20110364 Ver 1_More Info Received_20120119

© NORTH CAROLINA 15401 Weston Parkway
N CONNECTICUT Suite
J47
SELLS MASSACHUSETTS Cary NC 27513
NEW HAMPSHIRE Tel [phone]
Transportation & Infrastructure NEWJERSEY Fax [phone]
NEW YORK yyww wspsells corn
PENNSYLVANIA
SOUTH CAROLINA
VIRGINIA
January 12 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1628
Attention Mr Danny Smith Raleigh Regional Office Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section �n
V
RE Honeycutt Creek Greenway Trail Longstreet Drive to Raven Ridge Road
Honeycutt Creek [030401 27 20 1 WS IV NSW]
Mine Creek [030402 27 33 14 C NSW] JAN 13 2012
Response to Review Comments D ,nq
WSP SELLS No 07 4029 ��5 ]� NC DENR
�Q U Raleigh Regional Office
Dear Mr Smith N ] 9 2012
DENR WATER QUALITY
WEnANDa AND STORMWATER BRANCH
WSP SELLS has reviewed comments received from the Division of Water Quality on our application
dated September 28 2011 This letter provides responses to those comments and follows a meeting
with Laura Witherspoon on November 28 2011 It is my understanding as a result of that meeting that
we had relief from the 30 day period for addressing the review comments We provide below our
responses as we have already submitted some requested information in advance of this letter of
response For convenience we provide the comment outlined in your November 2 2011 letter below
with our response to the comment following in italics
1 Section C Table — Wetland Impacts
a Is W4 a permanent or temporary impact? Column 2a indicates it is permanent while
column 2f indicates it is a temporary impact W4 is a permanent impact Section C 2
Wetland Impacts (PCN page 6) has been revised accordingly
b Assuming W4 is a permanent impact the total wetland impact in row 2g (0 0874 acre)
of the table does not equal the total impacts when summing up Column 2f seem (sic) to
total 0 1052 acre Section C 2 Wetland Impacts (PCN page 6) has been revised accordingly
c The temporary clearing wetland impacts (0 0486 acre) permanent fill or pipe wetland
impacts (0 0231 acre) and permanent boardwalk wetland impacts (0 0157 acre) in 2h also
totals 01052 acre and does not equal 0 0874 acre as indicated in row 2g Section C 2
Wetland Impacts (PCN page 6) has been revised accordingly
d Please revise and resubmit Table 2 so that is (sic) portrays more accurate information
Wetland impacts in PCN Section C 2 and riparian buffer impacts in PCN Section C 6 and

Mr Danny Smith Supervisor
January 10 2012
Page 2 of 3
attached Table 2 have been corrected and five copies of the revised table accompany this
letter of response
2 Section C Table 6 — Buffer Impacts
a Have buffer determination (sic) been conducted by DWQ? If so please provide a copy of
the buffer determination letter If not please contact DWQ to conduct buffer
determinations If you are conceding that all streams depicted on the Soils Survey of
Wake County and /or ISGS topographic map (1 24000)are subject to the buffer rules
then please label both the Soil Survey and USGS map with the same stream numbers
that were used in Table 1(attached to the PCN application) for reference Martin
Richmond has conducted field determinations on the six soil mapped streams that
Robert .1 Goldstein & Associates believes are not subject to buffers On Jan 10 he sent
the following email to Gerald Pattern Gerald —1 ve reviewed and I m putting together
the topo and soils maps right now If you have project overlays on topo (or soils map)
let me know and we 11 use yours for concurrence in the meantime 111 put together what 1
can and get this issued asap Thanks for your patience with this Martin On January
10 Mr Pattern sent the project corridor and stream crossing numbers on Topo and Soil
base maps to Mr Richmond Upon receipt of the maps etc from Mr Richmond we will
forward them to you
b When totaling the buffer impacts in Table 2 (included in the PCN application) they do
nmot mntrh %A1hat ic nrtimIlu Imterl in the imnact table For exam ole
*first number is indicated in table but when adding up the columns the numoers actually
equal what is in the parenthesis
Please explain discrepancies The discrepancies were due to mathematical rounding
errors PCN Section C 6 (page 8) and attached Table 2 have been revised with the correct
square feet numbers in parentheses above
c Buffer impacts in Table 2 (included with the PCN application) slightly differ from those
listed in 6f and 6g in the PCN application The discrepancies were due to mathematical
rounding errors PCN Section C 6 (page 8) and attached Table 2 have been revised with the
correct square feet numbers in parentheses above
3 Section D
Zone 1*
Perm Impacts
Zone 1*
Temp Impacts
Zone 2*
Perm Impacts
Zone 2*
Temp Impacts
Perm vs Temp Imp
75 289 (75 290)
15 707 (15 705)
83 700 (83 702)
22 512 (22 513)
Zone 1 vs Zone 2
90 996 (90 995)
106 213 (106 215)
Total Buffer Impact
197 209 (197 210)
*first number is indicated in table but when adding up the columns the numoers actually
equal what is in the parenthesis
Please explain discrepancies The discrepancies were due to mathematical rounding
errors PCN Section C 6 (page 8) and attached Table 2 have been revised with the correct
square feet numbers in parentheses above
c Buffer impacts in Table 2 (included with the PCN application) slightly differ from those
listed in 6f and 6g in the PCN application The discrepancies were due to mathematical
rounding errors PCN Section C 6 (page 8) and attached Table 2 have been revised with the
correct square feet numbers in parentheses above
3 Section D

Mr Danny Smith Supervisor
January 10 2012
Page 3 of 3
a Please explain why stream buffer and wetland mitigation is being proposed This
activity does not require buffer mitigation nor does it meet the thresholds for stream
and /or wetland mitigation You should contact the US Army Corps of Engineers to verify
that mitigation is required for stream and wetland impacts James Shern at ACE advised
us in Nov 10 that permanent stream and wetland impacts of Raleigh greenways will
require mitigation Riparian buffer mitigation entries have been removed from the PCN
4 This office believes that the greenway in Zone 1 can be moved or reconfigured to avoid and
minimize impacts to the riparian buffer The impacts to Zone 1 of the riparian buffer seem
excessive based purely on the numbers but is not easily observable based on impact maps
provided On November 28 2011 Lisa Potts of the City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation
Department and the author met with Ms Lauren Witherspoon The purpose of the
meeting was to review and discuss this specific comment We provided at that meeting
supplemental plan sheets with aerial photography and reviewed each Zone 1 impact with
Ms Witherspoon At the conclusion of this review Ms Witherspoon indicated that she was
now satisfied that impacts to Zone 1 of the riparian buffer have been minimized
5 Please provide impact maps at 1 =50 scale Please note that of the impact maps provided
Figures 2 5 were not included in the submittal Via an email transmission on December
14 2011 the author provided Ms Witherspoon with color coded plan sheets at 1 =50
scale depicting the impact in PDF Additionally and via the same a mail we also provided
Figures 112 in PDF We understood Ms Witherspoon to imply that this submittal via e
mail satisfied the requirement to submit hard cop13s of the impact maps and figures
Please refer to a copy of the a mail transmission accompanying this letter
In addition it appears Table 1 Potential Streams and Wetlands in the Honeycutt Creek
Greenway Project Corridor may have been omitted from the original PCN submittal We provide
five copies of Table 1 with this letter
We appreciate the opportunity to reply to your review comments and believe that we have
satisfactorily addressed each comment to your satisfaction If you need additional information
or have other comments please do not hesitate to contact us
Very Truly Yours
WSP SELLS
Ralph E Troutm P E
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc Lisa Potts w /enclosures
Lauren Witherspoon w/ enclosures
Karen Higgins w /enclosures
Gerald Pottern w /enclosures

11- 03,4
C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
® Wetlands ® Streams tributaries ® Buffers ® Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps 404 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ —non 404 other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ® T
W GA
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
Corps Sta 67 +00
0 0203 T
Land clearing
❑ No
DWQ
W2 ® P ❑ T
W GA
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
® Corps Sta 67 +00
0 0161 P
Filled for Trail
Alluvial Hardwood
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 [:]POT
W GB
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
® Corps Sta 68 +50
0 0060 T
Land clearing
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ®P ❑ T
W GB
Filled for Trail
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps Sta 68 +50
❑ DWQ
0 0203 T
W5 ® P ❑ T
W GC
Culvert
2 3 Ditch in
Alluvial Hardwood
Yes
® No
® Corps Sta 70 +70
❑ DWQ
00011 P
Alluvial Hardwood
W6 ❑ P ® T
W GF
Hillside Seep
® Yes
Z Corps Sta 166 +10
00019 T
Land clearing
Alluvial Hardwood
❑ No
DWQ
W7 P T
® ❑
W GF
Hillside Seep
® Yes
® Corps Sta 166 +10
0 0008 P
Boardwalk
Alluvial Hardwood
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W8 ❑ P ®T
W GP
Land clearing
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps Sta 175 +30
❑ DWQ
0 0165 T
W9 ®P ❑ T
W GP
Boardwalk
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps Sta 175 +30
❑ DWQ
0 0087 P
W10 ❑ P ®T
W GQ
Alluvial Scrub
❑ Yes
® Corps Sta 201+70
0 0039 T
Land clearing
Under Powerlme
® No
❑ DWQ
W11 ®P ❑ T
W GQ
Alluvial Scrub
❑ Yes
® Corps Sta 201 +70
0 0034 P
Wmgwall +Riprap
Under Powerlme
® No
❑ DWQ
W12 ®P ❑ T
W GN
Boardwalk
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps Sta 308 +90
❑ DWQ
0 0017 P
W13 ®P ❑ T
W GM 15 20
Boardwalk
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps Sta 329 +70
❑ DWQ
0 0015 P
W14 ®P ❑ T
W GM 6 102
Boardwalk
Alluvial Hardwood
® Yes
❑ No
® Corps Sta 331 +70
❑ DWQ
0 0030 P
2g Total wetland impacts
0 1052 T +P
2h Comments Temporary Clearing Wetland Impacts = 0 0486 acre Permanent Fill or Pipe Wetland Impacts = 0 0409 acre
Permanent Boardwalk Wetland Impacts = 0 0157 acre Total permanent impact = 0 0566 acre >> See attached Table 1 for sequential
listing of all wetlands streams ephemeral channels and open water crossings in the project corridor from south to north

3 Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
(PER) or
intermittent
(INT)?
(Corps 404 10
DWQ non 404)
stream
width
(feet)
length
(linear
feet)
S8 ®P ❑ T
Culvert Sta 67 +50
Mine Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
❑ Per ® Int
® Corps ❑ DWQ
40
265
S8 ® P ❑ T
RipRap Sta 67 +50
Mine Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
❑ Per ® Int
® Corps ❑ DWQ
40
185
S26 ® P ❑ T
Headwall St 201 +70
Honeycutt Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
® Per ❑ Int
® Corps ❑ DWQ
40
20
S26 ® P ❑ T
RipRap Sta 201 +70
Honeycutt Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
® Per ❑ Int
® Corps ❑ DWQ
40
65
S28 ® P ❑ T
Culvert Sta 238 +70
Honeycutt Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
❑Per ®Int
®Corps ❑DWQ
50
560
S28 ® P ❑ T
RipRap Sta 238 +70
Honeycutt Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
❑ per ® Int
® Corps ❑ DWQ
50
310
S29 ® P ❑ T
Culvert Sta 238 +70
Honeycutt Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
® Per ❑ Int
® Corps ❑ DWQ
50
180
S29 ®P T
❑
RipRap Sta 238 +70
p p
Honeycutt Cr trib
Alluvial Hardwood
® Per ❑ Int
®Corps DWQ
5 0
4 0
3h Total stream and tributary impacts Total Piped =102 5 ft RipRap lined = 60 ft
162 5 ft
31 Comments Bridge or boardwalk crossings proposed on Perennial or Intermittent streams at S5 S6 S12 S14 S22 S23 S24 S25a
b S31 S32 S33 S34 S39 S40 Foundations will be outside OHWM thus No stream impact at these 15 crossings >> See attached
Table 1 for sequential listing of all wetlands streams ephemeral channels and open water crossings in the protect corridor
4 Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number—
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑ POT
Bent Tree Pond
Replace existing wooden bridge
Pond Sta 172 +25
0 0037 T
02 [—]POT
03 ❑P ❑T
4f Total open water impacts
0 0037 acre
4g Comments Boardwalk/bridge footings will be installed on uplands beyond normal pool in approximately the same location as the
existing bridge no footings or other fill in waters This impact is considered temporary
5 Pond or Lake Construction NA
If pond or lake construction proposed then complete the chart below
PCN Version 3 1 Dec 2008

D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
RJG &A delineated and mapped all streams and wetlands along the project corridor and consulted with City greenway planners and
WSP Sells engineers during design to avoid and minimize wetland stream and buffer impacts wherever practicable Existing
development and steep slopes pose tight constraints along much of the stream side corridor segments where riparian buffer impacts
are unavoidable especially from Newton Rd to Honeycutt Park Between Newton Rd and Clear Brook Rd an existing cleared
sewerline right of way will be used for some segments rather than clearing a new corridor through forested land farther from the
stream Trail alignments in these areas were selected on a site by site basis considering proximity of the sewer to the stream bank
stream bank stability riparian forest habitat quality adjacent wetlands availability of land beyond the zone 1 buffer connectivity
with streets schools and parks and other site specific decision criteria The majority of the proposed 22 stream and 11 wetland
crossings will use boardwalks or bridges (Type 1 Traditional Greenways and Type 3 Natural Trails) or existing sidewalks (Type 2
Wayfinding Segments) to avoid and minimize impacts There are only four areas where permanent fill or piping in wetlands is
needed (total = 0 0409 acre) and four stream segments that require a permanent culvert and/or riprap (impacts ranging from 8 5 to 56
lm ft total = 1315 ft) based on the design engineer s determinations See also the attached Discussion of Unavoidable Impacts
and Alternatives to Riparian Buffer Encroachment for site specific explanations of efforts to minimize Neuse Buffer impacts
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Measures to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands streams and buffers during construction include minimize clearing widths
using existing cleared lands and sewerlme rights of way for access and staging areas keeping equipment and stocked materials on
the off stream side of the construction corridors and using modular or stick built bridges to minimize the size of vehicles needed in
remote forested areas See also section B 3 e above for detailed discussion of construction methods and sequence
2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
® Yes ❑ No
2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ® Corps
c If yes which mitigation option will be used for this project?
❑ Mitigation bank
® Payment to in lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank NA
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Fype
Quantity
3c Comments
4 Complete if Making a Payment to In lieu Fee Program
a Approval letter from in lieu fee program is attached
❑ (pending)
b Stream mitigation requested
103 linear feet
c If using stream mitigation stream temperature
®warm E] cool ❑cold
d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
0 0409 acres
f Non riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
FUN Version 3 1 Dec 2008

6 Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a Project is in which protected basin?
® Neuse ❑ Tar Pamlico ❑ Other
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b Buffer impact
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
# Permanent (P)
Buffer mitigation
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
or Temporary (T)
Reason for impact
Stream name
required?
(square feet)
(square feet)
Mine Cr + Honeycutt Cr
131 ❑ P ID T
Temporary Clearing
* *Total all segments
❑ Yes ® No
15 705
22 513
Alluvial Hardwood
132 ®P ❑ T
Permanent Trail
Mine Cr + Honeycutt Cr
Alluvial Hardwood
❑ Yes ® No
75 290
83 702
or Boardwalk
Alluvial Hardwood
B3 ❑P
❑Yes [—]No
B4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes [:]No
6h Total buffer impacts
90 995 sq ft
106 215 sq ft
61 Comments * *There are 117 Zone 1 or Zone 2 Riparian Buffer impact areas each with Temporary and Permanent impact
measurements See attached Table 2 for sequential listing of each riparian buffer impact in the protect corridor from south
to north by zone and temporary vs permanent impact See also the attached Discussion of Unavoidable Impacts and
Alternatives to Riparian Buffer Encroachment for site specific explanations of efforts to minimize Neuse Buffer impacts
D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
1 a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
RJG &A delineated and mapped all streams and wetlands along the project corridor and consulted with City greenway planners and
WSP Sells engineers during design to avoid and minimize wetland stream and buffer impacts wherever practicable Existing
development and steep slopes pose tight constraints along much of the stream side corridor segments where riparian buffer impacts
are unavoidable especially from Newton Rd to Honeycutt Park Between Newton Rd and Clear Brook Rd an existing cleared
sewerline right of way will be used for some segments rather than clearing a new corridor through forested land farther from the
stream Trail alignments in these areas were selected on a site by site basis considering proximity of the sewer to the stream bank
stream bank stability riparian forest habitat quality adjacent wetlands availability of land beyond the zone 1 buffer connectivity
with streets schools and parks and other site specific decision criteria The majority of the proposed 22 stream and 11 wetland
crossings will use boardwalks or bridges (Type 1 Traditional Greenways and Type 3 Natural Trails) or existing sidewalks (Type 2
Wayfinding Segments) to avoid and minimize impacts There are only four areas where permanent fill or piping in wetlands is
needed (total = 0 0409 acre) and four stream segments that require a permanent culvert and/or riprap (impacts ranging from 8 5 to 56
lin ft total = 1315 ft) based on the design engineer s determinations See also the attached Discussion of Unavoidable Impacts
and Alternatives to Riparian Buffer Encroachment for site specific explanations of efforts to minimize Neuse Buffer impacts
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Measures to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands streams and buffers during construction include minimize clearing widths
using existing cleared lands and sewerline rights of way for access and staging areas keeping equipment and stocked materials on
the off stream side of the construction corridors and using modular or stick built bridges to minimize the size of vehicles needed in
remote forested areas See also section B 3 e above for detailed discussion of construction methods and sequence

C
sz
z
4 Q
o C
n
I l
Table 2 Honeycutt Greenway Riparian Buffer Impacts by Buffer Zone and Temporary vs Permanent Impacts
Buffer
Impact #
Zone 1 Impacts
Zone 2
Impacts
Figure #
Trail Type
Stream Name
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
1
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
1213
211
2
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
27521
117
3
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
445
123
4
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
6 308
579
5
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
10 230
1623
6
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
2 736
2037
7
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
692
0
8
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
579
47
9
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
464
116
10
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
471
94
11
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
608
254
12
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
628
0
13
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
3 417
3 290
14
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
3 320
573
15
3
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
5 989
702
16
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
15 456
2081
17
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
74
88
18
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
467
217
1 19
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
943
349
120
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
8202
1265
121
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
3 640
714
,l 122
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
2 307
314
23
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
303
140
24
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
3 141
586
r l25
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
105
145
X26
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
2 324
486
FUt27
4
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
437
128
--- O
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
162
82
7- . 29
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
6051
0
30
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
639
0
31
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
11941
194
32
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
1018
965
33
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
1 184
103
34
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
252
74
35
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
1456
1041
36
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
123
69
37
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
915
0
38
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
847
714
39
5
10 ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
5781
85
40 1
5 110
ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
1745
160
41 1
5 110
ft Paved Trail
Mine Creek
190
89

Table 2 Honeycutt Greenway Riparian Buffer Impacts by Buffer Zone and Temporary vs Permanent Impacts
Buffer
Impact #
Zone 1 Impacts
Zone 2
Impacts
Figure #
Trail Type
Stream Name
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
42
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1821
421
43
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
849
202
44
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
3 732
0
45
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
668
0
46
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
2 767
0
47
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
958
0
48
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
3 356
0
49
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1388
211
50
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
2 457
362
51
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1478
26
52
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
925
229
53
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
13091
266
54
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1 663
1 276
55
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
630
0
56
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1 121
0
57
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1307
0
58
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1397
0
59
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
533
0
60
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
486
0
61
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
666
0
62
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
843
0
63
6
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
706
0
64
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
911
0
65
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1720
0
66
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
598
38
67
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
401
0
68
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
756
134
69
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
652
114
70
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
792
165
71
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1756
226
72
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1 126
109
73
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
2 246
286
74
7
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
68
91
75
8
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
3591
90
76
8
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
2 419
397
77
8
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
62
74
78A
8
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
617
88
78B
8
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
972
126
78C
8
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
794
130
78D
8
10 ft Paved Trail
Honeycutt Cr
I
407
82
10 ft Paved Trail Buffer Impacts 178
75818
85054

Table 2 Honeycutt Greenway Riparian Buffer Impacts by Buffer Zone and Temporary vs Permanent Impacts
Buffer
Impact #
Zone 1 Impacts
Zone 2
Impacts
Figure #
Trail Type
Stream Name
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
79
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1443
928
80
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
826
541
81
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
838
685
82
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1825
1111
83
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
431
394
84
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
545
367
85
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1204
792
86
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
4
87
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
601
400
88
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
182
122
157
130
89
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
237
155
90
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
35
60
91
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
11501
659
92
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
756
507
93
9
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
23
94
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
3615
2096
95
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
180
328
96
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
487
325
97
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
442
95
98
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
496
16
99
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
438
10
100
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
376
24
101
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
2161
237
102
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1526
924
103
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
1184
731
104
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
219
150
105
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
580
388
106
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
11111
265
107
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
491
0
108
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
61
420
109
10
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
323
0
110
11
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
46
48
111
11
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
206
48
112
11
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
170
50
113
11
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
42
42
114
12
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
45
47
115
12 1
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
267
23
116
12
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
324
32
117
12
6 ft Dirt Trail
Honeycutt Cr
421
43
6 ft Dirt Trail Buffer Impacts 79 117
15178
21159

Table 2 Honeycutt Greenway Riparian Buffer Impacts by Buffer Zone and Temporary vs Permanent Impacts
Buffer
Impact #
Zone 1 Impacts
Zone 2
Impacts
Figure #
Trail Type
Stream Name
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
Perm
Impact
Temp
Impact
Perm vs
Temp Imp
75 290
15 705
83 702
22 513
Zone 1 vs 2 Impact
90 995
106 215
Total Buffer Impact
197 210

Troutman Ralph
From Troutman Ralph
Sent Wednesday December 14 20114 33 PM
To Witherspoon Lauren
Subject Color Coded Plan Sheet with Impacts Honeycutt Creek Greenway
Attachments G Figs 1 12 Buffer Stream Wetland Maps July 11 pdf Impacts of Plan Sheets
12 24 2011 pdf
Lauren here are Figures 1 12 of the PCN for Honeycutt Creek Greenway along with impact areas plotted on the
construction plan sheets I will make a thorough response to your letter of comments after I return from Christmas
vacation
From Witherspoon, Lauren [mailto lauren wtherspoon @ncdenr gov]
Sent Monday, December 12, 20113 08 PM
To Troutman, Ralph
Subject RE Color Coded Plan Sheet with Impacts, Honeycutt Creek Greenway
Ralph,
They look good
Sorry I didn t get back with you Friday
I looked for you Friday but that room was packed
Enjoy you time off
Lauren
From Troutman, Ralph [ralph troutman @wspsells com]
Sent Monday, December 12, 2011 10 59 AM
To Witherspoon, Lauren
Subject RE Color Coded Plan Sheet with Impacts, Honeycutt Creek Greenway
'EDVAN 1 3 2012
NC DENR
Raleigh Regional Office
Lauren I enjoyed your talk Friday morning at the seminar Very informative as were the other presenters
Just a reminder if I may to look at the colored 50 scale impact plan sheet we submitted last Thursday I am planning to
take off the two weeks of Christmas and would like to get to you what you need before I leave Thanks
From Witherspoon, Lauren [mailto lauren wtherspoon @ncdenr gov]
Sent Thursday December 08, 20114 45 PM
To Troutman, Ralph
Cc Lisa Potts @raleighnc gov gpottern @rJgacarolina com
Subject RE Color Coded Plan Sheet with Impacts, Honeycutt Creek Greenway
I will try to look it over tomorrow and let you know what I think
I am glad you emailed because I remembered that we never discussed (during our meeting) the need for you all to have
buffer determinations for those streams that are depicted on the Soil Survey and /or USGS topo map but that Gerald
determined not to be streams I mentioned it in an email awhile back and didn t want that to slip through the cracks
Thanks
Lauren
1

From Troutman, Ralph [mailto ralph toutman@wspsells com]
Sent Thursday, December 08, 20112 57 PM
To Witherspoon, Lauren
Cc Lisa Potts @raleighnc gov, gpottern @ggacarolina com
Subject Color Coded Plan Sheet with Impacts, Honeycutt Creek Greenway
Lauren good afternoon and thank you for meeting with Lisa Potts and me on November 28 to discuss the City of
Raleigh s Honeycutt Creek Greenway As promised I am sending you plan sheet C7 2 showing the greenway with buffer
impacts We have endeavored to color code the impacts the same as they appear in our original PCN submittal although
it does appear that my ignorance of AutoCAD does prevail in a couple of instances Nevertheless we hope this is what
you are looking for to correlate the buffer impacts with the construction drawings Note that we have intentionally
omitted some information such as topography hoping that this will allow you to focus better on the impacts Please look
this over If you are satisfied with this please let me know and we will prepare the remainder of the construction plan
sheet with impacts in like manner
Looking forward to your presentation in the morning
Ralph E Troutman P E
WSP SELLS
office 919 678 0035
cell 919 -422 5297
2

Table 1 Potential Streams and Wetlands in the Honeycutt Creek Greenway Protect Corridor
Stream or Approx Decimal Soil or Stream Neuse ACE Junsdic Stream or Wetland Proposed Stream or
Wetland 4 Station Lat +Lon Topo Map ID Score Buffer or DWQ Description Wetland Impacts
Numbr Stream Isolated 9
IS
Mine Creek Watershed Paved Trail Longstreet Drive north to Strickland Road
1 15 [phone] Soil Eph 3 5 No* None Dry s
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
W GA
flag 1 12
S8
W GB
flag 1 16
S9
W GC
flag 1 3
S10
S 11
S12
S 13A
S 13B
S14
S15
S 16
786457
25 [phone] Soil + Topo Per 52 0 Yes
786457
39 +00 358789 Soil + Topo Per 45 5 Yes
786442
58 [phone] Soil Eph 7 0 NO
786421
61 [phone] Soil + Topo Per 47 0 Yes
786421
63 +00 358820 Soil + Topo Per 47 0 Yes
786420
east of 35 8820 neither Eph 10 0 No
63 [phone]
67 +00 358829
786415
67 [phone] Soil Int 24 5 Yes
786415
68 [phone]
to 70 +00 786413
70 [phone] Soil + Topo Eph 12 5 No*
786413
70 [phone]
786413
83 [phone] neither Eph 115 No
786387
85 [phone] neither Eph 10 0 No
786388
93 [phone] Soil + Topo Per 48 0 Yes
786376
93 [phone] neither Eph 14 5 No
786375
97 [phone] neither Eph 17 5 No
786367
99 [phone] Soil Per 34 0 Yes
786359
119 [phone] Soil Int Per Yes
786361 290
128 [phone] Soil Eph 0 No*
1786362
wale New sidewalk on
channel indistinct Longstreet Dr
ACE 404 401 20 25 stream Exist sidewalk on
bedr cobl sand Six Forks Rd
ACE 404 401 15 20 stream Exist sidewalk on
sand grav Newton Rd
None riprap lined Culvert 3 pipe 18
stormwater ditch HDPE 18 2 ft
ACE 404 401 15 20 stream Bridge no perm
sand grav cobl stream impact
ACE 404 401 15 20 stream Bridge no perm
sand grav cobl stream impact
None 2 non wetland Avoid No Impact
floodplam ditch
ACE 404 401 bottomland WI temp = 885 sq ft
hardwood forest W2 perm = 701 sq ft
ACE 404 401 3 5 sandy stream Culvt 3 pipe 24
at wetland edge HDPE +rock 45 ft
ACE 404 401 bottomland W3 temp = 261 sq ft
hardwood forest W4 perm = 111 sq ft
None 2 3 non wetland Culvert 4 pipe 16
floodplam ditch HDPE 29 2 ft
ACE 404 401 2 3 wetl ditch in W5 perm = 49 sq ft
bottomland HW HDPE Culvert 15
None 2 3 non wetland Culvert I pipe 48
ditch / swale HDPE 32 7 ft
None 2 3 non wetland Culvert 1 pipe 16
ditch / swale HDPE 216 ft
ACE 404 401 6 12 stream sand Bridge no perm
cobl bedr stream impact
None 2 non wetld swale Boardwalk no perm
stream impact
None 2 3 non wetld Culvert 1 pipe 24
swale HDPE 19 8 ft
ACE 404 401 5 8 stream sand Boardwalk no perm
silt cobl bedr stream impact
ACE 404 401 5 8 stream sand Exist sidewalk on
silt cobl bedr Mourning Dove
None No channel Exist sidewalk on
buried/piped Running Cedar

Stream or Approx Decimal Soil or Stream Neuse ACE Junsdic Stream or Wetland Proposed Stream or
Wetland # Station Lat +Lon Topo Map ID Score Buffer or DWQ Description Wetland Impacts
Numbr Stream I Isolated
Honeycutt Creek Watershed Paved Trail Strickland Road north to Durant Road
S20 161 [phone]
to 168 786312
W GF 166 [phone]
flag 1 3 786313
W GG 167 to 358990
flag 1 15 168 [phone]
Bent Tree 172 [phone]
Pond 786308
S 21 dnst west of 359003
spillway 174 +00 786305
S22 174 [phone]
786305
W GP 175 [phone]
flag 1 7 786304
S23 176 [phone]
786310
W GH south of 359012
flag 1 10 179 [phone]
S24 180 [phone]
786320
W GJ flag west of 359017
1 5 50 54 181 [phone]
Soil I Per 39 5 1 Yes
Soil + Topo Open Yes
Pond
Soil + Topo Int 28 0 1 Yes
Soil + Topo I Per 42 5 1 Yes
Soil + Topo I Per 49 0 1 Yes
Soil + Topo I Per 46 5 1 Yes
( Existing I 540 Greenway Tunnel = Sta 181 +86 to 190 +00 )
S 25A 190 [phone] Soil Int 22 5 Yes
786312
S 25B 191 [phone] Soil + Topo Per 45 5 Yes
786310
S26 201 [phone] Soil Per 35 5 Yes
786288
W GQ 201 [phone]
flag 1 18 786288
W GK flag north of 359010
1 12 2024 209 +00 786274
S27 209 [phone] Soil Eph 0 No*
786274
S28 238 [phone] Soil + Topo Int 25 0 Yes
786210
S29 251 [phone] Soil Per 40 0 Yes
786216
ACE 404 401
4 6 stream sand
No crossing Just
cobl bedr
buffer impact
ACE 404 401
forested 3 linear
W6 temp = 84 sq ft
seep wetland
W7 perm = 36 sq ft
ACE 404 401
marsh at head of
Avoid No Impact
Bent Tree Pond
culvt out Perm 8 5 ft
ACE 404 401
open water pond
Replace bridge no
above spillway
perm water impact
ACE 404 401
3 5 stream bedr
No crossing Just
cobl sand
buffer impact
ACE 404 401
4 6 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
grav cobl
stream impact
DWQ isolated
forested wetland
W8 temp = 720 sq ft
depression
W9 perm = 380 sq ft
ACE 404 401
4 6 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
grav cobl
stream impact
ACE 404 401
forested wetland
Avoid No Impact
seep + depression
ACE 404 401
6 9 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
grav cobl
stream impact
ACE 404 401
forested wetland
Avoid No impact
seep + depression
ACE 404 401
1 2 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
cobl
stream impact
ACE 404 401
5 8 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
grav cob]
stream impact
ACE 404 401
3 5 stream enters
Wmgwall + riprap at
marsh below culvt
culvt out Perm 8 5 ft
ACE 404 401
Marsh/scrub
W10 temp = 171 sq ft
adjacent to S 26
W1 I perm = 148 sq ft
ACE 404 401
Headwater seep
Avoid No impact
marsh/ scrub
None
Dry swale
No structure at
channel indistinct
crossing
ACE 404 401
3 5 stream bedr
1 pipe 48 RCP +
sand grav
rock Perm = 56 0 ft
ACE 404 401
4 5 stream sand
1 pipe 48 RCP +
grav cobl
rock Perm = 22 0 ft

Stream or
Approx
Decimal
Soil or
Stream
Neuse
ACE Jurisdic
Stream or Wetland
Proposed Stream or
Wetland #
Station
Lat +Lon
Topo Map
ID Score
Buffer
or DWQ
Description
Wetland Impacts
Numbr
Stream
Isolated 9
Honeycutt Creek Watershed Dirt Trail Durant Road north to Raven Ridge Road
S30
264 +90
359133
neither
Eph 17 5
No
None
2 3 non wetld
No structure at
786211
swale
crossing
W GL
268 +50
359139
ACE 404 401
forested 6 linear
No structure at
flag 1 7
786206
seep wetland
crossing
S31
277 +20
359159
Soil
Per 39 5
Yes
ACE 404 401
4 5 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
786192
grav bedr
stream impact
S32
289 +50
35 9188
Soil + Topo
Per 515
Yes
ACE 404 401
12 18 stream
Boardwalk no perm
786177
sand grav cobl
stream impact
S33
301 +00
359209
Soil + Topo
Per 515
Yes
ACE 404 401
12 18 stream
Boardwalk no perm
786153
sand grav cobl
stream impact
S34
308 +70
359216
Soil
Per 34 0
Yes
ACE 404 401
3 5 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
786139
grav cobl
stream impact
W GN
308 +90
359217
ACE 404 401
Forested alluvial
W12 perm = 72 sq ft
flag 1 7
786138
wetland
Boardwalk
S35
311 +20
359220
Soil
Eph 6 0
No*
None
Dry swale in
No structure at
786133
ravine
crossing
S 36
318 +35
359233
neither
Eph 9 0
No
None
Dry swale in
No structure at
786119
ravine
crossing
S37
324 +50
359237
neither
Eph 10 0
No
None
Dry swale in
No structure at
786099
ravine
crossing
S 38 &�
329 +70
359236
neither
Eph 18 0
No
ACE 404 401
10 mucky stream/
W13 perm = 66 sq ft
W GM
786085
(wetland)
wetland complex
No stream impact
flag 15 20
Boardwalk
S39
330 +80
359237
neither
Int 20 0
No
ACE 404 401
2 3 stream sand
Boardwalk no perm
786083
grav cobl
stream impact
S 40 &
331 +70
359239
Soil
Int 28 5
Yes
ACE 404 401
10 mucky stream/
W14 perm = 132 sq ft
W GM
786081
(wetland)
wetland complex
No stream impact
flag 6 102
Boardwalk
S 41
342 +50
359266
neither
Eph 13 0
No
None
Dry swale in
No structure at
786071
ravine
crossing
Streams This table includes all channels shown as streams on USGS Quads or USDA Soil Survey maps plus
other channels not mapped by USGS or USDA for which RJG &A completed a stream rating form and all
wetlands found during RJG &A field surveys in or adjacent to the project corridor
* See Table in PCN Form for detailed Temporary Permanent and Total stream & wetland impacts
Neuse Buffer "No *" = Channel is ephemeral piped or not present (RJG &A field determination) but is shown
on USDA soil survey map and DWQ must confirm that Neuse Buffer Rule does not apply