20181386 Ver 1_More Info Received_20181015

Johnson, Alan
From:Sean Martin <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, October 12, 2018 3:04 PM
To:Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Johnson, Alan
Cc:Christine Geist
Subject:\[External\] Re: \[Non-DoD Source\] Re: SAW-2015-02311 Comments
Attachments:SAW-2015-02311_DWR20181386_PCN_revisions.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Cathy and Alan,

Attached is the revised Rivercross PCN form and figures, SAW-2015-02311 / NCDEQ Permit ID. 20181386. The PCN and
figures no longer reflect removing a 30' historic pipe and receiving stream impact credits for day-lighting the stream, per
the Corps comments. Thus the stream impact total has been adjusted. Also, the NCDMS-ILF stream mitigation request
was updated based on the NCDEQ-DWR comments that riprap aprons need to be mitigated when permanent impacts
exceed 300-ft. (permanent loss of waters do not exceed 300-ft.). Additionally, per correspondence with the Corps on the
mitigation ratios, the stream mitigation total was adjusted to reflect the determined ratios, and is discussed in the
mitigation section. We have yet to receive the adjusted approval letter.

Alan, I will provide the stormwater management plan to you with the calcs as soon as it is completed.

Let me know if this is sufficient.

Thank you

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:10 AM Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
Good morning,

Yes, the 30 linear feet of piped stream is no longer considered a stream. The JD and PCN should be done to reflect
this. Thank you for the additional clarification on the avoidance and minimization. Let me know if you have any other
questions.

Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Martin \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 8:47 AM
To: Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Christine Geist <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] Re: SAW-2015-02311 Comments

1

Please call to discuss the project limits boundary. There is disagreement between Alan Johnson and CWS.

I will need a written avoidance and minimization statement for Stream Crossing #3 specifically. It seems like an
unnecessary crossing.
Phases 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B are isolated by Stream B. To access these phases of the project, a crossing is needed.
However, per Lincoln County UDO, two points of ingress/egress are required. This is already stated in the avoidance
and minimization, third paragraph: "Any residential subdivision of greater than 50 lots shall include a minimum of two
access points." Therefore, two stream crossings are needed due to restricted access, "...to accommodate emergency
and service vehicles...", per Lincoln County UDO.

Stream Impacts (3i): Under comments, Total Permanent Loss of Waters is written as 229 linear feet (30 linear feet
credit for pipe removal)... is the 30 linear feet of pipe no longer stream?
There is a historic 30' pipe currently in the stream channel. The permittee has offered to remove the pipe and daylight
the stream. A detail of the stream restoration was provided in the permit application.

The US Army Corps does not issue credit for pipe removal so I will need further explanation on this. If it is jurisdictional,
the JD will have to be redone.

If you will not offer a credit for the pipe removal and stream restoration, which I have received on other projects with
the USACE, that is fine, and we will change the permanent loss of waters from 229 lf to 259 lf in the application.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 10:19 AM Janiczak, Catherine M CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Good morning,

After discussing this with David Shaeffer, it has been determined that this project is separate from the project
located northwest. However, if future developments are connected to this development, compensatory mitigation will
be required.

I will need a written avoidance and minimization statement for Stream Crossing #3 specifically. It seems like an
unnecessary crossing.

Stream Impacts (3i): Under comments, Total Permanent Loss of Waters is written as 229 linear feet (30 linear feet
credit for pipe removal)... is the 30 linear feet of pipe no longer stream? The US Army Corps does not issue credit for
pipe removal so I will need further explanation on this. If it is jurisdictional, the JD will have to be redone.

Thank you.

Catherine M. Janiczak
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Regulatory Satellite Office
Phone: [phone]

--
2

Sean Martin

Sr. Scientist
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.

....Natural Resource Consultants
550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone: [phone] <tel:[phone]%20x.101>

Cell: 828-719-1320 <tel:[phone]%20x.101>

Fax: [phone] <tel:[phone]>

Blockedwww.cws-inc.net <Blockedhttp://www.cws-inc.net/>

--
Sean Martin
Sr. Scientist
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
....Natural Resource Consultants
550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone: [phone]
Cell: 828-719-1320
Fax: [phone]
www.cws-inc.net
3