20210371 Ver 2_More Info Received_20230414

Baker, Caroline D
From:Kim Hamlin <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, January 26, 2023 1:58 PM
To:Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:Thomas, Zachary T
Subject:\[External\] RE: SAW-2021-00385 / Jake May Drive Project / Leoterra Wendell
Development, LLC / Wendell / Wake County, NC - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Attachments:SAW-2021-00801 - Jake May Drive - Fairview Crossing - Response to USACE
Comments - 1-26-2023.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Good afternoon, Chris!

Thank you for your comments. Please find the attached Response to Comments and revised impact maps for SAW-2021-
00385 (Jake May Drive Project) located in Wendell, Wake County, NC. Please let us know if you have any questions. Have
a great day!

Thanks,
Kim

Kim Hamlin, PWS
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
Cell: 919.622.7888
[e-mail]

From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 1:18 PM
To: Kim Hamlin <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2021-00385 / Jake May Drive Project / Leoterra Wendell Development, LLC / Wendell / Wake County, NC -
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Good Afternoon, Kim:

Thank you for your application to utilize Nationwide Permit 29 to construct the above referenced project. Additional
information will be required to consider this application complete. Please see below and don’t hesitate to call or reply
with questions or concerns.

1) Culverts appear to be proposed at stream grade. Please provide additional detail to ensure compliance with
general condition 2 (Aquatic Live Movements), and regional conditions 8 (Riprap) and 9 (culvert placement).

2) Impact exhibits would be part of any verification issued for this project. We appreciate the difficulty of depicting
multiple impact types on a single exhibit. However, the impact exhibits are too busy to facilitate our
review. Please provide exhibits specific to what our permit would authorize (stream/wetland/open water
impacts). Call each impact area out, numbering or labeling each, with an area of impact requested please.

1

a. Exhibit A: What would become of the wetland between the second Fairway Crossing Drive crossing and
SCM#1? This area doesn’t appear to be called out as an impact, although trails and stormwater
infrastructure appears to be shown.

b. The boardwalk (?) stream crossing is shown, but would a second stream crossing along the greenway be
installed north of SCM #1?

c. All: Match lines don’t appear to match. Areas of impact are depicted, and this gives the impression
some areas aren’t included in the overall tally.

d. A silt fence/limits of disturbance impact is shown across the stream between the pond and Jake May
Drive. However, no impact is listed in the table.

e. What is the peppered fill corridor shown inside the silt fence? There is no legend entry with this
pattern. Would a sidewalk, trail, or other disturbance be installed?

f. Exhibit C: Please elaborate on the need for fill-slopes extending to the normal pool of the existing pond
for a mulch trail, and what measures are proposed to ensure no inadvertent discharge results. Was a
retaining wall, boardwalk, or other minimization effort considered?

g. Exhibit D: Was a retaining wall or other measure considered to minimize impacts to the wetland? If
stormwater is being collected and discharged below most of this wetland, how would hydration of this
feature be maintained?

h. Exhibit E: Match lines are confusing. Impacts are shown here but none are listed in the impact table. A
playground is reported as roadway impact?

i. Exhibit F: Headwalls are shown on the profile sheet, but don’t appear to have limited the area of stream
or wetland impacted. Have steeper slopes or higher headwalls been considered here?

j. What is being shown between 0+00 and 1+89 along the stream centerline?

k. There is a significant meander in the stream just upstream of the culvert invert. It appears the potential
for bank scour will be significant. What measures are proposed to minimize this concern?

l. Please provide details of the diversion ditch to be constructed. How would turbidity be
minimized? How long would this be in place?

m. Exhibit G: There is a significant impact to Wetland WA in this location. Would a more perpendicular
crossing, or eastern alignment of Saucon Street minimize these impacts?

n. It appears the isolated portion of this wetland would be redirected to another drainage via
culvert? Please provide additional detail of this impact, along with its purpose and need. These
connections are rarely successful; the isolated portion of this wetland may be considered a loss in any
permitting, provided purpose, need, avoidance, and minimization can be demonstrated.

o. Exhibit H: Wetland connections provided via culvert can lead to head-cutting and eventual drainage of
upslope resources. Please consider measures to ensure connectivity is provided without allowing for
head-cutting. Similar projects elsewhere have proposed at-grade concrete sills at inverts, riprap pads
both up- and down-slope of the culvert.
2

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/. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and
complete the survey.

3