19960152 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19960212

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ED E H N F=D1
February 19, 1996
Cumberland County
DEM Project # 960152
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
\,ir. John Hocutt
Daly Seven, Inc.
995 Salisbury Ridge Road
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27127
Dear Mr. Hocutt:
You have our approval to place fill material in C).33 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
developing a commercial site at NC 53/201 and I-9_5 ramp, as you described in your application dated
5 February 1996. After reviewing your application. - e have decided that this fill is covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide
Permit Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter I;0B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
*?7 Pre ton Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
960152.1 tr
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rc.. Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
DALY SEVEN, INC.
995 SALISBURY RIDGE ROAD
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone [phone]
February 5, 1996 ?sssll
Mr. John Dorney a N
State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
POBox 29535
Raleigh, NC 27625-0535
Concerning: Project to be constructed in Cumberland County at NC Highway 53/210 and
south bound I-95 ramp.
Dear Mr. Dorney,
In your letter of December 2, 1994 to Mr. Robert Daly, you provided your evaluation of
the site in question and the proposed development for it, This letter is to inform you that
the development has been scaled back. The project as designed and developed, now, can
be constructed on this site with less than or equal to 1/3 acre of wetland fill.
We have the necessary permits and approvals to begin grading and will proceed in the
coming weeks.
Regards,
John Hocutt, Daly Seven Corporate Architect
cc: Robert Daly
Ray Miller F RF?,????v
Jon Daly F???? FB / 19
0NbiFNrq 96
?? 0c.'v
1 I 1. -1 t i l l ..
• L
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B1 Hunt, Jr„ Governor "rte";i
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary E) F= FR
A, Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E.. Director
December 2, 1994
Mr. Robert Daly tk`'
Daly Seven Inc.
2805 Highwoods Boulevard
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Site evaluation T-95 at Highway 53 and SR 2007
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Daly:
In response to our telephone conversation on 29 November
1994, the following narrative should explain our reasoning for
the likely disapproval of any proposal for wetland fill greater
than 1/3 acre at this site. Based on my site visit on
22 November 1994 and an earlier visit on 15 November 1994 with
Ken Averitte (Fayetteville Regional Office) and Craig Turner
(Land Management Group), the wetlands in question have
significant existing uses, notably water storage, streambank
stabilization, pollutant removal and aquatic life habitat.
According to our review procedures under 15A NCAC 2B .0109, if
significant uses are present, then the project shall be reviewed
to determine if wetland till can be 1) avoided, 2) minimized, and
3) mitigated, in that order. As we discussed, mitigation is
appropriate only if no practicable alternative exists to wetland
fill. As discussed below, we believe that this is not the case
for this site.
The approximately 4 acre site in question has 1.86 acres of
high ground fronting on SR 2007. Certainly commercial use of the
site is appropriate considering the surrounding land use and
location of the site. However, your plans to convert the entire
(approximately) 2 acres of wetlands to commercial use cannot be
permitted by the 401 Progrrm. Our position is that the 1.86
acres of upland plus the already approved 0.33 acres of wetland
fill will provide a total developable site of about 2 acres.
Your plan for a restaurant, motel and parking would occupy the
entire 4 acre site. We believe that a smaller commercial
development would be appropriate and viable on that site and not
'impact more than about 2 acres of the site.
As we discussed, another important factor for you to
consider is storm water management. If we were to permit more
than 1/3 acre of wetland fill for this commercial use, a storm
1-7?
P.O, Box 29635. Raleigh. North Carolina 276260635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equol Opportunity Aftmotivo Aellon Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post•conkimer popot
water pond would be required as a condition of the Certification.
This pond would have to occupy more of the upland portion of the
site and further restrict commercial development. Costs
associated with construction and long term maintenance of such a
pond can be significant. if (as you suggested) we would allow
wetland fill for the entire site in exchange for a large storm
water pond, such a pond would have to treat the existing runoff
which is what, the wetland does today. With a heavily developed
watershed such as is present upslope of tVs wetland, such a pond
would have to be very large and (again) would occupy a large
percentage of the site. Cost of construction of such a pond
would be very high as well.
Therefore given the 1) significant uses of the wetland,
2) substantial amounts of high ground present on the site, and
3) financial and logistical considerations relative to storm
water management, it is very unlikely that DSM would approve more
than or equal to 1/3 acre of wetland fill on this site. I urge
you to redesign your project so it can be constructed on this
site with less than 1/3 acre of wetland fill. i hope this latter
provides a clearer explanation of our position. Please call me
at 733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
J pnft.::Dorney
SR2007,e1v
cc: Ken Averitte, Fayetteville Regional Office
Scott McLendon, Corp of Engineers
Central Files
Craig Turner, Land Management Group

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources &IrA
Division of Environmental Management James B, Hunt, Governor p E H N H
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P,E., Director
December 2, 1994
FiLE ..!r. Robert Dal Q?" Co l? Y
Daly Seven Inc.
2805 Highwoods Boulevard
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Site evaluation I-95 at Highway 53 and SR 2007
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Daly:
In response to our telephone conversation on 29 November
1994, the following narrative should explain our reasoning for
he likely disapproval of any proposal for wetland fill greater
-han 1/3 acre at this site. Based on my site visit on
22 November 1994 and an earlier visit on 15 November 1994 wit.
Ken Averitte (Fayetteville Regional Office) and Craig Turner
(Land Management Group), the wetlands in question have
significant existing uses, notably water storage, streambank
stabilization, pollutant removal and aquatic life habitat.
According to our review procedures under 15A NCAC 2B .0109, if
significant uses are present, then the project shall be reviev,ed
to determine if wetland fill can be 1) avoided, 2) minimized, and
3) mitigated, in that order. As we discussed, mitigation is
appropriate only if no practicable alternative exists to wetland
=ill. As discussed below, we believe that this is not the case
.or this site.
The approximately 4 acre site in question has 1.86 acres of
nigh ground fronting on SR 2007. Certainly commercial use of the
site is appropriate considering the surrounding land use and
location of the site. However, your plans to convert the entire
(approximately) 2 acres of wetlands to commercial use cannot be
permitted by the 401 Program. Our position is that the 1.86
acres of upland plus the already approved 0.33 acres of wetland
=ill will. provide a total developable site of about 2 acres.
Four plan for a restaurant, motel and parking would occupy the
entire 4 acre site. We believe that a smaller commercial
development would be appropriate and viable on that site and not
impact more than about 2 acres of the site.
As we discussed, another important factor for you to
consider is storm water management. If we were to permit more
than 1/3 acre of wetland fill for this commercial use, a storm
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 096 post-consumer paper

water pond would be required as a condition of the Certification.
This pond would have to occupy more of the upland portion of the
site and further restrict commercial development. Costs
associated with construction and long term maintenance of such a
pond can be significant. If (as you suggested) we ,could allow
wetland fill for the entire site in exchange for a large storm
water pond, such a pond would have to treat the existing runoff
which is what the wetland does today. With a heavily developed
watershed such as is present upslope of this wetland, such a pond
would have to be very large and (again) would occupy a large
percentage of the site. Cost of construction of such a pond
would be very high as well.
Therefore given the 1) significant uses of the wetland,
2) substantial amounts of high ground present on the site, and
3) financial and logistical considerations relative to storm
water management, it is very unlikely that DEM would approve more
than or equal to 1/3 acre of wetland fill on this site. I urge
you to redesign your project so it can be constructed on this
site with less than 1/3 acre of wetland fill. I hcoe this letter
provides a clearer explanation of our position. Please call me
at 733-1786 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
J n R. Dorney
SR2007.ely
cc: Ken Averitte, Fayetteville Regional Office
Scott McLendon, Corp of Engineers
Central Files
Craig Turner, Land Management Group
4