_External_ RE_ SAW-2021-00067 (Project P134 Perimeter Security Compliance_ Slocum Road Entry Control Facility) RFI Response Package

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, August 12, 2021 5:35 PM
To:Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Ward, Garcy
Subject:\[External\] RE: SAW-2021-00067 (Project P134 Perimeter Security Compliance, Slocum
Road Entry Control Facility) RFI Response Package
Attachments:P134-WETLAND IMPACT EXHIBIT & XS (Corrected) 20210812.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Hey Emily-

Thanks for the email! You are not missing something unfortunately – the permit drawings have a typo on Site #7’s
wetland impact total (should read 0.10 ac instead of 0.01 ac), which is the discrepancy you are seeing. I apologize for the
confusion but the attached corrected Permit Drawing PDF should resolve the issue. I revised the callout on Site #7 to
match the actual impacts we are proposing, which also matches the application documentation. While quadruple
checking the callouts, I noticed two other typos that are now corrected in the attached PDF.

To summarize, the attached Permit Drawings have been corrected as follows:
 Site #7 – Permanent Wetland Impact quantity shown in the callout has been corrected from 0.01 ac to 0.10 ac as
documented in the permit application package
 Site #7 – Permanent Stream S1 Impact unit shown in the callout has been corrected from “SQ FT” to “LF”
 Site #6 – Permanent Neuse River Buffer Zone 1 Impact quantity shown in the callout has been corrected from
484 sqft to 848 sqft as documented in the permit application package

I sincerely apologize for missing these typos, but hopefully with the corrected file attached to this email you have
discrepancy-free documentation to carry us through the PN. As one final note in the interested of clarify -- as above,
these corrections are to the text callouts only, the impacts stated in the application and shown graphically are all still the
same.

Garcy – I copied you on this email due to the correction to Site #6 and Site #7’s callouts. Again, there is no change to the
application impact quantities, this is a correction to the text callouts in the permit drawings only.

Let me know if either of you have any questions or need anything else!
-Jason

Jason Hartshorn, PWS
Kimley-Horn | 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601
Direct: 919 678 4155 | Mobile: [phone] | www.kimley-horn.com

From: Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 2:34 PM
To: Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2021-00067 (Project P134 Perimeter Security Compliance, Slocum Road Entry Control Facility) RFI
Response Package

Hi Jason,

1

David and I have been reviewing the revised plan drawings, and the application indicates 6.13 acres of wetlands will be
permanently impacted, but the figures on the plan drawings only add up to 6.05 acres. Are we missing something?

We’re working on getting the PN out first thing next week, but will need to nail this down.

Thank you,
Emily

Emily B. Thompson
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 W. 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
[e-mail]

From: Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:40 PM
To: Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wescott CIV William G II <[e-mail]>; Lekson, David M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Richards,
Mackenzie <[e-mail]>; Niss, Robyn <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: SAW-2021-00067 (Project P134 Perimeter Security Compliance, Slocum Road Entry
Control Facility) RFI Response Package

Emily and Garcy –

On behalf of our client, MCAS Cherry Point, we are submitting the attached Incomplete Application Response and
Additional Information Package for the Project P134 Perimeter Security Compliance, Slocum Road Entry Control Facility
at MCAS Cherry Point, located in Craven County, NC. In addition to the narrative response to comment document, this
package also includes the following supporting documentation:

 Revised Permit Drawings with Cross Sections
 Treatment Swale Exhibits
 Revised Adjacent Property Owner Figure and Table
 Stormwater Permit Approvals and Stormwater Design Narrative Excerpt
 Bridge Plans (partial set)
 Copy of US Coast Guard Advance Approval Exemption Request Package

Due to the file size (140MB), I have uploaded the PDF to CitrixFiles. You can download the package by clicking the link
below.

Click here to download attachments.

Garcy – I have already submitted the same documentation via Laserfiche under project #20210927 ver 1.

Emily – If you can send me a DoD SAFE dropoff link I’ll get these documents uploaded for you use immediately.

Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing the PDF, or if you have any additional questions on the attached
documentation!

2

Thanks!
-Jason

Jason Hartshorn, PWS
Kimley-Horn | 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601
Direct: 919 678 4155 | Mobile: [phone] | www.kimley-horn.com

From: Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 3:22 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Wescott CIV William G II <[e-mail]>; Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail]>;
Lekson, David M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2021-00067 (Project P134 Perimeter Security Compliance, Slocum Road Entry Control Facility/MCAS
Cherry Point/Craven) Incomplete Application

Good afternoon Mr. Radford,

This email serves as official notice that the Department of the Army (DA) individual permit application SAW-2021-00067
you submitted on behalf of United States Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point for its Project P134 – Perimeter
Security Compliance, Slocum Road Entry Control Facility adjacent to Slocum Creek, in Havelock, Craven County, North
Carolina, is incomplete.

Accordingly, should you wish to pursue DA authorization for this work, you must submit the following:

1. The plans you furnished are inadequate for our processing. Specifically:

a. The drawings are the basis for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), agency, and public review, and as
submitted with the supporting documentation, are difficult to read and understand. You must clearly
indicate the limits of filling and drainage impacts to jurisdictional features on the plans entitled, Grading
and Drainage Plans and Site Plan Subset Plans. This can be done with color shading, crosshatching, or
similar graphic symbols.

b. You must submit typical cross section drawings at the locations where the project impacts jurisdictional
features, indicating on the drawings the limits of filling and drainage impacts to the jurisdictional areas.

c. Please be aware that you provided no indication that you will be coordinating with the U.S. Coast Guard
regarding its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for construction of
the proposed bridge across the navigable waters of Slocum Creek. In order for the Corps to evaluate
your proposal pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, you must submit detailed
plan and cross section drawings of the proposed bridge and pedestrian lane, including ancillary features
that will be attached to the bridge, and any filling associated with approaches, abutments, etc.

2. Review of your application revealed that the project includes the construction of “treatment swales” within and
adjacent to jurisdictional features. Please describe the methodology used for evaluating the potential drainage
effects of the subject swales. If you did not consider the effect of drainage associated with this work on
jurisdictional areas, this must be undertaken to capture all potential project impacts.

3. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.1 (d), the names and addresses of adjacent property owners must be included in your
application. Please contact me to discuss the limits of this requirement.

Please be aware that your application will be considered incomplete until the requested information is received. Based
upon review of the information you provide, additional information may be requested. If no information is received within
30 days, the submittal will be administratively withdrawn, but can be reopened by submitting the necessary information.

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at telephone [phone], or
[e-mail] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Emily
3

Emily B. Thompson
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 W. 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
[e-mail]

4