20151326 Ver 1_401 Application_20151215

Kimley»)Horn
4
December 28, 2015
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Nationwide Permit 39 Application — West Pettigrew Street Parking Deck
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer and Ms. Higgins:
20151326
On behalf of our client, Wexford Chesterfield Parking, LLC, Kimley-Horn is submitting the attached
application for authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39 for the above referenced project in
Durham County. Wexford Chesterfield Parking, LLC is proposing to construct the West Pettigrew
Street Parking Deck project within an area of mostly paved lots, abandoned residential lots, and a
building material storage property between a NC Railroad Company corridor and NC 147. The 4.2 -acre
project area (Site) is situated in an area that was previously residential but is now largely
commerciaUndustrial in nature adjacent of the NC 147 corridor through Durham. The Site is bounded by S
Gregson Street to the east, the railroad to the north, NC147 to the west, and Burch Avenue the south.
There are two abandoned residential structures on the Site with small areas of disturbed v &M AaM
Land use in the vicinity of the site consists of a mix of high density residential housing, co !�aA
�
shopping, and industrial development.
2 q 2015
The proposed project would construct a 5 -level (ground plus 4 elevated levels) concrete p ure,
containing 716 total parking spaces. Eighteen of these spaces are accessible to accomm daTER RESOUR(
accessibleparking requirements of the parking deck and Site. The overall parking structu FFER PERmlrn
approximately 47' 0" measured from ground level to the finished floor of Level P5. The height from the
ground level to the first elevated level is anticipated to be a minimum of 12'6" in order to provide a
minimum clearance of 8'2" to allow for ADA Van accessibility and to consider any retail space
requirements. Above this, the typical floor -to -floor height is anticipated to be 11' 6" in order to provide a
minimum clearance of 8'0".
The single jurisdictional feature within the Site is an intermittent stormwater-driven channel (S1) that
drains to Ellerbe Creek after draining through thousands of feet of stormwater drainage pipe network.
S1 was evaluated in the field and found to be severely degraded. The watershed upstream of the Site
primarily consists of NC 147 drainage and the substrate within S1 was found to be primarily brick,
rock, and asphalt with glass, trash, and debris fragments throughout the stream channel substrate.
Water quality was heavily degraded as well, with the stream channel observed to be choked with
919 677 2000

Kimley»)Horn
Page 2
algae growth, murky/cloudy water, and a thick sheen throughout the stream reach. The banks were
failing along the stream reach, and multiple sections of culvert were lying in the streambed at the
downstream end of the property due to erosion undermining the culvert inlet over time. S1 is piped
well above and below the Site, and S1 is a brief 159 LF reach of daylighted stormwater drainage
channel. S1 would be placed into a pipe as a result of the proposed construction. Using the NC
Stream Assessment Method version 2 (NCSAM), S1 is a low quality, size 1, intermittent piedmont
stream. S1 scores out as an 18 on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Because of
the severely degraded nature of S1, and the low quality designations supported by NCSAM and the
USACE stream worksheet, no mitigation is proposed for the 159 LF of impact that would result from
the proposed construction.
Stream S1 is likely a man-made stormwater ditch that experiences periods of high flow due to the
developed nature of the watershed and the extensive stormwater drainage system upstream of the
Site, but S1 is not shown on the most recent USGS Topographic Map or the NRCS Soil Survey of
Durham County. S1 is therefore not subject to riparian buffer rules. No protected riparian buffers will
be impacted by the proposed project.
To assist in your review of this NWP application, the following information has been included:
• PCN Application Form
• Signed Agent Authorization Forms
• Vicinity Map .
• USGS Topographic Map
• Jurisdictional Features Map
• USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Map
• Durham County Property Parcels Map
• Impacts Map
• Stream Data Forms, including NCSAM Assessment of Stream S1
• Plan Sheets
• NCDWR 401 Application Fee of $570
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this NWP application,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-678-4155 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jason Hartshorn
Environmental Analyst
Cc: Bernie Craig, Wexford Chesterfield Parking, LLC
Adam Cochran, Kimley-Horn

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification PC Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
ib.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification— Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
®No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
West Pettigrew Street Parking Deck
2b.
County:
Durham
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Durham
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Wexford Chesterfield Parking, LLC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
N/A
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Bernie F. Craig, Wexford Science and Technology
3d.
Street address:
1090 King George Post Road; Suite 604
3e.
City, state, zip:
Edison, NJ 08837
3f.
Telephone no.:
732-738-4595
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
® Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
AgentlConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Jason Hartshor
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley-Horn
5c.
Street address:
PO Box 33068
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-678-4155
5f.
Fax no.:
919-667-4155
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
See attached property parcel map and table
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.998882 Longitude: - 78.911236
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c.
Property size:
4.2 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Ellerbe Creek
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV, NSW
2c.
River basin:
Neuse
3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site currently consists of mostly paved parking lots and storage open storage of building materials. The Site is
situated in an area that was previously residential but is now largely commercial/industrial in nature. A railroad line runs
northeast of the Site, and NC 147 runs along the southwestern boundary. There are two abandoned structures on site
along with small areas of forested natural areas. Land use in the vicinity of the site consists of a mix of high density
residential housing, commercial shopping, and industrial development.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.0 acres of wetlands
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
159 linear feet of intermittent stream (S1)
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed projects intends to provide parking to serve the nearby Chesterfield Building and to accommodate a future
office building on site.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project intends to construct surface parking along with a 5 level parking structure on site. The proposed
structure is a 5 -level (ground plus 4 elevated levels), concrete parking structure, containing 716 total parking spaces. 18
of these spaces are accessible to accommodate total accessible parking requirements of the parking deck and Site. The
overall parking structure height is approximately 47'-0" measured from ground level to the finished floor of Level P5. The
height from the ground level to the first elevated level is anticipated to be a minimum of 12'-6" in order to provide a
minimum clearance of 8'-2" to allow for ADA Van accessibility and to consider retail space requirements. (This ground
floor height will vary due to the slope of the ground floor.) Above this, the typical Floor -to -floor height is anticipated to be
11'-6" in order to provide a minimum clearance of 8'-0". Typical roadway and structure construction equipment will be
used, including cranes, track hoes, back hoes, graders, dump trucks, bulldozers, concrete pump trucks, and pavers.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property 1
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
El Yes El No ®Unknown
Comments: A preliminary jurisdictional determination request
is being submitted concurrently with this PCN application for
a NWP 39.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑Preliminary ❑Final
of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn
Name (if known): Jason Hartshorn
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
n/a
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
n/a
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain.
The project will be constructed as a single and complete project.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number—
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
WS E] P E] T
El Yes
El Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0
2h. Comments: No wetland impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Pipe
UT to Ellerbe
❑ PER
® Corps
5
159
Creek
® INT
❑ DWQ
S2 E] P El T
❑ PER
[-]Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 E] P ❑ T
E] PER
El Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
[-IPER
L] Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
183
3i. Comments: Stream S1, a UT to Ellerbe Creek, will be piped within the project area for 159 feet. S1 is a linear, channelized,
stormwater feature that briefly daylights between a large stormwater pipe system leading from NC 147 to Ellerbe Creek. S1
receives periods of high flow following rain events but the substrate is primarly rack and brick from nearby railroad and
abandoned partially demolished residential lots. The stream is heavily degraded and much of the substrate is broken glass,
trash, and other debris. S1 exits the Site via a failed culvert crossing. Multiple sections are laying in the stream channel with
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

stream flow continuing around the failed culvert crossings, eroding into stream banks and causing bank failures due to high
flow storm events.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑PEI T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
0
4g. Comments: No open water impacts will result from the proposed construction.
S. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: n/a
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no: n/a
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
n/a
5k. Method of construction:
n/a
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
® Neuse ❑Tar -Pamlico E] Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number—
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact
required?
131 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
0
0
6i. Comments: Stream S1 is not shown on the most recent USGS topographic map or NRCS Soil Survey for Durham County
and is not subject to riparian buffer rules. No impacts to protected riparian buffers will result from the proposed project.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project location was carefully selected to utilize as much upland or previously developed area as practical within
a larger developed area of Durham. The proposed parking deck will pipe Stream S1 through the project area, however Stream
S1 is heavily degraded and piped for a significant length above and below the project area. Piping the remaining daylighted
channel will ensure that the trash, debris, glass, and remnant building materials do not continue to discharge into the stream
system leading to Ellerbe Creek. The pipe will also be properly sized to convey storm events without further erosion,
preventing further downstream sedimentation impacts resulting from the failed culvert crossing at the downstream end of the
property.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Due to the careful site selection within a larger upland and previously developed area of Durham, the majority of the
construction will occur in uplands and non -jurisdictional areas. Impacts to streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers offsite in the
project vicinity will be avoided and minimized throughout the construction process by locating staging and construction access
in existing developed areas, uplands, and road corridors where practical. Silt fencing will be installed around the permitted
limits of distrubance to ensure all equipment is located within the project corridor at all times. Stormwater Control Measures
will be used to reduce stormwater impacts to receiving waters and minimze runoff from the construction sites.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. Ifyes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: n/a
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type n/a
Quantity n/a
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3c. Comments: No mitigation is proposed for the project due to the low quaily, heavily degraded, and intermittent nature of the
stream feature within the Site. Using the NC Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM), Stream S1 is a low quality stream
feature. Using the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, S1 rates as a very low quality stream with a score of 18.
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
n/a linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
n/a square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
n/a acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
n/a acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
n/a acres
41h. Comments: n/a
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
n/a
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ®No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
0
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
n/a
6h. Comments: Stream S1 is not shown on the most recent USGS Topographic Map or the NRCS Soil Survey map for
Durham County and is not subject to riparian buffer rules.
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Ib.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ®No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
62.95%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: n/a
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Stormwater from the Site will be collected by curb/gutter and drop inlets throughout the Site and directed to a stormwater
detention and treatment facility located in the northwest corner of the Site. Treated stormwater will discharge to the
drainage system through the Site before exiting the Site in existing culverts beneath West Pettigrew Street.
® Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Durham
® Phase II
31b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
® NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
® Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments: n/a
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered `yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
n/a
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed project will provide parking to address existing development and growth within this area
of Durham, and is
not anticipated to result in future impacts to this currently developed commerical/industrial area.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The proposed project will not generate wasterwater.
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a.
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b.
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Database (updated October 2015), no known
occurrences of any federally threatened or endangered species occur within the project area or within 1.0 mile of the
project limits. Suitable habitat is not present within the project area for smooth coneflower or Michawes sumac.
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a.
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ®No
6b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper (Accessed August 11, 2015)
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a.
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service (Accessed August 11, 2015),
there are numerous National Register and Study List historic structures and district boundaries within 1.0 mile of the site
boundary. However, the site is not within a historic district and there are no National Register or Study List structures
within the site boundary. The proposed parking deck will not be constructed higher than 5 levels to an approximate height
of 47' as measured from ground level to the finished floor of level P5. The project is also adjacent to NC 147 and a
railroad crossing, both of which are significantly elevated above the ground surface of the project area. Therefore, no
impacts to historic properties or districts are anticipated.
B. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Be.
Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b.
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: N/A
8c.
What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Panel 3720082100K.
Jason Hartshorn
12/28/2015
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: C cszk&
Address: locio K%NG C�fnae.E ?tery-wD Sung foo4 -Gbisc' , -3 o603i+
Phone: (- 3 '*38-4595
Project Name/Description: W. Pettigrew Street Parking Deck
Date:
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Eric Alsmever
Field Office: Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
Wexford Chesterfield MT, LLC hereby designates and authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to
act in my/our behalf as my/our agent solely for the purpose of processing Jurisdictional Determinations,
Section 404 permits/Section 401 Water Quality Certifications applications, and Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Determinations, and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of
applications, etc. from this day forward until successful completion of the permitting process or
revocation by the owner.
In addition, I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Authorized this the ZloA- day of av! 54 2015
Qe�/l0 r"V/ F 4& Z-1:ft A
Print Property O er's Name I Property Owner's Signatur
Cc: Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650

Lqi
Legend MW
Project Location
Ing
Ra Project Area
City of Durham
Durham County eetl
Kentucky Virginia CASWELLI PERSON
VANCE
GRANVILLE
Tennessee
North a ORANGE FRANKLIN
Carolina - I JDURHAM
1 Project Location
South
Carolina WAKE
Georgia Atlantic Ocean CHATHAM
0 40 80 0 6 12
Miles le JOHNSTON
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Kimle>»Horn West Pettigrew Street Deck
Y Durham, Durham County
December 2015

lie
Bm
is , ,; �..� .�.. �% � , • ..
,
v Ir High �Al
r
AVE
iPEL. «
r ST
00
Legend r
Feet
r Project Area 0 500 1,000
Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map
(Southwest Durham Quad, 1987)
Kimley>>> Horn West Pettigrew Street Deck
Durham, Durham County
December 2015

Hydric Soils Table
Symbol
I Map Unit Name
Hydric Soil
Ur
Urban land
No
WWC
lWhite Store -Urban land complex (0-100/D slopes)
No
r
e1
t
tL
111 111 711 111 • �N �` a�
1' 0 ' WwC ,
i4 •• \ Ak
f •�
`^rwC
{ WwE ; \.
Legend / Feet
J Project Area ('� " 0 500 1,000
Figure 4: NRCS Soil Survey Map
Kimley >> Horn West
County, 197 Petti rew Street Deck
Durham, Durham County
December 2015

ri
Legend
Durham County Parcels
Project Area
r A
"'M1
`Js'
1 m W
1 C• W 1 v
Feet
0 250 500
Figure 5: Durham County Property Parcels Map
Kimle >»Horn Nowell Road Project
Y Raleigh, Wake County
December 2015

West Pettigrew Street
Parking Deck - Property Owner Table
MAP ID
PARCELID
PIN
OWNER NAME
OWNER ADDRESS
OWNER CITY
OWNER STATE
OWNERZIP
1
103333
0821-07-68-1706
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MD
21201
2
103332
0821-07-68-0703
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MD
21201
4
103311
0821-07-68-0546
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING DEC
601 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MO
31201
5
103310
0821-07-68-1555
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
NO
21201
6
103309
0821-07-68-2516
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MD
21201
7
103308
0821-07-68-2587
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MD
21201
8
215183
0821-06-68-6632
NC RAILROAD COMPANY
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD STE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604-1000
8
218529
0821-07-59-8270
NC
RAILROAD COMPANY
2809 HIGHWOODS BLVD STE 100
RALEIGH
NC
27604-1000
9
211382
0821-07-68-3543
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MD
21201
10
103306
0821-07-68-4434
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MD
21201
31
103305
0821-07-68-4321
WEXFORD
CHESTERFIELD PARKING LLC
801 W BALTIMORE ST STE 505
BALTIMORE
MD
21201

am '
.,
�' � nl -`\ y / .l dJr F� p.' 09 . fF CS? ...• r
Site 1
\.� ^ 159 LF Stream Impact ,
(Intermittent)
4.
4 <
'-
\r
i
�l
Legend RT
— -- -
T*
398'1-
*'%.f Stream Impact _
LJc
Project Area
Feet
0 50 100 ' #24
I�-Pr Er -..93.00
I k.- = JAS DMH �1Y4)
— vv pUr - )9:•.69
Figure 6: Impact Map
Kimle»> Horn West Pettigrew Street Deck
Y Durham, Durham County
December 2015

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Feature S1
Date: 5/15/2015
Geomorphology Subtotal = 13
Project/Site:
West Pettigrew
Street Deck (Sl)
Latitude:
35.999014
Evaluator: J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Hom)
County:
Durham
Longitude:
-78.911686
Total Points:
25.5
Stream Dete ' ' circle one)
Other
Southwest
Stream is at least intermittent
1
Ephemer ntermltten
erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
Durham
if i 19 or perennial if a 30
1
-
2
3
1
4.
A.
Geomorphology Subtotal = 13
Absent
Weak
Moderate
.Strong
g
„Score
1a.
Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3_
2.
Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
poolse uence
0
1
-
2
3
1
4.
Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2'
5.
Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6.
Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1 2 1
3
2..-.
7.
Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8.
Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0'
9.
Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10.
Natural valley0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
11.
Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 9.5
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3.
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
11
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1i
16.
Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5_
17.
Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5
Yes = 3
1.5
3
C. Biology Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
_.__0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0-
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0,
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.
Wd plants in streambed
26. etlan
CW
FA = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream S1 is a stormwater channel that is a brief daylighted feature
in a larger piped system. S1 appears to receive periods of high flow during rain
events. The substrate is primarily rock and brick from nearby railroad and
is heavilv dearaded and incised.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 4QF
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Wexford Science and Technology 2. Evaluator's name: J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Horn)
3. Date of evaluation: 05/05/2015 4. Time of evaluation: 12:00 pm
5. Name of stream: Feature S1 6. River basin: Neuse
7. Approximate drainage area: 45 acres 8. Stream order; First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 180 linear feet lo. County: Durham
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Latitude(ex. 34.972312): 35.999014 Longitude (ex. -77.5566n): -78.911686
Method location determined (circle):✓al`S❑✓ ropo Sheet rtho (Aerial) Photo/GISE]Dther GIS[:]Dther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
The reach is located iust west of Conyers Avenue and south of Wilkerson Avenue
14. Proposed channel work (if any):1v/t+
15. Recent weather conditions: Mostly sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from the high 40s to the low 80s (F) and no min within 72 hours of site visit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny with temps in the low 80s(F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: FISection 10 Tidal Waters DEssential Fisheries Habitat
nTrout Waters-00utstanding Resource Waters ,,Nutrient Sensitive Waters ELWater Supply Watershed.. IV (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _%Residential 50 % Commercial 50%Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 3-5' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 0171at (0 to 2%) -ZGende (2 to 4%) Omoderate (4 to 10%) ,❑.Steep (>100/.)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 0Occasional bends ,QFrequent meander DVery sinuous nBraided 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): 18
class, trash, and other debris mixed in. The stream is heavily degraded and incised.
Evaluator's Signature YQ/'e "' aya� Date 05/05/2015
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.

Feature Sl
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGTON PONT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE"`
Coastal
PiedmontMounkain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream _-
._
0-5
-
0-4
-
0.5
2
_ no flow:or saturation - 0' strongflow =_:max. pmts
2
Evidence of past human alteration,
0-6
0-5
0=5'`
0
extensive alteration=b;no,alteration =max points)_
3
Pjparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
_
no buffer=.0;,contiguous, wide buffer.-- maxpoints),,
4
Evidence of nutrient or -chemic al discharges
V
O -:S
0-4 ..,:
'
0=4
1
"
exterisive.dischar es0; nodischaz es='.max-points),
.
5
Groundwater.discharge -
0-3
0-4`
-
0-4
1
no discharge = 0 s sees wetlands etc. = maxpoints).
_
6
f
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 -4
0-2
0
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain =max oints
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4s
0-2,.
0
(deeply entrenched''=0;& entfloodin --max oints
8
Presence of adjaceutwetlands
0-6
0-4
0'-2
0
no"wetlands=0•r eadjacentwetlands=max points)
9 °
Channel sinuosity
0-5
_ _.
0 4
_
0-3
0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints
10
Sedimentinput
0.-5
0,-4
0-4
1
extensived bsition=0;littleornosediment=max points)-
11
Size. & diversity ofchannel bed'substrate °
_
-
6-4'
-
0 - 5
1
fin- homogenous = 0- large; diverse sizes= max points)NA*
12
'Evidence (if channel incision or widening
0-5
0-A
0-5
0
>4.
(deeply incised- O;stable bed & banks -:mez pines
_
-
13
Presence of majorbank failures
0 -5
0
0-5
N14_
-
severe erosion = 0• no erosion,stable banks - max points)
-
- P
Root depth and dense on banks
0-3
0 4
0-5
z
Fy
-
no_visible roots .,0�dense roots throughout =maxoints
__
rn
15
Impactby agriculture, livestock, or timber prodactiou
0;=
-
0-4
G-5
j substantial impact s; no. evidence = max pints
5
„
1
16
Presence of riffle-poolld pie -pool complexes;
0-3
0-5
0-•6
1
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = maxomts
_
F
17
Habitat complexity - _
0- 6 _
- 0-6
0=6 °
1
little,or'no habitat ,= 0•.�fre uen - varied habitats = max. points),-
Pj
Canopy coverage over streambed
0- 5
0 5
0-5
18
no sfiadiri ve etahon_- P coutiiluous canopy= max pints
-
1
Substrateem-beddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4'
2
(deeply embedded 0; loose structure=max
-
-
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 41
0
20
no_evidence = 0' common numerous types = maxpoints)
0'-4
0-5
0-5
C7Presence
21
of amphibians
0-4
0 4'
0,_4
0
O
no evidence= 0; common, numerous types'= max omts
O
22
-
Presence of
0=4
-
0-4
_7
0-4
0
(no evidence =0•.common, numerouses=max outs
_.-
_ .
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 5
0 5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence -'max points)
ToWTointsPossible
100' °
X100' ° -
100'
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on fust page)
18
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
Stream Site Name West Pettigrew Street Parking Deck Date of Evaluation 5/5/2015
Stream Category Pbl Assessor Name/Organization J. Hartshorn (Kimley-Hom)
Notes of Field Assessment Form (YIN)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN)
YES
Additional stream infonnation/supplementary measurements included (YIN)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3)Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW