20201357 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20210824

DWR
Dlrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
June 1, 2021 Ver4.1
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?*
r Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20201357
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
la. Name of project:
Starker Mitigation Project
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Kyle Obermiller
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
8/24/2021
Nearest Body of Water
Mull Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
WS-IV
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.727984-81.176076
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Catawba
Is this a NCDMS Project
r Yes r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
IT $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Erin Davis:eads\ebdavis
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
Is this a courtesy copy notification?*
r Yes r No

ID#
20201357
Pre -fling Meeting or Request Date
10/1/2020
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here:
pick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
20201357 Ver 1_PreFiling Acknowledgement Email_20201005.pdf
File type mist be FCF
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)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
r Yes
IT No
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: 27 - Restoration
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
fJ 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
Version
1
1.15MB
r 401 Water Quality Certification - Egress
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes IT 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
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 IT 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:
Hunsucker Legacy Farms, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2785 & 1153, 2785 & 1148, 3269 & 1875, 3068 & 571, 2785 & 1163
2c. Contact Person:
Dan A. Hunsucker
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

2d.Address
Street Address
3223 John Daniel Road
Address Une 2
City
Conover
Postal / Zip Code
27613
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Kyle Obermiller
3b. Business Name:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
3c.Address
Street Address
7721 Six Forks Road
Address Line 2
Suite 130
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27615
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Kyle Obermiller
4b. Business Name:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
4c.Address
Street Address
7721 Six Forks Road
Address Line 2
Suite 130
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27615
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Conover, NC
2. Project Identification
Slate / Rmince / l3gion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
Slate / Rmince / Region
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
Slate / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:

2a. Property Identification Number:
375210364087,375219523168,
375215732614, 375216831456,
2b. Property size:
375215534132,375211558910
30.3
2c. Project Address
Street Address
3728 Rock Barn Road
Address Line 2
City
State / Province / Rion
Conover
NC
Postal / Zip Cade
Country
28613
USA
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Mull Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
WS-IV
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030501011102
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 Starker Mitigation Bank is proposed to provide warm stream mitigation credits in the Catawba River basin (HUC 03050101). It is located in Catawba County, approximately two miles
east of the City of Conover, in the north- and southeast quadrants of the Rock Barn Rd. interchange with 1-40. Current land use in the general vicinity is primarily agriculture, with a mix
of pasture and row crops. Many of the stream reaches within the project currently have no or impaired buffers with unrestricted cattle access.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.33
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
9,965
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to compensate for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the U.S. authorized under sections 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and all applicable state statutes. The project will enhance and restore approximately 9,965 linear feet of stream providing
approximately 9,656 warm thermal regime stream mitigation credits and 29.91 acres of easement that will be protected in perpetuity.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The proposed stream restoration activities will be conducted on five stream reaches within the project area which are tributaries to Mull Creek. Activities Will consist of filling the
impaired/channelized portions of existing streams and restoring natural floodplain connections within the reaches. Further work to fill non -jurisdictional Wet -Weather conveyances on site
will assist in reducing sediment load within the reaches. Work Will be conducted using track hoe excavators, dump trucks, tractors and rippers, and other equipment typically found on
restoration projects for channel construction, grading, and in -stream structure installation. See Section 1 of the Mitigation Plan for proposed restoration practices and design
approaches for each of the reaches as well as common construction elements.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No
Comments:
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-2020-01540
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Amy James
Agency/Consultant Company: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR)
Other:
r Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made bythe Corps or DWR

3/12/2021
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
1a. 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
F Buffers
U
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested *
2C Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area
WA
Ecological Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
WA
�Corps
0.132
(acres)
Ecological Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
WB
Yes
Corps
0.010
(acres)
WD
Ecological Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
WD
Yes
Corps
0.005
(acres)
WE
Ecological Restoration
L
Headwater Forest
WE
Yes
Corps
0.008
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000 0.155
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.155
21. Comments:
The proposed stream restoration practices will provide a more natural hydrology and flow regime. The riparian buffer area will be planted with native
species woody vegetation that is more tolerant of wetter conditions. The design approach will also improve eAsting areas of adjacent fringe, toe of
slope or marginally functioning wetlands through higher water table conditions (elevated stream profiles) and a more frequent out of bank flooding.
3. Stream Impacts
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type*
Type of
3gSwidth *
3h. Impact(?)
�[3f.
urisdiction*
length*
S1
Ecological Restoration
9
Permanent
Relocation
5100
Perennial
Corps
P
8
5,446
Average (feet)
(lir�zarfeet)
S2
Ecological Restoration
9
Permanent
Relocation
5101
Intermittent
Corps
P
4
96
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S3
9�
Ecological Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S102
Intermittent
Corps3
110
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
Ecological Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S103
Intermittent
Corps
81
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S5
Ecological Restoration
9
Permanent
Relocation
S200
Perennial
Corps
P
8
4,232
Average (feet)
(lirearfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
9,965
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
296
3j. Comments:
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
0

The proposed stream restoration practices will provide a more natural hydrology and flow regime. The riparian buffer area will be planted with native
species woody vegetation that is more tolerant of wetter conditions. The design approach will also improve existing areas of adjacent fringe, toe of
slope or marginally functioning wetlands through higher water table conditions (elevated stream profiles) and a more frequent out of bank flooding.
Stream impact calculations were based of surveyed stream lengths within the project area.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Proposed stream and wetland impacts and mitigation activities will restore and protect approximately 9,656 linear feet of stream that flow directly to
Mull Creek and into the Catawba River. Based on the Project location, the restoration of on -site streams are likely the best solution to providing
significant water quality benefits to offset lost aquatic resource functions.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Sedimentation and Erosion Control measures will be implemented during the construction phase per the NCDEMLR - Land Quality S&EC Planning and
Design Manual and approved permit conditions. The stream restoration work will involve filling the old degraded channel and constructing stable
design channels. The contractor will work outside the degraded stream banks and only enter the channel from specific locations designated on the
plans to minimize buffer disturbances. A pump-around/dewatering operation will be utilized to minimize sediment entering downstream.
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:
Proposed stream and wetland impacts and mitigation activities will restore and protect approximately 9,656 linear feet of stream that flow directly to Mull Creek and into the Catawba
River. Based on the Project location, the restoration of on -site streams are likely the best solution to providing significant water quality benefits to offset lost aquatic resource functions.
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:
No stormwater devices or pipe drainage networks are proposed for this project. All stormwater shall be considered diffuse flow through the stream buffers via stable vegetated channels,
natural floodplain topography and wet -weather conveyances.
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:
Project site meets the criteria for Low Density development and will not increase overall percent imperviousness. Site plan is well below 24 % impervious surface area. Stormwater/diffuse
flows will be transported via stable vegetated channels and across restored stream channels and natural floodplain topography.
G. Supplementary Information
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.

Proposed stream and wetland impacts and mitigation activities will restore and protect approbmately 9,656 linear feet of stream that flow directly to
Mull Creek and into the Catawba River. Based on the Project location, the restoration of on -site streams are likely the best solution to providing
significant water quality benefits to offset lost aquatic resource functions.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A
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 anytrees 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
51. 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, NCWRC Natural Heritage Program, and field survey for protected species and habitat.
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 Office of Archives and History website and the NRIS database was searched. The project area does not contain any listed properties.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The downstream ends of S100 and S200 are located int he 100-year floodplain of Mull Creek. The proposed project will provide improved infiltration
and storage in forested riparian buffers and result in only minor grading in the floodplain. The applicant will coordinate with Catawba County floodplain
administrator to determine potenital effects (if any) and floodplain development approvals.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA National Flood Hazzard Layer Firm Panel 37103, Map Number 3710375200J, Effective Date 09/05/2007
Miscellaneous
J
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one
file when possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.

dick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
WLS Catawba 01_Final Mitigation Plan.pdf
Starker PCN Appendices.pdf
File must be FOF or ME
1.41 MB
6.93MB
Comments
Attached are the appendices and figures related to the PCN submittal above, including IRT response letter and mitigation plan word document for additional information pertaining to
pre-existing conditions and design.
Signature u
® By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• 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:
Kyle Obermiller
Signature
Date
8/24/2021

Appendix A
Figure 1: Location Map
Figure 2: USGS Topo
Figure 3: Soils Map
Figure 4: Existing Hydrography
Figure 5: Floodplain Map
Figure 6: Stream Impacts Map
Figure 7: Wetland Impacts Map
Figure 8: Forest Impacts Map

Legend
Proposed • Project Location
Q Conservation HUC-8
Easement
0 Parcel Boundary NC Counties
Existing Stream Catawba County
o NC Cities
inty
if Alexander,County
Btookford. ''% IL_J ,
Catawba County
Mal `1,
.r
IO 50 100 � � I I0 ` LlnsOln Ciol�M?tV
OMiles Mlles
Project is
located
located in: _ e
HUC8 - 03050101
HUC12-030501011102
eag°9'N> o �SroJ
`nk Ln
aw
St Johns Church Rd N@ o Duck Pond Or NF
w
t
35.727984,-81.176076 ,
0 m 2,000 3rdStNE 4,000 0
Feet Z
Iredell
t OOd
0 0.,0
2
't^n5h� 4
_ a
- - � _Botanical Dr
0
Nelrer sl
S19field Dr u
x
3
°y Montclair Dr
p
Z
O
O
4 d4
N F Cal
p*t�q' f YYellsmne �
Park O
�s. S ec 51 c'cP Dr �
p'nOs
0'. P Claremont
O F n P --
S/
`iY �ao N
O
E
0
O h
n
F a
w �
u
Ft ayier or � 'n
N
Cr
Starker Mitigation Project
Figure
WATER & LA N DM
Catawba - 03050101
Catawba County, NC
Project Location
Map
1
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD 83 2011 State Plane North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Date: 3/17/2021
Service Layer Credits Sources Esn, HERE. G,rmi,, USGS, I-r—p, INCREMENT P, NRCe,, Esri hp- METI, Esri Chine (Hang K.,g), Es, Kr-, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
Ope,Str-Map can trib-rs, end the CIS User CORIRIIIr E

SAINT )Mcw5 CHup,
BgAnIEfO
q
n
C
QProposed Conservation Easement
S-100 Watershed (249 ac)
S-200 Watershed (169 ac)
Parcel Boundary
NORTH
CAROLINA
Starker Mitigation Project
USGS
Figure
WATER & LAND'
Catawba - 03050101
Catawba County, NC
Topographic Quad
Newton
2
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N C_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 3/17/2021
Service Layer Credits USGS The Netan el Mep_ Nati anal Boundaries DatseC 3DEP El —tan Program, Geographic Names Infartne0an
System, Nat anal Hydrography Datset, Nat anal Lend Cover Database, National Structures DatseS end N. anal Transports,, D--,

Starker Mitigation Project
Figure
WATER & LAND"
Catawba - 03050101
NRCS Soils
Map
soLuTioNs
Catawba County, NC
3
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N C_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 3/17/2021
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NCOneMap

Starker Mitigation Project
Existing
Figure
WATER & LAND"
Upper Catawba - 03050101
Hydrography
SOLUTIONS
Catawba County, NC
Map
4
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N C_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 8/24/2021
Data sources - Stream and wetland data collected during preliminary assessment. Imagery data source: NCOneMap

Starker Mitigation Project
Figure
WATER & LAND
Catawba - 03050101
FEMA Floodplain
Map
SOLUTIONS
Catawba County, NC
5
Map Projection: NAD_1983_StatePlane_NC_FIPS_3200_Feet
Date: 3/17/2021
Data sources - Stream and wetland data collected during preliminary assessment. Imagery data source: NCOneMap

y
WA-1 t.
Q Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Stream Top of Bank
S1O3 Culvert Impacts
Existing Wetlands
S100 Parcel Boundary
Replace existing :.uE,.s
o�`F ■� ' culvert
W B�
WC Wp
t i ..
r l •.
i
— J
Replace existing
culvert
1k,� .i
iS2Or
l I
Replace existing
culvert
ee
` 0 350 700 1,400
Feet\1
f . 1 inch = 700 feet N
Starker Mitigation Project
Stream
Figure
WATER & LAND"
Upper Catawba - 03050101
Impacts
SOLUTIONS
Catawba County, NC
Map
6
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N C_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 8/24/2021
Data sources - Stream and wetland data collected during preliminary assessment. Imagery data source: NCOneMap

Starker Mitigation Project
Wetland
Figure
WATER & LAND"
Upper Catawba - 03050101
Impacts
SOLUTIONS
Catawba County, NC
Map
7
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N C_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 8/17/2021
Data sources - Stream and wetland data collected during preliminary assessment. Imagery data source: NCOneMap

r- Q Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Stream Top of Bank
S103 Existing Wetlands
Parcel Boundary
r S100 ; Forest Impacts
p•r`•y+��" ® Permanent (1.652 acres)
h ti i•' Temporary (5.180 acres)
Q-C �. o
r _
.. S101
0 350 700 1,400
Feet
f' * 1 inch = 700 feet N
Starker Mitigation Project
Forest
Figure
WATER & LAND"
Upper Catawba - 03050101
Impacts
SOLUTIONS
Catawba County, NC
Map
8
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N C_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 8/17/2021
Data sources - Stream and wetland data collected during preliminary assessment. Imagery data source: NCOneMap

Appendix B
Agency Correspondence
USFWS — Asheville
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office

L.S
United States Department of the Interior FISESERVIC I.IFF.
& W 1 LD
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEu�J'lj
Asheville Field Office §'�
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 23, 2021
Erin Bennett
System Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 S.E. Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[e-mail]
Dear Erin Bennett:
Subject: Proposed Starker Mitigation Bank; Catawba County, North Carolina
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence received on April 19, 2021, for the project referenced above wherein you solicit
comments regarding potential impacts to federally protected species to satisfy nationwide permit
application requirements. We submit the following comments in accordance with the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U. S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, the proposed project involves restoration and
enhancement of two unnamed tributaries which connect with Mull Creek River in Claremont,
North Carolina. Design plans and descriptions of proposed impact minimization measures were
not provided in your correspondence. Onsite habitats (instream and riparian) are highly
disturbed due to a legacy of agricultural land use. Surrounding land cover is dominated by
forested areas, agricultural and residential developments.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
Suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project area for the federally threatened
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and Service records indicate multiple mist -net
captures of this animal in the project vicinity. However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of
February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities
that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from
a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the
information provided, the project would occur at a location where any incidental take that may
result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Although not required, we
encourage you to conduct tree removal activities outside of the northern long-eared bat
pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or the active season (April 1 to October 15). This will
minimize impacts to pups at roosts not yet identified.

Service records indicate several known occurrences of the federally threatened dwarf -flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniora) in the project vicinity. Moreover, your correspondence indicates
that suitable habitat is present onsite for dwarf -flowered heartleaf and the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). However, botanical surveys conducted during
September 30, 2020 and April 15, 2021 detected no evidence for these species at that time. Due
to the presence of suitable habitat, but lack of onsite evidence for these species, we believe the
probability for project -mediated loss is insignificant and discountable. Therefore, we would
concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for these species from
the applicable federal action agency.
Please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We offer the following general recommendations on behalf of natural resources:
Erosion and Sediment Control
Construction activities near aquatic resources, streams, and wetlands have the potential to cause
bank destabilization, water pollution, and water quality degradation if measures to control site
runoff are not properly installed and maintained. In order to effectively reduce erosion and
sedimentation impacts, best management practices specific to the extent and type of construction
should be designed and installed prior to land disturbing activities and should be maintained
throughout construction. Natural fiber matting (coir) should be used for erosion control as
synthetic netting can trap animals and persists in the environment beyond its intended purpose.
Land disturbance should be limited to what can be stabilized quickly, preferably by the end of
the workday. Once construction is complete, disturbed areas should be revegetated with native
riparian grass and tree species as soon as possible. For maximum benefits to water quality and
bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested; however, if the areas are maintained in
grass, they should not be mowed. The Service can provide information on potential sources of
plant material upon request.
A complete design manual that is consistent with the requirements of the North Carolina
Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, can be found at the
following website: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources.
Stream Channel and Bank Restoration
A natural, stable stream system is one that is able to transport a wide range of flows and
associated sediment bed load while maintaining channel features and neither degrading nor
aggrading. Alterations to the dimension, pattern, or profile of the stream channel as well as
changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input can significantly
alter this equilibrium.
We offer the following recommendations for the Applicant's consideration:
2

Streambanks with deep-rooted woody vegetation are the most stable, and stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation adapted to the site
conditions. Live dormant stakes may be used to reestablish root structure in riparian
areas. In areas where banks are severely undercut, high, and steep, whole -tree revetment
or rock may be used as a stabilization treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and dirt are not
recommended due to their erosive nature), and it should not extend above the bank -full
elevation (the elevation of the channel where the natural floodplain begins).
Deep -rooting woody vegetation should be established along banks where any channel
work is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be spaced at intervals no greater
than 10 feet along banks. Vegetated riparian zone widths should be as wide as practical
but should extend at least 30 feet from the stream channel.
2. Only the absolute minimum amount of work should be done within stream channels to
accomplish necessary reconstruction. Restoration plans should account for the
constraints of the site and the opportunities to improve stream pattern, dimension, and
profile with minimal disturbance.
Reconstruction work should follow natural channel design methodologies that are based
on the bank -full, or channel -forming, stage of the stream. Bank -full stage maintains the
natural channel dimensions and transports the bulk of sediment over time. Natural
channel conditions should be identified using a reference reach (nearby stream reaches
that exemplify restoration goals). Restoration design should match the pattern,
dimension, and profile of the reference reach to ensure the project's success.
4. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area to the
extent possible. Sandbags, cofferdams, bladder dams, or other diversion structures
should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. These diversion structures should
be removed as soon as the work area is stable.
Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary. Machinery
should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody
vegetation. Equipment should be: (a) washed to remove any contaminant residue prior
to project construction, (b) in good working order, and (c) checked to ensure there are no
leaks of potential contaminants (such as oil or other lubricants) prior to and during
construction.
6. Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented prior to any
ground -disturbing activities in order to minimize effects on downstream aquatic
resources. In North Carolina, non -cohesive and erosion -prone soils are most common in
the felsic-crystalline terrains of the mountain and upper piedmont regions. Therefore,
reconstruction work should be staged such that disturbed areas would be stabilized with
seeding, mulch, and/or biodegradable (coir) erosion -control matting prior to the end of
each workday. Matting should be secured in place with staples; stakes; or, wherever
possible, live stakes of native trees. If rain is expected prior to temporary seed
establishment, additional measures should be implemented to protect water quality along
3

slopes and overburden stockpiles (for example, stockpiles may be covered with plastic or
other geotextile material and surrounded with silt fencing).
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at [e-mail], if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-20-421.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
4

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/couMfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2020-SLI-0814
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
Project Name: Starker Mitigation Site
e x
hSai k 4YYFJiYJft
August 07, 2020
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by
section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin
their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/
cntylist/nc counties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" species that could
potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future. Also
available are:
Design and Construction Recommendations
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/Recommendations.html
Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants
https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant survey.html
Northern long-eared bat Guidance
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/NLEB in WNC.html
Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/Maxent/Maxent.html

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists.
Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act,
the accuracy of the species lists should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website or the AFO website (the AFO website dates each
county list with the day of the most recent update/change) at regular intervals during project
planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be
requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the
enclosed list or by going to the AFO website.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological
Evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12 and on our office's website
at https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/assessment guidance.html.
If a Federal agency (or their non-federal representative) determines, based on the Biological
Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be
affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to
50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and
proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the
regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license
applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://
www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.
Though the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, please be aware
that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require additional consultation (see
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/). Wind energy projects should follow
the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to
migratory birds (including bald and golden eagles) and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www. fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
3
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratoI3Lbirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• Migratory Birds
• Wetlands

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2020-SLI-0814
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
Project Name: Starker Mitigation Site
Project Type: ** OTHER **
Project Description: The Starker Mitigation Site includes two unnamed tributaries to Mull
Creek (UT1 and UT2) and associated riparian wetland opportunities. The
site is expected to include stream credits and several acres of wetland
mitigation potential. The mitigation approaches for the site are expected
to include stream restoration and enhancement, and wetland restoration,
enhancement, and creation.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/35.718861146l60llN81.16785545802983W
liz
Counties: Catawba, NC

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesi, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAM L STATUS
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Reptiles
NAME STATUS
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Similarity of
Population: U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC, TN, VA) Appearance
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. (Threatened)
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917 4
Flowering Plants
NAM L_ STATUS
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis nani flora Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2458
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECTAREA UNDER THIS OFF ICE'S
JURISDICTION.

08/07/2020
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Blue -winged Warbler Uermivora pinus Breeds May 1 to Jun
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation 30
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the 10
continental USA and Alaska.

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( ')
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
3
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Blue -winged loss loss
Warbler
BCC -BCR
Woodpecker 1111 1111 1111 �-- — - -- - — — — — . . . . —
BCC Rangewide (COI)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migrator3Lbirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures. pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
BCC and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917 4
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917 5
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Lorin.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

08/07/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01917
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
• PF01A
RIVERINE
• R4SBC

New Roy Cooper, Governor
•� mm NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
■�,-t m NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
a ■ox Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-12647
August 10, 2020
Amy James
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
1150 SE Maynard Rd. Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
RE: Starker Mitigation Bank Site
Dear Amy James:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.aov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butlerCo�ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 W JON S STREET, RALEIGI I_ NC 27603 - 16Sl MAOL SERVICE CENTER. PALEIGW. rkc 276�0
OFC 919.707,9120 • FAK 919.707.9121

/
3
\
±
\
}
$
\
/
w
=
j
\
e
6
3
/
0
\:
\�
CO
2
<\
2
Gƒ
E
\/
}
®®
g
\
±/
CO
0)2
72
\
42
cs
»±
\ �
\
§-
\ CO
\
CO
CO \ \
= e g
/
/
\
e .2
/ 5
(
x \
s s® o
u
e
CO
CO)
z
2\
=y/2
0
/
CO2//
\
z
4
\\
Z
CO
\\<
\
u
0
4/
0
\ ®
§
° (
=
5
e
y
e o
0 g
-
-
CO
CO
\
\ y
\ \
®
\
E
/
3 /
\ \
/
5
\ / o s
:
±
}
CO
99(
d
�0
§
g
m
O Z c
/ Z
u
CO
5
0
a)
�\
\
/
/
\ \
s\
E
`
6
\ \
LE
\
\
\
\ ~
s
§
.\ \
\
\
}
\
COCO/
Z
\
/
E \
/{
/
±
/ ° E
co
\ \
\
\
/ /
\ \
/
*
\ CO \
` \
t
\
°
/
s s =
\ \
E
e e e w
e
CO
ss7u
/~
3
Z
co //©»
�\
co C
/
-
\
/
/
/ 6
/
§
\
c

M
0
M
N
a
L,
LLI
a Q
� m �
U
cm O
'a d
m �
N G N
o a'
O �
d m TC
m 11
Q

NCHPO HPOWEB
a
'CT0530 Howe
c
¢a
1
Z�
M1Wer ¢o
CT0598 W. H. Smith
++7SrF House
CT1017 Factory Smoke
Stwk
1077 Yount Cotton
Mill 2010
N.rthGde
Park
u
rn
u
`a
4
u usus uyin iam rmcrc•�u
House
1,Y-46 House
m y
a sh
CT0795 Joham Theobold ",
* Hunnsucker Home
rsT0417 Rock Bam Farm v
r 1990 rc
�e SE a
r
Ric F. 8udie" � 1i
Bar
CT0796 Sair�it John's P
CT0794=Frederick Smith • Church Cemetery t�
Horse St Johns Church Rd,�f. Q
a
OT0797 L Si.gmcn Hausa
11.74 Heffner Faim
� �3 • s
ATAWBXI'�
yF
¢T0790 E. Holler House
y 0789 Mose Herman
* House
0
n �
a
1f1 ,CT0513 Houser
�r Conover Blvd E e r70
�TL545 House
m
Byv d
C�dr
OCf0787 Sm ith HoLse
4 °+
3 t{.
K ver
fib^ Dairy Re
r °4
a
2/12/2021, 10:46:47 AM
- Starker Survey Area - Starker _SurveyArea_rev
* Surveyed Area in NHRD
..: Local districts & boundaries
DOE districts & boundaries
Local individual resources & centerpoi nts
Determined Eligible Boundary
Local Landmark
Both DOE and Study List Boundary
Local Landmark, Gone
DOE individual resources & centerpoints
't Local HD Center Point
• Determined Eligible
Surveyed Only individual resources &centerpoints
• DOE, Gone
Surveyed Only
• SL and DOE
Surveyed in NRHD
• SL and DOE, Gone
Surveyed Only, Gone
* DOEHD Center Point
Surveyed in NRHD, Gone
't SLDOEHD Center Point
+ Blockface- Multiple properties
SL districts & boundaries
Study List Boundary
+ Blockface in NRHD
Both SL and Determined Eligible Boundary
* Surveyed Area, No designation
A 1996
r C
% Nr 100fal Blvd
o'
GT1005 HOUSe
C11007 Cal Sigmon Housey
CT1003 Garemont SchoolCT1001 House
t
claremo7T1071 µHo e
CTQ998 Kin.-x Sigmon
p HOLre ,CT0999 Carl Pope House
CT101H oE. e. Littly iU 2 HoL6e &T0996 Jonas Sigmon
C T0786 Lloyd Horwitt $ House
0
HousaA yET0995 Lee Smyre A&reuT04c
o'
Frax1ed+
'w O
Q
A a
a ..
Kelry Blvd
C70785 Little Faun
0 Site
$
n
x
y�o
n
CT0784 E. C. Hevitt
House
e
�c
• CT 0711 Zeb Balls H
�sfsfer
•
71GT0710�gggss.H
OC70594 Sherrill House.
CT07�12 Hu9hehe H
OCT0558 House
1:36,112
SL individual resources & centerpoints 0 0.33 0.65 1.3 mi
SL Individual Entry
0 0.5 1 2 km
• SL and DOE entry
• Study List Entry, Gone
• SL and DOE, Gone
* SLHD Center Point
't SLDOEHD Center Point
NR districts & boundaries
= National Register Boundary
State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P,
NGA,USGS
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS i Participating NC Counties, NCCGIA, NC OneMap, US EPA i Esri, HERE i

Appendix C
Notice of Jurisdictional Determination

SAW-2020-01540
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2020-01540 County: Catawba U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Newton
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION
Requestor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Catherine Manner
Address: 7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone Number: 919-614-5111
E-mail: catherinena,waterlandsolutions.com
Size (acres) 30.3 Nearest Town Conover
Nearest Waterway Mull Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050101 Coordinates Latitude: 35.72226
Longitude:-81.17203
Location description: The project area for the Starker Mitigation Site is located east if Banner Road, between Conover and
Claremont in Catawba County, North Carolina. The site is bisected by Interstate 40 between mile markers 133 and 135.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 8/20/2020, submitted
via email September 15, 2022. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation
process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters
and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
(Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly

SAW-2020-01540
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Kichefski at 828-271-7980 ext. 4234 or
steven.l.kichefski(&usace. army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: See the preliminary iurisdictional determination form dated 03/12/2021.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room IOM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence. **
Steve Kichefski Digitally signed by Steve Kichefski
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: 2021.03.12 18:46:49-05'00'
Date of JD: 03/12/2021 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0

''tip Figure 2B
U
N ie.
e-a o ►e � .► ti`
Ilk.
• � Fi ure 2C
..z�`
S100
�+`
x- S200
r' �+
,. .
LEGEND
J CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROJECT STREAMS
® EXISTING WETLANDS
0 500 1,000 STARKER MITIGATION BANK PREPARED BY:
ECOSYSTEM
POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP PLANNING
Feet F�LANNING a
OVERVIEW Ar RESTORATION
FIGURE 2 CATAWBA COUNTY, NC AUGUST 2020

LEGEND
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROJECT STREAMS
(� EXISTING WETLANDS•;
STARKER MITIGATION BANK PREPARED BY:
0 100 200 ECOSYSTEM
Feet POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING a
FEATURES MAP Ar RESTORATION
FIGURE 2B CATAWBA COUNTY, NC AUGUST 2020

' f
:A
t Wetland B r
i f
rL ,
At
Wetland C
�. Wetland D
v.
At
sloo
jy1 '� 1, � �`• � � h �' �� i ran Y� ,.��.�f'.,1 , -
1 1 L
S• R� 34
_% d .
LEGEND r
' r
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT r
-' ear
PROJECT STREAMS
(� EXISTING WETLANDS
STARKER MITIGATION BANK PREPARED BY:
0 100 200 ECOSYSTEM
Feet POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING a
FEATURES MAP Ar RESTORATION
FIGURE 2C CATAWBA COUNTY, NC AUGUST 2020

t V r I a•� 4 .-t Z ' ..Mr
S1oo
E
,w.
n
.... _ - S 1 o 1
i
d•
4
r
LEGEND
Q CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROJECT STREAMS y „�'�,. 0 +* .
(� EXISTING WETLANDS
o 100 200 STARKER MITIGATION BANK PREPARED BY:
ECOSYSTEM
POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL
PLANNING
Feet LANiVIG a
FEATURES MAP Ar RESTORATION
FIGURE 2D CATAWBA COUNTY, NC AUGUST 2020

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Water &Land Solutions. LLC, Catherine
File Number: SAW-2020-01540
Date: 03/12/2021
Manner
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
©
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ug latorrogramandPennits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEA BJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Steve Kichefski
CESAD-PDO
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1 OM15
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportuni to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Steve Kichefski, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 03/12/2021
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Water & Land Solutions, LLC,
Catherine Manner, 7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, WLS Catawba 01
UMB — Starker Mitigation Site, SAW-2020-01540
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area for the
Starker Mitigation Site is located east if Banner Road, between Conover and Claremont in Catawba
County, North Carolina. The site is bisected by Interstate 40 between mile markers 133 and 135.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC
RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Catawba City: Conover
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.72226 Longitude:-81.17203
Universal Transverse
Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mull Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
N Office (Desk) Determination. Date: March 12, 2021
N Field Determination. Date(s): September 30, 2020

TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION.
Site
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated amount
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority
Number
(decimal degrees)
(decimal degrees)
of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
to which the aquatic
resources in review
wetland vs. non-
resource "may be"
area (acreage and
wetland waters)
subject (i.e., Section 404
linear feet, if
or Section 10/404)
applicable
5100
35.726936
-81.175431
5,418 linear ft.
Non -wetland waters;
Section 404
perennial stream
S200
35.722431
-81.178252
4,220 linear ft.
Non -wetland waters;
Section 404
perennial stream
5101
35.718675
-81.167732
80 linear ft.
Non -wetland waters;
Section 404
intermittent stream
S102
35.726800
-81.175242
92 linear ft.
Non -wetland waters;
Section 404
intermittent stream
S103
35.727514
-81.175651
81 linear ft.
Non -wetland waters;
Section 404
intermittent stream
Wetland A
35.726300
-81.175047
1.2 acres
Wetland
Section 404
(WA)
Wetland B
35.724651
-81.173859
0.03 acre
Wetland
Section 404
(WB)
Wetland C
35.724229
-81.173741
0.03 acre
Wetland
Section 404
(WC)
Wetland D
35.724193
-81.173371
0.03 acre
Wetland
Section 404
(WD)
Wetland E
35.722391
-81.178292
0.04 acre
Wetland
Section 404
(WE)

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request
and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after
having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when
they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit,
and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is
hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic
resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and
conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could
possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions;
(3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept
a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary;
(5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in
reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that
all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as
jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court;
and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and
conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources
in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in
the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Newton: 1:24,000
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarilv been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Steve Digitally signed by
Steve Kichefski
Kichefski Date:2021.03.12
18:47:36-05'00' �
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
Signature and date of person
requesting PJD (REQUIRED,
unless obtaining the signature
is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing
an action.

Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
WLS Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Catawba County, North Carolina
Private Commercial Mitigation Bank for
Stream Compensatory Mitigation Credits
Catawba River Basin, HUC 03050101
Warm Water Thermal Regime
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2020-01540
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343
Prepared by:
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 1 waterlandsolutions.com
August 2021

Table of Contents
1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................6
1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................6
1.2 Bank Sponsor................................................................................................................................
6
1.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................6
2 Bank Establishment and Operation......................................................................................................7
2.1 Site Selection.................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Service Area..................................................................................................................................8
2.3 Site Protection Instrument............................................................................................................8
2.4 Watershed Need and Feasibility...................................................................................................8
3 Baseline Information.............................................................................................................................9
3.1 Watershed Characterization.........................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Surface Water Classification.................................................................................................9
3.1.2 Jurisdictional WOTUS............................................................................................................9
3.1.3 NC SAM and NC WAM...........................................................................................................9
3.2 Land Use and Development Trends............................................................................................10
3.3 Landscape Characteristics...........................................................................................................10
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology..................................................................................................10
3.3.2 Soils.....................................................................................................................................10
3.3.3 Climate................................................................................................................................11
3.3.4 Existing Vegetation.............................................................................................................11
3.4 Existing Stream Conditions.........................................................................................................13
3.4.1 Geomorphic Assessment....................................................................................................13
3.4.2 Existing Reach Descriptions................................................................................................14
3.4.3 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage..............................................................................17
3.5 Potential Site Constraints............................................................................................................17
3.5.1 Existing Easements on the Site...........................................................................................17
3.5.2 Utility Corridors within the Site..........................................................................................18
3.5.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance....................................................................................18
3.5.4 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass.....................................................18
3.5.5 Invasive Species Vegetation................................................................................................18
3.5.6 Potential Future Land-Use..................................................................................................18
3.6 Regulatory Considerations..........................................................................................................19
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 2

3.6.1 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................
19
3.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................................19
3.6.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology..........................................................................................
19
3.6.4 Adjacent Land Use..............................................................................................................
20
4 Functional Uplift Potential..................................................................................................................20
4.1.1 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary........................................................20
5 Determination of Credits....................................................................................................................
23
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types..............................................................................................
23
5.2 Credit Release Schedule..............................................................................................................23
6 Mitigation Work Plan..........................................................................................................................24
6.1 Design Approach.........................................................................................................................
25
6.2 Design Criteria Selection.............................................................................................................26
6.2.1 Stream Design Reach Summary..........................................................................................28
6.3 Flow Regime................................................................................................................................31
6.3.1 Regional Curve Comparison................................................................................................31
6.3.2 Channel Forming Discharge................................................................................................32
6.3.3 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis...........................................................
34
6.4 Reference Sites...........................................................................................................................
36
6.4.1 Reference Streams..............................................................................................................36
6.5 Water Quality Treatment Features.............................................................................................
37
6.6 Vegetation Plan...........................................................................................................................37
6.6.1 Planting Materials and Methods.........................................................................................38
6.7 Site Construction Methods.........................................................................................................40
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements............................................................................40
6.7.2 Stream, Wetland and Floodplain Improvement Features..................................................40
6.7.3 Construction Feasibility.......................................................................................................40
6.7.4 Future Project Risks and Uncertainties...............................................................................40
7 Maintenance Plan...............................................................................................................................41
8 Performance Standards......................................................................................................................42
8.1 Streams.......................................................................................................................................42
8.2 Vegetation...................................................................................................................................43
8.3 Invasive Species..........................................................................................................................43
9 Monitoring Plan..................................................................................................................................44
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 3

9.1 Stream Monitoring......................................................................................................................44
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring........................................................................................................44
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring.....................................................................................................44
9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring...................................................................................................46
9.2 Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................................46
9.3 Visual Assessment Monitoring....................................................................................................47
10 Long -Term Management Plan............................................................................................................48
11 Adaptive Management Plan...............................................................................................................49
12 Financial Assurances...........................................................................................................................49
13 References.......................................................................................................................................... 51
Tables
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information.......................................................................................................8
Table 2. NCSAM/NCWAM Summary..........................................................................................................
10
Table 3. Existing Project Site Vegetation...................................................................................................12
Table 4. Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status for Project Reaches.....................................13
Table 5. Existing Channel Morphology Summary......................................................................................14
Table 6. Function -Based Goals and Objectives Summary..........................................................................20
Table 7. Project Benefits Summary............................................................................................................22
Table 8. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits(SMCs)................................................................................23
Table 9. Credit Release Schedule...............................................................................................................24
Table 10. Proposed Design Parameters.....................................................................................................27
Table11. Stream Sub-Reaches....................................................................................................................28
Table 12. Flow Level and Ecological Role...................................................................................................31
Table 13. North Carolina Rural and Urban Piedmont Regional Curve Equations......................................32
Table 14. Design Discharge Analysis Summary..........................................................................................33
Table 15. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power.................................................................................35
Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison............................................................................................37
Table 17. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings...........................................................................38
Table 18. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding...........................................................................39
Table 19. Routine Maintenance Components...........................................................................................42
Table 20. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary.........................................................................................48
Table 21. Financial Assurances...................................................................................................................50
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 4

Figures
Figure1.........................................................................................................................Project Location Map
Figure 1a......................................................................................................................Reference
Reach Map
Figure2...............................................................................................................................Service
Area Map
Figure3...........................................................................................................
USGS Topographic Quad Map
Figure4..................................................................................................................................
NRCS Soils Map
Figure5.........................................................................................................................................
LiDAR Map
Figure6.......................................................................................................................
FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d
......................................................................................................... Historic Aerial Map
Figure8....................................................................................................................
Existing Conditions Map
Figure9..................................................................................................................Proposed
Mitigation Map
Figure 10..............................................................................................................
Proposed Monitoring Map
Figure11............................................................................................................................Planting
Plan Map
Exhibit............................................................................................................................Cattle
Exclusion Plan
Appendices
AppendixA........................................................................................................................ Design Plan Sheets
Appendix B................................................................................................... Existing Conditions Information
AppendixC..........................................................................................................................Site Analysis Data
Appendix D........................................................................................................... Site Protection Instrument
Appendix E............................................................................................................ USACE Assessment Forms
AppendixF..................................................................................................................... WOTUS Information
Appendix G...............................................................................................................Agency Correspondence
AppendixH...........................................................................................................................Site Photographs
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 5

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is submitting this mitigation plan for the Starker Mitigation Project
("Project") under the WLS Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank ("Bank"). The proposed Bank is being
developed as a private commercial umbrella mitigation bank to allow for the addition of future mitigation
sites located in the Catawba River Basin, 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101 (Figure 2). The
purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to compensate for unavoidable
impacts to Waters of the U.S. authorized under sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and all applicable state statutes. The Project is providing 9,656.73 warm
thermal regime stream mitigation credits and 29.91 acres of easement that will be protected in
perpetuity.
This mitigation plan was prepared in accordance with C.F.R. §332.1-8 (2008), Compensatory Mitigation
for Losses of Aquatic Resources, and was based on current United States Army Corps of Engineers —
Wilmington District (USACE) Guidance, which is subject to the approval of the USACE District Engineer
(DE) in consultation with the North Carolina (NC) Inter -Agency Review Team (IRT).
1.2 Bank Sponsor
WLS will serve as the Bank Sponsor for the WLS Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Starker Mitigation
Site. The contact information for the sponsor is listed below:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Attn: Catherine Manner
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The Project mitigation goals are to provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Lyle
Creek sub -basin and Catawba River watersheds. Major goals for the Catawba River basin, as described in
the Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP; NCEEP, 2007, amended 2013) include: 1) improved
management of stormwater runoff to Crowder and Catawba creeks, 2) protection of the critical water
supply reservoirs in the region and their immediate riparian zones, and 3) land protection for important
natural and cultural resource sites including the Bunker Hill bridge over Lyle Creek. The Project will:
• Restore aquatic habitats that are currently degraded by cattle access and bank erosion.
• Improve water quality by excluding cattle.
• Restore riparian buffers.
• Stabilize streams that are part of a WS-IV watershed.
• Serve to continue existing water quality initiatives that are on -going in the watershed.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 6

• Enhance/restore riparian wetlands by reconnecting the stream to its historic floodplain.
In the Catawba River Basin wide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2010), the Lyle Creek Watershed
(03050101140010, Figure 1) is specified for protection efforts that include headwater streams that drain
to Lake Norman, a water supply reservoir. As part of the proposed Project, 9,965 linear feet of stream
(warm water thermal regime) will be stabilized and restored. The Lyle Creek watershed is 39% agricultural
land, and a majority of Lyle Creek receives agricultural runoff. The proposed restoration work for the
Project would restore riparian buffers at least 50 feet in width along all stream reaches. This proposed
work will provide significant reductions in nutrients, sediment, and fecal coliform supplied to Mull Creek,
Lyle Creek, and ultimately Lake Norman.
To accomplish these goals, the following site -specific objectives will be measured to document overall
project success:
• Provide a floodplain connection to the incised Project stream reaches by lowering bank height
ratios (BHRs) to less than 1.2, thereby promoting more natural floodplain storage and overbank
flood flows,
• Improve bedform diversity by increasing scour pool to pool spacing and depth variability,
• Increase native species riparian buffer and wetland vegetation density/composition along
streambank and riparian areas,
• Improve aquatic habitat and fish species diversity and migration through the addition of in -stream
cover and native woody debris,
• Site protection through a 29.91-acre conservation easement with minimum 50-foot riparian
buffers from the top of banks along all streams in perpetuity.
The existing conditions site assessment suggests that the proposed mitigation activities will result in a
higher functioning aquatic ecosystem. The project goals and objectives address water quality stressors by
reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian buffer restoration, and
riparian wetland rehabilitation. Hydrologic functions will be improved by raising the local water table. The
biologic and habitat functions will be improved by the revegetation of the riparian buffers.
Additionally, a 29.91-acre conservation easement will protect stream reaches and aquatic resources in
perpetuity. These mitigation efforts will provide a significant ecological benefit with minimal impacts and
constraints during a recovery period that would not otherwise occur through natural processes.
2 Bank Establishment and Operation
2.1 Site Selection
The Project site is located in Catawba County, North Carolina (35.727984°,-81.176076°). The site is part
of the Catawba River Headwaters Subbasin, HUC 03050101 (Figure 1). The proposed site includes two
unnamed tributaries to Mull Creek (5100 and 5200), Mull Creek drains into Lyle Creek and ultimately Lake
Norman on the mainstem of the Catawba River. Mull Creek, near the project site, drains portions of the
City of Conover and the Town of Claremont. Both municipalities are experiencing growth into surrounding
rural areas, and the Project directly abuts both sides of Interstate 40 (1-40) between mile markers 133 and
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 7

135. The site is currently in agricultural use but is potentially a future commercial/residential development
area.
To get to the site from Raleigh get on 1-40 West. Use right three lanes to take exit 131 for 1-40 West
towards 1-785 N/Greensboro/Winston-Salem. Take exist 133 for Rock Barn Rd, take a left and the site is
located at the first right off of Rock Barn Rd, John Daniels Drive.
2.2 Service Area
The proposed Geographic Service Area (GSA) for the Bank is illustrated in Figure 2 and will provide
compensatory mitigation credits for unavoidable, permitted impacts to Waters of the United States in the
Catawba River Basin (8-Digit HUC 03050101). Use of approved mitigation credits from the bank to
compensate for impacts outside the GSA may be considered by USACE on a case -by -case basis. The Project
will provide compensatory mitigation for warm stream impacts. Future sites may be developed in the
Bank that provide both warm and cool stream mitigation credits as well as wetland mitigation credits.
2.3 Site Protection Instrument
The Sponsor has obtained agent authorization forms and option agreements to purchase a conservation
easement for each of the property parcels that comprise the Project. Copies of the agent authorization
forms and draft conservation easement are provided in Appendix D. The Sponsor shall record a
conservation easement with the Catawba County Clerk that has been approved by the USACE, in
coordination with the IRT, and provide a copy of the recorded conservation easement to the USACE. The
current property owner for the Project site is listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Parcel Ownership Information
375210364087
375219523168
Hunsucker Farms, LLC 375215732614 29.91 03599/0062-0065
375216831456
375215534132
375211558910
The conservation easement will ensure that the site will be protected in perpetuity from land uses that
are inconsistent with the UMBL Apart from USACE-approved activities (in coordination with the IRT), the
site shall not be disturbed by activities that would adversely affect the intended extent, condition, or
function of the bank. The conservation easement shall not be removed or modified without prior written
approval of the USACE.
2.4 Watershed Need and Feasibility
As a result of implementing this Project, WLS will restore and protect 9,965 linear feet of stream. The
restoration will offset unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States associated with rapid growth
and development and improve and protect aquatic resource functions in the region.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 8

The technical feasibility of the bank is assured due to WLS' extensive experience with stream and wetland
restoration and enhancement in North Carolina and throughout the Southeast. Examples of WLS' success
with stream restoration and enhancement include the WLS Neuse 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank and the
WLS Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Banks. The absence of fatal flaws, such as hydrologic trespass, and the
absence of threatened and endangered species and their habitats means the project is unlikely to be
impeded by resource issues, or by objections from landowners.
3 Baseline Information
WLS performed an existing conditions assessment for the site by compiling and analyzing baseline
information, aerial photography, and field data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine how
aquatic resource functions have been impacted within the catchment area. Parameters such as watershed
drainage area, percent impervious cover, land use, climate, and hydrology were evaluated. The following
sub -sections further describe the existing site conditions, degrees of impairment, and primary controls
that were considered for developing an appropriate restoration design approach.
3.1 Watershed Characterization
3.1.1 Surface Water Classification
The site includes two unnamed tributaries to Mull Creek, which drains into Lyle Creek and ultimately Lake
Norman. Lyle creek is listed as WS-IV (Water Supply IV- Highly Developed) and flows into Lake Norman, a
water supply reservoir, approximately four miles downstream of the confluence of Mull Creek and Lyle
Creek.
3.1.2 Jurisdictional WOTUS
WLS investigated on -site jurisdictional WOTUS using the USACE Routine On -Site Determination Method.
This method is defined in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern
Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement. Stream classification utilized the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form. Potential jurisdictional (JD) wetland areas as well as upland areas were classified using
the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form. The results of the on -site field investigation indicated that
all Project reaches were determined to be jurisdictional stream channels. In addition, five jurisdictional
wetland areas were delineated within the proposed Project area (See Figure 8) located on floodplains (WA
is 1.2 acres, WB is 0.03 acres, WC is 0.03 acres, WD is 0.03 acres, and WE is 0.04 acres). All of these
jurisdictional wetlands are inside the proposed conservation easement. WLS received a preliminary
jurisdictional determination (PJD) from the USACE in March 2021 and supporting documents and agency
correspondence are provided in Appendix F.
3.1.3 NC SAM and NC WAM
WLS completed stream and wetland assessments using the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM,
Version 5.0, 2015) and NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM, Version 2.1, 2015). WLS evaluated the
NC WAM and NC SAM metrics relevant to the Project wetland areas and stream reaches (See Appendix
Q. The Project reaches all scored 'low' due to previous dredging, lack of buffer, and water quality stressors
from agriculture, and altered stream morphology. Wetland area WA, WB, WC and WE rated 'medium' due
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 9

to some disturbed conditions. Wetland area WD rated 'low' due to poor habitat conditions. The ecological
assessments also incorporated qualitative and quantitative observations using historic aerials, field
evaluations, and detailed topographic survey data collected across the site. The conclusions from these
assessments help describe the current stream and wetland conditions and functional ratings, however,
these methods are not intended for determining mitigation success on the site.
Table 2. NCSAM/NCWAM Summary
Note: Three smaller sub -reaches (5101, 5102, and S103) were not scored due
to minimal length in the project area.
3.2 Land Use and Development Trends
A historical aerial review from 1951 to present (Figures 7a-7d) was conducted to document landscape
changes in the watershed. Prior to the development of 1-40 in 1960 the area consisted mostly of row crop
and pasture. In 1960, interstate 40 was built through Catawba county (Figure 7b) dissecting the project
site. Other than the disturbance of 1-40, the land uses in this watershed have mostly remained stable since
1950, including the stream buffer surrounding the project site. It is anticipated this watershed will
ultimately be developed and include residential single family and multi -family homes as well as light
industrial space. A highway commercial space is also being developed on the property adjacent to the
project site.
3.3 Landscape Characteristics
3.3.1 Physiography and Geology
The site is in the Northern Inner Piedmont Level IV Ecoregion. This area has higher elevations with more
rugged topography than other areas of the Piedmont as well as mostly mesic soils rather than thermic
soils. More specifically, this area consists of Amphibolite and Biotite Gneiss ('CZab') (Geologic Map of
North Carolina, NC Geological Survey, 1998). Streams in this area usually have a higher gradient than
streams in the Outer Piedmont and contain mountain type macroinvertebrate species. (Griffith et al,
2002).
3.3.2 Soils
Soils at the site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey data for Catawba County (NRCS Catawba
County Soil Survey, 1975). As shown on the NRCS Soils Map (Figure 4), existing floodplain soils around the
reaches are mostly within the mapping units TmD, TmC, TmB, TmE and CsA. TmD soils are described as
Tomlin loam (10 to 15 percent slopes), TmC is described as Tomlin loam (6 to 10 percent) and TmE soils
are described as Tomlin loam (15 to 25 percent slopes). TmD, TmC and TmE are found on hillslopes and
ridges and the soils parent material is saprolite derived from diorite and gabbro or diabase or gneiss. TmB
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 10

soils are described as Tomlin loam (2 to 6 percent slopes) and are found on interfluves. CsA soils are
described as Codorus loam (0 to 2 percent slopes), and these soils are found on floodplains and are
frequently flooded, the parent material is loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock.
On -site soils investigations were conducted to identify potential hydric soils in October 2018 by licensed
soil scientist (LSS), Michael G. Wood, LSS with Three Oaks Engineering (See Hydric Soils Report in Appendix
B). The findings were based on hand -turned auger borings and indicate the presence of hydric soils along
the floodplains at the top of reach 5100. The hydric soils status is based upon the Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States (USDA, NRCS, 2018, Version 8.2).
3.3.3 Climate
Catawba County has a warm moderately humid climate with hot summers, minimal snowfall and no dry
season (NRCS, 1975). The average growing season for the Project site is 205 days, beginning mid -April and
ending in late October (NRCS Catawba County Soil Survey). The average annual precipitation in the Project
area is approximately 49.2 inches with a consistent monthly distribution, except for convective storm
events or hurricanes that occur during the summer and fall months. Over the past 48 months, the Rain
gauge at Oxford Rs near Claremont, NC has recorded 119.31 inches of rain (USGS).
3.3.4 Existing Vegetation
Historic land management surrounding the Project area has been primarily for agricultural purposes. Prior
to anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian vegetation community likely consisted of Mesic Mixed
Forest (Piedmont subtype) in the uplands with Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Bottomland Forest in the
lower areas and floodplains (Schafale, 2012). The existing vegetation within the Project area consists of
open pastureland with a mature canopy with a limited understory adjacent to the streams (Table 3).
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 11

Table 3. Existing Project Site Vegetation
Red maple
Acerrubrum
Red cedar
Juniperus virginiana
Yellow -poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Red oak
Quercus falcata
American sycamore
Plantanus occidentalis
River birch
Betula nigra
White pine
Pinus strobus
Black walnut
Juglan nigra
White oak
Quercus alba
Black willow
Salix nigra
Pawpaw
Asimina triloba
American holly
Ilex opaca
Black cherry
Prunus serotina
Multiflora rose
Rosa multiflora
Hazel alder
Alnus serrulata
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense
Muscadine
Vitis rotundifolia
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Common greenbrier
Smilax rotundifolia
Meadow garlic
Allium canadense
Tall fescue
Festuca arundinacea
Highbush blackberry
Rubus argutus
Canada goldenrod
Solidago canadensis
Soft rush
Juncus effusus
Agricultural Fields: Currently, most field areas surrounding the Project area are used for cattle grazing
and the vegetation within open field areas is primarily comprised of fescue with scattered canopy trees
adjacent to the stream.
Mixed Hardwood Forest: The mature canopy is dominated by red maple, yellow poplar, red oak, white
oak, and black walnut. Woody shrub species include papaw, black willow, black cherry, hazel alder, and
spicebush. Vine species include honeysuckle and muscadine. Herbaceous species include various sedges,
rush, fescue, and blackberry.
Invasive Species Vegetation: The invasive species vegetation present on the Project site are primarily,
Chinese privet, Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora).
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 12

3.4 Existing Stream Conditions
3.4.1 Geomorphic Assessment
WLS conducted geomorphic and ecological assessments of the Project reaches to determine the current
stream function, channel stability, and the impact of past and current land use on the Project site's aquatic
resources. From historical aerial research, evidence was found to demonstrate that most of the Project
area has been heavily impacted from historic and current land use practices, including interstate highway
development. A further review of topographic maps, field investigation of on -site features, similar stream
and wetland reference conditions, and LiDAR survey data provide clear evidence that the existing channel
patterns that appear to be indicative of valley signatures, valley slopes, and drainage basins that likely
supported headwater stream and wetland systems with associated bottomland hardwood forest.
The tributaries within the Project boundary flow directly to Mull Creek. The streams at the Project were
broken down into nine reaches [S100 (N of 1-40, above crossing), S102, S103, S100 (N of 1-40, below
crossing), S100 (S of 1-40), S101, S200 (N of 1-40), S200 (S of 1-40, above crossing), and S200 (S of 1-40,
below crossing)] totaling approximately 9,965 linear feet of existing streams. Table 4 provides reach
designations, approximate drainage area, stream status based on field analysis and NCDWR stream
classification form score.
Table 4. Reach Watershed Drainage & Jurisdictional Status for Project Reaches
5/0.008 Intermittent 28.5
2.5/0.004 Intermittent 22.0
193/0.30 Perennial 35.5
252/0.39 Perennial 35.5
12/0.02 Intermittent 29.0
84/0.13 Perennial 34.5
169/0.26 Perennial 34.5
Note: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 13

Table 5 characterizes the existing stream morphology based on general descriptions, channel evolution
(Simon, 1989) and Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1994).
Table S. Existing Channel Morphology Summary
1,127
2.3
7.0
2.3
Incised E
B (functioning as a
110
1.9
8.0
2.2
G)
81
-
-
-
-
2,490
1.1
19.0
4.0
F
B (functioning as a
1,829
1.7
6.0
3.1
G)
96
1.1
14.0
3.5
F
B (functioning as a
785
1.6
3.0
3.3
G)
550
2.2
16.0
1.0
C
2,897 1.9 5.0 1.7 B (Functioning as a
G)
3.4.2 Existing Reach Descriptions
S100 (North of 1-40, above crossing): Reach S100 ..,-
begins as a deep gully near Rock Barn Road on the
northern end of the property. The gully is
approximately 12 to 15 feet deep, highly unstable,
and has been used in the past as a dumping area for
farm trash and waste. At the base of the gully
system, several strong springs originate and form the
headwaters of the S100 system. Incision of the
stream decreases downstream; however, the system
is incised (BHR > 1.5) along its entire length. Large
trees are present along the banks of the upper Reach S100 demonstrates the ability to
portion of S100, but not along the lower portion. enhance riparian wetlands through stream
From the middle portion of S100 to the end of the restoration and buffer plantings.
reach, adjacent riparian wetland areas occur due to considerable discharge of groundwater along the
adjacent toe of slopes. The function of these wetlands is being impacted by the incised stream condition
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 14

and frequent cattle access which is prevalent along the entire reach. S100 above the crossing ends at the
inlet of a 24 inch diameter culverted crossing for a farm path which provides a downstream structural
grade control point.
S102: Reach S102 is a direct tributary to S100. S102 begins as a spring head approximately 100 feet
upslope of and near the middle of S100 above 1-40. The reach is heavily impacted by cattle and sections
of the streambanks have been completely trampled. The channel has been filled with sediment from the
eroding banks, and flow is diffuse and impeded due to cattle crossing near the middle of the reach. There
are crayfish and frogs in the reach, but the biological function of the stream has been severely impacted
by sedimentation and habitat degradation. Reach S102 ends at its confluence with Reach S100.
S103: Reach S103 is a short tributary to S100, which starts at a large headcut where the adjacent slope
has failed. There was water flowing for much of its length during site visits, though the streambed
sediments are largely influenced by large scale erosion of the adjacent upland soils.
S100 (North of 1-40, below crossing): This reach begins at the culvert outlet below the farm path crossing.
The pipe is perched due to a past headcut. As a result of the headcutting, incision along the reach is higher,
resulting in greater sediment loss due to bank scour and mass wasting than in Reach S100 (above
crossing). This section of S100 is predominantly wooded; however, trees along the riparian floodplain are
relatively sparse and consist primarily of successional species. Cattle are constantly accessing the wooded
areas for shade and multiple areas along this section of S100 and are active loafing areas with an over -
widened channel and trampled banks. Anthropogenic channel modification is evident with the channel's
location against the right side of the valley, creating areas of mass wasting with bank heights much greater
than those associated with the remainder of the incised channel. The lower section of S100 closer to 1-40
has been fenced off from cattle and has been left for reforestation to occur; however, this area presents
the most active channel evolutionary processes. Numerous tree falls exist and continue to occur where
the channel is actively increasing meander width. Almost all outside bends are characterized by extremely
high, vertical banks with larger trees precariously perched on top. The top third of these banks consist of
exposed roots and overhanging banks with little to no surface protection or rooting depth at the lower
elevations where channel interaction occurs. Where Reach S100 approaches the 72-inch diameter culvert
under 1-40, the bank height ratio drops to a relatively stable condition and the substantial erosive forces
no longer seem apparent, most likely due to the backwater effects the culvert during higher flows.
S100 (South of 1-40): Reach S100 begins at the downstream outlet of the 72-inch diameter culvert under
1-40. The outlet is laid on a natural bedrock seam which is providing vertical stability, however the
increased velocities at the outlet of this extremely long stretch of culvert are impacting the banks with
localized scour. The upper portion of S100 below 1-40 is wooded along the right bank, but the forest along
the left bank has recently been cleared, leaving only a thin line of trees. Cattle have been fenced out of
this upper part of S100 south of 1-40. However, as with the lower portion of S100, many of the channel
evolutionary processes are manifesting through mass wasting of outer bends and localized toe scour
within riffle and run sections. Much of the upper section of S100 south of 1-40 contains tree falls and/or
debris jams creating localized areas of unstable vertical banks up and down stream. As S100 begins to
transition to the floodplain of Mull Creek, cattle access resumes, the riparian buffer is reduced, and human
channel modification once again become apparent through channel straightening. Cattle are using several
loafing areas where substantial shade exists, causing trampled banks. Almost all outer bends through this
lower portion of S100 are characterized by nearly vertical banks covered by herbaceous vegetation with
few moderately sized trees. An existing 36-inch diameter CMP farm culvert is in place towards the end of
the reach which acts as a pinch point for the stream, causing localized scour and instability in the banks
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 15

up and down stream. Finally, the confluence with Mull Creek is vertically stable as Mull Creek has some
bedrock controls within the vicinity of the confluence that would provide an excellent tie in point with
minimal concern of future headcutting.
S101: Reach 5101 is a direct tributary to 5100. 5101 begins as spring head approximately 100 feet upslope
of and near the lower end of Reach 5100. The reach is not currently impacted by cattle but is incised and
actively eroding. Efforts have been made by the landowner to prevent the headcut from worsening by
filling the channel with logs and debris, but the channel still appears to be actively eroding and
downcutting. Based on historical aerial imagery from 1951, it appears that 5101 could have been a
functioning stream before the construction of 1-40. There is evidence that the watershed for the tributary
was split by the highway and the stream was diverted into a ditch that flows into 5100 north of 1-40 below
the crossing. Upstream of the jurisdictional break, the channel appears to have been straightened and
filled. In addition to overland stormwater flow, 5101 is also fed by groundwater from several streambank
seeps. Reach 5101 ends at its confluence with Reach 5100.
S200 (North of 1-40): Similar to 5100 to Mull Creek, S200 to Mull Creek can be generally characterized as
a sand -dominated transport channel that is spring fed, with significant incision, partial entrenchment, and
undergoing many of the same channel evolution steps present in 5100 to Mull Creek. As with 5100, 5200
to Mull Creek has experienced stressors associated with agricultural practices: human channel
modification, cattle access, and timbering. Reach 5200 north of 1-40 begins as a small wetland area that is
fed by hill slope springs near the main farmhouse and buildings. At a 21-inch culverted farm crossing just
downstream, the stream incises greatly due to headcutting that has migrated up the stream system to
the culvert. From the farm crossing culvert down to near the NCDOT right-of-way for 1-40, the stream is
highly incised with extreme bank heights and considerable ongoing scour erosion and mass wasting.
Headcuts are actively moving through this reach. Approximately 50 feet upstream of the NCDOT right-of-
way, the stream has formed an active wetland floodplain within the overly widened channel that is
relatively stable; however, there is still some erosion along the adjacent terrace banks due to overland
flow and runoff.
S200 (South of 1-40, above crossing): This reach begins directly below the 1-40 right-of-way and flows
approximately 583 feet to a culverted farm crossing. The reach appears to have over -widened in the past,
perhaps due to heavy cattle access, but has now formed a relatively stable wetland floodplain at a lower
elevation. The developing floodplain is dominated by herbaceous vegetation with little deep rooting
woody vegetation established. Cattle have been excluded from the reach for some time, perhaps because
of the high, steep streambanks that are still eroding in some locations. This section ends at a culverted
farm crossing that appears to be appropriately sized, but is experiencing some erosion due to poor
stabilization practices.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 16

S200 (South of 1-40, below crossing): This section
begins at the culverted farm crossing and extends
;k =" down to the confluence of 5200 with Mull Creek. The
R
culvert is a 60-inch CMP. The reach is highly incised
along much of its length with considerable areas of
bank scour and mass wasting. The upper 800 feet and
lower 700 feet of the reach have sparse mature trees
that offer limited riparian protection, and cattle have
active access to these areas. The middle 1,300 feet of
channel was cleared of trees in 2009 and the area
along the left stream bank was converted to livestock
pasture. The area along the right streambank has been
Reach 5200, like many of the project left fallow and has repopulated with young
successional tree species that are approximately ten
reaches, displays frequent erosion around years of age, including significant areas of Chinese
outer meander bends due to land privet. Much of the channel through the middle and
disturbance, channel incision, loss of buffer, lower portion of 5200 is meandering and eroding,
and frequent cattle access. especially on the outside of meander bends. This
ongoing evolution has left the outer bends characterized by steep, undercut banks with an herbaceous
cover lacking sufficient surface protection or rooting depth. Where large woody trees are present and an
overwidening of the channel exists, small areas of new floodplain are developing at a lower elevation.
However, with the presence of vertical bedrock grade control, the only means of gaining stability will be
to continually stress the outer bends until an appropriate meander width can be achieved. Towards the
lower portion of 5200 there is a 36-inch diameter culvert that is not functional and has eroded around the
culvert but is not disrupting flow. This culvert is outside the proposed conservation easement and is below
the limits of construction and will not be replaced or repaired as part of the mitigation project. As 5200
approaches the confluence with Mull Creek, the channel appears to still be undergoing incision processes.
The banks are more vertical with significantly less vegetation is present. The terminus for S200 will occur
at the farm crossingjust upstream with the confluence with Mull Creek. This culverted crossing is currently
providing the stable downstream grade control point and will serve as a stable end to the S200 to Mull
Creek system.
3.4.3 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage
5100 and S200 are sand bed streams with gravel dominated riffles. The current farming activities, livestock
access, lack of adequate natural woody riparian buffer vegetation, past land disturbances, and stream
instability create a larger sediment supply through the project area.
3.5 Potential Site Constraints
3.5.1 Existing Easements on the Site
The 1-40 corridor runs through the approximate center of the project area and bisects 5100 and 5200. The
culverts beneath 1-40 will be control points for the proposed stream design work, and the design will tie
into the elevations of the existing culverts. No additional flooding will be created within the 1-40 NCDOT
right-of-way because of the project. The project engineer will coordinate with NCDOT to ensure the design
is acceptable and the conservation easement provides suitable spacing for future ROW maintenance or
expansion. The current ROW is approximately 350 feet wide at the culvert crossings.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 17

3.5.2 Utility Corridors within the Site
One power line easement is present to the north of 5100, but the easement is located outside of the
proposed project limits. No other easements or significant constraints have been identified for the project.
The Sponsor will coordinate with the landowner regarding future development access and utilities to
utilize proposed easement crossings. There are no commercial or private airports within five miles of the
project site.
3.5.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance
There are no mineral or water rights issues within or adjacent to the Project site properties.
3.5.4 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program's
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panel 3710375200J, effective September 5, 2007, found
that 5100 and S200 are not regulated waters. There are no established Base Flood Elevations (BFEs),
Floodways, or Flood Hazard Zones along the tributaries. However, portions of Mull Creek that 5100 and
S200 flow into are regulated; therefore, the lower 300 ft of 5100 and S200 are within the flood hazard
zone AE associated with Mull Creek. The proposed restoration work associated with this project will not
include any structure placement, excavation, or fill within the Flood Hazard Zone significant enough to
influence the BFEs of Mull Creek. A floodplain development permit is being prepared to submit to the
local floodplain manager for work on 5100 and 5200. Due to the steep step pool system upstream on 5100
and 5200, hydrologic trespass will not occur.
3.5.5 Invasive Species Vegetation
There are currently no substantial communities of invasive plant species within the proposed project
boundaries; however, some areas of invasive species vegetation have begun to establish on S200 south
of 1-40 above the crossing, mainly Chinese privet and Japanese stiltgrass. There is also an area of
established Kudzu located on S200 north of 1-40 right above the DOT right of way. In addition, several
small areas of multiflora rose plants were observed on the project site above 1-40. These areas will be
monitored by WLS, and any invasive plants found within the project boundary will be treated to prevent
expansion and establishment of a substantial invasive community. This will allow for a healthy, native
riparian and upland plant community to dominate the area and help prevent future establishment of
invasive species vegetation.
3.5.6 Potential Future Land -Use
Future site constraints include, but are not limited to development, silviculture, and infrastructure
maintenance. Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Project area has been used extensively for
agricultural purposes. The surrounding areas remain in an agricultural community with some neighboring
forested property. There is potential for the area surrounding the easement to be developed in the future.
The project area is adjacent to 1-40 which could potentially be widened at a later date. To account for this
possibility the conservation easement starts 25 ft from the start of the right of way. Project reaches were
designed to be self -maintaining and resilient in a dynamic landscape. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet
will protect the project reaches from changes in watershed hydrologic regimes.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 18

3.6 Regulatory Considerations
3.6.1 Cultural Resources
This project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historical resources. On -site
investigations and discussions with the landowner have not revealed any potential resources of this type
on the property. EPR (consultant) conducted a search of the project area using the State Historic
Preservation Office's HPOweb database. No structures listed on the NRHP, or those eligible for listing,
were found in the project boundary or within a one -mile radius. The NRHP report can be found in
Appendix G.
3.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) database, there are currently four federally -listed threatened or endangered species known to
occur in the project vicinity: bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) and the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). The Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) was recently listed as an endangered species and
the Project is located within the USFWS habitat range and white -nose syndrome zone per Final 4(d) rule
(USFWS, 2019). The Project site is not near any known hibernation or maternity sites, nor is Catawba
County listed as one of the counties for confirmed hibernation and maternity sites. It is not anticipated
that the proposed mitigation activities will take place within known hibernacula or remove known
occupied maternity roost trees. WLS will coordinate with the appropriate agencies should a determination
be required for permitting. The USFWS encourages avoiding tree cutting from May 15-August 15 if
possible.
Project implementation is not anticipated to have a negative impact on these species. EPR sent letters to
USFWS and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and is in coordination concerning the
Schweinitz's sunflower and dwarf -flowered heartleaf. A survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted
on September 29, 2020, with no individuals found. A survey for dwarf -flowered heartleaf was conducted
on April 15, 2021, with no individuals found. EPR also conducted a one -mile radius search of the project
area using the Natural Heritage Program of North Carolina (NCNHP) database and no occurrences were
found in the project boundary. IPaC report, NCNHP report, USFWS response and NCWRC response can
be found in Appendix G.
3.6.3 Conditions Affecting Hydrology
Seven crossings must be accounted for in the stream design: two crossings will be removed near the origin
of S200 (north of 1-40) and on S200 (south of 1-40, below existing crossing), three crossings will be replaced
(two on 5100 and one on 5200), one potential future crossing will be added on 5100 (north of 1-40, below
existing crossing) and one existing culvert will remain at the bottom of 5200 (Figure 8). The constructed
crossings will allow livestock and farm equipment to access fields and pastures on either side of the stream
reaches. The replaced or added culverted crossings will be range from 48" — 60" corrugated plastic pipe
and are appropriately sized and set at the correct elevations to promote stability and allow passage of
aquatic life. Stabilization practices will be applied to ensure stable crossings. The crossings are 60-feet
wide and located in easement breaks to allow for future residential and commercial development.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 19

3.6.4 Adjacent Land Use
Site -adjacent land use is primarily silviculture and agriculture. However, the surrounding land use is
transitioning to commercial, residential, and industrial land uses due to its proximity to several population
centers and easily accessible transportation corridors. None of these land uses will have negative impacts
on the function of the Project and the stream channel design contemplates the potential future runoff
conditions.
4 Functional Uplift Potential
Harman et al. (2012) provides a framework for conducting function -based assessments to develop project
goals and objectives based on a site's restoration potential and functional uplift. The framework is based
on the Stream Functions Pyramid (SFP) which is a conceptual model that can be used to better define
project goals and objectives by linking them to stream functions. Stream functions are separated into a
hierarchy of functions and structural measures, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5 and include the following
functional categories: Hydrology (Level 1), Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physiochemical
(Level 4), and Biological (Level 5). Function -based goals and objectives were considered that relate
restoration activities to the appropriate parameters from the SFP framework, which are based on existing
conditions, site constraints and overall restoration potential. To accomplish these site -specific goals, the
following functional objectives of level 1-3 will be monitored to document overall project success as
described in Table 6.
Table 6. Function -Based Goals and Objectives Summary
Improve Base Flow
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths
Improve Bedform Diversity
Increase Lateral Stability
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Improve and/or remove existing stream
crossings and restore a more natural flow
regime and aquatic passage.
Lower BHRs to <1.2 and increase ERs to >_2.2
Increase riffle/pool percentage and pool -to -
pool spacing ratios.
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
comparable to reference condition and stable
cross-section values.
Plant or preserve native species vegetation a
minimum 50' wide from the top of the
streambanks with a composition/density
comparable to downstream reference
condition.
4.1.1 Restoration Potential and Project Benefits Summary
Restoration projects commonly provide functional lift of Level 2 and 3 parameters. To achieve goals in
Levels 4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and upstream watershed health must be
measurable and sustainable.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 20

It is expected the Project will reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients, improving overall
aquatic functions. Given the landscape position and catchment size, the restoration activities will likely
provide functional lift within the physicochemical and biological functional categories. However, Level
and 5 function -based parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards
nor required to demonstrate success for credit release.
The Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the watershed. While
many of these benefits focus on the Project area, others, such as nutrient removal, sediment reduction,
and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, others have more far-reaching effects that extend
downstream. The expected project benefits and ecological improvements are summarized in Table 7.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 21

Table 7. Project Benefits Summary
Restoring and enhancing 50-foot natural riparian buffers and alleviating concentrated flow
points will decrease the volume and intensity of runoff into the system.
Restoration practices will restore proper floodplain connection by establishing stable bank
height ratios and entrenchment ratios.
Floodplain connectivity will allow for more surface area for surface storage and retention.
Raising and reconnecting the restored stream bed will promote higher water table
conditions and more hyporheic exchange.
A stable sinuosity for valley type and slope will allow for a natural self-sustaining system.
Decreasing stream bank erosion, connecting with the floodplain, and excluding cattle from
the stream will decrease the sediment coming from the restored system into Mull Creek.
Restoring and enhancing 50-foot natural riparian buffers will allow for canopy cover and
large woody debris in the system.
The use of woody in -stream structures will ensure channel stability while also providing
large woody debris.
Benefits will be achieved by the exclusion of cattle from streams and restore functional
buffers of sufficient width along all stream reaches to provide nutrient reductions.
Benefits will be achieved by exclusion of cattle from the stream, restore functional buffers of
sufficient width along all stream reaches, and stabilize stream bank erosion to provide
sediment reductions.
Benefits will be achieved by Restored buffers which will provide shade, reduce water
temperatures, and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations. The restored stream bed will
promote higher water table conditions and facilitate denitrification.
Benefits will be achieved by restoration of appropriate habitats, reduce sediment and
nutrient loads, exclude cattle from streams, and provide increased shading and organic
material inputs for aquatic organisms.
Benefits to landscape connectivity will be achieved by restoring a healthy stream corridor,
promoting aquatic and terrestrial species migration and protecting their shared resources in
perpetuity.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 22

5 Determination of Credits
The Project consists of all Stream Restoration to achieve the highest ecological lift possible. The proposed
mitigation credit types, ratios and design approaches were discussed with the IRT during the prospectus
site visit and described further in the meeting minutes located in Appendix G.
5.1 Proposed Mitigation Credit Types
Proposed mitigation credit types are Restoration Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs) (warm thermal
regime). See Tables 8 for the proposed credit summary.
Table 8. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
Stream Restoration
1,127
1,169.54
68.69
1:1
1,169.54
(PI/P2)
Stream Restoration
98.96
1:1
98.96
110
25.44
(P2)
Stream Restoration
56.44
1:1
56.44
81
0
(P2)
Stream Restoration
2,490
2,117.61
103.41
1:1
2,117.61
(PI/P2)
Stream Restoration
1,829
1,888.07
85.88
1:1
1,888.07
(PI/P2)
Stream Restoration
79.57
1:1
79.57
96
0
(P2)
Stream Restoration
785
704.85
56.18
1:1
704.85
(P2)
Stream Restoration
550
491.16
110.61
1:1
491.16
(P1)
Stream Restoration
2,897
3,050.53
14.40
1:1
3,050.53
(PI/P2)
Note: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
5.2 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total number of mitigation credits generated as reported in the
approved mitigation plan and verified by the as -built survey. The initial credit release will be based on the
proposed stream mitigation credits (SMCs) as approved in the final mitigation plan. The credit ledger will
be managed by WLS and approved by the USACE District Engineer (DE) and IRT. The estimated credits will
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 23

be released following current USACE guidance, as shown in Table 9 below. For example, 10% of SMCs will
be withheld until four bankfull events, in separate monitoring years, have been documented. The initial
credit release milestone shall include: approval of UMBI, approval of final mitigation plan, securing the
Project site, financial assurances delivery, long-term protection mechanism delivery, title opinion delivery,
and issuance of 404/401 permits necessary for construction.
Table 9. Credit Release Schedule
Project Site Establishment (as defined
above)
15%
15%
Completion of all initial physical and
biological improvements made pursuant
15%
30%
to the Mitigation Plan
Year 1 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that streams are stable and interim
10%
40%
performance standards have been met
Year 2 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that streams are stable and interim
10%
50%
performance standards have been met
Year 3 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that streams are stable and interim
10%
60%
performance standards have been met
Year 4 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that streams are stable and interim
5%
65%
performance standards have been met
(75%-)
Year 5 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that streams are stable and interim
10%
75%
performance standards have been met
(S5%-)
Year 6 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that streams are stable and interim
5%
SO%
(90%*)
performance standards have been met
Year 7 Monitoring Report demonstrates
that streams are stable and interim
10%
90%
performance standards have been met
(100%*)
Note: *10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
6 Mitigation Work Plan
The mitigation work plan will involve the restoration of approximately 9,965 linear feet of stream channel.
WLS's comprehensive design approach utilizes common restoration practices and will appropriately
address the jurisdictional streams and wetlands at the site, including protecting or enhancing riparian
buffers along all of the Project stream reaches and wetlands, thus providing the maximum functional uplift
with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former degraded aquatic resource. The design
approach and mitigation work plan are described in the following subsections.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 24

6.1 Design Approach
The Project involves the restoration of approximately 9,965 feet of stream (Figure 9). The proposed
Project will improve the function of existing wetland systems and restore a stable headwater stream -
wetland complex. Aquatic resources on the site have been severely impacted by past channelization,
ditching, direct cattle access, loss of riparian buffers, and past land use.
S100 and S200, including S101, S102 and S103 are highly degraded and moderately to highly incised due
to past channelization and/or natural stream incision in response to land use changes. The design
approach for the entire length of S100 and S200 will involve reconnecting the streams to active floodplains
(Priority Level I and II Restoration Approaches), with a preference for Priority Level I Restoration when
feasible. No wetland credit is requested for WA due to its small size and existing jurisdictional status.
There will be minimal functional uplift in WA and therefore it is not a viable addition to the bank. By
reconnecting the streams to a functional floodplain, the following functional improvements will be
achieved:
■ Rehabilitation of Adjacent Riparian Wetlands— Based on observed soil profiles that are exposed
along eroding stream banks, it is apparent that wetlands were once prevalent along much of the
Project reaches. Numerous groundwater springs discharge along the toe of adjacent hill slopes,
and in some areas are still enough to support degraded wetland habitats. Raising of the stream
beds and reconnection to an active floodplain will promote higher water table conditions adjacent
to the streams and more overbank flooding.
■ Filtration of Flood Flows — Currently, discharges significantly higher than the bankfull discharge
are carried within the incised stream channels. Reconnection to an active floodplain will provide
filtration of flood flows through floodplain vegetation, effectively reducing storm flow energies
and velocities.
■ Improved Buffer Function — Higher water table conditions associated with reconnecting the
floodplain will promote better denitrification of groundwater flowing to the stream channels.
Rehabilitated wetland areas adjacent to the stream will promote increased plant uptake and
retention of surface runoff before reaching the stream channels, minimizing overland flow
velocities while also encouraging nutrient removal processes.
■ Reduced Water Quality Impacts — By simply excluding livestock from the project stream using
fencing and restoring riparian buffers, significant reductions in direct input of nutrients and fecal
coliform will be achieved.
Design approaches will ensure that all excavated floodplain areas allow for the design meander belt width,
plus an additional 1.5 bankfull widths. For most project reaches this equates to a design floodplain width
of between 50 to 70 feet. This width is considered practical and achievable based on available floodplain
widths measured in the field. In some locations, natural pinches in the valley topography may necessitate
tighter floodplain widths. For excavated floodplain areas, depths will be undercut so that excavated
topsoil can be replaced to approximately 8 to 10 inches in depth to achieve final design floodplain grades.
Native organic topsoil will be stockpiled separately during construction activities to be used in the
replacement of topsoil in excavated areas. The slopes between the outer edge of the floodplain grading
and the terrace will be a maximum of 4:1 unless natural hill slope topography dictates the need for steeper
slopes. If needed, soil testing will be conducted to determine if soil amendments are necessary to promote
plant growth.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 25

In -stream structures will be constructed from materials naturally found at the project site, such as
hardwood logs and brush, supplemented with the use of quarried rock and stone as needed. WLS will use
methods of structure design and construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects,
and practices that have been well received by regulatory agencies.
The design approaches for the reaches were determined using drainage areas, regional curve analysis,
slopes, and site constraints. The construction drawings provided in Appendix A describe the proposed
construction methods including channel sizing, planimetric geometry, slopes, instream structures, and
elevations of all pertinent features. Data characterizing the existing, proposed, and design morphological
characteristics for each reach can be found in Appendix C. The design approach for each reach is described
in the table and sections below.
6.2 Design Criteria Selection
The design criteria (Table 10) were selected based off the regional curve analysis, reference reach data,
and professional judgement as described in Section 6.4. Site constraints and slopes for each reach are
described in Table 10 and the following sections. Table 11 provides the design stationing for reach
designations.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 26

a
N
m
W
N
m
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
O
O
O
N
Z
Z
Z
00
p
_ i
V
V
m
m
N
ti
„Ny
m
m
N
O
•�-I
•�-I
A
— em-I
m
V
h1
N
ill
m
N
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
N
�
m
N
O'
p
e-I
M
p
O
Z
Z
Z
cy O
o
N
N
m
m
li
m
Q
Q
Q
i0
N
O
ti
Z
Z
Z
O
N
O
�yj
Ot
N
V
Z
Z
Z
m
N
p
- m
V
a0
t0
t0
m
N
.N-i
m
m
N O
N
O
_ O
N
O
O
n
A
ti
O
O
N
vt
m
.ti
O
O
O
- O
N
Ol
O
DJ
Ot
V
ti
Z
Z
Z
�
p
m
_ p
V
^
N
T
m
N
O
n
ti
.N-i
O
m
O
N
m
ul
m
O1
�
O
O
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
cy O
O
01
p
V
m
M
i0
nt
N
ti
vi
m
N
O
m
m
m
o
V O
8
O
O
N
N
N
O
O
_
O
m
m
N
N
V
m
•a -I
N
N
Q
Q
Z
Q
Z
O
�
m
N
o
p
o
n
m
N
m
v
ti
ry
Q
Q
Q
mo 'm"
o
m
_ o
v
iO
o
v
ti
z
z
z

Table 11. Stream Sub -Reaches
S100- North of 1-40, above crossing
1
10+00 - 12+19.11
S100- North of 1-40, above crossing
2
12+19.11 - 15+90.41
S100- North of 1-40, above crossing
3
15+90.41 - 21+90
S102
1
10+00 - 11+24.4
S103
1
10+00 - 10+56.44
S100- North of 1-40, below crossing
1
21+90 - 39+78.11
S100- North of 1-40, below crossing
2
39+78.11 - 44+59.24
S100- South of 1-40
1
48+11.78 - 64+91.96
S100- South of 1-40
2
64+91.96 - 67+90.6
S101
1
10+00 - 10+79.57
S200 North of 1-40
1
10+00 - 10+65.17
S200 North of 1-40
2
10+65.17 - 17+61.03
S200 South of 1-40, above crossing
1
20+60.46 - 24+03.22
S200 South of 1-40, above crossing
2
24+03.22 - 25+93.7
S200 South of 1-40, below crossing
1
25+93.7 - 53+68.35
S200 South of 1-40, below crossing
2
53+68.35 - 57+27.15
6.2.1 Stream Design Reach Summary
Restoration
S100 (North of 1-40, above crossing)
This section of S100 (North of 1-40, above crossing) is broken into three design reaches described below.
S100 begins as a highly incised channel that becomes less incised as it flows downstream and opens into
an alluvial valley. The extreme incision at the upstream end of the reach will be addressed by routing
storm flows from the ephemeral drainage upstream through the existing gully on the east side of the
headwater system. Reach 1 is a step -pool channel through the existing gully on the east side of the
headwater system that will consist of rock step structures and constructed riffles/cascades to step storm
flows down to the existing streambed elevation. The western gully will be stabilized by installing a gravel
drain at the existing channel elevation that will continue to transport spring flow to the channel, and then
filling and sloping the gully over the gravel drain to stabilize the area without needing to remove any of
the large trees along the top of the bank.
Downstream of the stream head, Reach 2 will begin and the bed elevation of the stream will be raised
over a distance of approximately 370 feet to reconnect the stream with its original floodplain and is
designed as a Bc channel due to a constrained valley. Fill material will be taken from adjacent upland areas
to raise the streambed, and constructed riffle structures will be installed to ensure bed stability. Woody
structures such as toe wood and log vanes, along with bioengineering practices, will be used to stabilize
the outside meander bends and other areas of high bank stress. Downstream of the constrained valley,
reach 3 begins and is designed as a C channel as the design pattern will follow a meandering plan form
through the alluvial valley. This Priority Level I Restoration will be carried down to the farm crossing.
S100 (North of 1-40, below crossing)
This section of S100 is broken into two design reaches described below. Due to the highly incised and
unstable nature of these stream reaches, a Priority Level I and 11 Restoration approach is proposed that

will both raise the stream bed elevation and lower the adjacent floodplain slightly to restore floodplain
access. Excavation of a floodplain at a lower elevation is the most practical approach to restoration since
a significant amount of fill material would be required to raise the streambed and stabilize eroding banks
and hill slopes. This approach also provides the opportunity to remove upland alluvial sediments that have
been deposited on the floodplain as a result of poor land use practices in the past, thus exposing the
buried hydric soil layers that are present along the reaches. Exposing the buried hydric soils, raising the
local water table by raising the streambed, and providing for greater floodplain storage will provide
significant uplift of lost riparian wetland function. The existing farm crossing culvert at station 21+94will
be replaced with a 48-inch diameter corrugated pipe. There is a second break in the conservation
easement at station 37+00, this easement break is for a potential future crossing. No crossing will be
constructed in this location at this time. Reach 1 will be designed as a C channel and the design pattern
will follow a meandering plan form through the alluvial valley. This reach section will be carried down until
it is needed to drop to connect back into the existing 1-40 culvert. Reach 2 will be designed as a B channel
with frequent pools, constructed riffles, rock structures, and steps to dissipate energy.
S100 (South of 1-40)
This section of S100 design is similar to that used for S100 north of 1-40, below the existing crossing, and
is broken into two design reaches described below. The restoration approach will begin by raising the
elevation of the stream to the culvert. Due to the highly incised and unstable nature of these stream
reaches, a Priority Level II Restoration approach is proposed to both raise the stream bed elevation and
lower the adjacent floodplain slightly to restore floodplain access. Excavation of a floodplain at a lower
elevation is the most practical approach to restoration since a significant amount of fill material would be
required to raise the streambed and stabilize eroding banks and hill slopes. This approach also provides
the opportunity to remove upland alluvial sediments that have been deposited on the floodplain as a
result of poor land use practices in the past, thus exposing the buried hydric soil layers that are present
along the reaches. Exposing the buried hydric soils, raising the local water table by raising the streambed,
and providing for greater floodplain storage will provide significant uplift of lost riparian wetland function.
Reach 1 will be designed as a C channel and the design pattern will follow a meandering plan form through
the alluvial valley. This reach will be carried down until it is needed to drop to connect back into the
existing farm culverts at the end of S100. Reach 2 will be designed as a B channel with frequent pools,
constructed riffles, rock structures and steps to dissipate energy.
S101 and S102
Due to the incised and unstable nature of these stream reaches, a combination of Priority Level I and II
Restoration approaches are proposed that will raise the stream bed elevation to restore floodplain access.
This approach also provides the opportunity to raise the local water table, providing for greater floodplain
storage and a significant uplift of lost riparian wetland function.
Downstream of the stream head for both reaches, the streambed elevation will be raised to reconnect
the stream with its original floodplain. Fill material will be taken from adjacent upland areas to raise the
streambed, and constructed riffle structures will be installed to ensure bed stability. Woody structures
such as toe wood, along with bioengineering practices, will be used to stabilize the outside meander bends
and other areas of high bank stress. The design pattern will follow a meandering plan form through the
alluvial valley. This Priority Level I Restoration will be transitioned down to the confluences with S100
using shallow Priority Level II Restoration only where/if needed.
While this restoration approach requires the removal of some trees along the reaches, tree loss will be
minimized to the extent possible. In many areas, the approach can be applied while working around larger
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 29

trees that would provide shade and organic material to the stream after restoration. Trees are most dense
along the lower portion of S100 north of 1-40 below the crossing; however, tree loss due to bank erosion
in this area is significant under existing conditions. These stream reaches are attempting to form active
floodplains at a lower elevation but are early in the evolutionary process. Therefore, considerable erosion,
mass wasting, and tree loss will continue before the system would begin to approach stability on its own.
S103
Due to the unstable nature of this stream reach, a combination of Priority Level I and II Restoration
approaches will raise the stream bed elevation to connect to S100 using shallow Priority Level 11
Restoration only where/ if needed. The stream will be designed as a step -pool channel that primarily
follows the existing channel alignment. Rock step structures and a constructed cascade will be used to
step storm flows down to the S100 design streambed elevation.
S200 (North of 1-40)
This section of S200 is broken into two design reaches described below. This section is the most incised of
all the project reaches. Restoration will begin above the culverted farm crossing at the beginning of the
reach, where the existing 21 inch diameter culvert crossing will be removed, and the farm path re-routed
to above the reach as part of the project. Reach 1 will be designed as a step -pool channel that consists of
rock step structures and a constructed cascade that will be used to step storm flows down. Reach 2 is
designed as a B channel with a Priority Level II Restoration approach, involving raising the stream bed
several feet and excavating a bench in some areas along the right stream bank, which has minimal large
trees. Reach 2 primarily follows the existing channel alignment, due to the higher slope of the reach and
the need to tie into the 1-40 road culvert at the downstream end of the reach. Rock structures and
constructed riffles/cascades will be used along the reach to ensure bed stability and to arrest channel
incision and headcutting that is currently occurring along the reach. Near the downstream end of the
reach above 1-40, stable benches have already formed along the stream; therefore, in this location,
stabilization practices will focus on minimizing future downcutting and treating eroding side slopes.
S200 (South of 1-40, above crossing)
This section of S200 will be broken into two design reaches described below. The restoration approach
will begin by raising the elevation of the stream to the culvert. The design floodplain will connect into the
existing benches that have formed to provide better floodplain connection. Constructed riffle structures
will be installed to ensure bed stability. Reach 1 is designed as a meandering C channel. Woody structures
such as toe wood and log vanes, along with bioengineering practices, will be used to stabilize the outside
meander bends and other areas of high bank stress. The design pattern will follow a meandering plan
form through the alluvial valley. Reach 2 is designed as a Bc channel due to a constrained valley going into
the proposed farm crossing. This Priority Level II Restoration will be carried down for both reaches. Some
areas of invasive species vegetation have begun to establish, mainly Chinese privet and Japanese
stiltgrass. Treatment of invasive species vegetation will be included under the restoration approach. The
culvert crossing is a 60-inch smooth wall HDPE.
S200 (South of 1-40, below crossing)
This section of S200 will be broken into two design reaches described below. The restoration approach
for this reach will be the same as the approach described above for S100 south of 1-40. However, this
section of S200 has few mature trees along its length since trees were timbered along much of the reach
within the past 10 years. Within this cutover area, young successional species have begun to establish
along the reach, along with a considerable amount of Chinese privet. Treatment of invasive species
vegetation will be included under the restoration approach, as well as minor benching along this reach to
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 30

provide floodplain reconnection, which will promote the restoration of adjacent riparian wetland
functions.
6.3 Flow Regime
A majority of stream miles (>80 percent) in North Carolina are classified as headwater streams (drainage
area <3.9 mi2), however, less than 10 percent of the 284 USGS stream gages in North Carolina are located
on headwater streams (EFSAB, 2013). WLS recognizes the importance of these stream flow variables and
the ecological role they play in supporting high functioning steam and wetland systems, especially in
urbanizing watersheds. As such, flow monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored
stream systems exhibit seasonal base flow during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The surface flow
documentation methods are further described in Section 9. Table 12 summarizes the basic flow levels and
ecological roles the restoration design will provide after Project implementation.
Table 12. Flow Level and Ecological Role
-Provide year-round habitat for aquatic organisms (drying/inundation pattern)
-Maintain suitable conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen
-Provide water source for riparian plants and animals
-Enable movement through stream corridor and refuge from predators
-Support hyporheic functions and aquatic organisms
-Shape and maintain physical stream channel form
-Create and maintain pools, in -stream and refuge habitat
-Redistribute and sort fine and coarse sediments
-Reduce encroachment of vegetation in channel and establishment of exotic
species
-Maintain water quality by flushing pollutants
-Maintain hyporheic connection by mobilizing bed and fine material
-Create in -channel bars for seed colonization of native riparian plants
-Deposition of fine sediment and nutrients on floodplain
-Maintain diversity, function, and health of riparian floodplain vegetation
-Create streamside habitat, new channels, sloughs, and off -channel rearing
habitat through lateral channel migration and avulsion
-Recharge floodplain and storage processes
-Recruitment of native wood and organic material into channel
6.3.1 Regional Curve Comparison
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage
area and are based on the channel forming discharge theory, which states that one unique flow can yield
the same channel morphology as the full range of flows. Gage station analyses throughout the United
States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of 1.5 years or 66.7% annual
exceedance probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Leopold, 1994).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships
(FISRWG, 1998). The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999), unpublished NC Piedmont
Regional Curve (NRCS, Walker, private communication, 2015) and NC Urban Piedmont Regional Curve
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 31

(Doll, 2002) were used for comparison when estimating bankfull discharge. The NC Rural and Urban
Piedmont Regional Curves and bankfull hydraulic geometry equations are shown in Table 13.
Table 13. North Carolina Rural and Urban Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
Qbkf = 55.31 Aw" R2=0.97 Qbkf = 89.04 Aw 0.12 R2=0.91 Qbkf = 306.80 Aw 0.63 R2=0.94
Abkf = 19.23 Aw 1.61 R2=0.97 Abkf = 21.43 Aw 0.68 R2=0.95 Abkf = 60.34 Aw 0.61 R2=0.95
Wbkf = 17.41 Aw0.31 R2=0.79 Wbkf = 11.89 Aw0.43 R2=0.81 Wbkf = 24.39 Aw0.33 R2=0.88
Dbkf = 1.09 Aw0.29 R2=0.80 Dbkf = 1.50 Aw0.32 R2=0.88 Dbkf = 2.43 Aw0.33 R2=0.87
It's important to note these tributaries are classified as first and second order streams, and generally
smaller headwater streams can be poorly represented on the regional curves. Based on our experience,
both the published Rural and Urban NC Piedmont Regional Curve Equations overestimate bankfull
discharge and channel dimensions for smaller ungaged streams, such as those present at the Project site.
Due to the development occurring within the project watershed, WLS compared both the NC Piedmont
Rural and Urban Regional Curves to assist in the channel design process. The proposed channel geometry
was adequately sized to accommodate both current and potential future development by allowing natural
channel responses over time without compromising overall stability. Throughout many of the project
reaches, WLS increased channel cross sectional geometry slightly above thresholds in both the
unpublished and published rural regional curves, but still within acceptable confidence intervals. This
approach will allow project reaches to adapt to changing watershed conditions (i.e. increasing
imperviousness) and climate fluctuations while still allowing frequent storm events access to floodplains
during flows above bankfull, and maintain a healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem.
6.3.2 Channel Forming Discharge
A hydrologic analysis was completed to estimate and validate the design discharge and channel geometry
required to provide more frequent overbank flows and floodplain inundation. Cross -sections were
identified and surveyed to represent reach -wide conditions. Additional bankfull estimation methods, such
as the commonly accepted Manning's equation, were compared to help interpret and adjust field
observations to select the appropriate design criteria and justification for the design approach.
The bankfull flows in gaged watersheds within the NC Rural Piedmont study documented return intervals
(RI) that range from 1.1 to 1.8, with a mean of 1.4 years (Harman et al, 1999). EPR also compared the 2-
year flow frequency using the published USGS regression equation for small rural streams (DA <_3 mil)
within the Piedmont hydrologic area of North Carolina (USGS, 2014). As expected, these values fall slightly
above the published bankfull discharge, but were extrapolated to represent a wider range of flows. WLS
then compared lower flow frequencies in the 1.0-yr, 1.2-yr, and 1.5-yr RI range versus survey data, and
field observations (See Appendix C).
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 32

Table 14. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Note 1: Published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
Note 2: Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by NRCS (A. Walker personal communication,
2015).
Note 3: Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning's Equation for the representative riffle cross -sections.
Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n-values) ranged from approximately 0.020 to 0.023 based on channel slopes, depth,
bed material size, and vegetation influence.
Note 4: USGS rural regression equation for 2-year flood recurrence interval, Q2
=163(DA)^0.7089*10^(0.0133*(IMPNLCD06)) for small rural streams (USGS, 2011)
Note 5: NC USGS rural regression equation extrapolated for 1.2- and 1.5-year flood recurrence interval (USGS, 2011)
After considering these estimation methods and results (geometry measurements, regional curves, flow
frequency and USGS regional regression equations), WLS estimated the design discharge using values
between the published NC Rural and Urban Piedmont Regional Curves and Manning's equation to select
the appropriate design dimensions and flows rates that best correspond to the design channel that will
convey the 1.2-yr to 1.5-yr RI. The design discharge analysis summary is provided in Appendix C.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 33

6.3.3 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
A channel stability and sediment transport analysis was performed to ensure that the stream restoration
design creates a stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The existing reaches exhibit
signs of degradation rather than aggradation. Sediment supply to the Project is expected to be
transportable since there is little evidence of aggradation within the Site. The shear stress and maximum
particle size entrained were calculated and compared with the sub -pavement and pavement/active riffle
samples collected from the existing reaches as shown in Appendix C. Particles will be entrained near the
riffle d50 and d84 during a bankfull flow event. This analysis provides evidence that the stresses predicted
for the design channels will be within the range of stable values calculated for similar stream systems. The
full sediment transport analysis is provided in Appendix C along with the sub -pavement and pavement
sample results.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 34

® §ƒt/ \ // / \f,3d/� )
/
] _ i 'Zr \ 5 7 \ \ a k / \ / / \ k / {
- 6 t E - S - _ _ _
� \ e @ � ` 0. \ c L - — fu _ e
E\ a a c; E c c% 3%_ %) 7 §`\ c ®/ E/ 7 2
2/ k/ A �� d 2/ ] 2±]± f± 2«)\ m y& k# f# f 7

6.4 Reference Sites
6.4.1 Reference Streams
The rural Piedmont regional curve (Harman, 1999) was used to verify bankfull discharge and area on
project streams. However, the dataset used to create the regional curve only contains two sites with
drainage areas less than 2 square miles. Additionally, data collected in Surry County indicates that the
rural Piedmont regional curve may overestimate bankfull dimensions for sites with drainage areas less
than 10 square miles.
Rather than relying on a single reference reach for design criteria, the design criteria applied to the Project
are based on surveys of multiple reference reaches conducted in the past, two new reference reach sites
(described below), published reference reach data, and design criteria and monitoring data from past
successful restoration projects performed throughout the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Reference
data compiled and presented by Lowther (2008) for similar stream types, drainage areas, and slopes
within the Piedmont of North Carolina were reviewed to evaluate appropriate ranges of sinuosity and
pattern data. Lowther evaluated 19 reference reach streams across the Piedmont of North Carolina — our
assessment only focused on the streams in the western portion of the presented data set that were closest
to the project site. Because the ranges provided by this analysis were quite wide, EPR evaluated this
reference information against past completed stream restoration projects that have performed well and
have been tested by significant storm events.
For the smaller streams on the project site, two potential reference sites were located, both of which are
on private property and require permission to access. The first site, UT to Paul's Creek, has a drainage
area of 0.14 square miles and is located northwest of Mount Airy. The site had consistent bankfull
indicators throughout the reach but was impacted by a gravel road running down the hillslope to a
neighboring agricultural field. Rapid methods were used to collect a riffle cross-section and the difference
between water surface and bankfull features to provide a small drainage area point to the regional curve
data. The second site, UT to Little Fisher River, has a drainage area of 0.02 square miles and is located
southwest of Mount Airy.
The UT to Little Fisher River reference site was surveyed in detail and was separated into two reaches and
EPR collected longitudinal profiles and cross sections within both reaches. While there was flowing water
in both reaches, the two reaches are separated by a dry section of channel (14 feet in length) where the
flow was subterranean during both site visits. The upstream reach (riffle 1 and pool 1) was within a
colluvial valley draining to the large Little Fisher River floodplain. The downstream reach (riffle 2) consisted
of 40 feet of a single -thread sandy channel on the Little Fisher River floodplain before a collapsed
pedestrian/ATV crossing disrupts the channel and the flow disperses into a wetland. Geomorphic data are
summarized for both of these reaches below. Reference reach locations can be seen on Figure 1a.

Table 16. Reference Reach Data Comparison
Step -
Stream Type (Rosgen)
pool
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
16.13
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
. 81
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.44
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
'
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
'
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
:
'
1.04
Sinuosity, K
1.3
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0611
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.047
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
Pool -Pool Snacine Ratio. Lns/Wbkf
Note 1: Composite reference reach values and ratios were compared using the stable streams described above.
Note 2: Reference reach data was collected at UT to Fisher, and UT to Paul's Creek respectively.
6.5 Water Quality Treatment Features
There are six areas for S100 and six areas on S200 of active erosion due to overland flow and highway
ditches on 1-40. To stabilize these eroding areas, water quality treatment features are proposed in the
form of floodplain inceptors, berms and matted grass swales to dissipate energy and gradually step-down
to the stable design streams.
6.6 Vegetation Plan
Riparian buffers will be established or preserved a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks
along each of the Project reaches, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation
easement. Many of the proposed riparian buffer widths within the conservation easement are greater
than 50 feet along one or both streambanks to provide additional functional uplift potential.
Proposed plantings will be conducted using native tree species seedlings. Proposed plantings will consist
of bare root vegetation and will be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. This planting
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 37

density has proven successful with the reforestation of past mitigation projects, based on current USACE
regulatory guidelines requiring 210 trees at Year 7.
The proposed plant selection will help to establish an appropriate natural vegetation community based
on reference conditions and water quality goals. Schafale's (2012) Natural Communities of North Carolina,
as well as existing mature species identified throughout the Project area, were referenced during the
development of riparian buffer planting plan for the Project site. The closest approximation natural
communities are Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest on the narrow stream floodplains and Mixed-
Mesic Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) on adjacent side slopes. Species proposed for revegetation
planting are presented in Table 17. Riparian wetlands are generally too small to necessitate a separate
community designation.
Table 17. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings
Betula nigra
River birch
FACW
10%
Fraxinus
Green ash
FACW
4%
4%
pennsylvanica
Platanus
American
occidentalis
sycamore
FACW
15%
15%
Ulmus
American elm
FACW
5%
americana
Quercus
Swamp
michauxii
chestnut oak
FACW
16%
10%
Quercus alba
White oak
FACU
20%
6%
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
FAC
15%
Quercus nigra
Water oak
FAC
15%
Shagbark
Carya ovata
Hickory
FACU
15%
Diospyros Persimmon FAC 10% 5%
virginiana
Liriodendron Tulip poplar FACU 10% 10%
tulipifera
Alnus serrulata Tag alder OBL 10%
Asimina triloba Pawpaw FAC 5%
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of
planting. Species substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior
to the procurement of seeding stock. A red -line table will be provided in the As -Built report
document.
6.6.1 Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between November 15th
and March 30t". The final planting zone limits may be modified based on these observations and
comparisons, and the final selection of the location of the planted species will be matched according to
the species wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 38

Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings: Where black willow (Salix nigra) and silky willow (Salix sericea) live
staking is proposed on streambanks, live stakes will typically be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per
1,000 square feet and the stakes will be spaced approximately two to three feet apart in meander bends
and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections, using a triangular spacing pattern along the streambanks,
between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. When bioengineering is proposed, live branch
cutting bundles will be installed at five linear feet per bundle approximately two to three branches thick.
Permanent Seeding: Permanent seed mixtures of native species herbaceous vegetation and temporary
herbaceous vegetation seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the Project site. Temporary
and permanent seeding will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed areas of the Project site during
construction and will conducted with mechanical broadcast spreaders. Table 18 lists the proposed species,
mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The vegetation species proposed for temporary
seeding germinate quickly to swiftly establish vegetative ground cover and thus, short term stability. The
permanent seed mixture proposed is suitable for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent riparian wetland
areas, and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer. Beyond the riparian buffer areas, temporary
and permanent seeding will also be conducted at all other disturbed areas of the Project site that are
susceptible to erosion. If temporary seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be
used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary
seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
Table 18. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding
Scirpus cyperinus
Woolgrass
FACW
10%
2.0
Dichanthelium
FAC
clandestinum
Deer tongue
15%
3.0
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wildrye
FACW
15%
3.0
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
FAC
15%
3.0
Schizachyrium
FACU
Little blue stem
15%
3.0
scopanum
Black-eyed
FACU
Rudbeckia hirta
10%
2.0
susan
Echinacea purpurea
Coneflower
NI
10%
2.0
Juncus effusus Soft rush FAWC 10% 2.0
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding
stock.
Invasive Species: Invasive exotic species vegetation, such as Chinese privet, Kudzu and multiflora rose will
be treated to control their presence, inhibit their spread, and allow planted natural communities to
mature. There are some areas with Japanese stilt grass and fescue present, these areas will be monitored
to make sure the vegetation does not interfere with native plant growth and establishment of the desired
natural community, but are not proposed for treatment throughout the easement. Black walnut species
will be removed during construction as much as possible and will be treated post -construction only where
threating the success of planted vegetation.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 39

6.7 Site Construction Methods
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements
Much of the grading across the Project site will be conducted within the existing riparian corridor. The
restored streams will be excavated within the existing valleys. Suitable fill material will be generated from
new channel excavation and adjacent upland areas and hauled to ditch fill/plugs or stockpile locations as
necessary. Portions of the existing, unstable channels will be partially to completely filled in along their
length using compactable material excavated from construction of the restored channels.
Floodplain grading activities will focus on restoring pre -disturbance valley topography by removing field
crowns, overburden/spoil, and surface drains that were imposed during conversion of the land for
agriculture. In general, floodplain grading activities will be minor, with the primary goal of soil
scarification, creating depressional areas, water quality and habitat features, and microtopographic
crenulations by filling the drainage features at the Project site back to natural ground elevations (Scherrer,
1999). Any excess material not used for ditch plugging or suitable as a soil base for vegetation will be
spread across upland areas outside of the easement boundary and jurisdictional WOTUS. Locations with
depressional areas greater than 14 inches deep will be called out on as -built drawings.
6.7.2 Stream, Wetland and Floodplain Improvement Features
Stream improvement features such as in -stream structures and bioengineering techniques are proposed
for grade control, streambank protection, and improving bedform diversity and habitat. All in -stream
structures will be constructed from materials naturally found in the region such as hardwood trees,
trunks/logs, brush/branches, and gravel stone materials. Whenever possible, existing substrate material
in the abandoned stream channels will be harvested and utilized for the new channel locations.
WLS will also incorporate bioengineering practices, when appropriate, that use biodegradable materials
and fabrics, uncompacted soils, live plant cuttings, and native species vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
Bioengineering treatments will provide initial bank stability that allows for the quick establishment of
deep-rooted vegetation along the newly restored streambanks. Additionally, floodplain improvement
features such as coarse woody debris (CWD) will be installed. This will mimic features like tree throws,
snags, stumps, etc. that are commonly found in natural riparian systems. These floodplain improvement
features will be added to provide habitat and serve as water storage and sediment sinks throughout the
corridor to improve riparian functions (Dooley, 2003).
6.7.3 Construction Feasibility
WLS has field verified that the Project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings, account for only a small percentage of
the proposed total stream reach length within the Project boundary. Existing Project site access points
and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction.
6.7.4 Future Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 40

Land Use Development: There is potential for increased land development around the site in the future
that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.
o Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years, though
development could occur near the site in the foreseeable future. Restoration of the site to
reconnect streams to their floodplains will reduce the likelihood of future degradation from
watershed changes, as increased flows will spread over a wider floodplain. Grade control (in the
form of constructed instream structures and natural bedrock outcrops) present across the
restored site decrease the chances of future channel incision. In anticipation of development
around the conservation easement, breaks in the easement have been placed in areas in
anticipation of future roads and utilities.
Easement Encroachment: There is potential for landowner encroachment into the permanent
conservation easement.
o Methods to Address: WLS has had considerable discussions with the landowner regarding the
project requirements and limitations of easement access and is confident that the landowners
fully understand and will maintain the easement protections. The landowner has also completed
previous DMS restoration projects on other property they own. The easement boundaries will be
clearly marked per requirements. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by WLS or
the long-term steward to remedy any damage and provide any other corrections required by the
IRT. The easement will not allow for it to be subdivided if or when the surrounding area is
developed.
Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring period of
the project.
o Methods to Address: WLS will apply adaptive management techniques as necessary to meet the
site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include replanting, channel damage
repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management activities are significant, additional
monitoring may be required by the IRT.
Beavers: While there was no evidence of beaver activity during recent assessments, there is potential for
beavers to affect the site during the monitoring period of the project.
o Methods to Address: WLS will take steps to trap and remove beaver if they threaten Project
success during the monitoring period.
1-40 Widening: There is some potential for the widening of I-40 along the corridor by the Project which
could affect the conservation easement. At the present time there are no plans to widen I-40; however,
it could potentially happen sometime in the next 15-30 years.
o Methods to Address: WLS set the easement boundaries 25 feet off the current right of way to
account for potential widening of the corridor. NCDOT has been notified of the Project and did
not provide any guidance for easement set -backs or future encroachment. NCDOT will evaluate
potential encroachments if the need arises.
7 Maintenance Plan
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Project will take place at
least twice a year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are
met. These inspections may identify Project components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance is anticipated in the years following Project construction and may include the
following components as described in Table 19.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 41

Table 19. Routine Maintenance Components
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in -stream structures
to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installation of live stakes and
other target vegetation along the Project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and
floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance.
Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic/nuisance invasive plant species will be treated by mechanical
and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring herbicide application
will be performed in accordance with NCDA rules and regulations.
Project Site Project boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
Boundary Project site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard,
post, or other means as allowed by Project conditions and/or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as
needed basis.
Stream Crossing The stream crossing(s) within the Project may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Beaver Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include supplemental
Management planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management will be implemented
using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the recorded Conservation
Easement.
Livestock Exclusion Livestock exclusion fencing will be installed outside the Conservation Easement boundary to
Fencing ensure no cattle are allowed within the Project boundary. Routine maintenance of fencing will
the responsibility of the landowner.
8 Performance Standards
The success criteria for the Project will follow the approved performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in this mitigation plan which have been developed in compliance with the USACE
October 2016 Guidance, USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003 and October 2005), and 2008
Compensatory Mitigation Final Rule. Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of seven years
with the final duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving the Project goals and
objectives. Specific success criteria components and evaluation methods are described below.
8.1 Streams
Stream Hydrology: Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. The bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until four bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and FloodplainAccess: Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability
and floodplain access will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR). In addition, observed
bedforms should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s). The BHR
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 42

shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored Project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored
reaches of the channel where BHRs were corrected through design and construction.
Stream Horizontal Stability: Cross -sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There
should be little change expected in as -built restoration cross -sections. If measurable changes do occur, they
should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable condition
(e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation
establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross -sections should fall within
the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. The bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio will not change more than 10% from baseline conditions at any riffle cross-section
during the monitoring period.
Streambed Material Condition and Stability: After construction, there should be minimal change in the
particle size distribution of the streambed materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions
and anticipated upstream sediment supply. Since the stream substrate and supply is predominantly fine
particles (sand), significant changes in particle size distribution and excess channel aggradation are not
expected.
Jurisdictional Stream Flow: The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and
intermittent streams must exhibit minimum 30 days of continuous flow for some portion of the year during
a year with normal rainfall conditions. Stream flow will be monitored and assessed annually during the
monitoring period.
Photo Documentation: Photographs should illustrate the Project's vegetation and morphological stability
on an annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the
banks. Stream crossing photos should show the crossings stability. Longitudinal photos should indicate
the absence of persistent mid -channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain
stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools
on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
8.2 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the Project during the intermediate monitoring years will be based on
the survival of at least 320 stems per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period; and at least 260
stems per acre that must average seven feet in height at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. The
final vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of no less than 210, stems per acre
that must average 10 feet in height in Year 7 of monitoring. To be counted towards success criteria the
stems must be 2 year old trees, this includes replanted and volunteer trees also on the planting list. In
addition, planted trees in each vegetation plot must average 7 feet in height after MY5 and 10 ft in height
at MY7 before close out.
8.3 Invasive Species
WLS will treat invasive species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case
by -case basis. Common invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet, kudzu, and multiflora rose will
be removed to allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Invasive
species vegetation will be treated by approved mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any control
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 43

methods requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. If necessary, these removal treatments (i.e., cutting and/or
spraying) will continue until the corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or
meeting the standard monitoring requirement.
9 Monitoring Plan
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built report
documenting the mitigation activities will be developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and
monitoring device installation at the restored Project. In addition, a period of at least six months will
separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first -year monitoring measurements. The baseline
monitoring document and as -built monitoring report will include all information required by the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, issued in April 2003 and USACE Guidance for Compensatory Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District dated October 2016.
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to IRT by December 315Y of each monitoring year during which required monitoring is
conducted. Project success criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or
monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met. The following subsections summarize
the monitoring methods and linkage between the goals, parameters, and expected functional lift
outcomes. Figure 10 illustrates the post -construction monitoring feature types and location.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted for all of the Project stream reaches. For reaches that involve a
combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Level I and II) approaches, geomorphic monitoring
methods will be employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Visual monitoring
will be conducted along these reaches as described herein. The monitoring of these Project reaches will
utilize the methods described under visual monitoring.
9.1.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The occurrence of four required bankfull events within the monitoring period, along with floodplain access
by flood flows, will be documented using pressure transducers and/or photography. The pressure
transducers will be installed on the floodplain of the restored channels for monitoring. The pressure
transducers will record the flood stage between monitoring site visits and used to determine if a bankfull
or significant flow event occurred since the previous site visit. Corresponding photographs will be used to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring
site visits. This hydrologic monitoring will help establish that the restoration objectives of restoring
floodplain functions and promoting more natural flood processes are being met.
9.1.2 Geomorphic Monitoring
Pattern: A planimetric survey will be conducted for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions (Monitoring Year 0). The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, bankfull, and top of banks. The plan view
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 44

measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken on newly
constructed meanders during baseline documentation (Monitoring Year 0) only. These measurements will
demonstrate that the restored stream channel pattern provides more stable planform and associated
features than the old channel, which provide improved aquatic habitat and geomorphic function, as per
the restoration objectives.
Dimension: Permanent cross -sections will be installed and surveyed at an approximate rate of one cross-
section per 20 bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of restored stream,
with approximately 50 percent cross -sections located at riffles, and 50 percent located at pools. Each cross-
section will be monumented on both streambanks to establish the exact transect used and to facilitate
repetition each year and easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will occur in years
0 (as -built), 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, and will include measurements of bankfull cross -sectional area (Abkf) at low
bank height, Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey will include
points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water,
and thalweg, if the features are present.
There should be minimal change in as -built cross -sections. Stable cross -sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream conditions has been met. If changes do take
place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in
width -to -depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross -sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pin arrays will not be installed unless
monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross -sections occurring in meander bends or an
increase of greater than 15 percent in cross -sectional area, or when visual monitoring indicates potential
bank instability.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will betaken of both
streambanks at each cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section
monuments/pins will be centered in each of the streambank photographs. The water elevation will be
shown in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the streambank as possible will be included in each
photo. Photographers should attempt to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Profile: A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel immediately after
construction (Monitoring Year 0) to document as -built baseline conditions. The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low
bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the
maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features installed are
consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will not be taken during subsequent
monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are
deemed necessary. Bank height ratios will be measured along the restored reaches using the results of the
longitudinal profile.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 45

9.1.3 Flow Duration Monitoring
Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation: Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted to demonstrate
that the restored stream systems classified as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a minimum of 30
consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall conditions. To
determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given year, precipitation amounts using tallied data
obtained from an on -site rain gauge will be used, location on Figure 10. In the event that there is an error
in the data the Oxford weather station near Claremont, NC, approximately 3.7 miles North of the Project
site, will be used. Data from the station can be obtained from USGS. If a normal year of precipitation does
not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, monitoring of flow conditions at the Project site will
continue until it documents that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times
of the year.
The proposed monitoring of restored intermittent reaches will include the installation of flow devices
(continuous -read pressure transducers) within the thalweg (bottom) of the channel towards the upper one-
third portion of the reach. In addition, photographic documentation using a continuous series of remote
photos over time may be used to subjectively evaluate and document channel flow conditions throughout
the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should indicate the presence of flow within the channel
to illustrate water levels within the pools and riffles. The photographs will be taken from a height of
approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) at the Project site are
documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a plan view map. The devices will be inspected
on a quarterly basis to document surface hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating flow response to
rainfall events and surface runoff throughout the monitoring period.
9.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation -monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored for stem density and height
(vigor) across the Project. The vegetation monitoring plots shall comprise approximately 2% of the planted
portion (approximately 27.7 acres planted) of the Project site with approximately 24 plots established
randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas. The sampling may employ quasi -random plot locations
which may vary upon approval from IRT. Any random plots should comprise no more than 50% of the total
required plots, and the location (GPS coordinates and orientation) will be identified in the monitoring
reports. The size and location of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters (i.e., 10m X 10m or 5m X
20M) for woody tree species and may be adjusted based on site conditions after construction activities
have been completed. No monitoring quadrants will be established within undisturbed wooded
preservation areas, however visual observations will be documented in the annual monitoring reports to
describe any changes to the existing vegetation community.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on diameter, height, species, date planted, and grid location, as
well as a collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Individual planted seedlings
will be marked at planting or monitoring baseline setup so that those stems can be found and identified
consistently each successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be noted and if they are on the
approved planting list and meet success criteria standards, they will be counted towards success criteria
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 46

after being present for two years. Other species not included on the list may be considered by the IRT on
a case -by -case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within the monitoring quadrants will
also be noted, as will any wildlife effects. At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year
0) or after 180 days, species composition, stem density and survival will be evaluated. For each
subsequent year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, and visual
monitoring in years 4 and 6, or until the final success criteria are achieved.
9.3 Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
of all stream reaches will be conducted at least twice per monitoring year with a minimum of five months
in between each site visit throughout the monitoring period. Photographs will be used to visually document
system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank and bed stability, condition of in -
stream structures, channel migration, active headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal browsing, easement boundary encroachments, cattle exclusion fence damage, and the
general condition of pools and riffles. The monitoring activities will document and quantify the visual
assessment throughout the monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be compared to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation (bar
formations) or degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal profile
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) at the Project site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a
plan view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to support the development
of the annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 47

Table 20. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (Le
channel forming
discharge)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area
Widths
Improve Bedform
Diversity
Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
Pressure transducer
stage recorder,
regional curve,
regression equations,
catchment
assessment
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
Crest gauge
Pool to pool spacing,
riffle -pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
longitudinal profile
Cross -sections and
longitudinal profile
surveys, visual
assessment
Tree Veg Plots, visual
assessment (vigor,
density
10 Long -Term Management Plan
Maintain seasonal flow on
intermittent streams for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Maintain average BHRs <_1.2
and ERs >_2.2 and document
out of bank and/or significant
flow events using pressure
transducers or photographs &
crest gauges.
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool -to -pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern and vertical
profile values.
Within planted portions of
the Project site, a minimum
of 320 stems per acre must
be present at year three; a
minimum of 260 stems per
acre must be present at year
five; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre must be
present at year seven.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.
Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
flow events.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
The Project will be protected in perpetuity by a recorded conservation easement. The conservation
easement will allow for annual monitoring and maintenance of the Project during the monitoring phase.
Upon final site approval and project closeout, the Project stewardship will be transferred to an approved
long-term stewardship program. WLS has partnered with Unique Places To Save (UP2Save) as the long-
term steward for the Project site (See Appendix D for conservation easement and engagement letter).
Unique Places To Save
Attn: Michael Sisco
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
803-553-1644
info(@uniqueplacestosave.org
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 48

This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will
conduct periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement are upheld. Any endowment funds for the conservation easement and deed restrictions shall
be negotiated prior to transfer to the responsible party. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party
on a yearly basis until such time and endowments are established. The use of funds from the Endowment
Account is governed by NC General Statue GS 113A-232(d) (3). Payments and interest gained by the
endowment fund may be used only for stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable. The management activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the approved UMBI as agreed to by WLS, USACE, and the IRT.
11 Adaptive Management Plan
The Sponsor will conduct post -construction monitoring activities and routine maintenance as needed for
the duration of the monitoring period. The Sponsorwill notifythe USACE immediately if monitoring results
or visual observations demonstrate that performance standards cannot be achieved. In the event the
Project site or a specific component of the Project site fails to achieve the performance standards as
specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the IRT and develop a corrective action plan and
facilitate remedial actions. The Sponsor is responsible for providing any necessary permits to implement
the corrective action plan that describes the extent and nature of the work to be performed. If the USACE
determines that the Bank is not meeting performance standards, or the Sponsor is not complying with the
terms of the instrument, the USACE may take appropriate actions, including but not limited to: holding
credit sales, utilizing financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will take place at least
twice a year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction.
12 Financial Assurances
CONFIDENTIAL
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of casualty insurance or a performance bond
that is acceptable to the USACE and sufficient to assure successful completion of all mitigation bank
activities, reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to the approved Mitigation
Plan and/or UMBI. The insurance policy or performance bond will be submitted for review and approval
by the USACE. The financial assurance will cover the cost estimates for providing the mitigation bank
activities such as site mobilization and construction, annual monitoring, and reporting as outlined in Table
21 and broken out by annual cost below. There will be a financial assurance for the construction phase in
the amount of $1,300,000 and that financial assurance will be retired following completion of construction
and planting. Then a monitoring financial assurance in the amount of $304,000 will be provided to assure
completion of seven years of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required during the
monitoring period.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 49

Table 21. Financial Assurances
Site Earthwork, Amenities, & Planting $1,300,000
Monitoring Activities and $160,000
Annual Reports through 7 years
Land Management and Routine Maintenance $40,000
Contingency / Remedial Action $104,000
The annual monitoring costs for Table 21 are itemized below and each item includes direct costs.
Annual Monitoring Costs
Gauge downloads/maintenance
Vegetation Plot Measurements (22 plots & 3 transects)
On -site Physical Measurements (22 XS)
Data Processing and Analysis
Report Preparation
TOTAL ANNUAL MONITORING COSTS
Annual Maintenance Costs
Invasive Species Vegetation and Annual Maintenance
Price Per Task
$3,500.00
$5,357.00
$7,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$22,857.00
Prira Par Tack
$5,714
The monitoring financial assurance will be reduced following approval of each annual monitoring report
as provided in the financial assurance policy; however monitoring years 1 through 3 will keep the full
contingency amount of $104,000 and the contingency will be reduced starting in monitoring year 4. The
monitoring financial assurance will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the
IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the
obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank
Sponsor are not acceptable. The USACE shall receive notification at least 120 days in advance of any
termination or revocation. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed to receive the endowment
funds and will ensure the mitigation work is successfully completed.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project
Page 50

13 References
Dooley and Maschhoff, 2003. Functional requirements and design parameters for restocking coarse
woody features in restored and enhanced wetlands.
Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise -Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith, and J. Spooner.
2002. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the Piedmont of North
Carolina. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(3): 641-651.
Dunne, T. & Leopold, L.B. (1978): Water in Environmental Planning W.HG. Freeman Co., San Francisco,
818 pp.
Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB). 2013. Recommendations for Estimating Flows to
Maintain Ecological Integrity in Streams and Rivers in North Carolina.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/Recommendations_for_Maintaining_Flows_FINAL/202013
-10-30. pdf
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Griffith, G.E., et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. Reston, VA. United States Geological Survey.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E.
Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2016. Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Spreadsheet User Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function based
framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards and
standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington D.C. EPS 843-B-12-005.
Leopold, Luna B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
NC Stream Functional Assessment Team, 2015. "NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) User Manual".
Version 2.1, August 2015.
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team, 2010. "NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual". Version 4.1, October 2010.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 2019. "DWR Surface Water Classifications."
Accessed via: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications#DWRPrimaryClassification
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 51

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 2010. "Catawba River Basin wide Water Quality
Plan."
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences
Section, Biological Assessment Branch. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection
and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, v. 5.0.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) 2007 amended 2013. "Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities."
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical
Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District, October 2016, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources;
Final Rule dated April 10, 2009 of the Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 70.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division. A.
Walker, Personal communication, 2015. NC BEHI/NBS rating curve.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
1975. Soil Survey of Catawba County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina (County Listing). Catawba County. 2019.
Wolman, M. G., and Leopold, L. B., 1957, River flood plains; some observations on their formation: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 282-C, pg 22.
Final Mitigation Plan
Starker Mitigation Project Page 52

Strickland, Bev
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 9:55 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Pre -Filing Meeting Request Acknowledgement - Starker Mitigation Site - 20201357
Ver 1
Attachments: DWR Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form.pdf
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources has received the Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form for Starker Mitigation Site that you
submitted on 10/1/2020. The ID number for that project is 20201357, Version 1.
Reviewer Contact Information:
Reviewer: Erin Davis
Email: [e-mail]
Reviewing Office: Central Office - [phone]
You will either be contacted by staff to set up a meeting or notified by email that the 30 calendar day clock has been reached and you
are allowed to submit your application.
This email was automatically generated by Laserfiche workflow. Please do not respond to this email address, as responses are not
monitored.

ID#* 20201357
Version* 1
Regional Office* Central Office - [phone]
Reviewer List* Erin Davis
Pre -Filing Meeting Request submitted 10/1/2020
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name * Catherine Manner
Contact Email Address*
Project Name*
Project Owner*
Project County*
Owner Address:
[e-mail]
Starker Mitigation Site
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Catawba
Street Address
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Address Line 2
aty
Raleigh
Fbstal / Zip Code
27615
Is this a transportation project?* r Yes r No
State / Province / Pbegion
NC
Country
United States
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - I— 401 Water Quality Certification -
Regular Express
f Individual Permit F Modification
r- Shoreline Stabilization
Does this project have an existing project ID#?*
r Yes r No
Do you know the name of the staff member you would like to request a meeting with?
Erin Davis
Please give a brief project description below.

The Starker Mitigation Site (35.5734°,-81.17304°) is located in Catawba
County, North Carolina. The Site is part of the Catawba River Headwaters
Subbasin (HUC 03050101). The proposed site includes two Unnamed
Tributaries to Mull Creek (referred to in this prospectus as S100 and
S200), which drain into Lyle Creek and ultimately Lake Norman. Lyle Creek
is listed as WS-IV because it flows into Lake Norman, a water supply
reservoir, approximately four miles downstream of the confluence of Mull
Creek and Lyle Creek.
The project mitigation goals are to provide numerous water quality and
ecological benefits within the Lyle Creek and Catawba River watersheds.
Major goals for the Catawba River basin, as described in the Catawba
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP; NCEEP, 2007, amended 2013)
include: 1) improved management of stormwater runoff to Crowder and
Catawba creeks, 2) protection of the critical water supply reservoirs in the
region and their immediate riparian zones, and 3) land protection for
important natural and cultural resource sites including the Bunker Hill
bridge over Lyle Creek. The proposed Starker Mitigation Site will restore
aquatic habitats that are currently degraded by cattle access and bank
erosion; improve water quality by excluding cattle; restore riparian buffers;
stabilize streams that are part of a WS-IV watershed; serve to continue
existing water quality initiatives that are on -going in the watershed; and
enhance/restore riparian wetlands by reconnecting the stream to its historic
floodplain.
Please give a couple of dates you are available for a meeting.
Please attach the documentation you would like to have the meeting about.
pdf only
By digitally signing below, I certify that I have read and understood that per the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule the following statements:
• This form completes the requirement of the Pre -Filing Meeting Request in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification
Rule.
• I understand by signing this form that I cannot submit my application until 30 calendar days after this pre -filing
meeting request.
• I also understand that DWR is not required to respond or grant the meeting request.
Your project's thirty -day clock started upon receipt of this application. You will receive notification regarding meeting location
and time if a meeting is necessary. You will receive notification when the thirty -day clock has expired, and you can submit an
application.
Signature
Submittal Date 10/1/2020