20171293 Ver 3_ePCN Application_20220812

Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
OO Yes
O No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
OYes 0No
Change only if needed.
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
6/3/2022
BIMS # Assigned*
20171293
Is a payment required for this project?*
0 No payment required
O Fee received
O Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Central Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
Version#*
3
What amout is owed?*
0 $240.00
O $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Erin Davis:eads\ebdavis
la. Name of project:
Green Mesa
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
lb. Primary Contact Email:*
lc. Primary Contact Phone:*
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
8/12/2022
Nearest Body of Water
Deep Creek
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
Class C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
36.213246
A. Processing Information
Longitude:
-80.718195
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Yadkin
Is this a NCDMS Project
0Yes ONo
Is this project a public transportation project?*
0Yes ONo

la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
EI Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
❑ Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
O Yes
O No
Please provide the date of the previous submission.*
6/6/2019
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
U Nationwide Permit (NWP)
O Regional General Permit (RGP)
O Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
O Yes 0 No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
Id. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
OO 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
O Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
O Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
27 - Restoration
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
If. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
OYes C No
O 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
0 Riparian Buffer Authorization
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
0 Yes
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
0 Yes • No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes • No
B. Applicant Information
OYes 0O No
OYes 0O No
ld. Who is applying for the permit?
0 Owner ✓ Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
OYes 0No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
1084/410
2c. Contact Person:

2d. Address
Street Address
3532 Baptist Church Rd
Address Line 2
City
Boonville
Postal / Zip Code
27011
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
Yadkin
2e. Telephone Number: 2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Matt Butler
3b. Business Name:
RES
3c. Address
Street Address
3600 Glenwood Ave
Address Line 2
Suite 100
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27612
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Matt Butler
4b. Business Name:
RES
4c. Address
Street Address
3600 Glenwood Ave
Address Line 2
Suite 100
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27612
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
US
3e. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
US
4e. Fax Number:
1. Project Information
lb. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
Boonville
2. Project Identification

2a. Property Identification Number: 2b. Property size:
2c. Project Address
Street Address
3532 Baptist Church Rd
Address Line 2
City
Boonville
Postal / Zip Code
27011
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
Deep Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
Class C
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.
030401011102
4. Project Description and History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
Yadkin
4a. 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 Green Mesa Mitigation Site ('Project") is located within a rural watershed in Yadkin County, approximately two miles south of Booneville. The Project lies within the Yadkin River Basin,
North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-07-02 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040101130010. The
total drainage area for the Project is 1,011 acres (1.58 mi2). Primary land use within the rural watershed consists of approximately 28 percent forest and 62 percent agricultural land.
Impervious area covers less than two percent of the total watershed. Within the agricultural land use, pastureland accounts for approximately two percent of the area and cropland
comprises 55 percent of the area. Historic and current land -use within the immediate Project area have had direct livestock access to the streams. These activities have negatively
impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the Project streams. The resulting observed stressors include excess nutrient input, streambank erosion, sedimentation,
livestock access to streams, channel modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.
The Project area is comprised of a 32.45 acre easement area and five unnamed tributaries totaling 9,316 existing linear feet, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River. In general, all or
portions of FF1-A, FF1-B, FF1-C, FF1-D, FF1-E, FF3, FF4, and FF5 do not function to their full potential; whereas FF2 seems to have functionality and is proposed for preservation only.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation because of impacts from agriculture, livestock production, and lack of riparian buffer. Being heavily eroded and incised,
some of the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In the proposed restoration areas, the riparian buffer is in
poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and row crops are present up to the edge of the existing channel. In the enhancement areas, trees are
present, but understory riparian buffer has been impacted by livestock. Habitat along the majority of the restoration reaches is poor in that there is little woody debris or overhanging
vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic species.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
0 Yes ® No 0 Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
5.68
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
9830.00
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The objective for this restoration project is to restore and design natural waterways with the appropriate cross -sectional dimension and slope that will provide function and meet the
appropriate success criteria for the existing streams. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration of natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -
stream habitat. The floodplain areas will be hydrologically reconnected to the channel to provide natural exchange and storage during flooding events. The design will be based on
reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005), and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives, such as restoring the riparian
buffer with native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, and treating invasive species.

4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applies
a combination of analytical and reference reach -based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment
activities may range from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full restoration, natural design concepts have
been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat
improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
The Project will include priorities I and II stream restoration, enhancement I, enhancement II, enhancement III, and preservation. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single -
thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and NC
Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of the project and will be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result of impacts from livestock and channelization performed to promote agricultural
activities. Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout the sections of FF4-B and parts of FF1-D, where much of it is devoid of trees or shrubs, and active pasture is
present up to the edge of the existing channel.
The Project design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the onsite streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat
and floodplain features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical design techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the
design as a whole.
Geomorphic and habitat studies will be performed concurrently with the engineering analyses. While stream design will be verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes,
analogs of desirable habitat features will be derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both in -stream and riparian habitat features will be designed. In -stream
structures will be used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability may further be enhanced
through the installation of brush mattresses, live stakes and cuttings bundles.
Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from on site to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel, installing channel
plugs where necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will
be stabilized using a combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e., bioengineering) and structure placement. The stream
and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a minimum 50-foot conservation easement (where feasible) which will be fenced to exclude livestock as needed.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
Reach FF1-A - This reach begins on the southwest end of the project, flows east to FF1-B, and totals 993 linear feet of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland is located on the left bank, and
actively managed pasture lies just outside of the wood line. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through riparian buffer planting and livestock exclusion. While there are
areas for spot stabilization, this is the best approach based on the amount of bedrock in this reach. Moreover, this reach will have riparian buffers wider than the 50-foot minimum and up to
125-feet in some places.
Reach FF1-B - This reach begins on the southwest end of the project from FF1-A, flows east to an impoundment, and totals 922 linear feet of Enhancement III. Enhancement activities will
include improving habitat through supplemental planting, protection of fringe wetlands, livestock exclusion, and beaver removal. Moreover, this reach will have riparian buffers wider than
the 50-foot minimum, and up to 150-feet in some places.
Reach FF1-C — This reach begins downstream of the impoundment that FF1-B flows into. This reach flows north to FF1-D. This reach totals 694 linear feet of Enhancement II. This reach
is broken up into multiple sections due to the presence of a powerline easement and an existing agricultural crossing. Actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach.
Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-establishment is also proposed along this
reach. There is a large stone wall intact on this reach that will remain in place. The restoration of the riparian areas and buffers along this reach will filter runoff from adjacent pasture,
reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach FF1-D - This reach begins on the north end of the project, just downstream of Baptist Church Road and Reach FF4-B and totals 1,391 linear feet of Restoration. Actively managed
pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Restoration activities will include constructing a new channel within the natural valley with appropriate dimensions and pattern and backfilling the
abandoned channel. In -stream structures such as constructed riffles, brush toes, boulder riffles, and j-hooks will be installed for stability and to improve habitat. Habitat will further be
improved through buffer plantings, livestock exclusion, and invasive species treatment. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent pastures,
thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. There are four easement breaks along this reach to account for a Duke Power transmission line and a telephone line. The
riparian buffer will be less than the minimum 50-feet due in some locations due to the presence of the aforementioned utility lines and their rights -of -way. However, there are also portions
of the buffer that exceed the minimum 50-feet and reach up to 125-feet in width in some areas.
Reach FF2 - This reach begins on the south end of the project, flows north to FF1-B. This reach totals 602 linear feet of Preservation. Dense woodland is located adjacent to the bedrock
controlled reach. Preservation activities will include improving habitat through livestock exclusion fencing. The livestock exclusion fencing will provide wildlife corridors throughout the
Project area and will remove livestock access to the riparian areas. Moreover, this reach will have riparian buffers wider than the 50-foot minimum, and up to 75-feet in some places.
Reach FF3 - This reach begins on the south end of the project and flows north to the pond impoundment on site. The totals 1,943 linear feet of Enhancement III. Enhancement activities
will include improving habitat through livestock exclusion, invasive species treatment, and supplemental buffer planting. The downstream section of this reach will be enhancing wetland
areas, but no credit for wetlands is being claimed. The livestock exclusion fencing will provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area and will remove livestock access to the riparian
areas. Moreover, this reach will have riparian buffers wider than the 50-foot minimum, up to 150-feet in some places.
Reach FF4-A — This reach begins on the west end of the project, and flows southeast to FF4-B. This reach totals 474 linear feet of Enhancement I. Actively managed pasture is present on
both sides of the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through livestock exclusion, buffer plantings, and the installation of in -stream structures such as log sills and
brush toes. Additional enhancement activities will include constructing a floodplain bench along the right bank and laying back the left bank at the upstream end of the reach. Moreover,
this reach exceeds the 50-foot minimum buffer requirement on the left bank.
Reach FF4-B - This reach begins on the west end of the project at a power line easement break just downstream of reach FF4-A and flows east to Baptist Church Road. This reach totals
444 linear feet of restoration and begins at the bedrock section. Actively managed pasture is present on both sides of the reach. Restoration activities will include constructing a new
channel within the natural valley with appropriate dimensions pattern and backfilling the abandoned channel. Native bed material will be harvested when possible. In -stream structures
such as constructed riffles, brush toes, boulder riffles, and j-hooks will be installed for stability and to improve habitat. Habitat will further be improved through buffer plantings and livestock
exclusion. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Moreover,
portions of this reach will have riparian buffers wider than the 50-foot minimum, up to 125-feet in some places.
Reach FF5 -This reach begins on the southeast end of the project and flows north to FF1-D. This reach totals 1,586 linear feet of Enhancement III (FF5-A) and 56 linear feet of restoration
(FF5-B) at the tie-in with FF1-D. Woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through livestock
exclusion, invasive species treatment, removal of approximately 90 percent of the black walnut stems, and buffer planting in areas where black walnut has been removed. Planted stems
along FF5 will be black walnut tolerant; these species are indicated on the planting plan (K-State Research and Extension, 2015). Moreover, this reach will have riparian buffers wider than
the 50-foot minimum.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas? *
• Yes
O No 0 Unknown

Comments:
PJD was received July 23, 2018
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made? *
• Preliminary Approved Not Verified C) Unknown O N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Jeremy Schmid
RES
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
PJD was sent to the Corps May 8, 2018, and a PJD was received from William Elliot on July 23, 2018
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
Yes • 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
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Wetlands ,p Streams -tributaries
0 Open Waters 0 Pond Construction
3. Stream Impacts
0 Buffers
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type*
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name*
3e. Stream Type*
(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction*
3g. S. width
3h. Impact
length*
S1
Ford Crossing
Permanent
Other
FF1-A
Perennial
Corps
20
Average (feet)
30
(linear feet)
S2
Stream Enhancement
Temporary
Bank Stabilization
FF1-B
Perennial
Corps
20
Average (feet)
80
(linear feet)
S3
Stream Enhancement
Permanent
Bank Stabilization
FF1-B
Perennial
Corps
20
Average (feet)
20
(linear feet)
S4
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
FF1-C
Perennial
Corps
20
Average (feet)
1,452
(linear feet)
S5
Ford Crossing
Permanent
Other
FF2
Perennial
Corps
10
Average (feet)
50
(linear feet)
S6
Ford Crossing
Permanent
Other
FF3
Perennial
Corps
9
Average (feet)
50
(linear feet)
S7
Stream Enhancement
Temporary
Bank Stabilization
FF4-A
Perennial
Corps
10
Average (feet)
474
(linear feet)
S8
Ford Crossing Installation
Permanent
Other
FF4-A
Perennial
Corps
10
Average (feet)
70
(linear feet)
S9
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
FF4-B
Perennial
Corps
10
Average (feet)
375
(linear feet)
S10
Ford Crossing Installation
Permanent
Other
FF5-A
Perennial
Corps
8
Average (feet)
30
(linear feet)
S11
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
FF5-B
Perennial
Corps
8
Average (feet)
45
(linear feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
2,122
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
554

3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
1225
3j. Comments:
Although this will impact 1,225 If of stream that the project intends to restore and enhance these streams and protect them into perpetuity so that these
impacts will provide an overall benefit to the stream. Overall the existing length of stream will increase from 9,145 to the new proposed length of 9,164
LF.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were considered when designing the Green
Mesa Mitigation project. The only impacts associated with this project are stream impacts, and wetland impacts were completely avoided. This project
should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site.
lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior to turning stream flow into a
segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the project construction. Additionally, all work in wetlands and streams
will be conducted during dry conditions and/or with mats to protect soil structure. Efforts will be made to preserve individual high value trees located
within the stream restoration area.
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?
O Yes O No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This is a stream mitigation project that will ultimately uplift the ecological quality of streams, buffers, and wetlands on site, within the Yadkin River Basin, and therefore does not need
compensatory mitigation.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
O Yes ® No
If no, explain why:
This project is not in a protected buffer watershed (Yadkin 01).
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250? *
Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
JYes 0No
Comments:
There will be no increase in impervious surface due to this project.
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?*
O Yes O No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)7 *
O Yes J No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
O Yes 0 No

3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in an additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there will be an increase in water quality
within the project, due to the restoration and enhancement of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, and the establishment of a conservation
easement to be protected in perpetuity.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
0Yes 0No®N/A
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?*
Yes • No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
• Yes No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
0 Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
0 Yes ® No
• No Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
OYes 0No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
0Yes ®No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
0Yes ®No
5i. 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.?
Yes • No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS IPAC & Natural Heritage Program Database
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Yes • No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
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?*
Yes • No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO GIS database and SHPO coordination.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
Yes • No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA Floodplain Maps (FIRM Panel 3710499000J & FIRM Panel 3710488800J)
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
GreenMesa_Submittal_Package.pdf 36.49MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments

Signature
RI By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and
• The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• 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:
Matt Butler
Signature
Date
8/12/2022

fires
August , 2022
NC Division of Water Resources
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
To Whom it May Concern,
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
for the Green Mesa Mitigation ("Project") located in Yadkin County, North Carolina (36.213246, -80.718195).
The Project is located within a primarily rural watershed approximately two miles south of Boonville, NC.
The aquatic resources associated with the Project have been highly manipulated and degraded over time
due to agriculture practices, including stream channelization, constructing impoundments, and raising
livestock. The Project will involve the restoration and enhancement of streams and wetlands within the
Yadkin River Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 03040101). This PCN provides an assessment of temporary
and permanent impacts associated with the stream and wetland mitigation that will occur during
the construction of this Project.
The objective for this 3 . 1-acre Project is to restore and design natural stream complexes with appropriate
cross -sectional dimensions and slope that will provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria
agreed upon in the mitigation plan. Accomplishing this objective entails the restoration and enhancement
of natural stream characteristics, such as stable cross sections, planform, and in -stream habitat as well as
restoration and enhancement of wetland functions, such as hydrology, biogeochemistry, and species
habitat. There are no wetland or open water impacts associated with this project. There are a total of 2,122
linear feet of permanent stream impacts and 554 linear feet of temporary impacts. Although this will
impact 1,225 If of stream that the project intends to restore and enhance these streams and protect
them into perpetuity so that these impacts will provide an overall benefit to the stream. Overall, the
existing length of stream will increase from 9,145 to the new proposed length of 9,164 LF.
The attached PCN package includes the PCN form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures, and
the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination with an updated aquatic resource inventory table.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me at
(919)-209-1062 or [e-mail] if you have any additional question regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Brad Breslow I Regulatory Manager
res.us

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Pre -filing Meeting Request
II. PCN Figures
• Figure 1. Project Vicinity
• Figure 2. USGS Quadrangle
• Figure 3. Existing Conditions
• Figure 4. Mapped Soils
• Figure 5. Project Impacts
III. Issued Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)
• Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
• PJD Form
• Original Aquatic Resources
• Figures
IV. OMBIL Regulatory Module (ORM)
• Updated Aquatic Resources
• Impacts
V. Agency Correspondence

Pre -filing Meeting Request

Megan Engel
From: Matt Butler
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Megan Engel
Subject: FW: Green Mesa Project DWR# 20171293 V. 1 - 401 Pre -Filing Request
Matt Butler, PMP
Project Manager
RES I res.us
M: 919.770.5573
Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world
From: Matt Butler
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 12:46 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Bradley Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Green Mesa Project DWR# 20171293 V. 1 - 401 Pre -Filing Request
Good afternoon,
I would like to request a pre -filing for the RES Green Mesa Project (DWR# 20171293 V. 1). Please let me know if there is
any additional information you need.
Thank you,
Matt Butler, PMP
Project Manager
RES I res.us
M: 919.770.5573
Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world
1

PCN Figures
• Figure 1. Project Vicinity
• Figure 2. USGS Quadrangle
• Figure 3. Existing Conditions
• Figure 4. Mapped Soils
• Figure 5. Project Impacts

ttal
Baptist Church Ru
Shady Springs Dr
L
Legend
Proposed Easement
1 Service Area - 03040101
;t, , ch kV
N Ou4 F
Green Me.
Site
3211
Boonyll le
W Ma,„ , I Yadkinvill.
amptonville
1
�lf
II
IIII
E
500 1,000
Feet
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
Green Mesa Mitigation Site
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Date: 8/4/2022
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
1 inch = 1,000 feet
res

aw ,w
a
•
f .0,: .6'4.
pOWerllne L___..._.
•••14 ' lc 701°' /
4
m;, r M.. r x< egg:
s
.., \'' , ,
Historic Crossing
"
a" t ;l 1
\ ," l',
Legend k
.<
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
Parcel
UZ Existing Wetland
77
I ' ''' . '' ,-r,.,, ,_,,: :- t ''' 7:-''.:_,, '
FEMA Zone AE (None)
m T-T Transmission Line
Existing Stream
i an _. r_ .
Date: 8/4/2022
Figure 2-Existing Conditions
E. f�e� /P,•�4>1� w — Drawn by: MDE res
p t��r.1& fr��l���`$ s Green Mesa Mitigation Site Checked by: JRM
e"� 0 250 500
11 Yadkin County, North Carolina 1 inch=500 feet
Feet

Proposed Easement
t[u Ow ..a
s
300 600
Feet
Figure 3 - Mapped Soils
Green Mesa Mitigation Site
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Date: 8/4/2022
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: xxx
1 inch = 600 feet
ros

Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
1,000 2000
11
Feet
Figure 4 - USGS Quadrangle
Yadkinville (1967)
Green Mesa Mitigation Site
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Date: 8/4/2022
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
1 inch = 2,000 feet
res

/- ek
,,,_ A a
.., ,
• ,.
. 1 '44t'
••• lk -•„.
.,
. •
I.
.,,...
is,
4PF°1 A&
,
- =
,,"1,•.,i,,,,r;*'•,,,.„,. _';.,•, '0' •' *,4 r % ' II 4
„.. .
0 tt
t I
ft
N
A .
4-,•"-./4, :
,...,
....
ip:rivt, '
o ,
, ..
VV '
PEM1Ax
, s,? , ''."0" •
-.1
r ,..).
i
OA 1,
. ,,0, "'"'""jr4304,4t. ...ott 4.5! '`A"•t. ' • "
t, ESP
4. —4 t
' -
A
---
., .
, ..
. ,
1 t‘ ,
-• 4
. BEIPtiet(ifilMfkli2 ill p, 5 , , ,,, -, . k
_ .tk
,..,
t ;
---_—
. '•'\til
k
,
! .
FUBHh
. ‘.
"*.,.1* '$•,,
a
tr. ,
.:k
'ir**''',A16.
!
',ft
k
4, v
c
,
, %,:\•
,
c 17 t ,,,,,„
-
., ..
-,
,, • ., 4
4 ,
,,li,.„,, ..,,, •-1 - ..,
, ,«I
Legend
Proposed Easement
: M NW Wetland (USFWS 10/12/2022)
Date: 8/4/2022
N
Drawn by MDE
pros
E
i1/4 4..\\
ointimird. w+ Figure 6-National Wetland Inventory
Checked by JRM
.1,1140/41Nopcol.$4401
‘-eirozon-e;vstailie.,
s
1 inch=600 feet
NKR°
300 600
Carolina
Green Mesa MNitoirgthation Site
0
II
°-:
Feet Yadkin County,
.;.

Impact Temp/Per Purpose Stream Impacts
•
Aquatic Length(ft)
0 res
x. S2 Temp Stream Enhancement FF1-B 80
ttr. 't<,c, S3 Perm Stream Enhancement FF1-B 20
. s
`* - S4 Perm Stream Restoration FF1-D 1,452
. ,r'�"F 1 S7 Temp Stream Ehancement FF4-A 474
S9 Perm Stream Restoration FF4-B 375
IF_ S11 Perm Stream Restoration FF5-B 45
��� ,'' ��ll�� , A, Impacts Associated with Crossings
Ir. 0 1 Impact Temp/Per Purpose Aquatic Approximate Length e.
i, FF7-D V' '„I���� �.I0 S1 Perm Ford Crossing FF1-A 1+39 30
II. �.1� �, S10 Perm Ford Crossing Installation FF5-A 17+17 30
IQ S5 Perm Ford Crossing FF2 1+04 50
lilt
, S6 Perm Ford Crossing FF3 14+48 50 S
�� 54
��_ . S8 Perm Ford Crossing Installation FF4-A 3+00 70
c, .` - 0 150 300
� 2,.., 510&511
® '��A b�<• Feet
,1 kw',
13:1tr.
1\` Figure 6-Project Impacts
A.A.. NON •"' Green Mesa
.� i Mitigation Project
,�� Yadkin County, North Carolina
WB ` "r. L •
N�1 Date: 8/3/2022 Drawn by: MDE
i •
•
net
_ , Checked by:JRM 1:3,600
*• <� N Legend
gap Proposed Easement
ti ,� 1 , f T T T I
�r o
Y Y Y Y Existing Pond
Y Y Y Y
�I�� -a' j// Existing Wetland
... Itt.., , if�A��r// lit Existing TOB
i iiii* \-\
Proposed TOB
�14� -I,�i�.I I l� y7
I,-W�� ` 52&53 23
' "
Ilia I
IT
` REFERENCE
i
® ;f1 1)Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N
♦ t
2)Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North_Carol ina_FI PS_3200_Feet
r
MI
s tt4 l��ir'irM=4s,�
® r1*1 �diaN i sr4�
2,2

Issued Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination (PJD)
• Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
• PJD Form
• Original Aquatic Resources
• Figures

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: SAW-2017-01466 County: Yadkin U.S.G.S. Quad: Yadkinville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
Address: 3532 Baptist Church Road
Boonville, NC 27011
Telephone Number:
Size (acres): 20 acres
Town: Boonville
Nearest Waterway: Tanyard Creek
River Basin/ HUC: Upper Yadkin
Location description: The site is located
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Nearest
Coordinates: 36.213246, -80.718195
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat
all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
_ There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely
an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area,
which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have
the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the
Corps.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33
USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation
that can be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon
completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA

jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Elliott at
828-271-7980, ext. 4225 or [e-mail]
C. Basis for Determination:
See attached preliminary jurisdictional determination form.
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Region (version 2.0). These wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators
of ordinary high water marks.
D. Remarks:
The potential waters of the U.S., at this site, were verified on -site by the Corps on May 8, 2018 and are as approximately
depicted on the attached Potential Wetland/Waters Map (dated 10/27/2017).
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate
participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to
this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you
will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria
for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the
NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by N/A (Preliminary -JD).
2

**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.** lly signed by
ELLIOTT.WILLIAM.AN ow°
UN: c=US, o=U.S Gwx nn�e�rt, ou=OaU, ou-Pp,
Corps Regulatory Official: THON Y.1048694604 UO .W LLAMAMHON .104880b
Uate:2018.082311:5712-04'00'
William Elliott
Issue Date of JD: August 23, 2018 Expiration Date: N/A Preliminary JD
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Jeremy Schmid, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
3

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC File Number: SAW-SAW-2017-01466 Date: August 23, 2018
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The ollowing identifies your righ and options -garding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx oill
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD.
The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
4

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review
of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information
administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may
provide additional information to clarify the location of information
of the administrative record,
the Corps memorandum for the record
determined is needed to clarify the
to the record. However, you may
record.
that the review officer has
add new information or analyses
that is already in the administrative
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
Attn: William Elliott
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
828-271-7980, ext. 4232
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.: William Elliott, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
5

6

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JD: August 23, 2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
3532 Baptist Church Road
Boonville, NC 27011
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
CESAW-RG-A, SAW-2017-01466,
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The site is located
State: NC County/parish/borough: Yadkin City: Boonville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): 36.213246, -80.718195
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearestwaterbody: Tanyard Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: August 23,2018
® FieldDetermination. Date(s): May 8, 2018
Use the table below to document aquatic resources and/or aquatic resources at different sites
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
Site
Number
Centered Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Latitude Longitude
Estimated A mount
of Aquatic Resource
in Review Area
(linear feet or acre)
Type of Aquatic
Resources
Geographic
Authority to Which
Aquatic Resource
"May Be" Subject
FF1-A
36.212223
-80.724609
1013 if
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF1-B
36.212189
-80.722394
7241f
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF1-C
36.213772
-80.720389
815 1f
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
11 Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF1-D
36.215554
-80.718159
1609 1f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
11 Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF2
36.211115
-80.723753
637 1f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF3
36.210798
-80.719211
14941f
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF4
36.216467
-80.722795
10371f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF5
36.214259
-80.716669
14421f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
7

WA
36.212119
-80.723091
5.4 ac if
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
11 Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
WB
36.213772
-80.720389
.28 ac
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN),
or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant
has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the
permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make
an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to
request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that
basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation
being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit
authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with
all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps
has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit
authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or
undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD
constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that
activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any
administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in
any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will
be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the
review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD
finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S.
on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features inthe review area that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
8

SUPPORTING DATA
Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply) - Checked items should be included in subject file.
Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester:Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing
conditions, WOUS
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rational:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
▪ USGS map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Yadkinville.
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey.
Citation: Yadkin County, NC
® National wetlands inventory (NWI) map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) / Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): UNK
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and
should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
ELLIOTT.WILLIAM.AN
TH O NY.1048694604
Digitally signed by
ELLIOT. W ILUAM.ANTHONY.1048694604
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DOD, ou=PKI,
ouUSA, cn=ELLIOTT.WILLIAM.ANTHONY.1048694604
Date: 2018.08.2311:5.3 -0400'
William Elliott, August 23, 2018
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing
preliminary JD
Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
Signature and date of person requesting
preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)
Two copies of this Preliminary JD Form have been provided Please sign both copies. Keep one signed copy for your record
and return a signed copy to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office by mail or e-mail
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
9

I Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time
frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
10

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: SAW-2017-01466 County: Yadkin U.S.G.S. Quad: Yadkinville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
Address: 3532 Baptist Church Road
Boonville, NC 27011
Telephone Number:
Size (acres): 20 acres
Town: Boonville
Nearest Waterway: Tanyard Creek
River Basin/ HUC: Upper Yadkin
Location description: The site is located
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Nearest
Coordinates: 36.213246, -80.718195
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat
all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
_ There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely
an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area,
which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have
the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the
Corps.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33
USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation
that can be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon
completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA

jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Elliott at
828-271-7980, ext. 4225 or [e-mail]
C. Basis for Determination:
See attached preliminary jurisdictional determination form.
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Region (version 2.0). These wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators
of ordinary high water marks.
D. Remarks:
The potential waters of the U.S., at this site, were verified on -site by the Corps on May 8, 2018 and are as approximately
depicted on the attached Potential Wetland/Waters Map (dated 10/27/2017).
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate
participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to
this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you
will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria
for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the
NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by N/A (Preliminary -JD).
2

**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.** lly signed by
ELLIOTT.WILLIAM.AN ow°
UN: c=US, o=U.S Gwx nn�e�rt, ou=OaU, ou-Pp,
Corps Regulatory Official: THON Y.1048694604 UO .W LLAMAMHON .104880b
Uate:2018.082311:5712-04'00'
William Elliott
Issue Date of JD: August 23, 2018 Expiration Date: N/A Preliminary JD
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Jeremy Schmid, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
3

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC File Number: SAW-SAW-2017-01466 Date: August 23, 2018
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The ollowing identifies your righ and options -garding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx oill
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD.
The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
4

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review
of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information
administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may
provide additional information to clarify the location of information
of the administrative record,
the Corps memorandum for the record
determined is needed to clarify the
to the record. However, you may
record.
that the review officer has
add new information or analyses
that is already in the administrative
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
Attn: William Elliott
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
828-271-7980, ext. 4232
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.: William Elliott, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
5

6

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JD: August 23, 2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
3532 Baptist Church Road
Boonville, NC 27011
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
CESAW-RG-A, SAW-2017-01466,
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The site is located
State: NC County/parish/borough: Yadkin City: Boonville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): 36.213246, -80.718195
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearestwaterbody: Tanyard Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: August 23,2018
® FieldDetermination. Date(s): May 8, 2018
Use the table below to document aquatic resources and/or aquatic resources at different sites
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
Site
Number
Centered Coordinates
(decimal degrees)
Latitude Longitude
Estimated A mount
of Aquatic Resource
in Review Area
(linear feet or acre)
Type of Aquatic
Resources
Geographic
Authority to Which
Aquatic Resource
"May Be" Subject
FF1-A
36.212223
-80.724609
1013 if
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF1-B
36.212189
-80.722394
7241f
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF1-C
36.213772
-80.720389
815 1f
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
11 Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF1-D
36.215554
-80.718159
1609 1f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
11 Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF2
36.211115
-80.723753
637 1f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF3
36.210798
-80.719211
14941f
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF4
36.216467
-80.722795
10371f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
FF5
36.214259
-80.716669
14421f
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
7

WA
36.212119
-80.723091
5.4 ac if
❑ Wetland
11 Section 404
11 Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
WB
36.213772
-80.720389
.28 ac
❑ Wetland
N Section 404
N Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN),
or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant
has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the
permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make
an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to
request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that
basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation
being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit
authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with
all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps
has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit
authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or
undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD
constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that
activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any
administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in
any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will
be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the
review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD
finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S.
on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features inthe review area that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
8

SUPPORTING DATA
Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply) - Checked items should be included in subject file.
Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester:Vicinity, USGS, NWI, Soil, Existing
conditions, WOUS
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rational:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
▪ USGS map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Yadkinville.
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey.
Citation: Yadkin County, NC
® National wetlands inventory (NWI) map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) / Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): UNK
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and
should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
ELLIOTT.WILLIAM.AN
TH O NY.1048694604
Digitally signed by
ELLIOT. W ILUAM.ANTHONY.1048694604
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DOD, ou=PKI,
ouUSA, cn=ELLIOTT.WILLIAM.ANTHONY.1048694604
Date: 2018.08.2311:5.3 -0400'
William Elliott, August 23, 2018
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing
preliminary JD
Frazier Farm of North Carolina, LLC
Signature and date of person requesting
preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)
Two copies of this Preliminary JD Form have been provided Please sign both copies. Keep one signed copy for your record
and return a signed copy to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office by mail or e-mail
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
9

I Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time
frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
10

ardin_Code I HGM_Code I Meas_Type ter on Local_Waterway
FF1-A NORTH CAROLINA Linear 1013 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21222300 -80.72460900
FF1-B NORTH CAROLINA Linear 724 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21218900 -80.72239400
FF1-C NORTH CAROLINA Linear 815 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21377200 -80.72038900
FF1-D NORTH CAROLINA Linear 1609 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21555400 -80.71815900
FF2 NORTH CAROLINA Linear 637 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21111500 -80.72375300
FF3 NORTH CAROLINA Linear 1494 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21079800 -80.71921100
FF4 NORTH CAROLINA Linear 1037 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21646700 -80.72279500
FF5 NORTH CAROLINA Linear 1442 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21425900 -80.71666900
WA NORTH CAROLINA Area 5.4 ACRE DELINEATE 36.21211900 -80.72309100
WB NORTH CAROLINA Area 0.25 ACRE DELINEATE 36.21377200 -80.72038900

Legend
Mosley Rd
Baptist Church Rd
tHill
Elkin
J esville
Boonville
Ya dki nvi l l e
1571
Mabel Trl
Proposed Easement
0 500 1,000
Feet
Vicinity Map
Green Mesa Mitigation Site
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Date: 11/29/2017
Drawn by: RTM
fires

• �-�
.4„.
,F,
/�.
J`/ 7 Hi,$chh/
-
lv^;.-`\ pU
•11 'p
� f„�
•
� U • t • ' �.. -
rk
ram
•
_ _-
-lql
NIIIIIIIF
Ni
-M-•
---,.... ,_„--....„-
p/ i
.
rIF
\ ,..---,,_
ofi --,-*
il
j
e.,.A yr
)
..........
a
i too
1
C•
Cis
.�`
` -r�
c
Ilf
s=.
R. :
_ir0
!,..
„ ,,
PP2----
xrrG?r.
I.
a•.
• • ,
.,1
4
�i
_ ,/
1
f �
►_---- •. . 0 a i ix ' : •
•
bia: - ---'d I lik
�\.
�-
,a1111
L--4,>
'
A i X
, 4. i^& ,
,
Legend
' :, 4 `
�, ,,
�•CopJgi
j..
�1
.., 201'3 National
��
Geographic,Sooi
Nor, ,
O
\ i oub
Proposed Easement
• ► ;��
w, / J -.— `,
Im�1
o 1,000
USGS Map
Green Mesa Mitigation Site
2,000
Date: 11/29/2017
res
Drawn by: RTM
11
Feet Yadkin County, North Carolina

CM MEI
FdE2 Gal Cl2Gal
MO MEI
On FdD2 Qi itiEl CZ
2 FdE2 egg
MS
GM �.�
ICwl
CGS
alta
es
C
6/59
MP FdD2
: MD QED
MD 1
MS
Z" 1 FdE2
1153
ega
1221
FdD2 e'
en es
MD MEI
ens er) \ CgC2
es IZEI
MI
CgB2
.. j
k
Map Unit Map Unit
S bol Map Unit Name Name Map Unit Name
Legend �'r"
Clifford sandy clay loam,6 to 10%slopes, Fairview gravelly fine sandy loam,10 to 25%slopes,
CcC2 moderately eroded FgD2,FgE2 moderately eroded
Proposed Easement - Codorus loam,0 to 2%slopes,occasionally °
CrA flooded FtF Fairview-Stott Knob complex,25 to 45%slopes,stony ,,
Non-hyd ri c Soil DeA Dan River sandy loam,0 to 3%slopes, HsA Hatboro soils,0 to 2%slopes,frequently flooded
IPartially Hydric Soil FaE fre.uentl Fairview fine sanfloodedd loam,15 to 25%slo.es RdF Rhodhiss-Stott Knob Com.lex,25 to 45%slo.es,ston
FdD2,FdE2 Fairview sandy clay loam,10 to 25%slopes, SmE,SmF Siloam sandy loam,15 to 50%slopes
moderate) eroded
Hydric Soil
FeD3,FeE3 Fairview clay loam,10 to 25%slopes,
severe) eroded
Date: 11/29/2017
w m E Soils Map
1V�� Drawn by: RTM
g 0 250 soo Green Mesa Mitigation SiteO
Feet Yadkin County, North Carolina

• '74;47 P.'IO:i',f
'"4.,,,':;:..-,\A',-,4%;!:r1,11,1 ,.'::.'.?-. ''.'''',i14,-'';•1,:;.,,qe"'/'11--',
•' 'i,"f '''''\''.,t :' , 74,',''.'N., ''''.4.:.'../ •'.:''.',-07;IrT,If..,.,:•,,,4.:',*. ,,P',/,,,://p.,,. .i
' , 5,• ''.',1,. ' .,., ..... . ,',1 ,'., '',.'.-•'' :.V:i:t:Es' ;:,,:.:;.i,,,:;'f':-:..'';'';.,/,/,f;:'....444,
, ,,... . .,, :-.,,,.... „•,.. . :.. _ .,,,,,t.\ , .4,f,,,, , ,.,,, :•. :•.-. '7/. ,8'i? ''o,. '
.
''' ' ' ' .''''''''':-'... .--' ' '•' ' - -''-7''. 1°''''. '''' ,. ''' ' ''1'::: \ '''1/4, 4,4„*„,. . . , - ,. --• ..<:.„--,:„.7,..1
•77. ...,, ,- • -41 - „,:- ..'' ' = '4 r , , . 8 -•,,.".,„,41',8,'8.. ' ' .,'0'- - ' - '$4- N.,8,/AV", '•'• -."8-8,riF',---- -' -
,'„,,,,,` '..4 -,:.•,-. r-, •,,,,,,,,_-r-, r • ',',' ,. '.',. .. r. ... --,,,r,r :r.,' ; '. :,,,,',-,A'. :'..:"., Nt .;',/,,le&-,:,,(47..,Y,,,,3-!.1.-: ,,'- -
•_4 ,.,-.,,,,,7•'-..- . --",-....,„*. '. , ' , . , -,.; •-• : .;,k7...',-,,,*.;;;J,. • -,,.' ,-.,,,..,,tv,,....:.-„:-...-.....,,,,:xerr-.-;':-.4,i,'r''r7:-'.'.,"-.,..r.f"i--z..1..-.;:.:r--:.m.:.-.:;;-;;.;-.:7.:'-4t7.,i.:;.,:-,-.-.,-.I...:--,,--,
-:-f-.,,,-,'::,-j._.,.--._,--'--':-,r7,,:--..7-,.,,v:-,....,:.::..',,''',,,Tr,•-,,,'-,,-.'•,-'A _.:.•-!:,,.',,-„'•„..-.,,..''.:.;..--,...--.,n,_..!.,. ,
'''.„,.'-,..,,..-.--:.,-1,-.,-„.',,,',,..,:'._-r,'.4r''''''';.'‘f..;,.,'./-'','2./..7_,''',,.,-,-i.',4 i-,-..-,•,,K-.-,i;:V
' :.=,_l.,-1,.,.:,.7'„-.,,.•.,-.,'::.-,:4'',-...7=;'7:•,1:!-„-':1,_-4-:,,,,":,..'.,'.-,,,.,`,•.'r1-.-..;'-':,—,.,-,--.1;•':4--*t-4*.:-..',_"'7..;'''I.'„..':'.,,.:.-`,.,,,,,'".;s.--„-,,„,„-.-.,.."T.,4-,7,-,:.",.,-.•-„,!-':'-.-;-.--.'.,,1 1.,,-.5.),,4,.-.,-,'..,,,:,.,,t,T-1'-.i,4,,"..'..,.„,,.-,„,*C,
,4;,.,':'',',,,-''',,,''''`-1.;''-'-.'.'-1_'.-,'1-,•k„-..;.i1„..--,-.'1,..1"„,,--.--..4:-,..-•,r1t,--S,1,,,i,i-:,.,r..';.r.n,,o..,-f,-::i,f'--- ''„,.;---,-4a„,,,;,-,,,,','7-..,.L,-„A!.','-/.-••','---'..„,it-',4'D,-t,.....-J,.4,44.,„,,1.„,4',-•.'„.''--r':-e',„.i,!'N-,,,,...,.,„,,:.•,•.',,,t..:ei4.i''.4'.'s.'t'--'t'',.-'s'7:--'„,-.v.:.'s"i.-v:.''*''"'-
'‘..-.''_.:..,-N.,'-,v.:,-..'.'P,,,';..-,..r,-.P;..r'.s'-:.'..':--.-,,....;,'•'-K'"-•f,,..1o..'.".-...t.*-..-,--::.:--.-;.s.;.-_---,-r,.-k.
--,.:'-,--.;.r..r.:„•-,_?,',.-;-;,-:-_,1-,-
.:,.f:.
,..,
.
-
-- -.„ V -.5.--:
,,,k,..-,_-:;,„,,..„-.7..:, . ik . „•..• ,,[ ,,,,,,,*-., ,,, „,, -,---...,,..,...,--i .,,.. .. - 's
- -
,..
-•....,,,,,,'
„,
,.,itri.
1/
y , -410, ,41;,:''' -,,,,,,,,•;;S. '•,.. .
_,
Ab. .
,';'"';..,-':'-'•* 'i'. ',
'.,%(' e•''.?' • 4-ti: i , '',8\
$.
. .
_ .
•
i, •
PUBHh
PSS1Ch
Legend
Proposed Easement
1
NWI Wetlands
, .IF,....
Site
L
Mitigation
Green Mesa
.@,
Gre
Carolina
North
w+
County, DrawnDle lblyi:29::
National Wetlands Inventory Map
Yadkin
500
1
250
0
Feet
.g.

, p. .-..
\, N":44414.
,� . :.,.
»
•.
cfri
'
1� ,S
`
• ` P<€ 7)?4• W}ii 'c°C� 5r Y . , 1 y y d,. E a .'. J • '�. .� $ i\ '`c�. ', ' \* ef e,. r " i r„"' � v .. * e Etr A,4 a > t"" rk 1 ,.4 � fi , , ."k 1 S
li
• r
,,,,,. ,
Itilli
....
•
' rt, • •
,k As � . :T . 1° r , ,,l*Ot' It �- e' ; .,y\V �,»..:�„ , rMt uuA\. \ A� - ,.yraw74. f r. b .
011)
:; � a as 4 ' .'' ,
r} , '`, � .'sue
s- a A y a ,
,p _ yip\c �,,- s :.
•
4 sM ";ta m;
Q ,v a ,' ` yF K
wI'r h Z Y Pi. 1 w Sl �. ,t,-.•-•1 '
r
m
.
: sn• � a « ODP-4
�a gib,
I
a_ „ _...
C
' a
:. DP 2 E'? r
to c
- '‘'''' '°' '" /' 1 '' ; 0„. lotirriiiiimaffsi< ,...'.,--;‘„,,‘.:*--..44 --;,, it,opp ,:„:W,,,;;
al c
p
X `
r ,...,
. .... :.
Legend
<// Upland Data Point
P W E
t.
Ili
•
•
M '4
} 0 200 400
Il
111C
Wetland Data Point - Feet
"•t�, ` PROJECT MANAGER:
e � v
m DRAWN
Existing Streamsle
,
,,. v • JOB NUMBER:
w :' . Aµl{lN{g
Proposed Easement j DATE:
- x w._ 1 v_...-- 10/27/2017
Existing Ponds "' REVISIONS:
Existing Wetlands NONE
Document Path:C:\Users\aprickett\Dropbox(RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Green Mesa(Frazier Farms)\MXD\JD\GreenMesa_WOUS_11x17.mxd - Date Saved:12/7/2017

OMBIL Regulatory Module (ORM)
• Revised Aquatic Resources
• Impacts

FF1-A
FF1-B
FF1-C
FF1-D (includes FF1-D & FF1-E)
FF2
FF3
FF4 (Includes FF4-A & FF4-B)
FF5 (Includes FF5-A & FF5-B)
WA
WB
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
ardin_Code I HGM_Code I Meas_Type ter on Local_Waterway
Linear 993 FOOT DELINEATE 36.21222300 -80.72460900
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Area
Area
922 FOOT DELINEATE
694 FOOT
1,511 FOOT
602 FOOT
1,943 FOOT
849 FOOT
1,631 FOOT
5.4 ACRE
0.28 ACRE
DELINEATE
DELINEATE
DELINEATE
DELINEATE
DELINEATE
DELINEATE
DELINEATE
DELINEATE
36.21218900 -80.72239400
36.21377200 -80.72038900
36.21555400 -80.71815900
36.21111500 -80.72375300
36.21079800 -80.71921100
36.21646700 -80.72279500
36.21425900 -80.71666900
36.21211900 -80.72309100
36.21377200 -80.72038900

r Original PJD Length(ft)/
+',�;• Included Reaches Latitude Longitude
/ Reach ID Area(ac)
/: FF1-A FF1-A 36.212223 -80.724609 993
? FF1-B FF1-B 36.212189 -80.722394 922 res
10.
., FF1-C FF1-C 36.213772 -80.720389 694
1‘. t ` FF1-D FF1-DE 36.215554 -80.718159 1,511
p0!
FF2 FF2 36.211115 -80.723753 602
�'"'k• FF3 FF3 36.210798 -80.719211 1,943
}
k FF4 36.216467 -80.722795 849 N
»
a 4 q e ; `I - FF5 36.214259 -80.716669 1,631
5� w � .
ik, ,r 4 y t , - y; - �4\ ,q„r,.: 7�F"1 A' s n.- . r -
`,, WA -- 36.212119 -80.723091 5.4 ac NI
t'� � � • �'� . it �i ..[io.. WB -- 36.213772 80 720389 0.28
...` i Total Existing Wetlands 5.68 ac 6
a �"•,4'6�' '�; t rf •'. '�' Total Existing Stream Length 9,145ft 0 150 300
t q.• ''r ,� :rx ti�',r - c to , 'Lengths ha✓e been updated to reflect the sur✓eyedlength of the streams within the project
:. erav .„. . �. '�., a ,t e w "* easement
•
MLA, x ",, "tEF4 q 2` •�; % ^'`:"�,W. Feet
w '. P y ..-'t�:+Y _ 1 in=300feet
ki, •
• �� i Potential
� ,. -' t ,� � ��� � �;; �£\� `a/.
} a* Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters
�� ; ' ig, s o eMap
a ,
" � the U.S.US M
'Trr
� . y, a Green Mesa
k^'• �, a Mitigation Project
i- Yadkin County, North Carolina
lie ., • •
1., .1` , , • .t. - Date: 6/5/2019 Drawn by: MDE
211
y� ; •-
WB 4
a. d' i; Revisions: 1 Checked by: JRM
tw
Lgnd
,
. " v .., `.. Proposed Easement
ffel
{. k,C}?M`.'
Existing and
11111-*. '"•'-. - - 4,_
•
r
, 1 i, -f.-. " wN .�►, Existing Wetland
k' a^7 ' /tliI/ff . .
Existing ::::int
f',0/'
A , • Wtland
Upland Datapoint
�' _- t;
•
_ t
''' FF1- r r
' ` > ` REFERENCE
w w '
p ' 1)Horizontal Datum is NAD83 UTM Zone 17N.
2)Map Projection is NAD_1983_StatePlane_
North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
PZI EMI■M IIMPL7
akt4tiltipio

Resource_Type Permanent_Loss Impact_Duration Amount_ Amount_Units IIndially_Proposed_L Indially_Proposed_ Indially_Proposed_IProposed_L Proposed_ Proposed_
ength Width Amount ength Width Amount
FF1-B S2 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Temporary Linear FOOT 80
FF1-B S3 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 20
FF1-D S4 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 1452
FF4-A S7 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Temporary Linear FOOT 474
FF4-B S9 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Temporary Linear FOOT 375
FF5-B S11 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 45
FF1-A S1 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 30
FF5-A S10 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 30
FF2 S5 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 50
FF3 S6 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 50
FF4-A S8 Ecological restoration River/Stream NO Permanent Linear FOOT 70

Agency Correspondence

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WI LMI NGTON, NORTH CAROL! NA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
November 15, 2017
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review of the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus:
Gideon Site (SAW-2017-01462), Compass Point Site (SAW-2017-01465), Green Mesa Site
(SAW-2017-01466), Twiman Site (SAW-2017-01467), and Scout Site (SAW-2017-01469).
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Attention: Ms. Cara Conder
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Dear Ms. Conder:
This letter is in regard to your prospectus document for the proposed RES Yadkin 01
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of the
mitigation sites listed below:
Corps Action ID
Site Name
Easement
(ac)
County
Stream/Receiving
Water
Latitude (°N)
Longitude (°W)
SAW-2017-01462
Gideon
8.6
Surry
Mill Creek
36.3967
-80.8584
SAW-2017-01465
Compass
Point
13.73
Yadkin
Yadkin River
36.2696
-80.6384
SAW-2017-01466
Green
Mesa
19.96
Yadkin
N. Deep Creek
36.2132
-80.7181
SAW-2017-01467
Twiman
32.06
Yadkin
N. Deep Creek
36.2130
-80.6902
SAW-2017-01469
Scout
14.0
Davie
Hauser Creek
36.0322
-80.5166
The Corps determined the prospectus document was complete and issued a public notice
(P/N # SAW-2017-01462) on September 6, 2017. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the
views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by
the proposed work. In addition, the Corps and members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT)
conducted field reviews of the proposed mitigation sites on October 16 - 18, 2017. Attached are
comments received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, and a field visit memo incorporating comments from the attending IRT members.
The Corps has reviewed the information provided and considered the comments received
in response to the public notice and the field site visits. We have determined that the proposed
mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore and protect aquatic resources within the
Upper Yadkin 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101 of the Yadkin River Basin.
Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI).
1

We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If
you have questions concerning the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone] extension 59.
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
2
Sincerely,
HUGHES.ANDREA.W
ADE.1258339165
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Digitally signed by
H U G H E S.A N D RE A. W A DE.1258339165
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA, cn=HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date:2017.11.15 11:25:11-05'00'

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers
Andrea Leslie Yr``d"-OU
Habitat Conservation, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
26 October 2017
SUBJECT: Comments on RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Davie, Yadkin and Surry Counties
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the final prospectus for the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Site. NCWRC staff
attended site visits with regulatory agency staff October 16-18. The prospectus proposes stream
restoration, enhancement, and preservation on over 29,800 feet of stream to net over 18,000
SMUs in the Yadkin River Basin (03040101).
The bank includes five sites, and general comments on each site follow:
• Gideon Site. Located on a 76-acre parcel and sandwiched between two Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) sites, this agricultural site will involve restoration, enhancement,
and preservation on 4,092 ft of Mill Creek and unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Mill Creek,
netting 2,664 SMUs. The site is less than a mile upstream of the Mitchell River, which
serves as habitat for Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa, US Federal Species of Concern,
NC Endangered). Excellent erosion and sediment control is especially important at both this
site and the adjacent DMS sites to minimize impacts to this mussel.
• Compass Point Site. This site is located on a 209-acre parcel in agricultural and forestry
uses. It was recently logged. The project will involve restoration and enhancement on 5,024
ft of UTs to the Yadkin River, netting 3,709 SMUs. The downstream end of the site is at the
confluence with the Yadkin River, and protection and enhancement of riparian habitat at this
location is especially ecologically beneficial, as it will provide a wildlife corridor that is
connected to the Yadkin River. We recommend that the landowner expand the forested
riparian area along the Yadkin River, as well. Two rare mussels [Creeper (Strophitus
undulatus, NC Threatened) and Brook Floater] are found in the Yadkin River in the vicinity
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

RES Yadkin 01 Mitigation Bank Page 2 October 26, 2017
Davie, Yadkin, Surry Counties
of the project, and erosion and sediment control is especially important at this site to
minimize impacts to these species.
• Green Mesa. This site is on a 273-acre parcel in agricultural use, and project activities
include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 7,776 ft of UTs to North Deep Creek,
netting 3,531 SMUs. The old dam structure downstream of the present dam may serve as bat
habitat, and NCWRC biologists may perform bat surveys there in 2018.
• Twiman. This site is comprised of 10 parcels totaling 266 acres in agricultural use, and
project activities include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 10,477 ft of UTs to
North Deep Creek, netting 5,766 SMUs.
• Scout. This site is on two parcels totaling 522 acres in agricultural use, and project activities
include restoration on 2,467 ft of Hauser Creek, netting 2,467 SMUs.
Detailed comments on the mitigation approach are captured in RES staff's October 16-18 site
visit summary. NCWRC staff has reviewed this summary and has provided comments on it in a
separate email.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact Andrea Leslie at [phone] or at [e-mail].
ec: Travis Wilson and Oliva Munzer, NCWRC

MEMORANDUM
res
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NC IRT
FROM: Cara Conder, Brad Breslow- RES
DATE: 11/14/2017 (revised)
RE: RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank IRT Site Visits
Attendees: Mac Haupt (NC DWR), Kim Browning (USACE), Andrea Leslie (NCWRC), Olivia
Munzer (NCWRC), Cara Conder (RES), Brad Breslow (RES), David Godley (RES)
Dates: October 16, 17, and 18, 2017
Gideon Site —10/16/17
The Gideon Site is located between two disjunct portions of the recently contracted DMS Little
Sebastian full delivery site. While each project could be developed independently of the other,
the combined easements will result in a much larger contiguous protected corridor and high -
quality aquatic habitat. WRC mentioned that there are known occurrences of the brook floater
(Alasmidonta varicosa) in the Mitchell River, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the
project area which RES mentioned in the Prospectus. Connecting the Gideon and Little Sebastian
Sites offer opportunities to create and protect habitat for the State protected species. IRT
members agreed the Gideon site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios
will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
• DWR requested that RES determine the potential wetlands on site. RES is currently
delineating the site.
• MC3-A: Group agreed to restoration at 1:1 ratio as originally proposed in prospectus.
RES explained that cows have full access and the landowner has historically moved the
channel. RES affirmed that construction sequencing would harvest native bed material
when possible (e.g. cobble). The crossing will be a culvert.
• JN5 — Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be more appropriate
approach for this reach instead of Enhancement II Enhancement measures will include
grading banks, installing grade control structures (including at the tie-in with MC3-A),
planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion.
• JN4 — Similar to JN5, the Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be a
more appropriate approach for below the crossing. Enhancement measures will include
removing pipe in old channel, fixing current culvert, grading banks, installing grade
control structures, planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion. Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio
is the approach for above the crossing and includes cattle exclusion and light
supplemental planting.

• MC3-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1, but the Group agreed to
change the approach to Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio because of channel condition and
cattle access. Enhancement measures will include planting the buffer on the left bank and
cattle exclusion.
• JN6-C — RES originally proposed restoration on this reach and Group agreed to that
approach. However, proposed alignment and restoration approach will need to be dictated
by topographic survey data. RES is in process of data collection, including delineating
slough feature. WRC suggested fencing slough area if not in alignment of proposed
restoration area. Barns will likely be removed and the culvert at the driveway will be
reset to improve hydrologic connection to JN6-B. WRC Comment: At the break between
JN6-B & JN6-A, there is an old road that is eroding. RES agreed to stabilize this road.
• JN6-B — RES originally proposed Enhancement II on this reach. DWR did not agree to
2.5:1 ratio due to buffer being intact, but does agree this reach should be part of the
overall project. The consensus was Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of
removing the crossing and cattle exclusion.
• JN6-A — RES originally proposed preservation on this reach. Group agreed to including
this top part of the reach as preservation. The JD will determine the limits.
Compass Point Site —10/16/17
IRT members agreed the Compass Point site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final
credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are
below.
• DW6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. WRC and DWR
recommended more of an Enhancement I approach (ranging from a 1.5 to 2 ratio), which
would include bank work (spot stabilization), riparian buffer planting, and livestock
exclusion.
• DW1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio and Group agreed, with the
exception being the upstream most portion that ties into DW6. Group agreed that a mix of
Enhancement I and II would be best approach on the first 250 feet of DW1-A.
• DW2: Group agreed to Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio as originally proposed in
prospectus. RES confirmed that cows have access. Enhancement measures will include
planting the riparian buffer and cattle exclusion. DWR and RES agreed to installing a
stream gauge midway on the reach to monitor hydrology.
• DW1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. Group discussed
Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio with enhancement measures including a combination of
bed and bank work, complete riparian buffer planting, and cattle exclusion. DWR
Comment: there was some discussion of El, however, if that ratio is proposed vs the E2,
then the work needs to be justified in the mit plan. For the reach DW1-D, DWR believes
while it is a benefit to have a corridor connect to the Yadkin River, however, the ratio
that is appropriate would be no better than 7.5:1. USACE Comment: This will transition
from restoration in DW1-A at bedrock point. Buffered on one side, some areas do need
bank shaping. EII only if the banks are addressed. The existing road may cause the buffer
to be pinched to less than 50' at the end of the reach.
• DW 1-C: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. This reach has patches of high
quality bed material including cobble and bedrock. Group agreed a Priority II Restoration
approach, including benching to aid in floodplain connectivity, would be the best
measure.

• DW1-D — RES originally proposed Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio on this reach. WRC
wants to see this reach protected and included in the project. DWR and USACE
recommended a 7.5:1 ratio. The approach will be cattle exclusion and installing a boulder
grade control structure below the limits of restoration on DW1-C. WRC Comment: We
support the protection and riparian buffer enhancement of this reach, which would protect
a riparian corridor that would connect the Yadkin River to the site.
Green Mesa Site —10/17/17
Overall the site has clear potential for functional uplift, but there are a few notable constraints
including powerline easement and a large pond that will remain (landowner will not allow pond
to be part of project). Because the pond will remain in place, RES and USACE discussed
potentially retrofitting the riser structure to include a bottom pond drain to release cooler water.
IRT members agreed the Green Mesa site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final
credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are
below.
• FF4 and FF 1-D: RES originally proposed restoration at a 1:1 ratio. The approach is a mix
of Priority I and II restoration with potential for enhancement level I above the powerline
based on bedrock in the channel. USACE said clearly justify rationale for restoration
measures.
• FF1-C: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio. DWR and USACE
stated if channel was left in place and enhancement II approach was taken that it was
likely for no credit to be given due to powerline and lack of buffer near the road. Group
discussed starting restoration immediately below Baptist Church Road and RES agreed
this was best option if feasible. WRC Comment: There was discussion of raising the bed
elevation to lessen the DOT culvert perch. The discussion on lower FF1-C being too
close to the road also applies to upper FF1-D. Turning the channel into the field
upstream of where it turns now could allow R credit for both.
• FF1-C (below pond): RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an
approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and tying into the restoration area. There is
a large stone wall in this reach with a culvert that might need to be retrofitted (if
possible). Group agreed the best approach is probably to leave the wall in place and credit
the enhancement at 3:1. USACE Comment: I agree with your summary for both areas
above and below the pond. It's recommended that SHPO review this area (and the area
where the other historic wall is in the buffer in FF1-A).
• FF5: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, invasive species treatment, and supplemental planting on right bank. DWR
stated there is no cattle pressure and there is decent buffer on the banks, but invasives are
problematic (high density of privet). WRC would like some of the black walnut removed
and those areas replanted with a more diverse mix of native hardwood vegetation.
USACE and DWR suggested a ratio of 7.5:1; however, if buffer planting and easement
was extended to at least 100 feet a higher ratio could be approved.
• FF3-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of
cattle exclusion and buffer planting. During the site visit RES suggested enhancement I at
a 1.5:1 ratio with an added measure of bank stabilization to reduce shear stress and in -
channel erosion. WRC agreed to rationale for enhancement I approach, but DWR stated
that there isn't much work needed on this reach and a ratio of 5:1 is likely most
appropriate (see FF3-B below). DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio

of 7.5:1. WRC Comment: We did not agree with the El approach, as this reach has a
stellar riparian forest; definitely agree on an E3 approach here, as light tough is needed
and riparian area is too nice to justify getting heavy equipment to address channel
erosion. USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary
here. My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift.
The historic house in the buffer should be addressed.
• FF3-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and light supplemental planting. IRT suggested combining FF3-A and FF3-B
into one reach and having the entire crediting approach be enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio.
This area might be generating wetlands that RES would not be claiming credit. RES is
currently delineating the site. DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio of
7.5:1. USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary here.
My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift,
especially considering these enter the pond. A narrative of historical farming practices
would be beneficial.
• FF1-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio and Group agreed and
stated to justify the uplift in the mitigation plan. WRC Comment: There is evidence of
beaver here.
• FF2: RES originally proposed preservation and Group agreed to a 7.5:1 ratio with an
approach of fencing where needed. DWR Comment: DWR could go with 7.5:1 on the
preservation (FF2) but would like to see the reach extended above the crossing at the top
and fenced out. WRC Comment: There was a discussion on preserving a little more
above the fence line and whether the old road would be planted/fenced. There was a
question on the location of the property line and end of preservation. USACE Comment:
Channel in good condition, USACE feels preservation at 10:1 is appropriate. The
discussion of 7.5:1 would be entertained if the upstream portion excluded cattle, as well.
• FF1-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of
cattle exclusion and buffer planting. While there might be some opportunities for bank
work, the group agreed that the enhancement II approach was best based on the amount
of bedrock in this reach.
Twiman Site —10/17/17
IRT members agreed the Twiman site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit
ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
• TC2-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement I at 1.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, and bank stabilization. Group agreed to this approach.
• TC2-B: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group generally agreed with this
approach, but did note there is a section of potential enhancement I below the pond. Upon
further data collection/analysis, RES will determine the best approach for this section of
TC2-B. WRC Comment: The group discussed establishing the break between EI and R
at the bedrock nickpoint.
• TC1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group agreed to this approach.
• TC3-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group
agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation
plan.

• TC1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to
examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge.
DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not
feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1.
Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system. USACE Comment: This
channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain.
USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate.
• TC4: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to
examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge.
DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not
feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1.
Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system. USACE Comment: This
channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain.
USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate.
• TC5-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, and minor spot stabilization. IRT suggested a lower ratio of
3:1 in some areas based on existing buffer condition. RES recommends potentially
splitting the reach into different treatments based on level of intervention and will justify
rationale in mitigation plan.
• TC7: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group
agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation
plan. USACE Comment: 3:1 ratio would be more appropriate.
• TC6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. This reach is in a deeply formed gully, but is currently
stable with the exception of multiple headcuts at the top of the reach. DWR suggested
"filling in" the reach to bring the bed up and credit as restoration with a 1:1 ratio. RES
expressed concerns with filling in the gully because thee stream might lose jurisdictional
status after construction with such a small watershed (roughly 20 acres). DWR Comment:
Reach TC6 may not be a creditable reach. While I feel that the only beneficial treatment
would be filling like a RSC approach it is likely the stream would lose flow. Planting the
outer 20 feet for this reach would not be creditable enhancement either. USACE
Comment: I would question whether there would be flow if the bed was raised with
restoration. USACE would not release credit if the restored channel was not
jurisdictional. The channel is part of the larger system, and the lower portions of this
reach would benefit from cattle exclusion. I would suggest a lower EII ratio of 5-7.5:1.
• TC5-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT agreed that this is an appropriate approach, but RES
needs to clearly justify the rationale for the enhancement on this reach. DWR Comment:
IRT suggested 7.5:1, would consider 5:1 if justified in mit plan. WRC Comment: RES
will need to address the issue of cattle accessing land via passage under the bridge and
the associated erosion. USACE Comment: USACE and DWR agreed that 7.5:1 would be
more appropriate, unless 5:1 can be justified.

Scout Site- 10/18/17
The Scout Site is located just upstream of the lower portion of the recently contracted DMS
Mockingbird Site. While each project could be developed independently of the other, the
combined easements will result in a better project and most importantly provide the opportunity
to add over 2,000 linear feet of priority I restoration and limit the amount of priority II
restoration on the Mockingbird Site. IRT members agreed the Scout site is acceptable for
compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation
Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
• HC3: Group agreed that restoration at 1:1 ratio is the best approach for this reach and
including it will improve the development of the Mockingbird project. USACE
commented that a hunting blind within the proposed easement area will need to be
removed. There is an existing crossing that will be removed as part of the design. RES
also showed a tributary that was not included in the prospectus that would be eligible for
potential restoration credit at the tie-in with HC3, but would more likely be Enhancement
II for the rest of the reach.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. liartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi f-I. Hamilton
November 7, 2017
Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, #1 10
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: RES Yadkin 01 Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank, ER 17-1991
Dear Mr. Ingrain:
Thank you for your letter of July 7, 2017, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and I Iistoty
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,
please 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,
122316Sii
ORamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 Fast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Memorandum to the Record
October 6, 2017
Response to Public Notice and agency comments on the Prospectus to establish
the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (SAW-2017-01462) in the Upper
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101, North Carolina.
Andrea,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the Public Notice (SAW-
2017-01462) for the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) Prospectus. The bank
Sponsor, Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC wishes to establish a commercial umbrella
mitigation bank to generate mitigation banking credits to provide compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources associated with Section 404 permits within the Upper
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101. The Bank consists of establishing five mitigation sites
expected to provide approximately 6,373 cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 11,764 warm
SMUs by restoring, enhancing and preserving over 29,800 linear feet of stream and riparian
corridor. The project is designed to address stressors identified in the watershed and provide
improvements and ecological uplift to water quality, hydrologic function and both aquatic and
terrestrial habitat.
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following
comments as they pertain to RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Prospectus dated
July, 2017 and the Public Notice dated September 6, 2017.
• Section 1.4/Page 3: The project goals stated are too broad and somewhat vague. For
example, the goal: "Nutrient removal" and a few others may be better presented as
"Intercept, filter, minimize and potentially eliminate nutrients (such as...), sediment and
other pollutants/pathogens before entering the aquatic environment".
o The goal of "Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat" is also vague and does not
address any particular habitat or species of interest. Since we have cool water
habitats being presented for restoration/enhancement then the goals should
address the habitat types and rationale for considering them.
o "Invasive species treatment" is more of an objective or action (and is stated as
such in the document) to address the real goal of "Eliminate competition to
native vegetation from exotic and invasive floral species".
o I understand that many of the "goals" presented are at the prospectus level and
not necessarily applicable to each site but without clear goals, the establishment

of objectives and performance standards that relate back to the goals and
functional uplift of the site becomes more challenging.
• Section 3.7/Page 6: The last sentence should read: "If planted tree mortality affects 40
percent or greater of the initial planting in a stream or wetland restoration or
enhancement area, then a remedial/supplemental planting plan will be implemented
for the affected area(s)." This addresses "planted" vs. "volunteer" mortality and defines
the starting point to consider mortality.
• Section 5.1/Page 9: Be sure to continue coordinating the work at the Gideon Site with
the Little Sebastian sites and ensure the Mitigation Plan is updated with relevant
information about the adjacent restoration site. NCDMS' Little Sebastian site is now out
on Public Notice, SAW-2017-01507, dated September 21, 2017. The Mitigation Plan
should address how the Gideon Site will tie in with the adjacent restoration work so that
the projects connect seamlessly and minimize disturbance to one another.
• Section 5.4.7/Page 13: Be sure to identify the adjacent restoration work at the Little
Sebastian site upstream and downstream of the project as a potential constraint. See
comment above.
• Section 5.5/Page 14: Table 6 does not match Figure 8. Be sure not to carry error forward
into the Mitigation Plan for Gideon Site.
• Section 5.5.1/Page 14: Second paragraph should state Enhancement Level II instead of
Level I. I also recommend 50-foot riparian buffers be considered for this site due to the
high potential for nutrients and fecal pathogens to enter the stream from the adjacent
pasture.
• Section 7.1/Page 21: SMU discrepancy should be corrected to match Table 6 on page 26.
• Section 7.4.2/Page 22: Information on FF-5 is missing.
• Section 7.5.1/Page 26: Enhancement Level I is not being utilized at the Green Mesa Site.
Level II is proposed for Reach FF3-A.
• Section 8.5.1/Page 34: Priority Level I is proposed for TC3-B only. Be sure to note pond
removals in this paragraph and restoration plan in general.
• Section 8.5.1/Page 35: Enhancement Level II includes TC3-A also.
• Section 9.1/Page 36: Recommend continuing to coordinate with NCDMS and the
adjacent Mockingbird site currently out on Public Notice (SAW-2017-01505) dated
September 15, 2017. The Mockingbird site is considering a Priority II approach to
restoration along Hauser Creek at the terminus of the Scout Site which is considering
Priority I approach on Hauser Creek (HC3). I agree that the sites can be developed
independently but they should complement each other and provide for a seamless
transition as one moves downstream from Scout to Mockingbird.
• Section 9.4.7/Page 39: See comment above.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the RES
Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus and associated proposed sites to provide
compensatory mitigation in the Upper Yadkin River watershed of North Carolina. I believe the
sponsor has provided a viable plan to offset warm and cool water stream impacts that will be
incurred within the proposed service area. If you or the sponsor have any questions or need
clarification on any of the comments stated above, please contact me at 404-562-9225 or at
[e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Comments submitted to Andrea Hughes (SAW -PM) via email on October 6, 2017.

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
June 28, 2018
Cara Conder
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: Identification of Stone Wall Features, Green Mesa Mitigation Site, RES Yadkin 01 Stream and
Wetland Umbrella Bank, Yadkin County, ER 17-1991
Dear Ms. Conder:
Thank you for your submission concerning the above referenced project. We have reviewed the information
provided and offer the following comments.
Two dry -stacked stone wall features were identified in the Area of Potential Effects for the proposed Green
Mesa mitigation site. Thank you for bringing these features to our attention. They have been recorded with
the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology as archaeological sites 31YD224 (Reach FF1-A) and
31YD225 (Reach FF1-C). No earthwork or heavy equipment are planned in the immediate vicinity of either
site. Based on the information provided, the proposed mitigation activities will have no effect on any historic
properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
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@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
),tuo.kLa-ci(1106
/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

fires
June 12, 2018
Renee Gledhill -Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley:
302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
The Green Mesa Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts. The proposed project involves the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of approximately 8,350 linear feet of stream. The prospectus for the RES
Yadkin 01 Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank was submitted to the NC Interagency Review (IRT) Team
in July 2017. As part of that process SHPO responded on November 7, 2017 that a review of the project
has been conducted and are not aware of any historic resources which would be affected by the project
(Tracking #ER17-1991).
The five sites under the proposed RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank had IRT site visits October 16-18,
2017. During the site visit it was noted that the Green Mesa Site has two stone walls that would need
further coordination with SHPO. One stone wall is located on Reach FF1-C (north of the pond) and this
entire wall is intact and has a culvert. It was noted during the site visit to possibly retrofit this culvert, but
the IRT and RES agreed to leave the culvert in place and adjust the credit ratio. The mitigation treatment
on this reach is Enhancement II and would involve cattle exclusion and riparian buffer planting. There
will not be any earthwork or equipment in this area.
The other stone wall is remnants of a stone wall on Reach FF1-A (reach to the farthest west). The
mitigation treatment on this reach is also Enhancement II with an approach of cattle exclusion and
riparian buffer planting. There will not be any earthwork or equipment in this area.
These two areas are called out on the attached map and photos of both areas are included in this letter. If
you would like the regular size photo for any of these please let me know.
The landowners have lived on the property for four generations. The current landowner, Arlene Frazier
said her great grandfather (Duke Frazier) helped build the lower dam crossing with paid laborers on
Reach FF1-C. It was built as a creek crossing and the driveway crossed it until the USACE dam was built.
The current landowners do not have any information about the dam/stone wall remnants on Reach FF1-A.
Thank you,
Cara Conder
RES
919-209-1052
res.us

w
k,'
,-,-„,. .,
, (,-
..
ik,, ,
, ..„ . , , L a, ,c'° , g .4 ', i N w ram` 4
111k
4. am , -''' ',
•
.„,k,\-:.,, -,,,,,„ „...,,, ,...,„,,,
„,
.,,,,,,, „7,
, ,.•., „., ,
,„,,„4....„. „ ---7-- ---4... , , ,,,,_,..,-... ,.., ,,
......, ,
•
Historic Crossin , ,gPp ��
-
Inset A �� , ,,
.1
ti
Relic Wall �; ,
Inset B _.:
"
iiii
V
4
/
� ►
5.,�. �, .
Legend f' �
Proposed Easement
,
Project Streams
5. N
Existing Conditions Date: 6/12/2018
�� E
1.....1 W+
«�'-��w�C� g Drawn by: MDE
N +`�~~`�►:r ;�,��'�� 5 Green Mesa Mitigation Site rs
y V4'a#` 0 250 500 Checked by: uuu
Il
Yadkin County, North Carolina 1 inch=500 feet
Feet

/ W,....6 I_
I 1
i .IP
' . ti • .
19' ' ' i
A.
k .
'LI;ll• v i;
wr
1
'IL4.. -
11 kalik, • ,
R $
i
. ti'
r4.
t
Historic Crossing l '�!• 'ks ,M , % 1, , A,...,.. y ' - '. '•
' ►►• s1 • ,
1r1 10
. • \ :
k.
'. .M • •
• '.
•
-,..,s,. ,,,,- •._i_
. . - .:
. . ,. ., , ,,,,, L, -.--._. • . ...„, --- - I
, . At..,. • -...• .... T.: -.'7:). • .„.. . . - ... .....
....,...... .
-. :,,,n,• :,, -. ..., ,.- vc -4t;
...0(°' ''''70X • II- lb
f ,
-: 'r
Legend \
l�
Proposed Easement `
Project Streams •
-- •
y-" j, -.... .,
N
Existing Conditions-Inset A Date. 6/12/2018
���1►�7���A����;i� Drawn by: MDE
NI w+E
++�rallVi;r ;�1.N. 5 Green Mesa Mitigation Site rs
y ��'�#` 0 25 50 Checked by: xxx
il
Il Yadkin County, North Carolina 1 inch=50 feet
Feet

I i ,t • , .
it, . • • • • 2-. .' •
-:.'s , ) !.", sic , 141. ' ••• .1. '
' , %* „''
- '. • • ' • ,,, ' 1
,1, 0
, 41 . '41'...)ii,, .41-„,r, '..6., •••••
14\
.4)1:`‘`,k,'41. ..:''il' v •t, ,
.1' • •
• •\k,
, ‘,•.t,"riii .,....ife,‘ .11 ' ' • : 4:, ., .
.--:, ,-- .'t,- •_ 1 ' -.?- • Ito
•
.•t-- ,
., ..•• \' .4' 4... . • -
1
,
. Relic Wall ni , .
s\V"
t '. ' • 411k*. . '
., . . .
, ,,s'A • .
. 4* •
.0 -.• I'
- ... ..1144._*-
\•
k , A ,
.— A ,•A'.\i'A 'k, s-till AL. ' ar$
k '., • .
'. . .,
..__ . .• .NI--fl, *V , I
•••IPP
i. „).. . ,.,,,,i •,
auk, • — , . . • -•k t.1
. '
,-, , , _ , . ..., , -..• .
- .,I,• .' ._...
- 4 ' r ' • ‘ •- • .
,. i . or •
.1
.I
i
i.,.\\
4 4.. \ A,j _.
i
' -.I - .' . • v,-
1,-. ; % •. 7 - . 'ip
' ''- '• ' ..*
-,•- • . •---.--r st . .,,
. ...N. Y ' , . 7 • . - - 'WI
••• t .Iti - \ ., 11.-• .' k••• . . - ' i..:i ''‘ ••••\•— • ‘ii: III
(
. ik. 1 ,........._ ,...
t:' ' •-- , •' '. -• • - t 7, - , - .
,F, .-4. , p , I - .. - . . . - - ' ' •- ' .
- ,
'1 ),
. - A
-.,
Is.;i114.
'• 'r, ' '"N-,,
', . t •
•— ' !ilk.t:\... ...... hr. ,f.:.,t.. , ' , ,. ,
,•'t
I . •
Legend ....• ,-• - -
•\c II .4;. .4c. : ; \ — .1!, ,., •
, , •
, ,„ . , .,
T , . , • --'.
I IProposed Easement
`,T,' 4*s, ), • *, _ ,
i , m
LI Project Streams ...
Li
N
Date: 6/12/2018
-',1- Existing Conditions-Inset B
.: -,oPangrAlq.167$01 W+E
Drawn by: MDE E. _AILADIVIN W44"(40
:I', ir.00.‘&7474111*-411 4v Green Mesa Mitigation Site r, s
..... s
Checked by: xxx
irlit 0 25 50
il
11 Yadkin County, North Carolina 1 inch=50 feet
Feet

Photos of intact stone wall near Reach FF1-C. Third photo is a close-
up of the wall.
, ,,,it ‘
""
s
�
7
- 1■ '
Imo' -
� } �l
----"' '4— .0..., ,,,,,_,..
„..,.....,„,v,„ ., ..,_,.-,... -..,,,_.
_„ _,...*,,,, ,, . „..., ..._ „,-,A3.....„,...::::„ :„.
\ _.,_ ...
, _ ...... ___, „.' ' ''\ ‘.- iVA -.cr...-- •+•:',.''',,'
QS 4
wx L' t-..
t i; F
ii axe � f t{
'
._
is I �fr
+
,,ti l p a A t +y,
,1 7
/
-*Z 1 per^
-� � 4- .:-� -+ _ f I: 4. ) -.
•
*1 y
-
.
4
lb
kTM

r i:;
1 t 6
ti
7 ti 1 • s
, litt A { 1 ! • f a
, littt 6 II T
tliqs
I 'i4its.
rr1-4474t_ 1't '• :.'' .A • . t., ...If'. '
4.
�., 1
n ` r 1
1
t_,� 1 ,
_, , , ) 1 I % lr—A 44 4, ,111)1, gg POP 4'6 , ..• 1
r '
s
III 11. r
r ••
— �•
A.
r1
�i F 4t .j 0� e• . �a+l^
f.r• 1 ti 4ri
wf I . - .+
•
I
M1 L I ti •ti
a It
kfri:10;paltrael
Potaibill
..,
' t /

The following photos are of the stone wall remnant on Reach FF1-A.
,,. e ,.0).
ti
_ -
3t-
Ir d i. _ - ..
110 T ,'9 ' `I T t a4i(a r `g i%sti ,;1 ,' \ J e Ai
%,C• `�"�.Y � 1 III_,..: ..t. jN �K,
'.` rS7j - iY a j s.A; r a; y,F �' p ia ��
ily.ftglitt 4-i
,' "irkl:*f,:i rtfej Or' ...I.': 44114-
1r av e' �' �+a3es
•
•
•
- #-. _ — �` • sue--.+ _.il fa,,„" lit,op
_�
•
.. ' j k F,, 1. d �A
1 s.. ( P
.y- �.is y"�-.! t '. •_ tea.. 'r+� / .�
.0 t --ice_ " __ !` �--r ��..

1; r�3
F ° .�4r y r f .. r.
•
le
a•'\ k � '"� ^ 1 :.3 t4 d ,. I es SAS -
, cif r vS q +,1y ,6.
r
j
� Neil,` fiT
s }
� - �
- .sue
y a
x
t

From: DCR - Environmental_Review
To: Cara Conder
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External] Tracking # FR17-1991 Green Mesa
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:32:52 PM
Attachments: imaae001.Dnq
ER 17-1991.pdf
Our response is attached. Thank you.
Renee Shearin
Environmental Review Technician, State Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
[phone] Office
[e-mail]
109 East Jones Street 1 4603 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Please submit all Environmental Review projects to [e-mail]. Only one project
per email.
Allow at least 30 days for our review. We try hard to complete the reviews in fewer days, but under state
and federal regulations we have a mandatory 30 days.
See http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/er/er email submittal.html for guidelines on submitting projectsfor
environmental review.
Do not send .zip, .tif files, downloads, or links to websites as we are not able to process these types of
items. The message size, including all attachments, should be no larger than 20 megabytes.
From: Cara Conder [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 11:39 AM
To: DCR - Environmental_Review <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Tracking # FR17-1991 Green Mesa
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to
Hi Renee,
Thank you for the quick response. After our initial review request was sent to SHPO we had a follow-
up site visit with the stream engineer and there is some proposed minor bank stabilization work to
be done on Reach FF1-A to prevent future erosion and instability. The proposed work would involve
grading the banks and there are three proposed spots for this. Page 3 of the attached PDF shows the
zoomed in area on Reach FF1-A (this was in original correspondence).

One area is about 75 feet upstream of the wall on the opposite side of the stream bank (the wall is
on the left bank and the proposed grading is on the right bank). Another spot is about 75
downstream of the wall and we'd be smoothing the banks. The third spot is about 400 feet
downstream of the wall and would involve grading the banks. The stone wall remnants would not be
impacted and no work is proposed immediately in the vicinity of the wall (75 feet away).
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thank you,
Cara
Cara Conder
Project Manager
RES 1 res.us
Direct: 919.209.1052 1 Mobile: [phone]
From: DCR - Environmental_ Review [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:10 PM
To: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External] Tracking # FR17-1991 Green Mesa
Our response is attached. Thank you.
Renee Shearin
Environmental Review Technician, State Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
[phone] Office
[e-mail]
109 East Jones Street 1 4603 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Please submit all Environmental Review projects to [e-mail]. Only one project
per email.
Allow at least 30 days for our review. We try hard to complete the reviews in fewer days, but under state
and federal regulations we have a mandatory 30 days.
See http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/er/er_email_submittal.html for guidelines on submitting projectsfor
environmental review.
Do not send .zip, .tif files, downloads, or links to websites as we are not able to process these types of
items. The message size, including all attachments, should be no larger than 20 megabytes.

From: Cara Conder [mailto:cconder( res.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:01 PM
To: DCR - Environmental_Review <Environmental.Review( ncdcr.gov>
Cc: Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.gledhill-earley(Wncdcr.gov>
Subject: [External] Tracking # FR17-1991 Green Mesa
CAUTION: Exte - - - -- ' - of click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Good afternoon,
Please find attached a letter with additional information regarding the Green Mesa mitigation site.
This site is a potential mitigation bank site and has already been reviewed by SHPO as part of the
prospectus process. During an IRT site visit two walls were identified on stream reaches and the IRT
requested further coordination with SHPO. The attached letter, maps, and photos have all the
additional information. If you have any questions please let me know.
Thanks,
Cara
Cara Conder
Project Manager
RES 1 res.us
Direct: 919.209.1052 1 Mobile: [phone]

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
July 17, 2018
Cara Conder
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: Stream Bank Grading in Reach FF1-A, Green Mesa Mitigation Site in Yadkin Umbrella Bank,
Yadkin County, ER 17-1991
Dear Ms. Conder:
Thank you for your submission concerning the above referenced project. We have reviewed the information
provided and offer the following comments.
One dry -stacked stone wall feature (31YD224) is located in Reach FF1-A of the subject mitigation site. Based
on the information provided, earthwork will take place 75 feet from 31YD224, but not in the immediate
vicinity of the wall itself. We find this 75-foot distance sufficient to buffer site 31YD224 from disturbance
associated with the proposed stream bank grading. Therefore, the proposed mitigation activities will have no
effect on any historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
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@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
12ILLIaL )14cAkca-WtA
ifeRamona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

x
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project code: 2022-0073375
Project Name: Green Mesa
Subject: Consistency letter for the 'Green Mesa' project indicating that any take of the northern
long-eared bat that may occur as a result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA
Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50 CFR §17.40(o).
Dear Megan Engel:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on August 10, 2022 your effects
determination for the 'Green Mesa' (the Action) using the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. You
indicated that no Federal agencies are involved in funding or authorizing this Action. This IPaC
key assists users in determining whether a non -Federal action may cause "take"' of the northern
long-eared bat that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(0). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that
your IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the Action is not likely to
result in unauthorized take of the northern long-eared bat.
Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you entered into
IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick
northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation.
If your Action proceeds as described and no additional information about the Action's effects on
species protected under the ESA becomes available, no further coordination with the Service is
required with respect to the northern long-eared bat.
August 10, 2022
The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following
ESA -protected species that also may occur in your Action area:
• Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
• Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take
of the animal species listed above.

08/10/2022 IPaC Record Locator: 718-23965965
[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].

08/10/2022 IPaC Record Locator: 718-23965965 3
Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
Green Mesa
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project 'Green Mesa':
Stream mitigation in Yadkin County
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/
maps/@36.21526849347764,-80.71745491661954,14z
Determination Key Result
This non -Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take of this
species that may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50
CFR §17.40(o).
Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule
This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.
This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.
The purpose of the key for non -Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed
actions are excepted from take prohibitions under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) rule.
If a non -Federal action may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats or other ESA -listed
animal species, we recommend that you coordinate with the Service.

08/10/2022 IPaC Record Locator: 718-23965965 4
Determination Key Result
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(o).
Qualification Interview
1.
2.
3.
Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?
No
Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?
No
[Semantic] Is the project action area located wholly outside the White -nose Syndrome
Zone?
Automatically answered
No
4. Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known
hibernaculum or maternity roost tree?
Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state
Natural Heritage Inventory databases — the availability of this data varies state -by -state.
Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by
providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources,
access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage
Inventory databases and other sources of information on the locations of northern long-
eared bat roost trees and hibernacula is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/
mammals/nleb/nhisites.html.
Yes
5. Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to
hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or
other alteration) of a hibernaculum?
No
6. Will the action involve Tree Removal?
Yes
7. Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?
No
8. Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat
hibernaculum at any time of year?
No

08/10/2022 IPaC Record Locator: 718-23965965 5
9. Will the action remove a known occupied northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree or
any trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through
July 31?
No

08/10/2022 IPaC Record Locator: 718-23965965
Project Questionnaire
If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type '0' in questions 1-3.
1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:
0
2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
0
3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type '0' in questions 4-6.
4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest
1.0
5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type '0' in questions 7-9.
7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
0
8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
0
9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity
below. Otherwise, type '0' in question 10.
10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?
0

08/10/2022 IPaC Record Locator: 718-23965965 7
IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Resource Environmental Solutions LLC
Name: Megan Engel
Address: 3600 Glenwood Ave.
Address Line 2: Suite 110
City: Raleigh
State: NC
Zip: 27605
Email [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]