HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE [External] RE Springdale Update - Full Plan Submittal (2)1
Winston, Joey
From:Preston Gregg <PRengineering@outlook.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2023 8:47 AM
To:Annino, Amy M
Cc:Leslie, Andrea J; brooke.a.davis@usace.army.mil; Tim V. Surrett; Lex West;
jasonmiller.mail@gmail.com
Subject:RE: [External] RE: Springdale Update - Full Plan Submittal
Attachments:SPRINGDALE DRIVING RANGE EXPANSION PERMITTING REV 3.pdf; SPRINGDALE DRIVING RANGE
EXPANSION - PCN WITH UPDATED IMPACT TABLE.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Amy,
Attached please find the third revision to Springdale’s Driving Range Ext. Project and updated PCN Table. Comments are
provided in red in your previous email thread below. Thank you,
Preston Gregg, PE
Principal
(828) 400‐9353
From: Annino, Amy M <amy.annino@ncdenr.gov>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Preston Gregg <prengineering@outlook.com>; Timber West <timberdwest@gmail.com>
Cc: brooke.a.davis@usace.army.mil; Leslie, Andrea J <andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org>; Tim V. Surrett
<tim.surrett@haywoodcountync.gov>; Aiken, Stan E <stan.aiken@ncdenr.gov>; Walker, Fred
<fred.walker@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Springdale Update ‐ Full Plan Submittal
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:
2
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)] All
project notes relating to the pond north of Golfwatch Rd. have been removed and are considered off project
limits. Previous notes indicated on plans were for routine maintenance activities only.
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)] Stream impacts are noted on demolition
plan and have been updated to show permanent impacts of the upper tributary. As requested these areas are
also shown on the site plan.
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) TS Fred
obliterated the existing impoundment in August of 2021. Per direction of ACOE existing impoundment will not
be restored and the stream impact have been measured from edge of former impoundment along centerline of
the creek to proposed headwall. Total length of impact is 295’ which matches PCN.
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)] A temporary stream diversion has been added to
the plan and temporary stream impact length has been noted on the PCN.
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). While we appreciate your opinion we disagree. Various
alternatives for this area have been evaluated and previously submitted to USACE. The owner is
committed to being a good steward of the environment while at the same time he retains his right to
develop the property responsibly. We believe the plans submitted do this very thing and have already
gained approval through USACE. Because of the nature of the use, an open channel creates a safety
issue. The elevations is 6’ below. Moreover, the use of the property is a driving range; therefore, an
open channel will undoubtedly receive a large portion of golf balls and require maintenance in the
open channel will be unsafe. In addition to, quality riparian environmental will be rendered practically
unsustainable.
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,
3
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. Additional notion has been added to plan and details to ensure this detail is clear.
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). This was inadvertently placed on the plan and has been removed.
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. This was inadvertently placed on the plan and has been removed.
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. Sedimentation removal of the existing pond is located off
project limits and is considered a maintenance item. This notation has been removed from the plan set and will
not be in the scope of this project.
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)] 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?
4
While I appreciate your concerns, and take responsibility for a portion of them, I respectfully disagree your
conclusions and the option presented as the Division’s “Preferred Option.” First, I’ll address my concerns with
Option 1, and then I will respond to some of your concerns and requests as it relates to what the Division has
termed Option 2.
While Option 1 presents itself as the simplest in construction, the required monitoring period and undefined
future acceptability parameters ultimately render this option untenable and unpractical.
1.) First, it is unclear whether the Division is requiring monthly documentation or merely documentation after
year one then again after year two.
2.) Second, the documentation required is undefined. This seems to be a special case outside of typical
permitting protocol, which at the first indicates that the Division has wide latitude regarding what rules it can
choose to enforce and not enforce. And in the second, also indicates that the documentation and the end
definition of what is acceptable at year one and year two is also capricious in nature. Without well defined
targets established with some sense of precedent, this Option seems to leave both me as the Engineer of Record
and the Owner trying to satisfy the whim of the regulator without any idea of exactly what that may look like at
the time.
3.) Thirdly, Option 1 seems to ignore the incising due to slope and lack of meander of the stream in its present
condition. Particularly at its upstream limits, the stream is already showing evidence of long term stability.
Therefore, not addressing the stream restoration appropriately merely puts off what will eventually be
necessary.
4.) Fourthly, in the event that more remediation is needed (a scenario that seems likely), Option 1 will be quite
costly from an environmental impact perspective and a construction perspective. Future remediation will
require re‐mobilization of a qualified contractor except this time the bounds of the site will be much more
restrictive because of the proposed improvements that will be installed now. A tighter construction limit also
makes working in a “de‐watered” condition much more difficult to achieve, re‐exposing the site creates
additional erosion control issues.
With regard to Option 2, it is important for the Division to realize that the stream restoration plan as submitted
in February followed the design guidelines as presented in “Stream Restoration – A Natural Channel Design
Handbook” prepared by the North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant. As
recommended in this guide and widely accepted as the Best Management Practice, preference was given to a
nearby reference reach. The reference reach is an offsite portion of the UT to East Fork Pigeon River. The
reference reach is located NE of the existing wetland on the “George Property.” (Latitude 35.443, Longitude ‐
82.808). Design calculations were the basis of the plans as submitted; however, they were not submitted with
the revised PCN. They will be provided if you need them.
Now relative to the comments in the first paragraph and the requirements in part “b. Option 2,” please consider
the following:
1.) The need for altering the stream is plainly evident by the incising that is already occurring along the upper
portion of what the Division has termed elsewhere in its review as UT1. The need for proper restoration of this
UT1 is not a new development in the history of the project since we were called in to help bring this site into
compliance. In our earliest conversations with you and Tim Surrett (Haywood County), there was broad
agreement that the stream should be restored to a more natural form. This was also the conclusion of our most
recent on site meeting with Haywood County and USACE to which you were invited but unfortunately unable to
attend.
2.) Is the Division referring to pool‐riffle complexes with shallow cobble steps and rock vanes as hard armoring?
Or did the Division assume the graphic depiction on the plan set was a rip‐rap armoring of the creek bottom?
Pool‐riffle complexes that match that of the reference reach and natural character of the stream are not
typically referred to hard armoring. Hard armoring would be more akin to placing riprap along the stream
bottom, which is not part of the restorative design. The details make clear the small extent of these measures,
and the supporting documentation shows that when considering the reference reach, the pool‐pool spacing is 4
5
feet. Furthermore, the reference reach has a pool‐riffle system with 1‐foot elevation drops in steep areas and 2‐
3” drops in others. These drops are commonly achieved with rock cross‐vanes for larger elevation changes
(e.g.1’) and cobble sections for smaller elevation changes ((e.g. 2‐3”). These are both well established Best
Management Practices. I disagree with the Division’s assessment of them as hard armoring.
3.) As stated above, even assuming the best intentions of offering Option 1, that Option 1 is even an option at all
seems to indicate that the Division has wide latitude regarding what rules it can choose to enforce and not
enforce. Some of the requests within “b. Option 2” seem to be beyond what is necessary for the UT reach at
hand, and to be frank, they seem to be an unveiled attempt to force Option 1. Nevertheless, the plans have all
the necessary information for a successful stream restoration to be achieved. The plans follow common
engineering practice, reflect the elements addressed by the Stream Restoration – A Natural Channel Design
Handbook,” and resemble an example plan set of a much larger project previously permitted by the Division and
made available online by NCDEQ.
4.) Detailed engineering plans are submitted once again. With this submission, we have included the longitudinal
profile view. The profile shows the existing and proposed longitudinal stream slope.
5.) Cross‐sections of the proposed stream channel realignment and pool‐riffle structures were part of the
original submittal, and are included once again. These typical details include cross‐sectional area, bottom width,
top width, streambank slopes, and channel depth.
6.) Typical cross‐section of rock cross vanes with dimensions were included with the original submittal, and are
included once again. These typical details are representative and, along with the profile and plan set, include the
dimensions necessary to place them successfully.
7.) The rock bottom structures has been renamed to “shallow cobble step section” in order to reduce the
potential for a contractor to assume, without looking at the details, that he is dumping riprap into the stream.
The detail for the shallow cobble step section was previously included in the original submission.
8.) As is commonly accepted engineering practice, these typical details are not drawn to scale; however, they
are well labeled and dimensioned. Requiring typical details to be drawn to scale is unnecessary.
8.) Justification is provided 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. Future channel aggradation or degradation has also been considered.
11. 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.
It is our position that plans submitted do not require mitigation. Per conversations and onsite meetings with Brooke
Davis, the old impoundment is not included in the impact length of stream. The portion of stream near Goldwatch
Rd. only exists now in the old impoundment location due to the fact everyone wanted the area “cleaned up”
following TS Fred. We assume it is everyone’s desire to NOT put back the old impoundment; therefore, this area has
not been included in the impact length. Impact length is less than 300 linear feet. Also, no wetlands are proposed
to being disturbed.
12. 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.
6
Fred has passed me off to Laura Christiansen. I’m attempting to make contact but have not had success yet. We will
obtain whatever TBW they require.
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.
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
7
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