20020110 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20020123

O? W A T ?RpG

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Division of Water Quality
March 25, 2002
DWQ# 02-0110
Wake County
JKS Associates
C/o Jennifer Burdette
2917 Meadowview Court
Apex, NC, 27502
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions and Neuse River Buffer Rules
Dear Ms. Burdette:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill in 0.006 acre of wetlands and 415 linear feet of
intermittent and perennial streams and 11,350 square feet of Neuse`Buffers in order to construct the Eagle Mountain subdivision in Wake
County, as you described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality on January 23, 2002, and in additional
correspondence received March 25, 2002. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Numbers 3375 and 3362, which can be viewed on our web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands . This
Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 and 39 when issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This approval
is also valid for the Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge
and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your project, you must
notify us in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner
must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland
fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and the additional conditions listed
below:
1. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands and waters or areas within
50 feet of all streams and ponds. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 days of the date of this letter or the issuance of
the 404 Permit (whichever is later). A sample deed notification format can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands ;
2. An additional condition is that stormwater shall be directed to diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities through the protected stream
buffers.
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
of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any
questions, please telephone Steve Mitchell or Debbie Edwards in our Raleigh Regional Office at 919-571-4700 or Cyndi Karoly in our
Central Office at 919-733-9721.
Attachments
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
Si erely,
J. Thorpe, Ph.
Jennifer Burdette, 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC, 27614
020110
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)
/x- - 1-.. /.. {.......\ - - Conn /i....\ L.H...//l.'1.. ...--...M.. .... .... r......,..H.....J../

4y-? 0) o

69-1
i/? L?kr r?Ge re?z
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
Mr. John Elorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Response to 401 WQC Review Hold
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
Garner, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
DWQ Project #: 02-0110
Dear Mr. Dorney:
020, ?a
MAR 2. 5 2002
Hrr;iE, IIY SECT I()
I have rece-ived a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that the subject project
has been placed on hold due to incomplete information. The letter specifically requests
the following information:
1. Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River
Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans
demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the crossing is not
perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is as close to
perpendicular as possible.
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream
crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other
bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not included in your reporting,
please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does not appear on
the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that these maps were provided in
the original application for your reference. Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is
not subject to the Neuse buffers, the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I
assume your concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter (1/23/02) prepared by
the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones & Cnossen Engineering and provided
with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter explains that the tie in points for Okamato
Street and High Mountain Drive are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office: Hickory Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road 3817-E Lawndale Drive 910 Boston Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylotsville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 2
stubbed off at the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have already been
approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while maintaining the fixed
tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal design criteria established to
ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore, Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the
stream channel as perpendicularly as possible within the aforementioned constraints that
are beyond the control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the riprap necessary for
each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
c: Steve Mitchell - NCDWQ
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Response to 401 WQC Review Hold
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
Garner, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
DWQ Project #: 02-0110
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I have received a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that the subject project
has been placed on hold due to incomplete information. The letter specifically requests
the following information:
Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River
Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans
demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the crossing is not
perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is as close to
perpendicular as possible.
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream
crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other
bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not included in your reporting,
please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does not appear on
the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that these maps were provided in
the original application for your reference. Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is
not subject to the Neuse buffers, the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I
assume your concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter (1/23/02) prepared by
the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones & Cnossen Engineering and provided
with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter explains that the tie in points for Okamato
Street and High Mountain Drive are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently

Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office: Hickory Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road 3817-E Lawndale Drive 910 Boston Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
?7
i
March 25, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 2
stubbed off at the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have already been
approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while maintaining the fixed
tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal design criteria established to
ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore, Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the
stream channel as perpendicularly as possible within the aforementioned constraints that
are beyond the control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the riprap necessary for
each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
Steve Mitchell - NCDWQ
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Mr. John Dorney f>.
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Response to 401 WQC Review Hold
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
Garner, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
DWQ Project #: 02-0110
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I have received a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that the subject project
has been placed on hold due to incomplete information. The letter specifically requests
the following information:
Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River
Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans
demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the crossing is not
perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is as close to
perpendicular as possible.
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream
crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other
bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not included in your reporting,
please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does not appear on
the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that these maps were provided in
the original application for your reference. Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is
not subject to the Neuse buffers, the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I
assume your concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter (1/23/02) prepared by
the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones & Cnossen Engineering and provided
with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter explains that the tie in points for Okamato
Street and High Mountain Drive are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently
Charlotte Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hickory Office:
910 Boston Road
Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
March 25, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 2
stubbed off at the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have already been
approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while maintaining the fixed
tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal design criteria established to
ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore, Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the
stream channel as perpendicularly as possible within the aforementioned constraints that
are beyond the control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the riprap necessary for
each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
tkf?erA. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
c: Steve Mitchell - NCDWQ
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Response to 401 WQC Review Hold
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
Garner, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
DWQ Project #: 02-0110
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I have received a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that the subject project
has been placed on hold due to incomplete information. The letter specifically requests
the following information:
1. Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River
Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans
demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the crossing is not
perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is as close to
perpendicular as possible.
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream
crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other
bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not included in your reporting,
please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does not appear on
the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that these maps were provided in
the original application for your reference. Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is
not subject to the Neuse buffers, the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I
assume your concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter (1/23/02) prepared by
the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones & Cnossen Engineering and provided
with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter explains that the tie in points for Okamato
Street and High Mountain Drive are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office: Hickory Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road 3817-E Lawndale Drive 910 Boston Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 2
stubbed off at the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have already been
approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while maintaining the fined
tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal design criteria established to
ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore, Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the
stream channel as perpendicularly as possible within the aforementioned constraints that
are beyond the control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the riprap necessary for
each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
c: Steve Mitchell - NCDWQ
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Response to 401 WQC Review Hold
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
Garner, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
DWQ Project #: 02-0110
Dear Mr. Dorney:

I have received a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that the subject project
has been placed on hold due to incomplete information. The letter specifically requests
the following information:
1. Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River
Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans
demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the crossing is not
perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is as close to
perpendicular as possible.
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream
crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other
bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not included in your reporting,
please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does not appear on
the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that these maps were provided in
the original application for your reference. Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is
not subject to the Neuse buffers, the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I
assume your concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter (1/23/02) prepared by
the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones & Cnossen Engineering and provided
with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter explains that the tie in points for Okamato
Street and High Mountain Drive are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently
i
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office: Hickory Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road 3817-E Lawndale Drive 910 Boston Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 2
stubbed off at the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have already been
approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while maintaining the fixed
tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal design criteria established to
ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore, Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the
stream channel as perpendicularly as possible within the aforementioned constraints that
are beyond the control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the riprap necessary for
each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
c: _ Steve Mitchell - NCDWQ
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Response to 401 WQC Review Hold
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
Garner, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
DWQ Project #: 02-0110
Dear Mr. Dorney:

I have received a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that the subject project
has been placed on hold due to incomplete information. The letter specifically requests
the following information:
1. Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River
Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans
demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the crossing is not
perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is as close to
perpendicular as possible.
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream
crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other
bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not included in your reporting,
please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does not appear on
the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that these maps were provided in
the original application for your reference. Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is
not subject to the Neuse buffers, the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I
assume your concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter (1/23/02) prepared by
the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones & Cnossen Engineering and provided
with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter explains that the tie in points for Okamato
Street and High Mountain Drive are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office: Hickok Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road 3817-E Lawndale Drive 910 Boston Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197 Greensboro, NC 27455 Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone] Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 2
stubbed off at the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have already been
approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while maintaining the fixed
tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal design criteria established to
ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore, Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the
stream channel as perpendicularly as possible within the aforementioned constraints that
are beyond the control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the riprap necessary for
each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
c: Steve Mitchell - NCDWQ
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Response to 401 WQC Review Hold
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
Garner, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project 99-4533
DWQ Project 02-0110
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I have received a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that the subject project
has been placed on hold due to incomplete information. The letter specifically requests
the following information:
1. Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River
Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans
demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the crossing is not
perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is as close to
perpendicular as possible.
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream
crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other
bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not included in your reporting,
please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does not appear on
the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that these maps were provided in
the original application for your reference. Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is
not subject to the Neuse buffers, the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I
assume your concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter (1/23/02) prepared by
the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones & Cnossen Engineering and provided
with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter explains that the tie in points for Okamato
Street and High Mountain Drive are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Charlotte Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hickory Office:
910 Boston Road
Taylorsville, NC 28681
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
March 25, 2002 `
March 25, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 2
stubbed off at the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have already been
approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while maintaining the fixed
tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal design criteria established to
ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore, Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the
stream channel as perpendicularly as possible within the aforementioned constraints that
are beyond the control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the riprap necessary for
each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information provided
herein.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
c: Steve Mitchell - NCDWQ
Eagle Mtn S/D - Wake Co. - DWQ #02-0110
Subject: Eagle Mtn S/D - Wake Co. - DWQ #02-0110
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:18:34 -0500
From: "Jennifer Burdette" <[e-mail]> Ak
ohn Domey" <[e-mail]>, "Steve. ' [e-mail]>
To: "J
CC: "Kevin Martin" <[e-mail]>, <todd.st.joh?
"Bob Zarzecki" <[e-mail]>
I have received a copy of your March 13, 2002 letter indicating that.t?v
subject project has been placed on hold due to incomplete information= 'The
letter specifically requests the following information:
1. Crossing #1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the K63Xse
River Buffer Rules, and is not quite perpendicular. Please provide two ful
sets of plans demonstrating that the crossing is perpendicular. If the
crossing is not perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the
crossing is as close to perpendicular as possible;
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each
stream crossing includes that inlet and outlet protection devices, such as
rip-rap or other bank stabilization procedures. If these devices are not
included in your reporting, please include them.
Crossing #1 is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules because it does
not appear on the applicable USGS or Soil Survey map. Please note that
these maps were provided in the original application for your reference.
Because the stream crossed at Impact #1 is not subject to the Neuse buffers,
the Neuse Buffer Rules do not apply. For that reason, I assume your
concerns with Impact #1 are in reference to adequate avoidance and
minimization of impacts to this channel. Please refer to the letter
(1/23/02) prepared by the project engineer Mr. Peter Cnossen of Jones &
Cnossen Engineering and provided with the PCN form. Mr. Cnossen's letter
explains that the tie in points for Okamato Street and High Mountain Drive
are fixed tie-in points. High Mountain Drive is currently stubbed off at
the property line. Okamato Street's connection at the eastern property
boundary aligns with another subdivision whose construction plans have
already been approved by the Town of Garner. Moving Okamato Street while
maintaining the fixed tie-in points would violate NCDOT's minimum horizontal
design criteria established to ensure safe vehicular travel. Therefore,
Crossing #1 has been designed to cross the stream channel as perpendicularly
as possible within the aforementioned constraints that are beyond the
control of the applicant while still remaining under 150 linear feet of
stream channel impact.
The reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the rip rap
necessary for each crossing as indicated on page 6 of 13 of the PCN
submitted for the project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 846-5900 or email at
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding the information
provided herein.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Burdette
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
[phone]
I of 1 3/22/02 6:59 AM
A ments
Subject: 401 comments
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:07:41 -0500
From: "J. Todd Kennedy" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Division of Water Quality
To: mike horan <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>,
Milt Rhodes <[e-mail]>
I have reviewed twelve 401 applications for the Local Government
Assistance Unit. Comments for four projects are provided below.
1) 020110-JKS Assoc. 4W 0
Eagle Mtn. subdivision in Wake Co.
Swift Creek is a WS III watershed
Public road crossings are allowable
where no practicable alternative
exists. They must minimize built upon surface area, direct runoff away
from surface waters and maximize the use of BMPs (15A NCAC 02B .0215).
A thirty-foot, vegetative buffer must be maintained along the perennial
stream.
2) 020100-Chatterjee
Pond construction in western Wake Co.
UT to Panther Creek is in a WS IV watershed.
Since the UT is intermittent, Water Supply Watershed rules do not apply.
Buffers are highly recommended.
On page 12 of the application, the applicant writes, "Effort will be
made to direct runoff from impervious areas to the pond for treatment."
The pond is being constructed for irrigation and aesthetics. Therefore,
it is recommended that runoff receive treatment via filter strip or
other appropriate mechanism prior to entering the pond. Stormwater
should not be directly discharged into the pond.
3) 020086-Englert Egon (_401 Issued)
Shoreline stabilization with steps
Lake Norman is WS IV.
Shoreline stabilization is not prohibited. At present the Unit is
working with local governments to determine the appropriate methods for
installing steps at shorelines. Please forward projects of this type to
the Unit for comment prior to-issuance.of 401 certification until the
issue is resolved. Thank you.
4)_011891-Ronnie Scarborough (401 Issued)
Seawall, boathouse and pier construction.
Lake Tillery is WS IV A-•
The Unit is currently working`to resolve issues regarding whether
the
proposed "boathouse",qualifiest as awater ,
dependent structure (and
,thus , .
allowable) in its current=form:-We will .
contact the 401 Unit if we have
'
further comments.' y. ,,.: , .
•
E

E,
s
y ..
: r .r
Note
WS IV watershed classification'(15A'.NCAC 02B .0216)

J Todd Kennedy
NC DENR--Water Quality Planning
919.733.5083 x555

1 of 2
!I
2/7/02 6:11 A
? W AMichael F. Easley
W(:7
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
March 13, 2002
Wake County
DWQ Project No. 02-0110
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Joel West
JKS Associates
2917 Meadowview Court
Apex, NC, 27502
Dear Mr. West:
On January 23, 2002, the NC Division of Water Quality received your application for a 401 Water Quality
Certification and Neuse Buffer Rules approval to construct road crossings at the proposed Eagle Mountain
Subdivision in Wake County. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506, a thorough inspection of the site has
been conducted by Mr. Steve Mitchell of the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office. Based on this review, we have
determined that significant uses would be removed or degraded by this project. Specifically, please address the
following issues:
1. Crossing # 1 appears to be very close to thresholds set within the Neuse River Buffer Rules, and is not
quite perpendicular. Please provide two full sets of plans demonstrating that the crossing is
perpendicular. If the crossing is not perpendicular, it will need to be re-designed so that the crossing is
as close to perpendicular as possible;
2. Please indicate whether or not the reported, proposed impact at each stream crossing includes the inlet
and outlet protection devices, such as rip-rap or other bank stabilization procedures. If these devices
are not included in your reporting, please include them.
Until the information requested in this letter is provided, I will request (by copy of this letter) that the Corps of
Engineers place this project on hold. Also, this project will be placed on hold for our processing due to
incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H .0507(h)).
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please contact Steve Mitchell in our Raleigh
Regional Office at [phone] or Cyndi Karoly in Raleigh at [phone].
Sincerely,
r? John Dorney
U
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Jennifer Burdette, 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC, 27614
020110
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)
n.n - .-roc 1-1---% n- -roo -no ,.-n ...,.,.in. n .. ..... .............,.....,...... ,_,._,
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Eagle Mountain Subdivision County Wake
Project Number 02 0110 County2
Recvd From APP Region Raleigh
Received Date 1/23/02 Recvd By Region
Project Type Road crossing
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
F 14 Stream P _Y -@N F_ 27-43-5-(2) WSIII NSW CA 30,402. F 147.00 I -
NBR Buffers V Y ON F- ??F- 30,402. 0.01-F_
268.00
39 F- O Y OO N F-r?r- 30,402. F_ F_ I F_
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 354002
Recommendation: 0 Issue 0 Issue/Cond 0 Deny
Longitude (ddmmss) 784043
Comments:
Crossing 1 is very close to threshold and not quite perpendicular. I don't have full set of pans.
Need to check and make sere client knows of 150 limitation. Does the length of impact include the
inlet outlet protection at these stream crossings?
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Environmental Consultants, PA
Road - Raleisih, North Carolina 27614 - Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
The proposed project will permanently impact_147 linear feet of a stream channel under
NWP 14 and a total of 268 linear feet of two separate stream channels and 0.006 acre of
wetlands under NWP 39. Therefore, a check for $479-is enclosed to cover the 401 Water
Quality Certification processing fee.
JAN 2 3 2002
January 23, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers NCDENR - DWQ
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Parkview Building ,q
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Ste. 120 2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Attn: Ms. Amanda Jones Attn: Mr. John Dorney
RE: Nationwide Permits 14 & 39, 401 Water Quality Certification, & Neuse River Buffer
Compliance Request
Proposed Eagle Mountain Subdivision
McCullers, Wake County, North Carolina
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Dear Ms. Jones and Mr. Dorney:
On behalf of JKS Associates, we request authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) to use Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 and 39 for the proposed project to cover
permanent impacts to three separate stream channels and wetlands. We also request written
concurrence from the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) that the project meets the 401
Water Quality Certification for the associated NWPs and complies with the Neuse River Basin
(NRB) Buffer Rules. A Pre-construction Notification Application (PCN) is attached, which
includes an agent authorization form.
The proposed project consists of installation of access roads necessary for a 25-lot residential
development. The 36-acre property is located approximately 2800 feet north of Ten Ten Road
(SR 1010) and approximately 3500 feet east of US 401. Please refer to the attached map (Figure
1) for the location of the proposed project on a USGS topographic quadrangle.
Charlotte Office:
PMB 291, 3020-I Prosperity Church Road
Charlotte, NC 28269-7197
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-G Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Hickory Office:
910 Boston Road
I'aylorsville, NC 28681
Phone [phone]
Fax: [phone]
January 23, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 2 of 3
One of the proposed access roads will cross three separate stream channels, one of which is
buffered, and wetlands. We request approval to construct Crossing #1, # 2, and # 4 under NWP
39 and Crossing # 3 under NWP 14. The impact tables in the PCN itemize and provide a
description of each proposed impact to stream channels, wetlands, and riparian buffers. The total
proposed impact to wetlands, which result from Crossings #1 and # 4, is 0.006 acre. Please refer
to the attached Impact Maps (5 sheets) for the location of each impact.
The USACE's current policy requires applicants to avoid and minimize wetland and stream
channel impacts to the maximum extent practicable and compensatory mitigation to offset
unavoidable losses of waters of the US when impacts exceed the thresholds for notification (0.10
acre) under NWP 14 and 39 or if a discharge causes the loss of any open waters under NWP 39.
The proposed roads are necessary to provide access and a connection between existing, adjacent
subdivision roads to ensure safe ingress and egress for the number of residents that are proposed
to occupy the area. Please refer to the attached letter by Peter Cnossen, the project engineer, for
the constraints that prevent avoidance of Crossing # 1. Because the total impact to waters of the
US resulting from the project equals 0.041 acre, the applicant has minimized stream channel
impacts by designing the roads to cross perpendicularly, and will maintain vegetated buffers as
required by the NRB riparian buffer rule and water supply watershed rules, S&EC does not
believe further compensatory mitigation should be required by the USACE for this project.
NCDWQ's current policy does not require mitigation for wetland impacts below 1 acre and
stream channel impacts below 150 linear feet per tributary. Because permanent impacts to
wetlands (0.006 acre) and to each stream channel (Crossing #1 - 1491.f., Crossing #2 - 1191.f.,
Crossing #3 - 147 l.f.) are below the aforementioned thresholds, S&EC believes that
compensatory mitigation should not be required by NCDWQ.
As stated above, one of the proposed roads, Okamato Street, crosses a perennial stream that is
subject to the NRB riparian buffer rule (Crossing # 3). The road crossing is required because the
riparian buffer separates lot numbers 19 and 20 and the well lot from the remaining area of the
property. The crossing has been aligned perpendicularly to minimize impacts to the riparian
buffer and does not impact greater than 150 linear feet or 1/3 acre of riparian buffer. Please refer
to the attached Impact map for the riparian buffer impacts associated with the project.
A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for NCDWQ's use in copying S&EC, as the
authorized agent for the applicant, with any response provided to the applicant.
Sincerely,
SOIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Jennifer A. Burdette
Environmental Scientist
January 23, 2002
S&EC Project #: 99-4533
Page 3 of 3
Attachments:
Pre-construction (PCN) notification form
Site Location Map (Figure 1)
Wake Co. Soil Survey Map (Figure 2)
Wetland Impact Maps (5 Sheets)
Agent Authorization Form
Two Data Forms
Impact Justification Letter by Peter Cnossen (1/23/02)
c: Joel West - JKS Associates
Peter Cnossen - Jones & Cnossen
1
,o?

OF
WATF?'
QG
gal
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.army.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.ai-i-ny.miI/wetlands/regtour.htm, 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://b2o.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 for 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 13
LAMA 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 (LAMA) 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.anny.mil/wetlands/nwpfinalFedReg_pdf.
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://112o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/fees.htm]. 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.
Pagc 2 of 13
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action 1D No. DWQ No.
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: 14 & 39
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: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: JKS Associates
Mailing Address: 2917 Meadowview Court
Apex, North Carolina 27502
Telephone Number: 919/387-1190 Fax Number: NA
E-mail Address: NA
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: Jennifer A. Burdette
Company Affiliation: Soil & Environmental Consultants PA
Mailing Address: 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
Telephone Number: 919/846-5900 Fax Number: 919/846-9467
E-mail Address: jburdette sandec.com
Page 3 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 1 I 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: Eagle Mountain Subdivision
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only)
NA
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 0699.02-58-5049
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: McCullers
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Eagle Mountain
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The site can be reached by taking
401 south out of Raleigh turning left onto Ten-Ten Road (SR 1010), turning left onto South
Mountain Drive and turning; right onto High Mountain Drive. The site is located north of
High Mountain Drive and east of the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°40'02" N 78 040'43" W
(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: The site
is currently forested.
7. Property size (acres):
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Unnamed tributary to Swift Creek
9. River Basin:
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at littp://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin!maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proiect is to install access
roads sufficient for a 25 lot residential subdivision.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Heavy equipment typical
of road construction will be used for the project
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Forested land and residential
subdivisions are the dominant land uses in the vicinity of the project.
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.
S&EC conducted a wetland delineation and buffer evaluation on the property in March 2001.
Wetland and upland data forms and the applicable section of the Wake County Soil Survey Map
(Figure 2) prepared in support of the wetland delineation and buffer evaluation are attached.
V. Future Project Plans
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
application: There are no additional permit requests anticipated for this project
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
Page 5 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Type of Area of Located within Distance to
***
Site Number *
Impact Impact I00-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland
(indicate on ma) (acres) (yes/no) (linear feet)
s
9 fill 0.00 f no 0 seep
# 1
C o
in (93
t)
39 fill (g•003 no 0 seep
ing # 4
C o (1
ft)
sq.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at litti)://w•ww.feina.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: 0.05
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 241 sq. ft. (0.006 ac.)
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'?
(please secify)
NWP 39
Crossing # 1 culvert/rip-rap 149 UT to Swift Creek 3 Intermittent
NWP 39
Crossing # 2 culvert/rip-rap 119 UT to Swift Creek 4 Intermittent
NWP 14
Crossing # 3 culvert/rip-rap 147 UT to Swift Creek 4 Perennial

* 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: NWP 14 - 147 &
NWP 39 - 268
Page 6 of' 13
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 Wat)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
NA

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, 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 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.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
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 applicant reauested a delineation of wetland and surface waters on the site prior to
developing the site plan. The site plan was designed to minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas
to the maximum extent practicable by aligning roads to cross stream channels perpendicularly.
Please refer to the attached letter by Peter Cnossen, the project engineer, for the constraints that
prevent avoidance of Crossing # 1. It is important to note that High Mountain Drive (Crossing #
4) connects to a fixed tie-in at the existing High Mountain Drive on the adjacent property that
also prevents avoidance of the wetland impact proposed at this crossing.
Page 7 of 13
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://112o.enr.state.nc.u5/ncwetlaiids/strmgide.html.
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 USACE's current policy requires applicants to avoid and minimize wetland and
stream channel impacts to the maximum extent practicable and compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable losses of waters of the US when impacts exceed the thresholds for
notification (0.10 acre) under NWP 14 and 39 or if a discharge causes the loss of any open
waters under NWP 39. The proposed roads are necessary to provide access and a connection
between existing adjacent subdivision roads to ensure safe ingress and egress for the number
of residents that are proposed to occupy the area. Please refer to the attached letter by Peter
Cnossen the proiect engineer, for the constraints that prevent avoidance of Crossing # 1.
Because the total impact to waters of the US resulting from the project equals 0.041 acre, the
applicant has minimized stream channel impacts by designing the roads to cross
perpendicularly, and will maintain vegetated buffers as required by the NRB riparian buffer
rule and water supply watershed rules S&EC does not believe further compensatory
mitigation should be required by the USACE for this project
Page 8 of 13
NCDWQ's current policy does not require mitigation for wetland impacts below 1 acre
and stream channel impacts below 150 linear feet per tributary. Because permanent impacts
to wetlands (0.006 acre) and to each stream channel (Crossing #1 - 149 l.f., Crossing #2 -
119 1 f Crossing #3 - 147 l.f.) are below the aforementioned thresholds, S&EC believes that
compensatory mitigation should not be required by NCDWQ.
As stated above one of the proposed roads Okamato Street crosses a perennial stream
that is subject to the NRB riparian buffer rule (Crossing # 3). The road crossing is required
because the riparian buffer separates lot numbers 19 and 20 and the well lot from the
remaining area of the property. The crossing has been aligned perpendicularly to minimize
impacts to the riparian buffer and does not impact greater than 150 linear feet or 1/3 acre of
riparian buffer. Please refer to the attached Impact map for the riparian buffer impacts
associated with the protect
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 lit!p://li2o.etu-.state.ne.us/wrp/index.litn. 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): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
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 ?
Page 9 of 13
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
(Neese), 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 7,500 3 NA
2 3,850 1.5 NA
"Total 11,350 NA
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. 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 from the property.
The site does not currently contain impervious acreage. The proposed project is not expected to
increase the impervious area on the site beyond 30 %. The applicable Neuse River riparian
buffers and water supply watershed drainageway buffers are expected to protect surface waters
and wetlands downstream from the property.
Page 10 of 13
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
Individual septic systems
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I 5A 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).
/,-310Z
Affic ens ignature 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 Union
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk Watauga
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Yancey
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 Wilson
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Page I I of' 13
Fax: [phone]
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Haywood McDowell Yancey
Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Davic Ilalifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps Of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC: 28402-1890
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
US Fis
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
farine Fisheries Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Coastal Management Beaufbrt 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
Anson Duplin Onslow
Bladen Harnett Pender
Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Columbus Moore Sampson
Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
*Croatan National Forest Only
h and Wildlife Service / National N
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: [phone]
Page 12 of 13

?
25
` VC /
?y0 _ )
0 _? z 5

? `y
DSO i Cr1

r

q \ 4

4

h
• B B
41 'Ue 3so

a 10
i a em ?• h ? U
.
.u
• .?10o ?o o '
II• ? \
;I' a' • LAKE WHEELER, NC -
6 1993
• \
Is

I • I
u
' • II
11 <

?g v
I NIMA 525511 NW-SERIES V842
\
35? ? 1 • / • ?
-

994533 1"m 2000'
Project Date:
Mgr.: JAB 413101
Figure 1
Location Map
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
McCullers, Wake Co., NC
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
fir . • ?? ,.-
A '
J, 9 l AEC v ?C.r..F' i s.
/ y??C k r ? - 'IC3 ur G¢C2 ?; > (.tlr
? ` ?ssF ? ?'z ? --.___/ M 't' '?'-•s?'i?' r •iV`t J?aC`1.r fk?2 `j _/ W ? ;..
CkCL •.
A"? A?cr i ?
l lns "? * A'C2 ` C s Wry,k t V Y
NrCL .)lt 1 ?r,?`HtC2 n (1gC? ? ., o` ? a (.YC ,^ y ? ?9'p4'' x '.
Cg[V
`ICt? 45t C&B;/ / N1rttE; 2 G ; =
?/ I Gee9. Me 7 \
??Q,,. It F. lS 'Cei ([ `/ I ?aCV' nh `` ?Atr Crfc? -`rii
= Wd t1 ) ,?C F, r )'? ? APIt? WmF \' ?;/ Ckl?2 f.° ?: l
! C??L l t ,C,BG. ;?? Ott G? f yfJ7? AgB?? i??
!rfQ, c?i11 C eF t ;; h. ; \ ( > ... I nor / `>
l4? 1 r> Au62 1r., 'a M
.?Jr.e6? fOrl? \ 1-? \ •9? ? ?:i':" n"il' (/,n, v.??J
f
- S Nt F ?r 0! Wall iiJtiC rr "ate i \ _ y a
Wa Ft.
Y` / Alr,7 J\? Ha'
??ntw(5H1? - C ?1i+,_.r'C \??">>. .'\?`f NoiT ?.,7 {W?" rlnf3
Project 9: Scale:
994533 I"= US
Project Date: Figure 2 -Wake Co.
Mgr.: JAB 413101 Soil Survey Map
Eagle Mountain Subdivision
McCullers, Wake Co., NC
It Soil & Environmental Consult
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
W\
7-
?
T
n 4
04
?U
{a 4
1 \, ',

_ Z
W

N
O
O
O
N
O
O

-1.'93'
TO k1o
914.19'
4

A 1
/ / z I
4 9 ?j 1
F SNEEI TITLE! PROJECT NAME!
ry
m - EAGLE MTN. S/0 -
o ? IMPACT MAP WAKE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA Soil & Environmental Consultantsf PA
E
,
JAN 2002 11010 Rawn Ridgc Rnnd • Rxlaigh, Nnr1h Carolina 27614 • Phanc: (919) 8463900 • Fan: (919) N46-9467
-SandF.c-.
O
Q• /
r \ /? rnrn
?J
13
(D.
CROSSING #2
?.nHlvlv?L
LINEAR FEET OF CHANNEL
DISTURBANCE= 1 19'
LIMIT OF D15TURBANCE
0. .
L9 ?
4j
i
L T OF DI URBANCE 26
20' SETBACK
BLDG. (TYN
1 N .

N?
W
\s

PROJECT NO. SCALE SHEET TITLE:
4533 T' . 50' CROSSING M 2
PROJECT MGR. FIELD WORK WETLAND IMPACT MAP
AB JAB ,
J PROJECT NAME: PA
Soil & Environmental Consultants
DRAWN BY ,
M8 - EAGLE MTN. SAD - 11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh. North Carolina 27614 Phone' [phone] • Pax: [phone]
FILE WAKE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA xw?v Sandi C.com
\\SEC\SECFILES\4533\WETLANDIMPACT JAN 2002
N
LIMIT OF D15TURBAN E
CHANNEL
LIMIT OF D15TURBANCf-/
20
CR0551NG #3
/ ' ZONE I DISTURBED
AREA=7,600 5F
' ZONE 2 DISTURBED
AREA=3,850 5F
'
v5 TOTAL RIPARIAN BUFFER
26 ad
DI5 450 5F (0
.
' LINEAR FEET OF CHANNEL 16
DISTURBANCE = 147'
2a 5ETBACK
BLDG..(TYP.)

. , 25.2
f ? . 2
1 ? 6 5.7%
..1.6g .03 ...... ? ? ZONE .
e FDISr?R
SO, ER D ,
RAP NF .. o.
4 No
o ? ?F?Rq FERsh? s
OPEN \
ACE
25.G '
PROJECT NO. SCALE SHEET TITLE:
4533 T' . W. CROSSING / 3
PROJECT MGR. FIELO WORK WETLAND IMPACT MAP
JAB ,
JAB PROJECT NAME: Soil °` Environmental Consultants, PA
DRAWN BY
MB - EAGLE MTN. S/D - 11010 Ra- Ridgc Road • Ralogh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone [phone] • Fax: [phone]
FILE WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Sand F( corn
\\SEC\SECFILES\4533\WETLANDIMPACT JAN 2002

I

?h

CROSSING # 4
' WETLAND D15TURBANCE
147.74 5F
N
I 1
C* D15TUR8ANC
CHANNEL

1 1 7.29'
LINEAR WETLAND
CO
Ln.
O
PROJECT NO. SCALE SHEET TITLE:
4533 1' . 50. CROSSING N 4
PROJECT MGR. FIELD WORK WETLAND IMPACT MAP
JAB JAB ,
PROJECT NAME: PA
Soil & Environmental Consultants
DRAWN BY ,
MB - EAGLE MTN. SAD - 11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, Knnh Candum 27614 P1 [phone] • Far: (419) 9469467
FILE WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA xxw tiandLl com
\\SEC\SECFILES\4533\WETLANOIMPACT JAN 2002
.7 02 02:54P
?i/16/2002 16:27
Name:
Addres,
Stuart Jones
9198469467
S&EC
919 387 3375
PAGE 02
P.2
Soil & Env?i.,ronmental Consultants, Inc.
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh. Notch Carolina 27614 • Phone. [phone] • Fax [phone]
Web Page: www.Sandl3C.oom
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
All Blanks To Be Filled In By The Current Landowner
-Phone: (c - 4' -
Fr*ct Name/ Description: Soutfi Mountain Proverty/S&EC Proiect No 99-4533
Date: I i o2
The Department of the Army
3. Army Corps of Engineers, Wa7arungton District
P.O. Box 1890
Witlnington, NC 28402
Attn: Amanda Tones
a "ffice: Raleflth
3e: Wetlands Related Consulting and Peatnitting
To Whom It May Concern:
Y-c current proper owner, hereby designate and authorize Soil 6r Environmental Consultants, Inc. to
acct in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon req t
suppI ental information in support of applications, etc from this day forward. The 170 day of
T UA%tV
notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE This authorization, for fiability and.professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
goverment officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC
to arxasge a site meeting prior to visiting the site.
Frint Property Owner's Name
c: Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR - DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
TCaleigh, NC 276M
Pro ty Owner's Signature
c: Ms. Jennifer A. Burdette
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
blank apa at" formdoc
Wetland Del ineadoWPcrndtting/Mittgation Soil/Site Evaluadons On-Site Septic Systems Bnvirunmental A,swsments/Andits
Neuse Basin and Watershed sine; Eva luadom Groundwater Hydrology FManger d Species
Wostem Branch Office!:: [phone] • [phone] - [phone]
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Eagle Mountain Subdivision Date: 3/27/01
Applicant/Owner: JKS Associates
Investigator: Jennifer Burdette County:
State: Wake
North Carolina

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? X Yes No
-Yes X No
_Yes X No Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: Seep

WL Cad Flag
#122
If needed, explain on reverse.) I _
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Linodendron tulipifera Tree FAC 9.
2. Sambucus canadensis Shrub/Sap FACW- 10.
3. Carpinus caroliniana FAC 11.
4. Fagus grandif o is FACU 12.
5. Lindera benzoin FACW 13.
6. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 14.
7. Bignonia capreolata FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC
(excluding FAC- : 71
Remarks: The vegetation meets the criteria (>_50% OBL, FACW, or FAC) for hydrophytic vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
.Aerial Photographs Inundated
-Other X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
X No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) X Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 3 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Remarks: The area contained sufficient field indicators of wetland hydrology.
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Eagle Mountain Subdivision Plot ID: WL (aD_ Flag # 122
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: poorly drained
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Topic Ochraauufts Confirm Mapped Type? _ Yes - No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A 10YR 5/1 5YR 4/6 many/prominent loam
10-12+ B 10YR 5/1 5YR 4/6 many/prominent clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol -Concretions
_Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The soils meet the criteria for hydric soils.
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes _No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? X Yes _No X Yes _No
Hydric Soils Present? X Yes No
Remarks: The area meets the criteria for a jurisdictional wetland.
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Eagle Mountain Subdivision Date: 3/27/01
Applicant/Owner: JKS Associates
Investigator: Jennifer Burdette County:
State: Wake
North Carolina

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? X Yes No
_Yes X No
Yes X No Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: mesic hardwood

UP 0- Flag #122
If needed, explain on reverse. _
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FAC 9.
2. Sambucus canadensis Shrub/Sap FACW- 10.
3. Elaeagnus umbellata 11.
4. Fagus grandigolia FACU 12.
5. Lindera benzoin FACW 13.
6. Oriodendron tulipifera FAC 14.
7. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 15.
8. Pol stichum acrostichoides Herb FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW,or FAC
(excluding FAC- : 63-75
Remarks: The vegetation meets the criteria (>_50% OBL, FACW, or FAC) for hydrophytic vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_Aerial Photographs -Inundated
-Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
X No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves
X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >16 (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >16 (in.)
Remarks: Although the data point passed the FAC-Neutral test and local soil survey data indicates wetland hydrology, the
evaluators did not believe these indicators without other evidence of wetland hydrology were sufficient to indicate the presence of
wetland hydrology.
Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site: Eagle Mountain Subdivision Plot ID: UP Cad Flag # 122
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Doody drained
(Series and Phase): Worsham sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): TvDic Ochrapuults Confirm Mapped Type? _ Yes - No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 Al 10YR 4/4 NA NA silt loam
12-16+ A2 10YR 4/4 7.5YR 373 many/distinct silt loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol -Concretions
_Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Although mapped as a hydric soil in the Wake County Soil Survey, the soils at the data point do not meet the criteria for
hydric soils.
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Yes _No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? -Yes X No -Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? -Yes X No
Remarks: The area does not meet the criteria for a jurisdictional wetland due to the absence of wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
7-2 ;;.:54a Stuart Jones
? JONES 8,
CNOSSEN
ENGINEERING, PLLC
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING, PLANNING 8. MANAGEMENT
January 23, 2001
Jennifer Burdette
S&EC, PA
10100 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
Dear Jennifer,
919 307 3375 p.2
106 W. Chatham Street
P. O. Box 1062
Apex. N.C. 27502
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
This letter is provided to let you know that the Crossing I impacts to channel and
"ve`lands are unavoidable for the following reasons:
Road access ties to Okamato Street and High Mountain Drive are already established.
Our original planning had these two streets connected as a single corridor; however,
this was disallowed by Wake County. The current alignment meets Wake County
requirements.
The alignment of High Mountain Drive must connect with Okamato Street per Wake
County. Minimum NCDOT horizontal design criteria was used for this alignment.
This horizontal connection cannot be made using NCDOT design guidelines if
Okamato Street is moved.
The alignment of High Mountain Road and Okamato Street is such that the crossings
are as perpendicular as possible so that impacts are minimized.
It is hoped that this information is sufficient to address the established street alignments.
If you have any questions, please call me as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Peter D. Cnossen, P.E.
Jones and Cnossen Engineering, PLLC
/cpj

Triage Check List
Date: d? a-4 o Z

Ta RO Steve WeLchell Pnci---- Name (?G,, 4?
A-e O-A
?FRO Ken Avo-ritte DWO P-.gect Number 2O1 \0
QWaRO Deborah Sawyer Coirty _(,?
OWiRO Joanne St----ntxjL--
01IVSRO Jennifer Frye
OARO Mike Paste
G:*A
?MRO Pe
e
y
,
F-,1-c; V Telephone [phone]-
I_: (?Z?
i he Ze attached is beir-,c :7rNZC w-xj kr y=rx a ak -ncfL Please call if you need
? Stream lenct;h it l? A 1
earn dete.,n4-,a.5ocj i
Wetland deter rnizx j ? ? tiF-? s waters on USGW topo maps
K\nimization/a,rP.i?- is:s
?- _
/F Eufrer Rules (INi aj?.?, Cry F.=d? .zan)
C! Pond fill -
Mitigation Ratite
?i Dftching
Ll Are the strean and or tae?t-2 mffgsrT sus zrar--e and viable?
EJ- Check drawings for a.,arr
Is the applica6m ?wib pre-tears nw:! gs?
? Cumutative imp corgi
6 -• Cocrrnen3s
-------------------
-
y.y
s . r?*r__ ?r • .?,,y ?•__s .+o.-=sue =
two
3r v. ''r Ott
`Ct T?-
- ?, - } ? ?,y _ ?"? 7 K a ?? i..T"l'"'-L ^$ -s .•-??y?y,. fir'.
ii?.