20050732 Ver 06_More Info Received_20071008

.~
• Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
October 8, 2007
S&EC Project # 5815.W0
DWQ Project # OS-0732, Ver. 6
Division of Water Quality
Attn: Ian McMillan/Eric Kulz
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Reply to the Division of Water Quality's 9/18/2007 request for additional information
Briar Chapel Subdivision
Chatham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. McMillan and Mr. Kulz:
o~ 1 Q ~ zoor
DENN", - `rYil~ht ~.ftiNit i Y
YVETIMlDS A~0 STC~RpA!".!AT[R P.RANCH
This letter is in response to your letter dated September 18, 2007 (copy attached), which requested
additional information for the proposed Briar Chapel Subdivision. The following restates your questions
and is then followed by our response.
Additional Information Requested
Please submit documentation that clearly details the NCDOT requirements that mandate your re-
design and subsequent increase in impacts
Please see the following explanation provided to S&EC from John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
"The original impact exhibits were prepared in late 2005, which was prior to final construction
documents (CDs) having been designed, submitted, and approved by NC DOT. In mid 2006, NC
DOT made the unexpected determination that Briar Chapel would not qualify to be reviewed as a
traditional (TND) neighborhood and therefore it would need to meet NC DOT's subdivision
standards. This meant that the tighter road sections and curves allowed under NC DOT rules for
TND would not be applicable and would require wider roads and therefore result in wider or larger
impacts at crossings.
During the CD review process by NC DOT, their comments required us to further expand the road
cross section in order to accommodate utilities, that would not be allowed under pavement. Private
utility corridors had to be pushed along the outside edges of the public R/Ws, thus requiring wider
fill impacts at all culvert crossings within the Briar Chapel development.
Finally, while we made our best effort to approximate the culvert sizes that would be needed when
putting together the original exhibits for the 404 and 401 permit application, detailed hydraulic
modeling had not been performed at the time since the exhibits were needed so far ahead of the CD
preparation. Once the detailed hydraulic modeling was performed, the results required us to upsize
2 of the 4 culverts on Great Ridge Parkway North in order to accommodate the modeled flow.
Due to cover and clearance requirements for the utilities which must cross the culverts, an increase
in culvert size required the finished grade elevations of these crossings to increase, thus widening
the fill impacts."
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E I~awndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Please find the attached documents which detail the designs rejected by NC DOT. Below is a table
that lists the crossings that NC DOT required design changes for as well as the reasons for those
changes, which resulted in the increased impact footprint to streams and wetlands.
Previously June 2007
October 2007 June 2007 October 2007
Approved
NCDOT's Reason for Rejection of Roadway Required Modification
Surveyed Modification Surveyed
Impact Stream
Design Redesign of Proposed
Revision Stream Proposed Revision
Impact Crossing Stream Impact
Impacts (LF) Wetland Wetland
(LF) (LF) Impacts (sf) Impacts (sQ
NC DOT required the roadway cross section to Public and private
be modified since they prohibit waterlines and utility corridors
irrigation lines from being installed under had to be shifted
pavement. The only utility they apprehensively to the outside 238
Crossing F allowed to be under pavement was sanitary edges of the (]97 LF
(pemanent) 155 sewer. public rights-of- 234 permanent; 41 LF 0 0
way, thus temporary)
NC DOT rejected vertical extensions to requiring a wider
headwalls or endwalls beyond the standard NC fill impact to
DOT specified height to minimize the impact Crossing F.
area.
NC DOT required the roadway cross section to Public and private ,
be modified since they prohibit waterlines and utility corridors
irrigation lines from being installed under had to be shifted
pavement. The only utility they apprehensively to the outside
allowed [o be under pavement was sanitary edges of the
sewer. public rights-of-
way, thus
Detailed hydraulic modeling based on NC DOT requiring a wider 297 (271 LF
Crossing G
238 requirements resulted in Culvert G to be fill impact to
302
permanent; 26 LF
415
415
(permanent) upsized from a 54-inch pipe to a 60-inch pipe. Crossing G. temporary)
NC DOT rejected vertical extensions to The increased
headwalls or endwalls beyond the standard NC pipe size required
DOT specified height to minimize impact area. [o meet NC DOT
standards resulted
in a wider fill
impact to
Crossin G.
NC DOT required the roadway cross section [o Public and private
be modified since they prohibit waterlines and utility corridors
irrigation lines from being installed under had to be shifted
pavement. The only utility they apprehensively to [he outside 312 (262 LF
Crossing H
166 allowed to be under pavement was sanitary edges of the
279
permanenh, 50 LF
0
0
(permanent) sewer. public rights-of- temporary)
way, thus
NC DOT rejected vertical extensions to requiring a wider
headwalls or endwalls beyond the standard NC fill impact to
DOT s ecified hei ht to minimize im act area. Crossin H.
NC DOT required the roadway cross section to Public and private
be modified since they prohibit waterlines and utility corridors
irrigation lines from being installed under had to be shifted
pavement. The only utility [hey apprehensively to the outside
allowed to be under pavement was sanitary edges of the
sewer. public rights-of- 114 (83 LF 946 (95 sq. ft.
Crossing I*
91 way, thus
91
permanent; 3] LF
297 permanent;
(permanent) Detailed hydraulic modeling based on NC DOT requiring a wider
temporary) g51 sq. ft.
requirements resulted in Culvert I to be upsized fill impact to temporary)
from a 48-inch pipe [o a 54-inch pipe. Crossing [.
NC DOT rejected vertical extensions to
headwalls or endwalls beyond the standard NC
DOT s ecified hei ht to minimize im act area.

2. Have the proposed impacts already been conducted at the sites where you have proposed
changes?
A site visit at the Briar Chapel Subdivision was conducted on September 20, 2007. Mr. Monte
Matthews (USAGE), Mr. Ian McMillan (NC DWQ), Mr. Eric Kulz (NC DWQ), Mr. Ed Timoney
(Newland Communities) and Mr. Sean Clark (S&EC) reviewed the stream crossings that were
approved in May and September of 2006. Four of the crossings reviewed, specifically crossings F,
G, H and I, are part of the current modification request. During the field visit, it was discovered
that the crossings had impacted a greater linear footage of stream than was originally approved in
2006. Additionally, it appears that, in some cases, the temporary impacts were somewhat greater
than what was requested in the June 7, 2007 modification request. The majority of these
temporary impacts are related to sediment and erosion control measures (i.e. temporary rock check
dams) that were not accounted for in the original permit application or the subsequent modification
request.
S&EC staff is working with surveyors and engineers at John R. McAdams Company, Inc. to
determine the exact length and nature of the impacts to the streams that went beyond what was
initially permitted and what was recently requested in the modified application (please see attached
exhibit maps). Below follows a description of each crossing reviewed on September 20, 2007.
Crossing F -The originally approved impacts at this crossing were for 155 linear feet of stream.
The modification submitted in June 2007 proposed 234 linear feet of permanent stream impact.
Since the submittal of the proposed modification in June, there has been some redesign on
proposed crossing F. NC DOT required that rather than a triple barrel culvert, they would prefer
an elliptical culvert with two smaller floodplain culverts. This has actually allowed for a reduction
in permanent impacts to the stream. The new proposed total permanent impact to the stream
channel is 1971inear feet. Currently, the stream bypass channel for this crossing is already in
place; however, the pipe has not been installed. Current impacts are temporary in nature and total
238 linear feet. As demonstrated in the attached exhibit, with the approval of the modification
submitted in June, the permanent impacts to this stream channel will be less than what was
requested. There is proposed an additional 41 linear feet of channel impact that is temporary in
nature and necessary to ensure that there is no sedimentation of the stream during pipe installation.
Once the pipe is installed, those temporary check dams will be removed and the sill on the inlet of
the culvert and the rip rap at the outlet of the culvert will prevent any undercutting of the pipe
crossing.
Crossing G -The originally approved permanent impacts at this crossing were for 238 linear feet
of stream and 0.003 acres of wetland. The modification submitted in June 2007 proposed 302
linear feet of permanent stream impact and 0.10 acres of permanent wetland impact. Culvert pipe
has been partially installed at this crossing resulting in a current permanent stream impact of 210
linear feet. The temporary stream impacts tota1261inear feet and are a result of the temporary
check dams in place to prevent downstream sedimentation during the pipe installation. Total
permanent wetland impact totals 0.010 acres which, is the same amount requested in the June 2007
modification. As demonstrated in the attached exhibit, with the approval of the modification
request submitted in June 2007 and the removal of the temporary sediment and erosion control
structures, actual permanent impacts to the stream channel will be 271 linear feet, a 31 linear foot
reduction from the June 2007 modification request in total permanent stream impacts at this
crossing.
Crossing H - The originally approved permanent impacts at this crossing were for 166 linear feet
of stream. The modification submitted in June 2007 proposed 279 linear feet of permanent stream
impact. Rock in and around the proposed channel impact has been excavated; however, the pipe
has not been installed. Current impacts are temporary in nature and total 312 linear feet. As
demonstrated in the attached exhibit, with the approval of the modification request submitted in
June 2007 and the removal of the temporary sediment and erosion control structures, actual
3

permanent impacts to the stream channel will be 262 linear feet, a 17 linear foot reduction from the
June 2007 modification request in total permanent stream impacts at this crossing.
Crossing I -The originally approved permanent impacts at this crossing were for 91 linear feet of
stream impact and 0.0003 acres of wetland impact. The modification request submitted in June
2007 proposed 91 linear feet of permanent channel impact and 0.007 acres of permanent wetland
impact. Currently, the pipe has been installed and completed with the exception of the rip-rap
dissipater pad. As demonstrated in the attached exhibit, with the approval of the modification
request submitted in June 2007 and the removal of the temporary sediment and erosion control
structures, actual permanent impacts to the stream channel will be 83 linear feet, an 8 foot
reduction from the June 2007 modification request in total permanent stream impacts at this
crossing. Additionally, actual permanent impacts to wetlands will tota10.002 acres, a reduction of
0.005 acres from the June 2007 modification request in total permanent wetland impact at this
crossing.
Crossing K -The originally approved permanent impacts at this crossing were for 1501inear feet
of stream and 0.2320 acres of wetland. This crossing has been completely avoided and therefore,
there is a net reduction of 150 linear feet of permanent stream impact and 0.2320 acres of
permanent wetland impact.
3. Please clam whether sufficient stream mitigation is available for the new impacts.
Stream mitigation for the Briar Chapel development has been addressed through payment into the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for 2,089 linear feet of stream as well as 2,127 linear
feet of stream restoration through the Harpers Crossroads stream mitigation site. Additionally, all
remaining streams on the Briar Chapel site, totaling approximately 63,412 linear feet (12.01 miles)
of stream, have been placed within a conservation easement to preserve them in perpetuity. The
overall proposed permanent stream impact totals for the project, including those proposed in the
pending revised modification based on the September 20, 2007 site visit total 1,223 linear feet of
permanent perenniaUimportant stream channel impact. The following table details the impacts and
their associated mitigation ratios.
Stream Miti ation for Briar Cha el

Impact
Title
Previously

Approved Impact
Length (LF) October

Modification
Request Impact
Len th LF
Net

Difference
(LF)

Stream
Determination

Mitigation
Ratio Applied

Required Stream
Mitigation (LF)
B 141 0 0 Perennial 2:1 282
C 0 0 0 Perennial N/A 0
D 140 0 0 Perennial 2:1 280
E 129 0 0 Perennial 2:1 258
F 155 197 42 Perennial 2:1 394
G 238 271 33 Perennial 1:1 271
H 166 262 96 Perennial 1:1 262
I 91 83 -8 Intermittent %z:l 42
K 150 Eliminated -150 Intermittent N/A 0
L 114 0 0 Perennial 1:1 114
M 220 0 0 Perennial 2:1 440
O 109 0 0 Perennial 1:1 109
Totals 1,653 1,223 13 2,452
4

The total stream mitigation available amounts to 4,216 linear feet and the currently required stream
mitigation (including the pending modification revision based upon the September 20, 2007 site
visit) totals 2,452 linear feet; there is an excess of 1,764 linear feet of available stream mitigation.
During the above mentioned site meeting it was determined that other road crossings of streams and
wetlands had temporary impacts (primarily online sediment and erosion control check dams) that exceeded
the limits of the permanent permitted impacts. The plan to address these areas will be addressed in a
separate submittal.
Please call if you have any questions or require further explanation.
Sincerely,
~~---
Sean Clark
Attachments: 1) DWQ letter dated September 18, 2007
2) Documentation of roadway design rejections from NC DOT
3) Revised Impact Exhibits (10-OS-2007)
CC: Mr. Monte Matthews (USAGE)
5

OV ~ Y • . / C ^ IVl lull°lal 1 i+u~ll~), vv,... ,.v.
`O~ ` ~/`I JQG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Vj ~ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p „C Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 18, 2007
DWQ Project # OS-0732, Ver. 6
Chatham County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED _.___._______._. __. _____~.___.______._.w__._.
u Yi ~~
' L ~
l1; ~=.~~~~,~~_~
Mr. Mitch Barron ~ i ~~
k~~ .1
Newland Communities ~ S~~ j `~ ~~0~ -
31 Hillsboro Street i
Pittsboro, NC 27312 ~ I;; ; is34 ~~ }~;~,r>>p~lP}+,h~s ~ ~,P~ „E-~~~1.,, tin
Subject Property: Briar Chapel
Pokeberry Creek [030604, 16-37, WSIV, NSW]
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Barron:
On August 9, 2007, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application
modification request and Public Notice issued August 9, 2007, by the i7SACE, to fill or
otherwise impact 0.2903 acres of 404/wetland (0.1524 acres of permanent impact and 0.1379
acres of temporary impact) and 2561inear feet of perennial stream to construct the proposed
Briar Chapel mixed use development. The DWQ has determined that your application was
incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The DWQ will require
additional information in order to process your application to impact protected wetlands and/or
streams on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive five copies of the additional
information requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your application as required
by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this
additional information. Please provide the following information so that we may continue to
review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Please submit documentation that clearly details the NCDOT requirements that mandate
your re-design and subsequent increase in impacts.
2. Have the proposed impacts already been conducted at the sites where you have proposed
changes?
3. Please clarify whether sufficient stream mitigation is available for the new impacts.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] /Internet: htto~//h2o enr state.nc.us/ncwetlands
N °ehCarolina
~atura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/] 0% Post Consumer Paper

Newland Communities
Page 2 of 2
September 18, 2007
Please submit this information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter. If we do not
receive this requested information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter, your project
will be withdrawn and you will need to reapply with a new application and a new fee.
This letter only addresses. the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands,
waters or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application
are not authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian
McMillan at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions regarding or would lik~ set up a meeting
to discuss this matter.
Since y,
yndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
CBK/ijm
cc: Lauren Cobb, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
DLR, Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Nicole Thomson, S&EC, P.A., 11010 Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, 27614
Elaine Chiosso, Haw River Assembly. P.O. Box 187, Bynum, NC 27228
William Sommers, 1067 Fearrington Post, Pittsboro, NC 27312
Filename: 050732 Ver6Bria rCha pel(Ch a tham)O n_Hold

Sandt, Chris
From: Reuben E. Blakley, PE [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:01 AM
To: Dickie, Richard
Cc: Justin Bullock (E-mail); Sanchez, Mike; Sandt, Chris; Vance, Tommy
Subject: Re: Briar Chapel--Encroachments and Side Slopes
Attachments: Card for Reuben E. Blakley, PE
Richard,
If the irrigation lines will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association that will be fine to run longitudinally
in the ROW. We will not allow privately maintained lines from individual homeowners in the ROW except for
perpendicular crossings.
As far as the 1.5:1 we would discourage any slope less than 2:1 for reasons explained in an email from Tommy
Cozart below:
"1.5 :1 fill slopes are generally considered to
be undesirable. We would prefer that fill slopes be 2:1 or
flatter. Our primary concerns are safety, slope stability and
slope maintenance. Through the years the Department has
experienced many problems relative to earth embankments with
1.5:1 slopes. The problems include erosion, slope sloughing, and
catastrophic slope failure. The slopes are neither traversal
nor recoverable. The steep slopes will normally require
g,uu-drail to protect the motoring public. The guardrail will
require expensive maintenance for impact repair and normal wear.
The necessary vegetative cover on a 1.5:1 slope is difficult and
expensive to adequately maintain. Sloasghing can result in
expensive long term maintenance issues and environmental concerns
clue to sedimentation. Slope fuilarres are very expensive to
stabilise, and tlaey often result in road clostcres which
negatively impact the safety and convenience of the motoring
public. The stabilization of slope failures will usually inti~olve
remedial measures for which the Department is nat equipped to
build or maintain. The slope reinforcement often necessary to
assure stability may inhibit the Department`s abilit~~ to install
and maintain roadway features such as guardrail posts, sign
posts, vegetation, etc. There are many reasons why NCDOT does
riot consider 1.5:1 embankment slopes to be desirable.
The Department should only consider the use of embankment slopes
steeper than 2:1 in cases where no other feasible alternative
exists and only in cases where it would be in the best interest
of NCDOT and the motoring public. Generally, developers consider
LS:1 slopes to be desirable at culvert sites because they are
attempting to ovoid stream impacts that would require them to
submit application for an individual environmental permit in lieu
of a "Nationwide" permit. The process required to obtain the
individual permit is much more rigor°oz-,s and tune consuming.
NCDC) I R~~C.r l Ot~1
C?F 1.5 = i Fl~L
SLaPEs Atrt~NG
'~ ~ i L~~''` I~~ADV~ AY ~

IVCDOT has a Cong history of being sensitive to environmental
concerns. However, accepting developer constructed roads for
maintenance with short culverts and 1.5:1 slopes only shifts
environmental responsibility from the developer to NCDOT. When
the short culvert or steep slope fails or requires maintenance,
the Department will be responsible for fixing it. Often the most
straightfortivard solution from the perspective of the Department
will be to lengthen the culvert and flatten the slope. To do
t12at the Department will more than likely be required to obtain
the very permit the developer was trying to avoid. Obviously,
this would not be in the best interest of NCDOT or tlae public.
The engineers in the Central Office and in many of the Districts
Dave been attempting for many years to consistently require that
de~~elopers construct safe roads which the Department can
maintain utilizing ottr ordinary equipment and procedures.
Drainage strttetures should have adequate length to accommodate
stable slopes that can be readily maintained by the Department.
From that perspective, 1.5:1 slopes are obviously undesirable."
Thanks
Rcuben
"Dickie, Richard" wrote:
Reuben/Justin,
When Reuben and I spoke earlier today, relative to my emailed questions from Tuesday, I think I
was not clear about the nature of the "irrigation" lines I mentioned, These are the private lines
carrying the treated wastewater from the wastewater treatment plant for dispersal to the spray
fields located within the project. As such, their function is pretty much the same as any other
wastewater foxce main. These will be owner and maintained by the same group (the developer,
then the HOA} that will own and operate the gravity mains, the onsite pump stations, the force
mains and the wastewater treatment facility.
As I spoke of them earlier, you may have thought that I was speaking about landscape irrigation
lines. That is not what they are.
Given that, it has been our understanding That they would be allowed to encroach longitudinally
within the NCDOT R/W, just as other mains (gravity and farce) are. Would that be correct?
One other item, regarding the side slopes for the collector roadways: in Phase 2, the bulk of the
collector has been designed under the "Hilly" classification. Under that design catagory, side
slopes as steep as 1.5:1 are allowed. Can you confirm that this? We may have some sections in
Phase 2 (and possibly 3) where culverts have been installed, complete with headwalls. Their
lengths were established in large part by restrictions of the Individual Permit issued by the Corps
of Engineers, in concert with DWQ. If we find that we are unable to provide an $' shoulder and
2:1 slopes at these culverts, would you accept 8' shoulders with 1.5:1 slopes?
Thanks,

Sandt, Chris
Fram: Sanchez, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 4:19 PM
To: 'Bachl, Carolyn'
Cc: '[e-mail]'; 'Sean Clark (E-mail)'; Moore, Jon; 't_evitas, Steve ;
Sandt, Chris; '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: Briar Chapel -Proposed Comment Responses
Attachments: Re: Briar Chapel -Cross Culverts
Cathy -one more comment, please double check the wetland impact area shown in the CCEC comment a.). The area is
listed as 1.2 acres of wetland impact but we believe that that number should be closer to 1.06 acres. Please double
check that and the stream impact numbers with Sean Clark.
Also, in regard to our response regarding NC DOT's rejection of the proposed bottomless arch culverts, please note that
in addition to that we proposed custom retaining walls that would have been tall and close to the road and thereby would
have minimized the extent of grading and the length of the stream impacted by the crossings. Again, NC DOT rejected
that proposal based on their limited budget to maintain such structures and stated that they wanted us to use their
standard NC DOT headwalls, which extend out the grading and thereby impact a longer stretch of stream but shortens the
headwalls. The rejection letter from their hydraulics unit is contained in the attached email which clearly spells out how
they want the crossings designed.
Thanks.
Mike
_ _
From; Sanchez, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:16 PM
To: 'Bachl, Carolyn'
Cc: [e-mail]; Sean Clark (E-mail); Moore, Jon; Levitas, Steve; Sandt, Chris;
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: Briar Chapel -Proposed Comment Responses
Carolyn -Attached is a version of the draft comment response letter with our c
Changes function turned an so you can see our comments highlighted.
Mike
From: Bachl, Carolyn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:58 AM
To: Sanchez, Mike; [e-mail]; Moore, Jon; Levitas,
[e-mail]; Sean Clark (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Briar Chapel -Proposed Comment Responses
The attachment tha# was missing from the last email can be found below.

O~ ~RC~ C~L~I~R~'S
-----Original Message-----
From: Bachl, Carolyn
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:55 AM
To: PE Michael 1. E. Sanchez (E-mail); '[e-mail]`; '[e-mail]'; Levitas,
Steve; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; Sean Clark (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Briar Chapel -Proposed Comment Responses
Attached is a draft with some changes to the draft I sent out in redlines. I've highlighted the areas where we still have
questions and need your input. This letter is due to Todd on Friday, Dec. 9, so please help us fill in the holes by noon
tomorrow.

Comment: Fearrington Village residents are still concerned regarding Briar Chapel's overall
development, especially in the still rather substantial number of stream crossings and environmental
disruptions. We urge the Corps together with the DWQ to reduce these crossings as much as possible,
relying more on bridge crossings where feasible.
Response: Newland Carnrnunifies init!alty proposed three bottomless arch
culvert crossings that would have spanned the streams in arcter fo minirnlze the
environmental impact to the streams anct vreflands vrifhin the develaprnent. In
addition, Newland Communities is seeking approval for a bridge crossing over
Pokeberry Creek that will span that creek. The arch culvert crossings were
included in a preliminary submittal to North Carolina Department of Transpartation
(NC DQT) in mid-tV3ay 2005. Had these arch culvert crossings been approved, they
would have been installed at significantly higher refafive cost to Newland
Communities than standard culverts, which are allowable. However, based upc,n
NC DOT's rejection of these crossing types following their review of tha
preliminary construction drawings submitted to them, the bottomless arch cuh~erts
have since been replaced with standard culverts. NC DOT rejected the boftonile ~s
arch culverts since they claim that their current restricted operational budyef
status does not enable them to assume maintenance respons!bilities for structures
that are not required irr order to meet hydraulic engineering requirements. !n uthrr
words, since the arch culverts are not required fo pass the stormvrater design flos~v,
NC DOT would prefer to !rave a standard culvert be irrstatled ihaf meefs the
engineering design rriteria,
While Newland has not received a written rejection fetter
from NC DOT yet for the arch culverts, personnel from the
Raleigfr-based Hydraulics Unit at NC DOT provided a verbal
rejection of the proposed arc!r culverts during a fe/eplrann
conference call on May 16, 2D05. Furthermore, NC DOT
personnel made it clear that they have an established
precedence for rejecting arch culverts as evidenced by the
attached documents, which are official rejection letters
issued far other projects.
«2005-77-29 - NC DDT Arch Culvert Reject r' etters.pdt5>
CCEC
Comment: We fully endorse that the recommended conditions to the 4040 Army Corps Permit, as
outlined in Mr. William Sommers' letter of September 7, 2005 from the Fearrington Homeowners
Association. We sincerely hope you will add them to the conditions of the 404 permit.
Response: See response above to Fearrington NOA corrrnrerrts.
Comment: Furthermore, we also endorse the proposed conditions recommended by the Haw River
Assembly in their September 22, 2005 letter for the NCDWQ Section 401 Permit.
lesponse: See response below to the Naw P,iver ~sserrrbly comments.
Haw River Assembly

NOV-29-2005 08 51 NCDOT 919 250 4108 P.01~04
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HYDRAULICS UNfT
~ NvarH
~~~
FACSIMlLIE TRANSMCTTAL COVER SHEET'
DATE: ~!/•C 9 ~~ -`~
~"~ of ~~~
'~ ASS CN cu cv~RT'
f~ E3E CT ~ ON ~ E`1'~' c R
CFRaM 51M1i.nR PRo3~tT~
Please deliver the following pa/g~?es to: C\
Name: ( ~r : '~ ~,,_. a~.~
---,-
This facsimilie is being sent by:
Name: ~ •~ - ~ a
Fax Number Cail~d:
REMARKS:

(F YOU ©O NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLPARLY, CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSfBLE
©ur Telephone Number is: (919) 250 - 4100 Our FAX No. is: (919) 250 - ~ 1 D8
PLEASE COUNT PAGES, (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) TOTAL NUM81wR
PAGES

NQV-29-2x05 05:51 NCDOT
S7
DEp.AR'I'r
919 250 4105 P.02i04
PO8t-It° Fax Note 7671 Dater q O ve°eEs~ ~
!
To G ~ -•Y Q ~
U From
~ ~
CoJDapt. Co.
Phone b Phone H
Fate M Fsx y
MICHAEL F. EASt.EY •- T
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 20, 2002
COUNTY: Franklin
MEMORAND'U11~I TO: Mr. S. G. Capps, P.E
District Ingineer
FROM: R. A. Boyd, P.E. Q...A~S
Regional Hydraulics Engineer
SL1BrF.CT: Drainage Review of Faur Wetland Crossings along
Peninsula Drive in the proposed Ballytnoxe Plantation
Subdivision located off of SR-1127 (Pocotnoke Rd.)

As you requested by letter on October 31, 2002, a review of the subject sites have
been made and the following is offered.
During phone conversation with the Design ]/ngineer on November 21, 2002, he
reported the bottomless strictures were required by DWQ at all four sites because the
developer had used all available wetland mitigation for site development.
It is the finding of this review that approval of Proposed Low Profile Arch
Culverts on footings to minimize wetland impacts will preclude the Department from
utilising less expensive pipe crossings when future replacement of strictures is required
due to deterioration. This will result in unwarranted excessive future cost for
maintenance of the highway facility.
It is recommended that adequately sized pipes be installed beneath the proposed
highway facility to meet current NCDOT minimum design criteria for secondary roads.
It is further recommended that any wetland mitigation required for private commercial
development be located off proposed NCDOT rights of way.
If ft.trther assistance can be provided please contact this offee.
RAB/sr
Cc: Mr. ,I, G. Natzce, P.E,
Mr. R. E. Green, P.E.
M1IAILING ApDRESS:
NG hEPAR7tAENTOPTR0.NSPOkTHrfUav
~'tY6RAlILIC$ UNI f
1 J9t) M1fgIL $ERHI[E CENTER
F2aLEtc++NC 27699•t594
TcLEPr{pNE: 019.2':0.41 DO
FAk 9Tg•2Sp~108
WE85fTE; 1NVtN/,DON.DOT.STATE.IvC.US
LOCAT1oN:
CgNTURY C&NTER COMPLpx
BUtLOtNC 6
1 U.0 B RCM RIDGE aRltr6
R~tlElGtf NC

NOV-25-21305 0°~52 NCDOT
•,
ni
~, ` ~. ~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~
STATE Ol± NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART~2ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November I5, 2005
COL}NTY: Alamance
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. G.N. Edwards, PE
District Engineer
FROM: J. L. Lindsey, PE,
Hydraulics Man er f aintenance Studies
515 250 4108 P.03i04
Ir ` ;:
.`, .
'~ ,
.... "
u~
L'xt~n0 TipP>;'rr
$ECRPTARY
SUBJECT; Drainage Review for Proposed Bottomless Culvert
Autumn Trace Subdivision off NC 11 ~
Pursuant to your request by letter of November 4, 2005, an office review of the proposed
Bottorrzless Culvert has been made.
Design calculations submitted indicate that 2 @ 66" RCP would be sufficient, but
specified a 20' X 5.5' Arch Pipe would be used. The plans submitted specify the use of a
22' X 6' 4"Bottomless Culvert. During conversation with the design engineer it was
discovered that a 22' X 6' 11" Aluminum Structural Plate Arch on footings is proposed.
A double line of 66" pipe with headwall would be the desirable structure at this site to
meet current Division of I~ighways rninimurn desiz~able design criteria. The proposed
.~lurninum Arch on footings would also meet minimum design criteria with regard to
hydraulic capacity. However, the following items must be addressed before the structure
would be considered appropriate at this site.
Structures 20 feet wide or greaten' are classified as inventory sire structures by
Bridge lVlaintenance and require biannual inspections. Structures less than 20 feet
are classified as non-inventory size and only xequire periodic inspections. Therefore,
it is desirable that the width of the proposed structure be reduced to Less than 20 feet.
The footings must be founded an NON-SCULTRABLIJ xcOCK that is relatively
close to the natural surface. The provided geotechnical information is from test pits
excavated with a track hoe and indicate refusal at depths of 3.5', 9.0', 3.0' and 4.0'
below existing ground elevations. It is questionable if the 9.0' depth to refusal
would be considered a shallow footing. It is recon~rrlended that NCDOT
MAILING ADDRESS: 7ELEVXOkE: 918.250-4i0U t,OCgTiON:
NC AEPAFtIMENT QF TRANSAL1ftTATioM FAX; 819.250-4908 CENTU0.Y CENTER COMPLEX
HYORAU6~C8 UMR Bu,tnlrrG B
1o5.90 (Jy,16 SERVlC& CEI'I(ER WEB$1?'e: Wih~V/.OOF~ 1~07.$TATE. NG, US 1020 BIRCH WDGE DR~YE
In~~QH NC 27889-959b RALEILiH NC

NOU-29-20l~5 08 52 NCDOT 919 253 4108 P.04i04
Pb. 2 (Autumn Trace)
Geotechnical Unit review the submitted information for determination of the
existence of non-scourable rock and the appropriateness of a bottomless structure on
footings at this site.
• Initial conversation with the design engineer indicated that a steel structure was
being proposed. He was advised that steel structures on footings require the top of
footing to be placed a minimum of 1.0' above the ordinary high water elevation.
This requirement is waived for Aluminum or concrete structures,
The proposed structure length must be long enough to accommodate the proposed
roadway typical section and 2:l f 11 slopes from shoulder point to top of the drainage
structure (not top of headwall),
By copy of this memo I am fonuarding the submitted plans and information to Mr. I~Iilesh
Surti, PE, with our Geotechnical Unit, and requesting a geotechnical review. I am asking
that Mr, Surti provide comments directly to your office,
If further assistaztcc can be provided, please eoiztaet this office.
JLL
cc: J. M. Mills, PE
Nilesh Surti, Pl;, with attachments
T~TA~ P.04

Sandt, Chris
From: Jerry L. Lindsey, P.E. [e-mail]]
Sen#: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:59 AM
To: Sandt, Chris
Cc: Moore, Jon; Dickie, Richard; Damon C. Webb (E-mail); David Weeks (E-mail); Tommy
Cozart, PE; Gary Rhodes; Randy Boyd, P.E.; D. R. Henderson, PE; Roger E. D'Jernes
Subject: Re: Briar Chapel -Cross Culverts
Attachments: Card for Jerry L. Lindsey, P.E.
You are correct that retaining walls are not permitted as pipe end treatment.
Pipes shall be extended to accommodate 2:1 fill slopes from shoulder point to top of pipe if headwall is
provided. If flared end sections or projected pipe is used, the length of pipe must accommodate the 2:1 fill
slope fi•om shoulder point to invert of pipe.
Pipes should be sized in accordance with NCDOT Division of Highways "Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design".
Standard headwalls/wing walls with footings are recommended by the NCDOT Encroachment Unit per
Hydraulics Unit Recommendations.
Headwalls are used on the upstream end of pipes 36" and above.
Culverts 3b" and larger may have manufactured flared end sections at the downstream end (provided pipe is
extended to accommodate fill slope as noted above).
Culverts 30" and smaller may have manufactured flared end sections at the downstream end (provided pipe is
extended to accommodate fill slope as noted above).
Jerry Lindsey
"Sandt, Chris" wrote:
Jerry:Thank you for taking time to speak with us yesterday i
the proposed Briar Chapel Development in Chatham County
we understand to be the cross culvert requirements for RNV:
confirm and/or correct fhe following statements for our recor
allowed as head walls for cross drainage structures-pipe
slopes from shoulder point to top of pipe-standard NCDOT Y
recommended by the NCDOT Encroachment Unit-culverts 3
headwalls/wing walls at upstream end-culverts 36" and large
culverts 24"and smaller may have flares at upstream end ai
your assistance. We are hoping to make future project reviE
Christopher J. Sandt, E.I.
Engineering DesignerTHE JOHN R. McADAMS C~_
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
919-361-5000 RTP, NC Office
704-527-0800 Charlotte, NC Office
sancltlc~;j ohitrmcadams.com
~_ ~ ~ r~ ~.~' E_C ~ 10 !~y
~ ~' R ET~a r ~~. ~ n~c`; ~,r,JR~t,.~
AS C U ~V ~ ~~- ~N
1 R t=p i M ErttT S,

Sandt, Chris
From: Sanchez, Mike
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 8:34 AM
To: Bruce Goodwin; Jeff A Scouten; Ed Timoney
Cc: Moore, Jon; Sandt, Chris
Subject: FW: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: Briar Chapel -Headwall /Endwall Question]]
We need to discuss this at today's meeting if time permits...most likely after we're done with the spray irrigation coor
involving Mark. If we can't get to this on today's agenda, we should follow-up early next week.
From: Farzin Asefnia [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:53 PM
To: Sanchez, Mike
Cc: Reuben E. Blakley, PE; Justin E. Bullock; Tommy Cozart, PE; Gary Rhodes
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: Briar Chapel -Headwall /Endwall Question]]
If you are adding another barrel, naturally, the headwall can be extended laterally. In that case your plans
should show what sections of the existing headwall should be removed and the where the location of new
dowels will be.
Under no circurnstatnces the vertical extension of the headwall is allowed. The culverts must be extended long
enough for the headwalls to remain at 1 foot height with a 2:1 side slop coming to back of the headwall.
Although I understand the permiting issues are frustrating and has to be initiated long enough ahead of any
work, it should not be interpreted that what the permit application indicates will be acceptable to NCDOT. As
for the TND requirements, you have me in disadvantage. I am not sure who you had your meeting with, but
since it appears that DOT will be responsible for these structures, the culvert and the side slope must comply by
these regulations due to the future maintenance of culvert and the side slopes by our Bridge Maintenance Unit
Personnel.
If there are any issues in this regard, please go through Mr. Gary Rhodes for all of us to have a meeting so we
can address all your concerns.
Regards,
Farzin
"Sanchez, Mike" wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
In regard to the summary conclusions you provided, am I underst
? The headwalls / endwalls can be extended laterally (i.e.,
and scour study and structural plans for these extensions
approval along with documentation showing the permitter
N C ~o~T' ~~~'~c r~ ors
aF v>=~zT~ cAL ENOV~A L~
~ XTE~! Sl ON S
and
? While the standard pre-cast vertical headwall dimensions
extend the headwalls vertically via doweling as long as N
calculations attesting to the adequacy of the Bowling syst
Finally, in regard to your comment about permitted impacts, plea;
application tried to accommodate the planned design of the road
an extended period of time for the review and approval process, we had to submit our piannea cro5sn iys
nearly iwo years before the construction drawings were even initiated. During the period between the
Individual Permit application submittal and the completion of the construction drawings, the actual

r EXISTING ER05';:\ CURRENT TEMPORARY
-~ - CONTRO',. MEAS.;Rh 5 CHANNEL IMPACT (TYP
J,_ (,.Y~,,} (2007-10-05)
(~;
~ ~ ~i~` .,/~ • ,, JUNE 2007 ~111C1L~. -~-
~,
~ /^~ ~ `i3 LL RI?+2AP PI_:,NGf ~ 3~~~
\ ~` COOL (C_ASS 2 RIPRAP} 1 '~,
~~ , - ~~
\\\~ \ --- LIMITS OF GRADING ~ ~I
\ ,`F~ r .~' -,fir.
~ ~ ~,
~~/ ~ CROSS-VANE
1 '^/
' ~ ~If: nDwnLf.
FAQ{-. :- ~,,' ~~ STRUCTURE
. .
~, ~~~t,M ITTED,
j.
"' ; F - '
~ ~ CURRENT PERMANENT '~x~
,.%
~ ~~" '.~ 4`• ~ CHANNEL IMPACT ,~~~/
~~
~ •',~- f (2007-10-05}
~\ { i ~ _ •~
l~
~~~
\ ~~~r //
~ C ~ / /' /f // /~
~' , . ~ /
~ -~
/r
N
Q
~o~
\ '.
r
/f
LIMITS OF ~ S~ ~
GRADING -~ A
O
LI~ADWA
QP~P Q f~
~~ ,~~,
Q~ q~ ~J C ~ ~, ~
Q`
"~F~ c
~ \
STRUCTURE -- ""~ ~ `:~,~:~''r ~) ~
_7
ti
_ ;
~ '{~~ ~~~
a
o ~ ~~
~ 'MPORTAN` °CRCN\IAL ~~y `'
',~ S"RAM C~~ANNEL ~~
~' '~~, ~~, ,~.~ 35 ~~
" 3
~' '~, ~2 ~
2 ~ ~~
~~ ~
U !~
_ ~~
~ 1 i' j
v '~ ; ~ • - ~ _..._ JUN"E 20 7 "fill O
~
~
~ ~ ~ _~
\
~
E
0
U ~ \
~
~ GRAYEIIC SCAI~1~:
0 2C C 'C 2C
N
w 1 inch - 20 r~.
4
`-° AUTHORIZED IMPACTS (ACTION ID ~ 200121252) IMPACT MODIFICATIONS (REC'D. BY pWQ 2007-06-07) REVISED MODIFICATION REQUEST X2007-10-05)*
IMPACT
2263 SF
NE
234 LF
1893 SF
EL IMPACT
197 lF ~
PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=155 LE, 1537 SF PERMANENT CHAN
L
=
, ~
,
PERMANENT CHANN o
(3) 94 LF 96" RCP (PIPES BURIED t.o') (3) 129 LF 96" CMP (PIPES BURIED 1.0') TEMPORARY CHANNEL IMPACT~41 L,F, 332 SF
" ~
~ 54 LF RIP RAP APRON 39 LF RIP RAP APRON CAP
(2) 112.5 LF 48
~ (1) 112.5 LF 14'-8" SPAN X 9'-8" RISE PIPE ARCH '.~
0
a
(CENTER PIPE BURIED 1.0')
-y,
~
~ 53 LF RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL
~ a1 _~

J V c~~ *CULVERTS NOT YET CONSTRUCTED ~
O
3
~~",~~~"`"`' "' vEw-o3coo
,
",
`° :~p~~ `~ x,151,
~ c~ BRIAR CHAPEL
t TIIL JOTiN H. McAllAMS
®COMPA'~'Y
I\iC
~
^
c.,.~~:~: F..;>,vG o
j
`
~
~ ~ ~ .
,
'

i

1 ~ CROSSING SECTION-F
~'
'
~' ~~ G
' Id!I~HItS/til1JtYF:Y0H9
~~.~t:1~F.F.RS/1
RFSF.ARfll TR[ANf`.LF. PARK, NC
'
'
' '

"'`!`` , ~ i)
70O / J ~
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
`';--, ~,
~• t
. U, t10X 14005
LIT
L77U9-4005
[phone]
'~ ~
y
~ ~~

~ 1 ~ x.70 _____ `'` ~ ~ ~ ~ /
-- `~ / / /
~ -- - - - = /
' _ _._ ~ /
~ ~ -' ~ r
~" /
~ - ~ ~~ -' /
~ _ ~
_ LIMITS OF ~
GRADING / ~ / / /
-~ ~ / I ~
JUNE 200 \ ~ , -- ~ ~0 _ _ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 1
- _ ~ A;~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I I I,
a ~ ~ -' _~~ _ y~ ~
~~ i
~~ ~\, 443.b5 ' ~ ESP ~;. '... `,
r
~ ~-
'' ~~ - ~
EDGE 3 ~ ~ '`^~~ , -~
~' ~~~` CONTROL MEAS.UORCS
HEADWALL.` ~:_ , t,
~STRUCTURi: ~, ,`
'~ `,, _ ,Fz~-~ - t1: JUNE 2QD~-MOD.
,~ ~~E 6 6 , ` y 1` _ -
~ ~ / „l rip `$ ` WE NDS
PERM LTTE ~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~ °~. a RUDCTURE
LIMITS. OF \\ ~ ~ 44~ --- _- - _
v GRADING ~ ~ - `' \ 17 1 ggp
~ ~ 43 .00 , ,,< ,7•
~ \ --- , , `~~~ 60C P
,~ r
~ ~ WETLANDS '~~ ~` ~` 1 ;~L RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL
(TYP.) ,,y .~.:
. ,r~~:~1
CURRENT PERMANENT ~ ~ CURRENT TEMPORARY
I WETLANDS IMPACT _ .CHANNEL IMPACT (TYP.)
` (2007-10-05) - ~ ~ \ ~ ~. (2007-10-05)
~ ~• ~ ~, .~ ~ ~ ~ V
CURRENT PERMANENT ~ ~`~~~, ~ ~, ~~ ~.
CHANNEL IMPACT ~~.
(2007-10-05) -
IMPORIAN` ='~PENNIAI_ -
SIr~~AM C!~ANNFL -- -
\ \ ~~ ~~O
~~ c`'-
~ \` J'~
GRAPHIC SCALE
c o zc ~+c ao
1 inch - 40 ft.
T ~D IMPACTS (ACTION ID #l 2001212521. - - REVISED MODIFICATION REQUEST (2007-10-05~
PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=238 LF, 827 SF PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=302 LF, 964 SF PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=271 LF, 886 SF
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT=130 SF PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT=415 SF TEMPORARY CHANNEL IMPACT=26 LF, 75 SF
186 LF 54" RCP (PIPE BURIED 1.0') 225 LF 60" CAP (PIPE BURIED 1.0') PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT=415 SF
35 LF RIP RAP APRON 17 LF RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL 225 LF 60" CAP (PIPE BURIED 1.0')
17 LF RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL
*CULVERT PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED (14PPROX. 210 LF OF CHANNEL IMPACTED)
rrc~,.n:c-r vo' NEW-0300 ~~~ ~~' ~~/; ,
r~rr.F;t:AVt ~~n~ O ~ R f I IIL JOAN K. McADAMS
Cwver: .G.:>N!G .o, ~~L ~ 1J CHAPEL COMPANY, INC.
~"~j ~ E\GINFERS/PLANNHRS/SURVKYORS
r ,,r.r: ~ ~'~.~• ~ o ~ CROSSING SECTION-G
- ~ • - ~~ ~~ `~P O ~ RRSEARCR TRIANGLE PARK, NC
J u.+n: ~~tpci , !~~'~ CHAI~IAM COI.TNTY. NORTH CAROLINA P.o. nox coos ZIP 2'7799-4005
'C-0`.r- J007 ~•,i:. (9w) ael-soon

\ ~ --. /~
\ ~ ~,(/
~ _..~-
,\ ~,~
JUNE 2007111FO.p....`~
_. c
-- -- c
Yd
a
v,
N
8
N
N
a
_1 ~~ ~ JF
\ \~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ SF ~~
~ ~ ~, ~ ~ 1
~,1 ` ~ ~
~; ~~
1 ~, ~
~~
.~:
r-''~
LIMITS OF
\LL GRADING
URE (TYP.)
EXISTING EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES
(TYP.)
~- PERMITTED- _,___
-- RIR RAP UI.UNGE !'OOL
~~ ~ _ JUNE 2007 MOD.
GLJVG
CURRENT TEMPORARY
r ' \ ` ` `~~ CHANNEL IMPACT ~
' `~ (2007-10-05) I
~. 1
"' IMPORTAN' PERENNIAL. ~ i A
STREAM CHANNEL ~I ~ ~ ~
~1
r '~ ~ `, ~ 11\ ~
G 12APf l IC SC ALIT,
~O o is {~~ sc
- 1 inch - 30 fL.
At~T_HORIZED IMPACTS (ACTION 10 !~ 20012125?_1 IMPA T M DIFICATION RE Y W - - REVISED MODIFICATION REQUEST (2007-10-05)*
~.' ~ ` ,
PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT-166 LF, 995 SF PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=279 LF, 1552 SF PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=262 LF, 1462 SF
(2} 111 LF 84" RCP (PIPES BURIED 1.0') (2) 157 LF 84" CAP (PIPES BURIED 1.0') TEMPORARY CHANNEL IMPACT=50 LF, 217 SF
45 LF RIP RAP APRON 44 LF RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL (2) 157 LF 84" CAP (PIPES BURIED 1.0')
44 LF RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL
*CULVERTS NOT YET CONSTRUCTED
~
- ~•a,,.ircr ~~w-o.scgo
Fiii,auF Crlver; F-.L` ~ 4~~ "~~~•
BF:IAR CHAPEL
~f}~
F
`~ I'IIL JOl1N R. McADAMS
~ C~MPA~V'Y, INC.
. ~
~
~
~ ,~ F:SCINi:ERS/PIANNP.R3/SURVF.'YORS
,' 1 F
~ ~~_,i0' i '
- ~ ~y ~{' l t)
R
SI
N
C
O
S
G
SECTION-
H
O
~
\
\
V
41
~ RF.SF.AR(:il TRTANGLE PARK, Nf.
.f la~ft.~
' O OJ 7OO / ~
v
•~
t
~f
~
•
n.
e.v
T
~~A
O
5'
V
'
~ i][11 i]L11Y1 C~U1~1 i. NO}~~ ~R~i.aa~u-a
,
~CZ~ iP.. Q, ~~x Y.U. HUX 14U0~ ZU' 177UB-4U06
(919) 381-M1000
'~ ~
9~
.y

a

M
N
S
~/
O
i '~~SF
~ i ,,Y i -
l~ ~
~~~ ~ -
d
-- _ - 1~1MITS 0~~~ -
GRADING
JUNE;-2OQ7 MOt~,
1788
EDGE
PLUNGE 'OOL -~"~~}
1789 +.
EDGE
' .~~
iJ
~, CURREN
'~ CHANNE
P E f~ VI~~TT,E~ (2007-, 005,
L--~IN~,RUIPTFN' s~TREAM~
`• l/
'" / CHANNF=_
/ /
i y~, . _ i
1
!i
f~
/ ','
~'
/i
~r ~~'f~
1~ `I
i~ ~ ,
y 1--
I
,,,~
I
/~
~'
i

,.
~E~ ~ ,
,.: --
., -
-; , -
l- .
19 WETLANDS
.-
EXISTI;~G EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES
(TYI'•)
JUNE 2001 MOD.
-~A ~I;TTE D
~~
sr ~ ~
f! //// J
/ ~/ ~ ~ /
GRtLPHIC SCALE
3C 0 15 30 b0
1 inch - 30 ft.
I ~0 IMPACTS_ ACTION ID
01.21252 IMPA T M IFICATIO S W 007-06-07 REVISED MODIFICATION REQUEST (2007-10-05),*
PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=91 LF, 272 SF PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=91 LF, 273 SF PERMANENT CHANNEL IMPACT=83 LF, 250 SF
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT=13.07 SF PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT=297 SF TEMPORARY CHANNEL IMPACT=31 LF, 93 SF
67 LF 48" RCP (PIPE BURIED 0.8'} 69 LF 54" CAP (PIPE BURIED 1.0') PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT=95 SF
27 LF RIP RAP APRON 15 LF RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT=851 SF
69 LF 54" CAP (PIPE BURIED 1.0')
15 LF RIP RAP PLUNGE POOL
*CULVERT AND ENDWALLS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN
ri„~.ir,rr vo, 'vEW-03000
fu.t:nsw'' C~Iver1,_LOWG
:CACr`
~
~
. I
-3U
n:~rc <0 -05._2007
~%~ v~
o~, ~~ ~~~
?~,~~ ~ G
o'~. a~ ~
,>
i
BRIAR CHAPEL
`, CROSSING SECTION-I
~~ CHAT!-1AM COiJN'iY, NORTfi CAROLINA
i
/A
I'IIL JOAN IZ. McADAMS
COMPANY, INC.
F.NCIN~ERS/PLANN!!It5/SURVEYORS
RF.SF.ARCA TRUNCLF, PARK, NC
t~.n. eox uoaa ztr 277tlfl-4W6
(9I9) :lBi-5000
`,~ ~
~~=
_~--1
~15f ~'__ SF `` I ~ ~ ~
_ _. 1 ` '
1 0
~ }
_ _ ', ~" ,
srRUCruRE "`~`~' -. `~~ ~'
~`' -_