20210915 Ver 1_More Info Requested_20211117

Strickland, Bev
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 10:54 AM
To: Jennifer Robertson; Dan Lacz
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Hill, Johnnie; Rincon Bermudez, Marina
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork
Ranch Site / 5955 Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
Jennifer,
DWR has some of the same concerns, questions and comments, so please forward your response to me also. In
addition, please provide verification from the City of Greensboro that the Zone 1 and Zone 2 buffer impacts identified at
the head of Channel 600 (from original delineation sketch) have been approved.
I will place the application on hold until all items have been resolved.
Thanks,
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: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 3:02 PM
To: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>; Dan Lacz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit
Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Thanks for the additional information, Jennifer. Your efforts have resolved the previously stated concerns, with the
exception of a few additional items of information/clarification needed to proceed with your verification request. I have
itemized the particulars below in an effort to be as specific as possible:
i

1) Impact S2 on the PCN states that the impact is related to a culvert. However, the plans show that this impact
occurs upstream of the proposed culvert. Please clarify the purpose of the impact? e.g. will this stream reach be
routed into a rip rap lined ditch along the proposed fill slope and then into the culvert?
2) Please provide additional description of the French drain intended to resolve concerns regarding indirect
impacts at Impacts S4/W5. Show this feature on the plansheet, and provide a detail if available;
3) The NCWAM forms provided, in additional to the observations I made during my site visits, suitably justify a
compensatory mitigation ratio of 1:1 for wetland impacts W1-W3;
4) We do not concur with a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 for wetland impacts W4-W6. The NCWAM form for these
resources rates to a score of Medium, however the subfunctions primarily score medium and high. The Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office requires compensatory mitigation at 2:1 for impacts to wetlands of medium or higher
quality (with limited exceptions such as justification through subfunctional ratings); as such, compensatory
mitigation for wetland impacts W4-W6 will be required at 2:1;
5) Provide a stream restoration plan for the three proposed sewer crossings (Impacts S5-S7);
6) Proposed stream relocation plan:
a. Note that the impacts proposed for the stream relocation (Impact S3) would be considered a loss of
waters of the U.S. for the purposes of NWP thresholds; i.e. they are not temporary impacts;
b. Will a French drain or similar system be necessary at the groundwater seep/origin of the stream
relocation to maintain the source of hydrology base flow, given the proposed grading including the
directly adjacent WQ Pond 1?
c. For clarity, label (or provide legend items for) the structures (e.g. boulder toe, log vane, rock cross vane,
etc.) shown in the stream alignment Plan/Details Pages 1-5;
d. Provide a detail/profile sheet for what appears to be the boulder toes on Detail 2 Page 3;
e. Additional information is required for your proposed planting plan. Specifically, provide a planting plan
detail showing planting zones for herbaceous species and live stakes, or a sufficient description of the
width and extent of these zones;
f. Provide a longitudinal profile of the proposed thalweg if available;
g. With the understanding that initiation of this plan is dependent upon permitting, provide your intended
start date for the grading and planting work proposed;
h. A monitoring plan will be required as a part of this proposal. Although for the purposes of this
relocation project the monitoring would not need to be consistent with the current Corps Mitigation
Rule, it would need to be based on the 2003 Corps Stream Mitigation Guidelines: specifically Monitoring
Level 2 (see p. 34 of the attached). Please submit a monitoring plan accordingly. Note that, although 5
years of monitoring is required, the Corps can agree to cease monitoring requirements prior to the end
of the 5 years based on successful demonstration of channel stability, vegetation survival, and likelihood
of future/continued success.
i. Provide a contingency plan if the stream relocation is not successful;
7) As you have likely heard, the Corps cannot currently verify the use of any NWP reliant upon a 401 WQC or
waiver under EPA's 2020 401 rule, including NWP 39. Specifically, and per Corps HQ, "Due to the decision of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 21, 2021 to remand EPA's 2020 401
WQC rule with vacatur, the Corps of Engineers is not finalizing permit decisions that rely on a 401 WQC or waiver
under EPA's 2020 rule at this time. The Corps is working to provide more refined guidance that provides a way
forward that allows us to finalize permit decisions." Note that we do not have a timeline for resolution of the
above -noted vacatur of EPA's 2020 401 rule and its current effects on the use of NWP 39 and other NWPs issued
at that time.
The above information is required prior to proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39
(https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP39.pdf). Please submit the information (via e-mail is fine) within 30
days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the NWP or consider your
application withdrawn and close the file.
Sincerely,
2

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]
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: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 1:45 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch
Site / 5955 Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
David/Sue,
Attached is the requested additional information package for Reedy Fork. Please let me know if we need to
discuss anything. I am hopeful that this package resolves all remaining issues for issuance of the 404 and
401.
Thank you,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
Charlotte, NC 28211
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
www.atlasenvi.com
Offices in Asheville and Charlotte
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 8:46 AM
To: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit
Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
3

Hi Jennifer. I'm ok with that approach as long as the need for the new "proposed lateral to new manhole" can be
explained; it's not obvious to me why one would need two connections to the same sanitary sewer from the same
facility. Thanks.
-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]
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: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 5:19 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch
Site / 5955 Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
David
See the attachments. Three of the four temporary sewer crossings will be necessary for our project. We plan
to eliminate the fourth crossing that stubs to the adjacent property. I understand that you and Sue had a
meeting with the City. Give me a call to discuss if necessary but our development will have sewage flowing
through the pipes at three of the four stream crossings. Please let me know if you have an issue with this
approach.
Thank you,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
Charlotte, NC 28211
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
www.atlasenvi.com
Offices in Asheville and Charlotte
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 7:04 AM
4

To: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit
Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
Hi Jennifer. Virginia Spillman with the City of Greensboro confirmed that the sewer line crossing impacts proposed in
your PCN are indeed associated with a separate City of Greensboro sewer project (Reedy Fork Sewer Outfall). Since the
Reedy Fork Sewer Outfall project is not required for your client's project to function, these impacts (Impacts S5-S7) will
not be considered part of the same single and complete project. As such, you do not need to propose these 3 sewer
crossings in your PCN. Still, showing this sewer corridor and noting on the project plans that this sewer line is the City of
Greensboro's Reedy Fork Sewer Outfall would be helpful to limit confusion in our Administrative Record. Thanks, and
please let me know if you have any questions.
-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]
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: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 7:29 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<David. E. Bai ley2@ usace.a rmy. mi I>
Cc: Dan Lacz <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch
Site / 5955 Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
Let's do the 15`h at 9:30. I will send a calendar invite shortly.
Thank you,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
Charlotte, NC 28211
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
www.atlasenvi.com
Offices in Asheville and Charlotte
5

I ICON MENTAL
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 6:33 PM
To: [e-mail]; Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dan Lacz <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit
Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
As of right now, all of those dates work for me.
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: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 5:18 PM
To: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Dan Lacz <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit
Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Jennifer, and thanks for your time on the phone this afternoon. I do feel that an on -site meeting would be useful to
review stream widths and discuss avoidance and minimization, reasonably foreseeable indirect wetland and stream
impacts, and compensatory mitigation. While I am amenable to viewing the aquatic resources proposed for impact and
any possible changes from the PJD based on the NWPR during our site visit, I have already field -verified the delineation
as flagged in the field by ECS and do not believe that a re -delineation of wetlands and streams is appropriate in this
circumstance (ECS's mapping errors notwithstanding). My site visit availability includes September 15, 21, or 29
beginning as early as 9:30am. It would be beneficial for Sue Homewood (NCDWR) to attend as well to include
discussions of 401 and/or buffer permitting; as such, Sue, please let us know about your availability on those dates. I
look forward to hearing from you, and please let me know if you have any questions.
-Dave Bailey
6

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: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 5:18 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Dan Lacz
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955
Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
David
I read through these items quickly. At least one of these buildings is not speculative. Dan will need to speak
for the other one but I am pretty sure it is being constructed with a tenant in mind as well. I think a site meeting
would be very helpful at this point. I think you had mentioned that we could request a new JD since the ECS
delineation was not accurate (not only along the frontage road but along the main drainage as well). If that is
what we need to do to clear up any discrepancies between the delineations and some of the items below I
would like to do so. I have attached a Lidar topo map that we inserted our delineation into a while back. I
thought I had emailed it to you but maybe I did not. I think you will see that our delineation matches up very
well with the Lidar. Please let me know when we can meet on site.
Thank you,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
Charlotte, NC 28211
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
www.atlasenvi.com
Offices in Asheville and Charlotte
ilittNIVI MN 1111Ef TIAL
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:32 PM
To: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>; Dan Lacz <[e-mail]>
7

Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit Avenue /
Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
All,
Thank you for your PCN, dated 7/14/2021 (received 7/31/2021), for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the
information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39
(https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP39.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) The wetland/stream delineation shown as an overlay on the proposed project plans and used to calculate
proposed impacts to potential waters of the US appears to be based on Atlas Environmental's own delineation.
Please reference my email, dated 6/23/2021 (attached), where I agreed to accept Atlas' "delineation of the
stream that parallels Summit Avenue...Please do share your CAD file of this feature with the engineer for
permitting purposes." I further consented that for "stream channel locations of verified streams in areas of
proposed impacts, you may use either a current detailed survey (if available), or a rendering based on the QL2
LiDAR if the channels show up obviously enough." However, the delineation shown on the project plans is quite
different in many wetland areas than that shown in the PJD dated 6/2/2021), and the flow regime of various
sections of stream channels are also shown to have changed to ephemeral; this does not represent the
delineation as approved by the Corps following field evaluation. It is our understanding that there are various
mapping errors shown on the figure included in the existing PJD; however, the wetland delineation flags verified
for the PJD should be located in the field and shown on the overlay on the project plans and used to calculate
proposed project impacts. Further, I see no cause to alter the stream flow regimes. Please recalculate proposed
impacts to streams and wetlands accordingly, proposing compensatory mitigation as required;
2) The overall project plan shows the proposed footprint that seems to include two buildings, road infrastructure,
and parking areas. To better justify the components of this speculative development, please provide labels for
the major aspects of the conceptual design. This information will be necessary to fully evaluate whether or not
the proposed project demonstrates avoidance and minimization of adverse effects, both temporary and
permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site, per NWP
General Condition 23a;
3) The project plans appear to show fill/grading over the portion of Stream 6 (PJD)/CH100 (Atlas) between
proposed Impact S1 and the culvert under US 29, however this impact (>200 If) is not reported on the PCN or
shown as a Stream impact on the plans. If impacts to this stream are proposed, please add them to the PCN and
plans;
4) It appears that the proposed stream impacts do not include reaches confirmed as perennial or intermittent
during the Corps field delineation, but now shown as ephemeral. Given that these sections have already been
field -approved by the Corps, please include them as part of the proposed stream impacts (e.g. between Impacts
S1 and S2);
5) Please provide additional information regarding the apparent utility line shown to the north of the proposed
development;
a. Clearly explain the purpose of this utility;
b. Show the full extent of this utility necessary to justify the single and complete project, including a
delineation of all potential waters of the US within that corridor, even if off -site;
c. Provide profile views of proposed Impacts S5-S8;
d. Clearly describe any and all additional on- and off -site infrastructure necessary to operate the proposed
facility;
6) Based on proposed grading, wetland and stream fill, and re-routing of drainage into proposed stormwater
ponds, the project would eliminate the drainage area/hydrology source for several resources, including:
a. Wetland 8 (PJD)/WL 5000 (Atlas) and Stream 8 (PJD)/CH 500 (Atlas) below Wetland Impact W4;
b. Stream 9 (PJD)/CH 700 (Atlas) below Stream Impact S4;
8

c. New Wetland 3 (PJD)/various wetlands (Atlas) and Stream 7 (PJD)/CH 400 (Atlas);
d. New Wetland 5 (PJD)/WL 6000 (Atlas) and Stream 5 (PJD)/CH 600 (Atlas);
As currently described, the Corps would consider the remainder of these features (down to the nearest viable
groundwater input), as reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts (see NWP General Conditions "District Engineers
Decision") to wetlands and streams resulting from a loss of hydrology. Note that the combination of direct and
indirect impacts to these resources would push the proposed impacts above the compensatory mitigation
threshold for streams as well as wetlands, and thus compensatory mitigation would be required for indirect
impacts resulting in a loss of hydrology and therefore aquatic function in addition to all direct impacts.
Compensatory mitigation is typically required at a 2:1 ratio unless otherwise justified based on resource quality
(NCWAM/NCSAM);
7) We are also concerned that the proposed project would have indirect impacts on the following resources:
a. New Wetland 4 (PJD)/WL 3100 (Atlas) due to stormwater outfall into this narrow wetland feature,
leading to erosion in this feature and resulting reduction of aquatic function;
b. Stream 6 (PJD) /CH 100 (Atlas) and Wetland 4 (PJD)/WL 1000 and 1100 (Atlas) due to isolation to a
narrow valley between fill slopes and proposed Stream Impacts S2 and S3;
How will these features retain their aquatic function when surrounded by impervious surfaces as proposed?
8) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
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.
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: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 7:54 AM
To: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Thames, Joyce A CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
Jennifer,
Received the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP for the above project and forwarded it to Dave Bailey for further
processing.
9

Thank you,
Josephine Schaffer
From: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 11:54 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Reedy Fork NWP 39 / Action ID 2019-02059
Josephine,
Attached is a NWP 39 application for David Bailey. Thanks!
Thank you,
Jennifer L Robertson, President
ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
Charlotte, NC 28211
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
www.atlasenvi.com
Offices in Asheville and Charlotte
10