SW8070843_Historical File_20080417

CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
February 18, 2007 Via Hand Delivery
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Attention: Ms. Rhonda Hall
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: Royal Palm Development
J.H. Batts Road, Town of Surf City
Pender County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Hall:
Subject to our phone conversation, please find two (2) copies of Sheet C.7.1, with
Revision 3 to the `Stormwater Trench Detail', Detail S.
Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you have any questions, comments
or require any additional information.
Regards,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES; P.A.
FEB 1 8 2008
Jason Rupert, E.I.
Attachments
cc: Alvin Batts, w/ enclosures
William Simmons, w/ enclosures

CAVANAUGH
Solutions through integrity and partnership
August 28, 2007 Via Hand Delivery
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Attention: Ms. Linda Lewis
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: Royal Palm Development Aug
P.H. Batts Road, Town of Surf City zoo?
ender County, North Carolina °
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A. (CA) on behalf of the applicant, Alvin Batts, hereby
submits the following application to NCDENR - Division of Water Quality for review of
the Stormwater Management Permit Application for Royal Palm Development. The
subject development is located in the Town of Surf City, Pender County, North Carolina.
The site consists of one (1) infiltration basin and infiltration trenches as identified for
each individual lot.
To facilitate your review of the enclosed documentation, the following is a list of the
items constituting the application:
1. A check made payable to NC DENR in the amount of $505.00 to satisfy the review
fee for this application.
2. One (1) original copy of the executed 'Stormwater Management Permit Application
Form.'
3. One (1) copy of the executed `Infiltration Basin Supplement' for Basin A.
4. One (1) copy of the executed `Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement' for the
on lot infiltration trenches.
5. Two (2) copies of the `Stormwater Management Plans,' including sheets C.1.1,
C.2.1, C.3.1, C.5.1, C.7.1 - C.7.7.
6. One (1) copy of the `Stormwater Management Permit Application Supplemental
Report'.
7. One (1) copy of the deed for the subject property.
Please note that an application for an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permit was
approved on August 20, 2007.

Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you have any questions, comments
or require any additional information.
Regards,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
/Jaso Rupert,
Attachments
cc: Alvin Batts, w/ enclosures
William Simmons, w/ enclosures

.ROYAL PALM DENVELffOPMENT
TOWN OF SURF CITY,
PENDER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
ST'O^ RMWATER MANAGEMENT
HIGH DENSITY
PERMIT APPLICATION
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
2•� August 13, 2007
►►111 1 %0oel
9101 CAVANAU G H
Solutions through integrity and partnership
We provide superior client service and environmentally sound
designs through integrity, communication and partnership.
C"onsulting Engineers Land Surveyors
Environmental Professionals Design Professionals
130 North Front Street, Suite 202, Wilmington, North Carolina 28401, Phone [phone], Fax [phone]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. SITE DESCRIPTION 2
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
III. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3
IV. MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR INFILTRATION 4
BASINS
V. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 5
& VEGETATION PLAN
APPENDIX
• Drainage Area Design Sheet
• Pre & Post Development Conditions Hydrographs and
Summaries
• Pipe Area Weighted 'C' Value
• Pipe Sizing Calculations
• Infiltration Trench Calculations
• Conduit Outlet Protection
• Geotechnical Report
• Watershed Classification
• SHWT Info (NCDENR)
• Site Location Map
• Drainage Area Maps
Royal Palm Development
Stonnwater Management High Density Permit Application

Narrative
Site Description
The subject development, formally identified as Royal Palms Development, is
located in the Town of Surf City, Pender County, North Carolina. The 10.5 (+/-)
acre property has frontage along NC J.H. Batts Rd. Please note that the site will
be permitted and constructed in two phases, and the current application is for
both Phases. Phase 1 has a limit of disturbance (LOD) of approximately 2.74
acres and an assessed drainage area of approximately 2.74 acres. Phase 2 is
the remainder of the limit of disturbance at 7.99 acres. Please reference the
attached site location map located in the Appendix of this report.
The site is currently used as a storage lot for various types of construction
equipment. There are no Army Corp of Engineer approved 404 wetlands
located throughout the property as confirmed by the environmental consultant.
The project site drains by way of overland flow to existing swales for ultimate
discharge to Becky's Creek and Topsail Sound. Becky's Creek and Topsail
Sound have a watershed classification of SA:HQW as confirmed by DENR-DWQ
and shown within the Appendix of this report.
The property can be described as mildly sloping, with an average slope of
approximately 2.0-5.0%. The elevations throughout the property range from 16
ft mean sea level (MSL) near the frontage of the property on JH Batts Road to 32
ft MSL at the rear property line.
The geotechnical site review conducted by an independent soil scientist found
seasonal high water table elevations (SHWTE) ranging between 32 to 41 inches
below ground surface (BGS) at the site. The soil scientist's geotechnical report
is included in the Appendix. An estimated infiltration rate between 6.0-in/hr and
8.0-in/hr was determined by the soils evaluation. Mr. Vincent Lewis from the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ) also tested the site for the SHWTE on July 24,
2007, and found the shallowest depth to SHWTE was approximately 29" inches
BGS, which is in accordance with the soil scientist's geotechnical report.
Project Description
Phase 1 and-2 of this two -phased development consists of the construction of a
portion of the subdivision containing 40 single family homes. The homes will be
serviced with 1,325 linear feet of gravity sewer; 1,366 linear feet of potable water
line. This project will include approximately 120,000 ft2 of rooftop area, 26,400 fe
of driveway area, 15,109 ft2 of sidewalk area, and 38,139 ft2 of street and gutter
area.
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

Pursuant to the watershed classification of the site, HQW:SA, the project will
employ infiltration type best management practices (BMPs). One (1) infiltration
basin is being proposed to treat the stormwater runoff from the driveways,
sidewalks, street and gutter, and including runoff from proposed swales on the
eastern and western property lines. Stormwater from each lot will be separately
treated by way of individual on -lot stormwater management systems. These
systems will consist of a network of buried infiltration pipes surrounded by
washed stone.
Stormwater from the tributary drainage areas, as identified within the submission
documents, will travel by sheet and shallow concentrated flow to a series of flat
curb inlets and yard inlets for eventual discharge to the one (1) proposed
stormwater management basin. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed from
these inlets through a series of HDPE pipe.
* _TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 459,252 ft2 = 10.54 acres
Impervious Areas
Dwellings and Driveways: 146,400 ft2 = 3.36 acres
Sidewalk: 15,109 ft2 = 0.35 acres
Street and Gutter: 38,139 ft2 = 0.88 acres
Calculation
3.36 + 0.35 + 0.88 = 4.59 acres
4.59 acres (impervious)/10.54 (total LOD) = 0.435 � 44 %d
Stormwater Management Plan
Collection and Conveyance:
The roads, sidewalks, driveways and portion of residential lots within the 60'
right of way will be graded so that runoff enters the stormwater management
system by way of sheet flow over the residential lots and roadway system and
shallow concentrated flow within the valley curb to the curb inlets and yard
inlets. From these inlets, the stormwater will be conveyed by way of the
aforementioned HDPE for discharge to the one (1) strategically placed
stormwater management infiltration basin. Please note, runoff from the
residential lots (including rooftops) will be collected and directed by down
spouts and grading to the individual Undergroud Infiltration Trenches on each
individual lot, as shown on the plans. Yard inlets will also be utilized where
necessary to collect runoff in the grassed areas; primarily the ditch running north
to south on the properties western boundary.
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

Treatment:
The project site is located in a coastal county and within 1/2 mile of SA:HQW
waters. Therefore, the project requires stormwater to be treated with an
infiltration type system. The SHWTE investigation confirmed that the proposed
location of the one (1) infiltration basin is appropriate for this type of BMP. As
mentioned previously, the proposed location had a SHWTE between 32-41
ine'ries BGS.
Basin A is an infiltration basins designed to treat the first 1.5" of rainfall runoff.
"Off-line" bypass systems will divert excess runoff from large storm events to the
vegetative filter. Rip rap aprons will be used to dissipate the velocity of the
incoming runoff, and level spreaders will be used to prevent channelized flow at
the entry points to the basins as well as at the bypass box discharges. 50'
vegetative filters will be used to discharge runoff in excess of the 1.5" volume
into the existing ditches running parallel to JH Batts Road.
Using the computer program Hydraflow, the runoff potentially generated for the
site in its natural state (pre -development) during a 10-year storm was modeled
and equaled approximately 15.04 ff/s. The runoff generated in the post -
development scenario for Phase 3 that will be routed through stormwater ponds
was also modeled for a 10-year storm and equaled 1.21 W/s. Therefore, the flow
was reduced from the pre -development scenario to the post -development
scenario by 13.83 W/s for a 10-year storm. The modeling results are shown in
the Appendix.
The proposed stormwater management system has been designed in
accordance with NCDENR requirements and will not adversely affect any
downstream drainage patterns.
Maintenance Plan for Infiltration Basins
A maintenance plan has been developed to maintain proper functionality and
longevity of the stormwater system.
The following maintenance requirements will be observed:
Twice a Year:
Grass areas in and around the infiltration basin will be mowed.
Yearly:
1, An inspection will be conducted after a storm event to ensure
infiltration performance.
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

2. Sediment deposits will be removed from channels and the bypass box
sumps.
Removal and reconstruction of the infiltration device will be necessary when the
infiltration rate drops to below 0.52 inches/hour.
Additional Information
Construction Schedule
1. Obtain plan approvals and all applicable permits.
2. Flag the work limits.
3. Hold pre -construction meeting.
4. Install temporary gravel construction entrance.
5. Clear site, but do not grub.
6. Install sediment fence, sediment fence outlets, and rock check dams.
7. Grub site.
8. Construct sediment basins.
9. Commence rough grading of the site.
10. install stormwater management appurtenances inclusive of infiltration
basins.
11. Construct gravity sewer line.
12. Construct water service line.
13. Complete installation of stormwater appurtenances.
14. Rough grade the site.
15. Shape shoulders and cut -and -fill slopes.
16. Scarify, seed, fertilize, and mulch all disturbed areas.
17. install other utilities (electrical, fiber-optic, cable, phone, etc.).
18. Re -scarify, re -seed, re -fertilize and mulch all disturbed area.
19. Construct roadbed base course and intermediate asphalt course.
20. Apply final asphalt course.
21. After disturbed areas are stabilized with vegetation, the contractor shall
return to the site and remove all temporary erosion control measures.
Vegetation Plan
1. The contractor shall provide seeding and mulching on all disturbed areas
within fifteen (15) working days following the completion of any phase of
grading. Seeding requirements shall include soil preparation, seed
mixtures, and mulching.
2. Contractor shall provide sod cover on all areas or comply with permanent
seeding schedule.
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

APPENDIX
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGN SHEET
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGN SHEET
DATE: 8/23/2007 SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT: Royal Palms Development DESIGN BY: JTR
PROJECT NO.: 041.07.016 CHECKED BY: EST
DESCRIPTION: On Lot Underground Infiltration Trench
DRAINAGE AREA
( ACCOUNTS FOR ALL LOTS AND INFILTRATION TRENCH DRAINS)
Post Development
C
A (ftz)
A (ac)
1
Dwelling & Driveway
0-95.
r° 120,000
`.
2
Sidewalk
9
0 .
3
Street & Gutter;r'
4
Grass
" ' ',SG("•.
'. 0 3
q6
6
7
8
Weighted C
0.50
Total Area
3411377
7.81
Impervious Area
120,000
2.75
Percent Impervious 35.3%
Volume Runoff to be Controlled From 1.T' Storm
Rv=0.05+0.009(I) (Simple Method, Scheuler)
1= 35.3 Percent Impervious
Rv= 037 Runoff Coefficient
V=P*Rv"Ad
1.5 in Design Rainfall
V= 0.369 ac-ft Volume To Be Treated
V= 15,627]ft' Volume To Be Treated
A= a 8F�,5 ft� Area of Treatment Device
D= 2 75 It Pool Depth
Drawdown Calculation
.,.79311?
Volume of Treatment
13 8 + ft
Seasonal High Water Table Elevation
1:5.83 ft**
Bottom of Treatment Device
18 83 ft
Water Suface Elevation
— Based on Trench with Lowest Elevation
V=
15,627 ft''
Volume To Be Drawn Down
A=
4,866 if
Area of Treatment Device
k=
a n in/hr
Most Restrictive Infiltration Rate
t=
5 hrs
Drawdown Time
t--
0.21 days

UA I t:
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
DESCRIPTION:
DRAINAGE AREA DESIGN SHEET
041.07.016
Basin Drainage Area Analysis
DRAINAGE AREA
Post Development
C
A
A Lac
1
Drivewa & Driveway24,420
2
Sidewalk
13.207
al.30
3
Street & Gutter
33.014
4
Grass
6
7
8
Weighted
C
0.70
Total
Area
11 ' 950 2.55
Impervious Area
70,641 1.62
Percent Impefflous 63.7%
Volume Runoff to be Controlled From 1.5" Storm
Rv-0.05+0.009(I)
(Simple Method, Scheuler)
1=
637 Percent Impervious
Rv=
062 Runoff Coefficient
V=P•Rv"Ad
P=
1.5 in Design Rainfall
V=
D 198 ao-ft Volume To Be Treated
V= 8,641 ft Volume To Be Treated
A=�
6.272 fe Area of Treatment Device
D=
1.60 ft Pool Depth
Drawdown Calculation
SHEET 1 OF
DESIGN BY:
CHECKED BY:
3,Ss2Ift3
Volume of Treatment
s:s ft
Seasonal High Water Table Elevation
=^ ft
Bottom of Treatment Device
7 67 It
Water Suface Elevation
V= 8;6.49 ft3
Volume To Be Drawn Down
A= 6,272 fe
Area of Treatment Device
k= a a. in/hr
Most Restrictive Infiltration Rate
t= 3 hrs
Drawdown Time
t= 0.13 days

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGN SHEET
DATE: 8/23/2007 SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT: Royal Palms Development DESIGN BY. JTR
PROJECT NO.: 041.07.016 CHECKED BY: EST
DESCRIPTION: Untreated Area
DRAINAGE AREA
Post Development
C
A M!�
A (ac)
1
Dwelling & Driveway
1,980
0136
2
Sidewalk
213z.-41
3
Street & Gutter
24044
0
4
Grass
6
7
8
Weighted
C
0.78
Total Area
=,917
0.18
Impervious Area
5,989
014
Percent Impervious

PRE & POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
HYDROGRAPHS AND SUMMARIES
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

Table of Contents
Basin A.gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hydrograph Return Period Recap...................................................................... 1
2 - Year
SummaryReport................................................................................................................. 2
HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 3
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Pre Development Basin A ................................................... 3
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post Development Basin A ................................................. 4
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, Post A to Basin A.............................................................. 5
PondReport................................................................................................................. 6
Hydrograph No. 5, Rational, Pre Development Lots ......................................................... 7
Hydrograph No. 6, Rational, Post Development Lots ....................................................... 8
Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Post Lot to Trench............................................................. 9
PondReport ............................................................................................................... 10
Hydrograph No. 9, Rational, Pre Development Untreated .............................................. 11
Hydrograph No. 10, Rational, Post Development Untreated .......................................... 12
Hydrograph No. 12, Combine, Combined Pre Development .......................................... 13
Hydrograph No. 13, Combine, Combine Post Development Routed ............................. 14
10 Year
SummaryReport............................................................................................................... 15
HydrographReports......................................................................................................... 16
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Pre Development Basin A ................................................. 16
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post Development Basin A ............................................... 17
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, Post A to Basin A ............................................................ 18
PondReport ............................................................................................................... 19
Hydrograph No. 5, Rational, Pre Development Lots ....................................................... 20
Hydrograph No. 6, Rational, Post Development Lots ..................................................... 21
Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Post Lot to Trench........................................................... 22
PondReport ............................................................................................................... 23
Hydrograph No. 9, Rational, Pre Development Untreated .............................................. 24
Hydrograph No. 10, Rational, Post Development Untreated .......................................... 25
Hydrograph No. 12, Combine, Combined Pre Development .......................................... 26
Hydrograph No. 13, Combine, Combine Post Development Routed ............................. 27
25 - Year
SummaryReport............................................................................................................... 28
HydrographReports......................................................................................................... 29
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Pre Development Basin A ................................................. 29
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post Development Basin A ............................................... 30
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, Post A to Basin A ............................................................ 31
PondReport............................................................................................................... 32
Hydrograph No. 5, Rational, Pre Development Lots ....................................................... 33
Hydrograph No. 6, Rational, Post Development Lots ..................................................... 34
Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Post Lot to Trench........................................................... 35
PondReport ............................................................................................................... 36
Hydrograph No. 9, Rational, Pre Development Untreated .............................................. 37
Hydrograph No. 10, Rational, Post Development Untreated .......................................... 38
Hydrograph No. 12, Combine, Combined Pre Development .......................................... 39

Contents
Basin A.gpw
Hydrograph No. 13, Combine, Combine Post Development Routed ............................. 40
100 - Year
SummaryReport...............................................................................................................
41
HydrographReports.........................................................................................................
42
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Pre Development Basin A .................................................
42
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Post Development Basin A ...............................................
43
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, Post A to Basin A ............................................................
44
PondReport ...............................................................................................................
45
Hydrograph No. 5, Rational, Pre Development Lots .......................................................
46
Hydrograph No. 6, Rational, Post Development Lots .....................................................
47
Hydrograph No. 7, Reservoir, Post Lot to Trench...........................................................
48
PondReport ...............................................................................................................
49
Hydrograph No. 9, Rational, Pre Development Untreated ..............................................
50
Hydrograph No. 10, Rational, Post Development Untreated ..........................................
51
Hydrograph No. 12, Combine, Combined Pre Development ..........................................
52
Hydrograph No. 13, Combine, Combine Post Development Routed .............................
53

Hydrograph Return Period Recap
Hyd.
Hydrograph
Inflow
Peak Outflow (cfs)
Hydrograph
No.
type
Hyd(s)
description
(origin)
1-Yr
2-Yr
3-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
25-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
1
Rational
---�
I 3.20
3.67
4.01
4.55
5.01
5.44
Pre Development Basin A
2
Rational
I ----
10.52
11.84
12.84
14.46
15.85
17.19
Post Development Basin A
3
Reservoir
2
I -----
I 0.46
0.51
0.56
0.63
0.69
0.75
Post A to Basin A
5
Rational
------
9.82
11.26
12.30
13.95
15.35
16.69
Pre Development Lots
6
Rational
---- --
23.03
25.93
28.12
31.67
34.71
37.65
Post Development Lots
7
Reservoir
6
----
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Post Lot to Trench
9
Rational
------
0.27
0.30
0.33
0.37
0.40
0.44
Pre Development Untreated
10
Rational
-----
0.84
0.94
1.02
1.15
1.26
1.37
Post Development Untreated
12
Combine
1, 5, 9,
-
13.12
15.04
16.43
18.63
20.50
22.29
Combined Pre Development
13
I I
Combine
I
3, 7, 10,
1.07
I
I
I
1.21
I
1.31
I
1.48
I
i
1.62
I
1.75
Combine Post Development Routed
Proj.
file: Basin
A.gpw
Wednesday,
Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Irrtelisolve

Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(cuft)
Hydrograph
description
1
Rational
3.20
1
10
1,922
---
------
-----
Pre Development Basin A
2
Rational
10.52
1
5
3,155
---
------
-----
Post Development Basin A
3
Reservoir
0.46
1
10
3,148
2
16.57
3,015
Post A to Basin A
5
Rational
9.82
1
10
5,895
----
Pre Development Lots
6
Rational
23.03
1
5
6,910
----
------
Post Development Lots
7
Reservoir
0.00
1
0
0
6
1.13
6,976
Post Lot to Trench
9
Rational
0.27
1
5
81
----
Pre Development Untreated
10
Rational
0.84
1
5
251
----
Post Development Untreated
12
Combine
13.12
1
10
7,953
1, 5, 9,
------
------
Combined Pre Development
13
Combine
1.07
1
5
1
3,399
3, 7, 10,
Year
---
Combine Post Development Routed
Basin
A.gpw
Return
Period: 2
Wednesday,
Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve

Hydrograph Plot
3
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Development Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 3.20 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 2.547 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
Intensity
= 5.031 in/hr
Tc by User
= 10.00 min
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs) Pre Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Yr
4.00 1 -
3.00
iX114
1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 1,922 cuft
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Oraya"A
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
4
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive
Hyd. No. 2
Post Development
Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Drainage area
= 2.547 ac
Intensity
= 5.£98 inlhr
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
10.00
e
M
MIII]
2.00
Hyd No. 2
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 10.52 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Runoff coeff.
= 0.7
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Post Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 2 -- 2 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 3,155 cult
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
M
M
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
5
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 3
Post A to Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2
!reservoir name
= BASIN A
Storage Indication method used.
Post A to Basin A
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 0.46 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Max. Elevation = 16.57 ft
Max. Storage = 3,015 tuft
Hydrograph Volume = 3,148 tuft

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Pond No. 1 - BASIN A
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known
contour areas. Average end area method used.
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (it) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sqft)
Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 16.00
4,762
0 0
1.00 17.00
5,735
5,249 5,249
1.60 17.60
6,311
3,614 8,862
1.85 17.85
6,557
1,609 10,471
2.00 18.00
6,707
995 11,466
2.50 18.50
7,214
3,480 14,946
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[A] [B]
[C]
ID]
Rise (in) = 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft) = 4.00 15.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in) = 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft) = 17.60 17.85
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels = 1
0
0
0
Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft) = 16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type = Riser Rect
--
---
Length (ft) = 17.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage = Yes No
No
No
Slope (%) = 0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value = .013
.000
.000
.000
Orit Coeff. = 0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage = n/a
No
No
No
ExfIltration = 6.000 in/hr (Contour) Tailwater Elev_ = 0.00 ft
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been anslyrad ender inlet and OLdlet control. Weir riser checked for orifice conditions
Stage / Discharge
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 33.00 36.00
Total Q
Discharge (cfs)

7
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 5
Pre Development Lots
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 9.82 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 7.811 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
Intensity = 5.031 in/hr
Tc by !User
= 10.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
o Oo
Pre Development Lots
Hyd. No. 5 -- 2 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 5,895 cuft
Q (cfs)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 5 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
8
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. S
Post Development Lots
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 23.03 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 7.811 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.5
Intensity = 5.898 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
4.00
0.00 if
0.0
Hyd No. 6
Post Development Lots
Hyd. No. 6 -- 2 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 6,910 cuft
Q (cfs)
24.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
4.00
0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
9
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 7
Post Lot to Trench
Hydrograph type =
Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.00 cfs
Storm frequency =
2 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. =
6
Max. Elevation
= 1.13 ft
Reservoir name =
Underground Trench
Max. Storage
= 6,976 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 0 cult
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
E:10A
4.00
Post Lot to Trench
Hyd. No. 7 -- 2 Yr
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
KI 14
12.00
4.00
15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48
- Hyd No. 6 Time (hrs)

Pond Report
10
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Pond No. 2
- Underground Trench
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known values
Stage! Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sqft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cult)
0.00
0.00
00
0
0
0.50
0.75
00
2,440
2,440
2.00
i .75
oU
9,693
12,133
2.50
2.50
00
3,660
15,793
3.25
3.25
00
0
15,793
4.00
4.00
00
0
15,793
4.75
4.75
00
0
15,793
5.50
5.50
00
0
15,793
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
[A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)
= 4.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)
= 4.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels
= 1 0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 3.50 0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= Riser --- --- ---
Length (ft)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes No No No
Slope (%)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= .013 .000
.000
.000
Orif. Coeff.
= 0.60 0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= n/a No
No
No
Exi'lItration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Note: Culvert/Orifloe outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir riser chocked for orifice conditions.
Stage (ft)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Stage / Discharge
Stage (ft)
5.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Total Q
Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development Untreated
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Drainage area
= 0.182 ac
Intensity
= 5.898 in/hr
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
Hyd No. 9
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 0.27 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Runoff coefP. = 0.25
Tc by User = 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Pre Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 9 -- 2 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 81 cuft
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
n.on
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
12
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development Untreated
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 0.84 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 0.182 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.78
Intensity = 5.898 ln/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0
Hyd No. 10
Post Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 10 -- 2 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 251 cult
Q (cfs)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
13
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 12
Combined Pre Development
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Inflow hyds. = 1, 5, 9
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 13.12 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Hydrograph Volume = 7,953 cult
Combined Pre Development
Hyd. No. 12 -- 2 Yr
0.1 0.2
— Hyd No. 12 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 5
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 9 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
14
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve
Hyd. No. 13
Combine Post Development Routed
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Inflow hyds. = 3, 7, 10
Q (Cfs',
2.00
1.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 1.07 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Hydrograph Volume = 3,399 cult
Q (Cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.3
Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 10 Time (hrs)

15
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
I Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(cult)
I Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(cuft)
Hydrograph
description
1
Rational
4.01
1
10
2,407
--
------
Pre Development Basin A
2
Rational
12.84
1
5
3,851
---
------
Post Development Basin A
3
Reservoir
1
0.56
1
10
3,844
2
16.70
3,680
Post A to Basin A
5
Rational
12.30
1
10
7,381
---
----
------
Pre Development Lots
6
Rational
28.12
1
5
8,436
---
----
Post Development Lots
7
Reservoir
0.00
1
0
0
6
1.33
8,516
Post Lot to Trench
9
Rational
0.33
1
5
98
----
----
Pre Development Untreated
10
Rational
1.02
5
307
---
------
Post Development Untreated
12
Combine
16.43
10
9,957
1, 5, 9,
------
Combined Pre Development
13
Combine
1.31
5
4,151
3, 7, 10,
Combine Post Development Routed
Basin A.gpw I Return Period: 10 Year I Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve

Hydrograph Plot
16
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Development Basin A
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 4.01 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 2.547 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
Intensity = 6.300 ir./hr
Tc by laser
= 10.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
r M
1.00
EM
Pre Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 1 --10 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 2,407 cuft
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
■AWE
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 1
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
17
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Post Development
Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Drainage area
= 2.547 ac
Intensity
= 7.200 in/hr
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 12.84 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Runoff coeff. = 0.7
Tc by user = 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Post Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 2 --10 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 3,851 cult
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
0.0 0.1 0.2
Hyd No. 2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
18
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 3
Post A to Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.56 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2
Max. Elevation
= 16.70 ft
Reservoir name
BASIN A
Max. Storage
= 3,680 cult
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 3,844 cuR
Post A to Basin A

Pond Report
19
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Pond No. 1 - BASIN A
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used.
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cult)
0.00 16.00
4,762
0
0
1.00 17.00
5,735
5,249
5,249
1.60 17.60
6,31 i
3,6i4
8,862
1.85 17.85
6,557
1,609
10,471
2.00 18.00
6,707
995
11,466
2.50 18.50
7,214
3,480
14,946
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 4.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 17.60
17.85
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
3.33
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= Riser
Rect
---
---
Length (ft)
= 17.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= .013
.000
.000
.000
Orif. Coeff.
= 0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No
ExfiItration = 6.000
in/hr (Contour) Tailwater Elev.
0.00 ft
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
00
Note: Culvert/Orifioe outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir riser checked for orifice conditions
Stage 1 Discharge
I'll............... ......=1 I t I.... ................... . - I ........ ............. J I I r f=1 1
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 00
0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 33.00 36.00
Total Q Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
20
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 5
Pre Development Lots
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 12.30 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 7.811 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
Intensity = E.300 inlhr
Tc by User
= 10.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Pre Development Lots
Q (oft) Hyd. No. 5 --10 Yr
14.00 -----
- ......... ........
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
............... .. . . .. .... ............. ------ . ........ / .... .... . ........ .. . . .......... . - .. ......... . . ..............
4.00
2.00
000 -Z
Hydrograph Volume = 7,381 cult
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
o no
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 5 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
21
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. C
Post Development Lots
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 28.12 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 7.811 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.5
Intensity = 7.200 in/hr
Tc by !User,
= 5.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
30.00
K41I+l
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 v
0.0
Hyd No. 6
Post Development Lots
Hyd. No. 6 --10 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 8,436 cult
Q (cfs)
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
H1d1l
l 0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
22
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 7
Post Lot to Trench
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Inflow hyd. No. = 6
Reservoir name = Undergro�!nd Trench
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
30.00
25.00
20.00
i611111I1l
10.00
y � �
Post Lot to Trench
Hyd. No. 7 --10 Yr
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 0.00 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Max. Elevation = 1.33 ft
Max. Storage = 8,616 cuft
Hydrograph Volume = 0 cult
Q (cfs)
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
i[r1[1741
5.00
0.00 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.00 ��l1' VVIIJJ 0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48 if AAii
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 7 Hyd Flo. 6

Pond Report
23
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Pond No. 2 - Underground Trench
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known values
Stage! Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cuff)
Total storage (cult)
0.00 0.00
00
0
0
0.50 0.75
00
2,440
2,440
2.00 1.75
00
9,693
12, i 33
2.50 2.50
00
3,660
15,793
3.25 3.25
00
0
15,793
4.00 4.00
00
0
15,793
4.75 4.75
00
0
15,793
5.50 5.50
00
0
15,793
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in) = 4.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 1.05 0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in) = 4.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 3.50 0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33 0.00
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft) = 3.50 0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= Riser ---
--
---
Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes No
No
No
Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value = .013 .000
.000
.000
urif. Goeff. = 0.60 0.00
0.00
0.00
Multistage = n/a No
No
No
ExfIItration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Stage (ft)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir riser checked for orifice conditions
Stage 1 Discharge
Stage (ft)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1,00
... ... . .... ... ....... . ..... . . . .. . . . .......... .... ...... ......... ... ... .
...................... . ........... ......... .. ... ... . . . . . . ..................... . . . .......... . . . ..... ... ..... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ...........
...... ... ... ....... . . .... . ....... .. . . . .. . . ... . . . ....................... ............ ....
. . ... ... .....
- ........................ --........................................_.........--.. ...........-t-.............- -----...-....................._..........................._...-...................._........_.............----.............._..._..
0.00
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Total Q Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
24
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development Untreated
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 0.33 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 0.182 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
Intensity
= 7.200 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
Hyd No. 9
Pre Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 9 --10 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 98 cult
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
25
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development Untreated
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Intensity
OF Curve
Q (cfs)
1.00
= Rational
= 10 yrs
= 0.182 ac
= 7.200 in/hr
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 1.02 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Runoff coeff.
= 0.78
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Post Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 10 — 10 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 307 tuft
0.2
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
M
Hyd No. 10 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
26
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 12
Combined Pre Development
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Inflow hyds. = 1, 5, 9
15.00
12.00
• M
. Me
3.00
r tr
0.0
Hyd No. 12
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 16.43 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Hydrograph Volume = 9,957 cuR
Combined Pre Development
Hyd. No. 12 -- 10 Yr
0.1
Hyd No. 1
0.2
Hyd No. 5
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
Fdalil7
•M
M
3.00
V 0.00
0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 9 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
27
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 13
Combine Post Development Routed
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Inflow hyds. = 3, 7, 10
Q (cfs)
2.0n
1.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 1.31 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Hydrograph Volume = 4,151 tuft
Combine Post Development Routed
Hyd. No. 13 — 10 Yr
Is' I I I I_I I I 1
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00 29 1 I I I 1 0.00
0.0 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.3
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 10

28
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
No. type flow Interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) i (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft)
1 Rational 4.55 1 10 12,730 --- -- Pre Development Basin A
2 Rational 14.46 1 5 4,337 --- - Post Development Basin A
3 Reservoir 0.63 1 10 4,331 2 16.79 4,145 Post A to Basin A
5 Rational 13.95 1 10 8,371 ---- --- ---- Pre Development Lots
6 Rational 31.67 1 5 9,501 ---- ------ -- Post Development Lots
7 Reservoir 0.00 1 0 0 6 1.47 9,591 Post Lot to Trench
9 Rational 0.37 1 5 111 --- ----- Pre Development Untreated
10 Rational 1.15 1 5 345 --- ----- ------ Post Development Untreated
12 Combine 18.63 1 10 11,291 1, 5, 9, ------ Combined Pre Development
13 Combine 1.48 1 5 4,676 3, 7, 10, ------ Combine Post Development Routed
I I
Basin A.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve

Hydrograph Plot
29
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Development Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 4.55 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 2.547 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
intensity
= 7.145 in/hr
Tc by Elser
= 10.00 min,
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
K 11
2.00
1.00
Hyd No. 1
0.1
Pre Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 1 -- 25 Yr
0.2
0.3
Hydrograph Volume = 2,730 cult
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
`XITI]
1.00
-� 0.00
0.3
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
30
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 2
Post Development Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 14.46 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 2.547 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.7
Intensity
= 8.109 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.r,0 min
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
9.00
AM
3.00
M1111l
Post Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 2 — 25 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 4,337 cult
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
M1
3.00
0 00
0.0 0.1 0.2
Hyd No. 2 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
31
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 3
Post A to Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2
Reservoir name
= BASIN A
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
(Valid
Om
3.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 0.63 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Max. Elevation = 16.79 ft
Max. Storage- A,1 45 cuft
Hydrograph Volume = 4,331 cuft
Post A to Basin A
Hyd. No. 3 — 25 Yr
!I I I I !__I
Q (cfs)
15.00
�1
3.00
0.00 "1
1 I '- ' I I I 1 0.00
0.0 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 5.8 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.2
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2

Pond Report
32
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Pond No. 1 - BASIN A
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used.
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cuft)
Total storage (cuft)
0.00 16.00
4,762
0
0
1.00 17.00
5,735
5,249
5,249
1.60 i 7.60
6,3i i
3,614
8,862
1.85 17.85
6,557
1,609
10,471
2.00 18.00
6,707
995
11,466
2.50 18.50
7,214
3,480
14,946
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 4.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 17.60
17.85
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
3.33
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= Riser
Rect
---
---
Length (ft)
= 17.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= .013
.000
.000
.000
Orit Coeff.
= 0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No
Exi'llItration = 6.000
in/hr (Contour) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifics ouNlows have been analysed under inlal and nutlet control. Weir riser checked for orifice conditions
Stage / Discharge
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 00
0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 33.00 36.00
Total Q
Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
33
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 5
Pre Development Lots
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Drainage area
= 7.811 ac
intensity
= 7.145 in/hr
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF-IDF
Q (cfs) Pre Development Lots
Hyd. No. 5 -- 25 Yr
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
_...................................................._.-__...-...........................................__.............................................._................_-......................_.............
4.00
2.00
0.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 13.95 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Runoff coeff. = 0.25
Tc by !User = 10.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Hydrograph Volume = 8,371 cuft
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 5 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
34
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 6
Post Development
Lots
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Drainage area
= 7.811 ac
Intensity
= 8.109 in/hr
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Q (cfs)
35.00
it II
25.00
W11
15.00
10.00
5.00
Post Development Lots
Hyd. No. 6 -- 25 Yr
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 31.67 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Runoff coeff.
= 0.5
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Hydrograph Volume = 9,501 cult
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 " ' — v 0 c0
0.0
Hyd No. 6
0.1
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
35
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
!"Hyd. No. 7
Post Lot to Trench
Hydrograph type =
Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.00 cfs
Storm frequency =
25 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. =
6
Max. Elevation
= 1.47 ft
Reservoir name =
Underground Trench
Max Storage
= 9,591 tuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
K111111
15.00
10.00
ri
W
Post Lot to Trench
Hyd. No. 7 -- 25 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 0 cult
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 6
Time (hrs)

Ponce Report
36
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Pond No. 2
- Underground Trench
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known values
Stagc ! Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sq
0.00
0.00
00
0.50
0.75
00
2.00
1.75
00
2.50
2.50
00
3.25
3.25
00
4.00
4.00
00
4.75
4.75
00
5.50
5.50
00
Culvert / Orifice Structures
[A] [B]
[C]
ID]
Rise (in)
= 4.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 4.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1 0
0
0
Invert El. (ft)
= 3.50 0.00
0.00
0.00
Length (ft)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Slope (%)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= .013 .000
.000
.000
urif. Goefr.
= 0.60 0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= n/a No
No
No
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
ft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cult)
0
0
2,440
2,440
9,693
12,133
3,660
15,793
0
15,793
0
15,793
0
15,793
0
15 79�
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Crest Len (ft)
= 1.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= Riser
--
---
---
Multi-Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
ExfiItration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Taihivater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Note: CulvertfOrifice outpours have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir riser checked for orifice conditions.
Stage (ft) Stage / Discharge
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
..............
..........
.... . .....
. . .. ...... .. - .... . .. ....... ----- ----------
. .. .. .....
. ................. . ... . .... . ........ . ... ... . ...... .......... .. ......... . .. .... ... ............ .. .... .... . .. ..
Stage (ft)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Total Q
Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
37
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development Untreated
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Drainage area
= 0.182 ac
Intensity
= 8.109 in/hr
OF Curve
= WILMINGT®N-IDF.IDF
Q (cfs)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
Hyd No. 9
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 0.37 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Pre Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 9 -- 25 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 111 cult
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development Untreated
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Intensity
OF Curve
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
= Rational
= 25 yrs
= 0.182 ac
= 8.109 in/hr
= Wil-MINGTON-IDF.IDF
Peak discharge = 1.15 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Runoff coeff.
= 0.78
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Post Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 10 -- 25 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 345 cult
0.2
Q (cfs)
2.00
M
Hyd No. 10 Time (hrs)
38

Hydrograph Plot
39
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 12
Combined Pre Development
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 18.63 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 1, 5, 9
Hydrograph Volume = 11,291 cult
Combined Pre Development
Q () Hyd. No. 12 -- 25 Yr
21.00
18.00
_ . ........ .. ...........
15.00
..... ..... ......
12.00
.......... ....... ....... __
......... .........
/ . . ................... . ...
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2
Hyd No. 12 Hyd No. 1 Hyd No. 5
Q (cfs)
21.00
.__.. . .............
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 9 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
40
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 13
Combine Post Development Routed
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 25 yrs
Inflow hyds. = 3, 7, 10
Q (Cfs',
2.00
1.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 1.48 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Hydrograph Volume = 4,676 Cuft
Q (Cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 00
0.0 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7
Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 3
3.3 4.0 4.7
Hyd No. 7
5.3
6.0 6.7
Hyd No. 10
7.3
Time (hrs)

41
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
Interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(tuft)
Hydrograph
description
1
Rational 5.44
1
10
3,266
---
-----
Pre Development Basin A
2
Rational 17.19
1
5
5,156
----
------
Post Development Basin A
3
Reservoir 0.75
1
10
5,149
2
16.94
4,927
Post A to Basin A
5
Rational 16.69
1
10
10,01E
------
Pre Development Lots
6
I Rational 37.65
1
5
11,294
------
Post Development Lots
7
Reservoir 0.00
1
0
0
1.70
11,401
Post Lot to Trench
9
Rational 0.44
4
,
132
---
Pre Development Untreated
10
Rational 1.37
5
411
---
Post Development Untreated
12
Combine 22.29
10
13,508
1, 5, 9,
Combined Pre Development
13
�
Combine 1.7',
I
A.gpw
F
5,560
3, 7, 10,
Combine Post Development Routed
Basin
Return
Period: 100 Year
Wednesday,
Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve

Hydrograph Plot
42
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
Pre Development Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Drainage area
= 2.547 ac
Intensity
= 8.545 in/hr
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Q (C%)
6.00
..... ........................ .................... ........................
...... 111.111,
5.00
........... I._.. .....................
.... ........ ......... ._.._.......... ..... ___ . ......
4.00
.. _................. __...._....
_........................ __. _........-.........
_..._...........
3.00
...........
_....... .........................
2.00
- ............... ........
..... ..... _ ................ .
1.00
0.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 5.44 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Runoff coeff. = 0.25
Tc by User = 10.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Pre Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 1 --100 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 3,266 cult
Q (C%)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 1
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
43
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 2
Post Development Basin A
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 17.19 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 2.547 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.7
Intensity = 9.639 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
• m
.1A
3.00
0.00
Post Development Basin A
Hyd. No. 2 --100 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 5,156 cuft
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
•m
M
3.00
rs 00
0.0 0.1 0.2
Hyd No 2 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
44
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 3
Post A to Basin A
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.75 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2
Max. Elevation
= 16.94 ft
Reservoir name
= BASIN A
Max. Storage
= 4,927 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 5,149 cult
Q (cfs)
18.00
U411011
12.00
AM
c M
NMI
Post A to Basin A
Hyd. No. 3 --100 Yr
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
�6
"MIC
3.00
0 00
0.0 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 5.8 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.2
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2
Time (hrs)

Pond Report
45
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Pond No. 7
- BASIN A
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known
contour
areas. Average end area method used.
Stage f Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00
16.00
4,762
0 0
1.00
17.00
5,735
5,249 5,249
1.60
17.60
6,311
3,614 8,862
1.85
17.85
6,557
1,609 10,471
2.00
18.00
6,707
995 11,466
2.50
18.50
7,214
3,480 14,946
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)
= 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft) = 4.00 15.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)
= 21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft) = 17.60 17.85 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
0
0
0
Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 0.00 0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type = Riser Rect --- ---
Length (ft)
= 17.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage Yes No No No
Slope (%)
= 0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
N Value
= .013
.000
.000
.000
Orif. Coeff.
= 0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No
EAItration = 6.000 in/hr (Contour) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Note: Culvert/Orifice outnows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir riser ciwr*ed for orifioe conditions.
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00 3.00 6.00
Total Q
Stage 1 Discharge
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
' 0.00
9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 33.00 36.00
Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
46
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 5
Pre Development Lots
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Drainage area
= 7.811 ac
Intensity
= 8.548 infix
OF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Q (cis)
18.00
15.00
12.00
•m
1 TOI
3.00
0.00
Pre Development Lots
Hyd. No. 5 --100 Yr
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 16.69 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Runoff coeff. = 0.25
Tc by User = 10.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Hydrograph Volume = 10,016 cuft
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
3.00
0 0^
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 u
Hyd No. 5
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
47
HydraflowHydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 6
Post Development Lots
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 37.65 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 7.811 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.5
Intensity = 9.639 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
A 1I
Post Development Lots
Hyd. No. 6 --100 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 11,294 cult
Q (cfs)
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
KAWST&I
0.0 0.1 0.2
Hyd No. 6
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
48
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisohre
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 7
Post Lot to Trench
Hydrograph type =
Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.00 cfs
Storm frequency =
100 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. =
6
Max. Elevation
= 1.70 ft
Reservoir name =
Underground Trench
Max. Storage
= 11,401 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 0 cult
Q (cfs)
40.00
30.00
20.00
i L1111I11
l"f
Post Lot to Trench
Hyd. No. 7 --100 Yr
Q (cfs)
40.00
W11111f
10.00
0 00
0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 6

Pone) Report
49
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Pond No. 2 - Underground Trench
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known values
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cult)
0.00
0.00
00
0
0
0.50
0.75
00
2,440
2,440
2.00
1.75
00
9,693
12,133
2.50
2.50
00
3,660
15,793
3.25
3.25
00
0
15,793
4.00
4.00
00
0
15,793
4.75
4.75
00
0
15,793
5.50
5.50
00
0
15,193
Culvert / Orifice Structures
[A]
[S]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
0
0
0
Invert El. (ft)
= 3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Slope (%)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N Value
= .013
.000
.000
.000
Crif. Coeff.
= 0.60
0.00
U.00
U.U0
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No
Stage (ft)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Crest Len (ft)
1.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Coeff.
3.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= Riser
--
---
Multi-Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
Eyrfiltratinn = n nnn in/hr fWat areal TailwMar Plaw = n nn A
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control. Weir riser checked for orifice conditions.
Stage / Discharge
Stage (ft)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Total Q
Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
50
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Hyd. No. 9
Pre Development Untreated
Hydrograph type = Rational
Peak discharge
= 0.44 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area = 0.182 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.25
Intensity = 9.639 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve = WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
Hyd No. 9
Pre Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 9 --100 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 132 cult
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
51
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 10
Post Development Untreated
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Drainage area
= 0.182 ac
Intensity
= 9.839 in/hr
IDF Curve
= WILMINGTON-IDF.IDF
Q (cfs)
1.00
0.00
0.0
Hyd No. 10
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 1.37 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Runoff coeff. = 0.78
Tc by User = 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1
Post Development Untreated
Hyd. No. 10 --100 Yr
0.1
Hydrograph Volume = 411 cult
Q (cfs)
Pz
1.00
0.00
0.2
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
52
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 12
Combined Pre Development
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Inflow hyds. = 1, 5, 9
Q (cfs)
24.00
16.00
12.00
4.00
1
Hyd No. 12
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 22.29 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Combined Pre Development
Hyd. No. 12 --100 Yr
0.1
Hyd No. 1
0.2
Hyd No. 5
Hydrograph Volume = 13,508 cult
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
. 11
12.00
4.00
v.vv
0.3 0.3
Hyd No. 9 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
53
Hydraifow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 13
Combine Post Development Routed
Hydrograph type = Combine
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Inflow hyds. = 3, 7, 10
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
Wednesday, Aug 15 2007, 9:54 AM
Peak discharge = 1.75 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Combine Post Development Routed
Hyd. No. 13 --100 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 5,560 cuR
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
000 � ' 1
' ' ' r 000
0.0 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.3
Hyd No. 13 Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 10 Time (hrs)

PIPE AREA WEIGHTED `C' VALUES
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGN SHEET
DATE: 811420D7 SHEET 1 OF 4
PROJECT., Royal Palms Development DESIGN BY: JTR
PROJECT NO.: 041.07.016 CHECKED BY: EST
DESCRIPTION: Sub -Basin Drainage Area Analysis
DRAINAGE AREA C14
Post Develoomont
C
A (Ifel
A (ac)
1
Dwellina & Dr&vmy
7AM... '
1 320
F.'
2
Sidewalk
001"
3
Street & Gutter
1i35
(10A
4
Gross
A.
7
0.78
1 Impervious Area
31361
1 0.08
I Percent ImDervious, 1 76.0%
DRAINAGE AREA CI-2
Post Deirelopmeit
C
A (fe)
A (ac)
1
Dwelling & Driveway
em
0 02
2
Sidewalk
6! 60V_
478
0.01
—3
Street& Gutter,
4
Grass
7
LA
Weighted C
0.73
Total Area
. M
3 9.M
0.09
Invervious Area
20738 1
1 US
Percent Impervious 69.1%
DRAINAGE AREA CI-3
Post Devoloornent
C
A (ft)
A ac
I
DwellLn
2
Sidewalk
all I
3
Street& Gutter
4
Grass
7
8
r83
I=
1 4,317.1
0.10
limperviousArea
1 3,551
1 0.08
I Percent Impervious 82.3%
DRAINAGE AREA Cl-4
Post Devalo meM
C
A (fell
I A (act
1
& Drivewa1-0
1980.
2
-Dwellin
Sidewalk
'0195
781
3
Street & Gutter
0.Is. .
Ma
4
Grass
um
6
7
8
welahted C
0.76
Total
1 T271
0.17
Impervious A.
1 5.29
0.12
I Percent Impervious 72.8% 1
Q=CIA
I = 7.2 in/hr
C = Weighted C
A = Total area in acres
[Q - 0.571
Q=CIA
1 = 7.2 in/hr
C = Weighted C
A = Total area in acres
Q=CIA
I m 7.2 irdhr
C = Weighted C
A = Total area in acres
Q=CiA
I = 7.2 ln/hr
C = Weighted C
A = Total area in acres

DRAINAGE AREA CI.B
Post Development
C
A
A law
1
1 Dwelling & D i
2.M
2
1 Sidewalk
5
920-•:�'
3
Street & Gutter
3086
''•
4
Grass
6
7
t
g;rr,,i,
rot
Weighted C
0.77
Total Area
8 887
0.20
Im rvious Area
6 848
0.15
Percerd I lous 74.8%
DRAINAGE AREA CI49
Post Development
C
A ffel
A ac
1
Dwelling & Driveway
y`. ` 21140
;w
2
Sidewalk
_ -
Bg9
3
Street& Gutter
10,-Imm
4
Pum Station
5
Grass
441'
6
7
8
777
Weighted C
0.77A
Total Area
934T-.
021
Impervious Ana
6 91M
1 0.16
Percent Impervious 73.9%
DRAINAGE AREA Cl-1
Post Development
C
A I
AInc)
1
Dwelling Driveway
2640
D
2
Sidewalk
6.
920
D
3
Street & Gutter
0.
3A011
0,0`:.
4
Grass
6
Other(Pump Station
Q..
7
Wei Irtad C
0.77
Total Area
8 880
0.2D
Im rvious Area
6,651
0.15
Percent Impervious 74.9%
DRAINAGE AREA CI -II
Post Development
C
A
AJac)
1
Dwelling & Driveway
M1I>
2640
0.06
2
Sidewalk
1707
0,04:
3
Street & Gutter^'
:'.
4.884
0.11 ,
6
Grass
0. 9
7
Weighted C
0.76
Total Area
12 667
0.29
Ira rvious Area
B 231
0.21
Percent Impeirvious
SHEET 3 OF 4
DESIGN BY: JTR
CHECKED BY: EST
Q - CIA
1=7.2in/hr
C = Weighted C
A = Total area in acres
Q - CIA
1= 7.2 inthr
C = Weighted C
A = Total area in acres
Q= 1.18
Q = CIA
i = 7.2 inRv
C = Weighted C
A = Total area in acres
Q = CIA
i = 7.2 inmr
C = Weighted C
Q= 1.59

PIPE SIZING CALCULATIONS
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

Pipe Calculations
Project: Royal Palms Development Computed By: JTR 1) Design method used is Rational Method 5) Velocity percent (%V) from hydraulic elements table
Job #: 041.07.016 Checked By: EST 2) "X" denotes existing structure 6) All pipe shall be Class III reinforced concrete pipe unless otherwise noted
Location: Surf City, NC Date: 8/28/2007 3) Refer to Weighted Runoff Coefficient table for calculation of incremental areas and C values
4) Adjusted C values used to determine equivalent Rational Method peak runoffs for basin outflows
PIPE SECTION
AREA (Acres)
INC.
TOTAL
A
sum
p
I
RUNOFF
TIME OF CONCEN.
PIPING INPUT
PIPING DATA
INVERT
ELEVATION
GRATEIRIM
ELEVATION
GRATE/RIM TO
INVERT
FROM
TO
Inc. Ac
Total Ac
INC.
„C„
A x C Ac
A x C
Ac
Yeaz
In/Hr.
Qa (CFS)
To Inlet
(Min)
To
Upper
End
Thru
Pipe
(Min)(/o)
Dia
Length
Man.
Slope
°
Qf Full
(CFS)
Vf Full
(F/S)
%Q
(Qa/
x100)
%V
(Va/Vf
x100)/S)
Vactual
Upper
End
Lower
End
Upper
End
Lower
End
U r
Ply
End (Ft)
Lower
End (Ft)
FROM
TO
CI-12
CI-11
0.267
0 267
0.75
0.200
0200
10
7.2
1.442
5.00
5 00
0.15
15
32.8
0.009
0.34
5.40
44.40
27
85
1 3.74
26.740
26.630
1 29.490
29 380
2 750
2.750
CI-12
I CI-i 1
CI-11
CI-9
0.291
0.558
0.76
0.221
0.421
10
72
3.034
5,00
5.15
0.59
15
271.8
0.009
1.41
11071
903
27
85
767
26.630
22.800
29.380
28.160
2.750
5 360
CI-11
1 CI-9
CI-10
CI-9
0.204
0.204
0.77
0157
0157
10
1 7.2
1.131
5.00
5.00
0.13
15
45.6
0.009
1.54
11.555
9.42
10
64
603
23.500
22.800
28.340
28.160
4.840
5 360
CI-10
CI-9
CI-9
CI-7
0.214
0 976
0.77
0.165
0 743
10
7.2
.5352
5.00
5.74
0.56
15
270.7
0.009
L03
9484
7,73
56
103.5
800
22.800
20.000
28.160
27 000
5 360
7 000
CI-9
CI-7
CI-8
CI-7
0.204
0204
0.77
0157
0157
10
72
1 131
5.00
500
0 16
15
58.9
0.009
170
12 157
991
9
62
614
21.000
20.000
27.180
27 000
6 I80
7 000
CI-8
CI-7
CI-7
CI-6
CI-6
CI-5
0.214
0.204
1 394
1,598
0.76
0.77
0163
0157
1 063
1220
10
10
72
72
7 654
8 785
5.00
5.00
630
667
037
019
24
24
202.9
72.9
0.009
0.009
123
0.41
36 255
20 956
1155
667
21
42
79
96
912
641
20.000
17.500
17.500
17.200
27.000
23.340
23 340
21 980
7 000
5 840
5 840
4 780
CI-7
CI-6
CT-6
CI-5
CI-5
CI-3
0.210
1 808
0.77
0162
1382
10
72
9 949
5.00
686
031
24
143.0
10.009
062
25 623
816
39
94
7.67
17.200
16.320
21.980
18 570
4 780
2 250
Cl-5
CI-3
CI-3
CI-4
CI-4
BP-1
0.099
0.167
1.907
2074
0.83
0.761
0.082
0127
1464
1.591
10
10
72
Z2
10 540
11-454
5.00
5.00
717
7.22
0.05
0.13
21
21
22.5
45.2
0.009
0.009
062
0.29
18 044
12.1.62
751
510
58
93
1035
114
777
5 81
16.320
16.180
16.180
16.050
18.570
18.430
18.430
18 150 1
2 250
2.250
2 250
2 100
CI-3
CI-4
CI-4
BP-1
BP-1
Basin A
0.010
2.084
0.50
0 005
1596
10
72
11.490
5.00
735
004
21 1
14.6
0.0091
034
13 410 1
558
86
1135
633
16.050
16.000
18.250
NA
2200
N.A
BP-1
Basin A
YI-1
JB-1
0.679
0 679
0.25
0170
0.170
10
72
1.222
5.00
500
0.05
15
19.4
0.009
1.29
10.597
864
12
68
588
15.250
15.000
18.500
18 700
3.250
3 700
73-I 1
J13-1
JB-1
CI-1
0.01O
0.689
0.50
0.005
0.005
10
7.2
0.036,
5.00
5.05
1.79 .
15
140.6
0.009
044
6.193
5.05
1
26
1.31
14.500
13.880
18.700
16 850 1
4200
2 97Q
JB-1
CI-1
CI-1
CI-2
0.102
1058
0.78
0 080
0 285
10 1
72
2.051
5.00
684 1
012
15
30.2 10.009
033 1
5.367
4.38
38
93 5
101
114
409
13.880
13.780
16.850
16 750
2.970
2 970
C I -I
CI-2
CI-2
BP-1
Swale B
JB-2
0.090
0.010
1 148
2084-
0.50
0.50
0 045
0.005
0330
1.596
10
10
72
7.2
2.375
11.490
5.00
5.00
696
735
060
039
15
21
138.0
125.0
0.009
0.009
025 1
0.25
4.629
' 11.392
377 1
4.74
51
101
3 81
5 40
13.780
16.500
13.440
16.190
16.750
18.750
NA
17 500
2 970
2 250
NA
1 310
CI-2
BP -I
Swale B
JB-2
JB-2
SwaleA,
0.010
2094
0.50
0.005
1601
10
7.2
11 526
5.00
7.73
D Ol
21
6.0
0.009
0.83
20 882
8 69
55
103
8 95
16.050 1
16.000 1
17.500 1
NA 1
1 450
NA
TB-2
Swale A
"*Please note that two (2) 15" Diameter pipes will be used in place of the 21" Diameter pipe. The surface area and volume of the two (2) 15" diameter pipes is greater than a single 21" diameter pipe.
The surface area of (2) 15" pipes of the same length of a single 21" pipe has a surface area of 1.06 times greater than that of the 21" diameter pipe.
PIPESIZES.xb.xls
Page 1

INFILTRATION TRENCH CALCULATIONS
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

101 LT?, A-Ti vr-J
Project #
sheet # Of CAVANAU 13 H
-signed by Date Solutions through inte"; and partnership
Checked Date
JP1 TZ: - ------
L
_
TOT 0 4=
3.7q L.
2-4 ............. ------
. . . . . .. . . . . . . .
Z70
--Tr- ch -b-I 5
....... . .. . ...... ... . .... ......

CONDUIT OUTLET PROTECTION
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

RIP RAP APRON DESIGN SHEET
DATE:
Augud 27. W07
0214PU
SHEET 1 OF
2
PROJECT:
Revd Pdms Develmment
ID. NO.: BasinA Pipe Ouft Two (2)15' Pipes
DESIGN BY:
JTR
PROJECT NO.:
041.07.016
FILE
CHECKED BY:
EST
DESCRIPTION:
Conduit Outlet Protection
LOCATION: Town d8ud Chy, Familiar Caudy. No
Rip Rap Zone Delineation
25
20 NM---- MH HH1
2 E
`) JN. 7
15
oN 5 ■ Design Point
10
NH�E
5 E
Z N 2
t4N
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
De, Depth of Flow (ft.)
MINIMUM
CLASS
L1
STONE
NCDOT RIP
OF
CoeBlelerlt
L� Coeffieie
THICKNESS
ZONE
RAP CLASS
STONE
(n.
1
'A'
FINE
3
4
12
2
.1
LIGHT
3
6
18
3
1
M
4
8
24
4
1
Y
4
8
36
5
2
Y
LH
5
10
36
6
2
5
10
38
7
De " is ftyana
the scope
ofThis Matlad
L1-Lanathto Pre■ct Calvert
L2=Lenplh1. Prevail Saaur Hale
NAME I WEIGHT SIZE
SPECIFICATIONS
rLBS
RIP
-RAP
CLASS 1
5-2W
30% SHALL WEIGH AT LEAST60 LBS. EACH.
NO MORE TW W 10%SHALL WEIGH LESS
THAN 15 LB8. EACH
CLASS 2
25.250
80% SHALL WEIGH AT LEAST 60 LBS. EACH.
NO MORE THAN 5% SHALL WEIGH LESS
THAN 50131 EACH
F
EUSION
CONTROL STONE
CLASS A
2 f
10%TOP 8 BOTTOM SIZES.
NO GRADATION SPECIFIED
CLASS B
15300I
5-15"
IND GRADATION SPECIFIED
.awe. wnexrnasrmns for 0reaes>70%.
2. For pipe arch. arch, bax euN.M Paved chenntl outlets, use D,.Cram a.*nd area d outlet box.
Number of Culverts: 1
Design Velocity, Vd : 5.78 tus
Flow, Q : 11.49 era
Pipe Diameter, Da : 1.750 R "NOTE: "Please rile dadt" (2)15" Diameter pipes WE be used in piece arthe 21' Diameter pipe. The
arfeco area and wk n of the Mo (2)15" diameer ppm i. Weater that a shpk 21' diameter pfpe.
Slope, sapra 0.0028 f AL
Using NCDOT Rip Rap Apron Design:
Use: Zone I
L,: 5.25 ft.
L2: 7 ft.
W: 6.0 fL
W: 6.0 ft.
CLASS W RIP RAP
USE MINIMUM 12" STONE THICKNESS
TOTAL STONE VOLUME= 31.5 it" *Based upon L1
42.0 ft' "Based upon L2

RIP RAP APRON DESIGN SHEET
DATE
Aupuot29, 2007
10:01 AM
SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT:
Roee'Pd— Dn!cprn .:
LD. NC_ BadnAByPmto Swale OuLIeC Two(2)15'Pbe
DESIGN BY: JTR
PROJECT NO.:
041.07.018
FILE
CHECKED BY: EST
DESCRIPTION:
Conduit Outlet Protection
LOCATION: Town of Surf City, Ponder County, NC
r
25
20
to
15
'
Z
10
a
5
0
Rip Rap Zone Delineation
0 5 10 15 20 25
Do, Depth of Flow (ft.)
Ndow 1. Use neA HAW.. for arad.-10%.
2. For pipe arch, arch, ba cL&K paved d—I outlet, uae D0=Croa3 aectonal area of outlet few.
Number of Culverts: 1
Design Velocity, Vd : L93 Lw
Flow, 0: 11.53 CIS
Pipe Diameter, Do: 2.000 R
Slope, spa = 0.0083 not
Using NCDOT Rip Rap Apron Design:
Use: Zone 2
L,: 6 ft.
L2: 12 ft.
W: 6.0 ft.
W: 6.8 ft.
CLASS W RIP RAP
USE MINIMUM 1V' STONE THICKNESS
TOTAL STONE VOLUME= 54.0 ft"
122.4 ft
■ Design Pant
`Based upon L,
'Based upon L2
MINIMUM
CLASS
LI
STONE
NCDOT RIP
OF
Coefllcler6
L4COefficlard
THICKNESS
RAP CLASS
STONE
irt.
F42"
'A'FINE
9
4
12
'
UGHT
3
6
1
1B'
MEDIUM
4
6
24
1
HEAVY
4
8
36
2
HEAVY
1036
2
HEAVY
5
10
D-m is
nd1h. Scoce
dThle Metlod
L1=LeniOlo Protect Culvert
L2 =L.0to Prevent Scour Hole
NAME I WEIGHT SIZE
SPECIFICATIONS
91
RIP
-RAP
CLASS 1
5-200
30% SHALL WEIGH AT LEAST60 LBS. EACH.
NO MORE THAN 10%SHALL WEIGH LESS
THAN 15 LB9. EACH
CLASS 2
25-250
60% SHALL WEIGH AT LEAST60 LBS. EACH.
NO MORE THAN 5% SHALL WEIGH LESS
THAN 5o LBS. EACH
El
CONTROL
CLASSA
2-0'
1 10% TOP R BOTTOM SIZES.
NO GRADATION SPECIFIED
CLASS B
I
5.15
NO GRADATION SPECIFIED

RIP RAP APRON DESIGN SHEET
DATE: Augut 27.2007 02:15 PM SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT: Royal Palma Development LD. NO.: Yard Inlettc Swale B Outlet 15' Poe DESIGN BY: _ _ JTR
PROJECT NO.: 041.07.016 FILE CHECKED BY: EST
DESCRIPTION: Conduit Outlet Protection LOCATION: Torn of Sud Con Pander Courxy, NC
25
20
ZUF
15
O
10
4i
0
Rip Rap Zone Delineation
0 5 10 15 20 25
Do, Depth of Flow (ft.)
Notes: 1. U. ne#Nghe ..ibr wades.10%.
2. Far PIPe arch. arch, box mkoM Paved channel oukt% use D0=C o sac5onel area of aLdetfim.
Number of Culverts: I
Design Velocity, Vd : 3.81 f is
Flow, Q : 2.38 cfs
Pipe Diameter, Dp: 1.25011,
Slope, sep,e = 0.0025 fUIL
Using NCDOT Rip Rap Apron Design:
Use: Zone I
LI. 3.75 ft.
L2: 5 ft.
W: 6.0 ft.
W: 6.0 ft.
CLASS'A RIP RAP
USE MINIMUM 12" STONE THICKNESS
TOTAL STONE VOLUME= 22.5 ft"
30.0 ft3
■ Design Point
'Based upon L1
'Based upon L2
MINIMUM
CLASS
L7
STONE
NCDOT RIP
OF
C....I.
Lt COefficie
THICKNESS
ZONE
RAP CLASS
STONE
ILl
.)
In.
1
'A'
FINE
3
4
12
2
.1
LIGHT
3
8
18
9
1
MEDIUM
4
8
24
4
1
HEAVY
4
1
38
5
2
HEAVY
5
10
38
8
2
HEAVY
5
10
38
7
D
tlb S.,
OHM. Method
L7 to Protect Cukat
L2 �anpth to PrevaM Scow Hob
NAME WEIGHT SIZE
SPECIFICATIONS
'L S
RIP
-RAP
5-200
309i 9HALL WEIGH AT LEAST30 LBS. EACH.
NO MORETH N 10%SRALLWEIGH LESS
4CL-ASS
THAN15 _S. EACH
25-250
80%SHALLWE- AT LEAST80 LEIS. EACH.
NO MORE THAN 5%SHALL WEIGH LESS
THAN W LBS EACH
OSION
CONT OL
CLASS
24'
10%TOPBBOTTOMsIZES.
NO GRADATION SPECIFIED
CLASS B
15300
5-15'
NO GRADATION SPECIFIED

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

Jul 03 07 02:13p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.2
LMG
LAN1? MANAGEMENT GROUP imr
Environmento! Consultants
Alvin Batts June 19, 2007
P.O. Box 2294
Surf City, NC 28445
Reference.- Stormwater infiitration study for the Batts Lot 99 Tract near Surf City, NC.
Dear Mr. Batts:
On Thursday, June 10 2W7, nand Management Group, Inc. had the pleasure of
evaluating the proposed stormwater infiltration areas at the Batts Lot 99 Tract. The
purpose of the evaluation was to describe the soil profile, quantify the depth to the
seasonal high water table, using 7 foot soil auger borings, and to inform the project
engineer of any potential limitations of this project. Actual hydraulic conductivity
measurements were not taken. Therefore, my report will focus on estimated rates.
The soils at this site are mapped as Alpin soil series soils in the Soil Survey of
Pender County (USDA, 1990). Actual soil borings confirm the soil to be Pactolus Series
in borings 1-3 shown in Appendix A, the locations of the borings are shown in Appendix
C. The soil can best be described. Fs deep sands that formed in a series of depositional
events. It is expected that these soils will have high infiltration rate in excess of 6-8 inthr.
The seasonal high, water table is normally evident by observation of redoxitnorphic
features suggesting past conditions of saturation and reduction. There is evidence of
redoximorphic features as shallow as 29" within one of the test borings of the proposed
infiltration areas. In the other borings within the infiltration areas, the seasonal high
water table was from 32" to 41" across the proposed test areas (see complete boring notes
in Appendix A). Physical water was noted as shallow as 63" in two of the borings and
71" in the other. All recorded depths are from the existing surface as noted in the soil
profile descriptions. The official published description and physical and chemical data
for the Pactolus soil series are shown in Appendix B for comparison.
In samnmary, LMG has performed site specific evaluation within the. stormwater
infiltration area. This area has sods that have a seasonal high water table that are 29" iu
boring 2 the other areas that have seasonal high water tables from 3211in boring 1 to 41"
in boring 3 from the soil surface and an i�0tration rate of up to 8" per hour. All notes
www.lmgroup.net [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] a Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 a P.Q. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

Jul 03 07 02:13p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.3
€or installation and limitations to proposed basin areas are mentioned in Appendix A, as
per NC DENR representative. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions with this report. I maybe reached_ at 910-452-0001, 910-.471-OSOS or at
nhowell@a lxngroup-net .
Sincerely,
Nick Howell
Environmental Scientist

Jul 03 07 02:070 Land Management Group Inc S104520060 p,3
Appendix A
Detailed Profile Descriptions

Jul 03 07 02:07p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.4
Baits Lot 99
Detailed Soil Profile Descriptions
Mole 1 Foot Slope 0-1%
A— 0-8" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 10YR 3/l
E -- 8-16" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 512.
Bw—16-23" Fine Sand weak medium subangular blocky, very friable non sticky non
plastic, 'IORY 3/4.
C — 23-32" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 5/4.
Cg -- 32-72" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 7/2 with 2.5Y
516 mottles.
Ab -- 72-75" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g — 75-84+ Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non. plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
Physical Water: 63" 6-14-07
SHWT: 32" .
Hole 2 Foot Slope 0-1%
A -- 0-4" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic,1 OYR 3/1.
E — 4-12" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 5/2.
Bw —12 Zl" Fine Sand weak medium subangular blocky, very friable non sticky non
plastic, 1 ORY 3/4.
C — 21-29" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 514.
- Cg.- 29-53"Fine Sand.single grafiW,_loose,non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 7/2.with 2.5Y... .
516 mottles.
Ab — 53-63" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 411.
C'g -- 63-8,V"+ Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 23 Y 6/2.
Physical Water: 63" 6-14-07
SHWT: 29"
Hole 3 Foot Slope 1-2%
A -- 0-9" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 10YR 3/1.
C1— 9-17" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non stinky non plastic, 2.5Y 5/4.
C2-17-34" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 23Y 7/3.
C3 — 34-41" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 10YR 5/4 with
10YR 3/6 mottles.
Cg — 41-56" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 612 with 10YR
3/6 mottles.
Ab — 56-65" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g — 65-8459 Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 1 OYR
3/1 mottles.
Physical Water: 71" 6-14-07
SHWT: 41"

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.5
Appendix B
Published Description and Chemical and Physical
Properties of the Pactolus Soil Series

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.6
ficial Series Description - PACTOLUS Sees hftpz//www2.fLw.nms.usda.gov/osd(dat/P/PACTOLUSIn
LOCATION PACTOLUS NC+AL FL SC VA
Established Series
Rev. GH-PLT
05/2004
_PA CTOLT_TS SERIES
Ml_RA(s):133A,153A
1V1LRA Office Responsible: Raleigh, North Carolina
Depth Class: Very deep
Drainage Class: Moderately well to somewhat poorly drained
Permeability: Rapid
Surface Runoff Slow
Parent Material: Sandy fluvial and marine sediments
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Mean Annual Air Temperature (type location): 63 degrees P.
Mean Annual Precipitation (type location): 48 inches
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Thermic, coated Aquie Quartzipsamments
TYPICAL PEDON: PacWlus loamy sand —cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 8 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loamy sand, weak fine granular structure; very friable;
common fine roots; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary. (5 to 14 inches thick)
C1--8 to 15 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) loamy sand; single grained; very friable; few f=
roots; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary. (4 to $ inches thick)
C2--15 to 25 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) loamy sand; single grained; very friable; few fine roots;
very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (8 to 12 inches thick)
C3--25 to 40 inches; light yellowish brown (1 OYR 6/4) loamy sand; common medium distinct light gray
(10YR 7/1) iron depletions; single grained; very friable; few fine roots; strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary. (10 to 20 inches thick)
Cg--40 to 80 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) loamy sand; common medium distinct brownish yellow
(10'YR 616) soft masses of iron accumulation; single grained; very friable; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCA T iOr : Pitt County, North Carolina; about 4 miles north of Chimesland on SR 1566, 350
feet north of intersection SR 1564: 80 feet northeast of barn, 10 feet east of path.
RANGE'IN CV1A ,&CTER "1w1CS:
Thickness of sandy horizons: 80 inches or more. The 10 to 40 inch control section contains 10 to 25
percent fines
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 80 inches
Depth to Seasopal Nigh Water Table: 18 to 36 inches, December to April
Soil Reaction: extremely acid to strongly acid except where the surface has been limed

Jul 03 07 02.08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.7
!pJal Series Description - PACTOLUS Series htlpJ/www2.$.w.nres.usda.gov/osd/datlP/PACTOLUS.h-
A or Ap horizon:
Color --hue of 1 OYR or 2.5Y, value of 3 through 6, and chroma of 1 to 4
Texture --loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sand, or fine sand
C horizon (upper part):
Colorhue of i OYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and cbxoma of 3 through 8
Texftuv--sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand
C horizon (lower part):
Colorl OYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of 3 or 4
Texture --sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand
Redoximorphic features --iron depletions with chroma. of 2 or less may occur -in some pedons within a
depth of 20 inches. Iron masses in shades of yellow, brown, or red are found in some pedons.
The upper part of the C horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 through 8. The
lower paat of the C horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of 3 or 4. Iron
depletions in shades of gray are at depths of less than 40 inches, and may occur within a depth of 20
inches. The lower C horizon in some pedons is mottled with redoximorphic features in shades of gray,
yellow, brown, or red. Clean sand grains are in the lower part of the C horizon in most pedons. Texture is
sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand.
The Cg horizon, where present, has hue of 1 OYR or 2.5Y , value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2. Soft
masses of iron accumulation in shades of red, yellow, or brown range from none to many. Texture is the
same as for the C horizon.
COMPETING SERIES: ---- --
Chiuley soils --somewhat poorly drained. soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches)with 5 to 10
percent silt plus clay in the 10 to 20 inch control section
Kawah soils --somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches) with 5 to 10
percent silt plus clay in the 10 to 20 inch control section
Lotus soils -moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches)
with buried A horizons within a. depth of 40 inches
GEOGRAPMC SETTING:
Landscape: Coastal Plain
Landform: Stream an marine terraces
Elevation: 25 to 120 feet above mean sea level
Parent Material: Loamy and sandy fluvial sediments and marine sediments
Mean Annual Air Temperature: 59 to 70 degrees
Mean Annual Precipitation_ 38 to 60 inches
Frosf Free Period: 210 to 270 days
GEOGRAPIRCALLY ASSOCIATED SAILS:
Alm soils --somewhat excessively drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 60 inches)with a
minimum of 10 percent silt plus clay in the control section
Kenansville soils --well drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 48 inches) in loamy particle
size class on slightly higher landscapes
Latonia soils --well drained soils in coarse -loamy family on slightly higher landscapes
Osier soils --poorly drained soils (seasonal bigh water within 12 inches of the surface for 3 to 6 months in
omit years) on lower parts of the landscapes

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.8
Mal Series Description - PACTQLUS Series btip:/lwww2.flw.pros.usda.gov/osd/daY/P/PACTOLUS.ht
Troup sails --somewhat excessively drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 60 inches) in
loamy particle size class on higher landscapes
Wasoils-well drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 72 inches) with loamy particle
size class on higher landscapes
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY:
Agricultural Drainage Class: Moderately well to somewhat poorly drained
Permeability: Rapid
USE AND VEGETATION;
Major Uses: Mostly cultivated
Dominant Vegetation: Where cultivated --corn, soybeans, peanuts, improved pasture grasses, tobacco, and
truck crops. Where wooded loblolly pine, longleaf pine, sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, water oak,
willow oak, and black cherry, gallberry, inkberry, blueberry, huckleberry, greenbrier, sassafras, and switch
cane.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Distribution: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia
Exterrt: Moderate
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Pitt County, North Carolina; 1969.
REMARKS: This series was previously included in the Klej series, but Klej is in a mesic family.
Di .... ostic hoiizons and features reco - , _ fi the ' real' edon are:
� >d � .. tYP� P
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of 8 inches (Ap horizon)
Aquic conditions - redoximorphic features beginning in the zone between 25 and 40 inches (C3 horizon),
and also present in the Cg horizon at 40 to 80 inches.
ADDITIONAL DATA:
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
sol-5 soil Name Slope Airtemp Frrr/Seas Precip Elevation
NCO066 PACTOLUS 0- 5 59- 70 210-•270 38-- 60 25- 120
S01-5 FloodL F1oodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
NCO066 NONE RARE 1.5-3.0 APPARENT DEC -APR 60-60
SaT�5 Depth Texture
NC0066 0-40 LS LFS S
NC0066 40-80 S LS LFS
3-Inch No-10 Clay% . -CEC-
0- 0 100-100 2-12 1-- 3
0- 0 100-100 2-12 0- 2
S0I-5 Depth -PH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
NCO066 0-40 3.5- 5.5 .5-2. 0- 0 6.0-- 20 LOW
NC0066 40-80 3.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 6.0- 20 LOW
National Cooperative Soil Survey

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.9
1cial Series Description - PACTOLUS Series hilp:!/www2.iiwmw.usda.govlosdldat/P/PACTOLUS.h--
U.S.A.

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.10
Appeal C
Test Area Map

Jul 03 07 02:08p
Land Management Group Inc 9104520060
Batts Lot 99 Tract
Storm Water Evaluation
Test Area Map
June 19, 2007
�d p
**Map Provided By Others"
**Map Not To Scale"

WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION ATTACHMENT
Any changes made to this form will result in the application being returned.
(THIS FORMMAY BE PHOTOCOPIED FOR USEASAMORIGINAL)
INSTRUCTIONS:
To determine the classification of the watershed(s) in whfch the subject project will be located, you are required to
submit this form, with Items 1 through 8 completed, to the appropriate Division of Water Quality Regional Office
Water Quality Supervisor (see Page 2 of 2) prior to submittal of the application for review. At a minimum, you must
include an 8.5" by 11" copy of the portion of a TS-minute USGS Topographic Map that shows the surface waters
immediately downslope of the project. You must identify the location of the project and the closest downslope
surface waters (waters for which you are requesting the classification) on the submitted map copy. If the facility is
located in the Neuse River Basin, also include a copy of the soil survey map for the project location. The
corresponding non -discharge application may not be submitted until this form is completed by the appropriate
regional office and included with the submittal.
1. ApplicauVs name (name of the municipality, corporation, individual, etc.): Alvin Batts
2. Name and complete address of applicant: Alvin Batts, P.O. Box 2294
City: Surf City State: NC Zip: 28445
Telephone number: 910-279-6739 Facsimile number: 910-3414657
3. Project name (name of the subdivision, facility or establishment, etc.): Royal Palms Develoament
4. County where project is located: Pender
5. Name(s) of closest surface waters: _ To saw it Sound and Becicvs Creek
6. River basin(s) in which the project is located: Cape Fear River Basin
7. Topographic map name and date: Holly Ridge. NC Quadrangle
8. North Carolina Professional Engineer's seal, signature, and date:
TO: REGIONAL OFFICE WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR
Please provide me with the classification(s) of the surface waters, watershed(s), and appropriate river basin(s) where
these activities will occur, as identified on the attached map segment:
Name(s) of surface waters and river basin(s): TOP-0 1 aAf a*' 9 Y 8ezkx1 CeeeIC I (Or A e Aof glove
Classification(s) (as established by the EMC): .Sly'' a 942 4/
Proposed cIassification(s), if applicable:
River basin buffer rules, if applicable:
Signature of regional office personnel:
FORM: WSOA 10/99 Page 1 of 2

SITE LOCATION MAP
Royal Palm Development
Stormwater Management High Density Permit Application

"All,N W. . ,
14
,
r
{
Ff -
_ 4
vvaters Bay
�
�� .y.. a ,� !`` Y F4. f�� � +,,f�, '. • �
l �' " •
#o
8
' UrIC{l
uk5 fogI
6?14Ca 26 Ij T"�IG[a,bee
'26'S6.47" r'a 77r"33`a5.71" `W elcv;x*��Tit' - t ca' ins E1j1ail161 100 E'R all. 165a a ft -

DRAINAGE AREA MAPS
Royal Palm Development
Siormwater Management High Density Permit Application

s,w
a
�'- c � ti by T, - �� c"�. - c1' � �� ��• _ �� �l7- �j'1 - � _ - -
As
_ ■ la
_. r-tl ram �0 �»� �� �
>A � Iris � ' � r�■ � � i � - � __ � � � �% or_ � 1\ a1
;\ i�o- ■■■¢- •_'C�. -_ -i�c--ate -i�1--ate -i �. nor a- IAI�I ram. .::.:a, a�--lYd?$1 =--'68�r- s•� -:--f�-1■lD�1 a��_--iaAd#r ��--iris: a� -=.�4r 7�--763Ser
..1,�-�..,r.a:...,�r,n..r:.�„rn...,.,,_:..�a�_:-a.�..=.<..rar.--u.---r..�-ti,r..s...._.r..,..z,...:..ti. � �1...� - 3�r11 1Ta+•..
saraso���ans� rn�-- ._ ,��w.aci��—��r�_ �aae�r�■�� -''_`.."����oan���s_�val��sue.
I:
—
.Fw ,.t n -'-t Jli -.15Vr r.l F.iJ t .Yr..Yw K. :'1•': i.� � i+'. r:�a ..�a1ll']x��.v Y:.T =— ,� . _-��i'w.�1�-�VAl�ri-
..t ■li$6■ s.' �.uv�■ mI 1 f = 1 f '_`^°" = 1 ■ ■ /.i ■ '- �� 1 f =�■ .` mw 1 =,� --itf�f;r�W, ■� y ■-...,.,= 3
�i+ �8� �z,._ � �� - -. r- ii�!$ S�bt'� 73i7■n - � �Sa � GIAf a --
am ■:�+' �.�;.�■�At,� � s , - i� - ._-a � - ■ a
— — M "lot
13111
p
NOTE: INFIL7RA7WN BASIN WILLONLY
TREAT SMRMWATER FROM ROAD.
VALLEY CURB. MEN" AND
DRIVEMAY. SW"k7ER ON LOU M I!
BE 7REA7m ON AN NIDIVBIUAL LOT
BA9S

W
CL
0
W�
o
I
I
a
Q
2
r air Na 1

r..Ser A�ity en tlp ACPA AprYge-N [. SOP $a.
ROYAL PALM DEVELOPMENT CORP.
744 COCKLE $T.
HOLLY RIDGE, NC 28W .
PAY r
ORDER OF
2947
BB-IVM Nc
DATE ��"' 7M
BankofAnerica
e
mm, Wro53MIN
FOR

OF W aT�9
0�
Date: 17 = a
Project Name: me: ,�G �� L/4
Project Nor�5110 8e ZeJX 3 County: D
The Wilmington Regional Office of.the Division of Water Quality received
your Stormwater Permit Application 6 $505 fee on 9' 30 ' 477
Your project will be reviewed within 75 days of receipt & you will be notified
if additional information is needed. Please be advised that the construction
of built -upon area may not commence until the Stormwater Permit is issued.
If you have any questions, please contact gny member of the 5tormwater
review staff in the Wilmington Regional Office at [phone].
Jo Casmer
Administrative Assistant

FILE
The attorney preparing this instrument has made
no record search or title exami��ip�lW P 2.. 4 n
property herein described, unleg tjl 9s�nfb i !'1 [. J
shown by his written and signed certifiante.
JOYCE H. SWICEGOOD
REGISTER OF AEEOS
PEHOER COUNTY, NC
BKI486PGO44
f��5''�-� •� �� i i,.'i � 'fie".!�
is .:tF Y:� • ; - �..
Hook and
Tax Lot NO. Marcel Identifier No. e
verif Led Hy County on the day of , 199
Return to closing attorneys
flail after recording toe
This instrument prepared by Biberstein & Nunales, Attorneys at Law,
P. 0. Boat 428, Burgaw, Ne 28425.
Brief Description for the index Late 10, 37 and 88 J.B. Batta heirs, Lot 11 Little
Kinston and 10.8 acres
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY :DEED
THIS DEED made this day of March, 1999.,__by and betweent
James Bryan Batts, Jr. and wife,
Wanda H. Batts, Kenneth Devon
Batts and wife, Diane Batts,
Robert Glenn Batts and wife,
Kathryn Batts and
Bessie Has Batts (widow)
r ,
Aldrich Alvin Batts
�o9oa t�• lotS�n� L.
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSLTH, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the
Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents
does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that
certain l9t or parcel of land situated in Topsail Township, Pender County, North
Carolina and more particularly described as followas
Tract ones I
BRING all of Lots ,..�• 37' nd 88 according to a map dated December
11, 1964, showing the arty of the heirs of J.H.-Batts, deceased,
prepared by Roscoe Sandlin. Registered Surveyor, and duly re oc rded

--BK1486PGQ45
in MgLp Book 9 at Page,53 of the Ponder County Registry, reference to
whic erMy- maae-fUr-% more particular description.
Tract Twat
Being all of Lot Eleven (11) of Little Kinston as shown by map
prepared by Roscoe Sandlin, R.S. December 11, 1964
Being the same property con -eyed to J.B. Batts by deed recorded in
Book 468, Page 92 of the Ponder County Registry.
� w:
Beginning at a P.K.. Nail in the centerline of NCSR 1612. Said P.K.
nail being located on the division line of Lots 99 and 100, as shown
on a map entitled "A Division of J.H. Batts", said map being
recorded in Map Book 9, Page 53, in the Ponder County Register of
Deeds Office. From the above described beginning so located running
thence an follows: With the division line of Lots 99 and 100 North
22 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 1435.30 feet to an iron pipe;
thence North 65 degrees 02 minutes 30 seconds East 330.03 feet to an
iron pipe; thence with the division line of Lots 99 and 98 South 22
degrees 00 minutes 00 s000nds Sant 1408.96 feet to the centerline of
NCSR 1.6121 thence with said centerline South 60 degrees 30 minutes
00 seconds West 332.43 feet to the point of beginning, containing
10.8 acres, more or less.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges
and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the
premises in fee'simple, has the right to convey the same in fea simple,
€:hat title is amrketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that
Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all
persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following
exceptions:
1. Restrictions of recorded.
2. Ad valorem taxes for the year 1999.
3. Routine utility easements and highway rights of way.
IN WITEESS WHSRSOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal,
or if corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed in its corporate
name by its duly authorised officers and its seal to be hereunto affixed
by authority of its Board of Directors, the day and year first above
written.
qn±=J=qa 1% (SEAL)
James BrIaTI Batts, Jr.
X - 9. (SEAL)
Wanda H. Batts
a/d7Tx)
Kenneth Devon Batts
anp Batts
North Carolina General Warranty Deed prepared by sibesstein a Nunalee, page 2 of 4
Attorneys at Law

OKI486PGO46
(SZAAL )
Bess a Mae Batts
STATE OF N TH AROLINA
COUNTY OF •Pn^4t r�
I e r=?c.,��.e a Notary Public in and for the
,,000%id County and State, do hereby certify that James Bryan Batts, Jr.
1641. Batts personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
��„�' • ••* 'Pie dB i�ution of the foregoing instrument. 341L-e—
�, , �"• era my hand and notarial seal this th day of -Mauch, 1999.
�L�•� ,��.)6tary Public
V a p
Expireffl s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF Q f 9j 6U1J
r
I: C11TAIrl lrLdalnaa &"-1-41 a Notary Public in and for the
aforesaid County and State, do hereby certify that 4.
Diane Batts. personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the
due execution of the foregoing instrument. ,
Witness my hand and notarial seal this the day of March, 1999.
4taary
public a960695+61,
My Commission Expires: i �.*`.••'•°••°"''•.�
4
a sQ
�S 'CA
Y LO • r����
d 3
i
STATE
COUNT
OF NO CA LIMA S eo °�•(� •
a
I, k �• L[efA,/p a Notary Public in and for the
aid County and State, do hereby certify that Robert Glenn Batts and
6. Batts personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the
:4utian of the foregoing instrument. :4v--C`
Witness my hand and notarial sealhj.s the &ik day of h, 1999.
V / /
i U y4
tary Pubic
_s4
Nortli'U rolina seneral Warranty Deed prepared by Biberstein a Nunalee, Page 3 of 4
Attorneys at Law

1UK
1v1486PG047
My Commission Expires:
f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PENDRR /
I, • �ii{/IQdt.IP.� a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid
County anc State, do hereby certify that BESSIE MAE BATTS personally appeared
before 'ate this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing
instrument.
Witness my hand and notarial seal this the',6 day of h, 1999.
'4yt 21(rP•e.r••r.•o•��/ �r��
my Commission Expires: l °.G�
od�� 0"
o .°
y � F
Pal C L 6�' �V • .�•
El
el=0 4et. e
r e �i • e
� Y rry
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ter'+�� °aoOs.oaa•jeaao° �Ay4�~
COUNTY OF FENDER �_ „�,�.� K. a��, Cou%-���'°r
I, ��e•�I a Notary Public in and forft��011°faxeeaid
County and State, do hereby certify that KESNNETH DMMN BATTS personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing
instrument.
Witness my hand and notarial seal this
My Commission Expires: ay
Ji I9--L.
day of .Htaroh, 1999.
� � `•.M.�••bp Y„$V -yam
ore
nr ��W7' ���• �b � w
a eau � Rw:..• o .
° •fUUYii O �
s
� � 00'�O •Yl� �0 V �
the foregoing certificate of,QA2Aa4 01
LC�
Notary Public, is certified to be correct. This ins tratmt and this certificate are duly registered
at the date and time and in the Book and page shout on the first page hereof.
JOYCE NL SWIFROOD
Pander County �y j� meter o
mada
Deputy/Aveietwxt
marth eamlina General Warranty Deed prepared ,by Biherstein & Nunaies,
Attorneys at Law
Page 4 of 4

G/'
CAVANAUGH
RINV EIVE D Solutions through integrity and partnership
JUL 171007
July 25, 2007 VIA Email
Mr. Vincent Lewis
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28409 '
Project Name: Royal Palms Development
Dear Mr. Lewis,
Pursuant to our on -site season high water table testing on July 24, 2007, enclosed with this
correspondence please find the following items for confirmation of the Infiltration System
Investigation at Royal Palms Development located in Surf City in Pender County.
Enclosed please find the following plans:
1. One (1) copy of a'Stormwater Infiltration Study' which includes the geo-technical site
information.
2. One (1) copy of a completed DWQ Infiltration System Investigation Application and
associated Site Vicinity Map.
3. One 0) copy of a Preliminary Drainage Area Map identifying the location of treatment
areas by way of numbers.
Based on the discussion we had in the field, the seasonal high water table at the lowest site
elevation of approximately 16.25' is at 29" below the surface. Our proposed bottom elevation of
our infiltration basin is at elevation 16'. The 29" will give a separation between the SHWT and the
bottom of the infiltration basin of 26".
Sincerely,
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Jason T. Rupert, E.I.
cc: Alvin Batts

JUI; 05-2007 THU 02 ; 24 PH NCDENR FAX NO. 9103502004 P. 02
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATION
Complete and email this form to V1ncent.tewis@ncma11,net if there are more them 7 areas to be tested,
atfach a second street,
Scheduled Site Visit Date and Time. 7/2 '/07 �r'r� A-wl.
Project Name: a/,Vs Dint/ County: ?en,,1er
Street Address: Lor `l?d.
Directions
//from the nearest Intarsection of two major roads:
7t'6" L(� - / 7 /( �r{�i 7'`' ew Z&-gr' eAms, e-21,9 ZC-,/r
>1 acre being disturbed? EYES ONO CAMA Major required' []YES 096
Consultant Name: rr,'c `nine-ninePhone: Ao) 39_Z- 2ylceg
Consultant Firm Name:
y --95? 511f-
Bore Number
1
2
4
5
6
7
a EAsEng Ground Elevation
'
/ '
6'
'
S
o'
b Proposed Bottom Elevation
t a
c Subtract a -- b
5'
d Add 2 ft. Min. Bore Depth)
e Hardpan Depth?
, ' '
w"
,
>$y"
Infiltration Rate 00
Actual Elea. Of SHWT
hMax. lowest bottom elev.
a '
r
-ArU4 c, e twire lost u-wr A- 4i, 7,
on 1U 4f
Required Attachments:
1. Legible vicinity map.
2. Compete Soils Report.
3, PDI= formatted site plan with the boring locations to be tested. Site plans should
be emailed or hand -delivered only, Illegible faxed maps will not be accepted. ✓
All proposed infiltration areas and existing, active utility lines located Wthin the proposed
basin4renoh must be marked and flagged. if these areas are not flagged, the Soils Soientist
resettles the right to decline to do the investigation. if the proposed Infiltration system W71 be
located Ira an area of existing pavement and there is no open area nearby, equipment capable of
breaking through the Impervious layer must be provided The soils Investigation does not take
the place of a soils report prepared by an appropriate professional. The Soils Scientist veil only
verify the soil conditions that ara reported in the Soils Report, and make a determination as to
the sufabflity of the situ to rmat the Infiltration design requirements under NCAC 2! l.1000, and
assumes no liability should the system fail.
S:IWQSISTORMINATERiFORMSIinfllfration site vfslt.for
coo

PRELIMINARYDRAINAGE
AREA MAP

ORAgjAaE MU BOUNDARY
v
4 i
�
I~' _ � � -ice �� 1 /I ! 1 } �' 1�• .
IA / 1
I Ii09� ipiFpSRA710.': @A8J! 91!L. ONLY
1NEA4 B;OIBIiWAYER fR�i RQA4
VN1EY CIN{B. SIOEMIALI4 ANA
1REA� IWU1 pDriIDUAti LOi
BASIS.
ram+
Q
6i
y
i
Z
w
t a
I t
�
�
1 a
4
a
� � O
t
SHW *AMR

VICINITY MAP

SOILS REPORT

Jul 03 07 02:13p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.2
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP imr_
Environmental Consultants
June 19, 2007
Alvin Batts
P.O. Box 2294
Surf City, NC 28445
Reference: Stormwater fiffiltration study for the Batts Lot 99 Tract near Surf City, NC.
Dear Mr. Batts:
On Thursday, June 14n' 2007, Land Management Group, Inc. had the pleasure of
evaluating the proposed stonmwater infiltration areas at the Batts Lot 99 Tract. The
purpose of the evaluation was to describe the soil profile, quantify the depth to the
seasonal high water table, using 7 fool soil auger borings, and to inform the project
engineer of any potential limitations of this project. Actual hydraulic conductivity
measurements were not taken. Therefore, my report will focus on estimated rates.
The soils at this site are mapped as Alpin soil series soils in the Soil Survey of
Pender County (TJSDA, 1990). Actual soil borings confirm the soil to be Pactolus Series
in borings 1-3 shown in Appendix A, -the locations of the borings are shown in Appendix
C. The soil can best be described. as deep sands that formed in a series of depositional
events. it is expected that these soils will have high infiltration rate in excess of 6-8 in/hr.
The seasonal high water table is normally evident by observation of redoximorphic
features suggesting past conditions of satQration and reduction. There is evidence of
redoximorphic features as shallow as 29" within one of the test borings of the proposed
infiltration areas. In the other borings within the infiltration areas, the seasonal high
water table was from 32" to 41" across the proposed test areas (see complete boring notes
in Appendix A). Physical water was noted as shallow as 63" in two of the borings and
71" in the other. All recorded depths are from the existing surface as rioted in the soil
profile descriptions_ The official published description and physical and ciernieal data
for the Pactolus soil series are shown in Appendix B for comparison.
In summary, LMG has performed site specific evaluation within the stormwater
infiltration area. This area has soils that have a seasonal high water table that are 291, in
boring 2 the other areas that have seasonal high water tables from 32"in boring 1 to 41"
in boring 3 from the soil surface and an infiltration rate of up to 8" per hour. All notes
www.lmgroup.net [e-mail] o Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 = P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NO 28402

Jul 63 07 02:13p Land Management Group Inc 810452DOSO p.3
for installation and limitations to proposed basin areas are mentioned in Appendix A, as
per NC AENR. representative. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions -vdth this report. r may be reached at 910-452-0001, 91---0-471-0505 or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely, /-
Nick Howell
Environmental Scientist
3

J,ul 03 07 02:07p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.3
Appendix A
Detailed Profile Deseriptions

Jul 03 07 02:07p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.4
Batts Lot 99
Detailed Soil Profile Descriptions
Hole 1 Foot Slope 0-1%
A — 0-8" Fime Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 3/1.
E — 5-16" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 5/2.
Bw—16`23" Fine Sand weak medium subangular blocky, very friable non sticky non
plastic, IOXY 3/4.
C — 23-32" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.M 5/4.
Cg — 32-72" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 7/2 with 23Y
5/6 mottles.
Ab — 72-75" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g -- 75-84"+ Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
Physical Water: 63" 6-14-07
SHWT: 32"
Hole 2 Foot Slope 0-1%
A — 04" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic,1 OYR 3/1.
E — 4-12" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 5/2.
Bw —12 21" Fine Sand weak medium subangular blocky, very friable non sticky non
plastic,lOAY 3/4.
C — 21-29" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 5/4.
Cg�-29-53'-'-Fine Saud -single grained, -loose non. sticky non plastic, 2.5Y_7/2.with 2.5Y
516 mottles.
Ab — 53-63" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g — 63-84"+ Fine Sand, single grained, loose nor sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
Physical Wafter: 63" 6-14-07
SHWT: 29"
Hole 3 Foot Slope 1-2%
A — 0-9" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic,. IOYR 311.
C1— 9-17" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 5/4.
C2—17-34" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 7/3.
C3 — 34-41" Fine- Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 10YR 5/4 with
1 OYR 3/6 mottles.
Cg — 41-56" Fine Sand, single grained, loose son sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 10YR
3/6 mottles.
Ab -- 56-65" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g — 65-84" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 23Y 5/2 with 10YR
311 mottles.
Physical Water: 71" 6-14-07
SHVM 41"

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.5
Appendix B
Published Description and Chemical and Physical
Properties of the Pactelus Soil Series

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104580060 p.6
ff"iaial Series Description - PACTOLUS Series htlp:/lwww2.ftw.nres.usda.gov/osdldat(P/PACTOLUS.fu
LOCATION PACTOLQS NC+AL FL SC VA
Established Series
Rev. GH-PLT
05/2004
A CTOLUS SERIES
M 1XWL
MLRA(s):133A,153A
MLRA Office Responsible: Raleigh, North Carolina
Depth Class: 'Very deep
Drainage Class: Moderately well to somewhat poorly drained
Permeability: Rapid
Surface Runoff: Slow
Parent Material: Sandy fluvial and marine sediments
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Mean Annual Air Temperature (type location): 63 degrees F.
Mean Annual Precipitation (type location): 48 inches
TAXONOAHC CLASS: Thermic, coated Aquic Quartzipsamments
TYPICAL PEDON: Pactolus loamy sand --cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated)
Apr-0 to 8 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very friable;
common fine moots; moderately acid.; clear wavy boundary. (5 to 14 inches thick)
Cx--8 to 15 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 614) loamy sand; single grained; very friable; few fin
mots; amo&rately s i& clew wavy boundary. (4 to $ inches buck)
C2-4 5 to 25 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 616) .loamy sand; single grained; very friable; few fine roots;
very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (8 to 12 inches thick)
C3--25 to 40 inches; light yellowish brown (I OYR 6/4) loamy sand; common medium distinct light gray
(10YR 7/1) iron depletions; single grained; very friable; few fine roots; strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary. (10 to 20 inches thick)
Cg-40 to 80 inches; light gray (1 OYR 7/1) loamy sand; common medium distinct brownish yellow
(I OYR 6/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; single grained; very friable; very strongly acid.
1'Y`-'i E LOCATION: Pitt County, North Carolina; about 4 miles north of GAmesland on SR 1566, 350
feet north of intersection SR 1564; 80 feet northeast of barn, 10 feet east of path.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS-.
Thickness of sandy horizons: 80 inches or more. The 10 to 40 inch control section contains 10 to 25
percent fines
Depth to Bedrock: {treater than 80 inches
Depth to Seasonal High'61V'ater Table:18 to 36 inches, December to Apr;;
Soil Reaction: extremely acid to strongly acid except whom the surface has been limed
I.. rtMAA.'! A_nh Y

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.7
Fficial Series Description - PACTOLUS Series hap://www2Aw nres_Usda.gov/osd/dWP/PACTOLUS.h
A or Ap horizon:
Color --hue of 1 OYR or 2.5Y, value of 3 through 6, and chroma of l to 4
Texture --loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sand, or fine sand
C horizon (upper part):
Colorhue of I OYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 through 8
Texture -wand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand
C horizon (lower part):
Colorl QYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, and cbroma of 3 or 4
Texture --sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand
Redoximorphic features --iron depletions with chroma of 2 or less may occur in some pedons within a
depth of 20 inches. Iron masses in shades of yellow, brown, or red are found in some pedons.
The upper part of the C horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 through 8. The
lower part of the C horizon has hue of 10"YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chrome of 3 or 4. Iron
depletions in shades of gray are at depths of less than 40 inches, and may occur within a depth of 20
inches. The lower C horizon in some pedons is mottled with redoximorphic features in shades of gray,
yellow, brown, or red. Clean sand grains are in the lower part of the C horizon in most pedons. Texture is
sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand.
The Cg horizon, where present, has hue of i OYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chrome of 1 or 2. Soft
masses of iron accumulation in shades of red, yellow, or brown range from none to many. Texture is the
same as for the C horizon.
COMPETING SERIES: - _-- - --
Chip ley soils --somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches)with 5 to 10
percent silt plus clay in the 10 to 20 inch control section
Kawah soils --somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches) with 5 to 10
percent silt plus clay in the 10 to 20 inch control section
Lotus soils -moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches)
with buried A horizons within a depth of 40 inches
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
Landscape: Coastal Plain
Landform: Strewn an marine terraces
Elevation: 25 to 120 feet above mean sea level
Parent Material: Loamy and sandy fluvial sediments and marine sediments
Mean Annual Air Temperature: 59 to 70 degrees
Mean Annual Precipitation: 38 to 60 inches
Frost Free Period: 210 to 270 days
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS:
Alaga soils --somewhat excessively drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 64 inches)with a
minimum of 10 percent silt plus clay in the control section
Kenansville soils --well drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 48 inches) in loamy particle
size class on slightly higher landscapes
Latonia soils -well drained soils in coarse -loamy family on slightly higher landscapes
Osier soils --poorly drained soils (seasonal hie, water within 12 inches of the surface for 3 to 6 months in
most years) on lower parts of the landscapes
An anon'7'3-so 1

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.8
Eicial Series Description - PACTOLUS Series http://www2.ft*.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat)P/PACTOLUS.hi
Troup soils -somewhat excessively drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 60 inches) in
loamy particle size class on higher landscapes
Wag rttm soils -well drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 72 inches) with loamy particle
size class on higher landscapes
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY:
Agricultural Drainage Class: Moderately well to somewhat poorly drained
Permeability: Rapid
USE AND VEGETATION:
Major Uses: Mostly cultivated
Dominant Vegetation: Where cultivated --corn, soybeans, peanuts, improved pasture grasses, tobacco, and
tuck crops. Where wooded—loblolly pine, longleafpme, sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, water oak,
willow oak, and black cherry, gallberry, inkberry, blueberry, huckleberry, greenbrier, sassafras, and switch
carte.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Distribution: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia
Extent: Moderate
MLRA OYNCE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Pitt County, North Carolina; 1969.
REMARKS: This series was previously included in the Klej series, but Klej is in a mesic family.
Diagiiostic horizons and features recognized i'n �tlie typical peon are: -
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of 8 inches (Ap horizon)
Aquic conditions - redoximorphic features beginning in the zone between 25 and 40 inches (C3 horizon),
and also present in the Cg horizon at 40 to 80 inches.
ADDITIONAL DATA:
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
S0I-5 Soil Name Slope Aixtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
NCO066 PACTOLUS 0- 5 59- 70 210-270 38- 60 25- 120
S0I-5 FloodL FloodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
NCO066 NONE RARE 1.5-3.0 APPARENT DEC -APR 60-60
r S0I-5 Depth Texture
NCO066 0-40 LS LFS S
NC0066 40-80 S LS LA'S
3-Inch No-10 Clay% -CEC-
0- 0 100-100 2-12 1 3
0- 0 100-100 2-12 0- 2
S01-5 Depth -pH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-,Swll
NCO066 0-40 3.5- 5.5 .5-2. 0- 0 6.0- 20 LOW
NCO066 40-80 3.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 6.0- 20 LOW
National Cooperative Soil Survey
All OnAn,7 7.56 4

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.9
fficiai Series Description PACTOLUS Series Mtp:/lwwvt2.flw.arcs.usda.gov/omUdaf/P/PACTOLUS.h-
U.S.A.
%f A ��r n»nn�r ry.cn n

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.10
Appendix C
Teft Area Map

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060
7-w
�F
Batts Lot 99 Tract
Storm Water Evaluation
Test Area Map
June 19, 2007
atts
,o ad .
"'Mao Provided By Others*,
"Map Not TO scale*

f
JUI,-O5-200' THU 02:24 PM NCDENR FAX NO. 9103EO2004 P. 02
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 34do
INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATION 6
g �3
Complefe and email this form to [e-mail]. If there are more than 7 areas to be tested,
aftach a second sheet.
Scheduled Site Visit Date and Time 7/ �07 (� fir": 00 A.,�,
Project Name: e'�, is to a County: 4�naler
Street Address: LoT 99 lad.
Directions from the nearest Intarsaction of two major roads:
e�.��2�--��/ /�LIy'h�j
D/%fo /UC'-12 / �G ~Z% 7Gti"n T C.A & �y �'7. —&-Ifs /�G7• IUD bra Zj �'f
>1 acre being disturbed? ETYES ONO CAMA Major required? ❑YES []'< 6 (�
Consultant Name: ,"c %w,GzAk I Phone: Ad) 39z- Y9t Z
Consultant Firm Name: (2 tla.,a e1 -o- Asroc,
Bore Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a) EAsting Ground Elevation
17T
IF '
1-7
b Proposed Bottom Elevation
r
6'
'
c Subtract a — b
Z'
d Add 2 ft. Min. Bore Depth)
e Hardpan Depth?
> $y
>8y"
> 17Is
Infiltration Rate OK?
Actual EleV. Of SHWT
17
h Max, lowest bottom elev.
Required Attachments:
1. Legible vicinity map. ✓
2. Compete Soils Report.
3. PDF formatted site plan with the boring locations to be tested: Site plans should
be emailed or hand -delivered only. Illegible faxed maps will not be accepted. ✓
AN proposed infiltration areas and existing, active utility lines located Within the proposed
basinAmnch must be marked and flagged. if these areas are not flagged, the Soils Scientist
reserves the right to decline to do the investigation. If the proposed Infiltration system dill be
located in an area of existing pavement and there is no open area nearby, equipment capable of
breaking through the impervious layer must be provided. The soils Investigation does not take
the place of a soils report prepared by an appropriate professlonal. The Soils Scientist W11 only
verify the soil conditions that ate reported in the Soils Report, and make a determination as to
• the suitability of the site to rreet the infiltration design requirements under NCAG 2h1.1000, and
assumes no liability should the system fail.
S:1WQSISTORMWATERIFORMSIinfiitration site v'isit.for
dog

DRANIAGE AREA BOUNDARY
I NOTE: MMM7RAIM BASH TWIT. (MY I
TREAT S70RMWATER FROM ROAD.
VALLEY CURB. 9DEWALK AND
!I DRIVEYYAY. S7DRMWATTi ON LOiS LOT70
BE 7RElIlED ON AAi NDIKDUAL
BASS
'j-
it
'oi
wa
'i
7
Q
z
Q\
a
�
fi
y
W
zi
CL
V
12
IL
J
O
I
I
Is'
L

SOILS REPORT

Jul 03 07 02:13p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.2
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP iNc.
Ent-%ronmentol Consuhants
June 19, 2007
Alvin Batts
P.O. Box 2294
Surf City, NC 28445
Reference: Stormwater infiltration study for the Batts Lot 99 Tract near Surf City, NC.
Dear Mr. Batts:
On Thursday, June 14" 2007, Land Management Group, Inc. had the pleasure of
evaluating the proposed stonnwater infiltration areas at the Batts Lot 99 Tract. The
purpose of the evaluation was to describe the soil profile, quantify the depth to the
seasonal high water table, using 7 foot soil auger borings, and to inform the project
engineer of any potential limitations of this project. Actual hydraulic conductivity
measurements were not taken. Therefore, my report will focus on estimated rates.
The soils at this site are mapped as Alpin soil series soils in the Soil Survey of
Pender County (USDA, 1990). Actual soil borings confirm the soil to be Pactolus Series
in borings 1-3 shown in Appendix A, the locations of the borings are shown in Appendix
C. The soil can best be described as deep sands that formed in a series of depositional
events. It is expected that these soils will have high infiltration rate in excess of 6-8 in/hr.
The seasonal high water table is normally evident by observation of redoximorphic
features suggesting past conditions of saturation and reduction. There is evidence of
redoximorphic features as shallow as 29" within one of the test borings of the proposed
infiltration areas. In the other borings within the infiltration areas, the seasonal high
water table was from 32" to 41" across the proposed test areas (see complete boring notes
in Appendix A). Physical water was noted as shallow as 63" in two of the borings and
71" in the other. All recorded depths are from the existing surface as noted in the soil
profile descriptions. The official published description and physical and chemical data
for the Pactolus soil series are shown in Appendix B for comparison.
In summary, LMG has performed site specific evaluation within the stormwater
infiltration area. This area has soils that have a seasonal high water table that are 29" in
boring 2 the other areas that have seasonal high water tables from 32"in boring 1 to 41"
in boring 3 from the soil surface and an infiltration rate of up to 8" per hour. All notes
www.imgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

Jul 03 07 02:13p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.3
for installation and limitations to proposed basin areas are mentioned in Appendix A, as
per NC DENR representative. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions with this report.. I may be reached at 910-452-0001, 910-471-0505 or at
nhowell hng�oup.net .
Sincerely,
Nick Howell
Environmental Scientist

Jul 03 a7 02:07p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.3
Appendix A
Detailed Profile Descriptions

3u1 03 07 02:07p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.4
Batts Lot 99
Detailed Soil Profile Descriptions
Hole 1 Foot Slope 0-1%
A — 0-8" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 3/1.
E — 8-16" Fine Sand single gained, loose non stick/ non plastic, 2.5YR 5/2.
Bw—16-23" Fine Sand weak medium subangular blocky, very friable non sticky non
plastic, 1 ORY 314.
C — 23-32" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.SYR 5/4.
Cg — 32-72" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.SY 7/2 with 2.5Y
516 mottles.
Ab — 72-75" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g — 75-84"+ Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 612.
Physical Water: 63" 6-14-07
SHWT: 32"
Hole 2 Foot Slope 0-1%
A — 04" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 3/1.
E -- 4-12" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5YR 5/2.
Bw—12-21" Fine Sand weak medium subangular blocky, very Friable non sticky non
plastic, 10RY 3/4.
C — 21-29" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.SYR 5/4.
Cg.— 29-53"Fine Sand. single gmined,_loose.non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y-7/2 -with 2.5Y. _
516 mottles.
Ab — 53-63" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g — 63-84"+ Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2.
Physical Water: 63" 6-14-07
SHWT: 29"
Hole 3 Foot Slope 1-2%
A — 0-9" Fine Sand single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 3/1.
Cl — 9-1T' Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 5/4.
C2—17-34" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 7/3.
C3 — 34-41" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 5/4 with
1 OYR 3/6 mottles.
Cg — 41-56" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 6/2 with 1 OYR
3/6 mottles.
Ab — 56-65" Fine Sand, single grained, loose non sticky non plastic, 2.5Y 4/1.
C'g — 65-84" Fine Sand, single grained,. loose non sticky non plastic, 23Y 5/2 with 10YR
311 mottles.
Physical Water: 71" 6-14-07
SHWT: 41"

Ju1,03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.5
Appendix B
Published Description and Chemical and Physical
Properties of the PactoIus Soil Series

Jul•03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 91045200GO p.6
official Series Description - PACTOLUS Series httpJ/www2_ftw.nres_usda-gov/osdtdat/P/PACTOLUS.hi
LOCATION PACTOLUS NC+AL FL SC VA
Established Series
Rev. GH-PLT
05/2004
PACTOLUS SERIES
MLRA(s): 133A, 153A
MLRA Office Responsible: Raleigh, North Carolina
Depth Class: Very deep
Drainage Class: Moderately well to somewhat poorly drained
Permeability: Rapid
Surface Runoff Slow
Parent Material: Sandy fluvial and marine sediments
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Mean Annual Air Temperature (type location): 63 degrees F.
Mean Annual Precipitation (type location): 48 inches
TAXONOAHC CLASS: Thermic, coated Aquic Quartzipsamments
TYPICAL PEDON: Pactolus loamy sand —cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--0 to 8 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loamy sand, weak fine granular structure; very friable;
common fine roots; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary. (5 to 14 inches thick)
C1-8 to 15 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4) loamy sand; single grained; very friable; few fine
roots; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary- (4 to 8 inches thick)
C2-15 to 25 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 616) loamy sand; single grained; very friable; few fine roots;
very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (8 to 12 inches thick)
C3--25 to 40 inches; light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4) loamy sand; common medium distinct light gray
(1OYR 7/1) iron depletions; single grained; very friable; few fine roots; strongly acid-, gradual wavy
boundary. (10 to 20 inches thick)
Cg -40 to 80 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) loamy sand; common medium distinct brownish yellow
(1 OYR 6/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; single grained; very friable; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Pitt County, P3orth Carolina; about 4 miles north of G-Limesland on SR 1566, 350
feet north of intersection SR 1564; 80 feet northeast of barn, 10 feet east of path.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Thickness of sandy horizons: 80 inches or more. The 10 to 40 inch control section contains 10 to 25
percent fines
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 80 inches
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table: 18 to 36 inches, December to April
Soil Reaction: extremely acid to strongly acid except where the surface has been limed
A 6/19/2007 2:591

Jul`03 0'7 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.7
)ff c.ial Series Description - PACTOLUS Series http.//www2.ftw.nres.usd&gov/osd/dat/P/PACTOLUS.h-
A or Ap horizon:
Color -hue of l OYR or 2.5Y, value of 3 through 6, and chroma of 1 to 4
Texture --loamy sand, loamy fine sand, sand, or fine sand
C horizon (upper part):
Colorhue of IOYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 through 8
Texture —sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand
C horizon (lower part):
Colorl OYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of 3 or 4
Texture —sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand
Redoximorphic features --iron depletions with chroma of 2 or less may occur in some pedons within a
depth of 20 inches. Iron masses in shades of yellow, brown, or red are found in some pedons. .
The upper part of the C horizon has hue of 1 OYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 3 through 8. The
lower part of the C horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 8, and chroma of 3 or 4. Iron
depletions in shades of gray are at depths of less than 40 inches, and may occur within a depth of 20
inches. The lower C horizon in some pedons is mottled with redoximorphic features in shades of gray,
yellow, brown, or red. Clean sand grains are in the lower part of the C horizon in most pedons. Texture is
sand, loamy sand, fine sand, coarse sand, or loamy fine sand.
The Cg horizon, where present, has hue of 1 OYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2. Soft
masses of iron accumulation in shades of red, yellow, or brown range from none to many. Texture is the
same as for the C horizon.
COMPETING SERIFS:
Chipley soils --somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches)with 5 to 10
percent silt plus clay in the 10 to 20 inch control section
Kawah soils --somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches) with 5 to 10
percent silt plus clay in the 10 to 20 inch control section
Lotus soils -moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils (seasonal high water table 18 to 36 inches)
with buried A horizons within a depth of 40 inches
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
Landscape: Coastal Plain
Landform: Stream an marine terraces
Elevation: 25 to 120 feet above mean sea level
Parent Material: Loamy and sandy fluvial sediments and marine sediments
Mean Annual Air Temperature: 59 to 70 degrees
Mean Annual Precipitation: 38 to 60 inches
Frost Free Period: 210 to 270 days
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS:
Alaga soils --somewhat excessively drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 60 inches)with a
minimum of 10 percent silt plus clay in the control section
Kenansville soils --well drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 48 inches) in loamy particle
size class on slightly higher landscapes
Latonia soils —well drained soils in coarse -loamy family on slightly higher landscapes
Osier soils --poorly gained soils (seasonal high water within 12 inches of the surface for 3 to 6 months in
most years) on lower parts of the landscapes
7 „F A 6119/2007 2:591

Jul°03 0'7 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.9
dficial Series Description - PACTOLUS Series http://Www2Rw.nres.usda.gov/osdtdat/P/PACTOLUS.hi
Troup soils --somewhat excessively drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 60 inches) in
loamy particle size class on higher landscapes
Wagram soils -well drained soils (seasonal high water table greater than 72 inches) with loamy particle
size class on higher landscapes
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY:
Agricultural Drainage Class: Moderately well to somewhat poorly drained
Pe-me-Abi1_ity- Rapid
USE AND VEGETATION:
Major Uses: Mostly cultivated
Dominant Vegetation: Where cultivated --corn, soybeans, peanuts, improved pasture grasses, tobacco, and
truck crops. Where wooded—loblolly pine, longleaf pine, sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, water oak,
willow oak, and black cherry, gallberry, inkber y, blueberry, huckleberry, greenbrier, sassafras, and switch
cane.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Distribution: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia
Extent: Moderate
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North. Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Pitt County, North Carolina; 1969.
REMARKS: This series was previously included in the Klej series, but Klej is in a mesic family.
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in the typical pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of S inches (Ap horizon)
Aquic conditions - redoximorphic features beginning in the zone between 25 and 40 inches (C3 horizon),
and also present in the Cg horizon at 40 to 80 inches.
ADDITIONAL DATA:
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
NCO066 PACTOLUS 0- 5 59- 70 210-270 38- 60 25- 120
SOI-5 FloodL F1oodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
NCO066 NONE RARE 1.5-3.0 APPARENT DEC -APR 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture
NCO066 0-40 LS LFS S
NCO066 40-80 S LS LFS
3-Inch No-10 Clax% -CEC-
0- 0 100-100 2-12 1- 3
0- 0 100-100 2-12 0- 2
S0I-5 Depth -pFI-- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
NCO066 0-40 3.5- 5.5 .5-2. 0- 0 6.0- 20 LOW
NCO066 40-80 3.5- 5.5 0.-.5 0- 0 6.0- 20 LOW
National Cooperative Soil Survey
t nfA 6/19/2007 2:591

Jul 03 a'7 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.9
Ifficial Series Description - PACTOLUS Series bto://www2.flw.=s.usda.govlos&dat/P/PACTOLUS.h,
U.S.A.
nfd 6/19120072:59 P

Jul- 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.10
Appendix C
Test Area Map

Jul 03 07 02:08p Land Management Group Inc 9104520060 p.11
7w
J.
Batts Lot 99 Tract
Storm Water Evaluation
Test Area Map
June 19, 2007
oad.
'"*Map Provided By aErhers**
**Map Not To Scale*