20020677 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20020503

o?aF W A .r?9QG
N 1 ¦'¦ J r

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, PE, Director
Division of Water Quality
June 14, 2002
City of Raleigh
Central Engineering Department
Attn: Mr. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., PE or Mr. James K. Leumas, PE
PO Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Subject Property: 8225 Clear Brook Drive, Raleigh, NC
Streambank Stabilization Project
Unnamed tributary stream of Mine Creek [03-04-02; 27-33-14; C NSW]
DWQ Project # 02-0677
Wake County
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and Authorization Certificate per the Neuse River Buffer Protection Rules
(15A NCAC 2B.0233)
Dear Sirs:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 95 feet of perennial stream and it's associated riparian
buffers to construct the proposed shoreline stabilization project at the subject property as described within your application dated April
29, 2002 with revisions dated June 4, 2002. After reviewing your application, we have determined that the stream impacts are covered
by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) General Water Quality Certification Number 3353. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit No. 13 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This letter shall also act as your approved
Authorization Certificate for impacts to the protected Neuse River Buffers as required under 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8). In addition,
you should get or otherwise comply with any other federal, state and local requirements before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. 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 with revisions. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be
given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total fills for this
project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 150 feet stream, 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 DWQ General Water Quality
Certification No. 3353.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Neuse Buffer
Rules. If you have any questions, please telephone Mr, Bob Zarzecki at [phone].
Sincerely,
1 n Klimek, PE `
: WQ, Director
i
Attachment: General Water Quality Certifcati o, 353
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
File Copy
Central Files
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.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Reply To:
City of Raleigh
Central Engineering Department - 2210
Stormwater Services Division
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
City Of CRaleigh
fYorth Carolina
June 4, 2002
l! 1 i
;f N' 6 200
3
l'd?TLAlIOS GPOltp
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
RE: Response to Letter Dated May 14, 2002
Pre-Construction Notification Application
Form for Stream Bank Stabilization at:
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615-5108
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit Number 13
Authorization Issued: May 13, 2002
Action ID 200220960
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Thank you for your letter dated May 14, 2002 to Mr. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., P. E., City Engineer. Mr.
Dawson has asked that I respond to your request for additional information or revisions for the referenced
project. The following information is in response to the concerns expressed in your letter. I have listed
your concerns in Italics for convenience in reviewing the responses.
The DWQ recommends that the side slope be excavated to 3H.•I V (or greater) instead of the proposed
2H.•1 V. The DWQ believes that a less steep slope will ensure better stability of the stream bank and
improve infiltration of overland flow into the soil prior to discharging to the stream. Please provide
additional information as to why the slope can not be excavated to 3H.•I V (or greater). Also, many
urban and suburban streams in the piedmont are incised. Providing a flood plain bench ("bankfull
bench') to accept overbankflows can reduce velocities and shear stress in the stream, providing
additional protection to the stream bank to be repaired.
Our office concurs that a 3H: IV side slope would better ensure stability of the stream bank. For
overland flow, however, there is essentially negligible difference in the length of overland flow with
the use of a 2H: IV side slope versus a 3H: IV side slope. Exhibit 1 provides a schematic comparison
for illustrative purposes. The back yard of the property is to the left of Point A in Exhibit 1. A Plan
View of the house showing its proximity to the stream along with a typical cross section (Section A-
A) is also provided.
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper
Mr. John Dorney
June 4, 2002
Page 2
The 2H:1 V side slope allows for five (5) feet of overland flow in the relatively flat back yard before
flowing over a 2H:1 V side slope length of approximately 11.2 feet. Thus, from Point A to Point B
the total linear distance of travel is 16.2 feet before the flow enters the lower part of the channel.
With a 3H:1 V side slope from Point A to Point B the distance of travel is approximately 15.8 feet
with five (5) feet less of overland flow before discharging into the channel.
Because the back yard of the property from the existing top of left bank to the deck (which runs
almost the entire length of the house in the back yard) varies from approximately 37 feet to 44 feet, it
is the owner's desire to minimize the loss of usable property in the back yard. Assuming an average
distance of 40 feet from the top of left bank to the deck, a 2H:1 V side slope will require the top left
bank to be extended from its existing location to a point that is six (6) feet closer to the deck. The
amount of usable back yard area will be decreased by 6/40 x 100 % = 15 %. A 3H:1 V side slope
would extend eleven (11) feet closer to the deck and decrease the usable back yard area by 11/40 x
100 % = 27.5 %.
Based on past experiences with side slopes of channels and hydraulic structures, and analysis of the
hydraulic forces to which this channel will be exposed for a range of discharges from the 2-Year 24-
Hour storm event to the 100-Year 24-Hour storm event that were determined from hydrologic
analysis using the Corps of Engineers' HEC-1 computer model, it is the author's opinion that the
2H:1 V side slope will remain stable based on the height of the channel and the expected velocities.
The length of channel to be stabilized is 95 feet on this property. The total hydraulic length of the
channel as determined by the City of Raleigh's Geographic Information System (GIS) MAPS
program is as follows:
• From the uppermost part of the 79-acre watershed to beginning of blue line stream (which is
upstream of 8225 Clear Brook Drive) = 1,000 feet
• From beginning of blue line stream to 8225 Clear Brook Drive = 2,700 feet
• From 8225 Clear Brook Drive to headwaters of Shelley Lake = 16,300 feet
• From the headwaters of Shelley Lake to Shelley Lake Dam = 2,600 feet
• From Shelley Lake Dam to the confluence of Mine Creek with Crabtree Creek = 9,300 feet
Total length from uppermost part of watershed to Crabtree Creek = 31,900 feet
While a flood plain bench is desirable, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses indicate that a flood
plain bench would not be necessary for reducing the shear stresses or velocities. Such a bench would
also require extending the top left bank of the channel closer to the house. Also, because the drainage
area is 79 acres, the flow of water through this 95-foot section would be for a relatively short period
of time with respect to the filtration properties of a flood plain bench.
Because of the limited usable back yard area, the relatively short length of channel to be stabilized,
and the hydraulic properties of the proposed stabilized channel section, it is respectfully requested
that a 2H: IV side slope be allowed to be used in this case.
Mr. John Dorney
June 4, 2002
Page 3
2. The DWQ recommends planting native woody vegetation on the proposed side slope and within
fifteen (15) feet of the stream (or greater) to aid in stabilizing the stream bank and in the removal of
nitrogen from overland flow. Your application states that the side slope will be vegetated, but does
not indicate the type of vegetation used. We presume that you are referring to grass. Please provide
additional information as to why woody vegetation can not be used. Also, please provide a planting
plan indicating the type of vegetation to be used, location ofplantings and schedule ofplanting.
Our office concurs with the use of native woody plant species on the proposed side slopes. Our
original cost estimate for this project included 300 live stakes along the 95-foot length of stream bank
to be stabilized. It is the intent of this project to plant the live stakes, one live stake every 2.5 to 3.0
square feet of stabilized area, during the fall or winter which is generally the best planting time for
many species. Preferred species will include River Birch (Betula Nigra), Green Ash (Fraxinus
Pennsylvanica), Black Willow (Salix Nigra), Tag Alder (Alnus Serrulata), Silky Dogwood (Cornus
Amomum), Buttonbush (Cephalanthus Occidentalis) and Witch Hazel (Hamamelis Virginiana).
(Other species for the Piedmont Region as outlined in "Recommended Native Plant Species for
Stream Restoration in North Carolina" prepared by Ms. Karen Hall with the North Carolina Stream
Restoration Institute, North Carolina State University, January 2001 will also be acceptable.) It is
intended that a mixture of different live stake species will be used. A mixture, however, may be
dependent on availability from nurseries at the time of construction.
The live stakes will be in addition to Tall Fescue (K-31) grass seed to be sowed at a rate of 100
pounds per acre to stabilize the stream bank prior to the live stakes firmly taking root. The Tall
Fescue grass seed will be sowed following the completion of grading activities for the project. It is
expected the seeding would be performed during the time frame of August 20 through October 25.
Should construction activity occur outside of this time frame, then temporary grass vegetative cover
would be used until permanent grass vegetation can be established. Temporary grass vegetative cover
would consist of Rye Grain (Abruzzi Rye) at 120 pounds per acre from January 1 to May 1 and from
October 25 to December 31; and German Millet at a rate of 40 pounds per acre from May 1 to August
20.
Figure 4 from the Pre-Construction Notification application form has been revised and is enclosed
herewith to reflect the aforementioned information.
3. The DWQ prefers the use of woody vegetation as the primary means of long-term stability, and "soft"
techniques such as root wads that encourage the establishment of dense woody vegetation. The DWQ
believes that the construction of a bankfull bench along the toe of the proposed stream bank may aid
in stabilizing the stream bank and require less (or no) riprap. If riprap is determined to be the best
solution for this project, then it shall be installed no higher than the bankfull stage (unless the need
for more riprap is convincingly shown). Please provide additional information as to why a bankfull
bench can not be constructed along the proposed stream bank or why you think it is not the best
option for this project. If riprap is determined to be the best option for this project, then please
provide additional information that the proposed riprap will not exceed bankfull stage.
The soil materials along the stream bank to be stabilized are predominantly course to fine sands with
only a small fraction of silt materials and have been visually classified as SW (well graded sand) to
SM (slightly silty sand) non-cohesive soils. Construction of a bankfull bench would require
steepening the side slope of the channel steeper than 2H:1 V. The velocities in the channel will
Mr. John Dorney
June 4, 2002
Page 4
exceed the shear strength capacity of such soils, even during a 2-Year 24-Hour storm event. Using a
bankfull bench and a channel side slope steeper than 2H:1 V would cause the stream bank to remain
unstable without appropriate protection of the soils. The 2-Year 24-Hour storm and 100-Year 24-
Hour storm average discharge velocities have been calculated to be approximately 3.7 feet per second
and 5.1 feet per second, respectively. (Per the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act Rules, 15A
NCAC 4B .0109(d), the maximum permissible velocities for fine sands, sandy loam soils and silty
loam soils range between 2.5 and 3.0 feet per second.) I am enclosing calculations for the discharges
and velocities that were determined from the United States Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-1
program and Haestad Methods' Flowmaster program.
To restrain erosion at the toe of the channel side slope, a filter fabric and riprap lining for a vertical
height of 2.0 feet is proposed for the 95-foot length of stream bank to be stabilized. (The water
surface elevation for the 2-Year 24-Hour storm is approximately 1.9 feet above the channel invert.)
Only the left side slope of the channel is to be lined with riprap. (The right side slope of the channel
is fairly well vegetated with trees and other native vegetation and no work is proposed to be
performed on the right side of the channel. Also, the invert of the channel will not be lined with
riprap.)
Again, because of the limited usable back yard area, the relatively short length of channel to be
stabilized, and the hydraulic properties of the proposed stabilized channel section, it is respectfully
requested that a bankfull bench not be required for this case. (Also, see response to Item 1 above.)
It is felt that there are no practical alternatives to impacting the protected riparian buffers for this project.
It should be noted that this project is not for a development activity, but rather to stabilize an existing
problem that is contributing to degradation of water quality in the Mine Creek Watershed of the Neuse
River Basin. The activities for this project are intended to provide long-term protection for the 95-foot
length of stream bank that has severely eroded and continues to experience active erosion. This
stabilization project will restrain further erosion, thereby improving water quality in the Mine Creek
Watershed that flows into Crabtree Creek and then to the Neuse River.
Your consideration of this information for issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification and
Neuse Buffer Basin Riparian Buffer Rules Authorization Certificate is greatly appreciated. Please contact
me at telephone number [phone] if I may answer any questions concerning this matter or be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
?4 #M_W1w
James K. Leumas, P. E.
Stormwater Services Engineer
JKL/
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., P. E.
Mr. H. Daniel Bowden, P. E.
Ms. Veronica K. Erby
Exhibit 1
8225 Clear Brook Drive
2H: IV vs. 3H: IV Side Slopes
,
,
From Point A:

,
,
,
,
Existing Channel
Ground Line-----,%.,,
,
5'
,
J
,
,
------------------------
With 2H: IV Side Slope Distance to Channel Tie-In = 5' + 11.2' = 16.2'
With 3H:1 V Side Slope Distance to Channel Tie-In = 15.8'
H

4
d O
W '

d
t
d V
u
- S
W W r ri
O r1
S

d
W
Uri

LL ±I

? Ic
+
a rv H
I
=
32
w v
as
0 0
? r r
C31 yr in

L ti a) aj

•r •r
W 4n U1
w 7 :-
G
e-1 e-1
F-
S S
rv rn
W
w
w rr = 3.
Q 3 3

a: 341
W c £
fu ru
m m
r
c ? 4-
J
0 0
aL
) a d
O O
F 0 I- I-

r d C
X 0 m
w I-m
Ln
d
W
rr
m:
tr
W
?
Z
4
J W
W
W
E 3=
L'i
W
U7
Y ?
V O
W _
a
4
-c
0
C)
W
S
+I ?
N
4
C
rr o
+I ~
U
tD W
v
to
Y
Q
d
W
V S
W
W
0
r?
Y
0d .C
o d
W W
O ~
O d
d
0
o0
w
F
a?
W
J
d
u
Ln
CO.
C3
C3
2
t,
Z
d
W
a
Y
O
Co
m
d
W
J
u
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Left Side of Channel
(Facing Downstream)
Live Stakes
Grass Vegetation
Existing Ground Line
Riprap with
Filter Fabric
Underliner
1
--------------
___7
Figure 4 - Typical Repair Section
NTS
Live Stakes to be planted during fall or winter. Mixture may be selected from the
following species: River Birch, Green Ash, Black Willow, Tag Alder, Silky
Dogwood, Buttonbush, Witch Hazel. 300 live stakes to be planted for this project at a
rate of one live stake for each 2.5 to 3.0 square feet of stabilized area.
Permanent Grass Vegetation to be Tall Fescue (K-31) to be planted from August 20 to
October 25. Temporary Grass Cover to be planted as follows: Rye Grain at 120
pounds per acre from January 1 to May 1 and from October 25 to December 31; and
German Millet at a rate of 40 pounds per acre from May 1 to August 20.
8225 Clear Brook Drive : 2-Year 24-Hour Storm
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Worksheet Irregular Channel - 1
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth
Input Data
Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Discharge 45.00 cfs
Options
Current Roughness Method mproved Lotter's Method
Open Channel Weighting Method mproved Lotter's Method
Closed Channel Weighting Metho Horton's Method
Results
Mannings Coefficient 0.041
Water Surface Elevation 1.89 ft
Elevation Range 0 .00 to 7.00
Flow Area 12.3 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 12.18 ft
Top Width 10.89 ft
Actual Depth 1.89 ft
Critical Elevation 1.51 ft
Critical Slope 0.028831 ft/ft
Velocity 3.66 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.21 ft
Specific Energy 2.09 ft
Froude Number 0.61
Flow Type Subcritical

Roughness Segments
Start End Mannings
Station Station Coefficient
0+00 0+07 0.045
0+07 0+11 0.040
0+11 0+14 0.035
0+14 0+19 0.045
Natural Channel Points
Station Elevation
(ft) (ft)
0+00 5.70
0+07 2.00
0+10 0.70
0+11 0.00
0+14 0.00
0+15 0.70
0+19 1.70
0+19 7.00
Title: 8225 Clear Brook Drive Project Engineer: Jim Leumas
c:\haestad\fmw\8225 clear brook drive.fm2 City of Raleigh FlowMaster v6.0 [614b]
06/04/02 10:29:38 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1
8225 Clear Brook Drive : 2-Year 24-hour Storm
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Worksheet Irregular Channel
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth

Section Data
Mannings Coefficier 0.041
Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Water Surface Elev, 1.89 ft
Elevation Range I.00 to 7.00
Discharge 45.00 cfs
7.00 ,
VAN
HA
NTS
Title: 8225 Clear Brook Drive Project Engineer: Jim Leumas
c:\haestad\fmw\8225 clear brook drive.fm2 City of Raleigh FlowMaster v6.0 [614b]
06/04/02 10:34:01 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1
8225 Clear Brook Drive : 100-Year 24-Hour Storm
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Worksheet Irregular Channel - 1
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth
Input Data
Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Discharge 147.00 cfs
Options
Current Roughness Method mproved Lotter's Method
Open Channel Weighting Method mproved Lotter's Method
Closed Channel Weighting Metho Horton's Method
Results
Mannings Coefficient 0.042
Water Surface Elevation 3.22 ft
Elevation Range 0.00 to 7.00
Flow Area 28.6 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 16.50 ft
Top Width 13.68 ft
Actual Depth 3.22 ft
Critical Elevation 2.57 ft
Critical Slope 0.026610 ft/ft
Velocity 5.13 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.41 ft
Specific Energy 3.63 ft
Froude Number 0.63
Flow Type Subcritical

Roughness Segments
Start End Mannings
Station Station Coefficient
0+00 0+07 0.045
0+07 0+11 0.040
0+11 0+14 0.035
0+14 0+19 0.045
Natural Channel Points
Station Elevation
(ft) (ft)
0+00 5.70
0+07 2.00
0+10 0.70
0+11 0.00
0+14 0.00
0+15 0.70
0+19 1.70
0+19 7.00
Title: 8225 Clear Brook Drive Project Engineer: Jim Leumas
c:\haestad\fmw\8225 clear brook drive.fm2 City of Raleigh FlowMaster v6.0 [614b]
06/04/02 10:29:09 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1
8225 Clear Brook Drive : 100-Year 24-hour Storm
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Worksheet Irregular Channel,
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth

Section Data
Mannings Coefficier 0.042
Slope 0.010000 fult
Water Surface Eleva 3.22 ft
Elevation Range 1.00 to 7.00
Discharge 147.00 cfs
7.00
6.00Q
5.00
4.00 ' I
VAN
H:1
NTS
Title: 8225 Clear Brook Drive Project Engineer: Jim Leumas
c:\haestad\fmw\8225 clear brook drive.fm2 City of Raleigh FlowMaster v6.0 [614b]
06/04/02 10:34:26 AM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

*
* *

* *
* a
* w W
* a E
* w z ID *
* W w H
* z r
W rn
H +
7 L7
C

* W H a O
* a E H H H *
* Ga W U) H
* O W
* H Q W +
Lnn
U]
* a C7 O H h *

* O W W RC .-.
* U W U I
* U H
* 'JI H O\ . ON
* U' O U1 '-'

* a q *
* u] q *

* Q x *
* *
* *
* *
*
* *
* * * * * * *
*
* *
* * * * * * * *
*
*
* *

*
H *

* U H
* W N *
* x *

* H *
* *
* W *
* z, w
* co
£

*
01 H
*
* U rn H E
* RC H *

*
+
a
o N *
?
+
* H *
* h cn *
* 0 a *
H
* a > *
*
*
w *

Q
* o q *
* O
* a *
* w *
* a *
*
* *
*
* * * * * * * * *

??cscxxx""
>C >C
DC >C >C SC >C >C
xsex?xscx
?cx?c?xscss
W
U O
a n
CO El Ix
W
U r ?
U z rr,?y-I z
z E O w
rr?? C/I
Q r m
H m E E
W H
x W W E
X Cl) E a
E H H H
xE z
W 3 H CO
H
x oo Q W
cWn w z
xcn0ZQ
t` W oo E
u] N
h x Q Q W
E F a o4
U O q U
N a w
x w
1:1 0 U]wE-
z0
H co
U a z O
W
H E w a
U ? S W
x I Q C7 EWE-?
04
W O 0 H 2 x
O H U) H E.
E H
C/I O a U W H C07
rHiz rj) z E. .1
Q a U
04 Waz
O E U] U W
a U) W W
C4 H
wo°aEnq
a per; x Q H
:14 0 El Z
M x W
U W a H W
a O 0 m W z
z G]
rga ca ca
a O O Z E z
aal W W P4 W
co Q Q o a
H rA z
E EEzQa
H
W
a
D
a
z
H
H
U
W
x
H
C) ?o
H M
m
rn a H
x O
h
M

w
W

W [
H
?
co p
M M
2
a w H O
x W £
N
Uf E
<r W £ o rC
•
r N U) H lO [?
q 03
F
C
z
n a a
? D ro
N W O
l x

040 ?w
w x E ou
I U? w rn

x LO r-I
x
V P4

O G. M
Ln 1-1 a -V o
£ M lfl ID
a N M I
H I N H
M O
o a a
H q O
N N II W
?
' ? O O\
M
'T'I W £ d'
H a O I o

• x In FC W E
ON 2: 0
M y x N O t`
a rn v
• H W a' II q rx4
P! C14 O
F7 w O
,
• 'a4 O o z,
H
H '
CA N
O O Dr4 CO 1? O
C
l
H
• W ?El. W I F R H O W
•
• W ",? I? q
a O d' N H
FG U r•C ?
w a'
N a
P4 134 Ln Ln oo H g A H 0
W W
W m
N I
C'4 O a N
H
00 3 H In U
Q QQQQQHoh x
`? a
£
a
o Ea
a
W H N M 'IV In w r w T O H N M dl m
z H H H
H

16 KM CURVE NUMBER DEVELOPED FROM BAYLEAF QUAD MAP DATED 1987 AND FROM MAPS GIS
17 KM PROGRAM FOR FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
18 KM (USED 100 * 1/4-ACRE RESIDENTIAL TO APPROXIMATE THE CURVE NUMBER)
19 KM AND FROM SOIL TYPES FROM SCS SOIL SURVEY DATED NOVEMBER 1970 WHICH
20 KM INDICATES 0 * "A" SOILS, 92 * "B" SOILS, 4 * "C" SO ILS
21 KM AND 4 * "D" SOILS
22 LS 0 76
23 KM LAG TIME DERIVED FROM [L**0.8 X (S+1)**0.71 / [19 00 X Y**0 .51
24 KM HYDRAULIC LENGTH, L = 3700 FEET, S = (10001CN) - 10 = 3.16, AND
25 KM Y = 2.22 * = AVERAGE WATERSHED SLOPE IN PERCENT
26 UD .69
27 KP 2
28 KM 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
29 PH 50 0 0.48 1.01 1.75 2.13 2.37 2.78 3.30 3.61
30 KP 3
31 KM 5-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
32 PH 20 0 .55 1.18 2.19 2.74 3. 3.51 4.12 4.75
33 KP 4
34 KM 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
35 PH 10 0 .61 1.31 2.50 3.20 3.50 4.10 4.88 5.65
36 KP 5
37 KM 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
38 PH 4 0 .69 1.51 2.94 3.62 4.00 4.75 5.70 6.48
39 KP 6
40 KM 50-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
41 PH 2 0 .75 1.66 3.29 4.10 4.49 5.35 6.28 7.25
42 KP 7
43 KM 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
44 PH 1 0 .82 1.81 3.63 4.50 4.99 6.00 7.00 8.00
45 KP 8
46 KM 1/3 PMP 6-HOUR STORM
47 KM TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION FOR THE 1/3 PMP STORM FROM SCS TR-60
48 IN 5
49 PB 9.83
50 PC .0000 .0056 .0112 .0169 .0227 .0287 .0348 .0412 .0480 .0551
51 PC .0624 .0702 .0783 .0867 .0955 .1046 .1140 .1238 .1343 .1455
52 PC .1580 .1717 .1869 .2043 .2183 .2683 .3501 .4140 .4783 .5401
53 PC .5908 .6188 .6390 .6578 .6747 .6909 .7050 .7182 .7310 .7434
54 PC .7552 .7666 .7775 .7879 .7979 .8077 .8172 .8264 .8354 .8442
1 HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID....... 1....... 2....... 3....... 4....... 5....... 6....... 7....... 8....... 9...... 10
55 PC .8527 .8568 .8690 .8768 .8844 .8918 .8990 .9061 .9130 .9198
56 PC .9265 .9331 .9396 .9460 .9523 .9585 .9646 .9706 .9766 .9825
57 PC .9883 .9942 1.0000
58 ZZ
1*****************************************
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* JUN 1998
* VERSION 4.1
* *
* RUN DATE 17MAY02 TIME 16:21:41
* *
*****************************************
8225 CLEARBROOK DRIVE
WAKE COUNTY
1-YR 24-HR, 2-YR 24-HR, 5-YR 24-HR, 10-YR 4-HR, 25-YR 24-HR,
50-YR 24-HR, 100-YR 24-HR AND 1/3 PMP 6-HR STORM ANALYSES
CLEARI.DAT JKL 5.17.02
7 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5
IPLOT 0
QSCAL 0.
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 5
IDATE 1 0
ITIME 0000
NQ 300
NDDATE 2 0
NDTIME 0055
ICENT 19
PRINT CONTROL
PLOT CONTROL
HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
STARTING DATE
STARTING TIME
NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
ENDING DATE
ENDING TIME
CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL .08 HOURS
TOTAL TIME BASE 24.92 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
JP MULTI-PLAN OPTION
NPLAN
JR MULTI-RATIO OPTION
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE-FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
8 NUMBER OF PLANS
***************************************
* *
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* 609 SECOND STREET
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* [phone]
* *
***************************************
RATIOS OF RUNOFF
1.00
1
PEAK FLOW AND STAGE (END-OF-PERIOD) SUMMARY FOR MULTIPLE PLAN-RATIO ECONOMIC COMPUTATIONS
FLOWS IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
TIME TO PEAK IN HOURS
RATIOS APPLIED TO FLOWS
OPERATION STATION AREA PLAN RATIO 1
1.00
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ 1 .12 1 FLOW 38.
TIME 12.83
2 FLOW 45.
TIME 12.83
3 FLOW 85.
TIME 12.83
4 FLOW 115.
TIME 12.83
5 FLOW 147.
TIME 12.75
6 FLOW 173.
TIME 12.75
7 FLOW 199.
TIME 12.75
8 FLOW 260.
TIME 3.08
*** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ***
T
Worksheet for Curve Number & Lag Time
Project: 8225 Clearbrook Drive
County: Wake
Catchment: 1
Name: JKL
Date: 5/17/02
Curve Number
HSG: A B C D
% of Basin 92.0 4.0 4.0
Land Use % of Basin CN A CN B CN C CN D
Pasture, Fair 49 69 79 84
Woods, Fair 36 60 73 79
Residential - 1/4 ac 100.0 61 75 83 87
Roads 98 98 98 98
Water 98 98 98 98
Sum: 100.0
Curve numbers taken from: TR-55
Sum
100.0
%iahted CN
75.80
Sum: 75.80
Use: 76
Lag
S: 3.16
I: 3700 [ft]
Y: 2.22 [%]
Lag Time, L: 0.69 [hr]
S = 1000/CN - 10
Hydraulic length of watershed
Average land slope of watershed
L = (I^0.8 " (S+1)^0.7)/(1900 " Y^0.5)
Figure 1
8225 Clear Brook Drive
?' S
•v _
r

d ? ?"ice
Severe erosion of left (facing downstream) channel stream bank. Picture taken facing upstream
(looking north). The left bank of the channel is shown on the right side of the picture.
Note: Digital picture was taken on 03-11-02. (Date on camera was not properly set.)
Figure 2
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Severe erosion of left (facing downstream) channel stream bank. Picture taken facing
downstream (looking south). The left bank of the channel is shown on the left side of the picture.
Note: Digital picture was taken on 03-11-02. (Date on camera was not properly set.)
Figure 3
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Severe erosion of left (facing downstream) channel stream bank. Picture taken facing
downstream (looking south). The left bank of the channel is shown on the left side of the picture.
Project terminates just upstream of the garden area with the landscaping timbers, which is on the
next downstream property. No work will be performed on the stable area of the left bank
upstream of the nearly vertical left bank closer to the garden area with the landscaping timbers.
Note: Digital picture was taken on 03-11-02. (Date on camera was not properly set.)
O?O? WA
j?RQG
r
o ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
May 14, 2002
DWQ Project # 02-0677
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
City of Raleigh
Central Engineering Department
Attn: Mr. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., PE
PO Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Subject Property: 8225 Clear Brook Drive, Raleigh, NC
Streambank Stabilization Project
Unnamed tributary stream of Mine Creek [03-04-02; 27-33-14; C NSWJ
Dear Mr. Dawson:
On May 3, 2002, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated April 30, 2002 to stabilize
95 feet of stream bank at the subject property. The DWQ has determined that the proposed project will require written
authorization for impacts to riparian areas protected under the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233). In order to
issue this authorization the DWQ must ensure that your project meets the no practical alternatives test required under
these rules. The DWQ is preparing to approve the proposed activity, however insufficient evidence is present in our files
to conclude that your project must be built as planned in the protected riparian buffers in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B
.0233. Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described below, we will have to move toward denial
of your authorization certificate as required by 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8) and will place this project on hold as incomplete
until we receive this additional information.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be constructed as planned
and that you have no practicable alternative to impacting these protected riparian buffers. Specifically;
The DWQ recommends that the side slope be excavated to 3H: IV (or greater) instead of the proposed 214: IV.
The DWQ believes that a less steep slope will ensure better stability of the stream bank and improve infiltration
of overland flow into the soil prior to discharging to the stream. Please provide additional information as to why
the slope can not be excavated to 3H: IV (or greater). Also, many urban and suburban streams in the piedmont
are incised. Proving a flood plain bench ("bankfull bench") to accept overbank flows can reduce velocities and
shear stress in the stream, providing additional protection to the stream bank to be repaired.
2. The DWQ recommends planting native woody vegetation on the proposed side slope and within fifteen (15) feet
of the stream (or greater) to aid in stabilizing the stream bank and in the removal of nitrogen from overland flow.
Your application states that the side slope will be vegetated, but does not indicate the type of vegetation used.
We presume that you are referring to grass. Please provide additional information as to why woody vegetation
can not be used. Also please provide a planting plan indicating the type of vegetation to be used, location of
plantings and schedule of planting.
3. The DWQ prefers the use of woody vegetation as the primary means of long-term stability, and "soft" techniques
such as root wads that encourage the establishment of dense woody vegetation. The DWQ believes that the
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.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
rage e- or c
construction of a bankfull bench along the toe of the proposed stream bank may aid in stabilizing the stream bank
and require less (or no) riprap. If riprap is determined to be the best solution for this project, then it shall be
installed no higher than the bankfull stage (unless the need for more riprap is convincingly shown). Please
provide additional information as to why a bankfull bench can not be constructed along the proposed stream
bank or why you think it is not the best option for this project. If riprap is determined to be the best option for
this project, then please provide additional information that the proposed riprap will not exceed bankfull stage.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters or protected
buffers. Please be aware any impacts requested within your application are not authorized (at this time) by the DWQ.
Please call Mr. Todd St. John of this office at 919-733-9584 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
John Dorney,
401 Wetlands Unit, DWQ, DENR
Cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regiona Office
File Copy
Central Files
DWQ 020677
May 14, 2002
City Of 6Raleigh
-Worth Carolina
April 30, 2002
Mr. Todd St. John
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
RE: Pre-Construction Notification Application Form for
Stream Bank Stabilization at:
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615-5108
Dear Mr. St. John:
nt, E Cc,,,p6'
o2osi0
MAY'S

Please find enclosed seven copies of a completed "Pre-Construction Notification
Application Form" for the referenced project. I am submitting one copy of this application
concurrently to Ms. Amanda Jones with the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules, and thus the application fee
does not apply for this project.
Thank you for your assistance in processing this application. If I may answer any
questions concerning the application, please contact me at telephone number (919) 890-
3818.
Sincerely,
iA4__tV 16.
James K. Leumas, P. E.
Stormwater Services Engineer
J KL/
Enclosures
cc: Mr. H. Daniel Bowden, P. E.
Ms. Veronica K. Erby
Mr. John Dorney
Ms. Amanda D. Jones
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper
? SU
City C0f 6Raleigh
5Vorth GJarohna
April 30, 2002
Ms. Amanda D. Jones `N
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office..,.,
United States Army Corps of Engineers `?"??
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120 NAY
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 ZIl'?; '
RE: Pre-Construction
' Application Form for
Stream Bank ?"'?'??r?'s? r'?oN
Stabilization t at;
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615-5108
Dear Ms. Jones:
Please find enclosed one copy of a completed "Pre-Construction Notification Application
Form" for the referenced project. I am submitting seven copies of this application
concurrently to Mr. Todd St. John with the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit.
Thank you for your assistance in processing this application. If I may answer any
questions concerning the application, please contact me at telephone number (919) 890-
3818.
Sincerely,
James K. Leumas, P. E.
Stormwater Services Engineer
JKU
Enclosure
cc: Mr. H. Daniel Bowden, P. E.
Ms. Veronica K. Erby
Mr. Todd St. John
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper
Pre-Construction Notiflcation Application Form
Table of Contents
N @9
Project: Stream Bank Stabilization
8225 Clear Crook Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615-5108 MAY _ 3 201
WETLANDS GROUP
W TE QUALITY SECTION
1. Pre-Construction Notification Application Form (Pages 5 of 13 through 13 of 13)
II. Vicinity Map (One Sheet)
III. United States Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Bayleaf Quadrangle Map, Photorevised
1987 (One Sheet)
IV. Wake County Soil Survey, Issued November 1970, Map 29 (One Sheet)
V. City of Raleigh Geographic Information System Map Showing Property Location (One
Sheet)
VI. Wake County Geographic Information System Map Showing Property Location, Aerial
View (One Sheet)
VII. Stream Bank Repair Summary - 8225 Clear Brook Drive (Two Sheets)
VIII. City of Raleigh Geographic Information System Map Showing Property Location and
Referencing Stream Impact Site Number S-1 from Pre-Construction Notification
Application Form, Section VI.3 on Page 9 of 13 (One Sheet)
IX. Figure 1, Digital Picture of Site (One Sheet)
X. Figure 2, Digital Picture of Site (One Sheet)
XI. Figure3, Digital Picture of Site (One Sheet)
XII. Figure 4, Typical Repair Section (One Sheet)
Office Use Only: Form Version February 2002
USACE Action ID 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: NWP 13
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: City of Raleigh
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 590
Central Engineering Department
Raleigh, NC 27602
Attention: Mr. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., P. E.
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: carl.dawson(&i.raleigh.nc.us
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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: 8225 Clear Brook Drive Stream Bank Stabilization Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 1707.08 79 8186
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):Summerfield North, Phase 2 Lot # 579
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From downtown Raleigh, take
Capital Boulevard (U. S. 1) going north. Exit onto Wake Forest Road (SR 2000)
heading north. Wake Forest Road changes to Falls of Neuse Road (SR 2000). Continue
north on Falls of Neuse Road (SR 2000). Turn left (heading west) onto Strickland Road
(SR 1829). Turn left (heading south) onto Running Cedar Trail. Turn left (heading
east) onto Mourning Dove Road. Turn right (heading south) onto Clear Brook Drive.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 53' 23" / -78° 38' 07"
(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:Existing
land use is zoned R-4 (1/4-acre residential); site is a local unnamed drainage feature
that drains into Mine Creek.
7. Property size (acres):Lot size is 0.42 acre; stream bank stabilization area is
approximately 0.033 acre.
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Tributary to Mine Creek
Page 6 of 13
9. River Basin: Neuse River
(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/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed work is to
stabilize a section of stream bank (approximate) 95 feet in length) that has severe)
eroded. This project will help to minimize future erosion potential of stream bank
erosion along this section of channel.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A rubber-tired backhoe will
be used for shaping/grading activities and materials placement; and a dump truck will
be used for disposition of materials. Construction equipment will not need to cross or
get into the channel. All work can be completed working from the left side of the
channel.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Residential, single-family homes on
1/4-acre lots. Further upstream in the watershed are some multi-residential dwellings
and a portion of the West Millbrook Junior High School property.
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.
N/A
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.
None anticipated.
Page 7 of 13
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a brief written description of the proposed impacts: There are no indicators of
wetlands on the site. A field investigation by staff of the City of Raleigh Central
Engineering Department/Stormwater Services Division was made to determine the
severity of the streambank erosion and sedimentation as a result of the erosion. Please
see the enclosed report titled "Stream Bank Repair Summa - 8225 Clear Brook
Drive" for a narrative including digital photographs of the site.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://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 all existing wetlands on the property: 0.0 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0 acres (No indicators of wetlands observed.)
Page 8 of 13
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)
S-1 (See Stabilization 95 UT-Mine Creek - 6-Foot Intermittent per
Enclosed Report) Bottom Width 1970 Wake County
Soil Survey
(Not Shown on
USGS Quad Map)

List each impact separately and identity 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 intemet 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: 95 linear feet
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 map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation N/A
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): 7 uplands 7 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.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
Page 9 of 13
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.
This stream bank stabilization project is intended to restrain further erosion on a 95-foot
reach of an unnamed tributary to Mine Creek in the Neuse River Basin. Standard
protection measures will be used during construction to minimize erosion and off-site
sedimentation in accordance with the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual" prepared by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
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/strmgide.html.
Page 10 of 13
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.
N/A
IX.
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 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): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):_
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes 7 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 El No 0
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 E] No 7
N/A
Page 11 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
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No EJ 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 1425 3
2 0 1.5
Total 1425
Dune 1 exwnus um .)u Ieei perpenaicuiar rrom near banK or Channel; Lone 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.
N/A (Note: Only a grassed buffer area in an existing residential back yard is to be
disturbed. See Figures 1, 2 and 3. The grassed buffer area will be re-vegetated as part of
this project.)
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.
Existing impervious acreage includes the house, including back treated lumber deck, and
driveway on the property. These features account for approximate) 12.1 percent of the
total property acreage of 0.42 acre. No additional impervious surfaces are to be
constructed. Erosion and sediment control measures, such as silt fencing and a temporary
sediment trap are to be used during construction to minimize the potential for off-site
sedimentation during construction activities.
Page 12 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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes 0 No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes F 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).
'/, d ?,
A bnlo1--,
Applicant/Agent's S
(Agent's signature is valid only if an
Date
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
rar,u I V1 I
MAP ST!
Everyone needs n fettle direction in We
8225 Clear Brook Dr
Raleigh, NC 27615-5108
&MAPSLAsm

52 DO

Y
4y

.9Dctt`iRy- Corp GGT?' 1000 ft
[ Icon Latitude: 35.8895961, Longitude: -78.635368 ]
http://www.mapblast.com/mybiastImPrint.mb?CT=35.8895961°%3A-78.635368%3A20000&L` 4/22/02
r-
cl
O
i?
M
J
c?
c4
C4
GO
0-.N.
713 714000- E.
52'30
78'37'30"
1 MILE ROAD CLASSIFICATION :is 7=SET Primary highway, Light-duty road, hard or 11-11311,
?hard surface ....................... improved surface......... Secondary highway, F??rT
hard surface ....................... Unimproved road (7, Interstate Route U. S. Route ( _)State Route
N. C. ¦a
BAYLEAF, N. C.
QUADRANGLE LOCATION NW/4 RALEIGH 15' QUADRANGLE
35078-H6-TF-024
1967
PHOTOREVISED 1987
DMA 5255 1 NW-SERIES V842
I
??3L?= ?_
m
N '
N

NCJ O
m C.
C 7
i"
R o
8225 Clear Brook Drive
4 P Raleigh, NC 27615-5108 L
y?
?n
r
s e

8225 Clear Brook Drive
City Of (Raleigh
North Gvarolina
Stream Bank Repair Summary - 8225 Clear Brook Drive
INTRODUCTION
This narrative supplements the Pre-Construction Notification Application for the
referenced project. The City of Raleigh is submitting this stream bank repair request on
behalf of Mr. William W. Perkinson and Ms. Debra H. Perkinson, the owners of the
property at 8225 Clear Brook Drive. The City of Raleigh Stormwater Drainage Policy
Resolution (1998)-833 is a cost-share program that provides financial and technical
assistance in alleviating severe erosion, structural flooding and/or public nuisances on
fully-developed private property. This policy is available to citizens within the City of
Raleigh's corporate limits.
PROJECT SCOPE
An unnamed tributary in the Mine Creek watershed runs through the referenced.
property. The stream bank along the channel has experienced severe erosion causing
off-site sedimentation. A site inspection was performed by staff of the City of Raleigh
Central Engineering Department, Stormwater Services Division. The enclosed digital
photographs (Figures 1 through 3) indicate the findings of the site inspection. Although
both the right and left banks of the channel have experienced severe erosion, the owner
of the property desires to have only the left (facing downstream) bank stabilized. The
owner's house and yard is to the left of the channel.
The area described below was selected as the primary focus of the proposed stream
bank stabilization:
DESCRIPTION PROBLEM
95 linear feet of Severe erosion has occurred along the stream
channel stream channel, causing sloughing of the channel bank.
bank The left side slope of the channel stream bank
is approximately vertical.
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper
Stream Bank Repair Summary
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Page Two
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Raleigh proposes to stabilize the left bank of the channel by reinforcing the
left side slope of the channel with filter fabric and riprap for a length of approximately 95
feet. Excavation of the side slope to 2H:1V and removal of sediment in the channel
bottom will be required prior to placing the filter fabric and riprap. The vertical depth of
the channel section is between approximately 3.7 feet and 5 feet. The USGS Bayleaf
7.5-Minute Quadrangle map dated photorevised 1987 does not show a blue line
(perennial or intermittent) at the location of the site. The Wake County Soil Survey
issued in November 1970 indicates that the stream is an intermittent stream. Several
site inspections by staff of the Stormwater Services Division observed water in the
channel during each site visit. The drainage area of the channel at this property is
approximately 78.9 acres.
As indicated in Figure No. 1, Figure No. 2 and Figure No. 3, the left bank of the channel
is immediately adjacent to a well-grassed yard. The proposed work will be performed
from this side of the channel. There is one tree that will need to be removed in the front
yard for equipment access. This tree, however, falls outside the 50-foot riparian buffer.
Also, sediment that has been deposited in the channel within the work area will be
removed as part of the project. The proposed project will stabilize the left side slope of
the channel from further erosion. A vicinity map and more detailed site map are
attached. Figure 4 shows a typical repair section.
No practical alternatives appear to be available for the use ("Streambank Stabilization"),
and best management practices will be used for this project. (Reference North Carolina
Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 2B, Section .0233(6) [15A NCAC 2B
.0233(6)] and 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8)(a).) The intent of this project is to provide stream
bank stabilization in a manner that will minimize land disturbance to the riparian buffer,
preserve aquatic habitat and protect water quality within the Neuse River Basin. Best
management practices to control the impacts associated with construction activities
include using erosion and sediment control measures as outlined in the North Carolina
"Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual."
--000--
I

°_ I o
}
''-1 7 1 HAW/
30 .. °" J
8225 Clear Brook Drive
"I r (•' I Raleigh, NC 27615-5108
?I o1 I I r
Figure 1
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Severe erosion of left (facing downstream) channel stream bank. Picture taken facing upstream
(looking north). The left bank of the channel is shown on the right side of the picture.
Note: Digital picture was taken on 03-11-02. (Date on camera was not properly set.)

Figure 2
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Severe erosion of left (facing downstream) channel stream bank. Picture taken facing
downstream (looking south). The left bank of the channel is shown on the left side of the picture.
Note: Digital picture was taken on 03-11-02. (Date on camera was not properly set.)
Figure 3
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Severe erosion of left (facing downstream) channel stream bank. Picture taken facing
downstream (looking south). The left bank of the channel is shown on the left side of the picture.
Project terminates just upstream of the garden area with the landscaping timbers, which is on the
next downstream property. No work will be performed on the stable area of the left bank
upstream of the nearly vertical left bank closer to the garden area with the landscaping timbers.
Note: Digital picture was taken on 03-11-02. (Date on camera was not properly set.)
8225 Clear Brook Drive
Left Side of Channel
(Facing Downstream)
Vegetation
Riprap with --------------
Filter Fabric `-
Underliner
3.7 to 5 feet 1
2
Existing Ground Line

"- -----------
Figure 4 - Typical Repair Section
NTS