20140194 Ver 1_401 Application_20151006

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory
Governor
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Sharon Jones
Lin Xu i,.'jC
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
October 2, 2015
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Roses Creek Site in Burke County (DMS IMS # 96309). 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
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal opportunity 1AffirmaUve Acton Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
October 2, 2015
Landon Davidson, Water Quality Supervisor
NC DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 US 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Re: Permit Application Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site - Burke County (DMS Full
Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Davidson:
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.
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Final Mitigation Plan
Cc: Karen Higgins
Sincerely
Lin Xu
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www,ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
October 2, 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 — Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site, Burke 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 Asheville 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
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

os wATF9oG Office Use Oniy:
-0 T_ Corps action ID no.
r o DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: I ❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27,13 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? i ❑ 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
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ
For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes
Q No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
Q Yes
X❑ No
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
❑X No
below.
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
I ❑ Yes
0 No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project: Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
2b.
County: Burke
2c.
Nearest municipality / town: Morganton, NC
2d.
Subdivision name: Sisk Farm
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: NCEEP # 96309
3.
Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Robert B. Sisk and Martha M. Sisk
Original: Book 171, Pg 201 Deed of Conservation Easement: Book 2197, Pg 53 -57
HDRjICA Engineering, Inc.
5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27607
919 -851 -6066
919 -851 -6846
[e-mail]
RECEIVED
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009 OCT 0 1 2015
DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
pp
r l
I ❑Agent X❑ Other, specify: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Sera Tres
4b.
Name:
I Tim Baumgartner
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
4d.
Street address:
217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A Mail: 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
4e.
City, state, zip:
I Raleigh, NC 27603
4
l-Plephone no.:
1 919.707.8976
4g.
Fax no.:
I I
4h.
Email address:
I Tim. Baumgartner @ncdenr.gov i
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
I Ben Furr
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
HDRIICA Engineering, Inc. 1
5c.
Street address:
5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100
If 5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27607
5e.
Telephone no.:
919.851.6066
5f.
Fax no..
919.851.6846
5g. 5g.
Email address:
I benjamin.furr @hdrinc.com I
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 1 1767479652
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): I Latitude: 35.850953 Longitude: - 81.819541
1c. Property size:
17.3 acres
2. Surface Waters
1
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
I Roses Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
I WS -III; Tr
2c. River basin:
I Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The majority of the Site is in agricultural uses including cattle grazing and hay production pastures. Land use within the watershed upstream of the
Site is dominated by forested land (97 percent). Pasture on the Sisk Farm and adjacent properties accounts for approximately 3 percent cf the
watershed. The reminder of the watershed (less than one percent) is comprised of small residential properties, roads and parking lots.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.1
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 5,485
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project is a stream mitigation site. The proposal includes enhancing or restoring Roses Creek and three unnamed tributaries and riparian buffer.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard construction equipment (CAT 320 (or equivalent) track hoes, dozers, and track trucks) will be utilized to construct the channels.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / Comments: Action ID: 2014 -00517 Prelimina Determination
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ry
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ❑X Preliminary ❑Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? I Agency /Consultant Company: HDRIICA Engineering
Name (if known): Ryan Smith Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
Site visit conducted in March 17, 2014, PJD was approved on December 16, 2014. See attachment.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? I ❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary _
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
0 Wetlands XQ Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
i 2. Wetland Impacts
i
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e.
2f. 1
Wetland impact Type of impact Type of wetland Forested Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
W1 P Excavation Unknown No Corps
0.05
W2 T Construction Access Unknown No Corps
0.01 j
W3 Choose one Choose one Yes /No
I
W4 Choose one Choose one Yes /No
W5 Choose one Choose one Yes /No
I
W6 Choose one Choose one Yes /No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.06 1
2h. Comments:
Wetlands have been modified and are currently in active cattle pasture and hay operations dominated by wetland grasses. The wetland adjacent to UT
1 formed in the abandoned channel of UT 1. Temporary and permanent wetland impacts will occur at this location in order to restore natural pattern to
UT 1. The wetland adjacent to UT 3 will not be impacted other than bare root seedlings planted to restore natural vegetation. Wetland credits are not
being requested as part of the Mitigation Plan.
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.
39•
Stream impact Type of impact 5trearn name Perennial (PER) or Type of Average
Impact
number intermittent (INT)? jurisdiction stream
length
Permanent (P) or width
(linear
Temporary (T) (feet)
feet)
S1 P Relocation Roses Creek PER CorF: 42
3,388
S2 P Relocation UT 1 PER I Corps 6
268
33 P Stabilization UT 1 PER I Corps 6
62
S4 Relocation UT I CC•rrs 6
77
S5 Relocation UT J R Cords 4
609
S6 Relocation UT 3
I PER Corp; 5
558
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
5,485
3i. Comments:
Existino channels total 5.485 linear feet. Relocated streams account for 4,823 linear feet; 62 linear feet of UT 1 will be stabilized by removing a culvert
and restoring stream dimension and profile in its existing location; 77 linear teet of UT 1 will be stabiiized where UT 'i converges with Roses Creek; the
remaining 523 linear feet of UT 1 will not be impacted (riparian buffer will be restored).
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

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 Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
type
Temporary (T)
01
Choose one Choose
02
Choose one Choose
03
Choose one Choose
04
Choose one Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d,
Pond ID number Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet)
purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled I Excavated
P1 I Choose one
P2 Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5e.
Upland
(acres)
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 mitigations then
you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
❑ Other:Cape Fear
6b. 6c.
6d. 6e. 6f.
6g.
Buffer Impact Reason for impact
Stream name Buffer
Zone 1 Zone 2
number —
mitigation
impact impact
Permanent (P) or
required?
(square (square
Temporary (T)
feet) feet)
131
Yes /No
B2
j Yes /No
133 -
Yes /No
134
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
L1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
lI The proposed work plan includes restoring and /or enhancing Roses Creek and three unnamed tributaries. The work utilizes on line (maintaining
channel alignment) and off line (new location) alignments. Avoidance and minimization measures include: surveying all existing 12" dbh and greater
trees and routing the proposed alignment around these specimens to the extent practical; designing an effective erosion control plan: channel plugs
will be placed downstream of the wetland adjacent to UT 3 to avoid impacts to that wetland.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Erosion control measures such as a pump around operation with silt bags, silt checks, erosion control matting, seeding and mulch will be implemented
during construction. Open channel work will be minimized to what can be completed in the same day; matting streambanks; and seeding, mulching
and re- planting with bare root trees. Protection fencing will be placed around wetland along UT 3 to avoid impacts. Trees will be cleared between
November 15 and March 15 to avoid impacts to Northern long -eared bats.
2, Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for I ❑ Yes X❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): I ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program !
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation i
1 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type Choose one II Quantity.
3b. Credits Purchased (attach iectodipt and letter; Type: Choose one jV t��1zar,;ity: I
Type: Choose one I Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: II Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): Square fpat
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acre,
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4a. Coastal (tidal) wel;aE a requested:
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

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
buffer mitigation? E] Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan _ 1�
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑Yes ❑X No I
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? _I
r
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? I 0% lI
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes N No
1
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
There is no impervious surface within the project area, and the project will not result in the creation of any impervious surface. A buffer area will be
planted with native vegetation, and any disturbed areas will be seeded.
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? I -�
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
C) Phase II
i
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply): ❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approv, d St rsnwat . ib ar n,C: r °r.[ Plp : wiih 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
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?
"rs No
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
❑ORW
❑Session I_aw 2006 -246
❑Other:
I
li
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ] No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8of10
PCN ; =orm — Version ? 4 January 2009

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 ❑X 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.) See Appendix B2 of Mitigation Plan for Categorical Exclusion. ❑X Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, El Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application? El Yes X❑ No
2c. If you answered "yes' to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in El Yes ❑X 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.
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.
No sewage /wastewater will be generated from the proposed project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 14 January 2009

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?
c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. Asheville
5d. vJhat data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Correspondence with FWS. http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /species /cntylist/burke. T & E species for Burke County are: Dwarf- flowered heartleaf, Small
whorled pogonia, Heller's blazingstar, Mountain golden heather, White irisette, Rock gnome lichen, Northern long -eared bat, and Bog turtle.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I ❑ Yes [] No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
i Correspondence Frith USFWS and NOAH.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ® Yes ®No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Correspondence with NCSHPO. The Sisk Farm is on the Study List for NC (Site ID BK0090). URS Corporation conducted an archeological survey in
July of 2014. No further archaeological studies were recommended. See Appendix B -2 of Mitigation Plan for Categorical Exclusion documentation.
: 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
X❑ Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
CLOMR documentation was submitted to the Burke County Floodplain Administration on December 12, 2014 and to FEMA on April 9, 2015. FEMA
approved the CLOMR documentation on August 21, 2015.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FIRM maps of the Site.
Tim Baumgartner
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page , 0 of 10
o /Z/I.F
Date

Me
W2 -Temp. Impact
S2 - Perm. Impact - (0.01 ac) f . �. 1'. rf - • E' a '
(2618 ft)
f 1 W1 Perm. Impact .'
''+5;'
- - (0.05 ac) s +I1 r5'„i ` ` f ? "^ 1►
p�►
A
no.
AA
S3 - Perm. impact f N
(62 ft) n
TV
S5 -Perm. Impact - - /
(609 ft) }
- Perm. Impact
.j (3,388 ft)
J
s 54 - Per Impact
(77 ft)
R-
Legend -- -
Limits of Disturbance
E ,
Limits of Construction -
Permanent Stream Impacts
Existing Stream S6 - Perm. Impact
(558 ft)
Permanent Wetland Impacts
Existing Wetland `
F`
Conservation Easement
Parcel Boundary. - .rH•� *•
N Roses Creek Impact Map
, Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Figure
Burke County, North Carolina
w. 'E
0 375 750 1,125 1,500
S
Feet

�ott�cts� file
Project Site
N = 777507.414
E = 1165074.925
�i
i
` 4
` 4
`a
J
88t
s,
X
f.,yrg-3ntan
tic-lle ti
>Y
e ,.Alvir1k
k �
rF � ,pr - -
� !v
t
Salem
Vicinity Map FFgure =
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site 2
F)I ' Burke County, North Carolina _ N
0 4,700 9,400 14,100 18,800 Wg
Feet
S
*1

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: 2014 -00517 County: Burke U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Oak Hill
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent: Robert and Martha Sisk
Address: 3715 Sisk Farm Road
Morganton. North Carolina 28655
Telephone Number: 828437 -3692
Size (acres): 1733 Nearest Town: Morganton
Nearest Waterway: Roses Creek Coordinates: 35.85027 N. - 81.81975 -W
River Basin/ HUC: Catawba
Location description: The project area is located off Sisk Farm Road. Morganton. Burke County. North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Followine Avviv:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described
project area. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army
(DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preli urinary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the
JD.
R. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verged by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Tasha Alexander at 828 -271 -7980, ext. 226 or
[e-mail].
C. Basis for Determination:
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region(version
2.0). These wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water
marks. The stream channels on the property are Roses Creek and three unnamed tributaries (UT). Roses creek eventually
flows into the Catawba River. The Catawba River is located in the Santee watershed and eventually drains to the Atlantic
Ocean. Specifically, the Catawba River joins the Santee - Cooper River in South Carolina before entering the Atlantic
Ocean. Is a Section 10 water at the Mountain Island Lake Dam on Lake Wylie in Mecklenburg County.
D. Remarks: The project site contains two wetlands (totaling approximately 0.10 acre) and 5,485 linear feet of
perennial stream channel. Site visit was conducted on March 17, 2014. Representatives from EEP, USAGE, EPA,
NCDWR, and USFWS were present. The jurisdictional features are referenced on the map labeled Figure 1,
Jurisdictional Features Map, Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site, submitted on October 17, 2014.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation /determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above within 60 days of the issued date below.
"'alt is not necessary to bomlr an `" rm to lne DIV un villc'e li you du v-t object w the UU1i M this
correspondence."
- 1
Corps Regulatory Official:
s 'd
Issue Date of JD: December 16. 2014 Expiration Date: NIA

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
httn : /Ireaulatorv.usacesurvev.com/.
Copy furnished:
ICA Engineering, Inc.
Ben Fury
5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Paul Wiesner
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

woTi cA►TIO.N OF AAiVIT,tiISMUTITrE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR 4PPFs5AL
Applicant: Robert and Martha Sisk File Number: SAW- 2014 -00517 Date: December 16, 2014
Attached is: I See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) , AB
El PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION l E
SECPION I -The following idertti is your tights and options regarding an admirustrativt appeal of the above decision.
Additional information maybe found at Mtn .�vs�,4 .usuce_ rn�v .nulJS�Ii�siansfC'i4il�Yori�w a IaionPr�aranr:nndl'`r s, x or
CorrxguLaticros at 33 CFR Part 331.
_- A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may acceptor object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B. PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
daze of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - RE(}l EST FOR :APPEAL or OBJECTI(. NS TO AN JNI'I°I,U PROFFERED PEWIT,
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections t_ o an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POLNI T OF CON'T"ACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATIONI :
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Tasha Alexander CESAD -PDO
828 -271 -7980 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.. Tasha Alexander, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD -PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10MI5, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

ATTACHMENT A_:
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Ben Furr- ICA Engineering, Inc.
5121 Kingdom way, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27607
C. DIS RICT OFFIC , FILE N E, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Roses Creek- Sisk Farm Road, Morganton, NC (Stream Mitigation Projection NCEEP)
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT
SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough: Burke City: Morganton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.85027 °N; Long. - 61.81975 °W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17N
Name of nearest waterbody: Roses creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non - wetland waters:
5485 linear feet: 5 t 25 width (ft) and /or acres.
Cowardin Class: R3UBV2
'Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0.36 acres.
r% • a1. Class: DChA�
"�:ardir ' lass:
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal:
Non - Tidal:
I

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
�J/Field Determination. Date(s): � r
SUPPORTING DATA, Data reviewed for preliminary JD
(check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and,
where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
0 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicanUconsultant: Jurisdictional Features Map, USGS Topographic Map, NRCS Soils Map
❑✓ Data eets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
appkj'QW consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data
a USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
QUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: 2006- Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina. USDA. NRCS.
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps: FEMA Map Number 3710176600J, Panel 1766, Effective Date 9/5/2007
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
0 Photographs: ❑✓ Aerial (Name & Date): Taken by ICAwith UAV -2014 or
7 Other (Name & Date): Site Photographs taken by ACA -2013, 2014
❑ Previous determination(s). t=ile no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
2

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters;. (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the temps and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
3

This preliminary JD finds that there 'maybe"waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later Jurisdictional determinations.
wv
.��
nature a h Wd ate of Signatrre and date of
ulatory Project Manager person requesting preliminary JD
DUIRED) (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
4

Table 1. Jurisdictional Features Table
Site Number
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardin
Estimated
Class of
Class
amount of
aquatic
aquatic
resource
resource in
review area
W1
35.8490
- 81.81635
PEM1
0.26 acre
Non - Section
10 wetland
W2
35.85366
- 81.82057
PEM1
0.1 acre
Non - Section
10 Wetland
Roses Creek
35.85027
- 81.8197
R3UB1
3,388 linear
Perennial
feet
Stream
UT 1
35.85309
- 81.82132
R3UB1 /2
930 linear
Perennial
feet
Stream
UT 2
35.85116
- 81.81927
R3UB1 /2
609 linear
Perennial
feet
Stream
UT 3
35.84866
- 81.81688
R3UB1 /2
558 linear
Perennial
feet
Stream.
Total
Stream
5,485 linear
`
Wetland
0.36 acre

a�
ProposedEaaement
Parcel Boundary
Wetland
Perennial Stream
am� An��
Engineering
Jurisdictional Features Map
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Feet
1 inch = 300 feet
Figure
1

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
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 Roses Creek Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW -
2014- 00517; DMS Project #96309
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 Roses Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on 9 August, 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.
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.

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, ,A'
HUGHES.ANDREA.VVA Dic, m A18339165 NUSo= U.S.Go ement,ou D Dou= PKI
ou USA DE.1258339165 Date: 2015.09.1417E 326D -"�ADE .1258339165
Andrea Hughes
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner, NCDMS

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW -RG /Hughes August 26, 2015
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Roses Creek Stream 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(8) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site, Burke County, North Carolina
USACE AID #: SAW- 2014 -00517
NCDMS #: 96309
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 9 August 2015
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 31 Julv 2015:
1. Table 5, Page 28: Many errors based on comparison with Sheet Plan Views and stations
where restoration begins and ends. Recommend modifying Table to reflect values based
on Sheets 1 -11 in Appendices. UT1 has only 289 feet of restoration based on changing
Station 12 +62 to 12 +54. Likewise the enhancement portion goes up by 8' as it starts at
Station 12 +54. UT2 should end at Station 17 +07 rather than 16 +55 in order to conclude
that 707 linear feet are being restored. This modifies the total of SMU generated to
5,009 rather than 5,014.
2. Table 7, Page 33: 1 am concerned that the bankfull cross - section area for the proposed
Roses Creek condition is a bit high for the 300 cfs flow rate at bankfull. Based on quick
calculation I found that 62.5 sq. ft. (rather than 66.4) is a closer approximation to a cross
sectional area that will allow the stream to access its floodplain as bankfull elevation is
exceeded. Either that or the flow velocity is underestimated for bankfull conditions.
3. 7.1.3, Page 34: Restoration distances should be changed from 297 and 262 to 289' and
254' respectively.
4. Page 38, last paragraph: Change UT1 to UT2.
5. 7.1.6, Page 40 line 3: Change 6121 to 621 linear feet.

6. 7.1.10, Page 43: 1 have several concerns with only having a 30' riparian buffer
established here for full credit. For full mitigation credit in this case I would argue that
50' riparian buffers are appropriate here. Yes, Burke County is a "mountain" county,
however the site is within the Piedmont Ecoregion, the site is within the Catawba River
basin (50 -foot buffers required), the adjacent land use will be maintained as pasture,
Lake Rhodhiss is impaired for nutrients and Roses Creek is designated as trout waters.
50 -foot buffers would provide much better protection of the stream, remove more
nutrients and reduce floodplain shear stress thus improving water quality to a level
needed to meet targeted watershed goals.
7. 7.1.11, Page 43: Change UT1 restoration from 297 to 289' and 633 to 641'.
8. 7.3.2, Page 53: Correct live stake planting density to 1 stem every 4 feet in a diagonal
pattern (or equivalent) to match Table 8.
9. 8.0, Page 55: Recommend adding contingency plan for beaver activity if it occurs.
10. Section 10: Recommend some baseline water quality data to be collected from Roses
Creek at various times of year /flows to conclude if water quality benefits or ecological
lift has been attained by project closeout. Provider need not have performance
standards linked to water quality, however if this is a goal of performing restoration we
should be gathering data that supports this endeavor. This is especially important in
cases where downstream waters, such as Lake Rhodhiss, are classified as impaired.
Ginnv Baker, DWR, 5 August 2015:
1. On page 43, Section 7.1.11 Summary of Activities under UT1 please add "Relocation of
power line easement outside of the conservation easement" as was discussed on page
34, Section 7.1.3. Please note if any issues arise with completely relocating the power
line utilities easements that are currently located in the conservation easement along
UT1 and UT2 the credit and associated planting plan for the utility crossing will need to
be adjusted. Removing the utility easement from the conservation easement will
certainly increase the ecological uplift as ICA Engineering is proposing to do.
2. Please locate the "approximate" location of the proposed 17 monitoring vegetation lots
on Figures PL -1 and PL -2. Planting plots should be located in both the floodplain zone
and ephemeral pool planting zones.
3. The March 21, 2014 Roses Creek Site visit meeting minutes indicate there were
discussions "concerning the modification of the pattern of Roses Creek downstream of
UT3 through the existing tortuous meanders" and that the IRT "expressed a desire to
utilize portions of the existing channel as much as possible." It does not appear by the
stream design shown on the plan sheets that this was done. Please explain the
reasoning for the design in this section of Roses Creek below UT3. Enhancement 1 was
proposed for Option 2 in this downstream section of Roses Creek in the Technical
Report.
Andrea Huqhes, USACE, 26 August 2015:
1. Please provide a signed categorical exclusion form with the final mitigation plan.

2. Per the onsite discussions with USFWS, the mitigation plan should provide a discussion
as to how the proposed activities may affect potential Northern Long -Ear Bat habitat.
3. Page 56, Section 9.1.2: The plan states the profile should not demonstrate significant
trends towards degradation or aggradation over a significant portion of a reach. Please
define significant as it applies to this performance standard.
4. Page 58, Section 10.0: Profile frequency should state "Established during Baseline /As
Built ".
5. Page 60, Section 10.2: Measurements should include (at a minimum) bankfull width,
bankfull cross - sectional area, bankfull mean depth, bankfull max depth, flood prone
width, width /depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, and bank height ratio.
6. Page 63, Section 11.0: This section indicates that site protection will be provided
through a conservation easement and NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning
and Conservation's Stewardship Program will serve as the conservation easement
holder with the responsibility of ensuring that the restrictions of the conservation
easement are upheld. The Long -Term Management Plan (LTMP) is a description of how
the compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have
been achieved to ensure the long -term sustainability of the resource. The LTMP 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.
7. Other: The plan includes a map of pre- monitoring locations. Please submit a map
depicting the approximate locations of proposed post- construction monitoring stations
with the final mitigation plan.
8. Other: All three unnamed tributaries proposed for restoration have small drainage
areas. While UT 1 and UT2 have drainage areas capable of supporting perennial flow,
both tributaries have a pond at the upper limits of the reach. UT3 has a drainage area of
10 acres. We recommend post- construction installation of surface water gauges on
these tributaries to document at least 30 days of continuous flow.
9. Other: Ephemeral pools should be designed with shallow depths to allow seasonal
drying.
10. Other: 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.
Digitally signed by
HUGHES.ANDREA. HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
DN: c =US, o =U.S. Government, ou =DoD,
WADE.1258339165 con =HUGHES ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2015.08.26 17:38:28 - 04'00'

F)� ICA
September 29, 2015
Mr. Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
RE: DENR — Division of Mitigation Services
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Response to IRT Comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan (September 14, 2015)
Mr. Tsomides:
As per the Memorandum for Record dated September 14, 2015, we have reviewed and addressed the NCIRT
review comments as follows:
Todd Bowers, USEPA, 31 July 2015
A. Table 5, Page 28: Many errors based on comparison with Sheet Plan Views and stations where restoration
begins and ends. Recommend modifying Table to reflect values based on Sheets 1 -11 in Appendices. UTI has
only 289 feet of restoration based on changing Station 12 +62 to 12 +54. Likewise the enhancement portion
goes up by 8' as it starts at Station 12 +54. UT2 should end at Station 17 +07 rather than 16 +55 in order to
conclude that 707 linear feet are being restored. This modifies the total of SMU generated to 5,009 rather
than 5,014.
Response: Comply. Table 5 has been updated to correspond with the sheets in the Appendix.
B. Table 7, Page 33: I am concerned that the bankfull cross - section area for the proposed Roses Creek
condition is a bit high for the 300 cfs flow rate at bankfull. Based on quick calculation I found that 62.5 sq. ft.
(rather than 664) is a closer approximation to a cross sectional area that will allow the stream to access its
floodplain as bankfull elevation is exceeded. Either that or the flow velocity is underestimated for bankfull
conditions.
Response: The designed cross - sectional area was generated to convey the design discharge and site
sediment supply. Based on the reference reach immediately upstream and the regional curves for
both the piedmont and the mountains, a 66 square foot channel is appropriate for a site with a 5.17
square mile drainage area.
C. 7.1.3, Page 34: Restoration distances should be changed from 297 and 262 to 289' and 254' respectively.
Response: Comply. The restoration lengths for UT 1 have been updated.
D. Page 38, last paragraph; Change UTI to UT2
Response: Comply. UT 1 has been changed to UT 2.
E. 7.1.6, Page 40 line 3: Change 6121 to 621 linear feet
Response: Comply. 6121 has been changed to 621.
F. 7. L I0, Page 43: I have several concerns with only having a 30' riparian buffer established here for full
credit. For full mitigation credit in this case I would argue that 50' riparian buffers are appropriate here.

Yes, Burke County is a "mountain " county, however the site is within the Piedmont Ecoregion, the site is
within the Catawba River basin (50-foot buffers required), the adjacent land use will be maintained as
pasture, Lake Rhodhiss is impaired for nutrients and Roses Creek is designated as trout waters. 50 foot
buffers would provide much better protection of the stream, remove more nutrients and reduce floodplain
shear stress thus improving water quality to a level needed to meet targeted watershed goals.
Response: The buffer is much wider than 30 feet throughout most of the project. The average
buffer widths are as follows: UT 1 — 58 feet, UT 2 — 45 feet, UT 3 — 56 feet and Roses Creek — 75
feet.
G. 7.1.11, Page 43: Change UTI Restoration from 297 to 289' and 633 to 641'.
Response: Comply. The restoration lengths have been corrected.
H. 7.3.2, Page 53: Correct live stake planting density to I stem every 4 feet in a diagonal pattern (or equivalent)
to match Table 8.
Response: Comply. Section 7.3.2 has been updated as follows: "The stream banks will be planted
at a density of one (1) stem per four (4) feet of stream bank."
I. 8. 0, Page 55: Recommend adding contingency plan for beaver activity if it occurs.
Response: Comply. The following has been added to Table 9. Maintenance Plan "Beaver: Beaver
management may include dam removal, beaver trapping and removal."
J. Section 10: Recommend some baseline water quality data to be collected from Roses Creek at various times
of year /flows to conclude if water quality benefits or ecological lift has been attained by project closeout.
Provider need not have performance standards linked to water quality, however if this is a goal ofperforming
restoration we should be gathering data that supports this endeavor. This is especially important in cases
where downstream waters, such as Lake Rhodhiss, are classified as impaired.
Response: NCDENR DMS performed water quality sampling on -site in July 2015.
2. Ginny Baker, DWR, 5 August 2015
A. On page 43, Section 7.1.11 Summary of Activities under UTI please add "Relocation of power line easement
outside of the conservation easement" as was discussed on page 34, Section 7.1.3. Please note if any issues
arise with completely relocating the power line utilities easements that are currently located in the
conservation easement along UTI and UT2 the credit and associated planting plan for the utility crossing
will need to be adjusted. Removing the utility easement from the conservation easement will certainly
increase the ecological uplift as ICA Engineering is proposing to do.
Response: Comply. The following has been added to section 7.1.11 under UT 1 "Relocation of
power line easement outside of the conservation easement"
B. Please locate the "approximate" location of the proposed 17 monitoring vegetation lots on Figures PL -I and
PL -2. Planting plots should be located in both the floodplain zone and ephemeral pool planting zones.
Response: Comply. Figure 13 has been added to the plan to document the anticipated location of
monitoring features including vegetation plots, cross sections, crest gauges and surface water
gauges.
C. The March 21, 2014 Roses Creek Site visit meeting minutes indicate there were discussions "concerning the
modification of the pattern of Roses Creek downstream of UT3 through the existing tortuous meanders " and
that the IRT "expressed a desire to utilize portions of the existing channel as much as possible. " It does not

appear by the stream design shown on the plan sheets that this was done. Please explain the reasoning for the
design in this section of Roses Creek below UT3. Enhancement I was proposed for Option 2 in this
downstream section of Roses Creek in the Technical Report.
Response: During the design process it became evident that restoring a stable channel through the
existing tortuous meanders would not be possible. Evidence of chute cut -offs and steep banks
along the outside meanders are indicators of instability throughout this section. While some small
reaches within in this section were stable, it was not possible to tie into these sections due to the
extreme sinuosity and unstable radii to width ratios immediately upstream and downstream of the
stable reaches.
3. Andrea Hughes, USACE, 26August2015
A. Please provide a signed categorical exclusion form with the final mitigation plan.
Response: Comply. The signed categorical exclusion form has been included in Appendix B.
B. Per the onsite discussions with USFWS, the mitigation plan should provide a discussion as to how the
proposed activities may affect potential Northern Long -Ear Bat habitat.
Response: Comply. Table 4 has been updated to include the Northern long -eared bat and the
following has been added to section 4.5.2 Protected Species: "The Site does not contain caves or
suitable winter roosting areas for Northern long -eared bats. However, several trees along Roses
Creek could provide summer roosting habitat. All clearing and grubbing activity is scheduled to be
performed during the Northern long -eared bat's hibernation period between November 15 and
March 15. For the above reasons the biological conclusion for the Northern long -eared bat is "No
Effect "."
C. Page 56, Section 9.1.2: The plan states the profile should not demonstrate significant trends towards
degradation or aggradation over a significant portion of a reach. Please define significant as it applies to
this performance standard.
Response: Comply. The following has been added to section 9.1.2: "Bank height ratios of 1.0 —
1.2 should generally characterize the profile. If over one third of the profile exhibits a bank height
ratio exceeding 1.2 then additional investigations will be completed to assess the channel stability. "
D. Page 58, Section 10.0: Profile frequency should state "Established during baseline /AsBuilt ".
Response: Comply. Table 10 has been updated to establish the profile during the
basline /As Built phase.
E. Page 58, Section 10.2: Measurements should include (at a minimum) bankfull width, bankfull cross- sectional
area, bankfull mean depth, beankfull max depth, flood prone width, width /depth ratio, entrenchment ratio,
and bank height ratio.
Response: Comply. Section 10.2 has been updated as follows: "Cross- sectional measurements will
at a minimum include bankfull width, bankfull cross - sectional area, bankfull mean depth, bankfull
max depth, flood prone width, width/depth ratio, bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio."
F. Page 63, Section IL 0: This section indicates that site protection will be provided through a conservation
easement and NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program
will serve as the conservation easement holder with the responsibility of ensuring that the restrictions of the
conservation easement are upheld. The Long -Term Management Plan (LTMP) is a description of how the
compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure

the long -term sustainability of the resource. The LTMP 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: The following has added to section 11.0: "This party will also maintain the easement
boundary and install occasional signage if needed."
G. Other: The plan includes a map ofpre- monitoring locations. Please submit a map depicting the approximate
locations of proposed post- construction monitoring stations with the final mitigation plan.
Response: Comply. Figure 13 has been added to the plan to document the anticipated location of
monitoring features including vegetation plots, cross sections and crest gauges.
H. Other: All three unnamed tributaries proposed for restoration have small drainage areas. While UT I and
UT2 have drainage areas capable of supporting perennial flow, both tributaries have a pond at the upper
limits of the reach. UT3 has a drainage area of 10 acres. We recommend post- construction installation of
surface water gauges on these tributaries to document at least 30 days of continuous flow.
Response: All of the tributaries on -site were approved as perennial in the preliminary jurisdictional
determination issued on December 16, 2014. Additionally, as stated in section 7.3, the proposed
channel design for UT 1 and UT 2 was based on the channel forming discharge evidenced by the
existing channel downstream of the ponds. This discharge corresponds closely with the maximum
pond outlet pipe discharge. The proposed channel design for UT 3, which is a spring -fed channel,
was based on the geomorphic data immediately upstream of the proposed restoration activity.
I. Other: Ephemeral pools should be designed with shallow depths to allow seasonal drying.
Response: Comply. Ephemeral pools will be constructed with some shallow depths.
J. Other: 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: Comply. The PCN will document all temporary and permanent impacts to existing
streams and wetlands.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call
(919.851.6066).
Sincerely,
ICA I HDR,
Chris L. Smith, PE
Cc: File