20201484 Ver 1_CLARIFICATION #2 SAW-2020-01836_20210604

Strickland, Bev
From: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 5:39 PM
To: Johnson, Alan
Subject: [External] FW: FW: Request for Additional Information - Stanfield Valley Subdivision,
Renee Ford Road, Stanly County; SAW-2020-01836
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good Afternoon Alan,
I hope all is well. Below is some additional correspondence between Pilot and the USACE regarding the
permitting. What is the status of the 401 WQC?
Sincerely,
Michael T. Brame
336.708-4620 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenvirc.com
[e-mail]
PIL T
PILOT E N V I R O N M E N T A L, I N C
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: FW: Request for Additional Information - Stanfield Valley Subdivision, Renee Ford Road, Stanly County;
SAW-2020-01836
Hi Michael. I think this will work. I'll get back into this one early next week.
Any word on the Individual 401 WQC?
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:34 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: FW: Request for Additional Information - Stanfield Valley Subdivision, Renee Ford Road,
Stanly County; SAW-2020-01836
Good Morning David,
This is the response I received (see below and attached). Will this work or do I need to ask them for additional
information?
Sincerely,
Michael T. Brame
336.708-4620 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenvirc.com
[e-mail]
PII.DT '
PILOT E N V I R O N M E N T A L, I N C
From: Dylan Blalock <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 8:48 AM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: Request for Additional Information - Stanfield Valley Subdivision, Renee Ford Road, Stanly County;
SAW-2020-01836
Michael,
Is there no way to agree to no future impacts on the adjacent property? The developer has no plans for future
development. Therefore, paying mitigation now for an impact amount that does not currently require mitigation, with
the idea that future impacts will require mitigation, when there is no certainty that future impacts will even occur is not
too appealing.
Also, because there is no planned future development, we have not developed and do not have plans to develop a full
buildout master plan. However, the attached pdf shows a basic roadway concept plan that clearly avoids impacts to the
known stream that runs through the adjacent parcel. I know we do not have a JD for these parcels, but based on
contour data there certainly appears to be developable areas that avoid potential impact areas.
With that said, it would be great if we could establish that there will be no future impacts, and that while there are no
current plans for future development, any future development will avoid jurisdictional features. Let me know if you
have any questions.
Dylan Blalock, El
Chambers Engineering, PA
2

129 N. First Street, Albemarle, NC 28001
p. 704.984.6427
d. 704.289.7256
c. 704.984.3547
www.ce-pa.com
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:33 PM Michael Brame <[e-mail]> wrote:
Good Afternoon Dylan,
It appears that we addressed item number 1 sufficiently. We are going to have to address number 2 below. Once the
USACE issues a permit they cannot ask for back pay in mitigation. With the stubbed street/hammerhead, the USACE
argues that the other site will be developed at some point down the road. It cannot be done without impacting the
stream, at least from the location of the stub. David's solutions are:
1. to go ahead and pay mitigation now for the impact that is being permitted knowing that the future impacts will
exceed the threshold, or,
2. Show a master plan that does not show additional impacts associated with the future phase.
Feel free to call and discuss.
Sincerely,
Michael T. Brame
336.708-4620 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
3

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:18 PM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>; Heather LaGamba <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Request for Additional Information - Stanfield Valley Subdivision, Renee Ford Road, Stanly County; SAW-
2020-01836
Michael,
Thanks for your response to our request for additional information, dated 5/17/2021. Upon review of your updated
plan, the concerns noted in our comment # 1 are resolved. However, the concerns noted in our comment # 2 remain.
Although I understand the necessity for the hammerhead for emergency vehicle access/turnaround, this facility would
provide access to parcels to the east of the project area that are also owned by the project applicant. As such, it is
reasonably foreseeable that the residential development would eventually extend into these parcels. Further, Stream
SA extends in a NW to SE direction through one of these parcels, and approximately 8 acre of apparent high ground is
located on the SW side of Stream SA; an additional crossing of Stream SA would be required to access this upland area
for Lot development. For that reason, additional stream impacts are also reasonably foreseeable that would
cumulatively exceed the compensatory mitigation threshold per NWP 29 Regional Condition 7. As previously noted, the
Corps will consider all proposed/foreseeable impacts for this development as cumulative when considering NWP and
compensatory mitigation thresholds, and our regulations do not allow "piecemealing" to avoid these limits.
To resolve this issue, two options include:
1. Provide the conceptual plan for full buildout of the Stanfield Valley subdivision, including all future phases,
showing that this can be accomplished without exceeding the compensatory mitigation threshold per NWP 29
Regional Condition 7; or
2. Acknowledge that full buildout of the Stanfield Valley subdivision will require additional stream crossing and
eventually exceed the compensatory mitigation threshold. We could then authorize the proposed impacts;
however, to ensure that all phases of the proposed development do not result in more than minimal adverse
effects on the aquatic environment, we would use our discretion (NWP District Engineer's Decision) to require
compensatory mitigation for the currently proposed stream impacts as a permit Special Condition.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-Dave Bailey
4

David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 4:07 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>; Heather LaGamba <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information - Stanfield Valley Subdivision, Renee Ford Road,
Stanly County; SAW-2020-01836
Good Afternoon David,
See the responses in red below. Please let me know if you need additional information in order to move forward with
the PCN. Thank -you.
Sincerely,
5

PuLogrfit..,
# 4 E N Y I! e w W 1 N t a t. I w t
Michael T. Brame
336.708-4620 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 10:57 AM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>; Heather LaGamba <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information - Stanfield Valley Subdivision, Renee Ford Road, Stanly County; SAW-2020-
01836
All,
Thank you for your PCN, dated 4/15/2021, and project plans received via email on 4/29/2021, for the above referenced
project. I have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 29 (https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested information
below (via e-mail is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of
the Nationwide Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
1. Based on the "Environmental Impacts Overview (Sheet 1) it is unclear how both access and home/attendant
features construction will occur on lots 12 and 14 without requiring additional impacts to Stream SA. Please
explain/show how access to these lots and reasonably sized construction/disturbance envelopes will be
achieved without requiring additional impacts to this stream. It may be useful to provide the expected built
upon area for these lots and to sketch these footprints onto Sheet 1. For Lot 14 in particular how will the future
Lot buyer access all of their property without requiring an additional crossing of this stream?
6

An updated set of the impact drawings is attached. The engineer has shifted the lots to allow for more buildable area
and access for lots 12 and 14. The building setbacks were kept uniform and included a stream buffer 15' from the
approximate OHWM. They also include approximate house footprints offset a minimum of 10' from the stream buffer
area to allow for adequate room during construction. An approximate driveway location has been shown for lot 12.
2. The PCN notes that this is a phased project, and the applicant owns all adjoining parcels to the east and
southeast of the proposed project area. Furthermore, the hammerhead shown to the east of the proposed
impact area is located on one of those off -site parcels. Although the PCN notes that there are no immediate
plans to extend the subdivision to the east, do any of the future phases require impacts to Stream SA or other
potential waters of the US? Have any conceptual or master plans been developed that show full build out of
this phased development? Please provide this information pertaining to the full phased project, as the Corps
will consider all proposed/foreseeable impacts for this development as cumulative when considering NWP and
compensatory mitigation thresholds, and our regulations do not allow "piecemealing" to avoid these limits.
There are no conceptual or master plans that have been developed that show full build out of a phased
development. The hammerhead is required for fire access according to Appendix D of the 2018 NC Fire Prevention
Code. The road was extended to provide access to these parcels. While no future development is proposed at this
time, any future development should it occur, will seek to avoid impacts to jurisdictional features, and the developer
understands that any future impacts will be considered cumulative with the impacts being proposed currently. The
developer acknowledges that the Corps will consider all proposed/foreseeable impacts for this development as
cumulative when considering NWP and compensatory mitigation thresholds.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
7

Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
8