20230803 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20230816 (2)

Baker, Caroline D
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Jim Mason; Josh Spiegel
Cc: Homewood, Sue; Chandler, Rebecca D; Don Sever, PE
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-02183 (Jacobs Creek
residential development / formerly Bennett Farms / Stokesdale / Rockingham County)
Attachments: Ca ptu re.J PG
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.
Hi Jim, and thank you for the responses to our request for additional information. I have reviewed the information and
need additional clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permits (NWPs) 29 and 14
(https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.pdf; https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP-14.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may deny verification of the use of the NWPs or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
1) Thank you for your responses to our request for additional information. Items 2, 3)a-c, 4, 5, 6, and 8, of items
are resolved accordingly.
2) Note that NWP 29 would be unable to authorize any discharge of dredged or fill material within any of the
delineated potential waters of the US that occur within the mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain. As such, impacts
to S29 and W22 as proposed will be evaluated for use of NWP 14 per your request.
3) The plan view stream locations do not align with the existing topography on several crossings (e.g. Stream S15,
Jacobs Creek at Culvert 7, Stream S3, etc.), indicating that existing stream sinuosity is not shown on the plans
nor included in the impact calculations. Please confirm that the stream impact calculations for all crossings are
accurate (based on surveyed stream channel center lines), or update the PCN and plans accordingly.
4) Questions regarding specific plan sheets/proposed crossings:
a. Sheet EX-3: please provide a zoom -in of the retaining wall proposed at the interface of Wetland 23.
Please ensure that the construction envelope of this retaining wall has been taken into account, and
that any potential impacts (even temporary) to Wetland 23 have been considered. If necessary, please
update the PCN as well.
b. Sheet EX-6:
The culvert inlet headwall appears to encroach into a wetland area (Wetland 26?). Please ensure
that any potential impacts to wetlands (permanent or temporary) are itemized on the PCN and
clearly shown on the plans.
The Pipe Outlet detail appears to show the bottom of the rip rapped portion of the channel to
be 6-feet wide. To ensure compliance with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.c, and also justify
that the rip rap pad does not lead to reductions in aquatic function, please redesign this rip rap
pad to maintain the cross-section of the existing channel (-3-feet wide according to the impact
calculations).
c. Sheet EX-7:
As an avoidance and minimization measure, would it be practicable to place at least one
floodplain culvert in the causeway through Wetland 22 (east of proposed Impact S29), per NWP
14 Regional Condition B.9.a?

ii. The Pipe Outlet detail appears to show the bottom of the rip rapped portion of the channel at
Impact S29 to be "4 or 20"-feet wide. To ensure compliance with NWP 29 Regional Condition
B.9.c, and also justify that the rip rap pad does not lead to reductions in aquatic function, please
redesign this rip rap pad to maintain the cross-section of the existing channel (-2-feet wide
according to the impact calculations).
iii. Please provide the profile view of the proposed bridge over Jacobs Creek, including all approach
fills and bridge abutments and bents, relative to the existing ground/stream channel bottom
elevations. This information is necessary to determine the likelihood of any additional direct or
indirect impacts depending on the proximity of the abutments/bents to the stream banks and
whether or not the proposed structure is reasonably foreseeable to cause the banks the erode
away and reduce the aquatic function of Jacobs Creek within the bridge footprint.
Sheet EX-8: Thank you for your efforts to avoid impacts to wetlands for lot fill. Given that grading
upslope appears to re -rout most surface runoff to this Wetland 24, please clearly describe how indirect
impacts via reduction in hydrologic input will be avoided.
Sheet EX-9:
The Stream S8 Profile indicates that there will be a vertical drop of 1 foot from the last baffle to
the proposed rip rap pad grade. This design does not appear to allow aquatic life passes through
the culvert as required by NWP General Condition 2.
The Pipe Outlet detail appears to show the bottom of the rip rapped portion of the channel to
be 6-feet wide. To ensure compliance with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.c, and also justify
that the rip rap pad does not lead to reductions in aquatic function, please redesign this rip rap
pad to maintain the cross-section of the existing channel (-2-feet wide according to the impact
calculations).
Sheet EX-10:
i. The plan view indicates that the culvert is oriented such that the stream exits the culvert aimed
at the stream bank. It is reasonable to expect severe bank erosion in these areas during high
flows. Please re -design the culvert to align with the downstream stream channel to avoid
indirect impacts of erosion and sediment loading into the stream. If slight re -alignment of the
stream channel is necessary at either end of the culvert, please include proposed cross sections
of the stream re -alignment, include the stream impact footprint and the proposed channel
alignment on the plans, and itemize the length of stream impacted as a permanent impact on
the PCN.
ii. The Pipe Outlet detail appears to show the bottom of the rip rapped portion of the channel to
be 4-feet wide. To ensure compliance with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.c, and also justify
that the rip rap pad does not lead to reductions in aquatic function, please redesign this rip rap
pad to maintain the cross-section of the existing channel (-2-feet wide according to the impact
calculations).
g. Sheet EX-11:
i. If using more than one culvert pipe, in order to comply with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.b
and c, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe (inverts buried V below the stream bed), and the
other pipe should act as the high flow culvert (only to receiving bank -full flows). High flow
culverts are typically designed by placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two
above the existing stream bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the
inlet and outlet of the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above
referenced flow level. Please update the proposed crossing accordingly.
i. Please confirm the width of the stream in this location, from Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) to OHWM, as the 4-foot width indicated by the impact calculations does not appear to
be consistent with the proposed duel 72" culvert design.
iii. The Stream S15 Profile:
1. indicates that there will be a vertical drop of 1 foot from the last baffle to the proposed
rip rap pad grade. This design does not appear to allow aquatic life passes through the
culvert as required by NWP General Condition 2

2. appears to indicate that proposed rip rap pad would be placed >1-foot below grade.
iv. The Pipe Outlet detail appears to show the bottom of the rip rapped portion of the channel to
be 16-feet wide. To ensure compliance with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.c, and also justify
that the rip rap pad does not lead to reductions in aquatic function, please redesign this rip rap
pad to maintain the cross-section of the existing channel (-4-feet wide according to the impact
calculations, but see item 3.g.ii above).
Sheet EX-12:
i. If using more than one culvert pipe, in order to comply with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.b
and c, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe (inverts buried V below the stream bed), and the
other pipe should act as the high flow culvert (only to receiving bank -full flows). High flow
culverts are typically designed by placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two
above the existing stream bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the
inlet and outlet of the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above
referenced flow level. Please update the proposed crossing accordingly.
ii. Please confirm the width of the stream in this location, from OHWM to OHWM, as the 3-foot
width indicated by the impact calculations does not appear to be consistent with the proposed
duel 84" culvert design.
iii. The Stream Jacobs Creek Profile indicates that there will be a vertical drop of 1 foot from the
last baffle to the proposed rip rap pad grade. This design does not appear to allow aquatic life
passes through the culvert as required by NWP General Condition 2.
iv. The Pipe Outlet detail appears to show the bottom of the rip rapped portion of the channel to
be 16-feet wide. To ensure compliance with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.c, and also justify
that the rip rap pad does not lead to reductions in aquatic function, please redesign this rip rap
pad to maintain the cross-section of the existing channel (-3-feet wide according to the impact
calculations, but see item 3.h.ii above).
Sheet EX-13:
i. This zoom -in plan sheet appears to show a proposed crossing within Phase 5, however no Phase
5 plan sheet is included for reference. Please include a plan sheet (similar to EX-1 through EX-4),
clearly showing Phase 5 proposed infrastructure (lot lines, road networks, utilities, stormwater,
etc.) overlaid on the Corps -verified delineation. Until provided, item 3.d in our original request
for additional information remains unresolved.
ii. If using more than one culvert pipe, in order to comply with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.b
and c, one pipe should act as the low flow pipe (inverts buried V below the stream bed), and the
other pipe should act as the high flow culvert (only to receiving bank -full flows). High flow
culverts are typically designed by placing its invert at bankfull level, or at least a foot or two
above the existing stream bed. Another way to comply with this condition it to design sills at the
inlet and outlet of the high flow culvert to only allow flow in the high flow culvert at the above
referenced flow level. Please update the proposed crossing accordingly.
iii. Please confirm the width of the stream in this location, from OHWM to OHWM, as the 4-foot
width indicated by the impact calculations does not appear to be consistent with the proposed
duel 72" culvert design.
iv. The Stream S3 Profile indicates that there will be a vertical drop of 1 foot from the last baffle to
the proposed rip rap pad grade. This design does not appear to allow aquatic life passes through
the culvert as required by NWP General Condition 2.
v. The Pipe Outlet detail appears to show the bottom of the rip rapped portion of the channel to
be 16-feet wide. To ensure compliance with NWP 29 Regional Condition B.9.c, and also justify
that the rip rap pad does not lead to reductions in aquatic function, please redesign this rip rap
pad to maintain the cross-section of the existing channel (-4-feet wide according to the impact
calculations, but see item 3.i.iii above).
5) Based on indications that stream widths and sinuosities are not accurately reported per subsections of item 3
above, the Corps remains concerned that stream impacts for the Jacobs Creek single and complete project
would exceed the NWP stream loss threshold per Regional Condition B.S. 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 to show that full build out of
this development would fit within the NWP impact thresholds.
6) The Corps would view all proposed permanent loss impacts as cumulative for the entire Jacobs Creek single and
complete project, and apply NWP General Condition 23(c) and NWP Regional Condition B.7 accordingly. The
corps is generally amenable to mitigation to impact ratios of 2:1 for permanent loss impacts, and is open to
discussing Phasing the mitigation with permitting the development in phases if item 5 above can be resolved.
7) Please see the red -shaded box on the attached aerial photo, and confirm whether or not this feature is a
cemetery, as this information is necessary for our evaluation per Section106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Please provide this information as soon as possible, as it is necessary before initiating
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office per NWP General Condition 20. Please note that, once
initiated, SHPO requires up to 30 days to respond to our coordination request. Please note that I cannot verify
the use of any Nationwide Permit until consultation pertaining to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act is complete.
8) As previously noted, the corps will initiate informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP until Section 7 consultation is complete per NWP General Condition
18. Further, suitable habitat for tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) may be present at the site. On September
14, 2022, the USFWS published a proposal in the Federal Register to list the tricolored bat as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Please note that, even if Corps authorizations are issued prior to the listing of
the tricolored bat, work associated with the activities not completed prior to its listing must cease and the
permittee must contact the Corps' to determine if additional coordination with the USWFS is required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prior to continuing work.
9) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
It appears that an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required from the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) for this project. Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of any NWP without a valid 401
WQC.
For NCDWR: Within 14 days, please notify me if the certification request does not contain the nine (9) components listed
in Section 121.5(b) of the 2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule; otherwise, we will consider our receipt
date (7/17/2023) as accurate. As specified in the 9/16/2022, Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the USACE and the
NCDWR, the reasonable period of time (RPOT) for DWR to act on a Section 401 certification request is 120 days unless
the RPOT is extended per the terms of this PA. As such, unless we receive an email request for an extension of the RPOT,
the USACE will consider the Section 401 certification for this project to be waived on 11/14/2023.
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]
Email: David. [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: Jim Mason <james. mason @threeoaksengineering.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 10:27 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Josh Spiegel
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Homer, Seren M <[e-mail]>; Don Sever, PE
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-02183 (Jacobs
Creek residential development / formerly Bennett Farms / Stokesdale / Rockingham County)
Dave -
Thank you for providing your comments and for having a meeting with me to discuss them. Summit and I have reviewed
your comments and have provided the answers/responses below in red. Also, attached are revised permit drawings for
all 5 phases of the project. I have cc'ed Don Sever from Summit in case you have any additional questions about the
design. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any of the information I have provided in a different
format.
Thanks,
Jim
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Jim Mason <james. mason @threeoaksengineering.com>; Josh Spiegel <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chandler, Rebecca D <[e-mail]>; Homer, Seren M <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2021-02183 (Jacobs Creek residential development / formerly
Bennett Farms / Stokesdale / Rockingham County)
0
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 529, 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; Based on your comments, we have revised
the project's impacts to eliminate stream impacts to the portion of Jacob's Creek with a FEMA floodplain. With
the removal of that specific impact, would a NWP 14 still be required? The impacts to S29 and W22 at that
crossing are still present and do occur within the Jacob's Creek floodplain. If a NWP 14 is still required for that
crossing, we hereby request that impacts to S29 and W22 be permitted under a Nationwide 14. We would like
to continue to permit the remainder of the project's impacts under a NWP 29. The most updated impacts for the
NWP 14 site are on EX-7 in the attached Impacts Exhibits_REV.pdf.

In regards to Jacob's Creek, in our evaluation of Phase 4, we noticed a second stream crossing on Jacobs
Creek. This location is outside of the FEMA floodplain mapping. The mapping begins roughly 800' to the east of
the crossing shown on EX-12. We have kept this crossing in the NWP 29 portion of the project; however, please
let us know if that needs to be changed.
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;
Stream S8. The impact for this stream has been added to the project in Phase 3. We evaluated the
topography and felt that crossing the stream at this location would be best. There is a lot of topography
where if the roadway was moved to the north then the lots along the northern property line would be
nearly unbuildable due to excess slopes. If the roadway was shifted to the south, vertical fill slopes
would increase resulting in a longer stream impact at that location (located on EX-9 in the
attachment). Wetland 9 will be avoided.
Stream S10 was also added on the list of stream impacts in Phase 3. This stream was fairly
straightforward in pipe alignment stream impact (located on EX-10 in the attachment).
Stream S15 was added in Phase 3. The stream at this location is fairly straight with a proposed
perpendicular crossing (located on EX-11 in the attachment).
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; This has been added to the exhibits package (EX-3). Wetlands 4, 5,7, and 8 will
not be impacted.
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. This was accidentally left
off of the PCN. The impact will include 0.0436 acres of permanent wetland impact to Wetland 16
(located on EX-12 in the attachment, Phase 4).
c. 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. For Wetland 16 and Jacobs Creek,
impacts are shown for the roadway (EX-12). The Jacobs Creek crossing is nearly perpendicular to the
roadway crossing. The wetland fill for the roadway was set to clip as little of the wetland as possible.
For the remainder of Wetland 16 and Wetlands 13, 17-21, the proposed lot lines and grading for the lots
will be set outside of the wetland limits.
d. 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. Wetland W3 will not be impacted. For Stream S3, there is an existing 20 x 20 bridge at
that location. It will be replaced with a culvert, with a total impact of 80 linear feet (320 sq. ft.) of
permanent impact. Please see EX-13 for more detail and a profile of the culvert.

e. 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. Attached is a spreadsheet outlining total impacts from the project. Total
impacts are below 0.5 acres in total loss of water (0.4189 ac.). Streambed impacts are 0.047 ac., which is
below the 0.05 ac. threshold per Regional Conditional B.S.
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. Reduced impact to 1,300 SF by adding
more retaining walls. Note to eliminate a wastewater pumping station on the project, the sewer
grades were set to flow from east to west (towards Jacobs Creek) which dictated what we could
vertically in this phase. The sanitary sewer will be installed within the roadway right of way to
minimize total wetland impacts as well.
ii. 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. Eliminated stream impact by making a pedestrian bridge.
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?
Stream 33 —the comment was to determine if we could eliminate this crossing. Our original concept
had a park in the center of the main roadway that runs through the development. However, when we
started looking at the vertical roadway connections, the roadway at the east side of the creek was
unable to connect without a significant amount of fill. Close to 200,000 CY of fill material at depths of
over 20' was needed to make an acceptable connection. Thus the layout was revised to the current
layout. From a fire safety and emergency standpoint, eliminating the roadway connection would result
in an unacceptably long cul de sac. During the site plan review, the fire department wanted to see this
connection. They also wanted us to eliminate cul de sacs which was done with the revised
layout. Rockingham County had block lengths of 800' that they wanted to maintain as a maximum.
We proceeded to revise the layout to move the park in the low area instead of along the main
roadway. The roadway crossing was determined to minimize the stream impact at this location. We
also designed a permanent pond just north of the existing stream where the water will be retained and
slowly released into the existing stream channel. The pipe has been modified to lessen the stream
impact and avoid wetland W26. With the stream meandering at the proposed outfall, we extended the
limits of permanent stream impact. The rip rap protection at the outfall will be placed below the
streambed and angled to make a more gradual transition into the existing channel.

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. We
modified the lot lines and grading to avoid impacting this wetland.
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).
Noted and revised to eliminate lot -related impacts in these phases. Several of these sites are also
addressed in comments above.
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; Impact to Stream 34 eliminated by making a pedestrian bridge.
b. Phase 2 Impact to Stream S33 (item 3.b above notwithstanding); See comment above about Stream 33
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. Noted. Please see revisions noted above; cross sections/profiles have been added to the exhibit
package on each Stream Impact exhibit to provide more detail.
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. This has been corrected in the attached exhibits
package
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. This impact has been removed
from the project.
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. The exhibit has been changed to add a stub road to a park
area at the northwest corner of the Jacobs Creek. This trail head will be used to access the stream corridor with
a series of nature trails. We also added the townhome layout where it is shown that no future stream crossings
will be needed other than what we are presently showing.
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). The crossing of Jacob's Creek has been changed to a bridge
crossing; there are now no stream impacts to Jacob's Creek at that site.
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; Added
to each Stream Impact exhibit.
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). Based on revisions to the design, total
potential ly-mitigable impacts identified in the attached exhibit package include the following:

• 0.3283 acres of permanent wetland impact for Phases 1-3 (0.2984 under the NWP 14 and 0.0298 under
the NWP 29)
• 0.0436 acres for Phase 4 under NWP 29. No wetland impacts identified for Phase 5.
• 0.0327 acres of permanent stream impact for Phases 1-3 (0.0018 under NWP 14 and 0.0309 under NWP
29).
• 0.0142 acres of permanent stream impact in Phases 4 and 5 under NWP 29.
Total permanent impacts are 0.361 acres for Phases 1-3, 0.4189 total for Phases 1-5. No individual streams
have over 300 linear feet of permanent stream impact and total impacts are less than 0.5 acres of
permanent loss and 0.05 acres for streambed loss.
With the current impacts for Phases 1-3, we are proposing compensatory mitigation for both wetland and
stream impacts (stream impacts were below 0.03 acres in the PCN, but are now over due to the design
revisions and require mitigation). We plan to provide mitigation by purchasing credits from NCDMS (a letter
was previously provided, but will have to be revised with the revised impacts). Proposed mitigation for
Phases 1-3 is as follows:
• 0.3283 acres of permanent riparian wetland impacts @ a 2:1 ratio = 0.6566 acres of compensatory
credits required
• 0.0327 acres of permanent warm water stream impacts (578 linear feet) @ a 2:1 ratio = 1,156 linear feet
of compensatory credits required
• These are proposed mitigation amounts for Phases 1-3. It is understood that additional mitigation will
need to be secured for Phases 4 and 5 when they are permitted.
• Once impacts and mitigation are agreed upon, I will acquire a revised NCDMS letter to cover the agreed
upon amounts.
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).Noted.
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. Noted. Please let us know if you need any additional information from us for this
review.
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;
Noted. Please let us know if any information, in addition to what is provided in the PCN and this email, is needed
to meet these elements.
13) Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project. Noted.

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]
Email: David. [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 dames. 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.
10