20220435 Ver 1_More Info Received_20220804 (4)

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 again!

Attached is what I believe you were looking for. A note from the engineer:

* *Very* rough sketch shows what a shifted Road 1 might look like.
* Sketch shows the EOP, which is 10 ft. on either side of the road CL for a total of 20 ft. wide.
* Road 1 has - 6’ shoulder, 6’ foreslope and 3.75’ backslope (total 15.75’) added minimum off each EOP for the typical road assembly.
* Additionally , that grading must daylight to existing grade at a 3:1 slope at minimum for those stream crossings to satisfy DOT. This can be ~10-40 ft. depending on the shoulder height
to existing grade depth of fill/cut.
* All that to say, the road footprint when considering wetland and stream impacts is larger in just what is shown by the red lines in the sketch.

Let me know if this helps or if you need anything else.

Thanks!

Nik

From: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 2:38 PM
To: Nikki Thomson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>; Norton, April R CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Woodland Church Road; DWR Project No. 20220435; USACE SAW-2021-02598; Sage Project No. 2021.105

Thanks, Nikki. I’m looking at this now. Can you please send the Grading and Drainage plan that is referenced in the email chain between April and Sean?

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: Nikki Thomson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 12:44 PM
To: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Norton, April R CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
Subject: [External] Woodland Church Road; DWR Project No. 20220435; USACE SAW-2021-02598; Sage Project No. 2021.105

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]>

Good afternoon Colleen:

First, please accept my apologies that this has taken so long to respond to. We’ve had some staffing changes here and that resulted in this project slipping through the cracks. Your
patience while we get our proverbial “stuff” together is appreciated. Below are your original questions; our responses are in red.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me if you have any additional questions.

Thank you, again, for your patience!

1. Please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the April 14, 2022, Request for Additional Information from the US Army Corps of Engineers (copy attached). [15A NCAC 02H
.0502(c)]

Response: Attached is the email chain between Sage and the April Norton (USACE) demonstrating their satisfaction with our responses to their request for additional information.

2. Please provide additional details regarding avoidance and minimization. It appears that the road could be moved to reduce impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

* Response (provided by the project design team): Based on property boundaries for the proposed site, there is limited space for the access road off of Woodland Church Road. Nutrient
requirements for runoff (Falls Lake Watershed), necessitate that the majority of the site be treated by stormwater control measures (SCMs). There are two main catchments on site, and
the eastern catchment drains to the convergence of stream “SA” and stream “SB”. To capture the most upstream runoff, the SCM should be placed near this confluence area. Due to space
constraints and stream buffers here, the area between the streams at near the North property boundary is ideal (this is the current SCM location).
* Taking this location into account, the road was placed to minimize impacts to the wetlands and streams while maintaining enough room for an SCM here. Shifting the road further south
would give more room to construct the SCM but would increase our disturbance to Wetland “WB-2”. Shifting the road north would trim our wetland impacts slightly, but not leave us enough
room for an SCM with the required footprint. Additionally, Wetland “WB-1” here is close to our proposed limits of disturbance, and shifting too far to the North to avoid Wetland “WB-2”
may end up with impacts to Wetland “WB-1”.
* With all that considered, we do not feel a design with no wetland impacts is feasible. Shifting the road might reduce impacts to an extent but would limit or eliminate the capacity
for an SCM in this area to meet site stormwater requirements.

3. Impact maps show all stream impacts as a red line. Please revise to differentiate temporary and permanent impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

Response: Please see the attached, revised impact maps which now show permanent stream impact as a solid red line and temporary stream impact as a dashed red line. We also must note
that NCDOT provided comments on the slopes to existing grade for the culvert installations and 3:1 slopes are required. This unfortunately widens our area of impact required to grade
to tie-in the slopes. Below is a table demonstrating what originally was requested vs what we are requesting now. The total impacts have not changed, and the footprint remains the
same.

Impact Site

Wetland Permanent (original)

Wetland Permanent

(revised)

Wetland Temp

(original)

Wetland

Temp (revised)

Zone 1

Perm sq. ft.

(original)

Zone 1

Perm sq. ft.

(revised)

Zone 1

Temp sq. ft.

(original)

Zone 1

Temp sq. ft.

(revised)

Zone 2

Perm sq. ft.

(original)

Zone 2

Perm sq. ft.

(revised)

Zone 2 Temp sq. ft. (original)

Zone 2 Temp sq. ft.

(revised)

WB-2

1,239 sq. ft. (0.03 ac.)

1,329 sq. ft. (0.03 ac.)

122 sq. ft. (0.002 ac.)

32 sq. ft. (0.0001 ac.)

6,082

6,330

1,009

762

3,728

3,850

434

311

WA-2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5,407

5,455

1,226

1,178

3,374

3,412

742

704

For WB-2, Zone 1 permanent impacts increased by 248 sq. ft. and the temporary impacts decreased by 247 sq. ft. (discrepancy is accounted for by rounding). Zone 2 permanent impacts increased
by 122 sq. ft. and temporary impacts decreased by 123 sq. ft.

For WA-2, Zone 1 permanent impacts increased by 48 sq. ft. and temporary impacts decreased by 48 sq. ft. Zone 2 permanent impacts increased by 38 sq. f.t and temporary impacts decreased
by 38 sq. ft.

The permanent wetland impact at Site WB-2 increased by 89 sq. ft. (no change in acreage) and the temporary impact decreased by 90 sq. ft. (negligible change in acreage).

4. Please differentiate permanent impacts for the culverts from rip rap dissipator pads in the impact table. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

Response: The permanent loss of channel impacts and the permanent “no loss” of channel impacts (i.e. countersunk rip rap dissipator pad) has been separated out in the impact table.

5. Please provide more information on the proposed SCM outlet in EX-1. Could this impact be moved to reduce buffer impacts? [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

Response: Stormwater management plan review is being addressed by the locally designated municipal authority. As demonstrated in response item No. 1, the location of the SCMs have
been placed where appropriate and will be reviewed and approved by the delegated authority. Further, per 15A NCAC 02B .0714 (9)(a)(i) “New drainage conveyances from a Primary SCM, as
defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1002, when the Primary SCM is designed to treat the drainage area to the conveyance and that comply with a stormwater management plan reviewed and approved under
a state stormwater program or a state-approved local government stormwater program” are “deemed allowable” and therefore do not require specific approval from NCDWR.

6. SCMs are shown on the impact exhibits but not on the site plan. Please provide a site plan that shows the SCMs. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

Response: Stormwater management plan review is being addressed by the locally designated municipal authority and therefore, the location of the devices is not required for NCDWR review
and/or approval.

Nicole Thomson, PWS

Sage Ecological Services, Inc.

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

[phone]