20210773 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20220513

Strickland, Bev
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 12:25 PM
To: David Michaels
Cc: Michael Brame; Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A.; Homewood, Sue
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield
Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning, Mr. Michaels, and thank you for your 3/30/2022 response to our request for additional information. I
have reviewed the information and included responses below to each item while we hold for additional information,
noted in your 4/5/2022 response to our request for additional information, necessary to confirm compliance with NWP
29 General Condition 18 pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Note that the original items in our
request are in italics below. Corps comments/responses in response to the information you submitted on 3/30/2022 are
included below each item in red. Per the below clarification is needed before proceeding with verifying the use of
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 (https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested
information below (via e-mail is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of
the use of the Nationwide Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
NWP 29 states that "The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non -tidal waters of the United
States." Although the current proposed wetland loss is below the 0.5 acre threshold in NWP 29, the proposed wetland
loss (21,127 ft2) in combination with the proposed stream loss (770 ft2) equates to 21,897 ft2 (0.503 acre), which
exceeds the impact threshold of NWP 29. You may apply to authorize the proposed impacts via the Individual Permit
process. Or, you may further avoid or minimize proposed impacts to demonstrate that this development would fit
within the NWP 29 impact thresholds. Please notify this office immediately if you propose to pursue an Individual
Permit for this project.
1) NWP 29 General Condition 23(a) requires that the activity be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize
adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable
(available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes). It is not clear that the design of the proposed development meets this
requirement. Namely:
a. Slate Ridge Trail, including proposed Impacts 1 and 2, is routed to cross Stream SA at a tangent at the
widest portion of Wetland WD, and directly through a disjunct section of Wetland WC 12-58. Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to follow closer to the existing
driveway of the site across Stream SA, and or re -aligning this road to the north of Wetland WC 21-58;
Corps concerns with Slate Ridge Trail through Wetland WD and Stream SA are resolved.
Corps concerns with Slate Ridge Trail through disjunct section of Wetland WC 12-58 are also resolved
However, note that professional experience with wetlands as well as local experience in this portion of
Guilford County contradict the assertions that this portion of Wetland WC 12-58 are man-made. In fact,
as shown by much of the remainder of the verified wetland delineation which was field -verified with
particular attention to evaluate wetland areas extending well up -gradient, wetlands extending upslope
within topographic drainages are common in this portion of Guilford County. Further, the 1955 aerial
i

photo, taken prior to the installation of the existing driveway, shows that the farmed area at the time
surrounded but did not encroach into the existing disjunct section of Wetland WC 12-58, a typical
indication that this area would have been too wet to farm. Although it is likely that the existing
driveway has had the effect of ponding water in this area thereby making this portion of the wetland
"wetter", the primary hydrology source for this portion of the wetland is more likely to be shallow
subsurface groundwater flow similar to up -gradient portions of Wetland WE 1-58 on -site.
b. Longfield Drive is routed through the upper -most portion of Wetland WE (Impact 5). Retaining walls and
other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
Corps concerns with Longfield Drive through Wetland WE are resolved.
c. Elk Horn Drive, is routed through one of the wider sections of Wetland WE 1-58 (Impact 7). Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to cross this wetland closer to the
existing dirt path crossing to the north, or re -aligning this road to cross this wetland slightly to the south;
Corps concerns with Elk Horn Drive through Wetland WE are resolved.
d. Wetland impacts are proposed for Lot fill at Lots 16, 17, 48, 62, and 63 (Impacts 3, 4, 6, and 8). It is not
clear that project viability is dependent on the inclusion of these 5 Lots, when the overall development
proposes 99. Further, retaining walls and other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate
or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
Corps concerns with Lot fill at Lots 48, 62, and 63 (Impacts 3, 4, and 6) are resolved due to lower quality
wetlands in the cleared portion of Wetland WE and the very small size of these proposed impacts at the
fringes of a larger wetland system.
However, wetland impacts at proposed Lots 16 and 17 (Impact 8) are neither low quality wetlands nor
particularly small when compared to other authorized residential Lot fill impacts in the North Carolina
Piedmont. The portion of Wetland WC proposed for impact for these two lots is a mature forest at the
edge of a geomorphic floodplain within 75 feet of a perennial stream channel, indicating relatively high
function. Although proposed impacts include a relatively small percentage of wetlands on -site, the
requirement in NWP 29 General Condition 23(a) is to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of
the US (including wetlands) to the maximum extent practicable. It appears that the relatively small
proportion of proposed wetland impacts to total wetlands on -site is more of a function of the relatively
large amount of wetlands existing on this site than the demonstrated efforts to avoid and minimize.
Give the preceding, please avoid Impact 8 accordingly (e.g. combining lots 16 and 17, steepen fill slopes,
etc.), or provide more specific documentation that such measures are not practicable (i.e. available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes).
2) Item la above notwithstanding, revisions are required on Sheets 2 and 3 of the plans provided with the PCN:
a. The culvert pipe footprint is not visible on Sheet 2. This information is needed to show the pipe alignment
vs. the location of the stream, the culvert width vs. the width of the stream, etc., to ensure that the
project meets NWP 29 Regional Condition 8.9c;
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
b. Sheet 2 does not clearly indicate the footprint of stream impacts for each of the 110 If of stream impact,
50 If of embedded rip rap, and 10 additional If of temporary impacts;
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
c. Sheet 3 indicates that two 60" culvert pipes are proposed at Impact 1. In order to comply with NWP 29
Regional Condition B.9b, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe (inverts buried 1' below the stream
bed), and the other pipe should act as the high flow culvert (only to receiving bank full flows). High flow
culverts are typically designed by placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two above the
existing stream bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the inlet and outlet of
the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above referenced flow level;
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
d. The top and bottom of the culvert is not visible on the profile view; this information is needed to ensure
that the culvert meets NWP 29 Regional Condition 8.9 pertaining to culvert burial. Ensure that this
drawing clearly labels the top and bottom of the high and low flow culverts;
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
2

e. Items la and 2a above notwithstanding, Sheet 2 indicates that the culverts would be oriented such that
the stream exits the culverts aimed directly at the stream bank. Furthermore, the stream alignment
would then run parallel to the proposed fill slope only a few feet to the south for approximately 37 linear
feet. This information indicates that maintaining a functioning stream channel in its current location
under these conditions is extremely unlikely. How would the design minimize the risk of indirect impacts
to this portion of the stream channel? Based on the current proposal the Corps would consider this
portion of stream as an indirect reduction of stream function, potentially calculated cumulatively with
the proposed direct permanent stream impacts when considering compensatory mitigation thresholds,
per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
Corps concerns with this item are resolved, with the caveat that a cross-section view of the rip rapped
reach of channel must be provided that clearly shows that the existing channel dimensions will be
maintained, rather than over -widened (i.e. "blown out") to create a wide dissapator pad.
f. Items la above notwithstanding, the portion of unimpacted Wetland WD between the south side of the
proposed fill slope and Stream SA includes a remanent fringe of wetland too small (-0.016 acre) and
narrow to be expected to retain its previous function. As such, and the fact that grading for the adjacent
direct impact would eliminate any upslope drainage to this area, the Corps would consider the remainder
of the south side of this wetland as a reasonably foreseeable indirect impact. This area would be added
to the required compensatory mitigation amount.
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
3) Please provide zoomed -in details, including a plan and profile view, for Impact 7. Ensure that these details clearly
show the size and number of culvert pipes (placed at -grade rather than buried), head walls, rip rap, etc.
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
4) Items 1 a-c above notwithstanding, how would the project maintain appropriate hydrology to the remainders of
Wetlands WC 21-58 and WE 1-58. The Corps is concerned that upland grading in these areas would re-route
overland flow away from these areas and into downslope stormwater basins. If onsite hydrology is expected to
be maintained via culverts under roadways, swales, or other methods, please include plan detail sheets to
demonstrate. Note that, in addition to compensatory mitigation requirements for direct, the Corps would
consider requiring compensatory mitigation reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts resulting in a loss of
hydrology and therefore aquatic function, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
5) For proposed Impact 9, sanitary sewer crossing of Stream SD and Wetland WC 21-58:
a. Per NWP 29 General Condition 10.c., please provide a plan to restore and re -vegetate wetland areas
within the utility corridor;
Please confirm the following, and add to Sheet 5:
In wetlands, the top 6-12 inches of the trench will be backfilled with topsoil from the trench;
Wetland areas within the sewer corridor shall be seeded with a regionally appropriate wetland seed
mix. No fescue grass or any other species identified as invasive or exotic species by the NC Native Plant
Society (NCNPS, https://ncwildflower.org/invasive-exotic- species -list/) shall be used to re -seed the
sewer corridor through wetlands.
b. Given that the project exceeds the compensatory mitigation ratio for wetland impacts, the Corps will also
require compensatory mitigation for the permanently maintained sewer corridor through forested
wetlands. Compensatory mitigation for permanent conversion of forested to herbaceous wetlands is
typically required at a 1:1 ratio unless otherwise justified based on resource quality (NCWAM/NCSAM).
Corps concerns with this item are resolved.
6) We acknowledge the statement in the PCN pertaining to endangered species (Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act), that 'Potential habitat for these species is not located within the proposed project areas." However,
given the general nature of potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled pogonia,
the existence of both open and forested areas within the project area, and given recent USFWS concerns
regarding these species, the Corps cannot currently reach a No Effect determination for these species within the
Section 7Action Area based on the information provided. Note that, given the distribution of proposed impacts
throughout the property, the entire proposed Flemingfield Reserve development would be considered the Action
Area for Section 7 purposes. As such:
3

a. If you do not believe that any suitable habitat exists in the Action area for these species, please provide a
more thorough justification so that the Corps could evaluate the potential for a No Effect determination;
b. If suitable habitat for either of these species does exist in the Action Area, please complete a pedestrian
survey for these species within the appropriate survey window. Following the survey, please provide the
survey report to the Corps (copy also the USFWS) for review;
Please note that, per NWP 29 General Condition 18, the Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP until Section 7
consultation is complete.
Per your 4/5/2022 response to our request for additional information, resolution of NWP 29 General Condition
18 pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA is pending, specifically, an "on -site survey will need to be conducted within
these areas during the appropriate survey window as determined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."
7) Items la and c notwithstanding, to demonstrate further avoidance and minimization, would it be possible to
remove the existing driveway crossing of Stream SA or dirt road crossing of Wetland WE 1-58 and stabilize with
appropriate sloping and matting?
Your response is appreciated. At such time as a permit can be issued/verified for this project, a Special Condition
would be added requiring the removal of the existing driveway crossing of Stream SA and dirt road crossing of
Wetland WE 1-58, matching the grades above and below the crossings, and stabilization with appropriate
sloping and matting.
8) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Mobile: [phone]
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 6:10 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814
(Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
David and Sue,
4

Please find attached our response to your comments as set forth in prior emails dated March 2 and March 4, 2022. Our
response includes:
• Written answers to questions posed by each of you,
• Attached drawings as set forth in the written response.
Please advise if you have other questions at this time. There are additional reports forthcoming that will be forwarded
to you as received. Also, please confirm receipt of this response.
Yours truly,
WINDSOR
HOMES�
David B. Michaels
Manager, Land Acquisition and Development
Windsor Homes
5603 New Garden Village Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
M: 336-207-8003
0: 336.282.3535 Ext. 239
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:49 AM
To: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
That sounds good, Mr. Michaels. Thanks.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:19 PM
5

To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; Hugh Creed Associates Inc, P.A. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814
(Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Thanks Dave — we will proceed with the assessment. I have prepared a partial response to some of your concerns and
am waiting on my consultants to provide the additional data. We anticipate resubmittal by the end of next week — I will
keep you informed if it looks like it will extend beyond that time frame.
WINDSOR
HOMES�
David B. Michaels
Manager, Land Acquisition and Development
Windsor Homes
5603 New Garden Village Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
M: 336-207-8003
0: 336.282.3535 Ext. 239
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:07 PM
To: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
Hi Mr. Michaels, and thanks for your email. Yes, a site assessment to determine if suitable habitat exists onsite is an
appropriate course of action; such an assessment can be your response to item #6. Once that information is received I
can begin informal consultation with the USFWS. Hopefully that helps.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 9:40 AM
6

To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814
(Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
David,
Regarding item 6, it is my understanding that the window for observation of these species will not open until late
summer or early fall of this year. Consequently, the only timely response I can provide is a site assessment to determine
if suitable habitat exists onsite or not. I just want to confirm that this method of assessment will be acceptable at this
time. Pilot has referred us to a botanist that can cruise the site within the week or so if I give them the authorization.
Please reply at your earliest opportunity.
WINDSOR
HOMES�
David B. Michaels
Manager, Land Acquisition and Development
Windsor Homes
5603 New Garden Village Dr.
Greensboro, NC 27410
M: 336-207-8003
0: 336.282.3535 Ext. 239
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 7:15 AM
To: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
Sounds good. Thanks David.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

From: David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 4:15 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Teresa Andrews
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814
(Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Sue and David,
I will have formal answers back to each of you hopefully by the end of next week. I need to discuss a couple of these
concerns with Mike Brame and I've already spoken with the design engineer to provide answers as well. Have a nice
weekend and look forward to corresponding with you soon.
David Michaels
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Teresa Andrews <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
All,
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL
The Division has the same questions and comments as the USACE, therefore please copy me on your response to David's
email. In addition, I have the following comments and questions:
1. In order to determine the applicability of the state isolated permitting rules 15A NCAC 02H .1300, please provide
the wetland classification using the NCWAM dichotomous key.
2. Please clarify the stormwater requirements for this project. The PCN indicates that the site is Low Density but
also that a Stormwater Management Plan will be reviewed by the County.
3. As the stormwater control measures are located within confined areas adjacent to jurisdictional features, please
provide information regarding the status of the review of the stormwater management plan. Modifications to
the stormwater management plan could require additional impacts to jurisdictional features.
4. The plans propose 110 linear feet of culvert installation for the stream impact and 50 foot riprap apron. While
the agencies acknowledge that properly installed riprap aprons are not considered a loss of stream, it is the
Division's opinion that there is a loss of stream function and aquatic passage with longer riprap aprons,
especially when they are combined with the culvert length. Please confirm that the riprap apron is designed for
the minimum length allowed by regulations.
5. The Jordan Lake Buffer Rules are implemented by Guilford County, however the PCN notes that buffer
mitigation is not proposed. Please note that the Jordan Buffer Rules state that road crossings that impact
greater than 150 linear feet or 1/3 acre of buffer require mitigation. The total stream impacts at this location
are listed as 160 linear feet.
The Division will consider this application on hold until receipt of complete responses to all items. Please be aware that
additional questions or comments may be necessary upon review of your response.
8

Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
njOrV
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
All,
Thank you for your PCN, dated 2/1/2022, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need
clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 (https://saw-
reR.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail is fine) within 30
days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the Nationwide Permit or consider
your application withdrawn and close the file:
1) NWP 29 General Condition 23(a) requires that the activity be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize
adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable
(available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes). It is not clear that the design of the proposed development meets this
requirement. Namely:
a. Slate Ridge Trail, including proposed Impacts 1 and 2, is routed to cross Stream SA at a tangent at the
widest portion of Wetland WD, and directly through a disjunct section of Wetland WC 12-58. Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to follow closer to the existing
driveway of the site across Stream SA, and or re -aligning this road to the north of Wetland WC 21-58;
b. Longfield Drive is routed through the upper -most portion of Wetland WE (Impact 5). Retaining walls and
other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
c. Elk Horn Drive, is routed through one of the wider sections of Wetland WE 1-58 (Impact 7). Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to cross this wetland closer to the
existing dirt path crossing to the north, or re -aligning this road to cross this wetland slightly to the south;
d. Wetland impacts are proposed for Lot fill at Lots 16, 17, 48, 62, and 63 (Impacts 3, 4, 6, and 8). It is not
clear that project viability is dependent on the inclusion of these 5 Lots, when the overall development
proposes 99. Further, retaining walls and other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate
or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
9

Please re -design the project accordingly, or provide documentation that such avoidance and minimization
measures are not practicable.
2) Item la above notwithstanding, revisions are required on Sheets 2 and 3 of the plans provided with the PCN:
a. The culvert pipe footprint is not visible on Sheet 2. This information is needed to show the pipe
alignment vs. the location of the stream, the culvert width vs. the width of the stream, etc., to ensure
that the project meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9c;
b. Sheet 2 does not clearly indicate the footprint of stream impacts for each of the 110 If of stream impact,
50 If of embedded rip rap, and 10 additional If of temporary impacts;
c. Sheet 3 indicates that two 60" culvert pipes are proposed at Impact 1. In order to comply with NWP 29
Regional Condition B.9b, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe (inverts buried 1' below the stream
bed), and the other pipe should act as the high flow culvert (only to receiving bank -full flows). High flow
culverts are typically designed by placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two above the
existing stream bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the inlet and outlet of
the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above referenced flow level;
d. The top and bottom of the culvert is not visible on the profile view; this information is needed to ensure
that the culvert meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9 pertaining to culvert burial. Ensure that this
drawing clearly labels the top and bottom of the high and low flow culverts;
e. Items la and 2a above notwithstanding, Sheet 2 indicates that the culverts would be oriented such that
the stream exits the culverts aimed directly at the stream bank. Furthermore, the stream alignment
would then run parallel to the proposed fill slope only a few feet to the south for approximately 37
linear feet. This information indicates that maintaining a functioning stream channel in its current
location under these conditions is extremely unlikely. How would the design minimize the risk of indirect
impacts to this portion of the stream channel? Based on the current proposal the Corps would consider
this portion of stream as an indirect reduction of stream function, potentially calculated cumulatively
with the proposed direct permanent stream impacts when considering compensatory mitigation
thresholds, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
f. Items la above notwithstanding, the portion of unimpacted Wetland WD between the south side of the
proposed fill slope and Stream SA includes a remanent fringe of wetland too small (-0.016 acre) and
narrow to be expected to retain its previous function. As such, and the fact that grading for the adjacent
direct impact would eliminate any upslope drainage to this area, the Corps would consider the
remainder of the south side of this wetland as a reasonably foreseeable indirect impact. This area would
be added to the required compensatory mitigation amount.
3) Please provide zoomed -in details, including a plan and profile view, for Impact 7. Ensure that these details
clearly show the size and number of culvert pipes (placed at -grade rather than buried), head walls, rip rap, etc.
4) Items 1 a-c above notwithstanding, how would the project maintain appropriate hydrology to the remainders of
Wetlands WC 21-58 and WE 1-58. The Corps is concerned that upland grading in these areas would re-route
overland flow away from these areas and into downslope stormwater basins. If onsite hydrology is expected to
be maintained via culverts under roadways, swales, or other methods, please include plan detail sheets to
demonstrate. Note that, in addition to compensatory mitigation requirements for direct, the Corps would
consider requiring compensatory mitigation reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts resulting in a loss of
hydrology and therefore aquatic function, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
5) For proposed Impact 9, sanitary sewer crossing of Stream SD and Wetland WC 21-58:
a. Per NWP 29 General Condition 10.c., please provide a plan to restore and re -vegetate wetland areas
within the utility corridor;
b. Given that the project exceeds the compensatory mitigation ratio for wetland impacts, the Corps will
also require compensatory mitigation for the permanently maintained sewer corridor through forested
wetlands. Compensatory mitigation for permanent conversion of forested to herbaceous wetlands is
typically required at a 1:1 ratio unless otherwise justified based on resource quality (NCWAM/NCSAM).
6) We acknowledge the statement in the PCN pertaining to endangered species (Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act), that "Potential habitat for these species is not located within the proposed project areas."
However, given the general nature of potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled
pogonia, the existence of both open and forested areas within the project area, and given recent USFWS
10

concerns regarding these species, the Corps cannot currently reach a No Effect determination for these species
within the Section 7 Action Area based on the information provided. Note that, given the distribution of
proposed impacts throughout the property, the entire proposed Flemingfield Reserve development would be
considered the Action Area for Section 7 purposes. As such:
a. If you do not believe that any suitable habitat exists in the Action area for these species, please provide
a more thorough justification so that the Corps could evaluate the potential for a No Effect
determination;
b. If suitable habitat for either of these species does exist in the Action Area, please complete a pedestrian
survey for these species within the appropriate survey window. Following the survey, please provide the
survey report to the Corps (copy also the USFWS) for review;
Please note that, per NWP 29 General Condition 18, the Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP until Section 7
consultation is complete.
7) Items 1a and c notwithstanding, to demonstrate further avoidance and minimization, would it be possible to
remove the existing driveway crossing of Stream SA or dirt road crossing of Wetland WE 1-58 and stabilize with
appropriate sloping and matting?
8) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Good Morning
We have received your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request for the above project.
Dave- docs forwarded in your folder
11

Thank you,
Josephine Schaffer
From: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:23 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] SAW 2021-00814 - Pilot Project 6663.1 - Flemingfield Road - PCN
Application
Find attached a PCN Application for a site in Greensboro. Please let me know if you need additional information in order
to process the PCN. Thank -you.
Sincerely,
s 1 4 O 1 R IJ v l! 4 M 4 I h T a s .l 4 C
Michael T. Brame
336.708-4620 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
12