20180837 Ver 1_More Info Received_20180809

Goss, Stephanie
From: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday,'August 09,2018 3:49 PM
To: Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Miller, Holly; Jason Rivenbark; Moore; Jon ([e-mail]); Goss, Stephanie
Subject: [External] RE: Austin Ridge Parkway Extension, SAW -2018-01379, incomplete application
Attachments: USACE Response letter -Austin Ridge Pkwy Ext_08-9-18.pdf
CAUTION: External email.,Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
James,
During the time since you sent the below email request, the land owner, the project engineer and I have.met and
discussed the, issues and: have prepared the attached response and exhibits to address your concerns. We anticipate
that this will provide the answers needed so that the permit verification can be issued. If any additional information is
needed, please let us know. "
Thank you,
Debbie
Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office).
919-673-8793 (mobile)
M THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT
-----Original Message-----
From: Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July -12, 2018,10:49 AM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Austin Ridge Parkway Extension, SAW -2018-01379, incomplete application
Debbie,
I have reviewed the PCN for the above referenced project, and I have several issues that need to be addressed prior to
issuance of the permit verification.
1. Please provide further justification for the use of a culvert instead of a bridge at this location. Bridges in some cases
may be more appropriate with crossings of this size.
2. Based on the information in the PCN and other experiences with similar crossings; it appears that 64 linear of rip rap
dissipater pad is, more than minimal. Please submit additional information regarding the need for,such a long pad (Le,
calculations for velocities at the outlet demonstrating the need for a pad that is almost as long as the culvert itself), the
need for: its placement within the stream bed and not just along the banks, and how the crossing meets NWP conditions
for aquatic Fife passage. (based on previous experiences rip rap pads this long in length are not constructed properly,and
do not ailow''for aquatic life passage)

3. It appears that the proposed crossing does not meet regional conditions for culvert placements under section 3.6 of
NWP 14. Based on past experiences with NCDOT and others, for crossings this large, the use of sills in flood plain barrels,
and a constructed floodplain bench is typically used in order to maintain bank -full flows through one culvert, and ensure
that floodplain barrels only receive flows that exceed bank -full. This also helps maintain low flows through one barrel
and allow for aquatic life movement through the culvert.
Should no changes be proposed to the length, or construction techniques of the dissipater pad/outlet protection as
suggested above, mitigation at a 1:1 ratio will be required in order to ensure that the activity results in no more than
minimal adverse environmental effects.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or need to discuss further. I am in the office the remainder of today until
3:00 pm
James Lastinger
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
ADDRESS: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
Tel: [phone], x32
Cell: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Soil & Environmental Consultants,,PA
�I4
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27615 . Phone; (919),846-59010 Fax: [phone]
sandec.com
August 9, 20'
S&EC Project #12331.W'
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: James Lastinger
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: USACE Incomplete Application Response .
Austin Ridge Parkway Extension
AID#SAW-=2018-01379'
Wake ;Forest, Wake County, NC
Dear Mr. Lastinger:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to an Incomplete Application email dated July 12, 2018 from the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). The original questions/requests from the July 12, 2018 email are immediately
below and are followed by a response.
Additional Information Requested.
.1., Please provide further justification for the use of a culvert instead of abridge at this location. Bridges in some
cases may be.more appropriate with crossings of this size.
Alternatives were evaluated during the design process, including circular culverts, arched pipe, bottomless
spans and a bridge. The field conditions limited the design options. An existing public street extends toward
feature J setting the elevation and tie-in location. On the east side of Feature,J, the topography changes
significantly, and.the natural banks and water surface elevation of Feature J had to be evaluated in selecting
the crossing type. In addition, at this particular location in the drainage basin, the amount of flow that had to
be accounted for was a determining factor. In working with the Town Public Works department, a crossing
Was designed, and a submittal has been made to FEMA. The crossing has recently achieved technical
compliance in FEMA's review and Conditional Approval from Town of Wake Forest.
2. Based on the information in the PCN and other experiences with similar crossings, it appears that 64 linear of
rip rap dissipater pad is more than minimal. Please submit additional information regarding the need for such
along pad (i.e. calculations for velocities at the outlet demonstrating the need for a pad that is almost as. long
as the culvert itself), ,the need for its placement within the stream bed and not just along the banks, and how
the crossing meets NWP conditions for aquatic life passage., (based on previous experiences rip rap pads this
long in length are not constructed properly and do not allow for aquatic life passage)
The dissipater was designed per the NC Erosion Control Manual, see attached "Design of Riprap Outlet
Protection Worksheet". A cross section for the rip/rap velocity dissipater is attached for your review and will be
provided to the contractors during installation to ensure that the riprap will be "keyed" into the stream, bed. In
addition, the land owner, a representative from the Town of Wake Forest, an engineer and/or an
environmental consultant will provide construction oversight to ensure that the velocity dissipater is
constructed correctly and will allow for aquatic life passage. And finally, the width of the dissipater was re-

evaluated and minimized in width to the maximum extent practical. We hope that these measures will
eliminate the need for 1:1 compensatory mitigation.
3. It appears that the proposed crossing does not meet regional conditions for culvert placements under section
3.6 of NWP 14. Based on past experiences with NCDOT and others, for crossings this large, the use of sills in
flood plain barrels, and a constructed floodplain bench is typically used in order to maintain bank -full flows
through one culvert and ensure that floodplain barrels only receive flows that exceed bank -full. This also
helps maintain low flows through one barrel and allow for aquatic life movement through the culvert.
Due to the flows that will have to be passed through the culvert, the box culvert cross-section provided an
economical and efficient method for conveying the flows. The box culvert invert was set 1 -ft below the natural
elevation of Feature J to aid in aquatic life passage. Additionally, this culvert design was submitted to FEMA
in August 2017 and has now achieved technical compliance with their review.
We anticipate that this will provide answers to your questions/concerns. If additional information is needed, please
don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
C 1
Deborah E. Shirley
Environmental Specialist
CC:
Holly Miller -Town of Wake Forest (email)
Jason Rivenbark (email)
Jon Moore -McAdams (email)
Attachments:
1) Updated PCN page 7
2) Updated Sheets - LEN14030-E2 & E3
3) Design of Rip Rap Outlet Protection Worksheet

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project,will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes; then individually list all buffer impacts
below. Ifany impacts require mitigation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a:
® Neuse El Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other: •
Project is in which protected, basin?
E]Catawba ElRandleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number–
Reason for impact
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
T
required?
—Temporary
B1 (#1 -J) ® P ElT
Road Crossing
Austin Creek
® Nos
7,328
4,387
B2(#1-8) ® P ❑ T
Road Crossing
Austin Creek
Nos
8,748
3,136
B3❑P❑T
El Yes
_
❑ No
B4 El
El Yes
ElP❑T
No
B5❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
96,076
7,523
6i. Comments: Riparian buffer impacts at'feature "J" have been update asa result of the USAGE Incomplete
Application.
Page.? of 12

ZONE z
_e
IMF
0A N/,A.
o.I
cd? N? M P£ D ag �Y D
�o
opo
-6 A�M g
b
P92
b
v z
5
o 6k
o �
n
6 �
-o kwor��
cd? N? M P£ D ag �Y D
�o
Le ..ae..°. LEN -14030 TOWN OF WAKE FOREST - AUSTIN '
LW LENI!0 �-Ez-WEX RIDGE PARKWAY EXTENSION
s 1., 0' STREAM BUFFER IMPACT EXHIBIT
n' 06-0]-i8 WAKE FORESC. NORM CAROUNA MCADAMS
-6 A�M g
o 6k
1
A n
A
1
CmC
A D
A
A
J
Le ..ae..°. LEN -14030 TOWN OF WAKE FOREST - AUSTIN '
LW LENI!0 �-Ez-WEX RIDGE PARKWAY EXTENSION
s 1., 0' STREAM BUFFER IMPACT EXHIBIT
n' 06-0]-i8 WAKE FORESC. NORM CAROUNA MCADAMS

I —
_-MAIN DIVIDE DRIVE
ti (60' PLIPUC R/x)
i
els' BOX CULART
" GRAPHIC SCALE
TC a o a e0
1 inch 40 it
IMPACT AREA 10 - CROSS SECTION
10+00 11+00 12+00
SCA .T. ! _
SLALEnP T. 1--1
(1) S*XB'
BOX CULVERT
30' THICK RIP RAP
KEYED -IN WITHIN
STREAM BANK
8'x6' BOX
—c— LEN -14030
TOWN OF WAKE FOREST - AUSTIN RIDGE
�i
1EN1401�0-IMEX
PARKWAY EXTENSION
I
As sHawN
STREAM AND WET AND IMPACT EXHIBIT - CROSS SECTION
r
03-20-18
WAN FYlA1CQ1'. N(II PAR TWA
MCADAMs

Project
Project No.
Outlet ID
Flow, Q25_n
Slope, S
Pipe Diameter, Do
Pipe Diameter, Do
Number of pipes
Pipe separation
Manning's n
DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
Austin Creek Pha.e ; Date 8/3/2018
LEI -14030 Designer crus
Main Divide Dr. Ext. Culvert
230.0 cfs
0.63 %
102 inches
8.5 feet
I
0 feet
0.013
Fieure 8.06.b.1
25
20 Zone 6 Zane 7 .�
y
15
_Zone 5_
TV's-(, c
° 10
j Zont-4-
. r
5 -ne 1 - - _ Zone -
Zu-- - - - - ---
- Zone 2- -
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pipe diameter (ft)
Zone from graph above =
5
Diameter Thickness
Length
Outlet pipe diameter
102 in.
Length =
85.0 ft.
Outlet flowrate
230.0 cfs
Width =
25.5 ft.
Outlet velocity
12.8 ft/sec
Stone diameter =
23 in.
Material =
Class 11
Thickness =
27 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter Thickness
Length
Width
1
Class A
3
9
4 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
2
Class B
6
22
6 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
3
Class I
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
4
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x_ D(o)
5
Class II
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
- 6
Class II
23
27
10-x D(o)
3 x D(o)
7
Special study required
1. Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
2. Outlet velocity based on full -flow velocity
Box Culvert - Rip Rap Outlet Protection Design8/3/2018

Goss, Stephanie
From: Goss, Stephanie
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 9:43 AM
To: 'Deborah Shirley'
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Pre -Construction Notification Application: Town of Wake Forest -
Austin Ridge Parkway Extension
Debbie,
Per our telephone conversation today, I anticipate a response for the above referenced project by the end of this week.
If a response is not received by Friday, August 10, 2018 the project will be put on hold.
Thanks!
Stephanie Z. Goss
Environmental Senior Specialist
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-791-4256
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Deborah Shirley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:18 PM
To: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Pre -Construction Notification Application: Town of Wake Forest -Austin Ridge Parkway Extension
Stephanie,
I am letting you know that the Corps sent an Incomplete Application notification to us today for the subject project. I
am not sure if any of the impact areas may change after we respond. That said, if you are reviewing, or if it is at the top
of your review pile ... note that you may be getting new information for this one in the near future. We hope to have a
response back to them next week. We will copy you on any -response.
Thanks,
Debbie
Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
ATHINK BEFORE YOU PRINT
From: Deborah Shirley
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 1:37 PM

To: Montalvo, Sheri A ([e-mail]) <sheri:[e-mail]>
Subject: Pre -Construction Notification Application: Town of Wake Forest -Austin Ridge Parkway Extension
Sheri,
A Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Application was couriered t0 your office today for the subject project. I
have attached a copy of the complete PCN for your convenience.
Thank you,
Debbie
Debbie Ed -wards Shirr
Environmental Specialist
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
North Quarter Office Park
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
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 consultants 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.
I`HINK BEFORE YOU PRINT