20221258 Ver 1_ePCN Application_20220908

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:
8/8/2022
BIMS # Assigned* Version#*
20221258 1
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
Fee received
Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Winston-Salem Regional Office - (336) 776-
9800
Information for Initial Review
What amout is owed?*
$240.00
$570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Sue Homewood:eads\slhomewood
la. Name of project:
UT to Chinquapin Stream Restoration Project
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Charles Anderson
1 b. Primary Contact Email: * lc. Primary Contact Phone: *
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
9/8/2022
Nearest Body of Water
Chinquapin Creek
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
WS-II and HOW
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.385236
A. Processing Information
Longitude:
-80.464908
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Surry
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:
Numerous (see attached landowner parcel table and map)
2b. Deed book and page no.:
Numerous (see attached landowner parcel table)
2c. Contact Person:
Michael Boaz (Town Manager for the Town of Pilot Mountain)
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
2d. Address
Street Address
Numerous (see attached landowner parcel table)
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Postal / Zip Code Country
2e. Telephone Number: 2f. Fax Number:
[phone]
Yes No
Yes No

2g. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Charles Anderson
3b. Business Name:
Resource Institute Inc.
3c. Address
Street Address
2631 Reynolda Rd
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Winston-Salem NC
Postal / Zip Code Country
27106 United States
3d. Telephone Number: 3e. Fax Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Scott King
4b. Business Name:
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR)
4c. Address
Street Address
204 Stone Ridge Blvd.
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Asheville NC
Postal / Zip Code Country
28804 United States
4d. Telephone Number: 4e. Fax Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address: *
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
Pilot Mountain, NC
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number: 2b. Property size:
Numerous (see attached parcel table) (see attached parcel table)
2c. Project Address
Street Address
(approximate project starting point is just below this address) 113 Carson St
Address Line 2
City State / Province / Region
Pilot Mountain NC
Postal / Zip Code Country
27401 United States
3. Surface Waters

3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
Chinquapin Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
WS-II and HQW
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.
030401010902
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 project stream flows through an urbanized downtown section of the Town of Pilot Mountain. It is a significantly degraded system, having received stormwater discharge from the
adjacent impervious areas, which has resulted in channel incision and accelerated bed and bank erosion. While most of the existing riparian buffer is forested, there are several acres of
cleared grassy areas present as well.
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:
0.221
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
5,470
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: *
The project goals are to improve stability, habitat, and water quality through the restoration of degraded streams and the planting on native riparian buffers. The project will involve Priority
2 stream restoration to help restore floodplain connectivity and appropriate planform geometry. Additionally, stream enhancement methods will be conducted on small tributaries to the
main stem (UT to Chinquapin) to stabilize the channels and improve bedform diversity.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used: *
In -stream structures such as rock cross vanes, J-hooks, log rollers, woody riffles, and geo-lifts will be used to provide stability and bedform diversity and improve aquatic habitat diversity.
All sections of riparian buffers not currently forested will be replanted in native woody vegetation. Tracked excavators will be used to shape stream banks, excavate the floodplain, install in -
stream structures, and perform general grading. Skid steers and dump trucks will also be used to move the earth and materials.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
Yes No
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
N/A
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?*
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR)
Yes No
Unknown
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?
N/A
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams -tributaries
Open Waters Pond Construction
Buffers
2. Wetland Impacts

2a. Site #* (?)
2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type* (?)
2c. Type of W.*
2d. W. name
2e. Forested*
2f. Type of Jurisdicition*
(?)
2g. Impact
area*
W-A
stream restoration
T
Headwater Forest
W-A
No
Both
0.021
(acres)
W-C
stream restoration
T
Headwater Forest
W-C
No
Both
0.055
(acres)
W-D
stream restoration
T
Headwater Forest
W-D
No
Both
0.022
(acres)
W-E
stream restoration
T
Headwater Forest
W-E
No
Both
0.011
(acres)
W-F
stream restoration
T
Headwater Forest
W-F
No
Both
0.003
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.112
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.112
21. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000
The temporary impacts to the wetlands will almost entirely consist of vehicle use over wetlands during the adjacent stream restoration work. But also
included in the temp. impacts are two small areas of grading/sloping to W-D and W-E of 25 ft2 and 21 ft2 respectively.
3. Stream Impacts
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
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
UT to Chinquapin
Perennial
Both
7
Average (feet)
4,840
(linear feet)
S2
Stream Enhancement
Permanent
Bank Stabilization
UT1
Intermittent
Both
4
Average (feet)
61
(linear feet)
S3
Stream Enhancement
Permanent
Bank Stabilization
UT2
Intermittent
Both
3
Average (feet)
51
(linear feet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
4,952
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
116
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
0
3j. Comments:
Stream restoration utilizing Priority II methods will be conducted along the main stem (UT to Chinquapin Creek) of the project, while stream
enhancement methods to stabilize slopes and improve stream beds will be conducted along its tributaries.
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:
Stream restoration and bank stabilization methods and techniques will follow natural channel design principles. Native materials and vegetation will be
used for construction.
lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Placement of in -stream structures will be done from the streambanks wherever possible.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Compensatory mitigation is not required for stream restoration projects.
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:
Surry County is not located in an area where NC Riparian Buffer Rules are in effect.
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
Comments:
N/A
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: *
Applicable databases were searched and any results have been included here.
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.
No new infrastructure will be built as part of this project; therefore no additional development is anticipated after construction is completed. The project
will result in improved nearby downstream water quality.
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
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
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?
USFWS IPaC report and agency coordination response (see email response and attached report)
NCWRC agency coordination (see attached response letter)
NCNHP project report (attached)
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 program
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?*
NCSHPO data, map, and agency response letter (attached)
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?*
National Flood Hazard Layer (both FIRM maps and FEMA web tool - see attached figure)
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
UT_Chinquapin_PCN_Application_ALL_COMBI N ED_2022Sept08.pdf
UT_Chinquapin_Design_P I an_Sh eets_20220831. pdf
File must be PDF or KMZ
31.82MB
31.49MB
Comments
This restoration project is being conducted within a Conservation Easement purchased by the Town of Pilot Mountain from numerous landowners. It will involve the restoration,
enhancement, and protection of a degraded urban stream system.
Signature
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:
Scott Edwin King
Signature
a5imzridceir C�
Date
9/8/2022

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
September 8, 2022
RE: UT to Chinquapin Creek Stream Restoration Project
Surry County, NC
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
204 Stone Ridge Blvd.
Asheville, NC 28804
Fax: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) has been contracted by the Resource Institute to
conduct stream restoration/enhancement activities for the UT to Chinquapin Creek project
located in downtown Pilot Mountain in Surry County, North Carolina and is supported by grant
funding sources (including the NC Division of Water Resources). The project begins in downtown
Pilot Mountain below Carson Street and extends down UT to Chinquapin Creek under N. Depot
Street and continuing down under Key Street ending at the NC-52 Bypass for a total of
approximately 5,400 feet of stream length (see enclosed Figures for more details). However,
stream restoration activities will end approximately 500 feet from the bottom of the project due
to the presence of bedrock in the channel and will consist solely of preservation in this section.
In addition to the main stem restoration, three small tributaries to UT to Chinquapin Creek will
also be enhanced, primarily through bank stabilization work.
The project will be conducted within an 8.2 acre conservation easement purchased by the Town
of Pilot Mountain from the parcels of numerous landowners. The Town Manager, Mr. Michael
Boaz, serves as the contact point for all the landowner and conservation easement issues.
The proposed stream restoration project aims to address erosion and sedimentation issues and
will improve habitat in Chinquapin Creek and tributaries. Stream restoration and enhancement
will be conducted and will include bank sloping, in -stream structure installation, bioengineering,
and riparian buffer planting. Impacts to jurisdictional stream features include those from the
actual restoration and enhancement activities described above, which only serve to ultimately
improve the streams. Impacts to wetlands include the temporary effects of having construction
equipment working in and around the wetlands within the conservation easement boundary (for
a total of 0.063 acres), as well as the minor grading/sloping being conducted in two small
locations of wetland areas D and E (totaling 46 ft2). Restoration and construction activities will
take place within jurisdictional waterbodies requiring Section 401 and 404 permits from the NC
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Grading
activities will require a Sediment and Erosion Control permit from the NC Division of Land
Quality.
Additionally, a thorough review of all biological, cultural, and historic resources was also
conducted for the project as detailed in the communications with US-FWS, NC-WRC, NC-NHP,
and NC-SHPO. Please find all relevant information from those agencies included here.
If you have any questions or comments, or require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 919-219-6339 or at [e-mail]. Thank you very much for your
time on this matter.

Sincerely,
I, /
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
- PRO UIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SER U/CES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

401 pre -filing request confirmation notice
From: 401PreFile
To: Scott Kinq
Subject: Automatic reply: [External] 401/Buffer Pre -filing Meeting Request
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 3:11:52 PM
This email confirms receipt of your pre -filing meeting request. Please retain this email for your
records and submit this documentation as part of your 401 application (PCN Application) as
required by federal law. DWR will not be able to accept your application without this federally
required documentation. 401 applications received without documentation that a pre -filing
meeting request was submitted at least 30 days prior will be returned as incomplete.
Responses to this email are not monitored.
Background
On April 6, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued an order staying a lower court's
vacatur of the Trump Administration's 2020 "Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule"
("Federal Rule"). As a result of the United States Supreme Court order, the Trump
Administration's Federal Rule has sprung back into effect.
The Trump Administration's Federal Rule imposes additional procedural requirements on
applicants for 401 Certifications and on DWR's processing of those applications. One
requirement is that 401 applicants must request a pre -filing meeting request at least 30 days
prior to submitting their 401 application. [40 C.F.R. §121.4] In turn, the Federal Rule requires
that applicants include documentation of their pre -filing meeting request in their 401
Certification application. [40 C.F.R §121.1; 40 C.F.R. §121.5]. Please refer to the Federal
Rule for more information.
Per 40 CFR §121 and §121.5, a 401 Certification application that does not include the required
pre -filing meeting request documentation does not constitute a "certification request." As a
result of the reinstatement of the Trump Administration's Federal Rule, all 401 applications
received after April 6, 2022 that do not have documentation that a pre -filing meeting request
was submitted at least 30 days prior to submittal of a 401 Certification application will be
returned as incomplete.
If you need to contact 401/Buffer Permitting Staff, please use the following link(s) to access of
staff contact list(s).
For Non -Transportation Central Staff:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permitting/401-buffer-
permitting/401-buffer-permitting-contacts
For Non -Transportation Regional
Staff: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2162034&cr=1

Pilot Creek
NCDWQ Sub -Basin 03- -03
8 Digit HUC - 03040101
14 Digit HUC - 0304010 10030
Surry Co.
Town of
Pilot Mountain
Project Location
(36.38391, -80.45816)
Heat erly Cre
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
UT to Chinquapin Creek Restoration Project
Surry County, NC
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0
0.5
1
Miles

Legend
Project Boundary
Road Centerlines
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0
375
750
1 inch = 750 feet
1,500
Feet
A
Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map (Pilot Mountain Quadrangle)
UT to Chinquapin Creek Restoration Project
Surry County, NC

3T1'059t
9/2009,
Zone AE
II Conservation Easement
CI FIRM Panels
Status
Effective
Flood Hazard Boundaries
Line Type
Limit Lines
SFHA / Flood Zone Boundary
Flood Hazard Zones
Zone Type
1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee
Area with Risk Due to Levee
3710597500J
phi€ Information
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
RESTORATION
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
A
FEMA Map
UT to Chinquapin Creek Restoration Project
Surry County, NC

36° 23' 34"N
36° 22' 55" N
8
8
547200 547300 547400
Soil Map—Surry County, North Carolina
(UT to Chinquapin Creek project)
547500 547600 547700 547800
1
547200 547300 547400
I E T
547500 547600 547700
Map Scale: 1:8,420 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
547800
0 100 200
400
547900 548000
547900 548000
Meters
E00
Feet
0 400 800 1E00 2400
Mapprojedion: Web Mercator Comerwordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
548100
548100
548200
548200
548300
548300
548400
548500
548400 548500
548600
548600
548700 548800
I I
548700 548800
8
548900
8
548900
5
36° 23' 34" N
36° 22' 55" N
uson Natural Resources
woo Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/20/2022
Page 1 of 3

Soil Map—Surry County, North Carolina
(UT to Chinquapin Creek project)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
n Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
El Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
▪ Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
031 Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
• Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
▪ Landfill
A. Lava Flow
jda Marsh or swamp
• Mine or Quarry
CO Miscellaneous Water
• Perennial Water
• Rock Outcrop
• Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
• Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
o Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
el Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
▪ Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
rika Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Surry County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 26, Jan 21, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 18, 2019—May
21, 2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
usDn Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/20/2022
Page 2 of 3

Soil Map—Surry County, North Carolina
UT to Chinquapin Creek project
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CsA
Colvard and Suches soils, 0 to
3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
0.9
0.6%
FeB2
Fairview sandy clay loam, 2 to
8 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
0.9
0.6%
FeC2
Fairview sandy clay loam, 8 to
15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
9.9
6.3%
FeD2
Fairview sandy clay loam, 15
to 25 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
44.7
28.5%
FsE
Fairview -Stott Knob complex,
25 to 45 percent slopes
0.1
0.1 %
FuB2
Fairview -Urban land complex,
2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
33.2
21.2%
FuC2
Fairview -Urban land complex,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
27.6
17.7%
RbD
Rhodhiss-Bannertown
complex, 15 to 25 percent
slopes, very rocky
8.9
5.7%
TtC
Toast-Bannertown complex, 8
to 15 percent slopes, very
rocky
0.2
0.1 %
Ur
Urban land
30.1
19.2%
Totals for Area of Interest
156.5
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/20/2022
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

UT to Chinquapin
(main stem)
I —I Conservation Easement
Wetland Data Points
Wetland
Upland
Wetlands
Existing Stream Centerlines
aC� 4. Ik,a.forma ion,& Analysis
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
RESTORATION
0 125 250 500
Feet
A
Jurisdictional Stream and Wetlands (Overview)
Aquatic Resources Map
UT to Chinquapin Creek Restoration Project
Surry County, NC

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
RESTORATION
0
125
250
500
Feet
A
Wetland Data Points
Wetland
z Upland
Wetlands
Existing Stream Centerlines
NC Centerfor Geogr.phic
Jurisdictional Stream and Wetlands (Close -Up)
Aquatic Resources Map
UT to Chinquapin Creek Restoration Project
Surry County, NC

UT to Chinquapin
(main stem)
Conservation Easement
Design Stream Centerline
Limits of Cut Benching
Temp Wetlands Impact (grading/sloping)
Temp Wetlands Impacts (vehicle use)
Wetlands
Total Temp Wetlands Impact:
0.063 acres
NC Center`for Geographic
Information
ft
Analysis
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
RESTORATION
0
125
250
500
Feet
A
Wetlands Impact Map
UT to Chinquapin Creek Restoration Project
Surry County, NC

Table 1. UT to Chinquapin Aquatic Resources: Jurisdictional Stream ID
Drainage Area Drainage Area Cowardin
Stream ID Length (ft) Width (ft)* (acres) (Sq Mi) Stream Status Class Resource Class
UT to Chinquapin (main stem) 5,303 7 179 0.28 Perennial R3SB3 Non -Section 10, non -wetland
UT1 61 4 7.0 0.01 Intermittent R4SB3 Non -Section 10, non -wetland
UT2 51 3 1.3 0.002 Intermittent R4SB4 Non -Section 10, non -wetland
UT3 55 4 19 0.03 Intermittent R4SB1 Non -Section 10, non -wetland
Total 5,470
Notes:
Impact Length (ft)
Temp Perm Impact Description
O 4,840 Stream Restoration - Priority II
O 61 Stream Enhancement
O 51 Stream Enhancement
O 0 None
O 4,952
*Stream widths provided above are average values for the individual reach
-The three Unnamed Tributary (UT) reaches to the main stem appear to have some seep/spring hydrology as well as significant urban stormwater runoff contributions to base flow.
-UT3 has no impacts because project construction ends roughly 130 ft upstream of its confluence with the main stem.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form
Date:
Evaluator:
2
Version 4.11
Project/Site:
1-
County: f
Latitude:
Longitude:
Li
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial if ?30*
b
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control (
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
Stream Determina on (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Absent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weak
1
1
1
1
Moderate
2
2
2
2
2
Strong
3
3
3
3
'artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = g
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
0
No = 0
0.5
0.5
1
2
/Yes =-'3")
1.5
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf lifter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C. Biolo
gy
Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
No = 0
1
0.5
0.5
2
2
0.5
1
=
3
0
1.5
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance
21. Aquatic Mollusks cbutitj
22. Fish rA-Iptitoew S
23. Crayfish
0
0
0
0
2
0.5
2
2
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
0.5
1
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed soot
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 fOlher =
1.5
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Evaluator:
Project/Site: UT C
County:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial if t 30`
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ( 1
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
7. Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
Stream Determination" ircle one)
Ephemeraintermittent$ Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Absent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weak
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
Moderate
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C. Biolo
0
1.5
0
No = 0
1
(.1
0.5
0.5
2
0.5
Yes = 3
yes
Strong
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
gy (
Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
0
2
22. Fish
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
0.5
0.5
2
2
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
()
0
`perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
0.5
(b
1
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Otfier = 0
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ((2 (I 2 Z_
Project/Site: (j
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:O r
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial if t 30*
(
�-
Stream Deter ati n circle one)
Ephemeral jntermlttenl Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 9, ®5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
(i)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
g
9. Grade control
C)
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
5`
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = t.._ '
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
t%
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
?des =
. Bioloav (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
40')
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 )
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
! )
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
Wn= 0.75) OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: , r

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: G
Project/Site: (i
Latitude:
Evaluator: IC
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent .
if a 19 or perennial if z 30*
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral;; ntermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control 61-1 relc
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0 0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Flo = 0
Yes = 3
acial ditches are not
rurirated; see discussions in manua
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = �. S
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
(7
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
' 0
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
9
�.�..,
o=
Yes = 3
. BIOIogy (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed ,,,:k
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
`0 p
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
('0"V'
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
d'
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Qther =
*perennial streams may also be identlfied using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: U.S n. ... a
•
iU'�3

Table 2. UT to Chinquapin Aquatic Resources: Jurisdictional Wetlands ID
Wetland ID
Area (acres) Description
Cowa rd i n
Classifications
WAM HGM
Impacts (acres)
Temp Perm
W-A 0.021 Wet swale along slope PEM1 Headwater Forest Slope 0.021 0.0
W-B 0.001 Floodplain depression PFO1 Headwater Forest Depression 0.0 0.0
W-C 0.010 Wet area in floodplain PSS1 Headwater Forest Riverine 0.005 0.0
W-D 0.068 Wet area in floodplain PEM1 Headwater Forest Riverine 0.022 0.0
W-E 0.097 Wet area in floodplain PEM1 Headwater Forest Riverine 0.011 0.0
W-F 0.023 Wet area in floodplain PEM1 Headwater Forest Riverine 0.003 0.0
Total 0.221 0.063 0.000
Notes:
- All wetlands are Non -Tidal and Non -Section 10 features
- Currently, wetlands A, D, E, and F are mostly cleared and managed as grass for road or sewer line access paths. A few scattered, short
shrubs are also present.
- Areas of Temporary Impact are those portions of the wetlands located within the Conservation Easement right-of-way that may be
disturbed by vehicle use during construction as well as by two small areas of grading to W-D and W-E of 25 ft2 and 21 ft2 respectively.

SIP,
Project/Site: w
Applicant/Owner:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
�
k17I I 1`0114 ~�
Landfonn(hUlslope, terrace, etc.):
Gubregkm(Lm RRM-I
SoUMap Unit |���� Name: uzv;`
Section, Township, Range:
/
Sampling Date: y��|/?L
State:
/. Sampling Point: 'I (,,-
~~
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
3&.13�
lx\
*'/ */
Datum: SP83
NWI classification: -
-
Andimetic/hydmloQiconndhionnvothe site typical for this time ofyear? Yes No (if no, explain innemarks.>
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yen �' No
Are Vegetation .Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers inRemods.)
SUMMARY OF F|ND|NGS-Attmch site rnmp showing omrnp|in8 point locations, tranmmctm' important features, etc.
HydmphyticVegetation Present? Yes
HydricSoil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
No
No
wthe Sampled Area
within a Weiland?
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Vvod�n�Hy�ndngy|n�|ua�m�
Primary Indicators (minimum ufone iorequired: check all that apply)
So��am|���u��i�m�t�ev��
Surface Soil Cracks
(oa)
Concave Surface (e8)
(e1O)
(o16)
Table (Cu)
(CR)
onAerial Imagery (Cn)
Plants (D1)
(mz)
Relief (D*)
(oo)
Surface Water (A1) __ True Aquatic Plants (o14) __ Sparsely Vegetated
High Water Table (A2) __ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) __ Drainage Patterns
Gam,aUnn(An) __ Oxidized RhizoophamuonLiving Roots (C3) __ Moss Trim Lines
Water Marks (B1) __ Presence ofReduced Iron (C4) __ Dry -Season Water
Sediment Deposits (ea) __ Recent Iron Reduction inTilled Soils (S8) __ Crayfish Burrows
Drift Deposits (en) __ Thin Muck Surface (Cr) __ Saturation Visible
Algal Mat o,Crust (e4) __ Other (Explain inRemarks) __ Stunted orStressed
Iron Deposits(so) __ Geomorphic Position
_71 Inundation Visible onAerial Imagery (Br) -_ Shallow Aquitard(ou)
Water -Stained Leaves (oo) Minmtopoqmpxic
Aquatic Fauna (e1a) __ FAC'Neutro|Test
.
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No p` Depth (inches):
WeUanuHydrology pmsvntY
Yes
N�
Water Table Present? Yes No�ADepth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yeo No oopth(incxeo):~�
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspec ions), if available:
Remarks:
� m
US Army Corps of Engineers
EastemMoumainoandPiedmnm-Vamionzo

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5,
6.
7.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. EA (IX
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
5
9.
5 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum XPIot size:
1.
2. RIEI c(4144?,v4
3
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:
0 S = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
____ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes
No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
area.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth
Matrix
Color (moist)
Depth
(inches)
v -(
1-3
needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
/P.t. � 5� t t
Porilro
'((Z 5110 PC_
k 51$ 20', C
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
124.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Applicant/Owner: F
Investigator(s): let, A"
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.
'
Subregion (LRRm/l �LRA� x ^ (
Soil Map Unit Name: F &,;'1,
Areclimatic / hydrologic conditions vnthe site typical
Are Vegetation .Soil or Hydrology
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology
City/County:
`I,Pr r*1
�' "�o//
�
40
Sampling Date:
Section, Township, Range:
G.4 4.~ Local relief (concovo.convex, nuno: �Wn
S� 291_�54f -so, 4/~(LI'l11
or this time of year? Yes
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Slope�|�� .
Nw0dossificaxion: -�
No (if no, explain inRemadol
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yon(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
4 83
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydmphytic Vegetation Present?
HydricGoil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
Yes
Yes
mthe Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
~
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum ofone is required; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two require
Surface Soil Cracks
0B8
Concave Surface (138)
(e1o)
(B1G)
Table (Cu)
nnAerial Imagery (C9)
Plants (D1)
(D2)
Relief (o4)
(D5)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) __ Sparsely Vegetated
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) __ Drainage Patterns
GptumUun (A3) Oxidized Rhizosphep,o on Living Roots (C8) __ Moss Trim Lines
Water Marks (G1) Presence ofReduced Iron (C*) __ Dry -Season Water
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction |nTilled Soils (Cs) __ Crayfish Burmwo(Co)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) __ Saturation Visible
Algal Mat orCrust (B4) Other (Explain |nRemarks) Stunted orStressed
Iron DepooUts(135) Geomorphic Position
Inundation Visible onAerial Imagery (B7) __ Shallow Aqu|terd(D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139) __Miomtopogvyphio
Aquatic Fauna (B13) __ FAC'Noutm|Test
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No )< Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yoe
'
No
Water Table Present? Yee No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspec ions), if available:
Remarks: / NK
� ^���4���uc-
��r-
"
US Army Corps of Engineers
EastemMountainnandPiedmom-vosionz.o

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
1. 3LtyJ, pi
2. -rttp /IA",
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. Cleo f d..19 ft"
2. 31-ior-.1 idor
3.
4
5
6
7.
8.
= Total Cover
Absolute Dominant Indicator
°/. Cover Species? Status
IAD /f F
(f (-A-CV
- Total Cover
20% of total cover:
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 2 20% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
EA(
FAc
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Plot size:
50% of total cover:
&o,
Y
(PO = Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOUL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe mthe depth needed u,document the indicator orconfirm the absence mvinm,amrsl
Matrix
Color mois
Redox Features
% Color (moist) % Tvpa'
1W
84)
'Type: C=CvncumraUon.o~DopleUon.
~-
oc' Texture
mw~Reduced Matrix, mG~MoakedSand Grains.
*vdnuSoil Indicators:
Histoso(*)
HisUoEpipedvnK2>
Black Hist|o(A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
znmMuck (Al o)(Lnmm)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al a)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)(LnnN.
mLnA1^7.14n)
Sandy G|eyodMatrix (S4)
Sandy nedox(Gs)
Stripped Matrix (8*)
_
'Location: PL~PoreLining, s=Matrix.
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyva|ueBelow Surface (S8)(MLRA147.148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9)<MLRA147.1^N
Loamy G|eyedMatrix (Fu)
Depleted Matrix (p»)
RodoxDark Surface (Fs)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wedvxDepressions (rn)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F1u)(LnnN'
mLRA 136)
UmhhcSurface (F13)(MLRA136.ica)
PisdmontFmodp|ain Soils (F1e)(MLRA1*8)
Indicators for Problematic nyunoomes':
zonMuck (Al N(wLIRA147)
Coast Prairie Reuux(*1O)
(MLRA1^7.14u)
Piedmont Floodp|ainSoils (F19)
(MLnA 136.147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1a)
Other (Explain inRemarks)
3 Indicators pfhydmphytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must bepresent,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if ouservem:
Type:
Depth (inches):
*yd,uSoil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Project/Site: uT4P r
���
Applicant/Owner:.-, '~
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
�
��/
8ub�g�m�/� RRur����)� /- — `�** Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name: ,A�/lr� �*��/
mr,m �4
��ETLANDOETEFlK8|NAT|{�NDATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and P�dnoontReg�n
s
&
�� |* City/County:
Sampling Date:
State: /fie-, -Sampling Point:
Geohon.Townnh�.Range:
~-
Localreliefrelief.cnn,ex nnnone):S���pe��� / °»
Lnno
��� L�� ��
~
~ ' `b~L"° . "z S�
�m^
�d��/�m|�����noon�a���'this time of year? Yes �—wo (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation .OnU or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes
Are Vegetation GvU .o,Hydrology naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
HydmphyticVegetation Present? Yes
HydricGoil Present? 0m
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Remarks:
~
[
^
V
No
No
No
mthe Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum ofone isrequired; check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks
(B8
Concave Surface (BO)
(B1V)
(s1O)
Table (C2)
(C8)
unAerial Imagery (Co)
Plants (o1)
(D2)
Relief (o4)
<D5>
Surface Water (A1} True Aquatic Plants (814) Sparsely Vegetated
High Water Table (Az) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _jr-Drainage Patterns
�rSaturation (A3) Oxidized nhizosphemsonLiving Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines
Water Marks (B1) Presence ofReduced Iron (C4) Dry -Season Water
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction inTilled Soils (C8) Crayfish Burrows
Drift Deposits (Ba) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible
Algal Mat nrCrust (s4) Other (Explain inRemarks) Stunted o,Stressed
Iron Deposits (85) Geomorphic Position
Inundation Visible onAerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (B8) \rMiummpographic
Aquatic Fauna (oi3) __ FAC-Nautm|Test
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yea
.��
No
vVoterTable Pmmant? Yes No 11� Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yea ��� No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Lot -
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Versiv 28

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
50% of total cover:
Sa lin /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. i U(vv,v, otit4.4-A,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1. 1. �t k tie .t
2.
3.
4.
5. ✓oCk
6.
7. 8. Eft
9.
OIL or,
50% of total cover:
Cs
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
kr
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
zo
2a F
5
t © 1
2a VAc.
50% of total cover:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover: 20'
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes
No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet
tf
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Sampling Point:
_
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix RedoxFeamnm Type'
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) %
Lo
15_zv
2~ )C?
'Type: C=ConuantraUnn.o~oepleUnn.RM=RuduceuMatrix, MG=MeokvdSand Grains.
HvuwcSoil Indicators:
Histo^«(Aw)
HishcEpipedun(A2)
Black M|st|c(A)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A)
Stratified Layers (85)
zonMuck (Al o)(LRRw)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1>
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (81)(LRRN'
MLeA147,1^m
Sandy G|oyedMatrix (S4)
Sandy neuox(so)
Stripped Matrix (88)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Texture
/
^
zLooaUun: PL=PoreLining, M=Matrix
Dark Surface (S7)
mlyva|ueBelow Surface (S8)(MLRA147.148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9)(Mmm1*7.148)
uamyGleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F»)
nndoxDark Surface (Fs)
Depleted Dark Surface (r7)
RedoxDepressions (FO)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F1o)<LRRN,
MLnx1oo)
omo,icSurface (F1u)(mLnA1xs.1cc)
Piedmont Fwodp|ainSoils (F18)(MLRA1*n)
Indicators for Problematic
*vuncanxy3:
2mnMuck <*1N(MLRA14r)
Coast Prairie Rodox(Al 8)
(mLnm147.1*o)
Piedmont F|uodp|oinSoils (r1o)
(MLRA1wn.14q
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1c)
Other (Explain |nRemarks)
'Indicators
presunless disturbed or problematic.
ent,
ofhydmpxytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must m,
Restrictive Layer (if
ousomeu):
Type:
Depth (inches):
*vuncSoil Present? Yes
No
I
Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: V t 1P at
Applicant/Owner: rPR
Investigator(s): S, ai}nit_
Landform (hillslope, terrace, ec.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Soil Map Unit Name:
r£
n.I / City/County:
State:
Sampling Date: �/l /
Sampling Point: " ( (id
i
Section, Township, Range:
otiloF II Local relief (concave, convex, none): Ce, eiscfre.
Lat: 3l 7 . 17A S 2 Long: -°' 8 0 , Li to V40 1
d4 f ,' D
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology
Are Vegetation
significantly disturbed?
t, (2�12�
NWI classification:
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes { No
Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
No
No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes
No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks
(B6)
Concave Surface (B8)
(B10)
(B16)
Table (C2)
(C8)
on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Plants (D1)
(D2)
(D3)
Relief (D4)
(D5)
Y Surface Water (A1) ZTrue Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns
Saturation (A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry -Season Water
Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed
_ Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic
Aquatic Fauna (B13) _ FAC-Neutral Test
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ` No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
%C
No
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): tlf
,
(includes capillary fringe) S v ,
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
(f) ilt, tit r 4 %
.17
/
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot ize: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. rL1 (U[4e
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20°A) of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Herb Stratuny (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. ®t
7. Fes
8. e a: g
9. TO11j42,
10. 3"d,,etdS
11. & 'rJ6+
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
f4
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
ID
rAc
to
?A `Z._ = Total Cover
50% of total cover: tQ ( 20% of total cover: LI 0
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
` - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes
No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Arc k tr-ota
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: tE
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (mois
D-2w
2- A`I Id
8�.t26' IDy
1
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tvpe' Loc2
okv S R 5-14p
•; S V P. s�
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Texture
Remarks
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Note: The project will be conducted within an existing conservation easement owned by the Town of Pilot Mountain from within these
parcels. The Town Manager, Mr. Michael Boaz is the contact for all conservation easement and landowner contact/coordination.
UT to Chinquapin Landowner Property Parcel Information
No.
Owner
Parcel Area
PIN
(acres)
0
TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN
597617015817 1.17
1
CANDELARIASUSAN F
597617016538 0.39
2
MARSHALL GARY ALLEN
597617015559 0.88
3
SMITH RICHARD JACKSON SR
597617014641 0.63
4
PELL BILLY T
597617014625 0.39
5
REAMS GERALD R
597617012652 0.79
6
HONEYCUTT TERRY RAY
597617012708 1.28
7
VAUGHT EVELYN HOPE
597617010688 0.70
8
KIGER RANDY L
596620919602 0.34
9
KIGER RANDY L
596620918622 0.34
10
MARINAN KELLY HOBBS
596620917633 0.44
11
PRIDDY PATRICK DEAN
596620916644 0.35
12
CLARK WILLIAM R
596620915665 0.42
13
BARBEE HAROLDTED
596620914617 0.82
14
STONE SUSAN KRISTINA HUTCHINS
596620912699 0.29
15
C & M JORDAN LLC
596620912720 0.38
16
WILLIFORDJODIE LYNN
596620911753 0.33
17
CHILDRESS TAMMIE
596620911842 0.66
18
NEW RIVER TIRE RECYCLING LLC
596620924324501 8.24
19
NEW RIVER TIRE RECYCLING LLC
597617021118502 11.18
20
TEMPLETON MARSHAG
596620819851 0.33
21
BOLES W HAROLD
596620819805 0.42
22
BOLES RUSSELL ERNEST
596620829127 3.60
23
PROVIDENCE INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR INC
596620825212 1.80
24
TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN
596620823443 1.90
25
JOYCE LINDA FRANCE
596620827387 0.57
26
HAMPTON ROBERT & REBECCAT
596620827412 0.46
27
TAYLOR GERALDINE R (LIFE ESTA
596620826447 0.45
28
TRAVIS AGNES MARIE FRANCE
596616825459 0.58
29
TAYLOR JAMES MICHAEL
596616824625 0.40
30
PILOT MTN TOWN OF
596616822770 0.06
31
LOVELL BAXTER & JOHN S JR HEI
596616832164 3.64
32
PILOT MOUNTAIN PARTNERS LLC
596616830658 4.56
33
DEPOT STREET CONDOMINIUMS
596616821666 1.38
34
FLIPPIN ROBERT S JR
596616820854 1.14
35
THORE JOSEPHINE ELIZABETH
596616729941 1.08
36
SMITH ROLAND WILSON JR ET AL
596616738095 1.02
37
YORK CHARLOTTE ELAINE
596616738100 1.93
38
YORK CHARLOTTE ELAINE
596616736168 2.49
39
PILOT MTN TOWN OF
596616738847 0.28
40
SURRY COUNTY
596615733714 23.50

a
k
ti
Begin Phase III (2018)
End Phase II
End Phase III
Approx. Proposed Stream Centerline
Approx. Proposed Conservation Easement (35' from TOB)
Parcel Boundaries
0
Begin Phase II (2016-413)
End Phase I
PROJECT LOCATION
•
west 52e
West Main Street
•
NC 268
r,Fe� *St Maur SIrFe[
Begin Phase I (2015-412)
UT TO CHINQUAPIN CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
EASEMENT MAP
SURRY COUNTY, NC
RESOURCE
INSTITUTE
0
175
350
Feet
1 inch = 350 feet
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
DATE:
JUNE 2021
3:28:40 PM I User Name: RMyers
Path: C:\Users\RMyers\Desktop\GIS\Projects\RD000116_UT_Chinquapin_Creek\Maps\UT_Chinquapin_Project_Map.mxd I Date: 6/9/2021 I Tim

USFWS Response to UT to Chinquapin Creek project review
From: Hamstead, Byron A
To: Scott Kinq
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] UT to Chinquapin Creek project review
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 11:46:22 AM
Attachments: imaae001.pnq
Hey Scott,
We offer the following comments and concurrence with your findings, and we require no further
information at this time.
Northern long-eared bat
According to the information provided, suitable summer roosting habitat is present in the action
area (50CFR 402.02) for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
However, the final 4(d) rule, (effective as of February 16, 2016) exempts incidental take of northern
long-eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known
hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup
season (June 1—July 31). Based on the information provided, the project would occur at a location
where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule for
this species.
Although not required at this time, we encourage the Applicant to avoid any associated tree clearing
activities during this animal's pup season, maternity roosting season (May 15 — August 15) and/or
active season (April 1— October 15). If adhered to, a tree clearing moratorium would also support
our concurrence with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination from the action
agency for this animal.
Please note that on March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to reclassify the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB) as endangered under the Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
has ordered the Service to complete a new final listing determination for the NLEB by November
2022 (Case 1:15-cv-00477, March 1, 2021). The bat, currently listed as threatened, faces extinction
due to the range -wide impacts of white -nose syndrome (WNS), a deadly fungal disease affecting
cave -dwelling bats across the continent. The proposed reclassification, if finalized, would remove the
current 4(d) rule for the NLEB, as these rules may be applied only to threatened species. Depending
on the type of effects a project has on NLEB, the change in the species' status may trigger the need
to re -initiate consultation for any actions that are not completed and for which the Federal action
agency retains discretion once the new listing determination becomes effective (anticipated to occur
by December 30, 2022). If your project may result in incidental take of NLEB after the new listing
goes into effect this will need to be addressed in an updated consultation that includes an Incidental
Take Statement. If your project may require re -initiation of consultation, please contact our office
for additional guidance. Additional information about this animal including its proposed
reclassification can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/species/northern-long-eared-bat-myotis-
septentrionalis
Based on the information provided, suitable habitat does not occur within the action area for any
other federally protected species and we require no further action at this time. Pleas be aware that
our concurrence with action agency effect determinations rely on the cogency and accuracy of the

information provided. Further coordination and/or consultation may be required under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) if: (1) information reveals impacts of this identified action which may
affect or may have affected listed species or critical habitat, (2) this action is subsequently modified
in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Regards,
B
Byron Hamstead
(he/him/his)
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina, 28801
This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Scott King <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 10:31 AM
To: Hamstead, Byron A <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] UT to Chinquapin Creek project review
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on
links, opening attachments, or responding.
Hello again Byron,
I have another FWS review request for another stream restoration project in Surry County, the UT to
Chinquapin Creek project (see attached request letter). It's similar in nature to the one we
submitted last month. If you would prefer I submit this to another staff member or a general FWS
address please just let me know.
Thank you very much,
Scott
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist

ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
August 8, 2022
Byron Hamstead, USFWS
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: UT to Chinquapin Creek Stream Restoration Project
Surry County, NC
Dear Mr. Hamstead,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) respectfully requests review and comment from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the proposed stream restoration project. This request is
to comply with Nationwide Permit general conditions and to develop environmental
documentation required by the proposed action. Project details are presented below.
This multi -phase restoration project is located in Pilot Mountain in Surry County, North Carolina
(Figure 1) and is supported by funding from the NC Western Stream Initiative Grant as well as
the NC Division of Water Resources. The project begins (Phase I) near downtown Pilot Mountain
off Carson Street and extends down Chinquapin Creek to its intersection with N. Depot Street
(Phase II), continuing down across Key Street ending at the NC-52 Bypass (Phase III) for a total
of approximately 5,371 feet of stream length. Figure 2 depicts the project area on the United
States Geologic Survey (USGS) Pilot Mountain Quadrangle, North Carolina 7.5-minute
topographic maps at 36.385236 N by -80.464908 W.
Construction activities will take place within jurisdictional waterbodies requiring Section 401 and
404 permits from the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the US Army Corps
of Engineers. Grading activities will require a Sediment and Erosion Control permit from the NC
Division of Land Quality.
The proposed project aims to address erosion and sedimentation issues and improve habitat in
Chinquapin creek and one of its tributaries. Stream restoration and enhancement will be
conducted and will include bank sloping, in -stream structure installation, bioengineering, and
riparian buffer planting.
The Official Species List (attached) generated on September 21, 2021 from the USFWS IPAC
website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) lists four federally protected species that may be present in
the proposed project area (Table 1). A brief description of the federally protected species habitat
requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on field assessments
of the project area. Habitat requirements are based on the current best available information.

Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Surry Count
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological Conclusion
Myotis grisescens
Gray Bat
E
No
No Effect
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern Long-eared Bat
T
Yes
Compliant with 4(d) Rule
Clemmys
muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
SAT
No
Not required
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's Sunflower
E
No
No Effect
Notes:
E— A species in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range.
T— Threatened. A taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of it range.
SAT - Threatened due to similarity of appearance. A species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with another listed species and is listed for its protection.
EPR conducted a one -mile radius search of the project area using the NC Natural Heritage
Program's Data Explorer (https://www.ncnhp.org/data) on September 21, 2020. No known
occurrences of the above species were found in the search radius.
Gray Bat
Habitat Description: Gray bats are known mainly from the cave regions of the Southeast
and Midwest. They live in colonies in caves, utilizing different caves for summer
roosting and winter hibernating. Summer caves are usually within one half mile
of a river or reservoir, which provides foraging habitat. During the summer,
females give birth and rear the young in maternity caves, while males and
yearlings roost in separate bachelor caves. Caves preferred for hibernation are
typically deep, vertical caves with a temperature between 42 and 52 degrees
Fahrenheit. Gray bats are highly selective in choosing suitable caves, and nine
known caves are thought to provide hibernation space for 95 percent of the population.
Migration from summer to winter caves begins in September and is mainly complete by
the beginning of November.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable summer roosting or winter hibernating habitat exists for gray bat in the project
area due to urban setting and lack of caves in the surrounding area.
Northern long-eared bat
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North
Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is not
known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely
rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern
North Carolina. During the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically >_3 inches dbh). Males and
non -reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat
has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of
buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on
- PRO UIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SER U/CES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along
tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
Biological Conclusion: Compliant with 4(d) Rule
Forested areas suitable as roosting habitat for the NLEB exist in the project area.
However, as of September 2021, the USFWS does not indicate that Surry County contains
any confirmed hibernation or maternity sites for the NLEB, nor is any critical habitat
designated here for the species. Therefore, this project will not require incidental take and
is exempted under the final 4(d) rule guidelines.
Bog Turtle
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: April 1 — October 1 (visual surveys); April 1-June 15
(optimal for breeding/nesting); May 1-June 30 (trapping surveys)
Habitat Description: Bog turtle habitat consists of open, groundwater supplied (spring fed),
graminoid dominated wetlands along riparian corridors or on seepage slopes. These
habitats are designated as mountain bogs by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, but they are technically poor, moderate, or rich fens that may be associated
with wet pastures and old drainage ditches that have saturated muddy substrates with
open canopies. These habitats, found between 700 and 4,500 feet above mean sea
level in the western Piedmont and mountain counties of North Carolina, often support
sphagnum moss and may contain carnivorous plants. Soil types (poorly drained silt
loams) from which bog turtle habitats have been found include Arkaqua, Chewacla,
Dellwood, Codorus complex, Hatboro, Nikwasi, Potomac — lotla complex, Reddies,
Rosman, Tate — Cullowhee complex, Toxaway, Tuckasegee — Cullasaja complex,
Tusquitee, Watauga, and Wehadkee.
Biological Conclusion: Not required
Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance do not require Section 7
consultation with the USFWS. Additionally, there does not appear to be any potential
habitat for bog turtle in the project area.
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August -October
Habitat Description: Endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, the few sites where
this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation are found in Xeric
Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained
power lines and other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings
and edges of upland oak -pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and
other sunny or semi -sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing,
blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight. It
is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other vegetation. Schweinitz's
sunflower occurs in a variety of soil series, including Badin, Cecil, Cid, Enon, Gaston,
Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest, Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion,
among others. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel
content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived
from mafic rocks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
- PRO UIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SER U/CES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENU/RONMENT -

No suitable habitat exists in the project area for Schweinitz's sunflower, as it is either
forested or falls within an urban area making it difficult for this species to grow.
We thank you in advance for your timely response, input, and cooperation. Please contact me if
you have any further questions or comments about the project. I can be reached at (919) 219-
6339 or via my email address at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures: Vicinity Map (Figure 1)
USGS Map (Figure 2)
Aquatic Resources (Figure 3)
Soils (Figure 4)
FEMA (Figure 5)
IPaC Official Species List
- PRO UIDING ECOSYSTEM PLANNING AND RESTORATION SER U/CES TO SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT -

0
1
2
Miles
UT TO CHINQUAPIN CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
IZESOL KCF
INSTITUTE
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
1 inch = 2 miles
FIGURE 1
SORRY COUNTY, NC
PREPARED BY:
EPR
DATE:
SEP 2021

Easement Boundaryr
Phase
Phase II
Phase III
- <; `.\.,` `_ J I
0.5
Miles
is ©2b4NNIM49eog! hi 6rety;,i-tubed
0.125 0.25
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
UT TO CHINQUAPIN
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
1 IN = .250 MILES
FIGURE #2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
EPR RESTORATION
PREPARED BY: DATE:
EPR SEP 2021
PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PILOT MOUNTAIN

Legend
I —I Project Bounday (Apx)
Type
• Wetland
• Upland
Wetlands
Top of Banks
Ex -Con Stream Centerlines
Project Boundary
Road Centerlines
0 125 250
500
Feet
A
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Stream and Wetlands
Aquatic Resources Map
UT to Chinquapin Creek Restoration Project
Surry County, NC

R 3 RADS
RIDS
Soils
RIDS
Arkaqua loam (0-2 %)
Braddock fine sandy loam (8-15%)
Fairview sandy clay loam (2-8%)
Fairview sandy clay loam (8-15%)
Fairview sandy clay loam (15-25%)
Fairview cobbly fine sandy loam (15-25%)
Fairview cobbly fine sandy loam (15-25%), stony
Fairview -Stott Knob complex (25-45%)
Fairview- Urban land complex (2-8%)
Fairview- Urban land complex (8-15%)
Udorthents
Urban Land
Water
Easement Boundary
Phase I
Phase II
RIDS
r
Lia
R Q
R
R
A rA
170-22
BbC
R DS
RIDS
R
R
BUG
REQ
aga
32
FuC2
FuB2
SOILS MAP
1 IN = 500 FEET
FIGURE #4
UT TO CHINQAUPIN CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
PREPARED BY:
EPR
DATE:
SEP 2021
PREPARED FOR: THE TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN

FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
1 IN = 1,000 FEET
FIGURE #55
Conservation Easement
UT TO CHINQAUPIN CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
PREPARED BY:
EPR
DATE:
SEP 2021
PREPARED FOR: TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood
and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional
site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of
proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section
that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for
additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Project information
NAME
UT to Chinqaupin Stream Restoration Project
LOCATION
Surry County, North Carolina
DESCRIPTION
Some(Multi-phase stream restoration project with 2,800 combined linear feet of restoration in
phase I and II.)
Local office
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
k. [phone]
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 1/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM
la [phone]
IPaC: Explore Location resources
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 2/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near
the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and
project -specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area
of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any
Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in
IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website
and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Log in to IPaC.
2. Go to your My Projects list.
3. Click PROJECT HOME for this project.
4. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species' and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries?).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this
list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAM E
STATUS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 3/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Gray Bat Myotis gnsescens
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septenthonalis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Reptiles
Endangered
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962
Insects
ik
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
iA
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 -
SAT
Flowering Plants 111
NAME ,1
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Critical habitats
STATUS
„1„4„.,
\I‘itJ
Endangered
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 4/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act" and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds
of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn
more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ
below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on
this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general
public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the
Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird
species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and
other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to
reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at
the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your
project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IFA
BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED
FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE
BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR
PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN
THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL
ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE
WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE.
"BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 5/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development
or activities.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31
Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
Breeds May 10 to Sep 1006,
diolik \O
Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.)
A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be
used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the
presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the
week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that
week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was
found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence
is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence
across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted
Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any
week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 6/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of
presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non -BCC
Vulnerable (This is
not a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) in
this area, but
warrants attention
because of the
Eagle Actor for
potential
susceptibilities in
offshore areas
from certain types
of development or
activities.)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
------ 1111 1111 1111 -- I I I
I I - - -
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 7/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
- -- Ill 1111 l. I I I I I - -
-III 1111 1111 1111 AI
++
\O
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at
any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to
occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and
avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to
occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or
bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species
that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is
queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that
area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore
activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the
Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen
science datasets .
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 8/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To
learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the
Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or
year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or
(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds
guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur
in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and Plvak
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird
impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of
bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal
also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year,
including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on
marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam
Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the
Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority
concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be
in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring
in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10
km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
https://ecos.fws.gov/i pac/project/JSVA744A35G P RDG R47G5GOCDWM/resources
9/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a
red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of
presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack
of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting
point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there,
and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to
confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or
minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about
conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize
impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands n\'`
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very
large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at
this location.
Data limitations
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 10/11

9/21/21, 10:48 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high
altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error
is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in
revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts,
the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and
the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged411S6
aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.
Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.
These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.Ili
�1
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish
the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in
activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may
affect such activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/JSVA744A35GPRDGR47G5GOCDWM/resources 11/11

NC-WRC Response to UT to Chinquapin project review
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
August 23, 2022
Scott King
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
1150 S.E. Maynard Road, Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
SUBJECT: UT Chinquapin Stream Restoration Project
Dear Mr. King:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) received your August
9, 2022 letter regarding plans for a stream restoration project on an unnamed tributary to Toms Creek
in Surry County. You requested review and comment on the project. Our comments on this project
are offered for your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466
et. seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Details were not provided in the letter on design nor the size of the project. However, it appears that
the length of the project will be approximately 4500 ft.
This project should not impact wild trout resources. We recommend that riparian buffers that are to
be reestablished be as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner needs. In addition, it
appears that there is an intact forested buffer on the stream, and it is important to minimize impacts to
native vegetation. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams
to maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at (828)
400-4223 if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

NC-SHPO Response to UT to Chinquapin project review
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 D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
September 7, 2022
Scott King
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
204 Stone Ridge Boulevard
Asheville, NC 28804
[e-mail]
Re: UT to Chinquapin Stream Restoration, Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin, Surry County, ER 18-1044
Dear Mr. King:
Thank you for your email of August 9, 2022, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submittal and offer the following comments.
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 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

• ■■■
■■ • NC DEPARTMENT OF
■ ■•■E NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
• ■■■
NC-NHP Response to UT to Chinquapin project recview
August 19, 2022
Amy James
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
1150 SE Maynard Rd. Suite 140
Cary, NC 27511
RE: Info Request ID: 194
Dear Amy James:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
NCNHDE-19070
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOVRCES
Q 121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 'M9.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Info Request ID: 194
August 19, 2022
NCNHDE-19070
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Owner Owner Type
Town of Pilot Mountain Open Space Town of Pilot Mountain Local Government
Town of Pilot Mountain Open Space Town of Pilot Mountain Local Government
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/help. Data query generated on August 19, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q2, July 2022. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Info Request ID: 194
August 19, 2022
NCNHDE-19070
No Element Occurrences are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Nam-1111 Owner Owner Type
Town of Pilot Mountain - Armfield Park Town of Pilot Mountain Local Government
Town of Pilot Mountain Open Space Town of Pilot Mountain Local Government
Town of Pilot Mountain Open Space Town of Pilot Mountain Local Government
Town of Pilot Mountain Open Space Town of Pilot Mountain Local Government
Town of Pilot Mountain Open Space Town of Pilot Mountain Local Government
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/help. Data query generated on August 19, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q2, July 2022. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-19070: Info Request ID: 194
Dodson Mill
1681
s
Go
Pilot Mountain
E Main St
re
re
0
Z
Crestwood Dr
0
FS� I a! ft
a I
Volunt
1268i
0.6 1.2 Miles
I I I I I I I
August 19, 2022
Managed Area (MAREA)
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
❑ Project Boundary
Sources. Esri, Airbus DS. USGS. NGA. NASA, CGIAR. N Robinson. NOEAS.
NLS. OS, NMA. Geodatastyrelse , Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA,
Intermap and the GIS user community
Sources. Esri, HERE. Garmin. FAO. NOAA, USGS. © OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Page 4 of 4