SW7080921_HISTORICAL FILE_20081013

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE�'/Q�2j
YYYYMMDD

TF9
rr aa�i r
rJ
Bobby Hall, Vice President
State Employees' Credit Union
1000 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Hall:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Stormwater Permit No. SW7080921
SECU - Plymouth
High Density Project
Washington County
The Washington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit
Application for SECU - Plymouth on September 23, 2008. Staff review of the plans and
specifications has determined that the ptJ.ct, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater
Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000. We are forwarding Permit No. SW7080921
dated October 13, 2008, for the construction of the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until October 13, 2018, and shall be
subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to
the Operation and Maintenance requirements in this permit. Failure to establish an adequate
system for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system will result in
future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have
the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days
following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. Unless such
demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please
contact Samir Dumpor, or me at [phone].
Sincere) ,
_A H6 � `--__-__.-_
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
AH/sd: J:\WPDATA\WQS\ State SW-SD\Permits — Wet Pond\SW7080921
cc: Jamie Gollings, PE, Jacobs Carter Burgess (111 Corning Road, Suite 200, Cary,
NC 27518)
VYashington County Building Inspections
ashington Regional Office -
Central Files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Internet: www ncwaterouality ore One
943 Washington Square Mall Phone [phone]I NorthCarolina
Washington, NC 27889 Fax [phone] Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer —50%Reeycledll0% Post Consumer Paper Naturally

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7080921
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
State Employees' Credit Union
SECU - Plymouth
Washington County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a wet detention basin in compliance with
the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (hereafter referred to as the "stormwater rules')
and the approved stormwater management plans and specifications and other
supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by the Division of Water
Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until October 13, 2018, and
shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described on page 3 of this permit, the Project Data Sheet. The
stormwater control has been designed to handle the runoff from 59,570 square
feet of impervious area.
3. The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated on page 3 of
this permit, and per approved plans.
All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either
dedicated common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project
will be recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the
approved plans.
The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area of this
Page 2 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7080921
project must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
6. The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention basin and
must be maintained at design condition:
a.
Drainage Area, acres:
2.17
b.
Total Impervious Surfaces, ft2:
_4,899—'���i570
C.
Pond Depth, feet:
8.50
d.
TSS removal efficiency:
90%
e.
Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSL:
12.50
f.
Required Permanent Pool Surface Area, ft2:
6,931
g.
Provided Permanent Pool Surface Area, ft2:
9,934
h.
Permanent Pool Volume, ft3:
35,168
i.
Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL:
13.30
j.
Required Storage Volume, ft3:
7,292
k.
Provided Storage Volume, ft3:
9,261
I.
Controlling Orifice:
1.5" 0 pipe
M.
Receiving Stream/River Basin: Conaby Creek / Roanoke River Basin
n.
Stream Index Number:
23-56
o.
Classification of Water Body:
"C; Sw"
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety,
vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any
built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance
necessary to assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum
efficiency. The approved Operation and Maintenance Plan must be followed in
its entirety and maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals including, but
not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing and revegetation of slopes and the vegetated filter.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans and
specifications.
Page 3 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7080921
f. Debris removal and unclogging of outlet structure, orifice device, flow
spreader, catch basins and piping.
g. Access to the outlet structure must be available at all times.
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept and made available upon
request to authorized personnel of DWQ. The records will indicate the date,
activity, name of person performing the work and what actions were taken.
5. Decorative spray fountains will be allowed in the stormwater treatment system,
subject to the following criteria:
a. The fountain must draw its water from less than 2' below the permanent
pool surface.
b. Separated units, where the nozzle, pump and intake are connected by
tubing, may be used only if they draw water from the surface in the
deepest part of the pond.
c. The falling water from the fountain must be centered in the pond, away
from the shoreline.
d. The maximum horsepower for a fountain in this pond is 1/8 horsepower.
6. The facilities shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans. This permit
shall become voidable unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with
the conditions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting data.
7. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received
from an appropriate designer for the system installed certifying that the permitted
facility has been installed in accordance with this permit, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting documentation. Any deviations from the
approved plans and specifications must be noted on the Certification. A
modification may be required for those deviations.
8. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be
restored to design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device,
and prior to occupancy of the facility.
9. Access to the stormwater facilities shall be maintained via appropriate
easements at all times.
10. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of all or part of the project
area. The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee,
for which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval or a CAMA
Major permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
11. The permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans for any permitted
Page 4 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7080921
future areas shown on the approved plans, prior to construction.
12. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee at all times.
13. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
Ill. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable except after notice to and approval by the Director.
In the event of a change of ownership, or a name change, the permittee must
submit a formal permit transfer request to the Division of Water Quality,
accompanied by a completed name/ownership change form, documentation
from the parties involved, and other supporting materials as may be appropriate.
The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or may not
be approved. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit
conditions until such time as the Division approves the transfer request.
2. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
3. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
4. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation
of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
5. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
6. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
7. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
8. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable parts of the permit.
9. The permittee shall notify the Division any name, ownership or mailing address
changes within 30 days.
10. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until October 13, 2018.
Application for permit renewal shall be submitted 180 days prior to the expiration
date of this permit and must be accompanied by the processing fee.
Paae 5 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7080921
Permit issued this the 13th day of October, 2008.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
for
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Stormwater Permit No. SW7080921
Page 6 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7080921
SECU - Plymouth
Stormwater Permit No. SW7080921
Washington Countv
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/ full
time) the construction of the project,
(Project)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
C�1
Paqe 7 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7080921
Certification Requirements:
1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted
acreage.
2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted
amount of built -upon area.
3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the
runoff drains to the system.
4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
5. The outlet/bypass structure elevations are per the approved plan.
6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet/bypass structure.
8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized per the approved plans.
13. All required design depths are provided.
14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf,
and a forebay.
15. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Washington Regional Office
Washinton County Building Inspections
Paqe 8 of 8

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Bobby/Hall, Vice President
State Em loyees' Credit Union
1000Wit& Avenue
Ralei'eh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Hall:
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
September 23, 2010
Subject: Approved Plan Revision
SECU - Plymouth
Stormwater Project No. SW7080921
Washington County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On September 22, 2010, the Washington Regional Office received a plan revision request for
Stormwater Management Permit Number SW7080921. The plan revision request is for the addition of
approximately 0.02 acres of impervious area due to fire department life safety improvement request and slight
modification of discharge at right-of-way. Based on the current Division of Water Quality Guidance on this
issue your plan revision request is hereby approved. We are forwarding you an approved copy of the revised
plan sheets for your files. Please replace the previously approved sheet L1101 and sheet C1202 dated October
13, 2008.
Please be aware that all terms and conditions of the permit issued on October 13, 2008 remain in full
force and effect. Please also understand that the approval of this revision to the approved plans for the subject
State Stormwater Permit is done on a case -by -case basis. Any other changes to this project must be submitted
to and approved through the Division of Water Quality prior to construction. The issuance of this plan revision
does not preclude the permittee from complying with all other applicable statutes, rules, regulations or
ordinances which may have jurisdiction over the proposed activity, and obtaining a permit or approval prior to
construction.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
1
Samir Dumpor
Environmental Engineer II
AH\sd: K:\SD\PLANREVISIONS\SW7080921
cc: Jamie Gollings, PE, Jacobs Carter Burgess (I I I Coming Road, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27518)
✓Washington Regional Office
Central Files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Internet: w rimaterquality.org One 943 Washington Square Mall Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] NOrtL."CarOtlrla
Washington, NC 27889 FAX. [phone] An Equal Opportunity 1 AffvmabNRtlfrally
ve Action Employer l

4
TO: Mr. Samir Dumoor
NCDENR - Washington Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
FROM: Josh Lambert, PE
oL,,_l( C �2-0Z
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE: Sep 17, 2010
FAX: [phone]
PHONE: [phone]
PROJECT: State Employees Credit Union - Plymouth, NC -�L. r r n-, •"-n
PROJECT#:-------
b � 2U10
Please find the following items for:
Review and Comment
Approval
Pick-up
Ex Your Use
Transmitted via:
Fax # Of Fax pages
Mail
Delivery
Fx Fed -Ex
COPIES
DATE
DESCRIPTION
2
6-26-09
L1101 -- 30"x42" Layout Plan
2
6-26-09
C1202 - 30"x42" Storm Drainage Plan (with engineer comments)
2
11-18-09
NCDOT Approval Letter
REMARKS:
Samir, Please let me know if you need anything else. I am sending this on behalf of Jamie Gollin s.
Thanks and take care, - Josh Lambert
JACOBS ENGINEERING, 111 CORNING DR., SUITE 200, CARY, NC 27518
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EU'GENE A. C01V71, JR.
GOVEMOR SECRETnRV
royF q.
November 18, 2009
State Employees' Credit Union of North Carolina 2`
h Carolina � 0) Q
Alto: Robert Hall
1000 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27665
County: Washington
Subject: Approval of Revised SECU Drainage Outfall into NCDOT Open Drainage
System on US IIighway 64
Dear Mr. Hall;
The request by Mr. Greg Peck of John E. Bassett, Inc. to revise the drainage tie-in to the NCDOT
open drainage system on the south cast comer of the SECU property is approved Pei site visit
with Mr. Greg Peck and Mr. Joe. Rosenberg on November 18. 2009 as indicated below:
An 18"pipe will be connected to the Drop Inlet constructed at the south east turner uJ'
the property and run to the open drainage canal which connects to NCDOT pipes under IIS
Highway 64. A flared end section will be installed at the canal (outfall) end with underlying
fabric and rip rap stone for stabilization and appearance. Fabric and t p rap stone will also he
placed around the end of the NCDOT drainage pipes under US'Highway 64 for stabilization and
appearance.
A copy if this revised approval shall be on the project site during construction.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at [phone].
Yours truly,
Carol V. Phelps
Assistant District Engineer
Cc: Mr. J.D. Jennings, P.E., Acting Division Fngineer
County Maintenance Engineer
File
1300 US 6a Hwy West, Plymouth, NC 27962 [phone] Fax: [phone]

®JACOBS
Carter Burgess
Presented to:
NC DENR — Department of Land Quality
NC DENR — Deparment of Water Quality
bt reference to:
State Employees Credit Union
Plymouth, North Carolina
September 22, 2008
Submitted bv:
Jacobs Carter Burgess
111 Corning Road
Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
tN 1C A RO z
i
pQ`.oFESS%p
029 029
501
Fy '
GINEN
i�9 7F S. GO��\� �\\
tt011111W\\
Pq "ev 24L8

DWQ USE ONLY
m„h ,,Date.Recew,ed.,
Fee Paid
Permit Number
�d L=y
32oD
-1Dg
042-1
SEP 2 3 2008
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r. V V (Y-VA - Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
77tis form may be pbolocopied for use as an original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Applicants name (specify the name of the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
State Employees' Credit Union
2. Print Owner/Signing Official's name and title (person legally responsible for facility and compliance):
Bobby Hall, Vice -President
3. Mailing Address for person listed in item 2 above:
Phone: (919 ) 839-5000
Email:[e-mail]
State:NC Zip:27605
Fax: (919 ) 839-5353
4. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name -should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
SECU - Plymouth
5. Location of Project (street address):
US Hwy 64 (unaddressed property)
City:Plymouth County: Washington Zip:27962
6. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
The site is located approximately 4,700 feet south/west of the intersection of Hwy 32 and US Hwy 64 Site is
located between -the existing Sportsman's Inn and Holiday Inn Express
7. Latitude:350 50' 57" N Longitude:760 45' 22" W of project
8. Contact person who can answer questions about the project:
Name:iamie E. Gollings, PE Telephone Number: (919 ) 859-5752
Email:iamie.gollingsQjacobs.com r
IL PERMIT INFORMATION:
FormSWU-101 Version03.27.08 Page 1 of l

1. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Renewal ❑Modification
2. If this application is being submitted as the result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit, list the
existing permit number and its issue date (if known)
3. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ®I-Iigh Density ❑Redevelop ❑General Permit ❑Universal SNIP ❑Other
4. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑CAMA Major ®Sedimentation/Erosion Control ❑404/401 Permit ❑NPDES Stormwater
III. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, summarize how stormwater will be treated. Also attach a detailed narrative
(one to two pages) describing stormwater management for the project.
Almost all of the impervious cover for the site is being routed to a wet detention pond at the back of the property
designed to provide 90% TSS removal. Thus, no vegetated filter strip would be required. The small amount of
impervious runoff that is not being treated by the wet detention pond is being discharged to two Flumes at the
front of the property where it will either infiltrate or sheet Flow across vegetated areas to existingdrainage
rainage
2. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the Roanoke River basin.
3. Total Property Area: 4.10 +/- acres 4. Total Wetlands Area: 0 impacted acres
5. 100' Wide Strip of Wetland Area: acres (not applicable if no wetlands exist on site)
6. Total Project Area**:3.5 +/- acres 7. Project Built Upon Area:35.9 +/- %
8. How many drainage areas does the project have?2
9. Complete the following information for each drainage area. If there are more than two drainage areas in the
project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area provided in the same format as below.
For high density roects, coin lete the table with one drainage area for each engineered stormwater device.
Basin Information.
'Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2 - V�
Receiving Stream Name
Conaby Creek
Conaby Creek
Stream Class & Index No.
C; SW
C; SW
Total Drainage Area (so
94470 _-
83919
On -site Drainage Area (so
94470 V
83919
Off -site Drainage Area (so
0
0
Existing Impervious* Area (so
0
0
Proposed Impervious*Area (so
59570
3055
% Impervious* Area (total)
63.1 %
3.6%
"Impervious* Surface Area
- Drainage Area 1
('Drainage Area 2
On -site Buildings (so
6658
0
On -site Streets (so
0
0
On -site Parking (so
48013
3055
On -site Sidewalks (so
4899
0
sto
12'�-56i
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 2 of 4

Other on -site (so
0
0
Off -site (so
0
0
Total (sf):
59570 V
3055
Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc
'Total project area shall be calculated based on the current policy regarding inclusion of Wetlands in the built upon area
percentage calculation. This is the area Used to calculate percent project built Upon area (BUA).
10. How was the off -site impervious area listed above derived?Measured from CAD files
IV. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
One of the following deed restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded for all subdivisions,
outparcels and future development prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly, a table listing each lot
number, size and the allowable built -upon area for each lot must be provided as an attachment. Forms can be
downloaded from http://l12o.enr.state.ne.usZsu/2mp forms.htm - deed restrictions.
Form DRPC-1
High Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-2
High Density Developments with Outparcels
Form DRPC-3
High Density Residential Subdivisions
Form DRPC-4
Low Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-5
Low Density Residential Subdivisions
Form DRPC-6
Low Density Residential Subdivisions with Curb Outlets
By your signature below, you certify that the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants for this
project shall include all the applicable items required in the above form, that the covenants will be binding
on all parties and persons claiming under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants
cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the State, and that they will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each
BMP specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status
and availability of these forms. Forms can be downloaded from httn://h2o.enr.state.ncus/su/bMI2forms.htm.
Form SW401-Low Density
Form SW401-Curb Outlet System
Form SW401-Off-Site System
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Trench
Form SW401-Bioretention Cell
Form SW401-Level Spreader
Form SW401-Wetland
Form SW401-Grassed Swale
Form SW401-Sand Filter
Form SW401-Permeable Pavement
Low Density Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Off -Site System Supplement
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Level Spreader/Filter Strip/Restored Riparian Buffer Supplement
Constructed Wetland Supplement
Grassed Swale Supplement
Sand Filter Supplement
Permeable Pavement Supplement
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 3 of

` VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (Appropriate office may Eound by locating project on the
interactive online map at htto://h2o.em.state.nc.us/su/msi maus.htm)
1. Please indicate that you have provided the following required information by initialing in the space provided
next to each item.
Initials
• Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form S�
• Original and one copyy of the Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants Form (if
required as per Part IV above)
• Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) and O&M agreement(s) for each BMP SEe-
• Permit application processing fee of $505 (Express: $4,000 for HD, $2,000 for LD)
payable to NCDENR 95e-
• Calculations & detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management Sep.
• Copy of any applicable soils report Ttr&
• Two copies of plans and specifications (sealed, signed & dated), including: Sew
- Development/Project name
- Engineer and firm
-Legend
- North arrow
- Scale
- Revision number & date
- Mean high water line
- Dimensioned property/project boundary
- Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
- Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
- Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures
- Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
- Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations
- Drainage areas delineated
- Vegetated buffers (where required)
VII. AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If yyou wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide information on your
belialf, please complete this section. (ex. designing engineer or firm)
Designated agent (individual or firm):
Mailing Address:
City: Sta
Phone: ( ) Fax:
VIIL APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I, (print or type name of person listed in General Information, item 2) Bobby Hall
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in nformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recor d, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2H .1000.
Signature: Date:
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 4 of 4

V1. SUPNILITALREQUIRE,MENIS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and re%iewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate D%VQ Office. (\pprnpriate office may be found by locatin" pn,ject on the
[nter,tctice onlinr map at http__:h_'n.enr ante nc us,:<u m>; m:}p:.him)
1. Please indicate that you have provided the follcm ing required information by initialing in the space provided
next to each item. .
Initials
• 1)r8ir;ai end on,' ionif of the Stornnyater Management Permit Application Form_--
• Oritinai ,Ord one iojrq of the Deed RestrlChUtti & Protective Covenants Form
rcgiured as [per Part lv abovc) --
• On,tmai of the applicable Supplementrm Ent .end O&fim t agreement(s) for each BMP ---_=' •---_---_
• Permit application ,rocessing fee of S50; (Express: SL000 for FID, S2,000 for LD)
yaiptblelo:A'CDENI
• Lllculotions & detailed narrative descnption of stormwater treatment/nh.uu,gement T�<_____ _
• Copv of any applicable soils report
• Two copies of plans and specifications (sealed, signed & dated), including: r.` - Development/Project name
- Engineer Ind firm
-Legend
- North arrow
- Scale
- Revision number & date
- Mean high water line
- Dimensioned property/project boundary
- Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
- Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
- Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures
- Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
- Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, ptpe sizes, runoff calculations
- Drainage areas delineated
- Vegetated buffers (where required)
Vtl. AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If you wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they niay provide information on your
behalf, please complete this section. (ex. designing engineer or firm)
Designated agent (individual or firtn):__Q-ggtgN��S _eLe �MY gyt{t�t�Oev�e_kglse(�_
Mailing ALIdress: 1.0.
Cry: 'V e state:_ Nt Zip: 2% 09
Phone: (_gL9_L9HL' 400y Fax: L�19_�I? 'L)
Entail:
Vtli. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
1, ihrntf,�r;_t;pe 11")? Jj 14rISO�1Ik6•d in Ceueral In;o;nurYron, it"m -') Subbu Hail
certify that the info, ntah,n, inc luded nil thic permit .lpylicMinl, fnrm;ic, to the best of my L.t�no'le�{oe rnrn_ct ��.�j
that the project will be constructed in --mtortnance with the approved plans, that the required cleed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recor it, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of 1; A
NCAC 21-1 .1000.
Signature: Date
i\- Fomi RI I V'rs!orl 1); 27 ()8
face.l ..I'-1
Or.T U o (DOS

For DENR U e ONLY
L A North Carolina Department of Environment and Reviewer V
Natural Resources Submit
NCDENR Request for Express Permit Review Time
Confirm
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed form to Express
Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application package
of the project location. Please include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296-4698;alison.davidson(g),ncmail.net
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791.4203; david.lee(rDncmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663-3772 or patrick.grogan(ancmail.net
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946-9215 or lvn.hardison(a),ncmail.net
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-350-2004 orianet.russell(,)ncmail.net
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day
Project Name: SECU PLYMOUTH County: WASHINGTON
Applicant: BOBBY HALL, VP Company: STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION
Address: 1000 WADE AVENUE City: RALEIGH. State: INC Zip: 27605-
Phone: [phone] Fax::[phone] Email: [e-mail]
Physical Location:US HWY 64, SPPROX 4700 FT SOUTHWEST OF HWY 32 & 64 INTERSECTION
Project Drains into CONABY CREEK waters — Water classification C. SWAMP (for classification see-
http://h2o.enr.state.nc us/bims/reports/reportsWB.hlml)
EXPRESS
SEP 232008
NC DENR
Project Located in ROANOKE River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? Y/N , within Y: mile and draining to class SA waters Y/N or within 1
mile and draining to ss QW waters? YIN
Engineer/Consultan�W-G?'OLLINGS Company: JACOBS CATER BURGESS
Address: 111 CORNING RD, SUITE 200 City: CARY, State: NC Zip 27618-_
Phone: [phone] Fax::[phone] Email:
SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY
❑ Scoping Meeting ONLY ❑ DWQ, ❑ DCM, ❑ DLR, ❑ OTHER:
SECTION TWO: CHECK ONLY THE PROGRAM(S) YOU ARE REQUESTING FOR EXPRESS PERMITTING
❑ 401 Unit ❑ Stream Origin Determination: _ # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination: _ # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification ❑ Isolated Wetland (_linear It or acres)
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW _ (Provide permit #)]
® High Density -Detention Pond 1 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density—Stormwater Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems❑ High Density -
Other _# Treatment Systems El MODIFICATION: ❑Major ❑Minor ❑Revision SW _(Provide permit#)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
® Land Quality ® Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with 3_5 acres to be disturbed.(CK #� (for DENR use)) IF ZOO
SECTION THREE — PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT (for both scoping and express meeting request)
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ❑ No Buffer Impacts: ❑ No ❑ YES: —acre(s)
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ❑ Yes ❑ No Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ❑ No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ❑ Yes ❑ No 404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE. ❑ Yes ❑ No Permit
Received from US ACOE ❑ Yes ❑ No
Fee Split for multiple permits: (Check# '�.rJ�o )
For DENR use only
Total Fee Amount S
SUBMITTAL DATES
I Fee
I
I SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
$
I Variance ❑ Ma'; ❑ Min
$
SW (E HD, ❑ LID, ❑ Gen)
$ Z v
401:
$
LQS
1 $ Wo
I Stream Deter,_
$
NCDENR EXPRESS August 2008

QDJACOBS
Carter Burgess
TO: Lvn Hardison
NCDENR (252.946.6481)
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
FROM: Jamie Gollinos
PROJECT: SECU-
PROJECT#: 090251.012
Please find the following items for:
OX Review and Comment
FX Approval
0 Pick-up
0 Your Use
DATE: I �v
FAX: [phone]
PHONE: [phone]
Transmitted via:
Fax
Mail
Delivery
FX UPS
# Of Fax pages
ISMITTAL
COPIES
DATE
DESCRIPTION
2
9/19/08
Construction Drawings - Folded
2
9/19/08
Stormwater and Erosion Control Calculations Design Book (includes duplicates
of other critical items and additional support documents)
1
N/A
$4000 Check for Express Review
1
N/A
$260 Check for Land Disturbance
1
N/A
Original Stormwater Application Form (copies in the design book)
1
N/A
Original O&M for Wet Detention Pond (copies in the design book)
1
N/A
Original Wet Detention Basin Supplement (copies in the design book)
1
N/A
Original Express Review Financial Responsibility Form (copies in design book)
1
N/A
Deed
CARTER & BURGESS, INC., 111 CORNING ROAD SUTIE 200, CARY, NC 27618
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
\\

JACOBS
October 7. 2008
111 Corning Road
Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518 USA
1.919.859 5000 Fax [phone]
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Attn: Samir Dumpor
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: SECU — Plymouth: First Stormwater Review Comments
Jacobs Project Number: CB090251
Dear Samir:
Thank you for your review and assistance with the above referenced project. Since receiving
your review comments and discussing them with you, we have discussed the resubmittal items
in detail and we believe the following will address all those items required for you to issue the
approval. Please find enclosed the following documents for your review and approval:
• 2 Copies of Page 4 of 4 of the Stormwater Application with the Agent Authorization
section completed
• 2 Complete Plan Sets. Although you requested just one additional set, we are provided
two complete sets that incorporate some minor modifications addressing erosion control
review comments made by Richard Peed.
Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions.
Regards,
Jamie E. Gollings, PE
Project Manager
or 0 a _sG8
Jacobs Engmeenng Group Inc

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1
-� Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 2, 2008
Mr. Bobby H ,Vice President
State Em yees' Credit Union
1000 de Avenue
Rar, NC 27605
Subject:
Dear Mr. Hall:
Stormwater Review SW7080921
SECU - Plymouth
Washington County
This office received a Coastal Stormwater permit application and plans for the subject project on
September 23, 2008. A preliminary review of your project indicates that before a State Stormwater
permit can be issued the following additional information is needed:
Fill out Section VII (Agent Authorization) of the Stormwater Application (sheet 4 of 4) and
provide two copies of this sheet.
Provide the additional set of drawings.
The above requested information must be received in this office prior to October 9, 2008 or
your application will be returned as incomplete. The return of this project will necessitate resubmittal of
all required items including the application fee. If you need additional time to submit the required
information, please mail or fax your request for time extension to me at the Letterhead address and
include the application number on the request. The request must include justification for the amount of
additional time needed. The request will only be granted for justifiable delays that are unforeseen and
beyond the owner or consultant's control.
You should also be aware that the Stormwater Rules require that the permit be issued prior to
any development activity. Construction without a permit is a violation of 15A NCAC 21-1.1000 and North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and may result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day.
Please reference the Stormwater Project Number above on all correspondence. If you have
questions, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
•r �
Samir Dumpor, PE
Environmental Engineer
Washington Regional Office
cc: Vashington Regional Office
Jamie Gollings, PE, Jacobs Carter Burgess (111 Corning Road, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27518)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Internet www ncwaterqualttv.ore
943 Washington Square Mall Phone [phone]
Washington, NC 27889 Fax [phone]
NorthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal OpportunitylAffrmative Action Employer — 50% Recycledll0% Post Consumer Paper

"-JACOBS
er Burgess
is111 Corning Road Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518 U.S A.
[phone] Fax: [phone]
.0
SECTION 1
SECTION 2:
SECTION 3:
SECTION 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
General Submittal Items
• Copy of Express Review Check ($4000)
• Copy of Land Disturbance Fee Check ($260)
• Stormwater Management Permit Application Form
• Wet Detention Basin Supplement
• Wet Detention Basin Operations & Maintenance Agreement
• Express Review Financial Responsibility Form
• Copy of Current Deed
• Copy of Survey
Stormwater Management Calculations
• Stormwater Narrative
• Drainage Area Map
• Wet Pond Sizing Worksheet including Treatment Volume Calcs
• Wet Pond Volume Calculations
• Chainsaw Routing Ks & b Calculations
• Chainsaw: 10-Year Rainfall Event
• Chainsaw: 50-Year Rainfall Event
• Chainsaw: 100-Year Rainfall Event
• Temporary Pool Drawdown Calculations
• Anti -Flotation Calculations
Erosion Control Calculations
• Erosion Control Narrative
• Riprap Apron Calculations
• Skimmer Basin Calculations Shown on Plans
Site Soils Information
SEP 2 3 2008
I Vv'u *) -W, A R U
• Geotechnologies, Inc.: Report of Subsurface Investigation
• Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.: Detailed Soils Evaluation
with Wetlands Evaluation (includes USDA Soils Mapping and
® USGS Quadrangle Map)
Carter & Burgess, Inc. Carter & Burgess Consultants, Inc.
C&B Architects/Engineers, Inc. C&B Architects/Engineers, P.C. C&B Nevada, Inc.

Permit
(to be provided by DWO)
® NCDENR
STORMIWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filed out printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part Ill) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name SECU -Plymouth
Contact person Jamie E Gollings
Phone number 919.859-5752
Date 912212008
Drainage area number 1
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area
94,47000
ftZ
Impervious area
59,57000
ft'
% impervious
63.06
Design rainfall depth
150
In
Storage Volume: Non -SR Waters
Minimum volume required
7.29200
ft'
Volume provided
9.26100
It'
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth
in
Pre -development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
ft'
®Post -development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
ft'
_ Minimum volume required
ft'
Volume provided
ft'
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth
in
Rational C, pre -development
(umtless)
Rational C, post -development
(unitless)
Rainfall intensity 1-yr, 24-hr storm
inlhr
Pre -development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
ft'/sec
Post -development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
ft'/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control
ft'/sec
Basin Elevations
Basin bottom elevation
300
It
Sediment cleanout elevation
400
It
Bottom of shelf elevation
1200
It
Permanent pool elevation
1250
ft
SHWT elevation
1100
ft
Top of snelf elevation
1300
it
Temporary pool elevation
1330
_ It
11
I )/P, foil, S1 E
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin -Rev 4 Parts I & If Design Summary. Page 1 of 3

Permit No.
(to be pmmded by DWD)
Volume and Surface Area Calculations
S.AIDA ratio
®Surface area at the bottom of shelf
Volume at the bottom of shelf
Permanent pool, surface area required
Permanent pool, surface area provided
Permanent pool volume
Average depth for SNDA tables
Surface area at the top of shelf
Volume at the top of shelf
Forebay volume
Forebay % of permanent pool volume
Temporary pool, surface area provided
Drawdown Calculations
Treatment volume drawdown time
Treatment volume discharge rate
Pre -development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Post -development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Additional Information
Diameter of orifice
Design TSS removal
Basin side slopes
Vegetated shelf slope
Vegetated shelf width
Length of flowpath to width ratio
Length to width ratio
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?
®Freeboard provided
Vegetated filter provided
Recorded drainage easement provided?
Capures all runoff at ultimate build -out?
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies
007
(ugiless)
8,04100
ft2
4.49400
ft' 1,d Qr r S344*c weer
6,93100
ft2
9,93400
ft' OK
35.168 00
ft'
3 54
ft OK
12,11100
ft'
5,55100
ft� troy"" OVKWCW
6.91900
ff'
1967
% OK
12,625 00
ff`
366 days OK
003 ft'Is
a
ft'Is, N/A Fon• SITE
15
In
90
300
.1
1000
1
1000
ft
350
1
3.00
1
y
(Y or N)
176
It
n
(Y or N)
y
(Y or N)
y
(Y or N)
'2e:ce o. of 51:E EF i ?mot
'.%P of SKHF { ram"., Qcnt`.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Design must be based on 90% TSS removal
OK
OK
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin -Rev 4 Pans 18 IL Design Summary, Page 2 of 3

Permit No
tfo be provided by D NO)
® III. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found An incomplete submittal package will
result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may Initial below. If a
requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Pagel Plan
Initials Sheet No.
SfL 1 Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing
- Design at ultimate build -out. C- 1zoO
- Off -site drainage (if applicable), vl&
-Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin), C4�Cu �A� toN NEE Em
-Basin dimensions, a-rwa
Pretreatment system. C- t Low
High flow bypass system, C- tzo-3
Maintenance access, Lttot
-proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW), I f of c - 17_o--t-
-Overflow device, and C I"Lo3
-Boundaries of drainage easement. L 1 t o i. t- 1 Lo7
6 2 Partial plan (1" = 30' or larger) and details for the wet detention basin showing
- Outlet structure with trash rack or similar, C- i zoo
-Maintenanceaccess, Ltw! { Ct-Lo'L-
- Permanent pool dimensions, C t2o'-6
® - Forebay and main pond with hardened emergency spillway, tt-il 3
-Basin cross-section, c L-Lo-n
-Vegetation specification for planting shelf, and L t Sot
- Filter strip. Nip, � qos, sss�
Sec 3 Section view of the dryrVetention basin (1" = 20' or larger) showing
- Side slopes, 3:1 or lower, C t-Zo3
- Pretreatment and treatment areas, and Ct2o3
- Inlet and outlet structures. C t Zo3
u`E6 4 If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the basin is specified
on the plans prior to use as a wet detention basin C t 7 I
3 E 6 5 A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebay,
to verify volume provided - c_c�c� utte« ti,.a ask
E G 6 A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized G I-Lo%
7. The supporting calculations. — em�w�rtde Narem�+�-
5 c /V A 8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
�_ N / A 9 A copy of the deed restrictions (if required)
10. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation soil borings, and infiltration tests County
soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information
_ CALCULP\tl�'-� e-�e�EBa�1L
Farm SW401-Wet Detention Basin -Rev 4 Part III Required Items Checklist, Page 3 of 3

O
E
Permit Number:
(to be provided bi, DWO)
Drainage Area Number:
Wet Detention Basin Operation and Maintenance Agreement
I will keep a maintenance record on this BMP. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient 13TAP elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity
of structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
The wet detention basin system is defined as the wet detention basin,
pretreatment including forebays and the vegetated filter if one is provided.
This system (check one):
❑ does ® does not incorporate a vegetated filter at the outlet.
This system (check one):
❑ does ® does not incorporate pretreatment other than a forebay.
Important maintenance procedures:
— Immediately after the wet detention basin is established, the plants on the
vegetated shelf and perimeter of the basin should be watered twice weekly if
needed, until the plants become established (commonly six weeks).
— No portion of the wet detention pond should be fertilized after the first initial
fertilization that is required to establish the plants on the vegetated shelf.
— Stable groundcover should be maintained in the drainage area to reduce the
sediment load to the wet detention basin.
— If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the
flushing of sediment through the emergency drain should be minimized to the
maximum extent practical.
— Once a year, a dam safety expert should inspect the embankment.
After the wet detention pond is established, it should be inspected once a month and
within 24 hours after every storm event greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a
Coastal County). Records of operation and maintenance should be kept in a known set
location and must be available upon request.
Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall
be repaired immediately.
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The entire BMP
Trash/debris is present.
Remove the trash/debris.
The perimeter of the wet
Areas of bare soil and/or
Regrade the soil if necessary to
detention basin
erosive gullies have formed
remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide time and a
one-time fertilizer application.
Vegetation is too short or too
Maintain vegetation at a height of
Ion
approximately six inches
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M -Rev 3
Page 1 of 4

J
Permit Number:
(to be provided bi, DIVQ)
Drainage Area Number:
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The inlet device: pipe or
The pipe is clogged.
Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
swale
sediment off -site.
The pipe is cracked or
Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged.
Erosion is occurring in the
Regrade the swale if necessary to
swale.
smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
The forebay
Sediment has accumulated to
Search for the source of the
a depth greater than the
sediment and remedy the problem if
original design depth for
possible. Remove the sediment and
sediment storage
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Erosion has occurred.
Provide additional erosion
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticide is used, wipe it on
the plants rather than spraying.
The vegetated shelf
Best professional practices
Prune according to best professional
show that pruning is needed
practices
to maintain optimal plant
health.
Plants are dead, diseased or
Determine the source of the
dying.
problem: soils, hydrology, disease,
etc. Remedy the problem and
replace plants. Provide a one-time
fertilizer application to establish the
ground cover if a soil test indicates
it is necessary.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticide is used, wipe it on
the plants rather than s ra in
The main treatment area
Sediment has accumulated to
Search for the source of the
a depth greater than the
sediment and remedy the problem if
original design sediment
possible. Remove the sediment and
storage depth
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Algal growth covers over
Consult a professional to remove
50% of the area.
and control the aloal growth.
Cattails, phragmmtes or other
Remove the plants by wiping them
invasive plants cover 50% of
with pesticide (do not spray).
the basin surface.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev.3
Page 2 of 4

I'mim Number
(to be provided br DIM)
Drainage Area Number _
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The embankment
Shrubs have started to grow
Remove shrubs immediately.
on the embankment.
Evidence of muskrat or
Use traps to remove muskrats and
beaver activity is present.
consult a professional to remove
beavers.
A tree has started to grow on
Consult a dam safety specialist to
the embankment.
remove the tree.
An annual inspection by an
Make all needed repairs.
appropriate professional
shows that the embankment
needs repair.
The outlet device
Clogging has occurred.
Clean out the outlet device. Dispose
of the sediment off -site.
The outlet device is damaged
Repair or replace the outlet device.
The receiving water
Erosion or other signs of
Contact the local NC Division of
damage have occurred at the
Water Quality Regional Office, or
outlet.
the 401 Oversight Unit at 919-733-
1786.
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such
® that it will give an accurate depth reading and not readily penetrate into
accumulated sediments.
C
When the permanent pool depth reads 8.5 feet in the main pond, the sediment
shall be removed.
When the permanent pool depth reads 5 feet in the forebay, the sediment shall
be removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
(fill in the blanks)
Permanent Pool Elevation 12.5
Sediment Removal E. 75 t Pe nen Pool
--------------♦--- Volume Sediment Removal Elevation 4 Volume
BottomElevano 5 I -ftMin .--------------------------- ---- ---.------
Sediment
Storage
FOREBAY
Bottom Elevation
MAIN POND
1-ft
Storage
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev.3
Page 3 of 4

Permit Number:
(to be provided by DIVQ)
N
•
\ J]
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any
problems with the system or prior to any changes to the system or responsible party.
Project mmne:SECU - Plymouth
BYVIP drainage area nmnber:
Print
Title:Vice - President
Address:1000 Wade Avenue Raleigh, NC 27605
Date:
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
I, eke Notary Public for the State of
4cgIIA �c% County of
do hereby certify that
personally appeared before me this
day of(, and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing wet detention basin maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official
seal,
SEAL
My commission expires 'CIO
T /
Form SW40I-Wet Detention Basin O&NI-Rev 3
Page 4 of 4

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY/OWNERSHIP FORM
SEDIMENTATION POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
EXPRESS PERMITTING OPTION 08012007
® No person may initiate any land -disturbing activity on one or more acres as covered by the Act before this
form and an acceptable erosion and sedimentation control plan have been completed and approved by the
Land Quality Section, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (Please type or print and, if
the question is not applicable or the e-mail and/or fax information unavailable, place N/A in the blank )
Part A.
11
1. Project Name SECU - Plymouth
2. Location of land -disturbing activity. County Washington City or Township Plymouth
Highway/Street US Hwy 64 Latitude 35d 50' 57"N Longitude 76d 45' 22" W
3 Approximate date land -disturbing activity will commence: October 2008
4. Purpose of development (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.): Bank
5. Total acreage disturbed or uncovered (including off -site borrow and waste areas): 3.5 Acres
6 Amount of fee enclosed: $260.00. The Express Permitting application fee is a dual charge. The normal
fee of $65.00 per acre is assessed without a ceiling amount In addition, the Express Permitting
supplement is $250.00 per acre up to eight acres, after which the Express Permitting supplemental fee
is a fixed $2,000.00 (Example. 9 acres total is $2,585). NOTE: Both fees are rounded up to the next
whole acre and need to be paid by separate checks to NCDENR.
7. Has an erosion and sediment control plan been filed? Yes No Enclosed X
8. Person to contact should erosion and sediment control issues arise during land -disturbing activity:
Name Jamie E. Gollings E-mail Address [am ie.gollingsro)iacobs.com
Telephone [phone] Cell # N/A Fax # [phone]
9. Landowner(s) of Record (attach accompanied page to list additional owners):
State Employees' Credit Union
Name
1000 Wade Avenue
Current Mailing Address
Raleigh NC 27605
City State Zip
919.839.5000
Telephone
Current Street Address
City State
919.839.5353
Fax Number
10 Deed Book No. / S 4 Page No. Se? Provide a copy of the most current deed.
Part B.
1. Person(s) or firm(s) who are financially responsible for the land -disturbing activity (Provide a
comprehensive list of all responsible parties on an attached sheet):
State Employees' Credit Union adminra)ncsecu.org
Name E-mail Address
1000 Wade Avenue
Current Mailing Address
Raleigh NC 27605
City State Zip
Current Street Address
City
State
Zip

11
•
Telephone [phone] Fax Number 919.839.5353
2. (a) If the Financially Responsible Party is not a resident of North Carolina, give name and street address
of the designated North Carolina Agent:
Name E-mail Address
Current Mailing Address Current Street Address
City State Zip City State Zip
Telephone Fax Number
(b) If the Financially Responsible Party is a Partnership or other person engaging in business under an
assumed name, attach a copy of the Certificate of Assumed Name. If the Financially Responsible
Party is a Corporation, give name and street address of the Registered Agent:
Name of Registered Agent E-mail Address
Current Mailing Address Current Street Address
City State Zip City State Zip
Telephone Fax Number
(c) In order to facilitate Express Permitting, it is necessary to be able to contact the Engineer or other
consultant who can assist in providing any necessary information regarding the plan and its preparation:
Jacobs Carter Burgess Inc.
Engineering Firm or other consultant
Jamie E. Gollings
Individual contact person (type or print)
iamie.goll ings(o)iacobs.com
E-mail Address
919.859.5752 919.859.5151
Telephone Fax Number
The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and was provided by me
under oath (This form must be signed by the Financially Responsible Person if an individual or his attorney -in -
fact, or if not an individual, by an officer, director, partner, or registered agent with the authority to execute
instruments for the Financially Responsible Person). I agree to provide corrected information should there be
any change in the information provided herein. ! L
`r
Type or prmtlratne f! r� / Title or Authority
Signature Date'
I. f� r• e P �� c i a Notary Public of the County of
State of North Carolina, hereby certify that k S /1; // appeared personally
before me this day and being duly sworn acknowledged that the above form was executed by him.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this 8 day of f//)�� acid it 20 CC
O�
%Notary
Seal
My commission expires c�1

FILED in Washington County, NC
on Jun 05 2009 at 03:58:52 PM
by: Elaine G. Vann
Register of Deeds
BOOK 454 PAGE 587
A Iseued Jun 08 2008
0225.00
stat..t Washington
C®p taunt
No.. Defsn scles Tax
REVENUE STAMPS $225.00
PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO:
ROBERT WENDEL HUTCHNS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE DRAWER 1085
PLYMOUTH. NC 27962
PIN 6767.18-41-7449
Verified to -5' , 2008
By 10.5.lgxii4
NORTH CAROLNA
WASHNGTOIN COUNTY
THIS DEED, made this Sth day of Jute, 2008. b; and between James Edward Owens
and wife, Susan B. Owens, GRANTORS, to State Employees' Credit Union, a North Carolina
Corporation, GRANTEE: Address: P O Box 27665, Raleigh, NC 27611
WITNESSETH:
THAT the said Grantors, for a valuable consideration to them paid by the said Grantee,
the receipt of "hich is hereby acknowledged, have bargained and sold. and by these presents do
bargain, sell and convey unto the said Grantee, its successors, heirs and assigns, in fee simple, a
lot, tract or parcel of land in Plymouth Township, Washington County, North Carolina. and more
accurately described as follows:
BEGNNENG at a point as follows: Proceed from N.C.G.S. Station "Plymouth
AZ MK 1954". South 32 degrees 29 minutes 47 seconds West 2231.86 feet to a PK Set in
the centerline of US Highway 64: thence turn and proceed North 77 degrees 40 minutes
01 second West 52.24 feet to an iron pipe. the POINT OF BEGINNNG; thence turn and
proceed along the Western right of Nvay of US Highway 64. South 19 degrees 55 minutes
25 seconds West 265.81 feet to an existing railroad iron; thence turn and proceed Noah
75 degrees 29 minutes 21 seconds West 679.55 feet to an existing railroad iron: thence
turn and proceed along a canal (chord) North 21 degrees 24 minutes 21 seconds East
275.90 feet to an existing iron pipe; thence turn and proceed along a canal South 62

BOOK 454 PAGE 588
® degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds East 54.26 feet to an iron rod set: thence proceed South 76
degrees 02 minutes 42 seconds East 154.99 feet to an iron rod set: thence proceed South
75 degrees 40 minutes 26 seconds East 463.67 feet, more or less, to an iron pipe in the
'1Vestem right of way of US Highway 64, the PONT OF BEGFINNING; and being a
parcel of land containing 4.10 acres, more or less. For a more accurate description of the
foregoing parcel of land_ reference is made to the map entitled "SURVEY FOR: STATE
EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION", dated April 23, 2008, and prepared by Roanoke Land
Surveving, Randolph P. Nicholson, Professional Land Surveyor.
The foregoing property is also the same as that conveyed by Deed of Correction of
record in Book 312. Page 793, Washington County Registry.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot, tract or parcel of land and all privileges
and appurtenances thereunto belonging to the said Grantee, its successors, heirs and assigns, in
fee simple forever.
And the said Grantors covenant with the Grantee. that Grantors are seized of the
premises in fee simple, have the right to convey the same in fee simple: that title is marketable
and free and clear of all encumbrances; and that Grantors will warrant and defend the said title to
the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, except for the exceptions set out
aforesaid and hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
1) Noncompliance with any local, county; state or federal government laws, ordinances,
or regulations relative to zoning; subdivision. occupancy. use. construction or the development of
the subject property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hands and seals, the
day and year first above written.
�.GiTr,,..- <�<'-•.�� .i -- 'SEAL)
James Edward Owens
Z -- 6 �Gv E ti (SEAL)
Susan B. Owens
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF
I. a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certify that James Edward Owens
and Susan B Owens. GRANTORS, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
the execution of the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my
hand and stampiseal this JT day of June, 2008.
SLISAN D KNOWLES
NOTARY PUBLIC
® stamp/seal —V ASHINGTON COLINTY, NC Notary Public .SA, ,,,n D
y Commission Expires: I f

N
Area by DAO
f Ii8.3P9 50. FT.
4.10 +i— ACRES
VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
m
APIM 113. 2008
,
s1
j
)
RICHARD WEST CO., INC.
DI. 5C IG LSa
SURVEY FOR:
SCALE I' 60 FEFT
STATE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION
TOWN OF PLYMOUTH - WASHINGTON COUNTY, NOR1H CAR rOLINA
R_0_ANOKE
------ LAND
-_- SURVEYINI
Pd BOX 1193
WILLIAISSTON, NC NINDSOH, N.0 CREEtMLLE NC (Ni
PH. [phone] PH.[phone] (2.52) 830-1115
References
D.B. 312 Pc reZ
M 8 D. PC 32
MB. S PD, .
EAST COAST HOSPITALITY, LLC
DO 3d P4 J12
P.C. 2.:A. 1.11
Notes
Sril jec/ to e// R/,I'v, ememenLs, zoning
r b'w nvd/nz Ih eLre co.mmts o/
r0WYY/ end not sAa srs Aercan.
]JNEJ - IN
INI
COLWUMIT-P4NEl n 3I2C4]Li MI - t%GEC:M DaiE iEP I. +'+ °(qY
CEIBACnc
f S,F" - 1WGEEi
- 11 FEET
'(A' - x3 GfFi
Si^n .ID VCiVkeL 'IFKm ixp rUVERM( GLOWED M[ rvJl Lv4L&F.
® f �S IDY026'k
NOTE:
ax1 Iwz vn S ..". evxD me nq1
rFW sm
S. xI I'll cIN.D,,l. w+a=w,
x(n[
NI NCf RCCFO.11W,y I, 1111Ct
L S IOTO
„L e FF'-191JRT
EAST COAST HOSPITALITY, LLC
D e vL PL z38
P.C. z OL 1e1D
> S3
-1w� � N iiVOOIW
r
�
\
q's
DF ::,.
®
e D
xOx/IS
J
IN
CDT, l
INCNYT,a�
J
:wzr
ICI
ITT, r.I,
I
MUKUND 8 RASHMI PATEL
DM. 31s PFG. PON
G ua
TOWN OF PLYMOUTH �•
( PUMP STATTION) / % L•,
27,00e:
0
:<=
Rnn JOIpT� V n, cnelvn. G.L3—L-Y Iip'�
••�. f: jTF''-•'+.yam •.
BANBa �N zI'll N¢xzesm rF sugf% xv
aI'll ]nw_-o/ e lNaa/xs vBe AT,AT/ reow:emsPIII w
w.wn.f
.gaB
"lA`P 1ElAOTO
G4!"I
ND
SVR/C'1 .11 C[r![+%55 g.`A]/W/N NB
qnA, wAs ra rD(..eo S
(,
.)-.B C,54 :.'. �`�•OF�
AS
S Al£Ot
4B ':NfiS%v/!R/Grin f:ou:%uql. q�B/S/aJi /'N 'ry'Ef<
/
iJ-ib[
Ip Cn bs
CI -
/
E5
N.GG.S STATION
PLYMOUTH AZ MR 1954
F
I..11
1
NOTE:
11GI Wai UN qL[ lC PPOVIM u+t RUR fpx
s wT.1 u. 11 (c IDBLE NMx .11 MR.OlIT
CCxiv.CICP SNCLLD A-Y AL SCEI B11Ixi 1M IP1.1.11
TM IL xlxnhs
xo aux. IMPS&[
BETORE DIGGING CONTACT CLOGS - B('J-83}-4wc
g CnlCx 06.1x
To -
M1:1VflY Las
r>1[c NO 5[sFR
PCDMCNT Nn11:Ph C.
Tc+n Cc Puxoum
`
5tO-ax-'a1:J
25'-193-11 as
Im/WV O.os•
IFIEINI
/;
urtx essw
EMDANo
IN
Si,ITE OE NORTH (ARIXING
COGNTI OF X[yxG1M
_ xc'c. arcTx
L
I,TA+Dxxcx,xx.TxN�.
.
wV. xynrvs
60 0 +i0 120 180
�---
rr?-ri-�T-r--
GRAPHIC SCC-E - FEET

JJJACOBS
Carter Burgess
111 Corning Road, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
[phone] Fax: [phone]
SECU — Plymouth
US Highway 64
Submitted: 22 September 2008
Prepared For:
The State Employees' Credit Union of North Carolina (applicant/project owner)
Attn: Bobby Hall
1000 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone]
STORMWATER NARRATIVE
O FOR NCDENR - DWQ EXPRESS REVIEW
General Information:
The proposed State Employees' Credit Union (SECU) site is located on the "north" side of US Hwy 64 in
Plymouth, NC. The existing site address does not currently have an address. However, it is located between
the existing Sportsman's Inn and the Holiday Inn Express. The existing latitude and longitude of the site is (35
50' 57" N, 76 45'22" W) and is described in Book of Maps 312, Page 794 as recorded with the Washington
County Register of Deeds. The existing tract includes approximately 4.1 acres of land. Documentation
provided by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA indicates that there may be jurisdictional wetlands located
on this property in the surrounding drainage ditches. However, the proposed improvements will not impact
these ditches or potential wetlands. The project is owned by SECU who will be the applicant for the project.
SECU is currently under contract with the existing property owner for purchase of the land.
This project generally includes the construction of a new 6400 sf +/- State Employees' Credit Union with associated
infrastructure in Plymouth, NC. The vast majority of the existing site has been previously cleared and is currently a
relatively flat grass field. However, there are some trees located toward.the back of the property. The proposed project
will disturb approximately 3.5 acres of land area, of which 1.5 acres +/- will be new impervious area. The remaining 2.0
acres +/- will be reestablished as grassed/landscaped areas. There is no existing impervious cover on this site and no
previous State Stormwater Permits are known to have been obtained for this property. Both public water and sewer
service (Town of Plymouth) are available and will be used to serve this site. The project is not in a historic overlay
district and no public monies are being used to fund the project.
® The existing site is extremely flat and is bordered by manmade drainage ditches to the north and south. According to
interviews with property owners and Town staff, the ditch to the south is poorly draining so the stormwater outfall is
directed to the northern ditch. To meet water quality requirements, this site will utilize a stormwater wet detention pond
at the back of the property. This device will first be constructed as a sediment basin until such time that the site is

®JACOBS
Carter Burgess
111 Corning Road, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
[phone] Fax. [phone]
stabilized. After the site is stabilized, it will be converted into a permanent wet detention pond BMP. There are no known
NCDENR non-compliance issues with this site.
Stormwater Information:
The proposed improvements are planned to be permitted through State Stormwater as a commercial high
density project. The site and surrounding area is extremely flat but appears to be tributary to Conaby Creek
classified as a C;SW (index 23-56) as part of the Roanoke River Basin. As indicated above, the 4.1 acre site is
planned for about 1.5 acres of impervious cover (37% +/-) impervious.
The proposed site will be graded to maximize the drainage area to a wet detention pond located at the back of
the property. Due to grade restrictions, a small area of impervious runoff (approximately 3,000 sf) at the front
of the property physically cannot be directed to the wet detention pond. This water is collected in flumes and
discharged to vegetated areas where it will either infiltrate or make its way to the perimeter ditches depending
on the intensity of the rainfall event. There are no known buffer requirements for the ditches located on the
perimeter of the site. The site does not appear to be in any Coastal Areas of Environmental Concern. There is
no offsite runoff onto this property or into the proposed BMP. Similarly, there are no cross access agreements
® or interconnecting driveways planned. Furthermore, there will be no roadway widening on US Hwy 64.
A report entitled "Report of Subsurface Investigaton" dated April 15, 2008 as prepared by Geotechnologies,
Inc. provides some information on the existing subsurface soils conditions. Generally, the groundwater table is
fairly high. Based upon 11 borings taken across the site, the groundwater was present at the time of boring at
approximately 4 feet below existing grade. The existing soil strata includes varying layers of sand, clay, silts,
and variations thereof. Analysis of existing soils maps indicate that the soils are classified as "Roanoke" which
is part of hydrologic soil group (HSG) D.
2

I V
E
5 I., 4 3
j6V Pr 2.SL 1218
S( 552 "563 x)c,55
/G%61z4! _=�v
263G',
I Cz TE%-, ON POP—
56
,641 --x15-
�� 43 ' t •:t n� — — _ _ x z_a RCP
— _
+�,M._
__
r''I EAST COAST HOSPITALITY, LLC I
c:
'I D E 376 Pf?, 238 I 1
y565 25
d\
�70 ^uPAIP;A--[ :r UiIJTY EDGE OF C.vR!F.
\ CCGE OF C_ t= 0 30 ,P -
-
/�� \ MCI 4�t.+ ,,,„_ ,/_ •. ---I ',. ro`" wr �m ��.,. "� \ — lil f� wu.j �6,1-,.,s �Iz'I
µIx
.17
�l�%��lI( ill' �l I IW �/ j4 ,w dxta, I-seo, /g/ ,o, ______ i `•9� b _ S\ '� I �� x�W {,-15a �i, 31 I�i
�; lrl��ll Po ��l%�{ ,.y 20 ,e�°c° sw an `z.s � i.-'c_{\ � � _1{I I • rro iw�rax x 4 :, � 1 � ,�f I - j G I
`7
5 3 i
mr'%— —i 'Ig """°x'9�''m/G � y,3%3
FfE 195
AREA ds 1 LJ
1l auY zx.0 c ( ,pr
_ •, , r+-vas ,. ,, Ixv do-,. i I II, rwiw ro a
it
.o.�°izpno"qi,b ss J rXrs .wu \\ e y f { r Uy'y� yri �ql
�o
al
FDGE Oh CANAL
RICHARD WEST CO, INC xtF 29
D 6 255 PG 654
A
u STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
(1130'II E.A-C e 9 4x0-S,b-0.1..q
\� s
an mx
kg o ON Nif E
MUKUND & RASHMI PATEL —--
I 1)9 375 PG 036 —F 6" /
I TOWN OF PLIIMOiiTH 'L
( PIJMP STATT.ON
I P.0 3, SL 19H
GENERAL / STORM DRAIN NOTES:
N.¢ Pnxx s...,. ¢ da . Na Lwuzz xorm
onm�mzi ppz1
X IP[µ0 XLGu4nOxS5MVL 9E IN KCORpwQ AM 41 RL[py. Sfh. .w0
..ON Sw1L CWidxnr0OWOWO OKM,ION6 —N MC OMIEFz
CEO,EOna[K CNT'EEA .ES rE
zlw{1 4VN,NN V09,M 5,➢M YIO WI[4L 0[ u!r
[CL[.W,M O0.wx $rSIEUS
nwx'�roXzumu: arz GNtl'�"iNO
SF£ Rr OEifxMx OONO RH6 [°R ¢iAIEO CCVi: ¢ ME wE!
6 OEILuIO. [Pp
. z[c w°zaN mN.x¢ Pw.z r°" mozlox cd.Ma ¢voN
6 W3TAEEI°KE wLrCO SEem,°°V° ca.sry `iov�.cxwL�sNE c'�XrnNiP
9000 NWM1 NAN [Ou Po...l InM1T' CNNN
10 VNIII O EM,SE iNO". O 0 1165 PV OR PNd cwm� NO
AN6d¢IyuL NRWM ON rNEPE wLL B[ X °,S .Ol 0,u
•Ft u10S
¢O,FYI.E E.�C Mm N. Rn 4 „ Ix �N. 3 2
syE
—7 i It
I
_
STORM
DRAINAGE LEGEND
_
O � waX mw. wEn
— ,wrai W w�we Otvrcv A
wxW,xf/J.WXw.
�[
��
[vnlwxw VLLCx,FP
�Nlrsrw
82"1NO
I It
m
fc
U
O
U
d
o
z
W
�
�
axa.
a
a
I
2
r>z°'
sraw
ttw,ncc
VJN
C-130}_SIPY-RY tl.e
C1202
e.r—

40
U
® Carter Burge"
THESE CRAWINGS/DOCUMENiS ARE BEING SUBMITTED BY CARTER N
BURGESS INC CARTER 6 BURGESS, INC tS A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDRRY OF JAMBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC AND HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS JACOBS CARTER BURGESS
Job No.
Job Name .SECU - Plymouth
Date: 9/22/2008
Revisions _
No Date Description
WET POND SIZING WORKSHEET
The following design Is based on requirements set forth in Chapters 3 & 10 of NCDENR's July 2, 2007 version of "NCDENR Stormwater BMP
Manual" with September 28, 2007 amendments.
1) Calculate percent impervious draining to pond.
Drainage Area =
2.17 acres Square Feet=
94470
square feet V /
Impervious Area =
1 37
acres Square Feet=
1 59570 Isquarefeet
v-
Impervious =
63.06
hV'
2) Determine Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio & Surface of Permanent Pool (Water Quality)
Table 10-1
Sratace Aiea to Di amage Area Ratio for Peen'anent Pool Suing to Ache, a 00 Pei cent T55
n,.n...-.... ne.,,..,-.T T=6..-:n.,.-..:., H,o i.... .rol Ream.. Ad.,urod fmni D. i".1t. 19sb
Percent
Impervious
Co, or
30
3.5
4.0
Pemannt Pool Arerege Depth (it)
Permanent
45 50 55 60
65
70
_ _
to-;
1.3
10
08
07
06
05
04
03
02
O1
20e
24
20
IS
L7
1F
L.4
12
10
09
29
301.
35
30
2.7
25
_11
1.9
16
13
11
OS
40%
45
4.0
3a
3.1
2525
21
1.S
14
11
30%
5,6
50-
43
39
35
31
.-
23
19
I$
00`.
70
bit
53
44
43
39
34
29
24
19
700e
81
70
60
55
50
45
39
34
29
23
W.
9.4
s0
7e
IS
i2
46
40
34
28
90%
10.7
90
7.9
72
6.5
59
52
46
39
33
100`,.
12
100
S.8
Sl
73
66
3.8
5.1
43
39
Desired Depth
ft
Im % Ratio
Lower Limit =
60. 00 7.00
Upper Limit =
70.00 8.10
Actual Surface Area Ratio = 7.34
Min, Surface Area Permanent Pool = 6930.58 square feet 1V/
3) Find the volume of the design storm using the "Simple Method" (Schueler 1987):
The volume of the design storm must be detained in the pond above the permanent pool
and must be drawn down over a period of two to five days.
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 (1)
Rv = runoff coefficient (ratio of runoff to rainfall in Inches)
I = percent impervious
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 ( 63.06 ) = 0 618 in/in
Volume of design storm
Design Storm= 1.5 inches
D�olu,Ne = Rv x design rainfall x drainage area = 0.167 acre feet /
7292 Icubic feetV/
4) Find Approximate Length and Width of Pond (does not account for safety shelf)
SA = 6930.6 square feet
for a 3.1 length to width ratio.
therefore, W = 48.06 ft.
3W = L andL=l 144.19 ft.
W:\JOB\090251 - SECU Plymouth\DESIGN\CALCS\Stormwater BMP\Excel\Cumulative Pond Design

J
11
0
JUJACOBS
Carter Burgess
THESE DFnWInG�/WCUrJ=N �> THE KING AIEMMD -Y GWIM AA
BOYGESS INC CMTEP a BURGESS. NC IS A WHOLLY CWNEB
S.:BSIDW OF :COcES ENGNEERING GROUP INC A-0 HERUAiA TER
RLiERRD 10 AS JAMES CARTES B'JRGE'S
Main Body Pool Volume
Stage Level
Elevation ft
Areas
Stage Volume
Cumulative
Storage
0
3
250
0
0
1
4
706
478
478
2
5
1209
958
1436
3
6
1749
1479
2915
4
7
2329
2039
4954
5
8
2948
2639
7592
6
9
3806
3277
10869
7
10
4303
3955
14824
8
11
5041
4672
19496
9
4,SB76�
5429
24924
9.5
12.5 j
7486
P1 3326
28250
Forebary Volume
Stage Level
Elevation h
AreasQ
Stage Volume
(cfI
Cumulative
Storage c
0
5
150
0
0
1
6
322
236
236
2
7
531
427
663
3
8
798
665
1327
4
9
1096
947
2274
5
10
1433
1265
3539
6
11
1810
1622
5160
7
12
2226�--
a 2018
7178
7.5
12.5
2448 I
.11168
8346
I
Temporary Pool
Volume
Stage Level
Elevation ft
Areas
Stage Volume
Cumulative
Storage(cfl
4.5
12.5
10092
0
0
5
13
12111
5551
5551 /
5.3
13.3
12825
3710
9261
Average Depth Calculation Method 2
Abot shelf-
8041
A erm pool=
9934
Abot pond=
706
V erm pool=
31945
28250-478 +8346/2
De th=
8
dav=
48
Ok
Job No. 090251
Job Name SECU - Plymouth
Date: 9/22/2008
Revisions
No I Date Description
Average Depth Check Method 1
Total Volume =
36595
1 cf
Total Sudrea = ace A
9934
sf
Avera a De th =
3.7
Ift
Is Av . Depth >= 3'
YES
Note: NCDENR requires 1' below average
depth for sediment storage. Therefore,
target average depth is actually 4' min.
Method 2 for average depth calculation
Included below demonstrates compliance.
Forebay Volume Check
Total P. Pool Vol = 36595
ct
Total Foreba Vol = 8346
cf
Is Foreba > 20% YES
1 23%
Temporary Pool Volume Check
Desi n Storm Volume —1
7292
cf
Tern Pool Vol =
9261
cf
Volume Enough
I YES
Volumes W:\JOB\090251 - SECU Plymouth\DESIGN\CALCS\Stormweter BMP\Excel\Cumulative Pond Design

®®JAC
Carter Burgess
® THESE DRAWINGS/DOCUMENTS ARE BEING SUBMITTED BY CARTER &
BURGESS INC CARTER & BURGESS, INC IS A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARY OF JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC AND HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS JACOBS CARTER BURGESS
Ll
Input Data
Orifice Diameter
Orfice Coefficent
Volume Provided
Number Orifices
Normal Pool
Inv Orfice
Inv Primary Spillway
Calculated Data
Cross Sectional Area
Average head
Discharge
1.50 in
0.60
9261 cf
1.00
12.50
12.50
13.30
0.012 sf
0.246 feet
0.029 cfs ly
Drawdown Time = Volume/Flowrate /
Drawdown Time = 3.66 days
Job No. 090251
Job Name SEW - Plymouth
Date: 9/22/2008
Revisions
No Date Description
Orifice Equation
Q=CI, 2gh
g= 32.2 ft/s2
h= use h/3 to simulate decreasing head
A= cross section area of orifice
Q= discharge cfs
CD= orifice coefficient, 0.6 typ.
W:\JOB\090251 - SECU Plymouth\DESIGN\CALCS\Stormwater BMP\Excel\Cumulative Pond Design.xls

SECU - Plymouth
® RISER FLOTATION CALCULATIONS - Wet Detention Pond
DETERMINE BOUYANT FORCES
Volume = Depth ' Area
Depth = Riser Top Elev - Riser Bottom Elev
Riser Top Elev. =
14.3 ft
Riser Invert Elev. =
8.80 ft
Riser Bottom Elev. =
12.40 ft
Riser Wall Thickness =
5.00 in
Riser Bottom Thickness =
43.20 in
Diameter of Manhole =
4.00 ft
Area = pi ' diameter A2/4
Area (@ outside diam)=
18.35 sf
Volume =
34.86 cf
times wt of water
62.4 Ibs/cf
Bouyant Force =
2,115 Ibs
DETERMINE COUNTERWEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Riser Top
Top Elevation =
14.3
Thickness =
0 inches
• Outside Diam =
4.83 ft
Volume =
0.00 cf
Riser Walls
Inside Diam =
4.00 ft
Wall Thickness =
5.00 in
Height =
1.90 ft
Volume =
10.98 cf
Riser Bottom
Bottom Elevation =
12.40
.
Inside Diam =
4.00
ft
Thickness=
43.20
- in
Volume =
45.24
cf
Total Volume =
56.22
cf
times unit weight
of reinforced conc.
150
Ibs/cf
Counterwelght
=
8,434
Ibs
Factor of Safety
Provided (FSP) =
3.88
.
IF FSP < 1.30, Additional Concrete Required
Additional Concrete for Anti -floatation reqd:
11
0 Ibs

v7ocsT, aIo ua y G.
RECEIVED APR 3 0 2008
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.geotechpa.com
April 15, 2008
Julie McLaurin
O'BRIEN/ATKINS & ASSOCIATES
P O. Box 12037
RTP, NC 27709
Re: Report of Subsurface Investigation
Proposed Hwy-64 SECU
Plymouth, North Carolina
GeoTechnologies Project No. 1-08-0210-EA
Dear Ms. McLaurin:
GeoTechnologies, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface investigation to evaluate site grading
and foundation support for the SECU proposed for construction off Hwy-64 in Plymouth, North Carolina.
Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling 12 soil test borings at the approximate
locations shown on the attached Figure 1. These locations were established in the field by measuring
distances from existing site landmarks, and therefore, the indicated locations should be considered
approximate. The borings were advanced to termination depths ranging from about 10 to 60 feet beneath
® existing site grade using standard penetration test procedures at selected intervals to evaluate the consistency
and density of the subsurface soils. This report presents the findings of the investigation and our
recommendations for site grading and foundation support.
SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION
It is our understanding that a mostly cleared but undeveloped parcel located west of Hwy-64 in
Plymouth, North Carolina is under consideration for development with a new SECU. A few wooded areas
are present adjacent to the railroad along the western border of the site, and drainage ditches have been
excavated along the northem and southern borders of the property. Water was present within a few feet of
grade in these ditches at the time of our site visit.
Proposed site grading plans have not yet been developed. However, the site sits several feet below
Hwy-64, and we anticipate some fill probably will be needed. Significant cuts are not expected. The structure
will be a single story office building with drive-thru areas and adjacent parking. We anticipate that maximum
column loads within the structure will be on the order of 75 kips or less with maximum wall loads in the
range of 3 to 4 kips per linear foot.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Generalized subsurface profiles prepared from the test boring data are attached to this report as
Figures 2A and 2B to graphically illustrate subsurface conditions encountered at this site. More detailed
descriptions of the conditions encountered at the individual test boring locations are then presented on the
® attached test boring records
Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services

C
O'Brien/Atkins & Assoc.
Re: Proposed Hwy-64 SECU
April 15, 2008
Page: 2
The near surface profile at the site was found to consist of a zone of topsoil and vegetation which
typically did not exceed a few inches in thickness. Underlying these surface materials, a majority of the test
borings encountered up to 4 feet of possible fill soils which were typically classified as low to high plasticity
clays and silts. It was difficult to determine if these materials were actually fill, and they may have simply
been soils native to the site that have been disturbed in the past. Penetration resistances within these soils
were in the range of 5 to 1 I blows per foot (bpf). With increasing depth, a majority of the test borings
encountered low to moderate plasticity clays and silts with some silty sands to depths of up to 8 feet.
Penetration resistances within these materials were in the range of 2 to 14 bpf. Underlying these materials,
the test borings encountered predominately clean sands with some silty sands whose penetration resistances
were in the range of 2 to 25 bpf Except for the deeper test borings (B-I and B-6), these soils were
encountered to the borings termination depths of about 10 to 20 feet. In borings B-1 and B-6, these sands
were underlain at 27.5 feet by silts and clays to the borings termination depth of about 60 feet. Penetration
resistances within these soils were in the range of 3 to 16 bpf.
Groundwater was typically encountered in the test borings at depths in the range of 2.5 to 5 feet at
the time of boring completion or after a 24 hour monitoring period. Additionally, it should be noted that the
near surface soils at the site are conducive to the temporary development of perched groundwater conditions
during periods of wet weather, and that groundwater levels will fluctuate during different periods of the year.
RECOMMENDATIONS
® The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached test boring data, our
understanding of the proposed construction, and past experience with similar projects and subsurface
conditions. Should site grading or structural plans change significantly from those now under consideration,
we would appreciate being provided with that information so that these recommendations may be confirmed,
extended, or modified as necessary. Additionally, should subsurface conditions adverse to those indicated by
this report be encountered during construction, those differences should be reported to us for review and
comment.
Site Grading Considerations. Due to the presence of groundwater within the upper 2.5 to 5 feet of
grade at this site, we recommend that the drainage ditches along the northern and southern borders of the site
be maintained during sitework to control water levels. Stripping of the site should be accomplished with wide
tracked equipment such as a wide tracked dozer or a trackhoe, and rubber tired equipment should be kept off
of the subgrade as much as possible to minimize rutting and disturbance. Following stripping, the site should
be evaluated by an experienced geotechnical engineer in order to evaluate the magnitude of undercut which
will be required. Our borings suggest that near surface conditions will be marginal in some areas, and it
should be expected that undercut or other repairs will be needed, particularily in those areas which are
currently at or near plan grade.
In building areas, we typically expect repair depths to be in the range of 0.5 to 2 feet. Isolated deeper
repairs may be needed in areas such as around boring B-1 where softer soils were present to greater depths;
however, it may be more cost effective to address isolated deeper areas at the time that the footings are
excavated. Within the limits of the building pad (and drive-thru), we have estimated that about 500 cubic
yards of undercut will be needed. This estimate assumes summertime grading conditions and also assumes
that isolated deeper repairs will be handled at the time that the footings are excavated to help reduce total
undercut. Although we anticipate that repairs will be required no matter what time of the year the site is
® graded, conducting site grading during the typically cooler and wetter winter months will result in the need

O'Brien/Atkins & Assoc.
Re: Proposed Hwy-64 SECU
April 15, 2008
Page: 3
for additional repairs, while if the site can be graded during the typically warmer and dryer summer months,
undercut type repairs may be reduced through discing and drying.
Pavement subgrades will also require some repair; however, more options are available in these
areas. The easiest repair would be to plan on raising site grade by at least 2 feet with granular soils containing
less than 10% fines (% passing 200 sieve). This could be accomplished by end -dumping and spreading the
fill in a single bridge lift which would then be compacted to at least 98% of the standard Proctor maximum
dry density. With this approach, undercut would be limited to only those areas which are adversely impacted
by the initial grading operations. Therefore, if subgrade damage is minimized during stripping, no significant
undercut should be incurred in the paved areas if they are raised at least 2 feet with select sand fill. Unstable
areas which are closer to proposed grade will require undercutting to allow a granular bridge lift to be placed.
Alternatively, pavement repairs could be reduced by properly mixing lime and cement to a depth of 20
inches to create a stable subgrade. This would reduce the amount of undercut, but the treatment is relatively
expensive and groundwater control could be an issue. We anticipate that this would be the most difficult
repair to implement, and we suggest contacting a local grading contractor familiar with this type of repair
before finalizing any chemical stabilization plans.
Repairs in pavement areas will be highly dependent upon plan grades which were not available at the
time that this report was issued. If grade can be raised by at least 2 feet with select granular soils, we do not
expect significant undercut will be needed in pavement areas. However, if pavements will be constructed
near existing grade, we expect that repairs in the range of 0.5 to 2 feet will be needed. Once site grading
plans are available, we will be happy to provide an estimate of required pavement undercut.
® We do not expect that the site itself will be a significant source of borrow. However, the contractor
will have to be prepared to moisture condition (dry) most of the on -site soils if they will be reused for items
such as utility backfill. Isolated expansive clays should not be used as backfill. Off -site borrow should
consist of approved granular soils (including for stabilizing bridge lifts) or sandy clays and silts. Newly
placed fill should be compacted to not less than 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, except
within the final foot where this requirement should be increased to not less than 98% of the standard Proctor
maximum. Where granular soils are used for fill, it can be expected that rainfall events will result in ponding
of water at the base of the new fill. To help mitigate this problem, consideration can be given to installing a
few widely spaced sock covered 4" perforated pipes which should be sloped to outlet in the perimeter
drainage ditches.
Seismic Design Considerations. Based on a review of available information, the design acceleration
at this site will be approximately 0.13g. The acceleration associated with the shallow groundwater condition
and loose sands results in potential liquefaction of some of the deeper sands which exist at this site. This
indicates that during the design earthquake event which is predicted to occur with a 2% probability in a 50
year period (indicating a return period of approximately 2,500 years), that some of the sands will liquefy.
During liquefaction, pore pressures within the sands increase resulting in an unstable condition and
subsequent densification of those sands which causes settlement.
Since available information indicates that the site is potentially liquefiable, a risk based decision will
have to be made regarding how to approach foundation support. The design earthquake event has a 2%
probability of occurring in a 50 year time frame which implies a recurrence interval of once every 2,500
years. However, there is no way to predict when that event will actually occur. One approach would be to
design the structure and support it on conventional shallow spread footing foundations making no provisions
® for the potential liquefaction and accepting the fact that the building could be severely damaged if a large

O'Brien/Atkins & Assoc.
Re: Proposed Hwy-64 SECU
April 15, 2008
Page. 4
earthquake does occur. The other alternative would be to install stone columns or rammed aggregate piers to
dissipate the pore pressures and prevent liquefaction from occurring. Pile support does not appear to be a
good alternative to handle liquefaction at this site because the absence of a hard layer within at least the
upper 60 feet means that the piles would be carried mostly by friction, and drag -down during a liquefaction
event could cause the pile to fail. Based on these considerations, if SECU does consider trying to design the
structure to survive the design earthquake event, you may want to give consideration to pricing the
installation of stone columns or aggregate piers which provide both excellent support capacity like a pile
foundation and which provide a conduit to prevent build-up of excess hydrostatic pressures and the
liquefaction phenomena beneath the actual structure.
Since the site is liquefiable, the soil profile is technically an "F" classification. However, for
buildings with a natural period of 0.5 sec or less, the building code allows seismic loads to be calculated as
though the profile is a class "E", and if appropriate, this assumption should be used for calculating seismic
induced structural loads.
As indicated, this site would be classified as an "E" site if the potential for liquefaction did not exist.
However, this classification is based on the results of SPT testing which our experience has shown to be a
conservative approach. A less conservative (and more appropriate) approach involves classifying the site by
measuring the shear wave velocity of the subsurface soils. This would require mobilization of geophysical
testing equipment to the site; however, with additional testing, the site could most likely be classified as a
"D" with shear wave velocity measurements Not only would this classification reduce design seismic loads,
but with a "D" classification, the design acceleration would be lowered to about 0.08, such that none of the
deeper sands would be classified as liquefiable during the design seismic event. The cost for the geophysical
testing will be about $5000, and should be compared to the cost of designing on the basis of a site class "E".
It should also be recognized that the more accurate testing may still result in the "B" classification.
Foundation Support Alternatives. As previously indicated, available data suggests that the site is
potentially liquefiable in the design earthquake event, however, the probability of that event occurring within
the design life of the structure is small, and SECU will have to make a decision as to whether or not to go to
the added expense to design against it. Again, geophysical data may improve the seismic site class such that
liquefaction would not be a design issue.
If liquefaction is not taken into consideration in design, the site is adequate for the use of shallow
spread footing support for the proposed structure We suggest that the design bearing pressure be limited to
1,500 psf for foundations bearing at least 12 inches below grade for frost protection. In order to evaluate
settlement potential, we have prepared the attached Figures 3A and 313 which indicate that column or wall
loads of up to about 40 kips or 3 klf are expected to experience total settlements on the order of about 1 inch.
Differential settlements will likely be about half of this magnitude. These figures also show that using as
little as 2 feet of undercut and clean stone replacement will reduce settlement values to 1 inch or less for the
assumed maximum loadings of 75 kips and 4 klf.
Another benefit of mobilizing geophysical equipment to the site to assist with seismic design is that
soil modulus values could also be obtained with dilatometer testing (DMT) at the same time that the seismic
testing is done. The modulus values from DMT testing are believed to be much more accurate and less
conservative than those obtained through correlations with SPT testing. Settlement curves generated from
this data will more than likely show that the maximum structural loads can be supported with less than 1 inch
of total settlement without the need for undercut and stone replacement in all areas of the footing, and may
® allow an increase in the design bearing pressure to 2,000 or 2,500 psf

11
O'Brien/Atkins & Assoc.
Re: Proposed Hwy-64 SECU
April 15, 2008
Page: 5
Individual footing bottoms must be inspected by a qualified engineer or technician in order to
confirm that conditions are similar to those anticipated based on the results of the borings. Hand auger
borings should be performed to identify soft zones, such as in boring B-1 where a zone of 2 bpf clay was
encountered below the upper few feet. Where zones of marginal or unsuitable soil are identified, the area
should be repaired by overexcavating as recommended by the engineer and then backfilling to design
subgrade with uniformly graded 957 or 467 stone. If this is required, we note that the excavation likely will
be below the water table and will have to be conducted in short segments. Any expansive soils present within
the footing excavations should be removed to a depth of at least 3 feet below grade. We suggest allocating
100 cubic yards of stone replacement in the project budget. This volume does not include an allowance for
widespread undercut and stone replacement to reduce settlement around the entire building.
Another support altemative would be use of stone columns or rammed aggregate piers which behave
much like a pile foundation, but have the added benefit of dissipating pore water pressures during seismic
events such that liquefaction would not be an issue for properly designed elements. However, this is an
expensive alternative and would be used only if the owner elected not to risk placing the building on shallow
foundations because of the potential for liquefaction in the unlikely event of a major earthquake.
Pavement Design Considerations. For the purposes of pavement design, we have assumed that at
least 12 inches of granular soil will be imported. These soils should provide excellent support for a
conventional asphalt pavement structure, and we anticipate that properly prepared granular subgrades will
exhibit design CBR values on the order of 8% or greater. An appropriate pavement section with these
issuch
would consist of 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of stone in areas designated only for car traffic
such as the car parking stalls and a section consisting of 2 inches of stone over 8 inches of asphalt in primary
drive lanes subject to channelized car traffic and occasional truck traffic. If concrete pavement sections are
considered, we suggest utilizing 4 inches of 4,000 psi concrete in the car parking stalls and a 5-1/2 inch
section of 4,000 psi concrete in primary drive lanes. A 4 inch thick layer of CABC should be placed beneath
the concrete section to provide a stable base upon which to construct the section. If concrete is used, joint
spacings should be appropriately set in order to promote shrinkage cracking at the control joints.
Immediately in front of the dumpster which has relatively high front wheel loads during tipping operations, a
minimum of 5-1/2 inches of concrete over 4 inches of stone should be used.
The near surface soils on -site will exhibit a much lower design CBR (3 to 4%), and any exposed
expansive clays must be removed or chemically stabilized. If site grade will not be raised with granular soils
by at least 12 inches, a lower design CBR will have to be used, and more substantial pavement sections will
have to be provided.
The pavement subgrades should be recompacted and proofrolled immediately prior to base course
stone, and the contractor may need to end -dump the stone and push it into place during the pavement
construction operations. The contractor can attempt to drive trucks over the subgrades during the stone
placement operation, however, if the rubber tired traffic loosens the near surface material, he will have to
end -dump and then spread in order to properly construct the pavement section and maintain the compaction
of the subgrade during the construction operation.
Miscellaneous Considerations Underground utilities which extend deeper than about 2.5 to 5 feet
will encounter groundwater. Therefore, the utility contractor should be prepared to handle groundwater as
necessary to install deeper underground utilities. Utilities should be maintained as shallow as practical in

O'Brien/Atkins & Assoc.
Re: Proposed 14wy-64 SECU
April 15, 2005
Page6
order to minimize the need for dewatering during installation. The tubes which service the drive-thru area
should be overhead rather than underground due to the presence of shallow groundwater on this site
GeoTechnologies, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this phase of the project.
Please contact us if you"have any questions concerning this letter or if we may be of additional. service on
this or other projects.
ELS/pr-dli/lam
Attachments
080210ea.doc
Ell
4�n1�
Sincerely,
GeoTechnologies, Inc.
Ernest L. Stitzinger, P.E.
NC Registration No. 25534
41
n

TEST BORING RECORD
•
EPTH
(FT.)
00
0.
3
8
21(
27
565
605
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n in on 'in Gn inn
Possible Fill - Topsoil acid Wood
0
CL
2-3-3
2-1-1
3-3-5
6-6-7
5-4-4
6-6-4
3-4-6
3-4-6
3-5-5
5-4-5
3-3-3
3-4-4
5-6-10
S/
Possible Fill - Firm Gray Brown Fine to Medium
Sandy Sdry CLAY
CL
Very Soft Gray Silty CLAY
I
Loose to Medium Dense Tan Fine to Coarse SAND
SP
IT
Loose Gray SiltyFme to Mediwn SAND
SM
Finn to Stiff Gray Silty CLAY to Clayey SILT with
Few Shells
CL
ML
Very Stiff Gray Fine to Coarse Sandy Silty CLAY
with Shells
CL
_
Boring terminated at 60 5'
(iroundwater encountered at 3.5' at time of boring.
Is )B NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
Ge�oTechnofag'es fn�--.
PAGE I OF I

TEST BORING RECORD
® EPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
00 0 10 20 40 60 100
14
:!
71
20 5
E
Possible Ftll - Topsoil and Roots
CH
3-4-4
3-3-4
3-1-1
3-2-3
4-4-4
Possible Fill - Moist Finn Gray Silty CLAY with
Some Sandy Zones
i
Firm Gray Silty CLAY
CL
CH
Very Loose to Loose Gray Fine to Coarse SAND
SP
Bormg terminated at 20 5'
Groundwater encountered at 25' at time of boring.
® JB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
1 1 1
t
Ge'oTeEhirolallies [nc
PAGE I OF 1

TEST BORING RECORD
,EPTH
(FT.)
00
O.
I
VA
20
0
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n in in nn to .nn
3 Posvble Fill - Topsal and Wood
CH
3-3-4
3-4-6
4-4-5
5-3-5
3-3-4
Q
Possible Fill - Firm Gray Fine m Medium Sdry
1 CLAY
Stiff Gray Silty CLAY
CL
CH
Loose Gray Fine to Coarse SAND
SP
Bormg terminated at 20 5'
Groundwater encountered at 5' at time of boring.
® JB NUMBER 1-08-0210-EA
BORING NUMBER B ,
DATE
/%///// Geo�Tehnofogies fnc
PAGE 1 OF 1

TEST BORING RECORD
U
11
EPTH
(FT.)
00
03
71
205
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n to 7n An Fn inn
Possible Fill - Topsoil and Roots
CL
3-2-3
3-2-3
3-4-4
7-7-7
10-I'-l2
�z
Possible Fill - Firm Gray Fine to Medium Sandy
Silty CLAY
Finn Gray Brown Fine to Medium Sandy Silty
CLAY
CL
Loose to Medium Dense Gray Fine to Coarse
SAND
SP
Boring terminated at 20 5'
Groundwater encountered at 2.8' at time of boring.
® -)B NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
GeoTechrtolog s, tnc '
r
PAGE I OF I

TEST BORING RECORD
® EPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
00 n in on en cn inn
11
3.
IA
20_
0
Topsoil and Roots
CL
3
3-3-4
5-4-6
9-10-11
Q
Finn Gray Fine to Medium Sandy Silty CLAY
Finn Gray Brown Fine to Medium Sandy Silty
CLAY
1
CL
Very Loose to Medium Dense Tan Fine to Medium
SAND
SP
Bonne terminated at 205'
Groundwater encountered at 2 8' at time of boring.
® )B NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
18 1 1
GeoTeik�aof`agtesCrick
PAGE I OF I

TEST BORING RECORD
2
EPTH
(FT.)
00
0.
7(
220
275
520
58 0
60 5
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n 1n ?o 1n Fn inn
3 Possible Fill - Topsoil and Roots CL
5 Possible Fill - Moist Firm Black Silty CLAY widi 3-3-5
Light Organics Sp -�
Loose Tan Gray Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SM-
SAND 4-4-4
Loose to Medium Dense Orange Fme to Coarse SP
SAND
3-4-5
4-6-8
3-4-4
Very Loose Gray Silty Fine to Medium SAND SM
ML
3-3-1
Soft to Finn Gray Clayey SILT to Silty CLAY with ML
Few Shells CL
2-3-4
3-3-4
3-2-3
2-3-3
2-1-2
Finn Gray Clayey Slightly Fme to Medium Sandy ML
SILT
4-4-4
Stiff Gray Fine to Medium Sandy Silty CLAY with CL
Shells
Bonn, terminated at 60 5' 4-4-8
Groundwater encountered 24 bourse after time of boring at 4'.
® -)B NUMBER 1-08-0210-EA
BORING NUMBER B 6
DATE
hic,
PAGE I OF 1
Groundwater encountered 24 bourse after time of boring at 4'.
® -)B NUMBER 1-08-0210-EA
BORING NUMBER B 6
DATE
hic,
PAGE I OF 1

TEST BORING RECORD
EPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
00 n to in nn cn inn
1
2
7
r�
E
d
5
3-4.4
i-2-3
5-5-6
4-4-5
5CLAY
CL
FGray
andy Clayey SILT
ML3-4-5
edium Dense Gray Fine to Coarse
SP
Bonng termma[ed at 20 5'
urounawater encountered at 3.5' at time of boring.
® iB NUMBER I-03-0210-EA
BORING NUMBER B 7
DATE
///// GeoTechnolagtes (nc��-
PAGE I OF 1

TEST BORING RECORD
® EPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
AFT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
00 n to in en �n inn
am
2'
75
20 5
E
Possible Fill - Topsoil and Wood
ML
3-3-3
3-4-3
4-3-4
6-5-6
6-6-7
v
-
Possible Fill Finn Black Organic Clayey SILT
Finn Gray Silty CLAY
CH
Loose to Medium Dense Tan Fine to Medium
SAND
SP
Boring terminated at 20 5'
Groundwater encountered at 2.5' at time of boring.
® )B NUMBER I-08-0210-EA
t1ORING NUMBER B 8
DATE
GeoTethnofogCeslnc°
PAGE 1 OF I

TEST BORING RECORD
n
EPTH
(FT.)
U
04
2S
105
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil and Roots
CL
2-2-3
2-3-4
1-1-2
L7
Moist Fmn Gray Fine td Medium Sandy Silty
CLAY
Very Loose to Loose Tan Fine to Medium SAND
SP
Boring teimmated at 10 5'
Groundwater encountered at 3.5' at time of boring.
® OBNUMBER 1-03-0210-EA
BORING NUMBER B- 9
DATE
//%/. , GeolechnoCo�res Inc F.
PAGE I OF I

TEST BORING RECORD
EPTH
(FT.)
00
0_
L�
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
n in in nn cn An
3 Posvble Fdl -Topsoil and Roots
OL
1-2-3
2-4-10
5-4-6
Q
Possible Fill - Firm Black Organic Clayey SILT
Medium Dense Tan Gray Slightly Sdty Fine to
Medium SAND and Wood
1
SP
SM
I
Loose Cray Fine to Medium SAND
SP
Boring terminated at 10 5'
(iroundwater encountered at 4.5' at time of boring.
® )B NUMBER 1-03-0210-EA
,BORING NUMBER B_10
DATE
/i%/// GeoTechnofogres�fnc
PAGE I OF I

TEST BORING RECORD
® JEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
00 n
0
3
on
0
3 Topsoil and Roots
NIL
-
vv
3-4-4
3-6-8
2-4-4
Finn Gray Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey
SILT
0[SAND
Loose to Medium Dense Tan Fine to Medium
i
SP
Boring terminated at 10 S'.
�iuuuu waive clruuutlu Jrcu a[ 4.7 ai lime 01 boring.
® YB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
9-11
4GeoT���nof ogles, fnc 6
PAGE 1 OF I

® ®o Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
`` - -- 11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www,SandEC.com
September 4, 2008
S&EC Project #: 11141.S 1
Geotechnologies, Inc P.A.
Attn: Ernie Stitzinger
3200 Wellington Court Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Detailed Soils Evaluation at proposed State Employees Credit Union located adjacent
to Hwy 64 in Plymouth, Washington Comity, NC.
Dear Mi. Stitzinger:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) performed a detailed soil evaluation at
the site mentioned above. A map was provided by the project engineer showing the
location of the proposed wet detention pond and where soil borings should be performed
by S&EC. At the indicated locations the following were performed: a profile description
to seven feet (or as deep as possible with hand augers), estimation of permeability,
hydraulic conductivity, and seasonal high water table based on soil color, and apparent
(observed) water table measurement (groundwater rise in auger holes). The purpose of
• this evaluation was to provide you with additional information for designing a stor iwater
wet detention pond. The following is a brief report of the methods utilized in this
evaluation and the results obtained.
Soil/Site Evaluation & Results
A site evaluation was performed by Walter Cole and Sarah Menser (Licensed Soil
Scientist and SSIT) to acquire the information you needed. The evaluation was
performed by making hand auger borings at two locations which were located with a GPS
receiver and are shown on the attached map and identifying and recording the soil
morphological conditions at those locations in order to develop soil profile descriptions,
which are also included with this report and shown on the attached map.
Seasonal Hialn Water Table Estimation
We were able to directly measure the observed water table at the two locations during the
time of our evaluation and also base the soil wetness on low chroma (<2) colors in the
Munscll Soil Colo- Chart. The seasonal high water table based on soil color is less than
12" fiom natural ground level for both borings, and the apparent (observed) water table at
one hour was 72 inches, however this is just a "snap -shot" measurement, the reality is
that the actual seasonal high water table is most likely deeper than what is observed by
soil color, especially with adjacent existing agricultural ditching, but much shallower
than was is observed by apparent water table. The only way to accurately determine the
seasonal high water table is to do put in test wells, monitor the site, and perform a water
table assessment and this service can be provided by our firm if requested.
® ht d otte Office; Greensboro Office-
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone [phone] Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

® The soil conditions on -site seem favorable for a wet detention pond with respect to
seasonal high water table, however the groundwater lowering effects of the existing
agricultural drainage will have to be taken into account when deciding weather or not to
incorporate a liner into the design.
Perm eabilittidHvdraulie Conductivity Estimation
Both soil borings 1 & 2 revealed a sandy loam surface horizon and a clay -sandy clay
loam subsurface horizon. The clay subsurface horizon at both locations was massive with
respect to soil structure and extremely firm with respect to soil consistency. These are
soil characteristics that are indicators of expansive clay mineralogy, which forms very
slowly permeable soils with estimated hydraulic conductivity ranges form .01-.14
inches/hour.
The soil conditions on -site seem favorable for a wet detention pond with respect to soil
permcability/hydraulic conductivity, and the expansive clay material could be
incorporated into the design.
Please refer to the enclosed map and soil profile descriptions for more information. All of
these estimates obtained from one or more of the following: Washington County Soil
Survey "Physical & Chemical Properties of the Soil - Permeability'; Roanoke Soil Series
and/or USDA-NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource
Conservation Service) official series description, and/or "NRCS Field Book for
• Describing & Sampling Soils" the permeability estimates were converted to conductivity
on the profile description tables. No actual site specific testing of hydraulic conductivity
was performed, however this service can be provided by our firm if requested.
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA is pleased to be of service in this matter and we
look forward to assisting in the successful completion of the project. Please feel free tc
call with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Walter Cole
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1267
Eric:
Figure 1: USGS Quadrangle Map
Figure 2: Washington County Soil Survey Map
Figure 3: Stormwater Boring Map
® Soil Profile Descriptions

rA
S
J
Nl1FF" : 'YSCAND(-
Ife
fi n •s'...iv Q 1114 T f� i.^ .S' `�i . �Yl' •��.i:�
Ylym urn,.
i, �_�� �~���:Se_+.-' :•I ,pb`� �,/}!i.:,�.� � �"_ 12� mil'..(+:'._ :�'..=`�:t:..-.�{7g��+i�� -
e'en _ ,�,•.-.. qGE--'' t ,�
i• f �O \ � l •tlf ,
u •:.;0—AST tAY <;.am •�' \: • oRad
T1: aii.raver
_N_ce•;si_- ' t,
\,
£JZl"� %`'_�5 -'•-''i/.^_u. {/ .,� �-.. ��e*dYr � r �•�,�'�'� ;v,e Ayj � �- 'I'' •`a_�Z•
,1 /.�1'`/\,\i..,.,'\�"1 /i \``'n-��`'.,� ;i„�s -._ f` ♦ i%
nil I`, •'\ •��� �`. �+. �• \ f7ft , .p ., �\`� ��,..
hhhVVVAAA i,'/ \ee •m _\ /; '�� _yo' orattoCk., ;`'"�, k�.
�-2
9-7
Project No. Figure I - 1 :24K U5G5
11141.51
Topographic Quadrangle
Project Mgr.: Plymouth SECU a Soil & Environmental Consullanls, PA
WC 11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
WaShington County, NC [phone]e(919)846.9467
Scale: - _ Web Page: www SandEC com
I" = 2,000' -
05/20/05 Plymouth E 4 W Quadrangle

0
C

3 ®max. Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
- 11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
- , www.SandEccotn
PRELIMINARY WETLAND EVALUATION FOR THE. PROPOSED STATE EMPLOYEES
CREDIT UNION IN PLYMOUTH, WASHINGTON COUNTY, NC
In August of 2008, S&EC personnel completed a preliminary wetland delineation on the
site mentioned above located on the North side of Hwy 64in Plymouth, and is approximately tl
acre in size. Figure I and Figure 2 show the location of the site on a USGS topographic
quadrangle and NRCS County Soil Survey, respectively.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We have determined that there are jurisdictional wetlands (exisiting agricultural ditches) on site
which generally account for thejurisdictional waters observed on the site. The attached Figure 3
depicts the approximate locations of wetlands identified during our evaluation. Please refer to
Figure 4 and the results and recommendations section below for more detailed information.
SCOPE OF WORK
® The preliminary wetland delineation consisted of traversing the property to examine soils,
vegetation, and hydrology across the site in search of areas that meet the criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands as described by the procedures set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (January 1987 — Final Report). Areas on the site with positive indicators of
hydric soils, evidence of wetland hydrology, and presence of hydrophylic vegetation were
flagged with sequentially numbered, pink S&EC logo flagging, which was located with a GPS
receiver and is approximated on the map. Proof of wetland hydrology would be the existence of
hydric soils with oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, water borne
deposits, drift lines, scour marks, drainage patterns, regional indicators of soil saturation, etc.
Surface waters such as intermittent and perennial stream channels, ponds, and lakes, which are
also subject to regulation by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as waters of the US,
were also identified. These surface waters may also be referred to as jurisdictional waters to
indicate that they are within the jurisdiction of the USACE. It is important to note that wetlands
are also classified as waters of the US and regulated by the USACE under authority of the Clean
Water Act (33 USC 1344).
RESULTS & RECOMNIENDATIONS
The results of the preliminary wetland evaluation are discussed below.
Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters:
We have determined that jurisdictional waters (i.e., wetlands) exist on the site. Please refer to
the attached "Figure 3" for specific flag numbers and approximate locations.
® Charlotte Office- Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C 3817-E Lawndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: [phone] S&EC Project #, 1114LS1 Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] September 4,2008 Fax:[phone]

September 4, 2003
® S&ECAolectl. I1I41.S1
Page 2 of 3
There are four existing agricultural ditches on -site (Features A, B, C & D) that have wetland
soils, plants, and hydrology, and we believe are therefore jurisdictional by the USACE. A site
meeting with the USACE would be required to confirm our findings. Unit "NE" on the attached
map represents areas not evaluated due to vegetation thicImess and resulting inaccessibility.
Wetlands on this site flow into the Roanoke River in the which has been classified in NC-
DWQ's "Classification and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands
of North Carolina" as Class C;SW.
The wetlands onsite were identified as being emergent wetland type as outlined in the
publication r"A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands." This wetland type is common
throughout North Carolina and is found in the human altered areas. Upland and Wetland Data
Forms for this site are included with this report.
Regulations
A general list of regulations that apply to jurisdictional wetlands and waters present on the site
are discussed below. Please be aware that other local, state, and federal regulations not included
in this list may also apply. S&EC personnel are available to discuss these regulations as they
apply to your project.
Wetland Permitting:
® Please note that new Nationwide Permits were issued by the USACE on March 19, 2007. The
USACE Wilmington District issued revised Regional Conditions for the 2007 Nationwide
Permits oil June 5, 2007. Therefore, the USACE may once again review requests for impacts to
jurisdictional waters. Due to the complexity of these revisions, we recommend you forward a
conceptual site plan to our office for review by one of our permitting specialist, who can best
advise you of the specific permitting Deeds as you progress through the planning process.
Generally, wetland impact permits are issued on a per -project basis as determined by the
USACE. The USACE has determined that impacts on parcels sub -divided from larger tracts are
sometimes considered to be cumulative to existing impacts for the large tract. If this is the case,
then thresholds for notification may not apply to your project and impacts to streams/wetlands
must be considered in light of existing permits.
CONCLUSION
The preliminary wetland delineation for the proposed Plymouth SECU was completed by S&EC
in August, 2008. This site contains jurisdictional wetland areas that that may require
preconstruction authorization for impacts, depending on the size and nature of the impact (i.e.
road construction, lot fill, stonnwater pond construction, etc.). USACE verification of our site
assessment should be obtained.
Please contact Walter Cole if you have any questions or comments.
® ""A Field Guide To North Carolina Wetlands"; Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, January 1996.

N
Sincerely
Walter Cole NCLSS
Soil & Environmental Consultants
Enc:
11
LJ
Figure 1 USGS Quad
Figure 2 NRCS Soil Survey
Upland & Wetland Data Forms
Figure 3 Stormwater & Wetland Map
September 4, 2008
S&EC Project 9, 11141 S 1
Page 3 of 3

Wetland Delineation Performed By, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
® 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
0
Project/Site: Plymouth SECU 11141.Sl Date: 8-22-08
Applicant/Owner: Geotechnologies Inc. Attn: Ernie Stitzinger County: Washington
Investigator: Walter Cole, NCLSS, Sarah Menser State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID: Upland Data Pt 1
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus e8usus
Herb
FACW+
_
9
2. Eupatorium leptophyllum
Herb
FAC+
_
10,
3. Polygonum hydrdpipemldes
Herb
OBL
11.
4. Carex ssp
Herb
FAC
12.
5. Rubus betulifolius
Herb
_
FAC
13.
6.
14.
7.
_
15.
8.
16
Percent of Dominant Species that
are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-):
100%
Remarks: Near flag At2
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
® 11
Remarks: Well Ditched, altered hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)'
x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
N/A (in) Water -Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
N/A (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
N/A (in.)

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
® 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
Project/Site' Plymouth SECU Plot ID' Upland Data Pt 1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Poor!
(Series and Phase): Roanoke
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): typic ochraquulls
_ Confirm Mapped Type?
X Yes __ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Color Mottle
Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
Structure etc.
0-8 Ap 10YR 4/2
Loam wk f or
8-14 6tq 1 OYR 5/2
tOYR 5/8 10YR 5/1 Common, Faint
Loam wk f sbk
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histosol
Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
X Aquic Moisture Regime
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
IL__
I
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
) Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
X Yes No
Yes X No
X Yes No
Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Yes X No

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
® 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
(919)B46-5900
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: _Plymouth SECU 11141.51 Date: 8-22-08
Applicant/Owner; Geotechnologies Inc. Attn Ernie Stitzinger County: Washington
Investigator: Walter Cole NCLSS, Sarah Menser State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes _ No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID:
(If needed, exolaln on reverse.)
Wetland Data Pt 1
)minant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Juncus effusus
Herb
FACW+
9.
Polygonum sagittatum
Herb
OBL
10.
Polygonum hydroplperoides
Herb
OBL
11.
Typha latifolia
Herb
OBL
12
Boehmeria cylindnca
Herb
FACW+
13.
Salix nigra
Tree
OBL
14.
Eleochads obtuse
Herb
OBL
15.
2
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-): 100%
Remarks: Near flag C12
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake or Title Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
x Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
x Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
3 (in.) x Water -Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
N/A (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
0 (in.)
® II Remarks: Altered Hydrology: site has extensive ditches

Wetland Delineation Performed By: Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
401
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
[phone]
ProjecUSite: Plymouth SEW I Plot ID: Wetland Data Pt 1
SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Poorly
(Series and Phase): Roanoke
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): typic ochraquulls
Confirm Mapped Type?
_ Yes x No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
Mottle Color Mottle
Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist)
_ (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
Structure, etc.
0-4 Oi 5 YR 2/1
Muck
4-10 A 10 YR 3/1
Loam
10-14+ B1q 10 Yr 4/1
5 YR 6/8
Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Concretions
Histic Epipedon
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
L-
.1
WETLANDS DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? x Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? x Yes No x Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? x Yes No
Remarks:
r,1
LJ

0
h
i lx> ,tnvr
�`k:`.p.: .. �n ♦t �. _'a��--• _ C'r: �yl��,,�y{W'; "tin,.�2i �� '�L'w ],�.
d 5
` {X;
�'Lr.Jd`f SA
rF
FMmwn Sea
Plr/�� E u
.I
LEGEND
/'
IVRISpLi1CAR:NTT{M'flSllxFNt'FE(ITMCS
����
[45iMLD �46C gIC11I5
Jti
snawx4rea eo�w:nceaou.:oan
iJ[
rl`i«u[s's:r°o"rz°�LOin°nik iun-ce`s's"ia'nun
ai Pmtec[ rratmn ,. .. .. ,. ....—..� �.
y C c SECU='PLYMOUTn =,INGTON CO NC
h Soll &Environmental Consultants, PA
snee�rnle ela.c .�..,.aw.a. w,. •-+ n�nr,.� :.. mn,»+u,
STORMWATER 501,AG E WEFLAND MAP SECU � ®