20130412 Ver 1_Biological Eval Assessment June 2017_20180207

Strickland, Bev
From:
Aaron Aho <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:08 PM
To:
Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:
Goss, Stephanie; Haupt, Mac; Jeffrey A. Fisher; Michael Scisco
Subject:
[External] Re: SAW -2017-00511 Hoosier Dam Removal Project INCOMPLETE
NOTIFICATION
Attachments:
Supplemental Narrative - Updated 2nd Submittal - 02072018.doc; Figure 5. Hoosier
Dam Removal Impacts.pdf, Hoosier Dam Removal Plans_2_6_18.pdf; Figure 6. Hoosier
Crib Dam Removal Impacts.pdf, Figure 7. USACEpermitting.pdf, Appendix G -
Biological Assessment.pdf
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Andrew,
See our response below in blue and also the attached documents that address document update needs. This should
address everything except for #8, which we are still putting together. Please, let us know if this satisfies the points
addressed.
1. In several locations within the PCN, including the PCN supplemental narrative and attached plans sheets, the project is
referred to as a "bank" or "mitigation bank". Please clarify whether or not the applicant is proposing this as a mitigation
bank.
A mitigation bank is not being proposed. The property was purchased by Rocky River Hydro, LLC on December 31, 2012.
At the time, the plan was to remove the dam in order to establish o mitigation bank. Efforts were mode in that direction,
thus some of the consultation documents talk about o mitigation bank, but the effort was abandoned in July 2016 when
o NFWF grant was approved to remove the dam. These consultation documents ore still relevant to our purposes of
removing the dam and remain in their original wording but the purpose is to remove the dam for the
positive environmental impact and not os o mitigation bank.
2. Please provide specific control measures to be implemented to alleviate any severe or long term impacts to the Cape
Fear Shiner critical habitat, as mentioned in the supplemental narrative (page 2).
A Biological Assessment has been submitted to USFWS regarding specific control measures to alleviate severe or long
term impacts to the Cope Fear shiner. We hove attached o copy of this for you with this submittal.
3. Page 3 of the supplemental narrative mentions the stabilization of streambanks, post -dam removal and stabilization
of stream bed using grade control structures. Streambank and streambed impacts are shown/mentioned at the location
of the old crib dam. It is unclear if any additional stream bank/stream bed work will take place within the footprint of the
project area. If so, please specify the location, type and amount of impacts associated with any additional streambank
and grade control structures along other sections of the project area. If so, these impacts should be listed in the PCN.
After the completion of dewatering of the impoundment, and inspection of the stream upstream and downstream, it was
determined that instreom habitat structures would not be necessary for this project. The bed material is heterogeneous
and several bedrock seams act os grade control for the project. This language has been updated in the supplemental
narrative.

Streambank grading will occur along the area upstream of the dam if mechanical sediment removal is required by permit
as part of this project. This area will be stabilized with erosion control matting and seeded according to the plans and
specifications for the project. This area is shown in the grading plan with proposed contours and has been included in a
temporary impact on the PCN in Figure 5. Similar stabilization will occur on the streambanks at the Hoosier Dam location.
This is shown in the grading plan (Sheets 1.1 —1.4) and called out in Figure 5 of the PCN.
4. Section 133e of the supplemental narrative mentions the removal of the rock dam (crib dam). Please indicate if any
temporary impacts (fill for pump around or for double handling material) will be necessary. If so, please indicate the
location, and amount (linear feet and/or acres) on the plans.
No temporary fill of material will be required. Material will be taken from the channel and placed above the ordinary
high water mark along the stream banks during deconstruction. From there it will be placed in the permanent stockpile
areas shown on the plans. Temporary impacts associated with grading and placing of rock along the toe of banks is
shown on the construction plans and in Figure 6 of the PCN.
5. Section 133e of the supplemental narrative mentions the removal of the powerhouse and dam and the construction of
a causeway abutting the dam. Please indicate the causeway location on the proposed plans and indicted the amount of
fill within jurisdictional areas.
The causeway is shown on Sheet 1.3 of the construction plans (hatched with a gravel pattern) with a call out of the cubic
yardage of fill required. This is noted as a temporary impact on the PCN in Figure 5.
6. The supplemental narrative mentions dam material falling on the downstream side of the dam during demolition.
This may result in temporary fill at this location. Please estimate the location, amount of fill (cubic yards and acreage)
and the method of removal for any of this material. It should be shown as a temporary impact on the PCN.
This is the causeway mentioned in Question 5, above. The temporary fill is estimated at 1,880 Cubic Yards. The area is
inclusive of where material may fall during demolition. Material will be removed mechanically according to Stage 3 of
the dam removal in the construction plans. This has been shown as a temporary impact on the PCN in Figure 5.
7. Page 5 of the supplemental narrative mentions habitat structure implementation. Specific structures include rocky
riffle and lunker logs (instream). Please provide a plan sheet showing the location of these structures and the amount of
fill associated with them. These should be accounted for on the PCN.
Please see Question 3. This approach has been adjusted since dewatering. Unique Places and the design team feel it is
the best approach for the Cape Fear shiner and sensitive mussel species to impact as little of the riverbed as necessary to
create a stable and thriving habitat.
8. During several pre -applications meetings, compensatory mitigation was discussed. While the language within NWP 53
states that in general, compensatory mitigation will not be required, it does not preclude it completely. As such, during
the pre -application meetings, monitoring of the existing on site wetlands was discussed. Methods discussed included
creating and implementing a schedule for verifying hydrology indicators of the current wetlands and making routine
wetland determinations for any newly formed wetlands. Please provide a statement and plan regarding the monitoring
wetlands that will potentially be impacted by this project and those that may form, post dam removal. Please be aware
that the Corps of Engineers may condition the permit verification to provide compensatory mitigation at a later date,
depending upon the final amount of wetland loss (if any) associated with this project.
We are still composing this response.
9. Please modify Figure 7 by using different labels, colors, hatching, etc. to distinguish between wetlands that you have

classified as follows:
a. functional/hydrological change
b. likely removed from jurisdiction
c. no change
This has been updated in Figure 7 and labeled to correspond with the PCN and JD
10. Please clarify if the applicant is the entity known as 130 Chatham or Rocky River Hydro, LLC. Also, please provide a
contact name, email address and phone number for the applicant.
Unique Places, LLC is consulting on this project for Tim Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney is the managing member of both 130 of
Chatham, LLC and Rocky River Hydro, LLC. Several of the consultation reports hove been commissioned under 130 of
Chatham, LLC for this project, however, Rocky River Hydro, LLC is the correct applicant for this project. Rocky River Hydro
owns the two parcels immediately on either side of the Hoosier Dom and oll direct impacts associated with demolition
will occur on these two parcels. This is not the case with the upstream crib dam, which sits between o parcel owned by
130 of Chatham and another private landowner. Impacts will occur on 130 of Chatham property for the removal of the
crib dam.
Contact information: Tim Sweeney
Phone: [phone]
11. We recognize and appreciate that this project has been extensively coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) regarding the Cape Fear Shiner. However, please be aware that no activity is authorized under any NWP which
"may affect" a listed species or critical habitat, unless ESA section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed
activity has been completed. Direct effects are the immediate effects on listed species and critical habitat caused by the
NWP activity. Indirect effects are those effects on listed species and critical habitat that are caused by the NWP activity
and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. We will coordinate with USFWS to complete Section 7
consultation. In cases where the non- Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be
affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the
Corps has provided notification that the proposed activity will have "no effect" on listed species or critical habitat, or
until ESA section 7 consultation has been completed.
Noted and understood
12. We recognize and appreciate that this project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) regarding the dam and powerhouse. In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may have
the potential to cause effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the
activity is not authorized, until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have
been satisfied. We will coordinate with SHPO to complete Section 106 consultation. For non-federal permittees, the
district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre -construction
notification whether NHPA section 106 consultation is required. If NHPA section 106 consultation is required, the district
engineer will notify the non- Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin the activity until section 106 consultation is
completed.
Noted and understood
191

Aaron Aho
Land and Resource Associate
Unique Places LLC
PO Box 52357
Durham, NC 27717
p919.491.1964
uniqueplacesllc.com
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
wrote:
Mr. Aho:
The Pre -construction notification (PCN) for the Rocky River Hydro, LLC Hoosier Dam Removal Project (SAW -2017-
00511), received on December 21, 2017 is incomplete.
In order for use to continue evaluating the proposed project, please provide/clarify the following information/issues:
1. In several locations within the PCN, including the PCN supplemental narrative and attached plans sheets, the project
is referred to as a "bank" or "mitigation bank". Please clarify whether or not the applicant is proposing this as a
mitigation bank.
2. Please provide specific control measures to be implemented to alleviate any severe or long term impacts to the Cape
Fear Shiner critical habitat, as mentioned in the supplemental narrative (page 2).
3. Page 3 of the supplemental narrative mentions the stabilization of streambanks, post -dam removal and stabilization
of stream bed using grade control structures. Streambank and streambed impacts are shown/mentioned at the
location of the old crib dam. It is unclear if any additional stream bank/streambed work will take place within the
footprint of the project area. If so, please specify the location, type and amount of impacts associated with any
additional streambank and grade control structures along other sections of the project area. If so, these impacts should
be listed in the PCN.
4. Section 133e of the supplemental narrative mentions the removal of the rock dam (crib dam). Please indicate if any
temporary impacts (fill for pump around or for double handling material) will be necessary. If so, please indicate the
location, and amount (linear feet and/or acres) on the plans.
5. Section 133e of the supplemental narrative mentions the removal of the powerhouse and dam and the construction
of a causeway abutting the dam. Please indicate the causeway location on the proposed plans and indicted the amount
of fill within jurisdictional areas.
6. The supplemental narrative mentions dam material falling on the downstream side of the dam during demolition.
This may result in temporary fill at this location. Please estimate the location, amount of fill (cubic yards and acreage)
and the method of removal for any of this material. It should be shown as a temporary impact on the PCN.
7. Page 5 of the supplemental narrative mentions habitat structure implementation. Specific structures include rocky
riffle and lunker logs (instream). Please provide a plan sheet showing the location of these structures and the amount
of fill associated with them. These should be accounted for on the PCN.
8. During several pre -applications meetings, compensatory mitigation was discussed. While the language within NWP
53 states that in general, compensatory mitigation will not be required, it does not preclude it completely. As such,
during the pre -application meetings, monitoring of the existing on site wetlands was discussed. Methods discussed
included creating and implementing a schedule for verifying hydrology indicators of the current wetlands and making
routine wetland determinations for any newly formed wetlands. Please provide a statement and plan regarding the
monitoring wetlands that will potentially be impacted by this project and those that may form, post dam removal.

Please be aware that the Corps of Engineers may condition the permit verification to provide compensatory mitigation
at a later date, depending upon the final amount of wetland loss (if any) associated with this project.
9. Please modify Figure 7 by using different labels, colors, hatching, etc. to distinguish between wetlands that you have
classified as follows:
a. functional/hydrological change
b. likely removed from jurisdiction
c. no change
10. Please clarify if the applicant is the entity known as 130 Chatham or Rocky River Hydro, LLC. Also, please provide a
contact name, email address and phone number for the applicant.
11. We recognize and appreciate that this project has been extensively coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) regarding the Cape Fear Shiner. However, please be aware that no activity is authorized under any
NWP which "may affect" a listed species or critical habitat, unless ESA section 7 consultation addressing the effects of
the proposed activity has been completed. Direct effects are the immediate effects on listed species and critical habitat
caused by the NWP activity. Indirect effects are those effects on listed species and critical habitat that are caused by
the NWP activity and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. We will coordinate with USFWS to
complete Section 7 consultation. In cases where the non- Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical
habitat that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the activity, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not
begin work until the Corps has provided notification that the proposed activity will have "no effect" on listed species or
critical habitat, or until ESA section 7 consultation has been completed.
12. We recognize and appreciate that this project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) regarding the dam and powerhouse. In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may have
the potential to cause effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the
activity is not authorized, until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have
been satisfied. We will coordinate with SHPO to complete Section 106 consultation. For non-federal permittees, the
district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre -construction
notification whether NHPA section 106 consultation is required. If NHPA section 106 consultation is required, the
district engineer will notify the non- Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin the activity until section 106
consultation is completed.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Thanks.
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
919-554-4884 ext. 26

Appendix G
Biological Assessment
UniqueftcesLLC.com
Unique
Places
Land Conservation,
Restoration & Management

Biological Evaluation/
Assessment
June 2017
Prepared By:
Unique Places, LLC
PO Box 52357
Durham, NC 27717
Phone: [phone]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
312 W. Millbrook Rd., Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Chatham County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003
Prepared For:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
551 Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Phone: [phone]
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 1

I. Description of the Proposed Restoration/Recovery Action [include maps, photographs, diagrams,
etc. as appropriate]
A. Description of the Restoration/Recovery Objective(s)
1. Briefly describe the restoration and specific recovery action (citing source document when
applicable) and its intended beneficial impact to the species.
The Hoosier Dam is a 94 -year-old hydroelectric dam located on the Rocky River 5 %2 miles upstream of its
confluence with the Deep River in Chatham County, North Carolina. The dam is being proposed for
removal as part of a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant to restore the Rocky River from
its currently impounded state back to a free-flowing state.
Hoosier Dam and its impoundment, Reeves Lake, are responsible for the loss of natural flow regime,
sediment regime, and shallow water habitat to approximately 18,138 linear feet of stream ecosystem
(16,060 linear feet within the Rocky River and 2,078 linear feet of perennial tributaries). The U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (USFWS) has designated sections of the Rocky River upstream of the impoundment and
downstream from Hoosier Dam, as well as a section of Bear Creek just below the dam, as Critical Habitat
for the Cape Fear shiner, a federally listed endangered species (USFWS, 1988). The non -impounded
sections of the Rocky River and Bear Creek exhibit very high quality riverine habitat that supports a
diverse collection of aquatic species including the Cape Fear shiner and other species of concern, such as
the eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis), the Carolina creekshell
(Villosa vaughaniana), the Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), and an undescribed Lampsilis sp... The
dam represents a significant blockage to aquatic species ability to disperse freely and exchange genetic
material with neighboring populations and as a result, USFWS has documented declines in the
disconnected Cape Fear shiner population upstream of the dam (USFWS, 1988). Removal of the
blockage created by the dam to provide access to these high-quality reaches would be of substantial
long-term benefit to aquatic communities including the Cape Fear shiner.
The recovery goals for the Cape Fear shiner, as listed in the 1988 USFWS report are:
1. Protection of existing populations and successful establishment of reintroduced populations and
current habitat;
2. Evaluating feasibility of introducing species into historic habitat;
3. Searching for additional suitable habitat for re -introduction;
4. Monitoring existing populations biannually; and
5. Evaluating the recovery program on an annual basis.
The removal of the Hoosier Dam, and restoration of the Rocky River in the vicinity of the dam will
address the habitat recovery goals of the Cape Fear shiner listed above. Post -dam removal, the
previously impounded stretch of the Rocky River will return to its historic wide, shallow, and rocky state.
This will immediately provide 3.4 additional miles of historic habitat for the Cape Fear shiner that is
directly connected to existing habitat and known populations of the species. This expansion of available
habitat is expected to be naturally repopulated as shiners move into the area.
Impoundments and siltation from impoundments is listed as one of the key elements in the decline of
the Cape Fear shiner population (USFWS 1988.) This project will directly address such an impact.
Removing the dam will prevent further siltation of habitat within the currently impounded reach of the
Rocky River. The construction plan itself will address the existing sediment wedge behind the dam. The
wedge will be removed prior to construction if testing of the wedge after dewatering confirms a
dominant fine silt/clay/sand texture. Sediment in the wedge will be pulsed through the system during
construction if testing confirms the wedge to be a medium gravel to cobble texture.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G-2

Removal of the dam will restore a natural sediment regime to the Rocky River. The current
impoundment not only traps fine sediment, but also the gravels and cobbles that comprise the
preferred Cape Fear shiner habitat. Currently, if gravel and cobbles are washed downstream in the
habitat below the dam, they are not being replaced by new material entering the system, damaging
existing habitat.
2. Include a description of anticipated habitat improvements, and/or expected increases in species
fitness, survivorship, etc. that are consistent with the recovery needs of the species.
The impounded portion of the Rocky River,
shown in the photo to the left, is an open,
freshwater, lentic habitat. Water depth is
approximately 25 feet at the upstream face of
the dam and gradually decreases in the
upstream direction. The impoundment is
narrow through the majority of the river
length and widens for the last 1,000 feet
before the dam. Habitat is suitable for lentic
species of fish, macroinvertibrates,
vegetation, and waterfowl.
Draining the impoundment and removing the
dam is expected to return the Rocky River to
its historic bed conditions. These conditions
are likely to mimic those upstream of the
impoundment and downstream of Hoosier dam (pictured right). The river will have wide, shallow waters
interspersed with bedrock outcrops, pools, natural riffle features, and deposits of large woody debris.
This is consistent with the habitat needs of the Cape Fear shiner.
In addition to geomorphic habitat restoration,
the removal of Hoosier Dam will restore many
natural processes that will benefit the Cape Fear
shiner and other sensitive aquatic species.
Water temperature and oxygen levels will
change in the Rocky River's impounded reach
once the dam is removed. Previous temperature
and dissolved oxygen stratification testing done
by Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) in 2013
within the impoundment showed stratification
of temperatures ranging from 26.8 °C at the
surface to 22.2 °C at a depth of 19 ft. In a study
of the Cape Fear shiner by Hewitt et al. (2006),
the habitats with the best survivability and
growth rate had temperatures ranging from
26.4°C to 28.1°C. This range was only achieved on three sampling dates and only within the top four feet
of lake depth. Since the river will be restored to a shallow water condition, it is more likely to maintain
these temperature ranges preferred by the shiner and provide suitable habitat for species re-
establishment. Wildlands 2013 dissolved oxygen (DO) samples showed a dramatic decrease in DO
concentrations in the first six feet of depth, typically dropping from 8 mg/L to 5 mg/L within the first
four feet of depth. The aforementioned study by Hewitt et al. (2006) indicated the best habitat for Cape
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 3

Fear shiner has a DO range of 5.8 — 12.5 mg/L. Restoration of a shallow free-flowing river will improve
habitat conditions within the vicinity of the impounded reach by increasing DO levels and eliminating
the drastic stratification existing in the impoundment.
Natural sediment transport processes will be restored through removal of the Hoosier Dam. As
discussed in the section above, reintroduction of a natural sediment regime will enhance habitat located
in the impoundment by flushing fines and removing the sediment wedge, but it will also allow gravels
and cobbles that have been trapped behind the dam to coarsen downstream riffles located in the
Critical Habitat Area that have been previously starved of sediment. Pebble Counts conducted above
and below the impoundment show that riffles below the dam have smaller amounts of coarse gravel
and small cobbles, confirming the effect of an interrupted sediment regime. Additional details on
sediment composition can be found in the Sediment Management Plan.
3. Explain why there is a high certainty that implementation of the proposed action is likely to achieve
its intended restoration/recovery objective under the second Criterion for Inclusion. This explanation
should rely on either a proven track record or a high level of certainty that the habitat improvements
are likely to cause the desired species response.
Dam removals have been performed extensively throughout the United States to remove barriers to
aquatic organism passage and return impounded waters to historic lotic conditions. In North Carolina,
the Carbonton Dam was removed under similar conditions and project goals to this project including
benefits to Cape Fear shiner habitat. The Carbonton Dam was a run of the river hydroelectric dam
facility located on the Deep River approximately nine miles west of Sanford North Carolina. The concrete
buttress dam was built in 1921, averaged 27 feet in height, and had a crest of 260 feet (Restoration
Systems, 2005). Similarly, the Hoosier Dam is a run of the river hydroelectric dam facility with a concrete
buttress structure. Hoosier Dam was built in 1922, averages 25 feet in height, and has a crest of 235
feet.
The Carbonton Dam removal was part of a NCDEQ-Division of Mitigation Services full delivery project
created to deliver mitigation credits for impacts to waters of the United States. Project goals for the
Carbonton Dam removal were similar to this project and included restoration of a lotic ecosystem and
provision of habitat for the endangered Cape Fear shiner. The project was monitored for five years post-
dam removal. After two years, the Cape Fear shiner presence was recorded at eight of their 14
monitoring stations, with available habitat increasing each monitoring year (Restoration Systems, 2010).
The project can be considered a success for the restoration of Cape Fear shiner habitat.
The Hoosier Dam removal will occur under similar conditions. It is in the same geographic and geologic
region, with similar potential for restoration of shallow, wide, rocky habitat for the Cape Fear shiner.
Potential risk factors for the project, such as temporary sedimentation, are accounted for in
conservation management measures discussed in Section 1D, below. No risk factors are evident that
would inhibit the development of a lotic ecosystem with a variety of habitat niches for aquatic species.
The presence of Cape Fear shiner in the previously impounded section of the Deep River within two
years of dam removal indicates that the species will enter adjacent newly available habitat.
4. Describe over what time frame the conservation benefits of the proposed action are expected to
accrue.
The Rocky River will experience immediate alteration upon removal of the Hoosier dam and the small
remnant dam upstream. The geomorphology, flow regime, and sediment regime will adjust back
towards conditions present in the river prior to the construction of Hoosier Dam. It is anticipated that
within the first six months, half of the sediment affected by the dam removal will be pulsed through the
system as a result from the change in geomorphology (an increase in channel slope from the removal of
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G-4

the impoundment). Then over time the remaining sediment may flush through the system on an
episodic basis corresponding to large storm events (Collins et al., 2017; Pearson et al., 2011.). This
process is expected to return the Rocky River to a shallow water system with a gravel substrate suitable
for the colonization of the Cape Fear Shiner.
The Cape Fear shiner can migrate into the previously impounded section of the Rocky River from existing
populations located upstream of the impoundment and downstream of the dam. This may take place
over a number of years, eventually fully connecting the Upper Rocky River Aquatic Habitat to the Lower
Rocky River/Lower Deep River Aquatic Habitat and the Bear Creek Aquatic Habitat, greatly expanding the
available habitat and spawning areas for the Cape Fear shiner. The timeframe it may take to reestablish
the shiner population throughout the former impoundment is unknown, however, there are no
projected impacts to the river that would prevent this progress.
B. Define the Action Area
Construction activities will be isolated to the lower section of the impoundment and the area
immediately surrounding Hoosier Dam (approximately 1,000LF) to perform the dam removal, potential
removal of the sediment wedge, streambank stabilization, bed stabilization, habitat structure
construction, and re -vegetation. Revegetation may also take place upstream in areas affected by the
drawdown of the impoundment.
The entirety of the impoundment (with an upstream boundary just below Pittsboro Goldston Road and
a downstream boundary just below Hoosier Dam) will be directly and indirectly affected by the removal
of the Hoosier Dam. The entire impounded area, including tributaries, will by hydrologically affected by
the removal of the dam. A lotic flow regime will be reestablished and the channel cross-sections will alter
to adjust to the new hydrology. Shallow, rocky sections of river may be exposed and the habitat niches
will transition from lentic to lotic. Short term impacts may occur directly downstream of the dam as the
Rocky River adjusts to the geomorphic change in the river following removal of the dam. The following is
the proposed project timeline:
Dewatering of the impoundment: June 2017 -July 2017
o Actions concurrent with dewatering:
■ Relocation of mussel species affected by dewatering;
■ Seeding and stabilizing exposed streambanks;
■ Evaluation of sediment wedge upstream of dam; and
■ Continual monitoring of turbidity.
Collection of sensitive mussel species below the dam for relocation: Prior to dam removal,
July/August 2017.
Removal of Hoosier Dam and Powerhouse Structure: August/September 2017
o Actions concurrent with dam removal:
■ Removal of sediment wedge (if wedge is fine sediment), pulsing of sediment (if
wedge is course sediment);
■ Removal of the remnant rock dam located approximately 4,800 feet upstream
of Hoosier Dam (incorporate these boulders into habitat enhancement
structures on Rocky River)
■ Stabilization of streambanks post -dam removal;
■ Stabilization of stream bed using grade control structures;
■ Implementation of habitat structures within stream bed/banks; and
■ Re-establishment of a riparian buffer with planting of native woody species
along streambanks.
4
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 5

C. Project Implementation
The following federal agencies are involved in permitting and approving the Hoosier Dam Removal
Project. Communication and correspondence with all agencies discussed below, in Table 1, is ongoing.
Pre -application meetings with agencies have been held and dates are included in the Table.
Table 1: Federal Agencies involved in Hoosier Dam Removal - Hoosier Dam Removal Project
The removal of the Hoosier Dam will follow the procedure and timeline outlined in Section 1.13, above.
Table 2, below, lists the activities associated with the project that are likely to have a temporary or long
term beneficial or adverse impact to the Cape fear shiner.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G-6
Associated Permits/
Federal Agency
submittals
Required Action
Status
Nationwide 53 (dam
removal), Nationwide 27
Coordination and receipt
Pre -application meeting
US Army Corps of
(stream restoration
of appropriate permits
with USACE held March
Engineers
activities) and/or
prior to dam removal and
15, 2017. Permits to be
Nationwide 13 (Bank
restoration activities
applied for June 2017.
Stabilization)
Biological Assessment
for the Cape Fear shiner,
Submittal of Biological
US Fish and Wildlife
consultation on
Assessment so USFWS can
BA submitted to USFWS
Service
dewatering plan and
submit Biological Opinion
May 30, 2017
sediment management
to USACE for permitting
plan
Submittal of Drawdown
Request prior to
Drawdown request
Federal Energy
Drawdown Request,
drawdown of
submitted June 12, 017.
Regulatory
Surrender of FERC
impoundment, and
FERC variance approved
Commission
Exemption
submittal of FERC
June 15, 2017.
Exemption variance prior
to dam removal
Submittal of no -rise
Coordinated with local
Federal Emergency
technical memo prior to
Floodplain Administrator.
Management Agency
Dam removal is exempt
restoration activities and
Submitting No -Rise May
CLOMR post restoration
30, 2017.
activities
The removal of the Hoosier Dam will follow the procedure and timeline outlined in Section 1.13, above.
Table 2, below, lists the activities associated with the project that are likely to have a temporary or long
term beneficial or adverse impact to the Cape fear shiner.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G-6

Table 2: Project Activities and Their Potential Impact - Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 7
Potential
Project Activity
Activity Description
Description of Potential Impact to Species
Description of Potential Impact to
Effect on
Habitat
Cape Fear
shiner
During dewatering, turbidity and effluent flowrate will be
monitored to keep at levels set by USFWS (< 50 NTUs, and
approximately 50 cfs above baseflow, respectively) in order
May Affect
Dewatering of
Dewatering of
to reduce potential impact to aquatic life. Drawdown
but not
Reeves Lake
Impoundment.
should maintain a rate of approximately one foot per day.
likely to
(impoundment)
High turbidity levels (>50 NTU) and changes to flow regime
Adversely
due to dewatering could force species to move
Affect
downstream from immediate vicinity of Dam. An adaptive
management plan will be in place to respond to any rises in
Potential increase in turbidity may
turbidity during dewatering.
have an effect of temporarily silting
in Cape Fear shiner habitat.
In addition to installing and maintaining erosion and
However, any siltation would likely
sediment control devices during construction, turbidity
be flushed out during the next storm
Installing erosion and
within the river will be monitored directly downstream of
event.
May Affect
Erosion and
sediment control
the dam removal. Construction protocol will follow the
but not
Sediment
devices prior to start of
same protocol set forth in the dewatering plan, where if the
likely to
Control/Site setup
construction activities
turbidity increases above 50 NTUs construction will cease
Adversely
and maintaining them
and any sediment input will be addressed (if caused by
Affect
during construction
construction and not natural hydrologic events). It is likely
that turbidity will increase during construction even with
the presence of erosion and sediment control devices.
Removal of the dam will benefit stream temperatures,
Dam will be removed
dissolved oxygen levels, hydrologic regime, and sediment
Dam removal will open up 3.4 miles
Removal of
from the Rocky River
regime within previously impounded reach and
of potential habitat for the Cape
May Affect
Hoosier Dam
according to Final
downstream reach of Rocky River. The initial act of removal
Fear shiner.
Construction Plans
could have a temporary impact or take of the species due
to construction activities.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 7

Appendix G - Biological Assessment G-8
Potential
Project Activity
Activity Description
Description of Potential Impact to Species
Description of Potential Impact to
Effect on
Habitat
Cape Fear
shiner
Removal of the hydroelectric powerhouse will allow for the
Deconstruction and
Rocky River to have a more stable planform with less
Removal of the powerhouse allows
Removal of
removal of the
potential for bank erosion and downstream sedimentation
for complete removal of the
May Affect
Powerhouse
hydroelectric
post -dam removal. The initial act of removal could have a
structure and opens up further
powerhouse
temporary impact or take of the species due to
habitat for the shiner.
construction activities
If sediment wedge
behind dam is found to
Sediment will not be pulsed
be coarse, sediment
If sediment behind the dam is found to be coarse in nature,
downstream if it has a high potential
May Affect
Potential pulsing of
may be pulsed
there is less danger of it affecting the Cape Fear shiner
of silting in shiner habitat. There
but not
sediment
downstream during
population. However, there could be a temporary impact as
may be temporary deposition of
likely to
downstream
deconstruction.
sediment pulses through the system within the first few
sediment within the system, but it
Adversely
months after removal.
would be flushed out with the next
Affect
storm event.
This change in bed formation will benefit the Cape Fear
After removal of the
shiner as it will greatly increase the amount of riffle habitat
Reformation of
dam, the riverbed will
within the newly drained impoundment. Channel bed
Reformation of the channel will not
channel banks and
be stabilized with rock
material will coarsen overtime within the previously
impact any existing shiner habitat,
bed (with
structures if needed. If
impounded section of Rocky River and the baseflow level
but will create potential shiner
May Benefit
hydrologic regime
bedrock is exposed, it
will decrease in depth similar to upstream and downstream
habitat.
change)
will remain in place as
conditions. Available habitat will also increase for the
a natural grade control
American Water Willow (Justicia Americana), a native plant
species present in the Cape Fear shiner habitat.
Stabilization of
exposed banks through
Re -vegetating stream banks will limit potential for erosion
Bank stabilization and re -vegetation
Bank Stabilization
revegetation and
and sedimentation in the Rocky River. This will help
will not negatively impact any
and re -vegetation
potential grading. Re-
maintain a coarse bed material texture. Re -vegetating will
existing shiner habitat, but may
May Benefit
vegetation of newly
also provide areas of refuge along the streambanks for
improve quality in potential shiner
exposed floodplains
aquatic species including the Cape Fear shiner.
habitat.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G-8

Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 9
Potential
Project Activity
Activity Description
Description of Potential Impact to Species
Description of Potential Impact to
Effect on
Habitat
Cape Fear
shiner
Installation of instream
or streambank
Habitat structures including rocky riffle and lunker logs
Implementation of habitat
Habitat Structure
structures for the
provide instream and near streambank habitat for aquatic
structures will not negatively impact
May Benefit
implementation
purpose of providing
species including the Cape Fear shiner
any existing shiner habitat but may
habitat niches within
create potential shiner habitat.
the Rocky River
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 9

D. Conservation Measures
Specific management practices will be put in place for the demolition of Hoosier Dam and restoration of
Rocky River to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the Cape Fear shiner and its habitat. These are
discussed below.
Management of Dewatering
Dewatering the impoundment is the first phase of the project. The timing of dewatering is critical to
minimizing impact on Cape Fear shiner populations downstream of the impoundment. Summer was
chosen for drawdown based on consultation with the USFWS for the following reasons:
• Baseflow in the channel is at its lowest between June and September. This allows for better
control over dewatering and limits the likelihood of the impoundment levels rising and falling,
potentially harming aquatic species with the water level fluctuations. Low baseflow conditions
also allow for better access to exposed sediments behind the dam, aiding in mechanical removal
if deemed necessary.
• The summer timeframe is after the window of spring reproductive activity when sensitive life
stages associated with spawning and larval development of rare mussels and Cape Fear shiner
occur.
• Aquatic species surveys are easier in the summer months. Water temperatures allow for human
access for species surveys and relocations.
The rate of dewatering was developed after consultation with USFWS to limit impact on aquatic species.
The drawdown rate will be kept at a maximum of one vertical foot per day. This will allow for
stabilization of streambanks with grasses and the collection of any stranded mussels along the
impoundment.
Turbidity monitoring will be conducted daily during the drawdown period and will commence two weeks
before drawdown and extend two weeks following completion of the dewatering. The turbidity will be
sampled approximately 100 feet downstream of the power facility. An additional turbidity measurement
will be taken weekly within the impoundment that will be sampled from the catwalk attached to the
powerhouse. Based on feeback from NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) and USFWS a
maximum threshold of 50 NTUs will be adhered to during the dewatering process. It is understood that
mussels can tolerate short term spikes in turbidity and that it may not be advisable in a high turbidity
event to maintain open flow conditions (i.e. not mechanically reduce or stop flow). If turbidity
approaches the 50 NTU threshold, Unique Places (UP) staff will immediately contact the NCWRC and
USFWS staff to discuss the situation. An action plan will be developed and formalized based on current
river conditions, expected rain falls, gauge station data, etc. The prescribed actions to adjust flow (if any)
will be implemented immediately by UP staff.
Additional information on dewatering is discussed in detail in the dewatering plan.
Management of Construction
Removal of the Hoosier Dam and the restoration of the Rocky River will adhere to a permitted erosion
and sediment control plan through the NCDEQ Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. Dam
removal will be completed to limit impact and contact of equipment, sediment, and materials with the
river bed and water column. During dam removal, streamflow will be routed through the existing
powerhouse. This will leave dry access to the dam itself. The dam will be removed from the top of the
dam down, in small vertical sections. Once material is removed it will be placed in the river within the
0
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G-10

footprint of the dam itself, to allow construction equipment to walk across the streambed on a concrete
pad. Once the dam is fully deconstructed, the pad will be removed. Water will then be turned into the
center of the channel, and the powerhouse will be removed. The ability to continue a natural flow
regime during dam removal will reduce potential impact on downstream aquatic species. Not having to
utilize pumps protects aquatic species from being inadvertently pumped through the system. Additional
erosion control features will include silt fence along any staging and stockpile areas and stabilizing
exposed banks with erosion control matting and temporary and permanent seed. All erosion control
features will be monitored regularly as well as turbidity downstream of the construction site for the
purpose of preventing sedimentation of downstream aquatic habitat. Turbidity protocol and
management will follow that outlined in the dewatering plan.
E. Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Monitoring of the Cape Fear Shiner will take place for three years following removal of the dam to
document project success. Three locations have been chosen because they have existing survey data on
the Cape Fear shiner that can be used for comparison. The fourth will be within the previously
impounded reach. Sampling locations are:
1. Upstream of the bridge crossing at Pittsboro-Goldston Road (Upsteam of impoundment)
2. The previously impounded reach
3. In the trailrace of the dam
4. At Chatham Church Road
Monitoring will be conducted via seining suitable habitats for a standard time duration and number of
seining efforts (to be determined). All monitoring will be performed by a qualified and permitted crew
once a year for up to three years. If Cape Fear shiner are detected at Pittsboro-Goldston Road, the
trailrace of the dam, and Chatham Church Road during the first or second year of monitoring, then
sampling in these areas may be discontinued early. Sampling in the impounded reach should continue
for the full three years.
II. Status of the Species and Critical Habitat in the Action Area- Environmental Baseline
Table 3: Federally Listed Species Status - Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Species
Habitat Association
Federal Status
Suitable Habitat
in Action Area
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
Gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate
mekistocholas)
around aquatic vegetation found in slow
Endangered
Yes
moving pools, riffles, and slow runs.
Suitable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner is located within the Action area for this project. The
suitable habitat area is located at the base of the dam and continues downstream of the project. The
Cape Fear shiner habitat upstream of the impoundment will not be impacted by the activities
associated with this project.
A. Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
The Notropis mekistocholas, endemic to the Cape Fear River basin, has sustained segmented
populations for several decades; however, environmental stressors are still contributing to the
species decline. Dams and impoundments that create habitat fragmentation and degradation are
the primary culprit for these restricted populations. Currently, the Hoosier Dam and its
impoundment is hindering potential connectivity for the Cape Fear shiner. Limited genetic variation
can be detrimental to the survivability of a population. Considering the life span of the Cape Fear
shiner is approximately 2-3 years, both existing and developing stressors prevent research and
10
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 11

monitoring opportunities to learn more about their behavior, biology and ecology.
The Cape Fear shiner has not been found in the impoundment; however, populations have been
confirmed upstream and downstream. Currently, the Hoosier Dam has altered the riverine habitat
resulting in demographic consequences for the aquatic species, especially the Cape Fear shiner.
Within confirmed locations, the Cape Fear shiner has been seined in shallow waters around
American water -willow (Justicia Americana). Emergent vegetation provides mesohabitats serving as
refuge, possible food source and locations for depositing and attaching eggs to the substrate
associated around willow beds and other riparian vegetation.
The existing lentic ecosystem of Reeves Lake has engulfed all microhabitats which are necessary for
distribution and reproduction of the Cape Fear shiner and similar species. Furthermore,
impoundments act as a reservoir for predators such as the Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons),
crappie (Pomoxis sp.) and the flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), which is an introduced obligate
carnivorous species (Hewitt et al., 2009 and USFWS, 1988). While the adult catfish do not occupy the
same habitat as the Cape Fear shiner, the juvenile catfish do share habitat and could pose as
potential threat. Dams also act as a holding tank for contaminants which ultimately affect water
quality. Suitable habitats required for early development may be essential for this species' success.
The Cape Fear shiner has been found in slow pools, shallow side waters and run/riffle complexes
throughout their range indicating velocity breaks with healthier water quality and various depths
with mixed substrates are indicative of suitable habitat for the life stages of this species (USFWS,
1988).
Removal of the Hoosier Dam and restoring riverine habitat within a lotic ecosystem will allow natural
features that establish vegetation growth, provide proper spawning grounds, and decrease predation
risks. The project would contribute to long-term conservation efforts of the Cape Fear shiner and
provide the historical habitat that is necessary to support their population recovery.
B. Cape Fear Shiner Critical Habitat
As defined in the Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan, USFWS designated sections of the Rocky River
upstream of Reeves Lake and downstream of the Hoosier Dam, along with a section of Bear Creek
just below the dam, as Critical Habitat for the Cape Fear shiner (USFWS, 1988). According
to USFWS, "the constituent elements for the Cape Fear shiner include clean streams with gravel,
cobble and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and slow water areas with large rock
outcrops, side channels and pools with good water quality and relatively low silt loads." Due to the
Hoosier Dam, this particular section of the Rocky River does not contain any of the constituent
elements but instead the impoundment has inundated the natural features and accumulated a
sediment load behind the dam.
III. Effects of the Action and Cumulative Effects
A. Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear Shiner)
Any potential adverse impacts are believed to be temporary. During the dewatering process, the
drawdown of approximately one foot per day will expose streambanks, some turbidity will occur and the
potential effluent flowrates could push the species downstream. The main area of concern will be
immediately downstream of the dam removal where fine sediment could be displaced. Measures will
be set forth to control and prevent mass erosion or excessive turbidity. For example, seeding will be
placed along streambanks to provide streambank stability and decrease siltation.
There should be very limited take, if any, upstream of the Hoosier Dam removal. The controlled
lowering of the impoundment would provide opportunity for the Cape Fear shiner to reach maximum
dispersal distances over time having a positive impact on population levels. The sediment management
11
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 12

plan and the scheduling of the project will prevent adverse impacts to the population downstream and
would be minimal, if any take does occur.
The alteration from a lentic ecosystem to a lotic ecosystem will manipulate the existing habitat and its
function. However, the lotic ecosystem will develop and enhance habitat and the habitat function for
both aquatic and terrestrial species, serving as a wildlife corridor upstream, downstream and across,
whereas the impoundment and Reeves Lake is currently an obstacle for wildlife species. The action will
create a permanent gain of habitat and habitat function.
The project will develop long-term beneficial impacts by connecting approximately three miles of
improved riverine habitat which will allow for demographic dispersal, genetic diversity and species
richness. Specifically, characteristics such as higher dissolved oxygen levels, stable water temperatures,
consistent hydrologic and sediment regime will establish microhabitats within and around run/riffles
complexes, shallow pools and woody debris throughout the reach. The establishment of new vegetation
along streambanks, on bars and islands of rock outcrops will provide refuge from predation for aquatic
species, including the Cape Fear shiner, which is crucial for larval and young to reach their first year of
reproductive maturity.
The beneficial cumulative effects such as reducing predation, healthier water qualities, and extending
the upstream riverine habitat downstream to the confluence of the Deep River and Rocky River would
enhance the Cape Fear critical habitat through the Action Area and provide grounds for further research
and monitoring of Cape Fear shiner populations. The long-term benefits are expected to outweigh the
short-term impacts to the species.
B. Caae Fear Shiner Critical Habitat
If any adverse impacts should occur within the critical habitat, they should be short-term and small in
magnitude since controlled measures will be implemented to alleviate any severe or long-term impacts;
therefore, this project and its temporary in -water work actions should not result in Adverse Modification
to designated Cape Fear shiner Critical Habitat. As mentioned earlier, erosion and sediment control
devices will be utilized and monitoring turbidity levels will be on-going throughout the process to reduce
potential impact to the aquatic species, along with seed application to streambanks to provide bank
stabilization. Restoring the essential habitat features, primary constituent elements (PCEs) and/or
physical or biological features (PBFs) is the goal of this project.
This project should allow enhancement of the conservation support function by establishing connectivity
between the upstream and downstream critical habitat. Returning the river to its historical habitat,
within the Action Area, will provide another migration site for the Cape Fear shiner or facilitate the
augmentation of reintroduced populations. There will be a gain of critical habitat and functional value
of critical habitat over time. These beneficial effects to the species will be long-lasting.
The negative effects associated with the dam and its impoundment will be removed with the demolition
of the dam. Construction itself, and potential associated sediment loads, may cause temporary stress to
any Cape Fear shiner in the immediate vicinity of the dam. However, stress should be temporary in
duration. The outcome of this project will re-establish the primary constituent elements of the
designated critical habitat essential to the conservation of the Cape Fear shiner.
IV. Conclusion -Determination of Effect
The removal of the Hoosier Dam and restoration of the Rocky River is likely to have an overall, long
term, beneficial effect on the Cape Fear shiner population and available habitat. Demolition and
construction activities discussed herein May Affect and are Likely to Adversely Affect the Cape Fear
12
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 13

shiner. Incidental take is possible in the form of harassment due to machinery and noise in the
immediate area, and potential harm/death during the dewatering and demolition/construction stages of
the project, but the take will not rise to the level of jeopardy of the Cape Fear shiner, nor will it
adversely modify or destroy the designated critical habitat upstream and downstream of the project
areas Management practices will be used to prevent incidental take as much as possible.
V. List of References and Personal Communications
Collins, M.J., Snyder, N.P., Boardman, G., Banks, W.S.L., Andrews, M., Baker, M.E., Conlon, M., Gellis, A,
McClain, S., Miller, A., and Wilcock, P., 2017. Channel response to sediment release: insights from a
paired analysis of dam removal. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, doi: 10.1002/esp.4108
Hewitt, Amanda H. et al. 2006. Influence of Water Quality and Associated Contaminants on Survival and
Growth of the Endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis Mekistochoias). Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 25:9. Pp. 2288-2298.
Hewitt, Amanda H., Kwak, Thomas J., Cope, W. Gregory, and Pollock, Kenneth H. 2009. Population
Density and Instream Habitat Suitability of the Endangered Cape Fear Shiner. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society. 136:6. Pp 1439-1457.
Pearson, A.J., Snyder, N.P., and Collins, M.J., 2011. Rates and processes of channel response to dam
removal with a sand -filled impoundment. Water Resources Research 47:W08504, doi:
10.1029/2010W R009733
Restoration Systems, LLC and Ecoscience Corporation. 2005. Carbonton Dam — Deep River Restoration
Site. Restoration Plan. Project No. 05-235. Accessed May 17, 2017.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/GIS DATA/CarbontonDam 92268 MP 2005.pdf
Restoration Systems, LLC. 2010. Carbonton Dam — Deep River Watershed Restoration Site 2010 Annual
Monitoring Report (Year 5). NCDMS Project No. D -04012A. Accessed May 17, 2017.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/GIS DATA/Carbonton%20Dam 92268 %20MY5 2010.pdf
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. Cape Fear shiner recovery plan. USFWS, Atlanta.
Wildman, Laura A.S. and James G. MacBroom. 2005. The evolution of gravel bed channels after dam
removal: Case study of the Anaconda and Union City Dam Removals. Geomorphology 71. pp. 245-
262.
Note: Previous correspondence with the USFWS and NCWRC took place when this project was being
pursued as a mitigation bank, and therefore, all aspects may not be relevant to the current project.
However, they do discuss the requirement for this Biological Assessment and associated Section 7
consultation with USFWS as well as the requirement for a Tier 1 evaluation and acceptance of the Tier 1
evaluation.
13
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 14

USFWS Communication
and Meeting Notes
Appendix G - Biological Assessment
UniqueftcesLLCcom
UnPaue�
Pces
Land Conservation,
Restoration & Management

Topic: NFWF Kick Off Meeting with USFWS
Date: August 29, 2016
Attendees/Role:
Sara Ward USFWS- services coordinator for the NFWF process. Contaminants Background.
Dale Suiter USFWS - plant background interested in Harperella restoration possibilities.
Chris Flowers - Unique Places - Project Manager
Jeff Fisher - Unique Places CEO
John Hutton - Wildlands - VP
Angela Allen - Wildlands - Designer
Emily Wells USFWS - involved in the mitigation bank option
Van Stancil - NCWRC -
Mike Wicker - USFWS - experience is dam removal projects particularly demolition aspects.
Sarah McRae USFWS - Lead for Cape Fear Shiner
Johnny Randall - NC Botanical Garden - harperella reintroduction into the deep river 2nd island
- funded by NFWF - expertise in this area.
Mike Kunz - Botanical Garden -Harperella experience
Trip Bolton - fish passage, fish habitat coordination/maintenance
Jeff - Unique Places role is to
• Manage the project
• Determine how to get the dam down in the most economic way
• Be a steward of Tim's interests
• Leverage the funds as far as possible to achieve the max conservation impact
Jeff mentioned that Tim Sweeney wants Deep to be a wild and scenic river. Brought up the
possibility of taking an additional upstream dam out and potential grant funding to complete that
work.
Jeff put forward the idea of an "executive team" that would consist of highly involved staff
members from the represented agencies. It was essentially determined that staff will be
involved as much as their time allows within their specific discipline.
3 goals for the meeting were put forth.
1. Next Step - Set up a site visit.
2. Who is on the executive team.
3. How involved will the different agencies be in assisting with this project.
Project History: Provided by Wildlands (included site photographs)
• 25' tall, slab and buttress design,
• turbines can be released to draw water down.
• FERC license is already surrendered.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 16

• as much as 15K cu of sediment accumulated upstream of the dam.
• Tier 1 analysis is complete and showing no risk of contaminants.
• John Alderman thought that the dam was a sink for contaminants.
• Wildlands collected water quality data to prove that it, if anything, it is actually a source
though not statistically significant). Water Quality sampled during July and August.
• Wildlands looked for a depth of refusal in the sediment with probe rods.
• Impoundment is about 16,000 feet long.
Wetlands
• 404 and 401 permit will be required.
• USACE agent is now David Bailey (formerly Andy Williams)
• Approved WL JD is still needed.
• The question of a permit being required for dewatering came up with the specific context
of the hydrologically dependent fringe wetlands around the impoundment. After much
discussions it was largely agreed that up -front discussions with the USACE should
happen as soon as practical.
• The project timeline will vary greatly depending on the 404 permit required (nationwide v.
individual)
• This should be determined as soon as possible.
• The biological assessment will follow the same process as it would in the Mitigation Bank
Scenario.
Sediment Analysis
• Wildlands has done a Tier 1 sediment report. Modeling has not been done yet.
• A Tier 2 analysis is not likely to be necessary due to the lack of contaminants
Species Issues
• USFWS suggests that there are some mussel issues downstream.
• USFWS needs mussel surveys done prior to leaf fall though a spring survey is fine if
necessary.
• Sara McRae and NCWRC may be able to assist with the mussel survey though this is
more likely for a spring survey than this fall.
• Shooting for demo by the end of next summer.
• Two questions came up regarding sediment that affect aquatic species.
• How do we deal with sediment
• When do we de -water relative to taking down the dam.
• Harperella - Botanical Garden will need some lead time. they have some live
populations and seed bank but will need a year to prepare for that.
• Mike at Botanical garden - there is a lot of good habitat in the Deep. Would be
interested in a survey of this reach. Too late this year.
• Unique places will pull the NHP data to determine what rare species are in the dataset
for this reach.
• There is usually an invasive species removal component as part of the plan.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 17

• Dewatering is not dependent on downstream mussel surveys, so long as turbidity does
not create a problem.
USFWS suggested that the restoration plans should show how the Cape Fear Shiner will
re-establish into the reach (connectivity between the upper and lower populations).
Atlantic Pigtoe and the Brook Floater are additional mussel species to consider. One (or
both?) of these are expected to be listed early next year. One option would be to
"assume" and impact and prepare a restoration plan. Mussels could be "grown" but will
require significant time to produce a community suitable for restoration.
Construction
• Trip Bolton's group can handle the construction and has experience in removing
equivalent and larger dams. This would constitute a large cost savings to the budget
which could be utilized for subsequent conservation efforts.
• Trip Bolton USFWS walter—[e-mail]
• 843-819-1229- will send us some info regarding dam removal. Can handle the Dam
removal (construction). Fish Passage program is a 50/50 match.
««««« NEXT STEPS »»»»»»»
Sediment Analysis - UP wildlands have already scheduled
Executive team site meeting - UP will schedule this asap and will communicate the date to all.
Mussel Survey - downstream of the dam (Sarah McRae will confirm the length of survey reach
needed)
UP will send a letter to the IRT recipients to let them know the Mit bank is offline and the new
objectives of the project.
Loop Misty from NCNHP into this project.
Gather additional budget information for Mussel Restoration
Gather additional budget information for USFWS dam removal services (from Trip)
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 18

kt�
WILDLAND5
ENGINEERING
July 21, 2014
Mr. Andrew Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: Response to Public Notice Comments
Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Wildlands Engineering Project No. 005-14005
Dear Mr. Williams,
We have reviewed the comments from the public notice period for the Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank dated June
5, 2014. Below are the responses to each of the regulatory agency comments. For your convenience, the
comments are reprinted with our responses in italics.
Comments by Karen Higgins, NCDENR April 15, 2014
I. 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.
Extensive baseline and post -dam removal monitoring programs have been developed for the Hoosier Dam
Mitigation Bank based on previous dam removal projects and input from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A
supplemental monitoring document has been attached, which will be included in the Final Mitigation Plan.
Water quality monitoring protocol and associated success criteria are located in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.4.
Monitoring will be done seasonally each monitoring year at seven stations and include sampling of temperature
and dissolved oxygen, as the goals of the project is to ameliorate temperature and dissolved oxygen stratification
within the previously impounded sections of the Rocky River.
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.
Aquatic biological community sampling protocol and success criteria are described in Sections 2.1.4 and 2.2.2 in
the attached supplemental monitoring document. Sampling will include macroin vertebrates, snails, mussels and
fish surveys along with habitat evaluations at each sampling station.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 312 W Millbrook St Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 19

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 useful in
development the Hoosier Dam mitigation plan.
As the Milburnie Dam Draft Mitigation Plan is not an approved document it could not legally be made available
to Wildlands. To mitigate this, Wildlands is consulting with the IRT agencies on aspects of the Milburnie plan they
wish to include on this project.
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 the mitigation that would be required if the dam was constructed
now.
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 Multiplier Mitigation Requirement
Fill (Dam Footprint) 200 Lf* 2:1 400 LF
Inundation 22,225 LF 1:1 22,225 LF
Total Mitigation Required 22,625 LF
*Approximate based on aerial photography
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 potentially 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 be discussed by the IRT at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
The additional credits requested by the Bank Sponsor reflect the proposal for the establishment of riparian buffer
conservation easements along Rocky River and its tributaries as discussed in Section 3.2.4 of the Prospectus. The
easements, on lands already purchased by the Sponsor, will protect over 35% of the riparian buffer along the
Rocky River within the bank limits, 100% of the riparian buffer along Tributaries 3 and 4, and 33% along Tributary
2 (tributary credit will be requested only in cases where an easement can be recorded on both sides). Wildlands
and the Bank Sponsor agree that the easements are important in protecting this water resource during its
conversion from a lotic to lentic system and in perpetuity to protect Cape Fear shiner habitat.
The Bank Sponsor intends to protect the riparian buffers along their properties during their ownership of the
lands, however, only a conservation easement will ensure permanent protection. The Sponsor requests
compensation for easements in the form of Mitigation Credits. If no credits are awarded, easements will not be
recorded on the Rocky River as proposed and the credit request will be altered.
3. Monitoring activities should also include stability monitoring of all formerly -impounded tributaries proposed
for credit. Lowering of the water level after dam removal has the potential to expose unvegetated streambanks,
which could result in streambank erosion/headcutting.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 20

As described in the attached supplemental monitoring plan (Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1), geomorphic monitoring
stations will be established on all tributaries where credits are requested, spaced 25 bankfull widths apart. These
stations will be monitored directly after dewatering and then annually during the monitoring period.
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 0303003 and its close proximity to 0303004
makes the proposed service area feasibly. DWR would support the primary service area for this bank to include
all of 03030003 and the Piedmont portion of 0303004.
The proposal is to include only the Piedmont portion of 0303004 in the bank service area. This will be made
clearer in the text and figures of the Mitigation Plan. Figure 3 from the Prospectus will be altered to highlight this
distinction.
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.
The Bank Sponsor continues to pursue the purchase of land along the impoundment of Reeves Lake. They have
recently purchased two parcels along the right bank of the impoundment approximately 2,500 linear feet
upstream of the dam and adjacent to previously purchased parcels. As long as mitigation credits will be awarded
for conservation easements, as discussed in the response to above Question 2, they will be included in the
Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank.
Comments from Shari Bryant, NCWRC April 10, 2014
1. 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 of perennial tributaries.
This language will be clarified in the Mitigation Plan
2. 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 goals are restatements. For example, goals 2, 3, and 6 all refer
to restoring natural flow regime, managing sediment, and or/improving habitat.
In comments from the USACE on the Draft Prospectus, they requested that we "reword and restructure [our]
bank objectives to match those deemed applicable within the 2008 [Dam Removal] Guidance because those
objectives reflect successful targets identified years ago by the resource agencies". For that reason, the Bank
Objectives Section is presented in the format seen in the Final Prospectus.
3. Section 2.2, Assurance of Sufficient Water Rights (p.4): Indicated the hydro facility was bought by the Bank
Sponsor. The FERC library does not show any records of transfer of the exemption. Please provide additional
information regarding the transfer of the FERC exemption between the previous owner and the Bank Sponsor.
A letter notifying FERC of the change in ownership was submitted by Timothy Sweeny on May 14, 2014. Mr.
Sweeny has since received notification that it was accepted by FERC and should now show up in the library.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 21

4. 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 included that documents the physiographic and
ecological similarities between the original HU and the urban growth areas of Cape Fear HU 03030004, then it
can be considered.
The draft mitigation plan will include a section that describes the similarities between HU 03030003 and the
urban growth areas within the piedmont of HU 03030004 in order to supplement our request for the applicability
of the mitigation bank to both service areas.
5. 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.
The entire powerhouse will be removed with the dam. This will be explained clearly in the demolition plan within
the Mitigation Plan.
6. Section 2.4.2, Feasibility (p.7): Under Phase III it indicates removal of the remnant rock dam 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 instream
habitat rather than randomly placing the boulders in the stream channel.
Care will be taken to place remnant rock material throughout the drained impoundment region in such a way
that it mimics naturally occurring rock features on other portions of Rocky River.
7. 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 macroinvertebrates, fish, and freshwater mussels). Baseline (i.e., pre -removal) data for
the aquatic community should be collected to develop success criteria and 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 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.
An extensive biological monitoring plan including baseline and post -dam removal has been developed based on
previous dam removal projects and input from the US FWS. Wildlands has attached this plan that discusses each
of these concerns including monitoring protocol, success criteria, and the handling of endangered species by
companies with state and federal endangered species permits. This discussion can be found in Sections 2.1.4,
2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 22

8. 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 or protected. In addition, 100%
of the buffer along Tributaries 3 and 4, and approximately 33% of the buffer along Trubutary 2 has been
purchased and protected. Information regarded how these riparian buffers are protected (e.g. permanent
conservation easement) should be included.
Please refer to the response to the NCDENR comment #2. The land has been purchased by the Bank Sponsor. If
mitigation credits are awarded for the establishment of conservation easements, then the Bank Sponsor will
place conservation easements along the Rocky River according to the percentages described above. Conservation
easements will be recorded on both sides of any tributaries for which credit is requested. Final copies of these
easements will be provided in the final mitigation plan.
9. 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.
The baseline and annual monitoring protocol and success criteria for water quality are discussed in Sections 2.1.2
and 2.2.4 of the attached supplemental monitoring guidelines. They include collecting water quality data along
the tributaries where mitigation credit is sought. These protocols will be discussed with the IRT prior to
implementation to establish a final agreed upon monitoring plan.
10. 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 sediment 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.
On July 16, 2014 Wildlands met with USFWS staff to discuss the sediment wedge upstream of the Hoosier dam
and the possible impacts it may have on downstream aquatic wildlife populations including the endangered Cape
Fear shiner. It was determined that Wildlands will perform a Tier 1 evaluation, which investigates potential
sources of contamination within the contributing drainage area, the physical characteristics of the sediment
behind the dam and a bathymetric study to determine the volume of the wedge. This evaluation will then be
submitted to the USACE with a determination of whether a Tier 1 evaluation is sufficient or a Tier 2 evaluation
should be completed in order to further rule out contamination. The USACE will then provide the document to the
USFWS who will do their own evaluation to determine if the dam removal is likely to have a positive or negative
effect on fish populations including the cape fear shiner. This evaluation will determine whether sediment will be
dredged from behind the dam.
11. 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 the 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
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 23

restoration. Also, the exemption holder must fulfill 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.
Yes, the above process description is the one that will be followed by the Bank Sponsor.
12. 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 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 included. 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 (CFS) 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 notify NCWRC regarding the date and time of dewatering of Reeves Lake is
initiated. We would like the opportunity to relocate any freshwater mussels that may be stranded during the
dewatering.
There will be a section of the Mitigation Plan dedicated to demolition and dewatering that will explain the
process in detail. Per your request, NCWRC will be notified regarding the date and time of dewatering of Reeves
Lake providing enough time for relocation procedures.
13. 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.
Wildlands will follow the methods used in their previous riparian buffer restoration projects for the design and
establishment of riparian buffers along Rocky River and its tributaries. It should be noted that the majority of the
riparian buffer along Reeves Lake and its tributaries is currently vegetated with mature bottomland hardwood
species. Adjacent native vegetative communities will be used as a guideline for the plant list along with species
with high survivability noted on previous riparian buffer restoration projects. The mitigation plan will outline the
success criteria for these buffers.
14. 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.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 24

Wildlands will follow the above procedure as part of the baseline data collection. This is described in Section
2.2.1 of the attached supplemental monitoring plan.
15. 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 short tributaries. Detailed
information describing how the impoundment limits were determined should be included.
This will be included in the Mitigation plan.
16. 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 under baseline site conditions. Please
provide additional information regarding how "establishing an appropriate aquatic community" will be
determined and how it fits the mitigation criteria.
This criteria will be evaluated with biological surveys conducted pre- and post- dam removal to determine if the
species composition has shifted in representation from lentic to lotic. The protocol for aquatic community
sampling is discussed in Sections 2.1.4, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the attached supplemental monitoring plan.
17. Section 5.0, Determination of Mitigation Credit (p.16): Table 3 shows credit for Rare, Endangered, and
Threatened Species for the Rocky River and each of the six tributaries. 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.
Collection of data in the tributaries is discussed in the attached supplemental monitoring plan. We will not claim
credit if success criteria are not met within the tributaries.
18. 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 a possibility 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
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 25

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 of previous dam removal mitigation banks has shown
tributaries without protected wooded buffers often have significant degradation of aquatic habitat. We believe
further discussion with the IRT is needed regarding mitigation credit for tributaries and/or wooded buffers.
Also, there appears to be some discrepancy between the percentages of buffer protected on each of the
tributaries as described in Section 3.2.4 (p. 8-9) and Table 3 (p. 16).
The Bank Sponsor is not claiming credit on any tributaries without a proposed riparian buffer and easement. Any
discrepancies between Section 3.2.4 and Table 3 will be reconciled in the draft mitigation plan. As mentioned in
the response to NCDENR question #2 and NCWRC question #8, conservation easements will be recorded on the
Rocky River if the Bank Sponsor is compensated with mitigation credit.
Comments from Pete Beniamin, USFWS April 10, 2014
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 in 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 (Fusconaia
masoni); brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa); and the Septima's club tail (Gomphus septima). North Carolina
rare species found downstream of the dam include: the panhandle pebblesnail (Somatogyrus virginicus);
notched rainbow (Villosa constricta); triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata); Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana); eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis); and the creeper (Strophitus undulatus). 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.
Wildlands and the Bank Sponsor have begun the consultation process with Emily Jernigan as requested. The first
meeting took place July 16, 2014 to discuss the Tier 1 evaluation for sediment behind the dam as well as
potential impact the sediment and dam removal itself may have on aquatic life including the Cape Fear shiner.
Wildlands and the Bank Sponsor will continue the consultation process throughout the project to ensure all
concerns regarding aquatic life are addressed.
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.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 26

Wildlands will follow the suggestions above in developing the sediment management plan to be included in the
draft mitigation plan.
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 Service 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
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 functions. We look forward to viewing the impounded areas, reviewing the
total property easement acquisitions, and discussing potential credit ratios.
As mentioned in the response to NCDENR question #2 and NCWRC question #8 and #18, conservation easements
will be recorded on the Rocky River if the Bank Sponsor is compensated with mitigation credit. The bank sponsor
has not yet decided on the width of buffer to be protected but will take the USFWS comment under advisement.
Geomorphic surveys will be conducted on the tributaries and Wildlands will coordinate with the IRT regarding the
suitability of these systems for credit generation.
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.
Success criteria have been outlined in regards to aquatic communities, water quality, geomorphology and the re -
colonization of rare, threatened and endangered species in the attached supplemental monitoring document.
Success criteria in the monitoring document are quantifiable based on monitoring data and have been modeled
after previous dam removal projects. Wildlands intends to discuss this document at the IRT meeting on July 22,
2014 before inclusion of these criteria into the draft mitigation plan.
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 (Justicia americana), when preparing the replanting
component of the mitigation plan. In addition, remedial plans should be included, should the provider fail to
meet stated goals
The mitigation plan will address the topics listed above including planting of native vegetation, success criteria
and long term management plans.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 27

Comments by Renee Gledhill -Early. SHPO. March 17. 2014
I. There are no recorded archeological 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 investigations 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.
Wildlands and Unique Places will continue to coordinate with SHPO throughout the Phase 1 cultural resources
investigation and provide the requisite copies of the resulting cultural resource report the SHPO office and the
IRT.
Comments by Jean Gibbv. USACE June 5. 2014
I. 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 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, and 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 based upon criteria as determined by our Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and public interest review.
A wetland and stream delineation is currently being conducted for this site and a jurisdictional determination will
be requested (estimated completion date August 1, 2014). The corresponding forms mentioned above will be
included in the draft mitigation plan. Discussion and analysis of wetland impacts will also be included in the
mitigation plan.
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 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,
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 28

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
(see also number 5 below).
The draft mitigation plan will address impacts and proposed worked on the six tributaries. As you mentioned,
some IRT members voiced concerns over the tributaries. Those regarding biological community, water quality,
endangered species, and geomorphic stability monitoring and success criteria are addressed in the attached
supplemental monitoring document. Wildlands will gather input from the IRT regarding the monitoring
document before the completion of our baseline monitoring and include that input into the draft mitigation plan.
Also as previously discussed, credit will only be sought for tributaries that include riparian buffers in conservation
easements.
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.
This is noted, and we will continue to communicate with the IRT throughout this process.
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.
Wildlands has begun to consult with USFWS and had a meeting regarding the Cape Fear Shiner on July 16, 2014.
Discussions in this meeting led to the development of the attached monitoring document. Wildlands will continue
to work closely with USFWS throughout the project and will incorporate methods for protecting the Cape Fear
shiner pre, during, and post dam removal in the draft mitigation plan.
5. As indicated in your prospectus and the April 15 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.
Wildlands has provided the attached supplemental monitoring doument in order to get a consensus from the IRT
moving forward on acceptable monitoring protocols and success criteria. The draft mitigation plan will include
the monitoring protocol as agreed upon by the IRT.
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 much
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
sediment removal.
The subjects mentioned above will be included in the draft mitigation plan. Wildlands is currently performing a
bathometric study of the impounded sediment and is starting a Tier 1 evaluation of the impoundment, which,
along with consultation from the USFWS, will drive the development of the sediment management plan.
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 29

7. Please continue to coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding potential impacts to
cultural resources.
Coordination will continue with the SHPO and information regarding correspondence will be provided to the IRT.
8. Please consider and address the recreational uses of the existing resource by the adjacent property
owners/citizens expressed in the attached letters.
The concerns regarding the recreational uses of the existing resources and other comments from adjacent
property owners/citizens is being addressed in a separate comment response letter, which will be provided to the
USACE at a later date.
Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x 102 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John Hutton
Title
Enclosure: Monitoring Document
Appendix G - Biological Assessment G - 30

310
305
300
295 ----STA=
ELEV =
290
285
280
275
270
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
°°' --------- o
oo �jll
FEMA 100 -NEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENT o° /.. / o^ _ CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FROM
/ CHATHAM CHURCH ROAD
TEMPORARY IMPACT FOR DAM DEMOLITION
------ Sq F ,8 - TE FILL) `I
(8 427 T, 1,880 CY MP
---------- %
/ ---------- ;
II ,
I
/ 'I
-----------------
-------------
BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY °° - ;'
i
a____,
/ / ;
GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES F/ /
GRA DING 4IH):1)V)$IDESLOPE$ t�
it r Js1' J i
JEJ
1 � '� `�'\:a`�9��:a� �� ��a rte.. . a� � ��:��.w.,.� �.,.•�
'I I .•
' "I I .'
:• • •••
---------------
GRADING 4(H):11V) SIDESLOPES
TOP OF DAM ELEV. 302.4
EXISTING DAM STRUCTURE
310
305
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
I�
•l
zo opo
Z ry LL
_
oZN
z 2.e.,
Al� aw
9
z
0' 40'
120'
(HOR-14TAL)
0. 4,
B,
12'
(VERTICAL)
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
°°' --------- o
oo �jll
FEMA 100 -NEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENT o° /.. / o^ _ CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FROM
/ CHATHAM CHURCH ROAD
TEMPORARY IMPACT FOR DAM DEMOLITION
------ Sq F ,8 - TE FILL) `I
(8 427 T, 1,880 CY MP
---------- %
/ ---------- ;
II ,
I
/ 'I
-----------------
-------------
BOUNDARY OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY °° - ;'
i
a____,
/ / ;
GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES F/ /
GRA DING 4IH):1)V)$IDESLOPE$ t�
it r Js1' J i
JEJ
1 � '� `�'\:a`�9��:a� �� ��a rte.. . a� � ��:��.w.,.� �.,.•�
'I I .•
' "I I .'
:• • •••
---------------
GRADING 4(H):11V) SIDESLOPES
TOP OF DAM ELEV. 302.4
EXISTING DAM STRUCTURE
310
305
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
I�
•l
zo opo
Z ry LL
_
oZN
z 2.e.,
Al� aw
9

TEMPORARY IMPACT TO
CRIB DAM (5,076 SQ FT)
EXCESS MATERIAL, NOT USED FOR
ROCK TOE, TO BE SPOILED OUTSIDE
OF FLOODPLAIN
HILL SHAYNA
1 j 418 THOMAS MILL DR
PIN: 9639-60-2899
ANK
-
NOTES.
I
I I
I \
1.
SITE TO BE ACCESSED FROM THOMAS MILL DRIVE AS PRIMARY ACCESS AND WOODY DAM ROAD AS
------
-
SECONDARY ACCESS IF NECESSARY.
t ---
2.
THOMAS MILL DR AND ACCESS ROUTES TO BE LEFT IN AS GOOD OR BETTER CONDITION THAN
\
PRE -CONSTRUCTION.
'-
3.
MATERIAL FROM CRIB DAM TO BE RE -USED AS ROCK TOE PROTECTION ON SURROUNDING STREAM
BANKS.
4.
ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROCKY RIVER ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY 130 OF CHATHAM. ALL MATERIAL MUST BE STOCKPILED OUTSIDE OF THE 100 -YEAR FEMA
FLOODPLAIN (SEE SHEET 5.2).
HILL SHAYNA
1 j 418 THOMAS MILL DR
PIN: 9639-60-2899
ANK
------
--------------- --_ ---
\
1 \
-- --------------
EXISTING DAM CRIB WALL REMNANTS `
(TO BE REMOVED)
Go-
/
OD�Loo
lOD
I
PROPOSED RELOCATION AREAS FOR
ROCK FROM CRIB DAM DEMOLITION
AS TOE STABILIZATION
PERMANENT IMPACT (7,296 SQ FT)
I
LOD
\ � 1
\\ 1
1
1
\
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PROPOSE-- -----------------
-- ------
--------------------
I
I I
I \
FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN
------
--------------- --_ ---
\
1 \
-- --------------
EXISTING DAM CRIB WALL REMNANTS `
(TO BE REMOVED)
Go-
/
OD�Loo
lOD
I
PROPOSED RELOCATION AREAS FOR
ROCK FROM CRIB DAM DEMOLITION
AS TOE STABILIZATION
PERMANENT IMPACT (7,296 SQ FT)
I
LOD
\ � 1
\\ 1
1
1
\
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PROPOSE-- -----------------
-- ------
--------------------
---- - -- ---
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD ' ----
-----------------------------
----------------------------------
----------------
PROPOSED LOD --— --------------- — -----
,_--- --------
--------------
------ _ -----
-----
-------
'7Vmo
z P��LL
�z
a -o -ZZ ' -Z
mN
Z
�� LL
u
V
cz
cz
o
c
03
r
:2

>..,, Impoundment Boundary
0 Returning Wetlands (2.12 Acres)
Existing Wetlands (5.34 ac)
`
Likely Functional Chane 0.75 ac
Likely Removed from JD (2.03 ac)
Wetland to Remain JD (2.56 ac)
WLAC
g.
WL AB
WLZ
- WL AA
1
WLX
Ka" q
WILY WL W
WL U x
WILT
WL M
WLR
WL S
WL P
WL N
WL Q
WL U
WL L
WL K
WL O
WL I
WL J
WL E
WL G
WL F
Estimated 1
WLA
Estimated 2
WL B
Estimated 3
� �r • ��' � Hoosier Dam
„ y f
I., 4
WL D
A ,
Figure 7: Existing and Probable Returning Wetlands
WILD LANDS
Hoosier Dam Removal Project
ENGINEERING
� 750
I I I
1,500 Feet
I I
t
Chatham County, NC

Hoosier Dam Removal Project
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003
Chatham County, North Carolina
for
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
F�
F
Pp �Qp
p2p THOMAS MILL
�ON�O ROAD
GO��S
CRIB DAM -
i
7q
1 Pp HOOSIER DAM
v
N \ WOODY DAM RD --
D
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW!
0
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
ISSUED FEBRUARY 6, 2018
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
0.1
Project Overview
0.2
General Notes and Symbols
0.3
Hoosier Dam Demolition
1.1-1.4
Rocky River Plan & Profile
2.1
Crib Dam Demolition
3.1-3.2
Planting Plan
4.1-4.2
Erosion and Sediment Control
5.1-5.2
Details
6.1-6.3
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 W. Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Angela N Allen, PE
919-851-9986
Surveying:
Infinite Land Design, P.C.
117 North Chatham Avenue
Siler City, NC 27344
Charles O. Eliason, PLS
919-663-2708
Owner:
130 of Chatham, LLC
3409 Birk Bluff Court
Cary, NC 27518
Tim Sweeney
919-632-0161
USACE Action ID SAW -2017-00511
NFWF Project ID # 8020.16.054047

\ \ /
\ \ / BARRY Bi
PHYLLIS I
/ DEED BO
Q I /
O
�.1- 3.3 CRIB DAM -REMOVAL /
5.1 AND 5.3 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL \
/
VIRGINIA HILL AND SHAYNA HILL / ACCESS ROUTE
DEED BOOK 1579, PAGE 386
H
MATTHEW T. SCHLAGEL
DEED BOOK 709, PAGE 340
/ I
RIB DAM
I /
II I
II ��
130 NTHAM LLC II
D BOOK 1677, PAGE 955
I'
I�
II
II
I
�I
I I
I
I'
I I
I I
I I
I'
I I
I I
I I
I'
I'
I'
I I
I'
I
ROUTE
HRISTINAS. BOWMAN AND/
VID E. BOWMAN
D D BOOK 703, PAGE 87�
ANGELA THOMAS PARKER AND
AUSTIN LYNN PARKER
DEED BOOK 1397, PAGE 277
JACK
MATT
DEED
Ij 130 CHATHAM LLC
II
II 130 OF CHATHAM \ DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 767
\ / \
\ II DEED 1727, PAGE 687
\ II \
I
i
130 CHATHAM LLC
DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 7C7_ _ _ _ _AU
lz PL LUBY, CAROLE LUBY, \
MOLLY C. LUBY, AND JEFFREY b. GA
DEED BOOK 1245, PAGE 782 \
LLC
BOOK16
BOOK 1699, PAGE 1035
130 CHATHAM LLC /
\\ \ DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 767
\
/
OCA
\
\
Ij 130 CHATHAM LLC
II
II 130 OF CHATHAM \ DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 767
\ / \
\ II DEED 1727, PAGE 687
\ II \
I
i
130 CHATHAM LLC
DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 7C7_ _ _ _ _AU
lz PL LUBY, CAROLE LUBY, \
MOLLY C. LUBY, AND JEFFREY b. GA
DEED BOOK 1245, PAGE 782 \
LLC
BOOK16
BOOK 1699, PAGE 1035
130 CHATHAM LLC /
\\ \ DEED BOOK 1750, PAGE 767
\
/
/ o' 250' Soo' 750'
(xOniroxTaL)
1.1 HOOSIER D MOO
RVIEW
\ \ DONALD CHEEK
1.2 STAGE 1 D/AM RE
AL
DEED BOOK 1042, PAGE 38
1.3 STAGE 2 DAM REM
VAL
1.4 STAGE 3 DAM REM
VAL
ACCESS ROUTE
2.1 ROCKY RIVER PLAN
ROFILE
\
-42-�LANG PLAN
/
5.1- 5.2 SEDIMENT AND ERO
\
N CONTROL \
a)
O
i
ROCKY IVER HYDRO LLC
\—
DEED BO 1660
z
�✓
PAGE /
\
/ 130 CHATHAM LL
DEED BOOK 17
V
/
y
IPAGE 707
C
p
\
\
30 CHATHA L C
Q
U
.4
DEED BOOK 17
AGE 707
\
JOSEPH
R. EL —
\ ANNA S. ELLEN
tt
\
EED BOOK 474, PAGE 7
O
x
\
U
ANDREW G. SIEGNER III AND
BONNIE E. SIEGNER
\ \
HOOSIER DAM
Opp DEED BOOK 663, PAGE 509
\
DAVID LOUIS HINTON
DEED BOOK 698, PAGE 153
\JOHN HOW RD LLEY III
DEED BOOK 796
\
AGE 352
\
I
\ I
\ IJOHN
HOWARD TALLEY III
DEED BOOK 796, PAGE 352
\
I
IN
/ o' 250' Soo' 750'
(xOniroxTaL)

Stream grading; channel grading and material spoiling will follow the general notes below in addition to directions
outlined in the specifications.
General Construction Notes for All Reaches
1. All erosion and sediment control practices shall comply with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual.
2. No material excavated from the Rocky River may be spoiled within the regulated floodplain area.
3. In grading the Rocky River, Contractor shall disturb only as much channel bank as can be stabilized with
temporary seeding, mulch, and a sod mat or erosion control matting by the end of each work day.
4. Clearing and grubbing activities shall not extend more than 150 linear feet ahead of in -stream work.
5. All graded areas with slopes steeper than 3:1 will be stabilized within seven (7) working days. All other areas
will be stabilized within 14 working days.
6. Locations for staging and stockpile areas and temporary stream crossings have been provided on the Plans.
Additional or alternative staging and/or stockpile areas and stream crossings may be used by the Contractor
provided that all practices comply with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual and that the areas are approved by the Engineer prior to implementation.
7. Contractor is to make every effort to avoid damaging or removing existing trees.
8. Under no circumstances will the Contractor exceed the limits of disturbance as shown on the Plans.
Initial Site Preparation
1. Contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation.
2. Contact Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (919-791-4200) before any work begins on the
project and notify them of the start date.
3. Mobilize equipment and materials to the Site.
4. Identify and establish construction entrance, staging and stockpile areas, haul roads, silt fence, tree
protection fencing, and temporary stream crossings as indicated on the Plans for work areas.
5. All haul roads shall be monitored for sediment loss daily. In the event of sediment loss, silt fence or other
acceptable sediment and erosion control practices shall be installed. Silt fence outlets shall be located at
points of low elevation or a minimum spacing of 150 ft.
6. Set up temporary facilities, locate equipment within the staging area, and stockpile materials needed for the
initial stages of construction within the stockpile area(s).
7. Install and maintain an onsite rain gauge and log book to record the rainfall amounts and dates. Complete
the self -inspection as required by NCDEQ permit.
HOOSIER DAM REMOVAL
For instructions on the removal of Hoosier Dam, please see Sheets 1.1-1.4 and corresponding specifications.
Existing Features
Existing Property Boundary 0 /PS
------- Existing 5' Major Contour * /PF
Existing 1' Minor Contour 0 RRS
Existing Thalweg * RRF
Existing Utility Easement 0 ECM
ROCKY RIVER CHANNEL GRADING
8. Grading along the Rocky River includes the removal of the sediment wedge created by the Hoosier Dam
within the active channel. The profile for the river is approximate and based on best available knowledge of
the streambed slopes upstream and downstream and mechanical borings of depth to bedrock. The actual
depth to bedrock along the entire proposed surface may vary greatly from what is proposed. If this is the
case, the sediments should be excavated down to the depth of refusal or presence of coarse bed material,
and banks graded back at a minimum 3(H):1(V) slope to the tie-in point on the existing surface.
9. All graded streambanks will be matted with erosion control matting per detail.
10. Seed (with specified temporary seed and permanent seed mix) and straw mulch areas where the coir fiber
matting is to be installed.
11. Install coir fiber matting according to plans and specifications.
12. Seed floodplain with specified temporary and permanent seed mix and mulch.
13. Install livestakes and herbaceous plugs along the stream banks and bare root trees within the floodplain,
according to the plans and specifications.
rrih n.m P.m .i-
14. Remove rocks from crib dam according to design on plan sheets.
15. Rocks may be used as toe stabilization along streambanks within the limits of disturbance.
16. No material may be spoiled within the regulated floodplain limits.
Construction Demobilization
17. Remove temporary stream crossings.
18. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of
equipment from the site.
19. Complete the removal of any additional stockpiled material from the site.
20. Demobilize grading equipment from the site.
21. All areas outside the grading areas shall be returned to pre -project conditions or better.
22. Seed, mulch, and stabilize staging areas, stockpile areas, haul roads, and construction entrances.
IRON PIPE SET 3/4"
IRON PIPE FOUND
RAIL ROAD SPIKE SET
RAIL ROAD SPIKE FOUND
EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT
0 CMP COMPUTED POINT
Existing Wetlands X FENCING
OVHD .
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
p p
Existing Treeline NCoor
NCDOT EASEMENT LINE
UTILITY POLE W/ OVERHEAD LINES
Existing Tree
OO
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.2
®
WATER SUPPLY WELL
PERK SITE
Proposed Features
Proposed Stream Alignment
Proposed 5' Major Contour
Proposed 1' Minor Contour
Erosion Control Features
I Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/ Staging Area
Proposed Limits Of Disturbance
SAF Proposed Tree Protection Fencing
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.1
Q
zz
Wo
4
r -i
Ili
XF
Ap
ilo�
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 1, Sheet 6.2
Proposed Silt Fence
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.2
®
Proposed Stone Outlet
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.3
I Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Stockpile/ Staging Area
Proposed Limits Of Disturbance
SAF Proposed Tree Protection Fencing
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.1
Q
zz
Wo
4
r -i
Ili
XF
Ap
ilo�

PARCEL ID: 0073197
DONALD CHEEK
DEED BOOK 1042 PAGE 38
PLAT BOOK 97 PAGE 113
PARCEL ID: 0066913
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 0.94 ACRES
DAM CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 686442.1374
EAST I N G: 1937482.0502
PARCEL ID: 0018083
JACK L. MILLER AND
MATTIE B. MILLER
DEED BOOK 731 PAGE 61
PLAT BOOK 27 PAGE 54
X MARK ON ROCK
NORTHING: 686068.3256
EAST I N G: 1937349.7532
0�
TOP EL 302 85
CONCRETE SIDEWALL
PARCEL ID: 0066913
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 685981.1724
EAST I N G: 1937254.3522
GRAVEL DRIVE
PARCEL ID: 0018261 ?
ANDREW G. SIEGNER AND _- ----
BONNIE E. SIEGNER
DEED BOOK 663 PAGE 509 -
PARCEL ID: 0060266
DAVID LOUIS HINTON
/ DEED BOOK 698 PAGE 153
PLAT BOOK 30 PAGE 58
EDGE OF WATER _ -
EDGE OF WATER 1 ,
/ I
/ROCKY RIVER
I - c
FIE
_
I
='
I
I
I
I
1
/
/
/
111
, I
\
I
/
i I '-
I
CONCRETE SPILLWAY
TOP EL 302
W
X MARK ON CONCRETE -
NORTHING: 686294.3548 _
EASTING: 1937134.9813 -
r
EL 305.62
CONCRETE PAD
EL 303 97 FLOATING DEBRIS BOOM
CONCRETE PAD v
EL 310.22
TOP EL\ 306.48`'
, I
67 11
lj
1 I
EDGE OF WATER
1 '
I'
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1'=40'
o ao' 80
NAIL IN CENTER OF BRIDGE
NORTHING: 686060.3180
FASTING: 1936984.8600
OLD FOUNDATION RUINS
TREE LINE
POWER HOUSE
FIFE EL 312.57
CONCRETE LANDING
EL 306.37
_ CONCRETE LANDING
EL 300.53
— CONCRETE SIDEWALK
— FENCE
rIAPARCEL ID: 0018352
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903 - _=
/
1
I
I
\
\
\
\I
1
1
WOODY DAM ROAD
GRAVEL/UNPAVED
60' PUBLIC RAN
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 686285.0270
EASTI NG: 1936944.0010
PARCEL ID: 0018233
JOHN HOWARD TALLEY III
DEED BOOK 796 PAGE 352
PLAT BOOK 98 PAGE 183
ROCK OUTCROP
'EDGE OF WATER
2E LINE'S
_ ___ ✓
- _ _
�� v
�v
- -OUTCROP
I - c
FIE
_
I
='
I
I
I
I
1
/
/
/
111
, I
\
I
/
i I '-
I
CONCRETE SPILLWAY
TOP EL 302
W
X MARK ON CONCRETE -
NORTHING: 686294.3548 _
EASTING: 1937134.9813 -
r
EL 305.62
CONCRETE PAD
EL 303 97 FLOATING DEBRIS BOOM
CONCRETE PAD v
EL 310.22
TOP EL\ 306.48`'
, I
67 11
lj
1 I
EDGE OF WATER
1 '
I'
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1'=40'
o ao' 80
NAIL IN CENTER OF BRIDGE
NORTHING: 686060.3180
FASTING: 1936984.8600
OLD FOUNDATION RUINS
TREE LINE
POWER HOUSE
FIFE EL 312.57
CONCRETE LANDING
EL 306.37
_ CONCRETE LANDING
EL 300.53
— CONCRETE SIDEWALK
— FENCE
rIAPARCEL ID: 0018352
ROCKY RIVER HYDRO LLC
DEED BOOK 1660 PAGE 903 - _=
/
1
I
I
\
\
\
\I
1
1
WOODY DAM ROAD
GRAVEL/UNPAVED
60' PUBLIC RAN
IRON PIN
NORTHING: 686285.0270
EASTI NG: 1936944.0010
PARCEL ID: 0018233
JOHN HOWARD TALLEY III
DEED BOOK 796 PAGE 352
PLAT BOOK 98 PAGE 183
GENERALNOTES
1OVA
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC DATA, LOCATION OF SITE FEATURES, WERE PROVIDED BY INFINITE LAND DESIGN, P.C. (117 NORTH
CHATHAM AVENUE, SILER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA) ON JANUARY 16, 2015. THE HORIZONTAL COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON ARE
NAD83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATES (US FEET). THE VERTICAL DATA SHOWN IS NAVD88.
2. NOT ALL UTILITIES ARE SHOWN.
/
3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
/ ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE ENGINEER IN WRITING. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING
AND COORDINATING WORK WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES.
1�
4. ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT ALL TIMES. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN ROAD
\I SURFACES CLEAN AND FREE OF CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES.
5. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
LD
z
AWA
.f c
w
z
u 6
Nw
1
L `J
/ TRANSFORMERPAD;
'EDGE OF WATER
I
Y
\\ \ oy
PARCELID:0018231
ELLEN JOSEPH RJR AND
ELLEN ANNA S�
DEED BOOK 1984 PAGE 474 `
GENERALNOTES
1OVA
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC DATA, LOCATION OF SITE FEATURES, WERE PROVIDED BY INFINITE LAND DESIGN, P.C. (117 NORTH
CHATHAM AVENUE, SILER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA) ON JANUARY 16, 2015. THE HORIZONTAL COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON ARE
NAD83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATES (US FEET). THE VERTICAL DATA SHOWN IS NAVD88.
2. NOT ALL UTILITIES ARE SHOWN.
/
3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
/ ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE ENGINEER IN WRITING. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING
AND COORDINATING WORK WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES.
1�
4. ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT ALL TIMES. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN ROAD
\I SURFACES CLEAN AND FREE OF CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES.
5. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
LD
z
AWA
.f c
w
z
u 6
Nw
1
L `J

FENCE (TO BE REMOVED)
------------
I 1 11 \\ I ROCK OUTCROPS _
I 1 \ 1 \ \ I I
(z, - - -
ROCK OUTCROP I I I '
____ ______
/ _ _ROCKY RIVER I ,�
ROCK OUTCROP \\
�-EXISTING SIDEWALL TO BE DEMOLISHED. ------------
II i
6AMCENTERLINE ALIGNMENT
_ \,
a
1+00
--------------------------------
ALIGNMENT=DAM
FASTING=19 73 273' -
/
ALL TREES AND/WOODY VEGETATION
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EXCAVATION � _-
/
SHALL BE CLEARED AND GRUBBED AND;
------- DISPOSED OF OFFSITE. `
/
\
\
\
v
v
/
v
v
v
STAGE'1 DAM REMOVAL SEQUENCE:
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO NOTIFY AND PROVIDE THE ENGINEER WITH THE
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS FOR APPROVAL FOR WORK AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO
MOBILIZATION ON THE SITE AND INSTALLING ANY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
2. FLAG ALL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
3. INSTALL ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN.
4. CLEAR AND GRUB ALL TREES AND WOODY VEGETATION INSIDE THE EXCAVATION
LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE LEFT ABUTMENT. DISPOSE OF CLEARED AND GRUBBED
TREES AND WOODY VEGETATION IN AN APPROVED OFFSITE LOCATION.
5. DIVERT FLOW THROUGH THE POWERHOUSE GATES. MAINTAIN THE WATER LEVEL
AT EL 274 USING PUMPS AS REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE RIVER
FLOW IS THROUGH THE POWERHOUSE GATES DURING STAGE 1 DAM REMOVAL.
6. EXCAVATE THE LEFT ABUTMENT AND DEMOLISH THE EXISTING LEFT SIDEWALL.
STOCKPILE THE EXCAVATED EARTHEN MATERIAL AND CONCRETE RUBBLE FOR
ESTABLISHING FINAL GRADES.
7. SEPARATE ALL EMBEDDED STEEL FROM THE CONCRETE RUBBLE AND DISPOSE
OF IN AN APPROVED OFFSITE LOCATION.
8. DEMOLISH THE DAM FROM THE LEFT ABUTMENT TO THE POWERHOUSE AT
STATION 4+73.94 IN FIVE FOOT LIFTS. THE DAM SHALL BE REMOVED IN A MANNER
SO THAT THE RUBBLE FROM THE DEMOLITION WILL CREATE A WORKING PAD OFF
OF WHICH DEMOLITION EQUIPMENT CAN WORK.
- ----
I
1
1 _
'.,ri `J 1 \) (,1
I�, .1 F;A 1 I F :'A 'fit
-- - \ USE DEMOLISHED CONCRETE TO BUILD
A WORKING PAD FOR DEMOLITION 1 \ I 1 ' 1 I
EQUIPMENT
I n! ;1
I
--- 1
i 11
FLOATING DEBRIS BOOM
CHANNELTOBE EXCAVATED`
t BY OTHERS DURING I) UPSTREAM`, ,( \ -- 1 \\ 1 , r, i;' 1,
v
SEDIMENT REMOVAL-
-
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE _ 094 ACRES
�I STAGE 1 DAM REMOVAL PLAN
J SCALE: 1"=20'
FLOW
0 20' 40'
VOLUMES
STAGE 1 EXCAVATION = 5,380 CUBIC YARDS (CUT)
SPILLWAY AND LEFT ABUTMENT SIDEWALL CONCRETE DEMOLITION =1,880 CUBIC YARDS
i�
/
i
/
/
I
/
1
I
I
I
I
1
/
I
I
GRAVEL DRIVE
OLD FOUNDATION RUINS
THE EXISTING POWERHOUSE ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND BUILDING WILL
BE REMOVED PRIOR TO MOBILIZATION OF CONTRACTOR.
` \ ' THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF THE
POWERHOUSE CONCRETE SUPPORT STRUCTURE, CONCRETE SIDEWALL AND WALKWAY,
1 3 AND MISCELLANEOUS STEEL STRUCTURES.
_
��- , _ , , /— FENCE (TO REMAIN)
;;' ----------------`r`,
--
GN)v1ENT=PAM,CENTERLIIVEI ', _--
\TION=4+73.941
SEt=0.p0-
RTHlNG*686�84 75
3(ING=19$71441 38
_—
,"g "" x
I'
-
X
W DY AD 00 ADAM R
l O
f
GRAVEL/UNPAVED
60' PUBLIC RNV — --
YT
,
���®®�STAGE 1 DEMOLITION
111SENS ,
F
oda N

310
305
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
310
305
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0015+29
-----------------
------------
---------------------------------
_ -, _ ---- _-- --------------- -- ;
FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENT -
���- --_ _________________ ____________________-- ;
' _ = --------------
----------------- _- ---------
---
_-
- 1 - - BOUNDARY FT P OF -TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
'O O OG C
GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES
`29p ` Win,
�_\ ",`^`\ - _ 285 - : , / - `�` •__
007
J 00
°Rl\` 29p
GRADING 2.75(H)'A(V) SIDESLOPES
0' 40' 80' 120' 11 ;_c_=_ / 4\a` r�`•; s. - \ _ L°.
D' 4' (HORIZONTAL) B' 12'
-------, \\ \ ,. BOUNDARY OFTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
O^ -
T
---------------
- / -------------------
�..
----------------------
------------
' AREA TO BE GRADED DURING ,
" -- - STAGE 3 OF DAM REMOVAL:
SEE SHEET 1.4'\\
_ f `" rte\ 'v"
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FROM _ �—
\I -
'Iri \\.
CHATHAM CHURCH ROAD \`
--
-__ ;.,
1
GRADING 4(H) 1(V) $IDESLOPE/
-------------
------------
._� = ----------- ------------- GRADING 4(H):1(V)SIDESLOPES
-----r-GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES------- ----------------
------------
_
l8+00 ---
-A�r- _ 290
``- — _ 29p _ - _ -
— GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES
V) SIDESLOPES , "
'
Lo
—
"
O
O
1/
v
TOP OF
DAM ELEV.
302.4
f
o
v,
�
N
EXISTING
DAM
STRUCTURE
m
rn
J
u
STA =
0+00.86
F
w
ELEV = 283.614
EXISTING
GRADE
v
v
oo
PROPOSED
GRADE
J
310
305
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0015+29
-----------------
------------
---------------------------------
_ -, _ ---- _-- --------------- -- ;
FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENT -
���- --_ _________________ ____________________-- ;
' _ = --------------
----------------- _- ---------
---
_-
- 1 - - BOUNDARY FT P OF -TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
'O O OG C
GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES
`29p ` Win,
�_\ ",`^`\ - _ 285 - : , / - `�` •__
007
J 00
°Rl\` 29p
GRADING 2.75(H)'A(V) SIDESLOPES
0' 40' 80' 120' 11 ;_c_=_ / 4\a` r�`•; s. - \ _ L°.
D' 4' (HORIZONTAL) B' 12'
-------, \\ \ ,. BOUNDARY OFTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
O^ -
T
---------------
- / -------------------
�..
----------------------
------------
' AREA TO BE GRADED DURING ,
" -- - STAGE 3 OF DAM REMOVAL:
SEE SHEET 1.4'\\
_ f `" rte\ 'v"
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FROM _ �—
\I -
'Iri \\.
CHATHAM CHURCH ROAD \`
--
-__ ;.,
1
GRADING 4(H) 1(V) $IDESLOPE/
-------------
------------
._� = ----------- ------------- GRADING 4(H):1(V)SIDESLOPES
-----r-GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES------- ----------------
------------
_
l8+00 ---
-A�r- _ 290
``- — _ 29p _ - _ -
— GRADING 3(H):1(V) SIDESLOPES
V) SIDESLOPES , "
'
too
—
"
O
O
too
A
m z z
i
l I iil'i i/i i/ ' l m
l 3'
1/
v
f
y;�
A
m z z
i
l I iil'i i/i i/ ' l m
l 3'

o�
I
1
11
1
OF FLOODPLAIN
SEE SHEET 5.2
HILL SHAYNA
418 THOMAS MILL DR
PIN: 9639-60-2899 ____-
i t 1 1 I I
—
I, 11 I I
)0 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN -
----------
EXISTING
-
EXISTING DAM CRIB WALL REMNANTS
(TO BE REMOVED)
/
I
\
Dol
LOD
lOD
1
kS FOR
LVI.I. FIaJIVI I.LIU LlMM ULIVI%.JLITION
AS TOE STABILIZATION
I
r
/
l
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
/ I
PROPOSED LOD "
I
______
--------------
------
—\ t
PRIVATE \DRIVEWAY `
-i 1_
t LOD
-- --- ------ -- \\I
----------------
--- - -
NOTES:
h
1.
SITE TO BE ACCESSED FROM THOMAS MILL DRIVE AS PRIMARY ACCESS AND WOODY DAM ROAD AS
______
SECONDARY ACCESS IF NECESSARY.
---
2.
THOMAS MILL DR AND ACCESS ROUTES TO BE LEFT IN AS GOOD OR BETTER CONDITION THAN
PRE -CONSTRUCTION.
3
3.
MATERIAL FROM CRIB DAM TO BE RE -USED AS ROCK TOE PROTECTION ON SURROUNDING STREAM
Y
BANKS.
1 \
,I
4.
ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO BE STOCKPILED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROCKY RIVER ON PROPERTY
_
OWNED BY 130 OF CHATHAM. ALL MATERIAL MUST BE STOCKPILED OUTSIDE OF THE 100 -YEAR FEMA
FLOODPLAIN (SEE SHEET 5.2).
HILL SHAYNA
418 THOMAS MILL DR
PIN: 9639-60-2899 ____-
i t 1 1 I I
—
I, 11 I I
)0 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN -
----------
EXISTING
-
EXISTING DAM CRIB WALL REMNANTS
(TO BE REMOVED)
/
I
\
Dol
LOD
lOD
1
kS FOR
LVI.I. FIaJIVI I.LIU LlMM ULIVI%.JLITION
AS TOE STABILIZATION
I
r
/
l
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
/ I
PROPOSED LOD "
I
______
--------------
------
—\ t
PRIVATE \DRIVEWAY `
-i 1_
t LOD
-- --- ------ -- \\I
----------------
--- - -
cV
h
l
E
3
Y

C
Section A -A' Q o
4 o
301 Z ^m
W�
awZz
oZi 1.
Z
0 �zrE
Hw 3 LL
300 m
299
298 tioo4�0�
297 Cod
296
295
294 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 136 p^
U
4.1
>�
o �
o 72
U
O �
x �
Section B -B' U
304
EXISTING GRADE
303
302
E N
C
301
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8084
g -
§
0' 1' 2' 3' ` v
(VERTICAL)(VERTICAL)cAL) M
8 ` J
20' 30' -
E W
(HORIZONTAL) w 3
n
�
PROPOSED GRADE
�--
`�---
EXISTING
GRADE
�
1
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE

Permanent Riparian Seeding -without additional flowers
Pure Live Seed (201bs/ acre)
Approved
Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year
Panicum
rigidulum
Redtop Panicgrass
Herb
2.0
All Year
Agrostis hyemalis
Winter Bentgrass
Herb
4.0
All Year
Chasmanthium
latifolium
River Oats
Herb
2.5
All Year
Rudbeckia hirta
Blackeyed Susan
Herb
1.5
All Year
Coreopsis
lanceolata
Lanceleaf
Coreopsis
Herb
Q m
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Liriodendron
tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
10%
Quercus
michauxii
Swamp Chestnut
Oak
' m 1 00
d
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
Green Ash
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Lobelia cardinalis
Cardinalflower
Herb
0.3
�w mrym
'
Echinacea
purpurea
Pale Purple
Coneflower
Herb
0.8
oZi 1.
Z
-a mm �
Q_
�w�zrE
3 LL
m
Buffer Planting Zone
Bare Root
Species
Common Name
Max
Indio.
Min.
Stratum
# of Stems
Spacing
Spacing
Caliper
Size
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
10%
Platanus
Sycamore
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
20%
occidentalis
Betula nigra
River Birch
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Quercus pagoda
Cherry
GP
U
�
O
1 Planting Tables
�
Planting Tables
�
U
5.2 Not to Scale
5.2
Not to Scale
tt
a�- 'A
Q
U �
.1-4
c5
�
O
x
X
U
b
"s
-
'e
V h
8
3 Plantin Tables
5.2 Not to Scale
Planting Tables
E
a 3 a
2 2
5.2 Not to Scale
Permanent Riparian Seeding -without additional flowers
Pure Live Seed (201bs/ acre)
Approved
Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year
Panicum
rigidulum
Redtop Panicgrass
Herb
2.0
All Year
Agrostis hyemalis
Winter Bentgrass
Herb
4.0
All Year
Chasmanthium
latifolium
River Oats
Herb
2.5
All Year
Rudbeckia hirta
Blackeyed Susan
Herb
1.5
All Year
Coreopsis
lanceolata
Lanceleaf
Coreopsis
Herb
bark Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Liriodendron
tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
10%
Quercus
michauxii
Swamp Chestnut
Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
Green Ash
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
15%
Permanent Riparian Seeding -without additional flowers
Pure Live Seed (201bs/ acre)
Approved
Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year
Panicum
rigidulum
Redtop Panicgrass
Herb
2.0
All Year
Agrostis hyemalis
Winter Bentgrass
Herb
4.0
All Year
Chasmanthium
latifolium
River Oats
Herb
2.5
All Year
Rudbeckia hirta
Blackeyed Susan
Herb
1.5
All Year
Coreopsis
lanceolata
Lanceleaf
Coreopsis
Herb
1.0
All Year
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox Sedge
Herb
3.0
All Year
Panicum
clandestinum
Deertongue
Herb
3.5
All Year
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wild
Rye
Herb
2.5
Streambank Planting Zone
Live Stakes
Species
Common Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min. Size
Stratum
% of Stems
Salix nigra
Black Willow
8 ft.
2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
15%
Cornus ammonium
Silky Dogwood
8 ft.
2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
35%
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
8 ft.
2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
35%
Sambucus nigra
American
Elderberry
8 ft.
2-8 ft.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
15%
Permanent Riparian Seeding -with additional flowers
Pure Live Seed (201bs/ acre)
Approved
Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year
Panicum
rigidulum
Redtop Panicgrass
Herb
1.5
All Year
Agrostis hyemalis
Winter Bentgrass
Herb
4.0
All Year
Chasmanthium
latifolium
River Oats
Herb
2.0
All Year
Rudbeckia hirta
Blackeyed Susan
Herb
1.5
All Year
Coreopsis
lanceolata
Lanceleaf
Coreopsis
Herb
1.0
All Year
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox Sedge
Herb
3.0
All Year
Panicum
clandestinum
Deertongue
Herb
3.5
All Year
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wild
Rye
Herb
2.0
All Year
Asclepias syrica
Common
Milkweed
Herb
0.2
All Year
Baptisia australis
Blue False Indigo
Herb
0.2
All Year
Lobelia cardinalis
Cardinalflower
Herb
0.3
All Year
Echinacea
purpurea
Pale Purple
Coneflower
Herb
0.8

Y ,, t. -
ia #° 1
a• ! py, { 'v.K �Yy�: ,�+�y'�r� F Y �.,r
��� ,,�,.: � �t�:L; •�ti�st � �f � eft.,'„ i�
• R14
arl'�=��i,�k � ` 'o'�".a�"�g _ .r.''� � +!j �"^.�..ra -,..ice[•
1
Li,— ""%
MA' 5 W ; tip ,, sfl7rw wrr?OTT,�i :'' `; _ 4 a T 0►
q ak
mv
ay y.r.
Z��i4 '`° x•14 ofMi
f �a
t�ati.
�3
y:l
I
I 'y
fill
ROCKY RIVER

00 0�
G0
■:

------------
-------
Approved Species Name Common Name
Stratum
Density
Date
(lbs/acre)
Aug 15-
- Secale cereale Rye Grain
May
Herb
140
May 1 -
Aug I S Setaria italim German Millet
Herb
10
u '_^\
)
----------
-------------
Y
I
- _ -
�. ...
---------------
-----------------------
- ------------- --
---------------
I
_-
------
-
,
----------
_=--
-
- - --
-
-
--
-?
--------------
PROPOSED ROCK TOE AREA (TYP.)
--------------
- _
STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREA (TYP.)
-
o
CRIB DAM
001
------
-----------------------
-----
lob
i:a LAA ,\ -'i it
r
LOD 'J
- \ o
ACCESS ROUTE FROM WOODY DAM RD 4' i / o --100
I I�'-° Ii 1rY� Iii 16 ♦ W / - " J ,\ - - SEE SHEET 0.2 FOR ENTRANCE
--- ------------
Lr
,
r,
,
r
i
O I- c
I '
-
.
r
_
-------
-----------
------------
-------
---
/r
\ — ; -_ goo _ _
l/
" - I
I - r,_ 'ii 100; /' r'i ;/ - _ l / `� rr -
I/ / Ir/------ __ - _-
.
r� _ r/
,
_ - ---------------/
,
'
------------
'_ -- J ' I
,
i
ir r ,
- _------_"------
_ - -
-' -_ -------- _-
Temporary Seeding
Pure Live Seed
Approved Species Name Common Name
Stratum
Density
Date
(lbs/acre)
Aug 15-
- Secale cereale Rye Grain
May
Herb
140
May 1 -
Aug I S Setaria italim German Millet
Herb
10
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR TO STOCKPILE AND SPOIL ANY DAM
MATERIALS AND RIVER SEDIMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE
100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS.
2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED AND STABILIZED
ACCORDING TO SEEDING SCHEDULE AND EROSION
CONTROL MATTING DETAILS.
3. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR PERMANENT SEEDING
SCHEDULE.
4. CONTRACTOR TO SELECT STREAM CROSSING TYPE AND
LOCATION BASED ON CURRENT FLOW CONDITIONS. 0' 50' 100, 150'
CROSSING THE CHANNEL SHOULD BE MINIMIZED
DURING SEDIMENT REMOVAL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. (HORIZONTAL)
2
XF
N
N
u '_^\
)
E W
3 "

FFER WIDTH DIBBLE BAR
I -I
m
'z0
VARIES
o
awzuz
�z��
QZ
HO
far£
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
3 LL
i
BANKFULL
BLADE WITH ATRIANGULAR
NOTES:
CROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12
``i��iU
INCHES LONG, 4INCHES WIDE AND36
11NCH THICK AT CENTER. 1.
ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
qco Q�
1
RESTORED `iV `i�
` ���!``jT`���!Y�� ',�`X`��
VVI
i`�!TyT
PLANTING AREAS HALL DISKED, AS
y\<y
�a EROSION CONTROL
CHANNEL
�
REQUIRED, A
O PLANTING.
MATTING
2.
SHALL
ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY
(SEE DETAIL)
ROOTING PRUNING
HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TO
INSURE SURVIVAL.
TOPOFBANK
SPACING PER
PLANTING PLAN
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED TO
LIVE STAKE TYP
iv vv v`vi`vio
�fi
Section View
AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO
�/�/i✓iG
�"VAAlam
PREVENTI-ROOTING.
\
TOE OF SLOPE
\
Section View
w�
T
LIVE STAKE (TYP) TOP OF BANK
DIAMETER
a
o
A A
to 3�_
Live Stake Detail
INSERTTHE DIBBLE, OR
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERTTHE DIBBLE, OR
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE TO
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
& &
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES IN
SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF THE
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM
INTO THE SOIL TO THE FULL
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO FRONT OF THE SEEDLING
FULL DEPTH OF THE BLADE. PLANTING HOLD. THEN PUSH
UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
DEPTH OF TH E BLADE AND
THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL THE AND PUSH THE BLADE
FORWARD TO CLOSE THE TOP,
HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE
SEEDLING BACK UP TO THE HALFWAY INTO THE SOIL.
ELIMINATING AIR POCKETS
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
TO OPEN THE PLANTING
CORRECT PLANTING DEPTH TWIST AND PUSH THE
AROUND THE ROOT.
TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK THE
(THE ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE HANDLE FORWARD TO
SHOVEL BACK AND FORTH
1 TO 3 INCHES BELOW THE SOI L CLOSE TH E TOP OF THE SLIT
NOTE:
ASTHISCAUSES SOILINTHE
SURFACE). GENTLYSHAKETHE TO HOLD THE SEEDLING IN
PLANTING HOLE TO BE
SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE PLACE.
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN ON
COMPACTED, INHIBITING
ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT.
PLANSAND DIRECTED BYTHE ENGINEER.
ROOTGROWTH.
DO NOTTWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE ROOTS
Root Planting
Staking
1 -ROOTED. (2)Bare
/—,--,Live
6.1 of to bcale
6.1 Not to Scale
RADIUS OF TREE PROTECTION
BARRIER PER PLANS.
V MIN. OVERLAP IN
�-DOWNSTREAM
DIRECTION
AT MAT ENDS
--�
STAKE (TYP) TOP OF BANK
SPg4, G
Plan View
TOE OF SLOPE
�
6' WOODEN OR METAL "T" POSTS
Plan View
SHALL BE USED AS STANDARDS.
1.25"
SAFETY FENCE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO STANDARDS TO
FORM BARRIER.
REMOVE ALL BRUSH AND
DEBRIS FROM INSIDE DRIPLINE.
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING (TYP) TOP OF BANK
V.
.6"
0.4"
m
STAKE (TYP)
ASV AC
V
\ \\`
TOE OF SLOPE
NOTES:
-
1. ALL TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR
j �v
`<
Typical Stake
TO CONTRACTOR DEMOBILIZATION.
\/�VA�\ \���V
2. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION OF ALLTREE PROTECTION
NOTE:
BARRIERS.
Section View
1.
PER SPECIFICATIONS, ALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING
SHALL BE COMPOSED OF NATURAL FIBERS.
Section View
3 Tree Protection
i41 Erosion Control Matting
6.1 Not to Scale
6.1 Not to Scale
m
I -I
m
'z0
.00mo
o
awzuz
�z��
QZ
HO
far£
w
3 LL
i
710
m
Q

Do
P�
I—I
m
zO
oomo
�wo6
QO
a w
z c
o�
Z
`g
_
Q O
H
=mm
�E
.2
w
3 LL
J0
Q S�,
G�
8' MAX. WITH WIRE
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
SHALL BE 12 S GAGE MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
11-701
—1
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND 24 MAX
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN. (18" MIN.)
2"-3" DIAMETER COARSE AGGREGATE STONE
,. r,. �. �r,�,. :Y. ����,. :Y. ✓,�,. Y,.
8" MIN. DEPTH
WIRE
NOTES:
FILTER FABRIC
1.
PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE
NOTES: COMPACTED FILL EXISTING GROUND
TRUCKS.
2.
LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OF INGRESS AND
1. USE WIRE A MINIMUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND
EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE
WITH A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12"
DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
STAY SPACING.
3.
MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING
2. USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH7FABRIC
OR DIRECTFLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH
AND 18" IN HEIGHT, AND FASTEN ADEQUATELYSTONEWILLBE
NECESSARY.
aa
ENGINEER.SEDIMENT
4.
ENTRANCEWILLBE EXTENDEDAS NEEDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
EXTHEWIRES FABRICAMINITHE
3. EXTEND FILTER FABRICAMINIMUM OF4' INTO
REMOVAL.
TRENCH. EXTE4 J
5.
ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED
4. PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE SELF -FASTENER INTO TRENCH N
IMMEDIATELY.
ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
6.
USE 2"-3" DIAMETER COARSE AGGREGATE STONE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
7.
PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
Temporary Silt Fence
2
Construction Entrance
6.2 Not to Scale
1
6.2 Not to Scale
NOTES:
f~ 2'
WOOD STAKE
1. STRUCTURAL STONE SHALL BE (CLASS "B") STONE FOR
POST
®
fix]
WOOD STAKE
EROSION CONTROL PURPOSES.
SILT FENCE
2. SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE SHALL BE NO. 5 OR NO. 57
STRAW WATTLE STRAW WATTLE
STONE.
EXISTING GROUND EXISTING GROUNDUZIRN
TOP VIEW
z_
2'
SILT FENCE
Section View Section View A -A'
V-6"VIN.
T OVERLAP
STRAW WATTLE
WOOD STAKE
FRONT VIEW
SILT FENCE
F—A
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
A'
V- 6" MIN.
STONE
NOTE:
3'-4'
71
F\ OW ti 1
3'MAX.
1.
SECURE THE WATTLE WITH 24" STAKES EVERY 3'-4' AND WITH A STAKE
ON EACH END. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF
THE WATTLE LEAVING AT LEAST 2"-3" OF STAKE EXTENDING ABOVE THE
WATTLE. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE FACE.
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
STRUCTURAL
STONE
Temporary Straw Wattle
Stone Outlet
62 Not to Scale
3
6.2 Not to Scale
Do
I—I
m
zO
oomo
�wo6
o
a w
z c
o�
Z
`g
_
Q O
H
=mm
�E
.2
w
3 LL
i
710
M
N
Q

I I
I / I
I � I
I -I
m
z0
oomo
�w
m o
a w
oz cq
�
Z
s `g
Q
H�
=mm
.2 E
w
4" WOODEN BOARD ON OUTSIDE
Z
EDGE OF MAT TO PREVENT RUNOFF
m
MUD MATS
Q
S DIM
d
I I°
WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
I I
v 8
MAINTAIN LOW FLOW THALWEG
THROUGH CROSSING
SUPPORT LOG
FILTER FABRIC
Plan View
12" 0 MIN.
CLASS B
STONE
NOTE:
1.
CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW 15 AT NORMAL
BASEFLOW.
2.
MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
CLASS A/B STONE
3.
INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.
4.
MAINTAIN CROSSING 50 THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD
DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
_
5.
STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE
MUD MAT.
WATER DIVERSION WATER DIVERSION
6.
CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
CHANNEL CHANNEL
=
ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
NOTES:
1. FORD CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNEL BANKS.
2. MAINTAIN DIVERSION CHANNELTO INSURE
RUNOFF DOES NEL
Tem Ford Crossin
�+ MudMat
Temporary Stream Crossing - Mud Mat
HALL DETERMINOT E
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE 1 orar
2
APPROPRIATE FORD DIMENSIONS. 6.3 Not to Scale
6.3Not to 5cale
RIP -RAP COVERED BY
APPROPRIATELY LARGE
COARSE AGGERGATE 30 ANGULAR ROCK.
a�
d�
vLE
zo
25' MIN. 25' MIN.
A m NOTES:
a O d 1.
THIS TYPE OF CROSSING CAN BE INSTALLED IN
Or
BOTH A WET OR DRY WEATHER STREAM
Plan View
CONDITIONS.
2.
USE SERIES OF PARALLEL PIPES DEPENDING ON
COARSE AGGREGATE 6" MIN. 48" PIPE DIAMETER
BASE FLOWRATE AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
MINIMUM PIPE DIAMETER OF 48'
1/2 DIAMETER OF PIPE OR 12", EARTH FILL COVERED BY 3.
REMOVE DURING CLEANUP.
WHICHEVER IS GREATER APPROPRIATELY 4.
CONTRACTOR MAV ELECTTO USE A TEMPORARY
LARGE ANGULAR ROCK.
BRIDGE CROSSING. IF HE/SHE DOES, IT MUST
CONFORM TO THE "MANUAL FOR EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL IN [STATE]".
r
Section View
Stream Crossing - Culvert
3 )Temporary
6.3 Not to Scale
Cn
I -I
m
z0
oomo
�w
m o
a w
oz cq
�
Z
s `g
Q
H�
=mm
.2 E
w
3 LL
i
710
m
N
Q

Unique
Places
February 6, 2017
Subject: Supplemental Narrative to PCN Form.
Project: USACE Action ID# SAW -2017-0051 1, NFWF Project ID #8020.16.054047
Baa. The project site located within the Piedmont physiographic region and the Carolina
Slate Belt, which is characterized by low summertime base flows. The Rocky River
originates in the eastern portion of Forsyth County and flows southeast through Guilford,
Randolph, Chatham, and Lee counties before its confluence with the Deep River. The
Rocky River has a watershed area of approximately 200 square miles at Hoosier Dam. The
project is located within Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-12 (NCDWQ 2005). The
population within the subbasin in Year 2000 was approximately 20,000 residents. Land
use within the subbasin is predominately forest (70 percent) and agriculture (27 percent),
with less than 2 percent urban development.
Hoosier Dam is a concrete buttress dam with an attached hydroelectric powerhouse.
The dam was built in 1922, and is constructed of reinforced concrete, with a total length
(including the powerhouse), of 235 feet and an average structural height of 25 feet. The
hydroelectric facility at Hoosier Dam contains three small turbines that were operated by
Hoosier Hydroelectric, Inc., as a small renewable energy producer. In October, 2012, the
renewable energy contract with Progress Energy Carolinas was terminated, and in 2013
a new contract between Rocky River Hydro LLC (the current owner) and Duke Energy
Progress was established. The dam continued to operate as a hydroelectric producer
until 2015.
Land use directly adjacent to the project is predominantly undisturbed woodland, with
areas of pasture and pine plantations. The entire impoundment is bordered by a mature
riparian buffer that varies in width from 40 feet to over 200 feet.
Hoosier Dam and Reeves Lake are responsible for the loss of natural flow regime and
shallow water habitat to approximately 22,425 linear feet of stream ecosystem (16,060
linear feet within the Rocky River and 6,365 linear feet of perennial tributaries).

B3d. The purpose of the project is the remove Hoosier Dam and a rock crib dam located
approximately 1 mile upstream. Hoosier Dam and Reeves Lake are currently a barrier
between two critical habitat areas for the Cape Fear shiner, a federally -listed
endangered species that only occurs only in North Carolina. The dam currently isolates
two distinct populations of the Cape Fear shiner which impairs the species chances of
long-term survival. The crib dam was formerly under the surface level of Reeves Lake.
Due to the dewatered condition of the lake the crib dam is currently acting as a fish
barrier.
Going from a lentic ecosystem to a lotic ecosystem will manipulate the existing habitat
and its function. However, the lotic ecosystem will develop and enhance habitat and
the habitat function for both aquatic and terrestrial species, serving as a wildlife corridor
upstream, downstream and across, whereas the impoundment and Reeves Lake is
currently an obstacle for wildlife species. The action will create a permanent gain of
habitat and habitat function. The project will develop long-term beneficial impacts by
connecting approximately three miles of improved riverine habitat which will allow for
demographic dispersal, genetic diversity and species richness. Specifically,
characteristics such as higher dissolved oxygen levels, stable water temperatures,
consistent hydrologic and sediment regime will establish microhabitats within and around
run/riffles complexes, shallow pools and woody debris throughout the reach. The
establishment of new vegetation along streambanks, on bars and islands of rock
outcrops will provide refuge from predation for aquatic species, including the Cape Fear
shiner, which is crucial for larval and young to reach their first year of reproductive
maturity. The beneficial cumulative effects such as reducing predation, healthier water
qualities, and extending the upstream riverine habitat downstream to the confluence of
the Deep River and Rocky River would enhance the Cape Fear critical habitat through
the project area and provide grounds for further research and monitoring of Cape Fear
shiner populations.
If any adverse impacts should occur within the critical habitat, they should be short-term
and small in magnitude since controlled measures will be implemented to alleviate any
severe or long-term impacts; therefore, this project and its temporary in -water work
actions should not result in Adverse Modification to designated Cape Fear shiner Critical
Habitat.

The negative effects associated with the dam and its impoundment will be removed with
the demolition of the dam. Construction itself, and potential associated sediment loads,
may cause temporary stress to any Cape Fear shiner in the immediate vicinity of the
dam. However, stress should be temporary in duration. The outcome of this project will
re-establish the primary constituent elements of the designated critical habitat essential
to the conservation of the Cape Fear shiner.
B3e. The dewatering of Reeves Lake was initiated in June 2017 and followed the
attached Dewatering Plan. The construction aspects of the project, dam removal and
channel restoration, will be completed as follows.:
1. Removal of Hoosier Dam and Powerhouse Structure
2. Removal of sediment wedge immediately upstream of the dam
3. Removal of the remnant rock (crib) dam located approximately 1 mile upstream
of Hoosier Dam
4. Stabilization of streambanks post -dam removal
5. Re-establishment of a riparian buffer with planting of native woody species along
streambanks.
6. Harperella sp. planting effort
Dam and Power House Removal
The removal of the power house will commence prior to the removal of the dam. A
private contractor will remove the brick structure, exterior steel components, and interior
equipment. This will be accomplished by use of excavator situated on a building pad
created upstream and abutting the portion of the top of Hoosier dam that is anchored
into the south slope. Soil will be borrowed from a nearby site to create the pad which will
be located in the former Reeves lake but outside of the current ordinary high water mark.
The bricks will be removed in clean chunks by use of an excavator with a hydraulic
thumb. The excavator will demolish the structure by pulling the brick back towards the
foundation and upland areas thereby minimizing the amount of brick falling into the
downstream river system.

The removed brick, steel and other salvageable materials will be scrapped. Non-
salvageable materials, if any, will be properly disposed of by a licensed NC demolition
contractor.
The dam itself will be removed by the US Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Program. The
removal will be accomplished by excavators. Causeways will be built up abutting the
dam with on-site soil or concrete allowing the excavators to reach out over the dam with
a ram -hoe attachment (See construction plans Sheet 1.3). The dam will be "pulled
back" to the upstream side as much as is practical though dam materials are
anticipated to fall in the immediate vicinity of the downstream side of the dam. The
causeway and area downstream that may encounter falling debris is identified as a
temporary impact in the PCN. Concrete rubble will be loaded into an off-road dump
truck and transported to the on-site disposal area. A fleet of two excavator and one or
two off road trucks is anticipated to be necessary. The demolition of Hoosier Dam is
expected to take 3 weeks to accomplish. Disposal of dam material will occur at the
location specified on figures 5.1 and 5.2 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. All
disposal material will be placed outside of the 100 -year FEMA floodplain.
Sediment Removal
See the attached Sediment Management Plan
Crib Dam Removal
The rock crib dam will be removed by excavator. Most of the rock will be disposed of in
upland areas outside of the regulated floodplain limits. Wetland areas have been
delineated in the area and will be avoided. Some rock may be left in place or placed
appropriately along the stream bank to encourage stable bank conditions following the
removal of the crib dam. This stabilization is noted as an impact in the PCN.
Streambank and Stream Bed Stabilization
Project work within the Rocky River may include the removal of the sediment wedge
created by the Hoosier Dam within the active channel (dependent on the Biological
Opinion from Section 7 consultation). The profile for the river is approximate and based
on best available knowledge of the streambed slopes upstream and downstream and
mechanical borings of depth to bedrock. The actual depth to bedrock along the entire
proposed surface may vary greatly from what is proposed. If this is the case, the

sediments should be excavated down to the depth of refusal or presence of coarse bed
material, and banks graded back at a minimum 3(H):I (V) slope to the tie-in point on the
existing surface.
All graded streambanks will be matted with erosion control matting. Additionally, the
excavated banks will be seeded with the temporary seed and permanent seed mix
specified in the plans. Seeded areas and coir fiber matting areas will be covered with
straw mulch. Grading activities are noted as temporary impacts in the PCN.
Coir fiber matting will be installed according to plans and specifications. The recently
dewatered floodplain will also be seeded with specified temporary and permanent seed
mix and mulch. Live stakes and herbaceous plugs will be installed along the stream
banks along with bare root trees within the floodplain, according to the plans and
specifications.
Harperella Planting
The North Carolina Botanical garden will be coordinating a planting of Harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum) across the restored section of the Rocky River. Botanical Garden
staff and volunteers will survey the dewatered/restored reach of the Rocky River to
survey for potential habitat areas. Plant material will be grown in the botanical garden
greenhouses.
DI The project in its very nature will remove substantial "impacts" (impoundment, fish
barriers) to aquatic ecosystems. During the project design phase all project elements
were looked at from an avoidance and minimization perspective. Because the project is
a removal and restoration effort the primary avoidance and minimization measures are
associated with the construction techniques described below in D1 b.
D1 b The project followed a strict dewatering protocol that included several elements
specifically designed to minimize impacts to ecological resources and preserve water
quality. The protocol included the below elements. Additional detail is provided in the
attached Dewatering Plan.
A maximum drawdown of 1 vertical foot per day to allow mussels to "walk" to
deeper water.

Daily turbidity monitoring with a management protocol to adjust for high turbidity
measurements if needed.
A mussel recovery effort managed by NCWRC aided by Unique Places, LLC and
contractors. Mussels were physically relocated to deeper waters or to
downstream or upstream riverine environments.
A seeding effort was accomplished to stabilize the exposing floodplains and
stream banks. Brown Top Millet was cast by hand several times a week via
canoe.
Additional mussel collection will be completed at the base of the dam to prevent mussel
mortality due to falling debris when the power house and the concrete dam are
demolished.
A NCDEQ approved sediment and erosion control plan will be implemented throughout
the duration of the project.
D2a
Given that the net increase in ecological functions and services to the Rocky River and
streams anticipated from this project (which are endorsed by partners like the NC Wildlife
Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service), compensatory mitigation should not be
required. The Hoosier Dam removal is an ecological restoration initiative and the NWP 53,
which covers the primary activity associated with the project (dam removal), directs that
compensatory mitigation is not required, unless the district engineer determines that the
dam removal, as outlined in this proposal, would result in more than minimal adverse
environmental effects. More specifically, the NWP 53 states:
"Because the removal of the low -head dam will result in a net increase in ecological
functions and services provided by the stream, as a general rule compensatory
mitigation is not required for activities authorized by this NWP. However, the district
engineer may determine for a particular low -head dam removal activity that
compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure the authorized activity results in no more
than minimal adverse environmental effects. "
Not only will the riverine and stream habitat improve significantly, it is estimated that
wetlands that return as a result of the dewatering and dam removal will be comparable

to, and ecologically and functionally superior to, the man-made wetlands that were
created by the unnatural water impoundment caused by the Hoosier Dam.
The removal of Hoosier Dam will restore 16,000 linear feet of critical habitat for Cape Fear
Shiner and state listed mussel species. The net functional uplift of the project will
undoubtedly be positive. Wetlands created by the impoundment will be lost, however
an unknown amount of "returning" wetlands will be restored by the removal of the dam.
Some of these "returning" wetlands are already easily identifiable in the field and on
recent aerial imagery. The attached Figure 7 depicts the existing wetlands as identified
in the JD submittal and the wetlands that have returned as a result of the draining of
Hoosier dam. The attached Table 1 lists the existing wetlands and assigns each a
predicted long-term result from the hydrologic effect of removing the dam. The results
are categorized into three groups as follows:
• No Change
Functional/Hydrologic Change (remains jurisdictional)
Likely Removed from Jurisdiction
Qualified environmental scientists based the assignments on a field analysis of each
individual wetland area and a review of the topographic and elevation characteristics
of the wetlands during the spring and summer of 2017. Following are some key
quantification of wetlands and their predicted effects as a result of the project.
Pre -Dewatering Wetland Totals: 232,964.9 sf (5.35 ac)
Wetlands expected to have no change: 27,304.1 sf (0.63 ac)
Wetlands expected to have function change (remain jurisdictional): 32,612.6 sf (0.75 ac)
Wetlands expected to be removed from jurisdiction: 88,268.6 sf (2.03 ac)
Returning Wetlands as of December 2017 (formerly impounded): 92,347.2 sf (2.12 ac)
The above estimates suggest that the actual square footage of wetland loss will be
comparable to the wetland that returns as a result of the dewatering and dam removal,
resulting in an overall functional improvement of wetlands and aquatic habitat in the
project area. Additionally, it is expected that additional returning wetlands will form over
the next several years following the dam removal. Given the exceptional river function
uplift and the resulting habitat increases for aquatic species, notably the Cape Fear
shiner, the project will undeniably have a significant net benefit to the ecosystem.

Sincerely,
Aaron Aho
Project Manager
Unique Places, LLC