20191604 Ver 2_ePCN Application_20220504

DWR
Division of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
April 13, 2022 Ver 4.3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
Yes
No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes • No
Change only if needed.
Pre -Filing Meeting Date Request was submitted on:
12/17/2019
BIMS # Assigned * Version#*
20191604 2
Is a payment required for this project?*
No payment required
Fee received
• Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Winston-Salem Regional Office - (336) 776-
9800
Information for Initial Review
What amout is owed? *
• $240.00
$570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Sue Homewood:eads\slhomewood
la. Name of project:
High Point Upper Piedmont Lake Dredging & Dam Maintenance
la. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Trevor Spencer, City of High Point Public Services Manager
1 b. Primary Contact Email: * lc. Primary Contact Phone: *
[e-mail] [phone]
Date Submitted
5/4/2022
Nearest Body of Water
UT East Fork Deep River
Basin
Cape Fear
Water Classification
WS-IV
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
36.0578
A. Processing Information
Longitude:
-79.9461
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Guilford
Is this a NCDMS Project
Yes • No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes • No

la. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Has this PCN previously been submitted?*
Yes
No
Please provide the date of the previous submission.*
11/19/2019
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
Nationwide Permit (NWP)
Regional General Permit (RGP)
Standard (IP)
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
Yes No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 39 - Commercial/Institutional Developments
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
ld. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
If. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
lg. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
Yes No
1 h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
Yes No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
Yes No
B. Applicant Information
ld. Who is applying for the permit?
Owner Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project? *
Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
City of High Point
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Contact Person:
Trevor Spencer, Public Services Manager
401 Water Quality Certification - Express
Riparian Buffer Authorization
Yes No
Yes No

2d. Address
Street Address
816 East Green Drive
Address Line 2
City
High Point
Postal / Zip Code
27260
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
trevor.spencer@h ig h poi ntnc.gov
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Gerald Pottern
4b. Business Name:
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
4c. Address
Street Address
104 East Chestnut Ave
Address Line 2
City
Wake Forest
Postal / Zip Code
27587
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
US
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
US
4e. Fax Number:
1. Project Information
lb. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
lc. Nearest municipality / town:
between High Point and Greensboro
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
7813998919
2c. Project Address
Street Address
4239 Piedmont Parkway
Address Line 2
City
Greensboro
Postal / Zip Code
27410
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project: *
UT East Fork Deep River
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water: *
WS-IV
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
2b. Property size:
17.2 acres
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
US
Cape Fear

3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
03030003-0102
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The existing stormwater/sediment impoundment comprises a chain of three ponds: the main dam is 1,400 ft downstream of Piedmont Parkway and two sub -impoundments are upstream
of Piedmont Parkway. All three ponds have the same normal pool elevation of 806 ft. The uppermost pond (1.2 acre) has accumulated sediment over the past 30 years due to land
development, and is in need of dredging to restore its stormwater and pollutant retention capacity. The pond has two perennial influent streams (one from the east, one from the north) and
several adjacent wetlands. Most of the pond edge has a forested buffer except along the south edge (dam) and east edge (utility lines). Surrounding land uses are predominantly
commercial and industrial, interspersed with patches of forest.
This project was permitted in December 2019, but the permit verification expired in March 2022 before work began. This PCN is for re -permitting the same project; there is no change in
the proposed design or impacts to waters.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
• Yes No Unknown
If yes, please give the DWR Certification number or the Corps Action ID (exp. SAW-0000-00000).
ACE # SAW-2019-02250; DWR # 2019-1604, Version 1
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
1.25 acre of wetlands in 6.2 ac JD review area
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
370 feet (including stream reach beyond JD review area)
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of this project is to remove sediment which has accumulated in Upper Piedmont Lake since it was constructed. Sediment removal is required to maintain the lake's long-term
functionality as a stormwater detention facility and to improve capture of pollutants in upstream urban runoff.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Piedmont Lake (main dam, downstream) will be lowered to an elevation that will effectively drain the upper pond. Erosion control devices will be installed and equipment access points
created (1) along the upstream side of the upper dam, (2) on the peninsula on the east side of the upper pond, and (3) below the upper dam to access the culvert outlet between the upper
pond and middle pond. A temporary rock check dam and turbidity curtain will be installed at the culvert outlet at the head of the middle pond, where the upper pond drains into it. A
temporary earthen cofferdam will be installed in the upper pond to divert stream flow around the active excavation area, and pumps may be used if necessary. (Flow diversion and
pumping details to be determined by the contractor). After dewatering, the upper pond bed (1.03 acre) will be mechanically dredged using excavators, loaders, and dump trucks. No
streams or wetlands will be disturbed, other than temporary dewatering of fringe wetlands during dredging. One to three feet of accumulated sediment will be removed, totaling roughly
2,200 cubic yards, and disposed off -site at the nearby Kersey Valley landfill. After dredging is complete, the cofferdam, check dam, and turbidity curtain will be removed and the water level
restored. Disturbed areas above normal pool elevation will be reseeded and stabilized, and the disturbed zone 1 riparian buffer areas beyond the dam footprint will be replanted with native
trees and shrubs.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
• Yes No
Comments:
delineated in March 2019
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
• Preliminary Approved Not Verified Unknown N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2019-02250
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Gerald Pottern
Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
USACE PJD & NWP verification issued January 8, 2020
NCDWR 401-Certification issued December 17, 2019
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
Yes • No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary

la. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
Wetlands Streams -tributaries
Open Waters Pond Construction
4. Open Water Impacts
I Buffers
4a. Site #
4a1. Impact Reason
4b. Impact type
4c. Name of waterbody
4d. Activity type
4e. Waterbody type
4f. Impact area
0-1
sediment removal
P
pond on UT E Fork Deep R
Excavation
Pond
1.03
0-2
sed check dam
T
pond on UT E Fork Deep R
Fill
Pond
0.01
0-3
turbidity curtain
T
pond on UT E Fork Deep R
Dewatering
Pond
0.03
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts:
0.04
4g. Total open water impacts:
1.07
4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
1.03
4h. Comments:
Upper pond (including area to be excavated) will also be temporarily dewatered: 1.20 acre. Minor dewatering of pond fringe wetlands will also occur
(area not quantified). The permanent excavation impact (1.03 acre open water) will not cause any loss of open water functions.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
Neuse
Catawba
Goose Creek
Other
Tar -Pamlico
, Randleman
Jordan Lake
6b. Impact Type
6c. Per or Temp
6d. Stream name
6e. Buffer mitigation required?
6f. Zone 1 impact
6g. Zone 2 impact
B-1 allowable (construc access)
T
pond on UT E Fork Deep R
No
1,190
640
B-2 allowable (construc access)
T
pond on UT E Fork Deep R
No
500
400
B-3 allowable (construc access)
T
pond on UT E Fork Deep R
No
2,950
0
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Total Temporary impacts:
Total Permanent impacts:
Total combined buffer impacts:
6i. Comments:
Zone 1
4,640.00
Zone 1
0.00
Zone 1
4,640.00
Zone 2
1,040.00
Zone 2
0.00
Zone 2
1,040.00
Disturbed zone-1 and zone-2 buffers will be replanted with native hardwood trees after construction.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Pond access points were chosen to take advantage of previously cleared uplands and other non -wetland and non -buffer areas along the dam to the
extent practicable. The upper pond and upper portion of the middle pond will be dewatered (by lowering the water at the lower pond) so that sediment
can be excavated "dry", thus minimizing turbidity.
lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
The check dam at the culvert outlet between the upper and middle ponds will help contain sediment if a large storm occurs. The turbidity curtain will
have floats to rise and fall with the pond elevation. A temporary cofferdam across the pond bed (within the area to be excavated) will divert flow through
the pond and keep water out of the active excavation area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State

2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
Yes No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
The only permanent impact will be deepening of 1.03 ac of open water pond by 1 to 3 feet. There will be no loss of function, and no compensatory mitigation is required.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes No
What type of SCM are you providing?
Level Spreader
Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHWT)
Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
Other SCM that removes minimum 30% nitrogen
Proposed project will not create concentrated stormwater flow through the buffer
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
Yes No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
Yes No
Comments:
No new built -upon area; the feature to be worked on IS a stormwater management structure, constructed several decades ago on a natural stream.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land? *
Yes No
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?*
Yes No
Comments: *
Project does not meet conditions that require a NEPA or SEPA document.
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 28 .0200)?*
Yes No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
Yes No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Dredging the pond to restore stormwater and sediment capacity will help mitigate the effects of future development upstream, but will not cause
additional development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
Yes No N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
Yes No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
Yes No

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
Yes
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
Yes • No
• No Unknown
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
• Yes No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
Yes • No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
Yes • No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
Yes • No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
US-FWS and NC-NHP list three federally protected species in Guilford County: Bald Eagle, Small -whorled Pogonia, and Schweinitz's Sunflower. None of
these species is reported to occur within three miles of the project area. The FWS-IPaC search tool indicates no critical habitats in the project area. No
suitable habitat for any federal -listed species was found during field investigations by MMI.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Yes • No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat? *
NOAA-NMFS Essntial Fish Habitat online mapping tool.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
Yes • No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
SHPO online GIS viewer. Three sites are known within one mile of the project area; none is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
• Yes No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project will remove accumulated sediment to restore flood capacity. No new permanent above -grade fill will be added.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
Guilford County FIRM panel # 7824 from https://fris.nc.gov
Miscellaneous
Please use the space below to attach all required documentation or any additional information you feel is helpful for application review. Documents should be combined into one file when
possible, with a Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and a Cover Sheet for each Section preferred.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
PCN-2 Cover Ltr + Figures HighPoint.pdf 1.69MB
File must be PDF or KMZ
Comments
Attachments in PDF:
cover letter
agent authorization form
USGS topographic map
NRCS soil survey map
FEMA FIRM map
cultural resources map
waters & buffers impact maps
sediment disposal site map
FWS-IPaC species list
Signature
By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; and

The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Gerald Pottern
Signature
Date
5/4/2022

www.mogmit.com MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC.
MMI - Charlotte [phone] ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING DVM
MMI - Raleigh [phone] MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC
03 May 2022
David Bailey
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: Re -permitting Upper Piedmont Parkway Lake Dredging, High Point, Guilford County NC
USACE # SAW-2019-02250; NCDWR # 2019-1604, Version I
Dear David,
In January 2020 you issued a 404 NWP Verification # SAW-2019-02250 for the City of High Point's proposed
sediment dredging work at the Upper Piedmont Parkway Lake, a stormwater control pond on an unnamed
tributary to East Fork Deep River in Guilford County between High Point and Greensboro. In December
2019 Sue Homewood issued NCDWR General Water Quality Certification approval # 2019-1604 for this
project. The City rescheduled the work, and the permit verifications expired in March 2022 before the
dredging work began. This new PCN is for re -permitting the project, which has not changed; proposed
impacts are the same as in our original PCN application submitted in November 2019 and the December
2019 supplementary letter specifying the sediment disposal site.
The ePCN form and the following supporting documents have been uploaded to the DWR e-PCN portal:
1) Agent authorization form
2) USGS Topo Quad + USDA Soil Survey map
3) FEMA FIRM Panel map
4) Cultural Resources map
5) Waters & buffers impact maps
6) Sediment disposal site map
7) FWS-IPaC species list
Sincerely,
m
Gerald Pottern, Senior Biologist
Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
104 East Chestnut Ave
Wake Forest NC 27587
Environmental Field Studies m Wetland & Stream Delineation m 404-401 Permits m Mitigation Plans & Banking

MOGENSEN MITIGATION INC.
919-556-8845 office
919-649-6506 mobile
[e-mail]
cc: Sue Homewood, NC-DWR WSRO
Scarlett Kitts, Schnabel Engineering
AMwww.mogmit.com Page 12
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM -- US Army Corps of Engineers Permit
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION. High Point Upper Piedmont Lake Maintenance
LOT NO.
PLAN NO. PARCEL ID, FIN # 7813-99-8919
STREET ADDRESS: _4239 Piedmont Parkway, Greensboro, NC 27410
Please print.
Property Owner I., City of.High Point, PQ Box 230, High Point NC 27261
Property Owner 2:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
GeraldPottern of Mogensen Mitigation Inc. (MMI-RJGA)-
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of this
permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
name: Trevor Spencer, PE — Public Services Manager
address: City of High Point, PO Box 230, High.. Point NC 27261
Telephone: [phone] Email: — ------ trevor-spencer0highpointnc.gov
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of
our knowledge.
Authorized Signdtiure I
Date; � (4 � //2
Authorized Signature 2
Date:

%0
4,1 I'll, —Ck
I-ddk 41 0
U P P�e r
Pie mont
A L�a k e N AM
0
0
ev
RZ 1.
ft
f&.Z.1chm sit
z
k s it J d dkk
S G S C'S
lranghP. Guilford
F11
Project Vicinity Map, USGS Topographc Quadrangle: Guilford NC
High Point Upper Piedmont Lake Dredging & Dam Maintenance, Guilford County NC
Nationwide Permit PCN, Nov 2019 -- Agent: Gerald Pottern, Mogensen Mitigation Inc

USD S01
GUILFOR N 9
et 26 CO2
h
ApB
CeC2
A4 a
APC
t Ce B,1
En13
CeC2
'.s pper
E-0 C
u
Ce 82 pon
C'
An
ell
E
EnC
Wkc
A r, C
APB Vac
EnC
a L C,
CeB2
F F,
EnC
CeB2 M h
M h C.,-' Eric, 2Q00
tic
f f I
USDA Soil Survey of GUILFORD COUNTY, 1977 -- Sheet 26
High Point Upper Piedmont Lake Dredging & Dam Maintenance, Guilford County NC
Nationwide Permit PCN, Nov 2019 -- Agent: Gerald Pottern, Mogensen Mitigation Inc

KI-IiiWiliT
79"56'39'W
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Guilford County FIRM Panel # 7824
High Point Upper Piedmont Lake Dredging & Dam Maintenance, Guilford County NC
Nationwide Permit PCN, Nov 2019 -- Agent: Gerald Pottern, Mogensen Mitigation Inc

an
V)
c
U
CL
. no
- v3Z.
L
PH buipAs S
I'lifAgpinog
V/0
010
VO
71".
'0
Elrewg',Ok
0 0
P40jllon
'70 'Z
94:
0 VII, own i
Aar
i(dxg qjp,,�,'a E
cu
Sao",
(U
100 4:) s POOM I IW 0
m
PH r3b-?d
E
0
Penny
Aicl il-4
V
0
to 4c
6*1 10 ch

z
LU
tl�
LU
z
0
J
N
Pg
ILI CL
CL 0
en
IN
1A
in
p (>
0
z
0
co
CIL
E
20
in
CC
m
CL
u
4
06
E
CIL Q
cl. w
/e
1�4
ISIS cc
zo
m L,
Lj
i4 E 0 1= —
I I
0
U
0
-2
0
CL
u
m
CL
.E
4�
E
CL
bD
u
M
C� c
C
CL
0
�q
CS
CL
C)
z

MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC. MME
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
MOGENSEN MfTIGATION.INC
MMI RALEIGH OFFICE (was Robert J. Goldstein&Associates)
104 East Chestnut Avenue MMI MAIN OFFICE--CHARLOTTE
Wake Forest, NC 27587 P.O. Box 690429,Charlotte, NC 28227
Tel: [phone] [e-mail] Tel: [phone] [e-mail]
17 December 2019
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: High Point Upper Piedmont Lake, Guilford Co --JD Request
Dear Dave:
On December 11 you requested that we provide further information on a sediment disposal site
for the High Point Upper Piedmont Lake (Piedmont Parkway) dredging project, for which we
submitted a JD Request and PCN on November 19, 2019.
The City of High Point (applicant) plans to use their Kersey Valley Landfill as the disposal site. The
site is located at 3940 Kivett Dr, Jamestown, in Guilford County approximately four miles east of
downtown High Point and seven miles SSE of the dredging site. A Google Earth image of the site is
provided below (35.9553, -79.9280), and the City's landfill permit is attached as a separate pdf.
Let me know if you need any further information.
Sincerely,
r; /"Iiegt-e
Gerald Pottern, M.S.
Senior Biologist
MOGENSEN MITIGATION, INC. MMI-RJGA Raleigh
Richard K. Mogensen, President 104 East Chestnut Avenue
PO Box 690429, Charlotte, NC 28227 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Tel: [phone]
[e-mail] [phone] [e-mail]
NEPA&SEPA Environmental Impact Reports ■ Jurisdictional Wetland&Stream Buffer Delineations ■ Section 404-401 Permitting • Endangered&Threatened Species
Surveys • Federal&State Environmental Agency Consultation • Stream&Wetland Restoration&Mitigation Planning • Mitigation Banking&Monitoring • GPS&
GIS Mapping • Water Quality&Stream Flow Studies • Phase 1 Risk Assessments • Lake&Watershed Management • Conservation Planning • Parks&Greenways
• Water Supply, Wastewater&Storm water Utilities • Electric&Gas Transmission Lines • Ponds,Lakes&Dams • Residential&Commercial Site Development

El
Qj�
201B Cooqle
1578 ft oogle Earth
ANN.

Mil a n uulurr.
a- 141][4 N.IX
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE . :
4lit'ff 3 '/'% Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh,NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To: April 29, 2022
Project Code: 2022-0037487
Project Name: Upper Piedmont Parkway Pond Dredging
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species. If suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information.An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered

04/29/2022 2
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project-related impacts.Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

04/29/2022 3
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• Migratory Birds

04/29/2022 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

04/29/2022 2
Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0037487
Event Code: None
Project Name: Upper Piedmont Parkway Pond Dredging
Project Type: Dam - Maintenance/Modification
Project Description: Excavate accumulated sediment from a City of High Point stormwater
management pond
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@36.059360100000006,-79.94439408398179,14z
}
Counties: Guilford County, North Carolina

04/29/2022 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Insects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Population:
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1890
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

04/29/2022
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental 31
USA and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions(BCRs)in the continental USA
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental Aug 31
USA and Alaska.

04/29/2022 2
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.)A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe

04/29/2022 3
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort —no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Pr
airie warbler
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird +--- --I+ Al - —++ ++++ +--- ---- ---- ---- ---- +1— ---+
BCC-BCR
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds hops://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,

04/29/2022 4
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s)which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network(AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA(including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC -Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or(for non-eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can

04/29/2022 5
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s)that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort(indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator(a red horizontal bar).A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

04/29/2022 6
IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Mogensen Mitigation Inc.
Name: Gerald Pottern
Address: 104 East Chestnut Ave
City: Wake Forest
State: NC
Zip: 27587
Email [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]