HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE [External] RE Springdale Update - Full Plan Submittal1
Winston, Joey
From:Annino, Amy M
Sent:Friday, March 10, 2023 5:00 PM
To:Preston Gregg; Timber West
Cc:brooke.a.davis@usace.army.mil; Leslie, Andrea J; Tim V. Surrett; Aiken, Stan E; Walker, Fred
Subject:RE: [External] RE: Springdale Update - Full Plan Submittal
Attachments:GC4266 for NW42.pdf; PCN Help File 2018-1-30.pdf; TroutBuffersFAQ.pdf
Preston,
Thank you for submitting the additional information response. Your response did not address all of DWR’s questions
and, after reviewing your response, I have additional questions. Please let me know if you have any questions.
On December 7, 2022, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application requesting a 401 Water
Quality Certification from the Division for the subject project. The required fee was received on December 9, 2022 and
additional information was received on March 2, 2023. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete
and cannot be processed. The application is on‐hold until all of the following information is received:
1. Please locate all wetlands, streams, and open waters of the State as overlays on the site plan. The in‐line pond is
not shown on your site plan – please add this feature to the site plans. [15A NCAC 02H .0502].0502(a)(9)]
2. Please enumerate all wetland, stream, and open water impacts, including dissipator pads, headwalls, and
temporary impacts, on the site plan and clearly label impacts (Wetland/ Stream Impact 1, etc.). The Division
recommends highlighting by hatching or shading all impacts areas for temporary impact areas and permanent
impact areas. This information should align with the PCN impact table. A revised PCN impact table can be
submitted to DWR via email if necessary. [15A NCAC 02H .0502 (a)(9)]
3. As indicated under Item C.3.g (Page 13) of the USACE PCN Complete Help File “The stream impact length should
be measured along the centerline of the stream. When proposing a culvert, the impact length is generally
greater than the length of the culvert and associated dissipater since the existing stream usually has some
sinuosity (curvature).” Please verify or correct the stream impact length as indicated on the PCN form. Please
provide updated drawings and application materials (including Table of Impacts in the PCN form) that properly
show the length of impacts to the jurisdictional streams. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a) and (c)](a)(9)
4. Per Condition II. 8 of GC 4266, all work must be done “in the dry”. Therefore, dewatering methods will be
necessary to temporarily dewater stream UT1 during stream restoration activities. Please provide a
construction sequence that details the method of dewatering to be utilized at the site and the sequence of
construction events to be followed to ensure compliance with this condition. In addition, please ensure that the
location of temporary impacts are shown on the construction drawings and clearly indicated in the revised
impact table. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(1) and .0502(a) and (c)]
5. Thank you for avoiding the impacts to the upper portion of the UT to East Fork Pigeon River (Class WS‐III; Tr).
Please provide more details regarding avoidance and minimization of stream impacts for the portion of stream
west of the proposed ‘New Range Tee’. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)]
The Office believes that the proposed stream impact to install a culvert west of the ‘New Range Tee’ can
be avoided or minimized proposed. Please revise the plans to avoid the impacts outside of the
footprint for the proposed ‘New Range Tee’ or provide a detailed explanation of why this plan for the
activity cannot be practically accomplished, reduced or reconfigured to avoid impacts to the UT to East
Fork Pigeon River (Class WS‐III; Tr).
2
6. Per condition II. 11 of Water Quality Certification 4266, placement of culverts and other structures in waters and
streams must be below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than
48‐inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than or equal to 48 inches,
to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Please confirm whether this condition will be met and
update your plan and detail sheets to document this, or provide justification if the proposed culvert installations
do not meet this condition.
7. In order to show your project will be in compliance with Condition II. 11 in GC 4266, please provide a detail
showing the proper installation (below the streambed elevation) of the riprap pad at the culvert outlet in the UT
to East Fork Pigeon River (Class WS‐III; Tr).
8. Sheet C‐130 shows a proposed check dam outlet protection below the culvert outlet within the UT to East Fork
Pigeon River (Class WS‐III; Tr). Please discuss why this erosion control measure has been proposed for
installation within waters of the state. Per Condition II. 5 in GC 4266, the placement of erosion control measures
within waters shall not be conducted in a manner that results in dis‐equilibrium of any wetlands, streambeds, or
streambanks. Please discus how the installation of this check dam outlet protection will not create dis‐
equilibrium within waters of the state. If installation of this check dam is determined to not create dis‐
equilibrium, the footprint of the check dam outlet protection must be included within the PCN Impact table.
9. Sheet C‐130 shows a notation for sediment removal from the existing in‐line pond (UT to East Fork Pigeon River
(WS‐III; Tr)), however the pond is not shown on sheet C‐130. Please discuss the volume of sediment proposed
for removal, the equipment proposed to remove this material, the proposed location for dredge spoils, and how
water quality standards will not be contravened during this work. Please also discuss whether any wetlands
associated with the pond will be impacted as a result of this work. Please also show the existing in‐line pond
where this work is proposed on all plan sheets.
10. The Division has concerns regarding the proposed changes to the upper portion of the UT to East Fork Pigeon
River, in which a significant channel realignment and restoration has been proposed. After consultation with
Brooke Davis of US Army Corps of Engineers, both Agencies believe that the proposed channel realignment and
in‐stream structures do not have the necessary supporting materials to document the need for altering and hard
armoring the stream to this extent. Please see the options below.
a. Option 1; the preferred option: The plan, profile, and dimension of the existing stream channel will
remain as is and the streambanks will be pulled back to a 2:1 or 3:1 slope, streambanks will be stabilized
with coir matting, and a vegetated trout buffer will be established with temporary and native riparian
seed mix, straw, and live stakes. The channel will be monitored for a period of 24 months post‐
restoration, with documentation regarding streambank and channel stability provided to USACE and
DWR after 12 months and 24 months. If streambank or channel instability is observed, a proposal to
remediate this instability will be submitted to DWR and USACE.
b. Option 2: Provide a detailed engineering plan, longitudinal profile view, and cross‐section of the
proposed stream channel realignment and structures for the UT to East Fork Pigeon River. These
drawings must include proposed longitudinal slope and a proposed typical cross‐section of rock cross
vanes and rock bottom structures with dimensions (to scale) including channel cross‐sectional area,
bottom width, top width, streambank slopes, and channel depth. Provide justification for the proposed
channel realignment and channel dimensions, rock cross vane, and rock bottom structures based on
reference reach information or stable dimensions upstream and downstream of the impact area. Please
demonstrate how the channel has been sized appropriately to prevent future channel aggradation or
degradation. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a) and (c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)]
11. An existing culvert at the top of the UT to East Fork Pigeon River was observed by DWR staff in the field. Will this
culvert remain in place or be removed?
3
12. The proposed length of culvert shown on sheet C‐130 is 492 linear feet. Mitigation is required for losses of equal
to or greater than 300 linear feet of perennial stream and equal to or greater than 1/10 acre of wetlands. Please
provide a mitigation plan that conforms to the requirements of 15A NCAC 02H .0506(c).
If you are making a payment to satisfy mitigation requirements for this project, please provide a
mitigation acceptance letter from an appropriate mitigation bank or the NCDMS.
13. Please confirm with NC DEMLR whether a Trout Buffer Waiver will be required for any of the proposed work.
Stan Aiken and Fred Walker with NC DEMLR have been copied on this email.
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested information for the
proper consideration of the application. Please provide your response by April 10, 2023. If all of the requested
information is not received, the Division will be unable to approve the application and it will be denied as incomplete.
The denial of this project will necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application
package and the appropriate fee.
Amy Annino (she, her, hers)
Environmental Specialist II, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: (828) 296‐4656 | Cell: (984) 232‐1222
amy.annino@ncdenr.gov
From: Preston Gregg <PRengineering@outlook.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 12:12 AM
To: brooke.a.davis@usace.army.mil; Annino, Amy M <amy.annino@ncdenr.gov>; Tim V. Surrett
<tim.surrett@haywoodcountync.gov>
Subject: [External] RE: Springdale Update ‐ Full Plan Submittal
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Brooke,
Hope you are well. I am circling back from our discussions and meetings late last month regarding Springdale’s driving
range extension project. In the attached submittal we have finalized plans and believe it reflects the various agencies
comments regarding stream impact limits, wetland delineation and stream restoration.
Acer Environmental completed their site assessment on February 8th and has provided their report in the attached
document. The wetland area (~.076 acres) has been delineated with pink/blue ribbon onsite and has been surveyed by
Marty Owens Surveying to be reflected into the project plans attached.
4
Please note on sheet C‐100 (Demolition Plan) the total proposed stream impact on the project is 295’ (.011 acres).
Should you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to ask. We appreciate your time in the project and are
anxious to move forward on the site. Thank you,
Preston Gregg, PE
Principal
(828) 400‐9353
From: Preston Gregg
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 9:15 PM
To: brooke.a.davis@usace.army.mil; Annino, Amy M <amy.annino@ncdenr.gov>; Tim V. Surrett
<Tim.Surrett@haywoodcountync.gov>
Subject: Springdale Update
Brooke,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us last week onsite at Springdale. Springdale has contracted with Acer
Environmental who will be onsite later this week / weekend to evaluate and delineate the stream and wetland at the
proposed driving range extension project. I will let you know when the delineation has been completed in case you
want to see it marked on the ground. When we get a full report back from AE we will be revising the plans to show less
impact and address the wetland area. Appreciate your assistance in the project.
Preston Gregg, PE
Principal
(828) 400‐9353