20161211 Ver 1_401 Application_20161216

'J McADAMS
December 9, 2016
Karen Higgins
NC DEQ - Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Section 401 Water Quality Certification — GC 3885 and Neuse River
Basin Buffer Authorization
Aiken Avenue Stream Restoration
Durham, North Carolina
DUR-15020
Dear Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of City of Durham- Department of Water Management, we are
applying for a US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Nationwide Permit 27
and an NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Water Quality Certification
3885 for proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with the Aiken
Avenue Stream Restoration project. The purpose of the proposed project is to
stabilize and/or restore an unnamed tributary to Goose Creek, which is a
tributary to Ellerbe Greek, and to prevent further potential damage to an existing
sanitary sewer line located within the stream. The project is located between
Aiken Avenue and East Geer Street to the north and Cheek Road and Highway
70 to the south in Durham, North Carolina. The project lies within the Neuse
River Basin within the Ellerbe Creek - Upper Falls Lake watershed. At this time,
we are requesting authorization that the proposed project qualifies under General
Water Quality Certification 3885 and be provided an Authorization Certificate
per the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules. The following attachments are included
as part of this permit application;
+ PCN Form
* Property Owner Information Sheet
• Buffer Determination Letter (JBRRO# 15-521; issued
The John R, McAdams
December 22, 2015 )
company, int.
• Figure I — Vicinity Map (USGS Quad — SW Durham)
0 Figure 2 — Soil Survey Exhibit (Durham County Soil Survey)
Raielgh f Durham, NC
• Figures 3 -- Existing Conditions
2905 Meridian Parkway
• Preliminary Engineering Report Exhibits (Options 1A, 1B, 2,
Durham, North Garotina 27713
and 3)
[phone]
, Figures 4A -4F — Plan View
• Figures 5A -5C — Profile View
Charlone, NC
n Figure 6 — Cross Sectional View
11301 carnal Cormrlons Blvd,
• Figures 7A -7E — Overall Planting Plan
$08 111
• 95% Construction Drawings (2 full sets)
Charlotte North Carolina 26226
[phone]
McAd masCoxom
Designing Tomorrow's Infrastructure & Communities

Ms. Karen IIiggins
Aiken Stream Restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 2 of 9
PROJECT LOCATIONIHABI`i'AT: The Aiken Stream Restoration project
is located between Aiken Avenue and East Geer Street to the north and Check
Road and Highway 70 to the south in Durham, North Carolina. The project
includes approximately 2,504.39 linear feet of stream channel, some of which
has encroached onto the existing sanitary sewer line easement that is located
within the stream. The stream channel discharges into Goose Creek
The project lies within the Neuse River Basin within the Ellerbe Creek - Upper
Falls Dake watershed (HUC: 030202010403). Goose Creek and its associated
tributaries have a Stream Index Number of 27-5-1 and a Stream Classification of
WS -IV and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Approximately 5 percent of the
project area is comprised of maintained vegetation. The remaining 95 percent
of the project area is forested with a mixture of hardwoods and pine species
dominating the canopy layer.
The watershed for the proposed project is approximately 500 acres of urbanized
residential, commercial, and industrial development. A majority of the runoff
that reaches the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek is conveyed through storm
drainage; which results in high-energy, flashy, and frequent storm events. As a
result the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek has become incised, unstable and
is actively eroding, encroaching into the existing sanitary sewer easement
adjacent to the stream. The stream has also become braided towards the
northern portion of the site, which adds to the instability and accessibility
issues. In addition, the existing stream channel has eroded such that a sanitary
sewer line has been exposed, which greatly increases the potential for damage
to the line in addition to inflow and infiltration issues. The erosion and location
of the channel has also created significant accessibility concerns. There are two
specific areas of concern; the first area is ars approximately 1,000 linear feet
section of stream that is located directly on top of the existing sanitary sewer
line. The location of the stream makes access to the easement and sanitary sewer
manholes virtually impossible, while also risking erasion and exposure of the
pipe. The second area is further north where the stream crosses over the sanitary
sewer line. The stream has eroded to the point that the sanitary sewer line has
been exposed.
JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES: The project area includes four perennial
stream features (Stream Features A, B, F, and G). In addition, there is one
jurisdictional wetland feature (Wetland Feature A) within the project area. The
jurisdictional features were delineated by McAdams Company. An on-site field
confirn-iation meeting was conducted with the USAGE (Eric Alsmeyer) on

Ms, Karen Higgins
Aiken Stream restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 3 of 9
February 12, 2016 (SAW -2016-00115). An on-site field confirmation meeting
was conducted with the DWR (Cherri Smith) on December 21, 2015. A Buffer
Determination Letter (Jl RRO# 15520; December 22, 2015) was issued DWR
(see attached),
PROPOSED IMPACTS:
The City of Durham desires to protect the existing sewer infrastructure by
restoring; and stabilizing; the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek. The Aiken
Avenue Stream Restoration project was identified by City of Durham
Department of 'Water Management staff as being high priority to relocate the
unnamed tributary from the sewer line. As a result, the purpose of the proposed
project is to stabilize the actively eroding unnamed tributary to goose Greek
using natural channel design techniques in order to protect the existing
infrastructure (i.e. sewer line).
The goal of the Aiken Stream Restoration project is to protect the sanitary sewer
line by moving and/or restoring the stream such that there is minimal interaction
with the sanitary sewer line. The project will also focus on providing adequate
accessibility for the sanitary sewer line easement. In order to do so, a total of
1,520.65 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel is proposed to be stabilized.
Natural channel design techniques will be utilized to create a stable sytem for
the long; term resulting in approximately 1,736 linear feet of stream that is re-
connected to the floodplain (Figures 4A through 4C). The design approach will
be to create a. nested channel system that allows discharges beyond "base flow"
conditions to access a wider floodplain bench which will reduce velocities and
shear stress. This design aspect will preclude the stream from migrating back
into the sewer line easement. The alignment for the relocated unnamed
tributary was selected based on natural topography, the location of large trees,
the desire to locate the stream as far from the sewer line easement as practical,
and keep the stream within its natural floodplain. All riparian buffer areas within
the limits of disturbance will be re -planted on an S' x 8' grid, with native
containerized plants, bare -root seedlings, and live -stakes (Figures 7A through
7E). Plant spacing will take into account existing trees within the buffer. The
entire project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
All sedimentation and erosion control treasures will be implemented before
construction to minimize runoff. Typical construction equipment, such as a
long-arm track -hoe, front end loader, and bush hog will be used for the initial
clearing.
Although efforts have been made to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters, one
wetland will be temporarily impacted by land clearing activities associated with
DUa-1 5020

Ms. Karen Higgins
Aiken Stream Restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 4 of 9
the proposed. There are a total of 1.66 acres of temporary wtetland impacts
associated with the proposed project. There will be four permanent stream
impacts totaling 1520.65 linear feet; however, approximately 1,736 of stream
that is re -connected to the floodplain will be created. The project lies within the
Neuse River Basin and in order to stabilize the actively eroding stream there are
a total of 94,089.6 square feet of Zone 1 and 46,609.2 square feet of sone 2
Neuse River Buffer Impacts. All buffer impacts are deemed "Allowable" under
the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules – Table of Uses. Typical construction
equipment, such as a long-arm track -hoe, front end loader, and bush hog will be
used for the initial clearing.
PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS:
Number
Impact Type
Area of Impact
acres
—Impact
Wetland A (temp.)
Land Clearing
1.66
TOTAL
1.66 acres
PROPOSED STREAM IMPACTS:
Impact Number
Impact Type
Impact Length
(linear feet)
Stream A (perm.)
Stabilization
496,36
Stream B (perm.)
Stabilization
6.24
Stream F (perm.)
Stabilization
99.03
Stream G (perm.)
Stabilization
919.02
TOTAL
1520.65 l
BUFFER IMPACTS.
Impact Number I Zone r Impact Zone 2 Impact
N (square feet) (SLjZatireft el)
94,089.6 ] 46,609.2
TOTAL 1 94,089.6 sq. ft. 1 46,609.2
P111 M10411

Ms, Karen Higgins
Aiken Stream Restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 5 of 9
AVOIDANCE and MINIMIZATION
After analysis of the existing conditions, four options were developed for
improvement of the impaired strum. The goal of the project is to protect the
sanitary sewer line by moving and/or restoring the stream such that there is
minimal interaction with the sanitary sewer line. The project will also focus on
providing adequate accessibility for the sanitary sewer line easement as well.
All of these options are detailed in the sections below. please see Section 4 of
this report for additional information.
Option 1 A
Option 1 would consist of utilizing Dave Rosgen's Natural Channel Design
(IVCD) techniques to perform a priority I stream restoration on the existing
stream(s). NCD is a whole -scale approach that seeks to restore streams that have
been impaired or degraded as a result of urbanization by applying hydraulic,
geomorphic, and ecological properties of natural functioning streams (i.e.,
reference streams) to the urbanized channel based on the climate, geology,
topography, vegetation, and land use of the watershed. priority I restoration
consists of replacing the impaired channel with a new, stable channel and
reconnecting it with the existing un -regulated floodplain. The stream would be
relocated away from the sanitary sewer line into a new channel, approximately
1,706 feet in length. This channel would cross the existing sanitary sewer line
3 times; but the crossings would be designed such that they prevent erasion, are
as perpendicular as possible, and navigable by vehicle (see Section 4 for a
typical low water crossing detail. The proposed stream location would be
designed such that it could capture all adjacent tributaries or stormwater
outfalls. Refer to Section 4 of this report for additional information regarding
conceptual design.
Option 13
Option 113 is a variation of Option 1, with an alternative design for the upstream
reach, just north of the culvert under Cheek Read. In the upstream reach
approximately 600 feet of the sanitary sewer line would be relocated away from
the existing stream, and the existing stream would be stabilized and possibly
enhanced in place. The relocated sewer line would then tie back into the existing
sewer lisle further north. The remainder of the stream would be relocated away
from the existing sanitary sewer line and restored, as depicted in Option 1. This
restored stream would be approximately 1,200 feet in length. The proposed
stream location would be designed such that it could capture all adjacent
tributaries yr stormwater outfalls. Refer to Section 4 of this report for additional
information regarding conceptual design.
Duff -15020

Ms. Daren Higgins
Aiken Stream restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 6 of 9
Option 2
The approach for Option 2 is similar in nature to Option 1,At., but proposes two
restored channels as opposed to one. This design would better utilize the
existing un -regulated floodplain and would limit the interaction between the
stream features and the sanitary sewer line more so than Option 1 by separating
the stream features and the sanitary sewer line to the maximum extent
practicable. The total length of stream proposed for Option 2 is approximately
2,300 linear feet. Refer to Section 4 of this report for additional information
regarding conceptual design.
Option 3
The design for the third option would include a proposed stormwater wetland
on the west side of the existing sanitary sewer line. The wetland would capture
and treat the runoff coming from highway 70 and west, which is approximately
31 acres of drainage. The three main advantages for proposing a stormwater
wetland in this area are as follows: The outlet for the stormwater wetland would
be located where the existing stream crosses the sanitary sewer line. Locating
the stormwater wetland outlet at the existing stream crossing would further
protect the sanitary sewer line, because the runoff would be piped across the
sanitary sewer line rather be conveyed through a stream channel. Proposing the
stormwater wetland would also serve to reduce the size and cost of the proposed
stream restoration. Additionally, the treatment provided by the stormwater
wetland would generate nutrient credits, which the City of Durham could use
for future development in the Falls Lake basin. The City could also potentially
partner with a private mitigation bank, who could pay for the construction of
the stormwater wetland in return for being able to sell the nutrient credits
generated by the stormwater wetland. This option would still require a restored
stream to the east of the sanitary sewer line to convey the flow from the culvert
under Cheek Road. Refer to Section 4 of this report for additional information
regarding conceptual design.
Cost Opinion
The following cost opinion is provided to help understand the costs typically
associated with each option. The cast opinion is rudimentary in nature, and is
meant only to understand order of magnitude cost for each option presented.
The cost opinion does not account for potential unanticipated issues involved
with any of the options. The following table provides a summary of the potential
construction costs and their basis.
DUI -15020

Ms. Karen Higgins
Aiken Stream Restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 7 of 9
Preliminary Construction Cost Assessment
Option
Unit Cost
#
Units
L1r1it of
Measure
Total
Option 1
Restored Stream Channel
P75
1,700
LF $297,500
Stream Crossirt SS Line
$5,000
3
EA $15,000
Total $312,500
Option 1 B
Restored Stream Channel
$175
1,200
LF
$210,000
Stream Crossing SS Line
$5000
1
EA
$5,000
Relocated 12" DIP Sewer
Line
120
610
LF
$73,200
Proposed Manhole
Structures
$5,000
5
EA
$25,000
Bypass Pumping
$44 040
1
LS
$40,000
Total
$3532200
Option 2
Restored Stream Channel $175
2,300
LF
$4022500
Stream Crossing SS Line $5,000
3
EA
$15,000
Total
$417,500
Option 3
Restored Stream Channel $175 1,400 LF
$245,000
beam Crossing SS Line $5,000 2 EA
$10,000
Stormwater Wetland $150,000 1 EA
$150,000
Potential Stormwater ($150,000) 1 EA
Wetland Credit*
($150,000)
Total
$-255,000
*Potential stormwater wetland credit relies upon finding a mitigation bank willing to pay for
construction of the stormwater wetland for generation of nutrient credits.
Preferred Alternative
In conclusion, it is the engineer's professional opinion that Option 1B is the
most viable for this project. Disregarding the potential credit ;generated by
Option 3, Options 1A and 113 are the most financially feasible options. The
advantage that Option 1 B has over Option 1 A is that Option 1 B minimizes the
interaction between the stream and the sanitary sewer line to the maximum
extent practicable. Option 2 provides the same solution, but is more costly and
provides little benefit over Option 1 B by creating more separation between the
sanitary sewer line and the stream features. If the City is interested in pursuing
Option 3, the cost of the stormwater wetland could potentially be paid for by a
private mitigation bank, who would use the facility to generate nutrient credits
DUR-15020

Ms. wren Higgins
Aiken Stream Restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 8 of 9
for their bank. The credits generated from the treatment of the stormwater
wetland could also be used for additional development by the City in the Falls
Lake basin. Additional investigation and coordination would be required if the
City would like to further pursue option 3. It should be noted thatt land
acquisition wasn't taken into account for the cost opinion because all options
encompass roughly the same area.
Impacts to jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The stream has
been designed to re -connect to its natural floodplain. Although a total of 1.66
acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be temporarily impacted due to land
clearing activities associated with the proposed design, this is a reduction from
previous designs. It is anticipated by re -connecting the stream to its natural
floodplain, wetlands will not be drained and the hydrologic regime of the
wetlands will be enhanced similar to that of a bottomland hardwood forest
hydrologic regime. All riparian buffer areas within the limits of disturbance
will be re -planted on an S' x 8' grid, with native containerized plants, bare -root
seedlings, and live -stapes (Figures 7A through 7E).
Proper sedimentation and erosion control methods will be utilized during all
phases of construction and installation, as described in the Erosion Control Flan
sheets to he reviewed and approved by the NC Division of Land Quality and/or
Wake County Erosion Control. All work will take place during dry conditions
and can be facilitated from high., non jurisdictional, stable ground adjacent to
the shoreline. The contractor shall install silt fence, inlet protection, sediment
traps, diversion ditches, tree protection, and other measures as shown can the
erosion control plans, clearing only as necessary to install these devices. All
erosion and sediment control measures will be checked for stability and
operation following every runoff producing rainfall, but in no case less than
once every week. Any needed repairs will be made immediately to maintain all
measures designed. An erosion control inspections report is required and will
be kept by the owner's representative.
All slopes shall be graded no steeper than the angle that can be retained by
vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. No
material for construction will be placed in wetlands, streams, or riparian buffers
at any time. Excavation will be limited to the area necessary for site preparation;
all excavated material will be placed and retained on high ground above the
flood pool elevation. All excavated material will be placed landward of the
normal pool elevation contour on high ground and confined by adequate dikes
or other retaining structures to prevent erosion and sedimentation into adjacent
waters, wetlands, or riparian buffers.
DDR -15424

Ms. Karen Higgins
Aiken Stream Restoration
December 9, 2016
Page 9 of 9
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The project will not result in an increase
of impervious surfaces. Therefore, a stonnwater management plan is not
required.
Consideration of this project is greatly appreciated. If you should have any
questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me
at [phone].
Sincerely,
McAdams Corn $�
George Buchholz, REM, PWS
Environmental Consultant
Enclosures
DUR-15024

Office use Only.
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form. Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page l of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification PCN Form
1.
_
A. Applicant Informatiion
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
� Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number: NWP: 27 / GC 3885 (SAW -201(3-00115)
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
0 Yes ❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
M 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes M No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
1 h_
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Aiken Avenue Stream Stabilization
2b,
County:
Durham
2c.
Nearest municipality! town:
Durham
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, TJ.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
See attached Property Owner Information Sheet
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
See attached Property Owner Information Sheet
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mr. Donald F. Greeley, PE, PLS, Director, City of Durham — Department of Water
Management
3d, Street address:
1600 Mist Lake Drive
3e.
City, state, zip:
Durham, NC 27704 -
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page l of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a- Applicant is: ® Agent ® Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Property Identification _....u..
4d. Street address.
1 a-
4e. City, state, Zip:
See attached property Owner Information Sheet
4f. Telephone no.:
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
Property size:
Surface Waters
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
S. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
George Buchholz
5b- Business name
(if applicable):
McAdams Company
5c. Street address:
2905 Meridian Parkway
5d. City, state, zip:
Durham, NO 27713
5e. Telephone no.:
919-361-5000
5f. Fax no.:
919-361-2269
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification _....u..
1 a-
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
See attached property Owner Information Sheet
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.007868 N Longitude: - 78.864499 W
(QD.Do®aaa) (-Dn.aaaaao)
1 c.
2.
2a.
Property size:
Surface Waters
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
Approximately 6.23 acres
Goose Creek a tributary to Ellerbe Creek -
Goose Creek WS -V; NSW Stream Index Number 27-5-1
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2C.
River basin:
Neuse; HUC: 030202010403 Ellerbe Creek Watershed
Page 2 of 14
PCN Form -- Version 1,3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
The Aiken Avenue Stream Stabilization. Project is located within the City lit -nits of Durham, North Carolina
between Aileen Avenue and East Geer Street to the north and Cheek Road and Highway 70 to the south.
(Figure 1). The stream is an unnamed tributary to Goose Creek that has migrated into a sewer easement and
is in conflict with the existing sewer line (Figures 3A & 3B). The City of Durham desires to protect the
existing sewer infrastructure by relocating and stabilizing the stream. The project was identified by City of
Durham Department of Water Management staff as being high priority to relocate the unnamed tributary from
the sewer line. Approximately 5 percent of the project area is comprised of maintained vegetation. The
remaining 95 percent of the project area is forested with a mixture of hardwoods and pine species dominating
the canopy layer. The watershed for the proposed project is approximately 500 acres of urbanized residential,
commercial, and industrial development. A majority of the runoff that reaches the unnamed tributary to
Goose Creek is conveyed through storm drainage; which results in high-energy, flashy, and frequent storm
events. As a result the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek has became incised, unstable and is actively
eroding, encroaching into the existing sanitary sewer easement adjacent to the stream. The stream has also
become braided towards the northern portion of the site, which adds to the instability and accessibility issues.
In addition, the existing stream channel has eroded such that a sanitary sewer line has been exposed, which
greatly increases the potential for damage to the line in addition to inflow and infiltration issues. The erosion
and location of the channel has also created significant accessibility concerns. There are two specific areas of
concern; the first area is an approximately 1,000 linear Leet section of stream that is located directly on top of
the existing sanitary sewer line. The location of the stream makes access to the easement and sanitary sewer
manholes virtually impossible, while also risking erosion and exposure of the pipe. The second area is further
north where the stream crosses over the sanitary sewer line. The stream has eroded to the point that the
sanitary sewer line has been exposed.
Paye 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

aka. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
There are a total of approximately 4.19 acres of jurisdictional wetlands within project area.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
There are a total of approximately 2,504 linear feet of jurisdictional stream within project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to stabilize the actively eroding unnamed tributary to Goose Creek
using natural channel design techniques in order to protect the existing infrastructure (i.e. sewer line).
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The actively eroding unnamed tributary to Goose Creek has migrated into the sewer easement, and for a
significant length of the reach, the sewer easement is over the sewer line. The goal of the Aiken Stream
Restoration project is to protect the sanitary sewer line by moving and/or restoring the stream such that there
is minimal interaction with the sanitary sewer line. The project will also focus on providing adequate
accessibility for the sanitary sewer Iine easement. In order to do so, a total of 1,520.65 linear feet of
jurisdictional stream channel is proposed to be stabilized. Natural channel design techniques will be utilized
to create a stable sytem for the long term resulting in approximately 1,736 linear feet of stream that is re-
connected to the floodplain (Figures 4A through 4C). The design approach will be to create a nested channel
system that allows discharges beyond "base flow" conditions to access a wider floodplain bench which will
reduce velocities and shear stress. This design aspect will preclude the stream from migrating back into the
sewer line easement. The alignment for the relocated unnamed tributary was selected based on natural
topography, the location of large trees, the desire to locate the stream as far from the sewer line easement as
practical, and keep the stream within its natural floodplain. All riparian buffer areas within the limits of
disturbance will be re -planted on an S' x13' grid, with native containerized plants, bare -root seedlings, and live -
stakes (Figures 7A through 7E). Plant spacing will take into account existing trees within the buffer. The entire
project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources. All sedimentation and erosion
control measures will be implemented before construction to minimize runoff. Typical construction
equipment, such as a long-arm track -hoe, front end loader, and bush hog will be used for the initial clearing.
Although efforts have been made to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters, the wetland will be temporarily
impacted by land clearing activities associated with the proposed. There are a total of 1.66 acres of temporary
wetland impacts associated with the proposed project. There will be four permanent stream impacts totaling
1520.65 linear feet; however, approximately 1,736 linear feet of stream that is re -connected to the floodplain
will be created. Typical construction equipment, such as a long-arm track -hoe, front end loader, and bush hog
will be used for the initial clearing.
4. Jurisdictional determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ preliminary ❑ Final ❑ (UNKNOWN)
of determination was made.
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company: Other: McAdams Company
Name (if known): George Buchholz
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
An on-site field confirmation meeting was conducted with the DACE (Eric Alsmeyer) on February 12, 2016
(SAW -2016-00115).
An on-site field confirmation meeting was conducted with the DWR (Cherri Smith) on December 21, 2015.
A Buffer Determination Letter (JBR RO# 15-520; December 22, 2015) was issued DWr.
Page 4 of 14
PCM Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

S. Project History
5a. Have permits or cerkifications been requested or obtained far
this project (including all prior phases) in the past's
© Yes Z No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions,
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes M No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 5 of 14
PCN Form Version 1,3 december 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1- Impacts Summary
1 a, Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands Streams - tributaries Buffers
❑ Open Waters d Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each
wetland area impacted,
2a.
2b.
2c. e_
-2d,
2e.
2f.
Wetland
Type of jurisdiction
impact number
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
— Permanent
(if known)
DWQ — non-404, other)
(acres)
(P) or
Temporary T
_
� Yes
Corps
Wetland A (T)
Land Clearing
..........
PF01 B
❑ No
Z DWQ
1.66
....
2g. Total wetland impacts
1.66
2h. Comments: (See Figures 4A through 4C).
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c, 3d. 3e. 3f. 39.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) intermittent DWQ — non-404, width (linear
or Temporary (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
(T) -
Unnamed
Z Corps
Stream A (P)
Stabilization
tributary to
PER
® DWQ
11 ft
496.36
Goose Creek
Unnamed
® Corps
Stream B (P)
Stabilization
tributary to
PER
® DWQ
20 ft
6.24
Goose Creels
Unnamed
Corps
Stream F (P)
Stabilization
tributary to
INT
® DWQ
loft
99.03
Goose Creek
Unnamed
—
Corps
Stream G (P)
Stabilization
tributary to
PER
® DWQ
15 ft
919.02
Gosse Greek
3h. T❑tai stream and tributary impacts
1,520.65
Comments: (See Figures 4A through 4C)
Page 6 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any ether open water of the
U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c.
4d. 4e.
Open water Name of watorbody
impact (if applicable) Type of impact
Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
number —
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary
T
01 ❑PQ
T
02 ❑P❑
--
T
03 ❑P❑
T
04 ❑PE]
T
4t'. Total open water impacts
NIA
4g. Comments:
5. Pored or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b,
5c,
5d_
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (fent)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose of pond
(acres)
number
Flooded
FFilled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
Sr. Total
NIA
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, permit Id no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
_._._..
51. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 7 of 14
PCN Form —Version 1,3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a
Project is in which protected basin?
6b. 6c
Buffer
impact
number —
Permanent
(P) or
Temoorary
Reason for impact
Butter Stream
Impact ? (T) stabilization/protection of
existino structures
® Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ( Other:
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6d. 16e. 16f_
..
Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
required?
Unnamed tributary toI NO 94,089.6
Goose Creek
6h. Total buffer impacts 1 94,089.6
46,609.2
46,609.2
6i. Comments: (See Figures 4D through 4F) X111 buffer impacts are deemed "Allowable" under the ,Neuse River
Rivarian Buffer Rules -. Table of Uses.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation I
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to jurisdictional streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. The stream has been designed to re -connect to its natural floodplain. Although a
total of 1.66 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be temporarily impacted due to land clearing activities associated
with the proposed design, this is a reduction from previous designs. It is anticipated by re -connecting the stream
to its Natural floodplain, wetlands will not be drained and the hydrologic regime of the wetlands will be enhanced
similar to that of a bottomland hardwood forest hydrologic regime. All riparian buffer areas within the limits of
disturbance will be re -planted on an 8' x 8' grid, with Native containerized plants, bare -root seedlings, and live -
stakes (Figures 7A through 70.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proper sedimentation and erasion control methods will be utilized during all phases of construction and
installation, as described in the Erosion Control Plan sheets to be reviewed and approved by the NC Division
of Land Quality and/or Wake County Erosion Control. All word: will take place during dry conditions and
can be facilitated from high, non jurisdictional, stable ground adjacent to the shoreline. The contractor shall
install silt fence, inlet protection, sediment traps, diversion ditches, tree protection, and other measures as
shown on the erosion control plans, clearing only as necessary to install these devices. All erosion and
sediment control measures will be checked for stability and operation following every runoff producing
rainfall, but in no case less than once every week. Any needed repairs will be made immediately to maintain
all measures designed. An erosion control inspections report is required and will be kept by the owner's
representative. All slopes shall be graded no steeper than the angle that can be retained by vegetative cover
or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. No material for construction will be placed in
wetlands, streams, or riparian buffers at any time. Excavation will be limited to the area necessary 1'or site
preparation; all excavated material will be placed and retained on high ground above the flood pool
elevation. All excavated material will be placed landward of the normal pool elevation contour on high
ground and confined by adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent erosion and sedimentation
into adjacent waters, wetlands, or riparian buffers. _ _
Page 8 of 14
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

12. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State '
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to
❑ Yes [ No
Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. IfyLs, mitigation is rcnuircd by (check all that apply):
d DWQ ❑ Corps
El Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? E] Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c: Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
acres J
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) – required by GWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer ❑ Yes ® No
mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. — 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1,6
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank, permittee
responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
Mage 9 of 14
PCN Farm – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6h. Comments;
Page 10 of 14
PCN Farm — Version 1,3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and diffuse Flow plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan —
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes 0 No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
lb. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The proposed stream stabilization project will not create any ❑ Yes ® No
additional impervious surface therefore a diffuse flow plan is not required.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes No
2c: If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The proposed stream stabilization
project will not create any additional impervious surface, therefore, a stormwater rtianagment plan is not
required.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan.-
lan:Certified
CertifiedLocal Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Durham
Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
M NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
Water Supply Watershed
Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
N Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes No
attached?
6. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
ElNo
5b.Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
EYes
❑ No
Page 1 1 of 14
PCN Form -- Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a, Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the Z Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
lb. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c, If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SrFPA final approval
letter,) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H ,0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes M No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b: Is this an after -the -fact permit application? ❑ Yes( No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWa Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes Z No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project consists of strum stabilization to correct an erosion problem. The project does not involve
development, and will not result in further development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The project docs not consist of any development, and thus will not produce wastewater.
Page 12 of 14
PCN f=orm — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a, Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® yes U No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act 0 Yes 0 No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The USFWS web page (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/ne—counties.html) and the Natural
Heritage database (https:Hnenhde.natureserve.org/content/map) were accessed on January 15, 2016 to
determine if the project would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat. Based on this
research, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leuc•ocephalus), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) are federally listed species that occur in Durham County. used on
field inspections, it is believed that no adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species and their
known habitat will occur due to the construction of the proposed project.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Carps Requirement)
Ba. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
L1 Yes ¢ No
6b, What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would Impact Essential Fish Habitat?
An interactive map called the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper
(hLtp://www.habitat.noaa.gov/-protection/efh/efhmgpp.gy) was accessed on January 15, 2016 to determine if
the project will impact Essential Fish Habitat. It is believed the proposed project will not occur in essential
fish habitat.
i. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g_, National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office interactive map, which shows the
locations of properties and districts in Durham County, North Carolina entered in the National Register of
Historic Places (http://gis.ncder.gov/hpoweb/) was conducted on January 15, 2016. It did not reveal any
listing within the project area. It is believed the proposed project will not occur in or near an area that has
been designated as having historic or cultural preservation status by the state, federal, or tribal
governments.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a, Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes [] No
8b, If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c, What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? North Carolina Flood Insurance Rate Map
Panels (3720084200) and 3720083200J; both effective on May 2, 2006) do not show floodplain or
floodways within the proposed project.
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.8 December 10, 2008 Version

George Buchholz
ApplicandAgent's Printed Naive
Ap Iieant/Agent'sSig ure
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authoria ' n letter from the applicant
Is provided,)
Page 14 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Aiken Avenue Stream Stabilization
Pre -Construction Notification
Durham County, North Carolina
DUR-15020
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION SKEET
Aiken Properties
PIN: 0842-17-01-1901
DB 005348 PG 000536
Aiken, Maxine R.
PIN: O842-17-01-0571
DB 001477 PG 000556
Wilfonl, ,Mmes Allan
PIN: 0842-17-015391
DB 002087 PG 000756

PAT IAC CR0It'Y
�k,j � IIFI"4 i+IfF1'
r .�
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
v Seeraar.k
Water Resources S. JAY 71MMERMAN
rNIVIW(FNMF.NTAL QUALITY
December 22, 2015 I)Irector
City of Durham
Attu: James E. Harding
Department of Water Management
1600 Mist t.+oke Drive
Durham, NC: 27704
Subject: Buffer Determination Letter
NBRRO# 15-520
Durham County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call Isolated or EIP Call
M Neuse (15A NCAC 2B ,0233)
E]F-1 Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 21� "0259) Ephemeral/ lntermittertilPerennlal Determine#ion
El Isolated Wetland Determination
[] Jordan (I 5A NCAC 2B .0267)
Project Name, Aiken Avenue
Location/Directions: This project is bounded on the east by Aiken Avenue, on the south by Cheek
Road, and on the irnanediate west by US 70.
Subject Stream: Ellerbe Crock
Determination Date:
December 21., 2015
Staff Cherri Smith
Stream ElI/P*
Not Subject
Subject 9trt@) 5tO04,,
Soil USGS
Sur ve To o
A
X—
X X
throughout
project area
13
X—
X
throLlghot.tt
project aria
C
}� — —throughout
X
orolcct area
*�f/f' =,�•;p/rc!rtt�'r•crllfr�fer°rrrildc�tl/!}er'rrrairrl
Explanation: The features) listed above has or have been located on the Sail Survey of Durham County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of tite USC S Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a streattl or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characLeristics that qualify it to be a stream, There may be
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 cif f-.ngineers and/or to the Division of Water Resources
(DWR).
Division of Water Rcscurreis" Ramp ite ional oil -tee, Watur ou,11ity Opejulions Suction ISttp:dl�l�i�al.arccicnr.r�r�lwela/wallops
1629 NII Lil SLrVi(X r'cntcr" izai `igli, 114c'21699-1629 1111011c: (019)791-=1200
Lolaltiow 39011 13arrett Drivv. Rnloigh. N(.'2760 Fax: (`119) 788-7159

Aiken Avenue
Durham County
December 22, 2015
Page 2 of 2
This onsite determination shall expire five ($) years from the date of this lelter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a
determination by the Director. All appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this tetter or
from the date the affected party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) Is notified of this letter. 4.
request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing; Ifsendirtg virl US
Postal Service: c/o Karen Higgins; 1)WR — 40.1 & Bucffer Permitting Unk 1617 NI'rlil Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699-1617. If setrtling vie, de'livcft'y service (UPS, I'et/l;"r, etc.): Karen ,Higgills; DWR — 401 & Buffy r
I°ertrrlttllig Unit; SIS` N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, 1VC 27604.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty
(60) days,
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State,
and Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property
(staffed above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the Division of Water resources (Conti—at Office) at (919)-807-63411, and the US Army
Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-48$4.
If ycayt+9,ve questions regard! this determination, please feel free to contact Cherri Smith at (9 19) 741-4251.
i
S'hcerel
Danny Smith
Supervisor, iter Quality Regional Operations Center
cc: RRO DWR File Copy
George Buchholz; McAdams Company; 2905 Meridian Pkwy.; Durham, NC 27713

N AI EN AVENUE
STREAM & WETLAND DELINEATION
FIGURE 2. SOIL SURVEY EXHIBIT
a Baa 1,000 2,000Feet PROJECT #. DUR-15020
1 i,icil-1,000 feet DORHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

-- , ,
�- ' ''ice' � I ' t�1 !� �'.'�. . ���.-.� ►.� � ��� ��
`fMIA�
LIPS
e
+ t 1 ! 1 1 1 + r ►.

AIKEN AVENUE STREAM RESTORATION
PRE -CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION
J
FIGURE 2. SOIL SURVEY EXHIBIT
© goo �,00 2,0 o
Feet PROJECT #: DUR-75020
M �; A D A M S
s9icii —� 1,004 Fejt DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

� STREAM 8 EXTENDS BEYOND SURVEY LIMITS
AND NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY QEI` ' � S � �S:
' r ij 2 STREAM D = 94.20 LE 1. ONSITE TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITY LOCATIONS TAKEN yYlFHH1N PRChJECT STUDY A13EA:_
FROM SURVEY PRMDEQ BY JOHN R. McADAMS 1. JltR15DICTIS}NAL STREAM r� = 507.57 LF
t Y �'rz F Uh } 4rk r CoMPANY, INC.
♦,FF 7t, } �s !�* WETLANDS EXTEND BEYOND SURVEY LIMITS
� ` ��■.t, i{ } AND fJflT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY JURISDICTIONAL STREAM B = 94.20 LF
t x
2. OFFSITE TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM PUBLICLY AbrPJL,46LE JURISDIGTIflNAL STREAM C = 569,'4 LF
Y r „JURISDICTIONAL STREAMD = 1217,96 LF
r �r ■ rt"- .n'r = ,' r rf"Jr� ,}� ti. STREAM A = 5"07.57 LF GIS DATA SOURCES. JURISDICTIONAL STREAM E = 190.84 LF
` '., iy f ■ � •,, --� ♦ ��♦\`:h�♦ a. 1 �}jY-'+.�,�.,,.t,'t!�tr■', I�I Ii1x ,4�
`■ 3. WAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED Y JURISDICTIONAL STREAM F = 87.58 LF
JOHN R. Mr -ADAMS COMPANY, INC.ti
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM G = 933.44 LF
\ _ ��� �. ti ■♦ �. ' 4't J { STREAM C = 569.94 LF
TOTAL EXISTING JURISDICTION& STREAM = 2,504,39 LF
r r x������ "=�� r �*�.7lIE}�ti _�'r�ft g - STREAM D - 12'0.96 LF
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND A = 162,516,4 S{! FT. {4.19 AC)
tf � }4 �. s�•rel fY -
,I , }y ;• - k' t- - ' �♦ `ti,} `• �� `'`F+l 1 STREAM E = 190.84 LF 50 FT NEUSE BUFFER
r { ` ' `� h -- a, -�: :%�"`xl 30 FT ZONE 1 = 146,797.2 SO FT. (3.37 AC)
�; �{ ,y l I •x „ `` l^� t y =, :; ' ' 20 FT ZONE 2 = 90.169.2 SQ FT. (2.07 AC)
` ` �'tr f I 6. '� ' \ � y� � ,,� � I I t `• y �� � M � <'�c, �I s
100 FT F%J-B FALLS/JORDAN PROTECTED AREA. BUF-'ER
447,79fi.8 (10.28 AC)
5�',�t
I 1 -� • \ 1 1I ,. ;' Y f '� /� - I r r 2. HUC: NEUSE 0302020104
' , 4 Y �-� „. ; ; I } WETLANDS EXTEND BEYOND SURVEY LIMITS ELLERBE CREEK
Is{ 3. GOOSE CREEP
STREAM INDEX: 27-5-1
y. s {J .irk \\ _ _ .♦ 1
y j' s~ J f' y I k STREAM CLASSIFICATION: IMS-: NSW
■§ �` ` 'ia, � ; y �� �" t �.' �� ! y }� I j f STREAM F EXTENDS BEYOND SURVEY LIMITS
1 .. ■ w � 4 ``.. ■. `a --x � �-' y r % y ,� S i AND NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY +T i �
=
♦�:�`\�,■a �`�\ w1 I ^yam$ Yi y Y }y , �: tk ;� fi STREAM F 99.43
1XILF
i I n+y `� `;�� '' ♦``� ` �'i`r+*y� ♦ \ � rr '., y -a y.: ,l �, - •+� � , t , \ y t �
\\ k =♦■ • . y J ,,, ', � -' ♦ 4 FkISTIIJ G NEUSE BUFFER
• . __ . ■ :: +�i 1 .. `r.•' e _ f „ ; ' k� �� a`'y 't ,,
STREAM G = 933.40 LF � 30 FT ZONE 1
v \\ _;}4t ♦i ■�'--^. y Y '.� ', t' ' EXISTING NEUSE BUFFER
' • , ■� ` ��{ ,/� s Y t t WETLAND A = 182,516.4 SO F3 {4.19 AC)
`~,-_� \_„ 55 `'1■ ` 20 FT ZONE 2 -
♦ ''*t,q;-,., ■, �.,"q4_ :. f ,, '° y � �,,, s _ T _ ' EXISTING 1 C O FT F%J B FALLS/JORDAN
\\�q `:�� '.i�'�. . y� ` .'9.♦1 s ' y _ w\� PROTECTED AREA. BUFFER
\�ki� } \ `., ♦ S,�'' ' y y" y 'r ''' ■ .r Y �+ ~ y `,lrf Y \ r a
■ a� t� \ + � x i} y \., � --` `w � � iy, .v .yam �. ^' �
`tyt �}\♦,.. }t� ♦\.-' ;µ, a'i\ y �`` y.♦ rte. a '3 Y� 1 �ti
`_5__'.. 'Y 3 � $ ■ `V 4.��,, ?��-i .�y�4�4 y ~y ` �� ?d�.;,l ��''1� lam` "Y y y y '�``� Y '„ y k, •�\t
/J k , `•� -�Y t 4
EXISTING 100 FT FfJ-B FALLSJORDAN PROTECTED AREA
♦ �, y
♦ y ,�♦t •� w�*.r.yy, y ,y� 't�� � \4- �e`♦�\` .v �` '" sit 'i �
BU7-FEMi - 447,796.8 SQ FT (11).28 AC)
N ♦ \�' �'� a• ,. �.-� Y ` \,,' w y. \■ y4� y .vl I ,,yttt■',`..,♦,.-
`�t 4 �'--iey�.y �ti �� '°�"'y L,� a ��...� \ .v. �■ a, ar �' ,v ,,\t t3♦�`',
` ,� `� � . . `� �, ■ .,, \. \ x �` y y �`�, I r l;% . ■t�� i � • _ EXISTING NEUSE BUFFER
\ r * `': �y � � � \ "� ♦ 1 ,� \ s y , t t `, t 20 FT ZONE 2 = 9d,1 G9.2 5Q FT (2.07 ACS
_
'\Y 3 V`Cw \\ a\♦ y k. Y �'. .., "`t ♦ .16. \ _d` r Y ' -4 ♦♦ , \ 'k y `
EXISTING NEUSE BUFFER
`r k -v \ .v -�� \ \ •■ ``\ 'ai .'!v -
le� \• `,' �` •� `� r -, / ■ `-ys . �, 30 Fr ZONE 1 = 146,797.2 SQ FT X137 ACS
t
r. V T, '�1 " ♦ \ t r Y ,L _,`-y'g�,g.- c _ ` �.,. - \ » �'\ 1F-' \ 1 ' .; 4l f '� _
,-'" ''� t.�'` -_' Y � �`'\_ t �``�-�.- fes... _ ✓ �� _ K _' "__ � ! �`\ `■ `''`• � tt t•i� ,\`ter\!' _
iFNk
c 'L ��_` \ � �P t \ •_
■ yy�♦, r t I. ■ ~\ M1 4 'mays ♦f
L.J' ♦ w\; ti `,♦�i ■'f y r�� ' __-? '• � "° 1 r� `�� �ti a Wit,,.!'` � "'r r r �-';�`:i
�� -.`l,s ',♦�`.\ ■"' *1 tit4}y'IJ fA13 i� f--,- y- tf '� } ~��Zk. � -1 .... �F �`c■`~� .e-''�i �.. �1
GRAPHIC SCALE � `~\. \`.,��,..,'`, } I4ti,s �, ■ � tk � .`� � � .:} �,�� r --
1�C i7 54 100204 * �� �k�t\',ttt irr` -`}- r \ j■. \�� .�� N. tr r
\ `� \, ■1,t4 �,� 1 It • d ti' �. ti\. h� ,.1�.:"..�e.` f r
[} t?*." Y} '} 114
L ## dei4 tom- C3...1[y+'[�,JY�� ``♦" f�i. 4,� ls,ti5. -t` +v♦.'a't,. �`,=� ' �>.,. r�' I _ if
1 inch = 100 14. \1� \ �.. .- l\'�„4t ,` } > 7y � t ♦lam f s/,�' � �r
`-L \ . ♦. �� i4,t`.4.ti'`-. \'.,`, 5. ,,� ■ 4 �. f l
zl
IMF
z
0
z
0
or
ozs
z
o
} z
0
y
W
o CJ
O X �
IL7 Q ' G I
� _ I
o Q
L
F y
V t
w z

of
ko
i i n i
..d lob
3 d
@ d}
w m
C
O
<D
5
et
3 Q 1
U � }
°' x {
�-
a 7 N
N
U) V)
4 N
�. z
U)
c
UJ
w a 2' a' 2S w
W m
:3 E -
IL
..l ` m n
IL y
wAL
■ sn u) u)'
€7 60 }
n cL
r
1
N
V
W
z
ld
C)
a.���y
LU li
w0
0
z
CPO I
LU
04
zU)
Lu LLJ4
Z W�.�j
I.L
VJ
W
RW
Q.

tV
0
CL
LU 0
0 z
z
W H
W Z
Z 0 2
W W W
w
H
I co
W
W
CL
R
a.
Lg
o -
A
4

t'
+ ►+
ti
Ark #
A
rn
E
Q !
in
95 a
tun) — .f...
C q2 1
iU
w J v
y U) U) U) O J
`n Q O
m
C2 cncn
i
zV,
r �, e
0 To
t.LUFL m a
Lw
'r�arR' O o EEc E
CL CL iL W U) {1)
M
0
0 1P
(L CL
LU LU 0
z
W H Z
Z2
Y) m
zwwLU
Ofa
z UJ�
_ 1`—
J co
W
aLU
4

ell
21
{vfit'! _ \yL4
� � �
,k
EXISTING STRF +f + r \ .� � _ — s ~ ti •r �� Ate` ` `{ 1 —�fe
96
EXIIfMP�CTED
ST
i
STREAM'S B J
IXTENDSs E3::: 11 9D�;
'S RYE,Y, LiNH j.i�f
NOT,f%lfYi
4KCLUt }/
STJJDY r r•. ri,r. �//
i
RO& CROSS—VANE �
AN DL,99NSTRUCTED
— . — — - —3e-2—
5'
"CJ€5 5
��� I '•�k
A
24
" OLIVA 9F DISTURBANCE --
( I' .)
✓ J � 'IIS y' `�
STING 30' CITY- 6F DURHAM
dNITARY 5EWER EASEMENT
P� A -N —It 24 1
r j
LE
L.T CII�I 3.l
La - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
y w = EXISTING AETLAND
EXISTING SANITARY SEINER MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
RIFFLE
YI �� 5 y 5 1hh5h YI 5 f
PROPIOSED �STREAhki '
1;1736 Lr A%
E1fISTfNG IMPACTEI`
TREAM (-*P.)
}
j 1 f r —... � 5k UG/
�`• ! III
eT
51 IL
GRAPHIC SCALE ^r` "�'� ---_--_ , `'��
5 `J 0 25 50 100 CT,�, HIGH -WA 70
VARIABLE WIDIU �{O�OELED ��,5� R }�`�- =��� 1�`��=
1 inch = 50 ft. \ ^ --- '` _-
ROCK CROSS—VANE
WETLANDS EXTEND
yy BEYOND SURVEY LIMIT'S
AND OT INCLUDED IN
5 THISTUDY
STREAM F
="P
BEYOND+y AAND, O OMITS
N
INCLUDED IN THIS
UDY QI v
I
✓ f 2)j
5 21
5 - h4 ti lyiyl�' h�5i� 711 �, i
.`. ',. 5.11' �t� \,til l 1 1 V45'� \, l 5\ \
'4.1 E l s\\ I% MM4 1 4.
LEGEND
TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS = 1,524.65 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM A = 496.36 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM B = 6.24 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM F = 99.43 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM G = 913.02 LF
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT
= 72,309.6 SQ FT. (1.66 AC)
TOTAL RESTORED STREAM
= 1,736 LF
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
—5—
EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
— — — — —
— EXISTING V CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
5
5' CONTOUR
RIFFLE/STREAM
MEMEMCONSTRUCTED
CROSSING/CHECK DAM
RIFFLE
YI �� 5 y 5 1hh5h YI 5 f
PROPIOSED �STREAhki '
1;1736 Lr A%
E1fISTfNG IMPACTEI`
TREAM (-*P.)
}
j 1 f r —... � 5k UG/
�`• ! III
eT
51 IL
GRAPHIC SCALE ^r` "�'� ---_--_ , `'��
5 `J 0 25 50 100 CT,�, HIGH -WA 70
VARIABLE WIDIU �{O�OELED ��,5� R }�`�- =��� 1�`��=
1 inch = 50 ft. \ ^ --- '` _-
ROCK CROSS—VANE
WETLANDS EXTEND
yy BEYOND SURVEY LIMIT'S
AND OT INCLUDED IN
5 THISTUDY
STREAM F
="P
BEYOND+y AAND, O OMITS
N
INCLUDED IN THIS
UDY QI v
I
✓ f 2)j
5 21
5 - h4 ti lyiyl�' h�5i� 711 �, i
.`. ',. 5.11' �t� \,til l 1 1 V45'� \, l 5\ \
'4.1 E l s\\ I% MM4 1 4.
LEGEND
TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS = 1,524.65 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM A = 496.36 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM B = 6.24 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM F = 99.43 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM G = 913.02 LF
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT
= 72,309.6 SQ FT. (1.66 AC)
TOTAL RESTORED STREAM
= 1,736 LF

LEGEND'
LEGEND
f f I
g IS KG 3p' C4Y OF J)U.I HAM — ; �• 1 4 `� k`� LD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS = 1,520.65 LF
SANITARY 1 lr SEMT V ` L 1� �. JURISDICTIONAL STREAM A = 496.36 LF
EXISTING WETLAND JURISDICTIONAL STREAM B = 6.24 LF
•ti' JURISDICTIONAL STREAM F = 99.03 LF
`SEWSEFI EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE JURISDICTIONAL STREAM G = 919.02 LF
WENEW
PLG� • ZONE , f , TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT
COIUTIN ES TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LAVE 'l 1 }'•• = 72,309.6 SQ FT. (1.66 AC)
JAIKEN A�.ENUE I! • ,r
r� { SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER LINE TOTAL RESTORED STREAM
II LWITS OF DISTURE3ANCE I�r �r + = 1,736 LF
(� 7' TEr�{�oRSE%Y STRAhI —u— E7CISTING 5' CONTOUR
+� CROS'SIKG `
EXISTING 1' CONTOUR
v - `, i' CONTOUR
5 5° CONTOUR
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE/STREAM
mmumm
WETLANDS EXfEN T EYOND SURVEY LIMITS CROSSING/CHECK DAM
AND NOT INCLUDED IN HIS STUDY
1 14
i __j
ROCK CROSS—VANE A
1 STREAM F
EXTENDS BEYOND y
SURVEY IMITS sY �I 'kOPOSED 3 Cl' OF DURHAM
INCN01 ,LUDED IN THIS (TYPING I�IPATE STREAM CHANNEL PLUG 5ANITA:RY EWER EASEMENT
y (TYP.)
STLlI3Y, al A sI
I / PROPOSED STREAM = 1,736 LF
21 51 �' 2�j
f / EXISTING IMPACTED WETLAND
2 O
-
f
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
pop
SiX
�Vy% 55� k�� 5 •-� �� f i� �1'�"'�� i sir
5 ,.•. r��'�/ — f s� I /f "w. I
US. HIGHWAY 70
(VARIABLE WIDTH CONTROLLED ACCESS R W )
z
0
C'
'SLb
z<
0
a
L
Y
x
p
A
o
f
n
7
C
3
9
m
c
� Fil
O
;7
U)
Y C4
t _
0 O (D
n O to
Y en II c
Y �
p �
x
'J h'ic��4n�u4ss

WETLANDS EXTEND DEYOND SURVEY LIMITS
AND NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 140
1 inch = 50 ft,_
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
(TYr . )
e
sr
LEGEND
LID LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
W w w EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
—�- EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
- — — — — — EXISTING 1' CONTOUR
MEMMMCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE/STREAM
CROSSING/CHECK DAM
I.ri'JGriND
- TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS = 1,520.65 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM A = 496.36 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM 8 = 6.24 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM F = 99.03 LF
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM C = 919.02 LF
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT
= 72,309.6 SCM FT. (1.66 AC)
-TOTAL RESTORED STREAM
= 1,736 LF
UCTIO-�
FESS
'STAQING c-
r O / '
E 5 f P !
�-x— s4E x�-�sx -� , f�// j{ 5
OXY--xy
la
� - �-+_ i\ r� — l 3+^�/ �i// ,,•moi � .. ! � 'I�LiJ
/"ate � r r --' ,•' r — \ — y �_ � ., — — � /✓ .� �-- % � .f y
US. HIGHWAY 70
(VARIABLE WIDTH CONTROLLED ROLLED ACCESS R W )
z
0
z
u
Z
z
6
� o
v �
T
n
v 1
A
y
8
6
'TIrJA.'
m
a
E
'J MCADAMS

JMCAn s

J MCADAMs

WETLANDS EXTEND BEYOND SURVEY LIMITS
AND NOT INCLUDED IN T141S STUDY
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
(iYP.)
TEMPORARY STAGING
AREA./—SfGCKPILE
--- -` }�- - - - - - — --�--
PROPOSED 30,
1 I SANITARY . SEN
v
LEGEND
Lo - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
w w w- EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
—5— EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
r•F.r:END
EXISTINGNEUSE BUFFED
30Z
34 FT ZONE 1
EXISTING NEUSE BUFFER
24 FT ZONE 2
EXISTING 100 FT F/J—B FALLS/JORDAN
PROTECTED AREA BUFFER
PROPOSED NEUSE BUFFER IMPACT
30 FT ZONE 1 = 94,089.6 SO FT. (2,16 AC)
— — — — — EXISTING 1' CONTOUR PROPOSED NEUSE BUFFER IMPACT
24 FT ZONE 2 = 46.649.2 SQ FT. (1.07 AC)
1' CONTOUR
5' CONTOUR
CONSTRUCTED (RIFFLE/STREAM
CROSSING/CHECK DAM
f/ - - - -/f y_i_j i .:may=� -�� � / r' �F \. f" �-� `_ ,1 ♦��:1 e �� �- - _ ' '
! I r s/�'„ r I 'y �,•r �, +r if f- f_'•• ++ y 4 `� ti •1 - _ �/ •-� r =�f Wil.
�,tv� � r =y r �✓fes �`}�� _ � 4 I �'��:� `�'-v-y-.� �. `�-�" \�'� y � � �,
- •~moi ..� �-- t �,, "`� ----- -`r--. �,�,, � --' 4 _ _ - �S
GRAPHIC SCALE
54 O 25 510 100 US. HIGHWA 70 EXISTING
NFUSE BUFFER
VARIABLE WIDTH CONTROLLED ACCESS R W)
I inch = 50 ft.
PROPOSED 100 FT F/J—B FALLS/"DAN
PROTECTED AREA BUFFER IMPACT
= 183.823.2 SQ FT. (4,22 AC)
EXISTING F/J—B
FALLS/JORDAN PROTECTED
AREA BUFFER
z
0
P
�Rz
O
p e41
0
z g
to�z
G4
;u 6
i u
5
5 u_
y !�
1
i
16 Ml MC"AMS I'

3U
0+00 1+00 +00 3+00 4+UU Dfiuu "-r""
A
W rj
9
o � >
UO 0 r �r
2 p I
o ac
ea f `
e.
I4iCADAMS

330
6+00 7+04 8+04 9+00 I U+UU I, -rwu - I -
E J
a j II
ir) I
n II
F �
W �
pti � ai
QR' `� ice? C
'J MCADAMS

„ 330
12+00 I3+00 14+00 15+00 ]B+OO uz+UU 1c+uu
kCA■ALMa

�y r -f ^ • T I� ^y�lC��\� \•� i�\ff,-�{ x --M=fr
f I k I � J F�?r" �`'^^� �._���+�, ��" � � '��•`" �l7 Sit* `-!�_a i \\� i\.'\•f �'� 1 � � '� �\ i.. � !'�rfi
L �ppf5y�jiY,� f I\\��I L�i
--.r �' � 1 7 • F r .S� vim! -'+_ � � '^�+' j M r i�` I--'1� \..��.� \`i,k\. i �f ` r f/ f �. �.
E/�€15TI1$-�STREA¢I
4 }F
, — r
t. I P<1y`' �� '' �. "— — — � � ! Ji- �r IJ ,h I .moi �....L • *,,. � r � 1 r � i" r
EXI
STS
214
STREAM
�B
EXTENDSE31dI
SJRJE 1r
I � — �•
24
1i�CLUE FFi1s -
l/f`
STk#DY 4f-'} % ^ . �'-��''C ' k Ali \ �� ,I •'�i � � �I
EISTIN 30' CIT 1' (3 DURHAM
SANITARY SEWER jgASEMEN
R06K CROSS -'VANE
ANIS gOIJSTMLICTED / i r
REGENT?
— ur — LIMIT'S OF DISTURBANCE
EXISTING WETLAND
•
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
SANITARY SEVER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER LIN -E
EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
EXISTING 1' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
5' CONTOUR
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE/STREAM
CROSSING,/CHECK DAM
ROCK CROSS -VANE
c r� ! , w 1•{i LIMITS OF ISTURBANCE
Csf 1 I \`',rte' 3r / / /' �TYP,}
� •'' � ^ � � I Y pry � �/ s x / /
S
It
Al
r 4 _ _ .— —yam -"'�.'" .{ l / `'•r�',+� f. 1 y .'3 J �f ,*^ .�I I°F y +{� sL
65
IV!
4
GRAPHIC SCALE
{ AI IB r WIDTH.- OFV °� [IIjLED A S`s R/Wj
I inch = 50 ft `
r
FIWPOSEM F/J-4
�I FALLS/JORDAN
PROTECTED AREA
BUF�ER � _'�4
PROPOSED
-� NEUSE-J BUFFED .-
'er
} ` I wAse"'}
'7r La y--� 10
J iL'7�L lit
LEGEND
EEI
PLANTING ZONE
- PIEDMONT BOTTOMLAND FOREST
AREA = 110,276.44 SF
SEWER EASEMENT PLANTING ZONE
- GRASS SEED MIX
AREA = 77,823.07 SF
LICE STAKES
AREA = 29,062.97 SF
TREATMENT FAIR SOIL LIFTS
(SEE FIGURE 7A)
AREA = 377.42 SF
IJ MCADAMS

AIKEN AVENUE _ � � � Y 1y �,� , � � � PIAN7WQ LEGEND
(VARIABLE-- IlD, .f-PlJBLIC-, �' y y .`. �'h ` �
% *
LD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE Eg PLANTING ZONE
` FXtS N4 3o/, ITYOF fJUF,YhAMf j � k, �a;�l — P9EDhA�?10 76.4.4hILF FOREST
t , _ sAt'HT�4 �E GEFtrEIkSEK ENT �• ` x \ ti EXISTING WETLAND AREA = 110.276.4 SF
SEWER EASEMENT PLANTING ZONE
y P ; ti '+ EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE � -- GRASS SEED MIX
AREA = 77,823.07 SF
I\ SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
r EASEMENT � UVE STAKES
LIMITS OF DISJR6APJ��E — ~ — + ++ i� PLANTING ZONE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AREA = 29,082,97 SF
4TYP.) 1 + �+ AIKI"ENAVENUE
SANITARY SEWER LINE TREATMENT FOR SOIL LIFTS
{ A , ,� ' L —SEE FIURE 7A)
— EXISTING 5' CONTOUR AREAG 377.425E
A ! ,*
TEMPORARY STREAM — — — — — — — EXISTING 1' CONTOUR
CROSSING
1' CONTOUR
{{ 5 5` CONTOUR
f i y '' '' ,'f� CONSTRJCiE[J RIFFLE/STREAM
f".0 WETLANDS EXTEND BEY -ONO SURVEY LIMITS fffflCROSSING/CtHECK DAM
,I y ANg NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY
ROCK CROSS -VANE A --
24
3 CITY OF D
__jrf -------CHANNEL PLG ROPOSERY EWER E,ASEIuIENTAM
URH
S 4 --` - J---- --_ (TY'.)
IN
> { r r ,� � y S � �, �' r- �� � �Ay�{�r al � � �— r � � � — � A i � � � �r� � � --'� � �l � � � .� �`�/ • / - �,. � � - 1f T
117
tu
Jry
y
31
'�,
Is
]e '.� �} f J i _Ja' +f r ' /r x •S" +% % / '�'�' {�/ J f� �� — — rf_ �— �i-
yC. ,` ^T` _ % x s x x x x x •„�/� l f 7a" -' r�-� � / r,J 'S• �,� ��r.
yam,Y--i Y_Z4,6
PROPOSED
NEUSE BUFFER
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100 CJS. HIGHWAY 70 PROPOSED F/',J—B
(VARIABLE WIDTH CONTROLLED ACCESS R/W) AREA BUFF PROTECTED
3 inch = 50 ft.
z
0
04
1111�
OE
0
Z
0
1
U7
J
I
Ln 0
Cl
a
Z
I4+IClA1VS8

WETLANDS EXTEND BEYOND SURVE'f LIMITS
AND NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
(TYP.)
----------------= >------� �` ---------
2.1
-------_
•/ / � � ter: � �%�i'i _i a ��_r � � =� i '`- '� r r �' O �y �,
LEGEND
— La Lu —
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
EXISTING WETLAND
AREA = 11x,276.44 SF
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SEWER EASEMENT PLANTING ZONE
EXISTING SANITA'R'Y SEWER LINE
— GRASS SEED MIX
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
AREA = 77,823.07 SF
SANITARY SEVER LINE
UVE STAKES
5 —
EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
— -- -- — — —
— EXISTING 1' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
5
5' CONTOUR
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE/STREAM
..-.
CROSSING,/CHECK DAM
�.
%l-
cars r.iw nm^C[ i1AklC
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 25 50 100 US. HIGHWAY 70
(VARIABLE WIDTH CONTROLLED ACCESS R 'W)
1 inch = 50 ft.
FIANMM LEGEND
Eg
PLANTING ZONE
— PIEDMONT 'BOTTOMLAND FOREST
AREA = 11x,276.44 SF
SEWER EASEMENT PLANTING ZONE
— GRASS SEED MIX
AREA = 77,823.07 SF
��•::••��••::••::
UVE STAKES
L�.
AREA = 29,0$297 SF
TREATMENT FOR SOIL LIFTS
(SEE FIGURE 7A)
AREA = 377.42 SF
EMS Y � Gi�A•l�L�l `" � / a� v !„ -
keegsS LOCATiOPI
r
. ``~\�•� �, � � �'S M1 r ��� i,�I 'moi
jy/ {� /
A
rmvrv->nW
NEJSE BUFFER
PROPOSED F/J—B
FALLS/JORDAN PROTECTED
AREA BUFFER

I r1l, 71
IIi / 1
J
J
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (WTDTH VARIES REFER TO PLAN VIE'N)
CHANNEL WIDTH f
COIR MATTING
BANKFULL-\LeANKFULL-\L STAGE
TYPICAL BASEFLOIN v
ELEVATICu 47
TYPICAL RIFFLE
NOT TO SCALE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (MOTH VARIES - REFER TO PLAN VIEW)
CHANNEL MOTH /
TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL WIDTH
BANKFULL V STAGE
TYPICAL. BASEFLOW v ;k
ELEVATION
V COIR MATTING
TYPICAL POOL
NOT TO SCALE
fA
-i
J
J
r
BARE ROOT
SEEDLINGS
ii
9 MCADAMS

Table 6.111
SPESEES (COMMON NAME)
Seeeting Na. 212 for: Getttfe
Seeding Infxtulie
Slopes, Average Sail; Lour
Spieler Bate (lbiac*
Maintenance
Tall tescve BO
20
Kobelespedeza to
20
Seedling notes
10
t, After Aug. 15 mese unscariffed levedeza seed.
2
2. Where perbdicmowing is planned or aneat appearanceis desired,
2
iruxease Kobe lespedeza to 40 Tolacre
TOTAL =
9. To extend spring seeding dates into dune, aced 15 Macre hulled Bor-
CRI CLOVER
mudagrass. However, alter mid -Apr. it is praterable to seed temporary
ODWOL
NTirse plaints
Between May t and Aug. 15, add 14 Ib Ire German millet or 15 nalacra
Sudangrass. Priior to May 1 or after Aug. 15 add 40 Wacm rym (gfain).
LATE WINTER AND EARLY
Seeding dates
RYE GRAIN
CRIMSON CLOVER
Bast RosaGbh
FOLLOW SOITESTS
120 FOR LJL
Fail: Aug. 25- Sept.15 Aug. 20 - Oct. 25
SPRING
Late winter: Fab. 15 - Mar. 21 Feb. i - Apr, 15
Fall is best for tag fescue and late winter foe lespedezas. f]verseedkrg of
Kobe lespedexa over fall -seeded tali fescue is very effecxive.
SUMMER
Smit amendments
GERMAN MILLET
Apply frim and fertilizer according to sail tests, or apply 4,400 [Nage
40
ground agricultural Nuestona and 1,000 Lbracrs 10-10-10fmrtifaaer.
REFERENCE: Srmalen, M. D. ed. 1988. 63wU QwoTino Erosion and Ssdianant Comm? Ploming
MuTch
Ap* 4,000 Wacro grain straw or mqukal" cover of another suitable
ConIA°M Ooannb+seian, North 0molMo ,
mu Ich. Anchor straw by lacking with asphalt, netting, or roving or by &Imp -
Ing with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades set nearly straight can
be used as a mrrulch anchoring loaf.
Maintenance
Rafertilize In the second year unless growth is fully adequate, May be
mcwed once or twice a year, but mowing is not necessary. Reseed, feTtit-
to, and mulch damaged areas Imsnedialely.
1 Refer to Appendix &.02 for botanical names.
PERMANENT SEED MIX SPECIES
SPESEES (COMMON NAME)
MIN_ PERCENTAGE
PonNCum rigidulum (RedLop Panicgrass)
25
Ponicurn anceps (Beaked Ponicgrass)
21
Clasmanthium lntifolium (R Ver Oats)
20
Elyrnus uirginica;s (Virginia WWfildrye)
20
Sarghastrurn nutans (Indiongross)
10
Juncus cvriaceays (Leathery Rush)
2
Agrostis hyemolis (Winter Bentgrass)
2
TOTAL =
tvD
SPECIES
FRA.XINUS PENNSYLVANrCA
PLATANUS OCCIDENTALES
QUERCUS PAGODA
BETULA NIGRA
QUERCUS NIGRA
QUERCUS LYRATA
QUERCLIS MICIiAUXII
QUERCUS PHELLOS
QUERCUS LAAURIFOLJA
QUERCUS ALBA
QUERCUS FrbLCATA
AGER EIARBATUM
FAGUS GRWNDIFOLIA
CORNUS FLORIDA
ALNUS SERRULATA
ASIMINA TRILOBA
MYRICA CERIFERA
CARPINUS CAROLINtANA
MAGNOLIA VIRGINtANA
1RON4A ARBUTIFOLIA
ILEX VERTICILLATA
CEPHAr WTHUS OCCIDENTALIS
LINDERA BENZOIN
LEUCOTHOE RACEMOSA
AESCULUS SYLVATICA4
ILEX OPACA
PLANTING ZONE
PIEDMONT BOTTOML,AND FOREST
COMMON NAME
GREEN ASH
SYCAMORE
6ERR1'EMS( OAK
RIVER BIRCH
WATER OAK
C7VERCI?P OAK
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK
WILLOW OAK
LAUREL OAK
WHITE OAK
SOUTHERN RED OAK
SOUHTERN' SUGAR MAPLE
AMERICAN BEECH
FLAWERING DOGWOOD
TAG ALDER
PAWPAW
WAX MYRTLE
IRONWOOD
SWEET BAY
RED CHOK€BERRY
WINTERBERRY
SPICEBWSH
FETFERBUSH
PAINTED BUCKEYE
AMERICAN HOLLY
GROWTH HABIT
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
TREE
SMALL TREE/SH
SMALL TREE/SHRUE
SMALL TREE SHItiiE
SMALL FREE/SHRUE
SMALL TREEf SHRUE
SMALL TREE/SHRUE
SMALL TREE/SHRUE
SMALL TREE/SMRUE
SMALL TREE/SHRUE
SMALL TREE/SHRUE
SMALL TREE/SHRU€
SMALL TREE/SHRUt
SMALL TREE/SHRUI
PROPAGATION METHOD
BARE ROOT J CCNTAINERIZED
BARE ROOT % CONTNNERIZED
BARE ROOT / CDtdTA1NERIZED
BARE ROOT / CONTAINERVZED
BARE ROOT / CONTAINERIZED
BARE i2OOT % CONTAINERIZED
BARE ROOT ! CONTAINERIZED
BARO ROOT
WE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BASLE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
BARE ROOT
CONTAINERIZED
CONTAINERIZED
CONTANERIZED
COro"LA NERIZED
CONTAINERIZED
CONTAINER12ED
CONTAINERIZED
ONTAJNERIZED
CONTAINERIZED
CONTAINERIZEO
CONTAINERIZED
CONTANERIZE€}
CONTAANERIZED
CONTANERIZED
COPITAlNERIZED
CONTAINERIZED
CONTAINERIZED
CONTAINERIZED
CONTAjNERIZED
CONTA NERIZEJD
SPACING
8 x 8
8 x 8
& x 8
8. x 8
a x 8
8 x 8
8 x 8
8 x 8
8 X a
8 x B
8 x a
8 x 8
8x8
8 x 8
8 X 8
S x 8
$xa
$x8
S X 8
8 X B
8 X B
8 x B
8 x 8
8 x 8
S x 8
8x8
B X 8
Bxa
TEMPORARY EROSION
CONTROL SEEDING
SEASON
SEEDING DATES ECOREGION
SPECIES
SCIE€iTIRC NAME
RATE (LB/ACRE) SOIL AMENDMENTS
&WNTEtdANCE
FALL
AUGUST 15 — JANUARY 1 PIEDMONT
RYE
120
CRI CLOVER
TRIFECAOLIULI ICEREALEARNAM
SEE TEMPORARY
LATE WINTER AND EARLY
JANUARY 1 — MAY PIEDMONT
RYE GRAIN
CRIMSON CLOVER
SECALE CEREALS
TRIFOLIUM INCA NATUM
FOLLOW SOITESTS
120 FOR LJL
SEEOtNG
MAINTENANCE PLAN
SPRING
SUMMER
MAY 1 — AUGUST 15 PIEDMONT
GERMAN MILLET
ECHINOCFILOA CRUSGALUI
40
REFERENCE: Srmalen, M. D. ed. 1988. 63wU QwoTino Erosion and Ssdianant Comm? Ploming
orad Oesgn Manual. Raleigh, NC: North Caralino Ssdimentotiiam
ConIA°M Ooannb+seian, North 0molMo ,
and the North Carelino Cooperotive Extension Service. 511. pp_ Section 6.10.t.
�0
RJB
M.
z
0
z
I-■�1 0
F -I
Ogg
0
Z Q
z
0
FSI z
HT1 %
A
1 r I
1
3
a
9
Y 0
I
7 H fl1
7
S O
a �
ti
I PJ MCA4DAMS IF