20180765 Ver 5_More Info Received_20210608

Strickland, Bev
From: Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] Hight Hampton - 401 certification
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Sue,
I am following up on our clarifying discussions on June 2, 2021 regarding impacts at Hole 13 for the High Hampton
Development.
In an effort to reduce overall stream impacts for Hole 13, this location was restudied and the applicant proposed to
reduce impacts to 53 If. In making the determination to reduce impacts, the design team physically measure the
needed (reduced) impact in the field by pulling a tape from the end of the culvert to edge of the proposed fairway. This
length was determined to be 53 linear feet and this information (53 If.) was verbally given to WGLA Engineering. WGLA
then updated the site plans, which were based on the flown topo and GPS located streams and this change was
submitted to the Corps/DWR during the permit application review process. WGLA accurately identified 53 of GPS stream
on the AutoCad map and the contractor accurately identified 53 feet in the field which created the discrepancy in what
was impacted.
We documented in our April 15, 2021 email submittal, the difference in accuracy of the GPS points which led to
additional stream length by showing stream meanders. However, when the GPS points were overlayed on the LIDAR
stream, it is evident that the stream was essentially a straight line.
I tried to accurately summarize our meeting last week, please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or
need additional information?
Thank you,
Clement
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:29 AM
To: Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brown, David W SAW <[e-mail]>; Yankura, Kaylie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Hight Hampton
Clement,
The Division still has questions regarding the situation at Hole #13. Regardless of how the impact amounts are
calculated, it appears from the documents provided that the limit of fill has been extended beyond what was proposed
and approved. When looking at the Impact map that was approved January 2020, the impact "fill" limit is
shown. Comparing that to the image you submitted with this response, I have drawn a green line on the image
approximately at the location of the approved fill limits.
i

The question that we still have is that if the fill limits proposed with the application were considered feasible after
proper avoidance and minimization, how is the actual fill limit explained? Once we can understand why the fill was
extended, then we can discuss what the actual length of impact may be.
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 8:30 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Brown, David W SAW <[e-mail]>; Yankura,
Kaylie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Hight Hampton
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Sue,
Attached is the High Hampton response to the DWR 3March 24, 2021. Add -info. I am also submitting this through the
DWR portal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you haven ay questions.
Clement
CLearWaer
145 7th Ave West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Office: 828-698-9800
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]
WWW.CWENV.COM
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee(s). Disclosure to other parties is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
2