20090655 Ver 1_Application_20090605

P
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
June 2, 2009
NCDENR-DWQ
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
v1,41 r'jC
s,T'%R7?y
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.'N?y
SccRIT IARY
®9 ®?55
Subject: Extension of SR 1744 (District Drive) to SR 1775 (Reedy Creek Road) for
access to Statewide Transportation Operations Center and North Carolina
National Guard Armed Forces Reserve Joint Force Headquarters in
Raleigh, Wake County. WBS Element No. 41797.
Attention: Mr. Rob Ridings
NCDOT Coordinator
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to extend SR 1744
(District Drive) to SR 1775 (Reedy Creek Road) for access to Statewide Transportation
Operations Center and North Carolina National Guard Armed Forces Reserve Joint Force
Headquarters in Raleigh, Wake County. More specifically, the project involves
conversion of an existing gravel road (District Drive) to a paved, two-lane roadway (-Y-
line) and then construction of a new two-lane road on new location to Reedy Creek Road
(with a slight relocation of an existing two-lane paved roadway off Reedy Creek Road)
(-L- line). The roadway project is depicted on Figures 1-2 and the attached construction
plan sheets.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Construction of the roadway result in impacts to an untamed tributary to Richlands Creek
(DENR-DWQ Index No. 27-33-11, Best Usage Classification C NSW, HUC 03020201)
in the Neuse River Basin. See stream permit drawings 1-2.
Site I
Construction of the project at this site involves installation of rip rap to stabilize the tail
end of an existing ditch at Station 10+30 Lt -L-. This impact is summarized below:
-20 linear feet of permanent impact (streambank stabilization).
Site 2
Construction of the project at this site involves installation of rip rap to stabilize the tail
end of an existing ditch at Station 16+30 Lt -L-. This impact is Summarized below:
-20 linear feet of permanent impact (streambank stabilization).
Division Five- 2612 North Duke Sucet, Durham, Noith Carolina 27704
Telephone: [phone] Fix: 919-560-3371
`y 4Q?
Ov
`I
CIC3
v t
re ?
in
I AI
0
0
Joins sheet 38)
O ? t..
Oe cBC??
06C2. Ca B2 >•
?? BCz
M
i > g q AgC
Ag C2 /A91
2?) ^a5 A C
g/
R
? Fj? S { C6B2
?' Aa82 1? ? ?'P
CeB2 p Me?, 1e CeF r'.` Gael
Aaez G' End Project
Aec2 ? „
CeD_ CBC2/ /?. r r.
APB
CsB2.f '
Site 4 :ce
/ Ma eG?
C9C2
CeB2
CeD /GO OPD C.. f ` .S lie 3
?[ p AeB2
'4 ft ?
??cti -Y y'' Stte 2
y NCeez CeC2.:
W
CgB2 Site I
B q, r?
gBC2 A I
.AgC ' CIC3
x e ""-err'F4 f CeC2f e6
ecz ?. Begin Project v : E
CIC3
t
2 { - k C6B2 A:gB C
??`'t3-?T la A .. '

eq2!
} STATE
,
CIC3
t ''
APB
J"
CeB2

WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROL
4 1i..Yl:. \
C. .. ?? Ca82 \\TAgB2 -Li

' ctCz
4
e "? :VYL
Mal - Mer?,ePr
5.
r•
pr.
`.,
APC?
Cee2
Cnl `. I y'[ e.
Extension of District Drive to SR 1775 (Reedy
Creek Road) for access to STOC/NCNG
Wake County
Soil Survey of Wake County (1970, USDA-SCS)
Piguie 2 1:15840
\ IA\'
yG=
w scf
eCz" Ina
t
t a'L
Joins sheet 58)
2 1%.
Site 3
Construction of the project at this site involves installation of an 1 1' 10" x 7' 7" steel
pipe arch with endwalls and wingwalls at Station 23+50 -L-. Additionally, an armored
riffle-pool complex will be constructed in the flow line of the stream immediately
downstream of the structure. Impacts at this site are summarized below:
-104 linear feet of permanent impact (fill in surface waters) associated with the pipe arch.
-174 linear feet of permanent impact (streambank stabilization).
-60 linear feet of temporary impact (associated with temporary dewatering activities)
Riparian Buffer
Stornwater runoff at the project is conveyed through various special cut grass swales and
lateral grassed swales throughout the project. Information concerning these features is
depicted on Figures 1-2, buffer permit drawings 1-3 and construction plan sheets 4-5.
Site 1
An on-site evaluation by Mike Horan (NCDENR-DWQ) on August 21, 2006 indicated
that the ditch crossing at 10+30 Lt -L- is not subject to the riparian buffer rule (see
Appendix A in the attached PCN form). However, the unnamed tributary to Richlands
Creek located to the west of the roadway is subject to the riparian buffer rule. The
Department proposes to install Class I rip rap (for stabilization) in the existing unstable
ditch at the outlet of the 48 inch pipe structure. The size of the unstable ditch will not be
changed during construction. The rip rap will extend through the riparian buffer
associated with the unnamed tributary of Richlands Creek. This impact is described as
"Allowable" per email from Rob Ridings dated December 16, 2008. Construction
impacts at this site total 2,676 square feet in Zone 1 and 2,489 square feet in Zone 2.
Site 2
An on-site evaluation by Mike Horan (NCDENR-DWQ) on August 21, 2006 indicated
that the ditch crossing at 16+30 Lt -L- is not subject to the riparian buffer rule (see
Appendix A in the attached PCN form). However, the unnamed tributary to Richlands
Creek located to the west of the roadway is subject to the riparian buffer rule. The
Department proposes to install Class 1 rip rap (for stabilization) in the existing unstable
ditch at the outlet of the 48 inch pipe structure. The size of the unstable ditch will not be
changed during construction. The rip rap will extend through the riparian buffer
associated with the unnamed tributary of Richlands Creek. This impact is described as
"Allowable" per email from Rob Ridings dated December 16, 2008. Construction
impacts at this site total 2,995 square feet in Zone 1 and 2,002 square feet in Zone 2.
Site 3
An on-site evaluation by Mike Horan (NCDENR-DWQ) on August 21, 2006 indicated
that the crossing at 23+50 -L- is subject to the riparian buffer rule (see Appendix A in the
attached PCN form). The Department proposes to install an 11' 10" x 7' 7" steel pipe
arch with endwalls and wingwalls. This impact is described as "Allowable with
mitigation." Construction impacts at this site total 24,391 square feet in Zone 1 and
12,993 square feet in Zone 2.

PROTECT REFERENCE NO: 41797
EXTENSION OF SR 1774 (DISTRICT DR)
TO SR 1775 (REEDY CREEK RD)
WAKE COUNTY
BUFFER DRAWING SHEET
OF 3
BUFFER SITE 2
TINE EDSIING DITCH
SEE DETNL ESHEET 2
CIASS I NE PN 135 TONS
/s
BUFFER SITE /
IWE EOSTING DITCH -
SEE DETNI •I' EEi CIASS 1 PIP "4041;11
4?
NV ID039?
f /
/
f /
/
/
01 M1 / /??
SHE
EF?DEmmLGMEDi3/•'AIF 9? .1 4X
f ?f P 8= RB ft.
f f /, ? ?t6
- Qpg??I
/M DITCH_ 5;dg
/ SEE oETAIL'A• bb 655
390.15 t (SHEET 3N
/
/
1f
?\ \ I 1. - 395.0
L,!2 G
SPECIAL CUT GPASSED SWNE
SEE RAIL 'B' (SHEET iN
Fmummazz=
a /
G
/ C
SEEM WE DITCH
4 SEE DETAIL 'C' C' ISH
?SHEEI 3N
ClR DITCH
SEE DETNL'A' (SHEET IN
SMCIU C WE DITCH
SEE DETNL'D' ESHEEI 3N
NV U16T
EM NNMENT MCMCIION
SEE DETAIL 'E' ISHEET 2A)
Srtnu CN GPASSED SWNE
SEE DEINL 'B' SHEET 3N
e 6e 1
i?2q$I fDO?Bf
® ALLOWABLE WITH NO MITIGATION IMPACTS - ZONE l
® ALLOWABLE WITH NO MITIGATION IMPACTS - ZONE 2
SCALE 1N = 100'
100' 0 100' 200'

8
ARMORED uFFL6POOl COMH£Y
C s limp TAP
115 TONS

C C
i - - C -
? C C
C SFKM OW GMSSED SWNE
SEE DETNL •B' (SHEET ]IJ
03g
6
TB
= %311°.
PROTECT REFERENCE NO: 41797
EXTENSION OF SR 1774 (DISTRICT DR)
TO SR 1775 (REEDY CREEK RD) C
WAKE COUNTY
BUFFER DRAWING SKEET
(, OF 3

6WN STMIDUTON
6MS 1. All W 96 G88G1
W -
?f

120 TOMS .
ff.
V
6 o ga

NEC1N OUT G 110 SWME
SEE DUAL -W?SHM 2A)
C
C
E ?
C `
3 TONS, IN SY F.F.

BUFFER SITE 3
CLMS n mp w
90 TONS
STANDARD N' DITCH
SEE DETNL •H' JSHEET 3/J
PE OEM •9'I EETSZNE
c= .10 odc`„
?f?B ??f6 49 cfa
= h.IZ
® ALLOWABLE WITH MITIGATION IMPACTS - ZONE I
® ALLOWABLE WITH MITIGATION IMPACTS - ZONE 2
SCALE 1" = 100,

100, 0 100, 200'

PROTECT REFERENCE NO, 41797
EXTENSION OF SR 1774 (DISTRICT DR)
TO SR 1775 (REEDY CREEK RD)
WAKE COUNTY
p BUFFER DRAWING SHEET
3 OF 3
coW mn
SFECIR C WCH
SEE CUML T (SHEET ]N
? c
- \ ` ? c c -
T nA\
c -? c
A w1.U1 -
C
c --F
c c
BUFFER S/TE 4
\ \ E ^ E
13 V-
s ? .0
o
/
F / c /
\", • ram
IMP W ]6 TONS
?Ej '"MC. S0 V EXEMPT IMPACTS - ZONE 2
SCALE 1" = 100'
100' 0 100' 200'
Site 4
An on-site evaluation by Rob Ridings (NCDENR-DWQ) on February 21, 2008 indicated
that the crossing at 29+50 Rt -L- is subject to the riparian buffer rule (see Appendix B in
the attached PCN form). The Department proposes conduct grading and revegetation in
Zone 2 with no impacts to Zone 1. This impact is described as "Exempt." Construction
impacts at this site total 0 square feet in Zone 1 and 1,105 square feet in Zone 2.
Waters of the U.S. Mitigation and Buffer Mitigation
Avoidance:
Permanent impacts to the unnamed tributary to Richlands Creek cannot be avoided. The
location of the roadway crossing was chosen in an area of the stream that has degraded
over time due to off-site development. Further minimization has occurred in the design
phase of the Joint Forces Headquarters for the North Carolina National Guard.
Minimization:
Proposed rip rap at the inlet and outlet of the steel pipe arch at 23+50 -L- has been
reduced to the minimum amount necessary to provide long-term stability. Rip rap will
not be placed in the flow line of the stream above the steel pipe arch inlet. Construction
utilizes a 2:1 slope from Station 22+50 to 24+00 Rt and 22+00 to 24+00 Lt, which
decreases riparian buffer and stream impacts (including decreasing the length of the steel
pipe arch).
Compensatory Mitigation:
Impacts to Waters of the U.S. will be permitted under Section 404 Nationwide 14 (culvert
installation at Site 3) and 13 permits (rip rap on streambanks at Sites 1-3) with
notification not required to the USACE. These stream impacts will also be permitted
under Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3704 and 3689. Construction of the
culvert at Site 3 involves 104 linear feet of stream loss. Installation of rip rap at the inlet
and outlet of this structure involves 174 linear feet of streambank impact; however, rip
rap installed above the inlet of the structure is on the streambanks only and a riffle-pool
complex using Class I rip rap will be installed in the flow line of the stream below the
outlet of the structure. The NCDOT suggests that WQC No. 3704 will cover the culvert
installation and WQC 3609 will cover rip rap installation at the inlet and outlet of the
culvert. Therefore, mitigation for streambank impacts is not proposed for this project.
The NCDOT does propose to provide mitigation for riparian buffer impacts at Site 3.
Summary
Application is hereby made for a NCDENR-DWQ Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) 3704 and 3689 and Neuse River Buffer Authorization. The
NCDOT proposes to use Department of the Army Section 404 Nationwide Pen-nit
(NWPs) 14 and 13; however, these permits do not require notification to the USACE. An
automated payment procedure has been implemented between the NCDOT and
NCDENR-DWQ. This procedure will enable the Division to apply for the Section 401
WQC without submitting a check for this permit application. This procedure will provide
payment to the NCDWQ by charging the permit application fee directly to the appropriate
4
NCDOT WBS Element No. 41797. Roadway construction plans, a PCN form and permit
drawings are attached with this request. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Mr. Chris Murray at [phone].
Sincerely,
CL Ci- f0Q
J. W. Bowman, P.E.
Division Engineer
c: NCDOT Division 5 files
Ben Upshaw, P.E., NCDOT
O?OF W ATf?O
h 9
r
O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
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

1

ection 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
11
Corps:
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: Propose to use NWP 13 and NWP 14 with no notification to USACE (per
discussion with Eric Alsmeyer by phone) or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1d. 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 ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
? Yes ® No ® Yes ? No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation ® Yes ? No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h ? Yes ® No
below.
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
Extension of SR 1744 (District Drive) to SR 1775 (Reedy Creek Road) for access to
Statewide Transportation Operations Center and North Carolina National Guard Armed
Forces Reserve Joint Force Headquarters. Note that this roadway project is located
2a. Name of project: within a larger development, identified as "Construction of Raleigh Armed Forces
Readiness Center". This larger project (including some information associated with this
roadway project) was addressed in an Environmental Assessment completed by the
NC National Guard dated May 23, 2006.
2b. County: Wake
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Raleigh
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state WBS Element No. 41797
project no:
Page I of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3. Owner Information

3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed: NC Dept, of Crime Control and Public Safety (NCNG), NC Dept. of Transportation, NC
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources and NC Dept. of Health and Human
Resources
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): W Bowman, P.E., Division Engineer
3d. Street address: NCDOT Division 5 Office, 2612 N. Duke Street
3e. City, state, zip: Durham, NC 27704
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no. [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
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:
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.
5g. Email address:
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): N/A
Latitude: Site 1: 35.8076363, Site 2: 35.8092755, Site 3:
35.8098622, Site 4: 35.8134685 Longitude:
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): - Site 1: 78.7154311, Site 2: 78.7150303, Site 3:
78.7146716, Site 4: 78.7122877
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: Approximately 10.4 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Sites 1-3 are UTs to Richlands 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 tract consists of an existing gravel road, mixed deciduous woods and open grass fields. Adjacent land use is
comprised of government services and institutions and military installation.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.0 ac
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
374 ft
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The roadway will provide access to the Statewide Transportation Operations Center and North Carolina National Guard
Armed Forces Reserve Joint Force Headquarters. The purpose of the larger development, identified as "Construction of
Raleigh Armed Forces Readiness Center", was thoroughly addressed in an Environmental Assessment completed by the
NC National Guard dated May 23, 2006.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Construction of a new two lane roadway. A portion of the project involves conversion of a gravel road (existing District
Drive) to a paved two-lane roadway (-Y- line). The remaining portion of the project involves construction of a two-lane
roadway on new location including the slight relocation of an existing two lane paved road off Reedy Creek Road (-L-
line). The larger development, identified as "Construction of Raleigh Armed Forces Readiness Center", was thoroughly
described in an Environmental Assessment completed by the NC National Guard dated May 23, 2006.
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? ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
Comments: JD Conducted by Thomas Brown (USAGE) and
Michael Horan (NCDENR-DWQ) on August 21, 2006 as part
of a larger tract.
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: AMEC Earth and
Environmental
Name (if known): Kristy Garnett Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
JD conducted by Thomas Brown (USACE) and Michael Horan (NCDENR-DWQ) on August 21, 2006 (see attached
document in Appendix A). An additional riparian buffer determination was conducted by Rob Ridings (NCDENR-DWQ)
on February 21, 2008 (see attached document in Appendix B).
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.
Note: Permits or certifications have not been requested or obtained for this roadway project. However, McKim and Creed
(under the direction of Colonel William Johnson, NC National Guard) has requested permits or certifications for the larger
tract known as NC National Guard Raleigh Armed Forces Reserve Center Joint Force Headquarters.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
61b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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) (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
or Temporary
T
? Yes ? Corps
W1 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W2 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W3 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W4 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W5 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
? Yes ? Corps
W6 ? P ? T ? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.0 acre
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 - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
or Temporary (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
(T)
S1 ®P ? T Rip rap bank UT Richlands ® PER ® Corps 20 ft 20 ft
stabilization Creek ? INT ® DWQ permanent
S2 ®P ? T Rip rap bank UT Richlands ® PER ® Corps 20 ft 20 ft
stabilization Creek ? INT ® DWQ permanent
a)104ft
permanent
S3 ®P ®T a) steel pipe arch b) rip
rap bank stabilization UT Richlands ®PER ®Corps 20 ft b) 170 ft
Creek ? INT ® DWQ permanent
c) dewatering c) 60 ft
temporary
? PER ? Corps
S4 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S5 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
? PER ? Corps
S6 ? P ? T ? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 374 ft
3i. Comments:
Page 6 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
03 ?P?
T
04 ?P?
T
4f. Total open water impacts 0.0 ac
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose of (acres)
number pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
K 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:
Page 7 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 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 for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
(P) or required?
Temporary
T
Existing ? Yes
B1 ® P ? T ditch/conveyance UT to Richlands Creek ® No 2,676 sf 2,489 sf
stabilization
Existing ? Yes
B2 ® P ? T ditch/conveyance UT to Richlands Creek ®No 2,995 sf 2,002 sf
stabilization
B3 ® P ? T Steel pipe arch
construction UT to Richlands Creek ®? Nos 24,391 sf 12,993 sf
6h. Total buffer impacts 30,062 sf 18,589 sf
6i. Comments: 6b: Site B4:Permanent Buffer impact, 6c Reason for impact: Shoulder Stabilization, 6d Stream Name: UT to
Richlands Creek, 6e: Buffer mitigation required: No, 6f: Zone 1 impact: 0 sf, 6g: Zone 2 impact: 1,105 sf
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The location of the roadway crossing was chosen in an area of the stream that had degraded over time due to off-site
development. Further minization has occurred in the design phase of the Joint Forces Headquarters for the North Carolina
National Guard.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Proposed rip rap at the inlet and outlet of the steel pipe arch has been reduced to minimum amount necessary to provide
long-term stability. Rip rap will not be placed in the flow line of the stream above the steel pipe arch inlet. Construction utilizes
2:1 slope from Station 22+50 to 24+00 Rt and 22+00 to 24+00 Lt, which decreases buffer and stream impacts (including
deceasing length of steel pipe arch).
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 project? ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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: 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:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by 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 Roadway project construction 24,391 3 (2 for Catawba) 73,173
Zone 2 Roadway project construction 12,993 1.5 19,489
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 92,659.5
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).
All compensatory mitigation buffer requirements for this project will be assimilated on a quarterly basis (per NCDOT
guidelines) and provided to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for their acceptance with a copy provided to the
regulatory agencies for verification and accounting purposes.
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
I 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: See attached permit drawings and construction plan sheets 4-6. ® Yes ? No
Stormwater runoff is conveyed through various special cut grassed swales and
lateral grassed swales throughtout project.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 5.6%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
See attached permit drawings and construction plan sheets 4-6. Stormwater runoff is conveyed through various special
cut grassed swales and lateral grassed swales throughtout project.
? 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
? HOW
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
51b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. 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)?
1c. 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: Yes. Note letter from NC Dept. of Administration dated May 1, 2006 in
Appendix C.
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 213 .0200)?
21b. 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.
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.
N/A
Page 11 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?
51b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ®Yes ? No
impacts?
®
Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? Asheville

5d . What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Letter from USFWS to Vickie Dudick (NCNG) dated May 23, 2006. Letter indicated that project site does not contain
suitable habitat for fedderally listed species, their critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act.
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?
Available mapping.
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?
Letter from Renee Gledhill-Early to NC State Cleringhouse dated April 7, 2006 indicating No Comment.
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? Information from NCDOT hydro unit.
4/ZJ; oU ?

ApplicanUAgent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
AMEC Earth & Meeting Minutes
a / e Environmental, Inc. 8/21/2006
401/404 Site Visit
Meeting Minutes:
Proposed Construction
(NCNG) Headquarters
27607)
on the North Carolina National Guard
(4105 Reedy Creek Rd. Raleigh, NC
Date of Meeting:
08/21/2006
Minutes Prepared By: Kristy Garnet
Purpose of Meeting: Site Visit with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) was held to
discuss the proposed road construction and affiliated 401/404
permit requirements at the NCNG headquarters.
Attendance at Meeting:
Name Oraanization[Department E-mail Phone
Todd Preddy NCNG/Environmental Todd.Preddv(a)nc.neb.armv.mil 919-664-6392
Thomas Brown USACE Thomas.LBrownQusace.armv.mil 919-876-4422
Michael Horan NCDWQ Mike.Horanawricmail.net 919-791-4250
Bobby Hai-ward AMEC robert.harwartla ameacont 919-420-0590
Kristy Garnet AMEC kristv.Qarnetaamec.com 703-488-3710
Meeting Notes:
The site visit was conducted with the express purpose of determining which regulatory
procedures and 401/404 permit applications are required for road construction on the property.
• Permitting for Wetlands
Thomas Brown (USACE) and Michael Horan (NCDWQ) agreed that the proposed construction
area does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. Wetlands will not be impacted by the proposed
road. Therefore, no 401/404 permits, are required for the protection and/or mitigation of
wetlands.
• Permitting for Stream Impacts
Three streams were identified on the property as having potential permitting requirements for the
proposed road construction. Both the USACE and the NCDWQ maintain jurisdiction over the
streams located on the property. In addition to any 401/404 permitting requirements, the
NCDWQ also identifies stream impacts within a50 foot buffer of a stream (i.e., Neuse Buffer
Rule). The Neuse Buffer Rule states that a 50 foot buffer does not begin at the center of a stream
but at the "top" of the stream bank and extends to either side.

Z ,
}
r + a? ?1w
I I _? -f l 1
7
J
r 1 \ Y...
v ?/
L.NC g6'is

r
lf;
?
a)_ ka? ?
?e1iF ? act t-. r v,
.c o ?' 1{ < x A b ?I ' ? c
?y "F' 4
W{i
?¢ ? I '
f
f
?c pp
?k
ahE'
"
'?"5'A?
ce 1
n
? { Y
..
.C
p
l9
cy
-i
°\
hz -? o3v^IJ;?t},,,1" '}"It J`?A l L- r I1.
o y
+,
g
jJ;
`.lt 1'
3f
?
1
?
„
n
{'e??e Y_
' 1
I
-
t
r
?
{
f
? ; ,!' +
? ,???' S
o? i 3 9 aa, Yt J tC }?1? !
/
< i
ry
Y
,
1
, i
yt Yrr' . 1+?: ?}3?. I ,r. >«? ?rS [ a ? 11 pr I 1 ?. fi
t

t
y ?A. b u a 1
w-S_ ?
?In ?
?7
u
?
'Y
?

, .? ?
+ .
1S Y
f
.?
l ?
All

? rrK i

0 90 100 360 540 720
Kilometers
Legend
JF HO-NC armed Forces Readiness Center
O Wake County
mb [ mde eY K eYkRr+Mf+erve O?vO [uew

JFHPHCIMIM mbn. ®. .enna?oeerca ar.ar.bn
-Major ROatlS
JFHAE rewew,rc mo a.e we unorer+vn. ne mrc is.
Streets PJanuary40oB me?i.? aeeen mem+soe
GrVFHG NC f.dlrea C?MMVCinity b4pmd e.®.m.
Figure 1 Vicinity & Location Map
0 125 250 500 750 1 .000
Feet
Legend h?
M el or Roe ds
Streets
w..mnr n eavrtmmuawo.aa w..a
Streams Todd FmMy
°j
JFHQNCNG l M4E ee?..n?nieux.raeee u?owe m?mv?
Lekes,POntls
0 UFHO NC ems: eeeor.n.o..e=e.. nv..=oe
:UFHONC Radinea FemeAPrc Sne rtzd
Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan
Legend
-•-•- New Installation Boundary
- Streams
€E'" Lakes
Hydric Soils
M CnA VVyA

AM EC Earth & Environmental Inc.
Kristy Garnet
Produced: 3 April 2007
Projection: NAD_1983_State Plane_NC
Horizontal Datum: NorthAmerican 1983
Source: ESRI &NCNG Data Holdings
Figure 3 Hydric Soils Map
Specific recommendations/permitting requirements were identified for each stream and/or stream
crossing on the property (see below).
Stream 1
Both Thomas Brown (USACE) and Michael Horan (NCDWQ) determined that Stream 1
is a stream that requires 401/404 permits and compliance with the Neuse Buffer Rules.
The specific type (e.g., Individual or Nationwide) of permit that will be used for the
NCNG is determined by the linear feet of stream impacted by the proposed road
construction. An individual permit and mitigation are required when total stream impacts
are > 300 ft. A Nationwide permit and mitigation are required if the cumulative total
impacts to a stream are < 150 ft. Nationwide permits have reduced paperwork and
approval times.
Michael Horan (NCDWQ) reminded the client that no trash can be within 50 ft of the top
of the stream bank (i.e., Neuse Buffer Rules). He made note of some broken concrete
and trash piles that was nearly within the designated 50 ft buffer. Additionally, Thomas
Brown (USACE) and Michael Horan (NCDWQ) agreed that the broken concrete on-site
would not be approved for use as rip rap during the road construction because it
contained rebar.
Two stormwater areas were identified as highly eroded. The areas identified were not
stream buffer channels but they were features within the identified stream buffer. Better
stormwater management practices were recommended by Thomas Brown (USACE). He
indicated that improvements made to the stormwater channels would be noted when
permit applications were processed. The second stormwater outfall was discussed with 3
specific options identified,
1) back fill the area with rip rap,
2) create a stormwater management pond, or
3) create a dry pond.
Although the first scenario would need regular maintenance as the erosion factors are
high, the second and third options require USACE authorization.
Crossing 91
Both Thomas Brown (USACE) and Michael Horan (NCDWQ) agreed that the addition of
a culvert at the proposed crossing location would likely exceed 150 linear feet of stream
impacted. Two suggestions were provided.
Move the proposed crossing upstream (away from the fence line) where the
stream is straight. The culvert used in the streambed must be at least I foot
deep and two additional culverts should be added on either side of the stream
at higher elevations. This may decrease the amount of stream impacted;
however, the total impacts may still exceed 150 linear feet.
2
Legend
• Top of Stream Bank
o Stream Delineation
Stream s
--- Stream 1 - Regulated/"Subject'
rAM EC Earth & Environmental Inc.
Kristy Garnet
Stream 2- Non-Re gulate dP'N of Subject" Produced: 3 April 2087
Stream 3-Non-Regulated!"Not Subject" Projection: NAD_1983 State Plane NC
Horizontal Datum NorthAmerican 1983
-•-•- New Installation Boundary
Figure 4 On-Site
Source: ESRI &NCNG Data Holdings
Regulated & Non-Regulated Waters

Legend
-•-•- Newlnstallation Boundary
- Existing Gravel Drive
A
- Proposed Road AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc.
Proposed Stream Crossings! ._. {? Kristy Garnet
Proposed Limits of Disturbance Produced: 3April 20
1983 State Plane NC
C
Projection: NAD
Streams _
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Lakes Source ESRI &NCNG Data Holdings
Figure 5 Proposed Stream Disturbance Areas

2. Instead of using a culvert to traverse the stream, construct a bridge. The iiutial
cost is higher with a bridge, but no impacts to the stream are accrued and the
permitting process would be avoided.
Todd Preddy (NCNG) questioned whether a bottomless culvert would be a good
alternative at this particular crossing. Thomas Brown (USACE) indicated that a good
foundation (i.e., bedrock) is necessary when using a bottomless culvert.
Final Decisions antUor Recommendations for Stream 1, Crossing 91:
Permitting (401/404 and/orNeuse Buffer Rules) is required.
Engineers must decide on the method by which to cross the stream and then provide the
linear feet of impact to the stream at the crossing. Once the linear feet of impact to the
stream are determined, the permit application process may proceed.
The USACE & the NCDQW recommend that a bridge be used instead of a culvert
system to minimize stream impacts. If a culvert system is used, move the crossing
downstream to a straight area of the stream.
A Stream Quality Assessment form is not required. An "upland" Wetland Data Sheet
form is required.
Crossing #2
Both Thomas Brown (USACE) and Michael Horan (NCDWQ) agreed that the impacts to
the stream at Crossing #2 are not mitigable.
The crossing area has been degraded because of development and/or construction off site.
Therefore, linear stream impacts at the proposed crossing will not be counted towards the
cumulative impacts to the stream during road construction. Thomas Brown further
indicated that road construction at this stream crossing would "improve the stream" and
provide some credit (-10 - 15 ft) to the cumulative linear impacts that Stream 1 will
accumulate. The removal of the concrete and the placement of a headwall will assist in
the restoration of the original stream channel.
Final Decisions andlor Recommendations for Stream 1, Crossing #2:
Permitting (401/404 and/or Neuse Buffer Rules) is required.
Although engineers must provide the linear feet of impact to the stream at the crossing,
the impacts to the stream at Crossing 42 will not be accounted for when calculating total
stream impacts. The impacts acquired during construction are not mitigable.
The USACE recommended that the concrete that is present in the stream; which was
caused by earlier development off site, be removed and a head wall created to improve
stream health and function.
3
A Stream Quality Assessment form is not required. An "upland" Wetland Data Sheet
form is required.
• Stream 2
Both Thomas Brown (USACE) and Michael Horan (NCDWQ) determined that Stream 2
is "not a stream". Therefore, proposed road construction will not impact Stream 2.
Stream 2 is not subject to 401 and/or 404 permitting or the Neuse Buffer Rules.
Crossin #3
Permitting (401/404 and/or Neuse Buffer Rules) is not required.
Final Decisions and/or Recommendations for Stream 2, Crossing #3:
Permitting (401/404 and/or Neuse Buffer Rules) is not required.
• Stream 3
Although there are no plans to extend the proposed road across the third stream on site,
the area was still assessed for permitting issues. Both Thomas Brown (USACE) and
Michael Horan (NCDWQ) determined that Stream 3 is "not a stream". Therefore,
Stream 3 is not subject to 401 and/or 404 permitting or the Neuse Buffer Rules.
Final Decisions anrUor Reconnnendations for Stream 3:
Permitting (401/404 and/or Neuse Buffer Rules) is not required.
Immediate Action Items:
NCNG Engineering Team
• Determine the linear 'feet of impact for each crossing (e.g., Crossings 91 and #2).
• Decide the best management option (e.g., bridge or culvert) for Crossing #1 on Stream
#1.
• Identify & redesign the location discrepancy for Crossing 41 on Stream 91 in the
engineering design plans. The current drawing places the crossing west of the NCNG
fence line. Therefore, the stream features are not accurate. See attached map for the
actual crossing location.
AMEC
• Secure a professional surveyor to calculate the linear feet of impact for each crossing
(e.g., Crossings 91 and 42).
• Complete the draft wetland delineation & permitting report.
• Follow up with the USACE and the NCDWQ regarding the method by which Stream #1
will be traversed (e.g., Stream Crossing #1).
• Complete the 401/404 permit Application process. This includes the completion of a
Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN).
4
F W ATEy
O Q7
NOV
August 21, 2006
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Ihe.
C/o Kristy Garnet
14428 Albemarle Point Place
Suite 150
Chantilly, VA 22151
NBR# 06-200
Wake County
BASIN:
Tar-Pamlico
_ Neuse River X
(15A NCAC 213 .0233) (ISA NCAC 2B .02
Complaint
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Buffer Determination X
Project Name: North Carolina National Guard
Location/Directions: located off of Reed Creek Road at the exact address of 4105 Reed Creek Road in Raleigh
Subject Stream: UT to Richland Creek
Explanation: Tire feature(s) listed above has or have been located oil the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property . Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still
maybe considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water
Quality.
North Carolina
,NQtrRntly ion Phon North Carolina Division o Water Quality Raleigh
service QCenter Surface 27699-It628 FAXe (919) 5911 47018 1-877-623-6748e
Internet h2o.encstate.nc. us
Date of Determination: 8/21/2006
North Carolina National Guard
Wake County
8/21/2006
Page 2 of 2
't his on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a surface water
exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a
determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndi Karoly , DWQ
Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Individuals that dispute a determination
by the DWQ of Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the buffer rule may ask for
an ad judicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are
hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not stmt until the affected party (including
downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant
conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
The (owner/future owners) should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State,
and Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property
(stated above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)-733-1786, and the US Army
Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-876-8441.
Respectfully,
i"--
Environmental Spec. I
CC: Byron Brady, Wake County Environmental Services, p.O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602
Thomas Brown-US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Office
Wetlands/ Stormwater Branch, 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
File Copy
Central Files
rn,?
Nurlh Carolinz
;N/11111ally 9) 79 ice
Nast Carolina Division of Wirer Quality Raleigh 628 MaileScIN ?1cOCenter Raleigh,, NCe27699 1628 FAX [phone]e19 IC-r877-623-6749
Internet: h2o.enrslale.nc.us
TopoZone - Polk Youth Center, USGS Raleigh West (NC) Topo Map Pdge I of 1
to ozone
Map and Photo Info Polk Youth Center, USGS Raleigh West (NC) Topo M
Download seamless Topos View TopoZone Pro topographic maps, aerial photos, street maps, coordinatE
Download Seamless Photos UTM 17 707064E 3965105N (WGS84/NAD83)
USGS Topo Maps
I 1:24K/25K Topo Maps r1i
l' 1:100K Topo Maps
r 1:250K Topo Maps
?'- Automatic selection
Map Size
C' Small
I' Medium
(' Large
View Scale
1:24,000
Coordinate Format
r,
UTM =.,
Map Datum
WGS84 "
F Show target
Email this topo map
Bookmark this topo map
Print this topo map

V ' p 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
3 _ „ ) \ 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6
TopoZone.com © 1999-2006 Maps a la carte, Inc. - All rights reserved.
Use or this site is governed by our Conditions and Terms of Use. We care about your privacy - please read our Privacy Statement.
c z Owns sheet 38) WAKE COUNTY, NOR] Iy i
r v. CeF pep C -. \-- ? _p ? ? p _-. I ?"? ,•
l: N pm ? 4CZ . Me P? te. rp CHC2- ? : ` f .
. C eD (..CHC2 I GeB2 \ Me I CBd / CHC2 iI I1.
CeDP eC? peQ -e `?CZ M?? AHC2 ArC2' A.? A!¢2 ~?? CeD II?
cgG
. cs2z csc? cep J eP?O ?gc - Me \\\ A202 -?H/ :APC oP?i' ea82
Agc
cec2 o r y
O ,APD /ti e. CHC2 ? V .. ? ' \ C r `I
°o ,pti \ GF WmE ?` - C C2q?Bd I ?'I• t
? ? Ce - CeB2 - p ?l Ce \ ", CeB2 B ? /! I
L gL _ O "'rz? / CHB2
CeB1.?' ? ?U°i i C C2 / - CHC Cn CeD A I '
CeC -' I W Fi. ? '? Y -? ^ I ( I l i
C C \? 01 Y .. CeD ? ? APCr r . ? \ ? J li ?.
y n
'Me CBBr CeC C8C_2
Ce? ?x eC GI. APD \ AeB2 Nq ?, CeD a
M T??CeB2 AHC2 J a ? : ,, ? ? I`?) CeC? s ??: ? s .CeD ?' O i
' CHL2 ? d' CBB2 ? Me +. 19 e AP 1. J n !I ? 'fC?RCS{J CQt / t ? ? ?'I ?
,' ` A8B2 ? r1r C8C2 ' x APB',C c ] ?? ? ? I
CHC2 AeC2 ar. \.., F v ,f .` CeC2i ? l ) Ce ? ? Ce / I
CaD C8C2/J
,G / . I '\ ?raPpB e ?., f < ? rv ? APD y Ce82 r ??/+ ? ?,i'•
r CeB2 F r?,-s 11
CBB2 / •tSF&' "° A ' ?>? Ce _`? ry r? 1 '?
/ n r ?. Cn a 1/ es J_
I O e 1: ? „ tcv ?L r e zsi-
m
x M APC ApB CeC/:`, q? `
APC2 d' ? III r? III I??
B ''fI? y
v CIB3:...NH ? Wv ?-'1, n \?? \ ????W! ??I ?I'lpll FI ?:
v ? 2 b ( P AHB2r ,i -.. ?u (? J. APD' \ yy? 'II / I E,
t CeC2'. Ma J //?? I
d c ., X ,,.. § APC2 a h: Cm1 f
U c C13 ?. t v p4 O \ Ce_.i
^ CeC
Ceez CeC2 a pet ,.`w,x.`,r PQO nI '/ JJ
CIC3 J. c la M r i I
0 0.. CBB2 'f v '' AHC2 -` 3 .CIE3 '' 4., I $
v ? .•H W @ feB2 J mN \ /? Ma -` r '? ? J
t c I i gE3 WYJ r??Y .n t !'
? Cn gBC2 '!. I -
AH82y? Cee2 ! - -A,r rr ? ? 0 r Y
w ? 'CeD n .4 ?>x J K ASC AHB . + •' CIC3 "' CeB2 s ?~ PQ t4
o CgBZ xv r 's' a ce
$ ] .:c { - .,-. CeCRts "y CaC2?' h+ ? ...- ? 4•i
F Y,, rrr_:, eC6C1.nr'a N rCe?J ?I7RAHC25'-fr ?' .... 3t ^(+ry,' ? ? T '?1 J. CIB3 Y
fAHB2 J f Ce87' CIE3 ?1 ?? A
CeD at a , .? ? v? ' I 7+s# - C? ? ".
_ C^ oe0-: I CIB3 ?„ C6 A \f ?pHG ): APB .,c e CeC2?? CIB3 - t/? aF.. CeC2 C/f \ ? 11
o CIE3 4 e??? In CIC3 ??N? PI r,Jy iFks:' i?a f wa 3 ? IF r ?? ' CeC2V ° <r ?I C Vrv II
CIB3 '. u ? J'1 4 ? P ?,, / ntk ?s J
CrC CIC3 yx ?? JA C ??AZSet'i feC2 A vps 7% CeD ':1 i..
j CIE3 ?I
{ ` CIB3 7 ?
ap e t. Bd CHC2.' ,? y 'Y ??PJ f I Ma ?.? `I
! r'AHB
H 2 - o+y ce82 ?!. ..
CIC3 a ma: '_ \ r v AP/I? 71 I
ICHC?__:u??rlA?, rr?'.,+ e s f d' ?T rll?C^ CeB CeB2 i J I?I
1 I ? ? vCe w'rO?S ? L'3Dr' ru r 6r .; ? - \\ ?CIC3 ? ? pp
'1 CeD 1. ?+iCHC2 ? ,.FB tlb., Jw. ? CeB2 /r ? ? ??? Cnl .,,.I ? 9 a
jr ,If k i '? ?' M ? :n .CeC2 O II i
• io C?B C9C? { '%,. GeC2 F. lw?a 'CeC2: - n ? ` ` IA \: ? f i
A d? C?..' A? :? k STATE :f FAIRGROVNOE JS epPpA RO irI. 3.CPAST LlN p ? ly J 1
pp rii h °rJ ??^. K?? / ,. 1 ? ? ?? s I,' A6B ry ' f ? r? l irN ? I
2 r Cv,... .?° CIC3 .> ?B2' J °b+ I p^ ? ASC ?'• ? 'I I r ??
I ?' Y F 54 M°eo J P 1 .f I gd CBB2 .I 7 I
o P a. \ APB2 . : /
,a I CHC2f WY '? CeB2 Jr • 'f Me CeB2 ?/ ... r
..I I gggp \ e \, CeC2 ' ?- Ma \ `? - A? CHC2 CHB2 '? ?r eB2 h ,

WEq
?; OG
7
r
sr?k`'?f! T
Michael F. Easley, Go"Clnnr
William G. Ross.h., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Lava onmenl and Natwzl Resources
Coleen tl. Sullins, Director
Division of Walcr Quality
February 21, 2005
Chris Murray, Division Environmental Officer
NCDOT Division 5
2612 North Duke Street
Durham, NC 27704
Subject: District Drive Extension, Unnamed drainage feature in Richland Creek watershed, Raleigh, Wake County
Determination for Applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Dear Mr. Bowman
On February 21, 2005 at your request we conducted an on-site determination to review the referenced site for
applicability to the Neuse River Buffer Rules. The drainage feature is approximated on the attached topographic and soil
survey maps as drainage feature site A.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the stream feature on.the attached map is
intermittent at Point A, identified in the field by a pink and black flag marked as point A. Ephemeral
channels located upstream of Point A are NOT subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules. Please note that no other
features at the site were evaluated.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules and does not approve any activity within Waters of
the United States or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands, streams and protected buffers must comply with the
Neuse Buffer Rules, 404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B .0216), and any other required
federal, state and local regulations.
The owner (or future owners) or permittee should notify the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any
future correspondences concerning this property and/or project. This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years
from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a
surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the Director. A request
for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John Hennessy, DWQ Transportation
Permitting Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that dispute a determination by the
DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-
day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is
notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third
party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter
150B ofthe North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within,60 days.
No ehCarolina
,Utmnlly
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2321 Crehtrec 1314, Suite 250 Phone [phone]
InlemeC h2o,encstate.nc.us Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal OppodunilylAllirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
If YOU have any additional questions or require additional information please call Rob Ridings at 919-733-9817.
Sincerely,
/& 14
Rob Ridings
DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Attachments: Map of drainage feature indicated
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office copy
DWQ Wetlands 401 Transportation Unit file copy
\ ` ? `\? "/"l/• -.t '?,?r'..,?-"",fit+l ` ?.. •fr ?-'? ?_/?.+ ? ;
16
S?.^ ..?-.? `\ 511 \ `''w\?'- \ `r ?rY- ? ? 1 •w.? ?• I ? rfp? ??
( /??,_ _' tr.CJd r fn , f I I "??_--, -^('?r ._n t It ?t ,L ??+' I • I ? ??1? y
4 ?;r ` t III '' ?' =??•\ _ _ ?' ,! ? = ?? ,.=? ..? k?'?.? .!<??'~ -.=.
4r l ??
..'Ei F: `' `t{{` I 1 ?_,-,"\ Via`` - r / ? I f `; , •i?,,__ .? -
PPP
F: ST
\`1
r ? ? t Ir ry -`!
rn?
?:? 1 1 rf R t?j5 44 y?i?JI? L_?
. ,. I 11
J t , I 1(/? ?' I I ' I. r (i ? 1 1 \ R?1Y % r'r f I? R
lit
,s"9e: \ .../I I • / f I +, '•1 i ?? 1 /, ::y I ? ? frf //?? \ \`..?_. F_
'?I, , ,/N ? P}l+.`` I.^, ?-? •' '. ?,? .? ~`?1„? t \? ?. 4 t, 1 •r, ? t. 'y?` III i ..i? ?f .?•
JAti .?, /'_ ,J,-•-- ,:. L .Yi v-?i1 it ` I
27 `^°fr i'I / I 11
iv- / •t?V Y,4? J t ~-~• ? f' ? ( ' ?l?r 1?. i 4 .?+, _
N-1 I
} 1 f'r.t
ery'l-, 4T
"NI .S
I,+ v?t
Name: RALEIGH WEST Location: 035.8117717' N 078.7133786' W
Date: 2/21/2008 Caption: District Drive Extension
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet Wake County
Buffer Call Request
copyright (C) 1997, rvbprech. Inc.
Z/
•a/
j
Photograph 3. View of `Feature A' above believed knick point?
I ?
District Drive Extension - Wake County
Photograph 4. View of `Feature A' below knick point?
r\P' /
no c q
mince l
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Anni
l
? 1 }
Y
i
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
May 1, 2006
Ms. Vickie Dudick , ey'd j Mti? Za0l?
N.C. Department of Crime Control
& Public Safety, NC National Guard
4105 Reedy Creek
Raleigh, NC 27607-6410
Dear Ms. Dudick:
Re: SCH File # 06-E-4900-0291; EA; Construct & operate a 230,000 sf Armed Forces Reserve
Center (AFRC) for North Carolina National Guard (NCNG) units station in Raleigh which is a
three-story bldg. on ,a 20 acre site at the end of District Drive in Raleigh.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
(%'' -Isaq??akno
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region.J
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Scrvice Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 _ State.Courier 451-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
----- e-mail Chrys.Bagge(lQncrnail.ne(
a2B ,Av2009 16R6Gn.aen\dav..aen\oadd\41]9]_d5ddo_tah?BB6B2
o.dgn
iml _ ? PS SlS.BI'
PROJECT: 41797
0
a - O ?? o
-n o m o o x ? 'C! e _
m 2 S a 1^? I( l) o?n
2 o
D Z o NOy? N' P_?; yz? ??
r f D ? ? > \ Q? ? o
r fq L .I y? ) o ? ? +
D D w 5. n
00 ?b ? N6
m° /M a l ' zz
N N C) C.")
o u u u n Z n C) oN Blue Ridg n
z y
u. o u. a y~ o ?J i b
3= o g g a O-1
_ Z m I m ?p b y ?'-- ° t?xl
z V o y
o01„o
n
X N 0 m
CA Q
?<+p
1Z r-m
pZWO_i 00 DZ O O
` Z ALrI CA
c +? a
o y o'er o? ? Z ?
O °o
z z1121?
y BLUE i r?C7
x RIDGE
RD j( SR 1774 (DISTRICT DR b a
c) C) 1.4
0
? zoo'
boy C
a
h Z
[x?8 ^a?y y ? ??I
«7
y? a ?
n r LC b
Lm ?
r Q
I'I
b V
M v l CJ?
O
x
Y
s Cj
S/?FFpy\? a'1
C'PFF?\ CA
?, ?Pp p x
ab Wm 10
b $ 4Z
ti p
yhn
`i
N h y ?? 10
`o K '.ri x x ca v
z F m coo
n ti m
x r?
?y

V
V
?
A a
9
V
'
e

m
0
z
~ ?F
i u
?u
?W
d
z
W
w?ozo
Gvsz
0 oW
o-
m=
+++ oc
LLLLLL yU
F L
C 000 ym}
-N ° L
_
O
L II II N mp
m
H_m ? V by
Uv Cmn ^ o cm
Wy a %O n
J ° N WC W
QUO Om JJ
m?
W } LD'o n
O?i? n JF- ° m ago m ++
W + QN C C ? OO
(D '? I-x0 }} U
qN QQ
LLJ W z
O II V~IN
1- ?W... X X
N t o m
z L
? LL C C C
0 O U J
J LL °
0 c L N t t
LL - 0 0 O J
L LL ?? m `Q O
Y C II I r O
?mm r w o ss
mn
V rvm C
m J II II LO
CL
L Sd Or t
W J O ??? K ?J O HF _V
!+i O Li: O
L
Q IOiIh OYOV°1 L Yf Y1 C O
A ^+++++ Z - ++ ?O N Y C
W O QQQQQQ Y N n u ° N
N U 1-HHFI-H Z.- L o FFa- ~ Q O C
Q? VINNNNVI m R' NVl C g d
o ° 000000 way m 00 U w r d
0 m v°i°o°OI°e? J m J + --I ° LL v
NO O
UZ P•x +++'S'++ QQ} m u ++ Q + P d/ O
Qy } O?nNNN ~
LLJ Z L b-O LJ Z ^J + Q t
V W O NNNH1 H m C fa Q ?W C Ku 0
LL NVI VI m C J NN VI H O O
O LC 0 vl
40 +UO. ° 000000 250 m 00
C+O Kwrcuw,z m du }o
CL 0 2
C LLLLLLLL
Dow IL IL 0 T LLLL ZU c O V
li ? w r IL Q Z
A a
o?
o
J O U '' o N L
VNl 0L O
}O 1L OOa tz ZV I S ZV +
i ,J +++ - + U M +
??? ? /. ? C.7 ~ m N = N
Q ? m Q ` ? O / H U Q
so `" fry J vl J j? m u~i
UU NNV O
J VI m m 0 m
Qo} ° 000 Q } m A
?
a Qt ~ J I^ ° I O?
} aw,4 W O O W X a m Q .°
F-- z
W=o Inns ?J? l ?' ?W ++ +
QU z: o?C LL +++ ¢ \O m? +-+ ay 1 +! LLLL N Q ~ 0 1 +I
N Z `O I I N
P m ??'? U P•K LL LL J II \ 0 O
4?° Faa a mO l a II ?V Po
° NNN N II M N °L 4 p y
000 °Cm w ?s 2 Lm 0
s
Lm LL?? Un 5 LL }Un LL
C: c
}Un LLLL C}O _m C}O
Ci o OOVI LLO 0.0
omw L LL
L y
LL
u6P'II6090-.2?..q, ?PPGP-LbLI,\PP.'\vomnlp\uo?sua?........s>wv ?•?•
iv Ifi
?j

„o
„E
L?

m
O
i
8 S
8 '
ti

z
Y

y
°
x

ti

z

fn
a
5
o
x
b b
S b? b w
a A x

b
? a
y
? n K
0 ?
p

Z > b
G y b s 2 b ?
n b ti
y ? a
m b
%
?lY
G O
00
G ?? A
^ ray ??? n
S A+? M

?
\ 2
R
P PP'A-MY -G 11 \\ \
W ?a F n \ ?
T \
Lf^ \ \
m '
pfd ? C +

z s m$ n \
y $ Ln \^
9a ?? z L? a
z ? ^a 1 n
z ? 11
a?a-.v_o m
??'?oa.o >n ^
uw "° -S
?P PP ?M? i.+F
^+f n
' •m•?0 I
1
nl
^ I
mH r-n? mpg
m n/
PmP?.
n? I I
:Y
?? nl
P W
r
fn9o

y?
1I n
II
?o
z„o
eo
0
L
Q
h/

?
N?
? ?y C
C
NNE
o
,yl ? ? 2 i oT

I
mAyroD?
uua^4o?
a4??o4N°
w?R
ba 4
y
o a?IroD?
II II II^411
??gwyN?
iNg
03
myyNZ
W. . M,
ZN N'?
00
? ? N N'11
C A AO
m 0 0
y
m?4
z
ti
2
a
n
9
m

?tql
ht[8[r?^,b,?
o?kr,b§T
?/jdup40 II
000?I?21n
35
y
o?a?M?M
TijY 4 p 4 A II
ado-11, 21°n

tAdnpnuu
C4o?l-?v°

II
r
k ?
?1, W vUv?
mN? N
a
I?
30
2
Z
O
h
25
S?_?55 (REEDY CREEK RD)
0
wI\ U
I6\
c` W
t a\
w
O,
I r

V
r
r
N

Z X /
r

/ / g V

VI
"I
"I
I
VI
I
VI
I
I

oW

c

y ol
"

2]
F•i /
I
U/
u I
W 0 OVf' n
?
?o?:? m I r
?
m
.DLO " I
u? ?a
I

'VR*30/S, X3
I
I--J-=
"
". I
I
O
a?
I" I
I
I"
I
I"
I
I"
I
I"
"I -
I
r
I" a
I
II" ?

1\

- z z

x
U S Z
Q
a
Q
ti
?V
o
U J
<
¢
F ?
O
J

U a ? . y
?
y
z w w
4
°
y
F W ? U
0
N
7
4
x
U
h
w
4
z
0
ti
0
y
g g
II
r4
? O
8
N
a?

g
En
o A
t?f
r
a
r r
R 8
L g
y
ti
n
a

Z ? ? ^ x

N b
y
A
l
a a
`3 m
3 s
b
y
°z
y
x
?e
z
rn
°z
z
yb
n
b
z

a ? I Y
..
m m e`°

1
_
I
?'EXTGPPVEL ,
-----
J.
I
m
0
0
G
x
n

MATCH LINE SHEET a4

m N 0 O O O O O
6 O T 0
0 n N G
O
v, V M N ? M M ? < ? < M M D
? y y i

N M

ms ae
?e m '
' am z
"1
-
z
"=
k

c
1
O
O
0
w t
C
P oW 05 ?= ti o
+
? `u z8 a$ , N n
'0 4W LL ? ? v
1 o
i
N M
c
m ?

i
?
tr 0
O
+ 0
O
t

I N
N
M
O_
N I
N

, p
p O
O
+
+
N
? N M

i LXd OW

r
0 1 °o
+
nn
74

+
N
Q N
M
II II I II ?
W > m
CD 0
0

o, M
M

0
p 0
o
Una
+
+

N a0 N
au
M
. 1

O
\ , O Qj O

a
9

d M A?

II ug V9
o
0
o
p +
t
1 0 YY 10
p
4 7
M

? r
I

o 0
I +
9Y P
? I N

Iti I
T3 OS141 JS \

00 O
O
t

n o>? is ? ao
I \ N

, I w ,3 D s
C ? 0 ? O
O
? 0 }
+
Yd -T3 OOF Y15 M

\ N

IY

? O
O I \
m 0
O
+
Y +

' N N N

(0
Ll? ?
?
i
I
\
?
I
? Q
N

II N p
?
o
\ o
I I ?n Go' res t ql ?

P; m l
?
I II ?
0
0 0
o t
+

p
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
P
co ,r

N
O D ` M M V V co
M
.____ __ .. ... ..... ........ ..e. a .n • rn ca n. ?i ?? ??[1P? ]?e?? nJ\?a PI01 PPP
66/SZ/9 "w-1-1. 1 i,° -11s11e11-p•--•--- 1 ---- - - 11:91 600z-AM-6
.
ddc I"olddet?arrenx\d?so-msl\discncc d, a>eenswn\di,sicn\cadd\4119]_dS?OC_PFL_Y_Shee tl.dgn 5/ 4/99
e

O c
W

O
W

O
A

O

O

O

O

O
N

O
P

O
V

O
t
O
O

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
- - - - - -

\
t
O
O

A
\J I

N \
t
O
O

W
O
O \

i
A
t
O
O

Vt \
t
O
O

I
a I I ?
t
O
O l ? `

I I
a I ''I
I I
I I
i t
o
0
\
w <

0
0 0

N
O
t
O
O
\

N
O
O \

N
N
t
O
O J
\

'o
N
W zs
£ o
t°o 45 .5
0

A Y?
O
O W

00 ?,,?

Q A

p

O A
N
O A
W
O A
A
o A
N
O A
O`
O A
V
O
J z
o