20011579 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20011029

MAIR 1 i tip 03:08P SPRULDING&NORRIS, PR [phone] P.2
5
"0* C1101'ra nepa"Ont Of Er1ViMt1m4knt6 d Ny wal•F aftww.
lieaourucwa
Alan W. Klim6*k Dlreaur
Dlvisbr+ otWntor Qc31ily
DWQ Project No-, 0ZI ?? _ County:
Applicant: t"
// &-,e-

Project Name: /l osC- LAI 00
q? C er/f/"e_
Data of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certifcoatroa. //?,
00 Z-
(:ertificate of c2mle ,o
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certificatiou and Huffnr Ruins, and any
subsagttcru modifications, the applicant is requited to rethis certifioato to the 40IINJctlands Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mai( Setv.'ice Cetiter,'Ralt tgli; NC, 27699.1621. This fortis may be rvtumcd to DWQ
•by the applicant, the applicant's authorimd went, or the project enginear, 1't .s not t,o44ssary to scad cratifaptCg from
all ofthese.
Applicant's CerfzYkadeft
1, _ C C
hereby State that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such thpt.tlie canctructiosz
and was observed to be built within substantial
o o tf=ther snotrrandppartng t, ng m materials, the 401 4U1 Water Quality Corti cation and Buffer Puies, the approved plans and spoeificaGorls, Signature

Agvrrr's
C`errificatiae
Date: 1^ Z7 2 a C13
11 - `a hereby state that, to the beat of stay ahilitiea due care
was Used in test abservaiian of the eonsbvcttq'tt SUCh that the co,zstruction was.observed to bo bvilt.widdu ? b anetisl
and of arther ee and supporting intent at materitheals. 401 s. Water Quality Certification and Buffer Xules, the approved plates and spec?cstiorts;
and ot
5igtxature:
Date:
Cf this project was designer by a Certrfaed PmfesaioxrrC
1' ?- - as a duly registered Prof'essioaai' er,
Landscape Aarhitect, Surveyor, etc,) in the State of mart(: Carolina, having been authorized toobserve fitrgirre{periodseaily,
weekly, full titre} the consrrtecrion of the project, for the Permittee hereby State that, to the best of racy abilities, due
cart and diligence was used in the observation of the constructioq such that the consttuction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans
and specifications, =d other supportiq materials.
Signature: _ Rcgistr'ation Nro.
Data
N. C Division Of Water QuAhty, 441 WatlandS Cwtif callan UA2,
1650 Mae tiervics Center, Ra'etgh, NC 27865.1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtreo gh'd., Raleigh. NC 27804.2280 (LOMttr,) WETLANDS
(st% !03.1788 (phone), 516733-€893 (la><), (http:11h20.Wtr.slattc.nC ualnCNetland5 / 1
A (aROU
I/ T: d Si?6Lh586 : o I APR p :28
WATER QUALITYSECT{p°1'
OF WAT?9
?O? QG
r
o ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
January 27, 2003
Mr. Cecil B. Olive
2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
Dear Mr. Olive:
Subject: Stream Restoration
Rosewood Center
Wake County, NC
DWQ# 011579
This Office is in receipt of the plans dated November 6, 2002 for the stream restoration at the subject
facility prepared on your behalf by Spaulding and Norris and resubmitted to the Division on January 24, 2003
(which had originally been submitted within 30 days of the issuance of the Water Quality Certification). Staff
from the Wetlands Unit reviewed the plans and found them acceptable. Please note that this approval is for
water quality purposes only and shall not be construed as an approval of the design for dam/outlet structure
integrity, Dam Safety, public safety, or flood attenuation purposes.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Todd St. John at [phone].
cc
Mr. Todd St. John, Wetlan s Uni
Danny Smith
Raleigh Regional Office
Scott Mitchell, Spaulding and Norris, 972 Trinity Road, Raleigh,
File
NC 27607
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.ene.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
O?O? W AT ?qQG
O ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Memorandum To:
Through:
From
January 27, 2003
John Dorney
Danny Smith
Todd St. John
Subject: Rosewood Center
Wake County
DWQ# 011579
I reviewed the stream plans and they are what we agreed to in regards to a
restoration/stormwater. Anyway, I am certain that they had submitted the plans within the timeframe
required in the WQC; however, the plans were misplaced by us. Anyway, I recommend approval.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), htto:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
P.
972 Trinity Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Transmittal
O?-Z y- 2003
Date:
To: DWO Central Office
yG & NORRIS, P
Design Consultants
Job. No: 301-01
L 919.854.7990
FN TE
)
1
720M,;',
4400 2 Attn: Todd St. John
Re: Rosewood Centre - Stream Restoration Design
Sending:
® Attached ? Under separate cover the following
via items:
® Prints/Plans ? Shop Drawings ? Specifications ? Samples
? Other:
Copies Date Description
Finalized Stream Mitigation Plan per o1 Certification
Transmitted for:
? Your use ? Approved as submitted ? Resubmit ® Copies for approval
? As requested ? Approved as noted ? Submit ? Copies for distribution
? Review and comment ? Returned for ? Return ? Corrected prints
Remarks Todd, attached are seven copies of the finalized stream mitigation plan per our
conversations. This submittal is intended to satisfy additional condition #1 as listed on he
"Approval of Am Water Onality Certification with Additional Conditions" dated October a
2oo2. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any nuestions comments or concerns
WA T?. Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q R William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
0? QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
y Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
October 29, 2002
Mr. Cecil B. Olive
2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
SUBJECT: APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Rosewood Center (Nationwide Permit 27)
DWQ # 011579
Holly Springs, Hwy 55
Wake County
Dear Mr. Olive:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions. (WQC #3353) and the conditions listed below, to
implement the stream mitigation-to 220 feet of an unnamed tributary to Little Branch, a Class C Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin in
order to bring this project into conformity with the earlier 401 Certification for the this project which was waived by DWQ on December
29, 2001.
This approval is only for the impacts listed above and for the activities that you described in your application received by the
Division of Water Quality on September 24, 2002 and in the finalized plans that Spaulding and Norris, PA agreed to submit. We have
determined that General Water Quality Certification Number 3353 covers this activity. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Please keep in mind that there may be additional
Federal, State and Local regulations applicable to your project, such as the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act, Non-Discharge
and Water Supply Watershed Regulations, whereby you may be required to obtain permits and/or approvals prior to beginning your
project. In addition, this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 Permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval.is only valid for the purposes and designs that you described in your application and the subsequent finalized
plans which include only minor modifications. If you change your project, you must notify the Division in writing and you may be
required to submit a new application for a new Certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certifications and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fill for this project
(now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation or 150 feet of stream may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H
.0506. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached Certifications and the additional conditions
listed below:
1. A finalized stream mitigation plan must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of this 401 Certification for DWQ final
written approval. This plan shall be mailed to the attention of Todd St. John at the letterhead address.
2. The stream mitigation and respective streamside planting must be completed by April 1, 2003.
3. The stream mitigation must be constructed and maintained according to the approved plan.
4. After project completion, as-built plans and the attached Certificate of Completion (COC) must be submitted to the Division
within 30 days of final construction/installation of the mitigation efforts.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 276042260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Rffim-
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within
60 days from the date of receipt of this letter. To request a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, PO Box 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. This Certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you request a hearing.
. This letter completes the review of DWQ Project # 011579 by the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you wish to review any of the Water Quality Regulations mentioned here, you can download a copy through the
401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If you have any questions, please contact Danny Smith at 919-
733-9716 or Todd St. John at 919-733-9584.
ater Qu ity
Attachments: GC # 3353 (March 18,2002), COC
cc: Scott Mitchell, Spaulding & Norris, PA, 972 Trinity Road, Raleigh, NC, 27609
Amanda Jones, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, USACE
Debbie Edwards - Raleigh Regional Office
Danny Smith - Wetlands 401 Certification
Wetlands/401 Unit Central Office
Central Files
0
W ATF9
Q
I
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
Division of Water Quality
October 29, 2002
Mr. Cecil B. Olive
2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
SUBJECT: APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Rosewood Center (Nationwide Permit 27)
DWQ # 011579
Holly Springs, Hwy 55
Wake County
Dear Mr. Olive:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions. (WQC #3353) and the conditions listed below, to
implement the stream mitigation'.. :to 220 feet of an unnamed tributary to Little Branch, a Class C Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin in
order to bring this project into conformity with the earlier 401 Certification for the this project which was waived by DWQ on December
29, 200E
This approval is only for the impacts listed above and for the activities that you described in your application received by the
Division of Water Quality on September 24, 2002 and in the finalized plans that Spaulding and Norris, PA agreed to submit. We have
determined that General Water Quality Certification Number 3353 covers this activity. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Please keep in mind that there may be additional
Federal, State and Local regulations applicable to your project, such as the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act, Non-Discharge
and Water Supply Watershed Regulations, whereby you may be required to obtain permits and/or approvals prior to beginning your
project. In addition, this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 Permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General.
Certification.
This approval.is only valid for the purposes and designs that you described in your application and the subsequent finalized
plans which include only minor modifications. If you change your project, you must notify the Division in writing and you may be
required to submit a new application for a new Certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certifications and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fill for this project
(now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation or 150 feet of stream may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H
.0506. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached Certifications and the additional conditions
listed below:
1. A finalized stream mitigation plan must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of this 401 Certification for DWQ final
written approval. This plan shall be mailed to the attention of Todd St. John at the letterhead address.
2. The stream mitigation and respective streamside planting must be completed by April 1, 2003.
3. The stream mitigation must be constructed and maintained according to the approved plan.
4. After project completion, as-built plans and the attached Certificate of Completion (COC) must be submitted to the Division
within 30 days of final construction/installation of the mitigation efforts.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (.phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within
60 days from the date of receipt of this letter. To request a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, PO Box 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. This Certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you request a hearing.
. This letter completes the review of DWQ Project # 011579 by the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you wish to review any of the Water Quality Regulations mentioned here, you can download a copy through the
401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If you have any questions, please contact Danny Smith at 919-
733-9716 or Todd St. John at 919-733-9584.
?1im
Division of Water Qu ity
Attachments: GC # 3353 (March 18,2002), COC
cc: Scott Mitchell, Spaulding & Norris, PA, 972 Trinity Road, Raleigh, NC, 27609
Amanda Jones, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, USACE
Debbie Edwards - Raleigh Regional Office
Danny Smith - Wetlands 401 Certification
Wetlands/401 Unit Central Office
Central Files
w.q r? Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C? rte- Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
j y Division of Water Quality
o ~?
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
F #: 919-733-6893
Fax To: Fax #:
Company: Date:
Number of pages including cover sheet:
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-73376893 (fax), (http://h2o.eur.state.nc.ustncwetlands

Notes or special instructions:
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
Division of Water Quality
October 29, 2002
W. Cecil B. Olive
2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
SUBJECT: APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Rosewood Center (Nationwide Permit 27)
DWQ # 011579
Holly Springs, Hwy 55
Wake County
Dear Mr. Olive:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions. (WQC #3353) and the conditions listed below, to
implement the stream mitigation=to 220 feet of an unnamed tributary to Little Branch, a Class C Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin in
order to bring this project into conformity with the earlier 401 Certification for the this project which was waived by DWQ on December
29, 2001.
This approval is only for the impacts listed above and for the activities that you described in your application received by the
Division of Water Quality on September 24, 2002 and in the finalized plans thaf:Spaulding and Norris, PA agreed to submit. We have
determined that General Water Quality Certification Number 3353 covers this activity. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 27 When issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers: Please keep in mind that there may be additional
Federal, State and Local regulations applicable to your project, such as the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act, Non-Discharge
and Water Supply Watershed Regulations, whereby you may be required to obtain permits and/or approvals prior to beginning your
project. In addition, this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 Permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General..
Certification.
This approval.is only valid for the purposes and designs that you described in your application and the subsequent finalized
plans which include only minor modifications. If you change your project, you must notify the Division in writing and you may be
required to submit a new application for a new Certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certifications and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fill for this project
(now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation or 150 feet of stream may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H
.0506. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached Certifications and the additional conditions
listed below:
1. A finalized stream mitigation plan must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of this 401 Certification for DWQ final
written approval. This plan shall be mailed to the attention of Todd St. John at the letterhead address.
2. The stream mitigation and respective streamside planting must be completed by April 1, 2003.
3. The stream mitigation must be constructed and maintained according to the approved plan.
4. After project completion, as-built plans and the attached Certificate of Completion (COC) must be submitted to the Division
within 30 days of final construction/installation of the mitigation efforts.

N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 276042260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within
60 days from the date of receipt of this letter. To request a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, PO Box 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. This Certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you request a hearing.
. This letter completes the review of DWQ Project # 011579 by the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you wish to review any of the Water Quality Regulations mentioned here, you can download a copy through the
401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If you have any questions, please contact Danny Smith at 919-
733-9716 or Todd St. John at 919-733-9584.
. lim
Division of Water Qu ity
Attachments: GC # 3353 (March 18,2002), COC
cc: Scott Mitchell, Spaulding & Norris, PA, 972 Trinity Road, Raleigh, NC, 27609
Amanda Jones, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, USACE
Debbie Edwards - Raleigh Regional Office
Danny Smith - Wetlands 401 Certification
Wklands/401 Unit Central Office
Central Files
SPAULDING & NORRIS, PA
Civil Engineering & Planning
September 23, 2002
Mrs. Amanda Jones
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road

Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Mr. John Dorney
r
NC Division of WatI L
Central Office
2321 Crabtree Boule
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Re: Pre-Construction Notification Application Form for Proposed Stream
Restoration Activities at Rosewood Centre in Holly Springs
Dear Mrs. Jones and Mr. Dorney,
Attached is one copy of the completed PCN Application Form for the proposed stream
restoration activities at the Rosewood Centre site in Holly Springs "Application". The
proposed activity reflected in the Application satisfies DWQ mitigation requirements for
intermittent stream channel impacts, reflected in the Application, in excess of the
minimum amount required for installation of the road crossing culvert. The additional
impacts occurred during the installation of the existing 48-inch RCP on the site.
The Rosewood Centre is owned by Mr. Cecil Bunn & Nina Olive "Owners". The
Owners of the property plan to subdivide the property for use as a commercial center.
The road crossing installed will provide access to the western portions of the property as
indicated on the included site plan. Additionally, the road access is intended to serve as a
means of travel through the site for NCDOT borrow and waste sites. The NCDOT has
offered the owner unwanted soil material excavated for the construction of the NC55
Bypass in exchange for borrow material received from the owner's site.
The US Army Corps of Engineers permitted the existing road crossing on October 31,
2001. On December 28, 2002, the 401 Water Quality Certification requirement for 536
feet of stream impacts arising from this road crossing was administratively waived by the
NC Division of Water Quality. However, during the installation of the existing 48-inch
RCP culvert, intermittent stream channel segments in excess of the minimum required for
the installation of the road crossing were also impacted. The Owner offers to mitigate
these impacts by restoring the stream segments to new stable dimensions and
reestablishing a forested riparian buffer zone around the restored stream segments
consistent with the attached restoration plan. NCDWQ has agreed to permit this stream
restoration, upon approval of stream restoration construction plans, and accept this
mitigation as finalization and completion of all 401 Certification issues and/or
requirements for this site.
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] •972 Trinity Road * Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions, comments or concerns about
this completed PCN Application Package. Thank you in advance for your time spent
reviewing this permit application.
Sincerely,
Scott Mitchell, LSS, PE
Cc: Mr. Bunn Olive, Owner
Mr. Danny Smith, NC Division of Water Quality, Central Office
Mr. Kenneth Schuster, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. Benjamin Kuhn, Holt, York, McDarris & High, LLP
SPAULDING & NORRIS, PA
Civil Engineering & Planning
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
ALL BLANKS TO BE FILLED IN BY CURRENT LANDOWNER
Name: Ce I S. if Al,-,, a o /; ve
Address: 5 W u
??cx, N C 2 02
Phone: [phone]&98
Project Name/Description: _ Rosewood ee-,L4re 95
Date: 7 OD l
The Department of the Army
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attn: /011, 570?11 %!nobY1 ar $
Field Office: 4 2eoula bl,
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting & Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current property owner, hereby designate and authorize Spaulding & Norris, P.A.,
to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon
request supplemental information in support of applications, etc., from this day forward.
This the Z y 6?- day of 0G24y J e-,., .) 2 00 /
This notification supercedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this
project.
Cecil Z?uHh 01"'l/G
PRINT Owner's Name

PROPERTY Owner's Signature
Cc: Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] * 972 Trinity Road * Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
S?,Cewq)
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
M Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
M 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27 Only
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: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Cecil B. & Nina Olive
Mailing Address: 2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
Telephone Number: 919-362-5638 Fax Number: 919-362-1388
E-mail Address:
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: Scott Mitchell
Company Affiliation: Spaulding & Norris, PA
Mailing Address: 972 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone Number: 919-854-7990 Fax Number: 919-854-7925
E-mail Address: scott9spaulingnorris.com
Page 5 of 12
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: Rosewood Centre
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 0740818910
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Holly Springs
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From interchange of US1 &
NC55, proceed south on NC55 towards Holly Springs Site is on west side of NC55
approximately'/2 mile south of intersection of Sunset Lake Road & NC55
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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): 22.37 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): UT to Little Branch
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(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: The entire site has been cleared and grubbed.
Approximately the eastern half of the site has been brought to final grade and stabilized with
grass. Approved erosion control measures are in place & functioning pproperly. Mixed
hardwood forest to north & south, NC55 Bypass to west & residential to east.
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
project will involve the restoration of stream channel segments upstream and downstream of
the existing 48" RCP that were impacted during construction. The stream restoration will
reestablish the natural dimension, pattern and profile that once existed on the site prior to
development. Examples of equipment that will be used to complete this project include
track-hoe excavators tractor & disk etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: This work is required by the NCDWQ in order
to mitigate stream channel impacts beyond the minimum amount necessary for installation
of the 48" RCP culvert.
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.
An "After-the-Fact" Nationwide 14 was issued for this site on October 31, 2001 (USACE
Action ID# 200220122). The NCDWO waived the Certification requirement for 536 feet of road
crossing impacts on this site (DWQ# 011579). The original application was submitted on
October 24, 2001.
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.
No additional permit requests are anticipated for this vroiect in the future. However, the owner
does plan to fill the 0.001 acre wetland near the southwest corner of the property in the future.
The Notification of Jurisdiction Determination states that a PCN is not required to fill this area.
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.
Page 7 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The only impacts proposed in
this application are for stream restoration activities described in III (10) above
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***
None Proposed

* 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 athtti)://www.fema.go v.
*** 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: < 0.10 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: None
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name* * Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
A Restoration 121 UT to Little Branch 4-5 ft. Intermittent
B Restoration 99 UT to Little Branch 4-5 ft. Intermittent

List each impact separately 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, ditching/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.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 220 ft.
Page 8 of 12
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 p Waterbody
applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ean, etc.)
None Proposed

List eacti impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, 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.): N/A
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.
The proposed stream restoration will satisfy mitigation requirements agreed to by the Owner and
the NCDWQ. Stream impacts are unavoidable in order to satisfy DWQ mitigation requirements
A plan view man is attached as "Exhibit 2 - Stream Restoration Design" showing the proposed
restoration activities.
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.
Page 9 of 12
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.html.
1. 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.
The proposed stream restoration serves as mitigation. The site is located in The Town of
Holly Springs. The affected stream is a UT to Little Branch The Owner proposes 220 feet
of stream restoration. A plan view of the proposed stream restoration is attached as "Exhibit
2 - Stream Restoration Design", showing the proposed stream restoration activities The
Owner proposes to place a deed restriction or conservation easement over the restored stream
and proposed forested riparian zone. Track-hoe excavators and bull-dozers will be used to
construct this project.
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/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): None
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): None
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): None
Page 10 of 12
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 ? 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 ?
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
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? 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.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
T Lone i extends out su teet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
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.
` 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.
Approximately 2 acres are impervious under existing conditions (dirt & gravel access paths &
staging areas). Owner proposes to construct 0.92 acres of impervious surfaces consisting of
access road and sidewalk. Owner plans to subdivide property for development by future owners.
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.
Wastewater generated at the proposed facility will be collected by the Town of Holly Springs
wastewater collection system and subsequently treated at the Utley Creek WWTP
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
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).
'/- 23- 2 00e-
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN METHODOLOGY
for
ROSEWOOD CENTRE - HOLLY SPRINGS, NC
Per initial discussions with staff from the NCDWQ, the proposed stream restoration
design should mimic the natural, undisturbed stream segments immediately upstream
and/or downstream of the impacted stream channel segments. However, upon further
inspection, the opinion of staff is that these natural, undisturbed stream segments are
entrenched, too steep and are not stable. Mr. Todd St. John suggested mimicking
surveyed patterns of Sal's Branch, which flows through Umstead State Park in Wake
County. Survey data for Sal's Branch was obtained and studied as a guideline for design
of the proposed stream restoration for Rosewood Centre in Holly Springs. Mr. St. John
also suggested the incorporation of a relatively flat floodprone area with a sinuous
channel meandering through it. The floodprone area and proposed channel are preceded
by a grade control structure to ensure the long-term integrity of the natural, undisturbed
channel and its adjacent floodprone area (see attached "Stream Restoration Design"
plan).
Survey Data for Sal's Branch:
Drainage Area 0.4 square miles
Sinuosity 1.2
Average Radius of Curvature 20.3 feet
Slope 0.85%
The proposed stream restoration will be constructed in two separate locations, one
immediately upstream of the existing 48-inch culvert, one immediately downstream of
the existing 48-inch culvert. The contributing drainage area for these two locations is
50.5 acres (0.079 mil) and 60.1 acres (0.094 mil) respectively. These drainage areas are
significantly smaller than the drainage area for the channel section studied at Sal's
Branch. The design sinuosity for the proposed stream restoration is the same as that of
Sal's Branch, 1.2. However, a smaller Radius of Curvature was used (13 feet and 10 feet
respectively) because of the smaller expected Bankfull Flows (in comparison to expected
Bankfull Flows for the study area of Sal's Branch). Per Mr. St. John's recommendations,
the floodprone area is designed with a valley slope of 0.50 percent while the cross-slope
is flat (0%). This recommended valley slope in combination with a channel sinuosity of
1.2 results in a proposed channel centerline slope of 0.42 percent.
Research indicates that natural stable channels reach Bankfull Stage an average of once
every 1.5 years. Using the Rational Method, the peak discharge of the 2-year storm was
calculated for both stream restoration segments. To estimate the difference between the
2-year peak flow and the 1.5-year peak flow, approximately 85 percent of the calculated
2-year peak flows was used to design the cross-sections for the proposed restored
channels.
Peak Flow Calculations:
Time of Concentration (estimated) 15 minutes
2-Year Rainfall Intensity I 4.0 cfs
Rational "c" Value C 0.35
Upstream Segment Drainage Area AU 50.5 acres
Downstream Segment Drainage Area AD 60.1 acres
Q(cfs)=CIA
Upstream Segment 2-Year Peak Flow Q2U 70.7 cfs
- 85 % of Q2U QDesign-U 60 cfs
Downstream Segment 2-Year Peak Flow Q2D 84.1 cfs
- 85 % Of Q2D QDesign-D 70 cfs
Proposed channel cross-sections were designed using Haestad Methods, F1owMaster
software (FlowMaster output sheets attached). Inputs included calculated Bankfull
Flows, a channel centerline slope of 0.42 percent and sideslopes of 1:1. Note that
calculated velocities for Bankfull Flow in both design restoration segments is less than
3.5 feet per second. For flows greater than Bankfull Flow, the calculated average
velocity is less than 1.5 feet per second. Flow velocities for both of these scenarios are
below the maximum permissible velocities established by the North Carolina Erosion
and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (see attached tables). These
calculations imply that the design channels are safe from degradation. However, some
degree of minor sediment aggradation is expected until the restored channel reaches a
point of equilibrium.
FlowMaster Output Sheets
Upstream Restored Segment
Proposed Upstream Channel / Floodplain
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File c:lprogram filedhaestadlacademiclfmwlrosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Input Data
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Elevation range: 348.00 ft to 355.50 ft.
Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station
0.00 355.50 0.00
10.00 350.50 30.00
30.00 350.50 40.00
32.50 348.00
37.50 348.00
40.00 350.50
60.00 350.50
70.00 355.50
Discharge 60.00 cfs aC l) Bs; q r

Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.040
Water Surface Elevation 350.49 ft
Flow Area 18.63 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 12.04 ft
Top Width 9.98 ft
Height 2.49 ft
Critical Depth 349.48 ft
Critical Slope 0.026509 ft/ft
Velocity 3.22 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.16 ft
Specific Energy 350.65 ft
Froude Number 0.42
Flow is subcritical.
4--- iF
End Station Roughness
30.00 0.080
40.00 0.040
70.00 0.080
a?Ic?N 11 Flow
09/16/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
01:41:41 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone] Page 1 of 1
Proposed Upstream Channel / Floodplain
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File c:\program files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
w
Input Data
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Elevation range: 348.00 ft to 355.50 ft.
Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station End Station Roughness
0.00 355.50 0.00 30.00 0.080
10.00 350.50 30.00 40.00 0.040
30.00 350.50 40.00 70.00 0.080
32.50 348.00
37.50 348.00
40.00 350.50
60.00 350.50
70.00 355.50
Discharge 65.00 cfs
Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.066
Water Surface Elevation 351.08 ft
Flow Area 48.20 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 54.65 ft
Top Width 52.30 ft
Height 3.08 ft
Critical Depth 349.56 ft
Critical Slope 0.026289 ft/ft
Velocity 1.35 ft/s
' Velocity Head 0.03 ft
Specific Energy 351.10 ft
Froude Number 0.25
y Flow is subcritical.
> ??s5 gahk l/ Flow
f-- A,
09/16/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
01:41:17 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone] Page 1 of 1
x x
Proposed Upstream Cross-Section
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File Oprogram files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.040
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation 350.49 ft
Discharge 60.00 cfs Das q , 3qy klol f Flow
356.0
355.0
354.0
353.0
C
.2 352.0
M
351.0
W
It ` A
350.0
349.0
348.01
0.0
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Station (ft)
i u. u
09/16/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
02:02:00 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone] Page 1 of 1
s z
Proposed Upstream Cross-Section
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File Oprogram files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.066
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation 351.08 ft
Discharge 65.00 cfs :,--Dt37 15v? ?,a F/ew
?ra
356.0
355.0
354.0-
353.0
C
.2352.0-
41
m
351.0
W
350.0-
349.0-
348.0-
0.0
10,
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Station (ft)
70.0
09/16/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
02:03:46 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone] Page 1 of 1
1
Curve
Plotted Curves for Irregular Channel
351.'.
Project Description
Project File Oprogram files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Constant Data
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Input Data
Minimum Maximum Increment
Discharge 0.00 100.00 5.00 cfs
Water Elevation vs Discharge
351.0
C 350.5
0
r
m
350.0
W
349.5

349.0
348.51
0.0
09/16/02
02:00:47 PM
20.0 40.0 60.0
Discharge (cfs)
Academic Edition
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone]
80.0
100.0
FlowMaster v5.17
Page 1 of 1

Proposed Downstream Channel / Floodplain
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File c:\program files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Input Data
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Elevation range: 337.50 ft to 345.00 ft.
Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station End Station Roughness
0.00 345.00 0.00 30.00 0.080
10.00 340.00 30.00 41.00 0.040
30.00 340.00 41.00 71.00 0.080
32.50 337.50
38.50 337.50
41.00 340.00
61.00 340.00
71.00 345.00
Discharge 70.00 cfs ?F -D e,5.1
r

Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.040
Water Surface Elevation 339.99 ft
Flow Area 21.09 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 13.03 ft
Top Width 10.97 ft
Height 2.49 ft
Critical Depth 338.98 ft
Critical Slope 0.025772 ft/ft
Velocity 3.32 ft/s 4----
Velocity Head 0.17 ft
Specific Energy 340.16 ft
Froude Number 0.42
Flow is subcritical.

09/16/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
02:35:50 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone] Page 1 of 1
Proposed Downstream Channel / Floodplain
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File cAprogram files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Input Data
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Elevation range: 337.50 ft to 345.00 ft.
Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station
0.00 345.00 0.00
10.00 340.00 30.00
30.00 340.00 41.00
32.50 337.50
38.50 337.50
41.00 340.00
61.00 340.00
71.00 345.00
Discharge 75.00 cfs x > D eS.?9' H
Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.065
Water Surface Elevation 340.60 ft
Flow Area 52.51 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 55.75 ft
Top Width 53.40 ft
Height 3.10 ft
Critical Depth 339.05 ft
Critical Slope 0.025576 ft/ft
Velocity 1.43 ft/s ?--? -A
Velocity Head 0.03 ft
Specific Energy 340.63 ft
Froude Number 0.25
Flow is subcritical.
End Station
30.00
41.00
71.00
Roughness
0.080
0.040
0.080

09/16/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
03:01:30 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone] Page 1 of 1

Proposed Upstream Cross-Section
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File cAprogram files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.040
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation 339.99 ft
Discharge 70.00 cfs l)?S:c?N ?a?lc?ult Flow
345.

344.
343.
342.
c
.2 341.
c?
W 340.
339.
338.0' 1
337.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Station (ft)
09/16/02 Academic Edition
02:35:33 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone]
60.0 70.0 80.0
FlowMaster v5.17
Page 1 of 1

Proposed Upstream Cross-Section
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File Oprogram files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.065
Channel Slope 0.004200 ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation 340.60 ft
Discharge 75.00 cfs > Doj in ga? FN I Flow
345.
344.
343.
342
C
.2341
m
0 340
W
339.
338.
337. _
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Station (ft)
09/16/02 Academic Edition
03:01:45 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone]
60.0 70.0 80.0
FlowMaster v5.17
Page 1 of 1

Downstream Water Surface Elevation vs. Discharge
Plotted Curves for Irregular Channel
341.0
340.5
w
340.0
0
S
ca
:" 339.5
Project Description
Project File Oprogram files\haestad\academic\fmw\rosewood.fm2
Worksheet Stream Restoration Channel / Floodplain
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Water Elevation
Channel Slope 0.004200 fUft
Constant Data
Input Data
Minimum Maximum Increment
Discharge 0.00 150.00 5.00 cfs
Water Elevation vs Discharae
W
339.0
338.5
338.0 L-
0.0
09/16/02
02:34:27 PM
20.0 40.0 60.0 Discha80.0 rge (cfs) 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 [phone] Page 1 of 1
North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual
Maximum Permissible Velocities
Appendices

Table 8.05d
Maximum Permissible
Velocities for Unprotected
Soils in Existing Channels.
Sample Problem 8.05a
Design of a
grass-lined channel.
Materials
Fine Sand (noncolloidal)
Sand Loam (noncolloidal)
Silt Loam (noncolloidal)
--a- Ordinary Firm Loam
Fine Gravel
-i Stiff Clay (very colloidal)
Graded, Loam to Cobbles (noncolloidal)
Graded, Silt to Cobbles (colloidal)
Alluvial Silts (noncolloidal)
Alluvial Sifts (colloidal)
Coarse Gravel (noncolloidal)
Cobbles and Shingles
Maximum Permissible
Velocities (fps)
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.54
5.0
5.O4--
5.0
5.5
3.5
5.0
6.0
5.5
Given:
Design Qio = 16.6 cfs
Proposed channel grade = 2%
Proposed vegetation: Tall fescue
Soil: Creedmoor (easily erodible)
Permissible velocity, Vp = 4.5 ft/s (Table 8.05a)
Retardance class: "B" uncut, "D" cut (Table 8.05c).
Trapezoidal channel dimensions:
designing for low retardance condition (retardance class D)
design to meet Vp.
Rev. 12/93
Find:
Channel dimensions
Solution:
Make an initial estimate of channel size
A = Q/V; 16.6 cfs/4.5 ft/sec = 3.69 ft2
Try bottom width = 3.0 ft w/side slopes of 3:1
Z=3
A=bd+Zd2
P=b+2d
R=A/P
An iterative solution using Figure 8.05a to relate flow depth to
Manning's n proceeds as follows: Manning's equation is used
to check velocities
'From Fig. 8.05c, pg. 8.05.7, Retardance Class d (VR=4.5x0.54=2.43)
d (ft) A (ft2j R (ft) . n V (fps) 0 (cfs) Comments
0.8 4.32 0.54 0.043 3.25 14.0 V<VpOK,
Q<Qto.
(too small, try deeper channel)
0.9 5.13 0.59 0.042 3.53 18.10 V<Vp, OK,
Q>Qto, OK
Now design for high retardance (class B):
For the ease of construction and maintenance Assume and
Try d = 1.5 ft and trial velocity, Vt = 3.0 ft/sec
d (ft) A (ft) R (ft) Vt (fps) n V (fps) 0 (cfs) Comments
1.5 11.25 0.90 3.0 0.08 2.5 28 reduce Vt
2.0 0.11 1.8 20 reduce Vt
1.6 0.12 1.6 18
"1.5 0.13 1.5 17 Q>Qto OK
"These assumptions = actual V (fps.) (chart continued on next page)
8.05.9
El
Table 8.05a
Maximum Allowable Design Velocities'
for Vegetated Channels
Typical Soil Grass Lining Permissible Velocity3
Channel Slope Characteristics2 for Established Grass
Application Lining (ft/sec)
0-5% Easily Erodible Bermudagrass 5.0
Non-plastic Tall fescue 4.5
(Sands & Silts) Bahiagrass 4.5
Kentucky bluegrass 4.5
Grass-legume mixture 3.5
Erosion Resistant Bermudagrass 6.0
Plastic Tall fescue 5.5
(Clay mixes) Bahiagrass 5.5
Kentucky bluegrass 5.5
Grass-legume mixture 4.5
5-10% Easily Erodible Bermudagrass 4.5
Non-plastic Tall fescue 4.0
(Sands & Silts) Bahiagrass 4.0
Kentucky bluegrass 4.0
Grass-legume mixture 3.0
Erosion Resistant Bermudagrass 5.5
Plastic Tall fescue 5.0
(Clay Mixes) Bahiagrass 5.0
Kentucky bluegrass 5.0
Grass-legume mixture 3.5
>10% Easily Erodible Bermudagrass 3.5
Non-plastic Tall fescue 2.5
(Sands & Silts) Bahiagrass 2.5
Kentucky bluegrass 2.5
Erosion Resistant Bermudagrass 4.5
Plastic Tall fescue 3.5
(Clay Mixes) Bahiagrass 3.5
Kentucky bluegrass 3.5
Source: USDA-SCS Modified
NOTE: 'Permissible Velocity based on 10-yr storm pe ak runoff
2Soil erodibility based on resistance to soil movement from concentrated flowing water.
3Before grass is established, permissible velocity is determined by the type of temporary liner used.
Selecting Channel To calculate the required size of an open channel, assume the design flow is
uniform and does not vary with time. Since actual flow conditions change
Cross-Section throughout the length of a channel, subdivide the channel into design reaches,
Geometry and design each reach to carry the appropriate capacity.
The three most commonly used channel cross-sections are "W-shaped, par-
abolic, and trapezoidal. Figure 8.05b gives mathematical formulas for the area,
hydraulic radius and top width of each of these shapes.
8.05.4
Practice Standards and Specifications
Design Criteria Table 6.72a provides general guidelines for maximum allowable velocities in
streams to be protected by vegetation.
1. Ensure that channel bottoms are stable before stabilizing channel banks.
Table 6.72a
Conditions Where Vegetative Streambank Stabilization Is Acceptable
Shrub zone-This zone is flooded only when flow exceeds the average high
water level. The shrub zone is inhabited by trees and shrubs with high regenera-
tive capacity, such as willow, alder, dogwood, and viburnum. Shrub zone
vegetation is recommended for the impact bank of a stream meander, where
maximum scouring occurs. Infringement of shrub vegetation into the channel
reduces channel capacity, however, increasing the frequency of floods.
Tree zone-This zone is flooded only during periods of very high water (i.e.,
the 2-yr peak flow or greater).
2. Keep velocities at bankfull flow nonerosive for the site conditions.
3. Provide mechanical protection such as riprap on the outside of channel bends
if bankfull stream velocities approach the maximum allowable for site
conditions.
Frequency
of Bankfull Flow
> 4 times/yr
1 to 4 times/yr
--v. < 1 time/yr
Max. Allowable Velocity
for Highly Erodible Soil
4 ft/sec
5 ft/sec
6 ft/sec -4
Max. Allowable Velocity
for Erosion Resistant Soil
5 ft/sec
6 ft/sec
6 ft/sec .4
Construction Construction guidelines cover only the reed-bank and shrub zones. The aquatic
Specifications plant zone is difficult to establish artificially and becomes established natural-
ly when reed-bank vegetation is present. The tree zone is seldom flooded and
rarely needs stabilization once the reed-bank and shrub zones are stabilized.
REED-BANK VEGETATION
The following grasses are recommended in North Carolina:
Halifax maiden cane (Panicum hemitomon)
Common reed (Phragmites communis)
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Common reed is a very robust plant whose stems become woody in autumn,
resulting in continued protection during the winter. Because the shoots and
rhizomes are deeply and strongly rooted and densely intertwined, they bind soil
more firmly than any other reed varieties. However, the common reed grows
high and thick, and periodic maintenance may be needed in order to achieve a
neat appearance. Dense growth may also increase the frequency of flooding.
6.72.3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
%10 Py
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200220122 County: Wake
GENERAL PERMIT REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE VERIFICATION
Property
owner: Cecil B. & Nina Olive
Rosewood Centre
Address: 2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
Telephone: [phone]
Authorized
Agent: Spaulding & Norris, PA
C/o Scott Mitchell
Address: 972 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone]
Size and Location of Property (Waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): Cecil B. & Nina
Olive's Rosewood Centre property, located off of NC 55, adjacent to Little Branch, near Feltonville,
in Wake County, North Carolina.
Description of Activity: AFTER-THE- FACT PERMIT REQUEST for access road
construction for the proposed development resulting in approximately 0.10 acre of impacts to the
jurisdictional waters of Little Branch.
X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
X Nationwide Permit Number NWP 14
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General / Nationwide Permit verification does not
relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact John Thomas at telephone number (919) 876-8,441, extension 25.
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Date October 31. 2001 Expiration- October 31, 2003 V
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CF:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200220443
County:
Wake
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property
Owner Cecil B. Olive
Re: Rosewood Centre
Address 2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
Telephone Number 919-362-5638
Authorized
Agent Spaulding & Norris, PA
Attn: Scott Mitchell
Address 972 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone Number 919-854-7990
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): The development
known as "Rosewood Centre" is located on the west side of N.C. Hwy 55, approximately 0.33 miles south
of its intersection with Sunset Lake Road (SR 1301), in Holly Springs, Wake County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination: This determination only addresses the feature reviewed on 12/18/01 located
near the western property boundary. This area contains a wetland (0.001 acres) with indicators of
ordinary high water marks, located near an unnamed tributary of Little Branch, above headwaters, in the
Cape Fear River Basin. A pre-construction notification (PCN) is not required to fill this area.
X
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
There are waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, on the above described property which we strongly suggest
should be delineated and surveyed. The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will
make a final jurisdictional determination on your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands
cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to obtain a consultant to obtain a more timely
delineation of the wetlands. Once the consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps staff will
review it, and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the
Corps. The Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey.
The waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, on your lot have been delineated, and the limits of the Corps
jurisdiction have been explained to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
.There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to
the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the
date of this notification.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army Permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
Amanda D. Jones at te)gphone number--,- (919) 876 - 8441 extension 30
Project Manager Signature
Date January 22, 2002 14iration Date January 22, 2007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM.
i
ROY COOPEtt
ATTORNEY tjFNF..RA1.

State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
7602-0620
July 17, 2002

Benjamin R. Kuhn
Holt York McDards & High, LLP
PO Box 17105
Raleigh, NC 27619
Re: Cecil B. Olive, 02 EHR 0664
Dear Mr. Kuhn:
Reply t0:
Jill Hickey
Environmental Division
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ihickey@rnailJus,stave.nc.us
Per your request, I am writing to confirm that DWQ acknowledges that on October 29,
2001, it received the 401 application (Pre-Construction Notification) for the Rosewood Centre in
Holly Springs that was submitted on behalf of your client. DWQ further acknowledges that it
failed to act on your client's request for a 401 water quality certification within the 60 day period
required by 15A NCAC 2H .05007(a). DWQ, therefore, acknowledges that it waived the 401
certification requirements for the impacts depicted on the Drainage and Erosion Control map
submitted pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0502(b) as a part of your client's 401 application.
The actual impacts at the site, however, are somewhat different from those depicted on
the map. DWQ does not waive-the 401 certification requirement for those impacts. It is my
understanding that your client has agreed to restore 1$4 .feet of stream in order.to resolve this
matter and that your client's consultant is currently working on a restoration plan. It is the
understanding of DWQ staff that within the next two weeks your consultant will provide the
restoration proposal to DWQ for its approval. After DWQ's review and approval of the
restoration plan, DWQ will issue a 401 certification for the impacts, and, it is our understanding,
your client will implement the approved plan,
Please let me know if we have misunderstood the basis upon which your client is willing

A
July 17, 2002
Page 2
t
to resolve the matter. If the above is correct, at what point do you believe we will have reached
a negotiated settlement and when do you propose to dismiss your petition for a contested case?
Sincerely,
18. Hickey
Assistant Attorney General
c: Danny Smith

TOTAL P.03
APR-08-2002 14:15 HOLT YORK MCDARRIS
HOLT YORK WDARRIS & HIGH, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT lAW
LANDMARK CENTER1
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 207
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
POST OFFICE BOX 17105
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27619
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
FACSYMTLE COVER SHEET
TO: Kenneth Schuster - 571-4718
cc: Bunli Olive - 362-1388
Scott Mitchell - 854-7925
Danny Smith - 733-6893
FROM: Ben Kuhn
DATE: April 8, 2002
RE: Notice of Violation -- Rosewood Centre
DWQ #011579
FILE NO.: 5005.001
No. OF PAGES (including cover sheet): 2
9194207830 P.01/02
102 EAST QUEEN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 92
EDENTON, NORTH CAROUNA 27932
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
WWW.HYMH.COM
THIS COMMUNICATION CONTAINS COWWNTIAL OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AND IS
INMWED ONIW FOR WE USE OF THE INAIYlDOAL ORENTI77NAM,EAA60VB IFYOUAAVE) CB vA6 r 1 f
COMM(INICATIONINERROX PLEASE NOTIPY US IMMEDWELYRYTELEPHONE, COLLECT; ANP "WAN 77M
ORIGINAL MESS'ACE TO US AT THEA6OVE ADDRESS VIA 771E U.X PO$TAL SERVICE WL• WILZ OE CLAD TO
REIMRUR$E YOU FOR POSTAGE, TVANK YOU.
REMARKS=
Please see attached.
RPR-08-2002 14:15 HOLT YORK MCDARRIS
HOLT YORK MCDARRIS & HIGH, LLP
A7omEYS AT LAW
LANDMARK CENTER 1
4601 Sv FORKS ROAD, SUITE 207
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
POST OFFICE BOX 17105
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27619
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
April 8, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Kenneth Schuster
WQ Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
RC Notice of Violation - Rosewood Centre
DWQ # 01157.9
Our File No.: 5005-001
Dear Mr. Schuster:
9194207830 P.02/02
102 EAST QUEEN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 92
EDENTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27932
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
WWW.HYMH.COM
This confirms our conversation earlier today. We agreed to extend the time for the response
requested in your March 20, 2002 letter. The extended date agreed to is April 22, 2002. We are
working hard to assemble a thorough response to the matters outlined in your letter and appreciate your
consideration as we work towards resolving this smatter.
Very Truly Yours,
H;jamin T RK McD S & H, LLP
. K
BRK
Enclosure
Cc Bunn Olive (via facsimile)
Scott Mitchell (via facsimile)
Damy Smith (via facsimile)
TOTAL P.02
HOLT YORK MCDARRIS & HIGH, LLP COPY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
n ,. r
LANDMARK CENTER I 102 EAST QUEEN STREET
4601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 207 POST OFFICE BOX 92
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609 ti APR 2 4 W EDENTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27932
r
f
POST OFFICE BOX 17105 WETLANDS
KIEL UITY SECTICNti TELEPHONE: [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27619 ''"" "mM? ?V FACSIMILE: [phone]
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone] WWW.HYMH.COM
April 22, 2002
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Re: "Notice of Violation / Enforcement Recommendation" for Rosewood Centre
DWQ # 011579
HYM&H # 5005.001
S&N # 301-01
Dear Mr. Schuster,
This is in response to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) "Notice of Violation" and "Notice
of Enforcement Recommendation" letter for Rosewood Centre dated March 20, 2002. DWQ requested
a response to its letter within 20 days. I contacted you by phone to request an extension until April 22,
2002, so that I could consult with my client who had been out of the country and prepare a full and
adequate response for DWQ's consideration. You granted this requested extension which I confirmed
in writing by letter dated April 8, 2002.
Our response below first clarifies some of the issues raised in your March 20, 2002 letter
concerning Mr. Olive's actions on the property. Second, we respond to the three violations alleged by
DWQ in your letter. Third, we outline Mr. Olive's compliance efforts and discuss Mr. Olive's
intentions with respect to filing-another 401 certification application requested by DWQ. Finally, this
letter sets forth our offering of remediation of certain stream impacts arising from the development of
the Rosewood Centre site. As a preliminary matter, I want to clearly express that it is and always has
been Mr. Olive's desire and intent to minimize and prevent the adverse effects arising from impacts to
water quality and soil erosion/sedimentation on his property as required by law. In this regard, we look
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 2
forward to working with DWQ in formulating a fair resolution of this matter that protects and
recognizes the vital interests in minimizing the environmental impact of the Rosewood Centre
development while at the same time ensuring that Mr. Olive is treated fairly and respectfully in this
process by those responsible for administering the applicable laws and regulations in this matter.
January DWO Site Visit
Your letter represents that "On January 25, 2002, DWQ staff noted that no sediment controls were
in place to inhibit off site sediment." However, at the time of DWQ's site visit, there was in fact a
sediment basin in place at the down-stream edge of the tract. This sediment basin was created by
installing a check dam in the existing channel in accordance with instructions from the Town of Holly
Springs Erosion Control Inspector, Ms. Heather Keefer. Additionally, Ms. Keefer informed Mr. Olive
(Owner) that erosion controls for the site should be installed on an "as needed" basis. At all times Mr.
Olive's on-site erosion control activities and structures followed precisely the recommendations and
requirements from the Town of Holly Springs Engineering Department as required by local ordinance.
When additional erosion control measures were ordered by the Town pursuant to a letter from the
Director of Engineering dated February 28, 2002, Mr. Olive promptly installed the required measures
to ensure continued compliance with the Town's soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance.
Everyone that participated in the January 25th site meeting visited the location of the sediment
basin in question and confirmed its existence. Mr. Danny Smith and Ms. Debra Edwards were present
for this meeting. This existing sediment basin was, however, full of sediment and in need of cleaning
in order to function properly. Bear in mind that on January 2" d, approximately 12 inches of snow
blanketed the area for two weeks, completely saturating the soil and removing any potential for
additional precipitation to infiltrate the soil. This highly unusual snow event was followed by an
unusual string of rainfall events that occurred in the area just days prior to the January 25th site
meeting. During the seven days immediately preceding January 25, the area received the following
rainfall amounts:
January 19th - 2.00 inches
January 21St - 0.40 inches
January 23rd -1.50 inches
January 25th - 0.50 inches
Seven Day Rainfall Total = 4.40 inches

Despite our best efforts in complying with the soil erosion and sedimentation control measures
required by the Town of Holly Springs, it is not unreasonable to expect that the limits of the existing
sediment basin would be tested during this highly unusual string of rainfall events even while
functioning adequately prior to the January 25th site visit.
During the site visit in question, Mr. Smith recommended an immediate improvement in erosion
control measures in response to seeing the existing sediment basin which did not have adequate
capacity to handle the heavy rains which occurred. The next day, Saturday, January 26, 2002, Mr.
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 3
Olive significantly increased the size (height and width) of the existing check dam, created a new
earthen berm for the sediment basin to increase its volume and removed accumulated sediment from
the existing sediment basin.
The following week, Spaulding & Norris began design of a new erosion control plan for the entire
site. This revised Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan was submitted to the Town of Holly
Springs on February 15, 2002. Mr. Olive requested the Town's permission to install the newly
designed erosion control devices the same day the plans were submitted to the Town. This request was
denied because Town staff wanted time to review the new plan. The next correspondence Mr. Olive
received from the Town was during a site meeting on February 26, 2002. At this site meeting, Mr.
Olive was given approval to begin installation of the newly designed erosion control devices according
to the plans submitted on February 15th. All newly designed devices were completely installed by
March 1, 2002.
Mr. Olive has repeatedly displayed a willingness and desire to immediately abate any water
quality and sedimentation and erosion control problems that exist on his property. We have met on
numerous occasions with local officials and DWQ to determine what requirements are applicable to
this site so that Mr. Olive knows and understands what he must do in order to comply with applicable
ordinances and laws governing soil erosion, sedimentation, and water quality issues. Upon learning of
the requirement, we immediately filed a 401 water quality certification in order to comply with DWQ
regulations applicable to the Rosewood property. Below we discuss Mr. Olive's application to DWQ
for 401 water quality certification and the alleged "violations" mentioned in your March 20, 2002 letter
in the order they were presented therein.
401 Water Ouality Certification Application
On October 24, 2001, upon the recommendation of Ms. Amanda Jones (USACE), Mr. Olive
submitted a 401 Water Quality Certification Application ("Application") to the Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office of the United States Army Corp of Engineers and to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Central Office. This Application was submitted as an attempt to properly secure the required
Nationwide Permit #14 and the corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification for impacts that had
already occurred. Hence, this Application is termed an "after-the-fact" application. On October 31,
2001, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a corresponding General Permit Regional and
Nationwide Verification for this site.
On November 2, 2001, Scott Mitchell with Spaulding & Norris contacted Mr. John Dorney,
Supervisor of the NCDWQ 401 Certification Unit, to discuss the submitted Application. During this
telephone conversation, Mr. Dorney confirmed NCDWQ's receipt of the Application on October 29,
2001, and stated that his office had 60 days to respond. The sixty day review period begins on the date
DWQ receives the application. Thus, under existing regulations, DWQ had until December 28, 2001
to respond to Mr. Olive's Application.
However, DWQ's 60 day review period passed without any response whatsoever to the
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 4
Application. On January 14, 2002, 77 days after the Application was confirmed received by NCDWQ,
Mr. Mitchell personally visited the NCDWQ Central Office and watched as staff searched for the
Application that Mr. Olive submitted for this site. During this search, the Application was finally
located. DWQ has subsequently admitted losing the Application due to it being filed in the wrong
location. As a result of DWQ losing Mr. Olive's Application, a response was never received within
the time required by law.
DWQ's March 20, 2002 "Notice of Violation" states that "the 60 day review period expired prior
to DWQ's project review, such that this project is automatically covered by the respective General
Certification for Nation Wide 14 (GC # 3289)." After reviewing the governing law and regulations
concerning application, review, and issuance of 401 certifications, it is clear that the certification
otherwise required for this site has been administratively waived by DWQ as of December 29, 2001
due to DWQ's failure to timely respond in any fashion to Mr. Olive's Application which was received
by DWQ on October 29, 2001. Specifically, 15A NCAC 02H.0507(a) states that "All applications for
certification shall be granted or denied within 60 days after receipt at the offices of the Director in
Raleigh, North Carolina. Failure to take final action within 60 days shall result.in a waiver of the
certification requirement by the Director, unless:
(1) The applicant agrees, in writing, to a longer period;
(2) Final decision is to be made pursuant to a public hearing;
(3) Applicant fails to furnish information necessary to the Director's Decision;
(4) Applicant refuses the staff access to its records or premises for the purpose of gathering
information necessary to the Director's decision or;
(5) Information necessary to the Director's decision is unavailable."
Your March 20, 2002 letter does not allege or suggest that any of the five exceptions are applicable to
this case. The absence of any such allegation or suggestion confirms that Mr. Olive properly applied
for an after-the-fact 401 water quality certification for the impacts on the Rosewood Centre property.
As stated earlier, Mr. Olive has been and will continue to be forthcoming with respect to every detail
of his proposed development and has and will continue to comply with all requirements applicable to
his development. If any additional information or records were necessary during the applicable review
period and brought to our attention, such information and records would have been promptly provided.
Due to DWQ's lack of response during the required sixty day review period, however, Mr. Olive's
Application must be deemed complete and submitted in accordance with all applicable rules and
regulations.
Alleged Violation 1: 401 Water Quality Certification
DWQ's March 20, 2002 Notice of Violation states that:
"A DWQ site visit and file review confirmed that the stream impacts occurred prior to the
proper securing of a road crossing Permit (Nationwide 14) from the US Army Corps of
Engineers and the state issued 401 Water Quality Certification.. Further, the DWQ file
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 5
review confirmed that an "after-the-fact" Pre-construction Notification was received by
DWQ for impacts to 536 feet of stream. A 401 Water Quality Certification is required for
the above-mentioned impacts pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0500."
This statement, however, is directly contrary to a statement earlier in your letter which clearly states, as
mentioned above, that "the sixty day review period expired" and therefore the "project is
automatically covered by the respective General Certification for Nation Wide 14 (GC # 3289)."
This statement by DWQ acknowledges that the 401 certification requirement had been administratively
waived by DWQ and that, pursuant to governing law, a 401 water quality certification was no longer
required for the activity presented in the October 24, 2001 Application for the Rosewood Centre
property.
It is not disputed that the stream impacts on Mr. Olive's property did occur prior to securing the
404 Permit and the 401 Certification, thus requiring the after-the-fact 401 water quality certification
application submitted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. However, Nationwide
Permit 14 has now been secured from USACE and the 401 Water Quality Certification requirements
have been administratively waived by DWQ. Thus, certification is no longer required for the activity
reflected in the Application submitted on October 24, 2001.
Based on DWQ's administrative waiver of the certification requirement, the allegation in your
March 20, 2002 letter that "A 401 Water Quality Certification is required for the above-mentioned
impacts pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0500" is legally incorrect and not enforceable. If DWQ takes the
position that certification is nonetheless still required, please respond in writing setting forth in detail
the legal and factual basis upon which DWQ relies including the specific citation to authority. I need
to be in a position to advise my client as to what the law requires of him and my review of applicable
law indicates that nothing further is required with respect to the activity reflected in the Application
submitted on October 24, 2001. If DWQ's position is different, my client needs to understand that
position and the legal basis upon which it is founded.
Additionally, DWQ's March 20, 2002 letter argues that "application to and prior written
concurrence from the Division of Water Quality is a condition of Certification #3289." However,
since the requirement for 401 certification for the activity reflected in the October 24, 2001
Application was administratively waived by DWQ, the "Conditions of Certification" listed in your
letter are similarly not applicable nor legally enforceable. As of December 29, 2001, the 401
certification requirement was waived by DWQ with respect to the activity presented in the Application
regardless whether any impact occurred prior to receipt of written concurrence from DWQ. Again, if
DWQ's position is contra, please specify the legal authority for DWQ's assertion that prior written
concurrence from DWQ is still required under these circumstances and identify the factual basis
therefore.
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 6
Alleged Violation 2: General Water Quality Certification Condition violations; Nos. 1 and 4
DWQ's March 20, 2002 Notice of Violation letter states that:
"A DWQ file review confirms that "Mr. Olive" secured an "After-the-Fact" 401 Water
Quality Certification for impacts to 536 linear feet of stream impacts. However, site visit
confirms impacts to 720 feet of stream channel. The failure to properly stipulate the extent
and scope of the stream impacts in the Pre-construction Application and the removal of
stream side vegetation, widening of the channel, excavation of the stream channel floor,
and the replacement of the stable stream banks with vertical sloughing banks that are
unstable and devoid of vegetation constitute violations of the General Certification."
As of December 29, 2001, a 401 Water Quality Certification was not required for the activity presented
in the submitted Application. DWQ nonetheless alleges that Mr. Olive "secured" an after-the-fact 401
water quality certification for impacts to the stream channel noted in our Application. However, based
on applicable law, Mr. Olive never secured such a certification. Rather, due to DWQ's failure to
respond to the properly submitted Application received by DWQ on October 29, 2002, the certification
requirement was expressly waived by law. DWQ officials have subsequently admitted such waiver by
verbal and written admissions. Should DWQ have documentation evidencing a decision by DWQ to
grant Mr. Olive an after-the-fact 401 water quality certification during the sixty day review period as
suggested in your March 20, 2002 letter, please provide us with a copy of any written determination for
our records supporting your earlier statement that Mr. Olive "secured" such certification. Until such a
document is produced, and based on DWQ's oral and written admissions that they failed to respond in
any fashion to our properly filed Application, the activity presented in our Application does not now
require 401 certification from DWQ.
Further, because the 401 water quality certification requirement has now been waived by DWQ in
accordance with applicable law, it is unclear on what basis DWQ can claim that any of the conditions
of certification have been violated. If DWQ has any legal basis for charging Mr. Olive with violating
conditions of a certification which does not exist and is not now required, please provide us with the
applicable citation to authority which grants such extraordinary powers to DWQ. Otherwise, in the
absence of such extraordinary powers, Mr. Olive can not legally be required to comply with conditions
of a certification which was specifically waived by DWQ, does not exist, and which is not now
required for activity reflected in our Application.
As a result, it is our position that DWQ has no legal grounds to cite Mr. Olive for violations of
conditions supposedly attached to a certification which was waived by DWQ, never granted by DWQ,
and particularly because such a certification is not now required for the stream impacts at issue. Any
action by DWQ to require compliance with the conditions listed in your March 20, 2002 letter is not
based on sound legal authority and thus is not enforceable. As such, it is our position that stream
impacts resulting from the activity presented in our Application are not subject to DWQ 401 water
quality certification requirements or conditions and that DWQ has no authority to revoke a certification
which does not exist and is not otherwise required by law.
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 7
Alleged Violation 3: Preclusion of Best Usage
DWQ's March 20, 2002 Notice of Violation letter states with respect to the issue of "best usage"
that:
"These severe impacts have resulted in a stream standard violation. Specifically, 15A
NCAC 2B .0211(2) states that the preclusion of best usage, which include aquatic life
propagation, biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture represent a
water quality standard violation."
In response, we note that DWQ's Notice of Violation further states that 1) "this project is
automatically covered by the respective General Certification for Nation Wide 14 (GC # 3289)", 2)
"'Mr. Olive' secured an `After-the-Fact' 401 Water Quality Certification" and 3) "impacts were
authorized through General Certification # 3289." DWQ's March 20, 2002 Notice of Violation
appears to be an attempt to issue General Certification #3289. However, the legal effect ofthe alleged
issuance of this General Certification is meaningless and not supported by applicable law. This
certification is not required and was previously, waived according to specific oral and written
statements by DWQ due to DWQ's failure to respond in a timely fashion to Mr. Olive's Application.
If the certification requirement was waived, why is DWQ now attempting to issue it? This is unclear,
unless DWQ is attempting to issue the certification to justify the purported violations of the alleged
certification. This is a peculiar administrative maneuver which does not seem to have any legal
foundation.
The certification requirement was waived by DWQ on December 29, 2002 according to 15A
NCAC 2H.0507, and therefore there is no applicable certification left to be issued with respect to the
activity reflected in our Application. Because this activity requires no certification from DWQ as of
December 29, 2001, DWQ has no authority to now issue a certification in its March 20, 2002 letter for
the sole purpose of then finding alleged violations. DWQ has no power to bootstrap Mr. Olive into
violating conditions of a certification that was waived and is not now required. To do so, is clear abuse
of the administrative process, without any legal foundation, arbitrary and capricious, and inconsistent
with prior actions and statements by DWQ that specifically waived the certification requirement with
respect to the activity at issue.
Moreover, it is unclear how DWQ can purport to issue a certification and simultaneously find that
Mr. Olive is in violation of such certification. The alleged issuance of the certification, if such
certification were required and not previously waived by DWQ, must mean that the impacts resulting
from the activity presented in the Application are in accordance with all of the conditions of
certification, including regulations regarding preclusion of best usage. Otherwise, there is no reason
for DWQ to purportedly "issue" such certification. Further, DWQ's alleged "issuance" of this
Certification would indicate that a "Preclusion of Best Usage" has not occurred. Specifically, 15A
NCAC 02B .0201(f) states that:
"Activities regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) which
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 8
require a water quality certification as described in Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1341) shall be evaluated according to the procedures outlined in 15A NCAC 2H
.0500. Activities which receive a water quality certification pursuant to theseprocedures
shall not be considered to remove existing uses."
Thus, if DWQ could legally issue a certification as it purports to do in its March 20, 2002 letter, such a
certification means, according to 15A NCAC 02B .0201(f), that existing uses are not removed.
Compliance and Offering to Restore Stream Channel
Water quality permitting issues and environmental compliance matters involved in land use and
development are not subjects most people other than highly trained environmental consultants and
government regulators are apt to identify when walking onto an undeveloped piece of property. It is
extremely important to note that as soon as Mr. Olive was notified that he might need 401 and 404
permits for the stream crossing on his property, he immediately stopped all road crossing construction
activity and began pursuit of the proper permitting to ensure his actions were in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.
Mr. Olive was not notified of the requirement for permits by a government official, but by a
representative of Santaro Construction Company during a discussion of use of Mr. Olive's site as a soil
waste pit. Santaro Construction Company is interested in using Mr. Olive's site for disposal of soil
unsuitable for roadway sub grade currently being excavated from the NC 55 Bypass around Holly
Springs. Mr. Olive elected to do what he thought was the right thing as soon as he learned of the
permitting requirements. Mr. Olive was promptly in touch with USACE officials and subsequently
submitted the Application for this road crossing as required by law. The "ball," so to speak, was then
in DWQ's court to review and respond to the impacts noted in the Application and existing on-site.
DWQ failed to do so in a timely fashion as required by law, and therefore the certification requirement
has been waived and is no longer required for the activity presented in the Application.
The regulatory framework for water quality permitting recognizes and balances the competing
interests of properly rights protected by the United States and North Carolina Constitutions against the
valid and vital governmental interests in protecting the environment. Thus, property owners are
required to seek certification from DWQ that the proposed impact of planned development will have
the least impact on water quality. Mr. Olive fully complied with this requirement by filing an
application for water quality certification with DWQ as soon as he became aware that such
certification was required for the impacts on his property. At the same time, regulatory authorities are
required by law to respect the vital interests of property owners by providing timely responses to
certification applications so development plans are not unduly delayed by inaction of government
officials charged with effectively and efficiently carrying out the duties and obligations set forth in the
applicable regulations.
Since the NCDWQ discovered that the 60 day review period had passed for this Application for
certification, DWQ officials have accused Mr. Olive of not being forthright in his Application for
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
April 22, 2002
Page 9
initial certification. Quite the opposite is true. Once it became apparent that certification was
required, Mr. Olive stopped all work on the road crossing, retained expert consultants to assist in
preparing the certification application, and has worked with and sought out DWQ when needed and as
requested to ensure he complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
Now, after Mr. Olive properly submitted an Application and a check for $475 on October 24,
2001, DWQ demands that he re-apply for a 401 Certification along -with re-submission of the
appropriate fee even though the certification requirement has been waived with respect to the activity
reflected in his Application and is no longer required. DWQ's "Notice of Violation" also states that:
"This office is considering recommending to the Director that your "after-the-fact" 401
Certification be revoked. However, if you choose to re-apply and properly secure a
Certification this office will reconsider this approach. Also, your above-mentioned
response to this correspondence will be considered in this process."
We are curious what legal authority DWQ can provide us for the proposition that DWQ can "revoke" a
certification that has been waived and is no longer required according to 15A NCAC 2H.0500? It
seems that the threat of revocation can not be legally enforced in this case due to DWQ's previous
administrative waiver that became effective on December 29, 2001 The only circumstance where a
revocation might arguably be enforceable is if Mr. Olive desired to voluntarily submit another 401
certification application for the same activity in his October 24, 2001 Application. It appears that
DWQ is putting pressure on Mr. Olive to submit another application for the purpose of reasserting
authority over the impacts which are now out of the agency's regulatory reach.
Your letter also states that our response to your request that Mr. Olive submit another 401
certification application "will be considered in this process." We trust that DWQ will respect the rule
of law in this matter and not attempt to take adverse action against Mr. Olive due to the fact that we
respectfully disagree with DWQ's request that Mr. Olive should reapply for 401 certification in this
matter. Based on applicable law and regulations, and the actions of DWQ in this matter, Mr. Olive
does not desire to reapply for certification for the activity reflected in his previous Application since
certification for this activity is no longer required by law.
Remedial Action Offered for Upstream Impact
Although it is our position that upstream mitigation is not required in this matter for the reasons
discussed above, Mr. Olive offers to immediately restore the approximately 100 foot channel segment
that was impacted upstream of the existing culvert in accordance with DWQ guidelines. The proposed
restoration will include the re-introduction of a sinuosity level similar to that of existing upstream and
downstream undisturbed, natural channel reaches. Additional elements that will be included in the
upstream channel restoration proposal are the creation of a new floodplain, installation of woody
vegetation in the riparian area adjacent to the newly shaped channel and installation of temporary
erosion control materials on the banks of the upstream channel segment in accordance with DWQ
guidelines. We are ready to prepare a graphic presentation of our upstream channel restoration
William G. (Bil)) Ross, Secretary
? .. 1 ? W.
NORT'N CAROLINA 13F49ARTME1SIT OF
ENVIRCNM"T AND NA n-JRAL R -SOURCIES
Division of Water Quality
March 20, 2002
Mr. Cecil 8. Olive
2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
Subject: Notice of Violation
Dear Mr. Olive:
Notice of Enforcement Recommendation
Rosewood Centre
DWQ # 011579
Holly Springs, Hwy 55
Wake County
On January 25, 2002 Ms. Debbie Edwards from the Raleigh Regional Office and Mr_ Danny
Smith from the Central Office of Division of Water Quality (DWQ), inspected your tract of land,
known as the Rosewood Centre in Wake County. Also, W. Smith conducted a follow up site visit
on January 28, 2002. During these site visits, the investigators took photographs, measurements, and
made observations of the respective stream impacts to an unnamed tributary to Little Branch, a
Class C Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Specifically, a review of the plans coupled with onsite comparisons indicate that
approximately 520 feet of stream impact have occurred in response to the placement of
approximately 500 feet of culvert, Further, an additional impact to the stream was observed. This
was located up-slope from the culvert inlet, where the stream was cleared, graded, and grubbed for
approximately 100 feet of additional stream impact.
On the January 25, 2002, DWQ staff noted that no sediment controls were in place to inhibit
off site sediment. On January 28, 2002 a basin had been constructed in the stream channel at the
down stream edge of the tract. On this day, it was noted that approximately two (2) feet of sediment
had accumulated in the stream floor immediately downstream from the basin. Also, approximately
300 to 400 feet down stream from the property boundary the stream channel floor was blanketed
with approximately 0,25 to 1 inch of fine sediment, whereas the upstream segment did not have these
deposits.
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27889-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
9
e
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. (Bill) Ross, Secretary
!'
woo"
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Water Quality
March 20, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Cecil B. Olive
2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
Subj ect:
Dear Mr. Olive:
..F
MAR 2 8 2002

Notice of Violation
Notice of Enforcement Recommendation
Rosewood Centre
DWQ # 011579
Holly Springs, Hwy 55
Wake County
On January 25, 2002 Ms. Debbie Edwards from the Raleigh Regional Office and Mr. Danny
Smith from the Central Office of Division of Water Quality (DWQ), inspected your tract of land,
known as the Rosewood Centre in Wake County. Also, Mr. Smith conducted a follow up site visit
on January 28, 2002. During these site visits, the investigators took photographs, measurements, and
made observations of the respective stream impacts to an unnamed tributary to Little Branch, a
Class C Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Specifically, a review of the plans coupled with onsite comparisons indicate that
approximately 620 feet of stream impact have occurred in response to the placement of
approximately 500 feet of culvert. Further, an additional impact to the stream was observed. This
was located up-slope from the culvert inlet, where the stream was cleared, graded, and grubbed for
approximately 100 feet of additional stream impact.
On the January 25, 2002, DWQ staff noted that no sediment controls were in place to inhibit
off site sediment. On January 28, 2002 a basin had been constructed in the stream channel at the
down stream edge of the tract. On this day, it was noted that approximately two (2) feet of sediment
had accumulated in the stream floor immediately downstream from the basin. Also, approximately
300 to 400 feet down stream from the property boundary the stream channel floor was blanketed
with approximately 0.25 to 1 inch of fine sediment, whereas the upstream segment did not have these
deposits.
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Cecil B. Olive
March 20, 2002
stream impacts in the Pre-construction Application and the removal of stream side vegetation,
widening of the channel, excavation of the stream channel floor, and the replacement of the stable
stream banks with vertical sloughing banks that are unstable and devoid of vegetation constitute
violations of the General Certification.
Violation 3: Preclusion of Best Usage
A DWQ site visit and file review confirmed that approximately 720 linear feet of stream
impacts occurred to an unnamed tributary to Little Branch.
Subsequently, an approximate 536 feet of impacts were authorized through General
Certification # 3289. However, approximately 184 linear feet of additional impacts to the unnamed
tributary to Little Branch has occurred and are unaccounted for after review of the Certification
application. The site visits and file review confirmed that; 1) the installation of the culvert resulted
in impacts that were not accounted for within the application, and 2) mechanical deepening,
excavation, and widening of the stream had occurred beyond that indicated in the Pre-construction
application.
These impacts resulted in the removal of stream side vegetation and the replacement of the
stable stream banks with vertical sloughing banks that are unstable and devoid of vegetation.
Further, the impacts included the complete excavation and the marked widening of the stream floor,
the respective stream bed substrate, and the channel footprint. These severe impacts have resulted
in a stream standard violation. Specifically, 15A NCAC 2B .0211 (2) states that the preclusion of
best usage, which include aquatic life propagation, biological integrity, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture represent a water quality standard violation.
This Office requires that violations, as detailed above, be abated immediately. Also please
note, these violations and any future violations are subject to civil penalty assessment of up to
$25,000.00 per day for each violation. This Office requests that you respond to this letter, in writing,
within 20 days of receipt of this Notice. Your response should address the following items:
Discuss your efforts to remove sediment/discharged product from the stream floor. It is
recommended that you contact this office for clean-up effort guidance;
2. Provide a complete stream restoration proposal;
3. And finally, provide an explanation of why you did not secure a 401 Water Quality
Certification for the stream impacts and why the impacts that occurred subsequent to your
application did not match what was on the ground.
In an effort to resolve these issues you may choose to re-apply for a 401 Certification. Please
clearly state in your response when or whether the Central Office will receive you your new-
application Pre-construction Notification (the 401 Water Quality Certification application) along
with the appropriate fee.
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
FILE COPY
Triage Check List
Date: /D
To: -ORRO
?FRO
?WaRO
?WiRO
?WSRO
?ARO
?MRO
3/Dl -
Steve Mitchell Project Name 2w6OBf' C?.i [ C/o cetl. &4xti,
/7 -01r'Ve-
Ken Averitte DWQ Project Number 0-1157!7
Deborah Sawyer County
Joanne Steenhuis
Jennifer Frye _ _ _ _ ...
Mike Parker -
Pete Colwell
From: __4 tt' II a4-U Q litl,,?4 , o d d Sf-A-kAnTelephone (919) 733- 5715
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
Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamilca, 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 - 44-P -
0115'9
AULDING & NORRIS. PA
Civil Engineering & Planning
October 24, 2001
Mr. John Thomas
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
FILE COP{'
Re: Pre-Construction Notification Application Form for Rosewood Centre in Holly
Springs
Dear Mr. Thomas,
Attached you will find one copy of the completed PCN Application Form for the
Rosewood Centre site in Holly Springs. As we have recently discussed, this application
is an "After-The-Fact" permit application for a road crossing oan mtermrtten c el
on this site.
-------
' The Rosewood Centre is owned by Mr. Cecil Bunn & Nina Olive. The owners of the
property plan to subdivide the property for use as a commercial center. The road crossing
that has partially been installed is intended to provide access to the western portions of
the property as indicated on the included site plan. Additionally, the road access is
intended to serve as a means of travel through the site for NCDOT borrow and 'waste
sites. The NCDOT has offered the owner unwanted soil material excavated for the
construction of the NC55 Bypass in exchange for borrow material received from the
owner's site. This trade of soil material by the two parties caused the owner to recently
begin construction of the road crossing, unaware of USACE or DWQ permits required
for construction. When the owner was notified of the requirement for USACE and DWQ
permits for this road crossing, construction was halted immediately. No construction on
this road crossing has taken place since the owner was made aware of permit
requirements.
Recently, Ms. Amanda Jones of the USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office visited the
site and recommended that the owner submit a PCN Application for a Nationwide Permit
14. Hence, this submittal is made for purposes of rectifying this oversight. Additionally,
Ms. Jones offered the owner the option of submittal of funds to the NC Wetlands
Restoration Program as possible acceptable mitigation for stream impacts due to this road
crossing, if also acceptable to DWQ Officials. The owner wishes to utilize this option of
payment to the NCWRP for mitigation of impacts in excess of allowable intermittent
stream impacts if acceptable. -
Phone: [phone] * Fax: [phone] •972 Trinity Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Please accept the completed PCN Application for this site. Do not hesitate to contact me
if you have questions, comments or concerns about this matter. Thank you in advance
for your time spent reviewing this permit application.
Sincerely,
Scott Mitchell, LSS, El
Cc: Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. Bunn Olive, Owner
JA40
M?
0
a?,
\NA
?G
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
This form is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or Individual 401
Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands/Perm app.htm
The USACE is the lead regulatory agency. To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits, and to determine which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/regtour.h trr? or contact one of the field
offices listed at the end of this application. The website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in North Carolina and provides additional information regarding the identification and
regulation of wetlands and waters of the U.S.
The DWQ issues a corresponding Certification (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certification will apply until the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are encouraged to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and to determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for some General Certifications is not required,
provided that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet
should contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is also required fir projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on the last page of this application).
Page 1 of 12
CAMA Coordination - If the project occurs in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on
the last page of this application) the applicant should also contact the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) at [phone]. DCM will determine whether or not the project involves a
designated Area of Environmental Concern, in which case DCM will act as the lead permitting agency.
In such cases, DCM will require a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit and will coordinate
the 404/401 Permits.
USACE Permits - Submit one copy of this form, along with supporting narratives, maps, data forms,
photos, etc. to the applicable USACE Regulatory Field Office (addresses are listed at the end of this
application). Upon receipt of an application, the USACE will determine if the application is complete as
soon as possible, not to exceed 30 days. This PCN form is designed for the convenience of the applicant
to address information needs for all USACE Nationwide, Regional or General permits, as well as
information required for State authorizations, certifications, and coordination. Fully providing the
information requested on this form will result in a complete application for any of the USACE
Nationwide, Regional or General permits. To review the minimum amount of information that must be
provided for a complete PCN for each USACE Nationwide permit, see Condition 13, 65 Fed.Reg. 12893
(March 9, 2000), available at http•//www saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/nwpfinalFedReg.pd£
Processing times vary by permit and begin once the application has been determined to be complete.
Please contact the appropriate regulatory field office for specific answers to permit processing periods.
401 Water Quality Certification or Buffer Rules - All information is required unless otherwise stated
as optional. Incomplete applications will be returned. Submit seven collated copies of all USACE
Permit materials to the Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. If written approval is required or specifically requested for a 401
Certification, then a non-refundable application fee is required. In brief, if project impacts include less
than one acre of cumulative wetland/water impacts and less than 150 feet cumulative impacts to
streams, then a fee of $200 is required. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then a fee of $475 is
required. A check made out to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, with the specific name of
the project or applicant identified, should be stapled to the front of the application package. For more
information, see the DWQ website at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/fees.html. The fee must be
attached with the application unless the applicant is a federal agency in which case the check may be
issued from a separate office. In such cases, the project must be identifiable on the U.S. Treasury check
so that it can be credited to the appropriate project. If written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules,
the application fee does not apply, and the applicant should clearly state (in a cover letter) that only
Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to
issuance or waiver of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of a complete application
for a 401 Certification, the Division of Water Quality has 60 days to prepare a written response to the
applicant. This may include a 401 Certification, an on-hold letter pending receipt of additional
requested information, or denial.
Page 2 of 12
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ®1 15 7 9
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: ah f'
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 (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: X
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Cec;l $ £ N;hA bl; ?e
Mailing Address: 2 5 D W l.: : H Q ad 12 a o
/lamer Nc 27 02
Telephone Number: 14) 36 Z - S& 3 g Fax Number: (* q) 36 2 - /306
E-mail Address:
2. Agent 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: 5G o t4- M i c? P ll
Company Affiliation: pt el (4 ld `ya s il/orr;s . PA
Mailing Address: 4'-7 2 Tr; ?; f fl o o?/
Telephone Number: f g I q) g5q- ? q9 g Fax Number: (q/9) f S"/' 79 2..r
E-mail Address:
Page 3 of 12
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. Nameofproject: 'RDSe A)nod LCti T?G
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): I VIA
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): O7 ?r7 g l e q/0
4. Location
S ?
County: WO k e Nearest Town: #0//,,
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): /V ' 114
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): F?nnn .:';ftv c a...q r o?
S
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
A r i 1_ f 1 , _ _ t _ _- i. d _ _ W - /_ J_
7. Property size (acres): 2 2. 3-7 G 7V T al
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): L l'#IC ?Avrc A
9. River Basin:
(Note - this must b 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/.)
?y
o ve,i.
Page 4 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: T?o dol e d 1. O V 16 w i l 1 ara vide
.t _ 9 / 1 .. .- - .L
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: 7vu c% Lioc GXC/?v? for,
;v/ lda -Ze r,, SL ae,.a1s 6, at 14/le? e -f c.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: (ilhc%'f?a ?6ec/ L,Gr?wo o.? ?rrr`
r sc ti So S: f r L? v
ahd Ye5l%141 a,le Otvorl NC SS'. New CsS' 8 yorf bOrd??S s:/c
IV. Prior Project History at- ter f J,2
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.
f'",[ WAj o+oP%*,SAV11ei(
Future Project Plans

;&vaJ e4l.
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
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.
Page 5 of 12
1. Wetland Impacts
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***
Alone vo e

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not imutea to: mecnantzea Weanng, graumng,1111,
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 M ap Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online athtti3://www.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.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0. 2 5 G
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
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?
leasespecify)
CO vt-v ass474 5 3 7 3 4(1f ,.?.,

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts inclde, 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, ditching/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.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tonozone.com,
www.maoguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 5:36 101
Page 6 of 12
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean etc.
P? v C

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: rill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sdctions. 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.): Alp D n y,/iS /.1 ?t- Ov?Td 4" A.-; s, fr b?
the GUilee d 42&Jy4?'.
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.
-1-Ae hGa? D? rc ,?e??, t y`o? Q y3hG? ov UW G( P??k,,'t ?S6r
-A4,f cvm srlh g 4h c/'IG?,C
.00'0 ?S . J Page 7 of 12
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.
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/stnngide.html.
1. 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.
7? z-za e .jag .H1r,-,O*,h1e-
S errors a c a//u? a6/c , ltt.da?"fs fv
Al C I.J 2- tP
Page 8 of 12
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wU/index.hhn if
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): -38
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 02
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ? 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 ?
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 (DWQ Only)
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
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes El No If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 9 of 12
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.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near oanx or cnannei; tone I emenus au
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Ifbuffer 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 213 .0242 or.0260.
/V 1/ 14
X1. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
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 ftom the property.
^L
!)w?.. ??..? Aji ?. / /? /?/u/C ?i// /iws/l/_?I/ Di f /i !n/?/? `y.S Tir!/.? 417C/, I;A..
ct?,d s?di w4//cs . L?Hty p/aHr /S+ su6d%v:?? /o??e?? A?+d vicek 4,-
XH. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only) deed/.?e?»eH f by r?'Nfuz owHrrs.
MU. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Is this an after-the- fact permit application?
Yes X No ?
Page 10 of 12
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.
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).

+oevp",'45 &jeva vcj*ivcd, Ho Gwo.?k Aaf bee. Ptv ivt?,cq' .H e
v,'cr..fy ,{ 4- 1+e .--/01GGffa( ', le- - , f ffe.,. f rj,v,q

Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Sunry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps Of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps Of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Telephone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
Beaufort Currituck Jones
Bertie Dare Lenoir
Camden Gates Martin
Carteret* Green Pamlico
Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Craven Hyde Perquimans
Anson Duplin Onslow
Bladen Harnett Pender
Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Columbus Moore Sampson
Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
T
Page 11 of 12
US Fish and Wildlife Service / National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699.1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 12 of 12
SPAULDING &
Civil Engineering & Planning
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
ALL BLANKS TO BE FILLED IN BY CURRENT LANDOWNER
Name: CC c; I 'S, i ail ; r, a O /; ve
Address: WLs?kb',44 0,4 1.1 2-kin
Aacx, NC ?-7 O2
Phone: 014) 3? 2-.5&98
Project Name/Description: Rosewood i e,, ire -
Date: OD l
The Department of the Army
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attn: !/ . 570? /L, o dti a S
Field Office: Rd/e,44
2cG, ?./Ci ??y
I/ I/
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting & Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current property owner, hereby designate and authorize Spaulding & Norris, P.A.,
to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon
request supplemental information in support of applications, etc., from this day forward.
This the 2 y ?- day of _ 06,4 ? e-,- 2 00 /
This notification supercedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this
project.
ec d 6uNh 0/."t/6
PRINT Owner's Name

PROPERTY Owner's Signature
Cc: Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone: [phone] * Fax: [phone] + 972 Trinity Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL < - '
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME (. GG;l DATE _` -Z LY _ 2 D a 1
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)Li-44h
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN ?- rte, -IV ?yA?, L COUNTY CITY r ?) l,,241e-
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS r'A !r I d Ay 1 d a, i ,.-e ?-5 P SP NP Observation Comments or Description

Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
X Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) Zeea At /,,a det
?/
?? Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
V

1? Riffle/Pool Structure
S??- t? ?e t
Stable Streambanks VG v ?•' 6 ?Gf y e? /i t/e
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand) / 11
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =h 50% closure)
X Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
X Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
l? Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
O l ?. J•h frlh I ?S? /
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /®
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? @/ N Approx. Drainage Area: `y 11a-eyeS
ll/llllll/lllllllllll////l/////ll//ll////llllllllllllllll/ll1/llll/////llllllllllllll/l/l/lllllll/llllll///llllllllll//lllll/ll1/llllllllllll//lllll/l/l//////l/l/l/ll/ll//l/ll//l////lll///////ll///lll///lllllllll///lllllll
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of importantlunimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98
-s
I I
o. ,
5 m. I \ I _ 00C,
A Ka
JL
, 1
fl a c U , \ I m s
Ul R-i 40 41. 12 /*
- e `
it IQ
64 I
J
I
9"",
L..
? I I S.? ?? ? I I I
1 4s:
•` I I I I .
?' I I I
I mbf - D? 4??
-'-
-- --- -
--- ---------
F0mg51H ?N ----
-
?5 ----- -- --- _ -------
--------------------------
----------------- -----
----------------- ?--- -

ROSEWOOD CENTRE "°'°'- °"" `MS° BPAULDING 6 mwnzoN WE

n C•tr. mod Oct W. 0001 S •PS?. . .,^Cl••.,
1
E?,
'?` Itsl7
.lnrY Pl.ne-
,.t ".,'" c'"""

71
2010
?

I HOLLY NORTH CAROLINA
SPRINGS
.
R,f?t.: sisao,.? ?
NORRIS PA
! q
:4 sEk F`: t
awwY Pw:."?°i.
8/16/01
I ca
CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
=t,° 1'd: at•a«?o
onion Conwltants
ta3?s ,

g

D
i
d E
i
C
t
l
Retest um ???r //????pp
ll?Ui?tA 3prol7M X7007
,s ........r
ra
nage an
ros
on
on
ro M ,u ° P1?arr ae#-?M RW apse eerjj-7a
Way ?? LJ Sch 1306 y
0
'0
Park .?? k ?? cso 1 06 u
11
JA 0,
I F1:]
1 r 1 -?.Ib n In
_ ,?.?- -- - - ?: ?1 f? I ,III i lil ?A ? ,.?Ir,ll 1
?$7? _ Tr?il r y y
W' IIQI ? a ?,
•r, a ?• n p.
?, - Q A\ my 1 - - .1158
? .n flu U
ra"
Park o s? ( ?? 1 'n ?? •
a,te
'(ate of ?. I fir'. k " Reds I,
Al / T er?t Lookout
i?
;u? ?
J ,
4
Cem
a Q
\ aze
-T _48.3
'Y 'D
F-?
o. I ? o
7]56
W`/
? - _. ?'/'?) - ?/-' ? zoo A?-7 -" 1 ? ? •? ?p
//-?
?t -
?
-- 1 6 41ew
11 - -35
I 11
13x2 -
0
u
? I C
?? ?? ? ' ? ?! Imo.' _ -n- _- ? ? / I il?`, ? ?? ?I I ?? ?? ? \,I ? ???? _ ? / • ?,
C
0
? ?? ? ? f ? ? ? r-' I ? - ?? I a •r== ,iii ?-? ? ? '1 ? 1??? ?1 ?? I ? ? 1 h
- I
VII
Feltonville•1
_ - ??7= J --• ; 130 f ,
? \ - a yi,?
L l La`329
- soo _ i Park
1 1 I ?
R??
_ J
?o/? J/ ??? . I I ( ? - \?4 III I? ? `I I . Ir ?o
00
j
eR266
??s ? _ - ? 1 ? ???? ?'?\o ? ??? ??,? ?? L? ?? ? 1i1 ?g?? ? ?? ?? ? 0•,1 ?? \ ? ? ? ?/?? ? II A\? ?, X00, ??
M?
gv'
1
_ .? 1 :? ??- ?? t 1? ??/ /• o-0 - ??'? - /? ?? '/3 ?23
I 1 i
V_';:.
--
_, (( ??- -?_? ? -_ ,? __ - - r ??•,? _? ,°_0 363
??? ?? ? iii%/?f. (? ?/ ? \•J ?'? ?? e ?" ?? _ ? -?.? 'c_ ? ??_? _ -- 1-
_
??'' ?? ?1 V• ? ?? _= _ ????? - "?,, ? ?r?l? 1??,? 'I? /.? yam' 'i??'•-• 1?? 1 ? f ?-. ;l %00?? ?? ? ??I? ?i
OllpriMgs?
700_ ank _ -+"? 1 •"y. 1 '?-?a77
-??? -
1 V _ /
275
s - ? _ ??- ;.? ---?"/ ? ? _ AA.1 ??I_.? ? i ? '? ??? '•B'M 471 ?- 5 I ? ? %?? . ? ? ? ._
I'D
\ J - ?o_ ?III`iyl ( //??? ?.\ i; \;? lll,\• - _-\? ?? ,11 _ I. __I {led Cv?r--\? ?,\ ! BASS
L a k e
- ? ??) I r I. ? ? ? V ? ' - Q So I ?-III 195 3
,? _ !I II1 325 1 _.
?A 4,40*
X01 1114
Sh (L'
1 k.1 ??, L S S
Air n,r
N m ? w m (Joins sheet 83)
N N n N
WAKE (YII IAITY Ninoru rnOnl 1- un
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAFZOLINA NU. t3-3
(Joins sheet 32 ,.. _ _ . -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment .
and Natural Resources ???
Raleigh Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. 13111 Ross Secretar NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
, 7 ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Water Quality
March 15, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Cecil B. Olive
2504 Whistling Quail Run
Apex, NC 27502
Subject: Notice of Violation
Notice of Enforcement Recommendation
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
DWQ # 011579
Holly Springs, Hwy 55
Wake County
Dear Mr. Olive:
On January 25, 2002 Ms. Debbie Edwards from the Raleigh Regional Office and Mr. Danny
Smith from the Central Office of Division of Water Quality (DWQ), inspected your tract of land,
known as the Rosewood Centre in Wake County. Also, Mr. Smith conducted a follow up site visit
on January 28, 2002. During these site visits, the investigators took photographs, measurements, and
made observations of the respective stream impacts to an unnamed tributary to Little Branch, a Class
C Waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Specifically, a review of the plans coupled with onsite comparisons indicate that
approximately 620 feet of stream impact have occurred in response to the placement of
approximately 500 feet of culvert. Further, an additional impact to the stream was observed. This
was located up-slope from the culvert inlet, where the stream was cleared, graded, and grubbed for
approximately 120 feet of additional stream impact.
On the January 25, 2002, DWQ staff noted that no sediment controls were in place to inhibit
off site sediment. On January 28, 2002 a basin had been constructed in the stream channel at the
down stream edge of the tract. On this day, it was noted that approximately two (2) feet of sediment
had accumulated in the stream floor immediately downstream from the. Also, approximately 300
to 400 feet down stream from the property boundary the stream channel floor was blanketed with
approximately 0.25 to 1 inch of fine sediment, whereas the upstream segment did not have these
deposits.
A DWQ file review confirms that "Mr. Olive" applied for an "After-the-Fact" 401 Water
Quality Certification for impacts to 536 linear feet of stream impacts. That is, the impacts to the
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Cecil Olive
March 15, 2002
stream had occurred prior to the submission of a Pre-Construction Notification and securing of a 401
Water Quality Certification from DWQ. Further, it is noted that the 60 day review period expired
prior to DWQ's project review, such that this project is automatically covered by the respective
General Certification for Nation Wide 14 (GC # 3289). General Certification # 3289 includes the
following requirements:
Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands or waters (including streams) under this
General Certification requires application to and prior written concurrence from the Division
of Water Quality;
For any project involving a stream re-alignment, a stream relocation plan must be included
with the 401 application for written DWQ approval. Relocated stream designs should include
the same dimensions, patterns and profiles as the existing channel, to the maximum extent
practical. The new channel should be constructed in the dry and water shall not be turned into
the new channel until the banks are stabilized. Vegetation used for bank stabilization shall
be limited to native woody species, and should include establishment of a 30 foot wide
wooded and an adjacent 20 foot wide vegetated buffer on both sides of the located channel
to the maximum extent practical. A transitional phase incorporating coir fiber and seedling
establishment is allowable. Also, rip-rap may be allowed if it is necessary to maintain the
physical integrity of the stream, but the applicant must provide written justification and any
calculations used to determine the extent of rip-rap coverage requested. If suitable stream
mitigation is not practical on-site, then stream impact will need to be mitigated elsewhere;
As a result of the site inspections and file review the following violations are noted: 1)
failure to properly secure a 401 Water Quality Certification , 2) violations of condition numbers 1
and 4, and 3) removal of best usage.
Violation 1: 401 Water Quality Certification
A DWQ site visit and file review confirmed that approximately 620 linear feet of stream
impacts occurred prior the proper securing of a road crossing Permit (Nationwide 14) from the
US Army Corps of Engineers. Also, the 401 application submitted by Spaulding and Norris,
PA sought approval for only 536 feet of impacts.
Violation 2: General Water Quality Certification Condition violations; Numbers 1 and 4
. The failure to properly stipulate the extent and scope of the stream impacts in the application
and the removal of stream side vegetation, widening of the channel, excavation of the stream channel
floor, and the replacement of the stable stream banks with vertical sloughing banks that are unstable
and devoid of vegetation constitute violations of the General Certification.
Violation 3: Preclusion of Best Usage
A DWQ site visit and file review confirmed that approximately 720 [as a reader unfamiliar
with the facts of this case, I can't figure out whether it's 620 or 720 feet of impacts] linear feet
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Cecil Olive
March 15, 2002
of stream impacts occurred to an unnamed tributary to Little Branch.
Subsequently, an approximate 536 feet of impacts were authorized through General
Certification # 3289. However, approximately 184 linear feet of additional impacts to the unnamed
tributary to Little Branch has occurred. The site visits and file review confirmed that;
1) the installation of the culvert resulted in impacts that were not accounted for within the
application, and 2) mechanical deepening, excavation, and widening of the stream had occurred
beyond that indicated in the Pre-construction application:
Specifically, the impacts resulted in the removal of stream side vegetation and the
replacement of the stable stream banks with vertical sloughing banks that are unstable and devoid
of vegetation. Further, the impacts included the complete excavation and the marked widening of
the stream floor, the respective stream bed substrate, and the channel footprint. These severe
impacts have resulted in a stream standard violation. Specifically, 15A NCAC 2B .0211 (2)
states that the preclusion of best usage, which include aquatic life propagation, biological integrity,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture represent a water quality standard violation. [This
paragraph really should be put under vilation number 2 because that is what all of the detail
relates to. Then you need a third paragraph stating the rule for removal of best use, and what
best use was removed]
This Office requires that violations, as detailed above, be abated immediately. Also please
note, these violations and any future violations are subject to civil penalty assessment of up to
$25,000.00 per day for each violation. This Office requests that you respond to this letter, in writing,
within 20 days of receipt of this Notice. Your response should address the following items:
1. your efforts to remove sediment/discharged product from the stream floor. It is
recommended that you contact this office for clean-up effort guidance.
2. a complete stream restoration proposal.
3. An explanation of why you did not secure a 401 Water Quality Certification for the stream
impacts and why the impacts that occurred subsequent to your application did not match
what was on the ground.
This office is considering recommending to the Director that your 401 Certification be
revoked. However, if you choose to re-apply and properly secure a Certification, that
accurately depicts the impacts that are occurring on site, this office will reconsider this
approach. Further, this application should include details of why the stream crossing can not
be perpendicular, the restoration of the respective channel impacts that are avoided.[what does
this mean?], and development of a stormwater management plan for the whole site that
achieves 85% TSS reduction. [Do you really want the last paragraph or do you want this one?]
5. You should also explain how you propose to prevent this problem from reoccurring in future
projects and how you plan to abate above mentioned impacts.
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Cecil Olive
March 15, 2002
6. Also, please clearly state when or whether the Central Office will receive you your Pre-
construction Notification (the 401 Water Quality Certification application) along with the
appropriate fee.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. This Office is considering sending a
recommendation for enforcement to the Director of the Division of Water Quality regarding these
issues and any future/continued violations that may be encountered. Also, your above-mentioned
response to this correspondence will be considered in this process. Finally, stormwater and
sediment concerns by this office persist and additional correspondence may be forthcoming. Should
you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact Deborah Edwards or myself at (919)
571-4700 or Danny Smith at [phone].
Sincerely,
Kenneth Schuster
WQ Regional Supervisor
cc: RRO - Water Quality
RRO- Division of Land Resources
Danny Smith, Central 401/Wetlands Unit
Central Files
h:\waterquality\capefear\dpfrnov\rosewood.003
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Cecil Olive
March 15, 2002
1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
PLAN VIEW- SOUTH PLUNGE POOL Z Of 2
ROSEWOOD CENTRE PLUNGE POOLS
~P - ReP
TBM Nail Sel Sgt Femme Elev. = 351.84
y y
~ ~ ~ 22 Hardwood 48" RCP
Trees
EbsBng Sanitary ~ ~ ~ ~ y 48" FES Inv. =340.39 Sewer Manhole
Rim Elev. =341.77
~ Silt Fence
\
/ ~P-~P r
/ ~ ~
~ ~ 6 Hardwood
Trees ~ ~
Rlp -Rap Silt Ferroe
N ~~UN,iiNirNgr QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THIS DRAWING SHOULD BE
y~~4 DIRECTED TO THE CONTRAC70R, BUNN OLIVE AT 422-8401 'tN CARD
~`.••''•ss'"'••.~~ AS-BUILT DRAWING PREPARED 0 , oFe ro . 2 ,
~ : e ~•~q~~•, FOR BONN OLIVE & NCDWQ - •Q3
c SEAL =
- z~56a PLUNGE POOLS ON ROSEWOOD CENTRE ROPERTY HOLLY SPRINGS, NORTH CAROLINA
.,F 0 •NGINE, ~
eF G~ TYNDNl ENGINEERING 6 DESIGN, PA Rr M• ,aoPROFESS~NPIWURT,SNTE,05
.
27 Mar 03 1919) fl3-1209 Robert Gron, P.E.
swe: 1"=15' A.v~er• JDG o~cn: JDG

s~crr »a
PLAN VIEW -NORTH PLUNGE POOL 1 of 2
ROSEWOOD CENTRE PLUNGE POOLS
Silt Fence
48" RCP 48" FES
Inv. =347.50 0
~ ~ ~ ~
\ 31 Hardwood
\ ~ Trees ~ Exislin Sanila `I' 9 ry
TBM Nail Set ~ ~ W Sewer Manhde
Elev. = 359.65 ~ Rim Elev. - 353.87
~ ~1
W W
`I' \ W W
W / ~ Weir Inv. Concrete Weir Elev. =348.87
`I/ `I, W W
27 Fardwood Trees
\I, I ~ ~
W ~ W
`I, `I, `I/ `I,
W W W W ~
SNt Fence W
Top of Weir Elev. = 350.44
Z
QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THIS DRAWING SHOULD BE
~„punun4r„ DIRECTED TO THE CONTRACTOR, BUNN OLIVE AT 422-8401
~ CAR ry'~ii Q~~•...••..., 0 AS-BUILT DRAWING PREPARED
0 4essr ' ~ ;•QO ~ 9.• 2 ; FOR BUNN OLIVE & NCDWQ
3
SEAL = PLUNGE POOLS ON ROSEWOOD CENTRE ROPERTY 255ea = LLY SPRINGS NORTH CAROLINA ~ • - HO ,
~ TYNDAIL ENGINEERING & DESIGN, PA e~'• 100PROFESSIONPL000RT,SUREtOS
~ i r ~ ~ pBE: GARNER NORTH CAROLNA2l52B
27 Mar 03 ~9)n3t2ao Robert Gran, P.E.
sau: 1"=15' R+v~er• JDG oESac JDG

_ _ O r ~ I 1 ~ I
~ I ~ I I I ~
/ I i I I I 1 -
I I I URr~L NA , BED , IURI~L U ISTUR
NOT TO SCALE ' I r I NN~L ~ CH ~ NN~L SE ENT 'A~
FES ;~4 ~ I = 40. ~o I 1 I~JEATI ~ EYED) ' .
E] . 3 CD L MODIFY CORNER AS NECESSARY I ~ I~JEATED SURV L & - 7 I ` ~ y i , ~ H
I r I ~ TO PREVENT INTRUSION ONTO I ~ . - i
N ti ADJACENT PROPERTY. MAINTAI ~ I I I I ~ , - I '
'`~~`~:g~"~'.; IGN AS CLOSELY AS IS ~ ' I DES - ~ I RAL I ATED EXI TING I~AT AL . ~J ~~I ~ PRACTIC ' ~ ~ 4 T I RAL '
Q ~ Q~ 1• N~~TI z ~ CHANNEL LUCATIU ~ i~ T, ,
~~Q ' t ' , Q I D SUR 1/`EY D) YID) ~ 65 . -z--ter----L-
• s DELINEATE 4 ' 12 1 1 I 1658. r 4 57 E .T---• I N88 0 ~ ,
2.1 ~ ~ , I
I j ~ ~ WEIR SHAPED TG , CUNCRET ,
ELEV 35~ I r j i~ l ~ & ,EXISTING CHANNEL ,
s- , ' ~ ' MATCH
~ / ' ~ / h ' I ~ RU~'~' SECTIUI~ FL L AIN C ,
' ~ RUPUSED CHA NEL ~ ti ,I r < < I , ~ ' N J ~ IDE CE EKED ~ , - I C25 W ,
~ ' TUP OF BANK, - 10 . Q , - - = X TING CHANNEL) , j _ _ ~ ,
m ~ ,
o m BADE 'FL UUDPRUNE AREA, G : RIP RA ,
Q ~ / 1 / tABILIZE I / 0 0 ~ VEGETATE AND ~ , r j ~ , DET L TH ~ r ~ SSE ~
a ~ PER DETAIL / / /
' r r E ~~V 31,00 a
~ ,
/ ~ / /
~ CEN ~ ~ co Q - _ PR PUSED ~'HANNEL ^ In
, i , I TIUN A RES TUBE ~ REDS CHANNEL ~ SEC o
, , , a , ~ - UPPER 6 ~ SUIL SF~AL _ _ R~STa ~ PE - 0,0042 f t ~ f t ~ o CENTERLINE SLU c c
TAB I BE TUPS IL SUI _ ,CHANN L o~ - ' DE AIL THIS SH o S,~ SEE ~ ~ o
r ~ / NOT TO SCALE , ~ FUR P ~NTING, , r 13 RAD US BEND
~ I ~ ~ 1 j - r r i ~ ~ ~ 7 CO
1 / ~ ~ 1 / / , I ~ ~ V ~ 350.50 ~ ~ i o ~ O ~ EL E / ~ ~ r c ~
/ - ~ I ELE1C 350,50 , j ~ ~ r ~ c o
5' 6.5' / , I ~ r ~ .e.,t o~ 1 r ~ ~ I FES #'1 ~ rn
TOP OF BANK ' ' ' - ,ob ~ ~ r ~N INV Et, 348 0>, DESI o
FINISHED GRADE EST E1. = 340.30' ! ~ I , / / / , I ~ r , ~f 11 2 R r ~ r r I r ~ O N irn
= / / / / , / I I ~ 1 r r , O^ O
r: I I ~ r rr p 01 , +,I ~ ri r , I ~ t~
- RIP-RAP ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ r r I I ~ O~
I ~ 12' 0.5'2 FLOW _ , ~ , I ~ ~ f 1 ~ I ~ I rl I 1 ~
/ / , , , I I I I FES ;l4 ~ , l , , I ' I J I ' I TO SCALE n' , , r I I , NOT O o~
INV El. 1 1 , , ~ / / ~ ' ,
= 340.10 !r - - - - / l ~ / / EST E]. 337.30 , , ~ , , ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ CONCRETE WEIR SHAPED TO MATCH o
~ , I ~ r I ' I EXISTING CHANNEL 6 FLODDPLAIN ~ I I I 4 ~ I ~ , I CROSS-SECTION. (25' WIDE,
~ ~ , ~ , , I , CLASS "B " / ~ ~ RIP-RAP ~ / , , / ~ I ~ ~ i r ~ ~ ~ CENTERED ON EXISTING CHANNEL).
~ / / I ! r 18" THICK ~ i / / I / I ! I I EXISTING NATUAA{~ CHANNEL
, / / ~ I i, ~ , / / / , / I ~ / ~ r , I i ~ ~ J r I I
NEL ` , i ~ / I ~ l ~ J 1 S
FL I TER FABRIC RESTORED CHAN . _ _ , / I ~ , , BOTTOM-EST E] . = 337.80 ' - - / ~ I i ! ~ ' 11 1 = 348.00 ~ r 1 1 ELEV.
% ~ I ~ 1
~ ~ / ' I ~ ~ , ~ 1 ' r ~ ~ LINE WITH 18" OF CLASS "B"
' r AIP-RAP COMPLETELY UNDER-
~ 1 ? ~ B-2 ;-2 ,r r `AIN BY FILTER FABRIC 12' r ~
? , ~ /,i ~ , , , I ? / I r , 2. i m
i i / l I i , ~ TYP
~ r' ' ~ / ' I ' ' ' r' I ` ` a
1 / / I,' j ' I ~ 12' o ~ I ~ ~ c r I ~ ~ a o
, Q ~ , (1 / r ~ ~ , r 6 Q I
~ , / I ~ i r I , y ~ O ti m dm 11 K V N O ti 001 .ti ti
~ , ~ ~ , , , r ~ / r , A~ 1 1 V Q r Q - ~ ~ M V1 `O , ~ 1 ELEV. 348.50 ~
~ ,i / r K / 1 I 1 1 O ~ „ ~ u a>
11 ' / 1 I' 1 ~ ~ , , ~ ~ i ~ I 1 I ` 1 PROPOSED CHANNEL w~•• ~ ~ g I I v li + w„ v~ u~a
l` ~ / , I r I t u u~ vs ua3i , I m m m yr mm mo
1 ~ , / 1 ' ~ I m ~ ~u c°.°c ~a~i ~
tit , ' , ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ a O a rn a< am 1 ~
~ ! I ~ 1 ` 1 `
1~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 O
, 1 ~ ~ ~ EXISTING NATURAL ~ ~
~ ~ , , 1 ` ~ , ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ , , , ~ 1 ~ \ i TERLINE ~ ~ X STING CHANNEL CHANNEL CEN ~ MATCH E I ELEVATION
-R.~NE-'I~REA ` ` FLODDPLAIN CROSS- ~ ~ ~ , AND
E FL daDP ~ ~ ~ RAD ~ JB~3 . ~ ~ SECTION 6 ELEVATION. ~ ~
TABILIZE ~ V GETATE ANDS , , , ~i ' , / ` `1 ~ , ~ ' Q
PEJ2 DETAIL, ~ ~ Q ~ , - . . ~ . Z
, / ~ 4 :r .
I PRUPUSED CHAN L RIGHT OF MAY ? SPUR R(~'AD ~ r 2' ~
I CENTERLINE ~ TED TU MINIM ZE BELUGA rM ZE Z ~ BUILD WEIR FOOTER Q
' I ~ - THE IMPACTS ND ? S A 12' VD ~ - C SUFFICIENT TO PER
A~INEL ? ' F~RUPUSED CH PRUFI'USED ACCU~IUDA TE SED ELEV. = 348.00 MANENTLY SUPPORT ~ Q
PUFBANlf11 WID, _ fiU S TUBA rIUN _ STREAM RE CONCRETE WEIR. _ . ~N. ~ ~
~ / 0
, , ELEV - 340,30 I EXISTING SMH = , / ~
- / L Z
r ~ ` I I I ~ , FES #4 Z
B7RESTURE,D C99) _ _ _ 340,70 ANNEL SE TIUN , - _ _ DESIGN E , w T
,0042 ft \ f t EL CENT ERL I NE - , r CHAN , _ r
, , 131 ! r r Z
' / RADI U BENDS, I ~ _ =:_-fi ~ ? ~ S W / , 10 ?S 3 / _ S85 , I NOT TO SCALE r MIXTURE OF AT LEAST ~
AIL THIS SHEET) I ~ ~ , CSEE DE ~ , I . ,.~-1 • , , _ , , I E ~T, ELEV 337,80 ~ 2 HARDWOOD SPECIES ~
, ~.1..- r ~ , i I ~ I AT A MINIMUM DENSITY ~
. ~ I I ~ 340,30 ~ I .....1- ELEV , S ACRE. Z I OF 320 TREE / I ~
' ~ a OF SU'IIL SHpL L 1 ~ , UPP R 6 I r I I 50' WHERE POSSIBLE TIE TO
' ` r ' I L SUI ~ABL~` ! _ ,00 r BE TUPSUI ELEV 34~p , I TIE TO G J EXISTIN ~ EXISTING , . . • e« , ?~'e« • • GRADE
r ' I i I I ~ r , r FUR PLANTING, I I , GRADE :e t• . »e »e s. ~ ~
/ / I I rr I I a s r , ? . • 1 a4 s. ~ s. r T ? I~ • • n•~ + .j ••r I L • • wt
I I I ELEVATIUN , TIE TU EXI TING I UN- ~ , ~ I ,
r ~ I ~ CES T, 337.50 , 1 , S T URGED HANNEL I ~ ~ , , DI I b ? • ? T 1 ~i YM~•. •?•t 7•.+~.. of YM,Sjy. at '~,}i Y• •~,,K ~:•~y b..x ~:?Y:/ ~
J I ~ NUT SURVEYED) ~ l ' A T NA TURAL I BUT UM ~ ~ ~ , ~L • • - 0.00 ftlft
r I a s ? ~ I , 0.00 ft l ft "A -10
' TIUN rCELEWATI X) ~ I r ELEVA a a I I 'SEGMENT ! B / ~ I I ~ NDISTUR D CHANNEL, c? ~1a
I A TURAL U ~ N I ~ I ~ I I I ~ I •
! ~ TED AND SURVEYED) . CDEL INEA I II
I ~ i 2.5' EAST ~NT~ WEST OPRONE AREA WIDTH OF FLOODPRONE AREA WIDTH OF FL00 i $~T
~ , I I ~ ~ ~ ! , I I ~ ~
"A"=5' LINE CHANNEL SIDES & FLOODPRONE AREA "o".a ~ r,l unQru eMt=AT~dN I;AFFN fC~25BN)
I` ' ' I I I \ ~ ~ - / ~ I ~ I ~
~ !J ~ j i I f I Li _u OR EOUIVALANT~EROSION CONTROL V V.V
/ / I I 1 I ~ BLANKET. STAPLE PER MANUFACTURERS
RECOMMENDATIONS. CHANNEL BOTTOM pAO"T MOVER
TO REMAIN BARE.
I I ' I
~ ! 1 ~ I ! r ~ 1 301-01
~ ! I ~ ~ 1 i
I I /I ! I !

W ti
i _ r O
i r - / r
/ ~
J NOT TO SCALE ~ I NI ? NA ?UR,~L U IS TUBBED
FES #4 i ~ ? . ,
- , I C1 EI. 340.70 CH NN~L SE ENT A , ~ r
I ~ MODIFY CORNER AS NECESSARY / C1 ? SURVEYED) ~ I~JEATED CD L & _
~~~~~~~~:~~x. ~ ~ T PREVENT INTRUSION ONTO ' r O ~ N ADJACENT PROPERTY. MAINTAIN ~ r . ~ 1
DESIGN AS CLOSELY AS IS
~ PAACTICAL. J Q I E~TIf~ATED EXI ING ~ ' r ~ ING AT ? RAL ~ -
S v W 2' 12 ' r S C T - ,
~ Q 1 CHANNEL LGCATIGN l~'L Q •s r 4 • 1~ . ~ DELINEATED SUR U,E TIGN 11~
~ 2• ? r ~ 688.65 ~ ? 457E
~ 1 r , , i r r
~ J ' ~ ? l ,i ~
s' ELEV = 354.00 CUNCRET WEIR SHAPED T = 354.00 ' ' ~ ~ ~
~ J ~ ti ~ I , ~ / ? r ~ MA TCH ,EXISTING C1~4NNEL ,
~ ~ i r r ~ ~ CRUD'S SECTIl1 r FLUU LAIN ,
~ ti ~ RUPUSED CHA NEL- J ' ~ ~ HA NEL ! r , ~ , , ~ - r r ~ r C25 ~ WIDE CE EKED UN . ~
Q T1JP GF BANK, - 10 2 / J ' r ? ~ EX' TING CI~ANNEL)
~ ~ Q r ' ~ i 0 0 , ; ~ r ~ r l - - i , , ~ ,
a ~ GRADE'FLGGDPRUNE AREA, ~ 0 0 AREA = = ,
~ l AND ~ABILIZ VEGE 1'A TE $ ~ Q , ' ~ r RIP-RAP P~ UNGE P~OL , , ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ PER DETAIL - . SEE DET 7L THIS SHE T
~ ~ ~ , , ,
~ , - / / / , - ~ E ~
, ~ ~
i , ,
i , , ~ % I i ( - - PR PUSED CHANNEL C~'NTERLIN ~ ~o Q
~ - UPPER 6' ~ SGIL Sf~AL r r:=~:=~:z.:~ ~ ~ NNEL SECTIUN A RESTURED, C121) r l - STURED CHA - R
- SUI TAB r BE TGPS I ~ ~ TERLIIVE SLUPE - 0,0042 f t a f t ~o / ,CHANNEL CEN
i NOT TO SCALE ~ ~ ~ ~ r FC1R P~,~NTING. I N S.~ SEE DE AIL THIS SH ET, a _ _ r 13 RAD ~1S BED ~
I ~ , ,
r i , ~ , rr r , ~ ~ ~ ELEV ~ 350,50 ~ r ~ l , i r , r ~ Ri
ELE1C 350,50 , ~ r ~ r ~ i C V ~ r/ r r r r r
TUP OF BANK ' I ~ r r ~ ~ r ' ~ ~ N C O ? l r r FES #'1 ~ ~ U ~t o~
_ r / ~ - I FINISHED GRADE EST E1. - 340.30' r , ~ I ~ r i i = ~ L.'~ ~ r ,Ob i G t~
i•.,j ~ , , , , ? l ~ DESI N INV E(. 348 ~ ' ' r r r i DI O I
J / ~ ~ ; ~ l ~ ~ r r r r ~ 2 R ? ~ ' r rr r ~ ~ N ~
, l ~ r ~ r 1~ O r +ri ' ~ r ~ ~
RIP RAP , ~ j F OW / ~ , /I ~ / ' r r r ~ ~ ~ • •1 r r ~ r , , ? i ~ t01
~ 12 0.52 L , ~ , ~ J/ r FES i<4 , / , ~ ~ J r / r / ~ r r ol..,
INV El. i ~ ~ J , ' ~ 1 i l , , ~ r i ~ ? r ? t~1 l r i ? r ~ ? m `r r r r , ~ ~
340.70 i~ _ _ _ _ ~ 1 / ~ ? r r r ? i NOt TO SCALE
EST El. = 337.30' i' i ~ ~ ~ ~^r ' ~ ~ / ~ / l ' r r r r ? TCH ~ C
CLASS "B" , , / / ~ ~ / , ~ ~ ~ r r ? ~ CONCRETE HEIR SHAPED TO MA o / , , r ? r i EXISTING CHANNEL 6 FLOODPLAIN t
RIP-RAP ` , , , ~ , , , , i8 THICK ~ ~ ~ l , ~ ~ i M f r ' r r ? ~ - TIDN. 25' WIDE, a ~ r ? ~ CROSS SEC / r r , r
r i i T NG NATURAL. CHANNEL CENTERED ON EXISTING CHANNEU . r r r EXIS I ~ ,
~ , / ~ ~ ~ / r r r i i
FETTER FABRIC ~ / ~ ~ / ~ i ! RESTORED CHANNEL , , , , , r l ~ r r i ? r ,
BOTTOM-EST El. = 37.80' - ~ / / / ~ 1 i / ~ ~ / / / ~ ~ i r ~ r i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ i / r ~ . ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ r r ~ ~ ELEV. = 348.00
1 / ~ i / / I i / r , ~ ~ , ~ r . ~
r ~ r ~ LINE WITH 18" OF CLASS "B"
~ , , / I ~ , , ~ r RIP-RAP COMPLETELY UNDER- B-2 r ~ TER FABRIC r , l;AIN BY FIL !2
~ , , / i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , / I , / i !r '
? >
1 / ~ / 1 , / , , / , 1 ~ ~ , / I / / , , ~ TYP TYP c
- / / Q / i i ~ 12' Z a
, , i , G , \ , , / ~ V ~ n QI
1 ~ , ~ , / ~ r / 1 ~ ~ , 1 1 / ~ r ~ m N L Y ..tl
1 ~ , i , ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ / ' , i / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °o owe , ~ 1 N ~ ~ c ~
! 1 , / , rr ~ l , ' ? ~ ~ ° ELEV. = 348.50 ~ ~
~ ~ ' r ~ ~ O ~ Z Fi c.+ ~n m r ~ PROPOSED CHANNEL ,a m~ m 8 0
E ~ ~ 1 , , , ~ 1
~ , , ,
~ r m° ~ o 00 0~! •oc 1 ~ O ~ ~ °a~'
~ , r I 1 ~
~ \ ~ , 1 ~ , , r , I ~ L ~
1 ~ , , ~ ~ 1 j ~ ,
~ ~ ~ , , i , ,i 1 1 ~ ~ , , ~ ~ f , ~ ~ EXISTING NATURA ~ ,
~ , RADE FLl~~F~lE-'AREA ~ ~ , CHANNEL CENTERL NEB !j ~ ~ ~ MATCH EXISTING CHANNEL ; ~ : N._.__..,__-~.
JB~3 ` V GETATE AND STABILIZE - ~ , , , / ~ ~ AND FLOODPLAIN CROSS- ELEVATION ~ C ~ ~ ; SECTION 6 ELEVATION.
P~J2 DETAIL, ~ ti.~~ ,lAH 2 42003
~ ~ ~ ~ Q ' ~ - ~-4'4 - /y~
i ~ P~i+• ur,~iiYStCT99GNN
PR~P~SED CHAN L ' ~ 1
SPUR RG3AD RIGHT C R , CENTERLINE RIGHT UF.~?AY ~ ~ .A.: ~ - . / i , J 2.
r ~ ~ REL~CA TED TD MINI TU MINIhI ZE ~
ACTS ~ , STRE IMP g Z ~ BUILD WEIR FOOTER Q ACTS D 2' g 1
f~ROP~SED CHANNEL ~ / i , - ACCG~IUDA TE PRGfI'U; T TO PER- C - ~ SUFFICIEN . PRUfI'USED ~ = TL Y SUPPORT
/ fiUP DF BANK-11 WID, H ~ _ , ~ ELEV. 348.00 MANEN ~ R. Q ? T URArfiI UN, ~ CONCRETE WEI
STREAM RE r ~ ~ r
1. EXISTING SMH ~ _ ~ ELEV - 340,30 r ~ ~
r ~ L
, ~ FES #4 1 N f N / _ - - / - r RESTER CHANNEL SE TIGN B-rRESTERE~ C99) _ _ , ~ - _ r Z
a ~ - _ - = ~ DESIGN E - 340, 70 • ' , , ~ w M
HA NEL 'CENTERLINE LUPE _ x,0042 ft 1 f t ~ , _ . ' ~ r/ ~ r
10 RADIU BENDS, ~ , , 86 ~ r
t~EE DETAIL THIS SHEET) - 85 1 I S 1 r ' ! ~ ~ r Z_
1 E ~T, ELEV = 337,80 ~ r NOT TO SCALE IXTURE OF A T LEAST i ~
, l•-~.~ I 1 J 1 1 r i 2 HARDWOOD SPECIES ~ r i ~
~ ELEV 340,30 - UPP R 6 ~F SG'dL SH LL , 1 p r , AT A MINIMUM DENSITY ? ~ OF 320 TREES ACRE. Z
1 r ~ I r r BE ' UPSGIL SUI fiABL r _ ~ J i ~ ? 50' WHERE POS5IBLE
' I ELEV - 3~~,00 ~ ~ FAR PLANTING, i i r r ~ J` I TIE TO TIE TO EXISTING
J 1 ~ , , J I 1 I I N r 1 r EXISTING GRADE J
/ J - f l ~ r TIE TD EXI TINGI UN ELEVATION I GRADE ' • w . . u • ~ ~ « . ~ . ~t . . . ~t . . , t .
~ / I r I r 1 r J r ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 A • t;'• A.• •0 • a . N i
DISTURBED HANNEL LEST. 337,50 , , / ~ , 1 r ~ ~ , r " • • ~ " • • ~ • • ~ • • i ~ ~ d'
A T NA TURAL ~ BST DM NAT SURVEYED) J J ' I N Il ` i 1
r l ELEVATION rCELEWATI X) ~ , 0.00 ftlft A -10' 0.00 ftlft
J ! 1 i I' ~ j rN a r I r ~ NATURAL, UNDISTUR D CHANNEL, SEGMENT J B 1 ~ , 2
~ ~ (DELINEATED AND SUF~VEYED) ~ ~ ;r
rr , ~ I I ~ ~
f I I f ~ ~ 1 2, 5 EAST DAAMIWG NEST WIDTH OF FLOODPRONE AREA
j ~ ~ J I I ~ ~ ~ ~ / , I ~ ~ ~ / WIDTH OF FLOODPRONE AREA 1 SF~ET
J J ~ r ~
~ , , r i ? r ~ - "A"=5' LINE CHANNEL SIDES 6 FLOODPRONE AREA WILLOW STAKING- " GREEN C125BNJ
SPACING VAAIA8IE B 6 WI NORTH AMERICAN
% ~ ! I I I f I j UH bUWYALANI tmuSluY c uivrrtuL
/ I / I I I \ BLANKET. STAPLE PER MANUFACTURERS
I I I i ~ RECOMMENDATIONS. CHANNEL BOTTOM PAO"T NUMBER TO REMAIN BARE.
1 ! I I f 1 / I I 1 ~ I I I f i ~i
301-01
I l I / • I i I I j I 1 / I I / l \ I /