20140843 Ver 1_Draft Return of Application_20150123

From: 8urdette, Jennifer a
Sent: Friday, January Z3'ZUl5l:Z0PK4
To: Barnett, Kevin
Subject: RE: change of plans for Jule Noland project
Jennifer Burclette
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
NCDENR — Division of Water Resources
1617 lk,�il Service Center
Raleigh, NC27699-1617
(919) 8O7-6364phone
(Physical Address: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604 - 9th Flr Archdale Bldg)
*Email correspondence &oondƒrmm this address may besubject tm the North Carolina Public Records Low and may be disclosed tm
third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. *
From: Barnett, Kevin
Sent: Friday, ]anuary2] 2015 1:07 PM
To: Bun1ette,]ennifera
Cm: Oevane, Boyd; Fox, Tim; Price, Zan (George); Davidson, Landon
Subject:FW: change of plans for ]u|e Noland project
This is the return letter | drafted for this project. The repeated issues with SVV from the PE submitting caused ustocc:
the PE board on the letter.
Kevin Barnett
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations Section
FAMIUMMILM
Tel: [phone]
F'zy: 828-299-7043

E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Davidson, Landon
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:04 PM
To: Barnett, Kevin
Subject: FW: change of plans for Jule Noland project
E
email: landon.davidson @ncdenr.gov
website: www.ncwaterguality.org
Notice: Per Executive Order No. 150, all emails sent to and from this account are subject to the North Carolina Public Records Low
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Devane, Boyd
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:27 AM
To: Fox, Tim; Davidson, Landon
Subject: change of plans for Jule Noland project
Jennifer Burdette just told me that the Jule Noland Rd project #14 -0843 was needed an individual 401 certification and
that she was responsible for sending the letter and it needs to be done today or maybe Monday. She had some other
issues that she was responding to. Therefore, I sent her the body of the letter that I sent you yesterday. If you have
reviewed the letter and made changes, please send them to Jennifer ASAP. Thanks

rjr,A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
January 26, 2015
CERTIFIED MAIL: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
John Harmon
Harmon Graham Properties, LLC
Post Office Box 180
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
Subject: RETURN OF APPLICATION
Jule Noland Drive, Phase II
Dear Mr. Harmon:
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
DWR # 14 -0843
Haywood County
On August 8, 2014, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received a copy of your 401 Water
Quality Certification Application for the subject project. On several occasions, the Division requested
additional information on the project. As of today, the Division has not received a complete response to
the additional information request.
At this time, we are discontinuing our review of your stormwater management plan and returning it for
redesign. The version of the Jule Noland Drive Phase II project that was received on December 11, 2014
includes significant hydraulic design issues and relies on a stormwater treatment practice that is not
capable of meeting the required 85% TSS removal.
After our basic review of the engineering drawings, we realized from the calculations and support
package that the proposal was to use dry extended detention ponds as the stand -alone treatment
mechanism to achieve the 85% TSS removal. Table 4 -1 of Chapter 4 of the Stormwater BMP Manual
provides a list of the TSS removal efficiency for major stormwater control devices used in this state. It
indicates that extended detention basins are only given a 50% removal rate. Please have your engineer
redesign the stormwater treatment plan for the site to include mechanisms to meet the 85% removal rate.
In our review of the drawings submitted by your engineer, we found several elements that need to be
revised or perhaps better explained to our review staff. Some seen in our initial review are listed below:
1. Pond drainage issues. There are several design flaws that we consider significant.
a. Looking at the "Outlet Detail" of drawing SW 2, it appears that there is no provision to
allow the collected water in the basin to be released. There is an emergency overflow
outlet with a 2' weir but no outlet below that to drain the stormwater collected below the
weir. Is there an orifice that we've missed?
b. From the information provided, the emergency overflow at the top of the concrete, box
outlet in each basin is the same elevation as the top of the pond berm. For example, the
drawing for Basin 95 shows the top of the berm at 2574' elevation and the top of the
"storm water emergency outlet" also at 2574'. If this were to be built as designed, the
stormwater would overtop the berm when water reached the emergency outlet weir. In
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611
Phone: 919 - 707 -9000 \ Internet: http: / /www.ncwater.org/
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— Made in part by recycled paper

significant storms, water would overflow the berm, risking its integrity, and possibly
cause back -up in the adjacent parking lots. Also, there is no freeboard provided on any of
the basins as is required although the "Dry Extended Detention Basin" supplement sheets
all indicate the availability of 1' of freeboard.
2. Need for drainage area boundaries. In order to determine if the proposed stormwater plan is
designed according to our rules and the BMP Manual, it is critical that we be able to determine
the boundaries of the drainage area for each stormwater treatment device. We see drainage area
calculations on drawing SW -1 for the five treatment devices but we cannot determine which lines
are the drainage area boundaries. There is a legend that shows a dashed line for the drainage area
and there are several dashed lines on the drawing but we see no way to identify which lines
represent the five drainage areas. Please have your engineer revise the drawings so we can
identify the drainage areas.
3. Need to show new contours. Although there is a dark -line symbol for "New Contours" and a
gray -line symbol for "existing contours ", we identified only a few lines that might show a final
grade. However, the few final contour lines are not adequate for us to evaluate the direction and
course of the stormwater flows on the developed project or to assure that it is built in a manner
that will function correctly.
Clarify contour information. Existing contour lines on the south side of the project are confusing
in that most of them are done at 4' intervals but many are at 8' intervals. Also, there are contour
lines on the drawing that change from solid to dashed. Please explain the meaning of that
symbol.
Need more road information. We need more information about the 18' access road connecting the
north and south portions of the project. Is the dashed line on the right -hand side a ditch? Arrows
indicate flow but the contour lines do not indicate a ditch. In your revised submittal, please
provide a typical cross - section of the road. At the north end of the road at the "transition curb ",
there is not enough information to determine how that water, or the discharge to basin 95, get to
Factory Branch. Is there a conveyance ditch on the right -hand side of the road? The flow arrow is
on top of the road. Also, we assume that the dashed -lines across the straight section of the road
represent "new contours" but they don't match the legend symbol. It is not clear what the contour
intervals are for the road.
Wetland area questions. It is difficult to tell where the stormwater discharging from basins #'s 1 -3
will eventually reach Mauney Cove Branch. Does the released stormwater sheet flow across the
wetland? Are there ditches in the wetland area directing the water to the Branch? More final
contour information and a few spot elevations in the 2.2 acre wetland area are needed. In
addition, all discharge pipes should have some method of energy dissipation at the outlets.

Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0507(e), the Division is unable to approve your application. For
the reasons listed above, your application is hereby returned. Once you have addressed the problems
and /or inadequacies with your application as it was submitted, you will need to reapply to the Division for
approval including a complete application package and the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clear Water Act for this activity
and any work done within waters of the state would be a violation of North Carolina General Statutes and
Administrative Code.
Please contact Kevin Barnett at 828 - 296 -4657 or kevin.barnettCa�ncdenngov if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
G. Landon Davidson, P.G., Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations
Asheville Regional Office
cc: Wanda Austin, PE, Wanda Austin, PE Engineering
45 homespun Road, Sylva, North Carolina 28779
North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors
4601 Six Forks Rd., Suite 310, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
David Brown, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Boyd Devane, 401 Buffers and Permitting Unit
G:AWR \wQA Iaywood \401s \Non- DOT\Rtrn.01- 26- 2015.doc