20201052 Ver 1_More Info Received_20201007

Strickland, Bev
From:
Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 7, 2020 3:33 PM
To:
Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US)
Cc:
Homewood, Sue
Subject:
[External] RE: SAW-2020-01444_Aspen Pointe Apartments (Notice of Incomplete Pre -
Construction Notification)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Good Afternoon Bryan,
The applicant has designed the proposed stream crossing to avoid net loss of stream to the maximum extent possible
given existing topographic slopes. The stream/wetland system that must be crossed to provide access for the site is very
steep throughout its entirety on the site and must be built up to grade to safely accommodate anticipated use. The
applicant is proposing 15-16' tall head/end walls, which is avoiding approximately 60' of net loss impact to the stream
and greatly exceeds what I typically see for residential stream crossings. Comparing this stream crossing to a stream
crossing on other projects is not applicable to determining mitigation requirements or as a factor of avoidance and
minimization. Every stream crossing is specific to the conditions in the field, specifically sinuosity and exiting
topographic conditions, are the biggest factors in stream impact amount for any given stream crossing in the
Piedmont. For the applicant to further minimize net loss impact would be to have taller head/end walls. To have only
100' of net loss, the head/end walls would be approximately 35-40' tall which creates a number of adverse implications
to safety and maintenance of the stream crossing. This is a proposed multi -family residential property that will have
pedestrians ranging from toddlers to elderly, emergency personnel and heavy vehicular/truck traffic utilizing the stream
crossing. Retaining walls constructed to these heights with such steep side slopes present significant safety concerns not
to mention increased costs of construction and maintenance and are not typical of any single or multi residential
development in the Triad of North Carolina that I am familiar with, although again that is not a comparison that I see
there is a distinction to make. The USACE Asheville, Raleigh and Charlotte Corps office has historically not required site
specific mitigation for stream impacts that result in net loss of less than 150'. 1 hope the site visit will clear up some of
these concerns, because I don't understand how this differs from any other project that impacts less than 150' net loss
of stream regardless of number of crossings.
Sincerely,
Bradley S. Luckey, PWS
336.708.4997 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
From: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) [maiIto: Bryan. K.Roden [e-mail]1]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>

Cc: Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2020-01444_Aspen Pointe Apartments (Notice of Incomplete Pre -Construction Notification)
Brad,
Thank you for your responses. The Corps is still concerned with the 141 linear feet of permanent stream impacts which
will result in the loss of waters. Generally for developments like this we see roads with permanent impacts in the
neighborhood of 100 linear feet. Therefore, please provide further justification as to why this large of a stream impact is
needed. Please note, based on the current proposal, the Corps is still considering compensatory mitigation for the 141
linear feet of permanent stream impacts.
PLEASE NOTE:
- In NWP 29, Regional Condition 3.2 states "For stream losses of 150 linear feet or less that require a PCN, the
DE may determine on a case by case bases that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the
activity results in minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment."
Thanks,
Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office: [phone]
From: Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:11 AM
To: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2020-01444_Aspen Pointe Apartments (Notice of Incomplete Pre -Construction
Notification)
Good Morning Bryan,
Please find the attached updated PCN/AJD Request and below responses. Please let me know if you require additional
information and let me know what you have available to take a look at the site. Thanks.
USACE Comment A) The PCN was not signed. Therefore, please sign page 11 of the PCN and resubmit.
USACE Comment B) The Construction drawings submitted only include Parcel PIN 6823-51-7722; however, the PCN
listed four parcels (i.e., 6823-42-1009, 6223-51-5704, 6823-51-5917, and 6823-51-3070) along with Drawings 1-5 show
the proposed project boundary including 4 parcel, not 1. Therefore, please provide a complete set of construction
drawings for the entire proposed project area.
USACE Comment C) As previously stated, the PCN listed (in Section 13(1)(a)) the 4 parcel PINS as 6823-42-1009, 6223-51-
5704, 6823-51-5917, and 6823-51-3070; however, after reviewing the county tax parcels the actual PINS for the 3
parcels that make up the proposed project area are as follows: 6823-42-9075, 6823-51-3070, and 6823-51-7722.
Therefore, please revise the PCN to include the entire proposed project area with the correct amount of parcels and
accurate PINS.
USACE Comment D) If the proposed project area was reduced from the original project area from the delineation, then
the PCN does not accurately reflect this change. Please clarify the proposed project area.

Applicant Response: Please see attached updated PCN. The stream/wetland delineation and proposed project area are
approximately 14 acres in size and consists of the entirety of PINS 6823-51-7722 and 6823-42-9075 and a portion of PIN
6823-51-3070. Development outside of that shown on the Impact Exhibits is not planned or proposed by the applicant.
USACE Comment E) At this time, the proposed project area does not have a Corps determination for aquatic features
onsite. However, the construction drawings included in the PCN call out "non -jurisdictional stormwater features". Since
there is no PJD or AJD issued by the Corps for this location, these construction drawings do not accurately represent the
area. In order for a potential aquatic feature to be determined non -jurisdictional, then the applicant would need to
apply for an AJD and have the Corps make the determination if those aquatic features onsite are in fact non -
jurisdictional. Therefore, please submit an AJD request for the delineation conducted on this area.
Applicant Response: The attached updated PCN requests an AJD be conducted for the approximate 14 acre site.
USACE Comment F) In Section A(1)(f) you stated "yes" payment to in -lieu fee program would be required as part of the
proposed project. However, in Section C(3)(i) you state "The applicant does not proposed mitigation for unavoidable
stream impacts." In addition, Section D(2)(a) stated "no" to the project requiring compensatory mitigation. Section
A(1)(f) is correct, as compensatory mitigation for permanent stream impacts resulting in the loss of waters (i.e., 141
linear feet) would likely require compensatory mitigation. Please note all permanent stream impacts, both that do and
do not result in a loss of waters, are considered cumulative and if that total is greater than 150 linear feet,
compensatory mitigation may be required. The project proposes to permanently impact 173 linear feet with 141 linear
feet resulting in loss of waters, those 141 linear feet of stream impacts will result in compensatory mitigation.
USACE Comment G) The PCN lacked an Acceptance Letter from NCDMS for the 141 linear feet of stream impacts.
Therefore, please provide a signed Acceptance Letter from NCDMS for the 141 linear feet of stream impacts.
USACE Comment H) The PCN lacked a NCSAM for the impacted stream (i.e., Stream 2). Without this information on the
current quality of the stream, the Corps will assume the feature is high quality and base the compensatory mitigation
ratio on that assumption. Therefore, if you are planning to propose a reduction in the compensatory mitigation ratio,
then the assessment methodology such as NCSAM would be needed provided to support or potentially justify a
reduction in the compensatory mitigation ratio.
Applicant Response: The stream crossing proposes the permanent impact to 141 linear feet of stream channel with
culvert/sideslope fill, the permanent impact to 32 linear feet of stream channel associated with keyed -in rip -rap and the
temporary impact to 10 linear feet of stream channel associated with de -watering. The permanent impact to 32 linear
feet of stream channel as the result of rip -rap dissipater fill, will be "keyed in" to existing pre -construction stream bed
and bank elevations to allow for aquatic passage and habitat to be maintained following installation of the
culvert. Through maintenance of aquatic passage and habitat, the resulting permanent impact to 32 linear feet of
stream does not constitute a loss of stream. Therefore, cumulative loss of stream as a result of the proposed project is
141 linear feet of stream channel. The Applicant does not propose mitigation for the 141 linear feet of unavoidable
stream loss as a result of the proposed project.
USACE Comment H) Complete the Aquatic Resources Upload Spreadsheet (see attached excel spreadsheet) for all
aquatic feature located within the proposed project area.
Applicant Response: Please find attached PCN and Aquatic Resources Upload Spreadsheet.
UASCE Note) The Corps is still reviewing the proposed project's potential for cumulative impacts with the existing multi-
family development abutting the western edge of the project area. I would encourage you to reach out to the City for a
copy of the master plan for this location, as the Corps will likely do the same.
Applicant Response: The applicant purchased PINS 6823-51-7172 and 6823-42-9075 within the previous year and is in
negotiations to purchase the portion of the PIN 6823-51-3070 that contains the proposed sewer line connection to
municipal sewer service. The applicant has not been involved with ownership or responsible for development occurring
on any abutting or adjacent properties to the site. Based on a review of historical aerial photography, it appears that

portions of the site were utilized for sediment and erosion control devices, potentially associated with the construction
of Stafford Place Boulevard and apartment complex on adjacent property west of the site, across Stafford Place
Boulevard sometime between 2012 and 2013.
The proposed project is a single and complete proposal by one developer to cross one single water body. Regardless of
site plans from the City of Winston-Salem, the proposed project meets the definition of independent utility, which is one
criteria utilized to determine single and complete project. The proposed project is connecting to existing water services
on the proposed project site. Additionally, sanitary sewer services will be connected from the south to existing
municipal services. Existing sanitary sewer services, located on the eastern portion of the site, cannot be connected on
the site due to existing topographic conditions. Either of these utility connections are independent of the previous
construction of Stafford Place Boulevard and apartment complex on adjacent property west of the site.
Sincerely,
Bradley S. Luckey, PWS
336.708.4997 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
From: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) [mailto: Bryan. K.Roden [e-mail]1]
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:42 PM
To: Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2020-01444_Aspen Pointe Apartments (Notice of Incomplete Pre -Construction Notification)
Importance: High
Mr. Luckey,
On August 17, 2020, we received the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) you submitted on behalf of Aspen Pointe, LLC
on a property located in Forsyth County, North Carolina. I have completed my initial review of the report and I have
determined that it is incomplete. The following information is necessary before I will issue a determination:
a. The PCN was not signed. Therefore, please sign page 11 of the PCN and resubmit.
b. The Construction drawings submitted only include Parcel PIN 6823-51-7722; however, the PCN listed four
parcels (i.e., 6823-42-1009, 6223-51-5704, 6823-51-5917, and 6823-51-3070) along with Drawings 1-5 show
the proposed project boundary including 4 parcel, not 1. Therefore, please provide a complete set of
construction drawings for the entire proposed project area.
c. As previously stated, the PCN listed (in Section 13(1)(a)) the 4 parcel PINS as 6823-42-1009, 6223-51-5704,
6823-51-5917, and 6823-51-3070; however, after reviewing the county tax parcels the actual PINS for the 3
parcels that make up the proposed project area are as follows: 6823-42-9075, 6823-51-3070, and 6823-51-
7722. Therefore, please revise the PCN to include the entire proposed project area with the correct amount
of parcels and accurate PINS.
d. If the proposed project area was reduced from the original project area from the delineation, then the PCN
does not accurately reflect this change. Please clarify the proposed project area.
e. At this time, the proposed project area does not have a Corps determination for aquatic features onsite.
However, the construction drawings included in the PCN call out "non -jurisdictional stormwater features".
Since there is no PJD or AJD issued by the Corps for this location, these construction drawings do not
accurately represent the area. In order for a potential aquatic feature to be determined non -jurisdictional,
then the applicant would need to apply for an AJD and have the Corps make the determination if those

aquatic features onsite are in fact non -jurisdictional. Therefore, please submit an AJD request for the
delineation conducted on this area.
F. In Section A(1)(f) you stated "yes" payment to in -lieu fee program would be required as part of the proposed
project. However, in Section C(3)(i) you state "The applicant does not proposed mitigation for unavoidable
stream impacts." In addition, Section D(2)(a) stated "no" to the project requiring compensatory mitigation.
Section A(1)(f) is correct, as compensatory mitigation for permanent stream impacts resulting in the loss of
waters (i.e., 141 linear feet) would likely require compensatory mitigation. Please note all permanent stream
impacts, both that do and do not result in a loss of waters, are considered cumulative and if that total is
greater than 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required. The project proposes to
permanently impact 173 linear feet with 141 linear feet resulting in loss of waters, those 141 linear feet of
stream impacts will result in compensatory mitigation.
g. The PCN lacked an Acceptance Letter from NCDMS for the 141 linear feet of stream impacts. Therefore,
please provide a signed Acceptance Letter from NCDMS for the 141 linear feet of stream impacts.
h. The PCN lacked a NCSAM for the impacted stream (i.e., Stream 2). Without this information on the current
quality of the stream, the Corps will assume the feature is high quality and base the compensatory
mitigation ratio on that assumption. Therefore, if you are planning to propose a reduction in the
compensatory mitigation ratio, then the assessment methodology such as NCSAM would be needed
provided to support or potentially justify a reduction in the compensatory mitigation ratio.
i. Complete the Aquatic Resources Upload Spreadsheet (see attached excel spreadsheet) for all aquatic
feature located within the proposed project area.
PLEASE NOTE:
- The Corps is still reviewing the proposed project's potential for cumulative impacts with the existing multi-
family development abutting the western edge of the project area. I would encourage you to reach out to
the City for a copy of the master plan for this location, as the Corps will likely do the same.
Please provide the information requested above in ONE consolidated response within 30-days of the date of this
correspondence. If you do not respond within 30-days, the request will be administratively canceled. Please contact me
via telephone or e-mail if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office: [phone]