19990983 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19990827 (2)

Mr. Bob Zarzecki
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
4405 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Crabtree Overlook
Dear Mr. Zarzecki,
BARBARA H. MULKEY ENGINEERING, INC.
February 8, 2000
Please find enclosed, for your review and comment, one copy of the Stormwater
Alternatives Analysis for the above referenced project. We would enjoy the opportunity
to discuss the analysis with you in the very near future. Please give me a call when you
have had a chance to take a look at it so we can set up a time to get together. Also, please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
r
Sincerely,
Warren Brackin
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering
c.c. Jim Anderson, Duke-weeks Realty Corporation
Brad Rhinehalt, Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering
C r fG p

559 Jones Franklin Rd. Soile 164 A ? Raleigh, N( 27606 1580 * Fhnne: 919-851-1912 * F (ix. 919-851-1918 e wwvr.bhme.com

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
for
=vDuke weeks
REALTY CORPORATION
Crabtree Overlook
Raleigh, North Carolina
BHME Project 99485.00
February 8, 2000
?,a'`a??a31711i/17tE?d
NA
SEAL
21543
GIN
let
2- -o
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The following analysis is intended to evaluate alternatives to stormwater management for
an 8.32-acre site in Wake County. Located on the west side of Leadmine Road (NCSR
1820) just north of Charles Drive in Raleigh (see attached vicinity map, Exhibit 1), the
proposed development will consist of a 155,000-SF office building and a 4-level parking
deck. A 100-ft Neuse River Riparian Buffer borders the property on the west. The
purpose of this analysis is to determine the method of stormwater management for the
proposed development that best complies with City of Raleigh stormwater ordinances,
incorporates the non-intrusive theme of the overall development, and minimizes the
project's impact on the riparian buffer.
Raleigh ordinance CR-7107 mandates that post-development stormwater flows shall not
exceed the stormwater flows expected if the proposed property were developed as R-4 (4
residential lots per acre). The proposed development, including office building, parking
deck, and all ground level parking, would generate an expected 2-year run-off of 22 cfs
and a 10-year runoff of 28 cfs. If the same site were developed as R-4, the expected l-
and 10-year runoff rates would be 20 cfs and 26 cfs, respectively (see Exhibit 1 for
calculations). To satisfy the ordinance, the post-development runoff rates must be
reduced by about 2 cfs via some form of stormwater detention. Four options were
explored for this detention system and are discussed below.
1. Underground Detention
In order to reduce the post-development runoff rates by about 2 cfs, a storage of about
7,000 cubic feet would be needed (Exhibit 1). This amount of storage would provide
adequate detention for both the 2- and 10-year storm events. One logical option for this
storage would be in the form of a 120' long by 20' wide by 3' deep concrete vault under
the proposed parking deck. This vault, however, introduces serious public health and
safety concerns due to a possible catastrophic failure under the deck. Although this
would probably be a very economical choice, it could also be the most potentially
dangerous.
Another option for underground detention would be the storage of stormwater in an
underground piping system under the proposed ground level parking. This detention
system could be in the form of about 990 feet of 36-inch pipe (7,000 cubic feet of total
storage). It is the corporate policy of Duke-weeks Realty Corporation, however, to not
use underground piping systems for underground detention due to the long term upkeep
and maintenance issues associated with such systems.
Both possible forms of underground detention also pose some additional problems to
those discussed above. In both proposed situations, all stormwater on the site must be
routed to a single collection point and must also have a single discharge point. This
consolidation of flow would cause a high volume of water to be discharged into the
buffer area at a one point. This concentrated flow could still be dissipated and diffused
by means of rip-rap energy dissipators and level spreaders, but it is much more effective
and efficient to produce diffuse flow into the buffer at a couple of smaller pipes than at
one large pipe. Avoiding a single discharge also reduces the diversion of flow across the
basin. A couple of smaller discharges to the buffer more closely resemble the existing
natural drainage pattern for the site.
Underground detention systems also provide very little water quality benefits. The
reduction of water velocity in both the piping system and the vault system would result in
a small reduction in total suspended solids, but overall water quality impacts for these
systems would be much less than any of the other options explored in this analysis.
Finally, the underground systems would be problematic in terms of inspection, both
during construction and as part of a regular inspection program, and in terms of
maintenance and upkeep. Silt deposits will require that the detention systems be cleaned
on a regular basis, but the storage volumes required for the systems do not lend
themselves to a large vault or a series of large pipes. In fact, the maximum proposed
height of both systems is three feet. This amount of clearance would not provide ample
space or access for easy maintenance. Also, in the case of future system rehabilitation,
both proposed systems would be costly and time-consuming to repair simply because of
their location beneath the parking deck or under the pavement.
II. Series of Small Detention Ponds
The second option explored was the use of a series of small detention ponds to detain the
stormwater runoff for the site. Physical characteristics of the site would probably
necessitate the construction of two ponds in order to provide the 7,000 CF of storage
required. The only feasible location for these ponds would be on the sloping portion of
the property below the proposed parking area and above the Neuse buffer.
This series of small detention ponds presents a couple of problems, however. We can
assume that each pond would be required to provide half of the necessary detention for
the overall site. Also assume that the ponds are located in the two existing small natural
basins, as shown in Exhibit 2. If we route the necessary stormwater through pond A (see
Exhibit 2), taking into account the physical characteristics of the natural basin and
assuming that the pond is a dry pond, we are required to construct about an 8.5-foot high
earthen dam. As shown in the exhibit, this part of the property has fairly steep existing
slopes, thus requiring an 8.5-foot high dam with a 3-to-1 side slope that will end up
impacting a large area. In order to construct two dams in the proposed locations, a fairly
significant impact would have to be imposed on the natural buffer between the proposed
parking area and the existing stream. This would be detrimental to the buffer and would
not coincide with the developmental ideal of the client, which is to incorporate the
riparian area into the overall development.
Much expense has been incurred during design and will be incurred during construction
to prevent the destruction of the natural area on the western portion of the property. A
250-foot retaining wall is being proposed west of the parking area in addition to a 380-
foot wall to the east of the proposed building. The eastern wall serves to allow the
building to be located as far to the east on the property as possible. The western wall
serves to keep fill slopes out of the natural area along the buffer, and the combined effect
of both walls is to keep the majority of land disturbing activity out of the area around the
buffer. Graded slopes could have easily been proposed for the site to reduce or eliminate
the need for retaining walls, and slopes could have even been graded to the edge of the
riparian buffer. This, however, would have been counterproductive to the client's desire
to preserve as much natural area as possible. It is for this same reason that a series of
small detention ponds is an undesirable design for stormwater detention. The
construction of the ponds would destroy the natural area that the client has dedicated
much time and resources to preserve.
In addition, there is an existing 20-foot sanitary sewer easement that runs through the
property between the proposed parking area and the buffer. The proposed sanitary sewer
in this area will provide sewer service for the proposed development as well as the 47-
acre development to the north, and would run directly through the proposed detention
areas. If the proposed sewer could somehow be relocated further uphill and closer to the
proposed parking area, the detention areas might possibly fit if they were moved down
the hill closer to the buffer. This option, again, would only increase undesirable impacts
to the riparian area.
III. Single Wet Pond
The third option considered is the construction of a large wet pond in the buffer area
below the proposed parking area (see Exhibit 3). This option has the added advantage of
being able to provide stormwater detention for the proposed development as well as for
the 16-acre development to the west. The proposed pond would have to be constructed,
however, to also handle the stormwater flows from the 47-acre development to the north.
Estimating stormwater flows in accordance with ordinance CR-7107 shows that we will
need about 70,000 CF of storage above the normal pool stage, based on the basins
physical characteristics and proposed location (Exhibit 3). The pond was routed using a
riser-barrel outflow device as well as 10- and 100-year weirs. With a normal surface
water elevation of 250', a wet pond in this location would require a 13-foot high, 160-
foot long dam.
This 13-foot high dam is close to a high hazard structure, as defined by the NCDENR
Division of Land Quality - Dam Safety Section. The sustained body of water associated
with the normal water surface elevation of the wet pond could be threatening to
downstream property owners in the case of a failure. A sudden discharge of this water is
particularly dangerous because downstream development, the Marriot Hotel and parking
lot, has been constructed directly in the natural stormwater path. Stormwater relief
measures to prevent flooding are in place on the Marriot property (namely a 42-inch pipe
under the existing parking lot) but could not handle discharges associated with dam
failure. The client does not wish to introduce the potential for the loss of life and
destruction of property as well as the liability and necessary maintenance associated with
a standing body of water.
A wet pond in the proposed location would adequately provide stormwater detention for
proposed developments on both sides of the buffer, as well as providing water quality
benefits for the development. The long-term impacts on the riparian area, however, are
substantial. All vegetation within the normal pool area of the pond would have to be
permanently removed, a fence would have to be constructed and permanently maintained
for safety measures, and the construction traffic needed to perform this clearing would
impact the buffer. Again, these impacts to the buffer and the natural area around the
buffer are contradictory to the time and resources invested by the client to preserve the
natural area. In addition, the west bank of the riparian area has existing slopes of about
2.5-to-1. If the vegetation is removed from these slopes and the slopes are permanently
under water, they may not be structurally stable.
IV. Single Dry Pond
The final option for stormwater detention is the construction of a large dry pond in the
same location as the proposed wet pond. About 70,000 CF of storage would still need to
be provided for the dry pond since the basin characteristics are the same as for the wet
pond. Routing the pond with a permanent orifice at ground level for 2-year and smaller
stormwater flows, and a 10- and 100-year weir for larger flows requires the construction
of an 11.5-foot high, 150-foot long dam. This routing predicted a 2-year high water
elevation of 252.2' and a 10-year high water elevation of 254.2'. The 10-year storm
would completely pass through the dry pond in less than 90 minutes (see Exhibit 4). This
means that the side slopes of the basin would not be inundated with water for long
periods of time, therefore maintaining the structural integrity of the steep slopes on the
west bank.
This structure would be able to provide stormwater detention for both sides of the basin
just like the wet pond, but would differ from the wet pond in that it would not provide the
same water quality benefits. Because almost all of the riparian buffer and natural area in
addition to the buffer can be maintained with this option, however, the dry pond would
provide a different type of water quality benefit. And as long as sediment runoff can be
controlled elsewhere on the site during construction, water quality should be adequately
addressed with the dry pond option.
The proposed dam would be designed and constructed such that it would impact the
buffer as little as possible. An earthen berm would provide a very economical dam for
the detention pond, but the 3-to-1 side slopes necessary for this type of construction
would produce a significant impact on the buffer. It is for this reason that the client plans
to construct a poured wall to serve as the detention dam. A poured concrete wall,
although much more expensive to design and construct than an earthen dam, will result in
a significant reduction in buffer impact. Minimization of the visual impact of the
proposed dam has also been considered. The client plans to cover the wall with vine
landscaping in order to blend the wall into the natural environment.
The preservation of the buffer would also be in line with the main emphasis of the client
with regards to stormwater management. The riparian area would be incorporated into
the development with as little intrusion as possible and would become one of the defining
attributes of the property. In addition, because the dry pond would serve as a stormwater
detention measure for both sides of the basin, it will provide comparable buffer
preservation benefits when the development of the neighboring property is considered.
In conclusion, several reasons point to the construction of a dry pond as the optimal
solution to stormwater management for the proposed development. First, the dry pond
will maximize human safety. There is no underground vault to collapse, no standing
water to fence, and a significant reduction in the possibility of downstream flooding in
the case of a dam failure. The dry pond maximizes the amount of buffer and other
natural area on the site that is left undisturbed. Disturbance to existing wetlands and
riparian buffer is minimized when compared to a single wet pond. The dry pond provides
for easy long-term maintenance and inspection for both the property owners and any
regulatory officials. Finally, the dry pond functions as a stormwater detention device for
the proposed development and provides water quality measures by allowing buffer
preservation above and beyond the required guidelines.
EXHIBIT 1
UNDERGROUND DETENTION
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Runoff Calculations
4. Storage Calculations
i
SITE
fI
a
i
VICINITY AIAP
NOT TO SCALE
// e CALCULATION SHEET PAGE I of
?6un
1
BCLIE?,?I„EJRINT!? -?, SUBJECT G ?3i2C_EG\.i?zcool? 7,?•=!z 'Zvl? ?a 2-
Prepared By/Date 7
PROJECT No. 4?T?'? ^??"?? ?ETF.? r?r> Reviewed By Date
v 2 -?f 2v ?i o (f - -j (0 -7
A = v, ?z
C

?p?ER P rtl7 - 3`? H ?T - Z& ?T - ?T
o,3?S
T = C ioq??f ? = 2.45
IZ?
FGitr cvC-R-?./ar r? FwkJ otil GPa??S? S?Z?P?LEs vSC-- a l {u?.rlPUGIZ-. L) 2
2 z,4s = 4.q0 t,4 I j
LCPIAi.irlEL - V?G ? 1
4 4 -
3 o.39s

el 0 4- S. °L "-A us C-- I? r-(inl,
?z = 4.710 It+e IgALroc..r-t
?6i
?
z , b = ?v . l 3 I "11+2 ? I-?t r?._ cc:? ?M I q 8

= zs.s
2-
cis
BARBARA M MULKEI EH4INEE RING iN(
CLIENT
PROJECT No
SUBJECT
,Pa-- -r-- - r ,/,=-Lc P Ti i1--- t4 T-- 1;7t.cJ -l T? I?__ S I T-
?i r1 r7 A LC__, I r^-l (-D e g r O q S AIZ eA-S
At= 0, la ,kc czc? Dec<
A Z. = 3 l AC,2ES ?SPN?cr'T WACr?s GTL .
A 3= o C? 3 Alice-.eS
ZAI12 C¢ ?5
PAGE 2 OF
Prepared By Date
Reviewed By Date
N mss ??w ?Y = 2? - '796 _
o,3af
3 3v = ? ? ?o? ?'f tr.1 ?-02_ O?r?2vM-rte Ft,o,..1 dhi ?Gfl
1 Z g Sv2?-tS `? f I ?LTI I°UC1L vF D `(
TG = V, 4 ?, I , & -7 = U,& 7 N 1.4
Low D _ (bo
?a,38S /
?2 Mlrl ?rZ U?/G21+'+T?9 yak/ vti( G?/?ssl
r 2 ? S u7z ? ? USA `-l u L71 tD a C.2 OF- -2,C)
ri.i = I z? 1? ir1
TC, 2,d O, (,-a
GNP r? nr r- -- 248 r--7 F?
I ?.
G TdT&L- Z 1 4- S, z4
-1- Z= 5,-7(o I ?tt2 C ?/kr CoLr? /?j8??
1,41
?
Qz = G1P, - qs) ? S,76; )C 2,?1Z) ?,? CFA

? -7, z7) C2 .clZ = ZO,O CAS
,00 - C?? - a,qs (`I 27,E C-s
CALCULATION SHEET
z ne
BARE RA N MULKEY ENGINEERING IN(
CLIENT SUBJECT
PROJECT No.
CALCULATION SHEET
S
PAGE-3-OF -L
Prepared By Date
Reviewed By Date

'?L = rt??( (5/tiME ?S PIZC-IroS

..Y I J 7, 21-

-7 Z
rte=
IN / r'I "? C 1 L

?
,
0,w5 ,7C,) s,?? = Co, Z2 C[-5,
G -i? x,20 -7,2Z 4,0) = 7, 8C2 GrS
?CJ,20?C9 ,'77i)CS`,'? = lt'???iU CFS

Q z= I (? , p t (? Z Z= 2 Z, Z Z- CF5
a ro 0 t- 7. g (9 CF-S
G2 rov = Z-7,0 k- l?-sue - 57, sQ GFS
Underground Vault
Pre-Development and Post-Development Calculations
Project Name: Crabtree Overlook
operator. A. W. Brackin
Job Number: 99485
Date: 1/31/00
Calculation of Runoff Volume required for storage
The runoff to the basin will be calculated using the Rational Method with a computed composite
runoff coefficient for all areas not directly connected to the basin (NDCIA's). Directly connected areas
(DCIA's), via pipes, channels, etc., are used here also to find the peak inflow into the basin. For
underground basins all inflow should be directly connected.
Entire Basin Drainage Area =
Area 1:
Drainage Area, A =
Runoff Coefficient, C =
Area 2:
Drainage Area, A =
Runoff Coefficient, C =
Composite Runoff Coefficient, C. =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, 02 =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, Q10 =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, 0100 =
Peak flow, piping system 1, Q2 =
Peak flow, piping system 1, 01o =
Peak flow, piping system 1, Q100 =
Peak flow, piping system 2, 02 =
Peak flow, piping system 2, 010 =
Peak flow, piping system 2, 0100 =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, Qp2 =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, (?p1o =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, Qploo =
8.32 acres
8.32 acres (all drainage areas pervious and impervious)
0.46 composite, see calculations
0 acres (all adjacent drainage areas)
0 composite, see calculations
0.46
22.22 cfs 2-yr storm
27.80 cfs 10-yr storm
37.50 cfs 100-yr storm
0.00 cfs, from stormwater calculations (2-yr storm)
0.00 cis, from stormwater calculations (10-yr storm)
0.00 cfs, from stormwater calculations (100-yr storm)
0 cis, from stormwater calculations (2-yr storm)
0.00 cfs, from stormwater calculations (10-yr storm)
0.00 cfs, from stormwater calculations (100-yr storm)
22.22 cfs, (2-yr storm)
27.80 cfs, (10-yr storm)
37.50 cts, (100-yr storm)
Compute Soil Storage, Depth of Runoff, and Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph
Precipitation Intensity, I =
Precipitation Depth, P =
SCS Curve Number, CN =
Soil Storage, S =
Depth of Runoff, Q =
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp =
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp =
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp =
Compute allowable outflow ==>
0.65 inches/hour, (for 10-yr, 6-hr storm)
3.90 inches
90 for hydrologic soil group B
1.11 inches
2.82 inches
46 min, for 2-yr storm
37 min, for 10-yr storm
27 min, for 50-yr storm
Use pre-development C for runoff cooefficient
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.28 43% wooded, 57% grassed
Intensity, 12 = 4.76 inches/hour
Page 1
Underground Vault
Intensity, 110 =
Area, A =
6.13 inches/hour
8.32 acres
Undetained Flow, QouT _
Undetained Flow, QouT _
Peak Allowable Outflow, 00 =
Peak Allowable Outflow, Qp =
Estimate Storage Needed ==>
Storage Needed, S =
Storage Needed, S =
0.00 cis, for 2-yr storm
0.00 cis, for 10-yr storm
19.80 cis, for 2-yr storm see calcs
25.50 cis, for 10-yr storm see caics
6683.79 CF, for 2-yr storm
5077.32 CF, for 10-yr storm
Page 2
EXHIBIT 2
SERIES OF SMALL
DETENTION PONDS
1. Site Plan
2. Storage Calculations
3. Routing Calculations, 2-yr Storm
4. Routing Calculations, 10-yr Storm
Series of Small Detention Ponds
Pre-Development and Post-Development Calculations
Proied Name: Crabtree Overlook
Operator. A. W. Brackin
Job Number: 99485
Date: 1/31/00

Contour
feet

Stage
feet
Contour
Area
S Average
Contour
Area
S Incremental
Contour
Volume
C Accumulated
Contour
Volume
C
266.0 0.0 442 221
268.0 2.0 820 631 1262 1262
270.0 4.0 1263 1042 2083 3345
272.0 6.0 1710 1487 2973 6318
274.0 8.0 2310 2010 4020 10338
276.0 10.0 2859 2585 5169 15507
Storage vs. Stage
18000
16000
14000
12000
3
? 10000
u
8000
a
`0 6000
N
4000
2000
0
•
y-410.95x'6"
R= 0.9973
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Stage (feet)
1 Ks = 410.95
b = 1.5518
Calculation of Runoff Volume required for storage
The runoff to the basin will be calculated using the Rational Method with a computed composite
runoff coefficient for all areas not directly connected to the basin (NDCIA's). Directly connected areas
(DCIA's), via pipes, channels, etc., are used here also to find the peak inflow into the basin. For
underground basins all inflow should be directly connected.
Entire Basin Drainage Area =
Area 1:
Drainage Area, A =
Runoff Coefficient, C =
Area 2:
Drainage Area, A =
Runoff Coefficient, C =
8.32 acres
8.32 acres (all drainage areas pervious and impervious)
0.46 composite, see calculations
0 acres (all adjacent drainage areas)
0 composite, see calculations
Page 1
Series of Small Detention Ponds
Composite Runoff Coefficient, C. _
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, 02 =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, C,o =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, 0100 =
Peak flow, piping system 1, 02 =
Peak flow, piping system 1, C,o =
Peak flow, piping system 1, O,oo =
Peak flow, piping system 2, 02 =
Peak flow, piping system 2, O,o =
Peak flow, piping system 2, 0100 =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, QP2 =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, Ctp,o =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, Cp,oo _
0.46
22.22 cis 2-yr storm see calcs
27.80 cis 10-yr storm see calcs
37.50 cis 100-yr storm see caics
0.00 ofs, from stormwater calculations (2-yr storm)
0.00 cis, from stormwater calculations (10-yr storm)
0.00 cis, from stormwater calculations (100-yr storm)
0 cis, from stormwater calculations (2-yr storm)
0.00 cis, from stormwater calculations (10-yr storm)
0.00 cis, from stormwater calculations (100-yr storm)
22.22 cis, (2-yr storm)
27.80 cis, (10-yr storm)
37.50 cis, (100-yr storm)
Compute Soil Storage, Depth of Runoff, and Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph
Precipitation Intensity, 1 = 0.65 inches/hour, (for 10-yr, 6-hr storm)
Precipitation Depth, P = 3.90 inches
SCS Curve Number, CN = 90 for hydrologic soil group B
Soil Storage, S = 1.11 inches
Depth of Runoff, a = 2.82 inches
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp = 46 min, for 2-yr storm
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp = 37 min, for 10-yr storm
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp = 27 min, for 50-yr storm
Compute allowable outflow =>
Undetained Flow, 0ovT = 0.00 cfs, for 2-yr storm
Undetained Flow, CouT = 0.00 cfs, for 10-yr storm
Peak Allowable Outflow, (:? _
Peak Allowable Outflow, Oo =
Estimate Storage Needed =->
Storage Needed, S =
Storage Needed, S =
1/2 Storage Needed, s=
1/2 Storage Needed, s=
19.80 cis, for 2-yr storm see calcs
25.50 cfs, for 10-yr storm see calcs
6683.79 CF, for 2-yr storm
5077.32 CF, for 10-yr storm
3341.89 CF, for 2-yr storm
2538.66 CF, for 10-yr storm
Calculation of depth required for runoff storage basin
Calculations are made using the representative basin as described above using derived values
for K, and b, and storage calculated for the 10-year storm.
K. = 410.95 from above
b = 1.5518 from above
Depth of basin, d = 3.86 feet, theoretical
Depth of basin, d = 4.00 feet, design
Page 2
k
:xsat:arpayx:?zaaxaa?xr?assLAStdb1Y13tis2t:q?t:a.-NO...
wo

-- 11
r?
uN? .Neb4+
N?yY?NNd? .v.NV

u
N.
N '
N-
N N
yy g
yy
yy?Yy yy yyyyyyyyy
yyyy
yyyyy
y
w
-..??4?????!l?i 1?87??7?66R76?3i3
¦NO??????;??":'lr7/y f7 t7 ?

000oooooeooooooooeooeeooooo00o Q?
SS

eeoeoooc
?t
eases ee??e....e Eli
00oooooeeeooeoeeeoeoeeeo eoeoooo ??

YYYYYYYYY61 b{b16{bi 6t 6t 6l to bi b{bt 61616{ btYYYYYYYYtl86t L'dtl61p1dFi fO ki fO kt kt ??

eooooeeoeoeeeeeeeeoeeooe a

4
?F
888888$88'88888888$888888888888888888888$888888888
-zi
';1?o..
45 o<aLe»-
888 ss4sao$$ 84998e8a88
it i it I I it 7 gi j
ps: ?
ae
Gaa
II
goz?
?e
s?s8
i
?.W
g 6 S 6 C e

a

?
a

g

G
"a

8
a
e
7
s
i

??
aYpeaaYaa?x:??aaYaaruYS?sasNskYY(3fJ??t:t323::Swa...we

N N N.

."-aPS:S?g?SfE1S9N:t»'?° -C9?Y?lS$'? °?= =-yete 88

000 00000oooooeoo ??
ooo?? i?

oooeeooooooeeeoooooooeeooooo ??L
00oooooaoo ooeeooooo0000 ??

. d dddtldddddd
dddYYYYYYYhiabllAb{b{hlbtN6iU6{bl6{dd1A6t5ttltbtaYYY4 Yd
. .
S
Y Y''!'S 9.b G$R1S ??? tf3 Netb L '" gam

o f
4

o?.ee ,og ao
............. . ....
g}
oeoeooeoooooooooeeooo-o, oeooooaoeoaeeoooooooo?
$$$$889988$88$$$$$9$$$8888888$$88$$888888888$888 "'
o .V.
SL ?
9888 8x388898 8»88S88a88
it i it i it it g !

. ?N
ii
s
$e.e
i
g6 C 6 0 0 0 a 6 6
?e
?w
e 3 6
a
a
a g
5
?a p
Ig 3
6
6
e
a
i
Y
s

EXHIBIT 3
SINGLE WET POND
1. Site Plan
2. Runoff Calculations
3. Storage Calculations
4. Routing Calculations, 2-yr Storm
5. Routing Calculations, 10-yr Storm
6. Routing Calculations, 100-yr Storm
BARBARA H MUIXEI ENGINE( RING IN(
CLIENT
PROJECT No.
SUBJECT
CALCULATION SHEET

PAGE J OF 6
Prepared By Date
Reviewed By Date
0SC-" jZ -f 7vr4-6F7r f7?i??? i?!? Ci?_ - -110`7

L u -/, , ?6 CD
?tovGc_?r?tr?.p = -Z8-
i z g - --- _ _ _ ___ _ Cam! G2c.,e?,-?o Fi,o ?..r o ? Gnus
= 2 X 2,o 2 ^ 4. C)4 A-4 o4
L c-t = C? S o ?r
3 05-
r- 12-6
07)-- = Z OZ r- 57, d2-- = ? 04- ?? i =? U 5C-. -7 H 1 xj
z I9 8q)
`j/ f+- ?--
?z. ' C.S? ' O , Sv )?S 3G )?-7 4L = 2?, coo GAS
//x/ n,P
BARBARA N MIRER ENGINEERING IN(
CLIENT
PROJECT No
CALCULATION SHEET
SUBJECT
--e\/ C ter -t C-? ?? iZ
PAGE 1:5;7 OF `?
Prepared By Date
Reviewed By Date
A-0 5A? C-_-u-r-

S )1?5- I4,a c , \, /&I- ??-S 9-1? .
?r2-?-s -- rzoo ?r-G P C z?
10
dv
5,82-
?co _C
=C = Co.Q SV?i ( ,79 8,20
7 l , Sg C
G?
00
,I r c D Rc?. rG. atit - ?? P G2Ll c ??>? S ?-? -
Ps ?, 02
C d , 20/ve?c?C-?
?L ----: -? I-l t r•.l

„??( 7,oz?= 7,53 CAS
Flo -C = (o,20 0z) _ „sz CFS
-7,0
tL t7
Z" 4 75- 7, 5-3 = ?t q 7-6 Cry
S2 8 2 +- E S 2 = (? 2 3,4 CFS
CC S
/6 e
BARBARA H MUIItfI EMGIREE RING IN(
CLIENT
PROJECT No.
SUBJECT
CALCULATION SHEET

(o G = oR C (, - o
PAGE OF l
Prepared By Date
Reviewed By Date
/kl = Z?, , I t ?c2c-s-4?r??c oz? C = ©, scs ?G-rL C2 - I o
/ass u r-t(;;- T? = S M rte(
T Z = S , 7 (o ?'?`l EtR Cr1AU.oc ri-? M 89
o = 7,2-7-
= C?? = o,2 (-7 Z2 54, 35 = Zoq: d s C
-5
GFS
cq?s ?I ,-7z s9, 3s = 9-74,71
Single Wet Pond
Pre-Development and Post-Development Calculations
Project Name: Crabtree Overlook
Operator. A. W. Brackin
Job Number: 99485
Date: 1/31/00

Contour
feet

Stage
feet
Contour
Area
S Average
Contour
Area
S Incremental
Contour
Volume
C Accumulated
Contour
Volume
C
244.0 0.0 86 43
246.0 2.0 1095 591 1181 1181
248.0 4.0 3516 2306 4611 5792
250.0 6.0 9190 6353 12706 18498
252.0 8.0 17828 13509 27018 45516
254.0 10.0 30992 24410 48820 94336
256.0 12.0 42063 36528 73055 167391
258.0 14.0 50080 46072 92143 259534
Storage vs. Stage
300000
250000
200000
Y
a
U 150000
y . 138.34 "
R2.0.9949

a 100000
a
50000 {
0I - -?
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Stays (feet)
1 Ks = 138.34
b = 2.8205
Calculation of Runoff Volume required for storage
The runoff to the basin will be calculated using the Rational Method with a computed composite
runoff coefficient for all areas not directly connected to the basin (NDCIA's). Directly connected areas
(DCIA's), via pipes, channels, etc., are used here also to find the peak inflow into the basin. For
underground basins all inflow should be directly connected.
Entire Basin Drainage Area = 70.13 acres
Overlook site and adjacent site flow, Q2 = 71.50 cfs 2-yr storm see calcs
Overtook site and adjacent site flow, Q1o = 90.14 cis 10-yr storm see calcs
Overlook site and adjacent site flow, Q100 = 122.00 cis 100-yr storm see calcs
Flow from above road, Q2 = 162.79 cis 2-yr storm see calcs
Flow from above road, Q10 = 204.05 cis 10-yr storm see calcs
Flow from above road, Q1pp = 274.71 cis 100-yr storm see calcs
Page 1
Single Wet Pond
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, Q2 = 234.29 cis 2-yr storm see calcs
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, 0,10 = 294.19 cis 10-yr stone see calcs
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, 0p100 = 396.71 cis 100-yr storm see calcs
Compute Soil Storage, Depth of Runoff, and Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph
Precipitation Intensity, 1 = 0.44 inches/hour, (for 2-yr, 6-hr storm)
Precipitation Depth, P = 2.64 inches
Precipitation Intensity, 1 = 0.65 inches/hour, (for 10-yr, 6-hr storm)
Precipitation Depth, P = 3.90 inches
Precipitation Intensity, 1 = 0.96 inches/hour, (for 100-yr, 6-hr storm)
Precipitation Depth, P = 5.76 inches
SCS Curve Number, CN = 90 for hydrologic soil group B
Soil Storage, S = 1.11 inches
Depth of Runoff, Q = 1.66 inches 2-yr
Depth of Runoff, 0 = 2.82 inches 10-yr
Depth of Runoff, Q = 4.61 inches 100-yr
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp = 22 min, for 2-yr storm
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp = 29 min, for 10-yr storm
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp = 35 min, for 100-yr stone
Compute allowable outflow =>
Peak Allowable Outflow, 02 = 202.59 cis, for 2-yr storm see calcs
Peak Allowable Outflow, 010 = 254.84 cis, for 10-yr storm see calcs
Estimate Storage Needed =>
Storage Needed, S = 41048.37 CF, for 2-yr storm
Storage Needed, S = 69190.86 CF, for 10-yr storm
Calculation of depth required for runoff storage basin
Calculations are made using the representative basin as described above using derived values
for K. and b, and storage calculated for the 10-year storm.
K, = 138.34 from above
b= 2.8205 from above
Depth of basin, d = 7.53 feet, theoretical
Depth of basin, d = 9.00 feet, design
Page 2

I
aRSSpaeaa?x_???alppuxr??sseas?uYpuxaz' 11 b as.a.No

:a:23G2t?Ip5S?pf69?A1A9?yIp?fN?YNp91{i80S:.o
? b? In' b.u nM.
tn? Yb 11u b
g

`S
r3??Yf??????Ba
?L^iSip?C:
t
i
L"
8`
"' 4?
,
ocOO
lS.
,
,
opA2i
b
tl
?b'8NO° "'yms' kR9L ? 11:Q?3 A G 'Y8?0'C. ?@. .
odA2i-Gtl
ts
?`'. Glvooo
8
w
iS0lS163p@0??@?Rp009Y2335?At?RSWfY?9Y?ICi?tOt'A 'ti0
GLG ?
o
?6 ?

.YY:x?t?i@?3????t?t?i?iM`-pppYyt ?t ?nfABYS????r??9pl¢?3GSbt?t????
Dt ? tlyba' _R@Y?0 its s A A ht?'=A!@ss

AAA
.0 SA•fdA 11q !9= 0iSA0'.° S0S YN G

O<a00aoovooooo0ee0o00ooso0o g?
?
ppggNp tH? gy yyYY
1tt
,tl.? .tl.s E? ?PPP????p ? GIaN YG ??F ? Y Y ?p?tl. In
I
12
4
s
0000000000000000000 r
a*
rT
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
r.. orrs Nbi
?U?3 ?boofoffo ?°73foS??p-
88@8$ 8»$8$88x88
ass 8i; al
it I
es:I
?9
a$8
rs
4
?o
8e88
g E ? e
B

p b b b b ? L b b
8
E

i

if
EY88g?YRB?eI:??OEYRIB?ifCI?LLSiGS?lYktli7i2tYf3?I:S:HO.s.NO
abb
?
F ? 1d9Nw,84'.
:21d:??if36t1tSS8C8E??S`$ :I?SRyf
--------------
.
H
.
.
N ? .
.
.
N
?
?
N
N
:
W
yy
r!??
rg, ?yyy rr?? yy gg !!{{ rr?? !!?? !
??
y
!!?? !? g
? !?
?? y
!!??
!?
!? !!?? !g{ !!?? KK !!??g {{yy !!?? !!?
j r
yy !
??
;
?
?
?
'??xi??'??$8$y?EBfYa.vo°
2ld12t22,R?SiS?°;l ?SflCpi
?yBG?
?gc? -u2i 1C 2` ?1dY' ?3t f y$°a Y

?goS ? -ayp '8 lI?Y d S N 3: '!G

.
IS $ 8$
Y `Y -QY E Sfds E?G'vi

ptot?tdy;?ppq?aK(ic?rpH+y#'s'p,'zz??s,'a.'Epe's=?pxa?RS(?y5 Q H
T IE

2 j # ??
nnnaa??'HrY?UM ?rRi?? ysRi3a.'sa's.'E'?°9-e?8r.'a 54
'
1
3
7 y !` NY 8G? ?A f ': SSC! Rts

? ?
§lsysla''d ht"?E E § SS
u$s " 8g 64, y

Ni3L1?9RS:ooo°ooo°°°°°°o°°

98??'8g8?'9$$'8$$$88$$$8$88$8$8888$8$8888$8888$8889
CLp I ?e8 will
vyeE.?

8
tt $ '8

Gas
II
?go
I
8.$$$8$8 8v$8$$8G$$
I I I I I I I I I I
! E E BwE ? ? ?
g ?.
g

i
$

$UPON
L

B

A
e
AAir.
R
s

5

8f138S&fRSB??:??R8YPS8fCllralSSSiGSNtbtYfd13?t2tYd2taa:No.,..»a

'
3 §Y
b t'^s? bt Y sa s Lf &' - asvs sb '!
?
°°
+a t r a of a bsa a- a 1e-
S?
?
Lkty:oo
8H° r?i=Y?5p
o8 ;? y? N9°R=y2?
B a 1
,
t
t
8 t
s ? ii?tLd Q8 »-LS 8aG iA a?_
qth'tytaCS?Bft??yDls?G$;sRssRRRYYf?tY?t?90'=9°?sF=?M?R='=- ??

u?SaLo???.-a ??yBRR?d?RSRssRRRR'f?¢aPaps?9?u.'a?'b?p?#-"?
? ' bt Y _IA ?1t ?' ' ?5'G ss

?Q

fes _y, s ;?s- ? ses- s8's- s f yss
'OSf??98?yfs8SY698Ntee e e e e ee eeee eo
eeoeoooooooooo
--,
'
?4;;8 6t' A l13R?
a
G8
t
i
8 ausRy"""eO
88888$88$$888$B$88888 t! 8
-:"?Fls$MIosK988888888888$8888 »
R "ill

?8
988
it
PC,M
888
ti
?gc
S
8sse8
?°oosero s?axee? a-
8°1;899 k88 8389988?88
[ If j g II I[ I
ggeEE?EEEE

g f

b

A

8
sp
ip
;
i
i
EXHIBIT 4
SINGLE DRY POND
1. Site Plan
2. Storage Calculations
3. Routing Calculations, 2-yr Storm
4. Routing Calculations, 10-yr Storm
5. Proposed Dam Cross-section
Single Dry Pond
Pre-Development and Post-Development Calculations
Project Name: Crabtree Overlook
Operator. A. W. Brackin
Job Number: 99485
Date: 1/31/00

Contour
feet

Stage
feet
Contour
Area
S Average
Contour
Area
S Incremental
Contour
Volume
C Accumulated
Contour
Volume
C
244.0 0.0 218 109
246.0 2.0 1854 1036 2072 2072
248.0 4.0 6439 4147 8293 10365
250.0 6.0 14697 10568 21136 31501
252.0 8.0 24762 19730 39459 70960
254.0 10.0 39414 32088 64176 135136
Storage vs. Stage
160000
140000
120000
Y 100000
a
u 80000
U) 40000
20000
0
y . 316.14)e'
R2.0.9975

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Stage (feet)
1 Ks= 316.141
b = 2.5982
Calculation of Runoff Volume required for storage
The runoff to the basin will be calculated using the Rational Method with a computed composite
runoff coefficient for all areas not directly connected to the basin (NDCIA's). Directly connected areas
(DCIA's), via pipes, channels, etc., are used here also to find the peak inflow into the basin. For
underground basins all inflow should be directly connected.
Entire Basin Drainage Area =
Area 1:
Drainage Area, A =
Runoff Coefficient, C =
Area 2:
Drainage Area, A =
Runoff Coefficient, C =
70.13 acres
8.32 acres (all drainage areas pervious and impervious)
0.46 composite, see calculations
15.22 acres (all adjacent drainage areas)
0.6 composite, see calculations
Page 1
Single Dry Pond
Composite Runoff Coefficient, C. = 0.55
Overland Length of Basin, L„,ww = 0.00 feet
High Elevation of Overland Flow, E, = 0.00 feet
Low Elevation of Overland Flow, E2 = 0.00 feet
Slope of Overland Flow, S = 0.00 percent
Time to Concentration for Overland Flow, T., = 0.0 min, (Figure 3-1)
Channel Length of Basin, La,,,,,,., _
High Elevation of Channel Flow, E, _
Low Elevation of Channel Flow, E2 =
Slope of Channel Flow, S =
Time to Concentration for Channel Flow, To _
0.00 feet
0.00 feet
0.00 feet
0.00 percent
0.0 min, (Figure 3-1)
Time to Concentration for NDCIA's, T, _
Maximum Pipe Time to Basin Inlet, T2 =
Total Time to Concentration for basin, Tc _
Rainfall Intensity, h =
Rainfall Intensity, 110 =
Rainfall Intensity, 6 =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, 02 =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, Q,o =
Non-directly Connected Areas Peak Flow, 0100 _
Peak flow, piping system 1, 02 =
Peak flow, piping system 1, Q,o =
Peak flow, piping system 1, Q100 _
Peak flow, piping system 2, 02 =
Peak flow, piping system 2, Q,o =
Peak flow, piping system 2, 0100 _
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, opt =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, Qp,o =
Peak Flow for Inflow Hydrograph, Qp,oo _
0.0 min.
0.0 min, (23.1 min for 24' RCP under road + 2.4 min pipe time)
0.0 min.
0.00 inches/hour, (for a 2-yr storm of duration Tc, Table 3-3)
0.00 inches/hour, (for a 10-yr storm of duration T., Table 3-3)
0.00 inches/hour, (for a 100-yr storm of duration Tc, Table 3-3)
71.50 cfs 2-yr storm see calcs
90.14 cfs 10-yr storm see calcs
122.00 cfs 100-yr stone see calcs
162.79 cfs, from stormwater calculations (2-yr storm)
204.05 cis, from stormwater calculations (10-yr storm)
274.71 cts, from stormwater calculations (100-yr storm)
0 cfs, from stormwater calculations (2-yr storm)
0.00 cfs, from stormwater calculations (10-yr stone)
0.00 cfs, from stormwater calculations (100-yr storm)
234.29 cfs, (2-yr storm)
294.19 cis, (10-yr storm)
396.71 cfs, (100-yr storm)
Compute Soil Storage, Depth of Runoff, and Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph
Precipitation Intensity, I
Precipitation Depth, P =
SCS Curve Number, CN =
Soil Storage, S =
0.65 inches/hour, (for 10-yr, 6-hr storm)
3.90 inches
90 for hydrologic soil group B
1.11 inches
Depth of Runoff, Q =
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp =
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, T. =
Time to Peak for Inflow Hydrograph, Tp =
Compute allowable outflow =_>
Use pre-development C for runoff cooefficient
2.82 inches
37 min, for 2-yr storm
29 min, for 10-yr storm
22 min, for 50-yr storm
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.28 43% wooded, 57% grassed
Intensity, 12 = 0.00 inches/hour
Intensity, 110 = 0.00 inches/hour
Area, A = 70.13 acres
Page 2
Single Dry Pond
Undetained Flow, QouT
Undetained Flow, Ookff _
0.00 cis, for 2-yr storm
0.00 cis, for 10-yr storm
Peak Allowable Outflow, C o _
Peak Allowable Outflow, % =
Estimate Storage Needed =>
202.59 cis, for 2-yr storm see calcs
254.84 cis, for 10-yr storm see calcs
Storage Needed, S = 69990.22 CF, for 2-yr storm
Storage Needed, S = 69190.86 CF, for 10-yr storm
Calculation of depth required for runoff storage basin
Calculations are made using the representative basin as described above using derived values
for K. and b, and storage calculated for the 10-year storm.
K, _
b=
316.14 from above
2.5982 from above
Depth of basin, d =
Depth of basin, d =
7.99 feet, theoretical
8.00 feet, design
Page 3

8Yi38g!H!J.gils99 YPSB?M6iSiGb6t5tYkii?2t:t3?3:a:wS.a.- 1
__ :$??t?tfiyS??169?Gbt8?b??r?PN??qN¢AIyBSS:,.o
u
.
u u? wwin ln.
.bww N? Y. ?
M' ?
b
. ??
4
pj1
Q` !
?'?
j [yo
'pj
!:H oo '

------------
???????????????????????eeeooeeeoooooocoooooooeooo

ooooeooooo0000 ooe eooce eoeooeoooo ??

eoooeeeeooooo0oooooeeeoeoo •L
e?sP'+2es?s$?D ?G" ITu:oo S

Iffulf
• ? ? i? Lshi Nf3?
e$N?'? g
p5:? P:? ?s?= [?EF895pQ:?
ZIA.
kl?$ $§?$$$$8 $»8$$$$?8$
PC??
&?8
t[
?gc'Y
Aewe
i
g g EwC ? 6
P
E

t
g i

E

?r
i

i
ffi

ltYJ9ss8YR8yy:??®SYRI81¢1?1CgaSSfG6Y1fYk{a2t2tYt32t:a::o.a.No
o-8
?:agY??i(3blN? 1S1A88b??`BN??(?yY????7?P???7????1d,9??auuo
88?88888888?0???l?S???Ti?,CIb?Z?r7?8??66A??i{?d?7?RNNoo

.N. w.
888888888888
?
'
?
?8°'g??28Gya?t&oe
1S71yt
y1F8?Ept.
.b

888888888888e?eeeeeceeeeeeeecoec?peeoeeeeeeoc?ee?
88888?8888?8
ooooeeoeoooooeepoooeeeoooeoeeeeeoeeoo
oooooeeeooooooooooeeoeeeooo ococ

eooooooooeoeooeee yp 34
iL
i
0000000oooooeoaeeeeooooooeee +?

88888888888 Ayr=?:e9.??#?,,??;?"-?s-s,B?R?eayaaa
' 83
:
?
?
$
g>
??:

y
??y
y
}
ply ySj
yyr? yy pp
L
'
????????????
"
u?pooooecec?uocee
eeeaeeeeeee°e.Npau?
d
g
000000oooooeooooeooeooeeoeeoooooe
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$88$$8$8$$$$8$8$$$$$$
•? f? i?61 w?K,
QG:? P?:i' X802 i?[?8854Q?
Ei88
pcr?
&88
ii
ip
lif
i
S
8fs'°s?
i

8u5881s88 8.888$89$$
i 111 1iiiij

BYp9C8 YPSE??:??S8YR81CTfC?ffisSLGS6tStYkt82i2t:d22va:HS...»o
bbbbbbbb

??E1dGi6?3=?9gy??8??P? Z•????u???? ?r+?a8?'92"'9f3:'3"dtioo
?
??,Se- s Y s°
e a $8ae?
??e eoe
??
ee eooeoo 0oooooeoooooooe

?
o
s sY " $ S $8I8At
'x.?Y'?' $ Y
y It

??
$8$80 'Ct'3YGSP?Sd16a8?98Yeooeoeeooeeeooo
? l
?? ??
btSSa:f?tRt6pooe
ooooeoeeeoeooeeoeeee.?
$$$8$$$$$$'a$$$$$$$$$$`-?$$$a?ssa8$s$sgs?a?s8sss°$
kSBL bo 3

5?a

8

6
pe

Y

°ooiofiN A.
8&88$88 8»88$88!3$$
112 CALCULATION SHEET PAGE --L OF /
BARBARAN MUIREYINGINE RANG IN(
CLIENT I SUBJECT ?? F f ?? ?1/L C o OI/ Prepared By i? Date..=j-- -19"
PROJECT No. 10 1i P-u r '" SFCT10 Reviewed By Date
?N N N N N ?V N N N N
-+? P Q J1 Jl VIA
J1 ?! ? ..? C - N IN
»
-tI
C 4 N
G? z
•• N N
nN

0 N
I.NP' fv `?
F
N
?N N
N
0
?N
o
--c
n
N N N ?' N N N N N N N
a p ?i 11 A Vy VI 0 RA ,n
31
a
0
•n,
,
?. w . , ..
,
?.
\
n • ?i
?a
I ? I::; ?': :... ':. \_ ! •,. •, 1 -----------\ ',. '?. '•. , i `S .?i. _'__..,_-,,_. ? •...... l ! 1 r i ` i TI / l ? ;' i Da I'? ...
r
i
„
r i I
i
r' /
I
'r I
i
„y •
t. -
m' I
'1' / rr _-'r8E3
f J
- _... !!!
„ ` / IIII' /
I.. I
\ f /
, .,? . • ...... .. 290 ! /-....._...r ........ hll r l:r M'L'Xa!1ror „\1 , I'.,. 1,;',,I ?.yG• (.. I...
?? •. Y . ,,' ?.-.._ .._ ......_.....- . _ I . } mac..:. i? I....-i it \?\' '? r 1 I
_ I I
1
I,
t .1
rr ...
I
_ ,SI/ m{C1?Fe ,,{:. ? pQ _ \ ` ?} rr??i.tf;_. -r r$. - `\ I i?A?.,..{ i(?• }QI. f \ ^ /'':/' /I, ... ..-. f.
/
r
.? - -
,
_ .. .. a'i
- •P
,
b. { I - P
w
,
-
,.. .....
yr, .. _ ....
I _. 1. ... .....
III _...._. ..... .,
h
,
' I / /? f W fr (((
i_
;
j I Ni2gS7CE : • ,tPr.',•, 3 ? ,,,..., r. .-....-. ? ', ? % t
r ,
-03
ff 1 _._..
r
LI3ADMING
ROAD (5R 18Z0)
Lr?nMrNls ROAD \Y.. lszo?
A
fix...
m
i?
m
I?Qg?
4

n.
I?

111
p DescrIptlon
OF
? -? ,n F v m
SERIES SMALL
CRABTREE - OVERLOOK
q ro m me o 11iYJl liPlwNil•.:It."'
0 0 n u :) 557 lone. F-n in Road
4 M, DETENTION Ral.Iph?N.C.?27606 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
PONDS 1914 esi 1918 IFNq
........
.....,.
1 ??•' •'8U
Q
_._.
` II
?Ir I
. `.
,
"Ile
,
r ?
r
... li
.
,
c
..........
,
' , , ..,..
/ ..... _
:I
\ i ........-....
`I
:
.../ I M1 _ _ .... _.......
...
._.....? •A
T 7.
r•'y
h
I) I
.., ... .... I it r _ ..._.._.. -
•
3+30
` r
I -
'• ...
r :... b.5 \ ....
`t'•`
U \ n
?i
r. i
_ i
' i ! f !
....
..-"-
i?

// /" I
, 111

!
I
?r
- .
I '
r^
_ / ..?..
- - -
_ .. r' ---- .....
I '
... , ._.. _ ?' ..... __ .. ,. ....., ... ,_
Q
_
- --
t
I
b
1 M
> I I
11
r
Y
n '
_
11i 4DMINE ROAD (SR 1820)
_.. L6:4DMI ?.
_.....: .... ROAD
(....18.
/3,'01,1.•x,5,
.... '.......
'- i rM ...................
W `n
m P
?' @7D
p P Deeorlptton p
CRABTREE -OVERLOOK
I m n ro a <
n F °
0 1[ 6w.in,'/nafrw,W-„
?' o m "p A SINGLE WET
° POND 999'sl,•Y16?4A Rid
Welgh, N.C. 27606 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone]
_....,
,
...........
.........................
,
\ _._ .....
....... / ...`..
.... saes . ' . /
i
•
.

K!
,
.........._..
r ,
\
r
..........
t\ \ ... - !
\
...........
..?
i .....
i
.i L
I
..
r
r:
?/ I _.. ......
i
-..;
/
\ ._..... ?.rNrr.r .?r r \' 1
_... ..,,?., f., r 1 1 i I I ....y ., t.. .. garlYf d! tiYilA.?71t. •,,...„ ..t..,;.... ri1
,
4.
I • .. _ Ji 1
.. - I /
I
J r
I'
i
n
/' tl
1 1
_..
II?( .f ?... yr na,`??Pi X111
I ,
yk? .... . „ l
_r
1 7 / '8
x
j L r I. I
4_.
it 4 /... -31Q
`
lI
......
...-
,
r
a
.4
..._. - ?•
...........
(._. -rt, ? •?:, /, _..__ 3201--==-N. .•? \ ? ??:`~ ..............._-....._
,
...,1 .. ---... _ ., . .......
....._ ........ ._... ....
Q b?
nl T ... Jr rYf? _
...'.... ..
.. 1 k
.............. ...
. ..
@} (_
..........
i ......, - b ..
i 1 1
...............I, __.._ .... 6 ryf,Y,? rIV.C b
1
/

/
/
NIYOIS'lC .......
sirJrzew
uJ a Zo
_ ^..._....._ ...... ..... ._.. --
LEAD lmr, ROAIJ (SR [820)
MINE
i - - - _ ROAD 'rsg IBao)
I :.
'lam
a 'vt
aw
III
OVA
- O
n
co
r d +
i
N + N
s
0 0

v
4
Deecriptlon
SINGLE DRY
POND
F41? ?
i
..... _....?
,
y
I?; 1 ?....
...........
A s?®
CRABTREE - OVERLOOK
irk
639 J.- Franklin Road
sal+• 11 '1afAf1A
tr_t_r_L u RALEIGHI NORTH CAROLINA
- i'
,
,
...... _ 9U`
..................
S? ^\
.
Q - ........
i 9eB
t1 .,
s
- -- -
.•» \ ?...._ ...... _...._........_... ,,..
-?-- \
El
e
...........
dv II _.,
.... fir J
........I• \\ i
e '
t f i
!
,
°t gt? ., _.....__.......
I,tr
\ i
\ t
`4•.
\..
_-
.
r•
-
.r
i
\ \`
.• `•. j....... __- __ ............. _.................I
.r
.... .
\1 I
.r
i
R-
`. __ ..
-7 I / r!l
Ij ?,........ _.._ ...................._............_ ..._ ?'.'? ` 4?_ _ , ?I ! , ', ? _.. , • ,"?,• it ,` •,I 11?
.................. .._
_. _.._ , 320 .......... ?
??-
,
1...._.._....._...._
_ a._ . .
- _.,....._.,_ .......
AW.
I II•
b... ...
_ 77'
yr _
y
T,
X ,
f 1 N/DK• ?.I??
............ ........_ ..
_....

strJrzbw
41
r. ?1IIV \
i I ? III `
LF4D,i41NF
.ROAD _ _.. ?
(5R 1820) rarrr ......
r, _ .. 'In. ---"?-? \?.•_
? -._ '(sR 182
0)
a?
)y
arm
n ?
N ?
4
p Desorlptlon
`s
vl ir v
v 0
o N m UNDERGROUND
0 DETENTION
CRABTREE
559 )one. Franklin Road
Sint. ,61-"
u r -Ann RALEIGH, I
OVERLOOK
CAROLINA