20190616 Ver 1_More Info Received_20190814

Debbie,
Thank you for the update. Since the impacts described below will be less than the impacts specified in the 401 approval letter (Project # 20190616), revision of the 401 Water Quality
Certification and Buffer Authorization is not required by DWR.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2019 4:02 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>; Zach Daugherty <[e-mail]>; Sean Fisher <[e-mail]>; Paul Asche <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Ross,
The project engineer has measured the exact stream impact length along the centerline of the streams, and culvert length at both stream crossings. Please see the attached updated exhibits
with the stream measurements in "green" and the culvert measurements shown on the profile within the bottom left corner of the exhibit sheet. Please note that Impact Area E measured
more linear footage of stream vs. culvert length, however Impact Area B needed to be modified. At Impact Area B the engineers were able to raise and shift the walls closer to the right-of-way
and reduce permanent stream impacts. I have summarized the updated permanent stream impacts below and updated the PCN Impact table (see blue modifications).

Impact Area E - Permanent:
Stream Impact Length = 68.86 Linear feet Culvert Length = 68.069 Linear feet Requested Impact = 69 LF

Impact Area B - Permanent:
Stream Impact Length = 78.44 Linear feet Culvert Length = 78.193 Linear feet Requested Impact = 79 LF

Note that the temporary stream impacts at Impact Area B reduced to 41 LF, and the Zone 1 Buffer impacts reduced by 13 sq. ft.

We anticipate that this answers your concerns about the stream impact length vs. the length of the proposed culverts.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions/concerns.
Thank you,
Debbie

Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
 THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Hey Debbie,

After reviewing the revised information, I noticed a discrepancy between the permanent stream impacts and what is shown on the permit impact drawings. Specifically, the permit impact
drawing for Impact Area E indicates that there will be 69 linear feet (LF) of permanent impacts to Stream B. The impact drawing also indicates that the proposed culvert length will
be 69 LF of a 36-inch RCP. Typically, stream impact totals for linear footage should equal the amount of stream impacted along the centerline of the stream, as opposed to just the length
of culvert. Stream B appears to have several turns within the permanent impact footprint, which means that the total impacts to stream B would equal to more than the 69 LF of culvert.

At this time, I cannot move forward with verifying the use of NWP 29 for this project until the following items are received:

1. Please clarify what the total permanent impacts to both streams A and B would be as measured along the centerline of the stream as opposed to the total linear footage of the proposed
culverts.

2. If the impacts to stream bed are greater than 150 LF, please provide a mitigation proposal to compensate for more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse impacts to the aquatic
environment in accordance with the 2017 Regional Condition 3.2. Alternatively, the permittee can further minimize impacts to stream bed to decrease permanent impacts to below the 150
LF mitigation threshold characterized above.

Please provide the requested information within 30 days. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.

Best regards,

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?s
ourcedoc={AE95B1BE-995E-4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB}&file=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Shirley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 12:20 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ross,
Per your request for additional Avoidance and Minimization, the project engineers and applicants have updated the proposed plan to avoid all previously proposed wetland impacts and have
minimized the riparian buffer impacts at impact locations A-1 and F-1.

At impact area A, the SCM Discharge Outlet has been pulled back to avoid all wetland impacts.

At impact area F, the project engineers have redesigned the greenway crossing to be a boardwalk crossing with pile driven piers, therefore avoiding the wetland impacts.

In our meeting dated June 18, 2019, we discussed impact area E and the additional justification to support the purpose and need for this road crossing. In your email below, you have
agreed to the additional justification provided. Specifically, the purpose and need for this impact is due to the proposed project being constructed in two phases. Per the construction
phasing plan, Phase 1 which is the southwest portion of the project and includes approximately 38 lots, will need two points of ingress/egress. These two points include the proposed
crossing at Phlox Road and Buffalo Road. Per the NC State Fire Code Appendix D, Section D107, subdivisions that propose more than 30 lots requires two points of ingress/egress. Blockedhttps://codes
.iccsafe.org/content/NCFC2018/appendix-d-fire-apparatus-access-roads

We have updated the Pre-Construction Notification Application and the Impact Map set. Please see attached.

If you have any questions or need anything further, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Thank you,
Debbie

Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
 THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Hey Debbie,

As always, it was a pleasure to speak with you and your clients earlier today. With regards to impact site E (the connection to Phlox Road), the Corps has determined that the applicant
has a justifiable purpose and need for this impact due to the proposed project being constructed in two phases. According to our discussion today, Phase 1 would develop the southwest
portion of the project to include roughly 38 lots and have two points of ingress/egress (Phlox Road and Buffalo Road). Information presented in the meeting indicate that the City of
Raleigh requires two points of ingress/egress for subdivisions of over 30 lots.

With regards to compensatory mitigation, the overall permanent impacts to streams that cause a permanent loss of waters for this project is 149 linear feet, which is very close to, but
under, the mitigation threshold listed in the 2017 Regional Conditions associated with NWP 29. The Corps is not requiring compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacts associated
with this project. However, as we discussed today, the Corps will likely attach special conditions to the NWP 29 verification for this project to request (1) a pre-construction meeting
with the applicant and their contractors to discuss the mitigation thresholds, and (2) a post-construction survey of the stream impact areas to show the actual impacts versus what was
proposed. If the impacts exceed the mitigation threshold of 150 LF, the project would not be in compliance with the NWP verification and the applicant would need to either redo the
crossing so that the impacts match the authorized lengths or request authorization for the additional impacts and provide compensatory mitigation for all of the permanent stream impacts
causing permanent loss associated with this proposed development.

Thanks for the efforts to avoid impacts at Impact Site A-2 and F-2. I will begin reviewing the project once you submit revised plans and impact totals for the proposed project.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

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.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

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Shirley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 3:08 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ross,
I have talked with the applicant and the project engineers, we are working through some revisions to actually avoid the wetland impacts. Minimizing the stream impacts however are more
difficult. When I started reviewing the impact maps with them the permanent stream impacts were over 200 LF so they have minimized quite a bit. In hindsight I should have expressed
that in the application.

We would like to request a meeting to review the stream impacts, where they started and how then ended up where they are and the City of Raleigh development regs that they are required
to design around. If you are amenable to that, we wanted to see if a June 20th date would work for you, possibly in the morning. If that date does not work for you, if you wouldn't
mind providing us a few options so that I can coordinate with the applicants and engineers.

One more thing, Bohler Engineering offered to host the meeting. I do not know if that works for you, please just let me know. Link to office location: BlockedBlockedhttps://www.google.com/maps/pla
ce/Bohler+Engineering/@35.8455715,-78.6902673,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xb0a857e5e92b9679!8m2!3d35.8352738!4d-78.6883361

Thank you,
Debbie

Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
 THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:48 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Hey Debbie,

Thank you for the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) and attached information, dated and received 5/7/2019, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need
clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29. 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 NWP or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:

1. Impact Site A-2 - SCM Discharge Outlet: Can these impacts be minimized and/or avoided by outletting the pipes in uplands? If not, please provide justification why the proposed plan
is the necessary design. Also, According to the 2017 Additional Regional Condition 4.1.1 for NWP #29, discharges in perennial streams, intermittent streams, and wetlands for stormwater
management facilities are prohibited. Since these pipes are outlet structures for stormwater management facilities, this activity would be prohibited under NWP #29.

2. Impact Site E - Road Crossing: The plans submitted with the PCN application propose three road connections for the proposed residential subdivision: to the south at Buffaloe Road,
to the west to Old Milburnie Road, and to the east to Phlox Road. The connection to Phlox Road would result in Impact E. According to the PCN application, "Impact Site E is a proposed
road crossing necessary for access to the property from an existing stub." Please provide further justification to support the need for the impacts to perennial stream (UT to Hodges
Mill Creek) that would result from connecting the proposed subdivision to the Phlox Road stubout when there are two access points proposed for the subdivision (at Buffaloe Road and
Old Milburnie Road) that would not require impacts to any potential waters of the US?

3. Impact Site F-2 - Greenway Trail: Provide further justification for this impact. Specifically, can this stretch of greenway trail be constructed using alternative methods such as
a boardwalk to minimize/avoid impacts? Also, why is it necessary to connect the subdivision with a greenway trail at this location?

Note that the total permanent loss of stream bed for the proposed project is 149 linear feet of stream impacts which is very close to the mitigation threshold of 150 linear feet typified
by the 2017 Regional Condition 3.2. The Regional Condition 3.2 also states that the "District Engineer may determine, on a case-by-case basis, that compensatory mitigation is required
to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment." Further efforts at avoidance and minimization for this project can help to ensure that the
proposed project only results in minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

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: BlockedBlockedhttps://cops.usace.army.mil/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/Wo
piFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={AE95B1BE-995E-4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB}&file=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
June 18, 2019, we discussed impact area E and the additional justification to support the purpose and need for this road crossing. In your email below, you have agreed to the additional
justification provided. Specifically, the purpose and need for this impact is due to the proposed project being constructed in two phases. Per the construction phasing plan, Phase
1 which is the southwest portion of the project and includes approximately 38 lots, will need two points of ingress/egress. These two points include the proposed crossing at Phlox
Road and Buffalo Road. Per the NC State Fire Code Appendix D, Section D107, subdivisions that propose more than 30 lots requires two points of ingress/egress. Blockedhttps://codes.iccsafe.org/conte
nt/NCFC2018/appendix-d-fire-apparatus-access-roads

We have updated the Pre-Construction Notification Application and the Impact Map set. Please see attached.

If you have any questions or need anything further, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Thank you,
Debbie

Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
 THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Hey Debbie,

As always, it was a pleasure to speak with you and your clients earlier today. With regards to impact site E (the connection to Phlox Road), the Corps has determined that the applicant
has a justifiable purpose and need for this impact due to the proposed project being constructed in two phases. According to our discussion today, Phase 1 would develop the southwest
portion of the project to include roughly 38 lots and have two points of ingress/egress (Phlox Road and Buffalo Road). Information presented in the meeting indicate that the City of
Raleigh requires two points of ingress/egress for subdivisions of over 30 lots.

With regards to compensatory mitigation, the overall permanent impacts to streams that cause a permanent loss of waters for this project is 149 linear feet, which is very close to, but
under, the mitigation threshold listed in the 2017 Regional Conditions associated with NWP 29. The Corps is not requiring compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacts associated
with this project. However, as we discussed today, the Corps will likely attach special conditions to the NWP 29 verification for this project to request (1) a pre-construction meeting
with the applicant and their contractors to discuss the mitigation thresholds, and (2) a post-construction survey of the stream impact areas to show the actual impacts versus what was
proposed. If the impacts exceed the mitigation threshold of 150 LF, the project would not be in compliance with the NWP verification and the applicant would need to either redo the
crossing so that the impacts match the authorized lengths or request authorization for the additional impacts and provide compensatory mitigation for all of the permanent stream impacts
causing permanent loss associated with this proposed development.

Thanks for the efforts to avoid impacts at Impact Site A-2 and F-2. I will begin reviewing the project once you submit revised plans and impact totals for the proposed project.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

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.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

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Shirley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 3:08 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ross,
I have talked with the applicant and the project engineers, we are working through some revisions to actually avoid the wetland impacts. Minimizing the stream impacts however are more
difficult. When I started reviewing the impact maps with them the permanent stream impacts were over 200 LF so they have minimized quite a bit. In hindsight I should have expressed
that in the application.

We would like to request a meeting to review the stream impacts, where they started and how then ended up where they are and the City of Raleigh development regs that they are required
to design around. If you are amenable to that, we wanted to see if a June 20th date would work for you, possibly in the morning. If that date does not work for you, if you wouldn't
mind providing us a few options so that I can coordinate with the applicants and engineers.

One more thing, Bohler Engineering offered to host the meeting. I do not know if that works for you, please just let me know. Link to office location: BlockedBlockedhttps://www.google.com/maps/pla
ce/Bohler+Engineering/@35.8455715,-78.6902673,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xb0a857e5e92b9679!8m2!3d35.8352738!4d-78.6883361

Thank you,
Debbie

Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
 THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT

-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:48 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Hey Debbie,

Thank you for the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) and attached information, dated and received 5/7/2019, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need
clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29. 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 NWP or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:

1. Impact Site A-2 - SCM Discharge Outlet: Can these impacts be minimized and/or avoided by outletting the pipes in uplands? If not, please provide justification why the proposed plan
is the necessary design. Also, According to the 2017 Additional Regional Condition 4.1.1 for NWP #29, discharges in perennial streams, intermittent streams, and wetlands for stormwater
management facilities are prohibited. Since these pipes are outlet structures for stormwater management facilities, this activity would be prohibited under NWP #29.

2. Impact Site E - Road Crossing: The plans submitted with the PCN application propose three road connections for the proposed residential subdivision: to the south at Buffaloe Road,
to the west to Old Milburnie Road, and to the east to Phlox Road. The connection to Phlox Road would result in Impact E. According to the PCN application, "Impact Site E is a proposed
road crossing necessary for access to the property from an existing stub." Please provide further justification to support the need for the impacts to perennial stream (UT to Hodges
Mill Creek) that would result from connecting the proposed subdivision to the Phlox Road stubout when there are two access points proposed for the subdivision (at Buffaloe Road and
Old Milburnie Road) that would not require impacts to any potential waters of the US?

3. Impact Site F-2 - Greenway Trail: Provide further justification for this impact. Specifically, can this stretch of greenway trail be constructed using alternative methods such as
a boardwalk to minimize/avoid impacts? Also, why is it necessary to connect the subdivision with a greenway trail at this location?

Note that the total permanent loss of stream bed for the proposed project is 149 linear feet of stream impacts which is very close to the mitigation threshold of 150 linear feet typified
by the 2017 Regional Condition 3.2. The Regional Condition 3.2 also states that the "District Engineer may determine, on a case-by-case basis, that compensatory mitigation is required
to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment." Further efforts at avoidance and minimization for this project can help to ensure that the
proposed project only results in minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

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: BlockedBlockedhttps://cops.usace.army.mil/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/Wo
piFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={AE95B1BE-995E-4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB}&file=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Impact Area E - Permanent:
Stream Impact Length = 68.86 Linear feet Culvert Length = 68.069 Linear feet Requested Impact = 69 LF
Impact Area B - Permanent:
Stream Impact Length = 78.44 Linear feet Culvert Length = 78.193 Linear feet Requested Impact = 79 LF
Note that the temporary stream impacts at Impact Area B reduced to 41 LF, and the Zone 1 Buffer impacts reduced by
13 sq. ft.
We anticipate that this answers your concerns about the stream impact length vs. the length of the proposed culverts.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions/concerns.
Thank you,
Debbie
Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
• THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT
-----Original Message -----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW -2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Debbie,
After reviewing the revised information, I noticed a discrepancy between the permanent stream impacts and what is
shown on the permit impact drawings. Specifically, the permit impact drawing for Impact Area E indicates that there will
be 69 linear feet (LF) of permanent impacts to Stream B. The impact drawing also indicates that the proposed culvert
length will be 69 LF of a 36 -inch RCP. Typically, stream impact totals for linear footage should equal the amount of
stream impacted along the centerline of the stream, as opposed to just the length of culvert. Stream B appears to have
several turns within the permanent impact footprint, which means that the total impacts to stream B would equal to
more than the 69 LF of culvert.
At this time, I cannot move forward with verifying the use of NWP 29 for this project until the following items are
received:
1. Please clarify what the total permanent impacts to both streams A and B would be as measured along the centerline
of the stream as opposed to the total linear footage of the proposed culverts.
2. If the impacts to stream bed are greater than 150 LF, please provide a mitigation proposal to compensate for more
than minimal individual and cumulative adverse impacts to the aquatic environment in accordance with the 2017
Regional Condition 3.2. Alternatively, the permittee can further minimize impacts to stream bed to decrease permanent
impacts to below the 150 LF mitigation threshold characterized above.

Please provide the requested information within 30 days. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
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=IAE95B1BE-
995E-4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB}&fi Ie=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default
-----Original Message -----
From: Deborah Shirley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 12:20 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW -2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Ross,
Per your request for additional Avoidance and Minimization, the project engineers and applicants have updated the
proposed plan to avoid all previously proposed wetland impacts and have minimized the riparian buffer impacts at
impact locations A-1 and F-1.
At impact area A, the SCM Discharge Outlet has been pulled back to avoid all wetland impacts.
At impact area F, the project engineers have redesigned the greenway crossing to be a boardwalk crossing with pile
driven piers, therefore avoiding the wetland impacts.
In our meeting dated June 18, 2019, we discussed impact area E and the additional justification to support the purpose
and need for this road crossing. In your email below, you have agreed to the additional justification provided.
Specifically, the purpose and need for this impact is due to the proposed project being constructed in two phases. Per
the construction phasing plan, Phase 1 which is the southwest portion of the project and includes approximately 38 lots,
will need two points of ingress/egress. These two points include the proposed crossing at Phlox Road and Buffalo Road.
Per the NC State Fire Code Appendix D, Section D107, subdivisions that propose more than 30 lots requires two points of
ingress/egress. Blockedhttps://codes.iccsafe.org/content/NCFC2018/appendix-d-fire-apparatus-access-roads
We have updated the Pre -Construction Notification Application and the Impact Map set. Please see attached.
If you have any questions or need anything further, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Thank you,
Debbie
Debbie Edwards Shirley

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
• THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT
-----Original Message -----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW -2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Debbie,
As always, it was a pleasure to speak with you and your clients earlier today. With regards to impact site E (the
connection to Phlox Road), the Corps has determined that the applicant has a justifiable purpose and need for this
impact due to the proposed project being constructed in two phases. According to our discussion today, Phase 1 would
develop the southwest portion of the project to include roughly 38 lots and have two points of ingress/egress (Phlox
Road and Buffalo Road). Information presented in the meeting indicate that the City of Raleigh requires two points of
ingress/egress for subdivisions of over 30 lots.
With regards to compensatory mitigation, the overall permanent impacts to streams that cause a permanent loss of
waters for this project is 149 linear feet, which is very close to, but under, the mitigation threshold listed in the 2017
Regional Conditions associated with NWP 29. The Corps is not requiring compensatory mitigation for the proposed
impacts associated with this project. However, as we discussed today, the Corps will likely attach special conditions to
the NWP 29 verification for this project to request (1) a pre -construction meeting with the applicant and their
contractors to discuss the mitigation thresholds, and (2) a post -construction survey of the stream impact areas to show
the actual impacts versus what was proposed. If the impacts exceed the mitigation threshold of 150 LF, the project
would not be in compliance with the NWP verification and the applicant would need to either redo the crossing so that
the impacts match the authorized lengths or request authorization for the additional impacts and provide compensatory
mitigation for all of the permanent stream impacts causing permanent loss associated with this proposed development.
Thanks for the efforts to avoid impacts at Impact Site A-2 and F-2. I will begin reviewing the project once you submit
revised plans and impact totals for the proposed project.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
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.army.miI/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=IAE95B1BE-995E-
4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB}&fi Ie=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default

-----Original Message -----
From: Deborah Shirley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 3:08 PM
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW -2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Ross,
I have talked with the applicant and the project engineers, we are working through some revisions to actually avoid the
wetland impacts. Minimizing the stream impacts however are more difficult. When I started reviewing the impact maps
with them the permanent stream impacts were over 200 LF so they have minimized quite a bit. In hindsight I should
have expressed that in the application.
We would like to request a meeting to review the stream impacts, where they started and how then ended up where
they are and the City of Raleigh development regs that they are required to design around. If you are amenable to that,
we wanted to see if a June 20th date would work for you, possibly in the morning. If that date does not work for you, if
you wouldn't mind providing us a few options so that I can coordinate with the applicants and engineers.
One more thing, Bohler Engineering offered to host the meeting. I do not know if that works for you, please just let me
know. Link to office location:
Blocked Blockedhttps://www.google.com/maps/place/Bohler+Engi neeri ng/@35.8455715,-
78.6902673,15z/data=!4m5!3m4! 1sOx0:Oxb0a857e5e92b9679! 8m2!3d35.8352738!4d-78.6883361
Thank you,
Debbie
Debbie Edwards Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-5900 (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
• THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT
-----Original Message -----
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:48 PM
To: Deborah Shirley <[e-mail]>
Cc: Goss, Stephanie <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW -2018-01529 Request for Additional Information, Milburnie Ridge, Wake County, NC (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Hey Debbie,
Thank you for the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) and attached information, dated and received 5/7/2019, for the
above referenced project. I have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the
use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29. 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 NWP or consider your application
withdrawn and close the file:

1. Impact Site A-2 - SCM Discharge Outlet: Can these impacts be minimized and/or avoided by outletting the pipes in
uplands? If not, please provide justification why the proposed plan is the necessary design. Also, According to the 2017
Additional Regional Condition 4.1.1 for NWP #29, discharges in perennial streams, intermittent streams, and wetlands
for stormwater management facilities are prohibited. Since these pipes are outlet structures for stormwater
management facilities, this activity would be prohibited under NWP #29.
2. Impact Site E - Road Crossing: The plans submitted with the PCN application propose three road connections for the
proposed residential subdivision: to the south at Buffaloe Road, to the west to Old Milburnie Road, and to the east to
Phlox Road. The connection to Phlox Road would result in Impact E. According to the PCN application, "Impact Site E is a
proposed road crossing necessary for access to the property from an existing stub." Please provide further justification
to support the need for the impacts to perennial stream (UT to Hodges Mill Creek) that would result from connecting
the proposed subdivision to the Phlox Road stubout when there are two access points proposed for the subdivision (at
Buffaloe Road and Old Milburnie Road) that would not require impacts to any potential waters of the US?
3. Impact Site F-2 - Greenway Trail: Provide further justification for this impact. Specifically, can this stretch of greenway
trail be constructed using alternative methods such as a boardwalk to minimize/avoid impacts? Also, why is it necessary
to connect the subdivision with a greenway trail at this location?
Note that the total permanent loss of stream bed for the proposed project is 149 linear feet of stream impacts which is
very close to the mitigation threshold of 150 linear feet typified by the 2017 Regional Condition 3.2. The Regional
Condition 3.2 also states that the "District Engineer may determine, on a case-by-case basis, that compensatory
mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment." Further
efforts at avoidance and minimization for this project can help to ensure that the proposed project only results in
minimal adverse effect on the aquatic environment.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
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:
BlockedBlockedhttps://cops.usace.army.miI/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=IAE95B1BE
-995E-4A7E-9968-B619432F7CEB}&fi Ie=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED