SW8021017_Historical File_20180622

gam,
ROY COOPER
t Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
Energy, Mineral & WILLIAM E. (TOBY) VINSON, JR.
Land Resources
Interim Direator
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 22, 2018
UNC Wilmington
Attn: Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs
c/o Mark Morgan, Associate Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs -Facilities
601 S. College Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28403
Subject: Permit Renewal
State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 021017
UNCW Surface Parking Lot ` 0"
High Density Project
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Morgan:
Effective August 1, 2013 the State Stormwater program has been transferred from the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) to the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR). All previous
references to DWQ will remain in older stormwater permits issued prior to August 1, 2013 until they are
modified. Please note that the updated permit or any updated pages to the permit will now reference
DEMLR as the Division responsible for issuance of the permit.
On August 5, 2009, the Governor signed Session Law 2009-406. This law impacts any development
approval issued by the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources under Article 21 of Chapter 143
of the General Statutes, which is current and valid at any point between January 1, 2008, and December
31, 2010. The law extends the effective period of any stormwater permit that was set to expire during this
time frame up to three (3) years from its current expiration date. On August 2, 2010, the Governor signed
Session Law 2010-177, which granted an extra year for an extension of up to four (4) years.
On June 21, 2018, the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) received a permit
Renewal application for the subject project. The Division is hereby notifying you that permit SW8
021017 has been renewed on June 22, 2018 and to remind you that this permit shall be effective until
January 6, 2025, which includes the extensions. For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the
updated permit, and a copy of the renewal and form submitted on June 21, 2018.
This permit is subject to the conditions and limitations as specified in the updated permit. Please pay
special attention to the conditions listed in this permit regarding the Operation and Maintenance of the
BMP(s), recordation of deed restrictions, procedures for changes of ownership, transferring the permit,
and renewing the permit. Failure to establish an adequate system for operation and maintenance of the
stormwater management system, to record deed restrictions, to transfer the permit, or to renew the permit,
will result in future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to
request an adjudicatory hearing by filing a written petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH). The written petition must conform to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
must be filed with the OAH within thirty (30) days of receipt of this permit. You should contact the OAH
with all questions regarding the filing fee (if a filing fee is required) and/or the details of the filing process
at 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, or via telephone at 919-431-3000, or visit their
website at www.NCOAH.com. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
Stare of North Carolina I Environmental Qualb, I Energy. tvlinura and Land Resources
Wilmington Regiona Office 1127 Card1na: Drive Extension I Wilmington, NC 23405
910 796 72I5

State Stormwater Permit No. SW8 021017
Page 2 of 2
If you have any questions, need additional copies of the permit or approved plans, please contact Kelly
Johnson with DEMLR in the Wilmington Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
' William E. ('%by) Vinson, Jr., PE, CPESC, CPM, Interim Director
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
GDS/kpj: \\\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2002\021017 HD\2018 06 permit 021017
cc: Daniel Perry, PE, McAdams Company
2905 Meridian Parkway, Durham, NC 7713
New Hanover County Building Safety Department
New Hanover County Engineering
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
St_;te rf North 0wolina 1 Environmental Quality i Energy. Mines: and Land Resources
Wilmington Regional Office 1 127 Cardinal Drive Extension 1 Wilmington, NC 28405
91079b 7215

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 021017
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina
as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
UNC Wilmington
UNCW Surface Parking Lot "O"
New Hanover County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a wet detention pond in compliance with the
provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (hereafter referred to as the "stormwater.rules'D and the
approved stormwater management plans and specifications and other supporting data as attached
and on file with and approved by the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land. Resources (DEMLR)
and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until January 6, 2025, and shall be subject
to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater described
in the application and other supporting data.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater runoff as
described in this permit, the Project Data Sheet. The stormwater control has been designed
to handle the runoff from 33,303 square feet of impervious area.
3. The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated on page 3 of this permit,
and per approved plans.
4. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either dedicated
common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project will be recorded
showing all such required easements, in accordance with the approved plans.
5. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area of this project must
be directed into the permitted stormwater control system. A permit modification must be
submitted and approved prior to the construction of additional built -upon area from outside
of the approved drainage area.
3

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 021017
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES
PROJECT DESIGN DATA SHEET
Project Name:
Permit Number:
Location:
River Basin / Receiving Stream:
Index #:
Classification of Water Body:
Drainage Area, acres:
Onsite, ft2:
Offsite, ft2:
Total Impervious Surfaces, ft2:
Pond Depth, feet:
TSS removal efficiency:
Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSL:
Permitted Surface Area, ft2:
Permitted Storage Volume, ft3:
Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL
Controlling Orifice:
Permitted Forebay Volume, ft3:
UNCW Surface Parking Lot "O"
SW8 021017
New Hanover County
Cape Fear / UT Bradley Creek
CPF24 18-87-24-4-(1)
"SC HQW #"
1.24
1.24
0
33,303
4'
90% (no vegetated filter is required)
34
2,940 @Permanent Pool
2,723
34.81
0.75"cp pipe (drawdown in 2-5 days)
656
i

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 021017
H. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety, vegetated and
operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of the
system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance necessary to assure
the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum efficiency. The approved Operation
and Maintenance Plan must be followed in its entirety and maintenance must occur at the
scheduled intervals including, but not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing and revegetation of slopes and the vegetated filter.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans and specifications.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of outlet structure, orifice device, flow spreader,
catch basins and piping.
g. Access to the outlet structure must be available at all times.
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept and made available upon request to
authorized personnel of DEMLR. The records will indicate the date, activity, name of
person performing the work and what actions were taken.
5. Decorative spray fountains will not be allowed in the stormwater treatment system.
6. The facilities shall be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the
provisions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and the supporting
documents attached to this permit and on file with the Division..
7. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and prior
to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received from an appropriate
designer for the system installed certifying that the permitted facility has been installed in
accordance with this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting
documentation. Any deviations from the approved plans and specifications must be noted
on the Certification. A modification may be required for those deviations.
8. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be restored to
design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device, and prior to
occupancy of the facility.
9. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for revised
plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any modification to the
approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the stormwater
management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the drainage
area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, or sale of the project area. The project area is
defined as all property owned by the permittee, for which Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan approval or a CAMA Major permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the approved
plan.
5

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 021017
10. The permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans for any permitted future areas
shown on the approved plans, prior to construction. If the proposed BUA exceeds the
amount permitted under this permit, a modification to the permit must be submitted and
approved prior to construction.
11. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the
Permittee for a minimum of ten years from the date of the completion of construction.
12. Prior to the sale or lease of any portion of the property, the permittee shall notify DEMLR
and provide the name, mailing address and phone number of the purchaser or lessee. An
access/maintenance easement to the stormwater facilities shall be granted in favor of the
penmittee if access to the stormwater facilities will be restricted by the sale or lease of any
portion of the property.
13. The permittee must maintain compliance with the proposed built -upon area and ensure that
the runoff from all the built -upon is directed into the permitted system.
14. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or more
of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in the notice,
the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director for modifying the site to
meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide copies of revised plans and
certification in writing to the Director that the changes have been made.
15. The permittee must maintain the current permitted drainage area. No additional runoff
from outside of the permitted drainage area boundary may enter the permitted stormwater
facilities without first applying for and receiving a permit modification.
lII. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and approval by
the Director. The permittee shall submit a completed and signed. State Stormwater Request
Form for Permit Transfer or Permit Information Update, accompanied by the supporting
documentation as listed on the form., to the Division at least 60 days prior to any one or
more of the following events:
a. Any ownership change including:
i. The sale or conveyance of the project area in. whole or in part, except in the
case of an individual lot sale that is made subject to the recorded deed
restrictions and protective covenants;
ii. Dissolution of the partnership or corporate entity, subject to NCGS
57D-2-01(e) and NCGS 57D-6-07;
b. Bankruptcy;
c. Foreclosure, subject to the requirements of Session Law 2013-121;
d. A name change of the current permittee;
e. A name change of the project;
f. A mailing address change of the permittee;
2. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the
Permittee to enforcement action by the DEMLR, in accordance with North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
3. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and
all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other government
agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
4. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those
as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of additional or replacement
stormwater management systems.
I

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 021017
5. The permittee grants DEQ Staff permission to enter the property during normal business
hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted stormwater
management facility.
6. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of a
request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance or termination does not stay
any permit condition.
7. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater control
must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual.
8. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and are
enforceable parts of the permit.
9. The permittee shall notify the Division any name, ownership or mailing address changes
within 30 days.
10. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such time as
the Division approves the transfer request. Neither the sale of the project, in whole or in
part, nor the conveyance of common area to a third party constitutes an approved transfer
of the stormwater pen -nit.
11. Any individual or entity found to be in noncompliance with the provisions of this
stormwater management permit or the requirements of the Stonnwater rules is subject to
enforcement procedures as set forth in NCGS 143 Article 21.
12. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal application request at least 180 days prior to
the expiration date of this permit. The renewal request must include the appropriate
documentation and. the processing fee.
Permit renewed and reissued this the 22nd day of June 2018
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
5z es
!.F illiam . (Toby) Vinson, Jr., PE, CPESC, CPM, Interim Director
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 021017
L'NCW Surface Parking Lot "O"
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 021017
New Hanover County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered
in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/weekly/full time)
the construction of the project,
(Project)
for
(Project Owner) hereby state that, to the best of
my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project construction such
that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the
approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
SEAL
Signature
Registration Number
Date

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 021017
Certification Requirements:
1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted acreage.
2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted amount of
built -upon area.
3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the runoff
drains to the system.
4. The outlet/bypass structure elevations are per the approved plan.
5. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
6. Trash rack is provided on the outlet/bypass structure.
7. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
8. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
9. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-circuiting of
the system.
.10. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been provided.
11. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized per the approved plans.
12. All required design depths are provided.
13. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf, and a
forebay.
_14. The overall dimensions of the system, as shown on the approved plans, are
provided.
cc: NCDEQ-DEMLR Regional Office
New Hanover County Building Inspections
0

DEMLR USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
(
CAS O (013
NC DEQ Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
STATE STORMWATER:
PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FORM
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.1045(3), the current permit holdershall renew their high density permit 180 days
prior to its expiration. Renewed permits are valid for a period of 8 years per Session Law 2011-398 (SB 781)
Section 60. (c). This application form is for permit renewals only.
A. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. State Stormwater Permit Number: SW8 021017
2. Project name: UNCW Surface Parking Lot "O"
3. Project street address: Corner of Walton Drive and Riegel Drive
City: Wilmington County: New Hanover zip: 28403
4. What, if any, changes have been made to the project as permitted? N/A
It me project has changed from the original approved plans, please complete SWU-101 for a Major
Modification or Minor Modification Application form available at: hftps:Hdeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/energv-
mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-land-rules/stormwater-program/post construction.
B. PERMITTEE INFORMATION
If changes to the permittee or project name have been made, please complete either the Permit Update form
or the Permit Transfer form available at. https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/enecgy-mineral-land-
resources/energy-mineral-land-rules/stormwater-program/post-construction. State Stormwater Permits do not
automatically transfer with the sale of the property.
1. Current Permit Holder's Company Name/Organization: UNC Wilmington
2. Signing Official's Name: Mark Morgan
3. Signing Official's Title: Associate Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs -Facilities
4. Mailing Address: 601 S. College Road
City: Wilmington State: NC —Zip: 28403
5. Street Address:
City: State: ZIP:
6. Phone: (_ 910) 962-3719 Email: [e-mail]
BY:
Stormwater Permit Renewal Form Page 1 of 3 May 11, 2018

C. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTa
Submit the application package to the appropriate DEMLR Regional Office (Coastal, SA Waters) or DEMLR
Central Office (Urbanizing Areas Ph 2, USMP, Non -Coastal HQW/ORW). Only applications packages that
include all required items listed below will be accepted and reviewed.
Initial each item below to indicate that the required information is provided in the application package:
dp 1. A permit application processing fee of $505.00 payable to NCDEQ.
dp 2. One original signed hard copy and one electronic copy of this completed form. The signing official
named on this application to represent the current permittee must meet one of the following:
a. Corporation — a principle executive officer of at least the level of vice-president;
b. Limited Liability Company (LLC) — a manager or company official as those terms are defined
in G.S. 57D "North Carolina Limited Liability Company Act;"
c. Public Entity — a principal executive officer, ranking official, or other duly authorized employee;
d. Partnership or limited partnership —the general partner;
e. Sole proprietor; or
f. Letter of authorization signed by one of the signatories noted in a — e above authorizing the
signature of another entity.
n/a 3. One hard copy and one electronic copy of recorded documents required by the original permit that
have not yet been received by DEMLR, including: deed restrictions, protective covenants,
condominium/planned community declaration and easements. If the project has been built, include
documentation that the maximum BUA per lot or maximum total BUA has not been exceeded. If
the project has not been built, include a signed agreement that the final recorded deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be submitted at a later date.
dp 4. O&M Agreements, Please select one:
❑ I have a copy of the current recorded O&M Agreement for all SCMs, and I will continue to
keep this on file with the permit; or
® I do not have a copy of the current recorded O&M Agreement for all SCMs and am
requesting a copy be sent to me. I agree to keep this on file with the permit.
dp 5. Designer Certifications, Please select one:
® A copy of the certification(s) confirming that the project was built in accordance with the
approved plans have been previously provided to the Division; or
❑ A copy of the certification(s) confirming that the project was built in accordance with the
approved plans are enclosed; or
❑ The project has not yet been built.
n/a 6. [IF APPLICABLE] If the project has been built, one original hard copy and one electronic copy of a
signed, sealed, and dated letter from a licensed professional stating that the SCMs have been
inspected, and that they have been built and maintained in accordance with the permit.
n/a 7_ [IF APPLICABLE] When the permittee is a corporation or a limited liability corporation (LLC):
Provide one hard copy and one electronic copy of documentation from the NC Secretary of State,
or other official documentation, which supports the titles and positions held by the persons listed in
Section C.2 per 15A NCAC 2H. 1043(3)(b).
'httos://www.sosnc.gov/online services/search/byY title/ Business Registration
Stormwater Permit Renewal Application Form Page 2 of 3 May 11, 2018

D. PERMITTEE'S CERTIFICATION
I, /_nAl rf , the person legally responsible for the permit, certify that I have
a copy of the Permit and OUT Agreement on site (or I will obtain a copy and it will be kept on site), that I am
responsible for the performance of the maintenance procedures, and the site has been and will be maintained
according to the O&M Agreement and approved plans. I agree to notify DEMLR of any problems with the SCMs
or built -upon area and to submit the proper forms to modify or transfer the permit prior to any changes to the
project, SCMs, or ownership. All information provided on this permit renewal application is, to the best of my
knowledge, correct and complete.
Signature: Date:
NOTARIZATION:
._ 1caner c ,
a Notary Public for the State of
"r & rA :v4, County of /[.JCLJ uziame r , do hereby certify
that rl6 t e personally appeared before me
this the `.30 day of I'�ri1Qu , 20_[jE_, and acknowledge the due
execution of the forgoing instrument. Witness my hand and official seal,
(Notary Seal)
Notary Signature:
My commission expires j
��aunrnu���
PNET F
No ♦,�
z Gj f,c�k
O ovry
'0
Stormwater Permit Renewal Application Form Page 3 of 3
May 11, 2018

Johnson, Kelly
A
From: Johnson, Kelly
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 10:53 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: UNCW State Stormwater Permit Renewals
On June 21, 2018, the Wilmington Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (Stormwater Section)
accepted the Stormwater Permit Applications and $505 fees for the associated permits listed below. The project has
been assigned to Me and you will be notified if additional information is needed.
Number
Title
Check
SWg
960413
UNCW Student Parking Lot Randall and Reynolds Drive
104689
SWg
021010
UNCW Friday Hall
104682
SWg
021011
UNCW Lot L
104683
SWg
021017
UNCW Lot O
104684
SWg
030225
UNCW Student Center
104685
SWg
030615
UNCW tot AA
104686
SWg
040141
UNCW Cultural Arts Center
104687
SWg
040218
UNCW Central Energy Plant
104688
Thanks,
Kelly
VzUw JokVt,SDIo.
Kelly Johnson
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Stormwater Permitting
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

Application Completeness Review Checklist
Name: G�•1C-c J r�r ��' Date Delivered to WIRO:
BIMS Received/Accepted Date: .�Lti1ti�i ZuC
County/Location: *RIMS Acknowledged Date:
02017 Coastal 02008 Coastal 01995 Coastal Phase II Universa; 1988 Coastal #
Action: New / Major Mod / Minor Mo Renewal / a ransfer ��*-New Permit #:
Type: HD / LD / LD Overall / HD &LD Combo
I Permit / Offsite / Exempt / Rescission
jSCM Type(s):
IDevelopment Type: Commercial / Residential / Other
Subdivided?: Subdivision or Single Lot
For New or Transferred Permits Permittee is:
Property Owner(s) FlDeveioper mLessee Purchaser �iHOA
Paperwork Emailed Engineer on:
! Misting Permit #:_ 0 ,) ( C)
®PE Cert on File?
Offsite to SW8:
®Supplement(s) (1 original per BMP)
"O&M with correct/original signatures (1 original Per BMP extent LS/VFS ana swoles)
EIpplication with correct/original signatures
®Corp or LLC: Sig. Auth. per SoS or Signature Authorization letter or report
Y505 (within 6mo] Check#(s): ( o ,-f ez k-f DN❑ Fee
Soils Report w/SHWT or General Report
®Calcuiations (signeafseajed)
Deed Restrictions. d subdivided:
®**Signed & Notarized Template
94
Recorded Covenants
Recorded Plats F-150% or more Lots Sold List
11Project Narrative
©USGS Map
Master PE Cert on File?
Stream Class:
®SA Map®ORW Map
Email Address: Design Engineer
®Email Address: Property Owner
Deed
Email Address: Lessee
Of -ease Agreement
11Emaii Address: Purchaser
Purchase Agreement
Email Address: Developer
FiEmaii Address: HOA Representative
Plans
F12 Sets ®Wetlands: Delineated or, No Wetlands
Vicinity Map "Prolect L'oundaries
Legend Layout (proposed BUA dimensions)
EIDA IViaps Details (roads, cul-de-sacs, curbs, sidewalks, i3MPs, Buildings, etc)
Existing Conditions Landscape Plan
GradingI�E Seal
REVIEWER NAME: N OTES TO REVIEWER: *Enter BIMS Acknowledged Date on this Sheet
'`*FOR NEW Projects -Enter New Permit # on
�r Li Supplements & Deed Restiction Templates.
G:WQ\\\Reference Library\Procedures\Checklists\Completeness Review Checklist_2018 03 13

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To: Ms. Christine Hall
E`iECEIVED
L-J i Ad
JUNI 2016
NCDEQ
WILMINGTON RC
Date: June 7, 2018
NCDEQ — EXPRESS
127 North Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: UNCW Main Campus — State Stormwater Job No.
Management Permit Renewals
I am sending you the following item(s):
FEDERALEXPRESS
UNW-18020
QUANTITY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
1
SW8 021010 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
1
SW8 021011 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
1
SW8 021017 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
1
SW8 030225 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
1
SW8 030615 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
1
SW8 040141 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
1
SW8 040218 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
1
SW8 960413 Permit Renewal Package w/ $505 fee
These are transmitted as checked below:
❑ As requested
® For approval
© For review and comment
Remarks:
❑ For your use
Water Resources
Raleigh -Durham Charlotte
2905 Meridian Parkway 3436 Toringdon Way, Suite 110
Durham, North Carolina 27713 Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
[phone] [phone]
Designing Tomorrow's Infrastructure & Communities
McAdamsCoxom
_P�

Hall, Christine
From:
George, Cory <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:00 AM
To:
Hall, Christine
Subject:
[External] SW8 160103 Permit Certification
Attachments:
2017-06-26 - Stormwater Permit Certification.pdf
CAUTION; External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].
Christine,
I think I may have forgot to send this certification in as well.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Cory
Cory George, PE, PLS I Project Manager, Institutional
McAdams
3436 Toringdon Way, Suite 110, Charlotte, NC 28277
office 704. 527.0800 x314 I mobile [phone] [e-mail]
www.mcadamsco.com I linkedin I twitter I instasram I loin our team
'J MCADAMS

UN.0 WILMINGTON
THE HUB
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS
PROJECT NUMBER:
DESIGNED BY:
DATE:
ECEIVE
JAN 19 2016
BY: O
TIP-15000
GORY GEORGE, PE, PLS
DANIEL PERRY, EI
JANuARY 2016
CAI
i
:Q 9
.SEA �
042031
MC.ADA IV' S
2905 MERIDIAN PARKWAY *Engineer seal does
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27713 not cover geotechnical
NC LIC. # C-0293 report.

UNCW — THE HUB
Stormwater Management Calculations
General Description
41 ey` r114)V,?.9
1p$
Located off of Riegel Road between Galloway' and Graham Halls, just east of Brooks Baseball
Field on the University of North Carolina at Wilmington's campus, is the proposed project
currently known as The Hub. This project consists of the construction of a new two story
building to serve the immediate dormitories with dining and convenience store items. Associated
with the building is all supporting infrastructure including sidewalk upgrades, fire lane upgrades,
the addition of parking spaces and a permeable paver stormwater device for treatment.
The Hub will sit on an existing parking lot and the proposed additions will require the removal of
significant amounts of untreated impervious. Predevelopment impervious totals as shown in the
attached BUA map are 38,009 SF. The proposed development will add to the pre -development
total, however greater than the difference is treated. As proposed the project will be a high
density project with 43.9% impervious, though 10,624 SF will be treated with the permeable
paver system, leaving 31,648 SF to bypass. This is a reduction of 6,361 SF of untreated BUA
from pre to post scenarios.
The proposed project is located on Hydrologic Soil Group `A' Soils, within the Cape Fear River
Basin, with stormwater runoff from the proposed development draining to an UT to Bradley
Creek. According to the N.C. Division of Water Quality BasinWide Information Management
System (BIMS), Bradley Creek is classified as SC; HQW (Not within 575' of ORW) at this
location and the proposed development must meet the coastal rules defined under Session Law
2008-211. These regulations are as follows:
Stormwater Management Regulations
III. SL2008-211, Section 2b: Requirements for Certain Nonresidential and Residential
Development in the Coastal Counties.
All nonresidential development activities that occur within the Coastal Counties that will
add more than 10,000 square feet of built upon area or that require a Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan, pursuant to G.S. 113A-57 or a Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) Major Development Permit, pursuant to G.S. 113A-118 and all residential
development activities within the Coastal Counties that require a Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan, pursuant to G.S. 113A-57 or a Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) Major Development Permit, pursuant to G.S.113A-118 shall manage
stormwater runoff as provided in this subsection. A development activity or project
requires a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan if the activity or project disturbs one
acreor more of land, including an activity or project that disturbs less than one acre of
land that is part of a larger common plan of development. Whether an activity or project
that disturbs less than one acre of land is part of a larger common plan of development
shall be determined in a manner consistent with the memorandum referenced as
"Guidance Interpreting Phase 2 Stormwater Requirements" from the Director of the
Division of Water Quality of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to
Interested Parties dated 24 July 2006.
(3) Other Coastal Development. — Development activities within the Coastal Counties
except those areas described in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection shall meet
all of the following requirements:

b. High Density Option: Higher density developments shall be permitted pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02H .1003(d)(2) if the development meets all of the following
requirements:
1. The development has a built upon area of greater than twenty four percent (24%).
2. The development uses control systems that are any combination of infiltration
systems, wet detention ponds, bioretention systems, constructed stormwater
wetlands, Page 6 Session Law 2008-211 SL2008-0211 sand falters, rain barrels,
cisterns, rain gardens or alternative stormwater management systems designed in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02H.1008.
3. Control systems must be designed to store, control, and treat the stormwater
runoff from all surfaces generated by one and one-half inch of rainfall.
4. Stormwater runoff from built upon areas, that is directed to flow through any
wetlands shall flow into and through these wetlands at a non -erosive velocity.
5. Requirements for Structural Stormwater Controls. — Structural stormwater
controls required under this section shall meet all of the following requirements:
a. Remove an eighty-five percent (85%) average annual amount of Total
Suspended Solids.
b. For detention ponds, draw down the treatment volume no faster than 48
hours, but no slower than 120 hours.
c. Discharge the storage volume at a rate equal to or less than the
predevelopment discharge rate for the one-year, 24-hour storm.
d. Meet the General Engineering Design Criteria set forth in 15A NCAC 02H
.1008(c).
e. For structural stormwater controls that are required under this section and
that require separation from the seasonal high-water table, a minimum
separation of two feet is required. Where a separation of two feet from the
seasonal highwater table is not practicable, the Division of Water Quality
may grant relief from the separation requirement pursuant to the Alternative
Design Criteria set out in 15A NCAC 02H .1008(h). No minimum separation
from the seasonal highwater table is required for a secondary stormwater best
management practice that is used in a series with another stormwater best
management practice.
Calculation Methodolo�ey
1. Using maps contained within the New Hanover County Soil Survey, the on -site soils
were determined to be hydrologic soil group (HSG) `A' Baymeade soils. The permeable
pavement will receive a built upon area (BUA) credit of 25%, with drawdown occurring
in 5 days or less (based on data provided in a geotechnical report by ECS Carolinas,
LLP).
2. The infiltration rate and seasonal high water table of the insitu site soils is from a report
prepared by ECS Carolinas, LLP. A copy of this report has been provided in Section 4 of
this report. Please note The John R. McAdams Company accepts no responsibility for
any information prepared by the geotechnical engineer or its affiliates.
3. Existing topography and cover conditions were taken from a recent survey by The John
R. McAdams Company. Sealed by Ronald Frederick and provided in the Construction
Drawings as Existing Conditions.
4. The stage -storage functions for the. underdrain system were generated using PondPack
and then input into an MS Excel spreadsheet to determine the storage in each of the
2

underdrain pipes up to EL. 43.25. This elevation is greater than any of the outlet
structures, but was used to ensure the water surface elevation would never crest the actual
pavers. Please note the bypass weir is set at EL. 42.46, just at the computed required
water quality (i.e. 1.5-inch) storm event aggregate. When routing the water quality event
we see that the maximum water surface elevation is only 42.00, and the 10 Year elevation
just crests the bypass weir at 42.67.
5. The storage in the stone subgrade was determined using surfaces and running volumetric
calculations in AutoCAD Civil3D. This is described in more detail, with an example,
below:
a. The volumetric calculations generated from AutoCAD Civil 3D computes the volume
in specified increments and is reported as "fill" on each report. For example, for EL.
42.00, the total volume of subgrade is 748.45 cubic feet. This number is a "raw" volume
number and is corrected by subtracting out any pipe storage accumulated, then multiplied
by the stone void ratio and added back to the accumulated pipe storage for a total
adjusted volume. This volume is calculated for each stage and then used as the stage -
storage for modeling. Please note this volume is reported as fill in the report because fill
would be placed in the subgrade surface up to the specified elevation. The Cut and Net
volumes reported are byproducts of the surface creation as the subgrade contains
elevations in the field that are higher than the specified stage.
6. Routing results for the water quality and 10 Year storm events for the facility were.
calculated using PondPack Version V8i, by Bentley Systems, Inc.
7. in order to accurately represent the water quality runoff volume, rainfall depths were
manipulated in Pondpack (assuming an SCS Type III storm distribution) to create the
same runoff volume in PondPack with the SCS CN method as was calculated with the
simple method found in Chapter 3 of the NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual.
8. The water quality storage volume is controlled by underdrains connected to a 90 degree
elbow -tee turn -up located in JB-100. This structure also serves as the primary bypass for
storm events greater than the water quality event using a 3" by 2.0' opening (confirmed
with routing) and was designed in accordance with the BMP Manual.
Discussion ofPronosed Stormwater Manazement
The subgrade and drainage for the proposed permeable paver system is designed in accordance
with requirements set bor in the North Carolina BNUP Manual for Permeable Pavement. Based on
ECS borings in the location of the project, the required minimum of two feet of separation
between the subgrade and SHWT is provided throughout the system.
The permeable pavement system has also been designed to treat adjacent roof BUA from The
Hub. Here rooftop runoff is collected and is directed into the system via a "rain chain" and inlet.
The amount of rooftop area to paver area is less than the required .1:1. All non BUA surfaces
adjacent to the paver area have been designed to drain away from the paver system.
Pre development conditions onsite contain multiple flow paths and consist of an asphalt parking
lot directly drained to the storm sewer and an asphalt fire lane that flows north adjacent to a
gravel bike parking area, briefly flowing over grass before entering the storm sewer system. Also
onsite is an existing basketball court that sheets flows across the grass field and volleyball court
before entering the storm sewer.

4'
✓�►.�
Proposed conditions keep similar drainage patterns, but reduce the amount of untreated BUA by
Ss�
6,361 SF when compared to pre development conditions. As proposed, the building and
permeable paver system are designed to infiltration the required water quality volume. The fire
lane addition is collected by curb and directed into the storm sewer (equal to the pre development
parking area). The proposed oval sidewalk is allowed to sheet flow through the grassed field
before entering the storm drainage system and the proposed parking is allowed to sheet flow
through an existing wooded area before eventually finding its way to the storm sewer somewhere
offsite. Therefore, impervious surfaces that are bypassed from the permeable paver system are
provided equal or better treatment from impervious that existing previously.
Discussion ofProposed Erosion Control
Proposed erosion and sediment control onsite consists largely of silt fence and inlet protection.
Where stockpiles exist two rows of silt fence will be provided. Due to the grade and existing
conditions of the site, sediment basins or traps are not needed or practical. The majority of the
site is lower than the surrounding terrain and drains into an existing storm network. This network
will be modified as part of the proposed construction. Using inlet protection on the existing and
proposed storm drainage networks before, during, and after modification is the best way to
prevent sediment from entering the system and leaving the site. When storm drainage piping and
inlets are to be installed they will be protected at each open end with inlet protection in
accordance with the details and project specifications. Silt fence outlets are to be installed in low
spots and as the engineer instructs throughout the project, in accordance with the details and
project specification manual, to prevent fence failure. Proposed disturbed area is 2.22 acres.
Conclusion
If the development on this tract is built as proposed within this report, then the applicable
requirements will be met with the proposed stormwater management facility. However,
modifications to the proposed development may require that this analysis be revised. Some
modifications that would require this analysis to be revised include:
1. The proposed_ site impervious surface exceeds the amount accounted for in this report.
2. The post -development watershed breaks change significantly from those used to prepare
this report.
The above modifications may result in the assumptions within this report becoming invalid. The
computations within this report will need to be revisited if any of the above conditions become
apparent as development of the proposed site moves forward.
4

MISCELLANEOUS SITE
INFORMATION
PRECIPITATION DATA
21
SITE SOIL INFORMATION
3
iaEOYECHNICAL ENGINEERING
4
REPORT
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
5
DESIGN CALCULATIONS

ffi
d
a
a�
o
a
a
v
o
u
n
�
N
00
'C
pU�
N
ON
Cq
en
a
G1
en
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
Mcn
O
00
PC1
N
Pam.
cz
C
qm
�C
9
z
irk

G
P-4
F-�
r
L
U
en
n��
a,
a,
O
C-4�
N
�rnr
M
O
M
O
mM
v^
O
vn
.,
y.
ci
Q•
a
00
oo
o
�
00
N
'.
N
v
u
d
_.
7
�I�
ON
e
yp��7
cn
0
0
000
00
00
�
�q
�j
en
vD
h
N'
oo
O
O
N
07
F.
n
n
n
O
00
00
N
O
'vim,
t5
N
EO
Pr
N
y
.G
W
+�
3
a.
a
~
0
g
�yy
�ull
•V
yp�Y
i�
•��+
y�„
e
B
t-I
y�Yy
y�N,Sy
W
•�
LYi
VJ
VS
F"
V
O
W
S
gq•
0
pI
0
p1
0
g1
0�
p1
0
�
W

MISCELLANEOUS SITE INFORMATION
THE HUB
TIP-15000

MISCELLANEOUS SITE INFORMATION
THE HUB
TIP-15006

PRQJECT BOUNDARY
• v
0
tR`
low
ow
ow
71r;
e3 4w
#4kL I q
Ti _' E �, a me, Mapm- y.lndia • (J 0penStreeMap contribl rs,
DneMapl '•Ce t #ar Geographic'Infami% and Analysis. NC 91
i N THE HUB
SITE AERIAL MAP
0 50 100 200 PROJECT #: TIP-15000
Feet
1 inch =100 feet WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

y • 4
op
All
y P
A"
r �
zzzzzzz
.4% E, x ire ti
mm
r . PROJECT BOUNDARY +,
As
-61
Ali
To
AO
f,
` i.• �` ••�• Jam. e5 °�b''ff.
- Y.3
a "R"'•.'�• 30- !' }. �� •i � Sri i
sr
ir
ir Is
t
t n�ac�a� � �, _ � , _;���.+, , v,, `- ,, Ali , ' ..•
' . a T"'r •"` pyngjit ©c0 �falral Geographlcl, cie „i-c bed
N
THE HUB
USGS TOPO MAP
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 PROJECT #: TIP-15000
Feet
NORTH CAROLINA
I inch =2,000f�r WILMINGTON, _' ._

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER
QUALITY
2B .0300
.0311 CAPE FEAR RIVER
BASIN
Class
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No.
Prince George Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
07/01/73
18-74-53
Cape
Fear River
Turkey Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-54
Cape
Fear River
Long Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
07/01/73
18-74-55
Cape
Fear River
Horse Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-1
Pole Branch (Penderlea Lake)
From
source to Horse Branch
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-1-1
Keith Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-1-2
Cypress Creek
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-2
Bee Branch
From
source to Cypress Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-2-1
Mill Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-3
Big Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-4
Jumping Run Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-5
Mill Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-6
Mulberry Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-7
Mill Run
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-8
Rileys Creek
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
07/01/73
18-74-55-9
Rizzo Creek (Resoe Creek)
From
source to Rileys Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-9-1
Birch Creek
From
source to Rizzo Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-9-1-1
Mill Creek
From
source to Rileys Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-9-2
Kellys Creek
From
source to Rileys Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-9-3
Guffords Branch
From
source to Rileys Creek
C;Sw
07/01/73
18-74-55-9-4
Juniper Branch
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-10
Mill Creek
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-11
Collins Branch
From
source to Mill Creek
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-55-11-1
Morgans Creek
From
source to Long Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-55-12
Cowpen Branch
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-56
Cape
Fear River
Tonys Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-57
Cape
Fear River
Lagoon Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-58
Cape
Fear River
Fishing Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-59
Cape
Fear River
Dock Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-60
Cape
Fear River
Northeast Cape Fear River
From
mouth of Ness Creek to
SC;Sw
04/01/59
18-74-(61)
Cape
Fear River
Ness Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-62
Cape
Fear River
Smith Creek
From
source to Northeast
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-63
Cape
Fear River
Spring Branch
From
source to Smith Creek
C;Sw
09/01/74
18-74-63-1
Burnt Mill Gracie
From
source to Sinith-Criek_
C;Sw
03/01/77
18-74-63-2
Mineral Springs Branch
From
source to Burnt Mill
C;Sw
08/01/85
18-74-63-2-1
Creek
Page 58 of 69 2013-12-09 10:45:30

PRECIPITATIONDATA
THE HUB
TIP41 000

1/YfiJ2016 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3
Location name: Wilmington, North Carolina, US* ,
Latitude: 34.2210*, Longitude:-77.8713*
Elevation: 42 ft
* source: Google Maps
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
G.M. Bonnet, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M.Yekta, and D. Riley
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF tabular j PF araohical I Maps & aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)
Average recurrence interval (years)
Duration
1
2
5
10
25
50
�����
100
200
500
1000
0.524
0.622
0.728
.8
017
0.916
0.995
7.08
1.16
1.26
1.35
5-min
(0.489-0.565)
(0.580-0.670)
( 0.678-0.783)
(0.752-0.872)
(0.846-0.982)
( 0.914-1.07)
(0.984-1.16)
(1.05-1.24)
( 1.13-1.36)
(1.20-1.45)
0.837
0.995
7.17
1.30
1A6
1.58
7.71
1.83
1.98
2.12
10-mm
(0.782-0.902)
(0.928-1.07)
1 (1.09-1.25)
1 (1.20-1.39)
1 (1.35-1.56)
(1.46-1.70)
(1.56-1.84)
(1.67-1.97)
(1.79-2.15)
(1.89-2.29)
1.05 1
F 1.25 7
F 1A8
1.64
7.85
2.07
2.16
2.31
2.51
2.B6
75anin
(0.977-1.13)
1 (1.17-1.35)
1 (1.37-1.59)
1 (1.52-1.76)
1 (1.71-1.98)
(1.84-2.15)
(1.98-2.32)
'(2.10-2.49)
(2.26-2.71)
(2.37-2.87)
1A3
1.73
2.10
2.38
2.74
3.02
3.31
3.60
4.00
4.31
30�rrin
(1.34-1.54)
(1.61-1.86)
(1.95-2.25)
(2.21-2.56)
(2.53-2.94)
(2.78-3.24)
(3.03-3.55)
(3.27-3.87)
(3.59-4.31 )
) .
( 3.84-4.66
1.79
2.17
2.69
3.10
3.65
4.09
4.56
5.05
5.73
6.28
60-min
(1.67-1.93)
(2.02-2.33)
(2.50-2.89)
3.28
1 (2.87-3.33)
3.87
1 (3.37-3.91)
4.72
(3.76-4.39)
SAS
(4.17-4.89)
6.24
(4.59-5.43)
7.11 IF
(5.16-6.18)
8.39
(5.61-6.79)
T 9. 00
2.11
2.57
2atr
(1.95-2.31)
1 (2.37-2.81)
(3.02-3.58)
(3.55-4.22)
1 (4.31-5.14)
(4.95-5.93)
(5.646.79)
(6.38-7.72)
(7.45-9.13)
(8.36-10.4)
3-hr
2.25
2.74
3.51
4.1T
5.76
6.02
6.98
8.05
9.67
11.1
(2.08-2.47)
(2.53-3.00)
(3.23-3.84)
(3.82-4.56)
(4.70-5.62)
(5.45-6.56)
(6.27-7.53)
(7.17-8.73)
(8I�5010�.5)
(9.G3-12.1)
2.80
3A1
4.37
5.20
6A6
7.55
8.79
10.2
12.3
14.1
6-hr
(2.59-3.08)
(3.15-3.75)
(4.02-4.79)
(4.77-5.70)
(5.88-7.04)
(6.83-8.24)����
(7.89-9.57)
(9.03-11.1)
(10.8-13.4)
(12.3-15.4)
3.28
3.99
5.15
6.17
7.70
9.07
10.6
12A
15.1
17.5
72-hr
(3.00-3.63)
(3.65-4.41)
(4.70-5.68)
(5.60-6.79)
(6.94-8.46)
(8.12-9.94)
(9.43-11.6)
(10.9-13.5)
(13.1-16.5)
(14.9-19.1)
3.88
4.70
6.09
7.31
9.18
10.9
12.6
14.9
18.3
21.3
24-hr
(3.53-4.32)
(4.29-5.25)
(5.54-6.78)
(6.63-8.12)
(8.25-10.2)
(9.68-12.0)
(11.2-14.2)
(12.9-16.6)
(15.5-20.5)
(17.8-23.9)
4.60
5.56
7.13
8.51
10.6
12A
14.5
16.9
20.5
23.7
2{lay
(4.21-5.09)
(5.09-6.15)
(6.51-7.90)
(7.73-9.42)
(9.54-11.7)
(11.1-13.8)
(12.8-16.2)
(14.7-18.8)
( 17.4-23.0)
(19.8-26.8)
4.90
5.91 T7.53T
8.94
11.0
12.9
15.0
17.3
20.8
23.9
3i9ay
(4.49-5.41)
(5.42-6.53)
1 (6.89-8.33)
(8.14-9.88)
1 (9.97-12.2)
(11.5-14.3)
(13.2-16.6)
(15.1-19.3)
(17.8-23.4)
(20.1-27.1)
5.20
6.26
7.94
9.37
11.5
13.3
15A
17.7
21.7
24.2
4�ay
(4.77-5.73)
1 (5.75-6.91)
(7.26-8.76)
(8.54-10.3)
1 (10.4-12.7)
(12.0-14.8)
(13.7-17.1)
(15.5-19.7)
(18.2-23.7)
(20.5-27.3)
5.96
7.19
9.OS
10.6
12.9
14.8
76.9
19.1
22.5
25.3
Tea•
(5.52-6.51)
(6.65-7.84)
(8.35-9.86)
(9.74-11.5)
1 (11.8-14.0)
(13.4-16.1)
(15.2-18.4)
(17.0-21.0)
(19.7-24.9)
(21.8-28.2)
6.75
8.07
10.0
11.6
14.0
16.0
18.1
20.4
23.8
26.6
10{lay
(6.25-7.31)
(7.49-8.77)
(9.25-10.9)
(10.7-12.6)
(12.8-15.2)
(14.5-17.4)
(16.3-19.7 )
( 18.2-22.3)
(20.9-26.2)
(2&1-29.5)
9.01
10.7
13.1
15.0
17.8
20.0
22.5
25.0
28.7
31.7
20ilay
( 8 41-9.69)
(10.0-1 1.6)
1 (12.2-14.1)
1 (14.0-16.1)
1 (16.5-19.1)
(18.4-21.6)
(20.5-24.3)
(22.7-27.2)
(25.6-31.4)
(27.9-35.0)
17.1
13.1
15.8
17.9
20.9
23.3
25.7
28.3
31.8
34.6
30-day
(10.4-11.8)
(12.4-14.0) 11
(14.8-16.8)
1 (16.8-19.1)
1 (19.5-22.3)
(21.6-24.9)
(23.7-27.6)
(25.9-30.4)
(28.8-34.4)
(31.0-37.7)
13.8
16.3
19A
21.8
25.2
27.9
30.7
33.5
37A
40A
45�ay
(13.0-14.7)
1 (15.4-17.4) 11
(18.2-20.6)
1 (20.5-23.2)
1 (23.6-25.8)
(26.0-29.7)
(28.4-32.7)
(30.8-35.9)
(34.0-40.3)
(38.5-43.9)
1 B.6
19.5
22.8
25.5
29.0
31.8
-u S
37.3
41.0
b3.8
60-day
(15.7-17.6)
(18-120.7)
(21.6-24.2)
(24.1-27.0)
(27.3-30.8)
(29.8-33.8)
(32.2 36.8)
(34.6 39.9)
(37.7-44.0)
(40.0-47.3)
1 Precipitafion frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probab7ity that precipitation frequency
estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence intervaq will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates
at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more nfnrmation.
Back to Top
PF graphical
W://lldsc.nws.nose.gov/hdsc/pWpf`ds_rintpage hhni?lai=34.2210&Ion=-77.8713&data7-depth&units=engiish&series=pds 1/4

SITE SOIL INFORMATION
THE HUB
TIP-15000

2 2
w
�i
O8006LE 09VO6LE OK06LE OetwE OObOUE OSEO6LE 09MME OKIWE OZEO6L£
M.ES ZS dl
m
c
Q
m
zz
;>
MAZZShc
�� ry
Z
z�
U)
a
o
LD le
M.EI ZS oU � O
V
a
�a.
g
:-i
Ln
si
y
j
p C
0
0
a
� a
z�
zv
ME mrE1 us
M.EZ ZS oLL
z
j

O
cn
G
a
z
O
0
z
a
0
z
W
C)
W
J
a
a
m
C �
— C
y NO N
p � m
o �
U U) m
(D 'G MrL m 'm
Cm1 m C O
m E m m �
w pSE E
m .a m
N E 3 m
itm.cpc
— N O
C
m A m W
r
E m� m>
E aEmm
0,0 v
o c� °
E L c
ei m m
m
5 mrn�OE�
WEar°n
m
° m 7
o
W
o
m
C
N>
U
r
l0
m W
Ve
m
M.S-,
-p
C
m
>
m
N° C
m
m
E
cn
moNE
W
w
°
E
cB,m
m
o �,r
ma' �v
8
U
n
m
o E
Na o
m
Z aq
C 0-N 7
0
p-
E
r -
mNZW
-0 ZEv
z
zN
Q
.t_.
rEy
E
U W
v.
m 7
p
7�N
Ln
m
3o
co
0
c
O n
m
-o
EN a
m
CL
o0
m
mEm
3
o-
wN
0
m
E�mm
mn2
Lm
-0o-02
m «
ao
a
We
nm
Ea
m�
m
cmi
3
'oa2iS
mj
mm
3
E
nt
z
U)
w°m
cm
mVa
t
m
m
yc`o
�
c
pm
o�02
m °
E
00to$;v
>`E
gfn m
E m c
o
ID
m
c n�
o.m-
w w
co:o
3a
a a m
>
N Z
E
0
CL
o n�m
a E
cID �U
2 a'oQ 0
uni
IL-tm.
U)W
U) p
0
m E m E
FL $E o
'm
L
U
t
�
a
�
v
w
g
w
p
L
a.
U U
O Z
fn
O
i
Jo
9
a
❑ o
❑ o
OC
Y
m
a
m
a
a
�
m
<co `
�
a
iz
L)
sa
0Q
m
0
0
a a
m� U� o
Z
�a
a m
p
S
ra
in v
�t
0 0
N N
v
CL
a
Z
N
m
A

Hydrologic Soil Group —New Hanover County, North Carolina
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — New Hanover County, North Carolina (NC129)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name Rating
Acres In AOI
Percent of AOI
Be
Baymeade fine sand, I to ( A
6 percent slopes
2.1
98.5%
Mu
Murville fine sand
AID
0.0
0.9%
Ur
Urban land
0.01
0.6%
Totals for Area of Interest
2.2
100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long -duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). ThG groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or CID), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
The Hub
LJSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/14/2015
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4

Hydrologic Soil Group —New Hanover County, North Carolina
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff- None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
The Hub
�
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/14/2615
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4

P n
i.
Se
U, r
PROJECT BOUNDARY( Mu
se
se"
14 Mu
. 9w.
IL
Sh
N
THE HUB
MRCS SOIL SURVEY
0 150 300 600 PROJECT #: TIP-15000
Feet
1 inch = 300 feet WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
THE HUB
TIP-15000

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
THE HUB AT UNC WILMINGTON
WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNlY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
MR. JOSH PEAKS
TIPTON ASSOCIATES
449 WESTMORELAND DRIVE
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANNA 70806
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
PROJECT NO.: 22.23127
AUGUST 20, 2015

J■!
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP "setting the Standard for Service"
- � Geotechnical Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NORegisieredEngineering Firm. F-'D78
August 20, 2015
Mr. Josh Peaks
Tipton Associates
449 Westmoreland Drive
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806
Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
Dear Mr. Peaks:
As authorized by your acceptance of our proposal number 22.19849P dated July 2, 2015, ECS
Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed a subsurface exploration for the subject project. This
report presents the results of the field exploration and geotechnical engineering analysis, along
with our recommendations for design of geotechnical related items.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of this project
and look forward to our continued involvement during the construction phase. If you have any
questions concerning the information and recommendations presented in this report, please
contact us at [phone] for further assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Micah F. Hatch, P.E.
Project Engineer
North Carolina License No. 041382
Winslow E. Goins, P.E.
Principal Engineer
North Carolina License No. 033751
6714 Netherlands Drive, Wilmington, NC 28405 • T: 910-686-9114 - F: 910-686-9666 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Carolinas, LLP - ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC , ECS Southeast, LLC ° ECS Texas, LLP

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
THE HUB AT UNC WILMINGTON
WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
MR. JOSH PEAKS
TIPTON ASSOCIATES
449 WESTMORELAND DRIVE
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANNA 70806
PREPARED BY:
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
6714 NETHERLANDS DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28405
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
PROJECT NO.: 22.23127
FIRM NO. F-1078
WINSLOW E. GOINS. P.E.
• 8/20/15.
NC LICENSE NO. 033751
AUGUST 20, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................2
2.1 Project Information.......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Scope of Work................................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Purpose of Exploration................................................................................................... 2
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES.......................................................................................... 3
3.1 Subsurface Exploration Procedures............................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Cone Penetration Test Soundings.......................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Hand Auger Borings and Infiltration Tests............................................................... 3
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS............................................................................................. .4
4.1 Site Conditions................................................................................................................ 4
4.2 Regional Geology........................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Soil Conditions................................................................................................................ 4
4.4 Groundwater Conditions................................................................................................. 5
4.5 Seasonal High Water Table And Infiltration Test Results ............................................... 5
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 6
5.1
Foundations Recommendations.....................................................................................
6
5.2
Engineered Fill Placement..............................................................................................
7
5.3
Foundation Recommendations.......................................................................................
8
5.4
Floor Slab Design...........................................................................................................
9
5.5
Seismic Site Class Determination and Liquefaction Potential .........................................
9
5.6
Pavement Design Considerations.....................................................................:...........10
5.7
Site Drainage......................................................................................................11
5.8
Construction Considerations.........................................................................................11
6.0 CLOSING ...............
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -FIGURES
APPENDIX B-CPI SOUNDING LOGS
APPENDIX C-INFILTRATION TESTING FORM
APPENDIX D.-GENERAL CONDITIONS
...........................................................12

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the proposed site located between Galloway Hall and Graham Hewlett Hall on the
UNCW campus in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. At the time of
exploration the site consisted of a bituminous asphalt parking lot and was relatively level with
elevations ranging from about 44 to 45 feet.
ECS understands that a new two-story building will be constructed at the site. 1 he proposed
building will have a footprint of approximately 7,500 square feet. The anticipated maximum
interior column gravity load is around 175 kips. Site grading information was not available at
the time this report was prepared.
Approximately 3 inches of asphalt pavement overlying 5 inches of ABC stone was reported by
the drillers at the sounding locations. Beneath the surface materials to a depth of about 25
feet, the test soundings typically encountered intermittent layers of medium dense to very
dense clean sands (SP). From a depth of 25 feet to a depth of approximately 68 feet, the test
sounding S-1 typically encountered intermittent layers of medium dense to dense clean sand
(SP). From a depth of 68 feet to a termination depth of approximately 74 feet, the test
sounding S-1 typically encountered intermittent layers of loose to medium dense silty, slightly
silty, and clean sands (SM, SP-SM, SP) and soft to stiff sandy clay (CL).
In summary, the proposed construction can be supported on conventional shallow foundations.
For foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report, a
maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is
recommended for use in proportioning shallow foundations.
Specific information regarding the subsurface exploration procedures used, the site and
subsurface conditions at the time of our exploration, and our conclusions and
recommendations concerning the geotechnical design and construction aspects of the project
are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections of this report. Please note this Executive
Summary is an important part of this report and should be considered a "summary" only. The
subsequent sections of this report constitute our findings, conclusions, and recommendations
in their entirety.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
2.1 Proiect Information
ECS' understanding of the proposed construction is based upon information provided by Mr.
Josh Peaks of Tipton Associates. The proposed site is located between Galloway Hall and
Graham Hewlett Hall on the UNCW campus in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North
Carolina. At the time of exploration the site consisted of a bituminous asphalt parking lot and
was relatively level with elevations ranging from about 44 to 45 feet.
ECS understands that a new two-story building will be constructed at the site. The proposed
building will have a footprint of approximately 7,500 square feet. The anticipated maximum
interior column gravity load is around 175 kips. Site grading information was not available at
the time this report was prepared.
2.2 Scope of Work
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of:
• Two CPT soundings,
• One pavement core to check pavement section thickness,
• Two hand auger borings to estimate seasonal high water table,
• Two infiltration tests to determine in -situ soil permeability rates, and
• Engineering analyses of the field findings with respect to the provided project information.
2.3 Purposes of Exploration
The purpose of this exploration program was to determine the soil and groundwater conditions
at the site and to develop engineering recommendations to assist in the design and
construction of the proposed project. We accomplished these objectives by:
• Performing a site reconnaissance to evaluate the existing site conditions,
• Drilling test soundings and hand auger borings to explore the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions,
• Performing an infiltration test to determine the infiltration rate of the soils in potential
stormwater BMP areas, and
• Analyzing the field data to develop appropriate geotechnical engineering design
and construction recommendations.
2

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
3.1.1 Cone Penetration Test Soundings
Two electronic cone penetration test soundings (S-1 and S-2) were performed during our field
exploration. The cone penetration test soundings were performed in general conformance
with ASTM D 5778 by our subcontractor. The soundings were performed with a track mounted
rig. The approximate locations of the CPT soundings are indicated on -the Exploration
Location Diagram in Appendix A of this report.
The cone used in the soundings has a tip area of 10 cm2 and a sleeve area of 150 cmz. The
CPT soundings recorded tip resistance and sleeve friction measurements to assist in
determining pertinent index and engineering properties of the site soils. The ratio of the sleeve
friction to tip resistance is then used to aid in assessing the soil types through which the tip is
advanced. The results of the CPT soundings are presented in Appendix B.
3.1.2 Hand Auger Borings and Infiltration Tests
During a site visit, two hand auger borings were performed on the site. The purpose of the
hand auger borings was to stratify the subsurface soils and estimate the seasonal high water
table (SHWT) of the subsurface soils. We evaluated the subsurrac:e soil and ground water
conditions by advancing the hand auger borings to depths of approximately 60 to 70 inches
below the existing ground surface at the approximate locations indicated on the Exploration
Location Diagram presented in Appendix A. We visually classified the subsurface soils on site.
At each boring location, an infiltration test was performed using a constant head permeameter.
Infiltration tests are typically conducted at two feet above the SHWT or in the most restrictive
soil horizon. The results are provided in Section 4.5 and in Appendix C of this report.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS
4.1 Site Conditions
The proposed site is located between Galloway Hall and Graham Hewlett Hall on the UNCW
campus in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. At the time of exploration the
site consisted of a bituminous asphalt parking lot and was relatively level with elevations
ranging from about 44 to 45 feet.
4.2 Resalonal Geology
The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal
Plain is composed of seven terraces, each representing a former level of the Atlantic Ocean. Soils
in this area generally consist of sedimentary materials transported from other areas by the ocean or
rivers. These deposits vary in thickness from a thin veneer along the western edge of the region to
more than 10,000 feet near the coast. The sedimentary deposits of the Coastal Plain rest upon
consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the Piedmont and Mountain Physiographic
Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement within the overlying soils is
largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs primarily by infiltration along higher
elevations and typically discharges into streams or other surface water bodies. The elevation of the
shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with seasonal fluctuations in precipitation.
4.3 Soil Conditions
CPT Sounding: Approximately 3 inches of asphalt pavement overlying 5 inches of ABC stone
was reported by the drillers at the sounding locations. Beneath the surface materials to a
depth of about 25 feet, the test soundings typically encountered intermittent layers of medium
dense to very dense clean sands (SP). The equivalent corrected standard penetration test
resistances (N*-values) in these soils generally ranged from 12 to 94 blows per foot (bpf).
From a depth of 25 feet to a depth of approximately 68 feet, the test sounding S-1 typically
encountered intermittent layers of medium dense to dense clean sand (SP). The N*-values in
these soils generally ranged from 13 to 46 bpf.
From a depth of 68 feet to a termination depth of approximately 74 feet, the test sounding S-1
typically encountered intermittent layers of loose to medium dense silty, slightly silty, and clean
sands (SM, SP-SM, SP) and soft to stiff sandy clay (CL). The. N*-values in these soils
generally ranged from 4 to 17 bpf.
The descriptions provided in this section are a general summary of the subsurface conditions
encountered within the CPT test soundings. The CPT Sounding Logs in Appendix B contain
detailed information recorded at each of the sounding locations.
4

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
4.4 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was observed at the completion of drilling operations. At the time of drilling, the
groundwater depth was approximately 12 feet below the existing grade.
The highest groundwater observations are normally encountered in the late winter and early
spring. Variations in the location of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes
in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, and other factors not immediately apparent
at the time of this exploration.
4.5 Seasonal Hinh Water Table and Infiltration Test Results
The results from seasonal high water table estimates and infiltration tests performed in the
hand auger borings are summarized in the following table:
Infiltration
SHWT
Infiltration Test
Rate
Location
in
Depth in
in/hr
B-1
48
36
8.32
B-2
42
24
12.85
For more detailed info,�oation, please see the infiltration testing form included in Appendix CO of
this report.
5

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the
proposed construction, the information provided to us during this exploration and our past
experience with similar conditions. Should any of the information provided to us be changed
prior to final design, ECS should be notified to review these recommendations and make
appropriate revisions, if necessary.
5.1 Subarade Preparation
The first step in preparing the site for the proposed construction should be to remove
vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, deleterious materials, existing utilities and pavement, and other
soft or unsuitable materials from the existing ground surface. These operations should extend
at least 10 feet, where possible, beyond the planned limits of the proposed buildings and
pavements.
After proper clearing, stripping, grubbing, and prior to fill placement, foundation, slab, or
pavement construction, the exposed subgrade soils should be carefully evaluated by an
experienced geotechnical engineer to identify localized unstable or otherwise unsuitable
materials. After evaluating the exposed soils, proofrolling using a smooth drum roller, having
an axle weight of at least 10 tons, is suggested to be used at this time to aid in identifying
localized soft or unsuitable material which should be removed. The proofrolling will also help
dentify the upper exposed subgrade soils. Soft . or unsuitable materials identified during
proofrolling operations should be either repaired in -place or removed and replaced with an
approved backfill placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations of this report.
Due to the presence of near surface, loose sands, in -place densification of the surface soils in
building pad and pavement areas should be performed at the beginning of site grading
activities.
Site subgrade conditions will be significantly influenced by weather conditions. Subgrades that
are evaluated after periods of rainfall will not respond as well to proofrolling as subgrades that
are evaluated after periods of more favorable weather. We strongly recommend that rubber
tire equipment not be used if subgrade conditions exhibit elevated moisture conditions. The
contractor should use tracked equipment to minimize the degradation of marginally stable
subgrades.
The preparation of fill subgrades, as well as proposed building subgrades, should be observed
on a full4ime basis by a representative of ECS. These observations should be performed by a
geotechnical engineer, or his representative, to ensure that the unsuitable materials have been
removed and that the prepared subgrade is suitable for support of the proposed construction
and/or fills.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
5.2 Engineered Fill Placement
Following the removal of deleterious surface and subsurface materials, and after achieving a
stable subgrade, engineered fills can be placed and compacted to achieve the desired site
grades. Fill for support of the proposed construction and for backfill of utility lines within
expanded building and pavement limits should consist of an approved material, free of organic
matter and debris and cobbles greater than 3 inches, less than 35 percent fines content
passing the number 200 sieve, and have a Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity Index (PI) less than
35 and 9, respectively. We also recommend that fills within structural areas have a standard
Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Unsuitable fill materials include topsoil, organic materials (OH, OL), and high plasticity clays
and sifts (CH, MH). Such materials removed during grading operations should be either
stockpiled for later use in landscape fills, or placed in approved on or off -site disposal areas.
Existing soils containing significant amounts of organic matter will not be suitable for re -use as
engineered fill. As such, the organic content of the near surface soils should be evaluated to
determine if some of these soils will be suitable for re -use as engineered fill. Natural fine-
grained soils classified as clays or silts (CL, ML) are generally not suitable for re -use as
structural fill but upon request may be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time of
construction to determine their suitability for use as engineered fill.
Prior to the commencement of fill operations and/or utilization of any off -site borrow materials,
the contractor should provide representative samples of the proposed fill soils to the
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer can determine the material's suitability for
use as an engineered fill and develop moisture -density relationships in accordance with the
recommendations provided herein. Samples should be provided to the geotechnical engineer
at least 3 to 5 days prior to their use in the field to allow for the appropriate laboratory testing to
be performed.
Fill materials placed within the building and pavement areas should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in loose lift thickness and moisture conditioned to within their working
range of optimum moisture content. The fills should then be compacted to a minimum of 98
percent of the soil's standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. The typical working
range of optimum moisture for the natural Coastal Plain soils at the site is expected to be
within approximately 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Care should also be taken to
provide a smooth, gently sloping ground surface at the end of each day's earthwork activitles
to help reduce the potential for ponding and absorption of surface water.
Grade controls should also be maintained throughout the filling operations. Filling operations
should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified representative of ECS to determine that
the required degrees of compaction are being achieved. We recommend that a minimum of
one compaction test per 2,500-square-foot area be performed for each lift of controlled fill.
Within trench or other localized excavations at least one test shall be performed for each 200
linear feet of each lift of fill. The elevation and location of the tests should be clearly identified
at the time of fill placement. Areas which fail to achieve the required degree of compaction
should be re -worked until the specified degree of compaction is achieved. Failing test areas
may require moisture adjustments or other suitable remedial activities in order to achieve the
required compaction.
7

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
Fill materials should not be placed on frozen. frost -heaved, and/or soils which have been
recently subjected to precipitation. Wet or frozen soils should be removed prior to the
continuation of site grading and fill placement. Borrow fill materials, if required, should not
contain excessively wet or frozen materials at the time of placement. Additionally, if grading
operations occur during the winter months, frost -heaved soils should be removed prior to
placement of engineered fill, granular sub -base materials, foundation or slab concrete, and
asphalt pavement materials.
If problems are encountered during the site grading operations, or if the actual site conditions
differ from those encountered during our subsurface exploration, the geotechnical engineer
should be notified immediately.
5.3 Foundations Recommendations
Provided the subgrade preparation and earthwork operations are completed in strict
accordance with the recommendations of this report, the proposed construction can be
supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on approved natural materials and/or
properly compacted fill. We recommend a maximum net allowable design soil bearing
pressure of 4,000 psf for proportioning continuous and isolated column footings. To reduce
the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local shear or
"punching" failures, we recommend that continuous footings have a minimum width of 13
inches and that isolated column footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 30 inches.
Furthermore, footings should bear at a depth to provide adequate frost cover protection. For
this region, we recommend the bearing elevation be a minimum depth of 12 inches below the
finished exterior grade or in accordance with the local building code requirements.
The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted to the
foundation bearing soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The
final footing elevation should be evaluated by ECS personnel to verify that the bearing soils
are capable of supporting the recommended net allowable bearing pressure and suitable for
foundation construction. -These evaluations should include visual observations, hand rod
probing, and dynamic cone penetrometer (ASTM STP 399) testing, or other methods deemed
appropriate by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, in each column footing
excavation and at intervals not greater than 25 feet in continuous footing excavations.
The settlement of a structure is a function of the compressibility of the bearing materials,
bearing pressure, actual structural loads, fill depths, and the bearing elevation of footings with
respect to the final ground surface elevation. Estimates of settlement for foundations bearing
on engineered or non -engineered fills are strongly dependent on the quality of fill placed.
Factors which may affect the quality of fill include maximum loose lift thickness of the fills
placed and the amount of compactive effort placed on each lift. Provided that the building
footprint is surcharged and the recommendations outlined in this report are strictly adhered to,
we expect that total settlements for the proposed construction are expected to be in the range
of 1 inch or less, while the differential settlement will be approximately 1/2 of the anticipated
total settlement. This evaluation is based on our engineering experience and assumed
structural loadings for this type of structure, and is intended to aid the structural engineer with
his design.
8

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
5.4 Floor Slab Design
Provided a suitable subgrade will be prepared as recommended herein, ground level slabs can
be designed as slabs -on -grade. Our findings indicate that a modulus of subgrade reaction (kJ
of 200 pci is appropriate for design provided that the slab subgrade soils have been uniformly
compacted to at least 98 percent of their standard Proctor maximum dry density.
We recommend that the slabs -on -grade be isolated from the foundations so that potential
differential settlement of the structure will not induce shear stresses inthefloor slab. Also, to
minimize the crack width of any shrinkage cracks that may develop near the surface of the
slab, wire mesh reinforcement or fiber mesh may be included in the slab design. If used, the
wire mesh should be located in the top third of the slab to be effective. If fiber mesh is used,
fibers should be batched/mixed at the plant and not at the site. In addition, the structural
engineer must determine the dosage quantity of fiber to be added.
We also recommend that slabs -on -grade be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of open
graded aggregate to help prevent the capillary rise of subsurface moisture from adversely
affecting the slab. If open graded aggregate is not available, clean sand with less than 3
percent fines can be used provided the placement and compaction of the sand complies with
the above recommendations. If floor covering such as tile or carpet will be utilized for interior
finishes, a polyethylene vapor barrier may be used beneath the floor slab for moisture control
considerations.
5.5 Seismic Site Class Determination and Liguefaction Potential
The North Carolina Building Code (2009 Intemational Building Code with South Carolina
Amendments) requires that a seismic Site Class be assigned for new structures. The seismic
Site Class for the site was determined by calculating a weighted average of the shear
velocities of the overburden to the depth of rock/refusal. The CPT test data indicates that the
existing natural, overburden soils at the site have shear velocities ranging from approximately
763 ft/sec to 1,822 ft/sec. The method for determining the weighted average value is
presented in Section 1613.1.5 of the IBC 2009. The weighted average value for the site is
1,021 ft/sec. Based on the results of the CPT soundings and our evaluation of the site, the
site shall be assigned a seismic class °D".
Based on the iBC 2009, for a seismic site class ".6" at latitude 34.22080 and longitude -
77.8717', the SDS value is 0.300 and. the So, value is 0.153. The seismic design category
depends on the design use of the building and should be determined by the structural
engineer.
The potential for liquefaction at the site is considered low based upon the CPT results and the
liquefaction index procedure developed by Iwasaki (1982). Based on our CPT results and our
evaluation using a site peak ground acceleration of 0.12g, an earthquake event with a
magnitude of 7.3 and procedures developed by Robertson (2010) and Idriss & Boulanger
(2008), the liquefaction induced settlement at the subject site is estimated to be less than 1
inch.
9

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
5.6 Pavement Desion Considerations
For the design and construction of exterior pavements, the subgrades should be prepared in
strict accordance with the recommendations in the "Subgrade Preparation" and "Engineered
Fill Placement' sections of this report. An important consideration with the design and
construction of pavements is surface and subsurface drainage. Where standing water
develops, either on the pavement surface or within the base course layer, softening of the
subgrade and other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected.
Furthermore, good drainage should minimize the possibility of the subgrade materials
becoming saturated during the normal service period of the pavement.
The existing pavement section was observed to be approximately 3 inches of asphalt overlying
5 inches of ABC stone. Based on assumed traffic loads and the soil conditions encountered
during our exploration, the existing asphalt can be used as the light duty flexible .pavement
section with resurfacing to extend the life of the existing pavement. For a heavy duty, flexible
pavement section to support a traffic load of 5 axel trucks, garbage trucks, and occasional fire
trucks, we recommend milling 1.5 inches of the existing pavement and replacing with a 1.5
inch lift of SF9.5A bituminous pavement..
For new pavements, ECS recommends a light duty section of 2 inches of surface mix overlying
6 inches of ABC stone and 3 inches of ABC stone overlying 6 inches of ABC stone. For a rigid
pavement section, we recommend 5 inches of 4,000 compressive strength concrete.
The base materials should be compacted to at least 98 percent of their modified Proctor
(ASTM D 1557) maximum dry density.
Regardless of the section selected and type of construction utilized, saturation of the subgrade
materials and asphalt pavement areas results in a softening of the subgrade material and
shortened life span for the pavement. Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and
subsurface materials for the pavement be properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade
drainage. By quickly removing surface and subsurface water, softening of the subgrade. can
be reduced and the performance of the parking area can be improved. Site preparation for the
parking areas should be similar to that for the building area including stripping, proofrolling,
and the placement of compacted structural fill.
Please note that large, front -loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front -
wheel loads on pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of
bituminous pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. 'Consequently, we
recommend the use of an 8 inch thick, mesh reinforced concrete slab that extends the entire
length of the truck. Concrete pavements should be properly jointed and reinforced as needed
to help reduce the potential for cracking and to permit proper load transfer.
10

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington .
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
5.7 Site Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided around the perimeter of the structure to minimize the
potential for moisture infiltration into the foundation and slab subgrade soils. We recommend
that landscaped areas adjacent to the structure and pavements be sloped away from the
construction and maintain a fall of at least 6 inches for the first 10 feet outward from the
structure. Roof drains should discharge at least 5 feet from the building perimeter or directly
into below grade stormwater piping. The parking lots, sidewalks, and other paved areas
should also be sloped to divert surface water away from the proposed building.
The proper diversion of surface water during site grading and construction will help reduce the
potential for delays associated with periods of inclement weather. The proper diversion of
surface water is especially critical since portions of the site soils are expected to be moisture
sensitive. Based upon our past experience, the use of "crowning" large areas of exposed soils
should be useful to help divert surface water from the prepared subgrades.
5.8 Construction Considerations
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing elevation if the
foundation excavations remain exposed during periods of inclement weather. Therefore,
foundation concrete should be placed the same day that proper excavation is achieved and
the design bearing pressure verified. If the bearing soils area softened by surface water
absorption or exposure to the environment, the softened soils must be removed from the
foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation
must remain open overnight, or if inclement weather becomes imminent while the bearing soils
are exposed, we recommend that a 2 to 3 inch thick "mud -mat' of "lean" concrete be placed
over the exposed bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.
It is imperative to maintain good site drainage during earthwork operations to help maintain the
integrity of the surface soils. The surface of the site should be kept properly graded to
enhance drainage of surface water away from the proposed construction areas during the
earthwork phase of this project. We recommend that surface drainage be diverted away from
the proposed building and pavements areas without significantly interrupting its flow. Other
practices would involve crowning and sealing the exposed soils daily with a smooth -drum roller
at the end of the days work to reduce the potential for infiltration of surface water into the
exposed soiis.
The key to minimizing disturbance problems with the soils is to have proper control of the
earthwork operations. Specifically, it should be the earthwork contractor's responsibility to
maintain the site soils within a workable moisture content range to obtain the required in -place
density and maintain a stable subgrade. Scarifying and drying operations should be included
in the contractor's price and not be considered an extra to the contract. In addition,
construction equipment cannot be permitted to randomly run across the site, especially once
the desired final grades have been established. Construction equipment should be limited to
designated lanes and areas, especially during wet periods to minimize disturbance of the site
subgrades. It will likely be necessary to utilize tracked equipment during grading operations
particularly if the subgrade soils exhibit elevated moisture conditions.
11

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.23127
6.0 CLOSING
Our geotechnical analysis of the site has been based on our understanding of the site, the
project information provided to us, and the data obtained during our exploration. The general
subsurface conditions utilized in our analyses have been based on interpolation of subsurface
data between the soundings.. If the project information provided to us is changed, please
contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed and appropriate revisions provided,
if necessary. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during construction which
deviate from the data outlined in this exploration should be reported to us for our review,
analysis and revision of our recommendations, if necessary. The assessment of site
environmental conditions for the presence of pollutants in the soil and groundwater of the site
is beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration.
12

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

GROUND
wo
DENOTES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF CPT DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF HAND AUGER BORING WITH
SOUNDING INFILTRATION TEST
ENGINEER DRAFTING
WEG FMW
EXPLORATION The Hub at UNCW SCALE NTS 1. FIGURE 1
PROJECT
LOCATION DIAGRAM NO 22.23127
Wilmington, North Carolina DATE 8./ . 14/2015
Z ' . I. -I

APPENDDC B
CPT BOUNDING LOGS

REFERENCE NOTES FOR CONE PENETRATION
TEST (CPT) SOUNDINGS
In the CPT sounding procedure (ASTM-D-5778), an electronically instrumented cone penetrometer
is hydraulically advanced through soil to measure point resistance (qc), pore water pressure (u2),
and sleeve friction (fs). These values are recorded continuously as the cone is pushed to the
desired depth. CPT data is corrected for depth and used to estimate soil classifications and
intrinsic soil parameters such as angle of internal friction, preconsoiidation pressure, and undrained
shear strength. The graphs below represent one of the accepted methods of CPT soil behavior
classification (Robertson, 1990).
1
6
Friction Ratio, F, (%)
1. Sensitive, Fine Grained
2.Organic Soils-Peats
3. Clays; Clay to Silty Clay
4. Clayey Silt to Silty Clay
5. Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
s
0
c
c�
MA N
a)
m
c
0
L
Pore Pressure Ratio, Bq
6. Clean Sands to Silty Sands
7. Gravelly Sand to Sand
8. VeryStiff Sand to Clayey Sand
9. Very Stiff Fine Grained
The following table presents a correlation of corrected cone tip resistance (q,:) to soil consistency
or relative density:
SAND
SILT/CLAY
Corrected Cone Tip
Resistance is
Relative Density
Corrected Cone Tip
Resistance is
Relative Density
<20.
Very Loose
<5
Very Soft
20-40
Loose
5-10
Soft
40-120
Medium Dense
10-15
Medium. Stiff
15-30
Stiff
120-200
Dense
30-45
Very Stiff
>200
Very Dense
45-60
Hard
>60
Very Hard

Ln
IL
E
J C
9
0�
c
}Z�
Z C
W. ko
IE 3
d
s
m=mm.
w
w
w
o
w c w
A7
ca
H1
c0
low c0. m ca
C
sC
co
U)
Co
U) co
(A U fA co
i
TT
N� .D W O N T to W O N T to W O N
d' .o W O N T to W
O N V to W O N V
�o W O N eh
eel eel rl - ti N N-N - N N M M
(:U) i.zda(3
Cl
o—
W&
IA
0 3
.o O
m
o ..
a %D
O L
N d
v In In In in In m In tp 10 10
1O to 10 1l f\
(4}) µgdad
m
O
w
c
u �
> u
u v " LL
0
.O m O N .o a0 P N 7 io m P N 7 .o m P N ep tp m O N .O m O N
1-1 14 .i N N N N N m M m m m v 7 v v 7 0 IA n In In .o 0 to 10 10 1l 11
(:g) 43daa
N� .0 m G N a4 tG m C N u^t6 m G N� t� m G N �P m m G N� .A m G N �' t� m G N a►
M m m? 7 7 v v m N In 1n in %o %o %o .o .o r� 1`
(4) 44dac
Fa
=
m
pG
A
e
y N
N ~
i
G Ln
Nr4
?U `j
%0 90
r^'1
yE
UiL

O
In
0
x
N
C
IL
J Vl
W m Z
Cj
E
e
`j
e
t
�*mm m m m
m mm m m m
C -3 T co T Qi
�_ r
2 mm m m m
W UJW fn co
(3j) Lpdaa
— N
C
O O
H t
co N
a
�0
0
03 It
to
O �
D4lcJ ^
.� I f
N M v- Ln t0 I*- O O+ O +a N M Ig H N M u1
(:{) y;daa
M •f �n �o n eo o+ o -+ N M •}' �n u+ !+ aD o� o .+ N M 7
(:4) y;dad
.� N
M
?
In
l0
NCO
ma
W
N
M
v
1n
b
r
m
O
O
r1
N
M
lr
in
H
'i
ei
ei
ei
rl
ei
�-I
,
—1
N
N
N
N
N
N
(4) Lpdaa
EL
o?
IN
co
.a
N
co
u4
.•I
N
N
C
0
m
u
u
t
0
0.
a
C
JS
d
B 'K
a7S
N
N
H
U fj
I� g
>
ue

Tq
rb
c
SSgS NS SSpSmp8ry8'S
$�Sj
pSp SSB�S�pp pgBgS�Sp
pSpSS$�pp
(Smp p8p
G �
m p
Ln
a,
M
�
1
�
8m
YO'!
n
S
O
10
10
.x�
N
J
�
c
L
Q
^
_'
a
e
j
pm
o
I
L �
_
d
y
Q
O
O
o
N
M
C
8
fo7
N
8
N
"
E
E E,
,E
.. Lq.
$
Mri
E
m
v.
!
2
�9
*
0
p1
M
M
Y5.
L
M
N O'
O W_
�-1
rl
~
m
~
0 0
-
S^
S
g g g g g g g
gp
S
gp g S
gp
V' iD fD C N? 4 m- O N
rl rl N rl rl N
N
._
p pp
N N M M t M M 7 7
mg
? LR L-n m
pg-
�$p p
A N
(39) ygdeU
O.
M
M
0

n
18Lri
n M
[9 n 10cz
co
14
X
1fn
co
tm
IT
C n
N ryry p O
Vf %D. IMmo' m f0 N N �pGp m
I Q
(ij) pdaa
� S
S
n N
ryM •i
N rl
aS m
w , n
u,
V M_
� n
N
O
rl
'1
(:u) 4pdaa
Ln
LM
OD
14
`
K
' = I
M.,
T
0
Ll
a
E�
8s8888
Ss88888888ss8gpsssppspos
asa�pp
ss
1
7 �O
OD r01 rNi .�i .�-I m N
N N N
N M m
M M m
T 7
7 7
N N
mspgsys�ssp
Vf G
V' m
W) 44daa
N

APPENDIX C
INFI TRA:rION TESTING FORM

Infiltration Testing Form
The Hub at UNC Wilmington
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 22.23127
August 13, 2015
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
B-1 0-16" SM Gray/tan silty SAND (fill)
16"-30" - Coal from former fires (fill)
30"-40" SP Tan/orange fine SAND w/ clay lens
40"-70" SP White/tan fine SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 48 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 36 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 8.32 inch per hour
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
B-2 0-6" SM Dark brown silty SAND
6"-24" SP Brown/gray fine to coarse SAND
24"-60" SP Gray/tan/orange fine SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 42 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Test was conducted at 24 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 12.85 inch per hour

APPENDDC D
GENERAL CONDITIONS

General Conditions
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations .submitted in this report are based on the
exploration previously outlined and. the data collected at the points shown on the attached
location plan. This report does not reflect specific variations that may occur between test
locations. The soundings were located where site conditions permitted and where it is
believed representative conditions occur, but the full nature and extent of variations between
soundings and of subsurface conditions not encountered by any sounding may not become
evident until the course of construction. If variations become evident at any time before or
during the course of construction, it will be necessary to make a re-evaluation of the
conclusions and recommendations of this report and further exploration, observation, and/or
testing may be required.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices and makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as to the
professional advice under the terms of -our agreement and included in this report. The
recommendations contained herein are made with the understanding that the contract
documents between the owner and foundation or earthwork contractor or between the owner
and the general contractor and the foundation, excavating and earthwork subcontractors, if
any, shall require that the contractor certify that work in connection with foundations,
compacted fills and other elements of the foundation or other support components are in place
at the locations, with proper dimensions and plumb, as shown on the plans and specifications
for the project.
Further, it is understood the contract documents will specify that the contractor will, upon
becoming aware of apparent or latent subsurface conditions differing from those disclosed by
the original soil exploration. work, promptly notify the owner, both verbally to permit immediate
verification of the change, and in writing, as to the nature and extent of the differing conditions
and that no claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the
plans and .specifications and disclosed by the soil exploration will be allowed under the
contract unless the contractor has so notified the owner both verbally and in writing, as
required above, of such changed conditions. The owner will, in turn, promptly notify this firm of
the existence of such unanticipated conditions and will authorize such further exploration as
may be required to properly evaluate these conditions.
Further, it is understood that any specific recommendations made in this report as to on -site
construction review by this firm will he authorized and funds and facilities for such review will
be provided at the times recommended if we are to be held responsible for the design
recommendations.

(� Geolechnical Engineeping Report ---)
` ootecnrical.Services Are Performed for
Specific Popp see, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer
may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil
engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geo-
technical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not
even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated.
Read fire FBI Repo`
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A 6eotedmical Engineerks Report Is Based
A Unique Set of Pr-1-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific factors
when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's
goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the
structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure
on the site; and other planned or cxisting site improvements, such as access
roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engi-
neer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on
a geotechnical engineering report that was:
not prepared for you,
not prepared for your project,
not prepared for the specific site explored, or
completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from alight industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
composition of the design team, or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they
were not informed.
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the
time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering
report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natu-
ral events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always
contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it
is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Wiest wooWO".4cal Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers
review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment
to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
subsurface conditions may differ sometimes significantly from those indi-
cated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your
report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of
managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Report's BBC HH1 endaflons Are Aire° '; ?.
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re-
port. Those recommendations are notfinal, because geotechnical engineers
develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers
can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engi-
neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction
observation.
A 600tecbnb:al Englueerblig Report be Subject to
M1 ,11 l' jN'statilm
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer-
ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your
geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review
pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors
can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Net Redrew the Engineert Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report a W
Gumance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's
accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct ad-
ditional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer.
A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient
timeto perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give
contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at
least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unantici-
pated conditions.
IYYt� � .espons mty Previsions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.
This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led
to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such
outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these
provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin
and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
6eoeuv1ponmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re-
late any geoenviron mental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g.,
about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated
contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous
project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental in-
formation, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.
Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
DbM PPolessionild Aspistance To Deal with Mobl
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, op-
eration, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from grow-
ing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised
for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive
plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention
consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to
the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention
strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa-
ter infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the
geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report,
the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention
consultant; fim of the sermilm parhbmW In cav&,ft snit
themmoch cale~11 ftower CMAMW
far the prptse st MH pfflV001K Paper &AWMN000 of
the r9mgmWaffm eaaweyad if this sport WN of of RUN
he xMkW to pmvM maid hie grenft ha or are the sm-
Wllneer For Additional f��a.w....o4
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi-
neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine
benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your
ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
AmISFE
TO@ Best Plspls on Esr'th
n'! 1 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:' 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-20V
e-mail: [e-mail] www.aste.org
Copyright 2004 byASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFa specific
written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes
of scholarly research or book review. Only members ofASFEmay use this document as a complement to or as an element of geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm,
individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M

STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT FACILITY
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
THE HUB
TIP-15000

THE HUB WATER QUALITY VOLUME CALCULATIONS C.GEORGE, PE, PLS
TIP-15000 Permeable Pavement 1/27/2016
—> Watersfred Charaeterrsties
Input data:
Site Soils =
Be
(Baymeade)
Hydrologic Soil Group =
A
Built Upon Area (BUA) Credit =
75%
pervious
=
25%
impervious
Surface Area of Proposed Pavers, Ap
8,518
sf
BUA Associated with Proposed Pavers =
2,130
sf
Proposed BUA to Infiltration System
8,494
sf
Subtotal of non -paver BUA, Aa =
8,494
sf
Ratio of BUA to Permeable Paver Area =
0.997
==> Determination of Water Quality Volume front 1-5-inch Rainfall
Depth for Post -development Condwon
WQ r = (P')(R v)(A)112
where,
WQv = water quality volume (in
acre-ft)
Rv = 0.05+0.009(l) where I is percent impervious cover
A = area in acres
P = rainfall (in inches)
Input data:
Total Area, A
0.40 acres
=
17,250 sf
Impervious Area =
0.24 acres
=
10,624 sf
Percent Impervious Cover, I =
61.6 %
Rainfall, P =
1.5 inches
Calculated values:
Rv = 0.60
WQv = 0.03 acre-ft
= 1,303 cf.

THE HUB WATER QUALITY VOLUME CALCULATIONS
TIP-15000 Permeable Pavement
C.GEORGE, PE, PLS
1/27/2016
_> Calculation of the Aggregate Depth for the Water Quality &or-
D g = (P*(1+R))/n
where,
D,,, = Depth of aggregate needed to treat the water quality storm (inches)
P = Rainfall for the water quality storm (inches)
R = Aa / Ap = the rartio of the additional BUA to the permeable pavement area (between 0 and 1)
n = Percent void, unitless decimal (from ASTM C29)
Input data
Calculated values.
P =
varies inches
Aa =
8,494 sf
0.2 acres
Ap =
8,518 sf
0.20 acres
n =
0.4
R=
1.00
Design Storm
P [inches]
D inches]
Water Quality
1.50
4
1-Year
3.88
19.4
2-Year
4.70
23.5
5-Year
6.09
30.4
10-Year
7.31
36.5
25-Year
9.18
1 45.8
50-Year
10.90
54.4
100-Year
12.80
63.9
Minimum Aggregate Depth Provided = 7.50 inches
Maximum Aggregate Depth Provided = 24.02 inches*
*Large difference shown is due to slope differences between the surface (2.5%) and subgrade (0-0.25%)

THE HUB WATER QUALITY VOLUME CALCULATIONS C_GEORGE, PE, PLS
TIP-15000 Permeable Pavement 1/27/2016
Calculation of the Ponding Time
T=[P*(I+R)J/[24*SF*il
where,
T = pondin8 time (days)
P = Depth of design storm (inches)
R = As / Ap = the rartio of the additional BUA to the permeable pavement area (between 0 and 1)
SF = Safety Factor (0.2)
i = Measured in -situ soil infiltration rate (fi /hr)
Input data:
P =
varies
inches
Aa =
8,494
sf
=
0.19
acres
Ap =
8,518
sf
=
0.20
acres
SF, Safety Factor=
0.2
i —
8.32
in/hr
Calculated values.
R=
1.00
Design Storm
P [inches]
T [days)
Water Quality
1.50
0.08
1-Year
3.88
0.19
2-Year
4.70
0.24
5-Year
6.09
0.30
10-Year
7.31
0.37
25-Year
9.18
0.46
50-Year
10.90
0.55
100-Year
12.80
0.64

THE HUB WATER QUALITY VOLUME CALCULATIONS C.GEORGE, PE, PLS
TIP-15000 Permeable Pavement 1/27/2016
Determination oflnfr[trahon Rate
A=WQVI(2xkxt)
where,
A= infiltration area
WQV= water quality volume (d)
k = hydraulic conductivity of infiltration basin soil (in/hr)
t = dewatering time (days)
Input data.
Calculated values.
WQV=
1,303 cf
t =
5.00 days
Area of Pavers =
8,518 sf
Void Ratio =
40%
Ay = 3,407 sf (infiltration area provided)
k = 0.04 in/hr (Min. infiltration rate required)
k = 8.32 in/hr
Drawdown, t = 0.02 days (acutal drawdown expected)

THE HUB
TIP-15000
_> Subgrade Stage Storage
Stone Voids
Elevation
41.85
41.90
42.00
42.25
42.50
42.75
43.00
43.25
Stage
0
0.05
0.15
0.4
0.65
0.9
1.15
1.4
STAGE STORAGE CALCULATIONS
40.00%
Surface
Volume [cf]
0.00
208.14
748.45
3,146.04
5,543.63
7,941.21
10,338.80
12,736.39
C.GEORGE, PE, PLS
1/27/2016
Pipe Storage Stone Volume Adjusted Stone Total Storage
[cf]
[cfj
Vol. (cf]
Vol. [cf1
0.00
0
0
0
2.00
206
82
84
11.00
737
295
306
50.00
3,096
1,238
1,288
64.00
5,480
2,192
2,256
64.00
7,877
3,151
3,215
64.00
10,275
4,110
4,174
64.00
12,672
5,069
5,133

THE HUB
TIP-15000
STORAGE CALCULATIONS C.GEORGE, PE, PLS
Pipe Storage 1/27/2016
= rge-5rvrage for Undcrdrarn System
Elevation
41.85 Pi Storage
Pipe #1 Storage
Pipe #2 Story a
Pipe #3 Storage
42.00 Pi a Storage
Total Storage
feet
[cf]
[acre-feet]
[cf]
[acre-feet]
[cf]
I [acre-feet]
[cf]
[acre-feet]
[c1]
[acre-feet]
14
[acre-feet]
41.85
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
41.90
2
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0 _
_ 0.0000
2
0.0000
41.95
6
0.0001
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
6
0.0001
42.00
10
0.0002
1
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
0
0.0000
11
0.0003
42.05
15
0.0003
2
0.0000
1
0.0000
1
0.0000
2
0,0000
1 19
0.0004
42.10
21
0.0005
4
0.0001
1
0.0000
2
1 0.0000
5
0.0001
28
0.0006
42.15
26
0.0006
5
0.0001
1
0.0000
3
0.0001
9
0,0002
35
0.0008
42.20
31
0.0007
7
0.0002
2
0.0000
4
0.0001
13
0.0003
44
0.0010
42.25
35
0.0008
8
0.0002
2
0.0000
5
0.0001
18
0.0004
50
0.0011
42.30
39
0.0009
9
0.0002
3
0.0001
6
0.0001
22
0.0005
57
0.0013
42.35
41
0.0009
11
0.0003
3
0.0001
7
0.0002
27
0.0006
62
0.0014
42.40
41
0.0009
11
0.0003
3
1 0.0001
7
0.0002
31
0.0007
1 62
0.0014
42.45
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
34
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.50
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.55
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.60
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.65
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.70
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.75
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.80
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.85
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.90
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
42.95
1 41
0.0009 1
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.00
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
1 0.0015
43.05
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.10
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
1 8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.15
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.20
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.000i
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.25
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.30
41
0.0009 1
12
0.0003
3
1 0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008 1
64
0.0015
43.35
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.40
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.45
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.50
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.55
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.60
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
1 0.0001
8
0.0002
1 36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.65
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008 1
64
0.0015
43.70
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
s' 43.75
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
3.80
13.85
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.90
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
43.95
41
0.0009
12
0.0003
3 1
0.0001
8
0.0002
36
0.0008
64
0.0015
44.00 1
41
0.0009 '
12 1
0.0003
3
0.0001
8
0.0002
36 1
0.0008
64
0.0015

TY McADAMS
! Subsection: Master Network Summary
Catchments Summary
Label Scenario
The Nub
Return Hydrograph Time to Peak Peak Flow
Event Volume (min) (ft3/O
(years) (ft3)
DA #1
Post- WQv Storm
1
1,309.000
726.000
0.349725
DA #1
Post- 10 Year 24
10
10,836.000
721,000
3.723231
hour
Node Summary
Label Scenario Return Hydrograph Time to Peak Peak Flow
Event Volume (min) (ft3/S)
(years) (ft3)
0-1
Post- WQv Storm
1
1,310.000
701.000
0.082030
0-1
Post- 10 Year 24
10
9,685.000
1
726.000
2.322560
hour
Pond Summary
Label Scenario Return Hydrograph Time to Peak Peak Flow Maximum Maximum
Event Volume (min) (ft3/S) Water Pond Storage
(years) (ft3) Surface (ft3)
Elevation
(ft)
Permeable
Post- WQv
1
1,309.000
726.000
0.349725
(N/A)
(N/A)
Pavers (IN)
Storm
Permeable
Post- WQv
Pavers
Storm
1
1,310.000
701.000
0.082030
42.00
312.000
(OUT)
Permeable
Post- 10 Year
10
10,836.000
721.000
3.723231
(N/A)
(N/A)
Pavers (IN)
24 hour
Permeable
Pavers
Post- 10 Year
10
9,685.000
726.000
2.322560
42.67
2,920.000
(OUT)
24 hour
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1 /27/2016

III
IMcADAMS
The Hub
Subsection: Elevation vs. Volume Curve
Label: Permeable Pavers
Elevation -Volume
Pond Elevation
(ft)
Return Event: 10 years
Storm Event: 10 Year 24 Hour
Pond Volume
(ft3)
41.85
0.000
41.90
84.000
42.00
306.000
42.25
1,288.000
42.50
2,256.000
42.75
3,215.000
43.00
4,174.000
43.25
5,133.000
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1 /27/2016

Mll MCADAMS
The Hub
Subsection: Outlet Input Data
Label: Paver Outlet
Return Event: 10 years
Storm Event: 10 Year 24 Hour
Requested Pond Water Surface Eievations
Minimum (Headwater) 41.85 ft
Increment (Headwater) 0.05 ft
Maximum (Headwater) 43.25 ft
Outlet Connectivity
Structure Type Outlet ID Direction Outfall El E2
(ft) (ft)
User Defined
Min.
Forward
TW
0.00
43.25
Table
Infiltration
Orifice -Area
10 Yr
Overflow
Forward
TW
42.48
43.25
Oriflce-Area
Elbow
Forward
TW
42.48
43.25
Turnup
Tailwater Settings
Tailwater
I (N/A)
(N/A)
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1/27/2016

U McADAMS
The Nub
Subsection: Outlet Input Data
Label: Paver Outlet
Return Event: 10 years
Storm Event: 10 Year 24 Hour
Structure ID: ElbowTumup
Structure Type: Orifice -Area
Number of Openings
1
Elevation
42.48 It
Orifice Area
0.785 ft2
Top Elevation
0.00 ft
Datum Elevation
0.00 ft
Orifice Coefficient
0,600
Structure ID: 10 Yr Overflow
Structure Type: Orifice -Area
Number of Openings
1
Elevation
42.48 ft
Orifice Area
0.500 ftz
Top Elevation
42.93 ft
Datum Elevation
42.61 It
Orfcce Coefficient
0.600
Structure ID: Min. Infiltration
Structure Type: User Defined Table
Elevation
Flow
(ft)
(ft3/s)
41.85
0.082030
42.50
0.082030
43.25
0.082030
Structure ID: TW
Structure Type: TW Setup, DS Channel
Tailwater Type Free Outfall
Convergence Tolerances
Maximum Iterations
30
Tailwater Tolerance
0.01 ft
(Minimum)
Tailwater Tolerance
0.50 It
(Maximum)
Headwater Tolerance
(Minimum)
0.01 It
Headwater Tolerance
0.50 It
(Maximum)
Flow Tolerance (Minimum)
0.001 ft3/s
Flow Tolerance (Maximum)
10.000 ft3/s
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1/27/2016

M McADAMS
The Hub
Subsection: Composite Rating Curve
Label: Paver Outlet
Composite Outflow Summary
Return Event: 10 years
Storm Event: 10 Year 24 Hour
Water Surface Flow Tailwater Elevation Convergence Error Contributing Structures
Elevation (ft3/s) (ft) (ft)
(ft)
41.85
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
41.90
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
41.95
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.00
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.05
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.10
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.15
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.20
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.25
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.30
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.35
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.40
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.45
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration
42.48
0.082030
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.50
0.676856
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.55
1.293418
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.60
1.753869
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
2.15411._
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
0
2.519717
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.75
2.862055
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.80
3.187378
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.85
3.499555
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.90
3.801179
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
42.95
4.075482
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
43.00
4.309420
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
43.05
4.530834
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow
Elbow Turnup
43.10
4.741573
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
43.15
4.943066
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
43.20
5.136445
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
43.25
5.322627
(N/A)
0.00
Min. Infiltration + 10 Yr Overflow +
Elbow Turnup
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1/27/2016

11
MCADAMS
The Nub
Subsection: Level Pool Pond Routing Summary Return Event: 1 years
Label: Permeable Pavers (IN) Storm Event: WQv
Infiltration
Infiltration Method
No Infiltration
(Computed)
initial Conditions
Elevation (Water Surface,
41.85 ft
Initial)
Volume (Initial)
0.000 ft3
Flow (Initial Outlet)
0.082030 ft3/s
Flow (Initial Infiltration)
0.000000 ft3/S
Flow (Initial, Total)
0.082030 ft3/S
Time Increment
1.000 min
Inflow/Outflow Hydrograph Summary
Flow (Peak In)
0.349725 ft3/S Time to Peak (Flow, In) 726.000 min
Flow (Peak Outlet)
0.082030 ft3/s Time to Peak (Flow, Outlet) 701.000 min
Elevation (Water Surface,
42.00 ft
Peak)
Volume (Peak)
312.463 ft3
Mass Balance (ft3)
Volume (Initial)
0.000 ft3
Volume (Total Inflow)
1,309.000 ft3
Volume (Total Infiltration)
0.000 ft3
Volume (Total Outlet
1,310.000 ft3
Outflow)
Volume (Retained)
0.000 ft3
Volume (Unrouted)
1.000 ft3
Error (Mass Balance)
0.1 %
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1 /2712016

F6 MCADAMS
'f
The Hub
Subsection: Level Pool Pond Routing Summary
Label: Permeable Pavers (IN)
Infiltration
Infiltration Method No Infiltration
(Computed)
Initial Conditions
Elevation (Water Surface,
41.85 ft
Initial)
Volume (Initial)
0.000 ft3
Flow (Initial Outlet)
0.082030 ft3/s
Flow (Initial Infiltration)
0.000000 ft3/s
Flow (Initial, Total)
0.082030 ft3/s
Time Increment
1.000 min
Inflow/Outflow Hydrograph Summary
Return Event: 10 years
Storm Event: 10 Year 24 Hour
Flow (Peak In) 3.723231 ft3/s Time to Peak (Flow, In) 721.000 min
Flow (Peak Outlet) 2.322560 ft3/s Time to Peak (Flow, Outlet) 726.000 min
Elevation (Water Surface,
42.67 ft
Peak)
Volume (Peak)
2,919.768 ft3
Mass Balance (ft3)
Volume (Initial)
0.000 ft3
Volume (Total Inflow)
10,836.000 ft3
Volume (Total Infiltration)
0.000 ft3
Volume (Total Outlet
9,685.000 ft3
Outflow)
Volume (Retained)
1,147.000 ft3
Volume (Unrouted)
-4.000 ft3
Error (Mass Balance)
0.0 %
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1 /27/2016

IUllcADAMS
Scenario: Post- WQv Storm
0
The Hub C.George, PE, PLS
1/27/2016

P&WK
W DICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
June 7, 2004
Ms. Linda Lewis
NCDENR
Division of Water Control
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
RE: UNCW Surface Parking Lots L and O
WKD Project Number 20102.51/.71.WL
Dear Ms. Lewis:
JU
N
Enclosed are the Designer's Certifications and the Certification checklists for the referenced projects as
required at closeout. Should you require additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely,
W. K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
A", 4 �
Mark N. Hargro e, P.E.
/pb
Enclosures
cc: Jim Pue-Gilchrist
909 Market Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com
North Carolina • South Carolina • Georgia . Florida