20230803 Ver 1_USACE more info requested_20230630

Chandler, Rebecca D
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Jim Mason; Josh Spiegel
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D; Homer, Seren M
Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-02183 (Jacobs Creek residential
development / formerly Bennett Farms / Stokesdale / Rockingham County)
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.
W
Thank you for your PCN, dated 6/5/2023, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need
clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 (https://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail is fine) within 30
days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the Nationwide Permit or consider
your application withdrawn and close the file:
1) As you know, NWP 29 would typically be used to authorize projects such as the one proposed; however, the
proposed crossing of Jacobs Creek, Stream S29, and Wetland W22 appears to occur within the mapped FEMA
100-year floodplain, which would not comply with NWP 29 Regional Condition C.b. Given that the proposed
impact to potential waters of the US is a road crossing, you may consider requesting use of NWP 14
(https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP-14.pdf) to authorize this crossing, along with requesting use of
NWP 29 for other crossings outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain;
2) As you noted the proposed project is phased, and the Corps will consider all proposed/foreseeable impacts to
proposed waters of the US for all phases of the development as cumulative when considering NWP and
compensatory mitigation thresholds. Based on your description in the PCN, Phases 1-3 are proposed as part of
this PCN submittal, with Phases 4 and 5 to be submitted later. Plan Sheets for Phases 1 and 2 appear to reflect
this partitioning, however there are inconsistencies with Phase 3 and Phase 4:
a. In addition to the proposed wetland impact (to Wetland W24), Phase 3 per Sheet EX-3 appears to show
three additional impacts related to road crossings of Stream S8/Wetland W9, Stream S10, and Stream
S15. Detailed plan/profile views of these crossings, as well as itemized impacts in the PCN, are required
to evaluate these crossings to determine the applicability of NWP 29 for this project;
b. Just south of Wetlands 4, 5, and 7, Sheet EX-3 shows a road stubbing into an area where development
could potentially impact the upper reaches of Stream S8. Please provide the proposed plans for the
entirety of Phase 3, including the lot layout and infrastructure (roads, utilities, stormwater, etc.), to
enable evaluation of avoidance and minimization measures and potential indirect impacts for this
portion of the project;
c. Phase 4 plan sheets EX-4 and EX-9 show a proposed wetland impact that is not accounted for in the
PCN. Please ensure that the PCN and plan sheets clearly and consistently show the currently proposed
impacts vs. those estimated/conceptual impacts to be proposed in the future.
d. Further, Phase 4 plan sheets EX-3 and EX-4 appear to show future impacts to Jacobs Creek via a road
crossing (inconsistent with the statement in the PCN of "No stream impacts anticipated for Phases 4 and
5 at this time") and Wetlands W17, W18, W20, and W21 via lot fill.
e. Plan Sheet C-2 indicates that Phase 5 would impact Stream S3 via a road crossing (inconsistent with the
statement in the PCN of "No stream impacts anticipated for Phases 4 and 5 at this time") and Wetland
W3 via lot fill.

f. It is not apparent based on the information provided that the cumulative impacts proposed and
anticipated for all five phases would fit below the NWP thresholds for wetlands/all potential waters of
the US or for stream bed loss per NWP Regional Condition B.S. Please itemize the proposed and
anticipated stream loss impacts per crossing and phase to enable justification that the single and
complete project would comply with this condition. If total proposed cumulative impacts exceed NWP
thresholds, you may apply for the entirety of this phased development via the Individual Permit process.
Or, as an alternative, you may further avoid or minimize impacts proposed in Phases 1-3 and/or amend
the conceptual design of Phases 4 and 5 to show that full build out of this development would fit within
the NWP impact thresholds.
3) Per NWP General Condition 23(a), the activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse
effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters to the maximum extent practicable at the project site.
However, there are impacts proposed that do not appear to comply with this requirement. For each instance
below, please redesign the project accordingly, or provide documentation that such avoidance and minimization
measures are not practicable (i.e. available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes):
a. Phase 1 (Sheets EX-1 and EX-5):
i. Impact to Wetland W28 - Based on the overall number of single family lots and multi -family
units proposed for the overall development, 1,300 and 291 respectively, it appears that the road
alignment could be re-designed/shifted to the south in order to avoid impacts to this wetland,
even if such a re -design would lead to a reduction in lots.
Impact to Stream 34 — multi -use paths and other greenways are typically bridged (spanned from
bank to bank) to avoid impacts to aquatic resources; such measures are common place in
numerous municipalities, and the relatively narrow stream proposed to be crossed should be
ideal for this scenario.
b. Phase 2 (Sheets EX-2 and EX-6): Impact to Stream S33 and Wetland W26 - Given the relatively small
number of lots that would be served by this crossing, and that access to this area of uplands would still
be provided by other upland -only road infrastructure, would it be practicable to eliminate this crossing
to avoid the proposed stream impacts?
c. Phase 3 (Sheets EX-3 and EX-8: Impact to Wetland W24: Impacts to this wetland could be avoided
completely with the re -design reduction of two lots. It is not clear that project viability is dependent on
the inclusion of these two single family lots, when the overall development proposes over 1,000.
d. Phases 4 and 5: note that, for any conceptual phase, it is typically difficult to justify lot fill as unavoidable
in large residential developments, as it typically does not comply with NWP General Condition 23(a).
4) Project plans indicate that several culverts are oriented such that the stream would exit the culverts aimed at
the stream bank. Stream crossings of concern include:
a. Phase 1 Impact to Stream 34 (item 3.a.ii above notwithstanding), based on QL2 LiDAR stream channel
location given that the plans provided do not show the surveyed channel location outside of the
proposed impact footprint;
b. Phase 2 Impact to Stream S33 (item 3.b above notwithstanding);
It is reasonable to expect severe bank erosion in these areas during high flows. Please re -design these culverts to
align with the downstream stream banks to avoid indirect impacts of erosion and sediment loading into the
streams. If slight re -alignment of stream channels is necessary at either end of the culvert, please include
proposed cross sections of the stream re -alignment, show the stream impact footprint and the proposed
channel alignment on the plans, and itemize the length of these stream re -alignments as permanent impacts on
the PCN.
5) Labels on the plan sheets show inconsistent impact amounts. Although these are likely explained as typos,
please correct labels on the following plan sheets:
a. Ex-7 under "IMPACT - W22" (in red) states that "PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT -PERMANENT LOSS -
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION 18,300 SF", whereas the table on that plan sheet states that the "W22 -
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION (SF)" impact is 13,000 sf.

b. Ex-8 to the right of the proposed impact to "Wetland 24" (in red) also states that "PERMANENT
WETLAND IMPACT - PERMANENT LOSS - ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION 18,300 SF", whereas the table on
that plan sheet states that the "W24 - LOT FILL (SF)" impact is 2,100 sf.
6) Please correct/explain the apparent discrepancy between Sheet Ex-3 and the Overall Phasing Plan regarding the
western terminus of the northern -most road in Phase 3. The Overall Phasing Plan appears to show this portion
of the road terminating as a cul-de-sac, whereas EX-3 appears to show this road ending as a stub -out, "aimed"
directly at the continuation of Stream S8 just off -site.
7) Phase 2 (Sheets EX-2 and EX-6) does not show a structure at the Jacobs Creek crossing. This information is
required per NWP General Condition 32(b)(4).
8) Please provide profile views of each crossing shown along each proposed culvert. These profiles should show the
culvert, rip rap pad (if proposed), and existing stream bed. Also label the proposed slope of the culvert and
clearly note whether or not the rip rap in the stream bed (if proposed) will be keyed into the stream bed;
9) Section E.2 of the PCN indicates that compensatory mitigation would be provided by purchasing credits from
NCDMS. However, corresponding PCN Section E.4 is not filled out accordingly; please specifically state the
proposed compensatory mitigation plan (including credit types and ratios) in this section (note that we are in
receipt of the NCDMS SOA you provided via email on 6/6/2023).
10) Thank you for the very valuable information you provided regarding resources potentially subject to Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act. Given the relative proximity of this project to known populations of endangered
species, as well as potentially suitable habitat for these species occurring within the project action area, we will
initiate informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Please note that the Corps cannot
verify the use of a NWP until Section 7 consultation is complete (see NWP General Condition 18).
11) Given the scope of the permit areas for this project, and areas that may contain resources potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (including archeological resources), consultation may need to be initiated
with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Corps is currently reviewing this project in this context to
determine any responsibilities pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see NWP
General Condition 20). If required, please note that SHPO may require up to 30 days to respond to our
coordination request. Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of any NWP until consultation pertaining
to Section 106 is complete.
12) It appears that an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required from the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR) for this project. Per the 2020 CWA Section 401 Rule, the PCN must contain the 9
elements listed in Section 121.5(b) of the Rule. According to the 9/16/2022, Programmatic Agreement (PA)
between the USACE, Wilmington District, and the NCDWR, the Reasonable Period of Time (RPOT) for NCDWR to
act on a Section 401 certification request is 120 days after receipt of a certification request containing the 9
required elements. However, it appears that items 3 and 4 of the 9 elements are not met; as such, NCDWR's
RPOT has not started yet. Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of any NWP without a valid 401 WQC;
13) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Mobile: [phone]
9

Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
From: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:05 PM
To: James Mason <james. mason @threeoaksengineering.com>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2021-02183 (Best Drive / Bennett Farm Road / Griffin Road / Stokesdale NC / Rockingham NC)
Good Afternoon,
We have received your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request for the above project and forwarded
it to Dave Bailey for further processing.
Thank you,
Josephine Schaffer
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 2:15 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Cc: SAW-PCN-RG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] PCN - Rockingham - Non -DOT
A new project has been received on 6/5/2023 2:14 PM for Jacobs Creek (formerly Bennett Farms) Residential
Development. The link below will take you to the project folder.
https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/Laserfiche/index.aspx?db=WaterResources#id=2820602;view=browse
This email was automatically generated by Laserfiche workflow. Please do not respond to this email address, as
responses aren't monitored.