20010357 Ver 1_NOV Response_20081121

BSC GPOUP
November 18, 2008
Ms. Annette Lucas
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Re: Upchurch Farms Subdivision,
NOV-2007-WQ-0026
Incident #200701460

D?
i?ov 212ooa
vxr bs Aar S
Wake County, NC
401 Water Quality Certification DWQ #01-0357
Dear Ms. Lucas:
On behalf of Mercury Development, BSC Group is providing a response to the Notice of
Violation (NOV), dated May 7, 2007 for Upchurch Farms. Below are the responses to the
issues and how they have been addressed. The following items have been provided in
response to the NOV.
1. Two (2) Upchurch Farms Wet Detention Pond Asbuilts
2. Two (2) copies of the Response Letter
3. Two (2) Copies of Photos of Critical Areas
4. Two (2) Copies of the Modified Operations and Maintenance Agreement
5. One (1) DWQ Certification of Completion
6. One (1) Geotechnical Report for Forebay Dam
1. Forebay: The side slopes of the perimeter exceed the 3:1 slopes approved on the
stormwater plan. These side slopes are sparsely vegetated and do not have a ground cover
of fescue as specified in the stormwater management plan. The original stream channel
that discharges to the forebay is eroding and is need of maintenance. In addition, the
forebay is receiving runoff from a ditch that is not shown on the stormwater management
plan. This ditch is eroding and in need of maintenance.
701 Corporate Center Dr.
Suite 163
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: 9i9-854-o8u
800-288-8123
Fax: 9i9-854-08i2
www.bscgroup.com
RESPONSE: The attached asbuilts depict the regraded forebay and provides 3:1
slopes for the forebay as required by the previously approved stormwater plan. The
developer has provided the required groundcover for the side slopes of the forebay. Engineers

There is a previously existing wetland that is providing runoff to the forebay that has Environmental
Scientists
been labeled as Point # 1 on the asbuilt plans. This wetland is an Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) wetland and the limits of the wetlands have been depicted on the GIS Consultants
asbuilt plan. This wetland existed prior to the development of this site and remains Landscape
deeply incised. During a December 10, 2007 meeting with Annette Lucas we reviewed Architects
photos of this wetland and observed the existing conditions of the channel. It was
determined at this meeting that due to the current condition of the wetland (deeply Planners
incised channel) and the ACOE constraints, it would be best to not take any actions at Surveyors
this point to alter its naturally occurring condition.
-7"-'i
Upchurch Farms Subdivision, Wake County, NC
NOV-2007-WQ-0026
Incident #200701460
401 Water Quality Certification DWQ #01-0357
November 18, 2008
Page 2 of 4
The forebay is receiving stormwater runoff from Point #2 as labeled on the asbuilt plan. Point
#2 is downstream of an existing 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and has been reinforced
with riprap from the point of discharge of the 18" RCP to the forebay to prevent further erosion.
(See Photo of Point #2) Annette Lucas agreed during our December 7, 2007 meeting that this
was the appropriate action to remedy the situation.
2. Area between the forebay and the treatment area of the wet detention basin: The flow of stormwater
has been rerouted from the west side of the BMW (as specified on the plans approved by the DWQ) to
the east side of the BMP. This change should have been resubmitted to the DWQ for approval. This
area is extremely unstable and contributing sediment to the stormwater. Stormwater flow is currently
undercutting the natural area between the forebay and the treatment area. A major repair and possibly a
redesign is needed to stabilize the BMP and restore its function. DWQ recommends either removing
the natural area and creating a berm to separate the forebay from the treatment area (preferred) OR
installing a riser/barrel structure to convey flow from the forebay to the treatment area. If the forebay
and treatment area are to remain separate, a major repair will be needed to stabilize the natural area and
prevent all future undercutting through it.
RESPONSE: The area between the forebay and the treatment area has been stabilized using
a geosynthetic reinforcement matting in accordance with the construction plans prepared by
D. Miller and Associates, dated July 7, 2008. These plans were reviewed by DWQ and
approved by an Annette Lucas email dated August 21, 2008. The site was inspected on
November 12, 2008 and the area of concern is performing well and there is no evidence of
erosion. Please see photographs of Point #3.
3. Treatment area: The permanent pool was not at the level specified in the stormwater plans
approved by the DWQ. The treatment area was largely drained, compromising the function of the
BMP and creating an eyesore in the community. The aquatic shelf was not vegetated according to
the plating plan approved by the DWQ, in fact, little or no vegetation was present on the aquatic
shelf. In addition, two pipes that were not on the plans approved by the DWQ were discharging
directly to the treatment area without any pretreatment. The side slopes of the perimeter of the
treatment area also appeared to exceed the 3:1 slops approved on the stormwater plan and these side
slopes did not have a ground cover of fescue.
Response: The permanent pool was below the Normal Water Surface Elevation (NWSEL)
that was proposed on the stormwater plan during the April 19, 2007 DWQ inspection due to
construction activities that were occurring on the site. The contractor had been regrading the
side slopes of the pond, which caused the water level to below the designed Normal Water
Surface Elevation (NWSEL). During a BSC inspection it was determined that the NWSEL
was at elevation 344, which is the elevation that was specified on the approved storm drainage
plans.
71?
Upchurch Farms Subdivision, Wake County, NC
NOV-2007-WQ-0026
Incident #200701460
401 Water Quality Certification DWQ #01-0357
November 18, 2008
Page 3 of 4
The contractor has regraded the pond and provided the appropriate slopes for the pond and
the aquatic shelf. Following the regrading of the pond, the aquatic shelf was planted in
accordance with the DWQ approved Wet Detention Aquatic Shelf Landscape Plan prepared
by BSC Group, dated December 13, 2007. These plans were approved by the "Approval of
Modified Stormwater Plan/Resolution of NOV-2007-WQ0026", dated January 10, 2008.
Please see Photograph #4 for pictures of the aquatic shelf.
During a July 2, 2007 meeting with DWQ it was determined that the stormwater from the
single-family site entered directly into the stormwater detention basin and was not being
pretreated by the forebay. This stormwater entered directly into the basin through the two
stormwater pipes that were mentioned in the NOV. Therefore, at the July 2, 2007 meeting
with Annette Lucas it was agreed that BSC would modify the operations and maintenance
agreement (O&M) to provide language specifically addressing the two stormwater pipes from
the single-family section. The modified O&M will require that monthly inspections be
performed on the areas surrounding the two drain pipes to ensure sediment is not
accumulating in those areas. BSC has attached a copy of the executed O&M that reflects the
aforementioned changes. This O&M was provided to DWQ and approved by the "Approval
of Modified Stormwater Plan/Resolution of NOV-2007-WQ0026", dated January 10, 2008.
The attached asbuilt plan provides 3:1 slopes for the detention pond as required by the
previously approved stormwater plan. The developer has provided the required groundcover
for the side slopes of the detention basin. Please see Photograph #5 for pictures of the
stabilized 3:1 slopes.
4. Outlet structure: Due to the improper construction and maintenance of the wet detention pond, a
large amount of sediment had been deposited down slope of the outlet structure. The sediment has
built up to a point where the elevation of the riprap apron is significantly higher than the outlet pipe,
resulting in stormwater being detained in the outlet pipe. The area where the outlet discharges needs
to be dredged so that its elevation is at or slightly below the invert of the outlet pipe and a new rip
rap apron installed.
RESPONSE: The contractor has regraded the area surrounding the outlet pipe to allow for
water to flow freely and not pond at the exit to the outlet pipe. The riprap has been
reestablished to prevent erosion at the discharge point. Please see Photograph #6 for pictures
of the riprap apron.
5. Level spreader: The level spreader appeared to be designed and installed in accordance with the
plans approved by the DWQ. However, there were serious issues with maintenance. The areas up
and down slope of the level spreader were completely devoid of vegetation. In addition, a berm of
sediment has been deposited down slope of the level spreader, preventing diffuse flow (the purpose
for which the level spreader was constructed). The berm needs to be removed and the whole area
stabilized with an appropriate ground cover.
Upchurch Farms Subdivision, Wake County, NC
NOV-2007-WQ-0026
Incident #200701460
401 Water Quality Certification DWQ #01-0357
November 18, 2008
Page 4 of 4
RESPONSE: The area downstream of the level spreader has been regraded to ensure positive
drainage from the lip of the level spreader into the filter strip. The regraded area
downstream of the level spreader and the area up slope of the level spreader have been
stabilized with appropriate ground cover. Please see Photograph #7.
Item 2: Other Waste (In-stream sediment)
Sediment has been released into an unnamed tributary to White Oak Creek down gradient of the
level spreader and the outfall of the wet detention pond. There are accumulations of approximately
3 inches to 6 inches over a length of approximately 150 feet of stream from sediment.
This impact represents a violation of 15A NCAC2B.0211(3)f, which states: Oils, deleterious
substances; colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to
public health, secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability
of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses.
RESPONSE: Marco Hilhorst (BSC Group) and Mike Jones (Mercury Development)
conducted a site visit with Lauren Cobb on May 24, 2007. At this site visit it was determined
that the sediment that was identified in the NOV was not being discharged from the Upchurch
Farms site. Upon completion of this site visit, it was determined that Item #2 could be
removed from the NOV.
We wish to thank you for your assistance in getting this problem resolved. Should you or any of the
other staff members have any other question or comments, please give us a call or send an email
and the requested information will be provided promptly.
Very truly yours,
BSC GROUP
c ,rw
Cameron M. Rice, P.E.
Project Manager/Associate
cc: Michael Jones, Mercury Development (w/ attachments)
BSC File # 02063.00
F W A 7-F Michael F. Easley, Governor
0 RQG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Coleen H. Sullins, Director
-H Division of Water Quality
O
01-0151
DWQ Project No.: 01-0357 County: Wake
Applicant: Triton Upchurch, LLC, Attn: Mr. Mike Jones
Project Name: Upchurch Farms Subdivision
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: May 9 2002
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401 /Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
If this project was desined by a Certified Professional
I, Cfinero01 1L 40. , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe periodically the construction of the project,
for the Permitee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the
observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature 0 1 u' Registration No. j>2?
,.gt
AX Date ?S4. ;.q ;r4.
s
O b -
a1Pp `
1;?% D
o ?a z?o$
Nov 21
`NPT?KU?P.?R
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

??,? :?.
L
k
It)

.?j
¦

.? 5Q aA
i
I yy
;.:` `4?
_, .
.? _.? , .
¦
we
rxm
a

g
-7 `747
¦

F d
..' 3
it;
ik ` ., ' ?-?
a?.
0?-0351
Upchurch Farms Residential Subdivision
December 11, 2007
Maintenance & Operation Manual for Permanent Wet Detention Basin
These procedures establish methods for maintenance and operation of the wet
detention basin, to be constructed in conjunction with the development of the
Upchurch Farms subdivision according to plans prepared by Rice & Associates
and revised to follow current phasing and revisions.
After every rainfall event or at least monthly the following maintenance activities
shall be performed per the foregoing standards. The basin shall be inspected for
sediment accumulation, erosion, trash accumulation, vegetated cover, and
general condition. Check and clear orifice for any obstructions so that drawdown
of the temporary pool occurs within 2 to 5 days.
Vegetation - The wet basin embankments and slopes that will have a ground
cover of fescue, which if properly maintained, will prevent erosion of the
embankment and provide an easy surface for inspection. The grass will be most
difficult to maintain in the area subject to water level fluctuation. Grass should be
fertilized every October and April. Remove cattails and other indigenous wetland
plants when they cover 50% of the basin surface. These plants shall be
.encouraged to grow along the vegetated shelf and forebay berm.
Re-Seeding- Periodic re-seeding may be required to establish grass on areas
where seed did not take or has been destroyed. Before seeding, fertilizer (12-12-
12) should be applied at a minimum rate of 12 to 15 pounds per 1,000 SF. The
seed should be evenly sown at a rate of three pounds per 1,000 SF. The seed
should be covered with soil to the depth of approximately 1/4". Immediately
following the planting, the area should be mulched with straw.
Mowing - Grass mowing, brush cutting and removal of weed vegetation will be
necessary for the proper maintenance of the embankments and slopes. Grass
should be mowed when the grass exceeds 6" in height. Acceptable methods
include the use of weed whips or power brush cutters and mowers.
Erosion - Erosion occurs when the water concentrates causing failure of the
vegetation or when vegetation dies and sets up the environment for rill erosion
and eventually gullies from the stormwater runoff. The basin should be inspected
for these areas. Proper care of vegetative areas that develop erosion is required
to prevent more serious damage to the site. Rills and gullies should be filled with
suitable soil, compacted, and then seeded. Methods described earlier on
vegetation should be used to properly establish the grass surface. Where eroded
areas are detected, the cause of the erosion should be addressed to prevent a
continued maintenance problem. Frequently, problems result from the
concentration of runoff to one point of the basin instead of a uniform distribution
of runoff. This can be corrected by reshaping to more evenly distribute the runoff
to areas not experiencing erosion problems.
Rodent Control - Rodents such as ground hogs, muskrats and moles are attracted
to moist, wet areas and can be quite dangerous to structural integrity and proper
performance of the earthwork and drainage. Groundhogs and muskrats thrive on
burrowing into the manmade earthwork, which become pathways for seepage.
In the event that burrows are detected within the wetland area, the rodents
should be dealt with by removal.
Trash & Debris - Trash acts as a barrier to stormwater infiltration and attracts
unwanted pests. The basin should be kept clear of debris such as loose bottles,
cans, food containers and other forms of rubbish. The basin should be checked for
debris after every storm event and cleared as needed.
MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AND OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE
Inspection of Outlet Structure - The outlet structure should be inspected thoroughly
once a year, including the joints. Pipes should be inspected for proper alignment
(sagging), elongation and displacement at joints, cracks, leaks, surface wear, loss
of protective coating, corrosion and blocking. Problems with outlet structures
most often occur at joints and special attention should be given to them during
inspection. Joints should be checked for gaps caused by elongation or
settlement and loss of joint filler material. Open joints can permit erosion of the
earthwork and possibly the piping of soil material through the joints. A depression
in the soil surface over the pipe may be a sign that soil is being removed from
around the pipe.
Inspection of Storm Drain System ® The storm drain collection system (catch basins,
piping, swales, riprap, etc.) shall be inspected thoroughly quarterly to maintain
proper functioning.
Inspection of Level Spreaders - Level spreaders shall be maintained every six
months, All accumulated sediment and debris shall be removed from the
structure, and a level elevation shall be maintained across the entire flow
spreading structure. Any down gradient erosion must be repaired or replanted as
necessary,
OPERATION
Drain Pipes - Drainpipes should always be operable so that the water can be
drawn down in events of a severe rain or for repairs or maintenance. Operation of
the basin should include recording of the following:
Semi-Annual Inspection Reports - A collection of written inspection reports should
be kept on record. Inspection should be conducted semi-annually. Copies
should be provided to Mr. John Dorney, Wetlands/401 Unit, Raleigh Regional
Office, NCDENR.
Observations - All observations should be recorded. Where periodic inspections
are performed following significant rainfall events, these inspections should be
logged.
Maintenance - Written records of maintenance and/or repairs should be
recorded.
Other Operational Procedures - The owner should maintain a complete and up-to-
date set of plans (as-built drawings) and all changes made to the wetlands over
time should be recorded on the as-builts.
Sedimentation and Dredging - Sedimentation from on-site and off-site soils will
eventually result in the clogging of drainage pipes and reduction of storage and
functional capacity. Sedimentation that occurs will have to be removed.
Sediment should be removed after twelve inches of deposition, which results in the
reduction of the permanent pool depth to a depth of 4 feet. In addition to the
general deposition measurements and sediment removal, specific attention
should be addressed to the outfalls of the two storm-drainage pipes located on
the western edge of the permanent wet detention basin. These outfalls do not
receive any pretreatment through the fore bay and are more susceptible to
deposition of sediments. These areas must be evaluated monthly to determine if
sedimentation has occurred and if removal of deposits is necessary. The
measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such that it
will give an accurate depth reading and not readily penetrate into accumulated
sediments. Ensuring that disturbed areas are stabilized with vegetative ground
cover will restrain erosive forces, thereby allowing for the frequency of sediment
removal to be reduced. This would include a periodic application of fertilizer and
other treatment necessary to promote a stable ground cover and minimize
sedimentation to the pond. The removed material should be hauled offsite to a
suitable spoil site and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal
rules and regulations.

Responsible Parties: Mercury Development
5660 Six Forks Road
Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ
of any problems with the system or prior to any changes to the system or
responsible party.
Print Name: Michael L. Jones
Title:
Address: 5560 Six Forks Road, Suite 202, Raleigh NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Signature:
Date: 12--1.3-07
I, n a Notary Public for the State of North Carolina, county
of do hereby certify that '7111.Cf' el Z Jonts personally
appeared before me this day of Lzaalzo
acknowledge due execution of the foregoing instrument.
official seal.
?oUN0
Seal
2007 and
Witness my hand and
AO-.)&Y
% 'gxpires
4° Y v
U
?7
G V?
ISO
?'? _
mille?r
D& Associates, PA
1000 Bearcat Way, Suite 103
Morrisville, NC 27560
[phone] (Office) [phone] (Fax)
Mercury Development
Attn: Michael L. Jones
5660 Six Forks Road, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Re: Engineering Services - Fill Placement Testing
Upchurch Farms Forebay Dam - Repair
Cary, NC
Mr. Jones: Project No.: 08-331-0850-00
September 8, 2008
From 08-28-088 to 09-05-2008, representatives of D. Miller & Associates, PA (DMA) were
on-site on a full time basis for the purpose of observing and testing the fill at the above referenced site.
DMA's proposal No. P08-331-0222dated August 27, 2008 was accepted by the client; however,
verbal approval was provided by Mr. Michael Jones of Mercury Development to expand the original
scope of service to the actual services rendered.
On 09-02-2008, a representative of DMA was on-site to observe the condition of the subgrade soils
before placement of the fill soil. The site was not accessible to a tandem-axeled dump truck; therefore,
the subgrade soils were qualitatively probed to estimate the stability of the subgrade soils. The
subgrade soils materials were found to be firm and dry and were suitable for fill placement.
On 09-03-2008, the soils previously approved by DMA to be used in the construction of the
dam were no longer available to Thompson Construction, the grading Contractor. The DMA
representative accompanied Thompson Construction representative to several sites to find a material
that would satisfy the soil requirement provided in DMA's design under project No. 08-331-0623-00
signed and sealed on July 1, 2008.
On 09-04-2008 and 09-05-2008 representatives of DMA were on-site to monitor and perform
density testing during the placement of fill soil on the site. The tested fill soils were generally
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density and to
within 3 to 5 percentage points of the optimum moisture as per standard construction practice. A
summary of the field density test results is attached.
Two bulk samples were obtained fiom an on-site source and transported to DMA laboratories
for testing. Standard Proctor Testing (ASTM D-698), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318), and Sieve
Analysis (ASTM D-422) were performed on the obtained samples (S-1 and S-2). Testing indicates
that soil S-1 has the following properties; a maximum dry density of 93-pcf, an optimum moisture
content of 28%, a Liquid Limit of 54, a Plastic Limit of 25, a Plasticity Index of 29, and 94% of the
soil by weight passing a No. 200 sieve. The soil classifies as a FAT CLAY (CH) and is suitable for
use as fill material for the dam provided it is placed at slightly or above the optimum moisture content.
Soil S-2 has the following properties; a maximum dry density of 99-pcf, an optimum moisture content
of 22%, a Liquid Limit of 48, a Plastic Limit of 21, a Plasticity Index of 27, and 70% of the soil by
weight passing a No. 200 sieve. This soil also classifies as a sandy LEAN CLAY (CL) and is suitable
for use as fill material for the dam provided it is placed at slightly or above the optimum moisture
content. Copies of our laboratory test results are enclosed for your review.
Based on our experience, soils which have the above referenced properties and are compacted
to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor value will typically have a permeability which meets or
Fill Placement Testing - Upchurch Farms Forebay Dam - Repair
September 8, 2008
Page 2 of 2
is slower than 3.33x10-9 ft/sec (1x10- cm/sec). If you desire, DMA can provide permeability testing
of the compacted soils of the forebay dam; however it is apparent that the in-place soils satisfy the
specified permeability rate. Based on our test results and the observed conditions, the observed and
tested fill soils were placed and compacted in general accordance to DMA's design under project No.
08-331-0623-00 signed and sealed on July 1, 2008. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you during
this phase of the project. If you need further assistance or additional information please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
D. Miller & Associates, P,
F??I`
Kevin P. Morrow, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Enr
08-331-0850-00
0106 / F31 2,781.25
!f.1,
tr
C.U t; tom.
Kelly P. Flanagan, P.B, a
Geotechnical Department Manager
a
m
Q M ?
o?
Iww4 V a U a
•^I p?z
a
W
Z
W
0
J
W
LL
E
m
0
T
m
a
L
O
LL
N y O
E 0
, o
LL p to
s m o
y r
7 C M
V M
CL co
V
O
E?z
m .. 2j
z C d
a m 'o
--) (L
Y

m
E

N J

LL N N
O d d d

N d d d d d
J d ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?

d ,
r a N O O) (D •C: M
O (D
w o +
Z + + + + + +
o a
2
w 0 o e o 0 0 0 0
F M o
' c? v n (D (? n
?
? ?
rn of
m ?
rn ?
rn ai
rn of
rn
o
0
v o
e
.
CL c
U
E ? c
>>
m ..
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(/) l
c
U 4
N 4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
w 0

J
E •y

w
c
E d ('
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
X O m m O m 01 m m m

m
o v rn m m rn rn m rn rn
w
w
LL
w
O d d
U a N
v N
v N
d N
v N
v N
v N
v N
?
a v Z ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? C
W Y .•.
N
a N
M O
M V
m W
N (D
M V
('M I? V
7 c
`? N N N N N N N N
Q
y N ? r? ? v ?n (D (n t? ?
Fw- o c a rn rn rn rn rn rn oo °o

-?D
m
d m E a E E E

N m
? E
0 m
? m
? m
? ?
z LL
d
O
L
d
L
w
O N
p N
D
o
M
o
`0
o 0
F
Q
co
U)
d
?
d
a?
d c
.°
O o o c O c ? c
J d a U o U U U w

F w
v w (D t- O
J O O O O O O O O
Z Z Z z z Z Z Z

F J J J J J J J J
O
N N N N N N N N

3

O

Q

U
co
co
co
co
co
co

co

co
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
LL
F
Q O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N
z V a :t V V V ui (n
w 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) am rn rn

F
N
N
w a
E
?-
N
cO
V
LO
O
W

z

t
D
N
C
N
0 'p
l0 O
d ? t
z
`b w 0
o c ?
0 U CO m
U y
> v D
CO
46 m U w
N N n0
N N N
O 000
Z> 2 2 2
h ~ ~ ~
Q Q Q Q

Photos. Yes / No
Consolida ion: Yes No
PROJECT TIME RECORD
D. Miller & Associates, P.A.
8504 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attachments
ensic Form:
Concrete Form:
Drive Tube Form:
Crack Monitor Form:
Other:
Project: C to Job No.: -,7,f l -
Date: C?-5-0?
Purpose of Visit: y- Fax No.:
Client Company: th,&rCUr? Contact No.:
Contact Name: Permit No.: AID Rq4,
City /Town: Weather: CI ?+Iivcd DS
Start Time: p Stop Time: J) Travel Time: Total: ,y .
Start Time: Stop Time: Travel Time: Total:
At Subgrade Level: Native / 9(circle one)
Fill Controlled? NA- Per Who? &4
Depth of Overlying Fill:
Soil Description: 5;1, , r fa?a
Remarks: ?mti
ll??t e? &S _SiL_.4o 065er,_ t?tn -&!? 4
_ .damn
Figure) l
The above report' nary submittal. All data is subject t , echnical review and confirmation,
V
Auth ization (Isign and print)
Field Technician (sign a print) 1Q, ,\o a\0
For

PROJECT TIME RECORD
D. Miller & Associates, P.A.
8504 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Site Location (Project): O char ' F Job No.: a8-331.695,
Purpose of Site Visit: Date: q_ -oB
Client Company: <n Fax No.: 919.861-5z77
Contact Name.: N,,??,?,„ I?? Contact No.: qrg. 36f X823
City / Town., C, ,
Permit No.:
Weather and Temperature:
Start Time:
;
Stmt Time:
Stop Time: (,,A _ Travel Time:
Stop Time: Travel Time:
At subgrade level: Native / Fill (circle one)
Depth of overlying fill:
Soil Description:
Remarks:
R ris?.ert.a:-r S^?Vw Ot T)diq crnlsd on f,?/ fy
t
??+I.Ct{rsv, is?e<? ?S{a^_.?/ay-? ?-?a?ei*ru:- u5 tl,o+.?n oe.
r•?I t .,c , 1 I l/ YT^ e-'`•,?..' I t ? i ??G[ yd? r tcr ? -
Total:
Total:
. j tift a?l ?«?r

The above report is a preliminary submittal. All data is subject to technical review and confirmation.
?o..,o yJ- ', t-J,krw
Authorization
Field Technician
.LQ-?-
1 On
D. Miller & Associates, PA
8358 Six Forks Road, 101 919-846-9202
Raleigh, NC 27615 Fax [phone]
Project: U,A.A r'.,,.,c f•..?,.,? U*'
Subject: re S+- tcca4jbn 3
f..t bay f ? d e-
sw+
•2
1
f' ! 3i de
Job No: (3 S l- 0 Bso
Date: 9 - 4- og
Sheet: 2
V. elf { ft cT . a v- ?as f s. 7!-c.
PROJECT TIME RECORD
D. Miller & Associates, P.A.
8504 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Site Location (Pro'eet): church ?rwts n Job No.: 6.331- 8sa
Pu ose of Site Visit: v, Date: q-3,08
Client Com an : -i ckr nfi Fax No.: 9 (q . g41
Contact Name.: Al Contact No.: ?W.07.3
-City/ Town: Cc.? Permit No.:
Weather and Tem erature: r? 9 's
Start Time: .1 ae, Stop Time: Z; Travel Time: k Total:
Start Time: Stop Time: Travel Time: Total:
At subgrade level: Native / Fill (circle one)
Depth of overlying fill:
Soil Description:
Remarks:
/i?Saeak tny+t//???t?'11xnt? C? '?.c. oi?iR]t'Se.ll?b?r?c,Le(thrZr
('til 1?E5,"l_Swb .. .?i _ . !'CVi'?N5{y_ db,2,gBd1l???ot/1?
11??S?1dd.LAiS.?9-a, LLrA D C• S i}?. L
d ??,? ?ubVV??????lC?/?,J! M?-F.,,-??s
rat s t' 1 ti. V ?t s o,.'o,? 1 ,c
Kn 1 t d p r 944COmp
c 7?s
R_. J- r. _ r t_ t -n
v i
1 L D t o- _
The above report is a preliminary submittal. All data is subject to technical review and confirmation.
a W ?S
Authorization Field Technician
`,?_\AV
PROJECT TIME RECORD
D. Miller & Associates, P.A.
8504 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Site Location (Project): J c j ...t e , h K t ,., Job No.: o$•y -t78So
Purpose of Site Visit: Sµy cA Date:
Client Com an : in D
iw? Fax No.: /y- $ l?-•Sn-;•
Contact Name.: ,t/ai C( Contact No.: 36 q . ? 9 2 3
n:
-? Permit No.:
Wea
er
and Temperature: 3?s
1 -1
Start Time: Stop Time: Travel Time: 30„,. Total: d ? L
Start Time: Stop Time: Travel Time: Total:
At subgrade level:(& D */ Fill (circle one)
Depth of overlying fill:
Soil Description: .r; t ,sRemarks: rr?rrr??,? M ,?.,
SkIL!!6 Ol+i4itc/c wl `i" F S'rt ?c u ?__
VIvit
Sw?'rtu fit. wu5 iXfn ar?-Ld r?1 ?c..? ?ub ?-L
Uf?? y"?A 4004 wit,
{-
;rr ;
t L G .t
tII-L,2L 4V fm
I
The above report is a preliminary submittal. All data is subject to tec cal r vie and confirmation,
on,
o
ova , i
Authorization Field Technician
Q?
Photos: Yes / No
Consolidation: Yes /No
PROJECT TIME RECORD
D. Miller & Associates, P.A.
8504 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attachments
Forensic Form:
Concrete Form: _
Drive Tube Form:
Crack Monitor Form:
Other:
Project: Job No.: _ 02.CV -ce5

Purpose of Visit: bco?e?` k Date:
Fax No.:
Client Company:
r
Contact No.: yZZ- -Ut Z

Contact Name: o -
Permit No.: AM-
Ci /Town: Weather: G
Start Time: Z : >c> Stop Time: : ??-- Travel Time:
StartTime: Z;'Stop Time: 3 :Travel Time:
At Subgrade Level: Native / Fill (circle one)
Fill Controlled? Per Who?
Depth of Overlying Fill:
Soil Description:
Remarks:
IP J.
_Drf+f? T d,/
- ?k? ? n 1,errn ?6 vyl s i I'r
Total: /.
Total: a.
Figure I

The above report is a preliminary submittal. All data is subject to technical eview a d confirmation.
Authorization (sign and print) Field Te nici (sign and print)

MOISTURE DENSITY TEST DA7.
Client: Mercury Developers
Project: Upchurch Farms Forebay Dam
Project Number: 08-331-0850-00
Specimen Data
Source: Off-Site - Mills Park Drive Middle School
Sample No.: S-1
Elev. or Depth: Sample Length(in./cm.):
Location:
Description: Brown FAT Clay
Liquid Limit: 54 Plasticity Index: 29 Natural Moisture: 27.9
Date: 8/29/08 USCS Classification: CH AASHTO Classification:
Testing Remarks: Sp.G. Assumed at 2.75
Percent retained on No.4 sieve: 0%
Percent passing No. 200 sieve: 94% Specific gravity: 2.75
Test Data And Results For Curve S-1
Type of test: ASTM D 698-00a Method A Standard
Mold Dia.. 4.00 in. Hammer Wt.: 5.5 lb. Drop: 12 in.
Layers: three Blows per Layer: 25
103
98
93
88
83
78
POINT NO. 1 2 3 4
NM + WS 12.39 13.19 13.06 12.69
WM 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21
WW+T 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
WD+T 87.62 77.77 74.24 82.48
TARE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MOIST 14.1 28.6 34.7 21.2
MOISTURE 14.1 28.6 34.7 21.2
DRY DEN 83.6 92.9 85.8 86.1
9 19 29 39 Max. dry den= 9 3 p c f
Oversize Correction Not Applied
ZAV SpG
2.76
Opt moisture= 28 %
Cl
T
a°
a 41) C)
co
LO 'if
m ti rn
0 Cv
y U
N N Z
ad o LM C,4
LL N O
d X N
?C
p o co
`OP 0)
O)
E
ro
ro
o
U-
o
0
roo
LL LO
V CO
co
r, O
L M O
Uf2MN
D co
C/) 07
Gi ? 3t Ci
m 0 Q O
m m .
O co
I
t-l
v
O
co
r
M
iw
l..
a
0-

LO
N M N U
N a

x 0 ;,;
C .. u.
o
r= r= do
CL :? J c c E 1=
?, U N Z
a) =
J IL
N " 05
Q U) M
a M f
A
o 00
®
o 0 C) 00 ? O LO q M N
xepul tiual;seld

?. ea
R
O.
C?
U

i 1 '8
J
U

Rf
Q
3
J
U
O
N
T
O
r
O
O
T
0
0
co
O
ti
E
O J
CS'
O
Lo
a
?t
O
M
0
N
0
T
0
O
N
0 N
4-.
E
o O
C
? O
? L
O O
L- U
n. L
? O
? N
N N
c
0 0
T?
as
ro N
Q. c
2
X
.? N
ro m
N
O
4)
cu a
(V -.
F- U)
N co
-0 Q 75
M 0 3
L3 >
? ro
7
cr N
O
6 U N
c o E
o ro
ro :3 a -
.G 'r
E c o
N O >.
H ro Q.
0
r r
O
Q
CL rn
?-
t!1 ? U) O
m?
c"Ja ? ? si
N ca
U co
U)cl? ZN
NO
otS 0 m
Q)
x_ o0
C] o rn
00
c
0
L
Q-
a
O
i I o
o
N
a
o
I I
o f
U

r

I
I I
?
?-
? O
O

I i I
I _
? I
I •

I O
I\ I ? I
N

a Z ° E

U i
I
___ !
E

co
z °'
p c -

' ,
y o
0 i I
I ? I
CD
N Z
o ----

i o
l4

U - ?
i

O
0 0
.0
n
i 77

I I
?
I T ?I ii
I
co
O

O O O O O Co ?O ?O O O O
W O
O 0 co to
r
6UIssed;UaaJad
zd?z
Z Z a
cpa) p
c Q.
° M
M cn
2
U
}
J o
U o N
U- CL
3 .? N
° o _i
mUa
p LO
U
N
N
0
a
U)
E
fU
d
A
O ti aci
? E 0.
0 O
Q
- LL
M U O
O U
O Q
Z
-Li
a0i CD
•, m
0 0
a. EL 0
ASTM D 422 Ste' 'ard Test Method for Particle-Size Alysis of Soils
Project No.: 08-331-0850-00 Boring No.: N/A
Project Name: Upchurch Farms Forebay Dam Sample No.: S-1
Client: Mercury Development Depth: N/A
Date: 9/2/2008
Sample Weight Before Wash(g) 300.13 Weight Removed with Wash (g) 278.72
Weight After Wash (g) 21.41 Assumed Specific Gravity
Weight Dry of Hydrometer Sample (g)*
"Silts and Clays 65g Sands 1158
Correted Weight (g) -

Sieve Sieve Opening
(mm) Weight per
Sieve (g) Cumulative
Weight () Percent
Retained (%) Percent
Passing (%)
3 in. 75.0 0 - 100
2 in. 50.0 0 - 100
1-1/2 in. 37.5 0 - 100
1 in. 25.0 0 - 100
3/4 in. 19.0 0 - 100
112 in 12.5 0 - 100
3/8 in 9.5 0 - 100
1/4 in 6.25 0 - 100
No.4 4.8 0 - 100
No.8 2.36 0 - 100
No. 10 2.0 0.02 0.02 - 100
No. 14 1.4 0.21 0.23 - 100
No. 16 1.18 0.23 - 100
No. 40 0.425 3.19 3.42 1 99
No. 100 0.150 3.42 1 99
No. 200 0.075 15.42 18.84 6 94
Pan ----------- 2.57 21.41

Elapsed
Time (min)
Temperature (°F)
Hydrometer
Reading Corrected
Hydro
Reading
% Total in
Suspension
K Effective
Length
cm Particle
Diameter
mm
2 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
5 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
15 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
30 -0.002 #DIV/O! #N/A #N/A #N/A
60 -0.002 #DIV/01 #N/A #N/A #N/A
250 -0.002 #DIV/01 #N/A #N/A #N/A
1440 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
MOISTURE DENSITY TEST DAT.
Client: Mercury Developers
Project: Upchurch Farms Forebay Dam
Project Number: 08-331-0850-00
Specimen Data
Source: Off-Site - Stockpile on Morrisville Road
Sample No.: S-2
Elev. or Depth: Sample Length(in./cm.):
Location:
Description: Light brown sandy LEAN CLAY
Liquid Limit: 48 Plasticity Index: 27
Date: 9/4/08 USCS Classification: CL
Testing Remarks: Sp.G. Assumed at 2.70
Percent retained on No.4 sieve: 0%
Natural Moisture: 27.5
AASHTO Classification:
Percent passing No. 200 sieve: 70% Specific gravity: 2.70
Test Data And Results For Curve S-2
Type of test: ASTM D 698-00a Method A Standard
Mold Dia.: 4.00 in. Hammer Wt.: 5.5 lb. Drop: 12 in.
Layers: three Blows per Layer: 25
104
99
94
89
84
79
ZAV SpG
2.70
POINT NO. 1 2 3 4
WM + WS 13.29 13.18 12.60 13.01
WK 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.21
WW+T 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
WD+T 80.83 78.06 88.80 74.48
TARE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MOIST 23.7 28.1 12.6 34.3
MOISTURE 23.7 28.1 12.6 34.3
DRY DEN 98.9 93.0 90.3 84.9
2 22 42 62 Max dry den= 99 p c f Opt moi s tare= 22 %
Oversize Correction Not Applied
0
Q O 9
a
d( 00
O
N U
y Z v
Q Y c o
LL. o
w .x ? N
(] O co
U*) .-.
co CA
O
tp
O
LL
O
O
O
LL U-)
= CO 00
29 O
`~ O
Cf) N N
O ?
?b(n rn
d ?k ?k ai
E m Gl m
m -7 0 -&a
E
m A
O
T
m
O
d
r
M
d'
Q
0
LQ
O ?N N PO- N UQ
N
?

; W
J
a x c
N ;. O
Q J J c
O
' c E E
N E w Z` Z U cn 2
cr to IM
m
a a
-? a 'gin o o g
co
as
o
(7C7U

0
00 1- (D LOj ? M 0 C) N O
xapu! ,4!ol;seld

O

V _
m
m -- -
a
t

U

I
I C
I

J
.
2
a -
ig
a

J

U
O
N
O
O
O
O
07
O
co
O
O J
O 'd
O
LO
O
O
M
O
N
O
T-
O
O
C 4)
O N
O
O C
c O
N O
'O N
o8
aL
o
N
rN• a)
N C_
a .
O
c
O N
? T
a)) c
N O
T ?
a) a)
U)
O
? O C
tw cu O
U L O
H N
Q N N
-a O
N
m 3
> u7
O
O a)
" U Z
O 1F N
C
O O
O
C Q
E 'o
W
O CD O
-O ., U
C m .C
I- w O.
ASTM D 422 Ste, 'ard Test Method for Particle-Size 'alysis of Soils
Project No.: 08-331-0850-00 Boring No.: N/A
Project Name: Upchurch Farm Forebay Dam Sample No.: S-2
Client: Mercury Development Depth: N/A
Date: 9/4/2008
Sample Weight Before Wash(g) 200.00 Weight Removed with Wash (g) 140.07
Weight After Wash (g) 59.93 Assumed Specific Gravity
Weight Dry of Hydrometer Sample (g)*
'Silts and Clays 65g Sands 115g
Correted Weight (g) -

Sieve Sieve Opening
(mm) Weight per
Sieve (g) Cumulative
Weight (g) Percent
Retained (%) Percent
Passing (%)
3 in. 75.0 0 - 100
2 in. 50.0 0 - 100
1-1/2 in. 37.5 0 - 100
1 in. 25.0 0 - 100
3/4 in. 19.0 0 - 100
112 in 12.5 0 - 100
3/8 in 9.5 0 - 100
114 in 6.25 0 - 100
No.4 4.8 0 - 100
No.8 2.36 0 - 100
No. 10 2.0 0 - 100
No. 14 1.4 0 - 100
No. 16 1.18 0 - 100
No. 40 0.425 0 - 100
No. 100 0.150 0 - 100
No. 200 0.075 59.93 59.93 30 70
Pan ----------- 59.93

Elapsed
Time {min)
Temperature (°F)
Hydrometer
Reading Corrected
Hydro
Readin
% Total in
Suspension
K Effective
Length
cm Particle
Diameter
mm
2 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
5 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
15 -0.002 #DIV101 #N/A #N/A #N/A
30 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
60 -0.002 #DIV/01 #N/A #N/A #N/A
.250 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A
1440 -0.002 #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A

D. Miller & Associates, PA.
8504 Six Forks Rd., Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office [phone] Fax [phone]
BILLING SUMMARY
Project Name: Upchurch Farms Forebay Dam Project No.: 08-331-0850-00
Client: Mercury Development Date: 9/5/2008

Man Power
Code Regular
Rate Overtime
Rate Regular
Hours Overtime
Hours
Total Price
Kelly Flanagan $125.00 $187.50 0.5 $62.50
Kevin Morrow $125.00 $187.50 2 $250.00
Phil Larson $6500 $97.50 1.5 $97.50
Brent Bayles
_
..
-",-"-:"":,
-"",-"-"-"
-"
,--"
-
-
*
. $75.00
?.. $112.50 3
.
..
?...
... _ $225.00
.......
.
John n
-
---,--
,"
,
,-
""''*" .._ ........ .
._.. ___ _ _
_.__
_ _ ---..._.
3.5 ...._. _..._ .: ,
$1,5111.255
Soil Testin Price Unit Total Price
Drive Tube Density Testing $12.50 6 $75.00
...
Liquid and Plastic Limits
......._..._......----.--.-.-..._ .......................--_.-.....- $80.00

_ 2
el ' ..

._.. - - -
. -- .-._........ ........_..._..
$160.00
Si
eve Analysis/Grain Size
$80.00
1 .
- ..
_.......
$80.00
Percentage Fines $60.00 1
__...-..-.
.
.. $60.00
S#andard Proctor (ASTM D698) $130.00 ..
_
.
2 $260.00
Total: $2,781,25