20200397 Ver 1_Holt Responses 5_3_20_20200504

Alex,

I have reviewed the additional information provided for the above referenced project, and I have a few
comments/questions that need to be addressed prior to proceeding with review and issuance of the
permit verification. Lyle, thanks for your review. Our responses are below in blue.

1) Please update the impact table so the Wetland Name matches the appropriate wetland on the
existing conditions exhibit. For example, Wetland Impacts at sites 1A – 1D impact Wetland 3 on the
existing conditions exhibit and is listed as impacting Wetland 1 on the PCN impact table.
The table has been revised accordingly.

2) It appears that the proposed riprap at wetland impact site #2E will result in stream impacts. Please
update the Plans and the PCN/Impact Table to include stream impacts from installation of the
downstream riprap pad.
The plan revisions have been made to DWG 5. The chart has been expanded to include Impact
#2-F (upstream wetland impact due to rip rap), Stream impact #2 (inlet of culvert pipes) and
Stream Impact #3 (outlet of culvert due to rip rap installation) and the changes reflected in the
impact tables.

3) The temporary stream impacts for utility installation at Stream Impact #2 is listed as 267 linear feet.
It appears that the impacts are considerably less. Using the scale and the limits of disturbance it
appears that the stream impacts are closer to 60 linear feet. Please update the PCN and Plans
accordingly.
Impact revisions have been made to DWG 9 (“Wetland Impact (Impact #7)”). The temporary
impacts for the stream crossing are 40 LF.

4) Thank you for providing the wetland assessment form. The second tab on the NCWAM calculator
has a results page that calculates the function rating of using the information provided on the form.
In order to verify aquatic function please provide the results page.
The results page of the NCWAM calculator is provided.

5) Please update the proposed compensatory mitigation plan to include details such as proposed
mitigation ratios for wetland impacts. For example, does the NCWAM form apply to all permanently
(with loss) wetland impacts? As discussed the impacts to the wetlands that formed in the pond
bottom may have reduced function and a 1:1 mitigation ratio while the wetlands impacted at the
road crossing may have higher function and a 2:1 ratio may be appropriate. What is the total
mitigation proposed? Please update the PCN accordingly.
The NCWAM form was intended to score the drained pond portion of W1. The impacts #2-D and
#2-C are to the lower quality sediment laden portion of W1 and should be mitigated at 1:1;
however, if this is not readily apparent based on the NCWAM form, then in the interest of
expediting issuance of the verification, the applicant is willing to compensate at a 1:2 ratio of
impacts to mitigation project-wide. The last column on the Holt Impact Table provided shows
the total mitigation required for permanent impacts at a 1:2 ratio impacts to mitigation. A
revised Statement of Availability is also included. Please note that the impacts shown on the
Holt Impact Table column 2g include all impacts temporary and permanent; however, the total
at the bottom of the column includes permanent impacts that go toward the ½ acre threshold.

6) The plans show riprap only below the culvert at both crossings, however, the cross section sheet
depicts riprap above and below the culvert. Please update the PCN and Plans accordingly.
Rip rap has been included on the upstream side of the pipe crossings for Impact #1 and #2 to
match the detail. Tables on page 4 and 5 have been updated accordingly.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Lyle Phillips
Regulatory Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 25.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]