20050300 Ver 2_401 Application_20050801

Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
??
August 1, 2005
L`-R Q-
o 03 QQ
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Express Review
Ruritania Street Extension
401 Water Quality Certification Application Submittal (NWP 14, GC 3404)
and Buffer Impact Approval Request
Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find the attached application, express review application addendum,
supporting information, and application fee of $4,000.00 regarding the Ruritania
Street Extension. As part of our current submittal we are withdrawing our
application for a 401 Water Quality Certification dated February 15, 2005 (DWQ #
05-0300).
This application has come about as a result of several meetings with NCDWQ Staff.
The meetings included an ofsite meeting on June 10, 2005 with Debbie Edwards,
John Dorney, John Hennessy, Mike Horan and Ian McMillian, Pete Sell from
Cypress Equities, staff from Kimley-Horn, and staff from the City of Raleigh.
Subsequent to this meeting, a meeting was held on June 27, 2005 with Debbie
Edwards and John Dorney, Scott Harrington with Cypress Equities, and staff from
Kimley-Horn during which we discussed an alignment that could be acceptable to
NCDWQ. This submittal is the result of those meetings. Since the offsite meetings
have already occurred, it may not be necessary to go through the entire express
review process. In any event, we anticipate that this application is complete and are
hopeful that it can be acted upon immediately.
If there is any additional information you need or any way we can assist in
expediting the processing of this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at
[phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
A-&d,
BetAced, PWS
Copy: Harlan Britt/Jeff Wing -KHA
F@ RHWIRB
AUG 1 - 2005
L E; f i -,,VATER QUALITY
WETLAfJDS hND STORIAVATER BRANCH
P.O. Box 33068
Ra;elgh, Not Carolina
27636-3068
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Office Use Only: Form Vusion??May 2002
Qn „i
Z) (P USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(Tf anv nartirnlar item is not annlicahle to this nroiect_ nlease enter "Not Annlicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 14 (Issued -
see Attachment A - USACE Action ID 200520621)
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ® - Attached acceptance letter dated July 28, 2005
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: El
II. Applicant Information tS Q W
1. Owner/Applicant Information AUG Z - 2005
Name: Cypress Equities, LLC ATTN: John Y".ki rJ Y
Mailing Address: 15601 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 VOIA!Dsa2,1DsrM?s,^,e TFRFR
Addison, TX 75001
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: john.farrow(a?.staubach.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Beth Reed - Agent/Consultant
Company Affiliation: Kimley-Horn and Associates
Mailing Address: 3001 Weston Parkway
Cary NC, 27513
Telephone Number: 919 677-2073 Fax Number: 919 677-2050
E-mail Address: beth.reed(iDkimley-hom.com
Page 1 of 11
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided. (SEE
ATTACHMENT B - FIGURES 1 TO 4 AND ATTACHED FULL-SIZE PLAN SET).
1. Name of project: Ruritania Street Exten
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): Not an NCDOT project
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 1727238996
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Raleigh, north on US 1,
west on Old Wake Forest Rd., north on Sumner Blvd. Site is at the end of Sumner Blvd., to
the north and east. (see Attachment B- Figure 1)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): See Quad Map (Attachment B -Figure 3)
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): +/- 5.1 acre
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): UT to Perry Creek (Gresham's
Lake) B, NSW Index No. 27-25-(1)
8. River Basin: Neuse (NEU02)
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mat)s/.)
Page 2 of 11
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Except for the riparian buffers the area was recently clear-cut. The
site is currently undeveloped. The adjacent properties are commercial buildings, apartment
buildinas. and Interstate 540.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Construction of a roadway to provide connectivity between existin,9 Ruritania Street and
existing Sumner Boulevard. Equipment for roadway construction will likely include hydraulic
excavators, bull dozers, dump trucks, jraders, and pans. During its review process, the City o
Raleigh has required the developer to construct this road to Sumner Boulevard as a condition
of the development approval (Attachment C -See page 4 of the attached Prelimina!Y Plan
Review Comments prepared by the City of Raleigh dated September 25, 2004 and the letter
from the City of Raleigh dated May 13, 2005. Except for the buffers, the site has recently
clear-cut. In order to cross the larger stream adjacent to the proposed Plantation Point
development project, it will be necessary to place a combination of culverts to provide low
flow discharge to the existing perennial stream channel with off-set culverts to carry flood
flows into the floodplain (See Attachment D). This will reduce the need for a large dissipater
pad in the stream channel. Adjacent to Sumner, the road will be placed to avoid parallel
impacts to Buffer Zone 1. The stream crossing will consist of a 30" pipe set 6" into the stream
bed for aquatic life passage. This stream is much smaller and is intermittent.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: In conjunction with the City of Raleigh's
review and conditional approval of the Plantation Point commercial development, the City is
requiring the applicant to extend existing Ruritania St. to existing Sumner Blvd. to comply with the
City of Raleigh's approved Thoroughfare Plan. (Attachment C - See page 4 of the attached
Preliminary Plan Review Comments prepared by the City of Raleigh dated September 25, 2004
and the letter from the City of Raleigh dated May 13, 2005).
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
As part of the proposed Plantation Point commercial development, a NWP #39 (AID
200420770) was issued to former property owner Bobby Murray by the USACE for impacts to
0.10-acre of stream channel and 0.38-acre of open water pond (originally issued in 2001,
reissued on April 13, 2004)(see Attachment E). A 401 Water Quality Certification and Major
Variance Approval (DWQ900-1489) was originally issued by DWQ on May 18, 2001 and
reissued on March 18, 2004 (see Attachment E).
Page 3 of 11
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permits are anticipated. Further extensions of Sumner and Ruritania are hart of the
City's thoroughfare plan. However, these extensions will not occur within the project boundaries
and would be conducted by others on land not owned or controlled by the applicant.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The Ruritania Street extension
includes two unavoidable impacts to streams and buffers. Site 1 (Attachment B - Figure 2) is
adiacent to the proposed Plantation Point development. Site 2 (Attachment B - Figure 2) is
adiacent to Sumner Boulevard. The impacts at Site 1 will remove a large meander bend with
a large, severely eroding bank. Despite the fact that this stream only has a 60 acre drainage
area, it is clearly perennial. The crossing will consist of a triple culvert, offset to
accommodate floodplain flows and to make use of a smaller dissipater pad to further reduce
impacts. The impacts for Site 2 will include impacts to a very small intermittent stream and
associated buffers. The road has been realigned to avoid parallel impacts in Buffer Zone 1.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
No impacts

Page 4 of 11
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but arc not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains arc identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps arc available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at htttr/hv,,vvv.fenia.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
indicate on ma linear feet Before Impact (please secif
Site 1 Fill 185 UT Greshams 8-10 ft Perennial
Lake/Perry Creek
Site 1 dissipator 26 UT Gresham 8-10 ft Perennial
Lake/Perry Creek
Total Site 1 211
Site 2 Fill 181 UT Gresham Lake/ 1 ft. Intermitt-unimport
Perry Creek
Site 2 Fill + dissipator 22 UT Gresham 1-2 ft Intermitt- important
Lake/Perry Creek
Total Site 2 209
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but arc not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightcning, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.'ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topo;'one.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 420 feet of stream (211 of
which is perennial stream). The previous request was 638 feet of stream (250 of which was
perennial). This represents an impact reduction of 218 feet of stream (39 of which is
perennial)
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
No impacts

Page 5 of 11
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): None
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): None
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Due to the linear nature of the project, stream impacts are unavoidable; however, an effort has
been made to reduce impacts by crossing the channels as close to perpendicular as feasible and
utilizing headwalls where appropriate. The location of the proposed roadway alignment is
determined based on property boundary constraints, fixed project initiation and termini points
(existing Ruritania Street and Sumner Blvd), as well as the City of Raleigh's Thoroughfare Plan.
In a letter dated June 20, 2005 (see Attachment F), NCDWQ requested that alternative
alignments be explored. Attachment G shows an overview of all of the alternatives alignments
that were evaluated as well as plan sheets for each of the alignments discussed below.
Proposed alignment - The proposed stream crossing at Site No. 1 (Attachment G) would impact
a perennial channel. The stream appears to have a large base flow based on its relatively small
drainage area of 60 acres. In any event, the crossing will occur at point that will remove a large
meander. The meander is eroding into a very steep bluff that is too steep to maintain vegetation
resulting in sediment input into the stream. The proposed alignment is similar to the alignment
proposed in the PCN Application dated February 15, 2005. However the impacts were reduced
from a total of 250 feet to 211 feet by using an innovative culvert arrangement. Full size plans
sheets of this proposed alignment are attached as part of this submittal.
Alignment to South - If the impact area were relocated south to avoid the meander, the
roadway would impact a steep forested area and the cut slopes would encroach into an apartment
complex that may result in the need to remove the apartment building or construct a 25 foot
Page 6 of I I
retaining wall immediately behind the apartment resulting unacceptable safety issue (Attachment
G) . As such, this alternative would not be feasible.
Alignment to the North - If the crossing were moved north to avoid the large meander, the
crossing would result in impacts to four large meanders (Attachment G). Also, although the
buffer impacts would be less than those of the proposed alternative, the stream impacts would be
greater (215 feet).
Alignment SliIlhtly to the South - Moving the alignment slightly to the south results in the
largest amount of stream impact (232 feet) even if the realigned portion of the stream is not
counted as impact (see Attachment G).
Bottomless Culvert - A geotechnical report (see Attachment H) Report of Geotechnical
Evaluation Ruritania Street Culvert, June 28, 2005) found that a bottomless culvert cannot be
used since there is insufficient bed rock in the area of the crossing. As such the proposed
alternative that includes a culvert configuration that results in a smaller dissipater pad and less
stream impacts provides the most minimization (see attached full size plan sheets)
The stream crossing adjacent to Sumner Boulevard (Site 2) has been reduced by locating the
road further to the north as requested by NCDW in the letter dated June 20, 2005 (attachment F
-alignment 1. a). As such, this alternative mostly avoids parallel impacts to zone 1 of the buffer
and parallel impacts to the stream (See Attachment G). This reflects reduced stream and buffer
impacts compared to those proposed in the original application.
These alignments were discussed in two separate meetings with DWQ staff on June 10, 2005 ;
June 27, 2005. After the June 10`h meeting, NCDWQ requested in a letter dated June 20, 2005
ities explore sevc
results to NCDWO. Dunne that meeti
understanding that the proposed alignment at Sumner avoids parallel impacts to the stream and
buffer. Also, during that meeting information was presented to show that the proposed alignment
results in minimized stream impact that can be practicably achieved. As a result of these
meetings it is our understanding that the proposed aligment (see attached full size plan sheets) is
acceptable to NCDWQ and as such is proposed as part of this application.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
Page 7 of 11
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
littp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwctIands/stnnPide.litni1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The applicant proposes paying into the EEP in lieu fee program to provide required
compensatory stream impact for streams and buffers. See attached approval letters from EEP.
The proposed amount of mitigation is 211 feet for Site 1 and 22 feet for Site 2. Mitigation for
Site 2 is required by the USACE. NCDWQ would not require mitigation for the Site 2
portion since it is not considered perennial. However, since the USACE requires it, the total
mitigation proposed is 233 feet of stream. The buffer mitigation is summarized below.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wm/index.litm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 1,380 (maximum mitigation)
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 137,109 (zone 1) + 35,373 (zone 2)
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): none
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): none
Page 8 of 11
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): none
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by D`'VQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify, )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Site 1:
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 11,432 3 34,296
2 5,589 1.5 8384
Total 17,021 42,680
Site 2:
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
Page 9 of 11
1 12,640 3 37,920
2 10,671 1.5 16,007
Total 23,311 53,927
I Total Sites 1 & 2 40,332 96,607
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
Payment to NC EEP -see attached letter
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
NCDWQ has traditionally not required 85% TSS removal for this type of roadway project.
Diffuse flow through protected riparian buffers is proposed using level spreaders or bypass level
spreaders designed according to the Level Spreader Design Suggestions Document October,
2001. Worksheets and design plans are included as Attachment I. Please note that the bypass
level spreader at Site 1 was approved as part of the stormwater plan for Plantation Point since it
contains a small amount of runoff from that project. See letter from NCDWQ dated July
2005 -attachment I.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
There will be no sewage disposal associated with the roadway extension.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
Page 10 of 11
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
8/alas
Applicant/Agent's Signature ' Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Cypress Equities. L.L.C.
Address: 15601 Dallas Parkwav, Suite 400
Addison, Texas 75001
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: Plantation Point (Ruritania Street Extension)
Date: Januarv 26, 200
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilinington District
Attention:
Field Office
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I hereby designate and authorize Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to act in my/our
behalf as my/our agent solely for the purpose of processing of Section 404 permits and
Section 401 Water Quality Certifications applications and to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc. from this day forward until
successful completion of the permitting process or revocation by the undersigned.
Authorized this the. 'Z& day of J0A-,LA,,ci
..1n
Print Applicant Name
CC: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Wetlands Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1621
Ap i nt Signature
e!fl??4
Addendum to the Pre-Construction Notification and "Buffer Rules" Application Required for
Projects Submitted Under the
"Express Review Program"
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Version 4.0
September 2, 2004
Email Address: [e-mail]
Purpose: To provide a detailed explanation of the information required by the Division of Water Quality
in order to expedite the review of applications for 401 General Water Quality Certifications, Isolated
Wetland Permits, Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plans and Riparian Buffer Approvals (Please Note: do
not leave any questions unanswered or use terms such as "N/A" without an explanation).
Fees:
401 Water Quality Certifications: Major (>/= 150' stream or >/= 1 acre wetlands) $2,000.00
Minor (< 150' stream or < 1 acre wetlands) $1,000.00
Riparian Buffer Approval: (exclusively or "in addition" to) $2,000.00
Isolated Wetland Permit: General $1,000.00
Wetland & Stream Mitigation Plan: Major w/buffers (>/= 150' stream or >/= 1 acre wetlands) $4,000.00
Major w/o buffers (>/= 150' stream or >/= 1 acre wetlands) $3,000.00
Minor/buffers only $2,000.00
Please read the entire document before attempting to determine the proper fee. Fees are additive for
particular projects.
Things to keep in mind when filling out the application:
A specific answer must be provided for each question. For instance, if a numerical answer is requested
then a numerical answer must be provided along with the supporting information necessary for DWQ staff
to verify that the number is accurate. Likewise, if explanations are presented to justify certain responses,
the explanations must be completely supported by documentation. DWQ staff cannot assume that
unsupported or undocumented information is accurate. "N/A" is not an acceptable answer for any
question since the DWQ Staff reviewing the application must have an opportunity to determine whether or
not any requested information is pertinent.
All forms, guidance, worksheets, applications, etc. used must be the current versions as posted on our
web site at http: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. There will soon be a web site specifically for the
express review program. Please note that it will be the applicant's or applicant's consultant's
responsibility to verify that the current versions are used. The versions posted on our web site will be
considered to be the current versions.
You are a very important part of the success of this program, if you have suggestions or clarifications
please send your comments to the Wetlands/401 Unit of the DWQ (via email at
401 [e-mail]).
Filling Out the Pre-Construction Notification Application:
The Corps of Engineers (USACE)/DWQ official, joint Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application
must be used as a basis for the expedited review process. The completed application should be
presented first and the supporting information tabbed and collated in the same order. Using a custom
format is not recommended. The open squares C) are checklist items. The following items correspond to
the numbering system on the Pre-Construction Notification Form (PCN):
2
USE CHECK BOXES TO TRACK PROJECT INFORMATION
SECTION I. PROCESSING
1 & 2.The USACE determines which Nationwide, Regional, or General Permit is
required. If you have verified with the USACE which permit they intend to use for
your project or if you already have written approval from the USACE, please
indicate by adding "verified" or "verified, attached", respectively, in the blank next
to the Permit number requested.
? Attach the USACE Approval if you have it.
IF( 3. It is not anticipated that the expedited process will be requested for this situation.
4. If you propose to impact 150 feet or more of perennial stream or 1 acre or more
of wetland and onsite mitigation is not proposed, it is recommended that you
either locate an acceptable private bank with available credits (with
documentation to show that the bank can and shall provide the credits needed)
or obtain approval from the EEP for the entire amount of stream and or wetland
as DWQ will make the final determination as to whether or not mitigation applies.
Please note that the USACE may have different mitigation requirements and
thresholds.
5. State whether your project will require a CAMA Minor, Major or General Permit
and give the status of the permit.
SECTION 11- APPLICATION INFORMATION
15 NCAC 2H.502(o reads as follows: "Who Must Sign Applications. The application
shall be considered a "valid application" only if the application bears the signature of a
responsible officer of the company, municipal official, partner or owner. This signature
certifies that the applicant has title to the property, has been authorized by the owner to
apply for certification or is a public entity and has the power of eminent domain. Said
official in signing the application shall also certify that all information contained therein
or in support thereof is true and correct to the best of his knowledge."
Please indicate how the applicant meets the above definition and provide
supporting documentation.
't Please provide all of the requested contact information including a fax
number and email address.
2. If the application is not signed by the applicant, please attach the agent authorization.
The applicant must sign the agent authorization letter. The applicant's name and
position must also be spelled out as many signatures are difficult to read.
3. Please provide all of the requested contact information including a fax number and
email address.
SECTION III - PROJECT INFORMATION
The following is the most critical of all the information that you must provide. The quality and detail of the
information will often determine the expeditiousness of the review. The following is a checklist of the
types of pertinent information required at a minimum:
3
Maps and Plans:
The most recent version of the 1:24,000 USGS Topographic Map- Please cleanly
delineate the site boundaries, etc. on the map. If the delineation obscures any of the
features, it is recommended that a clean copy be provided. Please indicate the
quadrangle name. You can go to the USGS web site (http://mac.usgs.gov/maplists/) to
verify the most recent version.
The most recent version of the NRCS Soil Survey Map - (required for projects within
the Neuse River Basin, Tar-Pamlico River Basin, Randleman Lake Watershed and the
Catawba River Basin, also recommended for all projects) - Please cleanly delineate the
site boundaries, etc. on the map. If the delineation obscures any of the features, it is
recommended that a clean copy be provided. Please indicate the page or map number
from which the copy of the map was made. Copies of the current soil survey and/or soil
survey map sheets can be obtained from the local NRCS County Office
(http://www.nc.nres.usda.gov/).
Vicinity map - Please clearly mark the location and approximate boundaries of the
property and project on the map. Please indicate north and scale. Please include
applicable road names or State Road numbers.
The Site Plan - The most critical map to be provided is the site plan. You must provide
full sized plans. The following is the minimum list of plans that are typically needed.
[ Pre-construction/Pre-existing conditions - This sheet must be scaled and
/ include all jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water features,
State regulated buffers, topographic contours with elevations, approximate extent
and nature of forest, field, landscaped, or other cover. Any existing structures and
impervious area must be shown. Existing utility lines and easements must be
shown. Existing roads, culverts, and other pertinent features must be shown. North
arrow and the scale must be shown. Please note that the impact boundaries on the
maps should correspond to the flagged impact boundaries in the field.
Proposed conditions - These sheets must be scaled and show all existing
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water features, and State
regulated buffers must be underlain on the site plan(s). The plans must show all
built-out structures and impervious cover. The plans must include the final grading
contours with elevations. The plans must indicate all utilities and easements. It is
likely that several versions of the final built-out site plans will be necessary. The
following is a list of layers:
[ Drainage Plans - Final drainage plans must be included. The plans should include
/ the locations and pertinent elevations and sizes of the collection system and
drainage ways. All inlets and outlets must also be shown with pertinent elevations.
Scaled stormwater BMPs must also be indicated as required by DWQ rules and
policies. In certain cases, final stormwater management plans must also be
provided, but that will be addressed later in this document.
Plats - The plans must show the location and layout of all sub-divided parcels with
lot identifications. Platted parcels must be developable without further impacts to
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands, streams, water features, and State
regulated buffers.
Proposed Impacts - All impacts to jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland,
stream, water features, and State regulated buffers must be shown and labeled on
the site plans. All excavation, fill, flooding, stabilization, and other impacts that will
be conducted in or near jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water
features, and State regulated buffers must be indicated.
4
Wetland Impacts (on the site plan):
1?0 Precise grading and final elevation contours must be provided. Existing vegetation and
any clearing must be specified.
All subsurface utility lines must indicate the location of anti-seep collars. Construction
detail for anti-seep collars must be provided.
Roadway or other crossings of riparian wetlands may require floodway culverts to
maintain existing hydrological conditions.
When surface drainage features or groundwater recharge areas that feed or would
reasonably feed wetlands that are not to be filled are made impervious, it may be
necessary to direct some stormwater runoff to those areas in order to maintain hydrology.
You must identify these areas and address them. Supporting explanations and discharge
information must be provided to show that the wetland would not be eroded or receive
too much or too little hydrology. In many cases this could help satisfy part of a
stormwater management plan.
V 11
Flooding
Draining
Stream Impacts:
Stream impacts must be clearly shown on the plans. The centerline as well as the banks
of the stream must be surveyed or located by GPS for the portion of the stream to be
impacted.
Culverting:
The inlet and the outlet of the culvert should be aligned with the stream as much as
possible. Inlet and outlet elevations and stream bed elevations should be indicated.
Any widening of the stream must be shown with elevations.
The extent of and plan details for all dissipation or grade control devices should be shown
with pertinent elevations.
For shorter culvert sections, such as for road crossings, a longitudinal cross section that
shows the stream bed invert at the inlet and outlet, the existing stream bank elevations
and the invert of the inlet and outlet of the pipe(s) must be provided.
( For shorter culvert sections, such as for road crossings, a vertical cross section must be
provided that shows the stream cross section at the inlet and outlet overlain with the
l ' culvert and fill cross section.
It/c For bottomless culverts or other spans, a vertical cross section should be provided that
shows the minimum distance from each span to each stream bank, the stream cross
section, the height of the span above the stream and the minimum distance from the
edge of each footer to each stream bank.
L For bottomless culverts or other spans, a plan view must be provided that shows the
location of the spans and the stream banks.
For longer culverts or culverts that will pass beneath substantial impervious cover, it will
be necessary to provide adequate plan detail to show that discharge velocity/energy will
be adequately dissipated.
5
Aquatic life passage through culverts is typically achieved by placing the invert of the
culvert below the existing bed of the stream per the USACE or North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission guidelines. Other methods such as baffles may also be used.
Please be aware that such placement may require the use of grade/velocity control
measures up or down stream of culverts on steeper streams to prevent head-cuts or
stream bed erosion. The culvert placement relative to the stream bed can be indicated
on the longitudinal profile. Grade and velocity control measures must be indicated on the
plan view and typical designs should be provided.
Multiple culverts, wide culverts or sectioned box culverts typically require the use of sills,
off-setting or other means to match the cross section of the existing.stream (in order to
maintain stream stability and provide aquatic life passage). A vertical cross section of the
culverts should be shown overlain with the up and downstream stream cross section
including the stream flood-prone area.
Impacts associated with dam construction must indicate and enumerate all fill associated
with the dam foot print, spillway and any bank stream bank stabilization. The length of
stream impounded must also be indicated and enumerated.
Stream Relocations: N/
? Stream relocations must be conducted as specified in General Certification numbers
3402 and 3404 (available on the Wetlands Unit web site). Stream relocation plans must
include:
? Morphological measurements (see Appendix B of the Internal Technical Guide for Stream
Work in North Carolina available on the Wetlands Unit web site) - not all of the
measurements are applicable in every instance.
? Typical stream cross sections - Typically, a riffle cross section and a pool cross section
that includes the entire flood prone area. The bankfull and flood prove area elevations
should be indicated. Similarly, a riffle cross section of the reference stream(s) should be
provided.
? Plan view - Provide scaled plans that show the location of the proposed (preferably with
stationing) and the existing stream. In most instances, the bankfull contours and flood
prone area contours, in stream structures, bank revetments/stabilization, channel plugs,
planting plan, vegetation conditions, stormwater outlets, grade controls, bridges, culverts,
sewer lines, roads, fencing, and easement lines should also be provided.
0 Longitudinal Stream Profile - A scaled profile that indicates the thalweg, bankfull, and top
of bank elevations should be provided for the design and reference streams. In many
cases, it will also be necessary to show the existing land elevations for the design
stream.
0 Planting Plan - A planting and/or vegetation management plan should also be provided
that makes use of appropriate native vegetation. The plan should indicate the extent,
density, and species of plants to be provided.
? In-stream structure, bank revetment/stabilization, and stormwater outlet typicals -
Detailed, typical plans should be provided for all in stream structures, bank revetments or
stabilization, and stormwater outlets. The typicals should include materials and
specifications as well as relative lengths, positions, and angles.
? Sediment transport analysis - A sediment transport analysis should be provided based
on the current, relevant, accepted practices. The sediment transport analysis should be
relevant to the stream bed load type and should predict bed load transport equilibrium.
0 Permanent conservation easement or similar means of protection must also be provided.
6
Other Information:
?-- 1. The project should always be referred to by this name in all correspondence as well
as the DWQ # once it is provided.
d. 2. This only applies to DOT projects, which are not expected to utilize the Express
Review Program.
3. This should be the size of the project as identified by the USACE for 404 Permits or
by the Division of Water Quality for Buffer Approvals and Isolated Wetland Permits.
4. Please provide the name (as depicted on the USGS topographic map and DWQ
I Stream Classification Lists) of the nearest water body(ies) to which your project is a
tributary to (e.g. "Neuse River (Falls Lake below normal pool elevation)"). (Do not
simple state "stream", "river', "ocean", "sound" or "lake".) Please provide the "stream
index number' of the named water body or water body section (e.g. "27-(1)"). Also,
please provide the full water quality classification (e.g. "WS-IV NSW CA") of the water
body. This information can be obtained from the DWQ web site
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html.
CY 5. Please state which river basin and sub-basin that your project is in (e.g. "Neuse River
Basin, NEU01"). This information can be obtained from the DWQ web site
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html.
6. Conditions should also be indicated on the existing site plan where applicable.
Photos (including aerial photos) can be helpful in describing the existing conditions.
7. You must provide an attachment that explicitly describes what the proposed project
will entail from the planning stage to final construction.
T 8. This can be a simple explanation, but it is critically important because the purpose
dictates how the no practical alternatives are reviewed.
SECTION IV - PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
1' Please include copies of all 401 Water Quality Certifications, Isolated Wetland
Permits, Buffer Approvals, USACE Permits, CAMA Permits for the site as well as a
copy of the final approved, site plan.
SECTION V - FUTURE PROJECT PLANS
[ For projects utilizing the express review process, all impacts both present and
potential future must be indicated. For instance, the location or configuration of
platted lots sometimes suggests that future impacts will be necessary to build,
access, or otherwise develop such lots. Failure to account for such potential impacts
could delay or disqualify a project from the rapid review process. If you believe that
the lot can be developed without impacts, but you anticipate that your assertion may
be questioned, it is recommended that you provide a potential building foot print
and/or grading plan to show that future impacts could be avoided.
SECTION VI - PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATER OF THE US
1. It is recommended that the individual impacts be described if there are special things
to note about the impacts. Typically the most important thing is to have detailed
accurate site plans as described above. Please make sure they are clearly labeled.
11? Please include all proposed temporary impacts.
7
;ep Also, a current, signed delineation map from the USACE should be provided (if
/ available) and a map locating the stream origins signed by the appropriate DWQ
Staff must be provided if applicable.
2. Each impact to a wetland must be clearly labeled and identified on the site plan. The
type of impact must be clearly stated. If the impact is temporary, a specific plan must
be described or shown as to how the wetland will be restored. Keep in mind that the
USACE delineates some features as wetlands that DWQ calls streams. Please list
any impacts in this table that DWQ would identify as a stream. If there is any doubt,
it is recommended that the impacts be listed as streams. Please follow current DWQ
policy with respect to whether a stream is perennial or not. It is recommended that
you assume that a stream is perennial (unless you are positive that it is not) so if
mitigation is required then the appropriate amount of mitigation would be anticipated
or requested from the EEP or private bank. If the EEP or private bank has pre-
approved too short of an amount of stream or if inadequate mitigation is proposed,
then that situation will result in delays.
3. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a feature is a modified natural channel
or a ditch, especially in the eastern part of the State. Soils, drainage features,
topography, and similar factors, all are important for making that determination.
4. Other items to address not specifically requested in the application include
downstream sediment starvation, thermal pollution, low flow releases from dams, and
aquatic life passage. Other important considerations are buffer reestablishment or
mitigation around ponds on buffered streams. The site plan should include the
precise elevation contour of the normal pool as well as the dam foot-print. Mitigation
is required for wetland flooding of an acre or greater and for stream fill (if over the
150 foot threshold) under the dam foot-print and any outlet stabilization.
SECTION VII - AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance and minimization are critical aspects of an application particularly if you desire the application
to be processed expeditiously. The following is a check-list of avoidance and minimization questions that
DWQ Staff often look for in applications.
Are there any stream crossings at angles less than 75° or greater than 105°?
Are there any stream crossings that cross two streams above or at the confluence of those
streams?
Are there any stream, wetland, water, and/or buffer impacts other than perpendicular road
crossing near the edges of the property?
C? Can the stream be relocated as a natural channel design as opposed to culverted or
otherwise filled?
4j Is any single stream crossed more than once?
Can property access routes be moved or reduced to avoid stream, wetland, water, and
buffer impacts?
Can a building, parking lot, etc. be realigned to avoid impacts?
Can the site layout be reconfigured to avoid impacts?
Can headwalls or steeper side slopes be used to avoid/minimize impacts?
C? Can a retaining wall be used to avoid/minimize impacts?
8
Can cul de sacs be used in place of a crossing?
`i Can lots be reshaped or have shared driveways to avoid impacts?
If based solely on the practicable physical possibility, the answer is "yes" to any of the above questions
then you must have to provide substantial and convincing justification as to why the impacts are
necessary. If the impacts are required by a local government or other agency, the claim must be
supported with appropriate written documentation from the local government or other agency. Most
projects typically involve the need to justify avoidance and minimization. If this information is not readily
available, then the express review process may not be the appropriate venue to use. Providing
alternative plans (such as plans that avoid the impact, minimize the impact and the preferred plan, similar
to those used in environmental assessments) and explanations as to why the preferred plan is needed
and why the alternative plans won't work are many times helpful in the no practical alternatives review.
SECTION VIII - MITIGATION
Mitigation for the Express Review Program, final mitigation plans must be presented up front. The final
plans (except for plans that propose payment into the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), Riparian
Buffer Restoration Fund, private mitigation banks, or similar banking instruments) must contain detailed
plans, specifications, calculations and other supporting data that show that the appropriate mitigation will
be achieved at the ratios required. The design plans must be developed to at least the "90%" level.
Monitoring plans must be final and specific. Any means of permanent protection, such as a permanent
conservation easement must be provided. If you elect to use the EEP or a private mitigation bank, it is
recommended that you request the maximum possible mitigation amount that DWQ may require so that
you will not have to get further approval from them on short notice. The EEP and private banks are not
part of the expedited review process and cannot be expected to meet any such deadlines. There will be
no conditional expedited approvals that require final plans at a later date. It is not recommended that
innovative mitigation techniques or greater than 10% preservation be requested as part of an expedited
process.
SECTION IX
If your project requires the preparation of an environmental document under NEPA or SEPA and an
approval letter has not been issued by the State Clearinghouse, then you cannot apply under the
expedited review process. I t is your responsibility to find out if such documentation is required.
SECTION X
There are many aspects of the Buffer Rules that must be addressed in every application, if applicable.
The first and most important thing to keep in mind is that allowable activities that require written Approval
from DWQ triggers a review of the entire project for compliance with the Buffer Rules.
Diffuse Flow & Stormwater Management:
^? The most common issues that arise involve the requirement for diffuse flow of stormwater
/ through riparian buffers. Basically one of three things must be indicated in regards to all
"new" stormwater that is collected and subsequently discharged. First, provisions for
diffuse flow through the protected buffer must be made. This usually involves the use of
level spreading devices designed to the latest DWQ guidance on level spreader design,
which is available on our web site. Please keep in mind that it does not matter how far a
discharge point is from a buffer. The stormwater must be flowing in a diffuse manner at
whatever point it eventually reaches the buffer. If the stormwater will not be flowing in a
diffuse manner through the protected buffer at the point it reaches the buffer, then one of
the following options may be allowed:
You may provide a nitrogen removing measure such as a forested filter strip,
grassed swale, stormwater wetland, etc. The measure employed should be
designed according to the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual or other DWQ Guidance available at ht
9
//h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.htm1. After the nitrogen is treated, the
stormwater can be directly conveyed through the buffer with written DWQ approval.
You may discharge the stormwater to an existing man-made conveyance that
currently conveys stormwater through the protected buffer (assuming the
conveyance was not constructed in violation of the Rules) as long as that
conveyance does not need to be altered to convey the flow. Please remember that
there are no other choices. The following checklist is intended to help insure that
your application will not be deemed incomplete as a result of improper stormwater
design.
Stormwater Management (for Buffer Rules compliance only - Also, see Section XI):
'ip All stormwater out-falls must be clearly shown and labeled on the site plan for projects in
Buffered watersheds. List each out-fall as labeled:
Option 1: Level spreading devices designed to the latest DWQ Guidance, and
devices that merely control velocity but do not provide diffuse flow such as rip rap
dissipators are not proposed. List each of these out-falls as labeled on the site
plan and provide a DWQ worksheet available at
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html:
Option 2: Nitrogen removing measures designed to DWQ Standards are
/ proposed for discharges for which diffuse flow through a protected Buffer cannot be
met. List each of these out-falls as labeled on the site plan and provide a DWQ
worksheet available at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.htm1:
y Option 3: The stormwater will be discharged to an existing man-made (not
including modified natural channels) conveyance that carries the stormwater
through the Buffer. The conveyance was not constructed in violation of the Buffer
Rules. List each out-fall as labeled:
Nr)
All stormwater out-fall must meet one of the options above. (Note: if you cannot check this
box your application will likely not be accepted into the express review process.)
Site Plans:
All applications on properties with DWQ protected buffers must clearly depict the buffers
/ and any impacts to the buffers on the site plans. The impact maps should clearly depict
both zones of the protected buffers and the proposed impact areas (provided in square
feet).
Surface Water & Buffer Delineations:
Any surface waters subject to DWQ protected buffers must be field located and accurately
depicted on the site plans and impact maps. The width, dimensions and pattern of the
surface water must be delineated. The surface water location must not be taken simply
from a USGS map, soil survey or local municipality's map. The buffers must be measured
from the surface water as required within the applicable buffer protection rule (e.g., all
buffers along streams subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule must be measured from the "top-of-
bank" of the stream and not the centerline of the stream). All streams must be surveyed or
located by GPS and shown precisely on the site plans.
Impact Table:
Please provide additional impact tables that clearly state the area of impact for each
corresponding impact site.
10
Variances:
Y Projects that require a Minor, Major and/or "General" Variance will not be eligible for the
use of the Express Review Program.
Mitigation:
As opposed to applications that are submitted under our regular process, final mitigation
plans must be presented up front (see requirements for Section VIII above). The mitigation
plans must comply with the applicable buffer mitigation rule.
SECTION XI - STORMWATER
Please provide the following information in regards to potential stormwater requirements:
The total acreage of the site. 5-s l (acres)
The total built-out impervious acreage 3 (acres)
IF The total area that will be disturbed S? (acres)
If the total area exceeds 20% imperviousness, the development on the site is uniform in
density, and you claim that the total impervious area is less than 30%, you must provide a
complete, detailed breakdown of the assumed built-out conditions. The breakdown must
be detailed enough to show that all potential impervious areas are accounted for.
If there are concentrated areas of development such as multi-family, commercial, cluster,
club houses, etc. that exceed 30% imperviousness and the total imperviousness for the site
does not exceed 30%, a stormwater management plan wi likely be required for those
areas that exceed 30% imperviousness. cQW?y p?1- `G
Stormwater management plans must be complete with a final design and an executed
Operation and Maintenance Agreement. There will be no conditional stormwater approvals
for the express review process that allow for approval of the final plans at a later date.
Worksheets must be provided that are available at
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.htm1. Only .<< /1 #
SECTION XII - SEWAGE DISPOSAL he ? W U Ovee / Ct/,,
[ Response must be clear and detailed. Any disposal method that suggests further impacts
may be required other than those shown must be clearly addressed on the site plans.
SECTION XIII
X7 Answering yes to either of these responses automatically precludes you from the express
review process.
SECTION XIV - SIGNATURE
The name, position and/or title of the applicant must be in type or long hand script here with
/ the signature. It should be the same person as described in Part II.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please email the Express Review Program at
[e-mail] and include your question and phone number and the appropriate staff will
respond as soon as possible.
ATTACHMENT A
ISSUED SECTION 404 PERMIT
Y
?IVED
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS _
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
KINiLt`'?-HORN
Action ID. 200520621 County: Wake USGS Quad: Raleigh East ENVIR,
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: John Farrow
Address: Cypress Equities, LLC
15601 Dallas Parkway
Suite 400
Addison, Texas 75001
Telephone No.: 972-361-5178
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.):
North Carolina.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit authorizes the placement of fill and the
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
? Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 14
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached Nationwide and Special conditions, the attached North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
conditions, and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted
plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the. activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the
authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Andrea Wade at 919-876-8441 x30.
Corps Regulatory Official Andrea Wade Date: July 27, 2005
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2007
-2-
Determination of Jurisdiction:
? Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
? There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless
there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not
to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
? There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
® The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued 08/30/2001 . Action ID 200120940.
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: Areas on this site exhibit wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps
Wetland Delineation Manual and are adjacent to an unnamed tributary to Perry Creek. The property also contains
stream channels that exhibit an Ordinary High Water Mark as indicated by changes in soil character and absence of
terrestrial vegetation and are hydrologically co ected to Perry Creek Jin the Neuse River Basin.
Corps Regulatory Official: Andrea Wade S?Q W -9,
Date July 27, 2005
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Attn: Beth Reed, 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Action ID: 200520621 County: Wake
SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITION
Requiring payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program:
You shall mitigate for impacts to 241 linear feet of stream channel associated with this project by
payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in the Neuse River
Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020200) in the amount determined by NCEEP, sufficient to perform the
restoration of 460 linear feet of stream channel.
Construction within jurisdictional areas on the property shall begin only after the permittee has
made full payment with certified check to the NCEEP, and the NCEEP has made written
confirmation to the District Engineer, that it agrees to accept responsibility for the mitigation work
required, pursuant to Paragraph IV.D. of the Memorandum of Understanding between the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
ATTACHMENT B
FIGURES 1-4
39
1 501
F rJ' `-
BO r E SON 40?
` 98 50 98 39
1 ss i
r 86 54
APE HILL '. H (I sa
,t r I r ,
401 Il ='----
0 50 100 0 10 20
55?
Miles a01 Miles
v? 1-
Fi;rylrln(•Dr W, r,5colt(Dr 1 ?I 1
J
11 "I
y
/,?. W /J cr wvq
4474 O nr -'j
\ m e z _
Dalton•D?, a,. ?m
al we 1 ap
t 4471 r° Q
?-) Loniker- r l ?-
.p?ra Incc?t i °' ' n
-? jar 9 \?t`y? d : i / l'hovnton•Rd
,? Sfcickl;vnr4Rd 1:
° eoG Fiarps-Mill Rd
? U) Midnight-I-n n.
J
r /lll'''cr ? 4 Imo- -LG
aJ Gresha 'P
m ke. Ot I a
`•2/rcvrv0 ? ?401
?n L??.? ?_ Qa \__ r r1 CJ
I/rSm A .l Newton-Rd o
11, ?- ?La -- !tea o-? /'t'om-?-
?? r
1gc Ur
\6p r
Q. o-v ? Foie
SOP ?`? ' ° pd?aµ? ] / 1^gv'a/?'y9C3y \
``? Falls-Church Ro
qO O r?`,1 ?- O
L?
ti
Hwkoryrl?
Rd-
41
Kingwood-Dr o -? \
-O ?Millhrook-I \ i1 o _
cl \?-y t? I??n a ? 1
Z1 L c \?
?p W?dcl-Dr1 3._ Y c - ? d -
'rd -oo ;? E hLllhr o J o Y
nbrook a ok•R71 `my o m, l,?Millbrok•Rd
9- eJ
m
1 1_
Foxt.all-St A ?r,2 v ?m? Ealy 1 L?
arylp.`r 02seY}
Cern/
?a d 2J %° AO?\111 O\m? 1 ?1
o / °' Roald Dr ? ? Q Im o, -
,,? m Q r n ? ;yy?B?ul(aloe•Rd
u9 e•Elldn-Dr
dQa m ,? ?? o ' o? _ O rr
1 p O m L
t m e ` om Jane-L-n-
c r O \ ? m cO? al ! I ? ? 1 Donna-Rd Edingt2
Title Vicinity Map
Project Ruritania Street Extension
Prepared For Wake County, North Carolina
Cypress Equities, LLC Date Project Number Figure
7/20/05 012298001 1
T?\pn\012298001 Plantation Point\agency_coordlnation\express review 7-05PCN_figures.doc Prepared by Jason Diaz ,,i,iK
T:\pnV 2298001 Plantation Point\agency_coordinationteapress review 7-05\PCN_figures.doc Prepared by Jason Diaz ; .drnm+,

4*5 so
-9,
r l \ ;? \ vamp
'J" I
` a i \ a
t
?
•
-
,.
1
` e ?'
`
'' ?/ Duff
•
,'
`L 394 N1 a l / '/ rim

!`

%
316

Greskams Lake i r
•
` ?
?i
_ Site 2
w ll
78° 35' 15.89" W J I' : :.'
e r
35° 52'32.54" N
?- ? Site 1 ?---`•I "'?,.'?...,
78° 35'8.13" W
35° 52' 23.80" N/ I'

?
r. ?.., Mill fi
l t ,• ?0?` 3 - - li z ?? -

\ I
. ,
1
V.
l
\?? •`
h / f'
?
'
I ?
) i
(
'
\
'?
'J(
?
\
J,
j
t "'
t
- y?
.
•
1,
w
'
'
•\
.
-?

Pro
o
d Ri
ht
f
W
p
se
g
-o
-
ay
'
1
t
Title USGS Quad Map (Wake Forest/Raleigh East 1987)
Project Ruritania Street Extension
Prepared For. Wake County, North Carolina
C
ypress Equities, LLC Date Project Number Figure
7/20/05 012298001 3
T:\pn\012298001 Plantation Point\agmcy_coordination\express review 7-05TCN_figures.dm Prepared by Jason Diaz ..'rii .
r° 0
Title USDA Soil Survey
Project Ruritania Street Extension
Prepared For, Wake County, North Carolina
Cypress Equities, LLC
Date Project Number Figure
7/20/05 012298001 4
T:\pn\012298001 Plantation Point\agency_coordination\express review 7-05\PCN_figures. doe Prepared by Jason Diaz i .=.
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF RALEIGH CORRESPONDENCE
Rev. 11/21/01
City of Raleigh, NC
Development Plans Review Center
P. O. Box 590, Raleigh, N. C. 27602
Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
www. raleigh-nc. org/ planning/ plandprc. htm
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
TO: Jamie Gwaltney- Kimley-Horn & Associates [phone]
[phone] email address Jamie.,vwaltney«kimley-horn.com
3001 Weston Parkway, Cary NC 27513
PROJECT NAME: Plantation Point Resubmitted
CASE NUMBER: SP-80-04 & 5-67-04
INITIAL SUBMITTAL DATE: 8/30/04
PLAN REVIEW COMMENT CYCLE: 1st
DATE COMMENTS SENT: 9/25/04
PLANNER COORDINATING REVIEW: Christine Darges
WHEN YOU RESPOND, PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS:
1. A narrative responding to each of the comments from the City, referencing the
comment number and the revised map sheet. (5 copies please)
2. A description of any changes made to plan maps that are not noted in the
comments from the City.
3. 5of sets of revised plans equal to the number of departments commenting,
plus one (1) 8 1/2" x 11" reduction. If this is the final revision, please include a
digital copy of the site plan in PowerPoint format on disk.
4. If you have not already done so, please fill in and return the form "Wake
County School System New Residential Development Notification".
Please return revised plans as soon as you can as your resubmission may be
dependent on how you address issues related to transportation services.
Please bring them to the Planning Department, Development Plans Review
Center, 4th Floor of the Raleigh Municipal Building. Plans are opened and
logged-in each day at 3:00 pm, distributed to review staff and discussed each
Monday afternoon.
0
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
Plan Review Coordinator (Christine Darges) 890-3669,
[e-mail]
First Review Comments (9/17/04):
1. Based on City Council resolution (1993) 208, that established a policy
requiring developers of tracts outside the City limits that are connected to the
public utility system to petition for annexation into the City Limits at the time
of development of the property, a condition of approval of this plan will be that
the owner submit a petition for annexation after the approval of the
preliminary plan, and prior to recording of lot or issuance of any construction
permits. Karen Duke (890-3656) can provide information on petitions for
annexation.
2. Your property may be affected by the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy Rules. This could require the preservation of riparian
buffers along watercourses on this property. These rules are enforced by the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission. Please contact the
Division of Water Quality at 571-4700.
3. A review of the National Wetlands Inventory maps prepared by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service has shown that your property may contain wetlands.
Filling and other construction in designated wetlands is regulated by the US
Army Corps of Engineers. Only a field inspection by Corps personnel can
determine if wetlands actually exist on your property. The City of Raleigh will
issue no flood permits until this determination has been made and the
appropriate permit has been issued by the Corps of Engineers. For field
inspections contact the US Army Corps of Engineers at 876-8441. Any
questions on City of Raleigh land disturbing permits should be directed to the
Conservation Engineers at 890-3500.
4. If construction plans for public and private streets or utilities shown on this
plan are required, they must be approved by the Central Engineering
Department prior to issuance of permits or recording of any plat for this
development. Contact Steve Lockwood O 890-3030 for construction plan
submittal.
5. Please clarify if the lots will be created via recombination or subdivision? This
has an impact on the description of the subdivision and site plan as well as
exactions, improvements ...etc.
6. Indicate if lot are on the Drucker and Faulk property will be recombined with
adjacent lots(s). This was an issue with the previous subdivision. Indicate
what the density of the project will be with the right of way and land taken out
as it relates to zoning condition.
O
7. What is your minimum sidewalk width adjacent to the building frontages?
8. A street closing for Clearfield is required.
9. Do you wish to address any issues related to maximum tenant size?
10. Are you planning to make a provision for pedestrian access to the west?
11. Please address the ordinance as it relates to amenities for ponds. This is a
new text change that did not apply to the previous plan.
12. Indicate that there will a portion r/w closure or exchange at the end of
existing Ruritania cul-de-sac.
13. Add a general note about cross access to all adjacent lots within the
subdivision.
14. Please address the ground signage issues allowed for shopping centers.
15. Please indicate where the SHOD-2 yard is. No grading or stormwater
devices are permitted.
16. Inidicate reasons forgrading within the 50' natural protective yard
adjacent to both thoroughfares, Capital Boulevard and Old Wake Forest Road.
Identify if there are existing trees that will be removed for this grading and
identify reasons for retaining wall within this area.
17. Modify TPY chart. Where property is vacant and allows a lesser impact,
you will be required a 50% requirement of a tpy.
The Appearance Commission's Landscape and Design Committee met on
Tuesday, September 21, 2004, and reviewed the following projects:
PLANTATION POINT - The committee generally approved of the plan,
recommending the following design amendments for the applicants'
consideration:
- That wetland plants be added in and around the retention pond.
- That the pedestrian corridor that runs between Retail A and Anchor 5 & 6 be
visually strengthened, by:
• installing architectural features as focal points at each end of the corridor,
• removing some parking to add to width of the connecting
landscape/pedestrian areas,
• installing pavers at pedestrian crossings at each intersection to calm traffic,
and
• employing the median as a pedestrian "safe harbor" between Retail A & B.
0
- That utility/ dump ster areas that are integrated into buildings and adjacent to
pedestrian areas use solid gates to help screen them.
- That existing vegetation at the rear of the buildings along I-540 be actively
preserved, and supplemented as needed to provide a continuous buffer (e.g.,
add evergreen trees).
- That ground signs lower than the maximum allowed height of 15 feet be
considered (less than 10 feet tall should be more than adequate).
18. That all "out-parcel" buildings display the same materials on all building
faces.
Second Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
PUBLIC WORKS
David Thompson, 890-3800 email: [e-mail],
First Review Comments (Date)
1. See transportation sevices.
Second Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Bowman Kelly, 890-3430 email: [e-mail]
First Review Comments (9/23/04)
1. To recapitulate the discussion from our meeting on September 22, 2004:
• Our position is that the current plan is not in the public interest and we
will not support it.
• Extend Ruritania St & provide a connection to Sumner Blvd.
Transportation Services will advocate for phasing or limiting the scope of
development until this connection is provided & other access issues are
resolved.
l `f )
• A Right-In/Right-Out connection to Capital Blvd should be pursued.
Transportation Services will set up a meeting between KHA, COR &
NCDOT to discuss said connection.
• Transportation Services cannot grant permission for the proposed signal
at Ruritania & Old Wake Forest Road. The developer must pursue
approval for the signal from the COR Traffic Engineering Division &
NCDOT.
2. Revise the TIA to reflect any changes in access as a result of our September
22 meeting.
3. The proposed lot line show on sheet SP-4 should be revised to run along the
centerline of the creek. It is against policy for a recombination to cause
exemption from improvements.
4. Provide a monolithic island between the right-turn lane and the thru lane for
the eastbound approach of Old Wake Forest Road at Capital Blvd. Show
pedestrian cross walks N-S across Old Wake Forest Road and E-W across
Capital Blvd. Extend the existing Capital Blvd median northward through the
crosswalk & provide a pedestrian refuge.
5. Reduce the turnout radius of the southbound-to-westbound turn from Capital
Blvd onto Old Wake Forest Road.
6. As this is a retail site, we require sidewalk on both sides of the street. Provide
sidewalk along Old Wake Forest Road & Ruritania across the entire property
frontage.
7. Verify that you are providing 1/2 of 90' R/W across the entire property frontage
on Old Wake Forest Road.
8. Delineate control of access (where applicable) on the plans.
9. Provide an additional sidewalk aisle between proposed retail B & proposed
anchor 1.
10. To facilitate incorporation of & interaction of the greenway with the site, is
it recommended that you relocate proposed anchor 1 & provide sight
"corridors"/ direct pedestrian access to the greenway at several points along
the western side of the development.
11. Verify that an SU Truck can access, service & withdraw from the dumpster
located behind proposed anchor 1. It appears that there is insufficient room
for a solid waste truck to maneuver without hitting the building.
12. Where is the loading dock for proposed anchor 1? How will WB-50 trucks
access it & turn around?
13. Confirm the stream crossing location with DWQ.
14. Specify high density pavement for truck & bus circulation within the site.
Those areas will be required to provide a minimum turnout radius of 30'.
Delineate these areas on the plans.
15. Remove the cul-de-sac show south of proposed anchor 1. At a minimum,
the developer should provide a stream crossing.
16. Rework the alignment of all approaches at the intersection of Ruritania &
Old Wake Forest. When the southbound thru movement is extended past the

STOP bar, it appears to intersect & conflict with the northbound thru
movement. It should align with the southbound departure lane.
Second Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Stefanie Toftey, 857-4304 email: Stefanie.toftey(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us
First Review Comments (9/15/04)
1. Thank you for considering transit in your site plan. The position of the
current bus stop, however, does not provide for streamlined service to this
area (a goal of the Raleigh Transit Authority's Five-Year Transit Plan). I will
present the Transit Division's proposed transit access and shelter easements
during the upcoming meeting on September 22, 2004.
Second Review Comments (Date)
3. Comment
4. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
3. Comment
4. Comment
CONSERVATION ENGINEERING (Bill Brower) (890-3766),
([e-mail])
First Review Comments (9/16/04)
1. No change in storm drain alignment should be greater than 90 degrees.
2. Constructed wetland should be 2:1 length to width ratio.
3. The 10 year pre and post should be addressed at all points. It does not readily
appear that any reduction device has been used to address the storm water
increase from the Ruritania improvements. If it has been please address that
in your resubmittal correspondence.
4. Is it proposed that this be recombined into one lot as shown on sheet SP-10?
Second Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
1 Comment
O
2. Comment
PUBLIC UTILITIES (Cesar Sanchez) 890-3400, email: sanchezc@raleigh-
nc.or ,
First Review Comments (9/9/04)
1. Extend sewer to lots 4 and 6.
2. The proposed private water main can not connect through lot 6. It must
remain entirely on one property.
3. The fire lines near anchor store 1 and retail store "c" must connect to each
other, otherwise 2 backflow devices will be required.
Second Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
PARKS & RECREATION (Vic Lebsock) 890-3293, email:
[e-mail]
First Review Comments (September 7, 2004)
1. No Comment
FIRE PROTECTION (Travis Crabtree) 831-6392 or (Becky Jones) 831-6392,
email: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
First Review Comments (9-9-04) tlc:
1. Fire hydrant at Retail F shall be moved in front of Anchor 3
2. Show all fire department connections (FDC) on front of building (address side).
Each must be within 150' of a fire hydrant and 40' from fire truck access. All
new FDC's must be storz connections.
3. Show street widths on each street.
4. Show turning radii, minimum 28'.
Second Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
d
ZONING PLANS REVIEW
Meredith Gruber 890-3712 [e-mail]
First Review Comments (September 14, 2004)
1. Unity of development was referred to in the plan notes as something that
would be addressed prior to permit review. What information is available now
related to unity of development?
2. What is the existing vegetation like along the northwest property line that is
proposed to provide full credit for the transitional protective yard along this
property line? Some shrubs may need to be added.
3. Some parking spaces do not appear to be within 50' of the trunk of a shade
tree.
4. I would like to see and comment on a revised site plan once Bowman's and
Martin's comments are addressed.
Second Review Comments (Date):
1. Continent
2. Comment
Third Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment
STRATEGIC PLANNER REVIEW Martin Stankus 890-3676
First Review Comments 9/14/04
1. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The site is located within the
Regional Intensity Area of the Northeast Regional Center. The site is also
within 1/4 mile of a planned TTA regional rail transit station. An urban density
mixed-use development pattern is recommended that will support various
travel options including transit, bike, pedestrian, as well as auto. A finely
interconnected system of vehicular and pedestrian ways is encouraged that
conveniently ties to adjacent properties and sets a pattern for future
development in the area. The provision of usable open space and inclusion of
natural systems into the site development is a necessary element in the
recommended urban center.
2. Show apartment buildings and circulation on Crossings Co. property south of
Ruritania Street extension.
3. A greater variety of uses in addition to retail is recommended for this location
that could include hotel and office uses. Consider inclusion of additional uses
to increase mix.
4. Site layout does little to incorporate and feature the existing natural systems
in the area. Anchor retail turns back to creek and potential open space areas.
Recommend relocation of smaller retail and hotel uses adjacent to the creek
0
buffer that allows more visibility from the larger project area and user
interaction with the open space.
5. Site layout does not adequately provide opportunity for future connectivity
with development of adjacent properties. This is caused primarily by the
orientation of large footprint buildings backing up to the future western
development site. See note above.
6. Refer to the Urban Design Guidelines for design of pedestrian network and
site design, i.e. location of street trees between curb and sidewalk, internal
connectivity of sidewalks, building placement, building facade design and
detailing of blank walls, parking location, interface with adjacent properties.
Second Review Comments (Date)
1. Comment
2. Comment

City Of (Raleigh
5Yorth earolina
May 13, 2005
Mike Horan
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
Dear Mr. Horan:
The City of Raleigh has approved a preliminary site plan for the construction of
Plantation Point, a proposed retail development at the intersection of Capital Boulevard
and Old Wake Forest Road. The anticipated traffic generated by this proposed
development will be sufficient to necessitate the extension of Ruritania Street from its
current terminus, which is approximately 800 feet north of Old Wake Forest Road, to
connect with Sumner Boulevard. The extension'of this roadway is consistent with the
Raleigh Comprehensive Plan, which illustrates the proposed Ruritania Street Extension
as a collector street connecting to Rowland Road north of the adjacent railroad corridor.
There has been extensive planning conducted in this area in conjunction with the
Northeast Regional Center land use plan, which is part of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. This connection is an important component in the planned transportation network
for the area, which also includes the construction of a future TTA transit station along
the rail corridor adjacent to the intersection of Ruritania Street and Sumner Boulevard.
The roadway alignment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates illustrates the
most practical alternative for extending Ruritania Street to Sumner Boulevard that
maintains the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The alignment of Ruritania
Street is constrained by the elevation of the existing railroad tracks. Given the grade and
clearance requirements needed to cross beneath this rail corridor, the location of the
future Ruritania Street Extension at the railroad is a fixed point. The elevation of
Sumner Boulevard has been established and constructed through previous approvals to
be consistent with this future roadway extension. The proposed Ruritania Street
railroad extension is anticipated to be constructed in conjunction with TTA's future
station construction at this location. The creation of a "dog-leg" intersection by
offsetting the north and south legs Ruritania Street at Sumner Boulevard would not be
Mr. Mike Horan - Ruritania Street Extension Issues
ivlay 13, 2005 - Page 2
consistent with City's adopted plans, nor would it functionally satisfy the transportation
needs of the roadway.
There are also constraints related to the future extension of Sumner Boulevard.
This minor thoroughfare was constructed parallel to the railway corridor with the intent
of crossing beneath I-540 and connecting to Greshams Lake Road. A significant portion
of the facility, 0.6 miles, has been constructed consistent with this plan. The prior
construction of the 1-540 overpass has created the alignment constraints for the Sumner
Boulevard corridor. Sufficient lateral clearance was provided under this bridge to allow
for the thoroughfare extension of Sumner Boulevard. Unfortunately the previous
construction established an alignment that will impact to the adjacent Neuse River
riparian buffer.
The City of Raleigh is committed to avoiding Neuse River riparian buffer
impacts and wetland impacts at every opportunity. We will be happy to work with you
and the applicant on means of mutually resolving the corridor issues to minimize any
environmental impacts associated with these roadways. If you need any other
information or have any other questions about this area, please give me a call at
[phone] or email me at eric.lamb©ci.raleigh.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Lamb, PE
Manager, Transportation Services Division
Enclosures
Cc: Ms. Christine Darges, AICP - City of Raleigh Planning Department
Mr. Rob Ross, PE - Kimley-Horn & Associates
ATTACHMENT D
SITE I CULVERT CROSS-SECTIONS

RS=1600 Upstream (Culvert)
310
Legend
Ground
e
Bank Sta
300
290
c
0
m
m
w
280
feIO A
270 ,11vr 2'70• 10
Bur?4- -
260
0 100 200 300 400 500
310 RS=1600 Downstream (Culvert)
300
290
C
O
m
m
W
280-
1
270-
sue. z6G.zR'`
260
0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
Site_ ?- Cc?ver? ?roh'?e
Ruritania St Culvert Analysis DP Plan: Final 7/2712005
290
Reach #1 Reach #1
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Legend
WS 10 yr
-------+------
Crit 10 yr
Ground
'i S, jk
Plan: Final Reach #1 Reach #1 RS: 1600 Culy Group: Culvert 91 Profile: 10 yr
Q Culy Group (cfs) 52.81 Culy Full Len (ft)
# Barrels 1 Culy Vel US (ft/s) 7.72
Q Barrel (cfs) 52.81 Culy Vel DS (ft/s) 8.15
E.G: US. (ft) 272.61 Culy Inv El Up (ft) 268.46
W.S. US. (ft) 272.52 Culy Inv El Dn (ft) 266.29
E.G. DS (ft) 269.10 Culy Frctn Ls (ft) 2.16
W.S. DS (ft) 268.90 Culy Exit Loss (ft) 0.89
Delta EG (ft) 3.51 Culy Entr Loss (ft) 0.46
Delta WS (ft) 3.62 Q Weir (cfs)
E.G. IC (ft) .' 272.41 Weir Sta Lft (ft)
E.G.OC (ft) 272.62 Weir Sta Rgt (ft)
Culvert Control Outlet Weir Submerg
Culv WS Inlet (ft) 271.23 Weir Max Depth (ft)`
Culy WS Outlet (ft) 268.97 Weir Avg Depth (ft)
Culy Nml Depth (ft) 2.68 Weir Flow Area (sq ft)
Cult' Crt Depth (ft) 2.77 Min EI Weir Flow (ft) 28 5.01
i;?,wt?,(??l?un D W'
Plan- Final Reach #1 Reach #1 RS: 1600 Culy Group: Culvert #2 Profile: 10 yr
Q Culv Group (cfs) 47.19 Culy Full Len (ft)
# Barrels 2 Culy Vel US (ft/s) 6.33
Q Barrel (cfs) 23.60 Culv Vel DS (ftls) 9.80
E.G. US. (ft) 272.61 Culy Inv El Up (ft) 270.10
W.S. US. (ft) 272.52 Culv Inv El Dn (ft) 268.30
E.G. DS (ft) 269.10 Culy Frctn Ls (ft) 1.38
W.S. DS (ft) 268.90 Culy Exit Loss (ft) 1.81
Delta EG (ft) 3.51 Culy Entr Loss (ft) 0.31
Delta WS (ft) 3.62 Q Weir (cfs)
E.G. IC (ft) 272.38 Weir Sta Lft (ft)'
E.G. OC (ft) 272.60 Weir Sta Rgt (ft)
Culvert Control Outlet . Weir Submerg`
Culy WS Inlet (ft) 271.66 Weir Max Depth (ft) ,
Culv WS Outlet (ft) - 269.42 Weir Avg Depth (ft)
Culy Nml Depth (ft) 1.10 Weir Flow Area(sq ft)'
Culv Crt Depth (ft) 1.56 Min El Weir Flow (ft) 285.01
ATTACHMENT E
PRIOR ISSUED SECTION 404/401 PERMITS
APR.13'2004 13:15 919 1176 5823 USACE RAL REG
U.S. ARAMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
;2373 P.002/003
Action ID: 200420770 County. Wake
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATION`VIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Authorized
Owner BobbvNiurrav Agent Kimlev-Horn & Associates, Inc
Attn: Norton Webster
Address 1820 Capital Blvd. Address-P.O. Box 33064
Raleigh, NC 27604 Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Telephone Number 919-834-6441 Telephone Number 919- 677-2000
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): The property is
approximately 49 acres in size and located in the .northwest quadrant of the intersection of Capital
Boulevard and Old Wake Forest Road in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina.
Description of Activitv: This permit authorizes the placement of fill associated with the constniction of
a commercial development on the eastern portion of the property. Impacts to waters authorized by this
permit include 0.10 acre of stream channel and 0.38 acre of an open water pond. Total impacts authorized
are 0.48 acre. This permit replaces NWP 39 previously issued under.AlD 4 200120940.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (Rives and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number
39 Nationwide Permit Number
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit verification does not
relieve the permittee.o.f the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact 7ennifeT A. Burdette at telephone number (919) 376 - 3441 extension 22
Regulatory Project Manages Siguatu
Date April 13, 2004 Expiration Date April-1-3,2006
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELI]i EATION FO.R%tii, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF .REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
A?R.13'2004 13:16 919 976 5223 usACc RAL REG
Permit Number: 200420770 - Nationwide Permit Number '39
Name of Permittee: Bobby Murray
Project Manager: Jennifer A. Burdette
Issuance: April 13, 2004
72372 ?.003/003
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by
the permit, sign this certification and rctum it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
6508 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 120
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a co.Tnpliance inspection by an U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers .representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are
subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been
completed in accordance with the to ms and condition of the said permit, and required
mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions.
Sibunture of Pe.rmittee
Michael F. Easley, Governor
?oF W ?TFR William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Q ?G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Direc:cr
>_ =1 Division of Water Quality
d a -C
Ccleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
March 18, 2004
DWQ # 00-1489
Wake County
Page 1 of 3
Bobby Murray Chevrolet
Attn: Mr. Brent King
1820 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject Property: Plantation Point Development, US1 (Capital Blvd.) at 1-540, Raleigh, Wake County, NC
Perry Creek (Gresham's Lake) [03-04-02; 27-25-(1); B NSW]
APPROVAL of 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION and MAJOR VARIANCE APPROVAL per the NEUSE RIVER
RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULE [15A NCAC 2B.0233(9)] w/ ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. King:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill material in 750 linear
feet of stream, 0.38 acres of waters (pond) and 91,216 square feet of riparian buffers for the purpose of constructing the
proposed Plantation Point Development as described within your Major Variance Request presented to the Water Quality
Committee (WQC) of the Environmental Management Commission (EMG) on April 11, 2001 and the Pre-construction
Notification Application (PCN) for the use of Nationwide Permit 39 dated February 27, 2004. This letter shall act as your
Major Variance approval as decided by the WQC on April 11,. 2001 and described within 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(c). After
reviewing your PCN application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number
3402 (GC3402). This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 39 when the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) issues it. In addition, you should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you proceed with
your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control and Non-Discharge regulations. This approval
shall replace the approval issued on May 18, 2001.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your Major Variance Request and PCN
Application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application and
request a new Major Variance approval through the WQC. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project
(now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)(6)
and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached Certification and any other
conditions listed below.
1. Stormwater Management
A final, written stormwater management plan shall be approved in writing by this Office before the impacts
specified in this Certification and Major Variance Approval occur. The stormwater management plan must
include plans and specifications for stormwater management facilities designed to remove 85% TSS according
to the most recent version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. The stormwater
management plan must include the extended detention wetland to remove nitrogen as required by the WQC.
These facilities must be designed to treat the runoff from the entire project, unless otherwise explicitly approved
by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Also, before any permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the
facilities (as approved by this Office) shall be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management
plan (as approved by this Office) shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by this
Office as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd.. Raleich. NC 27604-2260 (Location)
Bobby Murray Chevrolet
Page 2 of 3
March 18, 2004
Please note that on May 10, 2002 the DWO approved a stormwa ter management plan dated May 1, 2002 for
the original site plan. Please submit a new stormwater management plan for the current site plan that complies
with the condition as stated above.
2. Buffer Mitigation
You are required to mitigate for impacts to the protected riparian buffers. The required area of mitigation to
compensate for impacts to the protected riparian buffers is 218,922 square feet as required under your Major
Variance Approval and 15A NCAC 2B .0242. We understand that you wish to make a payment into the Riparian
Buffer Restoration Fund administered by the NC Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation
requirement. This has been determined by the WQC to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation
requirement. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0242(7), this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9)(C). Until the EEP receives and clears your check
(made payable to: DENR - Wetlands Restoration Program Office), no impacts specified in this
Certification and Major Variance Approval can occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at (919) 733-
5208 if you have any questions concerning payment into the EEP. For accounting purposes, this
Certification and Major Variance Approval authorizes payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund
to compensate for 218,922 ft2 of required riparian buffer mitigation for impacts to 91,216 ftz (and 750
linear feet) of protected riparian buffers; 03-04-02 river and subbasin, 27-25-(1) stream index no."
3. Nutrient Off-Set Payments
You are required to provide nutrient off-set payments into the NC Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) as
required under the Neuse River Basinwide Stormwater Requirements (15A NCAC 26 .0235 and .0240). You
must contact the subject local government (City of Raleigh) and EEP to work out the details of providing this
payment. The estimated payment presented to the WQC totaled $98,445.60. If the calculated payment is less
than this amount you must notify this office and you may be required to request a new Major Variance Approval
from the WQC. Until the WRP receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Ecological
Enhancement Program Office), no impacts specified in this Certification and Major Variance Approval can occur.
4. Buffer Protection
Any additional impacts to the protected riparian buffers other than those specified within this Major Variance
Approval shall be limited to a single access road across the main stream bisecting the property and any
necessary utility crossings. Any additional impacts to the protected riparian buffers must first receive written
authorization from this Office. No future variances from the riparian buffer protection rules will be allowed on the
remaining parcels within the PUD.
5. Remaining Parcels
All future development on the remaining parcels must comply with Neuse River Basinwide Stormwater
Requirements and subject local government (City of Raleigh) associated ordinance.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in criminal and/or
civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal 404 and/or coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404
permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification and Major Variance Approval, you may ask for and adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, PO.Box
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This Certification and Major Variance Approval and its conditions are final and binding
unless you ask for a hearing.
Bobby Murray Chevrolet
Page 3 of 3
March 18, 2004
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Neuse
River Riparian Buffer Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). Please call Bob Zarzecki at 919-733-9726 if you have any
questions or require copies of our rules or procedural materials.
Sincerely,
ea. limek, P.E.,
, Director
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
GC 3402
Cc: Nortan Webster, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Todd Tugwell, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Ron Ferrell, Wetlands Restoration Program
File Copy
Central Files
DWQ 001489
March 18, 2004
bz RECEIVED
MAR2 5.2004
K1MLEY--HORN
ENVIR
Michael F. Easley, Governor
O?OF W ATF9Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
> Division of Water Quality
..,
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION & Major Variance Approval
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and 213 .0233, Bobby Murray Chevrolet has permission as outlined
below and within the Water Quality Certification (WQC) Number 3402 w/ additional conditions for the purpose(s) of
constructing the proposed Plantation Point Development. All activities associated with these authorized impacts must be
conducted with the conditions listed in the attached certification transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID
WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENT ECOLOGICAL ENHANCMENT PROGRAM (EEP)
DWQ Project No. 001489
DATE: March 18, 2004
LOCATION: RALEIGH
COUNTY: WAKE
BAS I N/SUB BASIN: 03-04-02
STREAM INDEX NO.: 27-25-(1)
As required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and 213 .0233 and the conditions of WQC No. 3402 w/ additional conditions,
you are required to compensate for the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of
wetlands, surface waters and buffers as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters
of the state.
(Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the EEP must be rounded up to one-quarter acre
increments according to 15A NCAC 2R .0503(b).]
0.0 acres of Class WL wetlands
0.0 acres of riparian wetland
0.0 acres of non-riparian wetland
0 linear feet of stream channel
218,922 square feet of stream buffers
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is through the payment
of a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R .0503 and to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund per 15A
NCAC 2B .0242. If you choose this option, please sign this form and mail it to the EEP at the address listed below. An
invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE
IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU HAVE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN
PROCESSED BY THE EEP.
Signature
ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (EEP)
NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
[phone]
Date
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit.
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
9191 ranhtraa Rlvr1 Ralainh NC 276nd-2260 (Lnratinn)
ATTACHMENT F
NCDWQ CORRESPONDENCE
Cypress Equities, LLC
Page 2 of 2
6/20/05
c) Move the proposed Ruritania Street Ext. slightly to the south to minimize the impacts to the
large meander and remove the large unstable meander, realign and restore that area of the
stream, or
d) Keep the same alignment as proposed however avoid impacts by installing a bottomless
culvert.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and Mike Horan of the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three weeks,
we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
?OF W A TF9? Michael F. Easley, Governor
\c 6i William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
7 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O .? Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 20, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-0300
Wake County
Page 1 of
CERTIFIED NIAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Cypress Equities, LLC
Attn: John Farrow
15601 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
Addison, TX 75001
Subject Property: Ruritania Street Extension
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Farrow:
On June 10, 2005, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) met with representatives from Kim-ley-Horn and
Associates, representatives from the City of Raleigh, and Mr. Pete Sell in the field to look at possible
alternatives to the construction of the Ruritania Street Extension. This project is proposing impacts to 638
linear feet of stream and 43,662 square feet of riparian buffer. The DWQ believes that these proposed
impacts can be minimized and therefore is requiring additional information in order to process your
application to impact protected wetland, streams and/or buffers on the subject property. Therefore, unless
we receive the additional information requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your
application as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506 and 2B .0233(8) and will place this project on hold as
incomplete until we receive this additional information. Please provide five copies the following
information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. Please submit justification as to why the project area connecting to Sumner Boulevard cannot be
moved or reconfigured as the following:
a) Move the proposed Ruritania Street Ext. to the north to avoid parallel impacts to the stream
and riparian buffer, or
b) Realign and restore the stream and riparian buffer to the south along the property boundary.
2. Please submit justification as to why the project area impacting the perennial stream cannot be
moved or reconfigured as the following:
a) Move the proposed Ruritania Street Ext. to the south to avoid the large meander in the stream,
or
b) Move the proposed Ruritania Street Ext. to the north to avoid the large meander in the stream,
or
401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] Internet: htt1)://h2o enr state nc.us/ncwetlands
No ? hCarolina
-'Vaturrr!!Y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-500% Recycled/10°b Post Consumer Paper
Cypress Equities, LLC
Page 2 of 2
6/20/05
c) Move the proposed Ruritania Street Ext. slightly to the south to minimize the impacts to the
large meander and remove the large unstable meander, realign and restore that area of the
stream, or
d) Keep the same alignment as proposed however avoid impacts by installing a bottomless
culvert.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and Mike Horan of the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three weeks,
we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 if you have any
questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Karoly,
401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
CBK/dae
cc: Mike Horan, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Beth Reed-Kinley-Horn and Associates, 3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Eric Lamb-City of Raleigh, Transportation Services Division, PO Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602
John Dorney-DWQ
John Hennessey-DWQ
Filename: 050300Ruritania(Wake)ho1d2
ATTACHMENT G
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS EVALUATED
1 Y?y'
1
I -?
,pol
? k•
g,
'm ?,t
i 3
^'
i' ?xtli;s
'LOU
v
v I
. YsA1 ? t
k MM.P

\ \ \ \ Y •V?T ao
at
-WV3H1S N911V3H ONV HAGS 011 Ms- n) m m
,,,r,' ? vvv/ vv 11 vv (tai N
\\; , ' -'= JNISSOH3 WUH1S 1VINN3H3d il-IS co
\ \ ` III \ \ / m
ml k. 1- 11-
W% n
C-j
-4w %
\ ? ? \ \ %
v v ? N v `i -?l ? DO tyv ? ?v??, n ?z ? ?•aa ? ? o
`\\ \ \\ / I o +\ °e D v ,J \\ u\i JS 9L9`9 = (,OZ a31no) Z NOZ m \ I'll
JS 49C'll = (,0£ N3NNI) l 3 Z
__ ? \ ,\ ?, ? x a y „U ? r`?--/ ! 1 / lotldNll Z
1 as a l ai ad 1 1 2 \ \\ ° 1 + 9 ,lt' 4\
1
31 Z£Z = S10Nd)NI 13N
3HLtI1 hill
! I / 1 i I !! + / ! I \ \ \ t'i, n"1 .? 9 = N I1VO0 3a Vl llS
/ ! '.'Ki 'I } y\ ?'N ?? 3l lS = Otld NOiVdISS10
x
?? - -_? /l/ I ?? 9r ` I )?' I ?? ; ?vv ?' t v v,` q, ?? 31 LOZ = llld
i t 1 ; 1 d'?. ?:? _ i '. ? . ???' o ;1 ? SlOtldWl Nltl ail
o? h?N
1 I I I? ?\\\:? ?+ //////'. hill m
*m Old Idwv
W-7 ?(All
/r/ J I II ? j y .;gam •,t, w``,, `? ? ? \? +_. •?"\ /I+'\ __ -=_?` ??? 'r / \'I? w\
:Fa
"Is
!? II I I( j of 1 \\ ?. vv v?? tl.i '' ??4:A?? ?` =-`_"?=_ _??`vv? ? /? r`._/r?ri ?
---- I i I \ 77» Vv 1' ??? ??? v ?? _ ?`?v?v? yvv\\ ??\ 1N3WN911N I j 1 ZN
----------- v v A A A V\\?i? ,' I, 1 - vw ?? ?? ?_ v III O3SOdd I I
s?asr \ `- it i t \ `\ ` \? ` '?\ ?\ \ ?'\ `\ \ \\ \\ \\\\,1l ;, ,?+t`t t t\ , 11 tttt• 1 ?0. \ ?? ? ?t „• y \\ f 'I ,t II I I
i .v v `v 75u?ZYY32f A V\ l t l t + , ?. A A Avg A \\ ?\ i t ,
i A \ v , g1 dAU ` ',\\ t i l ttil ' it tt ?t?\I, ,:?wYA 1., ?v v??'? \t t1 \\?\
v ?1 v L? 7 $?IdYM, v J N?N1N9fN j t i ,? 1?A , ?, v? t 11 id A
_ _ ?? ? ? v y \ v; ?03SQdOd it!1 y v i v? i i 'I ?, I? t i I s ? t i t
` ?\\ \ \ \ 11,1ti+t t 1t \1\ ,`t \1 '1t 1 ?' ? 1 4 _ i
---- --- " ------ \ ? \ ?\ ? I , , + ,li 1t \\?t ? I ' ,? i,!;II {M + + 1 t\ \ __? ;, 6Qf\ `\ 1 \\ ,
0
--- ,- ? ? I ,. t .?.i1 I II II II I• I i i h I ?t ?.+'? vA?`???_--/?/il ,t ? A v `x6 V t A
_. v I /- ? I 1 + :llt" I ?1? .?v ?t;? vA v IV• v t_ v v ?t
ll
,! 1i ,i i -,, I t IIr it 1 y
,\`\?///.lyl\\` \\ \' , \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \
__ -- I ? ? i j I i ' i!I11'i If+illltilli ( '? y-?! ??` VASA' __? .,rl?A AA 'Y ,, A ? ? ??A _, AVAA\
\?
? v ? . I III I ? ? 1 III' , yv v /, /, ? ? v v .?..v•. ? ? ?./
I I f , ? I I , I I ? ? I `III I 11 '1 ?, '1 ?\` pf 1 \ i } ^V \ \ r, \ \\ OOt \ \ \
I y?\
I Ii ,
,\ 'Ilt I I I li, ,?I II11 ?? \I '.`yl ???. i l It. ??yt: `',\l!, ?\ \\ \ ???'\?\\\`,\i,\\\\\? .. . \ -
'-
t ' ? / ? i I I II ?I'I 1 y v???.?v ?.. ?+ V•t it Vv VA.,,,, ( ? A A\ ? ? t v ?
?, I`V v \ ! ?AA ? / J 11 III?II?II :IfI III!Il?,tti??tA?`?-,??VA ' it , I!t `,V++1,iA \"? v`? Y !At,V Avv ? ?.I\t,A v?
?"v , v A I I I t , i 1 t v
` v 1 / hhh t' I u 1r v A v ,r. 5 v v ?Qx v v
V i A v , \ ` ', it l l A, A Al h
A A A
v v, v i ?` / / t I w ' I r 1 t l, l t V v v A v 1 ?y v ?
\
r /',' ` v` v v / / I j i, i I I I I 1 l?"I v \ v v vv v v A rl t
`I
I I? •' ? '? '. , vAA\?? -' I// / ,/ / // lil!jlil I ?j?-I?IIiI?I?II?, A V v\ \?. .
! ` / ?' -\ 1•? t ? \\ \\ ?? ?'/ ?/ ?' /r I,i 'III; III?1II\\ \` `? `'\?\ i --- .i \`\,\• t,_ \ \`\ \ I.? .i%?'/ 1, `\ ' i
?\ iJ \ \ ? i; - - (ate I ( \ t \? ??1;7 _":.??ar / i / /-? ," 1 i \ _"
t I I r' J W \ V v , i { / / , • i t r t I `` V ''t \ `' tv V i . l ! ?' \ +.? ?,??
/ 5 V , ?`Yt r r
?0r
t l 1 ; r' r --? -- I ? VA, `•v I ? r l / r / l_ ; :,, i , t , 1?• A A ? ' ? I I I x I •V ! ?? ?, ?\, ?A? vA`vi? =-`;rz /ii
-- I ? ? :? I I i _ ? y1 r ? A `mayy ?fii?' I ! _ / / r??/ ? / /
I's
y ` /r
` '-- ---' ?!' ?--- ?A?.` -- ?. I I I }1 1 ?t L ,A i. ,{r 1 I j I I ,/ / / /
-` \ - /! ? Ili?tJ'? ? ,?j/ } 1 j l 7
? ? v , ? I I ? ' / , i:.\? ?? • I , ?// /,?,? ?? / / ? I i 11't 11?V , I `i,??11 I I j I !/ / ?.? ?i
\ - , _ A. _ ?? v ? _ r ; 1? I III t i ! 1 \ 1 1 1 ? i I i/'7 rr/ ? 1 ? ? , t i' '?+' ` t ? >'.'. r ! ? I !
?-
r
•_----???__ ?V vy"J /?`?J? Ay-- -????• iI ;1IIt?:V,i1?1\\i1?V'VA\it', ' 'l,?ilih? /? ?..?/,/;? Ii,,!,,,''It,-`.r`>?-;,t 1I! :l t,/ ,_
\ - i \ I? \ \ ? 1 , l l ? I \ \ \ 1 ?' \ i \ t 1 ' "ilrrrl' ? ! ? ; f I i '+ ;?/ \ /,? l ; I i ? I %,` / ??
\ \ ` ? 1 ?~ ; ' I v \ \ '\ \ t\ t f i f ,P _,
/ ! t I 7 r
` ?' I 1 1 t \ t + y ` `t ; 1 1 y I 1 I , J, , , ! ! :? \ tJ` err'. t 1'. I I 1 ! f , i
.`\ r ! t r' r !/ r ( fi \''it
i`' I''+
--
,. ,t,,, i
- --- -- - -_ \\??- ?1 1 ,1?1•t i I 1 ??--y\r, I/ci/\ , ?t\.1. 1• a111 t,rtiti!///?
- ----? -. / -r"' - ___ _ =____ =1 ? ' ? J 1't `' •`! i 1 i \ '? ? j I ;//?'' I' „/\1?n,.'; 'I1?: 1? \, . ?1?1 \ t' i ,t1!'1,';,I? Il?i•i! r; /! / /
?" "- i r •? i??---- `, -__ ?_ _-_----_ -=i Q' ! 't t t 1 t I ?/?, ir.,'I ? ? \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i t? s;,,,, ? 1 I I ' I , r /
_''`` `, .n/'-- ---'?__-""_\ .,\,'i ?// ,J?i / r,' i'i I I I ! i"/ /I ?I r?;;/I. ?9?',," //J \ `\\'i.? \?\\\\\\\•l'i•?t;;t,l;t;illi+ 't', /
N\
?? ,`,' ,1 /, i q / i I I f /dam i 1 1 1 / ii ` 1 r? , .? 4?\ \ \ t \ l ,':'
\
`_- ' ? \ Y / ! //?// ` / /i r , ? U ? f I-:t ?? \?.?`\ \_.1' \ t t . t?i'' titii',',t •\
_ --- \ - \' />}? :',R? /Y2(Vd 7V?1lSDClN1, ? l/tF (?I, r r i ?, ? r J \\ S , , 1 + t i y ! , ,
? r I I l / ! r` /rlr / ???. 1 iR\ \ ,I I I I 11, ` l
1?? \ ??•, ` l t i !If i ?I ?l li ?ht t i I
_ ? v v `r? ?a ? ? ? /? // t , ? i r l 1 r , /' /( 1/ / ?? ? ? ? • ? , t ! I v' `' ?t v??/? ?t1 t , , + ! I
-NINON 011AIHS- \\ v °' -?' m N
Lm ]a
V / 1 ?? h ?V `V I ao
- - -'? JNISSOU3 W HIS IVINN3H3d LL o
37VOS obddtRl ?
¦ ?I? i????!! r? V ?. r
\ t? i z
\\I \ -?\\ \ \?\ w alc -4 SlZ = SiO 'VO Yll 13N o
\ £a = NOllV00 d 2115
?_ I I ?. \ \ 1 I n 9L = OVd 8OlVd
1 I t v v vA ? lb;; I /?
rU!.t;r,', I l dl 09l = l Li DD
I I 1 v v ?? ,', /
\ I I \ \\ \ \\\\\?\? o \ 1' 'y: 16 \ / 1 o
I I ! ! 1 `? ? /v } l + '?\. y??`,v?v vv t n5VdV4I ill 0
i 1! j I;:??; A l 1 t is goo's = (,oz a31no) Z 3NOZ
! Ift \ ? }`1 1 1 ';!1 "fit i t 11 \• ?'•'. ?? JS 9£Z'0l = (,O£ 83NNI) l 3NOZ
o U r
v1tAAV1IV1'•'
/'/' I I ! 11?\t}'}tl 1' 1 '? L !q?\ \`?\"`\,\ `\ ?UoU +\\\ ! '`\ -\ _'' / I\/!I to
Eff
77
_-
37 vA 'l •. ?? `? Vim` Ate: :vyvvv v //
77 i '
11,43WNJ 1 r
1'
soasr ?- \ l t 1 .I \ ? \ \ \ \\ ? t ''. ? ? ? ? 1' 8 ? :? \, ?? \ \ \ ` ?? " ? 1 t ' I I ` ', \ I } l
v ? w ? ? V A ? A ' t? i? sl' AA ? :/'.'. ?? ?. A? 1 1 / ? ! f I I 1,! 1 A A ? A, 1 ? ? i 1
v v • z V A v v '\
Ii I ! I ? `• A A 11 ? \ v"? ?1 1 \ ??t 1
`? ?V AJJ?V A i f t ?i ,?i 16 r ? i v` - A A A v V I I + V 1 1
i
?v 1 ! i I
- - - - ?, 'V i1 'r ? I :I I I I ! ! ? 1 I !I 1 it I ?I I 1 ! I I . I _ I! , I ! I } .??. ? - ? t ? : ? v ?.V , .v. ? ,'
? ' 1 i I l ! I ? it i I I i , 1 ? I I I I
1 \ itl II /•. t r , I ` I I t11 ??il+ I I a \' \ _
1 ' ?' ? i ' I I I I I ! I I{.'.??Q,?r' I'. ! I' ?-- °1 " t1 v v •
\ `'? 11i i V / i ' , I III t r I 1 r I i ?? 11 1 1+ !Z 1 t o A. ', A A V A V
\ / 1 I I I r rf l: rl I I i
°\\ i \\ ?\ ' I\ \? \`, I , I '? / i I I I j I I i /' I,II II I ;,l t 1, ?1`?. 1??)I; \\ I \? 1 1 \ \
\ i \ \ 1\ 1, t ?r •.// / I I I ? I I I r I I 'l \1` '? , \\ ?1'?' 1l f\ ??"1? ?i) r ?\?\ \
V A A r I i t I I I I? I? I i? V I A V 1 1 ?A VAvv 11A?\ ? `V i i A r r ?1 ? ?? ? ?
f`} ?! / ? ?V 1 I `'? A A \\ v V ? i? '1 '_ it ? / i I I I i', 1 1 I I I \ 1 1 A A l ? V A --- ?A V'?V: ?i 1? tr \ V vV A? 1 ??_ / i r? _. i,--?n I?+ v ?
`I ,?' 1 / A A A ? `v I. - -- / i l , 1 ' r I j l 1 1 1 ?V A v A?\ \ - i ?. '??t, Z \ v ?..-;°,:?'i r ! , / /?: 1i,1 / A y
,vAVi
i1?\\Ill??lj?, VA?i??Sf?tl/f+
?Itll I Irll11 ??//? / i
v? ?•? - r '?l / I i I" I I I iI + !/! '\ 1 I r : I/><. // ?'? S ! `?,./`?'?f 't'
??
? ? 1' Al t? 1 It I ? ? ??
\ ? ? ? v ?i? ? ? 1 ? i r ? ? ? l IV AV l ? 1 l \'? 11 A \. ., I I i i r ? /i r t /? ! ! ? r (/ r 7 rl ? -, i t .??1 ? l l 1 (I 'I +i I r I I ? i ? j I
r , , I 1 V 1 11 `• I t t t( I I '? ' ! r it l r.?".° , iA? S t 11 !. i i' l l r l ! r' '
'I 11. ' 1 `????\\\\\`1111
.r.\•,?` `\ \\ 1 \\ \`'1111 } ' 1.It " 11+I r I i i?
`\.
I \v r
I ??l\?\\\ "1'\?. ,, }''tt}? 11 t t ,??11 + rr1111, 1}`}} t' /
'-- ` _ V',?l'/ i './' / /? / r" j i r x r // /" 1 ? ti./ ?. /.t ? ? ?? ? .vyV;?y 1 t 'l ,? ?' r1 1111 \ i
?il?v vv.
r
?` - `` ---
,? \ \ / \\ 1 \ (Jain 1 n?
HIROS Ol 1dIHS ' V v 1 ' \ \I v? v u m ro
r? A v ?
JNISSOU3 Wd3H1S 1dINN3113d 3'11S,,
% CD
%
\ \` v A* ? i 3S 966'4 = (,OZ no) Z 3NOZ \\ \ %% ?
a0+ \\ \ o?+of `?` \' ` \ \ \\`,\ Y ---- ??? ??? JS 9LL'L = (A£ b3 1) l 3NOZ \\? '\\ /i/ o
1 -? a
777N, ? ? V 3j
1 o y \ vat ) 1 . o
i Y x av ?I.y / / v / / °
00
? p i / dl 99L = SlOVdWI 1V10
° !'? ?` "+ J I 1 d 09 = Vd 2JOltldl 10 \\ i ?/ a
dl Sol llld = \\ / o
I asxlaJSd
00- Sl VdINI WV 8i ?I
1 I 3y? Nv3 r (1
1 / 1 C.
i
?
?, C \_ 1} 11 1t tl I 1! b 1. ," " ? ?+ ?.? ? u ai m
I i, ?! I 1 1 I 1 I ??? ! ?. ! F??wr"s?? c ? 11}1? vv y v v ?.- ,r/??/ j?/lcfr
q?Sy`I!1 I N
t
; ? } 1 y A A V ? l;,yl!?11 114 \ _ v v ? = ?\A Vv v ?' / / '
%
__ J ! ! 1 `` 1 r- , a J _ . \ X11\ \ ?\ IONNOkIV
1 ?.+• \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \' , ? 1',1y'y1?1'I;VVt,l,t•1`•'1\ \ C 1`; 0 +? _ t ??\ r \ \ \y 1 Q?S0?8d I l 11
,
A
i \ ( \ ?'` \ \\ \\ \ ktk7td:?J \\ \ }!'1\;,, + 1+'1 l,?y ? ,L: I%' ???\?.`^I?'\ ,! 1 \ \ \ 1 ,`
v v ?? ` V ??`?M ? 11N9YlR1J?tl' VII ,11 i 1. v ? ?' r l ?;vvA,?,\ +' ''> A ?r\y 1, v y V? 1 y 1
v v vA v , 034QdQa ' 1,11 ' 1 '? v'?.?,} ?v vv 1/ I e'?' `?y V+?1? 1 . I! i a v ? v i
- \ \\ -- - \\ \`\\ \ Il;til},',,, I rr `111,` ', ?\ k \\ \?I: :i'b'\1\ \?% \\
-----
-- - ` --
, 11 \
l I it ! \ t ' ` ! ? I i I 11 t' -- /' ' \ , ?,, \ \ /? \ V 11
,ail! -//tAlti v .??'wvv \ 1
i :
1
Ir;q
S ! ! " + 1 1 1 1111 V r :l 'j( \ \ - 11\ \\ \ \ \ 0,
\ \ \ ,
i
, i 1 +,1,1111 II1i+1111 +1 I I 1 r1. / i``"\ \\\\ ?;./r/i'rri\\ Ir,\?
1 11 1, k
I I I W r i,iliill I 1 1} I '1 r. ??, \\?, _ ld \ \? y, ,1 \ ? ? ? \ \ \ \
?? ? ` 1 1 ? i 1 ' 1II I;l?l1 ?il?lill ? I I I II. ,? ? ? ? ?\?,??? V^i/i?/%rl \ V A'\? r"` wvv\ ? ?wA ? v` /
%
? Y\ 1^?It A vv v ?? / vv vv
i l VIII I ? A%
1 I /, I I I ! , +I?I ;II +, 11 ? A y , '\V, .-,i ?,y',,A V } , A ! A A V v ?./,.: v vv ?? ? ? A
?1 iI i F ?.v ?. V , A\vv vA 1
\ i i ?11 / I 1 tl,I it I . 1 v. ;. ` ,1v j v fIl. ItA Vl I y v \ V vv '? i v vVV vv v v
'V I1 ? ly ?, ; ??lli+ ,lt '1 ', `Iti ?\?V - A"' 1,1 .1A1 li 1VA V A?v_?I AA V\AV A \?v v v _
VA V v y Ifl II ' I I I ? II4 V' v 11 hA' 11 VAAv?,\,f•?VAV\Avv?o? g? v
???? v \ \ ! \\ I ! `? / / i I I I :.III + I ;?rrl I I ll ! 1 1, \ I!\ \? ? ,r :' 11 ?I( \ \? 1 \ ? \. \,\ \
\ ! \ ' \ \ \\ I ? ? / I I ? I r ; I 1 , '? ! ,, I, I , ,?. , t nr ??.? ??y? y \ 1 ? \ 1\,\ \ ;
t l l \ \ \ \ \ \
+
\ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ - ??' \ I\ / / 1 ? I 1 w ! r / ! + n ? I ! l V .' ! , i \ '\ 1 \ , , i i 1 ?\ ? \ \?'1 \ '' \ \ ?\ ,\\` !/ \ \ \ \ ? ! ? ? \ \\ '? ? \ ??\
\'
//'??! i - / / .•tyiJ \\ \\ \\\ \`?-'?'' ?, , \\\ ! // ao 96z8 I i 4 !,? ± \\?\'\ \\. =! \. ? ?,, v i ` \ \ \ \ \ ?!I 1 I \
1 ? 1 v A vA .-.. / / / / 1 i ; I I I ? ! A v V r n?
I? ! ! vA\ \?vv A ?+ `,V•,/ / / // ill y •Il ?l 11 to III A\tV Al\?V `,?'I 1i t /I I A\, V\!11 V`? V r ???1_? \?? I A "U
No,
r , ,' i ?.'\ \ , \ \ \ \ \\ !I . ! - -.? ,! ? I I III I I ? '\ 1 M ` ?' ? ,\\ ?< , , ?\ ? / ! /-? .?• I i \ _- <<
- -- -` \ v v v?+ / / / A'\?\?V A 'V?v ?,,I I!yv( ?, vA\vvvi
7?
'1\ ??'? ____?/ "? \\, ?,,. \ \ ! / + '\ 1 ? I r'I ? I 1 ?' 1? \•'`f?/ii'?! I ! II ( f ! I '? ! / ?? / /
\ --- -- _ ' -_ 4 + ? i ' ?` `, \?i' !; 1 1 III I 1 ! / ?' - /
- ?? '--- -- \ t? -? \ // !? /? ! i i?; I I (•11 ° ` ;. 'y 11 I''?:il?? / '? ????t".S ??>/a%I?\It .`i1it1 II , !%I1j!
\ //r \\ \_'' -_ ?/ ! ? I,' 1 ? I !r +?;•'\`'-'r ?\ } I !?//i?? ?r?, ??'J i'l1\' i't 'i1? 1 r ?li?`1i IIIr// /!i .•' w/
\ \\ '---- ` -_?\ (' ! I I I \ 11 1 l `11 'l\ \ \ !!!r!!!!?'7 M., /r ! I1!'1'y;}lYl'I}.:`1j)C7,ir( ! III ! r! /?
_ `- -- -- '?? ?0 /..? 1 ( I? ? ! \ l4 \ t\ \ \ ,` 1 „t/i?'?I/!1 /1 'Y/,•I I i + ;i1,,1?< r >,w-`? {,I;?:II I?. ! !i ?. i' ''
,
\ - \ \ I \, II/ \ .?' i i 1 + ' ! (\\ \ 1t 11 \ \\\1 \ ? 1 I ,! 1 1 'J!irr`•"`,7 / ! ' ./,/j' r i _??!;t\Dt )?, 11`!li +II(?IiI r •r/ ,/ ,? ?i
I r ' 1
` `\ i 1y 1 1\ 11 1 /% !' r '!i ' II Iltr:'I(?
?_- ? \_ l \? ' I , 1 \ 1 't`T?'! ° i i i ?t fy !/l.?r III?'fil\l`?1 14;11 IIrJ;i Itr;,/i
\ _ -\\ `` I ? ` 1 1 ,4 1 ! 1..,' -,1 :` 1 '1 1 , i r ?'< ? j/ ?? ! ! 1 r1?,(? + 1 1 I' \ \ `1 1 ll` 1 {Ifni . I I f I i / ! i
,`,, ,1 ,k 1 1'\;1; { P?;\ y 1 ? ? I? .' ,?1 it tl? (i, ` 4?1 ?? \ 1 ,11'!1, l',11'll +Il??irl; rf!!' ? ! ?/
111 1 \\\t, l\ 1 I Il.lr 1!
- --- _-w??- - - ---_----- _-----?.= .?q ;` 1 ' t 1. } 1. 1 1. 1 ?V V s , /i ? \ 1'? ?' I 11,, ? ???';'?t `; ` \ \ \ \ \'\\.\\'•ti'•}i}.,,;i+i'1rl I?111 ! / 1 ,.
-: ? -_-_--_ `= _- ? -----_?-.? :q/ I 1 1 i ! " ' ' ? / j 1 ' 11 4 yr `ff • ?,• \ \ \ \ \\ } {, v` ! I I; r 1 !
\!',yt`'{tlll`!`Itlltl
- _ ?;r/ \ ?.\, , zi i ! I + ! 'r t'; ? •. !i I J :i r ? ,l': / , ?.\?. ??\? \\` \ \ ;j`,, 44, 1111 {t1 1 1!`,'IV
// - J/ 1, tr 1 ! f i I r i i + r?i ! ?` 1 r\ , 1 \,\ ?? \ ,\ \ \ \ S •1 tt1i { 1't'•11'i'''V1.,1 \ I !
'>•. ??. 1 \ ?' \ \ 1 `? \ 1 ' I1 , It I l j
/ A „r;;!Cr! ?io.\\\ \_ 1 t
-- ?-,/ \ \'; ?1 -4/ / ! / r ; ( !i,! 1/` ;C:l; ';?'t;j ?',• ?\??? -?,?,:,1; y ,' til,?''? i. ` ,1 t,'``;!1i`,'.1`1,}!`?,t,l ?1'i I
\ y?y 7t/ SllOh1,3Q ?, ! /' ?/; ?,\ `\\y - :1?1V: I.
'•\ \ , /"'? !(J' `•!/ /• 'J - r,`/ 4/rlr\ '??) ,, \ C\\.,r 1 ! I + 1!1+11 l , 1 ?\ I'
1 rt ! ` !±111 1 !, 10
`i1 \ \\t?
l
/XY
' _ __- '.i i/`VA R?rh/ / // ?,rl ,'%'i?11 ? !?I I? ??? ?• rl!'A?i1+? 1 ?.: ?v. ?/'??u't. .+ i
ATTACHMENT H
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
RURITANIA STREET CULVERT
PLANTATION POINT SHOPPING CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME, INC. PROJECT NO. 1051-05-004A
Prepared For:
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, North Carolina 27513
Prepared By:
S&ME, Inc.
3109 Spring Forest Road (27616)
P. O. Box 58069
Raleigh, North Carolina 27658-8069
June 28, 2005
S&ME
June 28, 2005
i Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3001 Weston Parkway
Cary, North Carolina 27513
Attention: Mr. Jeff Wing, P.E.
Reference: Report of Geotechnical Evaluation
Ruritania Street Culvert
Plantation Point Shopping Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1051-05-004A
Dear Mr. Wing:
S&ME recently performed a subsurface exploration at the site and submitted results in a
Subsurface Exploration Report dated April 8, 2005 (S&ME Job Number 1051-05-004).
i.
Additional exploration at the site of the proposed culvert was conducted in general accordance
with our proposal number P172-05E. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess existing
conditions within the stream bottom at the proposed Ruritania Street culvert location. This report
presents a summary of pertinent project information, results of field work, and our geotechnical
conclusions.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The Plantation Point Shopping Center will be located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) and Northern Wake Expressway (I-540) in Raleigh,
North Carolina. Ruritania Street will be extended along the south side of the site in an
approximate east-west direction and will intersect with Sumner Boulevard. Ruritania Street will
S&ME, Inc. I Mailing address: I )919) 872.2660
31 18 Spring Forest Road P.O. Box 58069 )919) 790-9827 fax
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Raleigh, North Carolina 27658$069 www.smeinc.com
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation S&ME Project No. 1051-05-004A
Ruritania Street Culvert June 28, 2005
l Plantation Point Shopping Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
cross an existing stream. A relatively small amount of water was present within the stream at the
time of our evaluation. We understand a culvert with cast-in-place concrete headwalls are
j planned for the stream crossing.
The purpose of our evaluation was to determine if rock materials are present within 8 feet
beneath the stream bottom. Eight locations were evaluated within the existing stream channel in
the general area of planned culvert construction.
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
This supplementary exploration included a visual site reconnaissance by representatives of S&ME
and performance of eight soundings (SR-1 through SR-8) within the proposed culvert location.
The sounding rods were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 5.7 to 12 feet below
existing stream bottom. Sounding locations were selected by Kimley-Horn and Associates and
established in the field by S&ME personnel using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and
by referencing existing site features. Approximate sounding locations are shown on Figure 1 in the
Appendix.
The soundings were performed by driving a 1/2-inch diameter steel rod in 3-foot lengths with an
approximate 16.5 pound pipe hammer. Soundings were advanced to refusal was encountered or
until a depth of at least 8 feet was reached.
The alluvial soils observed within the stream's channel consisted primarily of silty fine sand
(SM) or relatively clean coarse or fine sands (SW, SP). Based on the sounding rod resistance to
driving, these sands appear to have a loose relative density.
Refusal to rod advancement was only encountered in sounding SR-8 at a depth of approximately
5 '/2 feet beneath the stream bottom. Remaining soundings were terminated at depths ranging
2
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation
Ruritania Street Culvert
Plantation Point Shopping Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1051-05-004A
June 28, 2005
from 9 to 12 feet without encountering refusal. A tabular summary of results is represented
below.
Test Location
Number Depth to Refusal
feet
SR-1 > 9
SR-2 >9
SR-3 > 9
SR-4 >9
SR-5 >9
SR-6 > 12
SR-7 > 12
SR-8 5.7
GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS
Presence of Rock
Based on the soundings and previous borings (E-3 and E-4) conducted near the stream banks,
hard rock exists at depths greater than 9 feet below existing stream bed. Refusal was only
encountered at sounding location SR-8 at a depth of approximately 5.7 feet below the existing
channel bed. Refusal can represent the top of relatively sound rock or weathered rock, but is most
likely a cobble or boulder. The previously conducted borings are attached.
Excavation of Alluvial Soils
Based on our exploration, excavation for the culvert will extend through loose to moderate
consistency soils below the groundwater. The sands observed within the stream channel are very
conducive to extensive groundwater infiltration and caving within open excavations. The
Contractor should be responsible for all site safety, including the determination of appropriate
3

?l
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation
Ruritania Street Culvert
Plantation Point Shopping Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1051-05-004A.
June 28, 2005
trench safety measures according to OSHA guidelines. Actual measures to control groundwater
should be determined by the Contractor.
The alluvial soils along the stream channel are relatively loose and will settle beneath the weight
of new fill. The consistency and compressibility of alluvial soils cannot be determined by the
sounding procedure. Undercutting of loose or soft alluvial soils from the proposed culvert
location will be required. The depth and extend of undercutting is unknown at this time. We
recommend that test pits or soil borings be performed prior to construction to better define the
amount of undercutting needed.
Protection from erosion and scour will be needed. Appropriate protection should be determined
Scour Protection
by the civil engineer for this project.
QUALIFICATIONS OF REPORT
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice for
specific application to this project. Any environmental or contaminant assessment efforts are
beyond the scope of this exploration; and therefore, those issues are not addressed in this report.
The considerations contained in this report are based on the applicable standards of our
profession at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the data
obtained from the exploration. The nature and extent of variations between and outside the
explored locations made may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident,
then it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. In the event that any
changes in the nature or location of the proposed culvert are planned, the conclusions and
4
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation
Ruritania Street Culvert
Plantation Point Shopping Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1051-05-004A.
June 28, 2005
recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and conclusions of this report
modified or verified in writing.
CLOSURE
S&ME, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If there are
questions or comments concerning this report or if we can provide additional information relative to
this project, please contact us at your convenience.
?',r arc
Sincerely, `
S&ME, Inc.
s SEAL
C\-? 18819 6 Z
Wes Lowder,
Andrew A. Nash P.E. • °
Geotechnical Engineer Vice President Fy "°LLO
N.C. Registration No. 31022 N.C. Registration
Attachment(s)
S:\PROJECTS\2005\05-004 Plantation Point\GEOTECHNICAL\05-004A-rpt Plantation Point Soundings.doc
i

S

BORING LOCATION PLAN JOB NO. 1051-05-004A FlGURE NO.
PLANTATION POINT C NOT TO SCALE
aieacm BY. AAN
S&ME
RURITANIA STREET CULVERT DRAYM BY'. TRP ENGINEERING • TESTING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DATE: JUNE 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPES
(Shown in Graphic Log)
0
¦
51
¦
E
IE
0
Ifl]
Fill
Asphalt
Concrete
Topsoil
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY BLOW S/FOOT
Very Soft 0 to 2
Soft 3 to 4
Firm 5 to 8
Stiff 9 to 15
Very Stiff 18 to 30
Hard 31 to 50
Very Hard Over 50
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT
Very Loose
Loose 0 to 4
5 to 10
Medium Dense 11 to 30
Dense
Very Dense 31 to 50
Over 50
Organic SAMPLER TYPES
(Shown in Samples Column)
Silty Sand
Shelby Tube
Clayey Sand ® Split Spoon
Sandy Silt I Rock Core
E] No Recovery
Clayey Silt
Sandy Clay TERMS
Silty Clay Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
Partially Weathered Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1588.
Rock REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
Cored Rock Run Times 100%.
WATER LEVELS
(Shown in Water Level Column)
2 = Water Level At Termination of Boring
1 = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours
= Loss of Drilling Water
HC = Hole Cave
ROD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments
Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4"
(mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the
Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: Plantation Point
Raleigh, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD
1051-05-004
NOTES: Boring location and ele
DATE DRILLED: 1111105 ELEVATION: 278.0 ft
DRILLING METHOD: 3-114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 29.5 ft
LOGGED BY: A. NASH WATER LEVEL: Dry @ TOB
DRILLER: M. MOSELEY DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
J
w
a
_ U
o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w a 0 >
W
o
Cn Z
w

TOPSOIL
Residual: Firm Brown Fine Sandy CLAY (CL), Moist

Stiff Gray and Tan Fine Sandy SILT (ML), Moist
273.0
5
Medium Dense Tan-Orange Silty Coarse to Fine

t. J SAND (SM) With Trace Mica, Moist
10 268.0
HC

J Stiff Gray Fine Sandy SILT (ML), Wet
263.0
15
(.J
Stiff to Very Stiff Tan-Brown Fine Sandy SILT (ML),
Moist to Wet
258.0
20

25
253.0
are
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
(blowstft)
10 20 30 6(
E- 3
N-Value
8
15
17
12
9
13
20

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK Samplec
30 Brown Silty Fine SAND (SM), Drv
as
248.0
Boring terminated at 29.5 feet below existing g
surface. Borehole caved at 11 feet below exist
` ground surface. Borehole was observed dry at
(L
termination of boring.
,o
;b
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
I NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH
1 THATREPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA 1S IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.
HAMMER FALNG 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER
i FT.
4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.

ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
3109 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
Page 1 of 1
PROJECT:
;I
DATE DRILLE
DRILLING ME
LOGGED BY:
DRILLER:
d N a. O
I I og
5
Plantation Point TEST BORING RECORD E-4
Raleigh, North Carolina
1051-05-004
NOTES: Boring location and elevation are approximate.
1117105 ELEVATION: 285.0 it
3-114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 30.0 ft
A. NASH WATER LEVEL: Dry @ TOB
M. MOSELEY DRILL RIG: Mobile B-57
J
w a o STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
-J 0 1- , (blows/ft) N-Value
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W 2 >
EnZ w
10 20 30 60 80
Trace Mica, Moist
j Moist
?i
J 10
r?
sl
i
15
i l
20
Medium Dense Tan and Gray Silty Fine to Medium
SAND (SM), Moist to Wet
0
25
I?
l
? i
I a 30 Boring terminated at 30 feet below existing ground
n surface. Borehole caved at 15.5 feet below existing
Cn ground surface. Borehole was observed dry at
a termination of boring.
a
w
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH
THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB.
HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER
1 FT.
I
4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY
9
12
280.0
13
11
275.0
9
HC 270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
11
23
22
1 of 1
ATTACHMENT I
NC EEP ACCEPTANCE LETTER
rY
PROGRAM
Beth Reed
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Project: Ruritania Street Extension
County: Wake
RECEIVED
3 1 2005
KIti?LEY-NO
ENVIR, RN
January 26, 2005
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is
willing to accept payment for stream and wetlands impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please
note that the decision by the NC EEP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this
payment will be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to
the NC EEP for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued
404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the 404/401 to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or
the 401 Certification an invoice will be issued.
Based on the information supplied by you on the in lieu fee request form dated January 19, 2005, the stream and
buffer restoration that is necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is
summarized in the following table. The maximum amount of mitigation that the NC EEP will accept for this
project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
(linear feet) Riparian Buffers-Zone 1
(square feet) Riparian Buffers-Zone 2
(square feet
Impacts 690 45,703 23,582
Mitigation Maximum 1,380 137,109 35,373
The stream and riparian buffer mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification
and/or Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the referenced project in Cataloging Unit 03020201 of the
Neuse River Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement
between the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
N. C. Department of Transportation signed July 22, 2003.
RLStDI'l,Gt?... ... Pro,-2Gtl.?C9 Our Sta&
7
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Beth Reed
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
January 26, 2005
Page 2.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
rmD. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Jennifer Burdette, USACOE-Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ Regional Office-Raleigh
File
RP,stov ... ... Protect Our State
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-71
e?
NCDENR
/ www.nceep.net
r?

PROGRAM
July 28, 2005
Beth Reed
Kinley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Project: Ruritania Street Extension
County: Wake
KECEIVED
AUG - 1 2005
KIMLEY-HORN
ENVIR.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NC EEP will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send
copies of the 404/401/CAMA permits to NC EEP. Once NC EEP receives a copy of the 404 Permit and/or the 401
Certification an invoice will be issued and payment must be made.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
River Basin Wetlands Stream Buffer Buffer
Cataloging (Acres) (Linear Feet) Zone 1 Zone 2
Unit (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Wazm
Neuse 0 0 0 0. 0 690 45,703 23,582
03020201
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation for the permitted impacts
up to a 2:1 ratio, (buffers, Zone 1 at a 3:1 ratio and Zone 2 at a 1.5:1 ratio). The type and amount of the compensatory
mitigation will be as specified in the Section 404 Permit and/or 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or CAMA Permit. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
Liam D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Andrea Wade, USACOE - Raleigh
Eric Kulz, DWQ Regional Office - Raleigh
File
RP.stor' .. F .. Protect' Otw .Stag ©??
? NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
ATTACHMENT I
LEVEL SPREADER DESIGN
DWQ Project No
1. PROJECT IN
Project Name :
Contact Person:
Level Spreader ID:
Level Spreader Length
Drainage Area
Impervious Area
Maximum Filter Strip/Buffer Slope
grass
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - LEVEL SPREADER WORKSHEET
following information):
1 JI-zl l Cy Phone Number: (`1111 ) 01
Sprw-a (Sit Z 4s0.rnncr)
Max. Discharge from a 10 Year Storm
Max. Discharge to Level Spreader
Filter Strip/Buffer Vegetation
Pre-treatment or Bypass Method
( n ?7 ft. (perpendicular to flow)
ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the level spreader)
(. I ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the level spreader)
10 % (6% for forested, leaf littler cover, 8% for thick ground cover)'
0.3 cfs
6, 3 cfs
L, I -nw-?jzt Ve . (thick ground cover or grass, canopied forest with leaf litter
J groundcover)
LA -
REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
Applicants Initials
All IL Level spreader is at least 13 ft. per cfs for thick ground cover or grass or 100 ft per cfs in canopied forest with leaf
litter.
AJ(A Pre-Form Scour Holes are on flat slopes only
A?VI IL No structures are located in protected buffers'
If bypass method specified in the Draft Level Spreader Design Option Document:
A/?A Bypass method is specified (if applicable) and plan details and calculations are provided
N(FF Discharge to level spreader and subsequent filter strip is hydraulically and spatially separate from the bypass
discharge.
A/ No structures are located in protected buffers.
/V la Plan details for the bypass and outlets are provided.
The operation and maintenance agreement includes annual erosion and vegetation repair.
,AJ /A All k The operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
' Level spreaders in series can be used on slopes of up to 15% in forested areas with leaf littler cover or on slopes of up to 25% in areas
with thick ground cover or grass if designed according to the Draft Level Spreader Design Option Document. This potentially requires a
minor variance in protected buffer areas. In any event the second level spreader cannot be located in Zone 1 of a protected buffer area.
DWQ Project No
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY - LEVEL SPREADER WORKSHEET
1. PROJECT INFORMATION (please complete the following information):
Project Name : A 0 V1 (-Vit
Contact Person: 0-1110-C - Phone Number: 0 1,7) 0743 -
Level Spreader ID:. R i 5 Ue u ,? SFrcAA(f r Obit. I)
Level Spreader Length
Drainage Area
Impervious Area
Maximum Filter Strip/Buffer Slope
grass
Max. Discharge from a 10 Year Storm
Max. Discharge to Level Spreader
Filter Strip/Buffer Vegetation
Pre-treatment or Bypass Method
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
3 2.5 ft. (perpendicular to flow)
3 • q ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the level spreader)
2-0 ac. (on-site and off-site drainage to the level spreader)
% (6% for forested, leaf littler cover, 8% for thick ground cover)'
3D-f. Slopes wilt be, r4-(A Strict levc
cfs S?rtv?W M11 be, r,L ft?,,.c Ilieki b6rm.
j 7.3 J
cfs
V (thick ground cover or grass, canopied forest with leaf litter
groundcover)
W L d? tc?tfi?r? ,
basi vl • vv_( ?qtt_a of acu?noa
I"/hr Sti-v h.
Initial in the space provided to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting documentation is attached. If a
requirement has not been met, attach an explanation of why. At a minimum, a complete stormwater management plan submittal includes
a worksheet for each BMP, design calculations, plans and specifications showing all BMPs and outlet structure details, a detailed
drainage plan and a fully executed operation and maintenance agreement. An incomplete submittal package will result in a request for
additional information and will substantially delay final review and approval of the project.
A licants Initials
Level spreader is at least 13 ft. per cfs for thick ground cover or grass or 100 ft per cfs in canopied forest with leaf
litter.
N Pre-Form Scour Holes are on flat slopes only
No structures are located in protected buffers' Gilt pP 10as tu?ictsl-wdum "d 2_r-l ', Itv?t.(
y sprtader- Scat's ltvt( sPrt?ier i?
bt-rwti?
If bypass method specified in the Draft Level Spreader Design Option Document: a.1x t" e."
Bypass method is specified (if applicable) and plan details and calculations are provided
,4?•1? (ri Discharge to level spreader and subsequent filter strip is hydraulically and spatially separate from the bypass
discharge.
?i No structures are located in protected buffers. L?_G abovc)
A I? Plan details for the bypass and outlets are provided.
pL?.1k The operation and maintenance agreement includes annual erosion and vegetation repair.
Nih The operation and maintenance agreement signed and notarized by the responsible party is provided.
' Level spreaders in series can be used on slopes of up to 15% in forested areas with leaf littler cover or on slopes of up to 25% in areas
with thick ground cover or grass if designed according to the Draft Level Spreader Design Option Document. This potentially requires a
minor variance in protected buffer areas. In any event the second level spreader cannot be located in Zone 1 of a protected buffer area.
1

A
1
1
i
1
s
i
u
it
j
a." Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc. f7 ?• I - Sheet NO. 2 0? 7
Job I' ?wv? 7?ll0-. ???••?- Subject-?=dEt_ S;DGLF,P? L (S4, Job No.
t?l ?-- Cata ?D. ?? Decked by Catz
Designed by
rm-i 1
'PAS I
o:
r• I l
'
I I .
-,-
I-
?-_ tie ..- gboYl.. .12' _RCP t ,v41 _ae,?- by is -;---•s - -- --.1_ 1. -j _ - -!-- r --7- -, 1 I I

I_
i.i_ I - I-- -' _ __ - - - -- -- 7--- - i -Y- - -
I I I t i I ? ?.I --
'
,
' 1 I
.. Kimley-Horn
EB L-] and Asseciaies, Inc. 11 11 •• Sheer rro. or
Job Subject LEA E? ?AD CAIC S Job No.
Cas,Gned by PTL Data W13105' Checked by Date
I If
,
- I
S vv F
LEVEL BIZ"' - --- -- --
I ,
DA 3. I P C-CL
L z I ??' h? - - - - - - -1 - - T -
Q __CLPt. _. ' 0 8 (1 in/{,r? (3! aUO.._
I
I - -'- - - I-L--- -{- - - r- - - --1
'---r I i I --? - i T --i - ' I - i ---i --' I i I f ' ' ? I ?• ' 1 ! i i ! I .- ._L_-.
IL EVE!! i Sre- 4PE4 i ( ?-?-
I
E AV-E,
-;- -j _- - -i --r- i - -' `I-- I -i- -7 Jj
I ! J' •? Q 1 ! i I i V T? I i I :
L_-?_- I-• ? ` i??'___??2{ _(•?CP; I 1___I I --Ir---'--i---+-•-I'--I--''- - - r--r--- I---i--'--'--?
?-
I I ? I I ? I I I I -- ???
' ? ? I I I I ? I I i r I _
F{"
i D.(a. (o)12 20•5
EO,
--
:
BYPASS LEVEL SPREADER DETAIL (SITE 1)
PLANTATION POINT
AUGUST 1, 2005
PROFILE VIE"
A-A
MCP (BYPASS)
)UT=277.00
.._. (TO _____ SPREADER)
INV OUT=275.00