20080680 Ver 1_More Info Received_20080911

Savannah's Garden
ect: Savannah's Garden
From: "Jennifer Archambault" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:04:18 -0400
To: "Ken Averitte" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Scott Matthews" <[e-mail]>, "Ron Jackson"
<[e-mail]>, "JHC" <[e-mail]>, "Ian McMillan"
<[e-mail]>, "Annette Lucas" <[e-mail]>
Ken,
Jay forwarded me your message from yesterday. We are aware that the project was placed on hold with
the June 17 letter, and we did receive a copy at the office. Based on your question regarding whether the
engineer is aware, I assume that nobody is talking at DWQ. (They are aware and have been in contact
with DWQ!) Here's a chronology of our efforts to get things resolved since receiving the June 17 letter:
- I emailed Ian on July 1 (copied you, Mr. Jackson, & engineers) asking how the >24% was determined,
since the impervious calcs we submitted totaled 23.41%. I asked if it was due to Phase I's individual total
of 24.2%. I also stated that the client was not interested in the SMP route & would prefer to redesign the
project to get below the threshold. I got an auto-response from his inbox that he'd be out until the next
day.
- Ian called on the 2nd and told Jan Goodson that the engineers needed to talk to Annette Lucas (I was
out of the office from 7/2-7/12). She passed on her contact information to Neal Smith Engineering
(NSE). Apparently Annette was out until 7/14.
- On 7/24, I asked NSE if Annette had returned their calls yet, and also emailed her myself, hoping to
stoke the fire, as we were already over 1 month past the DWQ letter. I didn't get a response from her,
but to my knowledge, she called NSE that day and left the conversation with the intention to check on
some information and get back to them.
Since the line of communication seemed open between Annette and NSE (and Ian said those two needed
to do the talking), I haven't pestered anyone about this stagnating project.
- 8/21 was my last note on this project, that Annette contacted NSE (a full month later) to say that an
SMP would be required unless the design was brought below the 24% impervious. I don't believe there
was any explanation of whether Phase I was the SMP trigger or whether DWQ came up with the SMP
requirement by some other means. Scott (NSE) also mentioned to me that in their conversation, Annette
seemed unaware of the history or urgency of this project, that there was an NOV issued and that we need
to get moving to get it into compliance. Really, after a month? Understandably, I was shocked and
frustrated to hear that ...it seems that if there was effective communication at DWQ, someone could have
made her aware (or that she would have discovered in that month time span) that this is not just a
proposed project - that we're trying to get this property into compliance, that we have a restoration plan
that needs to be set in motion and that we originally submitted this after-the-fact permit application (at
DWQ's request/ mandate) on April 9.... 4 1/2 months before this date.
I was lying somewhat dormant at this point, under the assumption that either the project was undergoing
revision or that an SMP would have to be submitted.
I'm not sure what, if any, communication has transpired since that date. What I do know is that Mr.
Jackson visited my office Tuesday morning in somewhat of a panic with a DWQ letter that was faxed
1 of 2 9/12/2008 9:36 AM
Savannah's Garden
from his lawyer's office the day before... the letter was dated June 24 and indicated that J. Carter & Assoc.
was copied. I can confidently say that this office never received a copy of that letter. (While I regularly
do receive copied correspondence via email or post, I can recall at least 2 other times in the last year or so
that I had to get a copy of a letter from a client who was wondering why we hadn't contacted them.) I do
understand that oversights happen and I'm sure that was the case here.
Mr. Jackson's main concern Tuesday was that the Restoration Plan Approval (the June 24 letter) requires
the restoration plan to be implemented by Dec. 1 (as does his 404 permit by the way), but that the 401
process has been very slow. I realize that the restoration plan is separate from the 401, but until we have
a determination on whether the SMP is required, the Erosion Sediment Control plan can't be approved,
and we need that before we can start pushing dirt around out there for the restoration process.
I've gone through the effort to outline all of this for a couple reasons. First, if you or anyone else copied,
has been out of the loop, you're caught up now. Also, I wanted all parties to be aware that we've spent an
appreciable amount of time trying to get and provide answers, and we all really need to move toward
resolution in a timely manner from this point forward. I value the working relationship we have with
DWQ and am in no way trying to slight anyone's work. From my perspective and past experiences
though, it seems like projects get passed between people and offices sometimes without the full story,
thereby bogging down progress... which is why I've copied everyone today (and in most of my
correspondence). If we are to plant trees (already ordered) and install monitoring wells this winter, we
need the restoration to happen on time.
NSE provided new proposed impervious calculations to my office this morning. In my part to help
expedite the process from this point forward, I've attached a letter to DWQ with new calcs. Please
excuse the clarity of the 2nd page, as I had to scan it in with my signature. I will mail hard copies to your
office and to Ian's office. Note that the new proposed impervious area (for each phase and total) is below
24%, thereby relieving the SMP requirement.
I hope that this will be that catalyst in gaining closure on this project. If anyone has questions or
concerns, please contact me at your convenience.
Thanks so much,
Jennifer
Jennifer M. Archambault
Wildlife Biologist
Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
515 - F Midland Road
Southern Pines, NC 28387
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[phone] (mobile)
letter to DWQ 9-11-08.pdf Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
2 of 2 9/12/2008 9:36 AM
DR. J.H. CARTER III & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Environmental Consultants
P.O. Box 891 • Southern Pines, N.C. 28388
[phone] • Fax [phone]
II September 2008
Mr. ]an McMillan
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Savannah's Garden subdivision
DWQ Project #08-0680, Moore County
Dear Mr. McMillan:
This letter is in reference to the after-the-fact permit application for impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands at the Savannah's Garden subdivision in Carthage, Moore County, North Carolina. The
amount of proposed impervious area onsite has been an issue that we have been working to resolve
since receiving your letter, dated 17 June 2008. This task has required collaboration with Mr. Ron
Jackson, Neal Smith Engineering, Inc. (NSE) and Division of Water Quality personnel at the Central
and Fayetteville Regional Offices.
The impervious area calculations we submitted on 8 May 2008 listed a total impervious area of
23.41 %, with 24.20% in Phase I and 19.37% in Phase II. These figures were calculated using worst
case built-out conditions, including a greater percentage of high impervious dwellings and generous
driveways and sidewalks. After providing these calculations, you responded with the June 17 letter
stating that "DWQ determined that the drainage areas in this project exceed 24% impervious." Despite
communication with DWQ on a few occasions, we never got a clear explanation of how that
determination was made and can only assume that the impervious area of Phase I triggered the
response.
The new proposed impervious area calculations (attached) provided by NSE are based on the
most likely built-out conditions, rather than the worst case scenario. NSE staff conferred with Mr.
Jackson about reasonable revisions to the project design and visited the Savannah's Garden
subdivision to measure existing driveways, sidewalks and dwelling footprints. Driveways and
sidewalks typically measured 500 ft2 per lot, which is 320 ft2 smaller than the proposed calculations
Endangered Species Surveys • Environmental Assessments • Land Management • Wetlands Mapping and Permitting
submiued in Nlay. Ile calculations submitted in Wy also assumed that ineu p (%vorst cage) (if the
pr<Towd lots "YWd be built using a dvv Hing design OwIt had a larger than awrape imperviOLIS
footprint. ;After the site v i,_:it. INSI: determined that a smaller percenlage of lire built Ims than expected
used life Aar+,cst clcman, Ile new L: leul,aijoris use a inure realistic aver,lt^e A IfIlc expected irripcrv
mea Am d.?eilin??s. driVe\\a\ws and sideua[ks
I kw: ite\\ 11rt`posed inlper\'W area Wr Phase I IS S W tia" 12130 A 141ptsal Inlp':i it u?
Jlet: fl>r Phase His 715 acr , t iSSANV Ile tlgW pRjwscd iil1perbttas arca No tale IvIcet is
alTl?I NIt)I Itc'i\ l2. ;iC'RS. t l' 21+W of the it t<d 1TrriCCt area, Sle We att,Il'lled sheet tiir a full Win,'!
A AR C<tlcitlatWS. This pri) L. as dcsignaL Ialls hcb" lint' 24`'4 ri 1wr%.wgrs tilrc'stiotd that \\?A11w.1
r-,etu I-C a Stornivr;iter ?L1n:1??elZarnt Plan. ors sct forth in GC 37 5-
]t is iniperali\c their "\e me>\ c f'or\?ard with this project Ili it thlicIN nianner in order to `ter fkis
,`ropcrl? into colliphance with State and fedcral \\ellali{Is laws and to I1ilplemeiii the appro%rd
Weilands and Stream itesto atWn Ptarl b; the 1)eccrnber 1 dcadhne. We rcceivcd the at*fer-the-Iacl -01-I
perinit (Nationv1ldc Pernlit \o 9) from the t'S Army (? qw of 1inginccr.s on 0 1111v 2M I lAchon H-)
ti;?\l 20 06-4008N-00.1)_ Once vie recent 401 ('ertificadW1 AMn WILIr c?llICC. ?v, can Ill tnc f'urvvard
with b<llh fill ti:?atii-Ill gild restoration of vy ctl Inds at the Savannifs Sullen subdk ision.
hinuict nle "IM any questions re parcfing this prcljcct_ YOU nuiv JISO ccutlacit N'Ir. SCOtt
%Iatthcus ot'NSl directly at f9if}) 6954825 »'ith ap questions reL'ardin', the inlperv'ious area
calrulatilna tar prnject dcsi?'li. Please ?11s1 C001-dina1[e with Mr, KV11 A%eritlc at Sour 1_)AI) Inyvhm; ill:
I\e,'Wnal Office ri:t!roding ins prtacu 119ank you W %our tulle.
?inc?.:rel\.
it JeI ni'cr Z1. Arcinunbauh
Wildlife 131ihHY
t'.IleiU5l11'U:: RC\'iWd inipQrii- m-3 calcufutions
('f': Mr. Ron Jacksom Quahq But Iknuts. inc.
W Ken r1vcrittc, N(:[)\\,r0) l:aycttevilie fZcLticln,tl ()fficc
itiU Unctte Lucas. 10CI)WO) Stonllwler Branch
Nis. 1001; Burgin. WHniNgini RcuuIalory Field Ol'licc, t'S. CL
NIr. 5cou Ntatthevvs, \,eal Smith 1: inccr•irn'., Inc.
Savannah's Garden - Impervious Area Calculations (Revision)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Phase 1
Total 21.63 Acres
Road Area 2.15 Acres
# of Lots 55.00
Avg. lot Coverage 55 lots @ 1,800 SF 99000 SF
Avg. Driveway and Sidewalk 55 lots @ 500 SF 27500 SF
Total Lot Coverage 2.90 Acres
Impervious Area 5.05 Acres
Total Area 21.63 Acres
% Impervious Area 23.37%
Phase 2
Total 41.79 Acres
Road Area 3.00 Acres
# of Lots 90.00
Avg. Dwelling Coverage 90 lots @ 1,800 SF 162000 SF
Avg. Driveway and Sidewalk 90 lots @ 500 SF 45000 SF
Total Lot Coverage 4.75 Acres
Impervious Area 7.75 Acres
Total Area 41.79 Acres
% Impervious Area 18.55%
Proiect Totals
Total Area 63.42 Acres
Road Area 5.15 Acres
# of Lots 145.00
Phase 1 Lot Coverage 2.90 Acres
Phase 2 Lot Coverage 4.75 Acres
Jurisdictional Wetlands 6.48 Acres
Impervious Area 12.81 Acres
Total Project Area 56.94 Acres
22.49%