20210773 Ver 1_More Info Requested_20220304

Strickland, Bev
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Michael Brame; David Michaels
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Teresa Andrews; Munzer, Olivia
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield
Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
All,
The Division has the same questions and comments as the USACE, therefore please copy me on your response to David's
email. In addition, I have the following comments and questions:
1. In order to determine the applicability of the state isolated permitting rules 15A NCAC 02H .1300, please provide
the wetland classification using the NCWAM dichotomous key.
2. Please clarify the stormwater requirements for this project. The PCN indicates that the site is Low Density but
also that a Stormwater Management Plan will be reviewed by the County.
3. As the stormwater control measures are located within confined areas adjacent to jurisdictional features, please
provide information regarding the status of the review of the stormwater management plan. Modifications to
the stormwater management plan could require additional impacts to jurisdictional features.
4. The plans propose 110 linear feet of culvert installation for the stream impact and 50 foot riprap apron. While
the agencies acknowledge that properly installed riprap aprons are not considered a loss of stream, it is the
Division's opinion that there is a loss of stream function and aquatic passage with longer riprap aprons,
especially when they are combined with the culvert length. Please confirm that the riprap apron is designed for
the minimum length allowed by regulations.
5. The Jordan Lake Buffer Rules are implemented by Guilford County, however the PCN notes that buffer
mitigation is not proposed. Please note that the Jordan Buffer Rules state that road crossings that impact
greater than 150 linear feet or 1/3 acre of buffer require mitigation. The total stream impacts at this location
are listed as 160 linear feet.
The Division will consider this application on hold until receipt of complete responses to all items. Please be aware that
additional questions or comments may be necessary upon review of your response.
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: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:33 PM
1

To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>; David Michaels <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville /
Guilford County/ residential)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
All,
Thank you for your PCN, dated 2/1/2022, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need
clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 (https://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.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) NWP 29 General Condition 23(a) requires that the activity be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize
adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable
(available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes). It is not clear that the design of the proposed development meets this
requirement. Namely:
a. Slate Ridge Trail, including proposed Impacts 1 and 2, is routed to cross Stream SA at a tangent at the
widest portion of Wetland WD, and directly through a disjunct section of Wetland WC 12-58. Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to follow closer to the existing
driveway of the site across Stream SA, and or re -aligning this road to the north of Wetland WC 21-58;
b. Longfield Drive is routed through the upper -most portion of Wetland WE (Impact 5). Retaining walls and
other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
c. Elk Horn Drive, is routed through one of the wider sections of Wetland WE 1-58 (Impact 7). Additional
avoidance and minimization would be shown by adjusting the route to cross this wetland closer to the
existing dirt path crossing to the north, or re -aligning this road to cross this wetland slightly to the south;
d. Wetland impacts are proposed for Lot fill at Lots 16, 17, 48, 62, and 63 (Impacts 3, 4, 6, and 8). It is not
clear that project viability is dependent on the inclusion of these 5 Lots, when the overall development
proposes 99. Further, retaining walls and other slope -steepening techniques are often used to eliminate
or limit fill slope footprints in wetlands;
Please re -design the project accordingly, or provide documentation that such avoidance and minimization
measures are not practicable.
2) Item la above notwithstanding, revisions are required on Sheets 2 and 3 of the plans provided with the PCN:
a. The culvert pipe footprint is not visible on Sheet 2. This information is needed to show the pipe
alignment vs. the location of the stream, the culvert width vs. the width of the stream, etc., to ensure
that the project meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9c;
b. Sheet 2 does not clearly indicate the footprint of stream impacts for each of the 110 If of stream impact,
50 If of embedded rip rap, and 10 additional If of temporary impacts;
c. Sheet 3 indicates that two 60" culvert pipes are proposed at Impact 1. In order to comply with NWP 29
Regional Condition B.9b, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe (inverts buried 1' below the stream
bed), and the other pipe should act as the high flow culvert (only to receiving bank -full flows). High flow
culverts are typically designed by placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two above the
existing stream bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the inlet and outlet of
the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above referenced flow level;
d. The top and bottom of the culvert is not visible on the profile view; this information is needed to ensure
that the culvert meets NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9 pertaining to culvert burial. Ensure that this
drawing clearly labels the top and bottom of the high and low flow culverts;
2

e. Items la and 2a above notwithstanding, Sheet 2 indicates that the culverts would be oriented such that
the stream exits the culverts aimed directly at the stream bank. Furthermore, the stream alignment
would then run parallel to the proposed fill slope only a few feet to the south for approximately 37
linear feet. This information indicates that maintaining a functioning stream channel in its current
location under these conditions is extremely unlikely. How would the design minimize the risk of indirect
impacts to this portion of the stream channel? Based on the current proposal the Corps would consider
this portion of stream as an indirect reduction of stream function, potentially calculated cumulatively
with the proposed direct permanent stream impacts when considering compensatory mitigation
thresholds, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
f. Items la above notwithstanding, the portion of unimpacted Wetland WD between the south side of the
proposed fill slope and Stream SA includes a remanent fringe of wetland too small (-0.016 acre) and
narrow to be expected to retain its previous function. As such, and the fact that grading for the adjacent
direct impact would eliminate any upslope drainage to this area, the Corps would consider the
remainder of the south side of this wetland as a reasonably foreseeable indirect impact. This area would
be added to the required compensatory mitigation amount.
3) Please provide zoomed -in details, including a plan and profile view, for Impact 7. Ensure that these details
clearly show the size and number of culvert pipes (placed at -grade rather than buried), head walls, rip rap, etc.
4) Items 1 a-c above notwithstanding, how would the project maintain appropriate hydrology to the remainders of
Wetlands WC 21-58 and WE 1-58. The Corps is concerned that upland grading in these areas would re-route
overland flow away from these areas and into downslope stormwater basins. If onsite hydrology is expected to
be maintained via culverts under roadways, swales, or other methods, please include plan detail sheets to
demonstrate. Note that, in addition to compensatory mitigation requirements for direct, the Corps would
consider requiring compensatory mitigation reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts resulting in a loss of
hydrology and therefore aquatic function, per NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision;"
5) For proposed Impact 9, sanitary sewer crossing of Stream SD and Wetland WC 21-58:
a. Per NWP 29 General Condition 10.c., please provide a plan to restore and re -vegetate wetland areas
within the utility corridor;
b. Given that the project exceeds the compensatory mitigation ratio for wetland impacts, the Corps will
also require compensatory mitigation for the permanently maintained sewer corridor through forested
wetlands. Compensatory mitigation for permanent conversion of forested to herbaceous wetlands is
typically required at a 1:1 ratio unless otherwise justified based on resource quality (NCWAM/NCSAM).
6) We acknowledge the statement in the PCN pertaining to endangered species (Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act), that "Potential habitat for these species is not located within the proposed project areas."
However, given the general nature of potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower and small whorled
pogonia, the existence of both open and forested areas within the project area, and given recent USFWS
concerns regarding these species, the Corps cannot currently reach a No Effect determination for these species
within the Section 7 Action Area based on the information provided. Note that, given the distribution of
proposed impacts throughout the property, the entire proposed Flemingfield Reserve development would be
considered the Action Area for Section 7 purposes. As such:
a. If you do not believe that any suitable habitat exists in the Action area for these species, please provide
a more thorough justification so that the Corps could evaluate the potential for a No Effect
determination;
b. If suitable habitat for either of these species does exist in the Action Area, please complete a pedestrian
survey for these species within the appropriate survey window. Following the survey, please provide the
survey report to the Corps (copy also the USFWS) for review;
Please note that, per NWP 29 General Condition 18, the Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP until Section 7
consultation is complete.
7) Items la and c notwithstanding, to demonstrate further avoidance and minimization, would it be possible to
remove the existing driveway crossing of Stream SA or dirt road crossing of Wetland WE 1-58 and stabilize with
appropriate sloping and matting?
8) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
3

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: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2021-00814 (Flemingfield Road tract / McLeansville / Guilford County / residential)
Good Morning
We have received your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request for the above project.
Dave- docs forwarded in your folder
Thank you,
Josephine Schaffer
From: Michael Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:23 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] SAW 2021-00814 - Pilot Project 6663.1 - Flemingfield Road - PCN
Application
Find attached a PCN Application for a site in Greensboro. Please let me know if you need additional information in order
to process the PCN. Thank -you.
Sincerely,

Michael T. Brame
336.708-4620 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
www.pilotenvirc.com
[e-mail]
5