20051117 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20050622

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 r
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890.
IN REPLY REFER TO April 18, 2006
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200520968
WV V
W i?nc?x'cx?.?
0`0?
Mr. Lang Wilcox
Lissara, LLC
1210 Forrest Wood Drive
Lewisville, North Carolina 27023
Dear Mr. Wilcox:
o ??Qa?D
.006
Y,?,1,?ID8 M? 6TQP.NMIR?? A?iCM
Please reference the letters of January 18, 2006, and February 6, 2006, which provided
your response to agency comments generated by circulation of the Public Notice of July 28,
2005, regarding your Department of the Army (DA) permit application for Lissara Lake
Subdivision. Also reference the letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), dated
April 6, 2006, which provided additional comments regarding your proposal to impact 5,935
linear feet of stream channel and 0.0541 acre of wetland for the construction of Lissara
Subdivision. The project is approximately 132 acres in size and is located north of Shallowford
Road (SR 1001) and west of Conrad Road (SR 1305), approximately 2 miles west of Lewisville,
in Forsyth County, North Carolina.
The letter from the USFWS states that they have determined that the project as revised will
not affect the federally endangered small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) or its
habitat. The letter also states that they continue to have concerns regarding efforts made to avoid
and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., particularly with regard to the proposed aesthetic
pond, and that the proposed mitigation for impacts to streams on the site is insufficient to
compensate for impacts to aquatic resources. We are forwarding a copy of the letter for your
review and consideration, and request that you respond to this office, in writing, on or before
May 17, 2006.
Please note that we continue to have serious concerns regarding your proposed mitigation
plan. Specifically, it is unclear from your application where the stream channels requiring
mitigation stop and whether impacts associated with the road crossings are included in your
calculation. Also, it appears that your most recent mitigation proposal has calculated the
mitigation requirement using ratios of 0.25:1 for flooding and 1:1 for filling. As we have
previously stated, to adequately compensate for flooding impacts to streams, your mitigation
proposal should provide compensatory stream restoration at a ratio of 1:1 and 0.5:1 for good and
poor quality streams, respectively. For direct (fill) impacts to streams, the mitigation plan should
provide compensatory stream restoration at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1 for good and poor quality
streams, respectively. Finally, your proposal should provide for the compensation of all wetland
impacts at a 2:1 ratio. These ratios should be used in calculating the basic mitigation
requirement, which may then be satisfied through a combination of restoration, enhancement,
and/or preservation techniques as outlined in the Wilmington District's Stream Mitigation
Guidelines, April 2003.
With regard to the use of preservation on the site, we share the concerns expressed by the
USFWS about to the use of the littoral shelf and the stream channel located between the two
lakes as preservation. The site plan indicates that these areas will be located within individually
owned lots, which makes the terms and conditions of the restrictive covenants difficult to
enforce. Please consider alternative measures to satisfy the mitigation requirements, which may
include the use of off-site preservation.
Finally, as we mentioned in our previous correspondence, we have determined that there
are wetlands present in the project area that have not been delineated, and we have never
received a copy of the delineation survey. Please provide a copy of the survey to our office and
be, sure to include all streams and wetlands, along with their measurements (linear feet and
acreage) on both the survey and the revised project impact maps.
Should you have any further questions related to these comments or your DA permit
application for this project, please contact me at 919-876-8441, extension 26.
Sincerely,
I
Todd J. Tugwell
Regulatory Project Manager,
Raleigh Field Office
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. Christopher Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Post Office Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
RECEIVED
United States Department of the InteriorAPR l 1 2006
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 6, 2006
D
APR 2 4 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND ST(1RMMATER BRANCH
Mr. Todd J. Tugwell
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
Subject: Lissara Subdivision, Located North of Shallowford Road and West of Lewisville, in
Forsyth County, North Carolina
On July 28, 2005, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a public notice for the
subject project to which we expressed our concerns in a letter dated August 26, 2005. On
March 10, 2006, we received a copy of your letter that included a response from the applicant
regarding those concerns. Information for this report is based on a review of the March 8, 2006,
letter and the public notice issued by the Corps. The report is submitted in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description - In the original application, Lissara, LLC, was proposing to develop a
132-acre tract of land for 42 residential lots and to construct three dams to create a 32-acre lake
for recreation and water skiing, a 2.7-acre aesthetics pond, and a 1.5-acre storm-water-treatment
pond. Impacts (by flooding, excavating, filling, and the construction of the two dams) with that
proposal included 8,032 linear feet (If) of stream channel and the 0.08 acre of wetland impacts.
The current proposal has decreased the size of the lower water-ski lake from 32 acres to 21 acres,
and the 1.5-acre pond has been eliminated from the plans, but the 2.7-acre aesthetics pond
remains as initially proposed. As currently proposed, the subject project will impact 5,0261f of
stream and .054-acre of wetlands (from flooding) and 6891f of stream (from the construction of
the dams). The applicant is also proposing to construct an access road and will use culverts to
cross an unnamed tributary to the Yadkin River in two separate locations. No impacts from this
activity were listed in the letter.
Federally Listed Species - Based on the information provided, we agree that no listed species or
their habitats occur on the site and that the proposed project will not affect endangered or
threatened species or their habitats. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of
the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Avoidance and Minimization - As stated in our previous letter, we oppose the construction of
on-line structures such as reservoirs because they significantly alter both aquatic and terrestrial
habitat. The conversion of the unnamed tributary to a reservoir will result in the loss of natural
stream functions, alter the hydrology, and affect native ecosystem processes within and
downstream of the proposed reservoir site. Although the habitat will remain in an aquatic state,
the fauna and ecosystem functions associated with streams are different from, and cannot be
replaced with, associated fauna and functions from a reservoir.
We commend the applicant for reducing the size of the lower water-ski lake and for eliminating
the 1.5-acre pond from the project plans. However, the applicant has not minimized the impacts
of the project to the fullest extent possible, and we believe additional measures can be taken to
further minimize the adverse impacts this project will have on aquatic resources. We do not
believe an aesthetic lake is a water-dependent activity; thus, this portion of the project should not
be permitted. Page 2 of the applicant's response letter states that "We have maintained the small
upper lake as an important economical aspect of the project" and that "Due to the extreme costs
associated with the design, construction, and mitigation of lake projects; there is a need to have
the lake amenity serve as the appealing feature allowing higher lake front lot prices." Because
the developer can increase profits by constructing a lake does not make it a water-dependent
activity. If the lake is needed to offset the costs of design, construction, and mitigation of lake
projects, then one could also conclude that the costs could be avoided by not constructing the
lake. Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines prohibit the filling of wetlands for nonwater-dependent
activities when practicable alternatives exist. A lake is not essential to a development and in
accordance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines, which prohibit wetland filling for nonwater-dependent
activities when a practicable alternative exists, an alternative should be developed that avoids the
filling of streams for the construction of the 2.7-acre lake.
Mitigation - The mitigation plan that has been proposed by the applicant does not adequately
compensate for the impacts this project will have on aquatic resources, and it does not follow the
general mitigation requirements and guidance that has been established in the Corps' Stream
Mitigation Guidelines. Based on the October 20, 2005, letter from your office, you assessed the
streams on the project site to be of good quality and determined that the typical mitigation ratios
would be 2:1 for filling and 1:1 for flooding. The Stream Mitigation Guidelines do not
distinguish between filling and flooding impacts, and they state that mitigation for adverse
impacts to good-quality streams is to be calculated using a 2:1 ratio. Therefore, 11,430 if of
mitigation credits will be needed to fully compensate for the 5,715 if (5,0261f for flooding and
6891f for dam construction) of stream channel impacts.
2
Mitigation is necessary for this project because of the adverse impacts it will have on streams.
The definition for compensatory stream mitigation on page 6 of the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines is as follows: Compensatory stream mitigation may be required for impacts to
perennial and intermittent streams and should be designed to restore, enhance, and maintain
stream uses that are adversely impacted by authorized activities. The applicant has stated that
2.9 acres of littoral shelf will be created with the intent of reducing mitigation requirements. We
do not believe the littoral area will provide any compensation for the flooding impacts and the
loss of the stream. Such "out-of-kind" mitigation does not in any way help restore the loss of
stream resources, and the littoral shelf will not enhance or maintain stream uses. Therefore, we
recommend that the littoral shelf not be included as mitigation credit.
Exhibit #4, included in the January 18, 2006, letter from Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc., shows a proposal by the applicant to gain mitigation credit by preserving the
1,113 if of stream channel that will continue to flow between the two lakes. If this project is
permitted as proposed, the 1,113 if of stream section will be completely cut off from the upper
and lower reaches of the stream. This will prevent any upstream or downstream movement by
aquatic species and will reduce the functionality of the original stream channel. We do not
believe the preservation of this stream reach provides compensatory mitigation for the adverse
impacts that will occur to the entire upstream and downstream reaches of the stream channel on
the subject property.
We recommend that mitigation be established for all direct impacts to wetlands and streams.
Therefore, we recommend that mitigation be established for the entire 5,715 if of stream channel
and 0.05 acre of wetlands. We recommend that project impacts be mitigated by the restoration
of comparable on-site streams and wetlands at a ratio of at least 2:1. If there are no on-site areas
for restoration or preservation, an in-kind, off-site mitigation plan should be considered to offset
the 5,715 if of impacted streams and the 0.05 acre of wetlands. If all mitigation options have
been exhausted and a buy-in to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program becomes
necessary for mitigation of the impacts to the 5,7151f of stream and 0.05 acre of wetlands, the
same restoration ratio of 2:1 should be used to calculate the payment amount.
The Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement signed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps on February 6, 1990, states that "mitigation consists of the set of modifications
necessary to avoid adverse impacts altogether, minimize the adverse impacts that are
unavoidable, and compensate for the unavoidable adverse impacts." As we have stated, we do
not believe the impacts from the project have been avoided/minimized to the greatest extent
possible nor has a mitigation plan been established that fully compensates for the impacts this
project will have on aquatic resources. Until these measures are addressed, we recommend that
this project be held in abeyance.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Our mission is to conserve, protect,
and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people. By working with you and giving you the appropriate information early in the
planning process, we hope to accomplish this goal. If we can be of assistance or if you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939,
3
Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log
Number 4-2-05-366.
Sincerely,
d' f- r e
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Ms. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1349 Firefly Road, Whittier, NC 28789
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
4
WaTkR Michael F. Easley, Governor
q
O G illi
G
R
J
S
` W
r.,
ecretary
am
.
oss
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Q .? Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 9, 2006
DWQ # 05-1117
Forsyth County
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Lang Wilcox
Lissara, LLC
1210 Forest Wood Drive
Lewisville, NC 27023
Subject Property: Lissara Development
UT Yadkin River [030702,12-(86.7), WSIV]
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
Dear Mr. Wilcox:
On June 22, 2005, you requested a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) for your project. We wrote to you on September 23, 2005 discussing concerns that
we have regarding the design of the project and stating that it would be placed on hold for three
weeks giving you time to address DWQ's concerns. As of today, DWQ has not received a response
to this request. Therefore, your file is hereby considered withdrawn and will not be reviewed until
DWQ's earlier concerns are addressed. Once you have collected sufficient information to have a
complete application (please see our September 23, 2005 letter for the missing information), you will
need to reapply for DWQ approval. This includes submitting a complete application package with
the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clear Water Act for this
activity and any work done within waters of the state would be a violation of North Carolina General
Statuses and Administrative Code. Please call Mr. Ian McMillan at 919-715-4631 if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
cc: Daryl Lamb, Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
Chris Huysman, WNRC, Post Office Box 224, Newton, NC 28658
Filename: 5:\2006 Correspondence\05-1117 Lissara Development (Forsyth) NOW.doc
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwctlands
One
Caro
N a
Naturai?
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
P@29WRi
MAR 2 1 2006
AND $TTONMWA ?TMWN
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Tugwell, Permit Coordinator, Raleigh Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator ZWW
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 17, 2006
SUBJECT: Action ID No. 200520968, Lissara Subdivision, Unnamed Tributary Yadkin River
(WS-IV), DWQ No. 051117, Forsyth County
The applicant is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers COE).
The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant and field biologists on our
staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The applicant still proposes to develop a ski lake on an unnamed tributary of the Yadkin River.
This agency previously commented on the project on September 19, 2005. The size of the lake
has been reduced by 33% surface area, the middle lake has been eliminated, and reportedly,
stormwater functions of an upper pond have been eliminated. Buffers along impoundment
shorelines and streams will be provided and protected using conservation easements and
neighborhood covenants.
Based on our knowledge of the project area and the information provided in the recent submittal,
we will not object to the project if the following conditions are implemented:
Minimum flow releases must be provided by design during construction and upon
project completion so that aquatic life impacts will be minimized below each dam.
The 7Q10 should be maintained at all times in perennial waters. Waters discharged
from the dams should be aerated to increase dissolved oxygen compliance with water
quality standards.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NU 27699-1 121
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Lissara Subdivision Ski Lake -Page 2 -
March 17, 2006
2. Conservation areas should be established and permanently preserved as common
buffers along streams and wetlands instead of being subdivided into individual lots.
We do not support the provision of tiered vegetated buffers. Buffers should be
undisturbed forested areas to help offset diminished wildlife habitats. Selective tree
removal may be accomplished providing the activity does not clear cut or
substantially reduce habitat values. Previously, minimum fifty (50) foot intermittent
and one hundred (100) foot perennial stream buffers were recommended by this
agency. Regardless, undisturbed forested contiguous buffers should be maintained
or restored to the maximum extent practicable. Buffer averaging may be considered
providing contiguous habitats are provided.
4. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and
maintained until project completion. Sediment and erosion control measures need to
adhere to the design and maintenance standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC
4B .0124).
NC Division of Land Resources dam safety requirements must be met.
6. We do not support funneling funds to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
when the EEP may not use those funds within the same basin. Accordingly,
stipulations are recommended to ensure use of these funds nearby. Alternatively, the
provision of nearby restoration using state-of-the-art natural channel design and
restoration techniques should be evaluated thoroughly prior to conveying funds to
EEP.
7. Considering the revised project modifications, our recommendations of September
19, 2005 should be incorporated into the permit as appropriate and feasible.
The COE has considerable expertise and knowledge with which to evaluate site conditions and
habitat recommendations. Accordingly, we ask the COE to incorporate NCWRC
recommendations where appropriate and possible for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 3361769-9453.
Ec: Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Daryl Lamb, DWQ-WSRO
Becky Fox, EPA
() $.-1117
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 20, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200520968
F/;;NLRfl)6f
Mr. Lang Wilcox {P Lissara, LLC Q C r 2 4 7005
1210 Forrest Wood Drive DENR - ??ArER
1YETLgNDSgIyD STORMWAFRI9FWICH
Lewisville, North Carolina 27023
Dear Mr. Wilcox:
Please reference our correspondence to you dated June 23, 2005, the Public
Notice of July 28, 2005, and the September 12, 2005 meeting between myself and Mr. Chris
Huysman of Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., regarding your Department of the
Army (DA) permit application for Lissara Lake Subdivision. The application requests
authorization for impacts to 8,032 linear feet of stream channel and 0.08 acre of wetland
resulting from the proposed construction of a recreational waterskiing lake, an aesthetics pond,
and a stormwater management facility. The project is approximately 132 acres in size and is
located north of Shallowford Road (SR 1001) and west of Conrad Road (SR 1305),
approximately 2 miles west of Lewisville, in Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Following the issuance of a Public Notice describing the proposed development, comments
were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by letter dated
August 26, 2005, and from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission by letter dated
September 19, 2005 (enclosed). Both agencies identified serious concerns regarding the
proposed development, including a lack of avoidance and minimization and unacceptable
mitigation. The letters identify numerous other issues and provide recommendations for ways
that the development can be modified to reduce potential impacts to aquatic resources.
Several of these issues were previously brought to your attention in our letter of June 23,
2005. Specifically, we need additional information that addresses steps you have taken to avoid
and minimize impacts to wetlands and stream channels. This information should include a
review of other sites that were considered for the proposed development, and an analysis of
alternative site designs. You should provide additional justification to show why the aesthetic
pond and the stormwater pond are necessary for the success of the proposed development.
Additionally, please respond to the USFWS suggestion that competition ski lakes measuring
1,600 feet in length are large enough to safely run an 850-foot, six-buoy competition slalom
course.
The letter from the USFWS also states that the site appears to have suitable habitat for the
federally endangered small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera), and requested that a
survey for the species be conducted before they can concur that the proposed project has no
effect on federally listed species. Please arrange for the required survey and forward the results
to both our office and the USFWS office for review. For further information regarding the
procedures for conducting a survey, please contact the USFWS Asheville Field Office at
[phone].
We are forwarding copies of both letters for your review and consideration, and request
that you respond to this office, in writing, on or before November 21, 2005. Please note that we
have many of the same concerns brought up by the USFWS and the NCWRC, and your response
should not be limited to only the issues identified in this letter, but should also address all of the
comments provided.
Our letter of June 23, 2005 discussed the February 6, 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
between the DA and the US Environmental Protection Agency, which establishes procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. In accordance with this letter, compensatory mitigation will be required
for all unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands resulting from the authorized project.
During our on-site meeting, we evaluated stream channel reaches that will be filled, excavated,
or flooded as a result of dam construction. Based upon our on-site evaluations, we determined
that the stream channel upstream of flag 2081 has limited aquatic function and is of poor quality.
All remaining portions of the stream channel downstream of this point were determined to be
good quality. In order to adequately compensate for flooding impacts to streams, your mitigation
proposal should provide compensatory stream restoration at a ratio of 1:1 and 0.5:1 for good and
poor quality streams, respectively. For direct (fill) impacts to streams, the mitigation plan should
provide compensatory stream restoration at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1 for good and poor quality
streams, respectively. Finally, your proposal should provide for the compensation of all wetland
impacts at a 2:1 ratio. Please note that these guidelines are being provided to you to facilitate the
permitting process and that an acceptable compensatory mitigation plan may meet these
requirements through a combination of restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation techniques
as outlined in the Wilmington District's Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003.
During our site review, we also determined that there are wetlands present in the project
area that have not been delineated, and we have never received a copy of the delineation survey.
Please provide a copy of the survey to our office and be sure to include all streams and wetlands
on both the survey and the revised project impact maps.
Should you have any further questions related to these comments or your DA permit
application for this project, please contact me at 919-876-8441, extension 26.
Sincerely,
N? cm-'Q d
Todd J. Tugwell
Regulatory Project Manager,
Raleigh Field Office
Enclosures
Copy Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. Christopher Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Post Office Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650

COPY ZOOS2,0?6R
United States Department of the Interior AUG 2 9.200

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 26, 2005
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
RALEIGHREGULATORyp1ELD OFFICE
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) public notice of an application for an individual permit
submitted; by. Lissara;;LLC;.,represented by;Wefland,and Natural Rp pure e;,Cgnsultants; Incto
develop132-acr. s;Tor a;residertjal.subdivision_and;aw, . r,sl-J,lake 2 miles west o£Lewisville in
Forsyth,County;`i\Torth;Cirolina t.Itformahon for; tlus,r.?p.ort is;based on.a review of the public
notice:issued:bythe Corps !The:report is,submitted.i accordance with,the;provisions ofthe.Fish
and Wildlife, C.oordinationAct;.as amended (l6:IJ:S andsection;7.ofthe
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 .U.S.C. 1.531-1543).(Act). „ , .
Project Description - According to the information provided, Lissara, LLC, is proposing to
develop a 132-acre tract of land for 25 residential lots and construct two dams that will create a
32-acre lake for recreation and water skiing, a 2.7-acre. aesthetics:pond, and a 1:5-acre
storm-water-treatment pond. The site consists primarily of forested land that contains a
headwater tributary to the Yadkin River and 0.08 acre of wetlands. To construct the lake, the
applicant is proposing to impact (by flooding, excavating, filling, and the construction of two
dams) 8,032 linear feet of stream channel and the 0.08 acre of wetlands. The applicant is also
proposing to construct an access road and will use culverts to cross an unnamed tributary to the
Yadkin River in two separate locations. -
Federally Listed Species - The applicant does not present evidence of any surveys of the project
area for federally listed species known. from Forsyth- County: According to our records and a
review of the Forsythe County GIs web site; there appears. to be. suitable habitat for the federally
endangered small-antheted bittercress-( Gardamine.micranthera):- Small-anihered bittercress,.
occurs m- seepages; in:wet?rock-crevices,•along stream :banks; on. sandbars;,. and.:m wet woods -.?
along small streams::. Small-anthered bittercress can grow: between, 8 and 16 inches talland :.f: ;
produces tiny:white:flowers from•April to.May. ;Until,a survey for Jistedspeaies (specifically,;'
small-anthered bittercress) has been conducted, we cannot concur with your determination that
the.proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species. In accordance with the Act,
it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal agency or its designated representative to review
its activities or programs and to identify any such activities or programs that may affect
endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If it is determined that the proposed activity
may adversely affect any species federally listed as endangered or threatened, formal
consultation with this office must be initiated.
Fish and Wildlife Resources - In general, we.oppose the construction of on-line structures such
as reservoirs because they significantly alter both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The conversion
of the unnamed tributary to a reservoir will result in the loss of natural stream functions, alter the
hydrology, and affect native ecosystem processes within, and downstream of, the proposed
reservoir site. Although the habitat will remain in an aquatic state, the fauna and ecosystem
functions associated with streams are different from, and cannot be replaced with, associated
fauna and functions from a reservoir.
On February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that established the procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section
404 (b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for: (1) avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands
through the selection of the least damaging and most practical alternative, (2) taking appropriate
and practical steps to minimize impacts on waters and wetlands, and (3) compensating for any
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. For that reason, we
recommend that the Corps evaluate all practicable alternatives to the proposed dam construction
and minimize/avoid impacts to the 8,032 linear feet of stream channel. We offer the following
alternatives and measures to minimize and/or avoid impacts from the proposed lake and dam
construction project:
1. As proposed, the lake will be about 2,600 feet in length with a proposed ski
distance of 2,400 linear feet., The importance of the length of the water ski lake is
the dissipation of waves after the skier makes a run through a slalom course.
Most competition ski lakes average about.2,200 feet in length, and lake designs of
1,600 feet in length are large enough to safely and effectively run an 850-foot.
six-buoy competition slalom course. Thus, we believe that shortening the length
of the water ski lake to 1,600 feet or smaller is a practicable and viable alternative
to, minimize impacts from this project.
2. We are opposed to the construction of the 2.7-acre aesthetic pond and the 1.5-acre
in-line storm-water-treatment pond. Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines prohibit the
filling of wetlands for nonwater-dependent activities when practicable alternatives
exist. We do not believe that an aesthetic pond is a water-dependent activity and
should not be permitted. We also suggest that an off-line storm-water-treatment
pond should be constructed and recommend that it be used in conjunction with
rain gardens and grassed swales instead of curb and gutter. All storm-water
outlets should drain through a vegetated upland area prior to reaching any stream
or wetland area. Sufficient retention designs should be implemented to allow for

2
rt
the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of
storm-water surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical
discharges.
3. Stream characteristics (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, particulate matter, and
flow rates) should be monitored and recorded from now until the beginning of
construction of the dam. The results of these monitoring activities should then be
considered when calculating average and types of water releases from the
reservoir. Mimicking the natural flow rates of the stream would help maintain
continuity in stream function by accounting for periods of fluctuating seasonal
water levels downstream of the reservoir.
4. We strongly suggest that the release rate maintain a 7Q10 rate of flow during
initial filling and periodic refilling of the lake. At no time should flow drop below
the figured 7Q10 flow rate downstream of the reservoir, and minimum flow rates
should be established for stream sections below the dam.
Erosion Control and Wetland/Stream Protection. We are concerned with the residential
development that will be constructed on the property. Given the proximity of the project to
aquatic environments (unnamed tributary to the Yadkin River), we emphasize that stringent
measures should be taken to control sediment and erosion. These measures should be
implemented prior to any ground disturbance and should be maintained throughout project
construction. All wetland/stream crossings should be made perpendicular to the stream, and
spanning structures should be used rather than culverts. We recommend the use of bridges for
all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands because they minimize
impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the movement of aquatic organisms, and eliminate the
need to fill and install culverts. Wetland/stream buffers (a minimum of 100 feet on perennial
streams and 50 feet on intermittent streams; buffer widths should be doubled on streams known
to contain, or influence waters that contain, federally listed species) should be maintained
throughout the project area. Any Clean Water Act 404/401 permit applications should clearly
show why impacts are unavoidable and how impacts that are unavoidable have been minimized.
Unavoidable impacts will require mitigation.
The treatment of storm water leaving the project area is also a concern. The expansion of
urban/suburban areas creates more impervious surfaces (such as roofs, roads, and parking lots),
which collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly transmit them to
receiving waters. According to the EPA, this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major
threats to water quality in the United States and is linked to chronic and acute illnesses from
exposure through drinking water and contact recreation.
Best management practices can reduce, but not eliminate, pollutant loadings of common
storm-water pollutants. Designs that collect runoff and allow it to infiltrate the soil have the
highest documented pollutant-removal efficiency, eliminating nearly all lead, zinc, and solids
and more than 50 percent of total phosphorous. Ponds and wetlands, which allow contaminants
to settle out of the water column or be broken down by sunlight and biological activity, can
remove more than 70 percent of bacteria. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
3
}
L ? ,n 1
has developed a "Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative
Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality" that we support and
encourage you to use. It can be accessed via the Internet as follows:
http://Www.ncwildlife.orglpg07 wildlifespeciescon/pg76_impactspdf.
We offer the following recommendations to help address the secondary and cumulative impacts
associated with this project and to help minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. The construction of new roadways can produce short-term direct impacts as
well as long-term cumulative effects. Studies have shown a serious decline in
the health of receiving waters when 10 to 15 percent of a watershed is
converted to impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces should be limited to no
more than 7 percent, curb and gutter should be limited in new developments,
and the direct discharge of storm water into streams should be prevented.
2. The loss of riparian buffers and inadequately controlled storm-water runoff
from residential and commercial development areas are major factors resulting
in the degradation and loss of aquatic resources. Forested riparian buffers .
serve as filters for contaminants, lessen storm-water velocities, provide thermal
cover, and protect stream-bank stability. Riparian buffers also provide travel
corridors and habitat areas for wildlife displaced by development. We suggest
that forested buffers be a minimum of 100 feet wide along perennial streams
and 50.feet wide along intermittent streams and wetlands. We recommend that
all sewer lines, water lines, and utility infrastructures be kept out of riparian
buffer areas, Stream crossings of any utilities should be kept to a minimum,
and multiple utilities should use the same right-of--way whenever possible.
3. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary.
Equipment should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes
disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected daily and
should be maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels,
lubricants, and.other toxic materials should be stored outside.the riparian
management area of the stream, in a location where the material can be
contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling
system liquids, and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.
Also, all fueling operations should be done outside of the riparian management
area.
4. The complete clearing of land should be avoided. If clearing is necessary,
efforts should be made to avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of
construction corridors and rights-of-way and in any surrounding development.
Disturbed areas should be reseeded with seed mixtures that are beneficial to
wildlife. Fescue-based mixtures should be avoided. Native annual small
grains appropriate for the season are preferred and recommended. Where
4

feasible, use woody "debris and logs from clearing activities to establish brush
.piles and downed logs at the edges (just in the woods) of all cleared areas to
improve habitat for wildlife. Allowing the area to develop into a brush/scrub
habitat would maximize benefits to wildlife. Additionally, herbicides should
not be used in wetland areas or near streams.
5. All utility crossings should be kept to a minimum, which includes careful
routing design and the combination of utility crossings into the same
right-of-way (provided there is not a safety issue). The directional bore
(installation of utilities beneath the riverbed, avoiding impacts to the stream
and buffer) stream-crossing method should be used for utility crossings.
Manholes or similar access structures should not be allowed within buffer
areas. Stream crossings should be near perpendicular to the stream flow and
should be monitored at least every 3 months for maintenance needs during the
first 24 months of the project and annually thereafter. Sewer lines associated
with crossing areas should be maintained and operated at all times to prevent
the discharge to land or surface waters. We recommend a minimum 50-foot
setback on all streams, lakes, and wetlands for these structures, which falls in
line with the recommended buffer widths. In circumstances where minimum
setbacks cannot be attained, sewer lines shall be constructed of ductile iron or
other substance of equal durability.
Mitigation = The applicant has proposed to make a payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for 1,038 linear feet of impacts resulting from the construction
of dams and payment for 2,395 linear feet for all impacts from flooding. If this project is
permitted as proposed, we do not believe the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant are
adequate nor do they compensate for the impacts that this project will have on aquatic and
upland resources and habitats. We propose the establishment of the following mitigation
measures in order to provide a sufficient mitigation plan for all unavoidable impacts:
The applicant has proposed mitigation for only a portion of the impacts of the
project. As a general rule, we recommend that mitigation be established for
all direct impacts to wetlands and streams. Therefore, we recommend that
mitigation be established for the entire 8,032 linear feet of stream channel and
0.08 acre of wetlands. We recommend that project impacts be mitigated by
the restoration of comparable on-site streams and wetlands at a ratio of at
least 2:1. If there are no on-site areas for restoration or preservation, an
in-kind off-site mitigation plan should be considered to offset the 8,032 linear
feet of impacted streams and the 0.08 acre of wetlands.
2. If all mitigation options have been exhausted and a buy-in to the NCEEP
becomes necessary for mitigation of the impacts to the 8,032 linear feet of
stream and 0.08 acre of wetlands, the same restoration ratio of 2:1 should be
used to calculate the payment amount.
5
x .. P ,
At this stage of project development.and without more specifics, about construction locations or
techniques, it is difficult for us to fully assess potential environmental impacts (direct, indirect,
secondary, and. cumulative). We therefore recommend that any environmental document
prepared for this project include the following (if applicable):
1. A comparison of alternatives and their associated impacts should be included
in the environmental document for this project. In particular, we will need a
detailed analysis, of stream and wetland impact areas and locations, exact areas
of proposed stream and wetland filling, and the locations of stream crossings
and the construction techniques proposed for stream crossings within the
development project. Plans for.all proposed impact areas should include a
complete analysis and comparison of the available construction techniques
and alternatives (including a no-build alternative). The report should contain
information from all surveys and assessments, including the acreage and A
description of the wetlands that will be filled or impacted and the extent
(linear feet as well as discharge) of any water courses that will be impacted as
a result of the proposed project. A description of any streams should include
the classification (Rosgen 1995, 1996) and a description of the biotic
resources. All wetland areas affected by the proposed project should be
mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identijy-ing and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
2. A description of the fisheryand wildlife resources within existing and
required additional rights-of--way and any areas, such as borrow areas, that
maybe affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
3. An assessment of all expected secondary and cumulative environmental
impacts associated with this proposed work. The assessment should specify
the extent of development proposed for the project area once the roadway
expansion is complete and how future growth will be maintained and
supported with regard to sewer lines, water lines, parking areas,, and other
proposed roadways.
4. A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in the loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat from direct construction
impacts and from secondary development impacts. The acreage and location
of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be eliminated because of the
proposed project must be noted.
5. Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses (wetland, riverine, and upland) associated
with any phase of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Our mission is to conserve, protect,
and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people. By working with you and giving you the appropriate information early in the
6
}
planning process, we hope to accomplish this goal. If we can be of assistance or if you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939,
Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log
Number 4-2-05-366.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
7
.r°tr?r
?' V
y
El North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
TO: Todd Tugwell, USACOE
Raleigh Field Office
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 19, 2005
SUBJECT: Lang Wilcox, USSARA, LLC Ski Lake, Unnamed Tributary Yadkin River (WS IV),
DWQ No. 051117, Forsyth County
Mr. Wilcox has submitted a request to build a proposed ski lake and subdivision. The site is near
Shallowford Crossing, which may be of some historical significance since revolutionary and civil war
battles transpired in the area. Biologists with the NCWRC are familiar.with general habitat values in the
area. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (G.S. l l3A-1 through 113A-10; NCAC 25).
The project is to build a twenty-eight (28) acre recreational and ski lake about 2400' long and about 300'
wide. The project is indicated to consist of 2395 linear feet of impacts to the affected stream and loss of
0.86 acres of wetlands. The project will create over 30 acres of surface waters. A low-flow cool-
water/aerated discharge is proposed. Mitigation is proposed for 1038 linear feet of stream and off-site
mitigation may be provided through preservation of 22,000 linear feet of stream channels in the vicinity
of the project. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program mitigation is proposed. Two (2) fore bay ponds are
proposed. It is our understanding that the project is pasture and headwater forests and that water supply
ordinances and regulations are applicable to these waters and wetlands.
A site visit was not conducted due to travel restrictions during the visit conducted by regulatory agencies
on September 12, 2005. Accordingly, these comments are based on an in-office review and general
recommendations for ski lakes and impoundments.
We are concerned about any non water dependent impacts to the headwaters and wetlands as these areas
provide significant water quality functions and wildlife habitats. We are also concerned about the use of
off-site mitigation using NC EEP when on-site or nearby mitigation through preservation is a viable
option. Due to development pressures, including lawn chemicals and stormwater hydrographic elevations
that are occurring along the Yadkin River in Forsyth County, stream and wetland mitigation should occur
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
LISSARA Ski Lake 2 September 19, 2005
in the watershed where impacts occur to benefit water quality and preserve or provide beneficial wildlife
habitats.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission may not object to this project providing the
following non-prioritized conditions are provided and these recommendations are included as
permit/certification conditions and implemented as appropriate:
1. To the extent possible, direct and indirect impacts to headwaters and wetlands should be
avoided and/or minimized unless they are water dependent. The smaller headwater ponds do
not appear to be necessary providing sound land stewardship practices are implemented.
These areas should be restored to (or maintained as) undisturbed headwater forests.
2. A minimum flow release should be ensured during and after construction, so that aquatic life
impacts will be minimized below the dam. The 7Q10 should be maintained at all times in
the stream below the dam as cool water releases in deep lakes may have reduced dissolved
oxygen. Discharge waters should be aerated to restore dissolved oxygen to normal ambient
levels in the receiving stream.
3. Final site plans and mitigation plans should be submitted as a single document to resource
and regulatory agencies for their evaluation and concurrence prior to issuance of permits and
certification.
4. Headwater wetlands and streams should be maintained as contiguous habitats down to the
upper end of the large lake. The proposed shoreline for the upper ponds should be preserved
.and maintained as buffers to preserve aquatic functions and wildlife habitats.
5. Road crossings using bridges that maintain native vegetation instead of using culverts are
preferred. However, any culverts permitted must provide for aquatic life passage. Culverts
48 inches diameter or larger should be buried a foot into the streambed. Culverts less than
48 inches diameter should be buried to a depth equal to or greater than 20% their size to
allow for aquatic life passage. These measurements must be based on natural thalweg
depths.
6. Conservation and preservation areas should be established and permanently preserved as
common buffer areas along streams and wetlands instead of being subdivided into individual
lots. Buffers should be undisturbed forested areas to help offset diminished wildlife habitats.
Selective timber removal may be accomplished providing the activity does not clear cut or
substantially reduce habitat values. Wide undisturbed forested buffers are preferred and
recommended for buffers around the lake to reduce pollutant and sediment impacts.
Minimum fifty (50) foot intermittent and one hundred (100) foot perennial stream buffers are
recommended. Regardless, undisturbed forested buffers should be maintained or restored
and not further diminished.
7. If any concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
8. Heavy equipment should be operated from high ground instead of in channel to minimize
buffer zone impacts and sedimentation as well as reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
9. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained
until project completion. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design
standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0124). Temporary or permanent
herbaceous vegetation should be planted, on all bare soil within ten (10) days of ground
disturbing activities (or as otherwise specified by the NC Division of Land Resources) to
provide long-term erosion control Phased ground disturbing activities should be used. The
applicant must adhere to applicable sediment and erosion control measures prescribed by the
NC Division Land Resources; including dam safety requirements.
LISSARA Ski Lake
September 19, 2005
10. Littoral shelves should be designed and provided along the shoreline for shoreline stability,
safety, shading and habitat. Banks and shelves should be planted with native woody species
that can help assimilate wave action and prevent erosion. Banks can be planted with silky
dogwood (Corpus amonum), silky willow (Salix sericea), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), black
willow (Salix nigra), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) or similar native species to
provide long term stability, shading and habitat. Buttonbushes (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
or similar herbaceous plants should be used for submerged areas. Note that silky dogwood,
silky willow and black willow can be planted as live stakes collected during the dormant
growing season. Cuttings should be randomly planted on four (4) foot centers from the
waters edge to the top of the bank. Trees should be planted on ten (10) to twelve (12) foot
centers. Stream banks in these areas should also be seeded with an approved wetland seed
mix or temporary crop of wheat or rye. Non-native plants and invasive plants must not be
used for the project.
11. Maximum available buffers as well as properly located and designed biofilters should be
provided whenever feasible and practicable. As the lake will be used for water sports, ski
course water quality and habitat provisions should consider standards set by Audubon
International Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses
(http://www.audubonintl.org/programs/aess/ olg f.htm) and/or those measures used for Low
Impact Development (LID). Low Impact Development (LID) techniques are encouraged.
Information on LID practices and measures can be found at
www.lowimpactdevelopment.org.
12. Mitigation should be provided locally through 22,000 linear feet of stream channels on-site''
or in the immediate subbasin to offset water supply watershed impacts and lost wildlife
habitat.
13. Only native North Carolina piedmont species should be stocked in the lake. Only native
flora should be used for landscaping and stabilization.
14. If appropriate and necessary, stormwater management practices should not be installed in
jurisdictional waters.
In conclusion, we prefer and recommend that the width and length of the project be shortened
considerably to reduce impacts to headwater streams and wetlands. The ski lake should only be as long
and wide as needed. Every effort must be made to prevent secondary impacts to all remaining headwater
streams and wetlands from development and skiing activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early planning stages. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336-769-9453.
Cc: Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Daryl Lamb, DWQ-WSRO
Becky Fox, EPA
.?
?0F \ NA rF9 p Michael F. Easley, Governor
?0 G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-? Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 23, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-1117
Forsyth County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Lang Wilcox
Lissara, LLC
1210 Forest Wood Drive
Lewisville, NC 27023
Subject Property: Lissara Development
Ut Yadkin River [030702,12-(86.7), WSIV]
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Wilcox:
On June 22, 2005, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated June
20, 2005, to impact 0.08 acres of wetlands and 8,032 linear feet of streams to construct the
proposed recreational waterskiing lake, an aesthetics pond and a stormwater facility. More
information regarding the project was received by the DWQ on August 1, 2005. The DWQ has
determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as
discussed below. The DWQ will require additional information in order to process your
application to impact protected wetlands and/or streams on the subject property. Therefore,
unless we receive the additional information requested below, we will have to move toward
denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this project on
hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. Please provide the following
information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Under Section VII of your application you did not provide a "justification" for the
impacts as requested within this section. The DWQ believes the two smaller
impoundment areas, the aesthetics pond and stormwater pond, are not necessary and
requests these be omitted from site development plans.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in
writing and Daryl Lamb of the DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office. If we do not hear from
you within three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we
will consider the project as withdrawn.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htW://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands
None Caro ina
Natnallly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Lissara, LLC
Page 2 of 2
September 23, 2005
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands,
waters or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application
are not authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian
McMillan at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting
to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
)ly, Supervisor
ght/Expres - w Permitting Unit
CBK/ijm
cc: Daryl Lamb, DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Chris Huysman, Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., P.O. Box 224, Newton, NC 28658
Filename: 051117Lissara(Forsyth)0n_Ho1d
Project Num: 20051117 Owner: Wilcox, Lang
Inspection Date: 09/22/2005 Inspection Type: Staff Report Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Nature of site: Wooded, semi-rural. Surrounding area consists of low density residential with some agricultural use.
Area: 132 acres
Impacts: 1,318 linear feet of stream fill for construction of three dams and two road crossings and 6,714 linear feet of impact due to
flooding in order to create three lakes.
Avoidance and Minimization: Inadequate. There appear to be opportunities for the applicant to reduce the amount of impacts and
still meet project requirements. The stream to be impacted drains -90 acres and is a tributary to the Yadkin River (WS-IV). Stream
quality ranges from poor to good. The NCWRC recommends that impacts to the smaller headwater tributaries be avoided. It may
be possible for the applicant to eliminate one or both of the smaller upstream impoundments and still provide adequate sediment
control through good land-use practices. The applicant's proposal to utilize one of the upstream impoundments as a stormwater
management facility is questionable. This facility would be located within a perennial reach. NCWRC also recommends a minimum
flow release with maintenance of 7Q10 flow at all times.
Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation is required for this project. Applicant is offering mitigation for fill and flooding through the NCEEP.
Applicant is also offering to preserve 22,000 linear feet of on-site stream channel through establishment of a conservation easement.
Buffer Impacts: Although the on-site stream is an unnamed tributary to the Yadkin River at a point where the Yadkin is classified
WS-IV, the stream is mapped as intermittent on the current USGS topo. No local government studies have been conducted on this
tributary with regard to the applicability of buffers. Therefore this stream is not subject to the buffer requirements of 15A NCAC 02B
.0216.
Stormwater Management: Currently, the stream in question appears to transport a significant amount of sediment and has reaches
of bank erosion and instability. Given the proposal to impound a significant amount of this stream and the overall scope of proposed
development, WSRO believes that stormwater management should be required on this site.
401 Authorization: WSRO does not object to the authorization of the proposed impacts under an Individual Certififcation if the following
additional conditions are met:
1) Impacts to the headwater reaches of the stream should be reduced or avoided altogether.
2) A flow release from the lower lake which assures a 7010 stream-flow should be maintained at all times.
3) Littoral shelves should be provided along the shoreline of the lakes, where practicable, in order to provide stability and habitat.
Banks and shelves should be planted with native woody species.
4) Conservation and preservation areas should be established and permanently preserved as common buffer areas along streams,
wetlands, and lake shoreline. Buffers should consist of undisturbed forest areas.
5) Stormwater management should be provided for the entire project. Stormwater treatment devices should not be placed in
perennial stream reaches.
Page: 2
Staff Report
Project Num: 20051117
Name: Lissara Development
County: Forsyth
Location: 7567 Shallowford Rd, Clemmons, N(
Latitude: +36°06'25"
SW Plan Location:
Owner: Wilcox, Lang
Contact Person: Wilcox, Lang
Inspection Date: 09/22/2005
Reason for Inspection: Routine
On-Site Representative(s):
Primary Inspector: Daryl Lamb
Secondary Inspector(s):
Question Areas:
M Site Visit
Version: 1 Status: Received
Project Type: Residential Subdivision
Region: Winston-Salem
Longitude: -80°26'57"
Title:
Phone: [phone] Ext.
Entry Time: 02:00 PM Exit Time: 03:15 PM
Inspection Type: Staff Report
Phone:
Page: 1
Project Num: 20051117 Owner: Wilcox, Lang
Inspection Date: 09/22/2005 Inspection Type: Staff Report Reason for Visit: Routine
Site Visit
Do impacts described in the application differ those seen in the field? Yes
O No NA
M 0 NE
0
If yes, please describe differences:
Are the Intermittent/Perennial calls different in the application? O N O O
If yes, please describe differences, and how mitigation ratios are affected:
Are there additional impacts not described in the application? 0 00 0
If yes, please describe and quantify:
Were the impacts in place prior to the application for the 401 Certification? 0 00 0
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: ? 0 ? ?
303(d)list, Class WS, NSW, ORW, HQW
Describe:
Is this a subdivision or otherwise part of a larger project? 0 00 0
If yes, what phase is this? Single phase subdivision
Are there prior impacts from prior phases? 1:1 0 O O
If yes, what are the cumulative imacts for this project?
Possible secondary impacts noted:
Comment:
Page: 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
June 23, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200520968
Mr. Lang Wilcox
Lissara, LLC
1210 Forrest Wood Drive
Lewisville, North Carolina 27023
Dear Mr. Wilcox:
015 - III
FJUN 2 4 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Please reference the permit application received in our office on June 22, 2005, submitted
on your behalf by Mr. Christopher Huysman of Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.,
for individual Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization for the proposed placement of
fill material into 0.04 acre of wetlands and 1,318 linear feet of stream channel, and the flooding
of 6,714 linear feet of stream channel associated with the constriction of three impoundments
and two road crossings necessary for the development Lissara Subdivision. The project is
approximately 132 acres in size and is located to the north of Shallowford Road and west of
Conrad Road, in Lewisville, Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Federal regulations in 33 CFR 325.1(d) list the information required for the submittal of a
complete individual permit application, including the names and addresses of adjoining property
owners. Based upon a review of local property records, I have determined that your application
did not include the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the proposed
development. Please submit a list of all property owners whose parcels adjoin the proposed
development. Regulations also require that you submit a list of authorizations required by other
federal, interstate, state, or local agencies for the work, including all approvals received or
denials already made.
Additionally, plans submitted with your application are insufficient for review of the proposed
impacts, and there appear to be discrepancies between impacts listed in the permit application
and those shown on the plans. The extent of impact to wetlands resulting from lake construction
is unclear, and the project narrative references a 28-acre lake, while plans show a 32-acre lake.
Please verify that stated impacts and project description match the figures. Also, please provide
plans that show more detail for the proposed road crossings. The above information is essential
for our preparation of a public notice and is required to complete your permit application.
w
During my review of your application, I also identified several other areas where additional
information will be required as part of the review of your permit application. Plans submitted
with your application do not clearly indicate the locations of dissipater pads that may be required
downstream of the dam for Pond 1. Additionally, please provide a description of the sequencing
of construction events and the proposed plans for sediment and erosion control.
Also, note that on February 6, 1990, the DA and the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the
type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through the
selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical
steps to minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining
unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. Following a review of the
application, I determined that several items of information required for the processing your
pending application in full compliance with this MOA are either lacking or insufficient. I
request that you provide the following information in support of your permit application:
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the
proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative, however the plans
submitted with your application do not provide enough detail to allow us to make this
determination. Please identify any other sites that you considered as potential alternatives to the
proposed site, or provide an explanation as to why no other sites were considered.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical steps to minimize
wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done, especially regarding the modification of
plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts (i.e., to reduce the
discharge of fill material into waters of the United States as much as practicable). Your response
should address alternate site layouts and construction techniques that may result in reduced
impacts to aquatic resources. For instance, explain why it is not possible to reduce the size of the
main lake or combine the stormwater and aesthetic ponds into one impoundment.
c. The MOA requires that appropriate and practical mitigation will be required for all
unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practical minimization has been
employed. Your application stated that it is your intention to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to
streams and wetlands by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please furnish verification from NCEEP that they are willing to accept
payment for the proposed mitigation. Your application also states that remaining streams and
wetlands will be preserved under a permanent protective covenant. Please provide a map that
shows the on-site preservation areas, and provide a draft copy of the restrictive covenants
proposed. Please note that it is important that we approve these restrictions prior to the sale or
transfer of any lots that may contain preservation areas (e.g., lots 29, 30, and 31). Furthermore,
we encourage you to consider preserving riparian buffers around the proposed impoundments as
part of your mitigation plan.
2
w
This information is essential to our expeditious processing of your permit application.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter or your DA permit application, or wish to
schedule a consultation with interested Federal and State agencies, please do not hesitate to
contact me at telephone [phone], Extension 26.
Sincerely,

Todd J. Tugwell
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Christopher Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Post Office Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
3
? t
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date: July 28, 2005
Comment Deadline: August 29, 2005
Corps Action ID #: 200520968
All interested parties are hereby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United
States. Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the
attached plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the
Wilmington District Web Site at www.saw.usace.aimy.mil/wetlands
UW M3
Applicant: L><ssara, LLC
Attn: Mr. Lang Wilcox AUG 1 - 2005
1210 Forrest Wood Drive
Lewisville Nofth Carolina 27023 DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
AGENT: Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Christopher Huysman
Post Office Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally
issue, or deny the proposed work pursuant to the applicable procedures of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.
Location
The project, Lissara Lake Subdivision, is approximately 132 acres in size and is located
north of Shallowford Road (SR 1001) and west of Conrad Road (SR 1305),
approximately 2 miles west of Lewisville, in Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the site are 36.10690 North, 80.44910 West, The
site contains an unnamed tributary of the Yadkin River and adjacent wetlands in the
Yadkin River Basin (8-Digit Cataloging Unit 03040101).
Existing Site Conditions
The land use in the area surrounding the project consists of large lot residential, dwellings,
forested tracts, and agricultural tracts. The area is currently subject to incteas'
residential deyelopmentpressure.
The land use on the project itself is primarily in forest cover, which occupies
approximately 90% of the total acreage. The remaining acreage is made up by residences
and yards. The site contains several small intermittent tributaries that combine to create a
perennial stream that runs from south to north through the property. The property is
roughly rectangular in shape and the stream essentially bisects the property along its
length. The unnamed tributary drains to the Yadkin River approximately 1 mile
downstream of the site. The site also contains approximately 0.08 acres of wetlands.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
As stated by the applicant, the purpose of the project is to provide a recreational
waterskiing lake, an aesthetics pond, and a stormwater management facility.
Project Description
The project consists of a waterskiing lake, a stormwater management facility, an
aesthetics pond and two road crossings within a 132-acre residential development.
Development of the site will require clearing the proposed lakebeds, grading the
proposed dam sites, filling necessary to impound the streams, and piping of streams to`
construct roadways. Heavy equipment, including graders, pan scrapers, excavators, bull
dozers, etc. will be used for the construction of the project. Completion of the proposed
project would require the construction of 2 dams that impound water and support road
crossings and one dam that does not support a road crossing. Rights of ways for roads
are proposed to be 60 feet and side slopes for dams are proposed to be 3:1. Two
additional road crossings (not located on the dams) are necessary to access high ground.
The proposed permanent impacts to stream channels resulting from project total 8,032
linear feet of stream channel, including 1,318 linear feet for the placement of fill material
associated with dams and road crossings, and 6,714 linear feet resulting from flooding the
lakes. Proposed permanent impacts to wetlands resulting from project total 0.08 acre,
0.04 acre for the discharge of fill and 0.04 acre resulting from flooding the lakes. Plans
included with this notice show the overall proposed site layout as well as details of the
proposed dam.
The applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to stream channels by payment into the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The applicant proposes payment for
1038 linear feet of impacts resulting from the construction of dams and payment for 2395
linear feet of impacts for all impacts resulting from flooding.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate
State agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision
until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or, waives
State certification required by Section 40,1ofthe Clean Water.Act '(PL 92-500). The
2
receipt of the application and this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh
serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur
if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for certification within sixty days of the date of
the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central Office. Additional information
regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the NCDWQ Central
Office, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina 217699-1650 AttenQtionitMs (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail
by
Service Center, Raleigh, North
August 22, 2005.
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial
determination is that the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils
or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic
Places and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein are located along the project corridor or will be affected by
the proposed work. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or
historical data may be located within the project area and/or could be affected by the
proposed work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the
applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on
available information, the Corps has determined pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed endangered or
threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest.
That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
All omo he
important resources. The benefit that reasonably may expected o accrue
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. which maybe relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
3
I
concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain
values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of
the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and
officials, including any consolidate State Viewpoint or written position of the Governor;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of
this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To
make this decision; comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest
factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the
need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a
public hearing shall be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues
raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
I
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm, August 29, 2005. Comments
should be submitted to Todd Tugwell, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of the
Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615.
i
II
4
711
r)�. �- ; 11`� ;�� i4(:C�G- ; k__k4�vr r , V l\ 't'1. k}, TJ a yo iY
y
Ill 'Y" _. r ISS Sa i.�"'2�Ir J _ �� �"�a\ i `� a }J/' i
ff �! , t 1/7� r 1 �� t � ? 1 4� Y ' i �� i 11
�3:A'y va Ir
.i - t 'f _ dlt x�� 5. 2 ,�, ��tj-,, t �t� ' �1` 4'� `t y� v. "" ):: r y ,j�—Jd L ti Is$
..� q u '� . t > t _.ya ,
l . It , 1 �I a , ; 4
� , , , '� ,�ti Cts �P't9 1 �• �4r . i ti : l
y�1. ' �) ' �', e ' �' �;.-
I
[ I^ ti 1s \ „� i I i- , t �t ° �,���iWt-la+ _ �,p�
:�V �= l hV., i � S^ 111,
- f Y , 4 .I t4' I�f , i�.Ti 3 I 1 ,
, , > �1 - l I �. ` � 0 t .
1 �.
���„�N-E11( �I
_ y t r r1, h1.1 � q ;'l I�C,,C11 't17 r �' . , i �T r
4 kl l f�f7�7��a
I
�r , '
Eft 1:.�-i�r` a 4 t
1 I , I' �' �I t,� T�I1 llGJt;' ,
�' _, i.
�, �l 11 i t i1j r , A ;t ( i �
�. 5 I; ..�>� V l II 1 h” 4 ul,, l� �� : j, ,
I { li :. ��
i '� II p .-� t ,n��. td�l `,1'i ill tw 1-,j. l�`�1,� it '��4� 1.J },
1 . I I_4 a i �� .
\ L
it I itt �'- .' / i , v�'
4 t t,. _� i' 4 I G l+la, ��� d��f{�. �l(lY u1 r I� , y } i
,' 1 . I, �q 11 1 , }KCL (t , y hr t.
1.I d a 1 i I (�P�T {{d ;,I 1� !I ��7,' I �r '1 l i ✓.
r- "� CL_'�l,.t'Ti t 4.iLI-'tiIC .f d i r
� � � I I , �;
I �I r ,Lli'i t\yt`Ifl I t iri
�, U �' I1. IIs § t A LI, i I ' ro 4,
',. z- I (��i i ij '�� ,� iSll ii 4 , Ci,,,�+?.i i�(.di,�. l,' f�tj.I, W[iit-II ( j� ,
t, C1C q t it t5 I
- ti �' (�[ 1.5,.f u�Y icy
\:_I 1i n , r 1 1 ,u i r �'
t
..v 1 J 1.
I .1L, L G a - I I I
Iv U' t1 _ L,,,,I in) c{ t1
1 �t� ,Cx�dl',11, I r� 1. l>aL1 .trJ it �"iT2i 1 I 1 - 1 1�
_F ; xGL �tf�' {2�id41 il14) ,�'
- 7r 1. t. ✓ I ti`.%W q �. �,, V Il
I N LiA _ ' t it l I V:n [ in
1 • W.M.• ,. I 1tA'"�CI 11 1 i 11 I 1,r
'I �, I ,, ] �� tln,t l7 fit i ,$ZL' [(7l `- -
� ! , e. , I U,, ' '. al ai f1��'
{
1; 111 �, 1 , SII _u ' �," L46 1 '(i A..izl� 1�,LililKiiill,.Ct711. ) :* Y
d r ," ii
1 I.
�I 14.� 4 .1,1 l'' ,, pra1� /I - 1 1 I AO [ ,ft 171'�i(I r�� ��.�
t' :1 r S. �ti IiAR / 7 ., r 1 - �l
�, �� 4 x x 1� Icr I,I 1
I
st a
J �' fid, II �� rf..
I� ��0�t :�1 vi r I J' �,�
�� i} , i , U!` y
,-� , h'LAI
i% ifi1 - 1 ��� I i,.ul 7 �= j jb
N+I.I !i t I
tJU�,Tt�CtLo �1 �i " ",,f
�i l: ,] l 4 7 �' 1
Ii1' :tC�rtl�l7iI r� �;�� , I .� f „ ! 411 iti ,�.. {�� -1 'l -
n µ t- I j;7J�'��
�IF4{� z I,t , I �l� j r� �[� �� I l �r�et,ti�r��
4✓ ��'� 1 -S1LY �: iY Cf tli "-11 ?� �7 _)1 4 _ q 1 �� I .A� �
41 .-- i r \ 1,��J� 1 4 1 �, ,� I 74 �� Y1�ul
Si -, "'_ ,� ' �' , - ,; 1 _ � Int .�I y, li s aj 4 ' ,4"
j' Li!CL' ttltl j .'" 4 4 - ( r /: ', ..i.�t j i I t i , i, .� A if
1 I �i �3�:� \ ;, , Ii �; t � -� lam^ ^ �x , j J�,+ i�a� 3� - l 11 �, ^�
, � _ ti:
I _ i It r� , l} 1 �✓ ( r ra[ v s
a Z. ,, I �c'�Z ' .I '�1, �9 ;� t 't ° 7 1 Yg a .1,_,' F�
t �� J ., j j y 4 1 ( '; S of i a i t �t7�° �t S:y li � JJ
i r`11 s ,� r � �, ,I. , y i� r
li
:., f - -
f� � }
, , , t•.� i _I I 1 i1. I: i 1 1
•
,.� ,y
j 16 °3' ��
' , �� .fi t �' -
- — — 1��
C�LFeJ�'1E

W
LISSARA DEVELOPMENT
.0
8°W
.1 I I I I I I I
'ame: CLEMMONS
ate_ 6113/2005
pale:' 1 inch equals 1000 feet

Proposed ski distance (240010
shown on black
Proposed lakes shown in blue

0

12
l nolne ,6ci 6n l.nu h,.? 1.. 1 . .1 L ._, t_.=-!--..- ?-_ -.. - °. ",-••.••?0.
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP A111)#200520968
issara, LLC
orsyth County, NC 1210 Forest Wood Dnve
uty 28, 2005 ewisvd NC 27023
heet 2 of 4
- ...??.... rriniiT A Ifln T)V L?TP. T Tl I?TIiPI I? ?

U
W
W
Q
a
o w
N
c'n O
J
? O
-7 ?
x
r?
r=a
a
z
5
08 OU
n
as ??

MoD

y 4 K7.
a o U' !

oa ?= I
?Ti y
1
_
O ?
» H
?
.nrmxr swac •rr ?r Yrn6(Y7 OgFdYMMrZLWM&-
I

?
fill
I
8
W
$ > U.,_:,

g 5p

d L
i ? U
N ? i-
oo i
?
3 ?1
r
? N

ilaraxolotosvlto3ros%of u
2 t
•F ?
i W C
U yN
2 F
3
t0
? Wm V
?. 3
Z?H
=C?Z m
N<im
Q . O
3 m ? S

j ?. d X

! S]d
fl' S
Y? XX? X_ s

p°RBae ea?agY
i 7aFSil .
c?eg

TYPICAL ROAD_ CROSSING # 200520968
_ issara; LLC
orsyth. County, NC 1210 Forest?,YV Dnve;_
my 5
:J L 3
Triage Check List
7/8/05 FILE ILUPY
Date: T
1 Project Name: Lissara Development
DWQ#: 05-1117
Daryl Lamb, Winston-Salem Regional Office County: Forsyth
To:
60-day processing time: received 6/22/05 CO; no PN yet
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
aj)O S11 11 °
"
wt+J ;t 1 ,
Wetland and Natural Resource PG wt:;;,•! .
Consultants, Inc. w"'•*"'?'
June 20, 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Todd Tugwell
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Ste 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
FILEI COPY
Mr. Tugwell:
Attached is an application for an individual permit to construct three lakes as part of a
residential development. All of the following information is available in digital format and
will be forwarded to you upon your request.
Location
The project, Lissara Lake Subdivision, is approximately 132 acres in size and is located
north of Shallowford Road (SR 1001) and west of Conrad Road (SR 1305), approximately 2
miles west of Lewisville, in Forsyth County, NC. Coordinates (in decimal degrees) for the
site are 36.1069° North, 80.4491° West. The site contains an unnamed tributary of the
Yadkin River and adjacent wetlands in the Yadkin River Basin (8-Digit Cataloging Unit
03040101)
Existing Site Conditions
The land use in the area surrounding the project consists of large lot residential dwellings,
forested tracts, and agricultural tracts. The area is currently subject to increasing
residential pressure.
The land use on the project itself is primarily in forest cover, which occupies
approximately 90% of the total acreage. The remaining acreage is made up by residences
and yards. The site contains several small intermittent tributaries which combine to
create a perennial stream that runs from south to north through the property. The
property is roughly rectangular in shape and the stream essentially bisects the property
along its length. The unnamed tributary drains to the Yadkin River approximately 1 mile
downstream of the site. The site also contains approximately 0.10 acres of wetlands.
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, #142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-648-8801
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
Applicant's Stated Purpose
As stated by the applicant, the purpose of the project is to provide a recreational
waterskiing lake, an aesthetics pond, and a stormwater management facility.
Project Description
The project consists of a waterskiing lake, a stormwater management facility, an
aesthetics pond and two road crossings within a 132 acre residential development.
Development of the site will require clearing the proposed lake beds, grading the proposed
dam sites, filling necessary to impound the streams, and piping of streams to construct
roadways. Heavy equipment, including graders, pan scrapers, excavators, bull dozers, etc.
will be used for the construction of the project. Completion of the proposed project
would require the construction of 2 dams that impound water and support road crossings
and one dam that does not support a road crossing. Rights of ways for roads are proposed
to be 60 feet and side slopes for dams are proposed to be 3:1. Two road crossings are
necessary to access high ground. The proposed permanent impacts to stream channels
resulting from the placement of fill material associated with dams and road crossings
` totals 1,318 linear feet. The proposed impacts resulting from flooding streams totals
6,714 linear feet. Proposed permanent impacts to wetlands resulting from the discharge
of fill totals 0.04 acres. The proposed permanent impacts to wetlands resulting from
flooding the lakes total 0.08 acres. Plans included with this notice show the overall
proposed site layout as well as details of the proposed dam.
The applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to stream channels by payment into the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The applicant proposes payment for
1038 linear feet of impacts resulting from the construction of dams and payment for 2395
linear feet of impacts for all impacts resulting from flooding.
Thank you for your time and consideration and please call me at [phone] with any
questions that you may have.
st r rds,
ris Huysman
A
Cc: NC DWQ, Attn: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-627-0051
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 325)
- - I OMB APPROVAL NO, 0710-0003
Exoires Decemhar :31 9nnn
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should req e
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and M
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-00031, Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of Is Cn
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of Information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control M
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer havin
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. Y C
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be usad in evaluating the application for e
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if Information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructionsi and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
tlT6NS I THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE C vac'
APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED
5. APPLICANT'S LJAME 1 I /
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
C Z \0
a. Residence
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE )nn ngmranot regwrerll
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
Pct 43 GX 2-2 'A
a. Residence
W)
b. Business ] I b. Business S'?? (?U
1 1. 1 1 V` \"C STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, ?A, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
iurnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
13. NAME OF WATERBOOY, IF KNOWN at.pp-w.)
U-7 "?A-t7??41,3 ',TDQ'y Z
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
wQSLi1-?-e 1.?
COUNTY STATE
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS off ppt bj)
G'1C?1?N\(?IuS J ??
'S. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, rsee ?rructio u)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
EAIG FORM 4345, 370 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE.
(Proponent: CECW-OR)
?L
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED

p ?°t

LASS A, 1"2\P,, -0 Ii 0-cf-4 v \ - r
18. Nature of Activity Wcmar:pnnn of propcr,,rrauae su/mrriesl
19. Project Purpose rDesal a The remon or purpose of the proRcr, see rnsrrt cuonsl
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED ANWOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20, Reason(s) for Discharge
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Z-4C 6,Jp3 a-- ?-\V'
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled isee usrrucnam

23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No X_ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
U
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).

25. List of Other Certifications or ApprovaWDenials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL- IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DE E
NI G
Would include but i t
s no restricted to zoning, budding and flood plain permits
28. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the a to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly ad a t of applicant.
Cs?
11 SIGNATURE OF-A ATE SIGNATURE OF AGE- T DATE
The application must be signed by erson who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement i lock 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or.imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Project Purpose and Need
Lissara LLC, the project proponent, proposes to construct a 28 acre
recreational and water skiing lake, an aesthetics pond and a stormwater
management facility in conjunction with development of the Lissara
subdivision in Forsyth County, North Carolina. There are no other property
owners that adjoin the waterbody that will be impacted.
The proponent needs the lake to provide the central recreational amenity
for the project which proposed the use of both vintage and competitive ski
boats to provide opportunities that are not available in the immediate
proximity. The ski lake should be long enough (2400 linear feet) and wide
enough (300 linear feet) to provide the competitive and novice skier and the
opportunities to practice their skills on smooth water without safety
concerns related to other crafts which are so prolific on public lakes. The
ski lake needs to be located entirely on the project area so as to limit
access.
The proponent further seeks to construct a stormwater management facility
on a perennial stream to limit the inflow of sediment to the proposed ski
lake. This sediment removing structure needs to be located upstream of the
ski lake and needs to be able to be dipped from high ground without lowering
the ski lakes pool. An aesthetics lake is proposed and is needed to offset
infrastructure costs associated with the development.
The impacted streams will be diverted while the clean fill is discharged into
the stream to construct the dams. All three dam will be constructed with
3:1 side slopes. The trapezoidal bases of the dams will impact a total of
1038 feet of linear streams. Approximately 240 cubic yards of discharge
will occur below the ordinary high water mark. The outlets of the dams will
utilize low-flow cool water design strategies.
The subject stream is mapped as an unnamed intermittent tributary to the
Yadkin River which has approximately 90 acres of drainage. The NC Division
of Water Quality has classified the Yadkin River as Class WSIV waters. The
subject stream has been assessed using the Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheet (USACE Wilmington, Version 06/03) based on prior land use and
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
forested cover. The entirety of the stream at the Pond 1 has excess
sediment load. The stream is generally in poor to good condition.
Lissara Development Impact Table
IMPACT TYPE Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3
Stream Fillip 520 If (191 cy) 262 If (25 cy) 256 If (24 cy)
Waters Fillip .08* .03* .02*
Waters Flooding .83* .04* .03*
Perennial Flooding 4366 348 75
Intermittent Flooding 1514 134 277
* acreages are inclusive of stream surface area
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Avoidance and Minimization
The proponents have identified a need to create a lake based development
for water skiing using vintage water craft as well as competitive ski craft.
The proponents first evaluated other properties with lakes and found that
none with the dimensional and development requirements were for sale. The
dimensional requirements are necessary to ensure safe use of the lake. The
development requirements limit access to the general public and the lake
needs to meet all current dam safety requirements.
Topographical limitations and regional ground / surface water discharges
limit the ability of the proponent to excavate a lake of the required
dimensions into a floodplain or other flat area and achieve the project need.
The proposed site does not require excessive grading impacts and because
the lakes will impact all the stream length in the drainage there are limited
concerns relating to the upstream migration of aquatic organism.
One pond is required as a sediment control devise and is located such that all
sediment can be dipped from the structure without lowering the lake
elevation. This is required so as not to interfere with the use of the lake.
The aesthetic pond is needed to provide increased revenue to off-set the
capital cost of the project and to enhance the overall theme of the
development.
The proponent has avoided hard impacts to the greatest extent practicable
by situating the dam at its proposed location and by proposing a low-flow
cool-water riser-pipe structure. The proponent evaluated reducing the
flooded reach by moving the dam upstream. The unintended consequence is
that more hard impacts would be required for the dam. Impacts requiring
discharges to Waters of the US are limited to the construction of the dam
which will create additional regulated Waters of the US. The predominant
impacts of the project to streams are secondary in nature and result from
flooding.
The proponent considered alternative development concepts and determined
that the uniqueness of the current proposal provided the best potential for
success.
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project are minimized
through the reduction in scope and through design considerations including:
• Engineered low-flow cool-water discharge orifice
0 Establishment of vegetated buffers along the lake shore
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Mitigation Proposal
Summary:
Wetlands and streams not impacted by the proposed development as well as
those areas restored and created under this proposal will be preserved
under a permanent protective covenant. Stream mitigation will be
accomplished through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP).
Wetlands:
Wetland impacts are below the mandated threshold for mitigation as
required by the NC Division of Water Quality. Though there is no specific
mandate for wetland mitigation the applicant will be off-setting the surface
area impacts to streams with the surface area of the impoundment. The
loss of 0.86 acres of stream surface area will be mitigated by the creation
of over 30 acres of surface waters.
Streams:
Stream impacts can be separated into two separate classes that merit
differing mitigation ratios based upon the effect of the discharge and
subsequent flooding. Impacts resulting from the construction of the
impoundment result in a permanent loss of waters while impacts associated
with flooding result in a net increase in regulated Waters of the U5.
The dam incorporates design elements that ensure that water quality will be
protected through a low-flow cool-water / aerating discharge.
Stream Mitigation Proposal for Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts to stream will result from the flooding of a poor to good
quality stream. The flooding will alleviate sediment load from failing banks.
Stream restoration is proposed at a 0.5 to 1 ratio through the NC EEP for
the flooding impacts because they are secondary impacts to lower quality
streams. The ratio is in consideration of additional mitigative measures such
as design considerations.
Required Secondary Impact Mitigation Table
(0.5:1 Rntin Anrdiarl)
Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Total
Mitigation for Flooding 2183 If 174 If 38 If 2395 If
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Proposal for Primary Impacts
Primary (hard) impacts to streams and wetlands resulting from the
impoundment structure will be mitigated at a 1;1 ratio. The applicant
proposed to participate within the NC EEP for these impacts because the
onsite mitigation opportunities are non-existent
Required Primary Impact Mitigation Table
(1:1 Ratio Applied)
Lake Storm Facility Pond
-4 Total
Stream Filling 520 If 262 If 256 If 1038 If
Onsite Mitigative Treatments and Restoration Plan
Within 90 days of the approval of the restoration plans the applicant will
provide to the US Army Corps of Engineers a plat that depicts the
preservation areas and the restrictive language.
Off-Site Mitigation Alternative / Ecosystem Enhancement Program
The proponent is seeking to mitigate through the NC EEP for all impacts.
Concurrently, the applicant is contemplating the preservation of 22,000
linear feet of stream channels in the vicinity of the project through the
establishment of conservation easements. The preserved streams will have
vegetated buffers and stable bed and bank.
? '°D ra s? bn -
,? -f Sj/b \
y 8 `a?jnYrw???888?
i-H
o
2 °2
_? '-rz?33838da'K???W
?? J^\?/mew m '^-=-----
411
/ r urll ,????
rrr? ?r/i / \
I 11111 IG h/ ? \\\
I I II'It?f 11 I/ ? 1l
1 ? \11? //?Ir\\?
ti 11? \1111`1111\1``?\?
/ \\ 111?yr// - ? I
??1111V111(???
\ 1 g\ l ;
?7a?i°o?N?ba?
xNC ?Su`86
gnu 3c>???<'
T g
A 0??
z
CL
a
o
aa°'
fA"-?
J sa
ww h
J J
a
az
U ?W
ZZ g
`s
Zo ??
0
20 ??
Ah,
lmiI
0

3 #?
Q a
Q.
m ?
N R
U e
N w?
Q ? a?€
? R
U ? ? 6F
W UC ?b

"` r
-I
L
Ln
s
3
O
U
N
v
a
U
f'-
N
O
D
a
L
a
J
? o o `O
Lid
O
CL •D N N
U
LL
0
0
N
?
\O N N
L
O
}
N
J O 0 (VO
Lid

O
4- }
s E
a
S o

m
w
CL
L
N
N
L
0
N
N
O
o?
_U
O
N
dl
L
a
s
U
L
0)
F-
a
3
O
O
U
3
0
3
0
J
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
t STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: &-A-A)(7 W jLQ4 2. Evaluator's name: 6-I&S !4y' IS.s?
3. Date of evaluation: M Gk A(_o 5 4. Time of evaluation: Dvol?
5. Name of stream: J11) V,( vV \ l? 1:.12 6. River basin: i v DV v'V
?5i
7. Approximate drainage area: PT?l 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known):
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any):_
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
<?
14. Proposed channel work (if any): ( ?-AOj (v ?C.l?i;? t CC
15. Recent weather conditions: - % V2--
16. Site conditions at time of visi
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (NO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 6 NO 20. Does
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (am) NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural

? 0-2-3 % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: y - I
71 - 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Z - S t
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) )x _Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends X Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse). Comments:
LAS ?=, ?? \ L (:_ U
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 01r?4- G
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points) 5
?0 =
-4
0-4 4
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0
6 0

extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) - -5
0 -
13
3 Riparian zone ?6 0-4 ?
( 0

no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) - 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0 -
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) 0-4 0
5 Groundwater discharge 0- 3-- 0-4
U no discharge = 0 springs, wetlands, etc. = max )
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0-4
6
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points) ( -2
Z
Entrenchment / floodphtin access

d
l 0-5

-5 .. 0-4 _ 4
?
0-2
(
eep
y entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) /
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-.- 6 0-4
9 Channel sinuosity `
0 =-5.
0-4 J
extensive channelization = 0, natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
?'V 5'
0 - 4
0 -
'
11 Size die diversity of channel bed substrate "
fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points) NA*
---. 0-4 (\
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 5 0 ,1_1
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed 8t banks = max ints -4 0 5
13 Presence of major bank failures
.?
0-5

0
5

0
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max ints - =-5 Z,
14 Root depth and density on banks
3
?
no visible roots = 0; dense roots thro out = max points) I 0-4
- 5
C)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0
4
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max ints -
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes b
3

H

no ri$les/ri les or pools = 0• well-developed = max ints) _ 0-5

0, 6 4
17 Habitat complexity

F.?

little or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max 0 6 0-6
0-
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
?
0
5'
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) -
?
-
0
19 Substrate embeddedness ?
dee lv embedded = 0: loose structure = max ,
N? 0-4 - 4 Z
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) \
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) 0 - 0 - 5
G7 21 Presence of amphibians

no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) 0- 4 0-4
0 -
22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points
0 -
0 - 4
'?O`4

23 Evidence of wildlife use 0?1-6 0
5
?
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points) -
Total Points Possible 100 00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) j

U0
ese charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETOV-\?It * 05;;-
t)?PP2 r Laft-
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 61-3 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0
5 --'
(extensive alteration = 0-, no alteration = max ints -
3 Riparian zone L
-

no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) p 0-4 0- 5 7
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) -5 0-4 0 -4
5 Groundwater discharge
U no dischar e = 0 rips s, wetlands. etc.= max 0 - 0-4 `- 4 '?
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain a 0

no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points) -4

p'' Entrenchment / floodplain access
0
0
4 J>
0
deg t entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) - ,. Z
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0 0-4 0_

9 Channel sinuosity
015
0 - 4
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) i
10 Sediment input t-5 0-4
?A
extensive deposition= 0-, little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate * z

fine, he no enous = 0- large, diverse sizes = max ints A 0-4 0 - i
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening - 0 _ 5) 0-4
5

(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) Z
13 Presence of major bank failures
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points) - 5 0-5
- 5

d 14 Root depth and density on banks
0-4 j
E
., no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max ints

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) 0- 0-4 0- 1
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0

riffles/ripples or pools = 0, well-developed = max points) 0-5 0 -
17 Habitat
Habitat complexity

little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max 0- 6 0-6 0 6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed -

no shadin vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0
5
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max) A* 0 - 4 0
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) 0-" 0-5
- 5
GJ 21 Presence of amphibians

id ` 0-4
- 4
L
no ev
ence = 0, common, numerous = max points)
O
0-4 22 Presence of fish
id
=
• 0 % 0-4
00 no ev
ence
0
common, numerous types = max points
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence = 0, abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5
i
Total Points Possible .100 100 00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
11CZ)U Waraciensucs are not assessea in coastal sueams.
?LL- C)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET'` U?
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = max points 0 0-4 ,:n.
-?5
1
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0 7 0
5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points - - ?? 7-
Riparian Riparian zone

no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0- 6)
r 0- 4 - 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0- 0-4 0
5 Groundwater discharge

U
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max - 3 0-4 0-
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive fl lain = max points) 0 0 -4 ;--2

a" Entrenchment / floodplain access
dee i y entrenched = 0: fre uent floodin = max ints
0 'S,
0 - 4
?
v
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands '

(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = max points) -6

( 0-4
0 -
9 Channel sinuosity 05
0-4
- 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) /
10 Sediment input
5
0
4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max ints - - ?
't C?
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA-) 0-4 \ F

fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
1
0
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening - 0
-5 0 r

(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) - -4
p -?
13 Presence of major bank failures -

a
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points) 06
5 0 - 5 =5 '
`(^
14 Root depth and density on banks 5

E.
no visible roots = 0: dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4
-

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0(5

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-4 0- 5?
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool completes -

F+ no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 3 0-5

17
Habitat complexity
li
l
0 - 6
0-6 /
<Q - 6

3
t tt
e or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max .
18 Canopy coverage over streambed _ 5 0
5 0
no shading vegetation = 0. continuous canopy = max points) -
19 Substrate embeddedness

d 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max N* 0- 4 0- 4 I
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points 0 - 4 0 - 5 5 r
C7 21 Presence of amphibians
no evidence = 0• common. numerous types = max points)
0 - 4
0 -
?O Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common. numerous types = max points)
01-4')
0-4
0
E23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points) )
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL _ .,
SCORE (also enter on first page)

F
i I-se chwaciensucs are not assessed in coastal streams.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Shallowford Road Date: March 2005
Applicant/ Owner: Lanq Wilcox County: Forsyth
e
Investigator: Huysman State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ? Community ID:slough
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ? No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No ® Plot ID:100's & 300's
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indic or Stratum
1. Acer rubrum FAC tree 9. Alnus serrulata FACW+ sapling
2. Acer negundo FACW tree 10. Viburnum nudum FACW+ shrub
3. Salix nigra OBL tree 11. Woodwardia areolata OBL herb
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
? Other ® Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12"
? No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) Secondary In
Depth to Free Water in Pit Vin.) ® Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
® Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ? Local Soil Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Shallowford Road Date: March 2005'
Applicant / Owner: Lang Wilcox County: Forsythe
Investigator: ±1 an State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ? Community ID:Mesic
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ? No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No ® Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Liriodendron tulipifera FAC tree 9. Toxicodendron redicans FAC vine
2. Acernegundo FACW tree 10. Vitis spp. FAC vine
3. Fagus grandifolia FACU tree 11. Eulalia viminea FAC+ herb
4. Quercus alba FACU tree 12. Polystichum acrostichoides FAC herb
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
? Other ? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12"
® No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: + 48 in.) ? Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
? Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: + 48 (in.) ? Local Soil Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (We) Typic Fluvaquents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Muns ell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A 10YR 5/2 / sandy clay loam
10-15 B .10YR 5/1 / sandy clay loam

/

Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
® Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
vu" 1 LMl\V uC 1 F-MV111VN 1 IVIV
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No:]
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ?
Remarks: Representative of wetlands within
the floodplain of the main tributary. These are
small areas of approximately 100 sq ft each and
are assessed to be old sloughs.
rnU I U / UbUb / I HUZ:i kilt
J / / ""J W M li (` 5z
r t301 - Jh' Il?? ? 'l
i
Approximate Scale: 1 to 1000
Clemmons Quadrangle
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ? No ?
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A 10YR 5/4 / sandy clay loam
10-15 B 10YR 7/5 / clay loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: not a hydric soils
WP TI Arvin n=rte eA IUA 1 wl -..-
r - r.. ........'1 I.VI\
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[:] No ?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ? No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ? No ?
Remarks: adiacent slopes are high ground
rnv I U / LIZ)Ub / NHGS

Bank Material
Within the proposed flooded reach
the banks of the stream are
comprised primarily of highly
erodable saprolite and weathered
rock. Stream bed appears to have
excess bedload based on preliminary
d50 assessment
Instability
Within the proposed flooded
reaches are numerous areas with
high degrees of instability resulting
from a combination of bank
materials and historic land use.
Erosion is occurring below the root
zo ne and trees are f al I i ng i nto the
stream
Grade Control
Good grade control is present at the
upstream locations of the proposed
ponds. Grade control, in the form of
boulders stabilize the upstream
reaches but undercutting below the
root zone is evident immediately
below the grade control.
F.• ?OPRO,eCT?05010?DWG-CD?05010-999W7LANDMAP.DWG LAMTI, Ain 13, 7005 7:48 PM
U S,
°•ao m 1 \ I 1 it
?N
SHALLOWFOI?I
CD OD
ti 16
O \\ \ o
w ) 1 \ ' 1 6111 1I(( ?\\\\\0 ?\
c? \ 1 I I II IIIIII, 1gdIII"\?\\\\\11 111\\\ it
\\ 1 I I 1111 j 11111 I III II / 11\,\\\\ \\
/ v 1 1 11 I I 1111 n1 11jj11 vvvv1 v1vv vv?`1vv
I'M, 1 11)!l/ 11 11111, / /I1 \ 1.11 III \\\\\II v 1 1 \ \ \
,6111
I?\\\\\I\\\II I, 1 \\?\\\
( / // , /l n1?I lI m IIII \\\ \\\\\\ \ 1 ?\\
11 Jr
Ir(??/???//llll 111/\ 111/11111 I aZN
Y ((\ / // \11\11111 Z Oo
o0
V ? // ?\\\? - // //// ?"? /!((11 1\II III'\\\\\I\\ ?1 I ?
1 --4 I \ \\\1 I I J d II ? ST Z /I \
?l y //- /ice--=?vV / A \\\\?I11 1 161111
`?? (?/?/ % /'?? ?A? ?ti ? 1 VA \1111111 1u111111 ?IIIIVA,.
\IA,C/// / //v 1 ???? _ 11)In?IlI1I1111nuV?Aw?` 111
v ?? a v ?v? /i ///1 IIII hvwv? 1 O
6 Cc)
? \\ ? ? 11\\ \ \ \ \\ \\? ` ?c ? i? i/? ` \\ j. \111 \\I I II?'r ? v
?G °? \ ?? \111\\\\\1f? \ ? _ ? \ ,?. \\\\\? ?5,?} \11\ :z- i'i
I \ \ 1 ? _ Tom- ? \?
N'
aND
v
0 m
O
Z I
z
9D
m
O `?
X?
F m
v
z
0
•
O ru
o?
0
?v
Z
z
C
Z
s m ni
mfr
r_
m C Z r ? (n
Nom ?D
x
o
z Z
v
Q
-O
y
w
W
N
+
#
y
0
N a
RI a 0
A Z
av
N V N p
r .n
8

m

A

(

fN
a
n

m
m 8
m ;
O
z

v
T
OFcn w
gQ m A
1

w
a
p pp 5
p s 0
?X5?
Am
0

? O

W 0 W

W
w
66

-4
0 r-

D N +
r
w
z
?
O
a
c
?n

m w
$
$
C
C
_
w
W w z
0
r

S

g .ZI
T
m
m+ a
?c
z E
y

n
w

0 p-np
r
?
O
C
N O
O O
O v
\V
?
\ Il/
// /ilE
to
2 \?
o ?
Ill
/

\ l
II?
1\
11\ .-
r
li
\ 1
?l
PI
I I I i / /-?\
'1111 1 /
//II \ 1
-.j I I 1 I
Air
/ \ \ \
r?ll/ l 11 -
r \ `\\
I Illl lIi\11 ? ?? ? ?\
1/Ir _ 1 p \ 1 \ \
lt?
1?1il1
?\\N
I
X11\\???
\ ?,
.?.......... . ?,?// 111
/ I I??C?
I \. \ jl/ J11j111?
- - •//,,/,? I I

1

R3: 10 o
N?i al
ai
RD
1 rd
1(r ,?
?\ II
rli
I
1\.
I
/
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT [ OMB APPROVAL N 710-0003
(33 CFR 325) J Expires December 3 4
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications d re a
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data nee and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collecti tD
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Infok>jkon a
Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Bu `
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-00031, Washington. DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other, provision 0
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB can
G f
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. -- bill
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 U V44 Ua rins o R#search and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form I n a pl%ion for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information maybe shared with the Department of Justice and other fe ra ate and 1 m ni agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, If Information is not provided the permit pp nno s nor can a pertrtit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this f.
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
/!TENS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS1
APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED
5. APP (CANT'S AME
'f7G
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
1 Z ?o FU??? v?x?
Ll-Vv WSJ ? I.L.C; tiC, Z?G Z3
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
S. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE rv wgenr is nor re?unedl

9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
PC p,Cy, 7-21A
AI'1't.It:AN 1'3 PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business ??? c?( tq /?/\ 4 I b. Business SLU ? l-1 C)
1 1 , lJ`l STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
rurnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN of npw wej 1 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS ui?Pa-bi?i
U7 P1\?
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
COUNTY STATE
'6. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, tseel mxrio ,i
G??v??c.;tiS f N?
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
ENG FORM 4,345, Jul 7 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE.
(Proponent: CECW-OR)
LSS 2\P-,, V 0- ! ELCO\^ C Ni
1 B. Nature of Activity (D-mprron or prorecT, rndrrae is t", _w
t. t"QvC11o,'? 0'F
19. Project Purpose rDesaree me reason or pwpose of me prat cr, see nutnrcno mj

USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards

22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled /see .mrrurnamr

23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completes' Yes _ No y IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
c„
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
,)`uLi
?l\ VV,<(L`'1 WHO.') OE
L
25, List of Other Certifications or ApprovaWDenials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning. buildina and flood olain nermira
28. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the a to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly ed a t of applicant.
SIGNATURE OFA ATE SIGNATURE OF AG T DATE
The application must be signed by eraon who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement i lock 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any triak; scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or.imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Pro ject Purpose and Need
Lissara LLC, the project proponent, proposes to construct a 28 acre
recreational and water skiing lake, an aesthetics pond and a stormwater
management facility in conjunction with development of the Lissara
subdivision in Forsyth County, North Carolina. There are no other property
owners that adjoin the waterbody that will be impacted.
The proponent needs the lake to provide the central recreational amenity
for the project which proposed the use of both vintage and competitive ski
boats to provide opportunities that are not available in the immediate
proximity. The ski lake should be long enough (2400 linear feet) and wide
enough (300 linear feet) to provide the competitive and novice skier and the
opportunities to practice their skills on smooth water without safety
concerns related to other crafts which are so prolific on public lakes. The
ski lake needs to be located entirely on the project area so as to limit
access.
The proponent further seeks to construct a stormwater management facility
on a perennial stream to limit the inflow of sediment to the proposed ski
lake. This sediment removing structure needs to be located upstream of the
ski lake and needs to be able to be dipped from high ground without lowering
the ski lakes pool. An aesthetics lake is proposed and is needed to offset
infrastructure costs associated with the development.
The impacted streams will be diverted while the clean fill is discharged into
the stream to construct the dams. All three dam will be constructed with
3:1 side slopes. The trapezoidal bases of the dams will impact a total of
1038 feet of linear streams. Approximately 240 cubic yards of discharge
will occur below the ordinary high water mark. The outlets of the dams will
utilize low-flow cool water design strategies.
The subject stream is mapped as an unnamed intermittent tributary to the
Yadkin River which has approximately 90 acres of drainage. The NC Division
of Water Quality has classified the Yadkin River as Class WSIV waters. The
subject stream has been assessed using the Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheet (USACE Wilmington, Version 06/03) based on prior land use and
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
forested cover. The entirety of the stream at the Pond 1 has excess
sediment load. The stream is generally in poor to good condition.
Lissara Development Impact Table
IMPACT TYPE Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3
Stream Filling 520 If (191 cy) 262 If (25 c) 256 If (24 cy)
Waters Filling .08* .03* .02*
Waters Flooding .83* .04* .03*
Perennial Flooding 4366 348 75
Intermittent Flooding 1514 134 277
* acreages are inclusive of stream surface area
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Avoidance and Minimization
The proponents have identified a need to create a lake based development
for water skiing using vintage water craft as well as competitive ski craft.
The proponents first evaluated other properties with lakes and found that
none with the dimensional and development requirements were for sale. The
dimensional requirements are necessary to ensure safe use of the lake. The
development requirements limit access to the general public and the lake
needs to meet all current dam safety requirements.
Topographical limitations and regional ground / surface water discharges
limit the ability of the proponent to excavate a lake of the required
dimensions into a floodplain or other flat area and achieve the project need.
The proposed site does not require excessive grading impacts and because
the lakes will impact all the stream length in the drainage there are limited
concerns relating to the upstream migration of aquatic organism.
One pond is required as a sediment control devise and is located such that all
sediment can be dipped from the structure without lowering the lake
elevation. This is required so as not to interfere with the use of the lake.
The aesthetic pond is needed to provide increased revenue to off-set the
capital cost of the project and to enhance the overall theme of the
development.
The proponent has avoided hard impacts to the greatest extent practicable
by situating the dam at its proposed location and by proposing a low-flow
cool-water riser-pipe structure. The proponent evaluated reducing the
flooded reach by moving the dam upstream. The unintended consequence is
that more hard impacts would be required for the dam. Impacts requiring
discharges to Waters of the US are limited to the construction of the dam
which will create additional regulated Waters of the US. The predominant
impacts of the project to streams are secondary in nature and result from
f looding.
The proponent considered alternative development concepts and determined
that the uniqueness of the current proposal provided the best potential for
success.
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project are minimized
through the reduction in scope and through design considerations including:
• Engineered low-flow cool-water discharge orifice
• Establishment of vegetated buffers along the lake shore
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Mitigation Proposal
Summary:
Wetlands and streams not impacted by the proposed development as well as
those areas restored and created under this proposal will be preserved
under a permanent protective covenant. Stream mitigation will be
accomplished through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP).
Wetlands:
Wetland impacts are below the mandated threshold for mitigation as
required by the NC Division of Water Quality. Though there is no specific
mandate for wetland mitigation the applicant will be off-setting the surface
area impacts to streams with the surface area of the impoundment. The
loss of 0.86 acres of stream surface area will be mitigated by the creation
of over 30 acres of surface waters.
Streams:
Stream impacts can be separated into two separate classes that merit
differing mitigation ratios based upon the effect of the discharge and
subsequent flooding. Impacts resulting from the construction of the
impoundment result in a permanent loss of waters while impacts associated
with flooding result in a net increase in regulated Waters of the U5.
The dam incorporates design elements that ensure that water quality will be
protected through a low-flow cool-water / aerating discharge.
Stream Mitigation Proposal for Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts to stream will result from the flooding of a poor to good
quality stream. The flooding will alleviate sediment load from failing banks.
Stream restoration is proposed at a 0.5 to 1 ratio through the NC EEP for
the flooding impacts because they are secondary impacts to lower quality
streams. The ratio is in consideration of additional mitigative measures such
as design considerations.
Required Secondary Impact Mitigation Table
(0.5:1 Rntin Annlic d)
Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Total
Mitigation for Flooding 2183 If 174 If 38 If 2395 If
Lissara IP Narratives
June 15, 2005
Proposal for Primary Impacts
Primary (hard) impacts to streams and wetlands resulting from the
impoundment structure will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The applicant
proposed to participate within the NC EEP for these impacts because the
onsite mitigation opportunities are non-existent
Required Primary Impact Mitigation Table
(1:1 Ratio Applied)
Lake Storm Facility Pond Total
Stream Filling 520 If 262 If 256 If 1038 If
Onsite Mitigative Treatments and Restoration Plan
Within 90 days of the approval of the restoration plans the applicant will
provide to the US Army Corps of Engineers a plat that depicts the
preservation areas and the restrictive language.
Off-Site Mitigation Alternative / Ecosystem Enhancement Program
The proponent is seeking to mitigate through the NC EEP for all impacts.
Concurrently, the applicant is contemplating the preservation of 22,000
linear feet of stream channels in the vicinity of the project through the
establishment of conservation easements. The preserved streams will have
vegetated buffers and stable bed and bank.
I
J 080° 127'10.90 W 1 1 0880° 26'30.00" w 080° 26-10 .00" w
.O /i«^?.. j'-ti '? } ry d '^•.... .?'?. uy-` ,t ,y ?" ? Y d iw *h. i ?f .ti ? h ?+.? r'"+w,?A`? ,
I` .. tf f j ?, I, ?n? 1, ?r? y"??5 '+ r ?'??,?,??I i•,......,. I ? V ?.+M ? '+. i •. ?-. ?, ? O
?/.'r 'she Y ?`"", / .r)) ?''•?.r?Y'n++' T,?.r 4 4,\,,," ?: r ,`',-.r` $4
Ci-
-Zo
*. r a?,'f"y j?\4rF? fr :
J{?e'f- 1 rk l_.,?5yi ?.?fVl ,+??`,frl?? 'r 1.yry A' ` b, """.. r?.?
LISSARA DEVELOPMENT ' 1?1 . ?? *•? ?' ?",? r 9 ,., ?''f+ - -`-?
?"?'S?\. 1 i+rY.L ."",y k ?...wt. „„_``1?'t '''`, `',` t?'fL(,,?_ y ,i (Y •F •;'''l't,';,'', tryyys ''t',?\ '+ .>.,, -0
«?. rs++ r r ? . d a r ? `Y.d .."l,`, y„ S '? ? y t ? '•.?,. _ I
+` >'t i, { i• a ';y} t. r '? ?r ' Proposed ski distance (240011) `.-
j F.?y?i Yyrr µl Y? h) ?, `:...3 S f shown on black Yh ?fw `fir \
h. y ?` ? ? I ? ?? ?l ? ! .; J ?(? `?, ? y, ? r•-' ?' "^r?! 'r .1 C'?... i , r` ?Jj ?(!?/
o ,? "` +I 'j rl Ktry1?? I I? ` rl !?'? r? `'?• - . _ ` r / ' tr„? Z
-na {' I ( j t '?, ,? , '?t ?4 ..., •.:..v? r''? r-} rr i f?,?'. r. +..''?. `'•: o
r
o- 1 ? ?rsl, ? ?,' ?+ J ?4+t ?` ? .__f r III l t' :??, h1 .,.IJ'll +?? I I l J?`?~ \ '?f;•'''??
r I" cra , 9 , t14
I
a ? I
-?
_ t
"'' :.:-'t i I"^?s`'?:; ti:.? ..,?.. J l ?, t _ ?'•-^l'?`, _Q +f r :-'? r'(r,`,_,,.t s? . `+.,+,?,; i j `'''-•`""'?l °
(D -10
-•."? ? ?.?" ' ? ti 1 ?, ?? ,f ? w?' --•,?,/'.!r. ? ?' \ ? ? `ti ' rf,,,-e'r'r ? :} , + ? i? ? / ??? f ` {?'1 ? ? .-??,' -o II
i r ???? ??', "r""+ ??_`?w ?I? ? j ?' ???•.`?, k `'?, r ?, r ?? , ` ti. ?:' ',.;?..?9? fit ? rrr,',? I _
- ., r•• /?y \ t?` 44 1. Proposed lakes shown in blue f _ ?1 Y 'j it I . _
I ?° ? ? t'Yi?r?n f.+.?'4^? ? 1 - { ?'?''"A? °' y", 1?? ? + Ir•, ? `,, - r?, '' "??'---,,,,,'S l r,?•^"'... 1t1? f F4i ti:? k' ? r ""',' _
? r.4f``° 14 !?! 4 tit rf J /```r f ! ' f r N1 t
f' EEE /.="1 I f ( °{{? } I r I+?l 4 I:,... ly,
? ? {? t d A` ?! ?? ? .{ ? "'1n *t , 9 ?:.?•V ??, 4 ? t ? d I • { ??f 5 1 ' ? ???`?? ,r='-- "j-? a ?.,,,°?
"
0 IF
q
Wi,
o J I
°
? ?" .}'- '"? k
1 r % ,,? 1 t t ?, -\`.., "' ., ti? l' + ? :. I ? ?* /"
C ?'?`1-.: ?.?'f /'? •rr -?,y5?+'.ry, ?? \Ii. t? ?'°?. ,?;,+ ??0 ?•`???+?'.»""?!?aj .n? I I }It +,?'•--=^"?'?q,,'`,',?,.
i
i.A?.. ? ?.,.?'-"'?',.?:-'" . -?'" • ? 'I? ? ??, ? st 1y ? ,C_1 p'i? ''r w?j?` ,f «,,.«'"..}•,"...,-. ,mac.- ?.,,. ?. - i
l 4 c.' 1r d t t .?' ?,.. 01-
----- /'f
.. '? ..,.,r•"". ? ' i .?' L.+... '? ? '+....., .;a .'tip-+?"",?I V. ti...:.-7ir..
81 w
O v ,
oao° 127'0. o° vv l l l osb° 26' ao.00° iw . ?:.I 080° 2s'!o.moQw
Name: CLEMMONS Location: 860546 ft. N 1573011 ft. E
Date: 6/13/2005 Caption: Lissara
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet
Copyright (C) 1998, Maptech, Inc
"?? ?ZD ?? y yes ?
"?" \ ? Y6 Rj: AA
0 1j ! n ? n F ? ? 1• 8 ? m ? 3 3 ? ? ? R
8' § 3
NgNgNNN88?8 88aoRoo g =PHU!
IRA.
/f 1
1 1 11111 I?(II/J/ X11
? 1 `\111?If///? \
? ? \111111\I\`? ?
?, 1111Z1??! f1
III
M 97:11 Sw "-
j9
Gy?$C
! e x
g
z U
? ?Zr
zDq
J has
W J w R
w
a
Z
0
o? oiS
?o
a
? LL
?- a
z
QI?iID
0
:n
6e p?
ze
O
g
a
m ?
U
H n?FF
Q y w 8
C
as z U
u ?
8 z ??
W:
W U 4
l7T7Notl1 !

qtr.
A5:
IL
1
L
DL
s
3
O
U
N
Q
0
a
U
f-
r-
O
N
Q
Q
L
Q
J
O O
LO
o
CL .o N N
U
LL-
0
0
N
.10
E so N N
L-
0
}
Lo
N
J 0
114-
000
O
LO
Lo
S= s s E
U
o?
=
o

D co
w
L
.L
v
}
N
IW
O
o?
U
L
O
N
Ql
L
O
s
U
L
}
C
3
O
O
U
O
i
3
0
J
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached
al STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Q
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: _iA,r )67 j/U 1(, 6,/) x
3. Date of evaluation: ?6kA(_ t LF , -LC0 5-
5. Name of stream: VF y t-t) Va vV 1 l l2
7. Approximate drainage area: *I- (?C l?
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known):
2. Evaluator's name:
4. Time of evaluation: Oyol'
6. River basin: AA-) V--tv'V
8. Stream order:
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Ltd l9) l=L
15. Recent weather conditions:- YZ
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (NO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YF NO 20. Does
channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Cam, NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
? 03 % Forested _% Clearcd / Logged _% Other
22. Banldiill width: y 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Z - S
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality
Total Score (from reverse).-S2_ Comments:
L,44---? 61 ?;'? L L [?
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 0? 14- 0-'-
1--'l Wti > r' / f ?A V L
# HARACTERISTICS
C ECOREGION POIN T RANGE
- Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream -

no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) ?0
5 0-4
7'
2 Evidence of past human alteration ) p

extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) 0 - 6 0-5
y
3 Riparian zone -6 0-4 0

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max ints 5
(?
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

(extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) 0 0-4 0 -
a J
5 Groundwater discharge 0 0-4
U no discharge = 0 springs, wetlands, etc. = max
6 Presence of adjacent floodpWn
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
(0-4
0-4
p -2

Z

p'
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
d
l
0 - 5
0-4
0 -?
ee
v entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) a= 6 0-4 o?-, 2
9 Channel sinuosity

_.5

_4

0
3
'J
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) i
10 Sediment input 0 0_4 0 - -
ext
(extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints
i > t
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate #.
NA
0-4
(( 5
fine, homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max ints

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
5
0
?
dee lv incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) ?\ -4 j ?5
13 Presence of major bank failures
0
5
0
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max ints -
? -5 0 = 5,

ms 14
Root depth and density on banks
E
., no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max ints 0 - 4 5

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0
4

substantial im ct -0• no evidence = max ints - Q
/
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
b
0 - 5
(1
6
Fi no riffles/ripples or is = 0; well-develo = max points N -
17 Habitat complexity )6 0
6
= 6?
0
little or no habitat = 0 went, varied habitats = max ? - -
18 Canopy coverage over streambed C
0
'
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max ints -5 0 - 5 0 - 5
19 Substrate embeddedness /
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max N? 0-4 (0 - 4
\ Z
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) 0 - 0 - 5 00 -?
QJ 21 Presence of amphibians ?

4

no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) Q 4 0-4
0 -
O 22 Presence of fish 0- 0-4 '?O
4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) - -
r 3 Evidence of wildlife use 0? 6 0
5

no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) - -

Total Points Possible
100 J
0100 S
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) ]
UO
L aeSC Cnaractensucs are not assessea in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETOv?-LL * 05;

# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE

Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream p 0
4

no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points) - 5
?. 1
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0 - 6) 0
5 C

(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
/ - Q - 5
3 Riparian zone 1-
-

no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0
-
?? 0-4 0- 5 v
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges I '

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max ints --55 0-4 ?:, 4
0
*4 5 Groundwater discharge
U no dischar e = 0: springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max 0 - 0 - 4 `- 4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
" 4
0-4 ?? Z
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access 15,

0

0
4
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max ints , - 0
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; I e adjacent wetlands = mar points) 0 0-4 0 -
9 Channel sinuosity /

extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = mar ints
015
0-4 i
10 Sediment input

extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = mac points) 0-5 > 0-4
Q?4
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate !*
?
fine, homogenous = 0' large, diverse sizes = max ints `? 0-4 0 - 5
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0
5)

(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) - 0-4 5

13
Presence of major bank failures
0 5 y

a

severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5
- 5

14 Root depth and density on banks
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0
" 0-4

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) 0- 0-4 0-" l
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) 0 , 3 0 - 5 0 -
17 Habitat complexity 0 0
6 /
0
6
(little or no habitat = 0 frequent varied habitats = max - `
-
-?
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
Q
5
'
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous cano v = max points - 0 - 5
19 Substrate embeddedness NTA*J 0
4 0

(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max - ?
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0
5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) ? - -
Cz 21 Presence of amphibians
id
= 0
4
0 - 4
4
no ev
ence
; common, numerous types = max ints `
*4 22 Presence of fish
id A
0 - *'
0 - 4
no ev
ence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
23 Evidence of wildlffe use ?
0

no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
0-5 i
Total Points Possible 100 100 Q00

TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) Z
iucSc U11diaULC115UCS die nOi aSSCSSCa to coasim sueaIns.
H??S-uwr'nf??
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -? try- U
---- , .---
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCORE
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream

no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points) 0-4
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-l` 0
5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 7 - - ) Z-
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6) 0-4 - 5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) 0 _ 0-4
0
5 Groundwater discharge

U

no discharge = 0; springs, wetlands, etc. = max 0-4
0-
6 Presence of adjacent floodpWn

no flood lain = 0; extensive fl lain = max points) 0 0-4 -2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
p'' dee 1 - entrenched = 0 frequent flooding = max ints 0-51) 0-4 0 U
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands

no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) K-6 0 - 4 0 -
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0 - 5 0-4 - 3 Z
10 Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points - ? 0 - 4 ?- 4
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max ints NA* 0-4
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0
-5 0 (

(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
-?
- _S
0 /
13 Presence of major bank failures
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0 5 0-5
C - 5
J=
d
14 Root depth and density on banks

no visible roots = 0 dense roots through out = max T)oints) 0-3 0-4 -5
rA 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0?
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) 5 0-4 0- f
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 1?

F`
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-5 -O--6
d 17 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats max 0- 6 0- 6 ?p - 6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
- 5
0
5 '
0
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cano = max points) -
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max 0 - 4 0 - 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) 0 >-4 0-5
U` 21 Presence of amphibians

no evidence = 0• com
= p 0-4
0 -
L
mon, numerous types
max points)
O 22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous Npes = max points
0 - 4
0

N23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0
5
0
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max ints - y?
.". Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)

F
aIa 1,AWAC 1dG11JUC8 d1G 1101 assessed in coastal streams.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Shallowford Road Date: March 2005
Applicant / Owner: Lana Wilcox County: Forsyth
e
Investigator: Huvsman State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ? Community ID:slouoh
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ? No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No ® Plot ID:100's & 300's
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Tatum
1. Acer rubrum FAC tree 9. Anus serrulata FACW+ sapling
2. Acer negundo FACW tree 10. Viburnum nudum FACW+ shrub
3. Salix nigra OBL tree 11. Woodwardia areolata OBL herb
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
? Other ® Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12"
? No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in
) ® Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
. ® Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ? Local Soil Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Shallowford Road Date: March 2005'
Applicant / Owner: Lang Wilcox County: Fors he
Investigator: gygrnan State: North Carolina
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ® No ? Community ID:Mesic
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ? No ® Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No ® Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Stratum
1. Liriodendron tulipifera FAC tree 9. Toxicodendron redicans FAC vine
2. Acer negundo FACW tree 10. Vitis spp. FAC vine
3. Fagus grandifolia FACU tree 11. Eulalia viminea FAC+ herb
4. Quercus alba FACU tree 12. Polystichum acrostichoides FAC herb
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
? Other ? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12"
® No Recorded Data Available ? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:+ 48 in.) ? Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
? Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: + 48 (in.) ? Local Soli Survey Data
? FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: No indicators
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wehadkee Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (We) Typic Fluvaauents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Muns ell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A 10YR 5/2 / sandy clay loam
10-15 B 10YR 5/1 / sandy clay loam

/

Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
® Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No E]
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ® No ?
Remarks: _Representative of wetlands within
the floodplain of the main tributary. These are
small areas of approximately 100 sq ft each and
are assessed to be old sloughs.
rnv 1 v / UOU0 / IVrSIrJ
NIL
4
+
k II'? f??`r fl I .. ?'
I
Approximate Scale: 1 to 1000
Clemmons Quadrangle
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ? No ?
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munseli Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A 10YR 5/4 / sandv clav loam
10-15 B 10YR 7/5 / clay loam

/

Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: not a hydric soils
WET AND DETE M N
A I N
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No ?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[] No ?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ? No ?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ? No ?
Remarks: ad'lacent slopes are high ground
PH USGS /NR

Bank Material
Within the proposed flooded reach
the banks of the stream are
comprised primarily of highly
erodable saprolite and weathered
rock. Stream bed appears to have
excess bedload based on preliminary
d50 assessment
Instability
Within the proposed flooded
reaches are numerous areas with
high degrees of instability resulting
from a combination of bank
materials and historic land use.
Erosion is occurring below the root
zone and trees are falling into the
stream
Grade Control
Good grade control is present at the
upstream locations of the proposed
ponds. Grade control, in the form of
boulders stabilize the upstream
reaches but undercutting below the
root zone is evident immediately
below the grade control.
U (?
irn
R o m o
z
?>c O ' 75
m -n -v z 'a
y 410u
8
?F
B?
8N
aND
m
;ap
n
I
z
m9
0
mm
v
Z
Q
v?
?v
z?
z
Z
C ?
z
z
S M
`oar
F> K
_r V J
m C vi
o?X >
?Z 0
o
?O
QQ
2005 2.•48 PM
? 111 ("1 I / 11 \II\\? /

?? i '\ I X 1 1- 1 l IIII Plllll
IllJjl l?l1i1111111111I11,
ill IIII
ri?????j/IIII
'f l?
\ I y? ??- /i''__-= ??\ ?/ ? 1 \?\\\1111111 I III
\I\l Il///?/i'c\ \ 1 R??\\??` ? ?I?ll/i111111116
O
W
N
+
#

y
01

N

?
((??
N D

y D
z
? O
N V N p

a

?a

cn t_

-n
m T
O ? O
22 m0
v

O
O

r
'r
?j co w

Q?
c7?
N
N

p T

m ;a

; 9
>
8tr p? -1
U1
2

m

T
r
5;
?m
31 O
W yop
W N
y

pO pOp v
"4
o r
? N -
r
r
H

2

y
O
D
v
_ m
m O
ca
A
r- O 2
D

g

23 T
m

z ;

>
n
1
m?
n
?
0
o
N 0
c 0
o ?j
c \
`
n o
o

\1
O1 U, ;P W N ?O?D W VO1 Cn? W N ?\
Z ? ? ? ? ?mm?m?mmDD DQDQD ?/
?5»>?0>o ooooozzz?zzz C m a: (n (n vZvvvZOOrn=cn=tP jMr-I*MoM(n V)
AS
?`pp°oooN°o$u°oAO-°o{ii?osos
D 0 Incn 09
_O ? ? ? ? -OONON2O2ONwA N y /
o o "'cczczccr;rrr
8 C C C C Z 2 x 2 D D
t0 V WN-{ -{?OIOGC fn N \\
_+++ ? z z D m? m z;o m rn >>
\\\ I Cr+?r?zmZm? ? ? ?i ///
? i iv??-+ a?zz-,>$g o
oDD c vDv s
g "vvm"C) 0;x00 v 52 m
SIR -n m a? p A N m m N z o
-4 M zz ??
r1l r" mi m -p1 "'{ p >
N
O O O
°mm can jrn o 0
i -
r
ln, 111 Jr
l J, _
l
?Fc
IIII III ??
1111 1111 \
II)1,U11\`
\
) i

\
cn
N
FF
No m
0
0
1 ` I I \1?
I
r
I ?.
I

8

1
?o
MI5 RD
r rJ
J
r
.lBO? ?, \\\? 870-.. 1
111
Iv
\\i=, O
1 I N i,"/ I o O
??/
?7 O?
_A