StaffReport_20190327

DWR
�atwbn of w,aa< aeeohrr.r
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance In to the ray low process?*
C Yes
C No
Is this projects public transportatlon project?*
C Yes is No
Change crtr t needed
Assigned*
2019039
aY—nt required for this project?*
C No payment required
C Fee received
E Fee needed - send electronic noufica4on
Verslo nX *
1
What amout Is owed?*
C $240.00
G $570.00
Reviewing Office * Select Project Reviewer*
Central Office - [phone] Paul WojosM:EAMpawojoski
Information for Initial Review 1
ta. Name of project:
ECM 1A high Temperature Hot Water (HiHM Distribution System Replacement
1a. Who Is the Primary Contact?*
Matt Boatwright, PE
1b. Primary Contact Email_* to. Primary Contact Phone:*
rrrdtthewbualwngh[@ir" om [phone]
Date Submitted
3/272019
Nearest Body of Water
Burdens Crook
Basin
Cape Fear
Water Classlflcetion
WSV;NSW
Site Coordini tes
Latitude: LongMuds:
35.879687-78-872624
A. Processing Information U
County (or Counties) where the project Is located:
Durham
Is this project a public transportation project?"
C yes No
Ia. Type (a)of approval sought from the Corps:
R Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
f- Section 10 Permit (navigablo esters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Art)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
® NadonWde Permit (NYVP)
❑ Regional General Permit (RGP)
)] Standard (IP)

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
R Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NAP) Number: 12 - L,tility Lines
Nationwide Permit (MM) Number: 13 - Bank Stabilization
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS): /
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
❑ 401 Water quality CertMcatlon - Regular r OuaRY Certlllretbn _ T
❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General PerrTA ® Rlpaadtln rlen BliRel Authorl« T02
❑ hdividuat Penrtit
(' e
e
to. Is this notification solely for the record because wr[tten approval Is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification: O Yes O No
For the record only for Corps Permit: O Yee 0 No
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes G No
19. Is payment Into a mitigation bank or InAieu fee program proposed for mltigation of impacte7
r Yes r %
19. Is payment into a mitgation bank or InAleu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes O No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
In. Is the project located In any of NC's twenty coastal cou ntles7
r Yes t3 No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes G No
B. Applicant Information
Id. Who Is applying for the permit?
r Omer R Applicant (other than owner)
1o. Is there an Age nVConsu Rant for this project?
r Yes No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
e— C
United Sates of America US FJwironmental Protection Agency
2b. Deed book and page no
0000571000092
2c. Responsible party:
Robbie Davis, PE
Yd. Address
Steel Address
ID9T W Alexander Drive
Adl— LB 2
Cry
Durham
P atr1 ! zip o xb
27711
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. E nall Address:*
[e-mail]
& Applicant Information (if dr au t from owner)
3a. Name:
Stye I It V+ 1 Fig -
NO
0-try
is
4f. Fix Number:

Matt Boahmight, PE
3b. Buslness Name:
PAV Engineering, Inc.
Sc. Address
Street Adbass
8081 Arm Corporate Drive
Address tYe 2
Suite 300
aY
Raleigh
P-td Imp Q k'
27617
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
Fnafthew.boah"[e-mail]
sta. I Rov 1Pao.
Nr
Qxr"
us
3e. Fax Number:
FC. Project Infonnation and Prior Project History U
7. Project intonlotion
1b. Subdivision name:
it qXrom)
N4
7a Nearest munlclpailty 1 town:
Durham
2. Project Identirication
2a. Property Identiffcatlon Number:
0737-04-66-4416
2c.Project Address
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Adele Lne2
Gy
Research Triangle Park
R+ ta,7x a,x
27711
3. Surface Waters
3e. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Burdens Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
Wsv;NSW
3c. What river basln(s) Is your project located In?*
Cape Fear
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC In which the project is located.
030300020605
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
500,235
Sale f r'l— 4
NC
Qx Ary
Lis
4a. Describe the exlstfng conciftions on the site and the general land use In the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
Site Is carpus of Environmental Protection Agency. The replacement poMw of the project Is a maintained corridor containing erdsting utilities (MH and EPA) and Iwo smell intermittent
tributaries to Burdens Creek. The newe4ension of the HTHN area is currently forested and contains a perennial tributary to Burdens Creek. All tributaries drain to Lake Draw, a small
impoundment above Burdens Creek. Surrounding land use is industrial.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (Including all prior phase&) in the past?
r Yes r No r Lhknown
4d. Attach an 8 112 X 11 excerpt from the most recent vorslon of the USGS topographic map Indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 2 11SGS.pdf 2.44MB
4e. Attach an 8 V2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Sell Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
A2- Durham County Soil Survey -sheet 40.pdf 4.78MB

4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property.
unknown
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property.
est. -0.9 m
41h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The project is the replacement of a failing underground HTHdd system and connect this system on new location to an existing EPA Campus building,
41. Describe the overall project In detail, Including Indirect Impacts and the type of aqulpme nt to be used:*
The elasting HT1Mr line will remain active while the new system is constructed within the ersting utility corridor. Once the new system is active, then will be abandoned in place.
Exavation will be performed by trade hoo(s). If rock is encountered, a rock hammer attachment may be used. Additional equipment may include. but are not limited to dump trucks,
cranes, skid steers, compaction equipment, and bulldozers.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
05 Figures.pdf 8.62MB
5. Jurisdictional Detemtinations
Sa, Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the propertyor proposed Impact areas?*
F Yes r hlo C Unknown
Comments:
KID Request submitted. Corps has held verified three streams and no wetland within the project
boundaries. An official preliminary elelermlnallon Is pending.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determinallon was made?
r Prelininary r Approved r Notveri8ad r Llnknown C WA
Corps Alp Number:
5c, If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (If known): George Lankford
AgencyfConsultant Company. George K Lankford, LLC
Other:
Sell. Jurisdictional determination upload
email 1.pdf 126.93KB
email 2.pdf 126.441<13
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
C Yes C fJo
M anyoUnr NWP(sj, regional general permtt(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed projector related activitl/7
Kb
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory v 1
1. Impacts Summary
Ia. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
r Wetlands Q Streams -tributaries I2. Bullere
(- Open Waters IP Pond Construction
3. Stream Impacts
1-1
3a• Reason for Impact (?)
3b.krtpact type *
7c. Type of impact *
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Types
3C Type of
Sg. S. width *
3h. Impact
act
urisdictton*
length
Sl
underground utility
r9 dY
Permanent
�
Excavation
Url to Burdens Creek
Perennial
�
Both
5
10
r
Average liver!
(ixa feet)
g2
underground utility
Terlporery
Emovallon
Ur1toBurdens Creelk
Perennial
Both
�40
Average (feet)
(r>r�reea)
underground utility
Temporary
Fxravatlon
UT2 to Burdens Creek
Ntermittent
Both
3A
5(kua
a�e(1ee j
feel)
construction support
amporory
Excavation
Uri to Burdens Creek
Intermittent
Both
50
Avarege (fear)
(meat feet)
\1
1_ irl�d�l�S

�e lm
,SIN
�. Aewwq t
Ilbankstabil®tion �errporar� IlStabilization IIUT1 to Burdens Creek Perennial IlBoth I15 II9ISS 8
ll Averege(f") ( e fed)
3f. Total jurisdictional ditch Impact In square fiat:
0
31. Total permanent stream Impacts:
10
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
248
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
238
3j. Comerrenta:
Temporary impacts will be minimized but are due to access neaded for large equipment and materials flaw. Excavation is Hinted to a 104M vlddt at
stream crossings.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project Is in which protect basin(s)?
0-.,Ck aE tRrt "Wi
r Musa r Tar -Pamlico
r Catavba r Randleman
r Goose Creek i7 Jordan Lake
r Other
6b. Impact Type 8c. Par or Temp 6d. Stream name 60. Buffer mitigation required?
Bf. Zone 1 Impact
Zone 2 MPact
bweble _
krmble
krvable
7
UT1 to Burdens Creek
Ditch to Burdens Creek
Ditch to Burdens Creek
NO
No
No
2,275
1,825
2,17D
1,4D0
1.525
1,295
bwabte
I
Uf2 to Burdens Creek
%
2�650
7,690
owable
UT3 to Burdens Creak
No
3,075
2.050
bweble
Ur1 to Burdens Creek
No
3.600OF
towable
LIT to Burdens Creek
lAilcivieble
CR h
rb
600
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Temporary Impacts: 15,%5.00 7,960.00
Zone 1 Zone 2
Total Permanent impacts: 1,=M 8111100
Zoos 1 Zone 2
Total combined butter Impacts: 16,796.0D 8,760.00
fat. Comrrunts:
A 10-foot access corridor for the utility will remain after completion of the project across Uf 1 and Ditch. The remaining Impacts occur with an "sting
maintenance corridor and the exdseng access across streams and ditches WII remain
Supporting Documentation
06 2019 03-22 EPA HTi-W - PCN Dwgs revised.pdf 6.11MB
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation u
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed Impacts In designing the project:
The utility corridor was designed to cross streams as close to perpendicular as possible with access points outside of buffer nines to allow a
maintenance corridor of 10 feet w8h stream buffers. At stream crossing areas, excavation WII be limited to the width of the trench necessaryfor
replacement (less than 10 LF along channel at each crossing).
1b. Spectically describe measures taken to avoid or minlmus the proposed Impacts through construction techniques:
Access in streams will be lirrted to necessary operations. Ail stream work will be done in the dry using a pump around during construction. Temporary
stream crossings WII be used for equipment during construction. Pump arounds will minimize land disturbance and utilize culverts when applicable to
reduce traffic disturbances. After construction, all disturbed stream banks and buffers WII be planted in native herbaceous seed mimes and appropriate
woody spades WII be replanted to reestablish a woody buffer.

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require CompensatoryMltigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
C Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT requlre Compensatory Mitigation, explain why.
Permanent irrpects to strearne, and buffers are anticipated to be rrinlmal and awe no more than minimid adverse effects on aquatic Iffe, water qually, or buffer integrity.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR) 0
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project Include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identifled wlthln one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
f• Yes r No
What type of SCiM are you providing?
In Level Spreader
0 Vagetated Conveyance (lower SI-WT)
❑ Wetland Swale (higher SFNVT)
❑ Other SCM that removes minimum 30 % nitrogen
® Proposed project will not create concentrated stornwater flow through the buffer
Diffuse Flow Documentation
2. Stonnwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compl lance with NCDOTs Ind ivldual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low densityprojects as defined In 15A NCAC 02H.10o3(2)?
IT Yes r' No
Comma nts:
This project Is consists of an underground utility replacement that Is extended between existing bulldings and altuctures. ND newdevebpment Is planned.
G. Supplementary Information k:--'
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project Involve an expenditure of public (federallstatellocal) funds or the use of public (federallstate) land?*
r Yes r w
7b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project requlre preparation of an anvironmental document pursuant lathe requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental PollcyM (NEPAlSEPA)?*
r Yes r No
Comment*:*
An Environrrental Assessment was completed resulting in a FONSI.
PJ-
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site In violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500). Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.1300), or DWR Surface Water or Welland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rutes (15A NCAC 25 .0200)7 *
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result In additional development, which could Impact nearby downstream water quality?*
C Yes r- No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Project Is construction to replace an underground utility to service an existing building.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal requ Ire by DWR tar this project7*
r Yes C W r NA
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)

Q By cheddng the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, aocurate, and colrplete Information on this form;
I agree that sutmisslon of this PCN form Is a'transaction' subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the'UnKorm 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 Transactiotw Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a wriften signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form
Full Name:
George Kelley Lanldord
Signature
Data
/tzCPs: s 81l
C'l65 S (.?
JO-j
5l awn lm ! y�� f �'yt� u s
�YSwrl a4S !f V/ 4
�w
Tie" f
�i
_ ASS C' S5.
-� a r
�iI'eir ,/
%
U�
�/7
�.(*e
ems

5a. W11t this project occur In or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you chocked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act Impacts?*
r Yes r No
5d. Is another Federal agencytnvotvsd7*
r Yes r No
Se. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-87
C Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any tress In order to conduct the work In waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project Involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project Involve the constructionfinstallation of a wind turbine(9)7'
r. Yes r No
r Unknown
51, Does thle project Involve (1) blasting, andlor (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machlnes, such as Jackhammers, mechanised pile drivers, etc.?
G Yes O No
Ryes, Dleaw provide detalis to Include type of percussive activity, purpose, duration, and specific location of this aettvityon the property.
5). What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
A quaffied biologist obtained a IJSFWS species list (Ill reviewed NC Natural Heritage Program data, and conducted anon -site investigation to
determine If protected species or habitat Is present. Suitable habitat is not present and no species were observed. The proposed project Is unlikely to
affed protected species and wi11 not impact critical habitat.
Consultation Documentation Upload
PaC_Resourcel-ist_EPA Site.pdf 5.85MB
12 N-P project report EPA She-pdf 1 A 2MB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Cups Requirement)
So. Will this project occur In or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r W
61b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your sfte would Impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Fisheries Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. WIII this project occur In or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to do tormine whether your site would Impact historic or archeological resources? *
W State listoric Preservation Office FPOVVEB GIS Service (httpJ/www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/)
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
IJ-FPO Buffer Tool B EPA Site 2019 03-18.pdf 241.811B
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designatsd 100-year floodplain7
r Yes r No
f1c. What source(s) did you use to make the tioodpialn determination?*
FEMA Map 3720073700J (Panel 0737) - Effective May 2, 2006 was used. The utility lines cross a Zone Xhatched Boodplain.
Miscellaneous
Comments
51. toes this project involve (1) blasting, andlor (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechaniaad pile drivers, etc.?'
Yes W
8 rock is encountered on site and is in the way of the proposed pipe alignment, they will not blast, but they will use a rock hammer attachment on their excavator that is simlar to a
jackhammer.
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
F0N51_RTPIAUP.pdt
01 PCN EPA Site -Cover Leaar_USCOE.pdf
Signature
07g.55KB
28.741®
U

-r W
KC - (-- Lw
cl
el

IO
W
3
CD
-n
t.
pl
yr
co
CD p,
m =�
3 o
n �-0
r a.'
cD
Vn -
za 3
C)
m u,
Q
M
CD
1`
7
w NN
•. Q 0 !,
+ CD CD
N Q7
C
CAD CAD CD
•J � J N W �
O O n
Cn O CCnn ,
71-
N
O N
O O
CD
N CD co
-mac
3 (D
�,
O N �
00 C%
C31
(n o
it Cn
_9
11
N
O O
(D ((D M
3
0 o a
O (0 M
ro a
a [zr
c
cCDD (D
CA r
C 0
v
�M
Tri
N
NN
CD
O O
O O
CD CD
(D
wCT N 0Cn
(D Cn
4�,�
3 3
-0 f
o�
cn
r�
�f
-i m
cn -
33
tea'
a
)
-n
CD
0 p�
3
rr
CO 0
CD
�l u,
r n
CD
nQ)
a W y'
O
GO
O N
Cn
r
n
Cn Cn (n
CD
CD
w
CD
3-5 -
O O
3
0 0�
M �
CD CD
rr0
N�CA
n -n 0
C
N
CCD
3 3
-0-0 N -0
A N �
o --.4
O Cn cn
n-n
mm
O O
CD
`.
/0

Wojoski, Paul A
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:23 PM
To: Matthew Boatwright
Cc: George Lankford ([e-mail]); Wojoski, Paul A
Subject: [External] RE: EPA HTHW - Permit Questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Matt,
I just realized that I missed something else on this one with regards to Impact Site S4 UT3 to Burdens Creek (The
drainage feature furthest west in the project corridor). During the site visit on 2/15/2018, 1 determined that UT3 did not
exhibit an OHWM and was not a potentially jurisdictional water of the United States within the project corridor.
Therefore, this feature would not be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The most recent PJD
request submitted on 3/14/2018 only includes UT1 and UT2 to Burdens Creek as potentially jurisdictional waters to
match my field observations.
I will go ahead and issue the permit verification, but will add a note to the submitted plans that this feature (UT3 to
Burdens Creek) is not regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Just respond back to confirm or contest this
determination.
Thanks,
Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office #: 919-554-4884. Ext. 25
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://cops.usace.army.mil/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=[AE95B1BE-
995E-4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB)&file=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default
From: Matthew Boatwright[ma iIto: [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:11 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: George Lankford ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Wojoski, Paul A
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: EPA HTHW - Permit Questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
Ross,

I apologize for the delay, please see below responses to your questions. Let me know if there is any additional
information I can provided to assist with your review. I have copied Paul Wojoski, our NCDEQ reviewer, on this email so
that he can see our discussion in case it has any impact on his review.
1. Could you please send me the justification for why the construction corridor needs to be 50 feet in width at the
stream crossings?
a. The 8" supply and return piping system will have an approximately 24" outer jacket diameter. A
minimum trench width of approximately 15' is required in order to place the two piping systems side by
side, obtain the required clearances, and have enough room to weld the service pipe joints and install
the outer jacket field joints.
b. The depth of the trench ranges from 5'-15' deep and the sticks of pipe are typically fabricated in 40'
straight sections. This requires large pieces of equipment to make the excavation reaches, install the
large shoring systems, and handle the pipe material. Equipment similar to CAT330/336 is expected to be
utilized (11' wide). Equipment must be offset from the trench shoring by minimum clearances as
dictated by the type of shoring. Generally, it is safe to assume the equipment and trucks should remain a
minimum of 5' from the trench edge, and a 15' clear pathway will be needed for the equipment.
c. 5-10' will be required on each side of the corridor at stream crossings to install riprap on the upstream
and downstream sides of the temporary culvert piping to transition from the existing stream to the
crossing, and to install the required E&SC measures to ensure no sediment enters the stream.
Purpose for proposed construction width
width (ft)
Total width (ft)
Riprap installation for coffer dam/culvert inlet
7.5
7.5
Trench
15
22.5
Equipment set back
5
27.5
Access corridor
15
42.5
Riprap installation for coffer dam/culvert outlet
7.5'
50
2. Confirm impact S1 will not result in the permanent discharge of fill/dredged material into UT1 to Burdens Creek.
a. Confirmed, this impact will not result in a permanent discharge of fill/dredged material into UT1 to
Burdens Creek.
3. impact 55 is a permanent impact to UT1 to Burdens Creek, but it wouldn't result in a permanent loss of waters
as it is a stream stabilization project to stop a headcut.
a. Confirmed, this is a permanent impact for stabilization of the streambed and banks specifically being
made to stop the existing head cut from working upstream (east) towards the pipe crossing. There will
be no permanent loss of waters.
Thanks,
Matt Boatwright, PE
RM1= Engineering
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:04 PM
To: Matthew Boatwright <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: EPA HTHW - Permit Questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Matt,

As we just discussed on the phone, could you please send me the justification for why the construction corridor needs to
be 50 feet in width at the stream crossings? For your reference, see the Final 2017 Regional Condition 4.1.3 for
Nationwide Permit 12 in the Wilmington District below:
4.1.3 The work area authorized by this permit, including temporary and/or permanent fills, will be minimized to the
greatest extent practicable. Justification for work corridors exceeding forty (40) feet in width is required and will be
based on pipeline diameter and length, size of equipment required to construct the utility line, and other
construction information deemed necessary to support the request. The permittee is required to provide this
information to the Corps with the initial notification package.
Also, please confirm the following:
1. impact S1 will not result in the permanent discharge of fill/dredged material into UTl to Burdens Creek and
2. impact S5 is a permanent impact to UT1 to Burdens Creek, but it wouldn't result in a permanent loss of waters
as it is a stream stabilization project to stop a headcut.
Thanks!
Ross
Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office #: 919-554-4884. Ext. 25
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at:
Blockedhttps://cops.usace.arrny.rnil/sites/RD/ORM2 Blog/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={AE95B1BE-995E-
4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB1&file=National Customer Survey for Dec 2018.xlsx&action=default
From: Matthew Boatwright [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 4:26 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; George Lankford ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] EPA HTHW - Permit Questions
Ross,
Sorry I missed your call today. I just left you a VM, but also wanted to send you an email since it sounded like you may
be out of the office. I'll be in tomorrow afternoon and all day Thursday — please give me a call when you have a chance
so we can discuss any questions you have. Feel free to use my cell — 704-300-3431.
Thanks,
Matt Boatwright, PE
Project Engineer

RMF Engineering
Reliability. Efficiency. Integrity.
p: 919.941.9876
c: 704.300.3431
Blocked Blockedwww.rmf.com
ME
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit BlockedBlockedhttp://www.mimecast.com
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Wojoski, Paul A
From: Matthew Boatwright <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:11 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US)
Cc: George Lankford (gklankford9l @gmail.com); Wojoski, Paul A
Subject: [External] RE: EPA HTHW - Permit Questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
Ross,
I apologize for the delay, please see below responses to your questions. Let me know if there is any additional
information I can provided to assist with your review. I have copied Paul Wojoski, our NCDEQ reviewer, on this email so
that he can see our discussion in case it has any impact on his review.
Could you please send me the justification for why the construction corridor needs to be 50 feet in width at the
stream crossings?
a. The S" supply and return piping system will have an approximately 24" outer jacket diameter. A
minimum trench width of approximately 15' is required in order to place the two piping systems side by
side, obtain the required clearances, and have enough room to weld the service pipe joints and install
the outer jacket field joints.
b. The depth of the trench ranges from 5'-15' deep and the sticks of pipe are typically fabricated in 40'
straight sections. This requires large pieces of equipment to make the excavation reaches, install the
large shoring systems, and handle the pipe material. Equipment similar to CAT330/336 is expected to be
utilized (11' wide). Equipment must be offset from the trench shoring by minimum clearances as
dictated by the type of shoring. Generally, it is safe to assume the equipment and trucks should remain a
minimum of 5' from the trench edge, and a 15' clear pathway will be needed for the equipment.
c. 5-10' will be required on each side of the corridor at stream crossings to install riprap on the upstream
and downstream sides of the temporary culvert piping to transition from the existing stream to the
crossing, and to install the required E&SC measures to ensure no sediment enters the stream.
Purpose for proposed construction width
width (ft)
Total width (ft)
Riprap installation for coffer dam/culvert inlet
7.5
7.5
Trench
15
22.5
Equipment set back
5
27.5
Access corridor
15
42.5
Riprap installation for coffer dam/culvert outlet
7.5'
50
Confirm impact 51 will not result in the permanent discharge of fill/dredged material into UT1 to Burdens Creek.
a. Confirmed, this impact will not result in a permanent discharge of fill/dredged material into UTl to
Burdens Creek.
impact S5 is a permanent impact to UT1 to Burdens Creek, but it wouldn't result in a permanent loss of waters
as it is a stream stabilization project to stop a headcut.
a. Confirmed, this is a permanent impact for stabilization of the streambed and banks specifically being
made to stop the existing head cut from working upstream (east) towards the pipe crossing. There will
be no permanent loss of waters.
Thanks,

Matt Boatwright, PE
RMF Engineering
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:04 PM
To: Matthew Boatwright <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: EPA HTHW - Permit Questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Matt,
As we just discussed on the phone, could you please send me the justification for why the construction corridor needs to
be 50 feet in width at the stream crossings? For your reference, see the Final 2017 Regional Condition 4.1.3 for
Nationwide Permit 12 in the Wilmington District below:
4.1.3 The work area authorized by this permit, including temporary and/or permanent fills, will be minimized to the
greatest extent practicable. Justification for work corridors exceeding forty (40) feet in width is required and will be
based on pipeline diameter and length, size of equipment required to construct the utility line, and other
construction information deemed necessary to support the request. The permittee is required to provide this
information to the Corps with the initial notification package.
Also, please confirm the following:
1. impact S1 will not result in the permanent discharge of fill/dredged material into UT1 to Burdens Creek and
2. impact S5 is a permanent impact to UT1 to Burdens Creek, but it wouldn't result in a permanent loss of waters
as it is a stream stabilization project to stop a headcut.
Thanks!
Ross
Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office #: 919-554-4884. Ext. 25
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https:Hcops.usace.army.mil/sites/RD/ORM2 Blog/ layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={AE95B1BE-
995E-4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB}&file= Nation al Customer Survey for Dec 2018.xlsx&action=default
From: Matthew Boatwright [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 4:26 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; George Lankford ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] EPA HTHW - Permit Questions