20051986 Ver 2_More Info Received_20090312

N•
W E
S
BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, IN
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone]
AI
March 12, 2009
9 ? Q
Mr. Monte Matthews Ms. Cyndi Karoly
US Army Corps of Engineers NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Additional Information
Legend Oaks Phase III, Chapel Hill, Chatham County, NC
USACE Action ID #: SAW -200900106
DWQ Project #: 05-1986
BLC Project #: 7145
Dear Mr. Matthews & Ms. Karoly:
On January 21, 2009, we submitted an individual permit application for the subject project to
your respective agency. We received NC Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) request for
more information on the subject project dated January 23, 2009. The US Army Corps of
Engineers issued a Public Notice for the project on January 28, 2009, which expired February 27,
2009.
Mr. Matthews and Mr. Martin Richmond of NCDWQ's Raleigh Regional Office conducted a
field review of the project on February 10, 2009. Upon evaluating UT1, Mr. Matthews and Mr.
Richmond changed the intermittent determination to perennial.
The attached PCN application and related impact maps have been revised to include the
following changes.
1. UT 1 has been changed to a perennial stream.
2. The quantities on the stream impact table were revised to reflect road grade adjustments
made that reduced the impact of S2 and S3 by a total of 61 linear feet.

Mr. Matthews & Ms. Karoly
March 12, 2009
Page 2 of 2
3. Additional minimization measures were provided including a letter from the project
engineer regarding roadway and culvert design decisions.
4. The mitigation proposal was revised to include the additional perennial stream impact
from UT1 (Impact S2). NCEEP's revised mitigation acceptance letter is attached to the
PCN.
5. An inventory of impervious surface area anticipated for the project upon build out
provided by the project engineer has been attached to the PCN.
6. Updated information regarding endangered species and cultural resources has also been
added to the PCN including the associated correspondence.
The following avoidance and minimization efforts were employed to reduce impacts to surface
waters and wetlands from the proposed project.
1. Surface waters and wetlands were delineated during preliminary project planning.
2. The project engineer adjusted the site plan to avoid stream channel and wetland impacts
where possible.
3. The project engineer designed the roadway to cross unavoidable stream channels
perpendicularly.
4. Headwalls, road grade adjustments, and rip rap stilling basins were used to reduce the
linear footage of stream impact required for each crossing.
To mitigate a total of 364 linear feet of perennial stream channel impacts, the developer proposes
to pay NCEEP for 364 linear feet of stream restoration and preserve a total of 1073 linear feet of
stream channels and buffers within the project beyond those already required by Chatham
County.
Five copies of this letter and information are being provided to NCDWQ along with a check for
$570 for the application fee requested in their January 23, 2009 letter. Two copies and a CD of
full-sized plans and l Ix 17 insets are also being provided to NCDWQ to meet their review
requirements. Please do not hesitate to give me if you have any questions about the information
provided.
Sincerely,
Burdette Land Consulting, Inc.
Jennif A. Burdette
Environmental Specialist
c: Brantley Powell - HBP Properties, LLC
Trenton Stewart - Arcadia Consulting Engineers
\o??F W?A{7(F
1 1 >_i?
I
MP
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no. C.Jr' • I a48 6 V
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: PCN'(revised ,3/12/09) provided for Individual Permit information purposes.
or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? 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
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes 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. M Yes El 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: Legend Oaks Subdivision Phase III
2b. County: Chatham
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Chapel Hill
2d. Subdivision name: Legend Oaks
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: NA
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: HBP Properties, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. DB 1335 PG 0584, DB 0704 PG 0043, DB 1343 PG 0488, DB 1343 0486
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): H. Brantley Powell
3d. Street address: P O Box 5365
3e. City, state, zip: Cary, NC 27512
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
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:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Jennifer A. Burdette
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Burdette Land Consulting, Inc.
5c. Street address: 10212 Creedmoor Road
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27615
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 9776-81-6330, 9776-91-1855, 9786-01-2381, & 9786-00-
2777
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.8421795 Longitude: - 79.0720692
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 108 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Cub Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV; NSW
2c. River basin: Cape Fear
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 currently forested with the existing Legend Oaks and Lystra Estates residential subdivisions to the west and
south, respectively. Adjacent properties to the north and east are also forested. Please refer to the Vicinity Map provided
as Figure 1 and the USGS Location Map provided as Figure 2. A soil surrey map for the site is provided as Figure 3.
Figure 4 provides a key for the adjacent property owner names and addressed that are also attached.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
>1 acre
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
6,000
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to expand the existing Legend Oaks Subdivision using the subject property to create
approximately 57 additional single family building lots.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project consists of extending Legend Oaks Drive to the east across the subject property crossing Cub Creek and an
unnamed tributary to Cub Creek (UT1). The project also includes a connector road to the north, which must cross
another unnamed tributary to Cub Creek (UT2) to access high ground, and four short connector and cul-de-sac roads.
The site plan has three points at which the roadway stubs to the property line for future connectivity. Each of these stubs
have been placed on high ground and aligned to avoid future impacts to stream channels. The attached figures 5, 6, and
7A-D, Insets A-D, and Cross-sections 1-3 show the overall site and details of each impact.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Project Information and Prior Project History
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: Jurisdictional determinations were completed by Yes ? No ? Unknown
the USACE for the property currently occupied by Legend
Oaks Phase I and II. A field verification of the jurisdictional
wetlands and stream determinations for Phase III were
completed on February 10,2009.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ¦ Preliminary N Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Burdette Land Consulting,
Name (if known): Todd Tugwell - Phase I and II (Final) Inc. (BLC) - Phase III
Monte Matthews - Phase III (Preliminary) Other: S&EC, PA - Phase I and II
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
BLC delineated the surface waters and wetlands on the property planned for Phase III on June 8, 2007. Wetland data
forms, USACE Stream Quality Worksheets, and a NCDWQ Stream Identification Form are attached to support the
delineation and determinations. Monte Matthews of the USACE and Martin Richmond of NCDWQ field verified the
delineation and determinations of Phase III and changed the intermittent determination of UT1 to perennial. Written
documentation of this meeting has not been received.
5. 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.
Two permits were previously issued for Legend Oaks Phase I and II. One permit (Action ID # 200520721) was issued for
a temporary road crossing on March 18, 2005 to evaluate the site. A Nationwide Permit 39 was then issued for
construction of the roads and driveways for the first two phases of the subdivision on November 22, 2005 (Action ID #
200620111). This permit was later modified to include additional intermittent stream channel impacts in 2006 under the
same Action ID number. This permit modification included the following permanent impacts: 149 LF of perennial stream,
202 LF of intermittent stream, and 0.006 acre of wetlands. A 401 WQC was issued for these impacts on February 17,
2006 (DWQ Project #05-1986).
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? E Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
This is the final phase of the Legend Oaks subdivision. No additional permits are anticipated.
Page 4 of 12
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
N Wetlands 0 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 impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 M P? T fill seep ElYes
El
No El Corps
?DWQ 0.006
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes [I Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 [I P ? T El Yes E] Corps
? No ?DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.006
2h. Comments:
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 impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or (PER) or
intermittent (Corps - 404, 10 stream length

Temporary (T)
(INT)? DWQ - non-404,
other) width
(feet) (linear
feet)
S1 M P ? T culvert/riprap Cub Creek PER
? INT Corps
? DWQ 25 143
S2 M P ? T culvert/riprap UT1 to Cub Ck M PER,
? INT 0 Corps
? DWQ 4 125
S3 N P ? T culvert/riprap UT2 to Cub Ck N PER
? INT 01 Corps
? DWQ
4
96
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ

S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ

S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ

3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 364
3i. Comments: Impact S2 was changed from intermittent to perennial per aforementioned field meeting with agency
personnel.
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 individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ? P?T
03 ? P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DW(G)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary (T) required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B3 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
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.
The applicant requested a delineation of surface waters and wetlands prior to preliminary plan development to avoid
impacts to jurisdictional areas to the maximum extent practicable. Specifically, the project engineer, Trenton Stewart, PE,
adjusted the road alignment to avoid impacting wetlands and an unnamed tributary to UT1. Due to the dissected
topography of the site, three stream crossings are unavoidable to access areas of high ground on the property. Please
refer to the attached letter by Trenton Stewart, PE explaining why using a bridge to cross Cub Creek is not feasible.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All proposed road crossings have been designed perpendicular to the stream channel with 5-foot-high headwalls to
reduce the impact to the channel. Road grades were also adjusted to further reduce the linear footage of stream channel
impacted by approximately 61 linear feet. Mr. Stewart's letter also contains additional justification of the road and culvert
design and other efforts taken to minimize stream channel impacts such as using a rip rap stilling basin rather than
standard velocity reduction design and implementation of a special construction sequence to minimize exposed areas.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for Yes ? No
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 Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
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: 364 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: The applicant proposes to pay 2:1 mitigation for impacts to perennial stream channels with more than minimal
aquatic function. Of the 728 linear feet of stream channel mitigation required, 364 would be satisfied through payment to NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The remaining 364 linear feet of mitigation required would be satisfied through on-site
preservation.
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
In addition to the riparian buffers required by Chatham's previous buffer rules, to which this project is subject, the
applicant proposes to preserve 574 linear feet of stream channel with a 50-foot wide riparian buffer, 102 linear feet with a
100 foot buffer on one side of the channel, and 397 linear feet with an additional 50 foot wide buffer for a total of 1073
linear feet to be preservation providing a preservation ratio of 2.9. It is important to note that the proposed preservation
area is located within open space and not within individual lots.
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 ? Yes ? No
buffer 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 1.5
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).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. 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.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 11.7%
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 attached estimated inventory of
impervious surface area has been prepared by the project engineer showing a total percent impervious surface area upon
build out to be approximately 11.7%.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? 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? Chatham County
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? 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):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
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
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 ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26 .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 (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 infrastructure serves only the proposed residential development. Therefore, the project is not anticipated
to result in additional 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.
Individual septic systems approved by Chatham County Health Department will be used to dispose of wastewater
generated from 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?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
®
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
BLC checked the NC Natural Heritage Program Workroom Database for records of element occurences on or near the
site. We also understand from a telephone conversation with Monte Matthews that the USFWS responded by letter to the
public notice that the project would not impact Endangered Species or Critical Habitat.
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?
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/efh_coral/ims/viewer.htm
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?
Ms.Renee Gledhill-Earley of the NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office responded to
the public notice of the project that their office is not aware of historic resources which would be affected by the project.
See the letter attached. One cemetery (Riggsbee) is present on the property and will be preserved with proper access at
the corner of Legend Oaks Drive and Street E.Chatham County GIS shows the Durham-Edwards cemetery located on
site. The project engineer and members of the Chatham County Historical Association have not been able to locate this
cemetery. Two sections of rock wall on lot 23 were located by the project surveyors. Mr. Paul Webb of TRC was
retained to determine if the walls could be associated with the cemetery. Mr. Webb concluded in the attached report that
the walls were retaining walls and are not associated with the cemetery. Mr. Webb did not observe evidence of the
Durham-Edwards cemetery during his field investigation, but stated that it is possible that it is located on the site. Should
the cemetery be found, it will be preserved with proper access as required by NC State Statutes.
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? Sketch Design provided to Chatham County
Jennifer A. Burdette 3/12/09
Applicant/ g nt's rinted Name Appli gent s Signature
' Date
(Agent
s signature is vali my i orization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 11 of 12
ORANGE COUNT(
PROPOSE
OAKS P
EXISTING LEGEND
1 11 --PHASE I & II

s
GRAPHIC SCALE USGS LOCATION MAP N
1 = 2000' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
2000' 0 2000'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
???•N???' DATE: 03/10/09 USGS 7.5' TOPO QUAD:
FARRINGTON
w EBURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 CHK'D BY: JAB
Telephone [phone]- Fax [phone]
S PROJECT #: 7145 FIGURE #: 2
40
v
WeB
u WeD
N
WeD
WeE
WeE
WeD
WeC
PROPERTY BOON
3
4
WeC
WeD
i
WeC
GRAPHIC SCALE CHATHAM COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP N
1" = 2000"
2000' 0 2000' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
-? HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
'•N??' DATE: 03/10/09 SHEET(S): CHAT GIS
W E ?I BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
I%+ Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 FIGURE #: 3
S

J`' .4O?

GRAPHIC SCALE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS N
1"=1000' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
1000' 0 1000'
--L-
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
'?•N???' DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: I"=1000'
W E'I BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'DBY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT M 7145 FIGURE M 4
S
Cl)
co)
\\
z 3: \ w
m LAG"
C o
?? \ J
m .y \ I
117'
L /\ \?
,1FJ.)

1
cl,
t
Ko
.
c7i
l??] \
vi c Ik ! l
Z ' iV\
A
0
0
m o 0
N J
o n
m
y o
N N M? o
rr CD
0
C
0
?
wa
.A
`°
1
0
z
0
C) r
?0
U x ?
x o?
17 ? >
nom
yid
d d ?1_?
C) H
?c o ? y d
cn
z
c?
CD
Z
Id 4-
*WD
12.
/ , ,0 ?
EA"
............ P)'
LW UK BANK
W '
kv?
t ??A7-'--
17
.. / ;' X
{
:.
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
1 ° = 200' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
200' 0 200'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
....N.,.' DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: V=200'
w E ; BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 FIGURE #: 7A
S

r
_ _
!=j TREAM 1 ??\\\ III I
1
I
(CUB?R K?
i5? ` ` Ohl 1 ?' I I I I I
I
/

?`AJR FROA
_
OBANK

_ _

I} /
/ U17
1I 11. /
I
/
-:.
5 / /IM ACT
v
V"
m I It 1 \.\y.
\ m 1 ice's
' /
nom,.
m
F / = s. F t \ IC 4. I I r1 4

•Yf ICS :., \ I \ 1\ tl ? ? \-?/ iM ( I I / I 46 16?
/

/
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 200' SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N

200' 0 200' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC

' DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: V=200'
! BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC.
r w E DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh
North Carolina 27615
,
Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone]
S PROJECT M 7145 FIGURE #: 713
1 1? 111 I/ / ? ?\ 111 \
A"O
7 7- t-
k ( \?
I. , I I I ?::?::?.: :.. III ?• ? , ? _______
,
1 ?.. ?.
40
/ ?} I I (4 1 ?jl 1 e
Liu
LE ? I w?? ? F
E
1.
(48 45-
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
1" = 200' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
200' 0 200'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
'?•NDATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: 1"=200'
'w? E-? BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 FIGURE #: 7C
.S?
'`, TE PO RY PAVED
A, - - _ I - ?
F
41
rN(
_...
£\
L
48- 1 j a $$
31
/ .
/ i
37
1 t
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
1 ° = 200' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
200' 0 200'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
....N... DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: F'= 200'
w E BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY T1v1B cl1TC'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
. S. Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 FIGURE #: 71)

/," f
f. /

I

i?
XA,
/ OPEC 8TKE M-C
/ SPACE/ PNG?P ?..,
/ /
/ f
STREAM-A-'
(CUB PREEK)?
- - -,,?- - -?
'IX
/ i /f l i? ? /' / / / / ??X?O X?- . )
ST'REAM CHANNEL-P?
(CUB PREEK)
/143 LF
5/,60 SQFTi
/ R0Ap--bESi6wAN"b I ?A9 INFO ANON DE b
ARCADIA 6ONSULJING ,ECINEERS,/PLLC/
y 55 _
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
V = 50' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
50' 0 50'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
'•N?' DATE: 03/10/09 FCHK'D 50'
W E BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB Y: JAB
10 212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
• S• Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 INSET: A
I

---'-? -435 - 4eo.o0vc

\

1.
$.
F
g - -

a

?
Y

d 1 EL-3
iM El-303..000
N+20.10

.'?

i

I
-- ------ --------
430 ----- -------- -------- - ----

----------

----------

----------

----------
-
---------
---------

v
,

,?..
;
11w-

---------
--------
-----4?r,
-------IX
CUfrmNE ROAD
---
i'
:- ,
---------- ---------- ------ 440 ------ ---------- ---------- --------- -------- ------- ---- -- - ------ ----- ?/- - ---- --------- -------
---------- ---------- ------ 445 -----vt-- --' - - ----------- -------- - --- ?-L ---------- ----------
--- -
--- ----
<
, 7 U
u

e x x
m m

-
--------
------440-
-----
---

----

------ .

---------

---------

-
N
465- ------- ----- --- ---- ----- ---- U U
~
,?,1 o o
o
. ---
10
+ m..
,
i
-------- ---------- ------

--------
-

-

---------
- -------- -395,
----- \ 1
`? RO DDE SIGN A AND I PACT
;r INF ORMA TION P ROVI DED
?--------- --------- ------390- ---------- ---------- ------ ----- -? ? ---:
\ ? ._ --:°i - ---`--

-

----BY-

RCA

- IA-C

NSt1L

-INO--

-----
EN GINEE RS, P L_C
--------- --- -------- ----385 ------ --------- ---------- ----------- --

, r

1

--------

- ------- -

-----380 ---------- ----------- ---------- -------- -
i
--

--------
--------- ----------
-
-----------
----------
----------
------------- t .t a
-al-------
-
ol? min ? -- ------- -----
T z
-5 -5
o
o
S
0 SCA E:- H R
111 100'
--------- --------- -----37©- --- - -
- ?
-- -
? --- .
--- - - ------ - --- -
--- --
-- = -- --
---- ---
- -------- ---------- ---V -T.--1' =:-10'-- ----
__ ...----- -------- ------- --------- - ----._.--- --------- ----`----- ----- ---_ ..----- .. _._- _--------- --------- -- ----'-- . ..___..
-1--- I--------?------360 --------1-------- --------- 1-------- I---------- ? ------ ---------- I --------I--------1-------' ------------------_.
+00 47+50 48+00 48+50 49+00 49+50 50+00 50+50 51+00 51+50 52+00 52+50 53+00 53+50 54+00 54+50
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
1"=100' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
100' 0 100'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC __L I -"v
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: AS SHOWN
W E; BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'DBY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
S Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 CROSSECTION:
IMPACT # S 1

/ / I yr I ITRI A -B ! ; J
r / 11 I I u 1 J /
l
00
In -6 I 7 I i V ? I I I l / ? ? ,
f
15.53 \ ' 1 IIMP T#2/
/ s, I I I I \' 10 I ST AMC A
S p VE / * ,H NNELrB4
/ v I I I i. \ 125 F
0 509 SQFY \ \
X00 s+? -? ? ®
65+50
00 00'-
X,
LIMIT OF
F\ /? l// J I I / ? ? o0
\I DISTU BANC
6g+
\ I I I I f
J`
I
46
A 4ESIPN;AN IMFO IN 014MATIQN PROVIDE' J " .
I APIA CQNSu !TIN/G N ERS,,PCLC - - `3`` \ I I I
4 ,480 SF
.04 AC/-
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
V =50' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
50' 0 50'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC __L
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
....N..._ DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: 1" = 50'
w E BIJ ETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
• S Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 INSET: B
._..:_---- -------- -----435- ------
-----------
-----
---- --------
??-- ----------- ---------- ---------- ------ 430
-------
---------
-------
---.- -----? -c---*:-- -------- -?------- ------425- ---------
? .,1 140
0
- ---------- ----------- ------ 420- ---------- -------- - ------ --- --- --.. . --------- --------- ------ --- -------- _ - .
M@9A.
100. )UVC

403.01
NFl 1147
PA FTA- 0+00.00 8 N
.. o Pvl E1
K-1 400.50
3,62
--- --
-- -----
-----445
---------

__
_

t__

-
G
3N.D0VC
VA-67+45 6
.
FM a-W o0 8
-. --- '?,-- i. -- .. --1--- --- 440 d---'? - --° -K.4I13D..__ _--- ' ----- - ---- -------

EX CENTE31 UNE OF ROAD
G
25' FROM cpm

---
-------
--------

--- -,__

- -°--?

-----405. --------- ---------- --- -- --- -------- ----------
.
-----
i

?

---- - ------- ---- -------- -
\ =4e0

---

----------

----------
i

?
? I
--
-?- ---------- -----
i

---390
-- .n

--------

---------- 1
--- -? \
-

----------- ------ 865.- --_-
?

--
EAD -
I
- E5 -
- AN
--I M PA
- T 360-
----------
-------- V
FOR ATIO PR VIDE r

Y AR ADIA CONS LTIN
--- -------
NGIPJ -- ---------
ERS, ----------
PLLC ----------- ------ 375- -------- ------- - 't? - 4T -- -------- ---------- --------- '----° -

----- --------- -------- ---- ---- --------- ------370- -------- - ------' -- ---- --_.
/ER . 111= 0'
--365- --
------
-------
----

M M

---- -
----._.-
----- ----------
------
---
--------
-----360-x
-------- 0

---------
63+ 50
64+ 00 64+ 50 65+ 00 65+ 50 66+ 00 66+ 50 67+ 00 67+ 50 68+ 00 68+ 50 69+ 00 69+ 50 70+ 00 70+ 50 71+
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
1"=100' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
100, 0 100,
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC _7?
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
....N.... DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: AS SHOWN
w E? BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
+ : I
S Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 CROSSECTION:
IMPACT # S2
-RQAb DESIGN AND IMPACT-fNFORMATION PROVIDE :. BY
I ,I I I 1 `? ?; - \. - - Aft&Am-C4NSULTJ.NC ENGINEERS; PLLC '
\ T %AM
I I
I
51,699 St I``y
1 X19 ACS / ,<<
b,/ ?P, e
x o \ `?? ®- - -IMP CT S
= STREAM HANNEL- C
96 LF /
384 SQ l
STREAM/-A
C-IJB-tREEK
OPE?
48
J *0
1)L
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
V = 50' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
50' 0 50'
1 1 --L
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
.•N,.DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: 1" = 50'
w E'; BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'D BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
. S• Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 INSET: C
I

?
C)
n
N
ya N
la]
w II Profile View of STREET A
440 °
J
U' W
435 ---------7-
--
--- --
- --
--------
------
----- -- -
----------
----
480. OMC
PJI ST 4+50.D0
N PM EL 394.50
R-2 1.52
430 ---- ----- ------ ?__-?- ?------ -------- -----_-- _-- ---- ---

425 --------------------- ----- ---- -- -------- ------ --- -------. -------- Et-EEf€ftd1
-_- OF-fICAJ---
--- -------- ------°---- ---------- ----
\ \

" \
420 ------------- ?
---
....
...........
...... ____
.y

415 -- -- -- - -- ----
--
----------
-----

410 -
_
C-
-------
U

----

----------

-------
---

-

405 ------------------'- --------- -------A
--Z---
--- -1-
------
- ------
--------
----------
- -------
----------
-----
c)

6
-

. -
` + '
ROAD DESI N AN IMPAC ?.' . ` - - ----- __
400 --------------------
I INFORMAT ---------
N PR C --------
VIDED -- .
-- ------
- - ------ -------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -----
BY ARCADI CONS LTING
ENGINEER , PLLC
395 ------------ ----- --------- ----- i
SCAL : OR. "=100'

- Go
OO
m E RT 1"=10'
390 ------------ -
--- ---------- ---- --- - ------- ri+
0) .i------- --
()) ------------ ----- ----- ---------- ----------- .
--------
i z
_ S
? O
385 - ------------------- j -------- --------
0+ 50 1+00 1+ 50 2+ 00 2+ 50 3+ 00 3+ 50 4+ 00 4+ 50 5+ 00 5+5 0 6+ 00 6+ 50
GRAPHIC SCALE
V = 100'
' SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP
LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III N
100
0 100'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
.,..N....
B
'
? DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: AS SHOWN
W E
;
U"ETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWN BY: TMB CHK'DBY: JAB
I
10212 Creedmoor Road - Ralei
h
North Car
li
27615
g
,
o
na
Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone]
S PROJECT #: 7145 CROSSECTION:
IMPACT # S3
\ \ \ ROAb PESIG ND III AQT INFORMATION ROV
\
25 ?RCA?IaA CON ING ENGINEtRS, PLL
X66,752 SF'?
?\ ?1?53 AC \
R
011
LIMN OF

6q_9 ? 6

/ I
/ I
_41?
46 E
I 4 480 SF
I ?104 ACS

fi/
/s ZC6T1'mPjAk ,Y
#1I V
I WLAN N
1 273 S'Q 0.006 je
/
I
I °`1 I 1 44 /
I 146,184 F
1.06 A /
i
/ 40,044 SF/
0.92 AC/
/mot
GRAPHIC SCALE SURFACE WATER & WETLAND IMPACT MAP N
1" = 50' LEGEND OAKS SUBDIVISION PHASE III
50' 0 50'
HPB PROPERTIES, LLC
CHAPEL HILL, CHATHAM COUNTY, NC
"N?•?. DATE: 03/10/09 SCALE: 1" - 50'
w E BURDETTE LAND CONSULTING, INC. DRAWNBY: TMB CFR,, BY: JAB
10212 Creedmoor Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Telephone [phone]-Fax [phone] PROJECT #: 7145 INSET: D
S

co)
z :
\ ? \
.160
m I, /
i0-
y \ 1'
b? ? \ 1 I
p r I II???JJJ . ,
e w
?
b d d ? o ? a v' ? y -
n r O O ?::? orzz
° Lj ?.
z
? t7 m
?c
O
00

\e
-7 77
1
1
- I \,\V

/? I l 11 + ?? /

Email: info(aarcadiaengineers.com
tG,
March 2, 2009
Burdette Land Consulting, Inc.
Attn: Jennifer Burdette
10212 Creedmoor Road
Raleigh NC 27615
Reference: Legend Oaks Phase III
Design considerations to minimize stream impacts
Dear Jennifer:
The following design decisions were considered in the design of the proposed culverts to minimize the stream
impacts for the referenced project.
A bridge crossing for Cub Creek was initially investigated and was subsequently changed to the proposed box
culvert's as submitted after meeting with Mr. Justin Bullock, Assistant District Engineer at the NCDOT District
Office in Asheboro, NC. During this meeting, Mr. Bullock informed me that a bridge could be allowed but the
minimum road design would be required for a bridge to be approved, but their preference would be box culverts for
maintenance considerations. Because of the close proximity of the existing Legend Oaks Drive in phase 2 to Cub
Creek, the steepness of the existing cross slope and that the box culverts are sufficient for the design flows, the
bridge was removed from consideration.
Also during this meeting I was told that we would not be allowed to design oversized culverts or use retaining walls
as headwalls to minimize impacts, all construction shall be per NCDOT standard specifications and details for the
culvert and headwalls. A rip rap stilling basin was designed for the box culvert outlet to minimize the length of
stream impacts for velocity reduction. The stilling basin has a much shorter length to reduce the outlet velocity to
non erosive flow rates than standard velocity reduction design used for smaller watersheds.
The location of Cub Creek crossing was determined by the close proximity of Cub Creek to the property line and
existing Legend Oaks Drive. Street "A" connection was chosen so that the tributary impacts would not extend to
Cub Creek so that the confluence of the tributary and Cub Creek would remain undisturbed.
There are no FEMA mapped flood areas on the site. A special construction sequence will be incorporated into the
plan such that the disturbed area near all stream crossings shall be immediately stabilized and slope drains installed
so that the exposed areas are minimized during construction.
Please let me know if you need any additional information in reference to the design considerations used in the
design of the proposed culverts for the stream crossings.
Sincerely,
Trenton D. Stewart, PE
Arcadia Consulting Engineers, PLLC
PO Box 2077, Apex, NC 27539 Telephone [phone] Facsimile 919 363-1477
Y
L °e milt
PROGRAM
February 26, 2009
Brantley Powell
HBP Properties, LLC
P.O. Box 5365
Cary, NC 27512
Expiration of Acceptance: November 26, 2009
Project: Legend Oaks Phase III
County: Chatham
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved You must also cQmply with all other state federal or local
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
Impact
Credits
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Cape Fear 03030002 0 0 425 0 0 0 0 0
Cape Fear 03030002 0 0 850 0 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at [phone].
Sincerely,
William %, Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Monte Matthews, USACE-Raleigh
Erick Kulz, NCDWQ-Raleigh
Jennifer Burdette, agent
File
RmtDYl,;,?J... 'EKkA"... Prot" our .Efate
FCDFE R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 /www.nceep.net
Email: infoCcDarcadiaenclineers.com

Legend Oaks Phase III Subdivision Site Data Information
March 2, 2009
Total Site Area Phase III: 99.23 Acres
Total Proposed Public Right-of-way Area: 7.93 Acres
Total Proposed Buffer/Open Space Area: 25.09 Acres
Total Lot Area: 66.21 Acres
Average Lot Area: 1.20 Acres
Total Proposed Impervious Area (Public Streets): 3.42 Acres
Average Proposed Impervious Area (55 Lots): 8.21 Acres
House and Deck: 4,400 sf
Driveway: 1,500 sf
Turnaround Pads: 400 sf
Sidewalk: 200 sf
Average Lot Impervious Area: 0.15 Acres
Average Percent Lot Impervious Area: 12.43%
Total Proposed Site Impervious Area: 11.63 Acres
Total Percent Impervious Area (Build Out) 11.72%
PO Box 2077, Apex, NC 27539 Telephone [phone] Facsimile 919 363-1477
„e. STATE cy
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
.Jeffrey). Crow, Deputy Secretary
February 19, 2009
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Office of Archives and 1 listory
Division of I listorical RCSOUrccs
David Brook, Director
Jennifer Burdette
Burdette Land Consulting, Inc.
10212 Creedmoor Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Legend Oaks Phase III, Chapel Hill, Chatham County, ER 09-0165
Dear Ms. Burdette:
We have received the public notice from the US Army Corps of Engineers concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
-
L,
ter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC: 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service (:enter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
? ws
50101 Governor's Drive
Suite 250
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
919,530.8446 PHONE
919.530.525 Fax
www. t RCsoltitions,(:oni
March 3, 2009
Mr. H. Brantley Powell
HPB Properties, LLC
PO Box 5365
Cary, North Carolina 27512
Subject: Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of Legend Oaks Phase III, Chatham County, North
Carolina
Dear Mr. Powell:
TRC has completed a cultural resources held reconnaissance of the proposed Legend Oaks Phase III
development in Chatham County, North Carolina. As discussed in our February 19 proposal, the
reconnaissance was intended to examine two rock walls that could represent a potential cemetery location
(the reported Durham-Edwards cemetery) and to assess the likely origin and potential significance of rock
piles that are present on the tract. The reconnaissance was carried out by Paul Webb on February 26,
2008. In addition to examining the stone walls and selected rock piles on the tract, the survey also
examined the previously documented Riggsbee Cemetery and a former house location. The results of the
reconnaissance are presented by topic below.
THE DURHAM-EDWARDS CEMETERY
The Durham-Edwards cemetery is reportedly situated somewhere in the general project area. The
cemetery was identified by Hugh Oldham (now deceased) in 1989, and reportedly contains at least five
marked graves, including that of Hugh Edwards, for which nearby Edwards Mountain was named
(http://cemeterycensus.com/nc/chat/ceinO99.litm). Although one of the two map locations provided for
this cemetery on the Chatham County GIS site is situated within the Legend Oaks Phase III property, the
cemetery has not been located by current members of the Chatham County Historical Association and its
exact location and condition are unknown (Jane Pyle, personal communication 2009).
During the land survey of Legend Oaks Phase III, two stone walls were identified and mapped near one of
the potential Durham-Edwards Cemetery locations, on the west side of a small tributary of Cub Creek in
the south-central part of the property. Although the configuration of these walls suggested that it was
unlikely that they were associated with a cemetery, given their location it was decided that a field visit
was warranted.
The reconnaissance demonstrated that the snapped walls are two of at least four roughly parallel rock
walls situated on a 10 to 20 degree side slope on the west side of a small tributary of Cub Creek (Figures
I and 2). The fieldstone walls are low and largely obscured by vegetation, but each appears to extend 50
to 100 feet or more along the side slope. The location and orientation of these walls indicates that they are
not associated with a cemetery, but rather represent retaining walls designed to restrict downslope soil
movement. Their age cannot be determined, but they were likely constructed during the 19"' to early 20"'
centuries, in association with the occupation of a nearby farmstead (see below).
It is possible that the Durham-Edwards Cemetery is located elsewhere on the Legend Oaks property, but
no evidence of the cemetery was observed during the reconnaissance. If the cemetery is present, it is most
likely on a level upland landform, such as a ridge or knoll. Any graves would likely be marked with
fieldstone markers, similar to some of those present at the Riggsbee Cemetery.
THE RIGGSBEE CEMETERY
The Riggsbee Cemetery was recorded during the land survey for Legend Oaks, and was later visited by
Chatham County Historical Association members (http://cemeteEyeensus.conVnc/chat/cem555.htm). As
shown on the development maps (Figure 6 of the COE permit application), the cemetery is situated in the
southeastern part of the tract. The cemetery contains four inscribed tombstones (dating from 1896 to
1919) (Figure 3) and numerous fieldstone markers (Figure 4); during a March 2008 visit CCHA members
identified at least 79 probable interments.
The Riggsbee Cemetery was visited during the field reconnaissance. Although no attempt was made to
map this cemetery, it appears that all marked graves are situated within the fieldstone wall, and that this
wall has been accurately mapped on the Legend Oaks development map. As long as the wall and
cemetery are not disturbed, the presence of the cemetery will not affect development of the surrounding
area.
Like other cemeteries, the Riggsbee Cemetery is protected by North Carolina State Statutes, including
those codified at North Carolina General Statutes 14-148 (Defacing or desecrating grave sites) and 14-149
(Desecrating, plowing over or covering up graves; desecrating human remains) (http://www.neleg.net/
EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_14.html). In addition, General Statutes 65-101
and 65-102 outline the provisions for visitation of cemeteries located on private property, and GS 65-106
covers the removal of graves (http•//www neleg net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/
Chapter_65.html).
ROCK PILES
The field reconnaissance also included inspection of some of the many rock piles situated on the Legend
Oaks property. The observed piles vary considerably in size and shape, from low dispersed piles
measuring several meters across to more tightly constructed but smaller piles. The piles were scattered
across much of the property, and all observed piles appear to consist of unmodified fieldstones. Most of
the piles were situated on sloping ground, downslope from the more level landforms (Figure 5), and some
were observed immediately adjacent to Cub Creek (Figure 6). One pile appears to be a collapsed
chimney, and is discussed separately below.
Rock piles are a common feature of the Piedmont North Carolina landscape, and have been observed
across much if not all of the Southeastern US. They have been the focus of considerable discussion, and
have been variously attributed to prehistoric and historic American Indians, Euro-American and African-
American settlers and farmers, and more mysterious sources (Gresham 1980).
Some rock piles in the Southeast are clearly of American Indian origin, including some prehistoric rock
and rock and earth mounds that have been excavated in Georgia (e.g., Jefferies 1976; Jefferies and Fish
1978), and others that appear to represent historic period American Indian constructions, such as those
observed in the 19"' century along the Pile Ridge Trail in Graham County, North Carolina (Riggs
1997:18). Most rock piles are believed to be of more prosaic origin, however, and are considered to be
associated with historic period land clearing for agriculture and, sometimes, the stockpiling of rock for
later removal. Although there has been so systematic investigation of rock piles in the North Carolina
Piedmont, those that have been examined are believed to be historic in origin (e.g., Carnes -M cN aughton
2006; Lilly et al. 1995:44-46).
With the exception of the collapsed chimney and associated structural remnants, the rock piles on the
Legend Oaks property are almost certainly the byproduct of land clearing, probably in the late 18'x' to
early 20`x' century. The piles thus represent rocks that were removed from fields, and likely transported to
by wagon or sledge to field edges for disposal. This conclusion is based on several factors, including the
general location of the piles on slopes at the edge of presumed former fields; the apparent random nature
of their distribution, and the fact that there is currently no evidence of pre-historic or historic period
American Indian rock constructions in the Carolina Piedmont.
HOUSE SITE AND ROAD TRACE
During the reconnaissance, a road trace and former house site were observed in the west-central part of
the property, on the west side of the tributary of Cub Creek. The road trace runs southwest-northeast
through the property (Figure 7), before fording Cub Creek and continuing to the northeast (Figure 8).
Immediately south of Cub Creek, a second road trace curves southeast, and continues uphill to a former
house site.
The house site is marked by a large rock pile, presumably representing a chimney fall (Figure 9), a short
wall segment (Figure 10), and a few apparent stone foundation piers. A few artifacts are scattered in the
vicinity, including galvanized washtubs and buckets; an intact early 20`x' century bottle embossed "King-
Crowell Drug Co. Raleigh" was recovered from the surface downslope to the west.
No systematic attempt has been made to research either the road trace or the house site, but some
information is available. According to Ms. Beverly Wiggins of the Chatham County Historical
Association, the road trace may represent an early route to Chapel Hill, although it had been replaced by a
route following present-day US 15-501 by at least the 1930s, if not substantially earlier. The house site
was apparently occupied into the 20'x' century, but was likely abandoned by the 1930s.
The potential significance of the road trace and house site cannot be determined based on the available
data. In the absence of local or state requirements for an intensive archaeological survey of the property
(Peter Sandbeck, letter of February 19, 2009), however, there is no requirement for additional
investigations or consideration of either resource in the development plans. Both are interesting landscape
features that could add to the appeal of the property, however, and their preservation and/or interpretation
are recommended if compatible with the development plans.
CONCLUSIONS
The cultural resources reconnaissance of the Legend Phase III development was intended to investigate
stone walls near the reported site of the Durham-Edwards Cemetery, and to examine some of the rock
piles or stone mounds present on the property. The results of the reconnaissance are as follows:
The mapped stone walls on the property west of the tributary stream are certainly retaining walls,
and are not associated with the cemetery.
No evidence of the Durham-Edwards cemetery was observed, although it is possible that it is
located on the tract.
The Riggsbee Cemetery has been surveyed and placed on the development plans. As long as the
stone wall and the cemetery are not disturbed, there is no reason development on the adjacent
areas cannot proceed.
• A former road trace and home site are located on the west central-part of the property. Although
there is no known legal requirement to preserve these resources, their preservation would likely
add historical interest to the proposed development.
I hope that this information is helpful, and responds adequately to potential questions concerning the
Legend Oaks property. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone], or via email at
pwebbAtresolutions.com, should you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
ck,
Paul A. Webb
Program Manager, Chapel Hill
REFERENCES
Carnes-McNaughton, Linda F.
2006 Field Inspection of Parcel No. 18756, Chatham County, North Carolina. On file, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh.
Gresham, Thomas H.
1990 Historic Patterns of Rock Piling and the Rock Pile Problems. Early Georgia 18:1-10.
Jefferies, Richard W.
1976 The Tunacunhee Site: Evidence of Hopewell Interaction in Northwest Georgia. Anthropological
Papers No. 1. University of Georgia, Athens.
Jefferies, Richard W., and Paul R. Fish
1978 Investigation of Two Stone Mound Localities, Monroe County, Georgia. Laboratory of Archaeology
Series. Report No. 17, University of Georgia, Athens.
Lilly, Thomas G., Joel D. Gunn, Matthew W. Jorgenson, and Kathy J. Wilson
1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Northern and Southern Sections of the Falls River Project,
Wake County, North Carolina. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Riggs, Brett
1998 Removal Period (1835-1838) Cultural Resources in the Proposed TIP Project A-9 Highway Corridor:
Historical and Physical Evidence. Manuscript on file, NCDOT.
rigure i. xetaimng wait, view to northwest.
--o -, -- ..v. U 1.

Figure 3. Riggsbee Cemetery, view to northeast.
Figure 4. Fieldstone markers at Riggsbee Cemetery.
`
i
�{1 .a^�
4 �'ey� .���-� ,'��,��.����W �'� y ate.
dp�y } ��
� w
.. S ..
y P> - .. _ n
. .. -
"e
_ '
- �
-
'
f
S
t�� ♦�
� � l w�. S.y5 .T �
r. � 4 ".
... �
�
� k �� � /
, � o.
,c _
���„
• s ,
dr
-.,�
,.�
t. �.:
.. .,.. .� .

ICA
X
! .a
l 1

41 U
F.
i
, ?.

4 `X r
c
??>
l
-
l '
,
Al
fi n s y x '- t? ? r x. w d r? .
41 t
l
ow,
t
} f E

Figure 7. Road trace, view to southwest.

Figure 9. Chimney fall, view to southwest.
ure IV. wait remnant near cnllnney tats, view to south.
o
v po?
v ?', y d- -= \I 4O
00
i U
vy i U Gn
?o?o
C?d o
a U
v I
C)
w`' 1 ` l 1 X ¢ ztW7
\. I
I ;`• I ??L I a v
00 Lf)
`A
v. vv H? PN?? ' \ \
e
00
a?
i \ O
\ o
. i `m i
A
i \ Z t
X z ?•
;dc
00 ??g
X z
Q L
LU -LL.
\ c
F- cr\
UQUU- (1) 1 1
- p\`QLL]mJO
c)-
- cn Lo O
cn CD
O)
DO W v
LL W U)c
\ \.,z z =M
-
H
t?
zf)
zw z
i v/ O
- U M
U)
w Q
o
Q U
?J Q
r
u
C? nQuU
CY)
U
i ,
i ?o, ,o -- -- -- - - z
_ r O „U
LLJ
Z ?. Cp -- - QQ
a
? W x
\?? Q ?23aU
a
Q?rJ(A Wz W
W
F- Lo a o O i U
(/? .? r tf) W U
_ ?0
F
06? _
uG
09
LO (0
-- - - - - v`? w o0
? o
F o
2
Gam- F ?
-CY
_ (D w
\ \
LL \
C, 6+ SO 110
r ?? ¢ a-
L?
o
O W
_ LU
CrY
Q
-f v) -
ul 0 y 0 Lo?
\I ..
?? -- Ow
?? LL
l/
2L
Y ?H
? o z W
t w m
2L
Oh ;1-
\ v CO`
00 ?N
U c z
S ti ? ?] rTi
0 U
Q0
100 > v A CA
/
E.0
Uo
z
0
?.. I
2
_ a LL?LLII
C\l LLJ WM?
rn
??l i /•1
j
'0 N i
Q
"
a
y.
_ --
0 w -- - U'
Z --
-
?.. J \
C7)
C/) Oo
0 .,
z
(9 Ln
Q
d-
(N
CO ,
m
CO CY)
a LU
..... _ r _`\ `.

A z
y

a.
<

0O w
--
zz
\(fl f l ,.. G. U

t 14
00 Qo

Z
Q p

..
- U
t?
c'<1 w `Q 3 C5
-
oQ UW

O
O

0
O
-
S ?zF-

Xz LL

v
U
X awM -

/
?
^Q V

'.
O

-C?ql

I4

N O

O
U rn
/ VC
I v
L,
TL

om
g j

11

?

Rgz ,
??

c cO
?l
a
rn

MM
+II
? ? ? ? ?

.• W •.

L) I?q
F- Ln
c
to
0