19910407 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19910101

----

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
po. BOX 1890
WilMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 26, 1991

uJ5P

,)

f~_~
~ ?h :J~~/
sP--f ~.

IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch

Action ID. 199101914

Mr. Linwood E. O'Neal
Water and Sewer Utilities
city of High Point
Post Office Box 230
High Point, North Carolina

27261

Dear Mr. O'Neal:

. ~ , .. .-i
~-

Reference your application, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, for Department of the Army authorization to place fill material in the
waters/wetlands of the East Fork Deep River associated with construction of a
regional storm water pond, east of N.C. Highway 68 and south of Galimore Dairy
Road, High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina.

On August 17, 1991, the 1992 Energy and Water Development Appropria~'ions
Act (Act) became law and invalidated jurisdictional determinations made
pursuant to the January 1989 "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional wetlands" (1989 Manual). Delineation of wetlands on you~
property was made using this document, and on the effective date of the,Act,
our action regarding your property was not finalized. pursuant to guid~nce
from the Chief of Engineers, Directorate of civil Works, wetland delineations
made subsequent to August 17, 1991 must be made utilizing the 1987 "corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual" (1987 Manual) and those made prior to
August 17, 1991 must be reviewed.

We have investigated your file, and we have made an initial determination
that our regulatory jurisdiction on your property could'be substantially
different using the the 1987 Manual. The purpose of this 1etter is to consult
with you and other appropriate parties and to inform you of your options. You
may elect to accept the delineation of wetlands made with the 1989 Manual or
you may elect to have wetlands redelineaued using the 1987 Manual.
Considering our workload, rede~ineations'cannot be made on a timely basis.
Regretfully, we estimate that 6 to 12-month backlogs will be experienced.
Should you elect to have a redelineation, your file will have to be considered
inactive until new jurisdiction, pursuant to the 1987 Manual, can be
established.

Unless you notify us in writing within 20 days of the date of this letter
that you would prefer redelineation pursuant to the 1987 Manual, our
delineation under the 1989 Manual will be considered binding.

Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field
Office, telephone [phone].

Sincerely,

G. Wayne wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch

Df!Y\ oueraJ:

UI1.ited St~tes Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

," ~:-' Raleigh Field Office
/")f\ 21 'J'J
/<;\() ",\.J - C c: Office Box 33726
; "'\'Q ',) "

27636-3726

October 21, 1991

G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Dear Dr. Wright:

Reference is made to Public Notice ID 199101914, dated May 30,
1991. The Fish and wildlife Service (Service) has previously
commented (reference our July 1, 1991 report) on the application by
the City of High Point to construct storm water retention ponds in
the East Fork Deep River watershed, in High Point, Guilford County,
North Carolina. This supplemental report is submitted in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543). It is intended to formali~e the comments made at an
October 10, 1991, meeting with the applicant and North Carolina
wildlife Resources Commission biologists.

In our July 1, 1991, report, the Service objected to permit
issuance based on the non-water dependency of the project, and the
presumed availability of upland alternatives. The Service also
objected out of concern for altered stream flows in downstream
reaches. This latter.concern was subsequently addressed by the
applicant's representative. However, the Service maintained its
opposition to permit issuance because of the presumed availability
of upland alternatives.

At the October 10, 1991 on-site meeting, it was made apparent that
the proposed project could create wetlands equal to or greater in
fish and wildlife habitat value than the wetlands that would be
affected by construction and inundation. Nevertheless, the
riparian habitat of East Fork Deep River would still be replaced by
an open water reservoir. Also, the question of practicable upland
alternatives was reserved for later meetings with the Corps of
Engineers.

The Service's position, as stated October 10, 1991, is that
although the project will likely result in extensive wetland
creation, we will maintain our objection unless th~ Corps accepts
the applicant's analysis of upland alternatives. Ttte Service also

.., ... .
"l'~. ....

requested stage duration data for the flood plain areas adjacent to
the excavated pool. This data would help alleviate our concerns
for the successful establishment of emergent vegetation in those
areas.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please advise us of any action taken by the Wilmington District,
Corps of Engineers. You may contact David Dell, Permit
Coordinator, of this office if you have any question regarding our
recommendations.

Sincerely,

~{f/P4

David A. Dell
Acting supervisor

~
.-:,.,.' .........

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WilMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 26. 1991

uJ5~

~

.;t.'

IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch

Action ID. 199101914

Mr. Linwood E. O'Neal
Water and Sewer Utilities
City of High Point
Post Office Box 230
High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. O'Neal:

Reference your application, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, for Department of the Army authorization to place fill material in the
waters/wetlands of the East Fork Deep River associated with construction of a
regional storm water pond, east of N.C. Highway 68 and south of Galimore Dairy
Road, High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina.

On August 17, 1991, the 1992 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act (Act) became law and invalidated jurisdictional determinations made
pursuant to the January 1989 "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands" (1989 Manual). Delineation of wetlands on your
property was made using this document, and on the effective date of the Act,
our action regarding your property was not finalized. Pursuant to guidance
from the Chief of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works, wetland delineations
made subsequent to August 17, 1991 must be made utilizing the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual" (1987 Manual) and those made prior to
August 17, 1991 must be reviewed.

We have investigated your file, and we have made an initial determination
that our regulatory jurisdiction on your property could be substantially
different using the the 1987 Manual. The purpose of this letter is to consult
with you and other appropriate parties and to inform you of your options. You
may elect to accept the delineation of wetlands made with the 1989 Manual or
you may elect to have wetlands redelineated using the 1987 Manual.
Considering our workload, rede~ineations' cannot be made on a timely bas'is.
Regretfully, we estimate that 6 to 12-month backlogs will be experienced.
Should you elect to have a redelineation, your file will have to be considered
inactive until new jurisdiction, pursuant to the 1987 Manual, can be
established.

Unless you notify us in writing within 20 days of the date of this letter
that you would prefer redelineation pursuant to the 1987 Manual, our
delineation under the 1989 Manual will be considered binding.

Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field
Office, telephone [phone].

Sincerely,

G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch

~.. --

..,,'.

Copies Furnished:

Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North carolin~

of

27611-7687

Mr. John Dorney
Division ~-Ehvironmental
Nor arolina Department
nvironment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina

Management
of

27611-7687

Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

-2-

.,,~.

.

CITY OF HICH POINT
:\ORTB CAROU:--"A
October II, 1991

Dear Mr. Wright:

Mr. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Department of Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890

In your letter of September 25, 1991, you detailed questions raised
by several State and Federal agencies concerning the permitting
authorization to place fill material in the waters and adjacent
w,etlands of East Fork Deep River associac.ed it/i th construction of a
rsgional storm water pond, east of N.C. Highway 68 and south of
Gallmore Dairy Road, High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina.

Attached is information abstracted from our original application and
updated to address your stated concerns. Enumerated below is our
understanding of these concerns, and our response.

.r;'

1. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - belief that
".. .authorization of this activitv will result insiqnificant
adverse alterations or elimination of (wetlandsl".
On October 10, 1991, David Dell (USFWS), Shari Bryant and Larry
Warlick (N. C. Wildlife Resources Conuni\ssion - (NCWRC)), Bruce
Hasbrouck and Paul Watson (HDR) and Wendy Fuscoe (City of High
Point) met on s~te and reviewed the intent and impacts of the
proposed project. When we addressed agency concerns, there was
no indication they felt the project would result in significant
adverse impact.

,
,. ,~:,

2. USFWS and NCWRC - concern with the reduction in downstream flow
from the pro4ect area.
The facility is designed, using the COE water quality model
HEC-2, to pass the base flow without any reduction in the
downstream flow.

3. NCWRC - "... impacts to existinq hioh quali tv wetlands on si t'e" .
We recognize that the existing 0.7 acres of high quality marsh
will be impacted by increased inundation. However, the project
will restore over 6 acres of low quality (transitional)
wetlands.

4. Division of Archives and History - concerns over the proposed
borrow area and the potential impacts on unknown archaeoloaical
resources.
These concerns have been satisfactorily addresse&. They have

Post omce B{)'( 230, High Point. .\orth Carolina. 27261. FA.X 919-883-3419

;-

.

,

concurred with our compliance of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Please refer to the attached
memorandum dated August 8, 1991.

5. Corps of Engineers (COE) - provide cost information comparina,
Reaency Lake tb the comparable on-site alternatives.
Preliminary cost estimates show the cost to construct Regency is
approximately $500,000. A conservative cost for retrofitting
existing development such as fast food establishments,
restaurants and hotels with on-sit~ ponds is $3,500,000. ,
Please review the section on high ground (on-site) alternatives
(page 4) in the attached documentation for a detailed cost
comparison.

6. CQE and USFWS - concerns that practicable on-site, hiqh around
alternatives are available. '
It is not legal, practicable, cost-eff~ctive nor efficient for
the City of High Point to mandate that existing development in
Guilford County retrofit their sites with an on-site stormwater
detention pond: Regency Lake is designed to effectively treat
about one-half of the runoff from development which existed
prior to implementing the Guilford County ordinance (1984) in
that drainage area. Due to the nature of the existing
development, on~site retrofitting would be impracticable and
cost prohibitive. For future development, Guilford County will
continue to enforce their watershed protection ordinance within
the area, and the City of High Point will continue to enfor~e
the city's ordinance.

6. COE - ",. .citv-countv and/or inter-city aareements exist to
address the issue 'f4urisdictional constraintsll!.
Guilford County has enforced a restrictive watershed protection
ordinance since 1984, Within a drinkfng water supply watershed
(which includes the drainage area of Regency Lake), all new
development exceeding 30% impervious surfaces must control the
runoff from their site. In 1989 the City of High Point adopted
a similar ordinance to protect those portions of the watershed
within the city limits. 'Although both ordinance$ are similar,
there is no city-county agreement which would allow the city to
require development within the county to meet city standards.
New development, whether in the city or the county must meet the
appropriate ordinances requiring control of stormwater runoff.
We refer you to copies of the ordinances included in the
Appendices.

7. COE - ".. address the potential that sui table pond SJ.1:es eXJ.s,1:
upstream of the proposed location with less wetland impacts".
An analysis of seven (7) alternative pond locations indicates
the impacts associated with suitable sites would be greater than
the impacts associated with the proposed project. Additionally,
the further upstream the alternatives are, the less protection
the pond would provide City Lake from existing development. We
refer you to page 3 of the supporting document for further
details.

J: .. it

Epclosedyou will find the Supportinq Documentation To Section 404
.. Permit Application For Reqency Lake For The City Of Hiah Point,
North Carolina. ' We appreciate your expeditious review of this
additional information in processing our application of April 23/
1991.

Sincerely,

'~~~ C e-';~y

Linwood O'Neal, Director of Water & Sewer
City of High p~int

II

.,.'O '..

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O, BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
september 25, 1991

IN REPLY REFER TO

Regulatory Branch

Action ID. 199101914

city of High Point
Mr. Linwood E. O'Neal
Director of Water & Sewer
Post Office Box 230
High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. O'Neal:

.0

v-{[ ,
~/
,/ JrY
~f/ f I
9D '\fIv-ivV'!'
~' ~

By public notice dated May 30, 1991, we announced your application for
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization to place fill material in the
waters and adjacent wetlands of East Fork Deep River associated with
construction of a regional storm water pond, east of N.C. Highway 68 and south
of Galimore Dairy Road, High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina.

After review of your proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
recommended denial of your application by letter dated July 1, 1991. This
recommendation is based on the Service's belief that authorization of this
activity would result in significant adverse alteration or elimination of
important public trust resources. Further, it is the Service's belief that
the purpose of this wetland alteration (i.e., "regional storm water pond") is
nonwater dependent. Therefore, a practical alternative is presumed to be
available (i.e. catch the storm water run-off at its source, on high-ground).
The Service also expressed concerns for a potential decrease in the volume of
water flowing downstream from the project area.

By letter dated July 22, 1991, the State of North Carolina recommended that
the permit request be denied. The North Carolina Wildlife Resourc~gly I
opposes the project due to the anticipated impacts to the existin~ ~ Did
quality wetlands onsite, and due to concerns over the reduction of normal ' ~
stream flows in Deep River. The Division of Archives and History lists two ~~~
historic structures in the project area, and expresses concerns over the her
proposed borrow area(s) and the potential for impacts of the excavation on ~
unknown archaeological resources. The comments from the U.S. Fish and ' J~O
Wildlife Service and the State of North Carolina are enclosed for your ~~~'
consideration, comment, and action. \'A-I\.'{~ we

~tSe\:, '~ \l..r2J{s'(
As discussed in my letter to you dated May 3, 1991, the memorandum of
agreement (MOA) between the DA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ~~\\~~
(EPA), dated February 6, 1990, established procedures to determine the type s;.'/,,"\CY"\ \'Ie:>
and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section\ZE:'(-I..FC\ ''Or,;,'"

V f',LvE i>.(-

Z> l..O ~ I\s;TVJt. ~

~

/

-2-

404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for (1) avoiding impacts to waters
and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practicable
alternative; (2) taking appropriate and practicable steps to minimize impacts
to waters and wetlands; and (3) compensating for any remaining unavoidable
impacts to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate. In your
Alternatives Analysis dated May 24, 1991, you concluded that the alternative
of onsite ponds was not practicable because of cost, lack of efficiency, and
the fact that ,much of the development contributing drainage to the Deep River
was located upstream of the City's jurisdiction. You should provide the cost
comparison information which led to that conclusion, as well as further
discussion as to why implementation of onsite, high-ground facilities would
not be available within the watersheds of Oak Hollow and City Lakes.

We understand that much of the area of consideration may be outside the
jurisdiction limits of the City of High Point. However, it is our belief that
high-ground is available in most cases and that the potential for city-county
and/or inter-city agreements exist to address the issue.

Finally, your letter disc~ssed this site as being a "prime location"
because of the "shape and size" of the proposed site. You should address the
potential that suitable pond sites exist upstream of the proposed location
with potentially less associated wetlands impacts. At this time, we question
whether or not this site is the least damaging, practicable alternative.

Your response to the enclosed letters, as well as to the above requested
information, is essential to our expeditious processing of your application.
Your response should be submitted within fourteen days from the receipt of
this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Thomas, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].

Sincerely,

G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch

~

.~...
"

,r

--

Ai.

,.. ..

-3-

Copies Furnished:

Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department
Natural Resources and
community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina

of

27611-7687

Mr. John Dorney
Wat~r Quality Section
D~~ision of Environmental
~orth Carolina Department
Resources and Community
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina

Management
of Natural
Development

27611-7687

Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department Of Natural Resources
And Community Development
8025 North Point Boulevard
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106

Mr. Thomas C. Welborn
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Water Quality Management Branch
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

Ms. L.K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

Mr. Bruce Hasbrouck
HDR Engineering
5100 West Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 300
Tampa, Florida 33609

DGf11-~v~r[M
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

tl~J

Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

July 1, 1991

'r~e/
i'~\

'. _..: r:~', -- " : '.r:<,'j \_~

Lt. Colonel Thomas C. Suermann
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Regulatory Branch

JUL 3 1991

Dear Lt. Colonel Suermann:

, "" c , 11""\5
l ; r' .~", ,'" \''':, 'i1 ~ - ~" ~
~ ~..; i~ ;\, :~ L.... ~ "",) ;. ,,'~ \~.'" ~

SEC'YlOi'J

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service (service) has reviewed Action ID.
199101914, dated May 30, 1991. The applicant, the City of High Point,
proposes to place fill material in waters and wetlands of East Fork Deep
River to construct a regional storm water pond, located east of N.C. 68 and
south of Gallimore Dairy Road, High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina.
This is the report of the Service and the Department of the Interior and is
submitted in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). It is to be used in
your determination of 404 (b)(l) complianqe (40 CFR 230) and your public
interest review (33 CFR 320.4) as it relates to the protection of fish and
wildlife resources.

The Public Notice describes the proposed work as a two cell stormwater pond
impounded by two low-level berms, extending across the East Fork Deep River.
The proposed project would impact approximately 7.44 acres of wetlands. The
Public Notice states that berm #1 would have dimensions of 60 feet by 60
feet in wetlands, and berm #2 would have dimensions of 300 feet by 60 feet
in wetlands; construction of the berms would result in the filling of 0.50
acres of wetlands. Impoundment would result in the flooding or increased
inundation of approximately 6.94 acres of wetlands.

A Service biologist visited the site with biologists of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission on June 27, 1991. The wetlands adjacent to
East Fork Deep River are classified as palustrine, emergent, persistent
wetlands and palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands.
Areas designated on the project plans as Jurisdictional Area "A," "8," "C,"
and "D" can be characterized as palustrine, emergent, wetlands. These areas
are vegetated primarily with cattail (Tvpha sp.), fimbristylis (Fimbristvlis
castanea), sedges (Carex spp.), ,tearthumb (polvqonum saqittatum), and
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Deer tracks and raccoon prints were
observed adjacent to area "C," and numerous red-winged blackbirds were
observed using these emergent wetland areas. Jurisdiction ,Area "F,"
classified as palustrine, scrub-shrub, is dominated by young trees,
including sweet gum (Liouidambar stvraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum),
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and loblolly pine (pinus taeda).

The Service places considerable value on palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub
wetlands. Wetlands of this nature are recognized as habitats for resident
and migratory wildlife and as sites where silt and pollutants from
floodwaters and surface runoff are removed and contained, thereby protecting
the quality/of adjacent waters. These values are discussed in detail in the

.... ,.'

.','.

Service publication entitled "Riparian Ecosystems: Their Ecology and
Status" (Brinson, M.M., B.L. Smith, R.C. Plantico and J.S. Barclay, 1981.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-81-17. 155 pp.).

The Service considers wetlands such as those in the project area as habitat
of high to medium value for evaluation species and relatively abundant on a
national basis. The Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal Reoi~ter 46(15):
7644-7663, January 23, 1981) goal for such habitat calls for no net loss of
habitat value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value. After
avoiding or minimizing losses of such habitat, the unavoidable losses
should be replaced so that total loss of habitat value will be eliminated.
specific ways to achieve this in priority order include:

(1) replacing habitat value losses inkind;
(2) substituting different kinds of habitats; or

(3) increasing management of replacement habitats to compensate for
the lost habitat values.

In consideration of the wildlife value of the project area and the Service's
Mitigation policy, we believe that authorization of this activity would
result in significant adverse alteration or elimination of important public
trust resources. Further, it is the Service's belief that authorization of
this project, as proposed, would be contrary to the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 404 (b)(l) Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (Federal Reoister (249):85344-
85357, December 24, 1980) which prohibit wetland filling for nonwater-
de endent activ" hen a practicable alternative exists. Since the
urpose of this wetland alteration is nonwater dependent, a practical
alternative is presumed by the guidelines to be available. Additionally, we
are concerned about potential impacts to the downstream re~ches of the East
Fork Deep Rrver. The Public Notice and vague project plans do not make
clear the method by which, and the frequency that water would be released
from the impoundment. We are concerned about the potential for decreases in
the volume of water flowing downstream from the project area.

Based on the above concerns, and in order to effect fish and wildlife
resource conservation and to fulfill the public trust in this matter, the
Service recommends that a Department of the Army permit not be issued in
this case.

The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
,threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered and/or
threatened which occur in Guilford County. The legal responsibilities of a
Federal agency under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, were detailed in material sent to you previously. If you would
like another copy of this material, or if you have questions, please contact
us at 919/856-4520.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on this
project. Please advise us of any, action taken by your office in this
matter.

Sincerely,

L~ 'llJu ~

L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor

~,

\
fIIIII'" ..,

July 22, 1991

Dr. G. Wayne Wright
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402

Dear Dr. Wright:

In keeping with your request, this office has circulated to interested
state review agencies U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Action
ID.199101914 dated May 30, 1991 which describes a project proposal by the City
of High Point. The project, involving wetland fill in the construction of two
storm water ponds, is located on the East Fork Deep River, east of NC 68 and
south of Gallimore Dairy Road, High Point, in Guilford County.

Based on a coordinated agency review, a favorable finding cannot be
provided at this time. A strong position of opposition to the project has
been submitted by the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission. The Commission has
determined the proposal inconsistent with its, guidelines for wetlands
conservation (see attached).

Important comments from three other cooperating agencies are as follows:

Division of Archives and History - in a joint memorandum of July 5
lists two historic structures in the project area. Also, that agency
raises an important matter of borrow for the fill and how that relates
to impacts on unknown archaeological resources. Location of borrow,
should permit issuance be likely, should be provided Archives and
History and other key agencies;

Division of Land Resources - finds that a sedimentation and erosion
control plan is required. Dams would require authorization under
the Dam Safety Law if the height exceeds fifteen feet. If the City
has not already done so, the Department's Winston Salem Regional
office should be contacted on these matters;

Division of Environmental HanaRement - for the record, Section 401
Water Quality Certification No. 2605 was issued for the proposed
project on June 7, 1991.

Po. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

IA

~-

Dr. G. Wayne Wright
Page 2
July 22, 1991

Should you require additional input from the state on this matter, do not
hesitate to contact this office or the commenting agencies.

Very sincerely,
'\
~\S:k~

Inl~\d '404 Coordinator

JRP: j r / aw

cc:

Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Environmental Management~
Division of Archives & History
Division of Land Resources
COE - Raleigh

"~' . l,

;,...., .~~

-

State of North Carolina

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

Division of Environmental Management

512 North Salisbury Street. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary June 7, 1991 Director

Mr. Linwood O'Neal
City of High Point
Director of Water and Sewer Utilities
Post Office Box 230
High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. O'Neal:

Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed water quality pond
Guilford County

Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 2605
issued to City of High Point dated June 7, 1991.

If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.

Sincerely,

~(kJ

r

George T. Everett
Director

Attachments

cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files

REGIONAL OFFICES

Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P,O, Box 29535, Raleigh, N0rth Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

~~#'.

~
,r

..
NORTH CAROLINA
Guilford County

CERTIFICATION

THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to City of High Point pursuant to an application filed on the 6th
day of May, 1991.

The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of the East Fork of
the Deep River in conjunction with the proposed water quality
pond in Guilford County will not result in a violation of
applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines.
Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this
activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL
92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.

Condition(s) of Certification:

1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).

2. The pond should be constructed with a siphon at
approximately mid depth to ensure that cooler water
is discharged into the river.

Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.

This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.

This the 7th day of June, 1991.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

George T. Everett, Director

WQC# 2605

;
.
~.

~j....,.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street · Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

James G. Martin, Governor
William W Cobey, Jr" Secretary

Roger N, Schecter
Director

June 6, 1991

MEMORANDUM

TO: Dr. George T. Everett, Director
Division of Environmental Management

FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator

SUBJECT: "404" Project Review

The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. 1914 dated May 30, 1991
describing a project proposed by City of High Point is being circulated to
interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10
permits.

Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project
and return this form by ..Ju1y 1, 1991. If you have any questions regarding the
proposed project, please contact me at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth
comments with supporting data is requested.

REPLY

~This office supports the project proposal.

No comment.

(I'#- 2Jo()~)
~Comments on this project are attached. uJ~'-

This office objects to the project as proposed.

Signed qL f2bdi I

Date

1 fu, hI

p.o Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

", A tt".___ ~._!___ A _.&-!___ L__I_____

~

~

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Action ID. 199101914

May 30, 1991

PUBLIC NOTICE

CITY OF HIGH POINT, POST OFFICE BOX 230, HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
27261, has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE FILL
MATERIAL IN THE WATERS AND CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS OF EAST FORK DEEP RIVER FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A REGIONAL STORM WATER POND LOCATED EAST OF N.C. 68
AND SOUTH OF,GALLIMORE DAIRY ROAD, High Point, Guilford County, North
Carolina.

The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by representatives
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project is basically a two cell
storm water pond impounded by two low-level berms. The site is located on a
l2-acre pasture adjacent to East Fork Deep River. It_ischaraterized as a
typical Piedmont, wide flood plain basin. A h~S ry of farm:ingand~gra.~-l-ng of
the flood plain has limited the wide, flat are to herbaceous veg~~~~~~The
forested area is confined to the top of the ba f--ehe-river--and adj acent
rolling hills. The forested areas are covered with red maple, sycamore,
sweetgum, green ash, yellow poplar, and loblolly pine. The open flood plain
vegetation is comprised of broom sedge, softrush, dog fennel, cattail,
spikerush, dock, numerous sedges, and field grasses. The pond will impact
7.44 acres of wetland as a result of increased inundation and fill placement.
The two low level berms with dimensions of fill in wetlands of Berm No. 1 at
60 feet by 60 feet and Berm No. 2 at 60 feet by 300 feet will place 2,311
cubic yards of fill below the plane of ordinary high water.

The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No DA
permit will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal
has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued
until the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as required by PL
92-500.

This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and

t .~

~

-2-

this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archaeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.

The District 'pgineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and, if so, the conditions under
which it will be allowed to occur are therefore determined by the outcome of
the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national
concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All
factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the
cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation,
shore 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 placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the
discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply with the
Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the
preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit
will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be
contrary to the public interest.

The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State, and local agencies and officials; 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 of Engineers
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 preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are

t
t

f

-3-

also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.

Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will not be made
until the DEM issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Vater Act. The application and this public notice for the DA permit
serve as application to the DEM for certification.

Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.

The DEM plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act
Certification on or after June 24, 1991.

All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina" 27611-7687, on or before June 17, 1991, Attention: Mr. John
Dorney.

Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. John Thomas, until 4:15 p.m.,
July 1, 1991, or telephone [phone].

N

I

I

,
..:....-+..

1 ' 0
I I .. I

ScaI. 1: 110,_
1 2 ,3
t I I

411401..
I

-------- r

3

w

-
::
s.
:r.
::
=:

..,

-.

.
36 00'-,

?-
:-.
~14

....

z
....
....
7-
....
-,
;;:
-(
::

i
i9 SO'

.

FIGURE

I-il\
~ 6lQi__ N;
T_ .....

PROJECT LOCATION

#1

*' '.'

"To;'

1 Jolt.
EuB

"~'

t

.

I-U~
H:lR 6"'_'" h:.
T_ ......

FIGURE

SOILS

#2

, .
. "
I .J
.~ I~ ..
.
. I

.

..

~

N

~..,tJ1;1fIf. r:JI#f ~

~- .-... ~-

,
,
/
I
,
,I I
/ i ~.:~
" I
/ .1 II
I 1111 i
,I :11;

,

~I
II

~li
':1
iii

.

II . .. Ii
. ~ .. I: = a '"
.......

..
--

,
,
/

,

. I

,

. /

,

/

,

I

dll
y~
~~
~1:lfli I i -
fi I~i' - I J
:il'h: ~ I
II_ If I I
" I'!II
II .1 If

--

!

....

, Inl
. ~'.": ",..,
]/\AIQA:)"'30~ a3SOdOald

-

:' B

... ~...

~ ~

i · lillli . li~ Ii
.., ~ .:;3 · 11= I II
11...5-- g-
t ! ~.~ ! -o. ~
C . It I

a

I"
, 0
,i

'"
~
w
a:
::)
CJ
Ii:

~i
II
!

I
i
= Ii z ~f ~
, ~,' 'I: ~!J~~~
~. : I....., J'II
fl )(~ a I I ! ,
!~ ~ 'I i e I: : : !I
~, f , : : : I
!~!l!U i ~ I'II :11
~ tl e It i15 i "I
i HiBlu ; I I!:, i
~ ~D~.Cillli: !I
,I I' !
~! i '\'1:: ;
; a Ii : ~g I I:! i i
~~ ~ ~ i i ~~ II ' i i
: ~ i~ ~ =e ! I
d n !~ ~ Ii I i I !I
.Ie h ;,~ r: ~; II
I!
t
E ,
~. -
.

~

i
;..7;
= ~.
~l

~I; ~J ~I
blll!
llIi;.
~a!.
~~'
>..
..

e

..

---
--- ..'

..-,. \

- -~:.--_.__.

,.

. .,.. T ,
' ,.
J =III I
I il f
I I
Jt
I
~ ..
J
r
~I D
~~
~~
~
i
Qi i ~i I ffi ~ ~
· ~)5 P
z z z z 1:!;.J 0:
0 0 0 0
j::: j::: j::: j:::
0 0 0 0
w w w w
rn rn rn rn
rn en en rn
rn rn rn rn
0 0 0 0
a: a: a: a:
0 0 0 0
J

. '~

!
~:/
s~ j
,,\;:
~:. ,
. .

~!
.

~

I

-

. !i~1
, " j:' : .I"'. .
3IIIllCI JoOIJ,:AI ~
.' ,.: .:.~ . ;

;111
!~
.

~

"

:l

,~.. ~ l :.~~J
" ..' Ii ~ I I xu l
, I U
,. ihll;i.
I.~g!arill
i! U.uU
!
~ II
~
a:
<(
z
o
~
o
F=
I! 2
~
I~ ~
c'-
=- r I
II .
~- (
.1 ·
h'
Ili .
.e .

...
.

. ' .
,,-* . "..

1111 II
; li!~ e;
I -- e-
!... a
. I' i

:c
.

(;:,/:'. ~
'\- !
" : " I
I, '

j"
\ '
!\ . i

, I
: /:

p
i
g
g
i
ff
:::l
~

t
!
~
ff
:::l
.,

~

p

i
~
o .
S
~
ff
:::l
.,

us
~'"
~ ',,-
o
~
i5
(J)
a:
:::l
...,

41'
~
:>",Il"
~...\~t

f

...

~..- ..... ....~... ..... ---

- )1
"
,

~Ii
lil~
~5"
~!.
)o~
~ ,
I

J'~"" '.
.Li i:
I !
'~: !
.II i I
I i
-,

. ,

I

~~!f!
~~, I
~Q.i
I
~

I
j
, Ii .,1 IlIL Q
t:~=~&R~

I I

j

~i
e

...... .;~...

A

~
i
i
t
i
r
i
I
I
I
I
I

r
r PONTEDERIA CORDATA
- SAGm ARIA LANClFOU
r- NYMPH
ODORA
! ,
I t- ,...... :
". i ~ ...
:
.... ...;. :
..... -
~ i ~ . I
-,..,..i-'-~mi I'~ . I :
~U.:, I -
: I :
.- ...--'-t.......-..' .... ... .. ,..... ! ..,.. ~ ...:y:...,~. J..l.....l ..L,..~. -_..~-
, 'y,.._'l""lj .";! .............
.
I . . ~ .
: : i ----"
-1-'......... ....,...,.~-,- . ' I-.,-~.,..,.._+-t'........,. --....,-j-..-
- . '
--- ...--................ .....-........
. ' ~
. l ! i
; I i --~-_. I ~
...... ..o----!-....,..-.., ....-..-.
. ' . . \.
! ; i
. I ! : i ! I .........,............,~
1--....~............l-"..".t".......,.'" ........-............... ........'-:.............'t....'.........t........'..'.. ....,-,.......,.."...._.,~_.._"'."!.......,...".. ...............t.-.
~-~.-t-...,......:......,..,..- ..-...--............. ...__.~..............L....._.....l_......- ....-.--....._<>0' -..................-.. ......-...+--.. ,......~..-
: I ~
. I . i 1\.
-- i
: ! ! I "-
I I I ! ! I
I

JUNCUS EFFUSUS

AEA
TA

N.T.S

!-ill

TYPICAL WETLAND MITIGATION

Date
March 1991

PLANTING CROSS - SECTION

Sheet
Figure # 7

fi tat EI&_ -G, Ie.
S TIM'A, FLOADA

MEMO

DATE:

1/27-

\"'/~ ,~' -
TO: -.JU~

SUBJECT:

Db Y. o\..^- /LNb ~

fuvU

~'l P-i,e-(La.;. \\4

, L{ 0 I vJ -A;~ \.'::. $.vt ~
i;

f-i> (L '"2,

\~ t) ALS0 4-

:,!:ft"4> T'.\~ ~09 G - L . \~ \ttu f-t <---2 +-----
D.&. 2.. ~
\ ~c.S L> It- U ~ f ;U ~ I/iV D

.5-7>>J<<=.-W 11).r 6>-r-- r---e::!Y'J r ~tLI'-- l"v /1/ ~G-

1. 7'7 ~ If ~ /fi-t/~ --

'i DLA...'[l.r;. /'SOl (;..t t/l,Nr-- ~';'1 7- ~A-d) sF

.,

r / ~~ r ue-;- t-.4N(J .) H- 'S/,AN->.. }+4-. 0 rw-~
z -
AM y) LA.. J- j. 6 mtJ'l- c;.-er /"1-7 tz-e6.-5 ~~

/A>r.

From:

:z-
/

North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources @ Prinledon Recycled Paper

............. OS/24/91 14: 45 '5'020

~.

,:.t,,. .... ~'.,

1>"

CITY OF HICH PT.

. ..". -

City of High Point

North Carolina
Date 5L~41 q l
TO:~-

,......------....--- -.------..

-- --_... ..... -_._~-_-..........-.... -..-...

Fax #: /3 (1.) -- ~ 3 3 - t:j q I it

From:A Q'lk.JL

~ :

--

City of High Point
211 South Hamilton Street
P.O. Box 230
Hllh Point, N te. 27260

~ Total Pase.
(Including the Cover Sheet)

Fax: [phone]
Tel: (919) 883- aJ)~"1
Comments:

~ 001/004

If

,

..

CITY OF HICH PT.

f41002/004

OS/24/91 14:46

'5'020

CITY OF HIGH POINT
NORTH CAROLINA

May 24, 1991

Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Department of Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
wilmington, NC 28402-1890

Re: COE Application - Request for More Information

Dear Mr. wright:

In response to your letter dated May 3, 1991, we have enclosed
additional information for your review of the proposed Regency Lake.
We believe the Alternative Analysis as discussed will address your
questions concerning avoidance, minimization and mitigation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should the enclosed information
be insufficient.

Sincerel~

~~/c: ~~
Linwood E. O'Neal
Director of Water & Sewer

cc: John Thomas, COE Raleigh Field Office
John Dorney, NCDEM

PO!'1t Offirt. Box. 230, High Point, North Carolina; 27261, FAX [phone]

~

~

OS/24/91 14:46

'6"020

CITY OF HIGH PT.

~ 003/004

,\

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

AVOIDANCE

Several alternatives were examined to determine the effectiveness
of storm water treatment, quantity of wetland impacts, and environmental
benefits. One alternative to the regional stormwater pond is numerous,
on-site ponds. The alternative of upland, on-site ponds would require
collection and piping systems for the storm water for each system. Not
only would this be exceedingly expensive and less efficient, but the
uplands sites are outside of the City's jurisdiction. There is a large
portion of the watershed that is agricultural land which adds to the
runoff.

The location of the regional pond will serve the existing
development upstream of the site. The location of the upstream
development is north of the City's jurisdiction. The northern boundary
of the proposed Regency Lake (Galimore Oairy Road) is at the city
Llmits. To provide treatment further downstream would require a larqer
lake, and could cause larqer wetland impacts.

The shape and size of the proposed site in the previously farmed
area adjacent to East Fork Deep River makes it a prime location for the
installation of low level berms for the oontrol of the elevation of
water. The height of the berms has avoided the loss of wetlands from
extensive deep water inundation. Two separate earthen berms are
proposed for locations that would avoid the filling of wetlands. The
lower berm is located as close to the existing roadway as possible to
insure sound engineering principals.

MINIMIZATION

The project will minimize the impacts to existing on-site wetlands
throuqh the use of the two low level, earthen berms. The elevations of
. said berms will prevent the inundation of deep water, thus minimizing
the impacts of the wetlands. Excavation of material to provide a longer
retention time and to provide material for the earthen berms is desiqned
to prevent impacts to on-site wetlands, thus minimizing impacts as a
result of the project.

This project has gone through numerous revisions to minimize the
wetland impacts. The early design presented to your staff included
wetland impacts of close to 5 acres. The existinq design will fill less
'than 0.5 aores with earthen material.

It is the experience of the dQsiqn team on this project that desiqn
is provide the lowest amount of wetland impaots while providinq water
quality treatment.

:it..

'#

OS/24/91

14:47

'5"020

CITY OF HlaH PT.

~ 004/004

a"

MITIGATION

Impacts to the eXisting wetlands, as a result of Inundation from
the permanent pool in each Qf the cells, is considered as an impaot if
the water level will increase for more than 21 inches. The design of
the reqional storm water treatment facility incorporates a control
structure to provide regulated flow of water for attenuiation.
Treatment of the storm water through the delayed discharge is a result
of biological filtration from contact with the wetland plants, inoreased
r.tention time to allow settling of suspended SOlidS, and increased
detention time to allow assimilation of nutrients from the water
column.

Wetland restoration will ocour over 3 acres of the site, Review of
the aerial photography, soil conditions, and adjacent conditions
indicate the floodplain supported wetland vegetation prior to
agricultural interdiction. The present design will maintain constant,
hydric conditions to promote the growth of desirable wetland vegetation.
Presently muoh of this area is transitional at best, and provides little
to no function or value.

Wetland creation will develop 2.66 acres of wetlands to compensate
for the impacts.

".......... ~

I

~

i
"
~
,
,

,~.

"" 1

'., I
. .1
~
.
~
1
t
~

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Apr-il 3, 1991

John Dorney
M. Steven Mauney ~
Eric Galamb /!6J
401 Certification Review

M E M 0 RAN DUM

TO:

THROUGH:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Please find the wetland rating for the enclosed 401
Certification application.

EG/vm

Enclosure

cc : WSRO

Linwood O'Neal, pond construction
Guilford County (may need individual 401 if
in water supply watershed).

''''.., ",

WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET
Project No. or description 'h'e)/JltJd tl/1) PfI)S'
(cJt/ ~ [;"0iS1- (;,l t
nearest perma

LC1.fe~

Evaluator&: GItt/bf1/5
Agency and address '7JE);f - w5i!o
,

Date and time evaluated If;n / 2/9/ It) ! O(} a.1'11.
/

Major Wetland Type
Approximate size of T.vetland system 1:.11 &"3 acres
Approximate extent of wetlands in area O. 12 acres
within miles /
Three most dominant plant species (in order) : g!AJ( ~.
'~V\c",,<;
Soil Series (if known) _ C",-,-it"'-I\'3

. '.,':', ,',.

Hydrologi~ indicators "
Direct hydrologic connection? (circle one) YES ~

Existing. Conditio~j3, J . '
Dra1nage ,RID! iltMl"~
Disturbance ojp..f,vi /.A..l1di.J&r6etl
Restoration potentia M~~~~

Does site provide habitat for endangered or threatened
species? If yes, then score equals 100%. State reasons for
exceptional status.

Item No. Score (circle one)
1. Location/Landscape W
1 Natural area buffer 0
2 Sensitive watershed 1 0
II. Ecological Values
<0"1> 3 SPE?cial ecological attributes 5 G) 0
4 Dispersal corridor system @ 0
5 Wildlife 5 Q) 1 0
6 Aquatic life 5 3 cD 0
7 Water storage 5 CD 1 0
8 Streambank stabilization 5 3 CD 0
9 Removal sediment/toxicant 5 8) 1 0
10 Removal/transform nutrients 5 <b 0
11 Groundwater recharge/discharge 5 3 0
III. Human Values G>
12 Outdoor recreation/education 5 1 0
13 Commercial value 5 3 <D 0

Total score 37
Percent score 510;0,
(out of a total of 6S points) ,
Site bes ir ;.pt ion and notes: .fed, ",...+ / wd tl.fv/1 0 n pH). ~
b/L. '^-\ .' Nun ~ (JS>'^(t M v.{1 ~0 ho 10 tVft )'~Ie/ ft
r(~JQ/)J 'I {\f/ot,J~
cc : ~JSlCo.

12

IMPORTANT

To ~/ ~
Date 6//1 \.. Time 4:4l\
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M W{,Yl~ Fw5CC)~
of Cd,? o~ \4'1} ~ p~
Phone ( q/?f ) 6'83- 3}~c'
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TElE~HONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL I I
~~;QYl~1 ~'It~ , H;7~
Message I""
Po l VI--/- . t}~1'1 o V1'4! cerh),' c&-rJ.IC/~
::/:J br4i fit" Jv,v-( +wr/ D#T'/S.
) . .
I-J 150 OVl \ ~ OVl-€ COl7 ""1 Cf"rl,'f
Jnc.I\.A.J qf
Signed ~(j

N,C, Dept. of Environment, Health, and ~.,atural Resources
Cf2t.'~ ,.
~ ~'... ..~'.. on. > Recycled Paper
~..