20220436 Ver 1_More Info Requested_20220330

Strickland, Bev
From: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 5:32 PM
To: Chris Huysman; Meagan Jolly
Cc: Perez, Douglas J; Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Albemarle Road Site SAW-2021-01521
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Chris,
I've reviewed the Albemarle Road Site project and have the following comments/request for additional information:
1) Please provide information to indicate that Phase I of the project is independent, and could act as a stand along
project, from other phases of the project.
2) Section 106 issues need to be addressed in order to determine consultation requirements for the project:
a. Based on previous discussions, there is a barn/structure on site that could possibly be eligible for listing
on the National Registry. Please provide the report on this site for our evaluation and for us to forward
to SHPO as necessary for concurrence on eligibility determinations. Also, please identify the location on
the project plan or on a project map so its clear where this structure is in relation to proposed impacts.
b. There may be view shed issues associated with the historic farm located adjacent to the property. In
order to determine if there are view shed issues, you should provide a photographic report looking out
from the location/property boundary of the farm, onto the subject property and in particular Phase I,
and provide any other helpful information such as elevations of the historic farm compared to that of
the proposed development areas and any existing vegetation that would act as a screen that would be
left in place to create a buffer.
3) Impact tables: Impact tables have impacts labeled as S1-S17 and W1-W6 for stream and wetland impacts
respectively. The plan labels impacts for streams as R1-R9 and wetland impacts with F# or I# (I think, hard to see
on the plan). Please revise the impact table in the PCN to correspond with impact labels shown on the plan (or
vice versa) to allow cross reference of review between the two documents.
4) Culverts: some of these culverts are large diameter going into narrow streams. For example, Stream Impact R8
at Tributary 14 is 6' culvert going into a 2' wide stream. Consideration should be taken to ensure the stream is
not over -widened at these locations. With round culverts I know there is a little bit more leeway with the
widths of the opening of the culvert to align with existing stream widths so that should be considered when
setting the elevation of the pipes in the streams while still adhering to burial requirement as best as possible. If
stream widths can't be maintained, then a smaller base flow pipe should be considered in conjunction with a
floodplain pipe to carry higher flows. This would also apply at R2 (tributary 10) and R1 (Tributary 11).
5) Utility lines: so if I'm interpreting the plans correctly, the sewer line is being proposed throughout the entire
project along the future road network, but the actual road network for the entire project isn't currently being
included in the permit request? The plans don't differentiate between future phases of sewer line and the
currently proposed. The plans should be revised to clarify this.
a. The current sewer plan shows the sewer line crossing tributary 1 three times. Some of these impacts
are shown as proposed temporary, some are shown as future temporary. It appears as though with this
permit request, you are only requested two crossings, one near wetland C1000-1100 and one at wetland
A100-200 (there are no impact numbers shown on the plans so not sure which impacts these would
correspond to on the impact table). In particular the crossing at A100-200, it is unclear where this sewer
line goes and if it ties into anything on the other side of the crossing. Please clarify these impacts and
i

revise the plans to more clearly show where the sewer line is going in this location. Additionally please
provide some justification on why multiple stream crossings are being requested for the sewer line.
b. Also, I'm not seeing any sewer line impacts on sheet 16 of 17. Just want to verify that that's the case
and I'm not missing anything.
6) Mitigation: based on the RIBITS, the Upper Rocky River Umbrella Mitigation Bank only has 267.75 SMUs, so this
would not be enough to cover the impacts for this project. As such, you would need to obtain the remaining
mitigation credit through DMS. Also, just to be clear, are you requesting mitigation for all permanent stream
impacts (1,275 If of stream channel) at a 2:1 ratio? In the PCN you indicated that SOAs have been requested. I
assume those are mitigation acceptance letters? Those would be required prior to issuance of a permit so I
appreciate that those have already been requested and ask that you send those to me ASAP once received from
the banks.
7) Minimization and avoidance:
a. The lots shown near SCM#B5 and SCM#B4 appear to be very close to wetlands in this area. Please
provide a grading plan or more detailed plan/zoomed in plan to verify wetlands won't be impacted at
these locations.
b. Impact R3 shows the pipe outlet into the stream at a 90 angle. This can often create an unstable
condition. It might be worth tweaking the road location to the east or west to avoid any sharp bends in
the stream or re -aligning the pipe to outlet at the stream in a more straight -on manner, even if that
means a short area of stream re -alignment. Please consider these comments and provide a response.
c. On the below section of the plan, it appears that impacts to tributary 13 could be completely avoided
and impacts to Tributary 14 could be further minimized if you redesigned the access road to align with
the southernmost road as shown below. Please justify why the development access road can't be
redesigned to minimize/avoid impacts to these tributaries.
2

Pages from SAW-2021-01521 ADMIN FILE MARCH 172022.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Pro DC {32-6i[}
File Edit View E-Sign Window Help
2 /2
i koCie@ 2W%
u
r9-
y
Q T T Tp T 8- a- $1- )0. A a
Home Tools Pages from SAW-2.,. X
® * 13® Q 00
Comment
r
PROP. PERM. WETLAND
IMPACT (11)
ISOLATED WETLAND 111000
*0.31 AC.
PROP. PERM. WETLAND
IMPACT (12)
ISOLATED WETLAND
*0.16 AC.
FUTURE PERM. WETLAND
IMPACT (13)
ISOLATED WETLAN ❑
*0.33 AC.
1
11.00 x 8.50 in
w
PROP. P
TRIBUTAF
*111 LF
*.005 A
FUTURE F
TRIBUTAR"
*90 LF
PROP. F
TRIBUTAI
f 110 U
f.010 A
1 comment
Q 4 T •••
PAGE 2
1
0 K7RGRCCA 416 PM
D Poiygon
min
P
If you have any questions regarding the information requested in this email, don't hesitate to reach out to me.
Sincerely,
Crystal C. Amschler
Project Manager
Crystal Amschler
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext 4231
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0
3