20180765 Ver 1_WRC comments_20190116

Strickland, Bev
From: Leslie, Andrea J
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 2:30 PM
To: Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Clement Riddle; Kaylie Yankura
Cc: Homewood, Sue; Ratzlaff, Allen; Mitchell, Robert K
Subject: RE: [External] Topics to Discuss at High Hampton Redevelopment Meeting on Dec. 18
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Clement,
Yesterday, I went out to Stream Impact #18, where a culvert is proposed on the far western side of the project area.
This culvert would be on a stream that connects two large wetland systems, one to the west of the site and one on site.
NCWRC had asked for a spanning structure for this crossing, as it is a bedrock bottomed stream that connects the two
wetlands. As you described, there is a bedrock slide feature perhaps 100 - 150 ft downstream of the proposed crossing
location that likely serves as a fish barrier at most flows. We are still concerned about connectivity between the two
wetlands for amphibians.
We still recommend using some sort of spanning structure at the site, such as a bottomless culvert or bridge. If this is
not possible, we recommend a concrete culvert (concrete is easier for amphibians to move through in this case) with a
structure downstream of the culvert that backwaters the downstream end of the culvert to better allow passage for
amphibians. In this case, it is important to provide the culvert design for review so that we can provide advice to
minimize impacts to wildlife.
Andrea
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Rd., Building B
Marion, NC 28752
828-803-6054 (office)
828-400-4223 (cell)
www.ncwildlife.org
Get NC Wildlife Update delivered to your inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Brown, David W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Clement Riddle <[e-mail]>; Kaylie Yankura <[e-mail]>
Cc: Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Mitchell, Robert K <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>; Ratzlaff, Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Topics to Discuss at High Hampton Redevelopment Meeting on Dec. 18 (UNCLASSIFIED)

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Clement and Kaylie,
The following are the questions/comments the agencies have about the High Hampton Redevelopment project. These
are most of the topics to be discussed at the upcoming meeting on December 18.
1) Status of meeting(s) and activities with SHPO about concerns/impacts to 30 -acre High Hampton Inn Historic District.
2) Need USFWS concurrence/comments on Skybox Ecological Services report.
3) Need USFWS comments/concurrence on ME species report & update of July 2018.
4) Site protection instrument - HCLT conservation easement template provided, Corps' Office of Council is asking for use
of the Corps' conservation easement template.
5) The Corps will not accept the proposed stream preservation as on-site compensatory mitigation. The proposed
stream reaches are not in climax conditions; receive nutrient loads from the golf course; adjacent properties will remain
for development on steep slopes; proposed reaches are segmented and not intact; stream reaches and buffers are
distrurbed; preservation only of the proposed reaches will not provide an overall functional uplift.
6) Wetland preservation needs to have signage, invasive species control, and a funded endowment or some type of
finical assurance for long-term management of invasive species and annual inspection for compliance and restoration of
encroachments.
7) Need draft of final mitigation plan for review.
8) All mitigation for entire project (all Phases) to be completed prior of start of Phase I.
9) Will release 80% of 7Q10 from lake during drought conditions.
10) Will there be any water withdraws associated with the proposed on-site WWTP?
11) Need to have WWTP schedule tied to development Phases.
12) Recommended soil & erosion controls/design as those appropriate for HQW/ORW watersheds
13) Storm water plan approval.
14) In order to further explain the need for the golf course redesign, provide information noting the number of tee -times
which were available annually since 2013 and how many of these tee -times were not filled annually.
15) What is the expected life of the redesigned golf course?
16) Review impacts in watershed above Hole #17 and culvert at Hole #17.
17) Question Impact #18, is there bedrock present that will prevent pipe being set?
18) Review use of HDPE culverts.
19) Have you accounted for all temporary impacts for working in the dry?
20) Need for in -stream structure(s) on downstream side of culverts to slow velocity and dissipate energy.
21) Review Alternative Analysis 2 on figure 7.1.
See you on the 18th.
Thanks,
David
David Brown, PG
Regulatory Specialist/Geologist
USACE Wilmington District -Asheville Regulatory Field Office

151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
828-271-7980, ext. 4232
[e-mail]
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED