SW7080218_HISTORICAL FILE_20080307

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW140
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
YYYYMMDD

u
i

W A7F9
Q
IV
O
Navy Federal C ii Union
Arm.: Ms. J y Harrison, Assistant Vice -President
820 Fol ' ane SE
Vierurfi. VA22180
Subject
Dear Ms. Harrison:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
March 7, 2008
Stormwater Review SW7080218
Navy Federal Credit Union
Craven County
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
The Washington Regional Office of the Division of Water Quality received a Coastal Stormwater permit
application and plans for the subject project on February 26, 2008. A preliminary review of the project indicates
that before a State Stormwater permit can be issued the following additional information is needed.
1. Provide Vegetated Shelf seeding specs on plans;
2. The calculations show that the provided volume is 8,376 cf, while the supplement shows 7,235 cf. Please
revise and use the correct one;
3. Provide a table of elevations, areas, volumes and accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebayto
verify volumes provided (on plans);
4. Please clarify the orifice calculations. Use the orifice formula and make sure to use 1/3 of total head
(between the permanent pool and temporary pool) for orifice driving head. In case that orifice size turns out
to be different than original, make sure to revise the wet detention supplement;
5. Provide two sets of signed and sealed corrected sheets and documents.
The above requested information must be received in this office prior to March 14, 2008 or your
application will be returned as incomplete. The return of this project will necessitate resubmittal of all required
items including the application fee. If you need additional time to submit the required information, please mail
or fax your request for time extension to this office at the Letterhead address.
You should also be aware that the Stormwater Rules require that the permit be issued prior to any
development activity. Construction without a permit is a violation of 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and North Caroliml
General Statute 143-215.1 and may result in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day.
Please reference the Stormwater Project Number above on all correspondence. If you have questions, please
feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Samir Dumpor, PE
Environmental Engineer
Washington Regional Office
cc: Michael Rice, PE, Robert M. Chiles, PE
V,' Washington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Washington Regional Office Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
Internet h2o.encstate.nc.us 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Alan Employer- 50% Recyded110%Post Consumer Paper
Customer Service
1-877.623-6748

f%'f 'J.il".(.✓) Is:GI -! i (i t.L,G 1.
!r i I1r'u^.51 lilrr,^ I,(,.. I., `'I r'h n) (.111!1 1)1
�f{ i �I1111. nn; IE ^:''. 11!fl f IIi ILr.
:,I'll 11'J'.' it LII 'il','.0
fJ'llir'. I)1'Ii.J'IJOI' I,i
,. !TJ ...,.I; •
J'
I-
I /II'iff••.f IT; ,1, lr 1 vll'...LE,r,'"IrlIX'/.li11, 1'4,1i. al-•..;
Jirr I t;- I >' l '� ' rJ:. .;!! ± rl,;r brnr.,p:,%'.! r.te I'. ,I'FrJ!ty I.7. c;q}
1.1r L JJ^vI ".h•!1� (-un.I>.e..l...tJ i, {, I!;u! •r k ur .� r ', p;t.•'u 1:1 1 fi �r -,1: ri6tir 'r•q 1'�u',± r,. vr+ila)
Ir,(1'1 tl t1JS tyf' (I •, I7 firs; JV1a. :') ALI
wl"M If iI.0 PLUG( II! fill ='l.i lt.T rl(:1..I; Eta- I.
I. lit, jr, I)Jt:r 11 IA•/'i!• :•Gf I '! :tjtAT�iv.'I flli!G (0 -11pil;q ;11 Lf.0 I'111.,, 0 ILI;! tlii
'7(.! I ";r -ul U!", 1r.171nr l€:;G' ! "r. 1.GfR,n ny (il,r iy r11tiG1 J.f11 1rr,r"'vP'Jlf !':r,I JIgI'(.n y :Irl rr,ry 11'.,,I
1l r .FI'Jr 1.1"':,Gn hIU 1.:I" 1 .;IL FIG .:'.f ii 7'j u. :U•' ,,�I 4 41,r J'. l' yl ':J.r;' I'i JJ'. t M: '
,' A•., (r; f cr'} „I .L.I !fllri r" i^ i ,rAl %:(G'., '11"I� `IIIEy 1t11
lill`.I AI I fp I: t111i!T.11' Iiry,-' r', I.:-. ,,1 Lr: 1;,61pr I ,t crii( I.I:r'it .;I 1)t1161.1�L'.:
!i^rr1 SJ;rlr')S Lpr' 11,I)l lit of U' IIl I q,,I,, tl!j'>.rpIf ',•1, 1 r,f,;rA IT f1L':, 1'r.. ly III I.• 11.'ij: ill4•, .'fn!;I. 'IT
It F. ':I'r ,( it (4'j.. r7 1111 .:Jll.JIJ' I . 'i'i. 1lL'(Irr �1,, nip '_.. 'li.l ,'i•.rr • il.f 'r. .J ql. l' '. 1
1• : Ila'. „ �rl,;r. -;t •Ir, �I�. ,: ,4r,.,r �'I1n11-; ;.r 1'.IrJ.lnr ufh^ , r."itUnr !!:i 1J.., 't; i,.,u� il;� J'. ,u,. !'•>
:4 e11'I 1'.I'' 1A4 II'JI .,1' Yr.. 'r !.'aC 11'. ''j ') `,' !. p!11. IL.: d..U: ±n' r '• l" ' i 1; r
Iq .l•:4 ; 1 I If.LIIJ If :..:I!r'I•"L,glll' dC,ll': N..II", ': rl Cl'I 11. 11
{.d 'J'- •'i, l:." !'I"' ... F. I'I: v `l ll% i/3.'il'"i1,': �• LG: if.., I1I ;�I 111':j" lU "(j'
l 'rf ,�, .� URI-p, .r.:.!. f..CII•I ICC I. �r ,.;!". 'I ft '1'd r')u91y�: .., 'r ,t) !f I I.', :-rI ,, ;:r..;'-I '�-, e1i!.
I, —it I:' II•AI (II.
�nl,lba
/l' "lii''l/ I;:.". :.r.' Jr il:r'1(A!rr.;,Irl`','I;
'slliJjr
it I
a

ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS
;1 S
f MARINE SURVEYORS
417-A BROAD ST.
P.O. BOX 3496
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28564-3496
Hand Delivery
Mr. Samir Dumpor, P.E.
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N. C. 27889
Re: NCDENR SW7080218
Enclosures: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Dear Mr. Dumpor:
March 13, 2008
BUSINESS: 252-637-4702
FAX: [phone]
office®robertmchilespe.com
mikeric e ®robertmchilespe.com
PRESZV &E
MAR 13 200&
NC DENR
2 copies, REVISED Sheets 2 and 3 of 3, Stormwater Management Plan for
the Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 West, Havelock, NC,
developed by Navy -Federal -Credit Union, 820 Follin Lane SE, Vienna, VA
22180 prepared-oy Robert M -Chiles RE.
2 copies, REVISED page one-of`the.wet detention basin supplement form.
Pond volume and areasket'chldho table. \,
2 copiies, REVISED'wet detention basin,calculotion sheet from the
storm estemanagement plan.
On behalf of o
additional and revise,
dated March 7, 2008.
Drawing sheet 3
specifications and two
r t eaerai crealT union INrcu1, we
for your review and approval in rE
revised t6 include the-vegl
Dvided aslenclosure`,l?
mit the enclosed
nse to your letter
e shelf planting
The inconsistent reporting�of the storm•pool`volumes caused by a last minute
increase in the storm pool depth. The '8 376,cu1bic fee�olume that was reported in the
calculations is correct. We have corrected-the.entry-on the wet detention basin supplement
form to reflect this volume. This page is also corrected to reflect changes created by a change
to the pond described in the next paragraph. Two copies of the corrected page are provided
as enclosure 2.
In response to your request for a table outlining the surface areas, elevations and
volumes of the proposed wet detention basin we provide a sketch and table as enclosure 3 for
your review. As we discussed via telephone, we detected a minor error in our volume
calculations which after correction, resulted in our average depth falling below 3 feet. We
have changed the side slope of the basin below the vegetative shelf to 2.5:1 to regain the lost
volume and restore a minimum average depth greater than 3 feet. Drawing sheets 2 and 3 are
revised to include this new pond, and two copies of these are provided as enclosure 1.
MECHANICAL. CIVIL. AND MARINE ENGINEERING MARINE HYDROGRAPHIC AND LAND SURVEYS
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, MARINE, AND RAILROAD FACILITIES DESIGN
FORENSIC ENGINEERING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS BOUNDARY SURVEYS AND MAPPING SERVICE

Robert M. Chiles, PE
Page 2
As we discussed earlier today, the management plan includes orifice calculations based
upon an average driving head of 0.3 feet. One-third of the 0.8 feet storm pool rise is 0.27 feet.
Rounding to 0.3 results in an approximately 100 cubic feet per day increase in the estimated
discharge rate and changes the draw down time by approximately 4 hours. We have changed
the storm pool range given in parenthesis to read 0-9.6 inches to more accurately reflect a 0.8
feet rise. This calculation page is also revised to reflect the pond volume change described in
the previous paragraph. Two copies of the revised page are provided as enclosure 4.
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please contact us your
convenience.
Cc Mr. Jim Gibbons, NFCU w/.o
Mr. Jeff Rouleau, URS Corpo
� � t
Very truly yours,
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
el_L. Rice, P.E.
N Q \.
cbernathy Rd'., Suite
!,`ORTI {
900, Atlanta, GA 30328
MECHANICAL, CIVIL, AND MARINE ENGINEERING
FORENSIC ENGINEERING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MARINE, AND RAILROAD FACILITIES DESIGN
MARINE HYDROGRAPHIC AND LAND SURVEYS
BOUNDARY SURVEYS AND MAPPING SERVICE

l
-
2972�
2365
a
180
129
VOLUMES INDICATED IN CF UNLESS LABELED OTHERWISE
4993 Storm pool SA 11476 SF
1050
16
�•
C
_ y
PP Volumes main 21737
Z7
v =
Z 3 Z8 p
total 27250
PP Surface Area 8935 sf
1329
forebay 5513
(20.23%)
l
\pr s
EXPRESS
- MAR 13 2008
NC DENR
7
61
63

elevation feature
main pond
14 bottom
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21.5 bottom of shelf
22 perm pool
22.5 top of shelf
22.8 storm pool
24 top of bank
forebay
15.5
16.5
17.5
18
19
20
21
21.5 bottom of shelf
22 perm pool
22.5 top of shelf
22.8 storm pool
24 top of bank
surface area
(sq.ft. )
625
1060
1544
2079
2663
3293
3969
4687
5155
6511
11075
11476
13135
128
272
467
583
848
1157
1511
1797
2423
see main pond
see main pond
see main pond
volume
incremental
cumulative
0
843
843
1296
2139
1805
3101
2635
4440
2972
5607
3625
6597
4325
7950
2437
6762
2912
5349
4993
7905
3383
8376
14766
18149
0
200
200
363
563
261
624
710
971
997
1707
1329
2326
803
2132
1050
1853
INFORMATION COPY ONLY
EXPRESS
MAR 13 2008
NC ®ENR

REPORT OF
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
FOR
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
U.S. HIGHWAY 70 WEST
HAVELOCK CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MT0
MR. TIMOTHY P. ANDERSON, P.E.
URS CORPORATION
277 BENDIX ROAD
SUITE 500
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23452
PROJECT NO. 2006.1447.01
UNITED CONSULTING

Y
a -
UNITED CONSULTING
November 21, 2006
Mr. Timothy P. Anderson, P.E.
URS Corporation
277 Bendix Road
Suite 500
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452
E-mail: [e-mail]
RE: Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Navy Federal Credit Union
U.S. Highway 70 West
Havelock, Craven County, North Carolina
Project No. 2006.1447.01'
Dear Tim,
United Consulting is pleased to submit this report of geotechnical exploration for the above
referenced project. This report includes a review of the scope of work, a summary of site
conditions, a description of the proposed construction, a discussion of subsurface conditions, and
recommendations for earthwork, excavation and foundation design.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with these services and look forward to working
with you in the fixture. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please
contact us.
Sincerely,
UNITED CONSU G
f >
y fir; izk€''t.
k q
Ga�R. W.itsman,.� : is rF:'•t;'.C:-
Senior Engineer l40
GRW/SDS/jp
a
Scott D. Smelter, P.E.
:r
Senior Executive Vice President
N: Igeoenvirlrepons1200512006.1447.01.geo. doc
-- - ------6251fOLGOMB-BRiDGER9AB-♦-NOR6R9SS;C,E6RGIA-3BBi-1-
Tel: [phone] ♦ Fax: [phone] ♦ Client Service: 800/266-0990
Web: http//www.unitedconsulting.com ♦ E-mail: [e-mail]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................
2
SCOPE.............................................................................................................................................
Z
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................... ............................. :,.—.....^----......'.—'2
SOIL LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................................
3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................... .................................................................
3
DISCUSSION ANDRECOMMENDATION'S ...............................................................................
4
SitePreparation .............................................................................................................................
4
Earthwork...............................................................................................................
..................... 5
GroundwaterConsiderations ........................................................................................................
5
Stuonn/uterMuuugomBasin ......................... ..........................................................................
b
Foundation Design and Construction ........................... ...............................................................
Post -Tensioned Slab Foundation: ................................................................
.......... ...... ....J
Surcharge Loading with Spread Footing Fouodudonx:..,..... ................
....................... ......
DeepFoundation Option: .............. ........ ...................................... —,~~,,_,_~~,~~~,_8
FloorSlabs ....... ........................ ..—.--,',~,~^~.............................
,~_^,__,~~,,y
Pavement Desig
n uvuzu �vgu... ..... ............. ......... .......... ...... ........... .................. ..,..
.................... ..V
Fqecik\c dPavement Design: .............................. ...................................................
.4V
Rigid (Concrete) Pavement Di .--.`.........~.....---..-.....--.,..l0
Seismic Site Class ....................... ..................... ........................... .......... ..........
--,.,...�\l
APPENDIX `
General Notes/Description ofDrilling Operations
Figure }' Boring Location Plan
Logs of Borings(6)
Exploration Procedures
Laboratory Test Results
UNITED CONSULTING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY'
A Geotechnical Exploration has been completed on the proposed Navy Federal Credit Union
branch facility on the west side of U.S. Highway 70 West, immediately south of the U.S. Postal
facility at 133 U.S. Highway 70 West in Havelock, Craven County, North Carolina. The property
under consideration is hereinafter referred to as Project Site or Site in this report. The text of the
report should be reviewed for a detailed discussion of the items summarized below.
A complete geotechnical engineering service is performed through the Observational
Method as an indivisible two-phase process. The first phase provides advice about project
specific risks and represents our firm's opinion of subsurface conditions with
recommendations. Field observation during construction comprises the second phase of
our service and provides us the opportunity to assess the reliability of the subsurface data
and the appropriateness of our recommendations. Actual conditions often differ from
those encountered in the exploration phase.
2. The borings drilled across this site encountered about 8 to 36 inches of topsoil overlying
generally loose density Sands with varying amounts of clay to a depth of about 8 to 9.5
feet. Very soft Clayey Silt was encountered below the surfrcial sands and extended to
depths of 14 to 19 feet. Below the Clayey Silt, we encountered loose to firm density
Sands to the depth of the borings at 15 to 50 feet. Groundwater was encountered at depths
of about 6 feet below the existing ground surface grades at the time of drilling. However,
a perched water table was observed at depths a shallow as 13 inches below the ground
surface. The contractor should be prepared to remove groundwater or perched water, if
encountered. Earthwork operations will encounter soils that are moisture and disturbance
sensitive, and some stabilityproblems should be expected during site preparation
operations.
3. The planned finished floor elevation (FFE) of the proposed credit union has not been
determined, although the site grades could be raised several feet to match the grade of the
frontage road. Due to the presence of the very soft, compressible Clayey Silt layer and the
high -perched groundwater levels, this site will require additional costs for construction of
the foundation system for the proposed credit union. Three foundation options are
presented in the body of the report for support of a structure on the site. Cost
comparisons and review of the associated risks should be considered and evaluated
prior to selecting one of the foundation options. These options are: a) Utilize a post -
tensioned slab foundation, , b) Surcharge the site with a minimum of 3 feet of fill
extending above the proposed finished floor slab grade for a period of about 60 days prior
1 This Executive Summary is not intended to be used or relied upon without reference to the entire report and
cannot otherwise be properly understood and interpreted. It is provided solely for the convenience of the Client and
not as a substitute for the report or review of the report.
UNITED CONSULTING

to constructing spread footing or tum-down slab foundations with an allowable soil bearing
pressure not to exceed 1,500 psf. c) utilize driven timber pile foundations to transfer building
loads through the compressible Clayey Silt into the underlying Sand stratum.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to assess the general type and condition of the
subsurface materials present at the Project Site and to provide recommendations to guide in site
development, foundation design and quality assurance.
SCOPE
The scope of this geotechnical exploration included:
1. A visual reconnaissance of the site from a geotechnical standpoint;
2. Drilling six (6) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings in the proposed construction areas to
assess subsurface conditions;
3. Laboratory analysis of two (2) bulk soil samples to determine the California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of potential on -site pavement subgradc materials;
4. Backfrlling the bore holes upon completion of field operations;
5. Evaluating subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed construction; and
6. Preparing this report to document our exploration procedures and engineering analysis and to
provide recommendations for foundation design, general site development and quality
assurance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of the construction of a branch banking facility for the Navy Federal
Credit Union. The site is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 70 West, a little south of
Timber Drive in Havelock, Craven County, North Carolina. We understand that the credit union
will be about a 7,500 square foot single -story building. Automobile parking and drive-thru lane
pavements will be constructed around all four sides of the building.
At the time of our field exploration, the approximately 2.4-acre site was an open, grass -covered
field, south of the postal facility at 133 U.S. Highway 70 West. The grades across the Project Site
are relatively level and are slightly below the grade of the frontage road that borders the east side
of the site. To the west of the site, the grade slopes down gently to a shallow drainage Swale that
drains to Wolf Pit Branch further to the west.
UNITED CONSULTING

SOIL LABORATORY TESTING
Two bulk soil samples were obtained from hand -excavated test pits extending below the surficial
topsoil layer in areas planned for on -site pavements. These samples were submitted for soil
classification and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing.
The samples appear to be natural soils classified as Silty SAND (SM) and Clayey SAND (SC-
SM) with 25.6% and 28.9% fines passing the No. 200 sieve, respectively. The natural moisture
contents of 19.5% and 16.3% for these samples were up to 4.5 percent above the samples'
respective optimum moisture content. The soaked CBR values for the samples were 13.4 and 4.9.
We recommend a design CBR value of 6 (the truncated value of two thirds of the average CBR
value) for on -site pavements supported on existing subgrade soils that have been properly
moisture -conditioned. The reduction in the design CBR value is to account for typical variations
in soil conditions across the site. The results of the soil laboratory tests are included in the
Appendix.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Approximately 8 to 36 inches of topsoil was encountered from the ground surface at the boring
locations. We also noted the presence of significant root and wood fragments in the topsoil layer.
Our review of an aerial photograph taken in the 1990's shows the site to have been heavily
wooded before it was cleared. Some fill or redistributed soils from the previous clearing and
grubbing operation may be encountered across the site. Below the topsoil and redistributed soils,
and extending to a depth of about 8 to 9.5 feet, we encountered light brown and light gray Silty
SAND with varying amounts of clay. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances (N-values)
within this upper layer ranged from,I to 9 blows per foot (bpf), an indication of very loose to
loose relative density sands.
Underlying the upper sand layer, we encountered gray Clayey SILT extending to depths of 14 to
19 feet. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances (N-values) within this layer ranged from
1 to 4 blows per foot (bpf), an indication of very soft consistency.
Below the silt stratum, we encountered tan and light brown Silty SAND extending to the depth of
the borings at 15 to 50 feet. The color graded to a gray -dark gray below a depth of about 28 feet.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances (N-values) within this lower sand layer ranged
from 4 to 21 blows per foot (bpf), an indication of loose to firm relative density sands.
Groundwater was generally encountered in the borings at depths of about 5 to 6 feet below the
current ground surface grades during drilling. We believe this represents the approximate level of
the long-term groundwater level at this site. However, we also observed a perched water level
across the site that varied from 13 to 18 inches below the current ground surface grades.
- — 3
UNITED CONSULTING

Groundwater levels should be anticipated to fluctuate with the change of seasons, during periods
of very low or high precipitation, or due to changes in the floodplain or watershed upstream from
the site.
For a more detailed description of the indicated subsurface conditions, please refer to the borings.
Construction planning should be based upon the assumption that variations will occur.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on our understanding of the proposed construction,
the data obtained in our soil test borings, a site reconnaissance and our experience with soils and
subsurface conditions similar to those encountered at this site. United Consulting requests the
opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order to verify that
earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in
the design and specifications. We recommend that United Consulting, as the Geotechnical
Engineer of Record, be consulted during construction to conduct Geotechnical Controls as the
Owner's Representative.
Site Preparation
The surficial sandy soils encountered at this site will be susceptible to disturbance from exposure
and construction activities. Depending on weather conditions and the perched water table at the
time.of construction, stability problems may be expected during stripping and site preparation
operations. Undercuts utilizing geotextiles or geogrid and dense graded aggregate may be
required in paved areas based on observations of the Geotechnical Engineer at the time of
construction. Undercutting operations will encounter soils that are moisture and disturbance
sensitive.
For planning purposes, we recommend an average topsoil stripping depth of 18 inches be
considered for this site. Based on our boring results, the topsoil depths can vary from 8 tb 36
inches. Greater depths are possible in localized areas that have been disturbed by previous site
clearing activities. After the topsoil has been stripped from the building and pavement areas,
these areas should be proofrolled with a fully loaded, tandem -axle dump truck or its equivalent
making two complete coverages in each of .two perpendicular directions in the proposed
construction area. The proofrolling should be performed under the observation of the
Geotechnical Engineer so that unstable areas can be identified. Areas that exhibit, "pumping"
during proofrolling should be treated by a method recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
This method may consist of undercutting and backfilling with a suitable compacted fill material;
replacing with a layer of a subgrade stabilization and reinforcement geotextile or geogrid covered
by a layer of dense graded aggregate; or other methods that may be deemed necessary.
The subgrade densification program is recommended to improve the uniformity and support
characteristics of the near surface soils. A representative of our firm should observe this process
to check for unstable areas, which may be present that could require undercutting/repair. Please
— 4
UNITED CONSULTING

note that proofrolling of subgrades may not feasible at the time of construction depending on
weather conditions and the Gootechnical Engineer may have to evaluate subgrade conditions by
other means such as test pits, hand auger probes, etc.
Earthwork
Due to the presence of loose sand and soft silt soils, caving of deep utility trench excavations
should be expected. Excavations should be conducted in accordance with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.
To enhance the grading schedule, we recommend that structural fillibackfill consist of a non -
plastic, inorganic, granular soil containing less than fifteen percent material passing through the
No. 200 mesh sieve (i.e. relatively clean sand). Structural fill conforming to these criteria may be
placed in loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness, and then compacted to 95 percent of
the material's maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698). The
upper 2-feet of material below floor slabs or pavements should be compacted to 98 percent of the
Standard Proctor maximum dry density. A smooth -drum vibratory roller is recommended for
compaction of fine sands.
We note that the majority of the natural near -surface soils encountered in the borings consist of
sands with varying amounts of clay. The sandy materials may be suitable for reuse as structural
fill provided that optimum moisture content (as determined by Moisture/Density relationship
tests) and proper compaction can be achieved. Moisture conditioning will be required to achieve
optimum moisture content. Once excavated, the material should be dried, if necessary, by
spreading in thin lifts (8-inches), and aerated by discing or harrowing. Compactive effort should
not be applied to the lift until optimum moisture content has been achieved. We note that a
vibratory smooth -drum roller is the most efficient compaction equipment for non -cohesive soils.
However, if the water table is shallow, the fill should be static rolled since vibration could draw
moisture up into the fill from the underlying soils. As soil plasticity increases, a sheepsfoot
compactor may be more efficient at compacting the soils than a smooth -drum roller.
Sufficient in -place density tests should be performed to assess the degree of compaction being
obtained. Positive drainage should be maintained at all times to prevent saturation of exposed
soils in case of sudden rainfall events. Grading operations should be observed by a qualified
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative.
Groundwater Considerations
Groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths below about 5 to 6 feet. A perched water
table was encountered at depths from about 1 to 1.5 feet. Therefore, based on the boring data,
most footing and site utility excavations could be impacted by groundwater. The contractor
should be prepared to remove perched or groundwater, if encountered. Due to the generally sandy
nature of the near -surface on -site soils, we expect pumping from sumps excavated adjacent to the
foundation excavations may be an effective means of controlling perched groundwater, if
encountered. If high volumes of perched water enter the footing excavations, well -point
UNITED CONSULTING

dewatering methods could be required. The groundwater table should be maintained at least 2
feet below foundation subgrade elevations and excavation bottoms.
Dewatering for site development work may require the excavation of a series of temporary
drainage trenches or the installation of French drains across the site.
Stormwater Management Basin
An excavated stormwater management basin located to the west of the credit union site is
planned to serve the development. The excavation may extend through the upper sand layer into
the very soft silts. The sandy soils are essentially cohesionless and the excavated slopes will be
susceptible to erosion from runoff and from wave action at the water line. Excavated slopes in
the upper sand stratum should not exceed 3H: IV. Once the clayey silt soils are encountered at
depths below S feet, excavated slopes should be maintained at SH: IV or flatter. Slopes should
be protected from erosion. It is essential to establish vegetation on these slopes a quickly as
possible to limit the need for continuous maintenance and regrading of the slopes.
Please note that the saturated sands and the underlying very soft clayey silt stratum will not
support typical construction equipment. Excavation operations will need to be performed from
the existing ground surface grades. Depending on weather conditions at the time of construction,
mats or temporary construction pads may need to be utilized as well as dewatering of the
excavation. Long-term maintenance activities may require the use of excavators with special
long -arm booms that can operate from the perimeter of the basin.
Foundation Design and Construction
The following recommendations for shallow and deep foundation options are based on our
understanding of the proposed construction, subsurface data obtained our field exploration, and
our experience with soils and subsurface conditions similar to those encountered at this site. As
stated, loose surftcial sands overlie a 5-to 10-foot thick layer of very soft, compressible clayey
silt. Building foundations or slab subgrade supported on these materials will likely experience
somewhat greater settlement than is typical for commercial construction. We believe a post -
tensioned slab foundation, surcharging the site prior to constructing spread footing foundations,
or deep foundations extending into the lower sand layer will be required to provide foundation or
slab subgrade support for the credit union. These three foundation options are presented in this
geotechnical study. -
Cost and risk comparisons for one of the two systems utilizing shallow foundations versus
support of the building and floor slab on deep foundations should be performed in advance.
These cost and risk analyses should guide the selection of the most feasible and cost-efficient
foundation option.
6
UNITED CONSULTING

Post -Tensioned Slab Foundation:
After stripping of topsoil, the exposed subgrade should be observed by Geotechnical Engineer or
his representative. If the exposed surface is unsuitable, subgrade stabilization with a high strength
geotextile may be utilized to stabilize or bridge weak or wet unstable subgrade as deemed
appropriate by the Geotechnical Engineer. If very weak subgrade soils are encountered, a
bridging lift consisting of a bi-axial geogrid (such as Tensar BX 1100, or equivalent) with a layer
of #57 stone capped with crusher -run may be considered. Engineered fill should then be placed
over the stabilized subgrade to the final design grade. A Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative should monitor the remedial operations on a fulltime basis.
After the completion of subgrade improvement, a total allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000
psf may be used for design of a post -tensioned mat slab foundation. With this option, more
than normal long-term total and differential settlements may occur. The owner should
accept the associated risk if this option is selected. Additionally, all utility connections
servicing the building should be flexible to avoid future breaks in the lines.
Surcharge Loading with Spread Footing Foundations:
Surcharging will impact both the construction cost and the construction schedule. Surcharging is
the placing of a temporary load on the building area to precompress soft or loose soils prior to the
construction of the permanent construction. The surcharge load remains in place until field
monitoring indicates settlements have essentially ceased. The load is then removed ,and
foundation construction can be started. The rate of settlement is proportional to the thickness and
permeability of the compressible layer.
The full height of the surcharge fill should extend at least 10 feet beyond the planned limits of
the building. Prior to the placement of the fill, at least five settlement plates should be installed
on the prepared subgrade within each building area. Settlement plates should consist of a one -
inch steel riser pipe welded to a Yz-inch thick steel base plate. The riser pipe should be placed
within a 3- to 4-inch PVC pipe to reduce friction between the steel pipe and'the soil and for
protection during fill placement. The riser pipe should be threaded so that it can be extended as
necessary. Settlement readings should be obtained by a licensed surveyor prior to the start of the
fill operation, and then daily as the fill is being placed. Readings should be obtained at least twice
weekly thereafter until settlement has stopped. The readings should be submitted to the
Geotechnical Engineer for review and the fill should not be removed until approval is received
from The Geotechnical Engineer.
Prior to placing the surcharge load, the sites should be stripped of topsoil and any soft or
unsuitable materials observed during proofrolling. Compacted structural fill should be placed up
to the design finished floor grade level. This fill will also act as a drainage layer for the water
expelled from the underlying soils as the soils compress from the surcharge load. Therefore, the
structural fill placed in the building areas should be a relatively clean non -plastic sand or gravel
with less than 10 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve.
7
UNITED CONSULTING

After the porous structural fill is placed, the surcharge fill can be placed. We recommend the
building pad area be surcharged with 3 feet of additional fill. This surcharge fill can consist of
any soil fill that can be placed and compacted sufficiently to support the construction equipment
necessary to place subsequent lifts of fill. In general, we believe that sandy soils from on -site
excavations formation can probably be utilized as surcharge fill. The saturated clayey silts
encountered below a depth of about 8 feet are not expected to be suitable for use as surcharge fill.
Once United Consulting has determined that the surcharge fill can be removed, the building may
be constructed on conventional shallow spread footing foundations proportioned for an allowable
design soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf Provided the site is prepared and surcharged as
recommended and the appropriate delay period is observed and confirmed by settlement plate
readings, total and differential post -construction settlements should be within the typical range of'
1-inch total and 0.5-inch differential. For planning purposes, we estimate the surcharge load will
need to remain in place for a period on the order of 45 to 60 days before the surcharge fill can he
removed and foundation construction can commence.
The foundations may consist of shallow strip and /or isolated column footings supported within
and underlain by suitable bearing soils. We recommend footing widths of at least 24 inches for
strip footings and 36 inches for square footings. Footings should be constructed at least 18 inches
below the lowest adjacent finished grade; greater footing depths may be required for structural
considerations.
We note that sandy materials can degrade with respect to support characteristics once exposed to
the inclement weather and construction traffic, including foot traffic from laborers. We
recommend that the construction budget contain a contingency for undercutting these subgrade
materials 6 inches below planned footing bottom elevation depending on soil and perched
groundwater conditions at the time of construction. The resulting over -excavation can be
backfilled to the planned footing bottom with NCDOT No. 57 stone or a lean concrete "mud -
mat".
Surface water control should be maintained to prevent accumulation of water in footing
excavations. Standing water in footing excavations should be removed promptly. Soil softened
by the water should be removed, and the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative should
reexamine the area.
Deep Foundation Option:
Deep foundations will transfer the building and floor slab loads to a competent bearing stratum
which is the lower sand stratum encountered at a depth of 18 to 19 feet in borings SB-1 through
SB-4.
We recommend the deep foundations consist of driven timber pile foundations. Depending on the
proposed building and floor loads, pile sections and embedment conditions can be selected to
provide allowable axial compressive capacities of the piles in the range of 20 to 30 kips/pile.
Overall pile lengths are expected to be on the order of 35 to 50 feet as indicated below.
AM
8
UNITED CONSULTING

Pile Embedment
Allowable Axial
Depth into the
Estimated Overall
Compressive Capacity for
Lower Sand Layer
Pile Length
Timber Piles
Minimum B" Tip Diameter
15 feet
35 feet
20 kips
25 feet
45 feet
25 kips
30 feet
50 feet
30 kips
Pile installation should not start until building pad fill has been placed up to the design floor slab
subgrade level. This will aid in limiting the generation of negative skin friction forces that could
occur if the weight of the fill caused settlement in the overlying compressible soils after the piles
had been installed.
For pile foundations, estimated maximum total post -construction (under static conditions)
settlements will be on the order of 3/4-inch. Differential settlements between adjacent similarly
loaded columns can be anticipated to be on order of one half of the total settlement. The
settlement values are based on our engineering experience with similar soil conditions in the area
and the anticipated structural loads, and are provided as guide for the structural engineer
designing for deep foundations.
Floor Slabs
For the site preparation recommendations utilizing surcharging and spread footings, a
conventional slab on -grade should be suitable for this project. A subgrade modulus of 200
pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to design the slab if fine sands are used as fill. If a pile
foundation is selected for the building support, we recommend that the floor slab also be pile
supported, unless the building area is surcharged with a minimum 2-foot surcharge for a period
of at least 30-days prior to the construction of the floor slab. This requirement is to reduce the
potential differential settlement that could occur between the pile -supported structure and the
floor slab supported on grade.
It has been our experience that the floor slab subgade is often disturbed by weather, foundation
and utility line installation, and other construction activities between completion of grading and
slab construction. For this reason, our geotechnical engineer should evaluate the subgrade
immediately prior to placing the concrete. Areas judged by the geotechnical engineer to be
unstable should be redensified or undercut and replaced with engineered fill compacted to at least
98 percent of its Standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Pavement Design
Flexible (Asphalt) Pavement Design:
Pavements can be supported on the non -plastic to low plasticity coastal Plain soils similar to
those encountered at the borings, and on newly placed -engineered fill. Following the grading
operations to achieve the final site grades and prior to paving, the subgradc should be proofrolled
9
UNITED CONSULTING

under the observation of a geotechni cal. engineer to detect and treat any soft or weak subgrade
areas.
A design CBR value of 6 was used in flexible pavement thickness design for the proposed
parking and driveway areas. This value corresponds to a vertical subgrade modulus (k) value of
approximately 125 pci for rigid pavement design.
For heavy-duty areas such as entrance drives and traffic lanes, we recommend a minimum
pavement section consisting of 1.5 inches of asphalt (Type I-1 or I-2) underlain by 3.0 inches of
binder (Type "H") over 8 inches of crushed aggregate base course (CABC) stone or approved
equivalent materials. This is the minimum section recommended in any area where a truck can
access, whether truck traffic is planned or not. If more trucks, including garbage trucks; etc. are
anticipated, this section should be thickened.
For light duty areas restricted to passenger cars traffic only with an average maximum daily
traffic of approximately 300 cars and an occasional delivery truck per day, we recommend a
minimum pavement section consisting of 2.0 inches of asphalt (Type I-1 or 1-2) underlain by 6.0
inches of CABC. For full depth asphalt pavement, we recommend a minimum 5-inch section of
asphaltic concrete for light duty and a minimum 6-inch section of asphaltic concrete in heavy-
duty areas are used over well -prepared subgrade.
We recommend that the subgrade beneath all pavement areas be compacted to at least 98% of the
material's Standard Proctor maximum density in the upper two feet below subgrade, and to at
least 95% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density elsewhere. We recommend that the
crushed or graded aggregate base course for each of the preceding pavement sections be
compacted to 100"% of the materials modified proctor value (ASTM D-1557). Also, all
subgrades, base and asphalt materials, concrete, and construction procedures shall conform to
North Carolina DOT "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures" 2006 Edition.
We recommend applying a coal tar emulsion sealer to the pavement approximately 6 months
after placement of the surface course. The sealer will protect the surface course from surface
water intrusion, harmful ultraviolet light, and will help seal any cracks or voids in the asphalt.
Rigid (Concrete) Pavement Design:
As an alternate to asphaltic concrete pavements, a Portland cement concrete pavement could be
used. We recommend 6 inches of air -entrained 4,000-psi concrete over a 4-inch thick dense
graded aggregate base layer. The subgrade should be compacted to 98 percent of the Standard
Proctor maximum dry density to a depth of at least 2 feet prior to concrete placement.
For the subgrade preparation recommended herein, these pavement sections should be suitable
for the anticipated traffic loads. The rigid pavement section is recommended in trash dumpster
pad areas and beneath the drive-thru canopy, even if asphalt paving is used elsewhere on the
proj ect.
AKIL
UNITED CONSULTING

The project designer should determine whether to place reinforcement within the concrete
pavements. We recommend that concrete pavement sections be reinforced with at least 6-inch x
6-inch W I A x W 1.4 welded wire mesh. Reinforcement of concrete with wire mesh does not
prevent cracking of the concrete in any way. The wire mesh simply inhibits shrinkage cracks that
occur in concrete. Wire mesh should be located approximately 2 inches from the surface of the
slab, not at the bottom where it is commonly found. Longitudinal and transverse saw -cut control
joints should be placed no more than 15 feet apart in either direction. Construction joints should
have smooth dowels, 5/8 inch in diameter by 2.5 feet long spaced at 2-foot centers with one half
greased to prevent bonding of the concrete. Control joints should be '/4 of the thickness of the
concrete, and should be cut as soon as the slab can support the weight of a man and'saw (usually
within 12 hours). Expansion (isolation) joints must be full depth and should only be used to
isolate fixed objects abutting or within the paved area.
The most critical factor in providing long-term serviceability for a pavement is a well -prepared,
uniform subgrade. The long-term effects of localized areas of improperly prepared subgrade may
cause some cracking or potholes to develop in the pavement. These areas should be repaired as
soon as possible to limit the amount of water allowed to penetrate the subgrade. Small areas that
are not adequately prepared or untreated soft or wet areas can result in potholes or cracking. Even
though the potholes will affect only limited parts of the total pavement area, the overall pavement
serviceability will be significantly reduced.
Sealing of construction joints is essential to long-term performance of concrete pavement. Joints
should be sealed with a sealant designed especially for pavements subject to truck and car traffic.
Joints should be sealed as early as possible (sealant manufacturer's directions) after concrete has
been placed to protect the subgrade.
Asphalt or concrete pavement should be installed late in construction when most heavy
construction traffic such as concrete trucks, material delivery trucks, etc. will no longer come on
site. If desired, a layer of base course can be placed earlier to provide a working surface. The site
should then be proofrolled again, new soft areas treated, the base leveled and thickened as
required, and the site paved at the end of construction.
Seismic Site Class
The seismic design is covered by the provisions of Chapter 16 of the 2002 Edition of the North
Carolina State Building Code (NCSBC). The site categories referenced in the NCBC are defined
in terms of the average shear wave velocity (Vs) in the top 100 ft of the profile. Shear wave
velocities are measured using geophysical methods not normally utilized with the subsurface
exploration. In absence of shear wave velocities, geotechnical parameters such as standard
penetration resistance (N) and the undrained shear strength (S) can be utilized.
United Consulting utilized available subsurface data (i.e. SPT N-values) and published
subsurface data on the Craven County area to provide a seismic site class for the Site. A seismic
site classification of "Site Class E" was obtained for the site using the N-values.
ti
11
UNITED CONSULTING

A site class determination based on the average N values is necessarily conservative. A site -
specific geophysical study acquiring soil shear wave velocity data may or may not demonstrate
sufficient stiffness to allow a higher site class. Shear wave velocity measurements were beyond
our authorized scope of work. United Consulting will be pleased to provide the additional
seismic services, if requested. -
LIMITATIONS
This report is for the exclusive use of URS Corporation as the designers of the project described
herein, and may only be applied to this specific project. Our conclusions and recommendations
have been prepared using generally accepted standards of Geotechnical Engineering practice in
the state of North Carolina. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Our firm is not
responsible for conclusions, opinions or recommendations of others.
The right to rely upon this report and the data within may not be assigned without UNITED
CONSULTING'S written permission.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based upon design information furnished us, data
obtained from the previously described exploration and testing program and our past experience.
They do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions that may exist intermediate of our borings
and in unexplored areas of the site. Should such variations become apparent during construction,
it will be necessary to re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations based upon "on -site"
observations of the conditions.
If the design or location of the project is changed, the recommendations contained herein must be
considered invalid, unless our firm reviews the changes, and our recommendations are either
verified or modified in writing. When design is complete, we should be given the opportunity to
review the foundation plan, grading plan, and applicable portions of the specifications to see if
they are consistent with the intent of our recommendations.
UNITED CONSULTING
- _ 12
UNITED CONSULTING

The sc
noted:
y ly4'' rrvy 7f���r
x
u,try
r�Fl kk'x �1.1°
4 ,
s T `: Sit tl
GENERAL NOTES ;er
(classifications rioted on the Boring Logs are visual classifications unless otherwise'; .
Ainor constituents of a soil sample are termed as'fbllows -ry
ti�
,
1 )�� � I I, , � tN r'y' xi«� +' °d � .N ✓x' x I � tr D `;.{� his qA' l gab: e�sL'i4 i .b 4 ,Ft Ct jy� fit, .r i �' L
! .. 2 �_TrB� i>• 7Y�e. 4 � v t � ����/o i r'^ k'7. _
^'t��,_�eo :L;,s�'.
LEGEtr
r+--
4 i' V YrT � f• �t
ry ;
Split Spoon Samp'e -obtain,H ur
r
y
{1
� r q13 t � T"
� 7 i
6,1
zjf
jA
Natural 14oisturc Content
! J I
,� r `" vLL � ','LiquidLimil l��+ a raj
r ,'�' e a, PL �.PlasticLimit Atterbe
PI ; Plasticitt Index
r.,ti� r .-
PF :.',r Percent Fme's (Percent Passim
s' • �.d Dn Unil Weighl (Poundsper,'
( m (: Moist or In -Situ L'nit Weight
li f' �sai' sat drated Unit Weight (PCF)
` f ,
� r 4y �r f ;
mg Standard Penetration Testing
s
L r d• ° r• Y'b SS � i '4 . >lb.'
C 9
�f.J VF MF C,ti Gr: A'
b �r
t y -
iringCompletiodl�
rs{ ,a+t r y�•`'`�yt y,�r r,'�%sn�! �-i fi;�zti. �
it as noted) after'Permmation of Bonn Y `*
aG�+i 3V1V
9k - t
1
imit5 i� y !
a
MO Sievej{ t ) a
ti.
is Foot or PCF t .
Y ;

BORING LOG DATA AND NARRATIVE OF DRILLING OPERATIONS
The test borings were made by mechi
r ground. Samples were covered at=rec
lished procedures for performing the
specification D-1586. Soil samples we
barrel sampler Tne;sampler is.first'si
van an additional foot with the blows i
The",number of blows required to'di
Boring,L6gs The, total number of blow
nated the "standard oenetratiom resl
value, is a--measu
sistency.of cohesl
The following tabI
' a
penetration resisti
Ily,advancing,helical hollow stem augers into the
ry inteals in each of the borings foliowing estab- ,,.
idard Penetration Test in acco`idai ce with. ASTW
itained with a standard 1 4' I:D x"2' ,W O.D. spilt
v, io penetrate any Goose cuttings{ and then, dri-
1.
40 pound hammer freely falling'_a'distance of 30
he sampler,+:each six. nch , e I sJs- recorded loW the.
auired to drive the samplersthe final foot is desig-
ce.'.' This driving resistance,3-known as the 'W'
of granular soils and is an Indication of the con
Yncies and; relative densities based,on standard
ce"values (t4) determined bythe Standard Penetration Test:
,.
N' consistency+
e? 0 2' + ;Very.Softw
r
3 4 Soft.;,
F4jrm
Clay andSilt 9 15 Stiff'
r g 1 k
16 30' Very+Stiff.
0ver31"
-
i RelatiyeDensity`` `+
0 4 Very Loose
F i 51 0 Loose
_Firm
�`... 4 Sand 20 29' Med4um Dense {
Nk9 ,
'Dense:;.:
50+ "Very Dense
mot. _

Ch. N36'51'45"W 11
R-1089.00' L-11
Q?.
ti?1gi.
tx00.
5'5.58' W 20a.09,
I �
BMP-1 BMP-2
I
r/
d„ `;` SB-1 SB-2
LSB-4 SB--3
_ r4
. f + aao
0
LEGEND
Approximate Boring Location
fsApproximate CBR Sample Location
$ not to scale
Note: Sketch based on a Layout Plan
by URS Corp. dated August 21, 2006
UC Project No. 2006.1447.01 Nov- 17, 2006
FIG. 1 - BORING LOCATION PLAN
UNITED CONSULTING GROUP. LTD.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION F-nvironmenral-Genlechnicul-Structural-Geophvsical-Materials Testing
HIGHWAY 70 WEST 3557-{1FNESTtl6MLAIL011VA23321
HAVELOCK, NORTH CAROLINA TEL-NI-SU4578 M-757.8"79 www. Alt®6C8om wcom

®UNITED CONSULTING
825 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD
NORCROSS, 13EORGIA 30071 BORING LOG
(770)20"029, FAX [phone]
CONTRACTED WITH: URS CORP.
PROJECT NAME: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, HAVELOCK, NC
JOB NO.: 2006.1447-01 DRILLER: I. MANN RIG: CME-450
Sheet 1 of 2
BORING NO.: SB-1
DATE: 11/14/06
LOGGED BY: G. WITSMAN
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
DFPTH
'n
FEET
SAMPLES
NOTES
N0.
TYPEI
BLOWSl6
RECOV.
WY�
8" - TOPSOIL
0
--Mud Rotary —
Groundwater measured at 13"
upon completion
Groundwater encountered at
18" at time of drilling
Groundwater at 13". Caved at
30" after 3 hours.
Sand (Fine to Medium) -silty, some clay;
very loose to louse; wet; light gray and
light brown (Coastal Plain)
-contains layers of clayey silt; very loose;
¢rav below 7'
—7ff-'
_
I
2-1-2
18
--_—
2
4-2-3
16
5
3
2-1-1
16
--
Silt-clayey, trace fine sand; very soft; wet
gray
Sand (Fine to Medium) -silty; f rn; wet;
tan and light brown
-very loose
-firm; gray
-medium dense; dark gray below 34'
-firm
[15
5
0-1
18
20
6
7-8-5
10
2-2-2
8
25
_
3J
6
7-7 7
6
9
4.11-9
12
35
IO
5-5-6
10
a0

UNITED CONSULTING
625 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD
NORCROSS, GEORGIA 30071 . BORING LOG
[phone], FAX [phone]
CONTRACTED WITH: URS CORP.
PROJECT NAME: NAVY FEDERAL CREDITUNION.HAVELOCK-NC
JOB NO.: 2006.1447-01 DRILLER: J. MANN RIG: CME450
Sheet 2 of 2
BORING NO.: SB-1
DATE: 11/14/06
LOGGED BY: G. wITSMAN
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
DEFa
in
FcE�
SAMPLES
NOTES
NO.
TYPE
BLOWSY
RECOV.
W%
_'---
45
11
4-7-9
12
12
I 8-9.13
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 50'
55
60
65
70
75
8D

UNITED CONSULTING
625 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD
NORCROSS. GEORGIA 30071 BORING LOG
[phone], FAX [phone]
CONTRACTED WITH: URS CORP.
PROJECT NAME: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, HAVELOCK, NC
JOB NO.: 2006.1447-01 DRILLER: J. MANN RIG: CME450
Sheet 1 of 1
BORING NO.: SB-2
DATE: 11/14/06
LOGGED BY: G. WITSMAN
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
n
FEEL
SAMPLES
NOTES
NO
TYPE
SLOWSffi
RECOV.
W%
1 S" - TOPSOIL
-- HSA —
Groundwatcr at 2' after 4 hours
Groundwater at T after 2 hours
Groundwater measured at 5'
upon completion
Groundwater encountered at
6' at time of drilling
Sand (Fine to Medium) -silty; :race clay;
loose; moist to wet; light brown to light
gray (Coastal Plain)
-very loose
-fine
Sill -clayey; very soft; wet; gray— — —
I
I 3-3-3
18
5
2
I 3-4-3
IS
3
2-2-2
1 B
4
1n
5
15
6
3-4-3
18
Sand (Fine to Medium) -silty; loose; wet;
ten and light brown
20
--
--
BORING TERMINATED AT 20'
25
30
35
40

UNITED CONSULTING
625 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD
NORCROSS, GEORGIA 30071 BORING LOG
[phone], FAX [phone]
CONTRACTED WITH: URS CORP.
PROJECT NAME: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UMON, HAVELOCK, NC
JOB NO.: 2006,1447-01 DRILLER: J. MANN RIG: CME450
Sheet 1 of 1
BORING NO.: SB-3
DATE: 11/14/06
LOGGED BY: G. WITSMAN
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
DEFT
SAMPLES
NOTES
NO.
rYPE
BLOWS/6-
RECOV.
W%
15" - TOPSOIL
o
-- HSA —
Groundwater at 28" after 1 hour
Groundwater at 21" after 2
hours
Groundwater encountered at
at time of drilling
Sand (Fine to Medium}silty, some clay;
very loose; moist to wet; light bruwn and
light gray (Coastal Plain)
-wet
Siltclayey, tract sand; very soft;wcY.
gray
Sand (Fine to Medium) -silty; loose; wet;
li ght brown and tan
__
I
Z-1-2
18
--
8
_F3-4-4
J106•
10
418
--
15
6
I 3-4-3
19
zn
-- -
-
BORING TERMINATED AT 20'
z6
30
35
40

UNITED CONSULTING Sheet 1 of 1
625 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD
NORCROSS, GEORGIA 30071 BORING LOG
[phone], FAX[phone]
CONTRACTED WITH: URS CORP. BORING NO.: SB-4
PROJECT NAME: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT tMON, HAVELOCK, NC DATE: 11/14/06
JOB NO.: 2006.1447-01 DRILLER: J. MANN RIG: CME-450 LOGGED BY: G. WITSMAN
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
oEarN
I�
FEET
SAMPLES
NOTES
N07
TYPE
BLOWSlO'
RECOV.
VJYe
36" - TOPSOIL
0
— HSA -
Groundwater measured at 18"
upon completion
Groundwater encountered at
6' at time of drilling
-contains wood fragments and clayey sam
—T_
I
I-1-2
18
Sand (Fine 10 Medium) -silty, some clay:
loose; moist to wet; light gray (Coastal
Plain).
Sill- clayey; very soft; wet} gray— — —
Send (Fine to Medium) -silty; firm; wet;
tan and light brown
?
I-2-3
18
5
3
3-2-1
10
—__
--- -
10
4
1-1-1
15
5
1/I8
1s
15
6
2-5-13
is
—�
--
BORING TERMINATED AT 20'
25
90
35
<0

UNITED CONSULTING
625 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD
NORCROSS, GEORGIA 30071
(770)2D9-0029, FAX [phone]
BORING LOG
Sheet 1 of 1
CONTRACTED WITH: URS CORP. BORING NO.: BMP-1
PROJECT NAME: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, HAVELOCK, NC DATE: 11/14/06
JOB NO.: 2006.1447-01 DRILLER: I. MANN RIG: CME-450 LOGGED BY: G. w1TSMAN
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
D=-Pr4
'"
EEE7
SAMPLES
NOTES
NO.
TYPE
BLOWS/8'
RECOV.
Wy
24" - TOPSOIL
0
-- HSA --
Groundwater at 4.5' after I hour
Groundwater measured at 5'
upon completion
Groundwater encountered at
6'at time ofdrilling
-contains large root fragments
1
2-2-1
6
Sand (Fine to Medium) -silty, sonic clay;
very loose; moist; light gray (Coastal
Plain)
Silt -clayey; very soft wet; gray— _ —
Sand (Fine to Mcdium)-silty; loose; wet;
li ht brown
3-3
15
L
V3-3-2312
16
_0
5
1.2-3
Is
i
—
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
_
20
25
30
35
40

UNITED CONSULTING
625 HOLCOMB BRIDGE ROAD
NORCROSS, GEORGIA 3DO71 BORING LOG
[phone], FAX[phone]
CONTRACTED WITH: URS CORP.
PROJECT NAME: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, HAVELOCK, NC
JOB NO.: 2006.1447-01 DRILLER: J. MANN RIG: CME-450
Sheet 1 of 1
BORING NO.: BMP-2
DATE: 11/14/06
LOGGED BY: G. WITSMAN
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
FEET
SAMPLESin
NOTES
N0.
TYPE
BLOWS/C
RECOV.
W%
1 S" - TOPSOIL
0
-- HSA --
Groundwater measured at 5.5'
upon completion
Groundwater encountered at
6' at time of drilling
-contains large root fragments
Clay -sandy; soft; moist; brown (Coastal
Plain)
1
2-2-7
is
Sand (Pine to Medium) -silty, some clay;
loose; moist; light gray
-very louse; wet
Silt -clayey; very soft; wet', grnv
Sand (Pine t0 Medium) -silty, some clay;
loose; wet; light brown
3-4-5
12
5
3
1-0-1
IG
—"
10
4
1-0-1
R
f�
5
2-2-3
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15-
20
25
30
35
4D

EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
A total of six (6) SPT borings (designated as borings SB-I through SB-4, BMP-1 and BMP-2),
were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. The
borings were advanced to depths ranging from 15 to 50 feet below existing grades. Soil samples
obtained using the split spoon sampler were examined by the project geotechnical engineer and
classified according to the visual -manual procedure described in ASTM D 2488-00. Soil test
borings were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. A narrative of field
operations is included in the Appendix.
The borings were located in the field by the project geotechnical engineer based on a preliminary
location plan provided by URS Corporation. The boring locations were established by measuring
distances from existing edge of roadway pavements. These locations are shown on the attached
Boring Location Plan and should be considered to be approximate.

LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
Project: United Consulting Laboratory Testing 2006
Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 W.
Havelock, NC
United Consulting Job No.: 2006.1447.01
Number: 3839-110-Q
Date: 11/20106
SAMPLE
DEPTH
SAMPLE
CLASS.
NATURAL
y
MAXIMUM
DRY
OPTIMUM
NUMBER
FEET I
TYPE
MOISTURE
FINES
DENSITY
MOISTURE
UNSOAKEO
SOAKED
SWELL
OTHER
Ye
PCF
CBR
CBR
TESTS
CBR-1
0.7 to 2
BULK
SM
19.5
25.6
110.6
15.0
14.5
13.4
0.0
SIEVE
CBR-2
1.3 to 2.5
BULK
SC-SM
16.3
28.9
111.3
15.8
9.6
4.9
0.1
SIEVE
References: ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 422, AASHTO T 99, AASHTO T 193
etc.

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.
Project Name:
Location:
UC Project Number:
Number:
Sample Number:
Sample Depth:
Sample Description:
Test Method:
100
90
60
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SIEVE ANALYSIS
United Consulting Laboratory Testing 2006
Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 W.
Havelock, NC
2006.1447.01
3839-110-Q
CBR-1
6 to 24 Inches
Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Tan, Fine, with Clay
ASTM D 422
Sieve Analysis Data
SIEVE
NO.
PERCENT
PASSING
1 Inch
100.0
3/4 Inch
100.0
112 Inch
100.0
3/8Inch
100.0
4
100.0
10
100.0
20
99.7
40
98.2
60
91.0
100
55.6
200
25.6
SAND Silt Clay
Illllll�lrlilllill■■IIIIIi,C�■il I1111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII■■
IIIIIII■I■IIII1111■■Illiililll■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
IIIIIII■i■Illlllll■■IIIII III■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
IIIIIII■I■IIIIIII■■IIIIII'll■1�11III11■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
IIIIIII■I■Illillll■■IIIIIII■frill IIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
Ill I111■I■IIII1111■■IIIIIII■t111lilll■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIII'I■■,IIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII■■
IIIIIII■�■IIII1111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII■■
III IIII■i■II111111■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
III IIII■I■illllll■■IIIII III■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII■■IIIIII■■
100.000 10,000 1.0D0 0.100 0.010
Grain Size (mm)
0,001 0.000

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.
MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Project Name:
United Consulting Laboratory Testing 2006
Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 W.
Havelock, NC
Project Number:
2006.1"7.01
Number:
3839-11 O-Q
Sample Number:
CBR-1
Sample Depth:
0.7 to 2 feet
Sample Description:
Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Tan, Fine, with Clay
Test Method:
AASHTO T 99
Maximum Dry Density (pcq: 110.6
Optimum Moisture (%): 15.0
140.0
135.0
130.0
125.0
a
y 120.0
t~
rn 115.0
z
w
0
>. 110.0
0
105.0 -
100.0
95.0
90.0
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

f
Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST
Project Name:
United Consulting Laboratory Testing 2006
Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 W.
Havelock, NC
Project Number:
2006.1447.01
Number:
3839-110-Q
Sample Number:
CBR-1
Sample Depth:
0.7 to 2 feet
Sample Description:
Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Tan, Fine, with Clay
Test Method:
AASHTO T 193
Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 110.6 Blows Per Layer:
56
Optimum Moisture (%): 15.0 Surcharge Weight (lbs.):
10
In Situ Moisture (%):
19.5 Compaction Before Soaking (%):
100+
After Soaking Moisture
(%): 17.3 Compaction After Soaking (%):
100+
Unsoaked Compaction (%):
100+
Unsoaked CBR Value: 14.5
Soaked CBR Value:
13.4
Swell (%):
0.0
500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0
i 300.0
z
C 250.0
Q
0 200.0
150.0
1[110111
50.0
0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
PENETRATION IN INCHES

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.
Project Name:
Location:
UC Project Number:
Number:
Sample Number:
Sample Depth:
Sample Description:
Test Method:
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SIEVE ANALYSIS
United Consulting Laboratory Testing 2006
Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 W.
Havelock, NC
2006.1447.01
3839-110-R
CBR-2
16 to 30 Inches
Slightly Clayey SAND (SC-SM), Gray and Tan, Fine, with Silt
ASTM D 422
Sieve Analysis Data
SIEVE
NO.
PERCENT
PASSING
1Inch
100.0
3141nch
100.0
112 Inch
100.0
3/8Inch
100.D
4
100.0
10
100.0
20
99.7
40
98.7
60
s4.7
100
55.1
200
28.9
IIIIIII■Irlllllill■■Itlllii��■Illm■■IIIIIII■■Ilnil■■
III I111■I■IIII1111■■Ililllll■■I II11■■loll■■III111■■
illllll■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIII111■■I illl■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
IIIIIII■I■IIII1111■■IIIIIIII■1�1IIII■■III111■■IIIIIII■■
III II11■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIII'1■t�l III11■■illllll■■III I111■■
IIIIIII■I■IIIIIII■■Illlllil■■VI II111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
III II11■I■IIII1111■■Iillllll■■►! Iilll■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
Illilll■I■IIIIIIII■■IIII11�1■■IIIIIII■■illllll■■IIIIIII■■
III I111■I■illllll)■■Ililllll■■II I1111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
Illilll■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■il IIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■
100.000
10,000
1.000
0.100
0.010
0.001 0000
Grain Size (mm)

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.
MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Project Name:
United Consulting Laboratory Testing 2006
Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 W.
Havelock, NC
Project Number:
2006.1447.01
Number:
3839-110-0
Sample Number:
CBR-2
Sample Depth:
1.3 to 2.5 feet
Sample Description:
Slightly Clayey SAND (SC-SM), Gray and Tan, Fine, with Silt
Test Method:
AASHTO T 99
Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 111.3
Optimum Moisture (%): 15.8
140.0
135.0
130.0
125.0
LL
}a 120.0
F
y 115.0
2
w
0
rc 110.0
0
105.0
100.0
95.0
90.0 .
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST
Project Name:.
United Consulting Laboratory Testing 2006
Navy Federal Credit Union, US Highway 70 W.
Havelock, NC
Project Number:
2006.1447.01
Number:
3839-110-0
Sample Number:
CBR-2
Sample Depth:
1.3 to 2.5 feet
Sample Description:
Slightly Clayey SAND (SC-SM), Gray and Tan, Fine, with Silt
Test Method:
AASHTO T 193
Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 111.3 Blows Per Layer:
56
Optimum Moisture (%): 15.8 Surcharge Weight (lbs.):
10
In Situ Moisture (%):
16.3 Compaction Before Soaking (%):
100+
After Soaking Moisture
(%): 18.9 Compaction After Soaking (%):
100+
Unsoaked Compaction (%):
100+
Unsoaked CBR Value: 9.6
Soaked CBR Value:
4.9
Swell (%):
0.1
300.0
250.0
200.0
y
a
z
150.0
a
o
J
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.000
0.100 0.200 0,300 0.400
PENETRATION IN INCHES

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted tot a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfar the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
—not even you— should apply the repor for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Preject-Specific Factors
Geolechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific (ac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, is size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing sib improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground util'dies. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to art office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
qi!�
l ll f efr ' � t ! f � '^ �
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inlorm your geotechnical engineer of project
changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnicat engineer cannot ancepf responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering reporl is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passaae of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, suit as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional -
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotachnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly —
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed yaur report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnicai
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The ge-otechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the reporl's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
N6sinterpretation
Dther design learn members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geolechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geolechnical engineer participate in prebld and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geolechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the legs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, bul recogniza
that separaling loos from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevenl costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geolechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly writlen letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited, encourage them to confer with the geoechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure conifac-
tors have suf icienl time to pedorm additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geolechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled 'limitations*
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely, Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviren-
mental study differ significantly from these used to perform a geolechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. It you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geolechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express pu,Pose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can load to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geolechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geolechnical engineer in charge of Ihis
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geolechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
ReIKK an Your ASFE-Wlember Geotechil l
Engeer for Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotachnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
oenuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Center
with you ASFE-member geolechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
TSn SCSI hHrn on r.ru
8811 Colesville Road/Suite 3106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] vww.asle.oig
CopydgM 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whore or in part, by any means rvnarsoeuer, is stricnp pmblbrted. except rwth ASFE;
specific winner, permission. Excem, Ling, quoting, or otherxdse erhacting wording from this drumant is permitted only with the express written permission of ASF,, and only for
purposes of schNady research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a gcotecMioaf engineering report. Any etner
firm, mairidual, or other ernY.y that senses L7is document w?Irouf being an ASFEmember could 5e committing negligent or intentional (l2udulent) misrepresentation.
IIGERD5045.OM

October 10, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Robert M. Chiles, P.E.
-- Engineers, Consultants & Marine Surveyors
417-A Broad Street
PO Box 3496
New Bern, North Carolina 28564
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
In reply refer to:
FEB 2 3 2000
DWQ-WARD
Re: Real Property owned by Navy Federal Credit Union and containing
approximately 2.43 acres located in the City of Havelock, North Carolina
designated as Parcel 5 on the plat recorded in Plat Cabinet H, slide 67-B in the
office of the Register of Deeds of Craven County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Chiles:
In connection with the above referenced Property, Navy Federal Credit Union ("NFCU")
hereby authorizes Robert M. Chiles, P.E. to act as NFCU's agent and on its behalf with respect
to that certain application for a storm water drainage permit to be filed with the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. Such authorization includes the execution
of the storm water drainage application and any associated documentation now or hereafter in
connection therewith, appearing at meetings and public hearings and the submission of any other
necessary materials.
Please feel free to contact me with any comments or questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
Judy ison
Assistant Vice President,
Branch Operations Facility Management
Navy Federal
Credit Union
PO Box 3000
Merrifield VA 22119-3000
navyfcu.org

Havelock, NC, United States of America - Google Maps
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Havelock,+NC,+United+States+of+...
Address Havelock, NC
Maps _.
Get Google Maps on your phone
Tent the word"GMAPS' to 466453
loft
3/3/2008 4:55 PM

lk,
STORMWATER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
WET DETENTION POND
Objective
A. Collect all runoff from all BUA (proposed and/or existing and/or offsite) as the case may be,
by any means including piping or swales, and direct it to the pond.
B. Check the proposed pond design to make sure it meets or exceeds the minimum design
criteria for surface area, volume and drawdown.
II. What
makes up a complete wet detention pond application package?
A. Y Two sets of sealed, signed & dated layout & grading plans with appropriate details.
(Additional sets of plans may be requested for projects in certain counties)
B. Completed application with supplement(s), SWU-101, SW401-Wet Pond, and inspection and
maintenance agreements.
C. ��b'eed restriction document, if applicable (for subdivisions & projects with out parcels)
D. Sealed, signed & dated calculations.
E. Estimated seasonal high water table elevation at all pond locations.
F. Chlorides test results must be provided if the project is within 1/z mile of SR waters (Phase 11).
(This is only required to test out of SR water treatment requirements)
III. BIMS entry (for DWQ use only)
Enter & track application acknowledged date, review date, add info requested/received dates, permit
issue dates, and drainage area info. Best done after the add info letter is written and before sending
permit up for signature.
IV. Shell documents (for DWQ use only)
Permit shells: s:\wqs\stormwater\shells\highcompond
s:\wqs\stormwater\shells\highsubpond
s:\wgs\stormwater\shells\HDhybrid
Spreadsheet: s:\wgs\stormwater\excel spreadsheets\pond
VI. Review Procedure
A. APPLICATION
1. V/Ikn original signature is required. Photocopied signatures cannot be accepted.
2. ✓A completed wet detention pond supplement and a signed, dated and notarized wet
/detention pond Inspection and Maintenance Agreement with an original signature.
3. ✓ The numbers on the supplement match up to the numbers used in the calculations and
shown on the plan details.
4. ✓ uilt-upon areas are reported in square feet in Section 111.6.
5. �eceiving stream name and classification. This is important because in the non -Phase
II counties, a wet pond cannot be used on a project that is within 1/2 mile of and draining
/to SA waters. For Phase 11, a wet pond is allowed within 1h mile of SA waters.
6. ✓ Section 111.6 is filled in -cannot be left blank. One column must be filled in for each
proposed wet pond.
7. V If the applicant is a corporation, partnership or LLC, look it up on the Secretary of State
Corporations Database. Make sure corporation is spelled correctly (capitalization and
punctuation matter) and that the person signing the application is at least a vice-
president in the corporation, a General Partner in the partnership, a member in a
member -managed LLC, or the manager of a manager -managed LLC. Need
documentation to support if the Articles of Incorporation do not list the members or
managers of the LLC. If an agent signs, then a letter of authorization is needed from the
president, vice president, general partner, member or manager.
8AN For subdivided projects, a signed and notarized deed restriction statement must be
provided.

A Inlyt,
5-0t 1:'.. " L,' 1 , 3 L 1 L,1j 'o'; "'0". c, ,- .�U, 7L,
if 'I;- vn.yuruu, r as: M 4131 lu
:.!o: ..". On" . 9; -1 ipc; 1- �J�, 1 i�;;"f t, "'.. -;
1 IVIP: W,G - 1.10 p0b !.' 11';t 1.,q Cok-�,!T!A
PH Z"WSLGO j,"Ospupm noXrw louign 71 Imc.
;Sc! .1, r.",4J" 1:,W
OL 6102. A 0 W 5054 1. WOCAS NQU f-, -jJI!G C,
I,,! "r, CQ OCYNOW, `
UQ cmQuyn An , e 1. Wfoul
0. T LC C
r
AS, a,: i.
:"IiLlzml l't
W nwmar c !, vl..1. .1, 4, ! '1� j� %� -ZJZj
t A kqm,
ON wd A ph 1, MAC!
T? lot WaW q oil "S h AQQQ != 110 , I ou", , 0 do of Qj PSM 'UK
7)CcMl M14S 17"> clx;:t :W;
fJ r 9';( 1'�';E 7it' 'Jr.J
7(
Nq I! •TOM QDw wy- ;bW wu yune
v CjWQb All Q3NJQ0 Imly zo jospin vlqwvc.;
oj; }0 L
fit .
1 2•A , 41,1;1;1
if. 4,14 0
Ir

Wet Detention Pond, cont.
B. CALCULATIONS
1. The orifice is sized based on drawing down the calculated minimum volume in 2-5
days. The average head to use in the orifice equation is approximately one-third of
the distance between the permanent pool elevation (PPE) and the elevation of the
next available outlet above the permanent pool. The elevation of the next available
outlet must be either the elevation where the minimum volume is provided, or it can
be higher. The temporary pool elevation (TPE) to report on the supplement will be
the elevation of the next available outlet above the PPE. The temporary pool volume
(TPV) to report on the supplement is the volume between the specified PPE and the
TPE.
2. 017or Phase II projects that are within % mile of and draining to SR waters, the
difference in runoff from the predevelopment and post -development conditions for
the 1 year 24 hour storm must be controlled and treated.
3.11�,k For Phase II projects, the discharge rate leaving the pond can be no more than the
pre -development discharge rate for the 1 year 24 hour storm.
O/A For Phase II projects draining to SA water, no discharge to surface waters may occur
from wet ponds. The discharge leaving the orifice must be effectively infiltrated prior to
/ reaching surface waters.
5. V The average pond depth is the permanent pool volume divided by the permanent pool
surface area. The result must be between 3 ft. and 7.5 ft. Parts of the pond can be
deeper than 7.5 ft., but in no case can any part of the pond be less than 3 ft deep.
6.q0� f.the 85% TSS chart is used a 30' vegetated filter must be provided at the outlet of the
pond. If the 90°A TSS chart is used, no filter is required.
7. Use the correct SNDA TSS chart from the BMP Manual noting that there are different
✓charts
for different areas of the State.
8. /Required surface area at permanent pool.
9. ✓ Provided surface area at permanent pool (Based on pond dimensions)
10.✓Required volume calculation based t 1.5" storm for Phase II projects" and 1" storm for
all others projects. 'unless the project is Phase II and within''/: mile of and draining to
SR waters then the volume calculation must be based on drfference between the pre
and post development conditions for the 1-yr 24-hr storm.
11. Table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes and accumulated volumes for overall
pond and for forebay, to verify volumes provided.
12✓Forebay designed to hold 20% of the permanent pool volume. (Range of 18%-22%
OK.)
1310mon-erosive flow for 10 yr. storm in the vegetated filter, if using 85% TSS.
--Z 14. The seasonal high water table must be at or below the proposed permanent pool
elevation to assure that the necessary volume will be available above the permanent
pool.
15.✓Rounding numbers off during the calculation process can result in deficiencies. Do not
jound the numbers until you get to the final result.
16.1/An additional one foot must be excavated below the bottom elevation of the pond. The 1
foot sediment accumulation depth is not included in the average depth calculation.

t()Ot Zi 1, .',`t% !^ 1A , 7cjrI,4;1t4 ju won A; lie qy "p U I m q% a,!
%Y'-' l"j('4 t.z: )up,,A 1p� nngol�;
1.0. 11111 A , 'A Owl 7!4
W.WiTA NIL6 2 '1 09 YMPNIT QMW 4K jUj It
lilt! p- ;,j P- , j, S tkouoi -Q 1).'.
I "04mimpmz pl;A. JUJO;I, ZJVOU M WE Mcjmtj Pion q napa 5'2,; La -a
OK')
WG "W"" in! 1 C"In"S. 0 YOU" V! J 9*0-30n'
-up Sc W Im - cV J'j'Th. JL,,-; C I -At 34 U, h[CIUI
.;s APITI c'I"t-pau Iona popsarc: OU ICS pGV:n
�rdmke;4 �V- UY, C Nan V qru !-,z- .4,4 CO l"? afc, 0 1 ICA �, )-,110 1) L16c.CLZ, t;I.A:; ilk; C.
GI ',Wuc A 013 A DOO Lt�j Lic.1 q
go! not mp. . Tc ql Kamm L" den;
LC'& jp(3 p
II)p !IOU) fjJS
Q� t�' U)ujGk?,RnDq%j,
q c MO, 0 ! M cM f , 1031 n L A WAIMO ;I!, wv�-j 0I0,I:LfC:,l 31 u
mulpfco VSU U r 1 , C, UKTj j= Cl M",
bVIL, 000 1 4 nin MA 101-1r QG tmt*ymE3q p? W! Z.w..1acj
ct 'tr-4 :-C 0641.1 P
:t.sx6l
LI'l LO 10 ZnqZ,,F, 1 AUll-" IJ 14
y Mum 1
4 11 1 IT, A OP" j U 0 1 I)G CO, 9"1
j j U'r ja vow ma Acy wavow ', iq in may:
Wit•It
-it j;. 12 too AL!"O, Dqp; ftli; if fur
"-!C' 'm go I R P Q . A l.: i I " p" -
�j I J, I ': U L 1 jL 0,1 A 110 1 4 A A,
910 1 U •L : n k )" , U ! U - ^ "i 1, 1, ') ,', ': :!,, ",
uz� 4NAPP" Q'--' 0-01 001
j I I- q - , - �, �. .. 0, f-� , T " " t Ij . I L , , , .3; j j C
y& a' 1 7 m7t: AS (0 in vixwofo. 2 n!
.; I-lz �.,? L,!, r-1; ;:it:
j
IM 1%;0W L; UC' cou'r
0

Wet Detention Pond, cont.
C. PLANS- Due to storage space constraints, plan sheets should be kept to a minimum. For
small commercial single wet pond projects, the plan set could consist of only 2 or 3 sheets,
layout, grading and details. For larger projects, show as much information as possible on as
few sheets as possible, without cluttering them up.
1. ✓DevelopmenUProject Name
2. V.Engineer name and firm.
3. ✓Legend
4. VNorth Arrow
5. VLocation Map with nearest intersection of two major roads shown. Major road is any 1,
2, or 3 digit NC, US or interstate highway.
6. VScale- standard engineering scale, no off-the-wall stuff.
7. 1- Date
8. Ili/Revision number and date, if applicable.
9. t�Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations, pipe
,inverts, swale inverts, etc.
10.V Existing drainage (piping, swales, ditches, ponds, etc.), including off -site. Include a map
delineating the offsite drainage areas.
11 Property/Project boundary lines, bearing & distances.
121OW1ean High Water Line or Normal High Water Line, if applicable.
"{ 13. The permanent pool elevation must be above the SHWT and above the lowest
elevation of adjacent wetlands. Evaluate the need for a liner and/or berm/slurry wall to
prevent dewatering the wetland.
140Drainage easement widths, pipe sizes and swale inverts are provided.
15. VWetlands delineated, or a note on the plans that none exist. Get a copy of the wetlands
delineation map signed by the Corps of Engineers, or have the applicant include a copy
of the unsigned delineation map submitted to the Corps. Wet ponds may not be located
n wetlands unless a permit to fill those wetlands has been obtained.
16. l�Details for the roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, including sidewalk width, radii, dimensions &
slopes.
171/AApartment / Condo development- Provide a typical building footprint with dimensions
and note all concrete and wood deck areas.
18. ✓The drainage area for each wet pond is clearly delineated and numbered to match up to
the calculations and supplement. Drainage area delineation is best done as a separate
19.✓plan sheet.
A pond section detail to include the forebay, a 10 foot wide vegetated'shelf, pertinent
elevations for the bottom, permanent pool, temporary pool, and SHWf, 3:1 slopes
above the permanent pool, and the weir elevation between the main pond and the
forebay.
20V /The 10 vegetated shelf extends 6" below and 6" above the pemnanent pool elevation.
21.y An outlet structure detail showing a trash rack with 56" square openings, the necessary
orifice invert elevation (i.e., the permanent pool), orifice size and temporary pool
elevation.
22.1,Dimensions for each line and arc formed by the permanent pool contour.
2VN/ANhere the 85% TSS chart was used, a 30 ft. vegetated filter strip is required to be
shown on the plans & detailed (elevations, inverts, slopes, and flow spreader
mechanism). Please note that the filter strip is not a ditch.
24.✓A forebay is provided for each inlet and located so as to prevent short-circuiting.
25YThe pond must have a minimum 1.5:1 length to width ratio and a minimum 3:1 flow path
length. Artificial "baffles" of timber, vinyl, or earth can be used to create a longer flow
path. The top elevation of the baffle should be set at the temporary pool elevation or
higher.
2 26. A Vegetation plan is specified for the pond, including slopes. Wetlands species are
listed for planting on the 10:1 shelf. Weeping Love Grass is not suitable as a permanent
vegetated cover for pond slopes.
27.VAII roof drainage must be directed to the pond. Show the roof drain collection lines on
the plan. This is necessary for projects when: the buildings back up the property lines
where roof drainage may leave the site prior to going through the pond.

O
1'.'WM'Ute .._! .._.. "..if ,i:w . 1. ' IOR&Vrg'Jv.' ..'LCi`R ._
0 C:<.i%- W Ii PAL'.,. 'r at
ss
v( _i. 5(rl 'i ,'. ''I G�1• 14 I h,.l,: �Itll .- 'll:. s3'` ^.
..i!
r 1
C 1-' iG` ., i ,. 1 ii�... _xv31• : to L m:'. `no MU: ) 1'. :"'llr.' 1 ..
:, -,t5; 'Sf':.'i,U ". Si!a' "hFa 0:11f4'ird.b
5' ,
rv:;f;s 1YT ,,•14:'{'; .•ili Td,7'1'.- JG `30: rvAM n J({: ,.i•'I to 11,T
Oj lIa " C'11':{Bdri',Ft R)%M 'r 9r11i sit l) n :all) 3i , I{£•%
.f-.'(/.T.•I .f � T :': 1!1 5.1.1 � 5r1c' i.,,:ii2 :ait: ~''i e.i - ' (I r:iy. r
Myr. 'v" ijt4' i1M).t2 •. >i'''11(.:i:'1r �F fy tilit rlU'"10(1 '-1(. ,JsPE vi"'L'L'- +:6dC11 j.:f
•f .G 3f7Uiat1+1 'iM 1_.� ' Jk+:'1'IJ .a,,.. R,ti!l.' 'G i'C)U7 � 9f{. v(�.i i"t:.; t(. i _;%r;i-. 7(1;:3'lh:.i)
. `I,J; '.G it:fl 1. .,y. zy16p
.-AN n1001 it, T.l.' T ,v it r '.' 2 : _oOr ,3 Y. N. qYK �t Q, v ;QV e'trM
wc,Cl
Y'',. '.i Nt:: L' A n. ,P� . jo 1 1 ant :i1'.1CIIc.Ve,'- OU(a,.
.�;3 Ow . "fi i3i'=.:i^;i ;V '., rJ.'i ..-'JJ''! IJ'"b 1Ji F,+�Fi ,.'IY. .JJT
..: L 70 . •.r �•I; J _. . I ��� <.. 11 �. .. "?E^!!3 . i 1 'T�y"Ilt. `flc 9r. , 11 ) Ql
. fi.l: `; 'arc U_.'.. .G3:' :'1rY,! Iva b7 r 6 . � C a. Yn You 07 (I(,r +J:•.,_: _ uq A :.Q;
9:q IT -'. iY•. 1.1ac• ,7A:1 L'Ira ii'Ci(•�F.:i "U: : .. ('t. M.-,7 •rfi; :1" flQ tS'J'%l•
71(' tiv, i.'n.^ I'',: `Jf r �. `!: b ,. •�).i J' v `',i � . . ...a( i('6J'i.., � afl,
.!!E'Lt3iCr
noNsven Im 119'ri,.ut , : i i 1 ...' I' _ . 411,'. '+S .'i1177.( j:` , .; 316?::`UYiV li!- •p„ 1.^
44%v : nan: pp.'M1il_(yl. i'.r': 32 ...l01Jb' '7R,e itlytr.J1. n7i G't']'it!!C 'Y.
li.L•..+ '(,4o'v; 7rho{ "!7S ^ /• .v'.q Iti!:3.:Iv ,r. .N't b 1) CUIr>:-:: t19tin, f.', b..
lb'' 40: 4-1 C"11'i,. 1 ♦iij Vie 1''o -Y:', 1,r. ,Clt, ZIA rQ' .Ct 3rOi8' . b y ! i'
„i 0? h,: dtr )lU:.x( n", 1•.L, . - '.1 ,n.. ;} !I`. 'i -; 'L: �;Jf �.t{J r �i.'Ci1 arts "i'.: rv,{• ��.. y •.
.D•dE:l•;ji. °'^L1 ul.�^ jL .. '.Will .: Ip', i',Ib ? - $' Lira. 'T ,tC' Ir'.' fl
.0 Jj.-r $ trif, `v 'jMI . 9 -1 r • I' n_ C,l wi (:v..' r11ai , IJ°.• )'"Mi: S FX0 .: C K I .'. .. n ' �I .,.1f.:C, ''Oi iHii"'r'.'; is Y"OLd;6f. St.
'j�&u'..,i t: •:i-UrIJCP!i:{ij}VA1+,1+1ir'31' VU11 r-'__0 , 1F'J"1 COTP01•.Y
I_01',rJ! l If:. '.); L. ' U T ICJn& 0,�i ' .II-•!'
..:'•;}:if•._v'.5, 1R(7li +ai ;O1:i 3. Oct W.,; it ,...v: ev 'n:*l....J 'i _M.
n ... ,,'.:h^c')d(J'' v... ..li : ': J(i' Ln.C'S .'. it )_1 t'•L• . (' ,i: i0 r'•:7Cii3:y'"� �,�
i'Cn!!iv rlL -1.�.1 L-•Lij
."n F'1;, r1.1 , "L. CI.� :i'.n 3Ut jL: o.: a�j'. ., 'PAY. -)T
Al .1+1 :•IJ f•'. 'I V - Yan q i ai .i', ,"r1C,{ "I y sap t^"... :! '.: ,?,
J,, 1. �o, �, '*i.,;r rt: I, "-'.v.c 3rif Jc::=
.r1 fi6i:) ^•yS^'diL". I-) ,IL11:

No..0801081474
NAVY (D
P.O. i3ox 3600
Check Date: .12114107
-FEDERAL
Merrifield, VA 22119-3600
Credit Union
[phone]
CDENR. 943 WASHINGTON SQUARE MALL, WASHINGTOWNC 27889
(64239
Invoice
Description
Invoice Date Enc
Gross Amount
Discount Amount
Net Amount Paid
40353PERMIT
;.PERMIT FEE X48711
12/14/07
$4,000.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
j"
RECERED
FEB;.2 5,2
08
DW
s.,
Detach at Perforation
Before Depositing Check
TOTALS:
$4,000.00
.$0.00
$4,000.00
P6cj,e 1 of r1.
v
NAVY 0. a
FEDERAL
-
`%� �'
r? "'A
1
!,Naq!Fbderal Credit Uhion,-�j�� '�„JRPK(rC
'P0.Bbx3 0
4'il(300
'Dffle7��
, L,
-�tr
t,�NU%elr%V,
I�,
Meriifield VA 2AT'! ��P
�*!/,l d5f�'
0801041, 4
Credit Union
[phone]
68-749712560
N
N'� k�-
o
k
N.
'. '�v jg
'N N.
11 411
PAY 70="?
� 00/100
4. 660.00
PAY NCDENR
TO THE
ORDER 943 WASHINGTON
SQUARE MALL
OF WASHINGTON NC
27889
(64239)
1-M
4
'n, '
E�'
111080
LOa IL, ? L, is
1: 2 S E 0 ? L,
9 7 L, 1:
11000 2

For DENR Use ONLY
Reviewer:'�5& n' ✓
® North Carolina Department of Environment and Submit
Natural Resources
t eview Request for Express Permit RTime: z- I'
POC®ENR Confirm (� Ft
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed form to Express
Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application package
of the project location. Include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296-4698;alison.davidson(alncmaiLnet
EXPRESS
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791-4203; davidJee(Qncmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663-3772 or patrick.grogan(pincmail.net
FEB 2 6 2008
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946-9215 or Ivn.hardison(a)ncmail.net
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell910-350-2004 or janet.russellpncmail.net
NC DENR
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day
Project Name: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, US HWY 70W HAVELOCK County: CRAVEN
Applicant: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Company: _ Address: 820 FOLLIN LANE SE City: VIENNA, State: VA Zip: 22180
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone] Email: Jim Gibbons(a),navyfederal.orq
Project Drains into water classified C;SW;NSW (WOLF PIT BRANCH) (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB,htm1)
Project Located in NEUSE River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? N , within''/z mile and draining to ass�S"It 3Ja�er ('or
within 1 mile and draining to class HOW waters? N
Engineer/Consultant: RM Chiles, PE; ML Rice, PE Company: Robert M. Chiles, PE FEB 2 6 2008
Address: PO BOX 3496 City: NEW BERN, State: NC Zip: 28564
Phone: [phone] Fax::[phone] Email: mikerice(d�robertmchilespe.com �p� 1nIn p�r,
(Check all that apply) ®YtlQ tlVt1f4AJ
❑ Scoping Meeting ONLY ® DWO, ❑ DCM, ® DLR, ❑ OTHER:
❑ Stream Origin Determination: # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility
❑ Low. Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW (Provide permit #)]
® High Density -Detention Pond 1 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density —Constructive Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
[IHigh Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems ❑ MODIFICATION SW _ (Provide permit #)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
v
® Land Quality ® Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with 2.75 acres to be disturbed.(CK # (for DENR use))
WETLANDS QUESTIONS MUST BEADDRESSED BELOW q} 155.e� m
❑ Wetlands (401): Check all that apply
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ❑ Yes ® No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ❑ Yes ® No
404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE: ❑ Yes ® No
Permit Received from US ACOE ❑ Yes ® No
Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ® No
Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: acre(s)
Minor Variance : ® No ❑ YES
Major General Variance ® No ❑ YES
401 Application required: []Yes ® No If YES, ❑ Regular
Perennial, Blue line stream, etc on site ® yes ❑ No
For DENR use only
Fee Split for multiple permits: Check # 13'of n151 74 Total Fee Amount $ 4C27o
SUBMITTAL DATES
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
Variance (❑ Maj; ❑ Min)
$
SW(❑HD,❑LD,❑Gen
2-2(,_04
AFee
401:
$
LQS
2--�$
Stream Deter,_
$

1631
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS
MARINE SURVEYORS
43
417-A BROAD ST.
P.O. BOX 3496
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28564-3496
Delivery Via FedEx
Mr. At Hodge, Regional Supervisor
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N. C. 27889 �. r f1r�y
DVIC
Original and 2 copies, Stormwater Management Plan for the Na`vy Federal Credit
Union, US Highway 70 West, Havelock, NC, developed by Navy Federal Credit
Union, 820 Follin Lane SE, Vienna, VA 22180 prepared by Robert M. Chiles, PE.
Copy, Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan for Lot 5, Branchside Subdivision,
Havelock, for Navy Federal Credit Union, prepared by Robert M. Chiles, PE.
Copy, Authorized Agent letter
February 1, 2008
Enclosures: (1)
(2)
(3)
Dear Mr. Hodge:
BUSINESS: 252-637-4702
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]
mi kenc eg robertmchilespe.com
On behalf of our
review and approval.
This project in,
Highway 70 West, Ha,
square foot NFCU Bra
Stormwater manager
include a discharge F
easement.
A copy of the
your information.
CH
c &
rt; Navy Federal Credit
rn C�
-ie development of a
NC. Work associated
ifkina! drives, sidewalk!
and pre?formed scour
Fees associated with this su
erosion control plans are being suk
$4,000 is being provided to NCDEN
this application,
and
C CA/
lnlon I
4FGU)rv4e subs
Yi!
'ith the project
and a stormwl
Is-and.a-wet.d
that will be a
_, ,
FEB 2 5 ✓2008
the enclosures for your
ted in the 100 block of US
struction of a 7,100
ment system. The
n. The system will also -
an adjacent drainage
an is prdvided as enclosure 2 for
osures, as the stormwater and
ss review program. A check for
Coordinator for the purposes of
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please contact us your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT M. CHIL.E//S, P.E.
Michael L. Rice, P.E.
Cc Mr. Jim Gibbons, NFCU w/o enclosures
Mr. Jeff Rouleau, URS Corporation, 1000 Abernathy Rd., Suite 900, Atlanta, GA 30328
MECHANICAL, CIVIL. AND MARINE ENGINEERING MARINE HYDROGRAPHIC AND LAND SURVEYS
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL. MARINE, AND RAILROAD FACILITIES DESIGN
FORENSIC ENGINEERING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS BOUNDARY SURVEYS AND MAPPING SERVICE

Navy Federal Credit Union
820 Follin Lane
Vienna, VA 22180
USA
PURCHASE ORDER
P.O. Number:
40353
Order Date:
12/13/2007
Amendment:
0 12/ 13 /2007
Page:
1 of I
Order Type:
Normal
Supplier No: NCDENR Ship Via: Vendor Del.
F.O.B.: Destination Confirm: No
Supplier:
Ship To:
Havelock Express and E&SC Permit Fees
NCDENR
Branch Office Facility Manage
943 Washington Square Mall
NFCU (1184)
Washington, NC 27889
820 Follin Ln
USA
4th Floor (Phase 3)
Vienna, VA 22180
USA
Note: Please advise when check is ready - Due 12-14.07
Cost Center: 202427
Tax: N
Tax: N
Navy Federal Credit Union
Attn: General Accounting
Terms: Advance payment Reference: Permit Fees
B
AccC 177101
1
P.O. Box 3600
Merrifield, VA 22119-3600
L
L
USA
Ln Item Number Description U/M Quantity Due Price Per Total
I FEES Permitting fee
Two Check Requested:
EA
1) Express Permitting Fee for Storm Water and Sedimentation @ $4,000.00
2 FEES Erosion & Sedimentation Control EA
Erosion & Sedimentation Control (E&SC) Permit Fee @ $195.00
Please prepare checks made payable to: "NCDENR"
VENDOR COPIES NOT MAILED.
Nec-A 2-
1 12/17/2007 4,000.0000 4,000.00
1 12/ 17/2007 195.0000 195,00
Requisitioner: James Gibbons III Requisition No.: 000000000105286
Page Total:
Special Instructions: *****IMPORTANT NOTE*****
******TO THE VENDOR******
Adjustment:
Tax:
ALL INVOICES MUST INCLUDE
P.O. Total: USD
PURC14ASE ORDER NUMBER
Buyer's Name: Michael Dougherty
X
(Buyer Signature)
Authorization: Michael Dougherty
X _-Fa _
Su nibblsbr Pd Si al'ren®:
pe t{r
Reel Estate & S port Services
4,195.00
0.00
0.00
4,195.00