20180182 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20190829

DR
02*10n of Water R"Ourc"
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance into the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned *
Version#*
20180182
1
Is a payment required for this project?*
* No payment required
What amout is owed?*
* Fee received
r $240.00
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
r $570.00
Reviewing Office* Select Project Reviewer*
Central Office - [phone] Mac Haupt:eads\dmhaupt
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Kevin Tweedy
1 b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
8/29/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Stewart's Creek
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
36.4898
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Surry
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Longitude:
-80.6411
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
V Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
F Section 10 Permit (navigable ureters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
P Nationwide Permit (NWP)
F- Regional General Permit (RGP)
r- Standard (IP)
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r' Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
P 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
1e. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F 401 Water Quality Certification - E)press
F Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r- Yes r No
19. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r• Yes r- No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r- Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
C Yes r- No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Greta Boyd
2b. Deed book and page no.:
00320/0098
2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
194 Cletius Moser Trail
Address Line 2
City
Mount Airy
Postal / Zip Code
27030
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Deborah Beasley
2b. Deed book and page no.:
00489/1175,01446/0358,01555/0895
State / Rwince / Fbjion
NC
Country
us
2f. Fax Number:
r- Yes r No
r- Yes r No

2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
286 Cletius Moser Trail
Address Line 2
City
Mount Airy
Fbstal / Zip Code
27030
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Edward Johnson
2b. Deed book and page no.:
01033/0644
2c. Responsible party
2d. Address
Street Address
139 Timeless Trail
Address Line 2
City
Mount Airy
postal / Zip Code
27030
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Kevin Tweedy
3b. Business Name:
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
3c.Address
Street Address
1150 SE Maynard Rd
Address Line 2
Ste 140
CRY
Cary
Fbstal / Zip (ode
27511
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if apprcpnate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Mount Airy
State / Rmince / Region
NC
Country
us
2f. Fax Number:
State / Frmince / fegbn
NC
Country
us
2f. Fax Number:
State/ Rovince/ f ion
NC
Country
us
3e. Fax Number:

2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
Boyd: 591900894216. Beasley:
591900797501,591908891501,
591908891924.Johnson:501000713049.
2b. Property size:
Moser: 591902791649
25.4
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Ester Drive/Timeless Trail
Address line 2
Qty
State / Province / Ibgrn
Mount Airy
NC
Postal / Zip Cade
Country
27030
us
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Stewart's Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
03040101100010
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 Site is in a rural but developing area of Surry County. Land use within the UT1 and UT2 watersheds is 37% pasture lands, 27% deciduous forest lands, and 35% residential. The
Project is impacted by farming practices, past stream channelization, riparian buffer loss, and direct cattle access. All four streams have either sustained significant cattle damage
and/or have been channelized to maximize cattle grazing activities.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
F Yes r No r Unknown
4c. If yes, please give the DWR Certification number or the Corps Action ID (exp. SAW -0000-00000).
SAW -2017-01927
Project History Upload
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure2_Topo.pdf
1.94MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2X11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Figure8_Soils.pdf 2.29MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
4.44
49. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
6283
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The Project will restore healthy headwater stream -wetland complexes in currently active, or recently active, cattle pastures in a watershed that is dominated by agricultural land use.
Riparian buffers at least 30 feet in width (50 feet or more in most areas) will be restored along stream reaches and provide significant improvements to wetland connectivity and function
within the riparian buffer.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Stream restoration approaches will involve raising the streambeds and/or re -meandering the channels through existing wetlands, thereby enhancing the stream and wetland resources
within the Project. Buffers in excess of 30 feet, and greater than 50 feet in most areas, will be restored along all proposed stream mitigation reaches for a total of 25.4 protected acres.
Wetlands will be rehabilitated through increased surface connection with restored channels and planting of native species.
Functional uplift will come from excluding livestock from project resources, restoring natural wetland and riparian vegetation, and restoring the project streams to a stable condition,
connected to their adjacent floodplains. The exclusion of livestock will remove a direct source of nutrients, coliform, and sediment from the system. Due to the extent of the bank erosion
in all four project streams, and for UT3 in particular, restoring a stable stream condition will reduce the amount of sediment in receiving waters. In -stream structures consisting of large
woody debris will ensure channel stability and improve aquatic habitat for native species.
Stream restoration activities will employ heavy construction equipment. Large flat-bed tractor trailers will initially bring equipment and materials to the site. Tracked excavators will be
used to shape stream banks, excavate the floodplain, install stream structures, and perform general grading. Bulldozers may be required to reach final grades. And finally, the
vegetation installation will be supported by small utility vehicles such as medium size flat-bed trucks, single -ton trucks, and bob -cats for material delivery.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.

AII_Sheets.pdf
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
46.82MB
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
F Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW -2017-01927
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company: Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
EPR delineated potential aquatic resources 01/2017, 05/2018, & 07/2018. Field visit with William Elliott and Steve Kichefski (USACE) and Sue Homewood (DWR) November 2018. PJD
approved December 2018. Note-- attached Corps approval incorrectly states 0.4 acres instead of 0.04 acres of eAsting wetland in WD.
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
SAW -2018-01441 (Red Barn Mitigation Bank)PJD.pdf 233.22KB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
P Wetlands p Streams -tributaries r Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000 0.297
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.297
2h. Comments:
There will be minor impacts to the wetlands onsite due to realignment of channel features, but restoration activities will increase the acreage of
wetlands on the Site and improve overall wetland function.
3. Stream Impacts
2a1 Reason(?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W. *
2d. W. name *
2e. Forested *
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition*(?)
2g. Impact
area*
W1
Stream Realignment
P
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
WA
Both
0.060
(acres)
W2
Stream Realignment
P
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
WBBoth
I
130
acres)
W3
Stream Realignment
P
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
�WC
Both
0.100
(acres)
W4
Stream Realignment
P
Headwater Forest
WD
Yes
Both
0.007
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000 0.297
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.297
2h. Comments:
There will be minor impacts to the wetlands onsite due to realignment of channel features, but restoration activities will increase the acreage of
wetlands on the Site and improve overall wetland function.
3. Stream Impacts

31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
5,659
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
628
3j. Comments:
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
624
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Restoration practices will only occur in the designated stream length. Practices will follow natural channel design principles. Only natural material will
be used to construct stream features. Only native grass and woody vegetation will be planted on the stream banks. Agricultural BMPs will be
implemented to exclude cattle from streams, buffers, and wetlands to ensure these resources provide long-term stability and water quality
improvements. Fencing will be erected around the protected area to exclude livestock and posted signs will designate the protected area and state
that public entry is not allowed.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Disturbances will be minimized to the extent possible. Construction equipment access to the stream itself will be limited to the extent practical, and
erosion control practices will be used to minimize any potential impacts from sediment run off during construction. For additional information, see the
construction plans and specifications.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Proposed Project is a stream and wetland mitigation bank site
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
Project is not located in an area Wth NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type"
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
Restoration
Permanent
Relocation ]ffa
Perennial
Both
12
1,170
Aver�e(feet)
(Inearfeet)
S2
Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
Ur2a/UT2b
Perennial
Both
15
1,948
Ave age (feet)
(Irtearfeet)
S3
Enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
Ur2c
Perennial
Both
18
240
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
J
Ur3a
Perennial
Both
10
1,526
(feet)
IAverage (lirearfeet)
S5
Enhancement
Temporary
Stabilization
Ur3b
Perennial
Both
5Average(feet)
18n�rfe�)
S8
Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
Ur3c
Perennial
Both
5
1,015
Average (feet)
(linsarfeet)
S7
Enhancement
Tem ora
P rY
Stabilization
Ur3d
Perennial
Both
10
109
Average (feeQ
(linearfeet)
S8
Enhancement
Tem ora
P rY
Stabilization
Uro
Intermittent
Both
5
89
Average (feet)
(linear fed)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
5,659
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
628
3j. Comments:
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
624
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Restoration practices will only occur in the designated stream length. Practices will follow natural channel design principles. Only natural material will
be used to construct stream features. Only native grass and woody vegetation will be planted on the stream banks. Agricultural BMPs will be
implemented to exclude cattle from streams, buffers, and wetlands to ensure these resources provide long-term stability and water quality
improvements. Fencing will be erected around the protected area to exclude livestock and posted signs will designate the protected area and state
that public entry is not allowed.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Disturbances will be minimized to the extent possible. Construction equipment access to the stream itself will be limited to the extent practical, and
erosion control practices will be used to minimize any potential impacts from sediment run off during construction. For additional information, see the
construction plans and specifications.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Proposed Project is a stream and wetland mitigation bank site
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
Project is not located in an area Wth NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No

Comments:
No impervious surfaces will be created.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
f Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Project does not involve development or creation of impervious surfaces.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes M No r. 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?*
r Yes r' No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r' No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
59. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
C Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r 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.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
Emailed USFWS 03/2018, no response received. NC Wildlife Resources Commission response dated 04/2018 (attached) indicated no impacts to wild
trout waters.
Consultation Documentation Upload
RedBarnMitigationBank_StewartsCr&UTs_Surry_WRCComments.pdf 33.51<13
RedBarn_USF WS_Lttr.pdf 3.5MB
Red Barn_NCNHP report_03132018.pdf 875.46KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r' Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA EFH Mapper

7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
C' Yes f• No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
HPOWEB review 03/2018, emailed SHPO 03/2018, no response received.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
RedBarn_NCSHPO_Lttr.pdf 3.47MB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
R Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Most of UT1, UT2, WA, WB, and WC within the 1% Chance Annual Flooding Zone. No work is proposed on Stewarts Creek as a partof this project and
an application for a no -rise associated Wth the work on the tributaries was submitted 08/2019.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
DFIRM panel 3711501000J
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Red Barn_allforms.pdf
RedBarn_PCN_Figures. pdf
Signature
V By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
7.61 MB
10.03MB
• 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:
Kevin Tweedy
Signature
Date
8/29/2019

VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
#
Legend
Conservation Easement
0 3,0001,500 Feet
^_
Surry County
Site Co ordinates36.4898 °N80.6411 °W
AUGUST 2019
PREPARED BY:
SURRY COUNTY, NC
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
UT1 oldflow path
UT2a
UT3a
WD
WC
UT1a
WA
WB
UT4
UT3c
UT2b
UT2c
UT3d
UT3b
Existing Site Features
Figure 2
#
Legend
Conservation Easem ent
UT1 old flo w path
UT1a
UT2a
UT2b
UT2c
UT3a
UT3b
UT3c
UT3d
UT4
Wetlands
0 500250
Feet
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC AUGUST 2019
PREPARED BY:
S8
S7
S5
S3
S1
S2
S6
S4
W1
W3
W4
W2
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
SURRY COUNTY, NC
Impacts Map
FIGURE 3
PREPARED BY:
#
Legend
Stre am Impacts
S1 : 1170'
S2 : 1948'
S3 : 240'
S4 : 1526'
S5 : 186'
S6 : 1015'
S7 : 109'
S8 : 89'
Wetland Impacts
W1: 0.06 ac
W2: 0.13 ac
W3: 0.10 ac
W4: <0.01 ac
Existing Wetlands
Conservation Easem ent
0 450225Feet
Aug us t 2019
JOHNSON GRADY501000713049
MOSER TERESA591902791649
BEASLEY TERRY G591900797501BEASLEY TERRY G591908891501
BOYD WILLIAM591900894216
BEASLEY DEBORAH501020707007
CHANDLER RICHARD591908897860
Timeless Trl
Cletius Moser Trl
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC
Parcel Location Map
Figure 4
#
Legend
Conservation Easement
State Roads
Non-State Roads
Parcels
Access Easement
0 500250Feet
AUGUST 2019
PREPARED BY:
LIDAR MAP
FIGURE 5
#
Legend
Conservation Easement
High : 1189
Low : 1006
0 500250Feet
RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC AUGUST 2019
PREPARED BY:
CsA
RbD
DrB
RbD
TtC
W
CsA
RbD
HaA
CsA
TtC
TtC
DrB
SOILS MAP
FIGURE 6
#
Legend
Conservation Easement
Soils
Colvard and Suches (CsA)
Dillard fine sandy loam (DrB)
Hatboro loam (HaA)
Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex (RbD)
Toast-Bannertown complex (TtC)
Water (W)
0 500250Feet
AUGUST 2019
PREPARED BY:RED BARN MITIGATION BANK SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
SURRY COUNTY, NC
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
FIGURE 7
PREPARED BY:
#
Legend
Conservation Easement
0 500250Feet
AUGUST 2019
Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
SURRY COUNTY, NC
USGS Topographic Map
FIGURE 2
PREPARED BY:
#
Legend
Study Area
0 3,0001,500 Feet
Da t e:July 2 018
CsA
RbD
DrB
RbD
TtC
W
CsA
RbD
HaA
CsA
TtC
TtC
DrB
SOIL S MAP
FIGURE 8
#
Legend
Conservation Easement
Soils
Colvard and Suches (CsA)
Dillard fine sandy loam (DrB)
Hatboro loam (HaA)
Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex (RbD)
Toas t-Bannertown complex (TtC)
Water (W)
0 500250Feet
AUGUS T 2019
PREPARED BY:RED BARN MIT IGATION BANK SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
April 10, 2018

Cidney Jones
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606

SUBJECT: Red Barn Mitigation Site

Dear Ms. Jones:

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) received your March 16
letter regarding a stream restoration project on Stewarts Creek and unnamed tributaries 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 of the project. The project is proposed as a mitigation
project and will involve stream relocation to historical locations and reconnection to the historic
floodplain.

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. 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) 803-
6054 if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606

Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net

March 16, 2018

Marella Buncick, Endangered Species Biologist
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville NC 28801

RE: Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site, Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040101,
Surry County, NC
Dear Ms. Buncick,

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) respectfully requests review and comment from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the implementation of the subject
project. This request is to comply with the Nationwide Permit general conditions and to develop
the environmental documentation required by the proposed action. Project details are presented
below.

The project is comprised of multiple parcels off Cletius Moser Trail and Timeless Trail,
approximately 0.5 miles south of NC 89 and 0.5 west of the City of Mount Airy in Surry County,
North Carolina (Figure 1). Figure 2 depicts the project on the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Dobson, NC 7.5-minute topographic map at 36.4898 N and -80.6411 E and is comprised
of six parcels, here indicated by the following Parcel ID Nos.: 501000713046, 591900791439,
591900797501, 591900894216, 591908883852, and 591908891501.

The Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site was identified to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream and/or wetland impacts. Segments of this stream network have been identified as incised,
eroding, and no longer connected to their floodplains. In total, almost 7,200 linear feet will be
restored through the relocation of streams to their approximate historic locations and reconnection
with the historic floodplain. To that end, new channels will be constructed within the existing crop-
and pasture-land with excavation depths ranging from 1-4 feet. All work will take place within a
24-acre conservation easement shown on the attached Figure 2.

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. Portions of the site are located within a mapped FEMA floodplain and
will require coordination with Surry County Floodplain Administrators.

As of June 1, 2017, the USFWS lists four federally protected species and three federal species
of concern for Surry County, not including the Bald Eagle, which is protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (Table 1). A brief description of the federally protected species
habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on field

- Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment -
assessments of the project area. Habitat requirements are based on the current best available
information.

Table 1. Federally listed species for Surry County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Present Biological
Conclusion
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus BGPA No N/A
Bog turtle Glyptemys
muhlenbergii T (S/A) Yes Not Required
Northern long-
eared bat
Myotis
septentrionalis T Yes MA-NLAA
Robust redhorse Moxostoma
robustum FSC No N/A
Brook floater Alasmidonta
varicose FSC No N/A
Carolina hemlock Tsuga caroliniana FSC No N/A
Schweinitz’s
sunflower
Helianthus
schweinitzii E No No Effect
Small whorled
pogonia
Isotria
medeoloides T Yes No Effect
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T(S/A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed
species and is listed for its protection. Taxa listed as T(S/A) are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation. In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as T(S/A)
(threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and interstate and international com mercial
trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private
landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), t he U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
FSC = Federal Species of Concern. FSC is an informal term. It is not defined in the federal Endangered Species Act. In North Carolina,
the Asheville and Raleigh Field Offices of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) define Federal Species of Concern as those
species that appear to be in decline or otherwise in need of conservation and are under consideration for listing or for whic h there is
insufficient information to support listing at this time. Subsumed under the term "FSC" are all species petitioned by outside parties
and other selected focal species identified in Service strategic plans, State Wildlife Action Plans, or Natural Heritage Prog ram Lists.
N/A – Not applicable to FSC
MA-NLAA – May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect

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 – Iotla complex, Reddies, Rosman, Tate –

- Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment -
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. The wetland areas in the easement provide potential
habitat for the bog turtle. However, they are unlikely to occur due to the fact that the area
has been used intensively by cattle, and periodically for crops, for many years. In addition,
a review of NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records indicates no known bog turtle
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 – August 15

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
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: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Forested areas suitable as roosting habitat for the NLEB exist in the study area. However,
as of June 7, 2016, the USFWS does not indicate that Surry County contains any
confirmed hibernation or maternity sites for the NLEB. Therefore, this project will not
require incidental take and is exempted under the final 4(d) rule guidelines. In addition, a
review of NCNHP records indicates no known NLEB occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study 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

- Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment -
content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived
from mafic rocks.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There is no suitable habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower in the conservation easement.
Much of the easement is comprised of pasture land, grazed or maintained to the wood
edge. In addition, a review of NCNHP records indicates no known occurrences of the
sunflower within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Small whorled pogonia
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: mid-May - early July

Habitat Description: Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third
successional growth) mixed-deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests. It does not
appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying geologic
substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open, dry deciduous
woods and is often associated with white pine and rhododendron. The species may also
be found on dry, rocky, wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking stream channels; or
slope bases near braided channels of vernal streams. The orchid, often limited by shade,
requires small light gaps or canopy breaks, and typically grows under canopies that are
relatively open or near features like logging roads or streams that create long-persisting
breaks in the forest canopy.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Wooded hillsides in the conservation easement provide habitat for small whorled pogonia.
However, all restoration work will occur within the floodplains, and the hillsides will not be
impacted. In addition, a review of NCNHP records indicates no known occurrences of the
pogonia within 1.0 mile of the study area.

If EPR has not received response from you within 45 days, we will assume that the USFWS does
not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project at the current
time. We thank you in advance for your timely response, input, and cooperation. Please contact
me at the above phone number or address with any question.

Sincerely,

Cidney Jones, PE

- Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment -
[NCNHP] North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered
and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC. 134 pp.

[NCWRC] North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2006. Bog Turtle Fact
Sheet.http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/nongame_bogturtle_hires.pdf.
(Accessed: March 13, 2017).

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 325 pp.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. NC County NLEB consultation areas.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html (Accessed March 13,
2018)

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Small-whorled Pogonia Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/smallwhorledpogoniaf s.html. (Accessed: March
13, 2018).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. NLEB Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/NLEBFactSheet01April2015.p
df. (Accessed: March 13, 2018).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) Interim
Conference and Planning Guidance. USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf. (Accessed:
March 13, 2018).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Schweinitz’s Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_schweinitz_sunflower.html. (Accessed: March 13, 2018).

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.
2011. Bog Turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii).https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listed_species/bog_turtle.html. (Accessed:
March 13, 2018).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina’s
Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant
Species.https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/survey_window_for_plants.pdf. (Accessed: March 13,
2018).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz’s Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 28 pp.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 75 pp.

PROJECT LOCATION 36.489851 N-80.641183 E
RED BARN SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Proposed Easement
0 21Miles USACEWILMINGTON DISTRICT
UT1
UT2
S
T
E
WA
R
T
S
C
R
E
E
K
UT3
RED BARN SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FIGURE 2 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Proposed Easement
0 2,0001,000 Feet USACEWILMINGTON DISTRICT
NCNHDE-5569
March 13, 2018
Amy James
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
RE: Red Barn Mitigation Bank
Dear Amy James:
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, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural
heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have
been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists.
In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may
update our records.
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 and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one-mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
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.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) easement,
or Federally-listed species are 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
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Red Barn Mitigation Bank
March 13, 2018
NCNHDE-5569
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 Name Owner Owner Type
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easement NC Department of Agriculture, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation
State
Surry County Open Space Surry County Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on March 13, 2018; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2018. 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 3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 3 of 3

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606

Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net

March 16, 2018

Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street, Room 258
Raleigh, NC 27601

RE: Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site
Surry County, North Carolina
Catalogue Unit 03040101

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) is planning to conduct stream and wetland
restoration/enhancement activities for the above referenced project. We are requesting your
office to review and comment on any possible issues that may emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated the proposed stream and wetland
restoration/enhancement project. Included in this package are USGS site topographic maps at
1:24,000 scale, and relevant site photographs.

The project is comprised of multiple parcels off Cletius Moser Trail and Timeless Trail,
approximately 0.5 miles south of NC 89 and 0.5 west of the City of Mount Airy in Surry County,
North Carolina (Figure 1). Figure 2 depicts the project on the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Dobson, NC 7.5-minute topographic map at 36.4898 N and -80.6411 E and is comprised
of six parcels, here indicated by the following Parcel ID Nos.: 501000713046, 591900791439,
591900797501, 591900894216, 591908883852, and 591908891501.

The Red Barn Mitigation Bank Site site was identified to provide in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream and/or wetland impacts. Segments of this stream network have been
identified as incised, eroding, and no longer connected to their floodplains. In total, almost 7,200
linear feet will be restored through the relocation of streams to their approximate historic
locations and reconnection with the historic floodplain. To that end, new channels will be
constructed within the existing pasture-land with excavation depths ranging from 1-4 feet. All
work will take place within a 24-acre conservation easements shown on the attached Figure 2.

There are no existing structures with the proposed conservation easement. The majority of the
site has historically been disturbed due to past and current management for cattle grazing and
rearing and crop production. Furthermore, no architectural structures or archeological artifacts
have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
According to SHPO’s online GIS Mapping Application (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) accessed on
March 13, 2018, there are no historic structures located within 1 mile of the site.

- Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment -
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. Portions of the site are located within a mapped FEMA floodplain and
will require coordination with Surry County Floodplain Administrators.

Please contact me at the above phone number or address with any question.

Sincerely,

Cidney Jones, PE
Water Resource Engineer

PROJECT LOCATION 36.489851 N-80.641183 E
RED BARN SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Proposed Easement
0 21Miles USACEWILMINGTON DISTRICT
UT1
UT2
S
T
E
WA
R
T
S
C
R
E
E
K
UT3
RED BARN SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NC
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FIGURE 2 PREPARED BY:
#
PREPARED FOR:
Legend
Proposed Easement
0 2,0001,000 Feet USACEWILMINGTON DISTRICT