20060447 Ver 3_HLE18020-IP RFAI Response_2020-05-18_20200518

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
1 of 15
May 18, 2020

Mr. James Lastinger
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

RE: Individual Permit RFAI Response
Olde Towne Residential Community
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
HLE-18020

Dear Mr. Lastinger:

In response to the US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) request for additional information letter dated April
15, 2020, we are submitting the following information on behalf of Olde Towne WEH, LP to allow processing of
the Individual Permit application for the project. Each item requested by the agency is listed in bold and italics
followed by the response.

a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed
work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please furnish information
regarding any other alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least damaging to water or wetland
areas.

1) Specifically, please add to the alternatives analysis provided in your Individual Permit
application, received February 3, 2020, to further explore a No Permit alternative, including
avoiding all Waters of the U.S. subject to Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction. Note that this
alternative is different from the No Build alternative, which was also presented. If a No Permit
alternative is not practicable, please explain why.

2) Your off-site alternatives analysis is insufficient. The Corps is concerned that the proposed
elimination of offsite alternatives based on the assumption of increased cumulative effects from
new development from offsite sewer line upgrades is not justified, as development in the area is
presumed to continue regardless of those proposed utility improvements required for the
development of your specified offsite alternatives. Elimination of potential offsite alternatives
based only on potential secondary and cumulative impacts to surrounding properties from
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
2 of 15
sewer line upgrades is not supported by the information provided. We recommend reevaluating
your selection criteria for comparison of the sites.

The alternative analysis section of the application has been revised below to address items 1 and 2
above.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
5.1 SITE SELECTION
Site selection criteria discussed in detail below were used to evaluate the preferred and three
alternative sites. Locations of these sites are provided on Figure 21. Alternative Sites Location Map.
The applicant has prepared a confidential analysis of projected return on capital investment to
evaluate these sites. It is available upon request provid ed this information may be kept confidential.

> Project size: A minimum of 400 acres is necessary for a mixed-use development of a large-scale,
residential community that includes a local commercial center and a complete range of residential
dwelling options including single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes and apartments.
> Proximity to target market: The purpose of the project is to provide a full -service housing
community to serve the major employment centers in the Triangle including downtown Raleigh,
downtown Durham and Research Triangle Park. Only sites within a 15 -mile radius of Triangle meet
this purpose.
> Proximity to major highways: For the proposed community to meet the needs of two-career
households that may require travel to more than one employment center, it must have access to
major highways. Project sites located within 3 miles of major highways would meet this criterion.
> Proximity to utilities: Availability of sanitary sewer service is critical to the economic viability of a
mixed-use development.
> Zoning: Potential project sites must be zoned for residential development that also allows a
commercial component large enough to serve as a local commercial center including a grocery
anchor, restaurants and small service and retail shops. Zoning that allows only a minor amount of
commercial area for a few small service and retail shops is insufficient for a local commercial
center.
> Costs: For a successful project, the overall cost of development including costs for the property,
entitlement, engineering, sanitary sewer infrastructure to the site, construction and mitigation
balanced with the return on that investment must be econ omically viable.

5.1.1 OLDE TOWNE
Olde Towne is the applicant’s preferred site. It is 574 acres in size and located in the in the northeast
quadrant of Rock Quarry Road and S. New Hope Road southeast of Raleigh in Wake County. It is zoned
as residential with a commercial mixed-use area approximately 60 acres in size that allows a maximum
5-story building height. The Interstate 440 beltline around Raleigh is located approximately 2.2 miles
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
3 of 15
from the site. Approximately one half of this site consists of early successional herbaceous vegetation
mixed with stands of young loblolly pines. A power transmission line runs generally along South New
Hope Road north-south across the project site. The northern project area contains a forested
floodplain along Walnut Creek. The undisturbed areas in the northeast portion of the project area are
forested with mature hardwoods except for a few former agricultural fields that are now dominated
by kudzu. Several headwater streams originate on or flow north through the site to Walnut Creek. One
tributary in the southern end of the site flows west to Big Branch. These streams have surface water
classifications of C; NSW. Sanitary sewer service is available on the site. The applicant’s economic
analysis determined construction of the project on this site would be economically viable.

5.1.2 RIVER TOWNE
This approximately 307-acre site is located on the north side of Buffaloe Road east of Raleigh in Wake
County. It is zoned as residential with commercial mixed-use area along Buffaloe Road that is
approximately 27 acres in size. The configuration and size of the commercial area would be suitable
for a strip of small shops but would not be suitable for a local commercial center. The site is
approximately 2.3 miles from Interstate 540. It is primarily forested with mixed hardwood/pine and a
few pine stands. Several agricultural fields are also located on the site. Several headwater streams
originate on the site and flow north to Hodges Mill Creek or south to Beaverdam Creek. These streams
have surface water classifications of C; NSW. To provide sanitary sewer service to this site, a pump
station and approximately 2.9 miles of gravity sewer line, including easement acquisition, would need
to be constructed. The applicant’s economic analysis determined development of this site would be
economically viable.

5.1.3 401/BUFFALOE ROAD
This approximately 364-acre site is located on the southeast side of Fayetteville Road (US Highway
401) south of Raleigh in Wake County. It is zoned as residential only and located on a major highway
approximately 5.8 miles from the Interstate 440 beltline around Raleigh. It is primarily forested with
mixed hardwood/pine, young pine stands, successional areas and a pine planation. Agricultural fields
also occupy approximately 40 acres of the site. Several headwater streams originate on the site and
flow east to an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek or north to Swift Creek. These streams have surface
water classifications of WS-III; NSW. Although sanitary sewer service is available to this site, it is
currently at capacity and would need upgrades to handle the additional discharge from development
of this site. This would not require new easement acquisition but would require upsizing the gravity
sewer, pump station and force main. The applicant’s economic analysis determined development of
this site would be economically viable.

5.1.4 SWIFT CREEK STATION
This approximately 434-acre site is located between Fayetteville Road (US Highway 401) and Old Stage
Road along the north side of Swift Creek south of Raleigh in Wake County. It is zoned as residential
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
4 of 15
with an area approximately 20 acres in size centrally located on the site and zoned for service
business. The size of the commercial area is not sufficient for a local commercial center. The Interstate
440 beltline around Raleigh is approximately 4.9 miles from the site. This site is primarily forested with
mixed hardwood/pine and a few pine stands. Grading for a spine road and a few cul-de-sac roads are
present on the site. In addition to the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain there are a few
headwater streams that originate on the site and flow east to Swift Creek. These streams have surface
water classifications of WS-III; NSW. Although sanitary sewer service is available to this site, the pump
station and force main are currently at capacity and would need upgrades to handle the additional
discharge from development of this site. This would not require new easement acquisi tion. This site
also poses an additional expense related to boring a road under the railroad corridor that bisects the
site. The applicant’s economic analysis determined development of this site would not be
economically viable.

Table 3 summarizes the evaluation criteria of the alternative sites and preferred alternative. The
preferred alternative was the only economically viable site that met criteria for project size and zoning
as well as the other site selection criteria.

Table 3. Site Selection Criteria
Site Selection Criteria
Preferred
Alternative Rivertowne 401/Buffaloe Road Swift Creek Station
Project Size Yes No No Yes
Proximity to Target
Market
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Proximity to Utilities Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zoning Yes No No No
Costs Yes Yes Yes No
Practicable Site Yes No No No

5.2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternative, no-action alternative and no-permit alternative were evaluated to
determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).

5.2.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The applicant’s preferred alternative requires four road crossings to provide safe egress from each
pod of development and road improvements to the existing intersection of Rock Quarry Road and S.
New Hope Road/Jones Sausage Road. These road crossings involve 421 LF of permanent impacts
resulting in loss of waters for installation of culverts. Because the stream channel (Stream C) ru ns
parallel to the existing fill slope of the northeast side of Rock Quarry Road, the widening of this road
would permanently impact approximately 266 LF of stream that appears to have been straighten as
part of the construction of Rock Quarry Road. To minimize this impact, 351 LF of low-quality stream
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
5 of 15
will be realigned using natural channel design techniques to create 378 LF of stable. Permanent
impacts to wetlands resulting from the project include 0.34 AC for road crossings and 0.33 AC for road
improvements for a total of 0.67 AC. Wetland impacts from partial development of the site under a
previous permit total 0.28 AC for a cumulative project total of 1.0 AC.

Sufficient sanitary sewer infrastructure to serve the proposed development is present on the project
site. Therefore, this alternative does not require installation of sanitary sewer infrastructure off -site
that would be expected to spur additional development around the project site.

Habitat assessments and surveys for federally threatened or endangered species were completed and
compiled into a review package that was submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The
USFWS concurred with biological conclusions of no effect or may affect, not likely to adversely affect
for protected species identified on the Official Species List.

Approximately one-half of the preferred alternative was graded in preparation for development prior
to its abandonment due to the economic recession. This alternative utilizes a previously disturbed site.

5.2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
One alternative to the proposed project would be for the applicant to avoid jurisdictional impacts by
taking no action to develop the site. This alternative would prevent the applicant from developing
private property and not achieve the applicant’s purpose to create a large-scale, master planned
community to meet the demand for residential and commercial space in the Triangle area.

5.2.3 NO-PERMIT ALTERNATIVE
Another alternative would be to develop the site but avoid all Waters of the US subject to Clean Water
Act jurisdiction. Jurisdictional wetlands abut existing fill slopes along Rock Quarry and Jones Sausage
Road. There is also a stream that runs through an existing culvert under S. New Hope Road. New lanes
must be added to these existing roadways to accommodate the additional traffic anticipated from the
proposed project. This alternative would prevent widening of these existing roads, which is required
by the City as a condition of the site development plan.

5.2.4 LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA)
Of the alternative sites, only the preferred alternative meets the site criteria required for the
proposed project. The no-action alternative does not meet the project purpose. Jurisdictional areas
adjacent to existing roads that must be improved make it impossible to avoid all Waters of the US with
a no-permit alternative. The preferred alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative that is available to the applicant and meets the project purpose.

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
6 of 15
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to minimize losses of
Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all that you have done, especially regarding
development and modification of plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse
impacts.

1) Please provide further information regarding the need for proposed lot fill at impact areas C, F,
and G, including but not limited to financial viability data should these lots not be constructed.

We have re-evaluated and re-designed the project layout to avoid lot fill at impact areas C, F and
G. The revised site plan is shown on the attached Overall Impact Area Map (Figure 28) and serves
as a key for the Grading Plan (Figure 29-31) and Impact Area Insets A – K (Figures 32-42). Revised
jurisdictional stream and wetland and riparian buffer impacts for the preferred alternative are
provided in the attached Tables M1 – M3.

2) Please provide further information regarding minimization efforts at each of the culverted
stream crossings, primarily through the use of retaining walls or spanning of jurisdictional
waters. Please be aware that each alternative cost analysis should take into account the cost of
proposed compensatory mitigation (stream, wetland, and buffer) when evaluating total cost of
each alternative.

Four proposed road crossings are unavoidable because several stream channels bisect the site, a
thoroughfare road to connect S. New Hope Road and Barwell Road is required and two means of
egress are required for each area of development. For these crossings to avoid Waters of the US,
bridges would be required since arch culverts cause secondary impacts to stream channels and
may not remain structurally sound. A bridge to accomplish a road crossing of the size required for
this project costs approximately $750,000 for a proj ect total of 3 million dollars. After
construction, these roads will be transferred to the City of Raleigh (City). The City does not accept
bridges on roads with small stream crossings due to their long-term responsibility for maintenance
costs. This alternative is not practical nor acceptable to the City.

Headwalls and retaining walls are required to be located outside of the zone of influence of the
road (1:1 loading plane) by the City to allow utility maintenance, which would not minimize the
road crossing’s impact to jurisdictional stream and wetlands. However, each crossing was re-
evaluated and, where feasible based on the specific constraints at each crossing, headwalls were
expanded, slopes were increased, and temporary impacts were minimized to the reduce the
amount of impact to streams and wetlands. These impact reductions are reflected in the revised
impact maps and tables mentioned above.

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
7 of 15
3) It appears that the construction of a road, lots, and stormwater devices in the area of impacts E,
F, ang G will remove hydrology from the remainder of wetland O. Please provide further
information regarding the potential for loss of function due to secondary and cumulative effects
to this wetland area. Should it be determined that a loss of function will occur from your
analysis, mitigation will be required, and should be included in your final compensatory
mitigation plan.

As indicated above under b.1., the site plan for the project has been re-designed to avoid impacts
to this wetland by lot fill. The thoroughfare road required by the City cannot avoid this wetland
and crosses near the lower end. A culvert through this crossing will maintain the hydrology of the
wetland below the crossing.

4) Please provide further information regarding the placement of impact D. It appears that the
location of this road could be moved further to the southeast to avoid stream impacts in this
location.

In addition to expanding the headwall and increasing the fill slopes, the road cro ssing at Impact
Area D was shifted as far as possible upstream to reduce the amount of stream impact. The
reduced impact amount is reflected in the revised impact maps and tables mentioned above.

c. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for all unavoidable
adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has employed all appropriate and practicable
minimization. Please indicate your plan to mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or
wetlands or provide information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practicable
measures.

1) After review of functional quality using stream reach and/or wetland functional assessments in
the form of NC Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and NC Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM) evaluations, justification for proposed credit ratios at the following impact locations
are insufficient.

Please review the table below and adjust your mitigation proposal accordingly. Based on
adjusted mitigation ratios and previously purchased credits a total of 892 SMUs and 1.805 acre
of wetland credits is required to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for the proposed
project. Please adjust your compensatory mitigation proposal to reflect these changes.

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
8 of 15
Impact
Area
Resource
Name
Assessment
area/reach
Impact
amount
(ac/lf)
Proposed
mitigation
ratio
Corps required
mitigation ratio
C Wetland X C-2 0.031 acre 1.5:1 2:1
A Stream B A-1 120 lf 1.5:1 2:1
D Stream F D-2 57 lf 0:1 .5:1
H Stream C H-1 35 lf 1:1 2:1
H Wetland Z H-1/H-2 .064 acre .5:1/2:1 1:1
H Wetland KK H-3 0.137 acre 0.5:1 1:1
I Wetland BB I-1/I-2 0.108 1:1/1.5:1 1:1
I* Stream C I-1/I-2 404 lf .5:1/0:1 1:1

*impacts from stream relocation for the purposes of road widening is still considered an impact with
loss of aquatic function from the stream relocation and is considered a minimization effort that
typically still requires compensatory mitigation.

Revised jurisdictional stream and wetland impact tables (Tables M1 – M2) mentioned under Item
b.1. include the mitigation ratios required in the table above. As we discussed in our virtual
meeting on May 11, 2020 also attended by Sue Homewood with NCDWR, the jurisdictional area of
Stream C was revised to remove a section that w as more appropriately classified a wetland area.

2) Please provide a more detailed stream restoration plan including but not limited to locations of
all proposed structures, profile of the proposed channel, as well as a planting plan, and more
robust monitoring plan in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation
guidelines (2016).

A detailed stream restoration/relocation plan, including plan and profile sheets, planting/seeding
plan and details, permanent conservation area and revised monitoring plan for Stream C within
Impact Area I is attached (C5.00-C5.04). This plan will only be contracted to an experienced stream
restoration contractor to ensure the stream, associated grading and avoidance of large trees are
constructed and protected according to the plan. The relocation plan and monitoring plan were
revised based on guidance received during our virtual meeting on May 11, 2020 also attended by
Sue Homewood with NCDWR. We discussed completing a survey of trees (≥ 12” in diameter) to
guide development of a relocation plan that would preserve these large trees present within the
limit of disturbance. Large trees present within the limit of disturbance for the stream relocation
include river birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Acre rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
tulip poplar (Liridodendron tulipifera) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). This effort will serve to
minimize impact to the adjacent wetland and provide a robust seed source for re -establishment of
these trees within the newly established riparian buffer. A dense understory of saplings of the
larger trees are present on the north side of the proposed stream channel were clearing occurred
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
9 of 15
from the previous development. The wetland in this area is permanently saturated. Grading of the
upland area on the north side of the proposed channel to create a floodplain area is likely to result
in additional wetland development.

This restoration/relocation plan deviates from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation
guidelines (2016) based on you and Ms. Homewood’s guidance and in general accordance with
draft NCDOT Project Stream Relocation and On -site Mitigation Process for Wilmington District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (June 2016) as appropriate due to the following factors of the impact
and relocation:
• Impact is unavoidable due to widening of a NCDOT road,
• Function assessment (NCSAM)of the proposed relocation reach was completed to
establish a baseline condition,
• Relocation involves a smaller stream and composes a limited length of channel
• Poses a low risk for achieving functional uplift by restoring of 27 LF more channel than will
be abandoned in a geographically appropriate setting with more riparian buffer between
the road and stream channel,
• Compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacted channel at a 0.5:1 ratio, and
• Relocation is proposed to minimize unavoidable impact from road widening and is not
being used as compensatory mitigation.

The majority of Zone 1 outside of the stormwater outlet and available areas of Zone 2 outside of
areas graded for the stormwater control measure will be platted as a permanent conservation
area as shown on the Permanent Conservation Sheet (C5.04) of the Stream Relocation Plan. This
area will be protected in perpetuity using the USACE’s Restrictive Covenant Guidance. Areas of
Zone 2 graded for the fill slope of the stormwater control measure will be kept as maintained
grass. However, areas of Zone 2 outside of NCDOT’s easement on Rock Quarry Road is included
within the permanent conservation area and will not be maintained allowing forest vegetation to
re-establish through succession.

Additionally, the following items must be resolved prior to continuing to process your permit request:

1) Please adjust impact table (M1) as follows: itemize all proposed impacts into stream and
wetland impacts due to culvert/road fill/lot fill (permanent loss of waters), rip rap dissipater
pads (permanent impact, not a loss of waters), wetland conversion within sewer easements
(permanent conversion) and temporary impacts for construction access, sewer line installation,
etc. Impact area C also appears to be missing from the table.

Jurisdictional stream and wetland impacts have been moved to separate tables (Table M1 and
M2) and revised to include the reason for each impact and type of impact. The permanent impacts
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
10 of 15
were also sorted into permanent loss of waters and those that are permanent impact s but do not
constitute a loss of waters. The label for Impact Area C that was missing from the table was also
added.

Impact quantities provided in the revised tables were reduced for several road crossings due to
additional minimization efforts, avoidance of wetland impact from lot fill (Impact Areas C/E/F/G),
and correcting the classification of a portion of Stream C to wetland area (Impact Area I). Impact
quantities associated with widening of Rock Quarry and S. New Hope Road were increased based
on completion of detailed designs by the traffic engineer.

2) Also, provide a concise restoration plan for all temporary impacts.

Upon completion of construction, stream and wetland areas temporarily impacted by construction
access will be restored to pre-construction contours, stream banks will be stabilized with jute
matting and reseeded with riparian or wetland seed mixes as appropriate.

Please provide written responses to the comments from EPA and DEQ.

EPA comments:
“…in order to determine the proper amount and type of compensatory mitigation for losses to waters of the
United States, a functional assessment of the streams and wetlands in question should be conducted.”

Functional assessments of each stream and wetland proposed to be impacted by the project were provided in
the application along with a rationale for the mitigation ratios proposed based on the assessment results.
These assessments were reviewed, and mitigation ratios have been revised as directed by the USACE request
for additional information. The preferred alternative involves a total of 820 LF of permanent stream loss,
which includes 351 LF of stream relocation. As a result of the mitigation ratio revisions, 831 LF of stream
mitigation is required for the project.

“ I recommend that the applicant provide a mitigation plan for the on‐site permittee responsible mitigation
in order to demonstrate how the relocation will be designed, built, planted, protected, monitored for 7 years
and how the site will demonstrate that it has met minimum performance standards for stream restoration
projects. In order for the applicant to receive proper credit for their stream relocation, they must
demonstrate that the site is a successful mitigation project per Wilmington District Guidance for
Compensatory Mitigation. If the applicant is unable or unwilling to conform to compensatory mitigation
guidelines for the stream relocation, the EPA recommends that the applicant consider purchasing additional
stream mitigation credits.”

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
11 of 15
A detailed stream restoration/relocation plan, including plan and profile sheets, planting/see ding plan and
details, permanent conservation area and revised monitoring plan for Stream C within Impact Area I is
attached (C5.00-C5.04). The relocation plan and monitoring plan deviates from the Wilmington District
Guidance for Compensatory Mitigation as acceptable based on factors discussed under c.2. above and
guidance received during a virtual meeting with James Lastinger, USACE and Sue Homewood, NCDWR on
May 11, 2020.

DEQ comments:

1. The applicant proposes some reduced mitigation ratios based on NCSAM and NCWAM analyses,
however these analyses have likely been influenced by previous clearing and grading activities
within the project boundary. The Division recommends reconsideration of whether the NC SAM or
NCWAM evaluations are appropriate in these situations.

Streams and wetlands assessed to be lower quality were due to their proximity to the fill slope of Rock
Quarry and S. New Hope Road, location within a sanitary sewer easement in existence prior to the
previous development, stream incision in areas undisturbed by the previous development and stream
incision and absence of a forested buffer where the stream was located within an agricultural field
prior to the previous development. The mitigation ratios have also been adjusted as directed from
James Lastinger’s (USACE) review of these assessments.

2. The Division has requested additional technical information from the applicant and requests that
the USACE also consider the attached letter during the review of the application.

This response includes additional information requested by the Division below.

DEQ request for additional information:

1. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests a response to any comments received as a result of the
Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your respons e to the USACE. [15A NCAC 02H
.0502(c)]

This response will be provided to the Division as indicated at the bottom of the letter using
supplemental information form upload link.

2. Your have proposed a stream restoration/relocation for a portion of Stream C (Impact Area I). You
have provided a conceptual stream relocation design on Figure 40, as well as some typical stream
restoration details on Figure 44. Please provide a detailed stream restoration plan which includes
exact locations of all proposed structures, as well as a profile of the proposed channel. Please also
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
12 of 15
provide a planting plan that indicates the proposed new buffer location and the types of vegetation
proposed to be planted with each Zone. The current plan does not clearly include the Neuse b uffer
area planting details.

A detailed stream restoration/relocation plan, including plan and profile sheets, planting/seeding plan
and details, permanent conservation area and revised monitoring plan for Stream C within Impact
Area I is attached (C5.00-C5.04). The relocation plan and monitoring plan deviates from the
Wilmington District Guidance for Compensatory Mitigation as acceptable based on factors discussed
under c.2. above and guidance received during a virtual meeting with James Lastinger, USACE and Sue
Homewood, NCDWR on May 11, 2020.

3. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(a) a 401 Water Quality Certification may only be issued upon
determining that existing uses are not removed or degraded by a discharge to classified surface
waters. Based on the information provided in the application and associated documents, the current
drainage area and upper portion of Wetland O (Impact Area E/F/G) is proposed to be filled and
routed through a stormwater control measured that will be discharged along a stream channel.
Please note that the rerouting of any drainage area and surface flow has the potential to remove
existing hydrology from Wetland O and therefore remove existing uses of the wetland. Please
provide a detailed hydrologic analysis of indirect impacts to the remaining portion of Wetl and O
immediately below this impact area. Alternatively, you may propose updated impact amounts that
include the area as a loss of wetland due to indirect impacts.

As indicated above under b.3., the site plan for the project has been re-designed to avoid impacts to
this wetland by lot fill. The thoroughfare road required by the City cannot avoid this wetland and
crosses near the lower end. A culvert through this crossing will maintain the hydrology of the wetland
below the crossing. Some of the drainage area around the wetland is also avoided. The upper portion
of Wetland O is permanently saturated and becomes seasonally saturated within the lower third of
the wetland indicating that hydrology is maintained by groundwater. This wetland is in a single-family
home section of the development where the amount of impervious surface is anticipated to be
approximately 50 percent. In these areas, roadway drainage, driveways and the front half of rooftops
are directed to a stormwater control meas ure. The back half of rooftops drain to backyard lawns and
landscaped areas allowing infiltration to recharge groundwater. A retaining wall above the wetland
area will have a gravel drainage system that allows groundwater to discharge at several points alo ng
the bottom of the wall at non-erosive velocities. These factors are likely to maintain the hydrology of
this wetland. Except for the retaining wall, the same is true for the wetlands avoided at Impact Area C.

4. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H.0506(a) a 401 Water Quality Certification ma y only be issued upon
determining that existing uses are not removed or degraded by a discharge to classified surface
waters. Based on the information provided in the application and associated documents, the current
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
13 of 15
drainage area and upper portion of Stream F is proposed to be routed through a stormwater control
measured that will be discharged a substantial distance further downstream along the stream
channel. Please note that the rerouting of any drainage area and surface flow has the potential to
remove existing hydrology from the upper portion of Stream F and therefore remove existing uses of
the stream. Please provide a detailed hydrologic analysis of indirect impacts to the portion of
Stream F above all stormwater control measure discharge points. Alternatively, you may propose
updated impact amounts that include this area as a loss of stream due to indirect impacts.

Stream F is in a single-family home section of the development where the amount of impervious
surface is anticipated to be approximately 50 percent. In these areas, roadway drainage, driveways
and the front half of rooftops are directed to a stormwater control measure. The back half of rooftops
drain to backyard lawns and landscaped areas allowing infiltration to recharge groundwater.
Additionally, when the final stormwater management plan for this area is developed, measures to
supply non-erosive stormwater runoff to the channel will be included as allowable by the City of
Raleigh’s stormwater management plan requirements. These factors and countermeasures are likely
to maintain the hydrology of this stream channel.

5. The outlet channels from some of the proposed Stormwater Control Measures are aligned at
approximately 90 degrees from the stream channel. The Division is concerned that these proposed
alignments have the potential to cause impact do downstream water quality from the erosion of the
streambanks. Please re-align the outlets, or provide detailed evaluation of the area to document
that streambank erosion will not occur as a result of the current alignments.

Two stormwater outlets at Impact Area J have been revised to align with the stream channel at acute
angles as much as possible with the necessity of offsetting the two discharges in a short span before
the stream takes a 90 degree turn.

Revised Impact Totals & Compensatory Mitigation Plan
The preferred alternative as revised would result in the following total jurisdictional impacts:
• 669 LF of permanent, perennial stream loss, including stream relocation,
• 151 LF of permanent, intermittent stream loss,
• 75 LF of permanent, perennial stream impact with no loss,
• 38 LF of permanent, intermittent stream impact with no loss,
• 10 LF of temporary, perennial stream impact,
• 7 LF of temporary, intermittent stream impact,
• 0.668 AC of permanent, wetland impact and
• 0.155 AC of temporary, wetland impact.

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
14 of 15
Permanent stream impacts total 933 LF and temporary stream impacts total 17 LF for the proposed project.
Installation of previously permitted, sanitary sewer lines resulted in 30 LF of perennial and 115 LF of
intermittent stream impact for a total of 145 LF of previously permitted and completed temporary stream
impacts. The proposed project would increase the cumulative temporary perennial stream impacts to 40 LF
and intermittent stream impact to 122 LF for a total of 162 LF. The proposed permanent wetland impact of
0.668 AC combined with previously permitted wetland impacts (0.283 AC) brings the cumulative, permanent
wetland impact for the proposed project to 0.951 AC. The proposed project will also permanently impact a
total of 39,148 SF of Zone 1 and 33,111 SF of Zone 2 riparian buffer.

Additional minimization efforts and reclassification of a section of Stream C (Impact Area I) resulted in 150 LF
less permanent and 48 LF less temporary stream impact. Additional avoidance, re-classification of impacts for
road widening and identification of temporary wetlands impacts necessary for the stream relocation resulted
in 0.486 AC less permanent wetland impact and 0.143 more temporary wetland impact.

Mitigation ratios listed for each impact in Tables M1 – M2 reflect the results of quality assessments that have
been revised as required by the USACE’s request for additional information letter. A total of 831 LF of stream
credits and 1.007 AC of riparian wetland credits are proposed to mitigate the project’s impact to these
jurisdictional resources. Before the original project was abandoned, payment was made for 300 stream credits
and 0.4752 AC riparian wetland credits. Of the permitted impacts that represented a loss of waters, only
0.283 AC of wetland impacts were completed. The approved mitigation ratio for these permitted impacts was
1:1. Therefore, 0.1922 AC of wetland and 300 LF of stream mitigation credits paid for this project remains. An
additional 531 LF of stream and 0.8148 AC of wetland credits must be acquired to mitigate imp acts for the
proposed project.

The attached Table M3 lists the revised buffer mitigation required for each proposed impact. Impact Area E
road crossing was minimized below the threshold for riparian buffer mitigation. Impact Area D road crossing is
the second crossing of Stream F making its impact cumulative with Impact Area B. Therefore, Impact Area D
also requires riparian buffer mitigation. The applicant requests that buffer mitigation be paid prior to
commencement of the phase of construction. Buffer mitigation credits for Phase 1 (Impact Area H and I) and
Phase 2 (Impact Area A, B, D and E) total 11,363 SF and 101,001 SF, respectively.

The applicant anticipates that it will take approximately 10 years to complete the proposed project and
requests that the permit remain valid for this time span. As indicated previously, the project will be completed
in two phases. The applicant requests mitigation required for the project be phased also. Impact Areas H and I
are the only impacts located within Phase 1 of the project requiring 271.5 LF of stream and 0.3290 AC of
wetland mitigation credits. These stream credits have already been paid with 28 .5 LF of paid stream credits
remaining for Phase 2 of the project. After deducting the remaining wetland credits that have been paid but
unused, 0.1368 AC of wetland credits need to be purchased for Phase 1 of the project. Mitigation required for
Phase 2 of project (Impact Areas A-E) consists of 559.5 LF of stream and 0.678 AC of wetland credits. After
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION > HLE-18020
creating experiences through experience
15 of 15
deducting the remaining stream credits that have been paid but unused by the original project and Phase 1 of
the proposed project, 531 LF of additional stream credits and the entire amount of wetland credits (0.678 AC)
need to be purchased for Phase 2 of the project. Phase 2 mitigation is proposed to be paid prior to
December 31, 2027.

Thank you for your review of the project. If you should have any questions or require additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,
MCADAMS

Jennifer Burdette
Sr. Environmental Consultant, Water Resources

cc: Sue Homewood, NCDWR (via https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form)
Todd Bowers, EPA ([e-mail])
Eric Rifkin, Olde Towne, LP ([e-mail])
Ryan Akers, McAdams ([e-mail])