20150556 Ver 1_401 Application_20150615

J
June 3, 2015
Karen Higgins
NCDENR -DWR
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Ms. Higgins,
MITOO ?I
Reference: State Farmers Market Park & Ride Lot - 401/404 PCN
201505
5s
Please find the attached Pre - construction Notification (PCN) and supporting documentation to
apply for a Nationwide Permit (NW P) No. 39 for the State Farmers Market Park & Ride Lot in
Raleigh, NC.
The proposed development is a North Carolina State University (NCSU) bus park and ride lot which
is an extension to an existing parking lot at the State Farmers Market near the intersection of
Centennial Parkway and Lake Wheeler Road. The proposed access drive to Lake Wheeler Road
will allow for an efficient and safe routing for NCSU buses as they enter and exit the expanded
parking lot area. Buses will enter the site via the one -way entrance off of Farmers Market Drive,
proceed along the exterior of the parking lot area to the proposed bus shelter and exit via the
new access drive to Lake Wheeler Road. This new access drive will prevent buses from entering
the pedestrian -heavy areas around the Farmers Market buildings.
A perennial unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek runs north -south through the project area. To
avoid and minimize impacts an existing crossing is being utilized for the access road to Lake
Wheeler Road. The existing culvert is being replaced with a longer, wider 72" pipe which will
create a total of 33 linear feet of permanent stream impact.
The project area is within the Neuse River Basin and as such, has regulated riparian buffers. The
buffers onsite currently exist as maintained grassy lawn. The widening of the existing crossing will
permanently impact 1,631sgft of the buffer. Temporary impacts due to the associated widening
total 1,444sgft and will be returned to grassy vegetation upon completion of the project. In
addition to impacts associated with the crossing, 497sgft of Zone 2 will be temporarily impacted
due to grading activities of the parking area while 22sgft of Zone 2 will be temporarily impacted
due to the installation of Preformed Scour Hole #4.
Stormwater and riparian buffer approvals are being handled by the City of Raleigh. Diffuse flow
requirements will be met with the construction of preformed scour holes.
Design with community in mind

9
June 3, 2015
Karen Higgins, NCDWR
Page 2 of 2
Reference: State Farmers Market Park & Ride lot - 401/404 PCN
The PCN packet contains the PCN form, vicinity map (USGS topoquad), 1970 soil survey mapping,
NWI (with aerial), site plan and details, impact drawing, cross section of proposed pipe, NCDWQ
Stream Identification Form, stormwater approval correspondence and current USDA -NRCS soil
survey report. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Regards,
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
11-1 ���
Amber Coleman, LSS, PWS
Associate
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
amber.coleman @stantec.com
Attachment: 5 Copies PCN packet
c. David Shaeffer, USACE
Ed Levy, NCSU
Kent Yelverfon, NCDACS
Design with community In mind

9
O�pF; W A TE9OG
y r
p -<
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1 4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10 -
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
X❑ Yes ❑ No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or-in-lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
State Farmers Market Park and Ride Lot
2b.
County:
Wake fl
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Raleigh
2d.
Subdivision name:
n/a JUN 0 4
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
n/a
3.
Owner Information 401 & BUFFER PERMITTING
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
State of North Carolina - State Property Office
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Book 4812 Page 0007
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
G. Kent Yelverton, Director, NCDACS - Property and Construction Division
3d.
Street address:
1001 Mail Service Center
3e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27699
3f.
Telephone no.:
919 - 807 -4366
3g. Fax no.:
919 - 807 -4364
3h.
Email address:
kent.yelverton @ncagr.gov
Page 1 of 10 -
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

t' C
4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner) ,
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Ed Levy, Project Manager
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NCSU Design and Construction Services
4d.
Street address:
2701 Sullivan drive, Suite 300
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27695
4f.
Telephone no.:
919 - 513 -7870
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
ewlevy @ncsu.edu
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Amber Coleman, LSS, PWS
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
801 Jones Franklin Road, Ste 300
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27606
5e.
Telephone no.:
919 - 865 -7399
5f.
Fax no.:
919- 851 -7024
5g.
Email address:
amber.coleman @stantec.com
Page 2 of 10

r
B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1703043977
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
I Latitude: 35.761806 Longitude: - 78.660869
1 c.
Property size:
526.35 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Walnut Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C NSW
2c.
River basin:
Neuse
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project site is a grassy field bordered by Lake Wheeler Road to the southeast, Centennial Parkway to the southwest, and the State Farmers
Market to the north. The project area is approximately 10 acres of the larger Dorothea Dix Hospital parcel. Land use in the vicinity of the project is
institutional and commercial in nature. A perennial stream runs through the center of the field and is more than 6001f in the project study area.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 600
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: The proposed development is a NCSU bus park and nde lot which is an extension to an existing parking
lot at the State Farmers Market. The access drive to Lake Wheeler Rd will allow for an efficient and safe routing for NCSU buses as they enter and exit the expanded parking
lot area. Buses will enter the site via the one -way entrance off of Farmers Market Dr, proceed along the extenor of the parking lot area to the proposed bus shelter and exit vi
the new access drive to Lake Wheeler Rd. This new access drive will prevent buses from entering the pedestrian -heavy areas around the Farmers Market buildings
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves new asphalt parking areas, a concrete bus stop area, concrete side walk, and associated drives. Site grading, landscaping, and
culvert installation will be completed using excavators, bulldozers and graders.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑X Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company:
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

t
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑ Streams — tributaries ❑X 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.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0
2h. Comments:
N/A
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.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Culvert
UT to Walnut Creek
PER
Corps
4
33
S2 -
Choose one
-
S3 -
Choose one
_
S4 -
Choose one
-
S5 -
Choose one
_
S6 -
Choose one
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
33
3i. Comments:
To utilize the existing crossing and minimize impacts, an existing 48" CMP will be replaced with a longer 72" RCP.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

s
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 indivii ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
O1
Choose one
Choose
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
0
4g. Comments: NIA
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑X Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
61 P
Culvert Extension - US
UT to Walnut Creek
No
732
478
B2 T
Culvert Extension - US
UT to Walnut Creek
No
282
509
133 P
Culvert Extension - DS
UT to Walnut Creek
No
421
0
B4 T
Culvert Extension - DS
UT to Walnut Creek
No
389
264
B5 T
Parking Lot Slope Grading
UT to Walnut Creek
No
0
497
B6 T
Preformed Scour Hole #4
UT to Walnut Creek
No
0
22
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
1,824
1,770
6i. Comments: The temporary impact areas currently exists as managed lawn, and will be restored to original condition after construction is
complete
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Limits of land disturbance have been reduced to the smallest footprint necessary to efficiently construct the project. The existing stream crossing is
being used in the proposed stream crossing to reduce stream impacts. Headwalls have been implemented around the inlet and outlet of the proposed
culvert.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Typical sediment and erosion control measures will be taken on -site. Silt fences and temporary sediment basins will be utilized to prevent sediment
from entering the stream. Silt fencing and other protective fencing will be used at the stream crossing to protect the perennial stream from disturbance
due to construction equipment
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments: N/A
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments: N/A
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes XZ No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1 5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
0
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments: Buffer mitigation is not required because impacts are less than 150 If in length and less than one third of an acre.
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
0 Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
As per Jason Robinson NCDWR, this project will follow NCDOT guidelines for pre- formed scour holes at
three,locations to attenuate flow before it enters the buffer.
❑X Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
25.3%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The addition of impervious area for the proposed development increases the impervious percentage from approximately 25.0% to 25.3 %. The addition
of the proposed impervious areas results in a less than 10% increase from the pre - development runoff rate to the post - development runoff rate for the
2 -year, 10 -year and 25 -year storms
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
City of Raleigh
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Raleigh
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
NSW
apply (check all that apply):
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑X Yes E] No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑HOW
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑X Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑X No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes", to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will facilitate commuter transportation to NC State University. The surrounding properties are primarily owned by the State of North
Carolina and the addition of this park and ride will not promote additional development beyond the anticipated growth projection.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This project will not generate wastewater.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
❑ Yes Q No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
❑ Yes Q No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
_
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Site evaluation and NC Natural Heritage Program Data Explorer.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper V3.0 - http: / /www. habitat. noaa. gov / protection /efh/habitatmapper.html
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
❑Yes ❑X No
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NC Department of Cultural Resources (www.ncdcr.gov) - Historic Preservation Office GIS Tool (gis.ncdcr.gov /hpowebn
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA FIRM MAP 3720170300J - May 2, 2006
J*siopniat
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Date
c� A ent's Signature
(Agu a is vali d only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided
Page 10 of 10

0
r
t ft,
r
to
90011
_ t
%
71J2
_�_
NT
A A a\
w�
"ML7.

RANVIL
ORANGE FRANKLIN
DURHAA
WAKE NASH
WILSO
CHATHAM
JOHNSTON
Project Site
LEE HARNETT
1.
F C
I. oor61ale SYehm: NAO 198331a101ana No� GoiaFa Fi3 3200
2. Sue WIWI— low, —81.
3. five. kna0ary ESRI Map ServimL.
Legend '�
Project Site
AfA - Altavista fine sandy loom (0-4 %)
ApB2 - Appling sandy loam (2 -6 %, eroded)
ApC2 - Appfing sandy loam 16 -10 %, eroded)
CeB2 - Cecil sandy loam (2 -6 %, eroded)
CeC2 - Cecil sandy loam (6 -10 %, eroded)
CeD - Cecil sandy loam (10 -15 %)
CeF - Cecil sandy loam (15 -45 %)
CIE3 - Cecil clay loam (10 -20%, severely eroded)
Cm - Chewacla Soils
LdC2 - Lloyd loam (6 -10 %, eroded)
Ma - Made land
Me - Mantachie soils
FaB2 - Faceville sandy loam (2 -6 %, eroded)
WwE - Wilkes soils (10 -20%)
0 201) goo
® Feet
1:6.000 lal oiipind tlocvment iue of &5.I
® Stantec
Foleal LO d— 2023000113
Rowgh. NC Re and by A LC an 2015-0603
Wake C-1,
cl-,/ Op ,
North Carolina State University
Farmers Market Park and Ride Lot
F,— No.
2
raw
Soils Map
1970 Wake County Soil Survey

RANV11
ORANGE FRANKLIN
OURHAA
WAKE NASH
MLSo
CHATHAM
%1 JOHNSTON
Project Site
LEE HARNETT
Re1..
1.Codtlinale System: NAD 19MV001— Noft Car ,FNS 3200
2 bole f.wi ': bNS purces.
3. bue kna : ESRI Map Services.
Legend
0 zoo 400
® Feet
1:6.DD0lol.6920 Eoa 1finof dL 11)
® Sta ntec
Ao;sc, loceic, 202MM113
Rok'V ' NC Pm",ed by AIC m 201106 -03
Woke Co-ty
creavnoieel
North Carolina State University
Farmers Market Park and Ride Lot
Flo, NO.
3
rrle
National Wetlands Inventory
Project Site
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
®PFOI
C - Palusfine Forested,
Broad - leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded
®
PFOI F - Polustrine Forested,
Broad - leaved deciduous,
semipermanently flooded
0 zoo 400
® Feet
1:6.DD0lol.6920 Eoa 1finof dL 11)
® Sta ntec
Ao;sc, loceic, 202MM113
Rok'V ' NC Pm",ed by AIC m 201106 -03
Woke Co-ty
creavnoieel
North Carolina State University
Farmers Market Park and Ride Lot
Flo, NO.
3
rrle
National Wetlands Inventory

DRAINAGE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE DATA
DOWNSTREAM PIPE DATA
RIM
1 ALL STORM PIPE TO BE CLASS III RCP
SIZE
LENGTH
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
FG =2750,
ON EXISTING STORM DRAIN
NO O
ELEVATION
TYPE
IN
(FT)
INVERT
INVERT
DESCRIPTION
1
26680
CB
18
40
263.30
262.50
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE $2
2
266.80
CB
15
26
26365
26340
TW =278 0
3
26775
CB
15
82
26435
26340
L ry�
ti �
4
269.15
CB
15
16
267 20
26700
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE #1
5
27090
CB
15
100
26830
26730
6
271.80
CB
15
66
26835
26760
U BC -278 5
r
7
270.50
CB
15
98
26750
26445
i 7
`
8
277.25
JB
N/A
N/A
- - - -
- - - -
CONVERT EXISTING CI TO PROPOSED JB
9
27690
CB
15
55
27375
273 07*
10
27820
CB
N/A
N/A
- - - -
- - - -
NEW CB ON EXIST. RCP
11
279.00
CB
N/A
N/A
- - - -
- - - -
NEW CB ON EXIST. RCP
12
27760
CB
15
72
27435
273 56*
21
261 50
CB
15
40
259 00
258.60
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE p4
22
263.00
CB
24
42
259 45
259.00
22A
26800
JB
24
140
26205
259 55
23
27030
CB
18
50
26620
262 15
24
26650
GI
24
82
26300
262.15
25
26730
CB
15
80
26430
261 70
26
26485
CB
15
28
261.60
261.00
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE #3
27
N/A
OE
15
34
267.00
266.30
\ NOTES
STAIR SCHEDULE
\;\
\'. 1 EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN PROVIDED BY STANTEC
STAIR (11 STEPS)
2
•� 1 � � CONSULTING SERVICES INC , SURVEY DATED APRIL 10, TOP= 279 0
2014.
j@ 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL ON -SITE UTILITIES BOT= 273.5
/ �I �. `• \ ,\ \ \ l JB LOCATED BY A UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE PRIOR TO ANY SEE CONCRETE STAIR
DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION NOTIFY OWNER /ENGINEER DETAIL ON SHEET 14.
�- ANY DISCREPANCIES
THIS `\ 3 THIS SITE IS NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN AS MAPPED BY FEMA
ON FIRM MAP 3720170300J DATED MAY 2, 2006
\�~\Y 4 ALL AREAS SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO
I
)\ \� ExlsnNC Bc =z7ea STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
/ ELEVAnON I1, 5 REFER TO SHEETS 9 THRU 13 FOR EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
6. CONVERT EXISTING CATCH BASIN TO JUNCTION BOX
A i,^v j ddd � REMOVE HOOD AND GRATE SAW CUT BOX TO ALLOW
I PLACEMENT OF NEW MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER ON TOP
OF NEW PRECAST CONCRETE SLAB WITH 24" (MIN )
TIE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN j \ �; % DIAMETER OPENING PRECAST CONCRETE SLAB TO BE
INTO EXISTING CATCH BASIN DESIGNED TO HS -20 LOADING- SEE JUNCTION BOX
DETAIL ON SHEET 8 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DRAINAGE NOTES
h� _,_11 TC =273 z
,� `_` BC =272 7 -
1 ALL STORM PIPE TO BE CLASS III RCP
`�
INSTALL NEW CATCH BASIN TW =2780
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
2 SEE STORMWATER DETAILS ON SHEET 8.
%
FG =2750,
ON EXISTING STORM DRAIN
v
r
MATCH EXISTING INVERTS \ , y TC =2730
CONSTRUCTION
'
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 8 �N '' BC =272 5
TYPE CODE
CB = CATCH BASIN
RETAINING WALL, /SEE
DETAIL ON SHEEJ 17
TW -2780
'1\ L r�
\ Fc =27a0
JB = JUNCTION BOX
GI = GRATED INLET
��
r l L7• '
OE = OPEN END PIPE
INSTALL NEW 'CATCH BASIN
STAIR �j1� �" 27
' = EXISTING, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY
ON EXISTING STORM DRAIN
TC =279 4
BC
MATCH EXISTING INVERTS
=2789 21 ti e
:o
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 8.
TW =278 0
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FG =274 0 ry
��,_•
SCALE 1" = 40'
L ry�
ti �
__
TW =2770
FG =275 0
\
\ 2' CURB CUT, SEE DETAIL
,
ON SHEET 14, TYP
_ 6
.y° BC= 27815
1� L
\,v­ \ �
�2
L
TC=279 0 7
ry
BC =274 1
'//
U BC -278 5
r
\O
278
n
i 7
`
i
BC -269 5
� s
2D BC =276 5 \
BC
=27 5 B
­,2705
_ ....�
;i 2D6
c• �, C =276.2
,BC`
=2708," Qq
• ` _
_ •
f , ^
3C=2715 4
TC =274 5 27
I
BC= 274" � I
' TW =278 0
FG =275 0
TC =2743 JJJAAAI! /' ( J
SC-273 8 TC =276 3 / + C1
' BC -2758 I y
TC =2755
BC= 275.0
2' CURB CUT, SEE DETAIL
_ ON SHEET 14 TYP I /
=
ac 2732 -' REINFORCED CONC. ENDWALL, MC
-272 3',
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 17
3Cq— 271.2
BC =2718
70LF OF 72" RCP
C i - UPSTREAM INV = 25900
u, DOWNSTREAM INV = 25700
s BURY PIPE 1' BELOW
TC =266 9 , .' b • ; ��
PREFORMED SCOUR \ BC =266 a HP_ 270 9
HOLE #1 SEE
/ DETAIL ON SHEET 7 \� ! �� ��E7 ®S ��,• /i`� v
-
15—
=271 2 0 1 2 _ 260 TC =266 6
BC =266
SO o tib o h`O —G I cif , N OS O `TC =267
A ., a ° -- • - °�•' BC =266 5 � —
11, f \ _ _ —_ •X - a — __ _- ___ _ _ -_ _ —' ___ _ -.6 . n' 6 —� _ 8 C =266 6
- _ - 6 -fy TC =2674
_ 269 65 �_ •4 _ TC =265 65 6 BC
TIE PROPOSED ASPHALT ` p �c� k ry' — — / 269 25 Bc =2s5 is ®, TC -266.0
l O O SC =265 5
ELEVATION TO EXISTING 2699 Q C=2665
\ 270 4 •, ' L
ASPHALT ELEVATION
BC=2� I ,f; - TC =26575
BC =`270 5, , `"
CONVERT EXISTING CATCH \ \ \ '`'i\ ; \ PREFORMED SCOUR 9O' ' o L�, ' BC= 265 +25�
BASIN TO PROPOSED JUNCTION x,, a;„ HOLE //2, SEE / - Tc �2sss, A /
BOX MATCH EXISTING INVERTS, .' \•: \ DETAIL ON SHEET 7 � BC =2650
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, /° "`-= -_•`_;u,':
SEE NOTE 6 �����, �� %
SHEET LEGEND LOADING ZONES, AND CROSSWALKS , t PREFORMED SCOUR
SHALL BE ADA ACCESSIBLE WITH A' � :•w•,: ` - ��
' /' REINFORCED CONIC ENDWALL, HOLE 3, SEE
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 17 #
MAXIMUM CROSS -SLOPE OF 27 IN '� ,;:;;� ;'` ; `; DETAIL ON 5jHEET 7 -�
257 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS
ALL DIRECTIONS JJJ
X257 PROPOSED SPOT EL VATION 1 '7/
CITY OF RALEIGH
�I GRADE BREAK
All Construction
RIP —RAP OUTLET PROTECTION 5 State, and Federal Ruesa da i
Regulations
-%.
SD —STORM DRAIN PIPE �; // -' /, • ' /�, "��j�; TONS CLASS B RIP -RAP, 14 SY
PREFORMED SCOUR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
® CATCH BASIN HOLE #4, SEE (� L� Lv �;' �' \ „ '` 'j%r ,GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
Q JUNCTION BOX ' vDETAIL ON SHEET 7 PUBLIC UTILITIES_
\ i e 1
'L p , i'. ' /'/ . 4_j STORMWATER_
U FLARED END SECTION (FES) ALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE
\ i' %' `• WITH ALL CITY OF RALEIGH AND NCDOT PLANNING -
- — — — PROJECT LIMITS �'�'r-- _ yIV•,'�»J =, Lv,' �' �%"; �' ❑ STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS THE FIRE_— _
— �> LIMITS OF LAND DISTURBANCE \ _ ,�, \ / ' R
„a4` _ \;, ,3:c a ^LUi MORE STRINGENT SHALL APPLY URBAN FORESTRY
CURB & GUTTER (STANDARD TYPE)
° CURB & GUTTER (SPILL TYPE)
RETAINING WALL
v
r
CONSTRUCTION
TIN TOP OF RETAINING WALL ELEVATION
\
,
, ' . >•ry,/
GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN o
DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL
FG FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION AT
1
��
�
1 = 4e
BOTTOM OF RETAINING WALL
V, , ' ?, j
r -,
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
:o
40 0 40 80
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
��,_•
SCALE 1" = 40'
\
U�
jl
Wm
� a
2<
o?
o
j u
Cs
0
0
Z �
oW
Z
U�
x
q 0
7 a o!
m �
U
j W
r
0
3:9 U a9
�Zmmu
Z = w
U�mmZ
�<rnm�
z
0
E-
E, C)
W W �
x
� � d
x
Z4a
Q
C7
SHEET No
4
UosV— Prod No
2023000115
NCSU Prod No
201311118
FAC. NAd/E
FARMERS
MARKET
FAC No. 7 9 9 Z

PREFORMED
PIPE
BASE
DEPTH OF
PERMANENT SOIL REINFORCEMENT
010 DISCHARGE,
MAX ALLOWABLE
SCOUR HOLE
SIZE
MATTING (PSRM) PSRM SHALL
SCOUR HOLE (D)
CLASS
CFS
010 DISCHARGE, CFS
BE SEEDED WITH VEGETATION AT
PIPE OR
INSTALLATION.
DITCH OUT
1
15"
3.75'
15'
B
4.5
6
2
A
L
1 5'
B
5 6
7 0
SQUARE PREFORMED
15"
3 75'
1 5'
B
SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
6
4
15"
In
(RIP RAP IN BASIN NOT
8
1 3
6
SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
PLAN VIEW
PIPE (d =
15" OR
18 ")
S4
INSTALL LEVEL AND FLUSH
010e
D
WITH NATURAL GROUND
PSRM
INFLOW
NATURAL
7 =
GROUND
LINER* CLASS 8
B�
RIPRAP WITH GEOTEXTILE
MIN 1' TUCK
SECTION A
-A
NOTES
1 SEE NCDOT
BMP TOOLBOX VERSION 2 DATED 4/2014
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
NTS
CITY OF RALEIGH
All Construction must he in accordance with all Local,
State, and Federal Rules and Regulations
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
PUBLIC UTILITIES _
STORMWATER____ __ --
PLANNING__ _
FIRE
URBAN FORESTRY
CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PREFORMED
PIPE
BASE
DEPTH OF
RIPRAP
010 DISCHARGE,
MAX ALLOWABLE
SCOUR HOLE
SIZE
WIDTH (B)
SCOUR HOLE (D)
CLASS
CFS
010 DISCHARGE, CFS
NUMBER
1
15"
3.75'
15'
B
4.5
6
2
18"
4 5"
1 5'
B
5 6
7 0
3
15"
3 75'
1 5'
B
1 9
6
4
15"
3 75'
7 5'
8
1 3
6
i2] N
U ^
N
p
U a
� m
C�
fn o
Z �
V v
2 n
U ^
w°
q m
N � �
V
4J w
N
0
w �
x
�UED
mmu
�wwu
E- O
Q <
Q
W d
OQ�
SHEET No.
5
Designer Prod No
2023000115
NCSU Prod No.
201311118
FAC NAME
FARMERS
MARKET
FAC NO ! 9 9 Z

DRAINAGE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE DATA
DOWNSTREAM PIPE DATA
CATCH BASIN
RIM
JUNCTION BOX
SIZE
LENGTH
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
- LIMITS OF LAND DISTURBANCE
NO
ELEVATION
TYPE
IN
FT
INVERT
INVERT
DESCRIPTION
1
266 80
CB
18
40
26330
262.50
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE #2
2
266.80
CB
15
26
26365
26340
3
267.75
CB
15
82
26435
263.40
4
269.15
CB
15
16
267.20
267.00
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE #1
5
27090
CB
15
100
268.30
267.30
6
271.80
CB
15
66
26835
267.60
7
270.50
CB
15
98
267.50
264.45
8
277.25
JB
N/A
N/A
- - - -
- - - -
CONVERT EXISTING Cl TO PROPOSED JB
9
27690
CB
15
55
273.75
273.07-
10
278.20
CB
N/A
N/A
- - - -
- - - -
NEW CB ON EXIST. RCP
11
279.00
CB
N/A
N/A
- - - -
- - - -
NEW CB ON EXIST. RCP
12
277.60
CB
15
72
27435
273.56'
21
261.50
CB
15
40
259.00
258.60
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE p4
22
26300
CB
24
42
259.45
25900
22A
26800
JB
24
140
26205
25955
23
270.30
CB
18
50
266.20
262.15
24
266.50
GI
24
82
263.00
262.15
25
267.30
CB
15
80
264.30
261 70
26
264.85
CB
15
28
261 60
261.00
DISCHARGE TO PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE #3
27
N/A
OE
1 15
1 34
26700
1 266.30
rq m
, Cs1 p
\ NOTES: STAIR SCHEDULE
.. , 1 EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN PROVIDED BY STANTEC � m
STAIR #1 (11 STEPS)
CONSULTING SERVICES INC, SURVEY DATED APRIL 10,
v ` 2014. TOP= 279.0
BOT= 273.5 Z
/ 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL ON -SITE UTILITIES p z
LOCATED BY A UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE PRIOR TO ANY h
SEE CONCRETE STAIR
DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION NOTIFY OWNER /ENGINEER THIS DETAIL ON SHEET 14 p u
/ I ° ANY DISCREPANCIES.
3. THIS SITE IS NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN AS MAPPED BY FEMA [ �
f ii ON FIRM MAP 3720170300J DATED MAY 2, 2006. i
c =219.3 �✓ l �'j��l 4 ALL AREAS SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO
EXISTING ^ 'BC =27B.e ,; _ _J ' STORMwATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
t ELEVATION ' (� J!` 5. REFER TO SHEETS 9 THRU 13 FOR EROSION AND p i
J I SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS. z
6. CONVERT EXISTING CATCH BASIN TO JUNCTION BOX. m
REMOVE HOOD AND GRATE. SAW CUT BOX TO ALLOW Z
li i PLACEMENT OF NEW MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER ON TOP
-1 t / �l f ® I/l r / �// OF NEW PRECAST CONCRETE SLAB WITH 24" (MIN.) W c
/TIE PROPOSED STORM' / l ! �� / JII / DIAMETER OPENING PRECAST CONCRETE SLAB TO BE m
/ n �� �; j'c i t 1 Q.
INTO EXISTING CATCH BASIN < ` \- ry \1 \' 11 m x / DESIGNED TO HS -20 LOADING. SEE JUNCTION BOX
DETAIL ON SHEET 8 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
TC =274 5
/ BC = hl
0 ' i I z 1 �
TW =278 0 / ��- � f/ 'Impact BS Zone 2N
/,,�- .�{ ,� / FG =275 0 1� ?j6 / ! Temporary, 497 F y 41
DRAINAGE NOTES / ` , / TC =2732 / j / /' sgft /
` - -\�` - / BC =272 7 TC =274.3 / / / 1 O O O b
1. ALL STORM PIPE TO BE CLASS III RCP .;' ` ��'• / BC -273.8 ?. / TC =276.3 // - 7 ' r O
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWSE. j !INSTALL NEW CATCH BASIN W-2750 / // / 'BC /758
,� `,ON EXISTING STORM DRAIN / �i;i / BC =2750 / /✓
2 SEE STORMWATER DETAILS ON SHEET 8. i / /
MATCH EXISTING INVERTS. ,��• TC =273.0
SEE DETAIL_ON SHEET 8 / BC =2725 / ; j �/ ° 2' CURB CUT, SEE DETAIL /
TYPE CODE /' �O" j /,'�: J J
RETAINING WALL, SEE -' �f� �� i /ON SHEET 14, TYP
CB = CATCH BASIN / rw =278.0 -
JB = JUNCTION BOX DETAIL ON SHE 17 / f
/ FG =2740
GI = GRATED INLET / / JO
INSTALL NEW CATCH BASIN STAIR #1 ac= 2724//
OE =OPEN END PIPE i 2T ; �' i �•j �'
• =
EXISTING, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY
ON EXISTING STORM DRAIN. rc =279a ;yi / /',,;
MATCH EXISTNG INVERTS. / BC =278.9 z� " ^^ i ; / Bc =2732 / �° j REINFORCED CONC. ENDWALL,
/ ro Bc=272:3/, / n SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 17
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 8 �� / / /:
/i FG 278.0 ,y BC= 271.2, ,/ /; ' _ _ _ /// �
l „
/
'000, FG =274 0 i/ / I ;P
// " BC =271 a ` �\
/ / - FG -2750 / /fry ^ry. / / I " 70LF OF 72" RCP
/ / i i YYY Im UP
2' CURB CUT, SEE DETAIL pact B2 Zone 1 Impact 81 Zone 1
i TC =278 65 1 DG 257.00
\ ON SHEET 14, TYP %�zc
BC-278 15 / Temporary, 282 Permanent, 732..5
I q sgft. Zone 2
BC =2 2 8 ! i s s ft, Zone 2 6U W.
• _ ' _ / ABC =277.4 j ' f i // Tempora 509 sgft = P g
�8 / � i� Permanent 478 /
/TC =279 0 / rym / / sgft 6 4 / HP =270:9 �' /l�
Os BC =274.1 PREFORMED SCOUR / / / / >, w�1��
/, z7 �2BC =2785 �!/ HOLE #1, SEE / / �I <�® 1 J ��� // �� / /� �✓ W °
`7 �� // ti� /N / / �/ DETAIL ON SHEET 7 •1` ..rwe / � ®f // v w
/ BC =2701 I \l \�? t
/BC =27 5 - v " y, .N +')1�, .� -•2;; .< :tr' 2 � -p- � / � - � /�/ '- `` - ■wy�
C =2712' Q Impact S7 ';;3 >� °'_ -.,�," - �_ / j i i TC =2666 s _ �r>" �, �T ✓�,/ -r,., fry 30
Permanent 33ft i* �_'a/ ' /BC =2661 / - ® // v *% o
_ _ . ✓'' _- _ _ / \ x ry
26 / / •;� / �-r� m N LL.-
BC =27 5 - _ U =270 5 /f v (Total) of new - " _ _� - u
/ p e l l Imp // 1;5 y0 Y,' Oy, %,. O ✓TC =2676, \ , � Z q m u
act B3• Zone 1 �E;
Permanent, 421 _ - ;.� BC -2665 �lJ ,✓ /// N, -^'r w�m,,N
y C =276 2, i BC =271 5 / Q Q / - sgft ` / „•:,/� / w
TC =267 1
-- R„ ":>: r - �S? ry y __ _ _ _ _ - / 269.65 -- _ _ _ _ • ,,c, ." - TC =265 65 6 TC =266.0 66 9
N N- /
TIE PROPOSED ASPHALT /7 / �O �c >` �� - / / / 26925
Bc =2s5 t5
ELEVATION TO EXISTING j J 1 2699 / / / r•," !, j1 % / v _ \yam
` / / TC =266 5
ASPHALT ELEVATION _ �r •i' J ,27o a /` �-� ti Bc =2ss o- -- / ` - , E-
PREFORMED SCOUR / //• �ry6 0 BC =26525�ej26se
CONVERT EXISTING CATCH � v •v / e � /_
zS HOLE #2, SEE / l �i o ? ;:? TC=2655/f j/
BASIN TO PROPOSED JUNCTION r _ r S' / %% /
\ > ; = / DETAIL ON SHEET 7 p , I e BC -265 0 /_ _ �� •- L - �. _ a �1
BOX MATCH EXISTING INVERTS, F-• ' �%' , _ U ��ry % /�� - „ __-- • '\ .,_ d
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES; `pi' / / Impact B4 Zone t
SEE NOTE 6. ,
SHEET LEGEND: LOADING ZONES, AND CROSSWALKS - / Temporary, 389 i _ PREFORMED SCOUR - ��' _ n�/
/ REINFORCED CONC. ENDWALL, sgft, Zone 2 % �� � / "s' .,v D � -- � 4, t ✓'1�iC
SHALL BE ADA ACCESSIBLE WITH A' i SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 17 /HOLE #3, SEE :> % > � _ AI, /F P� M q
/� / _ Tem ora 264 sgft / � /// _ C' ; �_ d'�C'�;,
MAXIMUM CROSS -SLOPE OF 2% IN - - Z
- 257 - TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS ALL DIRECTIONS �� j TAIL ONHEET 7
-257 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVAT✓� I� - f,� �l�'�I I / / / / G '� / /. =? - _ _ wr c''"
_ GRADE BREAK ��11J�! �/
��
- SD
-STORM DRAIN PIPE
®
CATCH BASIN
0
JUNCTION BOX
L.
FLARED END SECTION (FES)
- - - - PROJECT LIMITS
- 0
- LIMITS OF LAND DISTURBANCE
CURB & GUTTER (STANDARD TYPE)
°
CURB & GUTTER (SPILL TYPE)
RETAINING WALL
TW
TOP OF RETAINING WALL ELEVATION
FG
FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION AT
BOTTOM OF RETAINING WALL
t / / /� / , RIP -RAP OUTLET PROTECTION- 5
PREFORMED SCOUR /� Jr1 �/ / ��, /" / TONS CLASS B RIP -RAP, 14 SY
ei
j HOLE 4, SEE � fh,, 'O� �� p / / / / � =-+' GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
# , , -i
/
'DETAIL ON SHEET 7
ALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ALL CITY OF RALEIGH AND NCOOT
_. --
' � / STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE <'
U � /Pj� caw � MORE STRINGENT SHALL APPLY
Impact 36 2one 2 N
Tem ora 22 sqft
04
SHEET No.
6
\: '4! _ \;� CK - :✓ % `' � // ,� ��/ / Destgr Prq. No.
2023000115
NCSU �_ ¢•� /r 'Y G / �w > Proj No.
a CONSTRUCTION 201311118
DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL
GRADING &DRAINAGE PLAN FAC. NAYS
/' �,' �• !/ A \' '' �`�/ /; -i� FARMERS
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE / ao o ao 80 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FAC. NO
scALE. r' = ao' 7992

Exhibit 7. Cross - Section of Proposed Culvert
61MUNDW
PROPOSED
266.00 GRADE 266.00
PROPOSED 72" RCP G�PpEi -
Existing Stream Grade
Elevation = +/- 258.00
Culvert Invert = +/- 25'
IPE BURIED 12" FOR
AQUATIC LIFE PASSAGE
SCALE: 1" = 5'

Exhibit 8
NC nWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: !1- Z2 , S
Project/Site: 'DS
Latitude:
Evaluator: CoI
County: VV 0, kk
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent 37,
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
a g. Quad Name:
if 2:19 or perennial if 2 30'
2
3
A. Geonnor hold Subtotal = 2 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
dD
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1 5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0 5
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
e artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
R Hvriminnv CSuhtntal = 11.9 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
72
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
0
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Y s = 3
t . Rinlnnv lSuhtntal = 14 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2,
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1 5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
.25. Algae
0
0.5
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:
Sketch:
Q
co t1 IC1 rt jn�`�� 4,1 2- V+ c� .� Cp�e
16k cC rV bt,,v1°1(' io5 'oi1XtCi t� t �i
chC,,nhe,II aNIc! �Jc) no
k "" -
huE

Exhibit 9. Stormwater Plan Approval
Baldwin, Alexander
From: Burdick, Nathan <Nathan.Burdick @raleighnc.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 9:42 AM
To: Allen, Jonathan
Cc: Barbour, Stacy; Lovic, Lee; Baker, Benjamin; Walters, Michael; Metcalf, Mary Ann;
Kimbrell, Bradley
Subject: RE: Farmers Market Park and Ride ICPs - Trans. No. 407184
Attachments: ATT00001.txt; ATT00002.htm
Jonathan,
We have received the needed documentation from NCSU mitigation bank; the Stormwater Tracking permit under
T #425358 has been approved. Stormwater will now be able to approve the Mylar ICP review cycle.
Thanks for your patience,
Nathan
Nathan Burdick, CFM
Stormwater Reviewer
City of Raleigh
Stormwater Management Division
Office Number (919) 996 -3520
Division Number (919) 996 -3940
nathan.burdickAraleighnc. gov
From: Burdick, Nathan
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:17 AM
To: 'Allen, Jonathan'; Lovic, Lee; Baker, Benjamin; Walters, Michael; Metcalf, Mary Ann; Kimbrell, Bradley
Cc: Barbour, Stacy
Subject: RE: Farmers Market Park and Ride ICPs - Trans. No. 407184
Stormwater is not in a position to approve the ICP plan until the stormwater management plan has been approved.
Please submit the documentation /receipt for the purchase of the required nitrogen offset credits and obtain the
Stormwater Tracking permit, currently pending approval (T #425358), prior to submitting Mylar ICP set.
Thanks,
Nathan
Nathan Burdick, CFM
Stormwater Reviewer
City of Raleigh
Stormwater Management Division
Office Number (919) 996 -3520
Division Number (919) 996 -3940
nathan.burdick(a,ralei ghnc. gov

From: Allen, Jonathan [ma i Ito: jonathan.allenCabstantec.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:47 AM
To: Burdick, Nathan; Lovic, Lee; Baker, Benjamin; Walters, Michael; Metcalf, Mary Ann; Kimbrell, Bradley
Cc: Barbour, Stacy
Subject: Farmers Market Park and Ride ICPs - Trans. No. 407184
Reviewers,
Please be aware that we would like to submit ICP mylars for signatures for the Farmers Market Park and Ride
project, Trans. No. 407184. As a reminder, this project is on State of Norf h Carolina property and is not subject to
review and approval by the City of Raleigh, except for Stormwater and Transport ation infrastructure. Please
forward your concurrence for mylar submittal at your earliest convenience.
Thanks for your assistance,
Jonathan
Jonathan Allen, PE, LEED AP
Project Manager, Community Development
Stantec
5565 Centerview Drive Suite 107 Raleigh NC 27606 -3563
Phone: [phone]
Cell: (919) 636 -0617
Fax: [phone]
jonathan.allen @stantec.com
'Raint- 1
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except vAth
Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
© Please consider the environment before printing this email

Xx
if
i-
r,
r`
1�
1� {
lyyij
t
t. 5�
Y

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http: / /www.nres.usda.govtwps /portal/
nres /main /soils /healtho and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http: //
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov /locator /app ?agency =nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http: / /www.nres.usda.gov /wps/ portal /nres /detail /soils /contactus /?
cid= nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720 -2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250 -9410 or call (800) 795 -3272
(voice) or (202) 720 -6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.

Contents
Preface..................................................................................
..............................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made .................................................... ..............................5
SoilMap ....................................................................................
..............................7
SoilMap ..................................................................................
..............................8
Legend.................................................................................... ..............................9
MapUnit
Legend ................................................................... .............................10
MapUnit Descriptions ........................................................... .............................10
Wake County, North Carolina ............................................ .............................12
CeC2 —Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded.......
12
CeD —Cecil sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes .......... .............................13
CmA— Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded....
14
FaB2— Faceville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
15
LdC2 —Lloyd loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded .................16
...
PCE3— Pacolet clay loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded
17
.........
WmE— Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes .............................18
Soil Information for All Uses .................................................. .............................20
Suitabilities and Limitations for' Use ....................................... .............................20
LandClassifications ........................................................... .............................20
Hydric Rating by Map Unit .............................................. .............................20
References...............................................................................
.............................25
4

Hove Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil- vegetation - landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the

Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and /or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil - landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field- observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs showtrees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
0

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

xe
OOP,
`
jam' y APO, �.
Centennial Pkw Centennial y
� y
'bay
.wOOU Ave - __ '

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
. i Soil Map Unit Lines
10 Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
V Blowout
Borrow Pit
X Clay Spot
Closed Depression
X Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
yak. Mine or Quarry
0 Miscellaneous Water
® Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
E-* Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
6E
This product is generated from the USDA -NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Wake County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 10, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.
Q
Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Other
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
p
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
Special Line Features
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Transportation
f-f-+
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
0%01
Interstate Highways
Web Soil Survey URL: http : //websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
US Routes
Major Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Local Roads
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Background
Albers equal -area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
N
Aerial Photography
calculations of distance or area are required.
6E
This product is generated from the USDA -NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Wake County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 10, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Wake County, North Carolina (NC183)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CeC2 Cecil sandy loam. 6 to 10 percent 0.0
slopes, moderately eroded
0.3%
CeD Cecil sandy loam, 10 to 15 3.1
percent slopes
20.9%
CmA Chewada sandy loam, 0 to 2 4.4
percent slopes. frequently
29.9%
flooded
FaB2 Faceville sandy loam, 2 to 6 4.g'
percent slopes, moderately
32.2%
eroded
LdC2
Lloyd loam, 6 to 10 percent 0.2
slopes, moderately eroded
Pacolet day loam, 10 to 20 1.8
percent slopes. severely
1.2%
PcE3
12.2%
eroded
WmE
Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 0.5
percent slopes
3.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 14.9
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits forthe properties of the soils. On the landscape;
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
ill]

Custom Soil Resource Report
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that itwas impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
Wake County, North Carolina
CeC2 —Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 vfv6
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Cecil, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cecil, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform, Interfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three- dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: sandy loam
BE - 4 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam
Bt - 6 to 50 inches: clay
C - 50 to 75 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
CeD —Cecil sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 41zd
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Cecil and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cecil
Setting
Landform- Interfluves
Landform position (two- dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three- dimensional). Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape. Convex
Parent material. Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 8 to 42 inches: clay
BC - 42 to 50 inches. clay loam
C - 50 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope. 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated). None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated). 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
CmA— Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 vfvd
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Chewacla, frequently flooded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 8 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chewacla, Frequently Flooded
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape- Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 4 inches: loam
Bwl - 4 to 26 inches: silty clay loam
Bw2 - 26 to 38 inches: loam
Bw3 - 38 to 60 inches: clay loam
C - 60 to 80 inches. loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available waterstorage in profile: High (about 11.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated). None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Minor Components
Wehadkee, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Riverview
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -s lope shape: Linear
FaB2— Faceville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1vfxf
Elevation. 80 to 330 feet
.Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification. All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Faceville and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Faceville
Setting
Landform: Ridges on marine terraces
Landform position (two- dimensional): Shoulder, summit
Landform position (three- dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Clayey marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam
E - 8 to 13 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt - 13 to 80 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
LdC2 —Lloyd loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 vfyb
Elevation. 300 to 450 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Lloyd, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Lloyd, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three- dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and /or gabbro and /or diabase
and /or gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loam
H2 - 8 to 49 inches: clay
H3 - 49 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table- More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification ( nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
PcE3— Pacolet clay loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol., 1vfx2
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Pacolet, severely eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapumt.
Description of Pacolet, Severely Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two - dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three- dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material- Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Typical profile
A - 0 to 3 inches: clay loam
Bt - 3 to 29 inches: clay
BC - 29 to 37 inches: clay loam
C1 - 37 to 52 inches: clay loam
C2 - 52 to 80 inches. loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
17

Custom Soil Resource Report
WmE— Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 4m2y
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wedowee and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wedowee
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three- dimensional): Side slope
Down -s lope shape- Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and /or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: sandy loam
E - 4 to 7 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 7 to 23 inches: clay
BC - 23 to 35 inches: clay loam
C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
S lope- 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in /hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile. Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
18

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Rion
Percent of map unit. 12 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three- dimensional). Side slope
Down -slope shape- Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Wateree
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two- dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three- dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape- Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
19

►3
Soil Information for All Uses
Suitabilities and Limitations for Use
The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations
displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected
area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating
the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process
is defined for each interpretation.
Land Classifications
Land Classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are
assigned to soil areas because combinations of soil have similar behavior for specified
practices. Most are based on soil properties and other factors that directly influence
the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site
classification, farmland classification, irrigated and nonirrigated land capability
classification, and hydric rating.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils.
Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of
which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of
hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydnc components in the higher
positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric
soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the
landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the
percentage of each component within the map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The
five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent
hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric
components, and less than one percent hydric components.
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map
pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map
unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.
20

J $ , 0
Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part
(Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or
inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and
reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil,
however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration
of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties
unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria
are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands.
The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff,
2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual' (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993).
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they
should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible
properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite
determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).
References:
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
21

4
0
LdC21
so
j�•, FaB2 ,
= ' MdywOOa Ave
CentenmlA Pkwy Centennial,- - -- e
lift

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI) Transportation
— Area of Interest (AOI) ++-+ Rails
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Q Hydric (100 %)
Q Hydric (66 to 99 %)
0 Hydric (33 to 65 %)
0 Hydric (1 to 32 %)
Not Hydric (0 %)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
.y Hydric (100 %)
. ► Hydric (66 to 99 %)
► ► Hydric (33 to 65 %)
► ♦ Hydric (1 to 32 %)
Not Hydre (0 %)
. ► Not rated or not available
Custom Soil Resource Report
r�+ Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
W Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http ltwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area. such as the
Albers equal -area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
23
This product is generated from the USDA -NRCS certified data as of
Soil Rating Points
the version date(s) listed below.
0
Hydre (100%)
0
Hydric (66 to 99 %)
Soil Survey Area: Wake County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 10, 2014
0
Hydric (33 to 65 %)
0
Hydric (1 to 32 %)
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
0
Not Hydric (0 %)
a
Not rated or not available
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
Water Features
Streams and Canals
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
23

,_ .
Custom Soil Resource Report
Table — Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Hydric Rating by Map Unit— Summary by Map Unit — Wake County, North Carolina (NC183)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CeC2 Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 0 0.01 0.3%
percent slopes,
moderately eroded
CeD Cecil sandy loam, 10 to 0 3.1 20.9%
15 percent slopes
CmA Chewacla sandy loam, 0 5 4.4 29.9%
to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
- i - -
FaB2 Faceville sandy loam, 2 to 10 4.8 32.2%
6 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
LdC2 Lloyd loam, 6 to 10 0 0.2 1,2%
percent slopes,
moderately eroded
PcE3 Pacolet clay loam, 10 to 0 1.8 12.2%
20 percent slopes,
severely eroded
WmE Wedowee sandy loam, 15 0 0.5 3.3%
to 25 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 14.91 100.0%
Rating Options — Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Aggregation Method: Percent Present
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Lower
24

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487 -00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS /OBS- 79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http: / /www.nres.usda.gov /wps /portal /nres/
detail / national /soils / ?cid= nres142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http: / /www.nres.usda.govtwps /portal/
nres / detail /national /soils / ?cid =nres 142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http: / /www.nres.usda.gov /wps/
portal /nres/ detail /national /soils / ?cid =nres 142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y -87 -1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http: / /www.nres.usda.gov/wps /portal /nres /detail /soils/
home / ?cid= nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http: / /www.nres.usda.gov/wps /portal /nres/
detail / national /landuse /rangepasture/ ?cid= stelprdb1043084
25

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http: / /www.nres.usda.gov/wps /portal/
nres /detail /soi Is /scientists / ?cid =nres 142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http: / /www.nres.usda.gov /wps/ portal /nres /detail /national /soils /?
cid= nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http: //
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf
9