20170113 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20170228

Johnson, Alan
From:Amanda Jones <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 5:24 PM
To:Johnson, Alan
Cc:Randolph, Jason D SAW
Subject:Fwd: Deficiencies for SAW-20160 (Moore Farm PCN)
Attachments:MooreFarm_rapanosPCN.doc; Sheet10of17_MooreFarm_022317.pdf; Sheet12of17
_MooreFarm_022317.pdf; Sheet15of17_MooreFarm_022317.pdf; Sheet16of17
_MooreFarm_022317.pdf; Sheet11of17_MooreFarm_022317.pdf
Hi Alan,

Hope you made it back safe from your vacation. Attached are some exhibits that the Corps requested and
wanted to forward along to you as well in case you had some of the same questions, thanks.

Amanda Jones
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
www.wetlands-epg.com
828-230-1384

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Amanda Jones
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Deficiencies for SAW-20160 (Moore Farm PCN)
To: "Randolph, Jason D CIV USARMY CESAD (US)" <[e-mail]>

Please refer to my comments and attachments as addressed in order below:

1) Ok. Does that mean you want me to have the engineer put a date on these exhibits in their title/information
block now or are you just saying for next time? I can easily add a date on the pdfs. if that is what you are
needing as something to reference and that addresses your concern for the time being.
2) See attached revised Sheet 10 which I have colored and labeled the OHWM versus the TOB to clearly show
that the rip rap is outside the OWHM which I believe is your question. I have also revised/attached Sheet 12 so
you can see this difference in a cross-sectional view which is probably more useful than the plan view. The rip
rap will be placed above the TOB (and also the OHWM) downstream of the elevated floodplain culvert to
transition the outfall of this culvert into the channel (basically creating a transitional benching area so that water
from this culvert will flow back into the stream without blowing the bank out). If this is not done, the culvert
would be placed facing the bank and the bank would be blown out in the first rain event.
3) The stream impacts are clarified I believe. Where the arrow is pointing and the stream channel is hatched is
where the sewer line will be crossing the stream channel. This is an open cut sewer line so the stream banks and
bottom will be excavated, the line placed and then the area backfilled to pre-construction contours. This is also
shown Sheet 14 in cross-sectional view. I colored the stream blue on the exhibit to help and label the stream as
requested. To my knowledge this is a universally accepted way of showing these type of impacts and we don't
break out OHWM versus TOB as they are both being impacted so it doesn't matter.
1

4) I have revised/attached Sheets 15 and 16. I turned off extra layers in the pdf. to help clean it up and add some
colors. For Sheet 15, there is alot going on in this area which is why the impact is occurring. There will be a
gravel trail (shown in grey cobble looking type symbology) and there is also a sewer line being constructed and
immediately adjacent to the BMP and it's outfall. I think it is important to keep these things shown as it is the
reason for this area being impacted. I clarified the wetland impact in blue. For Sheet 16, I again turned off some
extra layers that may have been distracting and made it more clear where the stream is. This is just the removal
of an existing old culvert and we will be stabilizing this area. Nothing else is proposed.
5) A portion of the site contains a 100-year floodplain on the eastern side of the project along RPW B which is
why we checked 'yes'. The stream channel where the road crossing is (and 404 impact areas) does not have a
regulated floodplain. There is no fill for 404 impacts within a designated floodplain therefore the NWP 29
request is valid.
6) Are you wanting the Rapanos form? If so, attached.

I believe this information should meet the requirements for considering an application complete and request that
your review continue. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks.

Amanda Jones
Wetlands & Environmental Planning Group
Leonard S. Rindner, PLLC
www.wetlands-epg.com
828-230-1384

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Randolph, Jason D CIV USARMY CESAD (US)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
Hello Amanda,

Circling back with some feedback on this PCN. The following comments need to be addressed either for
making the PCN complete or for issuing my verification. Please condense your replies to these in a single
email message if possible to avoid delays and fragmenting the record.

1) None of Eagle Engineering's design plans appear to have a date. Please make that happen consistently on
every PCN. Revisions should appear separately with their own date.

2) Plan sheet 10 of 17 is too busy with extraneous lines for me to tell where the tributary and the OHWM is
that you reference and whether or not rip rap apron work will impact below OHWM. Please make the trib and
the OHWM clearly visible on this sheet. Any revisions should contain the last revised date.

3) Sheet 11 of 17...please label the stream and clarify impacts below the OHWM. This sheet appears to show
TOB (top of bank) as the regulated impact trigger.

4) Sheet 15 & 16 of 17...legibility is poor due to excessive fading. Please resubmit.

5) PCN indicates that project will happen within floodplain. NWP 29 prohibits this. Please clearly show any
floodplain limits on your plan sheets for each crossing if the floodplain present at said crossings.

6) Approved JD needs to be complete before I can issue verification. Please send me the Microsoft Word
version so I can work on that and will likely need to work with you or whomever to get that tweeked.

Last time we talked on the phone you mentioned that your client are not using rip rap aprons on culvert
2

crossings. Is this project an exception or will this be case by case if above the OHWM?

Thanks.

Jason Randolph
Regulatory Specialist/Biologist
USACE-Wilmington District-Charlotte Satellite Office
704-510-1440

3