20130412 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20140609

• (� r b l 1
1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
7n WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF June 5, 2014
Regulatory Division/1200A
Action ID: SAW - 2013 -00753
D
Mr. John Hutton JUN 0.9 2014
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S Mint St. Suite 104 D - to
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 'm"' r �rancn
Dear Mr. Hutton:
This letter serves as the initial evaluation for the proposed Hoosier Dam Umbrella Mitigation
Bank Prospectus, which was received on February 11, 2014. The Hoosier Dam Site is proposed
as the initial bank site for inclusion into the Hoosier Dam Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The
proposed plans are to restore approximately 22,425 linear feet of stream channel impounded by
the Hoosier Dam, including 16,060 linear feet of the Rocky River, and 6,365 linear feet of six
tributary streams. The proposed plan includes the establishment of a conservation easement and
monitoring the site for 7 years. A public notice for the proposed mitigation bank was issued on
March 13, 2014, and the written comments from several of the Interagency Review Team (IRT)
members, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and several adjacent property
owner /private citizens were received and are included as an attachment to this letter. These
comments were also provided to you during an April 29, 2014 pre - application meeting with the
Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Based on our review of the prospectus, our previous site visits to the proposed site and the
written comments provided in response to the public notice, we have determined that this
proposed bank has potential to provide appropriate compensatory mitigation for Department of
the Army (DA) permits. This determination does not approve your proposed bank but is made in
compliance with 33 CFR 332.8 which authorizes you to proceed with the preparation of a draft
Mitigation Bank Instrument (MBI) for the proposed Hoosier Dam Umbrella Mitigation Bank.
Please consider and address all the attached comments as you prepare your draft mitigation
banking instrument and mitigation plan.
Also, please consider and address the following comment from The USACE:
1) In an electronic correspondence dated July 3, 2013 regarding this project, the Corps of
Engineers requested that a jurisdictional determination be conducted for this project and
included in the prospectus. To date, a jurisdictional determination for this site has not
Printed on@ Recycled Paper

i`
i
been conducted. You must identify and quantify all jurisdictional waters within the
project area and include the source of hydrology for each. As part of your jurisdictional
determination, you should complete USACE and North Carolina Division of Water
Resources ( NCDWR) stream forms, upstream of the impounded areas, in order to
describe the anticipated return of functions. You will also need to assess the potential
impacts to all wetlands from the proposed dam removal. Any wetland impacts that cannot
be avoided may require a separate compensatory mitigation plan. Furthermore, depending
upon the amount of loss of wetland resources, and /or adverse impacts to other aquatic
resources, an individual DA permit may be required for this project. Please be aware that
even if a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and mitigation plan for this proposed
project is approved, the DA individual permit authorization would be issued or denied
base upon criteria as determined by our Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and public interest
review.
2) Additional information regarding impacts of the proposed work on the six (6) tributaries
will need to be addressed in the draft mitigation plan. As the impact to the tributaries has
not yet been addressed, the amount of credit, if any, to be provided by these tributaries,
will need to be determined after review of the draft plan. As mentioned by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) in their April 10, 2014 letter,
additional information regarding the establishment of the impoundment limits of the
tributaries, establishment of appropriate aquatic communities, determination of habitat
for threatened and endangered species within the tributaries and the use of wooded
buffers will be necessary regarding the final establishment of potential credits (also see
number 5, below).
3) Please be aware that the credit release schedule and service area have not been
determined. These items still need to be resolved and will depend, in part, on much of the
information that will be included in the draft mitigation plan and draft mitigation banking
instrument.
4) Based on comments received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), we have
initiated informal consultation regarding the Cape Fear Shiner by letter dated June 5,
2014. Please consider all information provided during this process and incorporate it into
your draft mitigation plan and draft MBI.
5) As indicated in your prospectus and the April 15, 2014 letter from the NCDWR and the
April 10, 2014 letter from NCWRC, additional water quality monitoring, aquatic
community data and geomorphic data (both pre and post removal) will be necessary to
aid in the development of performance standards and credit determination. This data
collection should be coordinated with the IRT as the draft mitigation plan and draft MBI
are developed.

6) As indicated in your prospectus, a more detailed evaluation of sediment quantity and
quality above the Hoosier Dam must be completed and a more detailed sediment
management plan must be developed. As indicated by the USFWS and the NCWRC in
their April 10, 2014 letters, the plan should discuss how sediment is to be managed
before and during the removal and include the anticipated impacts of sediment movement
post- removal. You should also include any proposed mitigation and monitoring
associated with the sediment removal.
7) Please continue to coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding
potential impacts to cultural resources.
8) Please consider and address the recreational uses of the existing resource by the adjacent
property owners /citizens expressed in the attached letters.
Upon receipt of a draft mitigation banking amendment and mitigation plan for this project,
we will review these documents and make a determination regarding whether they are complete
as described in 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(6).
Please contact Andrew Williams at 919 -554 -4884, extension 26 if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Z r v�
:��Jean B. Gibby
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Attachments
Copies furnished (w /attachment):
Mr. Eric Kulz
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650

Mr. Todd Allen Bowers
Permit Review Specialist
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA — Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW"
Atlanta, GA 30303 -8960
Ms. Shari Bryant
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
P.O. Box 129
Sedalia, North Carolina 27342 -0129
Mr. Peter Benjamin
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
Ms. Renee Gledhill- Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -4617
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

Brown, Thomas L SAW
From:
Shearin, Renee [renee.shearin @ncdcr.gov]
Sent:
Friday, March 07, 2014 4:28 PM
To:
Brown, Thomas L SAW
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Remove Hoosier Dam
Attachments:
ER 13- 0776.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Our response is attached. Thank you.
Renee Shearin
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4716
919 - 807 -6584
Please see http: / /www.hpo.ncdcr.gov /er /er email submittal.html
< http: / /wwv.hpo.ncdcr.g_ov /er /er email submittal.html> for guidelines on submitting
projectsfor environmental review.
Environmental Review projects may be submitted to environmental.reviewoncdcr.Rov
<mailto: environmental .reviewaOncdcr.gov> . Please only one project per email. Allow 30 days
for our response.
*This message does not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Cultural
Resources. E -Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public business, is
subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law (N.C.G.S. 132) and may be disclosed to third
parties.*
1

d %V-
h
F.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Banos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
March 7, 2014
Thomas Brown
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Proposed Removal of Hoosier Dam on the Rocky River, Chatham County, ER 13 -0776
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for your email of February 21, 2014, transmitting the final prospectus for the above project. We
have reviewed the document and offer the following comments.
There are no recorded archaeological sites in the project vicinity, but the document states that a Phase I cultural
resources investigation is anticipated to be undertaken. We concur with this recommendation and look
forward to review of the document. The investigation should include background research documenting the
history of the dam and the power generating facilities, as well as a pedestrian survey of the project area of
potential effect (APE). The aerial photograph noted Henley's Mill. If a mill exists, background research
should be conducted and the structure or remains investigated. Potential project effects to this mill should be
assessed. We would suggest that the applicant, or their archaeological contractor, meet with staff of the Office
of State Archaeology prior to undertaking the Phase I investigation to ensure that all expectation concerning
the investigation are anticipated.
Two copies of the resulting cultural resource report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms, should
be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of project
implementation.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www .archaeology.ncdcr.gov /ncarch /resource /consultants.htm. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced,archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
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.
Location: 109 Lastjones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

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 renee.gledhill-
carlcvnao,ncdcr.,cov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
( C� -
601(Ramona M. Bartos

307 Misty Grove Circle
Morrisville, NC 27560
March 13, 2014
(919) 271 -8900 nelson c
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attention: Mr. Thomas Brown
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: SAW- 2013 - 00753, March 13, 2014
Compensatory Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Sponsored by 130 of Chatham, LLC
Re: Hoosier Dam, Rocky River
Dear Mr. Brown,
This letter is to express our objection to the above - mentioned project.
RECEIVEC
MAR 1 7, 2014
rtMIA,r, :, tEGULAI o
The Hoosier Dam creates a lake of navigable water in the Rocky River adjacent to property we
own at 25 Nassau Drive, Pittsboro, NC. Removal of the Hoosier Dam will diminish the
navigability of the Rocky River in our location. In so doing, this action will negatively affect the
value and enjoyment of our property.
Section 10 -of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 states:
"That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable
capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful
to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater,
bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river,
or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines
have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized
by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter
or modify the course, location, colodition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor,
canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel
of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the
Chief of EnIzineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same."
Based on my understanding of the project, a Section 10 permit would be required for this work.
There is no Section 10 permit being requested in this public notice. Without a Section 10 permit,
this action is illegal.
Furthermore, the sudden release of water contained by the dam and the subsequent reduction in
the water levels in the impounded area will cause significant adverse impacts to the existing
aquatic resources and surrounding ecology.

Mr. Thomas Brown, SAW- 2013 -00753 RE: Hoosier Dam, Rocky River
March 13, 2014
Additionally, sediment built up behind the dam will be released and dispersed downstream with
the dam removal. The natural movement of this sediment will cause significant adverse impacts
to aquatic resources and the surrounding ecology far removed from the project. The aquatic
resources downstream include potential Cape Fear Shiner (endangered species) habitat. Also,
the disbursement and exposure of this accumulated sediment to the atmosphere will cause the
release of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, leading to an increase in climate
change.
We understand that the applicant presumes the new state of the river would be superior to the
existing conditions, however, without the benefit of the scientific studies required through an
environmental impact statement, how do we know for sure?
Furthermore, it concerns us that projects sponsored by environmental groups are prejudged as
having an overall positive ecological impact and get a "free Pass" in the regulatory review
process by state and federal agencies. How this project is being handled is an example of this
type of bias. It is unfortunate that state and federal regulatory agencies operate with this bias. The
existence of such a bias transforms the regulatory process into an exercise that benefits only
select interests while at the same time hindering others.
Again, because of these and other reasons, we reiterate our objection to the proposed project.
Cordially, ,
414-0— .J� , V"C"j
Nelson Paul
, " � �- o, � ,
Dianna Paul
4

Brown, Thomas L SAW
From: Robin Wiebler - NOAA Federal [robin.wiebler @noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:50 PM
To: Brown, Thomas L SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank 2013 -00753
Attachments: No- Objection_No- EFH_Present 18Mar14.docx
Administrative Assistant
Habitat Conservation Division Atlantic Branch
PHONE: [phone]
Robin.Wiebler(@noaa.gov

gw OF
qO
, ,4,
o in
4'AiES Of Y"
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
26313th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 -5505
hftp://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov
March 18, 2014
Colonel Steven A. Balser District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 -1890
Dear Colonel Baker:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the projects described in the public
notice(s) listed below.
Based on the information in the public notice(s), the proposed proj ect(s) would NOT occur in the
vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council or
NMFS. We also anticipate that any adverse effects that might occur from the project(s) to NOAA trust
resources would be minimal. Consequently, NMFS offers no EFH conservation recommendations
pursuant to the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and no recommendations
under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
NOTICE NO. APPLICANT NOTICE DATE DUE DATE
2013 -00753 Hoosier Dam Mitigation March 12, 2014 April 11, 2014
Bank
Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the activity "may effect" listed species or critical
habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our Protected
Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
Pace Wilber (for)
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
Ny A�E08y�
%Ide
A�NExr Of

-- r-- ,: "'.g -.•-- °;i' =f ;St, t°','s 4';r`- =e'''= *6;°,."'e'?Y•�t.^ "'r' =�L.�' �t'Y'z t'�" '�b'�'� `45;� =�a , {�:: ^ ;„ ,�;+�, it'.1;:eh' °:i '>rt `I, .., ;,4. � - .. a
- ,� #p ,,97��:• "krd ; °,�,m '�f�.y;,. :: y'i`' +: '.i.2's 'r�' +' °; �y4 a„ `¢.- 'h'' :,ti �:rs
, > y U" '�§4ra.F K` rr. ^,�.' ,:,f - ::,Ac'rt -'�z,E- >h.H •.r'- ;�u; max` „'xi,;;- ''..;:va��'` -;.�, ,I
-�' ;
r °'c -', »{I 2 `�Sr n't3 „wv A�`6 °x t°�.:b, : 31'i. ^'a c Fx£�"'” n t'`•� .'t ry''< }tx ;. ,t', }',�Y. •' F,li3' ,. 4f :'! x -� ' .,,P ",`°4'\,�
f.n' d,..:h .ry,
»,,,, .'f ✓.:=•``r =, >sf:r r - lrf' ai
" hSa "tea;. rj":.; k rt., ;rz�� rp < r; .c; ,dr'' :,; �t `
{ -£ &- ';r.F- ,•;':,�' �Y'�y'Sv`� '1�',F, s- ,'�'%sFn,, :. ..i.•M�,. .L, .' - ",'t� "'e1'_ I
fiz:§ _ e�,F ;+ •a N� . � F.2'S e" +'^ i�li 5rC ° ".
o u ay.�' }< , .$.0 d�.'4� i. , C. `T�.- �.rir< :;• �,ir'��':'m.� .+1�r'w. �k,
- J- 1,'• ., `,at'*'x`.`,`54^° ; ".`,ga-"y ".fn` � "5, g:4 a .rcgx ,'r,��.✓ lr U _,.ate' �}, 'i, -'�.
yy, �e �'r y�:,};.,.i,�d i, t:i T_h�'+'.,ifx, -„T,•, y�T'v YS_ fin'`Y,NSh "-' - ya,(.t. j. j.. ti;i
r aX }`( .r
',• +-;h *' _. s;
U
April,$;
LR *y- - - - - - ,'°-T, ,' 2Arrri, ' Co s, of'f ri ineers P R ton District : tr 5 I FI -_"71
:� €,�'��;
`mod j'
Ralei' h Re ulatoTy'Field` Office,
3331 Herita eTrade'Drive, ;Ste-1:�OSr°
g .�_
Wa_ ke"Forest NC 275'87
, -
' - .�_ ___ - _
Attn: ;'Mr• . Thomas $town,,_y
Dear Mr': Brown:
In reference to the Public Notice SAW`-20 13,,. 0075 '1 -1 tdiii­`,writing .to`'voice my-,,,
objections to the _W&k-described'. First of all',, desprte the�ba il! that {pays ".for;the`
serviee, it se ems .1hat the CorpsFWould be,be "tter•used',i'f:work
-
wetlands that Would :`ryaid. in° clean' . gut "the ,pollut orn`to Rocl River duii
Siler City, or biiildirig`earthen'barriers to- coal `ash,ponds;oiit1e:Dann';River;
,= w
than using state.funderd equipment' and. personnel,;.to remo�e,a: darn leld,by' a, single
individual. r, ��,.r ,hi._ ,`' •`�`
However, there are man `reasons for NOT�removin` Wood "Dam:
1. The removal of UVood Dani.,would ±create'a� e-1s N }
y- _ . _ _ swath' of mud:'flats'
hwoul'd'rel`ease`iiethaiie: as into:'the:atmos lerer;`Tlese= `flats•would "make: it ,
impossible for.anyone- ,to= u_se�RoackyR River };att.WoociyDan or,aiiywl
Gabove i__ Where'lake =lfk.& nd `t ons now exist ..w.Th&se i f drflats`:would`make;'- =
;.Roe '"River ;a cesspool rather tliari: a° Tal e: n M
2. r°There, are ilianf s° eci'es-lof anlinals tha'alrea yiuse tYie;,waterW -a - `as" createdr"
`b 'the dam ,Kin` fishers -r ver''otter Great. °I =Ieron nand Iliis,all- use -the
Cbacked =u •Water re ion:.These` are oril
cthe and on a ear= roundy :._.M,• .,� r,'_ ` '
p y basis;f all =`of =whi&,'4ould,diysa ear °if the dam
Were removed`.
3. �All'the ro ert owners ' K,_
p p y who purchased °1'andon-M. oody:
:;across the river, froft, , itf b, "i 't land °.hdwin :,there was'navi abReWater on
!Roc River av it _., "
a able for»bbatiii' ;`; f 5hiri sand "natures walks:; Some
- - aliave even been �k_ _no' ` _� , :. � �,. �b� ��.. �,,;-
wmtoswim in_tlie riuer:Removal'``of,tli'
is dam <v`rould'`rob
p1l the curreiit'­owiiers above tliea da`m�b ,,,thisznavi able. waterwa,x
_ - 8,--' _ r'*e�- t- `;� ",;t,., ���...h,:'�,�:i ,,�¢ i -;•e .. ,"
4. Removal of t' "` '
hef' dam Would, not'sto� floodin° � 4fi -W6 I_'d. on1 ,'lowerl,thet level''
at wl- ich.`tlie river' floods: Bear Creek - flo'ods ' to tl e: o�nt�tliat <sW_ateraevels` ; ` l ''' } ".
• - _ - ` } -_ _ 7 fF ,` °f, °r1-.s.,'� •"y;..;`.�'�,ya r, .;t� ; -y r. °3;+'
have been
tweet ' feet;above normal':`;: ,..:,,., :v,,`' ,;;'i.s,'f' _;,,,...,•,
Y, r.4:...-,', .a{•` +'szH +yrta .r,z.. .,t,t Y; `
' , ^• -. y1:+'::£F;�xv aM14r�, yj`t >.< , �;a '' _ 3,`3�,4..� < .N,e:, +.,�,. {l;��'i'£a,''.. �'� m �..,�
- � ,_ ,1rx, "i. +: - „'"tF- ye24'.:,,,311.,,fti „t't ix. 'ra lGf• °:n`y'1jj aC:v" :,Fi.;., * °:ir '. -'.: "i C1
.. '{' '-b `` � °T.<`n 1, =ygt�Y}.. .^.rf- • °'xT•n Fina Lam' �.o-a .s� 6. 4, Y •n :. f'it C(i� "'a- e`;ei'�: .Y''u��ie�
"4.„
<
..�.4.`3_ 'ins:. -
'
, - „a � t" t3 +z" t�. ^. <l �'`• #' 4 `,q .,�, . , y,;y' y�P „, i. , <e'+ ,
. , .tr� r .3 � it r,q ;'{.j;� ,, t .ay- iJ (s'7', r _ ”: � ,r `,✓! � '
• Y`5 •,a • ' �; v,.',4 °`';. =:�=;_ " = >,y,, ,�'+' } ", 1 ^R �- V"��Y: . ^;,F ".r., �:�! ��,t'i "';;- '9 •r.5,
Tj
._ �__.....>_....._._,___. ��., v";.... ?" s..,.." th., i.-....«....>" ����':,: T,' v"-', �Yi: cr..! �" 'F;r.W.3_•+9:xt`^:t...,,�a;�,�, �,'.1:�...,„, ;_... ,., ,: t:`Fcnli pia ;'- r1 " "`::Gi' <n _ . .. - � ,

5-
Nothing has been said about
us owners,
would profit ftom purchasing electric'ity from• the d'a',ffi on-'elettfitity cdhbe
sold to the power company for profit by Mi:. Sw ""' :iPropefuse of ih&,dhM:I'
eeney
should regulate flooding at least as Owli• d-s-total;
accomplish.
We have 600 feet of waterfront property on R&ky River., The- beauty of tl�e , r i ver',
would be spoiled beyond all cornpare'ff it were, di-aiheo",' lave satand"W"aAdid"
A
0
the wild Canadian 6eese'come and rest on r'ive'r 'as ey's6 le d-
wh fo r the
in devastating: and watching the nN-er'tii m.ed,.into a. flat ld,b� d , - I, cannot
evas a�
state too strongly our objections, to, this, move..
Thank you
A Con" cerned Rocky River: Landowner
4
Y
1 4,
HI,
V
'4w,
U
Mn,
0

vi
Ln
ul
o ZZ
5L

District Engineer,
I am shocked and saddened to read that anyone would send such a proposal
Ri.�e: `'.. 51 Nl IG F. , j
��,� . to i4 E,.� -s: iF, 1•ctl —a 1
MAR 3 1 2014
RALEi F( -' E v1 ULA OR Y
OUJILD
ave-- . _ -
fished in this River since I was a small boy and personally think there is no better place in North Carolina.
130 of Chatham, LLC has not thought or care about the history of this of this Hydro - Electric Dam or the
people and landowners of Chatham County. Also, the Fish, Otter, Mussels, and Minnows that will be
destroyed during this process.
When our phone started ringing from Realtors trying to buy our property 1 had no idea that 130
of Chatham, LLC would gain control of Woody Dam and Power Plant. This is just another ploy to
purchase our land by tearing down the Historic Woody Dam and Power Plant. 130 of Chatham, LLC and
the people working for them will stop at nothing to gain control of the property along Rocky River.
The Woody Dam impoundment is small and very unique and should be preserved for future
generations to fish, look at nature and enjoy.
We have lived on this property since 1989 and have seen the Rocky River at full pool and
drained for repair. If this Dam is taken out there will be very little water and lots of Rocks. I don't think
there will be enough water to support marine life. The high banks and no water will just be an eyesore
to property owners and visitors.
As for water quality,'l think it is fine. I haven't seen a Fish kill since we have been living here.
The Fish are healthy and there are plenty of Shad and Minnows for food. There are Bald Eagles, Rails,
Osprey's, Owls, White Cranes, Woodpeckers, Wood Ducks, Hawks, Mallards and Geese that live along
the Rocky River.
Why would the State, NC Wildlife, Federal, and Core of Engineers allow anyone to come in and
take control of this small Marine area in the first place? I think it would be unhealthy for the
Government to allow this. I think the Federal and State Officials should take over the Woody Dam to
insure flood control downstream. A new Generating System could mean green power for future years.
130 Chatham, LLC should not be allowed to control any River system anywhere in North Carolina or do
work in any River. Money should not be allowed to control our natural resources.
Mr. Clarkston Woody was certainly a pioneer in the Hydro - Electric Power Plant Field. This
system he started is right at 100 years. We need to preserve this in his honor.
Please give me a call and come and look for yourself.
Clyde Perry
2592 Pete Roberson Rd.
Pittsboro, N. C. 27312
Please keep us informed on this Process

Williams, Andrew E SAW
From: Jernigan, Emily [emilyJernigan @fws.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:52 PM
To: Brown, Thomas L SAW; Williams, Andrew E SAW
Cc: Leigh Mann
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hoosier prospectus comments
Attachments: 20140410_ HoosierProspectusComments _CapeFearShiner.pdf
Hey guys,
I wanted to go ahead and get these to you by email to meet the deadline for comments. The
hard copy will be in the mail tomorrow, but I will be out of the office.
Thanks and please let me know if there are any questions, or anything needs clarifying.
Take care and have a good weekend!
Emily
Emily Jernigan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27363 -3726
(919) 856 -4520 ext. 25
1

�pP {sTENT Oir �F /yam United( States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
y4�eH �e "9 Post Office Box 3372,6
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
April 10, 2014
Mr. Thomas Brown, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Division
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.: IIoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Dear Mr. Brown:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project (Action ID: SAW -2013- 00753) based on the description in the public notice,
the mitigation bank prospectus, and other available information; and expects it will have minimal
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a whole. The Corps has preliminarily stated
that this project area has species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (PL 93 -205) that may be affected by the proposed actions, specifically the
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). The Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
jointly worked on surveying efforts in this area involving the Cape Fear shiner, and the species
was found to be present within the past year. The Corps has also stated within the public notice
that they will work with the Service to address concerns related to the listed species in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) through the
appropriate consultation process.
The Service is supportive of the sponsor's conservation minded proposal, and looks forward to
reviewing and discussing appropriate upcoming aquatic surveys and the detailed sediment
management plan associated with the efforts to remove the Hoosier, previously known as
"Woody's" Dam, on the Rocky River of Chatham County, North Carolina. The Service has
noted that the public notice includes the sponsor's six main ecological objectives of the darn
removal which are to: 1) improve local water quality; 2) restore appropriate flow regime and
aquatic community; 3) restore habitat for federally protected aquatic species; 4) restore passage
for aquatic species; 5) preservation and restoration of wooded buffers; and 6) benefit
downstream water bodies. These main objectives have the potential to greatly assist the re-
cormection and restoration of the downstream natural habitat of the Rocky River and its
tributaries with the upstream areas beyond the impounded reaches. These objectives appear to
be well aligned with the overarching goal of enhancing the recovery efforts for the federally
endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and re- connecting the designated Critical
Habitat in this area.

The Service appreciates the efforts to incorporate our comments fiom the May 23, 2013 draft
prospectus review letter into the current prospectus. We understand some of the items we are
concerned with will be addressed in the Mitigation Plan. These conmlents, are re- stated below to
emphasize their importance as the process moves forward. They are as follows:
1. During the draft prospectus review meeting, Emily Jernigan expressed the Service's concerns
with removing the sizeable dam in such a sensitive area for the Cape Fear shiner and numerous
other Federally At Risk and State rare species. The concerns primarily stem from the lack of
available scientific data iii regards to the exact quantity and quality of sediments and nutrients
the dam is holding back (NPDES discharges, runoff, etc.); and how the release of the impounded
water and sediments could potentially negatively affect the downstream ecosystem as a whole.
Specific concerns are for the potential impacts to the Cape Fear shiner and its designated
downstream Critical Habitat associated with the dam removal. In addition to the Cape Fear
shiner, there are several Federal At Risk species that live downstream of the Hoosier Dam
including: Atlantic pigtoe (Fuseonaia masoni); brook floater (Alasmidonta varieosa); and the
Septirna's clubtail (Gomphus septima). North Carolina rare species found downstream of the
dam include: the panhandle pebblesnail (Soinato�ryrus vilginicus); notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta); triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata); Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana);
eastern creekshell (Villosa delunibis); and the creeper (Strophitus undcdatus). As discussed
during our May 13, 2013 meeting, the Service recommends the Corps request to begin the
consultation process, as the proposed activities may affect the Cape Fear shiner, and may
adversely modify the designated Critical Habitat downstream of the dam location depending on
the actions taken. This process will be the most appropriate avenue to adequately address all of
the potential concerns in addition to the desired species benefits associated with this proposed
project.
2. The Service is pleased to know the prospectus states that a sediment management plan will be
established in the Mitigation Plan, and will be developed such that the risk of short -term impacts
to sensitive aquatic communities downstream is minimized, and long -term impacts are avoided
altogether. A sediment management plan should be based on site - specific assessment of
sediment quantity and quality. It should discuss how sediment is to be managed before and
during the removal and include the anticipated impacts of sediment movement post - removal (on
upstream and downstream sediment loading, bank stability, and sediment and water quality),
particularly as related to Cape Fear shiner habitat. Any proposed mitigative measures and
monitoring should also be included.
3. The Service applauds the Bank Sponsor's initial efforts to acquire the majority of the Rocky
River mainstem and associated tributary buffers, and encourages these efforts to continue to
incorporate additional buffers along the entire project reach; as it will benefit the Cape Fear
shiner's habitat and additional aquatic and terrestrial species as a whole. Wildlands Engineering
has indicated that more conservation easements are in the process of being acquired along the
project reach, and the Set-vice supports these conservation efforts. The Service recommends that
in order to receive credit for the approximately 6,365 linear feet of tributaries proposed, the
tributaries should be protected with conservation easements which include a buffer on each side
of the channel; preferably a 300 -foot forested buffer wherever this is possible. We also
2

encourage the establishment of 300 -foot forested buffers and conservation easements on as much
of the Rocky River mainstem as possible. Even with forested buffers and conservation
easements, the Service would be concerned about allowing 1:1 credit ratios for tributary reaches
that are deeply incised, or observed to be lacking in desired natural aquatic fimctions. We look
forward to viewing the impounded areas, reviewing the total property easement acquisitions, and
discussing potential credit ratios.
4. In general, the Service does not have concerns with structuring available credits around goals
of the project (reestablishment of flow, endangered species habitat improvement; water quality
improvement, fish passage, etc.). However, we caution that all goals and success criteria should
be quantifiable and reasonable, and the amount of credits offered -for reaching the goals should
be appropriate for the level of effort and measured level of improvement. We look forward to
discussing potential goals, success criteria, and available credits in an effort to retain consistency
with other proposed dam removal projects.
5. The Service anticipates that the Mitigation Plan will include, at a minimum, proposals for
monitoring of fish passage and habitat quality for the Cape Fear shiner and other rare native
aquatic species, water quality, sediment quantity, quality, and movement, vegetation recruitment
and invasive plants, and shoreline stability, We recommend using appropriate native vegetative
species that would benefit the Cape Fear shiner and the Rocky. River system, such as American
water willow (Jzrstzcia ameJ icarra), when preparing the replanting component of the mitigation
plan. In addition, remedial plans should be included, should the provider fail to meet stated goals
and success criteria, or if adverse impacts are discovered.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comment on this proposed action.
We look forward to future coordination and opportunities for input. If you have any questions
concerning these comments, please contact Emily Jernigan at (919) 856 -4520, Ext. 25, or by e-
mail at <Emily_Jernigan @ fws.gov >.
Sincerely,
Pet enjamin
Field Supervisor
cc:
Todd Bowers, USEPA
Rosemary Hall, USEPA
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ
Eric Kulz, NCDWQ
Dolores Hall, NC Office of State Archaeology
Shari Bryant, NCWRC
3

Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, N.C. 27587
Attention: Mr. Thomas Brown
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am writing regarding Corps Action ID: SAW -2 -13- 00753. Please note that the stated west
longitude places this in eastern North Carolina, not Chatham County. The prospectus fails to disclose
existing uses of Reeves Lake other than power generation.
Existing Use:
Reeves Lake, known to locals as Perry's Pond, is a beautiful body of water. I have enjoyed the
pleasure of fishing and nature- watching there with friends, children, and godchildren since 1974. The
pleasure and satisfaction of teaching these kids how to fish and experiencing their elation upon success is
immeasurable. I do hope to repeat this with my grandchildren.
Endangered Species:
Of the endangered or threatened species listed on page 14 only the Cape Fear Shiner exists at the
proposed site. According to Snelson and Franklin 1971 Copeia (3) pp 449 -462 the range of this species
encompasses the upper reaches of the Haw, Deep and Rocky rivers. The survey noted in the prospectus
on page 1 is dated 1988. It seems prudent that a thorough study over the entire range of distribution is
needed to document the current status of N. mekistocholas, prior to implementation of the proposed
mitigation. In regard to the critical habitat areas mentioned on page 5 under 2.4.1 the so called
disconnection of populations is incomplete. There is nothing to prevent the above dam population
dispersing downstream during periods of high water. Further, there is sufficient shallow water along the
sides of the reservoir to support minnow populations.

Sediment:
It is stated in 3.2.6 on page 13 that preliminary data (not provided) "appears to indicate that
extensive sedimentation above Hoosier Dam has not occurred." Based upon 40 years of experience
fishing Reeves lake from the dam to the rapids at the upper end, I can state with confidence that there is
extensive sedimentation, particularly on the power house side from the dam extending to the first bend
and out to the channel. As a matter of interest, 40 years ago, there was no bend at that point. A logjam
developed and slowed the flow and over the years; the entire area silted in and is now willow flat. There
are also significant areas of sedimentation at several locations upstream. Very serious consideration must
be given to any sediment control and removal.
Environmental concerns and conservation:
Removal of Hoosier Darn will result in greatly diminished habitat for wood ducks and great blue
herons that currently nest there. I suspect also that the healthy otter and muskrat populations that
currently exist will be adversely affected. The resident osprey pair will likely relocate. The fantastic
largemouth bass fishery will no longer exist.
Water Quality:
The statement regarding temperature and dissolved oxygen in the first paragraph on page 11 is a
generalization unsupported by evidence. The single sample site was located 100' above the dam in July,
August, and early September. On August 3, 2003 at a location approximately 600 feet above the dam
with an ambient air temperature of ca. 95F we caught 17 bass along the main river channel at 9 -10' depth
using deep diving crank baits. Over the years we caught hundreds of fish trolling the channel while
bumping the bottom at depths of 16 -18' There is an excellent fishery throughout the water column.
Since Figures 5 -5d are not available on the website prospectus it is impossible to ascertain the
extent of the land holdings of the Bank Sponsor, but it seems that there are still other landowners with
property abutting Reeves Lake. There is no discussion as to how this mitigation, if approved, will affect
these owners and their properties.
The needs and welfare of the people will be better served if this stream mitigation does not occur.
Res p ct lly,
Douglas M. Lay
100 Half Moon Pt.
0/7Z
Chapel ill, NC 27514
� ;C)//�

® Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas Brown, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 10 April 2014
SUBJECT: Public Notice for the Prospectus for the Hoosier Dam Umbrella Mitigation Bank — Rocky
River, Chatham County, North Carolina. Corps Action ID: SAW - 2013 - 00753.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661- 667e),
and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113 -13 1 et seq.).
130 of Chatham, LLC (Bank Sponsor) proposes to establish the Hoosier Dam Umbrella
Mitigation Bank. The Bank is planned as an umbrella bank and the initial bank site will be Hoosier Dam
that includes Rocky River and six tributaries to Rocky River upstream of the dam. The dam impounds
approximately 16,060 linear feet of Rocky River and 6,365 of perennial tributaries. The site also includes
a boulder dam on Rocky River that was installed approximately 4,800 feet upstream of Hoosier Dam.
Hoosier Dam impounds the Rocky River in the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the
federal and state endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis meldstocholas), the federal species of concern
and state endangered Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) and brook floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa); the federal species of concern and state significantly rare panhandle pebblesnail (Somatogyrus
virginicus); the state threatened creeper (Strophitus undulatus) and triangle floater (Alasmidonta
undulata); the state special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta); and the state significantly rare
Eastern creekshell ( Villosa delumbis) in Rocky River downstream of the dam. Upstream of the dam there
are records for the Cape Fear shiner; the federal species of concern and state endangered Atlantic pigtoe
(Fzrsconaia masoni), Carolina creekshell, and brook floater; the federal species of concern and state
significantly rare panhandle pebblesnail; the state threatened creeper and triangle floater; the state special
concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta); and the state significantly rare Eastern creekshell. The
Significant Natural Heritage Areas — Upper Rocky River Aquatic Habitat and Lower Rocky River /Lower
Deep River Aquatic Habitat — are located upstream and downstream of the impoundment. Critical
Habitat for the Cape Fear shiner has been designated upstream and downstream of the dam by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ^ 1721 Mail Service Center ^ Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
10 April 2014
Prospectus — Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Corps Action ID: SAW: 2013 -00753
We anticipate removal of the dam would provide benefits to aquatic species, particularly Cape
Fear shiner. We provided comments on the draft Prospectus (Bryant, May 13, 2013). Some of those
comments have been addressed in the final Prospectus. We offer the following comments or
recommendations regarding the final Prospectus.
Section 1.0, Introduction (p. 1): "The dam impounds approximately 22,425 feet of Rocky River
and six perennial tributaries."
This sentence is confusing because it can be read that the dam impounds 22,425 feet of Rocky
River. We suggest this sentence is changed to reflect that the dam impounds 16,060 linear- feet of
Rocky River and 6,365 linear feet ofperennial tributaries.
Section 1.3, Bank Objectives (p. 2 -3): Table 1 describes the bank goals and methods of
achievement.
Six goals are listed for the bank; however, several of these are restatements. For example, goals
2, 3 and 6 all refer to restoring natural flow regime, managing sediment, and /or improving
habitat.
• Section 2.2, Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights (p. 4): Indicates the hydro facility was bought
by the Bank Sponsor.
The FERC library does not show any records of a transfer of the exemption. Please provide
additional information regarding the transfer of the FERC exemption between the previous
owner and the Bank Sponsor.
• Section 2.3, Proposed Service Area (p. 5): The Bank Sponsor is requesting the proposed service
area for this mitigation bank include Cape Fear HU 03030003, and the urban growth areas of
Cape Fear HU 03030004. The Bank Sponsor indicates these two HUs have the same
physiographic characteristics and the HU boundary is arbitrary.
Generally, we believe the service area should be designated based on the location of the
mitigation bank (i. e., Cape Fear HU 03030003), and using credits outside of the service area
should be determined on a case -by -case basis. However, if additional information is inchided
that documents the physiographic and ecological similarities between the original HU (i.e., Cape
Fear HU 03030003) and the urban growth areas of Cape Fear HU 03030004, then it can be
considered.
Section 2.4.2, Feasibility (p. 7): Under Phase III it indicates removal of the remaining portions of
the dam.
Although it appears to be indicated in previous sections (e.g., Section 1.0), we recommend the
entire powerhouse is removed as well as the dam.
• Section 2.4.2, Feasibility (p. 7): Under Phase III it indicates removal of the remnant rock darn
upstream of Hoosier Dam. The boulders from this dam would be incorporated into habitat
enhancement measures on Rocky River.
We recommend the boulders are placed to mimic natural stream conditions and appropriate in
stream habitat rather than randomly placing the boulders in the stream channel.
• Section 3.2, Baseline Site Conditions (p. 8): A discussion of the baseline site conditions is
included for water quality and threatened and endangered species.
However, there is no discussion of the existing aquatic community (i.e, benthic
macro invertebrates, fish, and freshwater mussels). Baseline (i.e., pre - removal) data for the

Page 3
10 April 2014
Prospectus — Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Corps Action ID: SAW: 2013 -00753
aquatic community should be collected to develop success criteria and to document the specific
changes that occur in the aquatic community following dam removal. The pre - removal (baseline)
and post - removal survey designs should be coordinated with the IRT prior to data collection to
ensure appropriate data is collected to document success criteria have been met. Pre- removal
and post - removal data should be collected in Rocky River and in any tributaries where mitigation
credit is sought. All surveys should be conducted by biologists with both state and federal
endangered species permits. Also, exotic aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species (e.g.,
flathead catfish) that may be present within the mitigation bank, or that may be introduced to the
mitigation bank by removal of the dam should be identified.
• Section 3.2.4, Existing Riparian Buffer Vegetation (p. 8 -9): The Bank Sponsor indicates
approximately 35% of the riparian buffer along Rocky River within the bank limits has been
purchased and protected. In addition, 100% of the buffer along Tributaries 3 and 4, and
approximately 33% of the buffer along Tributary 2 has been purchased and protected.
Information regarding how these riparian buffers are protected (e.g., permanent conservation
easement) should be included.
• Section 3.2.5, Water Quality (p. 9): Baseline water quality data was collected in the summer of
2013 within the reservoir, upstream of the reservoir, and downstream of the dam.
It is likely additional water quality sampling will be needed to establish an adequate baseline. In
addition, specific water quality improvements that will be achieved by removal of the dam (i.e.,
success criteria) should be defined. The pre - removal (baseline) and post - removal survey designs
should be coordinated with the IRT prior to data collection to ensure appropriate data is
collected to document success criteria have been met. Also, in addition to collecting water
quality data in Rocky River, pre- and post - removal water quality data should be collected in any
tributaries where mitigation credit is sought.
• Section 3.2.6, Sediment Characterization and Management (p. 13): Indicates a bathymetric
survey, Tier 1, and possibly Tier 2 analysis of sediment will be performed, and a Sediment
Management Plan will be developed.
We are concerned about sediment and its impact on downstream aquatic resources. In addition
to the Cape Fear shiner, there are several state listed freshwater mussel species downstream.
The volume, level of contamination, and potential risks to downstream aquatic resources will
determine how the sediments should be managed. However, in the past, sediments were required
to be removed (dredged) prior to dam removal in a watershed that supported federally listed
species downstream of the project.
• Section 3.2.7, FERC License (p. 13): It states the Bank Sponsor will surrender the Exemption
#3586 to the FERC License in Compliance with FERC Regulation 4.102.
According to the FERC regulations, the exemption holder must consult with the fish and wildlife
agencies on the plans for disposition of facilities and site restoration. Also, the exemption holder
must fidfill any obligations imposed by FERC and the fish and wildlife agencies for disposition of
facilities and site restoration. It is our understanding the application to be filed with FERC is
essentially the same as a relicensing application, and includes an environmental assessment of
the dam removal and restoration.
Section 4.0, Mitigation Work Plan, (p. 15): Under Dam Demolition and Dewatering Work Plan it
indicates the initial dewatering of Reeves Lake would occur in a manner that minimizes water
quality and ecological impacts to downstream water bodies and aquatic communities while

Page 4
10 April 2014
Prospectus — Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Corps Action ID: SAW: 2013 -00753
maintaining instream flows. Also, in Section 2.4.2, Feasibility (p. 6), under Phase I it indicates
reservoir draining would occur in late fall through early winter through the existing powerhouse.
Detailed information regarding the proposed dewatering of Reeves Lake should be inchrded. We
support dewatering the impoundment during late fall through early winter. Dewatering should
occur in a slow controlled manner that will not result in the scouring or erosion of downstream
habitat, and will not result in the downstream flushing of sediment from within the reservoir. In
addition, details describing how the impoundment will be drawn down, the proposed drawdown
schedule that includes the release flow (cubic feet per second; efs) for the impounded waters, and
how minimum flows downstream of the dam will be maintained during the entire dam removal
process to minimize impacts to aquatic resources should be included.
Also, we request the Bank Sponsor notes NCWRC regarding the date and time dewatering of
Reeves Lake is initiated. We would like the opportunity to relocate any freshwater mussels that
may be stranded during dewatering.
• Section 4.0, Mitigation Work Plan (p. 15): Under Wooded Buffer Restoration Plans it indicates
planting lists and details will be included.
We recommend re- vegetation of riparian buffers with native trees and shrubs. A reference site
located within, near, or adjacent to the bank should be used to develop the plant list for re-
vegetating riparian buffers within the bank. In addition, if it is determined these riparian buffers
will be used for mitigation credit, then success criteria will need to be developed.
• Section 4.0, Mitigation Work Plan (p. 15): Under Monitoring Plan it indicates pre- and post -
removal monitoring will include geomorphic surveys.
If the success criteria for the tributaries will include channel stability, then stream
geomorphology data should be collected immediately after the reservoir is drawn down for use as
pre - removal (baseline) data.
• Section 5.0, Determination of Mitigation Credit (p. 15): It states "The upstream limits of the
impounding effect of the Hoosier Dam on Rocky River and six perennial tributaries were initially
estimated based on the water level of Reeves Lake and LIDAR data for the tributaries. The upper
limits of these inundated areas were visited, photographed, and field verified using hand -held
global positioning system equipment... The final lengths for the Rocky River and each of the six
tributaries will be confirmed by topographic survey of the limits of the impounded area."
In the past, determining impoundment limits has been problematic particularly on tributaries.
Detailed information describing how the impoundment limits were determined should be
included
Section 5.0, Determination of Mitigation Credit (p. 16): Table 3 shows mitigation criteria for
improving water quality, rare, endangered, and threatened species, and protecting wooded
buffers.
The table does not show "establishing an appropriate aquatic community " as part of the
mitigation criteria. Establishing an appropriate aquatic community is listed as a goal in Table 1,
and is an important component in determining the success of a dam removal project. Also, the
aquatic community was not discussed tinder baseline site conditions. Please provide additional
information regarding how "establishing an appropriate aquatic community" will be determined
and how it fits into the mitigation criteria.
° Section 5.0, Determination of Mitigation Credit (p. 16): Table 3 shows credit for Rare,
Endangered, and Threatened Species for Rocky River and each of the six tributaries.

Page 5
10 April 2014
Prospectus — Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Corps Action ID: SAW: 2013 -00753
We question whether all of these tributaries will provide suitable habitat for rare, threatened, or
endangered species. Generally, restoration of the tributaries following dam removal is not as
effective as restoration of the main channel where the dam was located. If credit is sought for
each of the tributaries, then pre - removal and post- removal data will need to be collected in each
of the tributaries to document success criteria were met in each tributary.
Section 5.0, Determination of Mitigation Credit (p. 16): It states "Based on initial comments from
the IRT, generation of stream mitigation credits for water quality improvements and restoration of
rare, threatened, and endangered species for the Rocky River and the six perennial tributaries will
not exceed a ratio of 1:1. The bank sponsor proposes to preserve riparian buffers along a
significant portion of the mainstem of Rocky River and its tributaries. This approach to
preserving buffers along the mainstem. has not been undertaken on any previously approved dam
removal mitigation projects. For this reason, we propose to generate credit above the base 1:1
ratio following the methodology in the rescinded dam removal guidance."
This was apossibility in the rescinded dam removal guidance (i.e., Determining Appropriate
Compensatory Mitigation Credit for Dam Removal Projects in North Carolina, June 19, 2008).
However-, it was anticipated the buffer credits generated would compensate for tributaries that
most likely would not meet all three success criteria (i.e., water quality, aquatic community, rare,
threatened and endangered species) and therefore would not qualify for the 1:1 ratio.
Tributaries are more easily impacted and wooded buffers provide additional protection to the
tributaries. We question whether mitigation credit should be given for any of the tributaries
unless they have protected wooded buffers. Review ofprevious dam removal mitigation banks
has shown tributaries without protected wooded buffers often have significant degradation of
aquatic habitat. We believe fuerther discussion with the IRT is needed regarding mitigation credit
for tributaries and /or wooded buffers.
Also, there appears to be some discrepancy between the percentage of buffer protected on each of
the tributaries as described in Section 3.2.4 (p. 8 -9) and Table 3 (p. 16).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625 or shari.bryantoncwildlife.org.
ec: Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ryan Heise, NCWRC
Jessica Baumann, NCWRC
Chris Goudreau, NCWRC

14
ineers
Trade Drive
NC.27587
APR 14 2014
_
0 ng about. the disheartening idea of removing the Hoosier (Woody)
oZDarn ky River in Chatham County. I have lived on family mily land
bordering the lake area since the 1950's
In the Public Notice dated March 12, 2014. Several reasons were stated as
rationale for removal.
1. Improve water quality -the main culprit is not the dam but the Siler
City wastewater plant.
2, restore appropriate flow to the aquatic community -the many
geese, largemouth bass, crappie, bream, catfish, and herons would
beg to differ if they could speak. Their habitat will be IMPAIRED
SEVERELY!
3. Restore habitat for federally protected species? -
-Cape Fear Shiner - exists above the dam. There are several large
shallow areas above the dam (1 to 4 feet deep)
-Red Cockaded Woodpecker -who made this one up? They are
located in the Sandhills. They live in pine trees. THEY ARE
NOT AND HAVE NOT BEEN ON ROCKY RIVER! -
- Michaux's Sumac- historically never in Chatham County
- American chaffsed -not in Chatham County - likes sandy soils
WHERE DID THIS MISINFORMATION COME FROM ? ??
4. Restore passage for aquatic species -the Shiner exists above the
dam. Is it necessary for those below the dam to join those above the
dam? The largemouth bass thrive above the dam sharing habitat
with the Shiner. The fishermen will attest to that.
There are many reasons to keep the dam in place.
1. Flood hazards -the river below the dam will not likely see as
dramatic rises in water level following big rains.
:;E7 N
O W
=3 W
n W
sue°.
c n
CD N
n�
N
N 3
0
co
0
Cr ::r
oil
CD
�Q
m
o
C -fl
Cu
`° v
W
Q
0.
v o
�N
0
3 m
_n
co
N N
N
A W
CO
CO O Co
v3
X O
CS
14
ineers
Trade Drive
NC.27587
APR 14 2014
_
0 ng about. the disheartening idea of removing the Hoosier (Woody)
oZDarn ky River in Chatham County. I have lived on family mily land
bordering the lake area since the 1950's
In the Public Notice dated March 12, 2014. Several reasons were stated as
rationale for removal.
1. Improve water quality -the main culprit is not the dam but the Siler
City wastewater plant.
2, restore appropriate flow to the aquatic community -the many
geese, largemouth bass, crappie, bream, catfish, and herons would
beg to differ if they could speak. Their habitat will be IMPAIRED
SEVERELY!
3. Restore habitat for federally protected species? -
-Cape Fear Shiner - exists above the dam. There are several large
shallow areas above the dam (1 to 4 feet deep)
-Red Cockaded Woodpecker -who made this one up? They are
located in the Sandhills. They live in pine trees. THEY ARE
NOT AND HAVE NOT BEEN ON ROCKY RIVER! -
- Michaux's Sumac- historically never in Chatham County
- American chaffsed -not in Chatham County - likes sandy soils
WHERE DID THIS MISINFORMATION COME FROM ? ??
4. Restore passage for aquatic species -the Shiner exists above the
dam. Is it necessary for those below the dam to join those above the
dam? The largemouth bass thrive above the dam sharing habitat
with the Shiner. The fishermen will attest to that.
There are many reasons to keep the dam in place.
1. Flood hazards -the river below the dam will not likely see as
dramatic rises in water level following big rains.

Thomas Brown
Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
April 9, 2014
Dear Mr. Brown:
APR 14 2014
RALOUGH
F
��i.J orir.2
I am writing about the disheartening idea of removing the Hoosier (Woody)
Dam on Rocky River in Chatham County. I have lived on family land
bordering the lake area since the 1950's
In the Public Notice dated March 12, 2014. Several reasons were stated as
rationale for removal.
1. Improve water quality -the main culprit is not the dam but the Siler
City wastewater plant.
2, restore appropriate flow to the aquatic community -the many
geese, largemouth bass, crappie, bream, catfish, and herons would
beg to differ if they could speak. Their habitat will be IMPAIRED
SEVERELY!
3. Restore habitat for federally protected species? -
-Cape Fear Shiner - exists above the dam. There are several large
shallow areas above the dam (1 to 4 feet deep)
-Red Cockaded Woodpecker -who made this one up? They are
located in the Sandhills. They live in pine trees. THEY ARE
NOT AND HAVE NOT BEEN ON ROCKY RIVER!
- Michaux's Sumac- historically never in Chatham County
- American chaffsed -not in Chatham County -likes sandy soils
WHERE DID THIS MISINFORMATION COME FROM ? ??
4. Restore passage for aquatic species -the Shiner exists above the
dam. Is it necessary for those below the dam to join those above the
dam? The largemouth bass thrive above the dam sharing habitat
with the Shiner. The fishermen will attest to that.
There are many reasons to keep the dam in place.
1. Flood hazards -the river below the dam will not likely see as
dramatic rises in water level following big rains.

2.Navigation -below the dam, navigation is heavily dependent on
weather. During dry seasons, navigation is almost impossible
due to rocks. The same can be said for the river from the bridge at
NC 902 to the bridge at State Road 1010. WE once tried fishing
that span to the Woody Dam but we had to drag our boat over rocks
for hundreds of yards. When we finally got beyond the 1010 bridge,
we got into the deeper water supported by the lake /dam. We have
joked over the years that this was probably the worst river trip this
side of "Deliverance"... too many rocks and not enough water!
3. This river provides a form of recreation unparalleled in most
Local area rivers and lakes. Calm water boaters and kayakers
love the lake area without boats creating unmanageable wakes.
Fisherman claim this is the greatest bass fishing area anywhere. I
personally hooked a 9 -10 pound bass many years ago.
4. Energy needs -the new owner, whose intentions for environmental
improvement may be genuine, has bought the power plant but yet is
destroying a source of energy that my ancestors needed for a better
quality of life.
5. Property ownership -my aunt and uncle, who border me, own 70
acres almost directly above the dam. They will be losing almost
'A mile of river frontage when the dam is removed to Mr.
Sweeney who will be receiving Mitigation Bank Credits. This is
beautiful unspoiled mostly hardwood forest that has protected
Rocky River in all forms for centuries.
If you look at the pictures in my wife's letter, (she forgot to sign it- Phyllis
Burns); you can see the beauty of the lake. We watch the geese fly overhead
to land on the lake -not the rocky part! We see the otter, eagle, heron, turtle,
and other wildlife species coexisting on that beautiful part ofRocky River. I
saw this river drawn down for repair in the 1950's. My brother and I walked
across the river 50 yards above the dam! I implore you to visit this stretch of
Rocky River before you remove this dam and witness its beauty.
If the needs and welfare of people are being considered, please think about
our family and others being impacted who share our feelings.
Restoring this river - - - -to what?
Sincerely,
Barry urns

2880 Pete Roberson Rd.
Pittsboro, NC 27312
919 - 542 -0695
April 11, 2014
Subject: Woody Dam and Power Plant
Mr. Brown,
APR 14 2014
,�:14.E* , r�'E,,!�'.s,ii.:':" ORY
I am writing in an attempt to have a voice in what is going on with Woody Dam and Power Plant and
Rocky River, in Chatham County. As with almost all of us residents in the area, I am opposed to the
destruction of Woody Dam.
We have traced my family in Chatham County as far back as the Civil War era. My great, great, great,
great grand- father lived in Chatham County and fought in the Civil War. My great grand- father, Robert
Allen Perry, lived on Rocky River in the early 1900's. This is the same land where my parents currently
live. My wife is not originally from Chatham County. The first time I brought her to Chatham County
and gave her a tour, I took her to the historic steel bridge on Chatham Church Rd., Woody Dam and
Historic Pittsboro Courthouse. Personally, I feel that Woody Dam should be considered a historic
landmark as well and certainly not torn down. It was built in approximately 1920 and could be used by
NC school children to learn how to produce green power.
My family has lived on or been a part of Rocky River, upstream from Woody Dam, for over 100 years. I
grew up fishing on Rocky River, mostly catch and release fishing I'd like to add. We have had the
pleasure of teaching our children how to fish also. All three of our children absolutely love "going fishing
on the river." They have seen a large variety of species including many fish, wood ducks, fish crane,
otters, hawks, geese, ospreys, turkeys, deer, terrapins and 3' wide snapping turtles, just to mention
some. The teachings we have been able to provide our children about wildlife in our area has been
invaluable. We would like the opportunity to continue with this. They are growing up being taught to
appreciate and respect our environment. They are learning how eco systems work and are able to
visualize this in real life.
I really don't understand how someone can come in from out of state, buy the Dam and alter the lives
and property of people that live here. 130 Chatham, LLC isn't going to be affected by these changes; we
are, my kids are, my neighbors and my family are. Please consider our input before allowing this to
happen.
Sincerely,
Timothy Perry

RC-7
NEW
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
April 15, 2014
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject Property: Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Prospectus Comments
Dear Mr. Williams:
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
DWQ Project # 13 -0412
Chatham County
We have reviewed the above - referenced document received in this office on February 21, 2014. Our
comments are as follows:
1. The majority of the proposed mitigation units (Table 3) are based on improving the water quality of —
the Rocky River and its tributaries. Monitoring (both pre- and post - removal) should be performed to
assess water quality and aquatic function of the impounded reaches and their post - impoundment
condition. Physicochemical monitoring should follow up on temperature and nutrient data collected
and presented in the Prospectus.
Biological monitoring should focus on improvement of water quality through conversion from a
lentic to a lotic system. Parameters for monitoring should include macrobenthos and fish.
Performance standards should be crafted to document improvements in physicochemical parameters
and to the biotic community. Meeting each individual performance standard over the course of the
monitoring period should have an associated percentage of the total water quality improvement
credit.
DWR recommends consulting the Milburnie Dam Draft Mitigation Plan dated March, 2014 for an
example of performance standards and associated credit yield. While the performance standards and
credit yield presented in this plan may not be appropriate for the Hoosier Dam project, the concepts
may provide usef il'in development the Hoosier Dam mitigation plan.
2. The total proposed potential credit for the project raises a concern that has been the topic of
discussions among the IRT in the past. Specifically, if it is appropriate for the DE to allow for more
credit to be generated by a dam removal project than the amount of mitigation that would be required
if the dam was constructed now.
Division of Water Resources — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919 - 807 -63001 FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org I
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper
I

Mr. Williams
Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Prospectus Comments
Page 2 of 2
The mitigation plan (Table 3) indicates the total maximum potential credit for the project is 24,105
LF (24,105 credits). The impounded reach of the river and associated tributaries has been calculated
to be 22,425 LF. if the project were proposed today, based on DE requirements on other
impoundment projects, the mitigation required would likely be as follows:
Impact Type Impact Amt (LF) DA Multil lien Mitigation Requirement
Fill (dam footprint) 200 LF* 2:1 400 LF
Inundation 22,225 LF 1:1 22.225 LF
Total Mitigation Required
*Approximate based on aerial photography.
22,625 LF
According to the proposed maximum potential credit from the mitigation plan, the Sponsor would
potentially be awarded 1,480 more linear feet of credit (24,105 — 22,625) than the mitigation that
would be required to permit the construction of the dam and impoundment of 22,425 LF of river and
tributaries. As this issue has not been resolved, this should probably be discussed by the IRT at the
next regularly - scheduled meeting.
3. Monitoring activities should also include stability monitoring of all formerly- impounded tributaries
proposed for credit. Lower of the water level after dam removal has the potential to expose
unvegetated stream banks, which could result in streambank erosion /headcutting.
4. The standard service area for mitigation banks in North Carolina is the eight -digit HUC in which the
bank is located. The location of the bank site at the southeastern end of 030300Q3 and its close
proximity to 03030004 makes the proposed service area feasible. DWR would support the primary
service area for this bank to include all of 03030003 and the Piedmont portion of 03030004.
5. We strongly encourage the bank Sponsor to continue to acquire property along the Rocky River and
associated bank tributaries, and inclusion of such lands within the bank conservation easement.
We look forward to discussing and resolving these issues, as we believe the project has merit and
should provide documentable improvement of aquatic function within the impounded reaches.
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz at (919) 807 -6476 if you have any questions regard ing.these
comments.
Sincerely,
K
Karen Higgins, Supe r
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
cc: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy (Eric KUIz)
Todd Tugwell — USACE Wilmington District

Williams, Andrew E SAW
From: Kulz, Eric [eric.kulz @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:29 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E SAW
Cc: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hoosier Dam Comments (13 -0412)
Attachments: Prospectus Comments—Hoosier Dam.pdf
Sorry they're late!
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Permitting Section
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties

f
M8 Chaff -Trd Ch. da i� E -
�I APR 14 2014
the information I have read in a Public Notice
' �',of Engineers about the removal of the Hoosier
cky River.
`I quality must start with the improvement of the
,jbs into Rocky River from Siler City.
im has turbines and flow openings that allow water
Iat certain times. I am asking the Corp of
`eating a tier or step up channel to let the flow of
VVC2LG7 CtIIVVv U VU ayuuL,,. fish and snails to travel up to the lake area. This is
being done at other dams and water sheds in the country. This would allow
the habitat above the dam to remain intact for all species.
Third: The dam is a working dam. It produces sustainable electricity. Yes,
it is a small amount but it is not polluting or costing a large amount of
money to harvest the electricity. It is a dam with history for this area. It
was built by a local man and his family to grind grain and bring electricity to
the farms in this area. My father -in -law set posts through the woods to his
house and ran a wire to bring light to his farm house and was able to
provide running water with that electricity. There are stories about this dam
from all the years it has stood.
The lake behind the dam has been there for 80 years. It has remained a
place of quiet and solitude. The wildlife upstream is rich and healthy. The
banks of the lake and river have changed very little except where clear
cutting has taken place. The natural woodland has a bounty of the native
plant life that I have seen and identified on my walks. I've seen as many as
seven blue heron in a group feeding on the shallow grassy banks that have
built up over the years. Blue, White, and Green heron hunt these shallow
shores along with otter, beaver, and multiple ducks and Canadian geese.
I've seen the long V shape formation of geese flying over my house at
sunset heading for lake behind the dam. I have not seen geese on the
lower part of the river, I have seen eagles hunt the upper and lower Rocky
river. My husband and children have fished the lake part of the river. They

To whom it may concern,
APR 14 2014
am writing in response to the information I have read in a Public Notice
from the US Army Corps of Engineers about the removal of the Hoosier
Dam (Woody Dam) on Rocky River.
First: improving the water quality must start with the improvement of the
treatment plant that dumps into Rocky River from Siler City.
Second: The present dam has turbines and flow openings that allow water
to flow through the dam at certain times. I am asking the Corp of
Engineers to consider creating a tier or step up channel to let the flow of
water allow the aquatic fish and snails to travel up to the lake area. This is
being done at other dams and water sheds in the country. This would allow
the habitat above the dam to remain intact for all species.
Third: The dam is a working dam. It produces sustainable electricity. Yes,
it is a small amount but it is not polluting or costing a large amount of
money to harvest the electricity. It is a dam with history for this area. It
was built by a local man and his family to grind grain and bring electricity to
the farms in this area. My father -in -law set posts through the woods to his
house and ran a wire to bring light to his farm house and was able to
provide running water with that electricity. There are stories about this dam
from all the years it has stood.
The lake behind the dam has been there for 80 years. It has remained a
place of quiet and solitude. The wildlife upstream is rich and healthy. The
banks of the lake and river have changed very little except where clear
cutting has taken place. The natural woodland has a bounty of the native
plant life that I have seen and identified on my walks. I've seen as many as
seven blue heron in a group feeding on the shallow grassy banks that have
built up over the years. Blue, White, and Green heron hunt these shallow
shores along with otter, beaver, and multiple ducks and Canadian geese.
I've seen the long V shape formation of geese flying over my house at
sunset heading for lake behind the dam. I have not seen geese on the
lower part of the river. I have seen eagles hunt the upper and lower Rocky
river. My 'husband and children have fished the lake part of the river. They

caught bream, crappie, catfish and large mouth bass. The size of the bass
have ranged from small 1 pounders to 8 -9 pounds. I question the survival
rate of the large mouth bass and large bream in the shallow waters that will
replace the lake area. A shallow river may be ideal for the Cape Fear
Shiner but the fish that live in the lake part of the river will become few in
number. I ask you why can't this issue be corrected without tearing
down the Hoosier (Woody) Darn? Why must the heron loose their
feeding savannas? It is true the original river did not have this amount of
water standing as a lake but almost a hundred years has past and nature
has settled into its surroundings. The animals that live there flourish. The
Cape Fear Shiner does live above the dam and after you go beyond the
lake part of the river the shallow river runs all the way to the edge of
Chatham County just north of Siler City. Again, I would request that you
build tiers around the dam for the Cape Fear Shiner which seems to be the
biggest concern.
The lake part of the Rocky River is not a Jordan lake. Few boats traverse
the waters of the Rocky River except the lake area. There are john- boats,
canoes, and kayaks that have smooth open water to boat on. Waters that
are not interrupted with white water rapids or rock barriers (and Rocky does
have rock barriers). It is a place that I took my whole family on a kayaking
trip for Mother's Day to experience the beauty of nature on the river. That
included a 5 year old child and my 81 year old mother. It was a safe and
beautiful ride and we created a flotilla of seven kayaks in the water and ate
our picnic lunch. We couldn't have done that on the Jordan because of the
boat traffic and the much stiffer current in the water there. What I'm trying
to say is the small lake behind Hoosier (Woody) Dam is a wonderful and
beautiful natural place that humans can spend time on in the quiet of the
river and see all sorts of wild life and vegetation. I've been on the river
above and below the dam kayaking. It is a beautiful river but boating is a
challenge. There are pockets of deep water you can float but in summer
and dryer seasons one has to get out of the boat and pull it around and
over rocks. The lake offers a restful float without getting hung up on under
the surface rocks. Please consider finding a way to have the best of both
our beautiful river with all its wildlife and the quiet lake that old and young
can enjoy. I am thrilled that Mr. Sweeney is working to naturalize our rivers.
I believe the Hoosier (Woody) Dam is a part of history of man working with
mules, lumber, concrete, and muscle to build a structure that would

improve life of the local farmers and help turn their grain to flour. To me,
leaving that structure standing and continuing to work is a legacy to the
growth of rural man and is very important to the history of Rocky River. I
would like to see Mr. Sweeney and the US Army Corps of Engineers work
on a plan for the tiers around the dam to assist the Cape Fear Shiner.
Please consider finding a way to have the best of both our beautiful
river with all its wildlife and the quiet lake that old and young can
enjoy.