20220897 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20220630

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Initial Review
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
Yes
No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes No
Change only if needed.
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
2/11/2022
BIMS # Assigned* Version#*
2220897 1
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
Fee received
Fee needed - send electronic notification
What amout is owed?*
$240.00
$570.00
Reviewing Office* Select Project Reviewer*
Asheville Regional Office - [phone] Mitchell Anderson:eads\mlanderson
Information for Initial Review
la. Name of project:
Beaver Dam Analog Restoration of an Unnamed Tributary of Canoe Creek
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Grant Buckner
lb. Primary Contact Email:* lc. Primary Contact Phone:*
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
6/30/2022
Nearest Body of Water
Canoe Creek
Basin
Catawba
Water Classification
W S-I V
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.7643258 -81.7605757
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Burke
Is this a NCDMS Project
Yes No
Is this project a public transportation project? *
Yes No

la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
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?*
Yes
No
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 27 - Restoration
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
ld. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
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:
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1 h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
Yes No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
ld. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Andrew Kota
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
2d. Address
Street Address
204 Avery Avenue
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Morganton Nc
Postal /Zip Code Country
28655 United States of America
Yes No
Yes No

2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
2g. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Grant Buckner
3b. Business Name:
3c. Address
Street Address
115 Willow Drive
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Gastonia NC
Postal / Zip Code Country
28056 United States of America
3d. Telephone Number: 3e. Fax Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address: *
grant@catawba rive rkeepe r. o rg
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
Glenn Apline
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
1784336737
2b. Property size:
649.45
2c. Project Address
Street Address
820 NC 126
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Morganton NC
Postal / Zip Code Country
28655 United States of America
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
Canoe Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
WS-Iv
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030301010605
4. Project Description and History
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 current stream is located on the Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina (FCNC) Oak Hill Community Park and Forest. A former agriculture and pine plantation, this parcel is now
being conserved by FCNC. Currently, there is a small unnamed tributary of Canoe Creek which is severely incised. The proposed project area is near Canoe Creek and is a bottomland
that will not be utilized much by FCNC for activities they have planned for the parcel.

4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past? *
Yes No Unknown
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
6500
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
Executive Summary:
Beaver dam analogs (BDAs) have been used with immense success in the Western United States for the restoration of degraded riverscapes (Pollock et al. 2014; Castro et al. 2015;
Davee et al. 2019). However, in the Eastern United States, especially the Southeast, the applicability of BDAs for stream restoration is largely unknown. The same underlying principles
that are leading to success in the Western US apply to the Southeast, in that historically beaver would have been present and likely held strong control of smaller streams. Canoe Creek is
a tributary to the Catawba River just upstream from Lake Rhodiss. Canoe Creek was formerly listed as impaired under the Clean Water Acts 303 (d) list. It was removed during the last
cycle for 2020. From a 2009 study Canoe Creek was identified as a major contributor of sediments to the Catawba River and Lake Rhodiss. Today the stream is still largely incised, and
sediment choked. It is our goal to pilot a project on a small unnamed tributary of Canoe Creek located on property owned by Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina. Upon completion of
the goals listed below, this project will allow a better understanding of the impacts BDAs have on water quality and potentially allow expansion into the main stem of Canoe Creek to reduce
incision and decrease sedimentation.
Goals:
1. Reconnect the Unnamed Tributary of Canoe Creek to its prior floodplain and reduce further incision while promoting beaver establishment through the placement of beaver habitat via
beaver dam analogs (BDAs).
2. Monitor the project to better understand if this is a useful tool for stream restoration.
Background and Overview:
Techniques similar to BDAs have been dating back to the 1900s when trappers would plug breached beaver dams to encourage beaver recruitment. However, trapping became so
economical that the 250,000,000 estimated beavers that existed in North America were nearly brought to extinction. The last known beaver was trapped in North Carolina at the start of the
20th century. Efforts to re-establish beavers from nearby places occurred during the 1950s and today beavers exist throughout North Carolina, but nowhere near the extent, they existed
previously. There is also a theory that beavers did not build ponds in the Southeast. While this is true that on larger rivers beavers would have forgone building ponds and instead dwell in
the banks of those rivers, this contradicts accounts of early explorers and accounts during pre -colonization times where explorers write about the extensive beaver ponds in the piedmont
region of North Carolina. This is evident in the account of John Lawson during the 1700s on his route through the Carolinas, during which he wrote "Bevers are very numerous in Carolina,
their being abundance of their Dams in all Parts of the Country, where I have travel'd."
Given the dominance of the beaver on the riverscape historically it is reasonable to suggest that their presence is natural for streams in North Carolina. This is essentially the underlying
principle behind the restoration of streams using beavers. This is often called Low -tech Processed Based Restoration it is also referred to as LTPBR or PBR. LTPBR involves tactics to
either encourage beaver or translocate beaver to degraded systems. Our goal is to encourage recruitment of beavers on an unnamed tributary Canoe Creek as translocation of beaver is
problematic and illegal in North Carolina. Tactics for recruiting beaver range broadly from planting favorable food sources, encouraging the recruitment of wood in channels, to constructing
BDAs. BDAs are the most promising for the unnamed tributary of Canoe Creek as there are a few historical signs of beaver on Canoe Creek and there are abundant food sources on the
property. BDAs are small stream channel spanning structures constructed from natural woody materials and shrubs to imitate natural beaver dams (Pollock et al. 2014; Castro et al. 2015).
This can have a variety of effects such as raising the water level instream to reconnect floodplains and reduce incision, as well as attract beaver with a premade dam ready for them to
take over. Additionally, benefits include increased residence time of water for filtering out pollutants, storage of sediment, sequestration of carbon, and habitat for wetland species, and
increasing biodiversity(Pollock et al. 1995; Wegmann et al. 2012; Pollock et al. 2014; Kroes and Bason 2015; Weber et al. 2017; Bouwes et al. 2018; Davee et al. 2019; Scamardo and
Wohl 2020; Romansic et al. 2021). BDAs are not permanent structures and typically last for less than a year unless maintained by beavers. They can last for a few years if maintained by
beavers. That is why often multiple BDAs are built in an area to create redundancy and a focus on complexes of small dams as opposed to one large dam. For this project, we propose two
complexes of 2-4 BDAs (±1) to create a habitat conducive to beavers and reconnect the stream to its floodplain while providing benefits to water quality.
Purpose and Need:
The purpose of this project is to pilot a project using BDAs. There are two main reasons that projects using BDAs are important. One is that BDAs show a great promise to tackle water
quality issues. They have the potential to store sediments, reconnect floodplains, increase the residence time of water allowing pollutants to be filtered out, reduce incision and erosion,
mitigate flooding, sequester carbon, and provide habitat for a diverse group of amphibians, fish, and birds. Additionally, when successful BDAs attract beavers, they have free built-in
managers that maintain the conditions. These benefits have been seen in the Western United States, but few projects have been done in the Southeast with the goal of restoration. The
area we have identified for this project has issues with most of the water quality issues listed above that BDAs have the potential to mitigate. Given the historical abundance of beavers in
the Southeast and their control on small streams, it is reasonable to think that BDAs could provide some of the same benefits they have shown in the Western US and would have
provided historically.
Secondly, BDA projects often range from $5,000-$10,000 per mile while Natural Channel Design (NCD) often ranges from $1,000,000-$2,000,000 per mile. With such a large financial
incentive, this creates the need to understand their impacts. If BDAs can be shown to be a useful tool for restoration in the Southeast, it opens the opportunity for a more cost-effective tool
for restoration. Alternatively, despite their potential benefits, their cost-effectiveness also creates a situation for quick implementation without monitoring to show impacts. At some point,
people will turn to this tool, and if not fully understood there could be a significant amount of damage to water quality. That is why we are involving as many people from academia as
possible to monitor on this project including both pre and post -installation monitoring. The pre and post data collection is integral for understanding the impacts of BDAs, especially in a
new area (Lautz et al. 2019). Understanding the capability of BDAs for restoration is a crucial goal of this project.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
Project Design Overview:
• A two complex of 2-4 BDAs (±1) postless & post -assisted BDAs will be constructed on the Unnamed Tributary of Canoe Creek. (The average life expectancy of any given BDA is < 1
year).
• For each BDA Loblolly pines from the property (<4inches DBH) will be driven into the stream bead with post -fence drives. These will be spaced 1ft-1.5ft apart for the width of the channel
and then shrubs and branches from the property along with mud and a handful of rocks from the stream will be used to create the BDA. The goal here is to think and behave like a beaver.
• The banks of the stream are approximately one meter and the width of the stream ranges from 0.5ft-0.75ft.
• The series of the BDAs will gradually increase the water level with the downstream BDA likely 3-4 feet tall the height progressing until the last BDA is approximately one foot below
bankfull allowing reconnection with the floodplain.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Yes
Comments:
No Unknown
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?

Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
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
Open Waters
3. Stream Impacts
Streams -tributaries
Pond Construction
Buffers
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.Impact type*
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name*
3e. Stream Type*
(?)
3f. Type of
Jurisdiction*
3g. S. width
3h. Impact
length*
S1
Restoration
Permanent
Dam construction
UT Canoe Creek
Perennial
Both
3
Average (feet)
24
(linear feet)
S2
Restoration
Permanent
Other
UT Canoe Creek
Perennial
Both
3
Average (feet)
300
(linear feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
324
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
324
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
0
3j. Comments:
These impacts are from the construction of BDAs and the associated water level increase. This is to reconnect the floodplain and not convert it into a
wetland habitat. Overland pooling will be a result of floodplain reconnection.
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:
Purposely planned to take place outside of Canoe Creek floodplain to reduce potential flooding impacts. A small incised tributary was selected where no
other major infrastructure is planned in the future to minimize impacts. The project is planned to be as minimal encroaching on the riparian habitat as
possible. Incorporating a lot of monitoring to ensure we have clear evidence of the impacts of BDAs on water quality.
lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Will not use heavy machinery or disturb riparian buffer. Will not use heavy machinery for the construction of Beaver Dam Analogs. All material will be
sourced from property outside of the conservation easement but from the property. There will be almost no negative impacts on the riparian habitat as a
result of creating the BDAs.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
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?
Yes No
If no, explain why:
Although in the Catawba Basin, this project does not include and is not adjacent to the mainstem of the Catawba River.

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)?
Yes No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater program?
Yes No
N/A - project disturbs < 1 acre
Comments:
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? *
Yes No
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?*
Yes No
Comments: *
No, requesting funds from North Carolina Land and Water Fund for restoration activities. This would not be a major project and would not significantly
impact the quality of the human environment.
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)?*
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
Yes No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project is occurring on land that is being conserved indefinitely. Already has a conservation easement on all streams on the property.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
Yes No 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
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
Yes No
No Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
Yes No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
Yes No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
Yes 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?
We had a site visit by Thomas Russ and Michael Perkins of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and their sampling did not reveal any
endangered species or critical habitats.
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 Fisheries 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 Historic Preservation Map
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?*
Burke County Floodplain Map and verbal conversation with Burke County Floodplain Manager to confirm.
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
CRF BDA Monitoring Document.pdf
Plans and Design BDA on Canoe Creek.pdf
Pre -filing Meeting Request Confrimation Catawba Riverkeeper BDA Project.pdf
CRF_Location_ Map.pdf
C R F_P ro p e rty_M a p. pdf
Final NC SAM for Beaver Dam Analog Restoration.pdf
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
261.69KB
1.5MB
264.46KB
736.36KB
8.88MB
4.88MB
Signature u
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:
Grant Allan Buckner
Signature
Date
6/30/2022