20220896 Ver 1_More Info Received_20220928

Strickland, Bev
From: David Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:35 PM
To: Homewood, Sue
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request for Long Creek Village SD - Forsyth
County - DWR#20220896
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Thanks Sue — below is from the engineer.
Hey David,
NCDOT requested some specific information that Contech will provide on their design drawings.
Contech is scheduled to have their design package to us by the end of the week. As soon as I receive it, I will submit it to
NCDOT and I believe they will finalize their review quickly.
Thank you,
David Brame, PWS
336.708.4617 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
From: Homewood, Sue [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 8:53 PM
To: David Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Additional Information Request for Long Creek Village SD - Forsyth County - DWR#20220896
Hello David,
Your response to Item #1 indicates that NCDOT was reviewing the culvert proposal. Can you provide any update on
whether that has been finalized or if not, when it is expected. Since the project plans are dependent on acceptance of
that culvert design the Division hesitates to approve a 401 when design plans may change.
Thanks,
1

Sue Homewood (she/her/hers)
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: David Brame <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 2:21 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Additional Information Request for Long Creek Village SD - Forsyth County - DWR#20220896
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Sue,
Please see attached response to your below comments. Feel free to give me a call with any questions.
Sincerely,
David Brame, PWS
336.708.4617 (c)
336.310.4527 (o)
www.pilotenviro.com
[e-mail]
From: Homewood, Sue [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:01 AM
To: David Brame <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional Information Request for Long Creek Village SD - Forsyth County - DWR#20220896
David,
I have reviewed the above noted project and require additional information in order to complete my review. Please
provide responses to the items listed below within 30 days of this email. Please note that the application will be placed
"on hold" until receipt of a complete response.
1) Please clarify if NCDOT or a local government will be assuming responsibility for the proposed roads. If either
entity will be assuming future maintenance of the roads, please provide confirmation that they have reviewed
the bottomless culvert design and will accept the roadway as designed.
2

2) Based on the Divisions previous experience with these structures, the shading that will occur under the
proposed bottomless culvert will lead to the die -off of woody vegetation which provides the structure that
keeps the stream banks intact. Erosion of stream banks then occurs leading to sediment loading in the stream,
over -widening of the channel, and reductions in habitat heterogeneity will subsequently occur. Such reductions
in stream function are considered as indirect impacts / losses of existing uses of the stream channel, and
therefore justify compensatory mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0506(c). Please provide a stream
mitigation plan for the total perennial stream losses from both direct and indirect impacts within the entire
proposed project.
3) Please explain why a riprap apron is required in the stream downstream of the bottomless culvert. This would
indicate that the culvert is expected to increase the velocity within the stream channel. As noted above, any
functional loss to the stream channel as a result of installation of the bottomless culvert would be considered to
be indirect and cumulative impacts and should be accounted as such in the application.
4) Please explain why Culvert #2 is not proposed to be buried within the stream channel.
5) It appears that Wetland Impacts #3 and #4 could be completely avoided with a minor adjustment to the plans to
shorten the road and remove lots 41 and 42, or to use retaining walls to minimize the fill to these areas. Given
the total number of lots proposed for this development, please provide justification as to why the loss of only 2
lots is not practical.
Thani you.
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
3