Engineering USACE Brooke Davis Response-Springdale

MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 3

TO: Brooke Davis
Senior Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

FROM: Preston Gregg, P.E.
PR Engineering, PLLC

DATE: December 7, 2022

RE: SAW-2022-02436
Springdale Golf Course Driving Range Expansion
Cruso, Haywood County, NC

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and my team on November 30, 2022, regarding
the permitting and mitigation requirements for the proposed Springdale Golf Course Driving
Range Expansion. At your direction we have examined the proposed piping network to evaluate
if any greater amount of a stream (intermittent or perennial) can be reasonably and effectively re-
established. Three areas of interest were evaluated:

A.) The most upstream portion of the intermittent stream/drainage swale.
B.) The downstream terminus of the 24-inch pipe conveying the intermittent stream/drainage
swale.
C.) A segment of reach downstream of the proposed tee-box and just upstream of Country Club
Drive crossing.

The figures below show the grading and drainage plan in these areas.

Page 2 of 3
Figure A: Most upstream portion of the intermittent stream/drainage swale

Figure B: Downstream terminus of the 24-inch pipe conveying the intermittent stream/drainage
swale

Figure C: Segment of reach downstream of the proposed tee-box and just upstream of Country
Club Drive crossing

Various alternatives for the areas under consideration were evaluated. The necessary grading of
the site was a significant limiting factor against the alternatives. For example, both the upstream
and downstream termini of the 24” drainage pipe are located just outside of the cut/fill limits and
cut/fill slopes are already designed to minimize the overall footprint of the disturbance.
Similarly, when evaluating the removal of a length of pipe between the proposed tee box and
Country Club Drive, the potential for daylighting this run of pipe beyond the toe of the fill slope
of the proposed tee-box is complicated to the point of impractical by the invert of the pipe, which
is necessarily ±6 feet below grade.

Page 3 of 3
Moreover, we apologize for the confusion caused when we inadvertently submitted the incorrect
data in our initial PCN permit request. As we explained during our meeting, we mistakenly
calculated the impact using the diameter of the proposed drainage pipe instead of the actual
width of the current stream. With this recalculation (.014 acres), this project should be under the
mitigation threshold for golf recreation uses such as this one.

Therefore, after careful consideration, we do not recommend any changes to the proposed piping
network.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at [phone].

Sincerely,

Preston R. Gregg, PE
Principal 12/7/2022
PR Engineering, PLLC
[e-mail]