20201095 Ver 1_Buffer Plan Final_20220629

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20201095
Version* 1
Select Reviewer: *
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 06/29/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/29/2022
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: *
Andrea Eckardt
Project Information
ID#:*
20201095
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address: *
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
DMS • Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site - Stream & Buffer
Alexander
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload:
Signature
............................................
Print Name: *
Signature:*
Double Rock Buffer Plan Final.pdf
Existing Version
17.13MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Andrea Eckardt

BUFFER MITIGATION
June 2022
DOUBLE ROCK MITIGATION BANK PARCEL
Alexander County, NC
DWR Project Number 2020-1095(v1)
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050101
PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
E NOME ERI NG
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

ktww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
June 27, 2022
Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620
RE: DWR Draft Buffer Mitigation Plan Comments
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel (DWR # 2020-1095v1)
Alexander County, NC
Dear Ms. Merritt:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Water Resources (DWR) comments
dated May 16, 2022 for the Draft Buffer Mitigation Plan for the Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel.
The DWR comments are listed below in bold, while Wildlands' responses are noted in italic lettering.
1. Project Number is 2020-1095(v1)
Report has been updated.
2. These photos are dated April 2021. Provide photos of riparian conditions that are dated more
closely to when the Buffer Plan was submitted to DWR.
The photolog has been updated with photos from 512412022.
3. Plan sheet 3.1 only shows that Permanent Seeding will be used in disturbed areas. However,
as correctly addressed in section 4.1 of the Buffer Plan, it should be sitewide if there are non -
disturbed areas, but areas that are bare and have no vegetation. Explain.
While not included in the permanent seeding plan, any areas that are bare and have no
vegetation will also be seeded on an as needed basis during construction.
4. This document represents a Buffer Mitigation Plan that is attached to a Stream Mitigation
Plan. Remove all references to a "Bank Parcel Development Plan" or "BPDP" and change to
"Buffer Mitigation Plan".
All references to BPDP have been removed or changed to Buffer Mitigation Plan.
S. Add that the DWR ID# for the Stream site is 2020-1095
Report has been updated with the DWR Site 1D#.
6. Did Wildlands apply the non-standard buffer tool towards their stream mitigation credits? If
yes, explain and provide a supporting figure.
Riparian buffers meet the required minimum of 50 feet for stream mitigation projects therefore
the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator was not applied to the stream project.
7. Add more information to this section describing the crossings. Included the widths of all
breaks and what activities will be restricted within those crossings. Will they be referenced in
the Conservation Easement? How will the internal crossings be designed such that cattle
passage isn't allowed in riparian areas and streams? Will they be ford crossings or culverted
crossings?
There are two 50' internal easement crossings necessary for maintaining landowner access.
These are not intended to be used for cattle crossings at this time, but per the conservation
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

ktww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
easement document referenced below, livestock would only permitted within the internal breaks
during crossing events if landuse of the property changes in the future.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors
and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as "Internal Crossing" on the plat
entitled "Conservation Easement for Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Double Rick Mitigation
Bank". dated and recorded in Plat Book at Page , Alexander
County Registry in the Conservation Easement Area:
• Motorized vehicle crossing
• Utility crossings to include overhead and buried electrical, water lines and sewer lines
• Cattle crossing so long as fencing across a culvert in the Crossing Area prevents cattle
access to the stream, or a ford crossing is kept gated and cattle are only present in
the stream only under supervision while rotating cattle between pastures.
• Installation, maintenance, or replacement of a new culvert or ford crossing
8. There are three breaks on figures provided with this Plan. However, no details on whether
they are internal is provided. Lastly the crossings shown on figures in this Plan do not
correspond with the crossings or locations provided in the Stream Plan. Explain and update
accordingly.
The figure referenced in this comment was from the Prospectus. The Mitigation Plan figure
depicts the final two internal crossings.
9. Add a note that all activities associated with generating riparian buffer credit will occur at the
same time as the stream mitigation activities and not before. If this is not the intent, explain.
The requested note has been added to Section 4.3.
10. Is fescue going to be treated during parcel preparation? Explain why or why not. If being
treated, explain how.
Please see Section 4.1. Fescue will be sprayed prior to planting to reduce competition with the
newly planted trees.
11. As seen on other sites planted in pasture areas, compacted soils are likely present throughout
the entire area where riparian restoration activities are being performed due to the historical
use of the land as pasture. DWR recommends site wide ripping, not just selected ripping, for
this reason such that planted stems have lower risk of mortality associated with soil
compaction.
Please see Section 4.1. All compacted areas, including pastures, will be ripped prior to planting.
12. Tag Alder is proposed in the wetland areas as shown in the table in Appendix E. DWR is okay
with Tag Alder in the planting list as long as it is only planted within the small wetland areas
indicated on Plan Sheet 3.1. Tag Alder is not an appropriate species to plant site wide on
buffer mitigation sites since they are known for adding nutrients to the soil. Our buffer
protection rules are focus on limiting/removing nutrients to surface waters, including the soils
of riparian zones. Commit to ensuring that Tag Alder will not be planted site wide and will
only be within small wetland areas.
Tag alder will only be planted in small wetland areas and not planted site -wide.
13. Wildlands will be held to this planting list at AsBuilt, which includes planting 13 species. Is this
section accurate in that Wildlands will be planting a minimum of 13 species?
The planting list is a target. Wildlands will plant a minimum of 10 of the species listed,
depending on availability.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

ktww
WILDLANDS
E NCB- W F. E R IN(':
14. Adjust performance standards to include trees and shrubs. Rule allows shrubs to be included
in the 260 stems/acre and is cited as "the final performance standard shall include a minimum
of four native hardwood tree and native shrub species"
The requested edit has been added.
15. Citation of rule should be (o)(4) for the preservation of streams for crediting on this site.
Explain the 25% cap on preservation credits and which stream Wildlands is submitting under
(o)(4) for crediting.
The citation and explanation have been added to the report.
16. Modify language in this section to accommodate shrubs towards performance standards.
Shrubs has been added to the performance standards.
17. Add a note about how the credits comply with the 25% cap for Preservation. Also add a note
that none of the riparian buffer credits generated on this site are convertible or transferrable
to nutrient offset credits.
A note has been added reference compliance with the 25% cap for preservation and also that the
credits are not transferrable to nutrient offset credits.
18. Stream Restoration and stream enhancement were shown in the Stream Plan in Figure 9a.
This legend only shows Stream Restoration. Update accordingly based on what is going to be
proposed for the Stream Mitigation Plan.
The figure has been updated to include the stream mitigation approaches.
19. There are BMPs in the riparian restoration areas shown on figures provided in the Stream
Plan. Since these BMPs are being constructed within riparian areas that are generating
riparian restoration credit for this buffer bank, Wildlands needs to include the BMPs on this
Figure and in corresponding text of the Buffer Plan. Add additional information that describes
how the BMPs will be planted and explain the purposed of these BMPs. DWR cannot ensure
the BMPs meet compliance for the buffer mitigation rule without this additional information
included in this Buffer Plan. IF these BMPs intend to be more like vernal pools that are not
going to be planted then those areas will need to be removed from the Total Creditable Area
column in the Project Credit Table with a specific row dedicated to the square footage of
these BMPs.
The BMP proposed on the site as part of the stream mitigation project is located on the
Matheson Tributary which is outside of the buffer mitigation project area. No buffer credit is
being requested in that area of the conservation easement.
The final Buffer Mitigation Plan has been uploaded to the Laserfiche system. Please contact me at 704-
560-2997 if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Andrea S. Eckardt
Ecological Assessment Team Leader
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel
Catawba River Basin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Project Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Parcel Description.........................................................................................................................
1
2.0
Mitigation Project Summary.............................................................................................................
2
2.1
Project Goals................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2
Existing Parcel Conditions.............................................................................................................
2
2.3
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation................................................................................................ 3
2.4
Watershed Characterization......................................................................................................... 4
2.5
Soils...............................................................................................................................................4
2.6
Existing Vegetative Communities.................................................................................................
5
2.7
Threatened and Endangered Species........................................................................................... 5
2.8
Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................
6
2.9
FEMA Floodplain Compliance.......................................................................................................
6
2.10
Parcel Location, Parcel Constraints, and Access...........................................................................6
2.11
Other Environmental Conditions.................................................................................................. 7
3.0
Site Protection Instrument................................................................................................................
7
4.0
Mitigation Work Plan........................................................................................................................
7
4.1
Parcel Preparation........................................................................................................................
7
4.2
Riparian Area Restoration Activities............................................................................................. 7
4.3
Riparian Area Preservation Activities............................................................................................ 9
4.4
NCDWR As -Built Evaluation..........................................................................................................
9
5.0
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan...................................................................................................9
5.1
Monitoring Protocol......................................................................................................................
9
5.2
Parcel Maintenance......................................................................................................................
9
5.3
Easement Boundaries.................................................................................................................
10
6.0
Financial Assurance and Long -Term Management.........................................................................
10
6.1
Financial Assurances...................................................................................................................
10
6.2
Long-term Management.............................................................................................................
10
7.0
Project Credit Potential...................................................................................................................
10
8.0
References......................................................................................................................................13
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page i June 2022

Tables
Table 1
Ecological and Water Quality Goals
Table 2
Buffer Project Attributes
Table 3
Project Features
Table 4
Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Table 5
Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 6
Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Alexander County, NC
Table 7
Site Protection Instrument
Table 8
Selected Tree Species
Table 9
Double Rock Mitigation Bank — Project Credits
Table 10
Double Rock —Total Area of Buffer Mitigation
FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Service Area Map
Figure 3
Site Map
Figure 4
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 5
Watershed Map
Figure 6
NRCS 1995 Soil Survey Map
Figure 7
Buffer Credits Map
Figure 8
Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Figure 9
Monitoring Components Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Current Land Use Photographs
Appendix B Historical Aerials
Appendix C On Site Determination of Applicability to Catawba Riparian Buffer Rules
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation Letter
Appendix D Regulatory Correspondence
EDR Radius Map Report, Executive Summary
Appendix E Double Rock Mitigation Site Planting Tables and Plans
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page ii June 2022

BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel
Catawba River Basin
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC
1.0 Project Introduction
The Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel ("Parcel") is proposed under the terms and conditions of the
proposed Double Rock and Firestone Buffer Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument ("UMBI"), made
and entered into by Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC acting as Bank Sponsor ("Sponsor") and the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("NCDE(X") Division of Water Resources ("NCDWR"). The
Parcel shall be planned and designed according to the MBI and the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295 which became effective November 1, 2015. The Buffer Mitigation Plan has also
been designed in concurrence with the Wildlands Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Double Rock
Stream Mitigation Site (SAW #2020-01532, DWR ID# 2020-1095)
The Parcel is located in Alexander County in the township of Hiddenite approximately six miles
southeast of Taylorsville (Figure 1). Directions are included on Figure 1. The Parcel creates a protected
riparian area from top of bank out to 100 feet along Elk Shoals Creek and two unnamed tributaries. The
primary purpose of the project is to provide riparian buffer mitigation credits to compensate for
unavoidable impacts in the Catawba River Basin 03050101 Hydrologic Unit Code ("HUC") (Figure 2). The
Parcel is located within the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050101130010 (Elk Shoals Creek) and NCDWR
Subbasin 03-08-32.
1.1 Parcel Description
The Parcel is being proposed to provide riparian buffer mitigation through riparian restoration and
riparian preservation. The Parcel is comprised of two parcels: one that is maintained as an active cattle
farm, and one that is currently wooded but has been managed for both timber and agriculture in the
past. See the Appendix A for photographs of the current site conditions.
The Catawba 01 Basin, as described in the NCDEQ RBRP (September 2010) and the NCDWR Plan (July
2018) watershed planning documents, is mostly forested (62%) with significant areas of agriculture
(17%) and developed land (16%). The benthic community is considered stable, but the lack of habitat
prevents re-establishment of more sensitive benthic communities. The Parcel's receiving watershed, Elk
Shoal Creek, is listed as a priority watershed for protection due to their contribution to the chain of lakes
on the Catawba River and their cumulative downstream effect. The Parcel lies within the Elk Shoals
Creek sub -watershed, largest sub -watershed within the HU, and eventually drains into the Catawba
River, a 303d listed stream approximately 6 miles downstream.
The riparian buffer mitigation project will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the
watershed planning documents by excluding livestock, creating stable stream banks, restoring a forest in
agriculturally maintained buffer areas, and implementing stormwater BMPs. These actions will reduce
fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to Elk Shoal Creek, ultimately to Lookout Shoal Lake and the
Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the Site.
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 1 June 2022

Mitigation Project Summary
2.1 Project Goals
The major goals of the proposed buffer mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Catawba River Basin by restoring the riparian area to create a functional riparian
corridor. Specific enhancements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below in Table 1.
Table 1: Ecological and Water Quality Goals
Goals
Objectives
Nutrient input will be decreased by filtering runoff from the agricultural fields
Decrease nutrient levels.
through restored native vegetation. The off -site nutrient input will also be
absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain areas,
where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation.
Decrease sediment input.
Sediment from off -site sources will be captured by deposition on restored
floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow overland flow velocities.
Reduce fecal coliform
Fecal coliform input will be reduced by restricting cattle from the project
inputs.
streams.
Decrease water
temperature and increase
Planted riparian trees will shade the project features as they mature, reducing
dissolved oxygen
thermal pollution.
concentrations.
Create appropriate
Riparian areas will be restored by treating invasive vegetation and planting
terrestrial habitat.
native vegetation.
Permanently protect the
project Parcel from
A conservation easement will be recorded on the Parcel.
harmful uses.
2.2 Existing Parcel Conditions
The proposed buffer mitigation project includes approximately 19.3 acres of cattle pasture and forested
land on Elk Shoals Creek and two unnamed tributaries (Randall Tributary and Stikeleather Tributary).
The stream mitigation bank also includes three additional unnamed tributaries (Matheson Tributary,
Matheson Tributary A, and Matheson Tributary B) which are not proposed for riparian buffer credit. The
Parcel easement boundary will extend from top of bank to no more than 100 feet. (Figure 3).
Elk Shoals Creek starts offsite and flows southeast, with an established forested buffer for approximately
900 feet, before transitioning to an active cattle pasture for an additional 1,275 feet until the confluence
with Randell Tributary. Randell Tributary starts offsite and flows south through an active cattle pasture
until the confluence with Elk Shoals Creek. Stikeleather Tributary, also starts offsite and flows northeast
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 2 June 2022

through an established forested buffer for approximately 870 feet until the confluence with Elk Shoals
Creek (Figure 2).
A review of historical aerials shows, this area has maintained its rural, farming characteristic over the
last 60 years with only minor changes in land cover (see Appendix B). This consistency in land use within
the project watershed indicates that watershed processes affecting hydrology, sediment supply, and
nutrient and pollutant delivery have not varied widely over time. With a lack of developmental pressure,
watershed processes and stressors from outside the project limits are likely to remain consistent
throughout the implementation, monitoring, and closeout of this project.
Table 2: Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel
Hydrologic Unit Code
03050101130010
River Basin
Catawba River Basin
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.86303 N,-81.10109 W
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
To be recorded
Total Credits
340,352.000 buffer mitigation credits
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Buffer Mitigation Plan Date
June 2022
Initial Planting Date
February 2023
Baseline Report Date
April 2023
MY1 Report Date
December 2023
MY2 Report Date
December 2024
MY3 Report Date
December 2025
MY4 Report Date
December 2026
MY5 Report Date
December 2027
2.3 Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation
On October 14, 2021, NCDWR assessed the stream origin. The official Stream Origin Determination
Letter was issued by NCDWR on October 15, 2021. NCDWR also performed an onsite visit of the project
area to determine viability for buffer mitigation and nutrient offset on December 7, 2021 and issued a
site viability letter on January 5, 2022. All three features assessed were deemed viable by NCDWR to
generate buffer mitigation. There have been no changes to land use in the project area since NCDWR's
2021 site visit. A copy of both the "On -Site Stream Origin Determination for Applicability to Neuse
Riparian Buffer Rules" and the "Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation" letters from NCDWR are included in
Appendix C. A summary is included in Table 3.
Table 3: Project Features
Feature Name
Classification
Buffer Credit Viable
Elk Shoals Creek
Stream
Yes
Stikeleather Tributary
Stream
Yes
Randell Tributary
Stream
Yes
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 3 June 2022

2.4 Watershed Characterization
The Parcel is located within the HUC 03050101130010. The Catawba 01 Basin, as described in the
NCDEQ RBRP (September 2010) and the NCDWR Plan (July 2018) watershed planning documents, is
mostly forested (62%) with significant areas of agriculture (17%), and developed land (16%). The Site lies
within the Elk Shoals Creek sub -watershed, largest sub -watershed within the HU, and eventually drains
into the Catawba River, a 303d listed stream approximately 6 miles downstream. Elk Shoals Creek is
listed as a priority watershed for protection due to its contribution to the chain of lakes on the Catawba
River and the cumulative downstream effect, making it highly desirable for implementing stream
restoration and agricultural BMPs.
The Site topography, as indicated on the Stony Point USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, shows a
moderately sloped valley of Elk Shoals Creek and Randell Tributary to more steeply sloped valleys of
Stikeleather and Matheson Tributaries (Figure 4). Drainage areas for the project reaches (Figure 5) were
delineated using 20-foot contour intervals derived from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping
Program's 2017 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. Land uses draining to the project reaches are
primarily a mix of active crop and hay fields, woodlands, development, and some herbaceous cover. The
watershed areas and current land use are summarized in Table 4, below.
Table 4: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach Name
Mitigation Area
Watershed Area
Land Use
(acres)
(acres)
Randell Trib, Elk
Shoals Creek,
forested (38%), agricultural (41%), grassland
Stikeleather Trib,
19.33
1,379
(5%), shrubland (4%), and some development
Matheson Trib,
(12%)
Matheson Trib A,
& Matheson Trib B
2.5 Soils
The proposed Parcel is mapped by the Catawba County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 5. Randell Trib, Elk Shoals Creek, Stikeleather Trib, Matheson Trib, Matheson Trib A, and
Matheson Trib B are all depicted as streams on the 1995 NRCS Soil Survey provided in Figure 6.
Table 5: Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
ChA — Chewacla loam —
Chewacla loam consists of very deep, nearly level soil located on the
Piedmont flood plains. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is slow.
0-2%slopes
These soils are frequently flooded and somewhat poorly drained.
PaD — Pacolet sandy loam —15-
Pacolet sandy loam consists of very deep, well drained, moderately steep
25% slopes
soil located on Piedmont side slopes. Permeability is moderate, and surface
runoff is rapid.
PcC2 — Pacolet sandy clay loam —
Pacolet sandy clay loam consists of very deep, well drained, strongly
8-15% slopes
sloping soil located on side slopes and ridgetops in the Piedmont.
Permeability is moderate, and surface runoff is medium or rapid.
Source: Alexander County Soil Survey, 1995, USDA-NRCS,
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north—carolina/alexanderNC1995/map04.pdf
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north—carolina/alexanderNC19951alexanderNC1995.pdf
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 4 June 2022

2.6 Existing Vegetative Communities
The project streams on this site flow through both an existing pasture as well as a mature canopied
forest. The two riparian areas differ slightly in their existing vegetation profile.
First, the existing pasture riparian area which encompasses Randell Tributary and the majority of Elk
Shoals Creek, is made up of a mixture of native and invasive streambank shrubs and scattered mature
trees. The main native shrubs include black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and blackhaw
viburnum (Viburnum prunifolium). Invasive shrubs include scattered mature populations of Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinese) and multiflora rose (Rosa muliflora). Scattered mature trees along these
reaches include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), white oak
(Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), black walnut (Juglans nigra), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and river birch (Betula nigra).
Additionally, the subcanopy layer in the more forested sections near the confluence of Randell and Elk
Shoals Creeks consists of mainly ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) and dogwood (Corn us florida). The
herbaceous layer for this area is dominated by common rush (Juncus effucus), yellow root (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and a mixture of pasture grasses.
Second, the existing mature canopy riparian area which includes Matheson Tributary, Stikeleather
Tributary and the upper section of Elk Shoals Creek. This canopy is dominated by oaks, including red oak
(Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), and willow oak (Quercus phellos), as well as tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum). The
subcanopy is dominated by ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Corn us florida), and mulberry
(Morus rubra). The native shrubs in this section include northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin), swamp
azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and blackhaw viburnum (Viburnum
prunifolium). Less mature Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese) populations are also found among the shrub
layer in these sections along with scattered population of multiflora rose (Rosa muliflora).
Of note for the canopy areas, particularly around Mathewson and Stikeleather tributaries, is the
presence of dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) which is listed as a federally threatened
species. Additional information regarding this species can be found in Section 2.7 and Appendix D.
2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands searched the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases for federally listed threatened and
endangered plant and animal species in Alexander County, NC. Currently, there are three species
federally listed for the project area (Table 6). A pedestrian survey conducted on April 14, 2021, identified
suitable summer roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) and suitable habitat for the
dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora). No individual NLEB species individuals were located at
the time of the survey; however, several individuals of dwarf -flowered heartleaf (HENA) were observed
along the existing wooded areas of Stikeleather Tributary and Matheson Tributary.
USACE initiated Section 7 consultation for the HENA on May 5, 2021. A pedestrian field survey was
conducted by Wildlands and USFWS on May 13, 2021 to located and flag individual HENA plants within
the project parcels and delineated the HENA population boundary using a Trimble handheld GPS with
sub -meter accuracy. Upon completion of the 60% site design, a map of the proposed HENA population
impacts was provided to the USFWS on October 18, 2021. No response was received from USFWS within
the 30-day response window; thereby, all ESA Section 7 consultation has been met and USFWS concurs
with the activities described below.
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 5 June 2022

Per our design plans, Wildlands has determined that no individual species within the delineated HENA
populations will be impacted as a result of the Double Rock Mitigation project. Additional information
regarding this species and the USFWS Self -Certification Table can be found in Appendix D.
Table 1: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Alexander County, NC
Species
Federal Status
Habitat
Vertebrate
Threatened
Inhabit open -canopy, herbaceous sedge meadows and fens, wet
Bog turtle (Glyptemys
(Similarity of
cow pastures, and shrub swamps bordered by wooded areas.
muhlenbergii)
Appearance)
Depend on wetland microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking,
hibernation, and shelter.
Northern long-eared bat
Roost in 3" dbh dead and alive trees with exfoliating bark, crevices
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Threatened
or hollows during summer months. Caves or mines during winter
months.
Vascular Plan
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
Acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next
(Hexastylis naniflora)
Threatened
to streams and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines.
2.8 Cultural Resources
One site listed by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation office is located within five miles of the
Site: the Lucas Mansion (SHPO Site ID: AX0001). The NHP Managed Areas reference one area for the
Land Trust for Central North Carolina Easement within five miles of the Site. In addition, there are two
Significant Natural Heritage Areas and three DMS conservations easements within five miles of the Site
According to the research and based on the response from SHPO, no historic resources or natural
heritage areas will be affected by this project. All regulatory communication is in Appendix D.
2.9 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
The Site is represented on the Alexander County Flood Map 3710377700J. Elk Shoals Creek is mapped in
a Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) within the project limits and Randell Tributary is included in
Elk Shoals Creek mapped floodplain. Wildlands has coordinated with the Alexander County floodplain
administrator and has obtained hydraulic modeling for these from the NC Floodplain Mapping Program.
Wildlands is preparing a CLOMR to permit slight onsite rises. A LOMR will be completed after
construction using as -built survey data. The site has been designed so that hydrologic trespass does not
occur.
2.10 Parcel Location, Parcel Constraints, and Access
The Parcel is accessible via Stikeleather Road. Livestock will be fenced out from the conservation
easement. There are two 50' internal easement crossings necessary for maintaining landowner access.
These are not intended to be used for cattle crossings at this time, but per the proposed conservation
easement document, livestock would only permitted within the internal breaks during crossing events if
landuse of the property changes in the future. There is one additional external break that extends only
partially across the easement corridor, so a continuous easement is maintained, and exists only for well
maintenance and will be gated. There are no other parcel constraints.
The Parcel can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long-term stewardship from Stikeleather
Road.
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
kiw HUC 03050101 Page 6 June 2022

2.11 Other Environmental Conditions
An EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered for the Parcel through Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. on July 17, 2019. Neither the target property nor the adjacent properties were listed in
any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental databases searched by EDR. There were no known or
potentially hazardous waste sites identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area. The
Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in Appendix D.
Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 7. This area totals 19.33 acres. The deed book and page number
listed are for the agreements on an option to purchase a conservation easement. A conservation
easement will be recorded on the parcels and includes streams being restored along with their
corresponding riparian buffers.
Table 7: Site Protection Instrument
Site
Deed Book
Acreage
Landowner
PIN
County
Protection
and Page
to be
Instrument
Number
Protected
Glenn M. Matheson and Vickie S.
D.B. 517,
3777-85-1606
9.528
Matheson
Alexander
Conservation
Easement
pG.683
David H. Randell, Trustee of the
D.B. 335,
David H. Randell Declaration of
3777-95-2860
9.805
PG. 1981
Trust
1.0 Mitigation Work Plan
The project will restore agriculturally impacted land along Elk Shoals Creek and Randell Trib and
preserve land along Elk Shoals Creek, Randell Trib and Stikeleather Trib on the parcel to a protected
riparian corridor, improving the ecological function of the area. Figure 7 illustrates the conceptual design
for the Parcel. Figure 8 further depicts the riparian buffer zones for the Parcel.
4.1 Parcel Preparation
A good portion of the land within 200 feet from top of bank of Elk Shoals Creek and Randell Trib has
been cleared and maintained for active cattle pastures. Areas slated for riparian restoration that are not
impacted by the construction of the stream mitigation project will require little site preparation
including select herbicide treatments or limited mechanical clearing to removed undesirable
underbrush, invasive species, and fescue (Festuca spp.). Other areas of the easement will be graded in
accordance with the IRT approved stream mitigation plan. Any haul roads or other areas of compacted
soil including areas compacted by cattle within the easement boundary will be ripped prior to planting.
The specifics of the stream restoration project including the grading plan, are included in the Double
Rock Stream Mitigation Plan. A 401 permit will be required for all stream restoration work and will be
obtained before any work in the waters begins.
4.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
Riparian area restoration will involve planting appropriate native tree and shrub species along the
riparian corridor. Vegetation management and herbicide applications may be needed over the first few
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 7 June 2022

years of tree establishment in the riparian restoration areas to prevent undesirable species from out -
competing planted native vegetation. Tree species planted across the riparian areas of the Parcel will
include a mixture of the species listed in the Double Rock Mitigation Site Planting Tables, located in
Appendix E. The primary species will include the species listed in Table 8. There are small areas of
existing wetlands that have a slightly different planting list. The planting plan included in Appendix E
depicts the wetland areas and the associated species list as well. All activities associated with generating
riparian buffer credit will occur at the same time as the stream mitigation activities and not before.
Table 8: Selected Tree Species
Species
Common Name
Density
Forest Strata
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
15%
Canopy
Betula nigra
River Birch
15%
Canopy
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
10%
Canopy
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
10%
Canopy
Viburnmum prunifolium
Blackhaw Viburnum
5%
Shrub
Corn us florida
Flowering Dogwood
5%
Sub -canopy
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
5%
Sub -canopy
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
5%
Canopy
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
5%
Canopy
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm
10%
Canopy
Xanthorhiza simplicissima
Yellow Root
5%
Shrub
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
5%
Canopy
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
5%
Shrub
Trees and shrubs will be spaced at 6'X12' upon planting, which is equivalent to a stem density of 521
stems per acre and is sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in the Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 of 260 planted trees and shrubs per acre at the end of five years. Stems will be well mixed prior to
planting to ensure diversity of bare root species across the Parcel. Due to the nature of random mixing,
some stems of the same species might be planted together in some areas. No one species will be greater
than 50% of the established stems. The final performance standard shall include a minimum of four
native hardwood tree and native shrub species. A regionally appropriate seed mix included in Appendix
D will also be applied to provide temporary and permanent ground cover for soil stabilization and
reduction of sediment loss during rain events in areas without existing herbaceous cover. The proposed
planting area for the buffer bank includes the areas identified as buffer restoration on Figure 7. The
planting area for the stream mitigation project is included in Appendix E. Planting is scheduled for
February 2023.
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
kiw HUC 03050101 Page 8 June 2022

4.3 Riparian Area Preservation Activities
There will be no parcel preparation work done in the riparian preservation areas under 15A NCAC 02B
.0295(o)(4) except as required in the stream mitigation plan. The area of preservation credit within the
buffer mitigation site is equal to 25% of the total area of buffer mitigation, as shown in Table 8. The
preservation area will be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement.
4.4 NCDWR As -Built Evaluation
Within 30 calendar days after completing the establishment of the buffer mitigation areas, the Sponsor
will submit written notification to NCDWR documenting that all buffer mitigation activities have been
completed. Failure to submit written notification within 30 days may result in a modified credit release
schedule or a delay in the issuance of credit releases.
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan
5.1 Monitoring Protocol
Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the riparian restoration areas to
measure the survival of the planted trees and shrubs. The plots will be randomly placed throughout the
planted riparian areas. A total of 6 plots (5 permanent and 1 mobile) will be established within
restoration areas and will be randomly placed such that the plots are representative of the buffer
mitigation credit areas (Figure 9). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters.
Vegetation assessments will be conducted and follow the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2
Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008). A reference photo will be taken from the southwestern corner
of each of the 5 permanent plots and looking to the north for the 1 mobile plot. Overview photos will be
taken each monitoring year and provided in the annual reports. All planted stems will be marked with
flagging tape and recorded.
The first annual monitoring activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, at least five
months after planting has been completed and no earlier than the fall season. Species composition,
height, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot. The total number of volunteer
woody stems will also be documented and reported. The measure of vegetative success for the Parcel
will be the survival of at least four native hardwood tree species, where no one species is greater than
50% of the established planted stems, and an established density of at least 260 planted trees and
shrubs per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. The final performance standard shall include a
minimum of four native hardwood tree and shrub species. Appropriate and desirable native volunteer
species may be included in the Parcel's density to meet the performance standards with written NCDWR
approval.
The Sponsor shall submit the annual monitoring report to NCDWR by December 315T of each year for five
consecutive years and will follow the terms and conditions of the MBI.
5.2 Parcel Maintenance
If the Parcel or a specific component of the Parcel fails to achieve the success criteria outlined in Section
5.1, adaptive measures will be developed and/or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented.
Maintenance will be performed to correct any identified problems on the Parcel that have a high
likelihood of affecting project success. Such items include, but are not limited to, fire, flooding, drought,
or insects that cause excess tree mortality. Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the
success criteria and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria. A rigorous herbicide
schedule may need to be implemented in the first few years of tree establishment in the restoration
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 9 June 2022

areas to prevent establishment of invasive species that may out -compete the planted native vegetation.
The only herbicides used on the Parcel will be aquatic approved herbicides that will be applied in
accordance with North Carolina Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
The easement boundary will be checked annually as part of monitoring activities. Easement boundary
conditions as well as any maintenance performed will be reported in the annual monitoring reports to
NCDWR.
5.3 Easement Boundaries
Easement boundaries will be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Parcel and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by marker, post, tree -blazing, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement prior to the NCDWR onsite As -Built evaluation
for Task 2 credit release. Boundary markers that have been disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis. Contact information for the conservation easement
holder will be included on easement markers.
Financial Assurance and Long -Term Management
6.1 Financial Assurances
Following approval of the Double Rock Mitigation Plan, the Sponsor shall provide a Performance Bond
from a surety that is rated no less than an "A-" as rated by A.M. Best. The Performance Bond amount
shall be 100% of the estimated cost for implementation of the project as described in the Buffer
Mitigation Plan, but not less than $150,000.00. In lieu of posting the performance bond, the Sponsor
may elect to construct the project prior to the first credit release. In that case no performance bond will
be necessary.
After completion of the restoration/construction, a separate Performance/Maintenance Bond will be
secured for 100% of the estimated cost to implement the monitoring and maintenance plan but not less
than $100,000.00. The Performance/Maintenance Bond shall apply at the inception of the monitoring
period for a term of one year and be extended annually for a minimum of five years. Upon NCDWR
approval, this may be lowered each year based on the adjusted cost to complete the monitoring.
Performance bonds for monitoring shall be renewed at least annually to cover the next years monitoring
period, with confirmation of renewal provided to NCDWR with each annual monitoring report when
applicable. NCDWR reserves the right to alter the credit release schedule if monitoring reports are
submitted without proof of bond renewals when applicable.
6.2 Long-term Management
The Parcel will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety by Unique Places to Save, an
approved NCDWR long term stewardship, and will be managed under the terms detailed in an approved
NCDWR conservation easement. The long-term manager will be responsible for periodic inspection of
the Parcel to ensure that the restrictions documented in the recorded easement are upheld in
perpetuity.
Project Credit Potential
Of the 19.33 acres protected under the conservation easement, 7.3 acres are proposed for riparian
restoration and 2.4 acres are proposed for preservation credits. The area of preservation credit within
the buffer mitigation site equals 25% of the total area of buffer mitigation, as shown in Table 8. The
mitigation credit calculations were derived from Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 10 June 2022

uplift. The management objectives, mitigation type, and proposed amount of riparian buffer credits are
presented in Tables 8 and 9 below. There will be one credit ledger for the project: Riparian Buffer
Credits. The riparian buffer credits on the Parcel are not convertible or transferrable to nutrient offset
credits.
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
kiw HUC 03050101 Page 11 June 2022

No
�_
00
)$/
e
-
y
§ \0 `
>>
10
\}uU
\f
\\\
;
;®<<
])°
/
»
a
a
oq
—
2
!§}
)-
k\
�
\
}�u
<</��
®
/)I
§
/\
�
r
k --\
k k
- \
!L!
!
§)
§
°
�}
\))���
\�
\ z z
/
a
§
;
co7
/
/§d,
0
(;
§
}
C
}
§
)
,
!
ƒ
®
b
cc
o�
§
\
CC
§
)
/
\
0
0 co
Z
CC§
k
§
f
CO
#
G_
5
;
-CC
m
)
{
i
ƒ
) t
�a
!o
t

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey of Alexander County.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Upper Catawba River Basin Plan 2009
(Amended July 2018).
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Catawba_River_Basin/20
18_Upper_Catawba_RBRP.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2019. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Alexander County, NC. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Federal Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of
Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District.
October 24, 2016.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2006. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Alexander County, North Carolina.
https:Hwebsoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).
Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species for
project site. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac.
Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel Buffer Mitigation Plan
HUC 03050101 Page 13 June 2022

Figures

U)
N '� o
++ E 0 C E O
0 U) a � 4- to � a
z �C_ a-0= a)o-a
0 Ln - O
x s=H. 00
fo
_
Fc Vcs+•�
a) � N N
OLL
_-
mar
e
OLUF a a-
a 2)
' _
L
ra a)
V
O -0 N +�+
`a
o
_
p
2 C
0
yps 7j3
�'�QNb
p 0
v p
U) fo
ye
°' Lc6
LaF�
L11 -0 0 0 >
$
i1+Gkkberry RAga
.1 eel,,
_ a.
> 0 a) 0 .L
�94 a
p a) to
n
x
L 0, 7 L
4 o
y
y
Y
'..
�# w
0 L 4--r L M 4--r
N
-
4
A =
•
t
�1-:
4 G �0. S
spa
WE
Ycr �
a
c
PH 1°4
t
o
x �x is
r �
a"a1
cc,
dd� '
j c m,,"
jar.
P
!p
5�ce
Rd
i�
e°
laian°
-
�
r'
-ae Dd' Y k mil ❑x fta
f
- - - --
- -
I
1
1
i
I
I
�
Ql
0
(O
LLJ
VO
u
Qa Wa'f9'de
0
++
f6
1
u
L
r
d� °y
210
c
��
❑��
a
0
V
ti
pb' 4]ufy,7
a a) U
�
13
N o
m o o c
00
u m q0 O C�
> do a-' i
+' •c v
L u CO 0
0 L x
ao = a) v
LL Q
E E
0 3 f6 Q
3
+-
nz
U
U
LO
nCIO ()
F�1 ?
LLt
LLI
z
1� V
�z
U-I
r
l�

Q -le N U
(6 C a-' z
cn O
m 0 O
Ln
O a+ O
m Cb0 O U
a+
+' N
(1) c
cn M o COx
N N v
a� 2 Q
= E
LZ O -0
� 0 3
3 +,
U
to
U
O
O
F� Q�
W
W
z
40
Qz
+4 w
H
l�

Q w
F-I

Stony Point USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
I '
I
►� is ►
► 'tr
i
Conservation Easement
W I L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet
kt� E N G INFER I N G
l i i i l
Figure 4 USGS Topographic Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

Randell Trib
774 ac
Conservation Easement
Q Project Location
Elk Shoals Creek Watershed
Subwatershed
Existing Streams
Non -Project Streams
Topographic Contours (20')
Randell Trib
774 ac
i%
I
��♦� El Shoals Creek `
1379 ac i
i
� 1
i
i
i
i _ .
Stikeleather Trib
82 ac
Matheson Trib
25 ac
Matheson Trib B
ar
Matheson
Trib A 13 ac
w1ftWILDLANDS 0 250 500 Feet
E N G IN E E R IN G
I I I I
nn
_1M
Figure 5 Watershed Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

• 1 L i Conservation Easement
1 �
_ PCC2
• Ce-8 2
' - I
' P8�
-.I. . r-z -
r
1995 NRCS Soil Survey of Alexander County - Sheet 4NiL
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 6 1995 Soil Survey Map
0 200 400 Feet Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
I i i i I Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

c3

1
i
r
I
I
I
I �
Y
IJj
I
IL --
I
I
I
I 1
I
I
�I 1
I
v
0
a
0
N
O
I�

y

Appendix A

CURRENT LAND USE PHOTOGRAPHS
Double Rock Mitigation Site

Elk Shoals Creek
9 4 P
Elk Shoals Creek (5/24/2022)
Randell Trib (5/24/2022)
Randell Trib
Stikeleather Trib
Stikeleather Trib / Elk Shoals Confluence (0512412022)
Elk Shoals Creek (5/24/2022)
Randell Trib (5/24/2022)
Stikeleather Trib (5/24/2022)
Ik Double Rock Mitigation Site
HUC 03050101

Appendix B

Double Rock
Stikeleather Road
Hiddenite, NC 28636
Inquiry Number: 5719068.5
July 17, 2019
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
CEDR � Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 07/17/19
Site Name: Client Name:
Double Rock
Stikeleather Road
Hiddenite, NC 28636
EDR Inquiry # 5719068.5
Wildlands Eng, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Contact: Andrea Eckardt
CEDW
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
Search Results:
Year
Scale
Details
Source
2016
1"=500'
Flight Year: 2016
USDA/NAIP
2012
1"=500'
Flight Year: 2012
USDA/NAIP
2009
1"=500'
Flight Year: 2009
USDA/NAIP
2006
1"=500'
Flight Year: 2006
USDA/NAIP
1993
1"=500'
Acquisition Date: January 30, 1993
USGS/DOQQ
1983
1"=500'
Flight Date: March 03, 1983
USGS
1976
1"=500'
Flight Date: February 12, 1976
USGS
1961
1"=500'
Flight Date: August 17, 1961
USGS
1950
1"=500'
Flight Date: November 14, 1950
USGS
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot
be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE
OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any
analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to
provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are
the property of their respective owners.
5719068 - 5 page 2

,r
1
INQUIRY k 5719068.5 /�
YEAR: 2016 1
= 500' EDR
4
JG:17

I
ff I
7 Tz;
47
lK I

w
INQUIRY #: 5719068.5 /�
YEAR: 2009 `jI Jr'
. N
= 500' (rEDR'

;t00%.vw
I NOU I RY #: 5719068.5
YEAR: 2006
. = 500' (rEDR

:
400
At-
i
.
l.�$":
."s. �•.;yam �-.- i�•.

ti
I

f
r
pe
L
a
L'pr -v--F'K
INQUIRY #: 5719068.5 I=DRYEAR: 1976 iN
�• = 500'

.40

INQUIRY #: 5719068.5
YEAR: 1950
6rEDR
500'

Appendix C

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
October 15, 2021
Project 20-1095
Alexander County
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering Inc.
[e-mail]
Subject: Determination for Applicability to the Catawba Riparian Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0614
Project Name: Double Rock Mitigation Site
Address: Stikeleather Rd., Hiddenite, Alexander County
Location: Lat., Long: 35.865093,-81.094311
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
On October 14, 2021, staff of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) conducted an on -site review
of features located on the Double Rock Bank Parcel at the request of Wildlands Engineering Inc.
to determine the applicability of features on the site to the Catawba Riparian Buffer Rule.
The enclosed map(s) depict the feature(s) evaluated and this information is also summarized in
the table below. Streams were evaluated for being ephemeral, at least intermittent, and for
subjectivity to the Catawba Riparian Buffer Rule. Streams that are considered "Subject" have
been located on the most recently published NRCS Soil Survey of Catawba County and/or the
most recent copy of the USGS Topographic (at 1:24,000 scale) map(s), have been located on the
ground at the site, and possess characteristics that qualify them to be at least intermittent
streams. Features that are considered "Not Subject" have been determined to not be at least
intermittent, not present on the property, or not depicted on the required maps.
This determination only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules within the
proposed easement and does not approve any activity within buffers or within waters of
the state. There may be other streams or features located on the property that appear or
do not appear on the maps referenced above. Any of the features on the site may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and subject to the
Clean Water Act.
The following table addresses the features observed and rated during the DWR site visit.
NOR CFRour � v
fl.p.d mdFmimnm 1p,Wiry !'
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Mooresville Regional Office 1610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 1 Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
704.663.1699

Feature
Subject
Depicted
Feature ID
Stream type,
to Buffer
Start
Stop @
Depicted on
on
ditch, swale
Rules
Soil Survey
USGS
wetland, other
Topo
Elk Shoals
Main Channel
na
Prior to site
Exiting site
Yes
Creek
boundaryboundaryYes
StikeLeather
stream
na
Prior to site
Shoals
No
No
Trib
boundaryElk
Randell
stream
na
Prior to site
Elk Shoals
Yes
Yes
Trib
boundary
Matheson
stream
na
excluded
excluded
No
No
Trib
(excluded)
* E: Ephemeral, I: Intermittent, P: Perennial
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute this determination made by the DWR may
request an appeal determination by the Director of Water Resources. An appeal request
must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of this letter to the Director in
writing.
If sending via U.S. Postal Service:
Paul Wojoski - DWR 401 & Buffer
Permitting Branch Supervisor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.)
Paul Wojoski - DWR 401 & Buffer
Permitting Branch Supervisor
512 N Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding as detailed above unless an appeal is requested within
sixty (60) calendar days of the date of this letter.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information, please contact Alan
Johnson at alan.johnsonOncdenr.gove or 704-235-2200. This determination is subject to
review as provided in G.S. 150B.
Sincerely,
CA
DocuSigned by:
414 u H pal�ft for
F161FB69A2D84A3...
W. Corey Basinger, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Mooresville Regional Office, DEQ
Attachments: Site Map with labels
cc: Katie Merritt, 401/Buffer Permitting Branch, email
D ��� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Mooresville Regional Office 1610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 I Mooresville. North Carolina 28115
NC RT CgROUN/+
a�A� bl�� /'� 704.663.1699

D IV
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
Mooresville Regional Office 1610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 j Mooresville. North Carolina 28115
NC RT+CAROLINA
704.6633699

DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C7A346-752E-477D-A9EB-ADC1191AFBOB
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Direcror
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
January 5, 2022
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
(via electronic mail: [e-mail] )
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation — Double Rock Site
Near 35.8602878,-81.1006649 in Hiddenite, NC
Catawba Watershed
Alexander County
Dear Ms. Eckardt,
On October 18, 2021, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from you on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands) for a site visit near the above -
referenced site in the Catawba Watershed. The site visit was to determine the potential for riparian
buffer mitigation within a proposed conservation easement boundary, which is more accurately
depicted in the attached map labeled "Figure 8-Concept Design Map" (Figure 8") prepared by
Wildlands. The proposed easement boundary in Figure 8, includes all riparian areas intended to be
proposed as part of the mitigation site. This site is also being proposed as a stream mitigation site
and therefore stream bank instability or presence of erosional rills within riparian areas were not
addressed. On December 7, 2021, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the subject site. Staff
with Wildlands were also present.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
and landward 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(effective November 1, 2015).
Feature
Classification
tSubiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
'Nutrient
4'Mitigation Tyne Determination Win
onsite
adiacent to Feature
Credit
Offset
to
riparian areas
Buffer
0( 200')
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre
Randell
Stream
No
non -forested pasture grazed
Yes
N/A
Non -forested pasture - Restoration Site
by cattle.
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1 Division of Water Resources
EQ"P* 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Marl Service Center 1 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
1-1� 919,707,9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C7A346-752E-477D-A9EB-ADC1191AFBOB
Double Rock Site
Wildlands
January 5, 2022
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
'Nutrient
4,'Miti2ation Type Determination Win
onsite
adjacent to Feature
Credit
Offset
to
riparian areas
Buffer
0( 200')
Viable
Viable at
Rule
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre
Elk Shoals
Stream
No
Mostly non -forested pasture
2Yes
N/A
Non -forested pasture - Restoration Site
grazed by cattle. Some
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)
areas are fully dlforested
and not grazed by cattle
Forested Areas — Preservation Site per
(see Figure 8)
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
Strikeleather
Stream
No
Forested and not grazed by
2Yes
N/A
Forested Areas — Preservation Site per
cattle.
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
Matheson,
Streams
No
Forested and not grazed by
ZYes
N/A
Forested Areas — Preservation Site per
Matheson A,
cattle.
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)
Matheson B
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated October 15, 2021 (DWR# - 2020-1095) using the
1:24,000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by
the NRCS .
2The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation Only site to comply with this rule.
3NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment. Credits are calculated differently in the Jordan Lake Watershed. Phosphorus may be calculated separately.
4 Determinations made for this Site are determined based on the proposal provided in maps and figures submitted with the request.
s All features proposed for buffer mitigation or nutrient offset, must have a planted conservation easement established that includes the
tops of channel banks when being measured perpendicular and landward from the banks, even if no credit is viable within that riparian
area. Easement breaks that disconnect the continuity of riparian restoration/enhancement/preservation result in no credit viable beyond
the break.
'The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channels shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of buffer
mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
'The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)(6). Cattle
exclusion fencing is required to be installed around the mitigation area to get buffer credit under this part of the rule.
Determinations provided in the table above were made using a proposed easement boundary showing
proposed mitigation areas shown in Figure 8. The map representing the proposal for the site is
attached to this letter and initialed by Ms. Merritt on January 5, 2022. Substantial changes to the
proposed easement boundary as well as any site constraints identified in this letter, could affect the
Site's potential to generate buffer mitigation for credits.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this Site to generate buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to
DWR for written approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or
surface waters for buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0703, a proposal regarding a
proposed nutrient load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for
approval prior to any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
Page 2 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C7A346-752E-477D-A9EB-ADC1191AFBOB
Double Rock Site
Wildlands
January 5, 2022
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0703.
This viability assessment will expire on January 5, 2024 or upon approval of a mitigation plan
by the DWR, whichever comes first. This letter should be provided in any nutrient offset,
buffer, stream or wetland mitigation plan for this Site.
Please contact Katie Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
PW/kym
Attachments: Figure 8: Concept Design Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Erin Davis (IRT, DWR)
DOCUSigned by:
949D91BA53E®®F4E0...
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 3 of 3

no
Qz
z�
�Z
a0
^ Z
I-1 w
a
y

Appendix D

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
April 30, 2021
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Initial Evaluation of the proposed Wildlands Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank:
Double Rock (SAW-202001532) and Firestone (SAW-2020-01534) Mitigation Sites
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Attention: Mr. Shawn Wilkerson
[e-mail]
Dear Mr. Wilkerson:
This letter is in regard to your prospectus document dated October 1, 2020, for the proposed
Wildlands Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank including the Double Rock and Firestone
Mitigation Sites. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a commercial
umbrella mitigation bank in the Upper Catawba Watershed, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03050101 of the Santee River Basin. The Double Rock Mitigation Site is an 18.4-acre stream
mitigation site located approximately six miles southeast of Taylorsville in Alexander County,
North Carolina (35.8629,-81.0967). The Firestone Mitigation Site is a 15-acre stream mitigation
site located approximately 12 miles northeast of Conover in Catawba County, North Carolina
(35.7637,-81.1661).
The Corps determined the prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (P/N # SAW-
2020-01532) on November 2, 2020. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the views of
interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by the
proposed work. Attached are the comments received in response to the public notice from the
Cherokee Nation and the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The Corps has considered the information provided in the prospectus document, comments
received in response to the public notice and information that was discussed during on -site
reviews conducted on September 28, 2020. The meeting minutes from the field review and
follow-up IRT comments are attached We have determined that the proposed umbrella
mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore, enhance and preserve aquatic resources
within the Upper Catawba Watershed, HUC 03050101 of the Santee River Basin. Therefore, the
bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
(UMBI).

Please address all comments included in the attached memo with your draft UMBI submittal, if
you have questions concerning the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 828-271 -7980 A234.
Sincerely,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
Digital Copies Furnished:
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Casey Haywood, USACE
Kim Browning, USACE
Erin Davis, NCDWR
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Todd Bowers, USEPA
Holland Youngman, USFWS
Renee Gledhill -Early, NCSHPO
Scott .tones, USACE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
CESAW-RG/Kichefski
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
April 30, 2021
SUBJECT: Proposed Wildlands Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank- Double Rock Mitigation
Site (SAW-2020-01532) and Firestone Site (SAW-2020-01534) Comments Received in
Response to the Public Notice and during the September 28, 2020 site visit reflected in the
meeting minutes provided via email on October 1, 2020.
Project Name: Wildlands Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank- Double Rock (SAW-202001532)
and Firestone (SAW-2020-01534) Mitigation Sites, Alexander and Catawba Counties, NC
Elizabeth Toombs, Cherokee Nation, November 30, 2020:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
Renee Gledhill -Earley, NCSHPO, March 25, 2021:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC:
SEE ATTACHED MEETING MINUTES AND FOLLOW-UP EMAIL COMMENT
Erin Davis. NCDWR:
SEE ATTACHED MEETING MINUTES
Steve Kichefski & Todd Tugwell, USACE, April 29, 2021
SEE ATTACHED MEETING MINUTES AND COMMENTS BELOW
1. All final credit ratios will be determined at the draft plan stage when a more
comprehensive proposal of all project details is available.
2. In the Prospectus, the service area for the Firestone Mitigation Site is proposed as both
the Catawba 01 and the Catawba 03 based on its location within the Catawba 03 extended
service area. Final agreement of appropriate service area will be determined by the IRT
during the draft plan review considering the current service areas established within
current District Guidance.
3. Efforts to maximize the buffer width between the restored channel of Firestone Tributary
and the existing sewer line should be utilized.
4. In the field a small portion of higher quality buffer was identified along Elk Shoals Reach
1, mainly the downstream right bank within the area of more stable stream channel. Field
discussions included trying to preserve those areas if possible while utilizing the blended
E1 approach.
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager

Office of the Chief
GW-Y.9 D3P Chuck Hoskin Jr.
C H EROKEE NATioN® PHncipal Chief
Bryan Warner
P.Q. Box 949 • Tahlequah, OK 74455-0948 Depiso, Principal Chief
918.453-5000 • www.cherokee.org
November 30, 2020
Steve Kichefski
United States Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: SAW-2020-01532, Wildlands Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Mr. Steve Kichefski:
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about SAW-2020-01532, and
appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project. Please allow this letter to serve
as the Nation's interest in acting as a consulting party to this proposed project.
The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre -historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project's legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.
However, the Nation requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) halt all
project activities immediately and re -contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural
significance are discovered during the course of this project.
Additionally, the Nation requests that USACE conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent
Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included
in the Nation's databases or records.
If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
W ado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

6 � STAT£
r� Qunr-n •nog%'•
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Secretary D. Reid Wilson
March 25, 2021
Steve Kichefski Steven. L. Kichefski gusace. army. mil
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Re: Double Rock mitigation site, 35.8629,-81.0967, & Firestone mitigation site, 35.7637,
-81.1661 Alexander County, ER 21-0644
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
Thank you for your email of March 4, 2021, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental. review(a-,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
ncerel
,r Ramona Bartos, Deputy
�j State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
Prospectus Field Review with IRT
Meeting: Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Wildlands Project No. W45024
Date: September 28, 2020, 11 am
Location:
Double Rock Mitigation Site — Stikeleather Road, Hiddenite, NC
Firestone Mitigation Site — Riverbend Road, Clines, NC
Attendees
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering Principal
Andrea Eckardt, Wildlands Engineering Project Manager
Christine Blackwelder, Wildlands Engineering Designer (Double Rock)
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering Designer (Firestone)
Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers
Steve Kichefski, US Army Corps of Engineers
Olivia Munzer, NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Prospectus dated September 1,
2020
The group met at the Double Rock Mitigation Site at 11 am. Christine provided an overview of the site
at the cars. From there, the group walked the site in the following order: Randall Tributary, Elk Shoals
Reach 2, Elk Shoals Reach 1, Stikeleather Tributary to Matheson confluence, Matheson Tributary,
Matheson Tributary A, Matheson Tributary B, and Stikeleather from the Matheson confluence to the Elk
Shoals confluence.
The Double Rock portion of the site visit concluded at 1:30 pm.
The group then traveled to the Firestone Mitigation Site. Eric provided an overview of the site and the
group entered the site along UT1, walked downstream along Firestone Tributary crossed and continued
up UT3, walked back upstream Firestone Creek, and finished by walking up UT2.
At the end of the meeting, the group discussed whether the prospectus can be put out on public notice
as previously submitted or if a revision is needed. A decision was made for Wildlands to revise the

Prospectus to include the additional information the IRT needs to support Enhancement 1 crediting and
to accurately reflect design decisions made during the walk.
Double Rock Mitigation Site
a) Randall Tribut
This stream is incised and eroded and flows through an active cattle pasture. Wildlands secured a
temporary construction access agreement to begin the project at the bedrock knickpoint on the
upstream landowner's property, allowing for a priority 1 restoration.
a
• The group agreed restoration at 1:1 ratio is appropriate for Randall Tributary.
• The BMP proposed in the left floodplain will eliminated, as the group felt it may not be
necessary given the gentle terrain and small drainage area. The group agreed the BMP
proposed in the right floodplain is warranted.
• Todd and Steve pulled soil cores near the proposed right floodplain BMP and noted bright soils
with no wetland potential.
• Todd asked Wildlands if the Randall stream crossing could be moved to the upstream property
boundary. Wildlands will review this.
Elk Shoals Reach 1
This stream has areas of incision, erosion, and tortuous meanders, but also has areas of well -formed
bankfull benches, stable stream banks, and bedform diversity. Invasive Chinese privet is dense along
this entire reach and will require mechanical removal, which will destabilize much of the reach.
The group agreed that enhancement 1 represents the blended approach that will be necessary
to achieve uplift on this stream while preserving what is functioning. However; the IRT felt,
since the level of work will change across the reach with some areas of full restoration, some
areas of benching and structures, and some with minor bank repair, that they currently do not
have enough data to approve a credit ratio.
Wildlands will revise the Prospectus to break down the level of work throughout the reach into
zones so the IRT may gain a level of comfort with the proposed ratio. This will help the IRT
evaluate the true level of effort across the stream reach.
c) Elk Shoals Reach 2
This stream is incised and eroded and flows through active cattle pasture. A short portion of the
downstream end of this stream is fenced from cattle.
• The group agreed restoration at 1:1 ratio is appropriate for Elk Shoals Reach 2, and that
restoration will extend to the confluence with Stikeleather.
• The well house near the stream will remain within an internal easement break; this is the well
for the landowner's house.
• Black walnuts line the left bank of this reach, and Olivia and Steve noted IRT concerns over the
allelopathic properties of the plant. Todd noted that these trees are likely near the end of their
lifespan and Shawn noted that, due to the location of these trees along the existing top of bank
and within the active channel, they will likely be impacted by construction anyway. Olivia noted
she would prefer to save a grove or group as opposed to single trees. Wildlands will survey
black walnuts trees with a minimum diameter of 12" as part of the existing conditions survey.
• Steve and Olivia discussed the importance of tuning the planting plans to the local communities.
Steve noted that more species with lower percentages may be a way to increase diversity, and

that he would like to see more understory and shrub species proposed. Both noted the
importance of communication during planting when substitutions must occur and making sure
these are documented on the as -built plans. Shawn discussed some of the challenges with
planting from inefficiencies with holding plants at nurseries to planting contractors making last
minute substitutions. Christine noted that Wildlands' internal land stewardship team is now
actively researching plant communities for new planting plans and working with our planting
contractors more to try to get ahead of these issues.
d) Stikeleather Tributary
Like Elk Shoals Reach 1, Stikeleather Tributary has areas of incision and erosion, but also has areas with
moderate bedform, bank stability, and bankfull benches. The riparian area is not as dominated with
invasive species streamside as Elk Shoals Reach 1, and Olivia noted the terrestrial community on the
right bank is desirable and should be preserved. Christine noted that the old Stikeleather Road
alignment paralleled the right bank of Stikeleather and the vegetative community in that area is less
desirable.
Based on WRC and USACE's recommendations, Wildlands will seek to preserve as much of the
right bank vegetation as possible, concentrating benching and enhancement 1 activities on the
left bank.
Steve asked if Stikeleather would be raised with priority 1 restoration in areas. Christine
responded that it may be a possibility in areas that require full restoration, but further existing
conditions assessment and preliminary design is necessary.
As with Elk Shoals Reach 1, the IRT did not feel they have enough information to approve credit
ratios for the enhancement 1 approach at this time, so Wildlands will revise the Prospectus to
break down the level of work throughout the reach into zones.
e) Matheson Tributary, Matheson Tributary A, and Matheson Tributary B
Matheson Tributary, Matheson Tributary A, and Matheson Tributary B are proposed for preservation
with the construction of a BMP at the top of Matheson Tributary A to address the unstable headcut.
• The IRT felt that the streams on this portion of the project do not reflect the true intent of
preservation due to an early successional and thus lower quality riparian buffer. The IRT asked
when the buffer was last logged and a field review of aerials placed logging over 10 years ago.
• At a 10:1 ratio, these streams will generate approximately 107 credits, which is 2.5% of the
overall proposed credit for the site.
• The IRT stated they will think more on this section of the project as they need to consider this in
the context of other projects in similar situations.
• Shawn reiterated Wildlands' desire to capture and protect headwaters whenever possible, and
that a lower credit ratio may potentially impact the financial viability of including these streams
in the project.
Firestone Mitigation Site
a) UT2
UT2 was identified in the field as being incised with areas of active erosion and headcutting. The stream
has numerous locations where tires have been dumped in the stream. Wildlands noted that UT1 will be
restored using a priority 1.5 restoration approach and will be credited at a 1:1 credit ratio. The stream
bed will be raised from existing, but not all the way up to the relic floodplain. A floodplain will be
excavated along the stream based on the new bed elevation to provide adequate floodplain connection.

Wildlands noted that they would stop the conservation easement short of crossing 5 shown in
Figure 9b of the prospectus to eliminate the crossing as part of the project and reduce the
overall number of crossings.
Olivia/Steve asked about the potential wetland/seep area along the right bank near the
upstream extents of UT2. Wildlands noted that this area will be included within the
conservation easement. No credit is being requested for this area.
b) UT3
UT3 is incised and historically straightened for approximately the last 300 linear feet as it enters the
floodplain of Firestone Tributary. Upstream of this area, the stream goes through a series of headcuts
and is in moderate condition before another section of active incision and erosion related to a perched
culvert along the reach. Moving upstream, the reach becomes less incised with some floodplain
benching starting to form but is still generally impacted by adjacent agriculture.
• UT3 was proposed with an enhancement I approach at a 1.5:1 credit ratio within the draft
prospectus. Steve and Todd requested Wildlands break the reach into alternating approaches of
Enhancement 11 and Restoration within the final prospectus to clarify crediting, approach, and
future monitoring protocol.
Steve asked about the agricultural area in the far -right floodplain of UT3 and if there was
potential to expand the buffer along this area. There was concern based on aerial imagery
within the mapping provided in the prospectus that this area was heavily impacted by
agricultural activity and could be a potential sediment source and risk for the project. Based on
field observations during the meeting, it did not appear that area was a risk for the project.
c) Firestone Tributa
Firestone Tributary was observed in the field as being severely incised and historically straightened, with
multiple areas of actively eroding channel banks and mass wasting. Firestone Tributary is proposed for
priority 1 stream restoration at a 1:1 credit ratio.
• Wildlands noted that, given the depth of the existing channel, the upstream section of Firestone
Tributary between River Bend Road and the UT1 confluence will likely be a transition zone to
raise the channel to the relic floodplain and will need to be restored using a priority 2 approach.
• The section of Firestone Tributary within the overhead utility easement will be restored but for
no credit as part of the project.
• Firestone Tributary will be realigned to the left of the existing channel to provide distance
between the exiting sewer line and the stream channel.
• The downstream portion of Firestone Tributary will be transitioned with priority 2 restoration
approach and will be tied to a seam of existing bedrock downstream.
d) UT1
UT1 was observed in the field as being severely incised with some moderate bedform. Like UT2, UT1 will
be restored using a priority 1.5 restoration approach and will be credited at a 1:1 credit ratio. The
stream bed will be raised from existing, but not all the way up to the relic floodplain. A floodplain will be
excavated along the stream based on the new bed elevation to provide adequate floodplain connection.
• Steve and Todd asked about the overall earthwork at the site and noted that fill material would
be needed given the size and depth of the existing stream channels. Wildlands noted that the

floodplain excavation along UT1 and UT2, as well as the priority 2 transition zones will be used
to generate earth to fill the old channels. After initial design, if fill material is still needed,
Wildlands will discuss potential alternatives with property owners to generate fill such as
excavating and reshaping a hill slope on site
The upstream extent of UT1 is overrun with invasive bamboo. It was difficult to tell in the field
how much of the bamboo was within the proposed project and how much was upstream off the
project property. Todd noted that if the bamboo continues off property upstream, the IRT
would prefer Wildlands obtain permission from the upstream property owner to
remove/excavate the bamboo to the greatest extent possible to prevent maintenance issues on
the project in the future.
Action Items Based on the Prospectus Site Walk
• Wildlands will revise Figure 9A, Figure 913, and Table 4 based on discussions regarding approach,
crediting, and logistics along the following reaches at the sites:
o Double Rock:
■ Stikeleather
■ Elk Shoals Reach 1
o Firestone
■ UT3
■ UT1 (Remove Crossing #5)
• Wildlands will provide a list of adjacent property owners for both sites along with the Final
Prospectus to be posted to Public Notice.

From: Munzer, Olivia
To: Andrea Eckardt; Kichefski. Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Tuawell. Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis. Erin B; Browning. Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Wildlands Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Final Prospectus Submittal -
Double Rock and Firestone Mitigation Sites
Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:15:09 PM
Good afternoon,
My apologies that I now just reviewed the notes. I don't remember exactly what I said about the
black walnuts, but I would prefer not having large stands of walnut. We definitely do not want them
on the plant list. I believe I had mentioned that it is always hard for me to justify removing mature,
healthy trees, especially if they provide good stream shading. However, their toxicity will prevent
from many plants from growing around them so we like to avoid or minimize them at a site.
In general, I suggest removing any large stands of walnut and unhealthy individuals. If there is one or
two that are mature, healthy, and provide good shading, then I think it is ok to keep it. The link
below has a list of species that are tolerant to walnut toxicity, including boxelder, persimmon,
pawpaw, and others.
Blockedhttps://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/tree-and-plant-advice/horticulture-care/plants-
tolerant-black-walnut-toxicity
My apologies for any confusion. Feel free to contact me if you want clarification.
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
From: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:01 AM
To: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Wildlands Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Final Prospectus Submittal -
Double Rock and Firestone Mitigation Sites
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to reoort.spamCcDnc.Rov
Steve
Attached is a copy of the final Prospectus for the Wildlands Catawba 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank.
I have also attached minutes from the 9/28/2020 IRT site visit and the addresses for the adjacent
property owners.

Please let me know if you need anything else for the public notice or have any additional information
you'd like added to the minutes.
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Ecological Assessment Team Leader
0: 704.332.7754 x101 M: 704.560.2997
Wildlands Engineering Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

(D
N
H
N
C
O
.y
7
V
C
O
U
w
N
d
Q
U)
c
O
cu
C)
U
O
N
O
0
N
Qj O
E N
(a �
z �
U
N Qj
o ca
� 0
0 (a S
tf N cc0 0
— U
N
CM C)C6
z
-- U
o
:-
Uz
a>
a-
cn -°> C)
o a>
a)�
(a� CO �.�
mE � z
CU--00
c
": — m O
N— (6 U
C4 -E
-0
co C6
O co -0 -p
_ c � : _ N C4
0 � O .0
(6 C)
c N
N >_ Q N
U Q �
N
CO L.L (6 CO
-0 O
-0 Cl
coC
.X
C z
c O CO
CU Q a)
N
L -0 _U Z
-U
cu
-� -0 O
N �-
-C, O
O
cu
O O
O CO
O
z
N 2 -0 U) Cn
N Cn ��
�O N
0 N c O
0
-0 CO UO
N E 0
CDCDc
N E_ C6 co
0
Cl)
O Z
N O �-_C5
N O 0 Q� Z
NQ E
) N '0 N
Cc6 C6 -0 00- O
0 0 0�
C C) "� co
0 C06 Q N
O
-�
3 co�
CU
Q-0= o c06
-0 a>
C) > C) �
U
i� w -0 �- 0
N
Cl)
U
LL
O
0
O
O
7
0
"> Cn _ O
C6 -0 "O
0 0 �
U O >+
c 0
A -0
U C6 0
>+ O N
>,
C6 a)
Q
Vl
0�3
6 0 0
N
co c-0 c
L
U) U C6
cu 25-
N E U O
N N U� 0--a
0
Z
-E Cc6 -amO
- _0 CD
5
LL Q '00 5e
LL m -00
.
.
0
Q
N
O
N
W
~ 0
C O
O N
O+_'
c �
Cl)
N
ECu
U
N D
°�
�
Q 1
>
0
A >
wo
z
cu
c
c
o
U)
U)
C6 N
-0 cu
cu
0
N
.U)
-0
55 _c
0
_�
0
U 0 Cn
�= 0
-0
O
U
CO
O 0
z
CO
O
z -0 cn
a)
Ris
Z
m in
c
N
V
7
m O
a)
N
D O
N
0 0
0
75
Q
O
O
0
U)
5
O
(a
c
O
U)
U
0
0
O
c
c
(6
N
cu
(6
E
O
N
Cn
O
O
0
N
0
U)
LO
N
O
Q
N
O
C6
0
Cn
7
Qj
N
i
N
Cn
—
U
U
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
E
CO
O
O
0-
L
o>
0
a
W
E
0
cu
to
c
o
ti
0 0)
O C
c6 c
c
a) o
_c
4:-: -o
c
N (U
N 0
c
C6
0
N E_
N0
O
� c
N
O cu
U a
Q E
0
[6
c
t�
U)

Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
p
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agencyZ to determine if your project is near
❑x
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑x
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
❑x
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑x
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
❑x
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question 41 or yes to question 42 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicant' (Name, Email, Phone No.): Wildlands Engineering, Kirsten Gimbert,
kgimbertkwildlandseng.com, 704-941-9093
Project Name: Double Rock Mitigation Site
Project Location (include coordinates if known): latitude 35.8630419942, longitude-81.0959046823
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Double Rock Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the Catawba River Basin.
The project will include stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation along Elk Shoals Creek, as well as five
unnamed tributaries. All streams proposed for restoration and enhancement are channelized, incised, eroded, and
exhibit embedded instream habitats. The existing wooded buffer is thick with invasive species with an actively
grazed cattle pasture along both Randall Tributary and Elk Shoals Reach 2. The overall goal of the project is to
improve stream and riparian wetland function through stream restoration and riparian buffer re -vegetation. This
will be accomplished by excluding livestock from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain
vegetation, improving the stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting
and preserving the project site through establishing a conservation easement.
1 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/pleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
Z See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/pleb/nWsites.httnl
31f applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are parry to the consultation.

General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum? (38 miles)
❑
I ❑x
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree'?
❑
0Does
the project include forest conversion'? (if yes, report acreage below)
0❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
4.65 ac
If known, estimated acres' of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 316
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
❑x
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
❑x
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
❑x
Estimated wind capacity (MW)
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting
incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may presume that
its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project responsibilities under 7(a)(2)
with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5, 2016, Programmatic BO. The action
agency will update this determination annually for multi -year activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as described herein.
The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to the appropriate USFWS
Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field Office with the results of any surveys
conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding
a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature: ` Z4� Date Submitted
01 /12/2022
' Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
s If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
6 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

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-0677
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
Project Name: Double Rock
e x
hSai k 4YYFJiYJft
June 11, 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

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
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;

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
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

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
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]

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2020-SLI-0677
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
Project Name: Double Rock
Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION / ENHANCEMENT
Project Description: Stream mitigation project
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/35.862777467274N81.09441889066875W
Counties: Alexander, NC
2

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 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
NAME
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
Flowering Plants
NAME
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis nani flora
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2458
STATUS
Threatened

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
Critical habitats
FHERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECTAREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

06/11/2020
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
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
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to Aug
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the 31
continental USA and Alaska.

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
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

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580 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
Prairie Warbler — — — -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
----
BCC Rangewide (COI)
Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * too
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/migratoDLbirds/pdf/
irds/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.

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580 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).

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580 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.

06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
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
• R5UBH

From: Kirsten Gimbert
To: "nleb notifications asheville(abfws.aov"
Subject: Double Rock Mitigation Site - NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:04:22 AM
Attachments: Double Rock - NLEB Consultation Form.odf
Good Morning,
Please find attached to this email, the NLEB 4(d) Rule streamlined consultation form for the Double
Rock Mitigation Site located in Alexander County, NC. Please let me know if you have any questions
or need additional information on this site. If we have not heard from you in 30 days, we will assume
that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws or information relevant to this project
in regard to the NLEB.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Gimbert I Senior Environmental Scientist
M : 704.941.9093
Wildlands Engineering. Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Double Rock
Stikeleather Road
Hiddenite, NC 28636
Inquiry Number: 5719068.2s
July 17, 2019
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDR . Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBD-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary----------------------------------------------------
4
Map Findings
8
OrphanSummary---------------------------------------------------------
9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary-------------------------------------------.
A-2
Physical Setting Source Map
A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings----------------------------------------
A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------.
PSGRA
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5719068.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
STIKELEATHER ROAD
HIDDENITE, NC 28636
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.8629460 - 35' 51' 46.60"
81.0970860 - 81 ° 5' 49.50"
Zone 17
491234.5
3968551.5
1004 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5947899 STONY POINT, NC
Version Date: 2013
North Map: 5947056 HIDDENITE, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140524
Source: USDA
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

F- MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
STIKELEATHER ROAD
HIDDENITE, NC 28636
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
DATABASE ACRONYMS
RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ELEVATION DIRECTION
5719068.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL___________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS -------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS_________________________ Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE-------------- Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA- Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA- Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------- RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG---------------- RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS_____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------- Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF_______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI____________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
DEBRIS_______________________ Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
LCID__________________________ Land -Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST__________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
LUST -------------------------- Regional UST Database
INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST_________________ State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST___________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST___________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP___________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS----------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Center Listing
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIST LF_______________________ Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9----------- Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS___________ Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL_________________ Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL_______________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS________________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS________________________
Spills Incident Listing
IMD___________________________
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90____________________
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80____________________
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS_________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD__________________________
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS_______
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR_______________
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST____________
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS__________________________
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS--------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD__________________________
Records Of Decision
RMP__________________________
Risk Management Plans
RAATS________________________
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP___________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS_________________________
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS___________________________
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS__________________________
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS_________________________
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA______________
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER _ _ _ _
_ _ _ PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO ---------------------
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS____________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS_____________________
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT____________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP______________________
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA_______________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS______________________
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES____________________
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES ---------
Abandoned Mines
FINDS -------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO -------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
UXO ---------------------------
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
DOCKET HWC----------------
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM___________
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS__________________________
Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS___________________
ASBESTOS
COAL ASH____________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS______________
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance -----------
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES------------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC----------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP---------------------------
Animal Operation Permits Listing
PCSRP------------------------
Petroleum -Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS______________
Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB___________________________
Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP_____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto ----------------- EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_____________ EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS____________________ Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF_______________________ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST____________________ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 5719068.2S
i1
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
i
i
0 1/4 1/2 1 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
ioo-year flood zone Disposal Sites
5oo-year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Double Rock CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: Stikeleather Road CONTACT: Andrea Eckardt
Hiddenite NC 28636 INQUIRY #: 5719068.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.862946 / 81.097086 DATE: July 17, 2019 10:46 am
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc.(,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5719068.2S
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
t
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1 /16 1 /9 1 /4 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
ioo-year flood zone Disposal Sites
5oo-year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Double Rock CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: Stikeleather Road CONTACT: Andrea Eckardt
Hiddenite NC 28636 INQUIRY #: 5719068.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.862946 / 81.097086 DATE: July 17, 2019 10:48 am
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc.(,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

Appendix E

b
\\ /\
|
: ::: :::
)
I:
|
: ::: :::
)
I:
: ::: :::
)
I:
!))
;;
};:

`eIizc ti uejl Supuejl ws
tiot,m° a�s»wwroso�tit ��� M@TAIano3uqueld
S Q;I d'I aTi m
clQ t utjoat u}aoN ' f}unoD aaput xajVRsv
a
a}tS uolluffilM jDoX ajgnoQ 0
I
I a3a
I �
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M
I
W�
RANDELL TRIBUTARY
Lu
Y
M
w
W
N
4b

s cl;N aTi m
Q
Rlp
uel,l 3uTIueld
M11010D ulaoN 'XjunoD aapuoxaIV
allS uotluffilM jDoX ajgnoQ
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3.5
4 �
R/
R/W
R/W
R/W �y
- R/W
M
LU
w
w
Ln
w
z
J
U
Q

of s> >s ww sotit ue1,1SUTULIl
s cl W-IW I m
Q OutjoaOD u}aoN ' f}unoD aapuoxajV HgN
RSV
a}tS uotluffil � jDoX ajgnoQ 0
MATCH LINE - SHEET 3.3
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----
------------
I
i
I
I
1

of s> >s ww soctit . T ue1,1 SUT ULI l
s cl W-M I m
Q M11010D u}aoN ' f}unoD aapuoxajV HgN
RSV
a}tS uotluffilM jDoX ajgnoQ
z —
I
�.--------------
I I
£'£ 133HS - 3NIIHD1VW

of s> >s ww sotit .T ue1,1SurULIl 9
SaKd�Q�'�� `Gybe.
Q MtjoaOD u}aoN ' f}unoD aapuoxajV HgN
RSV
a}tS uotluffilM jDoX ajgnoQ
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
-I -
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RANDELL TRIBUTARY
I
I
I
M
Lu
Lu
- 2
W
I_. z
J
� U
z —