20140843 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20150803

Price, Zan (George)
From: Brown, David W SAW <David.W.Brown @usace.army.mil>
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 11:36 AM
To: Price, Zan (George)
Cc: Jones, Scott SAW
Subject: RE: Wetland Question Regarding Stormwater - Jule Noland Site (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Zan,
During the site meetings for this project the Corps did not state a wet detention type structure built in high - ground
would not be allowed. Discussions were had during the meetings about using the jurisdictional wetland at the site for a
stormwater treatment unit. The Corps did state the Wilmington District does not typically authorize impacts to
jurisdictional aquatic resources that result in their use as or a conversion to stormwater treatment units and our
Regional Condition 4.17.1 prohibits discharges into wetlands and perennial streams for these types of facilities.
Thanks,
David Brown, PG
Regulatory Specialist /Geologist
828 - 271 -7980, ext. 232
david.w.brown @usace.army.mil
USACE Wilmington District - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801 -5006
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Jones, Scott SAW
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 11:57 AM
To: Price, Zan (George)
Cc: Brown, David W SAW
Subject: RE: Wetland Question Regarding Stormwater - Jule Noland Site (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Zan -
Thanks for your message.
Assuming that the jurisdictional wetland area would become a part of the NPDES permitted stormwater treatment
facility / works, the short answer to your question is that the District does not typically authorize impacts to
jurisdictional aquatic resources that result in their use as / conversion to stormwater treatment units. For example,
NWP 43 authorizes stormwater management facilities; however, Wilmington District NWP Regional Condition 4.17.1
prohibits discharges into wetlands and perennial streams for these types of facilities.

Since I have not attended the multiple site meetings that have occurred at the Jule Noland Project, I am unable to
definitively corroborate any he said / she said claims made during any Corps site visits. However, it is extremely unlikely
that Corps personnel would have stated to a project proponent that a particular component "would not be allowable"
knowing that the project was a candidate for a standard permit review. Following a cursory review of the project file, I
find no mention of such a statement being communicated to the applicant and /or their representative. It is more likely
that any discussion regarding the use of a wet detention pond could result in greater impacts to jurisdictional aquatic
resources on the site and might not meet typical avoidance and minimization measures to reduce overall impacts
because said treatment units can typically be designed and constructed in uplands. The use of jurisdictional aquatic
resources as stormwater treatment facilities has previously met with opposition from commenting state and federal
resource agencies (like DWR).
As you are aware, David Brown, the Regulatory Specialist in my office handling this project, is away on vacation. He is
copied on this message and will provide any additional information as needed upon his return.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
Scott Jones
CESAW -RG -A
828.271.7980, ext. 222
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Price, Zan (George) [mailto:Zan.Price @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Jones, Scott SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wetland Question Regarding Stormwater - Jule Noland Site
Scott,
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) is still working with the owner of the Jule Noland Drive site in Haywood County
to resolve some outstanding issues with the required stormwater management plan needed for a 401 approval. The
owner and his engineer have claimed that the Army Corps of Engineers stated that a wet detention pond would not be
allowable at this site. Since this is a high density site, DWR requires that stormwater runoff from the entire site be
treated by structural stormwater controls (BMPs) that are designed to remove eighty -five percent (85 %) of the average
annual amount of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The engineer has proposed dry detention basins for two of the four
drainage areas at this site. Per the state stormwater BMP manual, dry detention basins only provide 50% TSS removal
credit. The engineer stated in a letter to DWR dated July 12, 2015, "As noted on the plan sheet SW2, natural
conveyance into the wetland will also be utilized to remove the sediment and to sustain the vitality of the wetland."
Does the Corps typically allow a jurisdictional wetland to be used for sediment removal and stormwater treatment?
Note that this portion of the wetland is not included in their impact area. It is labelled "retain wetland area 2.2 acres"
on their map submittal.
I appreciate your comments on this issue.

Regards,
Zan Price, P.E.
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Assistant Regional Supervisor - Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
ph.: 828 - 296 -4500
fax: 828 - 299 -7043
email: zan.price @ncdenr.gov <mailto:zan.price @ncdenr.gov>
website: www.ncwaterquality.org < http: / /www.ncwaterquality.org />
Notice: Per Executive Order No. 150, all emails sent to and from this account are subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
3