20220413 Ver 1_RE_ _External_ RE_ Copper District Project - Phase 1 DWR#20220413_SAW-2020-02050_20220713

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]>

When I do issue, please confirm you are okay with my updates to H&S’s figures. Stream loss is 0.039 acre (it should be rounded up, not down). Because you expect a Phase II to be added,
I left it to the thousandth.

Christopher D. Hopper

Regulatory Specialist

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulatory Division

3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105

Wake Forest, NC 27587

O: [phone], Ext. 35

M: [phone]

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/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/__;!!HYmSToo!fp5Kwa-zDUyV6kUGqsH5BJEp7eLkPic
kp3Emis0DDz2d0t214AanSwMIjdSdfA5zlabnSf0qcWXyaUtIToJ-M5ZUu-gyjuxAZbK63w$> . Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:15 AM
To: Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail]>; Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copper District Project - Phase 1 DWR#20220413/SAW-2020-02050

We’ve been discussing it, Jason. Once Colleen is satisfied and has an opportunity to issue, I’ll do the same.

Christopher D. Hopper

Regulatory Specialist

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulatory Division

3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105

Wake Forest, NC 27587

O: [phone], Ext. 35

M: [phone]

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/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/__;!!HYmSToo!fp5Kwa-zDUyV6kUGqsH5BJEp7eLkPic
kp3Emis0DDz2d0t214AanSwMIjdSdfA5zlabnSf0qcWXyaUtIToJ-M5ZUu-gyjuxAZbK63w$> . Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

From: Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 5:43 PM
To: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: Copper District Project - Phase 1 DWR#20220413/SAW-2020-02050

Hey Colleen!

Wanted to check in and see if you had a chance to make it the rest of the way into the review for this additional information. We just cleared a couple hurdles with the Town so I’m just
looking to give the Client an update on where we are in the review process.

Any specifics you can offer on expected timeline?

Thanks!

-Jason

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

From: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 6:34 PM
To: Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Copper District Project - Phase 1 DWR#20220413/SAW-2020-02050

Hey Jason,

I haven’t had a chance to review the new information and maps, but I wanted to let you know that I did get the email with the attachments. I think Bev figured out that there was a settings
issue during processing that converted the files to black and white, and I believe she got it fixed in LF. Thank you for sending the color files. I much prefer to be certain that I
am looking at the same thing you both are looking at.

Thanks,

Colleen Cohn

Environmental Specialist II

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Water Resources

Raleigh Regional Office

3800 Barrett Drive

Raleigh, NC 27609

Office: 919-791-4258

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 4:15 PM
To: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [External] RE: Copper District Project - Phase 1 DWR#20220413/SAW-2020-02050

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]>

Hey Colleen-

We have provided the requested clarifications in-line with your comments below. Also attached to this email are multiple PDFs for help in reviewing the requested clarifications. Each
of the following PDFs are referenced in one of the responses below:

* Copper District Illustrative Plan
* Copper District Permit Drawings
* Copper District Figures 1-4
* Copper District Culvert Profile Sheet
* Copper District Phase 1 EC Sheet
* Copper District Mitigation SOA

Feel free to give me a call to discuss any additional questions you might have after reviewing the below additional information. Happy to share screens and explain anything you may still
have questions about!

Thanks!

-Jason

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

From: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 2:19 PM
To: Hartshorn, Jason <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Copper District Project - Phase 1 DWR#20220413/SAW-2020-02050

Good afternoon,

I am beginning my review of the above referenced project, and in order to complete the review, some additional information is required:

1. The purpose of this project is unclear. No building envelopes are shown to demonstrate the need for the project and to show how wetlands, streams, and buffers impacts are necessary
or why impacts cannot be further avoided and minimized. The roads seem to go to nowhere. Please provide additional details and if necessary, provide revised plans with building envelopes
shown. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1) & 15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)]

a. As stated in the permit application package, the purpose of the project is to construct a mixed-use development in Clayton, Johnston County, NC, along with associated infrastructure
and amenities in this rapidly growing area. An additional graphic has been attached to this email showing the proposed building layout within the Site. As stated in the application,
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. Due to the limitations of access to the NC 42 corridor, the only full movement intersection available for use by the
Site is at the north end of the project at the Springbrook Avenue intersection. That alignment points the road directly at wetland W3, so we have shortened the entrance road as much
as we can and then curved the entrance road as much as possible on as tight of a radius as is safe consistent with roadway design standards to shift the traffic circle west, away from
W3. We are also utilizing retaining walls along the entire length of that wetland impact to further reduce impacts as much as practical. Shifting the traffic circle from the proposed
location requires more extensive fill slopes as grade within the property rises rapidly south of the traffic circle, and shifting west results in additional impacts to jurisdictional
pond P1 and more extensive wetland impacts to W3. The proposed impacts at Site 1 represent the smallest amount of impact resulting from use of safe and accepted roadway design standards.

Impacts associated with Site 2 are riparian buffer impacts only, and the only permanent impacts are associated with grading and revegetation only, which is “Deemed Allowable” per the
Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules. We have documented these impacts as a courtesy for NCDWR and to make it clear that we are avoiding impacts to Buffer Zone 1 to the extent practicable
throughout the project. We do have 1 small area of temporary construction disturbance to Buffer Zone 1 at Site 2. As shown in the permit drawings, this is located along the existing
berm of Pond P2, an impoundment of stream S1. The berm will be used for construction access to the eastside of the property and to allow for more avoidance and minimization during construction
by allowing equipment access to both sides of the stream at Site 3. Minor rehabilitation work will be conducted along the berm to stabilize the berm, however no permanent impacts to
the buffer along the berm will result.

Impacts at Site 3 are associated with a perpendicular road crossing over stream S1. The impact size was specifically selected because it represented the least amount of impacts due to
adjacent grades, the width of the stream channel, alignment of the stream, and lack of adjacent wetlands. This crossing is necessary to provide access to high ground on the east side
of the property and as required by the Town for connectivity in this area of Clayton. Without the road, there is no access to the eastern portion of the property due to the property
being bisected by stream S1 and it’s associated wetlands. Fill slopes at this crossing are as steep as is safe and practicable as shown in the project plan sheets.

2. The impact maps (Figures 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4) are showing up as black and white images that make it difficult to differentiate the impacts. Please submit impact maps that clearly
show the impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)]

a. Impact maps were submitted via Laserfiche in full color. We are not sure why you would be seeing them in black and white as we do not have any graphics in black and white only and
are not aware of an option in Laserfiche to convert full color graphics to black and white. The full color PDFs as submitted to NCDWR are reattached to this email for reference.

3. Figures 2, 3, and 4 were also showing up as black and white images that make it difficult to see the parcel outlines indicated. Please resubmit. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)]

a. All figures, including Figure 2, 3, and 4 were submitted via Laserfiche in full color. As stated in #2, we are not sure why you would be seeing them in black and white as we do not
have any graphics in black and white only and are not aware of an option in Laserfiche to convert full color graphics to black and white. The full color PDFs as submitted to NCDWR are
reattached to this email for reference.

4. Sheet Number C5.3 shows a rip rap dissipators in both the wetlands below the pond and to the NE of the roundabout. However, these areas appear to be outside of the LOD on Figure 6.1
(and the one has a note that says “Linework in CAD for graphical purposes, no disturbance to wetland outside LOD.” Are rip rap dissipator pads in surface waters planned at these or
any other locations? Are these impacts included in the amounts shown in the PCN? Please provide more details. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)]

a. As stated in the callout on the graphics, and as shown in the plan sheets, riprap dissipator pads are planned at the outlet of the culvert at impact Site 1 to ensure non-erosive
flow from the culvert, however the riprap will be placed inside the permitted LOD only. The proposed culvert at impact Site 1 is to maintain connectivity between the remaining western
portion of W3, beneath the roadway corridor, and to the eastern portion of W3. Due to the elevations in the area, this pipe will have a shallow slope and not convey a substantial quantity
of water, so extensive riprap dissipators are not necessary based on the design calculations. The small amount of riprap here will be within the LOD and approximately even with the
footprint of the retaining wall.

5. How is hydrology to be maintained between the pond & wetland by the pond and the rest of wetland W3 on the other side of the roundabout? Would it enter the site’s stormwater collection
system instead? Linework is unclear and sometimes obstructed by call-out text. Would the small wetland feature by the pond become isolated? Is a culvert being used? Please provide additional
details. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3)]

a. As discussed in #4 above, the plans show that a culvert has been placed beneath the roadway corridor specifically to maintain hydrologic connectivity between pond P1, the western
portion of W3, and the eastern portion of W3. We discussed this extensively with the USACE during a pre-application meeting, and in follow up conversations with the USACE. These conversations
determined that routing jurisdictional flow into a stormwater collection system is not permissible. Accordingly we have placed the culvert to maintain the connection between the two
wetland areas so pond P1 and the western portion of W3 will not become isolated. The culvert is clearly visible on Figure 6.1 – the culvert begins at the west end of the unimpacted
portion of W3 and routes west beneath the center of the traffic circle, discharging at the callout discussed in #4 above.

6. Please provide additional information on why the Zone 1 temporary construction access. It appears that this impact could be avoided by accessing the pond from the west side of the
stream as only the western side of the pond appears to have proposed grading impacts. [15A NCAC 02B .0611(b)(2)(A)]

a. As discussed in #1 above and in the PCN application, the berm of pond P2 is proposed for temporary construction access to allow access to the west side of the site and facilitate
the installation of the stream crossing at Site 3. In addition to that construction access, minor rehabilitation work will be conducted along the berm to better stabilize the berm and
ensure the outlet control structures function safely and as designed. No additional impacts to surface waters will occur from this rehabilitation, it will only occur in Buffer Zone
1 along the berm, which is why it was included as an impact for NCDWR review.

7. It is not clear from the profile view how deeply the culvert would be installed. Please provide more details, including a cleaner illustration. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

a. I believe you are asking about the culvert proposed at Site 3, the perpendicular roadway crossing of stream S1. As shown on the profile view in the plans on Page 19 of the PDF, the
proposed 72x72” Concrete Box Culvert is located 24” minimum below the 16” ductile iron waterline, and that waterline is 3’ minimum below the road surface. That adds up to a total minimum
depth of 76” to top of the box culvert. That places the invert of the culvert at a minimum of 12’ 4” below the road surface. Relative to current conditions, the profile view also clearly
shows the existing ground surface at just above 286’ elevation in the bottom of the stream bed, and the bottom of the proposed Concrete Box Culvert at 285’ elevation. The burial is
approximately 1’ below current streambed in order to comply with USACE requirements on culvert burial. A snip of the profile view is attached for reference, with relevant dimensions
highlighted for clarity (blue circles). Elevation measurements (Y Axis) are clearly labeled on the right side of the graphic, and existing streambed and proposed culvert inlet are called
out with orange arrows. If this is still not sufficiently clear, please let me know and we can set up a call and share screens to review the applicable dimensions on the profile view.

8. Many fill slopes adjacent to wetlands, such as the large stormwater BMP and the pump station pad below Road B for instance, seem to tie into wetland edges. It is unclear if wetlands
are impacted. Please provide additional information. Are retaining walls used? [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

a. Fill slopes have been intentionally designed to terminate prior to wetland limits, as indicated by the location of the LOD outside of the wetland. Silt fencing will be installed
along the LOD, outside of the wetlands, to ensure contractors do not inadvertently impact wetlands. Retaining walls are utilized where practicable, like along the entrance road into
the Site at Impact Site 1. Where retaining walls are not practicable, such as along the stormwater BMP and near the water tower and pump station pad, fill slopes have been tightened
up to be as steep as practicable to avoid impacts to wetlands and buffers.

9. Can you please provide additional details concerning the temporary stream impacts? I am having a difficult time finding the dewatering and diversion plans. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

a. Temporary stream impacts are shown and described in great detail on page 10 of the plans PDF, Sheet C3.0, Phase 1 Erosion Control Plan. The plan sheet shows the entire limits of
the pump around work, the impervious dikes utilized, calls out the sump location for intake, and the discharge point at the limits of pump around. The “Stream Crossing Construction
Sequence” is also shown in the top left of the sheet describing the process in great detail. The Phase 1 Erosion Control Sheet has been attached with relevant areas highlighted for
clarity.

10. Please provide additional information showing the separation between the Site 3 Roadway Impacts and Site 3 Grading/Revegetation impacts. Roadway impacts amounts are very close to
1/3 of an acre. [15A NCAC 02B .0714(11)]

a. As shown in the Permit Drawings, the road impacts follow the roadway corridor on a roughly parallel basis, showing the limits of the road impacts and the fill slope necessary to
support the roadway. The grading and revegation impacts are along the stream banks of S1 and are farther away from the roadway corridor. These grading and revegetation impacts are necessary
to facilitate the grades tying back to natural stream banks from adjacent development areas that are necessary to support the development within the Site. Lines are visible in the permit
drawings showing the breaks in the impact hatching to differentiate between roadway impacts at Site 3 and grading and revegetation impacts. The fill slopes were specifically tightened
to the extent practicable to reduce impacts such that they were below 1/3rd of an acre as a perpendicular crossing.

11. The application states that a Statement of Availability from Falling Creek Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank is attached, but I do not see it. Please provide a Statement
of Availability. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

a. The Statement of Availability from Falling Creek Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank was uploaded via Laserfiche at part 1g., as referenced in the attached Laserfiche confirmation
copy we downloaded immediately follow submittal. However, the SOA has been reattached for convenience.

As a note, my computer is struggling with the 1 GB “LUMEN CD SUBMITTAL FINAL” 119 page file, even in Laserfiche. If you need to point me to a particular page or section of that file,
could you please send me just those particular pages? The Supplemental Information Form https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form <Blockedhttps://nam11.safelinks.protection.outloo
k.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fedocs.deq.nc.gov*2FForms*2FSupplemental-Information-Form%26data%3D05*7C01*7
Cjason.hartshorn*40kimley-horn.com*7C23a19b1b31c24552788d08da3443e3bd*7C7e220d300b5947e58a81a4a9d9afbdc4*7C0*7C0*7C637879763444096259*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT
iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C%26sdata%3DfyPp600qkoEByoc9FMDeC*2BFBP2Fi*2FDlZqso*2BbIY2GAk*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!HYmSToo!d0AGs90O582kpqBZlUYMfmuIPH18O84T6
RY8MHOh4cCq15p7qvsnHrBiSRliufNKD_flWph7Yzwzmrt3uDqyNlqpAWEPOJY8HRe-%24&data=05%7C01%7Cjason.hartshorn%40kimley-horn.com%7C4eed5bc3f4344cd9418708da5956455d%7C7e220d300b5947e58a81a4a9d9afbdc4%7C0%7C0%7
C637920524330352446%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BvB9cySbHChUG0WI2ftR8DuuvqIq8bXcA5duIlV0WVo%3D&reserved=0>
is still the easiest way for me to receive large files (make sure to choose “More Information Response” and then please send me a quick email to let me know you submitted it. LF will
send me an email to tell me I have new information to review, but the automatic email won’t tell me what project). Small files are fine through email.

Thanks!

Colleen Cohn

Environmental Specialist II

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Water Resources

Raleigh Regional Office

3800 Barrett Drive

Raleigh, NC 27609

Office: 919-791-4258

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.