HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081144 Ver 1_401 Application_20080708
SeSEPI _
ENGINEERING GROUP 0 8 1 1 4 4
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel 919.789.9977
Fax 919.789.9591
sepiengineering.com (r-z~
July 17, 2008 JUL 2 4 2008
US Army Corps of Engineers DENR-WATERt1UALI Y
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANC14
Attention: Jamie Shern
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: Chancery Village at the Park; Section 404 Nationwide Permit 39 application;
SEPI Project No. EN08.013
Dear Mr. Shern:
On behalf of Woodfield Village LLC, SEPI Engineering Group, Inc (SEPI) submits this Section 404
Nationwide Permit 39 (NWP 39) application. The owner proposes to construct a commercial
development at the intersection of NC 55/ Kit Creek Road in Wake County.
SEPI submits this NWP 39 application on behalf of Woodfield Village. Attached to this cover letter
are:
• Signed landowner authorization enabling SEPI to act as an agent for Woodfield Village;
• Pre-construction notification; and,
• Permit drawings noting impacts to waters of the US.
Project Information
The project lies in the Cape Fear River basin (HUC 03030002). This part of the state does not have
riparian buffers at this time.
Project construction had commenced, and after Elam Todd and D'ambrosi (ET'd) coordinated with
the City of Durham consulting engineer regarding the water line along NC 55, it became apparent to
the applicant that wetlands existed on the tract. After this conversation on July 8, 2008, SEPI was
hired to complete the wetland delineation as only a portion of the wetland on the tract had been
delineated for the Durham-Cary water interconnection project. The previous delineation by SEPI
was solely for avoid/minimization measures for the City's water interconnection project.
Currently, a small portion of the wetland has been impacted by constructing a sedimentation and
erosion control device. This device was installed prior to the conversation with the City consulting
engineer when ET'd learned of the wetland area.
Purpose and Need
Impacts are needed to due the topographic constraints of the tract and requirements to implement
stormwater best management practices.
r,
~'SEPI
Page 2
Jurisdictional Review
Initially, as part of a water line project, SEPI completed a wetland and stream delineation for the
City of Durham / Hazen and Sawyer along NC 55 from Kit Creek Road to Alston Avenue in April
2008. Wetlands and streams in the project study area were delineated, and Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the
US Army of Engineers conducted a desk top jurisdictional review based on data provided by SEPI.
This information was provided to Mr. Alsmeyer in an email dated June 20, 2008. This information
package included: standard wetland determination forms; `Rapanos' forms; and a photolog of the
wetland area.
Ms. Lauren Cobb Witherspoon of the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) completed a field
review of the jurisdictional areas for the Water Interconnector project that adjoined the Chancery
Village development on June 20, 2008. Ms. Witherspoon agreed with SEPI's determination.
SEPI completed the additional delineation for the wetland at NC 55 and Kitts Creek Rd on July 11,
2008. Information related to this delineation is attached to this letter. A drainage does exist on the
southern portion of the Chancery Village 15.68 acre tract (See attached map) but it will not be
impacted.
Other Relevant Information
SEPI has reviewed map data at the NC State Historic Preservation (NCSHPO) office. The Office
of State Archaeology and the Survey and Planning Branch were visited on July 14, 2008. There are
no registered or eligible structures or sites listed in the project study area.
Additionally, SEPI reviewed the NC Natural Heritage Program database for rare and protected
species. Based on this review on July 15, 2008, there were no known occurrences of any rare or
protected species in the project study area.
Impacts to waters of US
Impacts to waters of the US are unavoidable in order to complete the development project.
The project will impact 0.08 acres of wetlands. This wetland system is an emergent system.
Impacts to waters of the US are limited in nature. Therefore, Woodfield Village LLC does not
intend to provide any compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the US.
Project Summary
SEPI requests that the USACE issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 39 for the construction of
this water interconnection project. The project will impact 0.08 acres of wetlands.
A courtesy copy of this permit application is being provided to the NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). The impact to wetlands is less than 0.10 acre, and written authorization from NCDWQ
is not necessary.
S ESEPI
Page 3
If you have questions regarding this permit application, please contact Mr. Philip Beach of SEPI at
the office, (919) 573-9936, or by mobile phone at (919) 815-6440.
Respectfully submitted,
-
Philip Beach
cc: Woodfield Village LLC
Mr. William Needham, PE, ET'd
Ms. Cyndi Karoly NCDWQ
Attachments:
• USACE Wetland Data Forms
• Rapanos Form for wetland
• Site plan depicting impacted waters of the US
08-1144
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
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
I. 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 39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
r__3
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information KtAJ-UffiSgW4 J U L 2 4 2008
Name: Woodfield Village LLC ^ENP WATER OUAUTv
-
Mailing Address: 11425 Horseman's Trail WETLANDS AND STORMWATTERBRANCH
Raleigh NC 27613
Telephone Number: (919) 341-3034 Fax Number: Unknown
E-mail Address:
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: Philip Beach
Company Affiliation: SEPI Engineering Group
Mailing Address: 1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone Number: (919) 789-9977 Fax Number: (919) 789-9591
E-mail Address: pbeachgsepien ink eering.com
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
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: Chancery Village at the Park
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): n/a
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Cary
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From I-540, travel to NC
55 (Exit 66A) go north on NC 55 to intersection with Kit Creek Rd
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): 35.9187 ON 78.7328 °W
6. Property size (acres): 15.68
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT to Northeast Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear 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/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Forested area for new location of subdivision.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: track
hoes, grader, front end loader, seed broadcaster
Page 6 of 12
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Construction of residential Development.
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. See cover letter.
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.
None are anticipated at this time
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.
I . Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: wetland impacts associated
with the residential development.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Page 7 of 12
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
#1 Direct fill Emergent no -100 ft 0.08
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.08
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.08 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip=rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Perennial intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on map) Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) N/A
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on map) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/a
Total Open Water Impact (acres) n/a
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Page 8 of 12
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.08
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.08
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
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.): N/a
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/a
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/a
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/a Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
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.
See cover letter.
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
Page 9 of 12
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
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stn,ngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Limited impact to low-quality emergent wetlands < 0.10 acres It is proposed that no
mitigation be required for this project.
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
(919) 715-0476 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 http://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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
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 (919) 733-5083 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
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 0213.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify Yes ? No ?
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
1 N/a 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 N/a 1 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or. 0244, or .0260.
Page 11 of 12
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. _Stormwater plan reviewed and approved by the
Town of Carv NC.
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.
Stormwater plan reviewed and approved by the Town of Carv NC
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No ?
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
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.eiu•.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: N/a.
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
Threatene Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
App ' /Agent's Signature Date
(Ag 's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
eSEPI
ENGINEERING GR(
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel 919.789.9977
Fax 919.789.9591
seplengineering.com
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
All Blanks to Be Filled in By the Current Lands owner or Municipal Official
Name: V y ~t 2, V 1 l~C>>Us(~ t~~
Address: _ U` z!~ ~O C se-&A- ,t,
1~ Auj&~(o 4 pL a~lo~3
Phone: q 10(- 3 `C ~ - 03 ~E p
C rl&-Ce-cc \l 1~ 0t6C A: -TVt E
Project Name/Description: SEPI Project #
Date: (0-C)8
Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn: l ..AVA
Field Office: sLCt Eck
Re: Wetlands and Streams Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current landowner or municipal official, hereby designate and authorize SEPI Engineering Group, Inc,
to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward, the day of
~'UGy _ 7 003
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Notice: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by SEPI staff. You should can SEPI to
arrangeea prior to visiting the site.
BY: t" 0< AeL, A, O o'Oe&0019 BY: lc-
Print Name of Landowner's or Municipal Signatur of Lando ner or Municipal
Official's Name
cc: NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
1 I ~
1 1 I 1 1 : I
~ I 1 1 1 1
~ \ 1 1 1 1 ~ I i_-, 1 l
\ 1 1 1 1 .I , I
.J \ \ 1 1 1 I 'I
~ ~ \ \ \ \ I 1 1 ~1 t
Exist. SMH
I 1 1
1=255.91 IN
• I _ -255.48 OUT)
Ln
DRAINAGE INLET j I Wj j
~R=270.16 c15l ,
1=263.36 (IN) I I I ,
1-~~ 1.12 (OUT)
I c/ ,
' I I ; 11
~ 1 I
"RCP 4S , I
1-2 1. 11 (lN) ,
D .-rr--
1=260.97 (IN) / I l
0
--<-'oo
WETLAND AREA = 3,480 S.F. SCALE o 15 30
llim~
TO BE FILLED 1" = 30'
1025
AL WADE AVENUE
CHANCERY VILLAGE R
S P RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
AT THE PARK ph. (919)789-9977
fax: (919)789-9591
WETLAND DELINEATION ENGINEERING GROUP info@sepiengineering.com
JULY 16, 2008 TRANSPORTATION•TRAFFIC•SURVEMNG•ENVIRONMENTAL•SITE CIML*INSPECTIONS
1 1 1 I 1=1 I
I
~ I
, 1 1 1 1 1 : I 1
~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ I
` `V 1 1 1 1 ~ I 1-1
•j ~ j ~ j ~ I I
I
1 I l l I
c
` r
` ' 1 I Exist. SMH
TOP=267.33
• I I I ~ 1=255.91
5~J/N)
25
T)
' I ~ l y I r•
• ' I j ~ ' I
I 1 I
I Ln
! I ' ~ I Ln
I I ' I J
u/
DRAINAGE INLET I ~j j
1R=270.16 ' ~I Imo.
1=263.36 (IN) I I I I .
'I 1.12 (OUT)
Cl 1
Q NI I ~ r ~
' I I I i v
I 1~ I I
I I I
I I I
I I
RCP FS I I
1=2t0. 11 /(IN) I
WETLAND AREA = 3,480 S.F. SCALE 0 15 30
TO BE FILLED 1" = 30'
1025
AL WADE AVENUE
CHANCERY VILLAGE R
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
AT THE PARK ph. (919)789-9977
fax: (919)789-9591
WETLAND DELINEATION ENGINEERING GROUP info@sepiengineering.com
TRANSPORTATION•TRAFFIC•SURWMNG•ENVIRONMENTAUSITE CIVILeINSPECTIONS
LJ
01 0 (Do 0
G(po
-
- - - - -
F
I 1
°
°
c
o0
sue.`` Gs ~ .E \ Fba~ sM
PRA Oil)
Ln
l Ln
U
i
IT CREEK ROAD a £a,== so °
1d.77 W ETLAN D AREA
a
SCALE 0 60 120
1 " = 120'
1025
AL WADE AVENUE
CHANCERY VILLAGE R
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
AT THE PARK s P I ph: (919)789-9977
fax: (919)789-9591
VICINITY MAP ENGINEERING GROUP infoosepiengineering.com
JULY 16, 2008 TRANSPORTA ION•TRAFFIC•SURWMNG•ENVIRONMENTAUSITE CIVILoINSPECTIONS
71,
4 & h tit yen a,:--•,P S G* + pF,
s 4
# t x'
4
ell
' f =rst
e F tj
I If If
i'T
I ' - i I^;, F 1ci ~$'~'t re~ya a~.7 os 7;}y `i i1 h^ i ~'a wy e
W
A. J~xn..
View south of wetland at NC 55 and Kitts Creek Rd (April 2008). View southeast of wetland at NC 55 and Kitts Creek Rd (April 2008).
S E P I Stream and Wetland Assessment
V ENGINEERING GROUP
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): Unknown
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Raleigh Regulatory Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The proposed 15.68 residential development
project is situated at Kitt Creek Rd and NC 55 in Cary, NC. The study corridor is located in the Cape Fear River
Basin in Wake County, North Carolina. SEPI Engineering Group (SEPI) was contracted in July 2008 to perform a
wetland delineation for this project. The applicant for this JD is ET'd, Raleigh NC.
State: NC County/parish/borough: Wake City: Raleigh
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Site - Lat. 35.861081'N;
Long. -78.894044°W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 N (NAD 83)
Name of nearest waterbody: Northeast Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Cape Fear River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03030004
® 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: June 2008 by Eric Alsmeyer Raleigh Office
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." 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 waters2 (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: None
Wetlands: 0.08 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Corps manual and OHWM
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): Not established.
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:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 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).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section IIIT.
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT Northeast Creek to Northeast Creek to Cape Fear River (stream segments are
too numerous to count).
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 5 feet
Average depth: 2 feet
Average side slopes: 3:1.
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: Major presence of Riffle / Run / Pool / Glide in RPW's.
Slight to none in Non-RPW's
Tributary geometry: Meandering.
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 0-2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary (C) provides for: Ephemeral and Seasonal Flow
Tributary (UT Northeast Creek) provides for: Perennial Flow
Tributary (UT Jordan Lake) provides for: Perennial Flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Numerous
Describe flow regime: Perennial (See above).
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics: Strong Surface Flow.
Subsurface flow: No. 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 ® the presence of litter and debris
® changes in the character of soil ? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® shelving ® the presence of wrack line
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ® sediment sorting
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ® scour
® sediment deposition ? multiple observed or predicted flow events
? water staining ® abrupt change in plant community
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that
El High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by: apply):
? 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
5 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.
6A 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.
3
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):
1. 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:
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
5
? 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: State NC.
® 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: 1:24,000 Quad.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Wake County 1970.
? 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): Wake and Durham County NC 1998 and 2005.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
® Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Submitted to Eric Alsmeyer Raleigh Office June 2008.
® Applicable/supporting case law:Rapanos and Carabell cases.
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): SEPI field investigation performed on 7.15.08
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
7
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SEPI Engineering Group Wetland Area WFPage I of 2
Project/Site: Durham/Cary Interconnector Date: 4/30/2008 Community ID: Wetland
Applicant/ Owner: Hazen & Sawyer County: Durham Transect ID: WF
Investigator: PDB State: NC Plot ID: WF 1-10
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No
Is this site significantly disturbed Yes No X
(Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No X
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Juncus effuses Herb FACW+
Rubus argutus Vine FAC
Salix nigra Shrub FACW+
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks: Vegetative criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations:
Inundated Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.)
Saturated in upper 12 inches Depth Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.)
Water marks Depth to Saturated Soil: <12 (in.)
Drift lines
Sediment deposits
X Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized root channels in upper 12 in.
Water-stained leaves
Local soil survey data
FAC-neutral test
Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks: Hydrologic criteria met.
SOILS
SEPI Engineering Group Wetland Area WT Page 2 of 2
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): White Store Sandy Loam 6-10% slopes
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic hapludalfs
Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Field Observations:
Confirmed map type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abund. Texture, Concr.
Inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Size/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 to 6 AB 0 to 6 AB 5 YR 4/3 7.5 YR 511 Sandy loam
6 to 12 B1 6 to 12 B1 5 YR 4/3 7.5 YR 4/1 Sandy loam
12 to 18 B2 12 to 18 B2 5 YR 4/3 NONE Sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks Soil criteria met.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks All 3 criteria met; area is a wetland.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SEPI Engineering Group Upland Area WFPage 1 of 2
Project/Site: Durham/Cary Interconnector Date: 4/30/2008 Community ID: Upland
Applicant/Owner: Hazen & Sawyer County: Durham Transect ID: WF
Investigator: PDB State: NC Plot ID: WF 1-10
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No
Is this site significantly disturbed Yes No -X
(Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No X
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Juncus effuses soft rush FACW+
Rubus argutus sawtooth blackberry FAC
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks: Vegetative criteria met.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations:
Inundated Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.)
Saturated in upper 12 inches Depth Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.)
Water marks Depth to Saturated Soil: > 18 (in.)
Drift lines
Sediment deposits
X Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized root channels in upper 12 in.
Water-stained leaves
Local soil survey data
FAC-neutral test
Other (explain in remarks)
F marks: Hydrologic criteria not met.
SOILS
SEPI Engineering Group Upland Area WFPage 2 of 2
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): White Store Sandy Loam 6-10% slopes
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Vertic hapludalfs
Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Field Observations:
Confirmed map type? Yes No X
Profile Descri tv ion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abund. Texture, Concr.
Inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Size/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 to 6 AB 7.5 YR 513 NONE NONE Sandy Clay Loam
6 to 12 B 1 7.5 YR 5/3 NONE NONE Sandy Clay Loam
12 to 18 B2 7.5 YR 5/3 NONE NONE Sandy Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks Soil criteria not met.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks Only vegetative criteria met; area not a wetland.