20061804 Ver 2_401 Application_20070807

o~ - ~s~y v z
•
• Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
August 7, 2007
S&EC Project # 6658.W2
To: N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Amy Chapman
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
From: Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Flowers Plantation' DWQ# 2006-1804
Clayton, Johnston County, NC
G,'~ Ci r~ "lOC7
i)ENI~ - WAT=R QJA:.t7Y , .
~nq-dD5 a1D STORp~"~a~R aRAh(,H
On behalf of the owner, Riverdell Company, attn. Rebecca Flowers, please find attached a revised impact
map and a request that written concurrence from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ) be provided
that revises the previously approved Neuse River Riparian Buffer impacts (DWQ #2006-1804). Specifically
we request that the attached Approval be modified to omit the requirement for buffer mitigation since the
impacts have been reduced below mitigation thresholds (see table below and attached impact map). The
previously submitted and approved level spreader designs will be implemented. The crossing is at
approximately the same location as previously approved; it is just in a smaller footprint (see attached plans
and email sent to Cyndi Karoly). Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or require
additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Pro~ect Name Flowers Plantation
Project T e Residential Sin le Famil )
Owner / A licant Riverdell Com an
Count Johnston
Nearest Town Cla on
Waterbod Name UT Mill Creek
Basin /Sub-basin
Index Number 27-39
Class WS IV NSW
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
Buffer Impact Zone 1 4890
Buffer Impact Zone 2 4464
Total Buffer Impact 9354
Isolated Wetland Impact 0
Attachments:
Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Application Form Detailed Impact Map and Overall Site Plan Map
Agent Authorization Soil Survey Map Vicinity Map
USGS Vicinity Map 10/12/2006 Ramey Kemp & Assoc. Justification Letter
Stormwater Info & Calcs from PE (previously submitted/approved by DWQ) Geotechnical Report
8/1/07 Stocks Engineering Bottomless Culvert Justification Letter *No DWQ application fee required
Charlotte Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C
Concord, NC 28025
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Greensboro Office:
3817-E Lawndale Drive
Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. O In - 1 B f]4 U a..
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
^ Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: N/A
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: X
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), chec
II. Applicant Information ;,~,
BUG 7 2001
Owner/Applicant Information
a~~~ - war~k c~u~u~
Name: Riverdell Comnany Attn: Rebecca Flowers wFr~,,~~~~,~~,r~,,,~,~,~CH
Mailing Address: 4880 NC Hwy 42 East
Clayton, NC 27527
Telephone Number: 919-553-3084 Fax Number: 919-553-3888
E-mail Address: N/A
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kevin Martin
Company Affiliation: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC)
Mailing Address:_ 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Telephone Number: 919-846-5900 Fax Number: 919-846-9467
E-mail Address: kmartin(a~sandec.com
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Flowers Plantation
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Johnston Nearest Town: Clayton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Flowers Plantation
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Northwest of the
Intersection of NC Hwy 42 and Buffalo Road (SR 1003) see attached USGS.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.6571 °N 78.3553 °W
6. Property size (acres): >800 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: UT of Mill Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at htt~://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Adjacent areas are undeveloped wooded and agricultural
with some minor retail and a school nearby. Remainder is single family residential.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Construction of a subdivision road within a single family development using typical road
rg ading equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Provide access to "high ground" for a single
family development.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. The USACE approved a wetland delineation by S&EC on 8/13/03
Action ID# 200320492. DWO approved the buffer locations on 3/10/03 NBRRO 03-058
Feature J). Previous project impacts were either exempt or below notification thresholds
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
The remainder of undeveloped land will be master planned so then any future impacts are
minimized and/or avoided.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: No impacts to Waters of the
US are proposed.
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
se aratel list im acts due to both structure and floodin .
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: greater than 10
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acrea e, multi 1 len h X width, then divide b 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number

indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width

Before Im act Impact
Length

linear feet Area of
Impact

acres

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of

Impact
(acres

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative im act to all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the ro'ect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
O en Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
A bridge is being employed at this crossing to avoid stream impacts
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8

USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USAGE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmeide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
None required for streams/wetlands. Revised buffer impacts are below miti ag tion
thresholds
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0.
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Page 6 of 8

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact I Required
Zone ~~~ ~~o r o.~ Multiplier ,~~;,;~~,;~_
1 4890 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
2 4464 1.5 0
Total I 9354 I I 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular ftom the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. None required below thresholds
Page 7 of 8

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. level spreader calculations and locations by
Dennis Blackmon & Associates and a Signed O&M agreement were submitted with the original
application and remain the same.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
DWO approved Treatment Plant discharge.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This crossing will not result in land beyond that shown becoming developable that is not alrea~
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The proiect received approval from Johnston County .prior to Julv 1997 and therefore may be
"vested" and not subject to the buffer rules
Applican Agent's ignature Date
(Agent's signature i only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

-12-02 12.06 PM RIVER DELL COMPANY 919 359 0505 P. 02
501 & Enviror~x~~ental Cori.st~ltant~, ~.~
11014 !?oven Rid a Rc+a~! Ra1~i h, Nor(h Cumlina 27613 Yhunc: (919) 84G-Sy0(1 f-a.r: (919) 8-tb-9aG7
GENT AU"l~} IC7RI7~~'J~C~.j~(1~~C~~,~7
All Rl~nks To Bc Filleci In I3v Thr Current Lclndowncr
Phone`: "1 1 ~ ,~ -
ProjcctN~~mc/n~:kriptiun:._,_~~~'1~(.K~~1A~ .~~~,/,~ ~ '`D: D/~•~,105~
~~:~N

The Drpartntcnl of the Army
i1,S, Army Corps of E~lgincers, Wilmington Iaistrlcl
T'.O. Box 1890
Wilutinglc7~t, NC ?402
Attu,
Field Ofli~~r:
Rte; Wctlan~ls r.~latr~l Consulting and T'~`rmitli3tl;
To V1'lu7m It May Concrrn:
I, the current ~~,,~t ,~, o~vncr, hereby dcsi~matc and nuthnrize Soil & Environmental Gon_sult~tnts, PA ti-
act in my tx~hitll as my went iit the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
suprl4+ttt4~nt~11 inl~~rmation vi support of applicaticros, etc. frarn this day forward. 7'he /~2.J .. day of
`~~~ c~i~ a~,Q7J.~.. .
This notific~~tion supcrscd~~s any previous correspondence conceriting the agent Eor this pruj~~ct.
NOT'ICC: This atytilorizatlon, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only far
govcrnnu+nt officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&1rC staff. You should call S&CC
fn arrangr a Waite meeting prior to vislling the site.
Print ProE~c~rty O~~-ncr's N1me
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR - DWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
_ J G~~
_ CCCt/ ~ .... _... ~----.
P pert}` Q>,vncr s Sit;nntttrc
• cc: Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
~h;trloilc 0~cc: Grc'cn.hor~,Q('Tjy~ ~ l115J~:Cy:SZlliis~
P!~t11 .yl, 3U'b_t Prvan~rley Church Read 3517-!~ La~~ndalr Drive 410 ilutilun Ruacl
Churlotti`, NC 24269-7197 Greensboro, tiC 27455 Taylors~-illr, :'VC 18681
Phone: (7fiaj 720.9x05 Phone; (3;16) 540-$334 P'honc (R?R) 634.58:0
>=ax: (7U-3) X2(1-9.SOG 1=ax: (336) 5.34-8235 !/a~c; (R?8) h:~5-58_t)

~ r\ ' ~ / ~~ I~ ti .3 ~. / `' ~ "\ ` - - yep `` ~ ~r ~~-~. 1
ti~ R ~ ~ s ! t!~ \ / Oo~ ~~~°~'
¢$
~,~~ )
~ ~'~- :i' 111 ~+.. ~ ,C. r<:.. ~. ..
~~~ - .. _ i .~ _
~~
•
~
l
-
.. '~F-. ~
.
~ r
~
~ ~` t \ S~v ~, i t"" \ .~1~.Sr~
, ~ tl !// _.- _ .~~ J \
~b ~.~\ f / ( ~ il
/ fir; rJ~ ° ".!~ _ `r./"•'' \~\.';_J r..~ ~ A~P'1'-~.. i•~ .\f 1,~~ J.r~/.
// t 1f
l
._. ,I~l l ~ Crj r /
` ~ " ` " ~\\_/\...f-~ '~ ""\./ /~1 ~~\ r 1,,; ...--.,_,i ~'/ t0- r t~, " f
qtyy
q,` ~~ J,I. i j ,- t~ ~
~ t , J ~ f]. ~t ~ 1, ~~IC~ ~~ '~.~ L.. +: ~--'t 1J. :; ,,
~ J 1\ ~ ~ f, J / \~
~
~
~~
I
~ ~
' / `
_?~ "~

~. _ r.
r
/lJ x ~...1! 6
I t ~d 1 ~~. I))r. ~
.,
11Ji~r
, r.
~1 ~i ~ ~ r ' ~t 1, f { 1 ' i / ,-~~ O ~ ~. t ~ ; ~ f/ .•' J1 /~ rr ~ l l . /, r..,
w~' ~~ Proposed Road 'r~ SSA ~ ;', -.~ ~.~`/ 1,, ~;; ; ,,,, r !~ - ; ,

+` ,f I
' ~`~`~~~ ,~ ~~' `~., '{i^: , Bridge Crossing ~ ~ :-;~~.-., ~--J 1t, r< ~il_ r; :- ~i t,
,~. 1 a _ ~ ' ~~'~~,' ~ '~~" l ~' ~'` ~~~-°' vi ~ " ~ it .•
t u . te r I '~- ~ "~ i ~
t;l r i _~/
\~"\
-
rr );,,y1 ; CeR+; Its ~e\ j ~ ~:> f Jo~!.=~..'~.'iet` ~~~ _ - 1^6`9 ~,: 11` //r~i
. r1 ~ ~ -wa-.2.'_.-r -
~.'
~?~ ~ - .#'~ \ j~ l
:1..
~.. "~I r _
-~
~~1• Isa
'
./ J
_
.~I t ..: ~ ~
` 1 ~ -- ~ 1 •
// ..~.1
.emu ~ '- 1
,
\
~
_
•-._ .
~
r
~~'t~i~l -,. r -. ` Yrr •,~ 1 aff~r 8'~ ~ / 1.~ N /li•' \~ "r.r ~ .1
t f • ~ ~'" r d { t r ~ ~ /J : r A `~- ~_~-~ ~ /+ l ` ~ r \""l't 1- ~ i ^^ ~ r - \\\
1 ~ :L -sir. 1( \Y~ fi'C ~1) y'y1~+G~\ 1 ~.l \\, / ~. t, ~~, ~'~..1 ~\~l~ ~`~ ~l\
~ 1
~~' ~ ~ " .=i/ (-„11 ~'~ i l0 9~ ~~ e 1 ~ ~ ~ 0 1~~ ~`~ / ~~
~~'
-• a~,"7 i l ~ ^1j ~:;~
~N
: ~r~, l ~~l " ,~
~. .
.. ,; ~ i ti
.I~Y" i r• ~//
.~k
!
}
-
.
1'c
_':
\', b ~.,' r
1 ~
~ ~
_~
r
,
,
~
1
~ `..l 44t.\„ i~~671~5 C ~ ~/L //!0'• r rr ~, rff ! `( ~ \ \ 1 ,`l'.
~ ~.._ ~S~l~/~~" \ l 1..~. r~r~/ l ~\\~ 1 I1t" i, ~ ~f~\~i '` '~" \ f'~ l/ r ~`\\~`\~`~;.
1 ~\f ~~ ['+s a<e' i lV I r (P ~'i~ \ ,M ~ ~t ~~ t ^\ 5 t ~ . ~ , /r`~~... ~ '/ t ~1^ S ~ _
~\
A
rf'~
/
^
'
i 'y
~
~
\" ~
I
'~3
t
~' ~
~\ \ ~"
,J I/ ~w~
j ~
:
.
r
I
i #
r /
r
~
1~I
,.~. aME•r~a
tddil,~`y
`
L
~' ~
, ~~:-~
~
J, ~ ` L
~
` J
'
~
~' (~/,-~.\
~:
r+
A~
r
.~~r~`'~`S~``
\\
~ ~
` ~
\ t~
~
~
/
.
-
~i
r
~°t
\
.'
'
r
.
r a
-~ . ti
~
~J
y
~
-
r
,
~
it
'` v'
r

Project No. FlgUre I - USGS MAP
6658.W2
T
h
l
d
Q
opograp
ic
ua
rang
e
Project Mgr.:
icM
Flowers Site ~ Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
•
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, NC 27614
~OhnSton County, NC [phone]•[phone]
Scale: Web Page: www.Sand~C.com
I" = 2
000'
,
I (/08/06 Flowers Quadrangle

MaA
Gee
MaB
~_. /~
Proposed Road
Ma8
~~
~B MaB '.
CeB
r 4f%
cec;
;+~`"` CeB+~''
A GeC
MaB PaD4
~~ ~'
<.CeB'
~J
Ly
l ~ \ \~ CeB Qa~J
A!1CH.
^,
\ ~ ~
~iy~<
~~
m
Bridge Crossing
!~' ~ \ CeB
Ma8.
(''1
CeB
~, l r r-- ., .. ~ r-
MaB
/ ,,~ Ma -~, b~v ~ '
Ud t' Ce82 Q r
`o
~
_
-.r",~ PdD
s
~` GeB
>
PaU
M
a M
~
y
,~
,, r ~ ,;.. s
,
McB
~ ~.
P
D NF
K
~
- ~ _ ~ CeB 'r P~
' ~~ NoA a~. +
Am6
dE'
..
, _> ~ s
~ w

CeB ,
~ 'CeB

~oB 5.
-. Cep s -
~~
PaD i
~ ~ '~ X00 ,
+
~~ w
Ra ' ~
r
~ w(
Paq
~ ,. wt PaD
y / PaE,<~'" ' t'

/ /
PaD Pali. r ' ~
'b
~~"R McB ~aD
y
/ C
B
/ ,
I `~
i
~"` '
~ e
~ Mc8
t
yy
/a ~ ~ ~ Wt PaD ~ ~ ~peD, ~
+ _-,
_-_"~ ,
.
,
;
~ CeB
~
/ +
CdB /
~ ~
'S, ~q'
I ,~
/
; ,
~ ,~
s
-''

fK.
~, /
F
~PaD - ~
Mc6
/ CeS''
N,.
~
~
/
/
' /
~ _ - ,~ ~.
~. -
WI
,

// / PaD ~
d
„. }a
paD ~ x ~ MIaB ~
` 4
r Pa
~ ~ n
,~
P
PaE ~ / CeB,. w1cB ` ~ '' ~ ~ ,~^ i3 CeB
~ ~'

Project No.
6658.W2 Figure 2 -SOIL SURVEY

Project Mgr.: FIOWeI"S Slte ~ Soil & Environmental Consultants
PA
~
~ ,
Johnston County
NC 11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, NC 27614
, (919} 846-5900 • (919} 846-9467
Scale: Web Page: www.SandEC.com
I " = 2,000'
Johnston Co. SoEI Survey
I I /08/06

f ; RAMEY f~MP &ASSOCfATES, fNC.
5808 Faringdon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Phone: [phone]
_ _ Fa~c 919.878.5416
October 12, 2006
Mrs. Rebecca Flowers
River Dell Company
4880 NC 42 East
Clayton, NC 27520
Dear Mrs. Flowers:
This letter summarizes the findings of a traffic study prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates,
Inc. (RKA) assessing the impacts of the potential relocation of the Neuse River Parkway
Extension, located within Flowers Plantation in Clayton, North Carolina.
Currently, the Neuse River Parkway Extension is proposed to connect with Flowers Parkway,
which then provides access to both Buffalo Road and NC 42. In order to eliminate a required
crossing of an unnamed tributary of Mill Creek, an alternate alignment of the Neuse River
Parkway Extension has been proposed by the Corps of Engineers which would connect with. a
residential street that then intersects with Buffalo Road. In conjunction with a proposed access
driveway to the two hundred (200) townhouse unit development of River Dell Townhomes, the
proposed residential street will create afour-way intersection along Buffalo Road. The proposed
intersection is located approximately 1 SO feet south of the school bus driveway for River Dell
Elementary School.
A summary of the data collected, analyses conducted and conclusions/recommendations is
provided.
Background Traffic Conditions
Turning movement count data for the Buffaio Road at NC 42 intersection was acquired. The
count was conducted on February 4, 2004 thus, in order to generate typica12006 traffic volumes
at the intersection, a 3% growth rate per year was applied to each turning movement volume.
In order to account for growth of traffic and subsequent traffic conditions at a future year,
background traffic projections are needed. Background traffic includes existing traffic plus
traffic due to growth of the community and sun-ounding area that is anticipated to occur
regardless of whether the proposed development is constructed. To determine background traffic
volumes, existing traffic volumes were projected to the year 2015 using a compounded annual
growth rate of 3%. Background (2015} volumes along Buffalo Road in the vicinity of the study
intersection are shown on Figure 1.
Combined Traffic Conditions
Based on a review of the proposed site plan and discussions with the Site Engineer, the projected
build-out of the development that will impact the subject roadways and intersections was
determined. Near-term development in the vicinity of the proposed re-alignment of the Neuse
RALEIGH,NC RICHMOND, VA WILMINGTON,NC WINST~N-SALEM, NC

Mrs. Rebecca FIowers
October 12, 2006
Page 2
River Parkway Extension consists of the Pineville East and Pineville West residential
developments. The developments are proposed to consist of ten (10} pods of single-family
housing. A total of 563 single-family units are proposed within the ten (10) pods however, based
on the projected distribution, not all site-generated trips will impact the subject roadway. In
addition to the near-term residential developments, approximately 489 residential units are
proposed to the northwest of Pineville East and Pineville West. These residential units will
primarily utilize the Neuse River Parkway to access both Buffalo Road and NC 42. In addition
to the- single-family housing proposed in the area, amixed-use project is proposed in the
northeast quadrant of the Buffalo Road/NC 42 intersection, consisting of retail and office
development and a 5,000-member country club.
Site-generated traffic volumes for the proposed developments were developed using the ITE Trip
Generation manual. Trip distribution was based on existing traffic patterns and engineering
judgment. Based on the review of the existing traffic at the NC 42Buffalo Road intersection,
this assessment assumes that 35% of traffic in/out of the total development would travel along
Buffalo Road to destinations to the north. The remaining 65% would travel either south along
Buffalo Road or along NC 42 to the east and west. Since the development consists of mixed
residentiaUofflce/retail uses, applicable internal trip capture rates were utilized to reflect trips
internal to the site.
A comparison of the proposed and alternate alignments is provided below:
A. Proposed Alignment
The projected future traffic volumes at the subject intersection are shown on Figure I.
Capacity analyses were conducted at the intersection using SYNCHRO, Version 5.0.
The results of the analyses are shown in Table 1. For analysis purposes, separate left-
and right-turn lanes were assumed along each approach of Buffalo Road. In addition, a
separate left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane were assumed for each minor-
street approach.
TABLE 1
Analysis of Proposed Alisnment
_.~' .:._ ...'v.:'~ip4:C .~ .. ~ .. i.T..:d.. S' ,.'£cr. C!
r ~.vuEr•.4;a. ~aE-.YF.;nr ~. ,-• f\.,

:..ak•. r' •. ~t~ct3rltn:.aa,•N .r.2+Y'...,~y
t~' ~~t<.. r..5.,-~, r,:w-;,aesku.',::
h d ,~c; rykk l.,s' ..~7Wn bh
l .~' 2'
, 4...•: °r^•
~,1:

,.AT
.,ill, ac
3f
° : y:.in:a-:y.~ fi7. 'r.:u:.. ,',~,'t ',; ~ ... n -:,_
awi.•!'~tFu'1~~1..z~-ssi'x•l•:~jr• sv4yi i"a'+n_:: s
s-. '~~~••~ ~..~::;;aci;r,, s.
.+. .r.::! •+: f'!''''r~i,,.. .
,7 '' t~' ~i N ':>r?,9~u~~,,ti •..

s
`- •
S'irl
:"~~
'
"
~ ..rEi:=t u mi~il:~
~yg ~ I~IP.iu'trf=t,- •.o.i.e~~~•rd :si?~`

"~`."-e•~yy(?a,, f!1~y{` ,~L~ y~
,. ^~:y?^~Cuxy,•„[l~~Vj 1':`
n
~
f
t ri,~Cr~ il:~i" u
5"~~•t

y]~~',~ erg
..a .
ls~.i•^.'ti j~w• m"!+Rt z',~,cAts:i~iR
f ~'•,~'

~^

•t..

t_
t}YC'•i:t
~,
'
~
'•r$H~
_~<_.: o r ~;8t~diii oy. ."Sa:-":• 'T.F
•W[[} ~}
..~i :f! "' . ..:.f.~;~:C'.JJYI..~... ....t`..
~5 .y,•~r
~ ~',-• r 1'x ` ,::;'cl+~~' n =':{
_i~k~:. ~ <. y...a~ :~~-_•~,-: <:,:..~.f~. ~
::ah.f'~,p.E<•s'Nxsl,.:,~,..,,......:`ir~,~. .,..T
ii ~,t• _ S ..~•~a'a
>
. ~< ~ .f '~ ~ ~ ~i' a 7~:L: "•
~ ;,
;~.:d::•
1'~ ••t1:4•
;
;.= ~~.~H

j :7t i•?ii
~. ~':? i KZ.U_
L
.`
'
3
5
y6 ~", 5::i?"~~•:"rr,•ai~;u:i~k~~~~.,,a
C p Y• ~ .. , ~~~
:'::;:•`;':.~i'~~[3:rr: ...,.., ~~•r:'~;a -;:~k,
...., , ~,. • a. t k.~ : t~.> :1,.. ;; `~_ :::~
1- M~,k: v'7 I ~~~,~.
FL•=, d •ir. ..,, ~ o t•yG•'cce,E ~~?~{i•:ll~ti4,.`Ci~
1G~'3'~h„~.. :.~ ,
...,.~. 9~~:" ~9 .
_c! s~ ix:
i~
~`~`~-~y,.U. a,~.~ . :....~.~,,,~.>;~~..--t
_ il:C~
>z ~-~ sett` ~i??si:;: "-#
':=~'zsr">~~h~•~.:.,;..~, ~ .~,;
~ .fgs:r~rr.-~:. •'t
4'~-15'~.>i~ ~ ..:~.y^.~Q '.'•~ry •-.;f~;t3,.'s i,~i:::.
.. yY..L
, ~ u. sS
'~~~ rfi ~;

n'.~. ' ~
: •,v".~Sw~ ~`
=a e
, ~r:t!~~ 6~'r~r
s~~'':~:ia!~ ~;f(~
,.i jf~.~ s ~f~~~t~/~
r..:~ ~L
' ~,
l"
n ,
=~`~.i~..,,
[~:` ..:,
~x~ ,
=..~~:• ~:'-r3`
::t•t
'~'-=s••''~
~~»;Qij. ~(c^?i:
~C+
,
~y„U,...xr_f4idib~ ~ '* :.w•
-_~~}';"
, ,
~~.r~-~ ~ w:~= ' };.~w~~~. ~• ~
~F
~
'
•-
-~
~~~
G ~Q•v~
~ .;,,

';1
7• .r` ~,
~{?P~+Y~~7,,.~A~I~

d
'~
i
'a
}
~
~ .
.
~,~,.:.. ,,r.,.,. ~_r .., .,~~`.:c~j:~~°.•''i
~. e~ER'~'~~~~~ ~ "viwv ~
~ ~ ~~)E~~

r' _
i~~.:,

~aL~
~
't~ c
,,•
I
:
;;i
:~,}I:va
' Y . xtis:i-:.
;~::3i~~I. w. is ,... :.:yap. ..
• , nry~ - .,~,
_;;;cr.. ,6~,^,&;i'?W;i~:h.. ~~~:. ;rl ~iF_~.:1' l~
~.~~µ8f," ~iJSa:;,q!. ^:?i~•R::r,?1~x .rZ,'.: ~:-:3.
~.3c:S~.~
~j
~~"
~?m
'`
~
%
~ .
•nf
v
~ _•.~?r.:
m':G :. #Il'
.: ni~.L".
•l
~~ 5
P
~ 3~ c• •
i
9~.- i~~~'uR
•
,, r . i.r, ~ t~,},.. B.=.'X':E'
... ,. to ~- ; n" t:'•w~:_ r D
I .crs~:.`.?Pi~.J ri=M~..n~~'f'.~~E!' t..1`ep.- ~S~T :
3i i_1'~*.~%~?.:2'r'„"'~;'~`t~,•;•{sxLr~•,5~^I'l•;'.f~•~r.?':
~ r.4,y?
•
>r La
.
i~:!(
~N
:
t
'
j
~
: ,r: n~i.•
.~..~X:s .. >~<.ma>~>.:,~:~>.r.:. ~.t,-,:i!:-..tea.

u:+.a:':,~~a..:. ::_. ._;.• .~x,a: ~~,...... ~.. ~.._tif
;,~' TS??i;~7~::?;'cc~s, :r.El:.fi•3rra.:F..SP~. ~:¢
3M .c _
~'
;Gv:~t
lL
~
r;,:. kutr.:,:i:~~,.5:a
fi'
>.7a::v..:5tiiri~=..y~ ...
:. `%!Ct.u, .:..3f,:~~y
~
A
~
x.>it~un ~._,..r<•._
h•
._ _ ,;+:•d,`LY;?,.
raf"'i";'t:.m...:~~~:1~
s e
t
K
,
,
>
Cm
t
u
C:: ~~,~y,
-
!~`~'r~ 1 ~ tr; K y ~;~~-t
! ~.. i .:::Xh. •,~::;'.9<.~k:S;ft3' z.~•i......;os "L. ;
i
lj
...*.?,~~...
s,.:,e: ~'!` ?a~..
;
.
r
!i
t
aF
,j
•
~.[rrla~•t
{
ii
n
_w , ~.~ ~~~ .? ;.:;:.•,,,::
. 5:~;;5-:~•f'~~S!"k?if~n.r,,,~..v:t ~1-: rk
o..
a
~
-
roae
:;:PP:~I=,,~•d~ :~u;=t12:i%iF:ri~:R:te92:.;,1.
~~cl~;~
~pt
.~nF. ~r_, ... '
~14:.;
,~i~v
'
Buffalo Road and EB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT F'2 FZ
Site Driveway/ WB l LT, 1 TH-RT FZ
NSA FZ
' N/A
River Dell Townhomes NB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT A~ B
Driveway SB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT A' A~
1. Level of Service for left-tum movement on major approach.
2. Level of service for minor approach.

Mrs. Rebecca Flowers
October 12, 2006
Page 3
As shown in Table 1, the subject eastbound minor-street approach is projected to operate
at a Level of Service (LOS) `F' during both the AM and PM peak hours. The eastbound
approach is projected to experience an average of 65.7 seconds of delay during the AM
peak hour and 77.0 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour.
B. Alternate Alignment
The combined traffic volumes at the subject intersection are shown on Figure 2.
Capacity analyses were conducted at the intersection using SYNCHRO, Version 5.0. For
analysis purposes, separate Ieft- and right-turn lanes were assumed along each approach
of Buffalo Road. In addition, a separate left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane
were assumed for each minor-street approach.
TABLE 2
Analvsis of Alternate Alignment
"'Uy~, ...q,a;;3?:;u;:v F: ,!; ,m.,,a.~..{ ., , .~Q*~..
~~.`. -`:~`I~[ s''~+E~'~~o~R`.`~''. sue,

:%~'~`'~m^• ~_,i~ s
s ~ ,~'"~~~~.y. viol
~i~ili ,3'A }'t ^~~'~v'1~~
W 5 'Esi}„N"+',N~•St~t.,~ 'Fs
'ti:. ~'.iuyi;.-~.-- xii!~~7... !i'::,, ~ .
~'~ ~~ :.. dFf•`~2i T
r:K7~a ~ ~ ~ ' ;.. ~ .. : rly,.lrr
~ . ;;~... z.w .~~ti .~! ...,. ,~i.,~ .:.1; £ ~
s~ arl~'~~f ~ 3~.~„'~' y~~•y. ,
C, n ~ i~„k'i': i. ~! ,' ~ei,sy
,~. ?c;,' ~ t:, fc„u"~'.~, ,5.. '~
.. i~ t, i L .: xh.~.~i.(.. ~~~33: Y h ~Cd?rY is
iq•. ~!;' FS;~~ Fl
C, :~t,~. '{I '~
SI:iT ,' dr.~~i~l~'J, ~ . `q'~`i7 .~
K '. ~i '~ ,
i~24t:+i ....
fj~'l' nE'E:~
:<f' ~y ; _" :; :£o "~'~-~~~1!~` Y .•t~F''`~cK:ns,.,~x 4
~.. .~2t~~~
r 1=f, ca
~'•' ,x a;s?~,?rt~~;
~Q~>!' •~~`: !L .. ~ ~i :1 ../i.:{A'.iX:~'
a a~s~..NE si`~•..,,.~:
C~.ry i ;L "i~•~..''D~,~~s
'~"'3~!:l''S .. Ef.'9i." s ~i••~'.p ~=`'~.
:::.- C 4 Y!
! dff"•i~ F ._ Ih`:
' FYI±:Sr -'e.,..~" .#tv'~'!li~~ 9 `FF++,eb:Si~ r.
_ :. ;-
::~: ..
#t. s~~rt,.._a_ y.u
~ ~ A~ ~+ii~>
rx., .'tly., iu ~4,'s"iCucue~ eye v5Ft
"y.~

~
,~,
.'.{'..~s,F,~d 'T "ti J %.. haC~.'~Y,S.~,.;~b
L(+
~ p:•; ~1:~, `-r~ `axg. ...
~~
~
~
-

, r i.~ ._ ~,
~'•
~ ~ ~'
~t ,. ..'` .:~... Ali.',
a~
~ -14w~k
~~~~
~
'
`
l
~
~
'~ Y
~
.
tl.:,~..,. }~
? D: ~ Y _ ~ !' . ~' ~ ~ J~
...~,*~'
.~'1:'s~-e~r.~~
'
'
:,
~.
'
'
;~~ .
`
`
~
~•~-
~•x•~S:ni~,;cry ,:r.~4,r«r Fit
~L r1
~;
'i*f'.r4~~~:~'`~
~~t~~a;t'-a..!tt~n:;~r; r
IM s..
~.i
D
.c.. rl2P
s~E ,~
?'.. & .~ +'.•~
Y
~::r~;2,F,cer,,vtx=tt.:,,.~.
~!~L
~'?%r~
r
~
,
..
W~ ~: .,,,....
-•
t
~
.,~_ ,.q.
'~: :s-t!~..k~;~;:~
s
..,'~
w~.cE:,i.:ar ...h~.--~. ~. _.....•1.«:...A.•.' •
. :irr, . S. `y,.., ~ 4tt. k...;_....;.. , d 'td:if~'F
i:S'~i~rk'85..7'i't• 7'.nr?. ~K:?rn:. a:.~fi .r"3-
cs
,
~i::
F
~~
•~
~'
` ,
..
,
~
-
,
~
.a
i
..!!v ~ 9a~r~`~;c~u~f:...- °~"#
~K:~,Cv,
_' :.:::........:,..><:-. ti ...!~_..:~~`_"
-•.~
.r zr ~. ~>~ i' i~: iii i[:t:u>~6:&~'c.LSt~, :rSaav-'K1u::_
4.~.~1 :n._ ~, fZ.ig, ~:s. =,~~~r `h •,;.:: _,ugit':kla8? ir,':. - .
r
^• ~~
~ 6
M
t` .
,
:,;,, ~.,s<,, - :;~::-.~.. :,i .r..
r.:r:<. r~•,~s ~.,:_,..,:~.4,:::~
~i~ .;.:U, i,~..i~ .... , k~ ; . '~. . L.~
.'u ~
i
ti;
'
~
'
~
~ .
.
_
:~rl:a:•• :~i~ia; s =ir<Ft~:
'e'~i~,..,,.~:;..,,...,- •,".'~~,...,
':': + ~ !.^; •~~.'~R, - 11:-~s
t:'`
'L
i-i
*
_
~
rnva...... fv Ual
~}.
[
3
:_.:....,•t:._:rt..RS...i......r..r.:..aux....::rr;Es
F
Y .
...-..
>. ma•.''- ~'dc:Kr.,
a
-..
..=§iR:.,.a...:'~5..,.,.....r.~+,.._..:::-.3.....~:.. .... .._. .
k;±x..,. S
::. $ ....a.:;.::
m
.
~.........«..
:.
~ ? ,
,...,,.r?u,:...,,.,.,..
.
. v
Buffalo Road and EB 1 LT,1 TH-RT FZ FZ
Site Driveway / WB 1 LT, 1 TH-RT FZ
N/A FZ
~ N/A
River Dell Townhomes NB 1 LT, i TH, 1 RT A~ B
Driveway SB 1 LT,1 TH, 1 RT A' Al
1. Level of Service for left-tum movement on major approach.
2. Level of service for minor approach.
As shown in Table 2, the subject eastbound minor-street approach is projected to operate
at a Level of Service (LOS) `F' during both the AM and PM peak hours. The eastbound
approach is projected to experience an average of 334.7 seconds of delay during the AM
peak hour and 287.6 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour.
Conclusions
As shown, the capacity analyses conducted at the subject intersection indicate a Level of Service
`F' for the minor street approach, based on both proposed alignments. The tables do indicate a
significant increase in delay experienced by motorists turning from Flowers Plantation onto
Buffalo Road based on the alternate alignment. Although the capacity analyses conducted for
the subject intersection do not quantitatively indicate a significant difference in the LOS for the
existing and proposed alignments of the Neuse River Parkway Extension, additional factors must
be considered.
Due to the presence of the River Dell Elementary School bus driveway, located approximately
150 feet north of the proposed subdivision street, the addition of turning movement traffic at the
intersection, due to the realignment of the Neuse River Parkway, would potentially have a

Mrs. Rebecca Flowers
October 12, 2006
Page 4
negative impact on intersection safety, particularly during the morning peak hour. It is
anticipated that as traffic growth along NC 42 is realized, traffic bound for destinations to the
north and west will increase along Buffalo Road, contributing to the potential negative impacts at
the intersection.
In addition, the current proposed alignment of the subdivision street will serve as access to
Buffalo Road for approximately 320 homes, with direct driveway access proposed along the
street. The current proposed alignment of the Neuse River Parkway Extension will serve as a
"connector" roadway, providing access from outlying residential housing to the proposed
Flowers Parkway, which connects with both Buffalo Road and NC 42, as well access to the
internal retail, restaurant and country club developments. It should be noted that no direct
residential driveway access is proposed along the current alignment of the Neuse River Parkway
Extension. The addition of through traffic to a roadway that is intended to serve as a residential
street would likely require significant traffic calming measures and could potenfially contribute
to safety concerns for residents.
If you should have any questions or comments relative to this traffic assessment, please feel free
to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
Jason Hamilton, P.E., PTOE
Transportation Engineer
Attachments

. ~. `` °~.,~``` ~ ~., ° ,,, ~z
~.~._._ ,~,1 ~ ~ °`~,,~ mow...,. ~ ~f ;` ~"`.~ l ~~~ °.,~ "~,.. ,__,
P°'~., ` , ~, `~
~ ~.
. ~-~~ ..
-~ r~-~ ~..~~ .:._~ ~ ... ~i --~.,` ~i ORIGIN -~L
~~~ ..~: _ ~..`_` ~ ~ . ~'' a ~~r'~~ ~~
ZONE .~.....= 2164_ - -'.`~~ .~,` ~~~.
~.e~ ..__...... ~ ~~ /~ ..,..--~~_._
~' ~~1' ZONE 1~ = 0 F ~ ~ ~ ~"~~
,~ ~ ~ ~ ,
- ~ } i,.. r . y ~~
~''~~ ZONE ~ '~~ 2~0~1 ~ J r ~ 7 7j ~
' r.
i r" ~ ~~~ ; t ~, .~,^...
~,./ f ~ ;;
/ ~ r,, i ~J f,/ ,d'"o
lr ~ t ~ F Z' r Jrj
l~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ it I rr~ I~ l f ~,/°~ 1
", ,~ ,/~, f/°y
1 ~~ r I J I~ r r~~
-;,
~ 'l l` ~ "~ I t ! II Fri v r P r ~ F e
./ ar / ,' s f ~ t Z ! ~ ~~~ ~ ~ f
,.rr rt ~ ~ ~` p f ~ I
`tom ,I ~ it ~~ h ~~ r r° ` s ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ FI //°~^'' CQ
~ ;~ l j' r` ~ i 'f f d
,~~° ~' ' ,~ ,~ 3 ~ ~ y.
,r
~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ r ~ `l
r~ ~ ~, i f tt 1~
i° ~~ t ~ f
-.•-..°.
~ ~ M---~"
~,,.~°`
SCALE: 1 " = 50'
0 50 100 125 150
STOCKS ENGINEERING, P.A. NEUSERIVERPARKWAY
JOHNSTON COUNTI~, NC
3344 HILLSBOROUGH ST. PHONE: [phone]M0 1100 EASTERN AVENUE PHONE: [phone]
SUITE 250 FAX [phone] NASHNLLE, N.C. 27858 FAX: [phone] CROSSING #1-DETAILED SITE PLAM
RAUAGH, N.C. 27807
08.01.07

~ -- ~ ~
\` ~~
-v ~ --- ~
___, _-
__
i i ~'`_
1 ~`
i
f , \
,/' 1
/J ` ~/.."
~~ ZONE ~ = 2164 SF (0.00 AC~
ZONE 1 = 4890 SF (Q.1 12 • AC)
~ ~
ZONE 2 = 2300 SF~0:053 Ac)
_-~ ~
1 f
~_ ,
/~
` ,,
~ %".
~.
---
\ ~ - ~ ` \ --~e \~
,~~\..~
~~ ~
~ ~~ , , -~
o ~ , \ ~.~
1 '~ \ C
INi ~ ~~\~
1 1 r , ~ ~~_
1 1 ~ ~ ,..
``
~~
\.
~t
.~
~, ~/~__-
t ___.. ~a - -- ..
i
1t ~~
~~
,~ r
_ !. • •• .
..~
i
____ . ~.
-.._
-.
,---
_.
~~_ ._
~ ` \ ,- _ .
_- _.
_ __----
~ \ ~ ~-
~ \\ \ .,-
~\ ~
~ ~\ \ ~ \ \
~ \ ~ ~\ ~ ~
\~
®~ ~ ~, \ ~
SCALE: 1 " = 50'
0 50 100 125 150
STACKS ENGINEERING, P.A. N~`USE ~lVf~ P~WAY
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
3344 HILLSBOROUGH ST. PHONE: [phone] EASTERN AVENUE PHONE: [phone] /,t/~ {
SUITE 250 FAX: [phone] NASHVILLE, N.C. 27855 FAX (252) 459-Si9' CRQSSrf~{~ ~d _ ~ETAtLEI! SITE PLATY
RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 jji~gg
fI[~a~~

o ~ 0 1n o n
O1 m m n n t0
N N N N N N o
t0
N ~
1A
N o n g
N ~
N N N m
M
N

00'05+~£ R
i 1
i I €
i ~ W
f
E
+
~
~ E
M
[[
a
E ~
~ '
' `

i

E ~
94' y+a£ IFF

I 1 ( I
~
i
P j ~~ (
..,...., .5...

~ i
S i '..
.< ....

., ,... #
... f

f' t

~ f 1

~ 1 r...

...
t
N

~~ oo'e a n#13 ~ ( ~
I ~ ds~+tsi ~ ' €
J ~ `
E ,
3 I E ~

j.

...

~ s. ~,.
~ ~ ~ r 3
I
~~
f k 3
_
3 p
8
T h
inz
Mj7 ( k f I E f -
e ~....
E ~:
EE > i ~

'
i. €
:

~ ~_

.
3
3

.
3_

..
E > E ~~ f 3
..
1 _._
. I i
.
....i..
00 Op 0£ ~ ~ ~
~
(
~i
I ( ~

€ . o ' (

~:
;....~.....i....
..
,.

.... '`

I
I (
( ~
I

~

I

j

3
(€
(~
:~~ll ~
..:.. Ems....,. , .

..

..__ ~ 1 ..._

....

E
€
(...,.

3 p

+

:

i i ~

'

i

i
i ~ ~
i
: ,
I
i
i I i
~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~

ry
`

E
k
E

r
...
E f ~ 3
i i i
I 3
S Eft ~~

i€ o

o

,~: ' i I I
d .

..
I
E m

N
I€
~
,.

~ . ~ :

:

I
i i
~ Z nal3-

.S
k .~
~ ~ Il~d
i i €
f f j
~:

vy ,
a~s~ ~

i
E

'
e
'
.J
T
:....
....
.....:....
.... .... i.....
f

.._....e....i.
f
~
i ! ~;
. : ~
. E f f

. I i~~ i

i ~
f
~ E i

i i

i
~

i
i'~ E :
~

~ I
3

.~..r ...s :
F i `
I j)j
1
~
. ..
........ _.~....
._ .i.. a

.
e-
t

.

...

.

i

N
E
~ 3
,.
E
i r i t :

e

E 1

;

f
y

L7
. .~.
f 3a:
.w
.....

~ i
• i i i' i
e t i~~~ i

:

i

~

f

I 3
I
`3K: i

E E
f i
o i € i°'

7

E

E

E

3 E

l

€
3
3
t i E t t E ~ 00
~ ~

i~ i t I

~

3

' `~ I j

i

%-
N

~ I
6B S
Z ~ nal3~ )
~ I t I
I poros+ a: ~

~
~
s
~
i ~
€ .
3
. ~
E i i
~ f
i
i 3 - I [~ ~ ~ i
f E 9 N
€ ~ i

3 ~
i ,9 3

i
1
E
EE
E

~ €
:

~

i

i
i

,

8

i i
~
t €
i
3 S 3
i t 3
3
N
I
O 1n O O O h

N N N N N N O

N O

N O h
g
N N N m
M
N
NN
II II
IVr
~~
o~
J
N

/_~-

r ",.,,,
...
................. _.... .
BRIDG ' ``
CR ING 1 ~''
# ~..:~ ,
~/
,~\~
~'',~, ~Q
a ~, ..
~,,.~~, ,
~: ~_ _~
;;
~,,~
STOCKS ENGINEERING, P.A.
3344 HILLSBOROUGH ST. PHONE [phone] EASTERN AVENUE PHONE [phone]
SUITE 250 FAX: [phone] NASHNLLE, N.C. 27858 FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH, N.C. 27807
~, - '.
~~
~~ ~~..~
f! ``, '\-
SCALE: 1 " = 500'
0 500 1000 1250 1500
NEUSE RIVER PARKWAY
JOHNSTON COUNTI~, NC
CROSSING #1-OVERALL SITE PLAN
08 01.07

Ole -Igoe VZ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED CONSPAN PRECAST BRIDGE
FLOWERS PLANTATION
CLAYTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Terracon Project No. 70075047
July 10, 2007
Prepared for:
STOCKS ENGINEERING, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
l~~rracon
Raleigh, North Carolina

July 10, 2007
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
3344 Hillsborough St., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27607
Attn: Mr. Don L. Curry, Jr. PE
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Conspan Precast Bridge
Flowers Plantation
Clayton, North Carolina
Terracon Project No. 70075047
Dear Mr. Curry:
1 ~~rr~con
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
5240 Green's Dairy Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.terracon.com
We are submitting, herewith, our Geotechnical Engineering Report for the construction of the
Conspan, precast concrete bridge in the Flowers Plantation development in Clayton, North
Carolina. Our services were provided in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P07-0201
dated May 31, 2007.
Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding this report. We are
available to discuss our recommendations with you and to provide additional services as
necessary during the final design and construction phases of this project.
Sincerely, omo®~°°~~`
Terracon Consultants Inc. ',s ®~~H
~ . ~~~
~'3~
Matthew S. Balven, P.E. `~•,~
Geotechnical Services Manag~,,~~ ~, ~F-~
Registered, North Carolina 03073~~'W99eR~~~
~ lid W '~
Barney~e, P.E.
Principal
Registered, North Carolina 11285
Delivering Success for Clients and Employees Since 1965
More Than 80 Offices Nationwide

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------1
Field Exploration --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Laboratory Testing------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
SITE CONDITIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Regional Geology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Soil Conditions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Groundwater Conditions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Seismic Considerations -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------4
Foundation Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
GENERAL COMMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
APPENDIX
Site Location Plan
Boring Location Plan
Boring Logs
Grain Size Distribution Curve
General Notes
Calculations

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
CONSPAN PRECAST BRIDGE
FLOWERS PLANTATION
CLAYTON, NORTH CAROLINA
TERRACON PROJECT NUMBER 70075047
July 10, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The subsurface exploration for the proposed precast concrete bridge to be be constructed
inin Leland, North Carolina has been completed. Four soil test borings were performed at
the project site. Individual boring logs and a boring location plan are included with this
report. The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore the general subsurface
conditions at the project site and to evaluate these conditions with respect to the design and
construction of foundations for the proposed bridge. Our scope of services included drilling
soil test borings, performing lab testing and engineering analyses, and preparing this report
of our findings and recommendations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand the project will consist of placing a Conspan precast concrete over a stream
at a road crossing in the Flowers Plantation development in Clayton, North Carolina. We
understand the loads for the bridge foundations will be 36 kips per lineal foot vertical and 15
kips per lineal foot horizontal (perpendicular to the stream bed). It is desired to support the
structure on footing foundations approximately 2 feet below the stream invert, which is about
elevation 235 feet. Based on this elevations and the provided site diagram, the footing
foundation would bear 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface.
SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Field Exploration
In order to explore the general subsurface conditions at the project site, Terracon
subcontracted Graham & Curie Drilling to drill four soil test borings to depths of about 24 to
36 feet. The approximate borings locations are shown on Drawing No. 2 in the Appendix.
The corners of the proposed bridge were marked in the field by others prior to performing
the borings. Due to steep slopes at the staked locations, the borings were offset from the
corners. After drilling, the actual boring locations were obtained by Stocks Engineering and
are shown as offset on the boring location diagram. The ground surface elevations at the
borings were also obtained by Stocks Engineering and are shown on the boring logs.
1

Proposed Conspan Precast Bridge
Terracon Project No. 70075047
July 10, 2007
l~~rr~con
The soil test borings were performed by a power drilling rig mounted on an all-terrain vehicle
using rotary wash drilling procedures. Representative soil samples were obtained by the
split-barrel sampling procedure. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows
required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the
typical total 18-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30
inches, is the standard penetration test (SPT) resistance value (N-Value) and was performed
in the soil test borings at 2.5 to 5 foot intervals. These values are indicated on the boring
logs at the depths of occurrence.
The samples were sealed and returned to the laboratory for classification. Field logs of each
boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the
materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface
conditions between samples.
Final boring logs included with this report include visual classification, sampling depths and
penetration distance, and the standard penetration resistance values. The classification
represents the geotechnical engineer's interpretation of the field logs and includes
modifications based on visual observation, texture and plasticity.
Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs.
The stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of
changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Variations in
subsurface conditions can also occur between boring locations.
Laboratory Testing
The samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation, texture, and
plasticity. The descriptions of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with
the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Estimated group
symbols according to the Unified Soil Classification System are given on the boring logs. A
brief description of this classification system is attached to this report.
The laboratory testing program consisted of performing water content, Atterberg limits, and
percent material passing the No. 200 sieve (P200) tests on representative soil samples.
Information from these tests was used in conjunction with field penetration test data to
evaluate soil strength in-situ and soil classification. Results of these tests are provided on
the boring logs.
2

Proposed Conspan Precast Bridge
Terracon Project No. 70075047
July 10, 2007
SITE CONDITIONS
lf~rcacon
The project site is located in the Flowers Plantation development area, northwest of the
intersection of NC Highway 42 and Buffalo Road in Clayton, North Carolina. The site is
along an existing stream and is currently wooded on both sides of the stream. Site grades
range from about elevation 237 feet at the stream to about 240 to 242 feet at the proposed
bridge abutments.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Regional Geology
The site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, an area underlain by ancient
igneous and metamorphic rocks. The residual soils in this area are the product of in-place
chemical weathering of rock. The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the
surface where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands that
generally become harder with depth to the top of parent bedrock. According to the 1985
Geologic Map of North Carolina, the bedrock under the site belongs to the Raleigh Belt and
consists of metamorphic and intrusive rocks.
The transition from soil to rock can occur gradually. This transition zone is locally termed
"partially weathered rock" and is defined for engineering purposes as residual materials that
can be drilled with soil drilling methods but exhibit standard penetration test values in excess of
100 blows per foot.
Soil Conditions
Surface vegetation underlain by approximately 3 to 6 inches of topsoil was encountered at
the boring locations. The borings generally encountered very loose to very dense silty sand
and clayey sand and stiff to hard sandy silt below the topsoil. The soil had brown, reddish-
brown, and gray coloration and extended to depths ranging from 19 to 29.5 feet. Partially
weathered rock (PWR) was encountered below these depths. The PWR material sampled
as brown and gray silty sand. Material dense enough to present refusal to auger drilling was
encountered in the borings at depths ranging from 23.6 to 36.2 feet.
Groundwater Conditions
The borings were monitored while drilling and immediately after completion for the presence
and level of groundwater. Groundwater was observed at borings B-1, B-2, and B-4 at
depths ranging from 1 to 7 feet. Groundwater was not encountered at boring B-3. Based on
3

Proposed Conspan Precast Bridge
Terracon Project No. 70075047
July 10, 2007
the observations it appears the Ovate
corresponds with the stream elevation.
higher elevation.
l~erc~~on
r level at borings B-1, B-2, and B-4 generally
Boring B-3 was offset further from the stream at a
The occurrence and location of groundwater can vary dramatically throughout the year due
to variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and evaporation. The presence of groundwater
should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for trenches and
below grade structures.
Seismic Considerations
Based on our borings and experience with the area geology, the subsurface conditions at
the project site correspond most closely with those of Site Class D as described in Section
1615.1.1 of the 2006 North Carolina State Building Code (2003 {nternational Building Code
with North Carolina Amendments). This type classifies as a "stiff soil profile", with an
average standard penetration resistance (N-value) greater than or equal to 15 bpf and less
than 50 bpf.
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Systems
Based on our borings, the bridge can be supported on shallow spread footings. We
understand a footing bearing elevation on the order of 235 feet is planned. Based on the
borings, the materials present at this elevation adjacent to the stream consist of loose to
medium .dense silty/clayey sand and stiff to very stiff silt. The loose sand encountered near
elevation 235 feet. at boring B-2 is marginal for foundation support. We recommend the
geotechnical engineer perform observation during construction to verify the. bearing
materials. Where unsuitable materials are present, the footing could be extended to a
greater depth to more suitable soils. Alternatively, they could be overexcavated to a depth
recommended by the geotechnical engineer and replaced with lean concrete with a 28-day
compressive strength of at least 500 psi.
Foundations bearing in tested and approved, silty sand, clayey sand, or silt can be designed
for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum
surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Footings should bear at a
minimum depth of 36 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade far protective embedment,
or a greater depth if required by scour resistance.
4

Proposed Conspan Precast Bridge
Terracon Project No. 70075047
July 10, 2007
l~~rracon
The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile,
the structural loading conditions, and the embedment depth of the footings. Assuming that
footing construction is performed in accordance with our recommendations, it is our opinion
that total settlement will be about 1 inch or less. Differential settlement on the order of 1/2 of
the total settlement should be anticipated across the structure.
The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to placing
concrete. Dewatering by pumping will be required to maintain a clean and relatively dry
foundation excavation. Concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavating to
minimize bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become disturbed or
saturated, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete.
Lateral resistance can be obtained through passive pressure imparted by the soil against the
face of the footing and through friction between the base of the foundation and the
underlying soil. An allowable passive pressure of 350 pcf (equivalent fluid weight) can be
used for on-site soils or compacted fill material placed against the footings. The passive
pressure should be neglected within 18 inches of the ground surface due to freeze/thaw and
moisture variations. An ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.35 can be used for the base of the
foundation placed against undisturbed, approved bearing materials or clean stone.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments
can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical
recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to
provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation and construction
phases of the project.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in
this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the
site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may
not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be
immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be
provided.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification
or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about
the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
5

Proposed Conspan Precast Bridge
Terracon Project No. 70075047
Jufy 10, 2007
l~erc~con
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site
safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the
event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the
conclusions of this report in writing.
6

N~
w

O
~
N,P
<°,>
'~~
4~
9
SASV9Y CREEK 9R
p-^~~
`~
c
b `~~~'~
S~v ~~v 2
~ ~ ~
~S q "YI~C,'
pW
`~ ~
~_ ~ ~1
~ ~~
-~
wl~Fq~[ ~ ~ ~~02-
opK F
ro
N
b
74
TRIPLE CR~N GIR
Approximate Site Location
Sri 17Qq
42
~~
O~
9
m
~~
~o
~~
z
0
a
~ ClR
r
Y
U
m
0`~~G,~ ~F'p~f-
°tr~ r~
~1~
cJQ-
f`
~' 9~
~~
1 lowers
~, 42
~:
~g
`~

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM
CONSPAN PRECAST BRIDGE
FLOWER'S PLANTATION
CLAYTON, NORTH CAROLINA
N~
tig ~
¢~y ~~-' U OOH
O }
~ ~
Flowers
Pond
No !
sacrrrrw,cocAV~
U
h
42
~ rr~c o n
PROJECT NO.: 70075047
DATE: 6/28/2007
DRAWN BY: MRN
SCALE: NTS FIGURE NO. 1
~~
4f
O
P
B~v7o Cree+~

. ~
NORTH
1
1
~
1
__--~

0 1
~
i ~
1
B
-
~
4 ~ -~
1
~ .~
/- , t

1
~
Stream
1

t ~ ~ ~ i i \
~ ~
~ B_ 1
1 ~ ~
.~~
1
~
1
~ ~
o
~ o
t B - 3
~ ~'--
~ N

l~ BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
~rr~con CONSPA N PRECAST BRIDGE
5240 GREEN'S DAIRY ROAD FLOWER'S PLANTATION
PHONE ~G(919N} ~ 873 72211 CLAYTON, NC
FAx: (919} 873-9555 TERRACON PROD N0. '70075047
CHECK: BCH DRAWN: MSB DATE: 06/26/07 SCALE: NTS DWG. N0. 1

B-1
LOG OF BORING NO
.
Page 1 of 1
CLIENT
Stocks Engineering
SITE Flowers Plantation PROJECT
Clayton, North Carolina Conspan Precast Bridge
SAM PLES TESTS
J C V/
U DESCRIPTION ~ w ~ z ~ z
_ ~
_ ~ ~
m > zcn w~ ~ Oz

U
~ f- Z ~ U ~
~
c~
Approx. Surface Elev.: 241.6 ft w
o c
n
~
z }
~ w
o: a~
cn m QO
~ U ~ ~
o Q zi-
~ m
0.3 3" TOPSOIL 241.5 HS
SILTY SAND with rock fragments. SM 1 SS 14 9 P200=49%

3 reddish-brown, medium dense, moist 238.5 HS
SANDY SILT with rock fragments, ML 2 SS 12
5 light gray, Stiff, moist 236.5

SILTY SAND with rock fragments, 5
HS
brown, medium dense, moist to wet ~ SM 3 SS 28
~ 5
234
SANDY SILT with rock fragments, HS
brown, stiff, wet ML 4 SS 7

11 230.5 10 HS
SANDY SILT,
brown, hard, wet
ML 5 SS 33

15 HS
ML 6 SS 64

20 HS

23.5 218
• PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
P( WR1,
appears as brown silty sand

s AUGER REFUSAL AT 23.7

r
Y
Y
L
1
L
Y
a
n
Q
;~
L
Y
1
Z
Q
z The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines
the transition may be gradual.
~ between soil and rock types: in-situ
,
U
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 6-20-07
WL ~ 6.2 TOB 1 BORING COMPLETED 6-20-07
o WL ~ ~ ~ rr icon RIG CME 45C FOREMAN G&C

o WL
m Cave in at 3.9 APPROVED MSB JOB # 70075047

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 Paae 1 of 1
CLIENT
Stocks Engineering
SITE Flowers Plantation
Clayton, North Carolina
C7
~ DESCRIPTION
U
S
a
Q
~ Approx. Surface Elev.: 239.1 ft
' 0.4 4" TOPSOIL
CLAYEY SAND with wood debris,
3 dark brownish-gray, very loose, moist to
wet
CLAYEY SAND with rock fragments,
g brown and gray, loose, wet
SANDY SILT,
reddish-brown and light brown, stiff to very
stiff, wet
10
SANDY SILT,
brown and dark gray, very stiff, wet
PROJECT
Conspan Precast Bridge
SAM PLES TESTS
O c 0 °-
m } ° 7 W2
~
~
w ~ ~ z~
z
> zcn o:w z Z
m HZ U

w
ai
~
~
o
a~
QO ~
~ ~ U
z~
~ ~ Z I- ~ fnm ~U m n ~tA
~ 238.5 HS
SC 1 SS WOH

236 H S
SC 2 SS 5

233 5 HS
ML 3 SS 10
HS
ML 4 SS 19
229
10
HS
ML 5 SS 18
15 HS
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
P( WRI.
appears as light gray and brown silty sand
AUGER REFUSAL AT 23.6 FEET
~ 1 6 1 SS I 150/2" I I I I
215.5
z The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines
~ between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.
n WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 6-19-07
WL ~ 1.0 TOB ~ BORING COMPLETED 6-19-07
WL ~ ~ ~ rr icon RIG CNE 45C FOREMAN G&C
L
~ WL Cave in at 1.0 APPROVED MSB JOB # 70075047

LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 Page_1 of
CLIENT
Stocks Engineering
SITE Flowers Plantation PROJECT
Clayton, North Carolina Conspan Precast Bridge
SAM PLES TESTS
J C
~ ~
z
U DESCRIPTION g w ~ z

_ ~
= ~ ~
w > zcn a'w z z

U m
~
w ~z } ~~
~
c~
Approx. Surface Elev.: 253.6 ft w
o c
n
~
z ~
~
o' a~
cn m QO
~ ~ m ~
o a zF-
~ ~
'{'' `' s 6" TOPSOIL 253
o HS
.
SANDY SILT, ML 1 SS 10 19 LL=48
P1=14
reddish-brown and light brown, stiff, moist HS
P200=75%
ML 2 SS 10

g 247.5 5 HS
SILT with sand, ML 3 SS 9 26 P200=71
i
iff
t
b
rown, st
, mo
s
8 reddish-brown and light
245.5 HS

SANDY SILT, ML 4 SS 13
brown and light brown, very stiff to hard,
moist 1o HS
ML 5 SS 26

15 HS
18 235.5

SILTY SAND, SM 6 SS 52
brown, very dense, moist
20
HS
23 230.5

SANDY SILT, ML 7 SS 55
brown, hard, moist
25 HS
29.5 224 8 SS 37/6"
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK 30 HS
P( WR).
appears as brown silty sand
Y

L ~~
i 35 HS
L 36.2 217.5
AUGER REFUSAL AT 36.2 FEET
Y
n
n
L
Y
i
Z
Z
z The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines
c between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 6-20-07
WL S? Dry TOB 1 BORING COMPLETED 6-20-07
o WL ~ ~ ~rr~COn RIG CME 45C FOREMAN G&C

o WL
m APPROVED MSB JOB # 70075047

LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 Page 1 of 1
CLIENT
Stocks Engineering
SITE Flowers Plantation
Clayton. North Carolina

~ DESCRIPTION
_U
2
d
Q
~ Approx. Surface Elev.: 242.7 ft
' 0.4 4" TOPSOIL
SANDY SILT,
3 light brown, very stiff, moist
Qo GRAVEL with silt and sand,
white, red and light brown, medium dense,
o D 5.5 moist
SILTY SAND with rock fragments, Q
g brownish-gray, dense, moist to wet -
SANDY SILT,
brownish-gray, stiff to hard, wet
(hard below 13.5 feet)
20
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
P( WR)'
appears as brownish-gray silty sand
AUGER REFUSAL AT 24.7 FEET
PROJECT
Conspan Precast Bridge
SAM PLES TESTS

O ~
o
~ ~ a

~ m ~
~
~- w=
z ~
_ ~ w > zcn a'w z zZ
m O
QO ~°- U
O ~ Z H ~ ~m ~U O n ~~
242.5 H S
ML 1 SS 19
239.5 HS
GP 2 SS 22 2

237 5 HS
SM 3 SS 31

234.5 HS

ML 4 SS 11
~o
HS
~ML 5 SS 61
15 HS
ML 6 SS 35
20 HS
P200=9% 1
z The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines
between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.
n WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 6-20-07
WL ~ 7.0 TOB L BORING COMPLETED 6-20-07
WL ~ ~ ~ rr icon RIG CME 45C FOREMAN G&C
L
~ WL Cave in at 5.4 APPROVED MSB JOB # 70075047
m

o
o
a z
u

J
~ J
W d Q
Z
[L
W

Q
J
Z

O Q e ~
~ N
~ Z
0 J
W m
W
~ aj o
m
N

~ H
~
w
W

I I O Q
~ ~

J

U ~ c

O
~n

~ ~
U ~
°o
Q
d Z
O Z
w ~ v
m
F-. ~ d ~
m W U ~ O
d (n
~ p
~ Z
F- ~ O
~ ~
_
O
W
N

o N ~
I I I Z a
a
x
c~ T
N
m
N
N
m
N
h
N
W
~
_
O a
H m J
W '~
~ ~n
f") c
O
~ ~
O

~ N ~ ~ ~
°
°
rn °
~ ~
°
~ A
°o
u
~
v
w
o
J a
m ~
U
~~JNISSb'd a ~

Q N °' °'
0

~ m
` a
z
a
c
~
Q~
o I 0 0 0 0 t00 ~ t"Oi N 0
~ m
m

d
~
Z O

CJ
~ ~ ~
O N U
H .-min.-m oN~ m ~
EI ~~ M N 01 7 N 0 o d
Q

l1J _ O O ~
W ~ Rl lV ~ ~ ~ ~ ON
r ~ ~ ~
N N
#

GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING i~ SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS: Split Spoon - 1 3!8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless othenrise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger
ST: Thin-Walled Tube - Z" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger
RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger
DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit
BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary
The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch
penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value".
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered
WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling
DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal
AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other
times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In
low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have
more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine
Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are
plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be
added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis
of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Standard
Unconfined Penetration or Standard Penetration
Compressive N-value (SS) or N-value (SSl
Strength, Qu, psf Blows/Ft. Consistency Blows/Ft Relative Density
< 500 <2 Very Soft 0 - 3 Very Loose
500 - 1,000 2-3 Soft 4 - 9 Loose
1,001 - 2,000 4-6 Medium Stiff 10 - 29 Medium Dense
2,001 - 4,000 7-12 Stiff 30 - 49 Dense
4,001 - 8,000 13-26 Very Stiff 50+ Very Dense
8,000+ 26+ Hard
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Descriptive Term(s) of other Percent of Maior Component
constituents Drv Weight of Sample Particle Size
Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)
With 15 - 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)
Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)
Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)
Descriptive Term(s) of other Percent of PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
constituents Drv Weight
Term Plasticity Index
Trace < 5 Non-plastic 0
With 5 -12 Low 1-10
Modifiers > 12 Medium 11-30
High 30+
l~erracon

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Soil Classification
Group
Symbol Group Namee
Coarse Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu > 4 and 1 < Cc < 3E GW Well-graded gravelF
More than 50% retained More than 50% of coarse Less than 5%fines` Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravel`
fraction retained on
on No. 200 sieve No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines More Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF•`•"
than 12%fines` Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF••"
Sands Clean Sands Cu ? 6 and 1 < Cc < 3E SW Well-graded sand'
50% or more of coarse Less than 5%fines° Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sand'
fraction passes
No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Sity sand"'
More than 12%fines° Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand"'
Fine-Grained Soils Silts and Clays inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line' CL Lean clayK~""
50% or more passes the Liquid limit less than 50 PI < 4 or plots below "A" line' ML Silt"`""
No. 200 sieve
organic Liquid limit -oven dried Organic clay"`"""
< 0.75 OL
Liquid limit -not dried Organic siltK~""'o
Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay"`""
Liquid limit 50 or more
PI lots below "A" line MH Elastic Silt"•`""
organic Liquid limit -oven dried Organic clay"`"" °
< 0.75 OH
Liquid limit -not dried Organic siltK~"A°
Highly organic soils Prima rily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
ABased on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve
e If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles
or boulders, or both" to group name.
~ Gravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
°Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
D,o x Deo
F If soil contains >_ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.
°If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
so
50
W 40
Z
~ 30
U
Q 20
J
D_
10
7
a
0
0
"If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.
If soil contains >_ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.
~ If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with
gravel," whichever is predominant.
` If soil contains ? 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
"sandy' to group name.
"'If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
"gravelly" to group name.
"PI ? 4 and plots on or above "A° line.
°PI < 4 or plots below "A" line.
P PI plots on or above "A" line.
°PI plots below "A" fine.
For classification of fine-gra ined
soils and fine-grained fractio
of coarse-grained soils n
•~~e ~~
e '

Equation of "A' -line sue,.
,J ,r ~?t~
.gyp-
i
Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5.
then PI=0
73 (LL-20)
~
. 0
Equation of "U" - Ime o~
~ I
Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, G
' I '

then P1=0.9 (LL-8)

~
~~
c
o
G

MH o
r OH ~ ,
---
-~ M L ML OL
or
10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
Form 111-6196
1 ~~rraco

Stocks Engineering, P.A.
Designing the Future, Today.
August 1, 2007
Cyndi Karoly
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Flowers Plantation Neuse River Parkway
Bottomless Culvert Certification
Dear Cyndi:
This letter is in reference to DWQ's request for additional information pertaining to the proposed bottomless
culvert crossing on Neuse River Parkway at Flowers Plantation in Johnston County. The proposed bottomless
culvert in question has been evaluated and designed with due consideration given to the existing topography
and physical features, minimizing impacts to the riparian buffers and avoiding impacts to the buffered stream.
Concerns with depth to bedrock and long-term stream sustainability were considered throughout this design
process and both issues have been adequately addressed. The proposed foundation design is a spread footing
that achieves required bearing without reaching bedrock. This design has been prepared based on the
geotechnical report's recommendations and adequately supports the structure without directly or indirectly
impacting the stream itself. Construction impacts to the stream will also be negated with the use of temporary
shoring.
Long-term stream sustainability concerns have been addressed through an analysis of storm events that
considered flow depth in establishing the orientation and width of the structure and foundation. Additionally,
the Owner understands DWQ's concerns and has agreed to assume maintenance responsibility of the roadway
and the structure. Periodic visual inspections will ensure that the stream is not negatively impacted by the
structure.
Sincerely,
Stocks Engineering, P.A.
Donald L. Curry, Jr., PE
Associate
`~~~~~~u,i+~~t~~~
.~`'~~O~N CARO~~~~~''%
`~ ~e~~FESSId ~ .'
~ ~ SEAL~~
026970
zQ
~2_ F ~~.
's9 ~rGtN , .
~~~+~H~~~N~~~
River Dell Company
Rebecca D. Flowers
Owner, River Dell Company
at Flowers Plantation
J. Michael Stocks, PE
802-B East Washington Street
PO Box 1108
Nashville, NC 27856
252.459.8196 (voice)
252.459.8197 (fax)
252.903.6891 (mobile)
mstocks@stocksengi neering.com
Paul D. Smith, PE
3344 Hillsborough Street
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27607
919.821.2440 (voice)
919.821.2210 (fax)
919.880.5886 (mobile)
[e-mail]