HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171630 Ver 1_More Info Received_20180615Homewood, Sue
From: Chris Hopper <chris.hopper@carolinaeco.com>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 8:12 AM
To: Homewood, Sue
Cc: Elliott, William A CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Leslie, Andrea J
Subject: [External] RE: N. Wilkesboro Sewer
Attachments: 01 -03-2018-Land Quality S and EC Plan Approval.pdf
Thanks, Sue.
When I referred to 'near perpendicular', I meant in the traditional sense (90 degrees), as this was a focus of our last
updates to the project. I reached out to the engineers and verified that all are crossing streams within the 75-105 degree
angle.
The Erosion Control Plan was approved (that approval is attached).
We can remove this crossing (its impacts aren't counted toward this project). It's the USACE's single and complete
requirement I'd intended to show (the future connection can be built using a NWP 12, and the owner recognizes its
impacts would be additional). Unless William objects, we will remove that from the PCN application.
Thanks,
Chris Hopper
CAROLINA ECOSYSTEMS INC.
(919) 274-5979
www.carolinaeco.com
From: Homewood, Sue [mailto:sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:37 PM
To: Chris Hopper <chris.hopper@carolinaeco.com>
Cc: Elliott, William A CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <William.A.Elliott@usace.army.mil>; Leslie, Andrea J
<andrea.leslie@ncwildlife.org>
Subject: N. Wilkesboro Sewer
Chris,
With regards to this project I have a couple questions/concerns about the submittal that we received on May 30, 2018:
When you use the term "near perpendicular" you mean outside of the 75-105 degree angle required by the General
Certification, correct? In other worlds that's where they need an exception to that requirement?
You note that a perpendicular tie-in coming from the west ties into the corridor at station 38+60 and that it will cross
Stream SA. Then you note that the location and impacts are subject to change. When I issue a 401 approval it explicitly
states that it is for the plans/designs submitted. So, they either figure this out now for certain or they would be out of
compliance in the future if it isn't in the location proposed, or take it off this submittal and seek approval for that
crossing in a subsequent permit.
With regards to Branch 4B St. 4+00 through 12+00, you indicate that they cannot increase the distance between the
corridor and the parallel stream due to constraints of housing and topography, which I understand. My experience with
these types of situations is that it is very difficult for the contractor to excavate a trench, remove/stock pile the excess
soil, have accessibility for line installation/equipment and restore the area without the need for streambank disturbance
from vegetation clearing and/or equipment access. I will be requiring temporary dewatering of the parallel channel in
this area. They would have to dewater immediately adjacent to their work area each day. Also they will have to
stabilize the site at the end of each work day and not open more than they can construct in a day. I'll also require a pre -
construction meeting. Can you please discuss this with the engineer and applicant and make sure they understand the
additional requirements that I propose and if we need to talk about it in more detail prior to permit issuance we
can. Also, can you verify that DEMLR will approve an erosion control plan for this area? They have a standard 15' buffer
requirement to all streams.
Thanks,
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
Sue. Homewood@ncdenr.gov
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
CDft
Pit -
C n C• O poll
r+..CDCD �.
CD ^'"J
CD CD p r n ~
Pot C Z *021
CDhL
m rtJ�► '� r� L�.S�.II
1mcw
r ~ G3 EAfD
�yJ
64
CD
CD podsCDy
~•
CD
11
r.r p �• O Vt � �+
�• p .1 J
CD
�CDNr'N�¢'
A ff~• y p
• mks
CD'Jog.
c
LIM
IrD
CD`., p