20170118 Ver 1_Response to USACE Request for Add Info_20170302

Strickland, Bev
From:
Dana Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, March 02, 2017 6:18 PM
To:
Coburn, Chad
Subject:
FW: Response to SAW -2005-0300, Sparrows Bend SD, Pender County, Request for
Additional Information
Attachments:
Sparrow Bend PCN Pages 3, 5 and 7 3-2-17.pdf, Appendix H NC SHPO ER
16-2352.pdf, Revised Appendix D - Sparrows Bend Wetland Impact Map with
Addendums 3-2-17.pdf, Appendix H -NECFUMB Credit Reservation 3-2-17.pdf, Draft
Notification of Deed Restriction.pdf
Chad,
I forgot to cc you on this.
Dana A. Lutheran
Southern E_nvironmental Group, Inc.
5 51 5 South College }load, Suite I—
Wilmington, NC 28412
Office 910.452.271 1
Mobile [phone]
From: Dana Lutheran [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 6:10 PM
To: 'Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (US)'
Cc: 'Dana Lutheran'
Subject: FW: Response to SAW -2005-0300, Sparrows Bend SD, Pender County, Request for Additional Information
Hello, Emily.
Sorry for the delay in getting this to you. Please find SEGi's responses to your request for additional
information:
Please accept this as official correspondence for the above referenced project. The following
information is required for a complete application review and permit issuance.
A) Please provide drawings that show a closer view of Lots 13, 20, 21, and 22. Specifically include
the distance from the corner of the home to the wetland line. Currently, it is unclear if the applicant
intends to install headwalls along lot boundaries and the adjacent wetlands or not. It is a pervasive
issue that when developers dramatically slope lots to the wetland line, severe erosion occurs post -
construction, dumping heavy sediment loads into the receiving wetlands. Oftentimes, the new
homeowner is forced to pay thousands of dollars to install a headwall in order to arrest the issues of
losing their property and being held responsible for sedimentation in the wetlands. B) Please
explain in detail how the applicant intends to prevent sloughing of the following lots post -
construction, or provide a cross section showing the headwall and the wetland line: Lots 11, 12, 13,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 85, open area between Lots 85 and 90, 90, and 94-97.

A) Cross section drawings for Lots 13, 20, 21 and 90 have been attached (see Revised
Appendix D, with addendums). In addition, zooms of Lots 12, 13, 20-22, 85 and 90, which
denote distance from fill to wetland line have been attached (see Revised Appendix D,
with addendums). At the very least, where fill is proposed to take place within 12' of
wetlands (i.e. 11, 12, 13, 22, 36, 85, 90 and 97), a double row of silt fence will be installed.
Retaining walls are not being proposed with this application.
B) All slopes will be at least 3:1 and stabilized within 7 days of final grading. The proposed
slope is considered sufficient, by the Pender County Planning Department, to remain
stable once the sod has taken root. In addition, gutters will be directed away from the
slope on those lots identified with yellow shading, on the attached C-2.1 (revised
Appendix D). This will ensure stormwater sheet flow does not overwhelm the integrity of
the soil.
2. For lots that will include avoided, remaining wetlands a mechanism of protection (deed restriction,
conservation easement, etc.) in perpetuity will be required or the applicant can choose to
reconfigure lot lines to exclude the remaining wetlands on Lots 11, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
94, 95, and 96. Please provide for review either the protective language or the map recorded with
the Pender County Register of Deeds that reflects the changes in lot lines to exclude remaining
wetlands.
Deed restrictions will be recorded at the Pender County Register of Deeds prior to the
conveyance of lots. A copy of the recorded restrictions will be submitted upon completion.
Please see attached "Draft Notification of Deed Restriction".
3. Please provide a cross section for proposed Pond 2 and the two adjacent wetlands that shows the
wet season water table and control elevations, or normal pool elevations. If the pond's control
elevation is deeper than the abutting wetland's wet season water table, the applicant must address
the inevitable secondary impact of draining the abutting wetland and provide compensatory
mitigation at a 2:1 ratio.
Please see the revised Appendix D, addendum C-2.2.
4. It appears that Road F, at a minimum, requires temporary wetland impacts Please clarify and
provide a cross section that clearly defines a separation between the road toe of slope and the
delineated wetland line or account for temporary impacts and provide the required details.
A 10' temporary construction buffer has been included on the plan (see revised Appendix D,
C-2.1).
5. The Corps would like an additional cross section of Impact A that shows the cross section of the
proposed culvert.
Please see addendum Appendix D, Page C-2.1.
6. Please darken or fill in the footprint of the example homes on the overall map for easier review.
House footprints have been darkened (see revised Appendix D, Page C-2.1).
7. The applicant has proposed to mitigate for 0.39 -ac of permanent wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio by
purchasing 0.80 -ac of wetland credits (0.5 -ac riparian and 0.3 -ac non -riparian) from the NE Cape
Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank. Please provide a credit reservation letter from the bank reflecting
this information. Be sure to include any additional impacts this review may have flushed out.

Please find the NE Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank's reservation letter attached as
Appendix H.
8. Please expand the narrative in Section 5, 5d to discuss the historical use of the project site as it
relates to the likelihood of unsuitable habitat existing onsite for any listed species occurring in the
area. Provide historical maps or other data to help support this statement.
My apologies, the statement "as well as the historical use of the project site and the overall
development of the surrounding properties" should not have been included in the
justification for why SEGi believes there will be no impact on Endangered Species (ES) or
Designated Critical Habitat (DCH). This was an oversight in preparing the application. Page 7
of the PCN has been revised to remove this statement.
SEGi's wetland biologists evaluate every project for signs of and/or the existence of
Endangered Species commonly found in the geographical area, in which the work is taking
place. For this project, located in Pender County, the most commonly found ES is Golden
Sedge (Carex lutea), which generally occurs on fine sandy loam, loamy fine sands, and fine
sands that are moist, saturated or periodically inundated. There was no evidence of Golden
Sedge within the project limits.
To ease with the review process and record keeping, please submit a new application package with all
supporting documentation that reflects the needed changes. Also, feel free to contact me with any
questions.
The applicable sections of the PCN (see attached PCN Pages 3, 5 and 7) have been updated to
reflect the changes that have taken place a result of the RFAI and receipt of requested
documentation.
Also, with the original submittal, I submitted the request for NC SHPO environmental review. I have since
received their response and have attached it to this email as Appendix F and should replace the previously
submitted Appendix F.
It is my hope that the information found within this email and the attached documents provides the information
necessary to complete the application. However, should you need further information, please call me at
910.228.1841.
Dana
Dana A_ Lutkeran
5outkern L_nvironmental Group, Inc-
5515
nc_5515 50utk College Koad, Suite L_
Wil.ington, NC 2841 2
Office 910.452.271 1
,-Ak This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com