20180196 Ver 1_401 Application_20190827

ID#* 20180196
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review 08/28/2019
Completed Date
Mitigation Project Submittal - 8/27/201, -
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * r Yes r
Type of Mitigation Project:*
PF Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Project Information
Existing 20180196 Existing 1
(DWR) (numbers only... no dash) Version: (nurrbersonly)
ID#:*
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
County: Durham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Final Plans Updated 7_25_19.pdf
29.44MB
Catfish Pond_100039MP_2019.pdf
77.95MB
DWR Catfish Pond Buffer Plan_Approval.pdf
337.82KB
CatfishPond_100039_BufferMP_2019.pdf
18.02MB
02168 -Plans UT1 - Wetlands.pdf
737.35KB
CatfishPond401 COffice.pdf
43.76KB
CatfishPond401 FeeMemo.pdf
46.11 KB
Catfish Pond PCN. pdf
2.14MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...

Print Name:* Lin Xu
Signature:
*

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 27, 2019
Mac Haupt, Acting 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
Re: Permit Application- Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Site Mitigation Project, Durham
County (DMS Full Delivery Project)
Dear Mr. Haupt:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. A memo
for the permit application fee is also included in the package. All electronic files have been
uploaded to NC DWR's file system. 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
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. )ones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Debby Davis
Lin Xu �x
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
August 27, 2019
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project for
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Mitigation Project in Durham County (DMS IMS # 100039).
The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream 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
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

o`'c� w p r£9Q�
Tb
i
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
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
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
Corps:
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. 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 ❑ Yes
® No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h ❑ Yes
® No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
2b. County:
Durham
2c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Bahama
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
N/A
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
1. Sybil S. Penny
1. DB 11935; PG 278
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
2. DB 438; PG 490
3. DB 438; PG 589
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
applicable):
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Contact: Lin Xu, Project Coordinator
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
3f. Telephone no.:
919-707-8319
3g. Fax no.:
[e-mail]
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 12
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:
Lin Xu
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NCDEQ - DMS
4d. Street address:
217 W Jones Street, Suite 3000A
4e. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f.
Telephone no.:
919-707-8319
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Co-Applicant
5a.
Name:
Chris Roessler
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27609
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-851-9986 x111
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 12

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
0827-02-67-0407; 0827-02-58-9864; 0828-04-50-5560
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.162562 Longitude: -79.910068
1 c. Property size:
Final protected easement will be 20.65 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Mountain Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -II; HQW; NSW
2c. River basin:
Neuse 032020201
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 Catfish Pond project is located within a rural watershed in Durham County. Land use in the vicinity of the project is primarily agriculture
(pasture) and forest. Stream channels and riparian corridors are degraded as a result of active livestock grazing.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3.983 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
7,111 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve on site streams including Catfish Creek, Mountain Tributary, and unnamed tributaries.
The project will generate stream mitigation units for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See mitigation plan for project details.
Excavators will be used for channel and floodplain excavation as well as of bank grading, while articulated and track trucks will be used for
hauling soil. Small equipment such as mini excavators and skid steers may also be used during grading activities. See the mitigation plan for
additional design information.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
El Yes ®No F] Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
El Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Win Taylor
Other: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
Yes ® 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?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. 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.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number -
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ - non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 - Wetland M
®P❑T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
® Yes
El No
® Corps
®DWQ
0.0086
W1 - Wetland M
Floodplain
Headwater Forest
® Yes
® Corps
0.0691
[-IP ® T
Grading
El No
® DWQ
W2 - Wetland J
Excavation
Non -Tidal
® Yes
® Corps
0.0564
® P ❑ T
Freshwater Marsh
❑ No
® DWQ
W3 - Wetland Y
Floodplain
Headwater Forest
® Yes
® Corps
0.0032
El ® T
Grading
❑ No
® DWQ
W4 - Wetland W
Floodplain
Headwater Forest
® Yes
® Corps
0.0156
® P [_1T
Grading
El No
® DWQ
W5 - Wetland D
Temporary
Headwater Forest
® Yes
® Corps
0.0046
® P ❑ T
Crossing
❑ No
® DWQ
W6 - Wetland A
Floodplain
Headwater Forest
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.3357
❑ P ® T
Grading
(Emergent)
® No
® DWQ
W6- Wetland A
Excavation
Headwater Forest
El Yes
® Corps
0.1327
® P El
(Emergent)
® No
® DWQ
W7 - Wetland DD
Ford Crossing
Headwater Forest
® Yes
® Corps
0.0032
❑ P ® T
Decommission
❑ No
® DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.6291
2h. Comments:
Wetlands within the work area will be flagged with safety fence during construction to prevent unintended impacts.
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
Aver8ge
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ - non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ® T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
3.3
52
S2 ❑ P ® T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
5.8
112
S3 ® P ❑ T
Relocation
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.0
378
S4 ❑ P ® T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
9.4
72
S5 El ® T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
El INT
® Corps
®DWQ
g.4
51
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

S6 ®P ❑ T
Relocation
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
10.9
99
S7 ® P [--IT
Relocation
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.5
97
S8 ❑ P ®T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.5
35
S9 ❑ P ®T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.9
122
S10 ❑ P ® T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.9
88
S11 ❑ P ®T
Stabilization
Catfish Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.9
69
S12 []PET
Stabilization
UTI
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7
134
S13 ❑ PET
Stabilization
UT1
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7
300
S14 ® P [:IT
Relocation
UT1
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
16.7
444
S15 ® P [:IT
Relocation
UT1
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.1
168
S16 ❑ P ®T
Stabilization
UT2
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4.6
28
S17 ❑ P ® T
Stabilization
Mountain Trib
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.5
27
S18 ❑ P ®T
Stabilization
Mountain Trib
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.5
411
S19 ❑ P ® T
Stabilization
Mountain Trib
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7.5
13
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
2,700
3i. Comments: Stream names per Figure 3 Site Map in PJD.
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
Tem ora
01 ®P ❑ T
Catfish Pond
Dam Breach - Dewatering
Pond
0.597
4f. Total open water impacts
0.597
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres).
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
Page 5 of 12

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 for
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Tem ora T
required?
131 ❑P❑T
EJ Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ PEI T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a.
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Stream enhancement and restoration will involve the relocation and stabilization of impaired aquatic resources. The work will involve the use of
natural channel design and have an overall positive impact. Stream impacts will be avoided and minimized to project reaches that exhibit less
instability and incision. These reaches are generally proposed for enhancement will primarily involve riparian buffer improvement, cattle
exclusion, and localized bank stabilization. Stream alignments for restoration reaches were designed to avoid existing wetland as much as
possible and avoid grading impacts. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands are due to floodplain grading. The project will likely result in a net increase
in wetland area as a result of raising stream beds and local water tables.
1 b.
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Restoration will involve construction of offline channel sections which will minimize sedimentation to aquatic systems during construction. Newly
constructed channel banks will be stabilized using biodegradable coir fiber matting and seeded and planted with native riparian species.
Temporary construction crossings will be minimized. Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual.
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?
❑ Yes ® No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
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:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
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 7 of 12
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
buffer mitigation?
❑ 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.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(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 8 of 12

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The planted, protected floodplain will serve to diffuse overland flow, and
❑ Yes ❑ No
no increase in impervious area will result from the project.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The percent imperviousness of the project will not be altered as no impervious surfaces will be added
to the area. The project involves the
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of on-site jurisdictional streams.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
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)?
1 c.
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
® Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is included Appendix.
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
❑ 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 mitigation project that 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.
No wastewater will be generated from the project
Page 10 of 12
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.
® Raleigh ❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Utilized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database in order to identify federally listed Threatened and Endangered plant and animal
species for Durham County, NC. Endangered species include the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and Michauxs sumac (Rhus
michauxii). A pedestrian survey was conducted on February 9, 2018 which indicated the site provides suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower
and Michauxs sumac but no species were identified on the site. Therefore, due to the absence of the listed species on the site, the project has
been determined by Wildlands to have "no effect" on the smooth coneflower and Michauxs sumac.
Review and comment from the USFWS was requested on February 9, 2018 as part of the Categorical Exclusion for the Catfish Pond Mitigation
Site and its potential impacts on threatened or endangered species. USFWS responded on March 2, 2018 stating "that the proposed action is
not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species." All documents submitted to the USFWS are included in the
Appendix.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Wildlands requested comment on the project from both the USFWS and the NCWRC on February 9, 2018. NCWRC responded on March 21,
2018 with comments about the possible presence of rare and aquatic species in the project area. There are records for the federal species of
concern and state-endangered yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) near the project site. There are also historic records for the federal
species of concern and state-significantly rare, Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons) and federal species of concern and state -special concern,
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisi) in the project vicinity. A pedestrian survey conducted by Wildlands on April 13, 2018, indicated that the
Site provides suitable habitat for the yellow lampmussel and Roanoke bass, but not the Neuse River waterdog. No species were identified on
the site. Per the request of NCWRC, communication with Dr. Tyler Black, NCWRC Eastern Region Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Research
Coordinator, has been established regarding the stream restoration project. USFWS responded on March 2, 2018 and had no objections to the
project. All correspondence with the two agencies is included in the Appendix.
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 Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) were contacted for comment with respect to any archeological and architectural resources related to
the Catfish Pond Mitigation Site on February 9, 2018. SHPO responded on March 5, 2018 and stated they were aware of "no historic resources
which would be affected by the project' and would have no further comment. All correspondence is included in the Appendix.
Page 11 of 12

8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Be. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain? ®Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Portions of the project area are located in a FEMA Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) which is a regulatory floodplain associated with
Mountain Creek. None of the project streams are mapped under the regulatory authority of FEMA. The stream, wetland, and floodplain grading
within the regulatory floodplain of Mountain Creek will be designed to achieve a no -rise condition and a floodplain Impact permit application has
been submitted to the Durham County floodplain administrator.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 0827 for Durham County, NC (map revised 10/1912018).
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
� c� V
�/�'7/�
pate
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Is rovided.)9
Co -Applicant's Printed Name
zz�__
9/Z 711
Date
Co-Applicant'Co-Applicand Signature
Page 12 of 12

yY+
►'� Sib
517
�• ! 1 '� 8-
6 -
• >�
S16
ZS2 r S5 S'
W1 WZ
I _
S1 C4� fsh CrP f _
S4 j
Y
f
2013.Aetml P1iatogrdphy i_
R
ff
5�1
W4

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Fart 1: Ueneral Project Information
Pro ect ame: I afth Pond Ufteow ske
Com N I oudwn co"
Number: 10oa19
ro ecSponsor: VVIdlu da EngbiWng, Inc.
ro ect ontact Name: Cm*n Lanm
ro a onteC reSS: 312 W. ru Mmok Sub 225. fteo, No 2M9
ro ect on a E-mail: clermeGwilftMUwM=M
E Lo ect an8 er: delfSchaffer
Project Description
Cetfhtlt Pond Wation site Is e stream mproject located approArnately 12 miles north of the i qr of
Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange/Durham Ivounty border. The project includes Catfish Greek,
three unnamed tributaries and the removal of an Impoundment for a total of 7.383 linear feet of stream. Agriculture,
specifically livestock, has been the main use of the land. The project will provide stream mitigation units to the
Division of Mifjgetion Services in the Neuss River Basin 03020201).
6 Version 1.4, 8/98/05

Coastal Zone Manaqement Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the ro'ect area?
❑✓ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
✓ Yes
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
0 Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑✓ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
❑✓ N,/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
_J
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
I National Historic Preservation Act (Section 1061 1
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the ro'ect area?
❑✓ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
❑✓ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? 0 No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
0 No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
0 N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
Endanciered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
[Z] No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect' the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
0 N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAH-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
El Yes
by the EBCI?
❑✓ No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
Yes
project?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
D Yes
sites?
❑ No
✓ N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑✓ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
✓ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
El Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑✓ No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
El Yes
❑ No
✓ N/A
Ma nusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Mana ement Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑
Yes
Q
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
0
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
Yes
project on EFH?
❑
No
0
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑
Yes
❑
No
✓❑
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
Miaratory Bird Treaty Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
El Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
El Yes
❑✓ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

W
WZLDLANDS
ENGINEERING
February 9, 2018
Emily Wells
US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Subject: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Wells,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds, or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Catfish Pond Mitigation Site. A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site
Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared
from the Rougemont, NC USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle.
The Catfish Pond Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The project will include stream restoration on Catfish Creek and several
unnamed tributaries all which drain to Mountain Creek and the removal of Catfish Pond. The
site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use. Based on a review of historical aerials,
Catfish Pond was installed sometime between 1940 and 1955.
According to your website (https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/durham.html) the
threatened or endangered species for Durham County are: the Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) and the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). If we have not heard from you in
30 days, we will assume that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws and that
you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
ctat(r ft', ^�C�ru'z.•
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment -
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

e"t p ry United States Department of the Interior
N a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
- Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
GH 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 2, 2018
Carolyn Lanza
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
C'lharlotte. 'NC28203 .
Re: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site — Durham County, NC
Dear Ms. Lanza:
This letter is to inform you that the Service has established an on-line project planning and
consultation process which assists developers and consultants in determining whether a
federally -listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected by a proposed project. For
firture projects, please visit the Raleigh Field Office's project planning website at
https://w-vvw.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html. If you are only searching for a list of species that may be
present in the project's Action Area, then you may use the Service's Information. Planning, and
Consultation System (IPaC) website to determine if any listed, proposed, or candidate species
may be present in the Action Area and generate a species list. The IPaC website may be viewed
at https://ecos.fws.goy/ipac/. The INC web site contains a complete and frequently updated list
of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), a list of federal species of concern" that
are known to occur in each county in North Carolina, and other resources.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federalagencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Sen=ice is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes miJtt be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recomtnend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

evaluation and can be found on our web page at bttp://www,f)vs.govilraleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that suiveys be conducted to determine
the species" presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you detennine that the proposed action may. affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.goy/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.

evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://w-ww.fws.gov/raleigli. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above -referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, then
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was .not considered in this review; or, (3).a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources; Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down -gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
2

We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists, if you have any questions or comments, please contact Emily Wells of this office
at [phone] ext. 25.
Sincerely,
&-9�
Pete enj in
Field. Supervisor
3

ON
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
February 9, 2018
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed Catfish Pond Mitigation Site. A
USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed.
The topographic figure was prepared from the Rougemont, NC USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle.
The Catfish Pond Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The project will include stream restoration on Catfish Creek and several
unnamed tributaries all which drain to Mountain Creek and the removal of Catfish Pond. The site has
historically been disturbed due to livestock use. Based on a review of historical aerials, Catfish Pond was
installed sometime between 1940 and 1955.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
a. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 o 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
March 21, 2018
Ms. Carolyn Lanza
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Request for Environmental Information for the Catfish Pond Mitigation Project, Durham
County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Lanza,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. has developed the Catfish Pond Mitigation Project to provide in-kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channels have been identified as
significantly degraded. In addition to the removal of Catfish Pond, this project will include stream
restoration of Catfish Creek and several unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek. There are records for
the federal species of concern and state -endangered, yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) near the
project site. There are also historic records for the federal species of concern and state -significantly rare,
Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons) and federal species of concern and state -special concern, Neuse
River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) in the project vicinity. The Natural Heritage Natural Area — Little
River Gorge — is located along the Little River. The project area is located west of Roxboro Road, north
of Patrick Road, north of Durham.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Due to the possible presence of rare aquatic species in the
project area, all work should be coordinated with Dr. Tyler Black, NCWRC Eastern Region Aquatic
Wildlife Diversity Research Coordinator (tyler.black(t—Lncwildlife.org, 336-290-0054), prior to project
commencement.
The NCWRC recommends the use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control
devices. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose -weave netting that is made of
natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing and
similar products that have been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as they impede
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
March 21, 2018
Scoping — Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental
effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging
of gills. Any invasive plant species that are found onsite should be removed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or gabricia.garrisonancwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Tyler Black, NCWRC

From: Carolyn Lanza
To: "tyler.black a5ncwildlife.ora"
Subject: Catfish Pond Mitigation Project
Date: . Friday, April 6, 2018 1:12:00 PM
Attachments: NCWRC Scooina Catfish Pond Mitigation Project Durham County ndf
Hello Dr. Black,
I am reaching out to you in regards to potential rare, aquatic species on site at Catfish Pond Stream
Mitigation Project in Durham County. There are records for federal species of concern and state -
endangered, yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) near the project site. There are also historic
records for the federal species of concern and state -significantly rare, Roanoke bass (Ambloplites
cavifrons) and federal species of concern and state -special concern, Neuse River Waterdog
(Necturus lewisi) in the project vicinity. How would you like to be involved in the project going
forward?
Thank you,
Carolyn Lanza I Environmentol Scientist
0:919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318
Wildlands Engineering. Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:39 PM
To: Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>
Cc: Black, Tyler R <[e-mail]>
Subject: WRC Comments for 2 Mitigation Projects
Hello Ms. Lanza,
I have attached comments for two mitigation projects — Sassarixa Swamp and Catfish Pond in
Johnston and Durham Counties, respectively. Of particular note, please contact Dr. Tyler Black
(NCWRC) in reference to the Catfish Pond Mitigation Project due to the potential presence of rare,
aquatic species onsite.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Gabriela
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sandhills Depot, P.O. Box 149
Hoffman, NC 28347
Office and Cell: 910-409-7350
gabriela.garrison( ncwildlife.org
www.ncwildlife.ore
©m®®
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
February 9, 2018
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Catfish Pond Mitigation Site. A
Site Map and USGS Topographic Map with approximate project areas are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Rougemont, NC USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle.
The Catfish Pond Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project
will include stream restoration on Catfish Creek and several unnamed tributaries all which drain to
Mountain Creek and the removal of Catfish Pond. The site has historically been disturbed due to
livestock use. Based on a review of historical aerials, Catfish Pond was installed sometime between 1940
and 1955. There are no existing structures within the project area. Furthermore, no archeological
artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
ID f
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

oaw
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
March 5, 2018
Carolyn Lanza
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site, Durham County, ER 18-0328
Dear Ms. Lanza:
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 2018, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review(@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION NOTES TO USERS SCALE
THEINFORMATON OEPICFED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSOAVAIMLE IN DIGITAL FORAtATAT
HTTP)/FRIS.NC.GOV/FRIS
-WN W et gem Rand DemUau (E FE)
WRAPFEar Dephlwe AEAD. .,AR
9PECNLFI000 � Repilemv FlNNdweE
NA7iWpAPEk4
OT%Annuell dunm Fkod He AA,—
d MAnnual Chane Fkad wRh Amnp
Gepth ILmTh nO FadRhRdWDrduge
ArnsdkulMnOmSmue Nm zwwx
FwmDaMMom 1%An and
ORGPANFASOF ClnnmFlmdNuud—
ROODRATARD Ane with Reduced Fund Rkh due to levee
Sa hetes rows
Ann Dakr,N oed to ha Ouklde tl W
ARM 03%memICNuNaFlmulD.I. wu
Chnnd, Cumm ar Smm Sewer
Awmksd m Pmrklpmly AenM reed
OFRERAL IemFloodweP
SIRIICN0.E8 Nm-ocmr*dumedNMTavn. Diu, orFloodwaa
Iknth oIkcaGmddk Su—muh ud
uvxto® MU=d GmdaOc SWM bench Me&
a® Canlndx FH.NGAIPSurvry bend meek
n�--eu— Croce SedknewNh MA. lCAa—
Wakr Sudere EIrIaW n (GFFj
coasenTeaeatt
—__ hdNe M.A.
NFdraQaphkpeehm
ORIFR UiultdSkdF
— Jvrkdkllan 9mndeq
war°"rvw'wr..c... `�r`9�°^�"°'"°�"�"'�`�ie°"'r"• 11NIeh.500hR L.G.GOO
mss, rr.Mran,A,u.ruerw+YwwwAw.mrnn r ��. 0 i50 SOC) 1,DW ..
Frm..obNwb.u.erAY�FNeYrmw�rro .+wrm.. Fad
AbMn
�Yo�iva�rnw�r taeoewwmr .mmw vwrsrner 0 T5 150 DDD
UreRdNade.NeW—Adie (UMWA)
o Weealxate
�.srrwaw�.+rr.Y, mwwsmMn.rrMa4 �w.r.Yia
sw..wrmmre s+.sr m.bu..rn++rruWrirrrruanwWln
®CBPSArn c.mw � OMeldw Plt,WArm
VFAPIONWIAeIEP
2332
MA82700K
S'/20092700N
WIR"2
Od .19,2019
TRI CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN NAPPRIG PROGRAM
-. r:mxunaoDlrauRAxcETNroauM
�F
:::OD INSURMILE RALE NIAP
NORTH CAROLINA
—0827
CD
87
N
C
O
_O
LL
C
O
VFAPIONWIAeIEP
2332
MA82700K
S'/20092700N
WIR"2
Od .19,2019

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S.REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 19, 2019
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Jeff Schaffer
1652 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
(via electronic mail: jelfschafferna,ncdenr.gov)
Re: Catfish Pond Mitigation Plan Approval
Dear Mr. Schaffer,
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a draft Mitigation Plan from the Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) for the Catfish Pond site (Site) in 2019, for review and approval under 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 and 15A NCAC 02B .0240 to be used as either a buffer mitigation project or a
nutrient offset project. DWR reviewed the Mitigation Plan and provided comments and
recommendations. DMS submitted a revised Mitigation Plan that addressed all comments and
recommendations provided by DWR. The table below summarizes the timeline of the Mitigation Plan:
Project Site
DWR Project
Initial Mitigation
Revised Mitigation
Location/HUC
Name
ID #
Plan
Plan Received
Received(Final
Draft
Catfish Pond
2018-0196vl
May 8, 2019
August 14, 2019
03020201
Falls Lake WS
By copy of this letter, the subject mitigation plan is approved. A copy of the final draft can be found
online at: https://edocs.deg.ne.gov/WaterResources/O/doe/952596/Pagel.asox
Please feel free to call [phone] if you have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely, l�
l 1 XJVVWI
atie Merritt
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
KAH/km
cc: DWR File Copy (Katie Merritt)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 2 769 9-1617