19930282 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19930617

}
e
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 30, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301660 and Nationwide Permit No. 12
(Utility Line Backfill and Bedding)

City of Raleigh
Attn: Mr. D.E. Benton
City Manager
P.O. Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Benton:
Reference your applications of February 24, and April 5, 1993, for
Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material impacting
approximately 3.0 acres of waters of the United States, including Walnut
Creek, Big Branch, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. The proposed
discharge is for backfill and bedding related to construction of 14,200 linear
feet of the Big Branch Sewer Interceptor and the Western Tributary Gravity
Sanitary Sewer Extension, near S.R. 2542 Quarry Road), _a Ralc; gh, Wak
County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided
for the discharge of material for backfill or bedding for utility lines,
including outfall and intake structures, provided there is no change in pre-
construction contours.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval. You should contact Mr. John Dorney of the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management at [phone]
regarding a State Water Quality Certification.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or 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
a

-2-
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 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.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field office, at.telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (with enclosure):
Hazen & Sawyer, P.C.
Attn: Mssrs. Jay Jackson, P.E.,
and Kevin F. Carter, P.E.
4011 West Chase Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
-X/r. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO June 14, 1993
Regulatory Branch
WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECT 'N
Action ID. 199302130 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
City of Raleigh
Attn: Mr. Tim Sudano
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Sudano:
Reference your application of April 15, 1993, for Department of the Army
authorization to discharge fill and dredged material within waters of the
United States, permanently impacting approximately 2.5 acres of wetlands
adjacent, and above the headwaters of, an unnamed tributary to Big Branch, for
removal of sediment and construction of a permanent service road, at Cooper's
Pond, Eastgate Park in Raleigh,Take County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
waters.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401
water quality certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management. You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone],
regarding water quality certification. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain other,required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or 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 12 months of the date of
3
-2-
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.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (with enclosure):
City of Raleigh
Central Engineering Department
Attn: Mr. Stewart J. Sykes, P.E.
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
City of Raleigh
Inspections Department
Attn: Mr. Mike Johnson
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
o ' John Dorney
Poe,
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
State of North Carolina 3'A
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A?.
Division of Environmental Management .?I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary I FE H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director .
May 3, 1993
Mr. D:E: Benton, Junior
City Manager
City of Raleigh
Post Office Box 590
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
Dear Mr. Benton:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Big Branch Sewer line-west tributary
Wake County
DEM Project # 93282
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification to place fill material in
1.2 acres of wetlands or waters which are tributary to Big Branch Creek for sewer line located
at Williams Road pump station to Rock Quarry Road in Wake County,.as described in your
submittal dated 7 April 1993, we have determined that the proposed fill can be covered by
General Water Quality Certification No. 2664 issued January 21, 1992: A copy of the General
Certification is attached. This Certification may be used in qualifying for coverage under
Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 12.
Additional conditions are that:
1.) anti-seep collars shall be placed at 150 foot intervals with in
wetland boundaries,
2.) wetland and stream crossings shall be made during low flow
conditions,
3.) construction on Line C between stations 26+00 and 33+00 shall not
be done until June 15 and
4.) any greenway-related wetland fill will require an additional certification.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-1786
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Sincerely,
O(P ston Howard, Jr. P. E.
93277.Itr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Water Quality Section
April 30, 1993
Memo
To: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamba,",
Subject: 401 WQ Certification for the City of Raleigh, Big Branch Sewer Interceptor
DEM # 93245 and 93282
A site inspection with Boyd DeVane, Monica Swihart, Steve Pozzanghera, Eric
Galamb and the consultants was made on November 3, 1992. Tim Donnelly and
Danny Smith have granted me permission to make DEM's recommendation for this
project due to my initial involvement.
I recommend that the City of Raleigh receive certification 2664 for this project
with the following conditions which have been agreed upon by the consultants:
1) Construction along Line A may not take place during the period January 1
through March 15,
2) Construction will not take place during the period January 1 to June 15 along
Line C between station 26+00 and 33+00,
3) Anti-seep collars will be place on the sewer line at 150 foot intervals within
wetland boundaries,
4) Wetland and stream crossings will be done during low stream flow periods,
5) This area will also serve as a greenway. The construction activities will have
only temporary fill. If the greenway requires wetland fill, a 401 certification will
be needed.
cc: Raleigh Regional DEM office

?V, ?anm,?
?K s
d aST?o
State of North Carolina
rironment, Health, and Natural Resources
:)n of Environmental Management
fury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
December 21, 1992 Acting Director
Kaleigh,INC 27607
Re: Proposed Treyburn Interim Pump Station
and Collector Sewer
Dear Mr. Cordell:
I received the attached comments from the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources on the additional
information that was submitted by Hazen and Sawyer on November 30,
1992 for the City of Durham's Non-Discharge application on the
subject project. Comments were received from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Parks and Recreation, Division of
Land Resources, and Raleigh Regional Office. I request that you
respond to these comments in writing and send your response to me
for coordination with the Department's Division of Planning and
Assessment.
The Division of Environmental Management's Wetland and
Technical Review Group requests that collars be fitted on the sewer
lines within wetland areas. These collars are designed so that
water does not run along the sewer line and drain the wetland.
This measure also reduces inflow into the sewer line. Questions
regarding this mitigation measure should be directed to Mr. Eric
Galamb at 733-1786.
If you have any questions on this letter, please feel free to
contact me at 733-5083.
Sincerely,?ka?
Monica Swihart
Environmental Review Coordinator
cc: Kenneth E. Wright, City of Durham
Carolyn McCaskill, Permits and Engineering
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
CITY OF RALEIGH ?n^ G P GDS
NORTH CAROLINA
BIG BRANCH
SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
December 1992
Pt.J
-71
'L
k
STATE PROJECT AGENCY: North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
CONTACT: Ms. Monica Swihart
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Planning Branch
[phone]
PREPARED BY: Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Raleigh, North Carolina
[phone]
HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
BIG BRANCH
SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions, Funding Sources
The proposed Big Branch sewer interceptor project consists of a gravity interceptor
system, a wastewater pumping station and a force main to the City of Raleigh's
existing Walnut Creek Interceptor, which conveys wastewater to the City's Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project will provide wastewater collection
for the Big Branch service area which is located entirely within the Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Raleigh. The Garner ETJ is adjacent to the project
area and a portion of the Garner service area will be served by the proposed
project. There is an existing agreement between the City of Raleigh and the Town
of Garner regarding service to this portion of the Garner ETJ. The proposed
project service area is located entirely within the 20-year growth areas of the City
of Raleigh and the Town of Garner as identified in the August 1989 Wake County
Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan (Hazen and Sawyer, 1989).
The proposed project consists of a sewer interceptor running along Big Branch
Creek, four (4) tributary gravity sewer lines to the interceptor, an 8.3 mgd pump
station and a 20-inch force main. The force main would discharge to the City of
Raleigh's existing Walnut Creek Interceptor for subsequent treatment at the
Raleigh Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Neuse River
WWTP is currently being expanded from an existing capacity of 40 mgd to 60 mgd
and has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The proposed project
will eliminate the existing Williams Road pump station, wastewater flow from which
will be diverted to one of the new tributary gravity sewer lines. An intermunicipal
agreement will provide for collection and treatment of wastewater from the Garner
service area in the City of Raleigh system.
w
The proposed project consists of approximately 11,500 feet of sewer interceptor
along Big Branch Creek, approximately 17,500 feet of tributary gravity sewer line,
and a pump station and force main to the Walnut Creek Interceptor. The project
will be constructed in separate phases, with the first phase consisting of
Page 1 H AZEN AND SAWYER
Pr, •r-entai Engineers 8 Scientists

approximately 5,000 feet of gravity sewer from the existing Williams Road pump
station to the Big Branch Interceptor, approximately 1,800 feet of the Big Branch
Interceptor north of Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542), the pump station, and
approximately 1,500 feet of force main from the pump station to the Walnut Creek
Interceptor. The pumping station will include a telemetry system which will activate
an alarm in the event of a power failure. Also, in accordance with City of Raleigh
policy, portable standby generators are available for the pumping station to
minimize the potential of overflows from the pump station during power outages.
These provisions meet NCAC 15A 21-11.0200 requirements for Waste Not
Discharged to Surface Waters for Class WS, SA, B and SB waters. Since the
receiving streams adjacent to this project are Class C waters, these provisions
exceed statutory requirements for this project.
A map showing the total proposed project is presented in Figure 1. The proposed
first phase project is shown on Figure 2. This environmental assessment is
intended to address the direct impacts associated with the first phase of the project
only. Future environmental assessments will be performed to address direct
impacts of the remainder of the project. Indirect impacts associated with the
development of the total service area are discussed in this environmental
assessment, however, further evaluation will be conducted prior to design and
construction of facilities not included in the first phase. Figure 2 also shows the
location of existing Town of Garner sewer line easement which will be utilized for
the first phase. The existing Garner easements will be acquired by the City of
Raleigh from the Town of Garner at the onset of the project. An agreement exists
between the City and the Town for the construction of this project. The remainder
of the proposed project is subject to future acquisition of easements. The area of
the existing Garner easement plus all future easement acquisitions are intended
for multiple objective uses, including greenway construction in addition to sewer
line construction. Greenway easement will be obtained by negotiation with
landowners.
The cost of the first phase project will be approximately $2 million and will be
obtained from City of Raleigh and the Town of Garner funds. Subsequent phases
of the project will be financed under future capital improvement projects or by
private developers.
Page 2
HA7_EN AND SAWYER
Ecwrc°---:a - -;ers 8 scen: s
FIGURE I

r
N
Of
t
W
a
oU
O
O
r
t
W
J
a
U
N
0
a
0
n
a
I " = 3000"
w HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.c.
Consulting Engineers
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLNA
F. Environmental Consequences, Mitigation Measures
The environmental impacts of the proposed project and measures to mitigate those
impacts were evaluated for different categories of impacts as discussed in the
following sections:
1. Changes in Land Use
The proposed project will facilitate a change in land use from existing
predominantly undeveloped conditions to a land use of primarily residential
development plus small areas of commercial and industrial development.
The project service area is currently not being used to the maximum extent
allowed under zoning provisions of the September 1990 zoning map. The
proposed project will allow the provisions of the zoning plan to be fully
implemented. Based on current land use plans, of the total service area
approximately 2,800 acres is projected to be developed for low density
residential use, at a density of 8 persons per acre. Another 200 acres are
projected for medium density residential development, at a density of 14
persons per acre, along with 200 acres for industrial development. The
I remainder of the developed area is projected for other miscellaneous uses.
Changes in land use are required for construction and operation of the
proposed project facilities, including the pump station, interceptor, gravity
sewer and force main. The pump station site will be cleared and graded to
allow for its construction and will be maintained in a cleared state. In
accordance with the City of Raleigh's policies and standard construction
practices for pipelines of this size, a 60-foot wide construction easement will
be provided in non-wetland areas. This easement width will be reduced to
40 foot in wetlands areas to comply with Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit program requirements. A permanent easement will be acquired by
i the City of Raleigh for the entire length of the pipeline for access to the
pipeline and for greenway use. V ith in wettands atr of la perr , F
ea5--&ndn!,`a 10-foot wide access corridor will be m'ainta'ined by tt'e City av
fp, W- egft. Land.,outside of the access corridor in wetlands and non-wetlaL:ncOs
areas will be allowed to return to its, original st'af? or `deYeld??d fad
Page HAZEN AND SAwYFR
Environmental Engineers 5 Sae^::s's

greenway uses? The use of the proposed project easements- for gresenway r
purposes will provide mitigation value for the proposed project by providingr
I a conservation easement which will maintain the corridor in a predominantly#
?} ? veI?pEd, state;9
1 2. Wetlands
The project falls under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit
Program in North Carolina. Permits that will cover this project include
Nationwide Permit 12 and 33. All provisions of these permits will be
adhered to during construction. According to the U.S. Department of the
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory maps,
wetlands in the project area are predominantly palustrine forest, with broad
leaf deciduous vegetation that is temporarily or seasonally flooded. The
quality of the wetlands within the project area is generally high. Wetlands
reconnaissance was also performed in the field as a part of this
environmental assessment. The field survey confirmed the wetlands type
indicated on the National Wetlands Inventory maps. The location and type
of wetlands were determined by City of Raleigh staff, and field verified by
the Corps of Engineers. Detailed descriptions of the vegetation, soil, and
hydrology of the wetlands are included in Appendix D. A walk-through was
also conducted on November 3, 1992 with NCWRC and NCDEM
representatives. The recommendations of the NCWRC resulting from the
walk-through are included in Appendix C. Also included in Appendix C are
comment letters from various agencies based on their review of the August
1992 draft of this environmental assessment. The environmental
assessment was revised in accordance with these comments and
subsequent comments during the walk-through of the project area. A
portion of the interceptor was also relocated to avoid wetlands as a result
of comments received during the walk-through. This relocation is described
in detail below.
Approximately 3600 linear feet over the alignment of the first phase of the
proposed pipeline are located in wetlands. Based on a construction
easement width of 40 feet (the maximum width allowed by the Nationwide
Permit), approximately 3 acres of wetlands will be affected during
HAZEN AND SAWYER
Page 10
..,,z. Engineers & Saent!s's

quality standards. Temporary sediment and erosion control measures
consistent with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act will
be installed within the construction easement to protect lands adjacent to
the easement. In wetlands areas, temporary measures are allowed by the
Corps of Engineers, provided that they are within the 40-foot construction
corridor and are removed after project construction is complete.
A general 401 Water Quality Certification also covers the proposed project.
Application for this certification will occur simultaneously with the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit application.
Anti-seep collars will be installed along the pipeline at the boundaries of
adjacent wetlands areas.
® Wetlands within the service area may be indirectly affected by projected
development if such development is not properly controlled. Sedimentation
control measures designed to protect wetlands, restoration of disturbed
sites to original grade and vegetation, and limiting development in critical
wetlands areas will minimize impacts of this development.
i
3. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
The proposed construction will not significantly affect prime or unique
agricultural lands.
Agricultural land within the service area will be gradually converted to urban
uses as an indirect result of the project. These areas have been identified
for urban development in projections prepared by the Wake County
Planning Department for the Wake County Water and Wastewater Facilities
Plan (Hazen and Sawyer, 1989), and City of Raleigh land use plans.
4. Public Lands, Scenic and Recreational Areas
The proposed project will not affect any public lands, scenic, or recreational
areas. A proposed City of Raleigh park is located adjacent to Walnut Creek
pa 7e 1. }-I, ZFN AND SAWYER
ne?R & Sc;GntSt<
on the north edge of the service area. The park site will not be served by
the proposed facilities and will not be affected by the proposed project.
A future greenway is planned along the easement for the proposed
interceptor and tributary gravity sewers. In the Capital Area Greenway
Master Plan - Update 1989, greenways are proposed for Big Branch and
the tributary stream to the west near the existing Williams Road pump
station. This green yrray would aIL'ow- recreational use of the. proposed*
ease n-tints<and provide habitat for wildtifA. The proposed greenway would
connect to the future Walnut Creek greenway, portions of which have
already been acquired. The City plans to acquire as much greenway as
possible during acquisition of the sewer line easement, all segments of
which are planned for both sewer line and greenway uses. However, the
Greenway Master Plan does not provide separate funding for this portion
of the greenway on the same schedule as the proposed project. Greenway
easement is planned to be obtained by negotiation with landowners.
In terms of wildlife habitat, the proposed project would create open space,
which may result in an increase in habitat diversity and corresponding
species diversity. Habitat for birds may be improved by creation of open
space adjacent to existing forest land, providing habitat for species that
prefer woodland edges. For some period after project completion, browse
habitat for rabbits and deer may be enhanced as a result of the change to
grassed habitat. The proposed easement and greenway will also function
as a conservation easement to prevent loss of habitat to private
development. The proposed greenway will cause additional recreational
use of the easement area, which will be a benefit to the public but which
could adversely affect wildlife. Accordingly, the greenways must be
carefully developed to achieve a balance between human use and wildlife
survival. These measures are discussed in Section 13, Mitigative
Measures.
5. Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value
Information on identified archaeological or historic sites in the project area
was requested from the Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Page 13 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environ^e:ai Enclceers & Sde iris's
1 12. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
The proposed project is expected to involve minimal discharge of nutrients
to surface waters; therefore, it is not expected to have a significant direct
effect on eutrophication of receiving waters. The City's stormwater
management program will control indirect impacts on eutrophication by
encouragement of best management practices for urban landscaping and
through the conservation program of the City's Inspections Department.
Surface water runoff will also be controlled in accordance with Section 319
of the Clean Water Act as discussed above under Section 8, Water
Supplies and Surface Water Quality.
13. l#i?gativ4e Measuresi
Mitigative measures to minimize adverse effects on the environment for the
proposed project are summarized as follows:
• Prior to construction
Reduction of adverse impacts has been achieved by careful
consideration of potential impacts during the design phase of
the project. Such areas of consideration include wetlands
avoidance, construction scheduling to avoid critical nesting
periods, and implementation of the City of Raleigh's joint use
of right-of-way policy. Wetland avoidance has been pursued
as much as practicable. Walk-throughs of the first phase
project area have been conducted by NCDEM, NCWRC and
Corps of Engineers staff, and their recommendations have
been incorporated into this environmental assessment and
into the design of the project.

P c l9 H.- ZEN AND SAW1_T. R
Ernucnmen?ai Err `
I
slsluepS 8 s aaw6u3 elu8wuonnu3 "
HaAmvs Qud uaZVH
-palldde
aq ueo }eyl mnseaw an!}e61}!w leuolI!ppe sI!w!i joefoid
posodoid eqj aol spun} o!Ignd jo esn .}od aapeM ueelo au} }o
6 LC uo!JoaS 10 suols!noad Ile ul!m Aldwoo ll!nn Al!o egl'sloaluoo
puns aoelans juloduou jo swiel ul •luawliedaa 6uluueld
Al!o ay} woal pau!e}go aq Aew saoueu!pao Allo 6uljs!x9
auj uo uo!lewaolul 'juawdolanap uegin to sloedwi sezlwlulw
eoueulpio loa}uoo juawlpas pue uo!soaa peoaol.ue Albuoils
y •s}oedw! asaanpe loaluoo o} pasn aq ll!M pus inooo uo!ynn -
juawdolanap jo sad Al eqj loa}uoo o} somas 6u!uoz juaaano
'066L q L aagwanoN
uo pelebinwoad aaann }u9wa6euew a91eMWAOIs 6u!pae69a
suo!leln6eU -e eo!joeid juaixe wnw!xew ayj of speInllod
10 ebiegos!p aul eonpaa of sloaluoo eiinbaa pue siames wiols
olui se6ieuoslp aalennwaols-uou I!q!goad A19n!I0a119 ll!M pue
ep!nn-uollo!ps!anf ao welsAs eq ll!M }!waad eq 1 -suosied aaow
ao 000'00L 6uiiues siemes wiols aleaedes led!o!unw woal.
pa6aegos!p aajennwiols se Mann se 'Al!n!Joe leulsnpui we ul!m
papeloosse aajemwiols aol paalnbei eq Ilp I!waad aaIennwaols e
`suolleln6ei esauiaapun -suo!leln6aa aalennwao}s leaapa j gjIm
eouepaoooe ui paa!nbei eq Ilp I!waad aapennwio}s ap!nn-Allo y -
-popuawwooaa
osle aae sa!}!n!loe pel!q!goad 6u!}eolpu! a6eu6!s
aealo pue `slel!gey anblun o} sseooe 6ull!w!I 'suled
}uawasee }o asn aelno!yan 6ulIuanaad •ueld Aemueei6
eqj u! uolIe186an pue el.!lpl!nn jo uollenuasaad ez!segdw3 -
-spade spueljann-uou_
! aa? Oti'=.oj-dn of seaae. spuel enn u! laal 0_i wo?? 4R-A'
4

HAZENAND SAWYER
Mr. Stephen Pozzanghera
December 18, 1992
Page 2
These revisions will be incorporated into the final environmental assessment.
Items 3, 4, and 5 of your memorandum have also been addressed in the revised
document. Thank you for your assistance in preparing this environmental
assessment. If you have questions, please contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.

Jay C. Jackson, P.E.
Senior Engineer
JCJ/wp
cc: Monica Swihart
Eric Galamb
Wayne Jones
Mike Scruggs
Kevin Carter
Memo Page 2 December 15, 1992
2. Given the newly created swamp habitat referenced above
and the existing extensive swamp area that the line
parallels along Line C, (Stations 3+00 to Station
33+00) we are concerned about construction disturbance
impacts to local wood duck populations. The wood duck
is North Carolina's only true year round resident
waterfowl species. Beaver pond and swamp habitats
provide excellent nesting and brood habitat. We
recommend that sewer line construction in areas in and
adjacent to swamps not be performed during the nesting
and brood rearing period from January 1 to June 15.
3. Per our recommendation in our September 2, 1992
Memorandum to Melba McGee, provisions should be made to
prevent wet concrete at stream crossings from entering
the streamflow.
4. The use of anti-seep collars along the sewer line route
in areas adjacent to swamp and wetland habitats should
prevent the line from acting as a "drain". We
recommend their use on this project.
5. As discussed at the November 3 meeting, NCWRC and DEM
are concerned that this EA represents only a portion of
the entire project. Be advised that modifications and
mitigative measures conducted on this portion of the
project in no way constitute an approval for the
project as a whole. I recommend that you contact
Ms. Monica Swihart with the Division of Environmental
Management to resolve this issue.
I appreciate your cooperation, patience and willingness to
work with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. I
hope that we have been of some assistance and look forward to
working with you in the future. If you have any questions,
please contact me at [phone].
SAP
cc: Monica Swihart
Eric Galamb
Wayne Jones
Mike Scruggs

® North Carolina WAdhfe Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jay Jackson, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer Consulting Engineers
FROM: Stepheii'(Pozzanghera,
Habitat Conservation
DATE: December 15, 1992
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Program
SUBJECT: Big Branch Sewer Interceptor Project
I appreciate you contacting the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) to resolve environmental impact
issues for the Big Branch Sewer Interceptor Project in Wake
County. Based on observations made during site visits conducted
on October 27 and November 3, 1992 with NCWRC and the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), several areas of concern and/or
agency recommendations should be addressed in a revised
environmental assessment.
1. Recent beaver activity, most notably the damming of
Big Branch and an adjacent intermittent tributary, has
created an extensive bottomland swamp along Line A,
Station 0+00 to Station 15+00--(Reference sheet 3 of 11,
August 1992 Environmental Assessment). This area
will function as a valuable pollutant/sediment
retention area for Walnut Creek and also serves as
a unique refuge for numerous wildlife species including
waterfowl, reptiles and amphibians, migrant and
resident songbirds and mammals. While we recognize
that this habitat has been created since the initial
layout of the sewer line, and that at the projects
conception efforts were made to move the line as far
away from Big Branch as possible, we must recommend
that this portion of the project be resurveyed and that
the line be moved out of this new wetland.
I r

V?1\ ZONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
5, 1993
M
TO: Carolyn McCaskill, Permits and Engineering
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI for the City of Raleigh Big Branch Sewer
Interceptor
Attached is a March 1, 1993 letter from Katie G. Dorsett
stating that the EA/FONSI for the subject project has met the
requirements of the NC Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) and that no
further environmental review action under NCEPA is required.
In light of Secretary Dorsett's letter, permit processing and
issuance, if appropriate, may proceed. The EA includes a number of
mitigation measures aimed at minimizing impacts on wetlands,
surface waters and wildlife resources. Therefore, it is
recommended that the permit be issued with the condition that the
work be done in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in
the EA/FONSI.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions.
Attachment
bigbrfo.da
cc: Jay Jackson, Hazen and Sawyer
Tim Donnelly, RRO (w/attachment)
uric Galamb (w/attachment)
Melba McGee (w/attachment)
Steve Pozzanghera, WRC (w/attachment)

a

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
March 1, 1993
Ms. Monica Swihart
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,.
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Ms. Swihart:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Re: SCH File #93-E-4300-0632; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for the City of Raleigh -
Big Branch Sewer Interceptor Project
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the-provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. No comments were
made by any state/local agencies in the course of this review.
Therefore, no further environmental review action on your part is
required for the compliance with the Act.
Best regards.
Sincerel ,
,7-
Katie G. Dorsett
KGD:jf
cc: Region J
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51.01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
1?10%
Q
?a $TA7r o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary September 28, 1992 Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihartt
Through: John Do'rnep
From: Eric Galamb
Subject:. City of Raleigh Big Branch Sewer Interceptor EA
Wake County
The Wetlands Group within the Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed:
A. We recommend that a back up generator be installed at the pump station.
B. The document states that the City will pursue a Nationwide Permit 12. The
document also states that the City requests a 40 foot permanent easement
width. This permanent easement width is inconsistent with Nationwide Permit
12. Nationwide Permit 12 allows for a 40 foot construction corridor in wetlands
with a permanent access corridor restricted to the maximum width practicable
and may not exceed 10 feet in width except in locations specified on maps for
vehicular access purposes. If the City needs corridors wider than allowable
under Nationwide Permit 12, the City can apply for an Individual Permit.
C. Identify the wetland impacts by vegetative type (i.e. Bottomland Hardwood) .
D. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
E. Consideration for anti-seep collars on the sewer line through wetland areas
should be given.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-39'00 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportutity Affirmative Action Employer
a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # [phone]
TELECOPY TO:

E4R NUMBER:
FROM:_L c' ?'/Y ??? PHONE. ? 33
!.
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THE COVER SHEET:

r

w

TRANSMISSION REPORT
( APR 28 '93 08:56AN )

* *

* DATE START REMOTE TERMINAL MODE TIME RESULTS TOTAL DEPT. FILE
* TIME IDENTIFICATION PAGES CODE NO.
* *
* *
* APR 28 08:55AM 95714718 G3E ST 00'44" OK 02

* *
*

*
*
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
*
* *
* *
* *
*
* *
*
>k>k>k>K>k%k>k>k>ksk>k>k>k>K>K>k>k>k>k>k>k>K>k>k>k?ksk>k>K>K>k>k>k>K>K>K>K>K>k>k>k>k?K>K>K>K>ksk>K>k >k>k>k>K>K>k>k>k>k>k>k>k>k>k>K>K>K>k>k>k3k>k>k>k>K>K>K>K>K>Ksk>k>k>k>f:%k>k>k>k>k>k%k
RAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists March 18, 1993
Mr. John Dorney EVAR 1993
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Managem nt WETLANDS GROUP
WATER UALITY SECTI
NCDEHNR
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Hazen and Sawyer, P. C.
?46) 4011 WestChase Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
919 833-7152
Fax: [phone]
993 ?.
Re: Big Branch Sewer Interceptor
H&S No. 3986
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Seven copies of the Joint Application Form for Nationwide Permits that
require Section 401 Certification Concurrence are enclosed. Also enclosed are
seven copies of the wetlands delineation drawings.
An environmental assessment has been prepared and a FONSI has been
issued for this project. We received acknowledgement from DEM on March 5,
1993, that the environmental review for this project has been completed and that
no further action under NCEPA is required.
Wetlands reconnaissance was performed in the field in 1992. The location
of wetlands areas were field verified by a Corps of Engineers representative. The
wetlands are also delineated on the construction drawings for the project.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.

Jay C. Jackson, P.E.
Senior Engineer
JCJ/wp
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Carl Simmons
Mr. Dale Crisp
Mr. Kevin Carter
New York, NY • Armonk, NY • Upper Saddle River, NJ • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Richmond, VA • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Fort Pierce, FL • Jupiter, FL • Miami, FL • Bogota, D.E. Colombia
WO, S, I-rD v
'U ?^ `F' . ?s?r `.iLANU ._ TAF'. F?_E P()RT AND r: 'i-CrvnIEN':'ATIt?A;:_
RL' AIi?'`vdL;I: ? (';.'SE N/A FCF' 1107.' APPLICA_-! E" ? '! A "T NAME I"_ (:+,i BRANCH SEWER _._ _.

!'YPE .

i ;,T, {ter, - - D:AT,. F RVT (;I` A. 03 ? 3 r
-
i.? IVI R) AID
. O3` Dy- 2
?I! L c',1-':,- IN 4

F TAR I 1) EX NO:
_TM''A{"l . .
_ ;r1 TA'O:* 3
5

WL_,_'1'YPE : 5&,e ?prh l`-S
t,,TL_At='R_EST?
Ste- Cosn?l????5
;dA'i'F?R LMPA(": E-1.` roc' FILE,' : '_,'/N

I: to??'^LT;ND RAT?I, _' ;-'.HEE'T ATTACHED?: Y'U
?ND 1 LIj,'TV
D -C?; ` U-1 - - C'. rF?'(',?
_ _>l uk 1 E :A Ir (_) ?.v c - ?• " Ct r = - E.-O ,.Lip _ 11,

Water Quality Section
April 30, 1993
MAY u 6 f y? j
Memo
To: John Dorney EHNIR°RAL RO,,.
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: 401 WQ Certification for the City of Raleigh, Big Branch Sewer Interceptor
DEM # 93245 and 93282
A site inspection with Boyd DeVane, Monica Swihart, Steve Pozzanghera, Eric
Galamb and the consultants was made on (November 3, 1992. Tim Donnelly and
Danny Smith have granted me permission to make DEM's recommendation for this
project due to my initial involvement.
I recommend that the City of Raleigh receive certification 2664 for this project
with the following conditions which have been agreed upon by the consultants:
1) Construction along Line A may not take place during the period January 1
through March 15,
2) Construction will not take place during the period January 1 to June 15 along
Line C between station 26+00 and 33+00,
3) Anti-seep collars will be place on the sewer line at 150 foot intervals within
wetland boundaries,
4) Wetland and stream crossings will be done during low stream flow periods,
5) This area will also serve as a greenway. The construction activities will have
only temporary fill. If the greenway requires wetland fill, a 401 certification will
be needed.
cc: Raleigh Regional DEM office
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer • U L
TO: John DorneY WO Supv. `-
Planning Branch DATE S
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ***
PERMIT YR: 93 PERMIT NO: 0000282 COUNTY: WAKE
APPLICANT NAME: CITY OF RALEIGH - BIG BRANCH SEWER LINE
PROJECT-TYPE: SEWER LINE PERMIT-TYPE: NW12
COE_#: DOT-#:
RCD_FROM _CDA: APP DATE _FRM_CDA: 04/07/93
REG_OFFICE: RRO RIVER_AND_SUB_BASIN _#• 0 3 -GAL/' ?'
?1y /r?.z 7 z'?-3fi-! I
STREAM_CLASS : STR_INDEX_NO : I?a???? ?iiecLS V7- 3 y 'l`f1?
s?? «??'rn?r21 5
WL_IMPACT? : Q/N WL_TYPE:
WL_REQUESTED: WL_ACR_EST?:<PN
WL SCORE (#) : S Gd ?? ?? WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: YIN
HYDRO_CNECT?: &N MITIGATION"?: (bN
MITI GAT I ON-TYPE: MITIGATION-SIZE:
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y49
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSU ISSUE/CQND DENY
:e? _7 { (C ?z ?GXv?
COMMENTS : /-?r? / n.
74- eo"5v -
cc: Regional Office
Central Files

?,? ny 1 7 (:;

Y
Water Quality Section
April 30, 1993'"
MAY 0 6 1G?,}
Memo
To: John Dorney EHM-19-RAL RO
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: 401 WQ Certification for the City of Raleigh, Big Branch Sewer Interceptor
DEM # 93245 and 93282
A site inspection with Boyd DeVane, Monica Swihart, Steve Pozzanghera, Eric
Galamb and the consultants was made on November 3, 1992. Tim Donnelly and
Danny Smith have granted me permission to make DEM's recommendation for this
project due to my initial involvement.
I recommend that the City of Raleigh receive certification 2664 for this project
with the following conditions which have been agreed upon by the consultants:
1) Construction along Line A may not take place during the period January 1
through March 15,
2) Construction will not take place during the period January 1 to June 15 along
Line C between station 26+00 and 33+00,
3) Anti-seep collars will be place on the sewer line at 150 foot intervals within
wetland boundaries,
4) Wetland and stream crossings will be done during low stream flow periods,
5) This area will also serve as a greenway. The construction activities will have
only temporary fill. If the greenway requires wetland fill, a 401 certification will
be needed.
cc: Raleigh Regional DEM office

DEM ID:? ACTION ID:
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOX 1890
P
O NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVI , Eli=nR
AND NATURAL RESOURCE
.
. .
D
I
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890 P.O. BOX 29535 ,
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E RALEIGH, NC 27626-053 31993
`?
Yi
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNE i
i
Telephone [phone] A

WETLANDS GROUP
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO.n_ -T1 019 T10N
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: City of Raleigh
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602

3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME ) : N/A (WORK) : 919)-890-3400
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S N AME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Mr. D.E. Benton, Jr., City Manager
(Address and phone same as above.)
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP).
COUNTY: Wake
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: City of Raleigh
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
6.
7. RIVER BASIN: Neuse
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY ? YES [ ] NO [X]
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
3 (within construction easement)
il. NUMBER OF ACRES- OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED:
DRAINED:
FLOODED:
EXCAVATED: 3
TOTAL IMPACTED: 3
NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: Walnut Creek, Big Branch
t
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS):
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
15.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [X) NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY.
(See attached drawings.)
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT. (Not available.)
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
Wetlands delineation performed by the City of Raleigh (Wetlands
Determination Form attached) and confirmed by COE representative.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY. The City of Raleigh has adopted a stormwater management plan
as a part of its March 1990 Comprehensive Plan. (Copy attached.)
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Predominantly rural, with
some residential and industrial.
F.
3
ML9f1PERMi -Up
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF
ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [X] NO [ )
RESPONSE SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
o?
a
ry U T?
^s"?.? in o K W
mm ,R Iw SC ]13M10HS' O LL ? ;? ? G Q
(L Z
lwt
a O o 1
o
~< /:?L
co
L) W-
LIJ
I V,
)m uu?
iv m cJ ?? ? > .? Yl?.n) ? ? )? ?1?I, .? ?? I .I ?? \ ? I ? ((?? ?1 ?? ?,? _3 nl••_\ ,'l ? ??"?? ?
e J//
oW •. (F-• \. ? \'G?';,?/1 J ? {I i t ?? /r V? j ??ji ? „1 )J?11 ti.? J `?. ?y /, _
--
-H _ ? C? ? 7?` r\zoo 1 t•1_-__
1
f-
t
?
/? - ! ?? I 'l1' 111 ja /'-
? ? IpI ooe / ` ?1`? ??, 6n n I I ` L ?/ ( \ L?\??/?i Off- ` ? ? ? r. 1/•( ?? ? ? ?,?
_ ? ? ?: / /? I 1 /J \ SI ??` ? ?\- Imo- / ?.??,' a•/?_\
\\?(I\rll
ij'
',?/ )?1?(I t ?t ? I\ ?/ ? bJ cl` 1 C j/y??? __ _?••$ 1 /I ?( 1?,(;
?€-?? ? lid ??t ?? ? ( •i ? ?'?, ;' ? ,,,

FIGURE I
:GT

m
N
O.
h
8
R
W
V
Vf
s
0
fV
N
0
0
J
a
I " = 3000"
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.c.
Consulting Engineers
RALEIGH; NORTH CAROUNA

1
WETLA ND DETERMINATION FORM
9:00 A.M.
COORDINATOR: A.M._ Paktiawal TIME: 2:00 P.M. DATE: 8124,92 COUNTY:_w
NEAREST TORN:_Raleigh WATERWAY:Rig Branch Tributary to Walnut
QUAD: Garner LOCATION: Mang 7reG sausage Rrl crossing-Rock Creek
PROPERTY OWNER: ( NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WORK: (NAME/ADDRaVry
CITY OF RALEIGH Hazen & Sawyer
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 4011 W. Chase Blvd.
P.O. BOX 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
RALEIGH, N.C. 27602
PHONE: [phone] PHONE: [phone]
OTHER INDIVDUALS PRESENT.. Kevin Carter
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM: SEPARATE DISCRETE: x VEGETATIVE UNITS
**** VEGETATION ****
(IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAY LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
TREES: SPECIES %COVER-INDICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES %COVER-INDICATOR
Pinus taeda 30%
1 FAC ) Dulichium Ar
1 udenaceimi 20% OBL
.) .
2_) Acer Rubrum 25% FAC 2.) Sr ip u s Ko i 1 pis 15 °, FAC'W
Butalla Nigra 15%
3 OBL 3.) Sann m it C t-m i n me 1 0! n$L
.)
4.) ercus Phellos 10% FACW 4.) Rh •h Ra idi ca n 5% FAC
5.) Oche 20% 1 5.)other 504 Pox-
SAMPLINGS/SHRUBS: WOODY VINES:
1.) Carpi n is Carolinian 250.- For 1.) % PAC
2,) Ilex (eca GpCCCL 20% F'ACU 2.) Snlalex Bonan ox 20 % FAC
) f iriodendron Tulinera 15%
3 FAC 3.) Other "le rte,- 1
.
4.) Sa 1 ex n i qra marsh 1 Q% nRi
5.) Other 300K 6mi.
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (OBL.-FAC.) 50--. OTHER INDICATORS: _ Non e
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: YES NO BASIS: nx)re than 5(1% ri minant'
vegetation are FAC FACW & OBL
TYPICAL: (COMPLETE PORTION BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE BACK)
**** SOIL ****
SERIES: WO and BU ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES -x-- NO
MOTTLED: YES x NO MATRIX COLOR: 10 XR 71L2 HYDRIC SOILS: YES-X- NO
BASIS: Exis tance of low chroma
**** HYDROLOGY ****
INUNDATED: YES X NO DEPTH OF WATER: 1"-6"-in S_Cm yeas
SATURATED SOILS: YES X NO DEPTH TO SATURATION/WATER TABLE:1."_tolf
OTHER INDICATORS: Inundated signs exist _----.__--
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES NO BASIS: Low chromes, hydric soil, mottled soil
ATYPICAL. SITUATION: YES NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES NO
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: X NON-WETLAND:
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO X AUTHORITY: 10 404 x 10/404 NONE _
ISOLATED -AeDJ?AJ/CE?NTJ` NWP*
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADQUARTERS /?
i11+nTTlfih7 t7T TV_ z/ r / / / -/ll?.-I?`- 7"?
JAN- 6-93 WED 14:49
CITY OF RALEIGH
NOR'T'H CAROLINA
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mr. Dale Crisp, ROOM: 402
Assistant Public Utilities Director
P. 02
FROM: A. M. Paktiawal, Soil Scientist DATE: .01/04/93
SUBJECT: Realignment of the Portion of Big Branch Outf all
and Redelineation of the Wetland
MESSAGE:
In accordance with State Environmental Management Division
suggestion, the portion of the Big Branch sewer outfall which
disturbs the Beaver dams should be realigned to miss these areas
as touch as possible. Based on this suggestion, on Dec. 15, 1992
Mr. Kevin Carter, from Hazen and Sawyer, and I delineated the
wetland area of the realigned section. Originally wetland in
this project was 3570 linear feet; by realignment it changed to
3252 linear feet; 318 linear feet wetland was saved from
disturbing.
Since this project was walked in the fall by the Corps of
Engineers, I called Uric Alsmyer at the Corps of Engineers
Regional Office to see if he needed to rewalk it. He indicated
that he does not need to see this project again, although ho
indicated that the new portion of the wetlands should be
included with other portions of the wetlands when the City of
Raleigh applies for the permit for the project.
I also suggested to Kevin that in the specifications should
clearly be stated that the contractor should not pile dirt
toward the wetlands side of the project, nor be used for staging
purposes to avoid runoff to the wetland during rainy seaso4.
Thank you very much. If you should have any questions, please
advise.
Sincerely yours,
A. M. Paktiawal
dd/?U021
cc: Corps of Engineers

U)
O
I--
n
w _i
Z
4 ?I
Z Cl)
2
O
W_
Q a
U
w
bar d Q
J Z = cr Z
0 0 Z doN Ke' >. m Q
CUCC U) zz ¢ r?
JV Z Q Nw?
= Q ate,'• N
Z =Z
10 w
U. a:
Z U W
o z °"
O ° w
a
z <w
z OC O _
N 3b
W (D .
2 w m
F- _I
N p0
a? ?LL °
W m o.
Y R R
a R z
Y Y Z
O
?1 ? 4 <
$ ? R q R U
R l O
r _ gy
s
s°
?' ff="'a sa fit" X15'
?I a ? 1
333
ng a;e flax aw RON &j?=
Q b? b?3X?Y ?_ ; ?YE`Otk< z
b? b 16 ?La<?Mbz Y
W ? s x b83 em Y. ": g@? i5ky IN
m °
#k oY .
845 1
jig Eli
a W n $s W e1 cd M a s
a .{ d d n d a _ _
g 1C
tl ??E
a
8
7 A 731 Sc ? L5
x °
< q
ru / o
?? i
m / \
I 3n 11- vu o 7m'*" ru
.. ..1 lkao

s
us
C
oV
Z
r e ? £a <? ylni?

W °=W
I "
4 am <rc
i i£ yx
Wm
Q zg _ " <u i U oU =' kW
? ?? < ? i g l i isy m?
? N

Z <

?
(
o
<
m
S
n

a gb

Q ?
F d ?? ??
?7
s z
rn o
?m : F
W
M
g a
LLJ
N
S .m. ?u< mS
D <
<
N N
yrt O z

<
O
8
n r
° g m ;; p;5 d 3
S I '9' ` b b
M W
z

V V v? 2 F Y W? J W 8 .% g? O??
yy
9 y
9 ? m m m S i
I 'n

yy
'
' O 0 1: O 1
E 3 3 i t g 0 O. I to
F
?
g 6 ?? ?

gg QQ O
CO Fi

?- z

?-

K C it'll ? 7 g U
u 9g > Y O z z
g 2ii
Q
m m
= I W I R! I ? a m o
Q 8 m n _
j
I i R 9!
??? ? F
I
! !
I a
w rn
a
m i!iii i o cL
a
s
O m e
V
m
- 8 ?
o r
m i
8 <
??s3
S n .n
S 88 ¢ o ad
i yin w ? ? a ? 3 FS 6 ?
LLJ
S U)
g <
I log I I
pp?F Y ?Y? Lt' y?
'; L $ 83¢4 6g @a 8 8 ? a yba 18;? 8l 3$ i t 5? 8 2E Y9i
? }}9ybyO^ S4L?!<l} 41b?5Ya is isg¦ y`y ^y?yy ??ygyg ,tltl sf ffiZ`p@9?`?fe s ? aYaY qt' a tS bbbhb #e yYb 11311 ?33???? _E??????@@??`e9 p?Y
:P L?gYYk1YYYiZICYtlg&6 1t .i A b1?ltl. AF.?i pGwwGG» ad ddA :L SM?P :5aas? 88>y 1 11 91Gs7M Y-fi s ffle''l Y
y p, ® t'3 qE °
cn 3 &
Q t3a@ g@gg?¢$ yg ?t @J agyy$@$g?@@$_Yi gg @${ I It
aa6 gey9 bgg@ b°e $ $@$@ by
u5j a11f§?3eisa$111 B P1$3'Y?? 11h.111h 1111 $ $$ §§ § i ? 9 3 ?4 4 fl @ aaa b 6 r$ a$ g@ $$$$.rg
m :
m z `[ >r sf>r iaia? ? e z
Q ::$@ .a33$8vada.L?EE i!Y3!`:::: _o.:2Lii .?Ka <33?sebsy@ye5.<.. ?y9S$3I'as$`?e;iII :a€? seb5$9Ess ?xP$$C.cfc$€e P...:i
r
91. All fllg;
will
88-5 b z$ $@! EE gg$$ » i s k 7?G `".§§E=@??aEaG C
IM =2
siar?srY.8 1 . 3s$ @@OSS83 a@ $B? H .3? @a @$ y # sa s$as? ? $.a1. all
C
Q u ?
N Z e`
O==
Z W ?
a _
z
W
N
S
H
III
<..a".G..rssiaYi"sIIifs 3an$isn°eaoaaabils?$$$?hisGCaesatt? `ae8898ea$s$os sStS°e.E?.tg;'so9:5 ?ee?e_EE'c?Ee°eca: U1
V1?H

Jq; ???A ? `1? Yen a? up,u ?u 'y °fl 81 L
? I '^
3W a?$ $y i!SI I?
u
?
8b1 ?z?. 33 I ?+
B z I W O

C 0
yt
y
°z3bsi?Ti

sl
psi ors ( „ g i . W I
`'? < rn

o
s? se' I ? tl$
8?$ _
d .I !BNi I p
O e
Z
0

II 0
? n
)I
M
?? w
F
CI M O
N
W
44-
?
13 !
bll'D'
Z?

m !?S
?

S 1 N
W
F d

a
< o <
m U N
0.
U

N W F5
O Z Z
<

N w?
00X0 I?
b¢
.. I
9r F 3
W J
C H C m
O
mO
p
1
? W U.

?
Ohl 5- E
.
Y
J ? tf
.Z g
? („1
d
8 C
W

/
??Yf
O

'

' AI

_ .I
+
O
}
Q W

j_ I
<I
ala
E? Ot7 =
a W

_
Im
z
.
??}j SS W

g ats R

MV

Big.

$ p _ YS
gs;
> 9
S g g ? v?
B 2 Y' c oy aoe
f i +

8
§$% IS i
sit
E? / Z j ? 86? 2R ? I 75l ?! =
r `? ,? ? I `
ji R..
a Y
? Ip
?£
8 I -

• •
?? m m LO
tj m_ _ n_1 m
t ?o
ve

ZL'r rn rn m S' n ° m a a m

RSP4- T. 6. 1Syp?
b $I 12 O
a
to
€geM Wig/ F
X

i n
p
Z O
7
/ st «
• a o
.N o
- ?
! r ?
p ?-
+
nz - ?$ d
y ' N ? <
Ct a W
I I Z
Z
J
d e
M 4 I y?
- +q $S '? '
6 8

4m W
F
C

a e l s I ° z m

W? `
?a?8 is ?
N:W g ? ?? v
mF
3 ?
e? $ w

e o ?
I R i

e 6

W
Q W
\
\ ^ H ? o
ZZ

S \ I
Z
Y • \
x

I
?

? N

S

-
• a

t
\
s s zti°., x
a
? I .
_

" ? \ 3b?
; 1
J 3 1? ?
=o
?
an zi c.
' Q +
n .\
E- ? F 0
? saIa I
3 3
?' a 3« ? _

R
yp
G _
y
S N
'
I
y

..W

8

?
? ? a '
?c r $0 1 - ?
-? $;
g
: =ate 3« s I
y.
7 o?i °a m ? n °n m ?°u h

N O ?i Pi

°
o

• of
W a0
J
n
O
? Q
d r
p N
O
r
< O
' O
J
a
I

w N
z
Q
? W
z
J

W
F e
j
z ?
° p4 7
O ?
°

m
w
m
m
I
?
.
b
e
n
J
U
O
03
- m
G ' ?
Si Z4 a„? 75 C ? <v
? C
Zt5 m?
W W C7

W ?
p a

t \ sizes ru- , ! I m

I aim«?? $?? 3€ ==-
_ @€== r.,. j I ^^ c o?
6 W u

' nay n?
?? I J i
I
• •
-
t sad a 8 S ( m

r
pl
FO J J J
G
tl 5 -+- 4++ _
m

3 3
o
3$8:$ '
?a,?d^
?o-
P

i ? O d
• II .
. .I

' aYI
it

+ -
+
1 1 I I
of ml °°' m °m? ^ o ?? 'L° sOi

+
S
? S
'
a i-31
?'t
?
N n
d
?- R
a_ 1
? /I
oL
_
' I i e_ I ? w h o

40

6? I ail
° o
i I a
C o<

1
gag
xni I

L a

z y U
~m W
n b Yu I 8 ?
3??
C9 ?? %
\i MLLY15 lt M(g7 O
\
. ?C 1 `t\
l 1.
n 3 \ n\a \ Vl
co

?`, e roi E / g

n
Y
w u

_
_-
W
F

?"

??? ? ?
ICLLY151
trnro7
I
I
I HII
_
r

t
c + m V
r m a' a 9 czi
W9
0= z
<6
j?j I? ml ? o
/
gm

?? 9(ZOCnCS
' I ?n$ p8
u I I lay ?? '? U
/ s
I 6i ?a e 8
l
?" I Na I d
.
g 3»g p I n '
I
„ I « y? o
S2 2 Z .c its av oa .\axr T g I S Z Z i
I
a
?I I
?
?R
s .i

^
$ ? z I I :•1

w

8
x'31
o- ?'.
?7pp
y
?S?
? F? 3NZW
I
I / 1
_ -_
-

?
E ? ? $ C ?$?: ewe
y
?jI
r'i E Z p
? ?. Z
a P?
>?
3W ? 7•ad
?Ra
? 2
?

s 911 g I UI I I

3
3 ?$ 8m
/ l
R
b 4
o I
\l?
/ ' 1 o
. . Ig
/ I I ik

? I - I - - - - = I - - I !I l ii
N N A. T m m r r J' I ?' O?l

I
? oz
' h

I
I
°
? :?1 ?x I i I J
o
e ° 'Y1 I ?r R ? ?
I
"tr n ( Z o

ti 3 ? I a n

? U
z
/ I J

?a; ?YS ? al a T^ ?

_r k '< ? r• F a
>z ?
=z
o
is ? ? ?1t ? m U
Z
`
7 ?
p
uP, J? o n
'

M
O z

1'Q
_ ka 1R„
. z CIE
i I w J c?

I •1; I -- - N m
11
?$
lzl _
?
S
r
? .. a
I
e? ?
Wg 73+
+ffi s

a
GI e l - 3»' is
i
R i .
?111 >e3
/1 I I N
? ?_ i

o
Sao N RI gT

7.

-H

Hii

co
? kl: r iR INI ??OwEr

o
C-s
al
-
9
-1
\
F 8
i£
\`p ? D l
?k
\ ?? Va r :3 Y I lY

?? 8 ' I I'
g
"°° 178 ? i
M »? :a l ?;
'.
I
:Jm
I
I
I I I I i

G bt?? - _
m k?j
oo+r
r1s
Ix
? ! 8 ?'
?'
I +
n Ig;,
N J
N I
? a
l
8 I
? ? i
l

I 1 - - I - - - I ? i -
00'i'4tM5H V
?H iy.oo
? Ala •. ,, c ?` ¢
1
? oa ? ¢ Ct e v
? x
1 IQ a
I
i „
1
4Xe
cs ?
R I
k
n.l urj =
6}'
m oa`+sz k ? ? ?
Os tL S
i Fl
r ?.fl
m
is ?
m ffi
a it
8T. C?

EE

f
f „Iq ? \ iC 8
c m I? 3?
1 LY i C r'
? Q

O
N N
I Ol m
o S
m
O -. G nl m''_nI.

?

j --
?/
-
?
? I I n
I M
I
j ?
? I
?
I
I i
? c
J O
O

«? :3 j a o
3 ! '?? ? i it

i Z o
a o
m
F
rn
I
I
? $ j I ?1
? U
W
i y
a I Z
Z_
J
j i - I
I Q

?
I a

I w
F z

. I? i
? m
N ? a
O Z f-"
? 2
S2 0
co e.)
M = a
U
¢

• - O Z Q
D:
S m:
.. N 2 m

rya
:9
i Z
Z v
a U W
m
1 K 4
52 CL N
` I
W I w a

I ? N a

f/1 Z

, i i
C
W
Q

N of
T

- U
• n I .R B , ? 9
. in I N
a`
? I I
g 1
l:j
Y Y
N
3N$I
r

N -
5
tl8?€ j€
Im
I
I YI
- i
Xa WI
i
\? 1
k33
?i
cf < m
9 0? v v P P 9 ? o
;? 1 I
i
a° W
1 n•.
e$
I
?a3? R
r:
y? ?M Sd
m
is
?S^U
T
q? R ;e
i
U
W
J
] A l l
l R
>r
z?

g?aes`t

€=a1 <e'
3PSd
21
g

b F
P41P, 1 W
0
M ?

s
3 /
-? I
'ti

r
W n'
n
a
= N
a o
a +
? n
a
W N
C i
U
?
W
J

?
N a
cc
z

7i f==-

a
° U N
d ? U <

0Z

Z c
o
W W
U
H < ° C
?
a
a
w N
o ?
c
U
d
W -

W -
? Z

Z 2
z

- fYfO
- Q W o
I Z z
W
a
x
S • •
I o+,
n

M
i
m
NJ
_ ? ? g ?IuI lY?
?a
R I ?II.
I n I,
S .;.
+
° O a OPmi l?f?. _
n
I»z/7I»2/, z Se '" ?.N
?b6 s
I JO --- mi a.'R.R;R.S?R?RAR';R RI , tn
d ffi - u w
n .t % lS OIdl ad
... o
ii;
g N
y g n I `/
0 W
8 ?'?il I i ? JAI°?Ple^•q«i«+i? m
'nn I I < I I N
?. 6 Wn ,9 I W O.
INVOI all
Mnwm ,o•.i M i a? m m U 'n a
??(i d a• 2F U a
?IL6 xjf, F <
Mn. •.f ' ?•Q ( i T 3? T X Z? m
wn .i-.2 I .0
<a I W a< m
Ld <? c
oweve xnw z °
bi iO a ??n
wn .o•.t ? ? ? > C a.
?^ g 80 z a
o
a
W
Y H
CL < u =
T-1wov I Z X
- W
0
- z
j ^ e u ?Sm' 57Nf w ]w? ' !a: W L+j
S\k64e & m for (n
p j_a Komi in
gb ffi _ o ,+
U
< Y
` C
z U
U
L O
e ?
m °
m =?
<?
ale
w
pl:<
?- z
LL
i «r.i Z? I R„
'tttt
I-^I3 mint e ...
lceie:c ? IL z?
Z? O 600?O C!CI?oMVm y!I
q 3? x I I I 6 ?N13i31? €yai ? 3b0
F< SFI?i116 •IO?`ioLLmA? ?l - g? j? Y v+.
U gO rfYV S
i Z2
u a rA YL i IX3 o Z ?0?
- i
.91
I`
god I 1.. 1. iuh
m
W
c
I

I?

? 3 $m`fgm tff SSg imig ' h dl:s ds
tj 9§2 n` }nix:iii 5 g=' '& 3b $ .;a 8i3
"IN a
ji;e ?• g gg
?'? g?g$ab `•3333 zYS ??'? ??i ? .3g ?'iW EW $? '" c
0 3oeFO??ro
$,_?a? rim>?a? e?ex ??ag i???
y y °
W F
a ?^
J
W
U
.Ov1 ? N
'lilt
En
3 i b? ? w°-_ N a
p W W
_ ] z z
fat ?? y
21 221
3 I gb U °
_5 M a
?? EY a N z
11111211111111121 H Ili
m U
?"S a r v a
ti O z
M` O z
1- 6
?y4 Iyx i'S °.
PON F
d
? N
aW?
i
ELI Y S iS ?{ z W
G ?'ypy? N
?kypf ? 3? N ? t .? } ? 'g gg? ?yy y0N p004,
HS?u .0-.t ?$ X77 dq
=s
158€
A4 ? / •i ? y?3
gg i o yyo Sd¢ 8; ? ? ? ?? y?h I ? §I;
$ i ?a m i
e3 sWwtt? a a a IIIii_..
? I I 1 1 1 I I

?

?

l

I

lain

I

I

?

l

I l

.I"'I o
?
"?
I
"j

l
eI
"
"

a?
"?

n?
"I

I„I
,I»I

n

I

_?
? I

n

??? 8 ,I, 8 SSI

?k lk ?kIF ? ? kg ? z 7 I I` I I
` I I '
I
G <s i '<slu. . `s ? i <S G in a G
n G IG. n N
? iG iu.iG, < n ln l< i
?-' I I l l l I !
l l l
a- . n le l.jn ln n j n ln n n n
l n
l „ n
l n
n
l l n n l" I

z

g_

I7_
I

'<_11
I

12_

a

lg
I

$

m
I

j.
I

jo
I

lG

j?

jE

jt3
1

18
1

j^u
1

j8
1

jSlOO
11-

a
j

a_

a

la
I j Iy W
C7
j
I>C
Y"n ai z
\? H
/ b C
I
J
? K Q
\ = W
N O
Q
_ YW - N C]
Q
.ZI I .LI = ?
J
y a
F
a z
m oa
5<
x
Oz z?
z m
< Z
a - "
m
cr 0: F
< <
W N
O ?
I wn a
xm .0-. I .o•,Z
a
IUNJ? ? ?
f/I g. < W
Z Z i
< W
W
s _ N
a
x
?.
TIP
lip
.b yi?.y F o .
a c
?Y r,E
E
'" Yq 'Nln R00
g 53RlVA .1?.1 3dW .1-1
_ >e$8 a tl g ?; rt
_ _ / Lf - 3
i 3 btl j ? ? -3 ? r5 El a
W ?? Z b 5 C E
??g! ?mgl ; I e
a`? .. I g 3mi ?oo
Z I ? aC 13 Tom. ?• M ?'•i bum ? m ?u?a fg? al
g
IlIMP-
. -Q

'
?C
l?g «.^vl n?«i«I y
&??j? ?+_ ?ny y gg 4?
?i 3yti
k a <i?s?f
TAIL
United States Department of the Interior AMMU..
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE _
Raleigh Field Office ssi si
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
TO A .Sjyj
'1611 V_wj-C? Uvd
/13 4 ?-_7 (D 0_7
INSTANT REPLY
Please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
formal letter. This is provided in response to your notification fetter to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning Federally-listed endangered
and threatened species. This reply should be forwarded to the Corps of
Engineers Regulatory Branch.
Re: /(A t) L- In
Nation 'de Permit Number/Pro ect Name
S?n t67 t _,J &- ZL Cote
Date
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may occur within the project impact area.
The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project impact area.
J? If the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years. of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate-habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to
adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact
this office for further information.
The Service concurs that the proposed project is not likely to
adversely affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species,
their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently
proposed for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, as
amended.
Staffing limitations prevent us from conducting a field inspection
of the project site. Therefore, we are unable to provide you with
site specific recommendations at this time.
Questions regarding the enclosed information should be directed to the Corps
of Engineers, regulatory staff member who is handling this project.
tY?.?dLdh M
SI.Co n.,?t, C .
Bi`ologistv ate
CONCUR: q _UL h*t U-0
Date
o
rVW
r ?
REVISED JANUARY 11, 1993
Wake County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
Bachman's warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(Cl and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) - C2
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2*
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Carolina trillium (Trillium pusillum var. Pusillum) - C2
Southeastern bat (Mvotis austroriparius) - C2
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) - C2
Yellow lance (mussel) (Elliptic lanceolata) - C2
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana) - C2
Green floater (Lasmioona subviridis) - C2
Neuse slabshell (Elliptio iudithae) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at (cast 20 years from this county.
. r +

MICHAUX'S SUMAC
8/90
Rhus michauxii
FAMILY: Anacardiacene
STATUS: Endangered, Federal Register, September 28, 1989
DESCRIPTION: Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy
shrub with erect stems which are l to 3 feet in height. The shrub's
compound leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and
veiny and slightly hairy on their bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on
its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white and are 4-5 parted. Each
plant is unisexual. With a male plant the flowers and fruits are solitary,
with a female plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters.
The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is
produced in October and November.
RANGE AND POPULATION LEVEL: Once known from three States, Georgia,
South Carolina, and North Carolina, this plant now has viable populations
only in North Carolina. Just four plants still survive in Elbert County,
Georgia. Previously, this plant was known from five Georgia counties:
Cobb, Columbia, Elbert, Newton, and Rabun. Reintroduction efforts are
underway at some of the historic sites. In South Carolina, two populations
of the plant were historically known; now, the plant is considered
extirpated from that State. Currently, the plant survives in the following
North Carolina Counties: Richmond (6 populations); Hoke (3 populations);
Scotland (2 populations); Franklin (1 population); Davie (1 population);
Robeson (1 population); and Wake (1 population). It has been eliminated
from Durham, Moore, Orange, Randolph, Wilson, Lincoln, and Mechlenberg
Counties. Of the 15 existing populations in North Carolina, nine have less
than 100 plants each, and three of these have less than a dozen plants
each.
HABITAT: Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association
with basic soils. Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some
form of disturbance has provided an open area. Eleven of the plant's
16 remaining populations are on highway rights-of way, roadsides, or on the
edges of artificially maintained clearings. Two other populations are in
areas with periodic fires, and two more populations exist on sites
undergoing natural succession. One population is situated in a natural
opening on the rim of a Carolina bay.
REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS: Perhaps the most crucial factor endangering
this species is its low reproductive capacity. Only two of the plant's
16 remaining populations have both male and female plants. The apparent
low genetic variability of the species, caused by geographic isolation,
complicates this situation. In response to the proposed listing of this
species as endangered, The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program wrote:
. because of the clonal nature of this species and the scarcity of
populations containing both male and female plants, the remaining
populations may actually consist of only about two dozen genetic
individuals (Department of the Interior 1989)." Hybridization of this
?c
Michaux's sumac 8/90
plant with Smooth sumac (Rhus Cooallina) and Dwarf sumac (Rhus lg abra) is
another threat to the plant's genetic integrity. In at least two historic
sites of Michaux's sumac, hybrid plants (apparently crosses between Rhus
labra and Rhus michauxii) have been found (Hardin and Phillips 1985). The
plant is also threatened by fire suppression and habitat destruction due to
residential and industrial development. Two of the plant's historic
populations were destroyed by development, one by the construction of a
water tower, and one by 'the conversion of the site to pine plantation.
MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION: The plant is shade-intolerant, and some form of
disturbance, such as burning, is necessary to control the growth of woody
species around its habitat. Timber harvesting and road construction or
maintenance should.be carefully conducted to preserve this plant's habitat.
Prescribed burning is being conducted at the North Carolina Sandhills Game
Lands which has the largest population (137 plants). Genetic analysis work
is being done through a cooperative effort between the University of
Georgia, the North Carolina Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Asheville, North Carolina, Field Office. Researchers
from the University of Georgia will analyze tissue samples collected from
the remaining North Carolina and Georgia populations, for their genotypes.
If possible, male or female plants may be reintroduced into unisex
populations of compatible genotypes (Nora Murdock, Asheville Field Office,
personal communication, 1990). The first reintroduction attempt, conducted
in Georgia in cooperation with the Georgia Heritage Inventory and
Woodlanders, a commercial nursery specializing in native plants, is doing -.:.
well with good survival of transplanted material.
REFERENCES:
Cooper, J., S. Robinson, and J. Funderburg. 1977. Endangered and
threatened plants and animals of North Carolina; proceedings of the
symposium on endangered and threatened biota of North Carolina.
North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh,.
North Carolina. 61 pp.
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered Status
for Rhus michauxii". Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 187.
September 28, 1989. Pp. 39853-39857.
Hardin, J., and L. Phillips, 1985. Hybridization in eastern North American
Rhus (Anacardiaceae). Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin
32(3):99-108.
Sargent, C.S. New or little known plants: Rhus michauxii Garden and Forest
398:404-405
For more information please contact:
Nora Murdock
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Telephone: [phone]
yd Sr ATE
o?
W
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric DoneSecretary -• --Will_t?r??S. Price, Jr., Director
January 10, 1991
4 ??;,; a 'GCI
Robert A. Berndt, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4000 Westchase Boulevard
Suite 550
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Re: City of Raleigh Big Branch Sewer Interceptor
Project, Wake County, H&S Project No. 3925,
ER 91-7664
Dear Mr. Berndt :
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1990, concerning the above
project.
A portion of the Big Branch sewer interceptor project was surveyed for
archaeological resources in 1977. No prehistoric or historic archaeological
sites were located as a result of that survey. Based on the results of
that survey, we believe the remaining portions of the Big Branch interceptor
project will not include significant archaeological sites. We do not
recommend any additional archaeological investigations for this project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?j ITavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw 109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
PART 3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONTENTS
4-3.1 Introduction
4-3.2 Background
4-3.7 Recommended Stormwater Management Policy
A. Stormwater Discharge Control
B. Floodprone Area Regulations
C. Drainage on Private Property
D. Water Quality
E. Existing Stormwater Problems
F. Stormwater Management Financing
4.3.22 Implementation
4.3.24 Case Study - Analysis of the New Hope Tributary
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, stormwater management has emerged as a major concern of the RaleiCity
Council. Rapid development in the City has increased stormwater runoff and accelerated
concerns with its effects on private property and the environment. Citizen requests for CitY
assistance have raised difficult questions regarding the appropriate City role in preventing and
correcting drainage problems. Federal policies, watershed protection issues, and environ-
mental concerns have focused attention on the effects of Stormwater on the water yua 7v in
streams. These and other issues have generated a high level of interest in clarifying the roe ,f
the City in stonnwater management.
The variety of stormwater issues and the difficulty of deriving solutions which clearly
both public and private interests have frustrated decision makers and stimulated reque_:: r; -
reliable mechanisms for administering sound public policy. Stormwater issues fret';.:ant:,
involve different opinions regarding the appropriate sharing of responsibilitt -etwoo ,n _. ..r:,
ment, private property owners, and developers. Stormwater issues have come to e att nt
of city government in many forms, including (1) minor flooding in back yarns, =? >tre.:^.C.t::,
erosion in older areas, (3) sedimentation in streams and lakes, (4) dam deficiencies, _
to existing impoundments, (6) increased stream flow generated by new development,
problems associated with private drainage structures, (8) problems associated with publl',
drainage structures, (9) private facilities which were constructed or acquired &itliout su!rc:
forethought concerning drainage, and (10) concerns with protecting the natural environ .-'2nt
and water quality. Most of these issues do not fit within the traditional scope of governmc::-
responsibility. This frustrates attempts to resolve the issues as thev arise. It also has n-,nera:,
a demand for new interpretations of City policy concerning Stormwater management.
In response to the need for new stormwater management policies, the City Adminis;rat:,-n
initiated a process for developing a Stormwater Management Policy as an element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The process included the appointment of the Stormwater Policv Advi-
sory Committee, a group of citizens who provided advice during the study of stonnwa ter
issues and the development of a proposed policy. The scope of the Stormwater management
study which was undertaken included (1) background studies, (2) policy development, and
technical analysis. The background studies reviewed stormwater management theorv and
practice with the objective of identifying potential policy options to be evaluated for pos';ii,le
application in Raleigh. The analysis phase tested these options under actual conditions in i
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Managemenr P!cn 3 :.
lice development
studv area in north Raleigh. During the Po
Pol as ad`etseor'v Commits e, and water .ere identified. evaluated Tby theistat and the Storm
refined into policy lice. Since there is.little
water management po roaches, agreement on
ssible a
This report presents a comprehensive storm lementation of specific
x erience with stormwater o adnage tit and a .variety of p° by t es
der to provide a framework for the iCp Council represents
e p
_eneral policy is essentithe water Management Policy
activities. Adoption of the Storm lt?, will be followed by such implementation aca? '
Of the po
ent and adoption. t'-) budget preparation and adoption. (3) stafttng
such an agreement. Adoption
as I ordinance developm ect tannin, and construction.
and organizational adjustments, and (?) detailed prof p
cement whit.
BACKGROUND
?%,ater man t a
ab nroton're
Carolina with a level of izens. na the ab their`" and p
There is little experience in North C
ins of the Raleigh ity Councl cm wizen in the absence " lice an
"W Of o rat c2
ad,:res>es the conce ltcable in Raleigh. The current Po _ lie`s
to undertake a broad
it was necessary r
to identify components "'hick are Poentially app ieful and discus-
= Raleigh w•as reviewed and doe` of ?racrcesen othe.u?tul and discus
studies
prat ice in the City o Committee.
-,1sorv Comm The results of these bat gre
•,.•ere identified through rev Views of adliteratufe• os lions which were selected for evaluation as
signs of the staff aand
including a list of polio p
are described below,
potential components of a new stormwater policy.
in the City of Raleigh
ement Program ram.
Current Stormwater M°n°g
standards, the City of Raleigh has a good stormwater is mana gement basically p pre-
in area susceptible to flooding
conventional By nstr ctlo Stann an active
a'new consruction are contro?,?d?n`• years.
Theconconstru ction of substantial structures ,
vented. The erosion and sedimentation effects
t ram are described below'
of public acquisition of land ad e= ma to Bement Froag been under` a`
program
urrent stormw
The components of the current stormw
which
regulations apply structures
1.Floodprone Area Regulation. apply t major streams in
drone area regulations have precluded ire construction
protected from major
Since 1973, slog p These
structureare
can be significantly damaged by a b100 uilt year flood.
the adoption of the regulations are
were b1973uilt prior future
itv ' 1urisdi ction. Structures buil since
the C e Qnly structures which
flood damag and these are relatively few in number.
subject to major flood impact,
procedures address the control of erosion and off-
2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Regulation. s h retain sediment on-site are
State and City regulations and enforcement limit off-site
am is an
site d. Devices to; The ins the velr ty f maintenance
leaving tation control p thereby, rogr oes not totally
required. Devtc
even thong it
erosion are also required. The current erosion and water management sedimenevt
yen with active enforcement, the proper function of all sedimentation
important and effective component of storm tv controls are required and do limit
used
control off-site effects. E Although veloct ,
devices can not be assured at all times.
erosion increased
, accelerated erosion may occur when runoff rates are increased because o
impervious areas.
Raleigh CamPrehensive Plan 3/90
3. Watershed Protection Regulations.
Density limitation through zoning, impervious area limits, and watercourse buffers are used to
limit runoff and protect water quality in water supply watersheds.
4. Special Stormwater Management Areas.
Two areas have been identified by City Council action as areas to receive special stormwater
management consideration. During the plan approval process for proposed development in
the Perrv Creek basin, retention of the first one-half inch of runoff is required when this is
determined to be appropriate. The Umstead District Plan, an element of the Comprehensive
Plan, describes objectives for preserving water quality in Umstead Park and preventing tloo i
damage in the Crabtree Creek basin.
5. Stormwater Management Through Zoning.
Conditions related to Stormwater management are frequently approved for conditional •. sQ
zoning cases. These conditions usually require detention to limit runoff to the level that
be expected if the property were developed according to the zoning which existed prior -o
zoning change.
6. "Drainage Petition Policy".
A resolution describing a procedure for City assistance with private drainage pre?lems
adopted by City Council in 1970 and has been amended on several subsequent occasions.
Under the current version of the resolution which is frequently called "the drainage roii,:v
the Citv mav, at the discretion of the City Council, provide labor and equipment for
otherwise improving drainage channels on private property at a cost not to exceed ?-
property. Property owners are responsible for design and materials. Assistance is lirnrcc
single-family, owner-occupied lots.
7. Flood Warning.
The Citv maintains a svstem for monitoring flood elevations along Crabtree Creek an-4
ing owners and occupants of endangered properties when flood elevations app-oacn a 1 :7 <:-7 _--
ous condition. Flood warning devices are also maintained below City dams on CrE-Z
and Walnut Creek.
S. Technical Assistance.
The City Engineering and Inspections Departments provide technical assistance o citizens
«vho seek assistance with drainage problems.
9. Construction and Maintenance of Public Drainage Facilities.
As the owner of drainage facilities in streets, parks and greenways, the City has direC- -eSr _
sibility for the construction and maintenance of a major portion of the drainage s? stem.
10. Greenwavs.
The City owns approximately 900 acres of greenways which not only provide recrc dear
open space amenities, but also preserve the natural environment adjacent to streams an,:
reduce the potential for stcrmi,vater damage to private property. Continued
according to the comprehensive plan for greenways will eventually resuit in pubiic o:, n.:-;-
of land adjacent to most significant streams in the City.
The Engineering Department, The Inspections Department, and the Street Nlaintenan.c
Division of the Public ?Vonks Department are primary City agencies involved in
stern....::._r
management. A conservation engineer in the Engineering Department provides anal,. :;.
design, and'technical assistance services related to stormwater management. A great . ?-.
of problems are addressed including a substantial effort in investigating problems or
property and advising citizens. The Engineering Department also reviews and p rerar-4
for public drainage facilities. The inspections Department has three conseraron' en *!e_--
3/90 Ra a:9n Comprehensive Plcn Srormwcre, Mcnccer^e- - _
and six conservation inspectors who provide plan review and enforcement services related to
floodprone area regulations, erosion and sedimentation regulations, and other drainage
requirements for new development. The Street Maintenance Division maintains drainage
facilities on public rights-of-way.
Legal Framework for Stormwater Management
Generally, city governments in North Carolina have little legal responsibility for drainage
problems which occur on private property. Property owners are usually expected to tolerate
or correct drainage problems on their property or to seek relief from neighboring property
:which may have improperly diverted or blocked a watercourse. The purchase of property and
construction of facilities entails certain risks, and owners are expected to assume responsibility
for the drainage related risks. City governments as property owners are responsible for
managing water flow on city property, but this responsibility does not extend to limiting the
rate of flow or intervening in conflicts between private property owners.
A city may assume responsibility when it "adopts" a watercourse as part of the city drainage
svstem. The City of Raleigh does not have a practice of "adopting" watercourses for City
maintenance with the possible exception of those watercourses on City property or within
easements which specifically identify an ongoing City responsibility. Most of the drainage
easements shown on subdivision plats and described in deeds do not indicate a City mainte-
nance responsibility, and wording on subdivision plats indicates that the City does not accept
such responsibility. This is frequently misunderstood by citizens who appear before City
officials to seek relief from drainage problems.
Even though the City has not assumed significant drainage construction responsibilities except
for those associated with City property, the legal authority to do so is available. State legis-
lation authorizes cities to provide for "flood protection" and "storm sewer and drainage
systems" including the authority to impose special assessments and create municipal service
districts for drainage purposes.
Issues Raised by Citizens
Complaints and problems brought to the attention of the City by citizens provide an indication
;,f the nature of community concern with Stormwater problems. An analysis of citizen contacts
-elated to drainage during the past three nears indicates that most concerns could be described
as nuisance -boding or channel problems. Over half the contacts were related to adjacent
constriction activity. Most of die problems occurred and originated on private property, with
less than 10 percent being related to drainage structures on the public right-of-way. Citizen
complaints are only a partial indication of public policy needs, but the complaint analysis
:es,:ribes a need to focus policy development in the following areas:
1. Small streams rather than major streams;
?. Nuisance problems rather than major property damage and safety problems;
3. The effects of new development; and
4. Clarification of the lirruts of public responsibility for nuisance problems on private prop-
erty.
S`crmwcter Management Plan d-3.4 Raleign Ccmpre^ensive Plan 3/9C
City Council Concerns
The City Council has expressed concern with stormwater management on several occasions :a
the past few years. In an attempt to understand these concerns, interviews were conducte l
with each council member in February, 1988. These interviews identified two primary Council
concerns related to stormwater management as follows:
1. Most council members were concerned with increased stormwater discharge (increased
rates of runoff) generated by the impervious areas created in new development. This impiies a
demand to fully consider new policies which provide stormwater discharge controls for now
development.
2. Most council members expressed concern with water quality. This indicates a need to
address water quality in the development of new policy and to be sensitive to the effects any
policy proposals may have on water quality.
Potential New Policy Directions
Surveys of literature and practices in other cities indicate that many cities are considering
expanded roles in stormwater management. The current state of practice, especially in North
Carolina, appears to be similar to that in Raleigh, but several cities are exploring new storrn-
water management approaches.
There is considerable local government interest in establishing or expanding programs to
control stormwater discharge from new development. The most common approach uses
regulatory power to require on-site control. "Regional approaches" which use larger lakes t,
control the discharge from several properties have received recent attention in literature an;
practice. There are uncertainties related to the difficulty and expense of obtaining proper
for "regional facilities" and to their effectiveness in managing the small stream problems
which are a major concern in Raleigh. One study in North Carolina proposed combining :T._
site and off-site approaches to take advantage of the attributes of both svstems. A fee in
on-site control was suggested as an equitable revenue base for providing off-site •neaszure<
when these off-site measures are more appropriate.
The survey of other local government programs revealed a general tendency to increase
regulations as a means of preventing the stormwater problems which confront local govern-
ment after development has occurred. The expansion of tloodprone area re;uiations to m:
completely preclude the construction of buildings in problem locations is one approach to
avoiding future conflicts. More extensive governmental- review and approval of drainage
provisions within private development is another means for reducing the potential for ri ..:
problems to become public issues.
Current trends in stormwater management emphasize the prevention of problems caused
new development rather than maintenance and correction of existing; problems. Local
ment involvement in the maintenance of drainage facilities and the correction of existing
deficiencies varies widely and is heavily influenced by natural features, rainfall condition.
and political history. Many accommodations have been reached in determining the separr: t:,
between public and private responsibilities for drainage facilities. The "drainage utility"
concept is the primary innovation in managing existing drainage problems. In this concept.
fees are assessed based on the extent of imperviousness of property, and the revenues are a>(-,:
to construct and maintain drainage facilities. This approach has considerable merit if local
conditions warrant an extensive and expensive governmental maintenance and construction
program. In situations of limited or moderate governmental involvement with corrective
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Plan .. 2
measures, general governmental revenues are probably the most efficient funding resource
because they do not require the establishment of a separate revenue collection and manage-
ment svstem.
The value of natural drainage systems is becoming widely recognized in current stormwater
'management practice. Natural areas promote infiltration, reduce runoff velocity, enhance
water quality, and provide a buffer between people and watercourses. There is a growing
recognition that the preservation of areas near streams is good stormw•ater management as
well as an environmental asset. Some cities are reconsidering programs which previously
emphasized rip-rap, concrete, and piping of channels. In addition to the direct approach of
preserving greenways, other approaches for preser-ing the natural features of watercourses
merit consideration in a stormwater management policy.
Water quality has been a national concern for some time, but the effects of stormwater on
.eater quality have only recently become part of this concern. The stormwater aspects of the
National Clean Water Act have been under discussion for several years and are
nearing a point of local government involvement. This has generated considerable local
government interest in the water quality effects of stormwater and will have a major effect on
local stormwater management. T're City of Raleigh .vill be re-uired to develop a plan for
meeting federal requirements related to stormwater quality. This will entail extensive water
quality monitoring, an inventory of the stormwater svstem and potential sources of pollution.
the identification of non-point sources of water quality problems, and the development of
corrective action. Developing the plan for stormwater quality is a necessary cart of storm,va-
ter policy. The water quality planning program is a direct approach to water quality which
focuses on sources of pollution and their correction. Indirect approaches are also available in
which water quality considerations are included in stormw•ater management practices such as
discharge controls and protection of natural areas.
Fee systems based on contribution to the stormwater problem are the trend in stormwater
management financing. These systems are advocated as more equitable financing approaches
than general taxes which are not related to the causes or benefits of stormwater programs.
Local governments are studying fee systems to replace general financing for programs that are
undervay. Local governments which are considering new stormwater management initiatives
are considering fee financing as a long-term approach even though start-up costs may require
funding from general revenues. There is a gromng philosophy that new development should.
pay the full cost of managing runoff from new impervious areas by either providing on-site
control or paying a fee in lieu of on-site control. This fee would be used by government to
provide the necessarv facilities. There is considerabie advocacy for "drainage utility fees" to
be used for construction and maintenance related to existing problems not created by now
development. These fees are based on existing impervious areas rather than those planned for
new projects. Service district taxation as currently authorized by state legislation is a possible
alternative to the "utility fee" approach. Special assessments could be a useful financing
method if the stormwater management program provides special benefits to private property
beyond that which can reasonably be considered a general public benefit.
Potential Policy Options
The City of Raleigh has a sound, conventional stormwater management program, but several
possibilities for enhancing the program were identified in the background studies. There
appears to be a potential for avoiding new stormwater issues by controlling stormwater
discharge from new development and by improving development standards for private
drainage facilities. The extension of a water quality program to areas outside water supply
watersheds appears to be a logical response to federal policy and local concerns. More atten-
tion to existing drainage needs on both public and private property appears to be warranted.
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3b Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
Based on the findings in the background studies, the following potential new policy options
were selected for analysis and evaluation.
1. Control of stormwater discharge from new development including; (a) on-site approaches,
(b) off-site (regional) approaches, and (c) combined approaches.
?. Extension of floodprone area regulations to smaller streams.
3. Regulation of drainage facilities within private development sites.
4. Preservation of natural features along drainage ways.
5. Development of a stormwater quality program to meet the requirements of the federal
Clean Water Act and local objectives.
6. Incorporation of water quality considerations into stormwater management prac ices.
7. Expansion of City programs to correct existing drainage problems and preserve existing
stormwater control facilities.
S. Development of financing methods which equitably distribute program costs such as;
general City revenue, (b) development fees, (c) utility fees, (d) special assessments, and "e;
service district taxes.
These policy options were tested in a study area selected in northeast Raleigh. The results are
summarized in the final section of this report titled "Case Study Analysis of the New Hope
Tributary". Based on the analysis and discussions by the staff and the Sto=vater Policy
Advisory Committee, recommended stormwater management policies were developed.
RECOMMENDED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POLICY
Stormwater management is a developing field of governmental concern. Perceptions of nee.i
and methods of governmental practice are evolving. Clear definitions of appropriate le•.-els
service and clear standards for governmental practice are not available. There is a growir-.
level of concern throughout the State of North Carolina, and several stormwater manage--±Q
studies are underway.
The natural conditions in the City of Raleigh and past stormwater management practices
precluded major hazards and threats of property damage from stormwater. A need for
immediate and substantial public action has not been identified in this study. Neverthe!??,
numerous public issues have arisen related to unexpected changes in levels of stream rlo A,
nuisances of various types. There is also a growing concern with the water quality effe:-s
stormwater.
The stormwater management policies presented in this section are proposed with a recogn;-
tion that the "state of the art" in stormwater management is evolving. The policies include
new practices and adjustments to existing practices to the extent that they can be justifies:
the current understanding of needs and techniques. The policies also create a tramework
developing other new approaches after sufficient research to better define needs and to
establish the feasibility of methods. An important objective of the Stormwater `Tana e ern
Policy is to establish the information and procedural framework within which appropria,-,
levels of City involvement can be objectively considered.
V.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management.P'ar -
Policies are presented to address issues in three primary areas of concern; (1) managing the
stormwater effects of new development, (2) managing stream water quality, and (3) correcting
existing drainage deficiencies. The establishment of performance standards for stormwater
discharge from new development is proposed to prevent downstream degradation. These
standards are to be initially imposed through regulation, but alternative methods such as
developer contributions to public facilities will be provided when feasible alternatives can be
identified. Detailed drainage system studies are proposed to identify feasible off-site dis-
charge control opportunities and to identify other drainage conditions which warrant City
action. Adjustments to tloodprone area regulations and to standards for private drainage
facilities are also proposed to prevent conditions which may be problems and possibly public
issues in the future.
The effects of stormwater on stream water quality are generally known, but deficiencies,
causes, and feasible remedies are not well-defined. The preparation of a stream water quality
plan which focuses on sources of pollution is proposed. This plan will be developed to meet
expected National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements as well as
locally perceived needs. More general policies for preserving water quality include the
protection of natural drainage corridors and the incorporation of water quality considerations
into various aspects of storm water ;management.
The general level of study conducted for this report did not identify serious existing drainage
problems for which cost-effective solutions are available. Manv issues involve nuisance
conditions which raise questions concerning the division of public and private responsibility.
Policies concerning existing conditions emphasize a thorough study to identify conditions
which may warrant Citv action either to correct problems on City property or to assume a new
level of responsibility for those that are now considered private. The creation of a framework
for
informed decisions concerning the expansion of the City role is proposed. Adjustments to the
existing "drainage petition policy" are proposed to clarify understanding and to provide for
more efficient administration.
In summary, the Stormwater Management Policy presented in this section emphasizes preven-
tion of future problems and the development of information and procedures necessary for a
Proper evaluation of stormwater management practice. Consistent with the nature of the
Comprehensive Plan, the policy is general and is intended to be a guide for more specific
implementation actions. These actions, identified in a separate section of this report, include
the preparation and enaction of ordinances and resolutions, the initiation of engineering
studies. the approval of capital budgets, and the execution of projects which are determined to
be feasible public actions.
A. Stormwater Discharge Control
Increases in stormwater runoff over a relatively short time period generate most citizen
requests for City assistance with drainage problems. A review of 113 concerns raised by
citizens over an S month period indicates that (1) 53.1 percent involved adiacent construction,
(=) 79.6 percent .vere related to nuisance flooding or erosion, and (3) 39.4 percent were in small
drainage areas of less than 640 aces, and (4) 81.4 percent were in very small drainage areas of
less than 200 acres. Substantial changes in the character of small streams over a short time
period appear to be a major concern of citizens. The most.likely cause of this substantial, rapid
change was increased stormwater discharge from new development.
The analysis conducted in the New Hope Tributary used mathematical models to determine
,the effects if the peak runoff from development had been controlled. This analysis indicated
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.8 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
` that nuisance flooding and erosion was significantly increased because of new development
and that this nuisance could have been prevented by control measures.
Throughout this report, discharge is used as the term for the amount of stormwater runoff
from a site in a given time period. It may be measured in cubic feet per second or gallons per
minute of runoff passing a point. Discharge affects the level of flow in streams and the extent
of erosion in stream banks. At this time, discharge increases associated with the increase of
impervious surfaces during development are generally not regulated. The velocity of runoff
leaving a site is regulated to reduce erosion immediately adjacent to development sites, but
this does not control the downstream effects of larger volumes of runoff. In the early 1970's,
new development was required by City ordinance to provide for the retention of peak dis-.
charge through impoundments, basins, or other retention devices. In 1979, the discharge
control requirement was deleted because of concerns with costs, appearance, maintenance,
need, and effectiveness. Even though discharge control is no longer a general requirement, it
has been used in many special situations such as the requirement of control as a condition in
conditional use zoning.
Some form of discharge control is necessary if the continued increase in nuisance flooding ar,U
erosion is to be prevented. Controlling the increase in discharge from new development
appears to be the most critical stormwater management need in Raleigh because it addresses a
major concern of citizens and it can stabilize conditions. Controlling the increase in stormwa-
ter problems is a most important objective of stormwater management.
- Experience with discharge control in other areas has produced methods which mitigate some
of the disadvantages earlier experienced in Raleigh. A primary disadvantage of regulated, on-
site controls is that narrowly defined control measures are not always effective, reliable,
121 practical, or otherwise suitable for all sites. This has generated interest in the construction of
public "regional" control facilities as an alternative to on-site private facilities. These "regional
facilities" are especially effective in controlling flow in larger streams and in providing good
design and maintenance when appropriate sites are available. The "regional approach" has
disadvantages related to funding, scheduling, obtaining good sites, and providing protection
in small streams near the location of new development.
The most promising recent development in discharge control combines the advantages of
regulated performance standards for on-site control with the alternative of financial contrihu-
tions to off-site improvements when on-site performance is not practical or effective. A has;`
performance standard for discharge control is established by ordinance. When on-site per-
formance is not appropriate or when better alternatives exist, a fee in lieu of on-site perform-
ance may be paid to the City. These fees can be used by the City to construct control facilit'-_-
or to make improvements to the drainage system to accommodate increased flow. This svst,_?--
requires performance at the potential problem source when on-site measures are reasonable,
and it provides an alternative for situations such as small sites, sites which discharge into La-
streams, and sites which can be better served by facilities which are planned by the City.
The design of a good discharge control program must balance many factors which affect the
economics and effectiveness of the system. A design storm (2 year, 10 year, etc.) must be
selected which provides effective control at a reasonable cost. A level of control must be
determined either to achieve reduction, maintenance, or limited increases in discharge. teat -
quality, aesthetics, and other concerns may be incorporated into allowable management
practices. Differences in stream conditions and development sites are important considera-
tions. Provisions for maintenance of control facilities are necessary to assure continued
effectiveness. Equity in financial participation is an important consideration if the system
includes City construction as well as private performance.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Plan 4
L
Policy Objectives
The increase in stormwater discharge from new development is the most significant issue
identified in the stormwater study. The following policy objectives provide a framework for
addressing this issue:
1. To prevent significant increases in the potential for property damage, nuisances, or other
negative impacts of stormwater by controlling stormwater discharge from new development.
2. To apply discharge control methods which are economically, aesthetically, and environ-
mentally acceptable as well as effective in stormwater management.
3. To equitably allocate the costs of controlling increases in stormwater discharge to properties
which are the sources of the increase. .
Recommended Policies
The policies presented below reflect the needs which have been identified, the urgency to
initiate a discharge control program as soon as practicable to prevent further degradation in
stormwater conditions, and the need to accommodate a variety of conditions and management
approaches:
A-l. Develop a system for stormwater discharge control which uses both on-site and off-site
approaches to assure appropriate levels of control while permitting the flexibility to choose
control methods which best fit specific conditions.
This general policy related to discharge is intended to combine the strengths of on-site and off-
site approaches while minimizing the weaknesses of either approach. Accomplishment 'o.-ill
require performance standards to be established by ordinance with provisions for fees in lieu
of on-site performance when better off-site methods are available. The accomplishment of this
policy will also entail the identification of public improvements which may be undertaken in
lieu of on control measures provided by development. These improvements may inclu4e
strategically located lakes and drainage system improvements.
Design criteria for the discharge control system will be subject to further detailed considera-
tion, but the following criteria appear to be appropriate:
• Design to control both two-year and ten-year storms.
•Control levels which preclude an increase in peak discharge after development.
• Management practices which enhance water quality.
•Provisions for future maintenance.
•Authority and standards for the City to either require on-site performance, to accept alterna-
tive methods, or require fees in lieu of performance.
•A fee system based on the average cost of on-site control.
A-2. Adopt discharge control regulations which establish basic performance standards for new
development.
The development of a discharge control ordinance as soon as practicable is recommended to
prevent increased stream flow and the associated increase in stormwater problems. This.initial
action is a necessary component of the flexible system previously described, and it is likely to
Stormwater.Management Plan 4-3.10 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan .3/90 .
be the primary discharge control initiative. The ordinance should be developed and admini-
stered so that fees in lieu of on-site performance will be accepted when site conditions pre-
clude effective or economical on-site measures. State legislation will be required before the t-ce
system can be implemented.
A-3. Initiate drainage basin studies to identify feasible "minor regional facilities" and other
facility improvements which may be constructed as alternatives to on-site discharge control.
Relatively small lakes which have been referred to as "minor regional facilities" in this repent
may provide a reasonable alternative to on-site discharge control. Large "regional facilities
are under consideration in some jurisdictions, but they do not address the small stream,
collector system problems which have been identified in Raleigh. A detailed drainage sy5,-_,::-
study will be necessarv to establish the location and feasibility of lakes as part of the discnar--2
control svstem.
The drainage basin studies will also identifv actions which can be taken to expand .he c:=ca_::.
of the existing drainage system to accommodate increased flow. Structural modifications an
channel improvements may be the preferred management approach in some situations.
In order to obtain a thorough understanding of the discharge control alternatives which r^a .
be available, drainage basin studies at a considerable expense to the City ..-ill be necessar..
B. Floodprone Area Recommendations
Existing floodprone area regulations have effectively prevented the construction of build;n
in a manner which exposes the buildings to potential flood damage. The regulations also
encourage the preservation of natural drainage ways. Over fifteen years of successful exper:-
ence with floodprone area regulation supports the broadest practicable application of this
stormwater management tool
The areas subiect to current city floodprone area regulations can be divided into two cafe,-
ries; 1) those areas studied and mapped under the Federal Insurance Administration; Fl =.
flood insurance program, and 2) those areas designated as floodprone by the presence 01
alluvial soils as determined by the USDA Wake Countv Soil Survev. The watercourses
mapped under the federal program generally drain areas over one square mile 1640 acre-, :-
size. Those regulated under the flood hazard soils system may drain from as little as n. o . -
three acres to over one square mtie. The City's continuing participation m the :1004 ;nsur
program only requires the management of floodprone areas mapped as part of the federal
study. However, during the introduction of its floodplain management program m tine
the city determined that it would be in the public's best interest to provide protection frcm
flooding for smaller streams not covered under the federal program. This was accomphs .L
through the designation and regulation of areas having flood hazard soils as defined um.:er
section 10-4002 of the Planning and Development regulations.
n
he use of flood hazard soils has been -enerally beneficial. However, there are ;;O eral it
backs to their use. Many areas prone to flooding are not included because the s:?ils do nc?
into the classification considered to be a flood hazard by
ordinance. As a result, areas which should be regulated are not. The current system often
designated minor watercourses which drain only a few acres as flood prone. "his results -.
unnecessarv difficulties for property owners who do not possess the understanding or re-
sources to have the actual flooding conditions redefined. Flood hazard soil o0undanes a
not accurate, due to the technique and the scale used in mapping. In most cases, the s0tl
boundaries do not reflect the actual topography of the area and do not folio:., the path of
watercourse. This makes it difficult to accurately determine the floodclain boundaries ar
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Sformwc'er Mcncce^-e- r'c-
F
results in hilltops and steep slopes being erroneously mapped as floodprone. The current
system is based on soils which have developed over hundreds of years with undeveloped
conditions. The boundaries of these soils are poor indicators of the actual flooding experi-
enced in an urban situation where development and new impervious surfaces have signifi-
cantly increased the amount of stormwater to be carried.
Policy Objectives
The following policy objectives recognize the potential for improvement in the application of
floodprone area regulations:
1. To extend of tloodprone area regulations to all streams which represent a potential flood
hazard.
2. To develop a more efficient method for delineating floodprone areas than the existing
alluvial soils system.
Policy Recommendations
The recommended policy to achieve these objectives is as follows:
B-l. Replace the alluvial soils method of designating floodprone areas with a method based on
the size of drainage areas to include drainage area "cut-offs" which assure regulation of signifi-
cant floodprone areas to the maximum practicable extent.
Drainage area size is more accurate than alluvial soils as an indicator of stream flow and the
potential for flooding. Conversion to a drainage area "cut-off" method will assure more
complete coverage of potential flooding conditions and will eliminate many areas which are
now unnecessarily regulated. Studies to this point support the establishment of the "cut-off"
at approximately 100 acres. Drainage areas of this size produce reasonably well-defined
,watercourses in which flooding may be expected. The drainage system in smaller areas is
difficult to define and subject to considerable change during development. The initiation of a
change to a drainage area "cut-off" method will require considerable analysis and mapping as
c%-ell as an amendment to the City Code.
C. Drainage on Private Property
Private construction in small drainage areas which cannot be regulated as floodprone areas
has created drainage problems within development sites and has destroyed natural features
beneficial to runoff control and water quality. Purchasers or users of property have on many
occasions sought City assistance to alleviate the problems created during the development of
the property. This indicatesa need for more extensive City regulation of private drainage
design to protect the public. avoid the creation of public drainage issdes, and encourage the
protection of natural areas.
Lnder current city ordinances, the regulation of private stormwater facilities is limited to those
projects submitted for review under the requirements of the subdivision or site plan approval
process and those projects which fall within tloodprone area regulations. As a result, there is
little authority to deal with alterations to
existing stormwater conveyance systems on private property unless a problem such as erosion
or the backing of water onto an adiacent property occurs. In several cases this has resulted in
Hooding and stormwater damage from the installation of inadequate drainage facilities and
the placement of structures in areas prone to stormwater damage. In addition, the unrestricted
Stormwater Management Plan 3..i"2 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
^- elimination of natural watercourses through piping may reduce water quality and n2sul.t in
accelerated downstream channel erosion and increased flooding.
Increasingly, individuals are turning to the city for assistance in resolving private drainage
problems. In many cases, this is because the public believes the City owns or is at least r e-
sponsible for managing all watercourses and community drainage systems. While some
regulation of private drainage facilities appears warranted, the concept of the city regulating
all private stormwater facilities is probably not justified by the number or severity of probiem.5
currently reported. Consequently, one of the considerations in developing a drainage polio: is
balancing the desire to protect purchasers and users from stormwater damage against the sec.:
to avoid undue restrictions on the use of property and excessive financial burdens for pr: per-
owners and the City.
Policy Objectives
Policy objectives related to the design and construction of drainage facilities on private prc= -
ertv are:
1. To reduce future property damage, nuisance flooding, and requests for public assistance
applying appropriate standards for the alteration of private drainage facilities.
2. To protect water quality and reduce the potential for flooding and erosion damage by
preventing encroachment into natural watercourse areas and by preserving the natural
character of drainageways.
Recommended Policy
The following approach to modifying existing development regulations is recomme^.de"'
enhance the accomplishment of the above stated objectives:
C-1. Amend subdivision and site plan regulations to improve standards for drainage easemen:s,
set-backs from watercourses, and drainage facility design.
City ordinances currently permit the requirement of easements for storm drainage facia-::_
during subdivision and site plan review. However, the provisions for rcquirlnl:, easerre:aZ.
general and set no standards or guidelines for when these easements should be re?uireu . r
their width. Consequently, it is recommended that regulations be modified to require .:r,I:::-
age easements of from 30 to 50 feet in width wherever a discernible watercourse is preset::.
width of 30 to 50 feet should provide sufficient width to minimize impacts on structu-cs
minor flooding and channel erosion, and should not create an excessive burden for rrcrer::
owners.
In addition, city regulationscould be`amended to require'that set-backs of 23 feet Ice r r:=-.:I:'
during site plan approval for all watercourses not covered by the floodprone area re?;ulat: ;:
This would further prevent the placement of structures in areas of significant flood hazar•.
Realizing that much of the land within the City's jurisdiction is in or will soon be in an r r.
condition, an additional Provision should be made to establish design standards for those
situations where the property owner desires to relocate watercourses and their easement-, ..
eliminate them entirely through piping. These standards should follow those already esta;l-
lished in other city ordinances and require that any modified drainage system be capable olf
carrying the peak discharge from the 100-,year storm without adversely impacting any struc-
ture or adjacent property. This provision should provide an adequate alternative where
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan $tormwater Management Plan 4-: '
maintaining an open watercourse is not reasonable. While this provision will allow.for the
removal of natural watercourses, the 100-year design requirements should provide some
economic incentive for maintaining open watercourses whenever possible.
The changes recommended above should provide a significant reduction in the problems
associated with private drainage systems. However, a thorough review of all drainage related
ordinances is recommended to determine if there are other areas where improvements could
be made. This review process might be established on a continuing basis to review new
complaints received and identify recurring problems and possible solutions.
D. Water Quality
The relationship of stormw•ater runoff to water quality is a growing concern in the Raleigh
area. Work is underway at various governmental levels to determine the causes of pollution,
establish water quality standards, and evaluate management practices. The City will soon be
required to comply v. itl`t federal and state requirements for managing the stormwater effects
on water quality.
The Environmental Protection :agency has recently submitted the proposed rules for review
that relate to municipal stormwater controls. These proposed regulations will require NPDES
permits for municipal storm sewers. The City will need to develop a plan
to address stormwater quality as part of the permit application process. The p roposed dead-
line. for submitting the first part of the application is November Y, 1990.
Water quality in major streams has been monitored by the City for approximately two years.
The results indicate that stream water quality in the City jurisdiction is generally good. Tests
at 60 locations on 22 major streams resulted in the conclusion that water quality is good for 1
streams, fair for six streams, and poor for one stream. The results of monitoring efforts gener-
ally indicate that water quality management should focus on specific pollution sources such as
industry, materials storage, and private sanitary sewage facilities. In order to determine the
significance of storm water runoff on overall water quality, more storm event sampling needs
to be done.
The Clean Water Act amendments of 1987 will produce new roles for local governments in
managing stormwater. Local governments will be required to oomph- -with a federal stormcva-
ter permitting program. The exact scope of the federal regulations has not been determined,
but they will generally require the control of non-stormwater discharges into the stormwater
svstem and the use of management practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater. It is expected
that a major effort will be necessary to analyze the drainage system, potential pollution
sources, water quality, and management practices in order to produce a' plan which satisfies
the Nrational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements.
The preparation of the plan for NPDES permit purposes will provide a base for considering
local objectives as well as federal requirements. While this effort is underway, the ON will be
developing other stormwater management practices such as discharge controls and standards
for facilities. The development of these new management practices will provide opportunities
for incorporating water quality consideration to the extent that can be supported by current
knowledge of needs and methods:
Policy Objectives -
The federal NPDES permit requirements will provide a necessity and an opportunity to design
and develop an effective program for managing the stormwater effects on water quality. The
development of programs to improve the control of flooding and erosion also provide an
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.14 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
opportunity to incorporate :eater quality considerations. The following policy objectives
provide direction for addressing water quality concerns:
1. To develop a stream water quality program which meets federal stormwater discharge
permit requirements and locally perceived needs.
2. To preserve the natural character of drainage ways.
3. To incorporate water quality considerations into City actions related to public facilities and
development regulations.
Recommended Policies
The following water quality management policies address the need to develop a management
plan and to incorporate water quality measures into the overall stormwater management
program: .
D-1. Initiate the preparation of a stream water quality plan to meet federal stormwcter dis-
charge permit requirements and local needs.
Federal requirements are not vet available, but it is anticipated that the planning effort
include:
-An inventory of the drainage system.

•A land use inventory which focuses on the identification of potential pollution sources sucl-
as commercial, industrial, chemical storage, and treatment activities.
*Expanded water qualitymonitoring with particular emphasis on identif:. ing sources .?f
pollutants.
• actions to prohibit non-stormwater discharges into storm sewers.
* anagement practices to reduce pollutant discharges.
D-2. Preserve the natural character of drainage ways by greenway acquisition, Roodprone crec
regulation, drainage corridor protection, public design and construction, and the appiication c;
other public resources which may be identified in the future.
The intent of this policy is to apply the various powers and resources of the City to the p r_-<r-
ation of natural features a htch prevent pollutants from entering streams. This is to be
directly accomplished through the acquisition, design, and use of public lards and
through the development and administration of regulations which encourage preser:•atiun
private design and development.
D-3. Incorporate water quality management practices into discharge control regulations and C:N
design, construction, and maintenance practices.
Policies regarding discharge control will Frovide an excellent opportunity to manav,
quality as well as flooding and erosion. The regtlations and procedures which are deg:
should encourage the use of wet ponds and other practices which preserve :eater qualir:.
constructed discharge control facilities should be designed to enhance water quality.
quality should be considered d::ring the :iesign. construction, and matracnance of drama --,
facilities on Citv property. :Water quality :houid be fully considered as one of the fact: rs
3/90 Ra'.eigh Comprehensive Plcn
Stormr-wee `Ac-aceme P'c- _ _ ;
which may justify assumption by the City of responsibility for the maintenance of drainage
systems, including existing lakes, on property which is currently privately owned.
E. Existing Stormwater Problems
Existing stormwater problems in the City of Raleigh are generally not considered to be so
severe or of such an emergency nature that immediate and substantial action is essential to
protect the community.- The stormwater effect of new development has generated the majority
of citizen complaints and has been a major topic of public discussion. For these reasons, the
stormwater management policy emphasizes the control of the stormwater effects of new
development. Nevertheless, the appropriate level of City involvement in the correction of
existing problems is an issue -which deserves attention. Concerns with existing problems
frequently are presented to the City even though the problems may not be of great severity or
of widespread effect. Frequently the problems present difficult questions regarding the
appropriate separation of private and public responsibilities.
Existing Conditions
There are few recognized stormwater problems which clearly warrant City construction or
maintenance attention. The absence of a substantial funding and construction program
indicates that a need for a major program of corrective actions by the City has not been recog-
nized. In considering the need for increased City attention
to existing stor water problems, the nature of the problems is a primary concern. Typical
problems with the existing drainage system are identified below:
-The nuisance of occasional overflow and erosion in small ditches, typically in back yards.
• Eroding conditions at the end of drainage pipes.
• Erosion or minor flooding caused by deteriorated, blocked, or inadequate drainage pipes on
private property.
•Nf'nor flooding or erosion associated with inadequate or blocked drainage pipes in the public
richt- f-way.
•Streambank degradation, channel overflow, and blockage by fallen trees or debris in medium
size streams.
-Occasional damage to a few private structures which were constructed in floodprone areas
prior to current floodprone area regulations.
• i ne threat of removal of existing private ponds which afford van•ing degrees of flood
protection to downstream properties.
:'here problem conditions are undesirable, especially for persons who are directly involved,
but it is expected that most of the damages associated with these conditions are insufficient to
justify the major expenditure which would be necessary for correction. For the most part,
property owners have learned to accept the existing drainage situation on their property.
Changes in the existing situation, such as a major increase in flocs caused by new development
or a blockage or breakdown in a drainage facility, frequently produce complaints as might be
expected. Information on drainage problems and the extent of damages is limited. Additional
study- may reveal a severity of problems which indicate a greater need for City attention than
that indicated by the current understanding of the problems.

Srormwater Management Plan A-3.16 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
Responsibility for Existing Drainage Problems
The current legal allocation of responsibility for the construction and maintenance of drain=;?
facilities generally follows property ownership. Private owners are responsible for drainasc
problems on or arising from their property. The City is responsible for problems on or arisir,
from City property. The City has the authority to assume responsibility for problems on
currently private property after the acquisition of proper easements. There are many requests
for Citv assistance with private drainage problems which have little merit as public purposes.
There are other private drainage situations, possibly not represented by citizen requests, whic^
could be considered legitimate public purposes depending on the level of involvement the
Citv wishes to undertake. The conditions under which the City should extend its responsibil-
ity into currently private situations are an issue.
Complaints arising from problems with City owned drainage structures are relatively fe,%-.
The study of conditions in the analysis area identified (1) several street drainage structures
which are undersize according to current standards but which are not expected to cause
significant problems, (2) one street drainage structure which is currently adequate but :na%
require replacement when more private development occurs, and (3) one street drainage
structure which is substantially deficient and probably warrants replacement.Currently .
available information does not indicate a need for a major program of drainage facility n,-
struction or reconstruction on City property, but the information is too limited to be conclu-
sive. Comprehensive analysis of the drainage needs throughout the City could reveal a
substantial construction need that is not being addressed.
There is little existing City policy related to the conditions under which the Citv should
assume responsibility for portions of the currently private drainage system. There is no
r.. requirement to do so, but the Citv could determine that an expansion of City responsibility ;;
an appropriate increase in the level of City services to be provided for the citizens. in conz-
eng such an expansion of City service, the following factors should be examined:
Problem severity.
Every property is affected by stormwater. It is reasonable to assume that private owners
should be responsible for basic grading, planting, and maintenance. On the other hand. th ?_
may be a role for government in protecting private property from severe damage.
Equity.
Many problems were created by.private owners or were known at the time of purchase or
construction. Many owners knowingly assumed the risks of a marginal site or construct'On
practice in order tc save money. The use of funds from taxpavers to correct self-imposed
problems is questionable. On the other hand, public intervention may be defensible when
property owners are bearing an excessive drainage burden because of off-site conditions.
Extent of the problem.
The appropriateness of public intervention increases as the number of people affected in-
creases. Public expenditures which benefit hundreds of people are much more defensible
those benefiting only one or two.
Benefits and costs.
Many requests for City assistance involve high costs to provide relatively small benefits. 111-i-S
reasonable to restrict public expenditures to those activities which produce substantial net
benefits. Experience with requests for City assistance indicates that most projects may not
satisfy the cost-benefit test. On the other hand, larger projects which have widespread bens:,
may not be easily perceived by individual citizens and may be justified through comprehen-
sive drainage basin analysis.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Monacemenr Pan s „ ' -
Policy Objectives
The current understanding of existing stormwater problems does not indicate a level of
severity which demands substantial immediate action by the City. The current system of
responsibility provides remedies either by the affected party or through legal measures to
obtain relief from a party causing the problem. Nevertheless, requests for City assistance can
be expected, and considerable opinion that the City should expand efforts exists. Anv actions
to expand City responsibilities for the correction of existing stormwater problems should be
supported by a thorough analysis of needs, proper solutions, and appropriate levels of public
and private responsibility. These conclusions support the following objectives for policy
related to existing stormwater problems:
1. To provide a high level of performance for drainage facilities on City property and for
facilities necessary to manage the off-site effects of drainage from Cin. property.
'_. To establish the financial capacity, information base, and decision procedure necessary for
the assumption by the City of currently private drainage responsibilities when conditions
warrant such intervention.
3. To recognize the continuing validity of private responsibility for a large portion of the
drainage system and to maintain a consistent, understandable, and supportive posture regard-
ing private responsibilities.
Recommended Policy
The policies recommended below are intended to retain the aspects of current practice which
are working well, to adjust certain policies to minimize conflict over responsibilities, and to
initiate expansion of City responsibilities for existing drainage systems when such expansion
serves the public interest. The following policies are recommended:
E-1. Initiate studies necessary to identify deficient drainage structures and conditions on City
property, evaluate the effect of these conditions both on and off City property, identify appropri-
ate corrective measures, and establish priorities For implementation.
A comprehensive, detailed study of all drainage basins in the City will be necessary. The
purposes of this policy may be accomplished as a part of the drainage basin studies recom-
mended in other.elements of the overall Stormwater Management Policy.
E-2. Initiate studies necessary to identify Feasible drainage projects on private property, establish
the justification for City assumption of responsibility for these projects, and establish priorities for
implementation.
This policy may also be accomplished as a part of a comprehensive, drainage basin study
which serves many purposes.
E-3. Establish annual capital budgeting for drainage improvements.
Based on the limited number of feasible projects which have been identified, a modest initial
budget of $100,000 to 5200,000 should be sufficient. As the results of drainage basin studies
identify additional needs, the budget level may be increased accordingly. Annual general
revenues appear to be an appropriate source of initial funding. If widespread needs and major
costs, possibly $2,000,000 per vear, are identified and accepted for public action, consideration
should be given to the development of a "drainage utility" approach to funding and the
issuance of bonds to be retired by utility fees. Any program of sufficient magnitude to justify
Stormwater Mcnagement Plcn d-318 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
Responsibility for Existing Drainage Problems
The current legal allocation of responsibility for the construction and maintenance of drun::_-_
facilities generally follows property ownership. Private owners are responsible for draina_u
problems on or arising from their property. The City is responsible for problems on or ari;;rz
from City property. The City has the authority to assume responsibility for problems on
currently private property after the acquisition of proper easements. There are many requests
for City, assistance with private drainage problems which have little merit as public purposes.
There are other private drainage situations, possibly not represented by citizen requests, which
could be considered legitimate public purposes depending on the level of involvement the
City wishes to undertake. The conditions under which the City should extend its responsibi%
ity into currently private situations are an issue.
Complaints arising from problems with City owned drainage structures are relatively fe,..•.
The study of conditions in the analysis area identified (1) several street drainage structures
which are undersize according to current standards but which are not expected to cause
significant problems, (2) one street drainage structure which is currently adequate but may
require replacement when more private development occurs, and (3) one street drainage
structure which is substantially deficient and probably warrants repiacement.Currently
available information does not indicate a need for a major program of drainage facility- con-
struction or reconstruction on City property, but the information is too limited to be conclu-
sive. Comprehensive analysis of the drainage needs throughout the City could reveal a
substantial construction need that is not being addressed.
There is little existing City policy related to the conditions under which the Citv should
assume responsibility for portions of the currently private drainage system. There is no
requirement to do so, but the City could determine that an expansion of City responsibility is
an appropriate increase in the level of City services to be provided for the citizens. in cor.si,i-
eeng such an expansion of City service, the following factors should be examined:
Problem severity.
Every property is affected by stormwater. It is reasonable to assume that private owners
should be responsible for basic grading, planting, and maintenance. On the other hand, th_r_
may be a role for government in protecting private property from severe damage.
Equity.
Many problems were created by private owners or were known at the time of purchase or
construction. Many owners knowingly assumed the risks of a marginal site or construction
practice in order to save money. The use of funds from taxpayers to correct self-imposed
problems is questionable. On the other hand, public intervention may be defensible .vhen
property owners are bearing an excessive drainage burden because of off-site conditions.
Extent of the problem.
The appropriateness of public intervention increases as the number of people affected in-
creases. Public expenditures which benefit hundreds of people are much more defensible t"'.In
those benefiting only one or two.
Benefits and costs.
Many requests for City 'assistance involve high costs to provide relatively small benefits. It
reasonable to restrict public expenditures to those activities which produce substantial net
benefits. Experience with requests for City assistance indicates that most projects may not
satisfy the cost-benefit test. On the other hand, larger projects which have widespread beref-i-7.
may not be easily perceived by individual citizens and may be justified through comprehen-
sive drainage basin analysis.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management P!cn 4•3 '
Policy Objectives
The current understanding of existing stormwater problems does not indicate a level of
severity which demands substantial immediate action by the City. The current system of
responsibility provides remedies either b% the affected party or through legal measures to
obtain relief from a party causing the problem. Nevertheless, requests for City assistance can
be expected, and considerable opinion that the City should expand efforts exists. Any actions
to expand City responsibilities for the correction of existing stormwater problems should be
supported by a thorough analysis of needs, proper solutions, and appropriate levels of public
and private responsibility. These conclusions support the following objectives for policy
related to existing stormwater problems:
1. To provide a high level of performance for drainage facilities on City property and for
facilities necessary to manage the off-site effects of drainage from City property.
1 To establish the financial capacity, inforrriation base, and decision procedure necessary for
the assumption by the Citv of currently private drainage responsibilities when conditions
warrant such intervention.
3. To recognize the continuing validity of private responsibility for a'Large portion of the
drainage system and to maintain a consistent, understandable, and supportive posture regard-
ing private responsibilities.
Recommended Policy
The policies recommended below are intended to retain the aspects of current practice which
are working well, to adjust certain policies to minimize conflict over responsibilities, and to
initiate expansion of City responsibilities for existing drainage systems when such expansion
serves the public interest. The following policies are recommended:
E-1. Initiate studies necessary to identify deficient drainage structures and conditions on City
property, evaluate the effect of these conditions both on and off City property, identify appropri-
ate corrective measures, and establish priorities for implementation.
A comprehensive, detailed study of all drainage basins in the City will be necessary. The
purposes of this policy may be accomplished as a part of the drainage basin studies recom-
mended in other elements of the overall Stormwater Management Policy.
E-2. Initiate studies necessary to identify feasible drainage projects on private property, establish
the justification for City assumption of responsibility for these projects, and establish priorities for
implementation.
This policy may also be accomplished as a part of a comprehensive drainage basin study
which serves many purposes.
E-3. Establish annual capital budgeting for drainage improvements.
Based on the limited number of feasible projects which have been identified, a modest initial
budget of $100,000 to 5200,000 should be sufficient. As the results of drainage basin studies
identifv additional needs, the budget level may be increased accordingly. Annual general
revenues appear to be an appropriate source of initial funding. If widespread needs and major
costs, possibly $2,000,000 per year, are identified and accepted for public action, consideration
should be given to the development of a "drainage utility" approach to funding and the
issuance of bonds to be retired by utility fees. Any program of sufficient magnitude to justify
Stormwater Management Plan A-318 Raieich Comorenensive Plan 3/90
the creation of a "drainage utility" will probably require bond funding to support major
capital costs in the early stages.
E-4. Use guidelines which recognize need, equity, and public purpose in determining the appro-
priateness of the City assuming responsibility for privately owned drainage facilities.
These guidelines may limit City involvement to those acquisition, construction, and mainte-
nance activities which:
*Provide protection to at lest 50 acres of developed property with at least 3 separate property
owners.
*Provide benefits which have value at least equal to the cost of acquisition, construction and
maintenance.
•Are selected through normal capital improvement programming processes according to
priorities determined by drainage basin studies.
*Can be accomplished within the constraints of available resources.
*Will result in easements or other measures to permit long-term City maintenance without
excessive liability for damage to private property.
E-5. Modify the existing "drainage petition policy' to improve consistency of application and
compatibility with other stormwater management policies.
The "drainage petition policy" provides limited Citv support for the resolution of private
drainage problems along drainage ways which do not meet criteria for inclusion in the pug"c
drainage system. Single-family, owner occupied lots are eligible for assistance. The fo:io:.•r._
adjustments to the policy are recommended:
*An annual budget for petition projects should be established to control the level of Citv
support and promote careful consideration of relative priorities.
• As a means of providing better service and efficiency of management, the City should
provide the design, materials, and construction with the petitioner providing one-half the t;,- ;
project cost.
•The acceptance of petition projects should be limited to situations which couid not have
reasonably anticipated by the owner at the time of property purchase or construction by the
owner.
*The administration of the petition policy should encourage methods which preserve water
quality, minimize off-site degradation, and are economical. Swales and grading solutions.
rather than piping, should be used when appropriate.
*Procedures for receiving and processing petitions should be adjusted to assign priman,
responsibility to the Engineering Department, assure thorough analysis, and provide appro-
priate and timely information to the petitioner and the City Council.
*Portions of the current policy concerning situations in which the City has full responsil: ti:n-
should be reconsidered and revised to reflect the policies adopted in the "Stormwater Mlan:1
; -
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan S'O-cre' .tc-cce-e^- o `_
ment Policy".
E-6. Develop an information program to increase citizen awareness of private drainage respon-
sibilities and potential stormwater effects.
Drainage issues frequently involve property which was purchased without full consideration
of potential drainage problems or improper assumptions regarding City responsibility for
correcting problems. A better understanding of drainage conditions and drainage law could
result in more problems being avoided and fewer appeals for City assistance. An improved
understanding of floodprone area regulations, private drainage easements, and maintenance
responsibilities can benefit property owners and the public decision process. An information
program should consider general public information opportunities and potential improve-
ments in information associated with property transfers.
F. Stormwater Management Financing
Equity and sufficiency are primary considerations in financing the stormwater management
program. As the City program evolves, new financial mechanisms may be needed to assure
financial equity and adequacy of resources to support new programs. Since many citizens
contribute little to stormwater problems and will benefit little from drainage improvements,
the existing tax system will not be a suitable source for financing a major expansion. in storm-
water programs. A more equitable system would allocate the full cost of managing new
development impacts to new development and allocate the full cost of correcting existing
deficiencies to existing development based on contribution to the problem or benefits gained.
The present financial system relies on general City revenues for administering the overall
stormwater management program and for maintenance and construction of drainage facilities
on City property. Generally, private property owners are responsible for drainage on private
property in both new development and existing situations. This is a reasonably equitable
system under the present level of City stormwater management. If the City should assume
new roles in managing the effects of new development or correcting problems which are
appropriately considered to be private responsibilities, new financial mechanisms will be
needed.
Fee systems based on runoff from property are receiving considerable attention as innovative
and equitable approaches to stormwater management financing. These systems usually
charge fees based on the amount of impervious area as a measurable indicator of runoff.
Development fees based on the amount of imperious area to be created and the average costs
of runoff control are especially appropriate when runoff cannot be effectively and economi-
cally managed on a development site. These development fees are usually prodded as an
alternative to on-site compliance with performance standards in a discharge control ordinance.
They are similar to the fee in lieu of performance which is frequently accepted to fulfill street,
+.itility, or other public requirements.
A "drainage utility" financed by utility fees is a recent innovation in financing maintenance
and the correction of existing problems. It has merit for localities which operate large-scale,
costly, ongoing stormwater management programs. The administrative.expense of collecting
fees based on impervious area precludes efficient utility fee financing unless annual program
costs are large. At this time, the "drainage utility" approach appears to be primarily beneficial
for localities which have unusual natural drainage problems. -
Recently adopted legislation for the City of Raleigh authorizes a facility fee for drainage
purposes. This legislation was drafted without the benefit of the understanding of potential
stormwater management practices which has been gained in this study. Even though the
authorized facility fee has similarities to the drainage fees described above. there are differ-
ences that create Jiff culties in matching it with currently perceived needs.: basic facility fee
Stormwoter Management Plan 4.320
Raleigh Comprehensive P!cn 3/90

principle is that the fee paver will benefit from the services provided and that the fee will `e
based on these benefits. 6Vorkable drainage fee systems appear to be based on contribution to
the problem rather than benefits, because drainage benefits are extremely variable and
to measure. The "fifty percent rule" which is part of the existing enabling legislation also
creates difficulties in equitably applying the facility fee approach with the stormwater policies
previously described. Heavy taxpayer subsidies for off-site discharge control would make it
extremely difficult to obtain on-site control fully funded by the development for the largger-
scale projects for which on-site control is most economical and effective. The inequity of fifty
percent taxpayer support for new development costs may become especially pronounced if
new taxes or new fees are imposed to correct existing conditions. Since the citizens of Raleigh.
are not accustomed to paying taxes or fees for drainage improvements. paring a lame part .
the cost associated with new development poses acceptance problems.
Policy Objectives
The policies previously presented propose a new level of City involvement in managing
stormwater discharge from new development and the potential expansion of City actions to
correct existing drainage and water quality deficiencies. If these programs are developed so
that substantial Citv funding is required, the impact on existing revenue sources will be an
issue. The following policy objective provides direction for financing new stormwater
management programs:
1. To develop an equitable system of stormwater management financing based on relative
contributions to the stormwater problem.
`ti T> Recommended Policy
The proposed system for managing stormwater discharge from new development includes
payment of a fee when there is a feasible alternative to the provision of on-site control meas-
ures. This fee would be used by the City to construct public discharge control facilities or ::
make other improvements to manage the stormwater impact from new development.
system for collecting and managing these fees will be necessary. Previously stated policies
also propose a framework for determining needs and setting priorities for the correction of
existing drainage and water quality problems. At this time, the potential program cope anti
associated cost are not defined. If the program should evolve to require major increases, n
City funding, an alternative to general revenue financing should be developed.
The following policies related to the financing of expanded storm water management
are proposed:
F-1. Develop a system for financing the public costs of controlling stormwater discharge from
new development.
The purposes of the development fee system are to provide for publicIv financed facilities
when on-site control measures are impractical. The primary method of discharge control
expected to be on-site facilities provided and maintained by the development. Fees in lieu or
on-site measures are to provide for publicly financed alternatives when sites are too small r:
economical on-site measures, when on-site controls afford little benefit, when more effectiv,:
public facilities have been planned, or when on-site measures are otherwise impractical.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Pion Stomnwater Management Plan d•?.
Characteristics of the development fee system should include:
-?? fee based on the increase in impervious area which reflects the amount of stormwater
increase expected after development.
- A fee level established to reflect average on-site discharge control costs per unit of imperi-
ous area.
-Fees to be charged to all new development which does not provide adequate on-site control.
-Fees to be required in lieu of on-site provision or permitted as an alternative at the discretion
of the Citv.
-Fee revenues to be spent only for projects which control the effects of increased runoff causec
by new development.
Enabling legislation will be required for the City to obtain the authority to charge fees in lieu
of drainage improvements.
F-2. Use general City revenues to finance the correction of existing drainage deficiencies until
annual costs reach a level which justifies a "drainage utility' approach to financing.
Suffi ent needs have not been identified to justify the creation of new financing methods for
improving and maintaining existing drainage facilities. The proposed drainage basin studies
could identify additional needs and could lead to a substantially expanded City role in drain-
age facility construction and maintenance. If such an expansion should occur, the creation of a
"drainage utility" approach to annual financing may be feasible. A "drainage utility" may be
justified if widespread needs and a long-term annual funding requirement of approximately
.?.000,000 are identified.
"Drainage utility" fees would be charged to each property in the City based on the amount of
uncontrolled runoff from the property as indicated by impervious area. The cost of establish-
ing and maintaining a data base for impervious areas and runoff controls for all property can
be justified only if annual revenue needs are high. The creation of a "drainage utility" should
be considered a long-range prospect because considerable time will be required to complete
drainage basin studies and to substantially modify the role of the Ciry if such a modification is
warranted. Enabling legislation is required before a "drainage utility' may be created.
IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose of this section is to describe an initial phase of implementation activities to
accomplish the policies previously presented. Implementation will include ordinance prepara-
tion, enabling legislation, budgetary action, staffing, additional research, and further definition
of policy, standards and procedures.
The implementation plan will require considerable staff, consulting, and financial resources.
The preparation of a discharge control ordinance is considered a high priority because it will
stabilize peak stormwater flow and curtail the increase of problems associated with increased
flow. Actions to develop the discharge control ordinance and obtain the legal authority to
charge fees in lieu of control measures are recommended to immediately follow adoption of
the Stormwater.kanagement Policy. Other implementation actions are less urgent and may be
undertaken over a period of several years, depending on the availability of staff and financial
resources. Since a good system of stormwater management practices is currently in effect, the
development of a well founded long-range program of enhancements and new initiatives is
Stormwater Management Plan 4-322 Rc:eigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
more important than rapid implementation.
i he following implementation activities are recommended:
1. Discharge control ordinance.
The establishment of a basic performance standard for stormwater discharge from new
development is recommended for early implementation. This will require the definition of
standards, the determination of acceptable management practices, the development of mainte-
nance requirements, ordinance preparation and adoption, and additional staff fer plan review
and enforcement.
2.Drainage fee legislation.
In order to provide alternatives to on-site discharge control, enabling legislation which will
permit fees in lieu of on-site performance is proposed. A proposal similar to current provi-
sions for streets and utilities should be presented for consideration by the North Carolina
Ceneral Assembly.

3. Drainage basin studies.
Detailed studies of all drainage basins in the City and extraterritorial jurisdiction are proposed
to identify (1) feasible public alternatives to on-site discharge control, (2) drainage system
needs on public property, and (3) drainage needs on private property which may warrant City
maintenance or facility construction. Contracts with private consulting firms will be required
to accomplish such an extensive study. Costs are expected to range from 51,000,000 to
:2.000,000. In order to reduce annual financial impacts and to assure quality results, the
studies may be staged over a two to three year period. An initial phase at S300,000 to S300,CO0
may be undertaken as a test of technique, results, and the need to proceed with a City-wide
effort. These basin studies should be coordinated with the drainage system inventory to be
conducted as part of the water quality plan.
4. Floodprone area ordinance.
The change from the alluvial soils method to a drainage area cut-off approach will require t? a
preparation of ordinance amendments and procedural changes.
5. Private drainage facility standards.
The preparation of amendments to subdivision and site plan requirements is proposed to
encourage preservation of natural drainage ways and prevent nuisance drainage conditions.
6. Stream water quality plan.
The federal stormwater discharge permit requirements are somewhat uncertain but are
expected to bedefined in the near future. Requirements are expected to include an extensive
drainage system inventory, water quality sampling, and analyses of pollution sources. The
initiation of these studies is proposed with the objective of preparing a plan :which meets
federal permit requirements and reflects local water quality objectives. Inventorv work :will
probably require the services of a consultant, and the cost may be as much as 5360A0. The
anticipated sampling costs for. this program may be $100,000 per year.
7. "Drainage petition policy" amendments.
Amendments to the resolution related to City assistance for drainage conditions on single-
family, owner-occupied lots have been proposed. Changes in the level of financial par-
ticipation and in definitions of responsibility should be considered. Assignment to a Council
Committee is recommended since the "petition policy",involves Council discretion rather than
a basic obligation of the City.
8. Staffing.
Additional staff will be needed to support the expanded stormwater management program.
The immediate authorization of an additional conservation engineer position in the Engineer-
3/90 Raleigh Comorehensive Plan
Stormwater Manccement Plan ? ^-
ing Department is recommended to provide the capacity for new ordinance development and
drainage study supervision. Upon implementation of new discharge control regulations, an
additional conservation engineer and conservation inspector will be needed in the Inspections
Department. Additional staff in the Public Utilities Department to develop and maintain the
water quality plan will also be needed.
9. Drainage capital budget.
The establishment of a capital budget for drainage improvements is proposed to create a
resource base for responding to drainage needs. A budget of $40,000 for "petition projects
and 5150,000 for other City projects appears to be a reasonable initial commitment. This may
be expanded if the results of drainage studies and Council deliberation support an expanded
City role in facility development.
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS Of THE NEW HOPE TRIBUTARY
In an effort to more clearly evaluate general and specific stormwater concerns as observed
under actual field conditions and to test the implications of possible stormwater policies, a test
basin was selected to be used as a case study and as a resource for data on current stormwater
problems. Criteria for the basin selection included:
1. the existence of a reliable data base of past and current problems;
2. the contormarice to typical urban land use;
3. representative development history and trends;
4. the presence of a network of streams, lakes, and existing drainage ways;
3. an adequate mix of public and private drainage facilities;.
5. and, the existence of both tloodprone areas as defined in the flood insurance study and
tloodprone areas defined by alluvial soils.
Review of these criteria and previous staff experience resulted in the selection of the New
Hope Tributary to Marsh Creek as the recommended study basin.
The study basin is located in northeast Raleigh and generally bounded by New Hope Road/
r ',c, 1 on the east, Millbrook Road on the North, Green Road and Arroww' ood Drive on the
west, and terminates to the south at its confluence with Marsh Creek (See tap 1). This 895
acre watershed has undergone substantial change during the last ten years. Original forest
iand'has been transformed into subdivisions, townhomes, apartments, offices, and shopping
centers resulting in increased concerns dealing with the associated stormwater runoff. The
land use in the :watershed (See tap 2) varies from residential subdivisions allowing four
.homes per acre to commercial sites allowing shopping centers and offices.
The residential area east of U.S. 1 and west of New Hope Road (part of Starmount Subdi-i-
lion) began to develop approximately 15-20 years ago. In the mid-seventies the large tract
along the main stem of the New Hope Tributary began to develop. This area can be further
identified as the residential area surrounding the existing lakes located within the watershed
and includes the North Shore and Brentwood Estates Subdivision. Full residential develop- .
ment was generally completed in this area ivithin the last two years. Around 1983, commer-
cial, shopping center, and multi-family areas adjacent to U.S. 1 and located upstream to the
Brentwood Estates area began to develop and influenced the drainage characteristics in the
Storrrwcter Mencgement Plan 4-324 Raleigh Camprei ensive Plan 3/190

lower part of the system.
Methodology used for the analysis study was divided into the steps listed below.
1. Inventory of the existing drainage system, including information on channel erosion, pipe
conditions, and other pertinent features.
2. Identification of existing and potential drainage problems from inspection of the historic
data base and from the field inventory.
3. Application of computer model simulations to demonstrate impacts of actual and/or
theoretical combinations of development and drainage conditions.
4. Testing of potential policy options on actual conditions found in the study area and implica-
tions of these options.
Inventory of Existing Conditions
The inventory phase of the analysis study consisted of a detailed field investigation to Collect
data on the location, cross section description, size, and condition of existing facilities. Both
private and public facilities were included. Also included was the collection of available da-a
` on existing lakes, an assessment of channel erosion, and related observations. City topo-
graphic and zoning mapping were used as basic data sources to input information for the
computer driven Raleigh Stormwater Model. Limited field surveying was done to deternv^e
critical channel elevations and finished floor elevations for some buildings in cri tical low 1-,7
t= areas. In addition, selected samples were taken of stream flows for water quality testing
purposes.
The inventory of the 895 acre basin covered approximately 23,500 linear feet (4.43 miles: of
defined drainage ways, including natural channels, piped channels, and four sign ificant
Approximately 29% of the defined drainage ways have been previously piped.
A generalized outline of overall drainage way treatment and land use is shown in Table'.
TABLE 1: DRAILVAGE WAY TREATMENT BY LAND USE TYPE
Drainage Way Treatment Land Use
Type Treatment % of Total Residential Commercial Public Streets
Piped - 29O7o 7% 19% 3%
Natural - 71%. 62% 9% N/A
Total - 100% 69% 28% 3%
It is noted that approximately 88% of the land adjacent to the main New Hope Tributary
stream channel has been retained in a natural
grass or wooded condition with an average buffer width 'of approximately 15 feet on each
Existing and/or Potential Drainage Problems
1. Historic Data Base: Complaint File Review
A review of the complaint data on file can be placed within three geographical areas con_:::::-
of: 1) the Starmount area located east of U.S.1; 2) the Northshore areas located north of `:? ..
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwoter Management P:on ?.
Hope Church road; 3) and Brentwood Estates, located in the southern part of the watershed
South of New Hope Church Road. The complaint data base did not indicate substantial
sources of concern in the Starmount area and is probably representative of actual conditions
since this area is gcnerally aiong the ridge line and at the upper reaches of the basin. Com-
plaints were much more prevalent from the North Shore and Brentwood Estates area. These
concerns included existing lake or dam conditions, some flooding, stream erosion and sedi-
mentation from up-stream development. Staff experience identified several complaints
associated with the shopping center development along North Boulevard including Ashton
Square and Tarn-more Square.
2. Flooding
ooding problems are evident in the Huntleigh Drive area. The street is subiect to overtop-
. ping during heavy annual rainfalls and four houses are subject to flooding fi.e. water abo%•e
finish floor elevation) during a 10 year storm event under existing developed conditions.
l nxee additicnal houses have been identified as having potential flooding problems under
future, fully developed conditions, with several other houses receiving crawl :pace flooding.
Inventory and results from the model studies indicate that the existing public and private
drainage svstetns at Huntleigh Drive are not sized to present standards and aggravate the
Gooding potential in this area. it is noted that the development in question was planned and
constructed prior to the City's floodplain ordinances and that these ordinances would have
regulated placement of houses in this area. In 1984, a 4-inch rainfall in 6-hours (approximatch..
equal tp a 10 year storm) caused substantial flooding in the Huntleigh Drive area and several
houses received minor damage. The City requested an update from the Corps of Engineers of
floodplain mapping to make sure that flood insurance needs are in place.
3. Drainage Way Erosion
Natural drainage ways. were inspected and any noticeable erosion was ranked according to
three general categories of condition - minor erosion, moderate erosion, and severe erosion.
Minor erosion is described as no apparent accelerated widening or deepening of the defined
channel. Moderate erosion is described as some acceleration of Mdening and deepening of the
defined channel. Severe erosion is described as significant acceleration of c? idcning and
deepening of the defined channel along with severe bank degradation.
The field inventory indicated the presence of some localized moderate to severe erosion
problems. Spots of severe erosion were identified at some of the channel meanders, at the
outlet of the dam of the two lower lakes, and immediately below several street crossings.
Approximately-50-60% of the problems were located downstream and in the vicinity of City
owned drainage facilities.
In general, the defined channels were evaluated to be in reasonably good condition, with the
exception of the localized moderate to severe conditions previously described. The observed
channel characteristics and conditions are consistent with other urban watersheds experienc-
ing increased runoff. Staff observations note that the overall channel and bank condition in
the New Hope Tributary watershed is better than most city-wide conditions.
It is estimated that the severe channel erosion problems in the study basin could be upgraded
to the moderate category for approximately $150,000 and that a comprehensive program to
upgrade all of the channel erosion problems to the minor category would cost 5550,000.
4. Sedimentation
Some sediment problems were identified in the field inventory and were consistent with the
complaints found in the historic data base concerning problems downstream from developing;
areas. In the main tributary and feeder streams some shallow areas were identified, which are
indicative of sediment deposits, and there is noticeable silting in the lake system.
stormwater Management Plan 4-326 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
5. Water Quality Samples
Limited water quality testing was done in the.New Hope Tributary watershed. Testing was
done for dissolved oxvgen, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, fecal
coliform, metals, phosphates, suspended solids, temperature, ammonia nitrogen, oil and
grease, and PH. Elevated levels of metals were found in some tests. No point source of origin
can be identified for the elevated metal samples and parking lot and pavement runoff are the
most likely source.
6. Drainage Structures and Lakes
The basin has four significant lakes situated along the main tributary which are privately
owned. The dam for the lower lake has been breached through natural erosion and storm
events. The two lakes located in the middle are currently under review by the State for dam
safety problems. The existing pipe and/or culvert systems, both public and private property.
are generally in good condition. There are some instances of undersized conditions, spec:i-
cally at the Huntleigh Drive location and a marginal condition at New Hope Church Road
where an undersized private system feeds into a properly sized street pipe culvert. There
were no signs of severe deterioration in the drainage structure network. Most of the -iced
network on both public and private property has been installed using concrete materials.
Some corrugated metal piping is in place on private property, specifically in the recently
developed commercial areas along U.S. 1. The field inventory noted a high percentage or
piping on the feeder streams which ran through the commercial and high density residential
areas. -
.7. Summarv
Run-off and stream erosion have increased in the watershed as development has occurred.
This has resulted in some older drainage systems becoming undersized and has increased :^e
i, potential of flooding to six of the total 600 residential units in the watershed. Three of the focr
existing lakes are in need of dam rehabilitation and all are privately owned.
Overall water quality appears good with preliminary indications that the streams are being
influenced by runoff from existing paved surfaces. The flooding potential would not be 3
current factor had present regulations been in effect at the time of development. Except fora
relative small number of specific locations, overall drainage and stormwater conditions are
considered reasonable and are probably indicative of the City's overall position in storm%%'a
management.
Computer Model of Watershed
Two computer programs, the Raleigh Stormwater Model and HEC-2, were used to simuiate
peak discharge/ out flows and water surface elevations for various combinations of develop-
ment intensity and stormwater management controls. The simulations assumed three :-
opment conditions: 1) undeveloped or 1960 conditions 2) 1983 conditions, and 3) fully
developed conditions as defined by current zoning-
For full development intensity, watershed discharge/peak out flow rates were calculated for a
stormwater management system consisting of on-site controls and a system of off-site, mai%?r.
minor regional controls to regulate discharge rates.
In addition, the existing lakes, considered as minor regional controls, were evaluated as
potential stormwater management devices. A simulation of the watershed, with and
the lakes, was developed for the same three levels of development, as identified previou;_Jv.
Design storms for the 10, 25 and 100 year event were used for each simulation.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwa'er Mcrcge.^-enr Pior,
c ; _-
Existing Lakes as.5tormwater Management Tools
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the benefits of the existing lakes in controlling discharges during 1960,
1935, and fully developed conditions in the watershed. If the four lakes in the New Hope
Tributary were removed, generally a 25 year storm event would become a ten year storm
event. The probability that this storm event would occur in any year would rise from a 4% to a
10% chance. Water would overflow the stream banks more frequently without the lakes in
place. Downstream erosion and flooding problems would be projected to increase as a result
of the increased discharges. The overall water quality would be anticipated to decrease as a
result of losing the lakes, since the water quality samples taken as part of this study tended to
support the lake system as a water quality management tool. As previously noted, three of the
lakes are in need of dam rehabilitation. Cost of these repairs, including possible purchase
from current owners and future maintenance liabilities, may actually exceed benefits gained
from downstream stormwater protection, recreation potential, etc.
Testing of Policy Options
1. Discharge Controls
a. General
Discharge controls are generally used to regulate post development peak stormwater dis-
charges to a preset specified rate. Many times this rate.is specified to be equal to the pre-
development peak discharge rate.
Figures 4-7 show the extent to which peak discharges have increased in the New Hope Tribu-
tary and Table 4 shows increases in flooding depths from the natural condition in the water-
shed to the fully developed condition with no form of discharge controls. These increases
negatively impact downstream structures such as roads and homes, both from flooding and
additional streambank erosion and sedimentation.
Tae impacts of a system of discharge controls using on-site controls and off-site minor/major
regional controls were evaluated using modeling techniques. For the purpose of this analysis.
the on-site controls were assumed to be detention/ retention devices. However, the results are
e:;::a!ly applicable to other feasible techniques or designs for regulating stormwater discharge.
b. On-Site
A model simulation of on-site controls was developed using nineteen (19) small retention
impoundments (ponds) located within the watershed as shown on Nfap 3. The average size of
the impoundments used in the simulation was-2.8 acres. A condition was established so that
::n der full land use development, he stormwater discharge would be equal to or less than the
natural, undeveloped state. Results from the model for a 10 rear storm event are shown in
Table 3 and include a summary of preliminary design requirements for the retention im-
poundments. Table 5 presents a brief summary of land and economic requirements needed to
implement this system of on-site controls. The watershed is developed to the extent that
current conflicts are evident between existing development and potential impoundment
locations and implementation of on-site controls at this time would be difficult. It is noted that
the on-site impoundments could have been implemented on a site by site basis as the water-
shed was originally developed and that this system of on-going stormwater controls would
have been available during the development process to address potential increases in storm-
,.%•ater problems downstream. A review of the geographical distribution of. the on-site system
tends to show that stormwater problems would be mitigated at a point reasonabiy close to the
Stormwcter Management Plan A-328 Raieigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90

source and consequently result in less exposure to downstream areas. Data collected irorn t:t?
model simulation indicates that an on-site system of small impoundments is a feasible techr.i-
cal and practical stormwater management tool for this watershed. This on-site system wou:-
require approximately 53.4 acres (6% of the total 894 acre watershed area) at a total estirnato"
cost of 52,726,501.
c. Minor Regional
A model simulation was developed using the same land use and discharge conditions except
that a minor regional retention system of three medium sized lakes (average 1:.9 acres) super-imposed as shown on Map 3. Tables 3 and 5 include respective summaries of the
preliminary design requirements and the land and economic requirements. The sites were
selected to address watershed stormwater needs and were not necessarily intended to add."5?
"retro-fit" needs. However, it is noted that two of the retention lakes are generally consistent
with the two existing lower lakes. The third retention impoundment is downstream of the
Tarrymore Square Shopping Center development and would be located between the Bren-
twood Estate residential area and the upstream commercial development. Data collected Er
the model simulation indicates that a minor regional system could be successfully imple-
mented and could be used to regulate full development stormwater discharges to the under: el-
oped rate. However, minor regional impoundments would tend to offer maximum contro!
problems immediately below the impoundment and then a gradual decrease in influence unt:i
the impact of the next impoundment becomes apparent. A review of existing land use sr.;
development patterns would suggest that a minor regional system in his :watershed wou!,i
need engineering analysis, including model simulations, to identify optimum vocations -o :;-at
these areas could be reserved and/or incorporated into a large development tract and that ::e
minor regional system could be implemented at reasonable costs and with minimal disruption
`r to established land uses. The necessary size and critical location of a minor regional faci!ity
decreases the flexibility of this system in the subject watershed. However, minor regional
systems would be compatible in watersheds during the earlier stages of development. The
minor regional system would require. approximately 47.9 acres (-;'7c of the total 394 acre ba:in:-
at a total estimated cost of $2,684,923.
d. Major Regional
A model simulation was run using a single large retention lake (48.9 acres). Land use and
discharge conditions were the same as used for the previous simulations. Tables 3 and
include respective summaries of the preliminary design and land and economic requtre-ner::-;.
Major regional facilities tend to be located in the downstream parts of the watershed and %ifar,
3 shows that the major facility used in the model simulation wag located near the conrluer.c
with Marsh Creek. Although the model simulation indicated that the overall basin dischar;._
could be controlled by this facility, it is noted that little or no upstream benefits would be
realized. Benefits would be available to the larger Marsh Creek basin. The size and location. .
this facility would decrease flexibility to incorporate the major regional system into the
ing land use and development patterns.
. ,..
- e. Summary
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Picn 4-3
A generalized outline of respective costs and land requirements for the three discharge control
vstems is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2: LAND REQL:IRE.MENTS AND COST OF O`-SITE, MINOR REGIONAL, AND
MAJOR REGIONAL DISCHARGE CONTROL FACILITIES
Land Requirements (acres)
Total
Impoundment
On-Site 53.4
Minor Rea onal 47.9
Major Regional 48.9
Total
Impoundment
On-Site x,726,301
Minor Regional 2,684,923
Major Regional 2,768,522
Cost (S)
Per Acre of
Drainage area
3, h8
3,001
3,093
Percent of Total
Drainage Area
5.97%
3.36°0
3.47°r
Per Acre of
Impoundment Area
31,0=8
56,0?=
36,615
All three systems were determined to be viable in controlling stormwater discharges. On-site
controls and minor regional retention were determined to be suited for the subject watershed
based on flexibility of site selection, implementation options, uniform coverage, and competi-
tive installation costs. Basin modeling is necessary to establish best site locations and design.
2. Foodprone Areas and Regulations
in the New Hope Tributary watershed, flood hazard soils are identified as being present along
ridge lines with zero drainage area as well as along low lying stream bank areas draining
several hundred acres. On the tributary that drains through Ashton and Tarrymore Square
shopping centers and under L.S. I (See .tap 4), flood hazard soils are identified in the upper
reaches of the tributarv which drains only 15-20 acres, become absent along the part of tribu-
tary draining 20-60 acres, and are identified again when the tributary drainage area is 60-233
acres. The inconsistency of the flood hazard soils approach directs unnecessary attention to an
area in the upper reaches of the tributary which has minimal or no risk of flooding and over
'.ooks a more significant area with greater risks.
Presently, detailed flood studies are required for new development where flood hazard soils
are present and the drainage area is greater than 100 acres. For drainage areas less than 100
acres with flood hazard soils, a soil scientist must check and correctly delineate the flood
hazard soils. In the New Hope Tributary watershed, a review of small drainage areas of less
than 40 acres identifies 30 properties as being floodprone using alluvial soils mapping. In
reality, these properties are not floodprone but will be regulated as such under current poli-
cies.
3. Regulation of Private Drainage Facilities
Private ownership accounts for approximately 97% of the drainage ways in the study area.
The City owns the remainder which consists of drainage crossings under the public street sys-
J
Stormwater Management Plan A-3.30 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
terns. A review of the data base and the data from the model simulations identified two
significant undersized drainage systems on private property, one immediately below
Huntleigh Drive and the other immediately above New Hope Church Road. Both systems
interconnect to the public street drainage system. For the most part, private drainage struc-
tures and piping have been installed and maintained in a satisfactory condition. There are
major problems with three of the four private dams and they are being addressed under the
State Dam Safety Act. The piped drainage system is in good repair and concrete pipe has been
the predominant material selection. There has not been any substantial relocation and/or
alteration of drainage ways resulting in significant problems to the public facilities or adjacent
properties.
Most complaints found in the data base and identified through staff experience were directly
related to run-off and sedimentation from upstream development during and after cor.=truc-
tion periods. Some observations were made during the field inventory that some velod tv
dissipation devices (rip-rap pads) are in need of maintenance and that some downstream
erosion is evident and caused by increased velocity in the piped systems.
The original system of four lakes are owned and maintained by the private sector. T`ese'.al<es
offer positive stormwater benefits to the watershed. However, the maintenance to safe :tar.-
dards and final existence of these lakes is at the discretion of the respective property owner.
As are changes in existing drainage way design, piping, and other stormwater matters wi*hm
the watershed. New subdivision developments and/or site plans requiring grading penml:s
and all areas within the regulated flood plain are reviewed by City staff for drainage system
design.
4. Preservation of Natural Features Along Drainage Ways
H:-
As previously noted in the inventory summary, most of the drainage ways along the main
stream have been retained as open channels. Natural wooded and grassed stream bu"Ors
(averaging about 15 feet on each side) are in place along most of the main New Hope Trb -
and the main stem has minimal piping.
The feeder stream system has received a high ratio of piping. Thisis attributed to the su• - n-
tial amount of this system running through developed commercial and high density res'Zon-
tial areas. Based on general staff observation, the ratio of piped drainage ways in this c: ater-
shed appears to be average, or slightly higher, as compared to similar areas within the Ci,-..
Current stormwater management philosophies promote open, natural drainage ways ana
stream buffers as best management practices for water quality, runoff, and sediment •_ontrot.
The analysis part of the study included a brief review of natural drainage features in 'he
watershed and possible impacts on current stormwater conditions and quality. The charn.ol
erosion and sediment problems observed in the watershed are indicative of problems may be improved by the infiltration and discharge reduction characterstics of natural :
age ways. Field observations confirmed that most of the severe channel erosion probieaxs
have occurred at the terminus point of the piped svstems and that the channel section; ..,;-
buffers are experiencing much less erosion and sedimentation problems. There are no pi.:n?;
for City owned greenways in this watershed.
5. Water Quality
Water quality sampling performed during the study was limited and produced only a
indication of stream conditions. Samples were generally rated good although some ^f
samples contained elevated levels of metals. Based on this limited testing Procedur:.:ne
overall stream quality would probably be classified as fats. Grab samples were taken
and below the existing lakes. A comparison of the respective results indicated that
3/90 Raieigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwcrer.",!cccce^-er-'- ar _ .
better below the impoundment which confirms the position that wet impoundments offer
positive water quality benefits.
6. Application of Current City Programs
The number of requests for drainage petition projects in the watershed is small. This is
probably a result of existing moderate erosion conditions. This could change as the watershed
fully develops. The existing drainage petition policy with the City limit of $1,000 per property
encourages work on small problems, but limits the use of the policy on larger problems.
Major problems such as the flooding of houses in the Huntleigh Drive area due to the under-
sized drainage installation would not fit clearly within the existing drainage petition policy.
The undersized pipe on City right of way could be addressed through the Capital Improve-
ment Program. The total solution is more complex since it requires the replacement of ap-
proximately 200 linear feet of connecting undersized pipe immediately downstream of
Huntleigh Drive on private property and probable work to the dam and spillway system to
reduce backwater elevations, which contribute to the flooding conditions.
The severely eroded streambank conditions identified in manv cases would not receive any
assistance due to the fact that the cost of City involvement would exceed the $1000 limit. Some
of the minor problems could be solved by simply placing a small amount of rip-rap on the
stream bank and would receive assistance.
7. General Conclusions
Problems relating to flooding, adequacy of existing drainage structures, private drainage
problems, etc., appear in the New Hope Tributary generally as they would in other watersheds
in the Citv. Erosion along other streams in the City are projected to be slightly worse than in
the New Hope Tributary.
The majority of the existing problems noted in this watershed occurred along the main stream.
while in other parts of the City these same problems occur along smaller collector streams as
well as along major streams. This can be attributed to the fact that in this watershed, most of
the development has occurred in the tributaries in the last several years, while development
has been in place along the main stream. As a general rule many of the existing regulations
seem to have worked well within the watershed. Most of these regulations were put in place
over ten years ago and some of the problems noted in this report could have been avoided
with minor adjustments in regulations to address specific problems such as the tloodprone
soils mapping issue. Problems were generally a combination of public and private responsibil-
itv.
An interim policy of stormwater management (adopted by Citv Council 7/19/88 - CR 7107)
has been applied to conditional use zoning cases. The policy states that storm drainage
systems should be designed such that the post-development discharge is released at a rate
equal to or less than the rate expected if the site were zoned R4 or the rate expected for the
existing zoning, whichever is greater.
If the rezoning is located where reduced discharge provides no benefit or if the site involved is
small 0 or 2 aces) alternative conditions may be applied.
Stormwoter Management Plan 4-3.32 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90

10
PEAL{ OUTFLOW TO MARSH CREEK
1960 - With and Without Lakes

Ul
3
O
y
O

?a:.
'coc
8cc
600
400
c
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
wish
is
wi)out i
Stortriwater Manogement Plan A-3.33
S'cf-l eve-, (Vi 1

PEAK OUTFLOW TO MARSH CREED
1985 - With and Without Lakes
'J
a
X
? wIU1CL'i
i
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.34 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
storm ev`nt ,v?)

PEAK OUTFLOW TO MARSI-I CREEK
"FULL' - With and Without Lakes

- 'J
c_
O
K
30CO
25--G
1 j?Q
ccc.
SDO
.J
'v
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
with
withCUt
Stormwater Mcnacement P'c-
;p 25 100
st rm event ;yr)
SIMULATION SET 1 - PEAK OUTFLOWS
Into Marsh Creek - With Lakes
2500
2000

U
15M
3

1000

`M
G

1960
19E5
• 'G 'CG
SIMULATION SET 1 - PEAK OUTFLOWS
At New Hope Church Rd - With Lakes
i 4CO
,
n 1 C? ...... .......... .
U
v
...
o EM
400
co ,
iG5 100
1960 ; .:
19E8
IL

Stcrmwater Management Plan 4-3.36 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90

25
20

U
v 1 SI
3
12
r..1
?
1a

SMULATION SET i - PEAK OUTFLOWS
At Huntleigh Rd - With Lakes
Z . . ...... . ..... ...
0
10 25 • 100
storm event (yr)
1985
RLIL
.ter.
"SIMULATION SET 1 - PEAK INFLOWS
At US 1 Road Crossing.
N
U
3
12
C
IF- f._

.................................. .. > ................ I -Z ..... . ............ .......
10 25 100
storm event. (yr)
3/90 Rc6gh CwVm1wnsive Plan
1000
am
600
400
200
. 0
1500 ? '
1985
Sl wnw,cl w Mcnogment Plan 4-3.37

u
n
O
:K
SINMULaTION SET
Peak Outflows to Marsli Creel:
i?
=i ' .
I
.1-27;Cf1
i
cr
n

$tormwater Mancgement Plan 4-3.38 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
TABL 3
..- saasovsssssassss?sasaasasassssasssssasasaaassas3sssasasaassasassa
Table Cesign of ponds for Simulat ion Se t 2 so that peak
outflows do not exceed that of a 10 yr storm under
natural conditions.
PEAK OUTFLOWS (cfs)
-
----- POND DESIGN

WS ----
natu ---
--------
ral full ----
pipe --
peak ------
depth ----------
storage -------
dimensi -----
ons
(in) (cfs) (ft) (cf) (ft)
ON-S ITE PONDS
11 23 94 24 21.8 2.6 104000 100 x 400
12 38 327 36 35.9 3.1 620000 100 x 2000
13 38 327 36 35.9 3.1 620000 100 x 2000
14 27 123 24 26.2 3.2 192000 100 x 600
15 12 65 24 11.3 1.8 90000 100 x 500
16 30 204 24 29.0 3.6 176000 100 x 700
17 32 420 48 79.5 4.3 946000 100 x 2200
.6 47 139 36 46.3 3.8 152000 100 x 400
19 23 100 24 22.4 2.7 135000 100 x 500
31 76 392 36 74.9 .4.7 893000 100 x 1900
32 41 114 36 34.4 3.0 150000 100 x 600
33 34 89 24 32.3 4.2 84000 100 x 200
34 20 160 24 18.2 2.3 368000 100 x 1600
35 33 151 24 31.9 4.2 210000 100 x 500
-? 36
:e 25 107 .24 23.4 2.8 140000 100 x 5"'0
20 93 344 48 85.8 4.6 506000 100 x 1100
21 30 133 36 27.5 3.4 170000 100 x 500
22 118 292 60 115:4 5.0 300000 100 x 600
23 46 -246 36 43.6 3.8 385000 100 x 1:C.0
total 5241000
$rGICNAL - 1 PONDS
I 246 1208 3 x 60 .245.7 4.3 3483000 150 x 540C
II 160 588 2 x 60 157.2 4.2 2016000 .150 x 320
:11 274 960 3 x 60 267.0 4.4 1386000 150 x Z:;•:
total 6885000
REGIONAL - O NE P OND
306 1906 3 X 60 305.0 4.7 7708000 .200 X 8200

3/90 Raieign CorroFenenslve Plcn Storrnwater Mancger^e^.t P c^ _ ;
ABLE-4
FLOODING DEPTHS AND DISCHARGES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE
NEW HOPE TRIBUTARY FOR THREE DISCHARGE CONTROL SCENARIOS
--------------------------------------------------------
M
LOCATION NATURAL FULL DEV. FULL DEV. FULL DEV. FULL DEV.
CONDITION W/NO PONDS W/ONSITE W/3 REG. W/1 REG.

-------------
-----------
----------- PONDS
----------- PONDS
-------- POND

CALVARY DR. --- -----------
FLOOD DEPTH 2.4 7.7 2.6 7.7 7.7
PEAK IN 82 747 92 747 747
PEAK OUT 82 747 92 747 747
WATERBURY RD.
FLOOD DEPTH 2.0 8.8 3.2 8.8 8.8
PEAK IN 52 1001 133 1001 1001
PEAK OUT 52 681 133 681 681
COMSTOCK RD.
FLOOD DEPTH 3.1 9.5 4.0 9.5 9.5
PEAK IN 116 819 20'2 819 819
PEAK OUT i16 753 202 753 753
U.S. 1
FLOOD DEPTH 4.1 9.9 4.3 9.9 9.9
PEAK IN 113 489 127 489 489
PEAK OUT 113 385 126 385 385
SARATOGA DR.
FLOOD DEPTH 5.5 9.1 1.8 5.6 9.1
PEAK IN 160 588 21 157 588
PEAK. OUT 149 455 20 152 455
HUNTLEIGH DR.
FLOOD DEPTH 10.1 12.6 io.9 11.0 12.6
PEAK IN 382 1736 404 386 136
PEAK OUT 260 .1713 333 3713 1713
MARSH CREEK
OUTFLOWS 308 1918 394 367 305
** Flood Depths are in feet.
Peak in (disc^a:.es) are in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Peak out (di.sc:,ar^yes) are in cubic feet oe; second (cfs).
Stormwcter Management Plan A-3.d0 Raleigh Comorenensive Plan 3/90
W

TABLE 5
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR DISCHARGE CONTROLS
--------------------------------------------
ON-SITE
IMPOUNDMENT DRAINAGE LAND CONSTRUCTION LAND TOTAL
NUMBER AREA REQUIRED COST COST COST

------------- (ACRES)
---------- (ACRES)
-------- ($)
-------------- ($)
-------------- (S)
---------

1
16.8
1.2
$20,701.66
$36,000.00 ------
$56,701.66
2 59.2 6.0 $112,919.43 $180,000.00 5292,919.43
3 59.2 6.0 $112,919.43 $180,000.00 $292,919.43
4 22.2 1.8 $35,432.22 $54,000.00 • $89,432.22
5 10.3 1.5 $20,104.51 $45,000.00 $65,104.51
6 32.4 2.1 $34,426.87 $63,000.00 $97,426.87
7 164.9 6.6 $161,220.96 $198,000.00 $359,220.96
8 28.8 1.2 $28,285.00 $36,000.00 $64,285.00
9 21.6 1.5 $26,229.51 $45,000.0.0 571,229.51
10 146.5 5.7 $148,769.36 $171,000.00 $319,769.36
11 20.7 1.8 .$30,629.58 $54,000.00 .$84,629.58
12 17.5 0.6 $15,362.64 $18,000.00 533,362.5:
13 33.8 4.8 $72,335.82 $144,000.00 ,5216,335.8
14 27.3 1.5 $36,437.84 $45,000.00 $81,437.94
15 16.9 1.5 $26,910.07 $45,000.00 571,910.07
16 90.3 3.3 $86,939.65 $99,000.00 $185,939.65
17 21.1 1.5 $32,043.40- $45,000.00 $77,043.40
18 60.2 1.8 $54,983.75 $54,000.00 $108,983.75
19 44.7
----- 3.0
------ $67,849.30
------------- $90,000.00
------------ $157,849.30
----

894.4
53.4
$1,124,501.00
$1,602,000.00 --------
$2,726,501.00
MINOR
------ REGIONAL CONTROLS
-----------------
IMPOUNDMENT DRAINAGE LAND CONSTRUCTION LAND TOTAL
NUMBER AREA REQUIRED COST COST COST

------------- (ACRES)
----------- (ACRES)
-------- ($)
-------------- ($)
--------- (S)

1
415.4
24.2
$617,855.58 -----
$726,000.00 --------------
$1,343,855.58
2 262.7 14.3 $362,403.31 $429,000.00 $791,403.11
3 216.3
------- 9.4
----- $267,664.67
----------- $282,000.00
----------- S549,664.•i'
------------

894.4
47.9
$1,247,923.56
$1,437,000.00 --
52,684,323.:6
MAJOR REGIONAL CONTROLS
IMPOUNDMENT DRAINAGE LAND CONSTRUCTION LAND TOTAL
NUMBER AREA REQUIRED COST COST COST

------------- (ACRES)
-------
--- (ACRES)
--- ----- ($)
-
---
-- ($)
--
----------- (S)
--------------
1 -
894.4 48.9 -
-------
$1,301,522.41 -
$1,467,000.00 $2,768,522.41

3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
Stormwater Manogement'Plcn s-3.-
i
r// '>?IL rs.()Qrl Air.'.-?? • •?r-
r

;zr 6.
-,•`\ • fir. ? _JZ• ; , ,??
? r ?y
r •? -{ ?
17 N t I-

.. wl
.+?c,. aa?%jr?"-''__,..•-. .? y?? ,
I ' : ''•?? ??? •o \'? _'!ti''`\??w ?.? ?._.:,.?'~r?'? \ •\`?•.-ate . c?-? , J--? :
72 - `¦ ` ,
• o : a• :. a '.aa=w1=_?-?? J'/ /, `? \ ;. ,crctisa... v -1
.l3 ?:,;?•?• _??op-:,., ??-' i1?=••"`ter."- :t? ??` i .
l ="? nor °.]:.?r . a:•:"?,???r'?e ???. / ^?)' _'-- ?-: ?s '!
a• re cool /}?a. " i __ eye ` e •+r? z-°--- _-- o ?
: }r
• a3e.: a !?;; .?, _? ._1 L:o' >'? rte, -s i'_ nr-r_.4ji0
¦.4 •? e•;Te.? _ =? SJI ?' ?? '' cif ?'`?.? eoo ` - ??,• i
i171 'a ?? ...Y-? 's.. ?w...:e , -__•.?-- ???•.?e¦e.111I 1
e Z , Ile, : ?/? 1' ?- ' 1~ .'ii'i •.' ,• r..... , _
? ((,7?= .?! a=.sgooe sa OQ AAE G? es.-:e i
?. 1.r_ A I I
1• f '' -Itv o. '.[IOM 1
• •??• -?% ?1• _`? -s,- ^v-.; \ ' r? r• `. Of ¦EO7 YC MT of cj%rx El CMOIMCEMIMO• t
?`a ?! 1' '• ^ u ' - ` NEW MOPE TR18UTAR Y I
WATERSHED
Stormwaier Management Plan 4-3.42 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan V90
•
w ?

r
Y1?:
0,0
i
1
i
1 -
1 . 7dRRY1i00Rt .? ?' '^
tlOtVt110tt a ?TON ` d1JRMOUMT,
/SUUl.11d'i pt-lo
., I
-eo _L ?/'?: ' ?_1C .f1?1 ?r?°•••?OIVId10N' .
,lit .? ... ''.- •?-'?.,-' :.? ..-.w??' ;3e -\: .
COMMRRCI4L ,•' s
..'?. •! i _ ? _ ~ ..? ?. - ?n n<.. ^ 1' :tea • i
'?• - - ?,•-• t?MC USE lCUNO.fr l_ :? •e.e.-_-.,- __? .?.
i ' <` ??- ''?Y•? ? -. _. ?? ?? 1 ?f?•f?rEM'?,o• CEMrw.U CMfi?Er•.r ...
I ?,?• s' - - _ ' '•_.• NEW MOPE -RISU'aRY
!?_ ` '.•• .riL.? ?_ - VdaTERSrIED-_AN0 .;Sc'
' N•O f

3/90 Rceigh Comorehensive P!ar.
Sror--- crer mcracen-e^ an _ . _ "
E
J
• I •t? L^??^• .? t 11 ??L;?11? ?y '• ? •,?LI' ?? ti. ;.?. 7????r ^.• ?1':r ???
I:: 4
Jl?i(a ?Ll,+ ? _ e,J` r'-1?"?r".? f •?? ?r /^ ? tl CL
tab! 1 ?i?Lr?C???C ?aJ"? ??' (? '?Z-? ???i i?,: V"•? . ?./ ? i -
i./ ?? L r •?.1 /?' ? , Yy?,A=?+ ? 1 r ? I Mf+ J ? '??_ `•?la b' %p
r a• .
L lot
?? f fc"'aS P3iy. w? • F'???'"aC'+ ?i r? =? ?'`. \ ? ?\?t? r i ?4
??C aeo?,?d .:2 It
?' F " C1Yh a` w//?i ? ? ?4"r'??; • '` e , i • e ,! ? • /
i ?C?s; a .r'°.e a? °??? _!? i •??t ?? • s?'O? e . + ,a , ,r•,, 1
10
.n?+ ."'/.-•' `:lie ? ?7'r}•e q•?? '? ,. ????_.?.?V ?•? "`?../I ••.r?.., _o . to ?e •..?i ^'? 1 I
1r p qil? e• ? 1?7. ; y.? // a a•'ae.e•v>•..e aap ?``^ '
•r.j• •ja ieepe :''?'•?°?:_ --?y? /ro!? % ° Taes••n• _ ?10? - _1
???. ?n ^•f!y !-t ,h ?•.L" '?J. ._•Ce=11 ?'^r%,, <f' i•„• I=a- ayseaoo°y'? a .'
,owe ?'_ •'a .. - o. >., d•? /°r: -,?•- s?'_. i I
Eaj? ?1:. _??: ' '• .i :^ .• S.? y.;!f•>:?•._-' S -v?a'ovee `I:ed I
?• _ .^ t'y• i'L •?? _:???_ - .` _? 207 e ??:."r°? I
? Yai• t , a?? ?'?? ?. i •y a.tr??? > >:""e .: ?•` . .eee `_?1?c _ _?ere x ,•-
1 ? •? - r /? .?e1T'L 111Mf0 lOUNO?N• • OM !RL •e6.?e ?• a a? s ?• ?t.
, ? i ?? ••/ YINOA •LGION?I ?.2ae••? m•?e qe ae?r '
QLAMCS
a.•,_. ¦AEGIOMAL ?L_•-_?'? - a v??'are
! F??. ?? ;? ' ^r? l? '' ?•a'•? - '•' ]LmARTYCMT Of G[NT11 l[£MOtMEC11tM? I i
?? j? ' ?. = "? J ^-?• z' - _ NEW MOPE -R18UTARY
rrt: ?•r. ;??_ ?"? WA'eoSME?•3QtSCF4AGE I
-n- -0RrVC'- SCENARIOS
Y?I ]
Stormwater Management Plan A-3.AA Raieign Comprehensive Plan- 3/90
w
?o.
CaPOOK
I it
..? ?? ^•/ y„ S?a'?••. •J / J[ ~ ?e.? F ? ??1- .1 ` ? l j+ Y'?'• ?.j?.'.••.f'r?`?t 1 j
NOT

s•??f• ? ?:, .?; o , o' nL.Kyv?'?J',a•G3bt?,;C?? ?' ?•?%,?•; _ ,• r?/
°•?'%'` f+y"?j` _?.J_ . •? t . _ `71 ?.•?- ?) ``F :.. 1-, Is?h_ `• ' +?LL• 0*05 rJ'. yRZ
?? C y?j?' . 't l:?i ? '., •: +'! - -r ??` li ? ? tN 7l'iv ei•?91 i rr.'•I
' '1.i??1j'???? j ? ?j is i a=?. ? ,?. ?1: ? E'+lts? ??(100? 't?..•3 / ." ,s .
?a a. all •l \:i .• fM<ti/-?Y?/.w,'r^,'?.?+ ? v `•.....e'`}'?/r?? o:? _!. yiJ(.e-?'
??/ ?:o bay•ai?'I il'`n:io ``''CRe,???? ? /+e1'tdaa°e°? o..a.°an.. '• I/T?'' -
a o •r rM-• O ? l?}?re••? ,`O? \ ;1 w??. w1.iaw-•.? ii _
Coo
iotaq' ?a`rCOS•%'.g ,• 3 F ( .e ?! - ' ?" :+
e aio?. ° o'i",? r. '?. 'L_ C??13 ^ ,i•?.a '' ? s? ?' oat T?"'dl
12,
1, 13
•b ?°? yQ^ ? ?'?' - `' l1, .?? ?`'.?j_.`',aS"°' 43?/??`." .>•J.. ae-.e•.:oa'o ?_ _ ??.. '
•, 1111 _''_''1_ ~• y a0 ?•?•. .... t jF .AAj C.yw
"?? ?L 'eoa ?.d•!. ` a OEPAPirErr 7F :E%rRAL E%,;,"EEa1Md
M n
PE_ ? VARY
WATERSHED
J % _ r ?+?--.? ?t?'' e` ? ?.i?'^` ` _J? '? F:.JE)C MAZ ARO Sop.
?77??
..eve. •7 . ;? ; ? s . \ ,
•+ • _. 1 ?
-wATC113ME0 IOUNOAM .. ?. " .-..
FLOOD HAZARD SOLSLWIT - ^-al -
® AREAS LESS THAN 10 ACHES-PRCSENTLT FLOOO?RONC ACCOROINO To ALLUVIAL SOILS
?AAtAS cRtATER TNAN SO Acllcs•PwtsENnT Nor rLOOOPRONt A4COl10wa TO ALLUVIAL saL
` .
WP•
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
Stormwcter Meracerrent P!cn 1•".4.,
O

0
U
z
lul

l
r,
s
r Xkj
,I .
41
a?
'-d
V
3
? Q
ro
0

n?,I
0
Q ?
O
4
V

yOSroud aSSOdoidd
Z -E aajzvd i 7vioy
VT s aaxvAvoxa
= asQOorld
asNma
= a=ia
mu xS aSyovdKi asvruam do sauod d0 'dam x ' TT
quautasva uoTgonsgsuoo uig4iM Z'T
SyIS Loaroud NO aaivo 'I samvruSNi 3o mov d0 uamgm] gyLoy aHy'dxiLss ' OT
' KivgdXS ' Sax dI
[X] ON [ ] Sax L XMHd02id
sIH.L NO HSn -doa aaLsan0au xrisaoiAadd NHHS slip isd tot mimaS mm sAvH .6
[X] ON [ ] Sax l II SM -do ' I SM
'M2i0 'MOH 'VS Imno2iy sv aaiaissvgo aSHs-daLvm v xi asmorI Loapo-dd SIHy SI .8
asnaAt :NISVE -dSAI-d -L
g5u2ag TS x99a0 4nuTWM :-dHAIU/JnIVaUjS LSHSOUD 30 HKVN .9

Z:VSZ *dS peO'd xen xoog oq uoz:I2gs
pvog smeTTTTM uTgszxe aqq moag aaMas ITAva ;o 499; 006 S TggvluTxoa
= OSH 'sxuvxawn `sdammx a'd02t scmoNI) Noimooq OI3IOHds
q TaTag ,;o Ito : XLID 'do NMOy LSS2itiM
a3[2M : X=00
' (dVX HOKyy'd) xuoM aHawnd 30 Noiivo0rI ' S
anoge sv auies euoq pug sseappV
as Eu'eN Al-FO • ar uo:Iuag • S • Q ' ZEK USSIn1OM HNOHd
' SSH2iaQFI 'TITI0I990 HI'CdOcTdOO HUSISNOdSHE -do aXVN S i INHDV .= HrIB'dOIrlddv dI ' v
0OV £-068- 616 : ordoM) YIN = (HKOH) 2iE99nN HNOHd SdaaRO ' £

Z09LZ ON TA iaTVH 06S xoS ' O' d = SSHdaQ'd suaNM0 ' Z
q T9TEg ;o 4i0 : s9VN SdaNMO ' T
' aKI2id HSVarld ' yNMMJKNVX
rvassin o-diANs 30 NOISIAIa 'O'N sly Oy mas as amoHS SHIdoo (L) NSAHS 'SURaNIONs
d0 Sd'dOO sHL O.L asas as armoHS xoi.LvJIridcTv aaLaridKo0 SIHI do xdOa (T) HALO
98LT-££L (6T6) auogdaTay
xamdoa NHOr *uK NS.Lvd 1TSi?-TSZ (6T6) auogdaTay
S£SO-9Z9LZ ON 'HJISrIti2I s-00-MfISSO :N.LL'd
S£56Z XOS 'o'd 068T-Z0t8Z ON 'Nolf)XIMIM
Ss02if10SH2t ZFItTt]ytlN QAIK 0681 XOS ' O' d
'H,T,mH 'aRHmO-djAma 30 mmmuuvcisa ox AK= 30 yNmT.L2ivdHQ
yNaKaDF xvK rMINS UOUTANS 30 NOISIAIa suaamIfwa 30 Scam
JNINRVgcl xyI'Irdnb 'daIVM 2iHHNIJNS y0I2iySIa Noimi im
HOILVDIALLUSO TOV HOIMOHS rxnaIAIQNI sHinbHu Lvm slip as saImxoi.L iN
sONS2i MN00 NOIJ.VOlaIy?i30 TOV NOILOSS mdinbau L Hm SyITWHd HQIMNOILvm
uami NH miuiSIa HHy Oy souvoiaixoN suinDaH Lvm sLngasd HQIMNOIivx
,dog Kuoa NOI.Lvoirlddv INIOr
: aI xoi.Lo I
??? : QI xsa

i
adV'MYil3d%OSBH
'3
•TEta:jsnput pua Tatqueptsaa auros
ggTm T2ana Tquauturopaad c uLuaciouci `ximmomms ao asn cmva SI Llum s
('pagovgqv Adoo) 'ueTd antsuatlaaduroO 066T tloaLM sot go axed 2 we
u2Td auaur95euem aa:j!eMutao:js i paadOPe 'seq tjbtaT'eg ;o xatO ate, -xdoo
HO'dd.Lv .'MDaDOdd SIHI 'doa asuiriZ5au Si xvgd axHKaE)dNvx uajvMTnT2Io,Ls v .3I -a
• 9At:j-equasaadaa HoO Aq p96p9TMou3[o2 pua (p9uoEq:4-e =oa uo-cgvui=9:i9a
spuE1'49M) uStaTvu go A:4tO atp Aq pa=o;aad uoi:tvau-rTap spuaT4aM
SNIT NoIytt'3 irisa mu ao S.Namovgci nu O,L UitAH'IHH SIMS
v.L,va = SaarioNI 'mtw.Lr sNOo v xS aHBd2i adaci SFIM NOIy`dsxirisa 3I .0
('aTg2TFeAa SON) 'yOSr02td
xS aHj,:)vd TI HE Oy SaNVrLLaM Hd Hf)O.LOHd HAI LVXKHSHHdHU ' H'ISK'IIKAK 3I .9
('sbutMeaa 4ovaquoO pate-egq-e aaS)
' 7U'dHdOldd HH.L
No saxvq amv 'sxvaa.Ls 'sawTmam 'I'IK JNIMOHs dvx NOI.L mirisa awsluam 'tI
' aHHz)vjz'd as arMOHS OdHS HHy N Odd HSNOdSHH
[ ] ON [x] sax zos HNOa nox HAvH
' lDaMId aHSOdOUd HHy xS aHIDHddV HE
LVK HOIHM va-dd Lixaad HHy NI SHIy2iHdO'dd OI2i0ySIH dO HONHSadd SHy JNIa2ivEm
(OdHS) 'dHOI330 NOILVA-dHSHHd OIUOISIH HIVIS sHi L:)vmuoo Oy aa-dinbau aw nox '9T
' aHHov.LLv as armoHS HSNOdsau
[ ] oN [xi sax cos HNOa nox SAvH ' IMPO'id aHSOdOUd
SHm xS amomay as XVX LVHL r ZUV IIPMHd sHy NI yKyISVH TdOLLIHO *do SHIOMS
aHNH,LvmuHy do asuaf)NvaNH miLsia 'doa aasodoud do QH.LSI'I xrI7vuHaaa z"
do HONHSSUd HHy JNIadVDHU SAM) SOIA'dHS SHI'dHHSI3 SNI2iVK MMOLLVN dO/aNv
(smash) aoimdSs sairicnIM = HSI3 's-II = iovi oo oL aH2in0au auv nox 'ST
-aoq aoaaquT paso oa eqq go 4ua Tlv aq4 utgoaTas uT aTgaoTgova
Iu94x9 urnurtxaur 9u4 04 paptoAV 8a9m spurnTgaM • sveav pu2TggA UT pagvooT
9a2 We sure6a-48 AOTTO3 TT'eoi I saaMas 4TA2a ean4vu S ' S.LDVdLSI
awTuaM Sziximi T oL Naxy.L sauLsvm HSON 'osiv - Sawimax xi ZAo asI2 uvo
HE ISM ALIAIJZV SIRS IVIM SHAHI'IHS S,N Dl IddV SHy xHM SNOSVHU HMS ' VIT
•tI TaTrU 3o qTD atta 3o uot45tpstanr T2taogtaa942a4xa 9144 ut pvou
avn Noad oq 0v-I go gsaM puE oq an pagvooT st goTgA Baav aoTt,lgs TADU2ag
tS 9q4 aOj UOT409TTOD aag2Ma4s2M aptAOa Oy =xHom almdOldd do HSOdUnd '£T
•s uTMEap
LT X TT PaWV44V aaS •uotsu94xs aaMag E4TUL$ :ttAVaO A:z-e:;nqTzEL
Ua9:4s914 q5U2a.S tS , (SNVUd HO'dS.LV) ?Blom aHSOdO*dd ao NOIydI-dosaa ' ZT

ermodsIa ;3mmas ao aOHiam aasodoud sI Lvm ' arievJIZddv 3I
RAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
April 5, 1993
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
NCDEHNR
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Hazen and Sawyer, P. C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
919 833-7152
Fax: [phone]
Re: Big Branch Western Tributary Gravity
Sanitary Sewer Extension
H&S No. 3986
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Seven copies of the Joint Application Form for Nationwide Permits that require
Section 401 Certification Concurrence are enclosed. Also enclosed are seven copies
of the wetlands delineation drawings.
Wetlands reconnaissance was performed in the field on March 4, 1993. The
location of wetland areas were acknowledged by Eric Alsmeyer with the Corps of
Engineers Raleigh field office. The wetlands are also delineated on the construction
drawings for the project.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
KFC/wp
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dale Crisp
New York, NY • Armonk, NY • Upper Saddle River, NJ • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC • Richmond, VA • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Fort Pierce, FL • Jupiter, FL • Miami, FL • Bogota, D.E. Colombia
I It
DEM ID: ??aSa
ACTION ID:
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. BOX 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890 P.O. BOX 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: City of Raleigh
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: P.O. Box 590, Raleigh NC 27602
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME) : N/A (WORK) : (919) -890-3400
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Mr. D Benton Jr City Manager
(Address and phone same as above.)
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP).
COUNTY: Wake
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: City of Raleigh
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Arproximately 5,900 feet of gravity sewer from the existing Williams Road
nu= station to Rock Ouarry Road (SR 2542)
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: Walnut Creek, Big Branch
7. RIVER BASIN: Neuse
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY ? YES [ ] NO [X]
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
1.2 (within construction easement)
11.
NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED:
DRAINED:
FLOODED:
EXCAVATED: 1.2
TOTAL IMPACTED: 1.2
1
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS): Bicr Branch Western
Tributary Gravity Sanitary Sewer Extension (See attached 11 x 17
drawings.)
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. By nature, crravity sewers tvoically follow streams and are
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF
ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [X] NO [ ]
RESPONSE SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [XI NO [
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY.
(See attached Contract Drawings.)
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT. (Not available.)
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
Wetlands delineation performed by the City of Raleigh (Wetlands
Determination Form attached) and acknowledged by COE representative.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT; ATTACH
COPY. The City of Raleigh has adopted a stormwater management plan
as a part of its March 1990 Comprehensive Plan. (Copy attached.)
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Predominantly rural, with
some residential and industrial.
F.
r
WSCU QtMMAPP
i
IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
r
?oCJ
h p W .? ? /'
?^? iw S'C 113m1UHS?, n?LL F Q
04
I W v
06
1 \:: h
z?z r` \/ "s? /?E ? - ? ? aJb f -??• .,?`?.L rlt ?•?v. •`?..? ?? ???????i g
s 88. U?
,Gl._1
)TI
i?)i'?l?\?(?'._I)) Lt?.?=\_.' L'.;.=\\\ .?-_St?..n?[e: ? f ?I??rll? •\(?,`.? ???_ ? .tl ) e
1100
-ov
110
W, 1 S
? /?1 ? ? e iii Gf•- (`? f \`11? \? '?? .l\.. ???s???? ? e \ "( ?? ? \ C ?.J`?S
r tQ /,'it?\!f r_.z( l \\K\ll
A?c
iC
\?( ?? Gam' .?` ?• .? _ t? $ v,
?J, •(< '? , , ? (? :.. \ ?) -? ? mac. I ,? ?•
E., •"T,_-? a"'( I ,; f F?1 ?'?1\?u c, .. ) _???-:.::_.j_;jjjr-lf?;jJ?`-`r, `? - ) \\ ( ( `='I/ r
Jig
? 1 +? •,I ? w jai ? ( ? l ? / ,? ,??? ????k'1U (^???. I I ))?
) )/ ? ? e onz './_ ? " sas •b:w,a ) ? _ ? ?4-L (?<? I ?.?1?? ??/ ? \?/.mot f!. r??? ?' ` 1 ? ?\ ?, ? p?
A l - ? ? ? , 1 p ?,/? ~p( ?.; r/- ? ?))? e it L"`Vm `-?
I?y?•e. / J ? •i ?// \ ? ? ?I ' li( 1C Il??i ?\?,?? ? ?,I p° - -?? a -. `?' - 1.
>L WE'T'LAND DL'I'ERMINA VON 111ORM
9:00 A.M. COt1NTY:._.w +l,
COORDINATOR: A.M. l'akCiawal TIME:?p.g P.M. DATE. 31419 __
NEAREST TOWN: Raleigh _ WATERWAY:. Tribut_rY to Biq Branch
01JAD:arner LOCATION: -iFan lvortmest or 1-4u taward mock pua.ry 141
PROPERTY OWNER: ( NAME/ADDRESS) PARTY DOING WORK: (NAME/ADDRM)
CITY OF RALEIGH Hazen & Sawyer
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 4011 W.- Chase Blvd` _
P.O. BOX 590 RaJ.eiyh, North Caro.l.ina 27Gty7
RALEIGH, N.C. 27602

PHONE: [phone] PHONE: (919)8'13-7152
OTHER INDIVDUALS PRESENT: Kevin Carter ----"--
IS PROPERTY UNIFORM: SEPARATE DISCRETE: X VEGETATIVE UNITN
**** VEGETATION ****
(IN ORDER OF DOMINANCE, DRAW LINE ABOVE NON-DOMINANT SPECIES)
ICATOR GROUND COVER: SPECIES %COVER-INDICATOI
TREES: SPECIES %COVER-IND
) Pinus taeda 30%
1
FAC
,
) racer lZubrum
2 25% FAQ
.
Rutalla Nigra
3
) 15% OBI
.
_
4.) Qu rcus Phellos 10% F'ACW
r )_ Q' •
SAMPLINGS/SHRUBS:
L) )n!;6 --- --
_
) Ilex Opeca
2
20%
F'ACU
.
3.) Liriodendron Tulip-era 15% FAC
4.) JSa 1 ex n i q -- -----'- 10%
nRI -
% OF DOMINANT SPECIES (08L.-FAC.) 50% OTHER
1.)-Ih11Wdu An
2.) ?S pt Ko i l ex
) Bann in it cer
3 ideIIaceu 20?( L -
]i G 115) FACW
rn nuns 1(1or: nR! .--
.
) Rhu
4
Ftai?i a-^ ?q FAC
.
u- F'AC

WOODY VINES:
1.) Inn ice Ta n Ira 301 RC --
2.) Smalex Bonan ox Z0 -EZAC -
3.) nthar 9(1% F'AC
INDICATORS: Non ---
IIYDROPIIYTIC VEGETATION: YE$ NO BASIS: mnrn than 502 rlaminan.t_ -----
vegetation are FAC FACW & OBL --- --
TYPICAL: (COMPLETE PORTION BELOW) ATYPICAL: (COMPLETE RACI
**#* SOIL ****
SERIFS: wo and BU ON NYDRIC SOILS LIST: YIN _-X .. N?)
MOTTLED: YES - NO MATRIX COLOR: 10 vQ 7-? NYDRIC SOILS: YES -X-- NO ----
BASIS: Existance of low chroma - -
**** HYDROLOGY ****
X NO DEPTH OF WATER: 1"-6"-in sorue areas
INUNDATED: YES
SATURATED SOILS: YES X. NO DEPTH TO SATURATION/HATER TABLE:l:anl'-
OTHER INDICATORS: Inundated s - ns exist ----"-"" - -"
d sol l
i

NO -
e
Low chron>a, hydric soil, lint-t
BASIS: -
WETLAND HYDROLOGY: YES
ATYPICAL. SITUATION: YES NO NORMAL CONDITIONS: YES NO -
WETLAND DETERMINATION: WETLAND: x NON-WETLAND: -
TIIORiTY• 10 404 X 10/404 -NONE ---
PHOTOS TAKEN: YES NO-X- AU ---
JURISDICTION: ABOVE HEADQUARTERS ISOLATED - --ADJACENT NWP*
DETERMINED BY• ?' ??

March 16, 1993
City, (l f 6Raleigh
flYorth Gvarolina
Mr. Dale Crisp
Assistant Director Public Utilities
P. O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
\ 40 M q
MAR 1993
t
`? Ttii'4 Y'9 Y
_,i y^l n
Pik R 19 19??
RE: Wetland Delineation Upper Part of Big Branch Interceptor
Dear Mr. Crisp:
On March 4, 1993, Mr. Kevin Carter and I walked on upper part of
Big Branch interceptor. A total of 1308 LF or 1.2 acres based on
40 feet easement width was designated as wetland. A copy of
details and stations is enclosed.
On March 8, 1993, I talked on the phone with Eric Alsmeyer at US
Army Corps of Engineers field office. He said he didn't need to
see this part of the project because he has already been the
lower part of this project. He suggest the City should apply to
get permit for this part of the project from US Army Corps of
Engineers before any disturbance starts in this section.
Since for lower part of this project the City has got the permit
from US Army Corps of Engineers for this part a separate permit
as an extension of the project. should be acquired from US Army
Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
A. M. Paktiawal
Soil Scientist
tw/PU.2
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
OFFICES . 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
Recycled Paper
a _ o-d-I rwiv i ; ue
HH EN & SAWYER FAX NO. 9199331828
?fl A?ND DELINEATION FOR LINE D
Station
Drawino No. &PM Zo nth Area
8C 0+18 0+59 41
2+24 2+82 58
bi"o t+36 = 105
8+1$ 8+43 25
..9+24 9+91 67
10+74 11+30 56
11+82 12+69 87
13+62 13+70 78
14+00 14+84 84
8D 15 +10 15 + 50 tWUSA) 46
16+60 ' 118+14 264
22+67 24+00 133
25+92 26+51 59
28.0.3, 29+76 - : 102
8E 30+77 31+26 48
.331+66 34 + 20... 54
?8 + 88' 40 + 23 35
8F 47 + 30 47 + 62 MUSA) 32
138 1.20 ac
* Area based on 40 foot maximum easement width within delineated
wetlands
1', ll.,
WUSP - Waters of the United States
gNT OF T ¦
?? Q,P,_ -A!?f,,,yFti TAIL ??
a? United States Department of the Interior
N1 Q
? y
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?4RC Raleigh Field Office ¦
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
`'f O 11 V cod-C CtQ.C. vd
Av I- -?,_7 (0 0-1
INSTANT REPLY
Please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
formal letter. This is provided in response to your notification fetter to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning Federally-listed endangered
and threatened species. This reply should be forwarded to the Corps of
Engineers Regulatory Branch.
Re: /Z.D 1Y? 2-? t5 vl V,
Nation 'de Permit Number/Pro ect Name
S?an
DDat Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may occur within the project impact area.
The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project impact area.
J? If the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate-habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to
adversely-affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact
this office for further information.
The Service concurs that the proposed project is not likely to
adversely affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species,
their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently
proposed for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, as
amended.
Staffing limitations prevent us from conducting a field inspection
of the project site. Therefore, we are unable to provide you with
site specific recommendations at this time.
Questions regarding the enclosed information should be directed to the Corps
of Engineers' regulatory staff member who is handling this project.
t Yti. dLW?AA d1- , 61.1
G e,t,pC,?s
su,n,.??. e .
Lsy?? k__
a2 3
Biologis ^^ d?ate
CONCUR:
UL
Date
l?'t?

REVISED JANUARY 11, 1993
Wake County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
Bachman's warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Bachman's warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) - C2
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2*
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Carolina trillium (Trillium Pusillum var. Pusillum) - C2
Southeastern bat (Mvotis austroriparius) - C2
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) - C2
Yellow lance (mussel) (Elliptic lanceolata) - C2
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Diana fritillary butterfly (SSPeyeria diana) - C2
Green floater. (Lasmicfona subviridis) - C2
Neuse slabshell (Elliptio Judithae) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
i ?
8/90
MICHAUX'S SUMAC
Rhus michauxii
FAMILY: Anacardiacene
STATUS: Endangered, Federal Register, September 28, 1989
DESCRIPTION: Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy
shrub with erect stems which are 1 to 3 feet in height. The shrub's.
compound leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and
veiny and slightly hairy on their bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on
its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white and are 4-5 parted. Each
plant is unisexual. With a male plant the flowers and fruits are solitary,
with a female plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters.
The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a dull red drupe, is
produced in October and November.
RANGE AND POPULATION LEVEL: Once known from three States, Georgia,
South Carolina, and North Carolina, this plant now has viable populations
only in North Carolina. Just four plants still survive in Elbert County,
Georgia. Previously, this plant was known from five Georgia counties:
Cobb, Columbia, Elbert, Newton, and Rabun. Reintroduction efforts are
underway at some of the historic sites. In South Carolina, two populations
of the plant were historically known; now, the plant is considered
extirpated from that State. Currently, the plant survives in the following
North Carolina Counties: Richmond (6 populations); Hoke (3 populations);
Scotland (2 populations); Franklin (1 population); Davie (1 population);
Robeson (1 population); and Wake (1 population). It has been eliminated
from Durham, Moore, Orange, Randolph, Wilson, Lincoln, and Mechlenberg
Counties. Of the 15 existing populations in North Carolina, nine have less
than 100 plants each, and three of these have less than a dozen plants
each.
HABITAT: Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association
with basic soils.. Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some
form of disturbance has provided an open area. Eleven of the plant's
16 remaining populations are on highway rights-of way, roadsides, or on the
edges of artificially maintained clearings. Two other populations are in
areas with periodic fires, and two more populations exist on sites
undergoing natural succession. One population is situated in a natural
opening on the rim of a Carolina bay.
REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS: Perhaps the most crucial factor endangering
this species is its low reproductive capacity. Only two of the plant's
16 remaining populations have both male and female plants. The apparent
low genetic variability of the species, caused by geographic isolation,
complicates this situation. In response to the proposed listing of this
species as endangered, The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program wrote:
. because of the clonal nature of this species and the scarcity of
populations containing both male.and female plants, the remaining
populations may actually consist of only about two dozen genetic
individuals (Department of the Interior 1989)." Hybridization of this
Michaux's sumac 8/90
plant with Smooth sumac (Rhus Cooallina) and Dwarf sumac (Rhus labra) is
another threat to the plant's genetic integrity. In at least two historic
sites of Michaux's sumac, hybrid plants (apparently crosses between Rhus
labra and Rhus michauxii) have been found (Hardin and Phillips 1985). The
plant is also threatened by fire suppression and habitat destruction due to
residential and industrial development. Two of the plant's historic
populations were destroyed by development, one by the construction of a
water tower, and one by the conversion of the site to pine plantation.
MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION: The plant is shade-intolerant, and some form of
disturbance, such as burning, is necessary to control the growth of woody
species around its habitat. Timber harvesting and road construction or
maintenance should be carefully conducted to preserve this plant's habitat.
Prescribed burning is being conducted at the North Carolina Sandhills Game
Lands which has the largest population (137 plants). Genetic analysis work
is being done through a cooperative effort between the University of
Georgia, the.North Carolina Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Asheville, North Carolina, Field Office. Researchers
from the University of Georgia will analyze tissue samples collected from
the remaining North Carolina and Georgia populations, for their genotypes.
If possible, male or female plants may be reintroduced into unisex
populations of compatible genotypes (Nora Murdock, Asheville Field Office,
personal communication, 1990). The first reintroduction attempt, conducted
in Georgia in cooperation with the Georgia Heritage Inventory and
Woodlanders, a commercial nursery specializing in native plants, is doing
well with good survival of transplanted material.
REFERENCES:
Cooper, J., S. Robinson, and J. Funderburg. 1977. Endangered and
threatened plants and animals of North Carolina; proceedings of the
symposium on endangered and threatened biota of North Carolina.
North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh,
North Carolina. 61 pp.
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered Status
for Rhus michauxii". Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 187.
September 28, 1989. Pp. 39853-39857.
Hardin, J., and L. Phillips, 1985. Hybridization in eastern North American
Rhus (Anacardiaceae). Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin
32(3):99-108.
Sargent, C.S. New or little known plants: Rhus michauxii Garden and Forest
398:404-405
For more information please contact:
Nora Murdock
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Telephone: [phone]

.a'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
January 10, 1991
Robert A. Berndt, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
4000 Westchase Boulevard
Suite 550
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Division of Archives and History
7-Willi S. Price, Jr., Director
I '`1C
Re: City of Raleigh Big Branch Sewer Interceptor
Project, Wake County, H&S Project No. 3925,
ER 91-7664
Dear Mr. Berndt:
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1990, concerning the above
project.
A portion of the Big Branch sewer interceptor project was surveyed for
archaeological resources in 1977. No prehistoric or historic archaeological
sites were located as a result of that survey. Based on the results of
that survey, we believe the remaining portions of the Big Branch interceptor
project will not include significant archaeological sites. We do not
recommend any additional archaeological investigations for this project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
.Sincerely,
Ifavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB : slw 109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
PART 3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONTENTS
4-3.1 Introduction
4-3.2 Background
4-3.7 Recommended Stormwater Management Policy
A. Stormwater Discharge Controi
B. Floodprone Area Regulations
C. Drainage on Private Property
D. Water Quality
E. Existing Stormwater Problems
F. Stormwater Management Financing
4-3.22 Implementation
A-3.24 Case Study - Analysis of the New Hope Tributary
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, stormwater management has emerged as a major concern of the :Raleigh Cit.
Council. Rapid development in the City has increased stormwater runoff and acceierawd:
concerns with its effects on private property and the environment. Citizen requests f, r City
assistance have raised difficult questions regarding the appropriate City role in preventing any:
correcting drainage problems. Federal policies, watershed protection issues, and er,vir n-
..r•A"y.
..„?_.? mental concerns have focused attention on the effects of Stormwater on the water yua.:::%::r.
streams. These and other issues have generated a high level of interest in clarifying the rc e .,i
the City in stormwater management.
The variety of stormwater issues and the difficulty of deriving solutions which clear! sa taE:
both public and private interests have frustrated decision makers and stimuia;ed requests c07
reliable mechanisms for administering sound public policy. Stormwater issues frequent:::
involve different opinions regarding the appropriate sharing of respon- ibility ?----It;vccn
ment, private property owners, and developers. Stormwater issues have come to thoatt--,n-,.Lr
of city government in many forms, including (1) minor flooding in back yards. ;Z)
erosion in older areas, (3) sedimentation in streams and lakes, (4) dam deficiencies, rea:=
to existing impoundments, (6) increased stream flow generated by new development. -'
problems associated with private drainage structures, (8) problems associate ?%ith - u:-;i;
drainage structures, (9) private facilities which were constructed or acquired -Mthout sufr:c:
forethought concerning drainage, and (10) concerns with protecting the natural envirvnm-ont
and water quality. Most of these issues do not fit within the traditional scope of over,-r nC
responsibility. This frustrates attempts to resolve the issues as they arise. It also has enerat..:
a demand for new interpretations of City policy concerning Stormwater management.
In response to the need for new stormwater management policies, the City adminiszrat-- n
initiated a process for developing a Stormwater Management Policy as an element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The process included the appointment of the Stormwater Policv Advi-
sory Committee, a group of citizens who provided advice during the study of stormwater
issues and the development of a proposed policy. The scope of the stormwater managcmetit
study which was undertaken included (1) background studies, (3) policy development, and
technical analysis. The background studies reviewed stormwater management theory and
practice with the objective of identifying potential policy options to be evaluated for russible
application in Raleigh. The analysis phase tested these options under actual conditions in a
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management P!cn 3--.

n-,m tt options
lice development phase. preferred Com•
the pond
ated by the staff and the Stormwater Policy advisory
study area in north Raleigh. During
were identified, ey recommendations.
refined into po ement policy Since there is little
water manag roaches, agreement on
experience rehensive storm variety of possible app
ibis report presents a comp na ement and a ' lementation of specific
resents
with stormwater mag
essential in order to provide a f ramework Eorv e i
^enerai policy. is water Management Policy by the City Pound) rep resents
such im acti?.itie?s
activities. Adoption of the Sto the P°lic will be followed b
an and adoption. (>) staff
a ,
such an agreement. Adoption. d construction.
as and adoptiOel• (=) budgeCpreparation
( ordinance development ` o
and d prole planning
organizational adjustments, and (4) detaile
BACKGROUND ?, ater management «'hich
rolinaw ith a level of storm' ,f a prototype-
?;orth Ca in the absence
Y rience in . uncl and citizens. me and ^ract:cz
e is little e. pe water managent therr r
;her the concerns of the Raleigh City Co -die current policy and
ad it .: was resses necessary to undertake a broad revie
potentially applicable in Raleigh.
to identify components which are po . Potential)} useful new' p°l`c=`s
Raleigh was revie"? and documented kground studies
eviews.of literature, a survey of practice result sof these baties and ion as
Prac::cein the City of
were identified through r advisory Committee. Th
sions of the staff and the Policy • licv Options which were selected for evaluat
described below', including a list of r 1 c, •COMPO
nents of a new storm P°
are potential described
water Management Program in the City of Raleigh
•
ms
Current Storm stormwater management prooram
the City of Raleigh has a goo able to flooding is basically pre-
The Fled- An active
Bv conventional standards, nv yea:
construction of substantial structures f
ntation effects
rogra e areas a ehas been underw a` for ma
The erosion and sediment of streams ha been are c scribed belo%v*
c ented. Th ° ram are de
g
m of public acquisition of land wa er management pr
The components of the current storm which
Area Regulation* or streams in
1.Floodpcone have precluded the construction iv toemcal res
area regulations year flood. These regulations app
Since 1973, tloodprone protected from major
can be significantly damaged e' a loo built ,
the adoption of the regulations are
urisdiction. Structures built since 1973 and future structures number are
were built prior to
the City j lv structures which
flood damage- On .
subject to major flood impact, and these are relatively few in num
1
n procedures address
the control of erosion and of f- sta tion and min -- on
Soil Erosion and Sedimentatifo R eSnentcP n. to retain sediment on-site arc
devices
limit oft-site
State and City regulations and e
site and to, thereby,
site sedimentation the velocity of crater leaving Sedimentation control program is an
does not totally
squired. Devices to limit
erosion are.also required. The current erosiowa? rd management even though gh it tt
ro er function of all
sedime liranti[
omponent of storm
important and effective c n
d at all times. Although veto icy controls are required and do
because of increased
control can n off-site ot be effects. Even with active enforcement, ci Sp are increased
devices assure
erosion, accelerated erosion may occur when runoff ra
impervious areas.
P
Comprenensive lan 3i 90
Raleigh
f
3. Watershed Protection Regulations.
Density limitation through zoning, impervious area limits, and watercourse buffers are used to
limit runoff and protect water quality in water supply watersheds.
4. Special Stormwater Management Areas.
Two areas have been identified by City Council action as areas to receive special stormcwater
management consideration. During the plan approval process for proposed development in
the Perrv Creek basin, retention of the first one-half inch of runoff is required when this is
determined to be appropriate. The Umstead District Plan, an element of the Comprehensive
Plan, describes objectives for preserving water quality in Umstead Park and preventing flooi
damage in the Crabtree Creek basin.
5. Stormwater Management Through Zoning.
Conditions related to storm water management are frequently approved for conditional
zoning cases. These conditions usually require detention to limit runoff to the level that
be expected if the property were developed according to the zoning which existed pr:? r -o
zoning change.
6. "Drainage Petition Policy".
A resolution describing a procedure for City assistance with private drainage precle-n:.:.:;
adopted by City Council in 1970 and has been amended on several subsequent occasions.
Under the current version of the resolution which is frequently called "the drainage p
the Citv mav, at the discretion of the Citv Council, provide labor and equipment for pipi : -
otherwise improving drainage channels on private property at a cost not to exceed 5100' cc-
property. Property owners are responsible for design and materials. Assistance is lirnitod
single-family, owner-occupied lots.

7. Flood Warning.
The City maintains a svstem for monitoring flood elevations along Crabtree Creek and ing owners and occupants of endangered properties when flood elevations apprcac:-
ous condition. Flood warning devices are also maintained below City dams on S:wi;t Creek
and Walnut Creek.
S. Technical Assistance.
The City Engineering and Inspections Departments provide technical assistance to ci"zen-z
who seek assistance with drainage problems.
9. Construction and `Maintenance of Public Drainage Facilities.
As the owner of drainage facilities in streets, parks and greenwavs, the City has direr: - _
sibility for the construction and maintenance of a major portion of the drairaze svstem.
10. Greenways.
The Citv owns approximately 900 acres of g-reenways which not only oroe ide reeve at:or
open space amenities, but also preserve the natural environment adjacent to streams :ir..i
reduce the potential for stcrmwatcr.'-amage to private property. Continued acqu:;it::
according to the comprehensive plan for greenways will eventually resuit in rdbiic o:.n -;-
of land adjacent to most significant streams in the City.
The Engineering'Department, The inspections Department, and the Street Nlaintenar-c-?
Division of the Public Works Department are primary City agencies involved in ster-r :.•:;:•_r
management. A conservation engineer in the Engineering Department Frovidos anai•: -is.
design, and* technical assistance services related to stormcwater management. cat . -
of problems are addressed including a substantial effort in investigating problems on p n-:.-.:.
property and advising citizens. The Engineering Department also reviews and -re:-arr.
for public drainage facilities. The inspections Department has three conservation en;-
3/90 Rc'eicn Comprehensive Picn Srorrrwcre- Mcrcce-e-• ='?- _ .
a
and six conservation inspectors who provide plan review and enforcement services related to
floodprone area regulations, erosion and sedimentation regulations, and other drainage
requirements for new development. The Street Maintenance Division maintains drainage
facilities on public rights-of-way.
Legal Framework for Stormwater Management
Generally, city governments in North Carolina have little legal responsibility for drainage
problems which occur on private property. Property owners are usually expected to tolerate
or correct drainage problems on their property or to seek relief from neighboring property
,vhich may have improperly diverted or blocked a watercourse. The purchase of property and
construction of facilities entails certain risks, and owners are expected to assume responsibility
for the drainage related risks. City governments as property owners are responsible for
managing water flow on city property, but this responsibility does not extend to limiting the
rate of flow or intervening in conflicts between private property owners.
A city may assume responsibility when it "adopts" a watercourse as part of the city drainage
system. The City of Raleigh does not have a practice of "adopting" watercourses for City
maintenance with the possible exception of those watercourses on City property or within
easements which specifically identify an ongoing City responsibility. Most of the drainage
easements shown on subdivision plats and described in deeds do not indicate a Citv mainte-
nance responsibility, and wording on subdivision plats indicates that the City does not accept
such responsibility. This is frequently misunderstood by citizens who appear before City
officials to seek relief from drainage problems.
Even though the City has not assumed significant drainage construction responsibilities except
for those associated with City property, the legal authority to do so is available. State legis-
lation authorizes cities to provide for "flood protection" and "storm sewer and drainage
systems" including the authority to impose special assessments and create municipal service
districts for drainage purposes.
Issues Raised by Citizens
Complaints and problems brought to the attention of the City by citizens provide an indication
of the rature of community concern with s,,ormwater problems. An aralv;i; of citizen contacts
-elated to drainage during the past three years indicates that most corce.:,s could be described
as nuisance f1coding or channel problems. Over half the contacts were related to adiacent
construction activity. Most of the problems occurred and originated on private property with
less than 10 percent being related to drainage structures on the public ri;ht-of-wav. Citizen
complaints are only a partial indication of public policy needs, but the comelaint analysis
describes a need to focus policy development in the following areas:
1. Small streams rather than major streams;
?. \uisance problems rather than major property damage and safety problems;
3. The effects of new development; and
4. Clarification of the limits of public responsibility for nuisance problems on private prop-
ertv.'
Sto-ater Management Plan d•3.4 Rcle+gn Compre^ensi?e Plan 3!9C
r
City Council Concerns
The Citv Council has expressed concern with stormwater management on several occasions :n
the past few years. In an attempt to understand these concerns, interviews were conducte:'.
with each council member in February, 1988. These interviews identified two primary Caunc;l
concerns related to stormwater management as follows:
1. Most council members were concerned with increased stormwater discharge (increased
rates of runoff) generated by the impervious areas created in new development. This implies a
demand to fully consider new policies which provide stormwater discharge controls for new
development.
2. Most council members expressed concern with water quality. This indicates a need to
address water quality in the development of new policy and to be sensitive to the effects any
policy proposals may have on water quality.
Potential New Policy Directions
Surveys of literature and practices in other cities indicate that many cities are considering
expanded roles in stormwater management. The current state of practice, especially in North
Carolina, appears to be similar to that in Raleigh, but several cities are exploring new storm-
water management approaches.
There is considerable local government interest in establishing or expanding programs to
control stormwater discharge from new development. The most common approach uses
regulatory power to require on-site control. "Regional approaches" which use larger sakes
control the discharge from several properties have received recent attention in literature and
practice. There are uncertainties related to the difficulty and expense of obtaining proper
for "regional facilities" and to their effectiveness in managing the small stream problems
which are a major concern in Raleigh. One study in North Carolina proposed combining 1r,
site and off-site approaches to take advantage of the attributes of both systems. A fee
on-site control was suggested as an equitable revenue base for providing off-site n,easure-?
when these off-site measures are more appropriate.
The survey of other local government programs revealed a general tendency to increase
regulations as a means of preventing the storrncvater problems :which confront local govern-
ment after development has occurred. The expansion of tloodprone area re;aiations to m;
completely preclude the construction of buildings in problem locations is one approach
avoiding future conflicts. More extensive governmental review and approval of drainage
provisions within private development is another means for reducing the potential for
problems to become public issues.
Current trends in stormwater management emphasize the prevention of problems cause i
new development rather than maintenance and correction of existing problems. Local - -: -
merit involvement in the maintenance of drainage facilities and the correction of existing
deficiencies varies widely and is heavily influenced by natural features, rainfall conditio,,l.
and political history. Many accommodations have been reached in determining the separ;:::...;
between public and private responsibilities for drainage facilities. The "drainage utility'
concept is the primary innovation in managing existing drainage problems. In this concept.
fees are assessed based on the extent of imperviousness of property, and the revenues are u>c
to construct and maintain drainage facilities. This approach has considerable-merit if local
_ conditions warrant an extensive and expensive governmental maintenance and construction
program. In situations of limited or moderate governmental involvement with correcti%e
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Plcn .. „

measures, general governmental revenues are probably the most efficient funding resource
because they do not require the establishment of a separate revenue collection and manage-
ment system.
The value of natural drainage systems is becoming widely recognized in current storm. ater
management practice. Natural areas promote infiltration, reduce runoff velocity, enhance
water quality, and provide a buffer between people and watercourses. There is a growing
recognition that the preservation of areas near streams is good stormwater management as
well as an environmental asset. Some cities are reconsidering programs which previously
emphasized rip-rap, concrete, and piping of channels. In addition to the direct approach of
presen•ing greenvays, other approaches for preserving the natural features of watercourses
merit consideration in a stormwater management policy.
Water quality has been a national concern for some time, but the effects of stormwater on
water quality have only recently become part of this concern. The stormwater aspects of the
National Clean Water pct have been under discussion for several years and are
nearing a point of local government involvement. This has generated considerable local
;overnment interest in the water quality effects of stormwater and will have a maior effect on
local stormwater management. The City of Raleigh will be re:;utred to develop a plan for
meeting federal requirements related to stormwater quality. This will entail extensive water
quality monitoring, an inventory of the stormwater system and potential sources of pollution,
the identification of non-point sources of water quality problems, and the development of
corrective action. Developing the plan for stormwater quality is a necessary cart of storm-
wa-ter policy. The water quality planning program is a direct approach to water quality which
focuses on sources of pollution and their correction. Indirect approaches are also available in
which water quality considerations are included in stormw•ater management practices such as
discharge controls and protection of natural areas.
Fee systems based on contribution to the stormwater problem are the trend in stormwater
management financing. These systems are advocated as more equitable financing approaches
than general taxes which are not related to the causes or benefits of stormwater programs.
Local governments are studying fee systems to replace general financing for programs that are
underway. Local governments which are considering new stormwater management initiatives
are considering fee financing as a long-term approach even though start-up costs may require
funding from general revenues. There is a growing philosophy that new „eveiopment should
pay the full cost of managing runoff from new impervious areas by either providing on-site
control or paving a fee in lieu of on-site control. This fee would be used by government to
provide the necessarv facilities. There is considerable advocacy for "drainage utility fees" to
be used for construction and maintenance related to existing problems not created by new
development. These fees are based on existing impervious areas rather than those planned for
new projects. Service district taxation as currently authorized by state legislation is a possible
alternative to the "utility fee" approach. Special assessments could be a useful financing
method if the stormwater management program provides special benefits to private property
beyond that which can reasonably be considered a general public benefit.
Potential Policy Options
The City of Raleigh has a sound, conventional stormwater management program, but several
possibilities for enhancing the program were identified in the background studies. There
appears to be a potential for avoiding new stormwater issues by controlling stormwater
discharge from new development and by improving development standards for private
drainage facilities. The extension of a water quality program to areas outside water supply
watersheds appears to be a logical response to federal policy and local concerns. ivtore atten-
tion to existing drainage needs on both public and private property appears to be warranted.
Stormwcter Mcnceement Mon 4-3,6
Weigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
Based on the findings in the background studies, the following potential new policy options
were selected for analysis and evaluation.
1. Control of stormwater discharge from new development including; (a) on-site approaches,
(b) off-site (regional) approaches, and (c) combined approaches.
?. Extension of floodprone area regulations to smaller streams.
3. Regulation of drainage facilities within private development sites.
4. Preservation of natural features along drainage ways.
3. Development of a stormwater quality program to meet the requirements of the feder-al
Clean Water Act and local objectives.
6. Incorporation of water quality considerations into stormwater management practices.
7. Expansion of City programs to correct existing drainage problems and preserve existing
stormwater control facilities.
3. Development of financing methods which equitably distribute program costs such as; ta:
general City revenue, (b) development fees, (c) utility fees, (d) special assessments, and 'e
service district taxes.
These policy options were tested in a study area selected in northeast Raleigh. The results are
summarized in the final section of this report titled "Case Study Analysis of the New Hope
Tributarv". Based on the analysis and discussions by the staff and the Stormwater Policv
Advisory Committee, recommended stormwater management policies were developed.
RECOMMENDED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POUCY
Stormwater management is a developing field of governmental concern. Perceptions of n+x
and methods of governmental practice are evolving. Clear definitions of appropriate le•: e!s -=
service and clear standards for governmental practice are not available. There is a grow.
level of concern throughout the State of North Carolina, and several stormwater managcme
studies are underway.
The natural conditions in the Citv of Raleigh and past stormwater management practices
precluded major hazards and threats of property damage from stormwater. A need for
immediate and substantial public action has not been identified in this study. Neverthe?cis.
numerous public issues have arisen related to unexpected changes in levels of stream rio ;ti
nuisances of various types. There is also a growing concern with the water quality effec-s
stormwater.
The stormwater management policies presented in this section are proposed with a recozn!-
tion that the "state of the art" in stormwater management is evolving. The policies includo
new practices and adjustments to existing practices to the extent that they can be justifier
the current understanding of needs and techniques. The policies also create a framework
,developing other new approaches after sufficient research to better define needs and to
establish the feasibility of methods. An important objective of the Stormwater Mar,agemen
Policy is to establish the information and procedural framework within which appropr ,;;c
levels of City involvement can be objectively considered.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Starmwater Monasement.-'cr
Policies are presented to address issues in three primary areas of concern; (1) managing the
stormwater effects of new development, (2) managing stream water quality, and (3) correcting
existing drainage deficiencies. The establishment of performance standards for stormwater
discharge from new development is proposed to prevent downstream degradation. These
standards are to be initially imposed through regulation, but alternative methods such as
developer contributions to public facilities will be provided when feasible alternatives can be
identified. Detailed drainage system studies are proposed to identify feasible off-site dis-
charge control opportunities and to identify other drainage conditions which warrant City
action. Adjustments to floodprone area regulations and to standards for private drainage
facilities are also proposed to prevent conditions which may be problems and possibly public
issues in the future.
The effects of stormwater on stream water quality are generally known, but deficiencies,
causes, and feasible remedies are not well-defined. The preparation of a stream water quality
plan which focuses on sources of pollution is proposed. This plan will be developed to meet
expected National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements as well as
locally perceived needs. More general policies for preserving water quality include the
protection of natural drainage corridors and the incorporation of water quality considerations
into various aspects of stormwater :management.
The general level of study conducted for this report did not identify serious existing drainage
problems for which cost-?ffe(nve solutions are available. Many issues involve nuisance
conditions which raise questions concerning the division of public and private responsibility.
Policies concerning existing conditions emphasize a thorough study to identify conditions
which may warrant City action either to correct problems on City property or to assume a new
level of responsibility for those that are now considered private. The creation of a framework
for
informed decisions concerning the expansion of the City role is proposed. Adjustments to the
existing "drainage petition policy" are proposed to clarify understanding and to provide for
more efficient administration.
In summary, the Stormwater Management Policy presented in this section emphasizes preven-
tion of future problems and the development of information and procedures necessary for a
Proper evaluation of storm water management practice. Consistent with the nature of the
Comprehensive Plan, the policy is general and is intended to be a guide for more specific
implementation actions. These actions, identified in a separate section of this report, include
the preparation and enaction of ordinances and resolutions, the initiation of engineering
studies. the approval of capital budgets, and the execution of projects which are determined to
be feasible public actions.
A. Stormwater Discharge Control
Increases in storm water runoff over a relatively short time period generate most citizen
requests for City assistance with drainage problems. A review of 113 concerns raised by
citizens over an IS month period indicates that (1) 53.1 percent involved adjacent construction,
(2) 79.6 percent were related to nuisance flooding or erosion, and (3) 39.4 percent were in small
drainage areas of Tess than 640 acres, and (4) 81.4 percent were in very small drainage areas of
less than 200 acres. Substantial changes in the character of small streams over a short time
period appear to be a major concern of citizens. The most.likeiv cause of this substantial, rapid
change was increased stormwater discharge from new development.
The analysis conducted in the New Hope Tributary used mathematical models to determine
the effects if the peak runoff from development had been controlled. This analysis indicated
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.8 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
that nuisance flooding and erosion was significantly increased because of new development
r and that this nuisance could have been prevented by control measures.
i
Throughout this report, discharge is used as the term for the amount of stormwater runoff
from a site in a given time period. It may be measured in cubic feet per second or gallons per
minute of runoff passing a point. Discharge affects the level of flow in streams and the eaten:
of erosion in stream banks. At this time, discharge increases associated with the increase of
impervious surfaces during development are generally not regulated. The velocity of runoff
leaving a site is regulated to reduce erosion immediately adjacent to development sites, but
this does not control the downstream effects of larger volumes of runoff. In the early 1970's,
new development was required by City ordinance to provide for the retention of peak dis-.
charge through impoundments, basins, or other retention devices. In 1979, the discharge
control requirement was deleted because of concerns with costs, appearance, maintenance,
need, and effectiveness. Even though discharge control is no longer a general requirement,",
has been used in many special situations such as the requirement of control as a condition ir;
conditional use zoning.
Some form of discharge control is necessary if the continued increase in nuisance flooding and
erosion is to be prevented. Controlling the increase in discharge from new development
appears to be the most critical stormwater management need in Raleigh because it addresses a
major concern of citizens and it can stabilize conditions. Controlling the increase in stormwa-
ter problems is a most important objective of stormwater management.
Experience with discharge control in other areas has produced methods which mitigate some
of the disadvantages earlier experienced in Raleigh. A primary disadvantage of regulated, on-
site controls is that narrowly defined control measures are not always effective, reliable,
practical, or otherwise suitable for all sites. This has generated interest in the construction of
public "regional" control facilities as an alternative to on-site private facilities. These "regiona
facilities" are especially effective in controlling flow in larger streams and in providing good
design and maintenance when appropriate sites are available. The "regional approach" has
disadvantages related to funding, scheduling, obtaining good sites, and providing protection
in small streams near the location of new development.
The most promising recent development in discharge control combines the advantages of
regulated performance standards for on-site control with the alternative of financial contribu-
lions to off-site improvements when on-site performance is not practical or effective. A bas"-:
performance standard for discharge control is established by ordinance. When on-site per-
formance is not appropriate or when better alternatives exist, a fee in lieu of on-site perform-
ance may be paid to the City. These fees can be used by the City to construct control facilit:;:
or to make improvements to the drainage system to accommodate increased flow. This syst,?
requires performance at the potential problem source when on-site measures are reasonabi,2.
and it provides an alternative for situations such as small sites, sites which discharge into la: =_
streams, and sites which can be better served by facilities which are planned by the City.

i
The design of a good discharge control program must balance many factors which affect the
economics and effectiveness of the system. A design storm (2 year, 10 year, etc.) must be
selected which provides effective control at a reasonable cost. A level of control must be
determined either to achieve reduction, maintenance, or limited increases in discharge. Waco:
quality, aesthetics, and other concerns may be incorporated into allowable management
practices. Differences in stream conditions and development sites are important considera-
tions. Provisions for maintenance of control facilities are necessary to assure continued
effectiveness. Equity in financial participation is an important consideration if the system
includes City construction as well as private performance.
1/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Plan 4 •;.
Policy Objectives
The increase in stormwater discharge from new development is the most significant issue
identified in the stormwater study. The following policy objectives provide a framework for
addressing this issue:
1. To prevent significant increases in.the potential for property damage, nuisances, or other
negative impacts of stormwater by controlling stormwater discharge from new development.
2. To apply discharge control methods which are economically, aesthetically, and environ-
mentally acceptable as well as effective in stormwater management.
3. To equitably allocate the costs of controlling increases in stormwater discharge to properties
which are the sources of the increase. .
Recommended Policies
The policies presented below reflect the needs which have been identified, the urgency to
initiate a discharge control program as soon as practicable to prevent further degradation in
stormwater conditions, and the need to accommodate a variety of conditions and management
approaches:
A-1. Develop a system for stormwater discharge control which uses both on-site and off-site
approaches to assure appropriate levels of control while permitting the flexibility to choose
control methods which best fit specific conditions.
This general policy related to discharge is intended to combine the strengths of on-site and off-
site approaches while minimising the weaknesses of either approach. Accomplishment will
require-performance standards to be established by ordinance with provisions for fees in lieu
of on-site performance when better off-site methods are available. The accomplishment of this
policy will also entail the identification of public improvements which may be undertaken in
lieu of on control measures provided by development. These improvements may include
strategically located lakes and drainage system improvements.
Design criteria for the discharge control system will be subject to further detailed considera-
tion, but the following criteria appear to be appropriate:
• Design to control both two-year and ten-year storms.
*Control levels which preclude an increase in peak discharge after development.
-Management practices which enhance water.quality.
*Provisions for future maintenance.
*Authority and standards for the City to either require on-site performance, to accept alterna-
tive methods, or require fees in lieu of performance.
•A fee system based on the average cost of on-site control. -
A•2. Adopt discharge control regulations which establish basic performance standards for new
development
The development of a discharge control ordinance as soon as practicable is recommended to
prevent increased stream flow and the associated increase in stormwater problems. This initial
action is a necessary component of the flexible system previously described, and it is likely to
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.10 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90 .
be the primary discharge control initiative. The ordinance should be developed and admin:-
stered so that fees in lieu of on-site performance will be accepted when site conditions pre:-
elude effective or economical on-site measures. State legislation will be required before tl:e
system can be implemented.
A-3. Initiate drainage basin studies to identify feasible "minor regional facilities" and other
facility improvements which may be constructed as alternatives to on-site discharge control.
Relatively small lakes which have been referred to as "minor regional facilities" in this rep or t
may provide a reasonable alternative to on-site discharge control. Large "regional facilities-
are under consideration in some jurisdictions, but thev do not address the small stream,
collector system problems which have been identified in:Raleigh. A detailed drainage s. st ::
studv will be necessarv to establish the location and feasibility of lakes as part of the disci ar;^
control system.
The drainage basin studies will also identify actions which can be taken to expand the ca:
of the existing drainage system to accommodate increased flow. Structural modifications Una
channel improvements may be the preferred management approach in some situations.
In order to obtain a thorough understanding of the discharge control alternatives s. hic^ rna%-
be available, drainage basin studies at a considerable expense to the City c%1ll be necessary.
B. Floodprone Area Recommendations
Existing floodprone area regulations have effectively prevented the construction of buridirZ;
in a manner which exposes the buildings to potential flood damage. The regulations also
encourage the preservation of natural drainage ways. Over fifteen years of successful ex-,c-
ence with floodprone area regulation supports the broadest practicable application of this
stormwater management tool
The areas subject to current city toodprone area regulations can be divided into two cate_:-
ries; 1) those areas studied and mapped under the Federal Insurance Admirustrarion + Fl.=.
Food insurance program, and 2) those areas designated as floodprore by the presence or
alluvial soils as determined by the USDA Wake County Soil Survey. The watercourses
mapped under the federal program generally drain areas over one square mile t640 acre:. it
size. Those regulated under the flood 'hazard soils system may drain from as little as n 0 .?r -
three acres to over one square male. The City's continuing participation ,n the tloo.- ins,r
program only requires the management of floodprone areas mapped as part ;-%f the federal
studv. However, during the introduction of its floodplain management p rogram m t e
the city determined that it would be in the public's best interest to provide protection frorn
flooding for smaller streams not covered under the federal program. This was accompiis??
through the designation and regulation of areas having flood hazard soils as defined urmJcr
section 10-4002 of the Planning and Development regulations.
The use of flood hazard sails has been -encrally beneficial. However, there -, re Several
backs to their use. Many areas prone to flooding are not included because the -_;oils do no- -
into the classification considered to be a flood hazard by
ordinance. As a result, areas which should beregulated are not. The current systetn often
designated minor watercourses which drain only a few acres as floo"' rcne. "his results
unnecessary difficulties for property owners who do not possess the understanding or re-
sources to have the actual flooding conditions re-defined. Flood hazard soil boundaries
not accurate, due to the technique and the scale used in mapping. In most :aces, the soli
boundaries do not reflect the actual topography of the area and do not foll,?w the path or
watercourse. This makes it difficult to accurately determine the floodclain boun.4anes a^
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwe'er :1',c^c=e-e- r'c- .
results in hilltops and steep slopes being erroneously mapped as floodprone. The current
system is based on soils which have developed over hundreds of years with undeveloped
conditions. The boundaries of these soils are poor indicators of the actual flooding experi-
enced in an urban situation where development and new impervious surfaces have signifi-
cantly increased the amount of stormwater to be carried.
Policy Objectives
The following policy objectives recognize the potential for improvement in the application of
floodprone area regulations:
1. To extend of floodprone area regulations to all streams which represent a potentia.I flood
hazard.
2. To develop a more efficient method for delineating floodprone areas than the existing
alluvial soils system.
Policy Recommendations
The recommended policy to achieve these objectives is as follows:
B-1. Replace the alluvial soils method of designating floodprone areas with a method based on
the size of drainage areas to include drainage area "cut-offs" which assure regulation of signifi-
cant floodprone areas to the maximum practicable extent.
Drainage area size is more accurate than alluvial soils as an indicator of stream flow and the
potential for flooding. Conversion to a drainage area "cut-off' method will assure more
complete coverage of potential flooding conditions and will eliminate many areas which are
now unnecessarily regulated. Studies to this point support the establishment of the "cut-off"
at approximately 100 acres. Drainage areas of this size produce reasonably well-defined
,vatercourses in which flooding may be expected. The drainage system in smaller areas is
difficult to define and subject to considerable change during development. The initiation of a
change to a drainage area "cut-,off'` method will require considerable analysis and mapping as
well as an amendment to the Citv Code.
C. Drainage on Private Property
Private construction in small drainage areas which cannot be regulated as floodprone areas
has created drainage problems within development sites and has destroyed natural features
beneficial to runoff control and water quality. Purchasers or users of property have on many
occasions sought Om assistance to alleviate the problems created during the development of
the property. This indicates-a need for more extensive City regulation of private drainage
Lesign to protect the public, avoid the creation of public drainage issues, and encourage the
protection of natural areas.
Lander current city ordinances, the regulation of private stormwater facilities is limited to those
protects submitted for review under the requirements of the subdivision or site plan approval
process and those projects which fall within floodprone area regulations. As a result, there is.
little authority to deal with alterations to
existing stormwater conyevance systems on private property unless a problem such as erosion
or the backing of water onto an adjacent property occurs. In several cases this has resulted in
flooding and stormwater damage from the installation of inadequate drainage facilities and
the placement of structures in areas prone to stormwater damage. In addition, the unrestricted
Stormwater Mcnagement Plan A3.1'2 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
elimination of natural watercourses through piping may reduce water quaiiI and result in
accelerated downstream channel erosion and increased flooding.
Increasingly, individuals are turning to the city for assistance in resolving private drainage
problems. In many cases, this is because the public believes the City owns or is at least re-
sponsible for managing all watercourses and community drainage systems. While some
regulation of private drainage facilities appears warranted, the concept of the city regulating
all private stormwater facilities is probably not justified by the number or seventy of p rob!,.!r ns
currently reported. Consequently, one of the considerations in developing a drainage policy'.;
balancing the desire to protect purchasers and users from stormwater damage against the -ec:
to avoid undue restrictions on the use of property and excessive financial burdens for proper-:
owners and the City.
Policy Objectives
Policy objectives related to the design and construction of drainage facilities on private pra--
erty are:
1. To reduce future property damage, nuisance flooding, and requests for public assistance
applying appropriate standards for the alteration of private drainage facilities.
2. To protect water quality and reduce the potential for flooding and erosion damage by
preventing encroachment into natural watercourse areas and by preserving the natural
character of drainageways.
Recommended Policy
The following approach to modifying existing development regulations is recommende'' -e
enhance the accomplishment of the above stated objectives:
C-1. Amend subdivision and site plan regulations to improve standards for drainage easemen s.
set-bade from watercourses, and drainage facility design.
City ordinances currently permit the requirement of easements for storm drainage facia-; __
during subdivision and site plan review. However, the provisions for requiring easement:
general and set no standards or guidelines for when these easements shoul4 c-e required
their width. Consequently, it is recommended that regulations be modified to require -*r.,::.-
age easements of from 30 to 50 feet in width wherever a discernible watercourse is present.
width of 30 to 50 feet should provide sufficient width to minimize impacts cin strictures rr:
minor flooding and channel erosion, and should not create an excessive bur&n for rrorer-:
owners.
In addition, city regulations could be amended to require that set-backs of Z_ feet t'e r r,
during site plan approval for all watercourses not covered by the floodprone area ret?`1iat:?:t.?.
This would further prevent the placement of structures in areas of significant flood hazar• .
Realizing that much of the land within the City's jurisdiction is in or will soon be in an ar
condition, an additional provision should be made to establish design standards for those
situations where the property owner desires to relocate watercourses and their easement_..
eliminate them entirely through piping. These standards should follow those already estab-
lished in other city ordinances and require that any modified drainage system be capable o
' carrying the peak discharge from the I00-year storm without adversely impacting any strut
ture or adjacent property. This provision should provide an adequate alternative where
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Pan d - ; '
:maintaining an open watercourse is not reasonable. While this provision will allow-for the
removal of natural watercourses, the 100-year design requirements should provide some
economic incentive for maintaining open watercourses whenever possible.
The changes recommended above should provide a significant reduction in the problems
associated with private drainage systems. However, a thorough review of all drainage related
ordinances is recommended to determine if there are other areas where improvements could
be made. This review process might be established on a continuing basis to review new
complaints received and identify recurring problems and possible solutions.
D. Water Quality
The relationship of stormw•ater runoff to water quality is a growing concern in the Raleigh
area. Work is underway at various governmental levels to determine the causes of pollution,
establish water quality standards, and evaluate management practices. The City will soon be
required to comply with federal and state requirements for managing the stormw•ater effects
on water quality.
The Enczrenmental Protection :agency has recently submitted the proposed rules for review
that relate to municipal stormw•ater controls. These proposed regulations will require NPDDES
permits for municipal storm sewers. The City will need to develop a plan
to address stormwater quality as part of the permit application process. The proposed dead-
line for submitting the first part of the application is November Y, 1990.
Water quality in major streams has been monitored by the City for approximately two years.
The results indicate that stream water quality in the City jurisdiction is generally good. Tests
at 60 locations on 22 major streams resulted in the conclusion that water quality is good for 15
streams, fair for six streams, and poor for one stream. The results of monitoring efforts gener-
ally indicate that water quality management should focus on specific pollution sources such as
industry, materials storage, and private sanitary sewage facilities. In order to determine the
significance of stormwater runoff on overall water quality, more storm event sampling needs
to be done.
The Clean Water Act amendments of 1987 will produce new roles for local governments in
managing stormwater. Local governments will be required to comply with a federal stormwa-
ter permitting program. The exact scope of the federal regulations has not been determined,
but they will generally require the control of non-stormwater discharges into the stormwater
svstem and the use of management practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater. It is expected
that a major effort will be necessary to analyze the drainage system, potential pollution
sources, water quality, and management practices in order to produce a plan which satisfies
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements.
The preparation of the plan for NPDES permit purposes will provide a base for considering
local objectives as well as federal requirements. While this effort is underway, the Citv will be
developing other stormwater management practices such as discharge controls and standards
for facilities. The development of these new management practices will provide opportunities
for incorporating water quality consideration to the extent that can be supported by current
knowledge of needs and methods
Policy Objectives
The federal NPDES permit requirements will provide a necessity and an opportunity to design
and develop an effective program for managing the stormwater effects on water quality. The
development of programs to improve the control of flooding and erosion also provide an
Stonmwater Management Plan 4-3.i 4 Raleigh Comorehensive Plan 3/90
opportunity to incorporate water quality considerations. The following policy objectives
provide direction for addressing water quality concerns:
1. To develop a stream water quality program which meets federal stormwater discharge
permit requirements and locally perceived needs.
?..To preserve the natural character of drainage ways.
3. To incorporate water quality considerations into City actions related to public facilities and
development regulations.
Recommended Policies
The following water quality management policies address the need to develop a mana5emcr.t
plan and to incorporate water quality measures into the overall stormwater management
program: .
D- 1. Initiate the preparation of a stream water quality plan to meet federal stormwcter dis..
charge permit requirements and local needs.
Federal requirements are not vet available, but it is anticipated that the planning effort
include:
• An inventory of the drainage system.
• A land use inventory which focuses on the identification of potential pollution sources :uc
as commercial, industrial, chemical storage, and treatment activities.
*Expanded water quality'monitoring with particular emphasis on identifying sources of
pollutants.
eActions to prohibit non-stormwater discharges into storm sewers.
eManagement practices to reduce pollutant discharges.
D-2. Preserve the natural character of drainage ways by greenway acquisition, Roodorone cry
" regulation, drainage corridor protection, public design and construction, and the application ci
other public resources which may be identified in the future.
The intent of this policy is to apply the various powers and resources of the City to the : rc?r-
:•ation of natural features which prevent pollutants from entering streams. This is to ,e
directly accomplished through the acquisition, design, and use of public lards and indire-'.
through the development and administration of regulations which encourage presen•ati;-•n n
private design and development.
D-3. Incorporate water quality management practices into discharge control regulations and :.cry
design, construction, and maintenance practices.
Policies regarding discharge control will provide an excellent opportunity to manae?
quality as well as Hooding and erosor. The regu:ations and procedures :: hich are wee: e? c:
should encourage the use of wet ponds and other practices which preser: a water yualit..
constructed discharge control fac;lities should be designed to enhance eater quality.
quality should be considered d;:rin; the design. construction, and maintenance of .'.-aina?:
facilities on City property. .Pater quality ;houid be fully considered as one of the fact; -s
3/90 Rc?e;gh Comprehensive PIcn Storm-ere- Mc-acerre Fla-
which may justify assumption by the City of responsibility for the maintenance of drainage
systems, including existing lakes, on property which is currently privately owned.
E. Existing Stormwater Problems
Existing Stormwater problems in the City of Raleigh are generally not considered to be so
severe or of such an emergency nature that immediate and substantial action is essential to
protect the community. The stormwater effect of new development has generated the majority
of citizen complaints and has been a major topic of public discussion. For these reasons, the
stormwater management policy emphasizes the control of the Stormwater effects of new
development. N"evertheless, the appropriate level of City involvement in the correction of
existing problems is an issue which deserves attention. Concerns with existing problems
frequently are presented to the City even though the problems may not be of great severity or
of widespread effect. Frequently the problems present difficult questions regarding the
appropriate separation of private and public responsibilities.
Existing Conditions
There are few recognized stormwater problems which clearly warrant City construction or
maintenance attention. The absence of a substantial funding and construction program
indicates that a need for a major program of corrective actions by the City has not been recog-
nized. In considering the need for increased City attention
to existing Stormwater problems, the nature of the problems is a primary concern. Typical
problems with the existing drainage system are identified below:
•The nuisance of occasional overflow and erosion in small ditches, typically in back yards.
• Eroding conditions at the end of drainage pipes.
• Erosion or minor flooding caused by deteriorated, blocked, or inadequate drainage pipes on
private property.
a Nfinor flooding or erosion associated with inadequate or blocked drainage pipes in the public
richt- f-way.
•Streambank degradation, Channel overflow, and blockage by fallen trees or debris in medium
size streams.
*Occasional damage to a few private structures which were constructed in floodprone areas
prior to current floodprone area regulations.
"
•1ne threat of removal of existing private ponds :which afford varying degrees of flood
protection to downstream properties.
These problem conditions are undesirable, especially for persons who are directly involved.
but it is expected that most of the damages associated with these conditions are insufficient to
justify the major expenditure :which :would be necessary for correction. For the most part,
property owners have learned to accept the existing drainage situation on their property. .
Changes in the existing situation, such as a major increase in flow caused by new development
or a blockage or breakdown in a drainage facility, frequently produce complaints as might be
expected. Information on drainage problems and the extent of damages is limited. Additional
study may reveal a severity of problems which indicate a greater need for City attention than
that indicated by the current understanding of the problems.
Srormwater Management Plan A-3.16 Rcleign Camprenensive Plan 3/90
'' - Responsibility for Existing Drainage Problems
The current legal allocation of responsibility for the construction and maintenance of drain.:-_,
facilities generally follows property ownership. Private owners are responsible for draina;c
problems on or arising from their property. The City is responsible for problems on or ari_ir
from City property. The City has the authority to assume responsibility for problems on
currently private property after the acquisition of proper easements. There are many req ue.ts
for City assistance with private drainage problems which have little merit as public purposes.
There are other private drainage situations, possibly not represented by citizen requests, whiz
could be considered legitimate public purposes depending on the level of involvement the
City wishes to undertake. The conditions under which the City should extend its responsibil-
ity into currently private situations are an issue.
Complaints arising from problems with City owned drainage structures are relatively fe.v.
The study of conditions in the analysis area identified (1) several street drainage strac -c!s
which are undersize according to current standards but which are not expected to cause
significant problems, (2) one street drainage structure which is currently adequate but MiA
require replacement when more private development occurs, and (3) one street drainage
structure which is substantially deficient and probably warrants replacement.Currentiy
available information does not indicate a need for a major program of drainage facility con-
struction or reconstruction on City property, but the information is too limited to be conclu-
sive. Comprehensive analysis of the drainage needs throughout the City could reveal a
substantial construction need that is not being addressed.
There is little existing City policy related to the conditions under which the City should
assume responsibility for portions of the currently private drainage system. There is no
requirement to do so, but the City could determine that an expansion of City responsibiii: :s
an appropriate increase in the level of City services to be provided for the citizens. in corsi,:-
eng such an expansion of City service, the following factors should be examined:
Problem severity.
Every property is affected by stormwater. It is reasonable to assume that private owners
should be responsible for basic grading, planting, and maintenance. On the other hand.
may be a role for government in protecting private property from severe damage.
Equity.
Many problems were created by.private owners or were known at the time of purchase or
construction. Many owners knowingly assumed the risks of a marginal site or construed,. r.
practice in order to save money. The use of funds from taxpayers to correct self-impo's-,d
problems is questionable. On the other hand, public intervention may be defensible when
property owners are bearing an excessive drainage burden because of off-site conditions.
Extent of the problem.
The appropriateness of public intervention increases as the number of people affected in-
creases. Public expenditures which benefit hundreds of people are much more defersibic ::
those benefiting only one or two.
Benefits and costs.
Many requests for City assistance involve high costs to provide relatively small benefits. It
reasonable to restrict public expenditures to those activities which produce substantial net
benefits. Experience with requests for City assistance indicates that most projects may not
satisfy the cost-benefit test. On the other hand, larger projects which have widespread ben,:
may not be easily perceived by individual citizens and may be justified through comprehen -
sive drainage basin analysis.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management P'an _ ' -
Policy Objectives
The current understanding of existing stormwater problems does not indicate a level of
severity which demands substantial immediate action by the Citv. The current system of
responsibility provides remedies either by the affected party or through legal measures to
obtain relief from a party causing the problem. Nevertheless, requests for City assistance can
be expected, and considerable opinion that the City should expand efforts exists. Anv actions
to expand City responsibilities for the correction of existing stormwa ter problems should be
supported by a thorough analysis of needs, proper solutions, and appropriate levels of public
and private responsibility. These conclusions support the following objectives for policy
related to existing stormwater problems:
1. To provide a high level of performance for drainage facilities on City property and for
facilities necessarv to manage the off-site effects of drainage from City property.
'_. To establish the financial capacity, information base, and decision procedure necessary for
the assumption by the City of currently private drainage responsibilities ?Vhen conditions
warrant such intervention.
3. To recognize the continuing validity of private responsibility for a large portion of the
drainage system and to maintain a consistent, understandable, and supportive posture regard-
ing private responsibilities.
Recommended Policy
The policies recommended below are intended to retain the aspects of current practice which
are working well, to adjust certain policies to minimize convict over responsibilities, and to
initiate expansion of City responsibilities for existing drainage systems when such expansion
serves the public interest. The following policies are recommended:
E-1. Initiate studies necessary to identify deficient drainage structures and conditions on City
property, evaluate the effect of these conditions both on and off City property, identify appropri-
ate corrective measures, and establish priorities for implementation.
A comprehensive, detailed study of all drainage basins in the City will be necessary. The
purposes of this policy may be accomplished as a part of the drainage basin studies recom-
mended in other elements of the overall Stormwater Management Policy.
E-2. Initiate studies necessary to identify Feasible drainage projects on private property, establish
the justification For City assumption of responsibility for these projects, and establish priorities for
implementation.
This policy may also be accomplished as a part of a comprehensive. drainage basin study
which serves many purposes.
E-3. Establish annual capital budgeting for drainage improvements.
Based on the limited number of feasible projects which have been identified, a modest initial
budget of $100,000 to 5200,000 should be sufficient. As the results of drainage basin studies
identify additional needs, the budget level may be increased accordingly. Annual general
revenues appear to be an appropriate source of initial funding. If widespread needs and major
costs, possibly $2.000,000 per year, are identified and accepted for public action, consideration
should be given to the development of a "drainage utility" approach to funding and the
issuance of bonds to be retired by utility fees. Any program of sufficient magnitude to justify
stormwater Management Plan 4.318 Roieign Comprehensive Plan 3/90
06/E `Oid °A!suauaid;LO:) y$.a:a?
g [E-q uaid Juawa6OUDW is;DIALWO;s
. 3gpsnf o; )pn;tu,rw ;uat:)iy3ns 3o weisoid Aud •saa3 X;tlp;n riq paiya? aq o; spuoq go wurnsst
ay; pue Sutpun3 o; gaeoadde,%utlt;n aseuteip„ a 3o;uawdolanap ay; o; uants aq plnoys
uolleaapfsuoa'uoj3aP atignd 1o3 paadaxw pup patjt;uapt air'ieaA lad 000't)00-ZS Algtssod's;soy
iofeui pue spoau peaidsap!m jI lutpurg trytut 3o wunos a;rudoidde up aq o; iradde sanuonoi
lriauaS lenuuf •AlSucpioaae pasraiaut aq Aew Ianal ;aSpnq aya 'spaau Iruoptppe A3Puapt
satpn;s utseq oSeutrip go s;lnsai atp sd •;uatat;;ns aq plnoys 0001OOZS o; 0o0'001S jo;aspnq
1Pt;tut ;sapow P -paupuapt uaaq aAPg t{JILIM sl*oid algtsea3 go lagwnu pa;twtl ag; uo paseS
•stuawanoidwl a5outoip iol 5u4a5pn9 lo4ldo:. lonuuo 4sl19o+s3 •fr-3
sasodind XuPw sa.%ias 14:)"4n,
Xpn;s utseq aSeuteip antsuagaidwoD r go lied a se paystldwo»e aq osle Xrw Xmlod stye
•uoyo;uawaldwi
iof sappoyd ys119000 puo's;saloid asay Hof /4Illgrsuodsal jo uoydwnsso A;1:) 1oi uoywyysnl aty
49904sa 'Apadoid a40Aud uo spaloid a5ouioip alglsoaf ?yuapl o; Aiosmau saiprgs a;oy!u! •Z•3
•.bllo,l ;uawaSeuPN ia;eMUUO;S Ilesano ay; 30 s;uawala lay;o ut papuaw
-wOJa1 Salpms Uiseq aSPL'trip ay; 40 lied P Se paysildulone aq APUI ri:)tlod snl; 30 sasodlnd
ayl •,uessa:)au aq 11tH, ,{t;? aya ui sutseq aSPuteip Ile 3o Xpn;s paltP;ap 'a.-'isuayalduioa V
•uoyWuawaldwl lo; sappoud ysllgc4sa puo'sainsoew an43?aliw a;o
-Iidoiddo /qyuapl '4iadoid 14r:) j}o puo uo t};oq suoylpuo) asay fo;?aRa my a;anlowa 'Aiadoid
/4t:) uo suoylpuo) puo sain;ml}s a5omip waptgap Ayuepl c4 tiossaDau satprys a;oylul • I.3
:papuaunuo3ai ale satatlod Sut.%%ollo3 aq.L •;saia;ut atlgnd aT sa.uas
uotsurdxa vans uaq.%i swa;sris aseuteip Sut;stxa io3 saptligtsuodsal ri;r) 3o uotsuedxa a;eptut
o; pup 'saptltgtsuodsal iaAo 4: iTuuoa aztwturut o; satatlod urruaa;sntpe o; 'Ilan% Sur-lion, air
uatyM aauaeid auaiina 3o s;aadse ag; utP;ai o; papua;ut aie Molaq papuaunuoaai sataclod at U
A:1110d papuawwo:6?
•sallglglsuodsai a;e.,ud Sut
-piP°ai am;sod a.,pioddns pue 'algepur;siapun ';ua;stsuc:) r ule;utew o; pup wa;sris aseuleip
ay} 3o not;iod aSiPl P io3 .'?tttgtsuodsai a;e.,ud 3o utPIIeA Sutnut;uoa ay; aztusoaai o1 •?
•uopuaua;ut >.lans;uruen:
suoptpuoa uay.%% saptltgtsuodsai aseuteip a;emid Xpuaiin:) 30 A'40 ay; riq not;dutnssr ay{
iot.•iiessaaau ainpa:-cid uotstaap pur'aseq uopeuuolut'n;nrdea IPiaueut? atp I;stlgMSa 01 •Z
ri;iadoid .-1 ID woi3 aSPuleip 3o s;aajja alts-;ao ay; aSeuPw o; ..:Irssaaau saprltar,
-lO3 pue ri;iadeid .X;t:) uo Salim E: aseuteip io3 aauruuo:lad 3o la.,al tlStu a aptaoid o t I
:swalgoid is;en,wio;s Supsixe c; pa;t:lai
/:Dtlod io3 sa.,u:)afgo Sutn,ollo3 ay; uoddns suotsnlauoa asagl •ri;tltgtsuodsai a;pAud pup
a:lgnd go sla.,al a;rudoidde put, suopnlos iadoid 'spaau 3o stsrileur g5noio4; P riq pa;ioddns
aq plnoys swolgold is;PMwio;s Suustxa 30 uouaaiioa atla io3 sautltgtsuodsai XITD purdxa o;
SUOt;:)r riuV •s;stxa suo33a purdxa plnoys Al!:) aill Imp uotutdo algeiaptsuoa pup'pa;oadxa aq
uea aaue;stsse ^alJ 103 s;sanbai'ssalay;iana,\? •walgoid ay; Sutsnuo ,•1;ied a woi3 3atlai utr;go
o; samsuaw 1PSal ySnoig; io ri;ied pa;n33e oy; .?q iay;to saipawai sart.,oid ^;titgtsuodsai
3o wa;sris ;uaiinD ay1 -XuD ay; riq not;ae a;elpawwt jet;uP;sgns spU U:ap yaltl." /ClIJO,aS
30 laAal P a;eDIpUt IOU Saop swalgold iammuuo;s $upstxa 3o SutpuP;siapun;uauna atI
SOA14>8190 Aa110d
• L•: `'Did Nawa6aucW a040w%uu04g
uofd SAIsuayaJdwo] 46lafDS 06/E
•sisAivuE utsEq agruiEip OATS ' .<=
-uogoadiuo:) g5noatp pal3i;snf aq Aeui pup suavip lenpinipui Aq paniaaaad Atisea aq;ou Aeua
???ioq prwdsapiM aAeq i.ioigM s;:)afoad iagael `pupq aaq;o aq; up ;sal;;t;auaq-;soa aq; Ajsi;ES
;ou .Trot s;oafoad lsoiu;eil; sa;Enipui aoue;sisse A;iJ aoj s;sanbaa gJIM aouauadxg •s;ijauaq
;ou irpue;sgns anpoad g:)niM sat IAt a asog; oa sain;Ipuadxa :)ilgnd;:)u;saa o; algeuoseai
s: ;j •s;l3auaq IlewS Alanpelaa aplAoid o; s;so:)ggig aAtonul aouE;sissp A;rJ,TOj s;sanbaa AueW .
•S;soa rue S;r;auag
•OM; ao auo Aluo dupuauaq asoq;
UL-",- algisua3ap aaow ganui we aldoad 3o spaapung;13auaq z3oigM saan;tpuadxa aitgnd •saseaaa
-ui paix) pr aldoad 3o iaquinu ag; se saseaaaui uopuanaa;ul altgnd jo ssaua;EUdoadde agZ
•inalgoad aq;;o;ua;xa
•suopipuoa a;is-33o 3o asneoaq uapinq aSeutrip anissaoxa uE,9uupaq we saauMo A;aadoid
u3yn: algisua3ap aq Aeui uopuaAaa;ui Dilgnd 'pueq aaq;o aq; up •algeuopsanb si suialgoad
nasoduii-31as;Dauo:? o; saariedxe; uaoa3 spun3 3o asn aql •Aauoui apes o; aapao ui aauaead
uol;:)n.i;suoD.io a;Is Ipul2.i ua a 3o "sra ail; pauansse AlSuiMoul saauMo AUpjq Uopana;suoa
io asrgJand ;o auap aq; ;p UMO" aaaM a0 SaaUMO a;eAUd Aq pa;Ea.v aiaM suaalgoad AuPIN
•Aainb3
•aSeuipp aaaAas iuoa3 A;aadoid a;enud dui;aa;Oad ui;uauauaano$ ao3 aloa a aq Aeiu
:-:;; •i,urg aagao ag; up •aoueua;uiew pup'Supueld'duipea2 aiseq ao3 algisuodsaa aq pinogs
s:aun,o a;enud;eq; awnsse o; algeuoseaa si;j •aa;EMuuo;s Aq pa;-)a33e si A;aadoid Asan3
•A;uanas uzalgozd
:paunuexa aq Plnogs sao4:)e3 ,2uiMoilo; aip `a:)Luas X4TD 3o uoisuedxa up gans $uua
-: Isuo: uj suazi;ia aq; ao3 papinoad aq o; saalAaas A;tJ;o lanai aq; ut aspaaoui a;eudoidde up
s.i;111q. isuodsai A;iJ • ;o uoisuedxa ue;eip aunuaa;aP Ptnoa A;tJ ag;;nq 'os op o; ;uauiaainbai
ou s1 aiagl •uia;sA aSeuieap a;enud Ai;uauru ag;;o suopaod ao3 Aailigisuodsaa auinsse
pinogs A;iJ aT goigM aapun suopipuoa aq; o; pa;plaa Aailod A3IJ 2Ui;sixa ap;il st aaagl
•passaippe,9uiaq;ou sl;eq; paau uoi;:)ru;suoo Iei]ue;sgns
r Isa.?aa pinoo A;iJ aq; ;nog9noaq; spaau a2eumip ag; 3o stsAlpup aAisuagaadiuoJ -ants
-r,Iouoo aq o; pa;nuil oo; st uol;euuoJui aq; ;nq'AUadoad A;IJ uo uoumAsuoDai ao uouarws
-uc:, aaeuieap 3o uaeagoad iofew a io3 paau a a;empui;ou saop UOEIrU OJU! algelienp
nlluoaanD•;uaulaJpjdaa s;urueM AlgEgoad pup;uaTJljap AIIEpue;sgns si iprgM aan;JTlps
a5euieip3aaa;s auo (£) pup'saro:)o;uau><dolanap a;EAud aaow uatim waiuanidaa aiinbaa
ieu: inq a;rnDape Apuauna si galgM ain;anaas a2euieap;aags auo (z)'suialgoad;uvn niSis
asneo o; pa;oadxa;ou aae gDigM;nq spaepuris;uauna o;,9uipaoooe azisaapun aae gx
saaruorla;s a3euirap 3aaa;s Ieaanas (I) pagpUap! eaae SISAleue ag; Ul SUOptpuoD ro Aprus agJ-
`.a? Ala.?i;elan air saan;ona;s aapuieap pauMo ^aiJ ipIm swalgoid uaoa3 Suisur s;uielduioJ
-anssi up an suopen;is a;eniad Al;uaun:) oiui A;i
-;Iqisuodsaa s;i pua;xa plnogs A;iJ aq; gaigM aapun suopipuoa ai.U •ajr4npun o; sagsiM .A4IJ
ag; ;uawanloAUi 3o Iana1 aq; uo Suipuadap sasodand xtgnd a;puii;U3al paiapisuoo aq pinoD
's;sanbaa uazr;io Aq pa;uasaidaa;ou Algissod'suopen;is a euieip a;enud Tag;o an aaag•j
,z sodind ailgnd se;uatu al;;il aneq goigM suialgoid ageuiEap a;EAud q;in: aaue;sisse A;IJ ao3
s;sanbaa Aueiu air aiail j s;uauaasea aadoad;o uopisinboe aq; aa;jaA;aadoad a;EAiid Apuauno
uo suialgoid ao3 A;iligisuodsaa auansse o; A;uoq;ne ag; spq iyi] agl •n;aadoid A;rJwoa3
ZE:::s:ar ao uo swalgoad ao3 algtsuodsai si A;iJ atU •A;aadoad aiag; uioa3 Buisue ao uo suaajgoad
?,zvuirap ao3 algisuodsaa air saauMo a;enu?j •digsaauMo A;aadoad s.%%ojlo3 A11eaauaa sapilpr3
rZ _•ultiap ?c aoueua4UIrLU pup uop:)ria;suo:) aq; ao3 A;itigisuodsaa 3o uopeaollr IeSal;uauno ag1
sw0190ad 86cuIoaa 6ui4six3 aol Ai!j!gisuodsab

the creation of a "drainage utility" will probably require bond funding to support major
capital costs in the early stages.
E-4. Use guidelines which recognize need, equity, and public purpose in determining the appro-
priateness of the City assuming responsibility for privately owned drainage facilities.
These guidelines may limit City involvement to those acquisition; construction, and mainte-
nance activities which:
*Provide protection to at lest 50 acres of developed property with at least 5 separate property
owners.
•Provide benefits which have value at least equal to the cost of acquisition, construction and
maintenance.
•Are selected through normal capital improvement programming processes according to
priorities determined by drainage basin studies.
*Can be accomplished within the constraints of available resources.
eWill result in easements or other measures to permit long-term City maintenance without
excessive liability for damage to private property.
E-5. Modify the existing "drainage petition policy' to improve consistency of application and
compatibility with other stormwater management policies.
The "drainage petition policy" provides limited City support for the resolution of private
drainage problems along drainage ways which do not meet criteria for inclusion in the puc: c
-' drainage system. Single-family, owner occupied lots are eligible for assistance. The ,'olio :. r.;
adjustments to the policy are recommended:
• An annual budget for petition projects should be established to control the level of City
support and promote careful consideration of relative priorities.
• As a means of providing better service and efficiency of management, the City should
provide the design, materials, and construction with the petitioner providing one-half the t .::
project cost.. r..: .
*The acceptance of petition projects should be limited to situations which couid not have
reasonably anticipated by the owner at the time of property purchase or construction by the
owner.
-The administration of the petition policy should encourage methods which preserve %vat
quality, minimize off-site degradation, and are economical. Swales and grading solucions.
rather than piping, should be used when appropriate.
*Procedures for receiving and processing petitions should be adjusted to assign priman-
responsibility to the Engineering Department, assure thorough analysis, and provide appr-
priate and timely information to the petitioner and the City Council. .
*Portions of the current policy concerning situations in which the City has full responsil-11:n-
should be reconsidered and revised to reflect the policies adopted in the "Stormw;ter
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan $'ormwcte- "'c-=e? e- ? c- _ '
ment Policy".
E-6. Develop on information program to increase citizen awareness of private drainage respon-
sibiiities and potential stormwater effects.
Drainage issues frequently involve property which was purchased without full consideration
of potential drainage problems or improper assumptions regarding City responsibility for
correcting problems. A better understanding of drainage conditions and drainage law could
result in more problems being avoided and fewer appeals for City assistance. An improved
understanding of floodprone area regulations, private drainage easements, and maintenance
responsibilities can benefit property owners and the public decision process. An information
program should consider general public information opportunities and potential improve-
ments in information associated with property transfers.
F. Stormwater Management Financing
Equity and sufficiency are primary considerations in financing the stormwater management
program. As the City program evolves, new financial mechanisms may be needed to assure
financial equity and adequacy of resources to support new programs. Since many citizens
contribute little to stormwater problems and will benefit little from drainage improvements,
the existing tax system will not be a suitable source for financing a major expansion in storm-
water programs. A more equitable system would allocate the full cost of managing new
development impacts to new development and allocate the full cost of correcting existing
deficiencies to existing development based on contribution to the problem or benefits gained.
The present financial system relies on general City revenues for administering the overall
Stormwater management program and for maintenance and construction of drainage facilities
on City property. Generally, private property owners are responsible for drainage on private
property in both new development and existing situations. This is a reasonably equitable
system under the present level of City stormw•ater management. If the City should assume
new roles in managing the effects of new development or correcting problems which are
appropriately considered to be private responsibilities, new financial mechanisms will be
needed.
Fee systems based on runoff from property are receiving considerable attention as innovative
and equitable approaches to Stormwater management financing. These systerns usually
charge fees based on the amount of impervious area as a measurable indicator of runoff.
Development fees based on the amount of impervious area to be created and the average costs
of runoff control are especially appropriate when runoff cannot be effec:ively and economi-
cally managed on a development site. These development fees are usually provided as an
alternative to on-site compliance with performance standards in a discharge control ordinance.
They are similar to the fee in lieu of performance which is frequently accepted to fulfill street,
utility, or other public requirements.
A "drainage utility" financed by utility fees is a recent innovation in financing maintenance
and the correction of existing problems. It has merit for localities which operate large-scale,
costly, ongoing stormwater management programs. The administrative expense of collecting
fees based on impervious area precludes efficient utility fee financing unless annual program
costs are large. At this time, the "drainage utility" approach appears to be primarily beneficial
for localities which have unusual natural drainage problems.
Recently adopted legislation for the City of Raleigh authorizes a facility fee for drainage
purposes. This legislation was drafted without. the benefit of the understanding of potential
stormwater management practices which has been gained in this study. Even though the
authorized facility fee has similarities to the drainage fees described above, there are differ-
ences that create difficulties in matching it with currently perceived needs. A basic facility fee
Stormwater Moncgement P1cn A-320 Roleigh Comprehensive P'cn 31190
principle is that the fee paver will benefit from the services provided and that the fee wiil =e
based on these benefits. Workable drainage fee systems appear to be based on contribution
the problem rather than benefits, because drainage benefits are extremely variable and
to measure. The "fifty percent rule" which is part of the existing enabiing legislation also
creates difficulties in equitable applying the facility fee approach with the stormwater policies
previously described. Heavy taxpaver subsidies for off-site discharge control would make it
extremely difficult to obtain on-site control fully funded by the development for the larger-
scale projects for which on-site control is most economical and effective. The inequity of fifty
percent taxpayer support for new development costs may become especially pronounced if
new taxes or new fees are imposed to correct existing conditions. Since the citizens of Rakish
are not accustomed to paving taxes or fees for drainage improvements, paving a large cart _ f
the cost associated with new development poses acceptance problems.
Policy Objectives
The policies previously presented propose a new level of City involvement in managing.
stormwater discharge from new development and the potential expansion of City actions to
correct existing drainage and water quality deficiencies. If these programs are developer slo
that substantial City funding is required, the impact on existing revenue sources will be an
issue. The following policy objective provides direction for financing new stormwater
management programs:
1. To develop an equitable system of stormwater management financing based on relative
contributions to the stotmwater problem.
Recommended Policy
The proposed system for managing stormwater discharge from new development include=
payment of a fee when there is a feasible alternative to the provision of on-site control meas..
ures. This fee would be used by the City to construct public discharge control facilities or
make other improvements to manage the stormwater impact from new development. A
system for collecting and managing these fees will be necessary. Previously stated policies
also propose a framework for determining needs and setting priorities for the correction of
existing drainage and water quality problems. At this time, the potential program scope an,i
associated cost are not defined. If the program should evolve to require major increases in
City funding, an alternative to general revenue financing should be developed.
The following policies related to the financing of expanded stormwater management Fr?-' are proposed:
F-l. Develop a system for financing the public costs of controlling stormwoter discharge from
new development.
The purposes of the development fee system are to provide for publicly financed facilities
when on-site control measures are impractical. The primary method of discharge controi :s
expected to be on-site facilities provided and maintained by the development. Fees in lieu or
on-site measures are to provide for publicly financed alternatives when sites are too small f:,-
economical on-site measures, when on-site controls afford little benefit, when more effectzvk2
public facilities have been planned, or when on-site measures are otherwise impractical.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwoter Management Plan 4•1
Characteristics of the development fee system should include:
• A fee based on the increase in imperious area which reflects the amount of stormwater
increase expected after development.
• A fee level established to reflect average on-site discharge control costs per unit of imperi-
ous area.
*Fees to be charged to all new development which does not provide adequate on-site control
*Fees to be required in lieu of on-site provision or permitted as an alternative at the discretion
of the Citv.
-Fee revenues to be spent only for projects which control the effects of increased runoff caused
by new development.
•Enabling legislation will be required for the City to obtain the authority to charge fees in lieu
of drainage improvements.
F-2. Use general City revenues to finance the correction of existing drainage deficiencies until
annual costs reach a level which justifies a "drainage utility" approach to financing.
Sufficient needs have not been identified to justify the creation of new financing methods for
improving and maintaining existing drainage facilities. The proposed drainage basin studies
could identifv additional needs and could lead to a substantially expanded City role in drain-
age facility construction and maintenance. If such an expansion should occur, the creation of a
"drainage utility" approach to annual financing may be feasible. A "drainage utility" may be
justified if widespread needs and a long-term annual funding requirement of approximately
,000,000 are identified.
"Drainage utility" fees would be charged to each property in the Cit based on the amount of
uncontrolled runoff from the property as indicated by imperious area. The cost of establish-
ing and maintaining a data base for impervious areas and runoff controls for all property can
be justified only if annual revenue needs are high. The creation of a "drainage utility" should
be considered along-range prospect because considerable time will be required to complete
drainage basin studies and to substantially modify the role of the City if such a modification is
warranted. Enabling legislation is required before a "drainage utility" may be created.
IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose of this section is to describe an initial phase of implementation activities to
accomplish the policies previously presented. Implementation will include ordinance prepara-
tion, enabling legislation, budgetarv action, staffing, additional research, and further definition
of policy, standards and procedures.
The implementation plan will require considerable staff, consulting, and financial resources.
The preparation of a discharge control ordinance is considered a high priority because it will
stabilize peak stormwater flow and curtail the increase of problems associated with increased
flow. Actions to develop the discharge control ordinance and obtain the legal authority to
charge fees in lieu of control measures are recommended to immediately follow adoption of
the Stormwater.kanagement Policy. Other implementation actions are less urgent and may be
undertaken over a period of several years, depending on the availability of staff and financial
resources. Since a good system of storrnw•ater management practices is currentiv in effect, the
development of a well founded long-range program of enhancements and new initiatives is
$tormwater Management Plan 4-322 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
more important than rapid implementation.
The following implementation activities are recommended:
1. Discharge control ordinance.
The establishment of a basic performance standard for stormwater discharge from new
development is recommended for early implementation. This will require the definition of
standards, the determination of acceptable management practices, the development of mainte-
nance requirements, ordinance preparation and adoption, and additional staff for plan review
and enforcement.
2-Drainage fee legislation.
In order to provide alternatives to on-site discharge control, enabling legislation which will
permit fees in lieu of on-site performance is proposed. A proposal similar to current provi-
sions for streets and utilities should be presented for consideration by the North Carolina
General Assemblv.
3. Drainage basin studies.
Detailed studies of all drainage basins in the City and extraterritorial jurisdiction are proposed
to identify (1) feasible public alternatives to on-site discharge control, (2) drainage system
needs on public property, and (3) drainage needs on private property which may warrant City
maintenance or facility construction. Contracts with private consulting firms will be required
to accomplish such an extensive study. Costs are expected to range from $1,000,000 to
$2.000,000. In order to reduce annual financial impacts and to assure quality results, the
studies may be staged over a two to three year period. An initial phase at S300,000 to 5300,000
may be undertaken as a test of technique, results, and the need to proceed with a Citywide
effort. These basin studies should be coordinated with the drainage system inventory to be
conducted as part of the water quality plan.
:Vp
4. Floodprone area ordinance.
The change from the alluvial soils method to a drainage area cut-off approach will require th,!
preparation of ordinance amendments and procedural changes.
5. Private drainage facility standards.
The preparation of amendments to subdivision and site plan requirements is proposed to
encourage preservation of natural drainage ways and prevent nuisance drainage conditions.
6.
Stream water quality plan.
The federal stormwater discharge permit requirements are somewhat uncertain but are
expected to be defined in the near future. Requirements are expected to include an extensive
drainage system inventory, water quality sampling, and analyses of pollution sources. The
initiation of these studies is proposed with the objective of preparing a plan which meets
federal permit requirements and reflects local water quality objectives. Inventory work will
probably require the services of a consultant, and the cost may be as much as 3;00,000. The
anticipated sampling costs for this program may be $100,000 per year.
7. "Drainage petition policy" amendments.
Amendments to the resolution related to City assistance for drainage conditions on single-
family, owner-occupied lots have been proposed. Changes in the level of financial par-
ticipation and in definitions of responsibility should be considered. Assignment to a Council
Committee is recommended since.the "petition policy" involves Council discretion rather th
a basic obligation of the City.
8. Staffing.
'- Additional staff will be needed to support the expanded stormwater management program.
The immediate authorization of an additional conservation engineer position in the Eng*ineer-
3/90 Raleign Comorehensive Plan Stormwcter Management Plcn s
ing Department is recommended to provide the capacity for new ordinance development and
drainage study supervision. Upon implementation of new discharge control regulations, an
additional conservation engineer and conservation inspector will be needed in the Inspections
Department. Additional staff in the Public Utilities Department to develop and maintain the
water quality plan will also be needed.
9. Drainage capital budget.
The establishment of a capital budget for drainage improvements is proposed to create a
resource base for responding to drainage needs. A budget of $40,000 for "petition projects"
and $150,000 for other City projects appears to be a reasonable initial commitment. This may
be expanded if the results of drainage studies and Council deliberation support an expanded
City role in facility development.
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF THE NEW HOPE TRIBUTARY
In an effort to more clearly evaluate general and specific stormwater concerns as observed
under actual field conditions and to test the implications of possible stormwater policies, a test
basin was selected to be used as a case study and as a resource for data on current stormwater
problems. Criteria for the basin selection included:
1. the existence of a reliable data base of past and current problems;
2. the conformance to typical urban land use;
3. representative development history and trends;
-l. the presence of a network of streams, lakes, and existing drainage ways;
5. an adequate mix of public and private drainage facilities;
5. and, the existence of both floodprone areas as defined in the flood insurance study and
tloodprone areas defined by alluvial soils.
Review of these criteria and previous staff experience resulted in the selection of the New
Hope Tributary to Marsh Creek as the recommended study basin.
The study basin is located in northeast Raleigh and generally bounded by New Hope Road/
? ".S. 1 on the east,',lillbrook Road on the North, Green Road and Arroww' ood Drive on the
west, and terminates to the south at its confluence with Marsh Creek (See Map 1). This 895
ac-e watershed has undergone substantial change during the last ten years. Original forest
land'has been transformed into subdivisions, townhomes, apartments, offices, and shopping
centers resulting in increased concerns dealing with the associated stormwater runoff. T'ne
land use in the watershed (See Map 2) varies from residential subdivisions allowing four
homes per acre to commercial sites allowing shopping centers and offices.
The residential area east of U.S. 1 and west of New Elope Road (part of Starmount Subdi,.i-
sion) began to develop approximately 15-20 years ago. In the mid-seventies the large tract
along the main stem of the New Hope Tributary began to develop. This area can be further
identified as the residential area surrounding the existing lakes located within the watershed
and includes the North Shore and Brentwood Estates Subdivision. Full residential develop- .
ment was generally completed in this area within the last two years. Around 1983, commer-
cial, shopping center, and multi-famiIv areas adjacent to U.S.1 and located upstream to the
Brentwood Estates area began to develop and influenced the drainage characteristics in the
Stormwcter Mcncgement Plan 4-324 Raleigh Camprei ensive Pan 3/90
lower part of the system.
Methodology used for the analysis study was divided into the steps listed below.
1. Inventory of the existing drainage system, including information on channel erosion, pipe
conditions, and other pertinent features.
2. Identification of existing and potential drainage problems from inspection of the historic
data base and from the field inventory.
3. Application of computer model simulations to demonstrate impacts of actual and/or
theoretical combinations of development and drainage conditions.
4. Testing of potential policy options on actual conditions found in the study area and implica-
tions of these options.
inventory of Existing Conditions
The inventory phase of the analysis study consisted of a detailed field investigation to collect,
data on the location, cross section description, size, and condition of existing facilities. Both
private and public facilities were included. Also included was the collection of available da :a
on existing lakes, an assessment of channel erosion, and related observations. City topo-
graphic and zoning mapping were used as basic data sources to input information for the
computer driven Raleigh Stormwater Model. limited field surveying was done to detem. it
critical channel elevations and finished floor elevations for some buildings in critical low 1..-: n
areas. In addition, selected samples were taken of stream flows for water quality testing
-r purposes.
The inventory of the 895 acre basin covered approximately 23,500 linear feet (4.45 miles: of
defined drainage ways, including natural channels, piped channels, and four significant !a c z
Approximately 29% of the defined drainage ways have been previously piped.
A generalized outline of overall drainage way treatment and land use is shown in Table ' .
TABLE 1: DRA NAGE WAY TREATMENT BY LAND USE TYPE
Drainage Way Treatment Land Use
Type Treatment % of Total Residential Commercial Public Struts
Piped - 29% 7% 19% 3%
Natural - 71%. 62% 9% N/A
Total - 100% 69% 28% 3%
It is noted that approximately 88% of the land adjacent to the main New Hope Tributan
stream channel has been retained in a natural
grass or wooded condition with an average buffer width of approximately 15 feet on each '.
Existing and/or Potential Drainage Problems
1. Historic Data Base: Complaint File Review
A review of the complaint data on file can be placed within three geographical areas cons.::.: :
of: 1) the Starmount area located east of U.S.1; 2) the Northshore areas located north of
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Pian a-?.
::ope Church Road; 3) and Brentwood Estates, located in the southern part of the watershed
south of New Hope Church Road. The complaint data base did not indicate substantial
sources of concern in the Starmount area and is probably representative.of actual. conditions
since this area is generally along the ridge line and at the upper reaches of the basin. Com-
piaints were much more prevalent from the North Shore and Brentwood Estates area These
concerns included existing lake or dam conditions, some flooding, stream erosion and sedi-
mentation from up-stream development. Staff experience identified several complaints
associated with the.shopping canter development along North Boulevard including Ashton
Square and Tarn?nore Square.
2. Flooding
Flooding problems are evident in the Huntleigh Drive area. The street is subiect to overtop-
ping during heavy annual rainfalls and four houses are subject to flooding (i.e. water above
finish floor elevation) during a 10 year storm event under existing developed conditions.
i-ree additional houses have been identified as having potential flooding problems under
,futu're, fully developed conditions, with several other houses receiving crawl space flooding.
Inventory and results from the model studies indicate that the existing public and private
dra:ra.ge svste:rrs at'_-Iuntle:gh Drive are not sized to present standards and aggravate the
Gooding poter,tiai in this area. it is noted that the development in question was planned and
constructed prior to the City's floodplain ordinances and that these ordinances would have
regulated placement of houses in this area. In 1984, a 4-inch rainfall in 6-hours (approximaiely
equal tp a 10 year storm) caused substantial flooding in the Huntleigh Drive area and several
houses received minor damage. The City requested an update from the Corps of Engineers of
floodplain mapping to make sure that flood insurance needs are in place.
3. Drainage Way Erosion
Natural drainage ways were inspected and any noticeable erosion was ranked according to
three general categories of condition - minor erosion, moderate erosion, and severe erosion.
Minor erosion is described as no apparent accelerated widening or deepening of the defined
channel. Moderate erosion is described as some acceleration of widening and deepening of the
defined charnel. Severe erosion is described as significant acceleration of widening and
deepening of the defined channel along with severe bank degradation.
The field inventory indicated the presence of some localized moderate to severe erosion
problems. Spots of severe erosion were identified at some of the channel meanders, at the
outlet of the dam of the two lower lakes, and immediately below several street crossings.
Approximately =0-60% of the problems were located downstream and in the vicinity of Citv
owned drainage facilities.
In general, the defined channels were evaluated to be in reasonably good condition, with the
exception of the localized moderate to severe conditions previously described. The observed
channel characteristics and conditions are consistent with other urban watersheds experienc-
ing increased runoff. Staff observations note that the overall channel and bank condition in
the New Hope Tributary watershed is better than most city-wide conditions.
It is estimated that the severe channel erosion problems in the study basin could be upgraded
to the moderate category for approximately $150,000 and that a comprehensive program to
upgrade all of the channel erosion problems to the minor category would cost $550,000.
4. Sedimentation
Some sediment problems were identified in the field inventory and were consistent with the
complaints found in the historic data base concerning problems downstream from developing
areas. In the main tributary and feeder streams some shallow areas were identified, which are
indicative of sediment deposits, and there is noticeable silting in the lake system.
Stormwater Management Plan 4.326 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
S. Water Quality Samples
Limited water quality testing was done in the New Hope Tributary watershed. Testing was
done for dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, fecal
coliform, metals, phosphates, suspended solids, temperature, ammonia nitrogen, oil and
grease, and PH. Elevated levels of metals were found in some tests. No point source of origin
can be identified for the elevated metal samples and parking lot and pavement runoff are the
most likely source.
6. Drainage Structures and Lakes
The basin has four significant lakes situated along the main tributary which are privately
owned. The dam for the lower lake has been breached through natural erosion and storm
events. The two lakes located in the middle are currently under review by the State for dare
safety problems. The existing pipe and/or culvert systems, both public and private propert..•,
are generally in good condition. There are some instances of undersized conditions, spec: a-
cally at the Huntleigh Drive location and a marginal condition at New Hope Church Road
where an undersized private system feeds into a properly sized street pipe culvert. There
were no signs of severe deterioration in the drainage structure network. Most of the piced
network on both public and private property has been installed using concrete materials.
Some corrugated metal piping is in place on private property, specifically in the recently
developed commercial areas along U.S. 1. The field inventory noted a high percentage of
piping on the feeder streams which ran through the commercial and high density residentia;
areas.
'. Summary
_ Run-off and stream erosion have increased in the watershed as development has occurred.
This has resulted in some older drainage systems becoming undersized and has increased : e
y potential of flooding to six of the total 600 residential units in the watershed. Three of the foU7
existing lakes are in need of dam rehabilitation and all are privately owned.
Overall water quality appears good with preliminary indications that the streams are being
influenced by runoff from existing paved surfaces. The flooding potential would not be a
current factor had present regulations been in effect at the time of development. Except for a
relative small number of specific locations, overall drainage and stormwater conditions are
considered reasonable and are probably indicative of the City's overall position in stormWa;cr
management.
Computer Model of Watershed
Two computer programs, the Raleigh Stormwater Model and HEC-2. were used to simulate
peak discharge/ out flows and water surface elevations for various combinations of
merit intensity and stormwater management controls. The simulations assumed three ::OV?:-
opment conditions: 1) undeveloped or 1960 conditions, 3) 1983 conditions, and 3) fully
developed conditions as defined by current zoning.
For full development intensity, watershed discharge/peak out flow rates were calculated
stormwater management svstem consisting of on-site controls and a system of off-site, major
minor regional controls to regulate discharge rates.
In addition, the existing lakes, considered as minor regional controls, were evaluated as
potential stormwater management devices. A simulation of the watershed, with and with
the lakes, was developed for the same three levels of development, as identified previous'%,•.
Design storms for the 10, 35 and 100 year event were used for each simulation.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwoter Mcrcge^-er.r Pier. „ _-
Existing Lakes as.Stormwater Management Tools
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the benefits of the existing lakes in controlling discharges during 1960,
1935, and fully developed conditions in the watershed. If the four lakes in the New Hope
Tributary were removed, generally a 25 year storm event would become a ten vear storm
event. The probability that this storm event would occur in any year would rise from a 4% to a
10% chance. Water would overflow the stream banks more frequently without the lakes in
place. Downstream erosion and flooding problems would be projected to increase as a result
of the increased discharges. The overall water quality would be anticipated to decrease as a
result of losing the lakes, since the water quality samples taken as part of this study tended to
support the lake system as a water quality management tool. As previously noted, three of the
lakes are in need of dam rehabilitation. Cost of these repairs, including possible purchase
from current owners and future maintenance liabilities, may actually exceed benefits gained
from downstream stormwater protection, recreation potential, etc.
Testing of Policy Options
1. Discharge Controls
a. General
Discharge controls are generally used to regulate post development peak stormwater dis-
charges to a preset specified rate. Many times this rate is specified to be equal to the pre-
development peak discharge rate.
Figures 4-7 show the extent to which peak discharges have increased in the New Hope Tribu-
tary and Table 4 shows increases in flooding depths from the natural condition in the water-
shed to the fully developed condition with no form of discharge controls. These increases
negatively impact downstream structures such as roads and homes, both from flooding and
additional streambank erosion and sedimentation.
The impacts of a system of discharge controls using on-site controls and off-site minor/major
-egional controls were evaluated using modeling techniques. For the purpose of this analysis.
:he on-site controls were assumed to be detention/ retention devices. However, the results are
equally applicable to other feasible techniques or designs for regulating stormwater discharge.
b. On-Site
A rn odel simulation of on-site controls was developed using nineteen (19) small retention
impound-ments (ponds) located within the watershed as shown on flap 3. The average size of
the impoundments used in the simulation was 2.8 acres. A condition was established so that
:: der lull land use development, he stormwater discharge would be equal to or less than the
natural, undeveloped state. Results from the model for a 10 year storm event are shown in
Table 3 and include a summary of preliminary design requirements for the retention im-
poundments. Table 5 presents a brief summarv of land and economic requirements needed to
implement this system of on-site controls. The watershed is developed to the extent that
current conflicts are evident between existing development and potential impoundment
locations and implementation of on-site controls at this time would be difficult. It is noted that
the on-site impoundments could have been implemented on a site by site basis as the water-
-5hed was originally developed and that this system of on-going s.tormwater controls would
have been available during the development process to address potential increases in storm-
,.%-ater problems downstream. A review of the geographical distribution of the on-site system
tends to show that stormwater problems would be mitigated at a point reasonably close to the
$tormwcter ManagementP!an 4-328 Raieign Comprenensive Plan 3/90
source and consequently result in less exposure to downstream areas. Data collected from
model simulation indicates that an on-site system of small impoundments is a feasible tech- i-
cal and practical stormwater management tool for this watershed. This on-site system woul_4
require approximately 53.4 acres (6% of the total 894 acre watershed area) at a total estimate.'.
cost of 52,726,501.
c. Minor Regional
A model simulation was developed using the same land use and discharge conditions except
that a minor regional retention system of three medium sized lakes (average 1:.9 acres.
super-imposed as shown on Map 3. Tables 3 and 5 include respective summaries of the
preliminary design requirements and the land and economic requirements. The sites were
selected to address watershed stormwater needs and were not necessarily intended to address
"retro-fit" needs. However, it is noted that two of the retention lakes are generally consistent
with the two existing lower lakes. The third retention impoundment is downstream of the
Tarrymore Square Shopping Center development and would be located between the Bren-
twood Estate residential area and the upstream commercial development. Data collected Err
the model simulation indicates that a minor regional system could be successfully imple-
mented and could be used to regulate full development stonmwater discharges to the undlevi-
oped rate. However, minor regional impoundments would tend to offer maximum contro! -. r
problems immediately below the impoundment and then a gradual decrease in influence um::;
the impact of the next impoundment becomes apparent. A re%iew• of existing land use an.:
development patterns would suggest that a minor regional system in this watershed wou`..i
need engineering analysis, including model simulations, to identify opcimum locations so :-.it
these areas could be reserved and/or incorporated into a large development tract and that -he
minor regional system could be implemented at reasonable costs and with minimal disrupti,--n
to established land uses. The necessary size and critical location of a minor regional fad"No,
decreases the flexibility of this system in the subject watershed. However, minor regional
systems would be compatible in watersheds during the earlier stages of development. The
minor regional system would require approximately 47.9 acres (5-7c of the total 594 acre basin:.
at a total estimated cost of S2,684,923.
d. Major Regional
A model simulation was run using a single large retention lake (48.9 acres). Land use and
discharge conditions were the same as used for the previous simulations. Tables 3 and
include respective summaries of the preliminary design and land and economic requirerne
Major regional facilities tend to be located in the downstream parts of the watershed and
3 shows that the major facility used in the model simulation was located near the cony uen.c:,
with Marsh Creek. -although the model simulation indicated that the overall basin dischar?
could be controlled by this facility, it is noted that little or no upstream benefits would be
realized. Benefits would be available to the larger Marsh Creek basin. The size and location .
this facility would decrease flexibility to incorporate the major regional system into the ex:st-
ing land use and development patterns.
e. Summary
??9
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Management Plan s•;
A generalized outline of respective costs and land requirements for the three discharge control
systems is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2: LAND REQUIREMENTS AND COST OF ON-SITE, MINOR REGIONAL, AND
MAJOR REGIONAL DISCHARGE CONTROL FACILITIES
Land Requirements (acres)
Total Percent of Total
Impoundment Drainage Area
On-Site 53.4 5.97171e
Minor Regional 47.9 3.36.'0
Major Regional 48.9 5.47%
Cost (5)
Total Per Acre of Per Acre of
Impoundment Drainage Area Impoundment Area
On-Site 2,7226,301 _3,048 51,058
Minor Regional 2,684,923 3,001 36,0=2
Major Regional 2,768,522 3,093 56,615
All three systems were determined to be viable in controlling stormwater discharges. On-site
controls and minor regional retention were determined to be suited for the subject watershed
based on flexibility of site selection, implementation options, uniform coverage, and competi-
tive installation costs. Basin modeling is necessary to establish best site locations and design.
2. Floodprone Areas and Regulations
in the New Hope Tributary watershed, flood hazard soils are identified as being present along
ridge lines with zero drainage area as well as along low lying stream bank areas draining
several hundred acres. On the tributary that drains through Ashton and Tarrymore Square
shopping centers and under L.S. 1 (See Map 4), flood hazard soils are identified in the upper
reaches of the tributary which drains onlv 15-20 acres, become absent along the part of tribu-
tary draining 20-60 acres, and are identified again when the tributary drainage area is 60-233
acres. The inconsistency of the flood hazard soils approach directs unnecessary attention to an
area in the upper reaches of the tributary which has minimal or no risk of flooding and over-
looks a more significant area with greater risks.
Presently, detailed flood studies are required for new development where flood hazard soils
are present and the drainage area is greater than 100 acres. For drainage areas less than 100
acres with flood '.hazard soils, a soil scientist must check and correctiv delineate the flood
hazard soils. In the New Hope Tributary watershed, a review of small drainage areas of less
than 40 acres identifies 50 properties as being floodprone using alluvial soils mapping. In
reality, these properties are not floodprone but will be regulated as such under current poli-
cies.
3. Regulation of Private Drainage Facilities
Private ownership accounts for approximately 97% of the drainage ways in the study area.
The City owns the remainder which consists of drainage crossings under the public street sys-
Stormwater Management Pion 4-330 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
tems. A review of the data base and the data from the model simulations identified two
significant undersized drainage systems on private property, one immediately below
Huntleigh Drive and the other immediately above New Hope Church Road. Both systems
interconnect to the public street drainage system. For the most part, private drainage :truc-
tures and piping have been installed and maintained in a satisfactory condition. There are
major problems with three of the four private dams and they are being addressed under the
State Dam Safety Act. The piped drainage system is in good repair and concrete pipe has been
the predominant material selection. There has not been any substantial relocation and/or
alteration of drainage ways resulting in significant problems to the public facilities or adjacent
properties.
Most complaints found in the data base and identified through staff experience were directly
related to run-off and sedimentation from upstream development during and after cor.:truc-
tion periods. Some observations were made during the field inventory that some velocity
dissipation devices (rip-rap pads) are in need of maintenance and that some downstream
erosion is evident and caused by increased velocity in the piped systems.
The original system of four lakes are owned and maintained by the private sector. These'.a.::cs
offer positive stormwater benefits to the watershed. However, the maintenance to safe :tar.
dards and final existence of these lakes is at the discretion of the respective property owner.
As are changes in existing drainage way design, piping, and other stormwater matters «•i:'r.:n
the watershed. New subdivision developments and/or site plans requiring grading perm.!:.
and all areas within the regulated flood plain are reviewed by City staff for drainage svstern
design.
4. Preservation of Natural Features Along Drainage Ways
As previously noted in the inventory summary, most of the drainage ways along the Main
stream have been retained as open channels. Natural wooded and grassed stream''^uffe-
(averaging about 15 feet on each side) are in place along most of the main New Hope Tr ::_^.•
and the main stem has minimal piping.
The feeder stream system has received a high ratio of piping. Thisis attributed to the
tial amount of this system running through developed commercial and high density resz,;on-
tial areas. Based on general staff observation, the ratio of piped drainage ways in this water.
shed appears to be average, or slightly higher, as compared to similar areas within the Cir:.
Current stormwater management philosophies promote open, natural drainage wa,,•s ant:
stream buffers as best management practices for water quality. runoff, and sediment •_ontrc i.
The analysis part of the study included a brief review of natural drainage features to the
watershed and possible impacts on current stormwater conditions and quality. The charge!
erosion and sediment problems observed in the watershed are indicative of problem:
may be improved by the infiltration and discharge reduction characteristics of natural -4ri"r-
age ways. Field observations confirmed that most of the severe channel erosion prof '42n-;
have occurred at the terminus point of the piped systems and that the channel section:.%7,r..
buffers are experiencing much less erosion and sedimentation problems. There are no pns
for City owned greenways in this watershed.
5. Water Quality
Water quality sampling performed during the study was limited and produced only a ;:"_-...
indication of stream conditions. Samples were generally rated good although some ;?f
samples contained elevated levels of metals. Based on this limited testing procedur•;.:n
- overall stream quality would probably be classified as fair. Grab samples ? ere taken
and below the existing lakes. A comparison of the respective results indicated that ., : :::_.
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Storm-Ver ti•cncaer^er• - =- _ . ; .
better below the impoundment which confirms the position that wet impoundments offer
positive water quality benefits. -
6. Application of Current City Programs
The number of requests for drainage petition projects in the watershed is small. This is
probably a result of existing moderate erosion conditions. This could change as the watershed
fully develops. The existing drainage petition policy with the City limit of $1,000 per property
encourages work on small problems, but limits the use of the policy on larger problems.
Major problems such as the flooding of houses in the Huntleigh Drive area due to the under-
sized drainage installation would not fit clearly within the existing drainage petition policy.
The undersized pipe on City right of way could be addressed through the Capital Improve-
ment Program. The total solution is more complex since it requires the replacement of ap-
proximately 200 linear feet of connecting undersized pipe immediately downstream of
Huntleigh Drive on private property and probable work to the dam and spillway system to
reduce backwater elevations, which contribute to the flooding conditions.
The severely eroded streambank conditions identified in many cases would not receive any
assistance due to the fact that the cost of City involvement would exceed the $1000 limit. Some
of the minor problems could be solved by simply placing a small amount of rip-rap on the
stream bank and would receive assistance.
7. General Conclusions
Problems relating to flooding, adequacy of existing drainage structures, private drainage
problems, etc., appear in the New Hope Tributary generally as they would in other watersheds
in the Citv. Erosion along other streams in the City are projected to be slightly worse than in
the New Hope Tributary.
The majority of the existing problems noted in this watershed occurred along the main stream.
while in other parts of the City these same problems occur along smaller collector streams as
%veil as along major streams. This can be attributed to the fact that in this watershed, most of
the development has occurred in the tributaries in the last several years, while development
has been in place along the main stream. As a general rule many of the existing regulations
seem to have worked veil within the watershed. Most of these regulations were put in place
over ten years ago and some of the problems noted in this report could have been avoided
with minor adjustments in regulations to address specific problems such as the tloodprone
soils mapping issue. Problems were generally a combination of public and private responsibil-
itv.
.An interim policy of stormwater management (adopted by City Council 7/19/88 - CR 7107)
has been applied to conditional use zoning cases. The policy states that storm drainage
svstems should be designed such that the post-development discharge is released at a rate
equal to or less than the rate expected if the site were zoned R4 or the rate expected for the
existing zoning, whichever is greater.
If the rezoning is located where reduced discharge provides no benefit or if the site involved is
small (1 or 2 aces) alternative conditions may be applied.
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.32 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
PEAK OUTFLOW TO MARSH CREEK
1960 - With and Without Lakes

Ul
_ u
3
O
LL
1200
1000
800
600
4-CO
11l('Y'?
??J
4.
0
10 100
GT)

3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
wig
I
L witiCuf '
Stonryiwater Management Plan 1.3. 3 :
PE:AI? o 'rFLOW TO MARSH CREED
1985 - With and Without Lakes
3
1
r
ccc,.
c l-
w' Ln
I
I
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.34 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
t^ ?? Ice
J L ?v?,
stcym event ;yr)
PEAK OUTFLOW TO MARSH CREEK
_Ln
'J
\y?
c_
y
0

''FULL' - With and Without Lakes
0C
r,
li
with
withait
25 i
staTM eve-it ;yT}
3CC'
253
15D
.Do
3/90 Raleigh Comorehensive Plcn Stormwater Mcnaceme P'c-
SIMULATION SET 1. - PEAK OUTFL WS
Into Marsh Creek - With Lakes
u
3
%n
u
0
a
:
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1960
1965
-?-
FLL!
Or, CU
SIMULATION SET I - PEAK OUTFLOWS
At New Hope Church Rd - `ffi Lakes
14CO x
1 GE0
1000 1GE5
SC0
FLtL
ECO
400
"AGO
10 •CO
Stormwater Management Plan 4.3.36
Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
SIMULATION SET 1 - PEAK OUTFLOWS
2a)0
2000

U
v 1500
y

1000

5w
0

At Huntleigh Rd - With Lakes
Z? . .. ...... ....... ...
7 1985
qj-L
10 25 - 100
storm event (yr)
SIMULATION SET 1 - PEAK INFLOWS
1000
8co

600
3
C
•
O
200
. 0
At US 1 Road Crossing

tt .
10 25 - 100
storm event (yr)
1 cco ? ,
1985
FULL
3/90 Ral.igh Comprehensive Plan Siomwwater Manogemsnt Plan 4-3.37
SIMULLMON SET
Peak Outflows to Marsh Creels
?J
C7
O
k
i
L??.tr
n
-0`
i
! _,?7 Y.
1
_r - F?
$tormwater Management Plan A-3.38 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
ABLE 3
ssa?s ?a=a s=sa avsasssassaasassasssaassaaaasssssasaasassaa :as:sa a a a
Table Cesign of ponds for Simulation Set 2 so that pe ak
outflows do not exceed that of a 10 yr storm un der
natural conditions.
PEAK
- OUTFLOWS (cfs)
------
-
-
---
------ POND DESIGN

WS ---
natu -
---
ral full --
pipe -
peak -----
depth ---------
storage -----
dime --------
nsions
(in) (cfs) (ft) (cf) ( ft)
ON-S ITE P ONDS
11 23 94 24 21.8 2.6 104000 100 x 400
12 38 327 36 35.9 3.1 620000 100 x 2000
13 38 327 36 35.9 3.1 620000 100 x 2000
14 27 123 24 26.2 3.2 192000 100 x 600
15 12 •65 24 11.3 1.8 90000 100 x 500
16 30 204 24 29.0 3.6 176000 100 x 700
17 92 420 48 79.5 4.3 946000 100 x 2200
18 47 139 36 46.3 3.8 152000 i0o x 40C)
19 23 100 24 22.4 2.7 135000 100 x 500
31 76 392 36 74.9 .4.7 893000 100 x 1900
32 41 114 36 34.4 3.0 150000 100 x 600
33 34 89 24 32.3 4.2 84000 100 x 20C
34 20 160 24 18.2' 2.3 368000 100 x 160C
35 33 151 24 31.9 4.2 210000 100 x 5C0
36 25 107 24 23.4 2.8 140000 100 x 500
20 93 344 48 85.8 4.6 506000 100 x 1-00
21 30 133 36 27.5 3.4 170000 100 x 500
22 118 292 60 115:4 5.0 300000 100 x 600
23 46 .246 36 43.6 3.8 385000 100 x 1100
total 6241000
REGIONAL - 3 PONDS
I 246 1208 _ 3 x 60 ...245.7 4.3 _ -3483000 150 x 5,00
II 160 588 2 x 60 157.2 4.2 2016000 150 x 320
111 274 960 3 x 60 267.0 4.4 1386000 150 x Z-:1:
total 6885000
REGIONAL - ON E P OND
306 1906 3 X 60 305.0 4.7 7708000 200 X 3200
3/90 Raleigh COMMehensive Plan Srorr•wcrer v.wcSer^e^r P -- - _.
J
TABLE 4
FLOODING DEPTHS AND DISCHARGES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE
-----------------------=----------------------------------
NEW HOPE TRIBUTARY FOR THREE DISCHARGE CONTROL SCENARIOS
--------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION NATURAL FULL DEV. FULL DEV. FULL DEV. FULL DEV.
CONDITION W/NO PONDS W/ONSITE W/3 REG. W/1 REG.

-------------
----------
------------ PONDS
-----
- PONDS
- POND

CALVARY DR. ---
-- ---------- -----------
FLOOD DEPTH 2.4 7.7 2.6 7.7 7.7
PEAK IN 82 747 92 747 747
PEAK OUT 82 747 92 747 747
WATERBURY RD.
FLOOD DEPTH 2.0 8.8 3.2 8.8 8.8
PEAK IN 52 1001 133 1001 1001
PEAK OUT 52 681 133 681 681
COMSTOCK RD.
FLOOD DEPTH 3.1 9.5 4.0 9.5 9.5
PEAK IN 116 819 201 819 819
PEAK OUT 116 753 202 753 753
U.S. 1
FLOOD DEPTH 4.1 9.9 4.3 9.9 9.9
PEAK IN 113 489 127 489 489
PEAK OUT 113 385 126 385 385
SARATOGA DR.
FLOOD DEPTH 5.5 9.1 1.8 5.6 9.1
PEAK IN 160 588 21 157 588
PEAK-OUT 149 455 20 152 455
HUNTLEIGH DR.
FLOOD DEPTH 10..1 12.6 10.9 11.0 12.6
PEAK IN 382 1736 404 386 1736
PEAK OUT 260 .1713 333 373 1713
MARSH CREEK
OUTFLOWS 308 1918 394 367 305
** Flood Depths are in feet.
Peak in (discharges) are in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Peak out (discharges) are in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.40 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
TABLE 5
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR DISCHARGE CONTRCLS
--------------------------------------------
ON-SITE
IMPOUNDMENT DRAINAGE LAND CONSTRUCTION
NUMBER AREA REQUIRED. COST

------------ (ACRES)
------------ (ACRES)
----- (S)

1
16.8 --
1.2 ---------------
$20,701.66
2 59.2 6.0 $112,919.43
3 59.2 6.0 $112,919.43
4 22.2 1.8 $35,432.22
5 10.3 1.5 $20,104.51
6 32.4 2.1 $34,426.87
7 164.9 6.6 $161,220.96
8 28.8 1.2 $28,285.00
9 21.6 1.5 $26,229.51
10 146.5 5.7 $148,769.36
11 20.7 1.8 530,629.58
12 17.5 0.6 $15,362.64
13 33.8 4.8 $72,335.82
14 27.3 1.5 $36,437.84
15 16.9 1.5 $26,910.07
16 90.3 3.3 $86,939.65
17 21.1 1.5 $32,043.40.
18 60.2 1.8 $54,983.75
19 44.7
----- 3.0
------ $67,849.30
--------

894.4
53.4 -----
$1,124,501.00
LAND TOTAL
COST COST
(S) (S)
-----------------------------
$36,000.00 $56,70.1.66
$180,000.00 $292,919.43
$1801000.00 S292,919.43
$54,000.00 $89,432.22
$45,000.00 $65,104.51
$63,000.00 $97,426.87
$198,000.00 $359,220.96
$36,000.00 $64,285.0C
$45,000.0.0 571,229.51
$171,000.00 $319,769.36
$54,000.00 $84,629.58
$18,000.00 533,362.54
.$144,000.00 •$216,335.82
$45,000.00 $81,437.84
$45,000.00 5711910.07
$99,000.00 $185,939.65
$45,000.00 S77,043.40
$54,000.00 $108,983.75
$90,000.00 $157,849.30
------------ -------------
$1,602,000.00 $2,726,501.00
MINOR
------ REGIONAL CONTROLS
-----------------
IMPOUNDMENT' DRAINAGE LAND CONSTRUCTION LAND TOTAL
NUMBER AREA REQUIRED COST COST COST

------------- (ACRES)
----------- (ACRES)
-------- ($)
------------ (S) (S1

1
415.4
24.2 -
$617,855.58 ---------------
$726,000.00 -----------•---
$1,343,855.:0
_. 2 -262.7 . .. 14.3 ,. $362, 403.31 .: , $429,000.00- ,--- $791,401.1-
3 216.3 9.4 $267,664.67 $282,000.00 S549,66•.5'
894.4 47.9 $1,247,923.56 $1,437,000.00 $2,684,923.=0
MAJOR REGIONAL CONTROLS
-----------------------
IMPOUNDMENT DRAINAGE LAND CONSTRUCTION LAND TOTAL,
NUMBER AREA REQUIRED COST COST COST
(ACRES) (ACRES) (S) ($) (S)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 894.4 48.9 $1,301,522.41 $1,467,000.00 $2,768,522.41
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan Stcrrrwater ManagemenrP1cn a ?.

6L, J. I . r
{ i ate,.
,
- ell
i• -
-?.j.•,?G,,_Ci yas i ?., .V? . t .; ?r .r '?• ?;j?Y•:'r. ?..tr?i.'
I ? .sly ??? c :`f'C....?...?,,,IAAAJ7 A?O???• • ,?1 t i '?' - ':J%/r- ?\`?-ti'+?a2'. ?. -I .
?w •`/ I :,iC.eu` ti L'>7 I j 'r-7 •?wJ3 r? I
i ? ? , i A - M•4?!''?i l o C' :.'el-1?>1 [rte ?.\ ??'-` r-*'!? ?„`?i?%? ? y ?-w • ?.3+7G ?
C-1 z
?G= aF-\?/t/ a'? 1 3e? '.tr a11N,
%s+? i ¢ t •? ?o = 1' `yC i i'/t`r \\? C??•'Pt?1?l?y?r,? '
,;? q? ?...;r . _? •t_?"_?XJ •-•? ?' sa'-. ?•? ?.:': ?j'? ??: ?; `? .??y 1+i E b-•dj
•? J. _S41??. ?"??-TT--T c,. xo .j i"`,?y;r? `'r,. :? ?.Lt., '*•'-?''?
dft
•? ` -aooaee
3 :• • re ek ?-p :1- e?? i
?•C?i ??1,-"'?rr o a•.°1..????' ljy;. / - e1 t- -- _: ?a i{ ;
`f ate' '°• o°^, syo° .J; ?: - ?.%: I• _ x° ,?°' ' I I
14k, '2
:3L-• ?/c a 8/ ? ?S ?y /? -c- ? .': ii' .,.'.`` '': _-_ "- • •• ? ?
^b ?• ? ?' •rp?' - ' ?._ `, _. .._• il'1' S..:a' ? ;' rte-``- .v a?: - =r-r_ tea: o _ _ •?
_ _? w ` ` i•?+' ./.: ?`.- .l . r.. - r_ -== a .• ?i
?cl-
n sn1C' \ ._ __?? ?O' .` 1. '•0 7 To'?I .'. ?'000 __?_ -x•e- t_ ? ?
r
• i. _? ???? - _ J -mss :.??a"i ^'? , eo?ea a ?• I
LC.ENO
77
`?. yl _ =1 ??y `??` •a? ?RetER SnE: awn?ear ? '- . ? ? ? j
.,! =o'Q ooe
%
OEreRir(rrIor c 1.114.4."ItIo."...11 mill
NEW MOPE TRft3UTARY
?.• ?d :wt4 r _ .i-?' --.. WATERSHED
.AP r
Stormwater Management Plan A-3.A2 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan 3/90
r

r..s
L?Y
I
1
I
i

.+r
4 ' t
?i
i ?

COMM[RCIIL •? C; L-.c ?}',>?;. ?y?• -s ?.
•?` i ./:`?•.•?= ?? ?? ''??•-• ?_?•? _ d... a _r??? ?_ ?? •' i
. {•yJ = .•?~\-?/?? : ' I .ice .:ii -r•... - - 7rci
CamS
%
•.If p. Asti ewr or CL/A..L emol"CZ...G
"' ' .? a - - ?_ NEW HOPE ?R18UTJR7
WATERSHED--AND V SF
'
» AS

3/90 Rc!eigh Comprehensive Pier.
Storn--aer Mc^ece^'e^
?, ? ,,fir --•? ?.. - °?y.' • ____ --?? •?+ -__ -- ' ; ;`,?
•.+ATE??MEO le OM ltrE •aaFe e - ._ L ' ? _
• -ST?CAY - •e ae a ,?•
.•/ a YIMOA-EhOyAl Q ??oeY ve se ?e ae?
r
LAMIC
oor. ";j, ` .?
? ¦AEGIOMAL t?1 ? ? _
?+..... 't ? Y . ?` „? r...?,e?? `.'ate • ' ` ? "? • °r a ,? ?'

' ?, :l . _ :-? ?f ;may, .? .;VI ?- _ •`?',•? - ?'
Stormwater Management Plan 4-3.d4 Raieign Comorei.ensive P!an• 3/9C
' C
? ? ? ?G- ? , ?• may'" S
•r`„'?f'?? y`-?!ol X11 •? •?.', i-?.• '?; ' S'" r ?1 .r
?, \ {?? F-1/r / ?? ' C .i' i , ra:r a . r;,iJ• ?;± vim , -"" Y•:
't
??j.?_,. °>' 7.'t?i'?•, ? _ I,r} -'tom t ?'T''_ ? •?.'???
g
off= Q ° /? S• ??? s?:. ?i
?.? PL a• al j°- 1u'?71"
'?J; ?:o•,.er.,;? ?; t "? aC??..-lV????? i ?.?:t?awe ...?..e??_?- •`-? - _
1,0 1
sf? t,aQro' ? ?.?3 / .i-=??? •I i? _.•? l ?1? ? C,.. _?eie.?.: ? i1, ? ?
a qQ?,' h3•ta,+ .,? ?:• . '1 i ? .. ;a? _' a.. °r- SI ??.+ tee/ .
L.Q ?O°??a a11o'1?. '??o i° ? ;s?, • •a' Y __- ?? k 1 ?I
`5ilc ° e ° ? ,: ,?"?'??`7 ? ? 1 • F r ,. +. a o.? t _ : 7\;` ,;l;?'?,yy)?'1`,???/? ! /.' 1 _ r/• •; .. '
•?1`?a? ?'Q? ?- 'n' - ?? 1.•?j.,r-o_. /o"'".E{y P•' Irv =tea _i- ???
' a /??•'r Z dc^y;.;.1 '? ?, • ; % , ..5,0;7.1 _ i?''e J ?. '? o'•__ , ,o'° - - -,? _ . ,
v
- I , , ?- '. ? / • ?• •_ r ? 1 `i i'.,.1'i av tom-.
• ? ee •d ^_ .a?e - ^.EPARrMErr ,F :EwrPAI ErG.HEEarH,; •
Yf! 'r°??.o a e e - y_?. DIY mOPE TART
WATERSHED
_ eTr?r c ? ,?. rt' FLJCC HAZARD Si.1L • '
?••`/%?? _J %? ;? `••:ti ^„"i.?,.^-'?? ej•j•1S'?',_?^-yam.
• ?- .-f.-?• = h? . ? if `rl c' e .? y ?- t
7 4
%
. _'.?.t- ^'? a 3.0. °" „?,.! ?1_. e• .?•
7• r 1 .,?
-+ATEt+sHEC eauNOAaT .. . -?.?,.., ? -
jE-CLOOD HAEARO SOLS LWR _ _ •? _
AREAS LESS THAN So ACRES-PPElENTLT ILOOOPRONE ACCOROINO TO ALLUVIAL SOILS
AREAS GREATER TNAN SO ACRES-PRESENTLY MOr PLOOOPRONE ACCOROMQ TO ALLUVIAL SO&
YAP
'.3
:t
3/90 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
Stormwcter Manaaemenr P!cn
QQ<q zR
2i?0 ?u
I IN ' ?,/
o?_AU ;9A
;g$=W aH
W 33
r
l?:g
N I 1?
J-,' ^I

U! gig.
Sd
a
;q

N gi?nN Obi' T ,^?' m1 n n u)?
'R aa3

_S3 ?S

d?no d8o ? ?o$?
c?G??l GG? '
? 3?bV

NBbI 8 a?
3 33
77CC ?:.
z s
_---- - ?
-

114- Ill! Hli
:gv

as 'a

N
I N
I -m W

0
w +
J ?
w N
a
0 0
Z o
a o
+
< o
J
CL F
o i
CL
w
w z
J
Z C0
Z
F
N
X
W
N
K
O
N ~
W W
F U
c
c a a ¢
CL U
K
O Z Q "
a. U
~ 2 m O
W
Q m O
Q ? Q
W H
? a
U
a
.y. w
> g
N 'a
Q w.
N Z o
Z
Z Z
M W
N
Q
S
N
S
0
N
4I
YI
o?
so -
3
i =
VAN
m „? (1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 1, 1992 Acting Director
Robert A. Berndt
Hazen and Sawyer
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: City of Raleigh
Big Branch Sewer Interceptor Project
Environmental Assessment
State Project #484
Dear Mr. Berndt:
I am enclosing the comments received as a result of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources review of
the Environmental Assessment for the City of Raleigh Big Branch
Sewer Interceptor Project. Based on a review of the environmental
assessment and the attached comments, I recommend that the document
be revised to incorporate the concerns of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission,the Division of Forest Resources, the
Division of Planning and Assessment, and the Division of
Environmental Management's Wetland and Technical Review Group.
I recommend that you contact Mr. Stephen Pozzanghera of the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (919-528-9886), Mr.
Don Robbins of the Division of Forest Resources (919-733-2162), Mr.
Bill Flournoy of the Division of Planning and Assessment (919-733-
6376) and Mr. Eric Galamb of our Wetland and Technical Review Group
(919-733-1786) to ensure that their concerns are adequately
addressed.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/M UU c
Monica Swihart
Environmental Review Coordinator
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

f ViL
P(f . #', ,,
? Cocu?r?
PA-
v??

r?
487BigBr.ltr
Enclosure
cc: Melba McGee
Steve Pozzanghera
Bill Flournoy
Eric Galamb
Arthur Mouberry, RRO w/enclosure
Dale Crisp, City of Raleigh
:>F ?Y of
.1
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources

.7111
Sip
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR
Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Stephen Pozzanghera,-fiedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 2, 1992
SUBJECT: Project #484, Environmental Assessment Review for the
City of Raleigh Big Branch Sewer Interceptor Project,
Wake County, North Carolina.
The Piedmont Region Habitat Conservation Biologist with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed
the subject document and is familiar with habitat values of the
project area. *Our review and commenting authority for this
project is being provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC-25).
Based upon our project review, NCWRC has the following
comments and recommendations:
1. The construction and permanent easements proposed for
wetland and non-wetland areas are excessive.
Construction easements in non-wetland areas should be
reduced from 60' to 50' and permanent easements should
be no greater than 301. Tooreduce the impact to
wetlands within the project corridor (3.3 acres), the
construction easement should be no greater than 301,
with a permanent easement of 201.
2. No site specific information was provided about the
individual wetlands to be crossed. Descriptions of
dominant vegetation, depth of water and wetland quality
is essential to an environmental assessment. Hazen and
Sawyer should contact NCWRC to discuss wetland
crossings and to schedule a "walk-over" of the proposed
project' s route.
Page 2 September 2, 1992
3. The document construction plans indicate that the sewer
line will be encased in concrete at the creek
crossings. Wet concrete is toxic to aquatic organisms
and causes fish kills. We recommend that an earthen
berm be placed immediately downstream of the
pipe prior to the pouring of concrete. The berm should
stay in place and restrict the downstream flow of
cement contaminated water until adequate hardening has
taken place.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments
is project. If we can be of further assistance, please
ct me at [phone].
Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist
4
¦
N N N_
' '.O [T O CT O U O tP O
I

I I z?'Z ? I _. Inwc
» »
I
!CZ
I 1 a
i
j I 1
955

R
? W
m ?
J

Hii
.1X < p $i¢
4

I H' 1
>a
m
<Z

jl

$ 11
L2 .2
K

HH -Hli Hli !I !I
11
1 `.
<3 <<
E3 8g ?>?

?
,,l I g-
I S J
I
« ik >R i i 1
I I I N
-
N Sn' . m'. R$>s
?o I

I
?
I
I I
I ? I - ?3° I
I I
\. I
cn
In ? n
u
oA ?P
. oqf V?
A
? 5 v y C? f
• • o
2
D
N
Z
n z D
c n Z
O
v Z y
= m ?
n y
G N r C
_ rn
v
n
C u
m
N 0
O ?
m
c f Z
m> oo C
z
z 2 C
N n CO
o= >r-
;o
2 z C
D
r
m rn
m
O N
N
r '
z z
m
v a
I m
`o o `
>
s
o v
o >
o z
Z
n v
0
+ m
°o

S

_ ?? v ne
N
m ?G ID O
N N
O ?
>u +„? 8 >? i, 's u?i Ha
zo ? \ J"?yy s€ ?J$I ?
t
X oo ?.
?? S ,r• ? nJ= Y S.?Yg
? ?Q2E ? ?9 m'Q p
I
>'2
V
6fey IX L
GG
_ `? B pp pa
R ? R
H ?P
I u
g Cq, esre 8
m a
v a
A e.u ?
_ "`e" 2
9
p e.w Nio?
iar Ie `• I I?
S
W Wqa \n SV •-
El
STA i 1 00
w
i

O N
J O
/? O Ln O V?
( iN

b L I ??
?? I °

`
I
I
t +
s m
i

I
co - ---- ----
?een
°'?
?
ss
Q
=
p
p. S` ?°O Cp
C=
IR

?M
Np I N
D
q
2 p„ S
?
v O ?1i
? c
0 g

E 5171

rt N o?
Z N

- m D
= Z Z 2
m
o
Z y _ _ _

? z _ - _

'o N I
MI W
i V
9 H
J
?

C
?
O A

0
C> m m N
CD N
CD r $
o O 22
1
OF
= ? Eg ; ???
o
Z
y C
n CO
N
NS
cC Aon
Z N
Z
I p
j
A r
m
,
O
y y
N 1
r
z
z

--

-
m
z 1

fr "O
+ r
I
?
I 2.1
I? g
?, ?
O
C' Z
>
v r 7

N
N
i 1
+° r
m X
,
o I I I I ? 1
I T.,

.. N N ? ?
v rn m ? ? O O
?L
SIC
O
..? g t=zc ?•,, j
?S as I _

o
3
N? A
r
Z >?
a
ix r
yws1 Il
z
?? I `a e G
?x
N
T?
?b
p
E

?z c
?o
c .74
? gp
R

Ali c
-
o?
Ht
R
ti
S
l ? F
Q7

j' I

§S RW + ??
N W
W
I ?3
?$ 1
I I I
1

S

O M R
S S
n R t 3? 4

N
I
,
a b?
x

W
z
a

? M ? N N O O O O O
N N N N N N N. N
I ! I ? ?
i

I

,
<
N h
N MI
Ni ,, N
, N I
I Y'1
N O
N C
N O'
NI O?
I?
NI N I N N N NI `-I
J L
S....

0

.r

p
n",
F :
Uz;

- 1 A

I i

Sg. I R?; I

t
I
n
n
n

?? / ? bllo ? ?? W!y
s
,o ? ? ?? ? R? // m Wly
j u

x
s
n5t n !Z?
1
1
n
I? ?
a
8 ? ? I ` ?ryry
- §G
? pp pS
i I
Q?
W YS ?
I I I
3N
I
=
?

I
GU
p{

all
i

'? I W

z
g??n
0
z
a
n ° ? ? ? .°n v °v n °n I=1n
N N N N N N N N N N

O
I i I ! I I I?
i

LU

o? R ?
i oag

s,
r _
N N N N Ni N I N N
- I
, . h M N N .
N O
N
N N N N N N

I O l
f a r
e
i

Hii Hi 11
1,
iii
% ? SS
~ 1
N Z

?Hg

r'
I
_ _ I - - I v5i
? 3i A ? ? z 8
3 NI
m l I ?? 1
i L
+,
-
1 ....
....
i

V
j ?? Y < M. M N N ??O

Ws
i? Y ^
`T o k' ? Yi3 k'
.- N K
mde?
654$s
ag ??W9:?b
$ y o
1Xi?i5?g
o __ w
C
F p,
N m ~ ? 1\ryy N
?w do Op ..\ 7W
`\ryy ??/? z
w m
w W
Of
MNAAAAAA
---
m W to n r
U l
? I ro
L?iCg I my
Ua? SO 2W ( ? N b
n U ? /
{{y!?+{ J m
fHz s -"-T} --_ '
L-J
NIW z
'NIW ,9 I ? yy
a5 T/Oldii LL I 3 <
$oq
1ry?1ry<]?? I ?C
A i 3
?c
a a
x a
I NIX ? S S 2 ,I?ya H
NIW I I m X
NW ,L-.z ,9 < a 41
I
_ ?laev? a3LiI3 T ? ? m °
i F
F U ? I 1L d _ _
bL ? ? s d Z
CL
g t
a
?' r E
5: o
o a
d? `=L d i
?K3N C< ? a
N N F 0 Z _Z < yUU? t
d
6 2 s m? `s z? a
g I z X
O
93HW 3Nf7 ? ?a? sQj ?. ? "„
W3o ?g? I_ a
I ? m<ao?? ?? pa
co # mdm?W3< o
ia.-=..a.?'o. O
CL
I-
U
Y ? o
m 5 6
0 rl?
w
0
p
r
} < 4
F
? 1
' o

V U
h
F-
a
w
z

K
i
]

?
°
N
+
o
d
±
o
d
+
d
d
+
d
d
+
o
o
±
o
d
+
d
d
+
aj
bo
?

?

r

m

N

O ^
0
z
F
"d
?
3
3
3
,
3
22?i
<
>
< ?j
?<
of ?
] 3
] N
1 N
1 r
1 m
l ^
l m
l
l
i J
?? YI N N FW
ma
S
n r y r r m mi n

? aW
`
fis
m
?
N'
'
m^
N
N r
n
a ?
,o
m
°
d z
?s
6 r m ? H
,J sbZOC
O?Ft ?O?W3m
1 +
E
E a]
J
?ppi
I N 3 Z d ci U
U ?
a ?
1es 1
J
0
K
a
°
a
N
N
O
U
O Z
V1 G
va
z?
Q U
m O
L7 ?
m p
Q
N
N
a
a
i
J S

ell
'M
3 N
m ? O 3

gi'b3_zq
jag G s;
i 3Y gmmmm?r ?? Ca oggsSW Uu;a
N o'er
ig;M 5j
SAS€j6 yNK g?sg $?mwg`8 _§g a
o=?
- n n ? d u n
.I I ,
e?g A? '^I-! I n of I ^? - -I -l I e o! e?elel I I e el - ? -I - .. .. I ?! e l e! e e e e e e eI e I?4„ o e e e o e e ol e
gg
d
I
I $I
al ?
l
g-RI
F $
1
y Sl I
I
?
I
S
4
yt
x?
$
P?
S
R
&I

,
8!?
Fi
R?
?
I

3 I ; is V 2 1; I Y Y 4i1' 2 14 ? 4 !4i1'4 2 11 8 a 2 2 2 4 ' 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 1 11 22 2 2 4 1 2 a 2 1 8
gg
»
,il» gq
» gg
»
;
i
t
li 9
l.i.l.
G
»
I» R?igg
?G.G,« g
G 4
» q
I»
I»
,
» ?
» 4
»
« 4g
« ?
I» ?
je
» qq
IG
. gg
G ?
G
» ?
G 4
I«,» 9
»
»
»
G 9g
»
»
G
» g
»

S
y
C
e
tIC
!ele
C
la
C
a
C
=

l
C
e
C
le
C
e
,tIt!
lal al
C
e
C
l e I
,CI C,t?C
l eie aia
t
a
C
a
C
a
t
a
t
e
C
a
C
a
t
°
t
e
t
B
C
a
iC
le
C
a
C
a
t
a
t
a
t
le
t
e
C
e
t
a
C,t
?e?e
C
a
C
a
t
s
t
e
C
e
t
a
t
e
t
e
t
e
lISS
?h r ir lr a le ° leie is ., ? .le

5
^1 i'j
1
"s
2
,Z
I
i
?
A
7
L
TS
'.? iS E iD
I' I
?+
8
8
IG
-
G
L
IC
L
S
$ -
e
E
'd
$
_
8
I8
§
IS I l..
'Q jS -
S e
S e
° n
S e
?
S
? ?
g ?.
e
s?
>1?M?

?
j ? r ?
zzSS
I
S 1
>
J

Z
< W
? OF

?
:f i
I
Gf 3 .F
E 0
I
sa ?.o
°23
g?
N
J
? W O
c :

? N
W ?
O
3< Ogg gg
0- 1g;
19g9 C!,
vjb N
l5
i-oZ of
t? v ?n?x n?i?i :-<
I ? J
EA
I 3 ? o
o ?
I ?
?'- ss a 'wn ja ,?
?S ?yj atot
Zt ?? 3 < o
?
. ? C?,
M F
y° - =

N
I ot. i$w'$n
.. 3c??= 3
3 jai
? ?yy y ?9i' I
?< {,NIn
' loo W7
'
2f3
a
z
9i Y
ZS'
m?`g_
z ? ?'X g?a S
a
bm ?? d
r .. X
°aW
MM
¢ ?+Iz
N
I 0
0
?a
I ?
N
1
V
H
O
C
k
H
c
O `
cn `
U
Q ?
co
?
co
? la
m?
F
F
c
c
i -
o'
C
W
, W
Z o
I = ?
W ?
1? 410
?m n> ?civln

CITY OF RALEIGH
NORTH, CAROLINA 1

BIG BRANCH ,
SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
August 1992

STATE PROJECT AGENCY: , North Carolina Department of. Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
CONTACT: Ms. Monica;_Swihart
'Division of Environmentat,Management
Water Quality Planning Branch
[phone] ,
PREPARED BY: Hazen and Sawyer, PC.
Raleigh, North Carolina
(919) $33-7:1`52

' HAZENMD SAS
Environmental 5ngInears & $09ntlsts

,.;.
� I 11 1. �
- . � . I �
I , - I
� I
I
I I - I ,�, I �
-1 - � -) " ", , i�"-` � I
,
I . :, . I - � I -, I �
. 1, I I I - - 1� � "I f��
I : " _r:t-, I — ,�, - I,'-,-:
­ , . - -
. - ��, '. , .
! 1, . , � -
: � ,- '' '' "
I , `-
,
,0;
'�, :"", " -'e; ,� .
11 "­�'
i-
- -- �
- . I I ",
I -,�,�.,,,,�:,' , , :�,
� � , I
, I
, � '', I �
, w , , — � " I t ,,, , , - -, ,',,�, � I , , � ., I i
. , , . , �4- , , , " - , - �
,
. —i -.t , - , I 1, -
- ., �, , ; , , � , , ": , , , I
, , I , .
� , . I : : . -, - I � �, , �- , � . , �— -,
I � � lll..�� I I ,, -,
I � I . N, - 1. . �, t ", ,�,�.
� . �
:� 11 - �, � ', I , � ,
" " , I , ,.
I :
� � - � �,: � � , , I "I-� I � , " , " : :t: , , I ".,.
� I 1. � . - , I ,
, � ��,:� "I � . ,
, , � , . -, - �J ,., I . �
� � , ,
- , , , : i - � I � I - , .- � ;, I 1. " ", ,-" '.
j- '':
I , .
, t
. , ,� _�j" � ,-,,'�
- � .
� , ,�' - , � ''""" "' � , �",
, . -, - . � t. I 'i
, I ,:', � �— I . . I �� , `
, , . , � , ,
,� ,
, , , , . , I I .!� � .�,,S, .
I- - -
-
" I -
� , �. -` - - --1 , � I
�-` I
I --- I �-, - -I
-
�
�
I I
., �
I
--I'-
.. "I.
I I
,", fi. - , ; , " ,
. I I -
. ,, , ��, " , , - , , , . I
� I ., , , I .
t - ,. � , , . I I
��,
I I- - � -. I . , " I � I I , , , %;
I- �, : , � .1, � " � , , -11
�
, , N� ll-""� �
I - , - i , -", -` -,
,::" " -, -,
�tl I
, , j�,::��"" ,�. , -,
,
,'--' , -
� . 4
.
, ,
,
, ,-'- ,
, ,",-,,- ",-, "'.''-
, , , I
I � � � : I 11 � " : e),.
, � ,,',�: " , "
, ,
, ��
,
- '. - , , , , I
,
,'',
, " - , I � , �
, - � " , , :: , I , � ,
, , , - . , I . -
, .": t. . , . ;\
. ,,, ,,,
� , :
,
,
- .,., ,,,, ,
: "
a3
�4
"� � t�� , , , ,
;.
-
K
, . , I I 1. , "" � . �� I I I
� , �� ,,�t� I ,,��;�, ... t,� ��,
_. .. ...
Y
.. _
I•
'i...
Y
J
}
Y,
�!
'� t } ���
l
4.
-
�`c
.; •
_
�.
_.
-
f
t
o:
..
c.
..,.. ,. .. ". .:
�'
„-
i
I
''
f.
,,
a
�j'
�i �.
J
}`
,
.. ,, -.
` 2
I 11
1'`
'.
,11
,,'
7�
,i.
l�
..
,.1�. '.�
.,- r - sti'
... a� .m ,
< .: .
-
?
...
'
< .
'./.
v " 1�-
- _
_

MEMO
TO:
. n' N" "'u-aw .
DATE:
SUBJECT: ?A r
Lu
d-
cut,
te'M k-7
? f.
awv?
r_
v From: wfw, c-,

STATE
North Carolina Department of Environment
':? Health and Natural Resources
?? Printed on Recycled Paper
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
CITY OF RALEIGH
NORTH CAROLINA
BIG BRANCH SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
Page
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions, Funding Sources 1
B. Existing Environment 2
C. Existing Wastewater Facilities 5
D. Need for the Proposed Facilities and Actions 5
E. Alternative Analysis 6
F. Environmental Consequences, Mitigation Measures 7
G. Mitigative Measures 12
References 13
Appendix A - Listing of City and County Regulations
Relating to Surface Water Quality Protection
Appendix B - Construction Drawings, Wetlands Delineation
1

l

L
C
1
1
1
BIG BRANCH
SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions, Funding Sources
' The proposed Big Branch sewer interceptor project consists of a gravity interceptor
system, a wastewater pumping station and a force main td the City of Raleigh's
' existing Walnut Creek Interceptor tributary to the City's Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The project will provide wastewater collection for the Big Branch
' service area which is located primarily within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
of the City of Raleigh. The Garner ETJ is adjacent to the project area and parts
of the Garner service area may be served by the proposed project. The proposed
' project service area is located entirely within the 20-year growth areas of the City
of Raleigh and the City of Garner as identified in the August 1989 Wake County
Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan (Hazen and Sawyer, 1989).
' The proposed project consists of a sewer interceptor running along Big Branch
Creek, four (4) tributary gravity sewer lines to the interceptor, a 8.3 mgd pump
station and a 20-inch force main. The force main would discharge to the City of
' Raleigh's existing Walnut Creek Interceptor for subsequent treatment at the
Raleigh Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Neuse River
' WWTP is currently being expanded from an existing capacity of 40 mgd to 60 mgd
and has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The proposed project
will eliminate the existing William's Road pump station, wastewater flow from which
will discharge to one of the tributary gravity sewer lines. Similar to that for the
existing pump station, an intermunicipal agreement will provide for collection and
treatment of wastewater from the Garner service area in the City of Raleigh
system.
' The total proposed project consists of approximately 11,500 feet of sewer
interceptor along Big Branch Creek, approximately 17,500 feet of tributary gravity
sewer line, along with the pump station and force main to the Walnut Creek
Interceptor. The project will be constructed in separate phases, with the first
phase consisting of approximately 5,000 feet of gravity sewer from the existing

Page 1 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

1

1

1

' Williams Road pump station to the Big Branch Interceptor, approximately
1,800 feet of the Big Branch Interceptor north of Rock Quarry Road (SR 2542), the
' pump station, and approximately 1,500 feet of force main from the pump station
to the Walnut Creek Interceptor. A map showing the total proposed project is
presented in Figure 1. The proposed first phase project is shown on Figure 2.
Segments of the alignment of the proposed interceptor utilize easements originally
purchased by the Town of Garner for sewer line construction. The existing
easements will be purchased by the City of Raleigh from the Town of Garner at
the onset of the project.
' The.cost of the first phase project will be approximately $2 million and will be
obtained from City of Raleigh funds. Subsequent phases of the project will be
financed under later capital improvement projects or by private developers.
B. Existing Environment
1. Topography and Soils
The City of Raleigh is located in the center of Wake County, which lies
along a transitional zone between the Piedmont uplands in the western part
' of the County and the Coastal Plain in the east. Except for the broad flat
areas between streams, most areas are gently rolling. Where cut by stream
' valleys, the differences in elevation range from 50 to 100 feet from the
highest to the lowest points. Elevations in the County range from about
540 feet above sea level near Leesville to a low point of approximately
140 feet near the Neuse River WWTP site.
' Wake County is composed of soils from 10 soil associations: Creedmoor-
White Store, Mayodan-Granville-Creedmoor, Herndon-Georgeville, Appling-
' Durham, Cecil-Appling, Cecil, Cecil-Madison, Appling, Wagram-Norfolk, and
Appling-Louisburg-Wedowee. A soil association consists of a landscape
having a distinctive proportional pattern, of soils. The Creedmoor-White
Store and Mayodan-Granville-Creedmoor soil associations are generally
found west of the Jonesboro Fault, which serves as a boundary between
the Triassic sedimentary rocks to the west and the pre-Triassic igneous and

Page 2 HAZEN AND SAWYER
' Environmental Engineers & Scientists

i

?I

1

t
' m
N
01
M
d
J
W
O
a
CU
r7
o0
q
?a
U
N
s
J
a
0
N
0
o
a
FIGURE I
I " = 3000"
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.c.
Consulting Engineers
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
i
a
' m
cl'
N
M
J
Q?
Q
U
O
O
n
W
N
a
N
a
0
a
FIGURE 2
EXISTING MANHOLE
WALNUT CREEK INTERCEPTOR "
20"0 FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED PUMP STATION
36°0 INTERCEPTOR
EXISTING WILLIAMS ROAD
PUMP STATION
ROCK QUARRY ROAD
SR 2542
240 INTERCEPTOR
JONES SAUSAGE ROAD
SR 2547
PARSHALL FLUME
1000 500 0 1000'
BIG BRANCH
SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
? HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.c. PROPOSED FIRST PHASE
® Consulting Engineers RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA FACILITIES

1

1
Ll
metamorphic rocks to the east. In general, these two soil associations are
derived from sandstone, shale, and mudstone, and have a surface layer of
sandy loam to silt loam and a varicolored, clayey subsoil. Due to the slow
permeability of Triassic subsoils and underlying rocks, a smaller amount of
rainfall is absorbed into the ground for these soils than for the other soil
associations of the County.
Soils east of the Jonesboro Fault are derived mostly from gneiss, schist,
and granite, and from phyllite or Coastal Plain sediments. Generally, these
soils have moderate permeability and shrink-swell potential. The alluvial
soils making up the flood plains along most streams are fine, sandy loam
soils which have good infiltration capabilities, but because of high water
table have a limited capacity to absorb water.
Soils in the Big Branch service area are located within the Appling and
Appling-Louisburg-Wedowee soil associations. These two soil associations
consist of gently sloping to steep, deep and moderately deep, well-drained
to somewhat excessively drained soils. The Appling soil association has
soils with a subsoil of firm clay loam to clay. The Appling-Louisburg-
Wedowee soils have a subsoil of very friable, coarse sandy loam to firm
clay. Both are derived mostly from granite, gneiss and schist (Cawthorn,
1970).
2. Surface Waters
In general, the land in the County slopes in a southeasterly direction, the
general direction of flow for the major streams, which include the Neuse
River and its primary tributaries: Crabtree Creek, Middle Creek, Swift
Creek, Walnut Creek, and Little River. The Neuse River drains most of the
County and originates at the confluence of the Eno and Flat River arms of
Falls Lake, approximately 8 miles northeast of the City of Durham. A small
area in the southwestern part of the County drains to the Cape Fear River
Basin. Flow in the Neuse River is regulated by the upstream Falls Lake
Dam.

Page 3 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
1
1

1
t

1

Walnut Creek and segments of Swift Creek are classified as Class C
waters, which are protected at a minimum for fish and wildlife propagation
and secondary recreation. In addition to this classification, Falls Lake is
classified as Class IV nutrient sensitive waters, which are waters protected
for water supply uses in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
Segments of Swift Creek and Little River are classified as WS-III and WS-II
nutrient sensitive waters, respectively, which are protected as water
supplies in low to moderately and predominantly undeveloped watersheds.
Point source discharges of pollution are permitted in these watersheds to
varying degrees depending on their classification; however, specific limits
on the number, type and size are applied. In addition, nonpoint source
discharge management programs are required in these watersheds, and
local ordinances further restrict development in and around critical areas of
Falls Lake, Swift Creek; and Little River.

The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management rated all rivers
and major tributaries in the State according to biological and water quality
conditions in the May 1985 report, "Assessment of Surface Water Quality
in North Carolina". Streams were designated as impaired, i.e., those with
i
i
"
"
"
"
poor or fa
r rat
ngs on either the
biologic
rating or the
water quality
rating, or both. Possible causes of impairment include nonpoint urban and
agricultural runoff and point source discharges. Walnut Creek was
generally described as poor in terms of its "biologic" rating, while no "water
quality" rating was given. No ratings on Big Branch were included in this
report. Point source discharges to the Neuse River Basin in Wake County
identified in the report included 4 wastewater treatment plants; 3 water
l
12
3 i
l
tituti
l di
t
t
t
i
l
d
d 3 i
h
t
t
i
rea
men
an
, an
arges;
s;
commerc
a
,
n
us
a
ns
ona
sc
p
r
and 8 mobile home parks.

3. Groundwater

Several municipalities in Wake County use both ground and surface water
sources for water supply. Groundwater is also used for water supply for
many subdivisions, mobile home parks, commercial establishments, and
industries. Municipalities using wells for water supply include Cary, Holly
i Springs, Knightdale, and Rolesville. Some localized iron and manganese

Page 4 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

fl

1

fl
P

r.

problems are reported, although groundwater is generally of acceptable
quality for most municipal and industrial uses.
4. Land Use
' The. project area is primarily undeveloped with some residential
development at rural densities. Two subdivisions are located in the project
area, one near the proposed pump station and one on the east side of the
project area. One industrial area with an existing industry and an industrial
1 park are located on Jones Sausage Road on the western side of the project
area.
C. Existing Wastewater Facilities
Existing wastewater collection facilities consist of the 4.1 mgd Williams Road
pumping station on the western side of the project area which discharges into a
force main running along Rock Quarry Road and discharging to a gravity
interceptor along Sunnybrook Road. The pump station discharge enters the
Walnut Creek Interceptor at Sunnybrook Road, upstream of the force main
discharge for the proposed project. The Williams Road pump station will be
eliminated under the proposed project.
D. Need for the Proposed Facilities and Actions
The proposed project will provide wastewater collection and treatment to a
drainage basin located within the 20-year growth area of the Cities of Raleigh and
Garner and predominantly within the Raleigh ETJ. Extension of sewer service to
this area would minimize the number of private wastewater treatment facilities
which are often inadequately maintained and poorly operated, resulting in the
discharge of poor quality effluent to receiving streams. Reducing the number of
' such facilities will improve water quality. The need for septic systems in the
project area would also be reduced, ensuring better water quality. The service
area for the proposed project is shown on Figure 3.
Proposed facilities are sized based on full development in accordance with the City
of Raleigh zoning map and City of Raleigh standard design flows for each zoning
Page 5 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

1
1
1
1
Ij

s
?m
N
n
q
a°
0
W
a
N
N
0
?o
a
FIGURE 3
,....? i 1007
4211 EXISTING WALNUT
CREEK I RCEPTOR
vJ48"
I
r?
l

I
I
k48
i y
? 18" l?G? L ??54 REEK %Y
20"FM
18 FM PROPOSED PUMP STATION
EXISTING 36"
PUMP 24"
STATION
j 18" ^ 2411
`s?? ??
11 1211
? 21
15"
IAA
?I
15"
L---- --? i8"
12"
1?0s4
l\

9
I " = 3000"
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.c.
Consulting Engineers
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
le
1
?s
12" 'Ns
2552
IP04 ? ` '/
SO, BIG BRANCH
SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED SERVICE AREA
1?

L7,

1?
1

category. Peak flows are based on a factor of 2.5 times average flow. Projected
development includes residential development from R-4 to R-6 zoning categories,
industrial development, and other miscellaneous uses. Average flow for the total
service area is projected to be approximately 2.4 mgd, plus approximately 0.9 mgd
from the abandoned Williams Road pump station.
E. Alternative Analysis
Segments of the alignment of the proposed interceptor utilize easements originally
purchased by the Town of Garner for sewer line construction. The existing
I easements will be purchased by the City of Raleigh from the Town of Garner at
the onset of the project.
Alternatives to the proposed project consist of: (1) the "no action" alternative, (2)
a gravity sewer system with gravity flow or siphons to the Walnut Creek
Interceptor, and (3) a gravity sewer system with alternate pump station locations.
The "no action" alternative. is not considered feasible because it would require
future development to be served by private wastewater treatment facilities or septic
tanks. Use of private wastewater facilities is not acceptable because such facilities
are likely to result in poor quality effluent discharged to receiving streams. Septic
tanks are also not acceptable because most of the soils in the service area have
moderate to severe limitations for septic tanks and because projected development
is expected to be at urban densities throughout the service area.
Use of gravity or siphon discharge to the existing Walnut Creek Interceptor is not
feasible because the gravity sewer system is much lower in elevation than the
Walnut Creek interceptor. At the pump station, the elevation of the proposed Big
Branch interceptor is approximately 25 feet lower than that of the Walnut Creek
Interceptor.
Alternate pump station sites were also evaluated. The only feasible alternate site
was eliminated in favor of the proposed site because the alternate site was
located in a wetlands area and it would not have provided service to an existing
j subdivision on the north side of the service area.

Page 6 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
??
G???,
??. ?S
J'?
?(
P
1 F. Environmental Consequences, Mitigation Measures
The environmental impacts of the proposed project and measures to mitigate those
impacts were evaluated for different categories of impacts as discussed in the
following sections:
1. Changes in Land Use

The proposed project involves a change in land use from existing
predominantly undeveloped conditions to a land use of primarily low density
residential development plus small areas of commercial and industrial

' development. Of the total service area approximately 2,800 acres is
l
t
d t
b
d
d f
l
d
it
id
ti
l
i
f
t
d
projec
eve
ow
e
o
e
ope
or
ens
y res
en
a
use, a
a
ens
ty o
8 persons per acre. Another 200 acres are projected for medium density
residential development, at a density of 14 persons per acre, along with
200 acres for industrial development. The remainder of the developed area
is projected for other miscellaneous uses.
Changes in. land use are required for construction of the proposed project
f
ili
i
i
l
di
h
i
i
it
d f
t
t
t
or, grav
y sewers an
orce
ac
nc
ng t
e pump s
on,
n
ercep
t
es,
u
at
mains. The pump station site will be cleared and graded to allow its
construction. A permanent easement of 40 feet will be provided for the
gravity sewer pipelines and the force main. A construction easement of
' 60 feet will be provided in nonwetland areas.
2. Wetlands .
The proposed construction is allowed under the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit Program in North Carolina. Wetlands reconnaissance
was performed in the field as a part of this environmental assessment. The
location of wetlands were field verified by a Corps of Engineers
representative. Approximately 3600 linear feet over the alignment of the
proposed interceptor are located in wetlands. Based on a corridor width of
40 feet (which is the maximum width allowed by the Nationwide Permit),
approximately 3-1/3 acres of wetlands will be affected. No wetlands areas
' are located on the site of the proposed pump station.

Page 7 HAZEN AND SAWYER
1 Environmental Engineers & Scientists
bVI
.
Ct/
?G{ ,JJL
The location of wetlands will be delineated on the construction drawings for
the proposed project. Copies of these drawings with the wetlands
delineated are included in Appendix B. These drawings will be submitted
to the Corps of Engineers during the Nationwide Permit application process.
In addition, applicable portions of the General Conditions from the
Nationwide Permit will be included in the construction specifications.
As required by the Nationwide Permit, disturbance will be minimized by
carefully controlled construction techniques. Wetlands areas within the
corridor will be restored to the existing grade, allowing restoration of lands
to their natural state. Excess material will be removed to high ground.
A general 401 Water Quality Certification also covers the proposed project.
Application for this certification will occur simultaneously with the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit application.
Wetlands within the service area may be indirectly affected by projected
development if it is not properly controlled. Adequate sedimentation control
measures, restoration of disturbed sites to original grade and vegetation,
and limiting development in critical wetlands areas will minimize impacts of
this development.
3. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
The proposed construction will not significantly affect prime or unique
agricultural lands. A maximum permanent easement width of 40 feet will
be acquired for new easements.
Agricultural land within the service area will be gradually converted to urban
uses as an indirect result of the project. However, these areas have been
identified for urban development in projections prepared by the Wake
County Planning Department for the Wake County Water and Wastewater
Facilities Plan (Hazen and Sawyer, 1989).

Page 8 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Emrimnmental Engineers & Scientists

1 4. Public Lands, Scenic and Recreational Areas
1 The proposed project will not affect any public lands, scenic, or recreational
areas. A proposed City of Raleigh park is located adjacent to Walnut Creek
on the north edge of the service area. The park site will not be served by
' the proposed facilities and will not be affected by the proposed project.
A future greenway can be accommodated along the easement for the
proposed interceptor and tributary gravity sewers. Greenways are proposed
for Big Branch and the tributary stream to the west near the existing
Williams Road pump station in the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan -
Update 1989. This greenway would allow recreational use of the proposed
easements and provide additional habitat for wildlife. The proposed
greenway will connect to the future Walnut Creek greenway, portions of
I which have already been acquired.
Based on the "Inventory of the Natural Areas of Wake County, North
Carolina", no significant natural areas are located within the project area.
1 5. Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value
' Information on identified archaeological or historic sites in the project area
was requested from the Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History. A letter from the Division of Archives and History
dated January 10, 1991 indicated that a'portion of the proposed project was
surveyed for archaeological resources in 1977 and that no archaeological
sites were located. Based on the results of that survey, additional
archaeological investigations for this project were not recommended. A
search of Division of Archives and History files found that no structures of
historical or architectural importance are located within the planning area.

6. Air Quality and Noise Levels

The proposed project will have no significant long-term impact on air quality
or noise levels. Construction activities associated with the proposed project
1
Page 9 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

1

1
1

1

1

will result in unavoidable noise and air pollution impacts, including
particulates and other contaminants from earthwork operations, clearing and
' construction equipment emissions. These impacts should be localized and
short-term during construction and can be minimized by limiting construction
to normal daytime working hours, by watering to control dust, by proper
maintenance of construction equipment, and by minimizing burning through
use of timber harvesting and chipping of brush and tree branches.
7. Groundwater Quality

The proposed project will have a beneficial effect on groundwater quality
because it will allow the elimination of septic tanks in the newly served
areas. Urban development and the resulting increased runoff may affect
groundwater quantity and quality. However, the overall impact on
groundwater use for water supply should be slight and predominantly
beneficial.

8. Water Supplies and Surface Water Quality
Th
d
ld
t i
li
t
t
t
f
e propose
projec
wou
no
mpac
wa
er supp
es or sur
ace water
quality except for minor short-term impacts from erosion and sedimentation
during construction. Short-term impacts on surface waters . will be
minimized by maintenance of effective erosion and sedimentation control
procedures pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
Increased surface runoff and soil erosion will result from urban development
of the service area and from construction activity associated with this
development. This will be mitigated by strict enforcement of existing City
and County regulations for design and maintenance of storm drainage
systems, flood plain management, and soil and erosion control. A listing of
these regulations is included in Appendix A.
The proposed project will result in increased discharge from the City of
Raleigh Neuse River WWTP. Environmental effects of this increased
I
Page 10 HAZEN AND SAWYER
I Environmental Engineers & Scientists

discharge were addressed in an environmental assessment for the
expansion of the Neuse River Plant (Hazen and Sawyer, 1988).

9. Shellfish, Fish, and Wildlife and Their Habitats
I
h
llfi
h
fi
h
ildlif
ld b
h
l
i
l
i
t
t
d
t
t
mpac
,
, an
w
e wou
or
-term re
ve
ear
ng
s
o s
e
s
s
e s
at
o c
of easement where required. A width of 60 feet would be cleared for
construction easement in nonwetland areas, with a permanent easement '
width of 40 feet over the entire project. Short-term impacts would also
(0
occur related to stream crossings, including one crossing of Big Branch and
one of Walnut Creek. Two or three crossings of other small creeks or
drainageways are required. - Erosion and sedimentation control measures
will be applied to minimize adverse impacts. No threatened or endangered
species are expected to be adversely affected by the proposed project. ??
The "Inventory of the Natural Areas of Wake County, North Carolina" does
not identify any significant natural areas in the proposed project service
area (LeGrand, 1987). Two natural areas are located along Walnut Creek,
one upstream and one downstream of the project area. Neither area would
be impacted by the proposed project.
The impact on fish habitat will be beneficial for streams in the service area
because of the reduction of the number of septic tanks. Any negative
impacts from urban development can be mitigated by effective management
of stormwater in areas to be developed. The impact of siltation occurring
from construction activities will be minimized by effective soil and erosion
control measures.
10. Introduction of Toxic Substances
No toxic substances are expected to be introduced into the environment as
a result of the proposed project.
11. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
The proposed project will not involve any discharge to surface waters;
therefore, it will have no effect on eutrophication of receiving waters.

Page 11 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
F
I G. Mitigative Measures
I Mitigative measures to minimize adverse effects on the environment for the
proposed project are summarized as follows:
1. During Construction Activity
- The pipeline corridor will have a maximum cleared width of 40 feet
in wetlands areas. Within this corridor, wetlands areas will be
restored to existing grade, allowing restoration of lands to their
natural state. Excess material will be removed to high ground.
Replanting of vegetative cover, as required for erosion control, will
be performed. Other provisions required by the General Conditions
of the Nationwide Permit will also be adhered to during construction.
Soil erosion and sediment will be limited by design and enforcement
of effective erosion and sediment control measures.
Construction noise, vehicle emissions and dust will be minimized by
limiting construction to normal daytime working hours, by proper
maintenance of construction equipment, and by watering to control
dust.
2. Long-term Effects
1 - No significant long-term adverse effects are expected for the
proposed project.
- Long-term impacts on wetlands for interceptor and force main
construction will be mitigated by restoration of disturbed lands to
original grade, allowing wetlands to return to their natural state.
Page 12 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists

1

11

1 References
1. Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., "Wake County Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan,"
August 1989.
2. Cawthorn, Joel W., "Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina", Soil
Conservation Service, November 1970.
3. Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers, "Nationwide
Permit Program in North Carolina, Nationwide Permit #12: Utility Line Backfill and
Bedding", April 1992.
4. Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department, Design/Development Division, "Capital
Area Greenway, Master Plan - Update 1989", September 28, 1989.
5. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Division of Environmental Management," Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Neuse River/Perry Creek Sewer Interceptor Project", January 1987.
6. LeGrand, Harry E., Jr., "Inventory of the Natural Areas of Wake County, North
Carolina", Triangle Land Conservancy, August 1987.
7. Hazen and Sawyer P.C. "Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
,
Environmental Assessment", March 1988.
11
1

f
EAaIGBRY.Pr Page 13 HAZEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers a Scientists

1

IF

L?

I

i
1

I
fl
u
1
r
Appendix A
City and County Regulations
Relating to Surface Water Quality Protection
1. Municipal Code Corporation, "Planning and Development, City of Raleigh, North
Carolina", January 1987. A reprint of Part 10, Planning and Development, of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Raleigh.
Citations for individual areas:
a. Design and maintenance of storm drainage systems: Chapter 3,
Subdivisions, Article C, Design Standards, Section 10-3052, Surface Water
Drainage.
b. Floodplain Management: Chapter 4, Floodprone Area Regulations,
Sections 10-4001 through 10-4017.
C. Soil and Erosion Control: Chapter 5, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control,
Sections 10-5001 Through 10-5014.
d. Zoning: Chapter 2, Zoning, Sections 10-2001 through 10-2116.
2. City of Raleigh, North Carolina, Map of Zoning Districts, January 1978.
3. City of Raleigh, "Public Utilities Handbook", Public Utilities Department, Effective
May 1, 1981 (Revised March 1, 1987).
4. Wake County, North Carolina, Subdivision Regulations, Article I, Adopted August
5, 1985.
5. Wake County, North Carolina, Zoning Map.
6. Wake County, North Carolina, Annotated Zoning Ordinance, Articles I, II, and III,
December 1985.
7. Wake County, North Carolina, Resolution Amending the Wake County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 1-1-38, Adopted April 21, 1986.

r
r

1
C
1

1

71
r

1

1

u

APPENDIX B
Construction Drawings
Wetlands Delineation
1

D

r
[ - I

LJ

1

u

1

L

1
1

1

1

1
C

uoiIBauiIaa SPUBI a A '
s6uim-eia uoijorulsuoa
a XIaN3ddd
0

11

0
1
F
11
1
J
1

I

1

H

1

Z w [ ow? Q W Opw„ < wmQN

Q
w
M r p' Uzl w W p

Z W N O Y r
F-
W E05

O
N
zm

-

-
N W w
N
EL
g a_ ^3 I` a- yz 2 p Q 2 SOW
FL W mQONp OZ xzOFw U? ZF Z
6
2
? W O U
m W U? Q ? ?W F- 2 Q W U N
W ?m?
N o
Z
z
Z O O W <
W 2 Z? V
W
F
Z
N
w Z Z
a W Y Qi-
F co
I?
Q__
?Z
-U
F
Q
i O O. UU d
>
O
w0 2?
Q W
ow ap
F
lW
Hzz
Wz?
W O?Z ZZ m V
/IO
(
C
Z
N
Z? ¢
O
W R' W O Z Q' r J
-

I W Z W
,
K K
70
m
J?
O p
Q ON Oa Na-<? Nm W? ZU ?CJF O
QN
J
?" ?" w
z
O W p-wW o W
ZZrUmZ m0 (Y Z?Rr J
x J

J W
z
Irz
-
¢ W 6 Z

w

o W

w K = N Cl:
W W
r w r
W W O N ¢
G?
<

7
O F
-
<w

w
O N O
r mN Na <7 Z O >-Om
U
W JO ¢
¢
W m
Oz0
O r QQO
J O W 2Uw V? K
U?m W N JQ W QK N J?U

='_ O J WO
ow ¢ Wm Sr, Y
V

W
Oy
0¢
F W
W ¢
Z J N N J W 3 r W
fn `1
Hw

m
'ly
C'4

w
F
-

O Z
0
w
CK
? W'
1wi o
W O W Z o z o F Q F W o o
F p ¢ Z z
jr-
Z
r-
Z50,< S V m 2 o m z o a k" o
O N Z p¢ r W U
Z
w
O
N Q M N 4
= Z Z W

J
0 U' U' fn 0
Z Z Z w z Z Z N >- W
<
0
=
x2
U
0z
x
N

Z W
Z
Z M - N F-
ICI? 006¢ Q FI>: > W >-}O
a N N
J 2
FUQ O Z W oz JI?fLN2IV ZZ
O N 33 00 Q
WO
N O O O O
< mU
¢
= mw Q XU O a a
¢ > W J Q Q N<
W Q > W
O 6
U
U 0 m r G p W U H N- V W¢ W O C 2
S
Z
Z
V Z Z
W ?
d' 00 N o o U U
3
S S WN
4 ¢ W O
x= O W
U< U Z U< U
I
r
'
?>' I
'
M'1
II

J

Q X
m W N
y W
< U4w.G x
Q-8 of S V ? vSS?r
Z J O tJ z
10 W w u Q J SpS a J O i- ¢ 6
CL W
10 O U ? 7C =< N S r
O ??
2 p1'1-U
O
Oy
S= O
N
W W Q
? W FO O U
W WS = J
W J N W Z
{py a Z py W I¢
- ? m W Z p U¢¢ IV W O
r
w N
x
NN fn p
UW Za
V' 07
Z W Z N z w
J
-
, t=§ N O Z p K Y
W
F
Y
?

W r

NW

N
O
W MW W d
W
I, d
$
<,,
N ON < N O N Q] FW
U O
li
Z
'
'
cZ O W O 'i
1..1? (n
?a11U2 NUa' NIa?Z rN O
2 m W r y?a
y V 0 Q '+ W N O
X N Q <
W avl¢O W ?
fAr W
m W Nr W J
j< d w O 'w m Z 6 Q x
W M m y{?
J.I
i
p
¢ rrF 2
3
K O a W Q W U O aft
U Z (
.
1
S Z W J<
< Z
W N W

J
w
Z m
y
J¢
N W J2 < F a p Y O w l m U
yJ/ f)_? IY Nr S
0 ? Z
?F J Z- U r O V p J O U¢ O N
Q w r Q Zw
OQ
Uw
?
0 o U Z p W¢ W F O
UOr
o W m
W S+
'O a' O fi r= W

O
O
Q W
Q (O
M
w Z
?NO ZZ V U W 3p ?QZN Z2
<Z C
G 6
V
o
a
Q a
Z
0 W ZZUU W 2Z
m
QO
Z
w
W ?
N ? ZQFU
pW pQ
2
N
w C
< Z
w
LLJ
LL,
?
' m

V W
??F
¢ W UN V irrFZ2 V
WGO

N
Z
> a O 2 N W () W Z
W WQp
w?Z O
J Z xo??Xd0 Oo FZ
W {W
µJl
??F F-
0m 6
JU --Zx 3? Qy
Y
J 0 N J - W> Z U
Z? C2
ZU W 1W Om0 W O ywd U' O
G
7
ZU Q ? > N
> N
O
W
w?XO Z fY WOW

Z

Q
?
N
w

o
O
O
4'
a
a
O
0 ¢
w
r NuO W
N e

C
V/
Z
L)
Y
= a W F
w N r J r U J W a N J U O J U ?
O p W N W fY m U N V K 6 m¢? m N w V O U N N U p Z W O N< W J Q (n O
- N h < IA 10 1? ¢/ Of C - N r r
V F-
Z a'
Z z O
r
J
O
O
W
w
T
(n Q
0 O N V
WQZ
o
1
t
r
W O
c
?w
i3 L
i
O <Ow o?0
w
1 Z LL,
U v
i
W
<0 ?N ?a? 0 w
CD
z O N
0 LLI w ¢ ¢ W O Z?
m w
Z Q
M
O + F
O V
) a
X
p Q O Ir 4 l10 M M
?a G mv? K w < LL. p
z? OzzQ la„

¢ y ¢

a <
?- j Lo
N
w m
b' o
O Z
Q
3? V pad
z r W r z k"
N o o Q O O
O r r
~ x
? ?
a a
a X
W
Z O
U Q ?
s p f A W
N ¢? o, N
W W U N Z N O O
O O+ J J J
<
~ z W
mm 2 x O p
w J Z j d a
W
xC O ?O Z b

w u N as J M O
ZS OC OK

JN w0 N
+ - 00 n

17 Ih r

W I
-
W W p S

Y W
N

¢ Q S W
W
W
p Z

-
O < Q < Q O Q 2
W Z Z F
p,1 l?lJJ
= F- Z Z z= O W W
0 U U
J
Q O
N N N a' w a' N m
N
Z
N
W
0
0
X 1 1 I < <
O F= r: CL
m U O W
1- r !- r Y r W
w
Q 0
O
U U U Z Z Z N N N N N J N N y
j N J

Z ~'
O
W W W Q
V) < <
y N W W w
W X X x O W X
Z W W W N N W U W
V
13i? _
Q
p z z z
J J ?
1
I I 0.
I N
O I.
.,
N O
0 N J J J V ?? Q
LJ o 0 m al l V/ O
N
' 1XP r W J U O O; H Q
O
e £
N 8 P?
?%
N ` o 0 0
a d a 0 o
o W
?
n
S O 0 a 0 O Q F
-
o °
z ° 0 o m O Z =?
ii a z
z F<- 0
F<- U 0 Z
/. ?Z: Z Z Z
< a g
a a N
N N N
N N
¢ fr
m V O
V)
/ a ii

/ 0? Of Ex
Z O O O O O O Z v W v
a J w
y
Z nDn Z_
Q
F W a d Z
¢ Z Z
¢ < W a
d y O
O U
z < x w LL I"-
F
U Q z u
N U v
N N o
Z ¢ a ° J a a ?J' z Z
3 N N w 0
W O Z Q LLI
?/
Z W Z Z Z
p - d O j
N N N N N to t
N ~= m
8 3Nfl 9L'£ Z+il tl1S 0 3NIl 00+0 tl1S J
z
d m o 3
3
x xx x x x x x w x W w
W W W W W W W Z Z W O

I
I LJ _
m O
ca SSA 3.100 <o n co OI c i
i
+
I I <

W K
OZ y pp

3 N N
V I !

Q
Z
J d Z I (n

s J
w

O
O

w
I ! I I I i i W
p

d

d
OP "i ^ CL
? ? v X CD
+ co + l.L
v O +
Z c II W ¢ W
J

Z O N

O N N N J U
2
a Y

Li O
+

C O OO 0 00 w O d
ti O
?
> o
O
O "
' O O
00
0 0 x F (.?
< co
W
U
O?c N N r

v W J
F
to O
r < W
r
3 ?
3 2

J
r
F N N N in u
i ?
0 0 y rc
S O I I 1 I Z _ Q W V
(X 6 a m U W I N W
M<
z-
M
U - 0
z
J :3 W W
Z
t?
O z I
< W J I
J WI?I,II
J
J
I U
< W
Y X??
3 -1 O O O (n z a
AP 3
?? a a a a LLJ
z
J S Q o Z N
F v
2 N z °z zz a
)
3a z z z
g a z
a W
~ ¢ p z
< o a
¢ a a Q o w a
z CC
L <
•
w v a F O W W o-_ ¢ U z ¢ Z z z U
- 9= x W U
U U
it V
w x
U O ¢ x O O O C
a' N 0 U U U m
.. _ N O it w
- - G Z_ ? Z z Z

O m
\
I
?m N M --t U->
?
II
6
d
?
.J= J
Q ?
Q in
U W W o ? W
N- 2
Ob
?
2
a ?.+ = O d
J?
d
aN
?
k z
? 7
W Ir
z

J =
< W
W p>
x } O
o o
?W<
FdF
o.z <
> V
m
o o K
z
yQ?
NO <JJ= ly z = 3 CJj W
3
}
$
UU = S
J< W?i= (r0
?HSF O(jZH
C
J
: I[>Z:5
< j r Wp?1 f3DJyIw oZO
p<
N3 UK
OIO
3
E F
K
a
Z
SW N
fmAj
W
U ?,I W<
O1<1yJl Z Spa >w
$
P
>
1
44
yI
W ?JUW
I-=CZ O K O
U
0? ? \
W W
O <Vd UZ<?2 m\ '
?
WJ 00 YY4
OY
....V
1?1?
0 - or- J
r
<NN
Z' N
OF 1
Q J tS ?
O V
J Z
ra NIC
p
?5
ppp
pp =
Z
=
uuWWIIJJ
<
rc¢rc ?0O
a°
ZCZZ
¢
CCZ
N
? ox m.
I
JJ
N
??
NN0N?
NNN?
N?
N'N
Z
?
O y
a
¢¢
POW' IT
?'OOOOOS??O
0
0
??»
'
33??'3µ
'
d
K
XWZ
mm
f
NNN
/1 17i
t/i
tn
il
I
I
171
I
/1
r F
O
F- > 3
3
3
?
:

m0 fY O
+P. d v
? 0 J v1 O
tyyt?,.) _ RyI Zd? ~rWI>IuyWy/4{?? U I~i=J Q dp F Om3 2
1 O 2CCCC KCK CC?CCCCC KS m am NN(/UI In VINIA JINN NNNViNNNNN NNN HI=/1 f0/I?N NNNN d C OC47: f% 3 Z
< v AI
h-rr? rFZ?OOGGO
z d?¢
-I-

? OZ !- r

G J UJUIh 2
»» >`>??><>$??S O

OWW
x3'3$33 S' U W W? (j N

?(n °'.??
F
I d0N R00?
(n a 0 8 $_
Z HOW r F &
O < W ? W 8 < rcK W
>

`O K F
< U <
$?izzG? ?? z m? J 'J`
Z
F Irv
m
d d
10
rc? Az
W
'
I,I
-
3w
w U U
?? ?z W c'-?pa b
19
f- $Q J
Q yd1 y? J 1<. le w
<W W H d' V 3?
?<
OOVIy/
d
>
1 W?VW ? J
O }
F- y
=W x>w
d'
Z co 4fL' >3
J z JJ
Q ?Q W<$1- `
ip
O yl 4J
V J >= fwj
d•a< (/I K d z k'I W < x
V
WOO W<KI?WW
a
U
I Y U Y
Q .
.
?JJ
JJ
< bl1<.
Z
SO
< a <
N Z<<Z >w
3r=3ddlr3<
Want) y(y(
>>IIt?
g6KC <Np Wa 'O
W ? J
.J
WOZFO 2<QO\W OWJJa ZC<
IW
J 2
<j26 aV?7y<d3fr?Fa
WHII
,,JI 5{
? x
WQd00 J
I
?
¢
ZppZ?<FS W o0<W
$? JfCZOO O;
<N
I

O

W ¢
=
j
q
1
a ¢¢
J
1
?7R 17i?
<zt??m0 <666ZW Q<J<rc<}}<¢ O<10-.IS??WO
4
i
?
?
d
? ?
JJ
1 1J W
V4.?R?> N220 ZZ«Q?ZO>CC?pU ?30
p .
? 65Mw< 6ZfV/_1 St?w 0000
o pp
0 ¢¢
00n 90 z
Wig
°
?
?? $
o
a?
<
o
aa
°
a
<
m
6 VVG
g UU
ri
r
J t> VV V
V SSxxxx2x ix CZ2Z
O Z2Z22
?? ??JJJd7J7JJ7JJ7JJ 233?3>33>3?? m
m 222 z2ZZZZ 6
$$o C
d a
$
.
du
d
daaa
a
daa y
c
o
v a
es a
a
M

x
00

Q ypp
AI ?I xV JJYZJ ?> J3 Z3?s ?`Y G0 dF333}

Wr4' U't>f<>V V(>a(>??OUVVV xxxxxSxxxSx ?C?.2
<< 1? S> H V
?WUIf> } <tm >J

Zj ZZ22 ??ii? JJJJJJ?JJ J?4J JJJ
Kox
V'« O ZFOJ

>: J:3 ?s32323233 ?s 3>=I3

ppO

3

3

ZZZZZ

W> U
W2d0 0 'W
OS$O$$$$CG ddlaasm+aaaaaaaaaaaa>a

m

D
WJ W W
K < J W
J
I
n dZ
Z J}
<
Z
O
<
(L 3 r W
1J V
0 WZ < C
Y,
H
W C 3 7 Z ICI
Z dd Z ?V'
U F
Z W W
Z
i
,>.o 2 q`[ ? o
OZ=JWJ y\y?I O<¢? F
<
Z<
3
V
?
V
O _
]
'
dZZdW Z ?(nK a WO K O Z
91
o
<
<
O
~
?
W
<
- W
Fe 41 y??
U
U Z\ u
- S
fD ?Zi Z2l
_
ZOf
C
<
5
'
g0 m
y
fC`4j
C) z
d
d
2
? m=
V00 yl
?i
W00 =
W
> W O ?
OO
< V W=
?O
V
U
? V
J UKJ
> 8 .02 KU
<WW 0 w
F
d
p
-
O
I.?
} <
Wy
y I.
y
?I
W?
?
JO?Vd?mNW mNW aNxx <F=a{J JI-`?YIJ<j JJ<
J=22F ZO?ZdZ?KpOdmmmW OJQ ti23wVU?<<N?Q31J
mF>:K mNN Z?WZZOU
(J m
' y
?
x
Y
JJ
<
< ?I
OZWI
A
jF?VZ$I-FOC
a6 a
NV V??>UO<3??a?«Fa
64 ? d
p
«?<«««<6«
mmmmmmm0mmmmmmmmm UU VUUUUVVVVUUUU UUVUUUUVUUUUf JVVU p pp p OCOSO 00000 E WWWWWWW WWWWW.W W x
X
x
J
J
WWWWW i<r l?lr?r l`GY.4G
i WIJi Y. IWi 22

?

N

X ?ptp>> p {>
mU 00 VJJJ6d KUlm/1N H OIWi I>i? J.JJ70 d'd'KN.O> <0]yI I??W1?? d J?J ?yO]m
20( ?Wz.00a Kh..J00'>3 WI?<a ?a?N J20d'3?U
wW
W
J p, 0111
91 w
<UI?
?J WJ ?2?20?3XX?XXXX QU OOW?
Z ? X30-61-HO

«««««««J< mm0lp (O m0f0 (O t0 (D fD fO (flm0m(0 UU 5
V
7S ZS
U UU VVVUUV UUUUCI UUUUUUV
UUU 00000000000000
0 .
WWWWWWW
WWWWWWWW .
WWWWWW Ir4. I?. Ir ?.L??i rr Glr li lJ riW4lr li
- O
2
w = = = = M ? ? r ? ?
C f)
N
r-Z ? C
O
r
N c sssr ? yCG
N
O
d
CL
did 3Sn3N ti5ary
w Z
b
U S3NOP
N h
N
2
w _ N w y? N
J W
K ? Q
? w
U
w o
Z W U
6
I- W¢a"__ Z
L V W W o ?+ w
O O fZ W L 0
U Q
CO °z
co z a z CO WS
?T -
= T 9 CV o
?z
w °C W a' < 3
oo z Z0w
z O B N
I- Q w a
w0 V N
` w CO rr C) 4? ? 3400
U N W Z N
<
Q 0 O ? oN doe
0
?? - Z
Z
N Z
U ?
2 5
? J w a
11 N ?ro _
<
z ? N o
Z a
w °
- ??
S Y
-- 3
R Q
0
Q o -0 1-
g Q
U o < o V
- a ; O
¢o o ? w J
o N Ir
M _C
w
a w J n
Z ?
Q a a
0: N_ ° W
w
O
__ J o
uw •a o.oeco. - zu ao ?+ • ?*rx zob zaro:w n.o .cd

z
o
-

! ?
rn w w
cn
U1 cn
i Q
cn v v
Q CA
Q
CP co
CD co
(.71

•9
H
'

..
V
>
?
^•
z (A C
=1"I Z
-0
-0
^
r
? _®=
1
0
OO
fI
NJ
Dx
,
?
? ?C 2 -
yI
F
o8 m^a....
pNp O? O? (
A~
(n p a i II '
p
pN ? n= ?I=y D m
51
v
O
°? vN 1?{ ? I
O ?
I
2

a o g INSIDE WA I
TO WETIM LL
1 l
+ I /
1 1

^f? lm z z
e ?a x
o++° n gL O IMIZ

N?
Z If m
? }. V I CO
N OAln
,
<
'[ i
Ia
fq
II
O g ?% ?'
p0 ns
?
N
-
' 1 N l N
p of
? G o
v a i z m 0 IN O / O?,(5
C
'
a ? x ? z v V In p / ?, m
`'1? yO?
? ? mo m m e / O?
r o

7C (7 T. A - 0
o o
m ? ,
IV ? }
7
z
'
_ i
?
z c
OI = m> I D m m Y '? A
e m p= Z
pr?
O
° i c? m
0
O D
0 rj

00 0
\
;
an H b w a
DIm iN
:n ^ m
\ Z m O t"
?

Z?
0W
zg
.
~ ~
f

O
C
m
c
I C`

I '

m
4 ?
zvli A m.P

?rN n ,
-+° 5}00 Of
?n a I
9?1
d
?^ <9 1 C. 1 J ?o
F
?
R II ( 2
° f
I on
z ch :
? mO
1"
N
+ r. \
• mN
Q IV I I I N IJ _ R, m 1 f
, ? C y .. -
o N
N
1
° c 1 j
6
I ? s N

y 1 C X J
® ? I <;o<
m
Z
0
0
rn
I- G+ l
I N

N m
m
• O
=
I m 7

m Z 6
cn ° t-
m
u
se ?\

z m D N m
_
Z Z r w
z ?_ D
V ZI w
m Z
D `•° I ?. m
p N ,? 8 A
fR i
z m ?Z
D
I C m
\ /
0 1 I
? y
a 6+ z m

W
'
i ;t 0 m m
i
r
a
I I I I' I f
it
Z m
_
• ?
=
II I ?
m - 1
f e at

?
1" 9
r FI "
C 1 i yy
Z N A
m?
v o z
m I
I D
I °
n D I

_ D a

TI
? ? m m
C) Z
_ -I

I

I

m
C7 ?
m D

z O

I
1 r^ -Ni ? 00+01 .
ax
Z TI

I I
_z
\ + o
Z = = C +
t

n
r O m \

/
zo
?
Z >
0? << 11
-
i
z = z C
D -1 I u o 1 /
C') I wo
m m
' _
' R
v I I
I I
I I
i ? _ _ ?

I I 1 I /2
c
I I f
I O ti = N

Z Z N / w+o I n= ??
M io /
-
„ D
m
D tv i l ;• I it
( ( w>
1

m f+l A
ma I i "I m
A /3 Z L .
DQD?
I I r
LO iN of

y m=r-
'
z _
!:
O I -) N J
I
O I
i
_ _ I ? f ?
'? ?''
N
1
T
I Z
Z
< <
O
N
I
O

O D
-
I
_ ?
r

O Z L

I I I

? I I

y II

I

I I

O _

I I I

I I
D
?

:,
I
CL
M
/
f
O Z i ? p I Z I N j (M N
U) I O / 'J, N O I I ;.mn
'D=
m i z om A Z
• m
0 .
s
?

D

I

I

I

?' m

m

A 5

to 1

N pA fTl
m A ?? ?N? Smx O?
A
'
n
=
_ _ _

` N (w
G N .
O
D a
? m D D f n S D N
Zn7 O C O2m?1 CJ l'+t c-m n
NON
- O
Ln T
I
`?
I
I N m L
c?
°Na
=
I W r ?
aya$
az mr m
a G O
o a
i
f
r r
?
r ? I l o I p
= o
`?
<x
c? Qxo
m
o m x ?
1??
>
? m
?o
F
??
F=
'
N? >
o
y
?
t?
1FIS 3NIl H?ldW
00+

m SI ViS
°° o o-NO 2 -?ON
O

C
1
N mx-1
F0 a
S m
2= N r O o r
= ZO D 1 ?D Y
Nf°'1 ZD nN.P
yO'?DA
.R. I?+ ; (.+ • Z
DO 2
~ Nmayy Af Cw 1!1 2 r r
?
l ?`
-=lymmm `
?
?
W Sy m `
C -
cn A ,
c
C
.
.I
jD m
D
[7 m
2

r

? 2
t°-1=
=
8C
o x
m
O
r?. O
'
-G Q fm NO y
0yL
o O D
LJ z
z
CO
41
'o
N 11
C J C)1 O VI Q UI p T7
c
g
N -_
I-
c
i . . y G1
D
m m m m m m m m m m m m m = = m = = =

o - o 0 r
o
Ln o
L" Ln i
U

O

D ZNj N 1?+1
v
=p
N O
A
N

.
° 1-0 i I I t} yea ??
x i

A
1
°> O i I
> O m n m
I
z 9c ,1 s

N z
Z
mM r
n
D O n

0
RI z O p m D 1 1
r9 ? 1+ ° Z m 5, I
V D
O p
I 1 $°? G7 8g
n r 12 y Z
m
?y \ I i -'?a
? _D - S i rno

+
0 2

2
O
C-n
+
I
?z m?

CD
N
Z
z
o
ao? ?o n
na
00? Np /
-
^s NO
ti
?
fTl y A
N z N m VI O• p m r N

1

m y a °
-? Q m

O
Z O
y
<S Z _ In ?,
0

I
I ? m
II
II
? ? `
I
o r; I
1
I
z
5+11
o ? msm
m ?
m h ?
D a I I A r x
n i^y "' r o w
9n0 ? I h 1
O i m ?
COz I
C1
rno
S
%0 S
,
,
O
m ,
C7
1 m O
? f?1
D A D (
?
6+ I N ? ?m
1

1

m+

A

F
r. -4 O Z

_
6+2

1, I O
I I I J, J.
I
r
Q
I
-
I I'
•
LI • I .ZI N O -
11 N m G m
I I ' ? A ? O Z O X
1
1 Dy
vm 7
im

D
p v
„ S/1 m
er z
m
N 1 j
1 i N ?

I
I
I
I ?
I y
I
I N
A i
I

m D T
ao o I
-I N
m D O
z
?------I
Z Z
z In 0 ?+
°o a
r ?m
mm - O
Il?lr
>
O
V1
°- /
D r
Z
m
n m D I
1
F R A m
v°ia
0

z
I
s

O
C
O I

I

I I

N

I I

I I

I y

I I
/ X

?
O

V m '

i .ad
'
o
r co
?> z of
DMD?
n T
g
m t O 9 y
45k Z C4
+

p
m V
4
to C,I N U -
-v
t_
_ l p m
w m O
C

?5
m

1
ro+oo
zco ?? ^u II

I ro+< I I
1 V
- ' N
C-) N I I(JI is i I (")' 1
O
Z 0

Z = = C ? II
n W 1
? ;o
n An
?
= O
C
1
a?x
Z Z
M D ??z INg \y
?.. 4 , m
? D
m n m M- -
I C yI
(n C 12
4
O
w °
n m In N
m
M I o o a m 1
N m
?
I m _ N n m r
Ln
a Z
m
D
Z I I I I C m
(7 Z
-Tl ° m
z D
O 1^ m
D C) Z
m m I
W I
D I
O Z 00 mNZ ?n
I
-1
O c5 z z~m
°sy p
N o+
aoO mo mo
I z z
r z ° mZ o H ?i mil
n
y ° orn "
14 I
z
-I
D n
N -
Z i z ST 15+90t m
86
0
0) 0
-?- O
i
-
--_
_ 1
.
_°--- g 5/s' ? y D? z D c o °
v o p
O? ? ? ? I I -?-
-- -?- I y
-
l m
N
'O O SN
25
mtn

aw
O
Nm o mz m20 2- mZO rN'1mm Oy Z=Z
O G 2 n Z Z? VI°Ir+1?? Ap:17
D y O N N NOC X •?? N V X T D
CIl r O m O .I
Z7NAp
= 15+p?
aN
G'I
mm
O
°
?

m
OD
?(T ?
T '-
N
C
N
y
o
O
C7? m z-I?mx 2
+
LJ N Z i0u NN
-1 ?p=
4 .Z1 Z
Z
e fll m
w0
?
Np
W
m
m20t=
Or
?
:
t
TN
? D CX?
O
Z
;D
?
J
?i
?
z
o = K??r???
=
Dm
=
,
D C
i n c= °s S j
r O?r_?n Dr?m
m m S A O O y D m p x 2 Z

~
N
m
N g ?r^ yia
a r<m?l"mmA?o mo
'
1°nF;zaag?
F?
/
CA 22
-
00 ?+•

=

N m R co
s
°
_
_
_

O)
_
_
_

Oo

0
_

D

p

0
N)?°Zo ZrC) Z°O 1'111
te ?g
° °z ° m m czi N
"
=

L I z

-- z
o 41 N CT
IUI O)
O
C71 J
O ?!
CT Oo
IO
Cn c
O r
ICJ7
p r
i?
5/0• v ?
m = = = m = = m w m = m m m w
i = m = = m m m = = m = = = m = = m
" I co CID I to L I N CD
N
0
cn O cn O Ln O (T p Ln

m OO N N O
x t0 N
in
m a W
o < + i ? 2 0 rn N

m

N I
1 a
v

W ?P
? J`

L2
I o
t°
n
r `71
u m m
m
< ?
OD . F
o ,pp
O O 0 cP
w I ??
N t0 FR
A m F
z 2>
o m ?' ? ? W I I z z I "? $

O o o UT I
b U
n z \A
+
O
?_
I
-V y y

z > >_

b

a O

I \I>
n r n + g N V

y
it I ? " 36
? nUi
o
m Z
m m m
W
t
I
'll
I?
I
I m
I;'7
n
1
Hi It',
to _ . m yi n tT x
T ^?
d
R c / n D z0 Cy V A
f c z N Dv yo > 3)+s /`? v z
W rn m vaa
?I ilm? / ?u2 a
co C,
r
:
N r
00
C m '- / mA O O me mS
`• m m rR
O 3g sm Io z

jY
N ;

'

2
y
,: a z A z
z
?z
\ aq P? I
? l /D
? ? ?
2
2^,_?0 y I ? Z
a
? n a W I i 11I t ill L,
n ^+ r- o A co
lilt
lilt
I
'll I y m o N
? D r m
?
rFR d?
c II
°
o
o f-
$ m Z
m
I •
_ ,
n
t . r m
m m ' D m
m cnv? 39 m ? r r

W
till
111,
• • ° -- I?--
I - -- -
vm m
m
z
O 6js8sly
mz
W- tp? m mz
Cv
D=2
I N
WN
V jn >
NJ
2' y NJ
Azo

S I IF iL
U 2
z D C V A
0
y N
O

D
I
m n z v
0 0 y N 4 o J
m
9
N
r ?? u r m p b
N I mz< zzn m z? z
?
rill I DyZ p m ti D? t
a Z ?cDm m y"
N N
L
= Z Z V7 O Cn O Ul O? o!r Ln CD Cn y
z ?
D
_
z Z
= m N P?
oz z
m°
n m C ME M ED
o N i mcA
r r^
s z

I o
n ?

C

a D

0co rD-?
5`
C R1
TI C) Z
? co = -?
rn D Z O • wo o?a-
m
z
Z O m m?
o <
m m D >
C)
D
=
-1
= D
z r
0::E m
Z C
0 co
O mt?
c
• _
?D 0a -n
y D>
o r = ' A p ?Ir" ?x?o
Z
p C >
O C7 c ?
?O - 11.mi ??
orz.

Z= f_
C N
m
zo mC - y v ..
Z
D Z
• _
N
rn
C r m m D v
D m 2
1
M m z
o
F-T-1 T
U) o
y m I
O o m n • 12- MIN
N D
=
> T o
m
m
N

^

•

n m
2--11 1/2 ozc

r y
E N n
o
Z DI. Z?
rn z Z
° - N om
L

N Z
A
<
S ma
• a

;;o O ti
m
N m m a
mN m
-i ?
? m
? II
0 N
W /.
. • m 0
i>
I+
-so
'? 0Z2A
-O C
Z
O
O
D mCZ C?
zl y
D '?
mD.
gn
n D Z>=
mnym o
> fN N
O
Z NOD
vi
?mx
z i r
z Zz it u` C7
m
n?? m ?
Doan SA''vlr" + -
o • !1
O Z A
'
D O O
y
i m A ?' Z
N v .
L
7
? t
/1 t
t
m
D z==>> m
O? oz z

W ?ycm m z
m o N D
Q
cD rn No m
N =y nm m

IV m

=z
-0
>, O
•
v
J

W m
o
N
'\

O

IM >
o f

zo zx
s
I m
m cz

;?
N
m k
m
^'m
z
0
o
m Z N
r p
<
N m
cn
a
r z e.
o, z o
o z a W

CJOmg
mz
An 00
N
= m = m = = = m = = = = = = = = = = m

- ? I I I I I a
- - - -
co J I
E; _
I;
- CD I TV +
' U1 1 CD CT O cn O U\ 0 U1 Lo m
o
A o c\
m '\ + A 1
1 1

a
V
c
A
co

+

I _

? X2.9/ 1
o
o K
?
O I . ,I I I
I?vcn . y= ua
az I ? ++?
?, z x
1 v rn - x,50 $ 6 4\O
II j I N I
1 I vl ? i
( ? ?,I-? I ? v
Y
?
\q Y
O\ A N

I
I {NNE
I
I
? ?c? o o ? 1
?
ti
D ? : : I G<I A ?? O ?
r
A 1
CZ

y r Z
\OQ O
+ p

\ -

V

r 2
y > N Y
H
r
m N j
w >
N I rn W
° y y y
C m
z
O

v

r

o

A

w n
n
g+Ot
m
a
0 o m a m
L?
N

Z
.t V L` A mIm

X n O

(] - - -

\
`
T

b

U
8 u m
w ?
P 2 (T
0 r 0
V A m N= r
- ?_ ? m
N

N N .
u ? pIO

N
i
I
I
1 1 OI
CP :
: 1 I 2 p
2

,

N 2 rn
H 1 . i

z
OZ

a

r

I

o

tDNO
L, Vi --l K Z N N CO

r ?
=+ ha

N d
EH 9
$ a N
-1Im r
D
?
p%?"pur o
?O ue oo o?Fo V'?pN mr r Z
\
0/?E_ .d? l
? ao m I / A p OO ?
- C O?k? ? m i
N l I I I I
Dm 'o

N
I 1? I
? m n ,

I A
I u m N D
n? v ? o?
? ?
9P
tl
? N I
C..,I I
? I
I
I 1 I
. I
1

I II 11 1 I I I I
. 1 1 ?; .
1y I
I I ? p ? N
? 1
Ci m
Z
a
,FQ
?
'4c j
` I t
/1 D N a
A {
I . I <G
A ` I vD= n z I i
m
I <2 ? I I ti ? I \ I?+O
° ? Z D
y \I
I - N 1
0
I 25+
I? I m N w
91 A o ?0
m m
m m
N!
?
? I
I
I it

I
I
91 1

I

I

I

?
I I I
I

II I ti I I
I - - m 1
?
?
0 © i
m i i ?. II
r
I I+I ? +
Z

I m ?
m
N
C7 ? ;

D
I
!
u
m
N
261 A• ,I
1
N
ri N
cn
I
I I

i i I

I r,

I I a s
i
26+25I 1 z

II ?
;
1
Z
m +O
O I
i I
1 I
1 1 1 1 1 I I
j I i w
I I
;
?
= '
ZZ I
za D f; ?
= o
o A I I
_
a Z i ^?rn
? °' ? J
N
= m D
i;D?
N I
I
I I
I
I I I
(
? i
i '
\ a
? ?>
-
2 ate,
z J
a
Z (*'? ? 1 . I I: I I
. I I I: : I 11 1
O I j
I i/ '? I I 1
I m
? 1
a ? I
/
(0 I I I
• - - ?
1 1
t
I i 1
1 - i
? V
i I

C
N
I
I
(
I
I
cn
1 I N
? NZ
?, o ?

D

D

I

_ Z
I
1 c? I
? N ,
I
O W
Z D
rrn m 02
Icm I °m Nz
o+o°
N No
o /!.
29
m
to

°D I
1
°1
I
m D
Z z p
O T7 1
I - I
z I
1
D n
Z= ?
= C
I ? I I
i I I
I
I i
Lf) Z
(7 O I I - 3I 00
--4
Z=
Z C
N
l
1
I
1 '
1 1 _ a u y
I rn 1 S-O
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
? C I I ii I i ?, ? a
?4 Ln 1' I - I I
N SO a
-
O j r N I °
N , '^ 31s m

O I 1 1 1 I I.. 1 I . ° I, m II rn z 1

r O I
I

I n
? i

Z . In
"g

A 1
I I I

,.? I
? \?O?F' I

I ? \ S/fr I o m 1
m
=y 1
? m N ? N N
i
B v
? I I I ??? 31 ? V, ZO iC
I C7 ° i cOn 321

.-0 77
I I
m ? I
1
CID
CD a Z ;
o z j
< < I.
I 1 I i
'
'

N °

?
D

o
i . ?, + I
I
L
L?N3}p0 ,
MATCH 3
gTA
N I I gnm?
01 tn
_ ,
\ .p1 N 1
W O
CA \ +` z i
a
r
p m
I
1
O

L4
W
II A j I, j ! i
?I
_
c z=
z mR 0
r"1 1
O
I I .
IV ? I
I
I i
,
Nm ? ?a - .

? m C
r
I 1
?

o
_
-
Jm
m
n G m Lo
W
z
\

N
IO
Cr
_
J
I C>
I
Imo!
I U7
00
O
_
Cr
_
O I
O
_
O
U
I O
0
O
Ln
f
i
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = w
m m w
m = = = w
o - I
V - I
V -
00
00 I
7 -

(D N

CD N
U7 C> CT1 o I Cn o Cn O
m
0
z
N
y
r N N
II A 11

0

?

o ' C,

0

0

ATC
?A ST

H IN A 3+00 m _

E SHT.5
v
< i w
•vI
oV ? o
0 mi N
m p
A ? _

I ZZ y~; I r-

2
C'1
o I C

II v
It" II

P

1 O+ O
zo-
.00
I
+ ZO
a- OON
N 1
W?'Cf
J 1 O
wN
N ON
N
b
u
D 9 A O 1 'V
? O m D m
fLl
GI ? 1 A N W
0
o I
«
° I I
`
°vax p0
y 5 \
T.
n n x oz
c?
I rnz
owi - p
"z o \?
6 85
N
'
1
I

0?? No
.a? Pq ?f
ti E?. M
INTI N A HI
N C') -
m Z

O n
- -
-
- 6

A o ? /

VI to A SI?}9 N
?/?R
d?\ ? ? K ?
?
f ?
z i
c
m ?'

?
~
R1 IT w
? ? ?
i I I a
Mp Z > = p0kl. +F1
z Ep
+
I
fD/1 ?
D _ C A
n U O +I O V1
S
Im
w
W
I 1
c _ m ZZn y
--I
O
?
O

° rni
2
m H 0
U D a

O\^O
FR d? OD
i
z <
°cz I
NI
?
z 0
N?
?D x
?+o
.901 00 a a
>T a I ??

I
mo
N n
M0 O N
N. p
6CP?
N @ ~ ? .. N -

- I In iT
o 0
41

I
Z
I m
I I 1 I !?! It I
I i II• i

® ® I 1; r

m O1 I I Uo
r N s
Z ? yx
frl ?
z
?
A w .
C N n
AA
N - I
_
10

m
+ m
A
N?
r Z °
C)
m D
Z Z
Z
?n
2
/
Z
0 z x
= m D
1
A
b
II
S

I I

i

!

1
8
I

1 A
N 2
-1
Z m
m - I I I ;
? I r:.
I
I m

n Z'J n
N
`
? ?,
i w 1 ?" ?q m y

?
I
? z- 2
« I
I
vDx
?
? I -y ?
C I 1 ; 0 - I C
11 Oo I 1
? 7.
N-
n
? I m nl to ? I
i'I

OI O cn
w
I T
z 121 1 so rr
m
o
=
C ' I I ?
r
N I i
i I ? I I I
N - - -- m
y

O
CD
Z
-1
>
I-
y 9r
D m

a r
N
C) m
mD
z0 W

N

1 ;o
T
V Ci
ti
Z = = C m
(n
DD n OJ
Dr N
n 1 m r
?` z

Z= z
Z?
I ?
I :t
I
I ? N
? ? ? ~
v
° z
°
D P I I p ? I I
- ?
w
? •-{

m
I

<<
•
W I
I
1 X
N
G7

O -? 2 ? Z ?1 N V?
N ?
C z t?
n -z
og
II N

p> .
s O1 \

, ) >
m

,
?\ I >+o
> u A

o. rn
rn

` I z rl cam ?r?+ I
m N
14 6? m %5 T
? rn ? i I
? ^' ? US

+
? a
?
'
I
?
?
I I rn
? y a
I ? I I
I I \ 9S)

M rn
n ;0
0
' m

i /s

U Dx
o D vl i 6'lr?b /1 °'
O Z I I ?
7
< <
r
i

D ?
\ o
T?
?
m
_ O ,II Z? ,?•?
i7

00 -q
°
\
W
? V r
/A-
a v
F
o
A `
?n?' -I w
•?
D c
n
- - -- -- - ^
I
?
V O ?I
+ -
f - n

S
n

N i?
m D
n
C
sir
m y
A
D

?
O
p

t A N
N 8? r
p V y

Z
m
? 9
? m ?
r A U
c .t
W <
o
- m i
?n 00 00 N I L I O i Cn I O Cn O Ln p (?It
m m r = = ' = m = m m m m = m m