20240627 Ver 1__External_ RE_ SAW-2008-01187 Creekview Crossing Request for Additional Information (2)_20240701

Baker, Caroline D
From: Nikki Duprey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 4:37 PM
To: Westerfield, Caitlin S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Sean Clark; David Gainey; Morales, Kristina
Subject: [External] RE: SAW-2008-01187 Creekview Crossing Request for Additional
Information
You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important
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.
Good afternoon —
I don't know the elevation off hand, but it has to be tall enough to pass the FEMA flood and still have a no rise.
Yes, the trees will occasionally be limbed to prevent conflicts — specifically structure and safety — as they grow,
which is standard practice.
And I sawyour follow up email — I apologize that I sent the plans in Dr Morales email response; I just received them
this morning, after I had already responded to you.
I will be leaving for vacation and intend to return on July 9t". I hope these answers have been helpful and that it will
allowyou to complete your review of the Creekview Crossing project.
Thankyou and have a wonderful holiday weekend!
Nikki
From: Westerfield, Caitlin S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 3:29 PM
To: Nikki Duprey <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>; David Gainey <[e-mail]>; Morales, Kristina
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2008-01187 Creekview Crossing Request for Additional Information
Thanks for the clarification. If the wetland soil isn't displaced/compacted and stumps/root wads aren't dug up (i.e. all
clearing is done above the soil surface), the hand -clearing should be okay.
Regarding the bridge, what is the elevation from the ground surface to the low steel on the bridge? It is difficult to
discern from the bridge plan view that was provided.
If the trees in the bridge footprint do grow back from the stumps, will they be maintained/cut back in the future?
Additionally, in regard to your comment on your separate email to Kristina, the PCN and plans will need to be updated
to reflect the change in culvert size and change in amount of impacts, to accurately represent the proposed site plan for
permitting and documentation purposes.

Thanks,
Caitlin Westerfield
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Regulatory Division
Address: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105, Wake Forest, NC 27587
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From: Nikki Duprey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 6:28 PM
To: Westerfield, Caitlin S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>; David Gainey <[e-mail]>; Morales, Kristina
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2008-01187 Creekview Crossing Request for Additional Information
Good afternoon Ms. Westerfield:
We have provided responses below.
Thank you!
►Iv'",
Nicole J. Duprey, PWS
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
nthomsonCa)sageecological.com
[phone]
Please note name change
From: Westerfield, Caitlin S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Nikki Duprey <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>; David Gainey <[e-mail]>; Morales, Kristina
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2008-01187 Creekview Crossing Request for Additional Information
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is
important
Hello Nicole,
Thank you for your response. I do have some follow-up questions/remarks:

1. Riprap placed below the OHWM is considered a permanent impact, therefore please quantify the
dimensions of the riprap used on the plans and map, update the permanent impacts table accordingly,
and describe that there is no functional loss in the impacts narrative.
The riprap was called out and accounted for both on the plan sheet (see screenshot below) and on the
PCN (see the screenshot below the plan). It has never been contested that the bank stabilization is
permanent impact, but not a permanent loss. The narrative also discusses this fact as well.
SALT FENCE LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE t7YP.)
HAND CLEARING BRIDGE
12.014 SF WETLAND WA-3
- Wt I LAND VWA
- PERMANENT BRIDGE IMPACT
1QO SF WETLAND WA-3
PERMANENT BRIDGE IMPACT
�
3V SF WETLAND %V.A-3
51 SF STREAM SA —
7 LP STREAM SA
STREAM sA � �"�rH
Sip E Temporary ewatering SG Perennial Both G
A
mirr�tian SA Perennial Both
Au
2. Please clarify the methods for how the hand -clearing of vegetation will occur under the bridge (i.e. will root
wads/stumps be dug up?). Additionally, will the cleared area be maintained or revegetated? Please note
that conversion of a wetland area will require mitigation.
Hand clearing in wetlands has long been an accepted methodology for bridge construction (historically
utilized by NCDOT and NCTA). It is viewed as an avoidance and minimization technique through
construction methodologies. Hand clearing is a process by which machinery walks into a wetland (either
wide tracked machines which do not displace/compact the surface of the wetland) or on crane mats
(which are viewed as a non -impact option — because again, no displacement/compaction to the wetland
surface) which cut the trees near the base and place them for removal. The trees are not chained out, nor
are skid steers or the like used to remove the downed trees —which prevents disturbance to the wetland
surface. The trees are not grubbed nor are they stumped. There is no soil inversion. Post construction
revegetation is not necessary as the trees will regrow (because the stumps are left in place). The PCN does
not have an option to label it as hand clearing (only Permanent or Temporary) which is why it was listed as
"temporary" but then an explanation given. There are a multitude of examples of this being an acceptable
practice which does not require mitigation as it is not a conversion of wetland area, (e.g. Complete 540
project is the most recent authorization for NCTA in which hand clearing is used and approved).
Also, please CC me on any correspondence you have with Kristina Morales from DWR, for my awareness.
Thankyou,
Caitlin Westerfield
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Regulatory Division

Address: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105, Wake Forest, NC 27587
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From: Nikki Duprey <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 4:41 PM
To: Westerfield, Caitlin S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sean Clark <[e-mail]>; David Gainey <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2008-01187 Creekview Crossing Request for Additional Information
Dear Ms. Westerfield —
We received your requested information and provided our responses below in red.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thank you and have a great weekend!
Nikki
Nicole J. Duprey, PWS
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
nthomson(a)sageecological.com
[phone]
Please note name change
From: Westerfield, Caitlin S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 1:30 PM
To: Nikki Duprey <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2008-01187 Creekview Crossing Request for Additional Information
You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important
Dear Nicole Duprey,
Thank you for your PCN for the referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need additional information
before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permits (NWP) 29 and 14. Please provide the requested
information by 6/22/2024, or your application will be administratively withdrawn. To clarify, if the requested
information is submitted after the 30-day timeframe, you will not be required to re -submit an entirely new PCN (unless
otherwise specified). We will continue to review and/or process your permit application upon receipt of the requested
information.
1. Per General Condition 18, no activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly
jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such
designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will directly or indirectly
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat or critical habitat proposed for such designation.

a. Please provide a statement related to habitat for Federally Endangered Michaux's Sumac (Rhus
michauxii) within the vicinity of the impact areas, suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac appears to be
present along the maintained rights -of -way. Please note if a pedestrian survey was completed for this
species, please include the date of the survey and the result.
b. For aquatic species listed on the site a Suitable Habitat Assessment should be conducted, including
qualifying descriptions with measurements and photographs provided to USACE. Please note if a in
water survey was completed for this species, please include the date of the survey and the result.
Please see the attached Habitat Survey Letter which confirms that no suitable habitat exists on the
subject property for the listed species.
2. Per the submitted plans ("Overall Impact Map Location", Sheet No. 3 of 21), it appears that a water feature is
proposed for construction in the aquatic resource labeled "Pond 1". Please describe if the proposed activity will
require the discharge of dredged or fill material for the construction and operation for the water feature.
The water feature is a floating fountain. No fill is required as it floats. There will be a weighted anchor to
keep the fountain in place. Please see the attached schematics for the fountain and anchor.
3. Per Regional Condition 9, placement of culverts and other structures in streams shall be below the elevation of
the streambed by 20% of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than or equal to 48 inches.
Based on the submitted profile view of Pipe 074 at Map Location Area "E", it appears that the pipe is proposed
to be buried at an elevation that is less than 20% of the culvert diameter. Please revise the plans accordingly, to
ensure that the construction/installation will promote the safe passage of fish and other aquatic organisms.
Please see the attached revised permit drawings which have been updated to show the pipe burial at 9.6-
inches, which is the required 20%.
4. Based on the submitted plans ("Map Location Area "G" — Wetland Impacts", Sheet No. 18 of 21), it appears that
the discharge of fill material in Stream SA is proposed for the permanent piers for the roadway bridge. The need
for such access is not disputed, however you have not demonstrated avoidance and minimization to the
maximum extent practicable as required by NWP General Conditions 23(a) and (b). For example, it appears that
such impacts to Stream SA could be avoided by realignment of the permanent piers to avoid directly crossing
the stream. Please provide additional information to this effect, including profile views with potential areas of fill
and updates to the PCN/plans as necessary.
Please see the attached plans which provide a plan view of the bridge piers. The proposed bridge crosses
the stream at the narrowest point and this crossing was predicated by the existing road stub out at the
property line. The alignment also impacts the wetland at the narrowest point to further demonstrate
avoidance and the applicant proposes hand clearing under the bridge to minimize impacts via construction
techniques. Previous iterations of this crossing included standard culverts which would have had far more
impact to Mingo Creek and the UT to Mingo Creek. The applicant redesigned the project to include abridge
crossing for avoidance and minimization. The interior bent which is located at the tributary which flows
into Mingo Creek has piers which were placed at the extreme -most width allowable under NCDOT
standards to avoid a pier in the creek itself. Bridge spans have a set length which means that the interior
bents can only be adjusted and shifted to within certain tolerances. This bridge crossing not only had the
challenge of avoiding piers in the UT to Mingo Creek but was also ensuring no piers/bents in Mingo Creek
proper. The piers have been included (the circles in the bent rectangles) in the updated plan view to
demonstrate the difference in spacing between interior bent 1 and interior bent 2 (they are not
symmetrical). The piers are not proposed in the channel; we have also supplied a profile view which
demonstrates the pier spacing along the creek. There is approximately 2-foot clearance between the creek
bank and the pier. Therefore, riprap bank stabilization was proposed to armor just that section of bank
where the potential sheer stress from the flow, specifically high storm flows, would have the potential to
cause scour and erosion. This practice of streambank stabilization has been utilized by both NCDOT and
NCTA for just such reasons and is typically looked upon favorably by the USACE and NC DWR for the
protection of the system as a whole. As the riprap is limited to the bank and does not enter the thalweg of

the channel, it is considered a permanent impact (below the OHWM) but does not count towards
mitigation thresholds as it is not a permanent loss of function.
It appears that the proposed residential subdivision will connect with pre-existing neighboring subdivisions via
the extension of Southhampton Drive and Widewaters Parkway. Per General Condition 15, the activity must be a
single and complete project. Please describe the association between the proposed residential subdivision and
the pre-existing residential subdivisions, if any.
The neighboring subdivisions predate this development by more than 25 years. For example, the Planters
Walk development (northwest of this project) and Parkside, Autumn Ridge, and Trail Ridge (northeast of
the Creekside Site) existed in 1993. By 1999 Carrington Woods to the southeast was developed. By2005,
Widewaters development was being constructed to the north of this Site, and Widewaters Parkway was an
active road. This project is being developed by a completely different owner, does not share naming
convention with any of the pre-existing developments and does not share amenities. Interconnectivity
between developments is a requirement of most municipalities for not only secondary and tertiary road
collector streets, but also as a means for EMS, Police and Fire to quickly navigate to and through
residential areas.
6. Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full
evaluation of the proposed project.
If you have any questions or concerns about the information requested, please feel free to contact me either via email
or phone to discuss.
Thank you,
Caitlin Westerfield
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Regulatory Division
Address: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105, Wake Forest, NC 27587
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]