20061144 Ver 8_Modifications_20101103

COIF-111+08
V2 ARCADIS
Infrastructure, environment buildings
Transmittal Letter
To,
Mr. Ian McMillan
Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
919.715.4631
Copies:
Perry Allen - City of Raleigh
Natalie Landry - NCDWQ
Jean Manuele - USACE
File
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
North Carolina 27607
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Engineering License # C-1869
NC Surveying License # C-1869
From: Date:
R 6:4
t t ;7 ? Q?
--
Ben Furr November 3, 2010 `
a
?
?

/
(
, HIM
??
V
Subject: ARCADIS Project No.: "
Permit Modification Application NC703027.1000 pENR.WATER WAUTY
DWQ # 06-1144
WETLAttDS N10 3T'ORtrMi'MER BRANgi

We are sending you:
® Attached ? Under Separate Cover Via the Following Items:
? Shop Drawings ? Plans ? Specifications
? Change Order
? Prints
? Samples ? Copy of Letter ? Reports
? Other:
Copies Date Drawing No. Rev. Description Action`
1 11/3/10 Permit Modification Package and Review Fee FA

Action*
? A Approved ? CR Correct and Resubmit
? Resubmit Copies
? AN Approved As Noted ? F File ? Return Copies
? AS As Requested IZI FA For Approval ? Review and Comment
? Other:
Mailing Method
? U.S. Postal Service 151 Class ? Courier/Hand Delivery ? FedEx Priority Overnight ® FedEx 2-Day Delivery
? Certified/Registered Mail ? United Parcel Service (UPS) ? FedEx Standard Overnight
?FedEx Economy
El Other:
Comments: Please call or email me if you need additional information or further clarification of the information
provided. Thank you.
Page:
1/1
1
C) Lo - I\ `?14 0%
0 ARCADIS
Infrastructure, environment, buildings
Ms. Jean Manuele
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
919.554.4884
Subject:
Application for Permit Modification for the City of Raleigh Dempsey E. Benton Water
Treatment Plant Project (Rip-rapping an off-site stream)
Action ID Numbers 200320193, 200620626-200620628, and Nationwide Permit
Numbers 12 and 39
NCDWQ Project Number 06-1144
Dear Jean:
The purpose of this letter is to request a permit modification to address impacts
associated with the proposed rip-rapping of an intermittent stream (S25) that was
impacted due to failed erosion control measures. The erosion control failure was
noted in the Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) on February 16, 2010 (NOV-2010-PC-0192). The Action ID
Numbers associated with this project are 200320193, 200620626-200620628, and
Nationwide Permit Numbers 12 and 39. The NCDWQ Project Number associated
with this project is 06-1144.
Project History
ARCADIS conducted a site assessment on February 26, 2010 in response to the
NOV to quantify impacts and provide recommendations for restoration. ARCADIS
submitted a letter to NCDWQ on March 30, 2010 detailing the impacts and
recommended restoration at the Dempsey E. Benton Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WTP). The stream restoration consisted of placing log step structures along the
length of the impacted stream (approximately 100 linear feet), grading and
installation of erosion control matting on the stream banks, and planting the stream
banks with live stakes. Sediment was also removed from the wetland downstream of
the impacted stream. The restoration work began on June 9, 2010 and was
completed on July 9, 2010.
Imagine the result
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina,
Inc.
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
North Carolina 27607
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.arcadis-us.com
Water Resources
Date:
November 2, 2010
Contact:
Ben Furr
Phone:
919.630.1680
Email:
Ben. [e-mail]
Our ref:
NC703027.1000
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Engineering License # C-1869
NC Surveying License # C-1869
glwwm\703027-1000\iimpact analysis\riprapdesign\permit modification leher.doc
ARCADIS Ms. Jean Manuele
November 2, 2010
The week of August 23, 2010 the site received over 4 inches of rain and the log step
structures experienced severe erosion, causing bank failure in several places. The
stream bed also scoured out between some of the log structures. The sediment that
eroded during this storm event was washed downstream into the wetland just north
of the sewer easement. This is a portion of the same wetland area from which
sediment was removed from during the restoration activities in June 2010.
Proposed Stream Stabilization
ARCADIS is proposing to use rip-rap stabilization along the length of the channel to
stabilize the stream bed and banks, as opposed to repairing the log steps. The rip-
rap should provide better stream stability in the near term and long term scenarios.
The sediment that was deposited in the wetland will be removed by hand using
shovels, buckets, and wheelbarrows, as was done in June-July 2010.
The attached figure depicts the stream profile prior to construction of the WTP
(Original/Proposed Profile), overlain with the stream profile that was surveyed
immediately after issuance of the NOV (Existing Profile). Cross sections were also
surveyed immediately after issuance of the NOV and are depicted on the figure. The
profiles show that the stream incised between 0.5' and 2.0' in several areas after the
WTP was constructed. As shown in the Proposed Cross Sections, ARCADIS will
excavate approximately 24 inches of the stream bed and banks, where necessary,
and replace with Class II rip-rap to restore the stream to original contours. The
excavated material will be disposed of off-site. Geotextile fabric will be placed
underneath the rip-rap as required in the Erosion and Sediment Control Manual.
Also attached, are the design calculations that show the channel dimensions
associated with the 10 year storm. The rip-rap will extend along the stream banks to
approximately 1 foot above the elevation of the 10 year storm. Class II rip-rap will
comply with NCDOT Standard Specification Section 1042 (attached). The United
States Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jurisdictional Determination Form and NCDWQ
Stream Identification Form for S25 are attached, along with a Vicinity Map and Site
Map.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
The use of rip-rap to stabilize the stream will result in 100 linear feet of permanent
stream impacts. The existing permit includes 87 linear feet of permanent stream
impacts. The table below lists the existing permanent stream impacts in addition to
the 100 feet of impacts proposed with this modification.
Page:
G:6YWM1700027-1000Vmpast MelysisftRapDesignFermit Modffm1w Leger dos 2/4
ARCADIS
Ms. Jean Manuele
November 2, 2010
Change Change
Average Permitted Permitted
Stream Perennial to to
Impact Stream Type of or Stream Impact Permitted Area of Permitted
Number Name Impact Intermittent Width Length Impact Impact Area of
(feet) (feet) (acres)
Length Impact
(feet) (acres)
Previousl y Permitte d Impacts
Swift Permanent
S18 Perennial 12 3 0 0.001 0
Creek Weir
Swift Permanent
S19
Creek bridge and Perennial 200 40 0 0.184 0
minimum
Blow Off UT to Permanent
Swift Intermittent 6 11 0 0.001 0
1 Rip-rap
Creek
Blow Off UT to Permanent
Big Intermittent 6 11 0 0.001 0
2 Rip-rap
Branch
Blow off UT to Permanent
Walnut Perennial 3 11 0 0.001 0
3 Rip-rap
Creek
Blow off Walnut Permanent
Perennial 15 11 0 0.001 0
4 Creek Rip-rap
Impacts associated with this Modification
UT to Permanent
S25 Mahlers Intermittent 5 100 100 0.011 0.011
Rip-rap
Creek
Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and
187 100 0.2 .011
acreage)
Page:
G IWWM1700027-100011mpW An*smRipRapDesignPe dModifo lion Lefler dw 3/4

ARCADES Ms. Jean Manuele
November 2, 2010
Mitigation
The City of Raleigh will provide mitigation for all 187 feet of permanent stream
impacts by purchasing credits from EarthMark Mitigation Services, LLC, out of the
Forrest Creek Stream Mitigation Bank. Attached is the Statement of Availability letter
provided to the City of Raleigh by EarthMark Mitigation Services, LLC.
Items not included in this package
Items that were provided with the previous permit application submittals are not
included. Items not included consist of the FONSI, USACE Jurisdictional
Determination Forms for areas included in the previous PCN Application Form
package, and construction drawings associated with the Dempsey E. Benton WTP
and upgrades to the Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler dams. If additional copies of
this information are needed, please let us know, and we will provide you with the
additional copies you need.
Requested Action
Please review and provide written approval of this modification request. Once we
have received written approval of this plan from the USACE and NCDWQ, ARCADIS
will coordinate with the City of Raleigh to begin the stream stabilization and removal
of sediment from the wetland. If you have any questions please contact me at
919.630.1680.
Sincerely,
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
Ben Furr
Environmental Scientist
Copies:
Ian McMillan - NCDWQ Natalie Landry - NCDWQ
Perry Allen - City of Raleigh File
Page:
G.1WW9703027-1000U.pact MdyeiWORepDwplP-it Wdificd. Lett. d. 4/4
9 P Y4
17, f t! i i' 1

T 'T
YY {7
1 1 _. ,
,1 1 1 1 1 .
?..? _..

Lu?

i
r-
? ;??
?
•
i L-u
' _0 LL
B

(D u

.u x' 0 yr

u
?rF- W
,
.
C

o ,
0
v
° uj

: .
- f . o
Lu

t . .

O
N

O ;

f

} ..J

Ll.
lo' LU
..

co
+
< ? ` l
. Tft t © u
I
4ffi
%
io

? 4 , e (? r i N rt W

? ? O
O V
1 ' 1
Q 1 r

1
1 1 O

r
. ..
?
! -..
11
11 ?.
1
1 ? CL i

to
Q
N
O
00
t.0
N
O
00
W
v
N
O
00
W
Q
N
O

-im
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Fee
inch = 300 fee
Prepared By Prepared For
hiiL I DF Rp-ntnn

.. ••`
L
cn8 ?,
1- ri
/n lO;;,e tx1- '\\N i 1 /OpeN---\/",_,'? / Impact Summary
0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000
; rr?:,,J /!!1M\t\". t 1st
A L?w Fee Proposed Stream Impacts = 100 ft
1 inch = 1,000 feet j
rt
Prepared By PreoaredFor DE Benton Topo Map Figure N
City of Raleigh W E
Wake County, North Carolina 2
ARCADIS 9 Sources: ESRI World Imagery S
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2009 by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Nov 2 2010
X-2 10 Year Flow
User-defined Highlighted
Invert Elev (ft) = 222.50 Depth (ft) = 1.46
Slope (%) = 5.85 Q (cfs) = 34.59
N-Value = 0.043 Area (sqft) = 5.13
Velocity (ft/s) = 6.74
Calculations Wetted Perim (ft) = 6.99
Compute by: Known Q Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.64
Known Q (cfs) = 34.59 Top Width (ft) = 6.07
EGL (ft) = 2.17
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
(0.00, 230.00)-(0.10, 227.40, 0.043)-(3.00, 226.80, 0.043)-(5.00, 225.20, 0.043)-(7.00, 223.30, 0.043)-(8.00, 223.00, 0.043)-(8 .20, 222.70, 0.043)
-(8.50, 222.50, 0.043)-(8.70, 222.70, 0.043)-(10.30, 222.80, 0.043)-(12.00, 223.70, 0.043)-(14.00, 225.10, 0.043)-(16.00, 225.00, 0.043)-(18.00, 224.50, 0.043)
-(18.10, 230.00, 0.043)
Elev (ft)
231.00
230.00
229.00
228.00
227.00
226.00
225.00
224.00
223.00
222.00
221.00
-2
Section
Depth (ft)
8.50
7.50
6.50
5.50
4.50
3.50
2.50
1.50
0.50
-0.50
-1.50
22
Sta (ft)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2009 by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Nov 2 2010
X-1 10 Year Flow
User-defined Highlighted
Invert Elev (ft) = 219.60 Depth (ft) = 2.01
Slope (%) = 5.85 Q (cfs) = 34.59
N-Value = 0.043 Area (sqft) = 5.19
Velocity (ft/s) = 6.67
Calculations Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.24
Compute by: Known Q Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 2.16
Known Q (cfs) = 34.59 Top Width (ft) = 5.28
EGL (ft) = 2.70
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
(0.00, 230.00)-(0.10, 223.80, 0.043)-(5.00, 222.00, 0.043)-(7.50, 221.10, 0.043)-(8.50, 220.80, 0.043)-(9.00, 219.70, 0.043)-(9.50, 219.60, 0.043)
-(10.50, 219.90, 0.043)-(11.00, 221.10, 0.043)-(12.00, 222.50, 0.043)-(14.00, 224.40, 0.043)-(16.00, 224.40, 0.043)-(16.10, 230.00, 0.043)
Elev (ft) Section
231.00
229.00
227.00
225.00
223.00
221.00
219.00

Depth (ft)
11.40
9.40
7.40
5.40
3.40
1.40
-0.60
217.00
-2
1) an
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 vv
Sta (ft)
Section 1040
1040-7 WATER
Water shall meet the requirements of Article 1024-4.
1040-8 MORTAR
Mortar used in all brick masomy and block masonry shall be proportioned as shown
below for either mix No. 1 or No. 2. All proportions are by volume. Do not add any more
water than is necessary to make a workable mixture.
Mix No. 1: 1 part portland cement
1/4 part hydrated lime
3 3/4 parts mortar sand (maximum)
Mix No. 2: 1 part portland cement
1 part masonry cement
6 parts mortar sand (maximum)
The requirements of Articles 1040-4, 1040-5, 1040-6, and 1040-7, are applicable to all
cement, hydrated lime, mortar sand, and water.
For the hydrated lime and cement portion of Mix No. l,the Contractor may substitute
Type M or Type S masonry cement that meets ASTM 0270 For Type S masonry cement the
minimum compressive strength of the test specimens shall be 2500 psi at 28 days and the
test specimens shall be composed of 1 part Type S masonry cement and 3 parts sand.
Furnish a Type 3 certification for the Type M or Type S masonry cement.
1040-9 CEMENT GROUT
Use cement grout that consists of a mixture of 1 part portland cement to 3 parts mortar
sand with no more water than is necessary to make a workable mixture.
Apply the requirements of Article 1040-4, 1040-6, and 1040-7 to all cement, mortar
sand, and water.
SECTION 1042
RIPRAP MATERIALS
1042-1 PLAIN RIPRAP
Stone for plain riprap consists of field stone or rough unhewn quarry stone. The stone
shall be sound, tough, dense, resistant to the action of air and water, and suitable in all other
respects for the purpose intended. Where broken concrete from demolished structures or
pavement is available, it may be used in place of stone provided that such use meets with the
approval of the Engineer. However, the use of broken concrete that contains reinforcing
steel will not be permitted.
All stone shall meet the approval of the Engineer. While no specific gradation is
required, there should be equal distribution of the various sizes of the stone within the
10-83
Section 1042
required size range. The size of an individual stone particle will be determined by
measuring its long dimension.
Stone or broken concrete for riprap shall meet the requirements of Table 1042-1 for the
class and size distribution.
TABLE 1042-1
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR RIPRAP
AND STONE FOR EROSION CONTROL
REQUIRED STONE SIZES - INCHES
CLASS MINIMUM MIDRANGE MAXIMUM
A 2 4 6
B 5 8 12
1 5 10 17
2 9 14 23r
No more than 5.0% of the material furnished can be less than the minimum size
specified nor no more than 10.0% of the material can exceed the maximum size specified.
1042-2 TESTING
Test riprap materials in accordance with the requirements of this section and
Sections 1005-4(E) Resistance to Abrasion, and 1005-4(F) Soundness. Satisfactory
resistance to abrasion will be considered to be a percentage of wear of not greater than
55 percent. Satisfactory soundness will be considered to be a loss in weight of not greater
than 15 percent when subjected to 5 alterations of the soundness test.
SECTION 1044
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE MATERIALS
1044-1 SUBDRAIN FINE AGGREGATE
The subdrain fine aggregate shall meet the gradation requirements for No. 2S or
No. 2MS sand as shown in Table 1005-2.
1044-2 PIPE AND FITTINGS--GENERAL
Pipe and fittings may be, at the option of the Contractor, either concrete, corrugated
steel, bituminized fiber, or corrugated plastic.
1044-3 CONCRETE PIPE AND FITTINGS
Non-perforated concrete pipe and pipe fittings shall meet the requirements of
AASHTO M86 for standard strength nonreinforced concrete pipe.
Perforated concrete pipe shall meet the requirements of AASHTO M175 for standard
strength perforated nonreinforced concrete underdrainage pipe.
Joint materials shall meet the requirements of Section 1028.
10-84
Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric: The non-woven geotextile fabric shall meet the following:
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES Units Results
Grab Tensile Strength kN (Ibs) 0.900 (203)
ASTM D 4632
Grab Tensile Elongation % 50
ASTM D 4632
Mullen Burst Strength kPa (psi) 2619 (380)
ASTM D 3786
Trapezoidal Tear Strength kN (Ibs) 0.355 (80)
ASTM D 4533
Puncture Strength kN (Ibs) 0.575 (130)
ASTM D 4833
UV Resistance after 500 hrs. % Strength 70
ASTM D 4355
HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES
Apparent Opening Size (AOS)
ASTM D 4751
Permittivity ASTM D 4491
Flow Rate ASTM D 4491
Roll Width
Roll Length
Est. Gross Weight
Area
mm (US Sieve) 0.150 (100)
sec -1 1.5
gal/min/sf 110
I/min/sm 4470
m (ft) 4.57 (15)
5.5(18)
m (ft) 91.5 (300)
76(250)
kg (Ib) 134 (295)
m2 (yd2) 418(500)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 5 015
Date: O _ 1 1 -/0 Project/Site: DF ,&A-fin 4 Latitude: 3E, C57 0 03
Evaluator: 3en County: ?,? e, Longitude: 79, 603W
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
' Stream Determination circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Other 64"rne-C
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 CD 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 Q 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 , 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control <=) 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= .S
)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
J
J
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks < Zip 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 .5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p . 35 of manual.
Notes: 34 q e Vi , Rd Re- ye a. ?+4e-5 t ea 'E-

Sketch:
O

01ild i

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Wake City: Garner
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.657003° N, Long. 78.603698° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Mahler's Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Neuse River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
'There Are "waters of the US." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
? TNWs. including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 100 linear feet: 5 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHNS'M.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) :3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbodya is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section II1.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 6acres
Drainage area: 6 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46.55 inches
Average annual snowfall: 4.5 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are I (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 15-20 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are l (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW': tributary flows into Mahler's Creek then to Swift Creek then to Neuse River.
Tributary stream order, if known: I51 order.
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 5-10 feet
Average depth: 3 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1: t or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: highly eroding, extreme velocities during
storm events.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: pools are present but stream offers very little aquatic habitat overall.
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 6 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 20 (or greater)
Describe flow regime: high flows during rain events and very low flow (from groundwater source) intermittently.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® Of I WMe (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away
? sediment deposition
? water staining ?
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
® Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:the bank has eroded in some places making the OHWM difficult to identify.
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: water is generally clear as most of the flow is clear water discharge from on-site.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
1
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): greater than 50 feet on each side.
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: stream provides source of water for species inhabitating the area but in-
stream aquatic habitat is poor.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:>5 acres acres
Wetland type. Explain:bottomland hardwood that flows into beaver swamp/freshwater marsh.
Wetland quality. Explain:good; diverse assemblage of plants and habitat features.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 20-25 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are I5-20 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2-year or less floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: water is clear and land immediately adjacent to the wetlands is forested.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:bottomland hardwood species and freshwater marsh species, 75-90% coverage.
® Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: d i versify of habitat within wetland, downed logs, snags, deep pools of
standing water.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately ( 5 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Y >5
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: provides habitat for aquatic and
terrestrial species, serves to remove pollutants from stormwater flows.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section 111.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section 111.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
?Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: stream has been visited several times throughout the year and on most occassions weak flow was observed in the
channel.

Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 100 linear feet 5 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
El Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: the stream flows into a bottomland hardwood wetland which then flows into a freshwater marsh in the
floodplain of Mahler's Creek.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: >5 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands. have a significant nexus with a TN W are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section II I.C.
Provide acreage estimates forjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
?' Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section I1I.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA IIQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
r
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
?, Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
M Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Z Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
E a r t h M a r k
MITIGATION SERVICES
Florida • North Carolina - West Virginia
Forrest Creek Stream Mitigation Credit Confirmation Letter-Statement of Availability
Oct 29th, 2010
NC Division of Water Quality U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit CESAW-RG-R
1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 3331 Heritage Trade Center, Suite 105, Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re Project: Dempsey E Benton -WTP
This document confirms that the City of Raleigh, North Carolina has entered into an agreement to reserve and
contractually commit to the purchase of 187 Stream Mitigation Credits from the Forrest Creek Stream
Mitigation Bank under a separate agreement.
The Forrest Creek Riparian Buffer Mitigation Bank attests to the fact that 187 Stream Mitigation Credits are
available for immediate transfer from its Official Bank Credit Ledger at the time of this document and as of this
date places 187 credits into "no-sale"- reservation status under the name of the project on this document.
187 credits will remain in reservation status until State 401 and 404 permits are issued to the applicant and
payment in full is received, according to separate agreement, from the applicant resulting in the issuance of a
Transfer Certificate by the bank acknowledging that the applicant has fully secured credits from the bank and
the banker has accepted full responsibility for the mitigation obligation requiring the credits/units.
The Banker will issue the Certificate of Transfer, within ten (10) days of receipt of the balance of the Purchase
Price. Banker shall provide to Applicant the Transfer Certificate debiting credits from the Bank Official Credit
Ledger showing the permit number and the resource type secured by the applicant, and will send a copy of
the Transfer Certificate with an updated Official Credit Ledger to regulatory agencies showing the proper
documentation.
Beset Regards
) lA4 4 ;k'
Matthew R. Fisher
Regional V.P. Director of Business Development
EarthMark Mitigation Services, LLC.
1960 Derita Road, Concord, NC 28027
email: [e-mail]
12800 University Dr. Suite 400 Ft. Myers Florida, 33907 ph 239.415.6200 fx 239.415.6298
1960 Derita Road, Concord, NC 28027 ph 704.782.4133 fx 704.782.4148