20061798 Ver 6_401 Application_20080208

SUMMERWIND PLANTATION
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION
FEBRUARY 2008
Owner:
Summerwind Plantation LLC
3061 Berks Way, Suite 202
Raleigh NC 27614
Prepared by:
~~~~
~E GENEERING
Q~c~~od~~
fE6 1 2 2008
DENR - WATERQUAIITY
WETLANDS AND STpRMWATER BRANCH
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS, INC.
Wetherill Engineering, Inc.
559 Jones Franklin Rd, St 164
Raleigh, NC 27606
8208 Brian Court
Garner, North Carolina 27529

G (o - 1-19 $ ~! c r (o
SUMMERWIND PLANTATION
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION
FEBRUARY 2008
Owner:
Summerwind Plantation LLC
3061 Berks Way, Suite 202
Raleigh NC 27614
Prepared by:
`_~o
_~~'-E HERILL
Q~c~~ae~~
FEB 1 2 2008
DENR -WATER Ql}ALiTY
yyETLAPIDS AND STpRMWATER BRANCH
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS, INC.
Wetherill Engineering, Inc.
559 Jones Franklin Rd, St 164
Raleigh, NC 27606
8208 Brian Court
Garner, North Carolina 27529

~..,~ ~ ~, ~.-~., ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ . 8208 Brian Ct.; Garner, NC 27529
• P:919-606-1065 - F:919-341-4474
February 8, 2007
Mr. Thomas Brown
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ((~~ ((~~ nn~/7 ((~~
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 0 L5 ~ LS ~I V LS o
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 V
FEB 1 2 2008
RE: Pre-Construction Notification
Nationwide Permits 14, l8, 29 wEn~wo~ s owR~w
Summerwind Plantation
Johnston County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Brown;
Summerwind Plantation LLC is proposing to construct amixed-use retirement community on
• Glen Road near the interchange of I-40 and NC-42 south of Garner, NC (Figure 1). In support of
this activity, Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. (CEI) and Wetherell Engineering, Inc. have prepared this
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) for anticipated impacts to wetlands and streams under the
jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as riparian buffers under the
jurisdiction of the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules (NBR) for the NC Division of Water
Quality's (NCDWQ) joint review of this permit application. Included in this submittal are the
PCN form, an agent authorization letter, vicinity and site maps, site photographs, data forms,
regulatory correspondence, and engineering plans and details. Additional information
supplementing the PCN form is included in this cover letter. As discussed with your office, the
impacts in this permit application are categorized into several Nationwide Permits to address the
specific activity occurring on the site.
Project Purpose & Need
The purpose of this project is to provide a full service retirement community with residential
options that address the varying needs of a growing elderly population. This retirement
community is comprised of multiple residence types including single family homes on quarter to
third acre lots, cottage homes, townhomes, a recreation center, a gazebo, a wellness and fitness
center, a planned assisted living facility, and a medical park area. The private, gated community
will include golf carts with each home for travel within the neighborhoods, and landscape
maintenance service for the entire community (optional for the single family homes). A
commercial complex is also being planned across Glen Road to the south, but is considered an
independent project, as it has separate utility and is located within a zoned commercial area
within the interstate Highway [nterchange overlay district of Johnston County (Figure 4).

Mr. Thomas Brown Page 2 of i 1
February 8, 2007
• __
The 40-42 area is a center of growth in the northwest Johnston and southern Wake County area.
Numerous single-family residential subdivisions have been developed in the area within the last
several decades. The proposed project gives a growing elderly population the option to remain
close to their families in this booming area, while getting the services they require and benefiting
from a community of their peers. In addition, the site is in close proximity to restaurants,
grocery stores, and other commercial facilities at the 40-42 interchange for ease of access.
Site Description
The property is bounded to the north by Swift Creek, to the east and west by adjacent residential
and undeveloped properties, and to the south by Glen Road. The site comprises approximately
189 acres in five parcels. Approximately 27 acres of the site is south. of Glen Road and will be
developed in the future as an independent commercial and professional center within the existing
Interstate Highway Interchange overlay district of Johnston County (Figure 4). From this point
forward, the site description will be limited to that area north of Glen Road that comprises the
residential retirement community and its facilities (Site) associated with this permit application.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin, more specifically in USGS Hydrologic Unit
0302020], NCDWQ Subbasin 03-04-03. Swift Creek (NCDWQ Index No. 27-43-(8)) comprises
the northern boundary of the Site. Two perennial unnamed tributaries of Swift Creek flow
through the Site, along with several intermittent and perennial tributaries of these two streams
• and a pond. Wetlands aze associated with several of these tributaries as shown in Figure 5.
Swift Creek and its unnamed tributaries are classified as Class C NSW. The Neuse River
Riparian Buffer Rules apply to this project area, specifically to Swift Creek, the two perennial
tributaries, and two tributaries of the easternmost stream (Figure 5}. NCDWQ verified the
jurisdiction of the Meuse Buffer Rules on August 8, 200? (Attachment 4}.
The Site is generally a young mixed pine-hardwood forest, with relatively recent timber activity.
A portion of the initial phase of the project is already under construction in upland areas, and is
therefore currently cleared. The riparian areas are forested with hazdwoods, although relatively
young, and the Swift Creek flood plain at the back (north) of the Site is a mix of forested
bottomland and scrub-shrub wetlands. The vicinity of the project includes commercial areas
associated with the I-40 & NC-42 interchange area, residential subdivision under construction to
the west, and forested areas to the east and north.
Stream and Wetland Delineation
Wetlands and streams under the jurisdiction of the CWA were delineated in 2006 by Landis Inc,
and field verified and adjusted by Cazolina Ecosystems, Inc. in August and September 2007.
Field inspection by USACE representarives was performed in 2006. Supplemental wetland data
forms for the proposed impact areas have been included in Attachment 5. Identification and
assessment of the screams on the Site were performed during August and September 2007 by
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. and. verified. by NCDWQ on August 8 and September 2$, 2007
(Attachment 4}. USACE Stream Quality Worksheets and NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
documenting the presence and characterisrics of these features are included in Attachment 5.

Mr.1'homas Brown Page 3 of 11
February 8, 2007
Several changes were made to the original wetland and stream delineation submitted previously.
Each of these changes is described below. A general review of the entire project delineation was
performed, followed by specific changes to the delineation in several areas.
• Stream classifications throughout the Site were adjusted to reflect assessments performed
using NCDWQ Stream Identification methodology (Version 3.1).
o Multiple streams originally classified as ephemeral were changed to intermittent.
o Several tributaries originally classified as intermittent were changed to perennial.
a A channel originally called ephemeral was changed to a linear wetland (Area 2).
• Wetland areas at Area 2 were re-delineated due to a discrepancy between the location of
the wetlands and the associated stream channel in the survey data.
• Area 3, originally called an ephemeral drainage, was reclassified as an intermittent stream
and shortened slightly.
• One wetland drainage was shortened due to lack of hydric soils at the upper end of the
drainage.
Project Alternatives
Since the primary purpose of the proposed project is to provide a community in proximity to
services and commerce to retirees with varying mobility and health issues, limited options are
available in the 40-42 area. Available parcels adjacent to the commercialized area of the
• Highway Overlay District are limited. The Site is one of only a few parcels of sufficient size
adjacent to commercial and medical facilities, allowing retirees to access these services along
with retail stores without significant travel requirements. Alternate sites would either be located
further from the local amenities, or would not be of sufficient size to house this multi-use
development.
In order to incorporate the multitude of accommodations and facilities to address the changing
needs of the retirement population, each use is located in a separate section of the Site. The
higher density facilities and townhomes are best suited near Glen Road and the adjacent
commercial areas, while the single-family homes will be in the back (north) of the property.
This allows the least amount of travel between the wellness center facility and those residences
housing people with limited mobility.
Several site constraints had to be addressed during the design of the project, including:
• the long, thin shape of the property,
• the presence of a gas pipeline bisecting the property,
• several streams almost bisecting the property, and
• severe slopes draining to the primary tributaries on the Site.
These constraints limited the options for siting the various components of this development.
Alternative layouts were evaluated to determine if impacts could be further reduced or avoided.
The proposed site layout provides these facilities and accommodations, addresses the constraints
listed above, and minimizes impacts to the greatest practical extent. Further discussion of
alternatives for each impact area are discussed below.

•
Mr. Thomas Brown Page 4 of 11
February 8, 2007
Proposed Impacts
The proposed impacts are presented below by impact area, and are also classified by type of
Nationwide Permit that is applicable to the purpose of the impact, as previously discussed. An
overview of the impact areas is presented in Figure S, and detailed plans of each impact area are
provided in the Exhibits (Attachment 6). Impacts to jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and buffers
have been minimized to the greatest practical extent as described in the next section. The total
impacts are below the Nationwide Permit threshold of O.S acres. Impacts to streams are over 300
linear feet, but much of this impact is to intermittent tributaries with unimportant aquatic
function, and therefore we are requesting that the 300 foot threshold be lifted for these impacts.
Total stream impacts to tributaries with significant aquatic function have been limited to 16S
linear feet.
Table 1
Pro osed Im act Summar
•
Type Total
Im acts Mitigation
Pro osed
Wetland ac 0.12 Yes
Stream 1 -Intermittent 230 No
Stream 1 -Perennial 16S Yes
O en Water ac 0.01 No
Riparian Buffer Zone 1 14,324 Partial
(sfl Zone 2 10,125 No
Ac =acres; If =linear feet; sf =square feet
Table 2
Pro osed Im act b Nationwide Permit
Type NWP 12
Utilities NWP 14
Road Crossin NWP 18
Minor NWP 29
Residential
Wetland ac 0 0.01 0.06 O.OS
Stream 1 0 142 0 2S3
O en Water ac 0 0 0 0.01
Riparian Buffer Zone 1 2,400 9,481 0 2,443
(s~ Zone 2 1,278 S,13S 0 3,712
Impact Area 1
This impact is required to construct a pier and gazebo in the pond on the Site (Attachment 3,
Photos 1-3). Impacts include the pier construction within the pond, and clearing of the riparian
buffer adjacent to the pond. The pier impacts would total less than 0.01 acres based on the size
of the pier and gazebo support structure (Attachment 6). An 80-foot section of riparian buffer
would be cleared to allow construction of the pier and gazebo. This clearing is required to allow
• adequate clearance for a crane to operate. The buffer will remain vegetated but will not be
reforested due to safety concerns. A clear field of vision is advisable from the recreation center

Mr. Thomas Brown Page 5 of 11
• February 8, 2007
to the pond in order to monitor residents on the pier. Therefore, mitigation is proposed for Zone
1 buffer impacts, while Zone 2 impacts are considered exempt as the area will be revegetated.
The pier and gazebo are larger than typical pier widths for private development. However, this
pier would serve an entire community and be handicapped accessible, requiring larger widths.
No other location of this structure would yield lower impacts to the pond or buffer and could
involve additional wetland impacts. A reduced width of the pier would decrease accessibility
and the amount of residents able to access the pier at any given time. The gazebo would allow a
portion of the residents to relax in a tranquil atmosphere over the water while providing shade
and protection from insects. The operation of a crane to help construct the pier requires a large
area to be cleared. The safety concerns of elderly residents being over the water resulted in the
proposal to leave the buffer cleared to allow full view of the gazebo and pier.
The impacts can be categorized as follows:
Permit
T e Stream Impact
Perennial Intermittent Wetland
Im act Open Water
Im act Butler Impact
Zone 1 Zone 2
NWP 29 O if 0 If 0 ac <0.01 ac 2,443 sf 1,633 sf
Tot Buffer: 4,076 sf
Impact Area 2
• This area includes an intermittent stream and a small headwater wetland that converge to form a
perennial stream. Headwater wetlands are also associated with an intermittent tributary
(Attachment 3, Photos 4-7). The intermittent tributary does not exhibit important aquatic
function above the confluence but .was considered intermittent by NCDWQ methodology.
USACE concurred that the southern branch of this drainage is considered a wetland with
drainage pattern rather than a tributary channel due to the lack of bed and bank or an ordinary
high water mark. Previous documentation showed that USACE field assessment of this area
identified the confluence of the two drainages as the point at which important aquatic function is
present. Field assessments by CEI and NCDWQ confirmed this and identified this as the point
where the stream channel becomes perennial. The stream channel below this point is
downcutting through a layer of clay that limits substrate composition and aquatic habitat.
Initial design plans included a culvert at this location, and impact to over 100 feet of the
perennial channel as well as the two headwater drainages. This was later revised to a bottomless
culvert to avoid the perennial stream impacts. However, due to unforeseen delays in the project,
updated policies regarding bottomless culvert construction, and the financial constraints
associated with closing on the initial phase of the property, it was deemed more feasible to
construct a bridge at this location prior to this permit application being approved in order to keep
the project on schedule. Bridge construction began in October 2007 and is nearing completion.
No impact occurred to the stream bed or bank from the construction of the bridge. However,
unintentional impacts occurred to this stream during the initial clearing of the Site. These
impacts have been addressed as documented under separate cover to NCDWQ and USACE. The
channel and banks have been stabilized and field inspections by NCDWQ staff have confirmed
that the work was performed adequately (Attachment 3, Photo 6). This area will continue to be

Mr. Thomas Brown Page 6 of l 1
• February 8, 2007
monitored during construction for any stability issues. Cleared areas adjacent to the stream that
are not being impacted by construction will be reforested upon completion of the project.
Impacts to the intermittent tributary, a small segment of perennial tributary, and associated
wetlands are still anticipated and will not begin until the permit application is approved. These
impacts include grading of residential lots and construction of a stormwater wet detention pond.
The lot grading is required due to the steep topography of the Site, and avoidance of impacts in
other areas of the property. Lots adjacent to this tributary are located on a slope that requires
regrading in order to build. Avoidance of impacts to the two perennial tributaries to the north of
this location resulted in the loss of approximately SO lots from the preliminary site layout. Since
the stonnwater design of the Site required that the discharge point be downstream of this area,
the lots in this location were retained. It is likely that the rerouting of stormwater would change
the hydrology of this portion of the Site, resulting in a loss of the stream and wetland functions.
Therefore, lots are proposed for construction at this location, rather than avoidance of a
jurisdictional area that would likely have secondary impacts associated with the alternate design.
Extensive analysis and discussions regarding the Site stormwater management were held prior to
determining that this Best Management Practice (BMP) is in the best location to collect
stormwater from this portion of the Site while minimizing both direct and secondary impacts
from construction. Due to the minimal amount of impact proposed for the construction of the
stormwater pond, along with the potential secondary impact of relocating the BMP, this use was
• considered allowable under NWP 18 during conversations about the conceptual design with
USACE staff. The summary below describes the factors involved in determining the location for
this BMP.
Although generally, stormwater facilities are prohibited in jurisdictional areas, there are several
key points that provide justification for this exception including:
• There is no less damaging practical alternative for the BMP:
o The amount of excavation required to locate a BMP in uplands at this location is
impractical due to the severe slopes on this Site.
o Locating the BMP in uplands would yield similar impacts, as the entire drainage
for this tributary would be routed to the BMP and would have to discharge below
the wetland and stream confluence. In fact, it would discharge further down the
perennial stream channel, therefore increasing impacts from the proposed design.
o Upland controls are provided throughout the remainder of the Site, where
additional room and less impervious area allows this collection and treatment
prior to release into waters of the US.
• Impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible:
o This impact is the extreme upper reach of the headwater area.
o No jurisdictional resources are located upstream of this location.
o The impact is to a small headwater wetland and drainage pattern, with no stream
impacts.
• Unavoidable impacts are mitigated:
o Mitigation at a 2:1 ratio is proposed for all wetland impacts on the Site.
• • The stormwater BMP would not remove the functions that the CWA protects:

•
Mr. Thomas Brown Page 7 of 11
February 8, 2007
o The minor headwater wetland impacted (0.06 ac) does not provide significant
aquatic habitat.
o The limited function of this small wetland in protecting downstream resources
will be adequately replaced, and possibly enhanced, by the proposed stormwater
wet detention pond and associated level spreader and filter strip.
• General site conditions are unique to the area and prevent an avoidance alternative:
o The steep slopes along the drainage require significant excavation to create a
BMP in uplands.
o Any upland BMP would likely have to be located further downslope due to the
significant amount of excavation required to construct it, and therefore dischazge
lower down in the system effectively changing its hydrology and resulting in
higher secondary impacts.
The impacts can be categorized as follows:
Permit
T e Stream Impact
Perennial Intermittent Wetland
Im act Open Water
Im act Buffer Impact
Zone 1 Zone 2
NWP 18 O if 0 if 0.06 ac 0 ac 0 sf 0 sf
NWP 29 23 if 192 if 0.05 ac 0 ac 0 sf 0 sf
TOTAL 23 if 192 if 0.11 ac 0 ac Total Buffer 0 sf
Impact Area 3
• There are no 404 impacts in this area. Since the original permit application for this Site, the cul-
de-sac has been shortened and lots reduced to avoid buffer impacts. However, some clearing and
regrading of the Zone 2 buffer in this azea will be required for construction (Attachment 3, Photo
8). This activity is considered exempt from the NBR since sheet flow will be maintained and the
area will be revegetated. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for this impact.
The impacts can be categorized as follows:
Permit
T e Stream Impact
Perennial [ntermittent Wetland
Im act Open Water
Im act Buffer Impact
Zone 1 Zone 2
NWP 29 O if O if 0 ac 0 ac 0 sf 2,079 sf
Tot Buffer: 2,079 sf
Impact Area 4
Cleazing and grading for residential lots in this area resulted in an impact of 38 linear feet to an
intermittent stream channel. This area was previously designated as an ephemeral drainage, but
more recent assessment by CEI and NCDWQ determined that the azea should be considered an
intermittent stream channel lacking important aquatic function (Attachment 3, Photo 9). Lack of
hydric soils and stream channel indicators on the upper end of this drainage resulted in truncation
of the delineation from the original ephemeral designation point. Due to confusion created by
the previous delineation showing this area as an ephemeral, non jurisdictional stream, lot fill and
• grading of this impact has already occurred. This situation was immediately reported to
NCDWQ and USACE, and NCDWQ compliance staff has visited the Site. The current impacts

•
Mr. Thomas Brown Page 8 of 11
February 8, 2007
include fill slopes and a sediment trap. Upon completion of the project construction, the area
outside the proposed lot fill will be restored to match the channel dimensions just downstream
and stabilized. Live staking of the banks of the channel will be performed during the winter
months after construction. Documentation of this restoration effort will be provided upon
completion of the project.
Fill or cut within the gas pipeline easement just south of this location is restricted, which limits
the amount of grading of roads and lots adjacent to it. Therefore, the lots in this area required a
significant amount of fill to be constructed. Slopes have been steepened to the maximum amount
practical while maintaining stability. All stonmwater from the lots will drain toward the street
and therefore avoid erosion problems on the slope.
The impacts can be categorized as follows:
Permit
T e Stream Impact
Perennial Intermittent Wetland
Im act Open Water
Im act Buffer Impact
Zone 1 Zone 2
NWP 29 O if 381f 0 ac 0 ac 0 sf 0 sf
Tot Buffer: 0 Sf
Impact Area S
This is the primary road crossing for the Site. A perennial stream channel almost bisects the
• property at this location (Attachment 3, Photos 10-13), allowing room for one road above (west)
the channel. Due to the volume of traffic and safety concerns, a second access to the northern
portion of the Site is required. The crossing has been located as far up the perennial channel as
possible in order to limit the linear footage of impact to the stream, while avoiding higher quality
stream habitat upstream. Topography up and downstream is steeper than the crossing location,
and therefore would involve more linear footage of impact due to the need for a higher amount
of fill. The crossing width has been minimized by using the steepest road grade possible
(between 6 and 8 percent) on the approaches to the culvert crossing, and the use of a retaining
wall on the upstream side to avoid additional wetland and stream impacts. The presence of the
gas pipeline corridor on the south side of the stream prevented additional cuts to further
minimize the crossing length. The only wetland impact associated with the crossing is an
extremely small wetland drainage on the side slope of the stream (Attachment 3, Photo 13).
Mitigation is proposed for the stream and wetland impacts at this location. However, buffer
impacts are less than 1/3 acre and 1501inear feet, and therefore are considered allowable without
mitigation requirements under the NBR.
Permit
T e Stream Impact
Perennial Intermittent Wetland
Im act Open Water
Im act Buffer Impact
Zone 1 Zone 2
NWP 14 1421f O if 0.01 ac 0 ac 9,481 sf 5,135 sf
Tot Buffer: 14,616 sf
The im acts can be Cate orized as follows:
•

•
•
Mr. Thomas Brown Page 9 of 11
February 8, 2007
Impact Area 6
There are no 404 impacts at this location. Impacts are limited to riparian buffers associated with
a utility crossing of the perennial stream that originates from the pond on Site (Attachment 3,
Photos 14-15). At this location, just east of the property, an aerial sewer crossing will be
constructed. The sewer will be tying into the existing Johnston County system just beyond the
stream channel and buffer. Impacts are limited to clearing of the buffer for the crossing. This
clearing is necessary to tie into the manhole on the County line, while maintaining gravity flow
in the sewer line. Due to topography and the location of manholes in the County line, no other
crossing locations are feasible without additional stream or buffer impacts. Impacts to the on-
site tributary adjacent to this line have been avoided with the exception of minor grading in Zone
2 at the crossing, which is required to tie into the existing County system. Clearing of the sewer
corridor has already occurred, and this was reported to NCDWQ in December 2007. The
impacts were then located using sub-meter GPS and provided to NCDWQ compliance staff
Impacts are under the 40-foot allowable crossing width for a sewer line, and therefore do not
require mitigation. Temporary impact to approximately I S feet of the perennial stream channel
occurred during clearing, however this area has been stabilized and the banks will be further
stabilized and planted with woody species upon completion of the sewer line construction.
The imnacts can be categorized as follows:
Permit
T e Stream Impact
Perennial Intermittent Wetland
Im act Open Water
Im act Buffer Impact
Zone 1 Zone 2
NWP 12 0 if O if 0 ac 0 ac 2,400 sf 1,278 sf
Tot Buffer: 3,678 sf
Avoidance and Minimization
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and buffers have been minimized to the greatest
extent practical during the design of this Site. Since the original application, the Site has been
completely redesigned resulting in the loss of approximately 50 lots. The majority of the
wetlands and streams on the Site have been avoided by redesigning the lot layouts around the
natural features. The unimpacted wetlands and streams will be preserved in recorded easements
or open space, including approximately:
• 657 linear feet of intermittent stream channel
• 5,8821inear feet of perennial stream channel
• 4.37 acres of wetlands
• 436,900 square feet of riparian buffers on intermittent and perennial streams on site
• 6.18 acres of the Swig Creek flood plain and riparian buffers
Minimization of impacts has occurred across the Site as described in each impact area above. In
general, impacts occurred only where the features of the Site, including the shape of the property,
steep topography, and existing utilities, prevented an alternate design with less impacts. Specific
minimization measures include:
• Area 1: Avoidance of wetland areas adjacent to the pond.
• Area 2: Use of a bridge to minimize impacts to the perennial stream.

Mr. Thomas Brown
• February 8, 2007
Page 10 of 11
• Area 5: Crossing shifted to shallowest portion of drainage to minimize stream impact.
• Area 5: Use of a retaining wall to reduce impacts and avoid higher quality stream
channel upstream.
• Area 5: Design of 6-8% grades (maximum allowable) on the road crossing to minimize
pipe length requirements.
• Area 6: Utility impacts by aerial crossing avoid permanent stream impacts.
• Steepest required side slopes (2:1) used at road crossings and some lots.
• Preservation of remaining stream channels within riparian buffers, dedicated open space,
or easements.
• With minor exceptions as shown in the plans, the majority of lots are platted outside the
riparian buffers. Those lots containing riparian buffers will have easements and deed
restrictions protecting the buffers
• Reduction of approximately 50 lots from the original layout in order to reduce impacts,
including creation of additional cul-de-sacs, shortening of existing cul-de-sacs.
• No development or fill within the floodplain of Swift Creek is proposed.
Compensatory Mitigation
An in-lieu fee request was sent to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program based on
preliminary impact estimates on October 4, 2007. Wetland and buffer mitigation was accepted
but stream mitigation was not available in the basin. Therefore, Summerwind Plantation, LLC
has signed a contract with Earthmark Mitigation Services to allow them to provide stream
mitigation through their Forest Creek Stream mitigation bank. The credits for this bank should
be available prior to the issuance of this permit. Stream mitigation for all perennial stream
impacts has been provided at a 1:1 ratio through the bank, resulting in a total commitment of 165
linear feet of perennial stream mitigation. No compensatory mitigation payment is proposed for
the intermittent stream impacts as these impacts are to the upper reaches of several intermittent
features that do not exhibit important aquatic function. Wetland mitigation is proposed at a 2:1
ratio for the 0.13 acres of impact.
Riparian buffer impacts are provided for any activity that is not "exempt" or "allowable". This is
limited to the Zone 1 clearing of the pier approach at Area 1. All other buffer impacts involve
either regrading and revegetation of Zone 2 (exempt), utility crossing under 40 feet (allowable),
or a road crossing under 150 feet and 1/3 acre (allowable). Therefore, 2,443 square feet of Zone
1 buffer will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1, for a total of 7,329 square feet of mitigation.
Stormwater Management
Johnston County has delegated authority from the State to implement the Neuse River Basin
nitrogen reduction rules. Therefore, the approval from Johnston County will comply with the
stormwater review requirements for the project. A Stormwater management plan for the Site has
been submitted to Johnston County for their review and approval. Initial comments have been
received, and are currently being addressed. A plan sheet showing the overall Stormwater
management plan for the Site is included in Attachment 6, and a complete copy of the
Stormwater management plan and supporting calculations will be provided upon approval by

Mr. Thomas Brown Page 11 of I 1
• February 8, 2007
Johnston County. As the wet detention basin at Area 2 is located within a wetland, a copy of the
design, calculations, and supporting information including BMP Supplement Form and Checklist
have been included for your review.
Conclusions
Based on the preceding information and the proposed site plans, there will be only minimal
impact to jurisdictional resources as a result of this project. All conditions of the Nationwide
Penmits 14, 18, and 29, and their corresponding General Certifications will be complied with
during final design and construction. The construction will be monitored to ensure compliance
with the conditions of the permit as it is issued.
The preceding information, along with the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification and associated
materials, aze submitted for your review of this project. Five copies are also being sent to the NC
DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit for their review, along with the required $570.00 application fee. We
appreciate your time evaluating the documentation for this project. Please contact me at your
earliest convenience if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
n ~~
4
i
Philip M~
Senior Environmental Scientist
Cc: Cyndi Kazoly, NCDWQ 401 Unit (S copies)
Ron Mikesh, Summerwind Plantation LLC
Edwazd Wetherill, P.E., Wetherill Engineering Inc.
•

• Summerwind Plantation
Nationwide Permit Pre-Construction Notification
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment
1 PCN Form & Agent Authorization
2 Figures
3 Site Photographs
4 Regulatory Correspondence
5 Supplemental Wetland Delineation Information
6 Exhibits (Engineering Plans & Calculations)
Figures
1 Vicinity Map
2 USGS Map
3 Soil Survey
4 Zoning Map
5 Site Overview
•
Exhibits -Items 1 through 10 in Full Size Plan Set
1 Existing Conditions
2 Project Overview
3 Site Plan
4 Impact Area 1
5 Impact Area 2
6 Impact Areas 3, 4, & 5
7 Pipe Profile & Crossing, Street B
8 Impact Area 6
9 Basin Control Structure
10 Basin Elevation View
11 Stormwater BMP Forms -Phase lA/1B (8 sheets)
•

•
ATTACHMENT 1
•
Pre-Construction Notification Form
And Agent Authorization
•

•
Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 14, 18, 29
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information ~ ~~~~~~
D
1. Owner/Applicant Information FEB 1 2 2008
Name: Summerwind Plantaion, LLC, Mr. Ron Mikesh ~NR _ warER rwam
Mailing Address: 3061 Berks Way, Suite 202, Raleigh NC 27614 wer~wDSfwpsro~,A~
Telephone Number: 919-291-5517 Fax Number: 919-821-5620
E-mail Address: prowlerllcna,cs.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Phil May
Company Affiliation: Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
Mailing Address: 8208 Brian Court, Garner NC 27529
Telephone Number: 919-606-1065 Fax Number: 919-341-4474
E-mail Address: phil.mayna,carolinaeco.com
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
• landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
Page 1 of ] 0

and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, •
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no lazger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps aze provided.
1. Name of project: Summerwind Plantation
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): n/a
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 1627-68-9153
4. Location
County: Johnston Nearest Town: Garner
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Summerwind Plantation
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmazks, etc.): From Raleigh, take I-40
east toward Wilmineton• exit onto NC 42 ~Fxit 312) and turn right at the top of the ram,~•
take a right at the first li~,ht (at the McDonalds) onto Glen Road• site is past the water tower •
on the right.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.6146°N -78.5720°W
6. Property size (acres): 166.7 ac
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Swift Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse 03020201)
(Note -this must be one of North Cazolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http:;';~h2o.~nr.5tate.nc.~.~5ladmin;'iTiaps~.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is generally forested with a young mixed pine-
hazdwood forest, and signs of previous timber activity A portion of the initial phase of the
project is already under construction in upland azeas and is therefore currently cleazed The
riparian azeas are forested with hardwoods although relatively young and the Swift Creek
flood plain at the back (north) of the site is a mix of forested bottomland and scrub-shrub
wetlands. The vicinity of the project includes commercial azeas associated with the I-40 &
NC-42 interchange azea, residential subdivision under construction to the west and forested •
areas to the east and north.
Page 2 of 10

•
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
involves the construction of a multi-use retirement community including single family homes
on quarter to third acre lots, cotta.t?e homes, townhomes, a recreation center, a gazebo, a
wellness and fitness center, a planned assisted living facility, and a medical park area.
Construction acdvies include initial clearing, grubbing, and installation of sediment and
erosion control measures. Each phase of the project will then be graded either through
cutting or filling depending on the proposed grade of the site, followed by installation of
stormwater and sewer infrastrucutre. Final grades and building construction would occur
along with paving of the roadways. Construction equipment to be used includes pans,
excavators, track hoes, and bulldozers. Other standard construction equipment will be used if
required for certain activities. such as a crane for installation of the bridge or proposed pier.
The construction will occur in phases, with the initial single-family and multi-family areas
constructed first.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this project is to provide a full
service retirement community with residential options that address the var~g needs of a
Ong elderly population. This retirement community is comprised of multiple residence
types and facilities described in item 10. The private, gated community will include golf
carts with each home for travel within the neighborhoods, and landscape maintenance service
for the entire community (optional for the single family homes). A commercial complex is
also being planned across Glen Road to the south, but is considered an independent proiect,
,, as it has separate utility and is located within a zoned commercial area within the Interstate
Highway Interchange overlay district of Johnston County. Additional information is
provided in the attached cover letter.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Froject Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. No prior permits or certifications have been issued for this project.
Several PCNs were submitted in 2006 and earl 2007. No USACE Action ID has been assigned
to the project, but the NCDWO Project Number is 2006-1798.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No -all anticipated impacts have been included in the permit application
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
Page 3 of 10

•
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and cleazly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Six impact areas aze present on the
site. These are associated with the construction of lots road crossings and a stormwater
pond. Each impact azea is detailed in the attached cover letter under the impact numbers
listed below and provided in the attached engineering plans
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to tenth ctn~rhire and flnn~linn

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact
Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
2 Fill - stormwater pond Herbaceaous No 0 0.06
2 Fill -lot construction Herbaceaous No 0 0.05
5 Fill -roadway Forested No 0 0.01

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.12
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 4_5
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included_ T~ calculate acreage mttltiniv IPnoth X ~ui~th t}~san ~ivirln ~v i12 G~II

Stream Impact
Perennial or
Average ~,,
impact ,
Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact ~
Intermittent Stream Width Length Impact
indicate on m . Before [m act lineaz feet) acres)
2 UT Fill -lot construct. Intermittent 1' 192 0.02
2 UT Fill -lot construct. Perennial 2' 23 0.003
•
•
Page 4 of 10

4 UT Fill -lot construct. Intermittent 0.5' 38 0.003
5 UT Road crossing Perennial 6' 142 0.020

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 395 0.046
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation. dredein~, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on m Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
acres
1 Unnamed pond Pier construction Pond 0.01

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.01
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
•
Stream Impact (acres): 0.05
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.12
O n Water Impact (acres): 0.01
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.18
Total Stream Im act (linear feet : 395
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
n/a
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): n/a
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): n/a
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: n/a
Size of watershed draining to pond: n/a Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Page 5 of 10

Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands, streams, and buffers have been minimized to the greatest extent practical during the
design of this Site. Since the original application the Site has been completelX redesigned
resultinrz in the loss of approximately 50 lots. The majority of the wetlands and streams on the
Site have been avoided by redesigning_ the lot layouts azound the natural features T'he
unimpacted wetlands and streams will be preserved in recorded easements or open space
including approximate:
•6571ineaz feet of intermittent stream channel
•5,8821ineaz feet of perennial stream channel
•4.37 acres of wetlands
•436,900 square feet of riparian buffers on intermittent and perennial streams on site
•6.18 acres of the Swift Creek flood plain and riparian buffers
Min_imi~ation of impacts has occurred across the Site as described in each impact area above In
general, impacts occurred only where the features of the Site includingthe shape of the property
steep topography, and existing utilities, prevented an alternate design with less impacts Specific
minimization measures include:
•Area 1: Avoidance of wetland areas adjacent to the pond.
•Area 2: Use of a bridge to minimize impacts to the perennial stream
•Area 5: Crossingshifted to shallowest portion of drainage to minimize stream impact
•Area 5: Use of a retaining wall to reduce impacts and avoid hi per quality stream channel
upstream.
•Area 5: Design of 6-8% wades (maximum allowable) on the road crossing to minimise pipe
length requirements.
•Area 6: Utility impacts by aerial crossing to avoid permanent stream impacts
•Steepest required side slopes (2:1) used at road crossings and some lots
•Preservation of remaining stream channels within riparian buffers dedicated open space or
easements.
•With minor exceptions as shown in the plans the majority of lots azeplatted outside the npazian
buffers. Those lots containing riparian buffers will have easements and deed restrictions
protecting the buffers
•Reduction of approximately 50 lots from the original layout in order to reduce impactss
including creation of additional cul-de-sacs shortening of existing cul-de-sacs
•No development or fill within the floodplain of Swift Creek is proposed
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with I SA NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 6 of 10

• freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 lineaz feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but aze not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similaz
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httn:ir'h2o.cnr.state.nc.us!ncw~tlandsistnr~~idc.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a sepazate sheet if more space is needed.
Mitigation for the O.12 acres of wetland impacts will be provided through the NCEEP in-
lieu-fee payment at a 2:1 ratio. A copy of the NCEEP acceptance of this mitigation is
included in the Attachment 4. Stream mitigation through the NCEEP is not currently
available in the waterhhed (Meuse 03020201). Therefore. Summerwind Plantation LLC has
entered into a contract with EarthMazk Mitigation Services to provide compensatory
mitiuation for the 165 lineaz feet of perennial stream impacts at a 1:1 ratio. A letter
documenting this credit is provided in the Attachment 4. The remaining stream impacts are
to intermittent tributaries without important aquatic function. No compensatory mitigation is
provided for these intermittent streams, however the preservation of approximately 6 500
linear feet of streams on site should adequately compensate for the loss of these intermittent
channels.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Cazolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
Page 7 of 10

website at http:;7h?o.cnr.statt.nc.us/wr~iilldex.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (lineaz feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 7,329
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.24
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federaUstate) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Cazolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^ i
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be cleazly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), l SA NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify ~? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 14,324 3 (2 for Catawba) 7,329
2 10,(25 1.5 0
•
Page 8 of 10

• Total 24,449 7,329
• Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. Payment into the NCEEP Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund will be provided for the unavoidable Zone I impacts associated with the
pier and gazebo construction, as described in the attached cover letter.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious area for the site varies by section and
usage, but is generally over 20% for all phases of the proposed development. Based on the
stormwater review duplicity guidance released by NCDENR in 2007, Johnston Coun , is the
agency responsible for stormwater review for this project. An overall Stormwater plan sheet has
been provided in this application, along with the design and documentation of the wet detention
basin located in the headwater wetland area at Site 2. Upon approval of the Stormwater
manal~ement plan, a full copy of the plans submitted to Johnston County will be filed with
NCDWQ. The stormwater management is attained on site using. wet detention ponds with level
spreaders or Stormwater wetlands. These devices meet State standards for TSS removal of 85%
and nitrogen reduction of at least 30%.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater generated on the site will be collected in an on-site sewer stem. Much of the site
will gravity feed to the east and connect with the existing Johnston County sewer system on the
adtacent property. The northwest portion of the property cannot gravity feed to that location and
therefore a pump station is provided in that azea to transport the wastewater to the Johnston
County system. The County has reserved capacity for this development at their existing
wastewater treatment plant.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ® No ^
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ® No ^
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Page 9 of 10

Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact neazby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
h~:,'~h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: Since
this proiect is an individual private project there is no evidence that it will promote additional
development in the area. The NC-42/I-40 interchange is already growing and adjacent parcels
have developments under construction or Manned regardless of the status of this project The
interconnection of roads with these projectes is required to meet traffic flow and safety
requirements but does not alter the potential for development to occur on the adjacent parcels
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these penmits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
As stated in Section XIII, several minor violations have occurred during the construction of the
initial phase of the proiect. These have been addressed in a forthright manner with the USACE
and NCDWO, and were immediately restored or stabilized on the site Further details are
provided in the attached cover letter, and continued coordination will occur until the areas aze
fully restored. ,
Applic n gent's Sign a Date
(Agent's signs valid o , an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
•
Page ] 0 of 10

Aug. 27. 2001 i:58PM ERIC R SPENCE , PLLC
No. 9364 P. 1
~,AR~1..1 NA $208 Brian Ct.; Garner, NC 27529
~~~,~~, ~~-~-~~5~ ~~C. P:919,606-9145 - F:919-341-4474
•
AGENT AUTHORIZATION AND PROPERTY .ACCESS FQ~
I hereby authorize Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. (CBI) stake', theiur designated contractors axxd
representatives, and Federal, State or local authorities access to the I'ollowiutg properties:
Summerwind Plantation, Glen Road, Garner NC; PIN 1627-68-9153.
The purpose for access is to conduct necessary sate investigation including, but not
limited to, stream deterrmuations, wetland delineation verification, wetland delineation,
and associated regulatory site visits. I certify that I am the 16ga1 owner or authorized
age.Q.t of the legal owner o~£the above property and have auttaority to grant such, access.
In addition, I authorize CEI to act as authorized agent on our behalf for the application
for Clean Water Act Section 404/401 percztit/cerbifcabon and Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Rule certification. I have made CEI aware of, and supplied all available
records related to, previous environmental investigations on the subject property of which
I have knowledge.
' cerely,
Ron N);ikesh
Managing Partner
Summerwind Plantaion LLC
Address
City State Zip
•

•
•
ATTACHMENT 2
Figures
•

N
E
S
WAKE COUNTY
JOHNSTON COUNTY
a
~y
~~a
ova
a
~~
Q`e~
0
O NSh' hR
n
i
d cry ,Qa
0
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Summerwind Plantation
Garner, NC
2000 0 2000 Fe t CAROLINA 8208 Brian Court; Garner, NC 27529
ECOSYSTEMS, INC. O: 919-606-1065; F: 919-341-4474

t o HaH
N Ch Wt WoD
— S� RnF / NoB
RAF
WoD
AaA
W7
wt
Pa E _
Q CO ' RnF
WoB
,cF ` WoD
\ CeC; J Rn F
PaF `� --- �' WoD WaB
N k B j WoD ,
CoB
WoD WoD ,' UCC t
NOB i ''S•'
'COC WaB r NkB RnF
Ly1'
Lala ,� CoC
1
NoB 'AlaB
R a
Bb�
r i
� Mcg
NoB
NfoBWaB
BbRd f rte_
Drug,�B
Store ; f
c-cB Cob
ff• —� _ NkB RnF
NoB BnA
t _
Y�
VC WaB
ML'-
Figure 3: Soils Map
USDA - Soil Conservation Service, 1994 Summerwind Plantation
Soil Survey of Johnston County, NC Garner, NC
>- Sheet No. 5 CAROLINA
a: 8208 Brian Court; Garner, NC 27529
ECOSYSTEMS, INC. O: 919-606-1065; F: 919-341-4474
r-s�

Heavy Industrial
Interstate Highway Interchange
Overlay District
PUD
^I

N
i
- Figure 4: Site Zoning
' Summerwind Plantation
Garner, NC
0 1 Q Feet CAROLINA
\ ~ ., ~' . ~•" „,k~..' ~ 8208 Brian Court; Garner, NC 27529
. ~ ,. ~ m ~4, f,, ~- ~ ECOSYSTEMS, INC. O: 919-606-1065; F: 919-341-4474
..

•
•
ATTACHMENT 3
Site Photographs
•

a~
on
a
z
0.
O
.~
a ~
a.
~ ~
., cn
'~ o
~, o
~ a
~ a~
~ ~
•
~.
.~
0
n.
0
a
0
a
U
"O~'
N
s,
:ti
i.
N
;+r
w
:n
0
0
i
~.
.~
'O
O
¢.
O
I
_~
v]
N
0
0
s
a
• •

•
•
•
Summerwind Plantation PCN
Site Photographs

`s .~
Page 2
Photo 3: Site 1 -proposed pier location in left center on opposite bank.
rnoto 4: Jrte Z -headwater wetland with drainage pattern. Location of stormwater BMP.

•
'S7
S ~.
O hA
O `
~ `.
N *.e
I
'~ .
~~~
~~
.;
;~
~.
~.:
~,
pfi
fD
A~
.i
~~
m
t
~ '.,~.
. ~
:sa~*

•
,,~ .,.
~ ai
C ~~r
~ v<
N :. ~` -~
O
H~.
~~ ~ ~
~ ~~~
~~
:,
`~
a
~ .a ~
~+~
..fl r
~ ~
~~
~~
~ ~~°~ .~~
a'~'~
m
,+
•
~ ~
~ ~
b ~
~ ~
o
0
~ ~
TS ~
r'Y
~ Q1
~_
z
b
UG
cv
w

•
•
•
Summerwind Plantation PCN
Site Photographs
Page 4
Photo 7: Site 2 -stream channel downstream of bridge site.
Photo 8: Site 3 -Buffer impact area.

a~
a.
z
a
a
.~
a
.~
~.
~,
0
0
a

U
¢,
~_
_~
L.
.~
N
L."
fi
cC
,~
U
N
.~
a~
c
w
0
a
n.
n.
I

N
U
ALL
G
i.
J
U
C
3
y
C
c
f
• • •

•
•

Summerwind Plantation PCN
Site Photographs
Page 6
rnoto 11: Jrte 5 -upstream channel being avoided through use of retaining wall.
rnoto 1L: 5ite 5 -typical slopes near impact area.

•
•
•
Summerwind Plantation PCN
Site Photographs
~- -
~: x
~,
Page 7
., z
,, , • _. ~~. ..F
..
.,: ~ . •.
t: :~
~ s
~' - ~',} ~ ~'~.~.. , e ~
u
s p~;i ~ ~ "it's. ~"} .v k.z~' ~;,~ ~, ~ ~~.~k ~~'Nr '~ .~.~' ~^ u ~... ~ .~'~`,
m.,' ..i.
Photo l4: Site 6 -cleared sewer corridor crossing perennial stream.
Photo 13: Slte 5 -wetland impact area.

•
•
Summerwind Plantation PCN
Site Photographs
Page 8
•
Photo 15: Site 6 -sewer corridor in buffer (40'), showing last manhole on site.
Aerial crossing will begin from this location.

•
ATTACHMENT 4
Regulatory Correspondence

t0 Ov

\o~OF W A T ~RpG
~ ~
>_ ~
D `C
Summerwind Plantation, LLC
Attn: Mr. Ronald Mikesh
12620 Port Chester Court
Raleigh, NC 27614
August 9, 2007
Subject Property: Summerwind Plantation
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ EXP# 06-1798v4
Johnston County
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233) -EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Mr. Mikesh:
On August 8, 2007, at the request of Phil May of Carolina Ecosystems, Inc., Lia Myott conducted an on-site
determination to review two stream features located on the subject uroperty for applicability to the Neuse Buffer
Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The features are labeled as "A" and "B" on the attached maps initialed by Lia
Myott on August 9, 2007. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the following:
• Feature "A" and "Pond A" are both subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule on the property. The
intermittendperennial point in the stream is located at the flag labeled "A 1 ".
• Feature "B" is subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule beginning at the flag labeled "B 1" (intermittent stream
begins} which is located north of the utility line easement. The intern-ittendperennial point in the stream
is located at the flag labeled "B2".
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 that a surface water exists and that
it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. 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., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. 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. This determination is
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the buffers.
Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have
any questions, please contact Lia Myott at 919.733.9502.
Sincerely,
~~
p~ " Coleen H. Sullins, Director
l/ :North Carolina Division of Water Quality
CHSlcbk/lem
401 Oversight /Express Review Permitting Unit
! 650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevazd, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state nc us/ncwctlandS
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

No Carolina +
~'1~atura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Summerwind Plantation
Pagc 2 of 2
August 9, 2007
• Attachments: Johnston County Soil Survey Map, USGS Topographic Map
cc: Phil May, Carolina Ecosystems, Inc., 8208 Brian Ct., Garner, NC 27529
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
•
•

.~~ ~ ti r' ' lei ',`~ ..~--~. ~4~ ny
t
~ ~ -- _ , ~,
~t ~~ ~ i ~
.J r ~ ~~ .1 / ~ /~ -
~ ~~ ` ~ ~ ,.
~ ~ ~ ~---
i-
. t
°~~, ~. -
~ r {j '
f ,.~ p r
~.
,_ ~ `/ ` ~ 1
~ ~ ~,,r ~ '
. ) Y% ,> l ~
..~ (~ r ,, ,~ r
x33 ~ ; • . f ~~ ~ ' r ~ _ ~a ~ `- ~~ ~` , ~ ~ ,
r ~ i w ,
~~f ~ ~ - t
. ~ ,,....
'-~h /
~ - '~ USGS Map
' r ii' _ -, ~~ '~ i~ 1 ~~~~ ~ Summennrind Plantation
./ i~~-=J~~ `-=~'~~~ `~s~ . - ~ ~' ~-~'~ Gamer, NC
~- ~ -~
F f ~ ~~ ~~; ~~ ~ aczot,rNA 8208 Brian Court: Garrar, NC 275
it . 6 ~ ~, `~'~ ~A ~ { :..ti- `i EcosvSTrrr+e5, tNC. 0: 919606.1065; F: 919-341474
•
•
' 1/
•

•
•

Q~Q~ WAT ~9PG Michael F. Easley, Governor
~ William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
~-- North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
~_ ~
© "C Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 19, 2007
Johnston County
EXPRESS REVIEW ACCEPTANCE LETTER
Summerwind Plantation, LLC
Attn: Mr. Ronald Mikesh
12620 Port Chester Court
Raleigh, NC 27614
Subject Property: Summerwind Plantation
On September 18, 2007, the Wetlands/401 Unit of the Division of Water Quality received a request from
Phil May of Carolina Ecosystems, Inc., regarding an additional stream determination for a project known
as "Summerwind Plantation" for acceptance into the Express Review Program. This letter advises you
that your project will be accepted into the Express Review Program once the following items are
received:
1) The fee of $500.00 made payable to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (for three (3)
stream intermittent/perennial determinations);
2) Five (5) complete and collated copies of the most recent versions of the NRCS Soil Survey map and
the 1:24,000 USGS Topographic map for the site, both with the property boundaries located; and
3) A vicinity map clearly marking the location of the site.
Thank you for your attention to this matter..
Due to a lack of staff availability, your project cannot be accepted into the Express Review Program until
September 27, 2007. Please keep in mind that the clock for this project will not start until receipt of the
completed application package and required fee are received. If the impacts are greater than indicated on
the Initial Interest Form and/or the services are different, you may be required to remit an additional fee.
Please contact Lia Myott at 919.733.9502 to arrange the site visit.
Sincerely,
~iCyndi B. Karoly, upervisor
y 4010versite/ Express Review Program
CBK/lem
cc: File copy
Phil May, Carolina Ecosystems, Inc., 8208 Brian Ct., Garner, NC 27529
N oc Carolina
,~atura!!y
•

•
401401 Oversght I Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Sufte 250, Raleigh, NoM Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone]ntemet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycledll0°k Post Consumer Paper

O~O~ W AT ~9~G
r
~ -i
Q ~
October 8, 2007
Summerwind Plantation, LLC
Attn: Mr. Ronald Mikesh
12620 Port Chester Court
Raleigh, NC 27614
Subject Property: Summerwind Plantation
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ EXP# 06-1798v5
Johnston County
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233) -EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Mr. Mikesh:
On September 28, 2007, at the request of Phil May of Carolina Ecosystems, Inc., Lia Myott conducted an on-site
determination to review five stream features located on the subject property for applicability to the Neuse Buffer
Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233) and for their intermittent/perennial status. The features are labeled on the attached
maps initialed by Lia Myott on October 8, 2007. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the
following:
• Feature "SA-3" is a perennial stream at the flag labeled "SA-3" located at the confluence of two
uncontested intermittent streams. SA-3 is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule since it is not shown on
either the USGS topographic map or the Johnston County soil survey.
• Feature "SB-1" is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule since it is not shown on either the USGS
topographic map or the Johnston County soil survey. The feature transitions from an ephemeral stream to
a perennial stream at the flag labeled "SB-1".
• Feature "SC" is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule since it is not shown on either the USGS topographic
map or the Johnston County soil survey. The feature becomes an intermittent stream at the flag labeled
"SC-1" and transitions to a perennial stream at the flag labeled "SC-2".
• Feature "SD" is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule since it is not shown on either the USGS
topographic map or the Johnston County soil survey. The feature becomes an intermittent stream at the
flag labeled "SD-1" and transitions to a perennial stream at the flag labeled "SD-2".
• Feature "SE" is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule since it is not shown on either the USGS topographic
map or the Johnston County soil survey. The feature becomes an intermittent stream at the flag labeled
"SE-1 ".
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 that a surface water exists and that
it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. 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., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. 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. This determination is
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
301 Oversight /Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree F3oulevazd, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] i FAX [phone] /Internet: http: 'h2o.enr.st_itg.ne,us~n~wctland
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NorthCarolina
~latura!!t~
An Equaf Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Summerwind Plantation
Page 2 of 2
October 8, 2007
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the buffers. S
Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have
any questions, please contact Lia Myott at 919.733.9502.
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Sullins, Direetor
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
CHSlcbk/lem
Attachments: Johnston County Soil Survey Map,
USGS Topographic Map,
Figure 1 NCDWQ Stream Calls (Carolina Ecosystems)
cc: Phil May, Carolina Ecosystems, Inc., 8208 Brian Ct., Garner, NC 27529
Lauren Cobb, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
James Shern, USACE Raleigh Field Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
s
•

I•
•
w E~.
s
Intermittent Stream
N: 2,126,639.11 N~
E: 681,238.28 g"
:,
-/,~-
Perennial Stream SD-2
N: 2,126,483.16 ~ir''~
E: 680, 675.99
600
1~
-1
0 600 Feet
Perennial Stream SC-2 C~N~' f r
N: 2,127,437.32 ~ 1~Oi
E: 680.449.03 _
Intermittent Stream SD-1
N: 2,126,520.20 8~i'"s
E: 680,609.46
t Stream SC-1 ; = ~
X3.79 XI'`fl
.75
Intermittent St
N: 2,126,825.!
E: 679,224.90
Perert,hial Stream 13-.
N: 2,126, 821.69
E: 679,240.62
O to ca~n~slle~
1 ~rl'fCtrf~'~'+tA~' ,
~~
Perennfa~~ ae m SA-3
N: 2,127,09 .46 ~~
E: 678, 305. 7
Perenn
N: 2,12
E: 678,
~.
• Notes:
1. Stream calls confirmed by NCDWQ on 9/8/07 & 9/28/07.
2. Points based on submeter GPS collection of field flagging.
3. Coordinates in NC State Plane NAD 83 Feet.
Perennial Stre~
N: 2,127,074.4
E: 679,x.98
~+ ~; ~~
~B-1 - r.~~-F SubJec.~""
Stream SA-4
54.54
4.07 NOrih C~ Et~ollfllslltrr
AilYl'lip~fltNftt GOtr>fd~f011
oir Weler Qualicjr
For s ~- Bain 8i~r
od. ~Ot° _
8~
Figure 1: NCDWQ Stream Calls
Summerwind Plantation
Garner, NC
CAROLINA 8208 Brian Court: Garner. NC 2751
EC09Y8TEM3. ING. O: 919-60E1065: F' 919.341-4474

,~
.,
i
r
~kp o~- t'1 a 8 V 5

I•
i•
•

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, NCEEP
IN-LIEU FEE REQUEST F®RM
Revised 7/9!2007 •
Print this form, fill in requested information, sign and date, and either maii to fJCFEP 1552 ^/lail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1652, fax to 919-715-2219, or email to [e-mail] Attachments are acceptable for clarification
purposes (location map is required).
CONTACT INFORMATION APPLICANT'S AGENT (optional) '_
1. BUSIneSS Or IndlvldUal Name Carolina Ecosystems, Inc..
2. Street Address or P O Box azo8 Brian court
3. City, State, Zip
4. Contact Person
__ _ __ ___
5. Telephone Number
6. Fax Number
7. E-Mail Address (optional)
Garner, NC 27529
Phil May
919-606-1065
APPLICANT
Summerwind Plantation LLC
3061 Berks way, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27614
-I,
Ron Mikesh
919-556-1888
919-341-4474 919-821-5620
phil.may~carolinaeco.com prowlerllc~cs.com
!PROJECT INFORMATION
1. 8. Project Name I
I Summerwind Plantation ,
9. Project Location (nearest town, city)
"ATTACH MAP SHOVdING IMPACT LOCATION" Garner, NC
10. Lat-Long Coordinates (optional)
35.6150 N; 78.5717 W
11. Project County _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __,
Johnston
12. River Basin
Neuse
13. Cataloging Unit (8-digit) (See Note 1)
03020201
__ .. _ _ _
14. Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.) (e.g., 0.13)
o.l
15. Non-Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.)
o

16. Coastal Marsh Impact (ac.) _.
0
17. Stream Impact (ft.) (e.g. 1,234) ~ Warm
Cool
Cold ,
i (See Note 2)

~ __
_
.............
_... .. ~ i

i
'
, ~ 300 ~ 0 i 0
18. Buffer Impact-Zone (sq. ft.) (e.g. 12,345) ;. . .. .... ..........,..,,,..fi. , . ...,... Zo. _ _ _ ~
(see Notes)

- _ __ _ Zone 1. 17, 30o ne 2: 11, o00
i
19. Regulatory Agency Staff Contacts
(Indicate names, if known) USACE. Brown DWQ: Cobb/McMillan
20.Other Regulatory ID Information
(e.g., USACE Action ID, if known)
~MPURTANT
Check (~) below if this request is a: Signature of Applicant or Agent:
~ 7 ~-
revision to a current acceptance, or 1
re-submission of an expired acceptance Date: l~/4-,.J -}-
Note 1: For help in determining the Cataloging Unit, go to EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" web page:
'~itEi_'~efp_ub e~go~~,surf~locate;index_~__f~n Note (9) above: requirement to attach location map.
Note 2: For guidance on stream temperatures, go to:
!, i~~,; ,~~,vw _orv ~~~ ~~_e aril miflV'1FT!__A.NL~S~P:1~t~~aUo~~~C < < r,~rt t~~_~m; a~~e~ rli~esiA~t n~!ixl ;,~1f
Note 3: Buffer mitigation applicable only in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba river basins, and the Randleman Lake
Water Supply Watershed. Direct all questions to Kelly Williams at 919-716-1921 or [e-mail]

•

'~.-
•
PROGRAM
November 8, 2007
Expiration of Acceptance: May 8, 2008
Ron Mikesh
Summerwind Plantation, LLC
3061 Berke Way, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27614
Project: Summerwind Plantation County: Johnston
We have received your request to access the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's tNCEEP) In-Lieu Fee
mitigation program for the above referenced project. We regret to inform you that we are unable to accept the full amount of
credit requested at this time.
•
on a case-by-case basis.
EEP recently proposed a revision to the fee schedule for wetland and stream mitigation as a means of allowing the program
to collect fees commensurate with our project implementation costs. The revision was passed by the~Environmental
Management Commission and Rules Review Commission but has been delayed due to administrative rules regarding
comment submittals. Per established protocols for rule-making, the fee revision will sow be considered during the next
legislative session beginning in May 2008. Until that time, EEP has developed a strategy that considers the financial
implications to the program for new requests to access the In-Cleo Fee Program and has determined that we are unable to
provide your mitigation. If you want to resubmit your request form at a later time, EEP will reconsider the request in the
future. We anticipate updating our strategy as new data and opportunities become available. EEP will consider all requests
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
Neuse
03020201 Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres} Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Iti ian Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh
Impacts Requested 0 0 300 0. I 0 0 17,300 11,000
Impacts Accepted 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 17,300 11,000
Credits 0 .0 0 0.2 0 0 51,900 16.500
EEP is willing to accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table above.
Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation
for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP
will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of
the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will aspire. It is the
applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice
will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized
work. The amount of the In Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and
policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies
require mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional
• mitigation, the applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998. ~AF"•w/~
R;ps~olYi~... f ... P~o~,ct~ Dur Stag (~~j~/~~
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 ! www.nceep.net

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at (919) ?16-1921.
Sincerely, •
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Kazoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Thomas Brown, USACB-Raleigh
Ian McMillan, NCDWQ- Wetlands/401 Unit
Phil May, agent
File
:~
•
•
Restore-t~... F ... Pro~,ctc"~ Our Stag

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 J www.nceep.net

EarthMark
• MITIGATION SERVICES
12800 University Drive, Ste. 400, Fort Myers, FL 33907
February 7, 2008
Mr. James F. Shern
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Re: Letter of Reservation for Stream Bank Units from Forest Creek Mitigation Bank
Dear Sir or Madam:
Summerwind Plantation, LLC has reserved 165 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) with the
Forest Creek Mitigation Bank to offset the adverse environmental impacts due to the
development and construction of the project, Summerwind Plantation.
• Please do not hesitate to contact me for any questions or concerns at [phone].
Sincerely,
Matt R. Fisher
Director of New Business Development
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
ATTACHMENT 5
Supplemental Wetland Delineation Information
•
•

Nl Pr4c~c ~2~4 Z
~ 1'
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form Version 3.1 .L~ ~.~•; ~r,~
•

Date: ~~L4 ~ ~ Project: < Latitude:
1,
Evaluator: P ~` ` Ma. Site: ~ Longitude:
Total Points: Other :"~
Stream is at least intem-ittent Coun
if 2 f 9 or erennial if a 30 ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~'"~i""° S+"~^ e.g. Quad Name: ~° vt.•~'+c~., ,,, ~~
A. Geomo holo (Subtotal = 7.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 °. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Adive/relic floodplain 0 ~ 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided t~tannel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9 8 Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts t 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 ` .5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
rvian-mane ancnes are not rated; see ~~iscussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = l5 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season
0
1
~~
3
16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es - 1.
C. Bioloav rsubtotal = b
2 .Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macxobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FA CW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Hems cv ana c ~ rocus on [ne presence of up~anD plants, item za rocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetlarxi plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
,, ~
--~
I
`~ ' ~? /L
~~~~,1
sa~~

USACE AID#
DWQ#
~ t~Pac.~ J4-fZc a- Z
Site # (indicate on attached map) ~ ~ ;
___.. .____._..._____. __. -.. __ ___...__. ___.__._._ ._..__.____. ____-.___._.__-___J
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET •
Provide the following information for the stream repack under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 5~..,h.~r,..~:.~ ~ P~ a „~h` +... 2. Evaluator's name: ~ ~,.:
3. Date of evaluation:~r,~ ~ 4. Time of evaluation: ~ D =f~c?
5. Name of stream: U i C~L~, ~-~- (~-Gc ~C 6. River basin: ~ G.~ ~
S't'
7. Approximate drainage area: 1 - ~ ~ cc 8. Stream order: ~.
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~~ ~ l0. County: ~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): yr.~ .-~. e.1',..ai .~ ~(~,,, ~ E-,`_, _
Latitude (ex 34.872312): Longitude (ex -77.55661
Method location determined (circle): G ~Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Locatiorr of reach undue evalua~~~rinote nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
i..1: Q~1,~... }.t ~ r l..,P ~...... J ~"' L ... h vd.it.s t . ' ~ - \ r ...-w_f ~,. ~ . ~_,1_ ~, (.°~~ ~. ~~ 1.,_
14. PropOSed Channel WOrk (lf
15. Recent Weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES O f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YESL~~ 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE~ •
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
~% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 1. ~ 23. Bank heiglrt (from bed to top of bank): ~ d. s ~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
2S. Channel sinuosity: Straight gOccasional bends -Frequent n>cander -Vary sinuous -Braided channel
Instnctioes for compktioe of w~orksreet (boated os page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Pager 3 provides a brief description of how W review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessrnertt of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
conu~trxit section. Whore there era obvious cltartQen in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. 'Rre total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Score (fr»m
~o Cleared /Logged _% Other

~ ~
Evaluator's Signature ~ ~~ o Date ~R~~ ~ ~~
l
7'ris craned evaluation form is in ~ ed to only as a guide to assist landowoera and environmental professionals in
•
gatrerie; the data regeired by the sited t+es Army Corps of Eegineera to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. Tre total soon resnitis= from the complettoe of this form is anbject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.
>:

L ~^Pa•c~f A.Z,~•.,.. 2
~..~.
• STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Eco~~iox ~onv T RAtvc~
x coR~
~ ~.cTE~sT~cS
ca~ s
ceased o~ ic~t.ut
1 Presence of BoMV / persident pools in stream 0 -- 5 0 - 4 d - S ?'
no flow or saturation = o• strap flow= mac rots
~ Evidence of past hamaa albratien 0 - 6 0 - s 0 - s O
extensive alteration = 0• no aattration = max rots

3 Riparian zone
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 -- s
no buffer = 0• Conti -wide buffer ~ max rots
4 Evidence of nntrieat or e6emical discharges 0 - s 0 - 4 0 - 4
extensive dischar = 0• no disc es = max rots

"
S Gronndwater disc6ar~e
0 - 3.
0 - 4
0 - 4
u no di = 0• sce wed etc. = max rots

6 Presence of adjacent floodphiin 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
no fl fain = 0• extensive -max rots
lidn aece
h
t / irlood
Eat
~ renc
~
p
~ ~ 0 - S 0 - 4 0 - 2
~
}rp}~~'~ S • SC
~'
a Prese>ce ofadjaee~ wetlapd~
0 - 6
a-a
0 = 2
~ ~ = 0• a wetlands= malc rots

9 Channel sinaodty
~
0 - S
0 =- 4
0 - 3
°:
ve cbanr~elizatic~tt = 0• nattnai meanckr = max rots
e~cta

10 Sedimeetinpat
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 4
extensive itio~ 0• little ~ no sediment = max rots
1 ~ Side R diversity of chsttnef bed wbstrai~ NA'` 0'- 4 Q - s
fine = 0.1 diverse saes = max mtS

l ~ Evidence of channel Incisi~ or widenin;
0 - s
0 - 4
0 - S
d incised = 0• stable bed dt banks = max rots
13 PreseYCe of major bank 80rfres 0 = 5 O - S 0 - s
severe erosion = 0• no erosi .stable banks = max rots

r
14 Root dept and' deadty art banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
~ visible roots = 0• dense roots = msx rots
`
a
i
i
'
b
r
l s os
pro~
d
ont
s
IntP+tct h!' a~riarltttt
w ~ ~ t
' 0'_ ~ 0 - 4 0 _ ~
=0• no evidence. rnax rots
substaatjal
16 Presence of riffle-pool/rippk-pool eompkzes 0 - 3 Q - s 0 - 6
no riffl or is = 0• weU-develo = maJC rots
. ~
17 Hub#at com~lez#y

little or no habitat = 0• u varied habitats = max mts
0-6
0-6
4-6

18 Gudopy coverage aver ~resmbed
0-s
0-s
0-s

no shadin v etation = 0• continuous = max rots 1.

19 Snbstrste embeddedness e
NA
0 - 4
0 - 4 1
d embedded = 0• loose strncture = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4j 0 - 4 0 - s 0 - S
no evidence = 0• commo numerous g max rots
21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max rots
:; 22 Presence of 8sh 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4
no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max rots
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0 - 6 0 - 5 0 - s
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max rots
Totd Pita Pestiaie I00 100 10a
TOTAL SCORE (atso enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form Version 3.1 ~~ `~"~`~"` `
Date: g~J2 4r~~ Project: ~,~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ^ ~ Latitude:
Evaluator: ~1~' ~(~ Site: t. Longitude:
Total Points: Other j
Stream is at least intermittent ~" County: ~ N~ f• „~ , ~,, ~, r,.~ e. Quad Namur, g~
if 2 19 or rennial if Z 30 ~ ~ ~ " 9• 4«•,~„ .,, s .n
•
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = `a- ra Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 ' 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 8 Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ~ 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
~No~
Yes = 3
-Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = ~•.r> 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 C 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack tines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es =
C. Biok~av (Subtotal = ^7 • s 1
2 .Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish r 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxid'¢ing bacteriaffungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FA CW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
•
items cu ana n rocus on the presence of upland plants, item za focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
;v ~ ~ 4
n ~ 4 4 E -~
~4
t
.4~

tylPhC.'C X26"k Z.
USAGE AID#,
DWQ#_
__ _ __ _- _ _____ -----_ Parr
Site # (indicate on attached map) '
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the streram reach under assessment: r ~1
1. Applicant's name: S u.v~ ~rw ~~ ~ ~ (a ._ h.. ~ a_ 2. Evaluator's name: ~ ~ , ( I ~a ~
3. Date of evaluation: ~21~J'7 rr 4. Time of evaluation: tt ~~ (C) : ~
5. Name of stream: (~'~ ~~....` ~~" f ~-~ 4e..- 6. River basin: ~ /~~ .,,,t
7. Approximate drainage area• ~ - ~ 8. Stream order: ~- S ~
r
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~!~c~ 10. County: 'S~n --t ~.
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ~.,J~n.,wnZ.rW ~ ...,.~ 1`~(;~ h`,_a,~
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): ~~opo Shed Ortho (Aerial) I'hoto/GiS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under ~ aluation note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): d r-i r~ c~-c. t~.-s!a~ 9~ r-.dt
1 S. Recent weather conditions: ~ r,... _..~.-
16~ Site conditions at time of visit: __ ~"~"'r^~ ~ I.,.ra./r~n
17. Identify any special waterway classifications lrnown: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE~~f yes, estimate the water surface area:
• 19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
~/o Forested ~% Cleared /Logged _% Other
22. Bankfirli width: ~Z.~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): C~_ S ~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%)Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25~. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Iastrsctiwrs for coespletioe of worksheet (located a page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign poirris
to each characxeristie within the n~nge shown for the ecoragion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the workshed. Scores should nflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
oomrttettt sa~ion. Where there are obvious changes in the character of s stream under review (e,g., the stream flows fran a pastrrre
into a forests the strtam may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signals m -~ ~.. L__. Date - ~Z 11.~D "~
This chaaad evalaatioa form is i~ dad to be only as a guide b assist laedowoers and environmental professionals in
gatheria~ the dab r+cgaired by the Ueited States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
gwlity. The total score raeHieg from the completion of this form is aebject to USAGE approval sect dos not imply a
particular mitigative ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comrnent, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

Pcr
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
~ CHARACTERISTICS ~COREGION POIN T RANGE
: 3COh
Cow Pledtnost 11~a~in
1 Presence of flow /persistent pooh in stream

no flow or saturation ~ 0• strop flow = max lute 0 _ ~ 0 - 4 0 - S
2 Evidence of past human aberatioa

CXtCnSIVC BlterStlOII = ()' n0 8lteratlOII = max mts 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5
3 Riparian zone

no buffer = 0• Conti wig buffer = max rots 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5
4 Evidence of nutrient of c
hemkal discharges
/
•
I eZ1Et1QiV! [tl![!t1A}'QPQ x fi• flu flienl~a~n~e = .r.ev w..:wM\ 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 ~
---- -- - ---
Groundwater dischar~ .,i..
5
no disc e = 0• s wetlands etc. = max rots 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4
w•+ 6 Presence of adjacent lloodplain

~~
no fl lain = 0' extensive fl lain = max rots 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
y Entrenchment / floodptafa aecess
.~.
entt+enched ~ 0• _ max .rots '
0 - S
Q - 4
0 - 2

8 Press®oe ofadjatant wetlanda
no wetlands = 0• a ad• wetlands = max rots ©- 6 0 - 4 0 - 2
~ C>taaneI smno~aty

extensive ehanaeIiration = 0• natural meander _ max i~ o_ S 0- 4 0- 3 r~
1~ 3ediinent ieput

extensive ition= 0• little or no sediment = max rots 0- S 0- 4 0- 4 e~
11 Size # diversity of channel bed substrate - N
*

fine ho ous = 0.1 c diverse sizes = max rots A 0 -- 4 0 - 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

incisod= 0• atabk ~od.tc banks = max rots 0 _ g 0 - 4 0 - S
I3 Praence gf mn jor back taitnres

severe erosion = 0• no ttosi stable banks = max rots 0 _ S 0 - S 0 - S
14 Root d~th and densitf oa banks
6~, tm visible toots = 0• det~sa toots = max rots 0 - ~ 0 - 4 0 - S
15 Impact by ~enlt~t+a, liveirtodc, •c umber prodndion"
sttbsmtttial ~• no evidence = max rots 0 - S 0 - 4 0 ~ S
16 Presence °f ri~'~/~Pp~pool complezea

E,,,~
~ rifl3esl ' tae or = 0• well-chwel = mac rots 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6
~. 17 13abitat compkzity
_

~,,
'ttk or no habitat = 0• variedhabitats = max rots 0 - ~ ~ _ ~ 0 - 6
~

'
18
Canopy coverageover atreambed
-
0
5 ,
~
no v etation = 0• continuous = max into 0
5 - 0 - S
19 3nbatrate eatbeddedness 2~tl1e 0 - 4 0 - 4
embedded = 0• loose strnctut+e = max
2U Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0• commo numerous = ~x lute 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5
21 Presence of amphibians

no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max rots 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
~,j
22 Presence of IIsh
no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max lute 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max rots 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 Q
Tatat Point Pesuibls 100 100 I00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first PaSe)
r m,___ _ ~
.„•.o„ •.ua, av.walJUbJ aiG IIVI OJJGJSGLL III GUQSli11 SIIC$fiLS.
~r,
L, k
V
2

•

iKPkc.~ A-2E~4 3
•
•
•
.1K ~w...; ~'~
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: ?~j'~ r~. ~ ~ ~ Project: ~,; , , ; ~~ „~ ~ ~ Latitude:
.. w~ •~~
Evaluator: ~~,, ~ ~ P`tc, Site: ri~ - ~ Longitude:
Total Points: ~ Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: '"~" ,.,~,~ ,
if Z 19 or erennial i2 30 ~ ~? ~ ~` ' ~` 5 ~"" e.g. Quad Name: ~~~~,,,~~~~~
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture orstream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Adive/relic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 ° Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = ~
~
Yes = 3
nnan-mane ditcnes are not rates; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = ~t . S 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in dtannel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 /''~
V 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (VVradc lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? o Yes = 1.5
C. Biolo4v (Subtotal = ~ )
2 .Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish < 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ~: 1 2 3
24. Fish '` 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ; 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizi baderiaffungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items cu ana n Tocus on the presence or upwna plants, ttem z9 tocuses on ttte presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Clrntrh•
1 :~ y
`!~
~!' r £ ,`
M. ~. ~
s ~ C , ~\
'1
!.+ i •j ~
i ~,
i
i
i
I
t
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

USACE AID#_
DWQ#,
1 r1 O RG f a-2a k
___-_.- ---____ _._-_.__ _ _--- _---_----___..__~ ~ t
Site # (indicate on attached map) •~.rl
;,a,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -
Provide the following information fo`r the streamm IIreac6 under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: _S u ~,M.crw, ~~ P ~.,, ., ~~1,~ .. 2. Evaluator's name: ~ ~..; ~ ~-~,..,,
3. Date of evacuation: ~/L4~r ,~ 4. Tires of evaluation:'' ff 1 ` ~ 4 i „~..,
5. Name of stream: l ~ ~ ' ~~,. ' ~ ~ - •~ ~t 6. River basin: :N to,., ~.
7. Approximate dnwtage area: ~ .. ~.
9. Length of reach evaluated: ? i,f~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.sn312>:
8. Stt+eam order: '~ ~' ~ tt
l0. County: ,,., +h-j.
12. Subdivisionname(ifany): ~.~,~„,,.,t~,,~•,..~ {~l~,.6~.~,,.,.~,
Longitude (ex. -77.ss6611):
Memos tocanon determined (circa): ICS,) Topo Sheet ONm (Aerial) PhotdGlS Other GIS Other
13. Location of mach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying str+eam(s) location):

~ ,.p, -
14. Proposed channel work (if atry);t ~ .a ~ ~~ ~ ..
1S. Recent weather conditions• i~ -,.,_.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ~ .~ ~..' ~ . ~ _ .. ~....
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yea, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does cltarmel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES ('
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Cottvner~cial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
~~ 1 ~ % Forested ~% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width• (°7_ -~'~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ `~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) Ste' Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
2S. Channel sinuosity: Straight .~.Oocasionsl bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located oD page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scared using the same ecoregion. Assign poirrts
to each charactuistic within the range, shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream teach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weatiter conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
oontrrteat set~ion. Wha+e there are obvious changes in the character of s stream under review (e.g., the stream flows fimn a pasture
into a forests the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range bttwetn 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signature ~ Date ~/? /~~~
Phis chased evalaatioa form is in ed to only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental profesaionab in
gathering the data rcgaired by the United tes Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
gaality. The total srnn reselling from the completion o! this form is subject to USACE approval and does sot imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Fenn subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

~~,4c~ Arzt'~ ',
...
G~S1 ~

* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION ~'OINT RANGE
C sC0
~ ~IARACTTRbSiTICS Coati ~
~t l~emitwia
,:
1 Presence of flow / persieteat pools hs stream: 0 - S A - 4 0 - S '~
no flow or saturation = 0' strm- flow = max i~
2 Evidence of past. Kaman atteasttioa 0- 6 4- S 0- S
extensive alteration z 0• no alteration = ~x inb
3 ttipariaa zoee
" 0_ 6. 0- 4, 0- S
no buffer = 0• coati us wale buffer = max inb
4 Evhtence of >,ntrkat or chemical discharges
'
0 - S
0 - 4
0 - 4
1
inb
..extensive di = 0• no s
S Groandrrater discharge '' 0- 3` 0 -- 4 0- 4
no disc = 0• wets etc. = max inb
6 Presence of adjacent lloodplaia 0- 4 U'- 4 0- 2
no lain = 0' extensive $ mast ims
~ Entrenchment / ibodph~ia access 0 T S 0- 4 4- 2
eantreaached ~ t ~ ims
` g Presence of ael jacent wetlands o - ~ o - 4 0 - a
. r; no wetlands = 0• wetlands ~ max rots
9 Channel sinuv:liy 0~ S 0 T H 0 ~,. 3
extensive channelization = 0• natu~rai meander = max m~
10 Sediment input. d- 3 0- 4 0- 4
extensive itio~ 0• little or no sediment = max inb
t 1 Size ~ diversity of channel bed sabstrate NA's 0 - 4 0 - S
fine ho enous = 0• divease sizes = max rots
lx Evieteace of chlapael incision or widening 0 -- B 0 - 4 0 - S
incised ~ 0• stable bext.9t banks= max inb
13 P'reseaat sf ma jor bank trjlares 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - S
severe erosion = 0• o i stable banks = max rots

t 4 Root depth asd B~sity oa basks
s
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - S
ibk_roots = 0• dertae mots = max rots
no vi
1 S Lmp~ct by agricakere, tOCk, or timber 1-t~~
• a - S ~ ~ 4 0 - S 1
=0• no evidence = max rots
sabstantial
16 iE'resence of rifllc'Poel/rippla'pool eompk=ea 0- 3 0- S 0- 6 1
no riftlts/ lea or is = 0• welt-dev = max rots
~
ly Habibt ca_ mple~y - 0 - 6 0- 6 0 =- 6
'ttle or no habitat = 0• varied habitats = max rots

18 canopy coverage, over straambed
..
o - S
o `- S
0 - S
no shadin v etatian = 0` cominuoua = max infs.
19 Sabatrstte embexldedneats 1VA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 ,

embedded = 0• hose structure = max ,,

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 - 4
0 - 5
0 - S
~ no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max rots
C
21 Presence of amphibians
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 4
O no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max .rots
"'•1
~ Presence of flsh 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
~
no evidence = 0• commo numerous = max rots
23 Evidence of wildlife sae 0 - 6 0 - S 0 - S
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max rots
Total PohYts Poseibk -100 -100 100"
TOTAL gCO~E (atso enter on first PaBe~

Nt Pkc.'f +~-~ ~' 14 Z.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
u P~,1.NA
Project /Site: Summerwind Plantation Date: 10!30/07
Applicant /Owner: Summerwind Plantation LLC County: Johnston
Investigator: Phii Mav -Carolina Ecosystems. Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ~ No ^ Community ID: WA
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ~ No Q Transact ID: >~
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No ~ Plot ID: 104
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Suedes tra m Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indlcator
1.Lesuedeza sn. H FAC+ 9.
2. Rebus sn. H _ 10.
3. Liauidambar styraciflua S FAC+ 11.
4.Ouercus ni¢ra S FAC 12.
5. Li¢ustrum sinense S FAC 13.
6. Vitis rotundifolia V FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
Only herbs and some seedlings in disturbed upland slopes adjacent to wetland drainage.
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Q Inundated
Q Saturated in Upper 12"
~ No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
Q Drift Lines
Field Observations: Q Sediment Deposits
Q Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _Ln,) ^ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Q Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
De th to Saturated Soil:
p (in.) QFAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (F~cplain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators
•
•
•

v~~.~u rJ
•
•
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Rion sandy loam 15-40% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Tvoic hanludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes Q No ^
Profile Descrlotlon:
Depth Matrix Colore Mottle Cobre Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) ~lorizon (Munsell Moisti (Munsell Moistl AbundancelContrast Structure. etc.
0 A 2.SY 6/3 2.SY 5/6 Small, common Clav loam
6 B 2.5Y 6/3 lOYR 5/8 Small. common Clav loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Q Histosol Q Concretions
Q Histic Epipedon Q High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Q Sulfldic Odor Q Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Q Aquic Moisture Regime Q Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Q Reducing Conditions Q Listed on National Hydric Sofls List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Q Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remark::
No ihydric soil indicators
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ No Q Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ^ No ~ Within a Wetland? Yes ^ No ~
Hydric Solis Present? Yes II No ~
Steep upland slopes adjacent to wetland drainage and intermittent stream channel.
•

"SMP,a.c~C ~R.cr4 Z
w~: AND
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Summerwind Plantation Date: 10/30/07
Applicant /Owner; Summerwind Plantation LLC County: Johnston
Investigator: Phil Mav -Carolina Ecosystems. Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ~ No ^ Community ID: WA
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ~ No ^ Transact ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ^ IVo ~ Plot ID: 104
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant PIaM Soecles Stratum Indicator Dominant PIaM Scecies Stratum Indicator
1.Juncus etTusua H FACW+ 9.
2. Polvsonum su. H _ 10.
3. Caret so. H _ 11.
4. Tvaha latifolia H OBL 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
T. 15.
8. 16.
Penrent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
Only herbaceous vegetation within wetland due to prior clearing activities.
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
^ Other ^ Inundated
~ Saturated in Upper 12"
~ No Recorded Data Available ^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
Field Observations: ~ Sediment Deposits
~ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Q Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1 in.) Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ~ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Significant amount of groundwater and saturation after an extremely dry summer.
•
•
•

~- ~,v~c.-c A~t.arw- Z.
w~z~ND
•
•
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Rion sandy loam 15-40% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): TYpic hanludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ~ No ^
Proflle Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colore Mottle Texture, Concretbns,
(Inched Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl g~ndancelContrast Structure. etc.
0 A 2.SY 4/2 2.SY 6/1 Common. distinct Loamv sand
~_ B 2,SY 6/1 Loamv sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol II Concretions
Histic Epipedon II High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfldic Odor II Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Q Reducing Conditions [j Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain to Remarks)
Remarks:
Saturated low chrome soils from surface.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ No Q
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No ^
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~ No []
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ~ No
•

~ rtPr4~ A-2~4
VP C./NV y
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Summerwind Plantation Date: 10/30/07
Applicant /Owner: Summerwind Plantation LLC County: Johnston
Investigator: Phil Mav -Carolina Ecosystems. Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ~ No ^ Community ID: WB
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No ~ Transact ID: Up
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes j] No ~ Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant PIaM Species Stratum indicator Dominant PIaM Species Stratum Indicator
1.Microsteaium vimineum H FAC+ 9. Faeus erandifolia T FACU
2.13oehmeria cvlindrica H FACW+ 10.
3. Ilea opaca S FAC- 11.
4. Liriodendron tulipifera S FAC 12.
5. Liguidambar stvraciflua S FAC+ 13.
6. Acer rubrum S FAC 14.
7. Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 15.
8. Lipuidambar stvraciflua T FAC+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 78%
Remarks:
Similar species as wetland due to riparian setting -vegetation only differs in occurrence of upland species
(beech, holly)
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other ^ Inundated
Q Saturated in Upper 12"
~ No Recorded Data Available Q Water Marks
Q DrNt Lines
Field Observations: ^ Sediment Deposits
Q Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: __Sin.) Q Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
aWater-Stained Leaves
II Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ^FAC-Neutral Test
Q Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators
•
•
•

~Mok~~ A~¢~'h
UP(,~4ND
•
•
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(SeHes and Phase): Rion sandy loam 15-40% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Tyaic haDludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ^ No ^
Proflls Descriotlon:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colore Mottle Texture, Concretbns,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Molstl (Mu nsell Moist) Abundance/Controst Structuro. etc.
~_ A lOYR 4/3 Clav loam
f B lOYR 4/2 Clav loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol [~ Concretions
Hlstic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed On Local Hydtic Soils List
[] Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ No ^
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ^ No ~
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ^ No ~
Riparian forest along perennial stream slopes
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes ^ No ~

~~o~~ ~~ ~
~~T~~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: Summerwind Plantation Dale: 10/30/07
Applicant /Owner: Summerwind Plantation LLC County: Johnston
Investigator: Phil Mav -Carolina Ecosystems. Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ~ No ^ Community ID: WB
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes ^ No ~ Transact ID: Wet
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ^ No ~ Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indlcator DOminant Plant Species t m Indicator
1.Microsteeium vinuneum H FAC+ 9.
2. Impatiens capensis H FACW 10.
3. Boehmeria cvlindrica H FACW+ 11.
4. Liriodendron tulipifera S FAC 12.
5. Liauidambar stvracitlua S FAC+ 13.
6. Acer rubrum S FAC 14.
7. Liriodendron tulipifera T FAC 15.
8. Liauidambar stvraciflua T FAC+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Typical riparian forest species, with sparse herb layer and mostly saplings in understory.
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other Q Inundated
Q Saturated In Upper 12"
~ No Recorded Data Available ^ Water Marks
Q Drift Lines
Field Observations: Q Sediment Deposits
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: =(in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: min.) ^ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
)~ Water-Stained Leaves
Q Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ (in.) ~ FAC-Neutral Test
Q Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Limited hydrology indicators due to extended drought.
•
•
•

~ MP~,vc ~2c4 ~
wdst..~.N~
•
•
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Rion sandy loam 15-40% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Tvnic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ~ No ^
~roflle DescMotion:
Depth MaMx Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texturo, Concretbns,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Nu nes)) Molstl Abundance/Controst ~cturo. etc.
0 A lOYR 3/2 Loam
9 B lOYR 3/1 Clav loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Q Histosol Q Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon Q High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy 3olls
Sulfldic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime Q Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Q Reducing Conditions Q Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Low chrome soils lacking strong indicators -possibly due to extended drought.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ No ^ Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Presents Yes ~ No II Within a Wetland? Yes ~ No ^
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~ No II
Wetland channel running up slope of perennial stream - stormwater retained in drainage long
enough to create wetland indicators. Relatively low quality due to size.
•

•
•

.. _ ~T
•
•
•

•
ATTACHMENT 6
•
Exhibits (Engineering Plans & Calculations)
•

Permit No.
' (to be provided by DWQ)

,~~~
nr..
-. OF W ATF9
O~ QG
(i~ 9
.
NCDENR -
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM ""
• 401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part lll) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
L PRO;IECTINFORMATION ;
Project name Summerwinds Plantation
Contact person Mr. Ron Mikesh
Phone number - 919-291-5517
Date 12118/2007
Drainage area number Phase 1A Pond #1 at Station 23{UO +l- Street B
IL_ DESIGN,INFORMATION ,
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 871,200 ftz
Impervious area 392,040 ft
impervious 45
Design rainfall depth 3.2 in
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters
Minimum volume required 33,033 ft3
Volume provided 49,573 ft3
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth in
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
• Minimum volume required ft3
Volume provided ft3
Peak Flow Calculations
Is prelpost control of the 1-yr 24-hr peak flow required? Y (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth 3.2 in
Rational C, pre-development 57.6 (unitless)
Rational C, post-development 78.1 (unitless)
Rainfall intensity: 1-yr, 24-hr storm N/A inlhr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 2.1 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 25.7 ft3lsec
PrelPost 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control 23.6 ft3lsec
Basin Elevations
Basin bottom elevation 287.00 ft
Sediment cleanout elevation 288.00 ft
Bottom of shelf elevation 294.50 ft
Permanent pool elevation 295.00 ft
Top of shelf elevation 295.50 ft
Temporary pool elevation 298.80 ft
Volume and Surface Area Calculations
SAIDA ratio 1.00 (unitless)
Surface area at the bottom of shelf 6448.00 ftZ
Volume at the bottom of shelf 22529.00 ft3
Permanent pool, surface area required 8,668 ftz
Permanent pool, surface area provided 8,680 ft2 OK
Permanent pool volume 26,311 ft3

• Average depth for SAIDA tables
Surface area at the top of shelf 3.031221198 ft OK
11,113 {~
Volume at the top of shelf 31260 ft3
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.3 Parts I. 8 II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2

Permit
(to 6e provided by DWQJ
IL DESIGN INFORMATION
Forebay volume 5,404 fts
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 21 % OK
Temporary pool, surface area provided 14,867 f~
• Drawdown Calculations
Treatment volume drawdown time 2.3 days OK
Treatment volume discharge rate 1,78 ft3/s
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge 2.09 ft3/s OK
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge 1.78 ft3(s OK
Additional Information
Diameter of orifice 6.00 in
Design TSS removal 85
Basin side slopes - 3 :1 OK
Vegetated shelf slope 10 :1 OK
Vegetated shelf width 10 ft OK
Length of flowpath to width ratio 3.1 :1 OK
Length to width ratio 3.07 :1 OK
Trash rack for overflow & orifice? Y (Y or N) OK
Freeboard provided 1.2 ft OK
Vegetated filter provided? Y (Y or N) OK
Recorded drainage easement provided? Y (Y or N) OK
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out? Y (Y or N) OK
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies Yes
•
•
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.3 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2

•
d o~OF W ATF,pQ9
h r
NCDENR ~~~
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
LEVEL SPREADER, FILTER STRIP AND RESTORED RIPARIAN BUFFER SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part Ill) must be printed, filled out and submitted along wfth all of the required information.
•
•
#. PROJECT iNF01?MAT1Qtd
Project name Summerwinds Plantation
Contact name Mr. Ron Mikesh
Phone number - 919-291-5517
Date December 18, 2007
Drainage area number
Phase 1A Pond #1 at Station 23~U0 +/-Street B
IL' DESIGN ~NFORIYlATI01N
For Level Spreaders Receiving Flow From a BMP
Type of BMP Wet Detention
Drawdown flow from the BMP 1.8 cfs
For Level Spreaders Receiving Flow from the Drainage Area
Drainage area
Impervious surface area
Percent impervious
Rational C coefficient
Peak flow from the 1 in/hr storm
Time of concentration
Rainfall intensity, 10-yr storm
Peak flow from the 10-yr storm
Where Does the Level Spreader Discharge?
To a bioretention 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 inlhr storm?
Length based on the 10-yr, 24-hr storm?
Length based on the BMP discharge rate?
Design flow
Is a bypass device provided?
Length of the level lip
Are level spreaders in series?
Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
ft2
ftz
Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
cfs Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
min
in/hr Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
cfs Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
(Y or N)
(Y or N)
(Y or N) Please complete filter strip characterization below.
50 ft
0 ft
0 ft
50 ft
8
N (Y or N) OK
None sq ft OK
13 ftlcfs
None (Y or N)
None (Y or N)
Y (Y or N)
1.8 cfs
Y (Y or N) OK
28 ft
None (Y or N)
Form SW401-Level Spreader, Filter Strip, Restored Riparian Buffer-Rev.3
#VALUE!
Parts I. and II. Design Summary, page 1 of 2

Bypass Channel Design (if applicable)
Does the bypass discharge through a wetland? N (Y or N)
Does the channel enter the stream at an angle? Y
Dimensions of the channel (see diagram below):
• M 3 ft
B 0 ft
W 9 ft
Y 1.5 ft
Peak velocity in the channel during the 10-yr, 24-hr storm 4.4 cfs
Channel fining material PSRM
w t
~ T
_ 1

1 1--------- Y
M

B 1
•
•
' 1
M
Form SW401-Level Spreader, Filter Strip, Restored Riparian Buffer-Rev.3 Parts I. and II. Design Summary, page 2 of 2

Permit Number
(to be provided by DWQ)
~~
NCDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WETLAND SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part lll) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all the required information.
O~O~. w AT ~9pG
o ,~~...<
1. PROJECT 1NFORMA710N "
Project name _ Summerwinds Plantation
Contact name Mr. Ron Mikesh
Phone number 919-291-5517
Date December 18, 2007
Drainage area number Phase 16 Stormwater Wetland
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 435,600 ft2
Impervious area 178,596 ft2
Percent impervious 41.0%
Design rainfall depth 9.0 inch
Peak Flow Calculations
Does this project require pre/post control of the 1-yr 24-hr peak Y (Y or N)
flow?
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth 3.2 in
yr, 24-hr intensity NIA in/hr
e-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff 3.82 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff 11.25 ft3lsec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control 7.4 ft3lsec
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters
Design volume (temporary pool volume) 16,615 ft3 OK
Depth of temporary pool/ponding depth (DP,a°,~) 12 in OK
Drawdown time 2.50 days OK
Diameter of orifice 3.00 in Drawdown orifice diameter may be insufficient. Please
provide adequate supporting calculations.
Coefficient of discharge (Co) used in orifice diameter 0.60 (unitless)
calculation
Driving head (H°) used in the orifice diameter calculation 0.660 ft OK
Storage Volume: SR Waters Parameters
1-yr, 24-hr depth in
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required ft3
Volume provided ft3
Form SW401-Wetland-Rev.1 Parts I and II. Project Design Summary, Page 1 of 3

Permit Number
(to be provided by DWQJ
Surface Areas of Wetland Zones
Surface Area of Entire Wetland
Shallow Land
The shallow land percentage is:
hallow Water
The shallow water percentage is:
Deep Pool
Forebay portion of deep pool (pretreatment)
The forebay surface area percentage is:
Non-forebay portion of deep pool
The non-forebay deep pool surface area percentage is:
Total of wetland zone areas
Add or subtract the following area from the zones
Topographic Zone Elevations
Temporary Pool
Shallow Land (top)
Permanent Pool
Shallow Water (top)
Deep Pool (top)
Most shallow point of deep pool's bottom
Deepest point of deep pool's bottom
Design must meet one of the following two options:
This design meets Option #1,
Deep pool is 6'inches below SLWT, If yes:
SLWT (Seasonally Low Water Table)
This design meets Option #2,
Has a clay liner
• If yes:
Depth of topsoil above clay liner
Topographic Zone Depths
Temporary Pool
Shallow Land
Permanent Pool
Shallow Water
Deep Pool (shallowest)
Deep Pool (deepest)
Planting Plan
Are cattails included in the planting plan?
Number of Plants in planting plan recommended:
Herbacious (4'inch diameter)
Shrubs/small trees (1 gallon or larger)
Trees (1,5" dbh)
Number of Plants in planting plan provided (several species of
each plant type are recommended):
Herbacious (4'inch diameter)
Shrubs/small trees (1 gallon or larger)
Trees (1.5"dbh)
•
18,273 ftz OK
7,221 ftz OK
40%
7,391 ftz OK
e n°i
1,989 ft2 OK
11%
1,672 ft2 OK
9%
18,273 ft2 OK
0,00 ft2
286.00 fmsl
285.00 fmsl
284.50 fmsl
283.00 fmsl
281.50 fmsl
(Y or N)
fmsl
Y
6 in
12 in OK
6 in OK
18 in OK
36 in OK
N (Y or N) OK
552
368
92
Form SW401-Wetland-Rev.1 Parts I and II. Project Design Summary, Page 2 of 3

Permit Number
(to be provided by DWQ)
Additional Information
Can the design volume be contained?
Does volume in excess of the design volume flow evenly
Istributed through a vegetated filter?
What is the length of the vegetated filter?
Does the design use a level spreader to evenly distribute flow?
Are calculations for supporting the design volume provided in the
application?
Is BMP sized to handle all runoff from ultimate build-out?
Is the BMP located in a recorded drainage easement with a
recorded access easement to a public Right of Way (ROW)?
The length to width ratio is:
Approximate wetland length -
Approximate wetland width
Approximate surface area using length and width provided
Will the wetland be stabilized within 14 days of construction?
•

Y (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
82 ft
N (Y or N) Show how flow is evenly distributed.
Y (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
2.2 :1 OK
198.0 ft
92.0 ft
18,216 ft2 This approx. surface area is within this number of square
feet of the entire wetland surface area reported above:
Y (Y or N) OK
Form SW401-Wetland-Rev.1 Parts I and II. Project Design Summary, Page 3 of 3

Permit
(to be provided by DWQ)
~p W A TF9
~ ~
NCdENR ° ~~°w -~~.'
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part 111) must be printed, tilled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
L `PRO~EC~ INFORMATION:
Project name Summerwinds Plantation
Contact person Mr. Ron Mikesh
Phone number 919-291-5517
Date 1211812007
Drainage area number Phase 1 B Pond #1
IL' DESIGN ~NF~RMATION ,
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 291,852 ~
Impervious area 84,070 ft2
impervious 28.80569604
Design rainfall depth 3.2 in
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters ,
Minimum volume required 7,520 ft3
Volume provided 24,012 ft3
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth in
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
• Minimum volume required ft3
Volume provided ft3
Peak Flow Calculations
Is prelpost control of the 1-yr 24-hr peak flow required? Y (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth 3.2 in
Rational C, pre-development 65.0 (unitless)
Rational C, post-development 72.0 (unitless)
Rainfall intensity:1-yr, 24-hr storm N/A inlhr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 2.0 ft3lsec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 4.2 ft3lsec
PrelPost 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control 2.2 ft3/sec
Basin Elevations
Basin bottom elevation 247.00 ft
Sediment cleanout elevation 248.00 ft
Bottom of shelf elevation 251.50 ft
Permanent pool elevation 252.00 ft
Top of shelf elevation 252.50 ft
Temporary pool elevation 255.00 ft
Volume and Surface Area Calculations
SAIDA ratio 1.04 (unitless)
Surface area at the bottom of shelf 2900.00 ftz
Volume at the bottom of shelf 4648.00 ft3
Permanent pool, surface area required 3,036 ftz
Permanent pool, surface area provided 4,079 ft2 OK
Permanent pool volume 12,310 ft3
Average depth for SA/DA tables
Surface area at the top of shelf 3.017896543
4,095 ft OK
f(z
Volume at the top of shelf 14676 ft3
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.3 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2

•
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQJ
AIL DESIGN iNFORMATIIDN'
Forebay volume 2,465 fts
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 20 % OK
Temporary pool, surface area provided 8,728 fts
Drawdown Calculations
Treatment volume drawdown time
Treatment volume discharge rate
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Additional Information
Diameter of orifice
Design TSS removal
Basin side slopes
Vegetated shelf slope
Vegetated shelf width
Length of flowpath to width ratio
Length to width ratio
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?
Freeboard provided
Vegetated filter provided?
Recorded drainage easement provided?
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out?
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies
2.2 days OK
0.16 ft3~s
1.95 ft3/s OK
0.16 ft3/s OK
2.00 in
85
3 :1 OK
10 :1 OK
10 ft OK
2 :1 Too short, increase ratio to at least 3:1
2 :1 OK
Y (Y or N) OK
1.65 ft OK
Y (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
Yes

•
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.3
Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2

r_j
~~( ..~ / of~w'a~r/yF~9\\
~11 ^,l 1I iQf
--- o ~~,
~:.„w
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
LEVEL SPREADER, FILTER STRIP AND RESTORED RIPARIAN BUFFER SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled ouf, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part III) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
L. PROJECT INFORMATIaN ':. .
Project name Summerwinds Plantation
Contact name Mr. Ron Mikesh
Phone number - 919-291-5517
Date December 18, 2007
Drainage area number Phase 16 Pond #1
II. ;DESIGN;INFORMATION
For Level Spreaders Receiving Flow From a BMP
Type of BMP Wet Detention
Drawdown flow from the BMP 0.2 cfs
For Level Spreaders Receiving Flow from the Drainage Area Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
Drainage area ftz
Impervious surface area ~ ~
Percent impervious Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
Rational C coefficient Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
Peak flow from the 1 in/hr storm cfs Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
Time of concentration min
Rainfall intensity, 10-yr storm inlhr Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
• Peak flow from the 10-yr storm cfs Do not complete this section of the worksheet.
Where Does the Level Spreader Discharge?
To a bioretention cell? N (Y or N)
To a wetland? N (Y or N)
To a filter strip or riparian buffer? Y (Y or N) Please complete filter strip characterization below.
Other (specify)
Filter Strip or Riparian Buffer Characterization (if applicable)
Width of grass ft
Width of dense ground cover 50 ft
Width of wooded vegetation ft
Total width 50 ft
Slope (from level lip to to top of bank) 6
Are any draws present? N (Y or N) OK
Level Spreader Design
Forebay surface area None sq ft OK
Feet of level lip needed per cfs 13 ftlcfs
Answer "Y" to one of the following:
Length based on the 1 in/hr storm? None (Y or N)
Length based on the 10-yr, 24-hr storm? None (Y or N)
Length based on the BMP discharge rate? Y (Y or N)
Design flow 0.2 cfs
Is a bypass device provided? Y (Y or N) OK
Length of the level lip 42 ft #VALUE!
Are level spreaders in series? None (Y or N)
•
Form SW401-Level Spreader, Filter Strip, Restored Riparian Buffer-Rev.3 Parts I. and II. Design Summary, page 1 of 2

Bypass Channel Design (if applicable)
Does the bypass discharge through a wetland? N (Y or N)
Does the channel enter the stream at an angle? Y
Dimensions of the channel (see diagram below):
M ft
B ft
W ft
y ft
Peak velocity in the channel during the 10-yr, 24-hr storm cfs
Channel lining material PSRM
!. .,,
-- -;
t L---------
M
Y
~~
I
M
•
•
1 B
Form SW401-Level Spreader, Filter Strip, Restored Riparian Buffer-Rev.3 Parts I. and II. Design Summary, page 2 of 2

•
•
•