20210512 Ver 1_More Info Received_20210701

Moore, Andrew W
From: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 3:03 PM
To: Moore, Andrew W; Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA)
Cc: Leslie, Andrea J
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information, Amarx - Valley Road, Buncombe
County (DWR Project #20210512) (Action ID SAW-2021-00987)
Attachments: Figure 6 - Revised - Amarx Beaverdam-Stream Impacts - printed.pdf; Revised Impact
Table - PCN form - printed.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Amanda and Andrew,
The project owner has settled the sidewalk issue with the City of Asheville and the stream impacts for installation of the
sidewalk are no longer proposed. The project owner will be paying a fee to the City to avoid having to install the
sidewalk on site.
As a result, the following modifications to the proposed stream impacts are listed below:
1. Removed former permanent stream impact S2 for 149 LF / 0.0144 Ac related to the sidewalk installation.
2. Added new stream impact S2 for a sewer line crossing that will temporarily impact 20 LF / 0.0017 Ac of stream
bed. The sewer will connect the development to the nearest existing municipal sewer system tie-in, under
Pinecroft road.
A revised Figure 6 and the stream impact table from the PCN form that reflect the revised impact quantities are
attached.
A pump -around -system will be used to work in the dry for both of the proposed stream impacts (Figure 6.3-6.4). Upon
installation of the sewer line connector, the existing stream bed material will be returned and the banks will be
stabilized and returned to pre -construction grade (Figure 6.5).
It is our opinion that this project now falls below the thresholds requiring a written 401 certification, the applicant would
like to withdraw the 401 application. We understand that the standard 401 conditions for NWP 29 will still apply to this
project, in addition to the 404 permit.
If you have any questions about the modification, please let me know.
Thank you,
Tyson Kurtz
aearWater
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Office: 828-698-9800 ext. 302
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]
WWW.CWENV.COM
1

From: Moore, Andrew W <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 8:51 AM
To: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information, Amarx - Valley Road, Buncombe County (DWR Project
#20210512)
Tyson,
DWR will place this project on hold as well until the applicant for the stream impacts associated with the sidewalk is
determined/confirmed.
Andrew W. Moore, PG
Environmental Specialist II — Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
828 296 4684 office
email: Andrew.W.Moore(a�ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>; Moore, Andrew W <[e-mail]>
Cc: Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information, Amarx - Valley Road, Buncombe County (DWR Project
#20210512)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Tyson,
I have reviewed the PCN and your responses to Andrew/DWR below. I still have concerns/question about the sidewalk
impacts. Looking at aerial photos, it does not appear that there are any existing sidewalks that this section would be
connecting to and it also appears that this stream runs parallel to Pinecroft Road for quite a distance. If the City is going
to require sidewalks (and in turn stream impacts) as a condition of their development permits then they need to be the
applicant and submit a PCN for proposed sidewalk improvement projects with master plans so we can adequately assess
cumulative stream impacts for this type of linear project. I'd be glad to discuss further but at this point I'm considering
the application on hold until we can figure this out/have further discussions.
Amanda
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
2

From: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 8:54 AM
To: Moore, Andrew W <[e-mail]>
Cc: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information, Amarx - Valley Road, Buncombe County (DWR
Project #20210512)
Andrew,
Thank you for you initial review of the permit application. I have included responses to your additional information
requests below:
1. The report issued by the City of Asheville's Technical Review Committee for the proposed project includes a line
item requiring sidewalk for property frontage along Pinecraft Road. See line item 4 under the Transportation
section (PDF page 3).
2. The sidewalk callout on Figure 6.1-6.2 should be read as 163 linear feet of sidewalk, to be placed over the
proposed 72" culvert. To fit the 163 feet of sidewalk, 149 LF of stream will be impacted. Meanders in the stream
account for the difference of lengths.
The stream totals 190 linear feet, from the culvert at the north end of the site, to the culvert at the south end of
the site, excluding the length of stream in culvert at the existing road crossing. County GIS parcel data was used
for the delineation and the culverts shown at the north and south end of the delineated stream are actually just
outside the true parcel boundary.
The table on Figure 6.2 is for the length of culverts, not stream impacts. "Net impact" should not have been used
in the last row of the table but rather "Net culvert length". 190 feet of culvert is proposed, impacting 177 LF of
stream.
The project proposes the entire length of the stream within the property to be placed into a culvert to
accommodate for the wider access road and required sidewalk. A short reach of stream above the existing
access road culvert and a short reach of stream south of the property line will be left unimpacted. The sum of
these two reaches is 13 feet, which accounts for the discrepancy in impacted stream and total delineated
stream. The proposed culvert diameter (72") is larger than the existing culvert diameters above and below the
property boundary (36" or 48") so the new culvert cannot be directly connected. In the PCN I stated that the
proposed culvert will tie into the existing culverts, which is inaccurate, after clarifying with the engineer, due to
the true property boundaries and difference in culvert diameters.
I hope this helps clarify the proposed impacts and sidewalk criteria.
Thank you,
Tyson Kurtz
CLearWa er
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Office: 828-698-9800 ext. 302
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]
WWW.CWENV.COM
From: Moore, Andrew W <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 12:58 PM
3

To: Tyson Kurtz <[e-mail]>
Cc:'Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA)' <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information, Amarx - Valley Road, Buncombe County (DWR Project #20210512)
Tyson,
On April 29, 2021, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application requesting a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division for the subject project. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete
and cannot be processed. The application is on -hold until all of the following information is received:
1. Please provide documentation or correspondence from the City of Asheville that demonstrates the requirement
to install the sidewalk along Pinecroft Road. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)]
2. Perhaps I am missing something, but I am not following the numbers listed in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. There are call -
outs on both figures that propose 163 feet of culvert for the sidewalk, but the permanent stream impact
requested for the sidewalk is 149 feet. Why is the culvert length for the sidewalk longer than the stream impact
length by 14 feet? The table on Figure 6.2 indicates 190 feet of net impacts (219 (new pipe)-29 (existing
pipe)=190), but a total of 177 feet of new stream impacts are listed on the figure and in the impact table in the
PCN resulting in an apparent discrepancy of 13 feet. The PJD request indicates 190 feet of stream in the review
area. From the figures it appears that all, or nearly all, of the stream in the review area is proposed to be placed
in a culvert. Please clarify the apparent discrepancy in these numbers. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(6)]
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested information for the
proper consideration of the application. Please provide your response by May 26, 2021. If all of the requested
information is not received, the Division will be unable to approve the application and it will be denied as incomplete.
The denial of this project will necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application and
the appropriate fee.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Andrew W. Moore, PG
Environmental Specialist II — Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
828 296 4684 office
email: [e-mail]
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4