20181486 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20190329

Strickland, Bev
From: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 5:38 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Mairs, Robb L
Subject: [External] RE: SAW -2018-00195 Saratoga Subdivision NWP - Request for additional
information (UNCLASSIFIED)
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Dana -
Please accept this as official correspondence for the above referenced project. The following information is needed to
complete the application and/or to finalize the application review. Please provide an electronic submittal of the entire
application package within 30 days of this request. If a response has not been received by this time or a request has not
been made for an extension, the application will automatically be withdrawn.
1. The application was still incomplete because the applicant's contact information had not been provided, as requested;
however, SEGi provided the Corps with this information yesterday (3/27/19).
2. The applicant is required to electronically submit a new application package reflecting the required changes and/or
additional information. It is not impracticable to make changes to an application and resubmit electronically as there
have been multiple instances of an applicant resubmitting through the ePCN process in response to comments. It is
incumbent upon the applicant to keep a record of their submittal, not for the agencies to have to toggle back and forth
between different versions of their submittal in order to review the complete project. Please submit the entire package
either through the ePCN process or by direct email to the agencies.
3. The Corps provided comment regarding the proposal to construct Secretariat Run to the eastern project boundary
and referenced a statement in the application that this is not a phased project (See comment 4 below). Furthermore,
the Corps stated that due to the location of jurisdictional resources at the project boundary, the applicant will only be
allowed to construct a 12 -foot wide access road beginning at the lot boundary for Lots 20/21, and that the access road
will not be allowed to continue beyond the driveway. The applicant provided a response stating that "...Pender County
will require the adjacent tract to connect to Secretariat Run when and if it is developed..." and that the impact is
"reasonably anticipated to take place and is unavoidable" and made no changes at this location, as directed.
The Corps agrees that the impact is reasonably anticipated and unavoidable; however, there are key facts that the
applicant's agents fails to understand about their own point. First, county requirements do not trump federal
regulations. Second, it is the entire impact that is reasonably anticipated to take place, not just the portion of the impact
that the applicant is proposing. Third, the applicant owns the adjacent property. Fourth, by regulation, the Corps cannot
approve road construction beyond Lots 20/21 due to the location of jurisdictional resources at this location. Regulation
33 CFR 325.1(d)(2) states that all activities the applicant plans to undertake which are reasonably related to the same
project and for which a DA permit would be required should be included in the same permit application. Furthermore,
the regulation states that the District Engineer should reject, as incomplete, any permit application which fails to comply
with this requirement.

Because the applicant owns the adjacent property, there are jurisdictional resources at this location that extend beyond
the project boundary, a discharge of fill is currently needed at this location, and a DA permit will be required to
complete the crossing beyond the project boundary, which is reasonably related to the currently proposed project, the
applicant must either follow the Corps' direction as previously stated or they must complete the crossing, terminating
the road in high ground on the adjacent property, and show a reasonable development at the road's terminus. To
choose the latter of these two options would mean that the project would no longer qualify for a NWP 29 because
impacts would exceed 0.5 -acre and the FEMA floodline is mapped at this location (Regional Conditions 4.1.3 and 4.1.4).
As such, this application is still incomplete because the project does not comply with the regulations.
Please either eliminate the impact as directed or apply for an individual permit.
4. The applicant did not adequately address item 7 of the Corps' comments (See below). Does the applicant still intend
to provide information to homeowners regarding how to access available uplands in a manner that would not require a
permit? If so, please provide the language that will be used for review.
5. The Corps disagrees with the applicant's proposal to provide 1:1 mitigation. NCWAM guidance states that for a site to
be considered intensively managed, the activity should have occurred approximately within the last 10 years. This site
was last cut in or about 1993, over 25 years ago. Very few manmade drainageways exist onsite, and those that are
present have not been maintained in probably over 25 years, leaving the hydrology of the site intact. Furthermore, the
Corps disagrees with the applicant's assessment that the site contains limited vegetative diversity and does not promote
habitat for wildlife. While the site may support a predominance of pine due to its historical use for a silviculture
operation, and thus may have areas with a dense understory as a result of this past disturbance, there are more
vegetative species present than what the applicant listed and an abundance of uses that wildlife can benefit from
throughout various stages of their life cycle and for various reasons, such as foraging and nesting. Additionally, the
habitat of this site is comparable to a plethora of other sites for which the Corps has recently required 2:1 mitigation.
Please provide a mitigation credit reservation letter reflecting a 2:1 ratio for the restoration of the proposed impacts.
6. A temporary impact at H is now being proposed; however, listed impact amounts vary and the impact is not shown on
the inset. Upon further review, it is actually quite difficult in some instances to see the project and project impacts on
the insets. Additionally, the applicant's agents are well aware that it has been a long-standing requirement that project
drawings be submitted to the Corps in 11x17" format. Please insure impact amounts are consistent throughout the
submittal, show the temporary impact at H on the inset, provide the correctly sized drawings, adjust the overall map so
that the drawing and the legend match, and either turn off data layers that aren't useful to the review and that also
make the inset drawings too busy or darken the limits of the project at each crossing so that they are clearly discernible
from other data layers.
7. A perennial stream exists at Impact 1, not an open water (ditch). Please correct in all appropriate locations within the
submittal. Please show the stream on the drawings for this impact.
8. In response to item 5 of the Corps' comments (see below) concerning the depth at which culverts were planned to be
buried, the applicant stated that the culverts would be set at existing grade and that these changes were reflected in the
newly provided cross-section drawings; however, the drawings lack the detail needed for the Corps' review. Please
update the DOT drawings originally submitted with the application to reflect the needed changes, as they are adequate
for review.
9. Tributary 3 is not accurately depicted on the overall impact map. See the approved delineation map created by SEGi.
Additionally, the entire length of the tributary from the point of impact located south of Saratoga Way on Lot 24 north
to its terminus at the existing culvert and soil road on Lot 37 needs to be included in the total impact amount.
Please provide the entire application package at your earliest convenience and feel free to contact me with any
questions.

Emily Greer, Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
910.251.4567 (o)
-----Original Message -----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 6:10 PM
To: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW -2018-00195 Saratoga Subdivision NWP - Request for additional information
(UNCLASSIFIED)
I'm sorry. I thought I sent that as part of my response.
Robert H Jackson
American Homesmith, LLC
919-291-8721, mobile
PO Box 97365
Raleigh, NC 27624
[e-mail]
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, NC 28412
Office: 910.452.2711
Mobile: [phone] (preferred)
Blockedwww.segi.us
-----Original Message -----
From: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 5:51 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW -2018-00195 Saratoga Subdivision NWP - Request for additional information
(UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Dana -
I'm working on additional comments, but we need the applicant's information first. Currently, the application is still
incomplete.
Please provide this information at your earliest convenience.
Thank you -
Emily

-----Original Message -----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:04 PM
To: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW -2018-00195 Saratoga Subdivision NWP - Request for additional information
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Hello, Emily.
Well, here ya go. I hope it is sufficient to address all of your concerns. I did the best I could on the ORM Sheet. Please call
me if you have any questions.
Thanks a bunch.
Dana
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, NC 28412
Office: 910.452.2711
Mobile: [phone] (preferred)
Blocked Blockedwww.segi.us
-----Original Message -----
From: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 6:04 PM
To: Dana Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW -2018-00195 Saratoga Subdivision NWP - Request for additional information (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Dana -
Please accept this as official correspondence for the above referenced property. The following information is needed to
complete the application and/or to finalize the application review. The applicant is required to electronically submit a
new application package reflecting the required changes and/or additional information.
1. Please either show all isolated wetlands as non -jurisdictional and filled or remove them entirely from the impact map.
Please note that the feature at Impact B is an isolated wetland. Please add the four stream features to the impact map
and account for impacts at Impact A and for Tributary 3 located in the vicinity of Keeneland Court/Lot 37.
2. The site has been delineated and verbal approval of the delineation has been provided. Please reference the
delineation and provide answers to questions 4(f) and 4(g) on the PCN.
3. A road crossing is proposed at Impact I; however, there is no indication that a culvert is being installed at this location,
which is required.
Please update drawings to reflect this change.
4. The applicant has proposed to construct Secretariat Run to the eastern project boundary and has stated in the
application that this is not a phased project. Due to the location of jurisdictional resources immediately beyond the
project boundary, the applicant will only be allowed to construct a 12 -foot wide access road beginning at the lot

boundary for Lots 20/21. The access road will not be allowed to continue beyond the driveway. Impacts should be
revised to show no wetland impacts on the north side of the road from the Lot 20/21 boundary.
5. At each road crossing, the applicant has proposed to bury culverts either four or six inches. Per the Wilmington
District's Regional General Condition, culverts must be designed and installed so that destabilization and headcutting are
minimized. Additionally, culverts in wetlands do not have to be buried. Given the elevation changes from north to south
at each crossing, the Corps is concerned that the proposal to bury the culverts will result in secondary drainage effects
and headcutting upslope of the crossing. Please either provide a written explanation as to why the culverts must be
buried that also addresses the Corps' concerns or redesign the crossings with an adequate size and number of unburied
culverts to equalize surface waters.
6. The applicant is proposing to install culverts at Impact H that will discharge into what appears to be a piped ditch
before ultimately discharging south to wetlands abutting Harrison Creek. Drainage for this wetland already exists just
offsite from Impact H. Construction of an additional drain will have secondary drainage effects. Burying the culvert and
piping the ditch increases the likelihood of a drainage effect occurring and could also create headcutting. Please either
provide a written explanation of the purpose and need for this drain that also addresses the Corps' concerns or remove
it from the plans entirely.
7. In a pre -application meeting with the Corps, the applicant stated that language regarding how to access upland areas
on lots with wetlands without a permit will be provided in the HOA restrictive covenants. To ensure the correct
information is being disseminated to future buyers, please provide the language that will be used for the Corps' review.
8. Please revise impact labels and impact amounts, and update drawings accordingly. Also, please fill out the attached
spreadsheet for project impacts and attach it as a separate document when resubmitting.
9. Please provide a compensatory mitigation credit release letter. Without justification, mitigation for wetland and
perennial stream impacts should be provided at a 2:1 ratio and intermittent stream and conversion impacts should be
provided at a 1:1 ratio. Please note that tree cutting on lots with wetlands with the intent to allow the buyer to maintain
those areas in an herbaceous state is considered a permanent impact and should be accounted for in impact totals and
mitigation provided.
Please provide a new application package reflecting the required changes within 30 days of this correspondence. Feel
free to contact me with any questions regarding this project.
Thank you,
Emily Greer, Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
910.251.4567 (o)
-----Original Message -----
From: Greer, Emily C CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 6:15 PM
To: 'Dana Lutheran' <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW -2018-00195 Saratoga Subdivision NWP - Incomplete application notification (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Dana-

Please accept this as official correspondence for the above referenced property. The following information is needed to
complete the application and/or to finalize the application review. The applicant is required to electronically submit a
new application package reflecting the required changes and/or additional information.
1. The application is incomplete because the applicant's contact information has not been provided. The prospective
permittee's first and last name, address (both physical and electronic are required), and telephone number are required.
Because the consultant is not the applicant, providing the consultant's information in lieu of the applicant's is not
correct. Please reference NWP General Condition
32(b)(1) for the required applicant information.
Please provide this information at your earliest convenience to begin the
45 day permit review process.
Emily Greer, Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington District - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403
910.251.4567 (o)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED