20201095 Ver 1_BPDP Final 8-16-2022_20220819

BUFFER MITIGATION 
PLAN 

June 2022 
DOUBLE ROCK MITIGATION BANK PARCEL 
Alexander County, NC 
DWR Project Number 2020‐1095(v1) 

Catawba River Basin 
HUC 03050101 

PREPARED BY: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 
Charlotte, NC  28203 
Phone: (704) 332‐7754 
Fax: (704) 332‐3306 

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page i June 2022 
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 ............................................................................................. 8 
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 ................................................................................................................... 11 
8.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 13 

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page ii 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 1 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 (“NCDEQ”) 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 2 June 2022 
2.0 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 
Decrease nutrient levels. 
Nutrient input will be decreased by filtering runoff from the agricultural fields 
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 
inputs. 
Fecal coliform input will be reduced by restricting cattle from the project 
streams. 
Decrease water 
temperature and increase 
dissolved oxygen 
concentrations. 
Planted riparian trees will shade the project features as they mature, reducing 
thermal pollution. 
Create appropriate 
terrestrial habitat. 
Riparian areas will be restored by treating invasive vegetation and planting 
native vegetation.  
Permanently protect the 
project Parcel from 
harmful uses. 
A conservation easement will be recorded on the Parcel. 
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 3 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 4 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  
(acres) 
Watershed Area 
(acres) Land Use 
Randell Trib, Elk 
Shoals Creek, 
Stikeleather Trib, 
Matheson Trib, 
Matheson Trib A, 
& Matheson Trib B 
19.33 1,379 
forested (38%), agricultural (41%), grassland 
(5%), shrubland (4%), and some development 
(12%) 
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 – 
 0‐2% slopes 
Chewacla loam consists of very deep, nearly level soil located on the 
Piedmont flood plains. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is slow. 
These soils are frequently flooded and somewhat poorly drained. 
PaD – Pacolet sandy loam – 15‐
25% slopes 
Pacolet sandy loam consists of very deep, well drained, moderately steep 
soil located on Piedmont side slopes. Permeability is moderate, and surface 
runoff is rapid.  
PcC2 – Pacolet sandy clay loam – 
8‐15% slopes 
Pacolet sandy clay loam consists of very deep, well drained, strongly 
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.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/alexanderNC1995/map04.pdf 
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/alexanderNC1995/alexanderNC1995.pdf 

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page 5 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 (Cornus 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 (Cornus 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 6 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 
Bog turtle (Glyptemys 
muhlenbergii) 
Threatened  
(Similarity of 
Appearance)  
Inhabit open‐canopy, herbaceous sedge meadows and fens, wet 
cow pastures, and shrub swamps bordered by wooded areas. 
Depend on wetland microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, 
hibernation, and shelter. 
Northern long‐eared bat  
(Myotis septentrionalis) Threatened 
Roost in 3” dbh dead and alive trees with exfoliating bark, crevices 
or hollows during summer months. Caves or mines during winter 
months. 
Vascular Plan 
Dwarf‐flowered heartleaf 
(Hexastylis naniflora) Threatened 
Acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next 
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 and only allowed in pasture area to the east of the fenceline as shown on Figures 7 and 9. 
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  
 HUC 03050101  Page 7 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. 
3.0  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  
Landowner PIN County 
Site 
Protection 
Instrument 
Deed Book 
and Page 
Number 
Acreage 
to be 
Protected 
Glenn M. Matheson and Vickie S. 
Matheson 3777‐85‐1606 
Alexander Conservation 
Easement 
D.B. 517,   
PG. 683 9.528 
David H. Randell, Trustee of the 
David H. Randell Declaration of 
Trust 
3777‐95‐2860 D.B. 335,   
PG. 1981 9.805 

4.0 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. 

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page 8 June 2022 
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 
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 
Cornus 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 

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page 9 June 2022 
planting area for the stream mitigation project is included in Appendix E. Planting is scheduled for 
February 2023. 
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.  
5.0 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 31st 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, 

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page 10 June 2022 
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 
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. 
6.0 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.  

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page 11 June 2022 
7.0 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 
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   HUC 03050101  Page 12 June 2022 Table 9: Double Rock Buffer Mitigation Bank,  Project Credits, DWR ID # 2020‐1095(v1) Catawba Buffer Project Area   N/A N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)   N/A P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)   Credit Type Location Subject? (enter NO if ephemeral or ditch 1) Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min‐Max Buffer Width (ft) Feature Name Total Area (sf) Total (Creditable) Area of Buffer Mitigation (sf) Initial Credit Ratio (x:1) % Full Credit Final Credit Ratio (x:1) Convertible to Riparian Buffer? Riparian Buffer Credits Convertible to Nutrient Offset? Delivered Nutrient Offset: N (lbs) Buffer Rural No I / P Restoration 0‐100 Randell Trib & Elk Shoals Creek 319,080 319,080 1 100% 1.00000 Yes 319,080.000 No  ‐‐   Totals (ft2): 319,080 319,080    319,080.000  0.000  Total Buffer (ft2): 319,080 319,080  Total Nutrient Offset (ft2): 0 N/A    Total Ephemeral Area (ft2) for Credit: 0 0   Total Eligible Ephemeral Area (ft2): 168,790 0.0% Ephemeral Reaches as % TABM Preservation Credits Total Eligible for Preservation (ft2): 106,360 25.0% Preservation as % TABM Credit Type Location Subject? Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min‐Max Buffer Width (ft) Feature Name  Total Area (sf)  Total (Creditable) Area for Buffer Mitigation (ft2) Initial Credit Ratio (x:1) % Full Credit  Final Credit Ratio (x:1)   Riparian Buffer Credits  Buffer Rural No I / P   0‐100 Elk Shoals Creek, Stikeleather Trib, Randell Trib 344,038 106,360 5 100% 5.00000 21,272.000  Rural No I / P  101‐200 Randell Trib 12,042 0 5 33%        Preservation Area Subtotals (ft2): 356,080 106,360    Table 10: Double Rock ‐ Total Area of Buffer Mitigation                 Upon submittal of the appropriate documentation by the Sponsor and subsequent approval by NCDWR, the mitigation credits associated with the Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel will be released as described in the UMBI. TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM) Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits Restoration: 319,080 319,080.000 Enhancement: 0 0.000 Preservation: 106,360 21,272.00 Total Riparian Buffer: 425,440 340,352.000 TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION Mitigation Totals Square Feet Credits Nutrient Offset: Nitrogen: 0 0.000 Phosphorus: 0.000 

 Double Rock Mitigation Bank Parcel  Buffer Mitigation Plan  
 HUC 03050101  Page 13 June 2022 
8.0 References 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey of Alexander County. 
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.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://websoilsurvey.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. 

Figures 

^_
0 1.5 3 Miles ¹
^_Project Location
Conservation Easement
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NCStikeleather Rd2018 Aerial Imagery
Directions: From Charlotte, take I-77 North.
Take exit 51 onto I-40 East. In 0.4 miles keep
left toward I-40 West. Take exit 144 and turn
right onto Old Mountain Rd. In around 6 miles
turn left onto Drumstand Rd. Turn right onto Mt
Wesley Church Rd and in 2 miles make another
right onto Stikeleather Rd. Go about 0.6 miles
and take a right. The project is located down
the driveway on the right.
^_
£¤421
£¤421
£¤601
§¨¦77
Double Rock
Mitigation Site
0 10 20 Miles ¹Figure 2 Service Area Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Service Area - HUC 03050101
14 Digit HUC - 03050101130010
Municipalities
^_Project Location
Alexander County, NC
Stikeleather RdElk
S
h
o
a
l
s

C
r
e
e
k
Stikeleat
h
e
r

T
r
i
b
Elk
Shoa
ls
C
reekMatheson TribRandell TribMatheson
Trib A
Matheson
Trib B
Existing Well House
Figure 3 Site Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
2018 Aerial Photography
¹
Alexander County, NC
0 200 400 Feet
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
Existing Streams
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
Figure 4 USGS Topographic Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
0 400200 Feet
Alexander County, NC
¹
Conservation Easement
Stony Point USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
Elk Shoals Creek
1379 ac
El
k
S
h
o
a
l
s
C
r
e
e
k
Stikeleather Trib
82 ac
Randell Trib
774 ac
Matheson Trib B
1 ac
Matheson
Trib A 13 acStikeleather RdMatheson Trib
25 ac
Figure 5 Watershed Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
0 500250 Feet
Alexander County, NC
¹
Conservation Easement
Project Location
Elk Shoals Creek Watershed
Subwatershed
Existing Streams
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (20')
2018 Aerial Photography
Randell Trib
774 ac
Figure 6 1995 Soil Survey Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
0 400200 Feet
Alexander County, NC
¹
Conservation Easement
2018 Aerial Photography1995 NRCS Soil Survey of Alexander County - Sheet 4
11995 NRCS Soil Survey of Alexander County - Sheet 4
II4WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 200 400 Feet
1 1 1 1 1
Figure 6 1995 Soil Survey Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

Stikeleather RdElk
S
h
o
a
l
s

C
r
e
e
k
Stikeleat
h
e
r

T
r
i
b
Elk
Shoa
ls
C
reekMatheson TribRandell TribMatheson
Trib A
Matheson
Trib B
Elk Shoals Creek
Figure 8 Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
2018 Aerial Photography
¹
Alexander County, NC
0 200 400 Feet
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credits
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credits
Not For Credit
Internal Crossings
Buffer Zones
30' from Top of Bank
50' from Top of Bank
100' from Top of Bank
200' from Top of Bank
Proposed Stream Alignments
Non-Project Streams
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Riparian Restoration for Buffer Credits
Riparian Preservation for Buffer Credits
Not For Credit
Internal Crossings
BuferZones
| U 30'fmmTop ofBank
50'fromTop ofBank
100'fromTop ofBank
Z00'fromTop ofBank
Proposed Stream Alignments
Non'ProjectStreoms
w0ftWILDLANDS
swca/wesn/mc;
0
Figure 8Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (030S0101)
Alexander County, NC

Appendix A 

CURRENT LAND USE PHOTOGRAPHS 
Double Rock Mitigation Site 

 Double Rock Mitigation Site
HUC 03050101 
Elk Shoals Creek 

Elk Shoals Creek (5/24/2022) Elk Shoals Creek (5/24/2022) 
Randell Trib 

Randell Trib (5/24/2022) Randell Trib (5/24/2022) 
Stikeleather Trib 

Stikeleather Trib / Elk Shoals Confluence (05/24/2022) Stikeleather Trib (5/24/2022) 

Appendix B 

The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Double Rock
Stikeleather Road
Hiddenite, NC 28636
Inquiry Number:
July 17, 2019
5719068.5
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
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
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 07/17/19
Double Rock
Site Name:Client Name:
Wildlands Eng, Inc.
Stikeleather Road 1430 South Mint Street
Hiddenite, NC 28636 Charlotte, NC 28203
EDR Inquiry #5719068.5 Contact:Andrea Eckardt
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
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
5719068.5
2016
= 500'
5719068.5
2012
= 500'
5719068.5
2009
= 500'
5719068.5
2006
= 500'
5719068.5
1993
= 500'
5719068.5
1983
= 500'
5719068.5
1976
= 500'
5719068.5
1961
= 500'
5719068.5
1950
= 500'
Appendix C 

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.

Feature ID
Feature
Stream type,
ditch, swale,
wetland, other
Subject
to Buffer
Rules
Start @ Stop @ Depicted on
Soil Survey
Depicted
on
USGS
Topo
Elk Shoals
Creek Main Channel na Prior to site
boundary
Exiting site
boundary Yes Yes
StikeLeather
Trib stream na Prior to site
boundary Elk Shoals No No
Randell
Trib stream na Prior to site
boundary Elk Shoals Yes Yes
Matheson
Trib
stream
(excluded) na excluded excluded No No
* 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 [e-mail] or 704-235-2200. This determination is subject to
review as provided in G.S. 150B.

Sincerely,

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

for

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
onsite
1Subject
to
Buffer
Rule
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
(0-200’)
Buffer
Credit
Viable
3Nutrient
Offset
Viable at
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre

4,5Mitigation Type Determination w/in
riparian areas
Randell Stream No non-forested pasture grazed
by cattle.
Yes N/A Non-forested pasture - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C7A346-752E-477D-A9EB-ADC1191AFB0B
Double Rock Site
Wildlands
January 5, 2022
Page 2 of 3
1Subjectivity 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.
5 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.
6The 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).
7The 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
Feature Classification
onsite
1Subject
to
Buffer
Rule
Riparian Land uses
adjacent to Feature
(0-200’)
Buffer
Credit
Viable
3Nutrient
Offset
Viable at
2,249.36
lbs-N/acre

4,5Mitigation Type Determination w/in
riparian areas
Elk Shoals Stream No Mostly non-forested pasture
grazed by cattle. Some
areas are fully dlforested
and not grazed by cattle
(see Figure 8)
2Yes N/A Non-forested pasture - Restoration Site
per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(3)

Forested Areas – Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)

Strikeleather Stream No

Forested and not grazed by
cattle.

2Yes

N/A Forested Areas – Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)

Matheson,
Matheson A,
&
Matheson B

Streams No Forested and not grazed by
cattle.

2Yes

N/A Forested Areas – Preservation Site per
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(4)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C7A346-752E-477D-A9EB-ADC1191AFB0B
Double Rock Site
Wildlands
January 5, 2022
Page 3 of 3
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,

Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
PW/kym

Attachments: Figure 8: Concept Design Map

cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
Erin Davis (IRT, DWR)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C7A346-752E-477D-A9EB-ADC1191AFB0B
Surveyed Project Boundary

Proposed Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Enhancement II
Proposed Stream Preservation
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours (2')
!P
_^
Reach Break
Proposed BMP
¬«1

50' Internal Crossing ¬«2

Wetland I

Reach 1

Reach 2A
P! ¬«1

Reach 2B P!

Wetland E Wetland D
Wetland C

Wetland F

Wetland G

Matheson
Trib A

Matheson
Trib B

Wetland H

2018 Aerial Photography

0 200 400 Feet ¹ Figure 8 Concept Design Map With Topo
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Double Rock Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC
_^
Existing Well House
External Break for
Proposed BMP 1
= Preservation

DocuSign Envelope ID: 82C7A346-752E-477D-A9EB-ADC1191AFB0B
Appendix D 

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).

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
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 banlc, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 828-271-7980 x4234.
Digital Copies Furnished:
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Casey Haywood, USA CE
Kim Browning, USACE
Erin Davis, NCDWR
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Todd Bowers, USEPA
Holland Youngman, USFWS
Renee Gledhill-Early, NCSHPO
Scott Jones, USACE
Sincerely,
6\-t,~t:
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager

CESAW-RG/Kichefski April 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

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
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
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.

Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Secretary D. Reid Wilson
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898
March 25, 2021
Steve Kichefski [e-mail]
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,
dddddd-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 [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

MEETING MINUTES 
Meeting: 
Prospectus Field Review with IRT 
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  

Minutes 
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 Tributary  
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.   
 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.   
b) 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 II 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 Tributary  
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 9B, 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:Tugwell, 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

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]

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| Ecological Assessment Team Leader
O: 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.
Species Conclusions Table Project Name: Double Rock Mitigation Site Date: May 2021 Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Suitable habitat present May affect While no individual bats were observed, suitable habitat (trees larger than 4-6”) was observed over portions of the project area. No critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) No Suitable habitat present No effect Field Survey conducted in May 2021 found there is no suitable habitat present and no individual species were found. USFWS will be notified immediately if any species are found. No critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed project area. Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Suitable habitat present May affect, not likely to adversely affect* Field Survey conducted in May 2021 identified and delineated several areas where the HENA population exists on site. Per Wildlands 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. No critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this species. Critical Habitat No critical habitat has been designated for the species in this table * Pending USFWS concurrence in response to email correspondence dated 10/4/2021.Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas. 5/13/2021 _______________________________________________________________ ___________________________ Signature /Title Date , Environmental Scientist

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 Zone1? ☐ ☒
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency2 to determine if your project is near
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees? ☒ ☐
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum? ☐ ☒
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
hibernaculum? ☐ ☒
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
any time of year? ☐ ☒
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
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 #1 or yes to question #2 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 Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.): Wildlands Engineering, Kirsten Gimbert,
[e-mail], 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/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf 
2 See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html 
3 If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation. 
General Project Information YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum? (38 miles) ☐☒
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree? ☐ ☒
Does the project include forest conversion4? (if yes, report acreage below) ☒ ☐
Estimated total acres of forest conversion 4.65 ac
If known, estimated acres5 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) ☐ ☒
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) ☐ ☒
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) ☐ ☒
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: Date Submitted: ________________
4 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).
5 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.
01/12/2022
June 11, 2020
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/countyfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2020-SLI-0677
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580
Project Name: Double Rock

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/htmls/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/htmls/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   2

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/htmls/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/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580   3

▪
▪
▪
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/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   1

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   2

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
06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580   3

1.
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
Fisheries , 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
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Threatened
Reptiles
NAME STATUS
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
Population: U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC, TN, VA)
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962
Similarity of
Appearance
(Threatened)
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2458
Threatened
1
06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580   4

Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580   1

1.
2.
3.
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
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.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
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
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 to Aug
31
1
2
06/11/2020 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-01580   2

1.
2.
3.
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.
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.
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 ()
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

▪
▪
▪
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
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.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide (CON)
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/migratorybirds/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

1.
2.
3.
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:
"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);
"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
"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 Loring.
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   1

▪
▪
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
PFO1A
RIVERINE
R5UBH
From:Kirsten Gimbert
To:"[e-mail]"
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.pdf
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 | Senior Environmental Scientist
M: 704.941.9093

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

FORM-LBD-CCA
®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Double Rock
Stikeleather Road
Hiddenite, NC 28636
Inquiry Number: 5719068.2s
July 17, 2019
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary 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 PSGR-1
TC5719068.2s Page 1
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
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
35.8629460 - 35˚ 51’ 46.60’’Latitude (North):
81.0970860 - 81˚ 5’ 49.50’’Longitude (West):
Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator:
491234.5UTM X (Meters):
3968551.5UTM Y (Meters):
1004 ft. above sea levelElevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
5947899 STONY POINT, NCTarget Property Map:
2013Version Date:
5947056 HIDDENITE, NCNorth Map:
2013Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
20140524Portions of Photo from:
USDASource:
5719068.2s Page 2
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
STIKELEATHER ROAD
HIDDENITE, NC 28636
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5719068.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.
1 080
1
1
2
0
1240 112011 20
1240 1120 112
01080
1200 112010801080 11201080
108040120
0
1120112
0
1 120
1 12 0
1
12
0 1120112011601
0801 12011
2
0
10 80
10801 080
10 40
1080
116010801120
104011 6 0 11601 1

6
0
1 120 11 60
112010801 0
4
0
0
11209601 04010801080 1
0801
0
0
0960112
0960
1120112 01 12011
20112011201120
1 040
1 120 1 080108010
40112 01120
1080
9601
0
0
0
100096010 4
100010 801 0 40
1 0 80
10401000 92010801080108010801080
080
1
08010801080108010801080
1080
1040
1
0401040
10 401040104 0
101040104010401040104
0 10401040
1 04 01040
1100010001000
1000100010 00
1960 960
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.10801
0
4
0
10401040
1 0 4 0 108010801 1 2 0
1040
1
0
4
0
10
0
01000
Appendix E 

Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831
D
R
A
F
T
X:\shared\Projects\W45024_Catawba_01_UMB\Double Rock\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Plans\As-Built Set\AB-45024-Planting.dwg May 25, 2022
005-45024
NBH
EGR
ASE
3.1
06.24.2022 Double Rock Mitigation Site
Alexander County, North Carolina
Planting List
Planting PlanNote:Permanent Riparian seeding inall disturbed areas withinConservation EasementDisturbed areas outside easement.See Detail 4, Sheet 6.7 forLive Staking instructions onstreambanks.Note:OPTIONAL TRANSPLANTS to beused at Engineer's discretionfor streambank and floodplainplanting.Open Riparian Buffer Planting ZoneStreambank Planting Zone - Large Streams (Elk Shoals & Randell)Pasture SeedingPermanent SeedingBare RootSpeciesCommon NameIndiv.SpacingCaliper SizeStratumWetland IndicatorStatus% of StemsPlatanus occidentalisAmerican Sycamore6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW15%Betula nigraRiver Birch6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW15%Diospyros virginianaCommon Persimmon6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFAC10%Quercus phellosWillow Oak6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFAC10%Viburnum prunifoliumBlackhaw Viburnum6-12ft0.25"-1.0"ShrubFACU5%Cornus floridaFlowering Dogwood6-12ft0.25"-1.0"Sub-CanopyFACU5%Carpinus carolinianaIronwood6-12ft0.25"-1.0"Sub-CanopyFACU5%Celtis laevigataSugarberry6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW5%Quercus michauxiiSwamp Chestnut Oak6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW5%Ulmus rubraSlippery Elm6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFAC10%Xanthorhiza simplicissimaYellow Root6-12ft0.25"-1.0"ShrubFACW5%Quercus rubraNorthern Red Oak6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACU5%Lindera benzoinSpicebush6-12ft0.25"-1.0"ShrubFAC5%100%Note: Buffer bare roots to be planted on 6' spacing in rows spaced 12' apart.Pure Live SeedApproved DatesSpecies NameCommon Name StratumDensity (lbs/acre)Aug 15- May 1Avena sativaWinter OatsHerb30Aug 15- May 1Secale cerealeRye GrainHerb110May 1 - Aug 15 Urochloa ramosaBrowntop MilletHerb50All YearTrifolium pratenseMedium Red Clover Herb5All YearTrifolium repensWhite Ladino Clover Herb5Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/acre)Approved DatesSpecies NameCommon Name StratumWetlandIndicator Statuslbs/acreAll-YearSchizachyrium scopariumLittle BluestemHerbFACU3.0All-YearRudbeckia hirtaBlackeyed SusanHerbFACU1.0All-YearCarex vulpinoideaFox SedgeHerbOBL1.0All-YearPanicum clandestinumDeertongueHerbFAC3.0All-YearElymus virginicusVirginia Wild RyeHerbFACW3.0All-YearSorghastrum nutansIndiangrassHerbFACU2.0All-YearCoreopsis lanceolataLanceleaf CoreopsisHerbFACU1.0All-YearBidens aristosaBur-MarigoldHerbFACW1.0All-YearAndropogon gerardiiBig BluestemHerbFAC1.0All-YearHelianthus angustifoliusNarrowleaf Sunflower HerbFACW1.0All-YearZizia aureaGolden Alexander HerbFAC0.5All-YearHeliopsis helianthoidesSmooth OxeyeHerbFACU0.5All-YearPycnanthemum tenuifoliumNarrowleaf Mountainmint HerbFACW0.5All-YearPanicum virgatumSwtichgrassHerbFAC1.5Live StakesSpeciesCommon NameIndiv. SpacingSizeStratumWetlandIndicator Status% of StemsSalix nigraBlack Willow6-8ft0.5"-1.5" cal.CanopyOBL50%Cornus amomumSilky Dogwood6-8ft0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubFACW10%Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush6-8ft0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubOBL5%Salix sericeaSilky Willow6-8ft0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubOBL25%Sambucus canadensisElderberry6-8ft0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubFAC10%100%Herbaceous PlugsJuncus effucusCommon Rush3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbFACW40%Carex luridaLurid Sedge3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbOBL10%Scirpus cyperinusWoolgrass3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbFACW10%Carex lupulinaHop Sedge3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbOBL10%Carex crinitaFringed Sedge3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbOBL15%Carex vulpinoideaFox Sedge3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbOBL15%100%Streambank Planting Zone - Small Streams (Stikeleather & Matheson)Live StakesSpeciesCommon NameIndiv. SpacingSizeStratumWetlandIndicator Status% of StemsCornus amomumSilky Dogwood6-8ft 0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubFACW20%Salix sericeaSilky Willow6-8ft 0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubOBL50%Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush 6-8ft 0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubOBL15%Sambucus canadensisElderberry6-8ft 0.5"-1.5" cal. ShrubFAC15%100%Herbaceous PlugsJuncus effucusCommon Rush 3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbFACW25%Carex luridaLurid Sedge3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbOBL15%Scirpus cyperinusWoolgrass3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbFACW20%Carex lupulinaHop Sedge3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbOBL20%Carex crinitaFringed Sedge3-5ft1.0"-2.0" plugHerbOBL20%100%Bare RootSpeciesCommon NameIndiv. Spacing Caliper SizeStratumWetlandIndicatorStatus% of StemsPlatanus occidentalisAmerican Sycamore6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW 15%Betula nigraRiver Birch6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW 15%Ulmus americanaAmerican Elm6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW 15%Quercus michauxiiSwamp ChestnutOak6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyFACW 15%Alnus serrulataTag Alder6-12ft0.25"-1.0"Sub-CanopyOBL10%RhododendronviscosumSwamp Azalea6-12ft0.25"-1.0"ShrubFACW 10%CephalanthusoccidentalisButtonbush 6-12ft0.25"-1.0"ShrubFAC 10%Salix nigraBlack Willow 6-12ft0.25"-1.0"CanopyOBL10%100%Wetland Planting ZonePure Live Seed (20 lbs/acre)Approved DatesSpecies NameCommon NameStratumWetland Indicator StatusDensity (lbs/acre)All-YearColeataenia ancepsBeaked PanicgrassHerbFAC3.0All-YearCarex vulpinoideaFox SedgeHerbOBL2.0All-YearCarex luridaLurid SedgeHerbOBL0.5All-YearElymus virginicusVirginia WildryeHerbFACW4.0All-YearPanicum clandestinumDeertongueHerbFAC3.0All-YearBidens aristosaBur-MarigoldHerbFACW1.0All-YearPanicum virgatumSwitchgrassHerbFAC1.0All-YearPanicum dichotomiflorumPanicgrassHerbFACW1.0All-YearTripsacum dactyloidesEastern GamagrassHerbFACW1.5All-YearHelianthus angustifoliusNarrowleaf Sunflower HerbFACW1.0All-YearJuncus effucusCommon Rush HerbFACW0.5All-YearChasmanthium latifoliumRiver OatsHerbFACU0.5All-YearPeltandra virginicaArrow ArumHerbOBL1.0
TCETCETCE
CE-IXCE-IX
CE-IX
CECE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECE CECECECE CE CECECECE CE CECECECECE
CECECECECECECECE
CECECECECECECE CE CE CE
CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECES84° 41' 08.26"E171.554N/FWILLIS DWIGHT PAYNED.B. 408, PG. 841PIN: 3787-04-1169PID: 10910N/FMYRA PAYNED.B. 564, PG. 1957PIN: 3787-94-3594PID: 10900N/FMICHAEL LYNN LACKEYD.B. 602, PG. 531PIN: 3777-95-8122PID: 64968N/FBRYAN V. ROGERSD.B. 381, PG. 955PIN: 3777-97-7067PID: 10898N/FGLENN M. MATHESOND.B. 201, PG. 756PIN: 3777-74-6644PID: 10795N/FGLENN M. MATHESOND.B. 344, PG. 941PIN: 3777-74-6644PID: 60848N/FGLENN M. MATHESON &wife, VICKIE S. MATHESOND.B. 517, PG. 1981PIN: 3777-85-1606PID: 11035N/FBRYAN V. ROGERS & wife,SHANDA C. ROGERSD.B. 542, PG. 939P.B. 12, PG. 177PIN: G-9 0074 EPID: 138058N/FDAVID H. RANDELL, TRUSTEEOF THE DAVID H. RANDELLDECLARATION OF TRUSTD.B. 335, PG. 683PIN: 3777-95-2860PID: 10935N/FMAUNEY EARD ESTATEWAYNE MAUNEYPIN: 3787-16-2159PID: 64968RANDELL TRIBUTARYELK SHOALS CREEKSTIKELEATHERTRIBUTARY
MATHESONTRIBUTARYMATHESONTRIB BMATHESONTRIB A N/FCRYSTAL DAWN BARNESD.B. 588, PG. 879P.B. 11, PG. 112PIN: 3777-0075-3191N/FDAVID H. RANDELL TRUSTEEMORGAN RANDELL DECLARATION TRSD.B. 542, PG. 849P.B. 13, PG. 7PIN: 3777-86-2327PID: 138059N/FGLENN M. MATHESON & wife,VICKIE S. MATHESOND.B. 517, PG. 1981PIN: 3777-85-1606PID: 11035STIKELEATHER ROADTB R/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WXXXXXXXXXWETLAND AWETLAND BWETLAND CWETLAND IWETLAND DWETLAND EWETLAND FWETLAND GWETLAND HSheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831
D
R
A
F
T
X:\shared\Projects\W45024_Catawba_01_UMB\Double Rock\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Plans\As-Built Set\AB-45024-Planting.dwg May 25, 2022
005-45024
NBH
EGR
ASE
3.2
06.24.2022 Double Rock Mitigation Site
Alexander County, North Carolina
Planting Overview
Planting Plan0' 150' 300' 450'(HORIZONTAL)NSHEET 3.3SHEET 3.5SHEET 3.6SHEET 3.4
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E CECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECESTIKELEATHER
X
X R/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WWETLAND ESheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831
D
R
A
F
T
X:\shared\Projects\W45024_Catawba_01_UMB\Double Rock\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Plans\As-Built Set\AB-45024-Planting.dwg May 25, 2022
005-45024
NBH
EGR
ASE
3.3
06.24.2022 Double Rock Mitigation Site
Alexander County, North Carolina
Planting Plan 0' 50' 100' 150'(HORIZONTAL)NMATCHLINE - SHEET 3.4MATCHLINE - SHEET 3.5N/FCRYSTAL DAWN BARNESD.B. 588, PG. 879P.B. 11, PG. 112PIN: 3777-0075-3191N/FDAVID H. RANDELL TRUSTEEMORGAN RANDELL DECLARATION TRSD.B. 542, PG. 849P.B. 13, PG. 7PIN: 3777-86-2327PID: 138059ELK SHOALS CREEKN/FGLENN M. MATHESON & wife,VICKIE S. MATHESOND.B. 517, PG. 1981PIN: 3777-85-1606PID: 11035N/FDAVID H. RANDELL, TRUSTEE OFTHE DAVID H. RANDELLDECLARATION OF TRUSTD.B. 335, PG. 683PIN: 3777-95-2860PID: 10935STIKELEATHERTRIBUTARY
STIKELEATHER ROAD
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECETBT BTB
R/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WWETLAND FWETLAND GWETLAND HSheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831
D
R
A
F
T
X:\shared\Projects\W45024_Catawba_01_UMB\Double Rock\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Plans\As-Built Set\AB-45024-Planting.dwg May 25, 2022
005-45024
NBH
EGR
ASE
3.4
06.24.2022 Double Rock Mitigation Site
Alexander County, North Carolina
Planting Plan0' 50' 100' 150'(HORIZONTAL)NMATCHLINE - SHEET 3.3STIKELEATHERTRIBUTARYMA
T
H
E
S
O
N
T
R
I
B

B MATHESONTRIB AN/FGLENN M. MATHESOND.B. 201, PG. 756PIN: 3777-74-6644PID: 10795N/FGLENN M. MATHESOND.B. 344, PG. 941PIN: 3777-74-6644PID: 60848N/FGLENN M. MATHESON & wife, VICKIE S. MATHESOND.B. 517, PG. 1981PIN: 3777-85-1606PID: 11035MATHESONTRIBUTARY
STIKELEATHER ROAD
CE-IX CE-IX CE-IXCE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
CECECECECE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXWETLAND CWETLAND DSheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831
D
R
A
F
T
X:\shared\Projects\W45024_Catawba_01_UMB\Double Rock\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Plans\As-Built Set\AB-45024-Planting.dwg May 25, 2022
005-45024
NBH
EGR
ASE
3.5
06.24.2022 Double Rock Mitigation Site
Alexander County, North Carolina
Planting Plan0' 50' 100' 150'(HORIZONTAL)NMATCHLINE - SHEET 3.3
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3.6ELK SHOALS CREEKRANDELL TRIB
U
T
A
R
YN/FDAVID H. RANDELL, TRUSTEE OFTHE DAVID H. RANDELLDECLARATION OF TRUSTD.B. 335, PG. 683PIN: 3777-95-2860PID: 10935ELK SHOALS CREEK
TCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCE
TCE
TCE
TCECE-IXCE-IXCE-IXCE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECES84° 41' 08.26"E171.554XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWETLAND AWETLAND BWETLAND ISheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831
D
R
A
F
T
X:\shared\Projects\W45024_Catawba_01_UMB\Double Rock\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Plans\As-Built Set\AB-45024-Planting.dwg May 25, 2022
005-45024
NBH
EGR
ASE
3.6
06.24.2022 Double Rock Mitigation Site
Alexander County, North Carolina
Planting Plan0' 50' 100' 150'(HORIZONTAL)NMATCHLINE - SHEET 3.5N/FBRYAN V. ROGERSD.B. 381, PG. 955PIN: 3777-97-7067PID: 10898N/FDAVID H. RANDELL, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVIDH. RANDELL DECLARATION OF TRUSTD.B. 335, PG. 683PIN: 3777-95-2860PID: 10935RANDELL TRIBUTARY
N/F
BRYAN V. ROGERS
D.B. 381, PG. 955
PIN: 3777-97-7067
PID: 10898
N/F
DAVID H. RAN DELL, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID
H. RANDELL DECLARATION OF TRUST
D.B. 335, PG. 683
PIN: 3777-95-2860
PID: 10935
M:IVEI81b1113GNV
MATCHLINE - SHEET 3.5
e
j
z
0' 50' 100' 150'
(HORIZONTAL)
z