HE-0013_Leap Frog_Drainage Redline Comments_response

Carpenter, Kristi
From: Matt Edwards <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:37 AM
To: Davis, Gregory S; Conchilla, Ryan; Locklear, Susan P
Cc: Buckner, Todd H
Subject: [External] RE: HE-0013_Leap Frog_Drainage Redline Comments
Attachments: HE-0013_Drainage_Redlines_20230912_SPL comments_11_13_23
_Additional_Information.docx; HE-0013_Drainage Redlines_20230912_SPL comments
11_13_23_Responses.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Hi Greg,
Yes, there are responses to the four armor comments in the PDF file named: "HE-
0013_Drainage_Redlines_20230912_SPL comments 11_13_23_Responses.pdf." The Word document was used to
provide images to help address the comment on why "Grade to Drain" arrows were pointed at a fill slope.
Thanks,
Matthew Edwards, PE
Sungate Design Group, P.A.
Direct: [phone]
www.sungatedesign.com
From: Davis, Gregory S <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:27 AM
To: Matt Edwards <[e-mail]>
Cc: Buckner, Todd H <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: HE-0013_Leap Frog_Drainage Redline Comments
Did you see the comments about amoring on Page 5?
From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:23 AM
To: Davis, Gregory S <[e-mail]>
Cc: King, Art C <[e-mail]>; Locklear, Susan P <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: HE-0013_Leap Frog_Drainage Redline Comments
Thanks Greg. There are also comments on page 5 regarding armoring.
I've copied Susan (above) for further clarification.

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9111 office
[e-mail]
D- E
�
NORTH CAROLINA7.4m Q
kI/)
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Davis, Gregory S <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 10:45 AM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Cc: King, Art C <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: HE-0013_Leap Frog_Drainage Redline Comments
Rya n,
I had our Hydro designer provide comments for question asked in the below review.
G reg
From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:41 AM
To: Davis, Gregory S <[e-mail]>
Cc: King, Art C <[e-mail]>
Subject: HE-0013_Leap Frog_Drainage Redline Comments
Thanks Greg. Below please find the comments provided the stormwater engineer for the project.
"HE-0013_Drainage Red Iines_20230912_SPL comments 11_13_23.pdf at:
httos://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:78c898aO-1b6e-4822-8d21-df9606ca64fc
Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9111 office
[e-mail]

D- E
kj/�
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Davis, Gregory S <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:42 AM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; King, Art C <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: HE-0013_Leap Frog —Stream relocation and mitigation question
I've attached the latest EC plans for help with comment #2 below.
G reg
From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 8:23 AM
To: King, Art C <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Gregory S <[e-mail]>
Subject: HE-0013_Leap Frog_Stream relocation and mitigation question
Art,
Thank you for taking the time to talk through the proposed upgrades for Project Leap Frog.
Below are my comments to the Drainage Redlines Plans (attached):
1- On page 4 at the stream daylight conversion area located west of 15/501- Removal/replacement of existing
culvert pipe would not count towards "new" stream impacts for the project. As stated, the Division is not
currently seeking stream restoration credits for this conversion area. The planting of native grasses and live
stakes along the banks of the base ditch is recommended to support stabilization and further improve water
quality conditions in this area.
2- On page 5 (attached) the fill line for the roadway is located in close proximity to the JS. Please discuss the
erosion and sedimentation measures planned for this area to avoid fill/impact into the JS during construction
activities.
The USACE comment/Sungate response Memo can be referenced in Section E (Avoidance and Minimization) of the PCN
and included in the application attachment.
Let me know if I can provide additional support prior to submission.
Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9111 office
[e-mail]

D- E
kj/�
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: King, Art C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:39 AM
To: Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Gregory S <[e-mail]>; Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Stream relocation and mitigation question
Beth,
That was very helpful.
I have already discussed this issue with Steve Brumagin at the Corp. His initial opinion (based on our previous discussion
about this project) was; because we are "daylighting" the JS he would most likely approve the plans, but he didn't know
if DMS would accept the stream relocation for credits, and he wasn't sure which type of credits or mitigation you would
require or approve.
The numbers are roughly: replacing approximately 400 feet of the stream currently inside of the pipe system, minus 100
ft of new crossing pipe under 15-501 to redirect the stream, and approximately 240 ft of the new daylighted stream that
will be designed/ approved by the Hydraulics Engineers. There will also be the addition of approximately 60 ft of new
impacts for armoring added in the wetland area as scour protection for the discharge back into the downstream.
It looks like we would be replacing 400 ft of total pipe minus 100, for a total of 300 ft of replaced pipe, with 240 ft of
daylighted stream. Plus, approximately 55ft of new wetland impacts.
These are rough numbers and are subject to change/adjustment before we submit the PCN, but they should be in the
ballpark.
Any advice or information you could give us would be appreciated. I am also going to send the email chain to Ryan
Conchilla for his input.
Thanks,
Art C. King
Division Environmental Supervisor
NCDOT Highway Division 8
910 773 8015 office
910 690-6581 cell
acking ncdot.gov
121 Dot Drive
Carthage, NC 28327

From: Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 7:59 PM
To: King, Art C <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Stream relocation and mitigation question
Hello Art — the USACE and DWR will consider any change to an existing jurisdictional stream as an impact associated with
a project which will require reporting in the permit application. But as you knowjust because you are impacting a
jurisdictional stream and/or wetland, does not mean that mitigation will be required. It will depend on the size and
current quality of the area and whether or not the existing stream and/or wetland is providing any environmental uplift.
I cannot say whether or not they will require mitigation from DMS to offset the impact or if the additional work you are
proposing on the site will be sufficient compensation for any impacts under their regulatory requirements. If the stream
is already in pipes then I would imagine it is a degraded which sometimes does not result in the need to provide
additional compensation. It does sound to me that you will be improving the overall condition of the existing stream
and surrounding area which should give you some restoration mitigation credit toward any permanent impact. How
much stream footage will be impacted and how much are you calculating will result from the improvements?
I can give you an acceptance letter for the amount of total anticipated impacts without the amount of anticipated
stream and/or wetlands after the improvements. You could use that as a secondary mitigation strategy. Environmental
Analysis Unit does not sometimes when they are uncertain if their proposed area restored will be accepted by the
regulatory agencies as mitigation to offset the project impacts.
Sorry but that is all I can offer. My apologies for not being very helpful.
Beth Harmon
NCDOT Coordinator
Division of Mitigation Services
Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-8420 office
beth.harmon(cadeg.nc.gov
Please note email address change.
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

D. E
NOR F I C.AHOLINr
oeoartment ar EMAFWmenlal OW allt}
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: King, Art C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 10:19 AM
To: Harmon, Beth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stream relocation and mitigation question
Beth,
We have an upcoming project that involves the relocation of a Jurisdictional Stream that is currently being conveyed
down the roadside of US 15-501 north of Laurinburg through a system of approximately 130 ft of undersized pipes.
There is an on -going problem at this site that involves the flooding of the parking lot at a convenience store/ gas station
(Nic's Pic Kwik), and flooding that goes out into the roadway. We intend to shift the flow to the opposite side of the road
via a new pipe under 15-501 and then "daylighting "the stream for 150Ft. in a newly constructed open bottom stream
design.
My question is how should the impacts be calculated for mitigation? Does the fact that we are eliminating the piping
system and daylighting the stream allow us to offset the relocation impacts, or can we get restoration credit to offset
some of the impacts?
We are in the process of developing the PCN for submission to the Corps of Engineers and DEQ so we need to get the
impact calculations properly adjusted. For reference, the GPS coordinates are (approximately) 34.8001041-79.458195. 1
have also attached a screenshot of the proposed plans.
Any information you could give would be most helpful.
Thanks,
Art C. King
Division Environmental Supervisor
NCDOT Highway Division 8
910 773 8015 office
910 690-6581 cell
ackinq .ncdot.gov
121 Dot Drive
Carthage, NC 28327

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.