20181097 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20191114

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
G Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20181097
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Central Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Dogtown Stream Mitigation Bank
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Katie Webber
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
Kv,[e-mail]
Date Submitted
11/14/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Bakers Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
Class C
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.763832-81.185640
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Catawba
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
* Nationwide Permit (NWP)
* Regional General Permit (RGP)
7 Standard (IP)
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Mac Haupt:eads\dmhaupt
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
U

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
W Owner r Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Colonel Land, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
3337/1168
2c. Responsible party:
2d.Address
Street Address
302 Jefferson Street
Address Line 2
Suite 110
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Cade
27605
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Environmental Banc & Exchange LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
3397/1430
State / Ro ince / F ogion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

2c. Responsible party:
2d.Address
Street Address
302 Jefferson St
Address Line 2
Suite 110
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27605
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
State / Rovinoe / Region
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
C. Project Information and Prior Project History C^U
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Conover
i 2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
375309060630 & 375305291678
2c. Project Address
Street Address
4328 C & B Farm Rd
Address Line 2
city
Conover
Postal / Zip Code
28613
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Bakers Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
Class C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030501011400
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
198.730 & 70.2
State / Rovinoe / La;gion
NC
Country
USA
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 Dogtown Mitigation Site (Project) is located in Catawba County approximately four miles north of Conover, INC. Consisting of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and disturbed
wooded areas, the Project's total easement area is approximately 59.13 acres within the overall drainage area of 4,095 acres. The Project has two separate portions along Bakers
Creek and in between those portions is a conservation easement for a water quality improvement site. While each site has been developed independently of the other, the combined
easements will result in greater continuity of protected corridors along the main stem of Bakers Creek. Grazing livestock have historically had access to all stream reaches within the
Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the
Project area. The stream channels include Bakers Creek and seven unnamed tributaries, split into twelve reaches based on proposed treatment type.
Reach S1 is in the northern project area and flows south from Swinging Bridge Road (SR 1515) through an active pasture towards Bakers Creek. This reach is a G-type sand and
gravel bed channel with a slope of less than 1%. The drainage area is approximately 427 acres and is dominated by agricultural land use. The valley transitions from a washed -slope
form at the upstream end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end. Channel buffers have been reduced to less than 10 feet in multiple locations along the reach and livestock
have historically had direct access to the channel. A 72" CMP conveys the channel under SR 1515 and has formed a four -foot -deep scour hole at its outlet. This bed scour combined
with increased sediment loads from limited buffers and livestock access have produced a bed material that is almost completely mobile.
Reach S2 is located along the northeastern portion of the project and flows west into Reach S1. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 71 acres, and the land use is a
mix of residential and farm land. S2 is divided into two reaches. The upstream section, S2-A, is an E-type channel with buffers greater than 50 feet and no livestock access. The reach is
slightly incised, with stable vegetated banks. S2-A has a stable gravel bed that exhibits good bed form diversity and grade is controlled by downstream bedrock outcrops.
The downstream section, Reach S2-B, is a G-type channel with limited to no buffers and livestock have direct access to the stream. The channel has minimal bank vegetation and no
bedrock grade control was observed along this reach. This combined with livestock impacts has produced a highly unstable stream with limited bedform diversity or aquatic habitat.
Reach S3 is located 0.3 miles south of S2 and flows west from the project limits into Bakers Creek. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 132 acres and is dominated by
active pasture. S3 is divided into two reaches. The upstream reach, S3-A, is a G-type channel with vegetated buffer widths ranging from 0 to 30 feet with livestock having direct access
to the channel. The majority of channel banks are vegetated with localized areas of instability where vegetation is lacking. The channel bed has previously downcut, but has been
stabilized by bedrock outcrops in multiple locations along this reach.
The downstream section, Reach S3-B, is a C-type channel with limited to no buffers. The channel has limited bank vegetation and no bedrock grade control was observed along the
reach. This combined with livestock impacts has produced a highly unstable stream with limited bedform or aquatic habitat.
Reach DT1 is comprised of three in -line farms ponds in active pasture that livestock frequently use. The total drainage area for the reach is approximately 67 acres and is dominated by
active pasture. It flows east to its confluence with DT3. The reach was divided into 2 sections with
DT1-A representing the section upstream of DT1 and DT1-B representing the section downstream of DT1. Reach DT1-A has no channel as it is totally impounded. DT1-B is half
impoundment with the other half consisting of an incised sand and gravel bed stream. The channel is actively degrading with no bedrock grade control observed. The bed composition
is coarse sand with a relatively low sediment load and a channel slope of 1%to 2%, and the valley is moderately sloped.
Reach DT2 is located in the southwestern part of the project. This reach is a headwater stream that is recovering from past land use impacts. The lower reach of this stream is relatively
stable and has substantially recovered to form a naturalized headwater system although sediment loads from upstream erosion continue to impact this reach. The upstream reaches of
DT2 continue to have actively eroding headcuts that produce significant sediment loads. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 14 acres.
Reach DT3 is located in the northwestern portion of the southern project area and flows south past its confluence with DT1 and into Bakers Creek. The approximate drainage area of
the reach upstream of the DT1 confluence is 480 acres, and the drainage area downstream of the confluence is 549 acres. The watershed land use is a mix of forest, pasture, and rural
residential. The reach is divided into two sections based on channel morphology. The upstream section (Reach DT3-A), is a slightly incised gravel bed stream. The bed profile is stable
and controlled by downstream bedrock outcrops. The channel appears to be managing an increased sediment load caused by livestock access and upstream land use. Reach DT3-A
has buffer widths greater than 50 feet with adequate vegetation on channel banks and through the riparian area.
The downstream portion of the stream (Reach DT3-B), is in active pasture with little to no buffers. This reach is an incised sand and gravel bed stream with channel slopes less than
1%. The valley transitions from a washed -slope form at the upstream end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end. This stream is actively degrading with no bedrock grade
control observed. The combination of limited riparian vegetation and livestock access has produced unstable bed and banks, resulting in increased sediment loads.
Reach DT4 is located in the southeastern part of the project. This channel flows southwest to Bakers Creek through active cattle pasture on the right bank and a wooded buffer on the
left bank. The total drainage area is 100 acres and has a land use mix of forest, medium density residential, and pasture. This reach is an incised gravel bed stream with a low sediment
load and a channel slope of 0.5% to 3%. An existing residence is located in the left overbank just upstream of the project. The channel transitions from a narrowvalley at the upstream
end to a broader alluvial valley at the downstream end.
Bakers Creek is a severely incised, third order, sand and gravel bed stream located in the southern area of the project and is contiguous with the water quality easement to the north.
There is a thin strip of trees on both sides of the banks and cattle have access to the entire bank. The channel is incised 5 to 7 feet below the existing terrace and exhibits the typical
regional expression of past valley infilling and subsequent channel down -cutting associated with historic land -use alterations. The bed profile is relatively stable, and the channel is now
adjusting to its current position and sediment loads. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 4,095 acres.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
f yes f No F Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 2 - USGS - Dogtown.pdf
1.15MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 4 - Soils Map - Dogtown.pdf 4AMB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.98
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
11112
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, and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Additional project objectives include restoring the riparian buffer with
native vegetation, ensuring hydraulic stability, removal of livestock 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 exsting landscape. Any abandoned channels will be filled, however, vernal pools will be left where possible to provide habitat and
groundwater recharge. A mix of rock and log structures will be added to all restoration and enhancement I reaches to provide bank stability, grade control, and bedform diversity.
The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:
Bakers Creek totals 1,215 linear feet of Enhancement II to address livestock access and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities will include removal of invasive species, livestock
exclusion, and buffer planting to a minimum of 50 feet. A 30-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate an existing bridge that is to be maintained.
Reach S1-A totals 1,034 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration. The restoration will begin as Priority II restoration just downstream of the NCDOT Right of Way. A Priority II approach
was chosen in this area to maintain the capacity of the existing 72" CMP. The design will shift the channel alignment to the right floodplain and transition to a Priority I approach as the
stream moves down valley. The last 400 feet of restoration transitions bank to a Priority II approach as the design ties back into the existing channel. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be
established along the reach and livestock will be removed.
Reach S1-13 totals 538 linear feet of Enhancement II to address livestock access and buffer degradation. Enhancement activities ww1l include removal of invasive species, livestock
exclusion, and buffer planting to a minimum of 50 feet. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate an epsting ford crossing which will be rehabilitated
as part of the proposed project.
Reach S2-A totals 407 linear feet of Enhancement III. Enhancement activities will include invasive species treatment, supplemental planting, and buffer protection to a minimum of 100
feet.
Reach S2-B totals 869 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration. After the first 200 feet, this reach will transition from a Priority II to a Priority I approach for the remainder of the reach
that will ultimately confluence with S1-A. The channel will be shifted from its exsting alignment and into the natural valley. The upstream limits of restoration were determined based on
severe bank erosion currently threatening several large oak trees, and the presence of a relic channel in the center of the valley. A 90-foot wide easement break is proposed along this
reach to accommodate a proposed crossing and an epsting overhead utility.
Reach S3-A totals 383 linear feet of Enhancement I to address localized channel instability, buffer degradation, and livestock impacts. Enhancement activities will include installation of
grade control structures, stabilizing the banks, planting the buffer, and excluding cattle. In -stream structures such as rock sills, brush toes, and constructed riffles will be installed for
stability and to improve habitat. Habitat Will further be improved through buffer plantings to a minimum of 50 feet and livestock exclusion.
Reach S3-B totals 801 linear feet of Priority II Restoration and 153 linear feet of Enhancement II at the tie-in with Bakers Creek. Restoration begins on this reach just downstream of a
large bedrock outcrop which has prevented the upper portions of the reach from downcutting to the extents seen in the restoration portion of the reach. Restoration will involve shifting
the channel into the right floodplain and excavating a new Priority II floodplain. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the existing alignment and profile prior to the Bakers
Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers Creek and is within the
floodway. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate a proposed crossing. The
proposed crossing was sized to allow the proposed stream to function as designed.
Reach DT1-A totals 630 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. The two pond dams located along this reach will be breached several months prior to the construction of the proposed
channel. The proposed channel will then be constructed in the drained pond bottom. During channel construction any unsuitable material located within the belt width of the proposed
channel will be removed and replaced with material from the dam excavation. A 175-foot easement break at the downstream end of this reach was included to accommodate an existing
power easement. No crossings are proposed within this break.
Reach DT1-B totals 1,175 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. One large pond dam on this reach wall be breached during a similar timeframe as the ponds on DT1-A. The proposed
channel will then be constructed in the drained pond bottom. During channel construction any unstable material located within the belt width of the proposed channel will be removed
and replaced with material from the dam excavation. The portion of the reach not within the existing pond bottom will be shifted to the right overbank area and a Priority I approach will
be utilized to tie into proposed DT3. A 60-foot wide easement break is proposed along this reach to accommodate a proposed crossing. The proposed crossing was sized to allowthe
proposed stream to function as designed.
Reach DT2 totals 575 linear feet of Enhancement I. The enhancement approach for this reach will be two phases. First is to stop the increased sediment loading by grading the two
large headcuts out by flattening the channel slope into the ephemeral channel. Steep banks will also be flattened and vegetated; however, some steep banks will not be regraded as
they have been stabilized by large trees and are not actively eroding. The next phase is to plug the threshold channel currently bypassing the reach around the epsting pond and then
connect DT2 to proposed DT1. This will increase the sediment capacity of DT2 allowing sediment to be transported through the reach. This reach does not have any proposed
easement breaks but is adjacent to the easement break outlined in DT1-A.
Reach DT3-A totals 761 linear feet of Preservation. Preservation activities will include protecting minimum 100-foot buffers on each bank.
Reach DT3-B totals 1,292 linear feet of Priority I and II Restoration and 75 linear feet of Enhancement II at the tie-in with Bakers Creek. Priority I restoration is proposed for the portion
of this reach upstream of its confluence with DT1. The channel will be shifted to both the left and right overbanks. A 235-foot-wide easement break is proposed along this portion of the
reach to accommodate a proposed crossing and an existing power easement. The proposed crossing was sized to allow the proposed stream to function as designed. Downstream of its
confluence the proposed reach will transition to a Priority II approach as it ties back into the existing channel. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the exsting alignment
and profile prior to the Bakers Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers
Creek and is within the floodway. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer and livestock exclusion.
Reach DT4 totals 1,216 linear feet of Priority II Restoration. A Priority II approach will be utilized on this reach to prevent hydraulic trespass. The proposed channel will be shifted into the
right overbank and will reconnect with the existing channel at its confluence with an existing linear wetland. Restoration will stop, and the channel will return to the existing alignment and
profile prior to the Bakers Creek floodway to limit the risk of structure failure on the proposed reach. Enhancement II is proposed along the portion of the reach that ties into Bakers
Creek and is within the floodvay. Enhancement activities will include planting a minimum 50-foot buffer and livestock exclusion. No crossings or easement breaks are proposed on this
reach.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r•' Yes
Comments:
t' No
O Unknown
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
6 Preliminary C Approved r' Not Verified r' Unknown C N/A

Corps AID Number:
SAW-2017-00636
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Jeremy Schmid
Agency/Consultant Company: RES
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
Confirmed PJD was received on May 24, 2017. Revised materials have been provided as apart of this permit application. Revisions include survey stream lengths of the Project.
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
Dogtown PJD SAW-2017-00636 - REVISED.pdf 8.41 MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries r Buffers
W Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
�al Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (')
�2c. Type of W.
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested *
2C Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area
W1
Pond Removal
P
ffmland Hardwood Forest
WA
�No
Corps ]0.106
(acres)
W2
Pond Removal
P
mland Hardwood Forest
ff
WB
No
Corps
0.128
(acres)
W3
Pond Removal
P
mland Hardwood Forest
ff
WC
Corps
0.049
(acres)
W4
Stream Enhancement
P
mland Hardwood Forest
ff
WD
Yes
Corps
0.008
(acres)
W5
Stream Enhancement
��T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WD
Yes
Corps
0.057
(acres)
W6
Stream Restoration
��T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WE
Yes
Corps
0.052
(acres)
Stream Restoration
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WE
Yes
Corps
0.008
(acres)
W8
Stream Restoration -
P
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
WF
Yes
Corps
0.020
Channel Plug
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.109 0.319
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.428
2h. Comments:
Overall vetland impacts associated with restoration efforts occurring adjacent to the eAsting wetlands will be minimized by the restoration plan. W1,
W2, and W3 impacts will be due to the breaching of three dams which will drain the existing pond in order to return the stream system to the historic
hydrologic condition which will likely impact the current water table and influence the location of these fringe wetlands. However stream restoration
efforts and planting of the floodplain should allowfor re-establishment and a)pansion of these wetlands and then protection in perpetuity through a
conservation easement which will result in overall benefit to the wetland function in the area. Impacts W4-W8 are associated with stream enhancement
and stream restoration and have been minimized to the extent possible during the design process. Moreover, the permanent wetland impacts
associated with stream restoration and enhancement (WD, WE, and WF) are only within the proposed top of bank footprint. It is anticipated that the
riparian wetland function of these areas will improve, and wetlands have the potential to re-establish, due to the increased floodplain connectivity of
the Project streams. Temporary impacts associated with the same wetlands are associated with stream restoration activities.
3. Stream Impacts

F
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact *
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S1-A
Perennial
Corps
P
9
1,034
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S2
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S2-B
Perennial
Corps10
873
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S3
Culvert Installation -Pie
P
Permanent
Culvert
S2-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
36
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S4
Culvert Installation - Gradin 9
Tem ora
p rY
Other
S2-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
20
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S5
Ford Installation
Tem orar
P Y
Other
S1-A
Perennial
Corps
P
9
20
Average (feet)
(lirreerfeet)
S6
Stream Enhancement
Tem orar
P Y
—]
Bank Stabilization
S3-A
Perennial
Corps
P
9
100
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S7
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
S3-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
763
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
SS
Culvert Replacement -Pie
P P
Permanent
Culvert
S3-B
Perennial
Corps
P
10
24
Average (feet)
(lirtearfeet)
S9
Culvert Replacement -
Temporary
Culvert
S3-13
Perennial
Corps
10
20
Grading
Average (feet)
(lineerfe2t)
�01
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT3-B
Perennial
Corps
P
15
1,177
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S11
Culvert Replacement -Pipe
Permanent
Culvert
DT3-13
Perennial
Corps
15
10
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
St2
Culvert Replacement-
Temporary
Culvert
DT3-13
Perennial
Corps
15
20
Grading
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S13
Stream Enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
ffI3
Perennial
Corps
22
100
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S14
Stream Enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
DT2-A
Intermittent
Corps
8
100
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S15
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT2-A
Intermittent
Corps
P
22
196
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
�6�StreamP
Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT1-B
Intermittent
Corps
5
1,130
Average (fee)
(lirear feet)
�7]�CulvertP
Installation -Pie
Permanent
Culvert
DT1-B
Intermittent
Corps
P
5
30
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
S18
Culvert Installation -Grading
Temporary
Culvert
DT1-B
Intermittent
Corps
5
20
Average (feet)
(lineerfeet)
M
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
DT4
Perennial ::]
Corps
P
12
1,053
Average (fee)
(lineer feet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
6,326
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
2336
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
400
3j. Comments:
Stream impacts associated with stream restoration (S1, S2, S7, S10, S15, S16, and S19) are all permanent impacts associated with the relocation of
the stream reaches to the natural valley and to restore proper dimensions to the stream which will provide a net gain in the ecological function to the
stream and wetland system. After stream relocation and restoration, the total existing length of stream will increase from 10,005 linear feet to 11,446
linear feet of stream.
The temporary impacts that are due to enhancement (S6, S13, and S14) treatments and are inclusive of adding structures or grading stream
channels to improve stream stability in those reaches. These impacts are short term during the construction time period and Will not have long-lasting
negative effects on the stream but will result in overall benefit to the stream functionality.
Impacts associated with culvert replacement, installation, and ford installation will consist of both permanent and temporary impacts. Permanent
impacts associated with these activities (S3, S8, S11, and S17) are due to adding in culverts or increasing culvert lengths at crossings. The temporary
impacts associated with culvert installation and replacement (S4, S9, S12, and S18) are simply due to grading and installation activities and will not
have long-term effects. One ford crossing will be installed as apart of this project, and will result in one temporary impact (S5)
4. Open Water Impacts

4a. Site # 4a1. Impact Reason 4b. Impact type 4c. Name of wat,rbody 4d. Activity type 4e. Waterbody type 4f. Impact area
01
Pond Removal
P
PA
Drainage :11Pond
0.66
02
Pond Removal
P 11
PB
Drainage :11Pond
0.35
03
Pond Removal
P
PC
Drainage
Pond
1.57
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts:
0.00
4g. Total open water impacts:
2.58
4h. Comments:
4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
2.58
Three dams will be breached (PA, PB, and PC) and one stream channel will be cut through the pond bottom to resotre the stream system to its historic
hydrologic stream and wetland complex system. These areas will be planted and become part of the riparian buffer.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Due to the nature of this project, complete avoidance is not possible. Both stream and wetland impacts were considered when designing the Dogtown
Mitigation project. A survey of the site was completed and taken into account during the design so that large impacts were taken into account. This
project should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site.
1b. 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?
r Yes
f• No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This is a stream restoration project and therefore, compensatory mitigation is not required as the entire basis of the project is to restore for impacts to aquatic resource.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes
r No
If no, explain why:
Although this site is within the Catawba River basin, protected buffers of the Catawba are only applicable to the mainstem below Lake James and along the mainstem lake in the
Catawba River Basin
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15ANCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?"
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (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)? *
r Yes r No

3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This 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, enhancement, and preservation of project streams, planting of the riparian buffer, and the
establishment of a conservation to be protected in perpetuity.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor WA
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
51. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS Database and Natural Heritage Program Database and Public notice period to allow for comments from the USFWS. We also performed a
USFWS online project review which resulted in a self -certification. This is attached.
Consultation Documentation Upload
MA Verification Letter_ Northern Long -Eared Bat (NLEB) Consultation and 4(d) Rule Consistency 2019-10-09.pdf 248.67KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
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?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO GIS Database
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
SHPO_Response_Dogtown.pdf 111.6KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:

Multiple Project reaches are located within the FEMA 100-year flood zone (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of flooding) and the FEMA Floodway.
No grading is proposed within the FEMA Floodway; therefore, no FEMA permits will be required for the Project. A Floodplain Development Permit will
be obtained from the Catawba County Floodplain Administrator prior to project construction. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent
properties upstream or downstream of the project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 3753 (map number 3710375300J) and Panel 3754 (map number
3710375400J), effective date September 5, 2007.
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Dogtown_PCN_F igures. pdf
Signature
® By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
13.3MB
• 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:
Kathleen Webber
Signature
Date
11/14/2019

0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Quadrangle Millersville (1973)
Dogtown Mitigation Project
Ca tawba County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 10/18/2019
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 2 - USGS - Dogtown.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
©0 800400
Feet
Date: 10/8/2019 Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 4 - Soils Map - Dogtown.mxdFigure 4 - Mapped Soils
DogtownMitigation Project
Catawba County,North Carolina
1 in = 800 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
PredominantlyHydric (66-99%)
PredominantlyHydric (33-65%)
PredominantlyNonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
KnATmB
TmB
WoD2CsA
TmC
TmB
CsA FaE3
FaE3
ToC2
TmB
ToC2
FdE2
TmC
W
TmB
TmB
ToB2
TmE
TmBTmCCfD
FaE3
TmC
TmDTmC
W
TmB
CsA
FaE3
ToC2
ToC2
ToC2
TmD
TmD
KnA
WTmC
ToC2
TmC
ToC2
TmB ToC2
FaE3
FdE2
TmB
FaE3
W
TmB
TmD
NaB
CfBToC2
ToC2
CfB TmBCgC2
FaE3
FaE3
TmC
CfCFaE3
ToC2
ToC2
FaE3 TmC
DaA
CfB
ToC2
TmC
TmCTmC
CsA
FaE3
TmD
TmC
TmC
CgB2
TmC
TmB
FaE3
NRCS Web Soil Survey (2019)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
CfB Clifford s andy loam , 2 to 6 percent s lopes
CfD Clifford s andy loam , 10 to 15 percent s lopes
Cs A Codorus loam , 0 to 2 percent s lopes , frequently flooded
DaA Dan River loam , 0 to 2 percent s lopes , frequently flooded
FdE2 Fairview clay loam , 10 to 25 percent s lopes , m oderately erodedFaE3Fairview clay loam , 10 to 25 percent s lopes , s everely eroded
Tm B Tom lin loam , 2 to 6 percent s lopes
Tm C Tom lin loam , 6 to 10 percent s lopes
Tm D Tom lin loam , 10 to 15 percent s lopes
ToC2 Tom lin clay loam , 6 to 10 percent s lopes , m oderately eroded
Catawba County Soil Survey (1975)
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity
Dogtown Mitigation Project
Catawba County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
TLW - 03050101140010
Service Area - 03050101
©Date: 10/8/2019
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 1 - Vicinity Map - Dogtown.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Dogtown MitigationProject
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Quadrangle Millersville (1973)
Dogtown Mitigation Project
Ca tawba County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 10/18/2019
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 2 - USGS - Dogtown.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
DT2-B
S2-A
S3-AS1-BDT1-BD T 3 -A S1-AS3-BS2-B
DT4D
T3-B Bakers CreekWA WB PB
PA
WF
WE
WC
W DPC
©
0 600300
Feet
Date: 10/10/2019 Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 3 - Existing Conditions Map - Dogtown.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
EstablishedConservation Easement
Project Parcel
Existing Wetland
Open Water
Existing Stream
T Transmission Line
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
DogtownMitigation Project
Catawba County, North Carolina
1 in = 600 feet
Hay Field
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture Pasture
©0 800400
Feet
Date: 10/8/2019 Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 4 - Soils Map - Dogtown.mxdFigure 4 - Mapped Soils
DogtownMitigation Project
Catawba County,North Carolina
1 in = 800 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
PredominantlyHydric (66-99%)
PredominantlyHydric (33-65%)
PredominantlyNonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
KnATmB
TmB
WoD2CsA
TmC
TmB
CsA FaE3
FaE3
ToC2
TmB
ToC2
FdE2
TmC
W
TmB
TmB
ToB2
TmE
TmBTmCCfD
FaE3
TmC
TmDTmC
W
TmB
CsA
FaE3
ToC2
ToC2
ToC2
TmD
TmD
KnA
WTmC
ToC2
TmC
ToC2
TmB ToC2
FaE3
FdE2
TmB
FaE3
W
TmB
TmD
NaB
CfBToC2
ToC2
CfB TmBCgC2
FaE3
FaE3
TmC
CfCFaE3
ToC2
ToC2
FaE3 TmC
DaA
CfB
ToC2
TmC
TmCTmC
CsA
FaE3
TmD
TmC
TmC
CgB2
TmC
TmB
FaE3
NRCS Web Soil Survey (2019)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
CfB Clifford s andy loam , 2 to 6 percent s lopes
CfD Clifford s andy loam , 10 to 15 percent s lopes
Cs A Codorus loam , 0 to 2 percent s lopes , frequently flooded
DaA Dan River loam , 0 to 2 percent s lopes , frequently flooded
FdE2 Fairview clay loam , 10 to 25 percent s lopes , m oderately erodedFaE3Fairview clay loam , 10 to 25 percent s lopes , s everely eroded
Tm B Tom lin loam , 2 to 6 percent s lopes
Tm C Tom lin loam , 6 to 10 percent s lopes
Tm D Tom lin loam , 10 to 15 percent s lopes
ToC2 Tom lin clay loam , 6 to 10 percent s lopes , m oderately eroded
Catawba County Soil Survey (1975)
PFO1Ax
PUBHhPUBHh
0 700350
Feet
Figure 5 - Project Constraints
Dogtown Mitigation Project
Catawba C ounty, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
FEM A Zone AE
FEM A Regulatory Floodway
.2% Chance A nnual Flood
NWI Wetlands (USFS 10/29/2018)
©Date: 10/8/2019
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 5 - Constraints Map - Dogtown.mxd1 inch = 700 feet
S1 S2S1S2
S7
S8S9
S6
S5 S3 & S4
WF
S2-A
S3-AS1-BS1-AS 3-B
S2-B
Bakers Creek©
0 500250
Feet
Date: 11/12/2019 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Dogtown\_Bank\MXD\PCN\Figure 6 - Impacts Map - Dogtown.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetland
Existing Top of Bank
Proposed Top of Bank
Impact Type
Permanent Open WaterImpact
Permanent WetlandImpact
Temporary WetlandImpact
Figure 6 - Project Impacts
Dogtown Mitigation Project
Ca tawba County, North Carolina
1 in = 500 feet
W4 & W5
W2 & O2
W1 & O1
W3 & O3
W6 & W7
W8
S10
S11 & S12
S13 & S15
S14
S16
S19
S17 & S18
DT2-B S1-BDT1-BD T 2 -A
D T 3 -A
S 3 -B
DT4D
T
3
-
B Bakers CreekPB
PA
PC
WA
WB
WF
WE
WC
WD
Dogtown - North Dogtown - South
Impact ID Temp/Perm Aquatic Resource Area/LengthW1PermWA0.106 acW2PermWB0.128 acW3PermWC0.049 acW4PermWD0.008 acW5TempWD0.057 acW6TempWE0.052 acW7PermWE0.008 acW8PermWF0.020 ac
S1 Perm S1-A 1,034 ftS2PermS2-B 873 ftS3PermS2-B 36 ftS4TempS2-B 20 ftS5TempS1-A 20 ftS6TempS3-A 100 ftS7PermS3-B 763 ftS8PermS3-B 24 ftS9TempS3-B 20 ftS10PermDT3-B 1,177 ftS11PermDT3-B 10 ftS12TempDT3-B 20 ftS13TempDT2-B 100 ftS14TempDT2-A 100 ftS15PermDT2-A 196 ftS16PermDT1-B 1,130 ftS17PermDT1-B 30 ftS18TempDT1-B 20 ftS19PermDT41,053 ft
O1 Perm PA 0.658 acO2PermPB0.350 acO3PermPC1.570 ac

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

April 13, 2017

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

Re: RES Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Dogtown Mitigation Site, SAW 2017-00608,
Catawba County, ER 17-0604
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

October 09, 2019
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]
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2020-TA-0018
Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055
Project Name: Dogtown
Subject:Verification letter for the 'Dogtown' project under the January 5, 2016, Programmatic
Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-eared Bat and Activities
Excepted from Take Prohibitions.
Dear Megan Engel:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on October 09, 2019 your effects
determination for the 'Dogtown' (the Action) using the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. This
IPaC key assists users in determining whether a Federal action is consistent with the activities
analyzed in the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO). The PBO
addresses activities excepted from "take"[1] prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat
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, the Action is consistent with activities analyzed in the PBO.
The Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take 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). 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 PBO satisfies and
concludes your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section 7(a)(2) with respect to the
northern long-eared bat.
Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you submitted in
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 the Action is not
completed within one year of the date of this letter, you must update and resubmit the
information required in the IPaC key.
10/09/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055   2

▪
▪
This IPaC-assisted determination allows you to rely on the PBO for compliance with ESA
Section 7(a)(2) only for the northern long-eared bat. It does not apply to the following ESA-
protected species that also may occur in the Action area:
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf, Hexastylis naniflora (Threatened)
Schweinitz's Sunflower, Helianthus schweinitzii (Endangered)
If the Action may affect other federally listed species besides the northern long-eared bat, a
proposed species, and/or designated critical habitat, additional consultation between you and this
Service office is required. If the Action may disturb bald or golden eagles, additional
coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is recommended.
________________________________________________

[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)].
10/09/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055   3

Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
Dogtown
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project 'Dogtown':
The Dogtown Mitigation Site (“the Project”) is located in Catawba County
approximately four miles north of Conover, NC. Water quality stressors currently
affecting the Project include livestock production, agricultural production,
impoundments, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents 11,370 linear feet
(LF) of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation.

The Project is located in the Catawba River Basin within Cataloging Unit
03050101, Target Local Watershed (TLW) 03050101140010, and NCDWR sub-
basin 03-08-32. The current State classification for Bakers Creek is Class C
(NCDWQ 2011).

Consisting of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and disturbed wooded areas, the
Project’s total easement area is approximately 59.13 acres within the overall
drainage area of 4,095 acres. The Project has two separate portions along Bakers
Creek and in between those portions is a conservation easement for a water
quality improvement site. While each site has been developed independently of
the other, the combined easements will result in greater continuity of protected
corridors along the main stem of Bakers Creek. Grazing livestock have
historically had access to all stream reaches within the Project. The lack of
riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel
characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the
Project area.

Goals for the Project include an increase to hydrologic function and restoration to
ecological function within the existing stream and riparian corridor, and protect
these features in perpetuity. These will be accomplished by returning the existing
streams into stable conditions by constructing an E/C type stream with appropriate
dimensions and pattern, reconnecting the channel to the floodplain, and
backfilling the abandoned channel. In-stream structures will be utilized for
vertical stability and to improve habitat. Buffer improvements will filter runoff
from agricultural fields, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the
channel. Livestock will be removed from the property and any future land use will
exclude livestock from the easement area. The widening and restoration of the
riparian areas will also provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
10/09/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055   4

Benefits to be accrued from these activities include improved water quality, and
terrestrial and aquatic habitat.
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/
maps/place/35.760448677590574N81.18340016020821W
Determination Key Result
This Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat in a manner consistent with the
description of activities addressed by the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016. Any taking that
may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50 CFR
§17.40(o). Therefore, the PBO satisfies your responsibilities for this Action under ESA Section
7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat.
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 Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed
actions are consistent with those analyzed in the Service’s PBO dated January 5, 2016.
Federal actions that may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats, affect ESA-listed
species other than the northern long-eared bat, or affect any designated critical habitat, require
ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation in addition to the use of this key. Federal actions that may
affect species proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed for designation may require a
conference under ESA Section 7(a)(4).
10/09/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055   5

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Determination Key Result
This project may affect the threatened Northern long-eared bat; therefore, consultation with the
Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat.884, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required. However, based on the information you provided,
this project may rely on the Service’s January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion on
Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions
to fulfill its Section 7(a)(2) consultation obligation.
Qualification Interview
Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?
Yes
Have you determined that the proposed action will have “no effect” on the northern long-
eared bat? (If you are unsure select "No")
No
Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?
No
Is the project action area located wholly outside the White-nose Syndrome Zone?
Automatically answered
No
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 is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/
nhisites.html.
Yes
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
10/09/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055   6

7.
8.
9.
10.
Will the action involve Tree Removal?
Yes
Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?
No
Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat
hibernaculum at any time of year?
No
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
10/09/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055   7

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:
3.0
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
3
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
0
5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
0
6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
0
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.
10/09/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2020-E-00055   8

10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?
0