20180066 Ver 1_401 Application_20201023

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
April 11, 2020 Ver 3.1
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
C Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20180066
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Central Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Dead Oak Stream Mitigation Project
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Matt Butler
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
10/23/2020
Nearest Body of Water
French Broad River
Basin
French Broad
Water Classification
B
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.7121-82.6561
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Buncombe
Is this a NCDMS Project
r Yes r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Erin Davis:eads\ebdavis
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
U
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?

W Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F- 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
F- Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r- Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Carter B. Fletcher
2b. Deed book and page no.:
089E/0569
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX)
2d.Address
Street Address
1060 Martin Fletcher Road
Address Line 2
city
Alexander
Postal / Zip Code
28701
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Rodney Goodlake and Sherri D. Goodlake
State / Rwince / Ifgion
NC
Country
us
2f. Fax Number:
r- Yes r No
r Yes r No

2b. Deed book and page no.:
2006/0683
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EB)Q
2d.Address
Street Address
110 Page Dr
Address Line 2
city
Alexander
Postal / Zip Code
28701
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Lynn Payne
2b. Deed book and page no.:
5534/1477
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EB)Q
2d.Address
Street Address
20 Page Drive
Address Line 2
city
Alexander
Postal / Zip Code
28701
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Matt Butler
3b. Business Name:
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES)
3c.Address
Street Address
3600 Glenwood Avenue
Address Line 2
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27612
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town
State / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:

Alexander
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
971333543000000,
971354259600000,971353038600000,
971353002400000
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address tine 2
city
Alexander
Postal / Zip Cade
28701
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
French Broad River
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
French Broad
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
060101050900
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
40.58
State / Rovince / legion
NC
(buntry
USA
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinityof the project at the time of this application:*
The Mitigation Project is comprised of eleven tributaries and two easement locations. In one easement location, southeastern portion of the project, three tributaries drain into Turkey
Creek. In the other easement location, the northern portion of the project, eight tributaries ultimately drain into the French Broad. The total drainage area for the Project is 514 acres.
Primary land use within the drainage area consists of forest (51 % ), agricultural land (42%), and impervious area covers less than one percent. Although the project watershed is
primarily forested, most of the agricultural areas within the watershed are near the Project and play a significant role in the degradation of the Project streams. Historic and current land -
use within the immediate Project area has been primarily livestock production. These agricultural activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along
the streams within the Project. The resulting observed stressors are streambank erosion, sedimentation, channel modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.
The primary vegetation within project is disturbed riparian forest, with areas of actively managed pasture, forested pasture, and nearly intact riparian forest. The riparian buffers on
many of the Project reaches are insufficient and heavily disturbed by livestock, while some riparian buffers are devoid of vegetation entirely. The vegetation within the areas of disturbed
riparian forest is low in diversity, and invasive species are present and locally dense.
Historic aerial imagery indicates that most of the areas adjacent to the project streams have been in agricultural use since at least 1970. Between 1970 and 1993, areas adjacent to the
project streams appear to have more woody vegetation but lack riparian buffers. Currently, the areas adjacent to the project are utilized as pastureland, where livestock have full access
to all project streams. However, the norther portion of the project has minimal livestock access; likely due to the steep slopes in this area. Several watershed characteristics, such as
groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and soil parameters have been modified. Riparian buffers range from mature and wide to either very sparse, narrow, or non-existent. Soil
structure and surface texture have been altered from long term grazing.
The Project is split into twenty-five stream reaches. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any wetland areas within the
Project; however, jurisdictional wetlands do east onsite. Eleven jurisdictional wetlands, ranging from .0069 to .1217 acres in size are wholly or partially present within the boundaries of
the project. Wetlands are labeled as WA (Wetland A) through WL (Wetland Q. The major hydrology source of these wetlands is groundwater. In their current state, these wetlands
mostly consist of Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetlands but also include Palustrine Forested (PFO) and Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) wetlands. In general, these wetlands are highly
disturbed by livestock grazing and trampling that prevents any significant, natural vegetative community to develop.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
F Yes F No F Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 2 - USGS - Dead Oak.pdf
2.19MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 4 - Mapped Soils - Dead Oak.pdf 2.29MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.429
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
14623
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose for this mitigation project is to restore, enhance, and preserve aquatic resources in order to offset unavoidable impacts within the French Broad 05 watershed. The
Projects goals will address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the DMS 2009 French Broad River Basin
Restoration Priorities Report. Accomplishing these goals entails the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of stream channels. Specific project objectives include reconstructing
stream channels, permanently excluding livestock via fencing, stabilize eroded stream banks, install in -stream structures and habitat features to promote bedform diversity and aquatic
habitat, increase forested riparian buffer widths, treat exotic invasive species, and establish a permanent conservation easement.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*

I he treatment plan and design approach were developed based on the existing conditions, project goals, and objectives. The Project will include Restoration, Enhancement I, II, and III,
and Preservation. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of single -thread meandering channels, with parameters based on data taken from 2D hydraulic models, published
empirical relationships, regional curves, and stable on -site channel sections. Analytical design will be a crucial element of the project and will be used to determine the design discharge
and to verify the overall design.
The detailed treatment plan and design approach is as follows
Reach FC1-A
A mix of inline and offline restoration is proposed for this reach to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include:
❑ Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley bottom,
❑ Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Establishing a mix of plane bed and step -pool sequences throughout the reach,
❑ Installing bank protection including stone toe, brush toe, coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Filling the existing channel,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Removal of existing structures and trash,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Relocating a ford crossing,
❑ Riparian planting.
Reach FC1-B
An enhancement level 1(1.5:1) approach is proposed for this reach to address eroding banks and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities include:
❑ Stabiliang right bank near station 12+80 by installing a brush toe,
❑ Stabiliang left bank near station 13+20 by installing a brush toe,
❑ Stabiliang right bank near station 13+90 by installing a brush toe,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting.
Reach FC1-C
An enhancement level 11(2.5:1) approach is proposed for this reach to address channel entrenchment and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities include:
❑ Floodplain benching along the left bank from station 14+11 to station 15+40,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting.
Reach SM1-A
An enhancement level 11(10:1) approach is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include:
I I Protecting a minimum 50-foot buffer along the right bank.
Reach SM1-B
A preservation approach (10:1) is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include:
❑ Protecting a minimum 300-foot buffer along the right bank.
Reach SM1-C
A preservation approach (0:1) is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include:
❑ Protecting a minimum 300-foot buffer along the right bank.
Reach SM1-D
A preservation approach (10:1) is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include:
n Protecting a minimum 300-foot buffer along the right bank.
Reach FC2-A
A mix of inline and offline restoration is proposed for this reach to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and buffer impacts. Restoration activities Will include:
❑ Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley bottom,
❑ Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Establishing a mix of plane bed and step -pool sequences throughout the reach, Installing bank protection including stone toe, brush toe, coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Filling the existing channel,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Fence removal,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting in pasture areas and along existing farm path that will allow for a walking trail,
❑ Upgrade existing ford crossing.
Reach FC2-B
An enhancement III approach (5:1) is proposed for the upstream and downstream portion of this reach. The middle portion of FC2-13 is an enhancement III approach With a 0:1 ratio
proposed, due to only having one-sided control of the reach. Enhancement activities will include:
n Protecting a minimum 50-foot buffer along the left bank,
u Livestock exclusion,
❑ Fence removal,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
Reach SM2
A preservation approach (10:1) is proposed for this reach. Preservation activities will include:
I I Protecting a minimum 300-foot buffer along the left bank.
Reach FC3-A
An enhancement III approach (5:1) is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include:
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting in pasture areas and along existing farm path that will leave a walking trail.
Reach FC3-B
Inline restoration is proposed for this reach to tie to proposed FC2 and address eroding banks. Restoration activities will include:
❑ Grading a new single thread channel that ties to FC2,
11 Installing a log structure to provide grade control and habitat,

u instawng oanK protection mcwaing coir matting, ana live stakes,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
fl Riparian planting.
Reach FC4-A
An enhancement III approach (5:1) is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting.
Reach FC4-B
Inline restoration is proposed for this reach to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include
I I Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley bottom,
u Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Establishing a step -pool system,
❑ Installing bank protection including stone toe, coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Filling the existing channel,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting,
❑ Ford installation.
Reach FC5-A
A mix of inline and offline restoration is proposed for this reach to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include
❑ Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley bottom,
❑ Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Increasing flow diversity,
❑ Installing bank protection including stone toe, brush toe, coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Filling the existing channel,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Riparian Planting.
Reach FC5-B
An enhancement III approach (5:1) is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include:
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian Planting.
Reach FC6-A
An enhancement III approach (5:1) is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include:
❑ Protecting a minimum 50-foot buffer along both sides of the reach,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Livestock exclusion.
Reach FC6-B
Inline restoration is proposed for this reach to tie to proposed FC2 and address eroding banks. Restoration activities will include
❑ Grading a new single thread channel that ties to FC2,
❑ Installing a log structure to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Establishing a step -pool system,
❑ Installing bank protection including coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
fl Riparian planting.
Reach FC7-A
Offline restoration is proposed for this reach to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include:
❑ Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley bottom,
❑ Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Establishing a mix of plane bed and step -pool sequences throughout the reach, Installing bank protection including stone toe, brush toe, coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Installation of a flow attenuation structure,
❑ Filling the existing channel,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Fence removal,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
fl Riparian planting.
Reach FC7-B
An enhancement III approach (5:1) is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include:
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian Planting,
❑ Relocation of an overhead powerline.
Reach FC7-C
Offline restoration is proposed for this reach to address eroding banks, channel entrenchment, and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include:
❑ Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley bottom,
❑ Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
I I Increasing flow diversity,
❑ Installing bank protection including stone toe, brush toe, coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Filling the existing channel,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting,
11 Relocation of an overhead powerline.

meacn rL,o
An enhancement I approach (1.5:1) is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include:
❑ Grading floodplain benches along both banks
❑ Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat
❑ Installing bank protection including coir matting, stone toe, and live stakes,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting.
Reach FC9
An enhancement III approach (5:1) is proposed for this reach. Enhancement activities will include:
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
Reach FC10
Inline restoration is proposed for this reach to tie to proposed FC7 and address eroding banks. Restoration activities Will include:
❑ Grading a new single thread channel that ties to FC7,
❑ Installing an energy dissipator at outlet of NCDOT culvert,
❑ Installing a rock structure to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Installing bank protection including coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian planting.
Reach FC11
Inline restoration is proposed for this reach to tie to proposed FC2 and address eroding banks. Restoration activities Will include:
❑ Grading a new single thread channel that ties to FC7,
❑ Installing an energy dissipator at outlet of NCDOT culvert,
❑ Installing a rock structure to provide grade control and habitat,
❑ Installing bank protection including coir matting, and live stakes,
❑ Livestock exclusion,
❑ Invasive vegetation treatment,
❑ Riparian Planting.
All jurisdictional wetlands within the Project boundary (WA-WL) will be enhanced, primarily through tree planting and cattle exclusion. Approximately 17,600 feet of fencing will ensure
that cattle will no longer have access to these wetlands, and a diverse mix of native trees appropriate for the community type Will be planted. Also, all wetlands within the Project will be
protected from future landuse conversion by establishing a permanent conservation easement.
A suite of sediment control measures will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs, pollutant contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following
sediment control measures: riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, slope stabilization, stream restoration, livestock exclusion, and livestock watering facilities, Will ultimately lead to
the functional uplift of the site, while still allowing livestock production to persist through the installation of alternative water sources.
The riparian buffer will be restored along all project reaches, where the existing buffer is deemed inadequate or the wasting buffer is impacted by construction. Restored riparian buffers
are established adjacent to and up -gradient from watercourses of water bodies to improve water quality. The main advantages of the restored riparian buffer will be to provide water
quality treatment, erosion control, and water temperature benefits. Moreover, there will be significant reductions in sedimentation, nutrient input, and fecal coliform input.
To account for eliminating livestock water access, landowners will be provided an alternate water source.
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project. The selection of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species
present in the forest surrounding the restoration Project, and what is typically native to the area. Specifically, species identified in the Project along with species described in the 2012
Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation (Schafale, 2012) for mountain -type communities were used to determine the most appropriate species for the
restoration project.
A Montane Alluvial Forest (Small River Subtype) (Schafale, 2012) Will be the target community for the Project. The target community Will be used for the planting areas Within the Project.
This community type is very similar to cove forests and shares many of the same species; however, it incorporates several floodplain and wetland species that are typical of small
mountain stream floodplains.
The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid stabilization of the stream banks banks (primarily outside meanders), silky
dogwood (Corpus amomum), black willow (Salix nigra), and hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth patterns
and high success rates. The live stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of
bank. The live stakes Will be spaced one per three linear feet With alternate spacing vertically.
The treatment of invasive species Will occur on several Project reaches and Will be required within all grading limits associated with restoration. Invasive species will require different and
multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and the location of the species being treated; the current known exotic invasive species onsite include Chinese privet,
Oriental bittersweet, princess tree, kudzu, multiflora rose, and fescue. All treatment Will be conducted as to maximize its effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding
native vegetation. Treatment methods Will include mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants
containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the Project and properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator with a
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and NC and
Federal laws.
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified, and any compaction Will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the Project. Any topsoil that is removed during
construction will be stockpiled and placed over the Project during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of
vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the Project.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
2020-09-18_Dead Oak Mitigation Site.pdf 16.27MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes
r No
Comments:
A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on February 21,
2019, a site visit was conducted on April 9, 2019 and was confirmed on June 17, 2019
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2018-00095
O Unknown
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?

Name (if known): Jeremy Schmid
Agency/Consultant Company: Resource Environmental Solutions
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
June 17, 2019.
Stream lengths have been updated in the WOUS map and Aquatic resource table, based on survey data. Those materials have been provided in the attached documentation.
5d9. Jurisdictional determination upload
PJD_DeadOak_2018-00095-UpdatedMaterials.pdf 29.5MB
Stream_ID_Crosswalk_Deadoak_UPDATED.pdf 69.64KB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed projector related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
r Buffers
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.*
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area*
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
WE
Corps
0.001
(acres)
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
WE
Corps
0.015
(acres)
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
WL
Corps
0.003
(acres)
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
No
Corps
0.007
(acres)
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
WF
�
Corps
0.001
(acres)
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
WF
Corps
0.004
(acres)
7
Crossing Installatio
P
Headwater Forest
WF
�No
Corps
0.030
(acres)
8
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
WG
�No
Corps
0.001
(acres)
9
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
WG
No
Corps
0.006
(acres)
10
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
WD
No
Corps
0.001
(acres)
11
Stream Restoration
L
Headwater Forest
WD
L—A
Corps
0.007
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.042
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.076
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.034

❑
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction"
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
length*
S1
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC1-A
Perennial
Corps
P
4
1,102
Aver�e(feet)
(lin�rfeet)
S2
Culvert Crossing Installation
9
Permanent
Culvert
FC1-A
Perennial
Corps
P
4
30
Average (feet)
(lin�rfeet)
S3
Culvert Crossing Installation -
Temporary
Culvert
FC1-A
Perennial
Corps
20
Grading
Average (feet)
(lirearfeet)
�
Enhancement I
Tem orar
P y
Bank Stabilization
FC1-B
Perennial
Cor s
P
6
230
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S5
Enhancement I
Permanent
Bank Stabilization
FC8
Intermittent
Corps3
44
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S6
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC2-A
Intermittent
Corps5
1,223
Average (feet)
(lin�rfeet)
S7
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC6-13
Perennial
Corps
P
3
32
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S8
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC3-13
Intermittent
Corps
P
3
28
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S9
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC4-13
Intermittent
Corps
P
3
637
Average (feet)
(lirx�rfeet)
S90
Ford Crossing
Temporary
Other
FC4-13
Intermittent
Corps
3
15
Average (feet)
(lin�rfeet)
S 11
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC5-A
Intermittent
Corps
P
3
306
gverage (feet)
(linearfeet)
�2�Ford
Crossing
Temporary
Other
FC5-A
Intermittent
Corps
3
15
Average (feet)
(lin�rfeet)
S
�3�StreamP
Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC7-A
Perennial
Corps
5
462
Average (feet)
(linearfeel)
�4�Culvert9
Crossing Installation
Permanent
Culvert
FC7-A
Perennial
Corps
P
5
30
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
�51
Culvert Crossing Installation -
Temporary
Culvert
FC7-A
Perennial
Corps
5
20
Grading
Average (feet)
(linearfeel)
S16
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC7-C
Perennial
Corps
P
8
823
gVef�(feet)
(linearfeet)
S97
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC10
Intermittent
Corps
6Average
3(
(fee)
�rfeet)
S98
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Other
FC11
Intermittent
Corps
7Average
4Qinearfeet)
—]
(fee)
M
Stream Enhancement II
Temporary
Other
tL--
Perennial
Corps
6
490
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
4,796
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
3263
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
790
3j. Comments:
All Crossings associated with this project are agricultural crossings. Three crossings will be updated (impacts S2, S3, 510, S12), and one will be a new
crossing ( impacts S15 and S16).
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible. Proposed stream impacts, including stream
relocation and ford and culvert installation, are necessary restoration and enhancement practices that will contribute to the functional uplift of the
Project's aquatic resources while allowing continued agricultural use of the surrounding land. Potential wetland impacts are anticipated to be small and
minor. Wetland Impact 1-6 and 8-11 are all associated with stream restoration or enhancement efforts, providing an overall functional uplift the stream
and wetland complexes of the site. Wetland impact 7 is associated with the installation of a gravel agricultural crossing through the wetland above
FC2-A, accompanied with a French drain to allowfor adequate drainage of the crossing. W7, although small, is a permanent wetland impact, due to
the nature of the agricultural crossing installation. The specific detail of this gravel crossing footprint can be found in the project drawings. RES will be
removing the current agricultural culverted crossing on FC2-A and replacing it with a gravel crossing at the top of FC2-A outside the Easement, but
within the Project area.

1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior to turning stream flow into a
segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the project construction. Efforts will be made to preserve individual
high value trees located within the stream restoration area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This stream restoration project will provide an overall functional uplift to the stream and wetland complex, and protect headwater stream and wetlands in perpetuity.
[F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR) u
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
It is not in a Protected Buffer Watershed
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15ANCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information U
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there will be an increase in water quality
within the project, due to the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, excluding livestock, and
the establishment of a conservation easement to be protected in perpetuity.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r No r NIA
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville

5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database
Consultation Documentation Upload
Official —Species List_ Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.pdf 883.17KB
19-325_Dead Oak Mitigation Project (Scoping)_Buncombe Co_USFWS.pdf 334.65KB
MA Verification Letter_ Northern Long -Eared Bat (NLEB) Consultation and 4(d) Rule Consistency 2019-07-12.pdf 311.85KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO GIS Database
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
DeadOak_SHPO.pdf
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
118.7KB
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year flood plain?*
r Yes r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
HEC-RAS version 5.0.7
Miscellaneous
Comments
Additional uploaded documents included:
PCN Figures 1, 3, 5, and 6. Figure 2 and 4 loaded in previous sections.
1. Vicinity
3. Existing Conditions
5. NWI and FEMA
6. Project Impacts
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity - Dead Oak.pdf
2.8MB
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions - Dead Oak.pdf
1.31 MB
Figure 5 - NWI_FEMA.pdf
1.31 MB
Figure 6 - Project IMpatcs - Dead Oak_20200924.pdf
3.17MB
Signature
*
W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:

• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Matt Butler
Signature
Date
10/23/2020

ss, © Riverside Escapes
r 'verPark©
F i•
ky
/
O�
O
F
nd
�X - o� oo
o of
O
I
Buncombe
County Landfill
Pa�her fl.�ch
p1d Marshall Hv.y
m e1n =nder River Park
/:;�$
VVV
q
" - Exi;tenlial
otorcyclesQ
Ine
QShelton's
,2
Dead Oak
U
Mitigation Project
Newport 167
zoa
Pisgah
Burnsv,de Spruc
N onal Forest
F Lot[
osby
Switzer
32
M t r'11 u: Q
averville
Blac v
16� 0 Asheville Moun
MERGENCY Ca m
UTO REPAIR Waynesville
e ,s it
L fiend 9 Fletcher Lake Lure
Iva
Proposed Easement ,�, S y 275
- Cullowhee Hendersonv
at..o
Service Area - 06010105 28, 376 FI„ R
Brevard
14-Digit HUC sm Landrur,
Rosman
Sandy Mush Game Lands MarshallExxonQ Cashiers zs O
<,a
Mountain view Highlands ,0 35.712,-82.656
Baptist Church 78
N
Date: 9/17/2020
Figure 1 - Project Vicnity
w e Drawn by: HKH res
s Dead Oak Mitigation Project
Checked by: JRM
0 1,000 2,000
Buncombe County, North Carolina 1 inch =2,000 feet
Feet I i

0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Quadrangle
Dead Oak Mitigation Project
Buncom be County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
Main Watershed:
SM1-D (234 ac)
SM2 (139 ac)
FC 7-C (141 ac)
©Date: 9/17/2020
Drawn by: HKH
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dead Oak\MXD\6_PCN\Figure 2 - USGS - Dead Oak.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Leicester (1980)
Existing Crossing
Existing Crossing
r
y�
w
J
i
FC4
j� VN H
Existing Crossing
N
Date: 9/17/2020
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
4%Ww _ - e Drawn by: HKH
s Dead Oak Mitigation Project
Checked by: JRM
0 300 600
Buncombe County, North Carolina 1 inch =600 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
® Existing Wetland
Powerline
X X Existing Fence
Perennial
— — — Intermittent
fires

0 600300
Feet
Figure 4 - NRCS SoilsBuncombe County, 2009
Dead Oak Mitigation Project
Buncom be County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
©Date: 9/17/2020
Drawn by: HKH
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Dead Oak\MXD\6_PCN\Figure 4 - Mapped Soils - Dead Oak.mxd1 inch = 600 feet
FQFA
:U
-7K 1TY—T
.00.
lea
-7 �-J
Leg
end
Proposed
FEMA Zone AE - None
Sandy Mush Game Lands
NW Wetland - None (USFWS 10/29/2018)
N
Date 9/17/2020
�+E Figure 5 - NWI and FEMA Drawn by: HKH
glaw so Dead Oak Mitigation Project Checked by: JRM
0 30600
Buncombe County, North Carolina 1 inch = 600 feet
t�
I
114 "V-
Ores

e d�
8
® c
e
f

N
N
N
Q m
U Q
o? U
Q
N
CD
N
N Q
m Q
m Q
N
m Q
N
m Q
Ql U
U N
W U
U U
U
U U
U u)
u) u)
U
U
U) C)
Uj U
C)
U
U
U 0
0 0
0 0
LL U
❑' LL
U LL
LL
LL LL
LL U U
aLL
LL
LL N
N N
N LL
LL
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL'
❑❑❑❑
LL LL
N
R
R
a
0
R
N
N
N N
N
—
Q CO
U Q
C? U
D Q
m
N Q
CO Q
CO Q
CO Q
C9 Q
Co 9
U
N
U
U) C7
�/j U
U
c c
_
LL LL
LL (/J
(/J (/J
(/J LL
LL
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
R
C
Z
Z
Z Z
Z
LL
R
N
R
7
N
d
d d
d d
Q CO
U Q
CD U
❑ Q
op
U N
M
Q CO
N
O
Q CO
U
LL LL
LL (/J
(/J (/J
(/J LL
LL
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL O
O O
O O
p�
Z
Z Z
Z Z
O
N
U
R
U U
U U
U U U
O
LL
U
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL LL
N
0
7
00
O
N
LL
N
'a
Q CO U
�
Q m
Q m
U M
Q CO
N
Q m
U
U U U
U
N N
U U
0 0
U U
0——
U LUL
LUL
c
_
U U
U——
c c
c c
— —
c c
— —
c c
——
LL LL LL
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL
LL LL
O
LL LL
LL
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
N
Z
Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
7
U
N
N
O
a`
LUL
�
LUL �
LUL
� LUL
lUl
�
c
c c
c c
c c
c c
N
LL LL
LUL LUL
LUL
O
a`
O
z
O
z
O
z
O
z
O
z
O O
z z
O O
z z
O O
z z
O O
z z

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Iamilton
February 28, 2018
Steve Kichefski
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, French Broad Holston River Basin,
SAW 2016-02357, Buncombe, Henderson, and Madison Counties, ER 17-0002
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
Thank you for your email of January 29, 2018, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
,wZ
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599