20200941 Ver 1_Notice of Incomplete PCN_20200825

Strickland, Bev
From: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 7:37 AM
To: Jim Mason
Cc: Nathan Howell; Michael Wood; Nancy Oberle
Subject: RE: SAW-2018-00566_Albemarle Corporate Center (Notice of Incomplete Pre -
Construction Notification)
Mr. Mason,
Please submit all the requested additional information directly to me via email in one response; no need to go through
the ePCN was a project has an established Action ID (i.e., SAW-2018-00566). If the proposed project has a stream
restoration component to it that includes then level of detail as explained/proposed in additional information "b" then
may likely not require compensatory mitigation. In order to qualify for NWP 27, then a stream restoration plans needs to
include specific items and details as listed in additional information "b". If you are proposing to just remove the ponds
and walk away and allow the streams to go back to a natural state then those activities would not likely quality for NWP
27, open water impacts would like be considered in permanent impacts of the project; and compensatory mitigation
would likely be required for permanent impacts that result in the loss of waters.
If you were to remove the pond and not do any stream restoration work then those permanent open waters may be
considered permanent impacts along with the other proposed permanent impacts. The total permanent stream,
wetland, and open water may then be considered for compensatory mitigation.
Also, this project can be permitted under multiple NWPs. For example, the impacts associated with the construction of
the commercial development would be permitted under NWP 39 and the stream restoration impacts would be
permitted under NWP 27.
Thanks,
Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office: [phone]
From: Jim Mason <james. mason @threeoaksengineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:22 PM
To: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nathan Howell <[e-mail]>; Michael Wood
<[e-mail]>; Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2018-00566_Albemarle Corporate Center (Notice of Incomplete Pre -Construction
Notification)
Bryan-

I hope that you are doing well. We are working with our client to gather the requested information. We have item a.
completed, but were unable to upload it to the ePCN since it was an Excel file, but will submit it with the other
requested information. Also, we will also provide a plan to account for accreted sediment in the ponds and how that will
be dealt with.
Before we move forward with items b. and c. in your list, we did have some questions that we hope can clarify how to
move forward. Our desire once the ponds are drained is to allow the stream to re-establish itself and for any potential
wetland pockets to form in the newly daylighted floodplain. We do understand that this would need to be monitored
and the stream channel may need future stabilization and the riparian area would need to be replanted (we had
suggested a native plant seed mix). Our goal would be to use the length of the re-established stream and any new
wetland pockets to offset our permanent, mitigable wetland and stream impacts. We had applied for a NWP 27
assuming that it was required; however, we do not intend to attempt to bank any surplus stream or wetland.
Our first question is whether you intend to require compensatory mitigation for the impacts associated with the project.
Our permanent stream impacts are associated with culvert installation along 3 UTs and total 233 linear feet of impact
(73, 71, and 89 linear feet) and our permanent wetland impacts total 0.084 ac. (0.014 and 0.07). If so, would the re-
establishment of the stream and natural development of wetland pockets after pond drainage be an acceptable vehicle
to offset these impacts (while following any required protocols to do so)?
If it is possible to use this method to offset any required compensatory mitigation required for the project, would that
have to be done under a NWP 27 or could that be covered under the NWP 39. Also, if we no longer pursued the NWP
27, would the project still be able to be permitted under a NWP 39?
Another question is, if the pond drainage work didn't require a NWP 27, would the level of detail you requested in your
previous email for the stream be same for the work we are proposing?
Finally, if mitigation was not required for the project and we were just designing the pond sites to ensure that the
stream re-established itself in a stable manner and the area was properly stabilized with vegetation, would you still
require all of the items in item b. below or would the list be reduced?
We do understand that additional information will be required in order for the permit process to move forward. We just
want to make sure that we know exactly what we should be providing before we request items from the design team.
If you could email me back when you have an opportunity it would be much appreciated. Alternatively, if you feel that a
conference call would be easier, please let us know and we can coordinate.
Thanks and have a great evening,
Jim
James Mason
Senior Environmental Scientist
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
919-732-1300 (office)
704-604-8358 (mobile)
[e-mail]
Blockedwww.th reeoaksenei neeri ne.com

goEfRo
From: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) <Bryan.K.Roden [e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:09:41 AM
To: Nathan Howell<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2018-00566_Albemarle Corporate Center (Notice of Incomplete Pre -Construction Notificaiton)
Mr. Howell,
On July 22, 2020, we received the request for jurisdictional determination you submitted on behalf of the City of
Albemarle on a property located in Stanly County, North Carolina. I have completed my initial review of the report and I
have determined that it is incomplete. The following information is necessary before I will issue a determination:
a. Complete the ORM Aquatic Resources Upload Spreadsheet (see attached excel spreadsheet) for all aquatic
resources located within the project area.
b. The stream restoration plan presented in the PCN lacks specific detail and is insufficient to analyze under
Nationwide Permit 27. Therefore, a more formal stream restoration plan is needed and should include but
not limited to:
• Restoration goals;
• Success criteria;
• pre/post longitudinal cross -sectional drawings;
• channel stabilization structure schematics (may also include some general plan to address unstable
areas);
• grading plan;
• planting plan;
• monitoring plan;
• long-term protection methodology for restored reach (e.g., easement, deed restriction);
• etc.
c. There may be some merit in letting the stream find its own path once the ponds are drained and
impounding structures are removed; however, The Corps believes that pulling the structures and walking
away from the site to let nature take its course is completely reasonable.
d. These ponds likely have accreted sediment and the PCN lacks any information about this potential.
Therefore, a plan needs to be presented as to how sediment in the ponds will be dealt with.
Please provide the information requested above in ONE consolidated response within 30-days of the date of this
correspondence. If you do not respond within 30-days, the request will be administratively canceled. Please contact me
via telephone or e-mail if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Bryan Roden -Reynolds, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office

8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262
Office: [phone]

DWR
DhBlon of Water Resources