20120658 Ver 1_Individual_20120702

—%0 j c U o D g
I I
coEngineering
A division of The John R McAdams Company, Inc
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To Mr Ian McMillan Date July 3 2012
401 Coordinator WEBSCAPE Unit
NCDENR DWQ
1650 Mail Service Center HAND DELIVER `*
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1650
Re Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Job No DKU 08010
Individual Permit Application
I am sending you the following item(s)
COPIES
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION
5
For review and comment
Individual Permit Application notebook w Exhibits
5
Figures 5 7 1 50 Scale Proposed Impacts Maps
5
Dam and Pond Detail Design Drawings
1
Check to NCDWQ for $570 00
1
CD copy of entire application package
These are transmitted as checked below
❑
As requested
®
For approval
®
For review and comment
101
® For your use
El
Copy to Signed
�.��jp,PN�� Kevin Yates
I
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
® Copy Letter of Transmittal Only to File
❑ Copy Entire Document to File
2905 Meridian Parkway Durham North Carolina 27713
PO Box 14005 RTP North Carolina 27709

F i
tr`' �'�'rH •i p ,
a
i ' 't+Ree1V.
nti � '•..\ 70 M 70
.� O
ti i D
.,• .• ` z , i s m
1 ` M II
tot• 1, ft t �D.•.""
A ✓e
••1,..,, zl ..
7t • �� • � A r � f S• •Cq•DF -•• „•
�•� i'' ! N mN"•., m fig'`•, : 0r , y i ,
... _.� . i t .. ' D c 00 o o
S Zi”
•.IA!iP.'i•E,`,`�i?�,Yll) ; A t1 � `� ._ �•• r f' r .ap t,
.......... m
t ,?
O
n , ?
;
1
' T m -o
' X
: a
O
`dh
i......_. N m
PN.e O
r.' • � 'OD rq
:t D 0
Lo
,
,
T Fl
,_,� E lic'i `F., 1crn �M� a-D !• - „•ry ?r t0�� .-O
o...i __.,j.. i..,..5_.._,_..'_,,. m.
- - - - --
r__. It ma jA 1 0� nNy� r;C�d 1? i �`' fn
W
z v y F I -N a `, 7lr o
i i ', i 't •e l�'i �? t•• rA may° % t \,�• r`'. •I —
®
PROJECT N0. DKU -08010
D
W
DUKE WATER RECLAMATION POND
AEcoEngineering
FiLExn : EXHIBITS
WEST MIT.
SCALE:
W
N
D
J
m
W
000. 739 -5540. m, njolmmcadams.eom.License No.: 0-0203
C7
2
rm
m cn
�
�
�
W
�
J
O
O
2
�
D
�
�
N
N
N
Z'
v
n
-1,3
IV
O O
Z
O
N �
F i
tr`' �'�'rH •i p ,
a
i ' 't+Ree1V.
nti � '•..\ 70 M 70
.� O
ti i D
.,• .• ` z , i s m
1 ` M II
tot• 1, ft t �D.•.""
A ✓e
••1,..,, zl ..
7t • �� • � A r � f S• •Cq•DF -•• „•
�•� i'' ! N mN"•., m fig'`•, : 0r , y i ,
... _.� . i t .. ' D c 00 o o
S Zi”
•.IA!iP.'i•E,`,`�i?�,Yll) ; A t1 � `� ._ �•• r f' r .ap t,
.......... m
t ,?
O
n , ?
;
1
' T m -o
' X
: a
O
`dh
i......_. N m
PN.e O
r.' • � 'OD rq
:t D 0
Lo
,
,
T Fl
,_,� E lic'i `F., 1crn �M� a-D !• - „•ry ?r t0�� .-O
o...i __.,j.. i..,..5_.._,_..'_,,. m.
- - - - --
r__. It ma jA 1 0� nNy� r;C�d 1? i �`' fn
W
z v y F I -N a `, 7lr o
i i ', i 't •e l�'i �? t•• rA may° % t \,�• r`'. •I —
®
PROJECT N0. DKU -08010
DUKE WATER RECLAMATION POND
AEcoEngineering
FiLExn : EXHIBITS
WEST MIT.
SCALE:
FIGURE 11T: MITIGATION PLAN
A division ofThe John R McAdams Company, Inc.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH 905 MeridiaanlAParkway, NC 2rl3B
N TS
TC'(O� AN1�C(EPTUAL
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 06 -21 -2012
000. 739 -5540. m, njolmmcadams.eom.License No.: 0-0203

REACH
RESTORED
LENGTH
(L
APPROACH
M ITIGATIdN
RATIO
CREO ffS
(RED
1
147
E2/4
(2.5:1)/4
14
1A
98
E2
2.5:1
39
2
596
R (P2)
1:1
596
3
566
R (P2)
1:1
566
4
640
R (Pi)
1:1
640
4A
29
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
14
5
157
R (P1)
1.1
157
6
171
R (P1)
1:1
171
7
98
R/4 (P1)
(1:1)/4
24
8
694
R (Pi)
1.1
694
8A
25
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
12
88
28
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
14
TOTAL SMUs - 2,941
r -- N,F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN * 822 -08 -20 -1371
GB 6133 PG 274
PB 183 G 189
C?
N1F 5
DUKE UNIVERSITY GP
i PIN # %XX- XX- XX -XXX7l
oB
r
J
DUKE UNIVERSITY r� • DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 - 0.x29.2910 ■ PIN 9 821.06.29 -7777
PS 186 G61 J�JJ i w yGLC PO321 G?95
J DUKE UNIVERSITY q y
'y P I N 4821.05.29-4018 Fr1r�,
I DS 341 PC 288
/ RF
• UNIVERSITY
PIN 9
PIN # 021- 05- 2e -374e
■ I D0 341 PG 288
I r
■ ! NIF
J DUKE UNIVERSITY
I I PIN 9821.06.29.5777.LOO
■ ■ DB& PG NIA DUKE UNIVERSITY
i■ JJ VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PB 121 PG 195 PIN # 02021-M2"745 ■r I
D0 1991 -E G 285
PB9G59
I �► *F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
■ ■ PIN # 821. 06.29.8548
f DB & PG (8Y WIL _y
I JI
I ! VIA DURHAM GO- GIS
■
J
J NN
/ DUKE UNIVERSITY
JJ PIN # 821.08 -29 -3343
OBdPGNPS 8BPGR�M S
-CJ 2,941 SMUS�
III:
OG
��ti�E
JOHN E- FELTON &
ELIZABETH 0. FELTON
CONCEPTUAL CAMPUS DRIVE MITIGATION PLAN
•.1
1
o
I.
I 'I
N✓F
f HVE HIMMICRIZIrY
r
NIF
1'
I
DUKE UNIVER5ITY
I "
PIN #821 -05 -19 -7322
DUKE UNIVERSITY °+
OB 316 PG 271
P8 132 PG 25
j
r -- N,F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN * 822 -08 -20 -1371
GB 6133 PG 274
PB 183 G 189
C?
N1F 5
DUKE UNIVERSITY GP
i PIN # %XX- XX- XX -XXX7l
oB
r
J
DUKE UNIVERSITY r� • DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 - 0.x29.2910 ■ PIN 9 821.06.29 -7777
PS 186 G61 J�JJ i w yGLC PO321 G?95
J DUKE UNIVERSITY q y
'y P I N 4821.05.29-4018 Fr1r�,
I DS 341 PC 288
/ RF
• UNIVERSITY
PIN 9
PIN # 021- 05- 2e -374e
■ I D0 341 PG 288
I r
■ ! NIF
J DUKE UNIVERSITY
I I PIN 9821.06.29.5777.LOO
■ ■ DB& PG NIA DUKE UNIVERSITY
i■ JJ VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PB 121 PG 195 PIN # 02021-M2"745 ■r I
D0 1991 -E G 285
PB9G59
I �► *F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
■ ■ PIN # 821. 06.29.8548
f DB & PG (8Y WIL _y
I JI
I ! VIA DURHAM GO- GIS
■
J
J NN
/ DUKE UNIVERSITY
JJ PIN # 821.08 -29 -3343
OBdPGNPS 8BPGR�M S
-CJ 2,941 SMUS�
�w
w�
STONE FOREBAY 11 J
TYPICAL FOR ALL ■ T
STORMWATER OUTLETS I r�
RIF(!3_bR�
----------------- - r 5
REPAIR OUTFALL,-
AREA: INSTALL WETLAND
JJrr II.
vn
8 7
III:
OG
��ti�E
JOHN E- FELTON &
ELIZABETH 0. FELTON
CONCEPTUAL CAMPUS DRIVE MITIGATION PLAN
cA��us
--
o
PB 16 PG 6
N✓F
f HVE HIMMICRIZIrY
NfF
- -- --
' N* 7.
Qww
DUKE UNIVERSITY °+
PIN # 821.05.18 -566D _
I
/J
DS & PG NIA VIA DURWIM CO. GIS_: r _
�
PB 156 PG 347 -J
�C9s
I
Q IA `firriJ Jr ..
,I
4'C l
/�i /r.
fi
/JlrJ„
/
DUKE UNIVERS
J•-PIN # 821 - 089 - -:
/� // OB 6 PG WA NA IX]RHA
PS 3A PG 82
�w
w�
STONE FOREBAY 11 J
TYPICAL FOR ALL ■ T
STORMWATER OUTLETS I r�
RIF(!3_bR�
----------------- - r 5
REPAIR OUTFALL,-
AREA: INSTALL WETLAND
JJrr II.
vn
8 7
I
7�
i
6
aw
P
STORMWATER OUTFALL
STONE FOREPAY
STORMWATER DUVALL TYPICAL FOR ALL
STORMWATER OUTLETS
CAMa{�3 ❑RIV �1
RESTORED DRAINAGE -WAY
STEP --POOL STRUCTURE
61
PROPOSED STREAM RE-- LOCATION
EXISTING STREAM LOCATION
Al
k'
lu
4
U
OG
N!F
oR oxanw
N!F DUKE UNIVERSITY
, BRUCE KUNIHOLM PIN # 821.06 -38 -4621 141F
NT PIN # 821- 06.28.7454 06 E PG NIA VIA DURHAM CO. GIS DUKE UNIVERSITY
, OB 8147 PG 798 P8 101 G 140 PIN # 821 -08-38 -5461
PATRICK J. BAYER
4 & PB 28 PG 106 NIF NfF DB 326 G 444
TRACY A. FALBA DURHAM REALTY INC.
Al. PIN 4 821. 08-38 -2375 DUKE UNIVERSITY
I• DIIJ k R'11.fIF.�A.7'1� F
JOHN E- FELTON &
ELIZABETH 0. FELTON
CONCEPTUAL CAMPUS DRIVE MITIGATION PLAN
PIN # 821 - 05.28.4537
D01011 PG 64
8
PB 16 PG 6
N✓F
f HVE HIMMICRIZIrY
NfF
I
7�
i
6
aw
P
STORMWATER OUTFALL
STONE FOREPAY
STORMWATER DUVALL TYPICAL FOR ALL
STORMWATER OUTLETS
CAMa{�3 ❑RIV �1
RESTORED DRAINAGE -WAY
STEP --POOL STRUCTURE
61
PROPOSED STREAM RE-- LOCATION
EXISTING STREAM LOCATION
r /
oRroncrn ucn ►un
Al
k'
lu
4
U
OG
N!F
oR oxanw
N!F DUKE UNIVERSITY
, BRUCE KUNIHOLM PIN # 821.06 -38 -4621 141F
NT PIN # 821- 06.28.7454 06 E PG NIA VIA DURHAM CO. GIS DUKE UNIVERSITY
, OB 8147 PG 798 P8 101 G 140 PIN # 821 -08-38 -5461
PATRICK J. BAYER
4 & PB 28 PG 106 NIF NfF DB 326 G 444
TRACY A. FALBA DURHAM REALTY INC.
Al. PIN 4 821. 08-38 -2375 DUKE UNIVERSITY
I• DIIJ k R'11.fIF.�A.7'1� F
R
FIGURE 11:
CONCEPTUAL CAMPUS DRIVE MITIGATION PLAN
r� �9h
Qww
/J
yG
�
! f
Q IA `firriJ Jr ..
4'C l
r /
fi
/
2
DUKE UNIVERS
J•-PIN # 821 - 089 - -:
/� // OB 6 PG WA NA IX]RHA
PS 3A PG 82
RESTORED DRAINAGE -WAY
STEP -POOL STRUCTURE
i JJ ? a STORMWATER OOTFALL
DUKE uNdvERSIr
PIN # 821.06. 49337
PROPOSED WETLAND Do PG
PB B 3A 3A PG 62 82
14' SHARED
/ PEDESTRIAN
Q "
7 PATHWAY
DUKE UNIVERSITY
STORMWATER DUVALL PIN # 821.06.49.1090
09 E PG NIA VIA DURHAM CO. GIB
RESTORED DRAINAGE --WRY P8 161 G 140
it
STEP -POOL STRUCTURE
r /
oRroncrn ucn ►un
NM=
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN 9821.06.381621
08 8 G NIA VIA DURHAM CO. CIS
PO 781 PG 140
N 0
N AVE
re RSo
N7F
DUKPI"
]� GRAPHIC SCALE
11� - 200 0 100 200 400
1 inch = 200 ft.
CD 1
.tea �•
C:
uj
!0
LLI
2�
Z
�U
�O
U
A�
m [V
DO x O
o L.I 0 C4
I
I F II 17,
� g I
U
c
x
r
z
McADAMS
Al
k'
lu
4
U
FIAR VLU HVNIi iS
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -2444
NIP DS 1668 PG 731 ANGIE HONG
CAROLINE E. BR UZELIUS PB 12 PG 22 PIN #821.05. 28.4428
N PIN # 821.052 &1427 DS 6591 PG 509
RONALD G. MITT & PB 16 PG 3e
DB 2669 PG 753
MARY A. +MIT p6 12 PG 22
PIN # 821 -95-18 -9367
NIF DO 1668 PG 994
N!F
oR oxanw
N!F DUKE UNIVERSITY
, BRUCE KUNIHOLM PIN # 821.06 -38 -4621 141F
NT PIN # 821- 06.28.7454 06 E PG NIA VIA DURHAM CO. GIS DUKE UNIVERSITY
, OB 8147 PG 798 P8 101 G 140 PIN # 821 -08-38 -5461
PATRICK J. BAYER
4 & PB 28 PG 106 NIF NfF DB 326 G 444
TRACY A. FALBA DURHAM REALTY INC.
Al. PIN 4 821. 08-38 -2375 DUKE UNIVERSITY
I• DIIJ k R'11.fIF.�A.7'1� F
FIGURE 11:
CONCEPTUAL CAMPUS DRIVE MITIGATION PLAN
NM=
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN 9821.06.381621
08 8 G NIA VIA DURHAM CO. CIS
PO 781 PG 140
N 0
N AVE
re RSo
N7F
DUKPI"
]� GRAPHIC SCALE
11� - 200 0 100 200 400
1 inch = 200 ft.
CD 1
.tea �•
C:
uj
!0
LLI
2�
Z
�U
�O
U
A�
m [V
DO x O
o L.I 0 C4
I
I F II 17,
� g I
U
c
x
r
z
McADAMS

Since 1979
THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC.
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
All Blanks To Be Filled In By The CurrentProperty Owner
Name: Duke University Facilities Management Dept. contact: Paul Manning
Address: 114 S. Buchanan Blvd./ Durham, NC 27701
Phone: [phone]
Project Name /Description: Duke University Water Re -Use Pond
Project Number: DKU -08010 Project Manager: I James Caldwell/ Kevin Yates
Date: December 7. 2009
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Wetlands Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current owner, hereby designate and authorize The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. to act
in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward.
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only
for government officials to enter the property when accompanied by The John R.
McAdams Company, Inc. staff. You should call The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. to
arrange a site meeting prior to visiting the site.
F ,40L_ MA N 01 t) 62 `
Print Contractor Purchaser 1gnature Die
Cc: Mr. Ian McMillan
NCDENR -DWQ
512 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building 9t" floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G • L A N D P L A N N I N G • S U R V E Y I N G
PO Box 14005 • Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 • (919) 361 -5000 • fax [phone]
www.johnrmcadams.com

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
EXPIRES: 31 AUGUST 2012
33 CFR 325
Liblic reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710- 0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320 -332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and /or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Paul Middle - Last - Manning
First - Kevin Middle - Last - Yates
Company - Duke University
Company - EcoEngineering
sail Address - paul.o.manning @duke.edu
E -mail Address - yates @ecoengr.com
b. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 114 S. Buchanan Blvd.
Address- 2905 Meridian Parkway
City - Durham State - NC Zip - 27701 Country -USA
City - Durham State - NC Zip-27713 Country-USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w /AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w /AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
919 - 660 -4222 919 - 682 -9709
919- 361 -5000 919- 624 -6901 919- 361 -2269
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, (See Agent Authorization Form) to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Sandy Creek (NSW /WS -V) Cape Fear River Basin (03030002)
Address Northeast Quadrant of Erwin Rd and Towerview Road
City - Durham State- NC Zip- 27701
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.9969 Longitude: -W - 78.9440
OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
.ce Tax Parcel ID 108792 Municipality Durham, North Carolina
Section - Township - Range -
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2010 EDITION OF OCT 2004 IS OBSOLETE Proponent GtGw -uK

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
The proposed project, known as the Duke Water Reclamation Pond, is located within an approximately 13 acre tract of land located on
ke University's campus, adjacent to Duke's chiller plant number # 2, in Durham, North Carolina. It is bordered to the east by Circuit
✓e, to the south by Towerview Drive, to the west by Erwin Road, and to the north by forested areas and chiller plant number 2 (Figure I/
Figure 5). The 5.52 -acre pond is proposed to be sited on an unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek, within the Cape Fear River Basin
(Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002). Current access to the property can be achieved from Towerview Drive and the Chiller Plant on the north
side of the project area.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Duke University is currently the largest water customer for the City of Durham. Because the chiller plant is the largest consumer of potable
water on Duke's campus, and potable (or drinking) water is not required for its operation, Duke is proposing to reduce or eliminate potable
water use for the cooling tower make up water by constructing a water reclamation pond to provide water for the primary chiller plant # 2.
Impacts to perennial stream features "A" and "B" totaling 1,674 linear feet are proposed to facilitate construction of the water reclamation
pond (Figure 6). The water reclamation pond is proposed to hold approximately 12 million usable gallons, with a depth of ten feet and
5.52 -acres of surface area at normal pool (Figure 7 /Figure 9). It is proposed to construct an earthen dam with a spillway and outlet
structure, approximately 170 -feet north of Towerview Drive along this unnamed tributary to impound and reclaim water. The reclaimed
water would then be pumped to and utilized by Duke's chiller plant # 2, which provides air conditioning for Duke's main campus and
University hospital complex. (Further Details within Environmental Assessment Document enclosed)
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to provide a non - potable water source to a centralized Chiller Plant within the Duke
University main campus. The proposed water reclamation pond would provide a consistent non - potable water source for the chiller plant
and offset demand to the City of Durham's drinking water supply.
USE BLOCKS 20 -23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
To facilitate construction of the dam, outlet structure, and water - supply impoundment (Further Details within Environmental Assessment
Document and Design Drawings enclosed)
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Clean Fill: 2,836 yds3 Open Water: 2,236 yds3
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres Stream A: 0.72 acres Stream A: 1,431 linear feet / Stream B: 0.07 acre Stream B: 243 linear feet
or
Linear Feet Total: 1,674 linear feet of Perennial Stream
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
Qee Environmental Assessment Document, Sections: 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2010

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes FX No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- Adjacent Property Owners are listed on Figure: 11, and 8.5 "x11" drawings are enclosed with Appendix A for Public Notice.
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
y - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals /Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL` IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
NC DWQ 401 Certification N/A 2012 -06 -27
NC Dam Safety DS Permit N/A 2012 -07 -11
City of Durham Site Plan N/A 2012 -07 -18
City of Durham Erosion Control N/A 2012 -07 -18
" Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF ACUENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicangor it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
Knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2010

REACH
RESTORED
LENGTH
(LF)
APPROACH
MITIGATION
RATIO
CREDITS
(SMUs)
1
147
E2/4
(2.5:1)/4
14
1A
98
E2
2.5:1
39
2
596
R (P2)
1:1
596
3
566
R (P2)
1:1
566
4
640
R (P1)
1:1
640
4A
29
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
14
5
157
R (P1)
1:1
157
6
171
R (P1)
1:1
171
7
98
R/4 (P1)
(1:1)/4
24
8
694
R (P1)
1:1
694
8A
25
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
12
88
28
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
14
TOTAL SMUs = 2,941
4/
0
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -05 -19 -7322
D8316 PG 271
PB 132 PG 25
E
GAMPUS DR1vti (�
- N /FBI
DUKE UNIVERSITY co -
PIN # 821 -05 -18 -5660 3�
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PB 156 PG 347
1S Q I
1.1T r f
j!j r
11
ttf
1�
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Q RONALD G. WITT & MARY A. WITT
PIN # 821- -05 -18 -9367
5 SYLVAN RD. DURHAM, NC 27701
Q CAROLINE E. BRUZELIUS
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -1421
6 SYLVAN RD. DURHAM, NC 27701
3Q OWNED BY APPLICANT
4Q HAROLD HONG & ANGIE HONG
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4426
614 SWIFT AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
Q JOHN E. FELTON & ELIZABETH D. FELTON
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4537
612 SWIFT AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
® BRUCE KUNIHOLM
PIN # 821 -06 -28 -7454
611 SWIFT AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
7Q DURHAM REALITY INC
IN # 821 -06 -38 -2375
700 MAPLEWOOD AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
1 J
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -7777
DB 359 PG 270
9 P8 121 PG 195
�F
N/F
E UNIVERSITY
t 821 -06 -29 -8745
1991 -E PG 285
PB 9 PG 59
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -8548
DB & PG (BY WILL)
VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
2,941 SMUs
r P
_ - C- -'- ------ _ - -
MpUS --R /VF��`�
+- - - NI - - -- I `J
- "�- DUKE IVERSITY
"( PIN # 21 -06 -38 -1701
DB & PG A VIA DURHAM CO GIS ----- --
PB 156 PG 347
N/F
OJOHN E. FELTON
S &
ELIZABETH D FELTON
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4537
8 DB 1811 PG 64
161E 16 PG 6
a, HAROLD HONG
tj
�G
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -3343
A,
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
f
P6 186 PG 61
� t
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSI
+I
PIM #8�� - -8583
/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -7777
DB 359 PG 270
9 P8 121 PG 195
�F
N/F
E UNIVERSITY
t 821 -06 -29 -8745
1991 -E PG 285
PB 9 PG 59
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -8548
DB & PG (BY WILL)
VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
2,941 SMUs
r P
_ - C- -'- ------ _ - -
MpUS --R /VF��`�
+- - - NI - - -- I `J
- "�- DUKE IVERSITY
"( PIN # 21 -06 -38 -1701
DB & PG A VIA DURHAM CO GIS ----- --
PB 156 PG 347
N/F
OJOHN E. FELTON
S &
ELIZABETH D FELTON
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4537
8 DB 1811 PG 64
161E 16 PG 6
a, HAROLD HONG
tj
�G
R
�C _1'ts
A,
r
6 5
J�
e
A,
Q
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821-06-49-8583
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GI
PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO. GIS
c'9411P4,S FR /VF
/Y
FJ
1
it f
t
PROPOSED STREAM RE— LOCATION
EXISTING STREAM LOCATION
4 N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -38 -4621
DB & PG NIA VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PS 161 PG 140
AVENUE
RSON
N/F
DUKF —
(' ID A'DLTT('' C(' A T r,'
N/F W Wo V & i /../ V DB F. PG N/A VIA DUP.HRM GO GIS ) }� u 1 t.ni 1 V
Q
CAROLINE E. BRUZELIUS N/F ANGIE HONG J NIF IA 161 PG 140 200 0 100 200 400
BRUCE KUNIHOLM
N/F PIN # 2669 9-28-1421 DUKE UNIVERSITY PIN # 6581 P 2509 = PIN # 821 -06 -28 -7454 N/F
Q' RONALD G. WITT DB 2669 PG 753 DB 6581 PG 509 !L/ N/F
Q� PIN # 8266 PG
PB 16 PG 38 , D8 6747 PG 798 4! DUKE UNIVERSITY
& PB 12 PG 22 DB 1666 PG 731 PATRICK J. BAYER
�Q- Q PS 26 PG 106 © l N/F PIN # 821 -06 -38 -5467
MARY A. WITT PS 12 PG 22 & N/F UNIVERSITY DB 326 PG 444
N/F PIN # 821-05-18-9367 h TRACY A.FALBA NIF DURHAMREALT� 1 inch = 200 ft.
1, PIM }i A�1_IM.- 7R_7'i1S PATRICK.I BAYER PIN # 821- 06 -38 -23 821 -0638.4337
FIGURE 11: CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN WITH ADJACENT PROPER'L'Y OWNERS
I
m
N � h
OU �
® � m
O
►Li
O
V
rz z
P
A
0
r�
�T I
® N
0
O W O N
Y
W O
zz
F m
McADAMS
�G
R
�C _1'ts
A,
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSI
Q D
PIM #8�� - -8583
/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
q L� PB
& PG NIA DURHAM CO. GIS
2 /iii /sir �� /��'r�'�'ii- '� /i i�'i' (� N/F
"' '
' �'''f "�i" DUKE UNIVER:
PIN # 821-06-49-2
& PG N/A VIA DURHAM
08
PB 3A PG 82
,
N/F
NIF
Q, DUKE UNIVERSITY /t:% ,;�
V' PIN # 821 - 06 -49 -8583
/i
DUKE UNIVERSIT
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -337
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GI // /i,
pj PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO. GIS /i -
f DB 356 PG 483
' . PB 3A PG 82
14' SHARED
' /, "�''
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY DI
„
�';''
NIF
DUKE UNIVERSITY
r PIN # 821 -06 -49 -1090
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PB 161 PG 140
4 N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -38 -4621
DB & PG NIA VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PS 161 PG 140
AVENUE
RSON
N/F
DUKF —
(' ID A'DLTT('' C(' A T r,'
N/F W Wo V & i /../ V DB F. PG N/A VIA DUP.HRM GO GIS ) }� u 1 t.ni 1 V
Q
CAROLINE E. BRUZELIUS N/F ANGIE HONG J NIF IA 161 PG 140 200 0 100 200 400
BRUCE KUNIHOLM
N/F PIN # 2669 9-28-1421 DUKE UNIVERSITY PIN # 6581 P 2509 = PIN # 821 -06 -28 -7454 N/F
Q' RONALD G. WITT DB 2669 PG 753 DB 6581 PG 509 !L/ N/F
Q� PIN # 8266 PG
PB 16 PG 38 , D8 6747 PG 798 4! DUKE UNIVERSITY
& PB 12 PG 22 DB 1666 PG 731 PATRICK J. BAYER
�Q- Q PS 26 PG 106 © l N/F PIN # 821 -06 -38 -5467
MARY A. WITT PS 12 PG 22 & N/F UNIVERSITY DB 326 PG 444
N/F PIN # 821-05-18-9367 h TRACY A.FALBA NIF DURHAMREALT� 1 inch = 200 ft.
1, PIM }i A�1_IM.- 7R_7'i1S PATRICK.I BAYER PIN # 821- 06 -38 -23 821 -0638.4337
FIGURE 11: CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN WITH ADJACENT PROPER'L'Y OWNERS
I
m
N � h
OU �
® � m
O
►Li
O
V
rz z
P
A
0
r�
�T I
® N
0
O W O N
Y
W O
zz
F m
McADAMS

Figures 1 -9 /Proposed Impacts
Figure 1: USGS Northwest /Southwest Durham Quadrangle
Figure 2: Durham County Soil Survey (Sheet # 20)
Figure 3: NC EcoRegions Exhibit — Durham County
Figure 4: Original Water Reclamation Pond Analysis
Figure 4a: Original Water Reclamation Pond Analysis — Pond Sites 1 & 2
Figure 5: Existing Conditions
Figure 5: Existing Conditions w. Aerial
Figure 6: Proposed Impacts 1:100 & 1:200 scale
Figure 6: Proposed Impacts w. Aerial 1:100 & 1:200 scale
Figure 7: Proposed Pond at Normal Pool with Riparian Buffers
Figure 7: Proposed Pond at Normal Pool with Riparian Buffers w. Aerial
Figure 8: Plan/Profile of Dam/Spillway
Figure 9: Chilled Water Plant Master Plan
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond — Individual Permit Application
DKU -08010

a'.�t i I
PROJECT NO. DKU -08010
DUKE WATER
EjEcoEngineering
FI"NA.mE: DKU0801X.DWG
O`E
N P ND
A division of The John R McAdams Compaay, Inc.
aaaaa
SCALE: 1 „ 1
Q 0Or
r
ENGINEERS - PLANNERS • SURVEYORS • ENVMNMENTAL
�� �,y
,
WETLAND /STREAM DELINEATION
DATE: 12 -14 -11
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
No-m5W -�ao -ut— No.: C -BM

PROJECT N0. DKU -08010
®
DUKE WATER
RECLAMATION POND
AEcoEngineering
A division of The John R McAdams Company, Inc.
FILENAME: D K U 0801 X. D WG
SCALE: 1 = 1, 000'
ENGIIdIEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS • ENVIIaDN1�NTAL
2M,�
/7S'TRF"CAROLINA DELINEATION
z„ DATE: 12 -14 -11
pL
DURHAM, NOR H
BaD 739 iN6. wwwpl�ma cam • licrnae No.: C -02W

P80JiCf xo. DK=
�"'a' DKU -08010
I
ecua:
NTS
Dsra 1 -14 -2009
Duke University
ECOREGIONS
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
[aEcoEngineering
A division of The John R McAdams Company, Inc.
ARCH TFlU4 E PAM NC
P.O. BOX 14006 ZIP 87709 -4006
(919) 361 -6000

ft, woo I I ��-i
r4
114 .11
�7
IMM
6
1aN
N
IMP.,
"Ad 1- 77'- - --=Mgt
k� g�
moo_'
O/ A
ON
A
1;0
W MoMp",
10; M)
"Aa\
q
pq
\01
EMU IMF!
MMF m
41
OWS
N A
-S,
5
ll r. - <7
all!
hN
SO
�w _4
b —
IN, @1107
I
jMcADMMSY

D � N
o a
o < °n
Ld
®�IcADAMS

�
PROPOSED STREAM AND JORDAN /DURHAM BUFFER IMPACTS
_ -- _____________
+ + / ' /i: lr \ -•�/ I ii' / / , , I I \ I + , I l ; ' i l i i 1 1 , + 1 ;
/ -; l; - ' : % ;/ ; -';' i ; I ; ; ! ; ; ; I ; ; ; , ,11 I LEGEND
/i '' ;' r -
1
; ; /J I i I i i DURHAM /JORDAN LAKE BUFFER
i i` / i ' ' I i f i ' \ n� i , /I I I I i
I '�
PERENNIAL STREAM
/' :,� / /. /,: •' f I �`.� / /' i r r / / ' / / ' ' ( •- _ =saZ� , ' / ';,, I , , r , , ,, - ''li �+ i \ 1 i I 1
P,
�l(/
DUKE UNIVERSITY,`\' ,III
i l ii'rI' /,
CHILLER PLANT /
'Iii / , /, %•_\ _ . \ 1 � ', , I I � / �':
-\ _________ --
. _ -- ---
�' �� ,t ;`` `I i// / , ' -'\ \ _ �_� � �/♦ : %,iii,, / / /i, /i', `% - i I // /
I ,r / � i r` �' i' , /' / , i s'`' =,..` \ \` ` \� \' \ \ �\ ___ - 1 ♦ I /,;G: i %i,, / , ' i / /ri'i `�� `�\ ,J%
Bill,
�\ \dill +�
u
' I
, /- i. \` `:� / /''- '' /'i , '' "\��`�```� \` �__!1/° ___I I, '. - \� \� �- 1 ''•
`• �`\\ `` - -_`
-_____ G
-_"'_ UNNAMED TpIa6llARi
___- _` ; - - -- _ _\�` \ "�
SIREAM 13'
n "
' / ------ \ \ I `'° /____ \�-- -- -�, ; 1 -\_, _
- -'' - - - -- , \ - - -- (287 LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM)
Io v",
� -- 50' JORDAN LAKE/: - -- „' -
DURHAM BUFFER ` - - --
--------------
_ ---- - -- - --
\ •
�- �','(f -O i - -- __ - = -S; - -' -- __, / �; III► .h /'r� %" �' �3 "^s s ;;' %; ./— �=:�/ ,;,,; -�
%�-
_
�` yr�,ri- �iily- -' ----`-
,
(71 � —o ------------
_ . - -,� ♦ r - _ / i` /, i 11 / ----- \ ` � - -° �'01/e - �, , -o� /4' /'i - -- -' _- _ -'i" ___ is � + 1 i , `� ��. :`:
I' T -
-
1'
'/ `:•�`,`• \/ �/ r \`11`i'i l f' /, // - ` \^ `v' -- -_____ \Jf- _- _ -_d / S e ? =;= %iii.•:' rii / /.: ___- - '�- �d= \fr_� � ` \� _-_ `"�' f r ( �----
/ �1'v Ada'-
�\� - - _-__-_ -_
Ov
telo
;, "`__ -' / _- - -- - _ is '' _ = ,i' - - -- = (' GRAPHIC SCALE
200 0 100 200 400
POUJ
lJ .� /
/ - - -- 1 inch = 200 ft.
Q
li i
'
`� .\� - -- " i '/\ i i i i.fl ( i/J ' /i,,•i� "' ,' - ���:
„1' ---- -, I I 1 I 1 I i I i /
STREAM /WETLANDS NOTES
-_ - -- - -- -
INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
- - -- --/20/2008/ AND OLLOW UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
/ 1 -
r ✓ / % , �/i
-y,
/ , r
-- _J ��` i /i I , ' 1 + - / _ -J r r AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWO REPRESENTATIVES MR.
- - - -/ IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009
1
- _-_____ _ :, — _ -- __ -- ---- _ _ __ _- _, _ __�' -` _ � � I , \` - ° �_' S I , I, \I\ I 1 \; +\ 1 1 - i s ' ��'- ' / ' / , -- � ` -;' : ' i ' / /: ,/: ,� '•' ' '' , �p� '
-__ _ - __ -__ --
___ � \2. USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWO
PRE - APPLICATION FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2011 TO
-- \ , - . `\ - '. / / \\� ------ �\ DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
` 3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER
RECEIVED 01/20/2012
4. TOTAL STREAM:
I STREAM °A" - 1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
__ -- - _`, \ \`. ``. \� \ \� �`� ` ^ --- - -' -- ` I t1 i ; STREAM "B" - J287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA THE PROJECT AREA.
-' \\ \ THERE E JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND WITH
FIGURE 5: EXISTING CONDMONS J
'C:
�W z
(D
�3
-7m a
C �
W ��
t~ g
w
d
FM m
W
f
ono
0
a
R.-,4
a
A
O U N
6 "o p
o E
I - I
II
Y 0 _
O (D
+y7 O
6 In
z
w
a
a
VAMP-ADAMS

L---------
tK
50' JORDAN LAKE/
DURHAM BUFFER
PROPOSED STREAM AND JORDAN/DURHAM BUFFER IMPACTS
LEGEND
4 , i
T ----------
7 DURHAM/JORDAN LAKE BUFFER
PERENNIAL STREAM
I O.V
,
W A
DUKE UNIVERSITY.'
CHILLER PLAN,T,
t7w U)
Z
-- ---- ZrARY
C) 0
STREAMW
(287 LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM)
2i EX�
EX. 24" S
FIGURE 5: EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH AERIAL
4
A
GRAPHIC SCALE
200 0 100 200 400
5,
1 inch = 200 ft.
STREAM/WETLANDS NOTES
1. INITIAL USACE ON-SITE PRE-APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW-UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWQ REPRESENTATIVES MR.
IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009
2. USACE FOLLOW-UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWQ
PRE-APPLICATION FOLLOW-UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2011 TO
--- DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER
RECEIVED 01/20/2012
4. TOTAL STREAM:
STREAM "A" - 1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
STREAM "B" - 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
�z0
Lol
0
6 b
00 0 0
0 E
(D
0
U)
z
c DAMS

PROPOSED STREAM AND JORDAN /DURHAM BUFFER IMPACTS
LEGEND
+ r NOTE: SEE FIGURE 8 FOR DAM,
( + + I RISER, AND OUTFACE DETAILS
/ 01� NORMAL POOL � \\ , , , \ \ \\ EL. = 311.00
Ix
/
RISER
/- -DAM ------
OUTFALL J `\
/ i/,
r
�d
oll
OKI
AN I
'®
NOTE. (BUFFER IMPACTS IN SQUARE FEET kS j AND ACREAGE (AC.)
BUFFER IMPACT
STREAM "A" 135,946 S.F. 3.13 AC.
STREAM B. 22.600 S.F. 0.52 AC.
TOTAL IMPACT 158,546 S.F. 3.65 AC.
STREAM IMPACT - OPEN WATER
STREAM "A" 14,000 S.F. 0.32 AC. 708 LF
STREAM "B" 1.093 S.F 0.03 AC. 81 LF
TOTAL IMPACT 15,093 S.F. 0.35 AC. 789 LF
STREAM IMPACT - GRADING /FILL
STREAM "A" 17,354 S.F. 0.40 AC. 723 LF
STREAM "B" 1.786 S.F. 0.04 AC. 162 LF
TOTAL IMPACT 19,140 S.F. 0.44 AC. 885 LF
TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "A" iMPACTS: 1,431 LF
TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "B" IMPACTS: 243 LF
'Jk --
/' EX. 24 SS
BOX CULVERT
\_ IF
•/ � C\/p _GRAPHIC SCALE _
�\ \`�� --
-------- / I I / / \\ \ — 1
o0 0 50 100 200
// // ------- \ \�\ 1 inch = 100 ft.
FIGURE 6: PROPOSED IMPACT MAP (1: 100 scale
54" RCP CULVERT/
6'X6' DROP INLET'
STREAM /WETLANDS
/l \� —�
llI11
NOTES
1. INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW -UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWQ REPRESENTATIVES MR.
IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009
2. USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWQ
PRE - APPLICATION FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2011 TO
DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER
RECEIVED 01/20/2012
4. TOTAL STREAM,
STREAM "A" - 1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
STREAM "B" - 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
N
(D E
C: ;Z
x
W 4'`EE
ui
0
Z�
zg
o71
0
�Q
0 Q
A�
O U �y
O d O p
00 O N
I I
II �
Y o I
o
z N
U�
°x w e
0. GS Vl A
EMCADAMS 1

F4�_
n
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 0 50 100 200
1 inch = 100 ft.
6: PROPOSED IMPACT MAP WITH AERIAL (1:100 scale)
1. INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW -UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWQ REPRESENTATIVES MR.
IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009
o
v
N
O
a
O
p
2. USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWQ
0
O
N
PRE - APPLICATION FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2011 TO
—
DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
E
II
_
Y
o
I
3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER
RECEIVED 01/20/2012
d
z
—
O
4. TOTAL STREAM:
STREAM "A" - 1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
y
z
W
STREAM "B" - 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
A
McADAMS

PROPOSED STREAM AND JORDAN /DURHAM BUFFER IMPACTS
4", ,
�`, % %' , i' • /'!i i' %ii% i I - -__ -� -- -- -- -_,2
LEGEND
NOTE: (BUFFER IMPACTS IN SQUARE FEET (S.F.) AND ACREAGE (AC.)
BUFFER IMPACT
NOTE: SEE FIGURE 8 FOR DDAM, % ,,,%;,',' 1 l / % t { ' I l % l ! \ I ' l ' /-' ' " " ' r " %' %'• / ' ` -��. � I ` I STREAM "A" 135,946 S.F. 3.13 AC.
RISERAND OUTFACE DETA STREAM "B° 22.600 S.F. 0.52 AC.
TOTAL IMPACT 158,546 S.F. 3.65 AC.
STREAM IMPACT -OPEN WATER
r ,
STREAM "A" 14,000 S.F. 0.32 AC. 708 LF
STREAM "B" 1.093 S.F 0.03 AC. 81 LF
TOTAL IMPACT 15,093 S.F. 0.35 AC. 789 LF
' / i i' • / i ,' - =`aa. ' / iii \ / � , % i / ,' i i i l i i
i/ i ,• /` l' I , ``- ,.¢an,. i i' "i ; l i i% / i i i I l i%
STREAM IMPACT - GRADING /FILL
STREAM "A" 17,354 S.F. 0.40 AC. 723 LF
STREAM "B" 1.786 S.F. 0.04 AC, 162 LF
1 \ DUKE UNIVERSITY/ /' I ; ' /;; / '`, TOTAL IMPACT 19,140 S.F. 0.44 AC. 885 LF
CHILLER PLANT
/' /" ' I // j/i i %/ TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "A" IMPACTS: 1,431 LF
- - -- ` '� ' O / / ;' %'' / / ; ;' l Jl j; %% TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "B" IMPACTS: 243 LF
` ` -'" TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACTS: 1,674 LF
1.00__`
rumr ITV I A\t = _ /::/ � ` ` \`, `n, - ' --___` :\
-- - - -- _ UNNAMED TRMURTARY -- - -= i
STREAM .
(243 LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACT)
= DAM
//i
- 54 "RCP CULVERT
DROP INLET
----- -` RCP
tK
IN
` _ 24 _
' - Mp EX p -_
w -
�' \`I, '' ,�i '!_�_____'�cr. ,n i:, - - -/ 4 , r, y __
l `1 •```, �' �� .�,1 %/v __ �,1•; `_�
10'X10
_ -BOX CULVERT %' =
--- = - -- GRAPHIC SCALE
------- --- 200 /' 200 0 100 200
l .mil= _' ' i / i ll, i� /lr,,' /�. ji' , ✓i9j` ( + '!-
' - -_ _ - _ •�:::,`��
lilt 1 inch 200 ft.
';,, / , ,, , = - -_ - _ - -- / I !!;' - =_ STREAM /WETLANDS NOTES
-_J _ ,'/ _
� // %'/ - - -`` J' ``� _ 1,i, l , ' , ' - '' - -- " �'`1. INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
`'I' ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW -UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
1 _
i
------ -_- - - -_ \ , 1 I '� , _ , ( _ � � AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWO REPRESENTATIVES MR.
�t,� - IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009
, -___ -- \ \� ✓I, ``�'' ii;l ;ii - ' /,, % /��:' lotw
� - ' , -
„ ,
/ / „ /' _ _ - __ -_ - - -_ _ / \ %/ -i , ' �\ - -2. USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWQ
\
, _ _ � _ - - 011 TO
/ �'`` l `\ ''i ,', \ \L '' // ,''� �' '' �' \::: � _ `` PRE APPLICATION FOLLOW-UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2
'' --- --- - -- _ '- ` \ - \1`\ ' ' , -'' /i' \ "`` \ DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
_
= '''' /' _ _-- - -�` \ ` \`` - -__ '/ %'/ '``i - 3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER
_ ` RECEIVED 01/20/2012
\ \\ \ 1 i ' ' ' , ' � i \ � �: : • , / , , / / � '' -__ ---- __- ' -� - ___ _ `I ' % J ' � i i `- '``, '• _ rte_/ i , i' / r ,�' , I \ � ' 4. TOTAL STREAM:
r
- -------------- \ `� STREAM "A" —
1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
STREAM "B" - 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
FIGURE 6: PROPOSED IMPACT MAP (1:200 scale) J
a�
W 49E=
Ali
C FaE
W a
AW
0
aro
�o
ON
v
O
z
N
W u) W
aA
�o
�6a//�
rn
O_ U N
O N N
I
J E II
`1 O _
0 N �p
+`+ O
z N
F 'il
U
l
i' i' /' /` • i Vii' i is �i /
� ' /
.^ \
r ,
STREAM "A" 14,000 S.F. 0.32 AC. 708 LF
STREAM "B" 1.093 S.F 0.03 AC. 81 LF
TOTAL IMPACT 15,093 S.F. 0.35 AC. 789 LF
' / i i' • / i ,' - =`aa. ' / iii \ / � , % i / ,' i i i l i i
i/ i ,• /` l' I , ``- ,.¢an,. i i' "i ; l i i% / i i i I l i%
STREAM IMPACT - GRADING /FILL
STREAM "A" 17,354 S.F. 0.40 AC. 723 LF
STREAM "B" 1.786 S.F. 0.04 AC, 162 LF
1 \ DUKE UNIVERSITY/ /' I ; ' /;; / '`, TOTAL IMPACT 19,140 S.F. 0.44 AC. 885 LF
CHILLER PLANT
/' /" ' I // j/i i %/ TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "A" IMPACTS: 1,431 LF
- - -- ` '� ' O / / ;' %'' / / ; ;' l Jl j; %% TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "B" IMPACTS: 243 LF
` ` -'" TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACTS: 1,674 LF
1.00__`
rumr ITV I A\t = _ /::/ � ` ` \`, `n, - ' --___` :\
-- - - -- _ UNNAMED TRMURTARY -- - -= i
STREAM .
(243 LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACT)
= DAM
//i
- 54 "RCP CULVERT
DROP INLET
----- -` RCP
tK
IN
` _ 24 _
' - Mp EX p -_
w -
�' \`I, '' ,�i '!_�_____'�cr. ,n i:, - - -/ 4 , r, y __
l `1 •```, �' �� .�,1 %/v __ �,1•; `_�
10'X10
_ -BOX CULVERT %' =
--- = - -- GRAPHIC SCALE
------- --- 200 /' 200 0 100 200
l .mil= _' ' i / i ll, i� /lr,,' /�. ji' , ✓i9j` ( + '!-
' - -_ _ - _ •�:::,`��
lilt 1 inch 200 ft.
';,, / , ,, , = - -_ - _ - -- / I !!;' - =_ STREAM /WETLANDS NOTES
-_J _ ,'/ _
� // %'/ - - -`` J' ``� _ 1,i, l , ' , ' - '' - -- " �'`1. INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
`'I' ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW -UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
1 _
i
------ -_- - - -_ \ , 1 I '� , _ , ( _ � � AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWO REPRESENTATIVES MR.
�t,� - IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009
, -___ -- \ \� ✓I, ``�'' ii;l ;ii - ' /,, % /��:' lotw
� - ' , -
„ ,
/ / „ /' _ _ - __ -_ - - -_ _ / \ %/ -i , ' �\ - -2. USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWQ
\
, _ _ � _ - - 011 TO
/ �'`` l `\ ''i ,', \ \L '' // ,''� �' '' �' \::: � _ `` PRE APPLICATION FOLLOW-UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2
'' --- --- - -- _ '- ` \ - \1`\ ' ' , -'' /i' \ "`` \ DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
_
= '''' /' _ _-- - -�` \ ` \`` - -__ '/ %'/ '``i - 3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER
_ ` RECEIVED 01/20/2012
\ \\ \ 1 i ' ' ' , ' � i \ � �: : • , / , , / / � '' -__ ---- __- ' -� - ___ _ `I ' % J ' � i i `- '``, '• _ rte_/ i , i' / r ,�' , I \ � ' 4. TOTAL STREAM:
r
- -------------- \ `� STREAM "A" —
1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
STREAM "B" - 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
FIGURE 6: PROPOSED IMPACT MAP (1:200 scale) J
a�
W 49E=
Ali
C FaE
W a
AW
0
aro
�o
ON
v
O
z
N
W u) W
aA
�o
�6a//�
rn
O_ U N
O N N
I
J E II
`1 O _
0 N �p
+`+ O
z N
F 'il
U

PROPOSED STREAM AND JORDAN /DURHAM BUFFER IMPACTS
LEGEND
•`� '1zF l i� f i , NOTE: (BUFFER IMPACTS IN SQUARE FEET (S.F.) AND ACREAGE (AC.) C) °
R aV
I � BUFFER IMPACT
NOTE: SEE FIGURE 8 FOR DAM, STREAM "A" 135,946 S.F. 3.13 AC. o z m
RISER, AND OUTFALL DETAILS STREAM 'B" 22.600 S.F. 0.52 AC. G Q
TOTAL IMPACT 158,546 S.F. 3.65 AC. .�
STREAM IMPACT - OPEN WATER
���; t ' ✓ ! ?'' r % STREAM "A" 14,000 S.F. 0.32 AC. 708 LF
►: ; r , F.
STREAM "B" 1.093 S.F 0.03 AC. 81 LF
TOTAL IMPACT 15,093 S.F. 0.35 AC. 789 LF
STREAM IMPACT - GRADING /FILL uj d
��; r► ; ; ; j / STREAM 'A" 17,354 S.F. 0.40 AC. 723 LF $
STREAM 'B" 1.786 S.F. 0.04 AC, 162 LF © ch
TOTAL IMPACT 19,140 S.F. 0.44 AC. 885 LF
olk ; �; "` "`"` CHILLER PLANT �'�/ „� •f,
`j = ; %;i / i ; TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "A" IMPACTS: 1,431 LF
;'- /{� TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM "B" IMPACTS: 243 LF
TOTAL PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACTS: 1,674 LF ( 1
NORMAL POOL la)
' ' �� 4�>> r , W
311.00 - / ; r ~ INS j ►1
PUMP INTAKE - ) FI O
UNNAMED TRIBURTARY a� N
' -- STREAM O ..
/,� (243 LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACT) v
/
14 el ` 4
r } O
RISER
DAM
- 54 "RCP CULVERT � Q-1
•,`, � j' 6'X6" DROP INLET '�'
OUTFALL
ow
. -- •n° o� �� ��' � of 60� RCP - � ` , � '" ' w
Acr EX. 24" SS's
.. GRAPHIC SCALE \"
200 0 100 200 400
c '
1 inch = 200 ft.
-
STREAM /WETLANDS NOTES
INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
)k :. - ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW -UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWQ REPRESENTATIVES MR.
IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009 O v N
o
USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWQ
000 00
PRE- APPLICATION FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2011 TO O _ N
DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED. iI rn
3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER �p
RECEIVED 01/20/2012 0 O
4. TOTAL STREAM: z w
,A t mow' STREAM "A" - 1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA w < w
STREAM "B" 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA W
THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. c w u a
FIGURE 6: PROPOSED IMPACT MAP WITH AERIAL (1:200 scale) ®McADAMs

PROPOSED STREAM AND JORDAN /DURHAM BUFFER IMPACTS
LEGEND
i� , / / 1 ,/, /Sri `` \ \ \ `\ - -� ( �J!LLLCLLd _ PROPOSED JORDAN LAKE /DURHAM BUFFER
\ \ /
1 1\ ;, I / /' /` -' 1 /iii //f ,l�l i111`\ \\ 1 I \\ \ \ `\ / •�� ate.
KJ7 OPEN WATERi1 \ \�\ ` PROPOSED WALKING TRAIL W NORMAL PO
Vf
EL. = 311.00 quatic Shelf w. Wetland Plants /`�_. /-
l� � G /'' /�i / -\ ` - PUMP INTAKEI�, - - -- `
_ _ PEDESTRIAN/
50' JORDAN LAKE/ / /
DURHAM BUFFER `MAINTENANCE
BRIDGE
Aquatic She _ ''\``\ \\� ' UNNAMED ARY
w. Wetland Plants �- -� <" ` I '
�,; _ / \�` -� `\\` � \�` -�I (243 LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACT)\\ O
RISER
'
Aquatic Shelf r
w. Wetland Plants, v' /i O
S4" Rf'P C:I II VFRT z
6'X6' DROP INLET'
quatic Shelf
w, Wetland Plants
���:��` '� i i i i /� •��' /' /'''''_- -_ 50' JORDAN LAKE/
DURHAM BUFFER
Ll
\ ! \ l l 1 / f' \ \ `\ ` �� Lam-- - —1 -
\ 50' JORDAN LAKE/ / / / / / , / � / - -,` -� _- 10'X10' A �
DURHAM BUFFER r \`\ / / / i / / — ` — I i —BOX CULVERTS STREAM/WETLANDS NOTES
1. INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
\ / ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW -UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
- / / , �_I I 1 1 �� \ \ AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWQ REPRESENTATIVES MR. N
Y� �} \ - - - IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009 (\1
2. USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWQ E r N
f i ,' \ \ 1 I I 1 ` `\ \ `\ `\ \ / - - -- ``� ` ' PRE - APPLICATION FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 08/08/2011 TO I —
/f �\`��iQ /� *' \l\ r I I I 1 �� ``� \ \ \ / ,�' ,. -' - -- -\ \ \ DISCUSS POND PROJECT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED. E II
N\ \ \ t� - _- - --'�� I 1 I \ / ! \ \ ��_ GRAPHIC SCALE 3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER 0 0 o
1 R / - -- / i / ! \ \ RECEIVED 01/20/2012
- -- - --
N. 100 0 50 100 200 z N
4 EA -:
STREAM "A" 1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA w z w
_ �\ STREAM "B" - 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
a v
- - -�� \ 1 inch = 100 ft.. THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. a
FIGURE 7: PROPOSED POND AT NORMAL POOL WITH JORDAN LAKE/DURHAM BUFFERS ®MCADAMS

t
F,
Aquatic Shelf 0
w. Wetland Plan
NORMAL POOL
EL. = 311.001
MP INTAKE
G t � �� . , . . ' t.,,y •r �g �rt Aquatic Shelf
w. Wetland Plants
-
50' JORDAN LAKE/
DURHAM BUFFER
t /
FIGURE 7:
PROPOSED STREAM AND JORDAN /DURHAM BUFFER IMPACTS j
LEGEND
wza PROPOSED JORDAN LAKE BUFFER
50' JORDAN
DURHAM B
OPEN WATER
PROPOSED WALKING TRAIL
4.1E EDESTRIAN/ �l ,
AINTENANCE
RIDGE
UNNAMED TRMLWARY
� 'B' (243 LF OF PERENNIAL STREAM IMPACT)
;
I
Aquatic Shelf
w. Wetland P
-'
i -�i
Will'-
IN
}� quatic
w. Wetland Plants E
50' JORDAN LAKE/
DURHAM BUFFER
10'X10'
BOX CULVERT
54" RCP CULVERT
6X6' DROP INLET
60 RCP
STREAM /WETLANDS NOTES
!r "1 1. INITIAL USACE ON -SITE PRE - APPLICATION HELD WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
ON 06/20/2008/ AND FOLLOW -UP MEETING WITH MR. ERIC ALSMEYER
AND MR. TODD TUGWELL OF USACE AND NCDWO REPRESENTATIVES MR.
IAN MCMILLAN, JOSEPH GYAMFI ON 11/04/2009
� 2. USACE FOLLOW -UP MEETING HELD ON 07/26/2011 AND NCDWO
P -AP L DISCUSS PPONDI PROJOECTO ASUCURRENT Y PROPOSED. S /08/2011 TO -P MEETING HELD ON
GRAPHIC SCALE 3. CITY OF DURHAM OFFICIAL STREAM BUFFER DETERMINATION LETTER
100 0 50 100 200 RECEIVED 01/20/2012
4. TOTAL STREAM:
Mimi STREAM "A" - 1,431 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
1 inch = 100 ft. STREAM "B" - 287 LF WITHIN PROJECT AREA
THERE ARE NO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
PROPOSED POND AT NORMAL POOL WITH JORDAN LAKE /DURHAM BUFFERS WITH AERIAL J
C � x
'tea 149
i
C
o-. ��
I
A�
O
a
O� 0 a' o
9
zoz
w O
�aA
w
O
O
a
O u N
O 2_ O p
00 O N
O
Y a I
O
o (n
z
F �
z a v <
McADAMS

NOTE
THE SIMLLWAY OUTFALL CHANNEL SECTION BETWEEN THE DAY AND TOWERVIEW
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON THE ECDENIiNEERING NSW, AND LHC
SHEETS THE CHANNEL. SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CAST -IN -PLACE
REINFORCED CONCRETE WITH A WKE STONE CLADDING LARGE DUKE STONE
'BWLDERS' SHAL ALSO BE CAST INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE CHANNEL SECTION
PER THE NBW SPEanGAOONS
CUSTOM ENDWALL
PROPOSED HEADWALL OUTFALL CHANNEL
(SEE NOTE ON SHEET CO.00)
TWO (2) EXISTING 6U'O RCP
FIGURE 8: PLAN/PROFILE OF DAM
AND SPILLWAY
PLAN VIEW o s 10 2002
C4.02 SCALE: 1 " =10' ���
DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM
P 2 PROFILE
C4.02 SCALE: 1 "= 10'
RISER OUTLET STRUCTURE
INTERNAL DIMENSIONS = 14 FT X 14 FT
TOP OF RISER =317.50
INVERT IN (FOUR 12'X2.5' ORIFICES) = 313.00
INVERT IN (8'0 VALVE) = 311.00
INVERT IN (8" O VALVE) = 309.00
INVERT IN (8"0 VALVE) = 301.00
INVERT OUT (7'X7' BOX CULVERT) = 301.00
20'
y
\ �\ ■tro (VALVE)
•�
Y x 7 BOX CULVERT \ 1
__ _ -- ..... . . ... . ... (VALVE)
DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM \— FOUNDATION AND UNDERCUT FOR
OUTLET PIPES DAM AND KEYWAY TO BE COORDINATED
WITH ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
'L
Cu
wa
ow
a�
lu6
Wd
pm I i
a�
a
o�
a�
A�
O a x O
0O E x N
x I
E X O
Y o x I
O � O
O
°z N
c
a a w o
McADAMS

-4
dik
Mg
Tr
44
NZ
-------- ---
- ----------
So
td
ItFlu
P1.
�z EE
Q
ig
-4
dik

Modified Environmental Assessment
for the Duke University
Water Reclamation Pond
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DKU -08010
June 2012
Kevin Yates
Senior Environmental Scientist

1.0
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................. ..............................1
2.0
PURPOSE
AND NEED ..................................................................................... ..............................1
2.1
Background .............................................................................................. ..............................1
2.2
Chiller Plant Detail ................................................................................... ..............................3
2.3
Chiller Plant and Water Demand ............................................................. ..............................4
3.0
PROJECT
AREA — EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................... ..............................6
3.1
Streams and Wetlands .............................................................................. ..............................6
3.2
Stream Buffers ........................................................................................ ...............................
8
3.3
Vegetative Communities and Wildlife .................................................... ..............................9
3.4
Geologic and Soil Characteristics ........................................................... .............................10
3.5
Floodplains ............................................................................................. .............................11
3.6
Special Features ...................................................................................... .............................11
4.0
ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS ........................................................................ .............................14
4.1
Alternative 1: Utilizing Current Water Supply ..................................... .............................15
4.2
Alternative 2: Utilizing Water Reclamation Ponds ............................... .............................16
4.3
Alternative 3: Utilizing Pond Site 1 & 2 (formerly pond site 8) ........... .............................24
4.4
No Action Alternative ............................................................................. .............................24
4.5
Preferred Alternative (Proposed Water Reclamation Pond at Pond Site 1 .........................25
5.0
PROJECT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................... .............................28
5.1
Proposed Impacts ................................................................................... .............................28
5.2
Avoidance and Minimization ................................................................. .............................28
5.3
Proposed Pond Design Detail ................................................................ .............................29
5.4
Proposed Pond Elements Designed to Mitigate Impacts ....................... .............................30
5.5
Durham / Jordan Lake Stream Buffer Impacts ..................................... ...............................
32
6.0
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ................................................................ .............................33
6.2
Conceptual Mitigation Plan .................................................................... .............................33
6.2
Proposed Goals and Objectives ............................................................. .............................35
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EcoEngineering DKU -08010
June 2012
Page i

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed project, known as the Duke Water Reclamation Pond, is located within an
approximately 13 acre tract of land located on Duke University's campus, adjacent to
Duke's chiller plant number # 2, in Durham, North Carolina. It is bordered to the east by
Circuit Drive, to the south by Towerview Drive, to the west by Erwin Road, and to the
north by forested areas and chiller plant number 2 (Figure 1/ Figure 5). The 5.52 -acre pond
is proposed to be sited on an unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek, within the Cape Fear River
Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002).
Duke University is currently the largest water customer for the City of Durham. Because
the chiller plant is the largest consumer of potable water on Duke's campus, and potable (or
drinking) water is not required for its operation, Duke is proposing to reduce or eliminate
potable water use for the cooling tower make up water by constructing a water reclamation
pond to provide water for the primary chiller plant # 2. Impacts to perennial stream features
"A" and "B" totaling 1,674 linear feet are proposed to facilitate construction of the water
reclamation pond (Figure 6). The water reclamation pond is proposed to hold approximately
12 million usable gallons, with a depth of ten feet and 5.52 -acres of surface area at normal pool
(Figure 7/Figure 9). It is proposed to construct an earthen dam with a spillway and outlet
structure, approximately 170 -feet north of Towerview Drive along this unnamed tributary to
impound and reclaim water. The reclaimed water would then be pumped to and utilized by
Duke's chiller plant # 2, which provides air conditioning for Duke's main campus and
University hospital complex. The proposed water reclamation pond would provide a consistent
non - potable water source for the chiller plant and reduce consumption from the City of
Durham's drinking water supply.
EcoEngineering is the acting agent for Duke University (Executed Agent Authorization
Form enclosed).
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to provide a non - potable water source to a
centralized Chiller Plant within the Duke University main campus. The proposed water
reclamation pond would provide a consistent non - potable water source for the chiller plant and
offset demand to the City of Durham's drinking water supply.
2.1 Background
Duke University was established in 1859 as Trinity College, which formed into Duke
University intol924. Duke currently enrolls 13,500 undergraduate and graduate students,
with over 33,000 employees. The main campus is 1,395 acres and is divided into the main
areas of the Medical Center, West Campus, Central Campus, and East Campus. There is
over 12 million square feet in over 240 buildings within main campus. The University area
also includes the Washington Duke Inn and Golf Course, the Sarah P. Duke Gardens, the
Lemur Center, and an additional 7,200 acres offsite which comprises Duke Forest.
Duke University obtains all its potable water from the City of Durham, and is the City's
largest water customer, by volume. The City of Durham receives its raw water supply from
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page

the Lake Michie Reservoir and the Little River Reservoir. Water conservation and
efficiency have always been a goal of Duke, but this was magnified in October 2007 when
the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council listed Durham County, along
with 54 other counties, in the highest category of D4- Exceptional Drought. This
designation prompted Duke to form a drought response team for campus water and
implement a number of conservation measures from utility systems, rainwater systems, to
building modifications.
Water conservation measures implemented since October 2007 include:
Utility System Modifications:
• Installed a central chilled water system which uses water more efficiently than
individual building cooling towers
• Reclaim AHU condensate
• Cooling tower blow down reclaim system
Rainwater System Modifications:
• Collection of rainwater from roof of the Chiller Plant for use in cooling towers.
• Installed 15,000, 30,000 and 70,000 gallon cisterns to collect and re -use rain water
for irrigation and /or steam, central chilled water systems.
• Utilize irrigation ponds at the Duke Golf Course and Duke Gardens for irrigation.
• Reduced fertilizer applications at Duke Golf Course
• Constructed rainwater collection cisterns for all irrigation and a rain garden at the
Home Depot Delta Smart Home.
• Constructed wetlands to serve campus and Durham community. Stream and
Wetland Assessment Management Park (SWAMP).
Building System Modifications:
■ 21 LEED Buildings
■ Installed low flow aerators, flush valves, and shower heads in buildings
■ Gave away 10,000 low flow shower heads to students and staff
■ Corrected single pass cooling on laboratory equipment.
■ 250 new ultra -high efficiency washing machines in residence hall laundry rooms
■ Installed waterless urinals and low flow toilets in several new buildings.
• CIEMAS - 100% waterless urinals
• French Family Science Center - 100% waterless urinals
• Law School Project - 50% waterless urinals
Through dedicated efforts from everyone on campus, Duke reduced its water use by 50
percent month over month from the previous years with an estimated sustained decrease in
FY 2011 of 30 percent, taking total campus water use from 614 million gallons in 2007 to
448 million gallons in 2011. However, Duke is still the largest water customer in the City
of Durham, and is continuing to take initiatives to reduce their potable water use on
campus. The largest water consumer on Duke's campus during FY 2011 was the chilled
water plant, which used 26% ( or 116 million gallons) of the total water consumed. Duke's
next step is to reduce or eliminate potable water use for the cooling tower make up water at
Duke's two central chilled water plants.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 2

2.2 Chiller Plant Detail
A chiller plant is an air conditioning system, usually for large industrial and commercial
buildings. A chiller plant normally consists of evaporator pumps, chillers, condenser
pumps, and cooling towers. The evaporator pumps chilled water out to the building through
a water pipe loop to air handler units that use valves to vary the amount of chilled water to
that unit's water coil, which controls the temperature of the air coming out of the unit. Thus
heat is transferred or absorbed back into the water that goes back to the plant and cooling
towers. The return water from the building goes to the evaporator side of the chillers which
cool it back down, transferring the heat to the condenser side of the chillers, which is a
separate water loop. The condenser pumps, pump the condenser water out to the cooling
towers, which are outside. The water is then pumped to the top of the tower, once at the top
the water rains back down inside of the tower. There are big fans on the top of the tower
that pulls air through the tower, across the raining water, extracting heat from the water and
blows it outside as evaporate. The remaining rain water pools up at the bottom of the tower
and is sucked back into the building to run through the condenser side of the chillers again,
to continue removing heat from the building (see Chiller Plant Schematic below).
In 1999 Duke University had no central chilled water plant. Each building had its own
chiller plant or other type air conditioning system. There were approximately 40 centrifugal
chillers in various age and condition ranging from 20 -35 years. As more buildings were
added, the need for more operations and maintenance staff grew. To ease the strain on staff
and budget, Duke's Facilities Management Division built a central chilled water plant to
serve the campus. Over the past eight years, Duke University developed the majority of a
Central Chilled Water System (CCWS) that consists of two central plants (28,000 ton
cooling capacity) and 14 miles of distribution piping. The University's Utility Master Plan
confirmed that the central production and distribution of chilled water is the most efficient
and economical method to provide the cooling needs for Duke University's campus
including the School of Medicine and Medical Center. The system provides chilled water
for process equipment cooling and building air conditioning in a reliable and cost effective
manner.
Working with Trane, construction of a 10,500 ton capacity central chilled water plant
began in 2000. This more efficient chiller plant, now chiller plant #1, resulted in significant
energy savings and additional cost avoidance savings as Duke no longer needed to replace
aging chillers around the campus and hospital. Chiller plant # 2 was brought online in
2009 and features five 3,500 ton Trane duplex centrifugal chillers and serves the University
and hospital campus, with capacity to add five more chillers. Chiller plant # 2 uses and
Earthwise design, which boost overall chiller plant efficiency and saves significant
construction material costs due to reduced chilled and condenser water piping and pump
size, which in turn downsizes electrical service needs. The Earthwise design was so
successful with chiller plant # 2 that Duke retrofitted chiller plant # 1 with these more
efficient design components. Chiller plants # 1 and # 2 are interconnected and can operate
as a single plant (Figure 9). Although chiller plant # 2 carries a majority of the cooling
load within the system.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 3

2.3 Chiller Plant and Water Demand
The chiller plant used approximately 116 million gallons of potable make -up water in
2011. Due to growth and continued integration of existing buildings into the chiller plant
loop system, it is forecast that the chiller plant will require 179 million gallons of make up
water, annually by 2015, and 198 million gallons, annually of water by 2020. Potable (or
drinking) water is not required for operation of the chiller plant and required make -up
water. Because the chiller plant is the largest consumer of potable water on Duke's campus,
Duke is proposing to reduce or eliminate potable water use for the cooling tower make up
water required for the central chilled water plants, by constructing a water reclamation
pond adjacent to Chiller Plant # 2.
Utilizing the City of Durham's drinking water supply for the chiller plant is not a
sustainable practice. As the City of Durham is in the planning stages to increase its raw
water supply and possibly expand capacity of the Lake Michie reservoir, continued use of
the City's potable water by the Duke University Chiller Plant will only continue to
exacerbate the City's long -term drinking water supply. For this reason the City of Durham
has sent a letter of endorsement to Duke University, encouraging Duke to pursue reclaimed
water to help offset demand on the City's potable water system (Appendix Q.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 4

Chilled Water System
Condenser
Water
Pumps
Heat Out
Chiller Plant Operational Schematic
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 5
er

3.0 PROJECT AREA — EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Streams and Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters
of the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has
major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the
Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320 -330.
"Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges
into "waters of the United States." Although the principal administrative
agency of the CWA is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has major responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The
USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320 - 330 ".
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and stream are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are
also considered "waters of the United States." Wetlands have been described as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)] ".
The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination.
Potential waters of the U.S. were delineated in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation
Manual; Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (July, 2010).
Due to the duration of planning and due diligence for the proposed project, EcoEngineering
conducted several wetland and stream delineations for possible jurisdictional wetland,
stream, and associated stream buffers located on the referenced project area; hereinafter
referred to as "project area ". EcoEngineering conducted a wetland and stream delineation
within the project area, in November 2009, pursuant to current methodology outlined in the
1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (DOA, 1987), and again
potential waters of the U.S. were delineated in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation
Manual; Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (July, 2010), in December 2011. Streams
on the property were delineated pursuant to USACE and North Carolina Department of
Water Quality (DWQ) criteria. In addition, potential waters subject to the City of Durham
UDO (Article 8, Sec. 8.5 — Environmental Protection for Stream Buffers) were identified using
the Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins
Manual (DWQ, September 1, 2010; Version 4.11).
The project area is an approximately 13 acre forested tract of land located on Duke
University's campus at the intersection of Circuit Drive and Towerview Drive in Durham,
North Carolina. The project area is predominantly forested. It is bordered to the east by
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 6

Circuit Drive, to the south by Towerview Drive, to the west by Erwin Road, and to the
north by forested areas and a parking lot.
Data Review
Before initiation of the on -site inspection, existing reference materials were reviewed to
identify the location of possible wetland boundaries and stream features. A review of the U.S.
Geological Survey "Southwest and Northwest Durham, NC" Quadrangles (Figure 1) and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County, NC (Figure 2) was conducted.
The U.S. Geological Survey "Southwest and Northwest Durham, NC" Quadrangles revealed a
potential intermittent stream located within the project area. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County, NC revealed a potential intermittent stream.
The subject property is located within the Jordan Lake watershed of the Cape Fear River
Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002), and specifically drains to Sandy Creek. The North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) has assigned Sandy Creek, and its associated tributaries, a stream index number of
16- 41 -1 -11. According to the DWQ Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS),
Sandy Creek has a stream classification of Water Supply V (WS -V) and Nutrient Sensitive
Waters (NSW). However, Duke's main campus and project area is not located within a Jordan
Lake watershed protection overlay.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) has recently issued a nutrient management strategy for the Jordan
Lake watershed, known as the Jordan Lake Rules, designed to restore water quality in the
lake by reducing the amount of pollution entering upstream. The City of Durham, is the
local delegated authority for administering the Jordan Lake Rules for the region in which
the Duke water reclamation pond project is located. These rules are set forth in the
Durham Unified Development Ordinance, specifically Article 8, Sec. 8.5 applies 50 -foot
wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to perennial and intermittent surface waters within
the Jordan Lake watershed. A stream feature is defined as a watercourse that collects
surface runoff and is shown as a dashed or solid blue line on the most recent USGS
quadrangle maps or is shown as an intermittent or perennial stream on the most recent Soil
Survey of Durham County, NC.
Field Methodology
On December 15, 2011, EcoEngineering conducted field investigations within the project area
to identify jurisdictional wetland and stream features. Potential waters of the U.S. were
delineated in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual; Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region (July, 2010). In addition, potential waters subject to the City of Durham
Zoning Ordinance — Article 8, Sec. 8.5, were identified using the Methodology for Identification
of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins Manual (DWQ, September 1, 2010;
Version 4.11).
In the field, EcoEngineering went to the location of the potential stream feature shown on the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County, NC. A DWQ Stream
Identification Form Version 4.11 was completed for each stream feature in the field. Based on
the data forms, a stream is at least intermittent if the score of the form is equal to or greater than
19. If the stream receives a score which is equal to or greater than 30, then it is considered to
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 7

be perennial. DWQ Stream Identification Forms for each stream feature identified in the field
are attached and Table 1, below, provides a summary of each of the water resource features. It
should be noted no wetland features were identified within the project area and two (2)
perennial stream features (Stream Feature A and B) were identified.
To help determine stream mitigation requirements, the USACE designates streams as either
important or unimportant. Streams that have perennial flow, associated wetlands,
significant aquatic fauna, or associated Threatened and Endangered species are generally
considered to be important and impacts to these streams would require mitigation.
Intermittent streams may be considered important if the associated wetlands, significant
aquatic fauna, or threatened and endangered species criteria are met. Streams designated as
unimportant do not typically require mitigation. Unimportant streams tend to be very small
intermittent channels with undefined bed and bank or excavated ditches that have captured
groundwater flow. DWQ uses a stream evaluation form, in which an intermittent stream is
quantified by a score of 19 points or greater, and a perennial stream is quantified by a score
of 30 points or greater. The points are scaled upward based upon the integrity of the
geomorphology, hydrology, and biology of the stream feature. Table 1, on the following
page summarizes the streams and their designations as defined by both USACE and DWQ.
Tahle 1_ Stream Identification Summary
* Note: Referenced as Stream Feature "C" in the City of Durham Stream Buffer letter, and re- labeled as
Stream Feature "B" for exhibits. Original Stream Feature `B" was determined to be non jurisdictional.
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project areas; however, jurisdictional
streams were identified and are shown on the enclosed Existing Conditions Exhibit (Figure
5) which depicts the surveyed locations of all streams verified during on -site inspections by
the USACE and NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on November 4, 2009. Based on the
results of the field investigations, a total of two (2) stream features were identified (Stream
Feature A and B). Both stream features were determined to be perennial streams. Based on
this delineation, riparian buffers in accordance with the City of Durham Zoning Ordinance —
Stream Buffer Protection Standards are applicable to both Stream Features A and B.
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the USACE and Mr. Ian McMillan of the NC Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) verified the delineation with an on -site inspection conducted on November
4, 2009. The City of Durham verified the presence of streams "A" and `B, which are
subject to the city stream buffer ordinance, in a letter dated January 20, 2012 (Appendix
3.2 Stream Buffers
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) has recently issued a nutrient management strategy for the Jordan
Lake watershed, known as the Jordan Lake Rules, designed to restore water quality in the
lake by reducing the amount of pollution entering upstream. The City of Durham, is the
local delegated authority for administering the Jordan Lake Rules for the region in which
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 8
DWQ
DWQ
USACE
Durham
Stream Feature
Stream
Designation
Designation
Buffer
Form Score
Applicable (yin)
Stream Feature A
44.5
Perennial
Important
Yes
Stream Feature B *
35.5
Perennial
Important
Yes
* Note: Referenced as Stream Feature "C" in the City of Durham Stream Buffer letter, and re- labeled as
Stream Feature "B" for exhibits. Original Stream Feature `B" was determined to be non jurisdictional.
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project areas; however, jurisdictional
streams were identified and are shown on the enclosed Existing Conditions Exhibit (Figure
5) which depicts the surveyed locations of all streams verified during on -site inspections by
the USACE and NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on November 4, 2009. Based on the
results of the field investigations, a total of two (2) stream features were identified (Stream
Feature A and B). Both stream features were determined to be perennial streams. Based on
this delineation, riparian buffers in accordance with the City of Durham Zoning Ordinance —
Stream Buffer Protection Standards are applicable to both Stream Features A and B.
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the USACE and Mr. Ian McMillan of the NC Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) verified the delineation with an on -site inspection conducted on November
4, 2009. The City of Durham verified the presence of streams "A" and `B, which are
subject to the city stream buffer ordinance, in a letter dated January 20, 2012 (Appendix
3.2 Stream Buffers
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) has recently issued a nutrient management strategy for the Jordan
Lake watershed, known as the Jordan Lake Rules, designed to restore water quality in the
lake by reducing the amount of pollution entering upstream. The City of Durham, is the
local delegated authority for administering the Jordan Lake Rules for the region in which
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 8

the Duke water reclamation pond project is located. These rules are set forth in the
Durham Unified Development Ordinance, specifically Article 8, Sec. 8.5 applies 50 -foot
wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to perennial and intermittent surface waters within
the Jordan Lake watershed. A stream feature is defined as a watercourse that collects
surface runoff and is shown as a dashed or solid blue line on the most recent USGS
quadrangle maps or is shown as an intermittent or perennial stream on the most recent Soil
Survey of Durham County, NC. Stream features "A" and "B" are subject to the City of
Durham Stream Buffer Ordinance, in which 50 -foot stream buffers apply, however, Duke's
main campus and project area is not located within a Jordan Lake watershed protection overlay,
which would increase stream buffer widths.
In order to avoid a loss of effectiveness in protecting streams, the City of Durham's Zoning
Ordinance — Stream Buffer Protection Standards requires that riparian stream buffers shall
remain in natural undisturbed vegetation, except as provided by the Stream Buffer Use
Limitations or allowed pursuant to a variance approved by the Board of Adjustment. In
general, no new development is allowed in the riparian stream buffers except for water
dependent structures, road crossings, and greenways where no practical alternative exists.
Riparian stream buffers can use passive recreational activities such as walking trails.
Buildings and other features that require grading and construction shall be set back at least
ten feet from the edge of the stream buffer.
3.3 Vegetative Communities and Wildlife
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project areas reflect
landscape -level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Overall, approximately 95 percent of the project areas for Stormwater Basin 1
and 2 are comprised of forested areas and would be generally characterized as a Dry Mesic
Oak- Hickory Forest according to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
classification system (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Tree species on the property include
various oak species (Quercus spp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), various hickory species (Carya spp.), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styracijlua). Groundcover and
secondary canopy layer species consist of common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantea), sweet pepperbush (Clethera alnifolia), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), various viburnum species (Viburnum spp.), Christmas fern (Polystichium
acrostichoides), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia aerolata).
The remaining 5 percent of the project areas for Stormwater Basin 1 and 2 are comprised of
maintained /disturbed land which consists of areas that have had previous human
disturbances and are subject to periodic mowing and other maintenance activities. The
existing 10 foot wide trail and 30 foot wide sewer line easement within the Stormwater
Basin 1 and the 30 foot wide sewer line easement within Stormwater Basin 2 are included
in this category. Species documented in the maintained/disturbed land areas include
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), various lespedeza species (Lespedeza spp.),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), black cherry (Prunus serotina), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinesense), pokeweed (Phytolacca
Americana), and blackberry (Rubus argutus) and sapling species of loblolly pine, common
greenbriar, red maple, sweet gum, and oaks.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 9

Common mammals that inhabit the project areas include gray squirrels (Sciurus
carolinensis), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and white - tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). Evidence of or direct sightings were made of many of these
species. Other mammals likely to be in the study area include gray fox ( Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), and a variety of shrews (Sorex spp.).
The project areas are a host to many permanent resident song birds including Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), tufted titmouse (Parus
bicolor), and Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and to a variety of summer
residents including red -eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), black -and -white warbler (Mniotilta
varia), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), Canada
warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), golden- winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), and
Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii). Game birds and other non -song birds that
inhabit the area include ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo), wood duck (Aix sponsa), American woodcock (Phillohela minor), and various
woodpeckers. Many of the songbirds mentioned above were sighted or heard during field
investigations.
Amphibians discovered during the field investigations include blackbelly salamander
(Desmognathus quadramaculatus), and two -lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata). Other
salamanders likely to be found near these streams include other representatives of the
mentioned above genera, redback salamander (Plethodon cinerus), eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens), green salamander (Aneides aeneus), spring salamander
(Gyrinophilus porphyritus), red salamander (Pseudotriton Tuber) and common mudpuppy
(Necturus maculosus).
No reptiles were observed during field investigations due primarily to the relatively cool
weather. However, reptiles likely to be found within the property include the coal skink
(Eumeces anthracinus), five -lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces
laticeps), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), ring -neck snakes (Diadophus punctatus),
black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortix).
3.4 Geologic and Soil Characteristics
Review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Northwest and Southwest Durham,
North Carolina Quadrangle revealed the relief of the project areas are moderate with
elevations ranging from ± 320 -feet to 1 350 -feet. Topogrpahic relief of the project areas
generally slope southwest towards a tributary to Sandy Creek (Figure 1).
The project areas are located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North
Carolina. A review of the Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina (Griffith et al.,
2002) shows the geology in the area of the property is comprised of quaternary to tertiary
red sandy loam to silty clay decomposition residuum, sandstone, conglomerate, mudstone,
shale, coal, dikes, and sills within the Triassic Basin. The Triassic Basin has unusual
Piedmont geology of unmetamorphosed shales, sandstones, mudstone, silstones, and
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKD- -08010 Page 10

conglomerates. Soils tend to be clayey with low permeability, and streams will have low
base flows. The clay has a high shrink -swell potential which can hinder construction
(Figure 3).
Figure 2 depicts the Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina (Soil Conservation
Service, 1977) which lists the soils within the project areas which are described as follows:
• Chewacla and Cartecay — nearly level, somewhat poorly drained, moderate permeability
• Creedmoor sandy loam — gently sloping, moderately well drained, very slow permeability
• Mayodan sandy loam — nearly level to moderately steep, well drained, moderate
permeability
• Pinkston fine sandy loam — gently sloping to moderately steep, well drained, moderately
rapid permeability
• White Store sandy loam — nearly level to moderately steep, well drained, very slow
permeability
3.5 Floodplains
A review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) panels, (3720081200J and 3720081100J; effective 5/2/06 and 3720082100K;
effective August 2, 2007), revealed that the project area for the water reclamation pond does
not contain floodplain and floodway areas.
3.6 Special Features
3.6.1 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites,
structures, or artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those
sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. Evaluations for cultural resources are required whenever a Section 404
permit application is submitted to the USACE. Evaluations of site significance are made
with reference to the eligibility criteria of the Nation Register (33 CFR 60) and in
consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
(Appendix Q.
EcoEngineering conducted a review of SHPO's records for the property. In addition, in a
letter dated January 15, 2010, EcoEngineering coordinated with SHPO to determine if
SHPO had any comments on the proposed project. In a letter dated February 9, 2010
(Appendix C), SHPO responded with the following statements: "We have conducted a
review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed."
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 11

3.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species /Natural Heritage Areas
Some populations of plants and animals are declining because of natural forces or their
inability to coexist with human activity. Plants and animals with Endangered or
Threatened status are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 US
1531 et seq.). Table 2 lists species that, as of January 22, 2010, have Federal protection in
Durham County according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) are species not legally protected under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Endangered or Threatened. Table 3 lists FSC species for Durham County.
TABLE 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Vertebrate
Haliaeetus
leucoce halus
bald eagle
BGPA
Vascular Plant
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Echinacea laevigata
smooth coneflower
E
Notes:
E - Denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
BGPA - Denotes the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 72:37346- 37372), the
bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de- listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered wildlife. This delisting took effect August 8, 2007. After delisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668 -668d) becomes the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle
Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb ".
The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land
managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald eagles.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 12

TABLE 3. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
Scientific Name
Common Name
NC Status
Anguilla rostrata
American eel
SC
Etheostoma collis
lepidinion
Carolina darter
SC
Noturus furiosus
Carolina madtom
T
Lythrurus matutinus
pinewoods shiner
SC
Amblo lites cavifrons
Roanoke bass
SR
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
E
Lasmigona subviridis
green floater
E
Somatogyrus virginicus
panhandle pebblesnail
SR
Gomphus septima
Septima's clubtail
SR
Lampsilis cariosa
yellow lampmussel
E
Ju lans cinerea
butternut
SC
Monotropsis odorata
sweet pinesap
SR -T
Delphinium exaltatum
tall larkspur
E -SC
Notes:
E - Denotes a species whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is determined to
be in jeopardy.
E -SC- Denotes a species whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is determined to
be in jeopardy and needs monitoring.
T - Denotes a species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Sc- Denotes a Special Concern species which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the
Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern
plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR- Denotes a Significantly Rare species not listed as "E ", "T ", or "SC ", but which exists in the state in small
numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
SR -T - Denotes a Significantly Rare species that is rare throughout its ranges.
EcoEngineering conducted field surveys in August and December 2011 by walking
transects within the project areas. The objective of the field surveys was to determine the
presence of Federally Threatened or Endangered within the project areas. There were no
Federally Threatened or Endangered species observed during the field surveys. Potentially
low quality marginally suitable habitat for the bald eagle is present within Dry Mesic Oak -
Hickory Forest community type of both project areas. Within the maintained/disturbed
land community types of both project areas, there is low quality marginally suitable habitat
for Michaux's sumac and the smooth coneflower. EcoEngineering coordinated with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the USFW responded in a letter dated
February 16, 2010. In a letter dated February 9, 2010 (Appendix C), the USFW responded
with the following statements: "Based on the information provided and other information
available, it appears that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -
listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 13

currently proposed for listing under the Act at these sites. We believe that the requirements
of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for your project."
Prior to conducting field surveys, EcoEngineering reviewed the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources - Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of
potentially rare and protected species and unique habitats within the property and
coordinated with NHP. Based on the research, NHP does not have any records of rare
species, significant natural communities, or conservation/managed areas located within the
project areas. NHP has elemental occurrences listed within two miles of the project areas.
Based on the field surveys conducted by EcoEngineering, none of the listed elemental
occurrences were observed within the project areas. In a letter dated January 20, 2010
(Appendix C), NHP responded with the following statements: "The Natural Heritage
Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant natural
heritage areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within 0.25 miles of the
project areas. Our maps show vague locations between 0.25 -mile and a mile of two plant
species that have not been seen since 1955. Considering the amount of development in the
area, and the 55 years or more that has elapsed, we assume that such species area no longer
present within a mile of the project areas."
Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) was also
conducted. In a letter dated February 12, 2010 (Appendix C), WRC responded with the
following statements: "There are no records for threatened or endangered species in Sandy
Creek or its tributaries. Although we do not have any records for listed species or near the
proposed project site, an on -site survey is the only definitive means to determine whether
the proposed project would directly impact threatened or endangered species. We suggest
you consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at (919) 856 -4520 to ensure that any
issues related to federally listed species are addressed." We have consulted with the
USFW, and have satisfied the requirements of section 7(a)(2), as described above.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Headquarters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) guidance from 22 April
1986 requires that alternatives be practicable to the applicant and that the purpose and need
for the project must be the applicant's purpose and need. This guidance also states that
project purpose is to be viewed from the applicant's perspective rather than only from the
broad, public perspective. The essential point of the HQUSACE policy guidance of 22
April 1986 is that under the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative must be available
to the applicant to be a practicable alternative. Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(a)(2) practicable
alternatives are those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking
into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purpose ". The preamble to the 404(b) Guidelines states, "if an alleged alternative is
unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not practicable ". Section 40 CFR
230.10 (a) of the Guidelines state that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 14

less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other
significant environmental consequences ".
4.1 Alternative 1: Utilizing Current Water Supply
As mentioned in section 2.0, through dedicated efforts from everyone on campus, Duke
reduced its water use by 50 percent month over month from the previous years with an
estimated sustained decrease in FY 2011 of 30 percent, taking total campus water use from
614 million gallons in 2007 to 448 million gallons in 2011. However, Duke is still the
largest water customer in the City of Durham, and is continuing to take initiatives to reduce
their potable water use on campus. Water use rates from the City of Durham are becoming
a heavy financial burden and the rates do not adjust for Duke University and /or for
economy of scale usage.
The largest water consumer on Duke's campus during FY 2011 was the chilled water plant,
which used 26% (or 116 million gallons) of the total water consumed.
Due to expected growth and continued integration of existing buildings into the chiller
plant loop system, it is forecast that the chiller plant will require 179 million gallons of
make up water, annually by 2015, and 198 million gallons, annually of water by 2020.
Duke University Facilities Management (FMD) has consolidated most chillers into (2) state
of the art plants to eventually serve the entire campus which has greatly reduced water
requirements but has maximized efficient use of potable water. Ten percent of the make -up
water already comes from gray water which is reclaimed from the chillers piping network.
Secondly, Duke investigated utilizing reclaimed water from the city's waster treatment
systems, however it is not feasible to install transmission lines from the waste water
treatment facilities through private properties, within urban areas for a sole end user. On-
site wells have been drilled in multiple locations to service the chiller plant, and will be
incorporated, however these wells have a maximum flow rate of 10 gallons per minute
(gpm), which is only 6% of the minimum 6.5 million gallons of make -up water required
during off -peak winter months and only 2% of the minimum 19.8 million gallons required
during peak summer months.
Potable (or drinking) water is not required for operation of the chiller plant and required
make -up water. Utilizing the City of Durham's drinking water supply for the chiller plant is
not a sustainable practice. As the City of Durham is in the planning stages to increase its
raw water supply and possibly expand capacity of the Lake Michie reservoir, continued use
of the City's potable water by the Duke University Chiller Plant will only continue to
exacerbate the City's long -term drinking water supply. For this reason the City of Durham
has sent a letter of endorsement to Duke University, encouraging Duke to pursue reclaimed
water to help offset demand on the City's potable water system (Appendix Q.
Due to the increased financial burden from City water use rates, the lack of adequate
supply from on -site wells, feasibility of using reclaimed water from existing waste water
treatment facilities, the chiller plant's ability to fully function with non - potable water, and
demand the chiller plant currently places on the City's drinking water, continued use of the
City of Durham's water supply is not a viable alternative for the chiller plant; and does not
meet the applicant's purpose and need.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 15

4.2 Alternative 2: Utilizing Water Reclamation Ponds
Duke's next step to reduce or eliminate potable water use for the chiller's cooling tower
make up water was to investigate reclaimed water from on -site sources. EcoEngineering
was retained by Duke University in 2008 to perform a feasibility study, which included a
detailed alternatives analysis of rainwater harvesting and reuse on the Duke University
Campus. The following is an excerpt from the report which identifies 8 potential sites that
would capture stormwater for potential re -use. A full copy of this feasibility report is
provided as an addendum to the Individual Permit Application.
Purpose /Overview:
The purpose of this preliminary study is to examine the feasibility of rainwater harvesting
and reuse on the Duke University campus. The captured water would primarily be reused to
provide water for the campus chilled water plants as well as for irrigation of athletic and
other facilities. The ultimate goal of the project is to make Duke University independent of
potable Durham City water for chilled water uses.
Initial Steps:
The initial step in the study was to examine an overall campus map and select six potential
pond sites to analyze in more detail. See Preliminary Site Concept Map in Section 1. These
initial sites were selected based on the proximity to high demand areas (Chilled Water
Facilities, Athletics, etc.), the natural topography and the amount of area draining to the
potential site. Once six sites were selected and discussed with Duke University
representatives, two additional locations were chosen as alternatives to previously selected
sites.
Drainage areas were then calculated to each potential pond site. All drainage areas were
drawn based on existing topography, taking into account any drainage breaks that were due
to the existing Duke University campus storm drain network.
Initially, an estimated monthly water availability table was calculated to help with the
selection and optimization of pond sites. (See Section 1). Monthly rainfall averages were
taken from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data. This data was
based on a thirty year rainfall record from 1971 -2000. The average monthly rainfall value
was multiplied by the drainage area to each pond as well as by an estimated capture
coefficient and an estimated runoff coefficient in order to arrive at the monthly estimate of
the water available from each pond site. These estimates were compared to the projected
monthly demands from Duke University Campus Chilled Water Plants #1 and #2 as well as
irrigation demands for different areas of campus.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 16

Based on the results of the "Preliminary Siting Concept Chart" in Section 1, as well as
discussions with Duke University staff and faculty, the site locations were refined and two
alternative sites were proposed, bringing the total number of potential sites evaluated to 8.
These sites can be seen in the Section 1 Site Map.
Rough pond sizing and grading were completed in this initial stage. Pond sizes were based
on the location of the pond, surrounding topography, estimated runoff volumes and the
routing of rainfall hydrographs to each site.
The 100 -year frequency storm hydrograph was routed through each pond. Rainfall data for
the 100 -year rainfall event can be found in the "Rainfall Data" section of the report. This
data was taken from NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation data. The 100 -year 24 -hour duration
storm was used for calculating outlet structure size. PondPack v.8 software was used to
create an outflow curve based on the outlet structure design for each pond site. This
allowed the appropriate sizing of the outlet structures needed based on the rainfall in each
site drainage area. The preliminary outlet structure size and elevation details are included in
Section 1. The 100 -year storm was routed in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -HMS
3.1.0 software. The SCS Curve Number method was used for the 100 -year storm routing
and included the assumption that the pond was full to the rim of the outlet structure in order
to simulate "worst- case" conditions. This is standard methodology for projects that are
reviewed in the City of Durham.
Once rough sizing and outlet structure calculations were complete, preliminary cost
opinions were calculated for all eight pond sites. Please note that these preliminary cost
opinions do not include any intake, filtering, or pumping appurtenances. These initial cost
estimates are included in Section 1 of the report. At this stage, a summary sheet of the
preliminary pond sizing, costs and projected savings was created. The projected savings
were based on the results of the "Preliminary Siting Concept Chart" and the savings were
calculated based on the City of Durham water usage rate of $0.0042 /gallon.
Based on the preliminary results of the water storage availability, pond costs, savings and
locations as well as discussions with Duke University, the scope of the project was
narrowed to the most feasible options provided by four individual pond sites:
(Please refer to Figure 4 and Figure 4a for pond locations)
Pond #1 (Chiller Plant #2)
Site #1 is proposed to provide water exclusively to Campus Chilled Water Plant #2. In the
preliminary stages of the study it was tentatively located off - stream of the unnamed
tributary to the Sandy Creek that passes near the intersection of Towerview Road and
Erwin Road. For the more detailed secondary feasibility analysis the pond was moved to an
on- stream location, which provides greater storage, larger runoff volumes and lower
construction costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 17

This pond is proposed to be an "on- stream" facility which will require permitting through
the US Army Corps of Engineers (Permitting to be discussed later in report). The
preliminary design of this facility has a 14' high embankment with a 10' wide crest. The
preliminary spillway design consists of a 12' x 18' riser structure with 2 -72" diameter
barrel pipes to pass the 100 -year event. The total drainage area to Pond #1 is approximately
264 acres.
Pond #2 (Fuqua Business School)
Site #2 is located on- stream to the west of the Fuqua Business School and is fed by two
unnamed tributaries. The primary demand from this pond would be for irrigation of the
area around the Fuqua School and the Law School. Further study would be necessary to
determine whether this pond might be able to provide irrigation water to any of the West
Campus athletic facilities
This pond is also proposed to be an "on- stream" facility for the two tributaries and will
require permitting from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The preliminary design of this
facility has a 12' tall dam embankment with a 10' wide crest. The preliminary spillway
design consists of a 50' weir wall to pass the 100 -year storm event. The drainage area to
Pond #2 is approximately 87 acres.
Pond #6 (North Gardens)
Site #6 involves the expansion of the existing pond to the north of the Sarah P. Duke
Gardens. This pond would provide irrigation water to the gardens as well as to the hospital
and laboratory research areas of campus.
Per Duke University FMD, this pond was constructed by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation during the construction of Highway 147 (Durham Freeway) as a water
quality facility. Any retrofit or expansion of this pond would require coordination with
NCDOT.
The preliminary design for the retrofit of this pond has a 12' tall embankment with a 10'
wide crest. The preliminary spillway design is a 60' armored weir section.
The drainage area to Pond #6 is approximately 86 acres.
Pond #8 (Duke University Road)
Site #8 is located on- stream to the south of Duke University Road, near campus Chilled
Water Plant #1. In this study, the only demand load on this pond was the demand from
Chilled Water Plant #1. Further study would be necessary to include demand from West
Campus Athletic facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 18

This facility is also proposed to be an "on- stream" facility, which will require permitting
from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The preliminary design for this pond has a 14'
high dam embankment with a 10' wide crest. The preliminary spillway design consists of
an 8' x 8' riser with a 66" diameter barrel pipe and a 100' wide emergency spillway weir.
The total drainage area to Pond #8 is approximately 150 acres.
This pond is located adjacent to the FEMA floodplain for Sandy Creek but is not located
within the FEMA floodway.
Once site selection was completed, the study moved to refine the understanding of the four
sites chosen and model the behavior of the proposed storage facilities in more detail.
Grading and stage - storage functions were updated for each site, as well as outlet structures
and drainage areas. Please refer to the appropriate sections of this report for more details.
Field work was also conducted at this stage. Baseflow measurements were conducted at
potential pond sites in order to create a more accurate water balance for refining basin
models. The field work also included site visits by EcoEngineering wetland scientists to
evaluate the proposed pond sites and prepare for future meetings with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers ( USACE) representatives. Meetings with Duke University and USACE
representatives were held in the field on June 20, 2008. Please see Section 8 of the report
for a summary of findings.
Continuous Model:
In order to determine the feasibility of the four sites selected, a continuous simulation
model was constructed that included each pond site and drainage area. The model was
based on historic rainfall gage data taken at hourly intervals from January 1995 to
December 2002. The rainfall gage data was taken from the NOAA weather monitoring
station at RDU airport and the complete dataset can be found in Section 9 of the report.
The continuous simulation was run using HEC -HMS 3.1.0 with a Soil Moisture Deficit and
Constant Loss model. This type of simulation was chosen because of its ability to model
the periods of soil drying between rainfall events. This model uses a soil storage capacity
that is based on the SCS Curve Number for each drainage basin. Detailed curve number
calculations and soil moisture storage capacities can be found in Sections 2 -5 of the report.
During each rainfall event taken over the course of the 1995 -2002 hourly rainfall dataset, a
portion of the rainfall is absorbed into the soil based on the soil moisture deficit at the time
of the event and the infiltration rate of the soil. The infiltration rate is based on Hydrologic
Soil Type.
Any rainfall onto impervious surfaces is converted into runoff and no portion is absorbed.
The amount of impervious surface area in the drainage basin to each pond site was
measured using AutoCAD 2007. In between rainfall events the soil dries out, increasing its
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU 08010 Page 19

storage capacity. The drying rate is based on historically measured pan evaporation rate
monthly averages. Please see Section 6 for evaporation rates.
In addition to the runoff calculated into each pond, the 1995 -2002 continuous simulation
model also accounted for the withdrawal demands for each individual location. The
outflow from each pond was the sum total of the irrigation or chiller plant withdrawal rate,
the evaporation rate from the surface of the pond, and the infiltration rate of water into the
soil below the pond. Due to the limitations of the HEC -HMS program, the withdrawal rate
could only be set at a constant value. With this in mind, the peak monthly withdrawal rate
was used for each pond for the entire time period (1995 -2002) of the simulation. Please see
the appropriate sections of the report for more details on the demand numbers and the
results of the simulation for each site.
Please note that for Pond #1, the condensate from the Air Handling Units (AHU) was not
included in the water balance to offset demand. It has not been definitively determined that
the condensate would end up in the proposed storage pond. This is a large quantity of
water, particularly during the high demand months of July and August and would have a
noticeable effect on the water balance results for Pond #1. Please see Section 2 for more
details.
Because field calibration data were not available at this stage of the study to evaluate the
continuous model, comparisons to the SCS Curve Number model (for volume validation)
were used for three separate storm events taken from the 1995 -2002 dataset. Section 10 of
the report also contains a comparison chart of drainage area outflow based on three
different soil moisture deficits and the drainage area outflow using the SCS Curve Number
method. This graph highlights the sensitivity of the Soil Moisture Deficit model to changes
in the soil storage moisture deficit before a rainfall event, as the peak outflow from the sub -
basin varies widely as the deficit ranges from its maximum value to approximately 1/3 of
the maximum deficit.
Published SCS Curve Numbers for certain soil conditions assume an antecedent soil
moisture condition that is the result of 0.5 -1.5 inches of rainfall in the previous five days
before the rainfall event that is evaluated (AMC II). In order for soil moisture conditions in
the Soil Moisture Deficit model (the method used for the 1995 -2002 continuous model) to
be similar to the SCS method, rainfall events were chosen carefully so that the appropriate
antecedent soil moisture condition would result. Because the Soil Moisture Deficit model
accounts for the soil moisture conditions more closely than the SCS method, the results of
the rainfall events vary based on the method. However, for the conditions in which
approximately 1.0" of rainfall fell within the five day window before the primary rainfall
event (the middle of the range for the SCS antecedent soil moisture conditions AMC II),
the results of the two models were similar. Please see Section 10 for the results of the
model comparisons.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 20

2001 Monthly Simulation:
With the limitation of only having the peak demand rate in the 1995 -2002 continuous
model, a second simulation model was also constructed to more accurately reflect changing
demands for chilled water and irrigation use during the course of the year. For this model,
the demand rate for each pond again included the evaporation, infiltration and chiller or
irrigation demand. However, in the 2001 yearly simulation, the demand rate from each
pond varied from month to month based on the estimated future demand rates provided by
Duke University. Please see Sections 2 -5 for pond demand rate details.
The rainfall data for the 2001 simulation was a subset of the hourly 1995 -2002 gage data
taken for only the year of interest. It was assumed that each pond started the first of the
year at full capacity. Please see Section 6 for the results of the 2001 monthly simulation.
Based on the results of the model, each pond did not end the year at full capacity. Further
study would be necessary to determine whether the proposed ponds would refill during the
low demand winter and early spring months.
Additionally, the year 2001 was chosen out of the 1995 -2002 dataset because it was a
particularly low year for cumulative rainfall. The yearly total for 2001 was 33.8" over the
entire year. The annual average for rainfall is 43.1" each year based on data from the RDU
gage station from 1971 -2000. For comparison, the total annual rainfall in 2007 was 35.8 ".
It is important to remember that the distribution of rainfall events will play an important
role in the behavior of the proposed storage ponds. However, the 2001 analysis still
presents a conservative view of the potential yield for rainwater harvesting and reuse.
The 2001 Monthly Simulation was run using the same Soil Moisture Deficit method that
was used in the 1995 -2002 model.
Estimates of the total demand met and cost savings from the use of the proposed ponds
have been updated and can be found in the initial summary table. These reflect the results
of the 2001 Monthly Simulation.
Next Steps:
If after further detailed study of any or all of the proposed sites it is determined by Duke
University FMD that any or all of the selected sites is to be built, a permitting timeline,
schedule, and permitting process can be developed. It is anticipated that permitting through
the US Army Corps of Engineers (see Section 8), NC DWQ, Durham County (Land
Disturbing Permit), and NC Dam Safety will be required. Permitting through the City of
Durham may not be required since these facilities would not be required stormwater
management facilities, but it is suggested that construction documents be coordinated with
the City as a courtesy.
Permitting through the North Carolina Dam Safety program (NCDENR, Land Quality
Section) may be required for any or all of the 4 dam sites. Any dam that has the potential
to be a Class C (high hazard) structure requires an Approval to Construct under the North
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 21

Carolina dam Safety Law of 1967. Further investigation into a hazard classification can be
performed if requested.
This preliminary study was based on GIS topographical information for both the drainage
areas and preliminary grading of the pond facilities. If a further, more - detailed design of
any of the pond sites is needed, field- survey data would be needed to refine the final
embankment grading, stage - storage functions, and spillway design.
It is recommended that further detailed study and design include a qualified geotechnical
engineer familiar with site conditions at Duke University. A geotechnical engineer familiar
with NC Dam Safety permitting, embankment design, slope - stability analysis (due to
recurring, frequent filling and drawdown), pond liner (synthetic or clay) design, and
infiltration analysis should be involved in any subsequent stages of this water reuse study.
Summary of Findings:
Pond #1:
Based on the results of this preliminary feasibility study, Pond #1 would be able to supply
more than 90% of the demand from Campus Chilled Water Plant #2 each month. The
yearly total based on the 2001 Continuous model shows just over 99% of the chiller plant
demand would be met by the proposed storage pond. This number assumes the basin has
two feet of sediment storage excavated below the pond invert in order to allow utilization
of the maximum pond storage capacity. This result is also based on the pond beginning the
year at maximum storage capacity. If need -be this condition could be met by allowing the
pond to refill during the relatively low demand winter months. The pond may refill on it's
own during heavy spring rains, but further study would be necessary to determine whether
this is the case. Additionally, it is important to note that 2001, the year modeled, was a
relatively dry year for the region.
The preliminary construction cost opinion for Pond #1 is approximately $220,000. If it is
determined that construction or further study is to proceed with Pond #1, this opinion will
need to be updated and revised as changes to the pond grading and outlet structures may
occur. Based on the results of the 2001 continuous model, the annual cost savings for Pond
#1 would be approximately $496,000. This figure is based on the Durham City Water
outdoor use (irrigation) rate of $0.0052 /gallon. This does not include any sewer fees that
may apply to water used in Chilled Water Plant #2.
Pond #2:
Based on the results of the preliminary feasibility study, Pond #2 would be able to supply
100% of the irrigation demand for the Fuqua Business School and Duke Law School areas
of the Duke University Campus. The same assumptions used for Pond #1 were made with
Pond 42 to arrive at this result. Further study would be necessary to determine the
feasibility of using water from Pond #2 for other irrigation purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKD- -08010 Page 22

The preliminary construction opinion for Pond #2 is approximately $160,000. If it is
determined that construction or further study is to proceed with Pond #2, this opinion will
need to be updated and revised as changes to the pond grading and outlet structures may
occur.
Based on the results of the 2001 continuous model, the annual cost savings for Pond #2
would be approximately $30,000. This figure is based on the Durham City Water outdoor
use (irrigation) rate of $0.0052 /gallon. Further cost saving may be available if Pond #2
could be used to supply irrigation water to the Duke University West Campus Athletic
facilities. Further study would be needed to examine this possibility.
Pond #6:
Based on the results of the preliminary feasibility study, Pond #6 would be able to supply
100% of the irrigation demand for the Sarah P. Duke Gardens, Hospital Area, and
Laboratory Research Areas of the Duke University Campus. The same assumptions used
for Pond #1 were made with Pond #6 to arrive at this result. Further study would be
necessary to determine the feasibility of using water from Pond #6 for other irrigation
purposes.
The preliminary construction opinion for Pond #6 is approximately $70,000. If it is
determined that construction or further study is to proceed with Pond #6, this opinion will
need to be updated and revised as changes to the pond grading and outlet structures may
occur. Based on the results of the 2001 continuous model, the annual cost savings for Pond
#6 would be approximately $67,000. This figure is based on the Durham City Water
outdoor use (irrigation) rate of $0.0052 /gallon.
Pond #8:
Based on the results of the preliminary feasibility study, Pond #8 would be able to supply
more than 90% of the demand from Campus Chilled Water Plant #1 (CCWP #1) each
month. The yearly total based on the 2001 Continuous model shows just over 97% of the
chiller plant demand would be met by the proposed storage pond. The same assumptions
used for Pond #1 were made with Pond #8 to arrive at this result.
Further study would be necessary to determine the feasibility of using water from Pond #8
to supply irrigation to the West Campus Athletic Facilities or other demands in lieu of the
pond storage being devoted entirely to CCWP #1. Additionally, based on the results of the
2001 and 1995 -2002 continuous models, the pond storage capacity and the amount of area
needed for the pond may be reduced. This conclusion is based on the relatively low runoff
volumes that end up in Pond #8 annually. Further study would be needed to determine how
much the pond footprint could be reduced.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 23

The preliminary construction cost opinion for Pond 48 is approximately $240,000. If it is
determined that construction or further study is to proceed with Pond #8, this opinion will
need to be updated and revised as changes to the pond grading and outlet structures may
occur. Based on the results of the 2001 continuous model, the annual cost savings for Pond
#8 would be approximately $262,000. This figure is based on the Durham City Water
outdoor use (irrigation) rate of $0.0052 /gallon. This does not include any sewer fees that
may apply to water used in Chilled Water Plant # 1.
Conclusion:
Overall, the estimated time to recover the design and construction costs of all four ponds
would be approximately one year. This estimate is based on the results of the preliminary
feasibility study for all four ponds, which would save approximately $850,000 in Durham
City Water costs in total each year. Based on this study the pond sites were ranked in order
of priority and ponds 1, 2, and 8 were selected for further analysis. The proposed use of
water reclamation pond 2, for campus irrigation was eliminated to avoid impacts to
jurisdictional waters and utilize other available irrigation alternatives. The list was
shortened to pond sites 1 and 8 for design and permitting (Figure 4a).
Please refer to appropriate sections of this report for detailed calculations and Figure 4 and
Figure 4a for pond locations. A full copy of this feasibility report is provided as an
addendum to the Individual Permit Application.
4.3 Alternative 3: Utilizing Pond Site 1 & 2 (formerly pond site 8)
The proposed water reclamation pond list was shortened to pond sites 1 and 2 (formerly
pond site 8) for design and permitting (Figure 4a). Pond site 1 had 1,671 linear feet of
perennial stream impacts and pond site 2 had 1,198 linear feet of perennial stream impacts,
totaling 2,872 linear feet of perennial stream impacts for both ponds. During our
November 4, 2009 meeting concerns were raised about the dual - purpose of pond site 2 for
use in chiller plant # 1 and irrigation of the athletic fields to the north. EcoEngineering was
tasked with conducting further study into re- designing pond site 1 to condense the chiller
plant water requirements into one pond site instead of two.
4.4 No Action Alternative
A "No Action" alternative is considered to be one that avoids all wetland and surface water
impacts. Due to the constraints dictated by the water demand of the chiller plant,
topography and land - grading requirements, this project cannot be sized or shifted to avoid
all jurisdictional areas and still satisfy project purpose and need.
A "No Action" decision at this location would result in continued depletion of the City of
Durham drinking water supply. The fact that the site has a history of disturbance from
previous campus construction activities, utility installations, and is a fragmented section of
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 24

stream leads to the conclusion that utilizing this site would be more appropriate than
attempting this project on an undisturbed property. The "No Action" alternative is not
capable of achieving the basic purpose and need of the proposed project and, therefore, is
not a reasonable alternative.
4.5 Preferred Alternative (Proposed Water Reclamation Pond at Pond Site 1)
Pond site 1 was chosen as the preferred alternative for the reasons listed below. As stated
previously, due to the increased financial burden from City water use rates, the lack of
adequate supply from on -site wells, feasibility of using reclaimed water from existing
waste water treatment facilities, the chiller plant's ability to fully function with non - potable
water, and demand the chiller plant currently places on the City's drinking water, continued
use of the City of Durham's water supply is not a viable alternative for the chiller plant;
and does not meet the applicant's purpose and need. Since the Earthwise design of chiller
plant # 2 was recently proven a success and operational in 2009, and Duke had successfully
consolidated the distribution lines of chiller plants 1 and 2 EcoEngineering was able to
redesign the pond site 1 to condense the chiller plant water requirements into one pond site
instead of two. By eliminating pond site 2, the applicant reduced total perennial stream
impacts from 2,872 linear feet to 1,674 linear of perennial steam impact. Incorporating
"smart growth" principles, the proposed water reclamation pond would provide a consistent
non - potable water source for the chiller plant and reduce consumption from the City of
Durham's drinking water supply.
4.5.1 Water Conservation (Pond Site 1)
Potable (or drinking) water is not required for operation of the chiller plant -and required
make -up water. Utilizing the City of Durham's drinking water supply for the chiller plant is
not a sustainable practice. As the City of Durham is in the planning stages to increase its
raw water supply and possibly expand capacity of the Lake Michie reservoir, continued use
of the City's potable water by the Duke University Chiller Plant will only continue to
exacerbate the City's long -term drinking water supply. For this reason the City of Durham
has sent a letter of endorsement to Duke University, encouraging Duke to pursue reclaimed
water to help offset demand on the City's potable water system (Appendix Q.
Currently, chilled water plant # 2 is the single largest user of potable water in the City of
Durham and is projected to use up to 1 million gallons of water a day based on peak
projected future demand (Figure 2). The proposed pond will provide between 50 -80% of
this total plant demand, depending on rainfall, operation strategies, and the final design of
the facility. It is projected that the proposed water reclamation pond will decrease its
demand from the City's water supply by 70% in 2015 (Figure 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 25

200
180
L
160
140
O.
j = 120
O
To 100
C7
C 80
60
40
20
0
Chiller Plant 2 - Annual Water Projections
182
Figure 2: Annual Water Demand Projections for Chiller Plant 2.
200
180
L
M 160
}
L 140
CL 120
N
C
C 100
M 80
C
C 60
40
20
0
Chiller Plant 2 - Annual Water Projections
2012 2015 2020
■ Other Sources .j Pond /Creek U City Water
Figure 3: Annual Water Source Projections for Chiller Plant 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 26

4.5.2 Economic Impact (Pond Site 1)
Duke is the largest water customer in the City of Durham, and is continuing to take
initiatives to reduce their potable water use on campus. However, water use rates from the
City of Durham are becoming a heavy financial burden and the rates do not adjust for Duke
University and /or for economy of scale usage. Utilization of the water reclamation pond
for the cooling towers of chiller plant # 2, is estimated to save approximately $2.1 million
in water use charges (Table 4).
Table 4. Estimated Annual Water Cost Savings for Required Water at CWP #2.
4.5.3 Location (Pond Site 1)
The proposed water reclamation pond is proposed to be located and surrounded by property
that the applicant currently has ownership. The drainage area to the proposed water
reclamation pond is 256 acres, of which 135 acres is impervious surface; and the entire
drainage area is owned and controlled by Duke University. Duke also owns the adjacent
property, to the south, into which the proposed water reclamation pond will outlet. So
there is no risk of hydrologic trespass onto an adjacent property (Figures 4,6,10).
There are no jurisdictional wetland impacts within the project area. The site has no
hazardous environmental issues hindering this proposed site and there are no protected
species issues associated with this site.
4.5.4 Secondary Benefits (Pond Site 1)
The proposed water harvesting system will provide secondary benefits with respect to
water quality leaving the campus. The watershed is highly urbanized with minimal
stormwater management for stormwater leaving the campus. The proposed water
reclamation pond will allow for retention of peak flow rates and sequestering of nutrients
through wetland plants within the aquatic shelf of the water reclamation pond. More detail
on the wetland bench (aquatic shelf) is given below and within the enclosed design plans
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 27
City
Millions
Water
Supplied
% Water
%
Year
of
Other
Reclamation
Water
Supplied
from
$ Water
Gallons
Sources
Pond Source
(gis)
by Pond
City
Savings
2013
141
17
18
106
13%
75%
$ 70,508
2015
167
19
100
48
60%
29%
$ 391,711
2020
182
22
100
60
55%
33%
$ 391,711
4.5.3 Location (Pond Site 1)
The proposed water reclamation pond is proposed to be located and surrounded by property
that the applicant currently has ownership. The drainage area to the proposed water
reclamation pond is 256 acres, of which 135 acres is impervious surface; and the entire
drainage area is owned and controlled by Duke University. Duke also owns the adjacent
property, to the south, into which the proposed water reclamation pond will outlet. So
there is no risk of hydrologic trespass onto an adjacent property (Figures 4,6,10).
There are no jurisdictional wetland impacts within the project area. The site has no
hazardous environmental issues hindering this proposed site and there are no protected
species issues associated with this site.
4.5.4 Secondary Benefits (Pond Site 1)
The proposed water harvesting system will provide secondary benefits with respect to
water quality leaving the campus. The watershed is highly urbanized with minimal
stormwater management for stormwater leaving the campus. The proposed water
reclamation pond will allow for retention of peak flow rates and sequestering of nutrients
through wetland plants within the aquatic shelf of the water reclamation pond. More detail
on the wetland bench (aquatic shelf) is given below and within the enclosed design plans
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 27

(Appendix C). The water reclamation pond will help to mitigate the effects of stormwater
pollutants and impervious surface with the upstream watershed.
5.0 PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1 Proposed Impacts
Table 5. Total Stream Impacts
Stream Impact
Stream Impact Length
Type of l.� Yact
Location
(Linear eet)
Stream A
Open Water
708
(perennial)
Stream B
Open Water
81
(perennial)
Stream A
Grading
723
(perennial)
Stream B
Grading
162
(perennial)
Total Stream A
1,431 linear feet
Total Stream B
243 linear feet
Total Perennial Stream Impacts
1,674 linear feet
5.2 Avoidance and Minimization
Two formal pre- application meetings were conducted on June 20, 2008 and November 4,
2009, with Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the USACE — Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (Corps),
and Mr. Ian McMillan of the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), various other
representatives from the USACE and DWQ, and the design team to receive input on the
proposed project and mitigation plans. There were also several more on -site meeting with
Mr. Alsmeyer to discuss the proposed project design and proposed mitigation plans.
Per the extensive alternatives analysis above, the proposed water reclamation pond list was
shortened to pond sites 1 and 2 (formerly pond site 8) for design and permitting (Figure
4a). Pond site # 1 had 1,671 linear feet of perennial stream impacts and pond site 2 had
1,198 linear feet of perennial stream impacts, totaling 2,872 linear feet of perennial stream
impacts for both ponds. During our November 4, 2009 meeting concerns were raised about
the dual - purpose of pond site 2 for use in chiller plant # 1 and irrigation of the athletic
fields to the north. EcoEngineering was tasked with conducting further study into re-
designing pond site 1 to condense the chiller plant water requirements into one pond site
instead of two.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 28

Since the Earthwise design of chiller plant # 2 was recently proven a success and
operational in 2009, and Duke had successfully consolidated the distribution lines of chiller
plants 1 and 2 EcoEngineering was able to redesign the pond site 1 to condense the chiller
plant water requirements into one pond site instead of two. Specifically, the dam was raised
by 5 feet and the pond was made deeper to allow for more storage capacity in pond 1, than
was originally proposed in the feasibility study. The applicant reduced total perennial
stream impacts by 1,198 linear feet, from 2,872 linear feet to 1,674 linear of perennial
steam impact and impacts to the 100 -year floodplain by eliminating pond site 2.
In the preliminary stages of the study it was tentatively located off -line of stream "A" and
"B ", however for the more detailed secondary feasibility analysis the pond was moved to
an in line stream location, which provides greater storage, larger runoff volumes and lower
construction costs. The geotechnical engineer, has recommended that the downstream
slopes be flattened to an inclination of at least 3(H):1(V) to meet the slope stability
requirements of an intermediate dam structure. The proposed dam footprint is the minimum
necessary to safely bring the dam into compliance with NC Dam Safety. Stream sections
"A" and `B" proposed for impact is an area that has already been impacted by the currently
eroding banks caused by the upstream impervious watershed (Appendix Q. Although there
is quite a bit of bedrock, the banks of Beaverdam Creek are lined with rip -rap throughout
the project area, and have historically eroded in most areas.
5.3 Proposed Pond Design Detail
The water reclamation pond is proposed to hold approximately 12 million usable gallons, with a
depth of ten feet and 5.52 -acres of surface area at normal pool (Figure 7/Figure 9). This
proposed facility will be located on an unnamed tributary (Figure 5 /Figure 6: Stream "A"
and `B ") to Sandy Creek, between Towerview Drive and Circuit Drive. The design of the
intake riser structure would capture stormflows, but allow for at least one -half baseflow to
pass downstream year- round. This reclaimed water will then be drawn through (2) 12"
ductile iron pipes, and into the chilled water plant for process (cooling tower) water.
Dam Design: A dam will be constructed approximately 170 -feet upstream of Towerview
Drive to impound Streams "A" and `B ". The top of the riser structure will be set at 317.50
and the top of the dam will be at 320.00 The proposed dam and spillway structure will have
a normal pool operating range between elevation 309.9 and 313.0. The mid level of this
operating flux will be at elevation 311.0 and is likely where the normal day -to -day
operation of the pond will be maintained. High demand from CWP #2 or a rainfall event
will cause this pool level to fluctuate in the pond. The existing culvert system in Circuit
Drive has a downstream invert elevation of 312.5. Therefore, when the WR Pond pool is
maintained at the highest flux of 313.0, approximately 6" of water would stand in the
culvert system and partially inundate the existing pipes. During storm events, the water in
the proposed WR Pond will rise to elevation 316.0 (100 -year storm), partially inundating
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 29

the Circuit Drive culvert pipes and pooling water on the upstream side of the roadway
embankment. See Figure 8 for a detailed plan and profile.
Embankment. The dam embankment will be reconstructed and repaired to a 3(H):1(V)
upstream slope, a 20' wide crest, and a 3(H):1(V) downstream slope. This geometry was
used by Tai and Associates, the Geotechnical Engineer, for the slope stability analysis. All
fill materials to be used for the dam embankment shall be taken from borrow areas
approved and tested by the on -site geotechnical engineer, and consist of clean of hazardous
and /or toxic materials. Any excavated material will be tested for re -use in the dam
embankment or placed within a stabile, high - ground location, and outside of any
jurisdictional waters (Figure 8).
Spillway: The spillway system for the repair of the dam is a pre -cast reinforced concrete
riser and barrel system. The riser is a 14 x 14' internal reinforced concrete box invert
301.00 to the crest at 317.50. Four 12" x 2.5" orifices at elevation 313.00 will control the
normal pool and day -to -day baseflow. The riser sections will be securely fastened together
with stainless steel straps to prevent flotation uplift. The riser structure will be provided
with a 22'L x 22'W x 48" thick cast -in -place anti - flotation block. A trashrack will be
provided for the crest of the riser to prevent floating debris from blocking the spillway.
The outfall pipe is a 7' x 7' box culvert. The box culvert is provided with a reinforced
concrete cradle which is articulated at each joint. The barrel pipe will be provided with a
drainage diaphragm as shown in Figure 8. The drainage diaphragm will have solid - walled
outlet pipes to daylight at the spillway outfall. PondPack V8i was used to generate a stage -
discharge curve for the proposed spillway. This reservoir routing was performed assuming
the reservoir is full to the top of the riser (orifice clogged).
Spillway Outfall: The outfall of the spillway system is a 7'reinforced concrete endwalls,
with a 3:1 slope to the dissipater channel, constructed with Duke stone for the rip -rap
channel. The riprap apron was design for the 100 -year storm flow routed from the dam.
This spillway discharge will then flow through the two existing 60" reinforced concrete
pipes which flow under Towerview Drive.
Emergency Drawdown: The emergency drawdown for the reservoir will be provided by
(3) 8" plug valves in the riser structure. These valves shall be fitted to the drain and piping
systems as shown on the detail sheet with automated actuators per Duke University. The
riser valves and drain system shall be provided with a fully automated system to be
coordinated with Duke Univesity. The valves are provided with a trashrack to prevent
debris from blocking the valve.
5.4 Proposed Pond Elements Designed to Mitigate Impacts
Per our pre - application meetings with the USACE and DWQ, several design elements have
been incorporated into the proposed water reclamation pond to mitigate potential impacts
to downstream water quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 30

Wetland Bench
The wetland bench or aquatic shelf will be a shallow -water zone along the edge of the pond
planted with wetland vegetation. The wetland bench area is proposed between elevations
309' and 313' of the proposed water reclamation pond, which will be fine graded to 0.25'
increments and planted with native wetland plant species. This wetland bench grading will
be critical to the survivability of the wetland plantings. Wetland benches promote a better
environment for gravitational settling, biological uptake and microbial activity. These
wetland benches can remove a wide variety of pollutants, including suspended solids,
nutrients, and act as a sediment sink. They will also help reduce peak flows, stabilize the
banks and riparian vegetation.
Minimal release to Receiving Waters
Per email correspondence with Mr. Fred Tarver of the NC Division of Water Resources
dated October 20, 2011, Mr. Tarver stated, "The Division of Water Resources assigns flow
requirements to subject dams under the authority delegated by the Dam Safety Law (NC
G.S. 143 - 215.31) and associated rules (15A NCAC 2K .0500). The proposed dam will
create an impoundment on an unnamed tributary of Sandy Creek in the Cape Fear Basin.
Based on the 266 acre drainage area of the proposed impoundment and flow determinations
of similar drainages in the New Hope Creek watershed, I have determined that the site
DOES NOT meet the minimal threshold -7Q10 greater than 0.2 cubic feet per second or
no evidence of a point source discharge in the affected reach - -that allow us to assign a
flow." (Appendix C)
Stream gauges have been located within Stream "A ", just upstream of Towerview Road for
several years to gain an accurate measurement of baseflow, which has been determined to
be 0.289 cubic feet per second (cfs). Although the NC Division of Water Resources does
not mandate a minimum baseflow, the design of the riser structure would capture
stormflows, but allow for at least one -half baseflow to pass downstream year - round.
Diffuse Flow Oxygenation
The outfall of the spillway system will be a 120 -foot riprap apron with large and small
stone, is designed for 100 -year storm flows, and to dissipate most every storm event which
flows through the outfall channel. The large and small stone sizes within the rip rap apron
will help dissipate flows and oxygenate water flowing out of the pond to downstream
receiving waters, and will also help oxygenate the water coming out of the water
reclamation pond.
Riparian Buffer
There will be temporary and permanent impacts to the Durham/Jordan Lake Riparian
Buffers associated with construction of the water reclamation pond. However, the 50 -foot
riparian buffer will be re- established with native vegetation once the pond is constructed.
There will be a greenway and maintenance trail along the perimeter of the water
reclamation pond, however, a majority of the riparian buffer around the pond will be
vegetated. The vegetation and root system along the perimeter of the buffer will help
stabilize the banks, preventing soil and sediment from filling the lake, but more importantly
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKD- -08010 Page 31

the riparian buffer along the perimeter of the pond will act as a vegetated filter strip which
will absorb and filter pollutants before they reach the pond and downstream waters.
Construction and Erosion Control
Proper sedimentation and erosion control methods will be utilized during all phases of
construction and installation as described in the Erosion Control Plan sheet reviewed and
approved by the NC Division of Land Quality and City of Durham. All work will take
place during dry conditions and can be facilitated from high, non jurisdictional, stable
ground adjacent to the riparian buffer. The contractor shall install silt fence, inlet
protection, sediment traps, diversion ditches, tree protection, clearing only as necessary to
install these devices. All erosion and sediment control measures will be checked for
stability and operation following every runoff producing rainfall, but in no case less than
once every week. Any needed repairs will be made immediately to maintain all measures
designed. An erosion control inspections report is required and will be kept by the owner's
representative. All slopes shall be graded no steeper than the angle that can be retained by
vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. No material for
construction will be placed in any wetlands at any time. Excavation will be limited to the
area necessary for site preparation; all excavated material will be placed and retained on
high ground above the flood pool elevation. All excavated material will be placed landward
of the normal pool elevation contour on high ground and confined by adequate dikes or
other retaining structures to prevent erosion and sedimentation into adjacent waters or
wetlands. Both temporary and permanent seeding will consist of proper blends of warm
and cool grass mixes, as well as bare root and containerized plants as outlined in Design
Details Sheets (Appendix C).
5.5 Durham / Jordan Lake Stream Buffer Impacts
There will be temporary and permanent impacts to the Durham/Jordan Lake Riparian
Buffers associated with construction of the water reclamation pond. However, the 50 -foot
riparian buffer will be re- established with native vegetation once the pond is constructed.
All permanent encroachments into the Stream/Lake Buffers associated with the
construction and maintenance and maintenance of the water reclamation pond fall under
the "allowable use" category within table of uses, as well as the greenway. Where possible
greenway trails fall within proposed sewer easements in order to avoid and minimize
further stream buffer impacts (Figure 7).
Proper sedimentation and erosion control methods will be utilized during all phases of
construction and installation as described in the Erosion Control Plan sheet reviewed and
approved by the NC Division of Land Quality and City of Durham. Both temporary and
permanent seeding will consist of proper blends of warm and cool grass mixes, as well as
bare root and containerized plants as outlined in Design Details Sheets (Appendix C).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU- -08010 Page 32

6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
6.2 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable surface water impacts is proposed by providing
the pond design elements listed in section 5.4 above, along with restoration and
enhancement of approximately 3,249 linear feet of existing highly degraded and poorly
functioning perennial stream channel for a total of 2,941 stream mitigation units (SMUs),
within Duke University's Main Campus, approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed stream
impacts associated with the water reclamation pond. Restoration of this unnamed tributary
to Sandy Creek will be used to offset impacts associated with the construction of Duke
University's Water Reclamation Pond. Specifically, the proposed stream mitigation
corridor starts just south of NC Hwy. 147, runs parallel to Campus Drive, crosses Campus
Drive and ties back in to the receiving waters at Oregon Street. This section of stream
proposed for restoration activities has been reviewed by Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the USACE
and Mr. Ian McMillan of DWQ. See Figures 10, 10a, and 11 for the location and
conceptual stream mitigation plan.
Although the proposed project is within an urban setting, Duke University owns the entire
corridor proposed for mitigation and has a vested interest in seeing the stream restoration
proposed come to fruition. The proposed stream restoration corridor will tie into current
and future stream restoration projects downstream of the same unnamed tributary, which
will incorporate a more watershed based design approach. There is approximately 11,000
linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement projects sponsored by the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund, in partnership with Duke University, downstream of the currently
proposed stream restoration project. If approved, the 3,249 linear feet of perennial stream
proposed for restoration and enhancement would create an approximate 9,500 linear foot
corridor of restored stream and riparian corridor, from Campus Drive to the Duke
University golf course, protected in perpetuity (Figure 10, 11).
With the integration of wetland benches within the proposed water reclamation pond and
stormwater management devices along the proposed stream restoration corridor, we are
proposing a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio to offset unavoidable impacts to 1,674 linear feet of
perennial stream associated with construction of the water reclamation pond. We are
proposing to restore 3,004 linear feet of perennial stream for a total of 2,888 linear feet of
restoration SMUs, and enhance 245 linear feet of perennial stream for a total of 54 SMUs.
EcoEngineering has been working closely with Duke University and their consultant VHB,
on the long -term plans for improvements along Campus Drive. The proposed conservation
easement to protect the mitigation project has offsets to accommodate future widening
along Campus Drive, which includes a greenway parallel to Campus Drive. We have
proposed a reduction of 4:1 SMUs where Campus Drive and /or the sewer easement
encroach into the 50 -foot riparian buffer, and a 2:1 reduction in SMUs at perpendicular
crossings of the sewer easement.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 33

Although this is an urbanized setting most of the impervious surface within the watershed
is built -out and there would be little to no new impervious surface draining to the proposed
project. The proposed restoration plan also incorporates stormwater management devices,
such as level- spreaders, plunge pools, and stormwater wetlands in locations along the
mitigation corridor where stormwater runoff is currently untreated. The riparian areas will
be planted with the appropriate native riparian vegetation and will provide channel
stability, flood attenuation and a vegetated buffer that will intercept overland stormwater.
Species will consist primarily of native trees and small shrubs of the Piedmont.
The long -term preservation mechanism is yet to be determined but will likely be in the
form of a Conservation Easement in perpetuity. The Durham County Soil and Water
Conservation District has agreed to hold the Conservation Easement to provide, third -party,
long -term assurance to the success of the project.
Although permittee responsible mitigation is not the favored form of mitigation according
to the most recent Federal Mitigation Rule, Duke University has the experience and
resources to provide good quality, on -site mitigation, and ensure its long -term success for
the following reasons:
1) The proposed stream restoration project is within the same watershed as the
proposed impacts and both are upstream unnamed tributaries to Sandy Creek,
providing on -site, in -kind mitigation.
2) The proposed stream restoration project would tie directly into existing,
downstream, stream restoration projects providing approximately 13,000 linear
feet of contiguous riparian corridor for flora and fauna.
3) Duke University is a large, stable, and very well funded institution, with
national and international exposure that has a vested interest in seeing this
mitigation plan be highly successful.
4) Duke has secured a long -term, third -party to help maintain the success of this
mitigation proposal and ensure it is compliant with its goals.
5) Although the proposed project is to be compliant with the Federal Mitigation
Rule, Duke has been pursuing on -site stream restoration since 2008, before
finalization of the Federal Mitigation Rule, before any approved mitigation
within this HUC, and four years of due diligence invested into pursuing on -site
stream mitigation.
6) Duke University is also very engaged in research and monitoring efforts on
their stream restoration and stormwater management projects on campus, and
sees this as an exciting opportunity to continue these efforts within the same
watershed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 34

6.2 Proposed Goals and Objectives
The goal of this restoration project is to modify the current dimension, pattern and profile
of an existing stream channel so it will be stable and self - maintaining by utilizing natural
channel design techniques and procedures. The design has been developed utilizing
Rosgen -based natural channel design principles ( Rosgen, 1996). Preventing future stream
bank erosion will be accomplished by fulfilling the following general objectives:
1) Conversion of approximately 3,249 linear feet of the tributary from an eroding, degraded
channel to a natural, stable system with restored aquatic habitat.
2) Reduction of sediment loading to a river system that flows into Jordan Lake - a
recreational water body.
3) Establishment of a riparian corridor that has a restored floodplain, aquatic, and
morphological functions which provide habitat connectivity to the area and will be
protected in perpetuity.
The following specific objectives will allow the restoration plan to succeed in obtaining the
project's goal:
1) Design a channel with the appropriate cross - sectional dimension, pattern, and
longitudinal profile utilizing the existing channel condition survey, and collected
reference reach data as a guide.
2) Improve upon and create bedform and aquatic habitat diversity (riffles, runs, pools, and
glides).
3) Create a nested floodplain (bankfull bench) that will be accessible at the proposed
bankfull channel elevation along the entire reach.
4) Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in- channel grade control
structures, and native vegetation into the proposed restoration design while also
creating a stable and functional aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
5) Establish a native forested riparian plant community within a minimum of 50 feet from
the proposed top of the bankfull channel along with the removal of exotic vegetation
during construction implementation and the elimination of current embankment
maintenance practices.
* A detailed mitigation plan is to follow, upon preliminary approval of the conceptual
mitigation plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012
EcoEngineering DKU -08010 Page 35

n a
s , _ r. ,
* 4 WAREHOUSE
,
w q,
��' MIT
WETLAND BM .
.� j Mme_
y MAIN GARDENS,;;.-,,— ,— +' - ;
;sy t era �e `. •i
POND
NNW, c. - - .. :� ,,,, J..e' - s' . - ; 4 � , `; !'t'c 'as ' +} s - 4. {� & '� • 5 •{� � � - ' .r - r ..
a, � ,'+A .. : �•. ,: +•` -. ,t_ - - �'. - .. a..:.,: .}� d. :.r ..`, .., .,. "`.T�+.Y= - 4r`• ,: ;,f•• � %•s £ .Mkt "K- %.'
,- - y : .. , c :. ,:. . -,,;.: � eaF- ..: ,v. sb;� •. - t•,.,1..: <- k: '�r•s �.. -,fa, _
-
E _ : ,.. .�, _ ; _ .. � � - -: -,_ �- ' ' -: •.�`i�`; � ;3 �>. �� �,• tPROP.OSED CAIVIPUS DR[VE. \ 05 m
PROPOSED WATER ;`�� '` r.. ti� + _ •f y
•L I � ;� . � 4� � � �,� � STREAM,MITIGATION
,
H FI
. .t CAMFUS:DRIVE PROPOSED POND # t v •+ ..�'•�.,.3� _
,
,44
f
ALIGNMENT
,
SOUTH -LAWN .�
^ POND. ,r ► . .. .k: -
«t }
'. s... : .. _. - .. -. - ... , -: - -: a t �. . ♦ ::A• a�``.. , .rx � -. 40F
dt - -:> a:.. Z. :�. .. � a - §'• r -- .. - �i'.+- .. •, :_ .. +mac. ' -rf • ,. ♦. e,'i 'Y.x c�.: .+
. - r
•
DELTA SMAR
c
-•s y!.. . _ ',: . ,` f s .I' -. -:i k k. .''.b F. , ' 5 [' ^i_ <, xC 1':Y1 i� ...L, tr: -E.ik �IV� . 3 T H
_ ..> E _ � OU
+ d�Y.. •.i ' r.4 , ` ♦- a4 :. .c '.3'`strM, ^ �, �-°-3 ,; i'- f.'+. _- '�'.
,:.- 6 •F•. r „rte -: a'i . ._: MO!,
��BIORETENTION
��
EA
• - _ � �,r�
BE RESTORED,, � _ +�
mss' 'l
,
i REALIGNMENT.E '
WITH
F`CAMPDRIV
Pf
7.
ti
jr
...... c -.. •, , .. . * • , -. `: .,.� _�- ,,_c t ,,.' ` X•3 pay +� e ` i '3 #r - � ' �
,. , ... -*-+. -."(- ., -, - >t # _♦ k3_ .3 , ..:x v. ,,{r.:,iPt' -ii }l ;': i w _ i
...:•. y .... .a� •, F �� t •+°.. .: _, .- ,Y. - . .D.r '� . ;? t. Y-- 3c- F >: �. r iTS - -; _
. T.._.E• -: . .; : 1 . ! ; ,i"....a3 .. _ : ' ...
t
. C r -:,
-- -' , • > .. s.:. 3 -:.ter: . - . - Q'" - �. - },;, •' t ' 14 IN
qq
' -.. •- . `C . .. J:�,.. `ir. , ;�- i!� is Y (-" 1
- -- �
• �:- #� ,,: °� ` a ,i .,. fib. -;� � ., ,
: ;, � -. 'ti. ,r, •: ,.. s .,- .< J ,, t ., . +t5 7..{ � - 4,: - "t4 '., j , - _.� - „� ' -.�� Y: -w .� t• sil.. E
F
I N�,SEj A
PROPOSED .V 'SWAMP.PHASE
till
....... .......
J WETLAND,}DESIGNED AND' ... �'\� � ^.
'I , SWAMP,TV
CONSTRUCTION_ FUNDING,
Y� r x. f. ,R, -. -!.' 144 '>• £ 1L•�i CAPPROVED " '`'� - ,' WAM P III . ,r-
SWAMP STREAM:'.
WETLAND°
SWAMP,STREAM U N I V E R S I T Y
RESTORATION
atY. 3 FIGURE 10: PROPOSED
EXISTING AND FUTURE,
r WATER RECLAMATION AND
SWAMP Ik` °`= •1,.` �r;�. s� b t STREAM MITIGATION EXHIBIT
-? 6 - '1z <,i y` s k rr• . c:y 0 PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION (POND)
S
t. SWAMP 11 • ci :* Yb' e ivn,. 'Y' { -fit ,• ,tr
.. �' � � ,�' c `.�° ' 4 t' f- • 'J";. , , -, . .�'� " �"!� =��!' ' • s^err• PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION:
DESIGNED, WAITING ON CONSTRUCTION
- t
�": ;• AV a l FUNDING (DR. RICHARDSON)
-
': i ► ', SWAMP WETLAND" '. , _ - -- --
sg ; s E
` s, XISTING STREAM R
ESTORATION
:IMPOUNDMENT ,=A '` d ,— ,. (DR. RICHARDSON)
j
kn
3{ 4 s .x t ' • p . in. w:;= ,." v..,T: 0 PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION:
$• i . x l t,*' ''tj" '`e' ` �.:"s� v• " ". Z " �!. DESIGNED, CITY PROPERTY
y s ' a , ,- E yy+►.:,. ; y : . t +'
O ( j • ?] (DR. RICHARDSON)
�r .� ;3'! : {_34Jr�. F .•gyp � T'r'-.� �_yy. :�'
` ` PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS/
-. , `2 --`,° , •a.,� `•{r.,., . '• f ,�- n ';t�k -; � LU
JANUARY. 2012
SWAMP I V IANG OREGON ST. SWAMPIVB
t xk
�. i Y��? 't - u ' ° � F ;� - _ .,jei �- `v.4r s _ _ - - < ,.,- � �
-, x <_;.��Tv �. .,-- #4 _ EcoEngineering
.y
NORTH
A division ofThc John R. McAck�rns Company, lnc.
1E• Xi- 77`1,,1�<� '♦_. T. Y L'r• _ Y`" A ' .r3 - -3

r
P
F -
e
B
1 c=
a'
b
K
b
I !.
Ir /
i
�,. UPPER,GARDENS � � � t,� , �. • �
s
. - (Jj
,POND «.: t . N^ • _ - r•�;
j
e ..
� e
Y. ! • _., = t t 1 r: {* k _ - - !I s ! ti..' ; P e y "j,. .` -`
Q -
h
,� - . a t _.. 'Sts � c :� - - s i>� .:. - Ntp, • `; . * -`- �.,,. -'�4 �/
t . ; � ! sf ;' T a P - ; a _ e ' ' - . � *' , r F '! • t� : -,., • �+ * ^ -•_{' •° ti: - c "
t
'e t fi: i?. t tar -'� • 4' -. _. '. 'T;: -
+n -"
'. C
MAIN GARDENS
- - s w -! - , � LS " *t � v • s' frog fi - ati +dP.
J °-
k
4•'
1. rt *Gt •
,e'er
Lli
z
3 F,.
*, i :..: �� i , ., O Fes'_ ..r .^ '�' •� " .+ ,
r {
- .
S. W 1 ,0 PROPOSED CAMPUS DRIVE
STREAM MITIGATION.
t`FP � t':" � :. r.• � � a � KaieO '� � �"sf'*r r � �>� Key yam` a•� t
O T , -
W.:,p ;.,•P!,, _. i - j. :•'fN- _jk
Otto
P• w
O OSED
APR f- ,•
1;
- CAMPUS DRIVE �r .��� �h s
ALIGNMENTS �► i �i' `;� *_ gin,
4 13
i
4.SM ITH :WAREHOUSE . '4
WETLtAND' BMP,.i
• F
k TJ
a ..
G
1, ,.�: , �� 61
a t �. `a BIORETENTION ,f,- y�.
IL
3 l i w
'n ? s� IL
z
.�A ; AREA BMP .�T- .��-# ,-
s y�'
- ar
I� , 9
IF V
TO BE RESTORED_ iR �' t`y_a f '.;*t•`'
ff
��, ?•t WITH REAL[GNMENTTk.,
OF CAMPUS DRIVE ,
A;� 5 w-v
y �, PROPOSED CAMPUS DRIVE: i DPI
t ,' -: U N I V E R S I T Y
4.' °UKEii STREAM MITIGATION•�,`'
FIGURE O: INSET 1
kil3
# .• - ' ,�:: +�� �" 'r n O PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION (POND)
PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION:
:"# "�`' S , u s- , - -' x _ DESIGNED, WAITING ON CONSTRUCTION
A , _ ¢ '��=
;. FUNDING (DR. RICHARDSON)
Y�� �. + . '�'• ` +t, , � fi,, _EXISTING STREAM RESTORATION
00 -r•i , (DR. RICHARDSON)
.s p -• . , {: r,.: , Po ` -'� PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION:
i 0
,�` `, t N • � ' .: " DR. IRICHARDISONROPERTY
z,' T
PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS/
-4 SWAMP- V ` s,A r. • "��- ? _ © 1s � �� MODIFICATIONS ALONG OREGON ST. JANUARY. 2012
.`
e j: -� - -`. -� <. _ _ ` -'`'• ,N' �3r ' - EcoEngineering
�t • �' NORTH
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.

REACH
RESTORED
LENGTH
(LF)
APPROACH
MITIGATION
RATIO
CREDITS
(SMUT)
1
147
E2/4
(2.5:1)/4
14
1A
98
E2
2.5:1
39
2
596
R (P2)
1:1
596
3
566
R (P2)
1:1
566
4
640
R (P1)
1 :1
640
4A
29
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
14
5
157
R (P1)
1:1
157
6
171
R (P1)
1:1
171
7
98
R/4 (P1)
(1:1)/4
24
8
694
R (P 1)
1:1
694
8A
25
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
12
89
28
R/2 (P1)
(1:1)/2
14
TOTAL SMUs = 2,941
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -05 -19 -7322
DB 316 PG 271
PB 132 PG 25
GAMPUS DRIVE
W
Q
N/F ~-
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -05 -18 -5660
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO.
PB 156 PG 347 tip"
y
O
T
tJ;
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Q RONALD G. WITT & MARY A. WITT
PIN # 821 -05 -18 -9367
5 SYLVAN RD. DURHAM, NC 27701
Q CAROLINE E. BRUZELIUS
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -1421
6 SYLVAN RD. DURHAM, NC 27701
31) OWNED BY APPLICANT
® HAROLD HONG & ANGIE HONG
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4426
614 SWIFT AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
5( JOHN E. FELTON & ELIZABETH D. FELTON
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4537
612 SWIFT AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
© BRUCE KUNIHOLM
PIN # 821 -06 -28 -7454
611 SWIFT AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
Q DURHAM REALITY INC
PIN # 821 -06 -38 -2375
700 MAPLEWOOD AVE. DURHAM, NC 27701
r
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -3343
OB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PB 186 PG 61
R
MPUS_pIVE
- - --
t -
:DB XAA RSITY
8 -1701
HAM CO GIS
47
!-\'l1
N/F
Jkkrl
!k
tF�
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -7777
D8 359 PG 270
q PB 121 PG 195
NU
N/F
E UNIVERSITY
k 821 -06 -29 -8745
1991 -E PG 285
PB 9 PG 59
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -8548
DB & PG (BY WILL)
VIA DURHAM CO GIS
2,941 SMUs
6 5
J�
P
a
Q
NF [
DUKE UNIVERSITY /
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -8583
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO GIS
CAMPUS pR /VE
yG
^4 L
F41
4�l
Q�
5
O
Q
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -8583
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. G
PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO. GIS
3 ,
i' b",
4
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -38 -4621
i
PROPOSED STREAM RE- LOCATION
EXISTING STREAM LOCATION
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSI
PIN # 8 - -8583
/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS 1A
PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO GIS
2
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -38 -4621
OB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
P13 161 PG 140
OG
R
y�yRFF
r4 �9Y
N/F
/ DUKE UNIVER�
PIN it 821- 06 -49 -2
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHA'
PB 3A PG 82
N/F l
DUKE UNIVERSIT
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -337
DB 356 PG 483
PB 3A PG 82
14' SHARED
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY DI
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -1090
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO GIS
PB 161 PG 140
RSpN
rcr5lo
AVENUE
DUKF — N/F 1
( GRAPHIC SCALE
N/F © D O & I © N/F OB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
Q
CAROLINE E. BRUZELIUS N/F ANGIE HONG j' BRUCE KUNIHOLM PB 161 PG 140 f / f 200 0 100 200 400
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4426 =
N/F PIN # 821 -05-28-1421 DUKE UNIVERSITY DB 6581 PG 509 (p N/F PIN # 621 -06 -28 -7454 W N!F
RONALD G. WITT DB 2669 PG 753 PIN # 621 -05 -28 -2444 , DB 6147 PG 798
PB 12 PG 22 PB 16 PG 38 PATRICK J BAYER �. DUKE UNIVERSITY
& DB 1666 PG 731 Q. PB 26 PG 106 ©N /F z"- N/F PIN # 821 -06 -38 -5461
MARY A. WITT P61zpGZ2 & UNIVERSITY oB32spG444 1 inch = 200 ft.
PIN # 821 -05 -18 -9367 h TRACY A. FALBA N/F DURHAM REALTI� 821 -06 -38 -4337
1, PIN k R9LfIR_9RJ215 PATRICK .I BAYER PIN # 821- 06 -38 -23
FIGURE 11: CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN WITH ADJACENT PROPER'T'Y OWNERS
'L a
a� d w
o 192
C I o
Wa
ow ��
Lu
o �a�
S
O RO
1�
O
V
V
u N Wj
zz
O
048
A
O
r1
A�
H
O m N
O
O I1 O N
� g
II
Y
o �N fo
0 3
z
U�
o a e F
a w m a
McADAMS
N/F
(JOHN E. FELTON
5
&
ELIZABETH D FELTON
j,
PIN # 821-05-28-4537
8
DB 1811 PG 64
I81B16 PG6
HAROLD HONG
N/F
Jkkrl
!k
tF�
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -7777
D8 359 PG 270
q PB 121 PG 195
NU
N/F
E UNIVERSITY
k 821 -06 -29 -8745
1991 -E PG 285
PB 9 PG 59
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -29 -8548
DB & PG (BY WILL)
VIA DURHAM CO GIS
2,941 SMUs
6 5
J�
P
a
Q
NF [
DUKE UNIVERSITY /
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -8583
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO GIS
CAMPUS pR /VE
yG
^4 L
F41
4�l
Q�
5
O
Q
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -8583
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. G
PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO. GIS
3 ,
i' b",
4
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -38 -4621
i
PROPOSED STREAM RE- LOCATION
EXISTING STREAM LOCATION
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSI
PIN # 8 - -8583
/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS 1A
PB & PG N/A DURHAM CO GIS
2
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -38 -4621
OB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
P13 161 PG 140
OG
R
y�yRFF
r4 �9Y
N/F
/ DUKE UNIVER�
PIN it 821- 06 -49 -2
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHA'
PB 3A PG 82
N/F l
DUKE UNIVERSIT
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -337
DB 356 PG 483
PB 3A PG 82
14' SHARED
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY DI
N/F
DUKE UNIVERSITY
PIN # 821 -06 -49 -1090
DB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO GIS
PB 161 PG 140
RSpN
rcr5lo
AVENUE
DUKF — N/F 1
( GRAPHIC SCALE
N/F © D O & I © N/F OB & PG N/A VIA DURHAM CO. GIS
Q
CAROLINE E. BRUZELIUS N/F ANGIE HONG j' BRUCE KUNIHOLM PB 161 PG 140 f / f 200 0 100 200 400
PIN # 821 -05 -28 -4426 =
N/F PIN # 821 -05-28-1421 DUKE UNIVERSITY DB 6581 PG 509 (p N/F PIN # 621 -06 -28 -7454 W N!F
RONALD G. WITT DB 2669 PG 753 PIN # 621 -05 -28 -2444 , DB 6147 PG 798
PB 12 PG 22 PB 16 PG 38 PATRICK J BAYER �. DUKE UNIVERSITY
& DB 1666 PG 731 Q. PB 26 PG 106 ©N /F z"- N/F PIN # 821 -06 -38 -5461
MARY A. WITT P61zpGZ2 & UNIVERSITY oB32spG444 1 inch = 200 ft.
PIN # 821 -05 -18 -9367 h TRACY A. FALBA N/F DURHAM REALTI� 821 -06 -38 -4337
1, PIN k R9LfIR_9RJ215 PATRICK .I BAYER PIN # 821- 06 -38 -23
FIGURE 11: CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN WITH ADJACENT PROPER'T'Y OWNERS
'L a
a� d w
o 192
C I o
Wa
ow ��
Lu
o �a�
S
O RO
1�
O
V
V
u N Wj
zz
O
048
A
O
r1
A�
H
O m N
O
O I1 O N
� g
II
Y
o �N fo
0 3
z
U�
o a e F
a w m a
McADAMS

` In In m ,°-,r A rn rD- D z
'r/ i / ' , �♦ i I I I `\ `, \ \ ,`�♦ I Y`T // / A ° O O Z ,Z1 A W
-' /;F� rii,� /cam ice;, \ `�` C�%1• 1 / \ \ ° °> v° AOOO
3�N I q
npm
1 ` ♦♦ O D I Z O T ,4
Co C H, ` ♦�`�� `� \_;\ 1 \ ` ` \ , ` ��` lip „A� \J,-� rzz cam ;OZ D� d
to-
,�\ ♦ \ w `♦ ♦`� \� o D mo
��+ ,I'`\ \`♦ \� ` - `c i I \ ` ' ` \ \�\ o -4°i � 0 `8000 O
`,% � \``.1; , \ i ♦ , I, , \\` ( ;Mu D m °� °0 =mvp tij
z F1
1 I ♦ I '� \\ ; UO" DOm
0 o \Z
Fn
CD
r�
M
/ Q
ZO
1 I to '% it I r' i / i
(n
It
11 I I i 11 i —I
r Z D
N
Q
D
Z
Z ZZ•
// z z
ZZ
1 ,I
\ \ 11 Ii J '.,�' S� d: l�' %� i 1 1 \`♦`�♦`♦\ DD O 41 O m
0 CA
t CA L
` 11� w
N w m
OD
73F
® p`tMCT N0• DKU -08010 EcoEngineering
FIIM""�B' DKU 08010 - I M 1 DUI WATER RECLAMATION POND ® A division of The John R McAdams Company, bw-
SCAM: N TS FIGURE 6: PROPOSED EM PACT MAP aNGmm • Pig • sum ms • wvmNmuffAL
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 2M �� Pwkw, � c�w,�
DATE: 06- 21-201 Z SW733fiM .w"joloma&mLo=.ecma No.: C -OM

N.
T
0,
c=
�yf
x
x
z
0
N
r
O
O
D
O
Z
C)
O
O
V)
M
0
Ln
M
m
i
O
n
D
O
Z
cc
Oo
J
(7)
0
D
41
W
N
D
J
m
m
O
2
x
m
in
0
�,
m cmil
Co
(Nip
?
O
J
O
rn
Co
V
s Oi
2m
0
;0
X
D
:L7
Zll
N
a7
ZI
.'D
A
N
N
'�
M
N
..i
...
...
.�
v
v
.._+
S
N
N
N
N
J
N
OO
Z
C.)
_
_
07
O
U
C+•
t0
_
?
VI M
m
-P
N
4,
V
Of
O
m
v N
T
0,
c=
�yf
x
x
z
0
N
r
O
O
D
O
Z
C)
O
O
V)
M
0
Ln
M
m
i
O
n
D
O
Z
PROJECT N0. DKU -0800
DUKE WATER RECLAMATION POND
FIGURE 11: CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
AftoEngineering
A division of'I3o John R McAdams Company, Inc.
7r
n
9
U
FILENAME:
WEST MIT. EXHIBITS
SCALE: N TS
m5mum • Plemum • suxvuom • �Nwnn
m �'ek y nurn.m NC ZM3E
E00- 7935646. www,joizrooda.em • Iicrnse No.: C -020.1
DATE: 06 -21 -2012

Appendix B: Stream Forms /Reports
1) 2011 Letter to City of Durham — Stream Buffer Investigation
* (Includes Site Photos of Proposed Impact Areas)
2) 2012 Letter from City of Durham — Stream Buffer Determination
3) Corps Stream Form
4) Corps Upland Data Form
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond — Individual Permit Application
DKU -08010

Research Triangle Park, NC
Post Office Box 14005
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, North Carolina 27713
3- 733 -5646
i9- 287.4262
919- 361 -2269 Fax
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
December 16, 2011
Mr. Raghavenderrao Badami, PE, CFM
City of Durham, Stormwater Services
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Re: Duke Water Reclamation Pond
Wetland /Stream Delineation and Buffer Delineation
Durham, North Carolina
DKU -08010
Dear Mr. Badami:
EcoEngineering conducted a wetland /stream delineation for possible
jurisdictional wetland, stream, and associated buffers located on the
referenced project area; hereinafter referred to as "project area ". The project
area is an approximately 21 acre forested tract of land located on Duke
University's campus at the intersection of Circuit Drive and Towerview Drive
in Durham, North Carolina. The project area is predominantly forested. It is
bordered to the east by Circuit Drive, to the south by Towerview Drive, to the
west by Erwin Road, and to the north by forested areas and a parking lot.
The wetland /stream delineation consisted of a review of natural resource
information sources and an on -site inspection of the subject property. The
objective of the on -site inspection was to delineate jurisdictional "waters of the
U.S." as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and identify
waters subject to the City of Durham Zoning Ordinance — Natural Resource
Protection Standards. We are pleased to forward a summary letter and exhibits
detailing our wetland and stream delineation. At this time we are requesting
concurrence of the buffer determination for the subject property.
Summary of Findings
Data Review
Before initiation of the on -site inspection, existing reference materials were
reviewed to identify the location of possible wetland boundaries and stream
features. A review of the U.S. Geological Survey "Southwest and Northwest
Durham, NC" Quadrangles (see attached Figure 1) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County, NC (see attached Figure 2) was
conducted. The U.S. Geological Survey "Southwest and Northwest Durham,
NC" Quadrangles revealed a potential intermittent stream located within the
project area. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County,
NC revealed a potential intermittent stream. Prior to conducting field
www.ecoengr.com I Design Services Focused On Client Success

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Raghavenderrao Badami
Duke Water Reclamation Pond
Wetland /Stream Delineation and Buffer Delineation
December 16, 2011
Page 2
investigations, the potential intermittent stream feature was labeled "Stream
Feature A" (see attached Figure 2). It was determined that this potential stream
feature was an unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County, NC.
The subject property is located within the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic
Unit Code 03030002). The North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources — Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned Sandy
Creek, and its associated tributaries, a stream index number of 16- 41 -1 -11.
According to the DWQ Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS),
Sandy Creek has a stream classification of Water Supply V (WS -V) and Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW).
Currently, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources — Division of Water Quality (DWQ) does not have buffer rules for
the Cape Fear River Basin. However, the City of Durham Zoning Ordinance
— Natural Resource Protection Standards applies 50 -foot wide riparian buffers
directly adjacent to perennial and intermittent surface waters. A stream
feature is defined as a watercourse that collects surface runoff and is shown as a
dashed or solid blue line on the most recent USGS quadrangle maps or is shown
as an intermittent or perennial stream on the most recent Soil Survey of Durham
County, NC.
Field Methodology
On December 15, 2011, EcoEngineering conducted field investigations within the
project area to identify jurisdictional wetland and stream features. Potential
waters of the U.S. were delineated in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to 'the USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual; Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (July, 2010).
In addition, potential waters subject to the City of Durham Zoning Ordinance —
Natural Resource Protection Standards were identified using the Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins Manual
(DWQ, September 1, 2010; Version 4.11).
In the field, EcoEngineering went to the location of the potential stream feature
shown on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County,
NC. A DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 was completed for each
stream feature in the field. Based on the data forms, a stream is at least
intermittent if the score of the form is equal to or greater than 19. If the stream
receives a score which is equal to or greater than 30, then it is considered to be
perennial. DWQ Stream Identification Forms for each stream feature identified
DKU -08010

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Raghavenderrao Badami
Duke Water Reclamation Pond
Wetland /Stream Delineation and Buffer Delineation
December 16, 2011
Page 3
in the field are attached and Table 1, below, provides a summary of each of the
water resource features. It should be noted no wetland features were identified
within the project area and two (2) perennial stream features (Stream Feature A
and C) were identified.
Tahle 1. DWO Stream Identification Form Summary
Potential Stream
Stream Form
Stream
Photograph
Buffer
Applicable
Feature
Score
Identification
Number(s)
Stream Feature A
44.5
Perennial
1&2
Yes
Stream Feature C
35.5
Perennial
3&4
Yes
Recommendations /Conclusions
Based on the results of the field investigations, a total of two (2) stream features
were identified (Stream Feature A and Q. Both stream features were determined
to be perennial streams. Based on this delineation, riparian buffers in accordance
with the City of Durham Zoning Ordinance — Natural Resource Protection
Standards are applicable to both Stream Features A and C.
At this time we are requesting concurrence of the buffer determination for the
project area and are requesting an on -site determination as soon as possible.
Please contact me at (919)287 -4262 or (919)475 -3874 if you should have any
questions. As required by the City of Durham Letter to Industry 07 -03 -08
(New Stream Buffer Requirements, July 07, 2008), attached is a copy of my
certificate of training in "Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification for
Riparian Buffer Rules" (December, 2006) and letter of verification of the one
day refresher course (September, 2010).
Sincerely,
EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. cAdams Company, Inc.
George Buchholz, , P W S
Environmental Scientist
Attachments:
• Figure l: U.S. Geol. Survey "Southwest and Northwest Durham, NC"
• Figure 2: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Survey of Durham County, NC
• Figure 3: Wetland/Stream Delineation Exhibit
DKU -08010

EcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
Mr. Raghavenderrao Badami
Duke Water Reclamation Pond
Wetland /Stream Delineation and Buffer Delineation
December 16, 2011
Page 4
• Photographs (2 pages)
• DWQ Stream Classification Forms (2 forms)
• Certificate of Training "Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
for Riparian Buffer Rules (December 11 — 14, 2006)
• One Day Refresher Course Verification Letter (September 7, 2010)
DKU -08010

`, B> 416 Res,
�, fl�r •. > x, - -- �— _. �i~� its t
j 'INN
`i 1'�t"R✓ � � t�� 1; f 7. 'I
22
ouuhside' A$
�\ is j'- , / `` � / j � 'a t- w . r �1 r� r `j `• --°Tr �� w. ^, - y }�t•}y �..
,3`:•E' ,1r
ruY -
`
,.>
tjjRPROJECT AREA :< <
l(� t
1 r
t
. _• \ � 1 �.. � �`l� \ , `w'� `mac..
U565 QUADRANGLE NORTHNE5T AND 5OUTHNE5T DURHAM, NC; 1G-12 PHOTOREVISED Ici87;
36.003118 °N, — 78.1144g23 °N
FIGURE 1. NORTHWEST & SOUTHWEST DURHAM. NC USGS QUADS
PROJECT NO. DKU-08010
DUKE WAi E
[JEcoEngineering'
4 FILENAME: D KU 0801 X. D WG
o a
REC TION POND
A division of ilm John R McAdams Company, Inc.
d SCALE: 1 = 1 , 000
a
WETLAND /STREAM DELINEATION
SNGINSER4• PLANNER4 • SURVEYORS • ENVIRONIIIL'NTAI,
RESEARCH TRIANGLE RM • CHARLOM
P•rk Wham RC MIS
(n DATE: 12 -14 -11
DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA
W ,�u.a y.
1100 .733- 1(e.w":Iabomw&46L. .lf > N,.: C -11M 0

DKU -08010
DUKE WATER
RECIAMATION POND
AEcoEngineering
A division of The John R. McAdams Company. I-
EMEN"' KU0801X.DWG
1 " = 1, OOO�
WETLAND/STREAM
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS • ENVQiD UNTAL
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. CHARLOM
12-14 -11
T�7p 7*��y�� �D� pELTITMN��EATION
DURHAM, NORTH lw[fLlOLil7L1
800- 7�i5HE•wwwdi�u Pujols®gd�m�t�. NC
lfceaae No» C.m

} Itll }1 }} 1 r \
It ) /� \\
/l 1/(I
Il
i /i
\ \ \\ \\ < /
Z`'II�I
0
ON
1 ) \\ \
it �11 \i�
\\� \ \\ 1
NX
\116\11
\\ t ~ \
iy
(I0
/
\� \\ X11
N V-
\ \
l
�1 `! I
DUKE WATER
RECLAMATION POND
®EcoEngineering
r
l
l
°> 1" = 200'
WETLAND /STREAM DEL INEATION•.
m Here 12 -16 -11
l f i
— x / /i7✓�I!I
it
f \ \\ \\ \
J
�--
/ d J r
—
0
0
n Y
x ro
x
n S �
°o n
$ i=i
D>02�D tjpp
��O�m -Ni�rtD z 'fin yrn ta>
�N��01D•7mC>3
m>3m i�
aia•• A i
a00
r� n
� L
j L m
y= O
­­ DKU -08010
DUKE WATER
RECLAMATION POND
®EcoEngineering
`s P°B""°eiDKUOSOtOX.DWG
n
QtsL1E�B• PLIQ7IDB•au6y6Y0B9.01V�Ail�rl�l.
°> 1" = 200'
WETLAND /STREAM DEL INEATION•.
m Here 12 -16 -11
DURHAX NORM CAROLINA
rra..w �°`"°•O'rr�an,icae

PHOTO I: BEGINNING OF STREAM FEATURE A A5 IT ENTER5 PROJECT AREA.
PHOTO 2: END OF STREAM FEATURE A AS IT EXITS PROJECT AREA.
PHOTOGRAPHS
®
PROJECT NO. DKU-08010
DUKE WATER
�� j
V TION POND
AEcoEngineering
A diviriaa of The Join R McAdams
Company, Inc.
C7
F "eNAYE: DKU080iX.DWG
SCAM:
� � = 1,000
�5i7��EAM DELINEAZZON
BNCIHSffii9 • PIaNN6[L4 • SURVSYOR4 • ENYIEdDN1BtiTAL
-suRAEIC.Cs -KNv
DATE: 12 -16 -11
RBPIARCfITRi
cos NMI&. P..1 —Y, Naas nc mis
wo- ns5648- .. phnznead , -U� N..: c-M
v,
DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA

PHOTO 3: BEOINNING OF STREAM FEATURE G AS IT ENTERS PROJECT AREA.
I
ii
I�
l
it
PHOTO 4: (VIEW FACING UPSTREAM) END OF STREAM FEATURE G AT THE GONFLUENGE
WITH STREAM FEATURE A. STREAM FEATURE G IS TO THE LEFT AND STREAM FEATURE
A IS TO THE RI 6711T.
PHOTOGRAPHS ------ j
KDATE: NO. DKU -08010 DUKE WATER AEcoEngineering
DKU 0801 X. D WG
A divuioo of The Join R McAdams Company, 1w,
SCALE: RE TION POND
SNGINSERS • PIr1NNSR3.3UIiVSYOR9 • ffi�N1�[dTAL
1" = 1,000'
jW STREAM DELINEATION RLWARCH TRGNGIE PARK • CHARLOTTE
12-1 6-11 �.� FvtrV. MUMM RC ZM 3
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA • U« R^- E-M

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 (_4t,(t.P_ tlfukr
Date: �/ j y
Project/Site: Nee Gth
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
tt r �t
Longitude: 9 Cft�tY Ct
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent PA16-ri­i3ilal
Other ja/��✓
e. g' Quad Name: N u huW.if?
19 or perennial if 2: 30` /
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =2f7e, )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
97-1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
62
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
f_1,'
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussio sin manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
2
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
0
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
(11
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biolo (Subtotal = /fir )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
62
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.
35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 outo /"&kr-
Date: / --
Project/Site: Re
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: 444.4
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Gtr t!%
Stream is at /east intermittent �
if >_ 19 or erennial if? 30* +►
Ephemeral Intermittent en ial
e.g. Quad Name: '
t f
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
fT
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
(?
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
{
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes
2"
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
6�1
2
3
8, Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
67
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = I? )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
r
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1`
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
3
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biologv (Subtotal = 17- )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed I f.�
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
e52
1.5
25. Algae
e67
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0 ^-M-
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

F- * W*
nrrnur�le ur w
FO WDENR
RESTRY and
ENVIRONMENTAL �4 44Arf9�
RESOURCES.
NC SEXIT UWIVj ;.RSI'F'Y
o <
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources
North Carolina State University
Stormwater and Wetlands Unit
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Certificate of Training
This certifies that
George Buchholz
has successfully completed training in
Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
For Riparian Buffer Rules
December 11-14,2006
Raleigh and New Bern, NC
Training was provided on: (1) the science of stream networks, hydrologic functions of streams and riparian
zones, stream maps, and stream characteristics for identification ofstream types, (2) State of'North Carolina
Administrative Rules for Stream Definitions and the Protection and Maintenance of Vegetated Riparian
Buffers, and (3) the North Carolina Division of Water Quality field methods for identification of the origins
of intermittent and perennial streams and modified streams that are subject to the North Carolina riparian
buffer rules.
Dr. d'"s D. Gregory, CPSS,
, Course Director

North Carolina State University is a land -
grant university and a constituent Institution Forestry and Environmental
of the University of North Carolina Outreach Program
DEVARrMENruf Department of Forestry and
FORESTRY and Environmental Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL College of Natural Resources
RESOURCES campus sox 8008
NC STATE UNIVERSITY Raleigh, NC 27695 -8008
919.515.9563
919.515.6883 (fax)
www.nesu.edu /feop
September 7, 2010
George Buchholz
EcoEngineering
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
Dear George Buchholz,
This letter will serve as verification of your completion of the one day (6 -hour) refresher
course offered on Thursday, July 29, 2010 in Jordan Lake, NC. I can confirm your
presence at the workshop based on a review of the sign -in sheets wherein your signature
was listed next to your name.
The training session, "Surface Water Identification and Training Class (SWITC) version
4.0" was a 6 -hour program that included classroom instruction and field exercise. It was
provided by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ).
Please keep a copy of this memo for your records. If you have any questions about the
training session content, please contact Amanda Mueller at (919)715 -6830, NCDWQ. NC
State University's Forestry and Environmental Resources Program (FECIP) retains
records on this training program for 6 years.
Regards,
Kelley D. McCarter
Program Coordinator

DURHAM 10 1869
CITY OF MEDICINE
CITY OF DURHAM
Department of Public Works
Stormwater Services
101 City Hall Plaza I Durham, NC 27701
919.560.4326 1 F 919.560.4316
www.durhamnc.gov
January 20, 2012
Via E -mail
Mr. George Buckholz
Eco Engineering
PO Box 14005
RTP, NC 27709
buchholz @ecoener.com
SUBJECT: Ephemeral /Intermittent /Perennial Determination —Duke Water Reclamation Pond
REFERNCE: CODJordan #2012 -001
Dear Mr. Buckholz:
We have reviewed the stream identification report submitted in relation to the subject project
and have made the stream determinations) listed below.
Project Name
Duke Water Reclamation Pond
PIN / Lat and long
36.003230 and 78.949691; 36.003523 and 78.946296
PID
-
Location /Directions
At the intersection of Circuit Dr and Tower View Dr
Sub Stream
Sandy Creek
Date of Determination
01/20/2012
Feature
Not
Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Stream
Type
Soil
Survey
USGS
Topo
Feature A
X
Perennial
X
Feature C
X
Perennial
X
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Durham
County, North Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000
scale. Each feature that is checked "Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is
not present on the property. Features that are checked "Subject" have been located on the
property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be other streams
located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and /or to the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ).

Ephemeral /Intermittent /Perennial Determination — Duke Water Reclamation Pond
Page 2 of 3
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or
affected parties that dispute a determination made by the City of Durham may request a
determination by the Director of DWQ Wetlands /401 Unit (Director). An appeal request must be
made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected party (including
downstream and /or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by
the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Ian McMillan, DWQ Wetlands /401
Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650.
If you dispute the Director's determination you may file a petition for an administrative hearing.
You must file the petition with the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings within sixty
(60) days of the receipt of this notice of decision. A petition is considered filed when it is
received in the Office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office of
Administrative Hearings accepts filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 am
and 5:00 pm, except for official state holidays. To request a hearing, send the original and one
(1) copy of the petition to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -6714. The petition may also be faxed to the attention of the Office of
Administrative Hearings at (919) 733 -3478, provided the original and one (1) copy of the
document is received by the Office of Administrative Hearings within five (5) days following the
date of the fax transmission. A copy of the petition must also be served to the Department of
Natural Resources, c/o Mary Penny Thompson, General Counsel, 1601 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal
within sixty (60) days.
The owner /future owners should notify the City (including any other Local, State, and Federal
Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject
property (stated above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed
activity or other City of Durham permit(s).
Any inquiries regarding section 404/401 permits should be directed to Division of Water Quality
(Central Office) at (919) 807 -6301, and the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field
Office) at (919) 554 -4884.
Should you have any questions regarding the above determination or need further clarification
on any aspect of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 560 -4326, x 30240 or
Raghavenderrao .badami @durhamnc.gov
Durham — Where Great Things Happen

Ephemeral /Intermittent /Perennial Determination — Duke Water Reclamation Pond
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
io&-- k � —T�— — - - -,
Raghavenderrao Badami, PE, CFM
Civil Engineer
Attachment: Soil Survey map
Stream ID exhibit
cc: Bill Hailey, City of Durham Stromwater services
Jonathan Baker, City of Durham Stromwater services
Michael Oudersluys, City of Durham Stromwater services
Sara Knies, City of Durham Stromwater services
Durham — Where Great Things Happen

IN raaECrao_ DKU- -08010 DUKE WATER EjEcoEngineeflng
F""Ame: DKUDSDIX.DWG y ,� Adiv WwnotTholotax.McAdam�Ca�y,Inc.
sumx: TIQN POND
I" = 1.DDD' l � - 13MNy�s «SA1�Y;&7[M- XNV=ffl0NTAL
r WETLAND SME DELMATTAN
s„ GIE�.0
Hors: � P '
� 12 -14 -11 DURHAM. NOR TH CAROLINA ie c-=

CD
tU
�i
a
0
77
CD
0
-o
0

P �1
�'rPuM
I USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
`+t„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: %
1. Applicant's name: Lkkt UMN i b 2. Evaluator's name: Key",T�' T
3. Date of evaluation: it /3 / 1 4. Time of evaluation ��/• : Od 4, '-
5. Name of stream: 4o Y�A6 6rQCk- 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: �t0� " fCref 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: V- GU / 10. County: t44 4h
11. Site coordinates (if known): p refer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): O ,`
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 J r q • / % 11 A Longitude (ex. — 77.556611): 7 A �7 �%
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Shee Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): 2-nn, s ,yd y.•. eti- / )94 "L
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient-Sensitive Waters _Water _Supply Watershed (I -I_V)_
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
22. Bankfull width:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (_
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _Moderate (4 to 10 1/6) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comm
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
Pa
to
3a
18
Canopy coverage over streamnea
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
F
#
CHARACTERISTICS
Presence of now I persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0 -4
0 -4
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
-
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
,
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
'
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)_
21
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
a
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
i
0 -4
5
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints)
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0-5
0-5
a
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lam max ousts)
23
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
W-i
...,cur ...
Entrenchment i floodpl aa„ cesu
0 -5
0 -4
0 -2
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
pk
7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
-
l
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
D
8
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
4
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4-
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment= max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)_
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0 - 5
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
Presence of major bank failures
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
73
a
13
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
p - 4
0-5
3
E~
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
�n
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
3
15
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle- poollripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
Ey
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent varied habitats = max points)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
Pa
to
3a
18
Canopy coverage over streamnea
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0 -4
0 -4
19
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
,
20
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
Q
21
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
m
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
a
23
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100 100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
Pa
to
3a

WETLAND DETERMINATION RATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project /Site: f d City /County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: % t State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Add Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): �+ Slope ( %):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 30. U Long: Z� i qq� 01.3 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yearT Yes V� No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed ?N Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes L'�No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic ?)'4 (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required}
Primary Indicators minimum of one is required;
check all that a I
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Su ace Water (Al)
_ True quatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Hig Water Table (A2)
_ Hydroc-n Sulfide Odor (C1)
s Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Satu tion (A3)
_OxidizeRhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Mosslrim Lines (1316)
_ Wate Marks (131}
_ Presence' f Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- S(;ason Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent IrorwReduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Srbirface (C7)
_ Satur Lion Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Ma�tnr Crust (134)
_ Other (Explainih,Remarks)
_ Stunted_ or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits {135)
— Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
�y
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- 5tained't_eaves (139)
(1L01�
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (134 \3)
_ FAC- Neutral °Test (D5) V 0
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No "—` Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Saturation Present? Yes No
–� Depth (inches):
'® Depth
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NO
includes capillary fringe)
(inches):
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont– Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:1�
Tree Stratum (Plot size)
rl a {
Absolute
%Cover
_
Dominant Indicator
Species? talus
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2.
%.
`"
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
1.
e ,
3_
4. e t
_Z_
- twl
5 s6i� —a c{ys
2. r.
��F'�
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 d �` (A/B}
6.
-
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = � r
5.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
8
Tree - Woody plants,, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
7•
eaI Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: -] )
`"
FACW species x 2 = 11_
1.
FAC species —!5— x3=
FACU species I— x4=
2. r.
3. o�r `v!11lL °a A t1 a o/, Irk t `}(
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = � r
5.
6
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic rVegetation
2 -Dominance Testis >50% t V t/
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 4
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8
10
)j Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: }
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 `-
—
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
- -r
2. k r&
---
3
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of
5.
Tree - Woody plants,, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
6
7•
8.
9•
10.
11.
12. _
_ = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: j
1.
2. _
3. _
4. _
5. _
6. _
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Woody vine -AII woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
( j t
Sampling Point: f t
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Tvoe Loc
Texture Remarks
t(inches)
tl� _ Mn
I %9i
�i ►1 t.�l
`'Type: C= Concentration D= Depletion RM= Reduced Matrix MS= Masked Sand Grains
2Location• PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
v Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

Appendix C: Regulatory Records and
Public Documents
1) 2012 Letter from City of Durham — Endorsing Proposed Water
Reclamation Pond
2) NC Division of Water Quality Resources — Email from Fred Tarver
3) NCDCR — State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
4) NCDENR — Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
5) NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
6) US Fish & Wildlife (USFW)
7) EcoEngineering — Design Plans for Water Reclamation Pond
Duke University Water Reclamation Pond — Individual Permit Application
DKU -08010

Administration
DURHAM 919 -560 -4381
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The City of Durham, Department of Water Management is committed to promoting
sustainable water use practices in our community and we compliment Duke University's
efforts to date embracing water efficiency throughout the campus facilities and grounds.
As our largest water customer, Duke University's usage certainly impacts our long term
water source /supply planning. Population growth and periodic drought conditions place an
increasing demand on the City's two main water supplies — Lake Michie and Little River
Reservoir. As the City plans for future water demand, we must consider utilizing additional
sources — such as expanding use of our Jordan Lake allocation — as well as developing the
use of reclaimed water in our service area.
The University has proposed a water harvesting project which is projected to reduce Duke's
use of potable water by approximately 100 million gallons /year. As proposed, the water
reclamation pond would be located near Central Chilled Water Plant 2 on Duke's Campus
and provide water for chiller usage, among other non - potable uses. As a practice, the City
supports such activities and would hope to partner with the University in the future by
supplying high quality reclaimed water to further offset demands on the City's potable
water system.
The City's utmost concern is to protect the potable water system from possible
contamination from non - potable sources. Therefore, all connections which use the
reclamation pond as source water must be completely separate from the potable water
supply, with appropriated backflow prevention devices installed as required by the City's
Cross - Connection Control Ordinance. Any backf low preventers installed shall be tested and
inspected annually per the ordinance.
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions regarding our concerns on this
project.
Sincerely,
Donald F. Greeley, P.E., PLS
Director
Durham — Where Great Things Happen
Customer Billing Services
CITY OF DURHAM
919 -560 -4412
DEPARTMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT
Laboratory Services
101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 27701
919 -560 -4386
919- 560 -4381 . FAX [phone]
Plant Maintenance
www.durhamnc.gov
919 560 -4388
Regulatory Compliance
1 8 6 9
919 -560 -4381
CITY OF MEDICINE
Utility Engineering
May 31, 2012
919 -560 -4381
Wastewater Treatment
North - 919- S60 -4384
Mr. Russell Thompson, Director
South 919 560 -4386
Utilities and Engineering /Facilities Management
Water Supply & Treatment
Williams - 919 -560 -4348
Duke University
Brown 919 -560- -4362
Duke Box 90144
Water & Sewer Maintenance
919 -560 -4344
Durham, NC 27708
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The City of Durham, Department of Water Management is committed to promoting
sustainable water use practices in our community and we compliment Duke University's
efforts to date embracing water efficiency throughout the campus facilities and grounds.
As our largest water customer, Duke University's usage certainly impacts our long term
water source /supply planning. Population growth and periodic drought conditions place an
increasing demand on the City's two main water supplies — Lake Michie and Little River
Reservoir. As the City plans for future water demand, we must consider utilizing additional
sources — such as expanding use of our Jordan Lake allocation — as well as developing the
use of reclaimed water in our service area.
The University has proposed a water harvesting project which is projected to reduce Duke's
use of potable water by approximately 100 million gallons /year. As proposed, the water
reclamation pond would be located near Central Chilled Water Plant 2 on Duke's Campus
and provide water for chiller usage, among other non - potable uses. As a practice, the City
supports such activities and would hope to partner with the University in the future by
supplying high quality reclaimed water to further offset demands on the City's potable
water system.
The City's utmost concern is to protect the potable water system from possible
contamination from non - potable sources. Therefore, all connections which use the
reclamation pond as source water must be completely separate from the potable water
supply, with appropriated backflow prevention devices installed as required by the City's
Cross - Connection Control Ordinance. Any backf low preventers installed shall be tested and
inspected annually per the ordinance.
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions regarding our concerns on this
project.
Sincerely,
Donald F. Greeley, P.E., PLS
Director
Durham — Where Great Things Happen

Page 1 of 2
Yates, Kevin
From: Caldwell, James
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:06 PM
To: Yates, Kevin
Subject: FW: Proposed Duke Pond
From: Tarver, Fred [mailto:fred.tarver @ ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 20113:57 PM
To: Caldwell, James
Cc: McEvoy, Steve; Mead, Jim; Brady, Harold M.; Mcmillan, Ian; Bryant, Shari L.; Deamer, Nora
Subject: RE: Proposed Duke Pond
James,
The Division of Water Resources assigns flow requirements to subject dams under the authority
delegated by the Dam Safety Law (NC G.S. 143- 215.31) and associated rules (15A NCAC 2K.0500). The
proposed dam will create an impoundment on an unnamed tributary of Sandy Creek in the Cape Fear
Basin. Based on the 266 acre drainage area of the proposed impoundment and flow determinations of
similar drainages in the New Hope Creek watershed, I have determined that the site DOES NOT meet the
minimal threshold -7Q10 greater than 0.2 cubic feet per second or no evidence of a point source
discharge in the affected reach - -that allow us to assign a flow.
Please be aware that this does not preclude other agencies from requesting flow requirements as
conditions in their permits or certifications.
Also, water withdrawals for irrigation or other purposes from the pond will be subject to NC G.S. 143 -
215.22H -Registration of Water Withdrawals and Transfers. Please contact Harold Brady with NCDWR,
(919.715.1736 or email harold.brady @ncdenr.gov) for more information about the registration
requirements for water withdrawals in North Carolina or go to the web site:
http: / /www.ncwater.org/ Permits_ and_ Registration /Water_Withdrawal_Registration.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss further.
Fred Tarver
From: Caldwell, James [mailto:caldwell @ecoengr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20119:52 AM
To: Tarver, Fred
Subject: Proposed Duke Pond
Good morning, Fred. Good to talk to you yesterday.
Attached is some information for the proposed Duke University water reuse pond. I have attached the
GoogleEarth KMZ Placemarker file as well as the Quad Map and a preliminary grading plan for the
facility.
The coordinates for the proposed dam are:
6/21/2012

Page 2 of 2
Lat: 36.002763°
Long: - 78.949669°
You should be able to see the chilled water plant just north of the proposed pond in the aerial images (Chiller
Plant #2). Duke has 2 central chilled water plants that provide chilled water to the campus. This closed -loop
system provides chilled water for cooling of buildings and dissipates the heat with the cooling towers in the
plants. These cooling towers use water in a heat - exchange system that is basically evaporated into the
atmosphere. The majority of the water they use now in Chiller Plant #2 is potable water and this facility is the
largest single user of potable water in the City of Durham. The plant is currently being expanded and increasing
the need for water. Their projected 2020 demand for the plant is around 186,000,000 gallons a year.
Duke has taken numerous steps to conserve water around campus, in the chilled water system and other uses.
This includes installing a reclaimed water system for the condensate in the individual building air handling units,
which is piped back to the Chilled Water Plant for use in the cooling towers.
We helped Duke perform a feasibility study for multiple pond sites on their campus and have narrowed it down
to this site as the most efficient and best "source" of water for the Chilled Water Plant #2. This area on Duke's
campus has a fairly high impervious percentage drainage area and is obviously adjacent to the largest demand
for water. We have run models using historical rainfall data showing that the proposed pond can provide
between 50 -80% of the projected 2020 CP #2 water demand, depending on management and use. Our models
assume plant demand (changes each month), storm flows, base flow, minimum release, evaporation (changes
each month), and infiltration.
The preliminary design of the pond has a permanent standing pool 8' deep from elevation 309 to elevation 301
(1,400,000 cf). There is a 4' "flux" between elevations 309 and 313 that will capture storm flows for use
(960,000 cf "useable" water). The intake system will be able to pump water from the pond when it is above
elevation 309. Anytime the water is above elevation 313, it will go through the spillway system and
downstream. The spillway crest is at elevation 313 and the top of dam elevation is 320. The blue line on the
preliminary grading plan is at elevation 311, the middle of the 4' useable flux.
The drainage area for the proposed dam is 266 acres and is very urbanized with the hospital and university
campus. This results in a "flashy" watershed and pretty high storm surges through the stream section here.
Check this out when you get a chance and let me know what other information you might need.
Thanks,
-James
James W. Caldwell, PE
Project Manager
Office: 919 - 361 -5000 x221
Cell: 919 - 475 -4092
6/21/2012

,,T1 -, sc s �A>•E n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter 13. Sandbeck, Administrator
l3cvcr1y 159Ves Perdue, Governor office of :lrchivca and I fis(ary
]..inch 1, Carlisle, Sccrclhry Division of llistorical Resources
Jef[rcy ). Crow, I)cpaty Secretary David Brook, Director
February 9, 2010
George Buchholz
lscol=,ngineering
PO Box: 14005
Research Triangle bark, NC 27709
Re: Duke University Stormwater Harvesting Facility anti Mitigation Design, Durham, DKU- 0£3010,
Durham County, ER 10 -0133
Dear Mr. Buchholz:
Thank you for your letter of January 15, 2010, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. 'Therefore, we have no comment: on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill - Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 - 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
'etcr Sandbeck
Location: 1091ihst Jones Street, Raleigh N(: 27001 Mailing Address: 4617 t lhil Service.(,emer, Raleigh NC 27699.4017 'relephone /Fix: ()l 9) sU /-6:)/U /t;U1 -q,Tw

United States Department of the Interior
George Buchholz
EcoEngineering
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
fISH ANT) WIL.DL,IFF" SERVICE::
Raleigh Field Office
Po,-,t Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636 -3726
February 16, 2010
Re- Duke University Stormwat:er i-larvestint? facility and Mitivati oil Deskm DKU -09010
Dear Mr. Buchholz:
`I 'Iris letter is to inform you that a list of all 1ederally- protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) weir page at littp: / /www.fws.gov /sleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh field Office for a list of federally- protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 0 6
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur 111
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non- federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, Insure that any action federally authorised,
funded, Or Carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally - listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining Whether additional consultation With the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally- protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and lnformatlot1 on Completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on out- web page at http: / /,,vww.fws.gov /raleigll. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
i fife term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in deed of
concentrated conservation fictions. Fedeml species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
1'ederal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally - listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and all analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that alight affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you ShoL11d maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting tile: assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above- referenced project, we offer the following remark,,. Our Co111111ents are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based oil tile information provided and other information available, it appears that tile proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally- listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (I) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that May affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that May be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down - gradient surface wafters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (littp: / /www.fAs.gov /raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you Have any questions or comments, please contact Mark Bowers of this office
at (919) 856 -4520 ext. 19.
Sincerely,
�^ fete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alanlanee
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
I3runswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
C:urrituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
(31- anviile
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomcry
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Oi1slow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
M.
Perqu I mans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

= "".J.
NCDENf R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
January 20, 2010
Mr. George Buchholz
EcoEngineering
P.O. I3ox 14005
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Duke University -- Stornlwater Harvesting facility and Mitigation Design; Durham, Durham
County
Project DKU- 0801.0
Dear Mr. Buchholz:
file Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, sig11il,icant natural C01111111In1tieS, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservatlon/inanaged areas at [lie site not- within 0.25 -mile of the protect area.
Our maps show vague locations between 0,25 -mile and a mile of two plant species drat have not been
seen since 1955. Considering the amount of development in the area, and the 55 years or More that has
elapsed, we assume that such Species are no loilger present within a mile of the pr'oJect.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp,org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad Map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
< httl):// nlll )web,eiii,.state.nc.us /iiliis/ public /glna.p75. lnalnmplttml >. The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage ". You may want to click "Help" for more information.
NC OneMal) now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. 'phis service provides site
specific information o11 GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage .Areas. The NC OncMap website provides Elernent Occurrence (ISO) I.I.)
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural I Ieritage
Program for detailed information, This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Information Request to be answered by
NHP staff. for more information about data formats and access, visit <www.nconcrnap.corn> -, then click
on "I?'I'I' Data Download ", and then "nheo.zip" l:to the right of "Natural I- terit:age Element Occurrences "]
You may also e -]nail NC OneMap at <dltag(ar ncinaii.net> f'or more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact tile at 919- 715 -8697 if you have questions or need further information,
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr,, Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1601 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us NoAhC.ai'C)l.ina
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer •- 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper NatwralC tf

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
12 February 2010
Mr. George Buchholz
EcoBn ineering
P.U. Box 1.4005
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Subject: Duke University Stormwater Harvesting; Facility and Mitigation Design, Durham, North
Carolina. DKU- 08010.
Dear Mr. Buchholz
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject information and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 -667d) and North Carolina General StatLACS (G.S. 113 -131 et seq.).
Duke University proposes to construct a water harvesting; system that includes two stormwater
capture basins. 'rho purpose of the project is to harvest stormwater runoff to replace potable City water
for process and irrigation water on the campus. The project also includes stream restoration as on -site
mitigation for construction of the stormwater capture basins.
The proposed stormwater capture basins appear to be impoundments of unnamed tributaries to
Sandy Crock in the Cape .Fear River basin. There are no records for threatened or endangered species in
Sandy Creel( or its tributaries. Although we do not have any records for listed species on or near the
proposed project site, an on -site survey is the only definitive means to determine whether the proposed
project would directly impact threatened or endangered species. We suggest you consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service at (919) 856 -4520 to ensure that any issues related to federally listed species are
addressed.
We recognise your request for information is specifically related to the presence of threatened or
endangered species; however, it appears the proposed project may impound stream channels. The
NCWRC hesitates to concur with the construction of instream daces because these can modify stream
flows, affect water duality, and can alter the natural diurnal, seasonal, and annual patterns of the upstream
and downstream movements of instream biota (Yeager 1993). NCWRC recommends that small
impoundments be located off-channel and wetlands be avoided. Any environmental documents or
permits related to this project should discuss the reason(s) off - channel impoundments are not feasible.
The following arc NC WRC's general comments and recommendations regarding construction of
impoundments and are provided as information for the applicant
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Teleplione: (919) 707 -0220 • Fax: [phone]
c '� SZ30G'GH7'9CC -4ueer"Ja x..lE.gs e9T teo 01 2T Gal

pabe 2
12 February 2010
Duke University Storrawatcr Basins
DKU -08010
1. The applicant should contact the N.C. 'Division of Land Quality to determine if a dam safety
review is required.
2. The applicant should contact the N.G. Division of Water Resources (DWR) regarding; a minimum
flow release.
3. The outflow pipe must be designed to draw water from near the bottom of the pond. Coldwater
bottom withdrawal devices should be within 1 -2 feet of the bottom, but not on the bottom. This
design will prevent buildup of poorly oxygenated water and improve water duality in the pond.
The discharge should be aerated to enhance dissolved oxygen levels.
4. Discharge from the impoundment should be routinely monitored to ensure compliance with the
required minimum flow release. In addition, outflow water temperatures and dissolved oxygen
should be monitored. Outflow water temperatures should be compared to inflow water
temperatures and should not exceed the temperature standard for piedmont streams.
5. Only native piedmont species should be stocked in the impoundment. A stocking permit from the
NCWRC is now required to stock any species of fish, mollusks or crustaceans in the public,
inland fishing waters of North Carolina. Applications for a stocking permit are available at
hit): / /www,i.icwildlife.or . 'There is no fee associated with the permit application process.
G. Native woody vegetation (e.g., river birch, sycamore, bald cypress, water oak, willow oak,
overcup oak, swamp white oak, swamp chestnut oak) should be re- established wherever possible
around the impoundment, but not on the dam. We recommend a 50 -foot forested buffer on
intermittent streams and a 100 -font forested buffer on perennial streams. These areas should be
protected with conservation easements.
7, Residual Row in the stream below the dam must be maintained during filling of the impoundment
to protect aquatic life. However, turbid water should not be discharged. Zlntil water in the
impoundment is clear, flexible pipe should be used to maintain any stream flow around the
impoundment.
8. Concrete is toxic to aquatic life: and should not be allowed to come in. contact with surface waters
until cured.
9. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected and maintained
regularly to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or
other toxic materials.
10. Rock, sand, or other materials should not be excavated from the stream channel except in the
immediaw permitted area. Also, sandbags, flexible pipe, or other stable diversion structures
should be used to avoid excavation in flowing water.
H. A plan should be developed to manage sediment behind the dam. Potential examples include
periodical flushes (thorough sediment analysis and prior assessment of the foreseeable effects of
releasing sediment must be included) and sediment removal (passive techniques are preferred
such as sediment trapping devices).
12. Sediment and erosion controls measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or
construction. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive
silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including
destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.
tw' 4 S29L'6irb'see queR'Aa Tju-gO e9T -CIO of c'T q��

Page 3
12 February 2010
Duke University Stormwater Basins
DKU -08010
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625.
L iteralrrre cited
Yeager, B. L. 1993. Danis. Pages 57 -114. In C. I;
warmwater streams: Guidelines for evaluation.
Rock, Arkansas.
Sincerely,
Safari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region, Coordinator
Habitat Conservation 11rograrn
. Bryan and D. A. Rutherford, editors_ Impacts on
Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Little
C1 Sa9i. `Gtf, 19C,C queRju TjeuS e9T :60 OT i?T qa.:1

WATER REUSE POND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL NOTES
1. NO DAM SAFETY WILL CLASSIFY THE PROPOSED DAM AS A HIGH HAZARD JURISDICTIONAL
FACILITY. ALL NC DAM SAFETY PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE OMER PRIOR TO
BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
2. ALL NECESSARY PERMITS WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY. CITY OF DURHAM, DURHAM COUNTY. AND DUKE
UNIVERSITY PRIOR TO DISTURBANCE OF ANY JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND /STREAM.
& THE PROJECT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND CERTIFIED TO THE CITY OF DURHAM 8CE
PROGRAM (BAP CERTIFYING ENGINEER). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BECOME FAMILIAR
WITH THIS PROGRAM, ALL INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND
COORDINATE DIRECTLY WITH THE CERTIFYING ENGINEER AND DEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
SUCH THAT ALL INSPECTION AND CR71FICATION REQUIREMENTS WALL BE MET AT THE
END OF THE PROJECT.
4. ANY CONVICTS ON THE PLANS DRAWINGS, REPORTS, ETC. SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE
DESIGN ENGINEER'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
S. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER REUSE POND IS IN CONJUNCT NTH
CONSTRUCTION FO THE REQUIRED STREAM MITIGATION PLAN. THE STREM MITIGATION
PLAN SHALL BE PART FO THE JUNE 2012 BID PROCESS AS A LINE ITEM TO BE
COODINATED NTH THE ENGINEER AND DUKE UNIVERSITY.
6. THE SANITARY SEWER LINE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SHALL REMAIN IN SERVICE
THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, ANY PHASING, CLEARING, STORAGE. OR
ACCESS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY OF DURHAM FOR THE EASEMENT.
7. THE TAI AND ASSOCIATED. PLLC GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS FROM MAY 4, 2014 MAY 29,
2012, AND MAY 31. 2012 ARE ALL CONSIDERED PART OF THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS FOR
THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THESE THREE REPORTS ON -SITE ALONG
NTH THE DESIGN PUNS FOR REFERENCE
8. THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL EVALUATE ALL ASPECTS OF THE
FOUNDATION, BORROW SOURCE. AND RESERVOIR AREA BEFORE AND DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
9. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE DAM EMBANKMENT SHALL BE EVALUATED BY THE ON -SITE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS CONSTRUCTION OCCURS. THE TOTAL DEPTH AND
QUANTITIES OF FOUNDATION MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED. REPLACED, OR REMEDIATED WILL
BE DETERMINED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION.
10. THE FINAL CERTIFICATION FOR THE RESERVOIR PROJECT TO NC DAM SAFETY MILL
INCLUDE A CERTIFICATION BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER THAT THE PROJECT
WAS CONSTRUCTED PER THE PLANS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR
TO COORDINATE WITH THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR OBSERVATION AND
IES71NG SUCH THAT THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER CAN CERTIFY THE
CONSTRUCTION.
11. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, A FINAL CERTIFICATION PACKAGE TO NC DAM
SAFETY, INCLUDING AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL AND AN EMERGENCY
ACTON PLAN NLL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL THE FINAL AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR
THIS CERTIFICATION SHALL OCCUR NO SOONER THAN 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
CERTIFICATION SUBMITTAL PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY DEFICIENCIES OR MODIFICATIONS TO
BRING THE FACILITY INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
THE RESPONS481UTY DF THE CONTRACTOR.
12. NO TREES /SHRUBS OF ANY TYPE MAY BE PUNTED ON THE PROPOSED DAM
EMBANKMENT (FILL AREAS).
13. THE WETLAND BENCH AREA BETWEEN ELEVATIONS 309 AND 313 NLL BE FINE GRADED
TO 0.25' SPOT ELEVATIONS AND INCREMENTS. THIS WETLAND RANCH GRADING NLL BE
CRITICAL TO THE SURAVABIUTY OF THE PROPOSED WEILAND PLANTINGS. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE SPECIAL CARE TO GRADE THIS AREA PER THE PLANS (FINAL
WETLAND BENCH GRADING STILL TO BE FINALIZED AS OF JUNE 2012). UPON
COMPLETION OF THE WETLAND BENCH GRADING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TO
THE
ENGINEER AND OWNER A DETAILS AS -BUILT SURVEY OF THE WETLAND BENCH SUCH
THAT THE GRADES CAN BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO THE PLANTINGS IN THIS AREA. THIS
SURVEY WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO WETLAND PLANTINGS
INT HE AREA SHALL BE COMPLETED UNTIL THE AS -BUILT SURVEY OF THE AREA IS
APPROVED.
14. ALLUVIUM AND TOPSOIL MATERIAL WILL BE USED FOR THE FINE GRADING OF THE
WETLAND BENCH AREA AND ANY OTHER AREAS WHERE LANDSCAPING IS REQUIRED. IT
WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PHASE THE EXCAVATION, STORAGE. AND
PLACEMENT OF THIS MATERIAL SUCH THAT THE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS AND
TOPSOIL / ALLUVUM REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
15. PLEASE REFER TO THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN FOR A GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PHASING FOR CONSTRUCTION. A SEPARATE SEDIMENT
AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED TO DURHAM COUNTY FOR APPROVAL
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
16. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES. ONCE ALL PERMITS ARE OBTAINED
BY THE OWNER, THE AREA FOR THE DAM SHALL BE CLEARED AND THE DAM CONSTRUTED
WITH THE SPILLWAY SYSTEM. THE SPILLWAY SYSTEM WILL BE FITTED WITH A SKIMMER
SYSTEM AND USED AS A SEDIMENT TRAP AS CONSTRUCTION OF THE REST OF THE
PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
17. DURING CONSTRUCTION, IN UEU OF STANDARD TREE PROTECTION FENCING. A 6' HIGH
CHAIN -UNK FENCE SHALL BE USED.
18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURMSH, INSTALL. OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN ANY PUMPING OR
DEWATERING EQUIPMENT. ETC. NEEDED FOR REMOVAL OF WATER FROM VARIOUS PARTS
OF THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AREA (CUT SLOPES FOUNDATION, ETC.). IT IS POSSIBLE
THAT PUMPING WILL BE NECESSARY THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR PUMPING AND
DEWATRING ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE STABILITY OF ALL AREAS.
19. ANY NAME BRANDS OR SPECIFIC PRODUCTS SHOWN IN THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED NTH AN ENGINEER- APPROVED EQUAL SHOP DRAWINGS, DESIGNS, CUT
SHEETS, OR ANY OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR ANY SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES.
20. THE UPSTREAM ENDWALLS FOR BOTH THE TOWERVSEW AND CIRCUIT DRIVE CULVERT
SYSTEM ARE TO BE EVALUATED AND DESIGNED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENGINEER
AND DUKE UNIVERSITY. THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING CULVERTS SHALL BE
INVESTGATED BY DUKE UNIVERSITY (CAMERA JOINTS AND INVESTIGATE FOUNDATION
CONDITONS). ONCE THE UPSTREAM AREA OF THE EXISTING CULVERT SYSTEMS ARE
EVALUATED FOR FOUNDATION REMEDIAION AND JOINT SEPARATION /REPAIR, A CUSTOM
ENDWALL SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR EACH CROSSING. THE FINAL GEOMETRY,
MATERIAL ETC. IS YET TO BE FINALIZED AND DETERMINED AS OF JUNE 2012.
21. THE SPILLWAY OIUTFALL CHANNEL SECTION BETWEEN THE DAM AND TOWERVEW SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOW ON THE ECOENCHNEERNG, NOW. AND LHC SHEETS. THE
CHANNEL SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CAST-IN-PLACE REINFORCED CONCRETE
NTH A DUKE STONE CLADDING. LARGE DUKE STONE 'BOULDERS* SHAL ALSO BE CAST
INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE CHANNEL SECTION PER THE NBW SPECIFICATIONS.
22- ANY DROP/FALL OF 3' OR MORE TO BE PROVIDED NTH A HANDRAIL/GUARDRAIL OR
OTHER APPROPRIATE MEASURES PER CITY OF DURHAM OR DUKE UNIVERSITY.
23. THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER SHALL FOLLOW ALL CURRENT OSHA GUIDELINES FOR
ENTRY INTO CONFINED SPACES.
STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY:
ALL REQUIRE D MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS OF THIS FACILITY SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DUKE UNIVERSITY.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEgUENCE
1. THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS FROM ALL APPROPRIATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. INSTALL ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PER THE APPROVED SEDIMENT
& EROSION CONTROL PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL APPROVED SEDIMENT
AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROJECT. AS REQUIRED.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR,
AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNING AGENCIES, PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING.
3 CLEAR AND GRUB AREA 'WITHIN THE UMITS OF THE PROPOSED RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION
PER THE APPROVED SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN. ALL TREES AND THEIR
ENTIRE ROOT SYSTEMS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE RESERVOIR FOOTPRINT AREA AND
R
BACKFILLED WITH SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL P THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'
THE BACKFILLED AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THE DAM
EMBANKMENT. THE REMAINING AREA OF THE EMBANKMENT SHALL BE STRIPPED TO A
SUITABLE DEPTH AS DIRECTED- BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ANY
RESIDUAL SOILS TO BE LEFT IN PLACE MUST BE WELL SCARIFIED TO PROMOTE BONDING
OF THE NEW EMBANKMENT FILL NO EMBANKMENT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED FOR THE
DAM OR FOUNDATION AREA UNTIL APPROVAL OF THE RESERVOIR SUBGRADE / TRENCH
IS OBTAINED FROM THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
4. EXCAVATE THE FOUNDATION AREA FOR THE DAM EMBANKMENT UNDER DIRECTION AND
OBSERVATION OF THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THE DEPTH AND QUALITIES OF
FOUNDATION MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ARE TO BE DIRECTED BY THE
ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ALL MATERIALS USED TO REPLACE UNSUITABLE
FOUNDATION MATERIALS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 111E SAME STANDARDS AS THE DAM
EMBANKMENT AS OUTLINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS. THE CONTRACTOR AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL RETAIN DOCUMENTATION OF ALL FOUNDATION
REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES FOR THE FINAL AS -BUILT CERTIFICATION TO NO DAM SAFETY
UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.
5. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SUSCRADE CONDITIONS ALONG ANY COMMIT THROUGH THE DAM
EMBANKMENT SHALL BE EVALUATED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO
ASSESS WHETHER SUITABLE BEARING CONDITIONS EAST AT THE SUBGRADE LEVEL.
SHOULD SOFT OR OTHERWISE UNSUITABLE CONDITIONS BE ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE
PIPE ALIGNMENTS. THESE MATERIALS SHOULD BE UNDERCUT AS DIRECTED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THE UNDERCUT MATERIALS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH
ADEQUATELY COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL LEAN CONCRETE OR FLOWABLE FILL AS
DIRECTED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
6. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE RISER STRUCTURE AND ANTI- FLOTATION BLOCK SHALL BE
EXTENSIVELY EVALUATED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RISER STRUCTURE AND ANTI- FLOATATION
BLOCK. THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING
THE FOUNDATION AND BEARING CAPACITY OF THE AREA UNDER THE RISER STRUCTURE
AND AND- FLOATATON BLOCK TO PREVENT DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT.
7. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW EMBANKMENT. FILL MATERIALS SHALL BE PLACED IN
LIFTS TO THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS PRIOR TO
COMPACTION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
FILL LIFTS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF FILL IF IT IS
NECESSARY, THE EMBANKMENT FILL MATERIAL WILL BE OVER BUILT IN HORIZONTAL UFTS
AND CUT BACK TO FINAL GRADE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE PROPER COMPACTION.
8, INSTALL SPILLWAY AND DRAIN SYSTEMS. THE BOTTOM DRAW VALVE FOR THE RESERVOIR
SHALL BE KEPT OPEN UNTIL AN AS -BUILT CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE
ENGINEER AND AN APPROVAL TO IMPOUND HAS BEEN ISSUED BY ALL APPLICABLE
AGENCIES.
9. INSTALL DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM ALONG EMBANKMENT CONDUITS AS SHOWN AND PER
DIRECTION OF THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. MATERIAL USED FOR FILTER MEDIA
SHALL BE PROVIDED TO AND APPROVED BY ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
10. CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT AND RESERVOIR AREA PER SPECIFICATIONS IN THE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE ON -SITE GE07ECHNICAL ENGINEER
ALL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EMBANKMENT FILL MATERIAL SHALL MEET THE STANDARDS
SET FORTH IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS, INCLUDING COMPACTION AND MOISTURE
REQUIREMENTS IF NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE PROPER COMPACTION, THE EMBANKMENT FILL
MATERIAL WILL BE OVER BUILT IN HORIZONTAL LIFTS AND CUT BACK TO PROPER FINAL
GRADE ANY HAND COMPACTION ACTVTIES AROUND SPILLWAY OR DRAM STRUCTURES
SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN SMALL LOOSE LIFTS AS SPECIFIED BY THE ON -SITE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND BE TO THE SAME COMPACTION AND MOISTURE
REQUIREMENTS AS THE ENTIRE EMBANKMENT ALL COMPACTION AND MOISTURE TESTING
SHALL BE CARRIED OUT AS DIRECTED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND
AS USTED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS.
11, UPON COMPLETION OF DAN EMBANKMENT, PROMPTLY STABILIZE AND SEED DAM
EMBANKMENT PER SEEDING SCHEDULE AND APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
PUN.
12. SCHEDULE A FINAL AS -BURT INSPECTION AND AS BUILT SURVEY WITH THE ENGINEER .
AN AS -BUILT INSPECTION SHOULD BE SCHEDULED A MINIMUM OF 60 DAYS BEFORE THE
SUBMITTAL OF THE CERTIFICATION PACKAGE IS REQUIRED. ANY COMMENTS OR
DEFICIENCIES IN THE DAM CONSTRUCTION MUST BE CORRECTED TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE ENGINEER AND OWNER BEFORE CERTIFICATION SHALL BE GRANTED. UPON FINAL
APPROVAL FROM THE NC DAM SAFETY. OOOSE THE BOTTOM DRAIN VALVE AND BEGIN
:MPOUNOING WATER. NO WATER SHALL BE IMPOUNDED BEFORE AN APPROVAL TO
IMPOUND IS ISSUED FROM BOTH NC DAM SAFETY AND THE ENGINEER.
GEOTECH MAL RMRMAZON
1. THE TAI AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNCL REPORTS SHALL BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO
CALCULATE ANTICIPATED GUANTITIED OF ROCK (TRENCH ROCK AND MASS ROCK) AS WELL
AS ALLUVIUM. THE OUALTTIES OF ROCK AND ALLUVIUM SHALL BE PPROVIDED TO THE
OWNER AS PART OF THE BID PROCESS
2. THE ANTICIPATED QUANTITY OF UNDERCUT FOR THE DAM EMBANKMENT FOUNDATION AND
DIABASE DIKE FOR THE POND ARE OUTLINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS. THESE
GAM FTES SHALL BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS ANTICIPATED QUANTITIES AND MAY
VARY AS DETERMINED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION.
3. ANY SUITABLE MATERIAL (AS DEFINED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER) THAT CAN
BE USED AS STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL FOR 07MR PROJECTS AT DUKE UNIVERSITY (ERWIN
FIELD OR OTHER) SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH DUKE UNIVERSITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
COORDINATE THESE ESTIMATES OF ALLUVIUM, SUITABLE STRUCUTRAL FILL, AND ROCK AS
OUTUEND ABOVE WIHT DOME UNIVERSITY AS PART OF THE BD PROCESS.
4. THE LIMITS OF THE FISH REFUGE HOLE DEPICTED ON THE GRADING PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE
THE FISH REFUGE HOLE WILL BE GRADED PER RECCOMENDATION OF THE ENGINEER, ON -SITE
GE07ECHNICAL ENGINEER, AND DUKE UNIVERSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION.
5. ALL FILL SOILS AND COMPACTION SPECIFICATIONS TO BE USED FOR THE DAM EMBANKMENT
CONSTRUCTION SHAT BE TAKEN FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS DETAILED IN THE
OEOTECHNICAL REPORTS.
6. ALL FILL MATERIALS TO BE USED FOR THE DAM EMBANKMENT SHALL BE TAKEN FROM
BORROW AREAS APPROVED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS OUTLINED N THE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS THE FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE FROM ROOTS. STUMPS. WOOD,
STONES GREATER THAN 6 °, AND FROZEN OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL THE SPECIFIC
MATERIALS USED SHALL BE EVALUATED AND APPROVED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM STANDARD PROCTORS
ON THE PROPOSED BORROW MATERIAL TO ENSURE THAT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AND
COMPACTION CAN BE ACHIEVED / CONTROLLED DURING CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT.
7. FILL PLACEMENT FOR THE EMBANKMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED IN
THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS EACH LIFT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH
OF EMBANKMENT. BEFORE PLACEMENT OF FILL FOR THE BERM SECTION, ALL UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE SURFACE PROPERLY PREPARED FOR FILL
PLACEMENT.
B. ALL FILL SOILS USED IN THE EMBANKMENT / KEY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE
COMPACTED TO SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS. THE FILL SOILS
SHALL BE COMPACTED AT A MOISTURE CONTENT AS SPECIFIED IN THE GE07ECHNCAL
REPORTS. COMPACTION TESTS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE ON -SIRE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY 714AT THE PROPER COMPACTION LEVEL HAS
BEEN REACHED. IN ORDER 70 PREVENT DAMAGE TO ANY STRUCTURES. NO COMPACTION
EQUIPMENT SHALL CROSS ANY STRUCTURE UNTIL A MINIMUM COVER AS SPECIFIED BY THE
ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER IS ESTABLISHED:
9. TESTING OF THE NEW FILL MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED TO VERIFY THAT THE
RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF COMPACTION IS ACHIEVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, ONE
DENSITY TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED AS DIRECTED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
10. TESTING WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE 7' X 7' BARREL CULVERT AT A FREQUENCY DIRECTED
BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
11. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH REPORTS AND CERTIFICATION THAT THE
GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED PER
PLAN. THESE REPORTS AND CERTIFICATIONS WILL BE NEEDED DURING THE AS -BUILT
CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR THIS IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY. THEREFORE, IT SHALL BE THE
CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE TESTING AND OBSERVATION WITH THE
ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
12. TOPSOVALLUVIUM CAN BE USED ON THE DOWNSTREAM DAM EMBANKMENT SLOPES AND
OTHER GRADED/BARE AREAS TO PROMOTE VEGETATION AND STABILIZATION. SUCH WORK
SHALL BE RESTRUICTED TO 8- AND PROPERLY PLACED. THE TOPSOIL SHOULD BE RELATIVELY
CLEAN (NO LARGE ORGANIC DEBRIS).
TEMPORARY SEEDING SCHEDULE
SEEDING YDRNRE APPI N >MIN RATE
JANFI - MAY 1 RYE (GRAN) 120 Les /AC
KOBE LESPEOEZA 50 LBS /AC
NAY 1 - AUG 15 DER MAN MILLET 40 LOS /AC
AUG 15 - DEC 30 RYE (GRAIN) 120 LBS /AC
Mtn u
FOLLOW RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOIL TESTS OR APPLY 2.000 LB /AC GROUND
AGRICULTURE LIMESTONE AND 750 LB /AC 10 -10 -10 FERTILIZER ( FROM AUG
15 - DEC 30. INCREASE 10 -10 -10 FERTnIZER TO 1000 LB/AC).
APPLY 4000 LB/AC STRAW. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WH ASPHALT, NETTING,
OR A MULCH AN TOOL. A DISK WTH BLADES SET NEARLY STRAIGHT CAN
BE USED AS A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL
MME
JAI 1 - AUG 15: REFERTILQE IF GROWTH IS NOT FULLY ADEQUATE
RESEED. REFERTILIZE. AND MULCH IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING EROSION OR OTHER DAMAGE.
AUG 15 - DEC 30: REPAIR AMID REFERTIUZE DAMAGED AREAS DWEDNIELY.
TOP DRESS WITH 50 LB /AC OF NITROGEN N MARCH.
IF R IS NECESSARY TO EXTEND TEMPORARY COVER BEYOND
JUNE 15. OVRSEEO WITH 50 LB /AC KOBE IESPEDEZA IN
LATE FEBRUARY OR EARLY MARCH.
MOTE;. USE THE TEMPORARY SEEDING SCHEDULE ONLY MEN DATE IS NOT CORRECT
TO USE THE PERMANENT SEEDING SCHEDULE.
STRUCTIME MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
1. ALL REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE L14C STRUCTURAL SHEETS
2. 54° RCP STORM DRAM PIPE IN THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE POND WILL BE CLASS V
RCP PIPE ALL OTHER RCP WILL BE CLASS III.
3. THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE DAM EMBANKMENT AND AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SPILLWAY
OUTFALL CHANNEL BETWEEN THE DAM AND TOWERVIEW DRIVE WILL BE ARMORED WITH
EASTCOAST EROSION BLANKETS ECP -3 OR ENGINEER- APPROVED EQUIVALENT AS SHOWN ON
SHEET C5.04. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS AND THE INSTALLATION CERTIFIED BY 714E MANUFACTURER AS REQUIRED BY
THE CITY OF DURHAM BCE PROGRAM.
4. THE 4 DRAIN SYSTEM CUTLET PIPES WHICH OUTFALL THROUGH THE SPILLWAY ENDWALL
SHALL BE FITTED WITH TIDEFLEX TF -1 CHECK VALVES (TWO TOE DRAIN OUTLET PPES AND
TWO DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM CUTLET PIPES).
5. THE SPILLWAY RISER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH TWO SETS OF MANHOLE STEPS ON THE
INTERIOR ADJACENT TO THE TWO ACCESS MANHOLES IN THE TOP SUB OF THE SPILLWAY
SYSTEM.
6. A REMOVEABLE LADDER SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE SPILLWAY
RISER SYSTEM SUCH THAT ACCESS FORM THE DAM EMBANKMENT TO THE TOP OF THE RISER
CAN BE ACHIEVED. THE REMOVEABLE LADDERS SYSTEM WILL PROVIDE ACCESS FROM THE
TOP OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE 7' X 7' BARREL CULVERT TO THE TOP OF THE RISER. THE
LADDER SYSTEM SHALL BE FABRICATED OF ALUMINUM AND HAVE A SYSTEM TO SECURELY
FASTEN THE UDDER TO THE TOP.OU THE RISER FOR ACCESS DURING MAINTENEN CE
ACTIVITIES. THE LADDER SYSTEM SHALL BE REMOVABLE AND DETACHABLE FROM THE RISER
STRUCTURE.
7. THE RISER DRAIN VALVES (3- 8° PLUG VALVES) SHALL BE DEZURIK PLUG VALVES AS
SHOWN ON SHEET C5.G4. THESE VALVES W14ALL BE FITTED 70 THE DRAIN AND PIFNNG
SYSTEMS AS SHOWN NTH AUTOMATED ACTUATORS PER DUKE UNIVERSITY.
8. THE RISER VALVES AND DRAIN SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FULLY AUTOMATED
SYSTEM TO BE COORDINATED WITH DUKE UNIVERSITY.
9. THE MANHOLES ON THE TOP OF THE SPILLWAY RISER STRUCTUERE AND THE TWO JUNCTION
BOXES FOR THE CIRCUIT DRIVE CULVERT SYSTEM SHALL BE McGARD FIBERSHBLD AS SHOWN
ON SHEET C5.04.
10. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT THE SPILLWAY STRUCTURE
WATR -TIGHT.
11. THE 221 X 22'W X 48' THICK CONCRETE ANTI- FLOTATION BLOCK WILL BE CAST-IN-PLACE
M THE FIELD. STEEL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LHC STRUCTURAL
SHEETS.
12. THE RISER AND ANTI- FLOTATION BLOCK ASSEMBLY (INCLUDING THE CAST -N -PUCE BASE)
SHALL WEIGH A MINIMUM OF 384,245 US&
13. PRIOR TO ORDERING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TRASH RACK SHOP DRAWINGS TO THE
ENGINEER FOR REVIEW.
14. ALL POURED CONCRETE SHALL HAVE THE MINIMUM 28 -DAY STRENGTH AS SPECIFIED IN THE
LAG STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
I& THE TOE DRAIN AND DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM PERFORATED PIPES SHALL BE ADS N -12 OR
ENGINEER- APPROVED EQUIVALENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT CUT SHEETS FOR THE
PERFORATED PIPE FOR REVIEW OF THE PERFORATION PATTERN PRIOR TO ORDERING OR
INSTALLATION.
PERMANENT SEEDING SCHEDUIZ
APP SEEDING YIXRIRE 'I,T,
TALL FESCUE so L85 /AC
PENSACOLA BAHIACRASS 60 LBS /AC
KOBE LESPEDEZA 20 LBS /AC
SEEDNC- GATES
EARLY SPRING: FEB 15 - MAR 20 FEB 15 -APR w
FALL SR 1 - -SR 30 SEP 1 - OCT 31
SON A:FNDL'FMIS
APPLY LIME AND FERTILIZER ACCORDING TO SOIL TESTS, OR APPLY 410 US
GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 1000 LB /ACRE 10 -10 -10 FERTNZER.
WI. r•H
APPLY 4000 LB /AC STRAW. ANCHOR STRAW BY TACKING WITH ASPHALT, NETTING,
OR A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL. A D6K WITH BLADES SE NEARLY STRAIGHT CAN
BE USED AS A MULCH ANCHORING TOO.
UNNFFILN^F
INSPECT AND REPAIR MULCH FREQUENTLY. REFERTILIZE IN LATE WINTER OF THE
FOLLOWING YEAR: USE SOIL TESTS OR APPLY 150 LS /ACRE 10 -10 -10 IRON'
REGULARLY TO A HEIGHT O 2 -4 INCHES.
NIAtSE PUMS
ERWMAN 5 ( LS/ACRE 15 S LB/ACRE
MILLET BEFORE MAY1, OR AFTER AUG. , ADD 40LB /ACRE RI
GERMAN E (GRAN).
NOTE PERMANENT SEEDING SCHEDULE IS FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF
THE RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION.
SEEDBED PREPARATION
1, CHSEL COMPACTED ARFA3 AND SPREAD TOPSOIL 3 INCHES DEEP OVER
ADVERSE SOIL CONDITIONS, F AVAILABLE
2. RIP THE ENTIRE AREA TO 9 INCHES DEPTH.
3. REMOVE ALL LOSE ROCK. ROOTS, AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS LEAVING SURFACE
REASONABLY SMOOTH AND UNIFORM
4. APPLY AGRICULTURAL LINE. FERTILIZER, AND SUPERPHOSPHATE UNIFORMLY AND
MIX WITH SOIL (SEE BELM').
5. CONTINUE TILLAGE UNTIL A WELL - PULVERIZED. FIRM REASONABLY UNIFORM
SEEDBED IS PREPARED 4 TO 6 INCHES DER.
6. SEED ON A FRESHLY PREPARED SEEDBED AND COVER.
7. MULCH IMMEDATELY AFTER SEEDING AMID ANCHOR MULCH.
8. INSPECT ALL SEEDED AREAS AND MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS OR RESEEDINGS
WITHIN THE PANTING SEASON. F POSSIBLE. F STAND SHOULD BE OVER 60%
DAMAGED. REESTABLISH FOLLOWING ORIGINAL LINE. FER IJZER AND SEEDING
RATES. SEED LIGHTLY WITH SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR CULTIPACK AFTER SEEDING:
9. CONSULT CONSERVATION INSPECTOR ON M4NTENFNCE TREATMENT AND
FERTIUZATION AFTER PERMANENT COVER IS ESTABLISHED-
' See seasonal application schedule
NELSON
BYRD H
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbWa.com
EcoEnglneering
Om ®•luMms. Mrrtae.s110omY,
Y'
S
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
D u r IT a in C 0 u n t y,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
GENERAL NOTES
& SEEDING
SCHEDULE
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE:
C0.00

/ // / / / /�� �(� /l /,,�/ ( , � ( / / / (/ / l / ♦.���b_�- Vii" /� ♦.�/ // / /(VIII � l /�/ / l llll /
/ / / /!��( // /// / ,. .\ \ I Itt I I I i y ♦\' _;f/ v♦
44�♦ / If \i \ \ \ I 1 \ 1 1 ♦� \� �" 3�. / �r /
�/ / III 1 / � // %� � / .� /�$ /. �-'__, \ ♦♦ \ \ \ \ ,�♦ � � ' a� wv W.3� >�, ,� ��, // / i i / l l �� � //�
♦♦ // i• b� \ \ ♦ \ \ \ ,♦ \ b —� e• mu: t.3• :3sas' �Q& / / / ♦� / / / / / // / j
/ ♦ ♦1 /— gb �, ♦♦ \ ♦ BC ®' wv :3s3.s• \' '� �� /// / /j� x / /
b / A_P .T Ir i 1 \ (/ / �_ ♦. \4.e�\•L! , l rye /
` ( I \ \ \\ // a � �j�( /�( /�� �\ � � \®, \us\� o• °�' �.-- a,.o-.e\L� . i \is \,o /' /, / � / 7f ,•
\\ / \ \ / \ / 1 ♦��/ /�`/ J,� .(.�p��r'�' 1 0 r�lp `b \�!_�.P =^C� \\ # r �" / /// // ,e I WFH,:33za• \
\\ / // ♦ o- \ $\ eo- a \ �� a
`
SIT \ o- s// / / / ` wv ouri3..s
\ \111 /) \ �\ \\ \ 4t ♦� /aw9! �/ gIr I 1 le \ `° \ o o-w_°
n`- \
I � / �%� \ � / / ♦ \ / ��.6` ��'9.� -,a.�/ ml�� 1 \ O• ���ca� ®,i6`+y� —O= l� b,\ \ �, ✓ � � \� �i /i �'�w / /�/ -'vim / wv aui sw.o'�� #\J ells � \ \\
i/ / / � \ �/ ♦ / �'' .o-5 --$' ®, � o-' erg'' � �� \ \ \ i�S.e' - -o- `�^� \ o- °`_ \ � e,•m �. //
I I I I' ✓ /� ♦♦ -S;' \ / arc �j -�_,u e• ,> o- \ - ®-ere` -°�®% ®° 80. %/ / J "w 1� ♦ \
/ ' ♦ / 6'> J'T0+' Pi/ \ \ // \ `q e. \ -- -Gk' f,Y / e' \ e'�.y� ASV RCP )
/ /III r / / / ♦ / �. 3 49r ,.,, ® 9, i °/ • \ ®a \ �� eb o- `° o cy °o °°� A e / _ - » 323.
♦ J/ c� br // / l �\ e� - e a o- /// 6z:\
i I � / o- �, / � ,s a \ \\ ®� \ ®' bye• ter, \ _ _ �L yeti ''°mot // / .- _, \ / %`�� �\
I I (. I I I I / \ I\ � / 1 ♦1 ♦♦ / /!r � S ur /°/e � a � -'� �-�° � °�' \ \ � � s� ®� - ��� ®\� e� �• � e' �r \e\ mo-�, �aa, � oe, \ �,r ' # --� j I I ' \ \\ �
v ®/ B° "' ' \ eta _- e \ / \ / o- ✓ \ \\
e Pic
' \ \\ \ 1 \ r / / ♦ a ,1, /�/ • /e_�` �/'� / /w/ j �"° •♦" se, e° °� � \ `p° \e\ � „ .yu. .. -'w- a 'a. -0, * � o,� e ' - 0 \ \ ' 0, -
, b ms
e\ �'
\ \ %
•�
I l , \� \\ / � ♦ ♦♦ ���� ®�, ����' j �' �'>•• �' / r °>,�' o- < � � b.` o-�\
\I\ / 4�♦ ♦/� % / /��� �, -�"� e.e® - „o-® �)'..,e \� �®o-®mO� „�o� e✓ ® %
/ / / j�` / : ♦ e o-o- i ,� / o- i 1 � •e✓ 9G 6 / °/ / , / / /% / o- o o o- • a o ® ®� ® b e_ ® ' o- ® o®° o-o- / //' \ o- 1 �o o- ® �a lo- e o- o- e � �xb ® b t o- /o- i 40 / T/ o-
///
/G� ♦♦♦ %�aee�we��r� / /� /��
/ —� oa $ t» a e� 9�j J e j / " / / °° a o-e �® eg�o-, % �° �a i� e-� o/• �01- �e`�_ �\b• e � o-`b �\ �¢e �� ® b o- o- e' o s®o� • o- b ee\ iry �ei
oae e.
kip
e�e e &
/ ` ♦ r eck' - e< ice/ / - -e• _ / \ ♦ E) / e e �\ e � \ �� \_ ® c► o � 6. e \ o-fi� \
♦ r /Og ._9° ®/. ®'°e• ADI e• / / �. /� \ e, -o-e� \'•� e' - /o- e�e� �` 5n�,_ O's ®'
(D; 'b, ® ®�
®e e° r / e
,�r,eG � JP° / o- e. e, o- e. / / -elk,
e+ o � s� //�� /'f ®' e• o- / o- � e � � //
,6•e• ie° o- / � e• a e. ®.. � e^ b„ 4" / �` /�(/ /' e, \ e.�$,° � � er - e•.,, 5 / �// o- o- o- e•• ;� e / /
♦_x e / 4/o-
�(zv/e �-0 /9 \e e® e ° \ o- b o- e the a �'• a \ �/ 3, s� \�
a / k/ '� � i \® \ ee e© ®q ®o-/ ® � �o- � �p o-e�' / a� / a 6 / / e / b � ' ° �''/ � / a® / / // b / a o-e o ^e ® \\ \ e •\•\ \ a \ \ � ° b � e � � �w' � e tw cr ° ime o/ ee`e �` $
c0 o 0, J -1 tee ® � ao-o
a � "° - - -
° es j
-
-
'\�,,,� � / �"/ 1 e. e,e' 'bo' � / / ° � �b ien� -� \ b'�.e� ®°�' e„ ? \ _e. ems¢' e. ,� o. ur o- 6► a♦'. e• o. o'° / J /'' ( a♦
A/ \°�o °` ®\ \� �a ® b °°®o® ♦� ®- er �� /g%i�/ �r / /
\ �q \ \ )/ o ® / o• / d 4 a /
�o- /;; b-ee • �♦,♦ '� \ \\ i \ \ \ \\;y\S��\ _\Z�99.o' �� e o- / a• l 1 er o-/ �/ 1� /e �o-/ � a� J e'a� � I � - o rl ia °
4 ® ♦ I \
-�► r \ // / \� GAI '�°/ �' 4 ,m• - e� -a� I a " = ���✓,.�'7 v / /
�O ° s ♦ \\ \ \ 77 7$�O \ \\ // �` �( a �( _ / /g t �i1"►: "♦\ \ I ��® ®\cw �®\ -a er
/ oe a ♦ \ 7 i7 e✓ o- � _ ire ® '" �« \
o-e♦ ♦� \ \ e �/ ' ,I� I I I R \ I /. / �► \, \� @ Leo-® \ /je ems_ -®'»® ® \�a b= �� /�
♦ '"•fie_\ �• -9• \ / / „ �e✓ ' • \\ \awe /
jJ�(el\�,•,\`o°\ \t\ -ale'/ Via- �\ I I I \ \\ \ \'♦ �� f / / i /_ -®..\ - ,� \. /j /e' ��e, ♦ i \ \ \' l J /// //
Nil
61 / / ♦ ( / / / _LIMITS OF FIELD Ult�lEl\-
"y \11�(r�
/ / / // l// I �r11�GG,� / / /°°®' • =,��/ i \�� \ \` '�' —\ \ \�_�/ — ►III_' / /1 �I I I /// /
/�/ / \ - ` - / \ _ NOTE: REFER TO ECOENGINEERING DECEMBER 16, 1
'2011 DUKE WATER RECLAIMATION POND I I I N
\ \ \ WETLAND /STREAM DELINEATION AND BUFFER ' I
0 30 60 120
DELINEATION / I
NELSON
BYRD H
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineelling
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCounty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: I"=60'
00.01

\ // /// // / / // / / /rte / �a 1 I I 1 / I I I I ♦�o- o-�»��' ate„ �:3��� ,"'"� � / / / / / / / 1 I / / / J / \
� /�, //� �� // // / / � ,.. \ \ III I I I y♦ \ ® �. °�- ��,/ _, / v♦ // // l / l / / l l / / l i l
/ / // 11111/ / /// / / ♦ ♦♦ f \i \ 1 I 1 1 1 y ♦#e - °dam - -ems / / ♦♦/ / l 7 / / / / / / 11 //
/ /// / / j / / / / / / . ♦♦ ���-.. ` �\ \ 1 \ \ 1 1 ♦ ♦y
/ ♦� ��, e, ♦ \ ♦ e, \o- o-o- �>u -n 1 9w:3629• � / ♦ ' / / / /
/ I % / o-♦ ♦ \ a o- to %,/ ♦ / / // /
%/ \ I \ ` � / / / L / ♦♦ /� `ru -^ 14 \ ♦ \ \ \ � i -� au: l.s 6, wv w�.TSa�•s. -�' � /// � / / / / //
/ / 1 1 ( / / ♦ ♦� xy -� QY � ♦ \ ®\ '�` o- w_ :35]1'. `� " /� // X/
V,
/ 11 \ ♦ �// �" 1 ,\ �\ � ®' \ �x �' \o-\ o-� -- 0.
\ I � \ \ C /� "� � ♦♦ /�� % li el{� `�°1 o- I �,,sx \ o- � �. / �" � L // // i.�/ / f. J /. /
��1 � \ \ \\ /, �' � � /�f�u�' _���'g�,�L �n \a. \o-\� \ate t'8�if1�r •R�:�.e.�L` � \ice �+.` /°� // / /,t. // / � I 1 \ `� \
I \ I ♦ / e��. - Gi. 1lP a � `� �+ •i. C� \\ � / ,,�(/ .0 x,3332.9• \
/ I \\ \ �\ / ♦� /�6¢ / %Li1_ ®4q.\�� �� .10-- \ \ \t i \ / /ir� /� /� /\ I`\,1\
/ \ / /// ♦♦ ✓ % \4�_ \ \w a334.3
ZZ j� - °� L® e ` \\' ®° ° a e S (�� \ \" 93.2 ,// ® / ///
\ 111 ) / J \ \ \\ / ♦♦ � �'` 'o-o- do-\ e � `lm \° 6, eef"
III \ \ \ ♦ °✓ L�. \ b e �¢.- 6� ®\ �ra� �I / ��i //� //� / c% Ils. _ \ \
/
/ / I / �\ \\ / / ♦ \ / �' �''/ / 1 i \ �b�, p• O' 9'i_ >b(� \� -� ✓�- B/ \'�-= i `9gs� /// - �"°� / wv at:33a9' dla \ \\
/* e'
�/
; ♦♦ / � 5 `-$` a �' °r �g� �' �e(1�\ \ \ �'®' — °�• o- � � �9 �° � e g ®. °` ...- -/ // / �` a ♦1 \
1 1 it i �� /� ♦ a� �/ ✓ o- \ \ °\$\ ° \ -- -A.. ®e o-o- 9� -a� e\ o-� ✓ // N "`° �a II )\
// i I I f ,., // / ^ \ /'- � / �♦�_ / / /��I %"3e, e� � er� -a• e•e \\ 1\ bb,co•• o- ro, -�"' -� � -tea,/ \ cn ®•� �®•,,� / � - _3>a- -�1 M.T
m /fie `®
I I I I; i� / l 1 ♦+ ij /"A' I c /� �. �j4�'� o�� •� �"'(\*�\ ^°
♦ /a S % ec ` e \ \\ �� \ e ems �/ \�. ' . _® ��ot:�
/ .
I !III / \ \ / ♦ a
I I I \ o, ,gar 1 ♦1 �� sr 6}•�'� °/ ° _ Op� \ \ �sO _�Sg- -° s�6p�'p -� ­40°�'� / �.\ ��, \ /�o ✓/� `1 \� \
1 1 \\ sY 8. \ �Q \\� � \ -8� �\q�° a° � _®'°= -� \ \ v .,�-.! - Puncwc / / ; �� p� g %vk
1 \ 1 % ♦
° fl e' o° / er/ -'/ �• J ' .fie - -e•� - ®- e- _ -��e� _\ �k -®: ®: �"a�' ', ;i` - - `"_� � °°I, I q, // %�f{r
1 \ \ \ \ \�\ , / \✓ • /�� // �� �►w �9� I'dA•,` s� o-�\e eti =td��
o. j / 1 1\ 11 / �O ♦♦ �� �` � /��.�' ej ,o- ,.. �" r ia`o- a` < �: � � ®,�' � � ®, r� o° e• ,,,� � o `� --e, ®. -®, `� a �, � k,._�• ��� o.= �,�` - - '�° -(�! I / °"'�/ � ��i' e��j' / J �/
1 / O ♦ -p' � oe � � 9 ®. '°�,. ` \ ®,�; o-o. 'uael�. -9� `� \
/ r �mJ � \ff� _' �r � °° � a' e°�• \�" °� a' � e' _ er o - °o- �,� �a o- \e �Q'� � � i� -` __ gyro- 7 � � /'
/ // / �4♦ // i° i, o✓ 5� e // / ®r a �� /// / °Jo- 0 o- o
/ / //� — ♦♦ _ o� o-oo ® / // ® o-� . eo o- -4-0 /q W.
/ / ✓ a i . S� l 1 °"�/ ab-m e ® o-! / /$ \ \� \ a o o- ® eo- o ` e - _ o-..,.� 9 , ° �•`
♦ is �- ey o- ae= ®., \ = � �, e. ��° �
6aj �/ e s e/ o• - &\ =�� \� \ 0 8 o d9 //� o. / e \ Ja
/ �' ♦♦ "s�'o-/ —' °� / -'� oq. i \ q, •5, / i° ° �� `e'e' e, e• / \\ �\_ s/„1 Iso
00
♦1 /ire/ / o-$ °o a or '� �"i� ® e ® ® ®. ®o / /� a ® o- e•� \ ��o-� s a' r /®
\ o- 9 o- o- a/
// \a,®\ ur ® o i� O// o�
♦_ a _/ o-9 v % e o� o- o- . �°— — i / /o- e 9 —e.,, o-Sh� / // o- °'
-e °' e* °o- \ ®�� ) y d \\
9 9'x
♦ �/ 9` // / �,/ �- ,\ ,TI / �Y' M1/ / / �/' p� ���b ®' \ ._ fre..- \ e, @' e' P. "!% Y� e' �\� `/.91.6• • 3. /� // " 311.9)
o„ ®' ®. 9Q'� p1 \� - .w q• 9• /_ �-�' /_s'�°
�/e/ i ( ® o, ®" / /9r / / 9o- \ \a 9o- -� e • o- o- o- ® \ ��_ /
/ \\� o-o-YSo-eq e� Io• 9r -.� �/ /o�cyJY®°® a Imo/ a\°„� \a �� o=o-�
m = / e/ e. o-o ro ® -
®a
°'' \\ \ o- o Wr %/ _� a / �� ooh / / �� 9 �er� \o o-e� ° �� ♦�e\o- a 9 o- e a o- a o-
o.
\ �„ / \ \ �� /!�' o- N° af" / ° °'°eo/ (/ �77n //o-` `fig \®'\ �-°'�' \ \� \ a \ ems• 8F"., -e' o- 9° ®, M. V tr
,�^ \ °\ \ \ \� o- o- e✓ oe d. a 1 x�, / 6✓/9 -a - e \o a® \\ —sue
e� �♦ o '� a. \ \ % / o- ®/ J // /g/ •� / / (/ ® — — \� \�� \ o- \ �1g a crye 9— — o- o-o-\ — i g� �[ —•--
ff
� / / ®. ♦ , \ \ s i �;� '�\Cv� / ��o- !" / �°� �` / 1%r � � ,� �
�o./° 1s ♦ \\ \ 7 /' °1ti\\� / ®� / / / / ; r r�q\ <♦\ \ I \ ® ®� �o- //
/ 09 ® ®♦ `\ / 7 Dj ''�9, o- o-o- 1 ♦ / �►♦ \\ �a�o
/ �` +��� \ �� � � Zs �'�°_ � �' � �� � � a I I 1 111 I ; / \ \�♦ �..'�®°\ b �` a �`/ b ®•�e°".o- — � �- o` �• �Ce• -es' ° "� ��•, • �' � \ \�"^= � \\ / / // � -
dt tt<�.9• /♦ �\ �` ol- I '�� � 9• I ♦ I I �iri \ \ \ o- -a � ,,, -- � °� � .�' / �° -/ i- � � t �,4 \\\ \� / / /
' \l ` I do-. °I®'.Y //• �4e•r� �� \ I RE@ PRbTEC \ION FEN CIN G \ ♦ ♦� \ ' o- -� / �oW w /
1 /ice / 9<4t /J /J / / / 1 \ \`��`\ \ —�� ��- - \�Ti' /rte �J/ s .api►� �/ \; //i
/ �// // / ♦�/ s' )�/ ` '' �/ / / / /�� -- \ \ \� / /// �ur61z5eFSURVE\\\\ //r i. �,fl /f
/ / / / / / / /// /// /// // /// /// / ��i� ♦ ♦� / '� /�� � �� J / ) l � / / ����\ ��-- —,111 / II I I I I I I 8 /��J I //
'ii /� ////// � '_ —/
-NOTE: N
TREE PROTECTION /// /// / / / / '-f / \ \ \ \ \ FENCING TO BE A 6' TALL 11 0 30 60 12
/// CHAIN LANK FENCE.
0
NELSON
BYRD H
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineering
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCaunIy,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
TREE PROTECTION
PLAN
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
C0.02

/ / / / / / / • �. sea �� / \ \ ( / / / / /
/// / / / / / I • �• t- ter. °� _ �/� �► / / / 1 (� / / / I I /
� J / / l #41w / sf•� I 1 /i I /
/i l J / 5 J / J l l / / l /�� ♦ / / / I I l / / / / / /
If I � ( •�o Q'�o`, f�' ®'off "�� / �P� ♦ ♦� /' /Jll Jl / l r ( I I /ll /llJ �', / \\
JJ \Iillr / /// ,/ / � ,•• f,�r � \ I \ \ I y�! �<�'— °. -�•�° v' l 'i/ /,'ii / l j t
// / III J / / / / / .� / / e. -3.:, \ ♦ ♦\ \ \ \ \ ,• \ e 6 ® J I' „ WF.35e.T / , �� // / / �/ / ///
// / � I l \ \ � �/ / / / • /��° ®` \ ♦ \ \ �• ® e\ -e WV 1. 6 1 • MV WT:35&5' •C � / //� k / � / / // // // /
\ '
\ I / / ` ♦ ♦ \ \ \ • ® e,„r
\ I ( / / 1• / //� "�� \o- �` \ �L♦♦ 6 \ ® \w eel % s x % ''s w / /
I �i +z� / f � /�( // /�'�'i / a I ( \` h�a'`:,]3+s3ie• `�
\ r \ \ \ / // •• ✓, / �J• / ,` �! ` ` \� 9'�e, ego Gk Le y�, • 0. \ PW •�y�_— MT. ]]1.3•
6'��'- \ b s].2 / o // / ✓ / (� 1�
/ \ \\ / \ \ \ \\ \
4t ♦ ear / f e \ �`b\ e b \
�°' J T �\ \ °d•$ 4•-- � � \ \� ��ii � /�/ Pte:]]...• � ON
/ / /JII� / / \ \ ^�/ �•� / ��e� /�� © �p ° \r a _ \ o -� -� /\ \' =rte m// - -`�} / /w "WT:ao.o -� d12 ♦ \ \\
W •1 /// S g / tea= ee\ o\ \ ae - off,® °� �®�® °-e� a a ° "�/ // / s ?` ls'° ♦ \j
ti
\\ / 1 •1 // o- /°� / e, ° e, o-- , \ \ ® ��� r o- /® \
I ( I \ p / /.^.� p / V �p��✓ 9 / — - -!\\ \ y5y,�/ _ �� ��i 0�� �0�O^ \�`� ti \ / ! — — L — ASM .LT \ /�O W 1\\ \yy\
\ \ \ \\ \I 1 \ \ / ��y`,— —_ // � • / Qjn �'� �Tp� / �" /�/ % / � ®� 9` e° \ �' � \ems <,„�C.Wxv� _- _fpP�� _�Y ° ��0+ �__ �°�6D` gc�a � ��' ,�, �`y�„ � � PMNINC / / / 0
r
I \ \ \\ \ \ / ✓ _ -,11 - / /�/�j / �, a ,x�_ / �� ®' � ®, � /� 0• �� °� �®. \9p - Ae ®g®, Bey \,,,��\ \ \o �$� eve s' � � � ��.�e. \e` � -o.� ' \f J 4i °I° �. '�'( /�'( /// �e, e;
I \ \\ / Q •• �. Y d �� iSe y �� 161 6 �®O 4y 'V,a gy d e �` b.�:1` / / % ems- / //
I / \ \ . OQ` 1• / / WW,w N _ r,� b \ \ o- -
/ i G/ a / 1 / l �/ / , / � \ • �� • wI, a / s ♦ r � ` / r/�1 �✓ ` tee ' ® �♦ /i a °, , � D/ s� i� ceo-o- • / . � i o- �/ e $ � oa / ® /r �e �ei cms r�i ® „ - / eo -' • 9� � � /' � � ° � o-4 / e ® J eo- d/ % a / e // /-/ ®e // e” e�; o- /� ®/ e ' - ®o- oe / ' < � - � i a ® ♦ e - ®-e = / ° e � - o-e $ o o-�ee � � - o- � ® e - � e/ � �e° ® , c o e / � / ° e � - - / � / e i : / " � ® - e/ % i i� o e ` , sr " .`. • ,- ma/ . i/ . c fi✓ ( e/ « \ /® a c e > ` ae• °� ,. �� e , e \ ® ' - a a I � e \u° u�® ` e p ° / _ e o- e - � „ - ' roo -� - / \� e °-e' � - - ® - ° a ®, e � . m� ,e �o, o- o " e c m ®' z \e =\ $\ ` _ e oo- % e� - �° � - ee a - \ e se / e � - a �- ° ems ® ®� � ( _ s o- - °o- o- ® �®® a °ee „ O� e � e l, � • /a -
% 01
e♦
e o- IN 40. / // • � 6 o- e 9 a ! a er x
Ilk
eQ• - ` , Ow � / V a
I J N r o-
0, ,�
� ® o- e6♦ e 090,
® -
o- el
o
Op / eems -- \ $ y
♦ � � 1 r e e ♦
i
a /
1 -< •ei j .- i �� / </ /gym ®mk� \� \® e ®e e e® o SV /'� �JN�\ 1 y //r l ^ \/
e e e /� "y /e—s�j ii i %✓ / a(v ° o- \ e� ��\ o- ®® a ®\ ®® a u> a - > „r cr e/ /// ” 31
a C}e / / i♦ o- ® o ° `♦i¢ / / er / / e �e`e i\� \ °\ �� a s�� ee v e o ° o- a
I`
`+” �� e'
o — —=
/ / ®e o as e a - \e �� %� / / /// ♦- '
® \ o-9 /�/ ,to♦ io / /° �� o- \ o- eei;®' e o-o- e 6► a o. ® / �,�®♦
1� ` �\�'.-� ice. � %�'% ,J /JSj��� ��'e.�'•�. a/ � ��,/ ge. �e� ate\ � \ 41. %r ��° �♦• o-�a �• °. _ `n � \J eo-e,(°' °</ � /�/i' / a --
\ ®' `_ ®9 '®b. p`�•9`�''��•\� \� \�-- s v _� @hg ®Oe ®i� e. -\�./ �k /7/./ �/' y / /r/ ry i
�^, —9e �,ti �, �Y \\ \ \ \� i/ i v=sss.o //� e / � °° / e,4F / / �eia B�'®9/ �• -er °' � � 'ht° �'� \ \ � ° - — � "x�- � —._v-- � 3s �(J a /� I' \ ' / /
/ �"'►' , � � l � �; / ;�@,:J� /. (may � a e � � \\ � _ � ____ s Wg -],� � _ _ �
rik /�� CX -r^��` _. \ .u.� \\�6Y° �' / e®/ l /4/ - i, •T' J / ®' -- 1 �� \e`-°\ \ `�'^"`r -] a — — ®. o-� -'�_�- —"( J - / i
/♦ rY" mF\ �.,.I / �� / �� 9 4/� / C� e ®� \ +o \p $^ e ode - e� - a l 17 /
/e
�/ o- / � // mo®♦o ♦ , . e �r \'♦ \ \ ♦ x \\\ ` \ � \ \ � Ci ,�, i / 'd \ 1F O �' \� n \ @\ems\ e / / /jv ej ` �/ / ® j / ® / °\ � [ � 10- / (/ e B /o 1 JL °/ x // � e / � y ( /{ ��® / � /r 1 i �r � ®-l' - � • �`/♦o. ♦ � �� ► \\ �\ \\ 1� I • � �\ \ � e \ `\ \ ®\ � e � o-e\ .. \t,i II 'F• '�� �. _- "®' ° lr- _ �- ea be J � - (B.- oi` j= -„
—a •"'�- s� b 4, e
/ N / J
/
♦ �'I� ` �. ®/ yep J`�, b I ♦ ! / �► \ \tea �o / ®_ _� a ®� ° e �9 - -' 0 \\ \\_ / i
/
0b, ♦��� \ \ $ °b ��°'r a // a I I I 11� ! / \ \� e (/ e ° ® \� ar' % - v �� \ /
ie• e• �' ♦ tee-\ \e. � �� � __ - -'e�'� \\ � \ / / / i -
e w.e O $te ' e ° '♦ e• 1 ♦ I oe /� -' �` ✓ �\� ya ! \ e„°/ e- a ! ♦ I �♦ \♦ ♦
✓/ REB PR 66`` 014 FENCING \ ♦\ \ \ o-\ ° / �° Bo-I ®� _ eG-y e -'t o � r �iB o / �° / �" fl� � i a �` ��Y d �- "� \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ � J
\ \ ♦♦�� \ / � / � � - -�,,,, �O' � �, // / i'"°'�o-' i � a / \ \\ \ J / /,/ /
b \e ��_ ♦ J J J / , / \ \ - \ - _ - ��iiiTi' /� / J y - "R . �i ' i i • /
ps i / %mss �LIMITSOFSURV \
1 \� \\
�.�/ _ / I r / / /ll / /l // ��� / �� /��`� m�e�♦ -;� =_ � / \l ���� \� \�. —�/ �� �/ \ \ \ \,� _III— // � � r; / /,/
/ o so so 20
NELSON
BYRD ::
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEnglneering
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurIn amCaunty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
DEMOLITION &
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS PLAN
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
C0.03

GENERAL NOTES
I . OWNER TO OBTAIN LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT (SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL PERMIT) FROM DURHAM COUNTY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2 ONCE PERMIT IS ISSUED. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL SITE FENCE AND TREE
PROTECTION FENCE PER DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SCHEDULE ON -SITE
INSPECTION WITH DURHAM COUNTY INSPECTOR PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING
ACTIVITIES
3. ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND FEATURES ARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION FOR
MAINTENANCE.
4. COORDINATION FOR ALL INSPECTIONS AND REPORTING SHALL BE MADE BETWEEN
THE CONTRACTOR, OWNER, AND COUNTY AS NEEDED.
5. GENERAL SEQUENCE PRESENTED BELOW IS FOR A SUGGESTED SEQUENCE ONLY.
6. PHASING AND SEQUENCING OF CUT/FILL ACTIVITIES. STOCKPILING OF
TOPSOIL /ALLUVIUM MATERIAL, AND ANY STRUCTURAL FILL TO BE USED ON
OTHER DUNE UNIVERSITY PROJECTS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
GENERAL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL SEQUENCE
1. OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FROM REGULATORY AGENCIES
2. INSTALL SILT FENCE AND TREE PROTECTION FENCE FOR DURHAM COUNTY
INSPECTION
3, INSTALL FIRST -ORDER SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
(CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. ETC.)
4. CLEAR FOR DAM AND CONSTRUCT DAN AND SPILLWAY
5. INSTALL FARCLOTH SKIMMER ON SPILLWAY RISER AN VALVE STRUCTURE
8. CLEAR AND GRADE REMAINDER OF POND AREA
7. STABILIZE ALL BARE AREAS UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING
PHASE I
9
/ / 9
9
D
O
3303 / / / /�P 3 2.9%�\ _\
3o e J// 15.4'v -,
0 — 4'
31'3
\ 3'468
306 308 J, 0'2
-q \
5 �
PHASE II
1
%
r / / /I��� 1 / �/ / ^\ /
-elk,
AR
pn
\ ., � / // / / i � // / — may, �/� / �� �� / i- \ � •'�•= � � - _ -- - — \ \ � \�_ � / ` 0 r/ //� ��' r
It
\ \y' // \
/ %�\ I \ \ -� \ /-- ) I \ \\ \ \ \\ —i j �� \ \ \ \ \v '' -'�a�� 0 30 60 120 N
NELSON
BYRD H
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineering
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCaunty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
EROSION &
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
C0.04

510E Fn BAPNNC SON OETAY
fIli
N 21A
WnRNxc sF.0 B�rAa
TREE PROT!=CTiON DETAIL
n r..n r�� � °� .-B /rm w•s WONT
sPECnc APPUCAncN
xFa�T TR �� arsnTE PP�,c A•u1 Fc sTrlenla. NOT TO SCALE
= mTB�rn�TRw fNTAO BLOCK AND GRAVEL
STONE INLT PROTECTION
v
SILT FENCE 0 TLET
MFFR To M PLWS FoP EaAnoNS ANO �B�TCAl10rF. aArlB MsrNEA1KM a FOR A sRT FENm
RIFT BARPoFIZB9LT FENCE MSKtT 711E MBTNUMNI lO BFIf1YC F W11Els
10 1K Cr1WA SEf TWl M M r�NFICATNM4 Fat M ART BELOW 1K WP N THE B A UYOt aF --.M
BAMlR AMO FENCE F 71ERE ABE OU6TIaf5 OP FroB1Er5 r711 1K LWAWNL WTFLOW TROY M WTIET, PUCE B
ExIFNI, a! YE7110D W MST lHE iORAA59�STANa= fA09r1 CMIBOL FERBaIIIFI nil EXgD R W EDtE M M 1xe1M11. STAVE niE OnEA E06E4 OF M FABIdC
HAtECOVES a NBIRUCT10115 ANB WY HAK PlgNatNMS 6 PPOPFSLT MATALLID
W71E15 AS Ax AO 10 MSTNUTNN. • ALOYO M OAP rEPE M WAET rLL 60. PUCE NAP11011.LL 31EO. PENCE P053
FoR sTlElwlx. T1E Posrs wsr eE A uANwM aF E nEr APARr ANB Orval rro
F We 9.T f W¢ ouxET r NOT MSTAl1ID arlFCnr t PriT IT u xNE sar rr1NN AT FAST 1B WF.Ez
TO E ESU.T. . PUCE FARpIAr: — (YFIOEO CALVANfhO SFlEO! rIH SWAT: 1/A - 1/R -WGl
r — fT OL TNtMG Min t YFRTHEA tltWiq BErLwE CaWEnNS MSTNUIXM 6 S MIiLS OFMIIE S�UT111Y R M ¢ MIM T¢ 1�fFnalM N109F�ASTSFN�IT TO 11E� ST
rm IENmHS BF rRE
wSTNL AT 1HE LOrST PANT (S) M M BARTER OR FEIIOE MEAE . rY 1MIE Wn�ET�Np TE iYNt0.'E W 1NME TF�a�C�X Att OIE niYL
WSTALL M Wll£T 11EIE IT 5 ACCE59BlE FOR MSFNU110N. YNN1F]zANOE. AND
PENOVN. PucE A RLWR rc 1aNCH aNEWx WASxm sra1E a nE uPIrL SXIE a rxE
A21nW AT lose ,nMr eEnEea ix Wnc .O mE OP O T .BORNE aom .wo oWn M
IS FEET BEIYEDI M BARdF'A W FnIL£ AMp AI¢E -510RY BJRDFWS YIl1WNNIFE
p �Fai FIXM lFls BEtYEE]]I THE BNFIER W FOHS NU WLTgE-BTORY W1FAN5 fa.AP1ENT. ND MASp112 YIIST BE — — YNRFMNI(E AT NL
1116
10 ffET BEIPEflI THE BAram Ort FFNTE AxB IIIE TOE 6 FXL SLW6 1. M•PECT TI£ S0.T Foxe
PUR M WnET w THAT WrFx ROrlc nmcuw R ru xm aFATE Ax EPOSaI ro OETaerE F NAOrERI FAILMC 1R¢s. ETC W+E
x nBELOIE AY00 s1EEP YOPF9 BFlaI nE WnET AIr IAEAS NRHWr FOKE. aB aYREe f o/YN•�. HAKE PFPNRS. ro rE n1AT
rE — TATw1a UBE 10PE aUr14 F NF4SSAPY. flu 1FFAL nAS NOi ACWMI1AlF0 AONNET THE W71ET. el «wic .— F TT
W M�YAIFrAL rPAM lIE BAWL£ Alr 1M)+E M FUME OR FLL 50
OEIFRO 1HE LOCAIIM OF TIE W71Pe fat A SET SNCE0. rE11 M 1M1ia1 A HAPPEN AC.VL
W r0 BERTH BOTTOM K 1NE FABrC BECAUSE TIE B1 ru BE aNTHE Ai
Ri fEM:[ NNFII M rmE iENtE 5 M PUCE BECAUY T1E • �� tL F MAlas R.aac nrowl TxE Wncr Ws
RTFA FArilt MLL BE WT1FD ATM W71ET. UrEFE JMMC M fENR at WTEi. a1 F AGtNAAim rAtEB
NwS�CaLAPS2 M W1t£e FIT FAA WxE RFPAMS OR MSTALL A SFDrpT 1RIP
IEiFA TO F 11FCE PPE T NTIIRE FAxLRES
aESS Fa' R nENE°aaA00Pm TmioY m Fort r'u Enna' i. .°U1�'xIEiINIce. , m mumN, z 1mrt a M a""RA: aAiHE sEBi1R TT w dsvos 'Aj w w1 rt A .1
Fai A Ar BArinU SOL
ON F
71E 9TE APPRa1PAlE.
URT BE nE OAP M M BARIYA. P1.SW A UTFR OF FlLTFII FAFPIC ql 1K IIOT BnPOY W e]18ENT M A YAIIEW ANT BLL QEAZ AN f�B . NALNr.
S I TIDE ELW4R 2&1 THE 1PF .T 1 [ NEY� EDCfC F THE B 3 r4N�AFnn�5101¢ � a R PPOP AL N1Br� A(£ n "I M
FABMC To Hao R IN PSACE slat
$IFf11(iM M Mw x; rE A AO. 2 iE �MMi /tO BM�IEN M10 EaN 0. Oq0 N CaF0.W FA FIWBNY{£B Br USE OP gRXO YNIIENNII£ —TT 10 M
OROEBID AT 1E/3T 14 MCNEA
nABE xNmWNE anTx <WEWED CALYIATEB SC16.11 r1F sWARE VA - lR�wl ■SIO+wE
naII) d 111E UPML Srf a M POSTS l0 FOID M FASxm S10NE M PULE L IN M4SNAI� TO MRd'IRNNWnETEAB9p1, M WnEF�rSI E
oi,
M BBTTOI OF M 0.tlM M 1Nf 1PFN01 AIr FASIFI! IT 10 111E �.
rocs w1n ulFOnrs a leu.
FB T 711E 1 1 OFWTIX xlA Ar; =TN AIr 711E UPPER Iff OF 171E FP.lER 2 ETEAN BUT AWAAAATm Sm NT Aw BISPP£ 0. R PRWFRLT.
1PFNaT AxB CaPACf M FRL A Ppq+f POSR, TINOS iArM: YK — WASHED SRME: aSPOff OF 71EN PF'KIPFRLT.
CFA fAlEit 6 1 -Mal d TFP WASHED SlaE OI 11E — — OF TIE
PlE 111E sialE I TO TI1E l(IP OF M HAMFAPE —1 ANO UEEt 11E � iRIDE M LOCAIXM AS NFOFSSNtY.
JPNT Bf1MFN 711E WnET ND 11E BAF1mt. 5. STABUnE M aSRIRBED ARU IREPE M WHET R/5 TDCA1m.
fU �'
( 1 t
(I livAUU2PU w� I TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
T e.ao<x.. �•I
ro�rm FHi�iogr l� �rpPgr lrgAPlNNZezwrn'xx 1 w�
P. a �a�izzefiw�w�.vu� bra g wveenwc:.nxroow�s�E.t`sF.rr. 1
�1�NwE
C = - -- STANDARDORAVELBA OCSRBINLETPROIE(710N
r:FYFRe� fNTTFC
1 RwRAP szE ro BE aEa^Im Br EMYIFOt.
2 O MISS BE USED M S11WK OIICIFS
OW IBVa1Fis TO ro sw vamrc BR rB aFArE
Sn)WEnT TRNA
S ETSUE TYAT WYIUY SP/f�L BEI11Fl:N 4414 PFICES M ill z z.o we
C�ONNaSRF M W�.��Y�BELCYJ. ETEWINIL: AS 111E
' rPA411Y SPACING B
4 i
A ANO 0 ARE AT Ep L EI£fATONS CRO54 SECT
(
NOT TO sCALE
CFR(fiTOY(IN.TRnf n- .T:+R.
111), u.wx�:Ex.lk YI TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM
PS B. aP .EII TaF.�
. r
NmNE
e
N I FRONT VIfW
SKIMMER
rnas .. sRxIE
.. o xuscu�woTar E wE x aaw x AT A
I, — 3 9.:FnCE T TO
.�ccYYOnxrz uAx TMns Is ro I
BKFPAIKE•sa
­0 s-= a IW To
e. w.w r.��vRnnrt ilew.rACeR zo
a
1FCr FLa.r OT Nw MBO s1EETA /sT' %/ \
� > �rrx srcPF
SOME nAHOY.
FNeB mrolo�iPHrsr �2B�E�xv -.-.v u+ �\
PLAN VIEW MM MTE.
_� ovcz nr
i
�`i/ • zoc MOSS SECTION VC* NOT TO 11 .. OL1EEItL +O UEYAHI?IL.�1 SRTrRR.AinIAtIGN'f Rnfi1T
1
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
�a
T
- Maio,IT1,
x�
OG4?
EArnwN WET �L BarAa nrvTRSnT�nrrrxnFTnR
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineedng
.m ®•wnm•ea rBTm•,nIPrMIRRSL
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DD Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
D u ha m a n y,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
EROSION &
SEDIMENT
CONTROL
DETAILS & NOTES
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
C0.05

/
/
�d'/ /
I
1111) lj�
I � Iillll
V�
/ �
l a-,� /�
/
� I
I I L—
Pm
/a
/
ji
PNi1tWG
;r 111111��
/�
�'lllll�Ili
r
\0
/ �
l a-,� /�
/
� I
I I L—
Pm
/a
�I r
/
r
0 30 60 120
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineelling
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
D u r ha m C a n ry,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
OVERALL
GRADING PLAN
DATE: June 01, 2012
o awSCALE: 1.. = 60' -
03.00
PNi1tWG
l7(
INSET 4
/
\
a
�I r
/
r
0 30 60 120
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineelling
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
D u r ha m C a n ry,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
OVERALL
GRADING PLAN
DATE: June 01, 2012
o awSCALE: 1.. = 60' -
03.00

�OG
\ ' \ /\ / / /// �✓ '// i
DROP INLET
DIAMETER = 4' X 4'
\ \ \
RIM - \ \ \ \
INV: OUT UT (1 (15 "0 RCP) = 310.24
\\ \ENDWALL\ \ �.
INV. OUT (150 RCP) = 301.00
CLASS 1 RIPRAP APRON = 12' .12'
/ I\ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE —
�Qoj b-
L5.30 PUMPHOUSE
JUNCTION BOX / /0 l`
DIAMETER = 4'
/ rl RIM = 332.70
V. OUT (24 "0 RCP) = 313.94 /jj
r /ENDWALL 5
INV. OUT (24"0 RCP) = 301.00
( CLASS 1 RIPRAP APRON = 12'X 12'
INTERNAL DIMENSIONS= 14 FT X 14 FT
TOP OF RISER = 317.50
INVERT IN (FOUR 12'X2.5' ORIFICES) = 313.00
INVERT IN (WO VALVE) = 311.00
INVERT IN (8 '0 VALVE) = 309.00 �� > / WETLAND BENCH
INVERT IN (8"0 VALVE) = 301.00 © FINE GRADING
INVERT OUT (7'X7' BOX CULVERT) = 301.00 — j/ / / _ - % (SEE SHEE T C0.00)
�D
s. c TWO (2)T2'INTAKE PIPES
32] 0
FROM INTAKE STiUETURE_—
PUMP HOUSE
EXISTING WELLS BE
COORDIATED WITH DUft-
L5.30 PAQN
295
291 93
FISH REFUGE AREA - FINAL
9 LOCATION AND GEOMETRY TO
J BE DETERMINED DURING
CONSTRUCTION
7
33ov� 4'
60— N _"
0 15 30
NELSON
BYRD H
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineering
e�•n.,.ne•eo...r ®•aivrxomerm .
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75 %DDPricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
rxorEa.w.e
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
Durham County,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
GRADING PLAN
INSET 1
DATE: June 01. 2012
owC�c Ew..� 1 - 39
C3.Oi

OUT: 327.8 \_— —_ /�
RISER OUTLET STRUCTURE 1
/ INTERNAL DIMENSIONS = 14 FT X 14 FT
TOP OF RISER
INVERT IN (FOUR 12'X2.5' ORIFICES) - 313.00
INVERT IN (8 "0 VALVE) = 311.00
INVERT IN (8'0 VALVE) 309.00 \\ 0j/
INVERT IN (9-0 VALVE) = 301.00'�
INVERT OUT (7'X7' BOX CULVERT) = 301.00 - -_ / / _ r�
TWO (2) 12" INTAKE PIPES
�'� s ✓ \ FROM INTAKE STRUCTURE
TO PUMP HOUSE
EXISTING WELLS BE
COORDIATED WITH DUKE`
295 7 7 •.\ \ /
293
DISTURBANCE �' /
FISH REFUGE AREA -
s / BE DI ON AND GEOMETRY T O
T
9E GEfERNINEO
coNSrRUCnoN /
,q WF 325.3' L
\
•� / _ / s/ / /g \�
FINE GRADING
(SEE SHEET C0.00J
/DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM C5.03
9 ,
TOE DR NAI
TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT C5.04 I 3lie EXISTING _SANITARY SEWER \\ /
/ s _
C
TOP. 19. /
306 �7�
T$1315 ' \\ / / PIEZOMETER ITYP.1 C5.03 9
UNGRADED, NATURAL
TRAIL CENTERLINE
�\
_J s , CUSTOM ENDWALL \ �\
s \
OUTF ALLCHANNEL
INV 299.0' / / " /s/ s , 1 it I
TW 00
\ \\ + \ V \ PROPOSED HEADWALL
(SEE NOTE ON SHEET C0.00)
T 2k2
\\ OUT(14.8 I \ \ \
INV =298 6 �/ \\ \
0 15 30 60
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineering
w •.u. an,r a r..ue dos. tr.
s ®.aa.�m • ewmrm.ensuom�ru.
ra+
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCaunty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
GRADING PLAN
INSET 2
DATE: June 01, 2012
o�
SCALE: V -30
C3,02

RIM: 315 .4' / YI
+ YI
RIM:
V OUT: 358.7' /� / / �./ / NELSON
at
YI RIM: 362.0' / / �j� / y /
/ / / BYRD ::

�b \
\9
\\ �� 17
WETLAND BENCH
FINE GRADING -
�� (SEE SHEET C0.00) —
- "- ---302
303
3
g _0
V
4
' j�
1i J
INV. OUT (54 '
ri
DROP INLET
DIAMETER = 6'X 6'
RIM = 319.50
INV. OUT (54"0 RCP) = 307.84
A,
i
r
�\ HEAD`' ALLL
FIFIRIV10A
_gym 305— __ \ \\ w` X V
CLASS 2
307 RIPRAP
APRON
\ \ \ 20' X 20' I V =3'
309
& --
\
J PROPOSED HEADWALL
314 / �/ �, / i
\ \ � SS �— \ g 318 / (SEE NOTE ON SHEET C0.00) _
_ ///
318 1 _-
O
SS 320 ` —\ .7�
\ \ \ 6\ I `N 4. ss
ss ss
\ \ _
\ \ \ ss V OUT= 316.2' — __— —� s
&l OSy
e A &CGS RAMPS\
T%C 34314'\
T/C 343.4'
T/C i 1"15 .T
4x
'o-
0 15 30 60
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbWa.com
EcoEnglneering
T
I w.
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DD Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCaunIY,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
�CHECKED BY:.JWC
GRADING PLAN
INSET 4
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: 1" = 30'
C3.04
0 RCP) =
J CLASS 2 RIPRAP APRON = 12'X
302.00
12'
ri
DROP INLET
DIAMETER = 6'X 6'
RIM = 319.50
INV. OUT (54"0 RCP) = 307.84
A,
i
r
�\ HEAD`' ALLL
FIFIRIV10A
_gym 305— __ \ \\ w` X V
CLASS 2
307 RIPRAP
APRON
\ \ \ 20' X 20' I V =3'
309
& --
\
J PROPOSED HEADWALL
314 / �/ �, / i
\ \ � SS �— \ g 318 / (SEE NOTE ON SHEET C0.00) _
_ ///
318 1 _-
O
SS 320 ` —\ .7�
\ \ \ 6\ I `N 4. ss
ss ss
\ \ _
\ \ \ ss V OUT= 316.2' — __— —� s
&l OSy
e A &CGS RAMPS\
T%C 34314'\
T/C 343.4'
T/C i 1"15 .T
4x
'o-
0 15 30 60
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbWa.com
EcoEnglneering
T
I w.
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DD Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCaunIY,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
�CHECKED BY:.JWC
GRADING PLAN
INSET 4
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: 1" = 30'
C3.04

MANHOLE
RIM EL. = 317.75
TOP OF BOX CULVERT TO
MATCH PROPOSED GRADE 16'x16' INTERNAL DIMENSION _
(SEE NBW /LHC DETAILS) JUNCTION BOX
INV. OUT= 302.00 �-
i
67 LF 10'x10' BOX CULVERT @ 1.49%
INV. OUT = 303.00 —
INV. IN =
PLAN VIEW
C4.01 SCALE: 1" = 10'
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF PROPOSED GROUND
2 PROFILE
C4.01 SCALE: 1" = 10'
MANHOLE
RIM EL. = 332.00
15'x15' INTERNAL DIMENSION
JUNCTION BOX
82 LF 10'x10' BOX CULVERT @ 0.91%
INV. OUT = 303.75 —J
INV. IN = 312.50
i
N
0 5 10 20 (D
PROPOSED HEADWALL
(SEE NOTE ON SHEET C0.00)
NELSON
BYRD m
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbWa.com
EcoEnglneering
.r�
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
D u ha m a n y,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
INLET PLAN &
PROFILE
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: V= 10'
C4.01

1 PLAN VIEW 0 5 io 20 ��
C4.02 SCALE: 1" = 10'
NOTE,
THE SPILLWAY OUTFALL CHANNEL SECTION BETWEEN THE DAL AND TOWERVIEW
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON THE ECOENGINEERING, NOW. AND LHC
SHEETS. THE CHANNEL SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CAST -IN -PLACE
REINFORCED CONCRETE WITH A DUKE STONE CLADDING, LARGE DIME STONE
'BOULDERS' SHAL ALSO BE CAST INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE CHANNEL SECTION
PER THE NBW SPECIFICATIONS.
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbWa.com
EcoEngineering
9
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCounty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
(VALVE) CHECKED BY: JWC
(VALVE)
(VALVE)
OUTFALL PLAN &
PROFILE
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: 1" = 10'
C4.02

NOTES
1. ALL PIPE PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE CONCRETE RISER STRUCTURE
SHALL BE MADE WATERTIGHT. MAI,
2. RISER STRUCTURE TO BE PROVIDED WITH STEPS 16' O.C. STEPS SHALL
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NCDOT STD. 840.66.
3. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE RISER STRUCTURE AND ANTI - FLOTATION BLOCK
LL
SHA BE EXTENSIVELY EVALUATED BY THE ON -SITE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RISER
STRUCTURE AND AND ANTI - FLOATATION BLOCK. E TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE
STRUCTURE SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING THE FOUNDATION AND
BEARING CAPACITY OF THE AREA UNDER THE RISER STRUCTURE AND
ANTI - FLOATATION BLOCK TO PREVENT DIFFERENTIAL SETREMENT.
4. INSTALL SPILLWAY AND DRAIN SYSTEMS. THE BOTTOM BRAIN VALVE FOR
THE RESERVgR SHALL BE KEPT OPEN UNTIL AN AS -BUILT CERTIFICATION
HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ENGINEER AND AN APPROVAL TO IMPOUND
HAS BEEN ISSUED BY ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIES.
T
VALVE INV. - EL 311.00
04 TACK WELDED REBAR TRASH
RACK TO BE EPDXY COATED OR
HOT qP GALVANIZED
VALVE INV. - EL 309.00
2 VALVE TRASH RACK DETAIL
C5.01 SCALE: 1" = 4'
SER - EL 317.50
INV. - EL 313.00
INV. = EL. 311.00
INV. - EL 309.00
AC K BARS
N SHE FOR
SPECIFICATION)
INV. - EL. 301.00
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbWa.com
EcoEnglneedng
♦aum.rnw.a cam.... �.
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% CID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCounty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
DETAILS
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: AS NOTED
PERMANENT OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL %31 RISER ORIFICE TRASH RACK DETAIL O �I
C5.01 SCALE: F'= 4' 5.01 C SCALE: I­= 4' C5.01
16.0-
18.0'
16.0'
16.0'
14.0'
14.0'
TOP OF RISER - EL 317.50
N
_T
i i
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE STEPS IN
F7
1
LL
.111.E INV. - EL 313.00 ACCORDANCE WITH NCDOT STD. 640.66.
STEPS SHALL BE PLACED AT 18' O.C.
12.0
I
(SEE DETAIL 4 SHEET C5.03)
Q
VALVE INV. - EL. 311.00
VALVE INV. = EL 309.00
I
Ir
Ilpaa
TMCKNE55 (TIN.) -
G�
7' X 7'
�i
8' TO 12' DUKE STONE
t�
BOX CULVERT
CLADDING THICKNESS (TYP.)
E7' X 7' BOX CULVERT
FLOW
INV. OUT = EL 301.00
22.0'
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE STEPS W
CONCRETE ANTI FLOTATION BLOCK
ACCORDANCE WITH NCDOT STD. 840.66.
NOTE: ON -SITE GEOIECHNICAL ENGINEER
STEPS SHALL BE PLACED AT 16' O.C.
TO EVALUATE FOUNDATION FOR RISER
(SEE DETAIL 4 SHEET C5.03)
STRUCTURE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
T
VALVE INV. - EL 311.00
04 TACK WELDED REBAR TRASH
RACK TO BE EPDXY COATED OR
HOT qP GALVANIZED
VALVE INV. - EL 309.00
2 VALVE TRASH RACK DETAIL
C5.01 SCALE: 1" = 4'
SER - EL 317.50
INV. - EL 313.00
INV. = EL. 311.00
INV. - EL 309.00
AC K BARS
N SHE FOR
SPECIFICATION)
INV. - EL. 301.00
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbWa.com
EcoEnglneedng
♦aum.rnw.a cam.... �.
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% CID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCounty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
DETAILS
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: AS NOTED
PERMANENT OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL %31 RISER ORIFICE TRASH RACK DETAIL O �I
C5.01 SCALE: F'= 4' 5.01 C SCALE: I­= 4' C5.01

NOTES'
1. 1HE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CUSTOM ENDWALL BY
LHC. SEE SHEETS XXX
2. DRAW AGE DIAPHRAGM AND TOE DRAIN OUTLET PIPES
SHALL PENETRATE ENDWALL PERPENDICULAR AND BE
PROM WITH TIDEFLEX 1F -1 BACKFLOW VALVES OR
ENGINEER APPROVED EQUAL
TOE DRAIN OUTLETS TO BE BY
RAL (SEE SHEET M) SOLD HOPE AND PROVIDED WITH
VARMINT GUARD (TYP.)
3
FRiTNGS BHML w PROVIDED
FOR THE OUTLET PIPES SUCH
THAT THEY PENETRATE THE
PRE -CAST CONCRETE ENDIIALL
PFIiPFT101CVAR (".)
7' X 7' BOX CUE.VERT
3E DUPIXTADM OUTLETS TO BE 6Y
1DPE PROVIDED AND WITN TIDETIFD(
DDKR VALVES OR ENGINEER
SO EOUAL
HATIDRNL (SEE NOTE ON SHEET 0.00)
11
I 7' X 7' BOX CULVERT
yL S
INV. OUT = 300.00
ry
STONE CLADDING 20.0'
......... PLACE CONCRETE TOE DRAIN OUTLETS TO BE 60 OWWlAOE DMPHWGM OUTLETS TO BE 610
SOLID HOPE AND PROVIDED WITH SOLD HDPE PROVIOED AND WITH TIOEETEX
TIDEFLEX TF -1 BACKFLOW VALVES - TF -I BACKTLOW VALVES OR ENGINEER,
OR ENGINEER APPROVED EQUAL APPRGVED BOWL
CUSTOM ENDWALL DETAIL
C5- SCALE: 1" = 4'
0
I
/ O
JO
O
" Jl
CS'02
°
J
I1
JC) r
M/�
l�
\O
9
M CHANNEL SECTION
C5.02 SCALE: 1" = 10'
NOTE:
THE SPILLWAY OUTFALL CHANNEL SECTION BETWEEN THE DAM AND TOWERVIEW
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON THE ECOENGINEEMNG. NEW, AND LHC
SHEETS. THE CHANNEL SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CAST -W -PLACE
REINFORCED CONCRETE WITH A DUKE STONE CLADDING. LARGE DUKE STONE
'BOULDERS' SHAL ALSO BE CAST INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE CHANNEL SECTION
PER THE NEW SPECIFICATIONS.
NELSON
BYRD H
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEngineering
.z=
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
06 -01 -12 757 DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
Durha mCou nty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
DETAILS
DATE: June 01,2012
SCALE: AS NOTED
C5.02

TAI and ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
PIEZOMETER DETAIL
PROJECT: DUKE PONDYI DAM DRAWNBY: MIR
P. O. BOX 9006), RAIJ21G11, NORTH CAROaNA 3]6]5
919- 78 ?- 9525,www m'md raum.wm
DIAPHRAGM DRAIN DETAIL
CIVIL ENGINEER: ECO ENGINEERING
DRAWNBY: MTR 5 -25 -2012
TAIJOBNO.: 10.119 -2
LOCATION: DURIIAM,NC SCALE: NTS DATE: 5 -25 -2011
I
H DETAILS OFS'THE
CLIENT: DUKE UNIVERSITY TAI JOB NO_ 10 -119 -2
PPROVAL ROM THE ENGINEER FOR
13FHAS UCH STEPS.
GROUND
TOP OF AM 320 0
_
1.25
\\\ SURFACE
� 21' -f
r 21'­1
// GROUT FROM
I -F 3'
TOP OF DAM 320.0
ROUND SURFACE TO BF.Nf(ANffL SEAL
1.25/2.00 3.00/4.2
DAM FILL
2 F'ODI" BGNTONTIE SEAL
8.50 /8.x5
9 /i�
N5 9 B"
BS P B"
BS PB"
� -G
�6v
m�
DAM FILL
-
-
TOP OF DIAPHRAM 313.0 OR
�µU
TT
sod
PLAN
LESS TO MEET TMIN COVER
NS P B°
a °m
°z. d
a
SIDE
ELEVATION
8.50!6. ]6
00/13.2fi
_
d.5
PETAL DEPTH VARIES
n n
6,
(TERMINATE AT ELEVATION 298.0)
i
NOTES:
N5 ! e"
L-i �-}
H yr 11111
i. INDIMOUAL PIQOMETERS O BE PERMANENTLY
W
PVC CAP
I
LABELED FOR IDENBFlCABON AND MONITORING
'I 5 P B"
NS P B"
RIISARY SPILLWAY T x T I.D.
PURPOSES.
].25/9.45
x.)SIB.2S
00/15.]5
14.)SIt B.]3
6 Z TOP OF NIZOMETERS LOCATED ALONG DAM
BOX CULVERT INV. -301
ELEVATION
CREST TO BE FLUSH VAH GROUND AND BE
W
ELEVATION
PROVIDED W IM FLUSH -MOUNT STEEL COVER
HOX CULVERT INV. -301
AND 2'%2'X1' CONCRETE PAD.
IN. DIAL PERFORATED PIPE
3. DIMENSIONS OF BOREHOLE TO BE DETERMINED
BY ONSTE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. MINIMUM
WRAPPED WITH FILTER
5l9• I«
DIAMETER SHOULD BE 8 ".
�1 PIEZOMETER DETAIL
C5.03 AS NOTED
TAI and ASSOCIATES PLLC TOE DRAIN DETAIL
R0. BOX 90067. RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA ?]675 PROJECT: DUKE POND PI DAM DRAWNBY: MTR
919- 782- 9525,www.maldwwcuuscaX LOCATION: DURHAM,NC SCALE: NTS. DATE: 525- '_1012
CLIENT: DUKE UNrVFRSTTY TAIJOBNO.: 10 -119 -2
SOB. BACKFILL
DI
PILTERFABRIC
UADIAR MEN)
OVERLAP ON TOP
FILTER SAND
IN P
BY PERFDNAIEfJ, CORRUGATED
DOUBLE WALLED HDPE (ADS
N -12 OR ENGINEER - APPROVED
I SUBSTITUTE)
l- W
P = 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE WRAPPED WITH FILTER FABRIC.
EXTENDED THROUGH HEADWALL
01 = 12" MIN. SOIL COVER
02 = DEPTH OF FRENCH DRAIN: 18" MIN.
W =MOTH OF FRENCH DRAIN: 18" MIN
TOE DRAIN DETAIL
C5.03 AS NOTED
TAI and ASSOCIATES, PLLC
P.O -BOX 90067. RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 276]5, 919 - 783-9525.
www.ulandacwc,alacum
BPA SIZE
PROIECL DUKE PONDYI DAM
LOCATION: DURHAM,NC
CLIENT: DUKF.UNIVERS(TY
DIAPHRAGM DRAIN DETAIL
CIVIL ENGINEER: ECO ENGINEERING
DRAWNBY: MTR 5 -25 -2012
TAIJOBNO.: 10.119 -2
ALL STEPS SHALL PROTRUDE 4' FROM INSIDE FACE OF STRUCTURE WALL.
IN THOSE SHOWN MY BE PROVIDED CONTRACTOR
STEPS WI
I
H DETAILS OFS'THE
I
PPROVAL ROM THE ENGINEER FOR
13FHAS UCH STEPS.
2' MIN
TOP OF AM 320 0
_
1.25
� 21' -f
r 21'­1
3.50/3.x5
I -F 3'
TOP OF DAM 320.0
1.25/2.00 3.00/4.2
DAM FILL
NOOyIY
8.50 /8.x5
9 /i�
N5 9 B"
BS P B"
BS PB"
1.5012.50 4.00x4.>5
2.50/3.50 4.00 /B.0
3.00/3.80 B.00I6.00
m�
DAM FILL
-
-
TOP OF DIAPHRAM 313.0 OR
PLAN
TT
wA
PLAN
LESS TO MEET TMIN COVER
NS P B°
TOP OF DIAPHRAGM 313.0 OR
SIDE
ELEVATION
8.50!6. ]6
00/13.2fi
_
d.5
LESS TO MEET TMIN COVER
n n
3.2516. 0
ILTP.II SAND WRAP WITH
i
FILTER SAND WRAP WITH
N5 ! e"
L-i �-}
H yr 11111
A(atAFI 14ON FILTER FABRIC
W
MI2AFI 140N FILTER FABRIC
5.5
'I 5 P B"
NS P B"
RIISARY SPILLWAY T x T I.D.
25/4.00
I3.28l4.00
].25/9.45
x.)SIB.2S
00/15.]5
14.)SIt B.]3
CAST IRON
BOX CULVERT INV. -301
ELEVATION
PRIMARY SPILLWAY 7' x T I.D.
W
ELEVATION
HOX CULVERT INV. -301
IN. DIAL PERFORATED PIPE
'
1/4•
`4
/4• YP
Y6 BAR OR
PB BM
GALV•U.
WRAPPED WITH FILTER
5l9• I«
INCH DIAMETER SOLID PIPE
3,
FABRIC INSIDE DIAPHRAGM
I
THROUHGH DAM FILL INTO
DRAIN
..I
FILTER SAND, TURN 90°
PI AN
T
L.3MrQMMED
PERPENDICULAR TO SPILLWAY,
I /B• I �'
VPLAN
THEN USE PERFORATED PIPE
ELEVATION
\
COM
WRAPPED WITH FILTER FABRIC
REINTIX2CiNG STEEL
O!
A
VY
INSIDE DIAPHRAGM DRAIN
ELEVATION VIEW
E
r2 PROFILE VIEW
ELEVATION
`
\� I - =10'
I" =10'
EETI OFl
M DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM DETAIL
C5.03 AS NOTED
NOTES
PIPE OIA.
BPA SIZE
Ht (FT.) xz IFT.)
o (FT.)
ALL STEPS SHALL PROTRUDE 4' FROM INSIDE FACE OF STRUCTURE WALL.
IN THOSE SHOWN MY BE PROVIDED CONTRACTOR
STEPS WI
ti>'
H DETAILS OFS'THE
PROPOSED STEPS AND AND]HAS RECEIVES
PPROVAL ROM THE ENGINEER FOR
13FHAS UCH STEPS.
Z_, Hard
3.50 /8.00
_
1.25
t.2fi12.00 9.00/].]
(2.00
3.50/3.x5
6.50/8.)5
1.25/2.00 3.00/4.2
0/2.50
NOOyIY
8.50 /8.x5
9 /i�
N5 9 B"
BS P B"
BS PB"
1.5012.50 4.00x4.>5
2.50/3.50 4.00 /B.0
3.00/3.80 B.00I6.00
m�
z
].50/8.25
10.00 /11.50
11.80/tt.x8
6"
PLAN
TT
wA
PLAN
ELEVATION
NS P B°
I
SIDE
ELEVATION
8.50!6. ]6
00/13.2fi
_
d.5
US P B"
n n
3.2516. 0
CL
i
5.0
N5 ! e"
L-i �-}
H yr 11111
CAST IRON
W
a�L c -B• I
5.5
'I 5 P B"
NS P B"
_
25/4.00
I3.28l4.00
].25/9.45
x.)SIB.2S
00/15.]5
14.)SIt B.]3
CAST IRON
ELEVATION
W
ELEVATION
1' 8311'
a
'
1/4•
`4
/4• YP
Y6 BAR OR
PB BM
GALV•U.
A �
L)
Q
Z F-
5l9• I«
A
��
y W
cl
PI AN
T
L.3MrQMMED
SIDE
I /B• I �'
VPLAN
ELEVATION
\
COM
REINTIX2CiNG STEEL
O!
A
VY
E
ELEVATION
SECTION A -A
1E'
SOITAY BE S EWER D IN
-LES.
EETI OFl
ELEVATION
840.66
4 MAINTENANCE ACCESS STEPS
C5.03 N.T.S.
<9 Y1 IN1., aO)6a. zti
p
W o
��T19X�a.
r F
y I Y a I 2D RR9 NDwMLL AT JOB SITE Bx
(� x2 � I' i
�1
J � TMcaanAa /iA' 9awiPiSRV[ n[a+][us aF[�-
- - - - - - - 9.1]Ya.,
y m ELEVATION a1:6 -II SIDE �: ,"` •w[ww a.A B,ar B�,N -N. LL Q o
n z Y2 car.! g w
r 1
N o 12 x
sm yc°5=
m� B NaW
wDv S`� ZL
r' PLAN
838.80 838.80
ENDWALL DIMENSIONS
FT. YINIYIW I YIH. /WVt.
PIPE OIA.
BPA SIZE
Ht (FT.) xz IFT.)
o (FT.)
fl
Y2
1.0
Nb P 9"
.1.23/2.00 2.00/9.)5
1.23 /i.)5
3.00/9.)5
3.50 /8.00
_
1.25
t.2fi12.00 9.00/].]
(2.00
3.50/3.x5
6.50/8.)5
1.25/2.00 3.00/4.2
0/2.50
,
8.50 /8.x5
2.0
2.5
0.0
N5 9 B"
BS P B"
BS PB"
1.5012.50 4.00x4.>5
2.50/3.50 4.00 /B.0
3.00/3.80 B.00I6.00
'��
/3.50
12.x5/3.0
4.00 /4.25
� 4.90(5.50
5.23� /5.x8
].50/8.25
10.00 /11.50
11.80/tt.x8
6"
9.25/6.50 8.00/8.]5
r 25/9.50
6.00!1 B. )5
,I
' 12.00/13.25
0.0
NS P B°
- b017.00
3 8/
8.50!6. ]6
00/13.2fi
_
d.5
US P B"
3.2516. 0
].00/9.E6
8011 8.x5
5.0
N5 ! e"
4.6015.00 7.00 /8.50
3.25/4.00
x.23!9.25
]8/15.x5
5.5
'I 5 P B"
NS P B"
50 /5.00 ).60!8.5
4.SOI5.00 x.90 /6. SO
25/4.00
I3.28l4.00
].25/9.45
x.)SIB.2S
00/15.]5
14.)SIt B.]3
M NCDOT ENDWALL DETAIL
C5.03 N.T.S.
GABION RETAWING WALL DETALST
xM w�v)
_ L o.s.Rti
gBXA1 Ma
TYPICAL PLW FOR IVTEHN/1L Cp!/EC]BYG WIRES CR�
i µ.vYW rh ~ � hTLRt�B.t FiSIFYP. �° w
H GABRON BAS ETYING�AIL r w ALT°_RNATE BABOON JOINT ASFENERS
MER,NAI.COt GTIAG Y,I "ES
T V&TM V {reE &AW0S sTANOAR[11W NE INfiE DE-rAL
NOTE: GABION WALL BENEATH FOREBAY FOOTBRIDGE TO BE
CONSTUCTED OF GABION BASKETS TIED TOGETHER AND
OPIIOMAL 9TFPENER OOIWECiRNJ
WEInEO vARE nnsMtTs
wMWELMDW19EQAMMMASNETO COORDINATED WITH LA N DSCAPE ARC H ITECT AN D STRU CTU RAL
ENGINEER. GABIONS TO BESET 2' INTO BOTTOM OF POND (EL.
300.00) AND EXTEND UP TO ELEVATION 307.00, CREATING A WEIR
WALL AT THE FOREBAY OPENING. GABIONS TO BE 5' WIDE AND TO
6 _ GABION DETAIL
C5.03 N.T.S.
NELSON
BYRD
WOLTZ
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Vi
rginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nbwla.com
EcoEnglneering
M.
y�y
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 757. DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCounty,
North Carolina
75% Design
Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
DETAILS
DATE: June Ol, 2012
SCALE: AS NOTED
C5.03

16
�DeZURIK
PEF 100% PORT
ECCENTRIC PLUG VALVES
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
•
DimensionsT ILL
ECM
bent I
av EO
-
- T1.i A A
cl +
eaa)o VelYe D •
61 '
A
r;CLLED ANGLE RING j LCGO'LATES
D
IFlanuoal
Fla Mecpanirnl Fi
CI JebE an[rQ
-`6—' 1 � S ZeUlf1lRlfli�%kN
:,,•
j/ Ask imp
n
ECP -3 Polypropylene Turf Reinforcement Mat
rASt
1 taYl20eTbM
�,
JL Ili a•a
FY9g1C.II
1.e�'j
W B YYY r F6dY ' Y ®
s a'IINan.l
s�� -, h9
_mac
D
M I A
I
� n
wee I
TroarL Too Ta ae: ` _ R
NK31 YQLT
ZTh._EC P -3 111 prma 1 Nd reinforcement ma: and iz whalHe M 1:1 slopes and HjhJ W orals. TM K{ 3
D
e vs •.v+' � tiat9t Mli i6RU
-'
€
'o k
e�
Type S.A, 5.8, and SC specfliaa[ion requirerrems established by Me Erasion 1 !Td T,,i P ,p Caund
EdaTaCTI�aTdbMTEOepfM6�T�tAf. q
H.1
EGRESSHAW LE._-..—_______--_. r.-____..___._.- .__- ____- _._- _-- .____._. - -____
I
LYI :Q7
bSL
I.D. TATS
P
INwyaeljU24?M9UVSOWIterl Pdyp,a — 10 pDlsyropykrw Hbar uv Rabtiaetl
K YYVfX[Y i HN c23L 'v` ^';GR ^,N
OA0'x LL50"Dp.rvy on lb, yd- 350• -1-1,
a06.98/m'
Ta I L�T auT se :.4•t1Fu
I 40. mTe� 'u vm® n nrm .' Y'Im
ml�t_4111t10�CsE_•zC�
RON Stre: Srwtlard Yay
I
fl (].3 m) IS.01t
I-A
ea w.TC �J,
srw¢ vase
�+L � r!w •oama- 1
-
Y -
�
Inbatlehe hopeNea•: BenchSYNe Twlln,• Q'1TPEP•••k
I
� ->.rmn k6.lc+o I I 1 pnrc:; snx� I
S
srwAaarNr 9mip�18]aa E/ml
1>NI /N.2o nH -
nzrlx rwlr04mm)
I y. M, T_Ircy
IOLlSFi A
u0amlavz) /arv30mn 5 -r¢o2
MevgMAM A61k1 WaM ;43 MRI2LOSWn1
latearete6ln lauu,
coin ] +N.TJESa' enOeeerr�bMad ��rllm
p-- 'covrA D:aaTEn � d7Y
ISQ4a1ryNl /an30mb Sm•• I5
LOGOGOMIIGNiI
-
FCTC Mnkvt35hane�udam
-w3Y R v,Drm naa -rm
•ayEP.A =nave o:aa aaDr N3• LOGO POItP101la
-
9rroER•TD O6er8 Laze ./RIZO.ebyrol
3
To �rab ie�
mftdLm
a
FbKeRaFla
sws 0
m'1a1, rm SMS aoYex.u1.AD. sw
E
1�.r...aE..
b Ty F4O
S
tYMY11ea1,RiYt4Y .e.8i0t6 we MaE+iw,
,waae...ray.awu anu.a✓Wrn <..c.w...a
.a. gaaamzN
W lim fiTJlE PglR-a0 YAVM tlaY[TS
,rE..wMl..a+..._.... McC]ARI)
r. TM.ew l.eaaw.Nrr.rar �n
v.
Bbpe Perbrmaea DeslNVeNes• Channel Parfprmanw Uas [Vabes•:
'
�e min
me we �.'I'a"rrE.TMS. �.�lanr�e.n
Iae.a1NlY,aa.',. � lOTm A9 KTm ubrED
Properly , TM MNhod Value Progrly
amr -•!Lr 9ia Nrrw .M ryaaibl,vrlw,atlafYSSZSn Y111Y u
:& a FI 411E IC Clfi[I'E
w
VaNs
FI
�Lnd4em
Mave(sN SNrr SUm
MANHOLE COVER DETAILS =
C5.04 N.T.S.
16
�DeZURIK
PEF 100% PORT
ECCENTRIC PLUG VALVES
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
•
DimensionsT ILL
ECM
bent I
av EO
-
- T1.i A A
cl +
eaa)o VelYe D •
61 '
A
eMec6anicd t
Jgot
D
IFlanuoal
Fla Mecpanirnl Fi
CI JebE an[rQ
xar�m
n
ECP -3 Polypropylene Turf Reinforcement Mat
t2s6a"
JL Ili a•a
aW la]
s a'IINan.l
s�� -, h9
_mac
R A l3'
� n
wee I
ZTh._EC P -3 111 prma 1 Nd reinforcement ma: and iz whalHe M 1:1 slopes and HjhJ W orals. TM K{ 3
Type S.A, 5.8, and SC specfliaa[ion requirerrems established by Me Erasion 1 !Td T,,i P ,p Caund
H.1
>H bW.`rl
LYI :Q7
bSL
INwyaeljU24?M9UVSOWIterl Pdyp,a — 10 pDlsyropykrw Hbar uv Rabtiaetl
OA0'x LL50"Dp.rvy on lb, yd- 350• -1-1,
a06.98/m'
RON Stre: Srwtlard Yay
fl (].3 m) IS.01t
Nut Actuated V.W- (NT)
3.8. 180 -M-)
Valve K
the
wbx xm
r
a. z 1}ff
2 VALVE DETAIL
C5.04 N.T.S.
3 TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT DETAIL
1105.04 N.T.S.
NELSON
BYRD H
1 010
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nb,Ma.com
®EcoEngineelling
CurrT. �.
•�1
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCounty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
DETAILS
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: AS NOTED
05.04
EASTCOAST
i
ECP -3 Polypropylene Turf Reinforcement Mat
DeSarytfpn: The ECP -3ls mode wlN UnlfGmty dstrlbuted lODX peenpDFypmpylMM llberand three hepv{wel,Rt p0lypropYkne
umly sewn to6edMr vnth UV S[abilixM Mrpad ii,e1:l;M1tly cwnpersed Hooters are wrapped aM ircludea
protluct IabN, code arM i�ublWlian 8•+itle. Tlx Hankers an Pa!ledzetl br urY tranzpartatim.
ZTh._EC P -3 111 prma 1 Nd reinforcement ma: and iz whalHe M 1:1 slopes and HjhJ W orals. TM K{ 3
Type S.A, 5.8, and SC specfliaa[ion requirerrems established by Me Erasion 1 !Td T,,i P ,p Caund
(FLTC) and Fetleml H,hway Adminlstrarlon's (FHWAI Fp.03 EttMn T 13.18.
m..& : bN1K-TOp. MAd4oM8arro-n Matrb TM1rwa
INwyaeljU24?M9UVSOWIterl Pdyp,a — 10 pDlsyropykrw Hbar uv Rabtiaetl
OA0'x LL50"Dp.rvy on lb, yd- 350• -1-1,
a06.98/m'
RON Stre: Srwtlard Yay
fl (].3 m) IS.01t
lergM1. 1A.0 it136.6m1 120.0 fr 136.6 m1
WeaH!LO):: 3T516a(628kN 1
'A'(I1l4.]ky
300 Wa Id3fi m') %0 yd•(Ifi].2 m•{
e/Palb[ 416 6
Inbatlehe hopeNea•: BenchSYNe Twlln,• Q'1TPEP•••k
P--y Txl Mel6od T ivl Tart MNhod PYemNen Ilsb
srwAaarNr 9mip�18]aa E/ml
1>NI /N.2o nH -
nzrlx rwlr04mm)
Erie Mer6W2WINaY
u0amlavz) /arv30mn 5 -r¢o2
MevgMAM A61k1 WaM ;43 MRI2LOSWn1
ISQ4a1ryNl /an30mb Sm•• I5
[b�etumMD asrN tYiS]8 393 k
FCTC Mnkvt35hane�udam
Skew a.50A to,pz 3.4 Hrk
9rroER•TD O6er8 Laze ./RIZO.ebyrol
Gme��� a
To �rab ie�
FbKeRaFla
va iry, w e�
EiaNPV�s.alim
CmLLV OT9I2 l3 e/w'
nzNMw2ek.ur -Vs wv
,waae...ray.awu anu.a✓Wrn <..c.w...a
.a. gaaamzN
aR�arNmMwawmavumn,txan
Bbpe Perbrmaea DeslNVeNes• Channel Parfprmanw Uas [Vabes•:
'
Properly , TM MNhod Value Progrly
TeN MNhad
VaNs
Mave(sN SNrr SUm
a D6s60
SAbWt'(239 AI
C ;asps Nsks pgz5p uatgeN[at vaour
iaSfNO
S.O hAl abmAl
Sbwtewtn lU
sal veaesrzea SHnaen
aoaMrRaa FU
SOhttBm)
D'OOI
0.022 ygnawtl vasasRY
5.o R/sr T.b MH
5011 -ICOR v •krc.•e..0 ayt'v.ryvNn..aaa , rt.s,e k-t
>lmh UO ml 0.01a 0.025 D.Oafi
•� g.rr- ervranauw a'rvrh rw✓.ieuwAAra(la+.rerra!a.0
Proud MeiWar oF. a� _ ��
�'
E!
___
Y
.LIr'dwPnTwuv. hxAra{tradLbngr Yabva eeredriw.fpoer uaiaenMn+W rea F.ntm+Pr.MeulLt',.dsrMfuiS
.revr.•iara FexC
Lnf {eb wo 0reuj aumke u- lavnv.abaYy.a.vv4n.'pjw'ixime yJ.t.�•x ['umvrm:.arauv:nkrJlgmbrmrm �i
3 TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT DETAIL
1105.04 N.T.S.
NELSON
BYRD H
1 010
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
408 Park Street
Charlottesville
Virginia, 22902
T 434.984.1358
F 434.984.4158
www.nb,Ma.com
®EcoEngineelling
CurrT. �.
•�1
NO. Date Issues /Revisions
1 06 -01 -12 75% DID Pricing
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Duke Stormwater
Reuse Pond
DurhamCounty,
North Carolina
75% Design Development
PROJECT NO.: 1015
DRAWN BY: JES
CHECKED BY: JWC
DETAILS
DATE: June 01, 2012
SCALE: AS NOTED
05.04