20020970 Ver 1_Complete File_20020618

o?o? WA
r?9pc
CO
Q "C
August 7, 2002
Mr. Tom Ellis
Town of Cary
318 North Academy Road
Cary, NC 27512
Re: Permit Application for proposed widening of Maynard Road in Wake County
DWQ No. 020970
Dear Mr. Ellis:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for making
an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
• At this time, there is no selected preferred alternative for the referenced project. Until we have a single
proposed road alignment to review, we cannot make a decision on your application. Previously, we have
participated in meetings on this subject. However, at this time, there has been no final decision made on this
subject. We request the opportunity to participate in future discussions on this subject.
• At present, the application does not include final design for any of the proposed alternatives. Future
documentation should include the proposed final design with all impacted wetlands, streams, and protected
buffers (if applicable) included.
• Several of the proposed alternatives include a stream relocation as part of the project design. However, the
level of design detail presented in the application is insufficient to make an informed decision. Please provide
all appropriate geomorphological data for the existing, proposed, and reference streams (see Internal Technical
Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina April 2001 Version 3.0, Appendix B at
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html). In addition, please provide an appropriate sediment
transport analysis, all proposed channel blocks and structures, vegetation plans for buffers, and a monitoring
plan.
• Based on the application, it is difficult to determine if an environmental document is required for this project by
the State Environmental Policy Act. Please provide information to help clarify this issue.
At this time, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold until we
are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of Water
Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on
hold.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
r
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
\OF \NAT? Michael F. Easley, Governor
'4 9QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
C?4
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
File Copy
0
C:\ncdot\Maynard Road Widening\correspondence\020970hid.doc
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Maynard Road Crossing c/o Town of Cary
Project Number 02 0970
Recvd From APP
Received Date 6/18/02 Recvd By Region
Project Type road crossing
County Wake
County2
Region Raleigh
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
14 Stream O YO N F__ 27-43-5-(1. WSIII NSW 30,402. 1630.00
I Butters IV Y V N I I3U,4UZ. I I I
r r r
F--P'7 ON F
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? O Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation: O Issue O ISSue/COnd O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss)
Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
This project is from two lanes to five with curb and gutter. The location of the project a turn and
the current alignment of the culvert is washing out the stream. Culvert length minimized from initial
allignment but 130 feet of culvert is not the total impact. Need calculations for Woutlet protection.
Alternatives A & B Do not see real need for realignment of stream. D has a lot less stream alteration.
Qcould be accomplished with the use of J hook's and V notched wiers and not a 400 foot wall
E does not minimize impact to stream at X ing but has the least stream modification. I can live with
B as the alternative but it is a lot of impact.
Need stormwater information
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Hemlock Bluffs
Subject: Hemlock Bluffs
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:59:11 -0400
From: Scott Pohlman <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
CC: John Finnegan <[e-mail]>
John,
When I talked to you briefly about the road widening of Kildaire
Farm Rd, and its impacts on Hemlock Bluffs and the tributary stream to
Swift Creek, you mentioned you needed to go out and take another look at
the site. Would it be possible to go out to the site with John Finnegan
from our office? As I mentioned, we are quite concerned about the impact
to the Nature Preserve, and need to give a lot of thought to the best
strategy for implementation, as well as mitigation. I think John's
schedule is pretty flexible, except for a vacation some time in August.
Thanks, Scott
------------
Scott Pohlman
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Division of Parks & Recreation
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1615 MSC
Raleigh NC 27699-1615
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Web address: www.ncsparks.net/nhp
Searchable database: www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html
1 of 1 7/25/02 3:50 PM
Re: SW Maynard Road - Status of PCN submitted June 18, 2002
Subject: Re: SW Maynard Road - Status of PCN submitted June 18, 2002
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:04:28 -0400
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Mitchell sent in his comments ...Bob stunk some notes on it and put it in your
inbox for your decision.
-r
John Dorney wrote:
> rob - please find the status of this project. thankx
> "Williams, Richard (Kevin)" wrote:
> > John
> > I am trying to find out the status of a PCN submitted June 18. I spoke to
> > you on June 25 and at that time I was informed that the package had been
> > forwarded to the regional office. I received an email from Steve Mitchell
> > on July 9, he informed me that he completed his review the preceding week
> > and it is now up to John's Staff.
> > I did not receive a DWQ number during our previous conversation and the
> > following is project information:
> > Owner - TOM ELLIS with the TOWN OF CARY
> > Agent - R. KEVIN WILLIAMS with STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
> > Name of Project - SW MAYNARD ROAD
> > Location - SW MAYNARD ROAD WIDENING BETWEEN OLD KILDAIRE FARM ROAD AND WEST
> > CHATHAM STREET
> > Site Coordinates - 35.7 / 78.7
> > Nearest Body of Water - SWIFT CREEK TRIBUTARY NO. 24
> > I hope that the above information is helpful. Please let me know the status
> > of this PCN.
> > Thank you for your assistance.
> > R. Kevin Williams, PE
> > Stantec Consulting Services
> > 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
> > Raleigh, NC 27606
> > 919-851-6866
> > [e-mail]
1 of 1 7/21/02 2:23 PM
Transmittal
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
BYO k?!YM
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300 tl?
SQNVULIM
Raleigh NC 27606
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
t
:F [e-mail] t i Nnr'

StanteC To: NC Division of Water File: 7 1 1 ri
Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road Sender: R. Kevin Williams, PE, PLS
Raleigh, North Carolina
27607 ? For Your Information
For Your Approval
Attention: John Dorney
? For Your Review
Date: June 18, 2002
®
As Requested

Reference: Maynard Road Widening -PCN
p? Mr Dorney,
??As per our office discussion on June 3, 2002, please find
attached the following:
14 7 copies of the completed PCN
7 copies of Memo addressing the roadway crossing alternatives

7 copies of the site plans outlining the different alternatives
1 check from the Town of Cary for $475.00.
As previously stated, I met with you in your office on June 3 and discussed this particular
project. Stantec originally submitted the old format of the PCN on May 7, 2002 and
somehow the submittal fell through the cracks of the system and the project was not entered
into the system. During our meeting you indicated that I should remind you through the
submittal correspondence that we had previously submitted a PCN and you would expedite
the review process for this submittal. Any and all assistance you can provide will be
appreciated.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
STANT CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
f 11?
' W
L
. Kevin Williams, PE, PLS
Engineer, Civil/ Hydraulic
cc: Tom Ellis, Town of Cary
Attachments
r 1 ru g:\car\004\tran\hydro\docs\tranjd6_18_02.doc
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No 4= "'
-..? r ..-?•?• ••?••..? .. ,FF... av?c V t113 PlvJcu, PICQJC CIRCU Ivor Hppucawe-.,qr
1. Processing
II
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Wate:
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland-
® 401 Water Quality Certification
-__..
++d:
at
JUN 1 8 X12 F
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: TOM ELLIS
Mailing Address: TOWN OF CARY
318 NORTH ACADEMY STREET
CARY.NC
Telephone Number: 919-469-4333 Fax Number: 919-460-4935
E-mail Address: TOM.ELLISaa NCNIAIL.NET
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: R. KEVIN WILLIAMS
Company Affiliation: STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Mailing Address: 801 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD SUITE 300
RALEIGH NC 27606
Telephone Number: 919-851-6866 Fax Number: 919-851-7024
E-mail Address: RKWILL[AMS(&STANTEC.COM
Pa,-,e 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: SW MAYNARD ROAD
T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: WAKE Nearest Town: CARY
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): SW MAYNARD ROAD
WIDENING. BETWEEN OLD KILDAIRE FARM ROAD AND WEST CHATHAM
STREET
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.7° / 78 7°
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 32 ACRES
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake: SWIFT CREEK TRIBUTARY
NO. 24
8. River Basin: NEUSE
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: TWO LANE HIGHWAY WITH 2-72" CULVERTS
CONVEYING STREAM UNDER ROADWAY.
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
WIDENING OF SW MAYNARD ROAD TO FIVE LANE CURB AND GUTTER
SECTIONS. MECHANICAL ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE
USED
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: WIDENING OF MAYNARD ROAD FROM
TWO LANES TO FIVE LAND CURB AND CUTTER SECTION.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project'? If so, describe the anticipated work.
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
FUTURE PERMITS WILL HAVE SITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ONCE A FINAL
ALTERNATE HAS BEEN CHOSEN.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation. list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: THERE WILL BE ZONE 1
AND ZONE 2 BUFFER IMPACTS AS WELL AS STREAM IMPACTS. SPECIFIC
Pa,oe 7 of 13
QUANTITIES OF IMPACTS WILL BE QUANTIFIED ONCE A SPECIFIC ALTERNATE
HAS BEEN CHOSEN.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
('linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

*
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:;/xvwxv.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond.
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secif )

CULVERT 130 UT TO SWIFT CREEK 15FT PERNNIAL

STREAM 500 UT TO SWIFT CREEK 15FT PERNNIAL
x T .l
caku uuNau acparaicry and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap.
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.). excavation, ditch int/straightening. etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
* Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616. or online at
www.usfts.aov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., ww%v.topozone.com,
wvww.mapqucst.com. etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 630 FT
Page 8 of 13
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
(if Name applicable) Waterbody Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond.
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
REFER TO ATTACHED MEMORANDUM AND DRAWINGS ON ALTERNATIVES
FOR IMPACT JUSTIFICATION. SPECIFIC IMPACT JUSTIFICATIONS WILL BE
ASSESSED ONCE A FINAL DECISION IS MADE ON A SPECIFIC ALTERNATE.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Pa;e 9 of 13
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htmi.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED MEMORANDUM AND DESIGN SHEETS.
A SPECIFIC MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE IMPLEMENTED ONCE A FINAL
DECISION IS MADE ON AN ALTERNATIVE.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wEp/index.htm. If use of
the NC WRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Pace 10 of 13
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes N No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No N
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes N No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
CULVERT
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 6441 3 19323
2 4043 1.5 6065
Total 10484 25388
Lone t extends out 30 teet perpendicular tom near bank otchannel: Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page I I of 13
STREAM
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 4206 3 12618
2 4353 1.5 6530
Total 8558 19148
Gone I extends out sU feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
SPECIFIC TYPE OF MITIGATION WILL BE DETERMINED ONCE A FINAL DECISION
ON AN ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN MADE.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed' in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
NOT APPLICABLE
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
Paue 12 of 13
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
OBTAINING CONCURRENCE WITH DWQ ON ALTERNATE B OF THE FIVE
ALTERNATES MAY DELAY CONSTRUCTION.
APPlicant/A is Signature Date
(Agent's signature is *filid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
2 /,-) Z
Page 13 of 13
W.ter??.
s
??Y ? ? _ Fanly ? ? I ? ? --
(n- - V AI l
ri?8fk
-YrthA ?' is/_
I I Xll`l? C -
?I Sewage pisppsal a ?l `? ??' ? « r _ S_l?
J? _? ?? , ) • • i• ' , 500 z
,007 (" - \`-? j t ?, 1?` ?• \
f
34497
Lt -
r. i
Q
71\ Po
> raper - I ? '
lute - - _ ?I ?, 1i
rr ?? a If?o ? 4/6
, I
y , 1616 9 i
1kR i i < `
47,
?, .• I, - \ 4791(
. pl '?. 0 d 73MkNRl , dS i?. _
? / ` v 9?5 1 ?1 1 ?? •I ?./?C
- 41
?.? 423 p F . r ?1 ?l..? ` Higk Sch a
If: N?•? r• In /R'"? (? '? I I. _I .???t 1V ??Sp?`? fit. r
15, WatI
w ? r 'f
ca??
435 L ??? ,
?// ? ? II?e 9 r tl _ F`\ G??? ?.,` ? ;;e7 4 ; i?y?Y ? r •/? `?' • ?_ ? i \?\ '? 1„? "? ??- ,, I ?? -,'??; ,
NN,
%
J <
?• C-
i_-
? • Golf
i-
(APEX) 698 699 47'30" 700 701 • IN rERIOR--GEOLOGIC
5755 Ili !I NE APEX 3.5 Ml.
SCALE 1:24 000 SANFORD 31 Ml.
0 1 MILE ROAD CL
_-_-?_ ------- - -- Primary highway,
2000 3G00 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET / hard surface
0
1 Nli f1MCTC O 1
i CAROLINA - SHEET NUMBER 56
(Joins sheet 46.% GeD2
f01Y? f ?? o¢ W «-J/ ?- - -Cm - / -ea - # CeC2
MYC / MYB WsC N r rC HrE WmE m AsC b
. `/ MYC ? y,Nls62' Ge ?' HrB Me .
? 1' Ga02 \ •+ ,? GeC2. ,?? ? ? As? f
y WsC2 WS E., 1£ AsB 5+ t AsC e
HrE i } 1U y dc' As02
- 1 ? AsB2
s WsC GeB2 } 3?x s 2
?_,, ? .c -ll?mE a Hr Nr
w ( ; e ? ,fin
/' / ?"? ! ?.? r ? '??-?• ? sB2 GeB2' r,?
\iV Y 132 r. rtT'a "
AeD2? rC _ 4 z
,? - aa= A
YC N h 582
` MYC s fn? oo? . ;5
.r c
"VD
WsB r Hrd2 t GeB2 *ApD
rC2
r ? ?g ?GtB r `GeC2 \"A-PD w AsC
,, t eC2 a GeD2.
pG ` n:, r %
NrC2 ?eD e62 ??' "? * A56
A CZ
? • ? a? ? CrB2 /*' LdC2 GeD2 4 ? a ? a
EnD2 Gee2? ,,,;?, + ? '• GeB2 & ,???,? ?. AsC
MY, CP GeC2:.. Ge ,
Ld62
? Gt { ?f GeC2
i
Hy ?_??eC2 PD
sC EnC eC '-? 4r82
GeC2
? ?, '?, YC /rE .GeB2 GeC M / / • _ ? `_? 3- " 1
s ?' '`' ° LrC2 / FIrE? 4 , ' y i GeD sC. GeB2
n "?t GrE ? m "}tom -GeC2 ? „ _ ??. ?
myu i y s AsC .!
t rs8 P CrL G Ge6
tr v
+... r
GsC ;?, ' 02 `;? A8G2 Avb Ash
CrC H ¢ ? GeC2. ?Hr \y?ca a'? r:.AeC2 F _ -- GeB2 - o
ti Cle?2
HrB2 C)
hV °' Gent GgC2 pC2
?` sB HrG2 4 y t? W
GeD2 ? -y
"?' 4t_ i, CrE j rDi W, Ma Ii,U E
a A Hr6.?, eC
CrC 2 GeD2 L,.
r +Ws 'p:', ? HrD2. ?ieB2 ? oo\o` v T?,?. t AsC2
t r * r WH 2 C 1, GeB2 ; o GeB2 WY
n ' k HrB2 eC2 GeD2 Ce82
? Wt6•
Ce92 CgB£
6
rB \ GeC2 i a HrC
?? , a ?a <o H o Ge 2'' \ e 2 ?? AgB
M B2 ?'ec NrB t I gC2 '
G Hr8?2 '` '?. i Ge8 em ti ? 4 ? "flaB2)
.ems` PC2'? I i `?+ GeD2 l
CrB2 6u92 H V ?I A$C2
WsB2 r Ct8 st ! AnL CeC ?,
CeF As62 y
,.? ? a. _ 'v ;, CSC. ? ?.`.^ `?? GeC2 ? } •3k,r+?" 'n `? .za??.?, ?' ? `I
E ??. } GeB2 :?, APD
r MY82 0 ? r ' ° \ / `Cg6 \\ ASL'2 2^' CeB2
..
- ??D2 ? CAB 2 ?? C 2'-
i My Ct6
s r
Ce CeF ¢ r dsC2" ?w
G p giCgC
•
'k CtC GeB2. Oti 4 CgC Ash eB
------ -- - --- -- (loins sheet 66) ? - ---
00* Z-0V
Stantec
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mr. Tom Ellis, PE
Town of Cary
R. Kevin Williams, PE
April 24, 2002
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ROADWAY OPTIONS AT SWIFT CREEK TRIBUTARY NO. 7
SW Maynard Road Widening
Town of Cary Project No. 00-007
Stantec Project No. 70300121
SYMMETRICAL WIDENING:
Alternative A:
• Poor alignment of culvert - existing 2@72" RCP's are blowing out the channel banks at the
outlet. Replacing the RCP's with a RCBC at the same alignment will not improve the
downstream channel stability. This will cause bank erosion problems with the downstream
channel for years to come.
• 122-foot long culvert costs approximately $140,000.
• The stream is being filled in left of station 116+00. This will require 500 feet of stream
relocation at approximately $225 per linear foot. Estimated cost-$112,500
• The upstream channel is currently an unstable channel. It is entrenched, the high shear stress
on the channel banks is causing the banks to erode with some undermining and the channel is
trying to migrate towards the roadway embankment. Relocation of the channel will be
achieved utilizing Rosgen natural channel design techniques, which will create a more stable
channel, move the channel away from the roadway embankment and create habitat.
• Approximate estimated cost of this option is $252,500.
Alternative B:
• Good alignment of culvert - outlet end of culvert is aligned with the downstream channel.
Currently the existing double 72" RCP's are blowing out the channel banks at the outlet end
due to poor alignment of the culverts. Placing the new RCBC on a good alignment will
reduce the stress on the banks, reduce erosion and improve water quality.
• Culvert will cost approximately $160,000.
• The stream is being filled in left of station 116+00. This will require 500 feet of stream
relocation at approximately $225 per linear foot. Estimated cost-$112,500.
• The upstream channel is currently an unstable channel. It is entrenched, the high shear stress
on the channel banks is causing the banks to erode with some undermining and the channel is
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 1-606 919-851-6866 ? far 919-851-7024
00'6-
Mr. Tom Ellis
April 26, 2002
Page 2 of 2
trying to migrate towards the roadway embankment. Relocation of the channel will be
achieved utilizing Rosgen natural channel design techniques, which will create a more stable
channel, move the channel away from the roadway embankment and create habitat.
• Approximate estimated cost of this option is $272,500.
Alternative C:
Poor alignment of culvert - existing 2@72" RCP's are blowing out the channel banks at the
outlet. Replacing the RCP's with a RCBC at the same alignment will not improve the
downstream channel stability. This will cause bank erosion problems with the downstream
channel for years to come.
114-foot long culvert costs approximately $130,000.
• Construct retaining wall to avoid stream relocation. The stream channel is entrenched, the
high shear stress on the channel banks is causing the banks to erode with some undermining
and the channel is trying to migrate towards the roadway embankment. Stream impacts may
be avoided at this time without relocation and stabilization of the channel, but the existing
channel is currently unstable and will continue to degrade over time. Cost of 400-foot long
retaining wall on north side of roadway running between station 114+50 and 118+50 at an
average height of 10 feet and a cost of $80 per square foot is $320,000.
• Retaining wall excavation will get into the stream banks, which will in turn require
approximately 100 feet of stream relocation at $225 per linear foot. This will cost $22,500.
• 400 feet of guardrail will be required because of the retaining wall at $15 per linear foot. This
will cost $6,000.
• 2 guardrail anchor units at a cost of $2000 each. Total cost is $4,000.
• Approximate estimated cost of these options is $482,500.
REALIGNING MAYNARD ROAD TO THE SOUTH SIDE:
safety of the road.
Additional Right-of-Way. Approximately one acre of additional right of way will be required
at a cost of around $90,000.
• Roadway Safety is reduced. Changing the alignment of the road reduces the existing
horizontal curve radius from 626 feet to 565 feet. This is a reduction in the design speed and
Additional Road Construction. There is an additional 11 feet of roadway length compared
with symmetrical widening at $1,100 per linear foot. This will cost $12,100.
Alternative D:
• Realigning the road may avoid impacts to the stream at this time, but the stream will continue
to degrade over time. The upstream channel is currently an unstable channel.
801.loner Franklin Road. Suite 300 Raleigh, :V(' 1,7606 919-851-6866 ? fax [phone]
Mr. Tom Ellis
April 26, 2002
Page 3 of 3
Poor Culvert Alignment - Outlet end of culvert will require about 100 feet of channel
realignment because of its extremely poor alignment. This will cost approximately $22,500 at
$225 per linear foot.
120-foot long culvert will cost approximately $135,000.
Approximate estimated cost of this option plus the roadway options listed above is $259,600.
Alternative E:
• Realigning the road may avoid impacts to the stream at this time, but the stream will continue
to degrade over time. The upstream channel is currently an unstable channel.
• Good Culvert Alignment - Requires approximately 100 feet of channel realignment at a cost
of $225 per linear foot. Approximate cost will be $22,500.
• 144-foot long culvert will cost approximately $165,000.
• Approximate estimated cost of this option plus the roadway options listed above is $289,600.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The best alternative for this project is Alternative B - symmetrical roadway widening, box
culvert on new alignment and relocating the stream upstream of the culvert. Although it is not the
most inexpensive option, it is the best, because of the improvements to the stream stability up
and downstream of the roadway crossing. With the unstable stream being stabilized through
relocation, more stream length may be created, water quality will be improved trough reduced
erosion and habitat will also be created. The downstream channel stability will be improved by
aligning the culvert with the channel (the preferred outlet alignment), which will reduce bank
stress and erosion.
Although they are the most inexpensive alternatives, if the existing culvert alignment is retained
in either Alternative A or Alternative D the culvert will cause problems at the outlet end. A
poor alignment angle with the downstream channel will not improve, but rather degrade channel
stability and erosion. The existing culverts have a poor alignment angle where the channel banks
are being attacked by the outlet flows and eroding the banks of the stream.
Alternative C - retaining wall on the north side of the roadway - should not be considered
because it is expensive, when compared with the other alternatives, and the stream will be
impacted from the retaining wall construction. If retaining wall construction does impact the
stream channel then there will be some stream relocation required.
Alternative D and Alternative E - widening the roadway to the south - will not be a good
alternative due to the need for additional right of way and the reduction of safety in the design of
the proposed roadway. There is also a need for some stream relocation in each of these
alternatives.
Y01 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 2'606 919-851-6866 o jar 919-851-7024
W
\ \ `? r\ \ o - g-- \\\ 6 A? ,,
?b \ 11 m
S n \ I.\
v . I
r
1 'moo/ 2 / / I1 \\ -J 11 I a', ;e, ;
O I 1 ` 1 11 I '?? orb.
/
p. ?,, R? ? X11\\ - -?8 -cape , , ' ?/y?.•, I
! r ,
r I '
n. ? I l 1 1 1 r / --
??? o? d`. l l l l'
(? / r? w / / // / I' // / / cA III I I I /
/% ' \ ? ? ? / / ' / / / ? I / / ? III I I 1 ?? •? ? '
? •1 66? /? /'?' l l l ? llllll ? %/l/ll? l ? l/ ??
t ^^V ?y?? l I ? / ? llll l?lll'? ?i??_'?' /l r/ f/ I•?•?? \y?'? 11 ?1 ??,'i ? ?
1? /V 1 '/ , /lll r I ? I I' I I I \ \ `I 1 r ? ?
11 - ?w? /l ? 1/ I v IY? I v /
c?? I\\ \\ I O !! :III / I ? 1 I I l r'
6`. f 1\\\\ / III / / / / /
!II ?I A 1 /
r ,/.9. // / ,'?, / ,Ill II •?1• / a I / I I / / r / I
111111 ?,(??
CU OF 0 cy
01,
JAW
?r I 1 v I / c? / P R / R R
4,, / / /' , , / .,, v v 1? co
fq/ / I ??? `CL v? I I CJ QO,4
-- / It'
? 11 ' / / / / / ?// /'?'/ I \ ? \ ? ? ? `•?d ? ?? // /?/ +?' ? // ' l 11 // /'/ 11 '

sj,
vI v ?O? v v a `?? b \? \,00
3
11o ?',
/
1 n
1 SU / s Ilk,
1 ,
i
1
/
b /i'?i///
<<0
a
/ ? 0? / ? / /// /l? I , ? I II \\ \\ II II? I \
Vf
1177 ? I /. -?? ? /f
Oa
' ? I I
/' O?? / I 1 \ \ v r.zs• / S?. ?y / / // 1 1 I 1 / / ,' r. ?.?? / I I 4 ? "
dl vv Y/
I ,¢
I ! a I // // '
11? / / / Q" // I v v ss / / /
C\l
N
V?
ZVI
41
awu v vv?I v vv?I 1 .
d0 t? r n /4
/ / \ \
4,o CO/ ci
£azs f? , /i / / / / ?? a
lb CY
/
Y
/???? U co

• yt
1 .1
\ `?•'?;,?• :lam ? , - ` _ ? ©_ \ ? ? , / \F>?', ' i js.
All
'no
`16
i
_ ,J' ? L\ 1 I / 1 0? ?_ 11 ? \ 1 fly \ / ? '
?? < / ' ' // /// /I // rr ? \ 11 I 1. 1 I ,' 11 C???•\ D I i \\ v?,9?
' 60o do ??? l \` 111 ?' p r ±?` %
- \114
o <? \ 1 ,
CN.
UOA 's d6y I I?%j( / , ' V
Os
17
as /1 S•
??/
` f I• 's' \?I 1 'yam ?`
p? / ?? ?- l ? I ? i I I I I \ \ 1 I
X11
00, I \ •?'i7f'?T / I I / ?? ? r l
1 61
(bA
tax
Ctr/ 44
CO/ or ci I
` N Z
°
s
?rJ
ZINC
/
a
40
b a \\ ,
S ? , \ \ \ 1 \ how V/6 12
'to
i
/ •,
/ I - rZ11 AI / o*J,
/ / / `3 O s 1, I 0? ? Y r.Or.
..Now 0.4
d 8
/
/ h c \
9° I/ r? ?s,? r• / / -? --- - / - \ of ' //
-ap
IA'
AU
? /r ,/f / ? ? I 18 I I
t ?l V?
?M ?? Ate` ?. / l ?i 1
o vi
19 1
77?
6. 1 A A AV ` / // / / /,
N
gn ft)
C-d
/ co
M/ 414
?V v d r O
tq / /
-ilk q:
CL + Ile
Triage Check List
Date:-
z?4 'f d Z
_l
To: QfT if0_ Steve Mitchell
?FRO Ken Averitte
?WaRO Deborah Sawyer
?WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
?WSRO Jennifer Frye
?ARO Mike Parker
?MRO Pete Colwell
From:
Project Name 1'111yP,,v1 v? olio -d olW ,
DWO Project Number G'-;? D 9 7D
County a 1v {
FILE COPY
Telephone (919) 733-
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation. Please call if you need
assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGW topo maps
linimization/avoidance issues
?-Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamilco, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concerns
Comments