20041701 Ver 2_Stormwater Info_20080215

r
7
L

Stonewater Subdivision
Riparian Buffer and Stream Remediation
1
Plan to address NOV-2007-PC-0241
? D
WQ Project No. 20041701
1 Wake Countyn? D
for FEB 15 2008
i KiR Q"'
rby Marshburn Building CorporatjwN.R,,IIVor-RmwAmR ?cm
t 111
y L p
'Vt
4
y
M
Prepared by:
Jake Taylor, CPESC # 3602
2801 Sandia Drive Raleigh NC 27607 phone: [phone]
' Page 1

Vicki Fuentes
Division of Water Quality
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Stonewater Subdivision
NOV-2007-PC-0241
DWQ Project No. 20041701
Wake County
Dear Vicki Fuentes:
May 17, 2007
Revised June 2007
2801 Sandia Drive
Raleigh NC 27607
This is a response to this notice of violation and how Mr. Kirby Marshburn is addressing the
issues concerning the Stonewater Subdivision. Mr. Marshburn received Notice of Violation #
2007-0241 on April 27, 2007 concerning this stream crossing at Stonewater Subdivision. This is
a follow up notice of issues and remediation plan approved by your office in 2006 addressed in
' the notice of violation for DWQ project # 04-1701 mailed on April 6, 2006. Mr. Marshburn
responded to the last issued violation (#04-1701) within the required 30 days. A DWQ response
to that plan was mailed to Mr. Marshburn on August 14, 2007 and answered on August 23, 2006.
A subsequent meeting at the site then occurred with Vicki Fuentes and Eric Kulz, Kirby
Marshburn, and Jake Taylor. Mr. Marshburn was told at that time by Mr. Kulz to leave the rip
rap in the stream channel to stabilize the area and prevent erosion of the stream channel, but to
remove it from the rest of the buffer. He was told to wait for a response dealing with the pipe
submergence but to proceed with removing the sediment basins and stabilizing the area.
Based on issues discussed at that meeting Mr. Marshburn proceeded with stabilization efforts
and thought he was complying with all the issues involving the project as requested from DWQ
staff for site compliance. The sediment basins and additional rip rap were removed from the
riparian buffer and the stream banks. The stream banks and buffer area were stabilized with
' temporary vegetation and the buffer was replanted in bare root riparian trees. Mr. Marshburn
removed the rip rap from the riparian buffer but left it in the stream channel as instructed by Mr.
Kulz. The stream could have been returned to its original profile at that time. Based on the
content of this new continued violation notification there seems to have been a misunderstanding
as we were of the impression that no additional measures needed attention. Mr. Marshburn is
' now trying to address your staffs concerns.
Issues to be addressed as listed.
' Item # (1): A detailed site survey showing the property boundaries, Stream channel (as
derined by top of bank), Zones I and 2 of the riparian buffer (as measured from top of bank)
and the extent of the stream and buffer impacts.
Item #1: Site plan attached. The approved 401 permit for the site and a stream disturbance of 120
feet and associated riparian buffer. Site evaluation by DWQ showed 179 feet of stream impact
with approximately 59 feet of linear buffer or 5900 square feet of additional riparian buffer
disturbance. Actual measurements came up with 180.6 feet of stream impact and 60.6 feet of
buffer and 4380 square feet of additional buffer disturbance in the main stream crossing.
Page 2
Stonewater Subdivision
Riparian Buffer and Stream Remediation
Plan to address NOV-2007-PC-0241
DWQ Project No. 20041701
Wake County
for
Kirby Marshburn Building Corporation

AI,
Vo*
.. fie:.
ti, n
?,Xy5g•' 4 ,. ?t ? r
St
r4 6`t. i1 rir 1 ,
41
td aP:
Prepared by:
Jake Taylor, CPESC # 3602
2801 Sandia Drive Raleigh NC 27607 phone: [phone]
Page 1

1
1

1
1

F-J

u
1
May 17, 2007
Revised June 2007
2801 Sandia Drive
Raleigh NC 27607
Vicki Fuentes
Division of Water Quality
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Stonewater Subdivision
NOV-2007-PC-0241
DWQ Project No. 20041701
Wake County
Dear Vicki Fuentes:
This is a response to this notice of violation and how Mr. Kirby Marshburn is addressing the
issues concerning the Stonewater Subdivision. Mr. Marshburn received Notice of Violation #
2007-0241 on April 27, 2007 concerning this stream crossing at Stonewater Subdivision. This is
a follow up notice of issues and remediation plan approved by your office in 2006 addressed in
the notice of violation for DWQ project # 04-1701 mailed on April 6, 2006. Mr. Marshburn
responded to the last issued violation (404-1701) within the required 30 days. A DWQ response
to that plan was mailed to Mr. Marshbum on August 14, 2007 and answered on August 23, 2006.
A subsequent meeting at the site then occurred with Vicki Fuentes and Eric Kulz, Kirby
Marshburn, and Jake Taylor. Mr. Marshburn was told at that time by Mr. Kulz to leave the rip
rap in the stream channel to stabilize the area and prevent erosion of the stream channel, but to
remove it from the rest of the buffer. He was told to wait for a response dealing with the pipe
submergence but to proceed with removing the sediment basins and stabilizing the area.
Based on issues discussed at that meeting Mr. Marshburn proceeded with stabilization efforts
and thought he was complying with all the issues involving the project as requested from DWQ
staff for site compliance. The sediment basins and additional rip rap were removed from the
riparian buffer and the stream banks. The stream banks and buffer area were stabilized with
temporary vegetation and the buffer was replanted in bare root riparian trees. Mr. Marshbum
removed the rip rap from the riparian buffer but left it in the stream channel as instructed by Mr.
Kulz. The stream could have been returned to its original profile at that time. Based on the
content of this new continued violation notification there seems to have been a misunderstanding
as we were of the impression that no additional measures needed attention. Mr. Marshburn is
now trying to address your staffs concerns.
Issues to be addressed as listed.
Item # (1): A detailed site survey showing the property boundaries. Stream channel (as
derned by top of bank), Zones I and 2 of the riparian buffer (as measured from top of bank)
and the extent of the stream and buffer impacts.
Item #1: Site plan attached. The approved 401 permit for the site and a stream disturbance of 120
feet and associated riparian buffer. Site evaluation by DWQ showed 179 feet of stream impact
with approximately 59 feet of linear buffer or 5900 square feet of additional riparian buffer
disturbance. Actual measurements came up with 180.6 feet of stream impact and 60.6 feet of
buffer and 4380 square feet of additional buffer disturbance in the main stream crossing.
Page 2

1

7
Item # (2): Stabilization efforts to date.
How Item #2 is to be addressed:
• Site evaluation showed that the stream channel has a vigorous growth of wetlands
vegetation with minor bank erosion on the north east corner (addressed later in this
report). The evaluation of the stabilization of the buffer area showed a good temporary
vegetative cover of winter wheat until reseeded with a riparian seed mix.
• The site will be seeded with a riparian mix of NC native plant obtained from Mellow
Marsh Farm and will be planted by the time this report is reviewed (see attached list of
seed types).
• The level spreader on the south east corner had a low point in the berm allowing
concentrated flow into the buffer. This has been rebuilt to address diffused flow.
• The north east level spreader had a section that was slightly lower than the rest of the
device. This is where the device contour also flattened out. Storm water velocities flows
slowed down at this point with sediment deposition occurring. The level spreader berm
was about 2 inches lower at that point. The combination of these issues allowed
stormwater flows to jump the level spreader berm and concentrate flows thru the
previously disturbed buffer. This caused some erosion of the stream banks in three areas.
To address this issue the level spreader has been redone in that area to address positive
flow and not have any areas of concentrated discharge. The length of the level spreader
was extended so as to make sure that most of the stormwater was diffused thru
undisturbed portions of the riparian buffer.
• The three small eroded areas of the stream banks were filled with topsoil with minimal
disturbance to established vegetation. The area was armored with North American Green
re-enforcement matting C-350 to help stabilize the area until stabilized with vegetation.
This matting is primarily a biodegradable coconut fiber reinforced with a permanent
netting to re-enforce the vegetative root mat on the stream bank. This hopefully will help
to stabilize the disturbed area until a natural root mat re-establishes. The matting was
keyed into the soil and live staked into the stream bank.
• Last year the entire buffer area was seeded with winter wheat for temporary stabilization
as fescue is not allowed in zone 1 of the buffer. This year a temporary seeding of brown
top millet was over seeded to temporarily stabilize any areas re-disturbed in the tree
planting process. The buffer area had lime added to about one ton per acre (300 lbs) and a
one time fertilizer application of less than one 40 lb bag of 10-10-10 to help establish
vegetation in the buffer. The entire disturbed riparian buffer and disturbed stream channel
will be seeded soon with a riparian seed mix obtained from Mellow Marsh Farm and
consists of the following. Elmus Virginicus (Virginia Wild rye), Panicum
virgatum(Switchgrass), Agrosstis stolonifera (Creeping bentgrass), Coreopsis lanceolata
(coreopsis), Panicum candestinum (Deer tongue) Juncus effusus (Soft rush), polygonum
pensylvanicum (Penn/smartweed), Schizachyrum nutans (Indian Grass), and Tripsacum
dactyoides (Gamma).
• The 12 foot section of disturbed stream channel in the up stream easement crossing has
been re-established. All fill in the channel was removed with the channel reshaped to the
existing channel profile in the area. The entire disturbed channel area was temporarily
armored with North American Green C-350 matting to help stabilize the area and seeded
with a nurse crop of millet. The area will be seeded soon with the riparian seed mix.
Page 3

t

FI

1

?J
1
Item # 3: A Riparian Buffer Restoration Plan:
How Item # 3 is to be addressed:
• The approved 401 permit for the site and a stream disturbance of 120 feet and associated
riparian buffer. Site evaluation by DWQ showed 179 feet of stream impact with
approximately 59 feet of linear buffer or 5900 square feet of additional riparian buffer
disturbance. Actual measurements came up with 180.6 feet of stream impact and 60.6 feet
of buffer and 4380 square feet of additional buffer disturbance in the main stream crossing.
The original buffer estimates by DWQ were used to calculate the number of trees to be
planted. This was about 13.5% of an acre. Based on a 10 x 10 grid planting and 681 trees
per acre this would be 93 trees. The actual requirements would have been 68 trees. The
entire area was planted last fall, but the survival rate of the previous planting in the riparian
buffer was evaluated and only a 20% survival rate was observed. On April 9, 2007 a
mixture of bare root trees was obtained from the US Forestry Service form the Goldsboro
Nursery. The trees and shrubs were listed on the Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration
pamphlet and were mixed to achieve both upper and lower story canopy vegetation. The
impacted buffer area was replanted on an 8' X 8'grid with the following bare root trees on
April 9, 2007. The planting rate was increased to achieve a better survival rate. Seventy
river birch, ten button bush, ten wax myrtle, twenty persimmons, and forty dogwoods were
planted. Site evaluation on May 1, 2007 showed 59 % survival rate on the east side of the
stream crossing (invert in) and only a 32 % survival rate on the east side. In addition to the
bare root plantings, nineteen 1.5" to 2" diameter potted river birch trees were planted in
zone one of the buffer on May 8`h. Five of the trees show signs of stress, but are putting out
new leaves. The total numbers of trees that have survived surpass the minimum
requirement, but additional trees will be planted on the east side this fall to achieve the
proper ratio. Survival of these plantings will be monitored and trees and shrubs will be
replaced as needed. See attached planting map on site plan.
Item # 4 states that the "The stream impacts beyond what was authorized in your 401 Water
Quality Certification, must be restored to the original pattern profile and dimension
Otherwise you must request that your 401 Water Ouality Certification be modified "
How Item # 4 is to be addressed:
• We are in the process of requesting a revision to the previously approved 401 permit from
the approved 120' of stream impact to 149.5' which is less than the maximum threshold of
150'. Mr. Neal Floyd will be pursuing this revised permit with Mr. Ian McMillan.
• We would then propose a plan to return the 31 foot portion of the stream in excess of the
requested 149.5 feet to a stabilized channel naturally vegetated stream. The existing stream
channel has vertical walls with eroding banks as the stream is trying to resize itself because
of increased storm water runoffs. It would be impractical to return the stream impacts to
that design as it would not be stable and would continue to erode like portions of the
existing channel. The result would be continued stream decay and sediment deposition in
the stream channel.
DWQ allows stream restoration projects under Certification # 3495 to convert unstable and
degraded stream corridors to natural stable conditions. We understand that this
Certification does not usually apply to sites under violation, but we would propose
restoring the section of impacted stream channel to a more stable stream corridor than the
existing degrading upstream channel. The restoration of the stream channel would involve
a transition of width and bank slope from the approved impact stream area to the existing
Page 4

stream corridor profile with a more stable channel design. This would not be to the original
profile and dimension of the original stream profile as it was unstable and decaying. The
end resulting restored channel in the impacted transition area would have a wider flood
plain with a sinuous vegetated stream channel and flatter bank slopes and would remain
stable in heavy storm events.
• Currently the channel has rip rap in the stream bed for most of the impacted length. In the
30 foot area upstream of the culvert headwall, rip rap will be removed manually to below
the water elevation with minimal disturbance to the newly re-established vegetation. The
stream banks have already been stabilized with matting and a riparian seeding. In the down
stream section of the impacted area below the headwalls rip rap will be removed below the
velocity dissipater. Rolled turf reinforcement matting (North American Green C-350) cross
vanes and log J-hook vanes would be incorporated into the design as the channel is
transitioned into the existing stream channel. We would prefer installing offset rock vanes
instead of the log vanes, but are unsure that you would allow the use of rip rap to build
these structures. The entire area will then be seeded with a natural riparian seed mixture
' obtained from Mellow Marsh Farm. Any exposed area will be reinforced with the C-350
matting which would have the same shear stress of class 2 rip rap. Log vanes would be
installed over the matting to dissipate the stream flow and ad sinuosity to the stream
channel. This would improve the quality of that section of the stream channel, slow the
stream velocities and hopefully stop some of the downstream incising of the stream
channel. A small temporary rip rap check dam (several courses of class 1 rip rap) would be
1 placed at the downstream edge of the impacted area to help stabilize the area until stream
channel and bank vegetative growth is established. When the stream bed is stabilized with
deep rooted vegetation this in stream check dam would be removed.
• Currently the channel has rip rap in the stream bed for most of the impacted length. In
The 12 foot well easement impact to the upper stream channel has been returned to the
original profile and efforts to stabilize the area are in progress (see above). Replanting of
the buffer easement (approximately 18 trees) will have to wait until this fall for survival.
Currently volunteer trees are covering most of the area as the well easement was
abandoned over a year ago.
• The impacted stream and riparian buffer will be monitored for the next several years to
make sure the vegetation survives and is replanted if necessary, the level spreaders function
properly, and the area is stabilized.
Summary of events at Stonewater Subdivision as related to DWQ, NOV -2007-PC-0241,
Project #200441701
(1) In June of 2005, Mr. Larry Finch was the grading contractor for Mr. Marshburn on the
Stonewater site. He had installed erosion and sediment control devices and was in the process of
installing the cross drainage pipes for the stream crossing. The area for pipe installation was
excavated and base prepared for setting the pipes. The pipes then were set as per design and
permit requirements 20% submerged in the existing stream channel. During this process a rain
event occurred beyond the design standards for the erosion control devices of approximately 8.5"
in a 3 to 4 hour period. Several sediment basins failed and severe erosion occurred around the
area of the pipe installation. Neighbors in the adjacent subdivision called Wake County the next
day to complain.
(2) Mr. Mike Coughlin an Environmental Engineer/Planner with Wake County inspected the
site the next day and issued a notice of violation. The notice of violation required the area to be
' stabilized as soon as possible with the sediment basins reinstalled as per approved plan
requirements. In order to obtain immediate site stabilization, Mr. Coughlin also required the
entire area at the stream crossing to be armored with rip rap. This included both the invert in and
Page 5

1

invert out sides of the cross drainage pipe and to extend all the way to the emergency spillways
of the sediment basins to make sure no additional sediment was discharged into the stream.
(3) Jake Taylor with Pollution Monitoring Services Inc. was then retained by Mr. Marshburn
as a consultant to make sure the project was in compliance with NPDES and Wake County
erosion control permits. The NPDES inspections were being done by Mr. Marshburn. Jake
Taylor took over the NPDES monitoring and reporting. Jake Taylor then made recommendations
on how to address the erosion control failures and discharge into the stream.
(4) The sediment basins were modified and stream remediation was implemented.
Encroachment agreements were obtained from the 3 adjacent property owners and sediment was
removed with shovels and buckets and taken above the protected area. The entire area was
seeded and mulched with seasonal ground cover to stabilize the site and prevent future sediment
discharge into the stream. At that time Jake Taylor advised Mr. Finch that the rip rap installation
in the buffer area would not be in compliance with DWQ requirements. Mr. Finch stated that he
was told to install the rip rap as per Mr. Coughlin's instructions within 3 days or the site would
be fined $5000.00 per day. To Mr. Coughlin's credit several rain events occurred within days of
the repairs and very little additional sediment was discharged into the stream.
(5) In the next several months the road way was finished with ditches stabilized with seed and
mulch. Rip rap was installed in the steep sections draining to the stream crossing. Silt fence and
diversion ditches were used to keep sediment from reaching the channel as the crossing reached
grade and was stabilized. The sediment basins were maintained with the only sediment discharge
being turbid storm water as it filtered thru the sediment basin. Utilities were installed in the road
easement to serve houses under construction in the site. Water, power, and phone lines were
installed over the crossing in the right of way of the road. This area has been reseeded several
times with new silt fence installed to keep sediment from washing down the side slopes into
stream. Natural wetlands vegetative growth has generated in the stream channel helping to
stabilize the channel.
(6) In February of 2006 Vicki Fuentes from the Division of Water Quality inspected the site and
issued a Notice of Violation on the site. These violations addressed preclusion of best usage, the
Neuse Buffer impacts, and failure to comply with condition 11 of the General Water Quality
Certification 3404. The Notice of violation was mailed to Mr. Marshburn on April 6th of 2006
and received the next week.
(7) A meeting then occurred in April the 24 between DWQ staff and Mr. Marshbum. In
attendance were Mr. Marshbum, Larry Finch (site contractor), Trent Stewart (site engineer),
Neal Floyd (soils consultant), and Jake Taylor (CPESC) to discuss how to best address the
issues.
(8) A written response to address concerns was required within 30 days and was delivered on
the 24th of May. Mr. Marshburn was instructed to not do any additional work in the riparian
buffer (except erosion and sediment control) until instructed to by DWQ.
(9) August the 18, 2006 (two and a half month later) Mr. Marshburn received a response to that
letter asking for clarification to the previous letter.
(10) The Clarification letter was mailed on August the 24tH
(11) On September Vickie Fuentes called to set up a final meeting at the site to discuss issues. At
the meeting were Vicki Fuentes (DWQ), Eric Kulz (DWQ), Jake Taylor (Pollution Monitoring
Services Inc.) and Kirby Marshburn (Developer of Stonewater). Mr. Marshburn was told by Mr.
Kulz to remove the rip rap in the buffer and stream banks, replant the impacted buffer and
stabilize all disturbed area. Mr. Marshburn was told to leave the rip rap in the stream channel to
limit erosion and for stabilization. Mr. Kulz told Mr. Marshburn he would get back to him on the
' issue of the issue of the percent submergence of the cross drainage pipes.
(12)Based on discussions at that meeting Mr. Marshburn proceeded with what was discussed.

Page 6

fl

(13) Jake Taylor received e-mail from Vicki Fuentes that Mr. Kulz decided to leave cross
drainage pipe as it was and to proceed with the remainder of the reparations to this site and
efforts to bring it into compliance with the 401 certification. Official notification was to follow,
but nothing was received.
(14) March of 2007 a meeting at the Stonewater Subdivision was requested by Vicki Fuentes to
review compliance efforts. Jake Taylor representing Mr. Marshburn and Shelton Sullivan with
the DWQ Compliance Oversight Unit were in attendance. At this meeting the length of the
disturbed stream as related to the original 401 permit for the site, an unapproved well easement
crossing of the same stream, survival numbers of replanted buffer trees and problems with
diffused flow from the northeast level spreader were discussed.
(15) Notice of Continuing Violation at the Stonewater Subdivision received by Mr. Marshburn
on April 25, 2007 to address site issues.

The down stream side of the buffer just
below the invert out of the twin concrete
pipes and the headwall. This shows the
portion of the buffer that was not approved
(excluding 20feet) in the 401 permit. The
stream channel is stabilized with heavy
vegetative growth. Both bare root trees (72)
and 1.5" diameter potted trees (9) were
planted. The yellow flags show the bare root
trees (28) that have survived so far. Three of
the 1.5" potted trees show stress and may
have to be replanted.
The up stream side of the buffer just above
the invert in of the twin concrete pipes and
the headwall. This shows the portion of the
buffer that was not approved in the 401
permit. The stream channel is stabilized with
heavy vegetative growth. Both bare root trees
(78) and 1.5" diameter potted trees (10) were
planted. Four show stress and may have to be
replanted. The yellow flags show the bare
root trees (51) that have survived so far.
The fifty foot portion of the stream below the
twin concrete pipes. Twenty foot of this was
approved as the rip rap dissipater used to
slow the velocities of the water flow out of
the smooth wall concrete pipe to a non
erosive velocity. Rip rap was extended to the
disturbed stream bed because of erosion
problems.
Page 7
¢
V ? Y
1

L
???t
r
??
Y
4ty
'
f? ,ys? ?1
•?
?
? F
j
b at>t y
FV , `;:
,
?
la

r s "? rip
ry? ?

The twenty nine foot portion of the stream
above the twin concrete pipes. Rip rap was
extended to the edge of the disturbed stream
bed because of erosion problems. A heavy
stand of vegetative growth has established
with multiple crayfish, tadpoles and aquatic
insect life observed. The northern bank did
have erosion problems due to level spreader
problems. Both issues were addressed.
View of the north west quadrant of the
impacted buffer area. The bottom of the
headwall is close to the approve limits of the
disturbed buffer. The yellow flags show
planted trees and shrubs. A few of the 1.5"
trees show stress and may have to be
replanted this fall.
View of the south west quadrant of the
impacted buffer area.
View of the north east quadrant of the
impacted area. The red flags are about ten
feet outside the approve limits of the
disturbed buffer. The yellow flags show
planted trees and shrubs that have survived.
Page 8

1

n

L?

t
}
Page 9
This is a view of the south east quadrant of
the impacted area. This includes a small
ephemeral channel that was not listed as a
buffer. The level spreader shown was moved
another 40 ` back into the building lot than
required on the approved plans. The total
distance is over 90' from the main channel.
The developer decided if the level spreader
was installed where it was approved then
diffused flow into a buffered area would not
be achieved as the flow from the level
spreader would re-converge in the natural
channel.
The level spreader at northeast corner had a
low point and caused erosion in that part of
the disturbed buffer. The level spreader was
extended seventeen feet further on the edge
of zone two of into the existing undisturbed
buffer. The top of the level spreader berm
and the slope of the level spreader were
checked with a laser level and adjusted to
make sure water flowed across the berm
evenly to diffused flow was achieved thru
the buffer.
The extension allowed the storm water
drainage from the street to achieve diffused
flow over a wider area with the majority
going thru the undisturbed buffer with
established root matt and away from the less
vegetated buffer being replanted in that
quadrant.

1

d
H
r

The top of bank had three eroded rills for the
drainage that was directed at the un-
stabilized buffer from the above level
spreader. Now that the drainage has been
directed away from the area the bank has
repaired. Top soil was hauled in and the area
was reseeded with both brown millet for
quick stabilization and a riparian seed mix.
See document text.
The bank was re-enforced with North
American C-350 which has a biodegradable
core of coconut fiber and a permanent web
to support the root matt. This photo shows
the level spreader, the repaired stream bank
and replanting of trees in the northeast
quadrant of the stream crossing.
This is the unapproved stream impact that
was disturbed by a utility company that
crossed the stream when testing a well site.
The well site was abandoned due to high
radon content. A twelve foot section of the
stream was filled in with asmall black drain
pipe. The pipe has been removed and the
stream channel returned to its original
profile.
The stream bed was armored with North
American C-350 to re-enforce the channel
until vegetative growth and a root mat is
established.
The banks and channel were seeded with
brown top millet and a riparian seed mix.
Some soft rush was transplanted to the
channel. The millet will germinate fast and
temporarily stabilize the area until the
riparian seed mix establishes.
Page 10

1

1

I

1

View of the abandoned easement and stream
impact from the east. Natural vegetation
already starting to establish. The area was
not finished in time to plant the 18 required
trees. These will be planted in December.
View of the area from the west.
Summary:
We would ask that you approve this proposal knowing that the extra impacted stream area
was not planned but done as a result of the severe erosion that occurred during a heavy rain event
(8" in a 4 hr period) and Wake County's Environmental Services staff demand that Mr.
Marshburn add rip rap to all the eroded area in the stream and buffer to achieve immediate site
stabilization. The additional area was cleared during the installation of this rip rap.
Mr. Marshburn did not plan the additional stream impacts and has gone to great effort to
bring the site into compliance. Since the initial sediment discharge associated with the heavy rain
event in June of 2005, Mr. Marshburn has tried to do everything he could to do the right thing
and to satisfy request of both DWQ and Wake County. Considering the situation and the end
result of a stable section of stream we would ask for your approval of this restoration plan. Any
guidance for site compliance would be appreciated. Please let us know in a documented response
as to any issues you have with our restoration efforts.
Taylor/, CPESC #3602
Services Inc.
CC: Vicki Fuentes
Kirby Marshburn
Neal Floyd
Trent Stewart
Page 11
ii
j
1

ins
?
o c
1
1
1 ?

1
1 ?

2
o
o
i 2
c

1 c

Re

i
I,
1
1 ?

`° r, o ?. ?
w co < ?
o (D w ?-
c?''u N 0 O O
q* W
ty ?,
a 0.W
?.
CD CD
p.
CA CD
CD ?a.?
co dq
.0 RL
v?
p' K pi-
ID
?, co
CD , a-
0
CA
P O r •?e
-CA
CD ? n
En CD
0
?. t:r
®00
N ?' O
O .O
0 Qw-.
0 0
M 7
0 ...
CL