20151031 Ver 2_More Info Received Email_20160906

Strickland, Bev
From: Kim Williams <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 8:29 AM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Jeff Soble
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne; 'Andrew Moriarty'; 'Tyler Morris'; Dooley, Brennan J SAW
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Attachments: Sheet 1 rev 9-6-16.pdf, Sheet 4 rev 9-6-16.pdf
Good Morning Brad -
In response to your comments from 9-2-16, the engineer has made the following revisions.
1. The stormwater pipe has been rerouted to avoid the wetland finger north of the site (see attached Sheet 1). The
project will now permanently impact 4.51 acres of wetlands and 50 LF of intermittent stream and temporarily impact
0.01 acre of wetlands and 20 LF of intermittent stream.
2. Sheet 4 has been revised to clarify the height of the sill within the flood flow pipe (see attached Sheet 4). The sill will
extend 12" above the bottom of the stream bed.
Just let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Kim
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW[mai Ito: Brad. [e-mail]1]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Jeff Soble <[e-mail]>
Cc:'Steenhuis, Joanne'<joanne.steenhuis@ ncdenr.gov>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>; Kim Williams
<[e-mail]>; 'Tyler Morris' <[e-mail]>; Dooley, Brennan J SAW
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
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
J eff
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 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/>
<Blockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Blockedwww.avast.com <Blockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus>

60
50
40
30
25
0+00 0+50 1+00
CULVERT SECTION E -]E (STREAM IMPACT PRO FIL�E�
SCALE: 1 "= 20 ' HORIZONTAL
1"=10' VERTICAL
70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
25
PROP. 48" CMP, 40' LONG, FLOOD FLOW PIPE
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
UPSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.9
PERMANENT STREAM
PROP. ROADWAY/,, --PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT LIMIT
IMPACT LIMIT 5' UPSTREAM5'
DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE OUTLETS
OF PIPE INLETS
PROP. 60' HEADWALL
PROP. 55' HEADWALL
PROP. SILL INSTALLED 12" ABOVE
STREAM BED AT UPSTREAM END
OF FLOOD FLOW PIPE
AND 8' WING WALLS
STREAM BED MATERIAL
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLAND AREA #5 - ±24-
EXIST. STREAM BED
FLOW LINE
AND 8' WING WALLS
TEMPORARY STREAM ---.,TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACT LIMIT
IMPACT LIMIT 15'
15' DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE OUTLETS
UPSTREAM OF PIPE
INLETS
EXIST. STREAM BED OF--\
INTERMITTENT STREAM
409
40.0
FLOW -R40.
40,0
41.8 40.0
EXIST. STREAM BED OF
INTERMITTENT STREAM
PROP. 48" CMP, 40' LONG,
PROP. 48" CMP, 42' LONG LOW FLOW PIPE
FLOOD FLOW PIPE
DOWNSTREAM PIPE INVERT 39.0
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
DOWNSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.0
UPSTREAM STREAM BED
ELEVATION = 40.9
PROP. STREAM BED FLOW LINE
0+00 0+50 1+00
CULVERT SECTION E -]E (STREAM IMPACT PRO FIL�E�
SCALE: 1 "= 20 ' HORIZONTAL
1"=10' VERTICAL
70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
25
PROP. 48" CMP, 40' LONG, FLOOD FLOW PIPE
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
UPSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.9
DOWNSTREAM PIPE INVERT 39.0
DOWNSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.0
PROP. DOUBLE 48" CMP CULVERT WI
55' HEADWALL AND 8' WING WALLS
PROP. 48" CMP, 42' LONG, LOW FLOW PIPE
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
[UPSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.9
DOWNSTREAM PIPE INVERT 39.0
DOWNSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.0
PROP. SILL INSTALLED 12" ABOVE
STREAM BED AT UPSTREAM END
OF FLOOD FLOW PIPE
STREAM BED MATERIAL
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLAND AREA #5 - ±24-
EXIST. STREAM BED
FLOW LINE
8+50
WETLANDS CROSSINGS - CROSS SECTION
SCALE: V= 20 ' HORIZONTAL
V= 10 ' VERTICAL
PRINTED BY: CBLENDERMANN 9.02.16 (ol 4:39 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
70
60
50
40
30

JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AREA #2
PROPOSED BMP �� \ PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD - �\ STORMWATER �I
POND \ I
I I
I ♦ �
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
STORMWATER STRUCTURE
JURISDICTIONAL II
WETLANDS AREA #1` I I
WESTERN BLVD
(N.C. HTWY NO.53)
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AREA #3
JURISDICTIONAL
%A 11-71 AnInn AnrA UA
0 125 250
1" = 250'
4A
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS DATA
SF
AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #1
179,114
4.11 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #1
154,784
3.55 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #2
8,823
0.20 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #2
8,823
0.20 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #3
30,875
0.71 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #3
30,875
0.71 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #4
18,260
0.42 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #4
645
0.02 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #5
1,130
0.03 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #5
1,130
0.03 AC
TEMPORARY IMPACTED WETLANDS #5
392
0.01 AC
TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
238,202
5.47 AC
TOTAL IMPACTED
WETLANDS
196,257
4.51 AC
TOTAL TEMPORARY IMPACTED
WETLANDS
392
0.01 AC
I
I
IfiT;fa ,----
H:120161NCR1620151DRAWINGSICONCEPTSINCR162015CA3.DWG PRINTED BY. CBLENDERMANN 9.02.16 @ 5:11 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
PROJECT NAME: GT;'CyT°R M,f1T1T)I
WESTERN BLVD,
JACKSONVILLE, NC
SHEET TITLE.
WETLANDS EXHIBIT
SHEET IOF5
SCALE: DATE: CAD ID: PROJECT NUMBER:
1" = 250' 8118116 1 CA2 NCR162015
� U
�R
IEN(GHNEERING NC, F LIL(C
NCBELS P-1132
PHONE: [phone]FAX [phone]
LEGEND
- - - - PROPERTY LINE
- - - -
LIMITS OF OUT PARCELS
WETLANDS
IMPACTED WETLANDS
TEMPORARILY IMPACTED
WETLANDS
PROPOSED PERVIOUS
PAVEMENT
I
I
IfiT;fa ,----
H:120161NCR1620151DRAWINGSICONCEPTSINCR162015CA3.DWG PRINTED BY. CBLENDERMANN 9.02.16 @ 5:11 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
PROJECT NAME: GT;'CyT°R M,f1T1T)I
WESTERN BLVD,
JACKSONVILLE, NC
SHEET TITLE.
WETLANDS EXHIBIT
SHEET IOF5
SCALE: DATE: CAD ID: PROJECT NUMBER:
1" = 250' 8118116 1 CA2 NCR162015
� U
�R
IEN(GHNEERING NC, F LIL(C
NCBELS P-1132
PHONE: [phone]FAX [phone]