20181041 Ver 4 _WRC Comments_20200127

Strickland, Bev
From: Munzer, Olivia
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Homewood, Sue
Subject: RE: [External] Request for Additional Information; Cambridge Park phase 2, Mebane,
Alamance Co.; SAW-2017-02329
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
No burial since it is over 2%. 1 don't think they found any decent aquatic habitat in that stream, if I remember correctly.
However, if they can still allow for some aquatic movement somehow.
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 9:03 AM
To: Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] Request for Additional Information; Cambridge Park phase 2, Mebane, Alamance Co.; SAW-2017-
02329
Another one with a culvert burial/steep slope question.
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
Sue. [e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 11:46 AM
To: Brad Luckey <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information; Cambridge Park phase 2, Mebane, Alamance Co.; SAW-2017-
02329
1

External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Brad,
Thank you for your PCN and attached information, dated and received 12/18/2019, for the above referenced project. I
have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit 29
(http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2017/2017NWP29.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Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file: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) Given the relatively steep slope (2.5%) of the proposed culvert, we are concerned that this stream would be
subject to headcutting above the proposed culvert due to the proposed V invert burial. Please confirm with
NCDWR regarding whether or not culvert burial is required/advisable in this situation. If burial of the culvert
pipe is not advised, please redesign accordingly and update the PCN and applicable plansheets;
2) We have scaled the proposed culvert on the plans provided and determined stream impacts to be different than
those reported in the text of the PCN/plans:
a. Given that the culvert outlet would not occur directly in line with the existing stream channel, a portion
of the stream channel below the culvert would be cut off from direct stream flow. This does not appear
to have been accounted for in the reported permanent loss stream impacts. If a straight line is drawn
along the center of the culvert from the upstream point where the headwall intersects the stream
centerline to the point where the straight line intersects the stream centerline below the culvert (see
attached, blue line), the impacts along the centerline of the stream (see attached, red line) scale to
approximately 114 I.f. Please update the PCN (including the mitigation proposal) and plans accordingly;
b. Any additional impacts in the rip rap footprint not covered above would be considered rip rap only, i.e.
permanent impacts but no permanent loss;
3) Given that the proposed culvert would intersect the downstream portion of the stream channel at a skew,
please provide additional stream bank protection to ensure scour does not occur along the stream bank
downstream of the proposed crossing. Please updated the project plans accordingly, and provide a profile/cross-
section clearly showing the proposed stream bank protection (see attached Profile Example);
4) The proposed wetland impact includes fill in the top half of a small narrow wetland. Given the small size of the
wetland in question, and the fact that the drainage area for this wetland would be rerouted due to grading in
the upland portion of the site, the Corps would consider the remainder of this wetland as an indirect impact. As
such, the wetland loss due to direct and indirect impacts would include the entirety of Wetland WC, or 640 sq.
ft. (0.015 acre).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-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
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.