20220212 Ver 1_More Information Received_20220316

Staff Review Form
NORTH CAROLINA
Envlronm¢ntcl Qvofiry
Updated September 4, 2020
Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
Yes No
ID#*
20220212
Version* 1
Is this project a public transportation project?*
Yes
• No
Reviewer List: * Colleen Cohn:eads\cmcohn
Select Reviewing Office: *
Raleigh Regional Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
Yes
No

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk * below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: *
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
New Project
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
More Information Response
Other Agency Comments
Pre -Application Submittal
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
Yes No
Project Contact Information
Name: Deborah Shirley
Who is submitting the information?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #: Existing Version:
20220212 1
20170001 (no dashes) 1
Project Name: Solana
Is this a public transportation project?
Yes
No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes No Unknown
County (ies)
Durham
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Only pdf or kmz files are accepted.
Describe the attachments or
comments:
April,
Thank you for your review and comments. We have been working with the applicant and the project engineer to
provide responses to your questions. We have provided responses in red font following your original requests
and have attached updated documents.
1) Open water impacts are proposed for the subject project which would result in the permanent loss of 0.36-
acre of waters of the United States due to a road crossing. The need for access is not disputed, however, the

Corps requires that avoidance and minimization is demonstrated to the maximum extent practicable as
required by Nationwide Permit General Conditions 23. For example, it appears that such impacts could be
avoided or minimized by replacing the proposed culvert with a bridge. Please provide additional information
regarding avoidance and minimization and bridge viability.
Per the applicant and project engineers, Horvath and Pulte looked at several different options for the Solana
crossing that would connect the east and west portions of the property as required by the City of Durham. Our
original plan was to locate the crossing approximately 1,500 feet south (upstream) of the final location (see 1st
inset below labeled "A"), however, when researching this location, the 100 year flood elevation change would
have caused a detrimental impact to the upstream properties. Our only practical alternative would be to cross
further downstream where any impacts to the floodplain would be contained to this site. The first location (see
2nd inset below labeled "B") we chose to cross the wetlands worked best with our road network and lot layout
but resulted in more impacts than the final location (see 3rd inset below labeled "C") which has been submitted
with this permit. We skewed the crossing slightly to find the narrowest area of wetlands that we could cross and
added retaining walls to the greatest extent allowed by Durham. While this location did not work as well with
our road network and resulted in the loss of two lots, it provided a better alternative that resulted in less
impacts. See link at bottom of email for attached exhibit Solana Road Crossing Exhibit.
A
B
C
Additionally, per the applicant a bridge was also considered for this crossing, however it would have required a
span of over 300' to avoid this impact which would be cost prohibitive to the project. A shorter span bridge to
reduce impacts was also considered, however it would still have resulted in the loss of the same or potentially
more of the higher quality wetland areas (green cross hatch in below exhibit) located closer to the edges of the
crossing where the bridge abutments would be placed while only preserving the open water areas (red in below
exhibit) in the middle of the crossing. See image below for reference.
2) Cumulative stream impacts appear to exceed the 0.05-acre threshold. Nationwide Permits may not be used
for activities that may result in the loss of more than 0.05-acre of streambed. Please verify that the proposed
project would not result in a loss of more than 0.05-acre. Please include applicable calculations.
We requested that Horvath review the previous impacts and provide an impact table to summarize all of the
proposed impacts on one sheet. As a result, the stream impact were reduced from 620 LF/0.050 acres to 583
LF/0.047 acre of permanent loss stream impacts. Please see link below for updated PCN application and
Solana Impact Maps_20220210
Click here to access ShareFile: https://sandec.sharefile.com/d-sd1d0687233c24043b0ef99dfd0aed12f
We anticipate that this provides the responses needed for you to continue the review of the application. If you
have any questions or need any further information, please don't hesitate to call or email me at the below
contact information.
Thank you,
Deborah Shirley
Attached: Updated PCN Application for Solana, Updated Impact maps and Solana Road Crossing Exhibit
Sign and Submit
By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:

• I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
• I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I agree that submission of this online form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a
written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form.
Signature:
Submittal Date: Is filled in automatically.