bed is comprised of sand, silt, and clay and
exhibits gully features along the downstream sections. The channel is oversized and is actively down cutting within the downstream end. The riparian buffer averages over 100 feet wide
along the entire reach and is composed of pine, hardwoods and localized areas of privet.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
G Yes r No f Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 2 - USGS - Bucher.pdf
1.36 MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 4 - Soils Map - Bucher.pdf 2.29MB

4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
5.93
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
15,624
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways through streamwetland complexes with appropriate cross-sectional dimension and slope that will
provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream characteristics, such as stable
cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during flooding events.
The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USAGE, 2003), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives,
such as restoring the riparian buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating invasive species.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Bucher Mitigation Project will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed
characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of analytical and analog based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic
improvements. The Project will include Priority I Restoration, Enhancement Level I, Enhancement Level 11, and Preservation. Priority I Restoration reaches will incorporate the design of a
single -thread meandering channel, parameters based on data taken from the reference site described above and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Enhancement activities will involve
a mix of bank grading, installation of grade control, installation of bank stabilization and installation of habitat features. The distinction between Enhancement Level I and 11 was made
based on level of work required as well as the functional uplift provided by the work being conducted. Preservation will not involve any channel work and is justified based on USACE
Guidance (dated 12-5-2012) due to WS -K1 classification and discussed developmental pressure.
Engineering analysis will be performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the design. A combination of methods will be used to estimate bankfull discharge, and
larger flood events. A HEC -RAS model will then be used to simulate water surface elevations of flows generated by the hydrologic analysis. The development of the HEC model is an
important component to the design; therefore, model input parameters are field verified when possible. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as
bankfull or dominant discharge) will be determined. The subsequent design will be based on this calculated discharge. As part of the design process, a qualitative analysis of sediment
supply will be performed by characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of windshield surveys, existing land use data, and historical aerial photography, followed up by
groundtruthing, will be analyzed to assess existing and past watershed conditions and to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment supply. Design
parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data, watershed characterizations, and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be confirmed with shear stress and
velocity analyses.
Geomorphic and habitat studies will be performed concurrently with the engineering analyses. While stream design will be verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes,
analogs of desirable habitat features will be derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both in -stream and riparian habitat features will be designed. In -stream
structures will be used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability may further be
enhanced through the installation of brush toes, live stakes and cuttings bundles. Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from on site to the
elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel, installing channel plugs where necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer,
which will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native
material revetment techniques (i.e., bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants vhere possible.
Reach BU1: A Preservation approach is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer and treatment of invasives
Reaches BUZ BU3, and BU4
A pond bed restoration approach was used for these reaches to address historical impoundment. Restoration activities will include
Draining the existing impoundment and permanently breaching the earthen dam,
Removal of unsuitable pond bed material from proposed floodplain,
Removal and offsite disposal of trash,
Grading a new single thread channel in the existing pond footprint,
Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
Establishing a riffle pool sequence throughout the reaches,
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
Remove existing culvert crossings,
Riparian planting.
Reach BU6
A mixed approach of restoration and preservation was used for these reaches to address historical drainage area dislocation by the upstream impoundment. Restoration activities will
include:
Draining the existing impoundment and permanently breaching the earthen dam,
Reconnecting the relic channel to the upstream drainage area.
Filling the existing pond spillway.
Invasive vegetation treatment.
The downstream preservation area will have a minimum 50 -foot buffer established along the reach.
Reach BU7
A Preservation approach is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer, treatment of invasives, and revegetating the buffer with
native vegetation as needed.
Reaches BLI9 and MBI
A priority I restoration approach is proposed for these reaches to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and bed instability. Restoration activities include:
Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
Establishing a riffle pool sequence throughout the reach,
Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
Filling the existing channel,
Riparian planting,
Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reaches MB3-A and MB3-B
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for reaches MB3-A and B to address localized bank erosion and limited bedform diversity. Enhancement activities will include:
Grading in a point bar near station 63+30,
Installing a riffle grade control and a log j -hook near station 65+00,
Installing a log sill near station 67+62,
Installing a log j -hook near station 68+64,
Installing a log j -hook near station 69+18,
Bank grading from station 74+50 to 76+00,
Installing a brush toe from station 75+25 to 75+75,
Bank stabilization near station 77+45,
Bank grading on the right bank from station 77+90 to 80+50,

invasive vegerauon [rea[mem,
Protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer.
The right bank of MB3-C is outside of the easement; therefore, the left bank will be protected in easement, but the reach will be not be used to generate credit.
Reach BU10
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address channel braiding, channel incision, bank erosion, and offsite sediment loading. Enhancement activities will
include:
- Installing an engineered sediment pack near station 00+15 and along an ephemeral tributary,
Installing a log sill near station 00+97,
Plugging au>aliary channels,
Installing a log sill near station 01+74,
Installing a log sill near station 02+52,
Invasive vegetation treatment,
Protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer.
Reach BU11
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address channel incision, bank erosion, and offsite sediment loading. Enhancement activities will include:
Installing an engineered sediment pack near station 00+90,
Installing a log sill near station 01+05,
Installing a log sill near station 01+53,
Installing a log sill near station 02+03,
Installing a log sill near station 03+40,
Installing a rock step pool structure from station 04+50 to station 05+11,
Invasive vegetation treatment,
Protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer.
Reach MB2
A Preservation approach is proposed for the upstream portion of this reach. Preservation activities will include protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer, treatment of invasives, and
revegetating the buffer with native vegetation as needed.
A Priority I Restoration approach is proposed for these reaches to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and bed instability. Restoration activities include:
Grading a new single thread channel in the epsting floodplain,
Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
Establishing a riffle pool sequence throughout the reach,
Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
Filling the e>asting channel,
Riparian planting,
Invasive vegetation treatment.
Reach MB4
A Preservation approach is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer and treatment of invasives as needed.
Reach MB5
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address channel incision, bank erosion, and offsite sediment loading. Enhancement activities will include:
Installing an engineered sediment pack near station 00+40,
Installing a log step pool between station 00+74 to 00+92,
Installing a double log drop between station 01+25 to 01+28,
Installing a double log drop between station 01+66 to 01+70,
Installing a log sill near station 02+64,
Installing a log sill near station 03+67,
Invasive vegetation treatment,
Protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer.
Reach CH1
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address channel incision and bank erosion. Enhancement activities will include:
Installing a log sill near station 00+94,
Installing a log sill near station 01+58,
Installing a log cross vane near station 02+06,
Installing a log sill near station 03+12,
Grading a new single thread channel in the epsting floodplain from station 03+92 to 06+03,
Installing a double log drop between station 04+04 to 04+07,
- Installing a log sill near station 04+69,
Installing a double log drop between station 05+01 to 05+47,
Installing a double log drop between station 05+88 to 05+92,
Installing a log sill near station 06+40,
Installing a log cross vane near station 07+41,
Installing a log sill near station 08+80,
Invasive vegetation treatment,
Planting and/ or protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer.
Reach CI -12
A Preservation approach is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer and the treatment of invasives as needed.
Reach CH3
A Preservation approach is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer and the treatment of invasives as needed.
Reach CH6
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address channel incision, bank erosion, and offsite sediment loading. Enhancement activities will include:
Bank grading between station 19+50 and 20+00 at the confluence with CH7,
Bank grading between station 20+50 and 21+25,
Invasive vegetation treatment,
- Protecting a minimum 50 -foot buffer.
Reach CHB
A Priority I Restoration approach is proposed for these reaches to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and bed instability. Restoration activities include:
Grading a new single thread channel in the epsting floodplain,
Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
Establishing a riffle pool sequence throughout the reach,
Installing brush toe protection on meander bends,
- Filling the e>asting channel,

- m1parlan planting,
Invasive vegetation treatment.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Design_Sheets_Bucher _932019_red.pdf
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW -2016-01988
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Ryan Medric and Matt DeAngelo
RES
44.74MB
r Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
Ajurisdictional determination request was sent to the USACE on March 27, 2017 and a site visit with the USACE was conducted on August 31, 2018.
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
Bucher_PJD_Combined_Updated_8222019.pdf 6.69MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
7b. If yes, explain.
There may an add on to the project that includes an additional parcel. However, no work will be conducted on this part of the stream and it will all be preservation so no additional
permitting should be needed.
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
V Wetlands 17 Streams -tributaries V Buffers
P Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
1.140 2.890
2g. Total Wetland Impact
4.030
Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area*
W1
tering of pond they
F
P
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
WB
Yes
Corps
2.860
und
(acres)
W2
Dam breach activities
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WE
No
Corps
1.070
(acres)
W3
Stream restoration
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest _]
WE
�
Corps
0.020
(acres)
W4
Stream restoration
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WG
Yes
Corps
0.070
(acres)
ff
Stream restoration
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WG 2=�
orps
0.010
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
1.140 2.890
2g. Total Wetland Impact
4.030

2h. Comments:
Overall wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the existing wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. The
W1 Impacts will be due to the breaching of a dam which will drain the existing pond in order to return the stream system to the historic hydrologic
condition which will likely impact the current water table and influence the location of these fringe wetlands. However stream restoration efforts and
planting of the floodplain should allow for re-establishment and expansion of these wetlands and then protection in perpetuity through a conservation
easement which will result in overall benefit to the wetland function in the area. The impacts of W2 and W3 are also due to the dam breach activities
and the stream relocation into the relic channel. Majority of these impacts will be temporary. Creating a new stream channel and enhancing existing
channels will only impact wetlands slightly and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the
stream banks. Construction in these areas will remove the invasive species.
3. Stream Impacts
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
5,278
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
3002
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
1,135
3j. Comments:
All permanent stream impacts are due to the relocation of the stream reaches to the natural valley and to restore proper dimensions and profile to the
stream which will provide a net gain in the ecological function to the stream and wetland system. After stream relocation and restoration the total
existing length of stream will increase from 15,624 linear feet to 17,628 linear feet of stream. The temporary impacts are due to enhancement
treatments and are inclusive of adding structures or grading stream channels to improve stream stability in those reaches. These impacts are short
term during the construction time period and will not have longterm negative effects on the stream but will result in overall benefit to the stream
functionality.
4. Open Water Impacts
4a. Site #
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
F
Petty, Lake
Dewatering
Pond
12.24
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1Average
Stream restoration
Permanent
Relocation
BU2
Intermittent
Corps
5
174
(feet)
(lir�rfed)
S2
Stream relocation
Permanent
Relocation
BU6
Perennial
Corps11
460
Aver�e(fed)
(Grt�rfed)
S3
Stream restoration
Permanent
Relocation
BU9
Perennial
Corps9
778
Average (fed)
(lir>�rfed)
S4
Stream restoration
Permanent
Relocation
MBI
Perennial
Cors
P
13
1,617Average
(fed)
(Grtearfeet)
SS
Stream restoration
Permanent
Relocation
Cl
Perennial
Cors
P
8
1,796Average
(feet)
(linear fed)
S6
Stream enhancement
Te ora
� ry
Stabilization
CH1
Perennial
Corps6
95
Average (fed)
(linear fed)
S7
Stream enhancement
Permanent
Relocation
CH1
Perennial
Corps6
214
Average (feet)
(linearfed)
S8
Stream enhancement
Tem ora
P rY
Stabilization
CH1
Perennial
Corps6
65
Average (fed)
(linearfed)
S9
Stream enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
CHS
Perennial
Corps
125
Average (feet)
(linearfed)
S10
Stream enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
BU10
Intermittent
Corps
3
60
Average (feet)
(lir fed)
S17
Stream enhancement
Permanent
Stabilization
BU11
Intermittent
Corps3
79
Average (feet)
(Gr�rfed)
F2]�Stream
enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
BU11
Intermittent
Corps
3
80
Average (feet)
(Gr�rfed)
S13Average
Stream restoration
Permanent
Relocation
MB2
Intermittent
Corps
4
160
(feet)
(Gr�rfed)
S14
Stream enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
MB3-A
Perennial
Corps
15
85
Average (feet)
(Gr�rfed)
S75
Stream enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
MB3-B
Perennial
Corps
15
355
Average (feet)
(Gr�rfeet)
S76
Stream enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
MB5
Intermittent
Corps
4
270
Average (feet)
(Grt�rfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
5,278
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
3002
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
1,135
3j. Comments:
All permanent stream impacts are due to the relocation of the stream reaches to the natural valley and to restore proper dimensions and profile to the
stream which will provide a net gain in the ecological function to the stream and wetland system. After stream relocation and restoration the total
existing length of stream will increase from 15,624 linear feet to 17,628 linear feet of stream. The temporary impacts are due to enhancement
treatments and are inclusive of adding structures or grading stream channels to improve stream stability in those reaches. These impacts are short
term during the construction time period and will not have longterm negative effects on the stream but will result in overall benefit to the stream
functionality.
4. Open Water Impacts
4a. Site #
4a1. Impact Reason
4b. Impact type
4c. Name of waterbody
4d. Activity type
4e. Wate rbody type
4f. Impact area
01
Dam Breach
P
Petty, Lake
Dewatering
Pond
12.24

4g. Total temporary open water Impacts:
0.00
4g. Total open water impacts:
12.24
4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
12.24
4h. Comments:
The dam will be breached for Pettys Lake and three stream channels will be cut through the pond bottom to restore the stream system to its historic
hydrologic stream and wetland complex system. These areas will be planted and become part of the riparian buffer.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
m Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
❑ Goose Creek ❑ Jordan Lake
❑ Other
6b. Impact Type
6c. Per or Temp
6d. Stream name
6e. Buffer mitigation required?
6f. Zone 7 impact
6g. Zone 2 impact
Stream restoration
P
BU1
No
679
0
Stream restoration
T
But
No
3,367
0
Stream restoration
P 11
Bt19
No
10,470 11
1,565
Stream restoration
T
Bug
No
38,022
12,321
Stream restoration
P
MB1
No
6,212
3,521
Stream restoration
T
MB1
No
21,714
11,007
Stream restoration
P
CH1
No
1,154
0
Stream restoration
T
CH1
No
7,543
0
Stream restoration
P
CHB
No
16,291
2,517
Stream restoration
T
CHB
No
52,726
28,619
Stream restoration
P
MB2
No
1,314
159
Stream restoration
T
MB2
No
9,519
3,261
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Total Temporary impacts:
Total Permanent impacts:
Total combined buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
132,891.00 55,208.00
Zone 1
36,120.00
Zone 1
169,011.00
Zone 2
7.762.00
Zone 2
62,970.00
61. Comments:
Although there is an impact to the buffer where the stream channel will be constructed, the buffer as a whole across the site area will be greatly
benefited by planting a variety of hardwood species and the protection of the entire buffer throughout the entire project through a conservation
easement.
Supporting Documentation
Figure 7 - Impacts Map - Bucher_09032019.pdf 1.84MB
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were considered Men designing the Bucher
Mitigation project. A survey of the trees at the site was completed and taken into account during the design so that large impacts on the buffer were
taken into account. This project should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques

Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior to turning stream flow into a
segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally, all work in wetlands and streams
Will be conducted during dry conditions and/or with mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be made to preserve individual high value trees located
Within the stream restoration area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This is a stream restoration project and therefore, compensatory mitigation is not required as the entire basis of the project is to restore for impacts to aquatic resources.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR) t"J
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
C Yes O No
What type of SCM are you providing?
❑ Level Spreader
❑ Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHW T)
❑ Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
❑ Other SCM that removes minimum 30% nitrogen
® Proposed project will not create concentrated stormwater flowthrough the buffer
Diffuse Flow Documentation
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in an additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there Will be an increase in water
quality within the project, due to the restoration and enhancement of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, and the establishment of a
conservation to be protected in perpetuity.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r No r NVA
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*

r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
Se. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
Sf. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?'
r Yes r No
r Unknown
51. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database and Public Notice period to allowfor comments from USFWS
Consultation Documentation Upload
USWFSresponse.pdf 50.05KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO GIS Database
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
SHPO_RESPONSE.pdf 32.54KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The design and permitting of the mitigation work will include coordination with the Durham County Floodplain Administrator and a No -Rise Certification
or CLOMR/LOMR.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA National Floodplain Hazard Layer; Panel 3720086300K effective 10/19/2018
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Figures_PCN.pdf
5.95MB
Bucher _WOUS_11 x17_ PCN_8222019.pdf
1.68MB
Bucher—PCN Cover Letter.pdf
200.77KB
Bucher Aquatic Resource Inventory Table_UPDATED_FINAL.pdf
53.15KB
v
Signature k-^'
*

m By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
. I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
. I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
. I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Jamey McEachran
Signature
Date
9/16/2019

A

Durham County Soil Survey (1976)
Ei
Jsc
CC
CrB !
f �
C: r,
r WsE • _
WISC
WSC
frr WSC tiVsE \
C;rs u 1
• ��
rt3
.W B
WSC
1N5 t - C r B�
1' rfir
a f ti
-.RQ rsons
5ry 'V4E E3j� _4 ,
I � r , L �i s ' h ch urc ,
I'ioln inh
Cr c -
WSIC
iCrB�
NRCS Web Soil Survey (2019)
Ok
fires
N
W E
S
0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 4 - Mapped Soils
Bucher
Mitigation Project
Durham County, North Carolina
FA Date: 8/21/2019 I Drawn by: HKH
Checked by: XXX 1 in = 1,000 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement - Phase I
Proposed Easement - Phase II
�r°
Hydric (100%)
:,rB
ll� Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
rB 1 Predominantly Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)

��W
S1
B1 & B2
r-..
1 W2&W i
S8
S7
W4&W5
B11 & B12
S9
E�
S13; p
617-6-B 20
S16
--(. .. 7\
S15
fires
s F
0 250 500
Feet
Figure 7 - Project Impacts
Bucher
Mitigation Project
Durham County,
North Carolina
Date: 9/3/2019
Checked by: JRM
I Drawn by: MDE
1 in = 500 feet
pact ID
Aquatic Resource
Temp/Perm/Zone
Area/Length
Legend
W1
WB
Perm
2.86 ac
W2
W3
WE
WE
Temp
Perm
1.07 ac
0.02 ac
Study Area
W4
W5
WG
WG
Temp
Perm
0.07 ac
0.01 ac
Proposed Easement
S1
BU2
Perm
174 ft
Existing Wetlands
S2
BU6
Perm
460 ft
S3
BU9
Perm
778 ft
—Existing Top of Bank
S4
MB1
Perm
1,617 ft
S5
S6
CH8
CHI
Perm
Temp
1,796 ft
95 ft
Proposed Top of Bank
S7
CHI
Perm
214 ft
S8
CHI
Temp
65 ft
Impact Type
S9
CH6
Temp
125 ft
Wetland
S10 BU10 Temp
60 ft
S11
Bull
Perm
79 ft
®Permanent
Impact
S12
Bull
Temp
80ft
S13
MB2
Perm
160ftTemporary
Wetland
0
S14
MB3-A
Temp
85 i_
Impact
355 ft
S15 MB3-B Temp
S16
MB5
Temp
270 ft
Open Water Impact
01
Pettys Lake
Perm
12.24 ac
-Buffer Zone 1 (Perm)
B1
BU1
Zone 1 - Perm
679 sqft
B2
But
Zone 1 -Temp
3,367 sqft
Buffer Zone 1 (Temp)
B3
BU9
Zone 1 - Perm
10,470 sqft
B4
BU9
Zone 1 -Temp
38,022 sqft
® Buffer Zone 2 (Perm)
B5
BU9
Zone 2 -Perm
1,565 sqft
B6
BU9
Zone 2 -Temp
12,321 sqft
® Buffer Zone 2 (Temp)
B7 MB1 Zone 1 - Perm
6,212 sqft
B8
MB1
Zone 1 -Temp
21,714 sqft
B9
MB1
Zone 2 - Perm
3,521 sqft
B10
MB1
Zone 2 - Tem p
11,007 sqft
B11
CHI
Zone 1 - Perm
1,154 sqft
B12
CHI
Zone 1 -Temp
7,543 sqft
B13
CH8
Zone 1 - Perm
16,291 sqft
B14
CH8
Zone 1 -Temp
52,726 sqft
B15
CH8
Zone 2 - Perm
2,517 sgft
B16
CH8
Zone 2 - Temp
28,619 sqft
B17
MB2
Zone 1 - Perm
1,314 sqft
B18
MB2
Zone 1 - Temp
9,519 sqft
B19
MB2
Zone 2 - Perm
159 sqft
B20
MB2
Zone 2 - Temp
3,261 sqft

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
November 28, 2016
John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Street, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Add Bucher Stream Mitigation Site to the New -Con Umbrella Mitigation Bank, SAW 2016-01988,
Durham County, ER 16-2084
Dear Mr. Thomas:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review 0aricder.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
kA k V"7
60YRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Pas [phone]/807-6599

��
fj ,
Afty
luiod Mea pueldn
}ulod eled puellem
weaals
PUellOm
puod
eaay Apnjs _
puabaj
V18C :A9 pajoayo z :suoisinab
30W :A9 umej0 61MM8 :91e0
euiIoaea y}aoN
`Alunoa we4ana
;aafoad u011e61M
aay3n8
sn a43 ;o saa;eM •
pueµaM-uoN pue puBROM
lei;uWd
xaad
009 oaz o
d s
SOA
Py pnOOP°b
NX

Waters -Name
State
Cowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas Type
Amount Units
Waters Type
Latitude
Longitude Local Waterway
BU1
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
593 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0280991
-78.7947998 Falls Lake
BU6
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1069 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0337982
-78.7934036 Falls Lake
BU7
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
682 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0345001
-78.7913971 Falls Lake
BU8
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
171 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0349998
-78.7906036 Falls Lake
BU9
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1080 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0344009
-78.7897034 Falls Lake
BU10-A
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
214 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0340004
-78.7897034 Falls Lake
BU11
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
441 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0357018
-78.7891998 Falls Lake
CHI
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
820 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0275993
-78.7861023 Falls Lake
CH2
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
844 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0292015
-78.7873993 Falls Lake
CH3
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
930 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0292015
-78.7873993 Falls Lake
CH4
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
279 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.0289993
-78.7869034 Falls Lake
CH6
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
570 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03129960
-78.78749850 Falls Lake
CH7
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
151 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03150180
-78.78649900 Falls Lake
CH8
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1687 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03269960
-78.78749850 Falls Lake
MB1
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
1129 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03560
-78.78760 Falls Lake
MB2
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
403 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03810120
-78.78679660 Falls Lake
MB3
NORTH CAROLINA
R5
Linear
3174 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03779980
-78.78579710 Falls Lake
MB4
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
1174 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03590010
-78.78379820 Falls Lake
MB5
NORTH CAROLINA
R4
Linear
213 FOOT
DELINEATE
36.03990170
-78.78459930 Falls Lake
Wetland A
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.78 ACRE
DELINEATE
36.02830120
-78.79389950 Falls Lake
Wetland B
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
2.87 ACRE
DELINEATE
36.03110120
-78.79450230 Falls Lake
Wetland E
NORTH CAROLINA
PEM
Area
2.07 ACRE
DELINEATE
36.03390120
-78.79299930 Falls Lake
Wetland G
NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
Area
0.21 ACRE
DELINEATE
36.02899930
-78.78659820 Falls Lake
Petty's Lake
NORTH CAROLINA
POW
Area
12.24 ACRE
DELINEATE
36.03200000
-78.79400000 Falls Lake
Pond A
NORTH CAROLINA
POW
Area
0.22 ACRE
DELINEATE
36.02950000
-78.79330000 Falls Lake

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 3, 2016
John Thomas
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: EBX-Neuse I, LLC / SAW -2016-01988/ Durham County
Dear Mr. Thomas:
RECEIVED
NOV 0 9 2016
RALEIGH REGULATORY
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, as advertised in the Public Notice, is expected to have minimal
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, we have no objection to the activity as
described in the permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1=973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely
affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe that the
requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember that
obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies impacts of this
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at <hfp://www.fws.gov/raleigli>. Our web page contains a
complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of concern
known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Emily Wells at [phone],
extension 25.
Sincerely;
Pete Bei jam in,
Field ipervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort; NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

Lake Ridge Hickory Hill Boat Ramp Q
r-sa Aero Park-8NC8 4
a
R�w�od Re
t
Durham County v
Redwood Convenience.-. O First Ledge Rock
F, .1 Baptist Church
+s
320 watersports Ministry
4 ,,.�'� `
I—
►ST _ E�``S�
e°
G .A
MST Cheek
"^n Rd Trallhead
s
�o �aWooand l
8
V
11U.r Creek v
Ity Space
EL IMPERIAL
PLAZA OE TOROS
Yarbrough Customs q g41
Triangle o
Driveshaft Services
The Heritage Grill e�
,S
Q A TouCh Of CIa85 180°
Redwood VolunteerPlainview Baptist Church
a' Fire Department
,moo �i k'�Slnu•-1I Club
BF G µRd
s � � Redwood Body Shap
4 4
Raugemant
BPv c�Rd� a Stem
Q Bahama
Schley a n
Butner Creedmoor
Event Pros Q 'Ao- L
Fran
+
arough so+
Grissom
7
Wind You
Legend 3ckwood a ft Q stony Hi II Wake ores
Study Area Bet silo
R
Chapel Hill Buse
8 -digit HUC - 03020201 Blands Bucher
teniae Mitigation Project
TLW -03020201050010 _ k
rrisville
N Date: 8/22/2019
Figure 1- Project Vicinity
" e Drawn by: MDE res
i u
B
S cher Mitigation Project
i Checked by: JRM
0 1,000 2,000
Durham County, North Carolina finch =2,000 feet
Feet

Ah

r -
►asT,
� .k Y w*yi A ." .'" k+ "+A f.� • S y e1 1"d Yi„A- y r
y,, 5
e� ry ,r... r-,..� Y.= 1f d:'a ,R.'YR•eoz ia�'� "i f+1hi
a
Legend
Study Area
Existing Pond
Existing Wetland
T ---T Powerline
Stream Determination
-- Intermittent
Perennial
f
n WG
- t-
7',
_.rte~
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
Bucher Mitigation Project
1 4 11 800
Durham County, North Carolina.. :•1
fires

Durham County Soil Survey (1976)
-. . C
WsC eek } CFC'.
`'r
G
IrB
VV sc
wsc
IF
w5c 77 -
IJ
r WsB ti �
• % C:rq u` 1
W W5$
Irc
(((fff ,
---� _ W B
Ws cr's
CrC
1r E3 /// ► % — V
ti Mfr / N : • }Robeysons � .a
Ch u rch
� �Cr
-
p" / Plain View
I... CrB, r Church f
W.
rB
NRCS Web Soil Survey (2019)
WsB Ws6
W C'o'w W r
RO SCC WsE■0
N
W E
S
0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 4 - Mapped Soils
Bucher
Mitigation Project
Durham County, North Carolina
Date: 8/22/2019 Drawn by: HKH
Checked by: XXX 1 in = 1,000 feet
Legend
t�2
r r0 Study Area
rB Hydric (100%)
n Predominantly Hydric (66-99 6)
B Predominantly Hydric (33-650)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-[)
,10 Nonhydric (0%)
j 1 I f J f ��+::l►��rir+i��,��

U
y1kL � Y
F
"r
_ 0
A_R EA C
.1
M
Legend
Study Area
Zone AE
® Zone Future Conditions 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
- .2% Chance Annual Flood (NONE)
Regulatory Floodway (NONE)
N
Date: 8/22/2019
Figure 6 - FEMA Flood Mapping
" _ E Drawn by: MDE
s Bucher Mitigation Project
0 400 800 Checked by: JRM
Durham County, North Carolina 1 inch = 800 feet
Feet

��W
S1
B1 & B2
r-..
1 W2&W i
S8
S7
W4&W5
B11 & B12
S9
E�
S13; p
617-6-B 20
S16
--(. .. 7\
S15
fires
s F
0 250 500
Feet
Figure 7 - Project Impacts
Bucher
Mitigation Project
Durham County,
North Carolina
Date: 9/3/2019
Checked by: JRM
I Drawn by: MDE
1 in = 500 feet
pact ID
Aquatic Resource
Temp/Perm/Zone
Area/Length
Legend
W1
WB
Perm
2.86 ac
W2
W3
WE
WE
Temp
Perm
1.07 ac
0.02 ac
Study Area
W4
W5
WG
WG
Temp
Perm
0.07 ac
0.01 ac
Proposed Easement
S1
BU2
Perm
174 ft
Existing Wetlands
S2
BU6
Perm
460 ft
S3
BU9
Perm
778 ft
—Existing Top of Bank
S4
MB1
Perm
1,617 ft
S5
S6
CH8
CHI
Perm
Temp
1,796 ft
95 ft
Proposed Top of Bank
S7
CHI
Perm
214 ft
S8
CHI
Temp
65 ft
Impact Type
S9
CH6
Temp
125 ft
Wetland
S10 BU10 Temp
60 ft
S11
Bull
Perm
79 ft
®Permanent
Impact
S12
Bull
Temp
80ft
S13
MB2
Perm
160ftTemporary
Wetland
0
S14
MB3-A
Temp
85 i_
Impact
355 ft
S15 MB3-B Temp
S16
MB5
Temp
270 ft
Open Water Impact
01
Pettys Lake
Perm
12.24 ac
-Buffer Zone 1 (Perm)
B1
BU1
Zone 1 - Perm
679 sqft
B2
But
Zone 1 -Temp
3,367 sqft
Buffer Zone 1 (Temp)
B3
BU9
Zone 1 - Perm
10,470 sqft
B4
BU9
Zone 1 -Temp
38,022 sqft
® Buffer Zone 2 (Perm)
B5
BU9
Zone 2 -Perm
1,565 sqft
B6
BU9
Zone 2 -Temp
12,321 sqft
® Buffer Zone 2 (Temp)
B7 MB1 Zone 1 - Perm
6,212 sqft
B8
MB1
Zone 1 -Temp
21,714 sqft
B9
MB1
Zone 2 - Perm
3,521 sqft
B10
MB1
Zone 2 - Tem p
11,007 sqft
B11
CHI
Zone 1 - Perm
1,154 sqft
B12
CHI
Zone 1 -Temp
7,543 sqft
B13
CH8
Zone 1 - Perm
16,291 sqft
B14
CH8
Zone 1 -Temp
52,726 sqft
B15
CH8
Zone 2 - Perm
2,517 sgft
B16
CH8
Zone 2 - Temp
28,619 sqft
B17
MB2
Zone 1 - Perm
1,314 sqft
B18
MB2
Zone 1 - Temp
9,519 sqft
B19
MB2
Zone 2 - Perm
159 sqft
B20
MB2
Zone 2 - Temp
3,261 sqft