20171490 Ver 1_More Info Received_20180108

Strickland, Bev
From: Kim Williams <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 9:45 AM
To: Mairs, Robb L; Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: [External] FW: Salt Creek
Attachments: PM816-23-001 Salt Creek COE2 rev 1-8-18.pdf, PM816-23-001 Salt Creek COE1 rev
1-8-18.pdf, Salt Creek Northern Detail.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].
Hi Robb
Tom Charles provided me with some comments for the Salt Creek project over the phone before Christmas. Here is our
response.
Thanks!
Kim
From: Kim Williams
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 9:52 AM
To: 'Charles, Thomas P CIV USARMY CESAW (US)' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Ginger Turner' <[e-mail]>; Ray Murdoch <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Salt Creek
Hi Tom
See below for a response to your comments on the Salt Creek S/D project in Carteret County.
1. You have not yet determined the 'permit area' for the project. Hold off on any RCW survey work until this is
determined.
We are awaiting your decision on this.
2. For Wetland Impact #7, be more specific about why this impact cannot be avoided. Include the number of lots
that would be lost and the estimated cost of each lot.
It is anticipated that the applicant would lose 4 lots if this wetland impact was avoided. The appraised value of
each lot is $60,000, so this would be a loss of $240,000. Losing 4 lots would be a significant economic loss and
would make the project financially infeasible. Therefore, this impact cannot be avoided.
3. Can Wetland Impact #5 be avoided by moving the gravel cul-de-sac into uplands? If this requires losing Lot #1,
include the estimated cost of this lot and describe how this affects the economic viability of the project. If the
impact cannot be avoided, provide a cross section showing the required fill slope to provide justification of why
the proposed fill comes out as far as depicted on the drawing.
In order to completely avoid this impact, Lot 1 would be lost. The appraised value of this lot is $130,000. Losing
this lot would be very difficult financially for the developer, especially if the four lots noted above were also
eliminated. The engineer was able to move the cul-de-sac to the east approximate 15 feet, which reduced this
impact (Impact #5) by 672 sf. Because of the topography in this area, the impact could not be reduced further.
Please see the attached cross section of the cul-de-sac fill slope. With the removal of Impact #4 and the

reduction of Impact #5, proposed permanent wetland impacts have been reduced from 0.3 acre to 0.277 acre.
Temporary wetland impacts and stream impacts remain the same.
4. The application states that the road widening is needed for an additional phase of development that may occur
in this adjacent tract. In order to permit a single and complete project, please show the proposed development
activity to occur within this tract and if any other wetland impacts are needed. Alternately, remove this road
widening.
There are currently no development plans for this adjacent tract, so the proposed impact from the road
widening (Impact #4) has been removed. The culvert replacement and rip rap are still needed because the
existing culvert is undersized for the amount of stormwater that will be captured from the development and
funneled through this culvert.
5. The proposed development along the creek in the northern part of the site is difficult to understand. Provide a
detail of this development (Lots 1— 8) that clearly shows coastal/404 wetlands, NHWL, 75' AEC, and 100'
setback.
Please see attached revised site plan and detail of this area. Note that the majority of the wetland line in this
area is coastal wetlands, with a few areas where a 404 line extends above the coastal wetlands. Also note that
the northern property boundary is the normal high water line.
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] I website: www.lmgroup.net

50'PRIVATE R/W
7.5' 7.5' 10' 10'
7.5' 7.5'
ORIGINAL.
1
7:1
7:1
R GRSH I A
�CC1'�pASTAE
FRINGE
:1
GRADE p/
10:1
GRADE
REGI uu
Wetland Impact #1 (Temp)
HIGH I�AOEAAL
INE
Stream Impact #1 (Temp)41i.
ROADWAY SECTION
Wetland Impact#3
4rLA�T
Cr y
2
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
Stream Impact#3
�
-�_�
��♦PC
LEGEND
AC -
ACRE
LF
- LINEAR FEET
BLDG -
BUILDING
MAX
- MAXIMUM
BEG -
BEARING
MBL
- MINIMUM BUILBINC LINE
OF -
CUBIC FEET
MIN
- M[N]MUM
CL -
CENTERLINE
N/F
- N 0 W OR FORMERLY
DR -
DRIVE
NOS
- N 0 T TO SCALE
DI -
DROP INLET
O.C.
- ON CENTER
DIP -
DUCTILE ]RON PIPE
R
- RADIUS
EL -
ELEVATION
RCP
- REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
EIR -
EX. IRON ROD
R/W
- RIGHT-OF-WAY
FOR -
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
SH
- SHEET
EX -
EXISTING
SIR
- SET IRON ROD
FE -
FINISHED ELEVATION
STA
- STATION
FES -
FLARED END SECTION
TYP
- TYPICAL
FF -
FINISHED FLOOR
FT -
FEET
GV -
GATE VALVE
IN -
INVERT
SF
SILT FENCE
LIE
LAND DISTURBANCE LIMITS
W
PROPOSED WATERLINE
--18--EXISTING
CONTOUR
404 WETLANDS =
COASTAL WETLAND
FILLED WETLANDS
SHEET 4 1 OF 2
PROJECT u: PM816-23-001
DESIGN FILE tt: PM816-23-001 SALT CREEK
Wetland Impact #2 (Temp)
Stream Impact #2 (Temp)
♦000
000
�� _
♦00
"00
kO;
26
-
25
27
_
24 N
28
29 —
23
22
♦♦���E<a
- 21
♦
a
♦�
i`
20
0
`♦
18
.. 1 ..
Lj
••
--1 ' - Wetland Impact #6 "N14
—: — — 5
Wetland Impact #5
a 44
- F,ELo C
I W4 I 16
FEc
Hi®
�,C,OASTAL
MASH
FRINGE
♦ 404
ETLAND
7
` ~MARSHAL
FRINGE
�J
.,, EADENOLINE HIGH
WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS
Impact #1 (Temporary):
50 sf wetlands
5 LF stream
Impact #2 (Temporary):
135 SF wetlands
15 LF stream
TOTAL TEMPORARY:
185 sf (0.004 ac)
20 LF stream
Impact #3 (Permanent):
160 sf wetlands
10 LF stream
Impact #4 (Permanent):
DELETED
Impact #5 (Permanent):
1,957 sf wetlands
Impact #6 (Permanent):
62 sf wetlands
Impact #7 (Permanent):
9,897 sf wetlands
TOTAL PERMANENT:
12,076 sf (0.277 ac)
10 LF stream
15 N_
_ —
10
s♦ I"r OVERALL WETLAND IMPACTS
ALT� ♦ I,vJ
CREEK
z
0
2
T.
u
1
♦ '♦
♦�♦� WHITE OAK TWSP-CARTERET COUNTY -NORTH CAROLINA
♦•� DESIGNED:
`.�♦�♦ CLIENT: SALT CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC RDC/GYT
ADDRESS: 505 CRESTWOOD DRIVE DRAWN:
NEWPORT, NC. 28570 RDC/GYT
PHONE: [phone] CHECKED:
RDC
APPROVED:
RJOUD ENOINEMNO, PA. GYTDATE
107 B COMMERCE OTREEm
dREENVIIJLE, N.C. 27858 114118
[phone] LICENOE NO. C-0647 SCALE:
1"= 200'

�L
29 MIN
CO
S' 7 6S 5_ SO
W so
�TF 30
07 �W R lei NE
W p1_
a iy 7 qo
/ W
�9 W _ a1•
r Wetland Impact #7:
.? 71 . 1 0.227 ac (9,897 sf)
19
S9' W
W
�0
IE�OC fin.
LEGEND
AC -
ACRE
LF
- LINEAR FEET
BLDG -
BUILDING
MAX
- MAXIMUM
BR -
BEARING
MBL
- MINIMUM BUILDING LINE
CF -
CUBIC FEET
MIN
- MINIMUM
CL -
CENTERLINE
NAP
- NOW OR FORMERLY
DR -
DRIVE
HITS
- NOT TO SCALE
DI -
DROP INLET
O.C.
- ON CENTER
DIP -
DUCTILE IRON PIPE
R
- RADIUS
EL -
ELEVATION
RCP
- REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
EIR -
EX. IRON ROD
R/W
- RIGHT-OF-WAY
EDP -
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
SH
- SHEET
EX -
EXISTING
SIR
- SET IRON ROD
FE -
FINISHED ELEVATION
STA
- STATION
FES -
FLARED END SECTION
TYP
- TYPICAL
FF -
FINISHED FLOOR
FT -
FEET
GV -
GATE VALVE
INV -
INVERT
- SF-
SILT FENCE
-LD -
LAND DISTURBANCE LIMITS
-W-
PROPOSED WATERLINE
- -18-
- EXISTING CONTOUR
404 WETLANDS
FILLED WETLANDS
SHEET is 2 OF 2
PROJECT tx: PM816-23-001
DESIGN FILE u: PM816-23-001 SALT CREEK
WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS
Impact #1(Temporary):
50 sf wetlands
5 LF stream
Impact #2 (Temporary):
135 SF wetlands
15 LF stream
TOTAL TEMP:
185 sf (0.004 ac)
20 LF stream
Impact #3 (Permanent):
160 sf wetlands
10 LF stream
Impact #4 (Permanent):
DELETED
Impact #5 (Permanent):
1,957 sf wetlands
Impact #6 (Permanent):
62 sf wetlands
Impact #7 (Permanent):
9,897 sf wetlands
TOTAL PERM:
12,076 sf (0.277 ac)
10 LF stream
■, -- — ——
■ � ���� i/i/�'� it/�r /r ///'/// �;`/''`���� � —�\ ` ��!
1 i �' off' , � /' /�o i � ♦� �, � ' �.
Wetland Impact #1(Temp):
0.001 ac (50 sf)
■ �� / / ,' / / / ' .�� '�
� i� 1 ��• 11 ' GRAVEL -
2
CD
Stream Impact #1 (Temp):
-� , ! CUL-DE-SAC �'
_
5 LF
PROPOSED
Q�-
��
vv SEPT �7
?
obL
FIRE HYDRANT
_ ��°°��vv-'�IELD
Wetland Impact #3:
�> o 82 -' o
Q w�
0.004 (160 sf)
__ - - 000Qo
m°
Stream Impact #3: '
/
10 LF
■ _oo
o Lit::R
� 5- n/v i
--- -,
spa.
'� �♦ ID
J
„r' �5
14.
■ 2 .3
Wetland Impact#2 (Temp):
�■ �� �� Wetland Impact #5: I� Ji
'
0.003 ac (135 sf)
Stream Impact #2 (Temp): 15 LF�.������
0.045 ac (1,957 sf) ,i' Wetland Impact #6:
■
0.001 ac (62 sf) 0
7
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
50LF 36"HDPE LAID
IN STREAM BOTTOM'
WITH 25% BURIAL
EX. ,50LF 18"CMP IWATERLINE
WATERL
TO- -BE- REPLACED- ERL I N
S INV 2.89 II
N INV 1.44 1'
SCALE:
H: 1' = 50'
V: 1' = 3'
50 100
iiii�����riiiiiiiiiiii
10 T
10
8 ----- -- - T
SCALE:
H: 1' = 50'
8 6 V: 1' = 5.
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O +
O
6 CROSS SECTION AT CENTER
OF GRAVEL CUL-DE-SAC
WETLAND IMPACTS
4 $ALT CREEK
WHITE OAK TWSP-CARTERET COUNTY -NORTH CAROLINA
2 CLIENT: SALT CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC DESIGNED:
RDC/GYT
ADDRESS: 505 CRESTWOOD DRIVE DRAWN:
NEWPORT, NC. 28570 RDC/GYT
0 PHONE: [phone] CHECKED:
GYT
APPROVED:
TIJOUD FNOINFFPJNO, P A� GYT
107 B COMMERCE 0TREET DATE:
dREENVILLE, N.C. 27868 1 /4/18
[phone] LICENOE NO. C-0647 SCALE'
. 1'= 50'

/w
of 7.5' 70 51
COASTAL
MARSH
7: 1 10:1 R NA L FRINGE
GRADE
UGI NORMAL
;ABC Wetland Impact #1 (Temp) HIGH WATER LINE
Stream Impact #1 (Temp)
'.CTION =- -
Wetland Impact #3
Stream Impact #3
OPTIC
3
Wetland Impact #6
Wetland Impact #2 (Temp)
Stream Impact #2 (Temp) 'K -,4, ak, u,J,l
Wetland Impact #5
L
■
�A&l NX
00
00
■00
k
Je.
ssoo I I-'
.44 Ak Ak Nlk
W& aklk ')4 au -,;L sk
■00 Nk N
ss
00
00 X�.,e tit1V,
SEPTIC
FIELD
Ll- w- %L-3ic
SEPTIC
FIELD
4@0
AU
SEPTIC
FIELD
SEPTIC
FIELD
43
r-COASTAL
MARSH
FRINGE
404
■ TL AND
SEPTIC FIELD
40
10
SEPTIC
FIELD
0
— - " s 34
IC FIEL �,�
COASTAL
MARSH
FRINGE
END NORMAL HIGH
WATER LINE