HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100586 Ver 2_Court Case Correspondence_20110527STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF WAKE 11 EHR 1254
M A ALEXANDER III )
Petitioner )
PETITIONER S FIRST SET OF
v ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL ) DOCUMENTS
RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER )
QUALITY )
Respondent )
[will fill in here with general objections etc [
RESPONSE
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
1 Admit that Lauren Witherspoon did not complete a Stream Identification Form in
conjunction with her on site visit on our around February 20 2008
RESPONSE
Admitted
2 Admit that Lauren Witherspoon did not consider any information (including but
not limited to maps aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the
construction alteration and or maintenance of Feature A prior to the determination dated
February 22 2008 regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
Denied Ms Witherspoon considered statements by Mr Alexander and /or ks agents
regarding the history of the Property
3 Admit that Lauren Witherspoon did not conduct a site investigation of the
adjacent property north (upslope) of Feature A prior to the determination dated February 22
2008 regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
r
Page I
Field Code Changed`
Comment [BEM11 LW d d SM talk t y
b t th
a
Denied Ms Witherspoon at least observed the adjacent property from the north side of
Yeargan Road and may have entered the adjacent property as well
4 Admit that Laaren Witherspoon did not conduct a s to invest gation of the
adjacent property south of Feature A (downslope) prior to the determination dated February 22
2008 regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
Admitted
5 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as
evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined
that evidence of an active /relic flood plain was Absent
RESPONSE
Admitted
6 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as
evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined
that evidence of Soil Texture or Stream Substrate Sorting was Weak
RESPONSE
Admitted
7 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as
evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined
that evidence relating to In channel Structure Riffle pool Sequence was Weak
RESPONSE
Admitted
8 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as
evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined
that evidence relating to Depositional Bars or Benches pool Sequence was Moderate
RESPONSE
Admitted
9 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as
evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined
Page 2
r
i
that there was NO Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other
document evidence
RESPONSE
Admitted
10 Admit that Amy Chapman did not consider any information (including but not
limited to maps aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the
construction alteration and or maintenance of Feature A prior to the determination dated
August 23 2010 regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
Denied Amy Chapman considered statements from Mr Alexander and /or his agents L
regarding the history of the Property Steve Mitchell did discuss with Amy Chapman at
the vehicles parked across Year an Rd from the site that he thought Feature A was a
stream
11 Admit that Amy Chapman did not conduct a site investigation of the adjacent
property north (upslope) of Feature A prior to the determination dated August 23 2010
regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
Denied Amy Chapman did not enter the site north of Feature A but observed the site
briefly from the north side of Yeargan Road
12 Admit that Amy Chapman did not conduct a site investigation of the adjacent
property south of Feature A (downslope) prior to the determination dated August 23 2010
regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
Admitted
13 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as
evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined
that evidence of a continuous bed and bank was Strong
RESPONSE
Admitted
14 Admit that evidence of a continuous bed and bank can be indicative of an
artificial or man made ditch
Page 3
Comment IBEM21 AC d d SM t Ik t y
b t th
RESPONSE
Admitted (Will likely object that this is vague because while evidence of a continuous bed
and bank can be ipdicatrve of ap artificial or man made ditch it can also be indicative of
natural streams )
15 Admit that along the northern portion of Feature A the channel appears to have
been excavated as much as 6 8 feet below the natural grade of the land surrounding Feature A
RESPONSE
Denied While DWQ admits that portions of Feature A do appear to have been excavated
DWQ does not have sufficient information to determine how deeply those portions of
Feature A may have been excavated
16 Admit that excavation of a channel 6 8 feet below the natural grade of the
surrounding land would increase the likelihood of groundwater flow or discharge into Feature A
RESPONSE
Denied While DWQ admits that any excavation below land surface would increase the
likelihood of groundwater flow or discharge into a hypothetical channel it is unclear that
this is what occurred with Feature A
A
17 Admit that there is substantial evidence of spoil piles along the banks of Feature
RESPONSE
Denied While DWQ admits that there was evidence of spoil along some portions of
Feature A the downstream portion has little or no spoil
18 Admit that evidence of spoil piles along a bank can be indicative of an artificial or
man made ditch
RESPONSE
Admitted (Will probably object that this is vague because while DWQ admits that spoil
piles can be indicative of artificial or man made ditch it can also be indicative of a
modified natural stream )
19 Admit that Feature A is an artificial or man made ditch
RESPONSE
Page 4
Denied As shown by the USGS map the soils map and by the characteristics noted by
DWQ staff in their on site inspections Feature A exhibits the characteristics of at least an
intermittent stream
20 Admit that Feature B has been determined by DWQ to NOT be subject to the
Neuse Buffer Rules per its letter of August 23 2010
RESPONSE
Admitted
21 Admit that no site investigation of the adjacent property north (upslope) of
Feature A was conducted by DWQ prior to the determination dated February 15 2011
regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
Dented Periann Russell and �Ian McMillan did not enter the adjacent property but
observed the property briefly from the north side of Yeargan Road
22 Admit that Feature A receives some water from a pipe that runs from the adjacent
property north (upslope) of Feature A under Yeargan Road and discharges into Feature A
RESPONSE
Admitted
23 Admit that Feature A receives water from storm run off along Yeargan Road
RESPONSE
Admitted (Will probably object that this is vague because not all water for Feature A
comes from stormwater runoff )
24 Admit that Feature A intersects with Feature B near the southern edge of the
property
RESPONSE
Admitted
25 Admit that no site investigation of the adjacent property south (downslope) of
Feature A was conducted by DWQ prior to the determination dated February 15 2011
regarding Feature A
RESPONSE
Page 5
Comment [BEM3] IM d d y b ry th
Illl
pt amp p rty as w II
Denied DWQ staff JEric Kulz9J performed a site investigation of the feature downstream
of Feature A on [DATE) determining that it was a perennial stream JAmy to provide
copy]
26 Admit that any water from Feature A and Feature B runs into a pipe that runs
from the subject property under Highway 70 toward adjacent property south (downslope) of
Feature A
RESPONSE
DWQ does not have sufficient information to answer since DWQ staff did not directly
observe the alleged pipe under Highway 70
27 Admit that the DWQ s determination that Feature A was subject to the Neuse
Buffer Rules as evidenced in its letter dated February 15 2011 was based upon the evidence
enclosed with that letter
RESPONSE
Denied DWQ s determination dated February 15 2011 was based on the on site
observations of DWQ staff on February 11 2011 as well as DWQ staffs review of the most
recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the most recent version of the
1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States
Geologic Survey
2R Admit that enclosed in DWQ s determination letter dated February 15 2011 was
a Wake County Soil Survey map on which had been written IJM 2/11/2011 and the letter A
had been circled
RESPONSE
Admitted
29 Admit that IJM on the soil map enclosed in the letter dated February 15 2011
stands for DWQ staff member Ian McMillan
RESPONSE
Admitted
30 Admit that the area indicated by A on the soil map enclosed in the letter dated
February 15 2011 is located south of the intersection of US 70 West and Yeargan Road
RESPONSE
Page 6
Admitted
31 Admit that the area Indicated by A on the soil map enclosed in the letter dated
February 15 2011 is not located on the Property
RESPONSE
Admitted
32 Admit that on the 2002 Lake Wheeler NC 7 5 USGS quadrangle map a blue line
depicting an intermittent stream indicates a beginning point south of the intersection of US 70
West and Yeargan Road
RESPONSE
�Adm�tted�
33 Admit that the 2002 Lake Wheeler NC 7 5 USGS quadrangle map there is no
indication of a blue line intermittent stream on the Property
RESPONSE
Admitted
34 Admit that the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System does not
indicate a stream on the Property
RESPONSE
Admitted
35 Admit that the North Carolina Floodplam Mapping Information System does not
indicate a Foodplain on the Property
RESPONSE
Admitted
36 Admit that DWQ officials and staff members have published findings indicating
that the USGS 1 24 000 scale topographic maps and Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) county soil survey maps are unreliable sources for determining small first second and
sometimes third order streams
4
RESPONSE
I
Denied DWQ admits that DWQ staff members John Dorney and Periann Russell were co i
authors of an article stating that the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic
Page 7
s
t
Comment IBEM41 Th th q t I e-
m I d y b t w th th 2002 t po p d d by
AI and an h d
maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey greatly underestimate the presence
of small streams and the soil survey maps prepared by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture usually overestimate
the presence of small streams However this is not an official DWQ position
37 Admit that DWQ officials and staff members have stated that extensive stream
mapping errors on USGS topographic maps and NRCS soils maps raise serious questions about
use of these maps in regulatory applications for which they were not intended
RESPONSE
Denied DWQ admits that DWQ staff members John Dorney and Periann Russell were co
authors of an article that included the statement above but it was not an official DWQ
position
Page 8
fl�ll I7�T.iZIZllll CI].� I fly
I Identifv the person or persons answering or assisting with answering these
discovery requests and identify the request that each person answered or assisted in answering
Counsel for Respondent Lauren Witherspoon Amy Chapman Ian McMillan Periann
Russell (see interrogatories below for additional identifying information)
2 If you cannot answer any of the requested admissions then as to each such
requested admission set forth in detail the reasons why you cannot truthfully admit or deny the
matter (identifying facts persons and documents as required by the Definitions and Instructions
preceding this request)
See above
3 For each request for admission that you have denied in whole or in part state the
following
(a) The basis for your denial
See above
(b) All facts supporting your denial
See above
(c) The identity of all persons known to have knowledge of such facts and
See above [I will need to fill this in later
(d) The identity of all documents that contain information pertaining to such
facts
Documents in the DWQ file including but not limited to the most recent version of the sod
survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 124 000 scale (7 5 minute)
quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey and the
stream forms dated August 23 2011 and February 11 2011
2 Identify each person who has knowledge of this case that you or your attorneys
expect to call as a witness at the contested case hearing As to each person describe
Lauren Witherspoon
Business address 1628 Mad Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1628
Business telephone (919) 7914200
Title Environmental Senior Specialist
Job description Conduct stream determinations for buffer rule and 401 Water Quality
Certification applications Perform inspections of commercial industrial residential and
Page 9
other sites to determine compliance status as it relates to streams wetlands and buffer
regulations
Present employer is NC DENR
Ian McMillan
Business address 1650 Mad Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1650
Business telephone (919) 807 6400
Title 401 Coordinator
Job description Process permit applications conduct field work and meetings and write
General and Individual permits and Isolated Wetland permits
Present employer is NC DENR
(a) the substance of the expected testimony of the witness
Lauren Witherspoon is expected to testify regarding her communications with Mr
Alexander and his consultants her observations at her on site inspection and the
determination dated February 22 2008 regarding the application of the Buffer Rule to the
features on the Property
Ian McMillan is expected to testify regarding his communications with Mr Alexander and
his consultant his observations at the on site inspection February 11 2011 and the
determination dated February 15 2011 regarding the application of the Buffer Rule to the
features on the Property
Respondent reserves the right to update this list of witnesses as the matter progresses
(b) the person s relation to or employment by Respondent
Each is a current employee of Respondent
(c) a summary of the witness qualifications that make him or her competent
to testify on the matters outlined in subpart (a) above
Lauren Witherspoon has been trained in identifying streams for purposes of the Buffer
Rule has conducted numerous site inspections regarding the Buffer Rule and has a degree
in 1��
Ian McMillan has been trained in identifying streams for purposes of the Buffer Rule has
conducted numerous site inspections regarding the Buffer Rule and has a degree in =[
3 With respect to each person you or your attorneys expect to call as an expert
witness at the hearing to be held on this matter please provide the following Information
(a) Identify each such person
Periann Russell
Business address 2321 Crabtree Blvd Suite 250
Raleigh NC 27604 2260
Page 10 1
Comment [BEMS] LW pleas I'll th and
any th I ant q al f t Wh t y
ballpark f g f th mb f team call y
h d t d egard g th B ff R I
Comment[BEM6] IM pleas fll th and
any ther I ant q al f at PI I I t m
k w y ballpark fg f th mb f t am
11 y h d ted gard g th B ff R I
Business telephone (919) 715 6835
Title Environmental Senior Specialist
Job description Geomorphologist specializing in headwater stream identification
mapping and modeling
Present employer is NC DENR
Amy Chapman
Business address 1650 Mad Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1650
Business telephone (919) 807 6400
Title Statewide Buffer Coordinator
Job description Technical review of riparian buffer authorizations and variance
applications revise the present buffer rules perform site visits to determine subjectivity to
the riparian buffer rules and present major variance requests to the EMC at their
scheduled meeting dates
Present employer is NC DENR
Respondent reserves the right to update this list of experts as the matter progresses
(b) For each person identified describe the subject matter about which the expert is
expected to testify
Amy Chapman is expected to testify regarding the Buffer Rule her discussions with Mr
Alexander and his consultant(s) her observations at her on site inspection and her
determination regarding the application of the Buffer Rule to the features on the Property
Periann Russell is expected to testify regarding the North Carolina stream manual and
associated form methodology for evaluating the existence of streams field evaluation of the
existence of streams differentiating between streams subject to the Buffer Rule and
ditches her observations during the on site inspection February 11 2011
(c ) For each person identified describe the substance of the facts and opinions about
which the expert is expected to testify
Respondent is in the process of determining the extent of the subject matter on which each
expert witness may testify the substance of the facts an opinions to which they may testify
and a summary of the grounds of each opinion
(d) For each person identified describe the grounds for each opinion identified in
response to subsection (c) of this interrogatory
Respondent is in the process of determining the extent of the subject matter on which each
expert witness may testify the substance of the facts an opinions to which they may testify
and a summary of the grounds of each opinion
(e) Identify any and all documents that contain information pertaining to such expert
testimony
Page 1 l
Respondent is in the process of determining the extent of the subject matter on which each
expert witness may testify the substance of the facts an opinions to which they may testify
and a summary of the grounds of each opinion
a s..c � ogoes c x mad�.c ooeo
4 Please describe all information (including but not limited to maps aerial
photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and or
maintenance of Feature A reviewed or considered PRIOR to the determination made by DWQ
on 2/20/2008 that Feature A was subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules
Please see response to Request for Admission number 2 above
5 Please state whether PRIOR to 2/20/2008 DWQ made a formal determination
that Feature A was not a ditch
a) Yes or No
No
b) If the response is Yes please describe who made the determination and
all information that was relied upon in making such determination and the
basis for such determination
6 Please describe all additional information (including but not limited to maps
aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and
or maintenance of Feature A not detailed above in response to Interrogatory 5 reviewed or
considered PRIOR to the determination made by DWQ on 8/23/2010 that Feature A was subject
to the Neuse Buffer Rules
Please see response to Request for Admission number 10 above
7 Please state whether PRIOR to 8/23/2010 DWQ made a formal determination
that Feature A was not a ditch
Yes
a) Yes or No
b) If the response is Yes please describe who made the determination and
all information that was relied upon in making such determination and the
basis for such determination
Determination dated February 20 2008
Determination made by Lauren Witherspoon Ms Witherspoon relied upon the most
recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the
1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States
Geologic Survey and her on site observations
8 Please describe all additional information (including but not limited to maps
aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and
Page 12
or maintenance of Feature A reviewed or considered PRIOR to the determination made by
DWQ on 2/15/2011 that Feature A was subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules
DWQ staff considered the statements of Mr Alexander and /or his consultant regarding the
history of the Property as well as the Powerpoint presentation made by Mr Alexander to
DWQ staff regarding that topic
9 Please state whether PRIOR to 2/15/2011 DWQ made a formal determination
that Feature A was not a ditch
Yes
a) Yes or No
b) If the response is Yes please describe who made the determination and
all information that was relied upon in making such determination and the
basis for such determination
Determination dated February 20 2008
Determination made by Lauren Witherspoon Ms Witherspoon relied upon the most
recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the
1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States
Geologic Survey and her on site observations
Determination dated August 23 2010
Determination made by Amy Chapman Ms Chapman relied upon the most recent version
of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the
United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5
minute) quadrangle topograph c maps prepared b) the United States Geologic Survey and
her on site observations
10 With regard to DWQ s determination that Feature A is subject to the Buffer Rule
provide the following information
a) State the legal and factual basis for your determination
Feature A is approximately shown on both the most recent version of the soil survey map
prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department
of Agriculture and the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle
topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey In addition on site
observations by DWQ staff confirmed that Feature A exhibits the characteristics of an
intermittent stream
b) Identify by name and address all persons known to you to have knowledge
of these facts
Lauren Witherspoon Amy Chapman Ian McMillan Periann Russell (see above
interrogatories for addresses)
Page 13
C) Identify any and all documents that contain information pertaining to such
facts
Documents in the DWQ file including but not limited to the most recent version of the sod
survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute)
quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey and the
stream forms dated August 23 2011 and February 11 2011
11 With regard to DWQ s determination that Feature A is subject to the Buffer Rule
does DWQ contend that the entire length of the feature is an intermittent stream9 If yes please
state the basis for that conclusion If no please describe the determination point at which the
feature constitutes an intermittent stream and state the bans for that conclusion
DWQ contends that the entire length of Feature A is at least an intermittent stream
However the downstream portion of Feature A exhibits characteristics of a perennial
stream
The bans for these conclusions are that Feature A is approximately shown on the most
recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the most recent version of the
1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States
Geologic Survey as well as DWQ staffs on site observations that Feature A exhibits the
characteristics of at least an intermittent stream and that the downstream portion of
Feature A exhibits the characteristics of a perennial stream Explanation on the process
for differentiating between an intermittent and perennial stream can be found in the
manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11
12 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February I 1 2011 please
state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was
Strong evidence of an active /relict floodplain and identify all documentation of that evidence
recorded on or before February 11 2011
DWQ staff observed wetlands adjoining Feature A Such wetlands are indicative of an
active or relic floodplam Documentation includes the stream form dated February 11
2011
13 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February It 2011 please
state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was
Strong evidence relating to Particle Size of Stream Substrate and identify all documentation of
that evidence recorded on or before February 11 2011
Coarse sediments (fine sand to gravel sized) were observed in the channel bed and were
very different from the finer silt observed in the floodplam and in the area adjacent to the
floodplam Explanation for the process related to this indicator can be found in the
manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11
Page 14
14 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 11 2011 please
state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was
Moderate evidence relatirg to In channel Structure and identify all documPntat or of tha
evidence recorded on or before February 11 2011
Channel structure was observed including thalweg pools and riffles These bedforms
were observed as being moderately formed and transitions between pools and riffles were
not immediately obvious Explanation for the process related to this indicator can be found
in the manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of
Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11
15 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 11 2011 please
state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was
Strong evidence relating to Depositional Bars or Benches and identify all documentation of
that evidence recorded on or before February 11 2011
At least two large bankfull benches were observed along the margins of Feature A
Explanation for the process related to this indicator can be found in the manual entitled
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11
16 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 1 ] 2011 please
state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there WAS
Soil based Evidence of High Water Table and identify all documentation of that evidence
recorded on or oetore February 11 2011
A sod auger was used to pull a 6 to 3 inch soil sample from the toe of the stream ba-ik at the
top of a bankfull bench Sods indicative of anaerobic conditions were observed
Explanation related to this indicator can be found in the manual entitled North Carolina
Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and Their Origins v 4 11
17 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 11 2011 please
state with particularity the reasons that the evaluation was conducted using the form entitled
Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11
rather than the form entitled Stream Identification Form Version 3 1 which was the basis for
the evaluation appealed from
As of September 1 2010 Version 4 11 was the official current version of the stream
identification methodology and form
18 Identify all documents relied upon or consulted by you in preparing your
responses to the above interrogatories
Respondent has consulted the following documents
Page 15
1) the 2002 version of the Lake Wheeler 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle
topographic map prepared by the United States Geologic Survey
2) the documents in the Respondent s files on the Property
3) Selected pages regarding the mapping unit description from the 1970 Wake County
sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the
United States Department of Agriculture [Periann to send these pages to mel
Page 16
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I Produce all documents identified in the above interrogatories or consulted in
preparing your resporses to the above requests for admissions and interrogatories
Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request except
for those enclosed [will enclose sods map pages from Periann[
2 Produce the resume of each expert witness identified in your response to the
foregoing interrogatories
Resumes for Respondent s expected expert witnesses are enclosed
3 Produce any and all reports prepared by expert witnesses that you intend to use at
trial
Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request
4 Produce all data and reports not already submitted to Petitioner relating to
whether Feature A is subject to the Buffer Rule
Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request
5 Produce any and all photographs drawings maps plans or other graphical
representations of the Property between January 1 2008 and today s date
Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request
6 Produce any and all data and reports prepared by your past or present staff
consultants engineers or contractors relating to Feature A
Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request
7 Produce all aerial photographs of the Property in your possession custody or
control
Petitioner is already in possession of all aerial photos in Respondent s possession custody
or control except for the 1914 aerial map enclosed [will enclose 1914 map[
8 Produce the 2007 version of the Wake County soil survey map prepared by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture
Petitioner is already in possession of this document as indicated by Petitioner s response to
Respondent s first set of discovery requests
9 Produce the 2002 version of the Lake Wheeler 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute)
quadrangle topographic map prepared by the United States Geologic Survey
Petitioner is already in possession of this document as indicated by Petitioner s response to
Respondent s first set of discovery requests
Page 17
10 Produce all exhibits you intend to introduce into evidence or use at hearing
Respondent is still in the process of determining which exhibits will be introduced at
hearing Petitioner has a copy of all potential exhibits except those enclosed [Will be
including two a mails from Steve Mitchelil
Page 18