20231466 Ver 1_More Info Requested_20231206

Baker, Caroline D
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 8:42 AM
To: 'Dave Weikle'
Cc: Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information for SIMS Legion Park Landfill -
Gaston County - DWR#20231466
Hello David,
I'm sorry but these answers don't quite address my comments. Please see below.
Thanks,
Sue Homewood (she/her/hers)
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
[e-mail] please note my new email address
336 813 1863 mobile
919-707-3679 office
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Dave Weikle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:07 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information for SIMS Legion Park Landfill - Gaston County -
DW R#20231466
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Please see below
Dave Weikle
Engineer V
4301 Taggart Creek Rd., Charlotte, NC 28208
Office 704.394.6913 1 Cell 704.604.5215
E-mail [e-mail]
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 11:11 AM

To: Dave Weikle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information for SIMS Legion Park Landfill - Gaston County - DWR#20231466
Hello Dave,
I know we spoke about this project before you submitted the PCN, but in previous discussions I did not review the
proposed design carefully. Now that I have reviewed the application in detail, I require additional information to
complete my review of the application. Please address the items below within 30 days of receipt of this email. Please
note that the application will be considered "on hold" until a complete response is received.
1. The Division typically requires that work be conducted so that the flowing channel does not come in contact
with the work area in order to ensure protection of downstream water quality. Please explain how the channel
work will be completed to meet this requirement. We plan on using stone check dams and/or wattles. We are
also asking the contractor to have poly -plastic matting on -hand to use on the embankments during rain events
to help minimize erosion while construction is underway in this area. We require that the flowing water in the
channel be routed around the area while you conduct the work. Typically this is done with a pump around, or a
diversion pipe/channel. Using instream erosion control measures is not sufficient within a flowing
channel. Please design a diversion/pump around system to be used while the new culvert and stream work are
being conducted. If the channel is dry as you note below, you could provide us with a detailed construction
sequence that states work will not be conducted if there's flow, and at the end of each work day the entire area
will be stabilized. In my experience contractors are only willing to make this commitment for very short
duration projects as it reduces the time they can work on the project.
2. The plans proposed for the channel to be restored using erosion control matting within the streambed. The
Division does not allow for matting within the streambed. Please revise the plans to show matting above the
normal water line. Will the Division allow the use of temporary matting to allow for any seeding to take
root? We've been to the site for various reasons and each time our guys are out there, that storm pipe is not
carrying water. We think it's fed just during storm events. The attached shows all the bio and photo degradable
mattings that meet design standards. I understand your point, however we do not allow for matting, even
temporary matting, within a jurisdictional stream channel, even one that is only a seasonal channel. Stream
channels rarely develop vegetation so saying the matting would be only until vegetation grows wouldn't be valid
if this has been determined to be a stream. Your design already accounts for riprap erosion control. If that has
been designed sufficiently then additional matting would not be justified. You may use biodegradable matting
on the banks above the normal water level.
3. The impact table provided in the application indicates 203 feet of bank stabilization and 55 feet of culvert
extension. Since the proposed project involves excavation and reconstruction of the stream bed, please provide
an updated impact table showing the length of stream channel that is to be reconstructed as part of the
work. Any bank stabilization beyond the streambed reconstruction should be listed separately as bank
stabilization impacts. Understood but I'm not sure how to access the original PCN to make
changes. Unfortunately there's no way to access the original ePCN again. Just send me an updated table in
word or excel format, that will suffice to replace the original one.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these items.
Thanks,
Sue Homewood (she/her/hers)
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
[e-mail] please note my new email address
336 813 1863 mobile
919-707-3679 office

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.