20181096 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20200227

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
G Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20181096
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Central Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Hair Sheep Stream Mitigation Bank
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Timothy Morris
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
2/27/2020
Nearest Body of Water
Cooks Creek
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
36.4782
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Surry
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Longitude:
-80.7039
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
* Nationwide Permit (NWP)
* Regional General Permit (RGP)
7 Standard (IP)
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Mac Haupt:eads\dmhaupt
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 27 - Restoration
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
F 401 Water Quality Certification - E)press
F Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR401 Certification: r Yes r No
For the record onlyfor Corps Permit: r Yes r No
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. lathe project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Robert Edgar Smith/Treva Nichols Smith/Glenn Nichols
2b. Deed book and page no.:
DB 1362 PG 309 / DB 1362 PG 329 / DB 445 PG 1512
2c. Responsible party:
2d.Address
Street Address
2240 Maple Grove Church Road / 807 Cadle Ford Road
Address Line 2
City
Low Gap / Mt. Airy
Postal / Zip Code
27024 / 27030
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Timothy Morris
State / Province / Region
NC/NC
Country
USA / USA
2f. Fax Number:

3b. Business Name:
KCI Technologies Inc.
3c.Address
Street Address
4505 Falls of Neuse Road
Address Line 2
Suite 400
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27539
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Timothy J. Morris
4b. Business Name:
KCI Technologies Inc.
4c.Address
Street Address
4505 Falls of Neuse Road - Suite 400
Address Line 2
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27539
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
State / Amine / Region
INC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
[phone]
State / Rmine / Ifgion
NC
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
Agent Authorization Letter*
_AGENT_AUFHORIZATION_FORM.pdf 170.06KB
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Mt. Airy INC
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
499902865621 / 499900764767
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Haystack Road and US 74
Address Line 2
City
Mt. Airy
Postal / Zip Code
27030
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Cooks Creek
2b. Property size:
32/13
State / Rmine / Fbgion
NC
Country
USA
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*

Le
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030401010900
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinityof the project at the time of this application:*
The land use on the site is primarily pasture with some scattered trees located along the project drainages. The site is divided by 1-74. Surrounding land use is primarily residential with
agricultural properties located in close probmity to the project site. A detailed Mitigation Plan has been provided with detailed information on the surrounding land use.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
HairSheepCreek_Fig02_USGS_Topo.pdf 1.13MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
HairSheepCreek_Fig04_NRCS_Soil.pdf 2.61 MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.71
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
4274
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
This project is intended to be stream mitigation bank to provide compensatory mitigation credits for stream impacts in the Yadkin 01 basin. Impacted streams will be restored on the site
to develop the credits. A detailed description of the activities required to develop these credits is included in the attached mitigation plan.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Details of the project are included in the attached Mitigation Plan. Project impacts are detailed on the attached impact map and associated table.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Hair Sheep Creek Mitigation Plan 2020.01.23 (FINAL).pdf
43.59MB
Hair Sheep IRT response 2020_01_23.pdf
9.73MB
hair Sheep PCN Stream Impact Table.pdf
406.83KB
HairSheepCreek_Fig03_lmpactMap.pdf
2.63MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the propertyor proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r WA
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2018-00712
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Joe Sullivan
Agency/Consultant Company: KCI Technologies, Inc.
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
November 20, 2018
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
SAW-2018-00712PJD.pdf 3.39MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?

D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands r Streams -tributaries r Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name*
2e. Forested *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area
W1
Fill
T
Headwater Forest
PEM
�N.
Corps
0.008
(acres)
W2
Fill
T
Headwater Forest
PEM
Corps
0.008
(acres)
W3
Fill ��T
Headwater Forest
PEM
Corps
0.022
It—A
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.038
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.038
2h. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000
Wetland impacts will result from relocating the restored stream channel through areas of existing wetland. Relocation of the stream channel will
improve the hydrology of the wetland area by bringing up the profile of the stream in these locations.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
We are applying for a Nationwide 27 permit. This permit authorizes impacts to jurisdictional waters for the purpose of conducting aquatic habitat
restoration, establishment and enhancement activities. This project will provide stream mitigation credits for impacts elsewhere within this 8-digit HUC.
Temporary impacts to the stream resources are unavoidable when conducting stream restoration work. The mitigation plan and the project plans will
be used to ensure resources are protected during the implementation phase of the project.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
A pump around will be utilized to conduct all stream restoration work in the dry. Sediment and erosion control measures such as silt fence, straw
wattles, rock silt screens and daily stabilization will be used to minimize impacts during construction. The impacts proposed are necessary for the
proper restoration of the stream. Sediment and erosion control plans are included in the attached Mitigation Plan which defines means and methods
form minimizing receiving water impacts. Impacts to wetlands were minimal and temporary, as detailed above.
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?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This is a restoration project utilizing a MNP 27 permit.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR) U
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
This project is not in a watershed with riparian buffer protection rules.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15ANCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:

There is no impervious area being proposed for this project. See attached mitigation plan.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15ANCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
r Yes f• No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream restoration project.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor WA
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
r Unknown
Si. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Carolina Wildlife Profiles. http://vmw.nevAldlife.org/fs_index_07_conservation.htm
-United States Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered SpeGies.http://www.N&.gov/southeast/.
Consultation Documentation Upload
Agency_Connrepondence.pdf 414.22KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Essential Fish Habitat Mappar v3.0 http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/indexhtml
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 status?*

t^ Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
SHPO has reviewed the project and responded with no comment.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
Agency_Connrepondence.pdf 414.22KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
http://v ww. nefloodmaps.conV
Miscellaneous
Comments
Mitigation Plan included with previous attachments.
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Signature
*
17 By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Timothy J. Morris
Signature
Date
2/27/2020

SAMPLE AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL ID: ________________________
STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________
Please print:
Property ____________Owner
_____________
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
__________________________________, of ________________________________________
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner’s Address (if different than property above):
_________________________________________________________________
Telephone: _____________________________
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Haystack Road, Mt. Airy NC
J. Glenn Nichols
Propererty Owner Robert Edgar Smith and Treva Nichols Smith
Timothy Morris KCI Technologies Inc.
807 Cadle Ford Road, Mt. Airy NC 27030/2240 Maple Grove Church Road, Lowgap NC 27024
336-320-2430/336-401-1149
499900764767/499900887042/4999020865621
Source: USGS National Map,Dobson Quadrangle
FIGURE 2. USG S TOPOGRAPHIC MAPHAIR SHEEP C REEK MITIGATION BANKSURRY COU NTY, NC ±0 1,000500Feet
Project Easement (12.4 ac)
Project Watershed (139 ac / 0.22 sqmi)
FeD2
FfD
FfD FnC2FfD
FnC2
W
FnC2
FnB2 FnB2
FeB2 FeD2
FfD FnC2FfD
FeB2
W
FnC2
FnB2 FnB2
FeB2
FeD2
FeC2
ArA
FnC2
FeC2
FfD FnC2
FfD
FfD
FnB2
FeC2
W
W
FnC2
FnB2 FnB2 NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911Board
Source: NRCS Soil Survey, Surry County;NC StatewideOrthoimagery, 2014.
FIGURE 4. NRC S SOIL SURVEYHAIR SHEEP C REEK MITIGATION BANKSURRY COU NTY, NC ±0 400200Feet
Proposed Easem ent (12.4 ac)
ArA - Arkaqua loamFeB2, Fe C2, Fe D2 - F airview sandy clay loamFfD - Fairvie w cobbly fine sandy loamFnB2, Fn C2 - Fairview co bbly sandy clay loamW - Water
PCN Section C.3 - Stream Impacts
Stream Impact
Number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)Type of Impact Stream Name
Perennial (PER) or
Intermittent (INT)
Type of
jurisdiction
Average stream
width (feet)
Impact length
(linear fet)
S1 T Fill T1 to CC INT Corps 3 362
S2 T Fill T1 to CC PER Corps 4 486
S3 T Fill T1-1 to CC INT Corps 3 141
S4 T Fill Cooks Creek PER Corps 8 725
S5 T Fill T2-1 to CC INT Corps 3 281
S6 T Fill T2-1 to CC PER Corps 4 69
S7 T Fill T2-2 to CC PER Corps 4 308
S8 T Fill T2 to CC PER Corps 6 2,025
Total stream and
tributary impacts 4,397
W 2 W 3
S1
W 1
S1-E nd / S2-Beg in
S2-En d
S3
S4
S5 S5-E nd / S6-Beg in
S6 & S7 -En d / S8 -B e g i n
S7
S8
S8
S4
Source: NC OneMapOrthoimagery, 2014.
FIGURE 3. IMPACT MAPHAIR SHEEP STREAM MITIGATION BANKSURRY COU NTY, NC ±
Project Easement (12.4 ac)
Temporary Stream Impacts
Existing Wetlands (No Impacts)
Temporary Wetland Impacts
0 300150Feet
    Hair Sheep Stream Mitigation Bank 
Agency Correspondence 

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 19, 2018

Mr. Timothy J. Morris
KCI Technologies
4505 Falls of Neuse Road, Ste. 400
Raleigh, NC 23113

Dear Mr. Morris:

Subject: Hair Sheep Creek Restoration Site, Haystack Road, Mount Airy, Surry County, North
Carolina (KCI Job #161706170)

We received your letter of October 25, 2018 (received via email on October 30, 2018),
requesting our comments on the subject project. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§4321 et
seq.) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).

According to our records and a review of the information you provided, no federally listed
species or their habitats occur in the project area. Therefore, we believe the requirements under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act 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 is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that you continue to keep
us informed as to the progress of this proposed project. If we can be of assistance or if you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-19-044.

E-Copy:
Olivia Munzer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, [e-mail]

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

October 8, 2018

Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: KCI Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Haystack Road, Mount Airy, SAW 2018-00712,
Surry County, ER 18-2277

Dear Mr. Kechefski:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
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
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

LANDMARK CENTER II, SUITE 220  4601 SIX FORKS ROAD  RALEIGH, NC 27609  919-783-9214  (FAX) 919-783-9266
ENGINEERS  SURVEYORS  SCIENTISTS  CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Memoranda

TO: Mr. Steve Kichefski, ACOE
Ms. Kimberly Browning, ACOE

FROM: Tim Morris, KCI
DATE: May 30,2018
SUBJECT: KCI Yadkin Umbrella Bank Prospectus – Hair Sheep Site Visit
IRT On-Site Prospectus Review Meeting
KCI Project Number: 161706170

Attendees:

Kimberly Browning, ACOE
Steve Kichefski, ACOE
Mac Haupt, DWR
Andrea Leslie, NC WRC
Tim Morris, KCI
Adam Spiller, KCI

An IRT field review was conducted for the above referenced project on May 29, 2018 starting at
approximately 10:30 am. Weather was overcast with brief periods of rain. Approximately 1.6”
of rainfall had fallen during the previous week leading up to the site visit. All project streams
(Cooks Creek and Tributaries 1, 1-1, 2 and 2-1) were flowing at the time of the site visit. Tim
Morris and Adam Spiller from KCI presented the project to the attendees. The following issues
and concerns were documented at the meeting and will be addressed in the Final Prospectus and
future development of the site.

1. The IRT questioned the status of the stream/wetland calls at the top of T2-1 and T1,
indicating that the Corps reviewer (likely William Elliot) may call these wetlands rather
than streams which could impact crediting. Although partially vegetated, the areas
maintain perennial flow and could probably be considered headwater streams or wetlands.
The group agreed that the crediting would hinge on the JD calls and the final mitigation
plan would reflect the final decision in these areas.

Response: KCI indicated that if these areas were not considered streams, KCI would
likely attempt to offset the stream credit losses with wetland rehabilitation or re-
Memorandum
Page 2 of 3
May 30, 2018

establishment credits along T2 where existing and restorable wetland functions will be
replaced as a result of the project. KCI intends to do a formal delineation the week of 6-
4-18. The Final Prospectus will reflect this delineation as well as the JD if it occurs
prior to the completion of the Final Prospectus. If KCI restructures the prospectus to
request wetland credits for the project, pressure transducer gauges will be installed
ASAP to document the baseline hydrology of the existing and restorable wetlands. These
gauges will also be used to document whether the restored stream will have any impact
on existing emergent and scrub-shrub wetland features.

2. A general comment was made that the IRT did not like the fact that the project was
bisected by I-74 and that the project was generally small when compared to most
mitigation banks. The IRT also expressed concern that cattle had access upstream of the
T2.

Response: KCI will attempt to re-initiate contact with the upstream landowner to see if
the headwaters of T2 can be protected with a conservation easement. Since these areas
were not fully walked during the site visit, it is possible that an additional site visit would
be required to determine the credit status of these tributaries. The IRT indicated that
since these areas were small that it may be possible to make a determination based on
video or photo documentation.

3. The IRT expressed concern regarding the heavy infestation of invasive species
(honeysuckle, tree of heaven, multiflora rose, etc.) along Tributary 2.

Response: KCI will include an invasive species management plan in the mitigation plan
that identifies the control strategies for each invasive species identified during
assessment.

4. The IRT indicated that the expanded buffers that are proposed for the project should be
run through the new buffer guidance on a reach by reach basis to determine if extra
crediting is feasible.

5. The IRT mentioned that the proposed RSC structure proposed at the top of T1 could take
on a variety of different forms, depending on the goals of the feature. The IRT stressed
that the feature should not require future maintenance if it was to be sited within the
Conservation Easement.

Response: KCI will stabilize the eroded ephemeral drainage feature and also provide
storage and retention capabilities for the downstream resource. While the feature may
be similar in character to an RSC, it may be modified to utilize on-site materials if
Memorandum
Page 3 of 3
May 30, 2018

drainage characteristics are determined to be appropriate.

6. DWR questioned the need for the crossing on T-1.

Response: KCI called the landowner and as a result of the conversation we will
eliminate the crossing on T-1. We will need to improve a farm road above the headwater
seep (outside the easement) in order to allow access to his property along I-74.

    Hair Sheep Stream Mitigation Bank 
Agency Correspondence 

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 19, 2018

Mr. Timothy J. Morris
KCI Technologies
4505 Falls of Neuse Road, Ste. 400
Raleigh, NC 23113

Dear Mr. Morris:

Subject: Hair Sheep Creek Restoration Site, Haystack Road, Mount Airy, Surry County, North
Carolina (KCI Job #161706170)

We received your letter of October 25, 2018 (received via email on October 30, 2018),
requesting our comments on the subject project. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§4321 et
seq.) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).

According to our records and a review of the information you provided, no federally listed
species or their habitats occur in the project area. Therefore, we believe the requirements under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act 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 is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that you continue to keep
us informed as to the progress of this proposed project. If we can be of assistance or if you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-19-044.

E-Copy:
Olivia Munzer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, [e-mail]

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

October 8, 2018

Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: KCI Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Haystack Road, Mount Airy, SAW 2018-00712,
Surry County, ER 18-2277

Dear Mr. Kechefski:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
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
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

LANDMARK CENTER II, SUITE 220  4601 SIX FORKS ROAD  RALEIGH, NC 27609  919-783-9214  (FAX) 919-783-9266
ENGINEERS  SURVEYORS  SCIENTISTS  CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Memoranda

TO: Mr. Steve Kichefski, ACOE
Ms. Kimberly Browning, ACOE

FROM: Tim Morris, KCI
DATE: May 30,2018
SUBJECT: KCI Yadkin Umbrella Bank Prospectus – Hair Sheep Site Visit
IRT On-Site Prospectus Review Meeting
KCI Project Number: 161706170

Attendees:

Kimberly Browning, ACOE
Steve Kichefski, ACOE
Mac Haupt, DWR
Andrea Leslie, NC WRC
Tim Morris, KCI
Adam Spiller, KCI

An IRT field review was conducted for the above referenced project on May 29, 2018 starting at
approximately 10:30 am. Weather was overcast with brief periods of rain. Approximately 1.6”
of rainfall had fallen during the previous week leading up to the site visit. All project streams
(Cooks Creek and Tributaries 1, 1-1, 2 and 2-1) were flowing at the time of the site visit. Tim
Morris and Adam Spiller from KCI presented the project to the attendees. The following issues
and concerns were documented at the meeting and will be addressed in the Final Prospectus and
future development of the site.

1. The IRT questioned the status of the stream/wetland calls at the top of T2-1 and T1,
indicating that the Corps reviewer (likely William Elliot) may call these wetlands rather
than streams which could impact crediting. Although partially vegetated, the areas
maintain perennial flow and could probably be considered headwater streams or wetlands.
The group agreed that the crediting would hinge on the JD calls and the final mitigation
plan would reflect the final decision in these areas.

Response: KCI indicated that if these areas were not considered streams, KCI would
likely attempt to offset the stream credit losses with wetland rehabilitation or re-
Memorandum
Page 2 of 3
May 30, 2018

establishment credits along T2 where existing and restorable wetland functions will be
replaced as a result of the project. KCI intends to do a formal delineation the week of 6-
4-18. The Final Prospectus will reflect this delineation as well as the JD if it occurs
prior to the completion of the Final Prospectus. If KCI restructures the prospectus to
request wetland credits for the project, pressure transducer gauges will be installed
ASAP to document the baseline hydrology of the existing and restorable wetlands. These
gauges will also be used to document whether the restored stream will have any impact
on existing emergent and scrub-shrub wetland features.

2. A general comment was made that the IRT did not like the fact that the project was
bisected by I-74 and that the project was generally small when compared to most
mitigation banks. The IRT also expressed concern that cattle had access upstream of the
T2.

Response: KCI will attempt to re-initiate contact with the upstream landowner to see if
the headwaters of T2 can be protected with a conservation easement. Since these areas
were not fully walked during the site visit, it is possible that an additional site visit would
be required to determine the credit status of these tributaries. The IRT indicated that
since these areas were small that it may be possible to make a determination based on
video or photo documentation.

3. The IRT expressed concern regarding the heavy infestation of invasive species
(honeysuckle, tree of heaven, multiflora rose, etc.) along Tributary 2.

Response: KCI will include an invasive species management plan in the mitigation plan
that identifies the control strategies for each invasive species identified during
assessment.

4. The IRT indicated that the expanded buffers that are proposed for the project should be
run through the new buffer guidance on a reach by reach basis to determine if extra
crediting is feasible.

5. The IRT mentioned that the proposed RSC structure proposed at the top of T1 could take
on a variety of different forms, depending on the goals of the feature. The IRT stressed
that the feature should not require future maintenance if it was to be sited within the
Conservation Easement.

Response: KCI will stabilize the eroded ephemeral drainage feature and also provide
storage and retention capabilities for the downstream resource. While the feature may
be similar in character to an RSC, it may be modified to utilize on-site materials if
Memorandum
Page 3 of 3
May 30, 2018

drainage characteristics are determined to be appropriate.

6. DWR questioned the need for the crossing on T-1.

Response: KCI called the landowner and as a result of the conversation we will
eliminate the crossing on T-1. We will need to improve a farm road above the headwater
seep (outside the easement) in order to allow access to his property along I-74.