20180665 Ver 1_PCN Mitigation Submittal_20191022

ID#* 20180665
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 10/22/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/22/2019
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream V Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lin Xu
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20180665
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r Yes r No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:*1
Existing Version
F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site Mitigation
Project
Alexander
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Alexander Farm Approval Letter and Comment
408.5KB
Responses.pdf
AlexanderFarm 100048_MP_2019optimized.pdf
47.44MB
AlexanderFarm401 COffice.pdf
48.67KB
AlexanderFarm401 FeeMemo.pdf
44.83KB
AlexanderFarmPCN.pdf
2.39MB
eApproval Letter_ Alexander Farm_SAW-2018-
226.67KB
00451. pdf
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature

Print Name:* Lin Xu
Signature:

0"0o
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
o DWQ project no.
i ,.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: ®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number.
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
For the record only for DWQ 401
For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required?
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
❑ Yes
® No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
❑ Yes
® No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
2b.
County:
Alexander
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Stony Point, NC
2d.
Subdivision name: I
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
13. Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Jennifer Combs, Scott Combs, Polly Van Hoy, & Henry Van Hoy
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
DB: 0551 PN: 1186
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) — Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) Contact: Lin Xu, Project Review Coordinator
3d.
Street address:
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
3e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
3f.
Telephone no.:
919-707-8319
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Permittee
4b. Name:
Lin Xu
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
NCDEQ - DMS
4d. Street address:
217 W. Jones St, Suite 3000A
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f. Telephone no.:
919-707-8319
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Co -Applicant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Aaron Earley
5b. Business name Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28203
5e. Telephone no.:
704-332-7754
5f. Fax no.:
704-332-3306
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 14

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
PIN: 3775048774
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.811767 Longitude:-81.120683
1 c. Property size:
21 acres (project area)
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Elk Shoals Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS-IV
2c. River basin:
Catawba River (03050101)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area is located within a rural watershed in southeastern Alexander County, NC. Land use in and immediate
adjacent to the project area is primarily pasture and forest.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Approximately 1.71 acres within the project area.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
6,958 LF within the project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 6,940 LF of stream channel involving two unnamed tributaries
(UT1 & UT1A) to Elk Shoals Creek. The project will generate stream mitigation units for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project proposes 4,577 LF of stream restoration, 1,463 LF of stream enhancement, and 718 LF of stream
preservation. Stream restoration will be achieved through natural channel design. Stream restoration activities include
Priority 1 and Priority 2 approaches. Priority 1 restoration will involve the excavation of new channels within existing
floodplain and Priority 2 will involve the excavation of new channel and floodplain. Both approaches will include installation
of instream structures including constructed riffles, boulder sills, log sills, lunker logs, j-hooks, brush toe, and geolitfts for
channel stability and habitat. Stream enhancement (Enhancement II) will generally involve localized channel and/or bank
grading and installation of instream structures. Restoration and enhancement work will also involve fencing out cattle,
invasive plant removal, and planting of a native riparian buffer. Excavators will be used for channel and floodplain
excavation as well as for bank grading, while articulated and track trucks will be used for hauling soil. Small equipment
such as mini excavators and skid steers may also be used during grading activities. A conservation easement has been
recorded on the project area. See Section 7 of the mitigation plan for additional design information.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Ian Eckardt & Charlie Neaves
Other: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) (SAW 2018-00451) was issued by Amanda Jones of the USACE on
7/3/2019. A copy of the PJD is included in Appendix 2 of the mitigation plan.
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No El Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 14

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non-404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 — Wetland A
®P❑T
Floodplain Fill
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
®No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.006
W2 — Wetland B
[DP❑T
Floodplain Fill
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
®No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.009
W3 — Wetland C
❑P0T
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
El Yes
®No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.002
W4 — Wetland C
® P E] T
Floodplain Fill
Headwater Forest
El Yes
® No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.003
W5 — Wetland D
0P❑T
Floodplain Fill
Headwater Forest
E] Yes
®No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.004
W6 — Wetland D
®P ❑ T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
Yes
No
� Corps
®DWQ
0.016
Restoration
W7 — Wetland D
❑P0T
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
®No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.054
W8 — Wetland D
®P ❑ T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
El Yes
®No
®Corps
®DWQ
0.024
Restoration
W9 — Wetland E
®P ❑ T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
❑Yes
® No
®Corps
® DWQ
0.022
Restoration
W10 — Wetland E
❑P0T
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
El Yes
®No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.037
W11 — Wetland E
❑ P ®T
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
El Yes
® No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.023
W12 — Wetland M
®P ❑ T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
El Yes
® No
®Corps
® DWQ
0.013
Restoration
W13 — Wetland N
®P ❑ T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
®No
®Corps
®DWQ
0.013
Restoration
W14 — Wetland N
❑ P ®T
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
El Yes
® No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.113
W15 — Wetland N
®P [I T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
❑Yes
®No
®Corps
®DWQ
0.017
Restoration
W16 — Wetland N
❑ P ®T
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
® No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.006
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

W17 — Wetland N
®P ❑ T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
ER No
® Corps
0.018
Restoration
® DWQ
W18 — Wetland N
❑PERT
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
0No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.008
W19 — Wetland N
❑PERT
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
ERNo
® Corps
®DWQ
0.007
W20 — Wetland N
® P ❑ T
Excavation -
Stream
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
ER No
® Corps
ER DWQ
0.022
Restoration
W21 — Wetland N
❑PERT
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
El Yes
ERNo
ER Corps
®DWQ
0.048
W22 — Wetland Q
ER P El
Fill - Stream
Restoration
Headwater Forest
El Yes
ER No
® Corps
® DWQ
0.022
W23 — Wetland R
❑PERT
Minor grading
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
®No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.012
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.500
2h. Comments: Stream restoration and enhancement will impact project wetlands; however, these activities are designed to
have an overall long-term positive ecological effect using natural channel design techniques throughout to restore and improve
stream and wetland function and habitat and establish flood storage.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non-404,
width
(linear
Temporary ()
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ER P ❑ T
Relocation -
UT1 Reach 1A
® PER
® Corps
6
838
Restoration
❑ INT
® DWQ
S2 ER P❑ T
Relocation -
Restoration
UT1 Reach 1 B
ER PER
❑ INT
ER Corps
ER DWQ
6
1,084
S3 ER P ❑ T
Culvert
UT1 Reach 1 B/2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
ER DWQ
6
36
S4 ER P ❑ T
Excavation —
UT1 Reach 2
ER PER
® Corps
6
19
Enhancement
❑ INT
ER DWQ
S5 ❑ PERT
Tie-in Grading &
Construction
UT1 Reach 2
ER PER
ER Corps
6
20
Access
❑ INT
ER DWQ
S6 ER P ❑ T
Fill -
UT1 Reach 2
® PER
ER Corps
6
47
Enhancement
❑ INT
ER DWQ
S7 ❑PERT
Tie-in Grading &
Construction
UT1 Reach 2
® PER
ER Corps
6
22
Access
INT
®DWQ
S8 ❑ P ER T
Construction
UT1 Reach 2
ER PER
® Corps
6
17
Crossing
[I INT
® DWQ
S9 ❑PERT
Tie-in Grading &
Construction
UT1 Reach 3
ER PER
ER Corps
8
34
Access
❑ INT
ER OWQ
S10 ER P ❑ T
Relocation —
Restoration
UT1 Reach 4A
ER PER
❑ INT
ER Corps
ER DWQ
8
1,298
S11 ER P ❑ T
Relocation —
Restoration
UT1 Reach 4B
ER PER
❑ INT
ER Corps
ER DWQ
8
1,546
S12 ER P ❑ T
Relocation —
1
UT1A
❑ PER
ER Corps
4
122
Enhancement
ER INT
ER DWQ
Page 6 of 14

3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
5,083
3i. Comments: Stream restoration and enhancement will impact project channels; however, these activities are designed to
have an overall long-term positive ecological effect using natural channel design techniques throughout to restore and improve
stream function and habitat and establish flood storage.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 7 of 14

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below.
If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then
you MUST fill out Section D
of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse
❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason for
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
required?
61 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑. Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 8 of 14

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Stream restoration and enhancement will impact project channels during construction; however, these activities are
designed to have an overall long-term positive effect using natural channel design techniques through to restore and
improve stream function and habitat and establish flood storage. Stream impacts were avoided or minimized to project
reaches that exhibit less instability and incision. These reaches are generally proposed for preservation or enhancement
II. Enhancement II will involve localized channel stabilization, fencing out cattle, removing invasive plant species, and
planting native riparian species. Stream alignments of restoration reaches were designed to avoid existing wetlands as
much as possible and minimize grading impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
To minimize sedimentation to aquatic systems, project construction will be conducted in the dry as much as possible
through offline construction and/or the implementation of pump around techniques when working in a live stream. Newly
constructed channel banks will be stabilized using biodegradable coir fiber matting and planting and seeding the buffer
area, with native riparian species. During construction, the number of temporary crossings (mud mats) were minimized
and crossings will be perpendicular to streams to minimize crossing footprints.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter]
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 9 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
S. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 14

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is in the Catawba River Watershed (HUC 03050101). In the
❑ Yes ❑ No
Catawba River basin only the mainstem of the Catawba River is subject to NC
Riparian Buffer Protection Rules.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project involves the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of on -site jurisdictional streams. Impervious surfaces will not be added as a result of the
project. The conservation easement will be seeded and planted with native riparian species post -construction to provide a
permanent riparian buffer along project streams.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
El USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 11 of 14
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
®Yes El No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
® Yes ❑ No
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is in Appendix 5 of the mitigation
plan.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes Z No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream mitigation project that will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively impact downstream
water quality. The project area will be protected in perpetuity from future development through a conservation easement.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Raleigh ® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) database was utilized to identify listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal
species for Alexander County, NC. There are four federally protected species listed for Alexander County including the
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergh), dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
nari flora), and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). A pedestrian survey conducted on September 7,
2017, indicated that the Site provides potential habitat for the bog turtle, dwarf -flowered heartleaf, and potential summer
roosting for northern long-eared bat (NLEB), but no individuals were located at the time. A letter requesting comment from
the USFWS was sent on February 16, 2018. No response from the USFWS was received within the 30-day response
period. Therefore, the signing of the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting incidental take of the
NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule. A FHWA signed 4(d) consultation form and the correspondence associated
with this determination are included in the Appendix 5 of the mitigation plan. Approximately 3.6 acres of existing trees will
be cleared for project construction.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The NOAA Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper (https•//www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.htmq was
reviewed to determine the project will not impact Essential Fish Habitat.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted on February 16, 2018 for review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the stream restoration project. SHPO responded on March 22,
2018 and stated they were aware of "no historic resources which would be affected by the project" and would have no further comment. All
correspondence is included in Appendix 5 of the mitigation plan.
Page 13 of 14

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The stream and floodplain grading within the regulatory floodplain of Elk Shoals Creek (UT1 Reach 4) will be designed to
achieve a no-dse condition. A floodplain development permit has been obtained from the Alexander County floodplain
administrator. The proposed design associated with the Site has limited or no risk of potential hydrologic trespass since
UT1 originates on -site. In addition, wide buffers adjacent to project streams are protected under conservation eliminating
the risk to adjacent farm fields.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 37?5J for Alexander County, NC on the North Carolina Flood Risk
Information System (FRIS) website (https://his.nc.gov/fris/download.aspx?ST=NC).
LiXu
Project Review Coordinator
�
NCDEQ - DMS
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization -letter from the applicant
Is rovided.
Aaron Earley
Wildlands Engineering
Co-Applicant/Age s Signature
Go -Applicant's Printed Name
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Date
-
is provided.)
Page 14 of 14

r_____———-,
Figure 1.1 1 };
I
y 6
UT1,Reach 1A �
* I 1
� 1 I
I i
f------� UTP Reach 1B
q 1 1 I
L._r_....____� —__f I
r I
1
+ � r
f
A
--�-r UT1 Reach 2 I
I
1 ! �i;ure 1.31
I
1.
R _ _
� I 1
I UT1 Reach 31
Figure 1.4�
M s-
1 1 UT1 Reach 4A 1
UT1 A 1
f 1
' I U T7 Rea
_Project Parcel{
1
Proposed Conservation Easement1
Wetlands
1
r7
ExistingWetlan. ImDactsi _ R
g}
k
F9k 5
.`, ¢ �:Ir t zM 2g14Aerial P,otography

10
V"
ry
oil
A r�
'u
PO-rs�anvn#
S2 - 1,084 LF .l�#
Permanent r
V 4 ! Ate
+-
�"d i I,
ent
M C
� 1
VWILD LAND S
&I ENGINEERING
Figure 1.1: PCN Impact Map
0 100 200 Feet Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
I t I Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

W I L D L A. N D S 0 100 200 Feet
ENGINEERING I i I i 1
Figure 1.2: PCN Impact Map
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

..N x.
,A
"�*�`} � - � as !• . i. .
-
?�
�s
tufts
•
ermanerat
r' 17
Vt
It
Ve
l
i a. ..
y v.
r
�`
S [
}{f
��,
* .. 5 _ [ d3 $ ,� ,tom. • :� a.-.i.'.
yLR
7
r `
y1y, AV
�}"'. �" a tr" : Y u-: t _. ,� x, �' F Y ✓J _ i 1l '�� -
Project Parcel
Proposed Conservation Easement ��yj� ` _ _ ,\7� +. ' ,
Existing Wetlands II'iil' s�,5, ` tih Yi�e'�;`
Wetland Impacts (W#)9. Jr
A.
I,
Perennial Project Stream-
r J .
Intermittent Project Stream
Stream Impacts S#'
• Stream Impact Break Points" y •'k, .}{`
O Reach Breaks
$t2- -2ZLF
Permanent.
titl �.
Figure 1.3: PCN Impact Map
WILD LANDS 0 100 200 Feet Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

N
im
d
^n6 ro UTIA
= ,! = m
UT1 Reach 4A
Ar
s Y
'�a� i.+�• to s.
P
UT1 Reach 4B—
�,
r- : 4
jw
&! j-.4e
•
s.
A
Proposed BMP
�a
A�'
r
AL
.1
441
tT
- - - . / 1 _ Ili . 4 _ ii►',,�° !
o, 'T
1
•
ntl `Y• of - u '� '� . �.� N� x � •. P'. i - { .. � 7 y �.'�""'� .5 �` Iry l,.
• • (' - fie.. �j}. ,�. qy
2014 Agra! Photography

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RGBrowning
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
August 19, 2019
SUBJECT: Alexander Farm Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30-day comment period in accordance with
Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review.
NCDMS Project Name: Alexander Site, Alexander County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2018-00451
NCDMS #: 100048
30-Day Comment Deadline: August 16, 2019
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt and Erin Davis:
1. DWR accepts the credit ratios proposed in the April 16, 2018 Memorandum.
2. There are numerous wetland areas on site and DWR would propose to Wildlands that they extend out the
easement to contain rest of wetland "E" and all of wetland "P".
3. In addition, there are two areas where the designed stream is being built through wetlands and DWR
requires a wetland gauge at the following locations:
a. Design sheet 2.1.4 - station 116+00 stream right, and
b. Design sheet 2.1.10 — station 142+25 stream right
4. DWR appreciates the work done on reach UT1A, Design Sheet 2.2.1, and the rock cascade on Design
sheet 2.3.1.
5. Were drain tiles found at the downstream end on the left floodplain? And if so, were the drain tiles
eliminated?
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The USACE ID for the cover page and page (i) is SAW-2018-00451.
2. It was noted that future logging adjacent to the preservation area is planned and that an additional 30'-50'
buffer setback will be implemented to filter runoff. Please provide more information and analysis
regarding potential future development and possible encroachment around the site (such as easement or
culvert maintenance), and how you propose to address these concerns, and how they may affect the
easement.
a. Who will be responsible for the culvert maintenance? Please specify in LTM plan.
3. Section 5.3 and Table 7: There are several reaches of stream restoration proposed (1B, 4A, 4B) that will
impact existing wetlands. Please describe how you will ensure that no functional loss/loss of waters
occurs. Specifically, will the 0.17 acres of permanent impacts be recuperated adjacent to the newly raised

stream channel through Priority 1 restoration? Additionally, there appear to be several more wetlands
shown on the JD Map that are not captured on Figure 9.
a. It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas and throughout
the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water storage/infiltration,
and absorb water energy during overbank events.
4. The IRT site walk indicated that several pockets of adjacent wetlands were present and should be included
within the easement. It appears that there are a few small wetlands that are not included in the easement
boundary, please explain, especially if cattle will have access to these areas and cause potential future
runoff impacts to the buffer.
a. The IRT also noted that wetland gauges should be installed to collet pre -data. Was this conducted?
If so please explain and note on the monitoring map (figure 10).
5. Design Sheets: Regarding stream crediting, the USACE Mitigation Credit Calculation Memo released
October 5, 2017, states "When existing stream length measurements are conducted for the purposes of
determining credit during mitigation plan development (e.g., measuring existing enhancement or
preservation reaches), the center of the wetted perimeter (using base flow conditions) should be
used....For restoration reaches or any other approach where the stream will be built in a new location,
credit amounts should be based on the center of the designed channel as shown in the plan sheet."
a. It's difficult to discern at the scale shown, but for the restoration reaches downstream of the
preservation reach, it appears that the thalweg was used. The restoration reaches should be based
on the center of the newly designed channel, not on the thalweg as currently shown on the plan
maps.
b. Stream lengths and credit calculations should be revised based on the above.
6. It would be helpful to depict photo points/digital image stations on Figures 10. If the fixed cross-section
locations are to be used, please describe that in the text.
7. Section 4.4 and 7.6.7: An agricultural BMP is planned within the easement; please describe any
maintenance required, if applicable.
8. Please discuss how fescue will be treated in conjunction with buffer establishment.
9. Section 8.2: Please remove the statement regarding terminating veg monitoring if performance standards
are met early. Monitoring should occur for 7 years. Also, please list the proposed planting timeframe in
Section 7.7.
10. General comment: In the future, when NCSAM or other functional assessment methods are used, please
describe the results summary in the text.
11. Appendix 5: It is beneficial to review the categorical exclusion documents prior to receiving the final
mitigation plan. Please include an estimate of trees to be cleared in the PCN in relation to NLEB habitat.
12. Appendix 11: NCDMS has recently requested that all previously mentioned As -Built reports will now be
referred to as Record Drawing. Please verify this with DMS and correct as advised.
13. ATV paths were mentioned in the text on UT1 Reach 3. I understand that the landowner was advised that
these paths will not be accessible for ATV use, but will these paths remain and be maintained? If so, please
describe, and depict on Figure 9/10.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

witl,v
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
October 10, 2019
Ms. Kim Browning
US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Response to NCIRT Mitigation Plan Review Comments
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-00451
Dear Ms. Browning:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed USACE's and NCDWR's comments on the
Alexander Farm Mitigation Plan dated August 19, 2019. The following Wildlands responses to USACE's
and NCDWR's comments are noted below.
NCDWR comments received by Wildlands on 08.19.2019
1. DWR accepts the credit rations proposed in the April 16, 2018 Memorandum.
2. There are numerous wetland areas on site and DWR would propose to Wildlands that they
extend out the easement to contain rest of wetland "E" and all of wetland V".
Wildlands Response: The conservation easement was adjusted in these locations to
include wetlands "E" and "P".
3. In addition, there are two areas where the designed stream is being built through wetlands and
DWR requires a wetland gauge at the following locations:
a. Design sheet 2.1.4 —station 116+00 stream right, and
b. Design sheet 2.1.0 —station 142+25 stream right
Wildlands Response: A wetland gauges were added to the monitoring plan in these
locations. We do want to point out that since no wetland credits are being sought, no
pre -construction data was collected for any wetlands. There will be no way to compare
impact or uplift of these wetlands.
4. DWR appreciates the work done on reach UT1A, Design Sheet 2.2.1, and the rock cascade on
Design sheet 2.3.1
Wildlands Response: You're welcome.
5. Were drain tiles found at the downstream end on the left floodplain? And if so, were the drain
files eliminated?
Wildlands Response: Wildlands found no drain tiles during the existing conditions
assessment and is currently not aware of any drain tiles located on the site.

USACE Comments received by Wildlands on 08.19.2019
1. The USACE ID for the cover page and page (i) is SAW-2018-00451
Wildlands Response: The USACE Action ID number was added to the cover page and
page (i) of the mitigation report. It was also added to the cover sheet of the plans.
IT was noted that future logging adjacent to the preservation area is planned and that an
additional 30'-50' buffer setback will be implemented to filter runoff. Please provide more
information and analysis regarding potential future development and possible encroachment
around the site (such as easement or culvert maintenance), and how propose to address these
concerns, and how they may affect the easement.
Wildlands Response: Vernal pools are proposed within the easement at the
concentrated runoff locations adjacent to the logging area. This will help capture
sediment from logging operations. Wildlands will visit the site during logging operations
to ensure they are staying within agreed setback limits and have installed proper BMPs.
The landowner has stated multiple times that they intend to keep this land as a family
farm indefinitely and have no plans for development.
a. Who will be responsible for the culvert maintenance? Please specify in LTM plan.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will be responsible for culvert maintenance during the
seven year monitoring period. After monitoring, the landowner will be responsible for
culvert maintenance. The Long Term Management plan was revised to include this
clarification.
Section 5.3 and Table 7. There are several reaches of stream restoration proposed (18, 4A, 48)
that will impact existing wetlands. Please describe how you will ensure that no functional
loss/loss of waters occurs. Specifically, will the 0.17 acres of permanent impacts be recuperated
adjacent to the newly raised stream channel through Priority 1 restoration? Additionally, there
appear to be several more wetlands shown on the JD Map that are not captured on Figure 9.
It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas and
throughout the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment increase water
storage/infiltration and absorb water energy during overbank events.
Wildlands Response: The existing wetlands that will be impacted by stream restoration
activities are currently impacted by cattle grazing and trampling. Priority 1 restoration
will allow for the stream to be raised, which will raise the water table helping to restore
or enhance the adjacent wetlands. Wildlands will take precautionary measures to
protect the existing wetlands, including the installation of safety fence to establish
grading limits adjacent to the wetlands. Wildlands will use the project's proposed
stream flow pressure transducers or crest gauge to show that stream flooding is
enhancing surface hydrology on the floodplain adjacent to project reaches. Figure 10
shows all the delineated wetlands that are shown on the JD Figure. The symbology was
changed to make it more visible on the figure. A symbol for large woody debris was
added to the plans and placed within the proposed vernal pools.
4. The IRT site walk indicated that several pockets of adjacent wetlands were present and should be
included within the easement. It appears that there are a few small wetlands that are not

included in the easement boundary, please explain, especially if cattle will have access to these
areas and cause potential future runoff impacts to the buffer.
Wildlands Response: The conservation easement was adjusted in two locations to
include wetlands near the easement boundary.
The IRT also noted that wetland gauges should be installed to collet pre -data. Was this
conducted? If so please explain and note on the monitoring map (Figure 10).
Wildlands Response: The comment during the IRT site walk was made assuming
wetland credits would be claimed. Since the decision was made not to pursue wetland
credits, pre -construction gage data was not required or collected.
Design Sheets: Regarding stream crediting, the USACE Mitigation Credit Calculation Memo
released October 5, 2017, states "When existing stream length measurements are conducted for
the purpose of determining credit during mitigation plan development (e.g., measuring existing
enhancement or preservation reaches), the center of the wetted perimeter (Using base flow
conditions) should be used.... For restoration reaches or any other approach where the stream
will be built in a new location, credit amounts should be based on the center of the newly
designed as shown in the plan sheet."
It's difficult to discern at the scale shown, but for the restoration reaches downstream of
the preservation reach it appears that the thalweg was used. The restoration reaches
should be based on the center of the newly designed channel, not on the thalweg as
currently shown on the plan maps.
b. Stream lengths and credit calculations should be revised base on the above.
Wildlands Response: The design centerline was used to calculate credits for all
restoration reaches per standard practice. The surveyed centerline was used to
calculate credits on all enhancement reaches.
6. It would be helpful to depict photo points/digital image stations on Figures 10. If the fixed cross-
section locations are to be used, please describe that in the text.
Wildlands Response: Figure 10 has been updated to show approximate locations of
fixed photo points for post -construction monitoring. These locations may be adjusted in
the baseline monitoring report.
Section 4.4 and 7.6.7. An agricultural BMP is planned within the easement; please describe any
maintenance required, if applicable.
Wildlands Response: Maintenance requirements for the BMP were added to Appendix
8.
8. Please discuss how fescue will be treated in conjunction with buffer establishment.
Wildlands Response: Detailed treatment of fescue was added to Appendix 6.
9. Section 8.2: Please remove the statement regarding terminating veg monitoring if performance
standards are met early. Monitoring should occur for 7 years. Also, please list the proposed
planting timeframe in Section 7.7.
Wildlands Response: The early termination statement was removed from Section 8.2. A
planting timeframe was added to Section 7.7.

10. General comment: In the future, when NCSAM or other functional assessment methods are used,
please describe the results summary in the text.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will consider explaining the results from the NCSAM or
other functional assessment methods and relating it functional uplift potential in future
mitigation plans.
11. Appendix 5: It is beneficial to review the categorical exclusion documents prior to receiving the
final mitigation plan. Please include an estimate of trees to be cleared in the PCN in relation to
NLEB habitat.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will include the categorical exclusion documents along
with the agency scoping letters with final NCIRT mitigation plan submittal. Based on the
Northern Long -Eared Bad (NLEB) 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form, the
estimated total acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31 is 3.6 acres. This
acreage is included in the PCN.
12. Appendix 11: NCDMS has recently requested that all previously mentioned As -Built reports will
now be referred to as Record Drawing. Please verify this with DMS and correct as advised.
Wildlands Response: In our recent experiences with DMS, the as -built report is now
referred to as Baseline Monitoring Report and the as -built drawings are now referred to
as Record Drawings. Appendix 11 was revised to reflect this nomenclature.
13. ATV paths were mentioned in the text on UT1 Reach 3. 1 understand that the landowner was
advised that these paths will not be accessible for ATV use, but will these paths remain and be
maintained? If so, please describe, and depict on Figure 9110.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands does not plan to maintain the paths along UT1 Reach 3.
Please contact me at 704-332-7754 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Project Manager
[e-mail]
4

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
October 22, 2019
Mac Haupt, Acting 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
Re: Permit Application- Alexander Farm Mitigation Site Mitigation Project, Alexander
County (DMS Full Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Haupt:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. A memo
for the permit application fee is also included in the package. Per agreement between DMS and
DWR, the hard copy of the final mitigation plan is not included in the submittal. However, the
electronic copy of the final mitigation plan along with all other electronic files have been
uploaded to NC DWR's file system. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding
this plan (919-707-8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Permit Application Fee Memo
e:!Or--fL FWty2r,
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Debby Davis
Lin Xu �x
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
October 22, 2019
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site Mitigation Project in Alexander County (DMS IMS #
100048). The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream
restoration related temporary stream and wetland impact. To conduct these activities,
the DMS must submit a Pre -construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of
Water Resources (DWR) for review and approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00
for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from DMS Fund # 2981, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919-707-8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Mac Haupt, DWR
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
September 5, 2019
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Alexander Farm Site / Alexander County /
SAW-2018-00451; NCDMS Project 9 100048
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) during
the 30-day comment period for the Alexander Farm Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on August 16,
2019. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues identified
above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan
should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it is determined
that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the
Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30
days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude
the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues
mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the
Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of
mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919-554-4884, ext 60.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by
BROWN ING•KIMBERLY• BROWNINGNIVIBERLY.DANIELLE.
DAN I ELLE.1527683510 1527683510
Date: 2019.09.05 14.19:55-04'00'
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner, Harry Tsomides— NCDMS
Shawn Wilkerson, Aaron EarleyWEI