20171578 Ver 1_401 Application_20171208

SAG E
ECOLOGICAL
SERVICES
EST. 2 11
December 8, 2017
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Office
Attm Mr. James Lastinger
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Highland Forest
Request for NWP 29 & GC 3890
Action ID #SAW -2017-01568
Sage Project #2017.31
2 0 1 7 1 5 7
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Ms. Karen Higgins
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
On behalf of the owners, John Palmer Elliot Heirs, please find attached a complete application
and supplemental information requesting written concurrence from the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) that the activities
associated with the residential development may proceed under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29
and the associated General Certification (GC) 3890.
Proiect Summary and Puroose
The proposed Highland Forest (Project) involves the development of a 40.07 -acre parcel bounded
on the east by Kenneth Creek and to the west by Bowling Road. The Project is located
approximately 0.4 mile south of the Bowling Road and US -401 South (South Main Street)
intersection in the Town of Fuquay-Varina, NC. The Project is a proposed residential development
of single-family homes and will contain five internal roads, three stormwater BMP devices, as well
as other utilities (sewer, water, electricity, etc.) required for a residential development. The Project
will have sewer service that ties into existing municipal lines located adjacent to the Project. The
required stormwater plan is being reviewed by the Town of Fuquay-Varina. The project will
provide additional housing to meet the current demand in this area of Wake County.
Project History
The Project site was likely farmed in the distant past and has but has been wooded for at least
the past 40 years. Portions of the Project area have been logged in the past 20 years and are
currently dominated by loblolly pine. A wetland and stream delineation was completed in 2017
and the delineation approved by Mr. James Lastinger of the USACE during a field visit. A
preliminary jurisdictional determination (AID SAW -2017-01568) was issued on August 31, 2017.
The determinations made by Mr. Lastinger are reflected on the attached impact maps.
Highland Forest Page 1 of 2

Avoidance and Minimization
Proposed subdivision roads were aligned so as to avoid impacts to streams and wetlands as
much as possible. Open bottomed culverts will be used in two locations to avoid piping the stream
and thereby reduce impacts. The two crossings using open -bottomed culverts cannot be reduced
to a single crossing with a longer cul-de-sac because the resulting road would exceed the Town
of Fuquay-Varina's allowances for cul-de-sac lengths (500 feet). The impacts shown on the
attached impact maps have been reduced significantly from the initial site plan in an effort to
minimize and avoid impacts. Lot layouts were reconfigured to require less wetland fill.
Project Impacts
Proposed impacts will result from road crossings and lot fill. Overall stream impacts total 110
linear feet of perennial stream and result from the installation of a conventionally culverted road
crossing. Proposed permanent wetland impacts total 0.1000 acre which will result from 0.0329
acre of road fill and 0.067 acre of lot fill. The Project is not within a NCDWR regulated buffered
basin therefore no buffer impacts are proposed.
Mitigation
No mitigation has been proposed due to permanent stream impacts not exceeding 150 LF and
permanent wetland impacts not exceeding 0.1 acre. The Project is not within a NCDWR regulated
buffered basin therefore no buffer mitigation is proposed.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Sean Clark, PWS
Sage Ecological Services, Inc
Attachments:
Pre -construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
Agent Authorization Form
GeoTech Report
Figure 1-USGS Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Soil Survey Site Vicinity Map
Impact Maps (4 sheets)
Highland Forest Page 2 of 2

O�CF W ATFRQG
71
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no. SAW -2016-
01126
DWQ project no.
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 29 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Highland Forest
2b.
County:
Wake County
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Fuquay-Varina
2d.
Subdivision name:
Highland Forest
IM
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
A
DEOMATER
RESOURCE!SDEO—
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
John Palmer Elliot Heirs
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
001873 / 00 -E -
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Sally E. Maclsaac (rep of John Palmer Elliot Heirs)
3d.
Street address:
6528 Willshire Drive
3e.
City, state, zip:
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
3f.
Telephone no.:
919-880-3146
3g.
Fax no.:
N/A
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Sean Clark
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
3707 Swift Drive
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27606
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-559-1537
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
0655-98-6592
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.55938° N Longitude: 78.79940° W
1c. Property size:
40.07 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Kenneth Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c. River basin:
Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030004)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: The majority of the property is wooded with the exception of a powerline easement that extends from the
eastern property line to the western property line. Immediately adjacent properties are in residential development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: +/- 1.74 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: +/- 6,637 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a residential subdivision and associated utilities to meet the demand
in this part of Wake County.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The overall project is a single-family residential subdivision with residential streets and utilities that will connect to
existing adjacent roads and utilities in the area. The proposed impacts result from road construction, and lot fill. Heavy
equipment typically used for utility installation projects (e.g. back hoes, bull -dozers, etc) will be utilized.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
® Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
®Preliminary ❑Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Sean Clark
Agency/Consultant Company: Sage Ecological Services,
I Inc, Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A site meeting was held with Mr. James Lastinger of the USACE and a PJD was issued on 08/31/2017 (AID SAW -2017-
01568).
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Corps (404, 10) or
Area of
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ (401, other)
impact
Temporary (T)
(acres)
Wetland Impact 1
Fill
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0044
P
wetland
Wetland Impact 2
Fill
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0054
P
wetland
Wetland Impact 3
Fill
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0187
P
wetland
Wetland Impact 4
Fill
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0285
P
wetland
Wetland Impact 5
Fill
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0197
P
wetland
Wetland Impact 6
Fill
Headwater
No
Corps
0.0097
P
wetland
Wetland Impact 7
Fill
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0038
P
wetland
Wetland Impact 8
Fill
Headwater
Yes
Corps
0.0098
P
wetland
Choose one
Choose One
Choose one
I Yes/No
-
0
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.1
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average stream
Impact
number
(PER) or
width
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
(feet)
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
feet)
Stream Impact 1
UT to Kenneth
PER
Corps
4
110
(P)
Fill
Creek
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
110
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
impact number—
waterbody
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if applicable)
(acres)
Temporary T
01 Choose one
Choose One
Choose
0
4f. Total open water impacts
0
4g. Comments: There are no open waters within the project boundaries.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
Choose One
P2
Choose One
5f. Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5g. Comments: This project does not propose Pond or Lake construction
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no.-
o:5i.
5i.Expected pond surface area (acres).-
acres):5j.
5j.Size of pond watershed (acres).-
acres):5k.
5k.Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWG))
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason
for
impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer mitigation required?
6f.
Zone 1 impact
(square feet)
6g.
Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6h. Total buffer impacts
0
0
6i. Comments: The proposed project is not within a drainage basin that has riparian buffers regulated by NCDWR.
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Proposed subdivision roads were aligned so as to avoid impacts to streams and wetlands as much as possible. Open
bottomed culverts will be used in two locations to avoid piping the stream and thereby reduce impacts. The two crossings
using open-bottomed culverts cannot be reduced to a single crossing with a longer cul-de-sac because the resulting road
would exceed the Town of Fuquay-Varina's allowances for cul-de-sac lengths (500 feet).
The impacts shown on the attached impact maps have been reduced significantly from the initial site plan in an effort to
minimize and avoid impacts. Lot layouts were reconfigured to require less wetland fill.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction fencing will be used to define the construction corridor and prevent any accidental additional impacts. Silt
fencing and temporary basins will also be used to prevent sediment runoff into the streams and wetlands. Headwalls will
be constructed in several locations so as to further reduce impacts.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Quantity N/A
Type: Choose one
Quantity N/A
Type: Choose one
Quantity N/A
3c. Comments: N/A
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
0 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h. Comments: N/A
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
Page 6 of 10

5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a_ Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The diffuse flow plan is part of the Stormwater Management Plan being
❑ Yes ❑ No
reviewed by the County.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
30%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project requires a Stormwater
Management Plan that will be reviewed by Fuquay-Varina.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Stormwater will be directed to 3 stormwater BMPs located throughout the Site (see attached map).
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
Town of Fuquay-Varina
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Holly Springs
® Phase 11
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006-246
® Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ® No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
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.
The proposed project will tie into offsite regional utility lines located adjacent to the project site.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ®No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The NC Natural Heritage Data Base (2017) was referenced and a report received from NCNHP identified no recorded
federally listed species on the project site or within a 1 -mile radius.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The proposed project takes place in western Wake County which is not near any coastal or tidal habitat that would
support EFH (i.e. salt marshes, oyster reefs, etc.).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/ *Records check at the State Historic Preservation Office or the Office of State Archeology
were not performed. No sites are located within the project area. Utilizing the HPOWEB GIS mapping service, no
structures or sites were mapped within or adjacent to the project area.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: N/A
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Flood Risk Information System
(www.fris.nc.gov/fris) FEMA DFIRM Panels #0655 & 0665; Dated October 3, 2006
Sean Clark
{ j
12/8/17
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

AGENT AUTHORIZATION•
& nr_I1-111 _.:1..U' .LLQ _ •al -c �.1 L.`.I lla-
Name: In -A.; 1 1 y�/ FS
Address: rzi LNz'r�
(s S 2 b MI i i S W i 'r6 V;,r .�%-�;/ iia L-7u4A ,) 1-114 Z'T S'a-c•
Phone: ` ':�j Z '[ - S, $r, - 3 t ted to
Email: N Wad -i 4vc3 rfa1.1•b irdp
D� UL3 Gera w!
Project NanmaDescription• Bowliim Road Pronert f
Sage Project P ------
Date:
01731Date: Z' 1 'z- i l t - 2
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn:
Field Office:
Re: Wetlands and Streams Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom K May Concern:
1, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified
herein, do authorize representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enter upon
the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -amts investigations and issuing
a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject to Federal jwisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.1 also hereby
designate and authorize Sage Ecological Services to act on my behalf as my agwd in the
ping of Permit applications, to fwnish upon request supplemental information in support
Of aPPlications, etc. from this day forward.
This notification supersedes any Previous correspondence concerning the agent for this
PrqecL
Notice; This auBnorizabon. for 17ability and professional courtesy reasons. is valid only for
goverrienent officials to enter the property when accompanied by gage ~. Plea" contact
Sage to arrange a meeting prior to visitiag the site.
BY:�' ;G !QC BY: —jam
Print Name of Landowner or Signature of Landowner or legal
Legal Representative Representative

Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services
July 14, 2017
Tom Spaulding, PE
SPAULDING & NORRIS, PA
972 Trinity Road
Raleigh NC 27607
Re: Report of Subsurface Investigation
Proposed Bowling Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina
GeoTechnologies Project No. 1 -17 -0557 -EA
Gentlemen:
GeoTechnologies, Inc. has completed the authorized investigation to evaluate soil conditions for the
proposed Bowling Road subdivision at 1455 Bowling Road in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina.
GeoTechnologies completed ten soil test borings along the proposed sewers and roadways to evaluate the
potential for shallow rock excavation. The borings were completed at the locations indicated on the attached
Table 1 and Figure 1. The borings were located in the field using NC grid coordinates with a hand-held Trimble
GPS unit. Elevations were estimated from topography on the Wake County GIS website. As such, the indicated
locations and elevations should be considered approximate. The borings were completed with an all -terrain
vehicle mounted drill rig turning large diameter hollow stem augers. Soils were sampled at selected intervals
using standard penetration testing techniques outlined in ASTM D-1586. The borings were extended to depths
of about 9 to 18.5 feet below existing grade. This report presents the findings of the investigation and our
recommendations regarding excavation for the proposed sewer line and roadway construction considerations.
SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION
It is our understanding that the project will involve construction of a new residential development at
1455 Bowling Road in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina. The project will include construction of streets and
sewer line to service 90 single family lots. The sewer inverts have not been established at this time; however,
based on our conversations with the Civil Engineer, we understand that cuts will likely be about 15 to 20 feet.
The site is currently undeveloped and consists of woodlands, with the exception of a power easement
that crosses the site. A creek flows across the eastern end of the site and a creek is also located near the western
site boundary. Topography on the site generally slopes to the south with elevations ranging from just over 360
feet to just over 270 feet.
3200 Wellington Ct., Ste- 108 • Raleigh. NC 27615 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechpa.com • License No. C-0894

Spaulding & Norris
Re: Bowling Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements
July 12, 2017
Page: 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A generalized subsurface profile prepared from the test boring data is attached to this report as Figure 2
to graphically illustrate subsurface conditions encountered at this site. More detailed descriptions of the
conditions encountered at the individual test boring locations are then presented on the attached test boring
records.
Subsurface conditions on the site were characterized by the presence of near surface topsoil with a
thickness of 3 to 12 inches. The topsoil was typically underlain by residual soils that were formed in place by
weathering of the parent bedrock. An exception was at boring B-1 where the upper 6 feet appeared to be a sandy
fill material with trace organics. Penetration resistances in the fill varied from 3 to 7 blows per foot (bpf). The
residual soils typically consisted of firm to hard clay and silt that became siltier with increasing depth.
Penetration resistances in the residual soils varied from 7 to 59 bpf. Borings B-1, B-7, B-9 and B-10 were
terminated at 15 feet in residual soils. However, the remainder of the borings encountered partially weathered
rock (PWR) at depths of 2.5 to 12 feet. PWR is defined as material that can be penetrated with the soil drilling
augers but that exhibits penetration resistances in excess of 100 bpf. The PWR transitioned to harder rock and
auger refusal was encountered on hard rock at 9 to 18.5 feet below grade in borings B-2 through B-6.
Groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at 6 feet below existing grade. No groundwater was
encountered in the remainder of the borings at the time of boring completion. However, the fine grained near
surface soils are conducive to the development of a temporarily higher perched groundwater condition following
periods of inclement weather.
AREA GEOLOGY
The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic and Geologic Province of North Carolina. The
near surface soils in the area of the site generally consist of sands, clays, and silts which have eroded from the
Piedmont Uplands and been deposited by streams. More specifically, the site is located within the Middendorf
Geologic Formation which is comprised of sand, sandstones, and mudstones which were deposited during the
Cretaceous Period approximately 63 to 138 million years ago. Frequent migration of the shoreline over the last
two million years have redistributed the sedimentary soils originally deposited by streams and has resulted in the
fairly Coastal Plain topography.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached test boring data, our
understanding of the proposed construction, and past experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions.
Should alignment plans change significantly from those now under consideration, we would appreciate being
provided with that information so that these recommendations may be confirmed, extended, or modified as
necessary. Additionally, should subsurface conditions adverse to those indicated by this report be encountered
during construction, those differences should be reported to us for review and comment.
Site Grading Considerations. The soils at existing grade are moisture sensitive and will be difficult to
compact during the wetter winter months of December through April or May. To avoid delays during site
www geotechpa crm

Spaulding & Norris
Re: Bowling Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements
July 12, 2017
Page: 3
grading operations, we recommend that earthwork activities be scheduled after May and prior to December if
possible, in order to facilitate site grading work.
Site grading should begin with the removal of all vegetation and topsoil from those areas designated for
construction of building and pavement areas. Based on the results of the soil test borings, we anticipate that
topsoil thickness will generally be on the order of 3 to 12 inches; however due to the heavy tree cover on
portions of the site, somewhat deeper stripping thicknesses may be required in some areas to remove tree root
bulbs. Additionally, it is possible that some deeper topsoil could be encountered in old plow zone areas. Once
stripping is completed, we recommend that any at grade areas or areas designated to receive fill be proofrolled
with a partially loaded dump truck or similar piece of rubber tired equipment to identify areas necessitating
additional repair. Any area that ruts or pumps excessively in the opinion of the engineer should be undercut to
firm bearing or be repaired as directed by the engineer. These repairs can likely be implemented by discing,
moisture conditioning and recompacting the near surface materials. Although some repair will be needed
anytime of the year, repair quantities can be minimized by scheduling grading activities during the warmer
months of the year. The near surface soils at this site are moisture sensitive, and grading during a wet period of
the year will increase the need for undercut type repairs.
The on-site materials, excluding topsoil, should be suitable for reuse as structural fill provided
compaction moisture can be maintained near optimum. The contractor should be prepared to moisture condition
the soils as necessary in order to achieve adequate compaction. Off-site borrow should consist of clayey or silty
sands or low plasticity silts and clays having a Unified Soil Classification of SC, SM, ML, or CL. Fill soils
should be compacted to not less than 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, except in the final foot
where this requirement should be increased to 98% of the standard Proctor maximum. Moisture contents should
be maintained within about 2 percent of optimum moisture content to facilitate compaction and to maintain
stability of the fill section.
General Excavation Considerations. As previously discussed, partially weathered rock and hard rock
was encountered in borings B-2 through B-6 and B-8 and it is possible that areas of shallower rock outcrops will
be encountered intermediate of the borings on the site. It has been our experience that partially weathered rock
materials can generally be ripped with a large dozer such as a CAT D8 or equivalent equipped with a single
tooth ripper provided penetration resistances are no higher than 50 blows per 2 inches. PWR harder than 50
blows per 2 inches of penetration generally requires blasting to remove. The PWR rock encountered in boring
B-5 quickly transitions to hard rock that and cannot be ripped.
The equipment utilized for installation of utilities and foundations is less powerful and blasting is
typically required for excavation into the partially weathered rock A large track hoe such as a CAT 320 or
equivalent equipped with rock teeth can excavate materials having standard penetration resistances in the range
of 50 blows per 4 inches to 50 blows per 6 inches. However, the rate of excavation is slow and utility
contractors will typically request a trench rock price for excavation of any partially weathered rock materials.
Light blasting of these materials will expedite utility installation.
Pipeline Bedding and Trench Backfilling. If any rock is exposed at invert elevation, we recommend that
the pipe be placed over at least 6 inches of open graded stone such as #57 stone in order to provide a leveling
cushion for the base of the pipe. Shallow rock at the bedding elevation even with six inches of over excavation
will increase stresses in the pipe due to the low compressibility of the foundation. If any areas of soft soils are
encountered in the base of the excavation, the trenches should be overexcavated approximately 12 to 18 inches
and be backfilled with washed stone. All backfill placed over the pipe should be compacted to at least 90% of
www geotechpa rom

Spaulding & Norris
Re: Bowling Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements
July 12, 2017
Page: 4
the standard Proctor maximum dry density except where post -construction settlement of backfill cannot be
tolerated. If any settlement sensitive areas exist, backfill in those areas should be compacted to 95% of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density. The initial lift of soil over the pipe should consist of soil and not contain
rock or weathered rock to serve as a cushion over the pipe for subsequent fill placement and compaction. Soils
excavated from the trench may be utilized as backfill provided it can be suitably compacted.
Construction Considerations. We recommend that all OSHA regulations be strictly adhered to during
installation of the sanitary sewer line. The soils will classify as a type `B" material which will generally require
temporary side slopes of 1 H: IV, except where shallow groundwater is encountered and the temporary side
slopes will need to be flattened to 1.5H:1 V. If insufficient room exists for maintaining those side slopes, we
recommend that the contractor be prepared to utilize temporary shoring such as a trench box during installation
of the sewer line.
Dewatering Considerations. At the time that borings were completed, groundwater levels were generally
below the boring termination depth. Groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at 6 feet below existing grade.
In areas where groundwater is encountered a pump and sump placed within the excavation will likely be
adequate for the minor quantities of seepage which will occur. The need for dewatering and type of dewatering
will need to be determined by the contractor as the installation progresses.
Foundation Support Considerations. Following proper grading (including repair of any soft near surface
soils), the subsurface conditions encountered on this site are conducive to the use shallow foundations for
support of the proposed residential structures. The majority of the soils which were encountered in the borings
will exhibit a bearing capacity of 2,000 psf and a subgrade modulus of 100 pci, and properly compacted
structural fill will exhibit a similar bearing capacity. We recommend that each individual lot be tested during
construction to verify that the required bearing capacity is available.
We recommend all footings bear at least 18 inches below finished grade for frost protection. We
recommend that all foundation excavations be inspected by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exposed
subgrades soils have adequate strength to support the anticipated loads.
Slope Recommendations. We recommend that maximum slope angles for fill slopes not exceed 3H: IV
with maximum cut slopes not exceeding 2.5H:1 V. All fill material placed in slopes should be properly
compacted as previously discussed. Additionally, surface water runoff should be directed away from slopes.
General Pavement Desig,tt Considerations. No laboratory CBR testing was performed. However, based
on our experience in the area, we expect that CBR values of the lower plasticity onsite soils would be about 5 to
6 percent. If provided with anticipated traffic loading information, we will be happy to prepare a design
pavement section.
The most important factors affecting pavement life in the area of the site are the condition of the
subgrade immediately prior to base course stone placement and post construction drainage. We recommend that
the subgrade of all pavement areas be proofrolled and that any yielding areas be identified and repaired prior to
placement of the base coarse stone. All subgrade soils should be recompacted to a minimum of 100% of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density immediately prior to base course stone placement where appropriate. We
recommend that all pavement areas be properly graded to promote run-off of water and to prevent ponding of
water on the pavement surface which can lead to eventual saturation of subgrade soils and the loss of pavement
support.
5;
~h gentle-c.hpa CORM

Spaulding & Norris
Re: Bowling Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements
July 12, 2017
Page: 5
Segmental Type Retaining Walls. Our experience has been that the fine grained soils on this site are not
particularly well suited for use as backfill in the reinforced zone. We recommend importing quarry material,
such as screenings or washed stone for use in the reinforced zone of segmental walls.
Seismic Design Considerations. This site is a site class "D" relative to seismic design considerations.
SUMMARY
In summary, subsurface conditions at the test boring locations are characterized by near surface residual
soils that transitioned to PWR at depths of 2.5 to 12 feet in 6 of the 10 borings. We anticipate that blasting will
be required to excavate the PWR in trench excavations.
GeoTechnologies, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this phase of the project. Please
contact us if you have any questions concerning this letter or if we may be of additional service on this or other
projects.
DLPpr-els
Attachments
L:\1170557EA\1170557ea-Sub.docx
Sincerely,\1 CARp''�,
Q '• FESS%0,����G9
GeoTechnologies, Inc. ; Q •, ,
SEAL
14319
David L. Israel, P.E. 1t, •FNGiN�EQ:•��,�:'
NC Registration No. 14319 '•,,
'r, n trt
www geoter.hpa corn

Spaulding & Norris
Re: Bowling Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements
July 12, 2017
Page: 6
TABLE 1
Bowling Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina
GeoTechnologies Project No. 1 -17 -0557 -EA
Boring #
Northing (ft)
Eastin (ft)
Elevation (Ft)
B-1
658954
2059558
333
B-2
658777
2060023
318
B-3
658658
2060340
328
B-4
658490
2060497
320
B-5
658234
2060476
316
B-6
658142
2060315
308
B-7
658236
2059823
318
B-8
658535
2059445
330
B-9
658669
2059050
340
B-10
658890
2059059
353
www geotechpa cnm

B-.1
w B-10
a B-2
B-3
B-9 B-8
B-7
B-6
•
B-4
FIGURE 1

Elevation (Feet)
355
350
345.
340
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
335. .._..B_ 1..._ .. ........ ...............__._.......
PROJECT: SCALE: As Shown
JOB No:1-17-0557-EA
Bowling Road Sewer% - o g -
Fu ua-Varina North Carolina FIGURE No:2
q y
LEGEND
■
Topsoil
®
Silty Sand
®
Low Plasticity Silt
ElPartially
Weathered Rock
®
Low Plasticity Clay
®
Clayey Sand
Fill
8 Standard Penetration Resistance
Groundwater at Time of Boring
7T�ll
Auger Refusal
PROJECT: SCALE: As Shown
JOB No:1-17-0557-EA
Bowling Road Sewer% - o g -
Fu ua-Varina North Carolina FIGURE No:2
q y

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
3.0
6.0
11.5
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT-) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
333.00 10 20 d0 60 100
Topsoil
SM
Fill - Loose Light Brown Silty Fine SAND
w/Quartz
3-4-3
Fill - Very Loose Dark Gray Silty SAND w/Frace
SM
Organics
328
2-1-2
Finn Tan & Orange Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
MI,
323
I
4-3-4
Very Stiff Light Gray & Orange Fine Sandy SILT
ML
318
6-7-12
Boring terminated at 15,
Groundwater encountered at Gat time of boring.
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE 1 OF 1
1 -17 -0557 -EA
B- 1
7-13-17 1
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
3.0
9.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(171P.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
318.0U 10 2O 40 60 100
Topsoil
M1,
Firm Light Brown Fine Sandy SUIT
3-3-4
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Brown &
4
Tan Silty SAND
t>
4
4
Q
4
313
4
45-23-50/5"
4
D
.LQ
4
. L>
4
l>
4
4
.l>
4
Auger Refusal at 9'
308
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 2
DATE 7-13-17
PAGE 1 OF 1
�J e�—col-e(hnologles In(
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.0
3.5
6.0
12.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
328 -OR 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
SM
Medium Dense Orangish Tan Silty Fine SAND
Stiff Orangish Brown Fine Sandy Silty CLAYCL
4-6-9
Very Stiff Light Orangish Brown Clayey SILT
ML
323
7-7-10
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Gray &
4
Brown Sandy SILT
.C>
d
.D
4
IN
4
4
l>
Q
.L>
4
318
p
34-37-22
4
4
.l>
4
L>
4
Auger Refusal at 12.5'
313
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 3
DATE 7-13-17
PAGE 1 OF 1
101' V14, OcoTechn6ogie� Inc
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/Fr.) SIX INCHES
0.0 320.00 10 20 40 60 100
0.5
2.5
9-3
Topsoil
Stiff Brown Fine Sandy Silty CLAY
CL
5-7-8
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Gray &
Brown Sandy SELT
50/5"
b
315
LIS
15.
4
50/0.5"
Auger Refusal at 93
310
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 4
DATE 7-13-17
PAGE I OF I
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh. NC 27615
.D

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
3.5
8.0
9.5
18.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWSXT.) SIX INCHES
316 00 t (1 20 d/1 6(1 100
Topsoil
ML
Stiff Brown & Tan Clayey SILT
5-6-7
Stiff Tan Fine Sandy SILT
ML
311
_
306
6-5-5
41-50/4.5"
Hard Orangish Tan SILT
ML
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Gray, Tan
4
& Orange Sandy SILT
. D
4
LQ
4
D
4
�D
<i
C>
-0
50/3.5"
D
Q
301
4
4
l>
'
i
Auger Refusal at 18.5'
296
i
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 5
DATE 7-13-17
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615
x
11

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
3.0
11.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOW&W.) SIX INCHES
308.00 10 211 411 60 100
Topsoil
Firm Tan & Light Brown Fine Sandy SILT
ml -
2 -3-5
Partially Weathered Rock
50/2"
LD
303
"S
4
IN
50/0.51,
298
Auger Refusal at 11'
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 6
DATE 7-12-17
PAGE I OF I
OeoTe(hnologie�, In(
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615
P
o.
L)

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
1.0
2.5
7.0
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOW&W.) SIX INCHES
318.00 10 20 do 60 100
Topsoil
SM
Medium Dense Light Gray Silty Fine SAND
,,w/Rocks
CL
Stiff Orangish Brown Fine Sandy Silty CLAY
10.9-6
Very Stiff Orange Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
ML
313
8-9-9
Very Stiff Gray & Tan Fine Sandy SILT
ML
308
8-10-11
303
13-13-14
Boring terminated at 15'
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 7
DATE 7-12-17
PAGE I OF 1
�....... 4GCO-Fe(hnologie�
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615
7

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
1.0
3.5
6.5
12.0
13.9
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
330.On lit 20 40 60 10
Topsoil
SM
Medium Dense Light Mange Silty Fine to Medium
SAND
CL
Stiff Orangish Brown Fine Sandy Silty CLAY
5-6-6
Stiff Tan & Brown Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
ML
325
b-7-8
Very Stiff Light Gray Fine Sandy SILT
ML.
320
12-13-14
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Light Gray
4
Sandy SILT
L>
4
.L>
4
50/5"
Boring terminated at 13.9'
315
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 8
DATE 7-12-17
PAGE 1 OF 1
f• 0 0�
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh. NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.4
1.5
3.5
7.0
12.0
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
340.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
Medium Dense Orangish Tan Silty Fine to Medium
SM
SAND
6-5-5
Stiff Orangish Brown Fine Sandy Silty CLAY
SM
Very Stiff Orangish Yellow Fine Sandy Clayey
ML
SILT
335
6-8-10
Stiff Gray & Tan Fine Sandy SILT
ML
330
5-6-8
Very Stiff Tan, Gray & Red Fine Sandy SILT
ML
325
9-10-12
Boring terminated at 15'
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B- 9
DATE 7-12-17
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615
9

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0.0 353.00 10 20 40 60 100
1.0
1.5
3.5
7.5
12.0
15.0
Topsoil
L
3-3-5
Loose Orangish Tan Silty Fine SAND
SM
Finn Orangish Brown Fine Sandy SDty CLAY
CLI
Very Stiff Orangish Brown Fine Sandy Sllty
Cl.
CLAY
348
7-8-9
Very Stiff Orange, Brown & Tan Fine Sandy
ML
Clayey S1Z'I'
343
9-13-13
Medium Dense Orange & Red to Pink Clayey Silty
SC
Fine to Medium SAND w/Quartz
338
15-I1-5
Boring terminated at 15'
Groundwater not encountered at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1 -17 -0557 -EA
BORING NUMBER B-10
DATE 7-12-17
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Ste 108
Raleigh, NC 27615
7

K
a # AsJ
inaN wUaLIU11
_ORANGE
CHATHAM WAKE
LEE JOHNSTON
HARNETT
MOORE SAMPSON
a
0
t,
Project Study Area
USGS Topographic Map Figure 1
Bowling Road Property
Sage Project #2017.31 N Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
Office: 919-335-6757
Fuquay - Varina NC Quadrangle Cell: 919-559-1537
USGS Topography, December 2013
May 1, 2017
0 500 1,000
Feet

M,
Map Location
s
[ORANGE
CHATHAM WAKE
LEE JOHNSTON
HARNETT
MOORE SAMPSON
FAM
NRCS Soils Map
Bowling Road Property
Sage Project #2017.31
USDA Soil Survey
Wake County Sheet 101 a
May 1, 2017
0 500
o
A' -.V401111
Project Study Area
Figure 2
N Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
Office: 919-335-6757
Cell: 919-559-1537
1,000
= Feet

1
— o
IMPACT TOTALS ACCUMULATED AREA
TOTAL PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT 4,355 SF (0-1000 ACRES)
( FROM ROADWAY" 1,434 SF (0 0329 AC)
FROM LOT FILL: 2,921 SF (0.067) z
o_
LF OF PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 110 LF
it
i
... �
I
EXISTING PROPERTY - ` U ,
BOUNDARY &PJW
V2
HE i
EXISTING
C WETLAND
MERE6T1, CIR
I �
I
I n �
STREAMEXISTING - EXISTING _ NZ
EAM h v
° f �
-4"_ ` 'IC &OTT ,T O �.c uJ
ddd666 I �`` t 1 ARCFLDOT ERT EXISTINGPROPERTY
BOUNDARY o
o WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 5
WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 3" WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 7 _ ^ a
�� o IL EX9ING� \
AND
WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 2 `-'- STREAM IMPACT LOCATION 1
EXISTING PROPERTY �
BOUNDARY 8 R!W
WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 1Chi 4
ALI
k l T I ?M
WE AND IM CT tATIOB�
EXISTING // / /✓ r i I _""__ -,� 11 t
/
"., WETLAND EXISTING
h
..,.m.e.. STREAM
f� WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 4
10
L l
TTOMUE
x4
ARCNfCUL T
EXISTING WE 7 TLAND IMPACT LOCATION 6
KE LAUREL OR WETLAND -.S ' / I STwG
STREAM I `ti :wM'muCL
LL
ui
EXISTING -',
WETLAND Q
o ) ¢
E
W
�
\.
—
S
DRAWING
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF: SHEET
\ \ Spaulding & Nonis, PA E I P-1.0
and u no, m be ,eptoAuaA a -old "whole o, m p- wnhom
pl—on ft— Spxuldmn & Nwns. PA. Tlus dmwmp a not
r ... 'o eas da mYmhe, j-,µ ma,s,°he .°,n,oedto PROJECT NUMBER
u - Sp .Idmp & N—, PA, npon cepues,.
859-15

nr H:CHLA,1� �MF=" r. ,.,�--'. /. - j .� •� , " WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 7 /
! ..+�
S SS WETLAND IMPACT
ERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT AREA
ACCUMULATED AREA: 815 SF (0.0187 ACRES)
PERMANENf ETLAND IMPACT AREA
ACCUMULATED AREA: 234 SF (0.0054 ACRES)
PERMANE T WETLAND IMPACT AREA
ACCUMULATED AREA: 191 SF (0.0044 ACRES) WETLAND IMPACT LOCA
WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 1
WETLAND N
f
LOCATION 3 ERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT AREA
ACCUMULATED AREA: 166 SF (0.0038 ACRES
WETLANO IMPACT TION 8
! %
100,
f
32C
r EWANENT WETLY PACT AREA Efn`
o j ACCUMULATED AREA: 427 SF(0.0098 ACRES)
` \ • J '
wEr�� Cm
ox
,E1C16 G 7
/ EXISTING
/ STREAM
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF:
Spaulding & Noais, PA
.ad. mt m be sep d—d w -pd m whole ar m Panwnhmt
petmiasmn Gam SpaWd g & Nm PA. 11. dnwmp u na
W be uwd m any othn ps rand um be—wdm
Spauldmg & Nmis. PA. up= mT—
.1
f—
w
O
O
L
0
■■
DRAWING
SHEET
EIP-1.1
PROJECT NUMBER
859-15

PERMANENT ETLAND IMPACT AREA
ACCUMULATED AREA: 1,242 SF (0.0285 ACRES)
WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION 4
,
low
'1.`.�. EXISTING
WETLAND
\ EXISTING \
STREAM
"I ,
t
DRAWING
SHEET
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF:
"I ,
DRAWING
SHEET
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF:
Spaulding & Norris, PA
aad u ma as be aeP-d—d oa t'opwd m whole . iu PN w.h—
E I P-1.2
Pem —hom SpaaWwg & Noma. PA. Thio dnwmgo.—
PROJECT NUMBER
m he axe m my ahea pmien aha is m he "—d ro
Spa Wmg & Noma, PA. W- teq—,.
859-15

ti • j J/ i
EXISTING STREAM
�"IN ER AtREAPA
t�eoXGliLVE AC UM
t
aTkEAMM - cuLVERY.s �STRSFD
17 LF
/
IIf 1XiSTING Sj"r
/ - - WM SCM 1 \ \ \
! � Ex1sTiNc
j
wk�• aorr r'�
ARCH CULVEF
V .,.
s,�s
t{/r
w
X
O U
L CL
Z
g �
oRAwrt4c
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF:
SHEET
Spaulding & Nonris, PA
E I P-1.3
and ®ow ro h rcpommed m sropiM m avhole o+iu Pan wuLom
Pevmiaaroe 4om SP-W.W & Nartia. PA. Tltia dsawmp is ans
ro be - d w awl od- i --r. and �.o be —dro
PROJECT NUMBER
¢ &Noms,PA. W rcV—
859-15