20210915 Ver 1_More Info Received_20210827

Strickland, Bev
From: Dan Lacz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 5:47 PM
To: Jennifer Robertson
Cc: [e-mail]; Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] Re: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork
Ranch Site / 5955 Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
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.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Confirmed, the project is not spec. We are relocating a tenant from New Jersey to the site on a forward build
to suit.
Let me know what else you need form my end.
Thanks
Dan
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 27, 2021, at 5:18 PM, Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> David,
> I read through these items quickly. At least one of these buildings is not speculative. Dan will need to speak
for the other one but I am pretty sure it is being constructed with a tenant in mind as well. I think a site
meeting would be very helpful at this point. I think you had mentioned that we could request a new JD since
the ECS delineation was not accurate (not only along the frontage road but along the main drainage as well).
If that is what we need to do to clear up any discrepancies between the delineations and some of the items
below I would like to do so. I have attached a Lidar topo map that we inserted our delineation into a while
back. I thought I had emailed it to you but maybe I did not. I think you will see that our delineation matches
up very well with the Lidar. Please let me know when we can meet on site.
>
> Thank you,
> Jennifer L Robertson, President
> ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
> 338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
> Charlotte, NC 28211
> [phone]<tel:%28704%29%20512-1206> office
> [phone]<tel:%28704%29%20512-1206> mobile
> https://urldefense.com/v3/_http://www.atlasenvi.com_;!!HYmSToo!Pj871
i

> 35kuO_puUQPDS4n77P2W3IcbH3PiGbghZJdtx80xfuRZSH9KSUWIj8KVWz5n_1eKA$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/_http://www.atlasenvi.com/_;!!HYmSToo!Pj8
> 7135kuO_puUQPDS4n77P2W3IcbH3PiGbghZJdtx80xfuRZSH9KSUWIj8KVWyi5U2JIA$ >
> Offices in Asheville and Charlotte
> [cid:image001.jpg@01D79B64.4C603F90]
>
> From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
><[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:32 PM
> To: Jennifer Robertson <[e-mail]>; Dan Lacz
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy
> Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit Avenue / Greensboro / Guilford County /
> commercial)
>
> AII,
>
> Thank you for your PCN, dated 7/14/2021 (received 7/31/2021), for the above referenced project. I have
reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 39 (https://urldefense.com/v3/_https://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP39.pdf_;!!HYmSToolPj87135kuO_puUQPDS4n77P2W3IcbH3PiGbghZJdtx8
OxfuRZSH9KSUWIj8KVWxHgibiUA$ ). 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 wetland/stream delineation shown as an overlay on the
> proposed project plans and used to calculate proposed impacts to
> potential waters of the US appears to be based on Atlas
> Environmental's own delineation. Please reference my email, dated
> 6/23/2021 (attached), where 1 agreed to accept Atlas' "delineation of the stream that parallels Summit
Avenue...Please do share your CAD file of this feature with the engineer for permitting purposes." 1 further
consented that for "stream channel locations of verified streams in areas of proposed impacts, you may use
either a current detailed survey (if available), or a rendering based on the QL2 LiDAR if the channels show up
obviously enough." However, the delineation shown on the project plans is quite different in many wetland
areas than that shown in the PJD dated 6/2/2021), and the flow regime of various sections of stream channels
are also shown to have changed to ephemeral; this does not represent the delineation as approved by the
Corps following field evaluation. It is our understanding that there are various mapping errors shown on the
figure included in the existing PJD; however, the wetland delineation flags verified for the PJD should be
located in the field and shown on the overlay on the project plans and used to calculate proposed project
impacts. Further, 1 see no cause to alter the stream flow regimes. Please recalculate proposed impacts to
streams and wetlands accordingly, proposing compensatory mitigation as required; 2. The overall project
plan shows the proposed footprint that seems to include two buildings, road infrastructure, and parking areas.
To better justify the components of this speculative development, please provide labels for the major aspects
of the conceptual design. This information will be necessary to fully evaluate whether or not the proposed
project demonstrates avoidance and minimization of adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to
waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site, per NWP General Condition
2

23a; 3. The project plans appear to show fill/grading over the portion of Stream 6 (PJD)/CH100 (Atlas)
between proposed Impact S1 and the culvert under US 29, however this impact (>200 If) is not reported on
the PCN or shown as a Stream impact on the plans. If impacts to this stream are proposed, please add them to
the PCN and plans; 4. It appears that the proposed stream impacts do not include reaches confirmed as
perennial or intermittent during the Corps field delineation, but now shown as ephemeral. Given that these
sections have already been field -approved by the Corps, please include them as part of the proposed stream
impacts (e.g. between Impacts S1 and S2); 5. Please provide additional information regarding the apparent
utility line shown to the north of the proposed development;
> * Clearly explain the purpose of this utility;
> * Show the full extent of this utility necessary to justify the single and complete project, including a
delineation of all potential waters of the US within that corridor, even if off -site;
> * Provide profile views of proposed Impacts S5-S8;
> * Clearly describe any and all additional on- and off -site infrastructure necessary to operate the proposed
facility;
> 6. Based on proposed grading, wetland and stream fill, and re-routing of drainage into proposed
stormwater ponds, the project would eliminate the drainage area/hydrology source for several resources,
including:
> * Wetland 8 (PJD)/WL 5000 (Atlas) and Stream 8 (PJD)/CH 500 (Atlas) below Wetland Impact W4;
> * Stream 9 (PJD)/CH 700 (Atlas) below Stream Impact S4;
> * New Wetland 3 (PJD)/various wetlands (Atlas) and Stream 7 (PJD)/CH 400 (Atlas);
> * New Wetland 5 (PJD)/WL 6000 (Atlas) and Stream 5 (PJD)/CH 600 (Atlas);
>
> As currently described, the Corps would consider the remainder of
> these features (down to the nearest viable groundwater input), as
> reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts (see NWP General Conditions
> "District Engineers Decision") to wetlands and streams resulting from
> a loss of hydrology. Note that the combination of direct and indirect
> impacts to these resources would push the proposed impacts above the
> compensatory mitigation threshold for streams as well as wetlands, and
> thus compensatory mitigation would be required for indirect impacts
> resulting in a loss of hydrology and therefore aquatic function in
> addition to all direct impacts. Compensatory mitigation is typically
> required at a 2:1 ratio unless otherwise justified based on resource
> quality (NCWAM/NCSAM);
>
> 1. We are also concerned that the proposed project would have indirect impacts on the following
resources:
> * New Wetland 4 (PJD)/WL 3100 (Atlas) due to stormwater outfall into this narrow wetland feature,
leading to erosion in this feature and resulting reduction of aquatic function;
> * Stream 6 (PJD) /CH 100 (Atlas) and Wetland 4 (PJD)/WL 1000 and 1100 (Atlas) due to isolation to a
narrow valley between fill slopes and proposed Stream Impacts S2 and S3;
>
> How will these features retain their aquatic function when surrounded by impervious surfaces as proposed?
>
> 1. Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow
full evaluation of the proposed project.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
3

>
> 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
> Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
> Mobile: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Email:
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties.
> Our automated Customer Service Survey is located at:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/_https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/cust
> omer-service-survey/_;!!HYmSToolPj87135kuO_puUQPDS4n77P2W3IcbH3PiGbgh
> ZJdtx80xfuRZSH9KSUWIj8KVWyExudKIA$
> Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
>
> From: RaleighNCREG
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]»
> Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 7:54 AM
> To: Jennifer Robertson
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]»
> Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >; Thames, Joyce A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]»
> Subject: SAW-2019-02059 (Reedy Fork Ranch Site / 5955 Summit Avenue /
> Greensboro / Guilford County / commercial)
>
> Jennifer,
>
> Received the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP for the above project and forwarded it to Dave Bailey
for further processing.
>
> Thank you,
> Josephine Schaffer
>
> From: Jennifer Robertson
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]»
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 11:54 PM
4

> To: RaleighNCREG
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]»
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Reedy Fork NWP 39 /Action ID 2019-02059
> Josephine,
> Attached is a NWP 39 application for David Bailey. Thanks!
> Thank you,
> Jennifer L Robertson, President
> ATLAS Environmental, Inc.
> 338 S. Sharon Amity Road #411
> Charlotte, NC 28211
> [phone]<tel:%28704%29%20512-1206> office
> [phone]<tel:%28704%29%20512-1206> mobile
> https://urldefense.com/v3/_http://www.atlasenvi.com_;!!HYmSToo!Pj871
> 35kuO_puUQPDS4n77P2W3IcbH3PiGbghZJdtx80xfuRZSH9KSUWIj8KVWz5n_1eKA$
> <Blockedhttp://www.atlasenvi.com/>
> Offices in Asheville and Charlotte
> [cid:image002.jpg@01D79B64.4C603F90]