20130595 Ver 1_401 Application_20131113

o stem
a cmct
PROGRAM
November 5, 2013
Eric Kulz
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
13 -1) $ R S
Re: Permit Application- Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Burke
County (EEP Full Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Kulz:
Attached for your review are two sets of copies of 401/404 permit application package and
mitigation plans for Upper Silver Creek stream and wetland restoration project in Burke County.
A memo for the permit application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact
me with any questions regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
@��Od
NOV — 7 2013
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package (2 originals)
Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals)
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
Prot", our sta& APA
Rcmk
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Cindy Perry
Lin Xu 19
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
November 5, 2013
�l1r1lI,L It
P'ItiIOGRAM
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a stream and wetland
restoration and enhancement project for Upper Silver Creek Site in Burke County. The
activities associated with this restoration project involve stream restoration related
temporary stream impact. To conduct these activities the EEP must submit a Pre -
construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for
review and approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00 for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from Fund # 2981, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919 - 707 -8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Eric Kulz, DWR
�..���..�,,.G;... .— ..�.f°f ✓1..a�.,�.r:.�'p.1r;... : ��'�..%✓��s�s -4 :1fo�✓: �s.etv+✓ IRCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

o�of W AT�9OG
> 1
o <
13 - o5a5
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification C Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number. 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Option C
2b. County:
Burke
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Morganton
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Ted, Jeanettte, Chad and Cheryl Brackett
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
DB:1916 / PG:134 and D13:634 / PG:928
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d. Street address:
4936 Brackett Lyle Drive
3e. City, state, zip:
Morganton, NC 28655
3f. Telephone no.:
La -
-
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
-
N. �EW R
S
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: State Program
4b. Name:
Tim Baumgartner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
4d. Street address:
217 West Jones St., Stuie 3000A
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC, 27603
4f. Telephone no.:
919 - 707 -8543
4g. Fax no.:
919 - 715 -0710
4h. Email address:
Tim. Baumgartner @ncdenr.gov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) .
5a. Name:
Micky Clemmons
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5c. Street address:
797 Haywood Road, Ste. 201
5d. City, state, zip:
Asheville, NC 28806
5e. Telephone no.:
828 - 350 -1408 Ext. 2002
5f. Fax no.:
828 - 350 -1409
5g. Email address:
MClemmons @mbakercorp.com
Page 2 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1668284620 and 1668275458
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.60979 Longitude: - 81.81962
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c.
Property size:
56.4 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Silver Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
Upper Catawba (HUC 03050101)
3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The Upper Silver Creek Mitigation Project is located in a watershed that is predominantly forested with a considerable
percentage of land also being used for agriculture. Recent site land use includes timber and hay production and managed
pasture for cattle. Past intensive agricultural use of the property has led to channel modification, riparian buffer removal,
wetland conversion, ditching and the introduction of fill material in the floodplain.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3.32
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
4,470
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to restore or enhance 5,129 LF of perennial stream; to restore, enhance, or create 9.6 acres
of Jurisdictional Wetlands along Upper Silver Creek and three of its unnamed tributaries; and to protect the project
reaches, in perpetuity, through the implementation of a permanent conservation easement.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The site will be restored as a North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) full delivery project. The
project involves:
Restoring existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable channel with access to its floodplain.
- Improving in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper pools and areas
of water re- aeration, reducing bank erosion and introducing woody debris into the stream channel to act as in- stream
cover.
- Controling invasive species within the project area.
- Establishing native stream bank and floodplain vegetation protected by a permanent conservation easement to increase
stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, shadethe stream to decrease water temperature, and provide
improved wildlife habitat quality.
- Enhancing and restoring riparian wetlands to help reduce nutrient and pollutant loading from particle settling and
vegetation filtering and uptake.
The channels will be constructed offline, where feasible and pump around systems will be employed where the proposed
channel intercepts the existing channel. Construction equipment to be used include excavators, bull dozers, track trucks,
and dump trucks. No offsite borrow or spoil sites will be needed. Additional information about the project can be found in
the Mitigation Plan.
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ❑ No El Unknown
ro ect (including all nor phases) in the past?
P 1 C 9 P� P )� P
Comments: SAW- 2010 -02157
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made.
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company: Michael Baker
Name (if known): Carmen McIntyre, Matthew Reid, and Chris
Engineering, Inc.
Arrington
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
9/23 - 9/24/2010 & 1/20/2011 - Wetlands and 2/16/10 - Streams
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
Wetland
Enhancement -
W1 ®P ®T
Minor grading / PI
Stream
Bottomland
❑ Yes
® Corps
P = <0.005
Restoration -
Hardwood Forest
® No
® DWQ
T = 1.43
Channel
excavation & fill
W2 ❑ P ®T
Wetland
Enhancement -
Bottomland
❑ Yes
® Corps
T = 0.51
Minor grading
Hardwood Forest
® No
® DWQ
W3 ❑ P ®T
Wetland
Enhancement -
Bottomland
❑ Yes
® Corps
T = 0.03
Minor Grading
Hardwood Forest
®No
®DWQ
W4 []POT
Wetland
Enhancement -
Bottomland
❑ Yes
® Corps
T = 0.24
Minor grading
Hardwood Forest
®No
®DWQ
Wetland
Enhancement -
W5 ®P ®T
Minor grading / PI
Stream
Bottomland
El Yes
®Corps
P = <0.005
Restoration -
Hardwood Forest
® No
® DWQ
T = 0.81
Channel
excavation & fill
Wetland
Enhancement -
W6 ®P ®T
Minor grading / PI
Stream
Bottomland
❑ Yes
® Corps
P = 0.06
Restoration -
Hardwood Forest
® No
® DWQ
T = 0.25
Channel
excavation & fil
2g. Total wetland impacts
P = 0.07
T = 3.27
2h. Comments: Wetlands within the project area have been hydrologically, vegetatively, and geologically impacted by both
anthropogenic and natural sources (e.g. ditching and draining of site wetlands , dredging of adjacent stream, excessive
floodplain deposition fill from dredging, erosion, and agricultural and mining activites, and mowing). Based on the consultant's
best professional judgement, the wetland type that would occur under natural conditions for the project site wetlands would be
Bottomland Hardwood Forested wetlands. See the Mitigation Plan for additional information.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) ) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 SPOT
Priority 1& II
Silver Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
2,643
Restoration
❑ INT
® DWQ
S2 ®P ®T
Priority I
UT1
® PER
® Corps
7 - 8
478
Restoration
❑ INT
® DWQ
S3 ®P ®T
Priority I
UT2
® PER
® Corps
3-4
187
Page 6 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Page 7 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Restoration
❑ INT
® DWQ
S4 ®P ®T
Enhancement I I
UT3
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4 - 5
1,162
S5 ®P ❑ T
Grading & Filling
Jurisdictional ditch
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4
917
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
5,387
3i. Comments: Stream channels within the project area are perennial in nature and have been impacted by both
anthropogenic and natural sources (e.g. channelization, riparian buffer removal, dredge and fill, bank erosion, channel
incision, and lack of aquatic passage at roadside culverts. In addition, a man -made ditchline was created in the left floodplain
to drain wetland features for agriculture. During the on -site delineation this channel was deemed as jurisdictional with
perennial flow. Grading and filling of the jurisdictional ditch will aid in improving hydrologic conditions for wetland
enhancement, restoration, and creation. See the Mitigation Plan for additional information.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
01 ❑ PEI T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑ PEI T
4E Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5L Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact
required?
61 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed impacts are required to restore stream and wetland functions, as described in the Upper Silver Creek Stream
and Wetland Restoration Plan. As the intent of the project is to restore and enhance the overall stream and wetland functional
system, complex design efforts were taken to minimize impacts to the existing channel and wetlands wherever possible. The
design approach was guided by physical characteristics of the valley with consideration of the existing and future hydrologic
and sediment regimes. Reference and prior project information were considered, and stream type was designed with a higher
width -to -depth ratio to allow for natural adjustment (narrowing) with increased bank roughness, and as a way to enhance
coarsening of the bed through deposition of fines and sand on the gentler bank slopes.
Wetland restoration and enhancement approaches are based on detailed soil analyses by a licensed soil scientist, hydrologic
monitoring using rainfall data, and groundwater level monitoring wells, as well as delineation of existing wetlands and other
assessment information collected at the site. Stream and wetland restoration measures will not negatively affect the
hydrology, vegetation, and soils of the existing wetlands but will improve these improve these characteristics by allowing for
better functionality and more natural regimes of baseflow and flood hydrology once the project is completed. In addition these
activities will include the re- establishment of appropriate vegetation communities.
Following initial application of the design criteria, design layout was implemented to work around project constraints including
avoidance of disturbance to wetlands, riparian habitat and large trees, and FEMA regulatory impacts. In addition, layout
included pursuit of ways to maximize habitat value of abandoned channels, reconnect back into the existing channel in
multiple locations to take advantage of shade and create a better opportunity for recolonization of flora and fauna, and run
outside meander bends sufficiently close to existing riparian buffer so as to gain some shading benefit from existing trees.
Construction access routes were carefully selected to try to minimize wetland crossings. All disturbed areas will be planted
with native seed, live stakes, and bare root seedlings to re- establish the native riparian wetland community upon completion of
disturbance.
See the Mitigation Plan for additional information.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. NC
Erosion and Sediment controls will be implemented. Wetland areas will be delineated with orange construction fencing when
possible so that contractors will be able to clearly identify wetland areas and maximize avoidance when feasible. Wetland
mats will be laid down to help minimize impacts to existing wetland areas. Stream bank grading will be conducted from the
right floodplain where possible to avoid compaction of the floodplain wetlands. The construction activities will also be phased
so that the contractor only disturbs as much stream banks as s/he can stabilize by the end of the day. See the Site
Construction section in the Mitigation Plan for additional information.
Page 8 of 14
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
S. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
Page 9 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6h. Comments:
Page 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑Yes El No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project involves work in the stream
corridor only. No work will be performed outside the stream corridor and no impervious area will be added, therefore this
section is not applicable.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
N/A
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other.
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other..
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 11 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state/local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
El Yes No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream restoration project that includes a conservation easement over the entire project area. The easement is
being held by the State of North Carolina and restricts any future development of the site.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

S. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
®Yes El No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
El Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Baker reviewed both the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) lists of
rare and protected animal and plant species and found that eight federally listed species are known to occur in Burke
County: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus ), Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Spreading Avens (Geum radiatum),
Dwarf- flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), Mountain Golden- heather (Hudsonia montana), Small Whorled Pogonia
(Isotria medeoloides), Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helleri), and White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum). It was
determined that suitable habitat was not present for any of the eight species listed for Burke County. A letter was
submitted to the USFWS August 13, 2010 requesting comments in response to any adverse affect the project may have
on federally listed threatened and endangered species. An email was received from USFWS on 11/09/2010 stating that
they did not have any comments at this time.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
A review of surface water classifications designated by North Carolina Department of Water Quality and correspondence
with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission indicated no areas of essential fish habitat within the project limits.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Correspondence with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that SHPO had reviewed
the proposed restoration project area and was not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project.
At the request of SHPO, an archaeological review of the site was conducted. During the course of the survey, no
archaelogical sites were located within the project area. Upon recommendation from the archaeological consultant, no
additional investigations were needed. On 11/10/2010, SHPO concurred with the findings of the consultant.
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No`
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: A Hydraulic Analysis was resulting in a "No-Rise/No-impact"
certification. The project will require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) following construction in order to document
changes (reductions) to Base Flood Elevations (BFEs).
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? The NC EEP Floodplain Checklist was provided to the
Burke County Floodplain Manager along with the Hydraulic Analysis report. The County agreed with the submitted
analysis.
Tim Baumgartner
l 3
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
a ature
Date
signat4is r an a orization letter from the applicant
is rovid
Page 14 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version