20210513 Ver 1_More Info Received_20210617

Strickland, Bev
From: Matt Michel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 2:27 PM
To: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA); Homewood, Sue
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin; Sydni Law
Subject: [External] RE: RE: Wexford SD - Request for Additional Information
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Christopher,
After speaking with the engineers, their proposed plan is to grade that 'humped' area in the wetland to meet the invert.
It's thought that that area is where an old logging road once was (or maybe still is there). So, yes, I think something like a
swale is proposed there.
Thanks,
Matt
From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 11:39 AM
To: Matt Michel <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin <[e-mail]>; Sydni Law <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: RE: Wexford SD - Request for Additional Information
Thanks, Matt:
I appreciate all the effort you and your team have invested in finding a solution. My initial thought when looking at your
screenshot was that maybe you were just extending the pipe further to meet the wetland at -grade, but the size, length,
and slope are idential to the previous design. Are they suggesting grading a swale, for lack of a better term, to meet the
invert?
Christopher D. Hopper
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone], Ext. 35
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey can
be accessed by copying and pasting the following link into your web browser:
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and
complete the survey.
1

From: Matt Michel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 11:16 AM
To: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin <[e-mail]>; Sydni Law <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: RE: Wexford SD - Request for Additional Information
Hi Christopher and Sue,
Regarding the pipe burial for the Wexford project, our engineers were able to eliminate the burial of the pipe at the
upstream end. They are proposing some additional grading in the wetland to achieve this. Below are some snapshots:
645
pRcpci s&
GRADE
6+U Ft, Truwir4G
WALL
GRADE
RP RAP FALL
GAS
MO
635
610
625
1 .51
ci cQ 1.1l)
CULVERT 2 PROFILE
SCALE. rya
VEar scxF. , �s
1,54
2

:FAT 2
r
HEADWALL 2B
4/
WETLAND IMPACT 2
PERMANENT ROAD FILL
3,068 SF
1 `le
When these permanent impacts are added to the existing impacts, we are still under any mitigation threshold of 0.10
acres.
Would this be an acceptable design? We would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on this.
Thanks,
Matt
From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 5:06 PM
To: Matt Michel <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin <[e-mail]>; Sydni Law <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: RE: Wexford SD - Request for Additional Information
Good Afternoon, Matt:
Thanks for the outreach and opportunity to comment. A 3.5 percent slope is better than a 4.8 percent slope, but it's still
concerning. I remember this wetland from our walkthrough, and our conversation about how difficult this crossing
would be. The feature, Wetland FDS-41K2-1, is a forested wetland with an F3 (depleted matrix) soil. It is the upper 12
inches that define this feature, and in this case only the upper six were described including prominent redoximorphic
concentrations. Soil hydration in this zone is significant based on all indications, so I am concerned about indirect loss of
upslope wetlands.
Culverts within wetlands do not require burial as allowing surface water to pass unrestricted is the intent. Can I ask the
need to such deep burial? I cannot suggest a solution, but others have omitted a lot (or lots) to shift to more suitable
crossing locations, provided multiple at -grade barrels, and/or mitigation for likely loss of waters upslope of the US if no
alternative is available on similar projects. Please note though the latter would require demonstrating need for the loss.
I wish I had a silver bullet for you; a few inches could work, but 12 is concerning. Please don't hesitate to keep the
conversation alive if I can help.
3

Christopher D. Hopper
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone], Ext. 35
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey can
be accessed by copying and pasting the following link into your web browser:
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and
complete the survey.
From: Matt Michel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin <[e-mail]>; Sydni Law <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Wexford SD - Request for Additional Information
Good afternoon Christopher and Sue,
I am working with Sydni Law and Lauren Norris -Heflin on the PCN for the Wexford project (SAW-2020-01531). You had
sent a request for additional information earlier this month. Our engineering team is working on your requests, but we
wanted to run by you all a proposed culvert design for the road crossing over the wetlands area (Impact Area 2). You
both had expressed concerns about the proposed burial of this culvert and the steep slope of the pipe. Our engineers
have been able to reduce the slope slightly and raise the pipe to be mostly at -grade (see below snapshot). But they are
still proposing burial of the pipe to at least one foot depth at the upstream side. Would this be an acceptable design, or
is there an alternative we could pursue?
4

650
645 645
PROPOSED
GRADE
640 RETAINING
WALL
635
630
EXISTING
GRADE
RIP RAP PAD
625
ETAINING
WALL
640
635
630
626
-0.50 0+00 1+00 " (.3
CULVERT 2 PROFILE
How SCALE 1'•=54"
PERT SCALE 1 %5
Thanks,
Matt
Matt Michel, PWS, PhD
Sr. Environmental Scientist
'.•es.
• +
. •
Tir ONS GROUP
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY
Celebrating LGBTQ+ Pride Month
TIMMONS GROUP 1 www.timmons.com
428 Eastwood Road 1 Wilmington, NC 28403
Cell: 574.514.3115
matt.michel©timmons.com
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
To send me files larger than 20MB please click here
5

From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 10:23:51 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Sydni Law <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Wexford SD - Request for Additional Information
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good Morning, Sydni:
Please copy the USACE on your response to NCDWR. Also, please address the following:
1. How would the stream in Impact Area 1 be protected during construction? Similar projects often utilize a stream
pump -around or similar measure to protect downstream areas from sedimentation during construction.
2. Impact Area 2 — similar concern. The proposed culvert would be buried approximately 1 foot below the existing
grade within a wetland and at a 4.77 percent slope. Riprap proposed at the outlet of this culvert is presumably
proposed to abate anticipated scour. We are concerned about preserving soil hydrology within the upslope
wetland. Please address these concerns, and be aware that offsetting indirect impacts may be required for all
upslope wetland areas. Also please note the north arrow may be incorrect on the impact detail.
3. Lots north of Impact Area 2 (refer to Overall Impact Map 2 (CWI-1.2) appear to show irregular fill slopes abutting
the wetland edge, and bold lines that may indicate retaining wall (?) impacts within wetlands. Please provide
additional detail to document no impact would result in these areas, including any permanent or temporary
measures proposed to inform construction activities onsite.
Thanks — please let me know if there are questions.
Christopher D. Hopper
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone], Ext. 35
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey can
be accessed by copying and pasting the following link into your web browser:
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and
complete the survey.
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:07 PM
To: Sydni Law <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Wexford SD
Hello Sydni,
I have reviewed the PCN for Wexford (Manning Ave) and have one concern. We have revised our standard "culvert
burial" requirement for pipes on steep slopes and to prevent the risk of causing headcuts in the channel we request that
if the culvert slope cannot reasonably be reduced then the culvert be installed "at grade". Please see Condition 11 in the
6

GC4256 as an example. Please revise the plans accordingly and submit new plan sheets (only pages with changes
please).
I will consider the application on hold until receipt of the updated plan sheets. Please let me know if you have any
questions or comments,
Thanks,
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
7