20230888 Ver 1_More Info Received_20230825

Chandler, Rebecca D
From: Paul Petitgout <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 11:12 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Chandler, Rebecca D
Subject: [External] Re: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2023-01250 (Baker Park / Summey Road /
High Point NC / Guilford County)
Attachments: ATT00001.htm; Baker Park - Conspan Arch Plans _2023.06.02.pdf; C-410 DRAINAGE AREA
MAP_Revised.pdf, C-413 DRAINAGE AREA MAP_Revised.pdf, Baker Park -Sheet 5-Delineation
Concurrence Map_REVISED.pdf, C-400 OVERALL GRADING PLAN _REVISED.pdf;
2686.G0429.R1.GeotechnicalSubsurfaceExplorartion - Baker Park.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
David/Rebecca:
Below, please find our responses (in red) for the requested information. There are also several attachments at the
bottom. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need any additional information.
Thanks for your help on thisH
Paul
0
S. Paul Petitgout
President/Managing Member
Lowrys Environmental & Ecological Services, LLC
1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 297o6
Phone: [phone]
Email: ppetitgout(&gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 8:37 AM Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]> wrote:
All,
Thank you for your PCN, dated 6/17/2023, 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-
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consider your application withdrawn and close the file:

Thank you for the wetland and stream delineation and associated documentation you provided in the PCN
package. In reviewing the delineation map, the eastern corner of the PJD review area (outlined on the map in
black) is cut off. Based on LiDAR, aerial photo, and USGS topographic map review, there appears to be a stream
channel (UT to Mile Branch) and a likely location for wetlands (between the toe of slope and stream channel) in
this corner. Please revise your delineation map to show this area, including any potential waters of the US
within. Otherwise, you may revise your PJD review area, being sure to clearly demarcate any differences
between your review area and parcel boundaries. Ensure also that the review area covers the entirety of
development area proposed by the Baker Park development;
Attached, please find the updated Jurisdictional Determination Map (Sheet 5 Delineation Concurrence Map). We
apologize for inadvertently trimming the corner from the graphic.
Provide a plan view of the lot layout and infrastructure (roads, utilities, stormwater, etc.) for the entire proposed
Baker Park development overlaid on a survey of the stream and wetland delineation. Please ensure that the
location of proposed impacts to aquatic resources are clearly shown to provide reference for the detail
drawings included in your PCN submittal. Furthermore, as the PCN references that this is for Phase 3 of Baker
Park, be sure to clearly demarcate the location/extent of Phases 1 and 2 as well. This information is necessary
to evaluate avoidance and minimization measures (NWP General Condition 23) and potential indirect impacts
for the Baker Park single and complete project (NWP District Engineer's Decision part 2);
Attached, please find a graphic (C-400) that shows the entire development showing the lot layout and all
infrastructure. The graphic also includes the survey of the wetland and stream delineation. It should be noted here that
the reference to Phase 3 in the PCN was a typo and that this is a single phase development of the site.
The proposed project involves several road crossings of aquatic resources to access uplands for residential
development. The need for such access is not disputed. However, the impacts listed below do not appear to
demonstrate avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent practicable as required by NWP General
Conditions 23(a) and (b):
a. The PCN proposes fill in Wetland WJ primarily to facilitate development of Lot 20. It is not clear that
project viability is dependent on the inclusion of this Lot, when the overall development proposes 106.
In order to minimize impacts to streams, roads were adjusted to accommodate the bottomless culvert design and the
overall development removed 3 lots. The area of wetland WJ that could be preserved if lot 20 was removed is minimal
due to grading of the adjacent road and lots. The road grade in front of lot 20 is between elevation 848 and 850. The
existing wetland is between elevation 835 and 841. Due to site conditions, the road grade cannot be lowered in this
area. To tie to existing grade at a 2:1 slope, approximately 20-25 feet would be graded outside the right of way, which
would impact over half of Wetland WJ. Similarly, to grade down from lots 19 and 21, approximately 20-25 feet would be
impacted outside the lot area which would further impact the existing wetland. If lots 19-21 were to be removed in
order to preserve wetland WJ, the economic feasibility of the project would be at risk. The overall quality of Wetland WJ
is not great as it is a small headwater wetland and the impacts from the road crossing would significantly reduce its
overall quality. Restoring another wetland within the watershed would have a greater environmental impact to waters
within the basin than preserving the remainder of this small wetland area.
o The road crossing at Impact-2 appears to crossing Wetland WC/WD at it's widest location. Additional
minimization appears to be achievable by shifting the road alignment and proposed crossing location
slightly south.
There is a 100' stream buffer, required by the City of High Point (Randleman Buffer), to the south of the road crossing
which encompasses the narrower portion of the wetlands. The road crossing was located so that the required stream
buffer would not be impacted.

• The detail plan for Impact-1 (in addition to issues raised in item 3 above) appears to reroute overland drainage
away from the reach of Stream SF downslope of the proposed road crossing.
o Please provide justification that hydrologic input will be maintained to the entirety of Stream SF.
Common designs include routing approximately equivalent surface water/runoff area to these
locations, altering locations of stormwater outlets, usage of French drains and under -drains where
appropriate, etc. Please also update applicable plansheets to clearly show such measures/details;
We will provide a bypass pipe to convey approximately 3.47 acres upland flow to the existing stream. See markup on C-
413, attached. Proposed impervious area must be captured and conveyed to a stormwater pond to meet water quality
treatment requirements so stormwater runoff from proposed roads and lots and therefore cannot be routed to the
existing stream.
o If maintenance of stream hydrology is unable to be justified as appropriate, the Corps would consider
this area as reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts (see NWP General Conditions "District Engineers
Decision") resulting from a loss of hydrology. In such cases compensatory mitigation may be required
for indirect impacts resulting in a loss of hydrology and therefore aquatic function; compensatory
mitigation is typically required at a 1:1 ratio for such indirect impacts (although may be situationally up
to 2:1), depending largely on aquatic function (e.g. NCSAM);
We believe that the routing of the 3.47 acres of upland flow will prevent the hydrology from being lost in the remaining
stream reach.
o A monitoring plan (typically including monitoring devices and visual observations for a period of 5 years
post -construction) to document maintenance of stream hydrology may also be proposed for Corps
evaluation and approval; such monitoring plans would also include a contingency plan, typically
including compensatory mitigation, in the event that monitoring does not indicate maintenance of
stream hydrology.
We believe that monitoring will not be necessary as the routing of the 3.47 acres should maintain the hydrology of the
remaining stream reach.
• The detail plan for Impact-2 (in addition to issues raised in item 3 above) appears to reroute overland drainage
away from Wetland WC/WD downslope of the proposed road crossing
o Provide additional information to justify that the proposed design will maintain hydrology to the
entirety of Wetland WC/WD downslope of the proposed crossing, or redesign accordingly.
There are already two pipes that convey clear water from the north side of the road to the south side and discharge near
the wetland. Sheet C-410 shows that upland drainage areas that are captured in structures H-5 (captures 7.32-acres)
and 1-3 (captures 0.68 acre) and routes the water toward the existing wetlands. The engineer will also make
adjustments to the 1-3 Structure to route the water directly toward the wetland.
o If maintenance of wetland hydrology is unable to be justified as appropriate, the Corps may consider
this area as reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts (see NWP General Conditions "District Engineers
Decision") resulting from a loss of hydrology. In such cases compensatory mitigation may be required
for indirect impacts resulting in a loss of hydrology and therefore aquatic function; compensatory
mitigation is typically required at a 1:1 ratio for such indirect impacts (although may be situationally up
to 2:1), depending largely on aquatic function (e.g. NCWAM);

We believe that the routing of the 8.0 acres of drainage area to this wetland will prevent the hydrology from being lost
in the remaining wetland area.
4. Townsend Avenue Stream Crossing (Stream name not listed on the plans):
o The Corps Wilmington District Raleigh Regulatory Field Office has had long experience with bottomless
arch culverts. We generally agree with NCDOT that the long-term success of such structures is
significantly enhanced when they are tied into shallow bedrock. NCDOT Division 7 does not typically
pursue bottomless arch culverts unless there is non-scourable bedrock within 5 vertical feet of the soil
surface. In cases where the structures are not tied into bedrock we have seen numerous instances of
foundation undercutting, often leading to replacement with traditional culverts. Further, as you noted
in your PCN, shading under the arch culvert inevitably leads to die off of any remaining woody
vegetation. These factors predictably lead to loss of aquatic function through stream bank erosion and
winnowing out from foundation to foundation.
Attached, please find the geotech report for the area surrounding the bottomless culvert and the full culvert design. It is
our belief that a bottomless culvert in this location is appropriate, as it reduces the overall stream impact of the project,
in addition to removing impacts to the 100 year floodplain area on site. Based on the geotech report and the engineer
of record's design, we believe that a bottomless culvert will be successful in this location.
o Given that the project proposes impacts requiring 404 approval, we are evaluating both direct and
reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts to 404 resources associated with the project to ensure that the
individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal (NWP General
Condition 23 and District Engineer's Decision part 2). Based on the above, it is reasonable to conclude
that the proposed bottomless culvert would result in indirect impacts to the stream in the footprint of
the structure. The proposed direct and indirect impacts to streams do not appear to exceed 0.02 acre,
the typified stream mitigation threshold per Regional Condition B.7, in this case. However, please note
that these direct and indirect stream impacts would be considered cumulative with any future
proposed impacts to potential waters of the US related to this development when considering
compensatory mitigation requirements.
There are no further impacts required to complete the project. We concur that the bottomless culvert will result in
indirect impacts to the stream and also concur that the cumulative stream impacts for the project will be below the
stream mitigation threshold of 0.2-acre. Therefore, we would request that there be no stream mitigation required for
the project.
• Thank you for your compensatory mitigation plan. Please confirm the mitigation ratio you propose to
compensate for the proposed wetland impacts. Typically, compensatory mitigation is required at a 2:1 credit to
impact ratio (0.936 riparian non-riverine wetland credits, in this case) unless otherwise justified based on
evaluation of aquatic function (NCWAM);
We will be utilizing a 2:1 ratio as the NCWAM assessment delivered a "Medium" assessment result.
Thank you for the information you provided regarding Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled pogonia habitat
on the subject property. In order to complete our evaluation of species subject to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, and potentially facilitate informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
please specify the dates in which you performed an onsite evaluation of habitat and pedestrian survey in the
Action Area for both species. Please note that, per NWP General Condition 18, the Corps cannot verify the use
of a NWP until a No Effect determination can be made or Section 7 consultation is complete;

The habitat evaluation and survey for Small Whorled pogonia was conducted on June 14, 2022 and focused on the
remaining forested areas located on the site (generally the stream buffers). The habitat evaluation and survey for
Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on October 12, 2022, and focused on the clear-cut areas of the tract as these
areas would have the highest potential. However, since the site was clear-cut a few years ago, habitat potential for both
species would be considered low.
Given the scope of the permit areas for this project, and areas that may contain resources potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (including archeological resources), consultation may need to be
initiated with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Corps is currently reviewing this project in this
context to determine any responsibilities pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(see NWP General Condition 20). If required, please note that SHPO may require up to 30 days to respond to
our coordination request. Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of any NWP until consultation
pertaining to Section 106 is complete.
Please let us know if there are any Section 106 requirements for the project once consultation with the SHPO is
complete.
• Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
Please let us know if any further information is required. Thank you for all of your help with this project.
It appears that an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQQ is required from the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) for this project. Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of any NWP without a valid
401 WQC.
For NCDWR: Within 14 days, please notify me if the certification request does not contain the nine (9) components
listed in Section 121.5(b) of the 2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule; otherwise, we will consider our
receipt date (6/17/2023) as accurate. As specified in the 9/16/2022, Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the USACE
and the NCDWR, the reasonable period of time (RPOT) for DWR to act on a Section 401 certification request is 120 days
unless the RPOT is extended per the terms of this PA. As such, unless we receive an email request for an extension of
the RPOT, the USACE will consider the Section 401 certification for this project to be waived on 10/15/2023.
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]
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: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 12:16 PM
To: Paul Petitgout <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2023-01250 (Baker Park / Summey Road / High Point NC / Guilford County)
Good Morning,
Your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request has been received, assigned action ID SAW-2023-
01250 and forwarded to Dave Bailey for further processing.
Please refer to the action ID in all correspondence.
Thank you,
Josephine Schaffer
6

From: Paul Petitgout <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 7:23 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] PCN Submittal - Baker Park Site -Guilford County, NC
Lowrys Environmental and Ecological Services, LLC is submitting this Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) package for
the aforementioned project. I am also including ORM Upload_Sheet (in Excel) for use in completing the JD for the
site. Should any other information be required or if you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me
at your earliest convenience.
Please note that a copy of this PCN has also been submitted to the Mooresville Regional Office of NCDWR, through
their electronic submittal process.
Thanks for your helpH
Sincerely,
Paul
S. Paul Petitgout
President/Managing Member
Lowrys Environmental & Ecological Services, LLC
1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 29706
Phone: [phone]
Email: uuetit og utpgmail.com