20230055 Ver 1_AddInfo Received_20230314

EE
5410 Trinity Road P 919.866.4951
T I M M O N S GROUP Suite F 919.859.5663
Raleighh,, NC 27607 www.timmons.cons.com
March 14, 2023
Chris Hopper
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Seren Homer
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem NC 27105
Re: Response to Requests for Additional Information
Jim Minor Road (Land for Peloquin)
USACE AID: SAW-2022-00531
(Approx. 2.73 acres)
Alamance County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Homer and Mr. Hopper,
On behalf of Peloquin Construction, Inc., we are providing a response to the Request for Additional
Information (RAI) emails received on March 8, 2023 for Jim Minor Road (Land for Peloquin), an
approximately 2.73-acre site located off Jim Minor Road in Haw River, North Carolina, within Alamance,
North Carolina (the Site).
All impact amounts remain the same as reported in the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) application
dated 01 /09/2023.
The comments are outlined below in italics and are grouped by impact, with DWR comments in green. Our
response is below each comment.
1) In your PCN Application Part C. (4i), you state, "The proposed project is a single -phased residential
development that is located southwest of the intersection of South Jim Minor Road and Turner Road in
Haw River, North Carolina within Alamance County." If the proposed project is a residential
development, please provide an overall site plan showing the entire development.
The proposed project is to construct a driveway channel crossing necessary to access the parcel
south of South Jim Minor Road. No residential developments are proposed or planned to be
proposed for these parcels.
2) The proposed culvert is a 48" HDPE. The stream width is reported as 15-17 feet. DWR's standard
condition is "Culverts shall be designed and installed in a manner that the original stream profiles are
not altered and allow for aquatic life movement during low flows. The dimensions, pattern, and profile
of the stream above and below a pipe or culvert shall not be modified by widening the stream channel
or by reducing the depth of the stream in connection with the construction activity. The width, height,
and gradient of a proposed culvert shall be such as to pass the average historical low flow and spring
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY

flow without adversely altering flow velocity." It appears the culvert size may not meet this condition.
Please provide more information and/or modify the culvert design accordingly.
The location of this culvert is to replace an existing overflow connection point that appears to have
been dug with the intent to provide a high-level connection point between the two rivers. The
existing channel here does not appear to have its own drainage area or flow, and instead may
operate at high flow times in the two rivers to provide a floodplain peak flow connection point,
upstream of where the two rivers connect. Rather than filling this offline overflow channel, the
project intent was to maintain some relief connection between the two adjacent rivers, while
allowing both to function in their standard manners and minimizing fill and impact work in the area
to achieve a no -rise flood study. The proposed culvert attempts to mimic the existing overflow
channel with both the slope and by burying the pipe 20% as best practices in case water or aquatic
activity occurs in high flow circumstances in the adjacent rivers. The HDPE pipe material choice
was used to minimize construction impacts and wasn't a concern from the design view for aquatic
passage as no low flow events were anticipated.
3) We have found that burying steep -sloped pipes creates instability upstream and can impede aquatic
passage. We recommend installing the culvert at existing grade in these instances to allow for aquatic
life movement during low flow conditions. If this option is not feasible, please provide an explanation
for why it is infeasible and provide an alternative to ensure upstream stability and aquatic passage.
Please refer to the response above for Question 2.
4) WRC has expressed concerns about aquatic passage based on the proposed culvert type (HDPE).
They recommend using other pipe materials, such as CMP or RCP, to retain substrate in the structure
and ensure aquatic passage during low flows. Please provide a response to WTC's concerns.
Please refer to the response above for Question 2.
Please review the provided information and contact Morgan Gilbert at [phone] or
[e-mail] if additional information is required.
Sincerely,
Timmons Group
Morgan Gilbert, WPIT
Environmental Scientist I
Nick Tu ®r,WS
Senior Environmental Scientist