20031503 Ver 1_Complete File_20031204

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Y
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
December 4, 2003
DWQ# 03-1503
Guilford County
City of Greensboro
C/o Mr. Bruce H. Overman, Jr.
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC, 27402-3136
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Overman:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to temporarily impact 3.07 acres of wetlands and
645 linear feet of streams in order to construct the Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main, Bledsoe Lift Station and Cardinal Force
Main and Outfall in Guilford County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality on November
26, 2003. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number 3374, which can be viewed on our web site at htti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands . This Certification allows you
to use Nationwide Permit Number 12 when issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Randleman Buffer Rules, Non-Discharge and Water Supply. Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us in writing and you may be required to send us anew application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification and the additional condition listed below:
1. Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification, and any subsequent modifications, the
applicant is required to return the attached certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650;
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface waters
standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures must be
such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow
sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the
project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with the
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act;
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of the
impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notice Application. All construction activities, including the design,
installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be
performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
Oft
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
Mr. Bruce H. Overman, Jr.
Page 2 of 2
December 4, 2003

Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable.
If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed
and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land Resources has released the
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
any questions, please telephone Daryl Lamb in our Winston-Salem Regional Office at 336-771-4600 or Cyndi Karoly in our
Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AW K/cbk
Attachments
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
031503
City of Greensboro
North Carolina
November 24, 2003
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
FILE .
4071 ISSUED
15Q
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
NOV 2 b 2003
Re: Application Form and Documentation for 401 Water Quality?ertification -'ON
Project Name: Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main, Bledsoe Lift Station and
Cardinal Force Main & Outfall
Enclosed for your review are seven sets of the following documents, which are assembled
in the order shown below. Our check for the $475.00 Application Fee is attached to the
top set of documents.
• Pre-Construction Notification Application Form (10 Pages)
• Greensboro Vicinity Map (1 Sheet)
• USGS Topographic Map (3 Sheets)
• Soil Survey Map (3 Sheets)
• Ortho Photo of Project Area (1 Sheet)
• Impact Site Location Map (3 Sheets)
• Impact Site Detail Sheets (18 Sites; 19 Sheets)
• City of Greensboro Standard Drawings referred to on Detail Sheets (5 Sheets)
• Environmental Document (1 Attachment; Multiple Pages)
Should you need to contact me, I can be reached by phone at [phone], by fax at
[phone] and by e-mail at bnice.overman@c?i.greciisboro.n.c.us .
We appreciate your review of this application and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Bruce H. Overman, Jr.
Project Engineer
Cc: Kenny McDowell, Ade Idowu, Donald Arant, Melinda Kington, Sonya Hyatt,
Jason Geary, Lanny Rhew
640 P.O. Box 3136 • Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 • www.ci.greensboro.nc.us • [phone] • TTY# 333-6930
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
X .401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 401
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: X
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: City of Greensboro
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro NC 27402-3136
Telephone Number: (3361373-2302 Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: ci.preensboro.nc.us
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Bruce H. Overman Jr.
Company Affiliation: Engineering & Inspections Department
Mailing Address: Citv of Greensboro
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro NC 27402-3136
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: bruce.overman(a),ci.greensboro.nc.us
Page 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main Bledsoe Lift Station and Cardinal Force
Main & Outfall
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Guilford Nearest Town: Greensboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Take I-40 to west side of Greensboro. At Guilford College Rd Exit 213, turn north and
proceed approx. 2,000' to South Buffalo Creek (approx. 180' past Big Tree Way on right).
Walk approx. 700' west along South Buffalo Creek The force main begins at its intersection
with a proposed gravity sewer line (currently under construction) on the south side of the
creek. It continues north to the proposed Bledsoe Lift Station A gravity line continues from
the proposed lift station to approx. 3,300' NW of the lift station Another gravity line begins
approx. 3,200' NE of the end of the previous gravity line and continues approx 1900' west
and north. A force main begins at that point and continues north to the existing Cardinal Lift
Station.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N/A
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Existing sewer line easement public roadway, residential pasture
7. Property size (acres): 34 Acres
Page 6 of 13
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): South Buffalo Creek and Horsepen
Creek
9. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at htty://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adinin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Transfer of wastewater flow to lines of eater
capacity.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Backhoe, track loader,
tamping equipment dump trucks
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Residential, Institutional Agricultural
Commercial Industrial
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 7 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
indicate on ma) (acres) (es/no) (linear feet)
Site No. 7 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize
0.09
Yes
37
Freshwater Marsh
Site No. 10 Temp. - Excavate, 1
83 Yes Varies 20' to Freshwater Marsh.
backfill & stabilize . 130' NCDOT Mitigation Area
Site No. 14 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize 0.33 Yes
26
Freshwater Marsh
Site No. 15 Temp. - Excavate,
backfill & stabilize 0.82 55%-Yes; 45%-No
Varies 5 to 40' New Beaver Pond and
Freshwater Marsh
'k T_iSt each imnart c otu1., o..A ;A--.al. ?
_.__ ___......r . ,, . ,, y u,,,, .-Mly =c,upulal y unpack. impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://Nvw-w.fema..gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 37 Acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 3.07 Acres Temporary Impact
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (Continued-See Attachment
>\r..... D...-_1

Stream Impact
Length of ? vc?a 1 u?e?

Site Number
Type of Impact* Impact

(linear
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream Perennial or
Intermittent?
(indicate on map) feet) Before Impact (please specify)
Site No. 1 Temp. -Excavate,
backfill & stabilize
40'
South Buffalo Creek
15'
Perennial
Site No. 2 Temp. - Excavate,
backfill & stabilize
35'
UT
13'
Perennial
Site No. 3 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize ,
60
UT
21'
Perennial
Site No. 4 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize ,
49
UT
26'
Perennial
Site No. 5 Temp. - Excavate,
backfill & stabilize
48
UT
7'
Perennial
Site No. 6 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize
44'
UT
15'
Perennial
Site No. 8 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize
45'
UT
19'
Perennial
* Lict each imnart a rntul„ --A :A__.;4r- .
- - - ---r_-- --i-•-•---•v - =u =u?==?==y --PULa y unpack. impacts mciude, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.kov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.toi)ozone.com,
"iv.mapquest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 13
ATTACHMENT - Continuation of Item 2 from Page 8 of 13
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams - Continued
Stream Impact Length of
Impact
Average Width
Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact*
(linear Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on map) feet) Before Impact (please specify)
Site NO. 9 Temp. -Excavate,
backfll & stabilize
43,
UT
8'
Intermittent
Site NO. 11 Temp. -Excavate,
backfill & stabilize ,
44
UT
12'
Perennial
Site No. 12 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize 60' Horse en Creek
P 24' Perennial
Site No. 13 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize ,
78
UT
11'
Perennial
Site No. 16 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize
49'
UT
20'
Perennial
Site No. 17 Temp. - Excavate,
backfll & stabilize ,
40
UT
14'
Perennial
Site NO. 18 Temp. - Excavate,
backfill & stabilize
10,
UT
12'
Perennial
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 645' Temporary Impact
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

(acres)
if Name applicable)
a licable)
( p Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
After the preferred alignment was set adjustments were made to eliminate stream crossings and
to minimize wetlands impacts wherever possible The alignment was restricted to existing sewer
line easements and existing roadway rights-of-way (shoulders or travel areas) where possible
minimizing new easements and minimizing the disturbance of previously undisturbed property.
Where it is necessary to replace existing lines with larger lines the existing lines will be
removed, and the larger lines will be installed in the same location
Page 9 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Pay into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://li2o.eiir.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
Page 10 of 13
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): Temporary - 645'
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): None
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Temporary 3.07 Acres
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes X No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a MEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes X No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes X No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify) Randleman Rules apply(see note)
Yes ? No X If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 11 of 13
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 None 3 None
2 None 1.5 None
Total None None
-111 1 QALO„LLJ UUL Jv ieet perpenaicuiar nom near banK of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
All wastewater will be piped to a wastewater treatment plant off site
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No X
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
Page 12 of 13
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
I Al$_j
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
G
? ao a.-? \?< ?YwooDD LAKE
°N BR.ANDT
sao"m
d ? ,?/ i 3 II
?` \ y m
0
/ i x s I`
m ON DR S/ Z W m
a A a
a a
\ \ ?? \ 9Z0 OgA ED P
'DLARKWDDD;GIR CARDINAL,..,.,` Op LNO RD
STARRCARD DR \
_ FORCE MAIN
r?
f 'ell .COKF*..tD DR ? p
\?? A
.1ESSUYOROVL , RD
EXISTING CALDWELL ACADEMY m
P-
RNER HIILS OR -, _ OUTFALL N111 --
CARDINAL WVDD DR O ,\ y j ,\ \ SCAWtT HAW \ _ !"'•# . _ _. __. _ __ ._ - j'. -. L I- ?? -.?
5
\ JUSTIN?T T\ \8 _ / //: ?/? \ J
o \4? --i ??{ICICDRVwo sDi?
Ak V Cr ° _? r_ E; sj / 0 1jo
3? LV o o/j i P N`
FNA}FIEtO SD
qe? ?q aq0 '14?rEENES cG
R
CARDINAL OUTFALL ??'E?RO
rc.
,tom e
C-\ Q? _QAwN / %%% / ?p s o A coo SSFI IDO OR RR4r? nom
RIDGE TRR!_ 'IE +__ ??/ ?'pe O<TO ego K
/ --- NIGH % i,;/ a0 mZ ?YWe Z CROSSTU.IBFRS OR O
/ U ?hElN RD
j?? - p O o z -/ J? T ti
? -. H F
// A S ?N CREFK {jp Q K
o
RAKOR 40iA J?Op Z CIF
WESTERN TRL y ?ir i O \ / _ ?...`\_ 3 = CIO
o
- ? :' ? ? aQ- 1 1C0 22
i/ / / KP? ?O??ON D A DE VSH RE S
'??,gy&L? ?/// 11 0
op m
?? / / `` u ?= p In}ION OR o
?VINRCN o
\..,..,..? ?R: BLED 5\31 CEO o
/ I '. lr?`-^YJ I \N?\ F - ?45EF CARLYg V?AV f // m P OK \ ?O
o v• °o
/ g e op \
/kP z / U O \
/? / BooKS .py ar" Z
\ i l / / ?g 4 n? im 3 O RD PL - --{
i : •?? j / F? INC TERRACE Rp l ?o ,t3o y 0 REDFIEID DR
t/It.
D r /1J ?? ° i FZ? 5~Gt __GRAMERCV RD
of
I'IORTNIgI(E pR GgO,E 3 K PINF.TOP RD
HEATHROW CT J
i sounluKF D °R °
K HOBBS ?
1 r/--
o Q O
BROOKWAYDR'PN O?
/-'f/ \oC45"T GPRlO T `oP P/NEHAVENOR G? Syi? J
/L/?/ 0 \'POZ Jam' IOCHSIDE CT
cF
/// i / ?w hi \ y,KN °
- ?//% / ?C °h ?`PR $ \RO z g = LEY
/ Ry 9 G S
% % / ?r'C y 2 ? ?ERLEE D 3 NOR ESHDE m
BELL O R YAL COACH RD oo m L.
E E?
STADLER C7 RL O 0Q
if ° j ENNINGTON DR U ' h y! A O QCO °Oq
OR 1 / Q ,2Y K p TAT HIGrygERRY gD ,r,ST OH
1 - -T-
WsWT?' ? F•g WEaD g o rys?`R
j l l w a o w GEw
1 m
\` e? / i I ? STOCKgPoDGE OR ? z ? o FOUNDERS OR f ySJE ArEgDR -4V
3 'C
\09p \,Y I I I r \ _ DUCKHO RD y LL -- ,g RF.O ?f
:?o /•? ? I l j 1 i u Lit' FO
"'10u °r 4i0e O? WATAUGA DR
1I i 1, F 2 y{? BROWN DARK DR °
' ` I III ((I5T T ?' yOP -= O C'ArNfS Q JaO w
?I1?}I'LPIL' 24 ?° ALL > w
11 SSY ..?_l III I, c.:Grt1S GT TOR A t'?O \ rK T OOD pR ? 3 mO
_ w
II 111 { ` SATWWOpDp Og F ?\ ZOO I.
__-- _. ?? 4 A W C Y
i ° 1' I I I I ? ?? R \\
$
O
z
a
y ' ?- -, I I I I Fyi
'j IIII1 A y
III z 6 I I - ¢ o m __ m W IENDLY AVE g
1 J \ 9 ?o Z -
O NI ^g- m U °
? J]
N? j
It- - '• i I 1{'? O RORZ1 DR OR A w / X - - - - - -- P/ a O $ R ERS R WOUDV OR
m
i ?'
RCE
M9NNI
?. I I1 - _ GI z " RG p0
1 11 a _.__ o = HUNTcWe o °
R P E?K?E E O
Y ?N
1111
Illlj II j>
IIIII 11 J EAERO
I 1 a AU° BLEDSOE ° ?G R 6;p
I I II i? ev? WOOODR oa ?Da ° w a
I II11 '1 ? SZ CRO\X 'Ly9 Ho EV.6 W ly •F? p? WKINS DR
FORCE MAIN
p IIIII \ II 7O O ZP? ?O? S
?S 3 O ORANgM O'A G R K
Q /'1?1 /1 n A RD
w C
WEST WIND DR o
11 0
0 oil
O I 'I LEA RAV DR PO >O T°? O ?.FA ri
i Ij 1 II ?(?' NErN R ?' N C RD A o x
z'
y? QO-\ ¢ I I II I C DOBSON RD
+11 LCL ? INGSWO!) DR o ?
0 Q¢ Z Q1 +1 D P WOODC S T Fy
i w
` `\ , 11 1 O r A o LfFF
yy o ? OR o
; z SORIE'y DR OUFFI[W
? ?ti/ ?2WIN RD ? z ? A _
s
\ \m I '11.1 - n o o p GOIOA m c KETTERING PL
\.I A? PO ;1j1'1I1ti I Z A a r D A ~ m ? TS T ERNCRESTDR '0 0 Y A m - R/p
S
1 A? E
r
O w- O ---- - Spk O CT A
?\ 1111 i ? Pp i OD ?
1 a
ALL O
'US
/ //I/ Tk_RCT UCKNFV O S C MERf. RV DR pV
BURNT POPLAR RD
// `I HIGRJWDS} O G ? ? WESTWpDD RD
EXISTING SOUTH BUFFALO _ ° -
/ / SEWER OUTFALL ti° - --- -- -
RGawooDDR ?o -irao _.? i r
\? ?\? %'?\/I\ \Y _g DDINGWOOO OR WALNUT R O
V? ??A ; ?/l A I e Tm R I 4 s q Sr
voTA°NP ` n ?,4q0 C?oR
IELD GT '-SH
o
UNDAS OR H F 4 F 5VF
- ?• ?\T? O OR
\ W ?YF^
cc um ST
C 1 111 l-? ?' gRMLWAY AV f__AV?
NAIDOGRRY R t „pLDOVF:\x
// SWIFT ST CLY
°o gARTLETT ST
x _J \+\ S f°/Tl+t y O o0 A?2 MARY S}
m
SO - - P} S5 / COK PL m? p
J Q
z H°RNADAVRD
:GATL ftO
3
-- g n
LANOVIEW DR c
/
HEWRT ST
m _
// I I ?qzc ?. v'? ? ? j° ?A I J
164e
- /oGTeek j? rrrosl? o ?ic'sSO"sl
UUVLH RD SIA tIVHD d
_ j
I
GREENSBORO ?'Lcale: N1ap not tc> >calc j
r
I
CKHORN

D
_ 930
_ 0£6 \
J
r ? \1
I
s,
SHF.R\\l\ _
ut6
i
r l-- ozb ?
c
940 ? orb
Otb
TRI-PORT v
11£6
930 \ ? r ? 2
?910,
-1,-

c
O
1 .
8y0'?, .??0 U68
D
880 O
o?
910 fYi
Ul6
N
? b
• T?
- xa?.?u ???nl
r1_ ?
?- 930
Ol6 ? .)1?R?V.20U
910
d
,s
z C PO CD
C
( -I
rn N
? ? (DD CD m m
..? cn m m m
m r
N
<D
v Cfl to
° Q ()
(?
(n
.
= C
0 D
N _ (

3 L

co
C) C)

m
`G

cn
O

(D
CD M =3 CD

'y
USK
I3RGSHW'OOD
2
! O?
900
880
1
I
860
r
x
900 T
c ? yo ? c
°- 1 0 0
1
0
9lll
° L
0
1,f
0
?8?o QQ
I ?
'0
- rR E,vut?? ._ ?-
oo,
'T -
I 1
Jb
o6al
o \1) ,
O
V ( ° 1
LEA RA910
f ,
?j'
OOU
63
7,N
j LI.\DLE1' \\Y901)S rlCrl..
!9411.:'
0i6 11£6
0£6 Oi6
i0

m m
ft't N o cn r ?s p C Co

•-
m
D
cQ CD
-0 1

C7

(n
? Cn N n
co N_ m y
i O CD (n Q
N a 7 u C? `
O m
3 Q < O
CD
TI 0 o - ' O
D --?
CD
?

?

o
CD

n CD

--I

W to ?. m

? o m 7

a w

co

p

C? O r

`<
Cl)
O
-? 3 0 0 o 5 O ? CD

Now
'_ z
1 4 '/ 0 1 We
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 5000 Feet
Scale 1:20000
w ..; r... ....r
:: a n5?.s ?„1ct K-,..,(. tint f•ra>iii !:1}lbtf S r, :? ,k F
?? ;( '.-'r ?+n ,.x . s.+wMY?•w?wer:e.e'r. a. w . whew. x v?--.w. w.•.»..ow. w.
o
II ,
! '? III ?i!% : ? • ? •
r? 13
%C-D q
ED
i'
-,moo
I? r?`-'?" 0 Xo n
'? ' s f ? ? ,c O c? ?? o
Ij!? ? 0 60
i
_ L?
0 0
? I I !
I? eto °O° ° C:D Q
I
I i! it I 'q' o °
I III ! ? ?
IC9
? f! I r`4 ? III = 0 u Q N ? C• I
Z?
I I ? 0 0 0 D o
M 0-P
11? ?
u
0 0
J I L ? d?
m
I F o -
r r?
Li JIL?_ Z?
CTI-
? b
D
o p
° n all
C
I
A 2
C= p L g
! I U" QvO ° ?? oo
i J ? I? ? o ° n
? r
r
J-? ny 0
5 ?wh • Q O pQQp O?
F•
o

201 N
Greene Street gate:
10/23/03 '" x BMB
ASR .

.O. Box 3136 rX

? ...) Oei I 97-P NYM18--?JJJ
81??SO
- pd no a...o J
?
Sours S
bvAMrMrrr Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
[phone] Tel. x
[rLftr°trQ1!,;1% IP'OVICID _;1 raJl_;?

City ofGlmom
[phone] Fox.
1" - 800r
1 of .3 ( 7
I

? Q o
n?
r,
3? V
< 3 , 91 a k,_I c?
Sj A 3e ry ??
ae o?
X o
° ? `? Fps x x
? ?.? %.
X? •NN?
a - c n`
`Ow 3Z
7 X o
a
a?
BRYAN
Q BRA N-_ $?"?? Q ?a a
a ?al
o LEI
N
4 a
o °
lJ °
R N O V
aoz
0
X 'o O o
P 000
O
C?
I 3 Z o
t,
` ? 4 R , \ READ
OQ
aYl' x . Z
0 ,
o C /
> p
V?
vote: 10/23/03 x
201 N. Greene Street BMB
p ,tr
ATER P.O. Box 3136 x1 i ?_p *??+? Jyc_k
O?l1?C@S Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 X
[phone] Tel. (Lei fftr ?n ?1CJe1 1/Ira nJ?
City ofGreensboro [phone] Fax. 1" - 800' '-a of 3
m
Cu

z
15 FOOT IND STUBBED BUFFE
AS PER C TY F GREENSBORO
R
I
w I
I
o I
a I 15 FOOT UNDISTURBED BUFFER
AS PER CITY OF GREENSBORO

50 FOOT
I I
50 FOOT VEGETATIVE
VEGETATIVE I `?= BUFFER LIMIT AS
BUFFER LIMIT AS i
I w PER CITY OF
GREENSBORO
PER CITY OF Cr
GREENSBORO i ?
o I
I? ? '?

i WOODS \

\
DO w
? I co

i?
'
I
co m . iT PROPOSED 24"
9 FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED 90* B -ND
I I
I 1
?
STATION 2+19.8
? p
I ` \
I I i
I 1.,?• ?\ ? s
S'
?
? I ? `? \ # ppN
I
I
I I
l I ?
csbc ? S
? a M

TR
F I/ #4
TR

N
0
N
#216
?
TRPN 1 ` jY? p \\ ???
#22999
TRPN 11
l
I
\? O .
1
I
I N 1 WOODS
S?
1
I 1 ?
1

i I ??
INSTALL ED A ION
I
1
t CONTROL FO C EK
_
.?
CROSSIN OG TD #?13
ul 1.
1
w 1 AFTER RCE M IN jz>5 j

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION m 1 m o INS LLED, NTA11N
C SING(? PER C011
ST?
PROPOSED 24' DIP FORCE MAIN ?
14 \
1
STATION 2+00 - III
STATION 213+81.77
P3708 SOUTH BUFFALO OUTFALL a o 1
m I FR M STATION 2+45.001 T =
, STATION 2+65.00 1
a
m LENGTH OF PROPOSED
1
O W 1 IMPACT 40 LF
m v
1
uix
pw
1 w
1
Cn
1 x
a J
1 1 Q
cr.
a 1 o..a
1 z
Site No. I SCALE 1" 40'
C r y OF G R E E N S B O R O
DATE REV.
Site No.1- Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main
11/05/03
'PROVIDE COG STD. 213 AS
MZIOIFIED WITHOUT
TEMPORARY CMP. AFTER
CONSTRUCTION INSTALL
RIP RAP AS PER COG STD.
214. DRESS STONE AND
RAP TO PROTECT
EX NG PIPE OUTLET AS
SHOWN ,PLAN.
LENGTH OF P OSED
IMPACT = 35 L
PROPOSED 24-INCH
FORCE MAIN
? GSTFAN \
ENT SF/' 1 t'c_
gNOF P4 AD
VE
G r
/C i

I #T T153 /
PN
/
NQ /
0
0
00
,s s
? % /S IN
1 ; I a' 9 S4n._
9y
Co sSwFA
EXISTIN
X42" RCP
Q ?
Cl)
`04,
Site No. 2
C/T Y OF GREENSBORO
Site No. 2 - Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main DATE REV.
11/04/03
/ 0O
\\ // OLD 9
i / A 2?, c
INSTALL SEDIMENTATIO ? GT
CONTROL 9
FOR CREEK ?SSING ?<<-
COG STD # 213 PROPOSED 22 1/2* BEND STATION 103+00.65
AFTER FORCE IN IS INSTAL D.
?
MAINTAIN GROSSING AS PE
COG STD 4 214
STAT N 102+75f TOION 103+00*
ri
1
L TH OF PROPOSED
PACT = 60 LF
M
EXISTING OR X f®f ,
FLOW
i
OQ ?
EXISTING 10"
SANITARY SEWER
OUTFALL
x ?' ??? / I 1 \ \
Site No. 3
C/ T Y OF GREENS B OR O
DATE
Site No. 3 - Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main REV .
11/04/03
J
J
Q
0
w
r
3
cn z
to O
UFFER c
C7
2
ti
E

PROPOSED 11 114' BEND
STATION 120+95.19
PROPOSED 22 1/2' BEND
STATION 121+33.32
000--?
-j PROPOSED 22 1/2' BEND
8 u /Z. E R // l STATION 121+81.68
19W BUFFER
CITY GREENSBORO
ACL 1 0-0-896-S-63
DEED BO 2370 - PG. 325
OEED 8 K 2855 - P 481
ti
lx?
ST ??
REEK ?? ?N
Q Tp `? \\
ExISTING REEK _
I
XISTING 12" I
ANITARY SEWER \
S
xISTIN WOK RNA
JSS"
--:: SS ROg0 OUTLENGTH OF OPBSED IMPACT - 49 LF
E NSTALL SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
OR-GPE,EK CROSSING
COG STD SuFFER
AFTER FORCE MAIN IS INST LED,
MAINTAIN CROSSING AS PER
COG STD # 214
FROM STATION 121+95t
TO STATION 122+30 f

'ATION 1232.
Site No. 4
C / T Y OF G ,R E E N S B O R-0
Site No. 4 - Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main DATE REV .
11/04/03
TING WAGON WHEEL
OUTFALL
I
T09 \I\\
u)
?\0
grJF'c,q _ tl?`/ ? ?
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I?
I
I
I
? I
I ?I
I
I I
I y
IWi
I??
¢I
W{
?I
0
En
1

10400F?i 1\
25 .
?P ? 210• / ?0 A~? • / `
PPG Sill
PROP 45 BEND
STA i+98
F? moo. ? pe
De 1? 'p ??? ?? 100 VEGEFFER
J ? SFO
3p . I,yF
xe . NT
y
\
SUFFER
PG N5? . ? 4 STREAM BU
0 m
• BpLINGER and
BAL GERGER. .
No . 5 84i f eAPATRICI ALLIN
sITE W EM iL 3_0_896-S-64
6G STD #2i3. CONTRDL AD B • 4168 - PG • 464
SEDIMENTATION STREAMS D • B .1110
FOR CROSSING - pG 3 1
X P.B•14
w pT. OF LOT
SEWER ESM'T
SAN
EX.25. PG.
3633,
g93
0.6- 3633,
CONSTR.
6312 TEMP.
FT .
AREA IN 17_ 5475 so.
ESW
al ' ' Site No. 5
U3 Cl T Y OF G R E E N S B O R O
a
W
DATE REV.
Site No. 5 Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main
11/05/03
I
HORSEPEN CREEK NQ)

PROP • T 35P 330 xgE X7
TRAP 2}

EXIST.YZEASEMENT
UTI1-IT
oBSS-_
? p8 S B,, gpN SEW
oB
oB Ss MAIN °e ?E
03
E 1, _5• ENT .
oB PAOp 1DIB
M E P ko ST • EAgEM
SON
o e
°B M. I SITE N0. 6 00
. E EARTH gETYPICAj-
COGPS pMtA 2Je. ; 13UFFF
OK
STONE OITO?YPIOAL #214
pApp G E ssp • NO. 215 COG STO #213.
.0 • SED FOR IM CAOSSING STREAMS
?
ui
LL
U-
e
Z
M
P
w
a
Site No. 6
N C/ T Y O F G R E E N S B O R O
a
DATE REV.
W Site No. 6 - Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main
11/05/03
WETLAND AREA
29SE SgoRo
CITY OF i 3RE9-N-
p? 9- PC?.10 ND OJN ,
0
CMP. STONE DITCH CHECK
STD. NO. 215. TYPICAL
Cn
H I
H
J
O
Z
a
J .
F-
W
3
I Site No. 7

w
0
-J,
01
A
O
i
IC/T Y OF GREENSBORO
DATE REV.
Site No. 7 - Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main 11/05/03
E
a

PROP. TEMP. SEDIMENT
Toro OR-&7d - 30' X8' X 1.5
PROP•24"D.I.FORCE MAIN
"' 27 ;E'
D B D B E D B D B
PROP. TEMP. E
-?? EARTH
COG STD. NO. 218, TYPICAL
OUFFER__- E
-= '`- B U F F
SITE NO. 7 PROP. SILT FENCE. C.O.G.
STD. N0. 216. TYPICAL
HORSEPEN CREEK
TRAP 4 43S30Ix8Nxi.5'?
EX X18" SAN SE A

PROP TEMP,
COG STp, Np. E218.H 6YpICA
L
l
-? SS D13-
U L)
• E E C?
PROP 11.25 • BEND N
STA 41+61
gUFFE
oonP_ TEMP. STONEADITTYPICAL x
)RO 24 4
DB --- D•
0; F'E M IA N
E _y
COG STD #213. #214
SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
FOR CROSSING STREAMS
? SITE N0. 8)
W
a Site No. 8
0
U. C/ T Y OF G R E E N S B O R O
a
W DATE REV.
Site No. 8 Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main
11/05/03
ti
J
UI
PROP. TEMP. SEDIMENT ,
TRAP 50+86 - 27-X8 x1_5
- DB -
S EX 18" SAN SE
??- FM
PROP.24"D•I•FORCE MAIN
aB DB
D B E -- ,
mE
100. -TR VE
S
STREAM BUFFER
COG STD 02J34 CONTROL
#214
SEDI CROSSING STREAMS
I FOR
LL
m
I
20'
10'
EX.20'UTILITY EAp?M78T
SEE P.8.123

PROP. TEMP. EARTH BERM
COG STD. N0. 218. TYPICAL

\
1 \
v /
D B ?_ - a B -?- j
-E E
PROPO 6.TSTD. No. 215. TYPICALK
SITE NO. 9
d
23SE SBORO
CITY 734
p0.78
DRAV1WEwAY &
OPEN SPACE
i
cc
0. Site No. 9
a
N C/T Y OF GREENSBORO
W DATE REV.
Site No. 9 - Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main
11/05/03
IMPACT AREAS FOR PERMITTING
N m cA'O
I I
1-< -4m
WMID
AmrN 11
VmzrU
i
31, r
- c- Inn } i X co
ozo %4 z ? 11 m
? 3: -141 I ? ? (b
cm O) \\ n X / C11
O )a---_
\N, / k
I ?\ C40 _
V' I

-- 1

'' ^^ I
I
I

C I
I
I
1-?
L? Om14X11OM 1
mmz-?om
O ZCfA.laG)M l

1-? zZ??4
G7 r + 0"
1
=oAO??
s to m
czvca ??
mm= m
xm -n
c`O)30 <
<
?.Y.
N <
cn o
zmo m
Wawa

Q m
z
O i
W
~
CD
tmml
O?
lid
O
n
CD
4
9.

O
*14

D OO tTj
U l ? m O
W O
w
m
C O

d
3N?1/? 6 is „
Sq
? S
/ I
I
I ?? I
x
°OG)
o z o
CO) " -4 Pi
N Z EA)
10 16
az-I i
-
CO)
fro'
D
0
x
f
m?
r
D
Z
0
r
H
3
H
H
m
0
-I
M
D
--1
m
0
N
m
D
3
07
c
m
-n
m
'11453 9E
v
Z I j
n
O H
O Z
H
--I Ir
Z
"x
2
O IZ
73 m
? I
m X0
-o
M
Z
Im I
?I
H
HI>
?D
cra--i
IZ
pcn l
r-l
s-
r, i
I

D
'D
'D
0
X
m
r
D
Z
0
r
H
3
?i
U) N
o
mI
Ul
'O
O
I?
N I
s
O m
a?
mIl
3 I
a
H
C
CA I
X
? I°

? In
ILo
D

r Z
I
I
m
PLOT DATE: 7 Nov 200":

W -
m _---mss
: i
?y
m
-i
,66 ,
W W'D
a s,7DOo
mmbb
NA
m
m
z
O
d?0
50p?
Nw z?
1 00
001
W ?] Fo?1
(Ji fS•7=? O
z
= is Y
I O
Z-001"'
/
Z
W
0-
W
U)
Er
O
Ob
I
. / P
/ • ' }ti0 Qv?Q?
moo/
ui -^N
H y F-W Qb
En WD
LLI
M:
Z >
O ?' Z a
H o ` p0 W o LLI
F-- `n
N
C7
?zi Z .?. c 471 r,
O 4 - a N /
z w N
W
?= 3s
?--
W ' } v
a
LLJ
U3
\ {O?
_ Q if / / O
M CL
Cry?Jf ?? ?
;2 W 2 M ?-
1?11i?
z H ?`?'> 44V ,? ?C• I ?? FOB ? V
?N y l ti ?Q Z
?•
cr-
o U 1.1...1
Z
ILI
_ •
/? v IU O
CUM
O
au)
Nei
ti? Q ?fo' A?v 1
g'? 2 Oti 0 e
0
J ?
£OOZ 100 TZ :31YO 101d
i
i
i

V
N
1
N ? M ? M N
H
O Cn
?gR
1

O
W r,
N
.-?
?f
o
U
..1
r-r
IL
mr>--
I=- m
w N
Z
x 12o
CLV
in
.PI
1-.x
zm
?O
Wm
WI
°m
WCL
?M

N
2 x
m
4m
cu
I
i
r /
r
y ?
AXXX
c
r ! o/
o
eU / 63
o c
Q (a
I
r
r /
I /
/
TCH\ TA
U- Q
? -C,-jti
f
Q
Z
'N V

M
w
I ~
? z

?

F- cu

W wo
I z
r?
?
Q
? y
! I

_ I
O

i
< 2
)I m

S I •
I *r N lp
`

i O
O
!N
N v'
IO W Q
I 3 > auu)

4

H
rm? /
l 1
Kl- 44,
d(Wd
? • ? .?slk3
J
a
F- LL
Li n
W m
> g
a
- w
j o° F-
t ?+U7
r
c
LL
w
LLJ
?H/?
V )
as tQ
i
r
o'-'
oM
U Y
zw
w
ALLI ar
`` U
z
LLI
LLI
cn
a
10.3 00
EOOS 130 TZ 31V0 101d
HORSEPEN
CREEK

WOODS
<?s N sE
5 ?X 1
G
COp?
?6 P
r29
SVEGETATED
w STREAM BUFFER
J
m
N"??
SITE N0. 11
COG STD #213. #214
SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
FOR CROSSING STREAMS
NCOOT - HORSEPEN CREEK
MITIGATION S TE
?Q)
ti
Cr
u
tt
100' VEGETATED
STREAM BUFFER co
0. Site No. 11
u- C / r y OF G R E EN S B O R O
a
W DATE REV.
Site No. 11- Bledsoe Lift Station Force Main
11/05/03
N
NCOOT
HORSEPEN CREEK MITIGATION SITE
COG STD. NO. EARTH 218. TYPICAL
/ D BSS R
5 p . 4"0. I . RCE MAIN
9?
/ nnnnnnnAA.

8UF
PROP 22.50 BEND
? STA 96+77
m

?O
O \
-O
Na N?
ft.
O Q <
v?s?Z?y

? Z
Z
PROP. SEDIMENTATION CONTRO
FOR CROSSING STREAMS
COG STD. NO.'S 213 & 214
PROP. TEMP. EARTH BERM
COG STD. NO. 218. TYPICAL
O
N ?
_n

?z
R
RM
i
I
?OQ?v
i
?g?r
Aft
lk*
PROP. SILT FENCE. COGI
STD. NO. 216. TYPICAL
EXISTING 25'
SEWER EASEMENT
PROP. 17.5'
TEMP. CONST.
EASEMENT
0. Site No. 12
N C ! T Y O F G R E E N S B O R O
a
w
Site No. 12 - Bedsoe Pum Station DATE REV .
p 11/06/03
x
TEMP. DIVER:
DITCH TYP.)
f
?b
-TEMP. SEDIMENT TRAP #3
12'Lx24'Wx 'DEEP. AREA 864 SF

PROP. TEMP. EARTH BERM
COG STD. NO. 218. TYPICAL
?o
CD
N ?
_u
00 7 r%r%r%'9A[1rf'1 A • 11 r% T r% ?wwww

S
ss
o
o
DELINEATED WETLANDS
PROP.TEMP.STONE DITCH CHECK
COG STD.NO.215.TYPICAL
DELINEATED WETLANDS
PROP. SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
FOR CROSSING STREAMS ----
COG STD. NO.'S 213 G 214
Site N13
PROPOSED 24" D.I.P. SANITARY SEWER-

DELINEATED
WETLANDS
N / Ir ---- -pp

s
MAIN
5
AREA 1763 SF

(IST. 20' UTILITY
1SEMENT

114 '1--
PROP. SILT FENCE. COG
STD. NO. 216. TYPICAL
?o
9po 9 ,
. -o
N Na
a ,
p O
7 .A !V

cQ? i
-o ?
Z s?'
c?
Z
C/ T Y O F G R E E N S B O R d
DATE REV.
Site No. 13 &14 - Bledsoe Pump Station , 10/28/03
A,M
£006 AON L 31VO 101d 9NI11IW83d Hod SV38V 1OVdWI
I' o w H
I Cam
- A\

I

?a cu

?? O
III' q
T-
> C.
0
0! ' d
0

t
CL X
LLL
LL7 m
N O ii!
°' ? 11 E
W ?
i
a? I m
I ?

_ e

------------

1

s
cr
`S
x
X
?x
v,t
Zr-...
- =Wcn
m 3 z0 x
?JW
O _11
IL LL
O Q
a
w
H
®y
k x
O x
X
k
k
X - x
x _J
v
£OOZ 3o0 Tz :31VO 101d
----
m , I
o
0
,
Cu
n ` 59SW I
0 1
HELEN S CHANCE
w C/0 ? E CHANCE
o TMN 11-694-899-3
Q_
0
a 'Ji
•o I
016 En uj
Z _j
• I LL ° Q
END CLEAR & GRUB
/ I z?
STA. 55+99.27 I =:I CL
TEMP. SEDIMENT PIT #6 I o
30'x7.5'x1.5' I " m
115 6`q
PROVIDE TREE PROTECTIONS w/
WITHIN CONSTRUCTION ESM'T. '103 e? J
TO PRESERVE TREE auFFefl I
?0pS
PROP. COG STD. #200 MH C.0
STA. 55+0?,Sli Q
S` Q ?!a I
CREEK CROSSING # mr S E i?
COG STD. #213 & #214 c4?Q? B
STA. 54+75.34 'oA 80"+
<:; E
4NSTALLE CMP' S s< _ De
B
31 SY CLASS I R AP ' - • ? (" 0~ I U.
-
010430 ?S WOODS
CHECK DAM (TYP.)
T?Fg L C !-
FBEGIN CLEAR & GRUB ROM? _ I
54+75.95 j o -Toe
FLOW- - _ CgFEk??_ --
U
T05
0" S.S. DIO T LU
E E EMAIN IN SERV Z w -
_ H
H
--- - a I a w
s s N s s I ?1 -r --
a
,101 54 -- w
I o w
J
D B 013 18 R MOV 13E &x PLACE-AC : MH )4 a
I '-
E
`? / . W/ COG STD. #201 I o aw
TEMPO & COG STD. #212 o
I o
~o ION BE STA. 54+31.96 >q
~ 1 RETENTION POND 00
III, w
3307 1 BUFFER BU F R ---"-
BUFFEq EXISTING MH i II
z BU FER
N 1 EX. STA. 55+53.67 1 ? ? v
0. Site No. 16 SCALE: 1 40'
U- C/ T Y O F G R E E N S B O R O
u DATE REV.
Site No. 16 - Cardinal Force Main & Outfall
` 10/28/03
E
N
IMPACT AREAS FOR PERMITTING
PLOT DATE: 7 Nov 2003
11`1 m n
1 m 'a o
03 11 11 1 LOVE OFFSET P AANK 10? TOFF AW co
6F?'? G
1 RRENFIbA11 ST T IBU ARY PE L S TR TARY
\ TO-FfORSE K \p RE o? sn
\\ m y
Xu X r
\ \\ W X H m
X
1 \ \ U) ?c W
\? \ ca Z (n Iao fn
i
\\ \ c) l co
Ul :K -34
001
CD
0
1??
O
J
l 1
O
n
CD

En
n
a
m
s
11
.1a
O
\ \ ? LD : En m ro m = CJ ---I
Gl) 3r.
v
my ??I y
cr v C7
M 0l X? ?m o_ , u, ^f ao? N U)
I ni ?• >D
U) En C13 c')
I Z q
v
C31 --4 -4
?v?
a: -bb m
y W 4k v Y ?n m
EA) x
o o+ cua • 9o T
24" C MP'
301/ cn ?a
=par-n
yaZo I cn ~DO
m En
CIO m
Qi U) X3030 X X I' '.ka . a ?y a vr'mm
Zz U) Q. z o $ vm -Nirniro?
\ m ?ti oo -mot ~ I y / ° o a aHAHc?
0 0 z ' a ?. a
\ ?Oao= Z ?? G I 5 oy Encn / 01r Z-<
e
mm ' Lo r( / Xk-n
?'Cr o o U' Cz
?i ?z
rno< \ °-° X? I1 0 Qt oo?f °)m
3c e3
I ,? ??
CD m
c:) m
m'V
zr ,qi3
mm \ 6 ®?
C W I Lo o
m
U) 1-4 N I
w-° my
I 1 --I C7 C-)
r- c)
3?w a)
I u) cn
Mo ?' A / xm aov
to v n
-.4 rn CD nk
9 ?k I lo>cm/'. ?m Xft)
x Irn aoc ? m to 30.
I W C3 ? -zi
oan~ x \ I Io-v to im,
Z
0
?c
F?
9
IV-GH(nc"?c? cna?rn
aaHZ?o? -I z am
-nu?ac?m acv
<cmna? v? C= C13 v
rrn? rnnor
rF.-dn i.-wm -v
P"O 4. - m ?Ha
a IU ao o ch z >D ? ,
WC7 I O?OeN WG-)
cnaW• WU) Z
>DcnV1•+H b D G7 ?C
Hm ¦C71WZ CO
?
m C) eo
"a
,a 4k Pi
a3M A
-v 3w
? H
Or+pm
0
m
n,
6. x
OZ

IU -0
6
N

xv

rnx
-0 m
m
X --I

v --4
-

2 m

roe I
k P-4 ss ,a /
/ ye,(
?? • / / do ,???oa Y? o ,??,
na
?G
? ?9
P /
0J ? /
t
CEP
J?
R`
app ,
F F??
/
00
00 /
/ tpo.

DITCH CHECK
COG STD #215 0 ??,??
oOS'? s CREEK
& GRUBBININ
/- STA.162+96.
/ F M?
t2lB
°
BEND
STA. 163+05.76
RB = 22 SF
N
H
H
@Q
0J
BEND
STA 164+01.52
RB = 22 SF
A5 - zI Site No. 18
BEGIN CLEARING
Q6 GRUBBING
STA. 163+74.08
m
al SCALE: I" = 40'
C / T Y OF G R E E N S B O R O
a
w
DATE REV.
0 Site No. 18 - Cardinal Force Main & Outfall 10/28/03
0'
-1MIN.
10 ' X 10 ' DEWA TERING
p / BASIN P 2.' 1 SIDE SLOPE
- TOP OF BANK
MIN.
F-10 ?I ??-J\?
:?ffTEMP. CMP
STREAM
FL OW -3N-
TOB
CROSSING I ",-t 1' THICK #4
SANDBAGS PIPE WASHED STONE
I
25' --{--15 '
40 ' CONSTRUCTION (EASEMENT
PLAN
TOP OF BANK
POL METHYLENE FABRIC
ON FACE (B ML. THICK)
12
OVER
PIPE
STREAM
FL OW -? TEMP. 24 " TO 42 " CMP )
MIN.
EX. IN V.
CREEK I 0- CROSSING
10 ' PIPE
SANDBAGS MIN.
SYNTHETIC FIL TER SECTION A -A
FABRIC

TEMPORARY
STONE DAM
NOTES.'
1) EROSION STONE TO BE "CLASS I " RIP-RAP UNLESS DESIGNA TED DIFFERENTL Y ON PLAN.
2) KEY SANDBAGS (9 FIL TER FABRIC INTO CREEKSANKS AND INVERTS WHEN POSSIBLE.
3) PIPE SIZE AND NUMBER TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER ON PLAN.
4) CONVERT TO COG STD. #214 AS PROJECT IS STASILIZED(SEE COG STD. #214)
5) SANDBAGS, POLYETHYLENE, 6 TEMPORARY CMP MAY BE DELETED ON DRAINAGE DITCHES,
WITHOUT ACTIVE FLOW, AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.
A Cl T Y OF G R E E N S B O R O
N
EV.
STANDARD SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FOR CROSSING
STD. NOt03437
01-91
W DRAINAGE DITCHES OR STREAMS DURING CONST. 213
20 ' PERM. R/W
?10
PROPOSED
EARTH BERM
(TYP.) --) / -- Q
-
i ?
STREAM=
FL ON
--
NA TURAL
GROUND Q
CROSSING
PIPE
PLAN
PROPOSED
EARTH BERM
(TYP.)
TOP OF BANK
T
S?
O,0
EX. IN V.
CREEK
SYNTHETIC FILTER
FABRIC
DRAINAGE DITCH OR SMALL STREAM
18" CLASS I
RIP-RAP
SYNTHETIC FIL TER
1 FABRIC (AS PER
3 NCDOT SPEC #1056,
TYPE-2)
CROSSING PIPE
SECTION A-A
NOTES'
1) PERMANENT CROSSING FOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EOUIPMENT.
2) CLASS I RIP-RAP TO BE LAID MIN. 18 INCHES THICK OVER ENTIRE AREA OF DISTURBANCE
(AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER).
3) CLASS II RIP-RAP, 24 INCHES THICK, USED IN LARGER STREAMS (AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER).
4) AS PROJECT IS STABILIZED PLACE SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC G SPREAD ALL EXISTING
EROSION STONE INTO PERMANENT LINER AS SHOWN. ADD STONE AS NEEDED.
q C / T Y OF G R E E N S B O R O
y
STD. NO. REV.
,Ora STANDARD SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FOR CROSSING
-91
W DRAINAGE DITCHES OR STREAMS AFTER CONST. 214 030-1 -
42-03

TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
RIP-RAP
TYPICAL
PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND
PIPE LINE
CLASS B STONE
6"
MIN.
1 '-0 " THICK -\
#57 STONE
FLOW
I I
I i
I I
I
L---- --I
OPTIONAL TYPE B
SILT BASIN (SEE
NCDOT DGN 1630 021
4' TO 6' f
NA TURAL GROUND
CLASS B STONE
DI TCH
1 r'1? INVERT
T YPICAL L ONGI TUDINAL SEC TION
NA TURAL GROUND
9 ..
Q Q MIN.
Zo
ov 2:4OQ. D
0O
;,, c4, n rY „ Qo
9 ..
MIN.
CLASS B STONE
DITCH
T YPICAL CROSS SECTION
NOTES.'
PA VEMENT FOR THE DI TCH CHECK NILL BE A T THE CONTRACT UNI T PRICE PER TON FOR STONE
FOR EROSION CONTROL, CLASS B, AND #57 STONE.
ENSURE THAT THE DRAINAGE AREA ABOVE THE CHECK DAM DOES NOT EXCEED 2 ACRES.
STABILIZE OVER FLOW AREAS ALONG THE CHANNEL TO RESIST EROSION CAUSED BY CHECK DAMS.
q C / T Y OF G R E E N S B O R O
STD. NO. REV.
STANDARD TEMPORARY 03-88
W STONE DITCH CHECK 215 08-02
ISOMETRIC VIEW
N
O '
O
N
C
7
Q
N
METAL FENCE POST
U.
HOG WIRE (OPTIONAL)
EROSION CONTROL FABRIC
0
i
#4 WASHED STONE _' ' i=1 j
I?? S??PE 1=? ?(=1 ? I 1=i
F,-I i I-III-! I I-I i I-
_,-i ? 1=1 I I-III-III-i I I-I
EX. EARTH
o ? 6 „?
ti
NOTES.'
MAXIMUM PLACEMENT OF POST USING HOG WIRE WITH APPROVED EROSION
CONTROL FABRICS TO BE 10 ' -0 ".
MAXIMUM PLACEMENT OF POST WITHOUT HOG WIRE USING APPROVED EROSION
CONTROL FABRICS TO BE 5 ' -0 " TO 8 ' -0 " APART.
POST METAL T-POST 5 ' -0 " OR 6 ' -0 " IN HEIGHT DEPENDING ON FILL
SL OPE.
FABRIC 3 ' -0 " IN WIDTH (MUST MEET ENGINEERS SPECIFICA TIONS
FOR EROSION CONTROL) .
STONE #4 WASHED STONE TO BE PLACED 1 ' -0 " DEEP A T SIL T FENCE.
N
O
O
V
Y
Z
u
N
C/ T Y O F G R E E N S B O R O
STD. ND. REV.
x STANDARD SIL T FENCE DETAIL 216 03-97
w
COMPACTED
SOIL
2'-0 '
MIN.
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICA TIONS
1. REMOVE AND PROPERL Y DISPOSE OF ALL TREES, BRUSH, STUMPS,
AND OTHER OB?ECTIONAL MA TERIAL .
2. ENSURE THAT THE MINIMUM CONSTRUCTED CROSS SECTION
MEETS ALL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
3. ENSURE THA T THE TOP OF THE BERM IS NOT L OWER A T ANY POINT
THAN THE DESIGN ELEVATION PLUS THE SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT.
4. PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ROOM AROUND DIVERSIONS TO PERMIT
MACHINE REGRADING AND CLEANOUT.
5. VEGETA TE THE BERM IMMEDIA TEL Y AFTER CONSTRUCTION,
UNLESS IT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE LESS THAN 30 WORKING DAYS.
MAINTENANCE
INSPECT TEMPORARY DIVERSIONS ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EVERY
RAINFALL. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM THE FLOW AREA
AND REPAIR THE DIVERSION BERM. CAREFULLY CHECK OUTLETS
AND MAKE TIMEL Y REPAIRS AS NEEDED. WHEN THE AREA PROTECT-
ED IS PERMANENTL Y STABIL IZED, REMOVE THE BERM AND THE
CHANNEL TO BLEND WITH THE NATURAL GROUND LEVEL AND APPRO-
PRIA TEL Y STABIL IZE I T.
Cl T Y OF G R E E N S B O R O
STD. NO. REV.
A
TEMPORARY EARTH BERM
W
218
(TYP.)
vy. ivo 177y Ut: Y,7 717arL?cav
,C
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
tioxewpen Creek to South Buffalo CreeX
8evrer1iAe and Pump Station
City of Greensboro, Guilford County
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared. pursuant
to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Pul ir-y Act,
for the proposed construction of an 12.7 mile sewerline ,jnd ] 3.3
million gallon per day (MGD) capacity pump station ri we:;tern
Guilford County. The proposed project would transport wast.ewacer
from the Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek basins co are existing
gravity interceptor along South Buffalo Creek. The wastewater would
be treated at the T.Z. Osborne wastewater Treatment Plant and
discharged to South Buffalo creek northeast of Greensboro. The
purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional wastewater
service for the projected urban growth northwest of the city of
Greensboro.
This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSti are
prerequisites for the issuance of a NPDES nondischarge permit by
the Division of Environmental Management tar a delegates prograir.)
for the construction of this project.
It is concluded that the proposed project will nar rest;lr. in
significant impacts to the environment provided tha: is is carried
out in accordance with the impact avoidanceimitigation mv.isures
contained in the EA. Pending approval by the State C?eatinghouse,
the environmental review for this project will be concluded. An
environmental impact statement will not be prepared for .his
project.
North Carolina
Division of Environmental Managemenr
November 29, 1995
?t =V
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Iaraa B. Huse Jr.. Gov crrw 1G?t:? <; t??rcrt. ti??reczrv
January 26, 1996
Ms. Monica Swihart
N.C. DepAirtrnertt of Enviroment, Health. and
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Managrnent
Archdale Building
Ralclgh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Ms. Swihart:
Re: SCH File 096-E-4300.0381; Envirorunental Assessment and Finding of No
Sigttificaat Impact for the City of Greensboro Horsepen Creek to South Buffalo
Creek Sewerline and Pump Station
The above refereneed environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. No
comments were made by any state/local agencies in the course of this review. Therefore. no
further environmental review action on your part is required for the compliance with the Act.
Best regat+da.
Sincerely.
aUW A ,
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
CB/jf
cc: Region G

116 Wev)orm Stroet • Raleigh, North Catalina 27683.8003 • Telephone [phone] FEZ,
Stare Courier 51.01-00 cc
An t!QwlCI;4MRwnirv / Afflrma..vs Aaron ErmOvitr
u• ?? URCC? ?>DU?U ? ?ni-r"""'- - raiVC f74
CJ l' LJ' GU?C.J
.. •.• •?• a??? va:vy 71ytl?ly'l14
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY PLANNING SRANCH
February 1, 1996
T0: Coleen Sullins, Permits and Engineering
FROM: Monica Swihartl?,AlWater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI- City of Greensboro Horsepen Creek to South
Buffalo Creek Sewerline and Pump Station
The subject document was circulated through the Stace
clearinghouse for review. eased on the results of this review,
chrys Baggett issued a January 26, 1996 letter (copy attached)
stating that the FA/F0KSY for the subject project has met the
requirements of the NC Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) and that no
further environmental review action under the NCEPA is required.
In light of the State Clearinghouse Directors letter, permit
processing and issuanCe, if appropriate, may proceed. The EA
includes a number of mitigation measures aimed at minimizing
adverse environmental impacts during construction of the proposed
project. Therefore, it is recommended that the permit incorporate
a condition that the work be done in accordance with the micigation
measures outlined in the EA/FoNsi.
Pleaee do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Attachment

cc : stave xauuey, WSW
John Aornev
melba McGee (reference #758)
ftrald pottern, Goldstein & Associate$
Ray E. Shaw, City of Greensboro
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........... 2
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................. 5
1.0. NEED FOR THE PROJECT ....................................... 6
2.0. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ....................................... 6
2.3. Recommended Route of Minimal Environmental Impact .............. 7
3.0. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...................................... 11
3.1. Project Location and Land Use ..................:........... 11
3.2. Geology and Soils ...................................... 11
3.3. Agricultural Resources ................................... 12
3.3.1. Prime Farmland .................................. 12
3.3.2. Timber Resources ................................ 12
3.4. Cultural Resources ...................................... 13
3.4.1. Archaeological and Historical Resources ................. 13
3.4.2. Public, Scenic, and Recreational Areas .................. 13
3.5. Air Quality ............................................. 14
3.6. Noise Levels ....................................... 14
3.7. Groundwater Resources .................................. 15
3.8. Surface Water Resources ................................. 15
3.8.1. Water Usage Classifications ......................... 16
3.8.2. Water Supply Watershed Regulations .................. 17
3.8.3. Existing Water Quality ............................. 18
3.9. Fish and Aquatic Habitats ................................. 19
3.10. Terrestrial Plant and Animal Habitats ........................ 20
3.10.1. Developed and Agricultural Land ..................... 20
3.10.2. Abandoned Fields ............................... 21
3.10.3. Mesic and Dry Forests ............................ 21
3.10.4. Alluvial Forests ................................. 22
3.11. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ......................... 23
3.11.1. Regulatory Framework ............................ 23
3.11.2. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands in the Project Area ..... 24
3.12. Protected Species and Natural Areas ........................ 24
3.12.1. Regulatory Framework- ............................ 24
3.12.2. Background Investigations ......................... 25
3.12.3. Species Descriptions and Survey Results ............... 25
3.12.4. Natural Areas .................................. 27
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 28
4.1. No-Action Alternative .................................... 28
4.2. Land Use ............................................. 28
4.3. Agricultural Resources ................................... 29
4.3.1. Prime and Unique Farmland ......................... 29
4.3.2. Timber Resources ................................ 29
4.4. Cultural Resources .... ................................. 29
4.4.1. Archaeological and Historical Resources ................. 29
4.4.2. Public, Scenic, and Recreational Areas .................. 30
4.5. Air Quality ............................................ 30
4.6. Noise Levels .......................................... 30
4.7. Groundwater Resources .................................. 31
4.8. Surface Water Resources ................................. 31
4.8.1. Construction and Operational impacts .................. 31
4.8.2. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters .................... 32
4.8.3. Introduction of Toxic Substances ..................... 32
4.9. Fish and Aquatic Habitats . , .............................. 33
4.10. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters ......................... 33
4.11. Terrestrial Habitats ..................................... 34
4.12. Protected Species and Natural Areas ........................ 34
5.0. MITIGATION AND PERMITTING .................................. 35
5.1. Legal and Regulatory Framework ............................ 35
5.2. Permitting Requirements .................................. 36
6.0. LITERATURE CITED ........................................... 37
7.0. QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARERS ................................ 39
APPENDIX A. SCOPING AND REVIEW COMMENTS ........................ 51
Table 1. Site indices for timber production on soils in the Horsepen to Buffalo
Creek sewerline project area, Guilford County, N.C ............... 41
Table 2. Air quality during 1993 in Guilford County, N.C . ................. 42
Table 3. Protected species known from Guilford County, North Carolina ...... 43
Figure 1. Project Location Map, Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek to South Buffalo
Creek Sewerline and Bledsoe Drive Pump Station, Guilford County,
N.C . ............................................... 44
Figure 2a. Land Use, Habitats, Waters, and Wetlands in the Project Area; Key to
Figures 2b-2f. ...........: ............................ 45
Figures 2b-f. Land Use, Habitats, Waters, and Wetlands in the Project Area ...... 46
c
R

i
s
ABBREVIATIONS
cfs cubic feet per second
dbh diameter at breast height (trees)
MGD million gallons per day 0.00 MGD = 1.55 cfs)
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum (= Mean sea level)
7010 7-day duration, 10-year frequency low stream flow
ROW right-of-way
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
WTP Water Treatment Plant
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (former Soil Conservation Service)
FmHA U.S. Farmers Home Administration
FHA U.S. Federal Highway Administration
DEHNR N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
DEM N.C. Division of Environmental Management
DWR N.C. Division of Water Resources
DEH N.C. Division of Environmental Health
DLR N.C. Division of Land Resources
DCM N.C. Division of Coastal Management
DMF N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
DPR N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
NHP N.C. Natural Heritage Program
WRC N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
MNS N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences
DOA N.C. Department of Agriculture
PCP N.C. Plant Conservation Program
DCR N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
DAH N.C. Division of Archives and History
SHPO N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
DOT N.C. Department of Transportation
1.0. NEED FOR THE PROJECT.
As part of the long-term plan for accommodating growth in the upper Reedy Fork Creek
basin in northwestern Guilford County, the City of Greensboro proposes to construct a
sewerline and transfer station (pump station) to convey raw wastewater from the upper
Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek basins to an existing gravity interceptor along South Buffalo
Creek (Figure 1). The project service area, comprising the Horsepen Creek basin upstream of
Horsepen Creek Road and the Brush Creek basin upstream of Lewiston Road, is within a
protected water supply watershed and is partially sewered.
Greensboro owns and operates two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) located
east of the City. The North Buffalo Creek WWTP discharges to the stream of the same name,
and the T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharges to South Buffalo Creek. North Buffalo and South
Buffalo Creeks join Reedy Fork Creek downstream of the protected water supply watershed.
The T.Z. Osborne WWTP, with a permitted capacity of 20 MGD and plans for a 10 MGD
expansion, is better suited for accepting additional flow. As of December 1994, the T.Z.
Osborne WWTP had 4.7 MGD of unused capacity. The proposed expansion and addition of
tertiary treatment facilities at the T.Z. Osborne WWTP is under environmental review, and the
construction contract is scheduled for bidding in October 1995, pending DEM approval.
The existing pump station and force main on Horsepen Creek (downstream of the
proposed pump station site) discharges to the North Buffalo Creek WWTP. This pump station
and WWTP have insufficient capacity to accommodate the wastewater flow anticipated as
development proceeds in the upper Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek basins, and would not
be cost effective to upgrade. The proposed Bledsoe Drive pump station will discharge to the
T.Z. Osborne WWTP, thereby reducing the wastewater load on the lower Horsepen Creek
pump station and North Buffalo Creek WWTP.
2.0. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.
Several route alternatives from the Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek basins to the
connection point on South Buffalo Creek near Holden Road were considered by City engineers.
The primary consideration was to minimize the amount of force main needed, and maximize
the area that could be served by the project. The preferred alternative consists of the
following facilities:
1) 5,000 feet of 16" ductile iron force main from the Cardinal pump station on Brush Creek
southeastward along Hackamore Road and Lewiston Road to the watershed divide 1,000 feet
southeast of the Lewiston Road/Jessup Grove Road intersection.
2) 7,500 feet of 18" gravity sewerline from the end of the previous segment southeastward
along an unnamed Horsepen Creek tributary to the proposed Bledsoe Drive pump station site
adjacent to Horsepen Creek.
3) A 3.3 MGD submersible pump station, with an above ground generator and control
building. The pump station will occupy a 3.7 acre site on the northwest bank of Horsepen
Creek, immediately beyond the eastern terminus of Bledsoe Drive.
6
4) 24,000 feet of 24" ductile iron force main from the Bledsoe Drive pump station
southwestward along Horsepen Creek and Stagecoach Trail to a point on the watershed divide
500 feet north of U.S. 421 (West Market Street).
5) 15,750 feet of 24" gravity sewerline from the end of the previous segment southeastward
along Swing Road and South Buffalo Creek to the existing South Buffalo outfall immediately
south of Boren Drive.
6) 9,750 feet of 36" gravity sewerline from the end of the previous segment southeastward
along South Buffalo Creek to the existing 42" portion of the South Buffalo outfall, immediately
east of Holden Road. This segment will replace an existing 24" gravity sewerline.
2.3. Recommended Route of Minimal Environmental Impact.
The City provided RJG&A with maps of a tentative project route. Ecologists surveyed
this corridor for jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland waters (ponds and stream channels),
forests, high quality natural habitats, and other environmentally sensitive areas, and developed
the following segment-specific construction recommendations for minimizing adverse impacts.
The remainder of this EA refers to this recommended route.
1. Cardinal Pump Station to west end of Hackamore Drive: Parallel the existing grassed
ROW, along northeast and east side. This segment crosses an 8-foot non-wetland stream
channel.
2. West end of Hackamore Drive to Lewiston Road: Use existing road ROW, either side. No
jurisdictional waters.
3. Hackamore/Lewiston Road to Upper Pond at head of Bledsoe Branch: [The stream that
begins southeast of the intersection of Jessup Grove Road and Lewiston Road, and flows
southward into Horsepen Creek immediately east of the proposed Bledsoe pump station, is
herein referred to as "Bledsoe Branch". It is an unnamed stream on the USGS Quadrangle and
the City maps examined].
Use either side of existing road ROW, south side of powerline ROW, and east side of pond.
No waters are affected if construction is above top of pond bank.
4. Bledsoe Branch below Upper Pond to Pasture North of Chance Road: The 2,500 foot
segment below the upper pond is the least disturbed portion of the project area and contains
high quality wildlife habitat. This segment includes a floodplain 50 to 100 feet wide with
numerous small wetlands extending 30 to 50 feet beyond the stream banks, an abandoned
pond, much of which has become marsh, and mature mesic hardwood slope forests. Keep
construction 100 feet or more east of Bledsoe Branch and the pond wherever possible to
minimize impacts. This route will avoid wetlands, but crosses a 15-foot non-wetland tributary
1,500 feet downstream of the lower pond (immediately north of the pasture).
5. Pasture North of Chance Road to Chance Road: A cattle pasture borders the east bank
of the Bledsoe Branch for 500 feet, and the bank is severely eroded. Nonetheless, a buffer
should be provided so that this bank may revegetate and stabilize if cattle grazing is
7
discontinued. The existing gravity sewer begins at the south end of this pasture, 1,100 feet
north of Chance Road. From this point southward, the project should parallel the existing
sewer on the uphill (east) side. No jurisdictional waters are traversed in this segment.
6. Chance Road to Bledsoe Pump Station: Parallel the existing sewerline on the uphill (east)
side. The existing mowed ROW is wide, and may accommodate new construction with little
or no additional forest clearing. Beginning 100 feet south of the last house on Bear Den Road,
the project traverses approximately 700 feet of wetlands, which occur in the mowed ROW
and in the adjacent forest. Keep disturbance within the existing ROW to minimize impacts on
the forested wetlands.
To minimize disturbance at stream crossings, the influent line to the Bledsoe Pump
Station should turn southwest where the existing mowed ROW crosses Bledsoe Branch,
approximately 100 feet northwest of Horsepen Creek. Bledsoe Branch is a 10-foot wide non-
wetland channel at this point. This alternative will reduce the number of new crossings on
Horsepen Creek from three to one.
7. Bledsoe Pump Station: The proposed pump station site is in the Horsepen Creek
floodplain, but does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. A 100 foot buffer of undisturbed
vegetation along Horsepen Creek should be preserved during site clearing. Only the effluent
line (force main) across Horsepen Creek should traverse this buffer.
8. Bledsoe Pump Station to Fleming Road: The project will cross Horsepen Creek, a 25-foot
wide non-wetland channel, immediately south of the pump station site. South of Horsepen
Creek, parallel the existing sewerline on the uphill (south) side from the pump station to
Fleming Road. Two 5- to 10-foot wide intermittent non-wetland channels are crossed.
9. Fleming Road to Bryan Boulevard: Parallel existing ROW on the uphill (south) side, or
parallel the toe of the new highway embankment. No jurisdictional waters affected.
10. Bryan Boulevard to Old Oak Ridge Road: Parallel existing ROW on the uphill (east) side.
One 5-foot wide non-wetland channel is crossed, 11350 feet north of Old Oak Ridge Road.
11. Old Oak Ridge Road to Ballinger Road: Parallel existing ROW on the uphill (east) side for
approximately 2,500 feet, to a point 250 feet north of Ballinger Road. Two marsh wetlands
are crossed in this segment: the first begins 100 feet south of Old Oak Ridge Road and is 180
feet long; the second begins 850 feet south of Old Oak Ridge Road and is 150 feet long.
Horsepen Creek is joined on the southeast bank by a north-flowing tributary
approximately 250 feet north of Ballinger Road.. From this point, the environmentally preferred
alternative is to continue the sewerline southward, east of the tributary, and across Ballinger
Road. Then turn the line westward, crossing the tributary and paralleling the south edge of
Ballinger Road to the golf course entrance. This alternative crosses a 15-foot non-wetland
channel, but eliminates two crossings of Horsepen Creek, which is wider. It also avoids
disturbance of 600 feet of forest along Horsepen Creek north of Ballinger Road.
12. Ballinger Road to Stage Coach Trail: Parallel the south side of Horsepen Creek, uphill
(south) of the existing sewerline. This segment crosses one 5-foot non-wetland channel.
8
13. Stage Coach Trail from Horsepen Creek to West Market Street: This roadside segment
is heavily urbanized. Environmental impacts will be similar using either side of the road. No
jurisdictional waters are affected.
14. Swing Road from West Market Street to Head of South Buffalo Creek: The northern
2,000 foot segment is along.roadside, where environmental impacts will be similar using
either side of the road. The southern 1,350 feet traverses an industrially developed upland
area, enclosed by a fence along the rear (east) boundary. A block of upland forest separates
this industrial, area from residences 300 feet east of the fence. The sewer should be
constructed either inside the fence (west) or immediately outside (east) to minimize clearing
of the forest buffer. No jurisdictional waters are affected. The head of South Buffalo Creek
begins at a culvert at the southwest corner of this fence.
15. Head of South Buffalo Creek to Guilford College Road: The existing sewerline is south
of South Buffalo Creek, with a 10 to 20 foot forested buffer. Parallel the existing sewer on
the uphill (south) side to Guilford College Road, then cross to the north side of the stream
adjacent to the road. One 15 foot non-wetland channel will be crossed, but impacts will be
minimized by constructing the stream crossing within the road ROW.
16. Guilford College Road to Big Tree Way: The existing sewerline is north of South Buffalo
Creek, with a 10 to 30 foot buffer. The buffer is forested except for the westernmost 300
feet, which is cleared to the top of the stream bank. Parallel the existing sewer on the uphill
(north) side to Shelby Drive, then follow the road ROW eastward to Big Tree Way. One 10
foot non-wetland channel will be crossed 1,450 feet east of Guilford College Road, adjacent
to the existing sewer crossing, and two 5 foot non-wetland channels will be crossed alongside
Shelby Drive.
17. Big Tree Way to West Wendover Avenue: This 900 foot segment is in a narrow, rocky,
steep-sided valley, and is partially forested. The adjacent uplands contain dense commercial
development. Route the sewerline as far north of South Buffalo Creek as possible, preferably
in the previously cleared areas (i.e., edges of parking lots). The steepness and presence of
shallow bedrock limit the feasibility of a wide buffer along this segment.
18. West Wendover Avenue to Unnamed Tributary West of Boren Drive: Parallel existing
sewerline on uphill (north) side. The existing buffer is less than 15 feet wide along some
segments. Two wetlands, each less than 0.05 acre, occur 30 feet north of the edge of the
existing ROW, and can be avoided if the additional clearing needed is less than this distance.
The unnamed tributary crossed at the east end of this segment is a 15-foot wide non-wetland
channel.
19. Unnamed Tributary West of Boren Drive to Norwalk Street: This segment parallels the
north shore of an impoundment of South Buffalo Creek, with a wetland fringe along the upper
(western) half. The jurisdictional wetland edge is within a few feet downslope of the treeline
in this area. No wetland impacts will accrue if construction is limited to the grassed area
above the treeline. No wetlands occur along the eastern half of the north shore. The spillway
is immediately west of Norwalk Street. No jurisdictional waters are affected.
9
20. Norwalk Street to Boston Road: The existing sewer ROW parallels the south stream bank
for 400 feet east of Norwalk Street, where a steep slope precludes construction on the north
bank. The forested stream buffer is 10 feet or narrower in most places. Install the proposed
sewer south of the existing line. The existing grassed ROW is 50 feet or wider, and may
accommodate the new construction with little additional clearing. A jurisdictional wetland
100 feet long occurs in this segment. South Buffalo Creek, a 25 foot wide non-wetland
channel, is crossed twice.
East of the segment above, the existing sewer ROW (containing two lines) is north of
South Buffalo Creek for the remaining 1,400 feet to Boston Road. The new line should be
placed north of the existing lines. A 12 foot non-wetland channel is crossed, immediately
west of the railroad embankment.
21. Boston Road to Patterson Street: Parallel the existing ROW on the uphill (north) side.
The existing buffer varies from less than 10 feet to 20 feet wide. No jurisdictional waters are
affected.
22. Patterson Street to Merritt Drive: Parallel the existing ROW on the uphill (north) side.
The westernmost 600 feet has less than 10 feet of forested buffer, and the remaining 1,950
feet is completely cleared of woody vegetation. The latter segment flows through Hunter Hills
Community Park. One 10 foot non-wetland channel is crossed, 400 feet east of Patterson
Street.
23. Merritt Drive to End of Project: Parallel the existing ROW on the uphill (north) side. The
westernmost 1,250 feet has less than 10 feet of forested buffer, and the remainder includes
a forested buffer 20 to 80 feet wide. A 15 foot non-wetland channel is crossed 100 feet
west of the eastern end of the project, which is 200 feet northwest of South Holden Road.
10
3.0. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT.
3.1. Project Location and Land Use.
The project construction area is in the west-central portion of Guilford County (Figure
1). Topography of the project area is illustrated on the USGS topographic quadrangles of
Summerfield, Guilford, and Greensboro, North Carolina. Approximately 8.1 miles of sewerline
will be installed along streams, many of which already have parallel sewerlines. Wherever
possible, the new lines will be installed adjacent to the existing lines on the off-stream side
of the easement. Approximately 0.5 mile will traverse off-road upland areas containing
hardwood and mixed pine/hardwood forests. The remaining 3.1 miles of sewerline will be in
existing road rights-of-way, bordered by a mix of commercial, industrial, residential, and
agricultural lands. The Bledsoe Drive pump station site is an abandoned field containing
saplings and scrub vegetation.
The wastewater collection service area encompasses approximately 20 square miles,
including the Brush Creek basin upstream of Lewiston Road and the Horsepen Creek basin
upstream of Horsepen Creek Road. This area includes the Piedmont Triad International Airport
and a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, and forested land. The Horsepen
Creek basin is at present moderately to densely developed; the Brush Creek basin is sparsely
to moderately developed. Two major highway projects, Bryan Boulevard and Greensboro
Western Urban Loop, are proposed or under construction in this area.
3.2. Geology and Soils.
The project corridor traverses the northeastern portion of the Charlotte Belt and the
western portion of the Carolina Slate Belt (N.C. Division of Land Resources, 1985). The
northern section, in the Charlotte Belt, is underlain by megacrystic to equigranular granitic
rocks 265 to 325 million years old. The central section near Guilford College is in the Carolina
Slate Belt and underlain by metamorphosed gabbro and diorite. The southern portion, also in
the Carolina Slate Belt, is underlain by metamorphosed granitic rocks 520 to 650 million years
old.
Dominant soils on the floodplains of small streams in the project area are Chewacla
sandy loam and Wehadkee silt loam (Stephens, 1977). Congaree loam occurs on the
floodplains of the larger streams. Wehadkee is a hydric soil, and Chewacla and Congaree are
likely to have hydric inclusions.
Slopes.adjacent to streams or their floodplains are dominated by Madison clay loam,
Madison sandy loam, Cecil sandy clay loam, Cecil sandy loam, Enon fine sandy loam, and
Mecklenburg sandy clay loam. Dominant upland soils include those found on slopes, Appling
sandy loam, and Coronaca clay loam (Stephens, 1977). The Coronaca, Enon, and
Mecklenburg series are basic (high pH) soils.
11
3.3. Agricultural Resources.
3.3.1. Prime Farmland.
The Appling, Cecil, Coronaca, Enon, Madison, and. Mecklenburg soil series are
designated prime farmland soils by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
where they occur on slopes less than 6 percent. The Chewacla and Congaree series are
considered prime farmland soils only where they are protected from flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing season (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1992).
Upland prime farmland soils in or adjacent to the project construction corridor include
5,000 feet along Hackamore Road and Lewiston Road, 6,100 feet along Stagecoach Trail, and
the southwestern 1.5 acres of the Bledsoe Drive pump station site. None of these areas is
currently in cultivation.
Congaree and Chewacla deposits wide enough to be useful as farmland occur along
much of Horsepen Creek. No flood control reservoirs are located on Horsepen Creek, but
severe flooding is sufficiently infrequent that some of these areas were previously cultivated
or used as pasture. None was in cultivation or pasture during the field reconnaissance.
The floodplain of South Buffalo Creek is generally too narrow to provide much usable
farmland. The only land presently in agricultural use in this portion of the project corridor is
a 600 foot segment of corn field west of Boston Road.
The wastewater service area contains large areas of prime farmland soils,
predominantly those of the Cecil and Madison series. Agricultural land use in this area has
declined over the past two decades. Increased land values make it likely that this trend will
continue, as higher investment returns can be achieved through development.
3.3.2. Timber Resources.
Forests in the proposed construction areas are mapped in Figures 2a-f. Approximately
19,300 linear feet (31 percent) of the project corridor is forested, including 14,000 feet of
alluvial hardwood forest (ALF) and 5,300 feet of upland (mesic and dry) forests (MDF). The
alluvial forests are dominated by green ash, red maple, river birch, willow oak, chestnut oak,
sycamore, sweetgum, tulip poplar, and shagbark hickory. The upland forests contain
predominantly hardwoods, including white oak, red oak, tulip poplar, pignut hickory,
sweetgum, and red_ maple, with varying amounts of pines including loblolly, shortleaf, and
Virginia pines. '
Most of these forests are young, with canopy trees 6 to 12 inches diameter at breast
height (dbh). Mature stands with canopy trees 12 to 18 inches or larger occur 1) between
the Cardinal pump station and Hackamore Drive, 2) east of Lewiston Road, 3) between
Chance Road and the proposed pump station, 4) along Shelby Drive, 5) between Norwalk
Street and Southern Railroad, and 6) the final 600 feet of the project west of Holden Road.
Along segments where forest impacts are unavoidable, the project corridor
recommended by RJG&A is routed close to the forest edge, and as far as possible from
stream banks. Most of the forests disturbed are adjacent to an existing mowed utility ROW.
12
The 2,400 foot segment of mature alluvial and mesic forest east of Lewiston Road is the only
portion of the project that will bisect previously undisturbed forest.
Forests in the project area provide aesthetic value, visual buffering, and noise and wind
buffering of residential areas from adjacent highways and commercial and industrial land.
Some forests are within public road rights-of-way, and are unlikely to be cut other than for
road improvements. The remaining forests on private land in the project area are more likely
to be cleared for urban development than for timber value, due to increasing land values in the
region.
The site index for timber production is defined as the average height of dominant and
co-dominant canopy trees at age 50 years. Site indices for soils in the project area are
presented in Table 1. Portions of the project area with steep slopes have moderate to severe
limitations for movement of planting and harvesting equipment, erosion, and seedling
mortality. Such areas are better suited for periodic harvesting of natural regeneration than for
timber plantations.
3.4. Cultural Resources.
3.4.1. Archaeological and Historical Resources.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that four archaeological sites
have been recorded along the Horsepen Creek portion of the project (David Brook, 10 April
1995 scoping letter). Two have been determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, and two will require further testing.
The South Buffalo Creek portion of the project area has been less intensively surveyed,
and the SHPO recommended that an archaeological survey be performed between Swing Road
and Holden Road. The survey is in progress, and will be reported in a separate document.
The SHPO indicated that no structures of historical or architectural importance are
known in the project area, and did not request further evaluation of historical structures.
3.4.2. Public, Scenic, and Recreational Areas.
The project traverses 1,800 feet of Hunter Hills Community Park between Patterson
Avenue and Merritt Drive. No other public [4(f)] lands or greenway trails are in or adjacent
to the proposed construction area.
Streams in the project area are too small and affected by urban impacts to be of
recreational boating and fishing significance. Lake Higgins and Lake Brandt, downstream of
the project area, are important recreational resources.
13
3.5. Air Quality.
Air quality is subject to compliance with the Clean Air of Act of 1963 and amendments
(42 U.S.C. 1857 et. seq.), which require states to recommend to EPA areas of non-attainment
for air quality standards, and plans to bring those areas into compliance.
The principal air quality pollutants emitted are particulates (TSP and PM-10), sulfur
oxides (SO.), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide
(CO), and lead (Pb). The major sources of these emissions are transportation, fuel
consumption, industrial processes, solid waste disposal, forest fires, trash burning, and non-
industrial solvent use (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). Ozone (03), a reactive
and toxic gas that has been linked to health problems in humans, animals, trees, and crops,
is created by the photochemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds
with ultraviolet sunlight. The lower atmosphere ozone concentration in the southeastern U.S.
today is approximately three times that which was present prior to industrialization (Ellis
Cowling, N.C. State University).
The DEM Air Quality Section has adopted ambient air quality standards for several
pollutants, in accordance with EPA requirements. Allowable ambient concentrations may be
defined by hourly, daily, quarterly, or annual averages, depending on the physical properties,
chemical dynamics, human physiological responses, and monitoring technology for each
pollutant. The allowable ambient concentration of some pollutants varies inversely with the
duration of exposure (e.g., the allowable 1-hour mean concentration is greater than the
allowable'24-hour mean concentration).
DEM air pollutant monitoring data for Guilford County are presented in Table 2, along
with corresponding air quality standards. The data are compiled from four monitoring stations
in Greensboro and High Point, as each station measures different air quality parameters. Of
those regulated air pollutants for which DEM provided data (TSP, PM-10, CO, and 03), only
ozone exceeded the N.C. air quality standard, on one occasion during 1993.
Guilford County has required emissions testing of gasoline-powered vehicles since
1985 due to elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide and ozone. Emissions testing and
remediation of non-complying vehicles, combined with improvements in engine and fuel
technology, have reduced the frequency of air quality violations in Guilford County during the
past decade, despite a steady increase in vehicle miles traveled.
3.6. Noise Levels.
Noise is subject to the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL-92-574) and Quiet
Communities Act of 1978 (PL-95-6009) which require standards of compliance and
recommend approaches to abatement for stationary sources such as airports, highways, and
industrial facilities. The Greensboro and Guilford County noise ordinances regulate nuisance
noise levels, including vehicles, music, animals, signalling devices, advertising, commercial and
industrial activities, and construction, particularly in areas adjacent to schools, churches,
courthouses, and hospitals, and during nighttime hours in residential areas.
14
Noise generated by the existing wastewater facilities is well below threshold levels that
are subject to federal regulation, and is not considered nuisance noise with respect to local
noise ordinances.
3.7. Groundwater Resources.
Groundwater protection in North Carolina is mandated by several federal and state
laws, and administered by three divisions of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (DEHNR): the Division of Environmental Management-Groundwater Section
(DEM-GWS), the Division of Environmental Health-Public Water Supply Section (DEH-PWS),
and the Division of Solid Waste Management (DSWM). The N.C. Water and Air Resources
Act (NCGS 143-211 to 215) establishes a state groundwater protection program, including
authority to establish standards and classifications for groundwaters and issue permits
regulating activities that may affect groundwaters. Construction of wells and septic systems
is regulated under NCGS 87-87 and NCGS 130A-11, and enforced by local health
departments. The N.C. Department of Agriculture also plays a role in groundwater protection
by its regulation of pesticide use and disposal.
The project area comprises four hydrogeologic mapping units, which correspond to the
three underlying geologic zones discussed in section 3.2 (Daniel and Payne, 1990). The
northern portion, in the Charlotte Belt, is in the Igneous Felsic Intrusive unit, with an average
well yield of 17.5 gallons per minute (gpm). The central portion, at the western edge of the
Carolina Slate Belt, includes the Metaigneous Intermediate unit, with an average well yield of
18.3 gpm, and a small inclusion of the Gneiss Felsic Unit along Horsepen Creek, with an
average well yield of 20.1 gpm. The southeastern portion is in the Metaigneous Felsic unit,
which has an average well yield of 18.9 gpm.
Residences in unsewered portions of the project service area are currently served by
wells and septic systems, which are generally adequate for residential use. No well
contamination incidents have been reported in the project service area.
3.8. Surface Water Resources.
The project area is in the upper basins of Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and South
Buffalo Creek; all are tributaries of Reedy Fork Creek and the Haw River in the Cape Fear River
basin (Figure 1). The proposed wastewater service area is entirely in the Brush Creek and
Horsepen Creek basins. Brush Creek flows into Lake Higgins 0.3 mile downstream of the
Cardinal pump station at the northern project terminus. Horsepen Creek flows into Lake
Brandt 2.7 miles downstream of the proposed Bledsoe Drive pump station. Together with
Lake Richland (= Lake Jeanette) and Lake Townsend, these four reservoirs provide municipal
raw water supply for Greensboro and those portions of Guilford County on the public water
system. The municipal raw water intakes are located on Lake Brandt and Lake Townsend.
The two upstream reservoirs provide sediment retention and additional water storage for
protection against drought. To date, Greensboro has not had problems meeting required
instream flows in Reedy Fork Creek below the reservoirs.
15
3.8.1. Water Usage Classifications.
The N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) classifies all surface waters
of the state based on "existing or contemplated best usage" 0 5A NCAC 2B .0100 to .0300,
amended effective February 1, 1993). The primary freshwater classification system
distinguishes three basic usage categories: waters used for municipal water supply and food
processing (Class WS), waters used for frequent, organized swimming (Class B), and waters
used for neither of these purposes (Class Q. Class C uses are defined as propagation and
maintenance of aquatic life, fishing, wildlife habitat, secondary recreation (limited body
contact), and agriculture. These Class C uses carry minimum standards that apply to all
surface waters including Class WS and Class B waters. Some waters are designated both
Class B and WS.
Municipal water supplies are further classified WS-I, WS-II, WS-III, WS-lV, or WS-V,
depending on the amount of urban development in the basin and proximity to existing or
proposed raw water intakes. The class WS-1 designation applies to waters in essentially
natural and undeveloped watersheds, and extends upstream to the watershed divide. Classes
WS-11 and WS-III are in sparsely to moderately developed watersheds, and also extend to the
watershed divide. Class WS-IV waters are in moderately to densely developed watersheds,
and extend five miles upstream from the normal pool elevation of a reservoir, or ten miles
upstream from a run-of-river intake. The class WS-V designation applies to waters upstream
of the WS-IV boundary. Watershed Critical Areas (CA) are areas adjacent to a water supply
intake or reservoir where risks associated with pollution are greatest, and are defined as those
portions of a WS-watershed within one-half mile upstream of a raw water intake (if run-of-
river) or within one-half mile upstream of the normal reservoir pool elevation (if impounded).
Municipal and county governments with jurisdiction over any part of a WS watershed
are required 'by DEM to adopt and enforce watershed protection ordinances to control non-
point source and stormwater pollution. These ordinances include restrictions on the density
of new development and other measures to preserve soil infiltration of stormwater, and are
discussed in the following section.
Supplemental DEM water quality classifications include NSW for nutrient-sensitive ;
waters where excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs are likely to create water quality j
problems, Tr for trout waters which require low temperatures and high dissolved oxygen, Sw
for swamp waters which have naturally low pH and low dissolved oxygen, ORW for
outstanding resource waters with special recreational or ecological significance, and HQW for
high quality waters which have excellent water quality based on physical, chemical, and
biological measurements. Any of these supplemental classifications may be applicable to
waters of any primary classification, and multiple supplementary classifications are often
applied. All WS-1 and WS-II waters automatically receive the HOW designation. Waters
designated by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) as critical habitat for protected
species may also be designated HQW.
Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek, and their tributaries are designated Class WS-III-NSW
waters by DEM. Any new development in the proposed service area is therefore subject to
DEM water supply watershed regulations. The water supply critical area (WS-III-CA-NSW)
begins on Brush Creek 0.5 mile downstream of SR 2190, and on Horsepen Creek at U.S. 220.
16
South Buffalo Creek and its tributaries are designated Class C-NSW, and are not
subject to any special watershed regulations.
3.8.2. Water Supply Watershed Regulations.
The allowable density of new residential and non-residential development in protected
water supply watersheds depends on the method of stormwater management employed.
Curb and gutter construction with storm sewers discharging directly to streams severely limits
soil infiltration of road runoff, and has high potential for causing degradation of water quality
and stream habitat. Vegetated roadside ditches provide some filtering of road runoff, and
lessens the risk of stream degradation. Stormwater catchment basins that collect and
infiltrate the first inch of each rainfall event provide additional protection, particularly in
densely developed areas with large amounts of impervious surface.
In WS-111 watersheds outside the critical area, new development without stormwater
catchment basins is allowed at a density of two dwelling units per acre or 24 percent
impervious surface area. If stormwater catchment basins that detain the first inch of runoff
are included in the design, then 50 percent impervious surface area is allowable. Higher
density (up to 70 percent impervious surface) for non-residential development with
stormwater controls is allowed in 5 percent of the watershed, or 10 percent with EMC
approval.
Within the CA of WS-III watersheds, new development without stormwater catchment
basins is limited to one dwelling unit per acre or 12 percent impervious surface area. With
stormwater catchment basins, up to 30 percent impervious surface is allowed.
Clustered development is allowed on a case-by-case basis provided that the overall
density of the project meets the criteria above, surface drainage is designed to disperse rather
than concentrate stormwater, and the remainder of the tract is maintained in a vegetated or
natural state.
Local governments assume ultimate responsibility for the maintenance of any required
stormwater catchment basins where high density development is allowed.
Existing development is not subject to these restrictions, and deeded undeveloped
single-family residential lots owned by an individual are not subject to these restrictions
provided they are not sold or subdivided after the effective date of the ordinance. Existing
development includes proposed residential and non-residential projects that have been issued
building permits, received valid local government approval to proceed, or have local
government-approved site-specific development plans in compliance with NCGS 153A-344.1
or NCGS 160A-385.1 as of the effective date of the local water supply watershed protection
ordinance.
A 30-foot vegetated buffer along perennial waters is required for new development that
does not exceed 12 percent impervious surface area in the CA or 24 percent in the remainder
of the protected watershed. A 100-foot vegetated buffer along perennial waters is required
for new development that exceeds these low-density options. New development is not
allowed in the buffer, except for water-dependent structures, road crossings, greenway trails,
and other public facilities for which there is no practicable alternative.
17
Each local government is required to maintain an inventory of hazardous materials
handled by facilities in their jurisdictional portions of any WS watershed. Hazardous materials
are defined in 15A NCAC 2B.0202(28). A spill/failure containment plan to safeguard against
contamination is also required in the protected watershed. Within the CA, new industrial
development must construct and maintain spill containment structures around any portion of
the facility where hazardous materials are used, stored, or produced.
New wastewater discharges allowed in WS-III watersheds include those which qualify
for a General Permit pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0 127, trout farm discharges, closed-loop
treatment systems that discharge only during heavy rainfall events, stormwater discharges,
and treated domestic and industrial non-process wastewater, provided that the effluent does
not cause a violation of water quality standards. New industrial process wastewater
discharges are not allowed.
Existing permitted discharges may remain, but NPDES effluent limits may become more
stringent when the permit is renewed. Discharge permit holders may be required, at the
request of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC), to disclose all chemical
constituents potentially present in wastewater or stormwater runoff from the facility. They
may also be required by EMC to have spill or treatment failure control plans, and perform
additional monitoring for toxic substances.
No new landfills or sites for land application of sludge or petroleum-contaminated soils
are allowed in the CA. In the remainder of the protected watershed, no new discharging
landfills are allowed.
Agricultural activities within the CA are required to maintain a 10-foot vegetated buffer
along all perennial waters (15A NCAC 2B .0104(q). All animal operations within the CA
greater than 100 animal units must employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) as specified
by the Agricultural Cost Share Program and the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Agricultural BMPs are encouraged but not required in the remainder of the WS-111 watershed.
Forestry BMPs (15A NCAC 11.0101-.0209) and Transportation BMPs (DOT Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, June, 1991) are required in the entire
WS-III watershed.
3.8.3. Existing Water Quality.
DEM monitors chemical and biological water quality parameters at several sites in the
Reedy Fork/Buffalo Creek basin (N.C. Division of Environmental Management, 1994; 1995).
The upper end of Reedy Fork Creek, near Oak Ridge, was rated "good" based on samples
collected in 1986 and 1988, and "good-fair" based on a 1993 sample. With respect to its
designated Class WS-III uses, it was classified "support threatened" due to sedimentation and
point source pollution.
Horsepen Creek was rated "good" in 1986 and "fair" in 1993. It was classified
"partially supporting" primarily due to non-point source pollution. One of its upper tributaries
was rated "poor" in 1992, and "non-supporting" of its designated best uses.
18
Reedy Fork Creek below Lake Townsend, but upstream of the confluence with Buffalo
Creek, was rated "good-fair" in 1993, and "supporting" of its designated Class-C uses, but
with degradation from non-point sources.
South Buffalo Creek above the T.Z. Osborne WWTP received ratings of "poor" and
"fair" in 1988 and 1993, respectively, and was classified "partially supporting" of its Class
C uses. South Buffalo Creek below the T.Z. Osborne WWTP received ratings of "poor" on
all samples collected from 1985 to 1993. Low dissolved oxygen, excess nutrients, and
toxicity gave this segment a "non-supporting" assignment.
Lakes Higgins, Brandt, and Richland were classified as mesotrophic and fully supporting
of their designated Class WS-III uses in 1993. Lake Townsend, downstream of the other
three lakes, was eutrophic and supporting of its designated best uses.
The T.Z. Osborne WWTP exceeded NPDES-permit limits for SOD and ammonia during
January through April, 1994. No permit limits have been exceeded since that time. No
instream violations of N.C. water quality standards below the discharge have been detected
during routine monitoring by City WWTP staff.
3.9. Fish and Aquatic Habitats.
Aquatic habitats in the project area include perennial streams, intermittent streams, and
impoundments. Perennial streams include Horsepen Creek and South Buffalo Creek, both of
which have well defined, steep banks along most of the project corridor, with little or no
wetland along the margins. These streams have moderate gradients of 15 to 23 feet per mile,
substrata dominated by sand and gravel with small areas of cobble and bedrock riffle, and lack
submersed aquatic plant beds. Agriculture, golf courses, urban development, and utility lines
have eliminated much of the natural woody vegetation along these streams. Where the
canopy is open, emergent herbaceous plants including lizard tail (Saururus cernuus), water
primrose (Ludwigia palustris), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.), grasses
(Poaceae) and arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), occur on sandbars and shallow portions of the
stream less subject to heavy scouring during storms.
The dominant fishes in these streams include bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white shiner (Luxilus albeolus), satinfin shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), highfin shiner (Notropis altipinis), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and tesselated, darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi) (Carnes et al., 1964; Menhinick, 1991; and field observations). -
Intermittent streams support few fish species, but are important to downstream
aquatic communities for their contribution to flow stabilization, thermal regulation, water
quality protection, nutrient processing, and benthic macroinvertebrate production. Intermittent
streams serve as spawning habitat for certain fish species, and are important habitat for many
amphibians that successfully reproduce only in streams with little or no competition and
predation from fishes, such as the two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) and dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus).
19
Intermittent streams in the Horsepen Creek basin include the unnamed tributary that
parallels the project between Lewiston Road and the Bledsoe pump station site, and five
tributaries that will be crossed at their mouths. In the South Buffalo Creek basin, six unnamed
tributaries will be crossed at their mouths. Many intermittent streams in the project area have
been impounded, channelized, or otherwise altered to accommodate development. A few
segments still have natural riparian vegetation and relatively intact habitat structure.
Impoundments in the project vicinity include Lake Higgins downstream (north) of the
Cardinal Pump Station and a small pond on South Buffalo Creek just west of Norwalk Street.
Lake Higgins supports recreational fishing for bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and catfish Uctalurus
species). The pond on South Buffalo Creek is heavily polluted and is not used for fishing.
3.10. Terrestrial Plant and Animal Habitats.
Five types of terrestrial habitats occur in the proposed construction areas, and are
mapped in Figures 2a-f: 1) developed areas, including roadsides, residential, and urban land;
2) pasture and crop land; 3) abandoned fields dominated by herbs, shrubs, and saplings; 4)
upland mesic and dry forests, including hardwood and mixed hardwood/pine forests; and 5)
alluvial hardwood forests. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program natural community classification
system (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) is used to describe vegetational communities in the
project area to the extent practicable, but much of the area is disturbed and contains non-
natural or non-persistent species assemblages that do not ti-tnform to the NHP classification.
Descriptions of the amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal communities of the project area are
based on Lee et al. 0 982), Martof et al. (1980), Potter et6l. 0 980), Webster et al. 0 985),
and field observations.
3.10.1. Developed and Agricultural Land.
Developed and agricultural land in the project area includes mowed roadsides,
residences, lawns, golf fairways, cultivated land, and grazed pastures. Such areas contain
large expanses of short (mostly non-native) grasses, scattered trees and shrubs, and paved
surfaces. Species diversity and habitat diversity are low. These areas support many
introduced weeds and animals that reduce habitat suitability for native species.
Reptile and amphibian species in these areas are limited to a few small, secretive
species such as the rough earth snake (Virginia striatula), northern brown snake (Storeria
dekayi), and ground skink (Scincel/a lateralis), species distasteful to predators such as
Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), and arboreal species such as the gray treefrog (Hyla
chrysoscelis). Predominant birds include the introduced house sparrow (Passer domesticus),
starling (Sturnus vu/garis), and pigeon (Columba livia), and the native cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), robin (Turdus migratorius), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), and mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos). Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Dide/phis virginiana), and evening bat
(Nycticeius humeralis) are the typical mammals of developed areas in Guilford County.
20
3.10.2. Abandoned Fields.
The dominant non-woody plants in abandoned fields include broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus) and other grasses (Poaceae); sedges (Cyperaceae); sunflowers (Helianthus spp.),
coneflowers (Rudbeckia spp.), beggars ticks Widens spp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), asters
(Asterspp.), and other composites (Asteraceae); vetches (Vicia spp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.),
bushclovers (Lespedeza spp.), tick-trefoils (Desmodium spp.), and other legumes (Fabaceae);
and mustards (Brassicaceae). Dominant vines include blackberry (Rubus argutus), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), rose (Rosa multiflora)
and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Dominant shrubs and young trees include winged sumac
(Rhus copallina), groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif/ua),
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pious taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
winged elm (Ulmus a/ata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
Amphibians and reptiles in abandoned fields include those of developed areas, plus
rough green snake (Opheodrys aestiva), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and six-lined
racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus). Birds include the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), American
kestrel (Falco sparverius), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Typical mammals include
those of developed areas, plus the harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), hispid cotton
rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes).
3.10.3. Mesic and Dry Forests.
Two types of upland forests occur in the project area: mesic mixed hardwood forest,
which occurs on lower slopes adjacent to stream channels or floodplains, and mesic-dry
oak/hickory forest, which occurs upslope from the mesic forests and on ridges and upland flat
areas. Both are persistent natural communities (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
The mesic forest is dominated by a canopy of northern red oak (Quercus rubra), willow
oak (Q. phellos), American elm (Ulmus americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), sweetgum
(Liquidambarstyraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), beech (Fagusgrandifolia), sugar
maple (Acer barbatum), red maple (Acer rubrum), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda). The understory trees and shrubs are diverse, including flowering dogwood
(Corpus florida), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly (flex opaca), spicebush
(Lindera benzoin), hazelnut (Corylus americana), chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), arrowood
(Viburnum dentatum), black haw W. prunifolium), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and saplings
of the canopy species. The groundcover includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), may-apple (Podophyllum peltatum), false
Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum), Indian
cucumber (Medeola virginiana), cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor), yellowroot (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and southern lady fern (Athyrium
a/sp/enioides).
Oak/hickory forests in the project area are dominated by a canopy of white oak
(Quercus a/ba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), post oak (Quercus stellata), shagbark
hickory (Carya ovata), mockernut hickory (Carya a/ba), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Acerrubrum). Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata),
21
loblolly pine (Pious taeda) and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) are present in some stands, and
comprise half the trees in a few areas. Dominant understory species in oak/hickory forests
in the project area include flowering dogwood (Corpus f/orida), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum), highbush blueberry
W. arboreum), redbud (Cercis canadensis), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), and hop-
hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Groundcover plants include lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium
vacillans), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), arrowhead heartleaf (Hexastylis arifolia), running
cedar (Lycopodium flabelliforme), rattlesnake orchid (Goodyera pubescens), and Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Upland forests, including mesic mixed hardwood and oak/hickory forests, support
diverse animal communities. The reptiles and amphibians of upland hardwood forests include
adults of the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus), gray tree frog (Hyla chrysoscelis), American toad (Bufo americanus), box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
black rat snake (E/aphe obsoleta), kingsnakes (Lampropeltis spp.),. and timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus). Birds of upland forests include sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), ruby-crowned
kinglet (Regulus calendula), and many warblers (Parulidae) and finch and sparrow species
(Fringillidae). Upland forest mammals likely to occur in the project area include many of the
previously listed species, plus the red bat (Lasiurus borealis), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris
noctivagans), short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans),
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and possibly bobcat (Felis rufus). Many reptiles,
birds, and mammals prefer ecotones, i.e., the borders of forests with adjacent open areas.
3.10.4. Alluvial Forests.
Alluvial forests occur in stream floodplains without well developed levees (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). Those in the project area are dominated by willow oak (Quercus phellos),
swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), and American elm (U/mus americana).
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) occurs in many alluvial forest stands, where it grows faster and
larger than on uplands. Canopy trees in most alluvial hardwood stands in the project area are
10 to 15 inches dbh, with some specimens of 20 to 30 inches dbh.
Understory species include southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum), boxelder (Acer
negundo), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica), silky
dogwood (Corpus ammomum), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
hazelnut (Corylus americana). The groundcover consists of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and seedlings of canopy species.
Wet depressions within these forests contain lizard tail (Saururus cernuus), sedges (Carex),
water primrose (Ludwigia palustris), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areo/ata), and jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis) where gaps in the forest canopy allow sufficient light penetration.
Seeps occur in the alluvial forest/mesic slope forest ecotone, particularly along the
segment east of Lewiston Road. The seeps contain a higher density and diversity of herbs
than does the remainder of the alluvial forest, including sphagnum (Sphagnum) and other
22
mosses, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), clearweed
(Pilea pumila), and many of the plants typical of floodplain depressions. Seeps are particularly
valuable as amphibian habitat because of their thermal stability, constant moisture, absence
of scouring floods, and inaccessibility to predatory fishes.
Alluvial forest communities, including seeps, have very high primary productivity and
support diverse animal communities. Where uplands have been extensively cleared for urban
and agricultural use, as in much of Guilford County, lowland forests provide important animal
migration corridors and sanctuaries. Amphibians dependent on lowland forests include the
red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus). Typical reptiles include ringneck snake (Diadophus
punctatus) and ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), as well as many upland forest reptile
species. Many birds are also dependent on these areas, including the yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus), barred owl (Strix varia), wood thrush (Hy/ocich/a mustelina), red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and many warblers (Parulidae). Game birds such as wood
duck (Aix sponsa), woodcock (Scolopax minor), and turkey (Meleagris ga/lopavo) depend on
large unbroken tracts of lowland forests. Alluvial forest mammals include many of the upland
forest species, plus the beaver, long-tailed weasel (Muste/a frenata), golden mouse
(Ochrotomys nutalli), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Many alluvial forests in Guilford County have been destroyed by impoundments,
development, or conversion to agriculture and silviculture. Fragmentation of these forests
reduces their habitat value, especially for animals requiring large home ranges or migration
corridors. Alluvial forests may or may not be protected as jurisdictional wetlands, depending
on the frequency and duration of saturation and development of hydric soil characteristics.
Most in the project area are not jurisdictional.
3.11. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands.
3.11.1. Regulatory Framework.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) enforces Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, in cooperation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Section 404 regulates dredge and fill activities
within "Waters of the United States," of which jurisdictional wetlands are a special category.
DEM issues Water Quality Certifications for discharges to waters, including wetlands, under
authority of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. COE and DEM coordinate the review and
permitting process so that a joint 404/401 application serves both agencies.
Jurisdictional wetlands are areas saturated with sufficient frequency and duration
(generally for 12.5 percent of the growing season) to produce anaerobic (hydric) soil
conditions, and that normally support hydrophytic plants tolerant of low oxygen
concentrations. COE (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) describes methods for recognizing
each of the three parameters that define a jurisdictional wetland -- hydrology, hydric soils, and
hydrophytic vegetation -- and defines atypical jurisdictional wetlands, such as those altered
or created by man. Additional instruction for determining hydric soils and wetland hydrology
in North Carolina is provided by guidance letters issued by the COE Wilmington District and
23
the NRCS South National Technical Center. The hydrophytic status of plants that occur in
wetlands is designated by FWS (Reed, 1988).
Stream channels and impoundments are waters of the United States under COE
jurisdiction, but most are not wetlands in the legal sense (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Dredge and fill activities in all jurisdictional waters, including non-wetlands, must comply with
the Section 404/401 permitting process. Unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional wetlands may
require compensatory mitigation; impacts on non-wetland waters of the United States usually
do not.
3.11.2. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands in the Project Area.
Jurisdictional waters and wetlands in the project area are mapped in Figures 2a-f.
The recommended project corridor crosses non-wetland stream channels at 19 sites,
ranging in width from 5 to 25 feet bank-to-bank. The total stream width crossed by the
project corridor is approximately 235 feet. Most of the crossings are roughly perpendicular
to the streams, and most are adjacent to existing road or utility ROWs.
Because most of the project will parallel existing sewerlines that were installed 15 to
25 feet from the top of the stream banks, it is not feasible to provide the 100 foot wide
forested buffer recommended by WRC along these segments. The new line will, however,
be placed upslope of the existing lines, so that the existing riparian buffers will not be reduced
in width.
Along the only riparian segment of the project that does not contain an existing
sewerline (east of Lewiston Road and north of Chance Road), a 100 foot undisturbed buffer
will be preserved except where precluded by steep slopes or rock.
Four jurisdictional wetlands occur in the project corridor: 1) a 700 foot long wetland
between Chance Road and the proposed pump station; 2) two wetlands, one 150 feet and
the other 180 feet long, south of Old Oak Ridge Road; and 3) a 100 foot long wetland east
of Norwalk Street. All four are presently disturbed by sewerlines. The two near Old Oak
Ridge Road are marshes dominated by cattail, smartweed, buttonbush, water plantain,
arrowhead, jewelweed, rose, trumpet creeper, and saplings of green ash, box elder, silky
dogwood, black willow, and sweetgum. The wetlands near Chance Road and Norwalk Street
include marsh where they are maintained as sewerline ROW and alluvial forest beyond the
mowed area.
3.12. Protected Species and Natural Areas.
3.12.1. Regulatory Framework.
Rare plant and animal species may be protected by the Federal Endangered Species
Act, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and by two North Carolina
laws: the Plant Protection and Conservation Act, administered by the N.C. Department of
Agriculture's Plant Conservation Program (PCP), and the Endangered Wildlife Protection Act,
administered by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Federally protected species
24
are those listed by FWS as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or
Proposed Threatened (PT). State protected species are those listed by WRC or PCP as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC). Rare species under consideration
by federal or state agencies for future legal protection are designated as Candidates (federal
= C1 or C2; state = C).
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) maintains a comprehensive database of rare
and protected species populations and high quality natural areas, including records submitted
by FWS, WRC, PCP, the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences (MNS), other governmental and
private biologists and naturalists, and NHP staff. NHP does not have authority to assign
protection status, but monitors population trends and makes recommendations for protection
to the regulatory agencies. In addition to protected and candidate species, NHP maintains
population data on other rare species, including those for which insufficient distributional or
taxonomic information is known to justify protection, and those which are currently excluded
from WRC protection (e.g., insects, crustaceans, and poisonous snakes). NHP designates
such species as Significantly Rare (SR) or Watch List (WL).
This document addresses impacts on federally protected (E, T, PE, and PT), state
protected (E, T, and SC), and federal candidate (C l and C2) species. Species designated by
state agencies as C, SR, or WL, and federal candidate species for which a status survey
concluded that protection is not yet needed (3C) are excluded unless they have been
previously reported close to the project area.
3.12.2. Background Investigations.
RJG&A consulted with FWS, WRC, and NHP for information on protected plant and
animal species and rare natural communities known from or likely to occur in the project area.
Seventeen rare species have been recorded from Guilford County, of which one is federally
protected and three others are state protected or federal candidate species. These four
protected species are listed in Table 3, each with its corresponding protection status.
Only one rare species is known within 1 mile of the project corridor; it is the
Appalachian golden-banner (Thermopsis mo//is), an unprotected plant of the pea family,
designated SR by NHP. The known population near Guilford College will not be affected by
project construction, but it is within the wastewater service area.
Diagnostic features of each protected or federal candidate species known from Guilford
County, its habitat requirements, locations of previous sightings near the project area, and
seasonal limitations for conducting surveys were compiled from LeGrand (1993), Martof et
al. (1980), Rohde et al. (1994), Potter et al. (1980), NHP records, and personal
communication with agency biologists.
3.12.3. Species Descriptions and Survey Results.
3.12.3.1. Mole Salamander (Ambystoma taipoideum).
This stocky, gray-brown salamander resembles the sympatric marbled salamander (A.
opacum), but lacks the prominent white or gray crossbands of that species. The large-
25
headed, bushy-gilled larvae are distinguished from those of other Ambystoma species by
fewer costal grooves (10-11), a lightly pigmented throat and belly, and faint longitudinal bands
on the body and tail (Altig and Ireland, 1984).
Adult mole salamanders, 80 to 120 mm long, live in burrows under logs and boulders
in forested areas, and breed during winter and early spring in fish-free vernal pools (Martof et
al., 1980). The breeding pools may be floodplain depressions, seeps, or upland depressions.
The larvae feed on aquatic invertebrates and metamorphose in summer and early fall at a
length of 55 to 70 mm.
Two floodplain pools north of South Buffalo Creek, approximately 0.5 mile west of
Norwalk Street, may provide suitable breeding habitat for the mole salamander, though none
was found during the field reconnaissance. These pools are 30 feet or more from the existing
sewer ROW, and can be avoided during construction. No other breeding pools suitable for the
mole salamander were encountered in the project corridor. Suitable adult habitat occurs in
mature forests throughout the project area, but it is the presence of breeding pools which
allows the occurrence of this salamander.
3.12.3.2. Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis).
This mottled brown bottom-dwelling fish reaches 43 mm standard length. It has an
arched, incomplete lateral line, two separate dorsal fins, and one anal spine. The head is more
blunt than that of either the tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) or the fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare), with which it occurs.
The Carolina darter inhabits backwater areas near the banks of small streams with
sand, mud, or cobble substrata, usually with deposits of silt or leafy debris (Braswell, 1991).
In Guilford County, the Carolina darter is known only from the upper Haw River; there are no
records in the Reedy Fork Creek basin (Menhinick, 1991; NHP records; DEM records).
3.12.3.3. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
Adult bald eagles have a conspicuous white head and tail and dark brown wings and
body. Juveniles (less than 4 years old) are mostly dark with irregular patches of white. The
bald eagle is larger and heavier bodied than the osprey and red-tailed hawk, both of which
have light colored bellies, and has a larger head than either the turkey vulture or black vulture.
Juvenile bald eagles may be confused with the golden eagle, which is rarely seen in the
Piedmont of North Carolina, but are distinguished by the bare lower part of the leg (feathered
in the golden eagle).
The bald eagle requires large rivers, lakes, or estuaries for feeding, and large stands of
mature trees near the water for roosting and nesting. They are summer residents at the large
reservoirs in the Reedy Fork Creek basin, but do not regularly occur on the small streams and
ponds in the project area (NHP records).
26
3.12.3.4. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
The loggerhead shrike is gray with white wing and tail patches similar to the
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), but is distinguished from that species by its black mask,
larger head, and heavier, hooked bill (Potter et al., 1980).
The shrike prefers open fields with short vegetation and scattered small trees, fences,
or utility wires that serve as perches for hunting small animals. It occurs throughout the year
in Guilford County, and nests eight to fifteen feet above the ground in dense, often thorny
shrubs or small trees adjacent to fields during March and April (Potter et al., 1980). Suitable
nesting and foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike occurs in many parts of the project
corridor, but no shrikes, nests, or evidence of shrike feeding were observed. No nesting sites
are known in the vicinity of the project (NHP records).
3.12.4. Natural Areas.
Natural areas are recognized by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) as sites that
contain rare species, unique habitats or geology, exceptional diversity of plants and wildlife,
or natural scenic areas. The sites are ranked according to their rarity, biological integrity,
educational value, and ecological significance. Natural areas are not afforded legal protection
unless they are within a public park or wildlife refuge, privately owned by a conservation
organization, or protected under a conservation easement.
A natural areas inventory of Guilford County (Burnette et al., 1991) focused on locating
examples of intact natural plant communities, and did not include formal surveys for protected
species. One designated natural area is in the project area.
Site BC1 includes the head of Lake Higgins above Lewiston Road and its adjacent
wetlands and mesic hardwood slope forests. The significant features of this site include the
size, quality, and diversity of the wetlands and forests, water quality protection, wildlife and
waterfowl habitat value, and good potential for a greenway trail and educational use. The
project segment between the Cardinal pump station and Hackamore Drive traverses this
natural area, and will take 0.42 acre of mesic forest adjacent to an existing mowed ROW.
RJG&A ecologists did not locate any additional high quality habitats or protected
species habitats in the project area that NHP should consider as significant natural areas.
However, the 2,400 foot forested segment east of Lewiston Road is of good quality, and
construction should be kept as far from the stream as possible to minimize disturbance.
27
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.
The remainder of this EA describes the projected environmental impacts of the no-
action alternative (section 4.1) in comparison with those of the build alternative (sections 4.2
to 4.12). Direct impacts are those caused by construction and operation of the project.
Secondary impacts are those caused by induced development or other activities promoted by
project construction. Cumulative impacts are those caused by a number of similar or related
projects in the county or the region.
The discussion of impacts of the build alternative assumes that Best Management
Practices will be followed during land clearing and construction, and that the expanded T.Z.
Osborne WWTP will usually meet its NPDES effluent limits. The project will not be operational
until after the WWTP improvements are complete.
4.1. No-Action Alternative.
The no-action alternative will result in Greensboro being unable to provide adequate
wastewater service to new development in the Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek basins
northwest of the City. Economic growth in this area will be slowed if the project is not built.
No impacts on agricultural resources, archaeological resources, air quality, noise levels,
terrestrial protected species and habitats, or jurisdictional wetlands will accrue from the no-
action alternative.
4.2. Land Use.
Project construction will require a 20 foot wide corridor along roads and existing
sewerlines, and a 40 foot wide corridor through areas where no access currently exists. The
acreage disturbed during construction of the sewerline includes 8.08 acres of alluvial forest,
2.43 acres of upland forest, 4.13 acres of old field and shrub-dominated land, 0.46 acre of
pasture and crop land, 14.78 acres of roadside, residential, and urban land, and 0.52 acre of
jurisdictional wetland.
E-
Where the project parallels existing sewerlines and new ROW is cleared on the off-
stream side, the new permanent 20-foot access corridor will be kept on the off-stream side
wherever possible, allowing portions of the old ROW nearest the stream to revegetate, thus s
widening the forested stream buffer.
Secondary and cumulative impacts of this and other sewerline extension projects in
Guilford County will cause changes in land use. High density residential and commercial
development will become feasible in areas currently suitable for low density use. Rural,
agricultural, and forested land will be reduced. Additional roads, utilities, and other
infrastructure will be needed.
28
t
4.3. Agricultural Resources.
4.3.1. Prime and Unique Farmland.
Approximately 2.0 miles (17 percent) of the project corridor is mapped as SCS prime
farmland soils. As most of the corridor is no longer suitable for farming due to roads and
residential and commercial development, direct impacts on agriculture will be negligible. The
expanded wastewater service area contains large areas of pasture and crops on prime
farmland soils. Some farms may be converted from traditional agricultural commodities
(tobacco and animal feed crops) to ornamental landscaping nurseries and pick-your-own fruit
and vegetable farms, while others will be converted to urban land after municipal sewer
service becomes available.
4.3.2. Timber Resources.
The area to be cleared for project construction includes 10.5 acres of forested land,
of which 2.4 acres is upland hardwood and mixed hardwood/pine forest, and 8.1 acres is
alluvial hardwood forest. Half of this is temporary construction corridor, which will regenerate
following construction. The project design minimizes forest disturbance by using existing road
and utility rights-of-way wherever possible. The 20 foot permanent access corridor must be
kept free of trees by periodic mowing. In wetlands, the permanent access corridor will be
limited to 10 feet, as specified by COE Nationwide Permit 12.
In accordance with agency guidelines, contractors will be required to store excavated
soil, vehicles, pipes, and crushed stone on the non-forested side of the- trench to the extent
practicable, collect and properly dispose of used vehicle fluids to avoid soil contamination
around tree roots, avoid damaging roots and bark of trees adjacent to the construction
corridor, and sell any marketable timber that must be removed to minimize burning.
Secondary and cumulative impacts of this project include loss of forest to residential
and commercial development, as discussed in section 4.2. Abandoned agricultural land not
suitable for development, such as floodplain, may revert to forest land.
4.4. Cultural Resources.
4.4.1. Archaeological and Historical Resources.
Impacts on the Horsepen Creek sites identified by the SHPO and the results of the
South Buffalo Creek survey requested by the SHPO will be reported in a separate document.
29
4.4.2. Public, Scenic, and Recreational Areas.
Disruption of Hunter Hills Community Park during construction will be minor and
temporary. No other public lands will be affected.
Population growth in Guilford County, which depends in part on expanded wastewater
service, may cause increased use of parks, lakes, and rivers in the region. Adverse impacts
to these recreational resources may accrue as a result of increased use and encroaching urban
development. Further urbanization of the Reedy Fork Creek watershed may affect water
quality and fishery resources in the four reservoirs unless protected by land use controls.
4.5. Air Quality.
During project construction, short term localized impacts on air quality are likely,
primarily an increase in dust. Good erosion control practices will limit dust emissions. Short
term effects on air quality from carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic
compounds emitted by engine exhausts of construction equipment will be negligible. After
construction, no significant direct air quality impacts are anticipated.
Residents near the Bledsoe Drive pump station may experience occasional nuisance
odor problems, depending on weather conditions, but these will be at low concentrations that
pose no public health threat. Byproducts of bacterial metabolism such as hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia, -mercaptans, and organic sulfides cause most of the odor problems in domestic
sewage. Routine maintenance of the pump station will be include biweekly cleaning to
remove odorous material. If neighboring residents are affected, the City will use masking
agents or sodium hypochlorite to oxidize the offensive substances.
The City's Industrial Pretreatment Program limits the quantity of volatile organic
compounds and toxic substances reaching the T.Z. Osborne WWTP from industrial process
wastewater, and volatile emissions from aeration basins due to this project should be
negligible. The City's Environmental Services Program includes a public education campaign
on disposal of household toxic substances (cleaning fluids, paint and lacquer thinners,
pesticides, and.automotive products), which reduces the contribution of volatile organics from
residential sources. Air emissions from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP are not currently regulated.
Secondary and cumulative impacts of expanded wastewater service will result in an
increase in vehicle miles traveled and fuel burned. Required vehicle emissions testing and
repair, improvements in engine and fuel technology, and the replacement of older vehicles
with cleaner-burning ones will in part mitigate the potential for deterioration of air quality.
However, localized air quality problems may occur at busy intersections and shopping centers.
4.6. Noise Levels.
Elevated noise levels may occur during project construction, but will be limited to
daylight hours as specified by the Guilford County noise ordinance. Once built, no significant
operational noise from the project is anticipated. Secondary and cumulative noise impacts
may accrue from induced growth throughout Guilford County, as discussed in sections 4.2
and 4.5.
30
4.7. Groundwater Resources.
The contractor will be required to collect and dispose of all waste fluids during on-site
vehicle maintenance, to minimize the risk of soil and groundwater contamination during
construction.
The build alternative will decrease reliance on septic systems for wastewater disposal
in the service area, reducing an existing source of groundwater contamination. Thus, the
direct impact of the project on groundwater will be positive.
However, cumulative impacts of induced urban growth throughout Guilford County will
result in more impervious surface areas reducing stormwater infiltration.
4.8. Surface Water Resources.
4.8.1. Construction and Operational Impacts.
Temporary impacts to surface waters during construction will include sedimentation
and elevated turbidity due to vegetation removal and soil disturbance adjacent to streams, and
excavation of the stream bottom at sewerline crossings. Standard erosion control practices
will be implemented to minimize these impacts. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan,
which includes this EA, must be submitted to the Winston-Salem regional office of DEHNR
at least 30 days prior to construction. All construction activities will be conducted in
accordance with the N.C. Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 and accepted Best
Management Practices.
Oil, fuel, and emissions from construction vehicles may also create temporary, localized
water quality impacts. These will be minimized by restricting vehicle maintenance to areas
away from waters and wetlands, and recovery and disposal of all used fluids.
Following construction and soil stabilization, direct impacts of the project on surface
waters will be minimal. Where the project parallels existing sewerlines along streams, the
new line will be installed upslope, and the existing forested riparian buffers will not be
disturbed except at stream crossings. Leakage of sewage is generally not a problem along
newly constructed sewerlines buried below grade at stream crossings.
Secondary and cumulative water quality impacts may accrue from the anticipated
increase in impervious surface area. New development in the Brush Creek and Horsepen
Creek basins must comply with the City's watershed protection ordinance (Section 3.8.2) and
stormwater management program, which will in part mitigate adverse impacts of stormwater
pollution.
No change in the effluent quality from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP is anticipated. The
project design capacity will constitute 11 percent of permitted capacity at the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP after the expansion is complete.
31
4.8.2. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters.
Eutrophication of streams and lakes due to excess nutrients in wastewater, runoff from
cropland and livestock farms, and fertilizers used on lawns and golf courses is an existing
problem in the Haw River basin. Consequently, DEM has designated the Haw River and its
tributaries upstream of B. Everett Jordan Reservoir "nutrient sensitive waters (NSW)." Many
large WWTPs in the basin are now required to provide nitrogen and phosphorus removal
capabilities; others will have nutrient limits imposed when their NPDES permits are renewed.
The water supply watershed ordinance, which applies to approximately 40 percent of Guilford
County, reduces nutrient inputs by requiring vegetated buffers along perennial streams for
most types of new development.
Non-point source nutrient inputs from agricultural land will decrease in the service area
as agriculture is replaced by other land uses, but nutrient runoff from lawns and golf courses
will increase. The loss of forested land will also add to nutrient runoff.
The Cape Fear River Basinwide Management Plan (N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, 1995) establishes three major goals for reducing water quality degradation: 1)
identify and restore the most seriously impaired waters; 2) protect waters known to be of
highest quality, or those supporting biological communities of special importance; and 3)
management of problem pollutants (BOD, nutrients, and toxics). The Basinwide Plan ranks
South. Buffalo Creek, Horsepen Creek, and Brush Creek as "high priority streams" due to poor
water quality or strategic importance in protecting municipal water supplies.
4.8.3. Introduction of Toxic Substances.
Small quantities of toxic substances released from vehicles and disturbed soils during
construction may cause temporary, localized water quality impacts. These will be minimized
by requiring the contractor to observe erosion controls and vehicle maintenance procedures,
as discussed above.
The City's industrial pretreatment program limits the quantities of toxic constituents
entering the waste stream. Residential toxics are generally considered minor, but can be
reduced by a public education campaign and frequent collection of household hazardous t
wastes. When the T.Z. Osborne WWTP expansion is complete, the more advanced treatment
technology (for nutrient removal) will also provide improved removal efficiency of toxic
substances. L
Urban growth promoted by wastewater expansion will create additional sources of
heavy metals, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, and organic solvents. Increases in
impervious surface area will reduce stormwater infiltration, providing fewer opportunities for
these pollutants to be immobilized or degraded before entering surface waters. The
stormwater management program and water supply watershed regulations will in part mitigate
these impacts.
32
4.9. Fish and Aquatic Habitats.
Impacts of the build alternative on aquatic habitats include the local and regional water
quality impacts discussed in Section 4.8. Stabilization of stream channels with crushed rock
at pipeline crossings will provide ecologically valuable hard substratum. There will be a loss
1 of forested canopy, important for thermal stability, bank and substratum stability, nutrient
cycling, and habitat for semi-aquatic insects that constitute the bulk of available fish food
organisms.
? Loss of forested canopy will be minimized by placing the new sewerline upslope of
existing parallel sewerlines. Existing forested buffers (mostly 10 to 20 feet wide) will not be
1 disturbed, and may be widened where the new permanent access corridor can be shifted
upslope.
Secondary and cumulative impacts of expanded wastewater service may adversely
affect fishes and aquatic habitats, due to canopy removal, channel modification,
impoundments, thermal changes, increased peak stormflows, reduced baseflows, and
pollution associated with urban runoff. Good stormwater management practices and
preservation of forested buffers along streams (WRC guidelines specify 100 feet or more) are
recommended to minimize adverse impacts of new development on stream ecosystems.
Currently, 30 to 100 foot vegetated buffers are required for new development only along
perennial streams in water supply watersheds, and there is no requirement that they be
maintained in a forested state.
4.10. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters.
Project construction will require clearing of 0.52 acre of jurisdictional wetlands
(described in section 3.11.2). Most of this acreage (freshwater marsh) is already disturbed
by previous sewer projects or agricultural use of the floodplain, and the project will have
negligible additional long-term impact. The two areas of forested wetland along the project
corridor are both along segments where the existing cleared ROW is greater than 40 feet, and
only those trees within a few feet from the edge of the ROW will require removal. All
wetlands affected are adjacent to existing sewerlines. The project will not cause
fragmentation of previously undisturbed wetland areas.
Anti-seep collars will be placed around pipelines in wetlands to prevent the gravel-filled
trench from acting as a drainage ditch. The concrete or compacted clay collars will extend
at least 6 inches into the surrounding soil at the bottom and sides of the trench, and 18
inches above the top of the pipe (or to the restored grade, whichever is less). They will be
grouted around the pipe to prevent leakage. A collar will be placed at the downstream end
of each wetland, and at 150 foot intervals upgradient until the corridor is no longer in
wetland.
During trench excavation in wetlands, the native topsoil will be stockpiled separately
from subsoil, and replaced following construction. The pre-construction wetland grade will
be restored. The construction area will be seeded with an annual cover crop (not fescue), so
33
that native vegetation will recolonize the disturbed area. The permanent access corridor will
be limited to 10 feet wide in wetlands, as specified by COE Nationwide Permit 12, and bush-
hogged at two year intervals or less frequently, so that a shrub and herb layer may develop.
Degradation and loss of additional wetlands in the wastewater service area may accrue
due to secondary and cumulative effects of induced development. In other cases, wetland
values are lost when adjacent non-wetlands are disturbed, even when there is no direct
wetland impact.
4.11. Terrestrial Habitats.
The acreage disturbed during construction of the sewerline includes 8.08 acres of
alluvial forest, 2.43 acres of upland forest, 4.13 acres of old field and shrub-dominated land,
0.46 acre of pasture and crop land, and 14.78 acres of roadside, residential, and urban land
(Figures 2a-f). The ecological loss is minimized by locating the disturbance in or adjacent to
previously disturbed land wherever possible.
The only segment that traverses relatively undisturbed forest is the 2,400 foot
segment east of Lewiston Road. The opening of utility corridors through alluvial and mesic
forests affects native flora and fauna in several ways. Micro-climatic conditions (temperature,
wind, and humidity) may be altered, making the adjacent forests unsuitable for certain plant
and animal species. Domestic and non-native animals and weeds use these corridors to
invade forests that were previously inaccessible, and may cause a decline in native species
(N.C. Natural Heritage Program, 1993). Large animals that shun human contact (e.g., bobcat,
gray fox, and turkey) will abandon an area that lacks large tracts of unbroken forest.
Secondary and cumulative impacts to terrestrial habitats and strategies for avoiding
and minimizing adverse impacts include those discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10.
4.12. Protected Species and Natural Areas.
Of the four federally protected, state protected, or. federal candidate species listed in
Table 3, none is expected to occur within the project construction corridor, and no direct
adverse impacts are anticipated on these species. However, sites for the bald eagle, Carolina
darter, and mole salamander are known on the Guilford, Summerfield, and/or Lake Brandt
USGS quadrangles, and could be adversely affected by induced urban growth. i
The Guilford County natural area designated BC1 (Burnette et al., 1991) includes a
portion of the project area, where 0.42 acre of mesic forest will be removed. Half of this area
will regenerate naturally, and half will be periodically mowed for permanent access. Several
other natural areas have been recognized in northwestern Guilford County, and may be
affected by the cumulative impacts of additional wastewater projects. Natural areas
inventories and protected species surveys are ongoing, and city and county planners should
consult with NHP when planning for future growth areas.
34
5.0. MITIGATION AND PERMITTING.
5.1. Legal and Regulatory Framework.
N.C. Gen. Statute 1"13A, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), establishes
standards for environmental documents (EA, EA/FONSI, EIS) when projects meet minimum
criteria, based on disturbed acreage, volume of withdrawal or discharge, and cost in public
dollars. These environmental documents must include mitigation measures proposed to
minimize adverse impacts. The measures recommended by most state agencies closely follow
standard best management practices and federal agency guidelines.
The public perception of mitigation is compensation. In the legal sense, mitigation has
three components - avoidance, minimization, and compensation - with avoidance having
supremacy. Mitigation of adverse impacts of construction projects may take various forms
under federal and state laws, and local ordinances cannot preempt the requirement for
compliance. Avoidance and minimization include selecting a project site, design, construction
and maintenance plan that minimizes adverse impacts. Compensatory mitigation is only
considered after avoidance and minimization are satisfied. Compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to wetlands or protected species may include restoration and
enhancement of degraded habitats or creation of replacement habitats, on or as close to the
adversely affected project site as feasible.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act and amendments (Clean Water Act) contains
sections pertinent to environmental document preparation. Section 401, administered by the
N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM), requires certification that discharges of
fill material (including wastewater) will not degrade water quality. Mitigation for potential
water quality impacts during construction is normally met by good management practices
such as prompt grassing of disturbed slopes, silt fences, and temporary detention ponds.
Section 401 certification is required before a Section 404 permit can be obtained (see below),
but is not issued prior to a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), which issues Individual, Nationwide, and General dredge and fill permits for
projects affecting waters, including wetlands, of the United States under its jurisdiction. It
coordinates jurisdiction and permit issuance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
National Marine Fisheries Service, among other agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has ultimate authority for interpretation of the Act, and may overrule both COE
and FWS in deciding contested jurisdictional decisions.
35
5.2. Permitting Requirements.
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 12 authorizes fill in waters and wetlands associated
with backfill of utility lines. This project will probably conform to the conditions of the
Nationwide Permit, and an Individual Dredge and Fill Permit should not be required. This
Nationwide Permit requires notification and concurrence from COE and DEM prior to any
excavation or discharge. The total wetland acreage affected is less than 1.0 acre, and the
agencies will probably not require compensatory mitigation for the project provided that the
applicant demonstrates that wetlands have been avoided to the extent practicable. The COE
Wilmington District Engineer will review the construction plans and make a final determination
of permitting and mitigation requirements.
r
DEM issues a Section 401 General Water Quality Certification corresponding to COE
Nationwide Permit 12. COE will concur with the applicability of the Nationwide Permit to this
project only after DEM has concurred with the Section 401 Certification. The 404/401 joint
application for Nationwide Permitting and General Certification should be submitted
simultaneously to COE and DEM.
1
L
36
6.0. LITERATURE CITED.
Altig, R. and P.H. Ireland. 1984. A key to salamander larvae and larviform adults of
the United States and Canada. Herpetologica 40:212-218.
Braswell, A.L. 1991. Etheostoma co//is, Carolina darter. /n: Menhinick, E.F. (editor),
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina, Part IV: A Re-evaluation of the
Freshwater Fishes. N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, N.C.
Burnette, D., B. Craft, S. Gilliam, G. Morris, L. Phillips, J. Thomas, R.K. Ross, R.J.
Coomans, and S.D. Pease. 1991. Natural Areas Inventory, Guilford County, North Carolina.
Little & Little Landscape Architecture and Planning, and N.C. Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, N.C. 194 pp.
Carnes, W.C., J.R. Davis, and B. Tatum. 1964. Survey and Classification of the
Deep-Haw Rivers and Tributaries, North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh, N.C. 19 pp. + appendices.
Daniel, C.C. III and R.A. Payne. 1990.
Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina.
Investigations Report 90-4035. Raleigh, N.C.
Hydrogeologic Unit Map of the Piedmont and
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss. 100 pp. + appendices.
Hewlett, J.D. 1982. Principles of Forest Hydrology. University of Georgia Press,
Athens, GA. 183 pp.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A distributional survey of
North Carolina mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey, 1982-
10, 70 p.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 1993. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 45 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C.
264 pp. -
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, N.C. 227 pp.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management.
Protection Strategy. Department of Environment,
Groundwater Section. Raleigh, N.C. 49 pp.
1990. Draft North Carolina Groundwater
Health, and Natural Resources, DEM
37
N.C. Division of Environmental Management. 1994. Water Quality Progress in North
Carolina 1990-1991 305(b) Report. N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, N.C. 86 pp. + appendices.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management. 1995. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Management Plan Basin (Draft). N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
N.C. Division of Land Resources. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. N.C.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geologic Survey, Raleigh,
N. C. 1 pp.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 1993. N.C. Natural Heritage Program Biennial
Protection Plan. Division of Parks and Recreation, NC DEHNR, Raleigh, N.C. 120 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University
of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 408 pp.
Reed, Porter B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North
Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL. (NERC-88/18.33)
Rohde, Fred C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes
of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina - Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NC DEHNR, Raleigh, N.C., 325 pp. i
Stephens, R.B. 1977. Soil survey of Guilford County, North Carolina. U.S. Soil
Conservation Service. Raleigh, N.C. 77 p. + maps.
U.S. Environmental Protectional Agency. 1990. National air pollutant emission
estimates, 1940-1988. EPA-450/4-90-001. 68 pp.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Important Farmlands of North Carolina. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, SCS, Raleigh, N.C., 79 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. 'University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 255 p.
i
38
7.0. QUALIFICATIONS OF PREPARERS.
ROBERT J. GOLDSTEIN
The project manager is Robert J. Goldstein, Ph.D. Dr. Goldstein was a zoology faculty
memeber at Emory University from 1967 to 1973. In 1973 he joined Applied Biology,
incorporated as senior scientist and became the North Carolina office manager of the firm.
In 1985, he established Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, and has since designed and
managed all company projects, including the design of numerous water and wastewater
environmental impact assessments, negotiation with federal and state agencies of mitigation
plans, including constructed wetlands, and the preparation of testimony on behalf of clients
in North Carolina, New York, Georgia, and Florida.
His experience includes assessments of the impacts of power plants, beach
nourishment, coastal structures, and effluents upon ichthyoplankton, fishes, shellfishes, coral
reefs, and sea turtle nesting. He has conducted water quality and fishery resource studies
under Section 316 of the Clean Water Act, fish disease epidemiological and laboratory
studies, wetland studies under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, managed archaeological
studies under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act, and prepared many special studies.
requested by federal, state, or local agencies.
GERALD B. POTTERN
Gerald B. Pottern holds an M.Sc. degree in zoology and water resources, and is a
specialist in stream ecology. Under contract to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service he performed
a status survey of a candidate endangered fish species, and prepared documentation to
support the listing of that species under the Endangered Species Act.
Since joining RJG&A in 1986, his responsibilities include aquatic and terrestrial
protected species surveys, fishery resource studies, jurisdictional wetland delineations,
evaluation of wetland functions and development of wetland mitigation plans, and
environmental impact assessment. He has completed the Federal Highway Administration's
WET 2.0 wetland evaluation course, and attended several wetland and water resource
symposia organized by the N.C. Association of Environmental Professionals, American Public
Works Association, N.C. Cooperative Extension Service, Professional Engineers of North
Carolina, and N.C. Division of Environmental Management. He is a member of the NC
Association of Environmental Professionals, N.C. Lake Management Society, Association of
Southeastern Biologists, NC Herpetological Society, and American Fisheries Society - NC
Chapter.
39
d
L
U
Z
a?
o C7 Q ? a0i
0
U
? I
? y
!1 L
V L
co °?
?'
? o
O O
O
O c0 c? ao
O F- C: (7) M 00 M -
U CU
O CA
•O m
L {,
C1 M
CO y
C O
O
+y,,
e
'
3 > S O r r?
d Cl
y O
Y C
O m
d V
U c

O C V
d
m • cr .Y
0 to 0 00 m 00 r-
m
o O
t+ V
a
W
CCt

oC
i C C
O m m
= c > p to
m E c M co
L O
1
4
c ?
y C c

y d
C `?
CU

C CO
C

O a+ Cn w CO co Cn
?+ L
V Ol
.y
.
p
_
O
L ?
a? M-
?
L m
L
.C > N
O C1)
Ei m L .c LO rn 0 0 c0 I?
. + d fn d Coco n Ca 0 CO
L
0 H
U) y
O X
U
C C ?

4+
cn J o c
CL ?OCDOO ?CoLo0
y CO GO Cn M CO N r- r- a--
C?
m O m
m m ? ?
V` V C c Y
m O d -O
m
y
?' c
m
3:
a'v
c0
'a
- i
a
o

4)
o m
c
CL
UUUU
F- c
ncn Q
w
2

a
'
c C

_>
d
OQ

O C L
L L
L
i ?. L
L

E CL N N
C
7
0
i O M ('7
(h i to i 4 Co
41
m

C
1
f0 a) N
O >
L
d
Vf
C ?p fA
7 L
t17
n
N i N

RS
r Q
fA
cm
C
O
r
•C ?
O ei n E M E E

E
E-
a
- M
a n
E
2
c 7
m
LU cm m r7 c
O C a C
> > to 7 N m
'o co to to
n O LO O CO (h O LO '- Up
LO O CO (h a) (h O .-
O
W- In >
Q C
41 4-
O m
N
cC0 C
m
m C a)
m -p
O E (D
E w m
E O
E y m C
m
E mm m
N d •
- E Q' In d d

LD
- 00 O L L
L-
U .
'O O O L ?- C r t
•
+
t aL+ C? N

Z C C! 0 C m r- 4.
m
L 'L
%- L
. Z v 7 L 7 L ' ' L IC
L c0 N f0 O
Cam,' C 'Ct c c
L L L L
4- c0 N m N m N (h co
O O
V 0 d
L
y
O
C f-
w
' r
C d d
'a a U
?
.d
C d 7 E co O
cn L z (n 117 co i i co N i

rn=
c
a
c M
'
o
-
o ai
Y N R C
- C
• N O
j y •? p O v n
o
L
a L
m z N U

Q c 0-
-C
a?

O

'
O

v r
n O N
y O
X
C c 0 2,0 O C
+D N O +1 11 ? O O
N ?
(n II m
750 c
o) 6

C
O
CL i0 CL - O L
O O
?
c
a

m &
L
7
m
N to
d
a C Z (n U O .?
I
1
i
N
si-
t
O 1
CL
L p jt
L +
N O
d m h
N
C ? i
(n
-C > 1
a? Q o
tE f
r > to
fn m C 47 '
o y L
C
C7 >,
trq ? ? ?
m 'v O ?
w W Y
11 II II II
19 L V ?
N d O d
r a+ ?+
(n cn in cn
Table 3. Protected species known from Guilford County, North Carolina.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State
Status Status
Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum -- SC
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis -- SC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus E E
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus C2 SC
E = endangered
T = threatened
SC = special concern
C2 = candidate for endangered or threatened listing
43
Jet
_s? .?
r ?
1.01
i
j;7, 54,
Q
?. ? QSw j4L
r`
J
4- O
Q
Y Q
?I c
lo?lp/
?o
U
a y
00
j-
-° S Y T H 197
C O U N T Y
??
> O I
m z v $I
D A V I D S O N C O U N T Y

N
aY v o J m
to j y Z A c
c0 NU'
S '1
O
-
c
5 d 9 I
U ; ?O
U CL
O R J ? U
'? c
J `O N h Z
avi=
QO ' Mco Z
m
O c ? 7 0 qt .
00
0- mUCL U

Z
w

7

LL.

o .
i• 1?1 ? ? ? 1 T ?.
q
- IA-
, ?I??j•.vj ? Ii _ ``! 1 ?GI.,? ? I?? f ''lam ,? `? ? ? \,.: _ ? a
'??l \ ? ? '?, ' \?J\\ ' _ ?'\ i I 1 `? ` ? t 9 ? ? / ? oreh•vlc.J \
Figure 2a. Land Use, Habitats, Waters, and
O•;\ , ?: j -? 1! °? ' _ , 1 ?? 0 1G,' -? 1, 1 ir:n? ?_?' ,;"? Wetlands in the Project Area; Key to
Figures 2b-2f.
W
Robert J. Goldstein &Associates, Inc.
° ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
?^^, . J ?? f l err III' ` ,1` \ Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
JUN
,i, ll ?? '`f?1,,? ? yam' - ? c': r „ i/ (.' ?, ? .-, /?• , : _ .? ! ? ' -
\Nil??,?1??^..:?`\?\ C y?. ( ?f?t I I G? rl?. n,?l.``. ?3??j-?
/,. "1 ••>` :.pn al.-,lS:_ eel /_
f - ''i ! >?,- ` \` cp )? J 1?'; I s•.a/J\\ l` 1 \ \a',Her La \„I /? ii
if-
?\ 1?•- ' , ) `- ?' " ' ,its, ?c:?wn?tl?t 1 y;?i? :d~?'",?`? ??`! • ?pc??. ? ??.
/?1` / ?'• .?'??? '?' it ? - ` •???n\ ?'JI;, - ..r"/?i .? ??\ ^``?_ ?°,? /4 ? ?t
i1 G I(1ml! \\? son/
`/ `1'!`°° ), ? , 11 ( lI .?/ %\?l/' ". ;;?1 ?°. /'"r`•n• /',\ `• ''-?\? .?''•60° / ? `?\q\`?l .`f ,. "? ? ?r' ? %. _ •' J.';'
' vlub,J eso rei
` . ?•ysn - '/( (!/ . 'ai(,?. ?/ ?7 '? ff\ %m 1 , ? 541
?I? t I • eao
`8 ./ 1 I ° ;'/ I I? /?? •'L il\I. a'''' I .i Li .. `? /.r 1985 .'
osPt w
Irv, '1111,
?x\\ ?_ .s???\!?\ .l i/?, // _ 1 ?1 ?11/1 ?? I, rr7, ",' l \'' ?'?' ' \ \ ,•,`
t? '"?"?? ? ?,??) • v' ? ^u? ?? \\ \\ ' ? ` .. ?f; ' I '? ? .r-',a` r.- ? ,, `\ , /?I ? ? \ ./' o ? 97J ' _ ?- I r? I ` Mtl?` werr
?? /,??,` ?'? ( f / r •19197 ado ' ? ?? r )',? _ r \ _. J ?_?' ?•.` 4 '' ?-?"? ? '\ ? ?? ;-_ 'P?,
6?1
o • ."J?"? q', 1 \ a ?''?`, ,o` 1 _ ????? r? J? ?f .. //ji/? ?? ?`?.r, \) ?' eu( ? ° ? )Jlenel .r II / ( ' ? ? \? ? (?,
/\' t,/ ' ?. /11\?;r lit yc / '?? ,1. .S? Y-,-f .,1:•?• ,.' ?i I ?, 'P C ) + den- ..'.... i ,? `?'
ILI
ao,
VU e
e)JoRaoAenge-'? \ ( ?. ??II 1 i y J/\z-?'
t'. - 1'r 1 1j: /Io I' - /' -.A) i \ ^._6 /p•,? ? .i , \ ? o j' l ;ti ._? 'i ?p 1.7
? ?w; , ,? ,? \y / 0 1 o Stf ?'' ? '``? l: I l \ ?•O` ? i / t ??? ?'' L. ') ; ?. ? ., \ ? ,,G .. \
soz N1,,
•,•? eso-/ \ 't .. _ - " \ ?- •Z ` \ ,)? / } \-C -\{. °} J' ?<; . r \ ?\
}? \ \- , ?qi?/1 ??' 1?ory:?% _?`l\jJ fAO•( \ a ))\ \/( (??\ j/d? /. 1 ?o_ dry VJ? \ " t p'a I ???
° \ s :?/??c" ,?S(o`1t '' "/? ?i ~? M , )( %,))r(?I ?r••?.. S', Y
3 - _ ?9• j ('V'? .La.. cl • "P1a'u
\?1 Jo+ )) 7?t1 a,\{.-`y ,????-??t? .;1%•i s?1L. 1 rfy° ?%?.?1\°\r j .. \ I .• •?// ' . \ ,/? c "!t? }!'. - - , Id
D ,91L .. ?V l /' i
\?j 63., ' \ •\ \\\ /'?1) 'I ll`'* ?/' ` 8?{. _ "11.7 Ali
1?°{°c. '1 ? ,J i?,? l?,I }/ //? `?{^J?j??r / ,9?,???'/// ? TM i..\GUI f1 ?? `\?,? I- ./y:U•..• _ e>°) -?` _ _ ? -??", (? ,L -Iro
?> : \ - ?c=• deol, p0
J
_d5Q
Q_rT
Q'A' kk IV/ I
,?r.) '` 1'}tt' •' .(. 1?\ c fin..>;, '\\ ??I ?t 1 ?? _. ?'\`=:?•• •?\/ ? I j'I ?, t ,c_. Rwn• ?;
I ,I ? I , 9s '?.n ,I pr r - " ,," t' (: ?' II P \? r ../? i •• ?./1.-- \
1,' )f iENO / ? .,8y ? ? . ( kb • .'?? n ?. 1 ',? ''y I ° ? _ - 1 u l
L°ke•Ha .t
eno '- 1 , ? ? .:\,1? \r ? f'?' ?\ 1 I ?? , °? ,` ??? ?" i,.•;? 'I I _ /) , Ill \ -?' - B9 ?_ ? t / 11•l\' e?• _
-01
0!
o I . t ) ((( der\? l< -/? r ?• -
\ ? \ ,.. / ° Q ?V ? 1 ? ?\ 970' >v2 1 ?rV
v .?;'j1\ a''nll?\\? - .j ???)''' \: )?/r.,/ ?\?)9??-.^.??•• ?N• .?_\ ?- I??1??-' \?? ti _ \ \ •?e? ,"_ L\ = akesll _''I??..
A(oi I i_ . (?% ` ? ?? I e- //f'- '!? ll 1- \°o ? \? ?\ r(? ?\? -cr.? C' I ?. ? \ \. ? _ ? ° i>•
?• ?? , ' t- o? - ?i \S„ C' - \ 11i?1,'?• _ •'?'-•?.z \ so ?'` / i \.Ra4to-TavieA o - = f _ 1'., / (/
,hne e? ,. ?alifi\??? 4??•• ?•?=?? tl ' _) 1'.: IYI• .e 7.• % 0 0?.? '>', -'? bO l: ) '? \i t, \ •j ?'/J 0
n.? t/ ? ?':• ''r: 900. ,_ ?_ .../ ? ? .. , =1,` J ? ?. uird' (9hy{S- f r ._ l - - ? G-\ ...Surmount'fia ect ? ,: \ ??
i! '?' 1y.--eGeiolirt • ,•O?? _ (il',.? r_ • ,? ?r ,990 ?l. '?• .r _ \\ ° f I -,_J,-? M 9J0(3?.?i
eoo a f, Ch Li. 'off, `? \K /. 90 ?'? y' w° 1 r 1 I ~199°? It
`.._` 4 / ?. `'?.? ?./ J?ee 11 (` `a"•? ( ^ • fi .- ?..?_'? I •....._ r if ' ? t ??' u'o "Y.
y •t'• B9
' .\?,' °J. ?? 1 ,, I! \ ??•` 11 _ _ ?_ l• \:? r _•. /.1. ??fr? }?? \?-_ '? 3 rB5 .'
_ J , ? )' `\900 'J ?''?,???? ?G? - .? ?? ?\ ? r ??? i• ?? eso. i • / e .? 1 + d
?? ? ?? ?_'' , ? ;. )- ? ?. C eye ?'° w 1 ?i 6'p •i ??' )I ?? i. M f-RN I .
N? 7.110
.,u. \.\
i \ t ,\ 1 ?`??? •??? \ \` _{. a'itlldt4?3 Cro l f ??? ?_-J ((/?llr' _? ?':? ((//` N• It 1970
4 ?a •? ~
seo IL,
-x\C? r ` ,'e 'Sly. - _ ,.en . eez Poet hr F U? 9 "ir.w
n r t. „?C?/f', ''?? '> ?.. ?7 ,?`?-•',, \????n,J ?..\n lf;,`T?J \ ' _ ,'"` \?\l, l /._--v;, y, \ °a >?J?' 'I '.,C - "a -\•io/ '119 ?••i
31 ? `,:V.'i, i1?'',_''?%`\•?',`_ l ???tJ'• `^,??,?\',,'?? _ ?' ii:• `fir \ ,y / ,=t -',? n ••?- L.
ll ; 4 t L i
?t ° 1 ,, 'l` _') ?_ J^0 5 /I??1?? I• o?I"• Oll b'.,i p \ /
? \_ r,' r l ?7 ?, V 'I )? ? ?? ?'? w,/1 i '???.??-! 1.? I ?? /? • .ill•+l?•SO I l i? na .g. • 1_ • ' Y/'? ?
: L?-??\?-. ?, r ?l 1.4°n r '? \?,/ ' u(/, 1`q\? ? '\ `rl)? '-1 (! , \i„ ? ?/ C?.I ? _j? e•`r 113•x; y?\ :?• +? f!a,? i _
'! -?_ .? Y?' "A\ ..? c\/•,'?? / 1/?)l- 1. _.? r0.$?, LK; -o ,'\ ?.\ L??' -'- - -•-l/
! n P 1 '/. .a''},,,? Ll ? li•, :,C..?-_'/[ , ' :.. ("",% '.arm ???/.'p• ??^•\
• ..^, ?-- -9pO_-? ?? \ \ I 1. \7 I I •?' \I "r °R V -? /?-?-?..., ?/ ?B (/I /?' :U '?(r ? ' ff(( 1
{?,/?? I I I ? ? ? ?/) ,\ ?. ?I y '' 119 ) ?/ ) ) ?. / % ? / /J '1 (? ? ! l •'?.? 1... '•
•/ 1 .. 9 - J 1 l tM^ °, 1 , 905 //L `? L_.-'=/\ //, IQ// r (.? - ) ' , \ /
P. • ?/ ?E i°`t I , 1 - J 1 (? O ,
3591.
Lot M ."J
.)t
l? /?? FIB (? 6 ° • j_ :?. ;, y
v. JS\ ' x. _ /Sv_ \ I /

c v
m
ca
ti
y ? N
... z c0
a
v

N O - NN
l
O >
co
r

(D Q O
O
`
m

= c o?
U a)
c
p
_j `U
c h z
Z
o2 I/
c
J?> ao
OOD -C
C ?
> a? \
Z
m
w -'
Q
N oa
CC
.p

7
cam. , ?? ??-) O \ ?, o
_LL
?J i 1 ?r _ I / % 11 z
• \ _ ?_
z
i%;.---
• :l IF
I
. LM I- /Y w
LL 00 >
` O
U O
OF$ v 6
W
850- / ?`?. GHQ 0
49
! 4 TEE
A0113 At-IF w
Ai > L1.
RIDGE l • URB? •? _ V C
Q?JLU
?• \L_ ice'' •l?l • >
i
(J 0
;j85 - - ?I I I II?\
0
L/U
f]?
rn
00
Q7
In
LLo
W.
&3 bi
(D w -
(V M 00 LL 1 cn
LO \ • ' lr \
w ?-'
LL_
O
O /! \
O oo j •' • tC
C c v
1 ev ti

U .y Q ?
NN

0 J tc
-
m
N
m 0 `
U N cC
2 C J L
?? z
Z?
?Z?z
_ c
J r3 0
()o -C
cc c
> m
Z
W
F?

??-
o ?p cn
7Y
LAJ
006 • • : I
I
•
01
l .
t
_S8 ?? .- yob OD 1 (-.-
1
r
0 50 4.8 Q
? ? oa sy
O
<
O o -
00 N
00,
7?'
tS? ;r ov -- J ?? ?
•Ol I o \ '\
a
r` I \
/
8 t V. I o l.
1 00
.
m c+-i LS) c+'i ?
_ + 9
/ I +
•
•
___1 • / I • ?/ • •
VAI/
1

c v
m
`
2 so
` ?
h N O
?Q ?Z
m •v?
N
> O
J > ?
? Z
C)
c?v Y O T O
°? U N tv
2 c ? > U
`

c . Q c
v
y W O
co
? 00 Z

m
J O
VO0-0-C
cr- Q'
? 7 N
Z ip
w
h
v OC
c
i
N ?O
N
5
v
_1 •
05
•
N (?
some
o
•
• • • 1 \ a - 6` O •
r
008 S? / '? •O??\ ? ? ' 1.
v co
JI ? , P yf,"
C3 U q) coAc- ap 90
\ • • OD O • • • O f ?..r
1 ¦ Pv?
.? 5S • • fA
m ,n Sv ? ?- ' U
o •
all O • • ;
900 .? • • •
099 "Z____ • •
•?»O. f ?\\ ` •• O
7 00 /a

v -
c
m v
N d
I?

J
v N
O
` O
>
'
a h N Q E
Z
C
ca .r O >
o? U cl) co -
C J `

D c y z
w O O
Z

Z QQ
0
VOcoos
'
cc m
> ,
N W c

m
D ?
N

of
'O
ce
O
lr
N O
N M
J
0m2•,`°-
4- N rte, C
w ?a
'0W
w C ac
j U LL m C
y n m
O O
Q ? O U O
II 11 ??

it II
LL LL U) a
CD
_
J?cLcc Ir
Q?OUO
cm
l ?? ??? y5u5- a?
(O&OB9N33&E)) h'
060
I
•
1 ,, ¦ : • O /mil
/ 1 ' I O
Q •
z?

?o
OS
LL • • \ ?V
\` 1
- 7-Z
goo. P? ••
' t
' R
1900 Q II
• u / 90 O -
u 0?
r0 5
0 Qv ?
00
CY)
' • ,' ??OJ II • Ij? I X
• >
loll
I I - • /?
a all
vt --
// • Ch 1
O •
?_J? •
00) 0
o Ci)
r
•

c ci
c0
N d
a
O
) < `o
u Q
v J N
y O
` O >
,
` '
o
Win
. ticn
?
c
Z
+• °?l U N cv
c -j i u

c
- •? Q tU
ti Z o
L
) c
-0 - W p o
2
2
.,
c
J> 00
000L
? N
Z
N .p
?
7 O

LL
o
me-
¦
I a
f f
f r n . n ...
?? ? ? ? ''? ' ? ? .i-..L/ ? 111 ( ? ? ? ? ?; tr ¦• f ?. ' ' _
? Lf f
• - ? ¦ ¦ r
o
a a Now--- 06
m •t
elks
c I rf as
00 0 '06
0 seems
\ l C e f
r, u? _ • i •? • • 0 C CIO
¦ ?J • ¦ i
M ¦
..,,f 82?? ._ ? ? ? _
02 0 a as
a JUN 'A.
I°
I /<D so
C) we
. ? ?. fit' . •? c
Alp
7&0-471no)
rn rn O
MS 111 9505 r; c
m
4-

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMONTS
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., secretary _
Project Number: County:
Lt u O 1J E
MAR 15 1995
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be•contacted prior*to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a-
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation.Control
i
Date
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land =disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document. must be submitted as part
/ of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
e6-"ef ;b Til112?el -3117
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
t )i: 1•:NV1R(.)N.N,1F.NT, I-Il•:r LT, i, i'rojccL Number
AND NATURAL. RESOURCIE-S
DIVISION Uh L'NVIRONMENTAL I-MALTI-1 _p 3
Count
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name C4 6t` Lows 6o?a Type of Project
?--? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
(-J improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior tathe award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
r--y If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacen
sanitation progra
?--J waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfis i -
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
r--? . The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding-problem:
?--? For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant shout,'
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition. of dilapidate-,
structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary. in order- to prevent th
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The' information. concerning `rodent: control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management: Section at (919
733-6407.
r--? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
(--? requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq
For information concerning sepuc tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact tL
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
?-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanita.,;
?-? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the constriction, plans for the water li
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Suppl;
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-24('-.
q 11,,3 Y, - Z
Reviewer
Sect on/Branch ace
DFHNIt 3199 (Ikrnscd 2/93)
NCrma- p•p^e_.

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (slatutcry time
l,m,t,

l
P
i
i
l
i File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
erm
l
l or gas wel
t to dr
exploratory o conditional that any well opened by drill operator shalt, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations
a Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
i 15-20 days
descr
ptions & drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
? of riparian property.
401 Water Quality Certification NIA 60 days
(130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
O Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or cestroyed. please notify -
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan- underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation
?I Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority(:
ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CLEARING, GRADING, AND
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN THE DISTUR3AN::E OF FIVE (5) OR MORE
ACRES OF TOTAL LAND ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT PRIC'1
TO BEGINNING THESE ACTIVITIES. _CL4.e,- 3 ?Z
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville
NC 28115 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
,
[phone] Raleigh. NC 27609
[phone]
u
Washington Regional Office 11
Wi

1424 Carolina Avenue U
lmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889
[phone] Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office ,
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
[phone]

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Heviewing Office.
w ia,Po
ect Number: Due
S-o63 9 9
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained i
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same I -
Regional Office
?5_

PERMITS
y&mit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities. sewer system extensions. & sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters
?I Water Use Permit
?I Well Construction Permit
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit -whichever is later. .
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
ge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge.and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA
open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Dem ion or renovations of structures containing
a estos material must be in compliance with 15A
CAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820.
? C/mplex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
he Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentam
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30
days before be innin activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
?
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit
? On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit
exceeds 4 days
?I Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit .22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
On-site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required -if more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
?I.Oil Refining Facilities
?I Dam Safety Permit
NIA
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total proiect cost will be required unan Gomelpnnn
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
limit)
30 days
(90 days)
90.120 days
(N'A)
30 days
(NIAv
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
190 days;
60 days
(90 days)
60 days
i
(90 days) I
I
20 days
(30 davsi
(30 days)
30 days
160 days)
1 day I
(NIA)
1 day
(N/A)
90.120 days
(NIA)
30 days `
(60 days) I
ap ud .
Continued on reverse
Gerald B. Pottern
April 10, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for,your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincef ,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
Enclosures
4"
Preservation Officer
0 State Clearinghouse
i r
w?Eo?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 10, 1995
Gerald B. Pottern
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604-3175
Re: Horsepen to Buffalo Creek sewer line and pump
station, Guilford County, CH 95-E-4300-0639
Dear Mr. Pottern:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
In terms of archaeological resources, portions of the proposed project area along
Horsepen Creek have been surveyed and a number of archaeological sites
recorded. Sites 31 GF227 and 31 GF244* * are not eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and no additional investigation of these two
sites is warranted.
Two sites along Horsepen Creek need additional investigation to determine their
National Register eligibility.. Site 31 GF248 * * is a historic period stone dam and
31 GF249 * * is a historic period mill and dam. Testing and recordation of the
remains is recommended for each site. No additional survey along Horsepen Creek
is recommended, however.
The proposed sewer line along South Buffalo Creek from SR 1563 to the project
end should be surveyed by an experienced archaeologist. Prehistoric site 31 GF19,
which may be affected by this portion of the project should be relocated and
tested to determine its National Register eligibility.
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed
an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina. Individual files providing
additional information on the consultants may be examined at the State Historic
Preservation Office's Office of State Archaeology, 421 North Blount Street,
Raleigh. If additional names are desired, you may consult the current listing of the
members of the Society of Professional Archaeologists, or contact the society's
current secretary/treasurer, David L. Carlson, Department of Anthropology, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4352, telephone [phone].
Any of the above persons, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be
contacted to conduct the recommended investigation.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
Inn V-t T....e.. O'--. . D le:nl. AT..w/. / .- li. ^11CA1 IIOA'7
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Division of Environmental Management
wooft
James B. Hunt, ,Secreta ID E H N R mma"
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 5, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swiharti,!_'?Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0639; Scoping Comments - Horsepen to
Buffalo Creek Sewerline and Pump Station EA, Guilford
County
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Highlight wetland locations on a map
E. Will anti-seep collars be used on the sewer line?
F. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. An
application for 401 Certification should not be submitted until
the environmental review of the subject EA is completed.
10884.mem
cc: John Dorney
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL: [phone] Apr 10'95 9:10 No.002 P.05
Scoping 95-0639 4 April 10, 1995
Forest Oaks, Guilford Co.
To avoid or minimize wetland impacts, we offer several
generalized recommendations. Utility lines should be placed in
or adjacent to upland areas. It is recommended that a minimum
100-foot buffer of natural vegetation be left between
construction corridors and perennial streams. These buffers
will help minimize impacts to water quality, stabilize stream
banks, and provide travel corridors for wildlife. Trees and
shrubs should be retained or established in the buffers.
Buffers should also be left along intermittent drains or
streams.
Construction corridors should be no wider than absolutely
necessary. The 401 certification for Nationwide Permit 12
stipulates that wetland construction corridors are not to
exceed 40 feet and permanent maintained corridors are not to
exceed 10 feet except at access points. Plant communities
should be re-established which would result in wetland plant
community succession into habitat of equal or greater value
than that which was destroyed. Disturbed wetland areas should
be returned to original soils and contours. Temporarily
disturbed wetlands should be reseeded with annual small grains
appropriate for the season (e.g. Aug -Jan. rye, wheat, or
oats; Feb-March annual lespedezas; and April-July millet or
sorghum) and be allowed to revert to natural wetland
vegetation. Crossings of wetlands and streams should be
minimized, located at narrow areas, and made perpendicular to
the stream.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC,. David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Apr 10 `-1", 9:10 No.002 P.04
Scoping 95-0639 3 April 10, 1995
Forest Oaks, Guilford Co.
2. include descriptions of any streams or wetlands affected
by the project. The distance the disturbance will occur
from surface waters should be included.
3. Include project maps identifying wetland areas.
Identification of wetlands may be accomplished through
coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
If the COE is not consulted, the person delineating
wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Provide a description of project activities that will
occur within wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration.
Acreage of wetlands impacted by alternative project
designs should be listed.
5. Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage
of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the project.
6. Discuss the extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands and uplands).
7. Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts
of the project or to mitigate unavoidable habitat losses.
8. Discuss the cumulative impacts of secondary development
facilitated by the proposed utilities improvements. such
discussion should weigh the economic benefits of such
growth against the costs of associated environmental
degradation. Include a discussion of any local ordinances
or programs that mitigate these adverse impacts, such as:
stormwater management, industrial pretreatment,
infiltration and inflow management, water conservation
programs, and stream corridor protection.
9. Include a list of document preparers which shows each
individual's professional background and qualifications.
Measures to avoid or minimize impacts t?o sensitive
resources, including wetlands, should be implemented during
construction. Where impacts 'to wetlands are unavoidable, the
NCWRC will recommend mitigation of the losses. In addition to
providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform important
functions of flood control and water quality protection.
NCWRC,HCF,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Apr 10'95 9:09 No-002 F,03
Scoping 95-0639 2 April 10, 1995
Forest Oaks, Guilford Co.
wastewater will be treated at the T.Z. Osborne WWTP and
discharged to South Buffalo Creek.
Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek are classified as wS-III
NSW and flow into to Lake Higgins and Lake Brandt respectively.
Although the project is limited in scope and a significant
portion of the project appears to be in close proximity to
surface waters. The information in the scoping letter is not
sufficient to fully evaluate the impacts to fish and wildlife
resources or their respective habitats. Due to staff
limitations, this standardized response was developed for
projects such as this. Although some of the information
requests and comments may not be applicable to certain
projects, these guidelines should facilitate preparation of
fish and wildlife impact assessments. This information will be
very useful if it becomes necessary to prepare an environmental
document.
The environmental document should include a detailed
assessment of existing natural resources within these areas of
potential development and should discuss the potential of
mitigating development impacts to wetlands, waters, and high
quality upland habitat.
To provide a meaningful review of proposed project impacts
on fish and wildlife resources, the NCWRC requests that
consultants, project sponsors, or permit applicants provide the
following information in the environmental document:
1. Include descriptions of fish and wildlife resources within
the project area, and a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. When practicable, potential borrow areas to be
used for project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated species can be
developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
NCWRC.HCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Apr 10'9 9:09 No.002 P.02
_ EEO North Carolina Wilcilife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-11138, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Owen F. Anderson, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 10, 1995
SUBJECT: Scoping for Morsepen to Buffalo Creek sewerline and
Pump Station EA, Guilford County, NC 95-6039
This memorandum responds to a request from Guildford
County's consultant, Roberti. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.,
regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject utility improvements. staff biologists with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
proposed project, and our comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C 4332(2) (c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U. S . C 661-667d) .
The proposed project consists of 12 miles of sewer and a
pump station. Approximately, 9 miles of sewer will be
installed along streams, and 3 miles along roads.
Approximately 3.7 acres will be needed for the pump station.
The project will convey wastewater from existing and
future development in the Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek basins
to a submersible pump station to be located on the Horsepen
Creek floodplain near Bledsoe Drive, and from there to an
existing gravity interceptor along South Buffalo Creek. The
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Governor EDE H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary --
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0639 Buffalo Creek Sewerline, Guilford County
DATE: April 12, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments list and describe
information that is necessary for our divisions to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the project. More specific comments will be
provided during the environmental review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: jr
attachments
RECEIVED
APR 19 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
FM203 -
04-17-95
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
ROBERT J. GOLDSTEIN E ASSOC. MRS- CHRYS BAGGETT
GERALD POTTERN DIRECTOR
8480 GARVEY DRIVE N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
RALEIGHt NC 27604-3175
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 MILE LONG SEWER LINE
AND PUMP STATION TO CONVEY WASTEWATER FROM EXISTING AND FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE HORSEPEN CREEK AND BRUSH CREEK BASINS
SAI NO 95E43000639 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C-C- REGION G
Monica Swihart, NC DEM
I

Division of Environmental Management
Ecological Assessment Group
October 16, 1995
To: Monica Swihart
Through: John Dome
From: Steven Kroeger S ?L
Subject: Review of the Environmental Assessment -- Horsepen Creek to South
Buffalo Creek Sewerline and Pump Station, Guilford County, NC
State Project Review No. 95E 43000 639.
The environmental assessment provides a good description of the environmental impacts to
riparian. and wetland plant communities. Section 2.3 (pages 7-10) provides
recommendations to minimize environmental impacts. Project construction will require the
clearing of 0.52 acres of wetlands at four sites (Sections 3.11.2 and 4.10). These wetlands
have been disturbed from the construction of other sewerlines.
The project will use anti-seep collars when necessary, and the pre-construction wetland
grade will be restored. In addition the construction area will be seeded with an annual
cover crop to prevent erosion, and allow the recolonization of the sites by native vegetation.
I can offer no further comments on this environmental assessment.
cc: Melba McGee
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
October 18, 1995
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall S ? `t
SUBJECT: EA -- Sewerline and Pump Station, Horsepen Creek to South Buffaloe Creek,
Greensboro
REFERENCE: 758
The assessment of this project's potential impacts on rare species and significant natural areas
is quite thorough.. The Natural Heritage Program agrees that there should be no important
impacts in these respects, and we concur with the suggestions made in the document to
minimize damage to floodplain pools and other natural resources.
Nc-a' Proces,
Tim

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REQUIREMENTS (siawtory time
I
i„„t)

Permit to drill explorator
oil or
a
ll File surety.bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
y
g
s we conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
Q State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.

401 Water Quality Certification
NIA 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 daysr

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
? Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required. must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
J-0 e-

7

i%/pr
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits- should be addressed to-the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive
Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone] ,
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington
NC 27889 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
,
[phone] Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
[phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources [Reviewing Office: wl
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Project Number: Due Date:
-7S8 /O aD
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process
Ti
me
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
W1 Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply tN Ai
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NrA?
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the mstalfation of a well (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA
(90 days)
A open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
i
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820.

Q
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800. (90 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan 30 da st
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)

Mi
i
P
i On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
n
ng
erm
t varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days
(NIA) i
Q Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
i On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -if more 1 day
count
es in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections fNrA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
- )
i

Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90-120 days
(NIA)
It permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

Dam Safety Permit Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNA approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
'"O' Continued on reverse
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
October 10, 1995
TO: Monica Swihart
THROUGH: Steve Mauney
FROM: Ron Linville - jRQ
SUBJECT: EA - Horsepen Creek Sewerline and
Pump Station Ref. #95-0639
Guilford County
A review of the project document suggests that an official
delineation of the wetland/water impacts may not have occurred.
The document indicates that 0.52 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
(described as marsh areas in the text) will be impacted and that
8.08 acres of alluvial forest will be impacted (described as
containing many wetland indicator speciesin the text).
Additionally, the proposal indicates 8.1 miles of the sewer will
parallel streams and in some cases existing sewerlines.
Historically, such activities impact wetlands to a greater
extent than a cursory review often indicates. The Region is
aware that DOT has impacted larger wetland acreages near the
airport with recent road improvements. Many of these impacts
were in alluvial forests situations that were COE delineated as
wetlands. A further review and official delineation of actual
wetland/water impacts is recommended (especially in the alluvial
areas and stream crossings) prior to submittal of the 404/401
applications and prior to beginning the project as most of these
areas are upstream of Greensboro's water supply. The project may
still qualify for a nationwide 404 permit and 401 certification.
However, specific conditions would very likely be required such
as more anti-seep collars than anticipated in the 0.52 acres of
marsh as well as measures to prevent construction drainageways
from being left intact upon completion for the entire project.
The report writers seem to have a good grasp of many of the
concerns related to this project and have provided ample
considerations for the EA. The concerns expressed above should
be targeted for resolution during the permitting process. Please
let us know if we can be of any further assistance.
cc: Central Files
WSRO
John Dorney
19(09zlb
OCT 13 1995
WATER QUALITY
PL4NNtNG BRANCH
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Permits and Engineering
State Engineers Review Group
October 23, 1995
Memorandum
TO: Monica Swihart
Water Quality Planning
FROM: Randy Kepler, Environmental Engineer CZZ41
C.?."C
Through: Carolyn McCaskill, Supervisor
State Engineers Review Group
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment-City of Greensboro-
Horsepen Creek to South Buffalo Creek gravity sewer and
pump station, Cape Fear River Basin
Guilford County
The project is to allow urban growth to the northwest area of the City
of Greensboro. The project will consist of 11.7 miles of sewer line and pump
station to convey wastewater to an existing gravity interceptor along South
Buffalo Creek.
Concerns with this pump station include the construction in the 100
year flood plain of Horsepen Creek and Brush Creek and the construction in a
WS-III watershed. 8.1 miles of this project will occur along either of the
previously mentioned creeks. Nothing has been stated concerning
construction in the 100 year flood zone. Provisions must be included to
prevent any flood waters to either enter through the manhole covers or into
the pump station. Also, provisions must be included to insure no overflow
of the pump station will occur by providing some form of reliability such as
telemetry with emergency power hookup or stand-by generator. These
concerns must be addressed.
The above listed concerns must be addressed prior to the construction
of this project. Whether these concerns should be addressed in the EA can be
determined by you but they must be included and addressed adequately in the
permit application.
As it looks, this assessment is adequate aside from the above concerns.
SERG has no problem with the construction of the pump station and sewer
extension assuming a non-discharge permit application is submitted to us for
review and approved prior to construction, and construction is completed in
accordance with the permit requirements.
If you have any questions or concerns about the above information,
feel free to give me a call.
• .""_ r
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Inter v977n7e."ffairs
FROM. Owen F. Anderson, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 23, 1995
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment (EA) for Horsepen Creek to South Buffalo Creek
Sewer and Pump Station, Guilford County, North Carolina. Project No. 758.
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the subject document. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The City of Greensboro proposes to construct an 11.7 mile sewer and pump station to
convey raw wastewater in the Iorsepen Creek and Brush Creek basins to an existing sewer along
South Buffalo Creek. The wastewater will be treated at T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment
Plant and discharged to South Buffalo Creek. A total of 8.1 miles of sewer will be installed
along strewn corridors.
The FA is well written and adequately addresses our concerns. We concur that the
recommended route will minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. In addition,
we concur that where existing sewer corridors exist, albeit 15 to 25 feet from the stream bank, it
is not feasible to provide a 100-Foot forested buffer and that new construction should be placed
upslope from existing lines. _
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this FA. If I can further assist
your office, please contact me at [phone].
SRIORI
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
DEHNR DRAFT REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
COMMENTS RECEIVED 3 NOVEMBER 1995
RESPONSES
Reviewer: Ron Linville, DEHNR Winston-Salem Regional Office.
Comment: Questions the thoroughness of the wetland delineation.
Response: Jurisdictional wetlands along the entire corridor were
delineated by Mike Crocker and Gerald Pottern of RJG&A in
accordance with the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual. The
delineation has not yet been verified by COE. The 0.52 acre of
wetland impacts indicated in the EA assumes that RJG&A's
recommended route will be followed. Greensboro requested that we
perform our environmental studies before they spent time and money
on design, to ensure that adverse impacts would be minimized. The
project engineers will follow our recommended route as closely as
possible, but there may be unforseen constraints that require
alignment changes. When a final design is complete, we will
determine whether the project impacts differ from those in the EA,
and will schedule a meeting with COE to verify the wetland
delineation prior to submission of a Section 404/401 Notification.
Reviewer: Randy Kepler, DEM Permits and Engineering Review Group
Comment: Much of the project is within the 100 year flood zone.
Provisions must be included to prevent inflow to the system during
floods and overflows during power failures.
Response: These issues were not addressed in the EA because the
engineering design has progressed only as far as selecting a
tentative route, as discussed in the response above. The project
engineers will be advised of these requirements, which will be
incorporated into the final design plans submitted for DEM review.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 VENDOR NO.: 11331
City of Greensboro VENDOR NAME NC Division Of Water Quality
Post Office BOX 3136 CHECK NUMBER: 87429
Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 CHECK DATE: 11/21/03
Invoice No. Comments Invoice Date Gross Amount Discounts Net Check Amount
CJ1030 11/21/03 475.00 0.00 475.00
BLEDSOE LIFT STATION FORCE MAIN, BLEDSOE
LIFT STATION AND CARDINAL FORCE MAIN AND
OUTFALL

475.00 0.00 475.00

0023069
oO? °
0
z
o ?
o \ 7
o A
Q°
a a °
SUP
RDAD
o =
V ? Q u ?/1 $ ° 0 p O
r m
-cj
a? z
o O O O
C O p O o ° O o
°
,.
a b c x m --
O C' ? a
O fQ
0 ?e
0
°
00 °o
D
C) °
O
° G
C G
G
?? C I
X Z /
x° Q?
Xo o p
R a
F y +p? J 0
0
-h o v R
?fyC Q z
a rt Q SAD °
?°-
°0 N N O
6 no o n
, A:w
x?
/ i Q orF X/r0 ^^O ?J
01
o Gl?C? v SU
\ x° NU1 ?? ?/C??'
BRYAN []t_-? ??ww?//p?\
BL VD,
A.?.ER 201 N. Greene Street DOW 10/23/03 »" w BMB
X C?a?=+,d11 JJa Mr l Ln
P.O. Box 3136
SOIiPC@'S Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 we : x (j 1 LM 8't gLi trl gnJ % IF-19 WI
[phone] Tel.
CllyofGb [phone] Fax. 5pow 1" -6 00 3Of 3 OI'?Y'??YL?,?jf???`? ?? r??l-+?+?