External_ RE_ Request for Additional Info & DWR 401 RPOT for SAW-2018-02203 Cub Creek Station 937 Old Oxford Rd Durham

Baker, Caroline D
From:
Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 26, 2023 3:12 PM
To:
Tillery, Julia A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:
Thomas, Zachary T; Myers, Joseph M; [e-mail]
Subject:
[External] RE: Request for Additional Info & DWR 401 RPOT for SAW-2018-02203 Cub
Creek Station 937 Old Oxford Rd Durham
Attachments:
(S&EC 13676) Cub Creek Station and Sandy Ridge -State Impact Maps
(07.26.2023).pdf, Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form_Cub Creek Station &
Sandy Ridge USACE RFAI Update 7_25_23.pdf, Neu -Con Stream SOA - Bucher - Cub
Creek Station & Sandy Ridge.pdf, RE_ _External_ FW_ Request for Additional Info &
DWR 401 RPOT for SAW-2018-02203 Cub Creek Station 937 Old Oxford Rd
Durham.pdf, ORM_Upload_Sheet_Consolidated_2023Rule_20230320_Cub Creek_
13676_07_5_23.xlsm
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Julia:
Thank you for your review and comments. We have provided responses to the original email below in red and provided
the attached additional information.
Attachments:
-Updated Combined Impact Maps
-Updated Pre -Construction Notification From
-Updated Mitigation SOA
-Email from NCDWR
-Excel ORM spreadsheet
Please let us know if you have any additional questions or need further information to continue your review of this
permit application.
Thank you,
DEBORAH E. SHIRLEY
Project Manager -Regulatory Specialist
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office [phone]
Direct [phone]
Mobile [phone]
[e-mail]
Visit us at sandec.com
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential information. This electronic
communication may not have passed through our standard review/quality control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are provided as a matter of
convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature and seal. If you are not the named
addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, please notify
the sender by return e-mail and delete the original communication from your system. Thank you.

APlease consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Tillery, Julia A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Request for Additional Info & DWR 401 RPOT for SAW-2018-02203 Cub Creek Station 937 Old Oxford Rd
Durham
0
Thank you for your PCN, dated 6/9/2023, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the information
and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 (https://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP29.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail is fine)
within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the Nationwide
Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
Proposed (buffer) Impact #1 Road crossing / bottomless arch span:
a. The Corps Wilmington District Raleigh Regulatory Field Office has had long experience with
bottomless culverts. We generally agree with NCDOT that the long-term success of such
structures is significantly enhanced when they are tied into shallow bedrock. NCDOT does not
typically pursue bottomless culverts unless there is non -scour -able bedrock within 5 vertical
feet of the soil surface. In cases where the structures are not tied into bedrock, we have seen
numerous instances of foundation undercutting, often leading to replacement with traditional
culverts. Further, shading under the arch culvert inevitably leads to die -off of any remaining
woody vegetation. These factors predictably lead to loss of aquatic function through stream
bank erosion and winnowing out from foundation to foundation.
b. Given that this project proposes impacts requiring 404 approvals, we are evaluating both direct
and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts to 404 resources associated with the project to
ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than
minimal (NWP General Condition 23 and District Engineer's Decision part 2). Based on the
above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed bottomless culvert would result in
indirect impacts to streams in the footprint of the structure. The proposed indirect impacts to
streams appear to exceed 0.02 acre, the typified stream mitigation threshold per Regional
Condition B.7, in this case. Compensatory mitigation for this predictable reduction in (though
not a total loss of) stream function is typically required at 1:1, unless otherwise justified based
on an evaluation of stream function (i.e., NCSAM).
c. Please provide detailed information as to how the arch span will be installed without impacts to
the stream including access paths to each side of the stream and disturbance limits needed to
construct the structure. This information is needed to ensure that this structure would not
result in direct impacts to the stream.
Response: We have provided a construction sequence to the sheet IM-1A. Although we believe that the
bottomless culvert can be constructed without direct impacts to the stream, we have updated sheet IM-
1A indicating temporary stream impacts and have updated the mitigation SOA to include 1:1 stream
mitigation for this proposed crossing. If it is decided that special conditions can be added to the
verification to confirm and verify no stream impacts during/post construction, please consider.
2. Proposed Impact #2 Road-sidewalk/crossing/culverts/riprap:

a. It appears that two 30-inch culverts are proposed for the crossing at stream width of
approximately 23-feet wide, you may wish to confirm that the stream width given is from
Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM) to OHWM rather than bank to bank width. It is not clear
how two 30-inch culverts would accommodate high flows as culverts to be put in place should
(approximately) match existing stream width. Please detail how this proposed crossing meets
NWP 29 Regional Conditions B.9. b and c. Per Regional Condition B.9.b, Bank -full flows (or less)
shall be accommodated through maintenance of the existing bank -full channel cross sectional
area. Additional culverts or culvert barrels at such crossings shall be allowed only to receive
bank -full flows. Further, per Regional Condition B.9.c, Culverts shall be designed and installed in
such a manner that the original stream profiles are not altered and allow for aquatic life
movement during low flows. The dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and
below a pipe or culvert shall not be modified by widening the stream channel or by reducing
the depth of the stream in connection with the construction activity. The width, height, and
gradient of a proposed culvert shall be such as to pass the average historical low flow and
spring flow without adversely altering flow velocity. If the width of the culvert is wider than the
stream channel, the culvert shall include multiple boxes/pipes, baffles, benches and/or sills to
maintain the natural width of the stream channel. If multiple culverts/pipes/barrels are used,
low flows shall be accommodated in one culvert/pipe and additional culverts/pipes shall be
installed such that they receive only flows above bankfull.
Response: S&EC flagged the OHWM at this stream impact area before the PCN application was
submitted, so the stream width is accurate. Sheet IM-2A and IM-213 has been updated to show: 1)
added retaining walls west of the proposed culverts; 2) updated existing culvert details. Per the project
engineers: 'Please note that the area of stream immediately downstream of the existing two 30"
RCP pipes is a plunge pool. The culvert inverts are installed at existing grade to maintain the
original stream profile. The two proposed 30" pipes are adequately sized to handle the flow
through the stream and match the total barrels and diameter of the existing upstream pipes."
b. Per Regional Condition B.9. "For all NWPs that involve the construction/installation of culverts,
measures shall be included in the construction/installation that will promote the safe passage
of fish and other aquatic organisms. Placement of culverts and other structures in streams shall
be below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater
than 48 inches, and 20% of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than or
equal to 48 inches. If the culvert outlet is submerged within a pool or scour hole and designed
to provide for aquatic passage, then culvert burial into the streambed is not required. Culvert
burial is not required for structures less than 72-inch diameter/width, where the slope of the
culvert will be greater than 2.5%, provided that all alternative options for flattening the slope
have been investigated and aquatic life movement/connectivity has been provided when
possible (e.g., rock ladders, cross vanes, sills, baffles etc.). Culvert burial is not required when
bedrock is present in culvert locations." Given the relatively steep slope of the proposed
culvert (>2.8%), we are concerned that this stream would be subject to headcutting above the
proposed culvert if the invert is buried as proposed. Please confirm with NCDWR regarding
whether or not culvert burial is required/advisable in this situation. If burial of the culvert pipe
is not advised, please redesign accordingly and update the PCN and applicable plan sheets.
Response: Per the NCDWR, the culverts do not need to be buried (see attached correspondence). And
Per the project engineers: 'The two 30" RCP pipes are less than 72 inches and the slope is greater
than 2.5%, so the culverts are not buried. Please see adjusted inverts upstream and downstream
for the proposed culverts.". Please see updated sheet IM-213

3. Proposed Impact #3 Sanitary sewer crossing: Will the entirety of the proposed sewer corridor through
wetlands be permanently maintained, or only a portion of it? If the latter is true, please itemize the
permanent conversion corridor out from the temporary construction corridor on the PCN, per Regional
Condition B.10.d. "Any permanently maintained corridor along the utility right of way within forested
wetlands shall be considered a loss of aquatic function".
Response: Sheet IM-3 has been updated to include temporary construction area, the compensatory mitigation
section of the PCN has been updated to reduce proposed mitigation.
4. For the potential waters of the US within the project site, please fill out the "Aquatic Resources" tab in
the attached Excel ORM Upload spreadsheet and return to me at your earliest convenience.
Response: Please see attached Excel ORM spreadsheet completed by S&EC
5. Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to
allow full evaluation of the proposed project.
It appears that an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required from the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) for this project. Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of any
NWP without a valid 401 WQC.
For NCDWR: Within 14 days, please notify me if the certification request does not contain the nine (9)
components listed in Section 121.5(b) of the 2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule; otherwise,
we will consider our receipt date (6/9/2023) as accurate. As specified in the 9/16/2022, Programmatic
Agreement (PA) between the USACE and the NCDWR, the reasonable period of time (RPOT) for DWR to act on
a Section 401 certification request is 120 days unless the RPOT is extended per the terms of this PA. As such,
unless we receive an email request for an extension of the RPOT, the USACE will consider the Section 401
certification for this project to be waived on 10/7/2023.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Julia
Julia Tillery (she/her)
Regulatory Specialist, Raleigh Field Office
CE-SAW-RG-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
From: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:58 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Tillery, Julia A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2018-02203 (Joven Property Group / East Carver Street Assemblage / Durham County, NC)
Good Afternoon,

We have received your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request for the above project and forwarded
it to Julia Tillery for further processing.
Thank you,
Josephine Schaffer
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 3:54 PM
To: RaleighNCREG <[e-mail]>
Cc: SAW-PCN-RG <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] PCN - Durham - Non -DOT
A new project has been received on 6/9/2023 3:53 PM for Cub Creek Station & Sandy Ridge. The link below will take you
to the project folder.
httos://edocs.dea.nc.eov/laserfiche/index.asox?db=WaterResources#id=2828751:view=browse
This email was automatically generated by Laserfiche workflow. Please do not respond to this email address, as
responses aren't monitored.