20140193 Ver 1_401 Application_20150915

47
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Division of Mitigation Services
Governor
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Sharon Jones
FROM: Lin Xu L-X
SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
DATE: September 16, 2015
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Henry Fork Site in Catawba County (DMS IMS # 96306). The activities associated with
this restoration project involve stream and wetland restoration related temporary stream
and wetland impact. To conduct these activities the DMS must submit a Pre -
construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) for
review and approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00 for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from DMS Fund # 2984, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919 - 707 -8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Karen Higgins, DWR
Cindy Perry, DMS
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: http: / /poaal.ncdenr.org /web /eep
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

A47A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Division of Mitigation Services Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 16, 2015
Karen Higgins, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
Re: Permit Application - Henry Fork Mitigation Site, Catawba County (DMS Full Delivery
Project)
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Another
copy has been sent to the Mooresville Regional Office for review. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: http: / /ponal.nodenr.org/web /eep
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

A 4
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Division of Mitigation Services Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 16, 2015
Michael Parker, Surface Water Protection Supervisor
NC DENR Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Ave, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: Permit Application — Henry Fork Mitigation Site — Catawba County (DMS Full Delivery
Project)
Dear Mr. Parker:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. Please
feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Cc: Karen Higgins
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: hftp: / /portal.ncdenr.org/web /eep
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

oFWAr�9
�� p� Office Use Only:
r Corps action ID no.
E01 ° DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: ®Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation El Yes ®No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h I ❑ Yes ® No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? I ❑ Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
2b. County:
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Catawba
Hickory, NC
N/A
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: I WEI — Henry Fork, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. I DB 03238 PN 1625 / Easement: DB 03247 PN 0476 -0488
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if NCDENR — Division of Mitigation Services
applicable): Contacts: Tim Baumgartner, Deputy Director; or Lin Xu, Plan Review Engineer
3d. Street address: 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
3e. City, state, zip: , Raleigh, NC 27603
3f. Telephone no.: 1 919- 707 -8543; 919 - 707 -8319 (Lin)
3g. Fax no.: 1 919 - 707 -8976
3h. Email address: I Tim. Baumgartner @ncdenr.gov; Lin.Xu @ncdenr.gov
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent ® Other. specify: State agency
4b. Name: Tim Baumgartner
4c. Business name
i (if applicable):
NCDENR- Division of Mitigation Services
4d. Street address:
217 W. Jones St, Suite 3000A
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f. Telephone no.:
919- 707 -8543
4g. Fax no.:
919 - 707 -8976
4h. Email address:
Tim.Baumgartner @ncdenr.gov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Ian Eckardt
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
I
I Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
!
5c. Street address:
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
5d. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28203
5e. Telephone no.:
704 - 332 -7754
5f. Fax no.:
704 - 332 -3306
5g. Email address:
ieckardt @wildlandseng.com
Page 2 of 13

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID)
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
1c. Property size:
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin:
3. Project Description
PIN# 2791 - 0888 -3819
Latitude: 35.702893° N Longitude: 81.364436° W
Final protected easement acreage will be 48.1 Acres
Henry Fork
Class C
Catawba: 03050102
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: The project area is located in western Catawba County, NC just outside the city limits of Hickory. Land use
in and immediately adjacent to the project area is a mix of low density residential, maintained open space, and forest.
The project site was until recently an active golf course.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
The project site includes nineteen jurisdictional wetlands that total approximately 1. 17 acres.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 5,637 linear feet of intermittent and perennial channel within the project area. The USACE has indicated
the manmade impoundments should be treated as streams for quantification of impacts and are reported as such in
Section C3 of this submittal.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal of the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of project stream channels, wetlands, and
floodplains through enhancement and restoration activities and to establish /protect riparian buffers.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Stream enhancement and restoration would be achieved through natural channel design. Stream enhancement would
include minor bank stabilization, habitat improvement through the installation of instream structures, and planting of a
native riparian buffer as appropriate. Restoration activities would involve excavation of new channel and floodplain,
installation of instream structures, and planting a native riparian buffer. Wetland restoration will include re- establishment
and rehabilitation of wetlands. Re- establishment of buried hydric soils will involve removing overburden, raising stream
beds (improving hydrology), creating surface roughness, and planting native vegetation. Wetland rehabilitation will be
achieved through raising stream beds and planting native vegetation. Wetland enhancement will involve removing
invasive species and planting existing wetland with native vegetation. Trackhoes will be used for in- stream work and
wetland grading. A conservation easement has been recorded on project streams and wetlands and additional riparian
buffer.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

14. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property !
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ®Yes E] No El Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ❑ Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes. who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company: Ian Eckardt — Wildlands
Name (if known): David Brown with USACE reviewed and Engineering
verified jurisdictional areas delineated by Wildland Other:
Engineering.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Jurisdictional Determination was issued by David Brown of the USACE on September 2, 2014. A copy of the approved
Jurisdictional Determination is included in Appendix 3 (Action Id. 2014- 00538).
1 5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
►/
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 13
❑ Unknown

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands
® Streams - tributaries
❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters
❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on
the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. Wetland 2b.
2c.
2d.
2e. 2f•
impact number —
Type of jurisdiction
Permanent (P) or
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Temporary (T)
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
W1 — Wetland A
Excavation —
wetland
Headwater forest
El Yes
®No
®Corps
® DWQ
0.182
®P [] T
rehabilitation
W2 — Wetland B
Excavation —
wetland
Headwater forest
El Yes
® No
®Corps
® DWQ
0.013
® P E] T
rehabilitation
W3 — Wetland C
Excavation —
wetland
Headwater forest
El Yes
®No
®Corps
®DWQ
0.003
®P E] T
rehabilitation
W4 — Wetland D
Excavation —
wetland
Headwater forest
®Yes
[] No
®Corps
®DWQ
0.013
®P ❑ T
rehabilitation
W6 — Wetland F
Excavation —
stream channel
Headwater forest
®Yes
❑ No
®Corps
®DWQ
0.003
®P ❑ T
construction
W7 — Wetland G
Excavation —
wetland
Headwater forest
El Yes
0 N
®Corps
®DWQ
0.012
®P El
rehabilitation
W8 — Wetland J
Excavation —
wetland
Headwater forest
❑Yes
® No
®Corps
® DWQ
0.009
® P ❑ T
rehabilitation
W9 — Wetland O
—
Excavation —
stream channel
Headwater forest
Yes
® No
®Corps
®DWQ
0.001
®P ❑ T
construction
W10 — Wetland R
Fill — wetland
Non -tidal
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.059
® P ❑ T
rehabilitation
freshwater marsh
® No
® DWQ
W11 — Wetland S
Excavation —
stream channel
Non -tidal
El Yes
®Corps
0.02
® P ❑ T
construction
freshwater marsh
® No
® DWQ
W12 — Wetland S
Stream channel
Non -tidal
El Yes
®Corps
0.065
E] P ®T
construction
freshwater marsh
® No
® DWQ
access
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.380
2h. Comments: Impacts to existing wetland areas were avoided to the extent possible during the design phase however some
impacts are necessary for rehabilitation and re- establishment activities. Approximately 0.29 acres of existing wetlands will be
disturbed by grading activities related to re- establishment of Wetland 1, including removal of hydric fill in Wetlands A — C, tie -in
grading affecting portions of Wetlands D, G and J, and grading of the margins of Pond 3 (Wetland R) to bring that area down to the
elevation of the adjacent Wetland 1 and improve its hydrologic connectivity, rather than leaving it perched. These impacts are all
necessary, and generally considered beneficial to the long term condition of these existing wetlands. The majority of these wetland
features proposed for impacts are currently in mowed bermudagrass, except Wetland R and parts of Wetland D. The project
proposes a net gain of approximately 3 acres of wetland through rehabilitation and re- establishment. In addition, several vernal
pools are proposed, off - setting the permanent losses from stream channel construction (0.02 ac +l -). There will be a permanent
impact to Wetland S for stream conversion and a temporary impact for access. On -site wetlands will be planted with native
vegetation. The proposed activities will result in higher quality wetlands and improved wetland function.
Page 5 of 13

3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial
or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site,
then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
I S1 ®P ❑ T
IIII
Restoration
UT1 - Reach 1
M PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
5 -10
1,134
S2 ® P ❑ T
Restoration
UT1 - Reach 1
(Pond 2)
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
270"
S3 ®P ❑ T
Restoration
UT1 - Reach 2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
15 -20
1,031
II
S4 ® P ❑ T
Fill and Offline
UT1 - Reach 2
® PER
® Corps
143"
i
Restoration
(Pond 3)
❑ INT
® DWQ
S5 ®P ❑ T
Fill and Offline
UT1 - Reach 2
® PER
® Corps
_
230*
Restoration
(Pond 4)
❑ INT
® DWQ
I S6 ®P ❑ T
!!!
Restoration
UT1A
E] PER
® INT
® Corps
® DWQ
5 -10
369
S7 ®P ❑ T
Restoration
UT1 B
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4 -6
376
S8 Zl P ❑ T
Restoration
UT1B (Pond 1)
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
I 76
S9 ®P ❑ T
Restoration
UT2
®N PER
Corps
1,915
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 5,544
3i. Comments: * Based on prior discussions with the USACE impacts to Ponds 1 — 4 are being treated as streams for
quantification of impacts. Ponds 1 and 2 will be breached for proposed stream restoration. Stream restoration in the
floodplain of Henry Fork will realign UT1 and take Ponds 3 and 4 offline. The majority of Ponds 3 and 4 will be filled, however
existing wetlands delineated on the pond margins of Pond 3 will be incorporated into wetland restoration activities. The
project proposes to improve stream function to all project streams through restoration activities and will result in a net gain of
approximately 812 feet of stream length. In addition, existing culverted stream segments (comprising approximately 370
linear feet of the total impact) have been included in the summary of impacts even though these streams have minimal
function under present conditions.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
01 ❑P ❑T I
03 ❑P ❑T f
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
Page 6 of 13

5a. 5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number of pond
Flooded
I Filled
Excavated
I Flooded . Filled
I Excavated
I Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total I
'
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d.
6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number — Reason
Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet ) (square feet)
Temporary (T) impact
required?
B1 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
I
El Ye
❑Nos
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project will use natural channel design techniques throughout to have an overall positive impact restoring stream
function and habitat by improving bed features in the streams and establishing flood storage. Wetland impacts were
avoided to the extent possible during design. Particular efforts were made to grade around wetlands and also maintain or
design for hydrologic connectivity to existing wetlands. Several existing wetlands (including all or portions of Wetland C.
H — Q except O, and S) will be enhanced through planting native vegetation. The planting will be performed by hand and
only require foot - traffic for installation.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
Wetland areas inside the limits of disturbance not proposed for rehabilitation or re- establishment will be flagged with
safety fence during construction to avoid unintended impacts
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
4h. Comments:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
j Type Quantity
❑Yes
linear feet
❑ warm ❑ cool
square feet
acres
acres
i acres
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
❑cold
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8of13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 I I 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 I I I 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 13

I E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
i
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified El Yes No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? z
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is located in the Catawba River Watershed (HUC
03050102) where only the mainstem of the Catawba River is protected by the NC ❑ Yes ® No
Riparian Buffer Protection Rules. The project is not located on or adjacent to the
mainstem of the Catawba River.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
f
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 10%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? I ❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project involves the restoration and
enhancement of on -site jurisdictional stream channels and wetlands. No increase in impervious cover will result from the
construction of this project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Certified Local Government
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
❑ Yes ❑ No
I❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
® Yes ❑ No
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 7 of the
mitigation plan.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in I El Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream and wetland mitigation project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively impact
downstream water quality. The project area will be protected in perpetuity from future development through a
conservation easement.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes: indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. 71 Raleigh
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases were
utilized to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal species for Catawba County, NC.
Pedestrian surveys were conducted on 9/3/13 and 3/17/14 for potential habitat and species. No species were found.
The USFWS was contacted on 2/25/14 for comment related to any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
endangered species. No comments were provided by the USFWS at that time. Wildlands sent a second letter to
USFWS requesting comment on the recently listed northern long -eared bat. The USFWS responded on 6/5/15 and
stated "not likely to adversely affect" is the proper determination for the project in regards to the northern long -eared bat
and that they have no objection to the proposed project. Correspondence with the USFWS is included in Appendix 7 of
the mitigation plan.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I D. Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — Essential Fish Habitat Mapper website was used to
determine the project wasn't located in or near an area designated as Essential Fish Habitat. Designated Essential Fish
Habitat in North Carolina includes salt marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrass. The NC Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC) was also contacted for comment related to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed stream
mitigation project. The NCWRC responded on 3/14/14 and didn't anticipate the project to result in significant adverse
impacts to aquatic or terrestrial wildlife resources (see correspondence in Appendix 7 of the mitigation plan).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and North Carolina Tribal Historic Office (THPO) were contacted
regarding the presence historic properties or cultural resources within the project area. SHPO responded on 3/24/14 and
stated they were aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the project (see correspondence in Appendix 7
of the mitigation plan). No response was received from the THPO thus it's assumed that they are unware of potential
Page 12 of 13

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? I ® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Henry Fork is mapped in a Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) on Catawba County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 2791J, as depicted in Figure 10. Base flood elevations
have been defined and non - encroachment limits have been published in the Catawba County Flood Insurance Study
(FIS). UT1A, UT1 Reach 1 Lower, UT1 Reach 2, and UT2 do not have designated SFHAs, but do lie partly or entirely
within the SFHA of Henry Fork. UT1 Reach 1 Upper, and UT1 B do not have a designated SFHA and do not lie within the
SFHA of Henry Fork. Effective hydraulic modeling for Henry Fork has been obtained from the NC Floodplain Mapping
Program. The DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included in Appendix 9. The project will be designed to avoid
adverse floodplain impacts within the Henry Fork floodplain or on adjacent parcels. A floodplain development permit has
been approved for the project.
There are no hydrologic trespass concerns or risks associated with the proposed project activities.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Catawba County FIRM Panel 2791J
Lin Xu, Plan Review Engineer �- /"L__1
NCDENR - DMS Applicant/ Applicant/Agent's Signature
Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
9//4 //s
Date

I`I , R +\ . i
et ` i tt ` .. � t�, \ V ! I (� +laid' • • B o toIdAj �.';; a EN�Y F QRK 128+,27. '
_ �. o aiaJ ,r' r
u u,eo :< ?k /a7 ++ ,e,L ""'rte . \' oo / too •""^ 126 +99 TIE- IN TO EXISTING
_ '1+U3;�,�;_ �.� CHANNEL, END OF PROJECT
11 01 po
o tax 1�hIts�/' 1
1,
t
I P T\oR PIPE
IRR
t—too 't VA Wetland
1\ pp i I EXISTING
PON DS3 &4-
TO BE FILLED
qa
0 1 I EXISTI G _m � 1�a ' �
ALIGNMENT WetlandL
\\ WEI -HENRY FORK, LLC UT2 TO BE
\ t
n ; 'P-
PIN: 2791-0888-3819
zRl, ABANDONED , °_R EX.
AND FIL ED '
�. DB:3238 PG: 1625 POND 4 \
-- — - a-
\ DONNA HARRIS HAMILTON -- PB: 73 PG: 131 j— — — y+ ; �. etlandK /
DANIEL 91- 076 -8229 - �\
PIN: 2791- 0769 -5229 ... - - - � 3' rO'�___ - -<+'
i
\ \ D& 2010E PG: 85 \ END UT1 REACH FOR \`t` ,' `� 186 +57 -3 am
Wetland IN
f
a
Porn 3 s 4 » ii f� i °tR !A! YlandH
too LOD Loo ton — oo .GS.'"Y➢ v / !`i 3 i '' , _ _ A
1
\ Eoo Eoo - _2 YJ } r•Y '� t e4h rf� / \
� .. _ ..
\ —Eoo UT2 ". yaM oWETCAND 219 9
START U
200 +00 - 219 +69
o, OS• .r." .> .t� I r rv,° Y.�ellan -'y T z
IySy� %1,
�� _ - —iii t�fl' / �' • r °+ ..r r, tv.!Ih„m -'.1a o
o°
EXISTING STIR / 0
11
V X
AND TOP
OFSANK ART UT1AEAC
�A . /...
e"
Wetlanq 114 +71 - 126 +99 .t' -.. .,` ._. '•'..`\/`� , i \/
too _-
\ vci I - - `_� �: 9 'r,'�.Ac- P' a _=[�4^c - _ _sa'•,3-"'d'- - - _ —
t - CE /PE
i CC/PL Wet g--! r�.,^'� ENRYFORK - ".�
PL
>/ t �FPL L EASEMENT - 160+00 1 6 +57
910 -_� -
\ L N •:
\ .2 HENRY RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC.
RICKEY PAUL DONKEL, SR. - 'PIN: 2791 - 0887 -9772 _
\ PIN: 2791-0778-3353 HENRY RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC..'
DB:3180 PG: 1856 DB:2643 PG: 303
PIN: 2791- 0887 -9772 gg -
\
PB: 53 PG: 60 DB:2643 PG: 303 PB: 73 PG 131"
" ` �i'
PB: 73 PG: 131 •\`mod
\ V
ti
50'WIDE
\., ACCESS EASEMENT
\ \ I TO SR: 1192
I PER DB. 3238 PG: 1627 _
d POND
\`,✓ �O ` EXISTING
IY 1 �1 - ,( BOLDING
Legend \ qY,, Y' �1 (FORMER —
J�
V
7
a
�Q 2E
LL
o U � o
r 41
�
bO 0 N
z
4-
r. O r'
PTO-I � �
U Qj
3 0
V d'
P P� V _ -
Proposed Wetland Impacts \ .
L lb\ Wetland
TO MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
Proposed Stream Impactsy (SR 1192)
Proposed Stream Impacts (Impounded) START UT1 REACH I LOWER 1Q3 +02- 114 +71 153 +58 -U 1�`'e fX.
\ r 1111177 a, POND 1 _
°
Figure shows existing contours. For proposed contours, 200' 300'
refer to construction plans Il,ox zoxrnq 5`a `�T•`'U"
I
CONTOUR INTERVAL THIS SHEET: 5-FOOT, DATUM: NAVD88 \ //A`,
(CONTOURS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE BUT NOT LABELED) V y START DtJB N ~ p
oo) ]50+00 153 +5g_ a S di
la
START REACH 1
- 1 --
^ `J\ 100 00 103 +02 E m
t 1� ; lla /7J
+i�{A +,- N)3J `= ^•i••'� idrh
,. J!
I
�
NON- MITIGATION PROPOSED
100 - FOOT -WIDE BUFFER TO
BE PLANTED ALONG RIGHT
BANK OF HENRY FORK
I`I , R +\ . i
et ` i tt ` .. � t�, \ V ! I (� +laid' • • B o toIdAj �.';; a EN�Y F QRK 128+,27. '
_ �. o aiaJ ,r' r
u u,eo :< ?k /a7 ++ ,e,L ""'rte . \' oo / too •""^ 126 +99 TIE- IN TO EXISTING
_ '1+U3;�,�;_ �.� CHANNEL, END OF PROJECT
11 01 po
o tax 1�hIts�/' 1
1,
t
I P T\oR PIPE
IRR
t—too 't VA Wetland
1\ pp i I EXISTING
PON DS3 &4-
TO BE FILLED
qa
0 1 I EXISTI G _m � 1�a ' �
ALIGNMENT WetlandL
\\ WEI -HENRY FORK, LLC UT2 TO BE
\ t
n ; 'P-
PIN: 2791-0888-3819
zRl, ABANDONED , °_R EX.
AND FIL ED '
�. DB:3238 PG: 1625 POND 4 \
-- — - a-
\ DONNA HARRIS HAMILTON -- PB: 73 PG: 131 j— — — y+ ; �. etlandK /
DANIEL 91- 076 -8229 - �\
PIN: 2791- 0769 -5229 ... - - - � 3' rO'�___ - -<+'
i
\ \ D& 2010E PG: 85 \ END UT1 REACH FOR \`t` ,' `� 186 +57 -3 am
Wetland IN
f
a
Porn 3 s 4 » ii f� i °tR !A! YlandH
too LOD Loo ton — oo .GS.'"Y➢ v / !`i 3 i '' , _ _ A
1
\ Eoo Eoo - _2 YJ } r•Y '� t e4h rf� / \
� .. _ ..
\ —Eoo UT2 ". yaM oWETCAND 219 9
START U
200 +00 - 219 +69
o, OS• .r." .> .t� I r rv,° Y.�ellan -'y T z
IySy� %1,
�� _ - —iii t�fl' / �' • r °+ ..r r, tv.!Ih„m -'.1a o
o°
EXISTING STIR / 0
11
V X
AND TOP
OFSANK ART UT1AEAC
�A . /...
e"
Wetlanq 114 +71 - 126 +99 .t' -.. .,` ._. '•'..`\/`� , i \/
too _-
\ vci I - - `_� �: 9 'r,'�.Ac- P' a _=[�4^c - _ _sa'•,3-"'d'- - - _ —
t - CE /PE
i CC/PL Wet g--! r�.,^'� ENRYFORK - ".�
PL
>/ t �FPL L EASEMENT - 160+00 1 6 +57
910 -_� -
\ L N •:
\ .2 HENRY RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC.
RICKEY PAUL DONKEL, SR. - 'PIN: 2791 - 0887 -9772 _
\ PIN: 2791-0778-3353 HENRY RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC..'
DB:3180 PG: 1856 DB:2643 PG: 303
PIN: 2791- 0887 -9772 gg -
\
PB: 53 PG: 60 DB:2643 PG: 303 PB: 73 PG 131"
" ` �i'
PB: 73 PG: 131 •\`mod
\ V
ti
50'WIDE
\., ACCESS EASEMENT
\ \ I TO SR: 1192
I PER DB. 3238 PG: 1627 _
d POND
\`,✓ �O ` EXISTING
IY 1 �1 - ,( BOLDING
Legend \ qY,, Y' �1 (FORMER —
J�
V
7
a
�Q 2E
LL
o U � o
r 41
�
bO 0 N
z
4-
r. O r'
PTO-I � �
U Qj
3 0
V d'
P P� V _ -
Proposed Wetland Impacts \ .
L lb\ Wetland
TO MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
Proposed Stream Impactsy (SR 1192)
Proposed Stream Impacts (Impounded) START UT1 REACH I LOWER 1Q3 +02- 114 +71 153 +58 -U 1�`'e fX.
\ r 1111177 a, POND 1 _
°
Figure shows existing contours. For proposed contours, 200' 300'
refer to construction plans Il,ox zoxrnq 5`a `�T•`'U"
I
CONTOUR INTERVAL THIS SHEET: 5-FOOT, DATUM: NAVD88 \ //A`,
(CONTOURS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE BUT NOT LABELED) V y START DtJB N ~ p
oo) ]50+00 153 +5g_ a S di
la
START REACH 1
- 1 --
^ `J\ 100 00 103 +02 E m

w •� - n
"'ATtCs 0 V N a
CESAW -RG /Hughes
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
August 18, 2015
SUBJECT: Henry Fork Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review
Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: Henry Fork Mitigation Site, Catawba County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2014 -00538
NCDMS #: 96306
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 25 July 2015
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 23 July 2015:
1. Page 17, Table 8: Recommend including overall wetland ratings per NCWAM score.
2. Page 20: Wetland R and S classification should be changed from "non- freshwater
marsh" to "non -tidal freshwater marsh"
3. Page 41, Section 10.2: Recommend adding language that clarifies that the addition of
the 100 -foot wide buffer along Henry Fork is to account for acreage lost due to wetland
overlap into riparian areas of UT2 and UT1.
4. Page 41, Section 10.2: Recommend adding language that states that culverts,
outbuildings, cart paths, utilities, dams etc. will be removed.
5. Page 56, Section 11: Recommend adding language to provide for contingencies due to
beaver activity.
6. Page 58, Section 12.2: Recommend adding the 100' buffer along the Henry Fork under
the auspices of monitoring for vegetation success criteria. This is justified by the lack of
specific UT1 and UT2 riparian buffer success in the areas that overlap with wetland
monitoring.
7. Page 61, Section 13.2.6: Recommend monitoring of 100' buffer along Henry Fork for
same reasons stated above.
8. The 100' riparian buffer along Henry Fork right bank should be included in detail plans
located in the appendices.
9. Recommend some contingency plan to deal with unplanned wetland acreage that may
be inadvertently created by plugging the ditches that drain UT2 and the western portion

of the site into Henry Fork. While full credit for this cannot be awarded without
monitoring wells and planting, some credit may be justified if wetland function is
established.
Ginnv Baker, NCDWR, 241u1y, 2015:
1. The additional buffer plantings along Henry Fork are an excellent voluntary measure for
uplift. Please included this planted buffer area in the planting plans.
2. NCDWR is concerned that the proposed 7.2% of consecutive days of water table
elevation within 12 inches of the surface is low for a bottomland hardwood wetland
system (Section 12.3, Page 58). Section 7.2.1 referred to the analysis of a reference well
located in a reference wetland meeting the 7.2% hydrology criteria. What was the
reference well performance for each year it was monitored, 2012 -2014, and did the
local area experience normal rainfall conditions?
3. The three location bank pin survey described in Section 13.2 is a quick and useful
method to monitor dimension stability. NCDWR recommends adding additional bank
pins to any significant erosion areas that are observed during the visual monitoring. This
will help avoid concerns about whether observed bank erosion at closeout is active or
stable.
Andrea Huqhes, USACE, 17Auqust, 2015:
1. The draft mitigation plan proposes a wetland hydrology performance standard of
saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for 7.2% of the growing season. Wetland
areas receiving credit for restoring /enhancing wetland hydrology should demonstrate
saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 8.5% of the growing season.
2. Please include a description of the monitoring protocols for wetland hydrology in the
monitoring plan (Section 13).
3. The field notes from the site visit indicate a high level of invasive species located
immediately offsite and a recommendation to address contingency actions for on -site
invasive species issues in the Adaptive Management section of the mitigation plan.
4. The Long -Term Management Plan should include a list of long -term management
activities required for site sustainability, annual cost for each activity, the party
responsible for conducting these activities, and details regarding the funding of these
activities. If no long -term management activities are anticipated for this site, please
include a statement to this effect in the mitigation plan along with an explanation.
5. The survey plat included with the conservation easement depicts a series of roads /paths
throughout the mitigation site. Several of these appear to be located in close proximity
to mitigation areas and /or cross these areas. Please provide a map depicting any
roads /paths /trails and /or crossings that will remain post - construction.
6. We request that a surface water gauge be installed in all intermittent stream reaches
proposed for restoration in order to demonstrate sufficient flow throughout the
monitoring period to maintain an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
7. All temporary and permanent impacts to existing wetlands and streams must be
accounted for in the PCN and the loss or conversion of those waters must be replaced
on -site. Please include a map depicting the location of all impacts with the PCN.

8. Typically we do not recommend inclusion of Acer rubrum in planting plans as this
species may currently be present onsite. Please be aware that adaptive management
may be required ifAcer rubrum is determined to be a dominant species at any time
during the monitoring period.
9. According to the information provided, this mitigation site is located in the Catawba
River Basin HUC 03050102. The mitigation plan (page 1) states the site is being
submitted for mitigation credit in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103 within the
expanded service area of this HUC. Please be aware that the IRT has not approved a
DMS request to expand the service area for HUC 03050103 to include CT03, CT02, and
CT01. If you would like to request that the IRT consider an expanded service area for the
Henry Fork mitigation site, please provide a map depicting the boundaries for the
proposed service area you are requesting.
HUGHES.ANDRE Digitally signed by
H U GH ES. AN DREA.WADE.1258339165
A.WADE.1258339
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD,
ou =PKl, ou =USA,
165 cn= HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2015.08.18 1329:51 - 04'00'
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

WILDLANDS
F NC, IN E F R I Nr,
September 2, 2015
Matthew Reid
N.C. DENR- Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: NCIRT Review Portal Comments for Draft Mitigation Plan
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS #96306)
Catawba 03050103 Expanded Service Area, Catawba County, NC
Dear Mr. Reid,
We have reviewed the comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan for the above referenced project dated
August 18, 2015, and have revised the Mitigation Plan and plan set based on these comments. The
revised documents are submitted with this letter as a final deliverable for DMS review. Below are
responses to each of the IRT comments. The comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
Todd Bowers. USEPA. 23 Julv 2015
1. Page 17, Table 8
Recommend including overall wetland ratings per NCWAM score.
Response: The NCWAM score and ratings have been added to Table 8.
2. Page 20
Wetland R and S classification should be changed from "non- freshwater marsh" to "non -tidal
freshwater marsh ".
Response: The change has been made in Section 5.1, page 20.
3. Page 41. Section 10.2
Recommend adding language that clarifies that the addition of the 100 -foot wide buffer along Henry
Fork is to account for acreage lost due to wetland overlap into riparian areas of UT2 and UT1.
Response: This clarification has been added to the end of paragraph 1 in Section 10.2.
4. Page 41. Section 10.2
Recommend adding language that states that culverts, outbuildings, cart paths, utilities, dams etc. will
be removed.
Response: This language has been added to the last paragraph in Section 10.2.
5. Page 56, Section 11
Recommend adding language to provide for contingencies due to beaver activity.
Response: This language has been added to the maintenance plan for streams: "Beaver activity will
be monitored and beaver dams on project streams will typically be removed during the monitoring
period to allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this type of influence."
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 828.774.5547 • 167 -B Haywood Rd. • Asheville, NC 28806

6. Page 58, Section 12.2
Recommend adding the 100' buffer along the Henry Fork under the auspices of monitoring for
vegetation success criteria. This is justified by the lack of specific UT1 and UT2 riparian buffer success
in the areas that overlap with wetland monitoring.
Response: The 100' buffer has been added to monitoring efforts as indicated by monitoring sections
in the plan, and as depicted on Figure 11.
7. Page 61, Section 13.2.6
Recommend monitoring of 100' buffer along Henry Fork for same reasons stated above.
Response: Monitoring this buffer has been added, with specific mention as part of the monitoring
effort.
8. General Comment (Appendices /Plans)
The 100' riparian buffer along Henry Fork right bank should be included in detail plans located in the
appendices.
Response: A Plan Sheet, 4.4, has been added to depict the 100' buffer planting.
9. General Comment (Adaptive Management)
Recommend some contingency plan to deal with unplanned wetland acreage that may be
inadvertently created by plugging the ditches that drain UT2 and the western portion of the site into
Henry Fork. While full credit for this cannot be awarded without monitoring wells and planting, some
credit may be justified if wetland function is established.
Response: The following language has been added to the Mitigation Plan in Section 8.2 pertaining to
Wetland Mitigation Credits: "DMS reserves the right to request additional wetland credits created by
the project. Wetland credits will be proposed based upon additional gauge data and /or wetland
delineation."
Ginnv Baker, NCDWR, 24 July 2015
1. Henry Fork Buffer
The additional buffer plantings along Henry Fork are an excellent voluntary measure for uplift. Please
included this planted buffer area in the planting plans.
Response: A Plan Sheet, 4.4, has been added to depict the 100' buffer planting.
2. Wetland' Hvdrolo v criteria
NCDWR is concerned that the proposed 7.2% of consecutive days of water table elevation within 12
inches of the surface is low for a bottomland hardwood wetland system (Section 12.3, Page 58).
Section 7.2.1 referred to the analysis of a reference well located in a reference wetland meeting the
7.2% hydrology criteria. What was the reference well performance for each year it was monitored,
2012 -2014, and did the local area experience normal rainfall conditions"?
Response: During the evaluated years (2012 — 2014) reference well data was within the upper 12
inches of the surface for extended periods during the growing season with a minimum of 47
consecutive days (23% of growing season). Assessment of the hydrology data was focused on the
response of the water table elevations to precipitation as opposed to setting minimum hydrology
criteria based on the reference hydrology. In addition, during the DMS review period there was
concern expressed about the depth of grading on site and the potential for the system to become
2

more emergent with extended periods of surface water as opposed to a bottomland hardwood
system with fluctuating groundwater hydrology. Wildlands considered this information, as well as
experience with past wetland mitigation projects and site specific hydrologic modeling to set the
hydrologic criteria for the system. A revised explanation of how hydrologic criteria was selected has
been prepared as part of the revised mitigation plans, Section 5.3.1.4. Previous projects, associated
growing seasons, and performance criteria are displayed in the table below. Based on all this
information Wildlands believes that an inundation period of 7.2% (17 days out of a 236 day growing
season) along with the proposed grading will provide sufficient soil wetness to develop appropriate
hydric soils within the upper twelve inches of the soil surface to establish a forested bottomland
hardwood system.
3. Bank Pin Stabilitv Measurement at Erosional Areas,
The three location bank pin survey described in Section 13.2 is a quick and useful method to monitor
dimension stability. NCDWR recommends adding additional bank pins to any significant erosion areas
that are observed during the visual monitoring. This will help avoid concerns about whether observed
bank erosion at closeout is active or stable.
Response: Expansion of bank pin monitoring has been written into section 13.2.1 to include areas of
moderate bank erosion within project streams.
Andrea Hughes. USACE. 17 August 2015
1. Wetland Hvdrologv Criteria
The draft mitigation plan proposes a wetland hydrology performance standard of saturation within 12
inches of the soil surface for 7.2% of the growing season. Wetland areas receiving credit for
restoring /enhancing wetland hydrology should demonstrate saturation within 12 inches of the soil
surface for at least 8.5% of the growing season.
Response: Please see the response to comment 2 above by Ginny Baker, NCDW R.
3
% of
Site
Consecutive
Growing
Growing
Growing
County
Proposed System
Day Criteria
Season Days
Season
Seasons
April 7 to
Bottomland
Lyle Creek
14
204
7.0%
October 28
Catawba
Hardwood Forest
Owl's Den
18
222
8.1%
March 28 to
Lincoln
Piedmont
Mitigation Site
November 4
Bottomland Forest
Foust Creek
March 24 to
Bottomland
Mitigation Site
20
230
8.5%
November 9
Alamance
Hardwood Forest
Underwood
14
216
6.5%
April 1 to
Chatam
Bottomland
Mitigation Site
November 3
Hardwood Forest
Devil's Racetrack
Coastal Plain Small
March 21 to
Stream and
20
230
8.5%
November
Johnston
Stream Swamp
Wetland
and Bottomland
Mitigation Site
16
Hardwood
Crooked Creek
March 23 to
Palustrine
#2 Restoration
17
228
7.5%
November 6
Union
Emergent Wetland
Project
,
3. Bank Pin Stabilitv Measurement at Erosional Areas,
The three location bank pin survey described in Section 13.2 is a quick and useful method to monitor
dimension stability. NCDWR recommends adding additional bank pins to any significant erosion areas
that are observed during the visual monitoring. This will help avoid concerns about whether observed
bank erosion at closeout is active or stable.
Response: Expansion of bank pin monitoring has been written into section 13.2.1 to include areas of
moderate bank erosion within project streams.
Andrea Hughes. USACE. 17 August 2015
1. Wetland Hvdrologv Criteria
The draft mitigation plan proposes a wetland hydrology performance standard of saturation within 12
inches of the soil surface for 7.2% of the growing season. Wetland areas receiving credit for
restoring /enhancing wetland hydrology should demonstrate saturation within 12 inches of the soil
surface for at least 8.5% of the growing season.
Response: Please see the response to comment 2 above by Ginny Baker, NCDW R.
3

2. Wetland Hvdrologv Monitoring
Please include a description of the monitoring protocols for wetland hydrology in the monitoring plan
(Section 13).
Response: Section 13.3.1 has been added to discuss wetland hydrology monitoring.
3. Invasive Species Management
The field notes from the site visit indicate a high level of invasive species located immediately offsite
and a recommendation to address contingency actions for on -site invasive species issues in the
Adaptive Management section of the mitigation plan.
Response: The Performance Standards for Vegetation (Section 12.2) state that "The extent of
invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period."
4. Lone Term Management Plan
The Long -Term Management Plan should include a list of long -term management activities required
for site sustainability, annual cost for each activity, the party responsible for conducting these
activities, and details regarding the funding of these activities. If no long -term management activities
are anticipated for this site, please include a statement to this effect in the mitigation plan along with
an explanation.
Response: Section 14.0 of the Mitigation Plan has been updated to address anticipated maintenance
activities. Due to the nature of the site, there are minimal anticipated maintenance activities.
S. Roads /Paths /Trails /Crossings Post - Construction
The survey plat included with the conservation easement depicts a series of roads /paths throughout
the mitigation site. Several of these appear to be located in close proximity to mitigation areas and /or
cross these areas. Please provide a map depicting any roads /paths /trails and /or crossings that will
remain post - construction.
Response: The plat shows existing cart paths. All cart paths within the planting areas associated
with streams and wetlands and within the footprint of wetland mitigation activities will be removed.
There are no plans to maintain permanent roads, paths or crossings post - construction.
6. Reauest for Stream Gaging on Intermittent Streams
We request that a surface water gauge be installed in all intermittent stream reaches proposed for
restoration in order to demonstrate sufficient flow throughout the monitoring period to maintain an
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
Response: Section 12.1.5 and Section 13.2.5 have been revised to include performance standards and
monitoring of intermittent stream hydrology as requested.
7. Temporary and Permanent Impacts
All temporary and permanent impacts to existing wetlands and streams must be accounted for in the
PCN and the loss or conversion of those Waters must be replaced on -site. Please include a map
depicting the location of all impacts with the PCN.
Response: A map is being included in the PCN. Section 6.1 also describes these impacts.
8. General Comment (Appendices /Plans)
Typically we do not recommend inclusion of Acer rubrum in planting plans as this species may
currently be present onsite. Please be aware that adaptive management may be required if Acer
rubrum is determined to be a dominant species at any time during the monitoring period.
4

Response: Acer rubrum is limited to 5% of the bare root species proposed for planting and will be
managed as necessary to prevent dominance.
9. General Comment (Adaptive Management)
According to the information provided, this mitigation site is located in the Catawba River Basin HUC
03050102. The mitigation plan (page 1) states the site is being submitted for mitigation credit in the
Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103 within the expanded service area of this HUC. Please be aware
that the IRT has not approved a DMS request to expand the service area for HUC 03050103 to include
CT03, CT02, and CT01. If you would like to request that the IRT consider an expanded service area for
the Henry Fork mitigation site, please provide a map depicting the boundaries for the proposed
service area you are requesting.
Response: The service area for HUC03050102 has been plotted on Figure 1 of the Mitigation Plan.
Please let me know if you have any additional comments.
Sincerely,
#49- Ac `WL
Jacob P. McLean, PE, CFM
CC:
Paul Wiesner
paul.wiesner @ncdenr.gov
9

Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
14 September, 2015
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Henry Fork Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW - 2014 - 00538;
DMS Project #96306
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Henry Fork Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 25 July,
2015. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this correspondence.
However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached comment memo, which must
be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. Please note that until the IRT has approved an expanded
service area, this mitigation site must comply with the geographic service area as approved for DMS
mitigation projects.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the document. If it
is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a
copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office
at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does
not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if
issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval
for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of
mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of
the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2015
DIVISION QF
MITIGATION SERVICES

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have questions regarding this letter,
the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at 919 -
846 -2564.
Sincerely,
HUGH ES.ANDREARADE.�1 DDNic— USIo- U.S.Gowrnme thou =D DAou'PKl8009USA,
25833^ r I� Cn =HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
�j i (� Date: 2015.09.14' 3:48:27- 0400'
Andrea Hughes
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
.Paul Wiesner. NCDMS
Jake McLean, Wildlands Engineering