20070985 Ver 2_Staff Report_20180604

Wetland Inspection Report
Project Num: 20070985 Version: 2 Status: Received
Project Name: Salem Stone Quarry - Spurgeon Creek Tributaries Project Type: Industrial / Commercial /
Count Forsyth Business
Y Y Region: Winston-Salem
Location: Salem Stone Quarry -Spurgeon Creek Tributaries Removal
Latitude: +36° 01' Longitude: -80° 06'36"
SW Plan Location
Site Owner Name Martin Marietta Materials Inc
Inspection Date: 6/4/2018
Reason for Inspection Routine
Inspection Type: Staff Report
Inspection Contact Person: Title: Phone:
On -Site Representative(s):
Primary Inspector: Sue L Homewood Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Facility Compliance Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Program Areas: Staff Report
Question Areas:
0 Site Visit
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Site Number: 20070985 Owner: Roberts, Larry J
Inspection Date: 6/4/2018 Inspection Type: Staff Report Reason for Visit: Routine
Site Visit Yes No NA NE
Do impacts described in the application differ those seen in the field? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, please describe differences:
Are the Intermittent/Perennial calls different in the application? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, please describe differences, and how mitigation ratios are affected:
Are there additional impacts not described in the application? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, please describe and quantify: Site inspection conducted to document that upstream channels
have remained flowing and stable since lower portions have been directed into mining pit
Were the impacts in place prior to the application for the 401 Certification? ❑ ❑ ❑
Additional conditions recommended for the Certification:
Recommended project modifications
Is this a modification request to an existing Certification?
0
❑
❑
❑
Are there additional stromwater conditions that should be required due to the following
❑
❑
❑
classifications:
# 303(d)list, Class WS, NSW, ORW, HQW
Describe:
Is this a subdivision or otherwise part of a larger project?
❑
❑
❑
# If yes, what phase is this?
Are there prior impacts from prior phases?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, what are the cumulative imacts for this project? as indicated in application documents
Possible secondary impacts noted: This is a reauthorization of previous impacts from expired
approval. No documentation existed to determine if previous review considered possible cumulative
impacts of draining upstream channels due to mining expansion. Site inspection revealed that
upstream channels are still functioning properly.
Comment
page: 2

PF I i
w t . ,.
to
r { 1 YWo
r • , 14, 11 1 111 1��40
l PIC, ♦ '7 • .. ' rl Owl/ly 1
lit
to
to 0
Oil
, 411 • �/ I p ,
r �'� Oil 1 I `� Ili • 1 `' f,;"�.b /
4. fill t
toot 0 0 dip
Of
MQ� do p xl.sf�lf r • ,11 blit. "` • ,
000
f IW .• t
OPP to go
he 19W I'
it 41 0 c
All IML 00 in, 11110 0
too
Ire. �/ . • t V I . • ' •low�
�. } 4� � / 1 1 y
00
od too
k ^41 Off AV
'1110 if 'r All
I 4v of
_w 41 a
r� ��/
101,04 ! top. d too 40 A!
All
it
*4
tot
lftM h 41
I ib
f' 1,.+� I Y �f, " w• v Y'
•Igo, I
r
• •N•
If
' \
crift '4
� 40
�..r �' 1•y� w l
•I ry _
•`0, If`.
to Ip _
Of
14 OF
Or I ~ ✓
600 too
+
!! / • r
41110�
' r •� I