20202037 Ver 1_More Info Requested_20210126

Strickland, Bev
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:02 AM
To: Dan McCauley; Matt Ingalls
Cc: Goss, Stephanie; Trone, Rick V; Carlton Burton
Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information - Timber Drive Apartments, Garner,
Wake County; SAW-2019-02022
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
0
Thank you for your PCN and attached information, dated 9/30/2020 (received 12/30/2020), for the above referenced
project. I have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 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the Nationwide Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file: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) The notes on the plan sheet stating "Waters of the US End" and "Waters of the US Begin" are incorrect and
potentially confusing, given that Stream SCA (partially off -site) was determined to be a potential water of the US
during the PJD site visit on 10/22/2019, and both streams and wetlands are potential "waters of the US."
Suggest removing these labels or revising to read "Stream SCA Begin", "Stream SCA End", etc.;
2) The project boundary shown on the project plans includes only a portion of the total —68 acre review area
evaluated in the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) dated 5/13/2020. Additional avoidance and
minimization per NWP 29 General Conditions 23(a) and (b) could be achieved by using the large contiguous
uplands comprising the majority of the remainder of the review area. If additional avoidance and minimization is
not practicable please provide justification. If such justification relies upon other proposed development within
the review area, please provide that information accordingly;
3) Are any of the proposed impacts necessary for stormwater management facilities? For example, a portion of the
southwest corner of Wetland Impact A appears to be proposed for a stormwater basin. Please clarify, and note
that NWP 29 Regional Condition 4.1.1 prohibits discharges in perennial streams, intermittent streams, and
wetlands for stormwater management facilities;
4) Please submit a wetland restoration plan for the temporary wetland impact areas (i.e. Wetland Impact E),
including confirmation that the wetland impact area will be returned to pre -construction grade and contour,
that the top 6-12 inches of the trench will be backfilled with topsoil from the trench, and including a re -
vegetation plan using native wetland species per NWP 29 Regional Condition 4.1.7/NWP 12 Regional Condition
4.1.9. If the above is provided, the Corps generally requires compensatory mitigation at 1:1 for impacts only
involving the permanent conversion of wetland type;
5) If retaining walls are proposed at this or any location along a wetland boundary, it does not appear that the
project plans allow for additional impacts necessary to install the structure. Please evaluate and update the PCN
and plans as necessary;
6) Indirect effects caused by the NWP activity, per NWP 29 General Conditions "District Engineers Decision" part 2:
a. Based on proposed grading and wetland fill and re-routing of drainage into stormwater facilities, the
project appears to eliminate the drainage area/hydrology source for much of Wetlands WAA and WAC
downstream of proposed Wetland Impacts A and D. Based on the information provided, the Corps
would consider the on -site remainder of Wetland WAC, and most (if not all) of the remainder of
Wetland WAA, as indirect impacts (see NWP General Conditions "District Engineers Decision") to

wetlands resulting from a reasonably foreseeable loss of hydrology. Please provide revisions/additional
information to ensure that there is not a reduction in hydrology flowing to the remainder of these
wetlands. If such measures cannot correct the reasonably foreseeable loss of hydrology to these areas,
compensatory mitigation is typically required at a 2:1 ratio unless otherwise justified based on resource
quality (NCWAM/NCSAM);
b. Wetland Impact B is proposed such that only —3.5-feet of wetland width would remain between the fill
limits and the upland boundary. This "pinch point" along this drainage is likely to lead to scouring of the
surface soils, disturbance to vegetation, and a further reduction in wetland function which would be
considered an indirect impact requiring compensatory mitigation if further avoidance and minimization
is not practicable;
7) Based on the NCWAM type of the wetlands proposed for impact (Headwater Forest wetlands), the appropriate
compensatory mitigation type would be "riparian non-riverine" wetland credits (often referred to simply as
"riparian" wetland credits). However, the Wetland Mitigation Statement of Availability from Wildlands Holdings,
dated 9/29/2020, does not specify the type of wetland credits available for purchase. Please confirm that the
type of wetland credits proposed to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirement are appropriate for the
type of wetlands proposed for impact. Further, you may need to request the availability of additional wetland
credits based on items 6a. and b. above.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
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: David. [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.