SW5231201_Stormwater Report_20240410

P4 Architecture
Engineering
Environmental
.Ami Land Surveying
Companies
Stormwater Management, Storm Drain and Report
For the Proposed:
Mavis Tire Store
Louisburg, NC
Located at:
Highway 56
Louisburg, NC
Prepared for Submission to:
City of Louisburg, NC
May 23, 2023
Revised: April 02, 2024
Prepared for:
Mavis Tire, LLC
200 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 350
Valhalla, NY 10595
Prepared by:
BL Companies
3420 Torringdon Way, Suite 210
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277 ,. N'�ARo,.,,,
o�::FEss1°°...•
Phone: [phone]
♦ a SEAL ra
Fax: [phone] e 46762 e�`
;°F:tG,NE
Firm NC License No. C-4082
BL Project Number: 2202013
Prepared by: Andy Mueller, P.E.
Reviewed by: Jessica Bates

Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
Existing Site Conditions and Hydrologic Conditions 3
Developed Site Conditions and Hydrologic Conditions 4
Hydrologic Modeling Standards 5
Summary 5
Appendix A: Maps
• NRCS Soils Survey Map
• FEMA Flood Map
• USGS Location Map
• Site Map
Appendix B: SWM Computations
• Pre Development TR-55 Hydrology
• Post Development TR-55 Hydrology
• Stage Storage Tabulation
• Water Quality Computation
• Water Quality Draw Down Sizing
• Hydraflow Modeling(1", 1-year- and 10 year Storm)
• Rip Rap Outlet Sizing
Appendix D: Storm Drain Computations
Appendix E: Erosion and Sediment Control Calculations
• Sediment Basin Calculations
Appendix F: ECS Southeast,LLP Geotechnical Engineering Report
1

Executive Summary
This report has been prepared in support of a Major Site Plan Permit Application by Mavis Tire,
LLC in Fayetteville for a proposed 6,765 sf automobile service building on Highway 56 within
the City of Louisburg, NC. The property is approximately 2.72 acres in size is currently vacant
with a mix of open meadow and moderately dense woods. The property is located on Highway
56 approximately 900 feet west of Louisburg Rd (US Highway 401). Mavis Tire will occupy
0.99 acres of the size while the balance of the site will remain under separate ownership and be
developed at a later date. A stormwater management facility will be designed to treat the future
development in addition to the mavis Tire. The site is currently zoned Highway Business (B-2).
The disturbed area for the site is approximately 1.70 acres.
In general, the existing topography is moderately sloped, sloping from the west to the east across
the site. Elevations vary from 300 to 321. The site currently has no impervious area.
The proposed site improvements will include of a 6,765 sf auto service store and associated
parking stormwater basin and site improvements.
The proposed stormwater management system is designed to be in compliance with the Franklin
County Stormwater Management Ordinance and the NCDEQ Stormwater Management Manual.
The ordinance requires the treatment of the 1st inch of runoff(WQv), and the attenuation of the
1-year. In additional nutrient removal of 4 lbs/year of Total Nitrogen and 0.40 lbs/year Total
Phosphorus.
A HydraFlow model, using TR-55 and SCS methodology, was developed to evaluate the existing
and proposed drainage conditions of the property. The results of the analysis demonstrate that
there will not be an increase in peak stormwater runoff rates for the 1-year 24-hour storm event.
The proposed stormwater management system has been designed to address stormwater quality
while ensuring there will not be increased flows generated by the proposed development. The
BMP has been sized per the North Carolina SWM Manual. Stormwater quantity is being
addressed by a sand filter within the site at the northeast corner of the site which will outfall to
the property line.
Erosion and Sediment control for the site will follow the North Carolina Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control manual.
2

Existing Site Conditions and Hydrologic Conditions
General Site Information
The site soil identified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) primarily has a soil rating within the project area of
Group B. Within the disturbed area the following soils are present: Wedowee Sandy Loam (HSG
B) and Wedowee-Urban Land Udorthennts Complex (HSG B). A copy of the USDA NRCS
Hydrologic Soil Group Map is included in Appendix A for reference. No groundwater was
encountered during geotechnical testing of the site.
Per the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Number 3720280500K for Franklin County, North
Carolina, map revised date: April 16, 2013, the site resides in FEMA Flood Hazard Area X
(unshaded). This is defined as "areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain". Zone X may have ponding and local drainage problems that don't warrant a detailed
study or designation as base floodplain. A copy of the FEMA Flood insurance rate Map is
included in Appendix A for reference.
Existing Hydrologic Conditions
The existing site drainage area that was analyzed totals 2.72 acres and vacant.
The following is a brief analysis of the existing design points as shown on the Existing Drainage
Mapping (ED-1)Map.
Existing Drainage Area 10 (EDA-10): This drainage area consists of the entirety of the site and
currently drains to the northeast corner of the site. This portion of the site is mostly vacant and
grassed.
Existing Drainage Area 11 (EDA-11): This drainage area consists of the northern portion of the
adjacent Domino's parking lot. The lot drains through a curb cut at the northeast corner and
runoff flows across the north boundary of the Mavis property to discharge at the northeast corner
of the site.
Existing Drainage Area 12 (EDA-12): This drainage area consists of the southern portion of the
adjacent Domino's parking lot. The lot drains across the front of the Mavis property to an
existing inlet that discharges to the northeast corner of the site..
3

Table 1 —Pre-Development (Existing Conditions) Drainage Characteristics.
Drainage Area Area Composite Impervious Time of
(ac.) C Number Cover (%) Concentration
(minutes)
EDA-10 (Area to Design Point#1) 2.72 59 0% 11.80
EDA-11 (Bypass Area) 0.30 98 100% 10
EDA-12 (Bypass Area) 0.66 83 60% 5
Table 2—Pre-Development Conditions Peak Flows (cfs)
Analysis Point 24-hr SCS
1-yr 10-yr
Design Point 1 (SWM-1) 2.75 cfs 9.28 cfs
Developed Site Conditions and Hydrologic Conditions
The proposed site drainage area totals 2.72 acres and is approximately 49% impervious. This
takes into account the proposed Mavis Tire Store and an assumed 60% built upon area on the
remainder of the lot. The proposed site drainage is to match existing drainage patterns to the
maximum extent practicable. The site stormwater system will provide quality improvements
through the installation of a dry extended detention pond and sediment forebay. The pond will
provide water quality treatment and attenuation of the 1- year storms. The Pond has been sized
per the criteria set forth by the Franklin County SWM Ordinance and the current design
requirements of North Carolina Stormwater Management Manual to attenuate the 1- and 10-year
24-hour storms and treat the first 1" of runoff by releasing the 1" storm volume over a 48-120
hour period. In addition as this site is in the Tar-Pimlico Rover Basin the site is required to
reduce the nutrient loading for Nitrogen and Phosphorus to below 41bs and 0.41bs respectively. If
the proposed SWM facility cannot reach those requirements additional loading may be purchased
from an accredited North Carolina Nutrient credit bank. These measures will treat the stormwater
quality flow through structural means to provide water quality treatment in conformance with the
North Carolina Stormwater Management Manual. For the hydrologic analysis, the developed site
retained the same Design Points as the existing model. The following drainage areas were
developed to model the proposed site improvements.
Proposed Drainage Area 10 (PDA-10): PDA-10 includes entirety of the disturbed portion of
the site and drains to the proposed SWM-1 BMP in the northeast corner of the site. This area is
proposed to be developed with a 6,765 sf auto service shop and associated parking. The drainage
area is approximately 49% impervious.
4

Proposed Drainage Area 11 (PDA-11): This drainage area consists of the western portion of
the mavis property and discharges to the northeast corner of the site.
Proposed Drainage Area 12 (PDA-12): This drainage area consists of the northern portion of
the adjacent Domino's parking lot. The lot drains through a curb cut at the northeast corner and
runoff flows across the north boundary of the Mavis property to discharge at the northeast corner
of the site.
Proposed Drainage Area 13 (PDA-13): This drainage area consists of the southern portion of
the adjacent Domino's parking lot. The lot drains across the front of the Mavis property to an a
culvert under the proposed driveway discharging near the west property line and running to the
north east corner of the site.
Table 3—Post Development Drainage Characteristics.
Drainage Area Area Composite Impervious Time of
(ac.) C Number Cover (%) Concentration
(minutes)
PDA-10 (Area to SWM- 1) 2.72 70 52% 5
PDA-11 (Bypass Area) 0.64 61 0% 15.1
PDA-12 (Bypass Area) 0.30 98 100% 10
PDA-13 (Bypass Area) 0.66 83 60% 10
Table 4—Post-Development Conditions Peak Flows (24-Hour)
Analysis Point 24-hr SCS
1-yr 10-yr
Design Point 1 (SWM-1) 4.79 cfs 11.33 cfs
Table 5—Extended Detention Pond #1 Summary
1-yr 10-yr
Design Point 1 (SWM Pond)
Existing 2.75 cfs 9.28 cfs
Proposed(Routed) 0.02 cfs 1.39 cfs
Water Surface Elevation(ft) 305.95 306.85
Water Quality Elevation(ft) 304.00
Pond Bottom(ft) 303.00
Pond Top of Dam (ft) 308.00
5

Hydrologic Modeling Standards
The hydrologic analysis was performed to determine the stormwater discharge rates from a 1-yr
and 10-yr 24 hour storm events. The analysis was performed using the Hydraflow stormwater
modeling system computer program, version 2018 developed by Autodesk. Hydrographs for
each watershed were developed using the TR-55 and SCS Methodology. Rainfall depths and
distribution per the City of Fayetteville Stormwater Ordinance were used for the calculation of
peak flow rates and are listed in Appendix B. Pre-development and Post-development Hydraflow
output can be found in Appendix B.
6

Summary
All post-development stormwater will be discharged offsite in ways which mimic the existing
drainage patterns. The post-development peak discharge rate for the 1-yr and 10-yr 24 hour
storm is reduced to rates that are below the existing run off from the site.
The sand filter with sediment forebay has been designed to treat the 1"water quality storm. In
addition nutrient loading calculations were completed to determine how much nitrogen and
phosphorus the SWM design would be removed from the run off The single sand filter will not
meet the required reduction and additional credits will be purchased from an approved North
Carolina nutrient credit bank. The proposed stormwater management system will meet the
stormwater quality requirements of the North Carolina Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance.
7

APPENDIX A
MAPS
8

3/15/23,9:58 AM Google Maps
Go gle Maps
a
sa 9Mt Hebron United Hol ,4
yg4,, •
I
url e�
(rai�LoulsbrnggikrAei� iris�
Oeb`^s-Brke-i '.
e� " Toney
3I SITE
® 7
4 N.6
t^9.B,k,trar
WM
`O "'h.-Tr.;L�b,eb ,I''''se
v--------
Joh'nlys Baroecue ©Dr minos•1 0,00. x� Bobbees Bottling
B3ro>_ue PI.
•® a Delivery•S • c —Lvul
g 9TimeOut Barbershop
ho
Murphy Express e9
® LouQiisburg Armory 9 Cook C
Zaxby's Chicken Moss Foods Fast F.
•�Fingers&Buffalo Wings
Zeabys Asian 11x I First National Bank
Zensation Zalatl
ouisbui�li Sbur9a�
Walmart Supercenter9 ~ + '
Cope s-cre btMOR�- o
Dollar Tree Fiesta Mexicans g r t,oJ�B—` 9 0 ©Truist
oonaratore�Louisburg /w QWalgreens Pete Smith Tire& digital lab solution
Mezlcen•S A Drug Wore
® Auo Quick airLu shop FIVE AUTOMOTIVE c.
Used car sealer State Employees © e°°
Q ill r Credit Union Bw a Burke Bird Burke
k Bled
9 BP Auto Finders
. Packhouse //car0ealer o SchoolLof Dancg
e
�a• Coffee Company 4, 9
NO/
6i Google � IIe` /%
Map data©2023 Google 200 ft' r
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0843365,-78.3173223,17z 1/1

a Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County,North Carolina a
m
741490 741520 741550 741580 741610 741640 741670 741700 741730 741760
36°5'9"N 1 36°5'9"N
1
i
•
/ i _ -.
I _ •
$ - flit."1/111-.- - .._ !
\ se
I
. . Its..
i Ark
iiik. t...
- -alili
-XI:. + ''
_ -
.
•
•
ScNI Glop Giuo fic b1,t27a1.id {VT ocaOQ° 11 •
36°5'2"N . 1 36°5'2"N
741490 741520 741550 741580 741610 741640 741670 741700 741730 741760
En
O. Map Scale:1:1,380 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet. so
Meters N
0 20 40 80 120
Feet
0 50 100 m 200 300
Map projection:Web Mercator Coer 000rdinatess:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 17N WGS84
UuNatural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/15/2023
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, North Carolina
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) p C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000.
0 CID
Soils • D Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Soil Rating Polygons
l A p Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
n A/D Water Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
n B scale.
Transportation
Q B/D
r4-1. Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
n C measurements.
ti Interstate Highways
n CID US Routes Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
0 D Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
n Not rated or not available Local Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Soil Rating Lines Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
• • A distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
1111 Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
• A/D accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
^r B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
.v B/D of the version date(s)listed below.
• r C Soil Survey Area: Franklin County,North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 26,Sep 8,2022
• • CID
Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
• • D 1:50,000 or larger.
• w Not rated or not available Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Apr 25,2022—May
Soil Rating Points 20,2022
p A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
O A/D imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
• B shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
• B/D
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/15/2023
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, North Carolina
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
WeB Wedowee sandy loam,2 B 4.3 93.7%
to 6 percent slopes
WuC Wedowee-Urban land- B 0.3 6.3%
Udorthents complex,
2 to 10 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 4.6 100.0%
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). The 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 (ND, B/D, or C/D), 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.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/15/2023
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4

Hydrologic Soil Group—Franklin County, North Carolina
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/15/2023
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4

'. 'A., **
.. - • Nc ve,, ,, .., _ , . ,
. .
... , , , . ... _ , 0,..,
.. ,
......,...„„ , ,
�,, • • , \-1 ' -.4.-- ,010 . , ,,.
. , . • : • ,
_- mac,
, :,,._.. ,,„ ..,. , ) . _. .,,..::",;,„_„., ,
#0...., •_ ,
. r Ee.---„_.,
.., . , ., , , _ ..,
..
,,, , ...7,_) CM
,, Louisburg111;.T. .11f-": f Louisburg\SNN
Louisburg Louisburc
. - L-- cAliOIJA-i *i 11V-,c'(-- --..'1-.9-_..,...----___.#:. . -
+ 1 SITE _-' '
)710L/,',.. *--). ..
�'
__ ,--/--- . -- ,
1:l C -L.. 1 L
Louisburg j__ Louisburg -1 Louisburg Louisburc
. y I.ti S10.�L J�Cam..1-- i)i fig --_ f�'f/
It/Dig - 36.0879, -78.3336 ` ',,c

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette - FEMA _Legend
78°19'19"W 36°5'19"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
Mir • �
Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE)
I —71
�� I Zone A,V.A99
II I
Ilk
SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE,AO,AH,VE,AR
105 ilot
I' ! , f HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
, 1• � •. /• J
r' • 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas
of 1%annual chance flood with average
t I s I-__ • depth less than one foot or with drainage
�� � � , --- areas of less than one square mile zone x
r 1r • J t" f - _ . Future Conditions 1%Annual
y • ' ? lir� �,.' 1 �'h Chance Flood Hazard zonex
I , � • p" Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
i. • Levee.See Notes.zone x
• �� •t�. •, A OTHER AREAS OF
- sL • • ` `' j� •
- FLOOD HAZARD 'j Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D
� • t
I_ 11111114141144r'IP* !' ' ' NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zonex
- _ • • 1 •)- R : _ Effective LOMRs
_ _ !t �� OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone
GENERAL ----- Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer
/ • 3720280500K __ - STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee,Dike,or Floodwall
1/ eff. 4/16/20 1 wet
•
• -Fr • 20.2 Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance
flb • - tZ•s Water Surface Elevation
TOWN OF LOUISBURG AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD' . 8— — — Coastal Transect
370098 • III • Z X -•••••513^^^^"• Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE)
• --, • Limit of Study
• . • Jurisdiction Boundary
• ,• :16� '; • • --- Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER - Profile Baseline
II
♦ FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
I
AilhiPi
�.� Digital Data Available
• N
• \ t • No Digital Data Available
` 4, .1 . • ' MAP PANELS Unmapped' I
\\ , ♦. ••\ 5 v9
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
�\ \ • point selected by the user and does not represent
♦ an authoritative property location.
` • ..• •' co MI-
•
% /\ , This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
/% f( y digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
a• The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
TOWN OF LOUISBURG 0:1 _ 146
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
\1/41416a......_ .i
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map
370098 3720280400K was exported on 3/15/2023 at 6:55 AM and does not
< reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
eff. 4/16/2013
time.The NFHL and effective information may change or
—_ become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
�. �� elements do not appear:basemap imagery,flood zone labels,
t •IN legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers,
78°18'41"W 36°4'S0"N FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for
Feet 1.6 00o unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 regulatory purposes.
Basemap:USGS National Map:Orthoimagery:Data refreshed October,2020

APPENDIX B
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMPUTATIONS
9

CITY OF LOUISBURG
TR-55 COMPUTATIONS
BY ARM PROJECT MAVIS LOUISBERG JOB# 2202013 SHT. 1 OF 1
DATE 9/20/2023 AREA NO. EDA-10 EXISTINGrw PROPOSED- ULTIMATE E
SOIL HYDROLOGIC % RCN
LAND USE OR ZONING AREA RCX x AREA
GROUP CONDITION IMPERVIOUS
TABLE 2-2 FIG.2-3 FIG.2-4
B WOODS GOOD --- 55 1.10 60.50
B OPEN SPACE GOOD 61 1.62 98.82
B IMPERVIOUS --- 100 98 0.00 0.00
TOTAL SQUARE MILES= 0.0043 TOTAL ACRES= 2.72 159.32
TIME OF CONCENTRATION,Tc WEIGHTED RCN= 58.57 USE RCN= 59
ID TYPE OF FLOW L n a Pw s(%) V TIME(HRS)
FT FT FT ft/ft FPS
SHEET FLOW(TABLE 3-1)(1*)
A-B GRASS 100 111 4.00% 0.17
SHALL. CONC.FLOW(FIG 3-1)(4)*
B-C ❑ PAVED ❑� UNPAVED 100 4.00% 4.16 0.01
❑ PAVED n UNPAVED 30 15.00% 6.25 0.00
PAVED El UNPAVED 185 5.00% 4.66 0.01
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
CHANNEL FLOW-MANNING(5,4*)
TOTAL Tc= 0.19
INITIAL ABSTRACTION,Ia= 1.390 IN.(TAB 5-1) USE Tc= 0.2 Tt= 11.4 min.
RAINFALL FREQ. = 1 YR. 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 25 YR. 100 YR. I
RAINFALL-24 HR. ,P =_
Ia/P
PEAK CSM/IN. =
RUNOFF,Q(2*) (IN.)
PEAK DISCHARGE(3*) (CFS) =
0.8 2
0.007 ( nL ) ( P—0.2S ) 1000
(1) P 0.5 s 0 4 = HR" (2) Q = P+0.85 = IN, WHERE S = RCN — 10
2YR
(3) PEAK DISCHARGE =PEAK(CSM/I N) x AREA(SQ. MI) x Q(IN) =CFS
L 1.49r 2/3 s 1/2 a
(4) TT = 3600 x V = HR. (5) V = n = FPS, WHERE r = n

CITY OF LOUISBURG
TR-55 COMPUTATIONS
BY ARM PROJECT MAVIS LOUISBERG JOB# 2202013 SHT. 1 OF 1
DATE 9/20/2023 AREA NO. EDA-11 EXISTINGrw PROPOSEDE ULTIMATE E
SOIL HYDROLOGIC % RCN
LAND USE OR ZONING AREA RCX x AREA
GROUP CONDITION IMPERVIOUS
TABLE 2-2 FIG.2-3 FIG.2-4
B WOODS GOOD --- 55 0.00 0.00
B OPEN SPACE GOOD 61 0.00 0.00
B IMPERVIOUS --- 100 98 0.30 29.40
TOTAL SQUARE MILES= 0.0005 TOTAL ACRES= 0.30 29.40
TIME OF CONCENTRATION,Tc WEIGHTED RCN= 98.00 USE RCN= 98
ID TYPE OF FLOW L n a Pw s(%) V TIME(HRS)
FT FT FT ft/ft FPS
SHEET FLOW(TABLE 3-1)(1*)
SHALL. CONC.FLOW(FIG 3-1)(4)*
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
CHANNEL FLOW-MANNING(5,4*)
TOTAL Tc= 0.00
INITIAL ABSTRACTION,Ia= 0.041 IN.(TAB 5-1) USE Tc= 0.1 Tt= 5 min.
RAINFALL FREQ. = 1 YR. 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 25 YR. 100 YR. I
RAINFALL-24 HR. ,P =_
Ia/P
PEAK CSM/IN. =
RUNOFF,Q(2*) (IN.)
PEAK DISCHARGE(3*) (CFS) =
0.8 2
0.007 ( nL ) ( P—0.2S ) 1000
(1) P 0.5 s U.4 = HR. (2) Q = P+0.85 = IN, WHERE S = RCN — 10
2YR
(3) PEAK DISCHARGE =PEAK(CSM/I N) x AREA(SQ. MI) x Q(IN) =CFS
L 1.49r 2/3 s 1/2 a
(4) TT = 3600 x V = HR. (5) V = n = FPS, WHERE r = n

CITY OF LOUISBURG
TR-55 COMPUTATIONS
BY ARM PROJECT MAVIS LOUISBERG JOB# 2202013 SHT. 1 OF 1
DATE 9/20/2023 AREA NO. EDA-12 EXISTINGrw PROPOSEDE ULTIMATE E
SOIL HYDROLOGIC % RCN
LAND USE OR ZONING AREA RCX x AREA
GROUP CONDITION IMPERVIOUS
TABLE 2-2 FIG.2-3 FIG.2-4
B WOODS GOOD --- 55 0.00 0.00
B OPEN SPACE GOOD 61 0.26 15.86
B IMPERVIOUS --- 100 98 0.40 39.20
TOTAL SQUARE MILES= 0.001 TOTAL ACRES= 0.66 55.06
TIME OF CONCENTRATION,Tc WEIGHTED RCN= 83.42 USE RCN= 83
ID TYPE OF FLOW L n a Pw s(%) V TIME(HRS)
FT FT FT ft/ft FPS
SHEET FLOW(TABLE 3-1)(1*)
AB PAVEMENT 50 0.011 1.00% 0.02
SHALL. CONC.FLOW(FIG 3-1)(4)* _
BC 0 PAVED ❑ UNPAVED 130 1.00% 1.61 0.02
CD ❑ PAVED n UNPAVED 240 4.00% 4.16 0.02
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
CHANNEL FLOW-MANNING(5,4*)
TOTAL Tc= 0.06
INITIAL ABSTRACTION,Ia= 0.410 IN.(TAB 5-1) USE Tc= 0.1 Tt= 4 min.
RAINFALL FREQ. = 1 YR. 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 25 YR. 100 YR. I
RAINFALL-24 HR. ,P =_
Ia/P
PEAK CSM/IN. =
RUNOFF,Q(2*) (IN.)
PEAK DISCHARGE(3*) (CFS) =
0.8 2
0.007 ( nL ) ( P—0.2S ) 1000
(1) P 0.5 s 0 4 = HR" (2) Q = P+0.85 = IN, WHERE S = RCN — 10
2YR
(3) PEAK DISCHARGE =PEAK(CSM/I N) x AREA(SQ. MI) x Q(IN) =CFS
L 1.49r 2/3 s 1/2 a
(4) TT = 3600 x V = HR. (5) V = n = FPS, WHERE r = n

CITY OF LOUISBURG
TR-55 COMPUTATIONS
BY ARM PROJECT MAVIS LOUISBERG JOB# 2202013 SHT. 1 OF 1
DATE 9/20/2023 AREA NO. PDA-10 EXISTINGr PROPOSEDr ULTIMATE r
SOIL HYDROLOGIC % RCN
LAND USE OR ZONING AREA RCX x AREA
GROUP CONDITION IMPERVIOUS TABLE 2-2 FIG.2-3 FIG.2-4
B WOODS GOOD --- 55 0.42 23.10
B OPEN SPACE GOOD --- 61 0.33 20.13
B IMPERVIOUS --- 100 98 1.33 130.34
TOTAL SQUARE MILES= 0.0033 TOTAL ACRES= 2.08 173.57
TIME OF CONCENTRATION,Tc WEIGHTED RCN= 83.45 USE RCN= 83
ID TYPE OF FLOW L n a Pw s(%) V TIME(HRS)
FT FT FT ft/ft FPS
SHEET FLOW(TABLE 3-1)(1*)
SHALL. CONC.FLOW(FIG 3-1)(4)*
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
PAVED UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
TOTAL Tc= 0.00
INITIAL ABSTRACTION,Ia= 0.410 IN.(TAB 5-1) USE Tc= 0.1 Tt= 5 min.
RAINFALL FREQ. = 1 YR. 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 25 YR. 100 YR.
RAINFALL-24 HR. ,P =
Ia/P =
PEAK CSM/IN. =
RUNOFF,Q(2*) (IN.) =
ill
PEAK DISCHARGE(3*) (CFS) =
0.8 2
0.007 ( nL ) ( P—0.2S ) 1000
(1) 0 5 0.4 = HR. (2) Q = ( P+0.85 ) = IN, WHERE S = RCN — 10
P2YRs
(3) PEAK DISCHARGE =PEAK(CSM/I N) x AREA(SQ. MI) x Q(IN) =CFS
L 1.49r 2/3 s1/2 a
(4) TT = 1600 x V = HR. (5) V = n = FPS, WHERE r = n

CITY OF LOUISBURG
TR-55 COMPUTATIONS
BY ARM PROJECT MAVIS LOUISBERG JOB# 2202013 SHT. 1 OF 1
DATE 9/20/2023 AREA NO. PDA-11 EXISTINGr PROPOSEDr ULTIMATE r
BYPASS
SOIL HYDROLOGIC % RCN
LAND USE OR ZONING AREA RCX x AREA
GROUP CONDITION IMPERVIOUS
TABLE 2-2 FIG.2-3 FIG.2-4
B OPEN SPACE GOOD --- 61 0.64 39.04
TOTAL SQUARE MILES= 0.001 TOTAL ACRES= 0.64 39.04
TIME OF CONCENTRATION,Tc WEIGHTED RCN= 61.00 USE RCN= 61
ID TYPE OF FLOW L n a Pw s(%) V TIME(HRS)
FT FT FT ft/ft FPS
SHEET FLOW(TABLE 3-1)(1*)
A-B GRASS I 100 0.24 5.71% 0.17
SHALL. CONC.FLOW(FIG 3-1)(4)* 1.611
B-C ❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED 310 5.00% 4.66 0.02
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
PAVED UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
TOTAL Tc= 0.19
INITIAL ABSTRACTION,Ta= 1.279 IN.(TAB 5-1) USE Tc= 0.2 Tt= 11 min.
RAINFALL FREQ. = 1 YR. 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 25 YR. 100 YR.
RAINFALL-24 HR. ,P =
Ia/P =
PEAK CSM/IN. =
RUNOFF,Q(2*) (IN.) =
PEAK DISCHARGE(3*) (CFS) =
0.8 2
0.007 ( nL ) ( P—0.2S ) 1000
(1) 0 5 0.4 = HR. (2) Q = ( P+0.85 ) = IN, WHERE S = RCN — 10
P2YR s
(3) PEAK DISCHARGE =PEAK(CSM/I N) x AREA(SQ. MI) x Q(IN) =CFS
L 1.49r 2/3 s1/2 a
(4) TT = 1600 x V = HR. (5) V = n = FPS, WHERE r = n

CITY OF LOUISBURG
TR-55 COMPUTATIONS
BY ARM PROJECT MAVIS LOUISBERG JOB# 2202013 SHT. 1 OF 1
DATE 9/20/2023 AREA NO. EDA-11 EXISTINGF PROPOSEDE ULTIMATE E
SOIL HYDROLOGIC % RCN
LAND USE OR ZONING AREA RCX x AREA
GROUP CONDITION IMPERVIOUS
TABLE 2-2 FIG.2-3 FIG.2-4
B WOODS GOOD --- 55 0.00 0.00
B OPEN SPACE GOOD 61 0.00 0.00
B IMPERVIOUS --- 100 98 0.30 29.40
TOTAL SQUARE MILES= 0.0005 TOTAL ACRES= 0.30 29.40
TIME OF CONCENTRATION,Tc WEIGHTED RCN= 98.00 USE RCN= 98
ID TYPE OF FLOW L n a Pw s(%) V TIME(HRS)
FT FT FT ft/ft FPS
SHEET FLOW(TABLE 3-1)(1*)
SHALL. CONC.FLOW(FIG 3-1)(4)*
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED 310 5.00% 4.66 0.02
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
CHANNEL FLOW-MANNING(5,4*)
TOTAL Tc= 0.02
INITIAL ABSTRACTION,Ia= 0.041 IN.(TAB 5-1) USE Tc= 0.1 Tt= 5 min.
RAINFALL FREQ. = 1 YR. 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 25 YR. 100 YR. I
RAINFALL-24 HR. ,P =_
Ia/P
PEAK CSM/IN. =
RUNOFF,Q(2*) (IN.)
PEAK DISCHARGE(3*) (CFS) =
0.8 2
0.007 ( nL ) ( P—0.2S ) 1000
(1) P 0.5 s 0 4 = HR. (2) Q = P+0.85 = IN, WHERE S = RCN — 10
2YR
(3) PEAK DISCHARGE =PEAK(CSM/I N) x AREA(SQ. MI) x Q(IN) =CFS
L 1.49r 2/3 s 1/2 a
(4) TT = 3600 x V = HR. (5) V = n = FPS, WHERE r = n

CITY OF LOUISBURG
TR-55 COMPUTATIONS
BY ARM PROJECT MAVIS LOUISBERG JOB# 2202013 SHT. 1 OF 1
DATE 9/20/2023 AREA NO. EDA-12 EXISTINGrw PROPOSEDE ULTIMATE E
SOIL HYDROLOGIC % RCN
LAND USE OR ZONING AREA RCX x AREA
GROUP CONDITION IMPERVIOUS
TABLE 2-2 FIG.2-3 FIG.2-4
B WOODS GOOD --- 55 0.00 0.00
B OPEN SPACE GOOD 61 0.26 15.86
B IMPERVIOUS --- 100 98 0.40 39.20
TOTAL SQUARE MILES= 0.001 TOTAL ACRES= 0.66 55.06
TIME OF CONCENTRATION,Tc WEIGHTED RCN= 83.42 USE RCN= 83
ID TYPE OF FLOW L n a Pw s(%) V TIME(HRS)
FT FT FT ft/ft FPS
SHEET FLOW(TABLE 3-1)(1*)
AB PAVEMENT 50 0.011 1.00% 0.02
SHALL. CONC.FLOW(FIG 3-1)(4)*
BC ❑ PAVED ❑� UNPAVED 130 1.00% 2.08 0.02
CD ❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED 240 4.00% 3.23 0.02
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
❑ PAVED ❑ UNPAVED
CHANNEL FLOW-MANNING(5,4*)
TOTAL Tc= 0.06
INITIAL ABSTRACTION,Ia= 0.410 IN.(TAB 5-1) USE Tc= 0.1 Tt= 4 min.
RAINFALL FREQ. = 1 YR. 2 YR. 5 YR. 10 YR. 25 YR. 100 YR. I
RAINFALL-24 HR. ,P =_
Ia/P
PEAK CSM/IN. =
RUNOFF,Q(2*) (IN.)
PEAK DISCHARGE(3*) (CFS) =
0.8 2
0.007 ( nL ) ( P—0.2S ) 1000
(1) P 0.5 s U.4 = HR" (2) Q = P+0.85 = IN, WHERE S = RCN — 10
2YR
(3) PEAK DISCHARGE =PEAK(CSM/I N) x AREA(SQ. MI) x Q(IN) =CFS
L 1.49r 2/3 s 1/2 a
(4) TT = 3600 x V = HR. (5) V = n = FPS, WHERE r = n

MAVIS TIRE
SWM Design
ARM
=________ SAND FILTER DESIGN (SWM-1)
WATER QUALITY VOLUME
Acerage: 2.72 ac.
Impervious area: 1.33 ac. (Assuming 60% BUA for Lot 2)
P= 1
I (for Design Point)= 1.33 ac./ 2.72ac. 48.90%
P(R v )(A )
WQV —
12
Rv= 0.05 +0.009(I)
Rv= 0.490
WQv= 0.11 ac.-ft. = I 4,839 cf
Forebay Volume (20%WQv) 968 cf I
Sand Filter Area
(WQ ,, )(d f ) WQv= 4,839 cf
\ df=,2.0ft
f [khf + d f. Jt f. J k= 3.5 ft/day
hf= 0.5ft
tf= 2.0 days
Af= 553 sf
Actual Sand Filter Area pr 570 sf
1

Mavis Tire
SWM Design
ARM
ELEVATION STORAGE CHART - BMP#1
ELEVATION SURFACE VOLUME CUM. CUM.
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE AREA (CF) VOLUME VOLUME
(SF) (CF) (AC-FT)
303 2065 0 0.000
1 2351
304 2650 2351 0.054
1 2991
305 3345 5342 0.123
1 _ 3704
306 4075 9046 0.208
1 4464 _
307 4865 13510 0.310
ELEVATION STORAGE CHART - Forebay
ELEVATION SURFACE VOLUME CUM. CUM.
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE AREA VOLUME VOLUME
(SF) (CF) (CF) (AC-FT)
303 350 0 0.000
1 399
304 450 399 0.009
1 570
305 700 969 0.022

Hydraflow Table of Contents Final Hydrology-B.gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
1 - Year
Summary Report 1
Hydrograph Reports 2
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, EDA-10 2
TR-55 Tc Worksheet 3
Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, EDA-11 4
Hydrograph No. 3, SCS Runoff, EDA-12 5
Hydrograph No. 4, Combine, EXISTING POI 1 6
Hydrograph No. 5, SCS Runoff, Proposed 7
Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, SWM #1 8
Pond Report - SWM 1 9
Hydrograph No. 7, SCS Runoff, PDA-11 (BYPASS) 10
TR-55 Tc Worksheet 11
Hydrograph No. 8, SCS Runoff, PDA=12 (BYPASS) 12
Hydrograph No. 9, SCS Runoff, PDA-13 (BYPASS) 13
Hydrograph No. 10, Combine, PROPOSED P0I-1 14
10 - Year
Summary Report 15
Hydrograph Reports 16
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, EDA-10 16
Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, EDA-11 17
Hydrograph No. 3, SCS Runoff, EDA-12 18
Hydrograph No. 4, Combine, EXISTING POI 1 19
Hydrograph No. 5, SCS Runoff, Proposed 20
Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, SWM #1 21
Hydrograph No. 7, SCS Runoff, PDA-11 (BYPASS) 22
Hydrograph No. 8, SCS Runoff, PDA=12 (BYPASS) 23
Hydrograph No. 9, SCS Runoff, PDA-13 (BYPASS) 24
Hydrograph No. 10, Combine, PROPOSED P0I-1 25

1
Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 SCS Runoff 0.522 2 724 2,744 EDA-10
2 SCS Runoff 1.030 2 720 2,997 EDA-11
3 SCS Runoff 1.521 2 718 3,069 EDA-12
4 Combine 2.751 2 718 8,810 1,2,3 EXISTING POI 1
5 SCS Runoff 4.793 2 718 9,673 Proposed
6 Reservoir 0.020 2 1444 5,111 5 305.95 8,859 SWM#1
7 SCS Runoff 1.929 2 722 6,045 PDA-11 (BYPASS)
8 SCS Runoff 1.030 2 720 2,997 PDA=12(BYPASS)
9 SCS Runoff 1.298 2 720 3,376 PDA-13(BYPASS)
10 Combine 4.227 2 722 17,529 6,7,8, PROPOSED P0I-1
9
Final Hydrology-B.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Tuesday, 04/9/2024

2
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 1
EDA-10
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 0.522 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 724 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 2,744 cuft
Drainage area = 2.720 ac Curve number = 59
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.80 min
Total precip. = 2.90 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
EDA-10
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year Q(cfs)
1.00 - 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
LIM
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 1 Time (min)

3
TR55 Tc Worksheet
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022
Hyd. No. 1
E DA-10
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 100.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.50 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 4.00 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 10.34 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.34
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 100.00 30.00 185.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 4.00 15.00 5.00
Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved
Average velocity (ft/s) =3.23 6.25 3.61
Travel Time (min) = 0.52 + 0.08 + 0.85 = 1.45
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ft/s) =0.00
0.00
0.00
Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00
Total Travel Time, Tc 11.80 min

4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 2
EDA-11
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.030 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 2,997 cuft
Drainage area = 0.300 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min
Total precip. = 2.90 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
EDA-11
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
2.00 - 2.00
•
1.00 - • 1.00
•
•
0.00 - 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Hyd No. 2 Time (min)

5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 3
EDA-12
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.521 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 718 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 3,069 cuft
Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 83
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Total precip. = 2.90 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
EDA-12
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
2.00 - 2.00
1.00 - 1.00
0.00 •
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 3 Time (min)

6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 4
EXISTING POI 1
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 2.751 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 718 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 8,810 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 3.680 ac
EXISTING POI 1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
3.00 3.00
•
•
2.00 •
2.00
•
1.00 - •
1.00
•
•
•
0.00 - - 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 4 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 3

7
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 5
Proposed
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 4.793 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 718 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 9,673 cuft
Drainage area = 2.080 ac Curve number = 83
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Total precip. = 2.90 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Proposed
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5-- 1 Year Q(cfs)
5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 5 Time (min)

8
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 6
SWM #1
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.020 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 1444 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 5,111 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 5 - Proposed Max. Elevation = 305.95 ft
Reservoir name = SWM 1 Max. Storage = 8,859 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
SWM #1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 - 2.00
1.00 1.00
AhllI0.00 0.00
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 6 Hyd No. 5 TTTTT1 II Total storage used = 8,859 cuft

Pond Report 9
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Pond No. 1 - SWM 1
Pond Data
Contours-User-defined contour areas.Conic method used for volume calculation.Begining Elevation=303.00 ft
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0.00 303.00 2,065 0 0
1.00 304.00 2,650 2,351 2,351
2.00 305.00 3,345 2,990 5,342
3.00 306.00 4,075 3,704 9,045
4.00 307.00 4,865 4,464 13,509
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 15.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 16.00 20.00 0.00 0.00
Span(in) = 15.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 Crest El.(ft) = 306.75 307.50 0.00 0.00
No.Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 2.60 3.33 3.33 3.33
Invert El.(ft) = 302.00 304.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = 1 Broad --- ---
Length(ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = Yes No No No
Slope(%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Exfil.(in/hr) = 0.000(by Wet area)
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No TW Elev.(ft) = 0.00
Note:Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet(ic)and outlet(oc)control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions(ic)and submergence(s).
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Elev(ft)
4.00 - 307.00
3.00 - - 306.00
2.00 305.00
1.00 304.00
0.00 303.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Total Q Discharge(cfs)

10
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 7
PDA-11 (BYPASS)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.929 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 722 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 6,045 cuft
Drainage area = 0.640 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 15.10 min
Total precip. = 2.90 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
PDA-11 (BYPASS)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
2.00 - 2.00
1.00 - 1.00
0.00 - 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 7 Time (min)

11
TR55 Tc Worksheet
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022
Hyd. No. 7
PDA-11 (BYPASS)
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 100.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.50 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 2.00 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 13.64 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 13.64
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 250.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 2.00 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Paved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ft/s) =2.87 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 1.45 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.45
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ft/s) =0.00
0.00
0.00
Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00
Total Travel Time, Tc 15.10 min

12
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 8
PDA=12 (BYPASS)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.030 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 2,997 cuft
Drainage area = 0.300 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min
Total precip. = 2.90 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
PDA=12 (BYPASS)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 8 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
2.00 - 2.00
•
1.00 - • 1.00
•
•
0.00 - 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Hyd No. 8 Time (min)

13
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 9
PDA-13 (BYPASS)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.298 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 3,376 cuft
Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 83
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min
Total precip. = 2.90 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
PDA-13 (BYPASS)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 9-- 1 Year Q (cfs)
2.00 - 2.00
1.00 - 1.00
0.00 - - 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 9 Time (min)

14
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 10
PROPOSED P0I-1
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 4.227 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 722 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 17,529 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 6, 7, 8, 9 Contrib. drain. area = 1.600 ac
PROPOSED P0I-1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 10 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
5.00 - 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 ( 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 — - 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 10 — Hyd No. 6 Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 8
• Hyd No. 9

15
Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph
No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 SCS Runoff 4.779 2 722 13,325 EDA-10
2 SCS Runoff 1.842 2 720 5,495 EDA-11
3 SCS Runoff 3.594 2 716 7,394 EDA-12
4 Combine 9.282 2 718 26,214 1,2,3 EXISTING POI 1
5 SCS Runoff 11.33 2 716 23,302 Proposed
6 Reservoir 1.392 2 734 16,503 5 306.85 12,822 SWM#1
7 SCS Runoff 3.449 2 722 11,083 PDA-11 (BYPASS)
8 SCS Runoff 1.842 2 720 5,495 PDA=12(BYPASS)
9 SCS Runoff 3.112 2 720 8,133 PDA-13(BYPASS)
10 Combine 8.351 2 720 41,214 6,7,8, PROPOSED P0I-1
9
Final Hydrology-B.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Tuesday, 04/9/2024

16
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 1
EDA-10
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 4.779 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 722 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 13,325 cuft
Drainage area = 2.720 ac Curve number = 59
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.80 min
Total precip. = 5.13 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
EDA-10
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
5.00 5.00
4.00 - 4.00
3.00 3.00
r
2.00 •L
2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 1 Time (min)

17
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 2
EDA-11
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.842 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 5,495 cuft
Drainage area = 0.300 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min
Total precip. = 5.13 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
EDA-11
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
2.00 - 2.00
1.00 - 1.00
0.00 ' 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Hyd No. 2 Time (min)

18
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 3
EDA-12
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.594 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 716 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 7,394 cuft
Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 83
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Total precip. = 5.13 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
EDA-12
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
4.00 4.00
3.00 ( 3.00
l
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 — , 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 3

19
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 4
EXISTING POI 1
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 9.282 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 718 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 26,214 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 1, 2, 3 Contrib. drain. area = 3.680 ac
EXISTING POI 1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
10.00 - 10.00
8.00 8.00
6.00 - 6.00
4.00 - 4.00
2.00 2.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 4 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 3

20
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 5
Proposed
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 11.33 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 716 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 23,302 cuft
Drainage area = 2.080 ac Curve number = 83
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min
Total precip. = 5.13 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Proposed
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5-- 10 Year Q (cfs)
12.00 12.00
10.00 - 10.00
8.00 - 8.00
6.00 - - 6.00
4.00 - 4.00
2.00 ."" \ *..... 2.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320
Hyd No. 5 Time (min)

21
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 6
SWM #1
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.392 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 734 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 16,503 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 5 - Proposed Max. Elevation = 306.85 ft
Reservoir name = SWM 1 Max. Storage = 12,822 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
SWM #1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 6 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
12.00 12.00
10.00 10.00
8.00 L 8.00
6.00 6.00
4.00 4.00
2.00 2.00
0.00 - J. 0.00
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000
Time (min)
Hyd No. 6 Hyd No. 5 111111111 Total storage used = 12,822 cuft

22
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 7
PDA-11 (BYPASS)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.449 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 722 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 11,083 cuft
Drainage area = 0.640 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 15.10 min
Total precip. = 5.13 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
PDA-11 (BYPASS)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
4.00 - 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 •
2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 -- 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 7

23
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 8
PDA=12 (BYPASS)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.842 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 5,495 cuft
Drainage area = 0.300 ac Curve number = 98
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min
Total precip. = 5.13 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
PDA=12 (BYPASS)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 8 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
2.00 - 2.00
1.00 - 1.00
0.00 ' 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Hyd No. 8 Time (min)

24
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 9
PDA-13 (BYPASS)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.112 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 8,133 cuft
Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 83
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min
Total precip. = 5.13 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
PDA-13 (BYPASS)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 9 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
4.00 - 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 — r 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 9

25
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc.v2022 Tuesday,04/9/2024
Hyd. No. 10
PROPOSED P0I-1
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 8.351 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 720 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 41,214 cuft
Inflow hyds. = 6, 7, 8, 9 Contrib. drain. area = 1.600 ac
PROPOSED P0I-1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 10 -- 10 Year Q (cfs)
10.00 - 10.00
8.00 I 8.00
6.00 - 6.00
4.00 - 4.00
2.00 2.00
i
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 10 Hyd No. 6 Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 8
Hyd No. 9

Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule 15A NCAC 28.0258 Last Modified 5/23/03
Piedmont of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin:
Includes Oxford,Henderson,Rocky Mount and Tarboro as well as Franklin,Nash and Edgecome Counties
BMP Removal Calculation Worksheet(Automated)
Project Name:Mavis Tire,Louisberg,NC
Date:4/1/2024
By:ARM Checked By:
Directions:
>It may be advantageous to split the development into separate catchments to be handled by separate BMPs. The tables below allow
the development to be split into as many as three catchments,and can be copied for greater than three. NOTE:Unless runoff flowing
onto the development from offsite is routed separately around or through the site,the offsite catchment area draining in must be included
in the acreage values of the appropriate land use(s)and treated.
>Above each table:Enter the catchment acreage in the top green blank. Based on a comparison of the post-development TN and TP
export coefficients you calculated above to the rule requirements of 4.0 lb/ac/yr TN and 0.4 lb/ac/yr TP,select BMP(s)from the list for
treating the catchment runoff Enter the chosen BMP(s)nutrient removal rates in the green blanks. If more than one BMP is to be used
in series,the combined removal rates will be calculated automatically in the blue blanks.
>Catchment Tables:Enter the acres of each type of land cover in the green boxes. The spreadsheet will calculate all of the light blue
boxes. NOTE:Compare the Total Catchment Acreage for the Development(final table)to the value you established in the pre-BMP
worksheet tables,and also to the site plans,for consistency. All of these values need to be the same
BMP 25 40 NC BMP Manual
Nutrient 40 35 NC BMP Manual
Removal 35 45 NC BMP Manual
Rates 35 45 NC BMP Manual
20 20 NC BMP Manual
20 35 NC BMP Manual
10 10 NC BMP Manual
Catchment 1:
Total acreage of catchment 1= 2.08 ac
First BMP's TN removal rate= 35 % First BMP's TP removal rate=
Second BMP's TN removal rate= 0 % Second BMP's TP removal rate=
Third BMP's TN removal rate= 0 % Third BMP's TP removal rate=
TOTAL TN REMOVAL RATE= 35 % TOTAL TP REMOVAL RATE= 45
nn 5.77 2.60 15.01 0.19 1.10
5.77 1.95 3.72 0.11 0.21
n in 5.77 1.42 0.82 0.28 0.16
5.77 0.94 2.28 0.14 0.34
0.23 5.77 1.95 2.59 0.11 0.15
0.64 24.42 1.95
2.08 11.74 0.94
15.87 1.07
7.63 0.52
1

Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule 15A NCAC 28.0258 Last Modified 5/23/03
Catchment 2:
Total acreage of catchment 2= ac
First BMP's TN removal rate= % First BMP's TP removal rate= %
Second BMP's TN removal rate= % Second BMP's TP removal rate= %
Third BMP's TN removal rate= % Third BMP's TP removal rate= %
TOTAL TN REMOVAL RATE= 0 % TOTAL TP REMOVAL RATE= 0 %
dM2.60 0.19
=_ 1.95 0.11
I_ 1.42 0.28
0.94 0.14
IM1.95 0.11
Catchment 3:
Total acreage of catchment 3= ac
First BMP's TN removal rate= % First BMP's TP removal rate= %
Second BMP's TN removal rate= % Second BMP's TP removal rate= %
Third BMP's TN removal rate= % Third BMP's TP removal rate=
TOTAL TN REMOVAL RATE= 0 % TOTAL TP REMOVAL RATE= 0 %
I_ 2.60 0.19
IIM_ 1.95 0.11
1.42 0.28
I_ 0.94 0.14
=_ 1.95 0.11
1

Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule 15A NCAC 28.0258 Last Modified 5/23/03
Weighted Average of Nutrient Loadings from the Catchments:
2.08 7.63 0.52
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
2.08 7.63 0.52
Note: The nutrient loading goals are 4.O lb/ac/yr for TN and 0.4 lb/ac/yr for TP. If the post-development nutrient
loading is below these levels,then the BMPs planned are adequate. Otherwise,additional BMPs and/or
modifications in development plans are required.
1

APPENDIX C
STORM DRAIN CALCULATIONS
10

Mavis Tire Storm Drainage Calculations 1 of 1
Louisburg,NC
Overland Flow
Flow to Within Allowable Pipe PIPE FLOW
Structures Basin System Flow(CFS) OK?
From Q From Total Size Length Allowable Pipe Flow Full Flow
Strct Rim Inv.In. (upstream strct) Inv.Out Area(ac) I (in/hr) C (cis) Front Str. To Str. Overland System Q(cls) n (in) (ft) Drop(ft) Slope TYPE Remarks Velocity (CFS) Capacity
CB-1 314.39 308.71 0.38 5.13 0.8 1.56
CB-1 MH-2 1.56 0.00 1.56 0.012 15 88.0 0.81 0.92% RCP 2.63 6.73 OK
MH-2 315.90 307.90 CB1 307.80 0.00 5.13 0.8 0.00
MH-2 CB-3 0.00 1.56 1.56 0.012 15 120.0 1.23 1.03% RCP 2.63 7.10 OK
CB-3 314.71 306.57 MH2 306.47 0.06 5.13 0.8 0.25
CB-3 MH-6 0.25 1.56 1.81 0.012 15 69.0 3.07 4.45% RCP 2.60 14.79 OK
YI-4 315.21 - - 315.21 0.14 5.13 0.8 0.57
Yid CB-5 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.012 15 124.0 7.59 6.12% RCP 2.63 17.35 OK
CB-5 313.79 307.62 YI-4 307.52 0.37 5.13 0.8 1.52
CB-5 MH-6 1.52 0.57 2.09 0.012 15 82.0 4.12 5.02% RCP 2.50 15.72 OK
MH-6 307.50 303.40 CB-5 303.30 0.00 5.13 0.8 0.00
MH-6 FES-7 0.00 2.09 2.09 0.012 15 56.0 1.30 2.32% RCP 3.49 10.69 OK
FES-7 303.30 302.00 - -- 0.00 5.13 0.8 0.00
Landworks Design Group,PA

APPENDIX D
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CALCULATIONS
11

Project:Mavis Tire Skimmer Basin Design Worksheet Calculated By:ARM
Project No:2202013 (per NCDENR Design Manual) Checked By:AM
Location: Louisburg, NC Date:3/15/2023
Page: 1 of 1 Rev Date:
Basin# 1
Drainage Area(ac)= 2.7
Disturbed Area(ac)= 0.7
Runoff Coefficient(c)= 0.50 (60%denuded,40%wooded)
Intensity"i"for 25-yr storm 5.13 (for 10 min T.)
Intensity"i"for 10-yr storm 6.12 Use 10 min. Tc
Flow Q25(cfs)= 6.98 (Q=C*IAA)
Flow Q10(cfs)= 8.32 (Q=C*IAA)
Required Storage(cf)= 2,592.0 (3600 cf/disturbed acre)
Surface Area Required (sf)= 3,034.9 (435 sf x Q25)
Storage Dimensions:
Elevation
Storage Depth"Z"(ft)= 2.4 ft Don't forget 2:1 Length:Width Ratio!
Length:Width 111.0 x 50.0 I OK
Bottom Area(sf)= 2,065 sf 302.0
Sediment Storage Area at"Z"(sf)= 6,638 sf 304.4
Top of Dam Elevation= 306.0 ft 306.0
Storage Provided (cf)= 10226 cf OK
Surface Area Provided (sf)= 6638 sf OK
Size the Barrel Minimum Capacity=Q2
Head over Barrel= 2.4 ft
Slope of discharge pipe= 5.0%
Barrel Size(in)= 15.0
Barrel Length(If)= 50.0
Barrel Pipe Material(CMP or RCP)= rcp 301.75 (Barrel Invert In Elevation)
Roughness coefficient"n"= 0.025 0.0 .015 for RCP, .025 for CMP
Qcap(Pipe Flow)= 8.5 adjust slope and/or barrel size to carry Q2
Barrel & Riser Okay
Sizing of Riser
Design Discharge from Barrel Qio(cfs)= 8.32
Riser Size(in)= 48.0 O.K.
Riser Area(sf)= 150.80
Weir Length(If)= 150.80
Head Required at Crest of Riser(Weir Flow)(ft)= 0.1 596.50 (Top of Primary Spillway Elevation)
Sizing of Antiflotation Block:
Volume of Water Displaced (cf)= N/A
Weight of Water Displaced(Ib)= N/A
Min. Required Weight of Anchor Block(Ib)= N/A
Anchor Size: N/A
Width(If)= N/A
Length (If)= N/A
Thickness(If)= N/A
Buoyant weight of concrete riser(Ib)= N/A lb 10.K. >Minimum Required Weight
Skimmer Sizing:
Basin Volume(cf)= 2,592.0 cf
Preferred Drawdown Time(days)= 3 days Usually 1-3 days
Optimal Skimmer Size 2 in OK
Orifice area required(sq. in.)= 0.9 sq. in.
Skimmer Orifice Size(RADIUS)= 1.5 in
G:\JOBS22\20\2202013\ENG-TECH\CIVIL\STORMWATER\Skimmer Basin With Riser.xlsx Printed:9/18/2023

Riprap Apron Outlet Protection
PROJECT NAME: Mavis Tire
LOCATION: Louisburg, NC
PREPARED BY: ARM DATE: 04/08/24
CHECKED BY: ARM DATE:
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL#9.1 (RIPRAP APRON AT PIPE OUTLET WITH FLARED SECTION OR ENDWALL)
Aiw
'-Pd..
� f< 0'L- SLOPE
:... '\ Rt
��� —GEOTEXTILE
SECTION Y-Y
fAi 111111111
Y Y
---ol
I/Mil IAI
I ,: l ELEVATION VIEW GEOTEXTILE
PA DEP
PLAN VIEW
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL#9.2 (RIPRAP APRON AT PIPE OUTLET WITHOUT FLARED ENDWALL)
..v 1•' `• -
A Pd�— `�retemliCiis ..t.•V`�''1 H F i,3 NAL GROUND
41
' 1.40i•�.gt:�.\• ���4 —
'ee l\.•.-i;.•.'110. _ Ft
'---
1/2 Pd 1 L_'--N ?`;� GEOTEXTILE
3 --I. _ 1
SECTION A-A
PLAN VIE V. Adapted from USDOT.FHA HEC-14
PIPE TAILWATER MAN. PIPE d50
DIAM. CONDITION "n" SLOPE Q V SIZE Rt Al Aiw Atw
NO. Do (in.) (Max or Min) FOR PIPE (FT/FT) (CFS) (FPS) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
FES-8 15 MIN 0.012 0.0050 3.1 0.41 0.3 0.8 10 3.75 11.25
FES-9 15 MIN 0.012 0.0500 1.4 0.34 0.3 0.8 10 3.75 11.25
Q & V values taken from basin outflows and/or conveyance calculations (10-yr)

ozzv
a co�
z 0 DESIGN OF OUTLET PROTECTION � 'miiril
off.a MINIMUM TAILWATER CONDITION (Tw <0.5 diam.) 111111111HIH
1111111111111111111
w j 0 90 111111IIINI r4i;
I■u1111111111111111111`.,;$;11
rn -r Median stone diameter, d50, is the 1111111111111111111111N`, ;H'i
eic
-. stone size which 50% of the riprap 80 11111111111u1111111111111�!A! 1'II
11111111W111■1u11111111111 1 IL11!1
a mixture, by weight, is larger than. 111/1111111111111111u !i!A1 111/111111111
Iva di am. u11111111NB11111111111u1I11111WI rllhNiIcII
Q.O Apron W = diam. + La Velocities shown are for 70 IHHIIIHIIIIHIIII!IIIHi!! : !I!1i' � �i es fl ' +I+! �j
pipes g o //'r ►/ ► r ► 1 I
F. 2 ee� 60 1 IIIIII/ 0 �'I�11
IIIHIIIIIIIIIP ! HNlllll
t..c uuu111111111111111M11IHHni■■■■■■■■11uiiIAP IrlI I,lI/,c1M Ih111111i11111IIHl
• La p 50 1IIIIII■u■111111111111111illllllllin■■.■■■■■1Ii/L1:0511!i111i11151MirA 1i1I1111111111111IHIII
PLAN VIEW, yeo��Y• 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111l1I�`�i:Gieii��iill'�11ii1�il�IIIININ11111ihNl���1
Slope 0 v,, 40 111111R'lIi1711111111111■u11111111NN1l111N111111110■I■►..%!"I■6114u►0!!001.1111■u11111111111111NW'dl'ill 4
Flow er IIIl11MIIIIIII11I1IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIi%%iiMel h1311111111111NIIIIIIIM iil e111i�i I
—.- IIIIII"` r I' r' / 5� 1 (11
/, !i, ,,+R-_ c., , _''5. k`" ■■■■ ■■■■1■IIIIIIIIt1111NIN■■n111111111IIIIII!"!. dHlrJs�■Il■G'Y:■■✓.�111111II111111IIIIIIIIIIR.d1NIN111!1"rtl;l
4'��' %° -=' q " 30 IINIIi11Mi■■11 ■iii111111111111111111iiiiili n;:ii,ni NeiiiriEi� 1II1MM1ie1111I1O11111NI 11111ri11ipa1,i1111,111i 0
CD 1NNN11111MIIII■■■■■■■■nuU11111111111111n1 diller11NII:A1►1PlIAL•■■■■■■■■■■ul1uN111I1NNlnu1111F NC�IlIIAIIP:iir w
SECTION • 1MI1N111■IMI ill1M11■■111111 ■ In1IIf1111 IIIIII: n io!na id1111I1 d18 minmoiiiiii onnemnim unioiiiil4t rmimIIi ip 3 0
■nium IINIIHI millii■■■■ ■Oz'V,'q•' ' " i' 'ii '1 1 ■■n1■11111NNN11!c 1 L 'r ► ,411�!1
21III111I1IIIIN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi� l■30EU '+SIN:?1Ifn�M�1I1111111111111111111111111�„®'„�IMMIIII11111111111110 IIP'Ilj A�'ii11!11 �o
111111111■1u1IIIIININ1111MIIIHIIIei�fi■ %1MO 7-NIKUMBOMMI1■■INNIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIn■■■■■■■■■■■u11■IIIPH111111/:/7■IIi1///��I �IIDi11I 'n
/1111111111111u1111111,111111N::iin►rZMINI�f:�l'"'" I�AIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111■III11N1■IIIH1111111H1■■■■■■■■■1111111111UI111 rAI1 AIE ..� 41P111!i 'd
10 IIIIIIII'I�I�If101111111H11!r,?±11111Milil11a 0�6i ■■1■IIIN111111111.11 1111111111111111111111111n■■■■■■■■III 'I�ri�''�"r ► p'All �1 +l!DIIII'1 I
.n.-: -:;:sammumit mmosum ■■ii EIIMIIIIIIMIIn1111/11111111111111111111111n■■■■■■■■I■■1III .d1111.1111W.A1,11PA ilIlil!"fill'
�u11111111111 Zial1SIIIM111111111111111H11!■■■■■qn■11■11u11111111M1■I■1111111111111111111111111n■■■■■■■■1�/:i�11�1II MIIINIi11IVll!111%1'.'"lll!IIH!il a)
1111111111111111111■1uut111lmmmNlHHHu1■■■■■■■ I■u`1111111111111111111111111111111111111111HH1■■■■■■■ERTa/uIE711INSIINIMu4IIMFa1!8I!:IIIIIM +-
n/IIIQ:11'3117'AM1Ir',tlrLuFa9=13i1N111HI111nu■■■■■■ I 1111111111M11111■111111111111111111NNIIIHI�u■■■111NaN■nn/,mnrNNi;IN/m .:edlil'•fil i IHH a)
■■III111111IIIIMI111 IUME■MIIIIIIIHIHIIn■■■■■■■11■1112111IIIIIINNNII■1■■111111111111111M1111In■■■■■■■1/411.i111U1111;11111!:1 11Gytl/�s,('1;i1111111 2 ro
0 ■11um 1111111111111u1t11■ moliII ynu■■■■■■11In1u111 IImmu 11u111111111N11111IHIli■■L■■onird111:11 vali il■/%G115:::d I.4,ul:Tiill111 ..-1
IIIIMI111111111111111u1111NI IN■I IMMU ■■■■■■■■■■nn■NIIIN111111 MIIIIIIIIIMMI■II.ViE2914.9 I iii iN1131!!/1 ingi4.:iirell111H1111 A
II111111111111111N1111u11N111 11NNIN■■In■■■■■■■111u11111111N1111 NIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIiiI///i0■/%■■II!n�. ' r' :e ' ►'
q��� �� 1l;gJF,l�ll,c;/E /1..rJl.lt dllllllllllll
■uuuu111111111111111III11111 IIIIIIIIIIINM!IM ■■■■■■1u■u/■1111111111N ■I I■uul_NN1111�111 1111 iRI�11! 1�I�111021 f�y 09,,llrp�r�r,,���ldlll IIRIIIIIIIIII o
nlnenunnnnullnu11I111111�I 1�IIiI111� 1 5'111 n.d11lin/R����■n■■I,n_.■IrAlriNLilnr 1NIDNNNNNHm11 -u
IIIIIi1111111!!!IIIH11ulUNN111IIIMINN Inl■■■■■11 I _ 1111 Ni T 111%un„iliiltilluw%■■s■!!.iiedIntl d11;111i11 111I:17►.111'11p111R1IHN co
IIIIIIIlN1111111f11■■1I11111111111NIIIIIIN ; 1 1 .1I ,_ a111In IIPANIFFIII_S". Ii/1:111.4III!ij1N11u11111/hl1N111111111111■
uu11111111111luuuuIUII111111111IuIN111■ r ■ n11 w lItIPi !!�'', IP'��,./PUTA' 111111111111n11 11111 llillllllllrxp •
II1I11u11111111111I■IIII111111111111111HHI • ■111 .iF imi ro n1h1gH!i �lES /� 411talI■_NIINIIIIIII■nu11111111111111111IIIIIIHI 1 .4
1111U11111NI11111111111u1111111111111H1� ■■■RIi7�:ter:" 'y1111N"!N�a�i rA,4 ;>vl■�oguoli■L' ■■ff li i 1i1■11111iu 1111111�11111111111111 .d
u11u111111111M11■11111111111111111HHH1 =��H/a ppr' !""C. 1 •■■I•IIIIII I71111111111I1I 1111111N111I11111111111
■1■111111111111N111n1111111 11111111111111111 __►. ' rmown
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111N111111:11 i .. 1 `` mum nmu11 mnn m mNl HI
nIIIIM InliiiiiiiiillPl11e1i111111I um.. �..,i- ,, IHI _ uuiuIuiiiijil1111111iiiii111111iitliiII M 1111
III■ue111N11111111E�II1111�:iiLtiL 7inI1lr ,t t UM dl 1111 In■■11■ 11111111111 C
1�ZEpI y1'==••■■■.. uiiiinel + j j SIN■ ■u n 11114IN1111111111111111111111111M
CD
I11III1�11�n11nnunnnnllNNIN1111111NH1 1 1 ; `1 tlNl L II u ■■ ■1nII1111111t11111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII um 0 ,cti
t
;111 1 , i I I I H 1,1, lit! Lfi1„1 i I L I 1iil. Il i I i 1 1 1tii,
2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 200 300 400 600 1000 N
Basin#1 0
Outfall Discharge, cfs 0..)
(1.4 cf)
FE-8
(3.1 cfs)

APPENDIX E
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
12

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
w ` ! /
v t ,
...IL ,T
; L - - 1 t
r i i
4.4
f{. _,,
I -
. a :,, .I , IT �; s.s+�s +
A a
'7 2' ' -,1 , I .11,4.774p IF.nrilkar— - . :ft:"-c:::1011,!':1!:;,11::;(0.1.'i ;I:.1."k.' tf''-'''''''', ;
h.,
1., 0 ‘.F l.,1
ECS Southeast, LLP
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Mavis #2096 — Louisburg, NC
8601 NC Hwy 56
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 06:24909
August 26, 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities
August 26, 2022
Ms. Rachael Dickinson
Mavis Tire Supply, LLC
358 Saw Mill River Road
Millwood, NY 10546
ECS Project No. 06:24909
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Mavis#2096—Louisburg, NC
8601 NC Hwy 56
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina 27549
Dear Ms. Dickinson:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical
engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general
accordance with our agreed to scope of work. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical
aspects of the project along with the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted,and
our design and construction recommendations.
It has been our pleasure to be of service to Mavis Tire Supply, LLC during the design phase of this project.
We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase,
and we would like to provide our services during construction phase operations as well to verify
subsurface conditions assumed for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information
contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted, DocuSigned by:
ECS Southeast, LLP t.{ICARp
DocuSigned by: `
0
1/# [1�D f7r SEAL
44105
:1;? fNGINEEP..0 :
`—B80D3B9BCA6B4 4... ° R,;;GOE? ''
Victor McDuffee, P.E. Bob Goehring, P. ., D.GE
Senior Project Engineer Senior Principal En "nccr
[e-mail] [e-mail]
8/26/2022 I 2:17 PM EDT
5260 Greens Dairy Road, Raleigh, NC 27616 • T: 919-861-9910 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Florida,LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic,LLC • ECS Midwest,LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Southwest, LLP
NC Engineering No.F-1078•NC Geology No.C-553•SC Engineering No.3239

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 SITE INFORMATION 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2
2.1 SITE INFORMATION 2
2.2 Proposed Construction 3
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3
3.1 Subsurface Characterization 4
3.1.1 Regional Geology 4
3.1.2 Soil Conditions 4
3.2 Groundwater Observations 4
3.3 Laboratory Testing 5
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5
4.1 BUILDING/STRUCTURE DESIGN 5
4.1.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations 5
4.1.2 Floor Slabs 6
4.1.3 Building Retaining Walls 7
4.1.4 Seismic Design 8
4.2 SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 9
4.2.1 Slopes 9
4.2.2 Pavement Sections 9
5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 10
5.1 Subgrade Preparation 10
5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing 10
5.1.2 Proofrolling 10
5.2 Earthwork Operations 11
5.2.1 Excavation Considerations 11
5.2.2 Engineered Fill Materials 12
5.2.3 Compaction 12
5.3 Foundation and FLOOR SLABS 13
5.4 Pavements 13
5.4.1 Subgrade Evaluation 13
5.4.2 Aggregate Base Course 13
5.4.3 Asphalt Quality Control/Quality Assurance 14
6.0 CLOSING 14

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Drawings& Reports
• Site Location Diagram
• Boring Location Plan
• Generalized Subsurface Profile
Appendix B—Field Operations
• Reference Notes for Boring Logs
• Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)
• Boring Logs

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary is intended as a very brief overview of the primary geotechnical conditions
that are expected to affect design and construction. Information gleaned from the executive
summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.
• We understand that the project includes the construction of a new eight (8) bay Mavis Tire
structure with associated parking and drive aisles.
• The natural soils encountered in the borings generally consisted of Clayey SAND (SC)and Sandy
LEAN CLAY.
• SPT N-values within the sands ranged from 7 to 24 bpf, indicating a relative density of loose to
medium dense. The SPT N-values within the clays ranged from 14 to 24 bpf, indicating a
consistency varying from stiff to very stiff.
• Groundwater was not encountered at the time of drilling.
• Provided subgrades and engineered fills are prepared as discussed herein, and based on the
assumed design foundation loads, the proposed structure can be supported by conventional
shallow spread footing foundations sized for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf.
• We assume that the ground floor slabs-on-grade will be at or above finish exterior grades
around the entire building footprint.
• We recommend that below grade walls such as cast-in-place pit walls that are restrained from
movement be designed to withstand at-rest lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads from
adjacent slabs, foundations, and streets.
• Based on the conditions encountered in the borings, we recommend that a Site Class "D" be
used for design of the proposed building.
• ECS should be retained to review the design documents for conformance with our
recommendations.
• ECS should be retained for construction materials testing and special inspections to facilitate
proper implementation of our recommendations.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 2
1.0 SITE INFORMATION
The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of a building and
paved parking lot for a commercial property. The recommendations developed for this report are
based on project information supplied by Mavis Tire Supply.
This report contains the procedures and results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory
testing programs, review of existing site conditions, engineering analyses, and recommendations
for the design and construction of the project.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
This report is based on the following sources of information:
• Emails between Rachel Dickinson with Mavis Tire Supply, LLC and Blake Hash and Nathan
Nallainathan with ECS on August 2, 2022, and August 3, 2022.
• Final Site Plan prepared by Bohler Engineering dated March 18, 2022.
• Google Earth aerial photo dated April 2022.
• Site and topographic information obtained from the Franklin County GIS website.
2.1 SITE INFORMATION
The site is located at 8601 NC Highway in Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina, at the
approximate location shown in the following figure.
,
•
, ._. 41
N
• Gay
at
f►7
Site ;
Figure 2.1.1. Site Location

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 3
The property is currently undeveloped, partially wooded, and is located immediately east of a
developed property with buildings, paved parking lots, paved driveways. The existing ground
surface slopes downward from west to east,with elevations between 322 and 308 feet.
2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand that the proposed project includes the construction of a new eight (8) bay Mavis
Tire structure with associated parking and drive aisles. The following information explains our
understanding of the structure and their loads:
SUBJECT DESIGN INFORMATION/EXPECTATIONS
Building Footprint Approximately 6,765 square feet
#of Stories One story above grade
with potential below grade pits
Usage Tire retail structure and service center
Framing
We anticipate that the building will be principally
masonry and steel construction
Column Loads 40 kips or less (assumed)
Wall Loads 3 kips per linear foot or less (assumed)
Finished Floor Elevation Within 3 feet of existing grades (assumed)
The structural engineer should verify these assumptions and notify ECS if the actual unfactored
foundation design loads are significantly different than these assumed values.
Based on the conceptual site plan provided by Bohler Engineering,the proposed site development
includes a parking lot with approximately 31 spaces.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the insert titled
Subsurface Exploration Procedure:Standard Penetration Testing(SPT). Our scope of work included
drilling 7 borings.
Our borings were located with a handheld GPS unit and their approximate locations are shown on
the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. Please note that the ground surface elevations shown
on the boring logs and cross sections were not surveyed by a licensed surveyor. These elevations
were interpolated using topographic information obtained from the Franklin County GIS website
and Google Earth. They should be considered approximate.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 4
3.1 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION
3.1.1 Regional Geology
The site is located within the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont is characterized by
residual overburden soils weathered in place from the underlying igneous and metamorphic rock.
The topography and relief of the Piedmont uplands have developed from differential weathering
of the bedrock. Because of the continued chemical and physical weathering, the bedrock in the
Piedmont is now generally covered with a mantle of soil that has weathered in place from the
parent bedrock. These soils have variable thicknesses and are referred to as residuum or residual
soils.
The residuum is typically finer grained and has higher clay content near the surface because of the
advanced weathering. Similarly, the soils typically become coarser grained with increasing depth
because of decreased weathering. As the degree of weathering decreases, the residual soils
generally retain the overall appearance,texture, gradation and foliations of the parent rock.
3.1.2 Soil Conditions
Data from the soil test borings is included in the Appendix. The subsurface conditions discussed in
the following paragraphs and those shown on the boring logs represent an estimate of the
subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted
geotechnical engineering judgments. We note that the transition between different soil strata is
usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs. Please refer to individual boring logs that
are contained in Appendix B.
Topsoil: While little or no topsoil was reported at the boring locations, we anticipate that 3 to 6
inches of topsoil may be present in other areas. In low lying or wooded areas,topsoil could be 6 to
12 inches and root balls could extend to 24 inches.
Residuum: The natural soils encountered below the existing grade generally consisted of Clayey
SAND (SC) and Sandy Lean CLAY (CL). The SPT N-values within the sands ranged from 7 to 24 bpf,
indicating a relative density of loose to medium dense. The SPT N-values within the clays ranged
from 14 to 24 bpf, indicating a consistency varying from stiff to very stiff.
A graphical presentation of the subsurface conditions is shown on the Subsurface Cross Section
included in Appendix A. As shown,the strata thicknesses are variable across the site.
3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
Groundwater was not encountered while drilling the borings. Variations in the long-term water
table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff,
construction activities, and other factors.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 5
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Each sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with ASTM
D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures).
After identification and classification, the samples were grouped in the major zones noted on the
boring logs in Appendix B.The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses along
with the soil descriptions. The stratification lines between strata on the logs are approximate; in
situ,the transitions may be gradual.
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 BUILDING/STRUCTURE DESIGN
4.1.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations
Provided subgrades and engineered fills are prepared as discussed herein, and based on the
assumed design foundation loads, the proposed structure can be supported by conventional
shallow spread footing foundations. These include individual column footings and continuous wall
footings. The design of the shallow foundations should utilize the following parameters:
Foundation Design
Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing
Net Allowable Bearing Pressures�1 3,000 psf 3,000 psf
Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Stiff Silts/Clays, Medium Dense Sands,or
Engineered fill
Minimum Width 24 inches 16 inches
Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below 18 inches2 18 inches2
slab or finished grade)(2)
Estimated Total Settlement(3) Less than 1 inch Less than 1 inch
Estimated Differential Settlement(4) Less than 0.5 inches Less than 0.5 inches over
between columns 30 feet
Notes:
(1) Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of
the foundation.
(2) For bearing considerations and frost penetration requirements.
(3) Based on assumed structural loads. If final loads are different, ECS must be contacted to update foundation
recommendations and settlement calculations.
(4) Based on anticipated range of column/wall loads and variability in borings. Differential settlement can be re-evaluated
once the foundation plans are more complete.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 6
4.1.2 Floor Slabs
Floor Slabs Above Exterior Grades: The on-site lower plasticity natural soils and new engineered
fill are considered suitable for support of the ground floor slabs, although moisture control during
earthwork operations, including the use of disking or appropriate drying equipment, may be
necessary.
We assume that the ground floor slabs-on-grade will be at or above finish exterior grades around
the entire building footprint. Depending on floor coverings and building use, a capillary break layer
and vapor retarder should be installed to reduce the likelihood excessive moisture from coming in
contact with the concrete floor slab from the soils below.
The following graphic depicts our soil-supported slab recommendations:
Vapor Retarder or Vapor
- - - -
Concrete Slab Barrier
000 0 0 00 o 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 Oo
0 o 0 0 00 0 0 o 0 o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 Base Course
0 0 0 0 v
Firm,Stable, Compacted Soil Subgrade
Floor Slab Section
1. Base Course Layer Thickness: 4 inches
2. Base Course Layer Material: A compactable granular fill that will remain stable and support
construction traffic. At least 10%to 30%of the material should pass a No. 100 sieve with a
maximum aggregate size of%inch. Suitable materials are GRAVEL(ABC,GW,GW-SM),SAND
(SP-SM,SW-SM),and SILTY SAND(SM)with less than 30%fines.
3. Base Course Layer Material should be compacted to at least 98%maximum dry density per
ASTM D698.
4. Undisturbed natural subgrade should proofroll as firm and stable. Upper 1 foot of
engineered fill subgrade should be compacted to at least 98% maximum dry density per
ASTM D698
5. Vapor Barrier or Vapor Retarder—Refer to ACI 302.1R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction and ASTM E 1643 Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders
Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs for recommendations on
this issue. Additionally,environmental vapor intrusions considerations should be taken into
account by the vapor barrier/vapor retarder material selection and design.
Provided a base course layer is implemented in the slab section, the slabs may be designed using a
modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 psi/in. This value is applicable for design of slabs subject to
point loads and should be reduced based on loaded area for uniform sustained distributed loads.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 7
Provided a base course layer is implemented in the slab section, the slabs may be designed using
the following values of modulus of subgrade reaction,depending on the load intensity,type of load,
and size of loaded area.
Ground-supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation-supported
elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and slab will not
induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. Where the structural configuration
does not allow the use of a free-floating slab, the slab should be designed with adequate
reinforcement and load transfer devices to avoid overstressing of the slab.
4.1.3 Building Retaining Walls
We recommend that below grade walls such as cast-in-place pit walls that are restrained from
movement be designed to withstand at-rest lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads from
adjacent slabs, foundations, and streets. These recommendations apply to a "drained" condition
which is where there is drainage material behind below grade walls that diminishes hydrostatic
water pressures on the back of the below grade wall. To accomplish a drained condition, drainage
materials such as a free draining gravel, geocomposite drainage panels, weep holes, and an
underslab drainage system should be used.
We recommend that walls that are restrained from movement at the top be designed for a linearly
increasing lateral earth pressure. The following figure depicts our recommendation at-rest lateral
earth pressure condition for a "drained below-grade wall" with restrained wall top:
This diagram is rot Surc parse toad(psi)
suitable for the 6esri
of Support d Etc/whorl !�
or temporary shoran
systems.
A="1111
AmmiljE
I- / I/ I
lateral Earth pressure=60 H psi
(for below grade walls restrained
pressure from SuWrge
from movement at top and
=0 5■Vertical Surcharge
bottom.drained conditions only)
Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram
Surcharge loads imposed within a 45 degree slope from the base of the restrained wall should be
considered in the below grade wall design. These surcharge loads should be based on an at rest
pressure coefficient, ko,of 0.55. Care should be used to avoid the operation of heavy equipment to
compact the wall backfill since it may overload and the damage the wall; in addition, such loads are
not typically considered in the design of below grade walls.The lateral earth pressure information
presented above assumes level backfill behind the wall and does not account for hydrostatic
pressures against the walls.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 8
Foundation Drains: Below grade walls should be provided with a foundation drainage system to
relieve hydrostatic pressures which may develop in the wall backfill or the below grade pits should
be fully waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic pressures.
If used,a foundation drainage system should consist of weepholes through the wall and/or four(4)
inch perforated, closed joint drain line located along the backside of the walls above the top of the
footing. The drain line should be surrounded by at least six(6) inches of AASHTO Size No. 57 Stone
wrapped with an approved non-woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140-N or equivalent.
Wall Drains: Below grade walls should incorporate interal drainage so that hydrostatic pressures
do not build up behind the walls. Wall drains can consist of a twelve (12) inch wide zone of free
draining gavel, such as AASHTO No. 57 Stone, employed directly behind the wall and separated
from the soils beyond with non-woven filter fabric. Alternatively, the wall drain can consist of a
suitable geocomposite drainage board material. The wall drain should be hydraulically connected
to the foundation drain and the underslab drainage system, wherever possible.
4.1.4 Seismic Design
The site class for seismic design is based on the upper 100 feet of a soil profile. Three methods are
utilized in classifying sites, namely the shear wave velocity(v5)method;the unconfined compressive
strength (se) method; and the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) method. The N-value
method was used for this project.
The seismic site class definitions for the weighted average of shear wave velocity or SPT N-value in
the upper 100 feet of the soil profile are shown in the following table:
Seismic Site Class
Site Shear Wave Velocity,Vs, N value(bpf)
Class Soil Profile Name (ft./s)
A Hard Rock Vs>5,000 fps N/A
B Rock 2,500<Vs<5,000 fps N/A
C Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200<Vs<2,500 fps >50
D Stiff Soil Profile 600<Vs<_1,200 fps 15 to 50
E Soft Soil Profile Vs<600 fps <15
The Site Class for the site was determined by calculating a weighted average SPT N-value for the
top 100 feet of the subsurface profile. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings, we
recommend that a Site Class"D" be used for design of the proposed building.
Our experience indicates that evaluation of seismic site class using N-values can be overly
conservative. If it is determined that significant advantage could be gained with an improved Site
Class,additional site testing could be performed to measure actual shear wave velocities at the site.
ECS can provide a proposal for these services upon request.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 9
4.2 SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.2.1 Slopes
If cut or fill slopes exceed 15 feet in height, a slope stability analysis should be performed to
determine a slope inclination resulting in a factor of safety of at least 1.5 under static loading
conditions. Upon finalization of site civil drawings, ECS should be contacted to perform slope
stability analysis, if necessary, and determine if further exploration is necessary for the proposed
slopes.
4.2.2 Pavement Sections
Design Traffic Loading: Light duty pavements are expected to receive passenger vehicle traffic with
only occasional trucks. Heavy duty pavements are expected to receive light to moderate truck
traffic, but our recommended section is not intended to be routinely trafficked by heavy trucks.
Traffic loading conditions used in the analysis include equivalent single axle loadings (ESALs) of
50,000 and 10,000 for heavy duty and light duty pavements, respectively. It is important to
understand the recommended sections do not take into account construction traffic.The pavement
sections below are based on a service period of 20 years.
Subgrade Characteristics: Pavement subgrades soils should consist of firm and unyielding,
compacted low plasticity soil.
Based on our experience with similar soils,a design CBR value of 3 is recommended for this project.
The pavement design assumes subgrades consist of suitable materials evaluated by ECS and placed
and compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Standard
Proctor test(ASTM D 698).
Minimum Material Thicknesses: The following minimum pavement sections may be used by the
civil engineer to develop the pavement design drawings for the project, provided the civil engineer
is in agreement with ECS' design traffic loading assumptions and estimates. The contractor should
bid and construct the project in accordance with the civil design drawings, not the
recommendations given in this report. These recommendations are not contract drawings nor
specifications.
Asphalt Pavement Section Recommendations
Pavement Light Duty Heavy Duty
Type
Material Designation Pavement Pavement
(in.) (in)
Asphalt Surface Course(59.5B) 2 1.5
Flexible Asphalt Intermediate Course(119.0C) - 2.5
Aggregate Base Course 8 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 10
Concrete Pavement Section Recommendations
Heavy Duty
Pavement Concrete
TypeMaterial Designation
Pavement
(in.)
Portland Cement Concrete 6
Rigid (4000 psi,air-entrained)
Aggregate Base Course 8
Concrete Pavements: Concentrated front-wheel loads are frequently imposed on pavements in
trash dumpster and truck loading dock areas. This type of loading typically results in rutting and
scuffing of bituminous pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Therefore,
we recommend that the pavements in trash pickup and loading dock aprons areas utilize the
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement section. It may be prudent to use rigid pavement
sections in any areas planned for heavy truck traffic.
The Portland Cement Concrete pavement section should consist of air-entrained Portland cement
concrete having a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. The rigid pavement section
should be provided with construction joints and saw-cut control joints at appropriate intervals per
Portland Cement Association(PCA)requirements.The construction joints should be reinforced with
dowels to transfer loads across the joints. Wire mesh should be included to control shrinkage
cracking of the concrete.
5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing
The subgrade preparation should consist of stripping vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, and other soft
or poor-quality materials from the proposed construction areas. ECS should be called on to verify
that topsoil and poor-quality surficial materials have been completely removed prior to the
placement of engineered fill or construction of structures and pavements.
5.1.2 Proofrolling
After removing poor-quality surficial materials, cutting to the proposed grade, and prior to the
placement of engineered fill or other construction materials, the exposed subgrade should be
examined by ECS. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled with construction
equipment having a minimum axle load of 10 tons (e.g.fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck). The
areas subject to proofrolling should be traversed by the equipment in two perpendicular
(orthogonal) directions with overlapping passes of the vehicle under the observation of ECS. This
procedure is intended to assist in identifying localized/shallow depth yielding materials.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 11
In the event that yielding or "pumping" subgrade is identified by the proofrolling, those areas
should be repaired prior to the placement of subsequent engineered fill or other construction
materials. Methods of repair of soft or yielding subgrade, such as undercutting or moisture
conditioning or chemical stabilization, should be discussed with ECS to determine the appropriate
procedure with regard to the existing conditions causing the soft conditions.
Test pits and/or hand auger borings may be excavated to explore the shallow subsurface materials
in the area of the soft conditions to help in determining the cause of the observed yielding materials
and to assist in the evaluation of the appropriate remedial action to establish a firm and unyielding
subgrade.
5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS
5.2.1 Excavation Considerations
Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be made and maintained in accordance with
OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and
constructing stable,temporary excavations and slopes and should shore, slope, or bench the sides
of the excavations and slopes as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and
bottom. The contractor's responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the
soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should
slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth,
exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
ECS is providing this information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility
for construction site safety or the contractor's activities;such responsibility is not being implied and
should not be inferred.
Construction Dewatering: Based on the borings, our experience with groundwater fluctuations on
similar sites, and assumed design grades,we anticipate most of the temporary excavations will not
encounter groundwater. However, the contractor should be prepared to remove precipitation or
groundwater that may seep into temporary construction excavations using open pumping.
Excavatibility: Based on the assumed excavation depths for mass grading, footings and utilities,
we anticipate that the most of the materials to be excavated will be natural soils, which can be
removed with conventional earth excavation equipment such as track-mounted backhoes, loaders,
or bulldozers. However, the weathering process in the Piedmont can be erratic and significant
variations of the depths of the denser materials can occur in relatively short distances. In some
cases, isolated boulders or thin rock seams may be present in the soil matrix. These isolated
boulders or rock seams may require ripping, hammering, or blasting to remove.
Drainage: Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to
limit ponding of water which will degrade the subgrade soils.
Subgrade Protection: Measures should also be taken to limit site disturbance, especially from
rubber-tired heavy construction equipment, and to control and remove surface water from
development areas, including structural and pavement areas. Exposed soil subgrades should be

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 12
protected at the end of each working day to limit infiltration of precipitation and surface water with
adequate drainage and sealing with the drum roller appropriate for the exposed soil subgrades.
Undercut: If site earthwork is performed during the typically cooler, wetter months of the year,
additional undercutting in other areas of the site is anticipated due to potentially excessively wet
unstable soils. Undercut excavations should be backfilled with properly placed and engineered fill.
Use of geotextiles and select granular fill may be recommended by ECS during construction to
reduce the required undercut depths and/or aid in stabilization of subgrades.
5.2.2 Engineered Fill Materials
Product Submittals: At least one week prior to placement of engineered fill, representative bulk
samples (about 50 pounds) of on-site and/or off-site borrow should be submitted to ECS for
laboratory testing, which will include Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, grain-size
distribution, and moisture-density relationships for compaction. Import materials should be tested
prior to being hauled to the site to determine if they meet project specifications.
Engineered Fill Materials: Materials for use as engineered fill should consist of inorganic soils
classified as CL, ML,SM,SC,SW,SP,GW, GM and GC,or a combination of these group symbols, per
ASTM D 2487. The materials should not contain significant amounts of organic matter or debris.
The fill should exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 95 pounds per cubic foot, as determined
by a Standard Proctor compaction test(ASTM D 698). Fat CLAY(CH)or Elastic SILT(MH)should not
be imported to the site. Rock fragments should generally be less than 3 inches in maximum
dimension and should be blended with soil.
Poor Quality Materials: Poor quality/unsuitable fill materials include materials which do not satisfy
the requirements for Engineered Fill,such as topsoil, organic materials, debris, debris-laden fill and
highly plastic soils such as Elastic SILT(MH) and Fat CLAY(CH).
On-Site Borrow Suitability: We anticipate that most of the soils encountered in the borings will be
suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. The on-site soils meeting the classifications for recommended
suitable engineered fill, plus meeting the restrictions on separation distances, organic content,and
debris, may be used as engineered fill.
5.2.3 Compaction
Engineered Fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts. In confined areas such as utility
trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 4 inches to 6 inches may be required to
achieve specified degrees of compaction. Fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts.
Engineered Fill should be moisture conditioned as necessary to within -3 and +3 % of the soil's
optimum moisture content. Moisture conditioning options include spraying and mixing in water to
excessively dry soils, scarifying and drying of excessively wet soils, and adding lime to excessively
wet soils. Engineered Fill should be compacted with appropriate equipment to a dry density of at
least 95% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) more than 12 inches below
the finish subgrade elevation and to a least 98% in the upper 12 inches. ECS should be retained to
observe and test the placement and compaction of engineered fill.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 13
5.3 FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLABS
Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the
footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore,
foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made or shortly
thereafter.
If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, 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 rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils
are exposed, the contractor should consider placement of a 1 to 3-inch thick "mud mat" of"lean"
concrete on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.
Footing Subgrade Observations: It will be important to have ECS observe the foundation subgrade
prior to placing foundation concrete,to confirm the bearing soils are as anticipated.
If unsuitable, soft or yielding soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, they should be
undercut and removed and backfilled with engineered fill, No. 57 stone wrapped in woven
geotextile,flowable fill, or lean concrete (f'c>_ 1,000 psi at 28 days) up to the original design bottom
of footing elevation.
Slab Subgrade Verification:A representative of ECS should be called to observe exposed subgrades
within the expanded building limits prior to engineered fill placement to observe that adequate
subgrade preparation has been achieved.
5.4 PAVEMENTS
5.4.1 Subgrade Evaluation
The soil subgrade should be smooth-rolled and proofrolled prior to ABC placement. Areas that
pump, rut, or are otherwise yielding should be re-compacted or undercut and replaced. Based on
the borings, we anticipate undercutting of very soft to soft or very loose pavement subgrade soils
could be necessary in localized areas of the site. The amount of undercutting will be dependent on
design grades and weather conditions at the time of construction.
5.4.2 Aggregate Base Course
The ABC should conform with the gradation, liquid limit, plasticity index, resistance to abrasion,and
soundness per Section 1005 of the 2012 NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures.
The ABC should be placed and be compacted in accordance with Section 520 of the 2012 NCDOT
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures.
The ABC should be placed in a single lift if 10 inches or less in thickness. Two lifts of ABC should be
placed for layers more than 10 inches thick. The ABC should be compacted to at least 98 percent
of its Modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight per ASTM D1557 or AASHTO T180 (as modified
by NCDOT), provided nuclear density testing is performed. Otherwise,at least 100%compaction is
recommended. To confirm that the specified degree of compaction is being obtained, field
compaction testing should be performed in each ABC lift by ECS.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
Geotechnical Engineering Report—Mavis#2096—Louisburg,NC August 26,2022
ECS Project No.06:24909 Page 14
5.4.3 Asphalt Quality Control/Quality Assurance
We recommend that the asphalt contractor perform quality control procedures and testing per the
project specifications to establish the required roller pattern(s). Quality assurance testing should
be provided by ECS and should consist of coring the placed asphalt pavement to verify thickness
and compaction.
6.0 CLOSING
ECS has prepared this report of findings,evaluations, and recommendations to guide geotechnical-
related design and construction aspects of the project. We performed these services in accordance
with the standard of care expected of professionals in the industry performing similar services on
projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region. No other representation, expressed
or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report.
The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS. If any of this
information is inaccurate, either due to our interpretation of the documents provided or site or
design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted immediately in order that we can
review the report in light of the changes and provide additional or alternate recommendations as
may be required to reflect the proposed construction.
We recommend that ECS be allowed to review the project's plans and specifications pertaining to
our work so that we may ascertain consistency of those plans/specifications with the intent of the
geotechnical report.
Field observations, monitoring, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation
installation are an extension of and integral to the geotechnical design recommendation. We
recommend that the owner retain these quality assurance services and that ECS be allowed to
continue our involvement throughout these critical phases of construction to provide general
consultation as issues arise.
ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the
data in this report.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
APPENDIX A— Drawings & Reports
Site Location Diagram
Boring Location Plan
Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A'

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
t it-
-I, ��` ServiceLayer Credits: Esri, ERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors s w ,• •''.
*f J
�4 p❑ Ir. ��
4e,-.%teer...-46t w,.<:) .., ''
-.
• ti - - rn,/1 •� ! ���� c .ram I ' .• - if ;
7:3
ri' •
I ci E
,_,-, ••‘ ..- r. .j a, '
‘0-... ND.`'' ;r'
- t 0 - '-' 4 • A r_______
1 • (1.• , ., ...t: ..„. * :„. , . . .....„
. . , ,_e-p if-4 , •, or ,Ne..- .
4111114-c*A4 .
f �S�Ft� •
1R r I q tt I .f '
Alt.."4',..foolti......s. Ir • ,‘ I - , IIIIIIIIMIT _ _ .,p1,•.•1‘1,• ,.
lir t 0 - .
: -„
/•_ �, // 1 •
/�
•
r��a,� _., T J'i•',t itt .* !r+.iiri_ �' Site �a j `j
0
. . i -
_. r.7.;_ y .t...
1/4,
... a . r .r
:ea* 1• •
; ♦ \
- toff-
I
; • . any- •. --,- N. '�. w,r - --- VO
I•
•
•
m.
. . • . , i ,t,
. ... , N ___ 41.
r ",. 1^� ff'• �•t¢ '♦ ``'�`• - '-� 12
-•+ i '''0.�� m 1. •
471 tot—itc' is �'•V' •�. Ilir t ,'
'• ter _ , i
;!•1`'j ' .y•'fir• �;:•_yv'.,. - - _ - ♦ - ,• '� ,,,- • - - _ _--- _ - - _-_-_- 1 �. 1
L AtIS
' '�t - •
'syfr — Burke Blvd _
tee_--
'� 1 11 , . • �.- ryi I '
•• +1 r -� - I -
11
1V1,• A ♦ 'r • ' r ' '1 ` // It_ 1't!( i'.l /��lr1r'7:'S L. .�+ • .. •v f}
:4„. 14.0'itl. d
fr
r ter ; ; �Dr.t, '4. „ . V 44,..". *to•- ' /
,,� r v ,
•4, 4''g: ' > I. ;,E.) •i i. •. 1 is ' Feet il
lane _ApilliFi
SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM ENGINEER
SKM1
SCALE
MAVIS #2096 - LOUISBURG, NCP CAS
EOTCT OD
06.24909
FIGURE
8601 NC HWY 56, LOUISBURG, NC 1 OF 2
DATE
MAVIS TIRE SUPPLY, LLC ; , i

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
t
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMap contributors t
\
i
i.
avg... 5
B-06 13=0TI
fir'- c . . _
B 01 a•Aa .
B-06 B-05 ,
14 # Q°
B-02 - B-04 i
it
/ " * al"1".. - \ ...,
B-08 . ..z
Legend
-- Approximate Boring Locations
M
Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A' 0 50 - 00'
Feet "
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM ENGINEER
SKM1
SCALE
AS NOTED
MAVIS #2096 - LOUISBURG, NC
PROJECT NO.
06:24909
FIGURE
8601 NC HWY 56, LOUISBURG, NC 2 OF 2
MAVIS TIRE SUPPLY, LLC DATE
8/24/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
320 w 320
0
m
319 319
0
00
318 ; r r 318
o - - : I:: :
to
a 16
317 !!!, co %, 317
Tr
o !: '! o
to j! CL m
14 j! !i
316 ;'!! r%f. • 316
- - - -
i , / CL %II
17 j%f r j j!!
315 //. t•!•�•. 315
•1:/:a:
314 15 f:f:f f 16
•7:l:I:. -Se 314
• 24 J.,F,:,/,f - - - 0 0
/:!:/;:,
!;r:rf m m
313 12 • Eoe'a 5.o 313
j. :r:r,
r p:
• 16 !! jj -
312 17 11
Sc - --- ` !!, 312
l
i// CL SC
311 24 !;/r r, 21 311
j•'' '' '
- - r-
10 F r i
310 10 - - - 310
13 10
309 - • • • 17 14 sc 309
�'' SC sc
308 11 sc •- Eoa @ 5 o 308
307 307
11 10
f
17
306 306
305 305
10
F
304
- - SC 304
E0B 5'is.o 14
303 10 303
lf
302 EOBc@15o 14 14 302
Legend Key
301 EOB©15.0• EOBe.15.0 .•+• 301
300 - 300
1.1/ CL - -
i
ii 299 299
15
297.00
298 E01 -,,50 298
o-) N N Lr) Cc CO
V Lri
t` � � N0 r � Nm cook
Ln [A CV I,-
CO CO
Notes: Plastic Limit Water Content Liquid Limit S7 WL(First Encountered) - Fill
1-EOB:END OF BORING AR:AUGER REFUSAL SR:SAMPLER REFUSAL. X GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE A-A'
2-THE NUMBER BELOW THE STRIPS IS THE DISTANCE ALONG THE BASELINE. [FINES CONTENT°!o] Y WL(Completion) - Possible FillITS
3-SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION. Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC
4-STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE(LEFT OF BORING)IN BLOWS ` BOTTOM OF CASING 7 WL(Seasonal High Water) Probable Fill Mavis Tire Supply,LLC
PER FOOT(ASTM D1586).
CX LOSS OF CIRCULATION Q WL(Stabilized) MI Rock
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
Project No: 06:24909 I Date: 08/26/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
APPENDIX B — Field Operations
Reference Notes for Boring Logs
Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)
Boring Logs

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
E REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
MATERIAL12 I DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS&ABBREVIATIONS
SS Split Spoon Sampler PM Pressuremeter Test
ASPHALT
ST Shelby Tube Sampler RD Rock Bit Drilling
• WS Wash Sample RC Rock Core, NX,BX,AX
CONCRETE BS Bulk Sample of Cuttings REC Rock Sample Recovery%
''c : .':o," PA Power Auger(no sample) RQD Rock Quality Designation%
_�•;a;P. GRAVEL HSA Hollow Stem Auger
TOPSOIL
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
VOID DESIGNATION PARTICLE SIZES
Boulders 12 inches(300 mm)or larger
BRICK Cobbles 3 inches to 12 inches(75 mm to 300 mm)
0 o Gravel: Coarse 3/4 inch to 3 inches(19 mm to 75 mm)
P oo o` AGGREGATE BASE COURSE Fine 4.75 mm to 19 mm(No.4 sieve to inch)
i Sand: Coarse
# � 2.00 mm to 4.75 mm(No. 10 to No.4 sieve)
GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL Medium 0.425 mm to 2.00 mm(No.40 to No. 10 sieve)
w + gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines
Q�o� Fine 0.074 mm to 0.425 mm(No.200 to No.40 sieve)
GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL Silt&ClayFines" 200 sieve)
I
0 c S' ("Fines") <0.074 mm(smaller than a No.gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines
�,c� GM SILTY GRAVEL
o flQ' gravel-sand-silt mixtures COHESIVE SILTS&CLAYS COARSE FINE
PA
RELATIVE GRAINED GRAINED
GC CLAYEY GRAVEL UNCONFINED �o �o/
AMOUNT
/•
gravel-sand-clay mixtures COMPRESSIVE SPT5 CONSISTENCY,
)8
• o SW WELL-GRADED SAND STRENGTH• ,QP4 (BPF) (COHESIVE)• Trace <5 <5
• x gravelly sand,little or no fines <0.25 <2 Very Soft
SP POORLY-GRADED SAND 0.25-<0.50 2-4 Soft With 10-20 10-25
: : . gravelly sand,little or no fines 0.50-<1.00 5-8 Firm Adjective 25-45 30-45
1 .• SM SILTY SAND 1.00-<2.00 9-15 Stiff (ex:"Silty")
sand-silt mixtures
2.00-<4.00 16-30 Very Stiff
SC CLAYEY SAND 4.00-8.00 31 -50 Hard
: :• : > sand-clay mixtures >
8.00 >50 Very Hard WATER LEVELS6
ML SILT
non-plastic to medium plasticity
GRAVELS,SANDS&NON-COHESIVE SILTS 0 WL(First Encountered)
MH ELASTIC SILT
high plasticity SPT6 DENSITY V WL(Completion)
//' i CL LEAN CLAY <5 Very Loose
J low to medium plasticity 5-10 Loose _v WL(Seasonal High Water)
11 -30 Medium Dense
// //) CH highFAT plastiCLAYcity 31 -50 Dense I � WL(Stabilized)
55/5 55 OL ORGANIC SILT or CLAY >50 Very Dense
non-plastic to low plasticity
5 $ $ OH ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
high plasticity FILL AND ROCK
a •% PT PEAT
-%r, 2_, highly organic soils
FILL POSSIBLE FILL PROBABLE FILL ROCK
'Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-17(Visual-Manual Procedure)unless noted otherwise.
2To be consistent with general practice,"POORLY GRADED"has been removed from GP,GP-GM,GP-GC,SP,SP-SM,SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.
3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol[Ex:(SM-FILL)].
4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot(tsf).
6Standard Penetration Test(SPT)refers to the number of hammer blows(blow count)of a 140 lb.hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler
required to drive the sampler 12 inches(ASTM D 1586)."N-value"is another term for"blow count"and is expressed in blows per foot(bpf).SPT correlations per 7.4.2 Method B
and need to be corrected if using an auto hammer.
6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol.The measurements are relatively reliable
when augering,without adding fluids,in granular soils.In clay and cohesive silts,the determination of water levels may require several days for the
water level to stabilize. In such cases,additional methods of measurement are generally employed.
'Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-17 Note 14.
$Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5%per ASTM D 2488-17.
Reference Notes for Boring Logs(09-02-2021).doc ©2021 ECS Corporate Services,LLC.All Rights Reserved

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURE:
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT)
r V ASTM D 1586
Split-Barrel Sampling
Standard Penetration Testing, or SPT, is the most frequently used
subsurface exploration test performed worldwide. This test provides
samples for identification purposes, as well as a measure of penetration
resistance, or N-value. The N-Value, or blow counts, when corrected and
correlated, can approximate engineering properties of soils used for
geotechnical design and engineering purposes.
SPT Procedure:
• Involves driving a hollow tube (split-spoon)
into the ground by dropping a 140-lb hammer
a height of 30-inches at desired depth
• Recording the number of hammer blows re- ,►;�
quired to drive split-spoon a distance of 12 • ' - • -
inches (in 3 or 4 Increments of 6 inches each)
1- -.��
• Auger is advanced* and an additional SPT is
performed = r,
• One SPT test is typically performed for every
two to five feet ''1 p
• Obtain 1.5 - inch diameter soil sample ► '
*Drilling Methods May Vary— The predominant drilling
methods used for SPT are open hole fluid rotary drilling and
hollow-stem auger drilling.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Mavis Tire Supply,LLC 06:24909 B-01 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
IFSi
Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC Quantex,Inc.
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: BOTTOM OF CASING '
850613.8 2201799.7 317.00cc
Lu LU Z Z J LL A LIQUID LIMIT
ifF ; L. X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
O CL Q Cl- Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
< N < CC > it RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
An An > — RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
(CL)SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, moist,
very stiff - 8-9-8
_ Si- SS 18 18 — (17)
(SC)CLAYEY FINE SAND, reddish
S-2 SS 18 18 brown,gray and white, moist, - 8-6-6 1:
(12) .2
5 medium dense L 312
s-s-s
_ S-3 SS 18 18 — (10) 'o
— • — 7-6-5
S-4 SS 18 18 •
- (11) 'i
10 307—
7-5-s
S-5 SS 18 18 (10) �10
15 END OF BORING AT 15.0 FT 302
20— 297
25— 292-
30— 287
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) BORING STARTED: Aug 10 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 13.50
Y WL(Completion) DRY BORING
Aug 10 2022 HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED:
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:
2Z WL(Stabilized) ATV EM8 DRILLING METHOD:2.25 NSA
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Mavis Tire Supply,LLC 06:24909 B-02 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
IFSi
Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC Quantex,Inc.
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: BOTTOM OF CASING '
850566.1 2201802.8 319.00cc
Lu LU Z Z J H Q LIQUID LIMIT
I- F ; E. X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL CC
Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
O CL Q CL 0 Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
QN < CC > it RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
An UT > — RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
(SC)CLAYEY FINE SAND, brown, -
orange,gray and white, moist, loose • - 6-7-9
S 1 SS 18 18 to medium dense — (16) '6
— — 4-4-3
S-2 SS 18 18 - (7) e
5 314—
_ 8-8-8
_ S-3 SS 18 18 (16)•
6
•
— • — 6-5-5
S-4 SS 18 18 • - (10) 'o
10 309—
6-5-5
S-5 SS 18 18 (10) Rio
15 END OF BORING AT15.0FT 304—
20— 299—
25— 294-
30— 289—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) BORING STARTED: Aug 10 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 13.50
Y WL(Completion) DRY BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Aug 10 2022 HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:
2Z WL(Stabilized) ATV EM8 DRILLING METHOD:2.25 NSA
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Mavis Tire Supply,LLC 06:24909 B-03 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
IFSi
Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC Quantex,Inc.
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: BOTTOM OF CASING '
850589.3 2201850.6 316.00cc
Lu LU Z Z J LL A LIQUID LIMIT
I- F ; E. X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
O CL Q Cl_ Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
QN < CC > it RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
An An > — RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
(SC)CLAYEY FINE SAND, reddish
brown,white,orange and gray, moist, - 6-7-$
S 1 SS 18 18 medium dense — (15) 's
8-8-9
S-2 SS 18 18 - (17) e2
7
5 311
- 6-6-7
— S-3 SS 18 18 (13)• 's
6-5-6
- S-4 SS 18 18 • - (11) 'i
10 306
7-8-6
S-5 SS 18 18 - (14) 1
4
15 END OF BORING AT 15.0 FT 301
20— 296
25— 291
30— 286
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) BORING STARTED: Aug 10 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 13.50
Y WL(Completion) DRY BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Aug 10 2022 HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:
2Z WL(Stabilized) ATV EM8 DRILLING METHOD:2.25 NSA
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Mavis Tire Supply,LLC 06:24909 B-04 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
IFSi
Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC Quantex,Inc.
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: BOTTOM OF CASING '
850537.7 2201861.3 316.00cc
Lu LU Z Z J LL A LIQUID LIMIT
ifF ; L. X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
O CL Q Cl_ Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
< N < CC > it RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
An An > — RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
(SC)CLAYEY FINE SAND, orange, -
brown and white, moist, loose to • - 8-9-7
S 1 SS 18 18 medium dense — (16) 's
— — 6-5-6
S-2 SS 18 18 - (11) 'i
5 311—
5-5-5
S 3 SS 18 18 _ (10) to
— • — 5-5-5
_ S-4 SS 18 18 - (10) :4
10 306—
— — 6-7-7
S-5 SS 18 18 • - (14) 014
15 END OF BORING AT15.0FT 301—
20— 296—
25— 291-
30— 286—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) BORING STARTED: Aug 10 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 13.50
Y WL(Completion) DRY BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Aug 10 2022 HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:
2Z WL(Stabilized) ATV EM8 DRILLING METHOD:2.25 NSA
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Mavis Tire Supply,LLC 06:24909 B-05 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
IFSi
Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC Quantex,Inc.
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: BOTTOM OF CASING '
850563.2 2201902.7 313.00cc
Lu LU Z Z J LL Q LIQUID LIMIT
I- F ; L. X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
O CL Q [L Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
QN < CC > it RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
An An > — RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
— REC 10 20 30 40 50
(CL) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, brown,
moist,very stiff 14-12-12
— Si- SS 18 18 — (24)
4
(SC)CLAYEY FINE SAND, light brown
S-2 SS 18 18 and white, medium dense — 88-9
(17) R'
5 L 308 7
6-8-9
— S-3 SS 18 18 — (17)
7
— • _ 6-7-7
S-4 SS 18 18 • - (14) '4
10 303
•
— — 9-8-7
S-5 SS 18 18 • - (15) 05
15 END OF BORING AT 15.0 FT 298
20— 293
25— 288-
30— 283
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) BORING STARTED: Aug 10 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 13.50
Y WL(Completion) DRY BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Aug 10 2022 HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:
2Z WL(Stabilized) ATV EMS DRILLING METHOD:2.25 NSA
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Mavis Tire Supply,LLC 06:24909 B-07 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
IFSi
Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC Quantex,Inc.
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION IIID
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: BOTTOM OF CASING '
850596.5 2201925.1 313.00cc
Lu LU Z Z J LL Q LIQUID LIMIT
I- F ; L. X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
O CL Q Cl- Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
QN < CC > it RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
An UT > - RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
__ - REC 10 20 30 40 50
(SC)CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
trace gravel,contains slight roots, 8-11-10
_ S-1 SS 18 18 gray, moist, medium dense — (21) 1
(SC)CLAYEY FINE SAND, light brown,
S-2 SS 18 18 moist, medium dense — 5-6-8
5 •_ END OF BORING AT5.0FT 308=
10— 303
15— 298
20— 293
25— 288-
30— 283
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) BORING STARTED: Aug 10 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 3.50
Y WL(Completion) DRY BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Aug 10 2022 HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:
2Z WL(Stabilized) ATV EM8 DRILLING METHOD:2.25 HSA
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

DocuSign Envelope ID: F8C43687-5E2E-4351-B7FA-B8BED2DC9D78
CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Mavis Tire Supply,LLC 06:24909 B-08 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
IFSi
Mavis#2096-Louisburg,NC Quantex,Inc.
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
8601 NC Hwy 56,Louisburg,North Carolina 27549
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: BOTTOM OF CASING '
850516.5 2201815.8 318.00cc
Lu LU Z Z J LL Q LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; L0 X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETERTSF
O CL Q CL - Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
QN Q C w RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
UT UT > — RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
(CL) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, brown —
and orange, moist,stiff 5-6-8
_ S-1 SS 18 18 — (14)
a
(SC)CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, -
S-2 SS 18 18 brown and white, moist, medium — s-(2
11-13
- - 4) 24
5 ,ense / : 313—
END OF BORING AT 5.0 FT
10— 308—
15— 303-
20— 298—
25— 293-
30— 288—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) BORING STARTED: Aug 10 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 3.50
Y WL(Completion) DRY BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Aug 10 2022 HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:
2Z WL(Stabilized) ATV EM8 DRILLING METHOD:2.25 NSA
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG