WQ0029945_More Information (Received)_20200727

July 23, 2020 ON'WASA
anwasa.com
ATTN: Tessa Monday, PE, Environmental Engineer III 228 Georgetown Rd
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources Jacksonville. NC 28540
Non -Discharge Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Permit No. WQ0029945
Onslow Water and Sewer Authority (ONWASA), Onsiow County
Summerhouse Wastewater Reclamation WWTP
High -Rate Infiltration System
Request for Permit Modification
Dear Ms. Monday,
This letter is sent in response to your letter of June 25, 2020 requesting additional
information to support a Request for Permit Modification submitted by ONWASA for the above -
referenced facility.
As a general comment, the testing conducted by the engineer and hydrogeologist was
performed to establish the capacity of the existing basin under site and hydrogeologic conditions
as they currently exist. No physical aspects of the basin, either below -ground or aboveground,
or pumping characteristics were changed. Rather, this testing was performed to verify and then
certify the hydraulic loading rate I capacity of the existing system.
The following provides responses to the individual questions raised in your June 251" letter:
A. Hydrogeologic Reporf (15A 1VCAC 02T .0704(e))
1. Provide additional information on the design of the groundwater lowering system, including
a map which identifies the extent of the system.
A plan drawing and sections of the groundwater lowering system, including the
drain system location and pump station, from the original design drawings (by
McKim & Creed) are attached. The pumps are started and stopped based on level
in the station wet well. Water flows from the infiltration basin to the drain system,
then into the pump station and is pumped to Silver take. The lake has an existing
surface water outlet.
2. The proposal indicates that three to four piezometers would be installed between the pond
and one of the existing drains. Information provided indicates that at least three
piezometers were installed, however no information was provided on the location of the
existing drain. Please update the site sketch to show the location of the existing drains
Three piezometers were installed at the locations shown an the attached original
Basin #2 drawing via call -outs. The location of the drain system that surrounds the
basin per the original drawings for the system is also labeled.
Page 1 of 4

3. Provide information on the installation of the constructed piezometers (materials, methods,
drilling lag, etc.).
Groundwater Pump and Well Company constructed the piezometers by the
washdown method:
1) A hole was excavated with a hand auger to approximately six inches below the
water table surface, at which point the sand collapses with deeper excavation.
2) In order to place the PVC slotted pipe, a temporary 2-inch diameter, open end
pipe was used to pump water from a 126 gallon fresh water tank into the bottom
of the hand-augered hole.
3) This flushing action was used to deepen the hole to the finished depth of each
piezometer.
4) The temporary pipe was pulled and the 1-inch diameter pipe was set in the
deepened hole and gravel pack (# 2 - Hoffman Well Gravel) placed around the 1-
inch pipe
The piezometers monitored portions of the sand aquifer at approximately 4.3 feet
above mean sea level for P 1, 1.26 feet below mean sea level for P 2, and 0.5 feet
above mean sea level for P 3. Information on the piezometers is provided below.
Piezometer
Total
Slot
Top Slot
Ground
Stick-
Synoptic
Depth
Depth
Setting
Elevation
up
(121112019)
(ft.)
Estimate
(NA❑ 88)
(NAD 88 Ft.)
Feet
Feet/Elev.
Feet
ft. m.s.I.
ft. M.S.I.
P1
7.0'
6.0' to
4.31 ft.
10,31'
0.0'
5.1275.19'
6.5'
msl
msl
P2
13.3'
12.5' to
-1.25 ft.
11.261
0.1'
8.30'12.97'
13.0'
msl
msl
P3
11.5'
10.5' to
1.00 ft.
11.00'
0.3'
9.26112.04'
11.0'
msl
msl
4_ Please show the following (within 500 feet of the facility area):
a. All wells and piezometers, including Usage and construction details;
b. Ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams;
c. Springs, lakes, ponds, and other surface drainage features; and
d. Review and compliance boundaries.
All hydrogeologic information was described in the Hydrogeologic Report 2006
("Soil & Hydrogeologic Investigation Summerhouse on Everett Bay, Holly Ridge,
Onslow, N.C." April 3, 2006). No hydrologic conditions were changed as part of the
testing. Review and compliance boundaries are unchanged versus the original
permit.
Page 2 of 4

5. provide a description of the site hydrogeology, including groundwater discharge features,
drainage features, existing and abandoned wells, and other features that may affect the
movement of the treated wastewater, including the groundwater lowering system.
The information requested was presented in the 2006 study investigation report and
has not changed. This report is attached with the requested hydrogeology and
drainage features information ("Soil & Hydrogeologic Investigation Summerhouse
on Everett Bay, Holly Ridge, Onslow, N.C." April 3, 2006). See response to Item 1
for drawing information on the groundwater lowering system. The testing used the
existing system and did not change any aspect of it.
6. Provide a discussion of the current groundwater flow regime of the site and the post
modification groundwater flow regime, focusing on the relationship of the system and
basin to groundwater receptors, groundwater discharge features, and groundwater flow
media.
The groundwater flow regime was not changed during the testing versus historical
operation of the basin. The actual flow conditions were included in the letter revised
March 23, 2020, "Hydrogeolocgic Certification...". No conditions were changed
since the approved permit WQ0029945, except well water was added to the treated
wastewater effluent to maintain the target loading rates for the testing. The drains
provided a pumped line sink surrounding Basin 2 (Figure 6F, Water Level
Equipotential Winter, Wet Year). The groundwater from the drain was pumped to
Silver Lake as restoration to the hydrologic cycle.
7. Provide modeling results of the mounding analysis to predict the level of the seasonal
high-water table after increased wastewater application.
This testing performed was a field test and the water levels were measured versus
analyzed in a mounding analysis. This test was completed from December 2019 to
February 2020 (Seasonal high-water period due to minimal evapotranspiration).
Mounding analysis was not performed and was not included or required in the
approved pilot fetter plan, Please see answer to Item 13 also.
8. Identify the source of the rainfall data provided in the application.
Rainfall data was collected by ONWASA staff at the ONWASA Summerhouse WWTP
during the period coinciding with the testing_
9, Indicate what equipment was utilized to obtain water elevation data_
Data loggers were programed to provide level data for every four-hour interval from
November 2019 into January 2020. Data loggers were Eijkelkamp Micro Divers (4
ea.) pressure range up to 10 psi in Basin 2 and each of the piezometers
10. Indicate the depth of Basin #2 relative to mean sea level, or another datum at the site (if
known).
The original hydrogeologic report recommended that Basin 2 (Pond 6 in the 2006
Report) be excavated to an elevation of 3 feet above mean sea level.
Pa6r: 3 0f 4

11, Address if additional measurements were obtained after January 10, 2020 to observe the
Groundwater Pump Station Data to equalize.
Additional data was not collected after January 10, 2020.
12. Provide the MODELOW modeling results of the increased loading rate during the pilot
study.
MODFLOW modeling of the increased loading rate during the pilot testing was not
proposed nor required as part of the approved testing plan. The testing plan was a
straightforward capacity test on an existing infiltration basin that provides a field
result versus a modeled result.
13. As indicated in the approved pilot study proposal, provide a comparison of the pilot test
results to the original MODFLOW modeling results for the basin.
The measured maximum water level was achieved during the test period when the
basin was loaded at 145,000 gallons per day during the Month of December, which
is typically the time for seasonal high-water table conditions in this area (lowest
evapotranspiration). The original MODFLOW model for this basin indicated a
capacity of 132,287 gallons per day (note: in the original model Basin 2 was referred
to as Pond 6), The predicted water table elevation in the original MODFLOW
modeling was 9.89 feet above mean sea level (see attached report) at Day 750 of the
model simulation. The load testing performed for certification in this project
revealed a stabilized water level at 8.5 feet above mean sea level for a loading rate
of 145,000 gallons per day. Thus, Basin 2 is now certified for 145,000 gpd by Ed
Andrews as provided in the certification document submitted with the permit
modification request,
If you have any questions regarding the attached information, please feel free to contact
Carl Scharfe, PE with The Wooten Company at [phone] or
cscharFeC5?tiiewootencompany.coai7. This firm oversaw the work performed and is under contract
with ONWASA for that purpose.
Encl:
Sincerely,
David M. Mohr, PE
Chief Operations Officer
ONWASA
Cc� Carl Scharfe, PE, The Wooten Company
Page 4 of 4

i;�V! ?4FVWAT�i, i;0IJ,EUW.% ni'3CHARGE
'AAIN Fi±rIq ;WC:R'; IT,"". ON
J
J 7' 45 EL '
r 8•' LF�'w CCHIf �Inl, �3TEu �,
9' GLR'MEp ,PATER � � b 'I
RI.L NE BY OTHERS
___ - f •r 4 �r A H
fAppIRCATSgNS {Po
41
0 ell
4r 4 � � �" '� MODIFlCATiOHS [Po
EXISTING DRAIN SYSTEM
A.
1 _
� 11E Fk�l! IN HASlulr. 5.Y311! ,ps V:ELs.
1 -
r S,%mp LU[J.TED INSI M L}DX FDA?
G4 LES
EXISTING DRAIN SYSTEM
L + ' A' r r — `�L 4 fiJ -'L� , 'AH dIGW MET N
+AA% WATER L6a ELkv
�I ��� ♦ �lNFi TRdTfLlh �,1GI+i !- YY'Fil
4F BER4 ELEf! 11.0' _ 1
l I � � BOTfpM 9F EV.:IN r ELEV. rt 6' I
INFILTRATION BASIN #2
j ` �Z � I _ +An:]IFEb EviaH SHAaE f
AW, �oim l LABEL3 WETTED AREA - 2.8 AC
I P-1
w I J ! RECUJMEO WATER '3X.N SEE • P-2 EXISTING GROUNDWATER
I ii I f4grE ON PA1 (T' . 3 PLACES) r —�- P-3 LOWERING PUMP STATION
y ! ♦�- , .
I II- '13 - �—• - .. �� G�
3 R I
--J A PLUPA N
_ ■ �CLA: ANTI SEE*' CnLLn^
♦ ♦ ' .t ITYF b fN Ci7+1TET,''
Tr;'E II C.LEAO (TYP. 2LIL' 014 ENTFP;
_ \ �� Trs'E I �'LFAH rr TV t7E INSTALLS 4T
ALL 96 9E%ND ANr TECS ALUNCa 1
- f GROUNOWATER OLLECTIOIJ
EXISTING DRAIN SYSTEM
sA,Ny _ LOCATION OF PIEZOMETERS FOR 11/25/19
� DRTlas oNAYxNc IeAs em. MOOIF[➢ m Af3lICT CNANCiS -
t EXISTING DRAIN SYSTEM TO 1/10/20 BASIN 2 PILOT TEST LOADING
YAOE NFfNG CUNSira Vpm 9AE0 uro THE INFWmATON
FNOYM 9T THE C WACTON AND MI NOT NWN RUJ3
YINVED. mE OvWiE S WEAL 00M Nor Cff Y" A E THE WOOTEN COMPANY, 2020
A ACY OF TKS ORAAWG. THE MOACT WAS
eursraucrA IN A4AAL C 'QA,Awx WTH THe pews THE WOOTEN COMPANY, 2020
RS 095{RYID TNAOI YEHOOIC 09SPVATON PE]FO INFO
OT nq EHPEEN'S wtHCm= RUTISS ITATM
xk �` SUMMERHOUSE 6ATE AUGUST201, SCALE
� NNW. A O9a1-O63S
_ ��TT}}���� ((fi�� nn WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY oR. ��-IZ-M
g Sr"•+ !1\1L►'141,1J
4� REHABIUTATION uftafn mN ``r
17,30 voral[y Drive, Suite SOD �YEo � -��n�A� C3
by RoiaigN. North Corolino 276M CI\4L IN- YIGN. Awe NA
' s4 Phone: [phone], Fox: [phone]
n.` �, uemnaar F-1222 Onslow Water& Sewer Authority INFILTRATION BASIN #2
# " ° a y PLAN RMED � oomsmcnm -2
www mcMimcreed�cm

E1ECTR1cAL coxoun - a cawOLr II L' - I~(WP
RB_pTPa_)nA_L_E
TJIII
TEE WITH cI"AP QUI
CK <VEnT *EAaE''ALE
6` MOTORIZED (Tw) CORRECT vTH
snarvcE OR
cINTO CONRRETEAe"00 BExD -_
24" MANHOLE
aGNERt
6^ wUTCHI uuxSLPE
aowME,ER
i
zcs _r-
6^DI PIPE — --/ L-------——��ur----i —-------- 2L6
—J= �— ---- ��
TH L--- >'I V\ i e xa TEE x /
xfo /
Boo, ( w) , ,/z' SUMP PUMP - _ -
FROM VAULT
� .. � a DIFCnARGE -
L - it " GLIDE BAR L 6 Wx6 Lxsu (IF_, uluExsoNsjT MIx. COUPLING ADAPTER
nTE r r (BCH.1 G S .) DDPLINIBLE E
6 w.s L.o'oo(INSIDE DI IIousjT Mlx. Aa KIFr uI �j ADAPTER(TYR) NOTES:
ALL PUMP STATION PIPING SHALL BE FLANGED -END TO PLAIN -END D.I.P..
UNLESS (VALVE VAULT ROTATED BO' FLANGEDSUNLESS OT"THEHERWTSEALL NOTEDnNG6 ANO VALVES SHALL BE FLANGED x
2. ALL FITTING$ INSIDE WETWELL AND VALVE VAULT SHALL BE FLANGED AND
1 - PLAN - GROUNDWATER CONTROL PUMP STATION #2 3. a LL PI PE OPENINGS IMINIMUM E�L AIND VALVE VAULT SHALL BE CORED AND
)i, = V-0^ FILLED W,LH NEOPRENE RUBBER BOOTS,
4, VALVE VAULT PIPING SHALL BE SUPPORTED WITH MASONRY SUPPORTS AS
SHOWN
5, FOR ORIENTATION OF WETWELL AND VALVE VAULT SEE PUMP STATION SITE
CRANE LE DAVIT 6. COORDINATE SIZE AND QUANTITYOF ELECTRICAL CONTROL CONDUITS WITH
ELECTRICAL DRAWN -
""AST 111' "IN
INTO CO 5 AB CONCRETE SLAB, GOD
V. SEE ELECTRICADRAWINGS CNAL WETWELL�AND VALOVEINSTRUMENTATION
P PING PENELOCATIONS
TRAlI0N6 AND
OORNLTOCKABLE) CONNECTIONS.
e RIERSETRNGAPLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPROVED PUMP MANUFACNRER. TO
ACCESS
OR (LOCKABLE)ALUMINUM
C FRAME
INTO CONCRETE SLAB PRE-E WITH
6O 5.5.)
LCNCRETA TOP EN (FEE
BRAL sPECIFICanONS) IRE -CAST
'AL
ELEC
caBLE HOLDER IF.S)Ax�\\) PUP UP
5'-O'MIN. CONCRETE EL. 5.O 9.0
TOP OF IONCRETE EL - SO. CONCRETE EL9 CIAC
EL 90 11. PRE
CIAD
r
E PE s TIE , o GR a In_ ° D CHECK T owPLING ADAPTER
.21
PVC PIPE 1 ,Mp^ P R EPA` IFREASERALL A. DIP TO
SPICER LAKE
CONTROL VALVE IN,= HIGH WATER ALARM EL = 5.5' - - - - - - -
VAULT MODIFlCAlI0N8 INV.
EL 10
DWG. C9) LAG PUMP ON EL = 6D'
BALL CHECK VALVE LEAD PUMP ON EL = 6.5' A a.
LIMP PUMP A vIZED
LEVEL CONTROL FL(Typ Sa` 9) SLOVE LO SUMP PIT -RID HOLD
ROUT I
REPIAC 6 PCA CA
IPE LIMP DISCHARGE MAGN TO BOOTNEOPR(TNw)RUBBER
ADAD 3 PVC SON_ _ TO �APT(BEHIrvO) FLOW METER
LL PUMPS OFF EL. = 1.5' N 6' STONE BASE
5 F. DU FUNBY PUMP MANU
EO ARWnD TER L r CABRLE (PROVIDED 6" STONE 845E
RE FLOW M
PREcnsT EASE. LOW WATER EVE r T A PIP GATE VALVE C.BRA
WASTI.ATER PUMPS SIT
SPECIFICATIONS FOR DUTY POINTS
Gw CODECTOR PIPE - TOP OF SLAB EL�RL LL.5- -OAID
CJ F (P ov1DET.
0Bv PUMPDISCHARGEcCURER)TON
OICKETE
TR BALLAST
FT TO SUKIIBA'S1E (0-0 50 OD) r.r �r r lED AR ENDED
BaSERECAsi "
M2 C CIA
l E
.IN 6 STONE LHGKNEs INLEGRAL fLDAi COx1RCL tin (' �'ND
2 - SECTION 0 GROUNDWATER CONTROL PUMP STATION #2 SH
R.L
♦ D SUMMERHOUSE E w
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY ..w
�I"1 REHABILITATION A �C6
1 )30 Varsit, Drive, Suite 500 ; i D mR �EBn'�o
nleigx, ND Carolina 27606 CIVIL
tyn �Y Ph— (9191)233-6091, Fax: [phone]
- 222 0 low Water @ ScweAwhvriLy GROUNDWATER CONTROL PUMP STATION R�gp carsmucnorre�a
B.c #2 PLAN AND SECTION s

ump
�,~I6 AIR�PP�LL
PLAN VIEW Row Arvo PRCPERTr un[s { f DESI—ED WETLANDS
" AIR CAR
SIN 0 WELL
21-0 a INE MTMREFE"'o GRADE DETES.
G PLAIN
)
G-RIACT 1— E WE
E OTHER LIKES
Env. = x6.D sVE
0 FEAR FILTER
AL A R,
Irvv. ELTv.:3., AGGREGATE
ED— OF EASIN INv. E[V. RUFFER FDOT A A FIu
FOR F
cROIHED ITONE FAZE (aPPRoxIMATELv P<o) MONPC
OUTHIc EASE PERFORATIONS DOM
NOTE: ASTETE ANTI ITCH caLAR STONE FAST
ANCHOR
TTE MATERIAL AS
ELECTR CAL RKT(INCLUDING CONDUIT SECTION VIEW ENGINEER. MIRAF _ N OR v APPROVED
PERFORMED DNDER CONTRACT No. I 50 Ml1I1U1 FRO' MIX WATER SURFACE
ELEVATION TO PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE
INFILTRATION BASIN #1 INFLUENT STRUCTURE
NOT TO
SCALE
3x3x12 THICK �PP�SUIRCRTT I 2 �oollcH cSUHE°�I ANICALSEAL
Ow�TERMNE
AO.NMMMMAX INN.VI.: NEO0N
TFTIOe 'FPss EWEIL
U,
RD S7OWISTCETRB sECLGEK,V L
-,
PLAN VIEW 6� ROw6AND PROPERTI uNED � � DESIGNATED WETANDS e.D
SIN 2 WEIF
D_DTED
-aLL= EED22ATIONS R- RECLAIM ATER LIKE
TRUE10CAnRE ON a `FORDINFILTRATION
N' LTW-2D
NOTE: CRUSHED STONE EASE (A11ao—A-1 <o') Ru6FER FDGT
ALL N' 77
MR,
(wc rt 1. PLACE ANCHOR HAD CONCRETE ANTI SEEP COLOR u0N0—I'CI EasE
'ILL
DO
PERFORMED UNDER C 1 SECTION VIEW ELEVAnON To
INFILTRATION BASIN #2 INFLUENT STRUCTURE
NOT TO SCALE
2- SRGE LINE
E RECLAIMED WATER LINE imo ON BASIN ,IP. WITH CHECKH. 80 VALVEVC AND TRUE UNION
IRIISITE DDHTRACTOR
SO LINE�OII s"'T II LocKIDLE ALUMINUM I A FILco HATCH
WITH FHEDN VAL, AND TRDE _PH ADAPTER C.0 L — OF2)°"
REPLACED E%IST.
6 EVALVEw oA ACTUATOR - PIPE wPPPoai TwE E
o we
WITH uInIT S—OHEIP(Tw OFV) -Dv �_Iy
i
F - s
REPIACE EIM QR AL1VAl0R REPLACED CONTROL VALVE 1=u=1Il 6 SUMP
(REFER 10 SPECS) IM C4 ACTUA T-TyI
MECHANICAL SEAL - - ACTUATED PLUG VALVE
(iYP Of 10) 9JMP PUMP LIMIT SWITCHES (T P Of 2)
AND BOAT SNITCHES WH COIRING
REPLACED AS REV'D. INTEGRAL FLOAT 1ATc AOAHTER (Tw OF 2)
PLAN VIEW SECTION VIEW A.29
INFILTRATION BASIN #1: VALVE VAULT
SO—:
PLAN VIEW
INTEGRAL FLOAT21) NA tlAOrl RI 6• sM' , Fpp
SUMP PUMP 6 sumP
AND BOAT UE .1 .
SWITCH ITISR
REPIACEDAS RED'D. S.-
SECTION VIEW
INFILTRATION BASIN #2: VALVE VAULT
SCALE : 1/-V-o-
XVVUX4VY `RAM —ECT WAS
PVC a BASIN M
SUMMERHOUSE E
)Nw
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY REHABILITATION A C41)30 Varsit, Drive, Suite 500 AS o mR �Rn �o
alaigN, No Carolina 27606 CIVIL
tyn �H Ph— (9191)233-6091, Fax: [phone]
- zzz Omlow Wa a & SDwe AMlhonl, A INFILTRATION BASIN DETAILS REVSm AFTER corismucnal � a
EWUPWR
aCP 2

11 YDROGF.OLOLiY
GFOLOGY
EDW tN ANDR E, WS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING HYDROGEOLOGISTS
P.O. BOX 30653
RALEIGi1, N.C. 27622 - 0653
PHONE: (M) 783 - 9395
FAX: (919) 783 - 015l
April 3, 2006
Mr. Timothy T. Baldwin, P.E.
McKim & Creed, P.A.
200 MacKenan Court
Suite 200
Cary, N.C. 27511
Re: Site Evaluation - Sumnlerliause on Everett Bay
Onslow County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Baldwin.
FNVMONmEN I ALKIENVFS
SOILS
Attached is the final report for the two infiltration basins that Dr. Rubin and I evaluated. This report
supports your design for the disposal system at Bogue Watch, The loading of 400,000 gallons per
clay can be accomplished safely using four infiltration basins comprising at least 8.36 acres.disposal
system : • -
•,`- a-.; _ sr,7; ,y111;111I111l1��� r
If you have any questions please contact my office. ='� ` `t_-`; ti ���-*-\STEIaLfC'
Very truly yours, a � ' �° , I-��4 b �
o�
Edwin Andrews & Associates, P.C.'f _ _ r _. = y`r,'
s-ea�ae�^y NN
11110
Edwin E. Andrews III, P.G., N.C.L.S.S.
Consulting}r '3
Hydragealogist and Soil Scientist=�t =: :� r `
yr,= `r s
1 .���_ ,-,:�' �JW
1226
Dr. A. R. Rubin, Senior Environmental Scientist
McKim & Creed, P.A.
encl.

Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction:
1-1
1.1
Statement of Purpose
1-1
1.2
Regulatory Requirements
1-2
1.3
Background
1-3
1.4
Project Location
1-4
1.5
Scope of WorluTield Mcthodology
1-5
1.6
Management Considerations
1-6
2.0
Soils and Geology:
2-1
2.1
SCS Soil Description
2-1
2.2
Soil Descriptions
2-2
2.3
Geology
2-3
2.4
Agronomic Analysis
2-4
3.0
Hydrogeology:
3-1
3.1
General Hydrology
3-1
3.2
Water Table Contour
3-2
3.3
Unsaturated Thickness Mapping
3-2
3.4
Aquifer Hydrology
3-3
3.5
Modflow Simulation
3-4
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations: 4-1
4.1 Conclusions 4-1
4.2 Recommendations 4-2
4.3 Limitations 4-3

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
ALL FIGURES - APPENDIX A
FIG. I
SITE MAP
Appendix
FIG. 2
SOIL MAP
Appendix
FIG, 3
UNSATURATED THICKNESS MAP
Appendix
FIG. 4
WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP
Appendix
FIG. 5A-H
CALIBRATION
FIG, 6 A-E
WATER LEVEL MODEL RESULTS
Appendix
FIG. 7 A-E
MODEL MOUNDING RESULTS
Appendix
FIG, S A-E
NITRATE MODEL RESULTS
Appendix
ALL TABLES - APPENDIX A
TABLE 1 -
Soil Descriptions
Appendix
TABLE 2 -
Lithology Log
Appendix
TABLE 3 -
Ksat Analyses
Appendix
TABLE 4 -
Water Level Data
Appendix
TABLE 5 -
Aquifer Test Analysis
Appendix
GEOTECHNICAL DATA APPENDIX
COMPLETION REPORTS APPENDIX
COMPLETION REPORTS APPDNDIX

SUINTMERHOUSE ON EYERETr BAl'
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA wRIII 0106
1.0 - INTRODUCTION:
1.1 Statement of Purpose:
The objective of this analysis is to provide design engineers, McKim & Creed Engineering with
reconmiendations for land disposal of reclaimed water, based on site characteristics, for the
development Summerhouse on Everett Bay, Onslow County, N.0 . This analysis characterizes the
soil, geology and aquifer hydrology that influences our recommendations for design. The
recommendations utilize options that comply with the requirements of the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality, Aquifer Protection Section 15A NCAC ,0200.
A preliminary investigation of the site was performed by Dr. A. R. Rubin, McKirn & Creed Engineers,
to determine disposal options (see attached report). Dr. Rubin identified areas that were suitable as
receiver sites for land application of highly treated effluent with nutrient reduction. The selected
method for disposal is the use of two Infiltration Ponds. Two specific sites were selected for detailed
soil and hydrogeologic investigation, in conjunction with recommendations by Dr. Rubin.
The capacity of the site to accommodate land application of reclaimed water using infiltration Ponds
was analyzed at two proposed pond locations. Ponds 4 5, would have a loaded area of 5.59 acres;
and Ponds 46, an area of 2.76 acres (design maximum water level). This evaluation recommends the
construction of two separate infiltration ponds capable of infiltrating approximately 400,000 gallons
per day at a loading rate of 1.1 gallons per day per square foot on 8.36 acres. In order to minimize
the mounding, the flow was divided into two hydraulically isolated Ponds. Pond # 5 has a loading
rate 1.1 gallons per day per square foot for 267,713 gallons per day. Pond # 6 has a loading rate of
1.1 gallons per day per square foot for 132,287 gallons per day,
The field work supporting this evaluation includes soils analyses by Edwin Andrews & Associates,

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAN'
ONSLONV COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA IYRIR 0106
P.C. with a site assessment by Dr. A. R. Rubin, McKin-i & Creed Engineers. Disposal using
infiltration is predicated on further nutrient reduction at the reclaimed water facility so that the risk
of groundwater contamination at the compliance boundary is eliminated. It is feasible that the
infiltration ponds will ultimately act as wet weather storage ponds for water reuse on common areas
if future regulations permit use.
1.2 Regulatoiy Requirements:
The proposed system will operate under a Non -Discharge Permit issued by the State of North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, (Division of Water Quality,
Aquifer Protection Section). Applicable regulations governing the infiltration alternative are included
in 15 A NCAC 211.0200 - Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters, effective May 2000, and 15 A
NCAC 2L - Ground Water Classifications and Standards.
Requirements relating to soil and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site include a hydrogeologic
and lithologic description of the site to depth of 20 feet [(5)(e)]. Transmissivity and specific yield
were determined for the unconfined aquifer based on tlu•ce withdrawal tests [(5) (f)], 15A A NCAC
.0205 also addresses design specifications to be provided by a professional engineer. 15A A NCAC
2H. 0400 addresses aerial limitations and engineering requirements for this type of facility and 15A
A NCAC 2L addresses Compliance Boundaries and the maximum allowable concentrations of
substances discharged to ground -water from this type of facility. Since there is nutrient reduction in
the treatment process, groundwater contamination should not occur at the review or compliance
boundaries as regulated in 15A NCAC 2L.
1-2

SUM11ERHOUSE ON EVERETI' IIAY
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECI' EAA WHIR 0106
1.3 Background (Dr. A. R. Rubin - full report in Appendix):
A total of eight (8) potential areas were examined as potential wastewater receiver areas. Four (4)
were ultimately selected as designated receiver areas for the reclaimed water. The proposed receiver
areas are located on the map attached. These areas are presently hosting woody vegetation and tine
cropping system will be removed to accommodate the reclaimed water through the Ponds system.
The agronomic assessment and associated plan are necessary to assure adequate vegetation is present
on the banks and in terrace areas in these Ponds to minimize sediment losses and to provide stable
areas for infiltration. A second potential use for the reclaimed water is berm landscape irrigation with
reuse quality water. Finally, an agronomic assessment is also required to assure liquid generated from
pumping site drainage is assimilated on terraces near the site boundary.
Beneficial reuse of the treated wastewater on the connmon-lands and residential landscaped areas, and
the series of infiltration Pondss to serve as an all season system capable of recharging shallow
groundwater all provide excellent potential treatment for domestic and commercial wastewater
generated on the site. This type of conjunctive system is serving residential, commercial, industrial,
and agricultural operations throughout the southeast very successfully. The site and soil conditions
encountered on the designated wastewater receiver sites are well suited for the development of this
conjunctive type of wastewater system. There are two purposes to the brief report which follows. Tine
first is to describe the results of the soil testing accomplished on the site. The second is to provide
recommendations forthe cropping system that serves as stabilizing crops oil berms and otherreceiver
areas for this liquid.
In addition to requirements imposed by close proximity to sensitive receiver waters, land based
wastewater treatment andrenovation systems exhibit a variety of characteristics considered favorable
for treatment of wastewater. These include:
1-3

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETI' IIAY
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA WRIR 0106
1. Excellent potential to recycle and reuse treated liquid on high value landscaped sites and in
aesthetic impoundments incorporated into the local landscape
2. Necessity to provide vegetation to stabilize areas with made -land (berms and embankments,
terraces, etc.).
1.3 Project Location:
The site is located North of
Everett Bay, on the south side
of State Route 1534 (Holly
Ridge Rd.) from Holly Ridge,
Onslow County, N.C. (Figure
Number 1 A, Site Location
Map). The North Carolina
Planar Coordinates for the site
[V
are approximately 2,455,200
feet East and 271,872 feet North (entrance to the site). The site maintains the geomorphic
characteristic of the lower Coastal Plain region of North Carolina. According to the Soils Map of
Onslow County the area consists of the interlluvial deposits and associated drainage features to the
Intracoastal Waterway (Everett Bay and Spicers Bay) , and Kings Creek influences drainage to the
west of the site.
The slopes range from nearly level to more than 4 percent on the proposed area to be irrigated. The
site has elevations extending to 40 feet above sea level. The site is drained by unnamed tributaries
leading to Kings Creek to the west, Spicers Bay to the south and to the Everett Bay to the southeast.
1-4

SUMMERHOUSE ON ENIME•IT RAY
O\SLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
P110JE,CT EAA NVRIR 0106
1.4 Scope of WorlL/Field Methodology:
The scope of this project includes the collection of all surficial and subsurface data necessary to
characterize the site based on site specific hydrologic and soil functions relative to the proposed use
of infiltration ponds. Site specific aqui fer testing was made within the scope of this investigation near
Pond # 5, (Aquifer Test Site 1 and 2) and Pond 4 6 (Aquifer Test Site 3). Based on aquifer testing,
a detailed aquifer analysis has been developed for water management on the site. Information used
to develop aquifer coefficients and values for the underlying sand (water table) aquifer was from the
aquifer tests, and generally confirmed by the water table contour. This information was subjectively
compared and calibrated with overall site characteristics. A series of MODFLOW simulations
compared the measured water table surface to the expected steady state conditions, with average
seasonal evapotranspiration, The loading model included in this evaluation contained the same
rainfall and evapotranspiration values used in the water balance analysis. A subsequent analysis was
performed using evapotranspiration values from the Wilmington area (nearest published values) and
evaporation data from Aurora (from infiltration ponds).
Field work for this study consisted of the installation of twenty hand borings, completed as temporary
piezometers, six test wells, and aquifer testing. The horizontal and vertical controls for the
observation points were surveyed and static levels were measured. A soil snap has been prepared
with a description of each typical soil (Pedon) for each map unit. Infiltration analyses (k,,,,) were
attempted at two sites, using Compact Constant Head PernreametersTI, , however, the data is not
included in this report because the soils will be removed from each infiltration pond (in both cases it
was difficult to obtain readings because of the very high conductivity response) (Figure No. 1, Site
Map).
1_5

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTII CAROLINA
PROJECI` EAA WRIB 0106
1.5 Management Considerations:
This report analyzes current field data and field conditions observed during the study period and uses
information collected to evaluate disposal options. Loading modeling and predictive methodology
based on the field data document basic characteristics of the site that may limit loading, based on the
soils and proximity to outlet drainage.
This evaluation is based on the concept of using tertiary treatment, nutrient reduction and waste water
disposal. The concept is to provide additional treatment and load the site at an infiltration rate of 1.1
gallons per day per square foot on 8.36 acres. Two pond sites have been designated as infiltration
pond sites. The pond number 5 is surrounded by a drain constructed to 16 feet above mean sea level,
and pond number 6 is surrounded by a drain at zero feet mean sea level. Because the ponds are an
amenity, water level elevations will need to be maintained, using either a fresh water resource or
controlling the outlet drain volume.
Even though the loading rate for the sandy soil will be less than 1.5 gallons per day per square foot.
soil plugging is anticipated in the infiltration pond. A maintenance plan is recommended for pond
management, which should include potential bottom dredging. Maintenance and monitoring will need
to be provided by treatment plant personnel to insure that the infiltration capacity remains optimized.
This report is divided into segments pertaining to soils, hydrogeology (water table), and aquifer
hydrology. Generally figures and tables are included in the text to help visualization, 8.5 by 11 or l l
by 17 copies of the figures and larger tables are located in the appendix of this report for detail.
1 - 6

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT RAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT LAA WRIR 0106
2.0 - SOILS AND GEOLOGY:
2.1 SCS Soil Description:
The soils on this tract were clapped and described based on the classification of soils used in the
published soil GIS data front the North Carolina Geographic Clearinghouse. In January 2006, Mr.
Edwin Andrews, North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist, and Dr. A. R. Rubin, McKim & Creed
Engineers, analyzed the preliminary soil leap for the site to evaluate potential for reuse. A detailed
soil map prepared by Edwin Andrews, N.C.L.S.S. was prepared for the immediate area that contains
the disposal sites. The NRCS soil map prepared for the region contained Wando, and Onslow soils,
(Figure No.2A, NRCS Soil Map). The site map containing the hifiltratioll Ponds shows these soils
grouped, based oil drainage and landscape position, into two soil groups Wando fine sand and
Onslow loamy fine sand (Figure No. 213, Soil Map).
A series of twenty piezonleters and six test wells were used to form the basis for this analysis (Figure
No. 1, Site Map - 11 by 17 inch Wrap attached). Because of limited availability of land, it was
determined that Infiltration Ponds with associated drainage can be configured to both fit tile site plan
and the drainage requirement. Soil boring locations for the soil descriptions identifying the areas
investigated at soil boring profiles at Piezonicters 6, and 7 along with two additional borings (Hand
Boring Number 21 and 22) are shown on the Soil Map (Figure No. 213, Soil Map). The attached soil
map shows two soil series: Wando fine sand and Onslow loamy finc sand in the areas selected for
infiltration Ponds. Basin # 5 area is predominantly Wrapped as Wando with small portions of Basin
# 5 in the transition areas between Wando soils and Onslow soils (northern edge). Basin # 6 appears
similar to Wando fine sand with a thin Bt horizon oil the southern edge of the site (Onslow loanly fine
sand)(Figurc Number 2B, Soil Map - full scale map in appendix).
The infiltration bonds were located based Oil preliminary soil mapping by Dr. A. R. Rubin, McKim
& Creed Engineer's. The infiltration pond construction will remove the Still soh"n (A, B and upper
2-1

SUAUMERHOUSE oN EVEREIT BAY
ONSLONN' COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA WRIII 0106
C horizons) into the underlying sediments; therefore, aquifer hydrology, pond configuration and
maintenance will affect the function of the infiltration system.
Soil Descriptions:
The soil profile description for each unit is based on the soil boring collected at the time of
piezometer construction (Table No. 1, Soil Profile Descriptions). Small areas of different soil
series Inay be present as inclusions on the project but were not mapped in the soil units for the
sake of simplicity.
SOIL MAP LEGEND
BROWN BRICK NONE MUCKALEE LOAM
TAN HATCH LI CPO/FT.' WANDO FINE SAND
MAGENTA SLASH 1.1 GPDIFT' ONSLOW LOAMY FINE SAND
GRAY EARTH NONE BOKICKET LOAM
Soils found on the project range from the excessively well drained Wando tine sand, a thermic
Typic Udipsamment, to a very poorly drained Bohicket loam (adjacent to Spiccrs Bay and Everett
Bay), a thermic typic Sulfaquent. Soils found in between these two soils are the moderately well
drained Onslow fine sandy loan, a thermic Spodic Paleudult; and poorly drained Muckalee loam,
Typic Fluvaquent.
The soils will be excavated in cacti of the pond areas, therefore there will be no additional
treatment of effluent as the waste water migrates through the soils. The proposed disposal option
will be to treat the wastewater to tertiary levels and to provide nutrient reduction; therefore,
wastewater disposal usingthese infiltration Ponds should not degrade groundwater
simulation was made, described later in this report, to further analyze the potential

Soil Descriptions:
Table No. 1
Soil Profile Description
SUMMERIlOUSF ON EVERFI-I'RAY
ONSLOW COVNTV, NORTl1 CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA WRIB 0106
A — 0-5 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sand, single grain; loose; few fine roots
CI — 5-16 inches; Yellowish brown 00YR 5/4) fine sand; single grain; loose; few fine roots
C2-16-31 inches; brown (10Y 5/3) fine sand; single grain; loose; few soft nodules of dark yellowish
brown (10YR 414), organic -coated sand
C3 - 31-38 inches; white (10YR 8/2) fine sand; single grain; loose;
C4 - 38-48 inches; very pale brown (10YR 7/4) fine sand loose
C5 —48-72 inches; yellowish brown (10 YR 514) fine sand loose.
Cg- 72-8480 inches; light gray (10YR 7/2) fine sand
Soil Series: Wanda fine sand Landscape: Coastal Plain
L.andform: Marine terrace parent Material: Littoral sediments
Drainage Class: Well Particle Size Class: fine sand
Temperature Regime: thermic Subgroup Classification: Typic Udipsamment
Slope: 2%
Boring at P-6, similar profiles found in borings near P-7, Ksat Site 5 and Ksat Site 7 (near B33)
2.3 Geolou:
Surficial geology has been mapped as the Socastee Formation (Late Pleistocene). "`Tile Socastee
Formation ...is composed mostly of interbedded sands and clays of backbarrier and barrier• origin, and
contains a relatively immature sand mineral assemblage. The surface is marked by numerous wel I
preserved barriers upon which Carolina Bays occur."'
I - Chapter 17 entitled "Surficial Geology and Geomorphology" by David R. Soller and Hugh H. Mills in Tile
Geology of the Carolinas, 1991, edited by J. Wright Horton, Jr. and Victor A. Zullo, University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
2-3

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETI' BAY
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLtNA
PROJECT EAA 1YRIO 0106
Regionally, the area is underlain by the Pleistocene Core Creek Formation, and the Upper Pliocene
Bear Bluff and Duplin Formations (which correlates to the Middle Yorktown formation), unnamed
sequences of the Eocene Castle Hayne Formation, and the late Cretaceous Pee Dee Formation. The
surficial interfluvial terrace on this site is divided into the flood plain deposits, the well drained ridge
deposits and the backland terraces associated with sediments deposited in lagoons, swamps and
isolated wetlands.
The Castle Hayne Aquifer, is a result of secondary permeability in the indurated limestone and sand.
The Castle Hayne well yields are moderate to high to the east and southeast of the site supplying an
alternative supply to
Onslow County, Camp
Lejuene, City of
Jacksonville and the Town
of Holly Ridge (See
attached stratigraphic
information). Regional
well information has been
gathered from North
Carolina Division of Water
Resources database
(Hydrogeologic
Framework). This
conceptual model of the
aquifer system combines
the Pliestocene to recent
sediments as a surficial
DWR Hydrogeologic Fiarnewolk Detail foi Holly Ridge Homes 1
Dilta
County
Onslow
Latitude
34.49444-
Longitude
-7T64166
Location Accuracy
hlap gib, , Ivry
Quad
AA 26C
Holly Ridge Home,
Name
1
Deplh
Land Surface
Upper Tediwy CU
Upper Tedimy
Yorktown CU
Yc Iktown
Pungo River CU
Pungo Rarer
Castle Hayne CU
Castle Hayne
Beaufort CU
Beaufort
Peedee CU
Peedee
Black Creek CU
Black Creek
Upper Cape Fear CU
Upper Cape Fear
Lower Cape Feat CU
Lower Cape Fear
Lower Cretaceous CU
Loner Crelacoous
Basement
Urd LP aI-Al ns a,a ah P.,n in table.
4&F {t•r are 1k w.n In prat
46000
65.00
10001
10001
100131
10001
10001
10001
23
1
10000
10000
W003
10003
1011M
10003
10003
10003
10003
kt1003' n:�o:-u�a la.r, e•��t;, t.ul n�f.
i- n,.falr to rid etc. al,an.
1�� • I[4rrr1 - un,l dae,-1l , t
10000• ICrU�J und,-not terietraled
10003, In �,a. unillfely 4. Eu{,t r:
n,f penetraSs6
Data from 2.6 miles to the west of the site
surnr.lal
[9 Upp1 It, liary cU
F3Upper refllary
t] Vorktmsn LU
E1 riektonn
a Nnyo Blacr cu
0 punyo Blau
t] (:a$lle Ila)ne LU
8 Caa tre Ilay nc
® Bcauror t Cu
❑?—utO k
r7 Peke CU
n Iy,t&e
0 Black creek LU
Q Blmk Ucck
® Upper Cape Fear CU
❑ Uppo Cape tear
G Loner Cape fear CU
Leader Cape Felr
A L—cr Crelareoffa CU
i Lotacr Creta[ceua
U Basement
aquiferand aquaclude matrix extending to the Castle Hayne Aquifer from theNorth Carolina Division
of Water Resources database (Hydrogeologic Framework) (Fig. No. 2B, Database Download from
2-4

SUMMERHOUSE ON EYERETT BAY
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PRO.IECT EAA NVRIB 0106
the North Carolina Division of Water Resources). This modeling evaluation increased the aquifer
thickness dimensions and reduced hydraulic conductivity to enable modeling using the same
transmisslvity values to maintain modeling consistency (Table No. 2, Boring Logs - Geoteclinical
Borings).
TABLE NO. 2
LITHOLOGY LOG
PW-1 ortli of Pond # 5
0-5 ft. Gray clayey topsoil
5-10 ft. Gray fine to medium well sorted sand
10-15 ft. Gray fine to medium well sorted sand
15-20 ft. Gray fine to mediuni well sorted sand
PW-2 (Pond # 5)
0-3 ft. Dark brown clayey sand
3-14 ft. Gray fine to medium well sorted sand
PW-3 (Pond # 6)
0-5 ft.
Yellow fine to medium well sorted sand
5-10 ft.
Gray fine to mediuni well sorted sand
10-16 ft.
Gray fine to medium well sorted sail(]
17-15 ft.
Gray clayey fine sand
2-5

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERR'M' IIAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA \VRIB 0106
2.4 Agronomic Analysis (This Section Prepared by Dr. A. R. Rubin):
Wastewater Remediation:
Treated domestic or mlmicipal wastewater will potentially be utilized in several ways. Water will be lost
through transpiration by vegetation, evaporation from the vegetation and soils surface, and percolationtllrough
the soil profile. Th is water will also enter nearby surface waters in wetlands and streams via lateral flow. Any
excess nutrients in the wastewater wi 11 be treated through microbial processes, plant uptake, adsorption to soil
solids, and biologically mediated chemical transformations (i.e. denitriflcation).
The primary objective ofestablishing a wastewater spray field using vegetation is to effectively renovate the
water through plant uptake and evapotranspiration to prevent nutrients and other unwanted constituents from
enteringgroundwater. The pre-app I ication wastewater treatment proposed prov ides al I of these reqitirements
and the land is to be used as a dispersal mechanism for the reclaimed water. A primary objective of the rapid
infiltration portion of the project is to promote recharge ofthe steal low groutldwaterto maintain base flow into
adiacent wetlands and to create aesthetically pleasing water vistas for residents of the community.
Few vegetative species are well adapted for use in berms and terraces supportingthc Ponds. The plant species
selected must be matched to specific sites where they exhibit optimal growth. Tllrfand grasscrops have served
as an excellent stabilizing crop on many stmehrres associated with land treatment facilities throughout the
southeast.
Nutrients promote plant growth and microbiological activity in the soil and the liquid applied onto these areas
will contain no essential mltricnts of concern in the receiver• environmcnt because oft}Ie pre-treatment This
reclaimed water is basically a source of water for Ponds and common Iandscaped areas.
The turf and plant materials established throughout the planned community will benefit fi•om irrigation. The
reclaimed wastewater isan excellent irrigation resource forthe Holly Ridge community. Hybrid Bermudagrass
and other warm season grasses or turf systems are capable of sequestering 300 lb PAN/ac/yr or higher under
ideal management conditions, but the crop will not be managed aggressively and recommended loadings For
2-G

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT IBA V
ONSLOw COUNTY, NOWHI CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA wRIB 0106
the terrace areas alid the berm sideslopes and top are 80 pounds of Nitrogen per acre per year as a crop
maintenance amendment. Ideal managenrentdoes include weed control and minimizing equipment traffic on
the site especially following rainfall or irrigation events. The recommended liquid load ing onto beret sides avid
tops is no more than 1.75 inches per acre per week as requ ired and this liquid loading can be added as required
to support plant growth and development or potentially used throughout the planned community where
reclaimed water- could be used.
The recommendations specify the addition of the following essential Nutrients:
A. 60 to 80 pounds of Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) - Generally this is supplied as Ammonium
Nitrate or slow release nitrogen. If the slow release nitrogen is available economically, then this
is the reconunended nutrient. A very small portion ofPAN will be supplied through the wastewater
irrigation system proposed. Supplemental requirements will be established as additional
information is available concerning turf management areas.
B. 40 pounds of Phosphorus - This is generally supplied as a phosphate compound. The phosphorus
reconmlended is essential for root development. A very small portion of P will be supplied through
irrigation, but supplements will be required to establish and maintain vegetation.
C. 60 pounds of Potassium - Generally this is supplied as a salt of potassium such as potassium
chloride. Potassium is essential for development of root, stem, and leaf tissue. Potassium mast be
supplied as a supplement.
D. 1.5 to 2 tons of Lime - Soil pH is very low. This low pH influences the availability of essential
plant nutrients. The time recommended is required to facilitate the uptake of essential plant
nutrients.
2-7

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVEHEYF BAY
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORI.1I CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA wRIB 0106
These nutrient additions should be supplied in the fall of the year and prior to any reseediIlg
With the grass species recoIllmended in the section which follows. The plant nutrient deficiencies
noted are severe and must be corrected soon. Maintenance of soil fertility is an important component
of any land treatment operation and pond system operation. Without vegetation, the effectiveness of
any land application operation is compromised and berm sideslopes are susceptible to erosion.
The SAR of any irrigation water mist be determined and monitored. The SAR is calculated as the ratio of
sodium (Na) to one halfthe square rootofcalcitini (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) with all concentrations expressed
as equivalents. The SAR calculation is:
SAR = Na/(Ca/2 + Mg/2) 2 (units in imeq/L)
An SAR in excess of 10 is considered as an irrigation hazard and system operators must take
special precautions to monitor salt levels of sodium in both irrigation water and soil. An SAR
in excess of 7.5 is considered a mild irrigation hazard and operators should consider
establishing a similar monitoring program, If the level of sodium in the soil exchange complex
increases to a level over 10, then corrective measures such as gypsum addition should be
implemented. At present no information is available concerning SAR, but once it is available,
plans will be developed to address sodium issues if required (SAR is above 10). Since the Ponds
rely on maintaining soil permeability, measures of SAR are important and must be
accomplished soon after system operation begins.
Soil Sodium:
Another measure of sodium, completed for the soil, to determine potential problems with
irrigation systems, is called the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP). ESP is calculated as
follows:
2-8

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVEREI"I' BAY
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA WRI110106
ESP = Na/CEC x 100
Where: Na is an index value for sodium (North Carolina Agronomic Division B Soil Testing
Indices)
This calculation should result in data no greater than 10-15%. Soils with ESP values > 10-I5%
can be remediated through under draining and adding soluble sources of Ca such as gypsum
(CaSO.), being careful of manganese (Mn) & Mg deficiencies in plants. Ca/Mn and Ca/Mg
ratios should be kept in balance. Excessive sodium in the soil system can lead to management
problems in the future and affect the overall capacity of the site.
Trace Metals
The USEPA regulates the levels to which selected metals can accumulate on Rnywaste receiver
site. Regulated metals have not been tested in reclaimed water at Holly Ridge, Zinc and
Copper levels in the reclaimed wastewater must be tested to make sure that these constituents
do not limit the capacity of the site for wastewater treatment.
Nutrient Loadings
Holly Ridge proposes to spray reclaimed wastewater on small areas of grass and landscaped
areas near the proposed wastewater treatment facility and on common lands in the planned
community. The sites were determined to have few hydraulic limitations. Nutrient loadings
or recommendations necessary to establish and support vegetation on pond berms and
sideslope areas, and in areas intended to receive the groundwater from the site drainage
network are provided in Table 2.
2-9

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERE'1'1' 13AY
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLI,NA
PROJECT FAA NVRn10106
Conclusions:
The soil resources at Summerhouse on Everett Bay will be modified dramatically as the
development proceeds. The agronomic plan provided is intended to guide the establishment
and maintenance of vegetation important is stabilizing areas on the site involved with
Table 1, Soil test results (as index values unless indicated), Holly Ridge
Parameter
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
OM %
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.3
CEC (meclfg)
5.4
5.9
6.3
7.1
pH (SU)
5.5
5.3
5.5
5.2
P
39
44
28
19
K
25
22
19
12
Ca %
44
49
52
55
Mg %
12
12
10
15
Zn
22
25
19
21
Cu
12
15
17
16
Na %
3%
0. 9%
1. 2%
0.7%
Table 2, Recommended Nutrient and Lime Additions, a -asses and Agricultural Crops On Banks
and Terraces, Holly Ridge Wastewater Receiver Sites (Units as Indicated)
Nutrient Site 2 Site 2 Site 3
Site 4
N 60-80 60-80 60-80
60-80
P 20-40 20-40 20-40
20-40
K 40-60 40-60 40-60
40-60
Li is 1.5 1.7 1.5
2.0
wastewater management. Agronomic considerations are most critical where liquid is provided
as an irrigation resource. The nutrient and lime recommendations provided are intended to
satisfy plant nutrient requirements on those portions of the site important to support the
wastewater infrastructure, but not involved in the dispersal of treated liquid. The infiltration
Ponds require no nutrient loading or supplements.
2-10

SUMMERHOUSE ON EYERM'r 11AY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA WRIB 0106
3.0 - HYDROGEOLOGY:
3.1 General Hydrology:
The hydrogeology portion of this evaluation focuses on the ability of the treated wastewater to drain
into and through the soil, then laterally into the hydrologic cycle in an environmentally appropriate
method. The initial downward movement is characterized by infiltration rates (often defined as K,,t),
During infiltration, water gravity drains from the infiltration pond through saturated interstices into
the water table aquifer. As the water reaches the water table surface, the water table surface will be
rising as a result of the new water (mounding). However, the soils tested by using Compact Constant
Head Permeameter" for Ksat Analyses will be excavated during the pond construction (Table No.
3A - 3D, Ksat Analyses).
All of the soil horizons wi I be excavated, minimizing the influence that restrictive cemented horizons
would have on Nvater movement. The Bli horizons associated with the Onslow soils that are near each
pond will be excavated. The underlying surficial sand appeared to be uniform beneath both ponds.
The saturated flow beneath the surface has been quantified by direct aquifer testing. The
determination of the aquifer coefficients of the surficial aquifer were used to develop a modeled
simulation of the system. The surficial aquifer is bound by a confining layer that is present below 16
to 21 feet and the ground water surface (Water table surface) at equilibrium with atmospheric
pressure. The water level fluctuates as a function of recharge (typically rainfall), and discharge by
either evapotranspiration or base flow to surrounding surface water streams. The height and shape
of the water table surface is a function of the aquifer coefficients, recharge and outlets, therefore the
measured water level elevations provide confirmation of the conceptual made] prior to computer
simulation.
3- 1

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA wRIB 0106
3.2 Water Table Contour Surface:
The water table surface is generally influenced by heterogeneity in the soil matrix, recharge, water
table aquifer characteristics, surface drainage and near surface permeability. The water table synoptic
was affected by rainfall and topography (Table # 4, Water Table Data) (Figure No. 3, Water Table
Contour Map). The water table contour map shows the influence of Kings Creek to the west and
Spicer Bay and Everett Bay to the south. This water table information was used to calibrate the model
for non loading conditions. The MODFLOW simulation in this evaluation considers the rainfall and
evapotranspiration as dynamic variables. The calibration to the synoptic surface does not reflect all
of the drainage and evapotranspiration fluctuations encountered during the winter. Generally, the
piezometers used in the preparation of the water table contour map serve as the basis for calibration
for the MODFLOW simulation, allowing for seasonal evapotranspiration, average rainfall and
estimated drain conductance for the streams.
3.3 Unsaturated Thickness Mapping;
After construction of twenty piezometers, the depth to water and the water table contour was
determined from a synoptic measurement (February 5, 2006) (Table # 4, Water Table Data). The
depth to water (unsaturated thickness) provides an indication that the infiltration pond surface may
need additional fresh water to maintain a visually suitable surface elevation.
The water levels reflected conditions similar to seasonal high conditions expected in February, (Figure
No. 4, Depth to Water Table Map). The depth to water was greater than three feet below land surface
at most of the piezometer sites. Actual isopach thickness contours reflect localized surface features
such as line sinks or ditches that run through the site. Generally, during the spring, summer, and fall
months the depth to water may increase due to regional evapotranspiration (upward). The depth to
water during February reflects lateral movement as defined using the Darcy Equation.
3- 2

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTII CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA NVR1I1 0106
3.4 Aquifer Hydrology:
The surficial aquifer was tested at three sites, with two tests in the vicinity of tile proposed infiltration
Pond Number 5 Site and one at Pond Number 6 (February 4-14, 2006). This information was used
to define regional conditions for areas around the Infiltration Pond Sites.
The first aquifer test was completed north of Basin No. 5 (Figure No. 1, Site Map); the second aquifer
test site was completed in Pond Number 5; and the third aquifer test site was completed near Pond
Number 6.
At the site north of Pond Number 5, the test wells were drilled to a depth of 21 feet with screen
settings from 14 to 19 feet (Table No. 5A, Aquifer Test No. 1). The observation well was located
21.5 feet from thepumping well, which was pumped at 4.5 gallons per minute for 1,730 minutes. The
transmissivity was calculated to be 274 square feet per day, and the hydraulic conductivity was
calculated to be I3.7 feet per day for a 20 foot thick aquifer, and the specific yield was calculated to
be 0.07 (dimensionless). These coefficients were selected as initial values for model calibration for
the areas mapped as Onslow soils.
The second aquifer test was completed on February 6, 2006 in an area mapped as transitional similar
to Onslow and Wando soils at Pond 5, Pond # 5 (Figure No. 1, Site Map). The test wells were drilled
to a depth of 19 feet with screen settings from 14 to 19 feet (Table No. 5C, Aquifer Test 2). The
observation well was located 20 feet from the pumping well, which was pumped at 14.5 gallons per
ininute for 1,440 minutes. The transmissivity was calculated to be 279 square feet per day; the
Hydraulic conductivity was calculated to be 14.7 feet per day for a 19 foot thick aquifer, and the
specific yield was calculated to be 0.244 (dimensionless). These coefficients were selected as initial
values for model calibration for the areas mapped as both Wando and Onslow soils.
The third aquifer test was completed in an area slapped as Wanda soils at Pond # 6 (Figure No. 1, Site
3- 3

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA WRIB 0106
Map). The test wells were drilled to a depth of21 feet with screen settings fron-i13 to 18 feet (Table
No. 5D, Aquifer Test 3). The observation well was located 20 feet from the pumping well, which was
pumped at 5.0 gallons per minute for 1400 minutes. The transmissivity was calculated to be 242
square feet per day; the hydraulic conductivity was calculated to be 11.5 feet per day for a 21 foot
thick aquifer; and the specific yield was calculated to be 0.168 (dimensionless).
These measured coefficients were used to build the conceptual model as the first step in constructing
a computer simulation. The process of calibration compares these measured water level elevations
to computed water levels using these aquifer coefficients.
3.5 Modlfow Simulation:
The disposal of highly treated wastewater using infiltration Ponds has been simulated for this
evaluation using Visual Modflow'- comprised of Modflow and MT3D solute transport fora 20 year
period. To establish meaningful coefficients for this modeling effort, the model was built using
coefficients determined from the aquifer testing, then refined by calibration to the measured water
levels collected on February 4, 2006.
The model consisted of a three layer grid with a total of 23,368 cells covering a regional area 12,000
feet by 7,500 feet. The Summerhouse on Everett Bay site is generally in the center of the model
(Figure No. 5A, Calibration Grid). A steady state simulation was completed using seasonal rainfall
and evapotranspiration conditions. The calibration usingthe 20 piezolneters had a root mean squared
error 1.527 ft. with a normalized root mean squared error of6.299% (Figure No. 513 - 5F, Calibration
Graph and Maps). The calibration was completed with a conductivity of 9 feet per day for the Wando
soils, and 8 feet per day for the Onslow soils in the areas containing the Pond 4 5 and Pond # 6
(Figures No. 5D, and 5E, Conductivities)
Using the calibrated results a transient state model was prepared for a 20 year operation of the two
3- 4

SLTMMERIlOUSE ON EVERETT BA1'
ONSI.Ow COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT FAA 1VRIB 0106
infiltration ponds. For the model, the ponds were loaded at 400,000 gallons per day over an 8.36 acre
area (1.1 gallons per day per square foot). Monthly rainfall data from Onslow County,
evapotranspiration data from Wilmington, and evaporation data from Aurora were used in the model
to simulate water level fluctuations during the 8" in 10 wettest years (years # 3 and 8). A drain
system was assigned into the model at an elevation of 16 feet above mean sea level near Infiltration
Pond Number 5 and, at zero feet mean sea level around Infiltration Pond Number 6. The water levels
calculations for the piezometer locations showed an increase of water level during a wet season (750
days) to: 25.89 feet mean sea level at Infiltration Pond Number 5 (Figure No. 6A, Head vs Time) ;
and 9.89 feet for Infiltration Pond Number 6. These modeled levels show the effect of the drains
(Figure No. 6E - 6H , Equipotential Surface Map for a wet year).
The mounding in the model was determined by subtracting the water levels calculated inthe calibration
model from the water levels at each time step. The maximummound was for the time period from 750
to 900 days at less than 3.2 feet at Infiltration Pond Number 5 (Figure No. 7A, Time vs Drawdown).
Seasonal mounding maps are shown for the third year to help to estimate the effect of seasonal
fluctuations. The seasonal fluctuation was less than one foot, with the maximum drawdown being 2
feet (Figures Numbered 713 through 7E, Mounding Maps).
Using the Modflow results, a solute transport model was configured to simulate a loading of 10 mgll
of nitrogen for 10 years (Fig. No 8A - 8D, Nitrogen Model Results) . The Nitrogen achieved steady
state after 5 years because of the drains. Nitrogen reduction Is important to protect Surrounding
surface waters and minimize Algae growth in the Infiltralion Ponds.
Zone budgets for this maximum flow period at 750 days were based on two different segments of the
drains, Zone Budget 2 was the zone budget for the drain in the vicinity of Infiltration Pond Number
5. Zone (Figure No. 9A,Zone Budget). Zone Budget 3 was the segment extending around
Infiltration Pond Number 6. The discharge in the drains of Zone Budget 2 was 49,314 cubic feet per
day and the discharge in the drains of Zone Budget 3 was 52,062 cubic feet per day. The zone
3- 5

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAV
ONSLOW COUNTV, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA wRIB 0106
budgets include all groundwater flowing into the zone. The control pumps should be able to
accommodate this volume temporarily to adjust groundwater levels after a large rain event, therefore,
the pump capacity should be able to discharge the volume in a desired time interval (such as a four
hour window).
3- 6

SUMMERHOUSE ON LVEIZETT BAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT FAA wR1B 0106
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RE, COMMENDATIONS:
4.1 CONCLUSIONS:
This analysis has evaluated the soils and hydrologic characteristics of the proposed wastewater disposal
system for Summerhouse on Everett Bay, Onslow County. After mapping the soils throughout the
northern segment ofthe development site, it was determined that an infiltration pond system is the best
option for wastewater management for the proposed development plan. The area consisted of soil
most like Wando fine sand and Onslow loamy fine sand. Specifically, the Onslow loamy fine sand
contains restrictive horizons (Bli). The excavation of Infiltration Pond Number 5 will penetrate these
layers by excavating to an elevation of 22 feet above mean sea level (depths from 8 to 10 feet) and
excavating Infiltration Pond Number 6 will penetrate these layers by excavating to an elevation of feet
above mean sea level (depths 8 to 10 feet).
The waste water volume of400,000 gallons per day will infiltrate to the surficial aquifer at a loading
rate of 1.1 gallons per day per square foot (8.36 acres of basins). The two basins are isolated from each
other by a pumped drainage system to control groundwater levels. Infiltration Pond Number 5 will
accommodate 267,713 gallons per day on 5.59 acres. Infiltration Pond Number 6 will accommodate
132,287 gallons per day on 2.76 acres.
Groundwater quality will be protected by the addition of nutrient reduction to the waste water
treatment. Therefore, the waste water is restored to comply with groundwater standards at the review
boundary, without relying on treatment through the soil horizons. The loading has been modeled using
an effluent concentration of 10 milligrams per liter for a twenty year operational period.
flee modeling shows that the disposal system will function with the controlled drainage at 16 feet above
4- 1

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
ONSLOw COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EA WRIB 0106
mean sea level at Infiltration Pond Number 5, and zero feet above mean sea level at Infiltration Pond
Number 6, so that the maximum mound should be less than two feet and the review and compliance
boundary will be protected.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recommendations resulting from this analysis are summarized as follows:
• The site can accommodate 400,000 gallons per day at 1.1 gpd/ftz on 8.36 acres;
• Provide treatment that will insure that the groundwater will not be degraded at the compliance
boundary;
U Excavate the ponds to an elevation of approximately 22 feet above mean sea level (Infiltration
Pond Number 5) and 3 ft (Infiltration Pond Number 6); maintain the bottom of the ponds
periodically to insure infiltration potential at 1,1 gallons per day per square foot;.
• Add drains so that groundwater levels can be managed to maintain stable levels in the
infiltration ponds. The drains should be configured between each pond to isolate each pond so
that mounds do not coalesce from one pond to the other. The pumped discharge in the drains
of Zone Budget 2 was 49,314 cubic feet per day and the pumped discharge in the drains of
Zone Budget 3 was 52,062 cubic feet per day. The control pumps should be able to
accommodate this volume temporarily to adjust groundwater levels after a large rain event,
therefore, the pump capacity should be able to discharge the volume in a desired time interval
(such as a four hour window).
A method of controlling the groundwater drains such as using valves will help to manage levels
in the infiltration ponds.
• Reduce nutrients in the effluent to ground water standards (15ANCAC 2L);
4-2

5L[AI,IICRROUSE ON 1'.YCRI; T Il,w
ONSLOW COUNTY, FORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT EAA WRI131111;6
-1.3 LIMITS OF TNVESTIGATION:
Data presented in this investigative report represent isolated data points. Corlelt'siolls of [his report illclu{litrg maps, CaICuhit ious aad
models. are based on extrapolations between data points and on subjective hydrogeologic, soils and geologic interpretation, therefore,
may not be completer' 1'epresenllltivc ()fall canuiitions in the study nre;1,
Conclusions and recommendations ofthis report are based on hest uvaihlblc data, collected within budgetary constraints of the original
proposal. It is the prel"ise of this effort that the information collected and ann1v/ed is representative of a reasonable effort to
Ilndti-Valld and solve tl1C eXiSfillg problem. No guarantee 1s C.\presse(l
later
01, I1tl]>E1t`{'l�Jj�}t:l�C?ti-5..�]r iiddlt1011R1`t(,.i?7}1�1jU}h� rl'CIUII'Cd at
a tine.
,:' _ .,, t_-- _,. 11
C .-+_T"_` Si_..ti'•' ,fs' A '!!/
• CJ`5�..9000�gR
�/1
\4 uVU[[yyO/��r
1 � t
� ��" ° �1JTCf17 �Aa '�y
•'����
6dll,
Stlbin it}}ppt1 06
ii April 3 2 , 0
s
:,i_+iimar V J
Edwin E. Andrews.P.C., N
.V',N.! .L.S.S.
�re''y �•_. =t_��M1�ai i�3,`-�i � _o`.a .�.;•�cS;C�..�`�-l's6/// D�1[�A� o-b� i
COlI
I1511�t111+ I�yCiI'C1�Ct7�C1151 c�ilC�QII 5CIe1111St for.]��
Af
(•..fsr}y'.
Er»��iN ,�Nnitrl;�vS �� 1�SsociA�i•�s, P.C.
P`= }. r.t�• y rL
� =r,---•-
�- r
j d�•-!-iv'� ��t�- IT �'a
Dr. A. R. Rubin,
j12CIUM & Creed Engineers, P.A.

x
x
E•
s
4 0
O+
®'
k_ a .
z
0
o
�
�
o
u
o
x
<
w
3
ti

11C
0' 800,
iYtlIA�O[tl 01�I1;
® 11 It ::.:iIII i„ a:w 1.:1 n I::d,ldl I n:,.Ill
QI,a1 1, tl ..... :nnd,1 1..:. I.I.I.I6,q .Ji„I::, I
LEGEND
•
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
PIEZOMETER LOCATION
AQUIFER TEST LOCATION
Q
Ksat LOCATION
T8
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY .. FIGURE NO,2
SOIL MAP <' .'.f�'i 4ti 6'V SCALE V=900'
- EAA PROJECT RW IR 0106

W
SUMMERHOUSE ON Ed'ERE'!'T F3AY Yii FIG NO.3
SCALE V = SOW
WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP ('c1vti,1;,!'GN(: }S AN ) .SOIL SCIEN" PINTS EAA PROJECTRWI611106

1 P12
0' Soo,
t
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY FIGURE NO.4
SCALE V - 800'
DEPTH TOWATER MAP ..,tl�6. i.::1J1 IX1 : � I.- SO} ;, �;t'rUAAPROJECT KWI6010

n
n
ti Z17-
ni c ae• aa'
o N O
3g.0
P17 20 P 5
0
18
c 24.0
26.0
0
0
2
C
�
b
10O
�
o
N
ZZ O
P6� 00
�g 6.0
_
O
- P4 `6.0
- P4 �a.0 2i-
3 Z O
♦
W
10.0
p
•O
O
1544
2400 360o
4800 6000 7200 8400
9600 10944
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 5B - CALIBRATION EQUIPOTENTIAL MAP

U-4
14. b4 24.54
Observed Head (ft)
Num. of Data Points: 20
Max. Residual: -2.685 (ft) at P12/A
Min. Residual: 0.154 (ft) at P17/A
Residual Mean: -0.451 (ft)
Abs. Residual Mean : 1.329 (ft)
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. aC - CALIBRATION GRAPH
■ Layer #1
95% confidence interval
95% interval
Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.335 (f
Root Mean Squared : 1.527 (f
Normalized RMS : 6.699 (%
Correlation Coefficient : 0.97

0
L
❑
D
i � 1
(
c
.
t
I_� 1
m
i
S >
D
ti
0 2000 9000 6000 8000 I0000 ROOD
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 5D - CONDUCTIVITIES LAYER 1
TEAL 8, WHITE 9, BLUE 5, PURPLE 28, AND GREEN 16 FT/DAY

0
0
a
� -
o
N
Ga �'� _sue `, ;•lt\1 � � -
0 200b 4000 5000 Bobo looao 12000
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 5E - CONDUCTIVITIES LAYER ?
TEAL 8, WHITE 4, BLUE 5, AND GREEN 16 FT/DAY

6
Lo
❑
J
cim
O
` Y
o
-
Q
.J
0 2000
gooc
600o soon i0000 Iz000,
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 5F - CONDUCTIVITIES LAYER 3
WHITE 9, AND RED 40 FT/DAY

SUMMERHOURSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 5H - X -SECTION - CONDUCTIVITIES
COL 55

Head vs. Time
Time = 750.0002
■ POND 51A(Observed)
POND 5/A(Calculated) = 25.89921 -•- POND 5/A(Calculated)
_ • POND 6/A(Observed)
N ;3 �i M+ 1a an E; ■no `_MR_Eon ___ f POND 61A(Calcuiated)
r
Ia
m
= co
Time = 750.0002
POND 6/A(Calculated) = M88853
ti
50 1050 2050
Time [days]
SUMMERBOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 7A - WATER LEVEL VS TIME

SUMMLKHUUSE UN EVERETT BAY
FIG. 6B - RECHARGE WITH DRAINS
DRAIN AROUND POND 5 AT 14.5 FT./MSL - ZONE 2
DRAIN AROUND POND 6 AT 0.5 FT,/MS. - ZONE 3

r .
P9
x
'Pe
P4
w j
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 6C - EQUIPOTENTIAL SPRING WET YEAR
n

b -
P
P
0 11
P
Pi 22.0
o i
=' 20.0
m r a /.•-.aa
PB
-S-
P5
P4 j
}
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 6D - EQUIPOTENTIAL SUMMER WET YEAR
\p O
P2
_ P3 .\ _
Co
O
ti

-26.0
-za 0
22.0
C-
p
tib p
O.: R2
XP3
z'
1"
�4.0 iJ
F
I
4408 4900 5600
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 6E - EQUIPOTENTIAL FALL WET YEAR

P
`
o
P11
0
P
_
24 0
P30
o
=' 20.0
ro
�.
P7
\
P9
ONO 5*
r
L
Y
"l
b.
bn
O
t
PB
P2
F-O
ry
4 O
P3
j
0
.k
o
#
n
m
.*
4406 4900 5600 6300
7000
7700
6400 9247
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 6F - EQUIPOTENTIAL WINTER WET YEAR

Drawdown vs. Time
■ POND 5/A(Observed)
-0- POND 5/A(Calculated)
• POND 6/A(Observed)
f POND 6/A(Calculated)
a�
v
ram."
Time = 419.9999
POND 6/A(Calculated) = 3.19487
rn
N
C
O
3
a`^
0
■nMR r�MA
o s■:� ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ z
M „ ■ ■
a Time = 431.4757 ■ s_,
M POND 5/A(Calculated) =-2.157444 r _
-- WE
a
c-�
0
cri
50 1050 2050
Time [days]
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 7A - TIME VS DRAWDOWN

M"
N
0
e - I
m
o 2.p
M P7
M
� ' I
0; c - PO 5
CO - PD 0 1 1
coe +s
e
N
N
P6
O O/
o
\i% 2
N
P2
ui
0
m
5616 6000 P3 6400 6600 7200 7600 8000 8216
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 7B - DRAWDOWN - SPRING WET YEAR

I J r
N � _
b �
L "1
O 12.0
P7
n
0
m PONO 9
P6
Qy Po �I
O \ I
1 I
N
P8 i
O �
6.O.p0
N
P2
l
m +�• Ir
5616 6000 P3 6400 6800 7200 7600 8000 8216
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 7C - DRAWDOWN - SUNIMER WET YEAR

m
m
Y
I
0
b
m
0r
n
13. 0' '-F'
r
0
P7
O
0
m
O
NO 5
+ O
P6
•�
11.0 -�
�o�. to I 'J
I�J l.. i I� � �
1 ,. r
..n . PO D
l 6
0
9�
qQ �0
P
N
PB
e-
J�
O
O
b.
0j
N
P2
m
5616
6000 P3 6400 6800
7200 7600 8000 8216
SUNIMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 7D - DRAWDOWN - FALL WET YEAR

m �
m
I
I
f �
f .0
m P7
m
m o POND 5
I� N � •• \fir 1 1 f \ "'�
w O
0
o � -
N
P,}8, I
0 ry ry
M
c hx Y.
m
O
m
5616 6000 P3 6400 6800 7200 7600 Bobo 8216
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 7E - DRAWDOWN - WINTER WET YEAR

ConcO01 [mg/L]
-
-2.000 0.000
2.000 4.000
6.000 8.000
10.000 12.000
0
m
ri
'
.. PID
n
—
P7
P9
_P6
r
ry o
p
p
!r
D
N
P4 - •
P2
;Y
P3
�
N
P-1
a -� -
0
f
#
O
�
�
ri
r
r�
O
1
5
�#r
n
4251
4900
5600 630D
7D00 7700
6400 9312
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 8A
- NITROGEN 5 YEARS

Conc001
0
O✓
N
N
p
2
4.867 - 5.714 6.571 7.429 82
e \ P7
pq
�P N�
--P_1 _—+s
a
I^
� --
4561 4800 5400
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 8B - NITROGEN 10 YEARS
= F
6000-—�6600 ---- 7200 —_ 7800
84

P10
a
0
N
Ni
rzao �eoo
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. 8C - NITROGEN 20 YEARS

Time = 750
Zone Budget: MODFLOW
Date: 4/2/2006
Zone3 - -
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
FIG. NO. 9, DRAIN BUDGETS

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
TABLE NO. 3A, HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS
TEST BY: Edwin Andrews
TEST SITE 1
Soil notes: WEAK Bit
Location
CM,
DTW
Hole depth
70
head
15
Ameter
Valve
A
Conver.
cm
Reference
10
d
65
config.
On
C111^-2
Factor
Initial:
56
D
80
H 1
65
2
2
0.001056
105
Final:
55
dt
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
(cm)
DTW
(cm)
H
(cm)
Conver.
factor
Q
(cm"3/m)
Q
(cm^31hr)
K
(Croft)
K
(in/hr)
K
(in130 days)
DRAINAGE
(in130 days)
1
43.9
1.2
56
14
105.0
1
43.3
0.6
55
15
105.0
63.0
3.780.0
4.0
1.6
1131.5
45.3
1
42.7
0.6
55
15
105.0
63.0
3,780.0
4.0
1.6
1131.5
45.3
1
42.1
0.6
55
15
105.0
63.0
3,780.0
4.0
1.6
1131.5
45.3
1
41.5
0.6
55
15
105.0
63.0
3,780.0
4.0
1.6 1
1131.5
45.3
Ksat 4
1.6
45.0
Remarks:
TEST SITE 2
Soil notes: Bt
Location
CM.
DTW
Hole depth
32
head
15
Ameter
Valve
A
Conver.
cm
Reference
11
d
27
config.
On
cm"-2
Factor
Initial:
18
D
42
H1
27
2
2
0.001056
105
Final:
17
dt
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
(cm)
DTW
(cm)
H
{cm}
Conver.
factor
Q
(cm^31m)
Q
(cm^31hr)
K
(cmlhr)
K
(inlhr)
K
in130 da s)
DRAINAGE
(in130 da s)
1
25.5
0.0
18
14
105.0
1
25.3
0.2
17
15
105.0
21.0
1,260.0
1.3
0.5
377.2
15.1
1
25.2
0.1
17
15
105.0
10.5
630.0
0.7
0.3
188.6
7.5
1
25.1
0.1
17
15
105.0
10.5
630.0
0.7
0.3
188.6
7.5
1
25
0.1
17
15
105.0
10.5
630.0
0.7
0.3
188.6
7.6
1
24.9
0.1
17
15
105.0
10.5
630.0
0.7
0.3
188.6
7.5
Ksat 0.7
0.3
7.5
Remarks!

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
TABLE NO. 3B HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS
TEST BY: Edwin Andrews
TEST SITE SITE 3
Soil notes: Bt
Location
CM,
DTW
Hole depth
30
head
15
Ameter
Valve
A
Conver.
Cm
Reference
10
d
25
conflg.
On
cm^-2
Factor
Initial:
16
D
40
H1
25
2
2
0.001056
105
Final:
15
dt
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
(cm)
DTW
(cm)
H
(cm)
Conver,
factor
Q
(cm"31m)
Q
(cm"31hr)
K
(cmlhr)
K
(tnlhr)
K
(in130 days)
DRAINAGE
(inl30 da s)
1
43.1
0.0
16
14
105.0
1
42.9
0.2
15
15
105.0
21.0
1,260.0
1.3
0.52
377.2
15.1
1
42.7
0.2
15
15
105.0
21.0
1,260.0
1.3
0.52
377.2
15.1
1
42.5
0.2
15
15
105.0
21.0
1,260.0
1.3
0.52
377.2
15.1
1
42.3
0.2
15
15
106.0
21.D
1,260.0
1.3
0.52 1
377.2
15.1
Ksat 1.3
0.50 300
15.1
Remarks:
TEST SITE - SITE 4
Soil dotes: Weak Bt
Location
CM.
DTW
Hole depth
40
head
16
Ameter
Valve
A
Conver.
cm
Reference
11
d
36
config,
On
crnA-2
Factor
Initial:
26
D
51
H1
36
2
2
0.000961
105
Final:
25
dt
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
(cm)
DTW
cm)
H
(cm)
Conver.
factor
Q
(cm^3lm)
Q
(cm^31hr)
K
(cmlhr)
K
(inlhr)
K
i230 days)
DRAINAGE
inl30 days)
0
32.1
0.0
26
14
1 D5.0
1
31.8
0.3
25
15
105.0
31.5
1,890.0
2.0
0.8
565.7
56.6
1
31.5
0.3
25
15
105.0
31.5
1.890.0
2.0
0.8
565.7
56.6
1
31.4
0.1
25
15
105.0
10.5
630.0
0.7
0.3
188.6
18.9
1
31.3
0.1
25
15
105.0
10.5
630.0
0.7
0.3
188.6
18.9
1
31.2
0.1
25
15
105.0
10.6
630.0 0.7
Ksat 0.7
0.3 1 188.6
0.3 168
18.9
18.9
Remarks:

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
TABLE NO. 3C, HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS
TEST BY: Edwin Andrews
TEST SITE SITE 5
Soil notes: Bh
Location
CM.
DTW
Hole depth
34
head
15
Ameter
Valve
A
Conver.
Cm
Reference
11
d
29
config.
On
cm^-2
Factor
Initial:
20
D
45
H1
29
2
2
0,001056
105
Final:
19
dt
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
(cm)
DTW
(cm)
H
(cm)
Conver.
factor
Q
(cm^31m)
Q
(cm^31hr)
K
(cmlhr)
K
(inlhr)
K
(in130 days)
DRAINAGE
(in130 da s)
0
33.8
0.0
20
14
105.0
1
33.2
0.6
19
15
105.0
63.0
3,780.0
4.0
1.57
1131.5
45.3
1
32,7
0.5
19
15
105.0
52.5
3,150.0
3.3
1.31
942.9
37.7
1
32
0.7
19
15
105.0
73.5
4,410.0
1 4.7
1.83
1320.1
52.8
1
31.3
0.7
19
15
105.0
73.5
4,410.0
4.7
1.83
1320.1
62.8
Ksat 4.7
1.80
53.0
Remarks; POND 5 SOIL TO BE EXCAVATED
TEST SITE SITE 6
Soil notes: Bli
Location
CM.
DTW
Hole depth
23
head
15
Ameter
Valve
A
Conver.
cm
Reference
11
d
8
conf .
On
cm^-2
Factor
Initial:
9
D
34
H1
8
1
1
0.000961
20
Final:
8
dt
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
cm
DTW
(cm)
H
(cm)
Conver.
factor
Q
(cm"31m)
Q
(cm^31hr)
K
cmlhr)
K
inlhr)
K
(in130 days)
DRAINAGE
(in130 days)
0
48.1
0.0
9
14
20.0
1
47.9
0.2
8
15
20.0
4.0
240.0
0.3
0.1
71.8
2.9
1
47.7
0.2
8
15
20.0
4.0
240.0
0.3
0.1
71.8
2.9
1
47.5
0.2
8
15
20.0
4.0
240.0
0.3
0.1
71.8
2.9
1
47.3
0.2
8
15
20.0
4.0
240.0
0.3
0.1
71.8
2.9
1
47.1
0.2
8
15
20.0
4.0
240.0
0.3
0.1
71.8
2.9
Ksat 0.3
0.1 71
2.9
Remarks: POND 5 - SOIL TO BE EXCAVATED

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
II TABLE NO. 3D, HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS II
PEST BY: Ed Andrews
PEST SITE -SITE 7
,foil notes: Bt
Location
CM.
DTW
Hole depth
50
head
16
Ametor
Valve
A
Conver.
cm
Reference
10
d
45
config.
On
cm^-2
Factor
Initial:
36
D
60
H1
45
2 2 0,009610 105 Final 35
dt
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
(cm)
DTW
(cm)
H
(cm)
Conver.
factor
Q
(cm"3/m)
Q
(ci,03/hr)
K
(cm/hr)
K
(in/hr)
K
(in130 days)
DRAINAGE
(iW30 days)
0
39.8
0.5
36
15
105.0
1
39.6
0.3
35
16
105.0
31.5
1,890.0
18.2
7.2
5148.5
205.9
1
39.3
0.3
35
16
105.0
31.5
1,890.0
18.2
7.2
5148.5
205.9
1
39.1
0.5
35
16
105.0
52.5
3,150.0
30.3
11.9
8580.9
343.2
1
38.9
0.4
35
16
105.0
42.0
2,520.0
24.2
9.5
6864.7
274.6
Ksat 24
9.0
270.0
Remarks: POND 6 - SOIL TO BE EXCAVATED
rEST SITE - SITE 8
moil notes: Btt
Location
CM.
DTW
Hole depth
20
head
16
Ameter
Valve
A
Conver.
cm
Reference
30
d
15
confi .
On
cm"-2
Factor
Initial:
6
D
63
H1
15
1 1 0.000961 20 Final: 5
di
(min)
Res
(cm)
dR
(cm)
DTW
(cm)
H
(cm)
Conver.
factor
Q
(cm"3/m)
Q
(cm^31hr)
K
(cmlhr)
K
(inlhr)
K
(in/30 days)
DRAINAGE
(in130 da s)
0
31.7
0.0
6
15
20.0
1
31.5
0.2
5
16
20.0
4.0
240.0
2.3
0.9
653.8
26.2
1
31.3 1
0.2
5
16
20.0
4.0
240.0 1
2.3
0.9
653.8
26.2
1
31.1
0.2
5
16
20.0
4.0
240.0
2.3
0.9
653.8
26.2
1
30.9
0.2
5
16
20.0
4.0
240.0
2.3
0.9
653.8
26.2
Ksat 2.3
0.9 0
26.0
Remarks: POND 6 - SOIL TO BE EXCAVATED

SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
TABLE NO.4, WATER LEVEL DATA - SURVEYED
WATER
WATER
WATER
STICK-UP
GROUND
T.O.C.
EAST
NORTH
ELEVATION
DEPTH
DEPTH
NAD 83 FT.
NAD 83 FT
FT. M.S.L.
FT.
FT. T.O.C.
FT.
FT. M.S.L.
FT. M.S.L.
2456094
270253
5.1
4.2
P1
5.0
0.8
9.3
10.1
2456057
270935
7.7
2.6
P2
5.9
3.3
10.3
13.6
2455276
270732
10.4
2.3
P3
5.6
3.3
12.7
16.0
2454517
270855
18.0
7.4
P4
8.4
1.0
25.4
26.4
2454393
271142
22.9
10.7
P5
13.3
2.6
33.6
36.2
2455208
271872
27.8
8.3
P6
12.0
3.8
36.1
39.8
2456219
272265
20.7
7.3
P7
10.7
3.4
28.1
31.5
2454658
271300
26.1
7.1
P8
10.3
3.1
33.2
36.3
2454354
272094
24.8
3.4
P9
7.1
3.7
28.2
31.9
2454262
272547
24.6
3.1
P10
4.4
1.4
27.7
29.0
2453592
272984
24.3
1.3
P11
3.3
2.0
25.6
27.6
2454308
273649
27.9
2.7
P12
5.9
3,2
30.5
33.7
2453059
274001
21.5
3.8
P13
7.8
4.0
25.2
29,2
2453680
274780
27.7
1.9
P14
6.9
5.0
29.6
34.6
2452976
274880
21.8
4.7
P15
8.9
4.2
26.5
30.7
2453349
275940
26.0
1.1
P16
4.0
2.8
27.1
29.9
2451449
274833
25.0
0.4
P17
2.5
2.1
25.4
27.5
2452021
273988
14.4
4.6
P18
8.0
3.3
19.1
22.4
2452318
274393
17.3
4.8
P19
8.8
4.0
22.1
26.1
2451949
274907
23.0
3.3
P20
7.5
4.2
26.2
30.4

Edwi •ews.' ciate:
P.O. 6o:r6uti53
Rnje�gh, N,C.
Pumping Test No, 4
Well Pond 6 - North of Pond
discharge 4,50 U.S.9al/min
10-1 100
101
101
ton
m
Q
10-'
10-2
10-3
o OW-6
Transmissivity [ft2/d]: 2-74 x 102
Hydraulic conductivity [ftld]: 1 37 x 10l
Aquifer thickness [ft]: 20,00
Storativlty: 7.11 x iti-s
ping tr Isis Qa 3.200E _ le No. . -gel
NEUMAN's method
Unconfined aquifer with Project: Summerhours at Everetts Bay
delayed watertable response Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: 21412006
1fu
101 101 14,- 1n,
Hydraulic conductivity vertical [ft/d]: 8.66 x 10-i
Specific yield: 711 x t0-2

Edwi ews _ �ciate _ Iping t _ysis �z. _ 3.P0�0 oale�No cn, rage 2
P.O. Box 30653 NEUMAN's method
Ralemgh. V.c. Unconfined aquifer with Project: Summerhours at Everetts Bay
delayed watertable response I Evaluated by: EEA
Pumping Test No 4
Test conducted on: 2W2006
Well Pond 5 - North of Pond OW-6
Discharge 4.50 U.S.gallrnin Distance from the pumping well 19.50 ft
Static water level: 0,00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration Water level
-u-,
0,44
3
0.0069a
0.46
4
4.01042
0.48
5
0.01389
049
6
0.01736
0.49
7
0.02083
0,5
$
0,02431
0.51
9
0.0277B
0.51
10
0.03125
0.52
11
1 0.03472
0.52
12
0.03819
0.52
13
0,04167
0,53
14
-Ts--
0.04514
0,53
0.048 11
0.53
16
0.05208
0.54
17
! 0.05556
0.54
1 a
0.05903
0.54
19
0, 06250
0.55
20
CO6597
0,54
21
0,06944
0.54
22
0.07292
0.55
23
' 0.07639
0.56
24
0.07986
0.55
25
0.08333
0.56
26
0.08681
0.56
27
0.09028
0.56
28
0.09375
0,56
29
0,09722
0.56
30
0,10069
0.56
31
0,10417
0.56
32
0.10754
0,56
33
0,11
n.57
0.11458
35
0.1180b
0.57
3B
0.12153
0.57
37
0.12500
0.57
39
0,12847
0.57
39
0.13194
0.57
40
0.13542
0.53
41
0,13869
0.58
42
0.14236
0.57
43
0.145$3
0, 57
44 '
0.14931
0.50
45
0.15278
0 58
46
0.15625
0.58
47
D.15972
0.58
4$
0.16319
0.53
49
0.1566 7
0.57
50
0.17014
0.58
Orawdown
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.49
0.49
0,50
0,51
0,51
0.64
0.54
0.54
0.55
0.54
0,54
=52
0.55
0.56
a 56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0,57
0.57
0,57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
a.5a
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.57

Edwi - ' ,ews ' �ciate _ _ aping t� �+sis ❑s 3.2o0E_ ale No.
P,O. box auu53 NEUMAN's method
Raleigh, N.C. Unconfined aquifer with Project: Summerhours at Everetts Bay
delayed watertable response Evaluated by: EEA
Pumping Test No. 4 Test conducted on: 2/412006
Well Pond 6- North of Pond OW-6
Discharge 4.50 U.S.gallrnin Distance from the pumping well 19,50 ft
Static water level: 0,00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration Water level Drewdown
a �
1
0.1711611
1
0.59
0.69
521
0.17708
0'S9
0,59
53
0.18056
I
0.69
0.59
TTD.184a3
0.59
0.59
55
D,18750
0.59
0.50
5fi
0.19097
0.59
0.59
57
0.19444
0.60
0.60
58
0.19792
0.60
0.60
59
0.20139
0.60
0.60
60
0.20486
0-60
Q,60
61
a, 20833
0.60
0.60
62
0,21181
0,60
0.60
63
0,21526
0,60
0.60
64
D.2 i 875
0-50
0.60
65
0.2222z
° 60
66
a.22569
ISO
60
0,6 0
67
0.22917
0.50
0.60
68
0.23264
0.61
0.61
69
0.23611
0.60
0.60
70
0.23958
0.61
Q.61
71
0.24306
0.61
0.61
72
n.z4s53
0.61
0.61
TT0.25000
061
0.61
74
0,2534 r
0.61
0,61
75
0.25694
0.62
0.62
76
0.26042
0.62
0.62
4.26389
0.62
0.62
78
0.26736
0.62
0.62
79
0,27083
0.62
0.62
80
0,27431
0.62
4.62
81
0.27778
4.62
0.62
82
0.28125
0, 62
0.62
83
0.28472
0,62
0,62
84
0.28819
0.62
0, 62
85
0.29167
0.62
0.62
86
0.29514
0.63
053
B7
0.29861
0.53
a
0.6.,
68
0.30208
0.63
0.63
84
0,30556 I
0,63
0.63
90
0.30903
0.63
0.63
91
0.31250
0,63
0.62
92
D.31597
0.63
0.633
93
0.31944
2 `'
0.63
94
❑. 32292
-0.63
0.63
95 1
0,32639
Q•63
0.63
96
0.32986
0.63
0.63
97
0.33333
4.63
053
98
0.336B1
p 64
0.64
99
0,34028
0,64
0.64
00 1
0.34375
0.64
0.64

Edw; rews )ciate iping t ysis Ds 3.200t fle No oe a
P.C. Box 30653
Raleigh, N.C.
NEUMAN's method
Unconfined aquifer with
delayed watertable response
o i_Project: Summerhours at Everetts Bay
Evaluated by: EEA
Pumping Test No. 4 Test conducted on: 214l2006
Well Pond 6- North of Pond OW-6
Discharge 4-50 U.S.gallmin Distance from the pumping well 19.50 ft
Static water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
Id]
Woter level
IftI
Drawdown
En]
101
0.34722
0,63
0.63
1 C2
0.35069
1 0.63
0.63
10a
0.35417
0.64
0.64
104
0.35784
0.64
0.64
105
0.36111
0.64
0.64
ice 0.36456
0.64
0.54
107 026S06
0.64
0.64
10a 0.37153
0.65
0.65
log
0.37500
0.64
0.54
110
0,37847
0.65
0.65
111
0.38194
0.65
0,65
112
C.38542
0.65
0.65
113
0.36889
0.65
0.65
114
0.39236
0.65
0.65
115
0.39583
0.65
0.65
116
0.39931
0.65
0.65
117
0.40278
0.66
0.66
118
0.40625
0.65
0.65
119
0.40972
0,66
0.66
12C
0.41319
0.66
0.66
121
0.41667
0.66
! 0.66
122
0.42014
0.66 0.66
123
0,42361
0.66
0.66
124
0.42703
0.66
0.66
125
0.43C56
0.66
0.66
126
0.434C3
0.66
0.66
127
0.43750
0.67
0.67
128
0.44097
0.67
0.67
129
0.44444
a6e
0,66
130
0.44792
0.67
0.67
131
0.45139
0,67
0.67
132
0 4548E
0.67
0.67
133
0,4583a
0.67
0.67
134
046181
0.67
0.67
135
0.46528 0.68
0.ea
135
0.46875 1 0.67
0.67
1371
0.47222 10.6a
0,68
138
0,47562 1 0.68
0.68
139
0.47917 0,68
0.68
140
0.48264 0.67
0.67
141
0,48611 0.68
0.68
142
0.48953 0,68
0.68
143
0.4930E 1 0.68
0.68
144
0.49653 O.EB
0.68
145
0.50000 0.62
0,68
146
0.50347 0.68
0.68
147
0.50694 0.68
0.88
148
0.51042 0.69
0,69
149
0,51389 0.68
0.68
150
1 0,51736 0.68
0.68

Da 3.20DE i� -le c . ge 5
Edwi
ews � ciate.
_ ping a psis _
P.0_
Soz30653
NEUMAN'S method
Ralapgh,
N.C.
I Unconfined aquifer with
Project_ Summerhours at Everetts Bay
delayed watertable response
Evaluated by: EEA
Pumping
Test No. 4
Test
conducted on: 2X2006
Well
Pond 6 - North of Pond
OW-6
Discharge
4.50 U.S.gallmin
Distance
from the pumping well 19.50 ft
Static
water leve[: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
Water level
Drawdewn
[d]
[ft]
[ft]
151
0.52C83
0.69
0.69
152
0.52431
0.6$
0.69
153
0.52778
0.69
0,63
134
0.53125
0.62
n.69
155
0.53472
0.69
0.69
156
0.53819
0.69
0.69
157
0,54167
0.69
0.69
158
4.54514
0.69
0.69
159
0,54851
0.69
0.65
160
C.55208
D.69
0.65
161
0.55556
0.69
0.69
162
0.55903
0'69
0.69
163
0.56250
D.69
p
0.690.69
164
0.56597
0.fi9
165
0,56944
0.70
0.70
166
0,57292
D.69
0.69
167
0.57639
0.70
0.70
168
0,57966
0.70
0.70
169
0.53333
0.70
0.70
170
0.58661
0.70
0,70
171
0, 59028
0.70
0.70
172
0, 59375
0.71
0.71
173
0, 59722
0.71
0.71
174
0,50069
0.71
0.71
175
0-6D417
0 71
0.71
176
0.50754
0,71
0.71
177
0.61111
D- 71
0.71
175
0.61458
0.71
0.71
179
0.61806
0.71
0.71 I
180
0.62153
0.71
0.71
181
0.62500 I
0.71
0.71
182
0.62847
0.71
0.71
183
0.63194 1
0.71
0.71
184
0.6354.2 1
0.71
0.71
185
0.63889
n.71
0.71
186
0.64236
0.72
0.72
1$7
0.64583
0.72
0.72
188
0.64931
0.71
0, 71
189 {
0.55278
072
0.72
190
0,65625
0.72
0.72
191
0.65972 i
0,72
4.72
192
0 66319
0.72
0.72
193
0.66667
0.72
0,72
194
0,67014
0.72
0.72
195
0,57351
0.72 I
D 72
196
0.67708
0.72
0.72
197
0.68056
C.72
0.72
195
0,68403
0.72
0.72
199
0.68750
0.72
D.72
zno
0.69097
0.72
0.72

Edw' news _ tciate__ _ _tying t ysis Da __32004 u2No
P.O. BOX 30653 NEUMAN's methcd 0 g
Ralocgn, nl.c. Unconfined aquifer with Project: Summetcurs at Everetts Bay
delayed watertable response Evaluated by: EEA
Pumping Test No. 4 Test conducted on: 2 4/2046 _
Well Pond 6 - North of Pond OW-6
Discharge 4.50 U.S.gallmin Distance from the pumping well 19,50 ft
St8tio water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration Water level Orawdown
1 0.69444
0.72
0.72
2 0.69792
0.73
0,73
3 0,70139
0.72
0.73
4 0.70486
1 0.74
5 0.70833
0.73
0.74
6 0, 711 11
0.73
0.73
0,
7 0.715 5
0.73
0
73
0 f3
8 0.71875
0 73
0 73
9 0.72222
0.73
0.73
0 0.72569
0.73
❑.73
0,72917
0,73
0.73
2 0.73264
i 0.73
0.73
3 0,73611
0.74
0,74
4 0.73958
0.74
p,74
5 0_74306
0.74
0.74
6 D.74653
0.74
0,74
7 0.75000
0.74
0.74
9 0.75347
0.74
0.74
9 0,75694
0,74
0.74
D 0,76042
0.74
0.74
1 0.76389
0,74
0.74
p 0.77
075
0.75
3 0.77053
0.7y
0.75
¢ 0.77431
D,7s
075
5 0,7777$
0,75
0.75
0.78125
0.75
0.75
r 0.78472
0.75
0, 75
3 0,7$819
D,75
0.75
3 0.79167
0.75
0.75
� 0.79514
0.75
0.75
0,79861
0.75
0.75
� 0.80208
0.75
0.75
3 0.80556
0.75 J
0.75
� 0.80903
0.75
0.75
0.81250
0.75
0.75
} 0,81597
0.75
0.75
0.81944
0.76
0.76
3 0.82292
0.76
0.76
i 0,82539
0.76
0.76
0,52956
0.76
0.76
0.83833
0.76
0.75
0.83681
0.76
0.76
4 0.84028
0.75
0.76
0.84378
0.76
0.76
0.84722 1
0.76
0.75
� 0,85069i
0,77
0.71
0.85417
0.77
0.77
0.85764
0.77
0,77
3 0,86111
0,77
0.77
0.86458
-
0.77
0.77

Edw',- "-trews �clate --
P.O, bun at.053
Rolnugh, N,C
Pumping Test No. 4
Well Pond 6 - Nvrth of Pond
Discharge 4.50 U,S.gallmin
Static water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
266
285
293
1ping t ysis De �3 �v aim ter„ uge 7
NEUMAN's method
Unconfined aquifer with Project: Summerhaurs at Everetts Say
delayed watertable response Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: Z4l2006
Oyv-6
Distance from the pumping well 19.50 ft
Water Ievei
0.87153
0.7
0,87500
0.7
0.87847
0.77
6881 44
0.77
O.S8542
0.7a
0.$8889
0.78
0.89236
0,78
0.89583
1 0.78
0.39931
i 0.78
0,90278
0.78
0.90625
0.78
0.90972
0.79
0.91319
0.79
0.91667
0.79
0.92014
0,76
0,92361
0.79
0.92708
0.78
S30 6
-0.79
0,93403
0.79
0.93750
0.79
0.940 77
0.79
094444 1
0.79
0.94792
0.79
0.95139
0 79
0.95486
0.79
0.95833
0.79
0.90131
0,20
0.965 8
-0.80
0,96875
0.80
0.972 22
0,s0
0.97569
0.80
0.97917
0.80
0.98264
0.80
0,80
0.99653
D.80
1.00OOD
0.80
1.00347
0,60
1.00694
0.80
1.01042
O.a0
1.01385
0.80
1.01736
0.80
1.Oz083
0.80
1.02431
0.60
1.027 S
CC'SO
1.03125
0 80
1.03472
021
1.03819
I o
Drav
down
tI
0.77
0.77
0,77
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.7^0
0.78
0.7a
0.78
0.78
0.73
0.79
0.79
0.79
0,78
0.79
0.78
0.72
0.79
0.79
0.79
0, 79
0 79
0.79
n �c
0.79
0.80
0.30
0.30
fl.80
0.30
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0,80
0.80
0.30
0.80
I
0.50
o.ea
0.80
0.80
OM
0.80
0.80
0.81
0,80

Edwi " 'rews )tiate _Iping t psis �r
RG. oox.iuo53 NEUMAN's method
RalciSn, N c_ I Unconfined aquifer with
delayed watertable response
Pumping Test No 4
Well Pond 6 - North cf Pond
Discharge 4.50 U.S.gallmin
Static water level. 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
Water level
1.04167 0.80
1.04514 0.80
1.04861
0,80
705208
0.80
1.05556
0.81
1,05903
o.so
1,06250
0 81
1 06597
0.60
1.05944
0 81
1.07292
0.81
1.07639
0.80
1.07986
0.81
1.08333
0.80
1.08681
0.80
1.09028
0.82
1,09375
0 81
1,09722
0.81
L10059
0.60
1,10417
0.80
1.10764
0, 80
,11 11
0.81
1.11458
0.82
1.118106
0.82
1.12153
0.81
1.12500
0.82
1.12647
0.82
1,13194
0.86
1.13542
OM
1.13889
0 82
1.142 66
0,52
1.14583
0.81
1.14931
0.80
1.15278
0.82
1.156 5
-0.82
1.159 22
0.82
1.16319
0.82
1,16667
0.82
1.17014 j
n on
I. 1 I J V 1
0,82
1.17708
0.61
1.18056 10.81
1.18403
❑.81
1.1875p
0.83
1.190 77
0.82
7194 44
0.82
1.19792
0.83
1.20139
0,83
M.3.200c. , -zle Na. ,,.,, � age 8
Project: Summerhours at Everetts Bay
Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: 2/412006
OW-5
Distance from the pumping well 19.50 ft
Drawdown
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.80
O.s1
0.81
an
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.82
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.81
0.82
❑.82
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.80
0.62
0.82
0.82
0.81
0.80
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.32
0.80
0-82
0,81
0.81
0.81
0.83
0.82
0.82

.dwin ws & iates.
r.0. EoxauU53
Rafe.gh. N.C.
Pumping Test No. 5
Well 5 at Pond 5
Discharge 14,50 U.S.gallmin
0
0
_ ng tes s Date 2 CS o.
No. 5—,
ye 1
NEUMAN's method
Unconfined aquifer with Project Summerhouse at Everetts Bay
delayed water -table response Evaluated by_ EEA
Test conducted on: 310312006
11u
101 10t 10'` 1(13 en< —5 _N
o U W-5
Transmissivity [ftVd]: 2.79 x 10''
Hydraulic conductivity [ftld): 1.47 x 101
Aquiferthlckness [ft]: 19.00
Starativfty: 2.44 x 10'-'
Hydraulic conductivity vertical ]fUd]; 2.65 x 1 D°
Specific yield', 2.44 x 10-1

5dwir
-' ?ws & -iates '-
iing le, ;is
5Q, -QC,3
NEUMAN's method
Raleigh,
N.C.
Unconfined aquifer with
delayed wateRable response
Pumping
Test No. 5
Well
5 at Pond 5
Discharge
14.50 U.S.9311min
Static
water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
Water level
[d)
[ttl
1
0 00347
0,00
2
0.00694
0,55
3
0.01042
0.92
4
0.01389
493
I
i 5
0.02778
1 0.91
6
0.03125
0.99
7
0.03472
0.99
8
0.03819
0.99
9
0.04167
4.99
10
0,04514
1.00
11
C.08661
0,97
12
0.09028
0.99
13
0.09375
1,00
14
0.09722
1.00
15
0.10069
1.00
i6
D.10417
1.01
17
0.10764
T.02
13
0.11111
1 02
19
0,114 88
1.02
20
18621
12153
1-04
22
1250Q231,04
gO.
12847
1.45
24
0,19194
1,05
25
0.13542
26
0,13889
1.06
7E��E
0.14236
1.07
8
j229
0145831.07
0.1031
1,07
30
0.15278
1, 08
31
U.15625
1.08
0.15972
1.08
J�4
0.16319
1,09
D.16667
1.10
35
0.17173fi1014
1.10
36
0. I
1 11
37
E38
639
240
041
71.12
42
MC.20486
T.13
43
1.13
44
1.14
6
1,14
45
1.15
47
0.21181
1.15
48
0.2152$
1,i5
49
0.21875
1.16
50
4.2222
16
Dat. .2006 ...,,a No
Project: Summerhouse at Everetts Bay
Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: 3l03I2006
OW-5
Distance from the pumping well 20.00 It
Drawd
awn
4.00
0.55
0.92
0.93
0.91
0,29
0.99
0.99
0,99
1.00
0.97
0,99
1.00
1-00
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.03
1,04
1.04
1.05
1.05
1.06
1.06
07 1
1.07
1,07
1.05
1,08
1.08
1.a9
1.10
1,10
1.11
1=6

Edwil ews F ciateE _ _ _ping tE_ sis
P.O. 8bx3o6S3 NEUMAN's method
Raleigh, Iv.c. Unconfined aquiferwan
delayed watertable response
Pumping Test No, 5
Well 5 at Pond 5
0iscn8rge 14,50 U.S.gallmin
Static water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration Water level
0.22559
1.17
0.22917
g52
53
1,17
0.23264
1,17
54
0.23611
55
0.23958
T.18
56
1.18
0.24306
1,18
57
0.24653
58
1.19
0.25000
1 19
59
0.25247
60
1.19
0.Z5694
61
19
026042
1.20
62
6,26389
63
0.26736
1, 20
54
1.20
0.27083
1.21
BS
0,27431
66
EH
0.27778
1.21
o t
1.21
0, 26125
L21
68
0.25472
89
028319
123
70
1.23
0.29167
1.23
71
0.29514
1.23
72
0.29861
73
23
0,30208
1.24
74
0.30556
12d
75
0,30903
1.24
76
0.31250
1,24
n
0.31597
78
1.24
0.31944
1.24
0.32292
1.25
0.32639
1,25
0.32986
1.25
0.33333
1.26
im
1,26
0.340281
0,343751.27
27
0,34722
127
0.35059
1.27
8
Z
0.35417
.27
1
0.35764
1.27
0
0.36111
�
0.36458
.28
L28
3
0.36805
12$1
0.37153
25
4
0.37500
1.29
5
0.37847
1.29
6
039194
1.30
7
0.38542
8
1 29
0-38889
1.30
y
0.39236
1.30
0
0.39563
1.30
Dat_, . --S.2006 i aide No, nb, Page-3
Project' Summerhouse at Everetts Bay
Evaluated dy: EEA
Test conducted on: 310312006
OW-5
Distance from the pumping well 20.00 ft
orawdown
1.17
1.1 7
1.17
1.18
1.18
1 18
1.19
1.19
1 19
1.19
1,20
12'..
1.21
1,21
1.21
1.21
1,23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1 26
1.27
1.27
1.27
1,27
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.28
1,25
1.28
1.29
.29
1.30
1,29
1.30
1.30
7.30

Edwi' - MS., cifate: P.C. ; ex 4ue53 ping to _ _._.7s s lOatc. [0.o3 fi Tab
' le No. 5B, page 4
NEUMAN's method
Raleigh, Iv.c. Unconfined aquifer with Project: Summerhouse at Everetts Bay
delayed watertable response
Evaluated by EEA
Pumping Test No. 5
p
Well 5 at Pond 5 Test conducted on: 3/03/2006
D'JV-5
❑ischarge 14.50 U.S.gallmin
Distance from the pumping well 20.00 ft
Static water level; 0.00 ft below daium
Pumping test duratlon Water level
Drawdown
1 ny Idj
102
0.40278
1.30 1.30
1D3
0.40625
1.30 1.30
104
0.40972
1.30
i,�v 0
105
0 41319
i.31
1.31
106
0.41667
1.31 1.31
107
0.42014
1.32
108
0.42261
1.32
1.32
109
0.42708
1, 32 1.32
110
0.4305E
1.32
1.32
111
0.43403
1, 32 1.32
112
0.43750
1,32113 1.32
D.44097
1.32
1.32
114
l
0,44-444
1.32
1.32
115
1.33
1.33
11
D.44702
0.45139
1.33 1.33
117
0.4548E
1.33 1.33
118
0.45833
1.33
1,23
119
0 45181
1.34
1.34
120
0.4652$
1, 33 1,33
121
0.46875
1-34
1,34
122
0.47222
1,34 1.34
M3
0.47569
1.34 1.34
124
0,47917
1.35 1.35
125
0.482E4
1'34 1.34
1
0.43611
1 34
1.34
1 27
0.48958
1,34
1.34
12'
0,4930E
1.35
1.35
129
0.49653
1.35
1, 35
130
0.50004
1.35 1.35
131
0.50347
1 3E
1.36
0.50694
1. J6
T.36
133,
0 51042
1. E 1,36
1
0.51359
1.3E 1.3E
135
0.5173E
1.37
1.37
135
0.52083
1.37 1.37
137
0.52431
1.37 1.37
138
0152776
1 37 1.37
139
❑.53125
1,37
44
0.53472
1.37
1,37
141
0.53819
1-38
1.38142
0.54157
1.38
1.38
14
0.54514
1.3E
144
0.54861
1.39
1,39
146
0-55208
1.35 1.39
14E
055556
1.39 1 39
147
0.15903
139
, 1.39
148
0.56250
1.$9 1.39
0.56597
1 39
150 I
0.56944
1.40
1 40
_
i,40 1 40

t
Edw rews xiatc
P.O. Bos 30653
1--rping t..,, .lysos
Ralcrgh, N_c.
NEUMAN's method
Unconfined aquifer with
delayed watertable response
Pumping Test No. 5
Well 5 at Pond 5
Discharge 14.50 U.S.gadmin
Static water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
Water level
160
164
165
156
167
18
196
0.58353
0.58681
0.59026
0.6076�
0.6 1111
0.63889
0.65625
0.65972
0.67014
C57 667
0,70139
070486
0-70833
0.711$1
0.71528
0.71B75
6-72 222
0.72569
072917
0.73264
-7361I
0.73958
Date: 28.03�>. Table
Project: Summerhouse at Everetts Bay
Evaluated by: FEA
Test CgrdLCted on: 3/03/2006
OW-5
Distance from the pumping well 20.00 f!
Drawdown
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1,41
1,41
1.41
1.41
1,41
1.41
1 41
1-41
7.41
1
7.41
1.41
141
1.41
1.42
1.41
142
1.42
1 42
1.42
1.42
1.42
7.43
1-42
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.44
1,44
1.43
1-44
.43
1,44
1.44
1.44
1.44
1 A4
1 .44
1
1.44
,44
1
A4
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.45
1.45
1 A5
1.45
45
1.45
1,45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1,46
45
1,46
71.46
i 46
1.46
1.46
46
1.46
1.46
1.45
1.46
1.46
46
1,46
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.47
1.47
1,46
1.46
1.47
1.47
1.47
147
1.47 I
1,47
1.4E
1.48
1.47
1.47
1.48
1 AB
1,43
1.48
Page

Pt Edw' - "rews )ciate ping t -
P_0. box ouo53 ysis
NEUMAN'S method
P.nloigh, N.c Unconfined aquifer with
delayed watertatsle response
Pumping
Test No, 5
Well
5 at Pond 5
Discharge
14.50 U.S.gallmin
Static
water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
Water level
[d]
[ft]
20t
0.74653
z02
0,75000
1
203
I
0.75347
1
204
0.75694
1
205
0-7 61042
1
206
0.76339
1
207
0.76736
1.
208
0.77083
1
209
0.77431
1,
21C
0.77778
1.
211
0.78125
1.
212
0.78472
1
213
0.78819
1.
214
0.79167
1
215
0.79514
1.
210
0,79661
1
217
0.80208
216
0.80556
1
0.80903
1'
0-8125C
1
=224
0_51597
1.,
0_a1944
1
0.62292
1
a,azs39
1.;
225
0.82986
1,!
226
0.83333
1
22r
0.33681
1.:
228
0.84028
229
0.64375
230
0.84722
1
,
0.85069
1
232
0.35417
1 ;
233
0.85764
1.`
234
0.86111 1
1 r
235
0,66455
_
236
0,86806
1"
`'3 7
0.87153
1
239
0,87500
1 E
23S
0:87847
1.5
240
0.88184
J. 5
241
0,88542
1.5
242 '
0.85899
1.51.5
243
0.89236
244
O.S9583
1.5
245
0.39931
1 5
246
0.90278
1.5
247
0.90625
1, 5
243
0.90972
1.5.
249
0.91319
1.5
z50
0.91667
1 5
1.5;
❑a e. en.03.200b CTable No. 56, Page 6
Project; Summerhouse at Everetts Bay
Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on, 3/03/2006
C W-5
Distance from the pumping well 20,00 ft
❑rawdown
[ft�
46
1.46
46
1.46
47
T47
47
1,47 �
48
1,48
48
1,48
-1
4$
4a
-1
49
-49
'i
1.47
17
1.47
1
17
1.47
'6
1,45
19
1.49
1.49
t9
T.49
i0
51.0
50
1.50
50
1 50
i0
-1 S0
io
1.50
0
1.5c
ic
1.50
io
1,50
1
1,51
1.51
1.51
51
1 7MZ1
1
1
2
21111
2
1 52
2
152
2
1.52
1.52
i
-
1,52
1.52
1.52
1.53
1,53
i
1.53
i
153
I
1.53
1.53

_„zp ...YSIS
Edw rews tciate.
P.O. Box 30653
NEUMAN's. method
Raleigh, N.c
Unconfined aquifer with
delayed watertadle response
Pumping Test No. 5
Well 5 at Pond 5
Discharge 14.50 U.S.gall
Static water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration
Water level
o,9z361
0.92708
0.94097
094444
0.94792
0.95139
0.95486
0.95823
0.96181
0.96528
0.96875
0,97222
0.97569
0.99306
1153
1,54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
I.S4
1,54
1.55
1.55
1.54
55
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1,56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
Dare' [6.03.Z�0015 �. p Table 5B, Page 7
Project: Summerhouse at Everetts Bay
Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: 3/0312006
OW-5
Distance from the pumping well 20,00 ft
D ram
down
1.53
1,53
1,54
1.54
1-
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1,5
1.55
1.55
1.54
1.55
1.56
.56
1 FR

Edwi _ _pws i_ date p ng ie urysis
P.O. Box30663 NEUMAN's method
Rrlmgh, N.0 UrlCDnflned aquifer with
delayed watertable response
Pumping Test Ne, 5 Test conducted on: 3/06/2006
PW-6
Discharge 5.00 U.S.gallmin
0
0
Da e. 40.u3 2006 Table. No. SC, Page 1
Project: Summerhourse at Everett Bay
Evaluated by: EEA
IN10 10 107 tn3 In4 5 _F
o OW-5
Transmisslvity [ft'Id]: 2.42 x 10z
Hydraulic conductivity [ftld]_ 1 15 x 101
Aquiferthickness [ft]: 21.00
Storativity: 1M x 10-5
Hydraulic conductivity vertical [fVd]: 7.62 x 10-1
Specific yield: 1,63 x 1C'

8dw1 mws i a ��
i� _.7sis
- P.O. Box sugping 53 - Oaic. ...u3.2006 F- able. No. 5C, Page 2
NEUMAN's method G
Raleigh. n' Unconfined aquifer with Project Summerhourse at Everett Bay
delayed watertable response
Pumping Test No. 6
Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: 310612006
P W-6
OW-6
Discharge 5,00 U.S.gallmin
❑ft
Static water level: 0.00 fl below datum Distance from the pumping well 20.00
Pumping test duration Water level
Drawdown
1 [d] [tt]
0,01042 [n]
2 0.48 0.48
0.01369
0.55
0.02431
0.55
0,02773
° 56
0.56
0.03125
0.56
0.56
0. D3472
0.67057
0.03819
0.56
0.58
0 58
0.04167
0.58
0.04514
0,57
0.57
6.57
0.57
�10,04661
052080505556
0.57
0.59
°.05903
D.59
0.59
0,06250
0 59
0.59
0.60
0.05597
0.60
O.Ofi944
0.60
0.60
0. C7292
0, 60
0.60
0.07639
0,60
° 6°
0.60
0.07986
0.60
0,05333
0.61
0.61
0,61
0.02681
0,61
0.091028
0.61
0.61
D.09375
0,61
0.61
0.61
C.09722
0.61
0.10069
0 61
0.61
0.10417
0.51
I :;:
0.10764
0.61
0.11111
0.61
0.61
0.114 66
0.61
0.61
0.6Z
0.11 BOB
0.52
0,12153
0,62
0.52
0.12500
0.61
0.61
0,12847
0.61
0.61
D.13194
0.61
0,61
,73542
R.62
0.62
0.13889
0.62 i
0,62
0.14236
0.62
0.52
0,14563
0,62
0,62
C.14931
0.62
0,62
0.15278
0 63
0, 63
0 15625
0.6y
0
.63
4.15972
0.63
0.63
0.16319
0.63
D.63
0.16667
0.63
CM
0.17014 1
0, 63
0.63
0.173 61
0.63
0,53
0.17708
O.fi4
e4
0.64
0.1 0056
0,64
0.64
4.64 10.64

Edwir ' ews F ciate, -P.O. Bo"o_
_ping tE_ ;sis Dates, : �3 ` I i aole�No. 5C Page
oa3 - - NEUMAN's method
Ralmgh, N.C.
Unconfined aquifer with I Project. 5ummerhourse at Everett Bay
Pumping Test No. 6 delayed watertahle response
Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: 310612006
P W-6
OW-6
Discharge 5,00 U.S.gallmkn
Distance from the pumping well 20.00 ft
Static water level: O.DO ft below datum
pumping test duration Water level
Drawdown
0.1S403
L" j
52
0,18750
0.64
D.64
53
419097
0.65
0,65
54
0. f 9444
0.56
0.65
55
0.19792
0.65
0.65
56
0,20139
0.65
0.65
57
0.20486
4,65
0,65
56
0.20a33
0.55
0,65
59
0.21181
0.65
1
0.65
64
0.21520"
0,65
0.65
61
0, 21675
0.66
0.66
62
0.22222
Q.66
0.56
63
0.22569
0,66
0.66
64
0.22997
0.66
0 fi6
0.23264
0.66
0.66
Be66
4.23611
0'6
0.67
67
0.23958
0.66
0.66
68
0.24306
0.67
0.67
69
0.24653
0.67
057
70
0.25000
0,67
0-67
71
0.25347
0.67
0.67
72
0.256 44
D,67
Q.67
73
0.26042
0.65
0.68
74
0.26389
0.66
0.68
75
0.26735
0.59
0.69
76
D.27083
0.69
0. fi9
77
0, 274B1
0.69
0.69
78
0.27775
0.69
0.69
79
0,28125
0.69
0, 69
$0
0.28472
D.69
0.69
81
0.28819
0.69
0.69
82
029167
0.69
0.69
63
0.29514
0.69
0.69
84
0.29861
D 69
0,59
85
0.30208
0.5
0.69
Sfi
0.30556
mg
0.69
87
0.30903
0.70
0.70
88
0.31250
0.
4.69
$9
0 a 1597
070,70
0.70
g0
0.31944
0,70
0 70
91 1
0.32292
0.70
0.70
92
0.32639
0,70
070
93
0
.700.32986
0, 70
94
0.33333
0.70
0.70
95
0.33681
070
0.70
96
0,34025
0.71
0.71
97
0.34375
0'71
0,71
9S
0.34722
0.71
0.71
99
0.35069
0 71
0 71
t 00
0.35417
0,7i
0.71
0.71
0.71

-dwir ,WS 8 :iates
JIng te:_ _ ais
nat� 2006.No. _ e a
P.O, Box 30653
NEUMAN's method
tl
Raleigh, N.C.
Unconfined aquifer with
Project: 5urnmerhourse at Everett Bay
delayed watertable response
Evaluated by: EEA
Pumping Test No. 6
Test conducted on: 310612006
PW-6
QW 6
Discharge 5.00 U.S.gallmin
Distance from the pumping well 20.00 ft
Static water level: 0.DO fl below datum
Pumping test duration
Water Level
Drawdown
Id]
[ftj
Ift]
101
0, 35764
0.71
0.71
102
0,35111
0,72
0,72
103
0,36458
0.72
0.72
104
0.36306
0 72
0.72
105
037153
0.72
0.72
106
0.37500
0,72
4.7_ 2
107
0,37647
0.72
0.722
10E
0.38194
0,72
0.72
109
0.38542
4.72
4.72
110
10,33889
0.72
1 072
111
0.39236
0,72
0,72
112
0.39583
0,72
E 0.72
113
0.39931
0 72
0,72
114
0.4027E
0,72
0,72
115
0.4Q625
0.72
0.72
116
0.40972
0,72
0.72
117
0.41319
0.72
0.72
118
0.41667
0-72
0.72
119
0.42014
0,73
0,73
120
0.42351
0,72
0.72
121
0.427D5
0.72
0.72
12-2
0.43056
0.72
0.72
123
0.43403
0.73
0.73
124
0.43750
0-73
0.73
125
0.44097
0,73
0.73
126
0.44444
0.73
0.73
127
0.44792
0,73
0.73
128
0.45139
0.73
0.73
129
0.4548fi
0.73
0,73
130
0,45833
0.74
0.74
131
0.46181
0.74
C.74
132
0.46528
0,74
0.74
133
0.46875
0.74
0.74
134
0.47222
0.74
0,74
135
0.47569
0.74
0.74
136
0.47917
0.74
0.74
137
0.48264
074
0.74
138
0.48611
0.74
0.74
139
0.48958
0.74
0.74
140
0.49306
0,74
q,74
141
0.49653
0.74
0,74
142
0.50000
0.74
0.74
143
0.50347
0.74
0.74
144
0.50694
0.74
0.74
145
O.51 D42
0.74
D.74
146
D.51389
0.74
0.74
147
0 51736
0.74
D.74
148
052063
0.74
0.74
149
0.52431
0.74
0.74
150
0.52778
0-75
0,75

idwin_ wa & _,sates, - - --wing tea. -Is = ---�� ❑atE 20 No-
P.O. Box 30653 NEUMAN's method
Amcigh, N,a Unconfined aquifer with Project: Summerhourse at Everest Bay
delayed watertable response Evaluated by: EEA
Pumping Test No. 5 Test conducted on: 310612006
PW-6
OW-6
Discharge 5,00 U.S.gallmin Distance from the pumping well 20.00 ft
Static water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration Water level ❑rawdown
Id] I [ftl I I
0.75
152
0 53472
0.75
0.75
153
0.53819
0-75
0.75
154
0.54157
0.75
0.75
155
0, 54514
0,75
0.75
156
0.54851
0.74
0.74
157
0, 5520B
075
0.75
158
0, 55556
0.75
0.75
159
0.55903
0.75
0-75
160
0,56250
0,75
0.75
161
0.55597
0.75
0.75
162
0.56944
0.75
0,75
163
164
0,57292
0, 57639
0,75
0.75
0.75
0.75
155
0.57966
0.76
0.76
166
10,53333
0.76
0,76
167
0.58681
0.76
0,76
168
0 59026
0,76
0.76
169
759375
4,76
4.76
170
0.59722
0,77
0.77
171
0,50069
0.77
0 77
172
0.60417
0-77
0.77
173
0, 60764
0.77
0.77
174
0, 61111
0.77
0.77
175
0.61458
0.77
0.77
176
0.61606
0.77
0.77
177
0.82153
0.77
0.77
178
0.62500
0.78
0.78
179
0.62847
0.78
0.78
180
0.63194
0-78
0,7e
181
0.63542
0,77
0.77
182
0.63869
077
0,77
183
0.64236
0,77
0.77
184
0.64583
077
0.77
j 1B5
0,54931
0,77
0.77
186
0,65278
0.77
0,77
187
0.65625
077
0.77
188
0,55972
0.78
0.76
189
O.B6319
0.78
0.78
190
0.5566 7
0.73
0.78
191
0.67014
076
0.78
192
0.57361
0.78
10,78
193
057708
0.7E
0.78
194
0.68055
0-78
0.78
195
0,68403
0.76
0, 78
196
0.68750
0.79
0.79
197
0.69097
0.76
0,78
198
0.69444
0.79
0-79
199
0.69792
0.79
0,79
,"
0.70139
0,79
0.79

=dwin !ws & :iates
-�
E' ---Inc tee �is i ❑ate _ ._ 2nn8 - ni„ o G
P.D. Box 30653 NEUMAN's method
Raleigh, N.0 Unconfined aquifer with Project; Summerhourse at Everett Bay
delayed watertable response I Evaivated by: EEq
Pumping Test No. 6 Test conducted on: 310612006
JPW"6 CW-6
] Discharge 5.00 U,S.gallmin ❑Istance from the pumping well 20.00 ft
Static water level: 0,00 ft below datum
201
202
Pumping test duration
[d]
0.70436
0.70833
Water level Crawdown
in] Ini
0.78 0.78
0.79 0 79
203
204
0.71181
0.71528
0.79 0.79
0.79 0.79
205
0.71875
0.79 0.79
206
207
0.72222
0.72569
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
208
209
210
0.72917
0,73264
0.73611
0.79
0.79
0,79
0.79
0.79
0.79
211
212
0.73958
0.74306
0.79
0.79
0.79
0 79
213
0.74653
0.79
0.79
214
0.75000
0.79
0,79
215
0.75347
079
0.79
215
217
218
0,75694
0.76042
0.76389
0.79
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.80
Q79
219
220
0.76736 0.80
0.77083 0.80
0.80
0.8D
221
0.77431 0,80
0.6D
222
0.77778 0-79
0, 79
223
0.78125 0.79
0.79
224
0.78472 0.79
0.79
225
0.78815 0,79
0.79
225
0,79167
0.79
0.79
227
0.79514
018D
0 8p
228
0.79861
0,80
0.80
229
0,80208
0.80
0.80
230
0,80556
10,50
0.8D
231
0.80903
0,30
0.8D
232
0.81250
0.80
0.80
233
0.81697
0, 80
0.8D
234
0.81944
0.50
0.80
235
0,82292
0.50
0.8D
235
0.32639
0.60
0 60
237
0.82985
0.80
0.80
23S
0.83333
0.80
0.80
239
0.33631
0.80
0,80
j 240
0.84028
0.80
0.80
2 11
j 242
0.84275
0.84722
0.80
0.80
Mac
0.80
243
1 244
0.85069
0.85417
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
245
0.35764
0.81
0.81
246
D.86111
0.81 j
0.81
47
2149
0.86458
0.80
0.90
480.86806
080
0.80
0.87153
0.80
0.80
250
0.87500
0.80
0.80

cdwir_ . _ ±ws 8 ;iates,.
P.O. Box 80653 NEl1MAN's method
Raleigh, N.C. Unconfined aquifer with
delayed watertable response
Pumping Test No. 6
PW-6
Discharge 6.00 u.S.gallmin
Static water level: 0.00 ft below datum
Pumping test duration Water level
[d] Ift1
0.68194
0.88542
0,88889
0.89236
O39583
039931
0.90278
090625
0, 90972
0.91319
0.91567
0.92014
0.92351
0.93403
0.93750
0.94097
0.94444
0.94792
0,95139
OS5466
0.95833
0.97222
0,81
o-s1
0.81
0,81
O.H1
0,81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0,8C
0.81
0,81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.H1
0.83
0.83
0.83
2006 i euie. No. zL,, rage 7
Project: Summerhourse at Everett Bay
Evaluated by: EEA
Test conducted on: 3/06/2006
C W-6
Distance from the pumping well 20.00 ft
❑rawdown
[ft]
0,81
O.H1
0.81
0,81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81

OL%oTechnologies,
March 15, 2006
Kevin Eberle, P.E.
I-VICK NI & CREED, Y.A.
200 Maekenan Court, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Report of Subsurface fnvcstigation
Proposed Everet Bay WWTP and Infiltration Basins
Holly Ridge, North Carolina
GeoTcchnologies Project No, 1-06-0200-EA
Gentlemen:
3200 Wellington Court, Suite G
Rolelgh, North Carolina 27b15
919-954-1514
Fax [phone]
GeoTechnologies, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface investigation to evaluate
foundation support considerations for a new WWTP and several infiltration ponds to be constricted
at the Everet Day development in Holly Ridge, North Carolina. Subsurface conditions at the site were
investigated by drilling 35 soil test borings in the approximate locations shown on the attached
Figures IA and 1B. These locations were established in the field by the project surveyors, and
therefore the locations should be considered accurate. The borings were advanced to a depth of 25 to
50 feet below existing grade utilizing rotary mud drilling techniques. Soils were sampled at selected
intervals using standard penetration test procedures designated in ASTM D-1586. Ail exception were
borings B-10 and B-25 which could not be accessed with the drill rig and were advanced with hand
augering techniques to depths of 4 to T5 feet below grade. This report presents the findings of the
investigation and our recommendations for site grading and foundation support.
ME AND PROM CT INFORMATION
The proposed project will involve construction of a WWTP and several infiltration ponds to
service the Everet Bay development proposed for constriction off of Holly Ridge Road in Holly
Ridge, North Carolina. The WWTP includes several structures including an equalization basin,
digesters, MBR units, an odor control unit, operations building, and the in -plant pump station and
reclaimed water pump station. The equalization basin will be supported approximately 2 feet below
grade on a 35 x 35 foot slab and will have a 19 foot liquid height. The sludge digester will consist of
two units with dimensions of 33 x 33 feet with approximately 12 feel of liquid height, 1-lic MBR
units will consist of two pairs with dimensions of 100 x 40 feet. Each MBR unit will have a weight of
427 tons per hair. The odor control units will be supported on 25 x 15 foot stabs with a total
equipment weight of 66,000 lbs. The operations building will be an approximately 60 x 15 foot
building with the heaviest equipment being a generator weighing approximately 24,000 lbs. There
will also be a chemical storage arca in the building with a loading of 5,000 lbs. The proposed pump
stations will be frilly embedded; however, the invert depths are unknown at this time. In addition to
the WWTP, nine infiltration basins are also proposed as part of the new development. The infiltration
basins are expected to be constructed by excavating 6 to 8 feet below existing grade.
Geolechnicol and Construction Malorials rosling services

McMin & Creed, P.A.
Pveret Bay WWTP
March 15, 2005
Page: 2
At the time of our investigation the site consisted primarily of undeveloped woodlands and
fanii fields. The site appeared to be relatively flat with some drainage ditches extending through the
property.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Generahzed subsurface profiles prepared from the test boring data are attached to this report
as Figures 2 through 6 to graphically illustrate subsurface conditions encountered at this site. Mare
detailed descriptions of the conditions enCOLIntered at the individual test boring locations are then
presented on the attached test boring records,
The subsurface profile in the area of the WW"I'P (13-1 through B-9) was found to consist of a
mixture of clean to silty and clayey sands interbedded with sandy and silty clays, Typically, the near
surface soils within the upper 2 to 3 feet consisted of silty and clayey sands, with penetration
resistances of 3 to 10 blows per foot (bpo, which transition into sandy and silty clays. The clays
generally extended to depths of no more than approximately 6 to 8 feet below grade, with penetration
resistances of to 10 bpf, where they transition back into slightly silty to silty sands. The sands were
generally encountered to depths varying from 16 to 22 feet below grade and exhibited penetration
resistances of 2 to 20 bpf. Underlying the sands, the soils transition into sandy and silty clays. 'These
deeper clays were typically soft to very soft in consistency with penetration resistances ranging fi•om
0 to 7 blows per foot (bpt). Underlying the clays, the soils transition into clean to silty and clayey
sands with penetration resistances varying from 6 to in excess of 50 bpf These materials generally
extended to approximately 45 to 47 feet below grade where marl was encountered. The marl was
generally sampled as silty sand with shell and limerock fragments, and penetration resistances within
these materials varied from 16 to in excess of 100 bpf. Generally, the penetration resistances
exceeded 50 bpf within the underlying marl materials. l;xceptions to this profile were encountered at
borings 13-1, B-3, B-7, B-8, and B-9 Micro either peat or organic clays were generally encountered
between depths of 30 and 35 feet. Peat was not encountered in the remainder of tine borings.
Groundwater in the WWTP area was generally about 2.5 to 3 feet below grade.
The borings encountered within the ponds were somewhat different. The ponds which were
drilled just south of the proposed W WTP encountered similar conditions to the WWTP with near
surface sands underlain by clays that extended to depths of 12 to 14 feet before then transitioning
back into sands intermixed with peat and clay layers. These materials were encountered to 25 feet,
the termination depth within the pond areas. The borings which were completed in ponds oar other
portions of the site generally encountered much sandier soils with the majority of the borings
encountering slightly silty to silty and clayey sands with occasional clay layers. In general, it
appeared that tine borings completed on the southerrunost portions of the site gene;ally encountered
much sandier soils. The clayey soils appeared to be predominant in the area near the WWTP and in
the pond areas immediately south of the proposed plant site. In general, groundwater was typically
encountered at depths of about 2 to 3.5 feet below grade at the time o f boring completion.

McKim & Creed, P.A.
Cveret Bay W_WTP
March 15, 2005
Page: 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached test boring
data, our understanding of the proposed constriction, and past experience with similar projects and
subsurface conditions. Should existing plans change significantly from those now under
consideration, we would appreciate being provided with that information so that these
recommendations may be confirmed, extended, or modified as necessary. Additionally, should
subsurface conditions adverse to those indicated by this report be encountered during construction,
those differences should be reported to us for review and cotnur►ent.
Site Grading Considerations. The first step in site preparation should involve the removal of
all vegetation and topsoil from beneath the proposed structure locations. Generally, we anticipate
topsoil thicknesses will be less than 6 to 12 inches; however, it is possible that some deeper stripping
may be required in areas where tree root bulbs exist. Following stripping operations, it may be
necessary to perform some discing, drying, and recompacting in order to stabilize the near surface
soils for subsequent building constriction. The need for discing and drying will be largely dependent
on climatic conditions at the lime that grading commences. Additionally, groundwater levels were
relatively high, and some ditching may be required to temporarily lower groundwater conditions
which will facilitate construction operations,
The on -site soils, with the exception of topsoil and Highly plastic clays, will be suitable for
reuse as structural fill. The highly plastic clays could be utilized in deeper fill sections; however,
given the relatively flat nature of the site, we do not anticipate that deep fill areas will exist beneath
structural components of the development. All fill material placed beneath structural areas should be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density except in the final
foot where this requirement should be increased to 98%.
Below Grade Construction. We understand that the pump stations will be fully embedded
below grade. Due to the high groundwater conditions and the sandy nature of the subsurface soils, we
anticipate that aggressive dewatering will be required in order to permit construction of below
ground structures. We recommend that auy below grade construction be dewatered with closely
spaced well points to provide a dry area for construction of those structures. We recommend that
design of the dewalering system be left as a responsibility of the contractor.
Below grade structures should be designed to resist earth pressures assuming a triangular
lateral earth pressure distribution computed based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pef above the
groundwater table and 95 pcf below the groundwater table. Although groundwater was measured at a
depth of about 2 to 3 feet at the time of this investigation, it should be recognized that groundwater
could rise to near the ground surface during storm events such as hurricanes.
We recommend that all below grade structures be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift
pressures which could increase significantly when the structures are emptied for maintenance,
Hydrostatic uplift could be resisted by increasing the size of the base slabs to engage additional
weight of soil or by installing some type of anchor such as lielical anchors into the underlying soil.
00010
1"nologlo5,Inc.

McKim & Creed, Y.A.
Everet Bay W V P
March 15, 2005
Page: 4
Foundation Support Considerations. GeoTechnologics has evaluated support of the proposed
WWTP structures on both mat foundations and driven piles. If mat foundations are utilized, we
rcconunend limiting bearing capacities to no more than 1,500 psf due to the softer near surface soils
which exist in some areas. Given the relatively large sizes of the mat foundations, our calculations
indicate that a 1,500 psf pressure will likely accommodate the majority of the structures, Careful
inspection of any mat or shallow spread footing foundations should be conducted to verify that the
exposed soils are suitable for support of the contact pressures. The majority of the borings appear to
fall out of the actual location of the plant, and some verification through inspection will be necessary.
If supported on shallow foundations, the estimated settlements for the structures is expected to be
approximately the amount shown in the following table.
Structure
Total Settlement
(Inches)
Basin
5.3
—Equalization
Digester
3.9
NIBR
2.9
Odor Control Building
1.0
Operations Building
<1.0
These total settlements include the estimated secondary consolidation which will likely occur
due to the presence of a peat strata between approximately 32 and 36 feet below grade. We anticipate
that differential settlements will be approximately one half the magnitude of the total settlement. The
total settlements can be reduced by preloading the structures with approximately 10 to 15 feet of soil;
however, we anticipate that a 90 day waiting period would be required for the preconsolidation to
occur. Settlement monitoring could be performed by placing settlement plates on the subgrade prior
to placement of the surcharge load to determine when the preconsolidation settlements have reduced
to an acceptable level. If you desire to consider surcharging and use of shallow mat foundations, we
would appreciate an opportunity to more accurately calculate the required surcharge heights at each
structure where this is being considered.
In the event the structural engineer determines that the proposed settlements are excessive
for shallow foundations and inadequate time exists for surcharging structure locations, consideration
could be given to utilizing driven piles for support of some or all of the structures. The piles will
need to be driven to a depth of approximately 40 feet or more to bear below the peat materials which
were encountered within many of the borings. Typically, driven timber piles are the most economical
method for support of these type structures when peat materials are encountered. However, some
dense sands exist above the peat layer in several of the borings, and it is unlikely that timber piles can
be driven to the required depth without either jetting or preaugering to depths of as much as 35 feet in
sonic locations. If timber piles are utilized, they should be driven with a hammer having a minimum
rated energy of 15,000 ft. lbs. and should achieve allowable capacities of 25 tons per pile when
driven to depths of 40 feet to bear below the peat strata.
Alternately, a steel 12 x 53 H-pile section could be utilized which could be driven to bear at
40 to 50 which would be feet below the peat materials. We do not anticipate that predrilling or jetting
would be necessary for the steel piles; however, some difficult driving should be expected. If steel
piles are utilized, allowable capacities of up to 40 tons could be utilized without the need for
Geo%thnoingi�s, lnc,

McKim & Creed, P.A.
F.veret Bay W WTP
March 15, 2005
Page; 5
performing load testing. If steel piles with an allowable capacity of 40 tons are utilized, it should be
anticipated that embedment depths of as much as 45 to 55 feet could be required in some areas of the
treatment plant. We recommend that piles be driven to a dynamic driving criteria calculated from a
suitable formula such as the ENR formula or the Ailey equation. Pile driving should he monitored to
verify that the required capacities have been achieved.
We recommend that the slabs be structurally supported on the driven piles to prevent
excessive settlement of area slab loads. Alternately, the slab areas could be surcharged with
approximately 15 feet of material to preconsolidate the underlying peat. However, it should be
understood that surcharging periods could be as long as six months and that the secondary
compression of peat materials will be relatively large which could result in some Iarger than desired
long-term settlements. As such, we strongly advise that pile foundations be utilized beneath all
elements of the WWTP. The attached Figures 7 and 8 present pile capacities vs. depth for both
timber piles and steel H-piles. However, as previously discussed, we anticipate that significant
difficulty will be encountered when utilizing timber piles due to the deep prcdrilling or jetting depth
which would be required to penetrate below the peat strata.
Embankment Construction. The first step in embankment construction should be the removal
of all vegetation and topsoil from areas where the proposed ponds will be constructed. Following
removal of the topsoil, we recorntnend the subgrades be inspected to verify that no repairs are
required prior to placement of embankment materials. This can be performed by proofrolling with a
partially loaded dump truck. Based on the results of the soil test borings, we do not anticipate that
any significant repairs will be required.
The on -site soils consist of a mixture of sands and clays. Due to the high groundwater
conditions, we anticipate that the majority of the soils will be wet of optimum moisture content. The
sands can be stockpiled and allowed to drain and will be relatively easy to reuse as structural Fill.
However, the clays will likely require spreading, discing, and drying in order to achieve proper
compaction with these materials. We recommend that all nratetials placed within the embankment be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Additionally, we
recommend that consideration be given to constructing slopes no steeper than 314;1V for long-term
stability considerations. It should be noted that the study did not include any evaluation regarding
permeability of the on -site soils. However, the sands which exist on the site are expected to have
relatively high permeabilities. Grain size distribution tests can be performed on some of the obtained
samples if you desire. Alternately, field tests can be conducted to better evaluate infiltration rates.
Infiltration Basins. We understand that numerous infiltration basins will be constructed
throughout the development. It is desired that the infiltration basins be able to percolate out as much
water as possible. Generally, the subsurface profile consists of a thin veneer of near surface sands
approximately 2 to 3 feet deep, underlain by clays which generally extend to depths of 6 to 8 feet. If
the ponds are excavated to extend below the clay layers, loading of water into the pondd should create
some head which will help water seep out of the battorn of the ponds. Groundwater will typically
exist at approximately 2 to 3 feet below existing grade, and a head above this level will be required to
create the necessary head to force water flow out of the bottom of the ponds. We understand that an
exception will he the larger pond located in the central portion of the site which is desired to hold
water year around. In this pond area, we suggest that consideration be given to utilizing the pond as a
GeoTechnologies, Inc.

McKim & Creed, P.A.
Everet Bay WWTP
March 15, 2005
Page: b
borrow pit area and excavating the pond to obtain structural fill required throughout the development
for lot and road construction. The sands which will exist within this area will provide excellent
structural fill although they will likely be wet of optimum moisture content and will require some
stockpiling and drying time in order to achieve compaction with those materials. Additionally,
dewateting will be required in order to operate equipment within the base of the pond area. Once the
area has been mined out to obtain the desired inatedal, waste soil such as topsoil and wet plastic
clays could be placed back within the base of the pond to create a more innpentieable layer which
will help retain water during drier months of the year.
Seismic Design Considerations. Based on the results of the soil test borings, as well as our
review of the North Carolina Building Code, we recommend the site be designed for a site class "D"
with regard to soil seismic design classification.
GeoTechnologres, Inc, appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this phase of the
project. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this letter or if we may be of
additional service on this or other projects.
Sincerely,
GeoTechnologics, Inc.
- t
Dav I. Isr el, P.E.
NC Registration No. 14319
DLUpr-eblOam
Attachments
060200ea.doc
CA
Q�o��ss�ati�
.d SEAL `
14319
e
s
•
e
Nttr
Ge*Technole&i ,W.

1
• V
I �I'
O.S.ECT BASIN
.gll,il��y f
@D AT
-"STORAGEIp
I100 80, CAPACVTY} 'I,
•1I�' /
_ I J
0.
At
-12
ut
. � 1
It .f - � • �! ,C_
PROJECT-: SCALE: Not to Scale
JOB Flo: 1
-06-0200-EA
Everet Bay %%coTechnologies,
Ho,ly Ridge, c- North Carolina
�......... FIGURE No: IA
,

PROJECT:
Everet Bay
Holly Ridge, North Carolina
'ScaLE: N©'= to Sua1e

Depth (Feet)
B- 1
B- 2
0
77A
3
4
5
5
I;L•I,
9
10
fI-t:
}
5
,1I1
I ; '•
7
15
I•:II:!•.
;CII
7
I, � �I
I:I.I
5
20
2
1
25
71
53
30
54
48
35
21
39
40
21
29
45
35
59
50
5015.5"
5015.5"
55
PROJECT:
Everet Bay
Holly Ridge, North
Carolina
GENERALIZED
SUBSURFACE
PROFILE
LEGEND
B-
3
B-
4
B-
5
B-
6
B-
7 ■ Topsoil
10
VA
IiA
8
4
7 3
6 Clayey Sand
10
7
5
4
10 Moderate Plasticity Clay
I•I I
Poorly -graded raded Sand with Sift
y-g
1. I
Paorly-graded Sand
^� Peat
7
6
9
3
g
S71ty Sand
2
1
1
4
3 ® Law Plasticity Clay
Hlgh Plasticity Clay
2
5
WOH
2
4 ® Marl
High Plasticity Organic Silt or Clay
6
10
2
11
5
Shells & Sand
i
I�1
7
13
9
6
11 8 Standard Penetration Resistance
Groundwater at Time of Baring
.I I,
42
55
63
11
21
68
72
" .
26
22
III
�
I
8
5016"
60
16
5015"
7
1
r. JOB i�o:1-06-2C-

Depth (Feet)
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
B- 8
B- 9
B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13
B-14
7
6
6 -�Z 3 g
5
7
6 5 8
9
10
4
3
.��� & 1 7 4
2
15 1
2 14 9
WOH
20
2
20
' 13 J j 3 5
6
25
3
3
'1�� 11 2 4
13
3o
7
4
35
10
6
40
21
21
45
64
31
50
50
5011 "
55
PROJECT:
SCALE. As Shown
Everet Bay
Holly Ridge,
North
Carolina
I'
Fq
JOB No:1-06-0200-EA
r :�-
LEGEND
Topsoil
Silty Sand
®
Low Plasticity Clay
Poorly -graded Sand with Silt
®
Clayey Sand
®
High Plasticity Clay
99
Peat
ElPoorly
-graded Sand
Marl
j/
High Plasticity Organic Silt or Clay
UModerate
Plasticity Clay
Low Plasticity Silt
8 Standard Penetratlon Resistance
Groundwater at Time of Boring

Depth (Feet)
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
B-1 5
B-16
B-25 B-26 B-27 B-28
B-29
0
2 Q
6
5
Q
2
szIl
4
3
4
12
17
16
7
1��
10
WOH
4
38
12
14
WOH
16
5
13
4
12
20
14
WOH
J"
fla
IJ
11
Ill
9
2
22
f I'
j.l {I.
24
_L•L 15
26
5
10 17 2
11� 10
PROJECT:
SCALE: As Shown
Everet Bay
JOB No:1-06-0200-EA
Holly Ridge, North Carolina
FIGURE No:4
LEGEND
■
Topsoil
Silty Sand
High Plasticity Clay
Poorly -graded Sand with Silt
Clayey Sand
Poorly -graded Sand
Low Plasticity Clay
❑
8 Standard Penetration Resistance
V
Groz3ndwator at Time of Boring

Depth (Feet)
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
LEGEND
B-30
B-31
B-32
B-33
B-34
B-35
B-36
Topsoil
7/
Poorly -graded Sand
2
5
f'
7
8
6
5
5
3
Clayey Sand
17
4
Poorly -graded Sand with Slit
4
34
7
8
7
Silty Sand
6
j.
High Plasticity Clay
8
❑
B Standard Penetration Resistance
Groundwater at Time of Boring
10
24
5
7
7
2
as
2
12
14
is
8
a
3
5
7
2
16
18
:20
20
3
4
3
12
2
2
22
24
mj, A
9
3
10
34
23
WOH
16
26
---
PROJECT:
SCIALE: As S�,,-_vvn
V
J C B N c: 1 -0 c -,_� 2 3:� - E
Everet Bay
CjSpTechnologies,
Inc. —
Holly Ricdo ge, North Carol;ra

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROF11LE LEGEND
B-37 B-38 B-39 B-40 B-41 B-42 B-43 ■ Topsoil
0
Poorly -graded Sand
2 2 4 5 3 6 I 2 7
Silty Sand
rr
4 Clayey Sand
5 5 12 4 Low Plasticity Clay
6
Poorly -graded Sand with Silt
High Plasticity Clay
❑ 8 Standard Penetration Resistance
5 3
WOH 11
V Groundwater at Time of Boring
12
14
7 8 16 4 3
16 i'f �,i i.
18
20
18 WOH 5 12 Il s 10
22
24
22
26 WOH 7 15 7 6
PROJECT: SCALE: S�-ovvr,
JOB No:1-06-0200-EA
Everet Bay OeoTechnerr i-
Holly Ridge, North Carolina FIGURE Nc:6

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.
7,i
16.'
21.1
25.
LTEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(Fr.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n to )n to Fn inn
To soil
Sp_
+
q
--
2-2-3
3-3-3
15-14-10
9-7-8
3-9-11
4-4-5
2
Loose Brown Fine SAND
1 -
Medium Dense Tan Fine SAND
gp
-
'Medium Dense Dark Gray Clayey Fine SAND
SC
Loose Gray Slightly Silty Fine SAPID
Sp
S'1
I
Boring terminated at 25.5'
uruttnawater encountered at 3.5' at tinge of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-30
DATE 3 -3-06
PAGE t OF i
OeoTe(hnologies, Inc,

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.5
2.0
7. `-
12-t
25.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n to in an 6n inn
TQ spsl
SM
2-4•S
5-6-5
laa
4-5-5
Ve l.uose Black Silty Line SAND
tvledium Dense Light Gray Slightly Silty Fine
SAND
Si'
SSuI
Very Sall Gray CLAY
CHl-0.0
Medium Dense to Loose Slightly Silly Fine Sr1N1)
5P
SM
f
i{
1
1
�
�I
Baring terminated at 25.5'
kiraunawater encountered at 2' at time of Boring.
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE I OF 1
1-06-0200-FA
B-26
3-7-06 � .

TEST BORIN�RECORW
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(IiT.) (rT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0.0 0 10 20 40 60 100
0.5
2.8
6.5
11.0
25.5
To sail
S p
2-2-3
5-8-9
2-1-0
4 G-7
5-5-C
7-9-8
Loose Brown & Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND
Medium Dense Gray Silty Fine SAND
SM
Vety Safi Dark Gray CLAY
CH
i
II
�I
�I
I
Medium Dense Gtay Slightly Silty Finc SAND
SP
SM
Baring terminated at 25.5'
Groundwater encountered at Tat time of boring,
JOB NUMBER 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUINTBER B-27
DATE 3-8-06
PAGE 1 OF 1
25902909—
GeoTe nolog=Inc.

TEST BORING IZECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWSI T.) SIX INCHES
0.0 0 10 20 d0 60 100
Ic
Ix
17.0
21.5
25.5
Loose Dark Brown Silty Fine SAND
5Nl
221
2-2-2
2-2-2
3-a-5
l l-1
Q
I
Medium Dense Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND
SP
scut
j
.�
Very Loose Gray Slightly Silty Fine SAND
SP
S,IM
-I-
I l
Loose Gray Slightly Silty Fine SAND
SP
SM
It�
I
Very Soft Gray CLAY
CH
E3oring temilnated at 25.5'
Groundwater encountered at Tat time of boring.
JOB NUiV11BE1t 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-23
DATE 3-7-06
PAGE l OF 1
GeoTechnologies, Inc.
v

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWSIFT.) SIX INCHES
0.0 0 10 20 40 60100
0.3 To soil Q.
Loose Tan Fine SAND
3-3-3
3
S-3-4
Dense Gray Fine SAND SP
15-18-20
Medium Dense Tan & Gray Clayey Nie SAND SC7.
7-7-3
1
!
1-14
5-5-5
Very 3ott Dark Gray Fine Sandy CLAY CL
I
Medium Dense Dark Gray Slightly Silty Fine Sp SAND SN1
Baring terminated at 25.5'
t
C
f
f
n
t
is
c
E
l'
JOB NUMBER 1-06-0200-FA
BORING NUMBER B-29
DA'TH. 3-6-06
PAGE I OF 1
GcoTechnologies, Ir�c.

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.
3
3.
7_,
tTi
25.'
TEST BORING R1+;COItD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n in )n to Kn inn
To soil
SP
5M
.f.
!
-
-
-
3-3-4
7-7-7
3-3-2
3-3-5
1-2-I
2-1-2
v-
i
Loose Light Gray Slightly Silty Fine SAND
i
Medium Dcase Black Silty Fine SAND w/0r9anic
Traces
SM
Loose Tan Fine SAi4D
gp
Soft Gray Silty CLAY
CFI
Baring terminated at 25.5'
UiuuJ1U%Yater encottnrerea at S.--)' at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-31
DATE 3-6-06
PAGE 1 OF I
GeoTe(hnologies, Inc,

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.
3.�
8.1
21.5
25.5
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE 1 OF 1
FITE-�SSTBORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
A m -)n in Kn inn
1-06-0200-EA
B-32
3-6-06

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION
BLOWS PER
(rT•) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.)
SIX INCHES
0.0 0 10 20
40 60
100
0.5 '1'o sail
Loose Brown & Tan Rue SAND FiSP
3.0
2-3-3
Loose Dark Brown Silty Fine SAND S,M
6.0
Loose sight Brown Fine. SAND SM
2-3-4
n
12.5
3-3-4
Very Loose Gray Clayey Fine SAIND Sc
4-2-1
22.0
Dense Dark Gray Silty Cute to Medium SAND 5M
w/l,kne Rock Fragments
25.5
4-12-22
Boring terminated at 25,5'
V
F
C
L
F
L'
0.
L'
a
2
4
f
Groundwater encountered at 7.5' at time of boring.
�
JOB NUNI 3ER 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-33
DATE 3-7-06
PAGE 1 OF i
M-GOcoTechnologles,inc

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
Q
7.
12,
! 7.:
25,
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE I OF I
FFT�E,�TIBI�t-NGECORD
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n Yn 7n An 4n inn
1-06-0200-BA
B-34
3-7-06
mad
f--

TEST BORING REcolm
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(r'T•) (FT-) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0.0 n in In an fn inn
2,8
7.0
12.0
16,5
25.5
Loose Dark Brown Silty Fine SANt D 5lv[
2-2-3
9.9-9
3-3-d
1-t-E
wolf
Q
c
F
c
c
f
i
t
C
f
Loose ]3rotim Slightly Silty Fine SAND Sp
Sf41
Mcdiunt Dense Brown Fine SA -NI D SP
Loose Gray Silty Fine SAND SP
Very Loose Dark Gray Silty Putt SAND SN'
Boring terminated at 25,5'
Groundwater encountered at 3' at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER
130IUNG NUNMER
DATE
PAGE I OF I
1-06-0200-FA
\
1�-35
....
3-3-06
eoTe chnologles,

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.5
3.0
7.0
16.0
22.0
25.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWSIFT.) SLY INCHES
0 10 20 40 60 100
JOB NUMBER I-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-36
DATE 3-4-06
PAGE 1 OF 1
GooTechnologies, Inc.
In

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0s
25
13.i
16.5
22.0
25.5
l
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/PT.) SIX INCHES
0 In zn en Tn inn
to soil
SY
m
-
---F
2-1-1
2-2-3
3-3-2
3-4-3
2-8-10
7-1 1-31
Loose Brown Silty SAND
Loose Brown to Tan Fine SAND
Sp
Loose Brown Silty Fine SAND
5M
Sc
Medium Dense Dark Gray Clayey Fine SAND
Medium Dense Gray Silty Fine SAND
SM
Boring tarnrinaied at 25.5'
i
JOB NUMBER 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-37
DATE 3-2-06
PAGE i OF 1
GeoTechnologies, inc.
h
D

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.5
5.`
12,C
16.5
25.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n in 'n ran Kn Inn
To soil �
SP
2-2-2
3-2-3
2-2-1
3-3-5
1-WOF1
W014
Loose Tan to Brown Fine SAND
Very Loose bight Brawn Fine SA111
5P
Loose fight Gray Fine SAND
Sp
Very Lance Gray Silty Fine SAND
SM
Boring terminated at 25,5'
JOB NUMBER 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-38
DATE 3-4-06
PAGE L OF l
GeoTechnoIogies, Inc.

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
M
6.5
12.0
16.5
25,5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0 10 20 40 60 100
JOB NUMBER 1-06-0200-EA
BORING NUMBER B-38
DATE 3-4-06
PAGE I OF I
2-2-2
3-2-3
2-2-]
3-3-5
I-wofI
WOH
I
b
V

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina -Department of Environntertt and Naltrral ResourcLs -Division of Water Quality - Groundwator Section
NY ELL CONTRACTOR (INDtVMAL) NAl4T8 (print}y r t' LtJa sa0 CFRTIFieATIONII 0y
1VELr, CONTRACTOR COMA NY NAM PHONE
RTATF WELL CON,%fniJCI"ION pMRhjirN ASSOCIATED FYQ PRLIR7ITlI
(rfanpLi ble) (if applicable)
1- WELL USE (Check Applicable Box)-- Rcsidentiai 1] MunicipaflP�_iblic it tntiustrial 12 Agricultural U
Monitoring ❑ Recovery Cl Heat Pump Water Injection ® Other 0 If Other, List Use d
2. WELL LOCATION: `IopographiclUnd setting
L/ Nearest Town: f� Q - County Orbs ion Midge ©Slope L]Vallcy Mr -at
,SSr s;yltgw-r ! • (gym a �i C -- (Check appropriate boat)
(Stn Nam . Numbers, t amnunity, Subdivisioat, Lot a., Zip Code) Latitude/longitude of well loealion
3 OWNER: lLlvy,J�.� (dcgrtralminutlssxonds)
Address //tom Ar _rA.A. , .lyl Latitude/longitude soltrce:L1GPS0Topographic reap
5-1�e 2 t) (Street or RoUG NO) (ohzok box)
I`l®� arm_- _/�• �� t 6� DEPTH DRILLING LOG
City of Town Strte Zip Code From To FgrrmuonDesertption
1�4_ 0*ems
Arta cado- Phoar. nurnbcr
4. DATE DRILLED zvoC --
5- TOTAL DEPTH:.i
6- DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES Cl NO E"
7 STA- lC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing.-
(Use'W' irAbuve Top of Coring) —
8- TOP OF CASING IS _ 1 FT. Above Lzrid Surtnce* _
'Top of c�uiug terminutcd zVor Wan lindAurfrre t-ertulrtsn
valiance to sccordRace With 13A NCAC 2C.011& \
9. YIELD (-gpm): S METHOD OF TEST �-
10. WATER ZONES (depth):
LOCATION SKETCH
11. DISINFECTION: Type
I7i,' Amount /ram t-
Show direction and distance in miles from at 1=1
12- CASING:
Wall Thickne s
two State Roads or County Roads, Include Ore road
Depth
Di<�.tneter ar-%VeigUTIL MaterW
numbers and common road names.
From d
To
Ft
From J
To
FL
From
To
Ft-
13. (TROUT:
Depth
Material Method
From G
To r--
4
From
Tv
EI
III, SCREEN',
Depth
Diameter Slot Size Matcrlal
�
From
"Tam
Ft '_ ! in- 1� irL
From _
To
FL in.
15 SAND/GRAVEL
PACK
Depth
Size Material
From
TO
Ft
Front
To
Ft
16. RENLMMS:
f DO I{EItEB Y CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL. WAS COI
CONS7RUL l t?$ STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY
TURF OF
IN ACCORDANCE WT}'H 15A NCAC 2C, NVELL
O HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO 711E WELL OWNER
THH. WELL DATE
Submit the 0riginA to the Ilivisi0tl of Witter ¢ttality, Grottudwater Section,1636 Moil Service Center -Raleigh, NC
V69!'-163-6 Phone No. [phone], ilhin 30 d€ty& GW-1 1MV. 07/2001

WELL, CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina - Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality - Groundwater Section
WRLL CONTRACTOR (fNDIVIDUAL) NAMIR (print)-E2 r t< INa l" r ! r�sc,Tsa CERTJHCATYON f1 G6'
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY MOM gG_-(.v���tG�u� � PEIONEft
STATE WELL CONSCRUMFLON PERATU Y1 _ A•SSSOUATED WQ PBLtPJ ITH
(if applicable) (if applicable)
`'
1. WFL USE (Check Applicable Box)-- Residential © Muniaipal/PubieD 1ndwkiW0 Ag[icutural0 Monitoring 0 Recovery El [feat Pump Water Nection 0 01116r 0 If Ochs , List Use_ ?— 47— - � `,,&
2. WELL LOCATIO
Nearest Town: f/ ZW A County
C.
(Strmt Namc,, Numbc'fs, Community, a5ditision�Lai No., p Cede)
3 OWNER44 ljJr# �p:,,e !d ^..1 �1�
Address ssrd 7i 11P__/i 4 ,s T-4,4L Al
11_ DISINFEMON: Typed
Alnmmt 64t4-,,
12. CASING:
Wall Thickmss
Depth
Diameter
orWeight/FL Material
From J-
'To lr
a- / /1-`C-_-.
'" �j L
From
To
Ft -
From
To
FL
13. GROUT:
Dep
Material
Method
From d
_
To
Ft. / /9/•�---
`
Ft _
14. SCREEN:
Depth
D9amcicr
Slot Size Mate0al
From I
To
Ft r Vy in
r in.
From
To
Ft in_
in.
15_ SAND/GRAVEL
PACK --
Depth
Size
Material
From J fl
To _`Lj
T
Ft. e
Front
To
Ft
16. REMARKS:
Topographic/1--and setting
[ARidge 0Slope ❑Valley ❑Flat
(check apprapriete box)
Latitude/longitude of twll location
{deg�etslmi nutcalscwnd9)
Latitudeftngitude source, 0GPSCITopogmphic map
(SU I or Rnut� No.) (ahmk box)
= 2s( DEPTH DRILLING LOG
City or Town state ZipC:ode From To Formation Description
e7 ! T 6r Y CCU
Area endrr Phuno num6cr
4. DATE DR.[LLED
5. TOTAL DEPTH: --
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES 0 NO Ur'_-
T STATIC WATER LEVEL Delow Top of Casing: — G YT.
(u: y ., irAbove lop of OWng) _
S. TOP OF CASING IS FT_ Above Land Surface -
'Top oCeasiap lerminuted PVar 1x &w land surface mquhi-q a
Verimce In aecordAncowlth 15A NCAC2C.011& _
9. YIELD ();pat): / T-_ METHOD OF TEST„
10. WATER ZONES (depth;):
LOCATION SKETCH
Show direction and distance in miles front at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include the road
numbers and common road names.
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY 7til:w
R IN ACCORDANCE Wr�,i-I 15A NCAC2C, WELL
CONSTRUCT[I �7 STAND7 RECO�AS BEEN PROVIDED TO TtIE WELL OWNER
i
N COIN UCTING THE WELT, DATE
Submit the w igimal to The Division of Water Quality, Grou adwatcr Ss c#ion, 1636 Mvil Service Center-- Raieigb, NC
t?699 t636 1Phane No. (919) 7334221, within 30 days, GW-1 REV. 07/2001

WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina - Department of Environn m and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality - Groundwater Section
1VeLL CONTtIACTU1t (1NDMDUAL) NAM-0 (point)- ra _ %- �AlGt�r3q ��nr CERTIFICATION #l�__qa
WELL CONTRACTOR COMPANY nlAr�sa C ix.G�+. �/ p _ .---- --- PIIc7NE n pS.V
5TATi? WP—L.r, CONS RUUCb N VVICU ITY1 — --- A&%0ATHD WQ PRRn7rTM -- - --
(if'apYlicslrle)
WELL USE (Check Applicable Box)- Residential © illumiuipaWublic ❑ IndwWol ❑ Agiicultural Q
Monitoring © Recovery ❑ Heat Pump Water Injection ® Other 0 If Other, List use_ Te-
2. WELL LOCATION: Topographic/Land setting -, "1fj
Nearest Towrr f Colmty tip. l —
(Strec in LM is, C inntunity, Subdivision, Ld No., Zip Code)
1 OWNE1,�
Address6
(Sheet or Rny�W Hq-)
, y _ —
AIA1 ___ %E/ �
City or Town Stato TT Zip Code
Arra cod -Phone: number
4. DATE DRILLHD r✓_ �
S- TOTAL DEPTH:r�_
6- DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES L1 NO C1
7. STATIC WATER LUVEL Below Tap of Casing: R 7 FT_
(Usa "+" if Abave •ihp WE it )
9TOP OF CASING I5 0/, FT_ Above I -and Surface*
,Tap orarsing balaY laud serrinre requircA a
vartanct la accurda-me wlth 15A NrAC7.0 .01M
9. YIELD (gpm): METHOD orTEST- �, �--
10. WATER ZONES (depth): s J - —
11. DISINFECTION: Type- - &b� Amount
12. CASWO:
WaltThictrness
Death
na
Diae(er
orWeight/Ft-
Material
From_ To//
Ft._ i 1"-
f r
/ I
Prom To
Ft_.
From TO
FL
13. GROUT: Depth
Materiel
Method
From 49 To
FL
+
From To J
Ft
_
14. SCREEN: Depth
Diameter
slotSizc
Material
From -fir - - To �S
FL_ -( in.
r, in-
IoVe
From _ To
Ft_ in.
irt-
1S. SAND/GRAVEL PACK -
Depth
Fro - ---To r i�
size
Ft r r
Material
From To
F'L
16. REMARKS:
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS C01
CON87RUCH 1!7 STANDARDS, AND THAT A COPY
/ Oct,
CTRE OF PE�J
❑Ridge ❑Slope OValley L*Iat
(chick appmpriate box)
Latitudellongitude of well location
(dcgnxs/ndnutasls=M3) ^
Latitudellongitude source:❑0PSI]Topographic imp
Colt-nk box)
DEPTH DRILLING LOG
From TO Fonnation Description
LOCNFION_SKkTC1-I
Show direction and distance in miles from at least
two State Roads or County Roads. Include the road
numbers and common road names.
TN ACCORDANCE WITH I SA NCAC 2C, WELL
,OFF HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO.1HE WELL OWNER
THE WELL DA
Snbnait the origittaul to the DivisimoF Water Qu€rtity, GRntwilwaterSeeiloo, 1636 Mail Service Center - Ralcio, NC
V699-1636 Phone No. [phone],within 30 days, GW-1 REV. 07/2001

SITE INVESTIGATION AND AGRONOMIC PLAN
SUMMERHOUSE ON EVERETT BAY
WASTEWATER RECEIVER SITE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
By
A. R. Rubin, Senior Environmental Scientist
The proposed Summerhouse on Everett Bay residential/recreational community requires a
permitted wastewater reclarnation facility to accommodate the domestic wastewater generated in
the community. A community -wide wastewater collection and treatment system is required to
accommodate the domestic and commercial wastewater generated within the boundaries of the
development and sensitivity of adjacent surface waters necessitates use of a non -point discharge
system. The wastewater treatment system proposed consists of an advanced aerobic treatment
system consisting of a membrane bioreactor followed by disinfection. These processes are
capable of consistently and reliable producing reuse quality water. In addition to this advanced
treatment system, a storage system will be provided for upset and a series of bermed, high rate
infiltration basins will be developed to facilitate both infiltration of liquid to the site and to create
aesthetically pleasing water features on the property. These infiltration galleries are to serve as
the ultimate receiver for the reclaimed wastewater.
A total of eight (8) potential areas were examined as potential wastewater receiver areas. Four (4)
were ultimately selected as designated receiver areas for the reclaimed water. The proposed
receiver areas are located on the map attached. These areas are presently hosting woody
vegetation and the cropping system will be removed to accommodate the reclaimed water
through the basin system. The agronomic assessment and associated plan are necessary to assure
adequate vegetation is present on the banks and in terrace areas in these basins to minimize
sediment losses and to provide stable areas for infiltration. A second potential use for the
reclaimed water is berm landscape irrigation with reuse quality water. Finally, an agronomic
assessment is also required to assure liquid generated from pumping site drainage is assimilated
on terraces near the site boundary.
Beneficial reuse of the treated wastewater on the common -lands and residential landscaped areas,
and the series of infiltration basins to serve as an all season system capable of recharging shallow
groundwater all provide excellent potential treatment for domestic and commercial wastewater
generated on the site. `Phis type of conjunctive system is serving residential, commercial,
industrial, and agricultural operations throughout the southeast very successfully. The site and
soil conditions encountered on the designated wastewater receiver sites are well suited for the
development of this conjunctive type of wastewater system. There are two purposes to the brief
report which follows. The first is to describe the results of the soil testing accomplished on the
site. The second is to provide recommendations for the cropping system that serves as stabilizing
crops on berms and other receiver areas for this liquid.

In addition to requirements unposed by close proximity to sensitive receiver waters, land based
wastewater treatment and renovation systems exhibit a variety of characteristics considered
favorable for treatment of wastewater. These include:
1. Excellent potential to recycle and reuse treated liquid on Nigh value Iandscaped sites and in
aesthetic impoundments incorporated into the local landscape
2. Necessity to provide vegetation to stabilize areas with made -land (beans and embankments,
terraces, etc.).
Site and Soil Conditions
Site selection is critical when assessing a wastewater application system, Existing published
data such as that contained in the Modern Soil Survey of Dnslow County are useful to
determine general site characteristics, but detailed information is necessary for proper design
and specification of the system components. Detailed field study provides site specific data
regarding variations within the site; existing soil fertility; soil texture, structure and
morphology; and water table or restrictive horizon depth. These site specific data are essential
to establish proper loading rates, recommendations for plant species selection, operation and
maintenance recommendations, and overall site management requirements.
The site has been investigated to allow for permitting as a wastewater receiver site and has been
examined for that purpose. The site and soil investigation required to obtain the necessary
permit was been developed jointly by representatives from Mckun and Creed and Ed Andrews
and Associates. The purpose of this brief report is simply to provide criteria for developing a
land based wastewater management system and to assess plant nutrient requirements on areas
of the site intended to host the components of the infrastructure associated with infiltration.
Detailed knowledge of site history and soil characteristics is necessary to establish design and
maintenance recommendations of wastewater application systems. Ideally, a permitted
wastewater receiver site will contain soil materials at least 24 inches in depth with loam to sandy
surface horizons over deep subsurface horizons that allow treatment and renovation to proceed.
The soil depth required for treatment depends on treatment system goals and expectations. Sites
which do not meet theses recommended criteria can be used as a receiver, but only following
extensive wastewater treatment. Soils well suited for high hydraulic loading rates should be
rapidly permeable and soil fertility levels suited for crop production become unnecessary on the
receiver sites. Soils that contain high levels of clay or sand are somewhat limited for wastewater
applications and the hydraulic and nutrient loadings must be adjusted to accommodate these
limitations or these restrictive soils are removed to facilitate necessary infiltration. Use of the soil
materials on the Holly Ridge— Summerhouse on Everett Bay sites as receiver soils for
wastewater require allow loadings at high hydraulic rates because of the depth of soil available,
[lie sandy texture of the soil materials present in the treatment/assimilation zone, and the outlets
to adjacent drainage.

The soil materials on the existing permitted wastewater receiver site are mapped in the Modern
Soil Survey of Onslow County as primarily as the Kureb series. Characteristically the Kureb soil
resource is excessively well drained and rapid permeable soil with evidence of seasonal
saturation encountered at depths of over 48 inches. The site is located along SR 1327
approximately 1.0 miles south of the intersection of Highway 17 and State Road 1327. Currently,
The SurrunerHouse/Holly Ridge controls approximately 1200 acres of land and a portion of this
is intended to serve as a receive for treated wastewater.
A detailed Soil/Site Evaluation was performed by previous consultants for the permitted
wastewater receiver sites. More recently, scientists with McKirn and Geed and Edwin Andrews
(NCLSS) performed required investigations to confirm soils and site characteristics and to
garner required information to obtain necessary permits.
A soils investigation was initiated on the proposed land receiver sites. A series of 3.5 inch hand
auger borings were advanced to depths of 84 inches (or less if grotumdwater precluded
advancing to that depth) across the site. These auger borings were advanced to characterize the
depth of each of the horizons, the color of the soil material within each of the soil horizons, and
the texture, structure, and consistence of the soil material within each of the horizons. The
auger boring was also done to verify the existing snapping units indicated in the USDA soil
survey for Onslow County (USDA, 1995). Descriptions of some of the borings are included in
the Andrews report. The Andrews report details hydraulic loading and capacity for file sites
investigated.
The hand auger borings confirmed that soils snapped on the site according to the Onslow
County Soil Survey are present. The majority of the soils on the proposed land receiver sites
proposed to host the basins consist of Kureb sand. Slopes were measured with a hand held
clinometer and they ranged from 0-3% over the sites proposed. The Kureb series is formed in
sandy Coastal Plain areas. These soils are excessively well drained, with slow runoff, excellent,
rapid permeability im both the upper topsoil and in the lower horizons. Depth to a seasonal
high water table is below 4.0 feet in the Kureb Soil.
Samples of the soil material were collected randomly from the permitted wastewater receiver
site. The samples collected represent areas of approximately 10 to 15 acres. The soil samples
collected were subjected to a battery of standard soil fertility tests as performed by the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture, Agronomic Services Laboratory. Both the analytical values
and the approximate NCDA Index Values are presented in the table. The results of the soil
testing are summarized in Table 1, SoiI 'Pest Results, Proposed 1-Iolly Ridge Wastewater receiver
sites, attached. These test results indicate that the soil resources encountered over the site are
generally low in the traditional soil fertility indicators. These nutrient deficiencies must be
corrected for the land application operation to succeed.
The recommended nutrient additions are presented in Table 2, Recommended Nutrient and Lime
Additions, Proposed Holly Ridge Wastewater receiver site amenities (berms and terrace areas).

These results are presented as recommended loadings in pounds per acre or toils per acre.
Agricultural supply companies are familiar with these recommended loading units and no
difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the required nutrients. The recommended nutrient
additions should be supplied prior to the vegetation establishment effort proposed.
Wastewater Rennediation
Treated domestic or municipal wastewater will potentially be utilized in several ways. Water
will be lost through transpiration by vegetation, evaporation from the vegetation and soils
surface, and percolation through the soil profile. This water will also enter nearby surface
waters in wetlands and streams via lateral flow. Any excess nutrients in the wastewater will be
treated through microbial processes, plant uptake, adsorption to soil solids, and biologically
mediated chemical transformations (i.e. denitrification),
The primary objective of establishing a wastewater spray field using vegetation is to effectively
renovate the water through plant Uptake and evapotranspiration to prevent nutrients and other
unwanted constituents from entering groundwater. The pre -application wastewater treatment
proposed provides all of these requirements and the land is to be used as a dispersal mechanism
for the reclairned water. A prinary objective of the rapid infiltration portion of the project is to
promote recharge of the shallow groundwater to maintain base flow unto adjacent wetlands and
to create aesthetically pleasing water vistas for residents of the connrnunity.
Few vegetative species are well adapted for use in berms and terraces supporting the basins.
The plant species selected must be snatched to specific sites where they exhibit optimal growth,
Turf and grass crops have served as an excellent stabilizing crop on many structures associated
with land treatment facilities throughout the southeast.
Nutrients promote plant growth and microbiological activity in the soil and the liquid applied
onto these areas will contain no essential nutrients of concern in the receiver environment
because of the pre-treatment. This reclaimed water is basically a source of water for basins and
common landscaped areas.
The turf and plant materials established throughout the planned community will benefit from
irrigation. The reclairned wastewater is an excellent irrigation resource for the Holly Ridge
community. Hybrid Bermudagrass and other warns season grasses or turf systems are capable
of sequestering 300 lb PAN/ac/yr or higher under ideal management conditions, but the crop
will not be managed aggressively and recommended loadings for the terrace areas and the berm
sideslopes and top are 80 pounds of Nitrogen per acre per year as a crop maintenance
amendment. Ideal management does include weed control and minimizing equipment traffic
on the site especially following rainfall or irrigation events. The recommended liquid loading
onto berm sides and tops is no more than 1.75 inches per acre per week as required and this
liquid loading can be added as required to support plant growth and development or
Potential])' used throughout the planned cornrnunity where reclaimed water could be used.

The recommendations specify the addition of the following essential nutrients:
A. 60 to 80 pounds of Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) - Generally this is supplied as
Ammonium Nitrate or slow release nitrogen. If the slow release nitrogen is available
economically, then this is the recommended nutrient. A very small portion of PAN will
be supplied through the wastewater irrigation system proposed. Supplemental
requirements will be established as additional information is available concerning turf
management areas.
B. 40 pounds of Phosphorus - This is generally supplied as a phosphate compound. The
phosphorus recommended is essential for root development. A very small portion of P
will be supplied through irrigation, but supplements will be required to establish and
maintain vegetation.
C. 60 pounds of Potassium - Generally this is supplied as a salt of potassium such as
potassium chloride. Potassium is essential for development of root, stem, and leaf tissue.
Potassium must be supplied as a supplement.
D. 1.5 to 2 tons of Lime - Soil pH is very low. This low pI-I influences the availability of
essential plant nutrients. The lirne recommended is required to facilitate the uptake of
essential plant nutrients,
These nutrient additions should be supplied in the fall of the year and prior• to any reseeding
With the grass species recommended in the section which follows. The plant nutrient deficiencies
noted are severe and must be corrected soon. Maintenance of soil fertility is an important
component of any land treatment operation and basin system operation. Without vegetation, the
effectiveness of any land application operation is compromised and berm sideslopes are
susceptible to erosion.
The SAR of any irrigation water must be determined and monitored. The SAR is calculated as
the ratio of sodium (Na) to one Half the square root of calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) with
all concentrations expressed as equivalents. The SAR calculation is:
SAR = Na/(Ca/2 + Mg/2) V, (units in meq/L)
An SAR in excess of 10 is considered as an irrigation hazard and system operators must take
special precautions to monitor salt levels of sodium in both irrigation water and soil. An SAR in
excess of 7.5 is considered a mild irrigation hazard and operators should consider establishing a
similar monitoring program. If the level of sodium in the soil exchange complex increases to a
level over 10, then corrective measures such as gypsum addition should be implemented. At

present no information is available concerning SAR, but once it is available, plans will be
developed to address sodium issues if required (SAR is above 10). Since the basins rely on
maintaining soil permeability, measures of SAR are important and must be accomplished soon
after system operation begins.
Soil Sodium;
Another measure of sodium, completed for the soil, to determine potential problems with
irrigation systems, is called the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP). ESP is calculated as
follows;
ESP = Na/CEC * 100
Where: Na is an index value for sodium (North Carolina Agronomic Division — Soil Testing
Indices)
This calculation should result in data no greater than 10-1.5%. Soils with ESP values > 10-15%
can be remediated through under draining and adding soluble sources of Ca such as gypsum
(CaSO4), being careful of manganese (Mn) & Mg deficiencies in plants. Ca/Mn and Ca/Mg ratios
should be kept in balance, Excessive sodium in the soil system can lead to management
problems in the future and affect the overall capacity of the site.
Trace Metals
The USEPA regulates the levels to which selected metals can accumulate on any waste receiver
site. Regulated metals have not been tested in reclaimed water at Holly Ridge. Zinc and Copper
levels in the reclaimed wastewater must be tested to make sure that these constituents do not
limit the capacity of the site for wastewater treatment.
Nutrient Loadings
Holly Ridge proposes to spray reclaimed wastewater on small areas of grass and landscaped
areas near the proposed wastewater treatment facility and on conunnon Iands in the plaiuned
community. The sites were determined to have few hydraulic liinitations. Nutrient loadings or
recommendations necessary to establish and support vegetation on basin berms and sideslope
areas, and in areas untended to receive the groundwater from the site drainage network are
provided in Table 2.
Conclusions;
The soil resources at Summerhouse on Everette Bay will be modified dramatically as tine
development proceeds. The agronomic plan provided is intended to guide the establishment

and maintenance of vegetation unportant is stabilizing areas on the site involved with
wastewater management. Agronomic considerations are most critical where Iiquid is provided
as an irrigation resource. The nutrient and Tune recommendations provided are intended to
satisfy plant nutrient requirements on those portions of the site important to support the
wastewater infrastructure, but not involved in the dispersal of treated Iiquid. The infiltration
basins require no nutrient Ioading or supplements.
Table 1, Soil test results (as index values unless indicated). Holly Ridge
Parameter
Site I
Site 2
- o-
Site 3
Site 4
OM %
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.3
CEC (meq/g)
5.4
5.9
6.3
7.1
pH (SU)
5.5
5.3
5.5
5.2
P
39
44
28
19
K
25
22
19
12
Ca %
44
49
52
55
Mg %
12
12
10
15
Zn
22
25
19
21
Cu
12
15
17
16
Na %
3%
0.9%
1.2%
0.7%
Table 2, Recommended Nutrient and Lime Additions, Grasses and Agricultural Crops On Banks
and Terraces, Holly Ridge Wastewater Receiver Sites (Units as indicated)
Nutrient
Site 2
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
N
60-80
60-80
60-8)
60-80
P
20-40
20-40
20-40
20-40
K
40-60
40-60
40-60
40-60
Lime
1.5
1.7
1.5
2.0