20200248 Ver 1_Impact Maps with post-construction flow paths_20200417

Strickland, Bev
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 11:57 AM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Mairs, Robb L
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne; Benson, Tyler G
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester
Development - UPDATED IMPACT MAPS w/ post -construction flow paths
Attachments: Sylvester Impact Maps 041720 with post -construction flow paths.pdf
Importance: High
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Rachel
Attached are the updated impact map exhibits with north arrow, legend and post -construction flow paths. Let me know
if you have any additional questions.
Thanks!
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Zarzecki
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 2:34 PM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>; Benson, Tyler G <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development
Rachel:
I'm going to ask the project engineer to provide that information, so that I don't take any wrong assumptions. I hope to
have to you soon.
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message -----
From: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 2:09 PM
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>; Benson, Tyler G <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development

Hi Bob,
I don't think I got the new attachments with the North arrow and acronyms. I will also need one additional map (you can
draw on the maps you already have submitted) but I will need the flow lines to show where the water is moving onsite
through both the open features and the piped features. In my permit I will have to issue a waiver for the impacts to the
intermittent feature that I need higher level approval for and that is something my supervisor may ask for. Once I
receive this information I should be able to get this permit out early next week.
Thanks,
Rachel
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>; Benson, Tyler G <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development
Robb & Rachel:
Attached is the revised PCN sections C.1,2&3 and D.1, along with an additional impact justification letter from the
project engineer.
Also, here are responses (in red) from the project engineer to the USACE assumptions below.
USACE Assumption: The water from impact 2 will be re -rerouted and water will enter the wetland from Prop 12 which
will flow to Prop FES 13 back into the wetland.
RESPONSE: No. The ditch along the east side of the wetland (between impact 2 and impact 4) is lower in grade than the
wetland. Cannot redirect this water into the wetland. The water from the ditch in entering FES 13 and traveling through
our storm system to the pond. The existing ditch is just too low to redirect to our wetland bypass pipe. This ditch, as it
exists today, is not contributory to the wetland. As such, the proposed rerouting of the ditch and the proposed impacts
to the ditch do not impact the existing wetland.
USACE Assumption: The open water between impact 2 and impact 4 will also be directed to the wetland and then the
wetland will outflow into the wetland bypass to downstream waters.
RESPONSE: No. See response above. Ditch too low to redirect into wetland.
USACE Assumption: I do have one more question about the impacts near ditch 4. Is a new ditch being constructed next
to the proposed impact area? The Corps would be in favor of that if so, if not please account for impacts above feature
4.

RESPONSE: Yes. The ditch is being moved west keeping the connection from above impact 4 to FES 13. The new portion
will be a grassed trapezoidal ditch (3' bottom with 3:1 side slopes).
The Corps originally did not make a determination about whether the feature was an intermittent stream or ditch and
believes that the feature is a ditch.
In the future all submittals will need to have a North arrow and legend with names of acronyms.
RESPONSE: North arrow is on all sheets. Top right corner. I have added a legend with acronyms.
Let me know if anyone has any questions/concerns and Bob let me know if my assumptions are correct.
I'll upload a copy of this email chain and attachment to the DWR database.
Please let me know if you have any additional comments or questions.
Regards,
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Office Phone
[phone] Direct Line

[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Visit us at SancIEC.com <Blockedhttp://www.SandEC.com> !
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain
confidential information. This electronic communication may not have passed through our standard review/quality
control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are provided as a matter of convenience and should
not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature and seal.
If you are not the named addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and
delete the original communication from your system. Thank you.
-----Original Message -----
From: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 11:43 AM
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>; Benson, Tyler G <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development
:.•
Here's the link to submit the requested additional information:
Blockedhttps://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form
<Blockedhttps://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form>
As Rachel has indicated in her email, this would not be a new submittal, and DWR's turnaround time should be in a
timely manner as well once we receive it.
Thanks again,
Robb Mairs

Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796.7303 office
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Blockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-
wetlands-buffer-permits <Blockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits>
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 11:02 AM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Benson, Tyler G
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]> >
Rachel:
Ok. As the application was submitted online, should I simply provide an updated impact section (Section "C" Proposed
Impacts Inventory) and Avoidance and Minimization section (Section "D.1.")?
Do you have an additional information upload link that you would like me to use to submit this information? If so, please
provide. If not, I assume the email response will be sufficient.
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message -----
From: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:39 AM
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Benson, Tyler G
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development

Hey Bob,
I just talked with Robb and wanted to follow up. We ask that you revise the PCN to reflect the features as intermittent
streams. As the features are intermittent you can still utilize the NWP 39. The Corps utilizes all new information provided
from all sources including the State in making our determinations of stream calls. I sent my email prior to Robb and
Joanne's site visit. After their visit they submitted the stream documentation and the Corps agrees. The features
themselves seem to be of lower quality so mitigation will not be required, but if you could add an additional statement
about avoidance and minimization. The Corps does not consider this to be a new submittal and the turnaround time
should be quick as soon as we get the updated PCN. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. You can
submit the revised PCN directly to myself and Robb.
Thanks,
Rachel
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:01 AM
To: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail] <maiIto: [e-mail]> >
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Benson, Tyler G
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development
Importance: High
Robb & Rachel:
Ok, please provide me guidance on how to handle this one. The USACE considers the channels jurisdictional ditches (per
attached email and previous emails and DOT permit) and the DWR considers them jurisdictional intermittent streams
(per today's email below).

The roadside ditch (impact #1) was previously permitted as a linear wetland (I assume by both the USACE and DWR) per
Rachel's research that she provided me in an email back on November 1st last year, excerpt below.
"It appears as though a few year back our DOT Regulator went out and made a determination that those features were
jurisdictional. He looked mostly at the roadside feature and called it a linear wetland, but made comments about the
other features onsite as well that I can use to make my jurisdictional call along with your pictures. It appears as though
the Corps would consider the features to be considered jurisdictional and impacts would require a permit...."
As such and in good faith, we had been considering them to be jurisdictional ditches up until this point and had been
referring to them as such in several emails since last November.
I saw no need to bring DWR out to make a stream determination for the applicability of the buffer rules as this is not in a
State buffered basin (Neuse, Tar -Pam, etc.). It's my understanding that the USACE makes the determination as to stream
vs. wetland or ditch in those cases.
Also, our PCN application was submitted on February 13th and I did not hear form DWR until April 7th (54 days into the
60 day review) and they didn't make their stream determination until April 8th (55 days into the 60 day review) and
notify me as such until today April 13th (60 days since the application was submitted).

Sorry, but this is all very frustrating that I'm now going to have to go back to my client and inform them that these
ditches are considered intermittent streams by DWR and that they need to provide further justification for the impacts.
I'll go back to the client and inform them as such, but will need guidance on how to revise the PCN to call these
jurisdictional ditches by the USACE and intermittent streams by DWR.
Rachel - I'll also confirm the flow paths that you requested in your email, but believe your assumptions to be correct.
Regards,
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message-----

From: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:27 AM
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Benson, Tyler G <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: FW: [External] RE: Request for additional information 2020_0248 Sylvester Development
Hey Bob,
I hope you and your family had a nice holiday weekend. Joanne Steenhuis and I were on -site last Wednesday (4/8/2020)
to take a look at these features within the project area, and determined that the feature depicted as #2 impact in the
PCN is an intermittent stream (see attached DWR Stream ID form). The feature depicted as impact #4 would also be
considered an intermittent stream. We walked the feature along HWY 24 towards the south up to Koonce Fork Road,
and this feature depicted as #1 impact appears to be an intermittent stream, based on the flora and fauna that were
observed. We concur that feature that is depicted as #3 impact would be a ditch. Based on information from the USGS
StreamStats GIS, it appears these streams are within an approximately 108 acre drainage area (see attached USGS
StreamStats image and LIDAR map). Further, based on the information you provided in the PCN application (Soil Survey
map, and NWI map), appear to be consistent with our determination.
At this time, we are placing this application on -hold, and we are requesting that the PCN and site plans reflect this
determination, and we also request additional information in regards to demonstrating avoidance and minimization.
10

Thanks,
Robb Mairs
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796.7303 office
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
BlockedBlockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-
wetlands-buffer-permits <BlockedBlockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
perm its/wastewater-bra nch/401-wetla nds-buffer-perm its>
11

127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%3e%20> ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:34 PM
To: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
Cc: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
12

<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >; Snider, Holley
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Request for additional information
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Just to be clear, DOT received a JD and I think permit from the USACE and I assume the DWR for the roadside ditch and it
was called a ditch/wetland (not stream). So, the call was made back then and they understood it to be a ditch/wetland,
not a stream. I believe that Rachel has that information. That has been what we've been relying on for this
determination since last December. Not to mention the soils information in the current soil survey and the obvious
nature of it bucking grade in the field, which has led to much of the issues with designing the piping and maintaining a
hydrologic connection. With all due respect, we're now 55 days into the DWR 60 day review and this is the first that I've
heard from DWR on this. As this is not a buffered basin, is it not the USACE who determines stream vs. ditch under
Section 404? Anyway, sounds like you're going to swing by the site this week. Let me know what you decide. I guess at
the end of the day it may simply be matter of whether we need to account for linear feet of tributary impact and I
assume no mitigation given the obvious LOW quality, intermittent nature of the feature in question.
13

Regards,
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message -----
From: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:09 PM
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
Cc: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >; Snider, Holley
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
14

Subject: FW: [External] RE: Request for additional information
Hey Bob,
Thanks for the email, and I'm sorry for the delay. I am currently handling all the 401 Certs. out of the Wilmington
Regional Office, and I am just catching up on this. Based on the Google Earth, USGS topo map, historical soil map
(attached), and LIDAR, this feature leading from the headwater wetland appears to be an intermittent stream. We also
echo the same concerns as Rachel, and another concern would be that the roadside ditch will constantly be maintained
by NCDOT, and they may not know it's a rerouted stream.
I am planning to be in Onslow Co. for some site visits hopefully tomorrow or Thurs., and can swing by the site on my way
back and take a look as well.
Thanks again,
15

Robb Mairs
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796.7303 office
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
BlockedBlockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/401-
wetlands-buffer-permits <BlockedBlockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
permits/wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits>
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
16

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%3e%20> ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Cc: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >; Snider, Holley <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Subject: [External] RE: Request for additional information
17

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Rachel:
Either way they needed to pipe the hydrologic connection and could not leave it as an open, relocated ditch (due to
elevations, building pads, roadway infrastructure, etc.). They could not pipe the ditch in the exact location or it would
have been under future buildings. They had to reroute it in a pipe further south to make the grades works.
As to the area between impacts 4 and 2, 1 assume you mean along the west side of the service road. The plans as I
understand them are to leave the ditch in place except for the areas proposed to be impacted, and the future road
shoulder will essentially act as a berm directing the water into the new culverts.
Bottomline there will be a dedicated connection between the highway ditch and the wetlands/waters remaining on the
site west of this development. The applicant would be fine to include any language or conditions in the permit
verification to ensure this occurs.
18

I haven't heard from DWR on this yet. Robb/Holley?
Thanks
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
-----Original Message -----
From: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 11:07 AM
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
19

Cc: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >; Snider, Holley <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Subject: RE: Request for additional information
Thanks for the map. I guess I am still somewhat confused as to how this re-routing will be connected to the existing
feature. The re-routing you are showing appears to be a new feature to maintain the wetland connection downstream
waters, rather than re-routing the existing ditch feature (including the connection to downstream waters). What is
proposed for the area between impact 4 and impact 2?
Robb or Holley do you have any comments?
Thanks,
Rachel
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Zarzecki [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%3e%20> ]
20

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:41 AM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Cc: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >; Snider, Holley <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for additional information
Importance: High
Rachel
Attached is the cross section and pipe detail for Impact #1 that you requested in item 1 of your email.
21

The project engineer also confirmed my understanding for the justification for Impact #4 as provided in my March 5th
email below.
I think that does it for responses and additional information requested in your email.
I'm available if you have any additional questions. Otherwise, the applicant is eager to get their verification to pass along
to the Town of Richlands.
22

Thanks & stay well.
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
From: Bob Zarzecki
23

Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 5:50 PM
To: 'Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)' <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > >
Cc: 'Mairs, Robb L' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >; 'Snider, Holley'
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
Subject: RE: Request for additional information
Rachel
The project engineer is working on the information you requested, beyond my responses below.
24

That said, I wanted to follow up thought on item 2b. I know the "ditch" vs. "modified stream" call is not always an easy
one to make and you can't base it solely on the DWR stream classification method and . A big part of it is researching
mapping data and looking at soil types, etc. The soil series the ditch is located in is "NoB" which is Norfolk loamy fine
sand. This soil series is defined as well drained with little to no flooding or ponding and is found on ridges and broad
interstream divides. Typically I've seen stream calls in the coastal plain made in Bibb and muck soils. The soil series
changes to "Mk" which is Muckalee loam on the east side of the highway. I suspect this is where it may be considered a
stream across the highway. Given the straighten nature of the ditch on the property and cutting through grade as
evident of the plans provided, the watershed area to the ditch being around 21 acres (well below the typical watershed
area for a stream formation in the coastal plain), and the fact that the past DOT project considered it a ditch/wetland
system and not a stream. I think it's pretty safe to say that this was always a man-made ditch and not a natural stream.
Please let me know your thoughts on this and if you feel the need to visit the site to confirm or would like for me to
request that DWR visit the site. I normally would not in cases like this outside of a buffered basin, but can certainly ask
them.
Robb or Holly - Do you all have any thoughts on this, ditch vs. stream question?
Bob Zarzecki
25

Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
From: Bob Zarzecki
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 4:07 PM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]. mil
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: Rachel.A.Ca pit
[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > > >
Cc: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%20%3c
mailto:[e-mail]> > > >; Snider, Holley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]
26

<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%2
0%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > > >
Subject: RE: Request for additional information
Importance: High
Rachel:
Thanks for the review. Here's my preliminary response to your questions. I'll need to get additional information from the
project engineer to provide the exhibits you're looking for.
27

1. Yes, there's a cross pipe here. I'll get you the size and cross section from the project engineer.
2.a. See excerpt below. The rerouting is identified as "Prop Wetland Bypass Pipe to Hwy 24 Roadside Ditch to Maintain
Hydrologic Connection". I highlighted it in yellow to make it a bit easier to see. I'll get you the pipe dimensions and
statement from the project engineer.
2.b. No. I have not had DWR out to make an onsite stream determination as this is not located in a DWR buffered basin.
I think the attached photos do a good job of showing the feature and I'm happy to meet anyone out there if needed. I'm
also happy to provide a DWR stream form. I'm taking the coastal plain SWITC refresher class tomorrow actually that
Anthony Scarbrough is pointing on. I can provide an updated stream form the first of next week if it helps. That said, I'm
28

not sure that a stream form is appropriate, if the determination is first made using available mapping that it's a "ditch".
But, I'm certainly fine doing one.
3. No. The stream begins at the existing pipe outlet and existing dissipater. Street 2 LOD will be located north of this
area. Proposed FES 30 will discharge to the existing dissipater but will not require impacts for installation.
4. I'll ask the project engineer to elaborate on this, but I understand that Ditch 4 needs to be impacted to install street 1
including shoulders. The alignment of street 1 is dictated by the driveway entrance to Sylvester Street being a required
distance from Hwy 24 and providing a safe curve radius to avoid the wetlands to the south.
29

I'll talk to the project engineer and we'll try to have you the culvert details, etc. by the first of next week.
More to follow.
Kind regards,
Bob Zarzecki
30

Wetlands Department Manager
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone] Office Phone
31

[phone] Direct Line
[phone] Fax
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > >
Visit us at SandEC.com<BlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://www.SandEC.com> !
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain
confidential information. This electronic communication may not have passed through our standard review/quality
control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are provided as a matter of convenience and should
not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature and seal.
If you are not the named addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and
delete the original communication from your system. Thank you.
32

-----Original Message -----
From: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: Rachel.A.Ca pit
[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]> > > >
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 1:28 PM
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%20%3cma
ilto:[e-mail]> > > >
Cc: Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%20%3c
mailto:[e-mail]> > > >; Snider, Holley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]
<maiIto: [e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%2
0%3cmaiIto: [e-mail]> > > >
Subject: Request for additional information
33

Hi Bob,
Please accept this email as an official request for additional information.
1. For ditch impact 1 is there a culvert that will maintain connection for the feature? If so please provide the size of the
culvert and a cross section drawing.
34

2. You mention rerouting of the ditch feature 2, please show the exact rerouting and how the connection from the
wetland will be maintained (not through the stormwater pond). Please include the dimensions of the pipe and a
statement as to why the feature will be piped rather than rerouted and left open. This feature appears as an
intermittent stream on the National Hydrology Dataset, has the State been onsite to view this feature? The
determination of whether this feature is a ditch or a stream will determine if mitigation is required.
3. Will there be impacts related to the proposed street 2 such as the addition of a culvert to maintain the ditch
connection at that location?
4. What is the purpose and need for impacts to ditch 4?
35

As the application is considered incomplete for evaluation, no action will be taken on it until the requested information
has been received. We request you provide this information within 30 days of the date of this letter. If no response is
received by then, we will assume you have no further interest in obtaining a Department of the Army permit and the
application will be deactivated. Thank you for your cooperation with the Corps Regulatory Program. Should you have
any questions regarding this request for additional information, please let me know.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel Capito
36

Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Office: 910.251.4487
Cell: 910.899.6051
37

38

DITCH IMPACT MAP
FOR
SYLVESTER DEVELOPMENT
Impacts 1-4
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE 1" = 200' April 17, 2020
�J
EUGENE & LILLIE TAYLOR
DB 1267, PG 203
KOONCE FORK RD
USE.." VACANT
I P
1 C
I ^
1
I
I NAVY FEDERAL l
I CREDIT UNION
IIDB 4716,PG 909
KOONCE FORK RD
I USE.- BANK I
I J
ONSLOW COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION
DB 3603, PG 658
7444 RICHLANDS HWY
USE.- SCHOOL
80101+00
Engineering Planning
Site Design
1150 SE MAYNARD ROAD
SUITE 260
CARY, NC 27511
[phone]
C-OJ29
Sao&
MWIL
Engineering Planning
Site Design
1150 SE MAYNARD ROAD
SUITE 260
CARY, NC 27511
[phone]
GRAPHIC SCALE
Ditch
Impact:
#1
133 LF
0.019 Ac.
#2
668 LF
0.093 Ac.
#3
70 LF
0.005 Ac.
#4
93 LF
0.008 Ac.
Total 964LF 0.125 Ac.
01 200' 400' 600'
(IN FEET)
1 INCH = 200 Fi
snVESTER FARM
INVESTMENTS, LLC
DS 4223 PG 186
138 KOONCE FORK RD
USE: VACANT
ZONED: B-1
10
_________---J
ITRACT
3
VEST ER FARM
IN TMENI5, LLC
PG 195
IDB
RCHLAN HWY
USE' VA
IZONED.
COY
IN
—
— _rvv-aoL-cc=orvrve-ro= e=nss�srvw
NO— CC
HYDIROLOGIC CONNECTION,
9
PIN
Ong
1q
WN NO
Oman ow
I PUBLIC 28,1 NC 71 294.
-.
RIW (WIDTH VARIES)
I
I
I
I
I
I
II ONSLOW BOARD
OF EDUCA77ON
DB 3603, PG 658
RICHLANDS HWY
USE.." VACANT
I i
RICHLANDS PRIMARY SCHOOL
8 li
7
I \
IRA( -T 4
SYLVESTER FARM
INVESTMENTS LLC
IDS 4223,
H
'.....................
.D • VACANT.'•'•'•'•'•'.
C�\.\':::::....:.. ZO2: NED?: :::::::'::.•..........
3
6 1 5
LEGEND
PROP. STORM ORANAGE m
PROP. GATGN BA51N COB) II]
PROP. FLARED END 5ECTION CFE5) a
WETLAND BYPASS FLOW ARROW
DITCH FLOW ARROW
NOTE,
FLOW PATH ARROWS FOR BOTH WETLAND BYPASS
AND DITCH FLOW ARE POST CONSTRUCTION ONLY.
SYLVESTER FARM INVESTMENTS, LLC.
DB 4286, PG 499
MB 6, PG 36
1
TRACT 1
SYLVESTER FARM
INVESTMENTS, LLC
2 DB 4286, PG 499
RICHLANDS HWY
USE VACANT
ZONED: C-2
I I
I
I
I
I
TROY & DARLENE
FUTRAL
DB 3536, PG 655
j
SYLVESTER NAN ST
USE.., VACANT I
ZONED: C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I q
I
I
I O y
.
RLEC ENTERPRISES, LLC
I n
DB 2764, PG 276
S
1 C i7
109 SYLVESTER ST I
USE..' COMMERC14L
ZONED: C-2
y
_
I
I
I
I
BATTJES
INVESTMENTS, LLC
DB 1983, PG 62
8201 RICHLANDS HWY
USE. POST OFFICE I
ZONED: C-2 I
--- -
-----------
-- -_--
PETE JONES DRIVE
- PUBLIC
US H �2 (WIDTH VARIES) r
PUBLIC
I I•I '
_ R/W (WIDTH VAR/ES)
I
I I
i I�H
I Ay
ONSLOW COUNTY BOARD
'
~
OF EDUCATION
DB 3603, PG 706
I-
I ONSLOW COUNTY BOARD
i I ci
i
8100 RICHLANDS HWY
USE.., SCHOOL
USE.,
OF EDUCATIONDB 3603, PG
I
\a
I
8100 RICHLANDS
I I F
I I
I USE SCHOOL
RICHLANDS HIGH SCHOOL
I
b
I I
rt J. McClain

DITCH IMPACT MAP C&
/ / / / GRAPHIC SCALE 39
FOR w� / 01 /// 60' 121Y 1w
Engineering Planning/ ONE � — — �=�EGEN I'
SYLVESTER DEVELOPMENT /
Impacts #1 & #2 g Site Design , INCH = so �r
- _-_ - -- - - PROP. STORM DRANAGE
ONSLOW COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 1150 SE 17E 2RD ROAD 64 ==_erg PROP. CATCH BASH CC8 /
suirE 2so / o /
SCALE 1 60 Aril 17 2020 (9 9) NC -9708 I '
11 = I 1'1 / - -) /� / PROF -FLARED END SECTION (FES
f' ' C-0329
WETLAND BYPASS FLOW ARROW
_ 1I / /-4--- C 72 `1 / �' ROP //// / DITCH FLOW ARROW
---- CB 3 / j // / / NOTE -
FLOW PATH ARROWS FOR BOTH WETLAND BYPASS
AND DITCH FLOW ARE POST CONSTRUCTION ONLY.
--
1 PRO _
CB 71 - i / I ' PROP WE LA #2
- ROP BY TOP=38.20
CB4 INV IN/OUT=33.27
I / • / //�/ // ... �� 4/ \
PROPOSED PR¢
l�� i l FE�7o
LOT ; — •••••_• — _—C�
l Il 54_4.03 SF - j FOREB 93••••• /ROP
O / 1.261 AC (TOTXLJ"_ - - - ` _. P VELOCITY /, - MH 1A / / CB 2
i l 1.073 AC EXCL. EASEMENT i SIPATOR 1 ROP / /
P OP ROP
/
B 0 8 CB 81
/
� I
PRO OSED
STORMWATER
I l 1 1 (�1 — — — 1 IMPO NDMENT
l l 1-F35- — — _ 110 j N 30.00 r/ 7� // bE�� PROPOSED
LOT 9
—35/
59971.90 SF
1.377AC
—
ll N=4 iZJ06.9718'
'f=2,435; 89�895 = — — — — — _ _ i I / '4 w PROPOSED �°
G \\ELEV. .3>C�5'� 3<_ / /� i I \ LOT 10 \ / b
45, 608. 28 SI \ I'
/O P--------��F���ACK �! I••••• T•� \ ; \\ 1.047 Al. p -__--
---- / •••• I \ \ I a
t - -- _ ,_5bc_ ••••••• I \ \ \ I I / PROP WETLAND BYPAS
IPE %
1 A v O
•r \
- _
\ \ V I I P TO HWY 24 ROADSIDE ,
41 HYDROLOGIC CONNECTION.
\ / DITCH TO MAINTAIN /
ON. /
DAM EL 37.00....
PROP WETLAND'
ETLAN
S YPASFES#R1
OU
OP 77
__ W/VELOCITY ISI
---- -- -- - -- --
-
/
/
/g4 '
_PR ------ _- _ __ --
__--G�'V - _ _—_FES 50 --CB _ _--- ------ ___�—
__--_- --------_—---_--_
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IMPACT 1 - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - -___-__-
/ DITCH — — — — — — — —
r _ 133 LF
1�__ /----- — --- 0.019AC. ------_—_-- —
PP
— —I _ 1'UBLICRj (T3'ID CH 24 ------
Ii i _ TIITfjRIES�--------------------------------
PREPARED BY: Bart J. McClain. PE SHEET 2 OF 3

�y"—
DITCH IMPACT MAP
GRAPHIC 39--- -- _ - --,:
0'
ii0' — � 120' 1 80'
FOR
SYLVESTER DEVELOPMENT
— n
------s7----�
Impacts #3
Engineering Planning
Site Design
(IN FEET)..
1INCH =60FT
Tracts 3 & 4 are to be recombined
Deed Book4223, Page 186
--
— —
\ \ \
vv
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1150 SE MAYNARD ROAD
SU17E 260
v
— — — — —`£—
and are not part of this submittal.
-'
TRACT 4 (NO CHANGE)
SCALE 1" = 60' April 16, 2020
CARY, NC 27511
[phone]
,
SYL R FARM
BE-
C-032
t� 42�13, PG -O 1
\
o -
� R1CLJlAN15S H'WY
v
�' ,9f IjSE---VACiW� V v v v
A
TRACT 3 NO CHANG �I —' W W W W W —W— Z ZCWEDW IMPACT 4 \
SYLVESTER F \ \\\\\ W� W W W Y/ W W W W W W W/ W W W Y W \ \
LLC] \ \\ \ �W L W W W W Y W Y/ W W .Y W W W Y/ W W L W W � � DITCH
RI 4223, PG 195 —W / W EXISTING W W W Y Y W W Y W W Y \\ O
RICHLANDS HWY `\ \ \ 93 LF
\ \ W I �Y W \W W W W W W /W W W W W W W •Y W W W �Y W W W W O \ �,
USE. • VACANT G W W W ��, W W W W W W 0.008 AC.
ZONED: C-2 \ I — \ o
PROP WETLAND BYPASS WETLANDS .y .�. W •v. \\ .y .�. .y .y .�. .y \ \ t0 \ /
PIPE TO HWY 24 ROADSIDE \ \W W w W w W w W W W W W W W W W W •r �W W W�
DITCH TO MAINTAIN
HYDROLOGIC CONNECTION.
�- �- PROP WET L \ \ y .� .� .Y .y W .Y W W W W W �/ .y i .T. .y— �•- - - -37- - - -
BYPASS FES #3
° --UV IN-34.22 FES 13_//
W W .1 •Y W W W -_ - - - - -
ROP W — _ CB 7-
- CB 14 do
ICB5
60' PUBLIC R/W •�� — ��� IMPACT 3
CB , "�• ROP DITCH
1 /�OP CB16
e 10 70 LF
PRO 0.005 Ac.
OLD TRACT 2 CB 12
i� 24 EAST / / / CB011
DEVELOPMENT, LLC
DB 4880, PG 357
w RICHLANDS HWY
USE.- VACANT �
ROP WETLAND BY ASS ZONED: C-2 / / / EXISTING
e6 PIPE TO HWY 24 RO DSIDE - / _
DITCH TO MAINTAI EXISTING
/ TRACT 7
HYDROLOGIC CON I
TRACT 8 / 59, 882.13 SF
47,608.67 SF
1.375 AC rzj EXISTING '
1.093AC i' ---
/ WTRACT-6 — — — — _ EX STI G
/ / I I /TRACT 5 I EXISTING
/ 1 47,163.28 SF
s
SF
/ l Q 1.083 AC 0 963 AC / 46,287.89 SF
/ IMPACT 2 / 1.063 AC
/ DITCH
668 LF
0.093AC. �� I \�_----------- ---- OLD TRA T 2 /
24:' EA T
PRO PRO / / I
FES 6 w DEVELOPT, LLC /
OB 4880, G 357 /
R n — PRO 1 RICHLAND HWY /
CB 31
PROP CB 32 ,
' ROP
FES 30 /
PRO - __ - ar - - —
_ USE. VA ANT /
ZONED: 2
_FES 60 __ __ -- / --- --
-CB 33
_ _ �6t /
MH 61 PRO
--- -
CB 34
ov
--
------------ - -
PP
_ = / EXISTIN
RIP-RAP-
- DISSIPATOR I ,;;. — —--- _ — _— —� _ _ — — �Y�_
---_� EXISTIN®
— —00---------------------------=
_ I n
v
PREPARED BY: Bart J. McClain. PE SHEET 3 OF 3