SW5210304_SW Narrative_20210528

YGLINGSVIIILE STORAGE
1. 1. N .;� 'V 1...1..E,, IrRANKJAN COUN'T.Y.,, . IR(.1"A.1.0LIMA �.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DRAWING No. D-1240
��uunuq,�
CARo�i''%
ESS/0''•:L9''
9.
'� SEAL i
38746
J. DANTZLER WITHERS, P.E.
MARCH 18, 2021, REV. MAY 24, 2021
DEVELOPER
C4-YS, LLC
DBA YOUNGSVILLE STORAGE
121 W TRADE STREET, STE. 2550
CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
CONSULTING
GROUP, PLLC
2755-B CHARLES BLVD
GREENVILLE, NC 27858
[phone]
NCBELS LICENSE No. P-1199

YOUNGSVILLE MINI STORAGE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
YOUNGSVILLE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2021
LOCATION:
The proposed project is an expansion of the existing Youngsville Storage mini storage
facility located between Hillsboro Street and North College Street in Youngsville, North
Carolina. The expansion to the north and west will involve a recombination of adjacent
parcels, resulting in a site with a total area of approximately 8.7 acres.
The proposed development is not subject to a local stormwater program and will be
permitted under the State's stormwater program. The project is roughly evenly divided
between the Tar -Pamlico and Neuse River basins and is subject to the associated rules
for those basins.
DESCRIPTION:
The limits of disturbance for this project are 7.6 acres. The property has historically
been vacant land (mowed pasture) with a small residential component. The adjacent
land to the north will remain vacant meadow, and the site will be bound on the east by
residential and institutional uses and on the west by Park Avenue (NC-96, US-1A).
Soils onsite consist of Cecil sandy loam (CaB and CaQ as shown on the Franklin County
Soild Survey.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
The project includes construction of three new self -storage building and an outdoor
gravel storage area. There are also appurtenant improvements, including construction
of a new turn lane, utility improvements, and drive aisles.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS:
Although within the Town of Youngsville limits, a Phase II Post -Construction Stormwater
area, the proposed system is subject to State permitting. The stormwater management
has been designed in accordance with State requirements. Runoff volume match is
provided by two infiltration basins.

The site is also subject to Nitrogen and Phosphorus loading requirements set forth in the
Tar -Pamlico and Neuse river basin rules.
The following sets of calculations are included for demonstrating compliance with the
pertinent regulations:
0 Runoff Volume Match Calculations for the portion of the site falling within the
Neuse River Basin
0 Runoff Volume Match Calculations for the portion of the site falling within the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin
Calculations showing the treatment volume of each infiltration basin is drawn
down within the required time
Neuse Nutrient Load Calculations
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Load Calculations

0UNGS II ..,E, F _ANKI..,IN COUNTY, NORTH ("All.011NA
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DRAWING No. D-1240
STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE CALCULATIONS

Ark Consulting Group, PLLC
JOB 19006 - Youngsville Storage
2755-B Charles Boulevard
DATE May-21
Greenville, NC 27858
CALCULATED BY TGN/J DW
252-558-0888
CHECKED BY J DW
Annual Runoff Volume Match (Neuse River Basin)
GOAL: Compute the pre -development annual runoff volume and post -development annual runoff volume for the portion of the project that
falls within the Neuse River Basin. The net increase
shall be no more than 10% from the pre -development condition.
Units Symbols & Governing Equations
Drainage Basin Summary
Total Site Area (Parcel+All New Impervious)
168980 sf Alice
Roof Impervious
58750 ':sf Aroor
Transportation Impervious
41794 'sf tra-
Total Impervious Area
100544 sf Amp-ious
Percent Impervious
60 % (Aimper,ious/ Asite)*100
Impervious Fraction
0.60 IA
Constants Across Site
P (Neuse Station, retrieved 5/6/21 from
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ind
Average Annual Precipitation 45,76 in ex.html?id=633ce7fOa61a44f9997ff257e25b9a81)
Fraction of All Storm Events that Produce Runoff ' 0:9 Pi
Pre -Development Annual Runoff Volume
Average Annual Precipitation
45.76
in
P
Pi
0.90
Pi
Impervious Area
21287 "
sf
Pervious Area
147693
" 'sf
Total Catchment Area
168980
sf
A
Impervious Fraction
0.13
la
Runoff Coefficient
0.16
Rv= 0.05+0.9'la
Runoff Volume 94748 cf V=Pj'Rv'A'(P/12)
10% normally; 5% allowable increase per SA waters
Allowable Increase 1 10 requirements.
Maximum Runoff Volume 104223 cf
Post -Development Annual Runoff Volume
Average Annual Precipitation
45.76
in
P
Pi
0.90
Pi
Impervious Area
100544"
".sf
Pervious Area
68436 :
`'sf
Total Catchment Area
168980
sf
A
Impervious Fraction
0.60
la
Runoff Coefficient
0.59
Rv= 0.05+0.9'la
Runoff Volume 339557 cf V=Pj'Rv'A'(P/12)
Required Treatment Volume 235334 cf

Annual Runoff Volume Treated - Infiltration Basin #1
Average Annual Precipitation
45.76
in
P
Pi
0.90
Pi
Impervious Area
83832
sf
Pervious Area
2b954sf
Total Catchment Area
103886
sf
A
Impervious Fraction
0.81
la
Runoff Coefficient
0.78
Rv= 0.05+0.9'la
100% Design Volume
6720
cf
Treatment Volume Provided
8943
cf
TV, Minimum of 200% DV or Actual DV
SCM Size
1.331
TV/100%DV
Annual Runoff Volume to SCM
276767
cf
V=Pj'Rv'A'(P/12)
% Annual Runoff Treated
0.927
y=0.2231 x^3-1.141 x^2+1.9953x-0.2332
Annual Runoff Volume Treated
256620
cf

Ark Consulting Group, PLLC JOB 19006 - Youngsville Storage
2755-B Charles Boulevard DATE May-21
Greenville, NC 27858 CALCULATED BY TGN/J DW
252-558-0888 CHECKED BY J DW
Infiltration Basin 1 (Neuse River Basin)
Infiltrating Stormwater Control Measures
Drawdown Time
GOAL: Compute the required surface area for an infiltration SCM. The SCM must infiltrate the design volume in less than 72 hours
Units
Symbols & Governing Equations
Top Contour Area
9643
sf
Top Contour Elevation
459.5
ft
Bottom Contour Area
8242
sf
Bottom Contour Elevation
458.5
ft
Designed Storage Volume
8943
cu ft
DV (calculated via average -end -area method)
Desired Drawdown Time
72.0 ,
hours
T
(<72 hours)
Surface Area Safety Factor
2.0
FS, min. 2 recommended
Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil
0,50
in/hr
K
Total Designed Surface Area
8242
sq ft
SA
Designed Drawdown Time
52
hours
T = (FS'DW12)/(K'SA)
Notes: Boring 1-2 in
7/17/2020 soils
report indicated infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr.

Ark Consulting Group, PLLC
JOB 19006 - Youngsville Storage
2755-B Charles Boulevard
DATE May-21
Greenville, NC 27858
CALCULATED BY TGN/J DW
252-558-0888
CHECKED BY J DW
Annual Runoff Volume Match (Tar -Pamlico River Basin)
GOAL: Compute the pre -development annual runoff volume and post -development annual runoff volume for the portion of the project that
falls within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. The net increase shall be no more than 10% from the pre -development condition.
Units Symbols & Governing Equations
Drainage Basin Summary
Total Site Area (Parcel+All New Impervious)
204670 sf Alice
Roof Impervious
893, sf Aroor
Transportation Impervious
107628, sf ptra-
Total Impervious Area
116611 sf Amp-ious
Percent Impervious
57 % (Aimper,ious/ Asite)*100
Impervious Fraction
0.57 IA
Constants Across Site
P (Neuse Station, retrieved 5/6/21 from
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ind
Average Annual Precipitation 45,76 in ex.html?id=633ce7fOa61a44f9997ff257e25b9a81)
Fraction of All Storm Events that Produce Runoff ' 0:9 Pi
Pre -Development Annual Runoff Volume
Average Annual Precipitation
45.76
in
P
Pi
0.90
Pi
Impervious Area
22023
sf
Pervious Area
1$26%
" 'sf
Total Catchment Area
204679
sf
A
Impervious Fraction
0.11
la
Runoff Coefficient
0.15
Rv= 0.05+0.9'la
Runoff Volume 103148 cf V=Pj'Rv'A'(P/12)
10% normally; 5% allowable increase per SA waters
Allowable Increase 1 10 requirements.
Maximum Runoff Volume 113462 cf
Post -Development Annual Runoff Volume
Average Annual Precipitation
45.76 in
P
Pi
0.90
Pi
Impervious Area
116611 sf
Pervious Area
88068 'sf
Total Catchment Area
204679 sf
A
Impervious Fraction
0.57
la
Runoff Coefficient
0.56
Rv= 0.05+0.9'la
Runoff Volume 395311 cf V=Pj'Rv'A'(P/12)
Required Treatment Volume 281849 cf

Annual Runoff Volume Treated - Infiltration Basin #2
Average Annual Precipitation
45.76
in
P
Pi
0.90
Pi
Impervious Area
96107 "
",sf
Pervious Area
S33,03
sf
Total Catchment Area
149410
sf
A
Impervious Fraction
0.64
la
Runoff Coefficient
0.63
Rv= 0.05+0.9'la
100% Design Volume
7831
cf
Treatment Volume Provided
10814
cf
TV, Minimum of 2x 100% DV or Actual DV
SCM Size
1.381
TV/100%DV
Annual Runoff Volume to SCM
322494
cf
V=Pj'Rv'A'(P/12)
% Annual Runoff Treated
0.934
y=0.2231 x^3-1.141 x^2+1.9953x-0.2332
Annual Runoff Volume Treated
301158
cf

Ark Consulting Group, PLLC
JOB 19006-YoungsvilleStorage
2755-B Charles Boulevard
DATE May-21
Greenville, NC 27858
CALCULATED BY TGN/J DW
252-558-0888
CHECKED BY J DW
Infiltration Basin 2 (Tar -Pamlico River Basin)
Infiltrating Stormwater Control Measures
Drawdown Time
GOAL: Compute the required surface area for an infiltration SCM. The SCM must infiltrate the design volume in less than 72 hours.
Top Contour Area
Top Contour Elevation
Bottom Contour Area
Bottom Contour Elevation
Designed Storage Volume
Desired Drawdown Time
(<72 hours)
Surface Area Safety Factor
Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil
Designed Surface Area - Infiltration Basin
Designed Drawdown Time
Units
Symbols & Governing Equations
7990
sf
444.0
ft
6429
sf
442.5
ft
10814
cu ft
DV (calculated via average -end -area method)
72,0"'hours
T
2,0"
FS, min. 2 recommended
0.57 "
in/hr
K
6429
sq ft
SA
71
hours
T = (FS-DV-12)/(K'SA)
Notes: Boring 1-1 in 2/24/2021 soils report indicated infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr.

0UNGS II ..,E, F _ANKI..,IN COUNTY, NORTH ("All.011NA
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DRAWING No. D-1240
NUTRIENT CALCULATIONS

Youngsville Storage
Youngsville, Franklin County, NC
Neuse Nutrient Load Calculations (SCM 1 & Bypass Catchments)
Pre -Developed Conditions
Land Use
Area
TN Loading Rate
TN Export
Permanently protected undisturbed open space
(forest, existing riparian buffers)
0.00 ac
0.6 Ib/ac/yr
0.00 Ib/yr
Permanently protected managed open space
(lawns, landscaped areas)
3.39 ac
1.2 Ib/ac/yr
4.07 Ib/yr
Impervious surfaces
(roofs, roads, pavement, parking areas, etc.)
1 0.49 ac
21.2 Ib/ac/yr
1 10.36 Ib/yr
Totall
3.88 ac
3.7 Ib/ac/yr
1 14.43 Ib/yr
Post -Developed Conditions Before BMP Treatment
Land Use
Area
TN Loading Rate
TN Export
Permanently protected undisturbed open space
(forest, existing riparian buffers)
0.00 ac
0.6 Ib/ac/yr
0.00 Ib/yr
Permanently protected managed open space
(lawns, landscaped areas)
1.57 ac
1.2 Ib/ac/yr
1.89 Ib/yr
Impervious surfaces
(roofs, roads, pavement, parking areas, etc.)
1 2.31 ac
21.2 Ib/ac/yr
48.93 Ib/yr
Totall
3.88 ac
13.1 Ib/ac/yr
50.82 Ib/yr
BMP Treatment
Land Use
Area
TN Loading Rate
TN Export
Permanently protected undisturbed open space
(forest, existing riparian buffers)
0.00 ac
0.6 Ib/ac/yr
0.00 Ib/yr
Permanently protected managed open space
(lawns, landscaped areas)
0.46 ac
1.2 Ib/ac/yr
0.55 Ib/yr
Impervious surfaces
(roofs, roads, pavement, parking areas, etc.)
1.92 ac
21.2 Ib/ac/yr
40.80 Ib/yr
Total 2.38 ac 17.3 Ib/ac/yr
BMP Removal Effeciency
TN Removedl
41.35 Ib/yr
84%
34.74 Ib/yr
Bypass/Untreated
Land Use
Area
TN Loading Rate
TN Export
Permanently protected undisturbed open space
(forest, existing riparian buffers)
0.00 ac
0.6 Ib/ac/yr
0.00 Ib/yr
Permanently protected managed open space
(lawns, landscaped areas)
1.11 ac
1.2 Ib/ac/yr
1.33 Ib/yr
Impervious surfaces
(roofs, roads, pavement, parking areas, etc.)
1 0.38 ac
21.2 Ib/ac/yr
8.13 Ib/yr
Totall 1.49 ac 6.3 Ib/ac/yr
BMP Removal Effeciency
TN Removed
9.47 Ib/yr
0%
0.00 Ib/yr
Post -Developed Conditions After BMP Treatment
Area
TN Loading Rate
TN Export
Post -Development w/ BMPs
2.38 ac
6.7 Ib/ac/yr
16.08 Ib/yr
Post -Development Bypass/Untreated
1.49 ac
6.3 Ib/ac/yr
9.47 Ib/yr
Target (Existing Development or 4 Ib/ac/yr)
3.88 ac
4.0 Ib/ac/yr
15.52 Ib/yr
Additional Load to be Removed
3.88 ac
2.6 Ib/ac/yr
10.031b/yr

Tar -Pamlico Storm water Rule 15A NCAC 28 .0258
Last Modified 5/24/2021
Piedmont of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin:
Includes Oxford, Henderson, Rocky Mount and Tarboro as well as Franklin, Nash and Edgecome Counties
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loading Calculation Worksheet (Automated)
Project Name: Young'sville ,Storage (SC M2 & 13ypass Catchment)
Date: 512412021
By: TGNIJDW Checked By: if)W
Directions (same for pre -development and post -development tables):
> Enter the acres of each type of land cover in the green boxes. The spreadsheet will calculate all of the values in light blue.
> Compare total areas of development in pre- and post- tables for consistency (bottom of column (2)), and also for consistency with
the site plans. If all of these values are not the same, there is an error that must be corrected.
> Unless drainage onto the development from offsite is diverted around or through the site, offsite catchment area draining in must be
included in the acreage values and treated.
Pre -development:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Area
S.M. Formula
Average EMC
Column
Average EMC
Column
acres
0.46 + 8.3I
of TN m L
2 3 4
of TP m L
2 3 6
Transportation impervious
1.50
2.60
1.50
0.19
0.11
Roof impervious
1.50
1.95
0.60
0.11
0.03
Managed pervious
(lawn/landscaped)
1.50
1.42
0.00
0.28
0.00
Managed pervious
(cropland)
1.50
4.23
0.00
1.23
0.00
Managed pervious
(pasture)
1.50
2.04
12.59
0.62
3.83
Wooded pervious
1.50
0.94
0.00
0.14
0.00
Fraction Impervious
p (n =
0.13
TN Loading
14.70
TP Loading
3.97
(lb/yr) _
(lb/yr) _
Total Area of Development =
4.70
TN Exp. Coeff.
3.13
TP Exp. Coeff.
0.85
(lb/ac/yr) _
(lb/ac/yr) _
Post -development:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Area
S.M. Formula
Average EMC
Column
Average EMC
Column
acres
0.46 + 8.3I
of TN m L
2 3 4
of TP m L
2 3 6
Transportation impervious11
5.19
2.60
33.37
0.19
2.44
Roof impervious
5.19
1.95
2.09
0.11
0.12
Managed pervious
5.19
1.42
14.91
0.28
2.94
Wooded pervious
5.19
0.95
0.00
0.14
0.00
Fraction Impervious
p (n =
0.57
TN Loading
50.37
TP Loading
5.50
(lb/yr) _
(lb/yr) _
Total Area of Development =
4.70
TN Exp. Coeff.
10.72
TP Exp. Coeff.
1.17
(lb/ac/yr) _
(lb/ac/yr) _
Note: The nutrient loading goals are 4.0 lb/ac/yr for TN and 0.4 lb/ac/yr for TP. If the post -development nutrient
loading is below these levels, then no BMP is necessary. Otherwise, the next worksheet calculates
post -development TN and TP loadings after BMPs are installed.

Tar -Pamlico Stormwater Rule 15A NCAC 28.0258
Last Modified 5/23/03
Piedmont of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin:
Includes Oxford, Henderson, Rocky Mount and Tarboro as well as Franklin, Nash and Edgecome Counties
BMP Removal Calculation Worksheet (Automated)
Project Name: Youngsville,5torage (2VE'M2 c& Bypass Catchment)
Date: 51241202]
By: TGNIPDW Checked By:
.PDW
Directions:
> It may be advantageous to split the development into separate catchments to be handled by separate BMPs. The tables below allow
the development to be split into as many as three catchments, and can be copied for greater than three.
NOTE: Unless runoff flowing
onto the development from offsite is routed separately around or through the site, the offsite catchment
area draining in must be included
in the acreage values of the appropriate land use(s) and treated.
> Above each table: Enter the catchment acreage in the top green blank. Based on a comparison of the post -development TN and TP
export coefficients you calculated above to the rule requirements of 4.0 lb/ac/yr TN and 0.4 lb/ac/yr TP, select BMP(s) from the list for
treating the catchment runoff. Enter the chosen BMP(s) nutrient removal rates in the green blanks. If
more than one BMP is to be used
in series, the combined removal rates will be calculated automatically in the blue blanks.
> Catchment Tables: Enter the acres of each type of land cover in the green boxes. The spreadsheet will calculate all of the light blue
boxes. NOTE: Compare the Total Catchment Acreage for the Development (final table) to the value you established in the pre-BMP
worksheet tables, and also to the site plans, for consistency. All of these values need to be the same
TN TP
Design Standard
BMP Wet Detention Pond 25 40
NC BMP Manual
Nutrient Stormwater Wetland 40 35
NC BMP Manual
Removal Sand Filter 35 45
NC BMP Manual
Rates Bioretention 35 45
NC BMP Manual
Grass Swale 20 20
NC BMP Manual
Vegetated Filter Strip w/
20 35
NC BMP Manual
Level Spreader
Dry Detention 10 10
NC BMP Manual
Catchment 1:
Total acreage of catchment 1 =
First BMP's TN removal rate =Mae
% First BMP's TP removal rate =
%
Second BMP's TN removal rate =% Second BMP's TP removalrate =
%
Third BMP's TN removal rate =% Third BMP's TP removal rate =
%
TOTAL TN REMOVAL RATE = 84 % TOTAL TP REMOVAL RATE =
84 %
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Catchment
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of
Column
Average EMC of
Column
Acrea a
(0.46 + 8.3I)
TN (m /L)
(2) * (3) * (4)
TP (m /L)
(2) * (3) * (6)
Transportation impervious
5.81
2.60
32.78
0.19
2.40
Roof impervious
5.81
1.95
0.39
0.11
0.02
Managed pervious
5.81
1.42
7.43
0.28
1.46
Wooded pervious
5.81
0.94
0.00
0.14
0.00
Area taken up by BMP
5.81
1.95
3.65
0.11
0.21
Fraction Impervious
p (I) =
0.64
Pre-BMP TN
44.25
Pre-BMP TP
4.09
Load (lb/yr) =
Load Ob/yr) =
Total Area of Development =
3.43
Pre-BMP TN
12.90
Pre-BMP TP
1.19
Export (lb/ae/yr) =
Export Ob/ae/yr) _
Post-BMP TN
Post-BMP TP
7.08
0.65
Load (lb/yr) =
Load Ob/yr) =
Post-BMP TN
2.06
Post-BMP TP
0.19
Expor[ (lb/ae/yr) =
Export Ob/ae/yr)

Tar -Pamlico Stormwater Rule 15A NCAC 28.0258
Last Modified 5/23/03
Catchment 2:
Total acreage of catchment 2 = ac
First BMW's TN removal rate = % First BMP's TP removal rate = %
Second BMW's TN removal rate = % Second BMP's TP removal rate = %
Third BMW's TN removal rate = % Third BMP's TP removal rate = %
TOTAL TN REMOVAL RATE = 0 % TOTAL TP REMOVAL RATE = 0 %
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Catchment
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of
Column
Average EMC of
Column
Acrea a
0.46 + 8.3I
TN m /L
2 3 4
TP m /L
2 3 6
Transportation impervious
3.54
2.60
2.76
0.19
0.20
Roof impervious
3.54
1.95
1.18
0.11
0.07
Managed pervious
3.54
1.42
4.02
0.28
0.79
Wooded pervious
3.54
0.94
0.00
0.14
0.00
Area taken up by BMP
3.54
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fraction Impervious (I) =
0.37
Pre-BMP TN
7.96
Pre-BMP TP1.06
Load (lb/yr) =
Load Ob/yr) _
Total Area of Development =
1.27
Pre-BMP TN Export
6.26
Pre-BMP TP Export
0.83
(lb/ae/yr) _
(lb/ae/yr) _
Post-BMP TN
Post-BMP TP
7.96
1.06
Load (lb/yr) =
Load Ob/yr) _
Post-BMP TN
6.26
Post-BMP TP Expor
0.83
Export(lb/ae/yr)=
(lb/ae/yr)
Catchment 3:
Total acreage of catchment 3 = ac
First BMW's TN removal rate = % First BMP's TP removal rate =
Second BMW's TN removal rate = % Second BMP's TP removal rate = %
Third BMW's TN removal rate = % Third BMP's TP removal rate = %
TOTAL TN REMOVAL RATE = 0 % TOTAL TP REMOVAL RATE = 0 %
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Catchment
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of
Column
Average EMC of
Column
Acrea
a 0.46 + 8.3I
TN m /L
2 3 4
TP m /L
2 3 6
Transportation impervious
2.60
0.19
Roof impervious
1.95
0.11
Managed pervious
1.42
0.28
Wooded pervious
0.94
0.14
Area taken up by BMP
1.95
0.11
Fraction Impervious (I) =
Pre-BMP TN
Pre-BMP TP
Load (lb/yr) =
Load Ob/yr) _
Total Area of Development =
Pre-BMP TN Export
Pre-BMP TP Export
(lb/ae/yr) _
(lb/ae/yr) _
Post-BMP TN
Post-BMP TP
Load (lb/yr) =
Load Ob/yr) _
Post-BMP TN
Post-BMP TP Export
Export (lb/ae/yr) _
(lb/ae/yr)

Tar -Pamlico Stormwater Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0258
Last Modified 5/23/03
Weighted Average of Nutrient Loadings from the Catchments:
Catchment Post-BMP Post-BMP
Acreage TN Loading TP Loading
(lb/ac/yr) (lb/ac/yr)
Catchment 1 3.43 2.06 0.19
Catchment 2 1.27 6.26 0.83
Catchment 3 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL FOR DEVELOPMENT 4.70 3.20 0.36
Note: The nutrient loading goals are 4.0 lb/ae/yr for TN and 0.4 lb/ae/yr for TP. If the post -development nutrient
loading is below these levels, then the BMPs planned are adequate. Otherwise, additional BMPs and/or
modifications in development plans are required.

0UNGS I I.1, F _A.NKI..,IN COUNTY, NORTH "A. .011NA.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DRAWING No. D-1240
SOILS REPORTS

Report of Subsurface Investigation
And Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Youngsville Storage Expansion
Youngsville, North Carolina
prepared for
C4-YS, LLC
Prepared by
TerraTech Engineers, Inc.
NC Engineering Corp. C-1356 I NC Geology Corp. C-560
4905 Professional Court
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-876-9799

July 17, 2020
Mr. Michael Isaac
C4-YS, LLC
Report of Subsurface Investigation
and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Youngsville Storage Expansion
Youngsville, North Carolina
Our Project Number 121-20-101820
Gentlemen:
L 4 G P 1f h E R S w 1114 C,
6;eotecliniz 5d t,rde(vu,, e, rinfl
7.,r xao-arararaAYrlc(("On Al"l.rrrct,
(rRwr.,l;krr,Irnralr! rGfrids l.'ivtl?'tq
TerraTech Engineers, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface investigation and engineering
evaluation for the proposed construction in Youngsville, North Carolina. The enclosed report describes our
investigative procedures and presents the results of our testing and evaluation, along with construction
recommendations for this project.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this subsurface investigation and engineering
evaluation, and are prepared to follow up with the recommended construction materials testing services. If
you have any questions concerning this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
TerraTech Engineers, Inc. (C-1356)
—�14 ka��-
William D. Oakes
Project Manager
WDO/sk
Glen AEngineer
Ph.D., E.
Principal
TerrriG'recli Engkiia ers, ffi.c.
NC Fu"ugrn ering Coq), C B 56 J NC' e(rr Icgy Corp, C-560
( 1 ) 876..9 7

MmEIli 0
r f
Page 2
SCOPE OF SERVICES
E N,l 0 1 N P: Nk R S , I N C
F�a,Ck6 N6 �R2(lfl� i 78dJ1Pd�'�l lflh�
'l rrsrtr�rr��amErRr�IC,��e�rrsa�(Pa�r�
The scope of this subsurface investigation was outlined in our proposal number 8254-N dated July 2, 2020.
The primary objectives of this investigation were to evaluate the subsurface conditions at selected locations
and to provide geotechnical recommendations related to site development and foundation support. More
specifically, this investigation included the following objectives:
(1) To evaluate the existing subsurface soil and ground water conditions within the area of
proposed construction.
(2) To recommend foundation types which can safely and economically support the proposed
construction.
(3) To evaluate the allowable bearing pressure of the foundation subsoils encountered within the
proposed building area for support of shallow foundations.
(4) To make recommendations concerning site preparation and site grading.
(5) To provide a discussion of the depth to the seasonal high ground water table and in -situ ground
water infiltration rates in the areas of the proposed storm water management ponds and/or
ditches.
(6) To make design recommendations for concrete slabs -on -grade.
(7) To make recommendations concerning control of ground water during construction and on a
permanent basis, if necessary.
(8) To make recommendations for material types and thicknesses for the planned pavement
systems in the driveways and parking areas.
(9) To make recommendations for achieving high density structural fill capable of satisfactorily
supporting the proposed construction.
(10) To make pertinent recommendations concerning quality control measures during construction.

MME'll��ll,�,11111)"M",f�f�lI
Page 3
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES
Field Investigation
(E ntrchnk,ca(k,nfih(,ecrkrxy
ff. rrarirkrreri, r(C,'raresaalawg
The subsurface investigation consisted of 12 soil test borings in the proposed construction areas. The test
borings were performed to depths between 10 to 15 feet below the ground surface. The test boring and
infiltration test locations are approximately shown on Figure 1 included in the Appendix.
The test borings were located by measuring distances and angles from existing reference points by a
representative of TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Ground surface elevations were not known at the time of this
report. In general, the locations of the test borings should be considered approximate.
Standard penetration testing, as described in ASTM D-1586, was performed at selected intervals in the soil
test borings. The penetration resistance, in conjunction with soil classification, provides an indication of a
soil's engineering characteristics.
We used the inverse borehole method (similar to percolation tests) for our water infiltration testing
procedure.
Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the test borings are provided in the Test Boring Records
included in the Appendix. Ground water conditions, penetration resistances, and other pertinent information
are also included. Because our samples are taken at discrete locations and depths, variations in the materials
could be present that are not identified by the industry standard procedures used for this project and cannot
be delineated in the Test Boring Records.
LaboratorN, Investigation
The laboratory investigation consisted of a physical examination and classification of all samples obtained
from the drilling operation. Classification of the soil samples was performed in general accordance with
ASTM D-2488 (Visual -Manual Procedure for Description of Soils). Soil classifications include the use of
the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D-2487 (Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes). The Visual -Manual procedure used for soil classification is a qualitative analysis performed in
conjunction with the education, experience and professional judgment of our geotechnical engineer.
Quantitative analysis of soil properties, such as those referenced in ASTM D-2487, could result in different
soil classifications. In these instances, adjustments to the design and construction may be necessary,
depending on the actual conditions. The soil classifications also include our evaluation of the geologic origin
of the soils. Evaluations of geologic origin are based on our experience and interpretation and may be subject
to some degree of error.

Page 4
GENERAL SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site Location and Descri #ion
E Ir! lark 1 114 E E R 5 W i II C
Earfvonrnenl.al
("rrra„rPrirr,Prnrz.kN,frrFerr,�[G 'f"rst�r2Mk�
We understand that the subject site consists of two parcels (Parcel A and B) derived from a larger 20 acre
parcel (Franklin County Pin 1853-31-3172) located north of the intersection of Park Avenue and Hillsboro
Street in Youngsville, North Carolina. There is an existing residential home on the property with the majority
of the site being used for agricultural purposes. Based on our review of the Franklin County GIS topographic
map, it appears that the ground surface of the subject site has an overall relief of approximately 30 feet and
generally slopes east and west from a ridge that traverses north and south through the approximate center of
the property -
Regional Geolo
Based on a review of geologic maps, the site is located in the Raleigh Terrane of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province of North Carolina. Soils in this area have been formed by the in -place weathering of the underlying
crystalline rock, which accounts for their classification as "residual" soils. Residual soils near the ground
surface, which have experienced advanced weathering, frequently consist of red brown clayey silt (ML) or
silty clay (CL). The thickness of this surficial clayey zone may range up to roughly 6 feet. (For various
reasons, such as erosion or local variation of mineralization, the upper clayey zone is not always present.)
With increased depth, the soil becomes less weathered, coarser grained, and the structural character of the
underlying parent rock becomes more evident. These residual soils are typically classified as sandy
micaceous silt (ML) or silty micaceous sand (SM). With a further increase in depth, the soils eventually
become quite hard and take on an increasing resemblance to the underlying parent rock. When these materials
have a standard penetration resistance of 100 blows per foot or greater, they are referred to as partially
weathered rock. The transition from soil to partially weathered rock is usually a gradual one, and may occur
at a wide range of depths. Lenses or layers of partially weathered rock are not unusual in the soil profile.
Partially weathered rock represents the zone of transition between the soil and the indurated metamorphic
rocks from which the soils are derived. The subsurface profile is, in fact, a history of the weathering process
which the crystalline rock has undergone. The degree of weathering is most advanced at the ground surface,
where fine grained soil may be present. The weathering process is in its early stages immediately above the
surface of relatively sound rock, where partially weathered rock may be found. The thickness of the zone of
partially weathered rock and the depth to the rock surface have both been found to vary considerably over
relatively short distances. The depth to the rock surface may frequently range from the ground surface to
60 feet or more. The thickness of partially weathered rock, which overlies the rock surface, may vary from
only a few inches to as much as 40 feet or more.
Stream valleys in this area often contain alluvial (water deposited) soils, depending on ground surface
topography, stream flow characteristics, and other factors. By nature, alluvial soils can be highly variable
depending upon the energy regime at the time of deposition. Coarse materials such as sand or gravel are
deposited in higher energy environments, while fine grained materials such as silt and clay are deposited in
low energy environments. Alluvial soils may also contain significant amounts of organic materials, and are
frequently in a loose, saturated condition. In many cases, fine grained alluvial soils will be highly
compressible and have relatively low shear strength.

Page 5
Document Review
E 14 G I }8 E f R 5 TM E d^7 C
� snaea?rraa'aual'Dypnexur°ng
gr)vu`a'mvranta(P,arrdn t (r't
("(m ai raar Pion if:atedr4 (s r a;sMa;at9
We have reviewed the USDA Web Soil Survey for information related to the expected soil conditions at the
subject property. Based on our review, the soils at the site are expected to consist of Cecil series soils.
The Cecil series soils typically consist of gently sloping to steep, well -drained, deep soils of the Piedmont
uplands consisting of silty sands, clayey gravels, silts and clays. Some of the soils in the Cecil Series include
elastic silts. The soils in this series are described as having a low to moderate potential for volume change.
Rock is generally expected at depths of 5 to more than 15 feet below the ground surface. The depth to the
expected seasonal high groundwater table is greater than 10 feet. These soils can be identified as CaB and
CaC on Figure 2 in the Appendix.
General Subsurface Conditions
Each of the test borings encountered a surficial layer of topsoil that ranged in thickness from 2 to 3 inches.
Based on our experience, the thickness of topsoil materials will be generally quite variable and could be
significantly different at other locations on the site. Therefore, the reported topsoil thicknesses should not be
used for detailed quantity estimates. Although not encountered in our test borings, our experience indicates
that cultivated soils are often found in areas used for agricultural purposes.
Beneath the topsoil, residual soils were encountered in each test boring location. These materials typically
classified as fine to medium silty sands (SM), sandy clays (CL) and sandy silts (ML) with varying amounts
of small mica flakes. Standard penetration resistances in the residual soils ranged from 9 to 33 blows per foot.
Ground water was not encountered in our test borings at the time of drilling. However our test borings caved
in at depths of 7.0 to 13.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on our experience and the soils
present in our test borings, ground water is likely to be encountered at elevations just below the cave-in depth
at the test borings. It should be noted that ground water levels will fluctuate depending on seasonal variations
of precipitation and other factors and may occur at higher elevations at some time in the future.
Detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in our borings are provided on the Test Boring Records
included in the Appendix.

Page 6
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand the subject site is to be developed with a self -storage facility, associated parking and driveway
areas and at least two ponds or trenches for the infiltration of storm water. We expect the buildings will be
a single or two story , steel framed and/or load bearing masonry structures with a concrete slab -on -grade
floor. Loading conditions for the planned building are not currently known. However, based on our
experience, we estimate maximum wall and column loads of 3 kips per lineal foot and 50 kips, respectively.
Site grading plans have not been provided to us.
Traffic volumes in the planned pavement areas are not currently known. For purposes of this report and
based on the planned building and parking lot size, we have estimated a maximum traffic volume of 200 cars
per day and 25 moving trucks per week. If actual traffic volumes are greater than these assumed maximums,
please contact us and we will review our recommendations for applicability to the actual traffic volumes.

Page 7
EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
�. ra r fiFsar�7rts�rxPrr� �`rrirsa�li'�rs�i
�erzas�+rfi,aKrirc:�hf�iferrFaCr�Ya �ar��
The following preliminary evaluations and recommendations are based on the data obtained from our soil
test borings, and our experience with soils and subsurface conditions similar to those encountered at this site.
Because the test borings represent a very small statistical sampling of subsurface conditions, it is possible
that conditions may be encountered during further investigation or construction that are substantially different
from those indicated by the test borings. In these instances, adjustments to the design and construction may
be necessary depending on actual conditions.
General Site Preparation
All topsoil, roots, trees, vegetation and other deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed
construction areas. Site clearing and stripping should be performed only during dry weather conditions.
Operation of heavy equipment on the site during wet conditions could result in excessive mixing of topsoil
and organic debris with clean underlying soils. Topsoil containing greater than 3% organic matter by weight
should be removed.
Based on our observations at the site, a residential structure is currently present. Therefore, it is possible that
water wells and/or septic tanks are located on the property. We recommend that all wells be filled in with
concrete and closed in accordance with the Franklin County Health Department requirements. Concrete
should be pumped or tremied into the wells to an elevation approximately 5 feet below the finished subgrade.
Then, excavate and remove the well casings to a depth 5 feet below finished subgrade and backfill with well
compacted ABC stone meeting the NCDOT Standard Specifications for gradation. The crushed stone should
be placed in 6 inch loose lifts and compacted with "wacker-packers" or other suitable equipment to at least
95 percent of the standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density. The excavation should be
backfilled to return to the originally planned finished subgrade. Septic tanks and associated drain fields
should be removed backfilled with suitable compacted fill soils in accordance with the structural fill section
of this report.
After completion of site clearing, grubbing and stripping of topsoil relocation and removal of existing
underground utilities, we recommend that proofrolling operations be performed. All areas of the site which
are to receive fill should be proofrolled prior to placement of structural fill. Areas of proposed excavation
should be proofrolled after rough finished subgrade is achieved. Proofrolling should be performed using a
loaded dump truck weighing at least 25 tons. Proofrolling should be accomplished by performing at least 3
passes in each of two perpendicular directions within entire construction areas, and 10 feet beyond. Any
unsuitable materials that may be present, and any low consistency soils that are encountered which cannot
be adequately densified in place, should generally be removed and replaced with well compacted fill material
placed in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report. Proofrolling should facilitate the
identification of soft surficial soils, but should not be expected to reveal soft conditions more than 2 feet
below the ground surface at the time of proofrolling.
The provided site plan indicates that driveway access will be provided to the property along Park Avenue.
Based on our site observations, there are currently drainage ditches located along the edges of the existing
road. Our experience with similar sites indicates that soft, wet soils are often present in road ditches, and
that underground utility lines in these areas can complicate preparation of pavement subgrades. We
recommend that all underground utility lines be located in the proposed driveway areas prior to performing
site grading in the driveway areas, and that a series of hand auger borings or test pits be performed to

Page 8
*I 11 1 N ! t K t '4 C
P�✓r�F.r.�F��ir,�f �,rt�{r`i���^trri�y
�F rrr��r�wrvrer��rt�r((`rams°rsdrrr�
(,`rwas�r'tar,fserrei�kr� Ersfa F�"a€WtE�a,%
determine, on a preliminary basis, if remedial measures will likely be required. Obtaining this information
prior to grading will allow development of a suitable approach for preparation of the pavement subgrades to
facilitate timely construction in these areas.
Based on our experience with similar soil conditions, some softening of the near surface and exposed soils
should be expected during times of wet weather. The depth of soft soils caused by wet weather can be highly
variable, and can be dependent on the slope of the ground surface, the presence of on -site or off -site sources
of surface water, and other factors. Therefore, we recommend that site preparation operations be performed
during times of dry weather. While wet weather can occur at any time during the year, the summer and early
fall are times when drier weather is generally prevalent. Scheduling site grading during this time frame would
reduce the probability of softening of the near surface soils from inclement weather conditions.
Based on our experience on similar sites, there may also be buried foundations, burn pits or trash pits. On
sites located near developed areas, this is not an unusual occurrence. All too frequently such buried material
occurs in isolated areas which are not detected by the soil test borings. Any buried waste construction debris
or trash which is found during the construction operation should be thoroughly excavated, and the waste
material should be removed from the site prior to placement of fill soils. We recommend that the contract
documents include a contingency cost for the removal of unsuitable materials.
Excavation Characteristics
The residual soils encountered in our test borings should generally be excavatable with conventional soil
excavation equipment, such as scrapers, loaders, etc. However, residual soils having penetration resistances
ranging from 50 to 100 blows per foot may prove to be difficult to excavate using scrapers. These hard soils
may require the use of heavy dozers or loaders to effectively achieve excavation. It is possible that hard soils
may require ripping in some instances.
Ground Water Control
Although groundwater was not encountered in our test borings, every boring caved in at depths of 7 feet to
13 feet below the existing ground surface, respectively, indicating that groundwater may have been
previously present near these depths. Water levels will fluctuate depending upon seasonal variations in
precipitation and may occur at other elevations in the future.
In general, we expect that control of ground water in foundation excavations and utility trench excavations
can be performed by pumping directly from the excavations. If pumping from the trench excavations proves
ineffective, then the use of well points or other methods may be required. Pumping from dewatering trenches
should be done with care to prevent loss of soil fines, boils or instability of slopes. In certain cases, gravity
flow in a trench may be sufficient for effective dewatering.
We note that test borings B-11 and B-12 encountered layers of sand within the soil profile. Depending on
final site grades, a perched ground water condition may be developed. This condition occurs when sandy
soils are underlain by less permeable silts and clays. Finished grading should be designed to direct surface
water runoff away from buildings and pavements, and roof drainage systems should discharge collected water
into the storm drainage system. Depending upon conditions encountered during building construction, it may
also be appropriate to install a perimeter drain around the building. The need for a perimeter foundation
drain should be evaluated by our representative at the time of construction.

M M Kill , , MY,
Page 9
2 IJVVITYMaeaa 41 t',rM.fldtfvlfi
6brz,s Oiem llfagerkaA"1�Mng
We must emphasize that dewatering requirements will be dictated by ground water conditions at the time of
construction. The contractor should use a technique or combination of techniques which achieves the desired
result under actual field conditions.
Storm Water Control Features
We performed two test borings located in the areas of the proposed storm water management features (see
Figure 1 in the Appendix for the test locations). We have also reviewed the USDA Web Soil Survey for this
area. The soils in our test borings were generally sandy clays underlain by silty sands in test boring B-11
and clays underlain by clayey sands and sandy silts in test boring B-12. Based on our review of the
encountered soils and the recorded cave in depths, it is our opinion that a seasonal high ground water table
may be present at approximately 8 feet below the existing ground surface. This is consistent with the notes
from the USDA Web Soil Survey. It should be noted that layers of sand were encountered in the soil profile
in test borings B-11 and B-12. Depending on final site grades, a perched ground water condition may occur
under the current soil conditions. Therefore, it is possible that ground water elevations may be temporarily
present at other elevations.
In -situ infiltration testing was performed in the near surface soils within the proposed stormwater pond and/or
ditches at the provided locations. The results of our testing in the area of I-1 indicated that the average
infiltration rate was approximately 0.9 inches per hour. The results of our testing in the area of 1-2 indicated
that the average infiltration rate was approximately 0.5 inches per hour. It should be noted that the infiltration
rate of soils can depend on several factors including soil type and density. Given the variation of the soil
profile encountered in test borings B-11 and B-12, we recommend that additional onsite infiltration testing
be performed after the elevations of the planned stormwater control measures have been determined.
Earth Slo es
Temporary construction slopes should be designed in strict compliance with the most recent OSHA
regulations. The test borings indicate that most soils at the site are Type B (residual clayey and silty soils)
as defined in the Occupational Safety and Health Standards for the Construction Industry (29 CFR, Part
1926, Subpart P), July 1, 2001. This dictates that temporary construction slopes in Type B soils be no steeper
than 1 horizontal to 1 for excavation depths of up to 20 feet. In Type C soils, which may be present in low-
lying areas or swales of the site, temporary slopes should be no steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical for
excavation depths of up to 20 feet. Flatter slopes may be required, depending upon conditions encountered
at the time of construction.
We recommend that a "competent person" as defined in the OSHA Regulations be present on site during
excavations. Temporary construction slopes should be closely observed for signs of mass movement: tension
cracks near the crest, bulging at the toe of the slope, etc. If potential stability problems are observed, the
Geotechnical Engineer should be immediately contacted. The responsibility for excavation safety and
stability of construction slopes should lie solely with the contractor.
We recommend that permanent cut or fill slopes be no steeper than 2.5 (H) to 1 (V) to maintain long term
stability and to provide ease of maintenance. Slopes constructed steeper than 2.5 (H) to 1 (V) could be highly
susceptible to erosion, will be difficult to maintain, and could experience large scale slope failure in some

MMMM11"I
Page 10
4i Y C' l P4 i E R, S i tJ Cd
/,,�r<iC.rr,Firar�fut r,,rrr�rra.a�r°�`rar
r,� 7fwr2121PtPvikrrt�rf f"ami`u6z?"pq
Comitrur.Cifria keiarrrrd T,tinjj
instances. The crest or toe of cut or fill slopes should be no closer than 15 feet to any building foundation.
The crest or toe should be no closer than 5 feet to the edge of any pavements.
Foundation Desi n
After the above described site preparation is completed, it is our opinion that the proposed structures may be
supported on conventional shallow foundations. We recommend that footings for the building be designed
for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In addition, we recommend a
minimum width of 18 inches for continuous wall footings to prevent localized shear failure. Footings should
bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the prevailing exterior ground surface elevation to provide the
recommended bearing capacity.
Detailed footing examinations should be performed in each footing excavation prior to placement of
reinforcing steel. These examinations should be performed by our representative to confirm that the design
allowable soil bearing pressure is available. The footing examinations should be performed using a
combination of visual observation, hand rod probing, and dynamic cone penetrometer testing. Dynamic cone
penetrometer testing, as described in ASTM STP-399, should be performed in each column footing location
and at no greater than 20 foot intervals in continuous wall footings. If the soil is found to have an
unsatisfactory bearing capacity, our inspector will review the problem with our project geotechnical engineer.
Recommendations will be developed to be immediately implemented in order to minimize construction
delays.
Loose sands were encountered near the ground surface in test boring B-2. Depending on final site grades and
conditions encountered during the time of construction, remedial measures may be required to achieve the
recommended foundation bearing pressure. If remedial measures are required, we recommend that any
over -excavated footings be backfilled with either compacted #57 washed stone, or concrete.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing surface, if they are exposed for
extended periods of time. If the foundation bearing surface becomes softened due to exposure, the soft soils
should be removed prior to placement of concrete.
Concrete Slabs -On -Grade
Based on our test boring results, the encountered subsurface conditions are generally suitable for support of
lightly loaded concrete slabs -on -grade. On a preliminary basis, we recommend that a design modulus of
subgrade reaction (k) value of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be used for concrete slabs -on -grade. This
recommended value assumes that the subgrade soils and fill soils will be compacted to a minimum of
98 percent of their standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density in the upper 12 inches.

i i o
Page 11
Pavement Desi n Recommendations
<jeoterhni kca.,N ar meeri
Se'n (",owuO mjj
f;,+r�t� a'^�er,ftr,PP `ir�,zfA1 x rlr `�'�^sfrwo�
Based on the results of the soil test borings, we expect the subgrade soils within the proposed pavement areas
to consist generally of sandy clays, silty sands and sandy silts. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) for these
soils may reasonably range from approximately 8 to 15, if the subgrade soils are uniformly compacted to a
minimum of 100% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density in the top 8 inches.
For purposes of pavement design, we have used a California Bearing Ratio of 5 for the pavement subgrade
soils and the loading condition described previously in this report. Based on the AASHTO design method,
a 20-year design life, and our past experience, we suggest the following design pavement sections:
Light Duty Areas
2 inches Bituminous Concrete Surface Course
8 inches Aggregate Base Course
Heavy Duty Areas
2 inches Bituminous Concrete Surface Course
2.5 inches Bituminous Concrete Intermediate Course
8 inches Aggregate Base Course
The bituminous concrete surface course should be a type SF9.5B in accordance with division 6 of the current
NCDOT Standard Specifications. The bituminous concrete intermediate course should be a type I19.013 in
accordance with division 6 of the current NCDOT Standard Specifications. Aggregate base course stone
should be in accordance with Division 5 of the current NCDOT Standard Specifications. Proper subgrade
compaction and adherence to the NCDOT and project specifications are critical to proper pavement
performance.
Based on our past experience, we recommend that a Portland cement concrete pavement be used in areas
where heavy trucks are turning while traveling at slow speeds. We suggest the use of a 6-inch thick section
of NCDOT type AA Portland cement concrete having a 28-day design compressive strength of 4,500 psi
above a 6-inch thick section of compacted ABC stone. The concrete pavement may be designed as a "plain
concrete pavement" with no reinforcing steel or reinforcing steel maybe used at joints. Construction joints
and other design details should be in accordance with guidelines provided by the Portland Cement
Association, the American Concrete Institute, and NCDOT.
The recommended pavement sections are designed to support the traffic volumes expected after completion
of the planned construction. If construction traffic is allowed to use the recommended pavement sections,
some damage requiring repair should be expected.

otel, h nCa CT'l rzq In ee rmg
n vuonm enta C Co
'Naten�a,& Qemaing
Materials selected for use as structural fill should be free of vegetable matter, waste construction
debris, and other deleterious materials. The material should not contain rocks having a diameter over
3 inches. It is our opinion that the following soils represented by their USCS group symbols will
typically be suitable for use as structural fill: (SM), (SQ, (ML), (CL), (SW), (SP), (SP-SM), and
(SP-SQ. The following soil types are considered unsuitable in the top 3 feet: (MH) and (CH). The
following soil types are considered unsuitable: (OL), (OH), and (Pt).
(2) Laboratory Proctor compaction tests and classification tests should be performed on representative
samples obtained from the proposed borrow material to provide data necessary to determine
acceptability and for quality control. The moisture content of suitable borrow soils should generally
not be more than 3 percentage points above or more than 3 percentage points below optimum at the
time of compaction. Tighter moisture limits may be necessary with certain soils, including the
micaceous silts present at the site.
(3) Suitable fill material should be placed in thin lifts (lift thickness depends on type of compaction
equipment, but in general, lifts of 8 inches loose measurement are recommended). The soil should be
compacted by mechanical means such as steel drum or sheepsfoot rollers. Proofrolling with rubber
tired, heavily loaded vehicles may be desirable at approximately every third lift to bind the lifts
together and to seal the surface of the compacted area thus reducing potential for absorption of surface
water following a rain. This sealing operation is particularly important at the end of the work day and
at the end of the week. Within small excavations such as behind retaining walls or in footing
excavations, we recommend the use of "wacker packers" or sled tamps to achieve the specified
compaction. Loose lift thicknesses of 4 to 6 inches are recommended in small area fills.
(4) We recommend that structural fill be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D-698). The in -place maximum dry density of structural fill should be
no less than 90 pounds per cubic foot. The upper 12 inches of floor slab subgrades should be
compacted to at least 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Fill placement in pavement
areas should be performed in accordance with the NCDOT Standard Specifications.
(5) An experienced soil engineering technician should take adequate density tests throughout the fill
placement operation to verify that the specified compaction is achieved. It is particularly important
that this be accomplished during the initial stages of the compaction operation to enable adjustments
to the compaction operation, if necessary.

Page 13
ADDITIONAL SERVICES RECOMMENDED
F, 4 C I NI I E R .6 1 u W C
�; rtkCar'�mzrral �L.rA��rre��f°a`n,€,�
rrvrarrnrnm �,ar' ernaulunq
rrrkra,,trud?orr'Draf,r!r rF s�rri
Additional foundation engineering, testing, and consulting services recommended are summarized below:
(1) Site Preparation Observations: Site preparation should be observed on a full-time basis by our
representative.
(2) Qualihr Control of Fill Placement and Com action: We recommend that an experienced
engineering technician witness all required filling operations and take sufficient in -place density
tests to verify that the specified degree of compaction has been achieved. Soil engineering
judgments will be involved and should be made by our project geotechnical engineer with
information provided by our engineering technician.
(3) Foundation and Floor Slab Evaluations: Specific recommendations for appropriate
construction -phase evaluations and testing of foundation and floor slab construction should be
contained in the recommended additional geotechnical evaluation reports and should be
performed by the geotechnical engineer's representative at the time of construction.
(4) Pavement Components Testing and Ins ection: Pavement components should be tested and
inspected during and following construction to verify compliance with project plans and
specifications.
The attached Appendix completes this report.
Sincerely,
TerraTech Engineers, Inc. (C-1356)
William D. Oakes
Project Manager
WDO/sk
Enclosures
.a.a '202
.. � ��:�
j 6:11:43a�1
7
SEAL
Glen A. Malpass, Ph.D., P.E.: 030988
Principal Geotechnical Engin,�' P

TFRPATECH
E N G I N E E R S- I N
APPENDIX

Base Map obtained
from Franklin County GIS
and client
Figure 1: Boring Plan
Not to Scale
MMM
TerraTech Engineers, Inc. (C-1356)
4905 Professional Court Project: Youngsville Storage Expansion
Raleigh, NC 27609 Youngsville, North Carolina
919-876-9799 Our Project Number: 121-20-101820

TerraTech Engineers, Inc. (C-1356)
4905 Professional Court Project: Youngsville Storage Expansion
Youngsville, North Carolina
Raleigh, NC 27609 Our Project Number 121-20-101820
919-876-9799

Symbols and Nomenclature
ENGINEERSTF. R P � AT E C H
• INC.
1 Undisturbed Sample (UD)
o Standard penetration resistance (ASTM D-1586)
100/2" Number of blows (100) to drive the spoon a number of inches (2)
w-o-x, R Weight of Hammer, Weight of Rods
Ax, Bx, Nx Core barrel sizes for rock cores
65% Percentage of rock core recovered
RQD Rock quality designation - % of core 4 or more inches long
Water table at least 24 hours after drilling
Water table one hour or less after drilling
0 Loss of drilling water
A Atterberg Limits test performed
C Consolidation test performed
cs Grain size test performed
T Triaxial shear test performed
P Proctor compaction test performed
18 Natural moisture content (percent)
Penetration Resistance Results
Sands
Silts and
Clays
Number of Blows, N
0-4
5-10
11-20
21-30
31-50
over 50
Number of Blows, N
0-1
2-4
5-8
9-15
16-30
31-50
over 50
Drilling Procedures
Relative Density
very loose
loose
firm
very firm
dense
very dense
Approx. Consistency
very soft
soft
firm
stiff
very stiff
hard
very hard
Soil sampling and standard penetration testing performed in accordance with ASTM D-1586. The
standard penetration resistance is the number of blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a
2 inch O.D., 1.4 inch I.D. split spoon sampler one foot. Core drilling performed in accordance with
ASTM D-2113. Undisturbed sampling performed in accordance with ASTM D-1587.

TEST BORING RECORD
TFx,,.,,,,,,,,RRA,.TECH
E N G I N E E R S- I N C
w ........ _ .....--------- -
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-1
Water Level I hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
TIn/F //,1''!ATECH
E N G I N E E R S- I N C
—... .............. ........ ...................
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-2
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 12.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
TF,.,.,RP,4,TECH
.. ........ ........ ....... __ ____ __m
_-
mm�..
._ _ -- ........
Standard Penetration Test
Depth
Description Elev.
Water
Blow
Blows per Foot
p
Level
Counts
20 40 60 80
o-,
...
Topsoil (Approximately 3 inches)
w ®...
_.
---------------�
2 .
..... ...1...... ...... __
7-10-11
4a
Very stiff orange fine sandy micaceous clay
.,m.,n
(CL) (RESIDUUM)
7-11-12
6-
C
5-7-12
8
80
Stiff orange fine to medium sandy micaceous
i
silt (ML)
10 .
._..-.�......._ .__ 10.0
4-5-5
_...
-
BORING TERMINATED
12....-
--
I
14
f
--
I
®.
16..-
18
20
. . ............. ..... ..... . ...... L .................... . . . ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ......................
"I . . ..... ............. . . ............ .............. ...................... . . ----- ---- ------------ -- ----- . . ........... ................ . .................... . . . .................... . .. ..... . .. . . .............
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-3
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 7.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
TF,.,,RP4,,TECH
., ,,,,, ...... ......... .........
.....-.-.
Standard Penetration Test
Depth
Description
Elev.
Water
Blow
Blows per Foot
p
Level
Counts
20 40 60 80
.........
�.�.._... � ...
Topsoil(Approximately 2 inches)
.
..------------
_.._�
._
Very stiff orange fine sandy clay (CL)
2
(RESIDUUM)
6-9-15
Ill
3.0
4 _,
Very stiff tan orange fine sandy micaceous
6-7-11
silt (ML)
8.0
5-10-7
8 ��
— ......�.... ...... .........-�
... ........_
C
............
,
Stiff tan fine sandy micaceous silt (ML)
10
100
4-5-8
BORING TERMINATED
12
f
14
16 ..,
f
18
I
..........
---- 2�
I
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-4
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
rrr ,PA;TECHE NGI
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-5
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20
�. ._....... ��

TEST BORING RECORD
T. F,.,.,
R
P
A.TECH
..... ........... .. ...... _
Standard Penetration Test
Depth]
Description
Elev.
Water
Blow
lo4wOs per
Level
Counts
6Foot 80
20
.....
*. Topsoil (Approximately 2 inches)
t
2-
.........
Very stiff orange fine sandy micaceous clay
6-7-12
(CL) (RESIDUUM)
4_--
__ .......1�..�
5.5
5-7-10
Very stiff orange tan fine sandy micaceous
silt (ML)
8.0
7-9-13
8
-..._ _._
Stiff brown gray fine to coarse sandy
10-
micaceous silt (ML)
4-5-6
-....
®.
1
I
.... ... ........
12-
__ .....
12.0
C
Stiff orange fine sandy micaceous silt (ML)
14 ...
_
.... .........
15.0
BORING TERMINATED
16
'
........
......... .
.....
18...__
I
y
,,,20 ,
- -- _------ __----------------- .
_.... ...... ---
1..
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-6
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 13.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
TF,,,,,,, R.RATECH
E N G I N E E R S• I N C
Standard Penetration Test
Depth
Description
Elev.
Water
Blow
per
Blows p Foot
Level
Counts
20 40 60 80
_ .............................._..............................-, i.................................... - —
�������__
................ ___
Topsoil (Approximately 3 inches)
.....
......... ........
......_
......_
2
.
____
_
Very stiff orange fine sandy clay (CL)
8-10-11
(RESIDUUM)
4 ..
.......
7-9-10
5.5
�.............. ............ ........... _..... .----
Stiff orange fine sandy clay (CL)
8.0
5-7-7
Stiff tan fine sandy micaceous silt (ML)
10
10.0
4-4-5
_
- -
�_
BORING TERMINATED
12
14 _...wA
.m
16-
1
18 .....,
....... ...
20
i_
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-7
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
T, FRFATECH
E N G I N E E It 5- I N C
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-8
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
TF..RPA.TECH
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-9
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 12.0' 4905 Professional Court project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
ENGINEERS
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-10
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court Project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
T,TRFATECH
E N G I N E E R S- I N C
. . . . . ... ..............
..... ........ _______
- -.
_-_ .................
Standard Penetration Test
Depth
Description
Elev.
Water
Blow
per
Blows p Foot
Level
Counts
20 40 60 80
.............. ...............
..
-
«w Topsoil (Approximately 2 inches)
Very stiff orange fine sandy micaceous clay
2
(CL) (RESIDUUM)
3.0
..... .........,
6-8-9
I
4 -
Very stiff gray orange fine to coarse sand
(SC) with quartz fragments
5.5
7-10-12
f
6
........
.....—
_ ......,.,...
Very stiff orange gray fine to coarse sandy
silt (ML)
5-7-10
8�
....._....- .........._. �� __ _ .,
i
m
C
Stiff orange gray fine to coarse sandy silt
(ML)
10..3-5-7
10.0
����. ,
l�e ..
�
BORING TERMINATED
12
_ ...
- -- ...................... ----
_
14
i
------ _..
..... .....
... . . ...............
16-
-
-
1
18 - .
_.....,.
I
210,1
_...
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-11
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

TEST BORING RECORD
E N G I N E E k 5• I N C
....................
__-...._ - --.............................. __................ _....._.
Standard Penetration Test
Depth
Description
Elev.
Water
Blow
Blows per Foot
p
Level
Counts
.._..
20 40 60 80
..__--..J_ _.-....,.1,,,,,,, , ...�,_._....... ._..... .......__..
-
',, T,� opsoil ^(Approximately 2 inches)
-- .....--
...._. ...
.......
__ ........
. . ......
...... ..----.
Hard gray orange fine to medium sandy clay
2......
(CL) with quartz fragments (RESIDUUM)
3.0
7-12-21
1
4 .....
Very firm orange silty fine to medium sand
(SM)
11-15-13
...
5.5
6 .
-- ------
—................ ..... ..
... . .................
Firm tan silty fine to medium sand (SM)
6-7-10
8...�
8.0
--------
C
Very firm gray silty fine sand (SM)
._..�.......
BORING TERMINATED
10.0
7-8-13
12.
.....
__
14
.......
I
16
- - -
-.
18
_,
,,, w .
.............. _......
......... ......... ....... .........
- -_
--
------ ..
... .... .......
Water Level 24 hr.: Boring Backfilled Upon Completion TerraTech Engineers, Inc. Boring Number: B-12
Water Level 1 hr.: Caved @ 8.0' 4905 Professional Court project Number: 121-20-101820
Raleigh, NC 27609
Date Drilled: 7/8/20

February 24, 2021
C4 YS, LLC
Attn: Mr. Michael Isaac
Summary of Infiltration Testing
Youngsville Storage Facility Phase 2
Youngsville, North Carolina
Our Project Number 121-21-101822
Gentlemen:
As requested, a representative of NV5 Engineers and Consultants, Inc. was present at the above referenced
site on February 17, 2021 to perform in -situ infiltration testing in the proposed stormwater pond area. Our
scope of services did not include surveying of the planned construction areas. Our test location is
approximately shown on the attached Figure 1. In general, the location of the infiltration testing should be
considered approximate.
The double ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385) method was used to determine the infiltration rates. Prior to
performing the infiltration testing, the area was excavated down to approximate final soil subgrade for the
proposed stormwater pond. The results of our testing in the area of I-1 indicated that the average infiltration
rate was approximately 0.5 inches per hour. It should be noted that the infiltration rate of soils can depend
on several factors including soil type and density. The encountered soils generally consisted of sandy clays
and sandy silts. We have also reviewed the USDA Web Soil Survey for this area. Based on our review of
the encountered soils and review of the USDA Web Soil Survey it is our opinion that a seasonal high ground
water table may be present at a depth of 8 feet or greater in the location of the planned pond.
We have appreciated the opportunity to provide these observations for the Youngsville Storage
Expansion Phase 2. If you have any questions concerning this information, or if we may be of additional
service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
NV5 Engineers and Consultants, Inc. (F-1333)
William D. Oakes, P.G.
Project Manager
WDO/sk
Enclosures
'Al � ,''' i. � ID I : 201
I3 �:3( 05 d, SEAL
Glen A. Malpass, Ph.D., P.1% Q Gti+l
Principal Geotechnical Engin
NV 5 F;nOmcrs°Lnd CoTlsuuh wtu, TrrIc,
it"' rru ;urrueedrrig � .4,-uolrurr adm F U. 1'3
4905 Prrarrfessiiuml Court, Ral6gfi, Norfli Crofiorrr�,l27601)

w
a ``w
a
t
AGEM
AREA
J;94
'��i
\ a "�. "mow""w" � �" ✓ � /(��+" �� x ! � 4fiKwi vlf !
h„
F
s-a->In
1 �
Base Map obtained from N
client
Not to Scale Figure 1: Infiltration Map
NV5 Engineers and Consultants, Inc. (F-1333) Project: Youngsville Storage Expansion Phase 2
4905 Professional Court Youngsville, North Carolina
Raleigh, NC 27609 Our Project Number 121-21-101822
919-876-9799