20220972 Ver 1_401 Comments Response_20221128

Baker, Caroline D
From: Chris Huysman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 3:22 PM
To: Homewood, Sue; Perry Isner; Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Ammons Property - 401 Comments Response
Attachments: SF26-28 stream forms.pdf
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.
Sue
Please see below for a partial response to your September 2, 2022 letter requesting additional information for the
processing of the 401 Water Quality Certification for the Ammons Property (residential development). Reference is also
made to email correspondence on September 29, 2022, November 6, 2022 and November 9, 2022. For ease of review, we
have included the requested information in this correspondence; it is indented and in bold.
The project engineer is making revisions to the drawings and running additional calculations in support of the requested
impacts. These revisions and calculations will be forwarded as soon as practicable; potentially by the end of this week.
We will be drafting a separate response to the US Army Corps of Engineers to respond to their requests for additional
information on October 24, 2022; we will be sending you a copy of the correspondence.
1. A review of the project cannot be completed until the completion of a 30-day public notice as issued by
the US Army Corps of Engineers. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests a response to any
comments received as a result of the Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your response
to the USAGE.
We understand the Division's statement and that more comments may be forthcoming.
2. Please provide evidence of USACE verifications of the wetland and steams as shown on the overall plan
sheet.
On September 29, 2022 we forwarded a copy of the May 4, 2022 email delineation concurrence from Lyle
Phillips. Wetlands are depicted in green, perennial streams are depicted with a dash and three dots, and intermittent
streams are depicted with a dash and one dot.
3. In order to adequately assess DWR stream mitigation requirements for the proposed project, please
provide indication of intermittent/perennial stream determinations for all stream features and provide
DWR stream forms to support the determinations.
The approved delineation, when cross referenced with the approved March 4, 2022 stream buffer determination, shows
the intermittent and perennial stream determinations for all stream features using DWR stream forms with the exception
of the Little River and the large tributary along the southern boundary. Both of these systems are perennial per the
attached stream forms.

4. The proposed overall plan sheet does not appear to match the buffer determination issued by DWR
March 4, 2022:
a. Stream H does not appear on the proposed plan sheet;
b. Please verify that the start points of Streams AA and Z have been accurately surveyed and shown on the
plan sheets as they appear shorter than shown on the DWR buffer approval map;
c. Stream A above the confluence of Stream F, as shown on the approved map from buffer determination
letter (shown below circled in blue) does not appear on the proposed plan sheet.
Wetlands and Waters staff and DWR staff resolved the potential discrepancies between the submitted plan sheets and the
approved buffer determination as per below.
a. Feature H was determined to extend approximately 15 feet from Stream A. The feature will be depicted on all
forthcoming maps and impact will be assigned accordingly. The feature is entirely in the first 30 feet of the Neuse River
Buffer and buffer limits will be adjusted accordingly.
b. The start points for all streams were field located using high accuracy GPS. Maps included in the DWR approval are
distorted.
c. This feature was reviewed during the field evaluation and it was determined that much of it is not subject to the Neuse
River Buffer Rules. Stream forms were completed along this feature and were included in the request and should be part
of the record. It is worthy to note that the soil survey depicts more stream segments and longer stream lengths than are
actually present on the ground.
5. The application states that proposed project will require permanent and temporary impacts to Waters of
the US and Waters of the State, however the impact information provided does not clearly indicate which
impacts are proposed as permanent and which are proposed as temporary. Please provide a detailed
breakdown of temporary and permanent impacts for each proposed impact area.
The forthcoming revised plans depict both permanent and temporary impacts in graphics and tabular form; they have been
updated since the public notice. Overall, impacts have been reduced under the current site plan.
6. Please provide proposed impact drawings that include grading limits for roadways so that culvert
lengths and buffer impact areas can be sufficiently reviewed. In addition, it appears that buffer impacts
are not proposed outside of the culvert/road fill, however it is the Division's experience that dewatering
activities and installation of riprap aprons require additional buffer clearing. Please ensure that all buffer
impacts are appropriately indicated on the plans.
The applicant and their engineers are confident that a qualified contractor can conduct the work shown on the forthcoming
revised drawings. Conceptual drawings will be provided for crossing R3 as the final design and sizing of the box culvert
is approximately 3 years out.
7. It appears that buffers that are shown on the impact sheets may have been determined from the existing
stream centerline. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0714(8)(a) the Zone 1 buffer begins at the most landward
limit of top of bank. Please provide clarification or updated impact sheets and an updated impact table
accordingly.
Some of the buffer widths had been based on the stream centerline but many had been determined using high resolution
GIS Lidar to determine the top of bank. The forthcoming revised impact drawings utilize a combination of field data and
GIS Lidar to determine the top of bank.

8. The application states that the applicant determined that avoidance of the general fill for residential lot
construction was not practicable. Please provide specific details as to how this evaluation was
determined. Given the size of the development it is not clear that the loss of a small percentage of lots
would render the project financially unviable. A detailed analysis should be provided for each impact area
individually, as well as the total to avoid both impact areas. Please note that any financial evaluation
provided should include the cost of mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts. Please provide
conceptual plan sheets with impacts areas and estimated amounts for On -site Alternatives 1 and 2,
The financial impact of avoiding general fill is approximately 2.7 million dollars based on data provided by the
developer. Please reference our forthcoming correspondence with the US Army Corps of Engineers for a more complete
analysis. The analysis includes the costs of mitigation.
9. The profile of Culvert Impact RI and R3 do not indicate that the culverts will be buried at the inlet and
outlet to ensure aquatic passage. Please clarify why or provide a revised profile drawing for the impact.
The forthcoming revised impact drawings will show the culverts buried at the invert and outlet to ensure aquatic
passage. Note that impact R3 is at a rock out crop.
10. The inlet alignment of the culvert at impact R3 appears to be at an extreme angle with the natural
channel. The Division has significant concerns about the proposed alignment causing the upstream
channel to become unstable. Please realign the culvert or otherwise address impacts that would be
expected to occur upstream of the current alignment.
The project engineer is not concerned that the upstream channel will become anymore unstable and will seal the drawings
at the time of the construction. The crossing is located proximate to a natural rock outcrop and the existing upstream
conditions are incised approximately 4 to 5 feet. The proposed culvert will be acting as grade control that replicates the
existing conditions.
11. The riprap apron proposed at Impact R3 is extensive. It is the Division's experience that when
excessively long riprap aprons are required for velocity control and/or stability that natural stream
function is not maintained and therefore these impacts should be considered as permanent loss of stream
and included in mitigation amounts. Please revise the application materials accordingly.
The project engineer has determined that rip rap is necessary to stabilize the channel based on sound engineering
principles for the drainage area. The forthcoming plan sheet includes supporting calculations to meet erosion control
requirements. All rip rap will be underlain with geosynthetic fabric and be pressed into the channel bed. Appropriately
constructed dissipaters are not considered a loss under the applicable definitions of the US Army Corps of Engineers
regulations.
12. Please specify the width of the sewerline construction corridor and the width of the proposed
permanent maintenance corridor for all sewerline impact areas. For any areas with a construction
corridor greater than 40 feet or a permanent maintenance corridor greater than 30 feet please provide
justification for the proposed widths.
The applicant has committed to boring sewer crossings S4 and S6 to reduce impacts to wetlands and streams. All sewer
construction corridors are 40 feet wide but for impact S5 which will have a construction corridor that is 45 feet wide. The
extra width on S5 to allow for the collocation of a gravity line and a forcemain line in one crossing impact location. All
maintenance corridors are 30 feet wide. City of Raleigh and NC DWR rules dictate that the sewers pass 3 feet under the
channel bed and this results in significantly deep construction based on the length of the outfall. Deep construction results
in wider construction corridors particularly where soils are saturated and that is why the applicant proposes the maximum
40 foot width construction corridor.

13. Impact S2 is a proposed sewerline crossing that does not appear to connect to anything. Please provide
additional information as to the purpose of this crossing location.
The site plans included in the public notice depicted the proposed build out for the project. Impact S2 is required to serve
residential units. All impacts are necessary to meet the applicant's objectives.
14. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b) "a 401 Water Quality Certification may only be issued upon
determining that the proposed activity will comply with state water quality standards which includes
designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria and the state's antidegradation policy, as defined in
rules of 15A NCAC 02B .0200... In assessing whether the proposed activity will comply with water quality
standards, the Division shall evaluate if the proposed activity: (2) would cause or contribute to a violation
of water quality standards; (3)would result in secondary or cumulative impacts that cause or contribute to,
or will cause or contribute to, a violation of water quality standards;" Based on the information provided
with the application, the Division believes there is potential for indirect impacts to the following features
within the overall project limits:
a. The large wetland adjacent to a SCM in the vicinity of impacts S2 & S3;
b. The wetland and stream adjacent to and below impact R2;
c. The stream above S10;
d. The stream above S13
The Divisions belief that there is a potential for indirect impacts is speculative and is a matter of enforcement. That said,
we provide the following comments:
a. The SCM basin is situated in high ground and its bottom elevation is above the groundwater table and the adjacent
wetland. Based on the lack of a regulated tributary entering it, the existing wetland hydrology is primarily groundwater
driven with minor contributions from overland flow. The SCM areas have been preliminarily evaluated and there is no
groundwater within the separation distance between the bottom of the SCM and the high-water table that is required by
state law. This separation supports our position that there is no potential for a quantifiable indirect impact. The project
engineer has reevaluated the outlet for the proposed structure and has relocated it as far upstream as possible to address
the Division's concern of a potential impact.
b. The wetland and stream complex extend upstream beyond the project area along the natural valley. The drainage area
at the proposed crossing is greater than 20 acres and there will be no indirect impact upstream or downstream of crossing
R2.
c. The intermittent stream upstream of impact S 10 will not be impacted by the proposed work. The seasonally
groundwater driven system within an approximately seven acres drainage area will remain intact as flows from the
adjacent open space and pervious surfaces will maintain intermittent flows.
d. The intermittent stream upstream of impact S13 will not be impacted by the proposed work. The seasonally
groundwater driven system within an approximately six acres drainage area will remain intact as flows from the adjacent
open space and pervious surfaces will maintain intermittent flows. The stream and wetland system is groundwater driven
and the hydrology will not be impacted.
Chris Huysman
336.406.0906
170 Dew Drop Road
Sparta, NC 28675

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
wetlands-waters.com
0 .....
..... .....
.....
ry.M' eo.� ....
M`C........
.F....o. ..Fom...
........
The information contained in this email message is confidential and may be legally privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named above. If you are not an intended recipient or if you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by
return email or telephone if the sender's phone number is listed above, then promptly and permanently delete this message. Thank you for
your cooperation and consideration.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 01 /14/2022
Project/Site:Ammons
Latitude: 35.80591
Evaluator: PI DL
County: Wake
Longitude:-78.36125
Total Points:
46.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other SF26
Stream is at least intermittent
if>_ 19 or erennial if 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent PepIlnial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 19.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 12.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 14.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
3
2
1
2
3
1
3
0
0
1.5
3
3
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
0
.5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 01-14-2022
Project/Site:Ammons
Latitude: 35.80538
Evaluator: PI DL
County: Wake
Longitude:-78.36250
Total Points:
44.75
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other SF27
Stream is at least intermittent
if>_ 19 or erennial if 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent PepIlnial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 19.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 12.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 12.75 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
2
3
1
3
3
1
2
0
0
1.5
3
3
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0.75

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 01-14-2022
Project/Site:Ammons
Latitude: 35.80684
Evaluator: PI DL
County: Wake
Longitude:-78.34731
Total Points:
49.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other SF28
Stream is at least intermittent
if>_ 19 or erennial if 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent PepIlnial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 21.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 13.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 14.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
3
3
0
3
3
2
3
0
0
1.5
3
3
3
.5
.5
.5
3
3
3
2
2
1.5
1.5
0
0
1.5