20140356 Ver 1_Meeting Note_20140228

date 29
project auk
page
------------ -- --------------- --------
- ---- - -_ -.S
- -- ----- - - - - -- --------- - ------- - - - -.
- - - � --- s - - - -Q ----- - - - - --
- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 1-13, - - - - -- c _ ___ �� -GJ s �!"eser a v - - - - -- f C l� - - ----------------------- -
---- ----- ----------------------
- -- --- - - - - -- ------------------------- ------ - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- `--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~J-------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- � - - - - - - -- --- ----------------------------------------- -- -- - -- - --- -- - -- --
- - - - --
--------------- ---------- - - - -- ---------- - - - -- -
------ - - - - -- -- - - - - --
5 N%e /.
--------- - - - - -- -------------------
----------------- -------------------------
7
8
- - -- -- - - - - -- --------------- I ----------
----------------------------------------
0�l_o3s�
t-K�
--------- - - - - --
- ..---------------------------------------- - - - - --
- �_- a- - - - -K �z - - J!'��-
- ------- - - - - -- -------------- cr ec� " 1— Q p �`c 6 0/ 3�
-------- - - - - -- --------------------
_aa
-- ------ - - - - -- --- -1�` -�
J
11
-----------------------------------------
-- -- -- -------- L u�.f_ � morf :-6_.'7.
i 2 �n?j7U G
- -' - - - - -- - - - - -- - _ - ----------------------------- ------------ - ------ -
------------
-- +--- ar-y---- - - - - -- -----------------------
73
-------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ; --- - - - - --
00
14
------- - - - - -- -- J - - - -- - - - -- - --
-- ---- - - - - -- --------------------------
15
---------- - - - - -- --------------------------
-------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- fir_ -e
16
-- -- --- - - - - - -- ---------- - -1.�1 G,
$ T ,-
Cod--SP ----- - 2i?�l /�. - - - -r re_----- - - - - --
ro � �e 1—eu� - -,Z41ve-- e'o ✓eO4"
16--
---------- _ __._
Atnv - mlh.�_Vva-
uh..st_a_6l�___`r)o
-----------------------------------------------------
--/
v
task list:
[[lY)

T MT
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
THE QUARTZ CORPORATION - PINE MOUNTAIN MINE
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT SUMMARY
IMPACTS
1. Site 1: 40' of new stream impact, 60' of replacing existing culvert, and 20' of
temporary stream impact / 0.019 acre of wetland impact
2. Site 2: 100' of new stream impact and 20' of temporary stream impact
3. Site 3: 450' of new stream impact and 20' of temporary stream impact
4. Site 4: 450' of new stream impact and 20' of temporary stream impact
5. Site 5: 180' of new stream impact
Totals: 1220' of permanent stream impact, 60' of permanent replacement stream
impact, 80' of temporary stream impact, and 0.019 acre of wetland impact
Stream relocation will abandon 1308' of stream, will be relocated into ditch along haul
road down to Little Bear Creek. Corps has verbally agreed that this action is non -
mitigating.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Site 1: good, 2:1 mitigation = 80'
Site 2: good, 2:1 mitigation = 200'
Site 3: poor, 1:1 mitigation = 450'
Site 4: poor, 1:1 mitigation = 450'
Site 5: poor, 1:1 mitigation = 180'
Total: 1360' (if ratios approved by Corps)
IMPACTS SUMMARY
1. Upgrading an existing road crossing to access Mine Waste Dump — M2.
2. New road crossing to access Mine Waste Dump — M2.
3. Resolution solution for mining NOV and stabilization of dump area (Mine Waste
Dump — M3).
4. Resolution solution for mining NOV and stabilization of dump area (Mine Waste
Dump — M3).
5. Storm water pond for Tailings Management Area — M1.
Mooresville Office
150 South Arcadian Way
Mooresville, NC 28117
828 -712 -9205 mobile / 704 - 663 -2927 fax

U
Z
a�
c �
d 5
CU
U Q-
7 E
L —
Q
U) C
.. N
C fa
E
C �
CL
♦+ L
C O
O N
2 m
a) cu
C_ F-
FL �
O
a
O N
U E
C
(6
d U
m
N Q
1- L E
—
m
0
*
U
Q
*
O
O
*
0
O
tl0
--t
Lo
r
O
U
co
EN
M
d
Lo
CO
f6
O
I—
U
t*
to
w
CD
M
f--
w
m
O
M
M
v-
�
O
CD
•-
r-
N
O
0
N
U
(0
N
O
co
co
LO
O
O
O
�
O
CD
O
CL
E
N
CD
U)
N
N
\
U
f6
E
�-
N
M�
0
co
1-
w
N
N
r
O
N
_M
M
V,
f6
O

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:56 AM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: FW: EEP debiting in French Broad 08
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Permitting Section
1650 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Phone: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties
From: Stanfill, Jim
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:44 AM
To: Kulz, Eric
Subject: FIN: EEP debiting in French Broad 08
Jim Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 MaiL Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Tel. 919 - 218 -6872
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Raleigh office is physically located at the N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources Building at 217 West Jones St., Suite 300", Raleigh, N.0 27603. Parking and visitor access information is available
on the EEP website.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Stanfill, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:57 AM
To: Tynnette Batt'
Cc: Harmon, Beth ([e-mail]); Williams, Kelly ([e-mail])
Subject: RE: EEP debiting in French Broad 08
Lynette,

2. Most of the HQP project sites contained only preservation credits. A few contained other mitigation credit types.
The HQP sites listed below contain only preservation (restoration equivalent credit types). Sandy Mush is actually a
large complex that contains some restoration — this site was broken into several smaller projects for implementation and
accounting. Historically, EEP's mitigation requirements have required that the impacts be offset with restoration class
credits. Mitigation required beyond the impact size could be satisfied using either restoration credits or restoration
equivalent class credits (i.e. preservation for streams). Thus, historically, EEP never used "stand- alone" preservation
mitigation to offset any particular impact even though EEP has preservation only projects. Thus, EEP has utilized these
preservation sites only in conjunction with restoration class credits from other mitigation projects such that the-impacts
were offset with 1:1 restoration.
An example to illustrate:
Impact = 1000 feet
Mitigation Required = 3000 mitigation units
Restoration Requirement (R)= 1000 credits
Restoration Equivalent Requirement (RE)= 2000 credits
EEP would provide 1000 restoration credits to offset the 1:1 restoration requirement. The remaining 2000 credit
requirement could be offset with either restoration or restoration equivalent credits.
The term "stand- alone" as referenced in the USACE mitigation guidelines is used to describe when an applicant proposes
only to use preservation to offset their impacts. EEP has not historically done this as our permits did not allow that. The
term "preservation -only" describes a project site that contains only preservation. Most of EEP's requirements are offset .
using multiple mitigation sites. The preservation only project sites were only used after the restoration requirement of
the permit was satisfied. In recent years, however, USACE has expressed an interest in moving away from using R and
RE permit requirements and treating all credits equally. We are not quite there yet
3. Long -Term Management — typically includes ensuring that the conservation easement is protected and enforced in
perpetuity. It may include a management plan (such as prescribed burning) but this would be very atypical. The
specifics on the frequency, intensity and type of monitoring necessary to satisfy this part of mitigation still lacks clarity as
those requirements are actively evolving within the regulatory agencies.
Hope this helps.
Jim Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
2
Be innin Quantities' -' ,
- ;
Begin nin_ Credits,
OC
F 3 C
..
'
3
Y
E
#{,v C
:.
_
l0
L
0
flWl�
C
Gi
i/
m
tip a ,la
Z
x.
a
a: ,f,r
�.
�
t• ?
v
= =
E',B
=�Q0]dd °
E
d
aid
r
=3�y/a,�
S
k '-•
-`-m
_
_
, fl,
=m -
-.
`� cl
a£i _
_
�;
_ _
gym/ c
a
CID
m
c
c
a, s
rF� ,.
fA
N
N
N W
92533 Dog Bite French 6010108
Creek Broad
2,571 1,113 0
3,313 0
3,313
92665 Elk Branch French 6010108
Broad
2,288 871
2,869 0
2,869
92664 Three Mile French 6010108
Creek Broad
6,057 618 875 6,421
6,819 1,284
8,103
2. Most of the HQP project sites contained only preservation credits. A few contained other mitigation credit types.
The HQP sites listed below contain only preservation (restoration equivalent credit types). Sandy Mush is actually a
large complex that contains some restoration — this site was broken into several smaller projects for implementation and
accounting. Historically, EEP's mitigation requirements have required that the impacts be offset with restoration class
credits. Mitigation required beyond the impact size could be satisfied using either restoration credits or restoration
equivalent class credits (i.e. preservation for streams). Thus, historically, EEP never used "stand- alone" preservation
mitigation to offset any particular impact even though EEP has preservation only projects. Thus, EEP has utilized these
preservation sites only in conjunction with restoration class credits from other mitigation projects such that the-impacts
were offset with 1:1 restoration.
An example to illustrate:
Impact = 1000 feet
Mitigation Required = 3000 mitigation units
Restoration Requirement (R)= 1000 credits
Restoration Equivalent Requirement (RE)= 2000 credits
EEP would provide 1000 restoration credits to offset the 1:1 restoration requirement. The remaining 2000 credit
requirement could be offset with either restoration or restoration equivalent credits.
The term "stand- alone" as referenced in the USACE mitigation guidelines is used to describe when an applicant proposes
only to use preservation to offset their impacts. EEP has not historically done this as our permits did not allow that. The
term "preservation -only" describes a project site that contains only preservation. Most of EEP's requirements are offset .
using multiple mitigation sites. The preservation only project sites were only used after the restoration requirement of
the permit was satisfied. In recent years, however, USACE has expressed an interest in moving away from using R and
RE permit requirements and treating all credits equally. We are not quite there yet
3. Long -Term Management — typically includes ensuring that the conservation easement is protected and enforced in
perpetuity. It may include a management plan (such as prescribed burning) but this would be very atypical. The
specifics on the frequency, intensity and type of monitoring necessary to satisfy this part of mitigation still lacks clarity as
those requirements are actively evolving within the regulatory agencies.
Hope this helps.
Jim Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
2

Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Tel. 919 - 218 -6872
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Raleigh office is physically located at the N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources Building at 217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A, Raleigh, N.C. 27603. Parking and visitor access information is available
on the F.F_P website.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Lynnette Batt [ma i Ito: IbattO)uniaueplacesllc.com)
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:53 PM
To: Stanfill, Jim
Subject: Re: EEP debiting in French Broad 08
Jim,
Thank you for these data. Two quick follow up questions
1) For the three projects below, could you tell me how many credits were generated as a result of restoration vs.
enhancement vs. preservation for each?
2) For the list of HQP projects, am I understanding correctly that each of these projects was "stand- alone" preservation
and not paired with restoration or enhancement for that specific project/site?
This is also unrelated, but I am interested in what constitutes "long -term management" for the HQP projects. Is this visual
monitoring of the easement only, or does it involve some level of active management?
Thanks again,
Lynnette
Lynnette Batt
Unique Places LLC
PO Box 52357
Durham, NC 27717
(919) 599 -3549
Ibatt unigueplacesllc.com I uniqueplacesllc com
Stanfill. Jim
February 18, 2014 at 4:42 PM
Lynnette,
EEP currently has 11,183 available cold stream restoration credits available in French Broad 06010108. These
credits come from the following projects:
IMS ID#
Project Name
Project Status
92533
Dog Bite Creek
Monitoring Year 4
92665
Elk Branch
Monitoring Year 2
92664 1
Three Mile Creek
Monitoring Year 5

EEP has and additional 13,675.7 stream credits of High Quality Preservation available from multiple sites but
most of this is planned to be utilized on future NCDOT mitigation needs.
Here is the complete list of HQP projects EEP has implemented in the Northern Mountain Ecoregion:
Begi
NM TOTAL I
EEP would be happy to assist you or your customer. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need additional
help.
Jim Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 MoiL Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Tel. 919 - 218 -6872
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Raleigh office is physically located at the N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources Building at 217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A, Raleigh, N.C. 27603. Parking and visitor access information is
available on the EEP website.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Lynnette Batt [ma i Ito: IbattCabuniqueplacesllc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Stanfill, Jim
Subject: EEP debiting in French Broad 08
Jim,
E
N
C
D
i
y
Z
O
m
U
O)
�'
C
U)
U)
U)
d
O
2
C
0
O
V
O
7
F
d
v
U
N
O
ao
w
a
c
a
French
Northern
Long Term
92132
Big & Little Rock Creek Bruchon
11111/2003
Broad
06010108
Mountains
Mitchell
M mt
Northern
Long Term
92172
Elk - Shoals- Methodist Cam
4/15/2005
New
05050001
Mountains
Ashe
M mt -
Northern
Long Term
92166
Linville River -White Creek
3/25/2004
Catawba
03050101
Mountains
Burke
M mt -
French
Northern
Long Term
92177
Little Table Rock 1
6/11/2004
Broad
06010108
Mountains
Mitchell
M mt
-
French
Northern
Long Term
92169
Little Table Rock 2
6/11/2004
Broad
06010108
Mountains
Mcdowell
M mt
Northern
Long Term
92168
Lone Mountain 1 -Phase Two
9/27/2004
Broad
03050105
Mountains
McDowell
M mt-
Northern
Long Term
92156
Mingo Tract
12/12/2003
Yadkin
03040101
Mountains
Caldwell
M mt
Northern
Long Term
92173
New River Heights Tract -New River
8/27/2004
New
05050001
Mountains
Ashe
M -mt .
French
Northern
Long Term
92175
Sand mush HQP -Pro ress Energy
12/28/2004
Broad
06010105
Mountains
Madison
M mt
NM TOTAL I
EEP would be happy to assist you or your customer. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need additional
help.
Jim Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 MoiL Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Tel. 919 - 218 -6872
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program's Raleigh office is physically located at the N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources Building at 217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A, Raleigh, N.C. 27603. Parking and visitor access information is
available on the EEP website.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Lynnette Batt [ma i Ito: IbattCabuniqueplacesllc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Stanfill, Jim
Subject: EEP debiting in French Broad 08
Jim,

Thanks for discussing this project with me just now. As I mentioned, we're looking for information on where EEP
credits /debiting stand in the French Broad 08 (06010108) in Mitchell County. We're particularly interested in the
breakdown of available preservation vs. enhancement/restoration credits. The permit requirement is anticipated to
be for about 1 -1.5K credits of coldwater stream.
If you might also be able to provide information on stand -alone High Quality Preservation projects done by EEP in
this or adjacent HUCs, I would appreciate that as well. My research per your web - mapper turned up the following
stand -alone HQP projects:
E

ktpm pint 11 -17_.2 58
tv
09 `£ \
gross:
3600 c _
IN
J
°
OW999Z J, 29
10000N
08000N
V (((
1 { Z9pp
o
O76z 4 -0
I rt'r s
o
E2740 r,
v �
$ "
�.272 MA-
099Z�
ow Map 2 of 5 w
JJ '
N g
\ ONZ o j'�\ �� ''Gr • N � `•
ff �.
00,
a99
/.z
x t (♦1� Ot
41��MIV R%11
U
' 1\ Ar
21
'740
trou $
2`�Pp ap 110f 5r
N : TMA -M 1 41* �a 'ki 1 I * 1
\ 1%
\ 2140'
Al
a
l",
t
JOB
Main Mine Art
1 3M
3Q 09SE
Wit 00,
3 � w tA►£
oaz£ z
MW
J 33
4
J� SS
3mq d
11 A OOK
MWD -BACK F
STpZ££ 3 .� i3 1,3100
40 IfNwg
L N� 11
40 �-g ,.� 33U4._'�
t£✓ w
fez QQ�
810000N
808000N
Legend
P,
Mine Permit
TMA- Tailing Management Areas-
TN%Mine#
MWD- Mine Waste Dump -MM-Mine#
Impacted Stream
Permit Boundary
1 -104 Linear feet and
0.019 acres of wetland
Wetland & Streams
2 -135 Linear feet
3.2381-inearfeet
Proposed Stream Path
4-146 Linear feet
.inearfeet
50 foot Buffer Zone
6-507 Linear feet
6- 507
7 -268 Linear feet
Total -2011 Linear feet
Reg raflon Stream
A - +1- 300 Linear feet
B- +1- 300Linearfeet
Impacted Stream
C - +/- -1665 Linear feet
Q +1550 Linear feet
Total - +1.2815 Linear feet
Preservation Stream
E -+1- 800 Linear feet
Restoration Stream
F - +1 -370 Linear feet
G - +/- 1100 Linear feet
K +1- 6390 Linear feet
I- +t 1250 Linear feet
Total - +1-9910 Linear feet
Quartz Corporation
Pine Mountain Mine Permit
Wetland & Stream Preliminary Review
Permit No. 61 -06
Scale: 1: 600'
Plan NO-61-0-2 Date: 08- Jul -13
808000N

im000 1088000
0
0
a
a+
a
0
r
w
e
8
m
1084000 imoo0 1088000

Beaver Creek Preservation Project
Proposed Mitigation for The Quartz Corp's Pine Mountain Mine Project
Project Summary for February 20, 2014 Meeting
Project Goals
• Preservation of excellent quality, coldwater streams and wide riparian buffers in a
watershed context to provide compensatory mitigation for the Quartz Corp's PMM site
• Improved protection of the Town of Spruce Pine's drinking water supply
Project Location /Site Selection
• Beaver Creek Watershed, Mitchell County, north of Spruce Pine
• 12 -digit HUC: 060101080104 (Grassy Creek -North Toe River)
• Close to the PMM impact site (about 1 mile, adjacent watershed)
• Watershed approach
• Municipal drinking water supply
o Site is privately owned by Rocky River Hydro, LLC
• High ecological significance (see below)
• High conservation priority per WRC, DENR, FWS
Ecological Significance
• Excellent quality, coldwater trout streams
o 2 -10 %+ slopes; excellent habitat complexity, mature buffer, stable channels
• Classification: WS -I; HQW; Trout
• Watershed is 100% forested; nearly all mature forest
• Total Beaver Creek watershed area: 1,386 acres 6o bo ac-
• Entire watershed lies within the Yellow Mountain/Raven Cliffs SNHA, rated as
"Outstanding Quality."
Nine globally vulnerable (G3) communities, three globally imperiled (G2) communities,
and two potentially new to science, rare communities are known to occur. Highlights:
o High Elevation Red Oak Forest
o Montane Cliffs
• Montane Oak - hickory Forest
• Rich Cove Forest
• Rich Montane Seep – rare community, common throughout watershed.
• High Elevation Black Oak Forest —this forest has not been described, highly rare.
• Chestnut Oak -Black Birch Boulderfield— another potential new community type.
Over a dozen rare plant and animal species observed, including the Mitten Crayfish
An additional 15 -20 rare plant species and 20 -25 rare animal species are potentially
found in the watershed based on distributions and habitat quality in the watershed
Baseline surveys of fish, benthic macros, salamanders, and bats are underway.
Threats
• Logging: Excellent quality, mature timber; high timber values regionally; high logging
pressure in adjacent watersheds. Logging is not restricted by WS -1.
• Damming: Town could build additional reservoir upstream; small hydropower potential
• Bottled water: Many springs and seeps that could be tapped
• Future development if WS -I classification changed (now under private ownership)

Justification for Stream Preservation
"Use of Stream Preservation as Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina" (IRT,
December 5, 2012), guidance based on the 2 0 0 8 F e d e r a 1 Mitigation Rule.
Primary Preservation Criteria
Does Project Meet Criteria?
Provides important physical, chemical, or
Yes; provides a municipal drinking water supply,
biological functions for the watershed.
and high quality habitat /rare communities
Contributes significantly to the ecological
Yes; would protect an entire sub - watershed for
sustainability of the watershed.
high ecological uplift
Preservation is determined by the district engineer to
TBD; justification is that the impacts are fairly
be appropriate and practicable.
minor, the preservation site is in close proximity to
Streams in a watershed that contains unique
the impact site, the streams are alike (both are
and/or high quality habitat that is adjacent or
coldwater), and the project takes a watershed
within an area experiencing a rapid increase in
approach
The resources are under threat of destruction or
Yes; described above
adverse modifications.
The preserved site will be permanently protected
Yes; recordation of conservation easement and
through an appropriate le al instrument.
transfer to USACE-approved Grantee
Secondary Preservation Criteria
Does Project Meet Criteria?
Streams in a watershed that contains a SNHA
Yes; watershed is "Outstanding" SNHA
Streams in a watershed that is known to provide
Yes; there are state listed rare species in watershed
habitat for state or federally listed species.
Streams in a watershed that h a s High Quality
Yes; watershed is classified as WS -I, High Quality
Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, Trout
Water, Trout Waters
Waters, or Water Supply Watersheds.
Streams in a watershed that contains unique
Maybe; has unique and high quality habitat and is
and/or high quality habitat that is adjacent or
adjacent to Spruce Pine, which has steady growth
within an area experiencing a rapid increase in
population or development trend.
Guidance notes that while it is preferable for preservation to be done in conjunction with
restoration and/or enhancement activities, this "requirement may be waived by the
district engineer where preservation has been identified as a high priority using a
watershed approach."
"Stand -alone preservation projects... may be allowed in special circumstances and
should only be proposed for sites that are of exceptional quality or have been
identified as unique or high priority areas."
• Precedent for High Quality Preservation nearby
o EEP has completed at least 4 nearby, all - preservation mitigation projects, totaling
76,000 feet of stream preservation (HQP).
Long -Term Stewardship, Monitoring and Maintenance
Proposed conservation easement Grantee is the Town of Spruce Pine
• Conservation easement would follow Corps' standard template
• Grantee will conduct regular inspection/monitoring of the easement area in perpetuity
• Grantee will address any violations of the terms of the conservation easement

SIGNIFICANT EXCERPTS REGARDING PRESERVATION FROM
THE STREAM MITIGATION GUIDELINES' AND THE FEDERAL MITIGATION
RULE'
.....(T)he District and DWQ now generally require that compensatory mitigation for impacts
to stream resources should be in the form of restoration and /or enhancement of degraded
stream channels utilizing natural channel design and bio- engineering techniques. Channel
preservation of unique or otherwise ecologically important stream segments may also play an
important role in mitigating stream impacts. (SMG Page 1)
Stream Preservation — Protection of ecologically important streams, generally, in perpetuity
through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms. Preservation may
include the protection of upland buffer areas adjacent to streams as necessary to ensure
protection or enhancement of the overall stream. Preservation must protect both sides of the
channel. Generally, stream preservation should be in combination with restoration or
enhancement activities. Under exceptional circumstances, preservation may stand -alone
where high value waters will be protected or ecologically important waters may be subject to
development pressure (Refer to Section 6 regarding preservation criteria). Stand -alone
preservation may generally be most acceptable in mitigating impacts associated with
nationwide and regional general permits. Preservation may be utilized for relatively
undisturbed areas that require little or no enhancement activities other than protective
measures. Although minimal streambank revegetation may be required in some cases, if
mitigation requires extensive streambank revegetation, the mitigation will be considered to be
Enhancement Level I1. (SMG Page 10)
For preservation to be an acceptable mitigation option the channel should generally be '
ecologically important and in a relatively undisturbed condition. The following list of criteria
may be used as a guide for selecting high value preservation sites.
Recommended priority areas for channel preservation: *
0 Streams in a watershed that are adjacent to, or within a unique wetland as identified by NC
Administrative Code 15A 2B .0100.
0 Streams in a watershed that contains Critical Habitat Areas identified by the Coastal Habitat
Protection Program of the Division of Marine Fisheries.
0 Streams in a watershed that contains a significant Natural Heritage Area as identified by the
Natural Heritage Program of the Division of Parks and Recreation, provided the Natural
Heritage Area contributes to the overall quality of the stream.
0 Streams in a watershed that is known to provide habitat for state or federally listed
endangered or threatened species.
(D Streams in a watershed that contains fishery nursery areas, High Quality Waters, Outstanding
Resource Waters, Trout Waters, or Water Supply Watersheds.
0 Streams in a watershed that meets the criteria for Exceptional Significance rating under the
Division of Coastal Management's NC CREWS (NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance).
April 2003; USACE, USEPA, NCWRC, and NCDWQ
233 CFR Parts 325 and 332; 40 CFR Part 230. Eff. June 9 2008)

SIGNIFICANT EXCERPTS REGARDING PRESERVATION FROM
THE STREAM MITIGATION GUIDELINES' AND THE FEDERAL MITIGATION
RULE'
0 Streams in a watershed that contains unique and /or high quality habitat (stream and /or
wetland) that is adjacent or within an area experiencing a rapid increase in population or
development trend.
0 Streams in a watershed that contain stream reaches designated as critical habitat by the US
F &WS.
* The above are not listed in order of selection priority. (SMG Page 16)
Where stand -alone stream preservation is proposed as mitigation, additional buffer width of
at least two times the base requirement may be required. (SMG Page 17)
(h) Preservation. (1) Preservation may be used to provide compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized by DA permits when all the following criteria are met: • -
(i) The resources to be preserved provide important physical, chemical, or biological-:--:. .
functions for the watershed;
(ii) The resources to be preserved contribute significantly to the ecological sustainability-
of the watershed. In determining the contribution of those resources to the ecological
sustainability of the watershed, the district engineer must use appropriate quantitative.
assessment tools, where available;
(iii) Preservation is determined by the district engineer to be appropriate and practicable;
(iv) The resources are under threat of destruction or adverse modifications; and . -
(v) The preserved site will be permanently protected through an appropriate real-estate, or
other legal instrument (e.g., easement, title transfer to state resource agency or land trust). _
(FMR, 33 CFR Part 332.3(h).
'April 2003; USACE, USEPA, NCWRC, and NCDWQ
233 CFR Parts 325 and 332; 40 CFR Part 230. Eff. June 9 2008)

Little Bald
1
i
stir' �
130 OF CHATHAM
PIN - 0881- 00 -89- 0370.x,
f
r
�0
RO(-KY RIVER HYpRO
PIN - 0891 -00 -18 -7029
C1q
t
a
� 4
.'y
c
i
Th e L ookoff
SPRUd-
RESEI
' r
't
c
i

WN CMAC
IDIOVIN
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
SCALE 1:10,000
�f ue Uni �
q
�t Places

PINE MOUNTAIN MINE IMPACT SITE
a
26 •
L.
CIO',
TOWN OF
SPRUCE PINE
a
40
HUC 12 - 0601 01 0801 06
GRASSY CREEK
NORTH TOE RIVER
HUC 12 - 030501010203
ARMSTRONG CREEK
Zlfl BASIN
19E
=I
1HUC 12 - 0601010'',O`
THREEMILE CREEK
NORTH TOE RIVER
w
HUC 12 WATERSHEDS
HIGH QUALITY WATER (HQW)
OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW)
WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS (WSW)
Unique--
Places

a.
19E
0 0.5 i 1.5 2
Miles
7t v Unique�
Places

N r it 1
t4
Or
hrr
t f i t
a

View of Yellow Mountain -Raven Cliffs Significant Natural Heritage Area

Beaver Creek mainstem