20031192 Ver 1_Complete File_20030925

1.
V A JF Michael F. Easley, Governor
`O?O ?QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
j Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
d -?
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone] _ Ll 13(0
Fax To: Fax #:
Company: ?-? - Date: u 6 63
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instructions:

N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location) .
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
tea.
ArE9
gyp" QG
_ C-
T y
GOPy
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
December 10, 2003
DWQ # 03-1192
(also DWQ # 03-1393)
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Harlan Britt
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Subject Property: Rex Hospital, Lake Boone Trail, Raleigh, NC
UT to House Creek [03-04-02, 27-33-13, C NSW (nutrient sensitive)]
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the. Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC
2B.0233) & Variance Request
Dear Mr. Britt:
On November 5, 2003, at your request I conducted an on-site determination to review a surface water located
on the subject property for applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The surface water is
labeled as "Subject Stream" on the map below. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Staff from the Raleigh
Regional Office had previously conducted an on-site determination of the stream. In your letter to the Director
dated November 5, 2003, you requested an appeal of their determination as provided within 15A NCAC 02B
.0233(3)(a). In a letter to you dated November 5, 2003, 1 stated that; `The DWQ has determined that the
stream ...is at least "intermittent" and is subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule. Following your receipt of this letter
you hired Dr. James D. Gregory to determine the applicability of the Neuse River Basin. Riparian Buffer Rule to
the stream. In his report dated November 13, 2003, he stated that: "In my opinion, the channel reach is a
constructed stormwater ditch, is not a stream or modified stream, and is not subject to the Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Rule." He went on to state that; "The local groundwater table is well below the bottom of the
channel; therefore the water present in the channel is not groundwater discharge." DWQ Groundwater Staff
(Mr. Rick Bolich) reviewed the conclusions made used by Dr. Gregory and determined that additional data
would be required before DWQ could concur with Dr. Gregory's findings. In response, you hired
GeoTechnologies, Inc. to perform additional analysis using a DWQ approved study plan to determine whether
the stream was directly recharged by groundwater. DWQ Groundwater Staff reviewed the findings from this
analysis and has stated that "the stream is not directly recharged by groundwater in the vicinity of the
piezometer installations." The Director (Mr. Alan Klimek) in coordination with DWQ staff reviewed this
information and has concurred that the stream is "exempt" from the Neuse Buffer Rule. Please note
that the pond and stream below the pond remain subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 .Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Rex Hospital / Harlan Britt
Page 2 of 2
December 10, 2003
Map:
After reviewing your original Minor Variance
determined to be "exempt" from the Neuse E
required to perform the activities described %
However, there are still some outstanding is
the review of the Minor Variance request for
additional information listed below so that wi
1.
Stormwater Pond - Is or will the ponc
the pond does not meet DWQ design
surface (e.g., parking deck and medic
separately.
equest and because the stream abc
affer Rule, we have determined that
thin your Minor Variance request de
Lies that will need to be resolved pri(
npacts to the buffer around the pon
may proceed with the review of you
be adequately sized for the entire
guidelines, then the treatment it pi
al office building) is not adequate i
been
oe is no longer
17, 2003.
further with
1e the
2. 401 Water Quality Certification - Please provide a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) application form
(including the appropriate copies and application fee) to the DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit for impacts
associated with all jurisdictional waters.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the
buffers. Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If
you have any additional questions or require additional information please call me at [phone]. This
determination is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 & 4 of G.S. 1508.
Sincerely,
co?G Bob Zarzecki,
DWQ, Wetlands / 401 Unit
cc: Deborah Edwards, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Quality
DWQ#031192
December 10, 2003
O Off. H r?RpG
7
?l(f op y
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quality
Colleen Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
December 10, 2003
DWQ # 03-1192
(also DWQ It 03-1393)
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Harlan Britt
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Subject Property: Rex Hospital, Lake Boone Trail, Raleigh, NC
UT to House Creek [03-04-02, 27-33-13, C NSW (nutrient sensitive)]
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the. Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC
2B .0233) & Variance Request
Dear Mr. Britt:
On November 5, 2003, at your request I conducted an on-site determination to review a surface water located
on the subject property for applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The surface water is
labeled as "Subject Stream" on the map below. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Staff from the Raleigh
Regional Office had previously conducted an on-site determination of the stream. In your letter to the Director
dated November 5, 2003, you requested an appeal of their determination as provided within 15A NCAC 02B
.0233(3)(a). In a letter to you dated November 5, 2003, 1 stated that; `The DWQ has determined that the
stream ...is at least "intermittent" and is subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule. Following your receipt of this letter
you hired Dr. James D. Gregory to determine the applicability of the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rule to
the stream. In his report dated November 13, 2003, he stated that: "In my opinion, the channel reach is a
constructed stormwater ditch, is not a stream or modified stream, and is not subject to the Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Rule." He went on to state that; "The local groundwater table is well below the bottom of the
channel; therefore the water present in the channel is not groundwater discharge." DWQ Groundwater Staff
(Mr. Rick Bolich) reviewed the conclusions made used by Dr. Gregory and determined that additional data
would be required before DWQ could concur with Dr. Gregory's findings. In response, you hired
GeoTechnologies, Inc. to perform additional analysis using a DWQ approved study plan to determine whether
the stream was directly recharged by groundwater. DWQ Groundwater Staff reviewed the findings from this
analysis and has stated that "the stream is not directly recharged by groundwater in the vicinity of the
piezometer installations." The Director (Mr. Alan Klimek) in coordination with DWQ staff reviewed this
information and has concurred that the stream is "exempt" from the Neuse Buffer Rule. Please note
that the pond and stream below the pond remain subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Rex Hospital / Harlan Britt
Page 2 of 2
December 10, 2003
Map:
After reviewing your original Minor Variance request and because the stream above the pond has been
determined to be "exempt" from the Neuse Buffer Rule, we have determined that a Major Variance is no longer
required to perform the activities described within your Minor Variance request dated September 17, 2003.
However, there are still some outstanding issues that will need to be resolved prior to proceeding further with
the review of the Minor Variance request for impacts to the buffer around the pond. Please provide the
additional information listed below so that we may proceed with the review of your variance request.
1. Stormwater Pond - Is or will the pond be adequately sized for the entire watershed that drains to it? If
the pond does not meet DWQ design guidelines, then the treatment it provides for the new impervious
surface (e.g., parking deck and medical office building) is not adequate and will need to be addressed
separately.
2. 401 Water Quality Certification - Please provide a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) application form
(including the appropriate copies and application fee) to the DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit for impacts
associated with all jurisdictional waters.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the
buffers. Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If
you have any additional questions or require additional information please call me at [phone]. This
determination is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 & 4 of G.S. 150B.
Sincerely,

Bob Zarzecki,
DWQ, Wetlands / 401 Unit
cc: Deborah Edwards, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
K imek, P.E
r, Division of ater Quality
DWQ # 031192
December 10, 2003
12/01/03
EMC WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING
December 10, 2003
Archdale Building - Ground Floor Hearing Room
12:00 Noon - 2:00 PM
Executive Order No. 1 mandates that the Chair inquires as to whether any member knows of any known conflict of interest or
appearance of conflict with respect to matters before the Commission. If any member knows of a conflict of interest or appearance
of conflict, please so state at this time.
12:00 Noon - Opening Comments
Chairman Peterson
*Asterisk indicates consensus item where no presentation is planned, but staff is present if there are
questions.
*1. Request for Approval of the Village of Alamance's Revised Water Supply Watershed Protection
Ordinance in Compliance with the Water Supply Watershed Protection Rules - (Consensus Action
Item) (Scott Carpenter)
Staff of the Local Government Assistance Unit in DWQ worked with the Village of Alamance to
revise their Water Supply Watershed Protection ordinance. DWQ staff supports the change and
recommends approval of the amended ordinance (attachment enclosed).
*2. Request Permission to Send the Draft Lumber River Basinwide Water Oualitv Plan to the EMC -
(Consensus Action Item) (Jennifer Everett)
DWQ staff will present the draft Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan to the Committee and
request permission to take the plan to the EMC the following day. Staff will briefly summarize changes
that were made to the public review draft as a result of public comment (please see EMC package for tbl
attachment: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/lumberriverbasinwide plansept2003.htm ).
3. Request for Maior Variance from Neuse Riparian Protection Area Rule for a Rex Hospital
Development in Raleigh - (Action Item) (Bob Zarzecki)?
A request has been received for the Committee to grant a variance from the Neuse River Buffer Rule
(15A NCAC 2B .0233) for a Rex Medical Office Building and Parking Garage Expansion project
located in Raleigh. Staff believes that the project meets the requirements for granting a variance and
recommends that the variance request be approved with stormwater management and buffer mitigation
(attachment enclosed).
4. Request to Send Draft Language to the EMC on Rules for Exceptions - (Action Item)(Tom
Reeder)
IQV, V_
During recent rule-making proceedings for Catawba Buffer Rules and Stormwater Phase II Rules,
Hearing Officers from both proceedings agreed that references to vested rights procedures would
?S enhance clarification and ease understanding regarding applicability. Since statutory. Processes already
RCN
exist for determining a vested right, the staff has drafted rules that outline where water quality rules
would not apply, as exceptions. The draft language identifies situations where an exception maybe
_ \t1 granted. In addition, the rule allows for the continuation of certain long-term projects. The Committee
will be asked to consider the enclosed draft rule language and to send it to the full EMC (attachment (/?
enclosed).
C
Q
?o-
A ? ??
ueexv,6f;o?? 12/01/03
5. Clarification of WOC approval of Town of Cary stormwater management plan under 15A NCAC
213.0235 - (Action Item) (John Dorney)
On October 11, 2000 the WQC approved the Town of Cary's stormwater requirements in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0235. The general constraints for the project in question relate to a
stream that is depicted on both the USGS topographic and Wake County Soil Survey and confirmed in
the field twice by DWQ as well as the US Army Corps of Engineers. In order to allow a financially ,
viable commercial development on this site, DWQ issued a Minor Variance under the Neuse Buffer
Rules with conditions including buffer mitigation and on-site stormwater management (constructed
wetlands). The Town of Cary has not issued a variance for their locally adopted 100 foot buffer at this
site. A contested case was filed on this project and some questions associated with the WQC's previous
approval of Cary's stormwater requirements have been raised. As a result of a mediated settlement in..
this contested case in the NC Office of Administrative Hearings, the Division hereby requests that the
Q.,WQC approve the following language and authorize the staff to send a letter to the Town of Cary in
order to clarify the WQC's intent in approving that plan: ?n
« 1y
The Water Quality Committee approval of the Town of Cary storm water management plan did not
grant to the Town of Cary any powers to establish riparian buffers greater than those established by the
Environmental Management Commission. In particular, the EMC did not delegate a Neuse River ,
(J riparian buffer program authority to the Town of Cary under N.C Gen. Stat. 143-214.23 or 15A NCAC ?yy
2B .0241. The Town of Cary may or may not have authority to establish 100 foot buffers, but any such
authority did not come from the EMC stormwater management plan approval." ?•
6. Unique Wetlands (UWL) Classification: Progress to Date and Future Steps towards
Implementation - (Information Item) (Ed Schwartzman)
tk
Staff will present an update on the implementation of the Unique Wetland (uwL) Classification
(15A NCAC 2B.0101(e)(7)). Points addressed will include criteria used to identify UWLs, the extent of
UWLs in the state, and the timeline and strategy for their reclassification (attachment enclosed).
7. B. Everett Jordan Reservoir Modeling Update and Target Selection - (I ormation Item) ?elw??? 'r'
(Michelle/Wo{olfolk) (-r-cA,%. `/(? ' PT /?cG• r ^{` eo
'V'r/L?k?'_"_/ 1` t?Cp? }p Lv??l? W r??
y Staff will present an update on the modeling for B. Everett Jordan Reservoir, mcludmg the updated
ti nutrient response model and the recently completed watershed loading model. Staff will also present the
process undertaken to derive the target loading for the reservoir. B. Everett Jordan Reservoir and the
a? surrounding watershed are classified Nutrient Sensitive Waters and are, therefore, subject to
l1' management action under G.S 143-215.1(cl) through (c6) and G.S. 143-215.113. Additionally, the upper, cV
New Hope Arm of the reservoir is considered impaired and is included on the 2002 North Carolina
i 303(d) list. Thus, a TMDL must be developed for th's portion of the reservoir (attachment enclosed:
wgcjordanupdatelpdfl. fDt?l tll.)_.rN ?'/Dry
Closin Comments ?oQJ Chairman Peterson
op V0 7-,
?vrou
c
way,
0- a?-
2 ? s 3J 'a
mailbox:///C I/Documents%20and%20Settings/bob_zarzecki/Applicat...
Subject: Re: Rex Hospital
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:27:55 -0500
To: Jeff Manning <[e-mail]>
CC: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Rick Bolich
<[e-mail]>, Debbie Edwards <[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins
<coleen.sullins @ncmail.net>
Jeff:
I just spoke with Alan. He has agreed to "exempt" the stream at Rex Hospital. As such, a Major
Variance is no longer required for the project. Please remove the Rex Hospital Major Variance request
from tomorrow's WQC meeting agenda. I plan to attend the meeting in case there are any questions.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Alan:
Please confirm that the stream is exempt from the buffer rules.
Thanks.
- Bob
John Dorney wrote:
I'd say it is not subject to the buffer rules based on these new data and rick's evaluation of them. it
is (of course) alan's decision ultimately.
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Rick: Thanks for all your hard work.
Alan & John: Based on Rick's findings, should we exempt the stream feature? If so, I'll advise
Jeff to remove from tomorrow's agenda and will work with Harlan to finalize their 401
Certification and Minor Variance request.
- Bob
Rick Bolich wrote:
December 9, 2003
Bob;
I have reviewed the December 8, 2003 letter report from GeoTechnologies, Inc., regarding the
piezometer installations at the Rex Hospital Wellness Center stream. Based on the
information in this report and my personal observations, i believe this stream is not directly
recharged by groundwater in the vicinity of the piezometer installations. Effluent, or losing,
streams are relatively rare in the N.C. piedmont, and i suspect that the reason this particular
stream segment is effluent is due to the fact that the stream channel has been relocated from its
1 of 2 12/9/2003 4:28 PM
mailbox:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/bob_zarzecki/Applicat...
original, natural location.
Although the consultant encountered probable perched water conditions at very shallow
depths during piezometer installation, the large positive (downward) vertical gradient noted
between the stream water elevation and the water table makes it unlikely that perched water
conditions could contribute significant quantities of water to the stream channel. It is
possible, but unlikely in my opinion, that the stream could be directly recharged by
groundwater at some location that would be underneath the present parking deck and storm
water drainage network. Due to time constraints, this condition could not be evaluated.
Please call or e-mail me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely;
Rick Bolich
2 of 2 12/9/2003 4:28 PM
imap://bob.zarzecki%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net @cros.ncmail.net:143/fe...
Subject: Re: Rex Hospital
From: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:26:13 -0500
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
CC: John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Debbie Edwards <[e-mail]>, Jeff
Manning <[e-mail]>, Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>, Jay Zimmerman
<[e-mail]>, "arthur.mouberry" <[e-mail]>
December 9, 2003
Bob;
I have reviewed the December 8, 2003 letter report from GeoTechnologies, Inc.,
regarding the piezometer installations at the Rex Hospital Wellness Center stream.
Based on the information in this report and my personal observations, i believe this
stream is not directly recharged by groundwater in the vicinity of the piezometer
installations. Effluent, or losing, streams are relatively rare in the N.C.
piedmont, and i suspect that the reason this particular stream segment is effluent is
due to the fact that the stream channel has been relocated from its original, natural
location.
Although the consultant encountered probable perched water conditions at very shallow
depths during piezometer installation, the large positive (downward) vertical
gradient noted between the stream water elevation and the water table makes it
unlikely that perched water conditions could contribute significant quantities of
water to the stream channel. It is possible, but unlikely in my opinion, that the
stream could be directly recharged by groundwater at some location that would be
underneath the present parking deck and storm water drainage network. Due to time
constraints, this condition could not be evaluated.
Please call or e-mail me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely;
Rick Bolich
1 of 1 12/9/2003 11:53 AM
AGENDA
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
512 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building - Ground Floor Hearing Room
Raleigh, North Carolina
December 11, 2003
9:00 AM
Executive Order No. One mandates that the Chair inquire as to whether any member knows of any known
conflict of interest or appearance of conflict with respect to matters before the Commission. If any member
knows of a conflict of interest or appearance of conflict, please so state at this time.
David H. Moreau, Chairman, Presiding
I. Preliminary Matters
1. Call to Order
2. Swearing In Ceremony
3. Approval of Minutes from the October 9, 2003 Commission Meeting
4. Summary of Approval Documents
5. Revisions or Additions to the Agenda
II. Action Items
1. 03-41 (DAQ) Daniel V. Besse
Hearing Officer's Report on Rules Implementing Section 1120) of the Federal Clean Air Act
2. 03-42 (DWQ-CG) John R. Blowe
Approval of F.Y. 2004 Priority and Funding List for the EPA State Revolving Fund
3. 03-43 (DWQ-CG) John R. Blowe
Approval of State Revolving Loans for the Cities of Southport and Rocky Mount
4. 03-44 (DWQ) Jennifer Everett
Request for Approval of the Final Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
5. 03-45 (DWQ) EMC Hearing Officers/Bradley Bennett
Update on NPDES Phase 2 Stormwater Rules
6. 03-46 (DWQ) Lin Xu
Request to Review Proposed Amendments to the Catawba Buffer Rules to Address Comments From the
Staff of the Rules Review Commission
III. Status Report
1. Status Report by EMC Committee Chairmen
a. Water Allocation Committee
b. Water Quality Committee
c. Groundwater Committee
d. Air Quality Committee
e. Steering Committee
f. NPDES Committee
IV. Information Items
1. Evaluation of Supplemental Statement of Economic Interest filed by Freddie F. Harrill
and John R. Gessaman
3. Groundwater SOCs Information from September 11, 2003 through November 10, 2003
4. Civil Penalties and Investigative Costs Paid since September 15, 2003 through November 14, 2003
V. Concluding Remarks
By Commission Members
By Directors
By Counsel
By Chairman
Adjournment
AG12-11-03
From - Mon Dec 01 11:16:56 2003
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:16:56 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2)
Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Dec WQC Meeting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Harlan:
Just a reminder that your variance request is currently scheduled for
the December Water Quality Committee (WQC) meeting. The WQC Agenda is
online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/emc/committees/wq/2003/index2003.htm
We recommend that your client and their representatives are present at
the meeting. You can reach me at 733-9726 or via email if you have any
questions. We'll be sending you a short email regarding a review of the
stream performed by DWQ staff last week.
- Bob
From - Mon Dec 01 11:36:30 2003
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:36:29 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2)
Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [e-mail]
CC: Rick Bolich <[e-mail]>, john dorney
<[e-mail]>, Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>, "Debbie Edwards
(RRO)" <[e-mail]>, Ken Schuster
<[e-mail]>, dave penrose <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rex Hospital
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------010501000207060503020801"
--------------010501000207060503020801
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Harlan:
Alan Klimek, John Dorney, Dave Penrose, Deborah Edwards (RRO), Ken
Schuster (RRO), Rick Bolich (Groundwater) and myself met on November 26,
2003 at Rex Hospital to discuss the channel above the pond. The group
decided that the channel meets the definition of an "intermittent
stream" within the Neuse Buffer Rule since it appears to have connection
to groundwater. The connection only needs to provide water in the
stream for part of the year typically during the winter and spring.
Therefore, based on the presence of iron-oxidizing bacteria, aquatic
life and other information collected during past evaluations the DWQ
believes that the stream is connected to groundwater. However, you may
provide additional evidence beyond what was presented in the variance
request package to prove that the stream is connected to groundwater.
If you choose to provide additional information, you should provide a
study plan to the DWQ for approval to ensure concurrence with the
proposed methodology. You may contact Rick Bolich with DWQ's
Groundwater Section with any questions that you may have in developing
the study plan if you choose to present additional evidence to support
your variance request.
- Bob
--------------010501000207060503020801
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-111>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<font color="#000000"><i> Harlan:<br>
Alan Klimek, John Dorney, Dave Penrose, Deborah Edwards (RRO), Ken Schuster
(RRO), Rick Bolich (Groundwater) and myself met on November 26, 2003 at
Rex Hospital to discuss the&nbsp;</i><i>channel</i><i> above the pond.
&nbsp;The
group decided that the channel meets the definition of an "intermittent
stream" within the Neuse Buffer Rule since it appears to have connection
to groundwater. &nbsp;The connection only needs to provide water in the stream
for part of the year typically during the winter and spring. &nbsp;Therefore,
based on the presence of iron-oxidizing bacteria, aquatic life and other
information collected during past evaluations the DWQ believes that the stream
is connected to groundwater. &nbsp;</i><i>However, you may provide additional
evidence beyond what was presented in the variance request package to prove
that the stream is connected to groundwater. &nbsp;If you choose to provide
additional
information, you should provide a study plan to the DWQ for approval to ensure
concurrence with the proposed methodology. &nbsp;You may contact Rick Bolich
with
DWQ's Groundwater Section with any questions that you may have in developing
the study plan if you choose to present additional evidence to support your
variance request.<br>
- Bob</i></font>
</body>
</html>
--------------010501000207060503020801--
Ale,&vt 1-w eY4.,fl e?"

All?hIll"ll, 671.1 ?(
/Z) 67
ane? ,,/

c?4
,4a-e4 64e

0? WA7-E9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
p William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
G riL North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r
? E copy Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Consideration of a Request for a Major Variance from the
Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rule
Rex Hospital, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
December 10, 2003
A request has been received for the Water Quality Committee to grant a variance from the Neuse River riparian area
protection rule (15A NCAC 2B .0233) for the "Rex Medical Office Building and Parking Garage Expansion" project. The
project is located at 4420 Lake Boone Trail, Raleigh, NC.
The applicant, Rex Hospital, Inc., is proposing to impact buffers along a modified stream and existing pond to develop an
office building and parking garage. The unnamed stream is a tributary to House Creek (classified as "C NSW"). The
stream begins at an existing stormwater outfall and flows into an existing stormwater pond. Protected riparian buffers,
125 feet of modified stream and an existing jurisdictional stormwater pond will be impacted by the proposed project. The
applicant proposes to pipe the stream and to reconstruct the pond to current best management practices design
requirements.
The stream receives stormwater runoff from the hospital buildings and parking lots. In addition, the stream receives
condensate from several large air-conditioner units. This condensate appears to contribute a significant amount of flow
to the stream. Staff sampled the stream and determined that it contains aquatic life (see attached memorandum). Staff
determined the stream to be a modified, intermittent stream subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) determined that the pond is jurisdictional under Section 404 regulations.
However, the USACE determined that the stream above the pond is not jurisdictional under Section 404 regulations. As
such, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for the impacts to the pond, but not the stream above the
pond.
Preliminary Findings & Recommendation:
1. The Division of Water Quality (Division) Staff believe that the applicant's request has met all of the requirements
[(identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233(9)(a)] for granting a variance.
2. The Division staff believe that the applicant is proposing sufficient nitrogen removing stormwater measures.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Page 2 of 2
3. Additional Conditions - The Division staff believe that the following conditions should be added to the variance if
approved.
a) A final, detailed stormwater management plan shall be approved by the Division prior to impacting the stream
and buffers.
b) The applicant shall receive any required 401 Water Quality Certifications prior to impacting the pond.
c) i) The applicant shall provide full buffer mitigation as per 15A NCAC 02B .0242 prior to impacting the
buffers.
-or -
ii) The applicant shall provide retrofit, stormwater management facilities that remove nitrogen for currently
untreated stormwater. The applicant shall provide a stormwater management plan to the Division for
approval prior to impacting the buffers. The stormwater management plan shall incorporate methodology
described in the "Proposal for a method of determining compensatory buffer mitigation credit via nutrient
removal for projects that require a Major Variance from the Riparian Area Protection Rules (Revision 2.Oy'.
The plan shall be acceptable to the DWQ, otherwise full buffer mitigation as described within (c)(i) above will
be required.
The Division Staff believe that the project meets the requirements for granting a variance. Staff
recommend that this variance request be approved with the conditions listed above.
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
November 24, 2003
Memorandum
To: Files j
From: Dave Penrose`
Lawrence Eaton YIE
Subject: Rex Hospital Stream Evaluation 11/21/03
On November 21, 2003, Dave Penrose, Larry Eaton and Chet Buell (Wetlands/401 Unit) met
Debbie Edwards (RRO) at Rex Hospital to make a stream call on a segment above a stormwater
runoff pond. This feature, received the condensate from the hospital's air conditioning units, and
possibly runoff from the parking deck, so there would probably be water inputs on most days.
The stream had been moved from its original position to accommodate parking structures and
had been heavily riprapped. Previously, Debbie Edwards had called this segment Intermittent,
having scored 22 points on the DWQ stream rating form. In separate visits, Bob Zarzecki
(Wetlands/401 Unit) had rated the stream with 18.5 points, and Dr. James D. Gregory and
Sherwood Jones (NCSU) had rated the stream Ephemeral (14.5 points). During each previous
visit, crayfish had been found in the feature.
The feature in question was still flowing, over 48 hours since the last rainfall and there were two
deeper pools that would require several more days to dry once flow ceased. Mr. Penrose scored
the stream at 18.5 points using a DWQ Stream Rating form, fractionally under the 19 point
Intermittent cut off, with several crayfish and many aquatic snails Ph sella), being collected. It
was felt that this stream was acting more like an Intermittent channel than an ephemeral channel
because: 1) Water was still flowing in the channel 2 days after the last rain and the pools would
require several days of additional drying once flow ceased - ephemeral channels only carry water
during and shortly after rain events, 2) Current DWQ Intermittent/Perennial policy, posted on our
website, says that the presence of crayfish is indicative of perennial systems. Our current
research on the aquatic communities in Ephemeral, Intermittent and Perennial segments also
finds crayfish only in Intermittent and Perennial segments. 3) This research has also shown that
aquatic snails, including the species inhabiting this feature in abundance, are also nearly always
associated with perennial waters.
Based upon the abundance of species requiring perennial or near-perennial conditions, it was felt
that this feature has water in it for at least several months out of every year (Intermittent). The
source of that water in the feature, rainfall, runoff, or air-conditioner condensate, seems irrelevant
to the biota.
CC Debbie Edwards RRO
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands

-Horn
? ? Kimley
and Associates, Inc.

E 11 GROUP RP.O. 33068
RalBox eigh, North
rth Carolina
al
27636-3068
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Transmittal NOV 2 4 2003
Date: 11/24/03 WATER QUALITY SECTION
Job Number: 011274011 Project Name: Rex Hospital Major Variance
To: Mr. Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
We are sending these by
? U.S. Mail ? FedEx ® Hand Deliver
? Other:
We are sending you
? Attached ? Under separate cover via the following items:
? Shop Drawings' ? Prints/Plans ? Samples ? Specifications ? Change Orders
? Other:
Copies Date No. Description
These are transmitted as checked below:
? For your use ? Approved as submitted ? Resubmit ? Copies for approval
? As requested ? Approved as noted ? Submit ® Copies for distribution
? For review and comment ' ? Returned for corrections ? Retum ? Corrected prints
Remarks:
Bob,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call me at (919) 678-
4173. Thank you, Norton
Copy to: Signed
Page 1
I t
mm"IMErm Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
November 13, 2003
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
NO V 2 4 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
?4
Dr. David Moreau
Chairman, N.C. Environmental Management Committee
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
Re: Rex Medical Office Building and Parking Garage Expansion
Major Variance Request
Dear Dr. Moreau:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) has been hired as a consultant
to Rex Hospital Inc. (Rex) to pursue environmental permitting for the above-
referenced project. Please find attached three completed copies of the NCDENR
Variance Request Form, Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0233).
Early in November of 2003, Department of Water Quality (DWQ) Staff re-
evaluated a drainage ditch connected to, and upstream of, a jurisdictional pond on
Rex's property, and found it to be jurisdictional and subject to buffers. This
drainage ditch had not been classified on a previous visit in early August where
the pond was found to be jurisdictional.
Please be advised that Rex appealed staff's field determination of the drainage
ditch as a protected stream. Staff s first evaluation of the stream scored a 22.
Rex Hospital appealed that score and a second field visit was made by staff
resulting in a score of 19.
In response to Staff's maintaining that the stream is jurisdictional, and based on a
firm belief by Kimley-Horn that the subject stream should not be considered
jurisdictional, Kimley-Horn obtained the services of Dr. Jim Gregory as a sub-
consultant to provide an experienced and independent "third-party" evaluation of
the subject stream. Subsequently, Dr. Gregory's field study concluded that the
stream should not be considered jurisdictional, receiving a reported score of
14.75.
N
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
We are continuing dialogue with staff pursuing an appeal relative to Dr.
Gregory's recent negative declaration. We are submitting this major variance
under the advisement of staff.
Finally, it is imperative to Rex Hospital and the associated parties of this project
that this variance makes the December 11, 2003 meeting of the Environmental
Management Committee (EMC). Any effort DWQ staff can make to meet the
December 1, 2003 submittal and recommendation to EMC would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks you for your attention to this matter. If you require any further
information, you may contact me direct at [phone], or you may also
contact Harlan Britt at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN ?AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Timothy P. Grady, RLA
Project Manager
Cc:
Bob Field - Rex Hospital
Laura Macfadden - Rex Hospital
Harlan Britt - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
x
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Rex Hospital Inc
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: Gary L. Park
Title: Chief Executive and President
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: Raleigh NC 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Rex Hospital
4. Location of Facility
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: Raleigh NC 27602
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude: 35° 48' 59.11" N 78 ° 42' 2.92" W
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
From the intersection of Blue Ridge Road and Lake Boone Trail
Head south on Lake Boone Trail turn left at second stop light (Rex Wellness Center)
The existing pond and existing parking deck are on the left after the Wellness Center
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Bob Field
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: bob.field @ rexhealth.com
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: December 11, 2003
Version 1: September 1998
yr,
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project:
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule: E
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
(SEE ATTACHMENT: PART 2)
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted?_
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
The Citv of Raleiah has been delegated the authority to administer the nitrogen
reduction program by the EMC. Rex has worked with the City of Raleigh and has
developed a strategy to meet the nitrogen reduction requirements. In addition to water
quality, Rex will modify the existing constructed pond to meet the peak discharge
storm water requirements of the Citv. A copy of the_Citv_of Raleigh's correspondence
is attached.
2. What is the total project area in acres? 4.8 AC. OF 27.83 AC. DRAINAGE AREA #1
TO BE DEVELOPED
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
X Sediment/Erosion Control
X 401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name
Receiving stream class' C - NSW
Drainage basin area (total) 27.83 AC.
Existing impervious area3 (totalZ) 17.65 AC.
Proposed impervious area3 (totalZ) 20.21 AC.
% Impervious area3 (on-site) 72.62%
% Imperious area3 (totalZ) 68.82% (ENTIRE PARCEL)
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings TOTAL BELOW
On-site streets TOTAL BELOW
On-site parking TOTAL BELOW
On-site sidewalks TOTAL BELOW
Other on-site TOTAL BELOW
Total on-site 17.65
Off-site
Total 17.65
The internet site for this information is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
__..... -.._.................. 6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
SEE ATTACHED NUTRIENT CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
ac Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs°
Ibs/ac/ r BMP nitrogen
removal
efficiencys
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
Ibs
1
2
3
4
5
Totals ------ ------ ------
" Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's
Initials ??LZ_ Item
?C Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
X • A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
•
puue o? ?a Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
. Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)

• Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
• Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
- -- 0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
0 Drainage basins delineated
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Harlan Britt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Mailing address: PO Box 33068
City, State, Zip: Raleigh NC
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: Harlan.Britt@ kimley-horn.com
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, Gary L Park (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
11/t /03
President
E CEO
HAPN\01 127401 1\major variance appl.doc

Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2: ATTACHMENT
Rex Hospital, Inc. (Rex) proposes to construct expanded medical facilities and support parking.
Construction of these facilities will necessitate impacts to Neuse River Buffers. There are four
buffer impacts that will result from the construction of the proposed facilities as follows: 1)
stream buffers; 2) pond buffers from construction of the proposed parking deck, 3) pond buffers
from construction of a retaining wall, and 4) pond buffers from construction of a parking deck
access drive. Construction of the retaining wall on the south side of the proposed storm water
pond and the parking deck access drive will be limited to Zone II of the pond buffers. As such,
those impacts are allowable under existing rules, with mitigation not being required. However,
parking deck construction within Zone I and II of the stream buffer and Zone lI of the pond buffer
will require mitigation under the state rules.
Due to construction practices and grading requirements associated with the parking deck, it will
be necessary to impact the entire stream buffer areas.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the subject stream is not considered
jurisdictional under federal law. Furthermore, it is reported that the most recent version of the
Raleigh West quadrangle (1993) does not indicate that a stream exists in the area of concern.
However, the existing pond is considered to be jurisdictional as waters of the US and Rex has
applied for a Section 404 Nationwide 39 Permit.
Practical Difficulties and Hardships Would Result from Strict Application of the Buffer
Rule.
As demonstrated by Figure 6, the channel subject to the Buffer Rule extends into the proposed
expansion area and has a profound and detrimental effect on the proposed project. The expanded
parking deck provides direct access to the medical office building where OB/GYN services for
women will be provided. These services need to be adjacent and connected to the existing
Birthing Center in order to provide critical services, and the current layout has been determined to
be the best logistically viable option. Women and children services are major core operations of
Rex Hospital and Rex aspires to provide service excellence for their patients.
The current parking deck does not allow for adding additional parking floors due to structural
engineering constraints. By constructing the proposed deck expansion, the existing patient
parking can be maintained while providing for the physical and functional connections necessary
to serve future needs of the Birthing Center and the new medical office building.
Without the granting of the variance, the estimated increase in costs of removing the existing
deck and building a new parking facility is more than three million dollars. Additionally, the
impacts on the patients of the Birthing Center due to noise, vibrations and dust along with
alteration in traffic flows and increased walking distance for patients and providers will be
significant.
Difficulties and Hardships That Would Result from Conditions Peculiar to the Rex Hospital
Property.
The very limited available developable land on the Rex campus causes difficulty and hardship
with trying to satisfy the terms of the Buffer Rule. Hospitals by nature generate significant
vehicular traffic requiring tremendous parking demands. Considering that expansion of hospital
services must be contiguous to the existing facilities, the ability to locate buildings and
infrastructure at non-contiguous locations is not an acceptable alternative.
Service to women and children are part of the core of Rex Hospital operations and the applicant
aspires to provide the highest level of service and excellence in the industry. As such, Rex's
hospital policy, consistent with national standards of care, requires that doctors providing services
in the Birthing Center must have immediate access to their patients. The Birthing Center has
provided office space for these physicians, however, with the need to expand services within the
center, construction of new office space physically connected to the Center is essential.
The proposed project supports master plan concepts of close access and connectivity for hospital
services. The expanded parking deck is part of the development master plan for the Campus that
dates back to the early 1990's (See Figures 4 & 5).
The original drainage system was reportedly piped in the 1970's and the discharge channel
relocated to its present location in the 1980's. The pond that exists on the property was
constructed in the 1980's as an apparent landscape feature. It was not constructed due to any State
or City requirement. If this constructed pond did not exist, then the buffer configuration would be
significantly different and in fact, no impacts to buffers other than to the stream would be
necessary.
Granting this variance request will not jeopardize water quality on site and downstream, as Best
Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to fairly and equitably balance the impact of
the Buffer Rule on this unique property, and preserve the Buffer Rule's purpose and intent to
protect water quality. The applicant has made a good faith effort to adhere to the spirit and intent
of the Buffer Rule and has worked diligently with the City of Raleigh to adhere to the spirit of the
buffer program.
In regard to protecting water quality, the construction of the parking deck and Medical Office
Building will include BMP, and modification to the existing pond for enhanced water quality
benefits. Rex is working with the City of Raleigh on required BMPs to conform to the City's
nitrogen reduction and peak discharge rate requirements. The City has reviewed and preliminarily
approved the nitrogen reduction plan for this project.
Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
The proposed parking deck will serve primarily expanded operations of the Birthing Center and
the medical office building. This new deck will connect to the existing deck and it must conform
to the existing traffic flow patterns and ramp configuration. Because of these requirements, it is
not possible to change the basic foot print of the new deck to avoid the buffer impacts. The
location of the deck must be close to the Birthing Center to keep walking to a minimum distance
for patients. Given the dense development of the campus, a parking location in another area of the
campus is not acceptable.
From an economic perspective, if the new deck is not constructed adjacent to the existing facility,
then the existing deck would have to be removed and a new taller deck constructed. The
estimated cost for the proposed deck is $3,500,000. To remove the existing deck and construct a

new facility on the old foot print is estimated to cost more than $6,000,000. Clearly the economic
impacts on the hospital of not getting the variance are very significant.
The existing "stream channel" is a rip-rapped, relocated drainage feature that measures
approximately 125 feet in length with very limited overland flow through the buffer. The existing
watershed consists of streets, parking lots, and landscape areas with all surface runoff being
collected in the storm drainage system and conveyed through the property. The subject stream
buffer is surrounded by landscaped grass areas, sidewalks and very limited number of trees.
Given the nature of the surrounding area, the subject buffer has limited nitrogen reduction
capabilities. It is believed that enhancement of the constructed pond will improve water quality to
offset the loss of the existing stream buffer functions.
The purpose of the project is to improve and enhance medical care through improved facilities.
This can be accomplished and maintain water quality, and granting of the variance would mean
that substantial justice would be served in the spirit of the enabling legislation.
H:\PN\000812\HKB\Rex Hospital Part 2.doc
o _
i • I ti ,? ?, ¦ ,! ??, II r .. `I. ? l :. ' ` ;? ? r t , ' r f t ?II ? ,,f ?. ?"- ,- '' 1
?+. 3? f 3 ? ??r I X14' `f 'r ? o? ? •? > .

...
-:,1 ?? ruJr f-x_?1 ^.? :. Y iti{!• ?ass?.r _ r' '.. A ?`.
`
•?
? ti I??N ?1?1J ?'???? ?,,A?"' Y? •'T
51 !-_ ?:.• ?1 ` ?IIS rt?.? Za ?1 ???J?I ^?? ?}
( ?` d^ r y,
,
?''3• v e
!?-,? }` l??}?i? ? j ?? (??t 1 ` ? ?:ti (i ( , j ? ? ' '?hrk??.w?C
?
I
Y ti ? I??r ti
,t
J
?
,
? SSS e I i41 I .,a?y?? R '+2?
Y?
?..:1`.' ? ? • ? +•
ti s? ? 1 i ? ?,. 4 Lis ?7';'fri" ?.I .`-. g..
1
?'?? ? 4 ? ti.M rYl. ?. ` ' t? ?..? , 5F ^ ? ? _ ... ? ? ?_ ? ? i 1 ^.N Y? ,i ?:r-?x*, .1; ? f?
? YJ }? ????r('•?.? (, 1,. ; .= s - -.`?, , 11r1? ? ?ti t'?=,F i -?`?!??,. ??.r ?? 3??fi f ,.

?.
V:> ? 'r.%? 1 ??'at ? ?' ? ? r? tom`}?F ?-=•:: n?
l??l ti?•r f+•
?, Lth ??`??k
? _
'
•
`
?`
`
??.
?
?
f
?
ECfI
.`. t, \ f
?,,,
_L I r
l 1 - I? .
\ ? JI ?X ?L ?, rT
s 7 1 r t ?r l , 1
It
? ?`LG?h??? 1 (I `? I ?r tIY? "?
? Y:.???• } ^! ?sl ??"?? .}ice ? "?'Z
?'
! ;??? 7r ?
?t C i '?? f J?SI ti r ? ?
..
,
? r
--J
?k-J
!
r, f F _1. ???; ' 1 1 , , ? {? ??_c1 `?`Ay,??i I l
a
Project Are
??

T
21
.6-
Y. 1 k I
ttr ?'?' t E5 tzez+ Cert.-.y ate,l i
?'`
- ..,(.
f S
1 r-
`M _ 1 J w
X!
I
??'y f? ti
it ?
rr?
6I 4)
r
t
r?
-7 'w
(TT ? 44Q ,, ?'._ ? _? s •t' ? ?l "? . ?. '---fir--Vic'-?-f? ? ?l .,?ti? ??kaY?? i ?,

F' t
'
it ;r
. 1
?` ' r- I r 3
t
)?} I M1
?
_
, ?I
Y?
V
i 1
a +?
,

4 IA "V

t'' tia ?4 ?' \ ?? J'rc'rt? rf,f'e F?It?
-4 L'
'`4UI ••r4"? : it ..?. L
.t at 'til ?-. +' ? ?? ?" ',t?•? ?'i t ? 'f f ! ` f4-
?
r'
?
i '? ?
' ?+ '- r? y
. .
.s t \
F I ,
;
?
-•
?1
4
t1Lt
?a

st7:)
I r

Title Quad Map (USGS Quad Raleigh West, North Carolina 1968 Revised 1988)
Project Rex Hospital
Prepared For: Wake County, North Carolina
Rex Hospital
Date Figure
11/11/03 1
L ?-
_ 11, T51
op Y.?
liK
ni?
E-RIDGE ROAD
.w...
-- 1 al ?- t 1 i SCALE
:
1 "=l 50'
-77
11 Nf
21
/
Mimi
LAI
,
py
w.
d
r ,
Aw-
a
r
>
1 _
o ? +
PiW M GEpf
alkyM0,00110 717/
w
VALL4M
,a
?1
NLVtSM
(21,$00 S.F.)\\
Now, ff
.a
......- r'-.' y ? -.'!? - ? rr•r'Iw ww.a? iiw• ay??•wy ? if
Ui .5wri ww'sw wi wy
z
LIL.
U
LL 04
C
a.4
112
L3L
L?
W
U?
;y
N
O O?
n. ?
Q
U Q c?i=
Gt
I w
o Q?
? a.
Wi
?V
O? c
}
V) 81
W 6
US
9i
Z ?i
J c ?I
Z;
OX
2 Z
W
p,
i
Ld
U z
Q o;
8
U
CID
N
"E
u?
E
Y N
G
W?
N
LLJ LL. C
O
a
z
3=
ti
S?+
U;
;Y
Q ?F
rV= wa
U-
W pt
Q ?c
w
N
Z d zo
O a-
w
W
i
Z Ii. ow 3
X o.
LJ 8
p
N?
C
U?
O•
Q ?F
J 1
J Q ?!
U C1
I
LY3
Ln h
2 O?
W Z ?i
c= a
C? z!
Q p.
w ZZI
U
?8
W
G
C
cts
Ud g
O
u0
E
Y N

LLJ (.0 V)
mo
?o 8
6
CL
CL
Z
Q
J
0.
?2 Z
Z0
W ?-
W?Q
00I
nZ
COI
-U
pW
Wck?
Dry
CL ?
OLL
cy-p
Cl-m
p
Z
Q'
3
t
Q
Z
J
0
J?
QQ
?U
of
N
Dry
m0
xz
O?
w
J
Q
b
aNi
?a
m
1 I E
2 M
ff
E
Y N
r
m
m
0
m
a
Fex Hospital
i PROPOSED CONDITIONS
MASTER PLAN
sp-l
OPTION i
PRJ??Ol
0' 80' 120' 180' 240' 300'
8/6/93 PROJ: 8 1013,0
BL
GROUP

LEGEND-
-, „1 EXISTING HOSPITAL
NEW HOSPITAL ADDITION
?Rt ' I EXISTING OFFICES/HOTEL/APTS.
I^'-±*r NEW MEDICAL OFFICES
EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE
NEW PARKING STRUCTURE
i NEW CANOPY (PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR)
® VERTICAL EXPANSION WITH
CAPACITY SHOWN
F
0vOe 30 ale/3nle
411
0 11 rid;
y)fb 117 171
?'0
drf! ? r ! (;111 f)>?
-fflffo
fh4rrj 5,'f! S'ul?q.?'
r jfr/ rf Ural / a'h?

via
s
1`? X T ? R
R? sQ
, ,. 1R Zo ."f!C1 b
4 .,, , r 1,,?? l . I yh? / ,

i?h ? F? lrl ??'-? rlfJr. r 1i l{
,f ,: ?,1 rJ
.11 wil
I/ rub . ?1+ c?l ?
p r, -
7 r1! !1/l. / ? :I?rilli ailtl ?
y C 1
NRESM(y ppryF
6€
94
3
6 ? I
Aa?
=a
G
3
'
.G
ty C
C]r L
0 a z
b.0 d tr
ECG
U
0
a,,
rn ?
C
i?
G p
G E T3
G ? CLj
Q.1
4tS
a+
d
rA
x
F
0
L v
W
0
o EV
o
N
.o
a
?H
In Z
c?
O
Campus/
Emergency
Entrance
O
e'
3
wi
3
3 0
-? I
mi
c
o
m'
o'
1
J
Campus
Entrance
'I 0 11
61ue Ridge Roa
'._; Cam'' • ;;??`?
CIVRT
Campu54 ?? • iii
------------
Entrance
:ill.-.-.;--•-.-_-.__-.-?? "
( ; Entrane%
Bird(.
g.? gent r'
ranee
?ParkiiT L G
-' Imo- ? I I ' II ?i
? n REX
1
_ Lo+rvalescene
i? Ambulance
Entrance
a?
NORTH
KEY
0 EX15TING H05PITAL
; - NEW CONSTRUCTION
< 517E MOOIFICATIONS
51TE PLAN - OPTION B I REX HEALTHCARE I © W.R. Adams Company. Inc.
FACILITY MA5TEK PLAN November 13. 1995
?o
LTr
C
?n
C
O LT.
.C

C
.
Q+
O
d L o

c =
z

...1 C +-?
cl o
M a C Z t
CO) >
E a
C
x O

z
rz?r.?
O Cn

0

? M
w D --
C

a
L.
?j

C? N

C) U
= O
Cn
C/)
Q? Q

U
.C
d
x

N
Stream Determination
Rex Hospital, Raleigh, NC
James D. Gregory, CPSS, PWS, PhD
November 13, 2003
Report To: Kimley-Morn and Associates, Inc., 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Purpose
Determine the applicability of the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B
.0233) to a channel reach located on the grounds of Rex Hospital that connects a stormwater outlet
pipe at the southeast corner of the parking deck to a stormwater retention pond (latitude 35° 48' 59.22"
N, longitude 78° 42'2.22" W) (Figure 1). The onsite assessment work was conducted during the
period 10:00 am to 1:30 pm on November 12, 2003.
Summary and Conclusions
In my opinion, the channel reach is a constructed stormwater ditch, is not a stream or modified
stream, and is not subject to the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rule. The channel reach earned a
total of 14.75 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Methodology, Version 2 (form on pp. 9
and 10). Constructed about 100 ft south of and upslope of the low point in the catchment valley, the
ditch is v-shaped, lined with large riprap on a crushed stone filter bed, and averages about 3 ft in depth
and about 6-7 ft across at banktop. The local groundwater table is well below the bottom of the
channel; therefore the water present in the
channel is not groundwater discharge. The _
water that periodically discharges from the
stormwater pipe into the channel reach ?-? + "- -
during non-rainfall conditions is condensate { r`! loni?7le , 9 "!
from the hospital air conditioning system. j.,
There is no blue line in the catchment on ,1 ?? , •-??Su?s ,I ,? ,,. c ??`
the most current version of the Raleigh ~= j
West 1:24,000 scale quadrangle published s u' ! v?` `+ *}. -
in 1993 (Figure 1). The soils map in the - ;-? = k.
Wake County Soil Survey (sheet # 48)
depicts an intermittent stream in the vicinity
of the channel reach (Figure 2 Cawthornfi l "Ifc° ` . ' ,`J
1970 3
Figure 1 - Location of channel reach (red line inside circle)
on Raleigh West Quadrangle, 1:24,000 scale, 1993.
Additional Description of Channel
The channel reach is approximately 170 ft
long and consists of two sections that differ
in character. The upper section to which the
stormwater pipe discharges is about 70 ft
long, is straight, and has a uniform channel
gradient of about 5-6 % (Figures 4-9). The
channel turns to the right about 15-20 ° (a
constructed turn, not a meander) at the
transition to the lower section. About 100 ft
long, the lower section has a mean channel
gradient of about 15 % and has a series of
three plunge pools designed to dissipate the
energy of the flowing water in the channel as
it approaches the retention pond (Figures 10-
12). The plunge pools have the appearance
of a step pool sequence with a grade control
at the head of each pool. However, those
features were constructed in the course of
constructing the ditch; they are not natural
stream features.
Assessment of the Channel Reach
Results of the assessment of the
channel reach are outlined below in
accordance with the indicators on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form. The
most recent rainfall occurred four days
previously on November 8. At Raleigh-
Durham airport, 0.12 in was recorded and at
the NCSU Reedy Creek Field Laboratory,
0.32 in was recorded. At RDU, total rainfall
for the year through November 10 is about 10
in (25 %) above normal (Figure 3); however,
rainfall for October was significantly below
the normal amount for that month.
Primary Geomorphology Indicators
1. 1 - Riffle-pool sequence: not present.
Precipitation
[noes RALEIGH-DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA mm
I 500
14 Accumulated Observed: thick line 1550
48
42
Accumulated Normal: thin line 1200
1
35 900
30 750
24 600
IB 450
12 300
b 130
° 0
C 203 ns 9x1 APR WY JCH JUL hUC sir OLT 66Y
2.4 60
Z.1 Daily Observed
SD
1.8
5
2 40
30
0.9

0.6

?
2D
0.3
1

10
° °
?qt m?'"o1 Wit ar J H Ju .w
Data updated through 10 NOV 2003
CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER NCEP
Figure 3 - Accumulative rainfall at Raleigh-Durham
Airport versus normal rainfall for the 365 days prior to
November 10, 2003.
1.2 - USDA texture in streambed different from surrounding terrain: Soil in adjacent riparian area was
2
Figure 2 - Wake County Soil Survey map.
disturbed during ditch construction; normal soil profile is not present. Bottom of channel consists of
the riprap and crushed stone filter bed under it.
1.3 - Natural levees present: none.
1.4 - Channel sinuosity: none.
1.5 - Active or relic flood plain: a few small flat areas of alluvial deposition are present. There is
currently no significant sediment source upstream, though past construction activities in the catchment
may have contributed some coarse sediment. Several small gullies on the south hill slope have been
delivering sediment to the ditch for some time.
1.6 - Channel braided: No
1.7 - Recent alluvial deposits present: a few small deposits are present where stormflow has moved
and redeposited fines that are present in the crushed stone filter bed.
1.8 - Bankfull bench: a few small, very weakly developed alluvial deposits are present that may
eventually form benches.
1.9 - Continuous bed and bank: Ditch with no sinuosity earns a score of 0.
1-10-2 d order or greater channel: No.
Primary Hydrology Indicator
II. 1- Is there a groundwater flow/discharge present: There was no evidence of groundwater
discharge. There were no colonies of iron oxidizing bacteria or fungi. There were no well-developed
hydric soil indicators in the soil at the toe of the channel bank. The local groundwater table was well
below the channel bottom in bore holes on either side of the channel. An 8 in diameter bore hole was
present on the north side of the channel about 16 ft from the channel resulting from a recent
geotechnical assessment. The water table in that bore hole was 87 in below the soil surface and 56 in
below the bottom of the channel (Figure 14). I dug a 3 in diameter bore hole with a soil auger to a
depth of 48 inches on the south side of the ditch at about 6 ft from the ditch centerline. The bottom of
that bore hole was 30 in below the bottom of the ditch and there was no evidence of soil saturation in
the bottom of the bore hole (Figure 13). Therefore, the channel reach is an influent or recharge system.
Normal base flow in intermittent and perennial streams is an effluent or discharge system from the
local groundwater system. A small, very localized, perched saturated zone forms in the channel
bottom and in the lower portion of the bank when water is discharged to the upper section of the
channel reach from the stormwater pipe. Water in that saturated zone seeps downward toward the
local permanent water table.
The water present in the channel that discharges from the stormwater outlet pipe during rain
free periods is a discharge of condensate from the hospital air conditioning system. Mike Raynor, Rex
Hospital Facilities Services, noted that the drain lines from at least six large air handlers discharge to
the stormwater system on the south side of the hospital complex (personal communication, November
13, 2003). When I arrived at the site at 10:00 am today, there was water in a deep pool at the outlet
pipe and small, shallow discontinuous pools of water amongst the stones in the channel bottom of the
upper section of the channel reach. There was no evidence of flow through or between those small
3
pools of water. There was no standing water in the lower section of the channel reach. At about 11:30
am, I noted a low rate of discharge beginning from the outlet pipe. Within 20-30 minutes, the water
level had risen in the upper section of the ditch sufficiently to produce a low rate of flow. That flow
rate gradually increase somewhat during the next two hours. At about 12:30 pm, water began to rise
into the bottom of the first plunge pool in the lower section of the ditch as the storage available in the
relatively deep layer of riprap and crushed stone in the channel bottom was filled. By about 1:30 pm,
the water level was about 12 in deep in the first plunge pool and water had begun to rise into the
second plunge pool.
Primary Biology Indicators
III.1 - Fibrous roots present in stream bed: Weak in upper section; few very small areas of roots
adjacent to 5 small (3-4 ft tall) black willow trees that are on the lower bank or in the channel. Strong
in lower section; many large areas of roots from several relatively large black willow trees on lower
bank.
111.2 - Rooted plants present in stream bed: Strong in upper section; many clumps of two different
herbaceous plants are present in the channel plus a couple of small black willow trees. Weak in lower
section.
111.3 - Periphyton: much present on the stones in the upper section.
IIIA - Bivalves: None.
Secondary Geomorphology Indicators
I. I - Headcut present: No.
1.2 - Grade control in channel: No. The entire channel bottom is controlled by the riprap. The
vertical drops at the heads of the three plunge pools are constructed features. There are no natural
grade controls.
1.3 - Does topography indicate a natural drainage way: The few natural slope elements remaining
have relatively low gradient.
Secondary Hydrology Indicators
11. 1 - Leaflitter present in channel: Some of this year's and very little of last year's litter is present.
11.2 - Sediment on plants or debris: much fine sediment on the stones.
II. 3 - Wrack lines present: few very small debris piles of twigs and leaves.
11. 4 and 11. 5 - Water was present in the channel, even though it was not the result of groundwater
discharge.
4
11.6 - Hydric soils present in sides of channel: I tried to sample the material at the base of the bank at
8-10 different locations along the channel. At about half the locations, the material was coarse
sediment, not soil. At the other locations, there was young, coarse alluvial soil but likely with low iron
content. There were some weakly developed redoximorphic features in the soil sample collected a few
feet downstream of the deep pool at the outlet pipe. There were a few very weakly developed
redoximorphic feature at a couple of the other sites in the upper section of the ditch. However, in none
of the soil samples were the hydric indicators sufficiently strong to meet the hydric soils criteria of the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) or those of the Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA NRCS, 2002).
Secondary Biology Indicators
The macroinvertebrate assessment was conducted by Sherwood Jones, who is well-qualified
for that task.
III. 1- Fish present: None.
111.2 - Amphibians present: None.
111.3 - Aquatic turtles present: None.
IIIA - Crayfish present: Two in the deep pool at the stormwater outlet; none elsewhere.
111.5 - Macrobenthos present: An extensive search was conducted for macrobenthos. Found in the
upper section of the ditch were 2 leeches, 2 worms, and numerous aquatic snails. None found in the
lower section of the ditch.
111.6 - Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungi present: None were found. The absence of these organisms in the
numerous small pools of water in the upper section of the ditch is especially significant as evidence of
the LACK of groundwater discharge. All intermittent streams in the central Piedmont that I have
visited in the last several months that have sustained pools or very low sustained flow have been
orange with extensive colonies of iron oxidizing bacteria or fungi.
111.7 - Wetland plants present in the stream bed: Many small clumps of Polygonum punctatum (Facw)
and Cardamine pensylvanica (Facw), a couple of small Salix nigra (Obl) and one Nyssa sylvatica
(Fac).
5
permanent water table. All pictures were taken at
about 1:30 pm. Discharge from the pipe started
about 11:30 am.
Figure 6 - Upper section of the channel reach
looking upstream. Picture was taken at 1:30 pm
10:00 am that morning, there were only
discontinuous, small shallow pockets of ponded
water between the stones in the thalweg and no
evidence of flow.
Figure 7 - Upper section of the channel reach just
downstream of the deep pool at the pipe outlet. The
small sediment bench on the right (north) side of the
channel is the only location where significant
development of hydric soil indicators was present.
The pool retains water continuously during rain free
periods when the hospital air conditioners are
operating and keeps that sediment bench saturated.
6
Figure 4 - Upper section of channel reach viewed
downstream from the stormwater outlet pipe. Land
surface slopes downward away from the channel on
the left (north) side. Ditch was excavated into the
side slope and the channel bottom is well above the
Figure 5 - Additional view of upper section of the
channel reach. The stormwater retention pond to
which the ditch discharges is in the background.
Figure 8 - Another view of the upper section of the
channel reach.
C
Figure 10 - First plunge pool in the lower section of
the channel reach looking upstream. Picture taken at
1:30 pm. At 10:00 am, there was no water in the
pool.
Figure 9 - Lower section of the channel reach
looking downstream toward the stormwater retention
pond. The channel turns to the right at the head of
the first plunge pool.
7
Figure 11 - Second plunge pool in the lower section
of the channel reach. At 1:30 pm, water was just
beginning to appear in the bottom of the pool.

Figure 12 - The wooden stake is beside the bore
hole, 3 in diameter and 4 ft deep, dug with a soil
auger. At 1:35 pm, the bottom of the bore hole was
30 in below the water in the ditch and there was no
evidence of soil saturation in the bottom of the bore
hole.
References
Cawthorne, J. W. 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina. USDA, Soil Conservation
Service, Raleigh, NC.
USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wetlands Research Program Technical
Report Y-87-1 (online edition).
USDA NRCS. 2002. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 5.01. G. W. Hurt,
P. M. Whited, and R. F. Pringle (eds.). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.
Figure 13 - View south to north across the upper
section of the ditch. Small bore hole is in the
foreground. In the background beside the stake is the
8 in diameter bore hole where the water table is 56 in
below the channel bottom at 1:35 pm.

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: A YC110sRiver Basin: 41eu3e /Pr 1-r County (,? Evaluator. G
Lt .i C7
DWQ Project Number: ? Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: 3S'?f! 39 yaSiggature: V
'' i
Date: /fI USGSQUAD?Stt/!Z ?j Longitude: 6?j,Z2 } /tiocation/Directio "
*PLEASE OTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that this feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream--this rattng system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. GeomorpholoLyv Abse t Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? I 2 3
(WOTE• lf&d & Bank Caused By Ditchinc And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score D•)
10) Is a 2ad Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Mau And/Or In Field) Present? _ Yes=3 NA
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR P0I7VTS:_1
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong!
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischame Present? 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYROICATOR TS: 40
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drains a Way? 0 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR PO S: • S
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)

II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter .0%
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? ('NOTE: IlDitch Indkated In #9 Above SUP 77itr Sten And #5 Below')
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growin Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 N
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Are Fish Present?
.5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Stteambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FfA?CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(s NOTE. trrow Absenee 0jA11 Plants In Strea bed 2 1 4w .5 0 0
As Noted Above Sldo This Stec UNLESS SA V Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.• 2, a S
TOTAL POINTS (Prlmar9 + Secondary) _ - j (IjGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
10
" L , f
Ell Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
T e c h n i c a l- M e m o r a n d u m
Date: November 24, 2003
Project: Rex Medical Office Building and Parking Garage Expansion
Subject: Major Variance - Ground Water Data
Attached is a letter from Tai and Associates about groundwater data obtained during the geotechnical
investigation for the above referenced project.
Nov-24-03 03:41P
J1 Y t .
TAI and ASSOCIATES
P.U. Box 52073 G Raleigh, NC 27b12 f ][phone] ? [phone] (FAX)
November 24, 2003
P_02
Mr. Tim Grady
Kim ley-Horn
P, v. 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Re: Subsurface Exploration Services - Groundwater Elevations
Rex Hospital-Birthing Center Parking Deck Expansion
Raleigh, North Carolina
Tai Job No. 03-199-1
Dear Mr. Grady:
In accordance with your request, we have perfonmed subsurface exploration services at the project
site. Included in thesc services was the drilling of multiple borings for the proposed parking deck
structure. The purpose of this letter is to report groundwater levels obtained from the borings as follows:
BORING DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
ID FROM EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
B-21 13.4'
`
B-25 9.11
B-29 17.6'
The above groundwater readings were obtained at the time of boring from $-inch diameter auger
borings, performed on October 30, 2003. See enclosed plan for boring locations.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Attachment (1)
Sincerely,
Z&00??' 7
Matthew T. Ryan, P.E.
Nov-24-03 03:42P P_03
,• ,• r
let
p \ j?
60
_? . r 1 1) %,??.M ?' `?'. i. •?` 7?• -.`/? "`?7T??1??0???ii 1 /'....., C / \ '?'' 'YS_a
Are .1
..l : ? ,? • ?; :.? ?,} .v-?'? / i v Via/ . ? rt}? , ? J r' r.'u?(•_- j r? ! i ••. ? . % - •:. -ar?Y•''?•
. -^ ?'t'?`? / ? + ?s / //r L J+1,•?' J r .1 S ? i'.? 7 ??i / i ,'t.???•i,J, r: _ /_• :%
?4.- ^I-M-!'. i lJ?p•? 1 /•/ ?/? i r1:nJ Lf b• ?' •' irl
••.?. r ?l•O? -?:/ :l j /j /. -?i' 1 •'?i?,?.' ; ? ?'- -$? ? ? i'r r / ; !•' ; /1 , // /' /?//H...;?:?,1 :.•'• T. ,I
_ .. - _ '•/ ?' -? r '? •.c ~?-i:.j?t y?y.??...,_._.- : __J??•??.?_'^ y,.l r , J?i? •!r/?r%l,ii lit'// lr??. ?. ??•.?S ..,,\' \?-.••2?` (:,?
1 .6 /' `?• r ' _ - - .. , i•" i :< f ?r ?l
:?i. •?? +y-0!_. •rn N...\I \ , ?''
/?/ r l• ,?1 .••l /?•? f Ji?? ?•?•7iit
.. _ _ - r.lF , - .:".' _ -_ - -= • "`l !/ S;;! r
!i6' r ti`s: ' ' ', • ' i !' n 1 .y.
_ - - al 't::.a. (- ?._ -.. _...::. _? •\••: • / ?? ' •?ff /; i .,ti.li •.1•r li it ,,.y??"`
-.ue' 00
r'. ? ;'.; ? ' 1 \ ? / : / ? , :vim ,; • %f •` ,: ? ?: i 1 ? • ? r' i ,
•?i i 1• .? 't''?I.7rr ,t'1•.
13
It.
,,!Tir[rr' ;
??. {.?•`?V I t; ? •l I t '1 1111 t , ? ,,': / 1 ••i :. tc'A. . '_?',:
• 1`1''1 j1t
NN
i' ;,1 m? %A', I` ij1 ?Q,i •••.., ?m1 1 1 r; 11
• ?;:? %'? ' ' ,i :,:?'?.'?i •:'_' : t = _. _ ....rte ? :._L._.? ._._` ' . ; ?•__ _? •= ?? • \`': _ :fs; ?'--
01
} ? ~..? ..may`. • __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :'?._. -? ?.
: - ??, • ?,'• •. 'fin- •- _ __ _ _,`.?, ?-•?• ` \ j'•?y,
K";
''dt .. ' _ r:G -...-. .. -' ' _ _ .i:.•?s ^7'.??_?a.1r_ .- - __ .//'' _ -r; 1 ''\t?'•" ` .. VL '1, ?''^?'Q,'.'' -
' •Y; ?`-..: '^ 'lam/'/'- ?i '+1?; ?l?-=?:.?'•? -?• ~?••••
'.:r,.•,sil .,t: • - _... -... .. - . _ _ ... its,
.
-.... _-a__• ;1\ L t?' _ ?i'• ...N+ l_ - >'i - •.. y? '. _
-211
.r \
,._ _.. 3:7 •'?.i: mil' _ - \y S? _ y?"? '
' •• .._ _..- ••-.. _.._.:?"' ---.__ •` _-•\'L"\.;?#ir:.?'?-..•••••' ••(: ;• :\:k0.,
'•... .rty _ ?' ; .. 435 ./?\_^•, ? `\ ? ?'., `;,i" `;•?°: ,.\'.

? ? © Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
November 13, 2003
COPY
Dr. David Moreau
Chairman, N.C. Environmental Management Committee
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
Re: Rex Medical Office Building and Parking Garage Expansion
Major Variance Request
Dear Dr. Moreau:
0
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
NOV 1 4 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Kinley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) has been hired as a consultant
to Rex Hospital Inc. (Rex) to pursue environmental permitting for the above-
referenced project. Please find attached three completed copies of the NCDENR
Variance Request Form, Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0233).
Early in November of 2003, Department of Water Quality (DWQ) Staff re-
evaluated a drainage ditch connected to, and upstream of, a jurisdictional pond on
Rex's property, and found it to be jurisdictional and subject to buffers. This
drainage ditch had not been classified on a previous visit in early August where
the pond was found to be jurisdictional.
Please be advised that Rex appealed staff s field determination of the drainage
ditch as a protected stream. Staff s first evaluation of the stream scored a 22.
Rex Hospital appealed that score and a second field visit was made by staff
resulting in a score of 19.
In response to Staff's maintaining that the stream is jurisdictional, and based on a
firm belief by Kimley-Horn that the subject stream should not be considered
jurisdictional, Kimley-Horn obtained the services of Dr. Jim Gregory as a sub-
consultant to provide an experienced and independent "third-party" evaluation of
the subject stream. Subsequently, Dr. Gregory's field study concluded that the
stream should not be considered jurisdictional, receiving a reported score of
14.75.
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
A?
? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
We are continuing dialogue with staff pursuing an appeal relative to Dr.
Gregory's recent negative declaration. We are submitting this major variance
under the advisement of staff.
Finally, it is imperative to Rex Hospital and the associated parties of this project
that this variance makes the December 11, 2003 meeting of the Environmental
Management Committee (EMC). Any effort DWQ staff can make to meet the
December 1, 2003 submittal and recommendation to EMC would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks you for your attention to this matter. If you require any further
information, you may contact me direct at [phone], or you may also
contact Harlan Britt at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Timothy P. Grady, RLA
Project Manager
Cc:
Bob Field - Rex Hospital
Laura Macfadden - Rex Hospital
Harlan Britt - Kinley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
s 1
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received _ Request #
State of North Carolina' WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NOV 1 4 2003
Variance Request Form WATER QUALITY SECTION
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Rex Hospital. Inc.
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name: Gary L. Park
Title: Chief Executive and President
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: _Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Rex Hospital
4. Location of Facility
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: _Raleiah. NC 27602
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude: _35° 48' 59.11" N, 78 ° 42' 2.92" W
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
From the intersection of Blue Ridge Road and Lake Boone Trail
Head south on Lake Boone Trail turn left at second stop light (Rex Wellness Center)
The existing pond and existing parking deck are on the left after the Wellness Center
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Bob Field
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]-3407
Email: bob.field Q rexhealth.com
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: December 11, 2003
Version 1: September 1998

Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project.
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
i (c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
(SEE ATTACHMENT: PART 2)
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
.................. ..... _. .. ....
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
1. Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
2. What is the total project area in acres? 4.8 AC. OF 27.83 AC. DRAINAGE AREA #1
TO BE DEVELOPED
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
X Sediment/Erosion Control
X 401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998

Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name
Receiving stream class' C - NSW
Drainage basin area (total) 27.83 AC.
Existing impervious area3 (total) 17.65 AC.
Proposed impervious area3 (total2) 20.21 AC.
% Impervious area3 (on-site) 72.62%
% Impervious area3 (total) 68.82% (ENTIRE PARCEL)
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings TOTAL BELOW
On-site streets TOTAL BELOW
On-site parking TOTAL BELOW
On-site sidewalks TOTAL BELOW
Other on-site TOTAL BELOW
Total on-site 17.65
Off-site
Total 17.65
' The internet site for this information is http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/neu.html
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
_ ......................_._................................................................_............_....._.....COMPUTERICAIJ...................._._..............._._.............._.
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
SEE ATTACHED NUTRIENT CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
ac Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMP94
Ibs/ac r BMP nitrogen
removal
efficiencl
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
Ibs
1
2
3
4
5
Totals ------ ------
" Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998

Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's
Item
Initials ?Av_s
X Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
YC • A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
..................... X ...................... ..--- Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
•
gzuu
eo By Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
_
.
C `-TY o& Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
t`
•
Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
-- -................. • Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
._.......... _......... _ ............... __..... _._ 0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
.._..... _........ _--------- 0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
................ _...... - .......... .... 0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
0 Drainage basins delineated
-....... _...... .......... _......................... __ 0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998

Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Harlan Britt, Kimlev-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Mailing address: PO Box 33068
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: Harlan.Britt@ kimley-horn.com
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, Gary L. Park (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
11
Pr
03
ident £ CEO
HAPN\011274011 \major variance appl.doc
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998

Part 2: ATTACHMENT
Rex Hospital, Inc. (Rex) proposes to construct expanded medical facilities and support parking.
Construction of these facilities will necessitate impacts to Neuse River Buffers. There are four
buffer impacts that will result from the construction of the proposed facilities as follows: 1)
stream buffers; 2) pond buffers from construction of the proposed parking deck, 3) pond buffers
from construction of a retaining wall, and 4) pond buffers from construction of a parking deck
access drive. Construction of the retaining wall on the south side of the proposed storm water
pond and the parking deck access drive will be limited to Zone II of the pond buffers. As such,
those impacts are allowable under existing rules, with mitigation not being required. However,
parking deck construction within Zone I and II of the stream buffer and Zone II of the pond buffer
will require mitigation under the state rules.
Due to construction practices and grading requirements associated with the parking deck, it will
be necessary to impact the entire stream buffer areas.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the subject stream is not considered
jurisdictional under federal law. Furthermore, it is reported that the most recent version of the
Raleigh West quadrangle (1993) does not indicate that a stream exists in the area of concern.
However, the existing pond is considered to be jurisdictional as waters of the US and Rex has
applied for a Section 404 Nationwide 39 Permit.
Practical Difficulties and Hardships Would Result from Strict Application of the Buffer
Rule.
As demonstrated by Figure 6, the channel subject to the Buffer Rule extends into the proposed
expansion area and has a profound and detrimental effect on the proposed project. The expanded
parking deck provides direct access to the medical office building where OB/GYN services for
women will be provided. These services need to be adjacent and connected to the existing
Birthing Center in order to provide critical services, and the current layout has been determined to
be the best logistically viable option. Women and children services are major core operations of
Rex Hospital and Rex aspires to provide service excellence for their patients.
The current parking deck does not allow for adding additional parking floors due to structural
engineering constraints. By constructing the proposed deck expansion, the existing patient
parking can be maintained while providing for the physical and functional connections necessary
to serve future needs of the Birthing Center and the new medical office building.
Without the granting of the variance, the estimated increase in costs of removing the existing
deck and building a new parking facility is more than three million dollars. Additionally, the
impacts on the patients of the Birthing Center due to noise, vibrations and dust along with
alteration in traffic flows and increased walking distance for patients and providers will be
significant.
Difficulties and Hardships That Would Result from Conditions Peculiar to the Rex Hospital
Property.
The very limited available developable land on the Rex campus causes difficulty and hardship
with trying to satisfy the terms of the Buffer Rule. Hospitals by nature generate significant
vehicular traffic requiring tremendous parking demands. Considering that expansion of hospital

services must be contiguous to the existing facilities, the ability to locate buildings and
infrastructure at non-contiguous locations is not an acceptable alternative.
Service to women and children are part of the core of Rex Hospital operations and the applicant
aspires to provide the highest level of service and excellence in the industry. As such, Rex's
hospital policy, consistent with national standards of care, requires that doctors providing services
in the Birthing Center must have immediate access to their patients. The Birthing Center has
provided office space for these physicians, however, with the need to expand services within the
center, construction of new office space physically connected to the Center is essential.
The proposed project supports master plan concepts of close access and connectivity for hospital
services. The expanded parking deck is part of the development master plan for the Campus that
dates back to the early 1990's (See Figures 4 & 5).
The original drainage system was reportedly piped in the 1970's and the discharge channel
relocated to its present location in the 1980's. The pond that exists on the property was
constructed in the 1980's as an apparent landscape feature. It was not constructed due to any State
or City requirement. If this constructed pond did not exist, then the buffer configuration would be
significantly different and in fact, no impacts to buffers other than to the stream would be
necessary.
Granting this variance request will not jeopardize water quality on site and downstream, as Best
Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to fairly and equitably balance the impact of
the Buffer Rule on this unique property, and preserve the Buffer Rule's purpose and intent to
protect water quality. The applicant has made a good faith effort to adhere to the spirit and intent
of the Buffer Rule and has worked diligently with the City of Raleigh to adhere to the spirit of the
buffer program.
In regard to protecting water quality, the construction of the parking deck and Medical Office
Building will include BMP, and modification to the existing pond for enhanced water quality
benefits. Rex is working with the City of Raleigh on required BMPs to conform to the City's
nitrogen reduction and peak discharge rate requirements. The City has reviewed and preliminarily
approved the nitrogen reduction plan for this project.
Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
The proposed parking deck will serve primarily expanded operations of the Birthing Center and
the medical office building. This new deck will connect to the existing deck and it must conform
to the existing traffic flow patterns and ramp configuration. Because of these requirements, it is
not possible to change the basic foot print of the new deck to avoid the buffer impacts. The
location of the deck must be close to the Birthing Center to keep walking to a minimum distance
for patients. Given the dense development of the campus, a parking location in another area of the
campus is not acceptable.
From an economic perspective, if the new deck is not constructed adjacent to the existing facility,
then the existing deck would have to be removed and a new taller deck constructed. The
estimated cost for the proposed deck is $3,500,000. To remove the existing deck and construct a

new facility on the old footprint is estimated to cost more than $6,000,000. Clearly the economic
impacts on the hospital of not getting the variance are very significant.
The existing "stream channel" is a rip-rapped, relocated drainage feature that measures
approximately 125 feet in length with very limited overland flow through the buffer. The existing
watershed consists of streets, parking lots, and landscape areas with all surface runoff being
collected in the storm drainage system and conveyed through the property. The subject stream
buffer is surrounded by landscaped grass areas, sidewalks and very limited number of trees.
Given the nature of the surrounding area, the subject buffer has limited nitrogen reduction
capabilities. It is believed that enhancement of the constructed pond will improve water quality to
offset the loss of the existing stream buffer functions.
The purpose of the project is to improve and enhance medical care through improved facilities.
This can be accomplished and maintain water quality, and granting of the variance would mean
that substantial justice would be served in the spirit of the enabling legislation.
H:\PN\000812\HKB\Rex Hospital Part 2.doc
tP
-� a_ � a0. 1�� i� If ✓� f _.-. 'i,i- H�' � � �.e
Project Area
f �qx�C § "r 1 � ����.�- �`.i '� '�..iT��' ...�1`u.((� . I a� li..• �A
_Vfi�,� rr
}'
J`�." �, 3�E if"? 1+ .
our, tl ?j ]
sJ �jt _
1 f I
Title Quad Map (USGS Quad Raleigh West, North Carolina 1968 Revised 1988)
Project Rex Hospital
Prepared For: Wake County, North Carolina
Rex Hospital
Date Figure
11/11/03 1

b
c;
W?
LLJ
0 0 ?+- N
?e
ai
3
W =
V 5
OR
Q °
U Q u=
ct
NLd
O_ Q ?c
Z a.
~ wj
z p ?6
O t
U °'
Z c-
Ld
N?
vS
9f
o'
Z
J
? U of
i
=p I
X Z
?i
C N,
W ?J
Q c'
U
2
8
W
yC
N
{b
G?
E
Y N
K
U
W?
W (D (n
D Lj- .
00
a
tl
x?
Q 2F
V) w
LLJ e% t:
Q
;t`
°d
Z w ?o
0 R-
a W;
L
Z a o;
p D
cn m
X o.
W 8
0
?c
'n
Ui
U.
Q?
Z
0 ?l
H U 61
W g?
=0
xz
m
Q p.
pi
U
Q2
WYU
F
Li
g
u?
E
E
Y N1
FE
Rex Hospite9
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ??_?
MASTER PLAN
OPTION 1
-a=
0' 80' 120' 180' 240' 300'
8/6/93 PROJ: # 1013.0
BLM
GROUP
'!!rr rr ?/]
r

l\ 61? r ??.. / ?1`,j/? r / c, ! '? r rrrrrr rrrrrr rrlri/;rJKJr??
r71?r!/rlJ,
Z
I t i

W
t?

eF
Qr L
es O N
z

4.0
3
xo
aka
? ?1 z

Iw1 ..
a+ M
Q
A .
FBI
O r.
? ?

A
...
\

7

© 3. cz
a.l
r

x "

x

H
LEGEND/
EXISTING HOSPITAL
NEW HOSPITAL ADDITION
EXISTING OFFICES/HOTEL/APTS.
NEW MEDICAL OFFICES
EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE
NEW PARKING STRUCTURE
NEW CANOPY (PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR)
O VERTICAL EXPANSION WITH
CAPACITY SHOWN
avoa 90-1 /anie
Campus/
Emergency
Entrance
Slue Ridge Road
e
n
3
ai
d
Campus
Entrance
Entrance
0utpatlen J ?,
I •i ? ?. ,. k? 'bra;.
FAI
?i ,U t t
I 1 (410)
[ nr ..,
p_ - ` '? i3 Parkfit I G ??rr/•?•/,L7'?`y?
f j GA ter ?y< j v
?a39 nr ance _?/ ! ?_? JCLL ?!
v i ? nEnt'r'??tLe•
1 1 I / f ?t{i13 I\
•-- ?_•_ -Deck ?. 7
?\'."S (14151 /
jj ? `I r . ' PD?a a ?//l ?; Entran;Le z ' =;? r?•
rr
B IB
? ?I /ellrlcss ".,. ? ?. i• ?r•?G `l??i
I C_nccr x sent
,ranee •?? ?:?,i `;.r+c
-- - 11 L,--I REX
-_"_?:_--"-"---'-•- Corlvalescenc .-"--
"LareZinter -- -•------
SITE PLAN - OPTION B
REX HEALTHCARE
FACILITY MASTER PLAN
W.R. Adams Company. Inc.
November 13. 1995
if)
CN
ON
M
t--I
L.
O
M O
? a
C
a
L
V
W
L
v
x
a

C
O
v ???yy
I-•1
e?
v
x O ?
aka
U
p U
2 Cn
Q? Q
E 'a
Y c
1z
(? I
w
0
7
z?
U ?
aO
a
?z
U
M
?O
M
a+
Q ~
7--
Ambulance
- ?`?'? \\ ]j ?? Entrance
IIli?II IIIIIIII?
NORTH
/ KEY
- -? EXISTING HOSPITAL
ups` NEW CONSTRUCTION
51TE MODIFICATION5
gN ?
C 2
i
y?
m
D
r
m
=m
zx
o=
;o o
nD
Dr
A
O
r
z
D
D
z
v
_?
c?
110
-n -o
M
o
my
0-
0
?
00
c?
m?
=? z
oz
z?
r
D
z
A
CD -n
O 25
c
X
0) m
m
r '
Site Area Ac. 61.790
Total Existing Impervious Area Ac. 39.966
Proposed Impervious Area Ac. 4.080
Total Post Developed Open Space Ac. 17.744

Total Existing Pervious Area Ac. 21.824
Existing % Pervious 0.353

Apportioned Open Space ac. 6.267
Rex Hospital
Total Nitrogen Summary
Note: Assumed 85%.of 4.8 Ac. Developed Area for Basins #1, #2, &#3
REX HOSPITAL
NITROGEN EXPORT CALCULATIONS
(Apportioned Area)
METHOD 2:
Quantifying TN Export from Residential / Industrial / Commercial Developments when Footprints of all Impervious Surfaces are shown.
STEP 1: Determine the area for each type of, land use and enter in Column (2).
STEP 2: Total the areas for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (2).
STEP 3: Multiply the areas in Column (2) by the TN export coefficients in Column (3) and enter in Column (4).
STEP 4: Total the TN exports for each type of land use and enter at the bottom of Column (4).
STEP 5: Determine the export coefficient for the site by dividing the total TN export from uses at the bottom of
Column (4) by the total area at the bottom of Column (2) and enter the result at the bottom of Column (5).
(1)
Type of Land Cover (2)
Site
Area (3)
TN Export
Coeff. (4)
TN Export
by Land Use (5)
TN Export
From Site BMP
TN Removal
Efficiency BMP
TN Export
y Land Us BMP
TN Expo
From Site
(Acres) (Ibs/ac/yr) (Ibs/yr) (Ibs/ac/yr) (%) (Ibs/yr) (Ibs/ac/yr)
Permanently protect undisturbed 0 0.6 0.0 25.0% 0.0
open sace forest, unmown, meadow
Permanently protect managed 6.27 1.2 7.5 25.0% 5.6
open sace (grass, landscaping, etc.
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking 4.08 21.2 86.5 25.0% 64.9
lots, driveways, roofs, paved storate areas, etc.)

TOTAL 10.35 94.0 70.5

Average for Site 9.09 6.61
Estimated Offset Payment Required = (10.35ac)'(6.81-3.6 Ib/ac/yr)'($330/lb) _ $10,976.72

Permit No.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
(to be provided by DWQ)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
DWO Stormwater Management Plan Review:
A complete stormwater management plan submittal includes an application form, a wet detention basin
supplement for each basin, design calculations, and plans and specifications showing all basin and outlet
structure details.
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: Rex Hospital
Contact Person: Al Stewart Phone Number: (gig ) 7 84 - 7 2 64
For projects with multiple basins, specify which basin this worksheet applies to: IIA Ji
elevations
Basin Bottom Elevation '185 ft.
Permanent Pool Elevation 391 ft.
Temporary Pool Elevation 394.5 ft.
(floor of the basin)
(elevation of the orifice)
(elevation of the discharge structure overflow)
areas
Permanent Pool Surface Area 20 , 243 sq. ft. (water surface area at the orifice elevation)
Drainage Area 27.83 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
Impervious Area 20.2 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the basin)
volumes
Permanent Pool Volume
Temporary Pool Volume
Forebay Volume
Other parameters
SA/DAI
Diameter of Orifice
Design Rainfall
Design TSS Removal 2
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99
89, 000 cu. ft. (combined volume of main basin and forebay)
78 , 205 cu. ft. (volume detained above the permanent pool)
17 , 800 cu. ft. (approximately 20% of total volume)
1.636 (surface area to drainage area ratio from DWQ table)
3" in. (2 to 5 day temporary pool draw-down required)
1" in.
85% % (minimum 85% required)
Page l of 4
? f
Footnotes:
1 When using the Division SA/DA tables, the correct SA/DA ratio for permanent pool sizing should be computed based upon the
actual impervious % and permanent pool depth. Linear interpolation should be employed to determine the correct value for non-
standard table entries.
2 In the 20 coastal counties, the requirement for a vegetative filter may be waived if the wet detention basin is designed to provide
90% TSS removal. The NCDENR BUT manual provides design tables for both 85% TSS removal and 90% TSS removal.
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
The following checklist outlines design requirements per the Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual
(N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, February 1999) and Administrative Code
Section: 15 A NCAC 2H .1008.
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting
documentation is attached. If the applicant has designated an agent in the Stormwater Management Permit.
Application Form, the agent may initial below. If a requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Applicants Initials
a. The permanent pool depth is between 3 and 6 feet (required minimum of 3 feet).
b. The forebay volume is approximately equal to 20% of the basin volume.
c. The temporary pool controls runoff from the design storm event.
d. The temporary pool draws down in 2 to 5 days.
e. If required, a 30-foot vegetative filter is provided at the outlet (include non-erosive flow
calculations)
f. The basin length to width ratio is greater than 3:1.
g. The basin side slopes above the permanent pool are no steeper than 3:1.
h. A submerged and vegetated perimeter shelf with a slope of 6:1 or less (show detail).
i. Vegetative cover above the permanent pool elevation is specified.
j. A trash rack or similar device is provided for both the overflow and orifice.
k. A recorded drainage easement is provided for each basin including access to nearest right-
of-way.
1. If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the
basin is specified prior to use as a wet detention basin.
m. A mechanism is specified which will drain the basin for maintenance or an emergency.
III. WET DETENTION BASIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The wet detention basin system is defined as the wet detention basin, pretreatment including forebays and the
vegetated filter if one is provided.
This system (check one) 0 does 0 does not incorporate a vegetated filter at the outlet.
This system (check one) 0 does 0 does not incorporate pretreatment other than a forebay.
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 Page 2 of 4

Maintenance activities shall be performed as follows:
1. After every significant runoff producing rainfall event and at least monthly:
a. Inspect the wet detention basin system for sediment accumulation, erosion, trash accumulation,
vegetated cover, and general condition.
b. Check and clear the orifice of any obstructions such. that drawdown of the temporary pool occurs within
2 to 5 days as designed.
2. Repair eroded areas immediately, re-seed as necessary to maintain good vegetative cover, mow vegetative
cover to maintain a maximum height of six inches, and remove trash as needed.
3. Inspect and repair the collection system (i.e. catch basins, piping, swales, riprap, etc.) quarterly to maintain
proper functioning.
4. Remove accumulated sediment from the wet detention basin system semi-annually or when depth is
reduced to 75% of the original design depth (see diagram below). Removed sediment shall be disposed of
in an appropriate manner and shall be handled in a manner that will not adversely impact water quality (i.e.
stockpiling near a wet detention basin or stream, etc.).
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it will give an accurate
depth reading and not readily penetrate into accumulated sediments.
When the permanent pool depth reads
When the permanent pool depth reads
Sediment
Bottom
El. 75 o
-------- -
-On I
FOREBAY
feet in the main pond, the sediment shall be removed.
feet in the forebay, the sediment shall be removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
(fill in the blanks)
Permanent Pool Elevation
Sediment Removal Elevation 75%
....................................... -
Bottom Elevation 25%
MAIN POND
5. Remove cattails and other indigenous wetland plants when they cover 50% of the basin surface. These
plants shall be encouraged to grow along the vegetated shelf and forebay berm.
6. If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the flushing of sediment through
the emergency drain shall be minimized to the maximum extent practical.
Form SVWU-102 Rev 3.99 Page 3 of 4
I . w f
7. All components of the wet detention basin system shall be maintained in good working order.
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the performance of the seven
maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any problems with the system or prior to any
changes to the system or responsible party.
Print name:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
Signature:-
Date:
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of the lots have been sold and a
resident of the-subdivision has been named the president.
I, , a Notary Public for the State of ,
County of do hereby certify that
personally appeared before me this day of , and acknowledge the due
execution of the forgoing wet detention basin maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official seal,
SEAL
My commission expires
Form SWU-102 Rev 3.99 Page 4 of 4
Stream Determination
Rex Hospital, Raleigh, NC
James D. Gregory, CPSS, PWS, PhD
November 13, 2003
Report To: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Purpose
Determine the applicability of the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B
.0233) to a channel reach located on the grounds of Rex Hospital that connects a stormwater outlet
pipe at the southeast corner of the parking deck to a stormwater retention pond (latitude 35° 48' 59.22"
N, longitude 78° 42'2.22" W) (Figure 1). The onsite assessment work was conducted during the
period 10:00 am to 1:30 pm on November 12, 2003.
Summary and Conclusions
In my opinion, the channel reach is a constructed stormwater ditch, is not a stream or modified
stream, and is not subject to the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rule. The channel reach earned a
total of 14.75 points on the NCDWQ Stream Classification Methodology, Version 2 (form on pp. 9
and 10). Constructed about 100 ft south of and upslope of the low point in the catchment valley, the
ditch is v-shaped, lined with large riprap on a crushed stone filter bed, and averages about 3 ft in depth
and about 6-7 ft across at banktop. The local groundwater table is well below the bottom of the
channel; therefore the water present in the
channel is not groundwater discharge. The
water that periodically discharges from the
stormwater pipe into the channel reach
during non-rainfall conditions is condensate
from the hospital air conditioning system.
There is no blue line in the catchment on
the most current version of the Raleigh
West 1:24,000 scale quadrangle published
in 1993 (Figure 1). The soils map in the
Wake County Soil Survey (sheet # 48)
depicts an intermittent stream in the vicinity
of the channel reach (Figure 2) (Cawthorn,
1970).

' l
F?,
CH UN! Q i
AKoF ;I

t,

Figure 1 - Location of channel reach (red line inside circle)
on Raleigh West Quadrangle, 1:24,000 scale, 1993.
Additional Description of Channel
The channel reach is approximately 170 ft
long and consists of two sections that differ
in character. The upper section to which the
stortnwater pipe discharges is about 70 ft
long, is straight, and has a uniform channel
gradient of about 5-6 % (Figures 4-8). The
channel turns to the right about 15-20 ° (a
constructed turn, not a meander) at the
transition to the lower section. About 100 ft
long, the lower section has a mean channel
gradient of about 15 % and has a series of
three plunge pools designed to dissipate the
energy of the flowing water in the channel as
it approaches the retention pond (Figures 9-
11). The plunge pools have the appearance
of a step pool sequence with a grade control
at the head of each pool. However, those
features were constructed in the course of
constructing the ditch; they are not natural
stream features.
Assessment of the Channel Reach
Results of the assessment of the
channel reach are outlined below in
accordance with the indicators on the
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form. The
most recent rainfall occurred four days
previously on November 8. At Raleigh-
Durham airport, 0.12 in was recorded and at
the NCSU Reedy Creek Field Laboratory,
0.32 in was recorded. At RDU, total rainfall
for the year through November 10 is about 10
in (25 %) above normal (Figure 3); however,
rainfall for October was significantly below
the normal amount for that month.
Primary Geomorphology Indicators
1.1 - Riffle-pool sequence: not present.
8 `L
?
:«?:;? ? cAC2
cgs
?
,y1.
' .
C2
C

1 ?
?y t
'? c s c.? ?c?
'v c t

CgB2
/ o
(? /

AOC
Ar D

?' ApR CCU? ,

1 \ r / ?^ M \\Anc) A"s r - qr

Figure 2 - Wake County Soil Survey map.
Precipitotior
nchee RALEIGH-PJRH4M, NORTH C,=ROLIN" mm
i Accurnulatecl Ohsw-d: thick tine
accumulated Normal: thin line ".
I-
-----..... . - ---- - ---- - -- ---- - - -
.4 ;nG
Doily Dos•r.od G
Ise
r G
?? - ;U! C? wN .PC M+i Ah P' .U:iEP J.i NJr
Dato updated through 10 NO,' S
CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER NCEP
Figure 3 - Accumulative rainfall at Raleigh-Durham
Airport versus normal rainfall for the 365 days prior to
November 10, 2003.
1.2 - USDA texture in streambed different from surrounding terrain: Soil in adjacent riparian area was
2
I I e
disturbed during ditch construction; normal soil profile is not present. Bottom of channel consists of
the riprap and crushed stone filter bed under it.
1.3 - Natural levees present: none.
1.4 - Channel sinuosity: none.
I.5 - Active or relic flood plain: a few small flat areas of alluvial deposition are present. There is
currently no significant sediment source upstream, though past construction activities in the catchment
may have contributed some coarse sediment. Several small gullies on the south hill slope have been
delivering sediment to the ditch for some time.
1.6 - Channel braided: No
1.7 - Recent alluvial deposits present: a few small deposits are present where stormflow has moved
and redeposited fines that are present in the crushed stone filter bed.
1.8 - Bankfull bench: a few small, very weakly developed alluvial deposits are present that may
eventually form benches.
1.9 - Continuous bed and bank: Ditch with no sinuosity earns a score of 0.
1.10-2 d order or greater channel: No.
Primary Hydrology Indicator
II. 1 - Is there a groundwater flow/discharge present: There was no evidence of groundwater
discharge. There were no colonies of iron oxidizing bacteria or fungi. There were no well-developed
hydric soil indicators in the soil at the toe of the channel bank. The local groundwater table was well
below the channel bottom in bore holes on either side of the channel. I dug a 3 in diameter bore hole
with a soil auger to a depth of 48 inches on the south side of the ditch at about 6 ft from the ditch
centerline. The bottom of that bore hole was 30 in below the bottom of the ditch and there was no
evidence of soil saturation in the bottom of the bore hole (Figure 12). An 8 in diameter bore hole was
present on the north side of the channel about 16 ft from the channel resulting from a recent
geotechnical assessment. The water table in that bore hole was 87 in below the soil surface and 56 in
below the bottom of the channel (Figure 13). Therefore, the channel reach is an influent or recharge
system. Normal base flow in intermittent and perennial streams in NC is an effluent or discharge
system from the local, permanent groundwater system. When water is discharged to the upper section
of the channel reach from the stormwater pipe, a small, very localized, perched saturated zone forms in
the channel bottom and in the lower portion of the bank Water in that saturated zone seeps downward
toward the local permanent water table.
The water present in the channel that discharges from the stormwater outlet pipe during rain
free periods is a discharge of condensate from the hospital air conditioning system. Mike Raynor, Rex
Hospital Facilities Services, noted that the drain lines from at least six large air handlers discharge to
the stormwater system on the south side of the hospital complex (personal communication, November
13, 2003). When I arrived at the site at 10:00 am on November 12, there was water in a deep pool at
the outlet pipe and small, shallow discontinuous pools of water amongst the stones in the channel
I ' t
bottom of the upper section of the channel reach. There was no evidence of flow through or between
those small pools of water. There was no standing water in the lower section of the channel reach. At
about 11:30 am, I noted a low rate of discharge beginning from the outlet pipe. Within 20-30 minutes,
the water level had risen in the upper section of the ditch sufficiently to produce a low rate of flow.
That flow rate gradually increased somewhat during the next two hours. At about 12:30 pm, water
began to rise into the bottom of the first plunge pool in the lower section of the ditch as the storage
available in the relatively deep layer of riprap and crushed stone in the channel bottom was filled. By
about 1:30 pm, the water level was about 12 in deep in the first plunge pool and water had begun to
rise into the second plunge pool.
Primary Biology Indicators
III.1 - Fibrous roots present in stream bed: Weak in upper section; few very small areas of roots
adjacent to 5 small (3-4 ft tall) black willow trees that are on the lower bank or in the channel. Strong
in lower section; many large areas of roots from several relatively large black willow trees on lower
bank.
111.2 - Rooted plants present in stream bed: Strong in upper section; many clumps of two different
herbaceous plants are present in the channel plus a couple of small black willow trees. Weak in lower
section.
111.3 - Periphyton: much present on the stones in the upper section.
111.4 - Bivalves: None.
Secondary Geomorphology Indicators
I.1 - Headcut present: No.
1.2 - Grade control in channel: No. The entire channel bottom is controlled by the riprap. The
vertical drops at the heads of the three plunge pools are constructed features. There are no natural
grade controls.
1.3 - Does topography indicate a natural drainage way: The few natural slope elements remaining in
the catchment have relatively low gradient.
Secondary Hydrology Indicators
11. 1 - Leaflitter present in channel: Some of this year's and very little of last year's litter is present.
11.2 - Sediment on plants or debris: much fine sediment on the stones.
11. 3 - Wrack lines present: few very small debris piles of twigs and leaves.
11. 4 and II. 5 - Water was present in the channel, even though it was not the result of groundwater
discharge.
4
r , f,
11.6 - Hydric soils present in sides of channel: I tried to sample the material at the base of the bank at
8-10 different locations along the channel. At about half the locations, the material was coarse
sediment, not soil. At the other locations, there was young, coarse alluvial soil but likely with low iron
content. There were some weakly developed redoximorphic features in the soil sample collected a few
feet downstream of the deep pool at the outlet pipe. There were a few very weakly developed
redoximorphic feature at a couple of the other sites in the upper section of the ditch. However, in none
of the soil samples were the hydric indicators sufficiently strong to meet the hydric soils criteria of the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) or those of the Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA NRCS, 2002).
Secondary Biology Indicators
The macroinvertebrate assessment was conducted by Sherwood Jones, who is well-qualified
for that task.
111. 1 - Fish present: None.
111.2 - Amphibians present: None.
111.3 - Aquatic turtles present: None.
IIIA - Crayfish present: Two in the deep pool at the stormwater outlet; none elsewhere.
111.5 - Macrobenthos present: An extensive search was conducted for macrobenthos. Found in the
upper section of the ditch were 2 leeches, 2 worms, and numerous aquatic snails. None found in the
lower section of the ditch.
111.6 - Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungi present: None were found. The absence of these organisms in the
numerous small pools of water in the upper section of the ditch is especially significant as evidence of
the LACK of groundwater discharge. All intermittent streams in the central Piedmont that I have
visited in the last several months that have sustained pools or very low sustained flow have been
orange with extensive colonies of iron oxidizing bacteria or fungi.
III.7 - Wetland plants present in the stream bed: Many small clumps of Polygonum punctatum (Facw)
and Cardamine pensylvanica (Facw), a couple of small Salix nigra (Obl) and one Nyssa sylvatica
(Fac).
5
J
Figure 4 - Upper section of channel reach viewed
downstream from the stormwater outlet pipe. Land
surface slopes downward away from the channel on
the left (north) side. Ditch was excavated into the
side slope and the channel bottom is well above the
permanent water table. All pictures were taken at
about 1:30 pm. Discharge from the pipe started
about 11:30 am.
Figure 7 - Upper section of the channel reach just
downstream of the deep pool at the pipe outlet. The
small sediment bench on the right (north) side of the
channel is the only location where significant
development of hydric soil indicators was present.
The pool retains water continuously during rain free
periods when the hospital air conditioners are
operating and keeps that sediment bench saturated.
6
Figure 6 - Upper section of the channel reach
looking upstream. Picture was taken at 1:30 pm. At
10:00 am that morning, there were only
discontinuous, small shallow pockets of ponded
water between the stones in the thalweg and no
evidence of flow.
Figure 5 - Additional view of upper section of the
channel reach. The stormwater retention pond to
which the ditch discharges is in the background.
{ J 1
channel reach.
7
Figure 8 - Another view of the upper section of the
Figure 9 - Lower section of the channel reach
looking downstream toward the stormwater retention
pond. The channel turns to the right at the head of
the first plunge pool.
Figure 10 - First plunge pool in the lower section of
the channel reach looking upstream. Picture taken at
1:30 pm. At 10:00 am, there was no water in the
pool.
Figure 11 - Second plunge pool in the lower section
of the channel reach. At 1:30 pm, water was just
beginning to appear in the bottom of the pool.
f .4 Y
References
below the channel bottom at 1:35 pm.
Cawthorne, J. W. 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina. USDA, Soil Conservation
Service, Raleigh, NC.
USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wetlands Research Program Technical
Report Y-87-1 (online edition).
USDA NRCS. 2002. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 5.01. G. W. Hurt,
P. M. Whited, and R. F. Pringle (eds.). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.
8
Figure 12 - The wooden stake is beside the bore
hole, 3 in diameter and 4 ft deep, dug with a soil
auger. At 1:35 pm, the bottom of the bore hole was
30 in below the water in the ditch and there was no
evidence of soil saturation in the bottom of the bore
hole.
Figure 13 - View south to north across the upper
section of the ditch. Small bore hole is in the
foreground. In the background beside the stake is the
8 in diameter bore hole where the water table is 56 in
4 V %
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: >?' ,? fj6f River Basin: 4?6-3G ?r ??r County.
(/ '? Evaluator. JG-sweS
G? V
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: #16-3 - Latitude: 35 VV x59 2$V'sture: ( ?y
Date: /I? 7/e 3 USGS QUAD' As Longitude:'Nb?lt,Z j j?&Location/Directi
*PLEASE NOTE: Ijevaluator and landowner agree` that the feature is a man-made ditch, then an ojthisform Is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement ofthe evaluator, thefeature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should of be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present! C40 1 2 3
10) Is a tad Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tooo Mao And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 N
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS: l
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischame Present? 1 2 3
PRIMARY 0GYINDICATORPMTS.
ICATOR
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural DrainaeWa 0 1 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOL0GYINDICATOR PO S: • S
9
Secondary Field Indicators: (CireleOneNumberPerLine)
11 ..
R e v
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? tyom ifpwh lndimted In B9 Above Skb nis Step And k 211 )
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 N
SECONDARYRTDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Are Fish
.5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV "Mostly OBL Mostly F CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
('NOTE:IfTotaiAbsenceofAiiPfanu/n&reambed 2 1 4w .5 0 0
As NoW Abow Sldo This &= UNLESS SAV Prwmi-).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.--Z, 2 6
TOTAL POTS (Primary + Secondary) _ 93 (If Greater Than Or Equal To Z Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
2
10

i
m
?, a o o Luvk
Vf
W, I i r o § EJ
J y
N ? c? $ S 5 5?? J J b Q
LAI&
w
13
6t n S
-„-
?::;?u w w? `w w
O y b$ ? 9-9
W ' k
c? '
Z N N ?= _? ? oo w W' w ? ?
Q z ?' a s m_ ?? m m _.
V U wx w8? wow O s? ' ? T
p ai o'n oz-
No- oc
I? ?w Sv m 0...
v/ c w i;.• .
° -'C V1
o U v 7
r (0,
O.o
s
m o= m $ o 55
U Z
i
!/ 1 A
- S Vunj je\ cM
u s 3 S Sv+',?
Yc- s fJ?'? 1 ? /"r -

- s ,,?- 1 ^?.tor. w h

??
N, ujj W 1 Jtream %_lUSS> 1ft;4t.Vt1 r UFM
/Project Name: '1 e.,, NS0J- River Basin: , 3 c oic County: (,-) c,? Evaluator: QZ-
DWQProject Number: - Nearest Named tream: k-6use. CrealeLatitude: Signature:.
Date: 11 - os o3 USGS QUAD: ule:?.. . Longitude: Location/Directions: j. t6g l41
*'PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of thisform is not necessary.
4 if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream--this
r4,,ng system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. GeomDrpholoey Absg%l Weak Moderate Strong
1) is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Surambed
Different From Surrounding in? 2 3 NP-r4f
3) Are Natural Levees Present? I 2 3
'4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 ?- 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
P-Stb(,t , bq4
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And X48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 15
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE. I Dft h Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #S B low*
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 15
8) Are Wetland Plants in Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0 6k•ti,
As N t d Above Sk' t UNLESS P nt*
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
.x-d` TAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19. Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Di c e Present? 1
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: L ',ok Ix k. eKfnuy,n?Q and A (taed +)( wo?an
;dart' Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:_JW ?y r y
i
Rex Hospital Site / On-site Determination Appeal / November 5, 2003

i

.1 1 1 1
Rex Hospital Site / On-site Determination Appeal / November 5, 2003
I

s
;??, . j
I'
Rex Hospital Site / On-site

v
1X
r I:

?

'p
F
is
u I
NAT,
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
November 5, 2003
f ?®
rn and Associates Inc.
Klmley Ho
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Attn: Mr. Harlan K. Britt, PE
Subject Property: Rex Hospital, Lake Boone Trail, Raleigh, NC
UT to House Creek [03-04-02, 27-33-13, C NSW (nutrient sensitive)]
DWQ # 03-1393
Wake County
Page 1 of 2
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC ;
2B .0233)
Dear Mr. Britt:
On November 5, 2003, at your request I conducted an on-site determination to review a surface water located
on the subject property for applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0233). The surface water is
labeled as "Subject Stream" on the map below. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Staff from the Raleigh
Regional Office had previously conducted anon-site determination of the stream. In your letter to the Director
dated November 5, 2003, you requested an appeal of their determination as provided within 15A NCAC 02B
.0233(3)(a).
At your request, I conducted an appeal of their determination as stated above. During my review I evaluated
the stream using the DWQ Stream Classification Form. I evaluated the stream reach above the pond and
calculated the score to be 19 points. The form states that if the score is "greater than or equal to 19 points the
stream is at least intermittent'.
The DWQ has determined that the stream labeled as "Subject Stream" on the map below is at least
"intermittent" and is subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule. This stream and it's associated buffers should be
identified on any future plans for this property. The owner (or future owners) should notify the DWQ (and other
relevant agencies) of this decision in any future correspondences concerning this property.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules. and does not approve any activity within the
buffers. Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If
you have any additional questions or require additional information please call me at [phone]. This
determination is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 & 4 of G.S. 150B.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/

4 -, kk7l: :` ?-F?
Sincerely,
Bob Zarzecki,
DWQ, Wetlands/ 401 Unit
cc: Deborah Edwards, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
LJLV
Klimek, P.E.
r, Division of later Quality
Rex Hospital / Harlan Britt
Page 2 of 2
November 5, 2003

C]Mn Kimlay-Worn
and Associates, Inc.
November 5, 2003
Post-it" Fax Note 7671 Date asea?
p
To ? `,
From lvnr WALW4-
poA1ept.,DL4 a. 140% W 4 9 00 14
_q 1-73
Fax # al l '? `j t (? i{? Fax # 7 _Lo
¦
P.O, an 33066
Rote, Ncrth Caroha
27636.9068
Mr. John Domey
Attn: Mr. Bob Zar+secki
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27649-1650
Re: Rex Healthcare Campus
Buffer Determination Appeal
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) is developing plans for Rex
Healthcare°s campus on Lake Boone Trail as related to the proposed 100,000 9-f-
Medical Office Building, parking garage expansions, and associated driveway
connections. As part of the plan development, an existing pond and channel
located on the campus were evaluated for subjectivity to the Neuse Buffer
requirements. The pond is hydrologically connected to a jurisdictional (USGS
blue-litre) stream and is subject to the buffer requirements (as determined from a
September 17, 2003 site visit). A channel above the pond was evaluated on
November 11, 2003, by Debbie Edwards from the D`Vi1Q Raleigh regional office
and by Norton Webster (KHA). It was determined by Ms. Edwards that the
channel was subject to the Neuse Buffer requirements. KHA believes that the
channel is not subject to the buffer requirements and therefore formally requests
on the behalf of Rex Hospital a reevaluation of the channel.
The charnel originates from a 48-inch concrete pipe and flows into a rip-rap line
channel discharging into the pond. It is the opinion of KHA that the geomorphic,
hydrologic, and biologic functions and features of the channel are such that the
channel is not an intermittent 6r perennial channel but rather is a channel
conveyance system for stormwater runoff.
w
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Z00/T00'd £TDT#
AMR 0903LL96T6 LO:LT £C03,90'AON
Y
Kimley-Worn
and Associates, Inc.
Please call me at your earliest convenience at [phone] to schedule a site
visit, Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
KFMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Harlan K. Britt, P.E.
Associate
Cc: - Tim Grady, RLA
Bob Fields, Rex Hospital
300/300'6 ET6T# nNH 050ZLLM T6 LO:LT EC03,90'AoN
'Wetlands Tracking
o
F ?
Facility Name Rex Hospital Nutrient/Stornwater Management Plan
Project Number 03 1192 ? Express
tr. l Y
Project Type propose of Nutrient/Stormwater Management Plan ( County wake
Location 44'0 Lake Boone Trail RZ dcigh -- County2
I`
Received From APP
Received Date September 25, 20031
Sent to Region Date
COE ID # Region Raleigh
COE Susp Date I Reg. Contact
DCM Susp Date I APPLICATION FEE INFO <.
Rcvd Region Date I TIP Number J Payment Date ,
Last Action Date October t,'003 More Info Requested 10/1/2003 Amount Paid
Last Action Hold More Info Received I: 6 Payor IA
Latitude (ddmmss),354859 I Mitigation ? Chock #
Ir
Longitude (ddmmss) 784203 COC Received Date
Public Notice Written I Public Notice I Comment Period IJ
Date Received Date $- _>- Ends Date
rermlt
Tw e
VII ATF9Q Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
O North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-1 Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
0 Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
October 1, 2003
DWQ # 03-1192
Wake County
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Rex Hospital Inc.
Attn: Al Stewart
4420 Lake Boone Trail
Raleigh, NC 27602
Subject Property: 4420 Lake Boone Trail, Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Stewart:
On September 26, 2003 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your
application regarding your plan to fill wetlands or waters for the purpose of providing a stormwater
management plan in Wake County. Approval from DWQ is required to disturb these areas. Please
provide 7 copies of the following information and refer to the DWQ # listed above in your reply. Please
show these on maps of suitable scale (for instance 1" = 100 feet) so we can begin to determine your
projects' compliance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500.
Wetland Delineation:
1. Please provide a Wetland Delineation Map or Jurisdictional Determination approved by the
US Army Corps of Engineers depicting the extent of 404 jurisdiction within the project area.
Specifically, address whether the USACE will take jurisdiction over the pond and channel
above the pond. This information is needed for us to ensure compliance with other DWQ
regulation. A "blue line" intermittent stream is depicted within the project area and above
the pond on the "Raleigh West" USGS topographic map.
Stormwater Management:
2. Is or will the pond be adequately sized for entire watershed?
Model Pond Treatment:
3. If pond is not big enough, then treatment it provides for the new impervious surface (parking
deck and medical office building) is not adequate and will need to be addressed separately.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
?nctnmrr .CP/'?li/`P .?t• 1-R77-R9R-R74R

Page 2
Mr. Stewart
October 1, 2003
Neuse River Buffer Rules:
4. Please contact Mr. Bob Zarzecki at 919-733-9726 to evaluate the channel above the pond for
subjectivity to the Neuse Buffer Rule.
Please telephone Bob Zarzecki at 919-733-9726 if you have any questions or would require copies of
our rules or procedural materials. This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H .0505(c). The processing time for this application will begin when this information is
received. If we do not hear from you by writing or by fax at [phone] within three (3) weeks we
will assume you no longer want to pursue the project and will consider it withdrawn.
Sincerely,
?i R. Dorney
Water Quality Certi cation Program
JRD/bs
cc: Debbie Edwards, Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
Harlen Britt, Kimley-Horn and Associates
? ? ? Kimley-Horn rk r
and Associates, Inc. C Copy
NETLA?NDS/401 GAof1p
September 24, 2003 N
qF P 2 5 2©? P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
Mr. John Dorney I'I n ?VATERQv/ALITYSECtIoN 27636.3068
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Neuse River Basin Variance Request Form Relative to the
Rex Hospital Nutrient/ Stormwater Management Plan
Dear John:
Please find attached three (3) completed copies of the State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), Neuse River Basin Variance Request Form.
This request is being made due to proposed improvements of the existing
stormwater facility at Rex Healthcare's campus on Lake Boone Trail in Raleigh,
N.C., as related to the proposed 100,000 s.f. Medical Office Building and parking
garage expansions. Preliminary drawings for these new improvements, including
a stormwater nutrient/ stormwater management plan, have been submitted for
review to the City of Raleigh.
As discussed in previous telecommunications with Norton Webster of Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc., the existing wet pond has been classified by DENR as
hydraulically connected to an intermittently flowing blue-line stream, and has a
50 foot Neuse buffer located around its perimeter. In concert with the City of
Raleigh site plan approval process for the Medical office building project, we are
proposing a minor variance to reconfigure the stormwater management pond
within the Neuse buffer, encroach into zone 2, and reestablish zone 1.
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Kimley-Horn
and Associate n
Please review and consider our variance request as required. You may contact me
direct at 919-677-2125, should you have any questions regarding this work.
Very truly yours,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
?f ?C
Timotth rady,?A
Associate
cc - Bob Field - Rex Hospital
Harlan Britt - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Norton Webster - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Attachments
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

Variance Request Form - for Minor
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
FILE COPY
Please identify which Riparian Area (Buffer) Protection Rule applies.
;K Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC 02B
.0233)
o Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC 0213.0259)
o Catawba River Basin: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian
Buffers (15A NCAC 02B .0243)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Rex Hospital Incorporated.
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: Al Stewart
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, N.C. 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Harlan Britt or Tim Grady - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: (919)) 677-2050
Email: [e-mail] - or - [e-mail]
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Rex Hospital Nutrient/Stormwater Management Plan
DS/401 CRF:
SE P 2 5 2003
?VATEAQUALITYSECl
Variances I01
Version 2: November 2002
5. Project Location:
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC 27602
County: Wake County
Latitude/longitude: 352 48'59. 1 1"N / 789 42'2.92" W
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'/2 x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
Take Blue Ridge Road to Lake Boone Trail„ and head east on Lake Boone Trail. Make the
second left into hospital at the second traffic signal. The existing stormwater pond and site
proposed for development are immediately on the left, after the Wellness Center.
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT' to the nearest named stream): N/A
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 213
.0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]: N/A
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received:
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
N/A
Part 2: Proposed Activity
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land. Include the area
of buffer impact in ft2.]:
An existing, limited function stormwater pond will be improved and reconfigured into a fully
functional stormwater management pond, treating stormwater runoff from a proposed parking
deck expansion, proposed medical office building, and future building. Buffer impact ft.2 =
3530.
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
-Two points of ingress/egress must be maintained in expanding the existing garage providing
for the safety of the user, including no "dead end" configurations in the garage.
-Existing conditions relative to the existing parking garage configuration do not allow for other
alternatives to expansion of the parking garage.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
-The existing pond has no measurable treatment provided for water quality improvement. The
reconfigured pond will increase nitrogen treatment and suspended solids treatment
significantly.
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 2: November 2000
-The reconfigured pond shall be constructed with a 6 foot wide shelf at the wet pool water
surface elevation, for wetland plantings.
-All slopes of the reconfigured wet pond shall be constructed with jute mesh for quick
establishment of a vegetated shelf, and to provide improved erosion control.
-The pond shall have a fountain to prevent water stagnation
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
The proposed building expansions would not be feasible due to lack of parking support for
the expansions.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
-The parking garage has to be expanded a minimum of one bay to allow for traffic circulation
to each level (a one-bay expansion is proposed). Additionally, dual, full movement access to
the parking garage is critical for pedestrian and motorist safety. Finally, efficient traffic flow
and function will help reduce traffic volume at specific locations, dispersing traffic through
alternate entrance/ exit points to the campus.
-There is a significant and successful hospital campus serving the community, and on-
campus expansion and growth are critical to support the growing community. The building
area proposed is the only expansion area available on campus to accommodate the required
use.
-State law requires that the medical office uses of the proposed medical office building be
directly connected to the Birth Center portion of the existing hospital, so a doctor is readily
available for their patient at all times.
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
N/A
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization (for purpose of receiving information only)
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Harlan Britt or Tim Grady
Mailing address: P.O. Box 33068
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, N.C. 27636-3068
Telephone: (919)- 677-2000
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] - or- [e-mail]
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 2: November 2000
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
I, AL Stewart, Chief Financial Officer, Rex Hospital Incorporated, certify that the information
included on this permit application form is correct, that the project will be constructed in
conformance with the approved plans and that the deed restrictions in accordance with Part 3 of
this form will be recorded with all required permit conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Of /)°1 t03
Ch-M F))4A} r-),Ai Gfffcie-
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 2: November 2000
v
1649 Ca theas Bay of Wake orest
o
m v 3- m 50
?? o-d 55 7n
H Q
* °e db Bozwood•Rd reen evel ry f;ale t leigh East
0>61 401
0- 64 1 0 2.5 5
Gariiagedh, ew Hill x Lake Whee
G Miles
ei m
/ tonerrd9e' r o• Fae?of - ?apO _
e
I l
Toeehstone•Foresl-R ?6vr ?r 1
J`- Edgemon[•Dr o
m
o 9 R. ' a° G/ -
U) \1
& y5° ti
, a n
1775 m_p l I Adine•D
°
RAacon•Pond• d .Td 2 --{ - Sandia-0
a? 1 cObb?est
'ti m ?? w ??''Y1 OJ Datalida•Gt _ -\-? i. °ne•E
m a Hampten•Rd
? `m a E
rlOcotea-S
00 " 1676 M F`
a
ke•Boon NI -
ornas•R
Project Site
A ?
c RaeOy Harden•R 'd??L? Oanen•Or
d d d
/R Horton-St
?? Alma -
1728 `W t ?ek"??e ^ Rd
3113 1664 C'atal?n Dr o
x in.ct
.? - iStFleOD Andrew Ln
m ` C-hurehil4R
`- Q
n m
SFadleyPI
*3113
"- _ 6eon+ard-St
3036 cra g `Redbud• n- i
m ._
che
C41) Fnnity-R $ .. yet' ?m
m 11 m 6pa
>. U
-? 0 1,000 2,000 s
m
-
31 >° 54 I
3042. U9$ Feet
Title USGS Quad Map (Raleigh West 1988)
Kimley-Horn Project Rex Hospital Nutrient/Stormwater Management Plan
and Associates, Inc.
Date: Scale: Project No. Figure:
9-5-2003 T1 in.=2000 ft.
CC"
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Project Rex Hospital Nutrient/Stormwater Management Plan
Date: I Scale: I Project No.
9-5-2003 1 in.=500 ft.
Figure:
Title I Soils Map (2000 Aerial Photograph)
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request j._,_i?__?'i?_..._
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality '
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variaas 2003
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules AMEAQU14LITYS
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original. ?C?I ®'V
Please identify which Riparian Area (Buffer) Protection Rule applies.
X Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC 02B
.0233)
? Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC 0213.0259)
? Catawba River Basin: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian
Buffers (15A NCAC 0213.0243)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Rex Hospital Incorporated.
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: Al Stewart
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, N.C. 27602
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Harlan Britt or Tim Grady - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: (919)) 677-2050
Email: [e-mail] - or - [e-mail]
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Rex Hospital Nutrient/ Stormwater Management Plan
Version 2: November 2002
5. Project Location:
Street address: 4420 Lake Boone Trail
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC 27602
County: Wake County
Latitude/longitude: 352 48'59. 1 1"N / 782 42'2.92" W
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'/2 x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
Take Blue Ridge Road to Lake Boone Trail„ and head east on Lake Boone Trail. Make the
second left into hospital at the second traffic signal. The existing stormwater pond and site
proposed for development are immediately on the left, after the Wellness Center.
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT' to the nearest named stream): N/A
Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 213
.0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]: N/A
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received:
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
_N/A
N/A
Part 2: Proposed Activity
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land. Include the area
of buffer impact in ft2.]:
An existing, limited function stormwater pond will be improved and reconfigured into a fully
functional stormwater management pond, treating stormwater runoff from a proposed parking
deck expansion, proposed medical office building, and future building. Buffer Impact ft.2 =
3530.
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
-Two points of ingress/egress must be maintained in expanding the existing garage providing
for the safety of the user, including no "dead end" configurations in the garage.
-Existing conditions relative to the existing parking garage configuration do not allow for other
alternatives to expansion of the parking garage.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
-The existing pond has no measurable treatment provided for water quality improvement. The
reconfigured pond will increase nitrogen treatment and suspended solids treatment
significantly.
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 2: November 2000
-The reconfigured pond shall be constructed with a 6 foot wide shelf at the wet pool water
surface elevation, for wetland plantings.
-All slopes of the reconfigured wet pond shall be constructed with jute mesh for quick
establishment of a vegetated shelf, and to provide improved erosion control.
-The pond shall have a fountain to prevent water stagnation
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
The proposed building expansions would not be feasible due to lack of parking support for
the expansions.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
-The parking garage has to be expanded a minimum of one bay to allow for traffic circulation
to each level (a one-bay expansion is proposed). Additionally, dual, full movement access to
the parking garage is critical for pedestrian and motorist safety. Finally, efficient traffic flow
and function will help reduce traffic volume at specific locations, dispersing traffic through
alternate entrance/ exit points to the campus.
-There is a significant and successful hospital campus serving the community, and on-
campus expansion and growth are critical to support the growing community. The building
area proposed is the only expansion area available on campus to accommodate the required
use.
-State law requires that the medical office uses of the proposed medical office building be
directly connected to the Birth Center portion of the existing hospital, so a doctor is readily
available for their patient at all times.
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
N/A
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization (for purpose of receiving information only)
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Harlan Britt or Tim Grady
Mailing address: P.O. Box 33068
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, N.C. 27636-3068
Telephone: (919)- 677-2000
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] - or- [e-mail]
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 2: November 2000
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
I, AL Stewart, Chief Financial Officer, Rex Hospital Incorporated, certify that the information
included on this permit application form is correct, that the project will be constructed in
conformance with the approved plans and that the deed restrictions in accordance with Part 3 of
this form will be recorded with all required permit conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
9IIrl103
cWt rbiRkGrA) 64CUrt,
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 2: November 2000
+y 5
I f ?1 I1! #-
i f ?
}. 1649 / )j
? 4 I 1
I
I`

54

4TH y. Y ?r., ^tlO
- kAd6R 4i I I 4 ? 9 t, ? -

V
III
1
9s - 1 ?
'i
: .
=
.rr
Sr i? W - ,y.r _
Jp ?
?•
?
1 [ 4 Liti C'i? ?. _ A ,
D1 I
l F " y tiy^ ? °_ i r ? L, -?
JM
B ?
Syf
IryY
?
?
Project Site) =1
sc? I ,;
dtf rr . .,. F Hardee
Y I I i _ _ l } > ?r ; ;.; ySBJ"' a va
_ Yom' .rt l? 3 + \ m ,1 I' I

Q
: ?7 ?Sr' 4 y V If ? ~? ®
Y?
y?
?a I 1r! _ ! ? .A? Al ? ?I ^^.r Y^r ?4 ? ? ? ? ?
I i•fitdL?l uhq ?I i 1 ?•.?.? ?"'i?l ?? ? (. 7? Y I '
Y

?
I f J L-
'? " ,Frinity=R p {r {?yN. j ? r?? P? ?f
?
1
II ?? ? '
^? _1
°i'
! 4
? I
'F
, 1
,
t ?
L+??
a
'-
? } ?
'I. :•'?y I ', _ d ' ' ? ?''J t?+1e; i v ?? ? I I I
?.`? f f'-'?..

- 1 ?
r?
r w
3Q42' '
AO?

Title USGS Quad Map (Raleigh West 1988)
Kimley-Horn Project Rex Hospital Nutrient/Stormwater Management Plan
and Associates
Inc
,
.
Date:
7 Scale: Project No. Figure:
9-5-2003 1 in.=2000 ft.
CC"
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Project Rex Hospital Nutrient/Stormwater Management Plan
Date: ( Scale: I Project No.
9-5-2003 1 in.=500 ft.
Figure:
Title Soils Map (2000 Aerial Photograph)
70
n , -
n V7 tQ? t
p
f -e
n If
rrn I
y"
17
20
0
n
:rn
s uJ`i
?v
?v
ESN
0
Z'
N
1-0
C;u
>ul
a=
mo
ZZ
?y
Z Vl
7
?m
KO
C
?m
a { 1 1 tP j1
I' Z OFFS
o ?? I
M '
f .
1 y? j r
.
` t ?i .uav. ??
t i
I
ym
ZN
;A
°
m
I °
°
o
Z
In
Zo
n;u
In ;j
m
c
my
§m
Sv
?v
?o
0''a
x=
?v
F?
of
z
...... ;: J is F?a
F er
1 ?. 'H 'f a
q' .,taa""x.' 6 1 t'
f
r ,
®a? '.
- ffj? ??r
r 4
t•YGj
.? f€ c P r6 f?. - ?
} OFF ITE

00

S, r )
i
A!Nk a

SCALE:
1"=150'
Itiilil ? ?El
W

F= ?
r

f t?

> r
ik

¢
?1NATERSHED SUMMARY
'
RIPTION
p ASEB
ASSOCIAM
BASIN 1
1.11 AC
BASIN 2 0.94 AC
POND BASIN 0.86 AC
OFFSITE BASIN 1 2.05 AC
OFFSITE BASIN 2 18.98 AC
OFFSITE BASIN 3 21.89 AC
;F TOTAL AREA DA#1 26.69 AC
--- ....., z: AO err
-DEVELOPMENT 7JMP 63.5
'-DEVELOPMENT %IMP 78.2

y0
Z En
v?
•mc
o
;u m ?
O
m yn"
m? D
0.O y
O;l p
Z
y m
oc
nZ
= 0
v ;p
Ov D
Sy r-
* ?1
m c? O
2? = m
z z X
O I
Im ;u
z N
?m =
z
Oz z C7 D
gv ? 'A r
O
z z
D
zzx
m
2z Fi
xo
s
M!^
Z y
?;z
wo
Oc
5 O -D
U,z
N
n a u
O
U, 5! m m
o
mm
r
f? D
m z
0g O
?c m
mM
M
z
?O ?
WO cn
7C =
A
f?* 2
S?
Z
am
d cn
o G7
;ID m C
m
z
n
17
j, .
12- /"• _ as
f,t
NEW ..
RETAININGI t' I l
/ .6
WALL I
\k-I t s
zz ? ,` 1
K,_jo -
liA L 9 C
I,. cE 'z
i
T-T

A?
is

/ v
•i

:i
c" . ,?
f.
F ES
o3?
Z 0
0
0 3
C) •c
X; o
a
d
O
m? a
m w
C,
O
z
Nm
00
0
c) Z
c0
mm
00 D
r
?'z m
M(A C)
T = M
x
a Z
m
O =
00 -?? O
Dm
Z= n y
v ? :Ll r
g O
Z Z
D
zm
!?o
?CA u
mm
zy
v?
00
O
Z
N!-< m
23 x
N
vl? M 0 Z
c Z G)
M-0 C7
2 -0 RI D O
$o m 0
D :zi
C O
Z
O N
O?
7C =
52
I?
0
ZI
V
am
a G7
M OC
rri
m
O
z ?^
n
f`v 1 Y' i '/l/
r t -' _? tx
y( ?
i
?-- - i it
?--
)
J 7
f ? i t
)
I )
II i
o ui ?-
):s
1
r
z tr o. I iT »
sill 11 W,
.r
o,
C, D
AL?r ?m

Y
11

?y

i
i
?r
FLES
IN V,

J
O?
44, U
q qo?
-e5 t
w-e- Re 6-A
IJ vo r °)(fsul ???/? "?'-? .
CG' USAeI£ ?e.Ae?.. Q ??
I-? fmuJJ

c V\@
?e
15 ,ter wAe?afe ? urll twa&? 1b
DWQ# 0-6- Wit
Plan Detail Incomplete
Date 4 uO" ?3 Who Reviewed: zero
? Please provide a location map for the project.
? Please show all stream impacts including all fill slopes, dissipaters, and bank stabilization on the site plan.
? Please show all wetland impacts including fill slopes on the site plan.
? Please indicate all buffer impacts on the site plan.
? Please indicate proposed lot layout as overlays on the site plan.
? Please indicate the location of the protected buffers as overlays on the site plan.
? Please locate all isolated or non-isolated wetlands, streams and other waters of the State as overlays on the site plan.
? Please provide cross section details showing the provisions for aquatic life passage.
? Please locate any planned sewer lines on the site plan.
? Please provide the location of any proposed stormwater management practices as required by GC
? Please provide detail for the stormwater management practices as required by GC
? Please specify the percent of project imperviousness area based on the estimated built-out conditions.
? Please indicate all stormwater outfalls on the site plan.
? Please indicate the diffuse flow provision measures on the site plan.
? Please indicate whether or not the proposed impacts already been conducted.
Avoidance and/or Minimization Not Provided
? The labeled as on the plans does not appear to be necessary. Please eliminate the or provide additional
information as to why it is necessary for this project.
? This Office believes that the labeled on the plans as can be moved or reconfigured to avoid the impacts to the
. Please revise the plans to avoid the impacts.
? This Office believes that the labeled on the plans as can be moved or reconfigured to minimize the impacts to the
. Please revise the plans to minimize the impacts.
? The stormwater discharges at the location on the plans labeled will not provide diffuse flow through the buffer because
. Please revise the plans and provide calculations to show that diffuse flow will be achieved through the entire buffer. If it
is not possible to achieve diffuse flow through the entire buffer then it may be necessary to provide stormwater management
practices that remove nutrients before the stormwater can be discharged through the buffer.
Other
? The application fee was insufficient because over 150 feet of stream and/or over 1 acre of wetland impacts were requested. Please
provide $ . This additional fee must be received before your application can be reviewed.
? Please complete Section(s) on the application.
? Please provide a signed copy of the application.
? Please provide copies of the application copies of the site plans and other supporting information.
Mitigation
? of compensatory mitigation is required for this project. Please provide a compensatory mitigation plan. The
plan must conform to the requirements in 15 A NCAC 2H .0500 and must be appropriate to the type of impacts proposed.
? Please indicate which 404 Permit the USACE would use to authorize this project.
over
oj2 I I I
.., °
,am C.
zm 3 ?j ` t
i
0:4 ID
M
9
w I
ox so
4
N0
Op
OZ
CO
Em
fg
O
CN
2
v
AM
ICI N
ZA
N
ou
A
Om
Z?
z
Z?
E-n
m

W0
m
Zy
HM
p
0
z
zo
nA
mn
y
K
c
mo
M
N
O?
$o
?o
OA
xF
2
?O
of
z?n
,
' I
... a
1. um CC
1334 IN
V.
t /
r /
I '
6F ITE S IN/2
EXISTING WET POND
Oo O0 -I m
^r
0) M

BLUE RIDGE ROAD C ! s fl x
4 ..1F
st.
MULT ' SCALE.
1"=150'
flF
r•7 .: 1,, tea. u? f__._ -""^\{ ; U ? fj ??:#;
! ?n
Lill!
F
J
' ?a, t ?1I fir; -rj.4 ,
?#
17 -
1?) .. 01 lt??
i 11, Ii flu
EA #2?,l,
rx,
y
^r
17x.c ?? J ? 1 1771
47_
?.J i! i Ii M
W \1 \N7
j!t' f j
f"f ? J ?ll?Fr;l b..,Q Mj .«
?iX l
uW e N4,7 ..
!
' .?
//,,/WATERSHED SUMMARY
6EkRIPTION A@EA

BASIN 1 2= 1.11 AC
BASIN 2 0,94 AC
BASIN 3 2.75 AC
TOTAL AREA TO BE DEVELOPED 4.75 AC
POND BASIN 0.86 AC
OFFSITE BASIN 1 2.05 AC
OFFSITE BASIN 2 18.98 AC
OFFSITE BASIN 3 21.89 AC
TOTAL AREA DA#1 26.69 AC
TOTAL AREA DA #2 33.49 AC
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 60.18 AC
FOR DA 1
PRE-DEVELOPMENT XMP 63.5
POST-DEVELOPMENT ZMP 78.2
f
ys
O ON
v
0
;v m
ofi
CL
AO
D
m
y
;a 0
i? D
m?
z
;1:0 I 1
Nm
vo
Oz
Cn
m
ag
m00 D'
r
s' ?
;u 0
A m 01 >R z x
Oz
$ ;u O
in
z? y D
c?^ X r
O
s z
IM D
oc:
zm
?o
emu
am
zN
?M
C) o
.< 0
?A 0
f/! (A
m rq
v 0
my -
r-
1 Z ?
Sg 0
0 m
m
m
;5A
x
;A
Z
la
09
M
yZyA
i A
00
m
z
?. sny O 1 ? l
t F °?
7y =
?! J .r r 1 O j '
j, n
'X
r
:
e
I&`
I&`"Pk
MEDICAL°OFFICE ,-
PARKING DECK
3 .4
UILDING (MOB) ?.
EXPANSION'
a
b9 S
j' (25,761 S. F.) (2 )
,. o w
% ,
NEW WET,OND AREA
low, N m
NEW
RETAIN N Z/
WA I \ ?/
LL
/ PROPOSED POND \==`.?l:n --?
(205243 S.F.)
J 01 '+ ? A
7-Z x . I` CK_ t f? RC
05; p r l 1{ 1 ..11 t? I °? 1,
f i
MIA
HVAC
001,
0.0
ZONE 2 4 _
6 G!t NV. 4 399:69'
TOR 400 zz
?: -, . 5 3: L
.41' IN "4 N 317 Cu 399.30'
I
u
?4 J /f STREAM CGS ~ ' ,Rey .. fi.
r t FES
-Al
INV. 4161'z?'Y

pQ 3
n
OmZ o
1 3
0
D 11
MC)
m0
OA y
02
z
ifE? I I
ym
pp
$z
CO
EM
i
1
o ;u
00 D
52 r -
M
Mz
ca
A = m
zo z X
O2
zo O
zz y D
o? ? r
gg O
z z
D
zm
?i
;-n
y? ?J
zm
zN
2i -
?Z
rpm
0
z
fp {
M
czi A X
N m -0 z
A z O
mo o
m ;u Z
m0
$O D
_Z? O
i z
O W
OA
A=
rO
I? x
11
OF
zs
v
M
pm
corn P ?1
Op
0
A ?
M
zm
n
fi- 4 4 /
} TOP 400.62' ` a P IN - 329,66'
----- W, OUT - 39959 i
arr \...i ,?u !N .... 39041' INV N
?{a- 1 372 '
INV 0U T (90.42=' p 4 N - 39 .0k
n
i f .
j?
I ? I
,..- , ... i 1,
tt?n - w
Cr_. _. mom ` FtS
INV.

I .
i
r?
r
i ?, 1 f 1 V J r 44„
1
t ?
n ?d F ??1 l
t ? _ .,,,, r•.1 f F?
?? r' ?._.. -y.,o, i? .-r i (•.. tit ! ?
r~ J J ,
r„
I J
t , rr?
r
r
jx
1
9J 1
G I
I
/r
y , FILL AR ?,
EAS
4039 S.F?
EXISTING POND u?_.`
(21,601 S.F.)
.
"*?•VA ..(L lip J' f/t/ x 01 .117
ftl-
asp
lK,
S ? ? I I I-.I
t
r '