20200705 Ver 1_More Info Received_20200922

Strickland, Bev
From: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 12:47 PM
To: Homewood, Sue; Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA)
Cc: Michael Cain
Subject: RE: [External] RE: ASU Child Care PCN AID 2020-00959 Request for additional
information
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Sue,
The following is summary of the discussion points from Friday's meeting:
• The 2025 ASU Master Plan categorizes the existing Child Care facility under "Major Renovation Backlog".
Conservation areas and steep slopes are shown as constraints when considering renovations to the facility.
• The Town of Boone recently approved rezoning for the proposed project to allow for municipal water and sewer
connections.
• The neighboring parcel (in question to use for the proposed expansion) is not within the Town of Boone limits,
therefore, could not be connected to the municipal water and sewer system.
• There are 15 parking spaces and 2 handicap accessible spaces proposed near the entrances to the child care
buildings. These spaces are essential for the twice daily pick-up and drop-off of children that will need to be
carried into their classroom.
• The proposed expansion, along with the existing building, will have a maximum occupancy of 122. With
approximately 15 staff and up to 100 children utilizing the facility on a daily basis, ample parking is critical. If
additional parking is proposed in the future, it would take place in an area that would not impact streams or
wetlands.
• For each child, the facility is required to have 75 square feet of play space. Existing play space is located south of
the existing building. The existing play space cannot be moved farther east, due to property setbacks and the
stream buffer.
• Additional play space is proposed to the west side of the proposed building. The buildings are required to have
direct access, on an even grade, to play space.
• Having the buildings adjacent to each other will allow children and staff to easily share resources.
• Rerouting utilities in the lower field area (proposed alternate building location) would divert a large portion of
funds from the building cost, as the project is on a tight State budget. Having the new building in this area would
also require children to cross the road and parking area, which is a safety hazard. The soil in the lower field area
has poor physical properties for development.
• With the steep stream valley grade and alignment of the stream channel, it is not possible to avoid impacting
the stream channel. The center of the drive loop will be utilized to create stable side slopes for the new
road/parking area.
• Construction of the project would start in winter (weather dependent) if all authorizations are in place.
• A plan for stormwater treatment is in progress and will be submitted to DWR upon completion.

Thank you,
Tyson Kurtz
C�earWaLer
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Office: 828-698-9800
Mobile: [phone]
tyson cwenv.com
W W W.0 WENV.COM
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2020 4:13 PM
To: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>; Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: ASU Child Care PCN AID 2020-00959 Request for additional information
Hi Tyson and/or Michael,
Could you please summarize the items we discussed on Friday, or provide minutes from the meeting via email response
for my file.
Thanks
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
Sue. [e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:21 AM
To: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Michael Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: ASU Child Care PCN AID 2020-00959 Request for additional information
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Amanda,
The attached site plan highlights the proposed layout and provides some additional information on the structures.
-Tyson Kurtz

From: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 4:55 PM
To: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>; Michael Cain
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: ASU Child Care PCN AID 2020-00959 Request for additional information
Thanks Tyson for your response and setting up a call for Friday morning. I have to be on a site by 10:30 so let's plan on
9pm. As I mentioned, based on your response below I still have quite a few questions which I've tried to elaborate on
the attached jpg. in advance of Friday. So the big picture questions I have are related to why this location was chosen for
the new facility (versus the more obvious parcel next to the existing building) and could it not be put on several other
available spaces right next to the existing facility. I don't believe the argument for existing underground utilities is
adequate considering those are dug up/relocated quite frequently but maybe I'm not understanding that hardship. And
most childcare facilities are required to have safety fencing regardless of location so wouldn't that be the case for this
one as well since that was reason for not wanting to place closer to the road? Another issue Sue and I mentioned during
our on -site meeting is that because this is an ASU facility on campus that there are likely other uses proposed/planned
for these open parcels. I'm assuming there is an ASU 'master plan' so it would be good to take a look at that and see
how that correlates to this facility. The engineer may be aware of this plan and I am requesting a copy/information on
this prior to our meeting.
Then the other questions are related to on -site design, number of parking spaces needed/wanted (versus
required).. looking at my markups you get the gist. I would like to understand better how the size/orientation of the
building (and therefore parking requirements) was determined. I certainly am not looking to or interested in re-
designing a project but I need a better understanding as to why this design/plan was chosen and what is being required
and really needed since it pretty much involves wiping out this section of stream and wetland of which a large portion
has already been impacted in the past by ASU activities which leads me to the next issue of mitigation....
Appreciate the NCSAM scoring ... It appears NCSAM scored Medium which typically is a 2:1 ratio and I'm not seeing
anything that would justifying reducing that ratio at this time.
Amanda
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
From: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:41 PM
To: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: ASU Child Care PCN AID 2020-00959 Request for additional information
Amanda,
Please see the responses to your request for additional information below. The project was on a temporary hold
while the university worked out zoning requirements with Boone.
1. Please provide information as to why a second access/road crossing is needed for the facilities expansion and will
this crossing/area provide parking as well. It is also unclear from the plans the need to fill the entire length of the
stream channel versus just have a more narrow road crossing with retaining walls. Please discuss if retaining
walls could be used which would minimize impacts to the stream channel.
A. The secondary access/road crossing is needed for the facilities expansion and will provide parking. The
expansion needs to be placed adjacent to the existing building (explained under question 2A), the proposed
location would be built on the existing upper parking area. This would create a loss of about 10 parking

spaces close to the front doors while simultaneously increasing the need for proximal parking spaces.
Available parking close to the front doors is required for families with infants. Expanding the existing lower
parking lot and incorporating parking spaces in the new drive loop/second access road is the most efficient
option. The existing upper parking area is already abutting the stream; therefore, new parking in front of the
buildings would have to be pushed northward, over top of the stream. The drive loop/secondary access
would allow for ease of daily children drop-off and pick-up. The drive loop/secondary access would also
allow for fire truck access to both buildings.
B. The engineer investigated an alternative that would reduce stream impacts to less than 149 linear feet and
the results did not provide a benefit to the overall project cost or stream quality. A spanning arch pipe
structure could avoid 90 feet of stream bed at a cost of approximately $83,700 without considering
additional costs to the existing stormwater system and logistics of construction. If a 90 feet long arch pipe
was used, the remaining 59 feet of stream in the impact area would still need to be placed into a culvert.
C. The use of retaining walls to minimize impacts to the stream channel is not considered a practicable option
with the grade of the stream valley and location of the stream bed adjacent to a potential vertical wall
foundation. Even with retaining walls, it is not possible to create a stable slope inside the drive loop or on
the upslope side of the road crossing that would avoid impacting the stream channel. Examples of retaining
walls of this nature have been shown to be very unstable, limit access for maintenance, and create a danger
to young children, for which the facility is designed.
2. Also please address why other portions of the parcel that are currently open/not developed could not be used for
the facility which have existing pipes/culverts and would not require much if any additional stream piping.
A. Building the Child Development Expansion adjacent to the existing building allows for students from both
buildings to share the playground and facilitates resource sharing for faculty and students. The grade
difference and distance between the existing building and the lower field area (alternate location in
question) would require children crossing traffic and parking areas, which is a safety hazard.
B. Construction of the building along the southwest side of the existing building requires less grading and
clearing when compared to other sides of the existing building that have enough space. The proposed
location is mostly clear of trees and is partially at grade.
C. The location of underground and overhead utilities in lower field make the alternative building location less
suitable and more expensive than the proposed location.
D. Limited space on the lower field (alternate location) would require the new building to be situated close to
Poplar Grove Road. Having a childcare facility that close to the road raises issues of noise and safety for
child.
Attached is the NC Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) that was conducted for reach of S2 where impacts have been
proposed. The overall functional score for this reach is medium. Detractors of functional value include altered riparian
structure, width, and lack of woody vegetation; alterations to the banks that reduce streamside area interaction;
impervious surfaces within the streamside area that accelerate runoff, and degraded stream shading. A mitigation ratio
of 1.5:1 is requested based upon the medium functional rating generating by NCSAM.
Thank You,
Tyson Kurtz
CLearWaLer
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Office: 828-698-9800
Mobile: [phone]
tyson(cDcwenv.com
B1ockedWWW.CWENV.00M

From: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:11 PM
To: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASU Child Care PCN AID 2020-00959 Request for additional information
Tyson,
Thanks for meeting out the other day. As discussed, I had several questions relating to avoidance and minimization
efforts on the design that was included in the PCN which I've outlined below. Also we discussed mitigation requirements
in relation to past impacts which just on this parcel alone appear to be at least 200-300 linear feet of perennial stream
channel that has been culverted at some point in the past. So with that said, any additional stream impacts at this point
would trigger mitigation and a mitigation plan should be submitted with the PCN that adequately offsets impacts.
Mitigation ratios typically start at 2:1 unless you conduct NCSAM and depending on the results, potentially a reduced
ratio can be applied. With regards to avoid/minimization, please provide additional information/ clarification on the
following to continue the review of this application:
1. Please provide information as to why a second access/road crossing is needed for the facilities expansion and
will this crossing/area provide parking as well. It is also unclear from the plans the need to fill the entire length
of the stream channel versus just have a more narrow road crossing with retaining walls. Please discuss if
retaining walls could be used which would minimize impacts to the stream channel.
2. Also please address why other portions of the parcel that are currently open/not developed could not be used
for the facility which have existing pipes/culverts and would not require much if any additional stream piping.
Once I receive this information, I will review and provide follow up questions/comments as needed. Feel free to give me
a call with any questions, thanks.
Amanda Jones
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
5