20151031 Ver 2_stream details_20160824

Strickland, Bev
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Jeff Soble
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne; 'Andrew Moriarty'; 'Kim Williams'; 'Tyler Morris'; Dooley, Brennan J
SAW
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Attachments: stream details.pdf
Good Morning all,
Comments from a review of responses dated August 19, 2016:
-(2) the Corps has pretty specific conditions for pipe placement in streams in an effort to assure that the placement does
not widen the stream dimension, increase the slope, and/or change the profile. Unfortunately from the scale of the
current drawings I cannot make a determination that these dimensions are maintained. We have a consultant workshop
next week and I have included some of the example drawings from that presentation to assist in you preparation of
plans. I noted that Kim has already provided you the Nationwide Regional Conditions which are in fact the standards
resource agencies are expecting for pipe placement. If you are going to propose two pipes in this relatively narrow
stream you will need to have one barrel serve as the low flow barrel and one as the flood flow. This can be accomplished
by either setting the pipes at different elevations (which I understand to be a constructability issue with a pre cast
headwall) or propose sills in one barrel to push the water to the low flow barrel. With pipe placement please don't
forget to include temporary impacts necessary for construction and any dewatering plan that you may utilize to meet
DWR standards.
-(3) based on the response for the storm water pond and its potential effect on the adjacent wetlands, the storm water
pond would be conditioned to be no deeper than two feet based on the evidence of seasonal high water table. I hate to
include a condition that would be in jeopardy of being violated so I ask if there is any current topo mapping of the site
that could be used to compare the wetland elevation in the bottom of the drains relative to the depth of the pond. In
other words, if the wetland elevation is lower than the final elevation of the pond outlet that would be the only thing
that would need to be demonstrated and this may be accomplished through topo mapping, that I suspect you already
have.
-(5) 1 appreciate the time and effort put into the current parking analysis but there are a few errors in the data. Zone two
project data indicates that the total parking required is 269 when in fact it appears to be 268. Zone three required
parking is reported as 302 when it should be 301, also the calculation for the anchor parking is incorrect and should be
258 not 255. All of these calculations should be corrected which in turn will change the overall parking summary both on
the parking zone exhibit as well as the narrative.
On a more fundamental level, why was such effort given to meeting local zoning parking requirements on the northern
part of the tract but not on the southern half of the tract. Based on a quick assessment of parking on the southern half,
you have approximately 180 spaces provided over the zoning requirements for the described buildings. Removing a 180
spaces from the southern parking grid could potentially minimize wetland impacts. The potential would exist to leave
some the wetland drain in the outparcel that is currently described as SHOPS 8,000 sf if 180 spaces were not necessary.
Please address this inconsistent approach to the parking justification.
Since you reference Marlin Drive in the narrative please label accordingly on the plan sheets.

-(7) please explore further with the storm water approval agency whether or not the release of water will be allowable
in the NW corner of the property. The Corps feels strongly that this would be needed to maintain hydrology even above
the use of pervious pavement and is prepared to mandate this release in a permit condition but does not want to create
permit non-compliance from the start.
I am committed to continue working on the EA today with the new information but I will be in the filed tomorrow and
will be mostly pre occupied Friday preparing for the consultant workshop next week.
Finally so that you better understand the involvement of Brenna with this project, he is copied to have a better
understanding of the Standard Permit Process as he is navigating his own review for a similar development. He has not
been involved in the development of my comments so he will not be able to address any specifics relative to this action.
I didn't want you to have any expectations that could not be met.
Hope this helps,
Brad
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeff Soble [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 4:32 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Steenhuis, Joanne' <[e-mail]>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>; 'Kim
Williams' <[e-mail]>;'Tyler Morris' <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Importance: High
Brad,
Kim Williams forwarded your latest thoughts to me from your conversation this afternoon. As you know, we are under a
very hard deadline to get the permit released. Due to that constraint, I think it might be best for us to meet to address
any and all remaining comments and questions that you may have. Would that work for you? Are you available this
week?
Please let us know.
Thankyou
Jeff
From: Kim Williams [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:44 PM
To: Jeff Soble <[e-mail]>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>

Cc: Tyler Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brad Shaver comments
Hi Jeff
I spoke briefly with Brad briefly this afternoon about our submission. He had to run to a meeting, but we went through a
few comments/questions that he had:
1. Profile CC in the cross section drawing, we show a double barrel culvert for the intermittent stream crossing.
Typically they like to see one culvert in the bottom of the stream and one raised a little higher for higher flows. But
headwalls may not work with that layout. Also, what are the sizes of the barrels? Will you need to bury one? The USACE
has some guidance on when burying a pipe in a stream is necessary (see Section 3.6 and 4.1.2 of attached).
2. Potential drainage issue from stormwater pond: Do we have an topographic data for this site? This may help
address potential drainage issues from the pond.
3. Parking: As we were talking, it became clear that I sent him an outdated parking exhibit (the one that stated a
reduction of 113 spaces). I am VERY sorry about that. I emailed both Brad and Joanne the current version, so they do
have that now. On the exhibit, he found a few minor errors when adding up required spaces in a couple of the zones. He
also noted that the required parking for the anchor store in Zone 3 should be 257 spaces, not 255. He also noted that
the parking for the outparcels appeared way above what is required. He wants us to discuss whether parking and
possibly overall outparcel size could be reduced in order to reduce wetland impacts. He understood that any wetland
savings would be isolated and likely wouldn't provide any real function. But we will need to address it anyway.
4. Stormwater: He wants something a little more firmed up than what is stated in our letter. Andrew- can you reach
out to someone in State Stormwater to find out if they would consider permitting sheet flow in the NW corner?
He plans to put all of his thoughts together in an email by tomorrow morning and will include additional detail.
Thanks,
Kim
Kim Williams I Environmental Scientist
Land Management Group, Inc I Environmental Consultants
Direct: 452-0001 x 1908 1 Cell: 910.471.5035 1 Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15 1 Wilmington, NC 28403

Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> I Website: Blockedwww.Imgroup.net
<Blockedhttp://www.Imgroup.net/>
<BIockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Blockedwww.avast.com <Blockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus>

Strickland, Bev
From: Kim Williams <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: conditions
Good morning Joanne
Are you available at 2 PM today to join in a conference call to discuss stormwater at Gateway Marketplace?
The developer is willing to install a vegetated swale as a means to allow some stormwater back into the wetlands NW of
the site, assuming it is permittable by the City (tentatively they have said this would be acceptable) and economically
feasible. We are now trying to land on permit condition language that is reasonable to all. See email chain below to see
how the language has been passed back and forth. Brad stated yesterday that he will condition the EA to require a
stormwater outlet (swale, pipe, etc) to release stormwater to the NW wetlands to reduce secondary impacts to these
wetlands. If an outlet is found to not be feasible, for whatever reason, a permit modification will be necessary. I passed
this information along to Jeff and he wanted to have a conference call to discuss further.
Thanks!
Kim
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW[mai Ito: Brad. [e-mail]1]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 8:00 AM
To: Jeff Soble <[e-mail]>; Kim Williams <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Tyler Morris' <[e-mail]>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>; 'Cord Blendermann'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: conditions
How about we tentatively set it for 2PM?
Your call but a suggestion, you may want to reach out to the State for participation as I suspect they have some of the
same concerns.
Brad
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeff Soble [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:19 PM
To: 'Kim Williams' <[e-mail]>; Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Tyler Morris' <[e-mail]>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>; 'Cord Blendermann'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: conditions
Team,
I have previously scheduled 11:00 and 4:00 calls, both for other issues on this project but am otherwise available all day.

Thanks
Jeff
-----Original Message -----
From: Kim Williams [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jeff Soble <[e-mail]>; 'Tyler Morris'
<[e-mail]>; Andrew Moriarty <[e-mail]>; Cord Blendermann
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: conditions
Hi Brad
We would like to have a phone call with you tomorrow afternoon. Just let me know what time works for you.
Thanks,
Kim
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW[mai Ito: Brad. [e-mail]1]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Kim Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: conditions
Ki m,
Here is another version of the condition. The Corps has written their decision document with the understanding that
storm water can be reintroduced into the northwest corner to address potential secondary impacts. If this ends up not
being the case we would have to modify the permit and reopen our decision document to address this secondary
concern.
If the applicant desires something more absolute then we would need to wait until the storm water permitting is
complete so the Corps can finalize the EA.
"The applicant has agreed to construct a storm water outlet in the north west corner of the property that serves as an
outlet for a portion of the storm water treatment system and further hydrates the headwater wetland complex. The
outlet is approved by the Corps provided State and Local authorities approve the design. If this storm water outlet
cannot be permitted or constructed, the permit must be modified. The final plans approved by the State and Local
authorities will be forwarded to the Corps before construction can begin."
I have no issue with the revisions to the second condition and will change that now.
The mitigation transfer form will include the extra 4000 square feet anticipated with the infiltration swale. Also for
clarity purposes, please have the engineer provide a graphical tally of impacts from the swale, simply label 400' long by
10' wide on the drawings.
Again I will be preparing for a morning meeting but could speak further tomorrow afternoon if deemed necessary.
Thanks,

Brad
-----Original Message -----
From: Kim Williams [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: conditions
Hi Brad
Just checking in...... Do you anticipate being able to talk with us this afternoon?
Thanks!
Kim
-----Original Message -----
From: Kim Williams
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 7:39 AM
To: 'Shaver, Brad E SAW' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Jeff Soble' <[e-mail]>; 'Tyler Morris'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: conditions
Good morning Brad
On Friday, I accidentally sent you an incorrect version of the conditions language revised by the applicant. Please see
below for the most recent language. Once you have had a chance to review it, we would like to get on a call with you to
discuss.
1a. VEGETATED SWALE: At the request of the Corps, the applicant has agreed to construct a vegetated swale in the
north west corner of the property that serves as the outlet for a portion of the storm water treatment system and
further hydrates the headwater wetland complex. This vegetated swale is approved by the Corps so long as (1) State
and local authorities approve the design and (b) the vegetated swale as finally designed and installed is substantially
similar in function and construction to the attached design.
If the state and local authorities will not approve the vegetated swale, or it is determined by the applicant to be cost
prohibitive to the overall project, the applicant does not have to construct it. However, the applicant agrees to diligently
work with the state and local authorities to obtain approval of a vegetated swale that is substantially similar in function
and construction to the attached design. The final plans approved by state and local authorities will be forwarded to the
Corps before construction can begin.
DEVIATION FROM PERMITTED PLANS: The permittee shall ensure that the construction design plans for this project do
not deviate from the permit plans attached to this authorization except as otherwise noted in 1a.
Written or email verification shall be provided to the Onslow County Project Manager that the final construction
drawings comply with the attached permit drawings prior to any active construction in waters of the United States.
Any deviation in the construction design plans will be brought to the attention of the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Brad
Shaver, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office prior to any active construction in waters or wetlands.
Thanks!
Kim

-----Original Message -----
From: Kim Williams
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 1:57 PM
To: 'Shaver, Brad E SAW' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jeff Soble <[e-mail]>; 'Tyler Morris'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: conditions
Hi Brad
Attached is a revised site plan that shows the proposed location of the vegetated swale. Note that the engineer hasn't
yet added the proposed wetland impacts from the swale to the table yet, but it is estimated to be at 0.1 acre (— 400'
long x 10' wide). But I wanted you to see where we are.
Jeff reviewed your proposed conditions related to the stormwater and made some changes (see below). Once you have
had a chance to review it, can we have a quick conference call to get your feedback? Of course, we want to get to a
point where all parties are comfortable with it.
Thanks,
Kim
1a. VEGETATED SWALE: At the request of the Corps, the applicant has agreed to construct a vegetated swale in the
north west corner of the property that serves as the outlet for a portion of the storm water treatment system and
further hydrates the headwater wetland complex. This vegetated swale is approved by the Corps so long as (1) State
and local authorities approve the design and (b) the vegetated swale as finally designed and installed is substantially
similar in function and construction to the attached design.
If the state and local authorities will not approve the vegetated swale, the applicant does not have to construct it.
However, the applicant agrees to diligently work with the state and local authorities to obtain approval of a vegetated
swale that is substantially similar in function and construction to the attached design. The final plans approved by state
and local authorities will be forwarded to the Corps before construction can begin.
DEVIATION FROM PERMITTED PLANS: The permittee shall ensure that the construction design plans for this project do
not deviate from the permit plans attached to this authorization except as otherwise noted in 1a.
Written or email verification shall be provided to the Onslow County Project Manager that the final construction
drawings comply with the attached permit drawings prior to any active construction in waters of the United States.
Any deviation in the construction design plans will be brought to the attention of the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Brad
Shaver, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office prior to any active construction in waters or wetlands.
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW[mai Ito: Brad. [e-mail]1]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:59 PM
To: Kim Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: conditions
1a. PRELIMINARY PLANS: The current preliminary plans indicate a vegetated swale in the north east corner of the
property that serves as the outlet for a portion of the storm water treatment system and further hydrates the
headwater wetland complex. The applicant is required to continue pursuing appropriate sequencing (avoidance and

minimization) as the storm water approval process progresses. The final plans must be forwarded to the Corps for final
approval before construction can begin.
DEVIATION FROM PERMITTED PLANS: The permittee shall ensure that the construction design plans for this project do
not deviate from the permit plans attached to this authorization. Written or email verification shall be provided to the
Onslow County Project Manager that the final construction drawings comply with the attached permit drawings prior to
any active construction in waters of the United States. Any deviation in the construction design plans will be brought to
the attention of the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Brad Shaver, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office prior to any active
construction in waters or wetlands.
Brad E Shaver
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
Fax# [phone]
Website: BlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm apex/f?p The Wilmington District is committed to
providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the
Customer Satisfaction Survey located at BlockedBlockedhttp://regulatory.usacesurvey.com/.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Blockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus

PLAN VIEW OF WETLAND IMPACTS
-----------
-------
—
Unum earnwr
C/L
EOR
PROPOSED PIPES TWO (i) BI' k 59' CMPA
40'LONG WITH HEADWALLS AND ti.l
AN OVERALL STRUCTURE �1
WINGCrH
_,_,m
k }"
GFS4FO
T.
�
ON A 96' STREW
AQUA BARRIER PLAGtO WYTHI S FT.UPSTREAM
�
�Pua;a ;Tr+Ee lu cf_.
r,E'v T RII IF
DATA COLLECTED:
12f09f2015 s � K
FROM PIPE
INLET
wa
1
-� �
'ERMIT DRAWINGI
4 OF 5
PERMANENT' �ETLAM17 IMPACT ;�'73
I,
Tc�vPL,Pd R• '&ETL r I�+a o,Tk:
HAN. E4Nl-8"
SCALE
I'=I5'
(FLOW
EXISTING PIPE: ONE M:II 66'X 51' (:MPA
tl e'�P+'�+vrTWETL+.N� IMaacrs;
71 RLL
AT � 37 FT. V
�
2T' HEADWALL WITH 45' WING S
`
71-
ON EACH SIDE WITH S'SKEW
K—
`
LIMITS OF HANG CLEARING
IN WETLANDS E
I�
AQUA BARRIER PLACED WI'HIN 75 FT,
1
DOWNSTREAM
iEMP(7RAWY 5TREkMPA[i i V
i
�
FROM PIPE OUTLET
�c
D
fti K
—�-- --
—_
BA
PERMANENT 9TREAIA 112'A
—I
31.5' HEADWALL WITH 4.5' HEAD -WALLS
i
�-TEMPORARY'
ON EACH SIDE WITH 15' SKEW
+�
` STREAM IMPACT 4$41
PERMANL Ni
STREAM IMPACT 153}
i
II��
JJf
K- K-
v
I 1
W ~
of EkWmmmms.

PROFILE OF STREAM IMPACT 30
C,, L
M1aTE-. ELEWATIDN% ARE ;iELh7IWE TO THE
,1..TLET WE EDGE DF 'L'+EWEWI­ WHICH 1-1115
A -N ASSUM ELEYA7104 CF 100.0.71-111
DATA COLLECTED. 12/09/2015 .' TLPT SIIE ELEYATKN IS KFV AS THERE
EXISTNIG PIPE - IN A SibOAFLANT AFFERENcP h I%LET
100 N U5�A' CkO4- v nUTLET EWE OF P&vEWENT ELEVA710%
PERMIT DRAWINGi I OF 5 AOTE)? FT L(WC ❑DW -ql) '.Er4EE ME%
SCALE
99 1:=%�ERTICAL curFT-
M,�HE411% L. .61 N"j. LLS F'P C`41Z� 61-1-
=2 HORZONTAL !7ru'E LE�7H OF ",5 Fr,
97 TWPOAARr STRUM
TEVPbRe-IY STRE.AW I PWI'AI;T LPAFrs-.
IAPACT Ukl173i T5 FT DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE CUTLET
9G I5 FT UPSTREAM OF FIPE ourl-ET
JURISDICTIONAL SURFACE WATER -
95 ELEVATION
93,0 1
94 93.3593.59
EMSTM OUTLET
9306
NF -R
93 6..' 93.72 IT MA 43.15
Exl2i7W, sTAEAWED
(OL-PROMATED $!•WAEAOINW IEM714(; I�L
92 INVERT 92ET ryG
/V93 55
P;
91 FLOW FROPIDSED INLET 4ROP05ED QJTLET
INVERT 92.75 1 VERT - 92-75
93.53
E%ISTMG STREkWBED
F�
89 OTEi STREW BED DATA COLLECTED WITH A. 1.4 PR;) XIMATED 8,,Vi RFAD14GS;
,IJRI,R- LEVEL ArM AtD-SHM IN THE
FEL:: ARE FK.HII'WTAL 01�TANCES
FRDW THE I%LET EM AND (NJ-rLE:-T E14D OF alk3f,
87 PIPES. (SEE ATTAMED SURVEY TABLE 11
20 100 80 60 4 0 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
WArMCOMS
of Rwimmmms.

CROSS SECTION DRAWING FOR STREAM CROSSING
rATA C+XIECTEfw 1e PSE
PTFI ul.,zoe,16
1'10wwR LIHAVI VA s IF S
4rti IF1 _ �6 wL �{
9531- 43 FT U'STREAW RP -'M IST
STRE NEEE ELE!OA-n%N
Lp3ki& scn 15m - 40 R;Wr
vq PS +w 4F M—TMG K ET
C FT
7 F
o PHffLd� J FT
IFT f'. �
�+- 4-i Fr
SLL ow
"m P lfL
NUT Ta SCALE
N_T TCI 'SEALE
a4 Fr
U FL E6 t+L
NYMEj
9Z.T6 - dC FT JCWRSTREhM1 •'' S PA&I
STRE PEES ELE'dA-noN
STPE M MOM 44"TP M - 4G FUT
DD*gsTpmw GF �w ?-RLC
I# FT ::
12 F IA O1rti�
IM FT
Lib A r tb Carps
of censers.
32

PROFILE SHOWING TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS
Q
rep
GM
�t
TCS= 0=
'ETYLEKE 10 NIC TM i "; If1 .YN
4F G+w t8 MIS TM1GK1
PREIFCJSEA PYP
IfdTALL11rRN
_.I DbifAl �3y 1
�I I II
DF I LE MEW
NUT TO SCALE
TEVII19ARY STOW [HECK
Dis CTiG STCI. ! ml) ' CL'
STD. ONG. F@R LRENS7
CONSTRuC T ION SEQUENCE
INSTALL PUMP AND LINE TO PURR FLOW FROM V TREAM {IF TEMPORARY DAM
TO AkEA I70KNETREAM OF WORK ,AREA_ BEGIN P44PING AND CGnTINUE
PUMPING WHILZ WORKINU WITHIN THE STCEAM.
INSTALL TH'v UPSTREAM DAM KITH THE POLYETHYLENE FABRIC ON THE UPSTREAM FACE
TO TRAP TR LOW FLOW.
INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY STONE CHECK DAM. CDG STD. 0433.
INSTALLA OEWATERLNG SILT SAC; CSN THE SIREAM BANK. DEHATER TKE WORK .AS
NECESSARY BY P-uKpINO THE WATER THROUGH THE SILT BAG,
UPON COMPLETTUN OF IhZ PIPE I4STALLATION AND .ALL DTsTUARE0 AREAS ARE STABILIZED,
REMOVE THE TE4gPORARY DAMS AND THE POLYETHYLENE FAEALC. REMOVE THE DAM ANO RESTO
THE STREAM BANKS AND BOTTOM.
REMDVE THE OEWATERING SILT BAG.
1
t