20201569 Ver 1_SAW-2020-00870 More Info Request_20210611

Strickland, Bev
From: Turlington, Chad <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:22 AM
To: Harbour, Jeff W
Cc: Greer, Emily C SAW ([e-mail])
Subject: RE: [External] RE: AID# SAW-2020-00870 Spring Village SD NWP-Notice of 401
Certification Process, Incomplete Application, and Additional Information
Jeff,
After reviewing the information that you submitted with the reduced impacts, DWR concurs that the project is covered
under General Certification 4256 and no written authorization is required.
Chad Turlington
Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Regional Operations Section, Fayetteville Regional Office
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910-433-3320 office
[e-mail]
225 Green Street
Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301
Subscribe to Collection System & Sewer Permitting Updates
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Harbour, Jeff W <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 1:58 PM
To: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
Turlington, Chad <[e-mail]>
Cc: Scott Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: AID# SAW-2020-00870 Spring Village SD NWP-Notice of 401 Certification Process, Incomplete
Application, and Additional Information
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Emily,
Below you will find responses in red as prepared by Terracon (Env. Consultant) and 4D Site Solutions (project
engineer). The primary change is that the developer has identified a way to reduce the wetland impact to <0.1 acre,
which will hopefully allow DWR to more easily process without an Individual WQC. I have updated the impact table from
the PCN accordingly (attached). We look forward to continuing to assist you with your final 404 review.
Chad,
The reduction in the wetland impact to <0.1 acre should negate the Individual WQC requirement even though it has
already been placed on public notice.
i

Please let me know if either of you have additional questions or comments.
Regards,
Jeff Harbour, PWS
Senior Scientist — Natural Resources
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2401 Brentwood Rd., Suite 1071 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
D [phone] 1 M [phone]
[e-mail] I terracon.com
From: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:05 PM
To: [e-mail]; Turlington, Chad <[e-mail]>
Cc: Harbour, Jeff W <[e-mail]>
Subject: AID# SAW-2020-00870 Spring Village SD NWP-Notice of 401 Certification Process, Incomplete Application, and
Additional Information
This notification is for the above referenced project and serves to notify the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and applicant of the 401 certification process and inform the applicant about the deficiencies of the permit
application. Please provide your response in direct reply to this email within 30 days from the date of this notification or
contact the Corps county representative to request an extension of this deadline. Otherwise, the application will be
automatically withdrawn. Also, please ensure the AID# is provided in the subject line of all correspondence related to
this project.
To NCDWR: After review of the submitted Spring Village SD permit application, dated March 15, 2021, and the attached
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 Water Quality General Certification (GC) No. 4256, dated December 18, 2020, it appears
that an individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required from the NCDWR for the proposed activities. The
permit application received by our office on March 15, 2021, provided the nine required elements for an individual
WQC, and receipt of the dated permit application constitutes the Corps' initial receipt of the 401 WQC application.
Unless NCDWR is granted a permit review time extension, a waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWR fails to act on
this request for certification within the set reasonable period of time from the date of the complete 401 request. The
reasonable period of time for the NCDWR to act on this WQC request is 120 calendar days. The date upon which the
waiver will occur if NCDWR fails or refuses to act on the certification is July 13, 2021.
Applicant/Consultant: Please note, should we finalize our review prior to receiving the 401 WQC, you may receive a
provisional general permit verification from the Corps. Once a 401 WQC is issued or waived by the DWR, the Corps will
provide you with a final general permit verification. Your proposed work shall not commence until after the 401 WQC
has been issued or waived AND until a final general permit verification has been provided to you by the Corps.
The following information is required to complete the permit review:
1. Hyacinth Lane, both ends of Amaryllis Lane, Hosta Way, and Bloodroot are not proposed to connect to existing
roads, but rather terminate in a manner that either supports the need for additional impacts to complete the
road or are roads to nowhere with an unknown potential for additional impacts; therefore, the proposed project
does not meet the terms and conditions of the applicable permit. The Corps sees the applicant's note about the
Town's requirements for stub roads, as well as the statement regarding no responsibility on the applicant's part
for activities that may occur on adjacent properties. Upon learning the Town's requirements, the applicant
should have redesigned to accommodate both Town and Corps requirements. Furthermore, because the
proposed project would provide the avenue by which additional impacts would likely occur on adjacent
properties in the foreseeable future, these activities fall within the scope of review for the applicant's permit
2

request, despite the statement. As such, the applicant must redesign road termini at the above referenced
locations in the form of a hammerhead/T-stub, cul-de-sac, etc., without impacts to wetlands, and provide the
updated information and drawings, as applicable. Failure to do so will result in the elevation of the permit
application by the Corps to an Standard Permit review and the application will be withdrawn for
incompleteness. Withdrawal of the application by the federal agency will result in an automatic withdrawal of
the 401 WQC application. Please note, that reapplication of the project following the federal withdrawal will
require the applicant to restart the 401 WQC application process, beginning with the pre -filing
requirement. The roads as shown on the site plan meet the requirements as set forth by the town. The town
requires that public roads be extended to undeveloped properties for possible future extension. To our
knowledge, there are no plans for development of the adjoining parcels. We have no control on how the future
projects will be developed. Bloodroot Street is not projecting into a wetland on the adjoining property to the
best of our knowledge. The road stub is less than 150' long and therefore a turnaround is not required. The
northern end of Amaryllis Lane is also not projecting into a wetland and is less than 150'. The southern end of
the street is providing access for maintaining the proposed storm pond. The street will not be extended beyond
what is shown. The southern end of Hyacinth Lane is a dead end street that provides access to a wet pond for
maintenance. The pond is less than the required length for a turnaround.
2. An analysis of all supporting infrastructure, such as roads, utility lines, and stormwater, is the crux of
determining if a proposed project is single and complete. The application states that six wet ponds are proposed
for stormwater; however, none are identified on the provided drawings. Will new or existing utilities support the
development? Will the development be on septic? Are there sidewalks? How many lots are being
proposed? Please provide an overall drawing showing all relevant infrastructure and information. Additionally,
please label the open areas and any attendant features on the overall impact layout. The project will be served
by new utilities to include public water and public sewer and a storm drainage system. The six wet ponds have
been shown on the overall site plan. This is a stand along project when completed. No additional wetland
impacts are needed for the construction and functioning of the project. The information about the site that you
are asking for is too much to show on the reduced 11x17 scale. We have attached a 24x36 overall site plan that
should provide the answers to your questions.
3. What activity is proposed along the bank of PHB? It is noted that the activity appears to be above the OHWM;
however, the question remains. No activity is proposed along the bank of the existing pond. There will be some
clearing along the western side in order to utilize the existing pond as an amenity feature for the site.
4. Please clearly label the limits of disturbance/location of S&E measures on the overall layout drawing. The limits
of disturbance has been shown as requested. However, individual measures have not been shown. The measures
will not be legible at the scale on the 11x17 overall. NCDEQ has approved the erosion control plan for the project.
5. Please define the label "OPL" shown on the drawings. OPL stands for old property line. The property hasn't been
recombined to date. Once the property is recombined, the OPL line will be removed.
6. Please provide a cross-section: facing downstream from the head of the culvert at the proposed crossing; cross
section included in attachments
that shows Blackhorn Lane and the wetland line; profile included in
attachments; no wetland impact
that shows the southern termini of Amaryllis Lane and the wetland line. profile
included in attachments; no wetland impact
7. The downstream inverts on the plan view and longitudinal profile for the crossing are different. Please explain or
correct. The downstream invert is 306.60'. This was a typo and has been corrected.
8. Please clarify what the road slope and width are. The road is 27' wide from back of curb to back of curb to meet
the Town of Angier standards. The roads within the development will be public maintained roads constructed to
town standards. The cross slope is 2% per the town standards.
9. Is that a proposed scour hole on the upstream side of the crossing at the pipe invert? If so, please provide a
purpose and need. If not, please provide a purpose and need justifying the impact area on the upstream side of
the crossing. There is no scour hole. The existing area required some excavation to meeting pipe separation
3

requirements. The grading in this area has been tightened up which reduces the initial wetland impact that was
submitted.
10. Will a riprap dissipator be installed at the downstream invert out point? If not, please provide a purpose and
need justifying the permanent wetland fill beyond the pipe. No rip rap dissipator will be installed on the
downstream side. The impact area shown is the clearing needed for the pipe installation, etc. The impact area
has been modified to the toe of the fill slope.
11. Has the road width at the crossing been reduced aside from crossing at a narrower point? For instance, if present,
have the sidewalks been reduced to only one at the road crossing (with crosswalks to ensure safety) to reduce
the width of the crossing? If not, please provide a justification for why avoidance and minimization measures
beyond siting were not pursued. The road is a standard cross section throughout the site. The road is a public
road that must meet town standards. The road as shown in the standard cross section as required by the town.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank you -
Emily Greer, Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
910.251.4567 (o)
4