20171559 Ver 3_Meeting Minutes_20211019

Homewood, Sue
From: Wendee Smith <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 7:59 PM
To: Wojoski, Paul A; Homewood, Sue
Cc: Masemore, Sushma; Gibby, Jean B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] GRMS Follow-up
Attachments: Greensboro Randolph Megasite DMS Conditional Acceptance Oct21.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Paul and Sue,
As a follow-up to Tuesday afternoon's call, I just wanted to share that Vickie and I can meet with you
anytime on Thursday after 9:30am. HDR is diligently working on the stormwater plan to match the
level of detail provided in the example provided to us as a template. In the meantime, we would
appreciate the opportunity address any additional questions or provide clarification on the other items
provided or previously commented on. Such items include:
• Components of the Site Plan Illustrated (Confidential Information)
• Narrative of the manufacturing process for the Site Plan (Confidential Information)
• Updated Impact Sheets per new site plan and JD calls
• Additional Avoidance and Minimization Discussion
• Response to additional verbal comments regarding WRC public comments
o #3 Parking
o #5 Buffers
o #7 Seeding/stabilization
o #11 Utility crossings
o #12 Utility clearing
o #14 SCR
• Response to additional verbal comments from DWQ regarding September 6, 2021 letter
o #2 Site plan
o #4 Agency authorization (Duke)
o #5 Dodsons Lake
o #6a Indirect impacts
o #10 Well sampling and resolution plan
• AJD/PJD
o Recalculate intermittent/perennial stream length, based on changes made from June
site visit
o Determine the amount, type, and quality of waters (wetlands) that would be
geographically isolated (cut off) by the proposed project (indirect impacts).
o Please provide proposed ratios for any indirect impacts as they are not included on the
attached spreadsheet.
o The Corps will need a Final mitigation proposal/DMS letter (attached), addressing the
required mitigation for both direct and indirect impacts.
o Description of how stream length was calculated for off -site alternatives (wetlands and
open waters, too). Corps did calcs to get wetlands and open waters, but also did stream
length. Did not have same numbers as GRMS.
i

o Additional information regarding environmental/public interest benefits of buffers around
the pad site (on site alternatives). Buffers are discussed in all 4 on site alternatives. We
need additional information regarding environmental effects and the importance of these
buffers. Factors into final LEDPA decision.
Thank you for your time,
Wendee
Wendee B. Smith, Owner
[e-mail]
919.270.8430
0 SL Consulting
2