20170462 Ver 1_401 Application_20170417

Kimley»>Horn
February 23, 2017
Mr. James Lastinger
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
rim
RE: Nationwide Permit 45 Application — Smith Creek Bank Repair
Town of Wake Forest, Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Lastinger and Ms. Higgins:
0 1 7 0 4 6 2
On behalf of the Town of Wake Forest, Kimley-Horn is submitting the attached application for
authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 45 for the above referenced project. The project
proposes to repair a portion of Smith Creek's bank that was severely eroded during Hurricane
Matthew because of strong flows. During Hurricane Matthew, a large tree fell into Smith Creek
redirecting flow into the bank and causing significant scour. As a result, the stream has severely
eroded away upland areas and is compromising the integrity of a portion of the Smith Creek
Greenway and a sanitary sewer utility line.
The tree will be removed as part of this project and the bank will be returned to pre -storm elevation
and grade. Approximately 270 linear feet of Smith Creek exists within the proposed project area.
The following information is included as part of this application:
• PCN Application Form
• Signed Agent Authorization
• Map Figures
• Plan Sheet
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this NWP application,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-677-2104 or Ross. [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ross Sullivan
Environmental Analyst
17, 7 2017

0' W�A TE9pG
0
NRZ=1114�<
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 45 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
N Yes
❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express N Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes N No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes N 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
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Smith Creek Bank Repair
2b.
County:
Wake
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Town of Wake Forest
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or stateC-5164
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Town of Wake Forest
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
008579 p. 01363
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Town of Wake Forest, Planning Department
3d.
Street address:
301 South Brooks Street
3e.
City, state, zip:
Wake Forest, NC 27587-2901
3f.
Telephone no.:
919-435-9513
3g.
Fax no.:
919-435-9539
3h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
® Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
n/a
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
n/a
4d. Street address:
n/a
4e.
City, state, zip:
n/a
4f.
Telephone no.:
n/a
4g.
Fax no.:
n/a
4h.
Email address:
n/a
S.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Ross Sullivan
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley-Horn
5c.
Street address:
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27601
5e. Telephone no.:
919-677-2000
5f.
Fax no.:
919-677-2050
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1749591750
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.948454 Longitude: - 78.508802
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
0.9 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Smith Creek
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C; NSW
2c.
River basin:
Neuse
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
application:
The site is adjacent to the Smith Creek Greenway project. Land use in the vicinity is composed of a mix of high density
residential housing, farms, and forests.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
270 LF
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to repair a stream bank along Smith Creek to conditions that existed prior to Hurricane
Matthew. The section of stream bank that is proposed for repair was severely eroded during Hurricane Matthew as a
result of strong stormwater flows exacerbated by a downed tree which forced the strong stormwater flows into the subject
bank causing it to severely erode. The severely eroded bank is compromising the integrity of an adjacent greenway and a
sanitary sewer utility line.
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed stream bank repair is located directly south of Rogers Road along Smith Creek. The eroding bank is on the
western side of the stream. Bank repairs will include the removal of the debris from the channel, the addition of rock
vanes, and the grading and backfilling necessary to restore the bank to the pre -storm contours. The new banks will be
stabilized with seeding, live stakes, and bare root plantings. The downed tree described in section 3d is still present within
Smith Creek and continues to create erosional issues for the adjacent greenway and sanitary sewer line. This tree will be
removed from the channel using chainsaws and hand clearing. The bank will be restored to pre-existing conditions using
standard stream restoration equipment, including excavators and dozers.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: No jurisdictional determination has been
requested or obtained for this project. Based on the previous
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
jurisdictional determinations for the Smith Creek Greenway
project and Raleigh's Smith Creek Interceptor project, as well
as observations made in the field, there are no wetlands
within the project area. The project area is adjacent to and
overlaying Smith Creek.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known):
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
n/a
6.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
n/a
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain.
n/a
Page 4 of 12
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 ❑ 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.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland
Type of jurisdiction
impact
Type of impact
Type of
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
number —
wetland
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Permanent
(if known)
(P) or
Temporary
T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0 acres
2h. Comments: No wetland impacts will result from the proposed construction.
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.
3g.
Stream
Type of impact
Stream
Perennial (PER)
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
impact
name
or intermittent
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
number -
(INT)?
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Permanent
other)
(feet)
feet)
(P) or
Temporary
(T)
Site #1
®P❑T
Bank Stabilization
Smith Creek
I
® PER
INT
® Corps
El DWQ
35'
270'
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
270'
3i. Comments: Permanent impacts to Smith Creek will result from the repair and stabilization of 270 LF of a severely eroded
bank caused during the strong storm flows during Hurricane Matthew.
Page 5 of 12
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 other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
number—
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary
T
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
0 acres
4g. Comments: No open water impacts will result from the proposed construction.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
ID
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
K Total
5g. Comments: No ponds or lakes will be constructed
as part of the proposed project.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
n/a
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
n/a
5k. Method of construction:
n/a
Page 6 of 12
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.
® Neuse E] Tar -Pamlico ❑Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason for
Buffer mitigation
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent
impact
Stream name
required?
(square feet)
(square feet)
(P) or
Temporary
T
Site #1
E]P ® T
Bank
stabilization
Smith Creek
El Yes
® No
3,675 temporary
0
B2❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B4 ❑ PEI T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
3,676 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft.
6i. Comments: The proposed project will repair an eroding bank along Smith Creek. Temporary impacts will result from
construction staging and bank restoration work. The upland buffer will be replanted after the bank has been restored to pre -
erosion condition. Additionally, banks will be stabilized with coir fiber matting and live stakes. Stream Bank Stabilization
impacts are considered Allowable under the Neuse River Riparian Buffer rules.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts to Smith Creek and the riparian buffer will result from the repair of an eroded bank and the removal of in -channel
debris. No length of stream channel will be lost or degraded. Rather, the stream bank will be returned to conditions that
existed prior to Hurricane Matthew and then stabilized in order to protect existing infrastructure (greenway and utility line)
threatened by the severely eroded bank. The proposed temporary buffer impacts will occur as a result of restoring the bank to
pre -erosion grade and elevation. The riparian buffer that has been lost due to the discrete erosion event will be restored and
revegetated.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Measures will be taken throughout the construction process to reduce erosion and sedimentation input to the stream. Where
feasible, staging will occur on the adjacent pre-existing sewer easement. The in -stream debris removal work will be performed
by hand to reduce channel impacts and downstream sedimentation. Throughout the construction process Stream Bank
Stabilization BMPs will be utilized.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation
❑ Yes ® No
for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the
State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
ElPayment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: n/a
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments: n/a
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:
n/a
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
n/a
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
n/a
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
n/a
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
n/a
4h. Comments: n/a
6. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
n/a
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
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.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Zone 2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
n/a
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).
n/a
6h. Comments: Stream Bank Stabilization activities occurring within the Neuse River Basin regulated riparian buffer are
"allowable" and no mitigation is required according to the Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0233).
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: A diffuse flow plan is not necessary for this project because stormwater
❑ Yes ® No
will not be concentrated or collected as a result of the proposed project.
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: Stormwater will not be concentrated or
collected as a result of the proposed project. No new impervious surfaces are proposed for this project.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
n/a
❑ Certified Local 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?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ 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):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
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
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
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 SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments: n/a
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
® 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):
n/a
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® 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 proposed project intends to repair uplands that were damaged by Hurricane Matthew to their pre-existing contours.
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.
No wastewater will be generated by the proposed project.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — 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 ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
E:1 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?
NC Natural Heritage Program database records (updated October 2016) were reviewed and no recorded occurrences of any
federally endangered or threatened species were found within the study corridor or within 1.0 -mile of the study area.
Suitable habitat is not present in the study area for red -cockaded woodpecker.
Potential roosting habitat for northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is present within the study area. However, there is an
abundance of roosting habitat adjacent to the study area. Due to the lack of known occurrences and the abundance of
suitable roosting habitat within close proximity, it is anticipated that this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
this species.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present along the maintained utility easement within the study area. However, the
maintained utility easement within the study area provides only marginally suitable habitat because it is located within the
Smith Creek floodplain. Additionally, as part of the Smith Creek Greenway project, Kimley-Horn staff conducted pedestrian
surveys for Michaux's sumac within areas of suitable habitat on May 17, 2013 and no individuals were observed. Due to the
lack of known occurrences, the marginally suitable habitat, and the lack of individuals observed during recent surveys, it is
anticipated that this project will have no effect on Michaux's sumac.
Suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel may be present within Smith Creek; however, the nearest known occurrence is
approximately 15 river miles downstream within the Neuse River. Further, the proposed project will have minimal impacts to
Smith Creek. Due to the lack of known occurrences, the long distance from the nearest known population, and the minimal
impacts associated with this project, it is anticipated that this project will have no effect on the dwarf wedgemussel.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper was reviewed on February 9, 2017 and no essential fish habitat was found
within the project area or within the vicinity of the project.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

7. 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?
The State Historic Preservation Office database was reviewed on February 2, 2017 to determine if any historic resources
occurred in the vicinity of the study area. There are no historic or archaeologic resources within the project boundary.
One study list individual entry, the Dempsey -Powell House, occurs approximately 2,600 feet southeast of the project
area. Due to the minimal work and disturbance involved in the proposed project, and the distance from the nearest
historic resource, there will be no impacts to any historic or archaelogical resources.
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:
The design of the proposed project is intended to match the elevation/grade of the bank before hurricane Matthew. Surveys
conducted before the hurricane have been used to calculate the pre-existing conditions. No adverse impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA FIRM Panel 3720184000J (effective 5/2/2006).
Ross Sullivany,a
"�
4/14/2017
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Jason Hartshorn, PE, Kimley-Horn and Associated, Inc.
Address: 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: Direct: 919-678-4155, Mobile: [phone]
Project Name/Description: Smith Creek Bank Repair
Date: 8114/17, Work to start in the fall 2017 and be completed by winter 2017/2018.
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Mr. James Lastinger
Field Office: Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
The Town of Wake Forest hereby designates and authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to act in
my/our behalf as my/our agent solely for the purpose of processing Jurisdictional Determinations,
Section 404 permits/Section 401 Water Quality Certifications applications, and Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Determinations, and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of
applications, etc. from this day forward until successful completion of the permitting process or
revocation by the owner.
In addition, 1, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Authorized this the 14th day of March 2017
Kip Padgett. Town Manager
Town of Wake Forest
Print Property Owner's Name
Cc: Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
I
ert, 0,wrtvr's Signature

a
a
fn
m
,core
P
� G
Rog
Rogers Rd ers Rd
CO
e�
s
Gap Ra
Su9aC N
U
a
Legend
Project Study Area `ale
Wake Forest
�o
Rolesville
Raleigh
� a
Wake County
CO
0
0 400 800
Feet
Project Location
0 0.5 1
mmmm[:= Miles
E Figure 1: Vicinity Map
TOWN of Smith Creek Bank Repair
WAKE FOREST Wake Forest, North Carolina

it
0
L IL
--rJ V
r
fie
Legend"• '
■„ I -6 % a�
Project Study Area
apt
0 400 800
^�* ,•
Feet
„fir . ;�"-- •�1 �i "� e
TOWN of Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
WAKE FORESTSmith Creek Bank Repair
Wake Forest, North Carolina

,•r �. �.'Alib-
1
• j a
ti
4-
Af
L�"�j��- •'\"fs��((LL♦♦ \�}��[,'�• ll a�� E� it" � a )E E -n i1
. yy
r•
Si' •y+�
ue
P .. I yam♦ R
- fit q�� ''•.;, � .,,. t
i r
,° `g Geo O"ft m Nft ft ftDomift' o r -ft n1 1%Ic"M9 Bo. o

00 ca
mco
rL Ca c r
' l % REMOVE S _ E ) z
ANOBAR AN
GRADE T a)
0 NEW STR v
MAINTAIN o ' Y �
cn -. a
EXISTING TOP OF BANK `� Y
BEFORE
TOP �o
_ J URE ./ OF BANK
a o STRUCT ORE EROSION (TYP)
E N -1 CLASS 11RIP E RAP PROPOSED STREAM WA
PER STRUCTURES SURFACE ELEV. 216, TER
PLANS 11TPI
o
cn �` REMOVE FALLEN
REE ,FROM CRCFK _ P4000-
E-lN
EXISTING TOE
� \ V W P l BANK
jOrA/L
EEr@ a�//fTYPJi PROPOSED TOP OF
TO Rx'KJ'OE,'PROiE6T7 --- ndd --� --- _-",1_- --;--- _ Nl3TE, - -----
EE CROSS=S ---
co
E L c w
— — -- Z77— — co L-
cn 0
07
co U)
ca _
QLo
— —`rUn— — — J E N
as M

___
NEW
Low
I