20200067 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20200110

DWR
mrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
G Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20200067
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Raleigh Regional Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Chandler's Ridge
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Tyler Probst
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
1/10/2020
Nearest Body of Water
Perry Creek
Basin
Neuse
Water Classification
WS-II;HQW,NSW
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.561240-78.2719.97
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Wake
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
* Nationwide Permit (NWP)
* Regional General Permit (RGP)
7 Standard (IP)
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Stephanie Goss:eads\szgoss
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
U

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
W Individual Permit
29 - Residential Developments
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
r 401 Water Quality Certification - E)iress
V Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
Corbin Property_Letter of Findings.pdf
1 h. lathe project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
O Yes r No
B.Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
F- Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Nondorf, Melissa Corbin; Tripp -Corbin, Linda
2b. Deed book and page no.:
14-E
2c. Responsible party:
3261
2d.Address
Street Address
410 W YOUNG ST
Address Line 2
city
Rolesville
Postal / Zip Code
27571
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Teddie Whitley
State / Frmince / Region
NCD
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
6.43MB
r Yes r No
r Yes r No

3b. Business Name:
Wright Whitley Development, LLC
3c.Address
Street Address
1225 N. White St.
Address Line 2
Cty
Wake Forest
Postal / Zip Cate
27587
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
C. Project Information and Prior Project History U
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
Chandler's Ridge
1c. Nearest municipality/town:
Rolesville
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
1769362748
2c. Project Address
Street Address
410 W Young St
Address Line 2
city
Rolesville
Postal / Zip Code
27571
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Perry Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
WS-II;HQW,NSW
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Neuse
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030202011501
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
171.53
State / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
EAsting Crop Land and Wooded.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
R Yes r No r Unknown
4c. If yes, please give the DWR Certification number or the Corps Action ID (exp. SAW-0000-00000).
RRO #17-319
Project History Upload
Corbin Property_Letter of Findings.pdf
6.43MB
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
USGS QUAD.pdf
97.56MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)

Soil_Map.pdf
1.07MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
12.55
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
4066
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
96 Single Family Residences. This project was reviewed by James Lastinger and Town of Rolesville in 2019 for project viability and permitability and was deemed to be allowable.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
For the Stream Crossings, there will be Cast in Place Walls to reduce overall impact. Standard Stream crossing practice will be used otherwise. Please see details within plan set.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
CR 1.9.2020.pdf 145.74MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Jeffrey Harbour, PWS
Agency/Consultant Company: Environmental Services, Inc.
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made bythe Corps or DWR
09-21-2017
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
Corbin Property_Letter of Findings.pdf 6.43MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes 6 No
7b. If yes, explain.
Phase 1 will include all (3) stream crossings, as the necessary sewer improvements will force improvements out of phase 1 into phase 2 to cross the 3rd stream.
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
There is (1) future stub out for this project, labeled as the Thoroughfare on the plan.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries V Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
Culvert 1
Culvert 2
2a1 Reason M
Culvert
Culvert
2b. Impact type * (')]2c.
P
P
Type of W.*
Isolated Wetlands
Isolated Wetlands
�2d. W. name *
�W2
W4
2e. Forested *
Yes
Yes
2f. Type of
Jurisdicition(')J2g.
--]
Both
Both
Impact
area*
0.048
(acres)
0.092
(acres)
Culvert 3
Culvert
P
solated Wetlands
W6
Yes
Both
0.012
(acres)

F
p
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.000
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.204
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.204
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact *
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
❑
11 (?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Culvert
Permanent
Fill
S1
Intermittent
Both
5Average(fee)
64�rfeet)
$2
Culvert
Permanent
Fill
S3
Intermittent
Both
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S3
Culvert
Permanent
Fill
S5
Intermittent
Both
5Average
7(li
(fee)
�rfeet)
Culvert
Permanent
Rip Rap Fill
S1
Intermittent
Both
5Average
25nea
(fee)
feet)
S5
Culvert
Permanent
Ri Ra Fill
p p
S3
Intermittent
Both
5
25
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S6
Culvert
Permanent
Ri Ra Fill
p p
S5
Intermittent
Both
5
25
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts: 3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
270 0
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
270
3j. Comments
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWR)
6a. Project is in which protect basin(s)?
Check all that apply.
F% Neuse ❑ Tar-Pamlioo
r Catawba ❑ Randleman
❑ Goose Creek ❑ Jordan Lake
❑ Other
6b. Impact Type
6c. Per or Temp
6d. Stream name
6e. Buffer mitigation required?
6f. Zone 1 impact
6g. Zone 2 impact
Allowable w/ Mitigation
P
S1
Yes
3,926
2,771
Allowable w/ Mitigation
P
S3
Yes
3,408
2,313
Allowable w/ Mitigation
P
E5
Yes
5,775
2,573
Allowable
P
S3
Yes
0
178
Allowable
P
E3
Yes
0
756
Allowable
P
S5
Yes
0
1,425
6h. Total buffer impacts:
Zone 1
Zone 2
Total Temporary impacts: 0.00
0.00
Zone 1
Zone 2
Total Permanent impacts: 13,109.00
10,016.00

Zone 1 Zone 2
Total combined buffer impacts: 13,109.00 10,016.00
6i. Comments:
Supporting Documentation
Impact Maps Expdf 8.92MB
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Retaining walls are used to reduce impacts
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
We are choosing specific places that have minimal impacts. Retaining Walls Will be built from inside using low impact methods.
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?
r Yes r No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
W DWR W Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
W Mitigation bank r Payment to in -lieu fee r Permittee Responsible
program Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
TBD
3b. Credits Purchased/Requested (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Quantity:
Riparian buffer TBD
Stream TBD
Riparian wetland TBD
Attach Receipt and/or letter
3c. Comments
To be determined after Corps review.
6. Buffer mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWR
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? If yes, you must fill out this entire form - please contact DWR for more
information.
r Yes r No
6b. If yes, then identifythe square feet of impact.
6c. Reason for impact
6d. Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e. Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
Culvert
13,109
2
26,218
Zone 2 Culvert and Pond 10,016 2 20,032
6f. Total buffer mitigation required
46250
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, is payment to a mitigation bank or NC Division of Mitigation Services proposed?
r Yes r No
6h. Attach the acceptance letter from the mitigation bank or NC Division of Mitigation Services.

6j. Comments:
Not yet Acquired.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
What type of SCM are you providing?
r Level Spreader
r Vegetated Conveyance (lower SHUNT)
r Wetland Swale (higher SHWT)
r Other SCM that removes minimum 30 % nitrogen
9 Proposed project will not create concentrated stormwater flow through the buffer
Diffuse Flow Documentation
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor NIA
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?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?

r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS Website
Consultation Documentation Upload
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
USFWS Website
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?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
SHP Office
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA
Miscellaneous
Comments
Please allow us to correct any information that you deem to be lacking in your review.
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Signature
*
W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Tyler Probst
Signature
Date
1 /10/2020
u

Z
���� U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The National Map ROLESVILLE QUADRANGLE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY tau I NORTH CAROLINA
science for a changing world C, VIc V Top 7.5-MINUTE SERIES
-78.5000'
36.0000 ° 726000m E
3986000mN
400 �'
S�
a l�
O �\
t
TR.
85
84
t
83
82
81
a
l �
o`° o
Z 9
80 co �vE 01
_ v
Y
250
79
J,
�h
/NO/ON\
78
TUCk4H0
RCF
oo_) _ ,�
O� TUms C rI�
77 _ fi 1 1l
76
75
0
O
74
73
35.8750° 26
-78.5000'
t
O
G
27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34
35 36
78.3750'
36.0000'
Rqo� m ERRyLAURELDR U �� U P�
_ O
Fob
1
0
0
o z
i
e o
i
D o
P'tist ti ,,��\\� v Q
2° �ChurchzCe � �u A� 40v ALLENS IN
00
,•' -� �_ �°PM o Moores, nd
1
II!!
WALTAVE u.
e
1
JACK JONts RD A \
•
,e�' - �E AIT AVE. __� i�' Q I � O '� �� � .•.
a Q SOS �O - i w \) -
�V � ITT AV � � Q '. / l � �� r - � �
_ S 1
bsO \ �� o 1 Q
V
� o �LD'PEARCE RD � �� �
9 vecc
nture
�eoVER-DR
3so o� 1°"�
ol
400 � 0 •.. c
l/
Twin Lake-
/ t o Q✓�� �; V� L/1� / _
0� v
i �� ��� • �� TRL
0 -wu- �� _� _ H
✓ .�. - i ,p
\�
� � � � � �, I � CLOVIS RIDGE DR
��Barley Lake'
/ \ m
� �, eAR� Barham���--
G O �� ���YYa efield Ponds 1Q caR .
�'J �s
--� V lvu ber �.� �yo �� ° / I ,Smiths
Two. ' \�,
q00KO — B `lesville �� / l oA�
\ P w
Church Ceni � � o
�'Chandl�'LakeLaker
o LAWSON-WALK
Mitchell Cern
—
04 Cep
/
S ` 4
ki,�s d KITE FALL•S.gL, �� �� �S r � � O -/ �
-
f 400
Q O= E
gR
/LI
or o
y FAR
�L
1N SG HADEAVE,. o ° �/ o � �O�y WIND/yC 3
QUARRYRD�
B rown
by AT� O / / ��\ - U'— l�"� ••.� -- _
y
F FOR Lake
o�
cT
m-
�
k
SUNSMANOR
� I ET
o
BERG 11�,�y�-
Penny
Hill Lake
01
F wlers 117t-11 C-r
O 1 r � o
OC'ATLETT
UPCHURCH-
' I
a I
I? a 25a
0
� z AMAION TRL C)
� 4 o � o
a o o�
��j
er One boo - V DUI O
FOWLER RD
�' Po le Lake
w
hill-
�5MITCHELLI ILL RD
S R D
27 28 29
Produced by the United States Geological Survey
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and N
1 000-meter grid:Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 17S
This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may be 9°28
generalized for this map scale. Private lands within government 168 MILS
1 Yz°
reservations may not be shown. Obtain permission before 27 MILS
entering private lands.
Imagery .....................................................NAIP, May 2016 - November 2016
Roads ......................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 UTM GRID AND 2019 MAGNETIC NORTH
Names............................................................................GNIS, 1980 - 2019 DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
Hydrography...............................National Hydrography Dataset, 1899 - 2018
Contours............................................National Elevation Dataset, 2008 U.S. National Grid
Boundaries..............Multiple sources; see metadata file 2017 - 2018 100,000-m Square ID
Wetlands.................FWS National Wetlands Inventory 1983
QV
Grid Zone Designation
17S
30 31 32 33
SCALE 1:24 000
1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2
1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000
1 0.5 0 1
MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
This map was produced to conform with the
National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.
A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.18
34
NORM
AROLINA
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
1 Grissom
1 2 3 2 Franklin
3 Louisbur
4 5 4 Wake Fo
5 Bunn W
6 Raleigh
6 7 8 7 Knightda
8 Zebulon
e
ton
g
rest
87
85
84
83
82
81
79
78
77
76
75
3974000mN
35 736000mE
-78.3750' 35.8750'
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
00
Expressway Local Connector
t` `o
Secondary Hwy Local Road
— o
Ramp 4WD
• Interstate Route US Route O State Route
� Y
o 'Zt
N
to
o�
o �
7t
co O
Z
u-
w
ROLESVILLE, NC
N a
2019
Z Z

- ag RgB WfB T g
i ,�C,Rgg RgCChAWfB RgB Rnn - BR DhA B WfB r ChA
K CChA RgC}rH; �J '�.,gR9g RgD
VfB `J Rgp 41 W
'RgB Rg:l Aa'A T
M -i WfB RgB aRgC RgC
wx W`' W gp ChA
. R
1Nfd RgC��
4 J RgC
RgC HeB
j
AaA VaB w 1, AaA
RaR: ` RgC vats
TVaB_
Rgvats4
.tgB ' ' WfB � HeB_°
�B y W wAE
W
-_ � �.. HeB•;. ', '
-hA
.e6 i ,�HeB W � •Rgg C�h�A
rie�s� RgCRgB
.w
VaB� �
. r 1W>r.yg �: W RgB HeB G WfB . °. Rig",
' S
W B;.
1
" m: s

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
0
Landfill
A.
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
o
Sodic Spot
Soil Map —Wake County, North Carolina
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
th
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
4�
Other
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
Special Line Features
contrasting 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
—
Rails
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
. 0
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
US Routes
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Major Roads
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Local Roads
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Background
Aerial Photography
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 18, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 11, 2019—Oct
19, 2019
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.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/7/2020
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map —Wake County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
AaA
Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to
15.3
2.4%
4 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
ChA
Chewacla and Wehadkee
61.5
9.7%
soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
HeB
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6
27.0
4.2%
percent slopes
RgB
Rawlings -Rion complex, 2 to 6
107.1
16.8%
percent slopes
RgC
Rawlings -Rion complex, 6 to
98.5
15.5%
10 percent slopes
RgD
Rawlings -Rion complex, 10 to
41.9
6.6%
15 percent slopes
VaB
Vance sandy loam, 2 to 6
122.7
19.3%
percent slopes
VaC
Vance sandy loam, 6 to 10
6.5
1.0%
percent slopes
W
Water
28.7
4.5%
WeC
Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10
9.5
1.5%
percent slopes
WfB
Wedowee -Saw complex, 2 to 6
66.4
10.4%
percent slopes
WgB
Wedowee -Urban land
51.8
8.1 %
complex, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
636.8
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/7/2020
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
— — EXISTING RIPARIAN STREAM
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
— EXISTING RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROPOSED GRAVEL
�+
PROJECT PARCEL BOUNDARY
+ TREE AND VEGETATION PROTECTION AREA
PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED EASEMENT
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACK
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
PARCEL VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
SLOPE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
PLACE GROOVE OR
BELL END OF PIPE 9 /
TO FACE OF WALL
\ S
F
\\ N_
pONC. #4-BARS
P LAN L-B12"
FOOTING
(IF CONST. JOINT IS USED) DOWEL
G M G END ELEVATION BAR-11X"
I 0---
- ---�-�-
DOWEL
L
OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT
ELEVATION
DOWELS IN ENDWALL WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
PIPE
SINGLE PIPE
DOUBLE PIPE
LOC.
DIA.
15"
18"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
15"
18"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
BARS
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
Y*
"X"
Y*
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
Y*
„X"
Y*
G
QTY .
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
5
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
5
2
M
QTY .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
G
QTY .
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
TOTAL LBS.
9
9
14
1 14
1 19
55
65
12
12
19
19
23
77
92
DIMENSIONS AND CONCRETE QUANTITIES
USING CONCRETE PIPE
COMMON DIMENSIONS
SINGLE PIPE
DOUBLE PIPE
D
H
B
G
T
S
L
YD3
M
L
YD3
15"
3'-3"
1'-8"
2'-9„
21/4„
9�/2"
5'-6"
0.7
2'-2"
7'-8"
1.0
18"
3'-7"
1'-10"
3'-2"
21/2"
10"
6'-4"
1.0
2'-7"
8'-11"
1.3
24"
1 4'-2"
2'-1"
4'-0"
3"
10"
8'-0"
1.5
3'-5"
1V-5"
2.0
30"
5'-0"
2'-6„
41-7"
1 41/4"
111/2"
9'-2"
2.3
1 4'-3"
13'-5"
3.1
36"
5'-8"
2'-8"
5'-6"
43/4"
111/2"
11'-O"
3.4
5' 0"
16'-0"
4.5
42"
6'-2"
3'-1"
6'-4"
51/4"
111/2"
12'-8"
4.5
5'-10"
18'-6"
6.0
48"
6'-9"
3'-5"
7'-2"
53/4"
11%2"
14'-4"
6.0
6'-8"
21'-0"
8.0
*SEE SHEET 3
RIP RAP DISSIPATER SIZING
LENGTH:
25 LF
MAX. STONE SIZE:
30 IN.
RIP RAP CLASS:
B
MIN. THICKNESS:
30 IN.
MIN & MAX RANGE OF STONES:
75-2,000 LBS.
WIGHT RANGE OF 75% OF STONES:
600-2,000 LBS.
04 1 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1ST SUBMITTAL
03 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 3RD SUBMITTAL
02 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 2ND SUBMITTAL
01 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 1ST SUBMITTAL
REV DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
01 /10/2020
04/24/2019
02/20/2019
DATE �
- FM
I
/
AIL AIL A&
0 /
EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
\ NCDOT APPROVED HEADWALL
SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET
I
\ � LVl.if11 LV f11 J I I\Lf11Vl `L
10 0 10 20
111=10' CULVERT 1 DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 10'
CULVERT 1 IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE
ZONE 1 FILL DISCHARGE:
3,926 SF
0.090 AC.
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE:
2,771 SF
0.064 AC.
ZONE 1 DISSIPATER IMPACT:
467 SF
0.011 AC.
LENGTH ALONG STREAM BED:
88.72 LF
WETLAND IMPACT:
2,095 SF
0.048 AC.
SITE TOTAL IMPACTS
ZONE 1 FILL DISCHARGE:
13,109 SF
0.301 AC.
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE:
10,016 SF
0.230 AC.
ZONE 1 DISSIPATER IMPACT:
1,407 SF
0.032 AC.
LENGTH ALONG STREAM BED:
270.26 LF
WETLAND IMPACT:
8,860 SF
0.203 AC.
i
30'BUFFER 20'BUFFER
RIPARIAN ZONE 1 RIPARIAN ZONE 2
12" DIP WATER MAIN I /
FM
A" rIIP Gr)PrG KAAINI
100aINW,Igo] »lIIL'Jal
N
L
�
rn
O
('�
—
N
�
co
.o
c`a
U
LO �
C)
I
U
/�
O
z
x
LL Z
�
i
Q
Q
o
o
r": U
>
Cn
a
>
Lr) W
•�
VN
Q
(3)
U
CY) Z
0
ca
°'
W
N
�y�A
u7
N
LU
CIO
Z
1-0
LU
Z
17
w
o
>
Q
O
U)z �
�/)
V
0
^
U)
z LLj Z
Z
Z
0
W
00
>-ww
IIIJU�
oo�
z
�
n/
VJ
''L^^
VJ
V00
UU
30'BUFFER 20'BUFFER I
RIPARIAN ZONE 1 RIPARIAN ZONE 2
Project Engineer: TSS
/ Designed By: TEP
\ \ Drawn By: TEP
xChecked By: TSS
1
Scale:
Date: 01 /10/2020
I I
I/ Project Number: P170347
SHEET
C550

LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
— — EXISTING RIPARIAN STREAM
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
— EXISTING RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROPOSED GRAVEL
�+
PROJECT PARCEL BOUNDARY
+ TREE AND VEGETATION PROTECTION AREA
PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED EASEMENT
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACK
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
I I I I
I I I I
PLAN
G M G
"-- DOWEL
L
OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT
ELEVATION
PARCEL VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
PLACE GROOVE OR
BELL END OF PIPE
TO FACE OF WALL
(IF CONST. JOINT IS USED)
— r
CONC.
PIPE
0
LB
END ELEVATION
SLOPE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
1 S
N-
#4-BARS
"12
DOWEL
BAR - "X"
DOWELS IN ENDWALL WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
PIPE
SINGLE PIPE
DOUBLE PIPE
LOC.
DIA.
15"
18"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
15"
18"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
BARS
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
Y*
"X"
Y*
"X„
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
Y*
"X"
Y*
G
QTY .
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
5
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
5
2
M
QTY .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
G
QTY .
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
TOTAL LBS.
9
9
1 14
1 14
1 19
55
65
12
12
19
19
23
77
92
DIMENSIONS AND CONCRETE QUANTITIES
USING CONCRETE PIPE
COMMON DIMENSIONS
SINGLE PIPE
DOUBLE PIPE
D
H
B
G
T
S
L
YD3
M
L
YD3
15"
3'-3"
1'-8"
2'-9"
21/4„
9�/2"
5'-6"
0.7
2'-2"
7'-8"
1.0
18"
3'-7"
1'-10"
3'-2"
21/2"
10"
6'-4"
1.0
2'-7"
8'-11"
1.3
24"
4'-2"
2'-1"
4'-0"
3"
10"
8'-0"
1.5
3'-5"
1V-5"
2.0
30"
5'-0"
2'-6"
4'-7"
41/4"
111/2"
9'-2"
2.3
4'-3"
13'-5"
3.1
36"
5'_8"
2'_8"
5'-6"
43/4"
111/2"
11'-O"
3.4
5'-0"
16'-0"
4.5
42"
6'-2"
3'_1„
6'-4"
51/4"
111/2"
12'-8"
4.5
5'-10"
18'-6"
6.0
48"
6'-9"
3'-5"
7'-2"
53/4"
11%2"
14'-4"
6.0
6'-8"
21'-0"
8.0
*SEE SHEET 3
RIP RAP DISSIPATER SIZING
LENGTH:
25 LF
MAX. STONE SIZE:
30 IN.
RIP RAP CLASS:
B
MIN. THICKNESS:
30 IN.
MIN & MAX RANGE OF STONES:
75-2,000 LBS.
WIGHT RANGE OF 75% OF STONES:
600-2,000 LBS.
04
1 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1ST SUBMITTAL
01/10/2020
03
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 3RD SUBMITTAL
05/29/2019
02
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 2ND SUBMITTAL
04/24/2019
01
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 1ST SUBMITTAL
02/20/2019
REV
DESCRIPTION
DATE
REVISIONS
10 0 10 20
1 "=10' CULVERT 2 DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 10'
CULVERT 2 IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE
ZONE 1 FILL DISCHARGE:
3,408 SF
0.078 AC.
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE:
2,313 SF
0.053 AC.
ZONE 1 DISSIPATER IMPACT:
469 SF
0.011 AC.
LENGTH ALONG STREAM BED:
79.31 LF
WETLAND IMPACT:
4,009 SF
0.092 AC.
SITE TOTAL IMPACTS
ZONE 1 FILL DISCHARGE:
13,109 SF
0.301 AC.
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE:
10,016 SF
0.230 AC.
ZONE 1 DISSIPATER IMPACT:
1,407 SF
0.032 AC.
LENGTH ALONG STREAM BED:
270.26 LF
WETLAND IMPACT:
8,860 SF
0.203 AC.
N
L
�
rn
O
('�
—
N
�
co
.o
c`a
U
LO �
C)
1
U
/�
O
z
x
LL Z
�
>
Q-
Q
o
o �
L
N
U
>
Cn
a
>
Lr) W
•�
VN
Q
(3)
U
CY) Z
r
EN
�tw
u7
N
LU
CIO
Cn z
wz0
17 w
o>
(/)cc/)
z z
Lu O O
J
Z �
''L^^
VJ VJ
V00
UU
U)z�
c�wz
zJZ)
Z)JO
OjU
J <
OOP
It
Project Engineer:
TSS
Designed By:
TEP
Drawn By:
TEP
Checked By:
TSS
Scale:
Date:
01 /10/2020
Project Number: P170347
SHEET
C560

LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
— — EXISTING RIPARIAN STREAM
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
— EXISTING RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROPOSED GRAVEL
�+
PROJECT PARCEL BOUNDARY
+ TREE AND VEGETATION PROTECTION AREA
PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED EASEMENT
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
— — PROPOSED SETBACK
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
I I I I
I I I I
PLAN
G M G
"-- DOWEL
L
OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT
ELEVATION
PARCEL VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
PLACE GROOVE OR
BELL END OF PIPE
TO FACE OF WALL
(IF CONST. JOINT IS USED)
— r
CONC.
PIPE
0
LB
END ELEVATION
SLOPE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
1 S
N-
#4-BARS
"12
DOWEL
BAR - "X"
DOWELS IN ENDWALL WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
PIPE
SINGLE PIPE
DOUBLE PIPE
LOC.
DIA.
15"
18"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
15"
18"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
BARS
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
Y*
"X"
Y*
"X„
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
"X"
Y*
"X"
Y*
G
QTY .
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
5
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
5
2
M
QTY .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
G
QTY .
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
TOTAL LBS.
9
9
1 14
1 14
1 19
55
65
12
12
19
19
23
77
92
DIMENSIONS AND CONCRETE QUANTITIES
USING CONCRETE PIPE
COMMON DIMENSIONS
SINGLE PIPE
DOUBLE PIPE
D
H
B
G
T
S
L
YD3
M
L
YD3
15"
3'-3"
1'-8"
2'-9"
21/4„
9�/2"
5'-6"
0.7
2'-2"
7'-8"
1.0
18"
3'-7"
1'-10"
3'-2"
21/2"
10"
6'-4"
1.0
2'-7"
8'-11"
1.3
24"
4'-2"
2'-1"
4'-0"
3"
10"
8'-0"
1.5
3'-5"
1V-5"
2.0
30"
5'-0"
2'-6"
4'-7"
41/4"
111/2"
9'-2"
2.3
4'-3"
13'-5"
3.1
36"
5'_8"
2'_8"
5'-6"
43/4"
111/2"
11'-O"
3.4
5'-0"
16'-0"
4.5
42"
6'-2"
3'_1„
6'-4"
51/4"
111/2"
12'-8"
4.5
5'-10"
18'-6"
6.0
48"
6'-9"
3'-5"
7'-2"
53/4"
11%2"
14'-4"
6.0
6'-8"
21'-0"
8.0
*SEE SHEET 3
RIP RAP DISSIPATER SIZING
LENGTH:
25 LF
MAX. STONE SIZE:
32 IN.
RIP RAP CLASS:
B
MIN. THICKNESS:
32 IN.
MIN & MAX RANGE OF STONES:
75-2,000 LBS.
WIGHT RANGE OF 75% OF STONES:
600-2,000 LBS.
04
1 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1ST SUBMITTAL
01/10/2020
03
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 3RD SUBMITTAL
05/29/2019
02
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 2ND SUBMITTAL
04/24/2019
01
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 1ST SUBMITTAL
02/20/2019
REV
DESCRIPTION
DATE
REVISIONS
10 0 10 20
1 "=10' CULVERT 3 DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 10'
CULVERT 3 IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE
ZONE 1 FILL DISCHARGE:
5,775 SF
0.133 AC.
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE:
2,573 SF
0.059 AC.
ZONE 1 DISSIPATER IMPACT:
471 SF
0.011 AC.
LENGTH ALONG STREAM BED:
102.23 LF
WETLAND IMPACT:
505 SF
0.012 AC.
SITE TOTAL IMPACTS
ZONE 1 FILL DISCHARGE:
13,109 SF
0.301 AC.
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE:
10,016 SF
0.230 AC.
ZONE 1 DISSIPATER IMPACT:
1,407 SF
0.032 AC.
LENGTH ALONG STREAM BED:
270.26 LF
WETLAND IMPACT:
8,860 SF
0.203 AC.
N
L
�
rn
O
('�
—
N
�
co
.o
c`a
U
LO �
C)
1
U
/�
O
z
x
LL Z
�
>
Q-
Q
o
o �
L
N
U
>
Cn
a
>
Lr) W
•�
VN
Q
(3)
U
CY) Z
r
EN
�tw
u7
N
LU
CIO
Cn z
W z '0^
0 Cw v J
Q C
Q
(/)cc/)
z z
Lu O O
J
Z �
''L^^
VJ VJ
V00
UU
U)z�
c�wz
zJZ)
Z)JO
OjU
J <
OOP
It
U/
J
CM W
-v
W
Q
J C
Z c
U�
U
n�
n
L
Project Engineer:
TSS
Designed By:
TEP
Drawn By:
TEP
Checked By:
TSS
Scale:
Date:
01 /10/2020
Project Number: P170347
SHEET
C570

U
co
OI
N
LO
U
I
v
M
O
I
LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
— — EXISTING RIPARIAN STREAM
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
— EXISTING RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROPOSED GRAVEL
�+
PROJECT PARCEL BOUNDARY
+ TREE AND VEGETATION PROTECTION AREA
PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED EASEMENT
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
— — PROPOSED SETBACK
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR (5 FT.)
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR (1 FT.)
DRY POND 1 1 IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE: 178 SF 0.004 AC.
PARCEL VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
.�& & & \ \ C
AL AL ,. 30' BUFFER
RIPARIAN ZONE 1 \ \
tY.
/ - 20'BUFFER
RIPARIAN ZONE 2
3 _
DRY POND 1 IMPACT DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
04
1 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1ST SUBMITTAL
01/10/2020
03
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 3RD SUBMITTAL
05/29/2019
02
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 2ND SUBMITTAL
04/24/2019
01
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 1ST SUBMITTAL
02/20/2019
REV
DESCRIPTION
DATE
REVISIONS
386�
DRY POND 2 IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE: 756 SF 0.017 AC.
PARCEL VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
o-
82
�382—
8 -
379 380 \ .
124.60'
20 0 20 40
1 "-20' DRY POND 2 IMPACT DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
3s k
SITE TOTAL IMPACTS
ZONE 1 FILL DISCHARGE:
13,109 SF
0.301 AC.
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE:
10,016 SF
0.230 AC.
ZONE 1 DISSIPATER IMPACT:
1,407 SF
0.032 AC.
LENGTH ALONG STREAM BED:
270.26 LF
WETLAND IMPACT:
8,860 SF
0.203 AC.
THOROUGHFARE IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE
ZONE 2 FILL DISCHARGE: 1,425 SF 0.033 AC.
PARCEL VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1,000'
%INING WALL
FOR TW/BW ELEVATIONS
R
ZONE 1 `
20 0 20 40
1"=20' THOROUGHFARE IMPACT DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
..
ROAD F IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE
WETLAND IMPACT: 2,261 SF 0.052 AC.
N
Q)
rn
M
V
.o
o
>
,
U
^'
(%)
— M
N
V/
0
Z
rn U
X
x
LL Z
Q)
CL
o
N
>
Q
o
>
(0
a
o W
>
oi
V
z
_
N
-
N
•yin
LO
N
w
m
�
Z
w
Z
r I�
VQ
r0^
v,
Cw
G
>
p
O
U)z�
C�
U)
z w
Z
Z
oJo
W
00
}wY
JU<
oo�
Z��
Q
LU
=zz
U00
UU
VJ
J
�Q
O w
w0
z 0s
Qn
J
W 75
U�
�U
�Q
n
L
Project Engineer:
TSS
Designed By:
TEP
Drawn By:
TEP
Checked By:
TSS
Scale:
Date: 01 /10/2020
Project Number: P170347
SHEET
C580

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
4901 TRADEMARK DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27610
[phone] - FAX [phone]
environmentalservicesinc.com
November 3, 2017
Mr. Tom Speight, P.E.
Bateman Civil Survey
2524 Reliance Avenue
Apex, NC 27539
Re: Corbin Property Delineation
Wake County, NC
Mr. Speight:
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) has completed the requested delineation and agency reviews for
the Corbin Property located in Rolesville, Wake County, NC (Figure 1). This delineation identified
those features that may be considered subject to jurisdiction and permitting requirements under
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Our field effort also identified those water
bodies that are subject to a 50-foot riparian buffer pursuant to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules.
Water Resources
The study area lies within USGS hydrologic unit code (HUC) 0300201 and drains eastward to Perry
Creek. Within North Carolina, a Best Usage Classification (BUC) is assigned to all bodies of water
by the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) based on the existing or contemplated best
usage. The streams and wetlands within the project study drain to Perry Creek, which has a BUC
designation of WS-II; HQW, NSW. Class WS-II waters are used as sources of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I classification is not feasible. These
waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-II waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds. All WS-II waters are considered High Quality Waters (HQW) by supplemental
classification. HQW is a supplemental classification intended to protect waters which are rated
excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics. Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) is an additional supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
These BUCs often dictate certain storm water management requirements depending on the type and
density of the proposed project.
Section 404 & 401 Wetlands and Surface Waters
Section 404 of the CWA requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United States"
(WOTUS). Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has major responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the CWA. The USACE regulatory
program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to
1

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are
also considered WOTUS.
Wetlands have been described as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)].
According to the Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual for the Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region, areas must exhibit three distinct characteristics to be considered
jurisdictional wetlands: 1) prevalence of hydrophytic (water tolerant) plants; 2) presence of hydric
soils; and 3) sufficient wetland hydrology indicators within 12 inches of the ground surface. When
present, intermittent and perennial stream channels and certain surface waters are also considered
WOTUS under Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA.
The study area was also reviewed for the presence of stream channels and tributaries using criteria
provided by the USACE and the NCDWR. Presence of an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) and a
continuous bed and bank define streams and tributaries to waters of the U.S. under current USACE
guidance. Tributaries can be natural or man-made (ditches), but they must possess an OHWM to be
considered jurisdictional by USAGE. Often these tributaries may contain an OHWM, but receive a
low NCDWR score suggesting an ephemeral flow regime. USACE may assess lesser mitigation
requirements on tributaries if warranted.
Delineation Results
The Corbin Property contains wetlands, streams, and surface waters that are subject to Section 404
and 401 requirements. Wetlands and WOTUS were delineated with sequentially numbered flagging
and the results are approximated on Figure 2. It is our understanding that this approximation has
been, or will be, used by your surveyors to locate the flags in the field. Figure 2 is not a replacement
for a traditional survey and is intended only for preliminary planning purposes.
ESI subsequently conducted a site review with James Lastinger of USACE on October 24, 2017 to
obtain concurrence on the delineation results. Mr. Lastinger agreed with the delineation results and
will issue a preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) in the coming weeks. The attached email
from Mr. Lastinger indicates that the delineation results were accepted and can be used for planning
and permitting purposes. The project was assigned Action ID # SAW-2017-02235. This ID number
should be referenced in all future USACE correspondence.
The wetlands onsite were classified by type according to the N.C. Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM). The wetland types that are present include headwater forest, bottomland hardwood
forest, and riverine swamp forest. Headwater forest wetlands are characterized by relatively flat
topography and provide little water storage. These wetlands occur on mineral soils and are often
adjacent to small streams or tributaries. They can be irregularly inundated by surface water,
seasonally saturated, or subject to long-term saturation. Bottomland hardwood forest wetlands are
found in floodplains on varying soil types and are often located adjacent to larger streams and surface
2

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
waters. These wetlands are generally intermittently to seasonally inundated for long duration.
Riverine swamp forest wetlands are found on mineral or organic soils and are characterized by
seasonal to semi -permanent inundation and are often located in floodplains along rivers and streams.
Riparian Buffers
The study area is in the Neuse River basin. A 50-foot riparian buffer may apply to streams within the
study area that are mapped on either the most current version of the applicable USGS topographic
map (Figure 1) or the published Soil Survey of Wake County, NC (Figure 3). Some streams that are
shown on the soil survey were determined to either not exist or were found to be not as extensive as
what is depicted on the soil survey map. The extent of the onsite Neuse riparian buffers was
confirmed with Andy Neal of DWR during an onsite review held on September 21, 2017. During
this visit, DWR confirmed that several features depicted on the soil survey do not occur on the
property. Other features that do occur were reviewed and confirmed by DWR as subject to a 50-foot
riparian buffer per the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules. The following streams, as labeled in
Figure 2, are subject to a 50-foot Neuse buffer: S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S8, S9, 511. In addition, the
following surface waters, as labeled in Figure 2, are also subject to a 50-foot Neuse buffer: SWI,
SW2, SW3. It is important to note that the feature labeled as S10 on Figure 2 is located on the
opposite side of a fence that is thought to possibly form a property line. The actual extent of S10 was
not flagged based on this assumption and its location has been estimated on Figure 2. The exact
location of S 10 should be confirmed by your surveyors and, if on the Corbin Property, should be
surveyed and depicted on your site plans. The portion of S 10 that is located behind the fence would
likely be subject to a 50-foot Neuse buffer. However, DWR was only able to review the area near
W 11 because S 10 is depicted in this area on the soil survey map. DWR determined that S 10 does not
occur inside the limits of Wl 1 and this is referenced in their buffer determination letter included with
this submittal.
It is our understanding that the Town of Rolesville may require an additional 50-foot buffer (in
addition to the 50-foot Neuse buffer) on those features that are mapped as a blue line on the most
current USGS topographic map (Figure 1). Those features, or portions thereof, that may be subject
to this 100-foot buffer (50-ft Neuse buffer + 50-ft Rolesville buffer) include the following: SW1,
SW2, SW3, S1, S3, S4, S5, S8, 511. Note that S10 may also be subject to the Rolesville buffer
although it is unclear if this feature is actually located on the Corbin Property. The extent of the
Rolesville buffers should be confirmed with the Town of Rolesville during your project coordination.
Wetland & Stream Permitting
Any impacts to waters (wetlands, streams, or surface waters) which are deemed under the jurisdiction
of either the Federal or State regulatory authority (USACE or NCDWR, respectively) must first be
permitted pursuant to Section 404 and Section 401 of the CWA. Activities so authorized are subject
to additional requirements to comply with water quality and storm water management. The
Nationwide Permit program (NWP) administered by USACE provides permitting of impacts which
do not exceed pre -determined thresholds. A project of this nature would most likely use NWP-29
(Residential Developments) which has limits of no more than 0.5 acre of wetland impact and 300
linear feet of stream impact. Impacts above either of these thresholds would require use of the
Individual Permit (IP) process.
9

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
Note that wetland impacts exceeding 0.1 acre and stream impacts of 150 feet or more will typically
require compensatory mitigation. Also, it is important to note that applying for a Section 404 permit
from USACE also triggers the need for compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Historic
Preservation Act. ESI is experienced with ensuring compliance with both of the above regulatory
requirements as well as offering full service Section 404 and 401 permitting assistance.
Please contact our office if you have questions regarding this evaluation.
Sincerely,
Environmental Services, Inc.
�"vL--
Jeffrey Harbour, PWS
Technical Director
4

Feature Measures
N
Wetlands
(Acres)
Streams (LF) Surface Waters (Acres)
W1
0.7
S1 413 SW1 2.1
W2
0.0
S2 318 SW2 6.3
W3
0.3
S3 1403 SW3 2.6
{
W4
4.4
S4 102
W5
0.5
S5 636
W6
0.2
S6 164
W6
1.1
S7 95
W7
0.1
S8 1264
W8
0.1
S9 876
W9
0.1
S10 1096
W10
0.1
S11 972
W11
0.9
S12 40
W12
0.2
3
0.2
*All Measures are approximate and
W1
1.
W14
based on initial field sketches
W15
0.0
W15
'ksY S1 ' W2swi
`...
•,�
It
X-0. `J
1
ter.. a
W11
W6
S5
W7
S5
W6
01. a
3
r
01
R'a
?.. Q Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the USA
® Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US (Surface Water)*
Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US (Stream)*
*Location and extent is approximate.
0 200 400
Feet
Source: High Resolution NC Statewide Imagery, CGIA, 2013,
Project Study Area acquired from Wake County Parcel Data, 2003.
e Note: Vegetation removal or alteration of soils or hydrology after initial site evaluation can affect jurisdictional
status and may require re-evaluation ofwetland boundaries.
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was
notprepared for, and is not suitable forlegal orengineering purposes.
NC`O e
c0
cn c
a`) >+ o
a) U
u) C
c 0 0
a z
r C
(0 :
i
a, O
o
d �

= f I
oil Mapping Units.' r ti. f �8
f �
pling sandy loam, 2-6% Slopes act �P ;'aD
N pling sandy loam, 2-6% Slopes, eroded ' •�
pling sandy loam, 2-6%Slopes ��►++
pling sandy loam, 6-10% Slopes, eroded lJ
hewlaca soils i '+d
lfax sandy loam C�
urham loamy sand, 2-6% Slopes 4.. YVMB2
urham loamy sand, 6-10% Slopes An ❑ r ' )*
uisburg loam sand, 2-6% Slopes { r Du
uisburg loam sand, 6-10%Slopes [ APB p >AU i
7111"':-
7antachie soils "
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2-6% Slopes Let)
VaB2 Vance sandy loam, 2-6% Slopes, eroded Y
VaC2 Vance sandy loam, 6-10% Slopes, eroded
W Water
Dula WkC Wake soils, 2-10% Slopes Cnk 4
WO Wehadkee and Bibb soils r� .'} ti
Wy Worsham sandy loam D uH Ap$2
• _ �kLoC
% DUB
1laB c,� -1 Y Lo mG2
va
BZ
•
Lo B l �-+
ApB2
t DUB � A B2
ApB2 � �. i
ApC2 aC2 r
Lob - APB
APC
jflj !' C • tt: .� APB n
Ap82 ' u ' ' C r ' WrnB2
ApC2 D U B P _ AFS
r u.
D uC �' "; tl Cnn
AP ApB2 7uB�� Aga rnC2 Durk
ApG _ Ap , .�
• y ��}� C:n y 1 Di Project Study Area
ApC APC DUC k.;n ~• Q NRCS Soils Boundary
"�' 1 Feature Not Present in Field
LOB CA
,s� i f! 0 300 600
��.
t
! ❑ �r ;t �n APB Feet
ApB• (!� Source: NRCS Soil Survey of Wake County, 1970; Project
t. y IS •y r* u - Study Area acquired from Wake County Parcel Data, 2003.
V• Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational
purposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or
1 ■ engmeenng purposes.
A
O
Ir
_
O
O
�
M
�
N
J
O
Q
�
N
U)
of
w
U
JL—L
0
0

Jeff Harbour
From:
Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:54 AM
To:
Jeff Harbour
Subject:
Corbin site
Attachments:
ORM_aquatic resource upload.xlsm
Jeff,
Thanks for meeting with me yesterday. No changes were made to the delineation, and it may be used for planning and
permitting purposes. I will get you a PJD as soon as time allows. Please keep in mind it may take up to 90 days due to
work load. The AID for the project is SAW-2017-02235.
I have attached an aquatic resources spreadsheet. Could you please fill it out and send it back to me. This will greatly
expedite the JD issuance. If you have any questions about the spreadsheet please let me know.
If you would like to use this spreadsheet on future projects, please by all means do so. It helps me out with data entries.
I would submit it with all JD requests that have more than 10 waters on site.
James Lastinger
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
ADDRESS: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
Tel: [phone], x32
Fax: [phone]

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
September 21, 2017
Melissa Nondorf, Linda Corbin, Tripp Corbin
10622 S 600 W
Warren, IN 46792-9717
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Subject: Suffer Determination Letter
RRO # 17-319
Wake County
Determination Type:
Buffer
Intermittent/Perennial
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
❑ Tar -Pamlico 05A NCAC 2B .0259)
❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination (where local buffer
ordinances apply)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 213.0267)
(governmental and/or interjurisdictional
projects)
Project Name: Corbin
Address/Location: 410 West Young Street Rolesville NC
Stream(s): Perry Creek
Determination Date: 09/21/2017
See Table Below
Staff: Andy Neal
Division of Water Resources, Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Operations Section http://portal.ncdenr.org/web./wqf aps
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Phone: [phone]
Location: 3800 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609 Fax: [phone]

Stream
E/t/P*
Not Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@.
Soil
Survey
USGS
To o
AA
X
X
BB
X
X
CC
Same feature as S2
X
DD
X
X
EE
Same feature as S4
X
FF
X
X
GG
X
X
HH
X
X
S 1
X
Off property
Downstream Pond
X
X
S2
X
DWR flag headcut
Feature S3
X
S3
X
Off property
Downstream Pond
X
X
S4
X
DWR flag @ headcut
Feature S3
X
X
S5
X
Off property to DWR flag @ wetland start;
Starts again @ DWR flag @ wetland end to
DWR flag start of wetland downstream
X
X
S6
X
Feature S5
X
S8
X
Below pond dam
Off property
X
X
S9
X
Below pond dam
Downstream pond
X
S10
X
X
X
S11
X
Below pond dam
Feature S8
X
X
II
X
X
JJ
X
X
*EIIIP — Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
Explanation: The stream(s) listed above has been located on the most recent published NRCS
Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina and/or the most recent copy of the USGS
Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each stream that is checked "Not Subject" has been
determined to not be at least intermittent or is not present. Streams that are checked "Subject'
have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be at least an
intermittent stream. There may be other streams located on the property that do not show
up on the maps referenced above but may be considered jurisdictional according to the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may
request a determination by the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60)
days of date of this letter. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred
to the Director in writing. If sending via US Postal Service: c/o Karen Higgins; DWR — 401
& Buffer Permitting Unit; 1617 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. If sending via
delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.): Karen Higgins; DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit;
512 N. Salisbury Street; Raleigh, NC 27604.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, an appeal is requested
within sixty (60) days.

This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at
(919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Andy Neal at
[phone].
Since ely,
Danny Smi
Supervisor, Water Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DWR File Copy
Kevin Murphrey; Environmental Sciences, Inc. 4901 Trademark Drive, Raleigh,
NC 27610; [k-murphreyLa)esinc.cc]

17-319: Corbin
Property
aoif
Af
r
4
LOD �4
AP22 lippleV
aPc �oar'°sa„�, oars
EdeWz4o1it1 , ' Sek, 8 opc. ero�eq
�� ,y `
6
(i u
= Applvv =ndy ow,,, rric% sq e' emoio
f:711 Chewer :Cu..r
�/ : � •
,
JJ: Not Subject .
on Cd arc; iwrr.
B OurrwnI 3myanol.2-6%Sopes
��L
-
S11: Subject
4
5
DnC loft n Izow'y Sam, E10% slopes
E -rg c^Z" �%
S8: Subject
G
GG: Not Subject y �.
:-
LDe Lolftug loam smw: r-iu% mopes
Lunin&
B
L 0 �
' 'a �cs
AM UNweIN* oarti : 8458W, e+vtled
FF: Not Subject
r
6 J
U t]
V002 ,r"bwN&I aapm.endN
w Mar
Le
�
VAC AMC sots.
G,2.1Q%sk*es
11b Yltlotlla!ea,W9bhspl. �q
oc
w KK: Not Subject
.`
CORP
uI3
[[J*eel
•�
Lo
S4: Subject-
Y
LOaY.
�'
kS3:
Subject
r*
1h!r+�.
~
u
S9• Subject
$2: Subject
;... �.
APV
f�u8
'k,�
_ 4
-
lg
HH: Not Subject B
S1: Subject
�r
APrC
�� III:
Not Subject
PUB
i
i Du�C
o
nus r1 AR C .., ,n
I� #pg2
_
WmB2
RIB" I
Gn
uB �Ap"'
s
Cfl
A5+
S5: Subject
UO
S10: Not Subject
P13 WMC2 DUB
DUT
S6: Subject
Y
n
DD. Not Subject
ApO
AA: Not Subject
ff
VOMBR
4 f "
r, O.
BB: Not Subject
�'rCn
1
Cn
Is
# ! V
tt •
• '
Q Project Study Area
Ino
`^ '�
Map provided by NCDEQ Division of Water Resources. Locations
are approximate and are provided for reference only.