SW7970212_HISTORICAL FILE_20200826

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW7jjZA
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
YYYYMMDD

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAELS.REGAN
Secretary
BRIAN WRENN
Director
August 26, 2020
Mr. Charles E. Schulz, Deputy Facilities Officer
MCAS Cherry Point
PSC Box 8006
Cherry Point, NC 28533
Subject: Stormwater Permit Renewal
Stormwater Management Permit SW7970212 ,
'MCAS Cherry;Point — i3oricession Center
Craven County
Dear Mr. Schulz:
A Division of Energy, Mineral, and .Land Resources file review has determined that
Stormwater Permit SW /970212 for a stormwater treatment system consisting of three
wet detention ponds serving the Concession Center expires on February12, 2021. This,
is a reminder that permit renewal applications are due 180 days prior to expiration. We
do not have a record of receiving a renewal,application.
Please submit a completed permit .
renewal application along with a $505.00 fee for
permit renewal. Application forms for renewal can be found on our website at:
r min ral-land-r o lrces/ener��-mineral-land-
-/-~arm���ater oroeram/post construction. North Carolina General Statutes and the
ruleCoastal Stormwater rules require that this property be covered under a stormwater
permit. Failure to maintain a permit subjects the owner to•assessment of civil penalties...
If you have questions; please feel free to contact me at [phone]. l will be glad to
discuss this by phone or meet with you. If you would like, I can a mail you a copy of the
application form. You can request a copy by e-mailing me at roger thoraeCc�nedenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Roger K. Thorpe
Environmental Engineer
North Carolina Department of Environmental Qualhy I Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Washington Regional Of ce 1 943 Washington Square Mall I Washington, North Carolna 27889
o+w�� 252946.6481

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION
POSTAL SERVICE CODE BOX 8003
CHERRY POINT. NORTH CAROLINA 28533-0003
Mr. Roger Thorpe
North Carolina Department
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
of Environment
5090/29466
IN
March 1, 2007
RECEVED
MR06M/
This letter is being sent as a formal notification of the
completion of the Stormwater Pond Certification Form for
stormwater permit no. SW7970212 - Concession Center System,
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. Included with this
letter is the Design Certification Form as well as the
certifying engineer's assessment. As noted in the assessment,
there were minor deviations from the plans which require
maintenance however they do not affect the overall function of
the ponds. These issues are being addressed and a maintenance
work order has been submitted to correct all deficiencies. A
copy of this work order has been included for your records.
Please direct any questions or comments to Mr. William
Potter of the Environmental Affairs Department at
[phone].
Sincerely,
J C�.CLIN
Supervisory Environmental Engineer
By direction of the
Commanding Officer
Enclosures: 1. Design Certification Form - SW7970212
2. Certifying Engineers Assessment
3. Work Request No. EAD-05-07

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT CERTIFY THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. THIS
DOCUMENT ONLY CERTIFIES WHICH AREAS WERE AND WERE NOT IN
CONFORMANCE AS OF THE DATE OF INSPECTION.
Project Name: Concession Center
Stormwater Permit No.. SW7970212 -
e !!T'SCcrlflication Steve T. Simmons, P. E. , as a duly
Registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe
1111111111011111
_.. ._ ..,..._......_.........
the existing conditions at approximately 10 years after
die construction of the project, Construction_oLOoncession-C.enter Structure
for MICAS Cherry Point NC
(Project Owner)
hereby state that to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
project NFRIPM such that the construction was observed to be built within
intent of the approved plans and specifications. EXCEPT FOR ITEMS NOTE
Signature/.kjh-/`l'�/j✓J
Registration Number
Date 2 / 2
Certification Requirements:
YES ].The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted,
YES 2.The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted amount of built -upon area
YES 3.All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the runoff drains to the
system.
YES A.AII roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
YES 5.The outlet/bypass stricture elevations are per the approved plan.
YES 6.The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
YES Trash mcL is provided on the outlet/bypass structure.
YES g All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
NO o.Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1. Some slopes steeper than 3:1 but appear stable.
YES_1071ic inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-circuiting of the system.
NO I LThe permitted amounts of surface area andlor volume have been provided. Silting has reduced volume.
NO 12.Required drawdown devices are correctly sized per the approved plans. Low flow pipe missing.
NO 13 All required design depths are provided. Low flow pipe missing.
NO 14 All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf, and a for ebay. Low flow pipe missing
NO 15.'rhe required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans. Silting has reduced depth.
I
r

Assessment To Compare Existing Conditions To Approved Drawings,
Storm Water Permit SW 7970212
Abstract
This report describes an assessment to determine whether the stormwater control
measures at Building 4535 at MCAS, Cherry Point are in substantial compliance with the
drawings approved for Storm Water Pqf ,&SW,7970212.
���•o�ZN CA.....
EESSIp •. �':
SLAL��
12645
%`P oFNGI NE��'
• O.F.
. F T S%\�����
Steve T. Simmons, P. E.
27 February 2007
Page I of 6

P
Assessment of Concession Center Storm Water Ponds
Retention Basin #2 (northeast corner of the site):
East -west measurement of the basin at the waterline gave a dimension 10 feet (15
percent) larger than anticipated based on the drawings, and east -west measurement at the
top of the bank also gave a dimension 10 feet larger .than anticipated. It should be noted
that the west bank somewhat indistinct (later measurements showed it to have a slope of
3.4 horizontal to 1 vertical). North -south measurements were as expected.
Elevations were taken using the nearby telephone manhole as a benchmark. The top of
the control catch basin (i.e. top of the trash rack) was measured as elevation 22.7,
compared to the planned value of 22.17. The trash rack prevented access to the catch
basin "trickle tube" and weir spillway, which could therefore not be reached for
measurement. The elevation could be inferred from the location of the pool. Water level
was at elevation 20.2, and planned pool elevation is 20.0. The bottom of the pond was
measured as 6.4 feet below the top of the catch basin (or elevation 16.3, compared to the
planned elevation of 16.5 feet).
Short sections of the bank adjacent to the catch basin had vertical or near -vertical side
slopes. Since it was obvious that the worst -case side slopes were too steep, the side slope
measurements were taken at areas that appeared to be typical of the majority of the
slopes. Side slopes above waterline were 3 to 1 except for the west bank which, as
already noted, was 3.4 horizontal to 1 vertical. This is flatter than the planned slope of 3
horizontal to 1 vertical. The slopes are covered in grass and are kept mowed. There is
minor evidence of sloughing on the west bank but the bank appears to have been stable
long enough for grass to grow over the sloughs.
Retention Basin #3 (southeast corner of the site):
East -west measurement of the basin were not attempted because the east bank was poorly
defined and it was not obvious where the measurement should be taken. The pond was
covered in cattails. North -south measurements showed 1 to 3 feet shorter than expected
at the top of the bank.
The top of the control catch basin (i.e. top of the trash rack) was measured as elevation
22.96, compared to the planned value of 22.17. Planned pool elevation is 20.0. The
elevation of the bottom was measured as 18.2, compared to the expected elevation 16.5
feet. There was no trickle tube, but there was a 1- or 2-inch hole at the location where the
trickle tube should have been (more precise measurements were not possible because of
the interference from the trash rack). The weir was measured at elevation 21.2, and the
drawing shows elevation 21.25.
Side slopes above the water line were measured at what appeared to be the worst -case
location on the south and east banks. The east bank slope was 3 to 1, and the south bank
slope was 2.3 to 1 horizontal to vertical. This is steeper than the planned 3 to 1 slope.
The slopes are covered in grass and are kept mowed. On January 16, slopes were
Page 4 of 6

Assessment of Concession Center Storm Water Ponds JR,
measured in areas which were under water on January 9. Slopes were found to be around
4 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Discussion
It should be noted that the permit application lists Drainage Basins #1, #2, and #3.
Although Drainage Basin #2 is tribuary to Retention Basin #2, and Drainage Basin #3 is
tributary to Retention Basin #3, only a portion of Drainage Basin #1 is tributary to
Retention Basin #1. The difference is due to a parcel of roughly 0.7 acres which lies
outside the construction limits to the north, and was therefore not disturbed. Drainage
from this undisturbed area bypasses Retention Basin #1 via a previously -existing east -
west ditch. This circumstance does not represent any short -coming or problem, but
should be kept in mind during any computation of runoff.
Retention Basin #1 water level was at elevation 19.6 on January 9, and it was dry on
January 16. Since the water level in the pool was lower than the principal spillway pipe
outlet, it does not seem possible that the low water level could be due to any leaks in the
outlet pipe or intake structure. Since the other basins were at or very near their designed
permanent pool level, evaporation would not be a logical explanation. Perhaps the clay
liner has become damaged and is allowing leakage. Whether operation of this basin as an
infiltration structure is acceptable is open to conjecture; but the leakage does seem to
indicate that the clay liner is not currently in the as -designed condition.
The 3-inch diameter low -flow device (trickle tube) is missing. There is a hole in the
concrete, approximately 5 to 6 inches in diameter (more precise measurements were not
possible because of the interference from the trash rack), with bottom elevation
corresponding to the correct elevation of the trickle tube. This means the detention
volume is released faster than designed.
In Basin #3 there was no trickle tube, but there was a 1- or 2-inch hole at the location
where the trickle tube should have been (more precise measurements were not possible
because of the interference from the trash rack).
The side slopes of all basins showed considerable variation. In general, they appeared
stable. Whether their stability might render them acceptable from a regulatory standpoint
is open to conjecture and depends upon, how much departure from the drawings would be
considered "acceptable". It can be said with certainty that the side sopes are not in the as -
designed condition at all locations.
The tops of two trash racks were significantly above planned elevation; however the
weirs and low -flow outlets were at correct elevation, so this matter is of no consequence
to the operation of the system.
Basin 3 and (to lesser extent) Basin 1 have had their minimum depth compromised by a
build-up of solids which raised the bottom elevation above designed elevation.
Page 5 of 6

Assessment of Concession Center Storm Water Ponds
Summary And Conclusions
Low -flow inlets should be replaced on Basins 1 and 3, and the trash rack removed from
Basin 2 for inspection of the low -flow inlet. Basins 1 and 3 should have their permanent
pool depth and bottom level restored. Discussion should be held with the Division of
Water Quality about whether the side slopes are acceptable, and whether Basin #1 is
functioning acceptably in its current status (i.e. infiltration vice permanent pool). Until
the above items are corrected, the detention ponds can not be certified as conforming to
the approved plans.
Page 6 of 6

P
WORK REQUEST
MCAS 11010/1 (Rev. 10/98)
PART 1 - Request to Facilities Maintenance Department, Building 87 (Original & three copies)
1, From:
2a. Date -
2c. FacDev Work Request No.
Via: (1)
(2)
2b. Group/Directorate Work Request No.
2d. FacMaint Work Request No.
(3)
Ref: ASO 11000.8
LWPOJ-' 07
3. This request
is for: (Check all applicable)
a.
Performance of maintenance and/or repair. -
b.
-
- New work - addition, expansion, alteration, conversion.
(Do not use this form for new work expected to exceed $100,000)
c.
Material support - supplies to support self-help program.
d.
Cost Estimate.
e.
Other - State what request is for.
L✓oi� re9rxs� �S r f"Oµ�iirC .yrciin,�c.,wroE o% t/Gi/bvs S�brinwk�i—
.
O� f.% C'nl�i ibnrre�i/ A/li&/n ,�G�f. /•� G.r c.oy gcr�u'/CDnsw�
4. Building/room/location where
5. Person(s) to be contacted concerning this request.
work is to be performed:
(POC or alternate as designated in writing by CO, Group/Director) -
[/GriJvl
Name and Grade
Telephone No,
V,� G- �37G
Building/Room No.
6. Description of work required and justification. (Explain what, where and why. New work (3b above) must include complete justification and an
impact statement on unit's mission if project is not accomplished.)
/ .Pc 0,r r vie , . 6.
G1v
�aG'� 4/'1Ca 0+1 6��� �io✓li�
o � �
3• / Cq IOWf ��/i li/��i 1n ��DU l�/ �/O
Ni! 6w CITY/H n i//r
tS Mew
S4/. 5,/ /�ye4ii- 6rwrm.•. � /ra+oYrr c.�,%F G
DIa InIG��/s� i� /IKtverf.
vo
/t/"i,,,�,MD.YG
�XtsJJ .Sc'L'ri%Y•b��
8. /C<ffVi L, Fiw . S—,_
(Use reverse side of this form or attach additional sheets.)
(Do not write in this space)
Page 1 of 2 Pages

Assessment To Compare Existing Conditions To Approved Drawings,
Storm Water Permit SW 7970212
Abstract
This report describes an assessment to determine whether the stormwater control
measures at Building 4535 at MCAS, Cherry Point are in substantial compliance with the
drawings approved for Storm Water Permit SW 7970212.
Examination of drawings and photographs
Building 4535 is designated as the "Concession Center" on the approved drawings but is
offically known as the Exchange Service Facility. The facility houses retail businesses
including a travel agency, package store, military clothing store and a video rental store.
Prior to actually visiting the site, I (Steve Simmons) selected a number of measurement
points where horizontal dimensions could be compared between the approved drawings,
existing photographs, and field measurements (to be taken later). There was no attempt
to select enough points to draw a site map; rather, the points were slected as a sampling to
either confirm or disprove agreement with the approved drawings. To that end, points
were selected as being (1) representative of key dimensions, and (2) capable of being
identified on the approved drawings from 1997 and on air photos taken in 2004.
Fourteen points were selected. Measurements taken from air photos (printed.at a scale of
one inch equal to 50 feet) agreed with the approved drawings to the nearest foot.
Site visits of January 8-9 and 16-17, 2007
According to the NC CRONOS Database, MCAS Cherry Point received 0.56 inches of
rain on January 8, 2007. During the morning of January 8, 1 visited the site to observe
the patterns of runoff. It could be clearly seen that the surface drainage was graded to the
inlets and swales as shown on the approved drawings. Although there were occasional
minor puddles, the surface drainage features were accepting water from the drainage
areas as indicated on the drawings. Riprap was in place where indicated on the approved
plans.
Concrete swales leading from the parking lot corners contained a considerable amount of
pine straw, which slowed the flow of water and caused ponding on the parking lots.
Although this ponding caused minor inconvenience to the building customers, the slower
flow allows sediment to deposit within the swale (as verified by the presence of one to
two inches of sediment supporting a tough mat of grass growing in one of the concrete
swales).
Unpaved areas were in grass, mowed very short. Except for some minor wheel ruts
alongside the paved road, the surface of the grassed area appears to conform to the
desired grades.

On January 09, 2007, Al Dugay and myself went to the site and took measurements with
a tape measure, level, and rod. Results of those measurements are summarized below.
On January 16, Will Potter and myself took additional measurements, also summarized
below. On January 17, Al Dugay and myself made additional measurements and checked
elevations relative to the TBM #1 on the approved plans.
Retention Basin #1 (northwest corner of the site):
Retention Basin #1 is essentially two sub -basins, one on either side of a roadway, with
connecting culverts under the roadway. For convenience, those sub -basins will be
referred to as Sub -Basin I East and Sub -Basin I West. The outlet control catch basin is
located in Sub -Basin 1 West.
East -west measurement of the Sub -Basin 1 West at the widest part gave a dimension 11
percent larger than anticipated based on the approved plans. North -south measurements
were as expected.
Sub -Basin 1 West water level was at elevation 19.6 on January 9, and both basins were
dry on January 16. Bottom elevation was 18.5, compared to the desired 18.0 feet.
The 3-inch diameter trickle tube is missing. There is a hole in the concrete,
approximately 5 to 6 inches in diameter (more precise measurements were not possible
because of the interference from the trash rack), with bottom elevation corresponding to
the correct elevation of the trickle tube. The weir is at the correct elevation. The
elevation on top of the control catch basin (basin E-2 on the approved plans) was
measured as being within 0.02 feet of the planned elevation, using catch basin A-2 as the
benchmark.
Side slopes of Sub -Basin 1 West were measured along each bank, above the water level,
at the location that looked the steepest. Measured slopes ranged from 2.2 to 2.4
horizontal, to 1 vertical. This is steeper than the planned slope of 3 horizontal to 1
vertical. The slopes are covered in grass and are kept mowed. There is minor evidence
of sloughing but the bank appears to have been stable long enough for grass to grow over
the sloughs. On January 16, slopes were measured in areas which were under water on
January 9. Slopes were found to be around 4 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Side slopes above water level on Sub -Basin 1 East ranged from 2.4 horizontal to 1
vertical (worst case) to the design value of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (typical case for east
bank). Condition of slopes and grass cover is similar to Sub -Basin 1 West. On January
16, slopes were measured in areas which were under water on January 9. Slopes were
found to be around 4 horizontal to 1 vertical, possibly as flat as 7 to 1 (slopes were
indistinct and it was difficult to tell where the slope "break" was located).
Retention Basin #2 (northeast corner of the site):

East -west measurement of the basin at the waterline gave a dimension 10 feet (15
percent) larger than anticipated based on the drawings, and east -west measurement at the
top of the bank also gave a dimension 10 feet larger than anticipated. It should be noted
that the west bank somewhat indistinct (later measurements showed it to have a slope of
3.4 horizontal to 1 vertical). North -south measurements were as expected.
Elevations were taken using the nearby telephone manhole as a benchmark. The top of
the control catch basin (i.e. top of the trash rack) was measured as elevation 22.7,
compared to the planned value of 22.17. The trash rack prevented access to the catch
basin "trickle tube" and weir spillway, which could therefore not be reached for
measurement. The elevation could be inferred from the location of the pool. Water level
was at elevation 20.2, and planned pool elevation is 20.0. The bottom of the pond was
measured as 6.4 feet below the top of the catch basin (or elevation 16.3, compared to the
planned elevation of 16.5 feet).
Short sections of the bank adjacent to the catch basin had vertical or near -vertical side
slopes. Since it was obvious that the worst -case side slopes were too steep, the side slope
measurements were taken at areas that appeared to be typical of the majority of the
slopes. Side slopes above waterline were 3 to 1 except for the west bank which, as
already noted, was 3.4 horizontal to 1 vertical. This is flatter than the planned slope of 3
horizontal to 1 vertical. The slopes are covered in grass and are kept mowed. There is
minor evidence of sloughing on the west bank but the bank appears to have been stable
long enough for grass to grow over the sloughs.
Retention Basin #3 (southeast corner of the site):
East -west measurement of the basin were not attempted because the east bank was poorly
defined and it was not obvious where the measurement should be taken. The pond was
covered in cattails. North -south measurements showed 1 to 3 feet shorter than expected
at the top of the bank.
The top of the control catch basin (i.e. top of the trash rack) was measured as elevation
22.96, compared to the planned value of 22.17. Planned pool elevation is 20.0. The
elevation of the bottom was measured as 18.2, compared to the expected elevation 16.5
feet. There was no trickle tube, but there was a 1- or 2-inch hole at the location where the
trickle tube should have been (more precise measurements were not possible because of
the interference from the trash rack). The weir was measured at elevation 21.2, and the
drawing shows elevation 21.25.
Side slopes above the water line were measured at what appeared to be the worst -case
location on the south and east banks. The east bank slope was 3 to 1, and the south bank
slope was 2.3 to 1 horizontal to vertical. This is steeper than the planned 3 to 1 slope.
The slopes are covered in grass and are kept mowed. On January 16, slopes were
measured in areas which were under water on January 9. Slopes were found to be around
4 horizontal to 1 vertical.

Discussion
It should be noted that the permit application lists Drainage Basins #1, #2, and #3.
Although Drainage Basin #2 is tribuary to.Retention Basin #2, and Drainage Basin #3 is
tributary to Retention Basin #3, only a portion of Drainage Basin #1 is tributary to
Retention Basin #1. The difference is due to a parcel of roughly 0.7 acres which lies
outside the construction limits to the north, and was therefore not disturbed. Drainage
from this undisturbed area bypasses Retention Basin #1 via a previously -existing east -
west ditch. This circumstance does not represent any short -coming or problem, but
should be kept in mind during any computation of runoff.
Retention Basin #1 water level was at elevation 19.6 on January 9, and it was dry on
January 16. Since the water level in the pool was lower than the principal spillway pipe
outlet, it does not seem possible that the low water level could be due to any leaks in the
outlet pipe or intake structure. Since the other basins were at or very near their designed
permanent pool level, evaporation would not be a logical explanation. Perhaps the clay
liner has become damaged and is allowing leakage. Whether operation of this basin as an
infiltration structure is acceptable is open to conjecture; but the leakage does seem to
indicate that the clay liner is not currently in the as -designed condition.
The 3-inch diameter low -flow device (trickle tube) is missing. There is a hole in the
concrete, approximately 5 to 6 inches in diameter (more precise measurements were not
possible because of the interference from the trash rack), with bottom elevation
corresponding to the correct elevation of the trickle tube. This means the detention
volume is released faster than designed.
In Basin #3 there was no trickle tube, but there was a I- or 2-inch hole at the location
where the trickle tube should have been (more precise measurements were not possible
because of the interference from the trash rack).
The side slopes of all basins showed considerable variation. In general, they appeared
stable. Whether their stability might render them acceptable from a regulatory standpoint
is open to conjecture and depends upon how much departure from the drawings would be
considered "acceptable". It can be said with certainty that the side copes are not in the as -
designed condition at all locations.
The tops of two trash racks were significantly above planned elevation; however the
weirs and low -flow outlets were at correct elevation, so this matter is of no consequence
to the operation of the -system.
Basin 3 and (to lesser extent) Basin 1 have had their minimum depth compromised by a
build-up of solids which raised the bottom elevation above designed elevation.
Summary And Conclusions

Low -flow inlets should be replaced on Basins 1 and 3, and the trash rack removed from
Basin 2 for inspection of the low -flow inlet. Basins 1 and 3 should have their permanent
pool depth and bottom level restored. Discussion should be held with the Division of
Water Quality about whether the side slopes are acceptable, and whether Basin #1 is
functioning acceptably in its current status (i.e. infiltration vice permanent pool). Until
the above items are corrected, the detention ponds can not be certified as conforming to
the approved plans.

Summary
Deviation from Plans
Bottom Elevation:
Basin 1: 0.5 ft
Basin 3: 1.7 ft
Low Flow Inlets
Basin l: absent
Basin 3: absent
Basin 1 shows signs of infiltration vs. retention

W�-Pz
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, A
Health and Natural Resources
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor [D E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
May 5, 1997
Environmental Affairs Dept. (LN)
Attn: Mr. Doug Nelson
MCAS, PSC Box 8066
Cherry Point, NC 28533
Subject: Permit No. SW7970212
MCAS - Concession Center
High Density Stormwater Project
Craven County
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Washington Regional Office received the completed
Stormwater Application for the subject project on April 21, 1997.
Staff review of the plans and, specifications has determined that
the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater
Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000. We are forwarding
Permit No. SW7970212 dated May 5, 1997 to MCAS, Cherry Point, NC.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until
May 5, 2007 and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations
as specified therein. Please pay special attention to the
Operation and Maintenance requirements in this permit. Failure..to
establish an adequate system for operation and maintenance of the
stormwater management system will result in future compliance
problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this
permit are unacceptable, you have the right to request an
adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days
following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form
of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447.
Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and
binding.
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

EAD (LN)
May 5, 1997
Page Two
If you have any questions, or need additional information
concerning this matter, please contact Bill Moore at (919) 946-
6481, extension 264.
Sincerely,
!/ ez -- -
Roger K. rpe
Water Qua ity Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
cc: Hoggard/Eure Assoc
Craven County Inspections
Washington Regional Office
Central Files

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW7970212
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143,
General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable
Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
MCAS, Cherry Point
Craven County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater management
systems in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H.1000
(hereafter referred to as the "stormwater rules") and the approved
stormwater management plans and specifications and other supporting
data as attached and on file with and approved by the Division of
Water Quality and considered a part of this permit for three (3)
wet detention ponds to serve a new concession center located at
MCAS, Cherry Point, NC.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until May
5, 2007 and shall be subject to the following specified conditions
and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and
volume of stormwater described in the application and other
supporting data.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of
stormwater runoff as described on pages 4 and 5 of this
permit, the Project Data Sheet(s).
3. Approved plans and specifications for this project are
incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of the
permit.
3

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PROJECT DATA
Project Name:
Permit Number:
Location:
Applicant:
Mailing Address:
Application Date:
Water Body Receiving Stormwater
Runoff:
Classification of Water Body:
MCAS, Concession Center
SW7970212
Craven County
MCAS
EAD (LN)
PSC Box 8066
Cherry Point, NC 28533
2/24/97; original
4/21/97; complete
Slocum Creek
SC -NSW
Pond/Basin Depth: 3.5 feet all 3 ponds
Total Site Area: 5.87 acres
Total Impervious Surfaces Allowed: 3.34 acres
Required Surface Area
(SA/DA): 5285 sf, pond 1
1298 sf, pond 2
1185 sf, pond 3
Provided Surface Area: 8875 sf, pond 1
1298 sf, pond 2
1267 sf, pond 3
4

Required Storage Volume: 5763 cf, pond 1
1425 cf, pond 2
1298 cf, pond 3
Provided Storage Volume: 5769 cf, pond 1
1531 cf, pond 2
2185 cf, pond 3
4. No homeowner/lot owner/developer shall be allowed to fill in,
alter, or pipe any vegetative practices (such as swales) shown
on the approved plans as part of the stormwater management
system without submitting a revision to the permit and
receiving approval from the Division.
5. The following items will require a modification to the permit:
a. Any revision to the approved plans, regardless of size
b. Project name change
C. Transfer of ownership
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon
area
e. Further subdivision of the project area.
In addition, the Director may determine that other revisions
to the project should require a modification to the permit.
6. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site
does not meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the
permit. Within the time frame specified in the notice, the
permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director
for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The
permittee shall provide copies of revised plans and
certification in writing to the Director that the changes have
been made.
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee will comply with the following schedule for
construction and maintenance of the stormwater .management
system.
a. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in
its entirety, vegetated and operational for its intended
use prior to the construction of any built -upon surfaces
except roads.
b. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum
and any eroded areas of the system will be repaired
i i ediately.
5

W
2. The facilities must be properly maintained and operated at all
times. The approved Operation and Maintenance Plan must be
followed in its entirety and maintenance must occur at the
scheduled intervals.
3. The permittee shall at all times provide the operation and
maintenance necessary to assure the permitted stormwater
system functions at optimum efficiency including, but not
limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months)
b. Sediment removal
C. Mowing and revegetation of side slopes
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas
e. Maintenance of side slopes in accordance with approved
plans and specifications
f. Debris removal and unclogging of outlet structure,
orifice device and catch basins and piping.
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept and made
available upon request to authorized personnel of DWQ. The
records will indicate the date, activity, name of person
performing the work and what actions were taken.
5. This permit shall become voidable unless the facilities are
constructed in accordance with the conditions of this permit,
the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting
data.
6. Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this
permitted facility, a certification must be received from an
appropriate designer for the system installed certifying that'
the permitted facility has been installed in accordance with
this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting documentation. Mail the. Certification to the
Washington Regional Office, 943 Washington Square Mall,
Washington, North Carolina, 27889, attention Division of Water
Quality.
7. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be
maintained on file by the Permittee for a minimum of five
years from the date of the completion of construction.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This permit is not transferable. In the event there is a
desire for the facilities to change ownership, or there is a
name change of the Permittee, a formal permit request must be
submitted to the Division of Water Quality accompanied by an
application fee, documentation from the parties involved, and
other supporting materials as may be appropriate. The
approval of this request will be considered on its merits and
may or may not be approved.
6

2. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained
in this permit may subject the Permittee to enforcement action
by the Division of Water Quality, in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6(a) to 143-215.6(c).
3. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee
from complying with any and all statutes, rules, regulations,
or ordinances which may be imposed by other government
agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
4. In the event that the facilities fail to perform
satisfactorily, including the creation of nuisance conditions,
the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as
the construction of additional or replacement stormwater
management systems.
5. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated
for cause. The filing of a request for a permit modification,
revocation and reissuance or termination does not stay any
permit condition.
Permit issued this the 5 th day of May, 1997.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
-;y, A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Dir
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental
Permit Number SW7970212
7
Management Commission

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
US MCAS Cherry Point
Environmental Affairs Dept.
Attn: Mr. Doug Nelson
MCAS PSC Box 8066
Cherry Point, NC 28533
Subject:: Stormwater Permit No. SW7970212
MCAS — Concession Center
Craven County
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Division of Water Quality issued a Coastal Stormwater Management Permit, Number SW7970212
to USMCAS Cherry Point for US MCAS Cherry Point — MCAS — Concession Center on May 5, 1997.
This permit expires on May 5, 2007. Section .1003(h) of 15 A NCAC 2H .1000 (the stormwaterrules)
requires that applications for permit renewals shall be submitted 180 days prior to the expiration of a
permit and must be accompanied by a processing fee, which is currently set at $420.00. If this is still an
active project please complete and submit the enclosed renewal application in a timely manner. If this
project has not been constructed and a permit is no longer needed, please submit a request to have the
permit rescinded. If you have sold the project, or are no longer the permittee, please provide the name,
mailing address and phone number of the person or entity that is now responsible for this permit.
Enclosed is a form for change of ownership, which should be completed and submitted if the property
has changed hands.
Your permit requires that upon completion of construction and prior to operation of the permitted
treatment units a certification of completion be submitted to the Division from an appropriate designer
for the system installed. This is to certify that the permitted facility has been installed in accordance with
the permit, the approved plans, specifications and supporting documentation. Please include a copy of
the certification with your permit renewal request and processing fee. Enclosed is a copy of a sample
certification. Also enclosed is a new Operation and Maintenance agreement that should be completed
and submitted along with your renewal application.
You should be aware that failure to provide the Designer's Certification and the operation of a
stormwater treatment facility without a valid permit, are violations of NC General Statute 143-215.1 and
may result in appropriate enforcement action including the assessment of civil penalties of up to
$10,000 per day.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 252-946-6481.
Enclosures
cc:
Associates
egional Office
Sinc rely,
L —1�'��--
I H'o ge, eglon`2TSupe}vlsor
Surface Water Protection Section
Washington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Internet: www.ncwaterqualitv.org
943 Washington Square Mall Phone [phone]
Washington, NC 27889 Fax [phone]
Nne
orthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper

-qqqq %j.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION
PSC BOX 8003
CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 2650b0000
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Washington Regional Office
Water Quality Section
Attn: Mr. William J. Moore
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Moore:
IN REPLY REFER TO.
11000/02008
LN
21 Feb 97
WASH NGTOPNED
OFFICE
FEB 2 4 1997
D.E%
Enclosures (1) and (2) are the stormwater,pennit application package for Project Number
1002-96-001, "Construct Concession Center;'._ located at Marine Corps Air Station; Cherry Point.
Enclosure (3) is a check for the permit fee of $385.
Thank you for visiting the site during your recent trip to the Air Station.' If you have any further
questions about this project, please contact Mr. Gary McSmithtof the Environmental Affairs
Department at [phone]. You may also contact Mr. James Farrell of Hoggard/Eure
Associates, P.C. at [phone] if you wish to discuss the project specifics with the design
firm.
Sincerely,
4F D
1peN�i)sory Environmental Engineer
By direction of
the Commanding General
Encl:
(1) Construct Concession Center Stormwater Management Report (2 Copies)
(2) Construct Concession Center Plans (2 Copies)
(3) Check for $385 Permit Fee

4-15-1997 5:24PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498 P.1
1' V
Hoggard / Eure Associates P.C.
6006 Churchland Blvd,
Portsmouth, Virginia 73703
757.484-9670
Fax; 757-484-7498
r a n S m 1 t, t a 9
to: I Bill Moore
fa)r 1 919 975-371.6
from: Jim Farrell
date: April 15, 1997
re; I Concession Center
pages: 1 12, including cover sheet.
NOTES: Here is the information you requested to Coinplct.c the Concession
Center Review. Gary McSmith of Cherry Point will foward the required
signed sheets.
Please call if you need further information.
)iM

4-15-1997 5:24PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
P. 2
HOGGARDIEURE ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Surveyors/Planners/Engineers
VIA FACSIMILE
Mr. Bill Moore
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Water auallty Division
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Re: Concession Center
Marine Corps Air Station
Cherry Point, North Carolina
Our File No. 1333-96
Dear Mr. Moore:
6006 Churchlond Boulevard
P. O. Box 6398
Portsmouth, Virginia 23703
Tele^ne [phone]
FAX [phone]
April 15, 1997
Haggard / Eure Associates, P.C. has review your comments (verbal) of April 14, 1997 and
respectfully requests review of the additional Stormwater Management information. The enclosed
submittal package includes:
Orifice equations and outflow hydrographs for each Retention Basin.
2. Tables indicating the Requirod and Provided Pond Area / Volumes.
Mr. Gary McSmith of Cherry Point Environmental Division will fax the signed "North Carolina
Coastal Stormwater Permit Application" to your office.
Each pond outlet structure shall be conctructed with one P.V.C. outfall pipe. The pipe sizes are
as shown:
Retention Basin #1 3 inches
Retention Basin #2 1 inch
Retention Basin 93 1 inch
Sketches will be furnished if required.
Please contact me if any questions or comments arise during your review. 1 will be able to visit
your office or speak to you by telephone if necessary to help expedite your review.
Very truly yours,
GGARD/EURE ASSOCIATES, P.C.
James W. Farrell, P.E,
a/I z

4-15-1997 5:25PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
P. 3
Plus 3 Software, Inc
one Dunwoody Parx,suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30339
800-235-4972
Tue Apr 15 13:47:57 1997
PROJECT: C:\1P\1333.CP\TM\JIMIR.PRO
________________.________----__--_------.---_---_-_______--_------______---______-
HYDROLOGIC REPORT - STAGE, STORAGE, AND DISCHARGE
POND: Pond #1'
__________________.._---_--_-____
1=8ROAD CRESTED WEIR
INVERT
22.10 C 0.50 W
9.00
Q - C *
W * (H "* 1.5)
2=CIRCULAR ORIFICE
INVERT
21.50 C 0.50 D'0.25
- 3�
Ir (H <
D) Q = 3.0 ' D
(H •" 1.5)
if (H
>= D) 0 - C * A
* SQRT(64.4 *
ELEV
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
_________________________________________
(CU.M .)
(CFS)
21.50
0.0
0.00
21.55
480.8
0.01'
21.60
961.6
6.02
21.65
1442.3
0.04
21.70
1923.1
0.07
21.75
2403.9
0.07
21.80
2884.7
0.08
21.85
3365.4
0.09
21.90
3946.2
0.10
21.95
4327.0
0.11
22.00
4507.8
0.12
22.05
S289.5
6.13
22.10
5769.3
0.14
22.18
6622.3
0.24
22.25
7475.4
0.42
22.32
8328.4
0.65
22.40
9181.5
0.91
22.47
10034.5
1.21
22.$5
10987.6
1.55
22.62
11740.6
1.91
22.70
12593.7
2.30
22.77
13446.7
2.71
22.85
14299.8
3.14
22.92
15152.8
3.60
23.00
16005.9
4.07
23.08
17144.2
4.63
23.17
18282.5
5,20
23.25
19420.8
5.80
23.33
20559.1
6.42
23.42
21697.4
7.06
23.50
22335.6
7.72
23.58
23973.9
8.41
23.67
25112.2
9.11
23.75
26250.5
9.82
23.83
27388.8
10.56
23.92
2852711
11.32
24.00
29665.4
12.09'
(H-.RAD)'
2S/T+0
(CFS)
0 0
2.0
3.9
5.9
7.8
9.8
11.7
13.7
15.6
17.6
19.5
21.$
23.4
27.0
30.6
34.3
38.0
41.8
45.$
49.3
53.2
57.0
60.9
64.8
68.7
73.5
79.1
84.3
89.5
94.7
100.0
105.3
110.6
115.9
121.2
126.6
131.9 .
31j Z

4-15-1997 S:25PH FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498 R.4
Plus 3 Software, Inc
One Dunwoody Park,suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30338
800-235-4972
Tue Apr 15 13:52:58 1997
PROJECT: C:\iP\1333.CP\TM\JIM1R_PRO
---------
HYDROLOGIC REPORT
-------------------------
POND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH
POND IDENTIFIER Pond #1
10 YEAR STORM 'FREQUENCY
TIME
RUNOFF
(MIN)
`----0- ------------
(CFS)
8
0.004
41
0.128
50
1.204
58
3.145
(1 'HR)
66
4.076
701
0.094
710
0.093
718
0.091
(12
HRs)
726
0.090
1411
0.024
2419
U. 023
1427
0.023
1436
D.023
(24
HRS)
1444
0.022
2145
D.007
2153
0.007
2162
0.007
(36
HRS)
2170
0.007
2700
0.004
2789
0.003
2797
0.003
2805
D.003
(48
HRS)
2813
0.003
3581
0.002
3589
D.002
3597
0.001
3605
0.001
(60
HRS)
3614
0.001
3622
0.001
3630
D.001
462E
0.001
4637
0.001
4645
0.001
(77.4
HRS)
5000
0.000
PEAK FLOW =
4.2
CFS
TIME TO PEAK
=
74.3
MIN
TOTAL VOLUME
= 31146.4
CV FT
HYDROGRAPH
SHORTENED
FOR
SPACE
4// z

4-15-1997 5:25PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC B044847498
P. 5
Plus 3 Software, Inc
One Dunwoody Park,suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30338
800-235-4972
Tue Apt 15 13:49:24 1997
PROJECT: C:\1P\1333.CP\TM\JTM1k_PR0
-----------------------------...-------'-------------------------------------------
HYDROLOGIC REPORT - STAGE, STORAGE, AND DISCRARGE
POND: Pond #2
---------------.-__--______-_______-_--
1=BROAD CRESTED WEIR
INVERT 21.30 C 0.50 W 5.00
0 = C * W * (H ** 1.5)
2=CIRCULAR ORIFICE
INVERT 20.00 C 0.50 D 0.06 = )
if (H < D) Q = 3.0 * D * (H ** 1.5)
if (H
>= n) Q =
C * A * SQRT(64.4
* (H - PAD)
ELEV
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
.2S/^;+0
------ -----------
(CU.FT.)
------
(CFS)
-----
(CFS)
20.00
O.0
----------------
0.00
---
0.0
20.10
153.1
0.00
1.0
20.20
306.2
0.01
2.0
20.30
459.3
0.01
3.1
20.40
612.4
0.01
4.1
20.50
765.5
0.01
5.1
20.60
918.6
0.02
6.1
20.70
1071.7
0.02
7,2
20.80
1224.8
0.02
8.2
20.90
1377.9
0.02
9.2
21.00
1531.0
0.02
10.2
21.03
1592.0
0.02
10.6.
21.06
1653.0
0.02
11.0
21.09
1714.1
0.02
11.4
21.12
1775.1
0.02
11.9
21.15
1836.1
0.02
12.3
21.18
1897.1
0.C2
12.7
21.21
1958.1
0.02
13.1
21.24
2019.2
0-02
13.5
21.27
2080.2
0.02
1.1.9
21.30
2141.2
0.02
14.3
21.37
2203.6
0.07
.15.3
21.44
2426.0
0.15
16.3
21.51
2568.3
0.27
17.4
21.58
2710.7
0.40
18.5
21.65
2853.1
0.54
19.6
21.72
2995.5
0.71
20.7
21.79
3137.9
0.88
21.8
21.86
3280.2
1.07
Z2.9
21.93
3422.6
'1.28
24.1'
22.00
3565.0
1.49
25.3
22.10
3B26.0
1.82
27.3
22.20
4037.0
2.16
29.4
22.30
4348.0
2.53
31:5 .
22.40
4609.0
2.92
33.6
22.50
4870.0
3.32
35.8
22.60
5131.0
3.14
37.9
22.70
5392.0
4.17
40.1
22.80
5653.0
4.63
42.3
22.90
5914.0
5.09
44.5
23.00
6175.0
5.58
46.7

4-15-1997 5:26PM FROM HOGGARO EURE ASSOC 6044847498
P. 6
Plus 3 Software, Inc
One Dunwoody Fark,suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30338
800-235-4972
Tue Apr 15 14:04:34 1997
PROJECT! C=\1P\l333.CP\TM\JIMIR.PR0
_______________________________________._
HYDROLOGIC REPORT
-------------------------
POND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH
POND IDENTIFIER Pond #2
10 YEAR. STORM FREQUENCY
TIME
RUNOFF
(MIN)
--`--0-
(CFS)
--------.__-
S
0.001
10
0.005
15
0.009
45
1.058
50
1.080
55
0.998
60
D.898
65
D.000
710
D.019
715
0.019
720
D.019
725
D.019
1430
0.014
1435
0.014
1440
0.014
1445
0.014
2145
0.008
2150
0.008
2155
0.008
2160
0.008
2165
0.008
2870
0.003
2876
0.003
288D
0.003
2885
0.003
3015
0.002
3020
3.002
3025
0.002
3030
0.000
(1 HR)
(12 HRS)
(24 HRS)
(36 HRS)
(48 HRS)
(50.4 HRS)
PEAK FLOW = 1.1 CFS
TIME TO PEAR = 50.0 MIN
TOTAL VOLUME - 5502.3 CV PT
** HYDROGRAPH SHORTENED FOR S?ACE

4-15-1997 5:26PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
P_ 7
Plus 3 Software, Inc
One Dunwoody Park,5uite 250
Atlanta, GA 30338
800-235-4972
Tue Apr 15 13:49:46 1997
PROJECT: Ct\lP\1333.CP\TM\JTMIR.PRO
____________________-_--__---------„-----------_____--------_____---____
HYDROLOGIC REPORT - STAGE, STORAGE, AND DISCHARGE
POND: Pond #3
--------------------------------
I=BROAD CRESTED WEIR
--
INVERT
21.25 C 0.50
W 5.00
Q = C *
W * (H ' * 1.5)
2=CIRCULAR ORIFICE
INVERT
20.00 C 0.50
D 0,08
if (H c
D) Q = 3.0 * D
^ (H
if (H
�= D) Q = C *
A * SQRT (64.4
* (H - PAD)
ELEV
STORAGE
OUTFLOW
2S/T.+O
-------------------------------------------
(CU.FT.)
(CFS)
(CFS)
20.00
0.0
0.00
------
0.0
20.10
16S.1
0.00
1.1
20.20
330.2
0.01
2.2
20.30
495.3
0.01
3.3
20.40
660.4
0.01
4.4
20.50
625.5
0.01
5.5
20.60
990.E
0.02
6.6
20.70
11-55.7
0.02
1.7
20.80
1320.8
0.02
9.8
20.90
1485.9
0.02
9.9
21.00
1651.0
0.02
11.0
21.02
1712.1
0.02
11.4
21.05
1773.2
0.02
11.8
21.07
1834.3
0.02
12.2
21.10
1895.4
0.02 -
.12.7
21.12
1956.6
0.02
13.1
21.15
2017.7
0.02
13.5
21.17
2078.8
0.02
13.9
21.20
2139.9
0.02
14.3
21.22
2201.0
0.02
14.7
21.25
2262.1
0.02
15.1
21.32
2445.5
0.07
16.4
21-40
2628.8
0.17
1,7.7
21,47
2812.1
0.29
19.0
21.55
2995.5
0.44
20.4
22.62
3170.0
0.60
21.8
21.70
3362.1
0.78
23.2
21.77
3545.5
0.98
24.6
21.85
3728.8
1.19
26.0
21.92
3912.2
1.41
27.5
22.00
4095.5
1.65
29.0
22.10
4424.4
1.99
31.5
22.20
4733.3
2.34
34.0
22.30
5D82.2
2.72
36.6
22.40
5411.1
3.11
39.2
22.50
5740.0
3.53
41.8
22.60
6066.9
3.95
44.4
22.70
6397.8
4.40
47.0
22.80
6726.7
4.86
49.7
22.90
7D55.6
5.33
52.4
23.00
7384.5
5.82
55.1

4-15-1997 5:26PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
WE
Plus 3 Software, Inc
One Dunwoody ParY,Suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30338
800-235-4972
Tue Apr 15 14:09:35 1997
-------------------------
HYDROLOGIC REPORT
-------------------------
POND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH
POND IDENTIFIER Pond #3
10 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY
TIME
RUNOFF
(MIN)
1^ `
(CFS)
-
O
0.000
5
0.002
10
0.006
15
0.01C
40
1.274
45
1.507
50
1.484
55
1.351
60
1.209
(1 HR)
65
1.073
715
0.020
720
0.020
(12 HRS)
725
0.020
730
0.020
1430
0.014
1435
0.014
1440
0.014
124 HRS)
1445 0.014
1450 0,014
2150 0.009
2155 0.009
2160 0.009 (36 HRS)
2165 0.009
2870 0.004
2875 0.004
2880 0.004 (48 HRS)
2805 0.004
3015 D.003
3020 0.003
3025 0.003 (50.4 HAS)
303D D.000
PEAK FLOW = 1.5 CFS
TIME TO PEAK = 45.0 MIN
TOTAL VOLUME = 7030.8 CU FT
`. HYDROGRAPH SHORTENED FOR SPACE
PROJECT: C:\1P\1333.CP\TM\JIMIR.PRO
-----------------------------------
8/1 Z

4-15-1997 5:27PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
ME
SUMMARY REQUIRED POND AREANOLUMES
FILE:
1333.Cp\DRACALC. WQ2
Project:
Concession Center
Location:
Cherry Point, NC
Design:
Jim Farrell
Date:
APRIL, 1997
Revision:
Construct Branch Exchange - Pond #1
Surface Area
Volume 1"
Required = 6286 sf
Provided = 8875 sf
Required = 5763 cf
Provided = 5769 cf
Construct Branch Exchange - Pond #2
Surface Area
Volume 1"
Required = 1298 sf
Provided = 1295 sf
Required = 1425 cf
Provided = 1531 cf
Construct Branch Exchange - Pond #3
Surface Area
Volume V
Required = 1185 Sf
Provided = 1267 sf
Required = 1298 cf
Provided = 2185 cf
** Calculations for "Required" information are in section 2.4 "Wet Detention Pond
Sizing" of the Stormwater Management Report for the Construct Concession
Center, dated Feb. 19, 1997

4-15-1997 5:27PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
P. 10
POND #1 REQUIRED POND AREANOLUMES
FILE:
1333-cpkDRACALC. W02
Project:
Concession Center
Location:
Cherry Point, NO
Design:
Jim Farrell
Date:
APRIL, 1997
Revision:
SUM VOL
AREA
VOLUME
11POOL
ELEVATION
DEPTH (SF)
(CF)
(OF)
21.50
8875
0
Surface area
Volume required
0.6
5769
Required = 5285 sf
for Temp Pool
22-10
10356
5768
PROVIDED
= 5763 of
0-9
10237
8875 sf
PROVIDED
23.00
12392
16006
5769 of
1
13660
24.00
14927
29%5

4-lS-1997 S:27PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
POND #2 REQUIRED POND AREA/VOLUMES
FILE:
1333.cp\DRACALC. WQ2
Project:
Concession Center
Location:
Cherry Point, NC
Design:
Jim Farrell
Date:
April, 1997
Revision:
SUM VOL
AREA
VOLUME
1"POOL
ELEVATION
DEPTH (SF)
(CF)
(CF)
20.00
1295
0
1
1531
21.00
1764
1531 Surface area
Volume required
1
2034
Required = 1298 sf
for Temp Pool
22.00
2304
3665 PROVIDED
= 1425 cf
1
2610
1298 sf
PROVIDED
23.00
2916
6175
1631 cf

4-15-1997 5:27PM FROM HOGGARD EURE ASSOC 8044847498
P. 12
POND #3 REQUIRED POND AREASNOLUMES
FILE:
1333.cp\D RACALC. W Q2
Project:
Concession Center
Location:
Cherry Point, NC
Design:
Jim Farrell
Date:
April, 1997
Revision:
SUM VOL
AREA
VOLUME
1"POOL
ELEVATION
DEPTH (SF)
fCF)
(CF)
20.00
1267
0
1
1661
21.00
2035
1651
0.25
534
21.25
2240
2185
0.75
1833
Surface area
Volume required
22.00
2854
3484
Required = 1185 St
for Temp Pool
1
3289
= 1298 Cf
23.00
3724
6773
PROVIDED
PROVIDED AT21.25
1267 sf
2185 cf

-j-i!APR 21 '97' 19:oeAM cAt NRERFCHEP,RY PT 919 466 200aa�a98
Hoggard / Eure Associates P.C.
6006 fhufft d Blvd,. f
Porumuuth, Yrgind 23703
757.484-4670
Fax; 157-084.1498
,I
fax-t r a n s m e t,t: a 6
to:
re: Concession Center • ,S'WM Permit
pages: 2, including cover sheet.
P.1/2 N' I
RECEIVED
WASHINGTON OFFICE
APR 2 1 1997
D.iLM.
NOTES:; Please have this form signcd and fowarded to Bill Moore at fax number
[phone]. 1 believe this is this only information required from
your office.
Please call if you need further information.
FAI''
(~7s7)

15 APR 21 �97 10:09AM MCAS HREA CHERRY PT 919 7
465-2dd01 P Zr.e
a'-
V. DW RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE, COVENANTS
Deed restrictions and promctive covenants arc required to be recorded for all low density projects and all
subdivisions prior to the sale of any lot. Please see the accompanying instruction sheet for the specific item that
must be recorded fnr the type of project applied for.
By your signature below, you certify that the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants 'for this
project shall include all the items required by the permit, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and
persons claiming under them, that they will run with the land, that tbe'covenaut cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the Sate, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
VI. OWNERIS
I, G. W. R4DP0$D certify that the information included on this permit
(P/uud prim or type n demtyl
application form is correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the
deed restrictions will be recorded with all required permit conditions, and that to the bust of, my Imou+ledge, the
proposed project complies with the requirements of 15A NCAC 21i.11)00.
I authorize tlubelow namm persoff or firm to submit stony waver plans on my behalf.
Sueervis.Q= Zuy. Engineer _ Z ADri t 1997
Ow r/Authorized Agent Sign ure CCU
M. ATTTSORIZATYOA' (musrpe compLEr r) ./
Person or firm name HOVard/�rre Associates, P.C.
Mailing Aduess
Rartszmuth
6006 Churchland twulevard/ Post: OUIQe: Bax 6398
cc: ApplicanMiRO/!Central Fees
State VA Zip �-3703 phone [phone]

MCAS, Concession Center
Craven County
Stormwater Permit No. SW7970212
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly
registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina, \
having been authorized to observe (periodically/weekly/full time;
the construction of the project, \
(Project)
for
(Project Owner)
hereby state that to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the project construction
such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the approved plans and
specifications.
Signature
Registration Number
Date
91