December 28, 2021

Mr. Cliff Weaver

Red Mill Crossings, LLC
1737 W. Main Street
Ephrata, PA 17522

Re: Technical Deficiency Letter

Red Mill Crossing
NPDES Permit Application No. PAD670053
Newberry Township, York County

Dear Mr. Weaver:

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the York County Conservation District
(District) have reviewed the above referenced application and has identified the technical
deficiencies listed below. The Pennsylvania Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program
Manual (E&S Manual) and the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual
(BMP Manual) include information that may aid you in responding to some of the deficiencies
listed below. The deficiencies are based on applicable laws and regulations, and the guidance
sets forth DEP’s established means of satisfying the applicable regulatory and statutory
requirements.

The technical deficiencies void the permit decision guarantee and any agreements that have been
made regarding the timeline for the permit application review. DEP will continue to follow the
permit review process procedures in the review and processing of this permit application.

Technical Deficiencies

E&S Plan [identified by the District unless otherwise noted]

1. Please provide an updated YCCD Application for District Services and a Fee for District
Services in the amount of $2887.50 with the next submission. [25 Pa. Code §102.6(a)(1)]

2. All soil limitations (see Table E.1 of the march 2012 E&S Manual (pages 401-409) and the
2002 York County Soil Survey -Tables 12,14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20) have not been
addressed in the plan narrative (for example, high water table-dewatering work areas, basins,
& traps under construction, establishing vegetation). [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(ii)]

3. Provide DEP standard Notes 5 and 20-25 on the E&S plan drawing. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(ii)]

4. The limits of disturbance provided on the E&S plan drawing cut across the sanitary sewer
easement near the Red Mill Road crossing. Revise appropriately. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(iii)]

Waterways & Wetlands Program

Southcentral Regional Office | 909 Elmerton Avenue | Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200 | 717.705.4802 | F 717.705.4760
www.dep.pa.gov
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -2- December 28, 2021

5. The maximum during construction drainage areas for all sediment basins, traps and channels
have not been provided with the E&S plan drawings. Technical review of the BMP design
cannot be completed without correct drainage areas. Revise as appropriate. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(iv)]

6. The 100-year floodway boundary has not been provided on the E&S plan drawing for the
UNT to Fishing Creek. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(v)]

7. The 100-year floodway provided for Fishing Creek is shown outside of the floodplain (see
sheet 4 of 10). Clarify and revise as appropriate. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(v)]

8. DEP Standard Note 9 under the general E&S notes section stating, “Immediately upon
discovering unforeseen circumstances posing the potential for accelerated erosion and/or
sediment pollution, the operator shall implement appropriate best management practices to
minimize the potential for accelerated erosion and/or sediment pollution and notify the York
County Conservation District” has not been provided on the E&S plan drawing. Revise as
appropriate. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vi)]

9. Perimeter BMPs have not been provided for:

a. The installation of proposed culvert 1 in stage 2 of the construction sequence and culverts
2 & 3 in stage 4 of the construction sequence. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

b. The rough grading & construction of access drive 1 downslope of proposed inlets A8 &
A7. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

10. A separate detailed construction sequence has not been provided on the E&S plan drawing
for all in-stream and wetland work. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

11. The construction sequence and E&S plan drawing do not address how access will be
provided to the areas of the proposed for the clearing and grubbing and construction of
sediment basin 1 and sediment traps 1-10 in stage 5 of the construction sequence prior to
access drives being installed. Any proposed temporary access/haul roads should be shown on
the E&S plan drawing or a separate phased E&S plan drawing. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

12. Stage 6 of the construction sequence (offsite sanitary sewer installation) does not address
installing the rock construction entrances off Red Mill Road and North Conley Lane. [25 Pa.
Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

13. Stage 6.2 of the construction sequence does not provide BMPs for the proposed clearing and
grubbing and topsoil stripping between manholes FC-1 and FC-2 in the area of the stream
crossing. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

14. The proposed bore pit and receiving pit locations have not been identified on the E&S plan
drawing for the stream boring referenced in stage 6.2 of the construction sequence. [25 Pa.
Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -3- December 28, 2021

15. Stage 6 of the construction sequence does not address the proposed sanitary sewer stream
crossings at watercourse 4 and watercourse 2. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

16. Stage 6 of the construction sequence and the E&S plan drawing do not address how the
stormwater from the existing storm sewer run between proposed manholes FC-6 and FC-7
will be conveyed through the work area or provide adequate sediment control BMPs
downslope of the proposed disturbance downslope of the storm sewer outlet. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

17. Stage 6 of the construction sequence and the E&S plan drawing do not address how the storm
water from the existing storm sewer run between proposed manholes FC-4 and FC-6 will be
conveyed through the work area. The downslope compost filter sock is currently located in
an area of concentrated flow. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

18. The construction sequence does not address that proposed sanitary sewer installation and
stream crossing between proposed manholes FC-11 and FC-12. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

19. Stage 6.5 of the construction sequence does not address installing erosion control matting in
areas within 50’ of surface waters and areas of concentrated flow. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

20. The construction sequence and E&S plan do not address how sediment laden runoff will be
directed to the proposed sediment basin and traps prior to the storm sewer becoming
functional. Broad based dips or waters bars may be needed to maintain proper drainage areas.
[25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

21. The construction sequence does not address the proposed grading in the stream channel
upstream of culvert 1. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

22. The construction sequence does not identify the critical stages of PCSM BMP installation
requiring oversight by a license professional. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(vii)]

23. The rock construction entrance detail provided on the E&S plan drawing is inadequate (ex:
minimum 100’ length for all non-special protection (or) minimum 150’ for HQ/EV
watersheds (or) wash rack has not been included for NPDES-permitted projects to satisfy
ABACT requirements). [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

24. The proposed compost filter sock has not been placed at the toe of the fill slope above the
end of the pipe and or tying into the sides of the pipe or headwall at culvert 1, culvert 2,
culvert 3, EW-A, EW-I, EW-J, EW-AD, EW-AA, EW-AF, EW-V, EW-P, EW-Q, EW-G, &
EW-H. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

25. Compost filter socks SB24 and SB25 are proposed in areas of proposed improvements and
have not been installed downslope of a proposed earth disturbance. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -4- December 28, 2021

26. The multiplier used for the temporary condition of the proposed permanent swales is
incorrect. Since swales 1, 2, & 3 are proposed to be permanent channels, both the temporary
(lined with no grass) and permanent (grass or grass with TRM) conditions should be
designed for the 10 year storm and/or the 2.75 multiplier should be used for both conditions.
[25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

27. The ends of channel sections (i.e. channel breaks) have not been provided on the E&S plan
drawing for channel 1. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

28. The long-term manufacturer’s specifications (ex: Manning’s N, allowable velocity, & shear
stress) have not been provided in the narrative for all proposed channel linings. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

29. The temporary contour (red line at basin bottom elevation) has not been labeled in sediment
basin 1. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

30. The sediment basin berm and outlet details provided for sediment basin 1 are inadequate (ex:
permanent riser detail not provided, trash rack & anti-vortex details & dimension (Standard
Construction Details #7-5 & 7-10) have not been provided for the permanent riser, the outlet
barrel has not been set in a concrete cradle (Standard Construction Detail #7-17) for basins
with drainage areas of 10 acres or more, and the temporary stub barrel length has not been
provided.) [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

31. Standard Worksheet 18 (Anti-seep Collar design) has not been provided on the E&S plan
drawing for sediment basin 1. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

32. A construction detail for a sediment basin dewatering facility (Standard Construction Detail
#7-18) has not been provided on the E&S plan drawing for sediment basin 1. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

33. A clean out marker location has not been provided on the E&S plan drawing halfway
between all incoming channels/berms/storm sewer pipes and the basin outlet structure for
sediment basin 1. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

34. An emergency spillway construction details (Standard Construction Details 7-12 & 7-13)
have not been provided on the E&S plan drawing for sediment basin 1. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

35. Channel design information (capacity & protective lining) for the sediment basin 1
emergency spillway channel (on the outside slope of the basin berm) has not been provided
in the E&S narrative. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

36. Proposed channel grading/contours have not been provided for the sediment basin 1
emergency spillway. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -5- December 28, 2021

37. The skimmer information provided for sediment basin 1 indicates that the volume to be
dewatered is 115,089, however this exceeds the required settling volume. Sediment basin 1
dewatering information does not provide for dewatering of sediment basin settling volume
from the crest of the temporary riser down to the required sediment-storage (clean-out)
elevation within the 4 to 7-day time frame required for NPDES-permitted projects to satisfy
ABACT requirements. Oversized basins should have dewatering facilities (i.e. perforated
risers or skimmers) designed to only dewater the required settling volume in the timeframes
and any additional settling volume provided to avoid dewatering the required settling volume
too quickly. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

38. Sediment basin 1 simmer details are inadequate (ex: the arm length provided is not 1.41 X
(2cfs elevation-skimmer stub invert elevation). [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) &
§102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

39. Sediment basin 1 does not provide the required flow length to basin width ratio of 4:1 or
greater or a turbidity barrier or sediment forebay. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) &
§102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

40. DEP Optional Standard Note 6 has not been provided with the sediment basin berm details
stating, “Sediment basins shall be protected from unauthorized acts of third parties.” [25 Pa.
Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

41. Discharge analyses have not been provided demonstrating that the greater of the sediment
trap discharge (1.5 cfs/acre) or the peak discharge of the permanent stormwater facility from
the 10 year/24 hour storm event will not create accelerated erosion of the flow path from the
outlet of sediment traps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10 to the receiving surface waters. [25 Pa.
Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

42. Sediment trap berm and outlet detail(s) (Standard Construction Details #8-1 through 8-8)
provided on the E&S drawing are inadequate (ex: Trash rack & anti-vortex details &
dimensions for the permanent risers have not been provided). [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii)
& §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

43. Clean out maker locations have not been provided on the plan drawing halfway between all
incoming channels/berms/storm sewer pipes and the trap outlet structures. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

44. The proposed baffle in trap 1 has been tied into the trap embankment on the south side of the
trap and is blocked by a second baffle on the north side of the trap. The baffle should be
adjusted to allow flow through the trap around the baffle. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) &
§102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

45. Outlet protection has not been provided for the outlet of culverts 1, 2, & 3. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

46. The inlet protection symbol has not been provided for inlet A3 (it appears to be located south
of the inlet due to drafting error). [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -6- December 28, 2021

47. The drainage areas to the inlets receiving inlet protection have not been provided on the E&S
plan drawing or a separate exhibit. [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

48. The inlet protection details provided are inadequate (ex: 6” of compost around the outside of
the filter stone for NPDES-permitted projects to satisfy ABACT requirements has not been
provided.) [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

49. The pumped water filter bag construction detail provided on the E&S plan drawing is
inadequate (ex: a staked-in filter sock ring has not been added to the detail for NPDES-
permitted projects required to satisfy ABACT requirements). [25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(5)(viii)
& §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

50. DEP Standard Note 27 has not been provided on the E&S plan drawing stating,
“Immediately after earth disturbance activities cease in any area or subarea of the project, the
operator shall stabilize all disturbed areas. During non-germinating months, mulch or
protective blanketing shall be applied as described in the plan. Areas not a finished grade,
which will be reactivated within 1 year, may be stabilized in accordance with the temporary
stabilization specifications. Those areas which will not be reactivated within 1 year shall be
stabilized in accordance with the permanent stabilization specifications.” [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(viii) & §102.4(b)(5)(ix)]

PCSM Plan [identified by the DEP unless otherwise noted]

Application Form

51. Per PA DEP’s Existing Use Classification data, Fishing Creek of York County has an
existing use classification of CWF, MF which overrides the designated use classification of
TSF, MF. This is due to the presence of wild trout within Fishing Creek. As such, all
references to the stream use classification should be revised to CWF, MF (as referenced on
the Application, Module 1, Module 2, Module 3, plan sheets, etcetera). [25 Pa. Code
§102.8(f)(5)]

52. Revise Page 4 to indicate discharges to EV wetlands. Per the application instructions, the
name of the receiving surface water should be ‘UNT to Fishing Creek via EV Wetlands’ if
the stormwater discharges pass through the wetlands prior to reaching the stream. [25 Pa.
Code §102.8(f)(5)]

53. Per the provided plan set and specifically referring to the proposed sewer extension footprint,
it appears that there will be areas of disturbance within wetlands and within the floodplain.
Revise Coordination Information Questions 5.2 and 5.3 as part of the General Information
Form for uniformity with what is presented in the plans. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(3)]

54. Given the provided responses to General Information Form, Coordination Information
Question 9.0 and Application, Earth Disturbance Information Question 15, Act 537 sewage
facilities planning approval must be given by DEP prior to NPDES approval. Provide the
sewage planning approval documentation. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(3) and 25 Pa. Code
§102.8(f)(15)]
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -7- December 28, 2021

PCSM Report

55. There is disparity in both the 1-year and 2-year post-construction bypass discharges between
the PCSM narrative Table 1 and the PCSM Report computations. Review and revise for
uniformity. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(3) and 25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(4)]

56. There is disparity in the pre- and post-managed construction discharges for all four POIs
between the PCSM report computations and the sheets of Module 2. This subsequently
results in disparity of the net difference from pre- to post-construction condition. Review and
revise for uniformity. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(3) and 25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(4)]

57. Per the provided plan set, it appears that Infiltration BMP #10 bypass flows discharge to
Infiltration BMP #9 – however, the PCSM Spreadsheet details BMP #9 discharging to BMP
10. Review and revise while ensuring volume management is still met. [25 Pa. Code
§102.8(f)(6)]

PCSM Plan

58. For the Infiltration BMP Profile Sheets 6, 7, and 8 of the PCSM Plan Set, show the
underdrain and label the invert elevation. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(6) and 25 Pa. Code
§102.8(f)(9)]

59. Provide a standard detail of the knife valve referenced in the Infiltration BMP Underdrain
detail of Sheet 10 of the PCSM Plan Set. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(6) and 25 Pa. Code
§102.8(f)(9)]

60. Provide a standard detail and/or individual profiles with schedule for proposed Culverts 1, 2,
and 3. Per the provided plan set, there is no reference to pipe size or material. [25 Pa. Code
§102.8(f)(9)]

61. Outlet barrels for permanent stormwater management basins should be set in a concrete
cradle. Revise the plan and profiles to specify the use of concrete cradles and provide
Standard Construction Detail 7-17 or equivalent. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(6) & §102.11(a)(2)]

62. There is disparity regarding the Basin No. 9 principal spillway pipe size between the
Infiltration BMP 9 Profile, the Infiltration BMPs Detail schedule, and the Standard
Construction Detail #7-16 Concrete Anti-Seep Collar for Permanent Basins or Traps. Review
and revise. [25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(6) and 25 Pa. Code §102.8(f)(9)]

63. Provide a demonstration that subsurface groundwater flow is maintained to Wetland 2, as

denoted in the first wetland delineation report referring to the proposed housing development
and associated stormwater management, in a manner that preserves the existing and
designated use functions and values of the wetland. [25 Pa Code §102.8(g)(2) and
§102.8(g)(3)]
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -8- December 28, 2021

64. Provide a demonstration that subsurface groundwater flow is maintained to all areas of each
Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 3, as denoted in the second wetland delineation report
referring to the proposed sewer extension, in a manner that preserves the existing and
designated use functions and values of the wetland. [25 Pa Code §102.8(g)(2) and
§102.8(g)(3)]

65. Provide standard details pertaining to the proposed sewer extension as well as a site-specific
profile, labelling the pipe material and elevation of all access locations/sewer manholes. [25
Pa. Code §102.8(f)(9)]

Additional Technical Deficiencies

DEP would like you to consider the following comments on your permit application. While
these are not technical deficiencies related to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102 and will not result in a
delay to your permit application, they may relate to potential issues during construction and/or
implementation of the E&S and/or PCSM Plans.

A. There appears to be proposed grading very close to or within the existing floodway of
Fishing Creek (i.e. northwestern corner of Infiltration BMP #3 and proposed sewer extension
footprint). As clarification, any impact to the existing floodway will require a Joint Permit
Application (JPA) under Chapter 105 regulations. Additionally, there are numerous resource
crossings/disturbances within the proposed housing development footprint and the sewer
extension footprint that fall within Chapter 105 regulation. Given the shown impacts, a JPA
will be required.

B. On the provided Post Development Drainage Area Map (Sheet 2 of 5), DA-2 Bypass is
mislabeled as DA-1 Bypass. Note that the value of 4.85 acres appears correct and it is just the
label number itself. Revise for clarity.

C. Earth disturbance is proposed within or along Waters of the Commonwealth and within the
100-year floodway, which may require 25 Pa. Code Chapter 105 permitting. Ensure all
approvals are received prior to commencing earth disturbance activities. [25 Pa. Code
§102.4(b)(5)(iii)]

D. Per the provided plan set, the sewer extension is proposed within the 100-year floodplain,
and, in some sections, the 50’ floodway. Consider relocating the proposed sewer outside of
the floodplain and floodway footprints to avoid additional permitting and design criteria.
Otherwise, provide design measures and details to ensure the sewer extension is watertight
and designed for buoyancy during flooding events. As stated before, disturbance within the
floodway will require Chapter 105 permitting and approval.

E. For the Infiltration BMP Profile Sheets 6, 7, and 8 of the PCSM Plan Set, add a general note
to reference Sheet 10 for stormwater management details. While DEP recognizes
redundancy, we want to ensure that each BMP is constructed to the proper specifications. As
presented, the BMP profiles do not show all the parameters detailed on Sheet 10 (i.e. anti-
seep collars, 3:1 H:V side slopes, berm top widths, riprap outfalls, 100-Year WSELs, orifice
dimensioning and elevations, etcetera) and could potentially be missed in and or during
construction.
 Mr. Cliff Weaver -9- December 28, 2021

F. Given existing and proposed grade, each of the proposed infiltration basin BMPs will have
some portion of fill along the downstream edge of each basin footprint. Per the BMP manual,
infiltration BMPs should not be installed on recently placed fill (<5 years) – with the primary
reasons being soil settlement and establishment of reliable soil infiltration. DEP recognizes
the use of amended soils and notation for an uncompacted subgrade, however, extra care
must be taken during construction to ensure these placed soils are not compacted and are
installed in a manner that promotes on-site infiltration.

G. Per PA eMapping, the southern half of the project site overlaps with a privately-owned
groundwater supply. Consider coordinating with the well owner to better ensure the proposed
project will not affect the facility.

You must submit a response fully addressing each of the technical deficiencies set forth above.
Please note that this information must be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this
letter, on or before January 31, 2022 or DEP may deny the application.

Please submit 2 copies of the revised information to the District at 2401 Pleasant Valley Rd,
Suite #101 RM #139, York, PA 17402, and an electronic copy to the DEP via the DEP’s OnBase
system (https://www.dep.pa.gov/DataandTools/Pages/Application-Form-Upload.aspx). For ease of
review, the DEP requests a single upload with multiple files versus a single upload with one
large document.

If you believe that any of the stated deficiencies are not significant, instead of submitting a
response to that deficiency, you have the option of requesting that DEP make a permit decision
based on the information you have already provided regarding the subject matter of that
deficiency. If you choose this option with regard to any deficiency, you should explain and
justify how your current submission satisfies that deficiency. Use the following OnBase form
codes:

Form Name/NO. – NPDES Permit Stormwater – Construction

Application Type - New

If you have questions about your application, please contact Mr. Eric Simmons by e-mail at
[email protected] or by telephone at 717-705-4779 and refer to Application No. PAD670053,
to discuss your concerns or to schedule a meeting. Please attempt to request any meeting within
15 days of the date of the letter to better ensure a meeting can be scheduled, held, and allow time
for you to provide a response with the 30 calendar days allotted for your reply.

Sincerely,
Nathan Phillips Digitally signed by Nathan Phillips
Date: 2021.12.28 08:51:33 -05'00'
Nathan Phillips, P.E.
Permits Section Chief
Waterways and Wetlands Program

cc: York County Conservation District

Benjamin Heisey, P.E., R. J. Fisher & Associates, Inc.