20181097 Ver 3_401 Revision Needed_20201119

Strickland, Bev
From: Katie Webber <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:57 PM
To: Davis, Erin B
Subject: RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
Attachments: Copy of Impacts 4 Map - Dogtown.pdf, Pre -Construction Notification Revised
11-19-2020.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Hi Erin,
I am so sorry it has taken this long to get back to you. I kept thinking I had enough time earlier in the week and
then would have the day get away from me.
The deviations, which I didn't notice when I submitted the revised PCN, are due to minor changes to the
crossings — a little here, there, etc., - adding up. The final figure in the map plan is accurate (shown below).
I have attached the PCN with a revised table.
Thank you for bringing this up! I will get in touch with Steve to make sure he knows too. Please let me know if
you have any other questions.
Katie
Impact
ID
Temp/Perm
Aquatic Resource
Purpose
Area/Length
W1
Perm
WA
Pond Removal
0.106 ac
W2
Perm
WB
Pond Removal
0.128 ac
W3
Perm
WC
Pond Removal
0.049 ac
W4
Perm
WD
Stream Enhancement
0.008 ac
W5
Temp
WD
Stream Enhancement
0.057 ac
W6
Temp
WE
Stream Restoration
0.052 ac
W7
Perm
WE
Stream Restoration
0.008 ac
W8
Perm
WF
Stream Restoration - Channel Plug
0.020 ac
S1
Perm
S1-A
Stream Restoration
1,034 ft
S2
Perm
S2-13
Stream Restoration
873 ft
S6
Temp
S3-A
Stream Enhancement
100 ft
S7
Perm
S3-13
Stream Restoration
763 ft
S10
Perm
DT3-B
Stream Restoration
1,177ft
S13
Temp
DT2-B
Grading headcut
100 ft
S14
Temp
DT2-A
Grading headcut
100 ft
S15
Perm
DT2-A
Stream Restoration
196 ft
S16
Perm
DT1-B
Stream Restoration
1,130 ft
S19
Perm
DT4
Stream Restoration
1,053 ft
01 Perm PA Pond Removal 0.658 ac
1

02
Perm
PB
Pond Removal
0.350 ac
03
Perm
PC
Pond Removal
1.570 ac
Impacts Associated with Crossings
Impact
ID
Temp/Perm
Aquatic Resource
Purpose
Length
S3
Perm
S2-13
Culvert Installation
(DBL 36" HDPE) - Pipe
30 ft
S4
Temp
S2-13
Culvert Installation - Grading
20 ft
S5
Temp
S1-A
Ford Installation
25 ft
S8
Perm
S3-13
Culvert Replacement
(DBL 36" HDPE) - Pipe
30 ft
S9
Temp
S3-13
Culvert Replacement - Grading
20 ft
S11
Perm
DT3-13
Culvert Replacement
(DBL 48" HDPE) - Pipe
30 ft
S12
Temp
DT3-13
Culvert Replacement - Grading
20 ft
S17
Perm
DT1-B
Culvert Installation
(DBL 36" HDPE) - Pipe
30 ft
S18
Temp
DT1-B
Culvert Installation - Grading
20 ft
S20
Perm
Bakers Creek
Ford Installation
25 ft
From: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:43 AM
To: Katie Webber <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
Hi Katie,
Just wanted to follow up. Let me know if you want to chat.
Thanks!
Erin
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:32 AM
To: Katie Webber <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
Looking at the revised ePCN the math isn't adding up. The stream table has one new permanent impact for 25 linear
feet. But the bubbled totals table has a difference of 45 feet permanent impacts and 5 feet temporary impacts between
the original and revised totals. Can you please confirm the total stream impacts proposed.
I'm following up on the fee request email.
Many thanks!
Erin B. Davis, PWS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Specialist
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919-817-0360 cell
erin.davisa-ncdenr.gov

From: Katie Webber [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 4:57 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bradley Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Erin,
Thank you for looking into this for me and I sincerely apologize for the delayed response! That's what I get for
marking this email "read" when I hadn't completed the task yet. Please find attached the permit modification
letter you requested as well as the PCN which I simply marked up to request NWP #14. @Steve Kichefski, I
am using NWP #14 based on Todd's comment while we were in the field. If #14 doesn't work for you please let
me know.
Thanks,
Katie Webber
From: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:00 PM
To: Katie Webber <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Kichefski <Steven. I.kichefski(@usace.armv.mil>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
Hi Katie,
I spoke with my supervisor. We can review the new crossing impact as a permit modification. We will issue a revised 401
WQC approval letter to cover all proposed impacts under GC#4134 and either GC#4135 or GC#4139 (depending if you
submit for a NWP 14 or 18). Can you please update the PCN mark-up you emailed on 9/11 to indicate what other NWP
you're requesting. Also, can you please include a cover letter formally requesting a permit modification. Once our
Administrative Specialist processes the request, you'll receive the associated review fee email. I'll coordinate with Steve
and work to get you the revised approval asap.
Many thanks,
Erin
From: Katie Webber [mailto:kwebber(@res.us
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 1:26 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachmenA
Erin,

Just following up after speaking with construction. They're going to pull the bridge from the TOB. There may be
some cleanup grading here but no discharge — and E&SC may be used as needed along with ripping and
planting.
Will we see you tomorrow at Cardinal?
Thank you!
Katie
From: Katie Webber
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 6:08 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Kichefski <Steven. I.kichefski(@usace.armv.mil>
Subject: RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
Hi Erin,
The banks on Bakers Creek are quite tall, like 10-15', in that spot. I believe the only work on the bridge removal
will be taking out that bridge, nothing else; however, I am going to check with my people to be sure and I'll get
back to you on it. I could see them having to smooth out soil surface or something where they pull out timbers?
Either way, the top of bank is way outside the OHWM. No bed work or structures here. My regulatory mind
would say, "no impacts" to WOUS/WONC in this spot.
The area we pulled into easement will be ripped/planted like the rest of planting areas. Good news is it's
currently pasture so it's probably not much different from the surrounding areas anyway.
I'll be back in touch with our construction group's thoughts on bridge removal.
Thank you,
Katie
From: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 4:18 PM
To: Katie Webber <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Kichefski <Steven. I.kichefski(@usace.armv.mil>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
Hi Katie,
Follow-up question - What are you proposing for the bridge removal area? I didn't see anything noted on the design
sheet except the removal. Will there be bank grading and planting? Any bed work or structures installation? I'm
assuming all impacts will be temporary, correct? Also, the access path/road connected to the bridge, which is now
within the easement, will be ripped/un-compacted and planted, correct?
Many thanks,
Erin
From: Davis, Erin B
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:45 PM
To: Katie Webber <I<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
Hi Katie,

Good question on the 401 modification. I'm checking on that and will get back to you asap. And yes, can you please
upload the revised final mit plan to Laserfiche.
Many thanks!
Erin
From: Katie Webber [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 5:30 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bradley Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Dogtown Mitigation Project: 401 certification revision needed?
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Hi Erin,
On the Dogtown Mitigation Project, we had a small change that I am wondering would require a PCN
modification. An existing bridged crossing on Bakers Creek in the southern extent of the project is starting to
fail and we now plan to remove it during construction. However, in order to reach the other side of the project
for construction and M&M, we now would like to install a ford across Bakers Creek. I have prepared a revised
PCN (Attached); however, I am not sure if I technically need a mod if it is for one more agricultural crossing, or
if we do need one. Hoping you can clarify for me!
Regarding how this change affects the Mit Plan:
- The ford will be installed outside the Conservation Easement area.
- We removed the easement break from the southern portion of Bakers Creek where the old crossing is.
- We were able to increase credits slightly through removal of the break.
- We also tweaked our easement a little as a result of survey; credits changed a smidge.
I submitted a revised final Mit Plan to Steve for his use and distribution to the IRT. Would you like me to upload
a copy of this to Laserfiche as well?
Please let me know if you have any questions!
Thanks,
Katie Webber, PSS, CPSS
Project Manager
RES I res.us
Office: 984.275.3483 Cell:410.279.5741
**We moved on March 2ndl Our new office is located at 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27612.

Impact ID
Temp/Perm
Aquatic Resource
Purpose
Area/Length
W 1
Perm
WA
Pond Removal
0.106 ac
W2
Perm
WB
Pond Removal
0.128 ac
W3
Perm
WC
Pond Removal
0.049 ac
W4
Perm
WD
Stream Enhancement
0.008 ac
W5
Temp
WD
Stream Enhancement
0.057 ac
W6
Temp
WE
Stream Restoration
0.052 ac
W7
Perm
WE
Stream Restoration
0.008 ac
W8
Perm
WF
Stream Restoration - Channel Plug
0.020 ac
S1
Perm
S1-A
Stream Restoration
1,034 ft
S2
Perm
S2-13
Stream Restoration
873 ft
S6
Temp
S3-A
Stream Enhancement
100 ft
S7
Perm
S3-13
Stream Restoration
763 ft
S10
Perm
DT3-B
Stream Restoration
1,177 ft
S13
Temp
DT2-B
Grading headcut
100 ft
S14
Temp
DT2-A
Grading headcut
100 ft
S15
Perm
DT2-A
Stream Restoration
196 ft
S16
Perm
DT1-B
Stream Restoration
1,130 ft
S19
Perm
DT4
Stream Restoration
1,053 ft
01
Perm
PA
Pond Removal
0.658 ac
02
Perm
PB
Pond Removal
0.350 ac
03
Perm
PC
Pond Removal
1.570 ac
Impacts Associated with Crossings
Impact ID
Temp/Perm
Aquatic Resource
Purpose
Length
S3
Perm
S2-B
Culvert Installation
(DBL 36" HDPE) - Pipe
30 ft
S4
Temp
S2-B
Culvert Installation - Grading
20 ft
S5
Temp
S1-A
Ford Installation
25 ft
S8
Perm
S3-13
Culvert Replacement
DBL 36" HDPE - Pipe
30 ft
S9
Temp
S3-13
Culvert Replacement - Grading
20 ft
S11
Perm
DT3-13
Culvert Replacement
DBL 48" HDPE - Pipe
30 ft
S12
Temp
DT3-13
Culvert Replacement - Grading
20 ft
S17
Perm
DT1-13
Culvert Installation
DBL 36" HDPE - Pipe
30 ft
S18
Temp
DT1-13
Culvert Installation - Grading
20 ft
S20
Perm
Bakers Creek
Ford Installation
25 ft
TOTALS
Perm Wetland
0.319 ac
Temp Wetland
0.109 ac
Total Wetland
0.428 ac
Perm Stream
6,371 ft
Temp Stream
405 ft
Total Stream
6,776 ft
Perm Open Water
2.578 ac

DWR
Dlwlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are answered.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E-PCN, all you need to do is right -click on the document and you can print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https://edocs.deq.nc.govMaterResources/O/edoc/624704/PCN % 20Help / 20File % 202018-1-30.pdf
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:*
Catawba
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
This is any publicly funded by rrunicipaistate or federal funds road, rail, airport transportation project.
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)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?*
V Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
This form may be used to initiate the standard/individual permit process with the Corps. Please contact your Corps representative concerning submittals for standard permits. All required items that
are not provided in the E-PCN can be added to the miscellaneous upload area located at the bottom of this form.
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):
List all NN numbers you are applying for rat on the drop dawn list.
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:*
check all that apply
FJ 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
14 - Linear Transportation
le. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
r" 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r" Riparian Buffer Authorization
*
For the record onlyfor DWR 401 Certification: r- Yes r No
For the record onlyfor Corps Permit: r- Yes IT No
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?
If so, attach the acceptance letter from a tigation bank or in -lieu fee program
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
Qick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docunent
FILET'IEMISTBEFDF
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?*

r Yes IT No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?*
r Yes r No
Link to trout information: http://www..saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Agency-Coordination/Trout.aspx
B. Applicant Information
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Katie Webber
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[e-mail]
[phone]
Ild. Who is applying for the permit?*
V Owner
r Applicant (other than owner)
(Check all that apply)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:*
Colonel Land, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
3337/1168
2c. Responsible party:
(far Corporations)
2d.Address*
Street Address
302 Jefferson Street
Address Line 2
Suite 110
Cry
State / Province / legion
Raleigh
NC
Postal / Zip Cxle
Country
27605
USA
2e. Telephone Number:*
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:*
Environmental Banc & Exchange LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
3397/1430
2c. Responsible party:
(for Corporations)
2d.Address*
Street Address
302 Jefferson St
Address Line 2
Suite 110
Cry
State / Province / legion
Raleigh
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
27605
USA
2e. Telephone Number:*
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
(xxx)xxx-xxxx

2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information U
la. Name of project:*
Dogtown Stream Mitigation Bank
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
1 c. Nearest municipality / town:
Conover
2. Project Identification :J
2a. Property Identification Number: 2b. Property size:
(tax RN or parcel ID) (in acres)
375309060630 & 375305291678 198.730 & 70.2
2c. Project Address
Street Address
4328 C & B Farm Rd
Address Line 2
C7ty
State / Province / legion
Conover
NC
Postal / Zip Code
Country
28613
USA
2d. Site coordinates in decimal degrees
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey -grade GPS device) after the decimal place as appropriate, based on howthe location was
determined. (For example, most mobile phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal place.)
Latitude:* Longitude:*
35.763832-81.185640
ex: 34.208504-77.796371
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Bakers Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
Class C
Surface Water Lookup
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.*
030501011400
River Basin Lookup
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*

The Dogtown Mitigation Site (Project) is located in Catawba County approximately four miles north of Conover, INC. Consisting of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and disturbed
wooded areas, the Project's total easement area is approximately 59.13 acres within the overall drainage area of 4,095 acres. The Project has two separate portions along Bakers
Creek and in between those portions is a conservation easement for a water quality improvement site. While each site has been developed independently of the other, the combined
easements will result in greater continuity of protected corridors along the main stem of Bakers Creek. Grazing livestock have historically had access to all stream reaches within the
Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the
Project area. The stream channels include Bakers Creek and seven unnamed tributaries, split into twelve reaches based on proposed treatment type.
Reach S1 is in the northern project area and flows south from Swinging Bridge Road (SR 1515) through an active pasture towards Bakers Creek. This reach is a G-type sand and
gravel bed channel with a slope of less than 1%. The drainage area is approximately 427 acres and is dominated by agricultural land use. The valley transitions from a washed -slope
form at the upstream end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end. Channel buffers have been reduced to less than 10 feet in multiple locations along the reach and livestock
have historically had direct access to the channel. A 72" CMP conveys the channel under SR 1515 and has formed a four -foot -deep scour hole at its outlet. This bed scour combined
with increased sediment loads from limited buffers and livestock access have produced a bed material that is almost completely mobile.
Reach S2 is located along the northeastern portion of the project and flows west into Reach S1. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 71 acres, and the land use is a
mix of residential and farm land. S2 is divided into two reaches. The upstream section, S2-A, is an E-type channel with buffers greater than 50 feet and no livestock access. The reach is
slightly incised, with stable vegetated banks. S2-A has a stable gravel bed that exhibits good bed form diversity and grade is controlled by downstream bedrock outcrops.
The downstream section, Reach S2-B, is a G-type channel with limited to no buffers and livestock have direct access to the stream. The channel has minimal bank vegetation and no
bedrock grade control was observed along this reach. This combined with livestock impacts has produced a highly unstable stream with limited bedform diversity or aquatic habitat.
Reach S3 is located 0.3 miles south of S2 and flows west from the project limits into Bakers Creek. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 132 acres and is dominated by
active pasture. S3 is divided into two reaches. The upstream reach, S3-A, is a G-type channel with vegetated buffer widths ranging from 0 to 30 feet with livestock having direct access
to the channel. The majority of channel banks are vegetated with localized areas of instability where vegetation is lacking. The channel bed has previously downcut, but has been
stabilized by bedrock outcrops in multiple locations along this reach.
The downstream section, Reach S3-B, is a C-type channel with limited to no buffers. The channel has limited bank vegetation and no bedrock grade control was observed along the
reach. This combined with livestock impacts has produced a highly unstable stream with limited bedform or aquatic habitat.
Reach DT1 is comprised of three in -line farms ponds in active pasture that livestock frequently use. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 67 acres and is dominated by
active pasture. It flows east to its confluence with DT3. The reach was divided into 2 sections with
DT1-A representing the section upstream of DT1 and DT1-B representing the section downstream of DT1. Reach DT1-A has no channel as it is totally impounded. DT1-B is half
impoundment with the other half consisting of an incised sand and gravel bed stream. The channel is actively degrading with no bedrock grade control observed. The bed composition
is coarse sand with a relatively low sediment load and a channel slope of 1%to 2%, and the valley is moderately sloped.
Reach DT2 is located in the southwestern part of the project. This reach is a headwater stream that is recovering from past land use impacts. The lower reach of this stream is relatively
stable and has substantially recovered to form a naturalized headwater system although sediment loads from upstream erosion continue to impact this reach. The upstream reaches of
DT2 continue to have actively eroding headcuts that produce significant sediment loads. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 14 acres.
Reach DT3 is located in the northwestern portion of the southern project area and flows south past its confluence with DT1 and into Bakers Creek. The approximate drainage area of
the reach upstream of the DT1 confluence is 480 acres, and the drainage area downstream of the confluence is 549 acres. The watershed land use is a mix of forest, pasture, and rural
residential. The reach is divided into two sections based on channel morphology. The upstream section (Reach DT3-A), is a slightly incised gravel bed stream. The bed profile is stable
and controlled by downstream bedrock outcrops. The channel appears to be managing an increased sediment load caused by livestock access and upstream land use. Reach DT3-A
has buffer widths greater than 50 feet with adequate vegetation on channel banks and through the riparian area.
The downstream portion of the stream (Reach DT3-B), is in active pasture with little to no buffers. This reach is an incised sand and gravel bed stream with channel slopes less than
1%. The valley transitions from a washed -slope form at the upstream end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end. This stream is actively degrading with no bedrock grade
control observed. The combination of limited riparian vegetation and livestock access has produced unstable bed and banks, resulting in increased sediment loads.
Reach DT4 is located in the southeastern part of the project. This channel flows southwest to Bakers Creek through active cattle pasture on the right bank and a wooded buffer on the
left bank. The total drainage area is 100 acres and has a land use mix of forest, medium density residential, and pasture. This reach is an incised gravel bed stream with a low sediment
load and a channel slope of 0.5% to 3%. An existing residence is located in the left overbank just upstream of the project. The channel transitions from a narrowvalley at the upstream
end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end.
Bakers Creek is a severely incised, third order, sand and gravel bed stream located in the southern area of the project and is contiguous with the water quality easement to the north.
There is a thin strip of trees on both sides of the banks and cattle have access to the entire bank. The channel is incised 5 to 7 feet below the existing terrace and exhibits the typical
regional expression of past valley infilling and subsequent channel down -cutting associated with historic land -use alterations. The bed profile is relatively stable, and the channel is now
adjusting to its current position and sediment loads. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 4,095 acres.
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)
dick the upload button a drag and drop files here to attach docurent
Figure 2 - USGS - Dogtown.pdf
File type rust be pdf
1.15MB
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)
nick the upload button a drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
Figure 4 - Soils Map - Dogtown.pdf 4 4MB
File type rust be pdf
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.98
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
(intern tent and perennial)
11112
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways with the appropriate cross -sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and
in -stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during flooding events. The design will be based on
reference conditions, USACE guidance, and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives include restoring the riparian buffer with
native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, removal of livestock and treating invasive species.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*

Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach
applies a combination of analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed
treatment activities may range from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full restoration, natural design
concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that
provides habitat improvements and ties into the exsting landscape. Any abandoned channels will be filled, however, vernal pools will be left where possible to provide habitat and
groundwater recharge. A mix of rock and log structures will be added to all restoration and enhancement I reaches to provide bank stability, grade control, and bedform diversity.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
Bakers Creek totals 1,215 linear feet of Enhancement II to address livestock access and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities will include removal of invasive species, livestock
exclusion, and buffer planting to a minimum of 50 feet. A 30-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate an existing bridge that is to be maintained.
Reach S1-A totals 1,034 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration. The restoration wt1l begin as Priority II restoration just downstream of the NCDOT Right of Way. A Priority II approach
was chosen in this area to maintain the capacity of the existing 72" CMP. The design will shift the channel alignment to the right floodplain and transition to a Priority I approach as the
stream moves down valley. The last 400 feet of restoration transitions bank to a Priority II approach as the design ties back into the existing channel. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be
established along the reach and livestock will be removed.
Reach S1-13 totals 538 linear feet of Enhancement II to address livestock access and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities ww1l include removal of invasive species, livestock
exclusion, and buffer planting to a minimum of 50 feet. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate an epsting ford crossing which will be rehabilitated
as part of the proposed project.
Reach S2-A totals 407 linear feet of Enhancement III. Enhancement activities will include invasive species treatment, supplemental planting, and buffer protection to a minimum of 100
feet.
Reach S2-B totals 869 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration. After the first 200 feet, this reach will transition from a Priority II to a Priority I approach for the remainder of the reach
that will ultimately confluence with S1-A. The channel will be shifted from its exsting alignment and into the natural valley. The upstream limits of restoration were determined based on
severe bank erosion currently threatening several large oak trees, and the presence of a relic channel in the center of the valley. A 90-foot wide easement break is proposed along this
reach to accommodate a proposed crossing and an epsting overhead utility.
Reach S3-A totals 383 linear feet of Enhancement I to address localized channel instability, buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. Enhancement activities will include installation of
grade control structures, stabilizing the banks, planting the buffer, and excluding cattle. In -stream structures such as rock sills, brush toes, and constructed riffles will be installed for
stability and to improve habitat. Habitat Will further be improved through buffer plantings to a minimum of 50 feet and livestock exclusion.
Reach S3-B totals 801 linear feet of Priority II Restoration and 153 linear feet of Enhancement II at the tie-in with Bakers Creek. Restoration begins on this reach just downstream of a
large bedrock outcrop which has prevented the upper portions of the reach from downcutting to the extents seen in the restoration portion of the reach. Restoration will involve shifting
the channel into the right floodplain and excavating a new Priority II floodplain. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the existing alignment and profile prior to the Bakers
Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers Creek and is within the
floodway. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate a proposed crossing. The
proposed crossing was sized to allow the proposed stream to function as designed.
Reach DT1-A totals 630 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. The two pond dams located along this reach will be breached several months prior to the construction of the proposed
channel. The proposed channel will then be constructed in the drained pond bottom. During channel construction any unsuitable material located within the belt width of the proposed
channel will be removed and replaced with material from the dam excavation. A 175-foot easement break at the downstream end of this reach was included to accommodate an existing
power easement. No crossings are proposed within this break.
Reach DT1-B totals 1,175 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. One large pond dam on this reach wall be breached during a similar timeframe as the ponds on DT1-A. The proposed
channel will then be constructed in the drained pond bottom. During channel construction any unstable material located within the belt width of the proposed channel will be removed
and replaced with material from the dam excavation. The portion of the reach not within the existing pond bottom will be shifted to the right overbank area and a Priority I approach will
be utilized to tie into proposed DT3. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate a proposed crossing. The proposed crossing was sized to allowthe
proposed stream to function as designed.
Reach DT2 totals 575 linear feet of Enhancement I. The enhancement approach for this reach will be two phases. First is to stop the increased sediment loading by grading the two
large headcuts out by flattening the channel slope into the ephemeral channel. Steep banks will also be flattened and vegetated; however, some steep banks will not be regraded as
they have been stabilized by large trees and are not actively eroding. The next phase is to plug the threshold channel currently bypassing the reach around the epsting pond and then
connect DT2 to proposed DT1. This will increase the sediment capacity of DT2 allowing sediment to be transported through the reach. This reach does not have any proposed
easement breaks but is adjacent to the easement break outlined in DT1-A.
Reach DT3-A totals 761 linear feet of Preservation. Preservation activities will include protecting minimum 100-foot buffers on each bank.
Reach DT3-B totals 1,292 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration and 75 linear feet of Enhancement II at the tie-in with Bakers Creek. Priority I restoration is proposed for the portion
of this reach upstream of its confluence with DT1. The channel will be shifted to both the left and right overbanks. A 235-foot-wide easement break is proposed along this portion of the
reach to accommodate a proposed crossing and an existing power easement. The proposed crossing was sized to allow the proposed stream to function as designed. Downstream of its
confluence the proposed reach will transition to a Priority II approach as it ties back into the existing channel. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the exsting alignment
and profile prior to the Bakers Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers
Creek and is within the floodway. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer and livestock exclusion.
Reach DT4 totals 1,216 linear feet of Priority II Restoration. A Priority II approach will be utilized on this reach to prevent hydraulic trespass. The proposed channel will be shifted into the
right overbank and will reconnect with the existing channel at its confluence with an existing linear wetland. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the existing alignment and
profile prior to the Bakers Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers
Creek and is within the floodvay. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer and livestock exclusion. No crossings or easement breaks are proposed on this
reach.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
nick the upload button a drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
We type rust be pdr
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
s Yes
Comments:
M?
O Unknown
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*

r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown f N/A
Corps AID Number:
Bcarrple: SAW-2017-99999
SAW-2017-00636
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Jeremy Schmid
Agency/Consultant Company: RES
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR.
Confirmed PJD was received on May 24, 2017. Revised materials have been provided as apart of this permit application. Revisions include survey stream lengths of the Project.
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
nick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurreent
Dogtown PJD SAW-2017-00636 - REVISED.pdf 8.41 MB
File type must be FCF
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 project or related activity? This
includes other separate and distant crossing for linear projects that require Department of the Army authorization but don't require pre -construction notification.
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 Buffers
W Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
"W." will be used in the table below to represent the word "wetland".
2a1 Reason*(?)
2b. Impact type* (?)
2c. Type of W.*
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested*
2C Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area*
W1
Pond Removal
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
�WA
No
__]
Corps
0.106
(acres)
W2
Pond Removal
P
ff.miand Hardwood Forest
WB
�No
Corps ]0.128
(acres)
W3
Pond Removal
P
mland Hardwood Forest
ff
WC
No
Corps
0.049
(acres)
W4
Stream Enhancement
P
mland Hardwood Forest
ff
WD
Yes
Corps
0.008
(acres)
W5
Stream Enhancement
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WD
Yes
Corps
0.057
(acres)
W6
Stream Restoration
T
]��rdwood
Forest
WE0.052
(acres)
Stream Restoration
P
ffo miand Hardwood Forest
WE
Yes
Corps
0.008
(acres)
W8
Stream estooration -
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WF
Yes
Corps
�)
Channel Plug
1AS
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.109
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.319
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.428
2h. Comments:

Overall wetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the eAsting wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. W1,
W2, and W3 impacts will be due to the breaching of three dams which will drain the eAsting pond in order to return the stream system to the historic
hydrologic condition which will likely impact the current water table and influence the location of these fringe wetlands. Fbwever stream restoration
efforts and planting of the floodplain should allowfor re-establishment and a)pansion of these wetlands and then protection in perpetuity through a
conservation easement which will result in overall benefit to the wetland function in the area. Impacts W4-W8 are associated with stream enhancement
and stream restoration and have been minimized to the wdent possible during the design process. Moreover, the permanent wetland impacts
associated with stream restoration and enhancement (WD, WE, and WF) are only within the proposed top of bank footprint. It is anticipated that the
riparian wetland function of these areas will improve, and wetlands have the potential to re-establish, due to the increased floodplain connectivity of
the Project streams. Temporary impacts associated with the same wetlands are associated with stream restoration activities.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted.
"S." will be used in the table below to represent the word "stream".
3a. Reason for impact * (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
*
3e. Stream Type *
Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
F-1
���name
��3f.
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S1-A
Perennial
Corps
P
9
1,034
Average (feet)
(lirmr feet)
S2
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S2-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
873
Average (feet)
(lir�earfeel)
S3
Culvert Installation -Pie
P
Permanent
Culvert
S2-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
36
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S4
Culvert Installation - Gradin 9
Tem orar
P Y
Other
S2-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
20
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S5
Ford Installation
Tem orar
P Y
Other
S1-A
Perennial
Cor P s
9
20
Average (feet)
(linearfee[)
S6
Stream Enhancement
Tempos ry
Bank Stabilization
S3-A
Perennial
Corps
9
100
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S7
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S3-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
763
Aver.ge(feet)
(linearfeet)
S8
Culvert Replacement -Pie
P P
Permanent
Culvert
S3-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
24
Average (feet)
(linearfee[)
Sg
Culvert Replacement-
Temporary
Culvert
S3-B
Perennial
Corps
10
20
Grading
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S70
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT3-B
Perennial
Corps15
1,177
Average (feet)
(lir�rfee[)
S11
Culvert Replacement -Pipe
Permanent
Culvert
DT3-B
Perennial
Corps
15
10
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S12
Culvert Replacement-
Temporary
Culvert
DT3-B
Perennial
Corps
15
20
Grading
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S
�3�StreamY
Enhancement
Temporar
Stabilization
DT2-B
Perennial
Corps
22
100
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S14
Stream Enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
DT2-A
Intermittent
Corps
8
100
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S15
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT2-A
Intermittent
Corps
P
22
196
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
F16]Stream
Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT1-B
Intermittent
Corps
1,130
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
fl
Culvert Installation -Pie
P
Permanent
Culvert
DT1-B
Intermittent
Corps
P
5
30
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
F 9
Culvert Installation -Grading
Temporary
Culvert
DT1-B
Intermittent
Corps
5
20
Average (feet)
(lin�rfeet)
S19
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT4
Perennial
Corps
12
1,053
(f
rear )
S20
Ford Installation
Permanent
Ford
Bakers Creek _]
perennial j7s
__]I
18
"All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
6,326
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
400
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
2336
TOTALS
Perm Wetl and
0.319 ac
Temp Wetland
0.109 ac
Total Wetland
0.428 ac
Perm Stream
6,371 ft
Temp Stream
405ft
Total Stream
6,7T6 ft
Perm Open Water
2.578 ac

3j. Comments:
Stream impacts associated with stream restoration (S1, S2, S7, S10, S15, S16, and S19) are all permanent impacts associated with the relocation of
the stream reaches to the natural valley and to restore proper dimensions to the stream which will provide a net gain in the ecological function to the
stream and wetland system. After stream relocation and restoration, the total existing length of stream will increase from 10,005 linear feet to 11,446
linear feet of stream.
The temporary impacts that are due to enhancement (S6, S13, and S14) treatments and are inclusive of adding structures or grading stream
channels to improve stream stability in those reaches. These impacts are short term during the construction time period and will not have long-lasting
negative effects on the stream but will result in overall benefit to the stream functionality.
Impacts associated with culvert replacement, installation, and ford installation will consist of both permanent and temporary impacts. Permanent
impacts associated with these activities (S3, S8, S11, and S17) are due to adding in culverts or increasing culvert lengths at crossings. The temporary
impacts associated with culvert installation and replacement (S4, S9, S12, and S18) are simply due to grading and installation activities and will not
have long-term effects. One ford crossing will be installed as apart of this project, and will result in one temporary impact (S5)
4.Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individually list all open water
impacts below.
4a1.Impact Reason
4b.Impacttype*(?)
4c.Nameofwaterbody(?)
4d.Activity type *
4e.Waterbodytype*
4f.lmpac1
area*
01
Pond Removal
P
PA
Drainage
Pond
0.66
(acres)
02
Pond Removal
P
PB
Drainage
Pond
0.35
(acres)
03
Pond Removal 7
P
PC
Drainage
Pond
1.57
(acres)
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts:
0.00
4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
2.58
4g. Total open water impacts:
2.58
4h. Comments:
Three dams Will be breached (PA, PB, and PC) and one stream channel will be cut through the pond bottom to resotre the stream system to its historic
hydrologic stream and wetland complex system. These areas will be planted and become part of the riparian buffer.
FElmpact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:*
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were considered when designing the Dogtown
Mitigation project. A survey of the site was completed and taken into account during the design so that large impacts were taken into account. This
project should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:*
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel Will be constructed prior to turning stream flow into a
segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally, all work in wetlands and streams
will be conducted during dry conditions and/or With mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be made to preserve individual high value trees located
Within the stream restoration area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This is a stream restoration project and therefore, compensatory mitigation is not required as the entire basis of the project is to restore for impacts to aquatic resource.
NC Stream Temperature Classification Maps can be found under the Mitigation Concepts tab on the Wilmington District's RIBITS website.
FF. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
*** Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section .***
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 O No
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here.
If no, explain why:
Although this site is within the Catawba River basin, protected buffers of the Catawba are only applicable to the mainstem below Lake James and along the mainstem lake in the
Catawba River Basin
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
To lookup low density requirement click here 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2).
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes f• No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15ANCAC 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 (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in an additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there will be an increase in water
quality within the project, due to the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, and the
establishment of a conservation to be protected in perpetuity.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor 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
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
Link to the NLEB SLOPES document: http://sawieg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEBSLOPES&apps.pdf
r Unknown
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?**
r Yes r No

Si. 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 Database and Natural Heritage Program Database and Public notice period to allow for comments from the USFWS. We also performed a
USFWS online project review which resulted in a self -certification. This is attached.
Consultation Documentation Upload
dick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docunent
MA Verification Letter_ Northern Long -Eared Bat (NLEB) Consultation and 4(d) Rule Consistency 2019-10-09.pdf 248.67KB
File type rust be FCF
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)
Link to the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
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 (e.g., National Historic
Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)?*
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
Qick the upload button a drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
SHPO_Response_Dogtown.pdf 111.6KB
File crust be FCF
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEMA Floodplain Maps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year flood plain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Multiple Project reaches are located within the FEMA 100-year flood zone (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of flooding) and the FEMA Floodway.
No grading is proposed within the FEMA Floodway; therefore, no FEMA permits will be required for the Project. A Floodplain Development Permit will
be obtained from the Catawba County Floodplain Administrator prior to project construction. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent
properties upstream or downstream of the project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 3753 (map number 3710375300J) and Panel 3754 (map number
3710375400J), effective date September 5, 2007.
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
nick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurreent
Dogtown_PCN_Figures.pdf 13.3MB
Fie crust be RFa IWY
Signature u
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:*

Kathleen Webber
Signature
Date
11/14/2019

2
Cool Park
ping Services V
j
� S
V,
Solar Farm
� a
adgesCo-Megan Q o
Payne g
onenr,�e c ��f0m
or �o�sro„ Re F
N M,,
Were Wheelas
l:•isllnill Or Peas Or
2224 14th drive
r
and Hickory V
�11+Nr S.Ps° np\r\Y 4 f _
7d
c„
PROPSTn u
A .,a.,; SUPERETTE #10
1/ 1 d � Js�.* � CarolinaGolf Carts V oPni sl
� G+Y 6°r•N R�
. ML Racing Engines O Q
o Q Q Whiteside Machine
ae
� a s
Berry to Rd
P Con"^o^dy
a 6
Gr
�mt Sl
16
� N
'—p—QCatawba Valley
4 a Assisted Living
\c V
0
¢¢ Park At Cline Village
� s
H 4
n
i
.,x� a 08�ahF S
16 d p\}' Q irerv�
X ri ae G Dogtown Mitigation Sohudaya FarmsCreek
� v © �Y
Project m
Rock Barn Lyle
Creek Grill
Sharon
� a c0F o
B„
J� v
phens o`er
z Rock Barn Coun
a Club and S
70 Legend
Claremont a R
grove Co ver �o Cataw 3,^" f m Proposed Easement
a t =
;•o a m �
TLW - 03050101140010
76 Rock Bar
St. John's
Newton Lutheran Church Service Area - 03050101
1lll r
N Date: 8/3/2020
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
g w e Drawn by: GDS res
s Dogtown Mitigation Site
Checked by: MDE
0 1,000 2,000
Catawba County, North Carolina 1 inch =2,OOOfeet
Feet

000
l _ Oxford -
,, Park f
sass• �� ��� : ' � _ , c �r � _ •-
,
s • \ ter'
fill
Legend
Proposed Easement
N Figure 2 - USGS Quadrangle Date: S/3/2020
w E Millersville (1973)
Drawn by: GDS res
s Dogtown Mitigation Project Checked by: MDE
0 1,000 2,000
Feet Catawba County, North Carolina 1 inch - 2,000 feet

Hay Field
Pasture Pasture
Pasture
dt 4. WB Pg
WF
• Q"� PC DT1
DTye w0 WE
AL
A
44�. res
S — • N
W E
,S
0 300 600
Feet
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
Dogtown
Mitigation Project
Catawba County,
North Carolina
Date: 8/3/2020 Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE 1 in = 600 feet
Legend
aProposed Easement
Established
Conservation Easement
Project Parcel
® Existing Wetland
Y Y
4�a Y'lYY Open Water
�.x
Existing Stream
T Transmission Line

Catawba County Soil Survey (1975)
Hs62
3
Cm 4' x
�e
IPA 0 WCO Hs
1CnB2 r HwB2
,n s 6 j 1+W2 Cy Hs 1 1
1
Hs82
sC2 ` RsB2 (W
CnE3 H Bc
HsD2 CnE3
HsC2
H s G 2
HwC2 r'
HsB2 `� 1 HwC2 LL
HsB2
CnE3 �`__ `2 `, 0
Ft-p _ HsGe
Pe E �•.
l� u�•r� HsB2
-nE3 CmD2 HwC2
HwC2�`:. C sB2
'—� HsB2
• �4`` HSC2 HwC U�
Cy
HSD
HS � HsD2
HsB PeE HsC2
a/
AsB HsB2�
HsB2� ,f
11
NRCS Web Soil Survey (2019)
T
Tm
Trn
fires
0 400 800
Feet
Figure 4 - Mapped Soils
Dogtown
Mitigation Project
Catawba County,
North Carolina
Date: 10/8/2019 Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE 1 in = 800 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly
Hydric (66-99%)
Predominantly
Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly
Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
CfB
Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
CfD
Clifford sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
CsA
Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
DaA
Dan River loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
FdE2
Fairview clay loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
FaE3
Fairview clay loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
TmB
Tomlin loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
TmC
Tomlin loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
TmD
Tomlin loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
ToC2
Tomlin clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, m oderately eroded

4:
\' � a •
'- • � '••fin. M,.w.�+ww,:. '
-d r
s .it q r r
L j 11
i"" a
tei „
PFO1Ax r,
�#.. ♦y 4'}� �f it -
Ad
r -.� ean�
�' PUBHhJ PUBHh
. Y ..... 'C .. •11t
Legend
Proposed Easement
E FEMA Zone AE
j// FEMA Regulatory Floodway `
y�
b�
.2% Chance Annual Flood
® NWI Wetlands (USFS 10/29/2018)
N Date: 10/8/2019
E Figure 5 - Project Constraints
w Drawn by: GDS
Dogtown Mitigation Project
s Checked by: MDE
0 350 700
Catawba County, North Carolina 1 inch =700feet
Feet
fires

RI
i• L
S1
I
Dogtown - North
«..
S9
MIN—
-,r,.
S13 & S15
S14
Dogtown - South
(')) ra c,
W1 Perm WA Pond Removal 0.106 ac
W2 Perm WB Pond Removal 0.128 ac
W3 Perm WC Pond Removal 0.049 ac
W4 Perm WD Stream Enhancement 0.008 ac
W5 Temp WD Stream Enhancement 0.057 ac
W6 Temp WE Stream Restoration 0.052 ac
W7 Perm WE Stream Restoration 0.008 ac N
W8 Perm WF Stream Restoration - Channel Plug 0.020 ac
S1 Perm S1-A Stream Restoration 1,034ft
S2 Perm S2-13 Stream Restoration 873ft W E
S6 Temp S3-A Stream Enhancement 100ft
S7 Perm S3-13 Stream Restoration 763ft
S10 Perm DT3-13 Stream Restoration 1,177ft
S13 Temp DT2-13 Grading headcut 100ft
S14 Temp DT2-A Grading headcut 100ft S
S15 Perm DT2-A Stream Restoration 196ft 0 250 500
S16 Perm DT1-B Stream Restoration 1,130ft
S19 Perm DT4 Stream Restoration 1,053ft Feet
01 Perm PA Pond Removal 0.658 ac
02 Perm PB Pond Removal 0.350 ac
03 Perm PC Pond Removal 1.570 ac
Impacts Associated with Crossings
pact ID TemplPerm Aquatic Resource Purpose Length Figure 6 - Project Impacts
S3 Perm S2-B Culvert Installation 30ft
(DBL 36"HDPE)- Pipe
S4 Temp S2-13 Culvert Installation - Grading 20ft Dogtown
S5 Temp SI-A Ford Installation 25 ft
S8 Perm S3-13 Culvert Replacement 30ft Mitigation Project
(DBL 36"HDPE)- Pipe
S9 Temp S3-13 Culvert Replacement -Grading 20ft
S11 Perm DT3-13 Culvert Replacement
(DBL 48"HDPE) -Pipe 30ft Catawba County, North Carolin
S12 Temp DT3-B Culvert Replacement -Grading 20ft
S17 Perm DT1-B Culvert Installation 30ft
(DBL 36" HDPE)-Pipe
S18 Temp DTI-B Culvert Installation - Grading 20ft
Date: 8/4/2020 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM 1 in = 500 feet
J
s10 Legend
Proposed Easement
(\ WF j// Existing Wetland
= Existing Top of Bank
S20
S11 & S12 Proposed Top of Bank
S17 & S1 P , f Impact Type
Permanent Open Water
PB We Impact
D7WD-
J�— \,�`�+ Permanent Wetland
Impact
Temporary Wetland
!� r Impact
W6 & W7 , LJ j
S19
W4 & W5
W8