20071576 Ver 1_More Info Received_20080110

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
Transmittal
.~
~1
~/ ~ , ~ i Proj
~~~
~~.~~~ ~__,
1,,,(,G~,, ~~ _ t'
~_.
~ ~~% ~ .. ; File
We Transmit to you Herewith:
[~ Drawings
[~" Specifications
^ Brochures or photos
[~1( Correspondence
^ As per your request
ect #
ect Name:
7 ~~~ Date: ~ - %O - 0 ~
r-~
^ For your.information and files
^ For comment or approval
^ Returned for correction, resubmit
^ Approved as noted
Under Separate Cover:
^ By mail
^ By courier
^ ~ By express
No. Copies Document No. Date Description

..

Remarks:
If enclosures. are not as listed as above, kindly notify us at once.
~~ D;,
4°IETIA~IDS AND STt?RM1NA~ t~k'i3~ Cis
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] Phone:; [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax:. [phone]

Environmental Consultants, PA
;Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 Phone: [phone] Fax: (919) 84b-9467
www.SandEC.com
January 9, 2008
S&EC Project # 7352
t To: US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mr. Andrew Williams
' 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight /Express Permitting Unit
Attn: Mr. Ian McMillan
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
D1 ~~~~~~~
,4
.iP-~~ ~i ~ 2~0~
From: Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A. 1~ENR ~ t~,`alF.~c `a`~~`~' ~~
Attn: Bob Zarzecki talETi.ANDS ANO STORPRh:4TFk ~3~'Ar+('h
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: ALAMANCE WEST -ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
N.C. Division of Water Quality -Project No. 07-1576
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Action ID No. 2007-03073-201
Dear Mr. Williams and Mr. McMillan:
On behalf of the owner, Alamance Crossing, LLC, we are hereby providing additional
information in response to comments received during the Public Notice period, our meeting on
November 5, 2007, the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) letter dated November 8, 2007,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) letter dated December 6, 2007. This additional
information is an amendment to our existing Individual Permit application under review by both
the USAGE (Action ID No. 2007-03073-201) and DWQ (Project No. 07-1576) for the proposed
Alamance West project.
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] ~ Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Page 1 of 8

Alamance West -Individual Permit Janua 9 2008
ry ,
' Additional Information S&EC, PA 7352
PUBLIC NOTICE & NOVEMBER 5, 2007 MEETING
The USACE Public Notice was issued on October 3, 2007. The comment period for this
' Public Noticed expired on November 2, 2007. The USACE received written comments from the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) dated October 29, 2007 (see attached). Comments
were also submitted by a North Carolina citizen, Mr. Jim Marple, via email at 5:02 pm on the
' closing day of the comment period, November 2nd (see attached). No other written comments
were received as of the expiration of the comment period.
' An office meeting was held at S&EC, PA on November 5, 2007 to discuss comments
received during the Public Comment period as well as comments and concerns of the USACE
and DWQ. Those in attendance included; myself, Kevin Martin (S&EC, PA), Debbie Edwards
' (S&EC, PA), Jon Meshel (Alamance Crossing, LLC), Jeff Roach (Horvath & Associates), John
Schrum (Horvath & Associates), Andrew Williams (USACE), Sue Homewood (DWQ), Ian
McMillan (DWQ), Periann Russell (DWQ), Eric Kulz (DWQ), Joseph Gyamfi (DWQ), Tammy
Hill (DWQ), Rich Hayes (DWQ) and David Goodrich (DWQ). Mr. Williams provided the WRC
letter and copies were made and distributed. Mr. Williams did not yet have the email from Mr.
Marple at the time of the meeting.
A site meeting was conducted at the project area on November 5, 2007, immediately
following the office meeting at S&EC, PA. Those in attendance included; myself, Kevin Martin
(S&EC, PA), Debbie Edwards (S&EC, PA), Andrew Williams (USACE), Sue Homewood
' (DWQ), Ian McMillan (DWQ), Periann Russell (DWQ), Eric Kulz (DWQ), Joseph Gyamfi
(DWQ), Tammy Hill (DWQ), Rich Hayes (DWQ) and David Goodrich (DWQ). The DWQ staff
re-evaluated the stream calls made by Daryl Lamb (previously with the DWQ Winston-Salem
' Regional Office) on September 16, 2005. The DWQ staff determined that some sections of
stream "A" and "A-1" (as depicted on the attached impact maps) that were previously determined
to be intermittent by Mr. Lamb were in fact perennial and that additional stream mitigation would
1 be required if the proposed impacts are approved (see attached DWQ letter dated November 8,
2007).
The DWQ followed this meeting with a letter requesting additional information dated
November 8, 2007 (see attached).
The USACE sent a follow up letter dated December 6, 2007 asking for additional
' information. The USACE letter included three written comments. The first was the WRC letter
provided during the November 5th meeting. The second was the email from Mr. Marple that Mr.
Williams said he anticipated coming but had not yet received at the time of the November 5th
' meeting. The final letter was from the DWQ dated November 7, 2007. The applicant and S&EC
were not copied on the DWQ November 7th letter. S&EC received the first copy of this letter on
December 7th along with the USACE letter. S&EC has been in contact with the USACE
regarding our progress in developing this additional information on several occasions since
receiving the December 6`h letter.
Page 2 of 8

ry
' Alamance West -Individual Permit Janua 9, 2008
Additional Information S&EC, PA 7352
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DWQ November 8, 2007 Letter (attached):
The DWQ provided confirmation of their updated stream determinations made during the
November 5`b site meeting and requested revised site plans and stormwater management
' plans.
1. DWQ Stream Determinations
' As stated in the application Mr. Daryl Lamb of the DWQ Winston-Salem Regional
Office met with Mr. Kevin Martin of S&EC on site in September 2005 to evaluate the
' streams and determine which were intermittent (not requiring mitigation from the DWQ)
and perennial (requiring mitigation from the DWQ). DWQ conducted a follow up on-site
evaluation during the November 5, 2007 site meeting and determined that some sections
of the streams previously determined to be intermittent in 2005 are now perennial.
S&EC believes that the DWQ should remain consistent with their 2005 determinations.
However, the applicant has decided to proceed with the 2007 determinations so as not to
delay the review of their Individual Permit application. The applicant would like to
reserve their right to revisit this issue if necessary, depending on the continued review
and outcome of their application.
' 2. Revised Site Plans
Attached are the revised full size site plans at 1":50' that DWQ requested, including the
' updated stream determinations discussed in Item 1 above. These site plans and impact
maps will need to be revised depending upon the outcome of the newly proposed on-site
alternative provided in this response.
' 3. Stormwater Management Plans
Attached are the revised stormwater management plans that DWQ requested. The project
' engineer has met and discussed the attached plans with Annette Lucas (DWQ). Per their
conversations, it is understood that the attached Stormwater Management Plan will be
preliminary in nature given the uncertainties that exist. They include a grading plan and
' preliminary calculations along with the appropriate Water Quality Pond, Level Spreader
and Filter Strip worksheets. In addition to the preliminary Stormwater Management Plan,
attached are executed Operations and Maintenance Agreements, which will be subject to
' change if the Stormwater Management Plan is altered.
4. Stormwater Management Plan Approval
' A final Stormwater Management Plan will be provided prior to commencement of the
approved impacts to jurisdictional waters.
Page 3 of 8

Alamance West -Individual Permit January 9, 2008
' Additional Information S&EC, PA 7352
USACE December 6, 2007 Letter (attached):
' The USACE requested responses to three comment letters received either prior or shortly
after the close of the comment period; including the WRC October 29, 2007 letter, the
email from Mr. Jim Marple dated November 2, 2007, and the DWQ November 7, 2007
letter. In addition the USACE requested additional information regarding the off-site
alternatives analysis.
WRC October 29, 2007 Letter:
' The WRC provided six recommendations to the USACE. The USACE summarized these
into two items; cumulative impacts and permit conditions if approved.
1. Cumulative Impacts
The "cumulative impacts" addressed in the WRC letter and summarized in the USACE
' letter address concerns primarily with lost wildlife habitat on site and potential negative
downstream water quality impacts.
' a. Wildlife Habitat Consideration
The applicant has made every attempt to minimize impacts to wetland, streams
and riparian habitat on site while still maintaining a viable project and meeting
the project purpose as described in this letter and the original application
package. If the new "Alternative 1 -Revised Plan" (attached and discussed in
' the DWQ November 7, 20071etter section of this response) is accepted by the
USACE, then the applicant will maintain in a perpetual conservation area
protected under a legally binding restrictive covenant over 2.29 acres of
wetlands, 2,781 feet of streams, and including approximately 4 acres of riparian
' areas buffers on site. The configuration of these preserved resources is even
more important than their size. Prior to the submittal of the application, the
applicant had worked with S&EC to minimize impacts significantly from their
' original plans that proposed to essentially fill or otherwise impact all wetland and
streams on the property. The applicant revised their plans in such a way that they
were able to not only avoid this significant amount of resources but configure
' them such that they avoided the entire north-south riparian corridor along the east
side of the property, other than a necessary road crossing (previously two
crossings were proposed and requested by the City). This riparian corridor will
' allow for wildlife migration through the site.
b. Downstream Water Quality Impacts
' The applicant has proposed water quality ponds, level spreaders and filter strips
used in series and designed to the most recent version of the DWQ Stormwater
Best Management Practices Manual. The project engineer has worked diligently
with the DWQ in developing this plan. The final stormwater management plan

Page 4 of 8

Alamance West -Individual Permit
Additional Information
January 9, 2008
S&EC, PA 7352
will require DWQ approval. Flood hazards were addressed in the original
application, and are mitigated by the retention and detention of stormwater runoff
by the remaining preserved wetland and riparian areas and the proposed post-
construction stormwater devices. As such we do not anticipate any negative
downstream water quality or flooding impacts associated with stormwater runoff
from the site.
2. Recommended Permit Conditions
a. Buffers
The WRC requested 100 foot buffers along all retained perennial streams and 50
foot buffers along all retained intermittent streams. The DWQ currently does not
require any buffers in this watershed and surface water classification. However,
the applicant has proposed the protection of buffers and riparian areas along all
retained streams on the site. The configuration of the riparian buffer areas were
designed to provide the most water quality and wildlife benefits while still
meeting the project purpose. The widths of these riparian buffers vary, but are
typically no less than 30 feet, average approximately 50 feet and in some areas
exceed 100 feet on both sides of the streams. The largest preservation areas
exist at the two stream confluences, both near the northern and southern project
boundaries.
b. Bridges /Aquatic Life Passage
The proposed 75 feet of stream impact associated with the piped road crossing is
fora "local access street" required by the City of Burlington. The applicant is
responsible to install this crossing. The costs associated with installing a bridge
(including maintenance costs) is significantly higher that installing a piped
crossing for this local access street. As such apipe/culvert must be used to
maintain an economically viable project. As indicated in the original application
the pipe will be designed and installed as per the USACE Nationwide General
Conditions including burying the pipe below the streambed of the channel to
allow for the passage of aquatic organisms. This complies with the
recommendations provided within the WRC letter.
c. Stormwater Management
As stated previously in this response, the DWQ will approve a final stormwater
management plan for this project that will ensure that downstream water quality
standards will be maintained. The stormwater plan proposed incorporated
vegetated plantings that will help to provide the functions described in the WRC
letter.
d. Utility Impacts
An existing aerial sanitary sewer and utility crossing of the stream and wetlands
exists near the southern boundary of the project. There are no utility impacts
Page 5 of 8

Alamance West -Individual Permit
Additional Information
January 9, 2008
S&EC, PA 7352
(other than the possible stormwater connection described previously) proposed in
this application. No utilities (other than the existing crossing and the possible
stormwater connection) are proposed within the retained riparian areas that
would be placed into a perpetual conservation area.
e. Landscaping
The landscape plan for Alamance West has not yet been development. The
' applicant is not opposed to a special condition to be included in the permit that
prevents the use of invasive species and promotes the use of native species in the
landscaping of the project.
' f. Erosion & Sediment Control
As discussed in the original application, the City of Burlington Engineering
Department administers the erosion control program for this project. The project
will obtain an approved erosion control plan from the City and maintain the plan
through out construction. Having a locally delegated program will help ensure
compliance with the plan.
Jim Marple Email:
Mr. Marple provided the USACE an email dated November 2, 2007. Mr. Marple
advocates the use of stormwater management, specifically porous pavement (asphalt or
concrete), infiltration devices and Low Impact Development (LID) practices. As stated
previously, the stormwater management plan (including the use of water quality ponds,
level spreaders and filter strips) that will be approved by the DWQ will retain rain
water/stormwater and ensure for the protection of downstream water quality. Mr. Marple
most likely did not see the stormwater management plan proposed in the original
application (let alone the improved plan provided in this additional information) if he
only reviewed what was provided in the Public Notice. We believe that this plan
addresses his concerns and that the DWQ review and approval will ensure that adequate
stormwater management is achieved for this project.
DWQ November 7, 2007 Letter (attached):
1. Additional On-site Alternative
DWQ recommended to the USACE to request additional on-site alternatives from the
applicant that "strike a balance" between the preferred plan (Alternative 1) and the other
two alternative plans provided (Alternative 2 and 3). Attached is a forth alternative plan
labeled "Alternative 1 Revised" that we believe achieves this "balance". The plan avoids
approximately 267 additional feet of perennial stream and 0.4 acres of wetland impacts.
Ori final Plan Alternative 1 Revised Plan Avoidance
Stream ft 2,077 1,810 267
Wetland (ac) 1.75 1.35 0.4
Page 6 of 8

Alamance West -Individual Pernut January 9, 2008
Additional Information S&EC, PA 7352
The plan is conceptual in nature and while the applicant does not know for sure if it will
' meet their stated purpose at this time, they believe that it's possible that it could and as
such present it as additional information for your review. This new plan results in a loss
of approximately 19,691 sf of retail space. The applicant believes that this is the most
' avoidance that they can provide and maintain a viable project.
Please refer to the alternatives and proforma analysis provided in the original application
' for additional economic discussion. As stated in this analysis, the minimum acceptable
rate of return on an investment for a project of this nature is between 9 and 11%. The
original plan with 262,921 sf of retail had a return of 8.99%. This new plan resulting in
a reduction of 19,691 sf of retail space will obviously affect this already minimum
' acceptable rate of return.
Ori final Plan Alternative 1 Revised Plan Difference
Retail S ace (sf) 262,921 243,230 19,691
If this new "Alternative 1 Revised" plan is acceptable to you, then the applicant will
' provide you with updated site plans, impact maps, stormwater management plans,
conservation easements and EEP mitigation numbers to allow you to complete your
review and anticipated approval of this plan. Please let us know as soon as possible if
' this plan is acceptable, so that we may begin revising this detailed information.
Note: The plans show a connection across the stream drainage between two of the
' stormwater management ponds. This area was previously proposed to be impacted, but
under the new plan would be avoided other than this connection. The project engineer
originally believed that this connection was required and had located it in the location of
' the temporary stream crossing to avoid additional disturbance to riparian buffers. The
project engineer is evaluating the need for this connection and currently believes that it
may not be necessary as indicated in the attached preliminary stormwater management
plans. If this connection is not required then the temporary crossing will be restored as
' previously discussed with the USACE. If this connection is required, then the temporary
crossing will still be restored, however a possible aerial piped connection between the
ponds would be required. Further evaluation of this will occur if the new plan is
' determined to be acceptable.
Off-Site Alternative (attached):
The applicant has provided additional information regarding the analysis of off-site
' alternatives as requested by the USACE (see attached "Alamance West Off-site
Alternative Analysis").
' Page 7 of 8

' Alamance West -Individual Pernut January 9, 2008
Additional Information S&EC, PA 7352
CONCLUSION
' It is our understanding that this additional information will provide you all of the information
required for you to continue the review of this permit application, with the exception being the
updated site plans, impact maps, stormwater management plans, conservation
' easement/restrictive covenant and EEP mitigation numbers that will be provided pending the
review and acceptance of the new "Alternative 1 -Revised" plan. Please contact us if you
require any information beyond what has been provided in this response and let us know as soon
as possible whether the revised plan is acceptable so that we may proceed with finalizing the
required documents. We appreciate your review and comments.
' Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
ob Zarzecki,
' Environmental Specialist
' Attachments: DWQ November 8, 2007
Revised Site Plan & Impact Maps
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan -Revised 12/19/07
USACE December 6, 2007 Letter
WRC October 29, 2007 Letter
Jim Marple November 2, 2007 Email
DWQ November 7, 2007 Letter (attached)
Alternative 1 Revised Plan
Alamance West Off-site Alternative Analysis
' Page 8 of 8

..
~Q ~
=~ r
~ Y
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
November 8, 2007
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
' Mr. Jon Meschel
Alamance Crossing, LLC
800 South Street, Suite 395
Waltham, MA 02453
DWQ Project # 07-1576
Alamance County
NOV 14 2001
Sail G Enuhvnmental Consultants, PA
' Subject Property: Alamance Crossing
Ut to Back Creek [030603, I6-19-5, C, NSW]
' REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Meschel:
On September 18, 2007, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated
September 14, 2007 (with Public Notice issued by the USACE on October 3, 2007, and received
by the DWQ on October 4, 2007), to fill or otherwise impact 1.75 acres of 404/wetland and
2,077 linear feet of stream to construct the proposed commercial 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 1 SA 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. On November 5, 2007, DWQ personnel conducted. a site visit and performed
' intermittent/perennial stream determinations as discussed below. Based on the results of
these determinations and final accounting of the additional perennial stream length that
would be filled according to your submitted plans, the DWQ will require a new site plan
' and mitigation plan for your project. Please submit these items
' The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the stream features
labeled as "A" to "End A", and "A-1" to "End A-1"on the attached map, and initialed
by Ian McMillan on November 6, 2007, are perennial, and identified in the field by
. NonettiCarofina
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit ~<I~lil'Q~~lf
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
' 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] /Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

>, J ;
Alamance Crossing, LLC
Page 2 of 3
November 8, 2007
pink flagging. Please note that streams deemed to "important" at the site by the USACE
were determined to be perennial by the DWQ.
' The owner (or future owners) should notify the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this
decision in any future correspondences concerning this property. This on-site
determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or
Delegated Local Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer
' rule may request a determination by the Du'ector. A request for a determination by the
Director.shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndi Karoly, DWQ, 401
Oversight/Express Review Permitting, Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC
27604-2260. Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local
Authority that "exempts" surface water from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants
' are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected
party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ
recommends that. the applicant conduct this,ngtification in order to be certain that third
party appeals are made. in a timely manner: To ask for a hearing, send a written petition,
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
' determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
2. Please re-submit your site plans on full plan sheets at a scale of no smaller than 1 "=50',

1 and please include topographic contours on the plan sheets.
3. Because the City of Burlington has decided not to require a Stormwater management plan
for this project under its Phase II Stormwater Program, a Stormwater management plan
' for this project must be submitted to the DWQ 401 Oversight /Express Unit for review
and approval. Per the DWQ's Stormwater Management Plan Requirements for
Applicants other than NCDOT, the Stormwater management plan will have to meet the
' following requirements:
a. Removal of a minimum of 85% of TS S and 30% of total nitrogen and total
phosphorus.
' b. BMPs must be designed in accordance with the most recent version of the
NCDWQ Stormwater BMP Manual.
' c. ~ All Sormwater from the site must be ;treated by. an appropriate BMP.
must approve the Stormwater management plan in
4. The 401 Oversight/Express Unit
' .
writing before any impacts authorized in this certification occur. The approved
Stormwater management plan must be constructed and operational before any permanent
building or other structure is occupied at the site.

' Alamance Crossing, LLC
_ ,. ... ..
Page 3 of 3
November 8, 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 DWC~. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian
McMillan at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting
to discuss this matter.
Si cerely,
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor '
;: ~~ ;,~.-~ 401 0versight/Express Review Permitting Unit
CBK/ijm
Enclosures: Approximate Intermittent/Perennial Stream Determination/USGS Topographic Map
cc: Sue Homeward, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Andy Williams, USAGE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Bob Zarzecki, S&EC,.P.A., 11010 Raven`Ridge Road, Raleigh, NC 27614
Filename: 071576AIamanceWest(Alamance)On Hold

o~ - is ~ 1~
Alamance West Additional Perennial Stream Determinations
Approximate Locations -Site Visit 11 /5/07

ALAMANCE WEST
IMPACT MAPS
INTERSTATE 85/40, UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND GARDEN ROAD
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
DEVELOPER SITE DATA
ALAMANCE CROSSING, LLC TOTAL LAND AREA: 37.26 AC or 1,623,253 SF
c/o CBL 8. ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC_ ZONING: COMMERCIAL-MIXED USE
JON MESHEL PROPOSED USE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
800 SOUTH STREET SUITE 395 EXISTING USE: AGRICULTURAL & RESIDENTIAL
WALTHAM, MA 02453 RIVER BASIN: CAPE FEAR
[phone]
~ ~ ~ ~
HORVATH
• ASSOCIATES
• w+raACEU~ao,
'o`uwu~i rnewuxow•vnm
„~.,,,~
Q
w
3 '
o U
U N
. Z ~ °
. Q ~ Z
~ ,~ o
Q °~
Q
. m
• PROJECT
• COVER
• SHEET
FOU. Stz~
R.RNS
pRav~DED
• io
DW0.
rm.°~.;~,,,~ I
I I
I I
• I I
I I
er ..... BAR R
°"" oe/eoro~
• u. 11N/A
• ~~ O)3B
M~W ~
• . o/~

~~/~~~~~
i:;-,' ~S
'i~o~'
~~
,\
- - =~-=_~=~ H~~nt-+o
~- ayo .ls
~\ ~~'~, S~-~dw
`` \ ~,,
/.i ~
~ ~~ A a
~~ o
~' ~~
O~
C '~
Z~
D ~"
A
~ __ - ~,
oO~ ,~~OZZ
~
"
Z ,
~_.__-_._- _ opt-~
p n
. ~ ~ ; ~ >~ z~~~.,~- ~ ~-
,~ ~ ~~ ~~~
A W

CyD
y~Z
v
~Om
z
~ ? y
~~O
Z
D
(~ Z v
m
A
y
v
~~m
~
D
~m
l~1
~ m "
v '-
~
=c
~~
a ~~ ~q
- - - - ~
O A ~ "1] '~~, 44fi
~~ o ,\,
~" '~'~,
p=i2E
iZjp
II$
~ ~~, ,
~' q ~~~r~ ..~~~~! ~g\
~r ~ ~ ~~ U oOn
`~ J ~p p
1~ ~ \ ~ ~ d ~ ~ r~ _IC I / \~` 1
o l.~ / // // \ ~,
I ---- , ~ 1--- '~~ i '
~so ~ ~ ' ,a~i i
',
_~a o
IL ...... 1.... .. ......... U:........r%~ :..................
~~ ALAMANCE WEST 3 ~ ~~ n p '
I$5 & UNIVERSITY DRIVE ~ ~~ 3~~ > D
,~ BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 9 ~$& ~~~ H =

r~,~ % `, i ;i ' ' ; %~-S~~N=:- r- _ :~-' / ~ ~,' ~ _~~__` _ _ ' ~`~ J,' i '~ ',a ~--~: HORVATH
~`'„' ~
~';, 1 ~ `>\/ ;'~ ry~:eo`ZE'FB% h.rl° `. :. --f `=_ ~} 'iC? ! ' ~' ~ / ^~'t x~ ~ 1 'ff,^;~ r A 5 S O C 1 A T E S
a 11 _ r.; --:'-_~ _I%' .,%~1~ -- ~ 1~; #Y'/ ~, I I I I 'l ._-- - ~ _ - ~`t; ~ ,~11 1 i ~' `' 41 ~ ir`' i. ~un~mml
I' iYl' ---- -' ,' ;"~' ,~% Fem. 1 ~ _~ ~ t / ~ y ~ t1 -"- - _ % f `~ 1y [3~ ' _ ` 1, it no.»~a Foam
, rl 1 - r~~-J`~~ / "\ `\\`• 'I~:'/,,'i >U, X1''11'`•`\' _. -_-_" _ -O ~/. \1', `~~y'~, ' ` b
~' 'x;,11 ` -`i---'~= ~'; ~ >`~. ' _''`- ='. ',F~'~Q-J E~'~~. '; / '~ \,, ~`~;~~ SHE ~ (~14~ -~ ~ : `"'; fl ~'~` ~ ~ ~=-
,~~~u~ i=_:~-y..~r 1 `,, -_- _--- --" %,B,(7U1~(DrARII, , ,1 .~' \~~,1~` R IMP-~Q' ~'~~" •~~`_" ~`--:
'
. ,
P ~ Q -~ '
. ~-
U
',
, `
- -
_ ~_,~.
- - ', - U
I _ .,~; _
., ..
_
\~, __ .-- 1 ~ __--->.;--ice` ~..~.,.r'- _ :~i'l;/;,;,\%j _;i -- ~1' ~ :~ ~ '~,>!, '~_, (~_ --___~•.>_r Z > z
_
.-_ `, ,a
"-
.. _ ~ _
_' q
Q
i k
- - ..~
,~$ \\. -~'--' ;r '' ,/ ~ :. ,\ ` ~ '~ ~~ `\``~-," ~'1 f/ -- -~ ;111 - -- ,rb*, "~ - L r0
ZQ`'~la` ~ 'i, 1 ~/ IIIQQQ 1;'~YIY • .i` '1' - - !~ 1~ 1~ ~ y~ ~~L \J,~ ~ n. ~Q Z
~F1~` ~\\`. '~ _ \ / lF` ~ J /, ,~' ;.\ _ l ; - 1 ', ~ ~ --••_-_' I 1.J iii.. ~, ~ •- " ~ ! , ~F' ` ~` t-~Y- J ~
\ \ n~
~ . \.>~ lTi ``\ i /~ __ ,~.. `,` - '' ',111 ~ ~ ~;. ~p - ~ 1/ ~%,
''~ ~~„ !i ~r~~~ y~1 ~ Y,~ , % ~ ~l~ ~~ '-X ~ ~~ ~ i~ ~;~;,v . ~ ,, ~ ~i I 1111' 11; r , `~~ :==~ ~ ;~,til~~~~ l ::y-r~~~
,.',~ `cV ~yv,' ~ / ~~~" ~~. `~ ~ d , / ~ its ~~~, , ~~~~ ,~ ~ t jt1, ln-fca '~,~ -- -(Y'%°"a v --- .~f lY
a Y"r;, ,~~- ;g~~. !, - / ~ •'% ~ ! / -__ ~, ~ ~; 1 il~ 'i`1.,-~" ..>~ ,E",~-'~,~ ~''~,~~ OVERALL SITE
~ ~ 7a'~. ~ ~ , `r ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ /y = - MAP
~',v,~ ~s-'%c;P:cy~~~a., ~. `_ ~ ..-.i 11 `,f, ~ ; f-., ~ '' c~; ` . . `~'~',t ~~ ~~ ( ~I %;%%tI ~„'t1. ',`~ . ~T4 ~'', ~ ~' ~~:"~- rf,'~-,>-a
`.. _ ,
'~.~''~ - .~`'~-.--__. ';.% ~;. '/~•S~E'SHEETS`$;AN'D'y ;,`;?;,„`'~;' <ytit; ';,;;','i~~_;_ __~,~` -==--,';'' ;,"`. _ _,~~~~;;
_ -
, ` ~ -
., ,
._
~'- ,.
,` ,
._ ,
7 ' 1'
'' ~` `\.'\,~ `w~'~„<'~~~- __'__ . _ _ ''; ~ " ~ ORifMP~CGT~,AI~EAIy ,';, r, `4 `;t . ", , ~ ~,~: ~ ~,D\ `- '%_ :~. ~`~~^~:i:
.,
' '-. - -
.~ , __
11
~~ f '1 ~ - - - _ ---
' `\~.:. -" ':/.' - n i \~\;~a~~ _ ._ Via, ~ _ _ _ F,F` :'.tom-~ -. '.:: ~~_ __ :: !-'~1- __ = - . - _P"".= _ ---~ _ ~_ _
S.i ~ ill,; °'-' __ i~'u '~\;~ ~~ ~'' -_ - _ 8~.-~_~r-~gz _ = " :_ ;_ "-~:ir f~ ~~~- ~-'i~, ,~/~_ ;-` _
RSITY COMMONS- ~,k, ' Y .` ;I~, - - _~,~ -----'r _ _. --- -- - - --=='~"- = `" ,- -= - ._i; -
G%;';l fir, -" Ilbrro "Y~ -''I'r, :a „i,~i%' "~=->:,,;1,~.~ ~1=-=~=-" _. -_ ~_ ~ -v _ _,.>:.~-r.; ,'/ _'
R CONSTRUCTION) ,. , .3y °, !,~ , , ~,.` ~'N ~,,\,~;, i , `~~ ~: ~_ - - _ _""~=:, -= _ 6 R-=-"'. ~~~,.~ ,~. -~ •
ri'' 't ° ,~- j,\,I '-.. SlI~~R >;., ~--, -":~°----r ; __~ STAB a -" ::~-: __;_:-- ~"= - -------
i ~ : J,', ':T°x's.".>~ ~ e3;~:? , ~ . ,a' ~ ; / 1 . --_ G_' "'' ~_ ' , -_= c. c{~~ Tf~YE _ _:_'"' _- '-%"~' ~' _ _-~ ' ti_ '- _:-.:: ~-3"-
i i1i ~ .~~ ~S.\`\„i~ `pin • ~-'" "_. ~ _, -+="= ' _. ~~~~7. r ~~a: ^ - - -- _ I' `''~/ -- _ ,
r
~ ~i
~ / _
::~~~ '~~'~, _~~ ____-__ .~ CHNINEL JWETlAWS WE1lAND9
.'
/ ~ -~f~-`. :: ~__: ~- - ~" -_'~:_ t~' ~ 3\'~_;` ~_-~-- l/ MIPACi TYPE •
i + \\`
~ ~s i ,
~ 'lam"'"; -'Y~sv~~` ~~~~ ~ NO. CH ONL SF ONL S ONLY
~... _ - _ -
"- "" __ __
_ _ _ 3~~ ~~
et ..- -, -' _ l4%i= ~~' _ ~ _____ _ `,'"sFY4 ~r~~-~F-.._- cHWNEL 225 SF
s• • _
,.-
i ,~
- _ _' I" -_':.-" --~`~~`F.-~`(`',-'' r~_ __' -: )~:•'~ >~.~"-: `. '`. - less sF
. .
~' ;•' -
_ _ ___ _ _
' _ __"i-'_ __ -_= _- _ - : _ _ _ :_, ':;~.,, '-., ~ 1` ,- ~ ~•t~'-`-~ 'F, ____ ____ Ica." K5",i„~o,I=
_ _- -_ _ __._" _- _ --__= _ _ ==i= i ~~ t . / LIVNN0. +.e99 LF
],332 SF I I
`___ __ "_ __-_- _"__ _ : ~' F• ~ WEMIOS 1.BBAC 129 SF I I
__-__ ;-__. __-______---"-___ _ - _ _ = - ` __ .,{ ' / 19W LF )6.151 SF s19 9F •
__-___ ____ _ -_..~- '• ~_'•• •.._ .t ., i'~ F •F J ., TOTAL IMPACTS ].]]] SF 1.]H AC 0.009 AC • I I
.`~ 't'
tip: " f-• ~' \ y,,.,,:...,\,` ~ ",
• I I
a~D : Poauw n: lAR n
O6/30/0]
1'4200
. nu.v 0]36
0 100 200 ~• xn..
• 3017
scat: r. 200 •

/~
i ~ '
~ ~ \ ~ ~ 1 \
\
\ --~o~
d--
HORVATH
// ~ / ~. \
~ ROhIEC~ ~ ASSOCIATES

\ \ \ \ cwnE
/ ~ / ~ \ wauxps \ \ \ ~
\
~ ex
` p
'
\
/
/ O~ J
• \ ~ ~ \ \ ~
\ 1 1 \
~^M ~ ~ L N

~ ~ ~
cxuna
I
/ ~~~ ~ \ i
~ ~
d (~ ~ ~
PROPOSE /
~ '
~~XIS'~INO~
. \ / ,~ p
ALAMAN ~
~ \ 11~iLAlyIAN¢E
~ \ \ Z ? z
Q
Z
WEST ~ /
I ROS,SING\
I \
~ ~
~
~

\
I 1
~,
. ~ `
r g \
\
~
\ ~ Eg311NG .a
• ~ Z
Q
P \
i ~
~
\ DA~~ GRACE ~
~
,
R A ~ \

a , ;,
, ~
Q
,

/ , ~ .;
. {636)' ~ 1 1
l 1
QJECT .
1
1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~°.m yaw ~
~
0 .p
° p
b ~ IMPACT # 1
~
B UND RY
\\ ;
\\~ ,' 1
1
IMPACT # 1 PROFILE AND
SECOTONS
~
~
` ~
_ q J \
~ \
NOTE:
` \ ~ \ e\ CREEK CROSSING DETAILS OF THE PIPE INSTALLATION ARE scA<E
~,~ ~,
~
.
INCLUDED ON SHEET 7 OF 7 FOR IMPACT #I.
,
~~
M
JURIS. uNE~w
w~cr
N0. rrvE OuNNE1
CN ON wnuras
Sf ONL wErw~°s
SF ON
CHANNEL )S if ____ ____
225 Y
IMPACT AREA #1
^ wE<~N~ ____ 3.R~ =f ___
~
~ °.~. ,~
SCAIE I'• 50
•~. ,~~
~... ,~
. •~ ~,~~,
... uN~~
o~~
: ~~ 4
• 4of7

\\\ \~~\_ START` _ ~ // // /' /~ `~ `~ --- / / ( ~ ! • ~ ~I , \ \
EXISTING` ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ CHANNEL B-1 / / // // \(s 2j \ / /! ~ ~ \ ~ ~ll\ \\ \ ~
WETLAND \ \ \ - - €ND' - - / / / / _ ~ / / ~ \ ~ \ \ \ rn~.
~ \ J
\ ~ CHANNEL B-2~ / / ~s ~ \ \ ; ~ Q \ `•
,_---, /' /' // I ACT A'~EA #2~~ ' ~ ' , \ p, \
SQUARE F06f-~
Nos aRFa // ~ v v - / / / v v / REEK / ~ i I 1 V
/ ~ / I q I
// \\ ~-(s4a)-_-/ / ~ \ ~ / 1 l L,~; ndssoc~nres
/ ~ANM Gra ~~
/ / / ` ~(s<2)- ` / / / / \ \ \ \ ~ ~ /lA~'( / / / ~ ~ ~ 9~ II ' ~~~ \ -•~. moo, w rns.~ros9
/ ~s4 EXISTING i / / / ~ \ ~ ~ i I t\ \ ~-~ 1 \
- ~/ 1 i ~ WETLAND / // \ LINEARJNETLANO , ~ / / ' \ \ 1 \;
DWQ 1 I 2.888 SF) / / / \ \ \ / IMF)ACf / \ j \\ 11 IFS \
~ // i ~ ~ AREA #1 I ( '~ 1 1 \
TERM TTENT /
~HANN~L A \ I ~ ~ / I ~ ~ ~ (S~E SHEETp \ ~ ; 1 1 ~ : I j ~ O
~ EN` I ~ / I / \ ~ F R DETAILS) /~ ~ `
y~ ~ ~ \ EXISTING / / ! \ ~ ~" ~ 1 1 I ~ ~ Q
CHANNEL A I _ _ :IMPORTANT' / / \ / I ` \ ' 11 1 1 ~ 1 W ° _
_ t
~ PERENNIAL / \ \` _ , _(s3s)- ~ / I 1 1 1 1 ,~-„ ~
E~ISTING ~ \ \ CHATIN~L B-2 / / \ END ! ~ \ ~ ~ 1 1 6 \ U w O
1 "IMPORTANT" ~ 1 \ i / INTERMITTENT I \ • '(\ 1 \ ~ \' Z ? z
/ PERENNIAL \ ~ STAR~T/// i \ CHANNEL C ~ ~ \~ , ~ \ ~ Q ~ ~
Z /CHANNEL A \ \ ~ \ ' ~RENNIAL -~ ~ \ \ _ P ROJ ECR \ ~, ~~ t - ~
O / /\ START \ \ I \ CHANNEL B-2 /' ~~/ ~ \ EXISTING Q
- CHANNEL A \ ~ END \' \ \ \ END / ~~ WETLAND / , \ \ t\_ , ; Q ~
~ Z \ ~ \ CHANNEL A-1 1 I ` / CHANNEL A~ ~ (3,$73SSE~ \ I ~ 1\ \ ~ , ~ , • m
'~'O \~---DWQ~~~ ~ ~ \ I ( (65.3)-_~~ \ ; 1\ ~\ y ~,
,= V IATERMITTENT~ °o ~ - s3 EXISTING \ ~ ~ ',, \ '\E
W'p0 ~ - _ CHAf1NEL A ~` EXITING ~ \ / ~ ~ ~ "UNfAIIPORTANT'\ ~ ~ \\ `, \ \ t~ a IMPACT
- \ ~ \ \ JMPdRTANT' \\ - - / \ ~ INTERMITTENT \ ~ / I \ • ' \ \ ' ~\ • AREA #2
_ \ \ PERENNIA44 // ~ - ~ CHANNEL`C ~ / ~ / \ ^ ~ \ \~:
--- ~\ \CHANNELA-1 ~ / ` \ \ ~~-\ ~ \\ ~ f ~ \
~\ \\ \ \ ~ / \ I \ \ / / ( ~~ ~ \
\ \ \ CHANNEL A-1/ - \ ~ I 1 ~ ~` ~ ~ -START ~ / / \ ~ •
INTERMITTENT , / I \
\ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ / 1 I 1 11 "IMpORiAN // ~ CHANNEL C (szs)- - / \\
\ T
\ \ \ ~ l ~ \ ~ E)~. 15" R P 4 ,1 11 l PERENNIAL I I ,I i ~ BART ~ / I •I` ~
\ \ ~ EX.~AT~ 1 1 CHANNEL A',;,2 ~ ~ - - ' ~ ' \ `
~ ~ I 1 1 o I I ,~\ PEREf~ITAt;~ -~ i \\
C YC~R SSI 1 1 7 I CHANNEL A-2 -~
\~-~ / \\ \5'~LON~~ ~ 11 I 11 1 I ~ 1 1\ I~ ^~~\ :
I \ I ~,
auas. uNEAR
INPACT TYPE CHANNEL WERANO6 WEfLW05
NO. (LF ONLY) (SF ONLY] (SF ONLY)
CHANNEL A 91 LF ____ ____
OWO PERENNVL ~~ g
CHANNEL A 246 if ____ ____
DWO INR:RNRTEM 994 SF
CHANNEL A-1 57 LF ____ ____
228 3'
OIANNEL A-2 479 LF ____ ____
1,912 fiF
CHANNEL 9-1 ~p
2 SF
CHANNEL 9-2 424 LF ____ ____
1,696 SF
CHANNEL C 290 ~ ---- 429 SF
1,160 SF
WETLANDS ---- 72,508 SF ---
1 ~ 1 -' ~ EXISTING
°' -,;,- _~ - - L-- - - ~ - - - -,~ ~ - (sz4 CHANNELI-Z_=_ I
{ ~ I I ~ ~ ( ^
t I , \ 1 ~~ Existing ~ r
\ 11 I t\ \ \\ '(~ i \ 1 ~ ~ Detention ~~ ~ /~; , Ir~.S,,,,~1<
11 ~\ ~\ \\ \ \\ \'I \ \\ \\ \ \ ~asm~2 /• /~ / / I I
\ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ li /mil ~' I I
\\ ~urmn UR n
\\ \\\~\ ,~ 1\ \ \ \ ~ N , a `2 ~.s9 \\ lag \ Cr ~t~ ~ I~i l // l / ~, ae~aAr
TOTALS 1,888 Lf 72,SOfi SF 429 SF %' O1\\\ \ \ ( \ ~ . :n+.
~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Detention i i ( ~_ , / ~ \ ~ , t ; son

y ~ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ DEED~OOf~232.-PAGE53 ~ ~ / ~ ~~~ ~ • •/~// I /
i l l l - ~ ~ \ ~ ~ GPIN 3-26-5 ~ ~ / ~ l J I •
VIII ~1 I --_~ \7`IMPACTAREA~#.2 `~ `~ ,_ c ~• I
=< ~ ~ I /
ylt 'I ~~ nREEF I 1 \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y \ i / / / /
1
( )~~ ~ ~ ~t1ND-A-RY, i~ / 1 ~• TOy~yER `~ P~~p ~ EXISTIN~~ ~' / /~ // / I / :
I 7 ~ , ~ / ~ / ' • \ ~ "UNIMPORTANT"' - - - -~
/ ~l ~ ` , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ • • ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ \ ~ INT~RMITTENi ~/ / / / I
1 I ~
I ~ ~ /
/ ~ I It I '/// ~ QEjO EXISTING / ~ ~ ~~` ~ ~ \ 1 \ ~ ~ ~ / / / / // /l :
/~ ~ I • O ~ 114,615 SF) ~~ \ ~~ ~ / / /
I , ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ , _ CHANNEL B-1~ / / /
~ /
/ / ~ I ~/ ' ~ EXISTING ~ ~ ~ ~ END / // / •
} I ~ r WETLAND ~ ~ ~ - - -CH~4NN~L B-2 / / /
~ I, ~~ \ ~~/ / / /
~ ,
~- ~ -
r t~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ -~- 1,i:J SQUARE FOU ~ -~
V ~ I 1 i ° ~ ~ ~ _ - - ~ A ~,E=i nrvos aREa ,,
v V ~_ Puri (cFa.av_il~ /
~ /
II _ _ ~ /
i ' ~ - ~ , a~rLAan ~ ~ ~
I
t
o~
~i
\\
~5 \~
1 ~/ / / \ \ \ ~ \ \
~ \ \ \
1~/ * ~ / / ~ \ \ \I 1 1 \
/ 1 \ 1
~,1\,I
i ~`, , /1 I i / I I
I ~ I I I I
( ( / I
/ /
JVRIS. LINEAR
IMPACT TYPE CHANNEL WETLANDS WETlANpS
NO. (LF ONLY) (SF ONLY) (SF ONLY)
CHANNEL A 91 LF ____ ____
pW0 PERENNWL 164 SF
CHANNEL A 246 LF ____ ____
pW0 iNTERMRTENf 964 SF
CHANNEL A-1 S7 LF ____ ____
228 SF
CHANNEL A-2 478 LF ____ ____
1,912 SF
2 CHANNEL 6-1 15,0206 SF
CHANNEL B-2 424 LF
7,696 SF ____ ____
CHANNEL C 290 LF ____ 42g SF
1.160 SF
WETUNDS ---- 72,506 Si ----
TOTA15 l,tltltl LY r[,bub tl1 •[a ar

\ ~ DWQ 1
1
1
1. TERM~TTENT
~
0 1
1 HANN~L 1
I ST~RT I
~ CANNEL b
i
~
/ ~ ~EXISTIN~
I
/
~ ~ ~ "IMPORTANT''
/
/ PERENIJIAL
/ CHAW~NEL A

END
CHANNEL A -
/ /
EXISTING ~ ~ / / / :
~ ~ WETLAND `-" ~ / /
~ ('32;888 SF) / :
~ /
~ ` _ ~ ~. (644)._ ._ _ /
\~- XISTING •
aaD 0 25 50 1 W
SCAL£ 1'• SO
HORVATH
ASSOCIATE S
•"r~rnwrw .iironv~1
~;~
I-
w
j Q O
W ~ x
U N
Z ~ o
~ z
~ O
to C7
~ ~
Q ~
m
IMPACT
AREA #2
\ ~iRAPORTANT'
~ERENNIAL
NNEL B-2 ,
SEE SHEET 5
FOR CONTINUATION
• I I
• I I
• I I
• I I
~...
• ~' Ofi/]OAT7
• ~' 1'550
• "~~ W56
~~ 6
• 6017

~ HORVATH
• ASSOCIAi ES
• werucE aRR~
• dp~NDFRIGPgw'A]TIRI
• Pn no+Fv
RRE~R
PROPOSED • Q
RPE CROSSM • ~ Z
W
PROPOSED . ~ Q
' 3 '~
NEADwuL ~ U
I EzanNG
I CHANNELS : ~ ~ ~
PIPE CROSSING PIAN VEW TTMCALI • J W O
L ~
PROPOSED • C~ ~ Z
~RNRHED GRADE r~ ROAD : L ejj O
I ELEVATION ~ p~S
'r ?
• J -
Q ~
• m
_~ EwsnNG GRADE
i
~ ~ ~
~-
PROPOSEa ~ ~. EX_ONANNEI /
HEADwAU ~ - IMPACT #1
I/S REODI ~ ~ P~RSTP~PPE CREEK
- CROSSING
PROPOSm+ro DETAILS
RCP PPE CROSSING
rsuD sECnoN IIYPICALI
PROPOSED DEwL Is selowN wrm •
~ ROAD NFADWALL fRARED @U •
ELEVATION SECTION IS ACCtPUB1E
PER CITY OF RIRERlGfCN
STANDARDS •
PROPOSED STORM PROPOS®ROAD SECnOtI
PIPE CROSSINGS PER CITY Of BURUNGTCN •
STANDARDS ICURRAND
GU11ER AND IEAW DUTY
ASPIUL71.
E%ISTING GRADE •
EXIStRlG GRADE DIAAPATOR ~
FNISHED GRADFJ • ' I P~~s-11/.ro~ml K
INSTALL PIPE Y/IIHZI %. OR IrCP
CULVERT. BELOW GRPLEAT M'9(f INSTALL PIPE wl1111o %. OR 1rOF • I I
OF EXEi11NG CHVdB CULVERT. BELOW GRADEAT RN9lf
OF E%LSIING CINEOB_ RNISH® GRADE I I
• I I
STORM CROSSING PROFILE TDPICUI I I
~ ~ r n ~ n.
• ert RR/3o/Dl
• v y N/A
IMPACT #1 CREEK CROSSING DETAILS ~°"°
7
• ~DP~
E%ISTING `
CHANNFL~~ `
I \V\I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
G I I I
~;

ALAMAN~E WEST
PRELIMINARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 404/401 Individual Permit
Alamance West
I_S2S/~(1 Q I Ir,i~iorci~v f'lri~io
Burlington, North Carolina
Horvath Associates Project Number: 0738
August 31, 2007
Revised December 19, 2007
~ ~~
' ; ~ ~ ~;
x ~ .~ ~~
,t : e. <~.
v ~"'
Prepared for: CBL
Jon Meshel
Waterrnill Center
800 South Street, Suite 395
Waltham, MA 02453-1486
[phone]
Prepared by: Horvath Associates, P.A.
Engineers -Planners -Landscape Architects
16 Consultant Place, Suite 201
Durham, Norfh Carolina 27707
[phone]

ALAMANCE WEST
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
General Description
Alamance West is a proposed commercial development located at the
intersection of Interstate 85/40 and University Drive in Burlington, North Carolina.
The total area of the site is 27 acres. The project will consist of several
commercial buildings and the associated private streets, parking, sidewalk, and
utilities. The property is located in the Cape Fear River Basin and is not in a
watershed protection district. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ)
is requiring that the Stormwater Management Plan associated with this site
provide $5% TSS removal and 30% Phosphorous and Nitrogen Removal. The
fr,i~nwinn nnrrntivP c~nrl ~:alc~~lations describe the nreliminarY design of the water
quality pond and grass filter strip that will treat the impervious surfaces of the site
and meet NC DWQ's requirements.
Water Quality
Alamance West features a wet detention basin that will collect runoff from the
proposed impervious area on the site. The wet detention basin is preliminarily
designed according to the most recent North Carolina DWQ Stormwater BMP
Manual (NCDENR, July 2007, pp 10-1,2). These design aspects meet the major
design element requirements, including SA/DA ratio, permanent pool volume,
forebay volume, 3-6 foot average depth, and 10-foot vegetated shelf. The wet
detention basin will remove 85 percent total suspended solids. Detailed design
documents will be submitted for review with the construction drawings, after site
plan approval.
Pre-Development Site Drainacte
The existing cover condition of the site is a mix between wooded and open
areas. Off-site areas to the north of the site were characterized by the density of
the residential developments.
The site is a mixture of three hydrologic soil groups - B, C, and D - as defined by
NRCS. D soils dominate the middle of the site, near the existing channels and
stream features. B and C soils are found in the northeast and southwest corners
of the site. Soils information is taken from Alamance County detailed county soil
survey maps distributed digitally by North Carolina Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis, last updated December 1998. The soil information was
digitized from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service soil surveys of
Alamance County published in April 1960.

Wet Detention Basin Design
^ The wet detention basin will be constructed in two interconnected basins. One
basin will serve as the forebay, and the other will serve as the main pool. Each
will have volume above and below the normal pool elevation. A portion of the
larger storms will bypass the main pool byway of an emergency spillway cut
into the berm of the forebay basin. Approximately 20 percent of the permanent
' pool volume is stored in the forebay, which complies with the BMP Manual. The
basins will be connected by a 24" diameter O-ring reinforced concrete pipe
running under Boone Station Drive.
' The main pool will drain the water quality storm via a restricted ductile iron pipe
to a concrete level spreader and across a grass filter strip, before draining into
the nearby stream. The advantage of using a separate barrel for the 1"storm is
~, , , , , i_ _ _ _a: _. n,. _u I:.., Th.. .J....+11 ~....~, ~ ~ ..II hr. +~++r,.-J
IIIUI II IC ICVCI J~.IIGUUGI IJ cJ~c~ll~uny v~l'ni~c.. i~~i:; ~.~v`.u,i. uvi~ N~h"' •~.~.~ v.. ~~~~..~.
with a restrictor to extend the drawdown time to 2-5 days for the 1 "storm. Larger
storms will drain via a circular riser and 24"-diameter barrel, along with an
armored emergency spillway.
A summary of the in-series removal rates for TSS, Phosphorous and Nitrogen is
included. This summary demonstrates that the system exceeds NC DWQ
requirements for nutrient removal. The nutrient removal rates are taken directly
from the NC BMP Manual.
Post-Development Site Drainage
All of the runoff from impervious surfaces will be directed into the stormwater
BMP. The onsite drainages will continue to convey off-site runoff through the site.
The large pipes running under I-85/40 will have at least two feet of freeboard
during the 100-year storm, and the basins will have at least one foot of
freeboard.
Conclusion
The proposed wet detention basin and level spreader system will provide 85%
TSS removal and sheet flow discharge for all impervious surfaces associated with
the project.
Hydraulic Calculations and Methodology
The site can be divided into separate watershed drainage areas, based on
which storm pipe conveys the runoff off-site. Included routing diagrams show
the drainage patterns. Several off-site sub-watersheds were grouped together
into a large drainage area; the divisions reflect different levels of housing
' density. Times of concentration are calculated using the TR-55 segmented
method. The 50- and 100- year rainfall events are determined using United

Stated Department of Commerce TP-40 (May 14b1). The 2- and 10-year rainfalls
are from NOAH Hydro 35. The NRCS Type 11 unit hydrographs are used to
determine rainfall intensity. Runoff calculations are performed using HydroCAD
v7.1, which uses the TR-20 methodology. Routing is done using the dynamic
storage-indication method in HydroCAD, which recalculates flow and detention
storage at each time step. This calculation method is sensitive to dynamic
tailwater that changes over time, such as the tailwater that might occur when
ponds are linked in series. The water quality storm was calculated using the
Simple Method. All volumes use the average end area method, calculated
using HydroCAD.

4r ('~!r1iCc
5
4
3
2
C
.~
~ ,
.~
~ .oF
~ .OE
04
O.o~3~
.02
t
Step 10. For Mass-lined channels once the al~prnpriate channel dimensions
have been selet;ted for low retitniance conditions. rcrx.a steps 6 through R using
a higher ret~~trtlance class, corresponding to tall grass. Adjust capacity of the
channel by varying depth where site conditions permit.
;~'Q`hE l: IC design velocity is grLatcr than '?.U ft/sec., a temporary lining
may be required tea stabilirc t}te channel until vegetaticm is established.
l~he temlxxr~ry liner may he d~~~igncd for lx'ah tluw from the ?-yr storm.
II a channel requires tem(x?rtry lining, the deci+~nrr ,hould an<il)'ze sheer'
stresses in the chann~:l w select the liner that provide> pnncc•tion and
promotes eslablishmcnt oC ~~cuet~,tion. f~~or the dcsi~n of tc•m}x,raryliners,
use tractive force procedum..
`\O"fE 2: Uesign "fable ~ -`,'eet<+tcd Ch;mnels and Diversi~ms at the end
...,
cn~ss-scctinns.
Step 11. Chcxk outlet for c•~trr~ ink capacity and stability. If dischar~~e vcai?cities
exceed allo~aai~le velocities ir~r the rec•~n•ing strr.am, ;ut nutlet protection svua
lure will tx re-yuircd (Tahle R.0>d, pg. R.li~.9>.
Sample Prot>lem B.bSa illustr~tcs the design of agrass-lined channel.
i

~
i _
--'
I -
~
I Average Length
of Vegetation (in)
Curve

'
i
~ t

A ;
Longerfhan 30"
11" to 24"
5" to 10" "~
A
B
C

~ ~ 2" to 6"
Less than 2" D
E

I I
I
!, s
i
I
~ ~
i
i
~ c ~ I
~ i
o I
~ ~
E ~
~ ~
_ i

z 4 s e i o z 4 6 8 i0 20
VR, Product of Velocity and Hydraulic Radius
Figure 8.050 Manning's nrelated to vebcity, hydraulic radius and vegetal refardance.
Note: Frorn Sample Prabtem 8.05a multiply Vp x Hydralulic Radius (4.5x0.54=2.43), then enter Lhe product of VR and extend a
straight line up to Retardance class "D", next projECt a straight line to the left to determine a trial manning's n.
Rev. 12A3
s.ns.~

0738 Wet Pond SA worksheet.xls
Nutrient Removal
NET NUTRIENT REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
Suspend Solids:
Water Quality Pond Removal Rate =
Filter Strip Removal Rate =
1 Unit
0.85
0.25
WQ Pond Removes: 0.85 Units
Units Remaining: 0.15 Units
Units Removed by Filter Strip: 0.038 Units
Units Remaining: 0.1 13 Units
Net Removal Rate = 88.8%
Nitrogen: 1 Unit
Water Quality Pond Removal Rate = 0.25
Filter Strip Removal Rate = 0.20
WQ Pond Removes: 0.25 Units
Units Remaining: 0.75 Units
Units Removed by Filter Strip: 0.150 Units
Units Remaining: 0.600 Units
Net Removal Rate = 40.0%
Phosphorous: 1 Unit
Water Quality Pond Removal Rate = 0.40
Filter Strip Removal Rate = 0.35
WQ Pond Removes: 0.4 Units
Units Remaining: O.bO Units
Units Removed by Filter Strip: 0.210 Units
Units Remaining: 0.390 Units
John E. Schrum, P.E.
12119/2007
Net Removal Rate = 61.0%

073f3 V~~et Pond SA v~ork<_heet,r.is
Fnrel gay # 1
FOREBAY BELOW NORMA! POO! STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION
John E. Shrum, P.E
12/19/200

Elevation

Stage
Surface
Area Average
Surface
Area
Incremental
Volume
Cumulative
Volume
Test
Stage
[ft] [ftl [Sfl [Sfl [cfl [cfl [ftl
s14.o 0 0 212s o.o 0 0
616.0 2.0 3058 2592.0 5184 5184 2.1
618.0 4.0 4146 3602.0 7204 12388 3.8
620.0 6.0 5389 4767.5 9535 21923 5.8
622.0 8.0 6788 6088.5 12177 34100 7.9
623.5 9.5 7940 7364.0 11046 45146 9.7
624.0 10.0 10054 8997.0 4498.5 49644.5 10.3
Stage-Storage Function
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
RZ = 0.997
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
-+- Cumulotive Volume [cfj
~ ~
I
-Power (Cumulative
Volume [cf] j J ,
KS = 1865.8
b = 1.4043

C~i33 ;'lei r0~~~!.~ $A ~~~orL,Sheet_, c
Bel rlormcl Fc~oi
Stage-Storage Function
John E. Schrum, P E.
12!19/2007

Elevation

Stage
Surface
Area Average
Surface
Area
Incremental
Volume
Cumuiative
Volume

Test Stage
[ftj [ft] [sf] [sf] [ct] [cf] [ft]
614.0 0.0 18895 0.0 0 0
616.0 2.0 21308 20101.5 40203 40203 2.0
618.0 4.0 23845 22576.5 45153 85356 3.9
620.0 6.0 26507 25176.0 50352 135708 5.9
621.5 7.5 28585 27546.0 41319 177027 7.5
622.0 8.0 32205 30395.0 15197.5 192224.5 8.1
I
I
I 250000
MAIN POND BELOW NORMAL POOL STAGE-STORAGE
200000
150000
100000
50000
0.
0.0
i.iza~
RZ=O.
!~ -~-Cumulative Volume (cf)
i
Power (Cumulative ~
-Volume [cfj J
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
KS = 18215
b = 1.1267

0738 Wet Pond SA worksheet.xls
Rainfall 8~ Volume
Wet Detention Basln ID
Precipitation = P
Drainage Area = A
Impervious Area = A;,,,~,
Runoff Coefficient = R ~
Water Quality Volume = WQ„
WEJi:DETENTIONs,BASIN,RAI~IFALI W~ORKSH~ET, __
WDB #1
1.0 inches
24.63 acres
22.64 acres
0.877 in/in
78,435 cu ft
~t ,~,,,
R,. = 0.05 + 0.009f
t ~
_ P * R * A
fY~ , 12
:. WET Qi°IiEI~T10N~BASIN VOLUME.,WO]~KSHEET ' ;
~~
Pond ID = # 1 Forebay #4 (Main Pool] total
Normal Pooi Elev = [ft] 624.00 524.00 n/a
Volume below normal pool = [cu ft] 47,333 189,645 236,978
Volume above normal pool = [cu ft] 85,728 85,728
Forebay volume = (cu ft] 47,333 47333
Surface area at normal pool = (sq ft] 10,054 32,205 42,259
Average depth = [ft] 5.6
Forebay % Total Volume = 20.0°1a
*Note: Pond ID's correspond to the detention basin numbers as shown on the Phase 1 site plan.
**Note: Forebay valume in Pond #4 is approxi mate.
Ben Thayer, EI
12/19/2007

0738 Wei rand SA worksl~~M~f.Xls
Surface Area
WET DETENTION BASIN SURFACE AREA WORKSHEET
ln1P1IT ANfI RFC111 7C CI IMMARY
Ben Thayer, EI
12/19/2007
Avg Required Surface Provided Surface
Wet Detention Basin ID Drainage Area Impervious Area Depth Area Area
[acres) (acres] [ft] (sq ft from calcJ [sq ft design]
Wpg ~ 1 24.b3 22.64 5.6 26,452 42,259
' CALCULArIONs
Basin: WDB #1 <- from Ir'st of basins
Impervious Area = 22.64 acres <- from input chart
Drainage Area = 24.63 acres <- from input charf
``o IlllpelVIUUS - Y[?'o ~~- ~-vit-ViuiCu
Average Depth = 5.6 ft <- from input chart

Calculate the required surface crea to drainage area (SA/DAJ ratio using the
NC Division of water Quality Stormwater 8MP Handbook (July 2007):
Average Depth (Vol/SA) (ft)
°.'o Impervious 5.0 S.b 6.0
Lower Boundary => 90 % 2.66 2.47 2.34 <- from table below
Site % impervious => 92% 2.66 2.47 2.34 <- interpolated
Upper Boundary => 100% 2.66 2.47 2.34 <- from table below
Area Required = 26,452 sq.ff. <- WDB #1
FROM NCDWO STORM WATER BMP MANUAL, JULY 2007
Surface Area (SA) to Drainage Area (DA) Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achieve 85
Percent TSS Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Piedmont
Percent Impervious
Cover
3.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ff)
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
9.0
10% 0.59 0.49 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.26
20 % 0.97 0.79 0.70 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.44
30% 1.34 1.08 0.97 0.83 0.70 0.64 0.62
40% 1.73 1.43 1.25 1.05 0.90 0.82 0.77
50% 2.06 1.73 1.50 1.30 1.09 1.00 0.92
60% 2.40 2.03 1.71 1.51 1.29 1.18 1.10
70% 2.88 2.40 2.07 1.79 1.54 1.35 1.26
80% 3.36 2.78 2.38 2.10 1.86 1.60 1.42
90% 3.74 3.10 2.66 2.34 2.11 1.83 1.67

rn3a_ vdEt Pc,~d cq ~.c~~ksl-yet ~'s
WATER QUALITY VOLUME DETERMINATION
1. Determine Stage-Storage Relationship:

Elevation
Stage Su ce
Area Average
Surtace Area Incremental
Volume Cumulative
Volume
Test Stags
[ s s [c [c
622.0 0.0 32205 0.0 0 0
622.5 0.5 36018 34111.5 17055.75 17055.75 0.5
524.0 2 0 49669 42843.5 64265.25 81321 1.9
626.0 4.0 59399 54534.0 109068 190389 3.9
528.0 6 0 68134 63766.5 127533 317922 6 0
630.0 8.0 77501 72817.5 145635 463557 8-3
Stage-Storage Function
500000 T _ - - ----, ~
450000 i
y= x ~
400000 _
350000
300000 ~ ~ I
I
~ 250000
_. r. ,
200000 ~ ~ .. ~,.
150000 .,
j 50000
0
~ 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
I
K, = 37627
b = 1.188
11. USE SIMPLE METHOD TO DETERMINE THE VOLUME REQUIRED TO TREAT THE RUNOFF RESULTING FROM THE
1-INCH RAINFALL EVENT:
Total Drainage Area to WQ Pond = 24.b3 acres
Total Impervious Area to WQ Pond = 22.64 acres
Rainfall Depth = 1.0 inch
~., = 0.92 (Impervious Fraction(
Rv= 0.05+0.9'IA
= 0.88
V = 3630'Ro'Rv'A
= 78435 cf
III. Determine Elevation Required for 1-inch Storage Based Upon Volume:
Stage Required = (V/K,)^(t/b) ft
= 1.75 ft
Actval Riser Crest Stage = 2.0 ft
ACiudl Riser Crest Elev, = 624.0 fi
Volume Provided = 85728
Temporary Pool Surface Area = 50922 sq. fi
-- -.E 5~~~,,. F~.
.. ~" J'

. , ~ n E. ~Chrur~~~ r E
12/14/2007
Inverted Siphon Design Sheet
D siphon = nches
No. siphons =
Ks = 37627
b= 1,188
Cd siphon =
Siphon Invert = 622.00 feel
'dolume ~' Normal POOI = CF
Basin Invert = feei

WSEL
(feet)
Vol.
Stored
(cf) Incremental
Siphon
Flow
(cfs)

Avg. Flow
(cfs)

Incr. Vol.
(cf)
Incr.
Time
(sec)
' VJ/ LV V...~LV
623.829 77082 0.308 0.316 8646 27399
623.658 68586 0.292 0.300 8495 28310
623.486 60254 0.275 0.284 8332 29364
623.315 52101 0.257 0.266 8153 30605
623.144 44146 0.238 0.248 7955 32101
622.973 36412 0.217 0.228 7734 33959
622.802 28931 0.194 0.206 7481 36371
622.630 21747 0.168 0.181 7185 3971 D
622.459 14924 0.136 0.152 6823 44864
622.288 8573 0.095 0.116 6351 54832
Step Increment = 0.1 7 1 2075 1 5
End Goal = 8573
Drawdown Time = 4.14 days
8y comparison, if calculated by the averoge head over the orifice (assuming
average head is half the total depthJ, the result would be:
Average driving head on orifice = 0.938 feei
Orifice composite loss coefficient = _
X-Sectional area of i - 4" Inverted siphon = 0.0491 ft'
Q = 0.2288 cfs
Drawdown Time =volume / Flowrate / 86400 (seclday~
Drawdown Time = 4.34 days
Conculsion: Use one - 3 "diameter PVC inverted siphon to draw dawn the accumulated
volume from the 1.0" storm runoff, with a required time of about 4.2 days.

0738 Wet Pond SA worksheet.xis Joan E. Schrum, P.E.
L TO W RATIO 12/ 19/2007
WATER QUALITY POND LENGTH TO WIDTN DETERMINATIONS
Without Baffle:
Flowpath Length = 3b$ ft
Station Width
~] [ffl
1 91
2 92
3 96
4 101
5 135
b 148
7
$
9 151
170
189
Average Width = 130.333
length to Width Ratio = 2.8
With Baffle:
Flowpath Length = 516 ft
Station Width
[ft] [ff]
1 96
2 98
3 101
4 103
5 9b
6 140
7 105
8 76
9 74
10 77
11 81
12 87
13 87
14 53
15 78
16 141
Average Width = 93.31
Length to Width Ratio = 5.5

Channel Analysis -Grass Channel.xls
Post Development
Gig en:
111- ~ tip:
hoax. Channel Slope, s = I.t;; !
Design Side Slope, M =
Channel Bottom ~~'idth, B = ~ 1 ~ t
cfs (From HydroCAD Qutputs)
ft,'ft (Max. Measure Slope)
:I (H:V)
fl
John E. Schrum, P.E.
12/1/2007
Determine Channel Depth and Velocity (10-Year Storm):
Assumed Manning's'n'value = ~! ~ ?!~ ~(As iterated from Figure R OSc. Fra~ion and Sediment Contr<~I ~4anual
Iteration tt Qn/(1.49s"~) Assumed 'y' Area, A R'etted Perimeter, P ARZ~'
[ft] (sq. ftJ [ftJ
1 1.4446 I jig- 6.8 9.5 5.4446
ni..eA...i .~..,~,,.-..,...,,.a . ,. r:,..,i c....i.:., e,r:..-,.,-,.a r., ,.,.i
~ ^o
Resulting depth = 1.51 ft
Resulting VR = 5.34 ft/sec
Anah•sis Results:
Past-
D
evelopmcnt
10-Year Channel De th= _
1.51
10-Year Channel Velocity= 7.47
Determine Channel Lining:
Determine Shear Stress =
Td = yds
y = Unit VVei Tht of ~'Vater lb!ft'
62.4 lblft'
d = flow de th ft
= I.5] ft (from above)
s = channel adient ftJft
= 0.051 ftlft (from above)
Td = 4.80 lb/ft'

Use North Amer Green P300:
Max. Shear Stress = 8.0 Ib/ft`
liestgn xesmts:
0-Year Channel Analysis Depth = 1 51 ft
10-Year Channel Design Depth = 2.00 ft
10-Year Channel Analysis Velocity = 7.47 ftlsec
Channel Longitudinal Slope = 0.051 ft/ft
Channel Bottom Width = 0.0 ft
Channel Side Slopes = 3 :I (H:V)
Channel Lining = NAG P300

1 ~-~~
NCDENR
Permit No
itc be provided 5y DIVA!
4' lJ~-
_-- -~
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be frifed out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part Itf) must be printed, filled out and submitted along wrih aH of the required information
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name Alarnance West
Contact person John E Schrum, P.E.
Phone number [phone]
Date 12/17/2007
Drainage area number WDB #1
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 25 ft~
Impervious area 23 fi`
°~° impervious 91.92042225 °~°
Design rainfall depth 1.0 in
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters
Minimum volume required 18,435 ft'
Volume provided 85,728 ft'
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth in
Pre-development l-yr, 24-hr runoff ft'
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft'
Minimum volume required ft3
Volume provided ft'
Peak Flow Calculations
Is pre/post control of the 1-yr 24-hr peak flow required? N (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth in
Rational C, pre-development {unitless}
Rational C, post-development (unitless}
Rainfall intensity: 1-yr, 24-hr storm inlhr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow ft'Isec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow ft'Isec
PrelPost 1-yr, 24hr peak flow control fi'/sec
Basin Elevations
Basin bottom elevation fi
Sediment cleanout elevation fi
Permanent pool elevation 622.00 ft
Temporary pool elevation 623.80 ft
Volume and Surface Area Calculations
SA/DA ratio 2.47 (unitless)
Permanent pool, surface area required 26,452 f>z
Permanent pool, surface area provided ~ 42,259 ftz ` ~•
Permanent pool volume 236,978 fi'
Average depth for SA/DA tables 5.607752195 ft _ik
Forebay volume 47,333 ft'
Forebay °10 of permanent pool volume 20 °/° . .
Temporary pool, surface area provided 50,922 ft~
Form SW4o1-Wet Detentbn Basin-Rev.2
Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2

' Permit No
(;o he prov,ded 5y CtNO)
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
'
Orawdown Calculations
Trealmenl volume drawdown time 4.2 days
Trealmenl volume discharge rate 0.23 fi''s
Pre-development 1 •yr, 24-hr discharge fi' s
Post-deveiopment 1-yr, 24-hr discharge h'rs
Additionallnformation
'
Diameter of orifice 3.00 in
Design TSS removal 85
Basin side slopes 3 1
Vegetated shelf slope 10 1
'
Vegetated shelf width
10 i
ft
Length of flowpath to width ratio 5.5 1
Length to width ratio 2 8 1
Trash rack for overflow 8 orifices Y (Y or N)
'
Freeboard provided 1.4 ft
Vegetated filter provided? Y (Y or N)
Recorded drainage easement provided? Y (Y or N)
'
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out? Y (Y or N)

~ru~,~,,,,,.,,~~.,,.,,~„~~~,~~~c;c„u,,;.c;..,,c,cryc,c,~,
1 v
,.y ':~Lct - - ;~~r~^ -„~~.. „~a~
1
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.2
Parts 1 8 IL Design Summary. Page 2 of 2

Permit No
i'to be provrded by CWQ}
IIL~ REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST ~ ~ ,~ ,
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will
result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may initial below. If a
requirement has not been met, attach justification. pRvV-DEIy car t'H THE F/CAL
~{ C6R~'AfN 1rErlS BELOW ~"~ tt'~ ~MA,/A~~1r-~Jr' PGAN PEScGN
Pagel Plan ~'ToR~1 h1A~
Initials Sheet No.
_-_~___ 1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
- Design at ultimate build-out,
- Off-site drainage (if applicable),
- Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin},
-Basin dimensions,
-Pretreatment system,
u•..~, a,. , a.,. ..,.,
,,;y,, ,.,,., ..~r~_.. =~_._. ,
• Maintenance access,
- Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
-Overflow device, and
- Boundaries of drainage easement.
',~" 2. Partial plan (1" = 30' or larger) and details for the wet detention basin showing:
-Outlet structure with trash rack or similar,
-Maintenance access,
- Permanent pool dimensions,
-Forebay and main pond with hardened emergency spillway,
- Basin cross-section,
-Vegetation specification for planting shelf, and
- Filter strip.
3. Section view of the dry detention basin (1" = 20' or larger) showing:
- Side slopes, 3:1 or lower,
- Pretreatment and treatment areas, and
-Inlet and outlet structures.
~ 4. If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the basin is specified
on the plans prior to use as a wet detention basin.
3C 5. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes for overall pond and for Forebay,
to verify volume provided.
6. An assurance that the installed system will meet design specifications upon initial operation once the
project is complete and the entire drainage area is stabilized.
7. A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
~~ entire drainage area is stabilized.
8. The supporting calculations.
~ 9. A copy of the signed and notarized inspection and maintenance (I&M) agreement.
>~ 10. A copy of the deed restriction.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.1 Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1

r~r .~,`
~~~ DuK1
' NC©ENR ~
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
LEVEL SPREADER, FILTER STRIP AND RE5TaRED RIPARIAN BUFFER SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name Alamance Wesl
Contact name John E. Schrum, PE
Phone number [phone]
Date December 6, 2007
Drainage area number WDB #1
III. DE51GN INFORMATION I
For Level Spreaders Receiving Flow From a BMP
Type of BMP Wet Detention Pond (Water Quality Pond)
Drawdown flow from Ghe 8MP 0.32 ds
For Leve- Spreaders Receiving Flow from the Drainage Area
Drainage area
Impervious surface area
Percent impervious
Rational C coefficient
Peak flow from the 1 inlhr storm
Time of concentration
Rainfall intensity, 10-yr storm
Peak flow from the 10-yr storm
Where Does the Level Spreader Discharge 7
' To a biorelention cell?
To a wetland?
To a filter strip or riparian buffer?
Other (specify)
Filter Strip or Riparian Buffer Characterization (if applicable)
Width of grass
Width of dense ground cover
Width of wooded vegetation
Total width
Slope (from level lip to to top of bank)
Are any draws present?
Level Spreader Design
Forebay surface area
Feet of level lip needed per cfs
Answer'Y' to one of the following:
Length based on the 1 inlttr storm?
Length based on the 10-yr, 24-hr storm?
Length based on the BMP discharge rate?
Design flow
Is a bypass device provided?
f>z
fig
cfs
min
inihr
cis
N (Y or N)
N (Y or N)
Y (Y or N)
_ ~ ..
__ _ , ,. -.
__. ~ -w•~~ - ...

30 ft
0 ft
0 ft
30 ft
1
N (Y or N) ,,K

NA sq ft
13 ft/cfs
N (Y or N)
N (Y or N)
Y (Y or N)
0.32 cfs
Y (Y or N)
~~;
Forth SW401-Level Spreader, Filter Strip. Restored Riparian Butler-Rev 2 Parts I. and II Design Summary, page t of 2

Length of the level lip
Are Level spreaders in series?
Bypass Channel Design (if applicable)
Does the bypass discharge through a wetland?
Does the channel enter the stream at an angle?
Dimensions of the channel (see diagram below):
tvl
B
4v
Y
Peak velocity in the channel during the 10-yr, 24•hr storm
Channel lining material

~9
35 fi
N (Y or N)
N (Y or N)
Y
3 fi
0 fi
3 fi
2 fi
7.47 cfs
NAG P300

~ F3 ~
I
'~1
•
Form SW401-Level Spreader, Filter Strip, Restored Riparian Buffer-Rev2 Parts I antl II Design Summary. page 2 012

lII. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST : ' ; ~ 4 '~' -' ~`
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will
result in a request for additional information. This will delay #inal review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may initial below. If a
requirement has not been met, attach justification. ~~OGJ ;~jGL ~~ l~d?'1P~p H7/TF( r>~/C
~ G~ R "~ /N ~ T ~~f o ~ ~I rcR ~A,/.9GEi'lEN 7'' GK'S/C~
Page! Plan
Initials Sheet No.
__~ 1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
- Design at ultimate build-out,
- Off-site drainage (if applicable),
- Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin).
-Forebay (if applicable),
- Hlgh flow bypass system,
- Maintenance access,
- Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW), and
- Boundaries at drainage easement.
,°~ 2. Plan details (1" = 30' or larger) for the level spreader shaving:
-Forebay (if applicable),
-High flow bypass system,
-One foot topo lines between the level lip and top of stream bank,
• Recorded drainage easement, and
- Design at ultimate build-out.
3. Section view of the level spreader (t" = 20' or larger) shoving:
- Underdrain system (if applicable),
- Level lip,
- Upslope channel, and
- Downslope filter fabric.
~_ 4. Adate-stamped photograph of the filter strip that clearly shows the type of vegetation that is present.
5. An assurance that the installed system v~ill meet design specifications upon initial operation once the
project is complete and the entire drainage area is stabilized.
~ 6. A construction sequence that shows how the level spreader will be protected from sediment until the entire
drainage area is stabilized.
7. The supporting calculations.
8. A copy of the signed and notarized inspection and maintenance (1&M) agreement.
9. A copy of the deed restriction.
Form SW401-Level Spreader, Filter Strip, Restored Riparian Buffer-Rev.2 Part III, page 1 of 1

_ _... _
~DA8
- _ ;.
Drainage rea 8
-~_.
DP1
24" RCP
Drainage Area 1~~
~~ ~
et Pond 1
DA4 `
Drainage Area 4 P4
~~
Wet Pond 4~~
~.
,_____,, 'DA10
`,__ _, Drainage Are.
Drainage A a 9
DP2
Unknown Culvert
=~
LINK'
To South Culvert
~~
~'~,
~ SUbC2t) Reach On LI nk '~ Drainage Diagram for 0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John
`~ i Ir. Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. 12/19/2007
~ /~ HydroCAD® 7.10 s/n 003899 ®2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

S:\Drawings\07\07381Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1! 24hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 2
HydroCAD® 7.10 s!n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points x 3
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method -Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Subcatchment DA1: Drainage Area 1 Runoff Area=1.916 ac Runoff Depth>4.24"
Tc=5.0 min CN=90 Runoff=13.90 cfs 0.677 of
Subcatchment DA10: Drainage Area 10
Runoff Area=8.501 ac Runoff Depth>3.32"
Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=51.27 cfs 2.352 of
Subcatchment DA13: Drainage Area 13
Subcatchment DAZ: Drainage Area 2
Subcatchment DA4: Drainage Area 4
Subcatchment DA8: Drainage Area 8
Subcatchment DA9: Drainage Area 9
Runoff Area=4.728 ac Runoff Depth>3.32"
Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=28.51 cfs 1.308 of
Runoff Area=23.904 ac Runoff Oepth>4.79"
Tc=S 0 min CN=95 Runoff=185.08 cfs 9.546 of
Runoff Area=24.391 ac Runoff Depth>4.68"
Tc=5.0 min CN=94 Runoff=186.92 cfs 9.510 of
Runoff Area=5.077 ac Runoff Depth>4.68"
Tc=5.0 min CN=94 Runoff=38.91 cfs 1.980 of
Runoff Area=14.270 ac Runoff Depth>4.13"
Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=101.86 cfs 4.914 of
Pond P1: Wet Pond 1 Peak EIev=630.69' Storage=114,507 cf Inflow=198.99 cfs 10.222 of
Primary=25.75 cfs 8.405 of Secondary=135.40 cfs 1.773 of Outflow=160.34 cfs 10.179 of
Pond P4: Wet Pond 4 Peak EIev=627.57' Storage=231,353 cf Inflow=212.66 cfs 17.916 of
Primary=50.89 cfs 17.766 of Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=50.89 cfs 17.766 of
Link DP1: 24" RCP
Inflow=38.91 cfs 1.980 of
Primary=38.91 cfs 1.980 of
Link DP2: Unknown Culvert
Link LINK: To South Culvert
Inflow=101.86 cfs 4.914 of
Primary=101.86 cfs 4.914 of
Inflow=253.87 cfs 23.199 of
Primary=253.87 cfs 23.199 of
Total Runoff Area = 82.787 ac Runoff Volume = 30.286 of Average Runoff Depth = 4.39"

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
S:1Drawings\07107381Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase it -John Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfa11=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 3
~droCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 c0 2005 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC _ 12!19/2007
Subcatchment DA1: Drainage Area 1
Runoff = 13.90 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.677 af, Depth> 4.24"
Runoff by SGS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type !I 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
_ Area (ac) CN Description -
1.239 95 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG D
0.677 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D
1.916 90 Weighted Average
Tr I cnnth ~Inna \/alnnity (:anarity (~a~rrintinn
(min) (feet) (ft%ft) (ft/secj (cfsj _ -
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA1: Drainage Area 1
Hydrograph
0
LL
14-
13 Type 1124-h r 10-Year i
Iz~ Rainfall=5.38"
11-
,o_ Runoff Area=1.916 ac
9 Runoff Volume=0.677 of
8. Runoff Depth>4.24"
,_
s. Tc=5.0 m i n
5~ / I - CN=90
4-
3-
2
1-
~p 11 1z IJ
Time (hours)
-Runoff
19 ~~

S:\Drawings\07107381Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 11 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 4
HvdroCADC~ 7.10 s!n 003899 ©2005 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC _ 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA10: Drainage Area 10
Runoff = 51.27 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 2.352 af, Depth> 3.32"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Area lacl CN Description
0.599 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers
0.498 74 >75°lo Grass cover, Good, HSG C
7.404 80 >75% Grass cover Good HSG D
8.501 81 Weighted Average
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
Amin) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA10: Drainage Area 10
Hydrograph
1
LL
i5
i0-
35-
30-
35
3D-
_>5
t0-i
Type II 24-hr 10-Year
Rainfall=5.38"
Runoff Area=8.501 ac
Runoff Volume=2.352 of
Runoff Depth>3.32"
Tc=5.0 min
CN=81
10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (hours)
-Runoff

' S:\Drawings\07\0738\Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase 1(-John Type 11 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 5
' HydroGAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA13: Drainage Area 13
Runoff = 28.51 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 1.308 af, Depth> 3.32"
' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Area (ac) CN Description
' 0.314 9$ Paved roads w/curbs & sewers
4.414 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
4.728 81 Weighted Average
T~ I cnnth Clnna \/clnrity r:anarity rlACrrintinn
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA13: Drainage Area 13
Hydrograph
30
?8
,6.
:4.
22
n 18
' 3 16
0
u. 14

Type II 24-hr 10-Year
Rainfall=5.38"
Runoff Area=4.728 ac
Runoff Volume=1.308 of
Runoff Depth>3.32"
Tc=5.0 min
CN=81
10 11 12 13 14 t5
Time (hours)
- RunoN

' S:1Drawings10710738\Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type ll 24-hr 70-Year RainfaN=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 6
' HydroCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAO Software Solutions LLC 12!19/2007
Subcatchment DA2: Drainage Area 2
Runoff = 185.08 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 9.546 af, Depth> 4.79"
' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Area (ac) CN Description
' 23.904 95 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG D
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
tin nirar•.t Fntrv, Ilrhanized Area
' Subcatchment DA2: Drainage Area 2
Hydrograph
1
1
t
t
a 1
LL
~o-
3D-
30
~o a
>o-
,o-
o.
Type II 24-hr 10-Year
Rainfall=5.38"
Runoff Area=23.904 ac
Runoff Volume=9.546 of
Runoff Depth>4.79"
Tc=5.0 min
CN=95
10 11 12 13 14 75
Time (hours)
-Runoff

' S:1Drawings107107381Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 7
HydroCADC~ 7.10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA4: Drainage Area 4
' Runoff = 186.92 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 9.510 af, Depth> 4.68"
' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Area (ac) CN Description
' 8.229 92 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG B
8.132 95 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG D
1.456 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
' ,6.574 98 Impervious Area C?nsite
7d 4Q1 Gd Wainhtari AVP.ran~
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) _
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
' Subcatchment DA4: Drainage Area 4
Hydrograph
200-: - Run°ff
186.92 cfs
180` Type II 24-hr 10-Year
,~°-
,6°-: Rainfall=5.38"
150
,4°= Runoff Area=24.391 ac
t 30 _.
a ,2° Runoff Volume=9.510 of
„°-
_o ,°° Runoff Depth>4.68"
u. 90 =
8°_ Tc=5.0 min
'°~ CN=94
~~-
30-
20-
10
0
10 11 12 13 1~4 15
Time (hours)

S:1Drawings107\073$1Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type tl 24-hr TO-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 8
HvdroCADC~ 7.10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HvdroCAO Software Solutions_LLC__ 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA8: Drainage Area 8
Runoff = 38.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 1.980 af, Depth> 4.68"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=5CS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Area (ac) CN Description
2.454 92 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG B
1.790 95 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG D
0.833 98 Impervious Area Onsite
5.077 94 Weighted Average
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) ~ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA8: Drainage Area 8
Hydrograph
~2
b
' o
LL
?4 -~
18 =~
2-
10 it 12 13 14
Time (hours)
38.91 cfs
Type II 24-hr 10-Year
Rainfall=5.38"
Runoff Area=5.077 ac
Runoff Volume=1.980 of
Runoff Depth>4.68"
Tc=5.0 min
CN=94

- Runoff
15

1
1
S:\Drawings107\0738\Project Calcsi
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase it -Jahn Type JI 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 9
NydroCADC~ 7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC _ _ 12/19!2007
5ubcatchment DA9: Drainage Area 9
Runoff = 101.86 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 4.914 af, Depth> 4.13"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
_ Area (ac) CN Description
8.410 95 Urban commercial, 85°!o imp, HSG D
5.860 80 >75% Grass cover Good. HSG D
14.270 89 Weighted Average
Tr- I cnr,th Clnna \lclnrihr ('anarit~r rlacrrintinn
... _....'... -._r - ~ - - -i ~ ~
(min} (feet) (ftJft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ---
5,0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA9: Drainage Area 9
Hvdrograph
110
105-
100-
95-
90-
85
80-
75- -
70.
65
~ .
60:
c 55

~, 50-_
45~
40`
35
30
25-
20-
15-.
10
5 -
Type II 24-hr 10-Year
Rainfall=5.38"
Runoff Area=14.270 ac
Runoff Volume=4.914 of
Runoff- Depth>4.13"
Tc=5.0 min
CN=89
10 11 12 is
Time (hours)
-Runoff
19 ~~

5:1Drawings\07107381Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type !l 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 10
HydroCAD® 7.10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Pond P1: Wet Pond 1
Inflow Area = 25.820 ac, Inflow Depth > 4.75" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 198.99 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 10.222 of
Outflow = 160.34 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 10.179 af, Atten= 19%, Lag= 2.8 min
Primary = 25.75 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 8.405 of
Secondary = 135.40 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1.773 of
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3
Peak Elev= 630.69' @ 12.00 hrs Surf.Area= 23,330 sf Storage= 114,507 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 31.4 min calculated for 10.179 of (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 28.5 min (791.1 - 762.6 )
~ Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 624.00' 146,881 cf Above Normal Poot (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc)
Elevation Surf.Area Inc. Store Cum.Store
(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet)
624.00 10,054 0 0
t
624.50 12,411 5,616 5,616
626.00 14,740 20,363 25,980
628.00 18,152 32,892 58,872
' 630.00 21,915 40,067 98,939
632.00 26,027 47,942 146,8$1
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
'
#1 Primary 619.00' 24.0" x 170.0' long Barrel RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Outlet Invert= 617.30' S= 0.0100 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013
#2 Secondary 629.50' 30.0' long (Profile 6} Emergency Spillway
' Head (feet) 0.49 0.98 1.48
Coef. (English) 3.12 3.41 3.59
#3 Device 1 624.00' 48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate Limited to weir flow C= 0.600
Primary OutFlow Max=25.74 cfs @ 11.96 hrs HW=630.44' TW=626.67' (Dynamic Tailwater)
L~Barrel (Outlet Controls 25.74 cfs @ 8.2 fps)
3=OrificelGrate (Passes 25.74 cfs of 117.53 cfs potential flow)
Secondary OutFlow Max=134.92 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=630.69' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater)
2=Emergency Spillway (Weir Controls 134.92 cfs @ 3.8 fps)

S:\Drawings\07107381Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-©ev Phase II -John Type 1124hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 11
HydroCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Pond P1: Wet Pond 1
Hydrograph
1lU-
210=
200
190-
180
170•
160
150-
140-
„_„ 13D
w
~ 120
110
t% 1 UU
90
80-
70
60
50
AO
198.99 cis
150.34 cfs
10
0-
10
Inflow Area=25.820 ac
Peak Elev=630.69'
Storage=114,507 cf
~"'
11 11 12 13 14
Time (hours)
- Inflow
- OuMow
- Primary
-Secondary
i5

S:1Drawings10710738\Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type ll 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 12
HydroCADC~ 7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC _ 12/19!2007
Pond P4: Wet Pond 4
Inflow Area = 50.211 ac, Inflow Depth > 4.28" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 212.66 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 17.916 of
Outflow = 50.89 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 17.766 af, Atten= 76%, Lag= 10.3 min
Primary = 50.89 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 17.766 of
Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3
Starting Elev= 624.00' Surf.Area= 39,615 sf Storage= 73,781 cf
Peak Elev= 627.57' @ 12.13 hrs Surf.Area= 48,832 sf Storage= 231,353 cf {157,572 cf above start)
Plug-Flow detention time= 114.5 min calculated for 16.066 of (90% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 25.5 min { 810.2 - 784.7 )
Volume Invert Avaif Storage Storag e Description ____
#1 622.00' 358,265 cf Above Norma! Pool (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc)
Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store
(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet)
' 622.00 32,205 0 0
622.50 36,018 17,056 17,056
624.00 39,615 56,725 73,781
626.00 44,659 84,274 158,055
628.00 49,982 94,641 252,696
630.00 55,587 105,569 358,265
' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 617.62' 24.0" x 83.0' long Barrel RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100
Outlet Invert= 616.87' S= 0.0090'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013
' #2 Device 1 622.00' 3.0" Vert Drawdown tnlet C= 0.600
#3 Device 1 624.00' 48.0" Horii. Riser Crest Limited to weir flow C= 0.600
#4 Secondary 627.60' 35.0' long (Profrle 6) Emergency Spillway
' Head (feet) 0.49 0.98 1.48
Coef. (English) 3.12 3.41 3.59
Primary OutFlow Max=50.89 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=627.57' TW=0.00' {Dynamic Tailwater)
' t- =Barrel {Barrel Controls 50.89 cfs @ 16.2 fps)
~2=Drawdown Inlet (Passes < 0.55 cfs potential flow)
3 Riser Crest (Passes < 114.29 cfs potential flow)
' econdary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=624.00' TW=0.00` (Dynamic Tailwater)
Emergency Spillway (Controls 0.00 cfs)

S:1Dravvings10710738\Project Calcs\
0738 Atamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type lI 24hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 13
HvdroCAD~ 7.10 sJn 003899 ©2005 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Pond P4: Wet Pond 4
Hydrograph
230-
220
210
200
190
180
170
160-
,50
140-
130
120-
_n ttn
LL' 100
90
80
70
60
50-
a0
30
20-
10
0-,
1D
11
212.66 cts j
Inflow Area=54.211 ac
Peak Elev=627.57'
Storage=231,353 cf
- Inflow
- Outflow
- Primary
-Secondary
12 13 14 15
Time {hours)

S:\Drawings107107381Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 11 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 14
HydroCAD® 7,10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Link DP1: 24" RCP
Inflow Area = 5.077 ac, Inflow Depth > 4.68" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 38.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 1.980 of
Primary = 38.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 1.980 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow =Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Link DP1: 24" RCP
Hydroyraph
a
a
a
LL
42-:
40- 38.91 cis
3&
38- Inflow Area=5.o77 ac
34
32-
30-
2s
2s
za-
z2
20-
18
16-
14-
12-
10
8-
6-
4-:
2-
0-
- Inflow
- Primary
10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (hours)

1
1
S:\Drawings\0710738\Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase ll -John Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 15
HydroCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Link DP2: Unknown Culvert
Inflow Area = 14.270 ac, Inflow Depth > 4.13" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 101.86 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 4.914 of
Primary = 101.86 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 4.914 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow =Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Link DP2: Unknown Culvert
Hydrograph
,~
3
0
LL
Inflow
Pnmary
10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (hours)

S:\Drawings10710738\Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase fl -Jahn Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfa/~=5.38"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 16
HydroCAD~ 7 10 s/n 003899 O 2005 HydraCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Link LINK: To South Culvert
Inflow Area = 63.440 ac, Inflow Depth > 4.39" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 253.87 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 23.199 of
Primary = 253.87 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 23.199 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow =Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Link LINK: To South Culvert
Hydrograph
-Inflow
- Primary
a
v
0
LL
10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (hours)

1
1
1

S:\Drawings107\0738\Project Calcs\
Q738 Alamance Crossing Past-Dev Phase II -John Type li 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 17
HydroCAD~ 7.10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions t_LC 12/19/2007
Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points x 3
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS
Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method -Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method
Subcatchment DA1: Drainage Area 1 Runoff Area=1.916 ac Runoff Depth>6.80"
Tc=5.0 min CN=90 Runoff=21.59 cfs 1.086 of
Subcatchment DA10: Drainage Area 14
Subcatchment DA13: Drainage Area 13
Runoff Area=8.501 ac Runoff Depth>5.74"
Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=85.96 cfs 4.064 of
Runoff Area=4.728 ac Runoff Depth>5.74"
Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=47.81 cfs 2.260 of
Subcatchment DA2: Drainage Area 2
Subcatchment DA4: Drainage Area 4
Subcatchment DA8: Drainage Area 8
Subcatchment DA9: Drainage Area 9
Runoff Area=23.904 ac Runoff Depth>7.39"
Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=278.86 cfs 14.731 of
Runoff Area=24.391 ac Runoff Depth>7.28"
Tc=5.0 min CN=94 Runoff=283.04 cfs 14.788 of
Runoff Area=5.077 ac Runoff Depth>7.28"
Tc=5.0 min CN=94 Runoff=58.91 cfs 3.078 of
Runoff Area=14.270 ac Runoff Depth>6.68"
Tc=5A min CN=$9 Runoff=159.34 cfs 7,944 of
Pond P1: Wet Pond 1 Peak Elev=631.28' Storage=128,768 cf Inflow=300.45 cfs 15.816 of
Primary=25.86 cfs 11.216 of Secondary=256.59 cfs 4.540 of Outflow=279.37 cfs 15.755 of
Pond P4: Wet Pond 4 Peak Elev=628.61' Storage=283,739 cf Inflow=306.98 cfs 26.004 of
Primary=53.86 cfs 23.881 of Secondary=121.65 cfs 1.922 of Outflow=175.51 cfs 25.804 of
Link DP1: 24" RCP
Inflow=58.91 cfs 3.078 of
Primary=58.91 cfs 3.078 of
Link DP2: Unknown Culvert
Link LINK: To South Culvert
Inflow=159.34 cfs 7.944 of
Primary=159.34 cfs 7.944 of
Inflow=515.65 cfs 36.667 of
Primary=515.65 cfs 36.667 of
Total Runoff Area = 82.787 ac Runoff Volume = 47.951 of Average Runoff Depth = 6.95"

1
1
1

1
1
S:1Drawings\07\0738\Project Calcsi
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase (1 -John Type it 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 18
~droCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA1: Drainage Area 1
Runoff = 21.59 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 1.086 af, Depth> 6.80"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Area (ac) CN Description
1.239 95 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG D
0.677 80 >75% Grass cover Good, HSG D
1.916 90 Weighted Average
Tr 1 c~nnth Clnnc \/alnrifir !'anarity i7ACrrintinn
(min} (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfsj
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA1: Drainage Area 1
Hydrograph
2a .
23
22
21-
2o-s
19-
18
,~-.
16-
,5`
a i4~
~ 13-
3 1z-
LL ~~:
6
Type II 24-hr 100-Year
Rainfall=8.00"
Runoff Area=1.916 ac
Runoff Volume=1.086 of
Runoff Depth>6.8~"
Tc=5.0 m i n
CN=90
~-
a- _
3-
2-
1 _ _ _ _
0.
10 11 12 13 ~a
Time (hours)
- RunoN
15

1
1
1
1
1

1
S:1Drawings\07\07381Project Caicsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Past-Dev Phase II -John Type li 24-hr 100-Year Rarnfal1=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 19
HydroCAD® 7.10 s/n 003899 OO 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12!19/2007
Subcatchment DA10: Drainage Area 10
Runoff = 85.96 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 4.064 af, Depth> 5.74"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Area (ac) CN Description
0.599 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers
0.498 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
7.404 80 >75% Grass cover Good, HSG D
8.501 81 Weighted Average
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA10: Drainage Area 10
Nydrograph
0
LL
___
as.
30- 85.96 cfs
35
3°- Type 1124-hr 100-Year
;o_ 'fall=8.00"
Rain
35_ Runoff Area=8.501 ac
30-
i5- Runoff Volume=4.064 of
5 Runoff Depth>5.74"
'°~ Tc=5.0 m i n
35-
30-
CN=$1
?5-
°_ _ _.
IS-
10.
t .... _ _.. __. _. _. _ .. .._. ,' _. .._ _.. _ __. .. _
- Runoff
0 11 12 13 14 15
Time (hours)

1
1
1
S:1Drawings\07107381Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 11 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 20
~droCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA13: Drainage Area 13
Runoff = 47.81 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 2.260 af, Depth> 5.74"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8,00"
Area (ac) CN Description
0.314 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers
4.414 80 X75% Grass cover Good, HSG D
4.728 81 Weighted Average
Tr I annth ~Inna \lPlnrity f~anarity r'lacrrintinn
(min} (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/secj (cfsj
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA13: Drainage Area 13
Mydrograph
0
LL
i2-
>0~
47.87 cfs
~8
~6"
44-
Type 1124-hr 100-Year
~o- Rainfall=8.00"
38.
36-:
-
Runoff Area=4.728 ac
34
32~
30- _
Runoff Volume=2.260 of
z6 Runoff Depth>5.74"
24-
Tc=5.0 min
ZO':
18-
,6-
_
CN=$1
f4-
,2:
_.
,o
8-
6-
~- _.
_ -
2.
n" - _ _ _
10 11 12 13 14
Tima (hours)
- Runoff
i5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
S:\Drawings\07\0738\Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase fl -John Type 11 24-hr 900-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 21
HydroCAD®7 10 sin 003899 UQ 2005 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA2: Drainage Area 2
Runoff = 278.86 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 14.731 af, Depth> 7.39"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Area (ac) CN Description
23.904 95 Urban commercial, 85% irnp, HSG D
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ftlsec) (cfs)
G,ft rliro~f Fnfrv (_Irhanisc+rl Arad
Subcatchment DA2: Drainage Area 2
Hydrograph
300 -Runoff
278.86 cfs
~ 180
160
3
ioi 140
Type II 24-hr 100-Year
Rainfall=8.00"
Runoff Area=23.904 ac
Runoff Volume=14.731 of
Runoff Depth>7.39"
Tc=5.0 m i n
CN=95
~..-
10 11
12 13
Time (hours)
14 15

' S:\Drawings\07\0738\Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type II 24hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 22
HydroCAD® 7.10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Subcatchment DA4: Drainage Area 4
Runoff = 283.04 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 14.788 af, Depth> 7.28"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
' Type II 24hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Area (ac) CN Description
' 8.229 92 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG B
8.132 95 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG D
1.456 $0 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D
' 6 574 98 Impervious Area, Onsite
74 ~G1 4d Wainhtari Auarana
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec} (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
' Subcatchment DA4: Drainage Area 4
Hydragraph
' 300-: 283.04 cfs
280-
26°~: Type IL 24-hr 100.-Year
24°: Rainfall=8.00"
22°- Runoff Area=24.391 ac
2°°_
,8°_ Runoff Volume=14.788 of
,6° Runoff Depth>7.28"
LL ,4°~ Tc=5.0 min
' 12°- CN=94
°°
80-
i s°_
40
20- -. _ ~
10 11 12 13 14
1 °~
Time (hours)

- Runoff
15

S:1Drawings107\0738\Project Calcsl
0738 Alarnance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1124-hr 900-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 23
HydroCAD®7 10 s!n 003$99 OO 2005 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12!19/2007
Subcatchment DAB: Drainage Area B
Runoff = 58.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 3.078 af, Depth> 7.28"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Area (ac) CN Description
2.454 92 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG B
1.790 95 Urban commercial, 85°/a imp, HSG D
0 833 98 Impervious Area Onsite
5.077 94 Weighted Average
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DAB: Drainage Area 8
Hydrograph
__
58.91 cfs
a
0
~~-
20.
15 _ _
10
c ~ .. _ _ _.
0~
10 11 12 ~~ iq
Time (hours)
Type II 24-hr 100 Year
Rainfall=8.00"
Runoff Area=5.077 ac
Runoff Volume=3.078 of
Runoff Depth>7.28"
Tc=5.0 min
CN=94
- Runafi
15

1

S:1Drawings\07\07381Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1124hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Hanrath Associates, P.A. Page 24
HydroCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ~ 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12119!2007
Subcatchment DA9: Drainage Area 9
Runoff = 159.34 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 7.944 af, Depth> 6.68"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Area (ac) CN Description
8.410 95 Urban commercial, 85% imp, HSG D
5.860 80 >75% Grass cover Good HSG D
14.270 89 Weighted Average
Tr I cnnth Clnric \/olnrifi~ f ~naritu rlocr•rintinn
(min) (feet) (ftift) (ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry, Urbanized Area
Subcatchment DA9: Drainage Area 9
Hydrggraph
170-
160-
150-
140-
130
120-
„o
,oo

90-.

~ 80-

~o-
60-
50 .
40- -
30
20-
1(1_ .. .... ... :.
10
159.34 cfs
Type II 24-hr 100-Year
Rainfall=8.00"
Runoff Area=14.270 ac
- Runoff- Volume=7,944 of
Runoff- Depth>6.68"
Tc=5.0 m i n
CN=89
j
_. I
11
12 13
Time (hours)
19
-Runoff
15

S:\Drawings107\0738\Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1124-hr 700-Year Rainfall=8.qq"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 25
HydroCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Pond P1: Wet Pond 1

Inflow Area = 25.820 ac, Inflow Depth > 7.35" for 100-Year event
Inflow - 300.45 cfs @ 11.96 hrs., Volume= 15.816 of
Outflow = 279.37 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 15.755 af, Atten= 7%, Lag= 1.6 min
Primary = 25.86 cfs @ 11.88 hrs, Volume= 11.216 of
Secondary = 256.59 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 4.540 of
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3
Peak Elev= 631.28' @ 11.98 hrs Surf.Area= 24,555 sf Storage= 128,768 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 27.8 min calculated for 15.749 of (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 25.1 min (778.1 - 753.0 }
Volume Invert Avail Storage Storaq e Description
#1 624.00' 146,881 cf Above Normal Pool (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc)
Elevation Surf.Area In c.Store Cum.Store
(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet)_
624.00 10,054 0 0
624.50 12,411 5,616 5,616
626.00 14,740 20,363 25,980
628.00 18,152 32,892 58,872
630.00 21, 915 40, 067 98, 939
632.00 26,027 47,942 146,881
' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 619.00' 24.0" x 170.0' long Barrel RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Outlet Invert= 617.30' S= 0.0100 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013
#2 Secondary 629.50' 30.0' long (Profile 6) Emergency Spillway
' Head (feet) 0.49 0.98 1.48
Coef. (English) 3.12 3.41 3.59
#3 Device 1 624.00' 48.0" Horiz. OrificelGrate Limited to weir flow C= 0.600
' Primary OutFlow Max=25.85 cfs @ 11.88 hrs HW=630.51' TW=626.70' (Dynamic Tailwater}
'~-Barrel (Outlet Controls 25.85 cfs @ 8.2 fps)
3=OrificelGrate (Passes 25.85 cfs of 118.02 cfs potential flow)
' econdary OutFlow Max=256.11 cfs @ 11.98 hrs HW=631.28' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater}
~2=Emergency Spillway (Weir Controls 256.11 cfs @ 4.8 fps)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
S:1Drawings\07\0738\Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1l 24hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 26
HydroCA©®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Pond P1: Wet Pond 1
Hydrograph
320 300.45 cfs ' -Inflow
300 -Outflow
279 37 cfs -Primary
26o 1~--- Inflow Area=25.824 ac -Secondary
256.59 cis
2so
zoo
220..
2ao
h
v 180'
~ 160'
u. 140
120
100
60-
40-
20
0,
10
Peak Elev=63'1.28'
Sforage=128,768 cf
11 12 13 74 t5
Time (hours)

' S:\Drawings107\0738\Project Calcs\
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1124-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 27
HydroCAD®7 10 sln 003899 ©2005 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Pond P4: Wet Pond 4
' Inflow Area = 50.211 ac, Inflow Depth > 6.21" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 306.98 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 26.004 of
Outflow - 175.51 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 25.804 af, Atten= 43%, Lag= 4.8 min
' Primary = 53.86 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 23.881 of
Secondary = 121.65 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 1.922 of
' Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3
Starting Elev= 624.00' Surf.Area= 39,615 sf Storage= 73,781 cf
Peak Elev= 628.61' @ 12.03 hrs Surf.Area= 51,693 sf Storage= 283,739 cf {209,959 cf above start)
Plug-Flow detention time= 96.5 min calculated for 24.110 of (93% of inflow)
' Center-of-Mass det. time= 24.5 min (799.9 - 775.4 )
Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description
#1 622.00' 358,265 cf Above Normal Pool (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc)
Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store
' (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet)
622.00 32,205 0 0
622.50 36,018 17,056 17,056
624.00 39,615 56,725 73,781
' 626.00 44,659 84,274 158,055
628.D0 49,982 94,641 252,696
630.00 55,587 105,569 358,265
' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 617.62' 24.0" x 83.0' long Barrel RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100
Outlet Invert= 616.87' S= 0.0090'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013
' #2 Device 1 622.00' 3.0" Vert. Drawdown Inlet C= 0.600
#3 Device 1 624.00' 48.0" Horiz. Riser Crest Limited to weir flow C= 0.600
#4 Secondary 627.60' 35.0' long (Profile 6) Emergency Spillway
' Head (feet) 0.49 0.98 1.48
Coef. (English) 3.12 3.41 3.59
Primary OutFlow Max=53.85 cfs @ 12.03 hrs HW=628.61' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater)
' L =Barrel (Barrel Controls 53.85 cfs @ 17.1 fps)
~2=Drawdown Inlet (Passes < 0.60 cfs potential flow)
3-R~ser Crest (Passes < 129.89 cfs potential flow)
' econdary OutFlow Max=121.22 cfs @ 12.03 hrs HW=628.61' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater)
Emergency Spillway (Weir Controls 121.22 cfs @ 3.4 fps)
1
1

S:\Drawings\07\07381Project Calcsl
Q738 A)amance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -Jahn Type 1124-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 28
HydroCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Pond P4: Wet Pond 4
Hydrograph
300
280
260-
240-
_ _.. _
306.98 crs
i
1175.51 cfs
1
Inflow Area=50.2'11 ac
Peak Elev=628.61'
Storage=283,739 cf
- Inflow
- Outflow
-- Primary
-Secondary
.~ 200
180-
; ~an_
140
120
100
80-
60
40
20
10 11 12 13 14
Time (hours)
15

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
S:iDrawings107107381Project Calcs\
0738 Alarnance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type !I 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 29
HvdroCAD®7 10 s/n 003$99 ©2005 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Link DP'I: 24" RCP
Inflow Area = 5.077 ac, Inflow Depth > 7.28" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 58.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 3.078 of
Primary = 58.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 3.078 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow =Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Link DP1: 24" RCP
Hydrograph
3
0
LL
!Inflow
Pnmary
10 11 12 13 14 t5
Time (hours)

S:1Drawings10710738\Project Calcsl
Q738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type 1124-hr 100-Year Rainfall=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 30
H~droCAD®7 10 s/n 003899 ©2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Link DP2: Unknown Culvert
Inflow Area = 14.270 ac, Inflow Depth > 6.68" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 159.34 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 7.944 of
Primary = 159.34 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 7.944 af, Atten= 0°!°, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow =Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Link DP2: Unknown Culvert
Hydrograph
170 159.34 cfs _ Inflow
Primary
,~~

1
1
is
u
3
0
LL
10 11 12 13 1u '$
Time (hours)

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
S:\Drawings107\0738\Project Calcsl
0738 Alamance Crossing Post-Dev Phase II -John Type it 24-hr 100-Year Rainfa11=8.00"
Prepared by Horvath Associates, P.A. Page 31
HydroCAD®7 10 s!n 003899 O 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 12/19/2007
Link LINK: To South Culvert
Inflow Area = 63.440 ac, Inflow Depth > 6.94" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 515.65 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 36.667 of
Primary = 515.65 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 36.667 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow =Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs
Link LINK: To South Culvert
Hydrograph
550- 515.65 cfs - Inil°w
- Primary
3
0
LL

10 11 12 13 is ~~
Time (hours)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I~ ~ _
1 PROJECT ^ftEA - ~ ~~~', ~ ~ _
.~ ,Q~
1 - ~ ' , 4'
.,
~. i d
,~ _ - ~;
_,
,.
.~
4 t ~
V:
r
_.
r
,
~~ ~ ~ ~ ;, f.. ., / f/ ~ ~ ~~ti \
," ~
,-_
~ r ~ , ~ 4
.,
_ .::_.. ,
~~- ~ _
.,; , r-- ~
~~ ~ 1 I -~ ~ ,~ :C~ Q _ ,~ A
.,.., _.,
~. ~
~i,~ ~
~.r,. ~1 1
_. ~ Q r ~ ~ Q'7, ~
~ ~
i r
i
3
~.. 1`
~ `~ ~
~.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~_ Gj ry~~ ~- ~ 1r1.
-k
l '~ `
~ ~ _ ,
~._ 1 f
'.
i ~ a ~ ~,
f/ R
~~ ~
I f l" --- -. wa, .i- ~.
~ ~~ ; ~ .. / - { rear f 1 i r '+
i .~ / e ..rte ;~~ ~ -f /; .
.w ~ ~ ~ ~, ,~ ~ ,, ,
,,~ !~ , `~
4
__ ~,
_ ~,, ` ~ ~.
~ ..._.o. , ~ ~.s~, ~ ;
. ~ `~ ~:,,( ' ~3 SEE ~ ~'`~=
~ (` ~._
,
fit,// ~~"~..~ l ~`,_ ~' ~f~ ~ '.f l I rl `~. ~ ...`~
"~~~> • w, •~ • 1
t ~ ''~~ _.r' -~
~.
! ~ ~-
/r
•~
v
_-
N- ~ _ ~ _ _ ._... _ _
,_
~~ ,
-.
..
~-
.~ ~~ ~~ `gip ~'., % :_ ! ~ ~--- _ ~ ~ - -z ~;~ ' - . _
~, f f
~ ~ .
~_--~/~
• • • • • • ^ ^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ^ • • • • • • • • • ^ • ^ • • • r • ^ ^ ~ • • ^ ^ • • • • • • • • • • ^ ^ ^ • ^ • • • • • • • • • • • • • ^ ^ •
DRAWN BY:
HORVATH pVERALL SITE PLAN B~
ASSOCIATES CHECY,EDBY:
JES
16 CONSULTAM PUCE SlJi1E 201 SCALE
DURHAM. NORiH CAROLINA 27707 A LA MA N C E WEST
P919.190.1990 iD14A90.8953 ~~~-25~~
s37 MAare na~r surf uro DA'E
CHATiANO~A TENNESSff 3'x02 I-85/40 and University Drive os-~a2om
P 1:3.7661w0 It:3,26eS70D PP, CJECi NC
www.horvamauociafes.com Burlington, North Carolina 0738 SMPI

,_
~ _ ~
~ - --.~
_ _ ,
_.. __,
- _- ____
~~ - ...~`
--
I \~..
~ ~
1 d
` ~ ' i ~ ~ ~utParce110 ~ '~ [ , ;
- ;
~~~ ~ 1.35 AC \ ~
,. ~ _ iTaF
wic ~ FtMR•xC FK/V1J
`~. ~~
ar of ~euA • inu ~ I

vra
,~~ ~ ~ `\ woes
_._,__~
-.
'\ ~ ,
- alsr aPV- mai
,~
~ ~ ~~ . `~ \ ~ ~ I~
+~ ~. '\`' ~~ r m r~Att MAFaFOtlE Flea
~~I +~' , ~~ `\~ ~'~\\ ~~ ; ~. , ~ d` ,, Nv. our ~ nFUI ~/ ~ , t I
~, \ (-"
.~ ~ ~
,~~ ,
~~ ~~ ~.
vAFnxJtEwontsrobrwwrBAGCBS ~, ` ,-, i ,%
.• .
AawuCS~at ~ ~ ~.~ _ _ ~.~
I lv woe ~ Fat t ~ ~ ~. ~ . ::
z ~ ~ ,
Aownc snag rurmar,~~ ~ 1 ~~ .: '~.
1 " 9 ~} ~ ~~ r+om~A4 of wAU • sl as ~ Frlo•~. a, ~ ` ~•`~ _.
putparcel i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1`~~~~.,,
2.44 AG I K^Po _
:®«.~
~ I 1 I _'° `~`"" ~ ~' ~ ~
~ ~eewa'fo ;~~~ S,,Q
I a~areuv•cx~m - "~~ ~~
I ' ' /%~ t _
I aswoe / °=~ egx ~an~ -- ~~ v~eorcair! ~ --
1 , ~ ~ ~ 1-
l'
_. .._. _.... r
~.
-.__ _
_ _-
,_ _
..~ _ - - -
.
~..
._ _-
- - -- -
__ - - i ~.
f
_ _ ~-_.. -
_ _
0 30 : , 900: 200 - -- - _... ~ :~_= ~'=
_ ~ _.- _ _
_.. _ _ _ F .-- ____
_ Y _ ~.. ~, _ _ _ _ _.
--y SCA#E 1"= 100' _ "" - _- __ _ _ ._...
_. _ _
i • i • • • • •r` r^ • • • •• i' • r • ~ • • • • ^ • ^ • ^ • ^ • • ^ • ^ • • • • • ^ ^ • ^ • • • • ^ ^ • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
DRAWN BY:
HORVATH WATER QUALITY POND PLAN CHECY,ED~yES
JRS
I6 CON$UITANi PUCE SUITE 2D1 $CALF
DURHAM. NORiH CAfA)' (INA 2i70i A LA MIA N C E WEST
P 419.490.x990 F 919.+40.8°9 ~ ~• -~ ~'
DATE
`,r3)MAP.KEf STREET. SU1;FlL'0 I-85/40 7 UNIVERSITY DRIVE 20-DEC-2007
CHATTANOOGA, TENNE.SEf 3%x02
P a23.26b.x94p F x23.26n.5%00 PROJECT NQ
www.horvalFlaswcxFfes.com BURLINGTON 0738 SMP 3

~ry DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
' ~~ ~ ~// WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 ~~~, { i °~ r"(~~~
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
December 6, 2007
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 2007 03073-201
John Meshel
Alamance Crossing, LLC
800 South St. Suite 395
Waltham, Massachusetts 02453
Dear Mr. Meshel:
' Reference is made to the application of September 17, 2007, submitted on your behalf by
Mr. Bob Zaraecki and Ms. Debbie Edwards of Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A. for an
individual Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization to permanently impact
' approximately 1.75 acres of wetlands and 2,0771inear feet of stream channel. These permanent
impacts are associated with the proposed construction of Alamance West, a commerciaUretail
facility located within the northeast quadrant of the intersection of St. Mark's Church Road and
' Boone Station Road, north of US Interstate 85/40, adjacent to and west of the existing Alamance
East, Alamance Crossing Shopping Center, in the City of Burlington, Alamance County, North
Carolina.
' After review of your proposal, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) submitted comments by memorandum dated October 29, 2007, a copy of which is
enclosed for your consideration and response. Specifically, the NCWRC expressed the following
' concerns:
' 1. Long-term cumulative.impacts associated with the stream channel piping and wetland
fill and the subsequent hydrologic alteration that can result in negative downstream
impacts.
' 2. They state if the permit is issued, then the following conditions are recommended:
Please provide a written response for each.
' a. 100 foot undisturbed native, forested buffer along perennial streams and a 50
foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands.

' b. Use of bridges for all permanent roadway crossings and associated wetlands to
reduce impacts.
' c. Stormwater control structures should be designed to achieve no net change in
the hydrology of the watershed.
d. Locate sewers and other utilities outside the riparian buffers and as far away
from the streams as functionally possible.
e. Use ofnon-invasive species for landscaping.
f. Proper installation of sediment and erosion control measures that are routinely
' inspected and properly maintained.
Comments were also received from an individual via a-mail dated November 2, 2007, a
' copy of which is enclosed for your consideration and response. This individual expressed, in
general, concerns regarding the management of stormwater quality and quantity at this site.

1

Comments were received from The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
on November 7, 2007, a copy of which is enclosed for your consideration and response. Even
though these comments.were received after the official comment period, they should be
addressed as they are pertinent to our permit decision. Specifically, NCDWQ requested the
exploration of additional site alternatives that could potentially reduce impacts, while still
meeting the stated purpose. Furthermore, you should submit all information (site location and
potential impacts) associated with any off-site alternatives that were considered.
Your response to these comments and our request for written information regarding off site
alternatives must be given full consideration before we can make a final decision on your
application. We need your information to address the concerns/issues raised over the proposed
project. You may submit additional information, revise your plans to help resolve the issues,
rebut the issues made or request a decision based on the existing record. We must hear from you
within 30 days from the date of this letter, otherwise your application will be withdrawn. If you
have questions or comments, please contact me at my Raleigh Regulatory Field Office address,
telephone [phone] ext. 26.
' Enclosure
Sincerely,
Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Field Office

Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Mr. Bob Zaraecki and Ms. Debbie Edwards
Soils & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Shari Bryant
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721
3

North Carolina Wildlife resources Commission. ~
Fred A. Harris, Interim Executive Director
1VIEIVIORANDUM
TO: Mr. Andrew Williams, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator ~jl,u,~,,'~
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 29 October 2007
SUBIECT: Public Notice for Alamance Crossing, LLC for Construction of Alamance West,
Aiamance County, North Carolina. Corps Action ID No. 2007-03073-241
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Conunission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values afthe area. Our continents are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 {as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (4$ Stat. 4fl1, as amended; l6 U.S.C. 661-667d), and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131
et seq.).
The applicant proposes to construct a com~erciaUretail facility. The prgject..wi11 permanently
impact 1.75 acres of jurisdictional shrub/scrub riparian wetlands and 2,077 linear feet of stream channel.
In addition, the applicant is applying for authorization for a small (<0.01 acre) wetland impact that has
already occurred, The irnpacts would result from a proposed road crossing and lot f II for retail buildings
and parking. The applicant proposes to mitigate at a 1:1 ratio for impacts to wetlands and stream
channels with important function by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
In addition, the applicant proposes to preserve through a restrictive covenant the remaining jurisdictional
wetlands (1.89 acres), streams (2,5141inear feet) and riparian areas (buffers) on the site.
Urmamed tn'butaries to Back Creek in the Cape Fear River basin flow through the site. There are
records for state special concern four-toed salamander {Hemidactylium scutatum) near the project site.
We hesitate to concur witl- the piping of stream channels due to the potential for long-term and
cumulative impacts. Stream piping and placing fill in aquatic resources can after hydrology, result in
signiftcam negative impacts to downstream areas, and eliminate aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat.
Stream piping reduces the infiltration of stormwater and associated pollutants, as well as the dissipation of
stream energy, Likewise, we hesitate to concur with the filling of wetlands due to their wildlife habitat
value and the well-known beneficial functions they provide for flood control and water quality protection.
This area is experiencing rapid urban growth and changes in land use from a primarily forested
area to an urban landscape may exacerbate channel degradation and sediment impacts to stream
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Faa: [phone]
Z'd SZ9Z'6~f~'9EE ~ueR,~g i.aeyg eLE~OT LO 6Z ~~0

Page 2
' 29 Octelier 2007
Alamance West
Corps Action ID #: 200?-03073-201
ecosystems due to increased stormwater runoff and elevated flooding. Multiple studies have shown that
' stream degradation occurs at 10% impervious (Schueler I994;.Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al.
2000; Mallin et al. 2000; May and Horner 2000; Stewart et a1.2000; Paul and Meyer 2001).
Should the permit be issued, we recommend the following conditions be incorporated to further
' minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
1. To minimize additional stream impacts, while retaining some measure of wildlife habitat, we
recommend a 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a 50-foot
' buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers along
these areas will minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources, water quality, and
aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area. In addition, wide riparian buffers
' are helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and far treatment of pollutants associated with
stormwater runoff. Whereas, a grassed buffer, particularly fescue, is a vegetated buffer but will
not provide the necessary and highly valuable functions as discussed for forested buffers.
2. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands to eliminate
' the need to fill and culvert, where practicable. If culverts must be used, the culvert should be
designed to allow passage of aquatic organisms.
3. Stormwater control structures should be designed to achieve no net change in the hydrology of
the watershed. Additionally, trees and shrubs should be planted around the upper third of the
stormwater detention pond, excluding the dam, to provide habitat benefits that offset those
functions lost by development, partially restore aquatic habitats, reduce exposure of the water
' surface to sunlight thereby minimizing thermal pollution, and provide essential summer and
winter habitats.
4. Locate sewers and other utilities as far away from streams as functionally possible and minimize
' stream crossings. It is preferable that sewers be located outside the riparian buffers.
4,,
5. ~ Any landscaping should consist ofnon-invasive native species and Low Impact Development
' (I.ID) technology. Using native species instead of ornamentals should provide benefits by
reducing the need for water, fertilizers, and pesticides. Using LiD technology in landscaping will
not only help to maintain the predevelopment hydrologic regime, but also enhance the aesthetic
and habitat value of the site.

1
1
6_ Sediment and erosion controls measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or
construction. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive
silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including
destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at [phone].
Literature cited
Arnold, C. L., and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage-the emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243 258.
Doll, B. A., D. E, Wise-Frederick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, and R. E. Smith.
2000. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the piedmont of North
' E'd SZ9G'6fr~'9EE ~ueRug j-ae4S eGE~Oi GO 6Z X00

Page 3
' 29 October 2007
Alamance West
Corps Action ID #: 2007-03473-201
Carolina.. Pages 299 304 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon
Mallin, IVI. A., R. E. Williams, E. C. Esham, and R. P. Lawe. 2000. Effect of human development an
' bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10(4):1047-1056.
May, C. 'W. and R. R. Harne~r. 2000. The eumuIative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream-
riparian ecosystems. Fages 28I 286 in P. J. Wigingtan, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
' of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-Iand use watersheds, Portland, Oregon
' Paul, M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 32:333-355.
Scheeler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(3):100-
' 111.
Stewart, J. S, D. M. Downes, L. Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R Bannerman 2000. Influences of riparian
corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Fages 209-214 in P. 3. Wigington, Jr. and
R. L: Seschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International
Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
' cc: Gyndi Karoly, DWQ
ec: Corey Oakley, WRC

' 'b'd SZ9L'6fi+i~'9EE ~ueR~g i.aeyg eLE ~OI LO 6Z 4a0

O~O~ W A•T FRq
G
' •~
o -ter
Iviichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
November 7, 2007
' CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Jean Manuele, Field Chief
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers •
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615 •
' Subject Property: ~ Alamance West
Dear Ms. Manuele:
Alamance County
DWQ Project # 07-1576
REC~~I~~~
NQ~ ~ 7 2007
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
' On behalf of the NC DWQ 410/Wetlands Permitting Unit, we respectfully request that you consider the following
comment within your review of the 404 Individual Permit request for the above referenced property:
1. The applicant's alternatives analysis appears to have only considered two options, i.e., relatively significant
' impacts to streams and wetlands as proposed by Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative), and relatively negligible
impacts to streams and wetlands as proposed by both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. This Office believes there
are likely additional alternatives that would effectively strike a balance between these two options. We would like
' to have the applicant explore and submit other plans that consider a balance between your currently proposed
alternatives.
' Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please contact ran McMillan or me in our Central Office in
Raleigh at [phone].
' Sincerely,
1~
' Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
' CBK/~m
cc: Andy Williams, Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
' Sue Homewood, DWQ Winston Salem Regional Office
File Copy
Central File
071576AIamanceWest(Alamance)_IP Comment Letter
' one
No Carolina
' ' ~tura!!b
N. C, Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certificafion lJnit '
1650-Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650.,(Ivltiiling Address)
232I Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (httn:!/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-B77-623-6748
1

for Andrew Willians re Alamance West in Burlington
Williams, Andrew E SAW
Page 1 of 8
From: Porter, Elizabeth D SAW
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:13. PM
To: Williams, Andrew E SAW
Subject: FW: for Andrew Willians re Alamance Westin Burlington
Sorry about the delay getting this to you. Since there was no name in the FROM block, our email system put it into my junk mail
folder...
From: [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Fri 11/2/2007 5;03 PM
To: Porter, Elizabeth D SAW
Subject: for Andrew Willians re Alamance West in Burlington
' Andrew E. Williams 919 876-8441
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls ofNeuse Road Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
In Re Alamance West project in Burlington NC
' Andrew
.- >.
The following are condensed from iiiscussions with local residents and locaUdistant experts in
government service. I tried to keep duplication to a minimum, focus each on a particular aspect,
but did not succeed as well as I should have.
As I indicated in our conversation, we have no direct interest at stake in this project, are
concerned about the cumulative effects of continued land development without appropriate
technologies, in defiance of State law, federal recommendations and common sense.*
The following aze offered as a suggestions for your consideration regarding use of the simplest
' and cheapest of all rainwater management modes to bring maximum public benefit without
depriving landowners of their rights.
--- a ---------
' The USEPA's <http://www.nesc.wvu edu/> and <http://www.epa.gov/nps/lid/lidlit html>
websites plus NRCS information at
<httn://www.il.nres.usda.gov/technicaUeneineer/urban/sections/section9 html>
provide most of what normally competent civil engineers need to plan projects that have minimal
impact upon public waters while providing maximum public benefit through the retention of
~ rainwater.
The Notice tells us that
' "The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant ..."
In our experience applicants typically provide an absolute minumum of information plus
• Was the Corps fully and fairly informed about the latest and best available technologies
' applicable to this site?
Did the applicant point out that the parking area could be designed with porous asphalt or
:oncrete that would simultaneously eliminate polluted runoff, min;m;~e nmoff volume to
vhatever extent deemed cost effective and recharge aquifers with water that would become
' l 1/29/2007

' for Andrew Willians re Alamance West in Burlington
' available as wellwater and streamflow throughout the year?
- Did the applicant illustrate the comparative costs/benefits of parking area design consisting of
shallowly-depressed portions that would detain/retain/infiltrate stormwater at whatever level, up
' to zero runoff, deemed appropriate?.
--- c -------
Ifthis project is not designed to compensate for reduced infiltration then its runoff frequency and
volume will increase significantly, contributing to greater floodwater downstream. This will
' work a hardship on successive communuities all the way to the ocean, forcing construction of
more complex, costly, environmentally damaging flood defenses. The several million gallons that
' will run off this site immediately during a major storm event constitute a vaulable public resource
if guided to underground storage in accordance with Soil Conservation Districts Law [(1937,c.
' 393, s. 1.) § 139-2.) regarding "Appropriate Corrective Methods".
An excerpt of critical phrases from this lengthy statute:
"To prevent floodwater and sediment damages, and further the conservation, utilization, and
disposal of water, and development of water resources it is necessary that land-use practices -
works for flood prevention -conservation -utilization - development of water resources be
' adopted and carried out. '
Among the procedures necessary are engineering operations such as the construction of terraces,
terrace outlets, check-darns, desilting basins, floodwater retarding structures, channel
unprovements, floodways, dikes, ponds, ditches retardation of runoff by increasing absorption of
' rainfall..."
The focus of these methods upon guiding water to storage as opposed to facilitating runoff that
transports mobilized pollutants makes the intent of the Legislature unmistakably one of
' promoting retention-based planning.
This was reinforced by the "Declaration of Policy of the NC legislature' ;
"to provide for the prevention of floodwater and sediment damages...
furthering the conservation, utilization, and disposal of water and the development of water
resources and thereby to preserve natural resources, control floods, prevent impairment of dams
' and reservoirs, assist in maintaining the navigability of rivers and harbors, preserve wildlife,
protect the tax base, protect public lands, and protect and promote the health, safety and general
welfaze of the people." **
--- f -------
It is clear that the NC Legislature intended for all public servants to implement its policy with
' due diligence. It is obvious that too few public servants have complied with these comprehensive,
sensible, sufficiently detailed instructions. This failure does not, however, set a precedent that
enables present public servants and land users to defy State Law by ignoring the simple Corrective
Methods that would r tim;~e erosion, pollution and waste of water to relative insignificance,
' Sringing a broad range of public benefit without unduly burdening the landowner.
These aze not arbitrary or capricious rules, they pass every test in being the most cost-effective,
Page 2 of 8
,11/29/2007

for Andrew Williams re Alamance West in Burlington
equitable and broadly beneficial form of land use planning/design. USEPA and the USDA-
NRCS/FS files lay out the most appropriate measures in great detail as Low Impact Development
and Best Management Practices that focus upon "catching raindrops where they fall" and guiding
these through cleansing soils to the most suitable storage, which is, inmost cases, aquifers.
--- e -------
' Did the applicant illustrate how the site's planning/design will comply with State Iaw and federal
recommendations descn'bed in the NC Act and the 1972 federal Clean Water Act?
Building detention basins for stonnwater storage and pollution control, as some jurisdictions
t require and many civil engineers prefer, would mitigate these negative impacts. But this
' alternative uses up valuable land and creates unsightly, unusable facilities, making it a poor choice
in most cases, certainly in this one. Similar or greater rainwater storage can be accomplished by
' utilizing the gravel base of pavements and depressed driveway areas between parking stalls,
perhaps with underground chambers that enhance stormwater detention/infiltration if local and
downstream officials are wise enough to contribute toward this consturction in order to augment
their groundwater supply.
--- f -------_
The planning approach of preventing runoff rather than controlling it is cost-effective, even
bringing significant savings to the land developer, if capable civil engineers of good professional
integrity are hired to provide a complete and accurate picture of all planning options.
While some in the civil engineering field counsel clients that onsite retention is more costly than
' drainage-oriented planning/design the experience of the major metropolitan area around Phoenix
has been that this will save roughly $5,000 per homesite in development costs. The reduced need
' for engineering plans and supervision with onsite retention-based planning/design is a powerful
incentive for civil engineers in both private and public service to contrive reasons for not adopting
' this approach. This is unfortunately for their clients and the general public.
The savings from eliminating the need to build underground storm drains, wide streets with
' curbs, roof gutters and offsite facilities to manage stormwater vary with each site but as a general
rule can be expected to exceed the $5,000 average of Phoenix due to increasingly stringent
' pollution prevention requirements. Homesites that retain their rainfall with porous driveways,
infiltration vaults, decorative retaining walls and bermed or depressed yard areas produce no
' polluted runoff, greatly reducing the need for pollution monitoring and interception facilities.
Where street pavements are also porous and underlain with suitable water transfer devices then
polluted runoff is min;,,,;wed to relative insignificance, providing total compliance with NPDES
rules with no significant maintenance requirements.
It is not'safe to assume" that all civil engineers aze fully informed about the costs, benefits and
methodologies of the needed planning/design techniques so that they can inform their clients
Page 3 of 8
' 11/29/2007

' for Andrew Willians re Alamance West in Burlington
' about the broad range of benefits that this approach will provide to the landowner and to the
community. The Corps may do a useful service to landowners by requiring a complete, accurate,
' unbiased analysis of all planning options for this site.
The Corps has an obligation to prevent pollution of waterways in keeping with its duty to protect
' public health-safety-welfare. The damage that pollutants cause extends to all persons who drink
water taken from rivers by municipal governments. Studies of the USGS and numerous colleges
t have shown that many of the several thousand complex chemical compounds of known and yet
unknown toxicity that are carried from roofs, yards and pavements to waterways are not removed
' from drinking water by municipal filtration plants. This truth is sufficient cause for regulators to
ensure that applicants are fully and fairly informed about their planning alternatives by
professional planners and civil engineers.
It is an unfortunate fact that civil engineers are rarely competent in the fields of Iow-tech BMP
' design/construction, groundwater flow planning, soil science and vegetation management.
Because of this they are inclined to exaggerate the costs of retention-based site improvement
' while understating the cumulative costs of drainage and flood control facilities, misleading their
clients into inappropriate decisions as a result.
' --- i -------
Toooften land developers are not shown a clear, complete, accurate view of all reasonable
planning options by the engineering Earns they hire. Because of this they are unable to instruct the
engineers properly to promote good cooperation with local-state-federal regulators, rather than a
combative relationship that generates more work for both the engineers and the public servants.
' Fully capable civil engineers of good personal integrity will inform their clients fully and fairly
about best available technologies, current state of the art planning and the compazative costs of
' drainage-oriented planning and design techniques versus the retention-oriented ones that impartial
experts advocate.
We've no interest in discovering whether the civil engineers who composed this application
' properly informed their clients or exaggerated the costs and problems of onsite retention-based
planning in order to generate more work for themselves. Our focus is the fmal product, how well
the site manages rainwater falling upon it so that this carries a m;n;mal amount of pollutants
' offsite and provides a maximum amount of groundwater recharge, causing the stream leaving this
site to flow more stably and full year-round.
How much of the 3-4 million gallons of water falling upon this site during a major rainstorm
will be run off within an hour? Within a day? Within 72 hours? The quality of Water of the US
' will be directly impacted by this runoff. Reducing its volume by retaining at least the equivalent
Page 4 of 8
' 11/29/2007

' for Andrew Willians re Alamance West in Burlington
of the 2-year storm will virtually eliminate polluted runoff. Using the entire soil surface beneath
' the parking area as a filter for waters percolating to groundwater storage will cleanse these waters.
--- k -------
The pavements of this site would last longer and serve the most cost-effective rainwater
' management purpose if constructed with ~22% voids that percolate all rainwater falling upon
them to underlying soils that carry it into aquifer storage. This will require diligent application of
' latest and best cut and fill techologies with competent soil scientists dictating the layering of
materials to provide optimum groundwater flow, but the costs will be no greater in total than
' those ofnon-pervious pavements. The public benefit of eliminating polluted outflows to the
stream emanating from this site are obvious. The many thousand cars passing over its pavement
' will generate a considerable body of pollutants. Detention basins could intercept and partially
treat this water but at a high cost in land area and with degradation of aesthetic values. Porous
pavement would intercept all the pollutants and fully bioremediate or adsorb them.
Well-trained, imaginative engineers would design the lots so that inner portions near the building
' were porous but did not hold water in major storms. Progressively lower lots toward the east
would hold successively more water so that the last to dry out within 72 hours would be farthest
' from the buildings.
The choice of an appropriate level of detention/retention level will be a judgement call to
' balance cost against benefit, If the site is shaped to retain the 2-year storm then it will achieve the
primary benefits of pollution m;n;m;~ation, ground recharge and floodwater diminishment.
' Crafting it to detain an additional volume during major storms would be a significant benefit to
the community but this will require unusually capable engineers and their extra cost should be
borne by the existing community and downstream ones residents who benefit from smart planning.
Wise local officials would work with this property owner, contributing funds and issuing
' variances of outdated codes-ordinances to raise the level of retention, The history of planning in
'the region suggests this will not happen but the Corps could encourage such cooperation by
demanding that the applicant present all aspects of benefit and cost so that concerned citizens will
be well-enough informed to comment meaningfully.
-- My comments will address both individual and cumulative effects of the following criteria.
' 1 -conservation
My old Webster's defines this as; "#1: a careful preservation and protection of something;
especially :planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or
'neglect"
The information in this "primitive" application indicates a property in excess of 20 acres situated
' it the headwaters of a significant creek. The frqueney, volume and duration of runoff from this
Page 5 of 8
' 11/29/2007

' for Andrew Willians re Alamance West in Burlington
project is therefore a primary concern for all citizens to the extent that these factors affect
' downstream residents who deserve protection from flooding, pollution and water shortage.
Wise conservation -management - of the rainwater falling upon this property is obviously
essential if the rights, health, safety and welfare of all citizens are to be protected.
' 2 -economics
The runoff regime of this site will either reduce or increase need for downstream residents to
' defend themselves against floodwaters. Applying the simple, cost-effective Best Management
Practices advocated by the USEPA and recommended by the USDA and USACOE to
' detain/retain/infiItrate amaximum amount of rainfall would reduce runoff in direct ratio to the
competence and diligence of the site improver.
3 -aesthetics
' Landscapes in Phoenix and Florida that have been developed since 1987 provide a model of
aesthetic improvement. The commonsense onsite retention planning/design that these
' jurisdictions adopted have greatly improved land values while achieving the conservation benefits
that every impartial expert prescribes.
4 -general env concerns
Comprehensive watershed management addresses every aspect of public/private cost and beneft.
Wise, honest officials who are properly informed will be able to recognize opportunities to work
with the developer in ways that benefit both and please the public. Corps personnel who require
that all reasonable planning options be presented will empower these officials and thereby attain
' the goals of both
5 -wetlands
Where onsite retention planning is the focus of land use planning wetlands will benefit
considerably from a higher water table that nourishes riparian and lowland areas to a greater
extent year-round.
t 6 -flood plain values
Reducing stormwater runoffby several million gallons during a major storm is a relatively tiny
contribution toward reducing flood damage to infrastructure and insurace costs for flood plain
'residents. Yet the cumulative impact of such p;aanning will be a major factor affecting a
considerable number of present and future homeowners.
' 7 -Land use
Best available technologies that minim;~e nmoff with porous paving and underground
infiltration chambers will allow full utilization of the land surface,
8 -flood hazards
While the retention of several million gallons of water during a major storm may not seem
'significant in relation to the huge watershed below it should be noted that a mere inch of overbank
flow maybe sufficient to cut through a levee and cause widespread flood damage. So too, a
'person standing nose-deep in floodwater will appreciate not having that extra inch of depth arrive
to raise the level of the 100 acres he is surrounded by.
~ -recreation
' Adding to the duration and volume of springs and seeps will benefit many recreational areas
Page 6 of 8
'11/29/2007

for Andrew Willians re Alamance West in Burlington
downstream in addition to their intrinsic value.
10 -water supply and conservation
' 20 acres of roofed/paved area that is designed to infiltrate all of its 25 million gallons of water
to aquifers will provide enough additional groundwater to meet its needs in addition to those of
' 600 or more residents.
11 -water quality
Properly layered soils beneath pavement will adsorb or convert to plant nutrients the toxic
materials in retained water. The public benefit of this is obvious though not easily quantified.
12 -energy needs
Replenishing groundwater reduces the need for energy to extract wellwater. In addition, the
' waters thus prevented from loss as nmoff will refill reservoirs throughout the year, enhancing
hydropower production where wise leaders have installed offstream bypasses that feed turbines to
' supplement peak power needs.
13 -safety
The elimination of several million gallons of streamflow during major storms will incrementally
improve safety for downstream residents.
14 - gen needs and welfaze of the people
' This site is but one among thousands but appears suitable for the application of aretention-based
rainwater management plan that would bring more benefit to the developer and the public than
' :traditional' disposal-oriented planning. Providing more groundwater with less stormwater runoff
is a major benefit for the people.
Duplicating this planning on all newly developed lands will reverse the trend toward higher
' floodwaters and lower water tables. The cumulative benefits from this are too obvious to need
additional comment.
We have no wish to involve ourselves in this project's planning design, will only monitor its
progress as a model to illustrate to honest politicians what could have been accomplished in direct
comparison to what was accomplished
{Perhaps you'd f"md time to comment to
<httn://www.eDa.aov/owm/se tic/ ubs/se~U'c management handbook~dfl as a means to help
minimize the inflow of sewage effluent to ACOE jurisdictional waters?}
' The following is merely political comment for your edification. Professional en ' eers are an
'opinionated bunch but they refrain from voicing their views publicly as I may withou fear of
retribution.
'Tim Marple
* Conditioning pemuts to ensure due diligence in applying appropriate tech can produce good
•esults with imposing undue restrictions on the builder because it allows planners to function
vithin a framework that all comprehend clearly. In an ideal situation local governments would
equine that each new land development project of any size apply the most appropriate
Page 7 of 8
~ lia9i2oo~

for Andrew Willians xe Alamance Westin Burlington Page 8 of 8
technologies to make fullest use of the site's capacity to provide for the water needs, wastewater
treatment and energy supply of the new residents. Wise, honest politicians would devise rules that
meet these goals without unduly burdening the landowner or buyer of the developed property.
' Phony environmental activisits' and corrupted environmental preservation organization
bureaucrats developed into a primary weapon of major land profiteers during the past century and
' still enjoy the anonymity that corrupted news industry leaders can provide.
My comments to the Corps in Wilmington have revealed aless-than-aggressive attitude towazd
' regulating projects that impact jurisdictional waters in ways that maxim;~e public benefit with
minimum negative impact on the developer. This is well-understood by those of us who have
' worked with and critically observed government long enough perceive the many influences upon
its agency leaders and therefore their staffs.
Personal contacts with Congressmen Packard and Calvert demonstrated the marvelous
' 'doublethink' that the most skilled agents of land speculation profiteers are able to push upon
fellow legislators and the public with the aid of ignorant and corrupted journalists. Testimonies
of their colleagues revealed the unseen pressures these agents can exert to help achieve the
' legislative magic that has denied most Americans the multitude of benefits that derive from
managing water resources intelligently.
The arrival of some of California's Ernest hired guns to serve land speculators in North Carolina over the past decade cannot be merely
' coincident with the perversion of its legislative processed to
provide the basic weapons of mass landscape destruction necessary for transient land development
' schemes such as we've seen up close and personal here in Fayetteville.
** This wording will sound familiar because it came from a federal model water law that
' accompanied creation of the Soil & Water Conservation Districts that were given authority to
implement sensible planning in close cooperation with landowners, not as regulators. The ACOE
' charter embodies these principles, adding regulatory powers and providing for cooperation with
landowners through the President's Council on Environmental Quality and directly as advisors to
' citizen groups, Resource Conservation Districts, municipalities, counties and states.
' 11/29/2007

// ~ ~
i ~' ~ - _ ~/
i ~~e~i' -
/~~ i ~ 1
~'
® ~ ~~/ 1 I
,~~jo ,
g f-' ~1~~ff111~111111n
,~ 1111111 IIII I
~/ A F
~,- i n111111111111n11111111n
!11111 III li ~ I I I
/-~ ~:
,~i/~ n111111~1~1111~111~111111111n
• ~
~!~"'i I II 1111111 ~~il II II

~ ~ ~ [1111111111
1111111 111 Illlllllllv~vn
11°` IIIII~'~

// ~~~ ~~
n i ron
~/~/~
,~
b 1 1 1 I ~~7 I I I
'
D
~ ji ~ / 8-
~j /~ r-Otiti IIII ~ I n

I 1111 II 111 IIIn

l r7 I I I I I I I U
\'\

`` ___ ~/

,, ~
n 1111111111111 n
1 ~~„ 1111
1111111111 I I lY~yn
111 11 1

~ ~ - ~ ~~ `~ ', , ~-
~~
~
,
I II 111 II 111
II °'9~1 III 111 111111111111111
II N;~i~I VIII
~
~
~ ,;``
~
~Z~
~~ ~~/'
1 1
1
1
1 !
I`
1
1
1
~
~
~
O
~' /~~
' 1
lU 1
~$~ II
11111111
~
~ ~
g
11 I
1
111
1
~ : °'m III OIl
~ j ~ lllllllllllllllil
4 1
o
s~ n Illlllllll11111 n
~
.~ $
r ~ ~ ~
tl
i ~I
i
i ~, ~
~~//~~~~ ~ 1111 nii
I i d! iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii niiiii iiiiii
n
~/
, I /
q~I~~ .Y.~~.:__
`= 1111111
~~
/ ~ ~ ~
; ~ t ,ri'
~-~ tf
~1111u1111
n1111n11111
,
~" ~ ,~ ,
,~
_ ~ cn~~ 1111
~~ 1 1 i X111
~g -.~,
~;•~ ~ ~
~' X11111 111111r11 n11111111 111111n
,.
,,~
~ ~ ,,
__:.~
~~ 11 11 I~ I I I I 1 1 ~1~ 1 111111
~~
-
'""~
~'~
~"` - i 11
111 11111111111111
111111 111111
~
-~ ,°~~/ ~~ II
/'J. ~' I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;''i°~hh I I I I I I"`~'I~ I I I
~
~~ I ~ V III 111111 II I I
' 111111 1111111

~~
~ ~%` ~ g I
~ I! IIII
IZk l 11~ I l l l l l l
~ ~
r~; I Illli llilill''}x111 11 I ~ I `~

~_~.+J . ~~ -- ~ ... N
N
~D

~,

o~
wD
T
r
o~

~D
n~
ti
wpm
~~
C

x~e'-e•
~~
~" D
T j
J

4 W ~
~ r
.. -~ ... _./Q~
14YQ(l81m1'
u~ema t Bevs® ~..~
~.'~y~ nr.~+.k
Alamance West Site Plan
~ r ~ xmm ~. ~~~ `7•:~'~ Alamance Crossing
~ ~ e~ . Y Burlington, NC

' Alamance West Individual Permit Application S&EC 7352
Additional Information -Off-Site Alternatives January 2008
Alamance West Off-site Alternative Analysis
The purpose of the Alamance West project is to complete the development of a Regional Retail
Business Center (RRBC) at the University Drive exit off of I-85/40 to serve the Alamance
County, Eastern Guilford County and Orange County regional markets. A RRBC features a full
range of retail and related businesses such as financial institutions, restaurants, cinemas, hotels
and offices located in a campus setting. On the Alamance West site, the applicant is seeking to
' fulfill a market need for additional national anchor and junior anchor retailers.
The Alamance West Shopping Center is proposed on a site that is located on the newly developed
' University Drive retail corridor. In the winter of 2006, the University Drive interchange opened
in the City of Burlington off of Interstate 85/40. The four property quadrants created by this new
interchange became desirable possibilities for development and the City of Burlington designated
the two (2) quadrants located to the north of the interchange for commercial development as part
' of their master plan. To date, the quadrant located in the northwest has been developed as a
350,000 SF shopping center and the property located to the east of the proposed Alamance West
has been developed as a 600,000 SF shopping center. The proposed Alamance West
development will solidify the University Drive retail corridor as the dominant retail shopping area
in the region and will ensure that this is the only RRBC for miles to the east and west.
' During its planning process, the City of Burlington worked with a number of developers and the
Department of Transportation to devise a master plan to create desirable uses in the property
quadrants created by the new University Drive Interchange. The City wants to encourage retail
growth north of the interstate and to encourage residentiaUmixed use development on the south
t side of the interstate.
The Alamance West project will complete the University Drive RRBC with a specific set of
' national retail tenants who desire locations in this market. These retailers are not the "trend"
setters in terms of establishing new markets and locations for shopping, but rather, they are the
followers in that they select locations in established retail comdors. While these retailers are not
' real estate trendsetters, they are vital components to a complete RRBC and they offer important
alternatives to the existing retail in the Burlington market.
The six (6) most important components for selecting a site for this kind a retail development are:
' 1) Prominent location within the existing RRBC -The site is located in the middle of the
University Drive RRBC and feeds off the two (2) shopping centers located to the east and
to the west. Without the 900,000 square feet of retail surrounding this site, the retailers
will not come to Burlington.
' 2) Proximity to residential areas -The site is located in close proximity to the existing
residential communities and near the newly constructed residential communities.
3) Visibility and easy access from the interstate -The site has good visibility from Interstate
' 85/40 and enjoys easy access from both the University Drive and Garden Road exists off
of I-85/40.
' 4) Logical site plan with adequate parking -The site lends itself to a site plan that is
acceptable to retailers as it will allow for a traditional power center layout with adequate
parking.
Page 1 of 2

Alamance West Individual Permit Application S&EC 7352
' Additional Information -Off-Site Alternatives January 2008
' S) Infrastructure -All necessary utilities are extended to the boundaries of the site.
6) Topography/Soil -The site is relatively flat and offers soil conditions that are consistent
' with standard retail building construction.
With these criteria for developing the Alamance West Shopping Center in mind, the applicant has
' examined alternative locations for the potential Alamance West in City of Burlington. Most
specifically, the applicant has examined the other quadrants created by the University Drive
interchange at I-85/40:
' Northwest Quadrant -Currently developed as a +/- 350,000 square foot shopping center. This
shopping center is anchored by a similar group of retailers as the proposed Alamance West and
the retail mass created by this shopping center and this retail cluster is a major factor in terms of
' the desirability of the applicants site.
Southwest Quadrant -This quadrant is current being developed as a 2,000+ home residential
development. The land in this quadrant is unsuitable for commercial development due to the
amount of wetlands and the overall topography.
' Southeast Quadrant -There is approximately ten (10) acres of usable land between University
Drive and an existing apartment complex. Ten (10) acres is not enough land to satisfy the area
requirements for the proposed tenants of the Alamance West Shopping Center. The ten (10) acres
is primarily comprised of residential properties and is not available for prices that make sense for
' commercial development. The lack of overall area, the high asking prices combined with the fact
that the land is across the highway from the existing retail makes property an unrealistic
alternative for a retail development.
' Other Locations in Burlington, NC -Excluding economic and market considerations, there are
number of parcels and potential land assemblages that could satisfy the retailers visibility and
access concerns, but there here are no other potential properties located in Alamance County that
would satisfy the need to be able to feed off of the retail dynamic contained within the already
established University Drive RRBC in the retail corridor.
' If other alternative locations where identified that met the economic and retail criteria, it is
probable that the impacts associated with the development of the site would have been equivalent
with the impacts on the proposed site. Other properties of equivalent size within the Burlington
area and Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion have similar stream densities and topographic
drainages. As such, one can assume that comparable impacts to jurisdictional waters would be
required. Relative to the size of the proposed development site, the impacts for the required
' infrastructure are typical. While it is not possible to rule out the possibility that there are sites
available that would present a less damaging alternative, we believe that it is sufficient to proceed
with your review of the project under this assumption.
Page 2 of 2