20080067 Ver 2_401 Application_20080208

WITHERS k RAVENEL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Tel.:[phone] Fax: [phone]
TO: NC-DWQ
401 Unit
WE ARE SENDING YOU
? Shop Drawings
? Copy of Letter

DATE February 27,
2008 Job No. 2061457
ATTENTION Mr. Ian McMillan
RE: Alston Pond 401 Request

09-E)l)(Pri v

? Attached ? Under separate cover via the following
? Prints ? Plans ? Samples Specifications
? Change order ? Diskette ?
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
5 401 Submittal
1 Check for $570.00
P-A 11 IM
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
? For approval ? Approved as submitted
? For your use ? Approved as noted
? As requested ? Returned for corrections
? For review and comment ?
? FOR BIDS DUE 20 ? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS: Ian ,
Let me know if you need any additional information.
Received by :
Thanks!
COPY TO: File SIGNED: Todd Preuninger
r=3 r= ?]
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. D n Irk
FFR
A,'FTLANDS 040 ER BRAN A
? Resubmit
? Submit
? Return
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
p$--ODto1V2
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing p _A1
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: NWP's 3 & 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 her D (??W 4 IRR 19 19 R;?
II. Applicant Information F E B 7 2008
1. Owner/Applicant Information DENR - W.Ai ER QUAUTY
Name: North Broad Street, LLC Attn: Jeffrey SmerkoWETLANDS ANDSTORMWATERBRANCH
Mailing Address: 14600 Weston Parkway
Carv. NC
Telephone Number: 919-678-8800/919-818-2512 Fax Number: 919-678-8885
E-mail Address: jrsmerkogec.rr.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: Withers & Ravenel Attn: Todd Preuninger
Company Affiliation: Engineer/Environmental Consultant
Mailing Address: 111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919-469-3340 Fax Number: 919-535-4545
E-mail Address: tpreunin erkwithersravenel.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
Page 1 of 9
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
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 larger 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 are provided.
1. Name of project: Alston Pond/North Broad Stret
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Pin #: 0658-53-7087
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Fuquay-Varina
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Alston Pond
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The site is located on the
east and west side of Hwy 55, approximately 2500 ft northwest of the intersection of Wade
Nash Road (SR 1113) and Hwy 55 in Fuquay-Varina North Carolina.
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): 35.6262765 ON 78.8132158 °W
6. Property size (acres): -148 Acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Basal Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/m"s/.)
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 approximately 75% forested and 25% agricultural
fields A small residential community is located to the north, NC HWY 55 is located to the
west and Basal Creek borders the property to the east.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
overall includes the construction of a residential community. In addition, a dam will be
rehabilitated to ensure that it meets the dam safety act. Large grading equipment will be used
Page 2 of 9
to install the infrastructure (i.e. roads sewer BMP's) and prepare the site for the construction
of residential homes and apartments
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this work is to meet the demand
for single family homes in the surrounding area.
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 Project 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. Wetlands were delineated by Withers & Ravenel during March 2007.
Site meetings were conducted with the NC-DWQ on March 9, 2007 (NBRRO 07-028) and the
USACE on October 30, 2007 to verify stream origin points and our wetland delineatrion. On
October 17, 2007 sign-off maps were submitted to the USACE for approval. In addition a copy
of the the dam rehabilitation plan was submitted to NC-DWQ for their comments. The NC-
DWQ determined that impacts to the stream during dam reconstruction will be considered
tgmporar.
A permit application was submitted to the NC-DWQ and USACE on January 8, 2008 requesting
404/401 and buffer compliance approvals for impacts associated with a road crossing, however,
due to the fact that the application was incomplete and did not adequately address concerns
voiced by DWQ. it was withdrawn from the 401 review process.
In Februga and March of 2007, we began a discourse with the NC-DWQ and the USACE, to
discuss the permitting process for this project (see attached a-mails and figures). Specifically,
a proposed thoroughfare bisects the site and will stub at a property line that is adjacent to a
stream and a large beaver impoundment. A copy of the thoroughfare plan is included with the
attachments. The alignment as originally proposed would have impacted a large beaver
impoundment as well as two stream channels. In order to minimize the impacts, the roadway
was shifted to the south where it would require two stream crossing and eliminate the wetland
impacts entirely. Based on the soil survey and topographic maps, it appears that the remainder of
the roadway will be constructed in high ground until it terminates with Herbert Akins Road.
In our original application we felt that the proposed road would be considered a part of the
subdivision since we were only requesting approval for a 2-lane road at the creek crossing (near
Highway 55) rather than a 4-lane divided median. Because the remainder of the road is located
off site we did not include the additional impacts in this application. It's our understanding that
the subdivision itself cannot support the need for a 4-lane road at this time, and that the Town
will need re-apply for the additional impacts, when thgyy are justified. We believe that the
alignment as proposed is designed such that it will minimize any future impacts needed to
complete to the road to its terminus at Herbert Akins Road. The alternate alignments are
Page 3 of 9
depicted on the USGS and soil surva maps included with the attachments. If after reviewing
these mks you feel that an office meeting would be beneficial in order to resolve these issues,
we would be willing to meet with you in person.
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.
This is a single and complete project with no additional phases proposed at this time. However,
there is a thoroughfare that bisects the site. The proposed alignment was designed such that it
terminates at a point that will minimize future impacts. The Town of Fuquav will be responsible
for permitting any future impacts needed to complete this road As presently designed the
stream crossing within the property boundM tapers from a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road, to
minimize impacts The culverts at this crossing mgy need to be extended to accommodate future
traffic volumes. If the road needs to be widened, the Town of Fuquav will be the applicant.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
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 clearly 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: The proposed permanent impacts
consist of 147 linear feet of perennial/important stream channel and 0.326 acres of riparian
buffer for a road crossing. Approximately 0.05 acres of wetlands and 49 linear feet of
perennial channel will be temporarily impacted for dam re-habilitation to meet dam safety
specifications.
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,
censrately list imnaets clue to both structure and flooding-
Located within Distance to Area of
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland 100-year Nearest Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) (yes/no) (linear feet)
I - NWP3 Permanent/Fill Forested No -150 0.05
2 - NWP3 Permanent/Fill Forested No Abutting 0.01
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.06
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 9.62 Acres
Page 4 of 9
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
mrnct he. included. Tn calculate acreage- multinly length X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
Figure 2 - NWP29 UT to Basal Crk Permanent/Culvert Perennial 3 147 0.01
2 - NWP3 UT to Basal Crk Temporary Perennial 2 49 0.002
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 196 0.012
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 eXravatinn dre.duinu flnndina_ drainaoe_ bulkheads- etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) (if applicable) ocean, etc.) (acres)
NA NA NA NA NA
Total Open Water Impact (acres) NA
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.012
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.06
Open Water Impact (acres): NA
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.018
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 196
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.
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.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Page 5 of 9
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
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. Prior to site plan development,
the applicant requested that a detailed wetland delineation be conducted so that impacts to
wetlands and `waters' could be minimized. A stream channel bi-sects the property, and in order
to access high ground impacts were unavoidable. Impacts were minimized by crossing the
channel at a nearly perpendicular angle and through the use of headwalls. In addition, the road
was tapered from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at the crossing to further reduce the impacts. A proposed
thoroughfare terminates at the southern project boundary. The alignment was designed such that
future impacts associated with the completion of this road would be minimized.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A 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
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear 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 are 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 similar
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
htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.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
Page 6 of 9
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 separate sheet if more space is needed.
Because impacts to perennial channels are less than 150 linear feet, wetland impacts are less
than 0.1 acre and riparian buffer impacts are less than 1/3 acre mitigation is not proposed.
In addition the applicant proposes to preserve the remaining 9 acres of wetlands to offset the
wetland impacts needed to re-habilitate the dam.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina 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
website at htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.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 (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ? No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina 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 ?
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 clearly 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
Page 7 of 9
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 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
213 .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 multiDliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 8,999 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
2 5,210 1.5 0
Total 14,209 0
* 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 213.0242 or.0244, or.0260.
Because buffer impacts are less than 1/3 acre we do not believe mitigation will be required.
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.
The DroDOSed impervious for this Droiect is expected to exceed 24%, however, the stormwater
plans have not been finalized at this time. Multiple areas have been set aside for the installation
of BMP's and constructed wetlands. We request that the NC-DWQ approve this permit
application with the condition that impacts will not occur until the stormwater plan has been
submitted and approved by your office.
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.
Sanitga Sewer
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby 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
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: We do
no not believe that this project will result in additional development that will affect downstream
water quality. The proposed project will provide constructed wetlands to treat stormwater before
it leaves the site and maintain 50-foot riparian buffers along the stream channels. If development
occurs on the adjacent parcels these projects will also be required to comply with the Neuse
Buffer Rules and the Town of Fuquay stormwater requirements, in order to protect water quality.
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 permits. 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).
NA
Applicant/Agent's Signature Bate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
-EB `? 1 2008
DCNi, - uVAI cR QUALJTY
WETLANDS AND STORMNIATER BRANCH
T-f
• ? ~ ' Holly Springs • ; I ? ! ', ;? ? R•' ?-? ~ ? ` ?,?' 1i `
._yt l? l ; j C? Sunset
?,vdrPl ;?? - ,:Y? Lake i.J
??1m `• d "ffccm
V-7 A
BMi:47(_??`' ' i _ _ •_ _ ,i-2V ,., , t.}. !. ? \ai ? ,\ 1
, - .q _ _ . _ _ .- `\`a ?' - P? ? i 1 ? 416 `
-t \ Bt28R ' 1\)? '
G,
.. - i - ,?- - - ,- . Lake !? .• ? _ ?.
Ater
47
--4F: M1
442 _
left
Rij.
-Poll
As
R ?.
.3.
17
-sit Tow—
' nz \ ?' ?'c ?, Irt ?pltia{6 ens , Al 5
t
WITHERS ?` R"ENEL
?+ yiG•(.1
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS / ?'? -. ?' ,• , '
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina Or f;o gf ? p.1 k 1
telephone: [phone] www.withersravenel com ! ?rg?'SV' ?+? % . , . - ^ - J:
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
1i
Feet ; • -? )'? r
1 inch equals 2,000 feet
Page 1 of 1
Todd Preuninger
Subject: FW: Adam Street
Attachments: adamst.pdf
From: Todd Preuninger
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:22 PM
To: 'Shern, James F SAW'
Cc: '[e-mail]'
Subject: Adam Street
Jamie and Ian,
We discussed this project some time ago and I'm in the process of preparing a permit application. I've attached a
rough sketch of the proposed raodways (labeled A and B).
This road is part of a connector/T-fare listed on the CAMPO plan, but isn't slated for construction any time soon.
As part of the site plan approval, the developer is required to build a portion of this road. When the
adjacent parcel to the east is developed, the road will be completed.
As you can see form the sketch, the developer plans on stubbing the road at the edge of the wetlands (which will
set up potential future impacts)- Alignment'A' was on the original CAMPO plan, and alignment'B' was an
alternate proposed in order to minimize impacts to the beaver impoundment. Before i submit the permit
application, i am requesting your concurrence that Alignment 'B' would be the preferred alignment, since it
appears to minimize the wetand and stream impacts to the maximum extent possible. As i stated above, we will
not be applying for these impacts, the Town or the adjacent property owner will submit the request, when the
need for the crossing is established.
Thanks for you time and let know if you need any additional information.
todd
TODD PREUNINGER
WITHERS RAVENEL
itt MacKenan Drive r {"ary, North Carolina 2753i
tel: [phone] a tax: 919.535.4545
dirert: gig.238.0367 z
www thersravenet.com
2/27/2008

nd`?1

i1
L ,
t ?I ? qua
r

II N.

k` L ,

WITHERS
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
February 27, 2008
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Jamie Shern
65o8 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
NC-Division of Water Quality
Attn: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Alston Pond/North Broad Street - Re-Submittal
Request for 404/401 Certification and Buffer Compliance
W&R Project Number - 02o61457; DWQ #: o8-oo67
Dear Mr. Shern and Ms. Karoly:
As per your recent correspondence, we have included additional information for the
proposed Hilltop-Needmore extension. As stated in our previous application, we are
requesting authorization from the USACE to use NWP's 3 & 29 for the construction of
a residential subdivision and dam rehabilitation. We are also requesting 401
Certification and Buffer Compliance from the NC-DWQ for the impacts to a stream
and riparian buffers.
The subject property is approximately 148 acres in size and is located on the east
and west side of Hwy 55, approximately 2500 ft northwest of the intersection of
Wade Nash Road (SR 1113) and Hwy 55 in Fuquay-Varina, Wake County, North
Carolina at Latitude: 35.6262765°N and Longitude: 78.8132158°W. The site contains
unnamed tributaries to Basal Creek and is located in the Neuse River Basin. The
Water Quality Classification for these features is: B; NSW, the Cataloging Unit for this
site is: 030202o1, and the Stream Index number is: 27-43-15-3•
Project History
Wetlands were delineated by Withers & Ravenel during March 2007. Site meetings
were conducted with the NC-DWQ on March 9, 2007 (NBRRO 07-028) and the USACE
on October 30, 2007 to verify stream origin points and wetland boundaries. On
October 17, 2007 sign-off maps were submitted to the USACE for approval. A copy of
the buffer letter is included with the attachments. In addition, a copy of the dam
rehabilitation plan was submitted to NC-DWQ for their comments. The NC-DWQ
determined that impacts to the stream during dam reconstruction will be considered
temporary.
A permit application was submitted to the NC-DWQ and USACE on January 8, 2008
requesting 404/401 and buffer compliance approvals for impacts associated with a
road crossing, however, due to the fact that the application was incomplete and did
not adequately address concerns voiced by DWQ, it was withdrawn from the 401
review process.
iii MacKenan Drive i Cary, NC 27511 1 tel: [phone] fax: [phone]oo8 i www.withersravenet.com
7040 Wrightsville Avenue i Suite 1o1 i Wilmington, NC 28403 1 tel: [phone] fax: [phone]
Brunswick Surveying 1 1027 Sabbath Home Rd, SW i Supply, NC 28462 1 tel: [phone] fax: [phone]o1g
In February and March of 2007, we began a discourse with the NC-DWQ and the
USACE, to discuss the permitting process for this project (see attached a-mails and
figures). Specifically, a proposed thoroughfare bisects the site and will stub at a
property line that is adjacent to a stream and a large beaver impoundment. A copy
of the thoroughfare plan is included with the attachments. The alignment, as
originally proposed would have impacted a large beaver impoundment as well as
two stream channels. In order to minimize the impacts, the roadway was shifted to
the south, where it would require two stream crossing and eliminate the wetland
impacts entirely. Based on the soil survey and topographic maps, it appears that the
remainder of the roadway will be constructed in high ground until it terminates with
Herbert Akins Road.
In our original application, we felt that the proposed road would be considered a part
of the subdivision, since we were only requesting approval for a 2-lane road at the
creek crossing (near Highway 55), rather than a 4-lane divided median. Because the
remainder of the road is located off site, we did not include the additional impacts in
this application. It's our understanding that the subdivision itself cannot support
the need for a 4-1ane road at this time, and that the Town will need re-apply for the
additional impacts, when they are justified. We believe that the alignment, as
proposed, is designed such that it will minimize any future impacts needed to
complete to the road to its terminus at Herbert Akins Road. The alternate alignments
are depicted on the USGS and soil survey maps, included with the attachments. If
after reviewing these maps, you feel that an office meeting would be beneficial in
order to resolve these issues, we would be willing to meet with you in person.
Proposed Impacts
The proposed permanent impacts consist of 147 linear feet of perennial/important
stream channel and 0.326 acres of riparian buffer for a road crossing. Approximately
0.05 acres of wetlands and 49 linear feet of perennial channel will be temporarily
impacted for dam re-habilitation to meet dam safety specifications. The impacts are
summarized on the overall impact map as well as the PCN form.
Future Plans
This is a single and complete project with no additional phases proposed at this
time. However, there is a thoroughfare that bisects the site. The proposed
alignment was designed such that it terminates at a point that will minimize future
impacts. The Town of Fuquay will be responsible for permitting any future impacts
needed to complete this road. As presently designed, the stream crossing within the
property boundary tapers from a 4-lane road to a 2-1ane road, to minimize impacts.
The culverts at this crossing may need to be extended to accommodate future traffic
volumes. If the road needs to be widened, the Town of Fuquay will be the applicant.
Avoidance and Minimization
Prior to site plan development, the applicant requested that a detailed wetland
delineation be conducted so that impacts to wetlands and `waters' could be
minimized. A stream channel bi-sects the property, and in order to access high
ground, impacts were unavoidable. Impacts were minimized by crossing the channel
at a nearly perpendicular angle, through the use of headwalls, and the tapering of
the road from 4 lanes to 2 lanes, at the crossing.
Stormwater Management Plan
The proposed impervious for this project is expected to exceed 24%; however, the
stormwater plans have not been finalized at this time. Multiple areas have been set
aside, and sized accordingly, for the installation of BMP's and constructed wetlands.
We request that the NC-DWQ approve this permit application, with a condition
stating that impacts will not occur until the stormwater plan has been submitted and
approved by your office. The requested BMP Design Supplement sheets will be
provided in the Stormwater Plan submittal.
Mitigation
Because impacts to perennial channels are less than 150 linear feet and wetland
impacts are less than o.1 acres, mitigation is not proposed for this project.
Please feel free to call if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
WITHERS & RAVENEL, INC.

Todd Preuninger
Attachments -
1) PCN Form
2) Site plans
3) Agent Authorization
4) USGS Quadrangle Map
5) Wake County Soil Survey Map
6) Data Forms (2)
7) JD Form
8) NC-DWQ Buffer Approval Letter
9) Request for Additional Information Letter
io) Return of Application Letter
ii) Campo Alignment and alternate for Hilltop Needmore Extension
12) E-mails/Maps from February and March, 2007
Page 1 of 1
Todd Preuninger
Subject: FW: NWP14
From: Todd Preuninger
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:08 PM
To: 'Shern, James F SAW'
Subject: RE: NWP14
Adam Street T-Fare
based on your voice mail on ian's phone it sounded as if the corps would prefer the alternate alignment rather
than the proposed campo alignment. can i get something in writing? we need to start the site layout and can't do
much until we pin down the preferred alignment.
thanks,
todd
2/27/2008
Page 1 of 1
Todd Preuninger
Subject: FW: adam street site
Attachments: NEWAlignmentPresentation.pdf
From: Todd Preuninger
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:47 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: '[e-mail]
Subject: adam street site
Jamie and Ian,
I've attached a preliminary exhibit for your review. We already have a meeting scheduled on March 7 for this
project, but i thought maybe we could do this over e-mail. Basically, i am working on a project that has a CAMPO
T-Fare running thru the site (labeled as Town alignment). As you can see, in order to construct the CAMPO
alignment, we would need to cross a large beaver impoundment, however, moving the alignment to the south
would only require a couple of stream corssings. The only permit the developer will apply for is the creek crossing
near highway 55 (Photo 2/figure2), but the Town wants to make sure that the remaining portions of the project will
be permittable. As such, i need an opionion from DWQ and the USACE as to your preferred alignment so that we
can plan the rest of the development around it. As i understand it, the Town will defer to your suggestion
regarding the proposed alignment. We can set up a conference call if you need to discuss further. Or we can
keep the 7th open to meet in person. If we still need to meet, would you want someone from the Town in
attendance?
Thanks for you help,
todd
TOLD PREUNINGER
WITHERS IZAVE14EL
vii Macitenan Drive I Cary, Borth Carolina 17511
tel: [phone]W a fax: [phone]
direct: gig-20.03op
www_wfthersravenel.com
2/27/2008
4

Figure 1: Depicting the Proposed Withers & Ravenel Alignment.
Figure 2: Photo depicting the location for the first stream crossing (near HWY 55). Please note that this crossing is the one that is
proposed for both Withers & Ravenel and the Town alignments.
Figure 3: Photo showing the location for the second stream crossing on the Ransdall Property (Withers & Ravenel Alignment).
Figure 4: Photo depicting the location for the third stream crossing on the Ransdall Property (Withers & Ravenel Alignment).
NI A

1

Figure 5: Depicting the Proposed Town Alignment.

1 4-
Figure 6: Photo depicting the location for the second crossing on Ransdall Property (Town Alignment).
WITHERS RAVENEiL
ENGINEERS ? PLANNERS ? SURVEYORS
Site Access/Agent Authorization Form
Project Name: -8 ro-4
PrrpeAfew re?r/Contract Purchaser: d a'-? n'? 54elf-.G- 1, b C,
Address: ev

Phone: 1 19 - (t-) P>

Fax:
Email: I ?'5 Wt.-9--vk=a P. .,o- G . r,- . c v,
I hereby grant Withers and Ravenel, INC permission to conduct environmental
studies on the property described above. In addition, I authorize Withers and
Ravenel to act on my behalf as my agent when conducting site meetings and/or
correspondence (i.e. permit applications etc.) with the USACE and the NC - Division
of Water Quality, if necessary.

Date: ? '? ??
..
Q
u Z Z z
Z
w L'i 41
z
< z
? < a

n U w w
I Q CL
a
a
a
J
a
(0 1
p v v ? v
0 r_?
O M UQ Q O
U ...
Q d N Q 1
F
_
N
n
F
r"N
0

Q Q U a Ln U U ti O
ck:
M mm CL m ?° 13- p F- N p J
a
Z Z In N Q
- IN
W z
Z Q O O Z 3
Z Q W
W Q -?
L'i Lo
a ° o N oW G W _ u W
Z w J A x: s ?[
Z ^ 00 Or ??'=?,1 Q N d
O J O O Q_ ~ V N !{ I -
Uj F1
Y ^ ". z
Q Q '? \
T1 xl O
ON
00 4 S v
7ww^m?P ?1 \ jx.`?F_I lZ
\w"OZ? \ ? / .rLr .s
I\ o
?n
aoo
f:D
r r rte' •\ `\ ?m.o
i
.. a u
?'.' . , z
v)
J
LL_
Qaaoa a - ?'.. I ? Q-
I
I I
LLJ
LL
z co
I
J'
I auv
In 3e..; z
-` ? - \ \ / 1 I II g/ n
/ / \\
I
A f?
r
I
_-s - _ CL
?? - - '• ?\ ? -: - - _^ - R"---' it n \
I
1
111 ?. ? ti i
noz owm o??2 I I "I I _ / f ? ' ?
R
7 m
1 , ? o
Z
ITW1M'. vow - wv or 11:0' DWI 'co Ar •Rewen -e.o.a.n n»ew »rvg\orA??.i ?c ..eev - osc-«.?w?a.?-90\00??
~ r ~
Z Z Z
w W W
Q Q Z
( cr
a a a a
w I I 10 J
n
OJ a
= Q a ?o
W a a In v
O (> d N
U Q
Q-
V) m m a M0
z z a N
Q- N Z 7 Q
Q Q -?
F
Z Z W a W
a o ° I ?
C) Z N
cy N N V1 H Z
J
w 0
?)OOO, MO 11 m
F1 a

- - \ - ?I
-E R--
8 ?
_- ss \

o a
w J
Q
/ H w J
V :? --I
a C)
w
<
3
F
J?R
Q
S-??, LLJ ? W ?.,.?
Q W
w N
V Zr=
F" O o ;
N Wy
V `? u > m
= s '
u N c
L _ q
N S
Uo z
W
= c
j _.
M IL =
N
1t a
WWr
_ _"
CO) V
z
0
? A
3
u
Lu
LL.
co
IA ?2 NRB
Ln 10,
I
? RB
N
O0C O
O \ / ?
oo /
STRF,&AA

O
CL
Z

?. 0
H 66 ??
j) J
V
_j 0
9
U
f l?
Q

a oo --
a
U g `- -__ -
N J/

Ox zz
I ? -- _ ---_
-- R a -
?
a w
I ?Q psf_ -. -
- -- : e
s s
rJ?-? a

V)l
1 .?

\` z
I"vl V X3. - m 6199'0, woe '[0 4,-? .,- -6•V'rf..1-&y u?py\Or9\??•l ?Onr^! r.,.ov - 0G!-lGr?90\oSr?-9o\90\'>t
?T

rf O
o Q ?
Z 06
Q
W=
ZU
W Jv
J
m
? J

O
N 't Q1

Q
(O
N
U
:D i
cn

f-
C) LJ U
a-
7

U
(V

u r.

L.I_
N ,
Z L Cy a?'_^ .'r
Q ?
O
wUp I
Zoz Z-
U? Cf)
%
o z
Ln 2!
o
T
lP
II
c1
O W
r?
O Z N
W c
W / a
J Q H v
Q
U {l.
cn z >
W
U O
H lnJ <
a -o
ul -
LL lz W
W W Y
_z
z
3
bdU,'J/12915 IV SB-INNVId -S2d3NIUNd -13N3AVN ?8 S83HIlM Wd9Z:29:l LOOZ 'LZ X90 uj ad•asoq\lapowoJJal\OVD\}DDJ1 Ronbnj swopV - oS3-L9b190\0941-90\90\:N
yJ
r, ,3- W o
a CV -Ly « s
W W c
W o
==z
V
F = o
W ?
3
Q^
I..L
ce
W
U-
U-
m
m
z V
U
N
w ?^ Z
g ^
Ln
U) O
p ? $?ng Y U Cl.
I:L TZ W
U
U m o ? u ZUK a0 ?? O Z
H
w Q m N
O
Z N a U O
d Uo W O W
w uIn
Z Z=
Z K Q' C- CI?
Q H N W N '°3 0? J
tL-l
m < 1)
Z N 219 V)
d N O
.9L'1 .NIMI F aOrC_ } W^ } r
gzt oz
Q 1 W w d
ui - Z p z
FL Fz z u? N
v IiJ m p
z < N Z
N G
V1 Q
m m p[
Q :n .9L 1 U N ui
rvl z i - Z z Z
U J J
w v d r a Y CIO
In ; uj $
Z - S
LLJ
z VO?^y
EL R O?]ga `_ o V rv
F0u0F Y
N
.c Q ?3 i
?„ ? Wlp VI fi
W
z ?L \l y o;Q m
w ZZpW {.C ? V O
r Z NY 3NR
?I U) Y W??
Q
m c 3 m
U ? ?= i71 o yy??? v
Z ? gU? °?W O
WV O
UA
N
`o
z
d
z
nVtlUN )oM - m 9t:Yt:oi vwt 'co Am w ,Acp em -M?'+aen naeaw ,.Irw\or2\m,j A-"jn,ew - M-ct.190\0911-90\9o'

-l. •'?f ? ? I r ..•(' ?../ ??' j ` ? 4 Sis? yet
Lake
r lJ J? z
9
Bass
Lake
•
r
i
r
rte' ..
w
Cerra" PM,
'r
.. ?' ? a?, ?r1 L Bea - ?r--? r ? f ?? J ({ • ? i .
47,
,its ( 1 :, I? • •, •/,, l1?``' • . / .?^
r
-cv
• • \ ? ??'?,? it i ??j r ` ? f- .?I ? I? ' ` 7158 ? L ?: r ??
rim
YA
1. L
f} `
CovntrO dkub {.
J - ~ J
FIGURE 1: USGS Drawn By: Scale: Figure No.:
WITHERS ??- RAVENEL TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE LT 1"=2000' 1
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
Alston Pond
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511
Wake County, North Carolina Proj Manager. Date: Job Number:
tel:[phone] fax: [phone] Tp 1-04-08 02061457
www.withersravenel.com Fuquay Varina Quadrangle
eSp C1° e0 CeC2 GgGCgB2 GggL ?- - CeF ° C FWn LdC2 Ce
NoB o CeC2` G Gu e
CeC2 ?,.° ` ? I Ld82 CgB2 ?
Ho ring Me j p p?ti I LdB2?V
p1 G CeD CM, a \ ' °° \ as CgC2
v APC a U i O
o Ra ApC
?a / CeC
?? ?CeeO GeF- ?L °
AP62 LdC2\ CIE3 Wn?? Cep
\ y GeG2 CeC2;' CeDP?
o? ApB T, I ° GeG CeC ?° Bass Lake r ?, \ C
AgB2" 19B2 CeC Cm °N 1 Q. CgB2
o_ AgC2 i Ao62 m CIE3' C
QO
OA >\,? Ce62 O .? CeF f \\ Q'
ABB2 CgC2 0?, \ r J 4gC
T °
AgC2 APC2 Me LdC2 CeF ?.
T / CgB2 p? . CeC2 Ld62
AgC2 \ l.•" CgB2 CeD A
?( CgC2 q CI63 AgC2 g
?? Cep A9 p °°° CgB2 ;CeO NoB
\ A C2 ?'
ApB2 App g j p?. Ag62
i. CIC3'.? p AgB
AHC2-,* Cep 'moo CeD CgC2 O AgC2'
AgC2 CHC2 ? T
CgC
ASC2 CeC 1 Wn C" "?, •`
Cg C2 CeD gB2 / CgC m?
Q
rB2 `. Q AgB CeF D eF a G BZ WY
Nob ° e r ' \ Gg CS / . CgC2
C
?•? Fa62 CgC CgB2
ApB • ep CgC2 AgB CeD y CgC2 ApC2
APC G ?Wn
CgC2 PQ
C / CeF
Wo Gu
o0 ,. AgB Ag62 AgC eD Ag82
I ? .?..'
OrB I ApB2 CgC CeD r
-
OrB2 a OrB7' NoB I NoB CeF CgC2 Ag82 I---
Co?
OrB r AgB -----,c`
AgC2 \ OrB2 NoB
Ce
AgC2 Me OiC2 ApD
OrC2
NoB 9
s / FaB2 Or62 G? 0 No6 CgC2 CeD' ? ?. Bet NoC
OrB2? Q
AgC2 No62 \. AgB2 C8C2 Cg6 / ABC2 WaA
No6
%gC2 APC2 I AgB No6 GO - n AgB2
i
i OrC2 \\ CeD 82 Me WaB
/ ?o, ApD Ng
I WaB C•
/ ?aG
\ V Wo g6 I CgC
AgC2
CgC2Wo
CgB \ e NoC?. _
APC \, CeD Wo AgC. WaC
i
C8C2 \ CeD Me B \- No 0rC2 \
CgB2 pD
WmE ?, _ I CBC2 \ A B aC
Wo y Ce6 e CeD ` WaC 1 WaB \ \\NoB
10
NoB APC2 APC • 7 WaC WgA ?..
No82 Or62 WmE _ ?\\\ AgB ApC \ was 2 WaB \
U..?. NoB o \.
m n ?
° ApB2 PQO j D ApC2 _ I • e
IrB2 p<<? V.'. ° Nob Go _ 1 WaB`\\ Nob
?NoB WaB o ° ?aC NoC
i ?....
o ?oC APB COP
GgC Wo APC2 WgA WgA WaC
\ Ra WaC 3 \ \ No6
CgC2 WaB \ WaB WaB 2
o'
No6 G Me o
\ CeD ( Q q N°B Nob Na? -- - •?
i1 qe
APC2 WO . A _ APC NoC Wa8
ApD T \ WaB • WgA
WaC ApC Ra_._ NoB WaB gA
4ir,`n
5F i ApC2 WgA I W
WaB WgA No6
Drawn By: Scale: Figure No.:
WITHERS Oz3 RAVENEL FIGURE 2: NRCS LT 1"= 1,320' 2
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS 1 SURVEYORS
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, North Carolina 27511 SOIL SURVEY
Alston Pond Proj Manager. Date: Job Number:
tel: [phone] fax: [phone] Wake County, North Carolina
Tp 1-04-08 02061457
www. with ersra venel. com
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: W&R Project # - 02061457 Date: February 20, 2007
Applicant / Owner. County. Wake
State: NC
Investigator. Elizabeth Cartier
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes 0 No ?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Q No

Is the area a potential problem area? Yes
II
No Community ID Bot HWD

(explain on reverse if needed) Transect ID:
PlotlD: Outside flag 130
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FAC 9.

2._ Acer rubrum
Tree
FAC _
10.

3. Liquidambar s raci ua
Tree
FAC _
11.

4. Pinus taeda
Tree
FAC _
12.
5. 13. - -
6. 14. - -
7. 15. - -
8. 16. -
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC ). 100%
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
j? Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other II Inundated
[Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
II Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. --- (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit. --- (in.) II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
II Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil. --- (in.) ? Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydrology Indicators Absent
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): CeD Cecil Drainage Class: Well Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes[] Noll
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 10 YR 4/4 Sandy Loam
6-12 2.5 YR 5/8 Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
1_1 Histosol II Concretions
Histic Epipedon II High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor 1ZOrganic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
[_l Reducing Conditions [Listed on National Hydric Soils List
II Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric Soils Absent
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No II
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No 0
Hydric Soils Present? Yes )_l No JK
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes[] NoIRK
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project l Site: W&R Project # - 02061457 Date: February 20, 2007
Applicant/ Owner. County: Wake
State: NC
Investigator. Elizabeth Cartier
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No II
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No
Is the area a potential problem area. Yes II No Community
unitty y ID Bot HWD
(explain on reverse if needed) ct
PlotID: Inside flag 130
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Alnus serrulata Shrub FACW+ 9.

2._ Acer rubrum
Tree
FAC _
10.

3. Liguidambar styraciflua
Tree
FAC _
11.

4. Ulmus americana
Tree
FACW _
12.

5. Juncus effesus
Herb
FACW _
13.
6. 14. -
-
7. _ 15.
-
8. 16. - -
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC ). 100%
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available 0 Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water. NA (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit. 04 (in.) M Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
a Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 01 (in.) II Local Soil Survey Data
21 FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydrology Indicators Present
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wo Wehadkee and Bibb Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluventic Haplaquepts Confirm Mapped Type? YesII NoII
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 10 YR 5/2 Loam
6-12 10 YR 511 Clav Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Hisdc Epipedon II High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sultidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric Soils Present
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No II Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No II Within a Wetland? Yeso Noo
Hydric Soils Present? Yes Non
Remarks:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: NC County/parish borough: Wake City: Fuquay-Varina
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.6239478° N, Long. 78.8174223° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Basal Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Neuse River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201
El Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be no "navigable waters of the US." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U .S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 1600 linear feet: 4-8 width (ft) and/or NA acres.
Wetlands: >1 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Y For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION Ill: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.i.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: NA.
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": NA.
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbodya is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.I for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: _square miles
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that applvl:
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
? Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
?' Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):'"
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
? which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
'See Foomote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
? U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Quad.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: .
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: This form is for the wetlands and streams impacted by the attached permit
application.
. I).
O?0, W AT F9QG
7
r'
o -r
Michael F. tasley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Mr. Todd Preuninger
Withers & Ravenel
111 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
March 20, 2007 MAR 2 3 2001
Withers & Ravenel

91 7
r'TaFt6RA?GH
v?= U. t4D.; ANL "0"
NBRRO 07-028
Wake County
BASIN:
Neuse River X
(15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Complaint NOV
Buffer Determination X
Incident # Appeal Call
Project Name: Adams Fuquay Tract
Location/Directions: located north of the intersection of SR 1398 and NC 55, south of the Town of Holly Springs
Subject Stream:
Basal Creek and UT's to Basal Creek
Date of Determination: 3/9/07
Feature(s) Not Subject Subject Start @ Stop@ Stream
Form Pts. Soil
Survey USGS
Topo
A X (not contested) Throughout
property X X
B X (not contested) Throughout
property X X
C X not on maps)
D X not on maps)
E X Flag El (origin)
and Flag E
outfall of and X X
F X X
G X X
H X X
I X X
J X Fla J X
Note: A portion of feature A is a beaver impoundment. A 50-ft buffer should extend from the mean high
water in this impounded area.
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be WcrrthCarolina
XaAura!!ry
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
Tar-Pamlico
(15A NCAC 2B .0259)
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Adams Fuquay Tract
Wake County
3/20/2007
Page 2 of 2
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Quality.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a surface water
exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a
determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndi Karoly , DWQ
Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Individuals that dispute a determination
by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the buffer rule may ask for
an ad judicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are
hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including
downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant
conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
The (owner/future owners) should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property
(stated above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)-733-1786, and the US Army
Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-876-8441.
Respectfully,
Lauren Cobb
Environmental Specialist III
CC: Wetlands/Stormwater Branch, 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
RRO/SWP File Copy
Central Files
NorrthCarolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

mac. +? •s .•zd" " ? .?? ,???'. ??<. r. ?:;;..:
. ? ?f . ???s , •e '+? ? • .:`C?q,?.? .ra`vs r t '1? .?'• .e+ .? t ':x•:cr?':r. .?..
pp , • ?. ?{` t ?3'. ...i• ?? X` ;'i0i.: ;::b ? ?r.'¢ gyp
•?, 'f.??v'e. : O .^?•.t` ?7.•y ?'?•G.r'i..9,.? i:i?,? ••'!f} ' try ? KY' .•1L??. _ M
` t air,. `, ? v''' Y ?•. ..?
.;;r,<•..? .. ?•'• _,•. ?t^„?,RY?N ?'?,,,?•'^Akyyt••?.• wyy + +...jK;':wY •''. ;•.??;.:
``?y :Y.:..t {`i:`s''?r::::s:?: ' • •:r.:: •??ar•' "?/ : r:;:?,'?..•> ::'a, ? «'i gaoa,s„?.???? + '?.G,.+3+: ? •-r,?;<• .,?-;:.. y? : • S:t
?:iuy";..<<i?:°g:o•'?i +?''.``. n? .?•a ?: ?fiu`, :ro"?..? " - se+i!'' :?) ..?'',a,?%•}y.?i?.+.f,?,), . •i33w. '.a r'=r
[j:e; : i ? - / ~•?i l5? '.(?' ?•`?'i..n:•"7F.y.?= ' 1gr•is-i',•??}t '• ' f• t .Ir
.' Z '.'T`•Yr• '. -•• CI , • .Y ' :r.??7 ??;ri ?:„?'r,:t:?. ?y?7?`,r?`6rN,'.?h..r fS ? •.t :.1R?
- •+?<., ? Y?E'_•:: .'?' t . t ' r : [.w ?L:?+; ?• ?? .:6c! ? ?•1>? •e> ^ t d ',' ??• '.,i? , r,.:r'?• `,it.??•?•>r?a.:. `
?? ..y ;?r" e'. .,4•'x!2`•.• .°Y: ;. ?}••.c?+:%J+^' ? .?.f.: ?>. ?.`•f+:r;'y. .r 'i17F' •[ Yi
a .`?•-"y'si '. y'?N• .. 'td ?dF.y. ,y?y • •+k•I.w > i+`•S: .,?:•. ,, ?rx.' i .^/,?{
-?, '?? •g,??.. ?•? . i •?• .• r •, ,??' .I?,rt1....: y.r ;?; x•.:... >. r .•?:.• Ye
_ ,??: .. ?•??,• :;.. , A r':.'.>•. .: >'f.?'::.?.t12.pt • ..t ?:.':. '? S? =?'?'i"' ?• ^^.?11.J1?'`• :: :n?Y? •irhpf
• >gt????`F.t'9'? EFi {. 3? : atrr °ti•:?j??a . '?xy'i• •' SC
N:• •• :7"., a y. .L.: ? .. •4?: .•. ?;. u r
, .. , ',:. ."„ `? r7 ,• R? .:Y3g .x•i ??C•i^. •'.•s > .. f?s:. ?a' •rTw1: . ?•.. .. .: ? .:s
t
"� ••i• �. �� `,'I _ �\ ��� fit'
-
N 1� 7i , r 1 t• I 1 � �` 5�' � a
r ,
,
i
011y
IX
�� =1t>. .. � •- pad>^. � `�\ � - _ �a �Q•trrr 1\ I 1 , '� f � '
rY
Ile
Subject Property
Rv t s
Feature E
�
t �t.
�; �l '`
fr �'.. �_��� '�
°��, tit*a) i ,i :• f'�:.
-- -
(,m
Feature B l
i .--r� - s•\' -p, • •., 3 41�.r ._.� `
Feature A
� • , 1. �.a'
-- � -- -.�
`�:-
' � } `,
-
.�..,..,-,-..
� ��`�� •:
t'I`i .. 1,13, � ... `
%,f
4'
4ad,,, T66: - --
• .
� '.'s:, fir. � - %'• ,�� y' 1 � �1
p'•1 it Y t. , Ffv'*�Wa{-r� � .� 1 � Y '-sem �-1 _.
't ) � 1 f � � � ;• Coin tN C!•rb
WITHERS �` RAVENEL-
I,
=N 51 Yf iaS ai FNNFRS 1 S..RYf Y,'1R5 - ' • RM 1-1 • - !-•'•r .. • ,.e,lrr 1 ,,
111 MaeKonan Dnvo Cary, North Carotirn 1
telephone [phone] w .wtheraravenel.com '.i llr��
1,000 1,000 0 2,000 •, yi �•t
Feet
1 inch equals 2,000 feet _ :� • ': .� '- "�f 1 ` �• .
�nF�naran_ccn-nnamc�„�Ila.r.arnrts•alsrsm.� ~ -- r t..r..� tl'�' -�� �fi �i`��i \ (

\ '`/ / I 11 I' , ? I 7 I f
- , i 1 \ / 1 t 1
\ 1 / / f'
LLI
- l LL
- ?`? \ fi m / i / r` d1

w ..?
\ i \
LL
r , 1
r 7

e m '?.. B

I

1 I '
w r
1
J ` t
?? y 1
/
; I
tL ? ? f

f i
1
$rc€
1?i?bV
\ l
? 1 r
l 1 f I
1 I t I
1 ! ,
! I
Q i +
f
? 4 !
3 y 1
m + i
LL
r \

r `

_ I !

1.•1 /`? 1 1 / I /+` i

g 1"
!

' .1
it
:I
V I ! r ''
t
r /l! i
i I ?lrl i
1 ! j f 7 r
l\ ilffl 1
[ .,I t f
1 \ ?\}7 f
`\`•, 111!1 /
W tE " -
3 r, -
O?0? W AT ?9QG Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Vj V r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
January 15, 2008
DWQ Project # 08-0067
Wake County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RECEIVED
Mr. Jeffrey Smerko 'SAN 16 'IUOB
North Broad Street, LLC
14600 Weston Parkway Withers & Ravenel
Cary, NC 27513
Subject Property: Alston Pond/North Broad Street
Ut to Basal Creek [030403, 27-43-15-3, B, NSW]
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Smerko:
On January 8, 2008, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated
January 8, 2008, to fill or otherwise impact 0.06 acres of 404/wetland, 196 linear feet of
perennial stream (147 linear feet permanent impact and 49 linear feet temporary impact), and
8,999 square feet of Zone 1 Neuse River basin protected riparian buffers and 5,210 square feet of
Zone 2 Neuse River basin protected riparian buffers to construct the proposed residential
development. The DWQ has determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided
inaccurate information as discussed below. The DWQ will require additional information in
order to process your application to impact protected wetlands and/or streams on the subject
property. Therefore, unless we receive five copies of the additional information requested
below, we will have to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional
information. Please provide the following information so that we may continue to review your
project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Please cul-de-sac stub roads or provide plans showing the entire road.
Please submit this information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter. If we do not
receive this requested information within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter, your project
will be withdrawn and you will need to reapply with a new application and a new fee.
FFF-?, ?008
i tlt 'A;A i4 e?ti74113Y NOnehCarofina
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit VVE I LANDS AND STORMWVER BRANCH atuCally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.etir.state.nc.us/newetlaiids
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
North Broad Street, LLC
Page 2 of 2
January 15, 2008
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands,
waters or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application
are not authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian
McMillan at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting
to discuss this matter.
Si ely,
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
CBK/ijm
cc: Lauren Witherspoon, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Todd Preuninger, Withers & Ravenel, 111 MacKenan Drive, Cary, NC 27511
080067AIstonPondNorthBroad Street(Wake)On_Hold
?QF W ATFR p Michael F. Easley, Governor
,`0 G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
co _7 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
February 7, 2008
DWQ Project # 08-0067
Wake County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Ro t1, ?
FFB 1 ?40
Mr. Jeffrey Smerko 111i ?O®
North Broad Street, LLC th
14600 Weston Parkway
Cary, NC 27513
Subject Property: Alston Pond/North Broad Street
Ut to Basal Creek [030403, 27-43-15-3, B, NSW]
RETURN OF APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Smerko:
On January 8, 2008, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated
January 8, 2008, to fill or otherwise impact 0.06 acres of 404/wetland, 196 linear feet of
perennial stream (147 linear feet permanent impact and 49 linear feet temporary impact), and
8,999 square feet of Zone 1 Neuse River basin protected riparian buffers and 5,210 square feet of
Zone 2 Neuse River basin protected riparian buffers to construct the proposed residential
development. On February 5, 2008, the DWQ received additional information from you
however, the DWQ has determined that your application remains incomplete and/or provided
inaccurate information as discussed below.
1. In the January 15, 2008 Request for More Information on this project, the DWQ requested
that you, "Please cul-de-sac stub roads or provide plans showing the entire road." All of
this requested information was not included in your February 5, 2008, submittal.
Additionally, we understand that the Town of Fuquay-Varina will be requesting the road
located in the southern portion of the site be expanded to a four-lane road and we therefore
please provide details on the proposed road eastward from the intersection with NC
Highway 55. Please clearly discuss and provide plans indicating where the road terminates
and what type and size of road you are proposing (dimensions, divided, two or four lane,
etc.).
2. Please provide the Design Summary portion of the BMP Supplement Sheet for each
proposed best management practice that will be used on the site, as well as 1" = 60' scale
or larger site plans depicting the proposed footprints of the BMPs. The BMP Supplement
Forms are available on the DWQ web site at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp forms.htm.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands
NorthCarohna
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
North Broad Street, LLC
Page 2 of 2
February 7, 2008
For these reasons your permit application is hereby considered returned. Once you have
redesigned your project to address the problems and inadequacies with your application as it was
submitted, you will need to reapply for DWQ approval. This includes submitting a complete
application package with the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clear Water Act for this
activity and any work done within waters of the state would be a violation of North Carolina
General Statutes and Administrative Code. Please call Ms. Cyndi Karoly or Mr. Ian McMillan at
919-733-1786 if you have any questions or concerns.
Sinc ly,
Cyndi. Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
cc: Lauren Witherspoon, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Jamie Shern, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Luke Tuschak, Withers & Ravenel, 111 MacKenan, Cary, NC 27511
Filename: 080067AIstonPondNorthBroadStreet(Wake)Returned_Application