SW8071207_HISTORICAL FILE_20080128

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 04 tZb'�
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
® HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
YYYYMMDD

January 28, 2008
Jeffrey Flattery, Member/Manager
Jemsite Development, LLC
1608 US Hwy 221 N
Jefferson, NC 28640
Subject: Stormwater Permit No.
Lowe's of Jacksonville
High Density Subdivision
Onlsow County
Dear Mr. Flattery:
SW8 071207
Project
Michael 17. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen If Sullins Director
Division of Water Qualit}'
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Lowe's of Jacksonville on January 18, 2008. Staff review of the plans and
specifications has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater
Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and the NPDES Phase II Post Construction
Requirements set forth in Session Law 2006-246. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8 071207
dated January 28, 2008, for the construction of the project, Lowe's of Jacksonville.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until January 28, 2018, and shall be
subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to
the Operation and Maintenance requirements in this permit. Failure to establish an adequate
system for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system will result in
future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have
the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within sixty (60) days
following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150E of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands
are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please
contact Christine Nelson, or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
13
Edward Beck
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
RSS/can: S:\WQS\STORMWAT\PERMIT\071207.jan08
cc: Todd Simmons, Freeland and Kauffman
Onslow County Building Inspections
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone]
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: www.ncwaterguality.org Fax [phone]
NorthCarolina
A41urn!!y
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50 % Recycled/10 % Post Consumer Paper

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 071207
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Jeffrey Flattery & Jemsite Development, LLC
Lowe's of Jacksonville
Yopp Road, Jacksonville, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a wet detention pond in compliance with
the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law 2006-246 (hereafter referred to
as the "stormwater rules and the NPDES Phase 11 Post Construction Requirements')
and the approved stormwater management plans and specifications and other
supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by the Division of Water
Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until January 28, 2018 and shall
be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described in Section 1.5 on page 3 of this permit. The subdivision is
permitted for one lot and eight outparcel lots, each allowed built -upon area (BUA)
as follows:
Lot / Out arcel No.
Lot Area, ac
Max BUA, s . ft.
Lot #1
14.8
532,000
Out arcel #13
0.84
31,102
Out arcel #14
0.80
29,621
Out arcel #15
0.88
32,583
Out arcel #16
1.07
39,618
Out arcel #17
1.27
47,023
Out arcel #18
1.38
51,096
Out arcel #19
1.72
63,685
Out arcel #20 1
0.86
31,842
Page 2 of 9

btate 5tormwater management bystems
Permit No. SW8 071207
3. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable parts of the permit.
4. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either
dedicated common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project
will be recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the
approved plans.
5. The following design elements have been permitted for this wet detention pond,
and must be provided in the system at all times.
a.
Drainage Area, acres:
23.7
Onsite:
1,031,916
Offsite:
none
b.
Total Impervious Surfaces, ft2:
858,113
Lot#1
532,000
Buildings, ft2:
181,650
Roads/Parking, ft2:
314,985
Other, ft2:
34,908
Outparcel #13, ft2:
31,102
Outparcel #14, ft2:
29,621
Outparcel #15, ft2:
32,583
Outparcel #16, ft2:
39,618
Outparcel #17, ft2:
47,023
Outparcel #18, ft2:
51,096
Outparcel #19, ft2:
63,685
Outparce#20, ft2:
31,842
Offsite, ft :
none
C.
Pond Depth, feet:
9 (5.2 average)
d.
TSS removal efficiency:
90%
e.
Design Storm:
1.5
f.
Permanent Pool Elevation, FMS�:
15.00
g.
Permitted Surface Area @PP ft :
60,208
h.
Permitted Storage Volume, ft�:
114,735
i.
Storage Elevation, FMSL:
16.70
j.
Controlling Orifice:
4"0 pipe
k.
Permanent Pool Volume, ft3:
313,693
I.
Forebay Volume, ft3:
57,272
m.
Maximum Fountain Horsepower:
1/2
n.
Receiving Stream / River Basin:
Brinson Creek / White Oak
o.
Stream Index Number:
19-12
p.
Classification of Water Body:
"Sc, NSW"
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
No homeowner/lot owner/developer shall fill in, alter, or pipe any drainage
feature (such as swales) shown on the approved plans as part of the stormwater
management system without submitting a revision to the permit and receiving
approval from the Division.
2. The permittee is responsible for verifying that the proposed built -upon area for
the entire lot, including driveways and sidewalks, does not exceed the allowable
built -upon area. Once the lot transfer is complete, the built -upon area may not be
revised without approval from the Division of Water Quality, and responsibility for
meeting the built -upon area limit is transferred to the individual property owner.
Page 3 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 071207
3. If an Architectural Review Board or Committee is required to review plans for
compliance with the BUA limit, the plans reviewed must include all proposed
built -upon area. Any approvals given by the Board do not relieve the homeowner
of the responsibility to maintain compliance with the permitted BUA limit.
4. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to the approved plans, regardless of size.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, or sale of all or part of the project area.
The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee, for
which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval or a CAMA Major
permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
5. The Director may determine that other revisions to the project should require a
modification to the permit.
The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
The stormwater management system shall be constructed in it's entirety,
vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any
built -upon surface.
During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received
from an appropriate designer for the system installed certifying that the permitted
facility has been installed in accordance with this permit, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting documentation. Any deviations from the
approved plans and specifications must be noted on the Certification.
10. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be
restored to design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device,
and prior to occupancy of the facility.
11. Permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater control must follow the
guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual.
12. This permit shall become voidable unless the facilities are constructed in
accordance with the conditions of this permit, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting data.
Page 4 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 071207
13. Built upon area includes, but is not limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete,
gravel, brick, stone, slate, coquina and parking areas, but does not include
raised, open wood decking, or the water surface of swimming pools.
14. Prior to the sale of any lot, the following deed restrictions must be recorded:
a. The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with
State Stormwater Management Permit Number SW8 071207, as issued
by the Division of Water Quality under NCAC 2H.1000 and Session Law
2006-246.
b. The State of North Carolina is made a beneficiary of these covenants to
the extent necessary to maintain compliance with the Stormwater
Management Permit.
C. These covenants are to run with the land and be binding on all persons
and parties claiming under them.
d. The covenants pertaining to stormwater may not be altered or rescinded
without the express written consent of the State of North Carolina,
Division of Water Quality.
e. Alteration of the drainage as shown on the approved plans may not take
place without the concurrence of the Division of Water Quality.
f. The maximum built -upon area per lot is as follows:
H
h.
Lot/ Outarcel No.
Lot Area, ac
IN BUA, s . ft.
Lot #1
14.8
532,000
Cutparcel #13
0.84
31,102
Out arcel #14
0.80
29,621
Out arcel #15
0.88
32,583
Out arcel #16
1.07
39,618
Out arcel #17
1.27
47,023
Outparcel #18
1.38
51,096
Outparcel #19
1.72
63,685
Out arcel #20
1 0.86
31,842
This allotted amount includes any built -upon area constructed within the
lot property boundaries, and that portion of the right-of-way between the
front lot line and the edge of the pavement. Built upon area includes, but
is not limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate,
coquina and parking areas, but does not include raised, open wood
decking, or the water surface of swimming pools.
Lots within CAMA's Area of Environmental Concern may be subject to a
reduction in their allowable built -upon area due to CAMA regulations.
All runoff on the lot must drain into the permitted system. This may be
accomplished through providing roof drain gutters which drain to the
street, grading the lot to drain toward the street, or grading perimeter
swales and directing them into the pond or street. Lots that will naturally
drain into the system are not required to provide these measures.
Built -upon area in excess of the permitted amount will require a permit
modification.
Each lot within the subdivision whose ownership is not retained by the
permittee, must submit a separate Offsite Stormwater Management
Permit application package to the Division of Water Quality and receive e
permit prior to any construction on the lot.
15. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be submitted to the Division within
30 days of the date of recording the plat, and prior to selling lots. The recorded
copy must contain all of the statements above, bear the signature of the
Permittee, the deed book number and page, and stamp/signature of the Register
of Deeds.
Page 5 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 071207
16. Decorative spray fountains will be allowed in the stormwater treatment system,
subject to the following criteria:
a. The fountain must draw its water from less than 2' below the permanent
pool surface.
b. Separated units, where the nozzle, pump and intake are connected by
tubing, may be used only if they draw water from the surface in the
deepest part of the pond.
c. The falling water from the fountain must be centered in the pond, away
from the shoreline.
d. The maximum horsepower for the fountain's pump is based on the
permanent pool volume. The maximum pump power for a fountain in this
pond is 1/2 horsepower.
17. Prior to transfer of the permit, the stormwater facilities will be inspected by DWQ
personnel. The facility must be in compliance with all permit conditions. Any
items not in compliance must be repaired or replaced to design condition prior to
the transfer. Records of maintenance activities performed to date will be
required.
18. The permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance
necessary to assure that all components of the permitted stormwater system
function at optimum efficiency. The approved Operation and Maintenance Plan
must be followed in its entirety and maintenance must occur at the scheduled
intervals including, but not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing and revegetation of side slopes.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of side slopes in accordance with approved plans and
specifications.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of structures, orifice, catch basins and
piping.
g. Access to all components of the system must be available at all times.
19. Records of maintenance activities must be kept and made available upon
request to authorized personnel of DWQ. The records will indicate the date,
activity, name of person performing the work and what actions were taken.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and
approval by the Director. In the event there is either a desire for the facilities to
change ownership, or there is a name change of the Permittee, a
"Name/Ownership Change Form" must be submitted to the Division of Water
Quality accompanied by appropriate documentation from the parties involved.
This may include, but is not limited to, a deed of trust, recorded deed restrictions,
Designer's Certification and a signed Operation and Maintenance plan. The
project must be in good standing with DWQ. The approval of this request will be
considered on its merits and may or may not be approved.
The permittee is responsible for compliance with all of the terms and conditions
of this permit until such time as the Director approves the transfer request.
3. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in
Page 6 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 071207
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation
of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
Permittee grants permission to staff of the DWQ to access the property for the
purposes of inspecting the stormwater facilities during normal business hours.
The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing
address changes within 30 days.
A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee for a minimum of ten years from the date of the completion of
construction.
Permit issued this the 28th day of January 2008.
NORTH ROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit Number SW8 071207
Page 7 of 9

Lewis,Linda
From: Chris Bailey [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009,1:15 PM
To: Lewis,Linda
Cc: Gary Pope; Glen Tew
Subject: RE: jacksonville seeding
Attachments: image001 Jpg; image002.png
Thankyou Linda!!!!!!!
Christopher W. Bailey
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Office 910-346-8443
Fax [phone]
Mobile [phone]
C W BailevaBailevAndAssociates.biz
mil
rey uuJ U lur.
IYI Uux dW; Jii� k woJli.; Nf �fLitl
From: Lewis,Linda [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:51 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: jacksonville seeding
No- I didn't see that note. Thank you for pointing it out. No additional pictures are needed. I will move forward
with the permitting of the Realo Discount Drugstore project.
Linda
Please note my new email address is [e-mail]
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:59 AM
To: Lewis,Linda
Subject: Re: jacksonville seeding
Did you read email from Melvin Cline below regarding stamp date? Should I take add'[ pictures today?
Sent from my B1ackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

From: "Lewis,Linda"
Date: Thu, I Oct 2009 09:27:03 -0400
To: Chris Bailey<cwbailey a BaileyAndAssociates.biz?
Subject: RE: jacksonville seeding
I hate to tell you this but all those photos are date stamped on March 2, 2005. I'll need something dated a little
later, like a few days ago, or perhaps the date on the camera is wrong??
Linda
Please note my new email address is [e-mail]
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Chris Bailey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:36 AM
To: Lewis,Linda
Subject: FW: jacksonville seeding
Linda ---see attached pictures of the re -seeding at Lowe's pond in Jacksonville
Christopher W. Bailey
Bailey and Associates, Inc.
Office 910-346-8443
Fax [phone]
Mobile [phone]
C W Baile VR Bai IevAndAssociates.biz
dYtey,...l
t
wmm
illi.; NC 'Iti-ll
From: Melvin Cline [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:37 AM
To: Chris Bailey
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: FW: jacksonville seeding
Pond was re -seeded last week. Also placed trash rack screen on pipe. Everything should be in compliance. Ignore
the date on the attached pictures as the superintendent forgot to set the correct date and time. Pies were shot
Wednesday or Thursday.
Melvin Cline
Senior Project Manager
7
JEMSITE
DEV Et.OPMENT

1608 US Hwy 221 N
Jefferson, NC 28640
Direct Dial: 336-846-4245
Cell: 336-877-6691
Fax: [phone]
From: Philip Dance
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:06 AM
To: Melvin Cline
Subject: FW: jacksonville seeding
Melvin,
See the attached photos of the reseeding of the pond and screen installed. Let me know if this takes care of everything.
Thanks
Philip Dance
Project Manager
Vannoy Construction
631 McGee Road
Anderson, SC 29625
Office: 864/261-8458
Fax: [phone]
From: Les Norton
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:19 AM
To: Philip Dance
Subject: jacksonville seeding

Cy' .
yy.,' 1
�u
03i'02i 2005

40
03/02./2005

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis, Li nda
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:00 PM
To: 'Chris Bailey'
Cc: Johnny Glenn Tew
Subject: Lowe's Pond inspection
Mr. Bailey:
I was able to drive up to Jacksonville today to inspect the Lowe's pond. It is not in the best of shape. It's not
bad - we have all the necessary parts, but the vegetation on the pond slopes is nothing but scrub trees, shrubs
and ferns. Under the stems, leaves and fronds, the slopes are nothing but dirt.
The woody vegetation needs to be removed and a stand of grass needs to be established on those slopes.
Unfortunately, if I approve your permit, there's not much leverage left for the State to get compliance.
You hold the leverage in that their non-compliance is going to hold up your permit. I have not yet contacted the
Lowe's permittee regarding the results of this inspection. I will get a letter up to him before I leave for vacation
tomorrow.
A few other things of note:
There is no access to the outlet structure. The gate is diagonally opposite to the outlet and it is locked.
The Division needs to know who to contact to get the gate unlocked for access. A simple check of the
outlet structure after a rain event is not possible. A gate should be installed in the fence next to the
outlet structure to provide access.
Since I could not get a good view of the inside of the outlet structure, I could only approximate the
elevation of the overflow weir relative to the orifice invert. It appeared that there wasn't enough
difference. There is supposed to be almost 2 feet (1.7 to be exact) of difference between those
elevations. They appeared to be much closer.
3. I'm concerned about trash accumulating under that half -round pipe that's attached to the outside over
the weir. The half -round pipe was intended to act as a trash rack for the face of the weir, but unless it is
extended down below permanent pool, it won't be an effective trash rack.
4. There are no plants on the vegetated shelf. The shelf is supposed to be planted with wetland species
plants.
Hopefully, Jemsite Development will get these items addressed. The main ones are the grass on the
slopes and the wetlands plants on the shelf. I will not hold up your permit just because the trash rack and
gate are not addressed.
Linda
Please note my new email address is [e-mail]
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.

(Papa 1 of 4)
NORTI I CAROLINA
ONSLOW COUNTY
IIII'IIIU�I�II�'INIIIYI�OIIIIIIIII�I�I�II�IIIIIY II�I�9II
coo !0: 00704902000q iyDer CRP
neeorded: r2/te/zoos at ffi:47:a7 PM
Pee Amt::YJ.00 Pape t or 4
0nelov CeaBt' NC
Rebecca L. Pollard Rep. or Deeds
a1c3159 Pa384-387
AUG ( 2 2009
BY:SGt,_-U�
DECLARATION OF STORM WATER RESTRICTIONS (L)
THIS DECLARATION OF STORM WATER RESTRICTIONS (hereinafter referred to
as the "Declaration"), made this —JP- day of December, 2008, by BAILEY AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. a North Carolina Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Declarant"),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of a certain tracts or parcels of real property located
within Freedom Village Shopping Center as shown on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Declarant intends to develop the Properly for commercial and xretail
purposes; and
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to enter into this Declaration for the purpose of complying
with the Storm Water Permit issued by the State of North Carolina, Division of Water Quality
for this project.
NOW THEREFORE, Declarant agrees for itself and any and all persons, firms, or
corporations hereinafter acquiring any of the Properly described on Exhibit "A", that the Sallie
shall be subject to the following restrictions which shall run with said Property and entire to the
benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of Declarant and other acquiring
parties and persons.
1. The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with State of
Stornnvater Management Permit Number SW8 071207 (L) as issued by the Division of Water
Quality under NCAC 2H.1000.
Book:3159,Page:384

(Page 2 of 4)
EXHIBIT "A"
'17RA T I -
Being all of Luts 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 as shown on map entitled FINAL PLAT FOR:
YOPP ROAD RELOCATION dated August 15, 2007, prepared by Johnny J. Williams Land
Surveying, recorded in Map Book 54, Pages 128.130, Onslow County Registry.
Being all of Lot 20 as shown on map entitled EXEMPT SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR: BAILEY
AND ASSOCIATES, INC., dated November 2, 2007 prepared by Johnny J. Williams Land
Surveying, P.C. recorded in Map Book 54, Page 157, Slide M-271, Onslow County Registry.
Book:3159,Paga:384

(Page 3 of 4)
a. The State of North Carolina is made it beneficiary of these covenants to the
extent necessary to maintain compliance with the Storm Writer Management
Pennit.
b. These covenants are to run with the land and be binding on all persons and
parties claiming under them.
C. The covenants pertaining to storm water may not be altered or rescinded
without the express written consent of the State of North Carolina,
Division of Water Quality.
d. Alteratlon of the drainage as shown on the approved plan may not take
place without the concurrence of the Division of Water Quality.
e. The maximum allowable built -upon area is as listed below. The allotted
amount includes any built -upon area constructed with the lot property
boundaries, and that portion of the right-of-way between the front Lot line
and [lie edge of the pavement. Built -upon area includes, but is not limited
to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate, coquina and
parking areas, but does not include raised, open wood decking, or the
water surface of swimming pools.
Lot 4
Built Upon Areas per Lot
13
31,102 sq. fl.
14
29,621 sq. fl.
15
32,583 sq. fl.
16
39,618 sq. fl.
17
47,023 sq. ft,
18
51,096 sq. fl.
19
63,685 sq. fl.
20
31,842 sq. fl.
Lots within CAMA's Area of Environmental Concern may be subject to a
reduction in their allowable built -upon area due to CAMA regulations.
g. All runoff on the lot must drain into the permitted system. This may be
accomplished through providing roof drain gutters which drain to the
street, grading the lot to drain toward the street, or grading perimeter
swales and directing them into the pond or street. Lots that will naturally
drain into the system are not required to provide these measures.
h. Build -upon area in excess of the permitted amount will require a permit
modification.
L'ach lot within the subdivision whose ownership is nol retained by the
pennittee, must submit a separate Offsitc Stonn Water Management
800k:3159,Page:384

(Page A of 9)
Permit application package to the Division of Water Quality and receive a
pennit prior to any construction on the lot.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Declarant has set its hand and seal as of the dale first above
written.
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ONSLOW
1 certify that the following person personally appeared before me this day,
acknowledging to roe that he signed the foregoing document in the capacity indicated thereon:
Date�jt_c .ILo rk)C)i(
Notary Public
PrintName:lo,r'V-A I :-HaSkLj
My Commission Expires: I
Donna L. Haskell
Notary Public
Onslow County, NO
Book:]159,Page:)84

V
JAN-28-2008 MON 04:53 PM NCDENR
FAX NO. 9103602004
milliN
Lowe's of Jacksonville
'Stonnwater Permit No. SW8 071207
Onslow County
Designer's Certification
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 071207
Page 1 of 2
1 w p S rr-►a.o.0> , as a duly registered_ 1&s G •-5 U-gr in
the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodical) /weekly/full
time/I) the construction of the project,
l_..ou> F %S 04 r LAJE
(Project)
for Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form are a part of this Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specifications:
Signs a<�
Registr umber o 3T,-S ZZ_
Date I m • Zz • c -6
tiN\�GARo ��ii
== o SEAL 9r• __
033322
GINE�-,.P
1R]EC�'T�T:'-.,D
OCT 2 3 7.008
BY:
Page 8 of 9

V
JAN-28-2008 MON 04:53 PM NCDENR
FAX NO. 9103502004
P. 10
Certification Requirements:
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 071207
Page 2 of 2
✓ 1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted
acreage.
✓ 2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted
amount of built -upon area.
✓ 3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the
runoff drains to the system.
✓ 4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed Into the system.
✓ 5. The outlet/bypass structure elevations are per the approved plan.
✓ 6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
✓ 7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet/bypass structure.
✓ 8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
✓ 9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
✓ 10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
✓ 11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
✓ 12, Required drawdown devices are correctly sized per the approved plans.
✓ 13. All required design depths are provided.
✓ 14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf, a
forebay, and the vegetated filter.
15. The required dimensions of the system are provided, per the approved
plan.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office
Onslow County Building Inspections
OCT 2 3 Z008
Page 9 of 9

i
FREELAND AND KAUFFMAN, INC.
Eng/neers L7 Landscape Arch/tects
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, South Carolina 29609
[phone]
FAX [phone]
TO NCDENR
127 N Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
(P) - 910-796-7323
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date October 22, 2008
Attention: Christine Nelson
RE: Lowe's of Jacksonville
Jacksonville, NC
We are sending to you
®Attached
❑Under separate cover via
The following:
❑Shop Drawings
❑ Prints
❑ Plans ❑ Paper Vellums
❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Disk ®Other See Below
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 Pond Certification
'l
M
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®For approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use ❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Return for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment ❑
FOR BIDS DUE PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS if you need anything else, please let me know. Thanksl
COPY TO
Signed:
Stephanie G._Bright 864.672.342!
OCT 2 3 7008

AUA
NCDENR
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: January 28, 2008 No. Of Pages: (excluding cover) 13
To: Todd Simmons from: Azita Sartipi
CO: Freeland and Kauffman CO: Express Permitting
Fax No. 1-864-233-8915
Tel No. 1-864-672-3426 Tel No.: 910-796-7500 ext. 7377
FAX No.: 910-350-2004
E-mail: azita.sartipinncmai1.net
REMARKS: SW8071207 / Low's of Jacksonville
Mr. Simmons,
I will mail you a hard copy of the following pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
Best regards,
Azita
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845'telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

i
P. 01
TRANSACTION REPORT
i JAN-28-2008 MON 04:54 PM
FOR; NCDENR 9103502004
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
JAN-28 04:51 PM 918642338915 2'41" 14 FAX TX OK 629
� I �
TOTAL 2M 41S PAGES: 14 I
a , NCDENR
State of North Carolina
j. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: January28, 2008 No. Of Pages: (excluding cover) 13
To: Todd Simmons from: Azita Sartipi
CO: Freeland and Kauffman CO: Express Permitting
Fa% No. 1-864-233-8915
Tel No. 1-864-672-3426 Tel No.: 910.796.7500 ext. 7377
FAX No.: 910-350.2004
E-mail: sate sartini(a3ncmail.net .
t
i
�REMARKS: SW Love's of Jacksonville
Mr. Simmons,
1 will mail ou a loud co y of the following pages. Please do not hesitate w contact me if i
Y P �
you have any questions.
Bess regards,
I "
Azita
I.
127 Cmdinn Drive Extension. Wilmington, N.C. 21405-3345 Telephone (910) 7W7215 Fu (910) 3562004
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action EMPloyer

FREELAND AND KAUFFMAN, INC.
Engineers O Landscape Arehiteets
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, South Carolina 29609
[phone]
FAX [phone]
TO NCDENR,
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date January 17, 2008
Attention: Christine Nelson
RE: Lowe's of Jacksonville
Jacksonville, NC
127 N Cardinal Drive f �cFIVF-1>
Wilmington, NC 28405
(P) - 910-796-7323 1 S YUUSWe are sending to you ®Attached ❑Under separate cover via LIAN
. W e ollowing:
❑Shop Drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Paper Vellums ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Disk®Other See Below
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
Comment Response Letter
2
Stormwater Reports
2
Sets Plans
1
Fee — Check #2548 — $500.00
1
Stormwater Management Permit Application Form
1
High Density Developments with Outparcels, Deed Restrictions
and Protective Conenances
1
Wet Detention Basin Inspection & Maintenance Agreement
1
USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
1
Stormwater Express Questionnaire
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
®Far approval ❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
❑Far your use DApproved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested ❑Return for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment
FOR BIDS DUE PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS Please find enclosed the aforementioned materials for your approval. If you find
you need more information regarding this project, please contact Alan Johnson
(864-672-3442 / [e-mail] ) at your earliest convenience. Thanks!
COPY TO
Signed:
Stephanie G. Bright 864-672-3425

FREELAND AND KAUFFMAN INC
209 WEST STONE AVENUE
GREENVILLE, SC 29609
PAY c. C, Q � V r
TO THE'
ORDER OE - 1 r I
1LUnited
Community Bank
FOR

/ f
�p(� 5 0- r�CiGl�soriJ:��L,
Ao- ` 140 re-C.-

FREELAND and KAUFFMAN, INC.
EnGnEEes • LAnmscAPE Awefwr,5 .
Responses to Comments for Lowe's of Jacksonville:
Stormwater Project No. SW8 071207
Freeland & Kauffman, Inc.
January 16, 2008
1) The resubmitted plans have been revised to eliminate any on -site runoff from
draining to the adjacent property. In turn, the previously commented on 0.8
acres no longer drains to an off -site Stormwater system. Due to this
modification an off -site supplement has not been included in the resubmittal
package: Also, all aspects of the plans and stormwater report have been
modified to reflect this change. This plan modification has increased the
drainage area to 23.7 acres, thus all calculations have been adjusted.
2) Section III.9 of the application has been adjusted to match the total built upon
area identified on the deed restrictions for the outparcel lots.
3) The resubmitted plans have been modified to eliminate the French drains from
discharging into the proposed pond. The erosion control plans and grading
plan have been updated accordingly to reflect this change.
4) The Wet Detention Basin Inspection & Maintenance Agreement has been
modified to reflect the appropriate depth of water at which the sediment
should be removed.
5) It is understood that the temporary pool elevation is considered to be located
at the outlet above the permanent pool, thus the pond section sheet and the
references within the stormwater report have been modified accordingly.
6) A check in the amount of $500 has been enclosed.
u
209 West Stone Avenue • Greenville. South Carolina 29609 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
REPORT & CALCULATIONS
•S
LOWE'S OF JACKSONVILLE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RE -SUBMITTAL
January 16, 2008
i
`��oQ' •FESSlp •�2 �i
•n S =
= 33
•�l SF lot
T •g�M�����o
FREELAND and KAUFFMAN, INC.
ENGINEER5 • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
209 WEST STONE AVE.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29609

Table of Contents
Section 1
Introduction................................................................................... 1
Section 2
Pre -Developed Site Conditions .................................................. 2,3
Section 3
Post -Developed Site Conditions................................................4.
5
Section 4
Wet Detention Pond Design .................................................
5,6,7
Section 5
Erosion & Sediment Control..........................................................
8
Section 6
Pipe Sizing Calculations.........................................................9
Appendix A
Pre -Developed Site Documents
Appendix B
Post -Developed Site Documents
Appendix C
Pond Sizing & Routing Documents
Appendix D
Pipe Sizing Documents
List of Tables
Table1.1
Rainfall Rates................................................................................
2
Table 2.1
Runoff Curve Numbers — Pre -Condition ....................................
2
Table 2.2
Time of Concentration — Pre -Condition .....................................
3
Table 2.3
Peak Runoff Rates — Pre -Condition .............................................
3
Table 3.1
Runoff Curve Numbers — Post -Condition ....................................
4
Table 3.2
Time of Concentration — Post -Condition .....................................
4
Table 3.3
Peak Runoff Rates — Post -Condition ............................................
5
Table 3.4.1
Allowable Peak Release Rates ....................................................
5
Table 4.1.1
Permanent Water Quality Data .....................................................
6
Table 4.2.1
First 1.5" Rainfall Data..................................................................6
Table 4.3.1
Riser Structure Detail....................................................................
7
Table 4.4.1
Pond Routing and Outflow Results .......................................'...... 7
List of Figures
Figure 1 Pre -Developed Site Exhibit ........................................ Appendix A
Figure 2 Post -Developed Site Exhibit ....................................... Appendix B

Stormwater Management Report for New Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse
Yopp Road and US Hwy 2SS/NC 24
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Section 1 Introduction
This stormwater management report is for the new Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse to be constructed off
the newly relocated Yopp Road, which is east of the US Hwy 258/NC 24 and Yopp Road intersection, in
Jacksonville, Onslow County, NC. This project will be within the Freedom Village Shopping Center and the
property is located immediately to the east of the Wal-Mart store currently under construction. The Lowe's site is
approximately 15.8 acres and will be developed to contain a +/-139,410 s.f. Lowe's Home Improvement
Warehouse and all the parking, landscaping and utilities to accompany the building. There are eight outlots
within the Freedom Way Subdivision that are to be developed in the future by others. These outlots along with
new Lowe's Store, asphalt parking lot, and landscape areas will be considered in this stormwater report.
The majority of the lowe's site drains to the southeast corner of the site to an existing 36" culvert that runs under
US Hwy 17-Bypass. The total impervious area of the site will increase, but the actual post -condition rate of runoff
will decrease from its pre -condition rate through the use of a stormwater pond that will store and release the
runoff volume over time.
Construction will include the Lowe's building, accompanying parking, landscape areas, and new driveway tie-ins.
The stormwater system will be an underground system using catch basins and pipes that will convey runoff to a
wet detention pond located at the southeast corner of the Lowe's property. The ponds are sized to hold the
runoff volume from the post -development area generated during the first 1.5" of rainfall and release this over a
period of two to five days. The ponds will also store and release the 1-year, 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year storm
events to less than pre -developed runoff rates, and the 100-year storm event will pass through the outlet
structure.
The stormwater runoff calculations and pond sizing calculations are based on the SCS TR-55 Method and the
Stormwater Best Management Practices as required by the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Per the TR-55 Method, the land use for each drainage area in the pre and post -developed
conditions are analyzed. A Runoff Curve Number is then generated for each drainage area. Next, the time of
concentration (travel in minutes) of the runoff from the most remote point of the drainage area to the outlet point
is determined. These items along with the design storm event rainfall amounts are used to calculate the
stormwater runoff rate. Using the SCS Method a hydrograph for the drainage area for each storm event (e.g., 1,
2, 10, 25, and 100-year) will be generated showing the runoff (Q) vs. Time. TR-55 will be used only to
determine the Curve Number and Time of Concentration and the modeling program Hydraflow Hydrographs will
be used to determine the peak runoff for each area in the pre and post -developed conditions. A hydrograph will
also be generated for the post -developed 1.5" rainfall.
The stormwater pond will also serve as the sedimentation and erosion control basin during the construction
phase. The same riser structures will be utilized for sediment control and stormwater management. The wet
detention basin will be allowed for sediment storage with the use of a skimmer as a dewatering device. After the
site has been stabilized, the orifices and weirs shall be unplugged and the forebay graded to its final
configuration.
Page 1

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
1.1 Rainfall
The rainfall amounts used in our design will vary between the different storm events we are analyzing. The
rainfall amounts are taken from the Rainfall Maps for Onslow County, NC. These values will not change between
pre and post -conditions. The 24-hour rainfall amounts are shown in Table 1.1.
Storm Event
Rainfall Amount
1 year
3.70 in
2 year
4.40 in
10 year
6.90 in
25 year
8.0 in
100 year
9.90 in
Section 2 Pre -Developed Site Conditions
2.1 Overview
In the pre -condition calculations the site is analyzed in an undeveloped state. The existing site consists of a
wooded and grass combination with a total of 16.65 acres. The property is relatively flat, but there is a drainage
ditch that flows from the northwest portion of the site to the southeast corner. The ditch releases at an existing
36" culvert, which runs under US 17 Bypass and drains to Brinson Creek. A 2006 Corps Jurisdicrional
Determination (JD) exists for this site, and it was determined that there are no wetlands or streams present on
the property.
2.2 Runoff Curve Number
The runoff curve number is based on land use for each area and the percent of the area with that type of use. For
example, pavement has a runoff number of 98 as it is almost entirely made up of impervious area. This number
also takes into account the soil type as determined by the Soil Conservation Service. The soils are then classified
as type A, B, C & D, which each have varying rates at which water runs off. This site consists of fine sandy loams
and loamy fine sands which are classified as Type B soils. Runoff Curve Number calculations are summarized in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Runoff Curve Numbers — Pre -Condition
Roof, Parking Lot, and
Woods — grass
Total area for the
Area 1
Driveway Areas
combination (good)
pre condition
A = 0 ac.
A = 16.65 ac.
A = 16.65 ac.
CN = 98
CN = 65
CN (weighted) = 6S
Page 2

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
2.3 Time of Concentration
The time of concentration for the drainage area in the pre -condition will be calculated using three types of flow,
sheet flow overland for a distance of no more than 100 feet, not in a defined channel, shallow concentrated flow,
and channel flow. As previously mentioned, the time of concentration is the travel in minutes of the runoff from
the most remote point of the drainage area to the outlet point. The time of concentration is a function of the
slope and roughness coefficient of the surface the water is flowing over, and in the case of open channel flow,
the velocity. For Sheet Flow the flow time is calculated as follows: T = {0.007(nL)^0.8)/P^0.5 s^0.4 and for
open channel flow the time is based on the velocity and the length. This information is input into the TR-55
computer program and the pre -condition Tc is calculated. Time of Concentration calculations are summarized in
Table 2.2.
Sheet Flow for First
Shallow
Open Channel
Total
Area 1
100' Q 1.0% slope,
Concentrated Flow
Flow for the next
Wood -Grass Comb.
for the next 230' at
595' at 3.3 ft/sec
0.8% slope over
unpaved surface
Tc = 24.2 min
Tc = 2.64 min
Tc = 3.0 min
Tc = 29.8 min
2.4 Peak Runoff
Based on the Curve Number and the time of concentration for the drainage area in the pre -condition, along with
the above -mentioned rainfall amounts the stormwater runoff rate, Q, can be calculated.. Runoff for the pre-
condition will be calculated using the SCS Method and a hydrograph will be generated for this runoff showing Q
vs. time. This will be done for the 1 year, 2-year, 10-year, 25 year, and 100-year storm events. Runoff
calculations are summarized in Table 2.3.
Pre- Developed ;
Conditions
Rainfall Amount'
Pre -Developed
Runoff
1 year
3.7 in
8.63 cfs
2 year
4.40 in
13.51 cfs
10 year
6.90 in
34.38 cfs
25 year
8.0 in
44.81 cfs
100 year
9.9 in
63.41 cfs
The pre -developed site exhibit (Figure 1), the input parameters, and the pre -developed hydrographs for each
storm event can be found in Appendix A.
Page 3

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
Section 3 Post -Developed Site Conditions
3.1 Overview
The post -condition drainage area that will be analyzed totals +/-23.7 acres. The site will consist of the new
Lowe's Building, Garden Center, parking lots and drive aisles, landscaped areas, grassed areas, pond, and the
outlots to be developed in the future. The stormwater system for the site will collect runoff from the Lowe's
rooftop, driveways, parking lot and the outlots. The slopes of the parking lot will range from 1 % to 3%, including
driveways. The runoff will be directed to a series of new catch basins that will lead, via underground stormwater
pipes, to the wet detention pond.
3.2 Runoff Curve Number
The post -condition drainage area is comprised of paved areas and open space with grass cover in good
condition. Runoff Curve Number calculations for each area are summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Runoff Curve Numbers — Post -Condition
Roof, Parking Lot, and
Open space; grass
Total area for the
Area 1 — to Pond #1
Driveway Areas
cover
post -condition
A = 19.7 ac.
A = 4.0 ac.
A = 23.7 ac.
CN = 98
CN = 61
CN (weighted) = 92
3.3 Time of Concentration
The time of concentration for the post -condition areas was calculated. Since the development changes the flow
path significantly by routing much of the stormwater into underground pipes, the time of concentration will be
reduced. Time of Concentration calculations are summarized in Table 3.2.
Sheet Flow for
Open Channel
Total
Area i to
First 100 ft. @
Flow for the next
Pond #1
1.5% slope, Paved
940 ft. @ 3 ft/sec
Tc = 1.14 min
Tc = 5.22 min
Tc = 6.4 min
Page 4

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
3.4 Peak Runoff
Per the SCS Method the runoff will be calculated for the post -condition of the site, and a hydrograph will be
generated for this runoff showing Q vs. time. This will be done for the 1-year, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and
100-year storm events. Runoff calculations are summarized in Table 3.3.
Post Developed
Conditions
Rainfall Amount
Post Developed
Runoff
1 year
3.7 in
73.56 cfs
2 year
4.40 in
90.08 cfs
10 year
6.90 in
148.36 cfs
25 year
8.0 in
173.74 cfs
100 year
9.9 in
217.33 cfs
The post -developed site exhibit (Figure 2), the input parameters, and the pre -developed hydrographs for each
storm event can be found in Appendix B.
3.5 Allowable Release
The post -developed conditions will be compared to the pre -developed or allowable release rates. These are
summarized side -by -side in Table 3.4.1 and Table 3.4.2. The post -developed runoff values are obviously greater
than the value for the allowable release since these are runoff values that flow into the detention ponds. For this
reason, the ponds will be designed to limit the outflow to be less than the allowable rate.
Storm Event_
Pre=Developed
Runoff (Allowable) ,-
Post Developed
Runoff
1 year
8.63 cfs
73.56 cfs
2 year
13.51 cfs
90.08 cfs
10 year
34.38 cfs
148.36 cfs
25 year
44.81 cfs
173.74 cfs
100 year
63.41 cfs
217.33 cfs
Section 4 Wet Detention Pond Design
4.1 Overview
As can been seen in the previous chart, development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of runoff
experienced at our analysis points. The increase in runoff is due to the new impervious areas introduced to the
drainage area, and the additional runoff from development within areas outside of the Pre -Developed Area.
The runoff rates will be held to pre -developed conditions, which is accomplished by routing the post -developed
runoff through our proposed wet detention pond in accordance with The North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Stormwater Best Management Practices. The wet detention pond will be
used for water quality control as well as storing the additional runoff created from development of this site. The
Page 5

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
runoff will then be released from the ponds below the pre -developed rates. The ponds will require a Permanent
Water Quality Pool, a Temporary Water Quality Pool, and a staged outlet riser.
4.2 Permanent Water Quality Pool
In order to design the wet detention ponds, we must first determine the surface area required for the permanent
pool based on the permanent pool depth. The permanent pool average depth is defined as the permanent pool
volume divided by the permanent pool surface area, The average permanent pool depth should be between 3 and
7 feet with the minimum being 3 feet. The required surface area is a function of the ratio of the impervious area
to the total drainage area based upon an 90%TSS removal in the Coastal Region. The proposed design provides
a permanent pool average depth of 5.2% as shown on the supplement form. In addition a forebay must be
created to encourage early settling. The forebay should equal about 20% of the total basin volume. Table 4.2.1
outlines the wet pond surface area requirements:
Table 4.2.1: Permanent Water Quality Data for Area 1
Area,l, -
Total Drainage Area
23.7 acres
Impervious Area
19.7 acres
Permanent Pool Top Elevation
15.0 feet
Permanent Pool Bottom Elevation
6.0 feet
Basin Bottom Elevation
5.0 feet
% Impervious (1)
83%
SA/DA ratio (from BMP Manual)
5.8
Required Surface Area
59,877 SF at Permanent Pool
Provided Surface Area
60,208 SF at Permanent Pool
4.3 Temporary Water Quality Pool
The temporary water quality pool is required to detain the runoff volume generated during the first 1.5" of
rainfall. The runoff must be stored above the permanent pool and be released from the site over a 2 to 5 day
period. The volume of runoff generated from the first 1.5" of rainfall will be calculated in accordance with
NCDENR's Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. The volume will be based on drainage area and a
percent impervious of each drainage basin. Table 4.3.1 outlines the volume of runoff generated during the 1.5-
inch rainfall event, the orifice size, and the release time:
Table 4.3.1: First 1.S" Rainfall Data .
Area 1 .. .
Required Volume
103,237 cubic feet
Elevation
16.70
Diameter of 1.5" Rainfall Orifice
4 inches
Allowable Release over 2 days
0.60 cfs
Actual Release
0.30 cfs
Actual release time based on common size orifice
3.98 days
Page 6

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
4.4 Pond Sizing and Routing
An outlet structure must be designed to limit the flow out of each pond in stages, limiting the 1.5" rainfall volume
to be released over 2 to 5 days, and the 1, 2, 10, 25 and 100-year storm events to the runoff rates calculated for
the Pre -Developed Area.
The outlet structure will consist of a riser in the pond with a series of release points at various elevations. The
release outlets will consist of a combination of orifices and weirs. The outlets will be sized as follows:
Orifice Equation • Q = 0.6 x A x (42gh) Weir Equation • Q = 3.27 x (L) x ff -5)
From these equations it is determined that a 4" diameter orifice at the permanent pool elevation will be sufficient
to store and release the 1.5" rainfall volume within the allowable time frame. The 2-year and 10-year storm
events will outfall through a release set above the maximum temporary pool storage elevation. The top of the
6'x6' concrete riser structure will be set above the 10 year storage elevation. This will allow a sufficient amount
of head for the 100 year storm event to be passed over the top of the 6'x6' concrete riser structures without
overtopping the pond. The riser structure details for the pond are shown in Table 4.4.1. At each stage the flow
through the lower outlets (i.e. the release through the 1.5" rainfall orifice during the 10 year storm, etc.) is
subtracted from the allowable to determine the required size of the next outlet. All release from the orifice, the
weir, and the riser structure will flow through a 36-inch outlet pipe. Pond routing and outflow results are shown
in Table 4.4.2. The hydrographs from the reservoir routing, the stage/discharge and stage/storage charts, and
the calculations for the permanent pool and temporary pool requirements can be found at the end of this report
in Appendix C.
Table 4.4.1: Riser Structure Details for Stormwater Pond
1.5" Rainfall Orifice / Elevation at Centroid
4" / 15.17
Top of 1.5" Rainfall Storage (temporary pool elev.)
16.70
2 and 10 year outfall device / elevation
3.0' Weir /16.7
2 year storage volume / elevation
173,238 cf / 17.49
10 year storage volume / elevation
269,472 cf / 18.74
Top of Riser structure elevation
19.30
100 year storage volume / elevation
361,501 cf / 19.88
Top of Pond
20.0
Table 4.4.2: Outflow Results
Storm Event
Stage
Elevation
Allowable ,
Release
Actual,Release
1-yr.
17.19'
8,63 cfs
3.97 cfs
2 yr.
17.49'
13.51 cfs
7.56 cfs
10 yr.
18.74'
34.38 cfs
23.54 cfs
25 yr.
19.26'
44.81 cfs
32.04 cfs
100 yr.
19.88,
63.41 cfs
58.66 cfs
Page 7

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
Section 5 Erosion & Sediment Control
The following is the report of the sediment and erosion control devices to be used on this project. The erosion
will be controlled via a series of temporary diversion ditches, temporary sediment basin (which will be converted
to the permanent stormwater management pond), inlet protection, silt fence, and a stone construction entrance.
These items will be implemented per the NCDENR Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual
requirements and maintained on a regular basis to insure their proper operation. We will also provide
calculations for the sediment basin based on temporary grading conditions and permanent grading conditions to
show basin efficiency is met.
The.site to be graded will consist of approximately 15.8 acres of disturbed area. The area to be graded only
includes the on -site. The pond will also serve as temporary sediment basins during construction. Diversion
ditches will be installed to direct runoff towards a slope drain that will discharge into the sediment basin during
construction. Silt fence will be used in areas that cannot be directed to the temporary sediment basin. When the
stormwater pipe system is installed, inlet protection will be installed at each catch basin to collect sediment.
5.1 Sediment Basin Calculations
Based on the NC Erosion Control Handbook the basin should be sized to handle sediment at a rate of 1800 cubic
feet (c.f.) per disturbed acre per year. The acreage is based on the maximum area that will drain to each basin.
Sediment Basin One: 1,800 c.f. / ac / 15.8 ac = 28,440 c.f. (371,503 c.f. provided)
Page 8

Stormwater Management Report
Lowe's of Jacksonville
Section 6 Pipe Sizing Calculations
The pipe -modeling program Hydraflow Storm Sewers was used in design of the on -site pipes and catch basins.
These are generated by the rational method and are based on the 10-year storm intensity for Onslow County.
These calculations show total flow for each pipe section, velocity, hydraulic grade elevations, and spreads at each
inlet. The starting hydraulic grade, or tailwater, for the system is set by finding the elevation of the pond at the
time of maximum inflow from the pipe system. The flow, velocity, and percent full have also been placed on the
stormdrain profile drawings in the site development plans. Calculations have been provided in Appendix D.
Page 9

Appendix A
Pre -Developed Site Documents

r yt.I S=t
W
ul,
:24 ire
A ie:
IL
71
W,
ark
A
4ft
14 Pfth
M.I, Iik
w TapoQudj ComiEfd DIM
IkU=XA�01L AE OfO96 So.D.UALSGS

NC DENR - 61VISQN OF WATER QUALITY
Alphabetic List of NC Watabodies
WHITE OAK RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream
Subbasin
Stream Index Number
Map Number
Class
Allen Slough -
WOK03
20-36-13-2
I32N'A4
SA;HQW
Alligator Bay
WOK02
19-39-3
I29SW9
SA;ORW
Alligator Creek
WOK03
21-22-2
H32SW4
SA;HQW
Annis Run
WOK04
21-35-7-3-2
H33SE1
SA;HQW
Archer Creek (Piney Cr.)
WOK03
20-36-5
I30NEG
SA;ORW
Atlantic Ocean
WOK01
99-(4)
130NE7
Be
Atlantic Ocean
WOK02
99-(4)
I30SW1
SB
Atlantic Ocean
WOK03
99-(4)
I32NWG
SB
Atlantic Ocean
WOKUS
99-N)
H33NE8
Sn
Bachelors Delight Swamp
4IOK02
19-5
H29SW1
C;NSW
Back Sound
17OK03
21-35-(0.5)
I32NE5
SA;HOW
Back Sound
WOK04
21-35-(0.5)
I32NE5
SA;HQW
Back Sound
WOK05
21-35-(0.5)
I32NE5
SA;HQW
Back Sound
WOK04
21-35-(1.5)
I32NE4
SA; ORW
Bark Sound
WOK05
21-35-(1.5)
I32NE4
SA;ORW
Bald Hill Bay
WOKOS
21-35-4
I32NE5
SA;ORW
Banks Channel
WOK01
1941-6
I30S''41
SA;HQW
Banks Channel
WOK02
19-41-6
I30SW1
SA;HQW
Darden Inlet
WOK05
21-35-7-38
I32NE9
SA;ORW
Barnes Branch
WOK01
20-3-1
R29NW9
C
Bear Creek
WOK01
19-41-10
I30SW2
SA;HQW
Bear Creek
WORO1
19-41-11
I29NE9
SA;HQW
Bear Inlet -
WOKO1
19-41-13
I30SM
SA;HQW
Bear Island ORW Area
WOK01
19-41-1B
I30SW2
SA;ORW
Bear Prong
WOR02
19-4-2
R29NW7
C;NSW
Bearhead Creek
WOK02
19-20-1
2291TE4
SB;NSW
Beaverdam Creek
WOK02
19-20-2
I29NE4
SB;NSW
Bell Creek
WOR03
21-24-2
H32SWS
SA;HQW
Bell Swamp
WOK01
19-41-16-1
I30NW4
SA;HQW
Big Creek
WOK03
21-20
H32SW7
SA;HQW
Big Ramhorn Branch
WOK03
21-4
F31SW6
C
Siglins Creek
NCK02
19-39-4-1-1
I29SW9
SA;HQW
Billys Branch
MK03
21-16-3
H31SE5
C
Black Creek (Mill Pond)
MK03
21-16
H31SEB
C
Black Swamp Creek
WOK01
20-9
H30SW2
C
Blokes Branch
WOKD3
21-9-1
H31SW9
C
Blinds Hammock Bay
WOKOS
21-35-6
I32NE9
SA;ORW
Blue Creek
WOK02
19-8
H285E9
SC;NSW
Boathouse Creek
WOK01
20-31
130NE4
SA;HQW
Bowe Inlet
WORO1
19-41-17
I30WE7
SA;ORW
➢owe Sound (Including Intracoastal Waterway to
WOK03
20-36-(B.5)
I31NW3
SA; HOW
Beaufort Inlet)
Bowe Sound (Including Intracoastal Waterway)
WOK03
20-36-(0.5)
130NE7
SA; ORW
Brett Bay
WOK04
21-35-7-13
H33SW5
SA 7ORW
Brick Kiln Branch
WOK01.
20-8
H305W1
C
.�D Brinson Creek
WOK02
19-12
129NW1
SC;NSW
Broad Creek
WOK03
20-36-7.
I31NW2
SA;HQW
Broad Creek
WOK04
21-35-7-10-4
H33NW9
Sc
Broad Creek
WOK04
21-35-7-22-3
H33SW4
SA;ORW
Brooks Creek
VOK04
21-35-1-13
I32NE1
SA;HQW
Browns Creek
WOK01
19-41-8
I30SW1
SA;HQW
Page 1 of 8

v
`o'4
<GT /f <OT 1T
LOT JT
c LOT 1
mo n mo o IOT J9 /

MNKLowes of Jecksonville; NC
Pre Developed Area
Onslow County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4 5.8 6.9 8.0 8.7 9.9 3.7
Storm Data Source: Onslow County, NC (NRCS)
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type III
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
RinTR-55, Version 1.00.00 Pace 1 12/2/2007 3:57:19 PM

MNK Lowes of Jecksonville, NC
Pre Developed Area
Onslow County, North Carolina
Sub -Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub -Area Hydrologic
Identifier Land Use Soil
Group
--------------------------------------------------------------'
Area 1 Woods - grass combination (fair) 8
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number
Sub -Area
Area
(ac)
16.65
16.65
Curve
Number
65
65
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.00 Page 1 12/2/2007 3:57:19 PM

MNR Lowes of Jecksonville, NC
Pre Developed Area
Onslcw County, North Carolina
Sub -Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub -Area
Flow
Mannings-s
End Wetted
Travel
Identifier/
Length
Slope
n
Area Perimeter
Velocity
Time
________________________________________________________________________________
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(sg ft) (ft)
(ft/sec)
(hr)
..
Area 1
SHEET
100
0.0100
0.400
0.403
SHALLOW
230
0.0050
Q.050
0.044
CHANNEL
595
3.300
0.050
Time of Concentration
0.497
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.00 Page 1 12/2/2007 3:57:19 PM

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Jan 16 2008, 4:51 PM
Hyd. No. 2
Pre Developed Area 1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge =
8.63 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval =
2 min
Drainage area
= 16.65 ac
Curve number =
65
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length =
0 ft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc) =
30 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution =
Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor =
484
Q (cfs)
10.00
:M
. M
4.00
2.00
0.00 -'
0 2 5
— Hyd No. 2
Pre Developed Area 1
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Yr
7 9
Hydrograph Volume = 51,932 cuft
Q (cfs)
10.00
4.00
2.00
J I I I I 1 11=- 0.00
12 14 16 19 21 23 26
Time (hrs)

Appendix B
Post -Developed Site Documents

•�
\ _
"'CAREVISIONS
UTION"' NGNT MAP NOT TO SCALE
J
\
I}
ox—��iox
V// t✓. d. i F Y �
r=
�
I
LIO.wE'S
U1/tt OEE i �,•I' I I I ri l
U
\ _ POST-0E�aaPtvBIT
LOT 21
I
a
\\ I I I I:
I� eE a socv>Fs
�,�
�
� �,'�, L __ `I I � � I' 11 �� q � OACeES MH'O
•A
W
� - ✓� a �_ �.� I ` sax
LOT
j241 601
W
or 19
id lbz2i
0a
0:
�J
aC,
mil/
_

MNK Jacksonville, NC
Post Developed
Onslow County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------
4.4 5.8 6.9 8.0 8.7
Storm Data Source: User -provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type III
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in)
----------------
9.9 3.89
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.00 Page 1 1/16/2008 5:07:56 PM

MNK
Jacksonville, NC
Post Developed
Onslow County, North Carolina
Sub -Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub -Area
Hydrologic
Sub -Area
Curve
Identifier Land Use
Soil
Area
Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group
(ac)
Area 1 Open space; grass cover > 75%
(good) B
9
61
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways
B
19.7
98
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number
23.7
92
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.00 Page 1 1/16/2008 5:07:56 PM

MNK
Jacksonville, NC
Post Developed
Onslow County, North Carolina
Sub -Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub -Area
Flow
Mannings's End Wetted
Travel
Identifier/
Length
Slope n Area Perimeter
Velocity
Time
(ft)
----------------------------------------""---------------------
(ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft)
(ft/sec)
(hr)
Area 1
SHEET
100
0.0150 0.011
0.019
CHANNEL
940
3.000
0.087
Time of Concentration
.106
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.00 .Page 1 1/16/2008 5:07:56 PM

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Jan 16 2008, 4:51 PM
Hyd. No. 5
Post Developed
Area I
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 73.56 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Drainage area
= 23.70 ac
Curve number
= 92
Basin Slope
= 0.0%
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 6.4 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Hydrograph Volume = 228,134 cuft
Post Developed Area 1
Q (Cfs) Hyd. No. 5 1 Yr Q (Cfs)
MOO - 80.00
MOO - 70.00
60.00 - 60.00
50.00 50.00
- - - ----- -------- ---- -------- - -- ------ -------- - -- - - ------ -- --- -- -- - ------ ----- -- .... .. --- --------
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
- - --- -- -- ------ ---------- -------- ---- -- - ---------- ----------- ----- - - ---------- - -- ------ ------ --- ------ ---- ------ ---- -- -
20.00 20.00
- — ---- ------
10.00 -
10.00
0 2 5 7 9 12 14 16 19 21 23 26
— Hyd No. 5 Time (hrs)

Appendix C
Pond Sizing & Routing Documents

Lowe's of Jacksonville, NC
Calculation for: Required Surface Area of Permanent Pool
Lowe's Site: 15.6 acres with 12.8 impervious cover
Future Outlots: 8.1 acres with 6.9 impervious cover (Assume 85% Impervious Cover on Outlots)
Percent Impervious: 19.7 ac / 23.7 ac = 0.83 or 83%
Assume 5.2' Permanent Pool Average Depth
From Table 10-4 90% TSS (Coastal Region) = SA/DA Ratio of 5.8
Table provided on next page
SA = (5.80/100) x 23.7 ac = 1.37 ac or 59,877 SF
Surface Area Required: 59,877 SF
Surface Area Provided: 60,208 SF
TREELAND and KAUFFMAN, INC. 209 West Stone Ave
ENG/NPiRS-L 1vD5CAPEARcHiTLC75 Greenville 5C 29G09
A13J 6G4-233-5497

Lowe's of Jacksonville, NC
Calculation for: Stormwater Pond — 1.5" Rainfall Event
23.7 Acres Total drainage area, 19.7 Acres Impervious (83%)
R�=0.05 +0.009(l); where 1= 83%; therefore, Rr0.80(in/in)
Volume = (1.5in) x (0.80 in/in) x (lft/12in) x (23.7ac) = 2.37 ac-ft = 103,237 ft'
At Elevation 16.50'
This volume must be stored and released in pond over approx. 48 hours.
Flow required to achieve this: (103,237 CF - 48 HRS) X (1 HR/ 3600 sec) = 0.60 CFS
Orifice Centroid = 15.17
Head = 16.70-15.17 = 1.53'
Head was calculated using the first weir elevation, rather than the volume elevation, per our meeting
Per Section 3.5.2 BMP Manual and comment letter, Ho/3 usually used to compute drawdown
Drawdown = Ho/3 = 1.53/3 = 0.51
Area of Orifice = 0 - {0.61(2gh)) = 0.60 CFS - {0.6vr(2(32.2)0.51)) = 0.174 SF = 25.01 in'
Diameter of Orifice = 5.54" Use 4" common size
Flow through 4" orifice = 0.6(0.087) f {2(32.2)0.51) = 0.30 CFS
Actual release time based on common size orifice = 95.6 hrs.
It can be seen in calculations that the peak outflow during the 1.5" rainfall event is less than 0.60 CFS
and the outflow from the pond has a duration of approximately 3.98 days.
FREELAND and KAUFFMAN, INC. 209 west Stone Ave
ENG/NEERS- L7No5CAPE ARcnIT 75 Greenville 5C 29G09
ABJ 6G4-233-5497

Lowe's of Jacksonville, NC
Calculation for: Stormwater Pond #1 Outfalls
• 2-year Storm : Desired maximum approximate Q = 13.51 CFS : g = 32.2 : h = head above outlet
Orifice Equation: Q = 0.6A 1(2gh)
Try a 4" orifice set at the top of the permanent pool elevation. (A=0.087 SF)
Orifice Centroid = 15.17
Storage Volume = 173,238 CF = Elev 17.49 in pond
Head = 17.49-15.17 = 2.32'
Flow through 4" orifice = 0.6(0.087) 1(2 x 32.2 x 2.32) = 0.64 CFS
Weir Equation: Q = 3.3 L H", 3.0' wide at elev. 16.70'
Head = 17.49-16.70 = 0.79'
Weir Equation: Q = 3.3 L H" = 3.3 (3.0) (0.79)" = 6.95 CFS
Total Flow = 0.64 CFS + 6.95 CFS = 7.59 CFS.
Since 7.59 CFS < 13.51 CFS desired maximum, this orifice effectively controls this runoff event.
• 10-year Storm : Desired maximum approximate Q = 34.48 CFS : g = 32.2 : h = head above outlet
Orifice Equation: Q = 0.6A 1(2gh)
Try a 4" orifice set at the top of the permanent pool elevation. (A=0.087 SF)
Orifice Centroid = 15.17
Storage Volume = 269,427 CF = Elev 18.74 in pond
Head = 18.74-15.17 = 3.57'
Flow through 4" orifice = 0.6(0.087) d(2 x 32.2 x 3.57) = 0.79 CFS
Weir Equation: Q = 3.3 L H`s, 3.0' wide at elev. 16.70'
Head = 18.74-16.70 = 2.04'
Weir Equation: Q = 3.3 L H" = 3.3 (3.0) (2.04)" = 28.85 CFS
Total Flow = 0.79 CFS + 28.85 CFS = 29.64 CFS.
Since 29.64 CFS < 34.48 CFS desired maximum, this orifice effectively controls this runoff event.
FREELAND and KAUFFMAN, INC. 209 West Stone Ave
ENG/1vffP5- L7NDscAPEA,QcHnfcTS Greenville SC 29609
ABJ 8G4-233-5497

Permanent Pool Volume Calculations
.. POND+FOREBAY
i.,77. -.. ...
Elevation
- ` (FT)
Area
' (SF)
Average Area
(SF)
Pond Volume
„ (CF) .
tional Pipe VolTotal
(CF)...,
Volume
(CF) ....
Cumulative Volume.
:.... (CF)
:..,.
I I _, .,
,.1,18,110
.. .:. ,..
...
.1....
.. .. .. :. ,.
"T.O ::
19,793
' ' -._ - •.
..,-.18,110 ,..
�:. 0 ..;.,
.- 18,110. ..
'.:18,11021,581
- 8.0 -,...
23,368
"21,581
0': "
21,581
25,261
9.0:-
27,154-.25261,
;.,
0
,25,261
"' 64,952'
.,
,..:,
-29,152
. 10.0
31,150
29,152
0
29,152
-94,104
33,254 ,
, .... -. , .
.. ...
11.6 "'
35,358
33,254 ;.,
�, 0
33,254
"`"' 127,358
12.0
40,924
38141
0
38,141
..165,499
-
-
-43.519
--
....
13.0 -
4611t4
-" _`-
'43519:_
.,::.0,'..
43,519
,. ..209,018
.
,...."48,81q
.:::.... ,,. .
14.0
51,514
°":'"48,814 '0
`'48,814
,�-457,832 .�
:.55,861
•
-
'15.0
60,208
=
55861
0
.55,861
'" ' '313.693
313,693
TOTAL (CY) _1
313.693

NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual Chapter Revised 09-2M7
Table 10-4
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achieve 90 Percent TSS.
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Coastal Region, Adapted from Driscoll,1986
Percent
Permanent pool Average Depth (ft)
Impervious
Cover
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
7.5'
10%
1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 03 0.2
0.1
20%
2.4 20 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9
0.6
30%
3.5 3.0 27 2.5 22 1.9 1.6 1.$ 1.1
0.8
40%
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.5 21 1.8 1.4
1.1
50%
5.6 "- -5.0 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.1 27 23 1.9
1.5
60%
7.0 6.0 5.3 4.8 4.3 3.9 3.4 29 24
1.9
707.
81 7.0 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 19 3.4 2.9
2.3
g
80%
9.4 8.0 7.0 6.4 5.7 5.2 4-6 4.0 3.4
2.8
90%
10.7 9.0 7.9 7.2 6.5 5.9 52 4.6 3.9
3.3
a 5 ZyP�
100%
12 . 10.0 8.8 81 7.3 6.6 5.8 5.1 4.3
3.6
iP
The engineering design of a wet detention basin must include a 10-foot wide (minimum)
vegetated shelf around the full perimeter of the basin The inside edge of the shelf shall
be no deeper than 6" below the permanent pool level, and the outside edge shall be 6"
above the permanent pool level. For a UY wide shelf, the resulting slope is 10:1. With
half the required shelf below the water (maximum depth of 6 inches), and half the
required shelf above the water, the vegetated shelf will provide a location for a diverse
population of emergent wetland vegetation that enhances biological pollutnnf removal,
.
provides a habitat for wildlife, protects the shoreline from erosion, and improves
sediment trap efficiency. A 10' wide shelf also provides a safety feature prior to the
deeper permanent pool
Short-circuiting of the stormwater must be prevented. The most direct way of
minimizing short-circuiting is to maximize the length of the flow path between the inlet
and the outlet: basins with long and narrow shapes can maximize the length of the flow
path. Long and narrow but irregularly shaped wet detention basins may appear more
natural and therefore may have increased aesthetic value. If local site conditions prohibit
a relatively long, narrow facility, baffles may be placed in the wet detention basin to
lengthen the stormwater flow path as much as possible. Baffles must extend to the
temporary pool elevation or higher. A minimum length -to -width ratio of 1.5:1 is
required, but a flow path of at least 3:1 is recommended. Basin shape should minimize
dead storage areas, and where possible the width should expand as it approaches the
outlet
Although larger wet detention basins typically remove more pollutants, a threshold size
seems to exist above which further improvement of water quality by sedimentation is
negligible. The water treatment volume within a wet detention basin is calculated as the
total volume beneath the permanent pool water level, and above the sediment storage
volume, including any such volume within the forebay.
Wet Detention Basin 10-10 July 2007

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Jan 16 2008, 4:51 PM
Pond No. 4 - Basin 1A
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas.
Average end area method
used.
Stage I Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft)
Total storage (cuft)
0.00 15.00
60,208
0
0
1.00 16.00
69,288
64,748
64,748
2.00 17.00
73,538
71,413
136,161
3.00 18.00
76,778
75,158
211,319
4.00 19.00
80,078
78,428
289,747
5.00 20.00
83,433
81,756
371,503
Culvert / Orifice Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 36.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 36.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
1
0
0
Invert El. (ft)
= 15.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
Length (ft)
= 68.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Slope I%)
= 0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= .013
.013
.013
.000
Crif. Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.00
Multi -Stage
= n/a
Yes
No
No
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Crest Len (ft)
= 36.00
3.00
20.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 19.30
16.70
19.30
0.00
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
3.33
2.60
0.00
Weir Type
= Riser
Rect
Broad
-
MultiStage
= Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Contour) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
Stage (ft) Stage / Discharge
5.00 -
4.00
3.00
- Ell
2.00 -
1.00 -
000
Note. CulverVOnfice outflows have been analyzed under Inlet and outlet control.
Stage (ft)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
000
0.00 6.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 30.00 36.00 42.00 48.00 54.00 60.00 66.00
- Total Q Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Wednesday, Jan 16 2008, 4:51 PM
Hyd. No. 8
Post 1 to Pond 1
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 3.97 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Inflow hyd. No.
= 5
Max. Elevation
= 17.19 ft
Reservoir name
= Basin 1A
Max. Storage
= 150,679 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 201,317 cuft
Q (cfs)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
Lr:� 'ff I
i
Q (cfs)
80.00
ri1x1la
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 - 000
0 10
— Hyd No. 8
19 29 39
— Hyd No. 5
48 58 68 77 87
97
Time (hrs)

Appendix D
Pipe Sizing Documents

Hydraflow Plan View
L9.1110
ca.a
u
P ro a•.
1_ro.;e
`13
M.;A
0
XE9.1
3
M3
.b n
1
0=1
Project file: Jax-Front System.stm No. Lines: 14 01-16-2008
Hyarallm Sloan Sewers 2003

Storm Sewer Inventory Report
Page 1
Line
Alignment
Flow Data
Physical Data
Line ID
No.
Dnstr
Line
DO
Junc
Known
Drng
Runoff
Inlet
Invert
Line
Invert
Line
Line
N
J-loss
Inlet/
line
length
angle
type
Q
area
coeff
time
El Dn
slope
El Up
size
type
value
coeff
Rim El
No.
(ft)
(deg)
(cfs)
(ac)
(C)
(min)
(ft)
M
(ft)
(in)
(n)
(K)
(ft)
1
End
36.0
-75.0
Comb
0.00
0.49
0.95
5.0
10.00
1.00
10.36
36
Cir
0.013
0.50
19.50
1 to 2
2
1
300.0
-10.0
Grate
0.00
0.97
0.95
5.0
10.46
0.50
11.96
36
Cir
0.013
1.25
20.10
2 to 3
3
2
130.0
-58.0
Grate
0.00
0.94
0.95
5.0
12.06
0.50
12.71
30
Cir
0.013
0.50
20.10
3 to 4
4
3
130.0
0.0
Grate
0.00
0.97
0.95
5.0
12.81
0.50
13.46
30
Cir
0.013
1.50
20.10
4 to 5
5
4
130.0
0.0
Grate
0.00
1.20
0.95
5.0
13.56
0.50
14.21
24
Cir
0.013
0.50
20.10
5 to 6
6
2
168.0
16.0
Comb
0.00
0.09
0.95
5.0
12.06
0.50
12.90
24
Cir
0.013
1.50
21.70
3 to 7
7
6
130.0
-74.0
Comb
0.00
0.09
0.95
5.0
12.99
0.50
13.64
24
Cir
0.013
1.50
21.70
7 to 8
8
4
326.0
80.0
Comb
0.00
0.52
0.95
5.0
13.56
0.50
15.19
18
Cir
0.013
1.50
19.20
5 to 9
9
8
34.0
-86.0
Comb
0.00
0.11
0.95
5.0
15.29
0.50
15.46
18
Cir
0.013
0.50
19.80
9 to 10
10
9
36.0
7.0
Comb
0.00
0.12
0.95
5.0
15.56
0.50
15.74
18
Cir
0.013
1.00
19.80
10 to 11
11
7
24.0
90.0
DrCrb
0.00
0.45
0.95
5.0
13.74
1.00
13.98
24
Cir
0.013
1.00
19.20
8 to 8A
12
6
24.0
0.0
DrCrb
0.00
0.45
0.95
5.0
12.99
1.00
13.23
24
Cir
0.013
1.00
19.20
7 to 7B
13
6
71.0
135.0
Curb
0.00
0.10
0.95
5.0
12.99
1.00
13.70
18
Cir
0.013
1.00
20.30
7 to 7A
14
5
121.0
0.0
Grate
0.00
0.50
0.95
5.0
14.31
0.50
14.92
24
Cir
0.013
1.00
21.10
6 to 6A
Project File: Jax-Front System.stm
Number of lines: 14
Date: 01-16-2008
1lydrem Strom Saxxrs =

Storm Sewer Summary Report
Page 7
Line
Line ID
Flow
Line
Line
Invert
Invert
Line
HGL
HGL
Minor
Dns
No.
rate
size
length
EL Dn
EL Up
slope
down
up
loss
line
(cfs)
(in)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
N
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
No.
1
1 to 2
40.97
36 c
36.0
10.00
10.36
1.000
13.00
13.07
0.29
End
2
2 to 3
38.97
36 c
300.0
10.46
11.96
0.500
13.36
14.18
0.94
1
3
3 to 4
26.37
30 c
130.0
12.06
12.71
0.500
15.12'
15.66'
0.22
2
4
4 to 5
20.95
30 c
130.0
12.81
13.46
0.500
15.88'
16.22'
0.42
3
5
5 to 6
11.00
24. c
130.0
13.56
14.21
0.500
16.64'
16.95'
0.10
4
6
3 to 7
7.38
24 c
168.0
12.06
12.90
0.500
15.12'
15.30'
0.13
2
7
7 to 8
3.65
24 c
130.0
12.99
13.64
0.500
15.43
15.46
0.03
6
8
5 to 9
4.84
18 c
326.0
13.56
15.19
0.500
16.64'
17.34`
0.18
4
9
9 to 10
1.51
18 c
34.0
15.29
15.46
0.500
17.51'
17.52'
0.01
8
10
10 to 11
0.82
18 c
36.0
15.56
15.74
0.500
17.52'
17.53'
0.00
9
11
8 to 8A
3.08
24 c
24.0
13.74
13.98
1.000
15.49
15.49
0.02
7
12
7 to 713
3.08
24 c
24.0
12.99
13.23
1.000
15.43'
15.43'
0.01
6
13
7 to 7A
0.68
18 c
71.0
12.99
13.70
1.000
15.43'
15.43'
0.00
6
14
6 to 6A
3.42
24 c
121.0
14.31
14.92
0.504
17.05'
17.07'
0.02
5
Project File: Jax-Front System.stm
Number of lines: 14
Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES: c= circular; e = elliptical; b = box; Return period = 10 Yrs.; ' Indicates surcharge condition.
Hydraflm Storm Sewers 2003

Storm Sewer Tabulation
Page 1
Station
Len
Drng Area
Rnoff
Area x C
Tc
Rain
Total
Cap
Val
Pipe
Invert Elev
HGL Elev
Grnd / Rim Elev
Line ID
coeff
(1)
flow
full
Line
To
Incr
Total
Incr
Total
Inlet
Syst
Size
Slope
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
Line
(ft)
(ac)
(ac)
(C)
(min)
(min)
(in/hr)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(ft/s)
(in)
M
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
i
End
36.0
0.49
7.00
0.95
0.47
6.65
5.0
10.6
6.2
40.97
66.69
5.94
36
1.00
10.36
10.00
13.07
13.00
19.50
0.00
1 to 2
2
1
300.0
0.97
6.51
0.95
0.92
6.18
5.0
9.7
6.3
38.97
47.16
6.26
36
0.50
11.96
10.46
14.18
13.36
20.10
19.50
2 to 3
3
2
130.0
0.94
4.36
0.95
0.89
4.14
5.0
9.3
6.4
26.37
29.00
5.37
30
0.50
12.71
12.06
15.66
15.12
20.10
20.10
3 to 4
4
3
130.0
0.97
3.42
0.95
0.92
3.25
5.0
8.8
6.4
20.95
29.00
4.27
30
0.50
13.46
12.81
16.22
15.88
20.10
20.10
4 to 5
5
4
130.0
1.20
1.70
0.95
1.14
1.62
5.0
6.9
6.8
11.00
15.99
3.50
24
0.50
14.21
13.56
16.95
16.64
20.10
20.10
5 to 6
6
2
168.0
0.09
1.18
0.95
0.09
1.12
5.0
8.1
6.6
7.38
15.99
2.35
24
0.50
12.90
12.06
15.30
15.12
21.70
20.10
3 to 7
7
6
130.0
0.09
0.54
0.95
0.09
0.51
5.0
5.4
7.1
3.65
15.99
1.19
24
0.50
13.64
12.99
15.46
15.43
21.70
21.70
7 to 8
8
4
326.0
0.52
0.75
0.95
0.49
0.71
5.0
6.9
6.8
4.84
7.43
2.74
18
0.50
15.19
13.56
17.34
16.64
19.20
20.10
5 to 9
9
8
34.0
0.11
0.23
0.95
0.10
0.22
5.0
6.3
6.9
1.51
7.43
0.86
18
0.50
15.46
15.29
17.52
17.51
19.80
19.20
9 to 10
10
9
36.0
0.12
0.12
0.95
0.11
0.11
5.0
5.0
7.2
0.82
7.43
0.46
18
0.50
15.74
15.56
17.53
17.52
19.80
19.80
10 to 11
11
7
24.0
0.45
0.45
0.95
0.43
0.43
5.0
5.0
7.2
3.08
22.62
1.13
24
1.00
13.98
13.74
15.49
15.49
19.20
21.70
8 to 8A
12
6
24.0
0.45
0.45
0.95
0.43
0.43
5.0
5.0
7.2
3.08
22.62
0.98
24
1.00
13.23
12.99
15.43
15.43
19.20
21.70
7 to 7B
13
6
71.0
0.10
0.10
0.95
0.10
0.10
5.0
5.0
7.2
0.68
10.50
0.39
18
1.00
13.70
12.99
15.43
15.43
20.30
21.70
7 to 7A
14
5
121.0
0.50
0.50
0.95
0.48
0.48
5.0
5.0
7.2
3.42
16.06
1.09
24
0.50
14.92
14.31
17.07
17.05
21.10
20.10
6 to 6A
Project File: Jax-Front System.stm
Number of lines: 14
Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES: Intensity = 96.92 / (Inlet time + 21.00) ^ 0.80; Retum period = 10 Yrs.
Hydra m St. Sewers 2W3

Inlet Report
Page 1
Line
Inlet ID
Q =
Q
Q
Q
Junc
Curb Inlet
Grate Inlet
Gutter
Inlet
Byp
No
CIA
carry
capt
byp
type
line
Ht
L
area
L
W
So
W
SW
Sx
n
depth
spread
depth
spread
Dep
No
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(in)
(ft)
(sgft)
(ft)
(ft)
(tuft)
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(Rift)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(in)
1
Str.2
3.35
0.00
3.35
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.020
0.000
0.35
12.83
0.34
12.83
1.00
Off
2
Str.3
6.63
0.00
6.63
0.00
Grate
0.0
0.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Sag
1.50
0.028
0.020
0.000
0.37
17.68
0.37
17.68
0.14
Off
3
Str.4
6.43
0.00
6.43
0.00
Grate
0.0
0.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Sag
1.50
0.028
0.020
0.000
0.36
17.31
0.36
17.31
0.14
Off
4
Str.5
6.63
0.00
6.63
0.00
Grate
0.0
0.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Sag
1.50
0.028
0.020
0.000
0.37
17.68
0.37
17.68
0.14
Off
5
Str.6
8.20
0.00
8.20
0.00
Grate
0.0
0.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Sag
1.50
0.028
0.020
0.000
0.42
20.47
0.42
20.47
0.14
Off
6
Str.7
0.62
0.00
0.62
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.020
0.000
0.12
1.46
0.11
1.46
1.00
Off
7
Str.8
0.62
0.00
0.62
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.020
0.000
0.12
1.46
0.11
1.46
1.00
Off
8
Str.9
3.55
0.00
3.55
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.020
0.000
0.36
13.33
0.35
13.33
1.00
Off
9
Str. 10
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.020
0.000
0.14
2.33
0.13
2.33
1.00
Off
10
Str. 11
0.82
0.00
0.82
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.020
0.000
0.15
2.83
0.14
2.83
1.00
Off
11
Str. BA
3.08
0.00
3.08
0.00
DrCrb
6.0
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.030
0.030
0.000
0.40
13.39
0.40
13.39
0.00
Off
12
Str. 7B
3.08
0.00
3.08
0.00
DrCrb
6.0
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.030
0.030
0.000
0.40
13.39
0.40
13.39
0.00
Off
13
Str. 7A
0.68
0.00
0.68
0.00
Curb
6.0
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
2.00
0.100
0.030
0.000
0.25
3.80
0.28
3.80
2.00
Off
14
Str. 6A
3.42
0.00
3.42
0.00
Grate
0.0
0.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
Sag
2.00
0.100
0.030
0.000
0.25
3.53
0.27
3.53
2.00
Off
Project File: Jax-Front System.stm I-D-F File: Jacksonville.IDF
Number of lines: 14
Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES: Inlet N-Values = 0.016 ; Intensity = 96.92 / (Inlet time + 21.00) " 0.80; Return period = 10 Yrs. ; ' Indicates Known Q added
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2003

Hydraulic Grade Line Computations
Page 1
Line
Size
Q
Downstream
Len
Upstream
Check
JL
Minor
coeff
loss
Invert
HGL
Depth
Area
Vel
Vel
EGL
Sf
Invert
HGL
Depth
Area
Vel
Vel
EGL
Sf
Ave
Enrgy
elev
elev
head
elev
elev
elev
head
elev
Sf
loss
(in)
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(sgft)
(ff/s)
(ft)
(ft)
(%)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(sgft)
(ft/s)
(ft)
(ft)
(%)
(°/)
(ft)
(K)
(ft)
1
36
40.97
10.00
13.00
3.00
7.07
5.80
0.52
13.52
0.377
36.0
10.36
13.07
2.71
6.73
6.09
0.58
13.65
0.331
0.354
0.127
0.50
0.29
2
36
38.97
10.46
13.36
2.90
7.00
5.57
0.48
13.84
0.300
300
11.96
14.18
2.22
5.60
6.96
0.75
14.93
0.426
0.363
1.088
1.25
0.94
3
30
26.37
12.06
15.12
2.50
4.91
5.37
0.45
15.57
0.413
130
12.71
15.66
2.50
4.91
5.37
0.45
16.10
0.413
0.413
0.537
0.50
0.22
4
30
20.95
12.81
15.88
2.50
4.91
4.27
0.28
16.16
0.261
130
13.46
16.22
2.50
4.91
4.27
0.28
16.50
0.261
0.261
0.339
1.50
0.42
5
24
11.00
13.56
16.64
2.00
3.14
3.50
0.19
16.83
0.237
130
14.21
16.95
2.00
3.14
3.50
0.19
17.14
0.236
0.237
0.307
0.50
0.10
6
24
7.38
12.06
15.12
2.00
3.14
2.35
0.09
15.20
0.107
168
12.90
15.30
2.00
3.14
2.35
0.09
15.38
0.106
0.107
0.179
1.50
0.13
7
24
3.65
12.99
15.43
2.00
3.14
1.16
0.02
15.45
0.026
130
13.64
15.46
1.82
3.00
1.22
0.02
15.48
0.023
0.024
0.032
1.50
0.03
8
18
4.84
13.56
16.64
1.50
1.77
2.74
0.12
16.76
0.213
326
15.19
17.34
1.50
1.77
2.74
0.12
17.45
0.213
0.213
0.693
1.50
0.18
9
18
1.51
15.29
17.51
1.50
1.77
0.86
0.01
17.52
0.021
34.0
15.46
17.52
1.50
1.77
0.86
0.01
17.53
0.021
0.021
0.007
0.50
0.01
10
18
0.82
15.56
17.52
1.50
1.77
0.46
0.00
17.53
0,006
36.0
15.74
17.53
1.50
1.77
0.46
0.00
17.53
0.006
0.006
0.002
1.00
0.00
11
24
3.08
13.74
15.49
1.75
2.92
1.05
0.02
15.51
0.017
24.0
13.98
15.49
1.51
2.55
1.21
0.02
15.51
0.022
0.019
0.005
1.00
0.02
12
24
3.08
12.99
15.43
2.00
3.14
0.98
0.01
15.44
0.019
24.0
13.23
15.43
2.00
3.14
0.98
0.01
15.44
0.018
0.018
0.004
1.00
0.01
13
18
0.68
12.99
15.43
1.50
1.77
0.39
0.00
15.43
0.004
71.0
13.70
15.43
1.50
1.77
0.39
0.00
15.43
0.004
0.004
0.003
1.00
0.00
14
24
3.42
14.31
17.05
2.00
3.14
1.09
0.02
17.07
0.023
121
14.92
17.07
2.00
3.14
1.09
0.02
17.09
0.023
0.023
0.028
1.00
0.02
Project File: Jax-Front System.stm
Number of lines: 14
Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES:' Normal depth assumed., "Critical depth assumed.
Hytlraitow Stom Sewers 20n3

Hydraflow Plan View
n,,
Project file: Rear System -SD western pl.stm I No. Lines: 14 101-16-2008 I
Hydra . Storm Sewers 2003

Storm Sewer Inventory Report
Page 1
Line
Alignment
Flow Data
Physical Data
Line ID
No.
Dnstr
Line
DO
Junc
Known
Dmg
Runoff
Inlet
Invert
Line
Invert
Line
Line
N
J-loss
Inlet/
line
length
angle
type
C!
area
coeff
time
El Dn
slope
El Up
size
type
value
coeff
Rim EI
No.
(ft)
(deg)
(cfs)
(ac)
(C)
(min)
(ft)
M
(ft)
(in)
(n)
(K)
(ft)
1
End
50.0
-160.0
Comb
0.00
0.46
0.95
5.0
10.00
1.00
10.50
36
Cir
0.013
1.50
21.31
12 to 13
2
1
246.0
-64.0
Comb
0.00
0.58
0.95
5.0
10.60
0.50
11.83
36
Cir
0.013
1.50
20.61
13 to 14
3
2
350.0
80.0
Comb
0.00
0.18
0.95
5.0
11.93
0.50
13.68
30
Cir
0.013
1.50
22.88
14 to 15
4
3
176.0
0.0
Comb
0.00
0.43
0.95
5.0
13.78
0.50
14.66
24
Cir
0.013
1.50
22.37
15 to 16
5 .
4
104.0
-7.0
MH
0.00
0.00
0.95
5.0
14.76
0.50
15.28
18
Cir
0.013
1.00
21.50
16 to 16A
6
1
118.0
78.0
Hdwl
0.00
0.19
0.95
5.0
17.39
2.00
19.75
10
Cir
0.013
1.00
23.00
13 to HW-SS
7
2
52.0
132.0
Hdwl
0.00
0.30
0.95
5.0
15.69
1.00
16.21
12
Cir
0.013
1.00
22.35
14 to HW-CA&NV
8
3
32.0
90.0
Hdwl
0.00
2.10
0.95
5.0
19.68
1.00
20.00
18
Cir
0.013
1.00
22.88
15 to HW-Roof 1
9
4
25.0
90.0
Hdwl
0.00
1.09
0.95
5.0
19.15
1.00
19.40
18
Cir
0.013
1.00
22.37
16 to HW-Roof 2
10
5
195.0
100.0
Grate
0.00
0.20
0.95
5.0
15.37
0.50
16.35
18
Cir
0.013
0.50
23.70
16A to 16B
11
10
110.0
0.0
Grate
0.00
0.20
0.95
5.0
16.45
0.50
17.00
15
Cir
0.013
0.50
23.70
16B to 16C
12
11
134.0
0.0
MH
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.0
17.10
0.50
17.77
15
Cir
0.013
0.45
23.30
16C to 16D
13
12
50.0
32.0
Curb
0.00
0.20
0.95
5.0
17.87
0.50
18.12
15
Cir
0.013
1.00
22.50
16D to 16E
14
5
65.0
0.0
Curb
0.00
0.40
0.95
5.0
15.37
0.51
15.70
18
Cir
0.013
1.00
21.50
16A to 17
Project File: Rear System -SD western pl.stm
Number of lines: 14
Date: 01-16-2008
Hydrefl Storm Sewers 20n3

Storm Sewer Summary Report
Page 1
Line
Line ID
Flow
Line
Line
Invert
Invert
Line
HGL
HGL
Minor
Dns
No.
rate
size
length
EL Dn
EL Up
slope
down
up
loss
line
(cfs)
(in)
(ft)
(ft)
(H)
N
(h)
(ft)
(ft)
No.
1
12 to 13
34.90
36 c
50.0
10.00
10.50
1.000
13.00
13.05
0.69
End
2
13 to 14
31.98
36 c
246.0
10.60
11.83
0.500
13.74
14.21
0.66
1
3
14 to 15
27.69
30 c
350.0
11.93
13.68
0.500
14.87'
16.46'
0.74
2
4
15 to 16
14.75
24 c
176.0
13.78
14.66
0.500
17.21'
17.95'
0.51
3
5
16 to 16A
5.93
18 c
104.0
14.76
15.28
0.500
18.47'
18.80'
0.17
4
6
13 to HW-SS
1.30
10 c
118.0
17.39
19.75
2.000
17.77
20.26
0.22
1
7
14 to HW-CABTW
2.05
12 c
52.0
15.69
16.21
1.000
16.23
16.82
0.26
2
8
15 to HW-Roof 1
14.35
18 c
32.0
19.68
20.00
1.000
21.18'
21.78'
1.03
3
9
16 to HW-Roof 2
7A5
18 c
25.0
19.15
19.40
1.000
20.08
20.45
0.50
4
10
16A to 16B
3.70
18 c
195.0
15.37
16.35
0.503
18.97'
19.22'
0.03
5
11
16B to 16C
2.52
15 c
110.0
16.45
17.00
0.500
19.25'
19.42'
0.03
10
12
16C to 16D
1.34
15 c
134.0
17.10
17.77
0.500
19.45'
19.51'
0.01
11
13
16D to 16E
1.37
15 c
50.0
17.87
18.12
0.500
19.52'
19.54'
0.02
12
14
16A to 17
2.73
18 c
65.0
15.37
15.70
0.508
18.97'
19.02'
0.04
5
Project File: Rear System -SD western pl.slm
Number of lines: 14
'Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES: c = circular; e = elliptical; b = box; Return period = 10 Yrs.; ' Indicates surcharge condition.
Hydra0ow Stom Sowers 2003

Storm Sewer Tabulation
Page 1
Station
Len
Drng Area
Rnoff
Area x C
Tc
Rain
Total
Cap
Val
Pipe
Invert Elev
HGL Elev
Grnd I Rim Elev
Line ID
coeff
(1)
flow
full
Line
Incr
Total
Incr
Total
Inlet
Syst
Size
Slope
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
FUn
(ft)
(ac)
(ac)
(C)
(min)
(min)
(in/hr)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(ft/s)
(in)
M)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
1
End
50.0
0.46
6.33
0.95
0.44
6.01
5.0
13.0
5.8
MAO
66.69
5.19
36
1.00
10.50
10.00
13.05
13.00
21.31
0.00
12 to 13
2
1
246.0
0.58
5.68
0.95
0.55
5.40
5.0
12.1
5.9
31.98
47.16
4.93
36
0.50
11.83
10.60
14.21
13.74
20.61
21.31
13 to 14
3
2
350.0
0.18
4.80
0.95
0.17
4.56
5.0
11.2
6.1
27.69
29.00
5.64
30
0.50
13.68
11.93
16.46
14.87
22.88
20.61
14 to 15
4
3
176.0
0.43
2.52
0.95
0.41
2.39
5.0
10.6
6.2
14.75
15.99
4.70
24
0.50
14.66
13.78
17.95
17.21
22.37
22.88
15 to 16
5
4
104.0
0.00
1.00
0.95
0.00
0.95
5.0
10.1
6.2
5.93
7.43
3.35
18
0.50
15.28
14.76
18.80
18.47
21.50
22.37
16 to 16A
6
1
118.0
0.19
0.19
0.95
0.18
0.18
5.0
5.0
7.2
1.30
3.10
4.58
10
2.00
19.75
17.39
20.26
17.77
23.00
21.31
13 to HW-SS
7
2
52.0
0.30
0.30
0.95
0.29
0.29
5.0
5.0
7.2
2.05
3.56
4.40
12
1.00
16.21
15.69
16.82
16.23
22.35
20.61
14 to HW-CA&T
8
3
32.0
2.10
2A0
0.95
2.00
2.00
5.0
5.0
7.2
14.35
10.50
8.12
18
1.00
20.00
19.68
21.78
21.18
22.88
22.88
15 to HW-Roof 1
9
4
25.0
1.09
1.09
0.95
1.04
1.04
5.0
5.0
7.2
7.45
10.50
6.05
18
1.00
19.40
19.15
20.45
20.08
22.37
22.37
16 to HW-Roof 2
10
5
195.0
0.20
0.60
0.95
0.19
0.57
5.0
8.6
6.5
3.70
7.44
2.09
18
0.50
16.35
15.37
19.22
18.97
23.70
21.50
16A to 16B
11
10
110.0
0.20
0.40
0.95
0.19
0.38
5.0
7.8
6.6
2.52
4.57
2.06
15
0.50
17.00
16.45
19.42
19.25
23.70
23.70
16B to 16C
12
11
134.0
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.19
5.0
5.7
7.0
1.34
4.57
1.09
15
0.50
17.77
17.10
19.51
19.45
23.30
23.70
16C to 16D
13
12
50.0
0.20
0.20
0.95
0.19
0.19
5.0
5.0
7.2
1.37
4.57
1.11
15
0.50
18.12
17.87
19.54
19.52
22.50
23.30
160 to 16E
14
5
65.0
0.40
0.40
0.95
0.38
0.38
5.0
5.0
7.2
2.73
7.48
1.55
18
0.51
15.70
15.37
19.02
18.97
21.50
21.50
16A to 17
Project File: Rear System -SD western pl.stm
Number of lines: 14
Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES: Intensity = 96.92 / (Inlet time + 21.00) A 0.80; Return period = 10 -Yrs.
Hydraflmv Storm Sewers 2003

Inlet Report
Page 1
Line
Inlet ID
Q =
Q
Q
Q
Junc
Curb Inlet
Grate Inlet
Gutter
Inlet
Byp
No
CIA
carry
capt
byp
type
line
No
Ht
L
area
L
W
So
W
SW
Sx
n
depth
spread
depth
spread
Dep
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(in)
(ft)
(sgft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(ft)
Mitt)
(ft/ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(in)
1
Str. 13
3.14
0.00
3.14
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.00
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.030
0.000
0.35
9.22
0.36
9.22
1.00
Off
2
Str. 14
3.96
0.00
3.96
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.030
0.000
0.37
9.89
0.38
9.89
1.00
Off
3
Str. 15
1.23
0.00
1.23
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.030
0.000
0.17
3.22
0.18
3.22
1.00
Off
4
Str. 16
2.94
0.00
2.94
0.00
Comb
4.0
2.80
1.60
2.80
1.50
Sag
1.50
0.080
0.030
0.000
0.30
7.56
0.31
7.56
1.00
Off
5
Str. 16A
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MH
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Off
6
HW (Shade Str.)
1.30
0.00
1.30
0.00
Hdwl
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Off
7
HW (CA and TW)
2.05
0.00
2.05
0.00
Hdwl
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Off
8
HW (Roof 1)
14.35
0.00
14.35
0.00
Hdwl
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Off
9
HW (Roof 2)
7.45
0.00
7.45
0.00
Hdwl
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Off
10
Str. 16B
1.37
0.00
1.37
0.00
Grate
0.0
0.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
Sag
2.00
0A00
0.030
0.000
0.12
1.21
0.15
1.31
2.00
Off
11
Str. 16C
1.37
0.00
1.37
0.00
Grate
0.0
0.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
Sag
2.00
0.100
0.030
0.000
0.12
1.21
0.15
1.31
2.00
Off
12
Str. 16D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MH
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Off
13
Str. 16E
1.37
0.00
1.37
0.00
Curb
6.0
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
2.00
0.100
0.030
0.000
0.32
6.04
0.35
6.04
2.00
Off
14
Str. 17
2.73
0.00
2.73
0.00
Curb
6.0
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sag
2.00
0.100
0.030
0.000
0.43
9.62
0.46
9.62
2.00
Off
Project File: Rear System -SD western pl.stm I-D-F File: Jacksonville.IDF
Number of lines: 14
Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES: Inlet N-Values = 0.016 ; Intensity = 96.92 / (Inlet time + 21.00) " 0.80; Return period = 10 Yrs. ' Indicates Known Q added
Hydrafi w Sturm Sewers 2MG

Hydraulic Grade Line Computations
Page 1
Line
Size
Q
Downstream
Len
Upstream
Check
JL
Minor
coeff
loss
HGL
Depth
Area
Val
Vel
EGL
Sf
Invert
HGL
Depth
Area
Val
Vel
EGL
Sf
Ave
Enrgy
n1e,
elev
head
elev
elev
elev
head
elev
Sf
loss
(ft)
(in)
(cfs)(ft)
(ft)
(sqft)
(f fs)
(ft)
(ft)
M
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(sgft)
(ft/s)
(ft)
(ft)
M)
(%)
(K)
(ft)
1
36
34.90
10.00
13.00
3.00
7.07
4.94
0.38
13.38
0.274
50.0
10.50
13.05
2.55
6.41
5.44
0.46
13.51
0.257
0.266
0.133
1.50
0.69
2
36
31.98
10.60
13.74
3.00
7.07
4.53
0.32
14.06
0.230
246
11.83
14.21
2.38
6.00
5.33
0.44
14.65
0.246
0.238
0.585
1.50
0.66
3
30
27.69
11.93
14.87
2.50
4.91
5.64
0.49
15.36
0.456
350
13.68
16.46
2.50
4.91
5.64
0.49
16.96
0.456
0.456
1.596
1.50
0.74
4
24
14.75
13.78
17.21
2.00
3.14
4.70
0.34
17.55
0.426
176
14.66
17.95
2.00
3.14
4.70
0.34
18.30
0.425
0.425
0.749
1.50
0.51
5
18
5.93
14.76
18.47
1.50
1.77
3.35
0.17
18.64
0.319
104
15.28
18.80
1.50
1.77
3.35
0.17
18.97
0.319
0.319
0.331
1.00
0.17
6
10
1.30
17.39
17.77
0.38'
0.24
5.42
0.46
18.22
1,993
118
19.75
20.26
0.51'•
0.35
3.74
0.22
20.47
0.748
1.370
n/a
1.00
0.22
7
12
2.05
15.69
16.23
0.54'
0.44
4.69
0.34
16.58
0.998
52.0
16.21
16.82
0.61"
0.50
4.11
0.26
17.08
0.708
0.853
n/a
1.00
0.26
8
18
14.35
19.68
21.18
1.50'
1.77
8.12
1.03
22.21
1.869
32.0
20.00
21.78
1.50
1.77
8.12
1.03
22.80
1.869
1.869
0.598
1.00
1.03
9
18
7.45
19.15
20.08
0.93`
1.16
6.43
0.64
20.73
0.994
25.0
19.40
20.45
1.05
1.31
5.67
0.50
20.94
0.727
0.860
0.215
1.00
0.50
10
18
3.70
15.37
18.97
1.50
1.77
2.09
0.07
19.04
0.124
195
16.35
19.22
1.50
1.77
2.09
0.07
19.28
0.124
0.124
0.242
0.50
0.03
11
15
2.52
16.45
19.25
1.25
1.23
2.06
0.07
19.32
0.153
110
17.00
19.42
1.25
1.23
2.06
0.07
19.48
0.153
0.153
0.168
0.50
0.03
12
15
1.34
17.10
19.45
1.25
1.23
1.09
0.02
19.47
0.043
134
17.77
19.51
1.25
1.23
1.09
0.02
19.53
0.043
0.043
0.057
0.45
0.01
13
15
1.37
17.87
19.52
1.25
1.23
1.11
0.02
19.54
0.045
50.0
18.12
19.54
1.25
1.23
1.11
0.02
19.56
0.045
0.045
0.022
1.00
0.02
14
18
2.73
15.37
18.97
1.50
1.77
1.55
0.04
19.01
0.068
65.0
15.70
19.02
1.50
1.77
1.55
0.04
19.06
0.068
0.068
0.044
1.00
0.04
Project File: Rear System -SD western pl.stm
Number of lines: 14
Run Date: 01-16-2008
NOTES: ' Normal depth assumed., " Critical depth assumed.
HydrOt Storm Sewers 2003

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
January 14, 2008
Jeffrey Flattery, Member/Manager
Jemsite Development, LLC
1608 US Hwy 221 N
Jefferson. NC 28640
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 071207
Lowe's of Jacksonville
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Flattery:
The Wilmington Regional Office received an NPDES Phase II Post Construction Permit
Application for Lowe's of Jacksonville on December 6, 2007. A preliminary review of that
information has determined that the following information is needed to continue the stormwater
review:
The 0.8 acre area draining to an existing stormwater pond permitted under a separate
permit must be consisted as offsite drainage. This requires a plan revision to the
previously permitted stormwater system in order to allocate offsite BUA as well as
adjusting the lot lines. In addition, an offsite supplement for this 0.8 acre area must be
provided with the permit application for this project. This permit cannot be issued until
the plan revision and offsite issues are resolved.
2. The total built upon area identified on the deed restrictions for the outparcel lots are
inconsistent with the total built upon area identified in Section 111.9 of the application.
Please verify and report consistently.
3. The french drains, used to lower the groundwater elevation onsite, are discharging
groundwater into the stormwater pond thus potentially reducing the pond storage
volume available to treat the required stormwater runoff. If the desire 1s to discharge the
water collected by the french drains to the pond, calculations must be provided to show
that the temporary storage volume of the pond will not be impacted. However, since the
french drains are not collecting stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, the
collected water does not need to be treated by the stormwater pond.
4. Please correct the depth of water at which sediment should be removed from the
permanent pool and forebay in the text above the basin diagram on page 3 of the Wet
Detention Basin Inspection & Maintenance Agreement. These values should equal the
difference in the permanent pool elevation and sediment removal elevation. (15'-6'=9')
5. The temporary pool elevation is considered to be located at the next available outlet
above the permanent pool. For this pond design, the storage volume is met at 16.5,
however the next available outlet is at 16.70. Please use the weir elevation (16.7) when
providing details for the temporary pool (elevation, surface area, and volume).
6. Please submit a $500 fee for the additional review required for this application. 0ii,
No thcarolina
,A; Iurally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: ewurnewmerqualr\ on-, Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportun4/Affirmative Action Employer- 50 % Recycled110°/ Post Consumer Paper

Jeffrey Flattery
January 14, 2008
Stormwater Application No. SW8 071207
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary
review. The requested information should be received in this Office prior to January 22,
2008, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will
necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under
an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and
is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have
any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or
email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
ENB/can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\ADDINFO\2007\071207.jan08
cc: Todd Simmons, Freeland and Kauffman
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 2 of 2

FREELAND and KAUFFMAN, INC.
Ewmzws • b mscAPE fiRorrcTB
Responses to Comments for Lowe's of Jacksonville:
Stormwater Project No. SW8 071207
Freeland & Kauffman, Inc.
December 28, 2007
1) The title has been changed to manager on the application.
nE C E I V ED
JAN 0 2 2008
Dwo
PROJ #
2) The name has been printed in the appropriate location.
3) The `Post -Development 1-yr, 24-hr Peak Flow' listed in the supplement under,
the Peak Flow Calculations in Section ll has been modified to reflect the peak
runoff from the site.
4) It is understood that the depth of the permanent pool is considered to be the
difference between -the permanent pool elevation and the top elevation ofthe
sediment storage elevation. The pond design has been modified with a 1'
sediment storage area. This area is between elevation 5.0' and 6.0'. The
permanent pool elevation is from elevation 6.0' and 15.0 `.
5) As stated in response 44, the pond design has been modified and based on this
design the SA/DA ratio is 5.94. As shown in the Wet Basin Supplement, this
design will provide a 5.2' average permanent pool depth.
6) The calculations have been modified based'on Section 3.5.2 of the 2007 BMP
Manual. In the calculations, you will notice the reference to Orifice Centroid,
in place of Orifice Invert.
7) The seasonal high water table (SHWT) at the pond location has been shown
on the Pond Section Sheet. The SHWT has been determined to be a elevation
12.0', which is lower than the temporary pool (16.50') and permanent pool
(15.0').
8) The proposed French drains have been shown in areas on site to lower the
groundwater elevation, specifically around the building. These drains will not
negatively impact the volume of the pond, as they do not run under the
proposed pond.
9) The Wet Detention Basin Inspection & Maintenance Agreement has been
resubmitted with the corrected depth at which the sediment shall be removed.
209 West Stone Avenue • Greenville, South Carolina 29609 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]

�r
10) The revised drainage area map has been included within this resubmittal
package.
1 1) Per our phone conversation, a portion of the parking lot will drain to the shops
property and will be treated by the existing system. This area has been
accounted for in the stormwater permit that was approved for the regional
facility, that serves Wal-Mart, Yopp Road, Shops Property, and certain
outlots. I have also included a drainage area map for the regional facility,
which is located within the report immediately after the Lowe's drainage map.
As you can see, the drainage area for the Regional Stormwater Facility
incorporated this area, as the shops property has reduced in size.
12) The pond section has been modified to show the sediment cleanout elevation
(6.0'), the seasonal high water table (12.0'), and show the vegetative shelf
with 6" below and above the permanent pool.
13) The numbers have been updated to reflect the modified pond design.
14) The areas provided on the deed restrictions have been changed to square feet.
15) A $1,000 check has been included with this resubmittal package.

High Density Developments with Outparcels
Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenances
In accordance with Title 15 NCAC 2H.1000, the Stormwater Management Regulations, deed
restrictions and protective covenants are required for High Density Developments with Outparcels
where outparcel lots will be subdivided from the main tract and sold. Deed restrictions and protective
covenants are necessary to ensure that the development maintains a "built -upon" area consistent with
the design criteria used to size the stormwater control facility.
I, 7-cf•P , acknowledge, affirm and agree by my signature below, that I will
cause the following cIbed restrictions and covenants to be recorded prior to the sale of any outparcel or
future development area:
1. The following covenants are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with State Stormwater
Management Permit Number _`7w $O -7 1-.07 as issued by the Division of Water Quality
under NCAC 2H.1000.
2. The State of North Carolina is made a beneficiary of these covenants to the extent necessary to
maintain compliance with the stormwater management permit.
3. These covenants are to run with the land and be binding on all persons and parties claiming
under them.
4. The covenants pertaining to stormwater may not be altered or rescinded without the express
written consent of the State of North Carolina, Division of Water Quality.
5. Alteration of the drainage as shown on the approved plan may not take place without the
concurrence of the Division of Water Quality.
6. The maximum built -upon area for the outparcel(s) shown on the approved plans is as follows:
Outparcel # BUAOSZ) Outparcel # BUA
Ml3636i5�'
-
/8
These allotted amounts include any built -upon area constructed within the property boundaries,
and that portion of the right-of-way between the lot lines and the edge of the pavement. Built
upon area includes, but is not limited to, structures, asphalt, concrete, gravel, brick, stone, slate,
coquina and parking areas, but does not include raised, open wood decking, or the water
surface of swimming pools.
7. The runoff from all built -upon area within the outparcel or future development area must be
directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
8. Built -upon area in excess of the permitted amount will require a permit modification.
9. The connection from the outparcel's collection system into the stormwater control shall be made
such that short-circuiting of the system does not occur.
10. For those outparcels or future development areas whose ownership is not retained by the
permittee, the new owner shall submit a separate offsite stormwater permit application to the
Division of Water Quality y7d receive a per it nor to construction.
Signature: Date: / L
I, jtn 4rn P a Notary Public in the
State of HC , County of & j e
do hereby certify that Jeff Fla f -er4 personally appeared
before me this the all `M day of T2C• 2007 and acknowledge
the due execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand an %*S;
�1�Y�' � • /l/-QV1.K'1C:�C.P.� �.2�NQ�....�SEQT�m
Signature °& VLOTARd
My Commission expires a��l� :yNs,?ci
Form DRPC-2 Rev.1 Page t of I " "'SOUNr';..•`�,

ft
gal
r
LOT e6
,L—L_� DQA�OTFVE
NAGE
a
\ //
gg
�
'LOT
WAL-MART
_
/
LOT
STORE
j
_ ) ASSOCIATES
®AhEY E
/LOT vq
WAL
—
sus PARCEL
LOVE1 I ___
LOT .1
\
iu
LU
®ALEY E' ASSOC-)
_
` —
LOT •z. �� \
O
-
.5
J
LowE•s
PARCEL
/
LOT i LOT
az
s'
19 ARE /
LOTS Tl E
Z
° O�
rn o ,
U
pRANAGE TRACTS
/
O
as
/
/ /
-0
•EXHIBIT "C-11.

Permit No.'5VU 8(i—(17 o—%
(to be provided by D WQ)
III REQUIRED ITEM&CKECKLlST+� " ' " "TIP 1 qrrz u t ' ' 'f' _ e ��'
_ 2°FL+ Fri"� .ri.'k�?f3'.Y.."��,"�-��S);ju a �+C.`5..�
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will
result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may initial below. If a
requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Pagel Plan
Initials Sheet No.
1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
- Design at ultimate build -out,
- Off -site drainage (if applicable),
- Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
- Basin dimensions,
- Pretreatment system,
- High flow bypass system,
- Maintenance access,
- Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
- Overflow device, and
- Boundaries of drainage easement.
2. Partial plan (1" = 30' or larger) and details for the wet detention basin showing:
- Outlet structure with trash rack or similar,
Maintenance access,
Permanent pool dimensions,
Forebay and main pond with hardened emergency spillway,
Basin cross-section,
Vegetation specification for planting shelf, and
Filter strip.
P7 I�
3. Section view of the dry detention basin (1" = 20' or larger) showing:
- Side slopes, 3:1 or lower,
- Pretreatment and treatment areas, and
- Inlet and outlet structures.
iiV5
4. If the basin is used for sediment and erosion control during construction, clean out of the basin is specified
on the plans prior to use as a wet detention basin.
1 I
5. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes &accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebay,
to verify volume provided.
6. An assurance that the installed system will meet design specifications upon initial operation once the
project is complete and the entire drainage area is stabilized.
13�
7. A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
Orr—
8. The supporting calculations.
9. A copy of the signed and notarized inspection and maintenance (I&M) agreement.
10. A copy of the deed restriction.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.1 Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1

Wet Detention Basin Inspection and Maintenance Agreement
1 will keep a maintenance record on this BMP. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient BMP elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity
of structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
The wet detention basin system is defined as the wet detention basin,
pretreatment including forebays and the vegetated filter if one is provided.
This system (check one):
❑ does ® does not incorporate a vegetated filter at the outlet.
This system (check one):
❑ does ® does not incorporate pretreatment other than a forebay.
Important maintenance procedures:
— Immediately after the wet detention basin is established, the plants on the
vegetated shelf and perimeter of the basin should be watered twice weekly if
needed, until the plants become established (commonly six weeks).
— No portion of the wet detention pond should be fertilized after the first initial
fertilization that is required to establish the plants on the vegetated shelf.
— Stable groundcover should be maintained in the drainage area to reduce the
sediment load to the wet detention basin.
— If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the
flushing of sediment through the emergency drain should be minimized to the
maximum extent practical.
— Once a year, a dam safety expert should inspect the embankment.
After the wet detention pond is established, it should be inspected once a month and
within 24 hours after every storm event greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a
Coastal County). Records of inspection and maintenance should be kept in a known set
location and must be available upon request.
Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall
be repaired immediately.
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The entire BMP
Trash/debris is present.
Remove the trash/debris.
The perimeter of the wet
detention basin
Areas of bare soil and/or
erosive gullies have formed.
Regrade the soil if necessary to
remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
one-time fertilizer application.
Vegetation is too short or too
Maintain vegetation at a height of
long.
approximatel six inches.

'5w't07 I a37
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The inlet device: pipe or
The pipe is clogged.
Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
swale
sediment off -site.
The pipe is cracked or
Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged.
Erosion is occurring in the
Regrade the swale if necessary to
Swale:
smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
The forebay
Sediment has accumulated to
Search for the source of the
a depth greater than the
sediment and remedy the problem if
original design depth for
possible. Remove the sediment and
sediment storage.
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Erosion has occurred.
Provide additional erosion
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticide is used, wipe it on
the plants rather than spraying.
The vegetated shelf
Best professional practices
Prune according to best professional
show that pruning is needed
practices
to maintain optimal plant
health.
Plants are dead, diseased or
Determine the source of the
dying.
problem: soils, hydrology, disease,
etc. Remedy the problem and
replace plants. Provide a one-time
fertilizer application to establish the
ground cover if a soil test indicates
it is necessary.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticide is used, wipe it on
the plants rather than spraying.
The main treatment area
Sediment has accumulated to
Search for the source of the
a depth greater than the
sediment and remedy the problem if
original design sediment
possible. Remove the sediment and
storage depth.
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Algal growth covers over
Consult a professional to remove
50% of the area.
and control the algal growth.
Cattails, phragmites or other
Remove the plants by wiping them
invasive plants cover 50% of
with pesticide (do not spray).
the basin surface.

BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The embankment
Shrubs have started to grow
Remove shrubs immediately.
on the embankment.
Evidence of muskrat or
Use traps to remove muskrats and
beaver activity is present.
consult a professional to remove
beavers.
A tree has started to grow on
Consult a dam safety specialist to
the embankment.
remove the tree.
An annual inspection by an
Make all needed repairs.
appropriate professional
shows that the embankment
needs repair.
The outlet device
Clogging has occurred.
Clean out the outlet device. Dispose
of the sediment off -site.
The outlet device is damaged
Repair or replace the outlet device.
The receiving water
Erosion or other signs of
Contact the local NC Division of
damage have occurred at the
Water Quality Regional Office, or
outlet.
the 401 Oversight Unit at 919-733-
1786.
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shall be such
that it will give an accurate depth reading and not readily penetrate into
accumulated sediments.
When the permanent pool depth reads 9__0 feet in the main pond, the sediment
shall be removed.
When the permanent pool depth reads 9__0 feet in the forebay, the sediment
shall be removed.
Sediment Removal
Bottom
BASIN DIAGRAM
ill in the blanks)
Permanent Pool Elevation 15.0
6_0 I Pe anen Pool
Volume Sediment Removal Elevation 6.0 Volume
5.0 It Min. -------------------------- ------------ ------
Sediment Bottom Elevation 5.0 I -it r
Storage Sedimei
Storage
FOREBAY MAIN POND

1�w 8 D-7 I d-D7
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any
problems with the system or prior to any changes to the system or responsible party.
Print name: T FF e6ikk •.r
Phon
Signs
Date
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
1, JlW1j,4w M• Ay"Ad a Notary Public for the State of
County of ASAc do hereby certify that
� { pa HWO personally appeared before me this —J�
day of btC. , and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing wet detention basin maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official
seal, , t._ � , P _ _
VA C4
ARVA�r
pBJBb6c° aci
ry
SEAL
My commission expires 4•4-anJ/

i
f
W ATFR
� —1
December 18, 2007
Jeffrey Flattery, President
Jemsite Development, LLC
1608 US Hwy 221 N
Jefferson. NC 28640
Subject: Request for Additional
Stormwater Project No.
Lowe's of Jacksonville
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Flattery:
Information
SW8 071207
Michael 17. rasle}', Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretaq
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleco 11. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
The Wilmington Regional Office received an NPDES Phase II Post Construction Permit
Application for Lowe's of Jacksonville on December 6, 2007. A preliminary review of that
information has determined that the following information is needed to continue the stormwater
review:
In section 1.2 on the application, your title is listed as President, however the
Secretary of State indicates that Jemsite Development, LLC is member -managed
of which you are a member. Please verify your title on the application.
2. In section Vill on the application, your printed or typed name was not filled in.
Either provide a completed form or provide me with a letter giving me the
authority and information to complete this section.
3. The 'Post -Development 1-yr, 24-hr Peak Flow' listed on the supplement under
the Peak Flow Calculations in Section II should be the peak runoff from the site,
not the discharge rate from the pond. This would allow the 'Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Flow Control' to determine the amount of runoff the needs to be controlled
by the BMP to meet the requirements of Session Law 2006-246.
4. It appears that the permanent pool volume, average depth, and associated
calculations include the 1.5-foot sediment accumulation depth. The depth of the
permanent pool is considered to be difference between the permanent pool
elevation and the top elevation of the sediment storage and does not include the
sediment accumulation depth (refer to Figure 10-2b and Section 10.3.4 of the
2007 BMP manual). Revise the calculations and supplement to consider just the
permanent pool in the pond calculations.
In the calculations, the pond depth used to determine the SA/DA ratio was
identified as the permanent pool depth and the sediment removal depth.
However, the average pond depth must be used when determining the SA/DA
ratio from the tables provided in the 2007 BMP manual. (refer to Figure 10-2b of
the 2007 BMP manual) Please note that the average pond depth does not
include the sediment accumulation depth and volume refer to Item #4).
6. The head used to calculate the discharge and drawdown from the pond should
be should be calculated using the average head based on Section 3.5.2 of the
2007 BMP manual. r °rthcarolma
,111arurally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: rW,v uCk"neraualilv.ore Fax [phone]
An Equal OppodunitylARrmalive Action Employer- 50% Recycled110 % Post Consumer Paper

Jeffrey Flattery
December 18, 2007
Stormwater Application No. SW8 071207
t
r
7. The seasonal high water table (SHWT) at the pond location must be at or
below the proposed permanent pool elevation in order to maintain the
state required storage volume. If the temporary pool is taken up by the
SHWT, there is no place to store the required runoff. If the SHWT is
above the permanent pool, a liner for the pond must be provided or the
temporary storage elevation must be raised to ensure sufficient storage
will be available and supporting documentation must be provided.
Generally, a soils report for all engineered systems is required to estimate
the elevation SHWT at each proposed BMP location. The SHWT
elevation must also be identified on the pond detail sheet.
8. Since the french drains are being discharged into the stormwater pond,
provide calculations and details indicating that the required temporary
storage volume will not be impacted by the volume of water draining to the
pond from the french drains.
9. Please resubmit page 3 of the Wet Detention Basin Inspection &
Maintenance Agreement with the corrected depth at which sediment shall
be removed from the permanent pool and forebay. This should equal the
permanent pool elevation minus the sediment removal elevation.
10. Please provide a drainage area map for the wet pond delineating the area
to be captured and treated by the pond, including the offsite lots/drainage
areas.
11. Please demonstrate how the runoff from the north west side of the
property along the building and north of the ridge in the parking lot will be
captured and treated by the proposed system. If the runoff from these
built upon areas are to be treated by a different permitted stormwater
system, please provide the details of that permit.
12. On the pond section detail located on plan sheet SP-22, please identify
the following:
a. The sediment cleanout elevation.
b. The seasonal high water table.
c. That the 10:1 vegetated shelf is 10 feet wide and extends 6" below and
6" above the permanent pool.
13. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other
numbers and require the calculations, supplements, and other supporting
documentation to be updated. Verify all numbers are correct to ensure
consistency in the application documents. The following inconsistencies
were noted:
a. The wet detention pond supplement lists the design storm (rainfall
depth) as 6.9 inches instead of the 1.5 inches listed in the report.
b. The minimum volume required is listed in the supplement as 271,432
cubic feet instead of the 101,505 cubic feet listed in the report.
c. The first page of the calculations in appendix lists the impervious area
as 219.5 acres.
d. Please update Section 4.3 of the report. It currently states that "the
volume of runoff generated from the first 1" of rainfall'.
e. Table 4.2.1 also refers to the 1" rainfall design storm.
Page 2 of 3

Jeffrey Flattery
December 18, 2007
Stormwater Application No. SW8 071207
14. Please provide the areas identified on the deed restrictions in square feet
instead of acres to reduce future confusion.
15. Please submit a $1,000 fee for the additional review required for this
application.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary
review. The requested information should be received in this Office prior to January 2,
2008, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a.project will
necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under
an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and
is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have
any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or
email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
n
[dL"'
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
ENB/can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\ADDINFO\2007\071207.dec07
cc: Todd Simmons, Freeland and Kauffman
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 3 of 3

State Stormwater Permit Application Trackinz Cover Sheet
Wilmington Regional Office
Project Name:
LOWES OF JACKSONVILLE
Project Category:
NEW
Project Type:
HD - DETENTION POND
App Accept Date:
12/612007
Application Fee Amt.
$ t.,cx)c)
Fee Check Number:
'Z3 Z :6
Reviewer Name:
NELSON, CHRISTINE
Record the following information from BIMS after protect has been entered!
Permit Number (BIMS): U 8 0 7 1 Z 0-7
Please update the SW Access System by entering the Permit Number for the protect!
Date Entered in Access: Z O 7/ I
Entered in Access By: (2 ( A-/�-1 4 U 6-� N �S
Date Printed: 121612007 9:17:34 AM

FREELAND AND KAUFFMAN, INC.
Engineers O Landscape Architects
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, South Carolina 29609
[phone]
FAX [phone]
TO NCDENR.
127 N Cardinal Drive
Wilmington. NC 28405
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date December 3, 2007
Attention: Christine Nelson
RE: Lowe's of Jacksonville
Jacksonville, NC
We are sending to you ®Attached []Under separate cover via The following:
❑Shop Drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Paper Vellums ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Disk ®Other See Below
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
2
Sets of Plans and Stormwater Calculations
1
Geotechnical Report cwa1,:T0C;orj
1
Inspection and Maintenance Agreement
i
Stormwater Permit Application
1
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
1
High Density Deed Restrictin
1
Fee — Check $4,000
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
❑For approval
❑Approved as submitted ❑Resubmit copies for approval
®For your use
❑Approved as noted ❑Submit copies for distribution
❑As requested
❑Return for corrections ❑Return corrected prints
❑For review and comment
❑
FOR BIDS DUE
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
Stephanie G. Bright 864.672-3425

FREELAND AND KAUFFMAN INC
209 WEST STONE AVENUE
. GREENVILLE, SC 29609
PAY
TOTHE D+ IZ
ORDER OF
j t SP n t� A•NO
RECEIVE
DEC 0 0'2001
BY:�_
LQWC5 OF 5AcvsbAUi(Lc 2376
66� W 8 0-7 I ZQ� 671531
�; NCH22
DATE 13 7
„
I $ Zt,
C C7G
G�
_—rD6LaRS 8
United
Community Bank %)
FOR ✓Xr ��i �7�i�4�r't(�G'%�['(�� �� � :1d�/�-s� i1V(�.S.l'= _`J E�.:./���
'

• - DWQUSE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
I*JAD/0
%4330 a37(n
5w ?iRQ?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Applicants name (specify the name of the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
lemsite Development, LLC
2. Print Owner/Signing Official's name and title (person legally responsible for facility and compliance):
Jeffrey Flattery -Manager An PM60,'
3. Mailing Address for person listed in item 2 above:
City:lefferson State:NC Zip:28640
Phone: (336 ) 846-6691 Fax: (336 ) 846-1677
Email:Jeff.Flattery�@ emsitedevelopmenkcom
4. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name -should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
5. Location of Project (street address):
Address undetermined - Located on Relocated Yopp Road, east of US Hwy 258 & Yopp Road intersection
City:Jacksonville County:Onslow
6. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
Head east on US Hwy 258 toward US 17 Business. Turn right at relocated Yopp Road, which which is
approximately 0.90 miles east from the US Hwy 258 and NC Hwy 53 intersection
7. Latitude:34 44' 58" N Longitude:77 2741" W of project
8. Contact person who can answer questions about the project:
Name:Todd Simmons Telephone Number: (864 ) 672-3426
Email:[e-mail]
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. Specify whether project is (check one):
❑Renewal ❑Modification
Form SWU-101 Version 8.07 Page] of4

2.. If this application is being submitted as the result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit, list the
existing permit
and its issue date (if known)
3. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ®High Density ❑Redevelop []General Permit ❑Universal SMP []Other
4. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks):
❑CAMA Major ❑Sedimentation/Erosion Control 0404/401 Permit ®NPDES Stormwater
Information on required state permits can be obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at
1-877-623-6748.
III. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, summarize how stormwater will be treated. Also attach a detailed narrative
(one to two pages) describing stormwater management for the project.
A wet detention basin will be constructed on the Lowe's property to serve Lowe's and the future development of
eight outlots with the Freedom Way Subdivision. The pond will have a 5.2' average permanent pool depth and a
staged outlet structure will regulate the outflows for the 1,2,10, and25-yr storm event. The stormwater
system will outfall to an existing 36" culvert located on the south side of the development, which runs under
US 17 Bypass and drains to Brinson Creek.
2. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin.
3. Total Site Area:15.8 acres 4. Total Wetlands Area: N/A acres
5. 100' Wide Strip of Wetland Area: N/A acres (not applicable if no wetlands exist on site)
6. Total Project Area**:23.7 acres 7. Project Built Upon Area:83 %
8. How many drainage areas does the project have?l
9. Complete the following information for each drainage area. If there are more than two drainage areas in the
project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area provided in the same format as below.
Basin Information
.Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2
Receiving Stream Name
Brinson Creek
Stream Class & Index No.
SQNSW /19-12
Drainage Area (so
1,031,916
Existing Impervious* Area (so
0
Proposed Impervious*Area (so
858,113
% Impervious* Area (total)
83
Impervious* Surface Area '
Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area`2
On -site Buildings (so
181,650
On -site Streets (so
222,208
On -site Parking (so
92,777
On -site Sidewalks (so
508
Other on -site (so
34,400
Off -site (sf) Op( )13-2G
326,570
Total (so:
858,113
Form SWU-101 Version 8.07 Page 2 of

* Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
**Total project area shall be calculated based on the current policy regarding inclusion of wetlands in the built upon area
percentage calculation.
10. How was the off -site impervious area listed above derived?Assume 85% impervious cover for each outlet that
is to be developed in the future.
IV. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
One of the following deed restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded for all subdivisions,
outparcels and future development prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly, a table listing each lot
number, size and the allowable built -upon area for each lot must be provided as an attachment.
Form DRPC-1
High Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-2
High Density Developments with Outparcels
Form DRPC-3
High Density Residential Subdivisions
Form DRPC-4
Low Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-5
Low Density Residential Subdivisions
Form DRPC-6
Low Density Residential Subdivisions with Curb Outlets
By your signature below, you certify that the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants for this
project shall include all the applicable items required in the above form, that the covenants will be binding
on all parties and persons claiming under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants
cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the State, and that they will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each
BMP specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status
and availability of these forms.
Form SW401-Low Density
Form SW401-Curb Outlet System
Form SW401-Off-Site System
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Trench
Form SW401-Bioretention Cell
Form SW401-Level Spreader
Form SW401-Wetland
Form SW401-Grassed Swale
Form SW401-Sand Filter
Low Density Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Off -Site System Supplement
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Level Spreader/Filter Strip/Restored Riparian Buffer Supplement
Constructed Wetland Supplement
Grassed Swale Supplement
Sand Filter Supplement
Form SWU-101 Version 8.07 Page 3 of

Vi. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (Appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at htti)://h2o.enr.state.ne.US/su/msi maps.hnn)
Please indicate that you have provided the following required information by initialing in the space provided
next to each item.
Initials
• Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form SF
• Original and one copy of the Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants Form S�
• Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) and O&M agreement(s) for each BMP Zr-
• Permit application processing fee of $505 (54,000 for Express) payable to NCDENR I%
• Calculations & detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management S�
• Copy of any applicable soil report S�
• Three copies of plans and specifications (sealed, signed & dated), including: SP
- Development/Project name
- Engineer and firm
-Legend
- North arrow
- Scale
- Revision number & date
- Mean high water line
- Dimensioned property/project boundary
- Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
- Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
- Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures
- Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
- Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations
- Drainage areas delineated
- Vegetated buffers (where required)
VII. AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If you wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide information on your
behalf, please complete this section.
Designated agent (individual or firm):Freeland and Kauffman - Todd Simmons
Mailing Address:209 West Stone Avenue
City:Greenville State:SC Zip:29609
Phone: (864 ) 67203426 Fax: (864 ) 233-8915
Email [e-mail]
VIII. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
1, (print or type name of person listed in General Information, item 2) ---- A/o//I
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recorded, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2H .1000.
Signature: —ISI 0 Date:
Form SWU-101 Version 8.07 Page 4 of

„ Oct.25. 2007 4:26PM FREELAND&KAUFFMAN No. 1434—P. 2
Reviewer GJ
NCDENR Submit
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive 6dension, lNllmington, NC 28405 (910) 7W7215 FAX [phone] -nme Z : ' Z
Request for Express Permit Review Confirm 10-30-0
RLL-IN all Information below and CHECK required Permiks). R ft to �
FAX to Express Coordinator along with a detailed narrative and vicinity map of the project location.
Projects must be submitted by 5:00 pm the day before the review date, unless prior arrangements are made.
APPLICANT Name: Jeffrey Flattery Title: PresIdent
Company Name: Jemsite Development. LLC
Address:1608 US HM 221N City: e e Zip: ,aw
Phone: 33&848-6891 Fax: [phone] Email: )[e-mail]
PROJECT Name: Lowe's of Jacksonville County: Ons ow
PROJECT DRAINS TO Brinson Creek (Stream name) in the White Oak RIVER BASIN
ENGINEERICONSULTANT INFORMATION:
Name: Todd Simmons
Company: Freeland and Kauffman. Inc.
Address: 229West Stone Avenue City: Greenville State: SC Zip: 29609—
Phone: SM72,342 Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
State or National Environmental Policy Act (SEPA or NEPA) — EA or EIS Required? ❑Yes ❑ No
❑STREAM ORIGIN DETERMINATION # of Stream calls Stream Name _
® STORMWATER ❑ Low Density ® High Density -Detention Pond ❑ High Density - Other
(check all that apply) ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter High Density -Infiltration Off -site
Wetlands MUST be addressed below NPDES Phase II Plan Revision
❑ COASTAL ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
MANAGEMENT ❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
❑ LAND QUALITY ❑ Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with acres to be disturbed
WETLANDS (401) Wetlands on Property? ❑ Yes ® No Isolated Wetlands on Property.? ❑ Yes ® No
(Check all that apply) Wetlands will be impacted? ❑ Yes ® No Wetland impacts: acre(s)
Wetlands delineation has been completed? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Buffers impacted: Acre(s)
USACOE Approval of Delineation completed? ® Yes ❑ No
404 Application In Piocess w/USACOE? ❑ Yes ® No I Permit recv'd from USACOE❑Yes ❑ No
401 Application Required? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, ❑ Regular ❑ Express
Additional fees, not to exceed 50% of the original Express Review permit application fee may be charged for
subsequent reviews due to the insufficiency of the permit application.
Total Fee:$ Stormwater $ Date Received
CAMA $ E C E I V E
LQS $ ��1n�UU� OCT 2 5 2007
401 $
DWQ
PROJ 4

Oct.25. 2007 4:26PM FREELAND&KAUFFMAN No, 1434 P. 3
Project Name: Lowe's of Jacksonville
Stormwater Express Questionnaire (7/1012007)
What is the applicant's full legal name? Jeffrey Edward Flattery
Is the applicant associated with Sole proprietor ❑ Corporation ® LLC-
e Partnership eL3J Municipality
If its an LLC, is it [IManager-managed or ® Member-manag ?
pWhat is the applicant's title within the Corp., LLC or Partnership? President
Will an agent (someone other than the applicant) be signing the app ca ion . Yes ® No
If Yes, what is the agent's name and title?
OP/ease note the application signature requirements are listed in NCAC 2H.1003 (a). In
summary, only the sole proprietor of a sole proprietorship, the designated manager, member -
manager, president or vice president of a corporation or LLC, the general partner of a
partnership, or a ranking otfcial of a munlcfpality may sign permit applications and supplements.
The signature of the engineer or other agent can be accepted only d accompanied byy a signed
letter of authorization from one of the aforementioned individuals. Corporations, LLC's and
Partnerships must be registered with the NC Secretary of State's Office, and be active. Please
note that spelling, capitalization, end punctuation are extremety important. Please provide the
entity name exactly as on file with the NC Secretary of State.
Where Is the project located?
County: Onslow, Nearest Town/City: Jacksonville
((Attach a d a? e vicinity map with both local street names an , NC, US or Interstate
highway, numbers, plus other relevant information such as town or city names, directions to, etc.
Show the nearest Intersection of two major roads on the vicinity map. A major road is any 1, 2 or
3 digit NC, US or interstate highway.)
If the project is located in Brunswick, Onslow, or Now Hanover Counties, or a small
portion of northern Pender County or the unincorporated areas outside of Morehead City
and Atlantic Beach in Carteret County, NPDES Phase II Post -Construction rules will
apply, unless a vested development right, as described in the Session Law, can be
demonstrated, which is dated prior to July 1, 2007.
3. What is the name of the receiving stream? Brinson Creek
What River Basin is it located in? White Oak River 0—nin
What is the classification of the receiving stream? SC_
For SA or SR waters, a separate scaled topographic map will be required. The project must be
accurately located on the map and the '/s mile radius from the property comer closest to the SA
or SR receiving stream must be drawn on the map. If you claim that the project is not within X
mile of SA or SR waters, you must conduct a series of chlorides tests to demonstrate that the
chlorides level at a point in the receiving stream that is at least % mile from the project is less
than 500 ppm. Samples must be sent to a State certified lab for testing.
4. if the project is high density, what type of stormwater management BMP's are being proposed?
(check all that apply)
Wet Detention Infiltration Trench Infiltration Basin Sand Filter
Bio-retention Wetlands Alternative 8 Offsite
Dry Detention NPDES Phase II Other
How many separate BMP's are being proposed' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Other_
5. Is there offsite runoff from the adjacent properties or public right-of-wa that will drain Into any of
the proposed BMP's on the project and is not being diverted? Z Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
6. Is a road across other property required to access the project? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ N/A
Page 1 of 2 R
EC E I V ED
OCT 2 5 2007
DWO
PROD; —

Oct.25. 2007 4:27PM FREELAND&KAUFFMAN Na.1434 P. 4
Project Name: Lowe's of Jacksonville
7. Is there any existing development or pre-1988 existing BUA located on the proferty?
(Please document, delineate and iden* on the plans.) ❑ Yes Ly No ❑ WA
S. Will the high density project collect all of the proposed BUA? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
(if not, attach a separate explanation sheet)
9. Will the project involve the subdivision and sale of property? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ WA
Is the subdivision ❑ residential or ® commercial?
How many lots are proposed? one (1)
(Deed restrictions are required 1 or a residential, commercial, low density or high density sub-
divisions. Specific language forthe various types of subdivisions is available from DENR.)
10. Will the plans show all delineated wetlands? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
(All projects require either a signed wetlands delineation map or a wetlands report to be
submitted with the application. Only a trained professional may provide information regarding
the presence or absence of wetlands.)
11. Are wet detention ponds or other engineered controls proposed to be
�cated 2d acent
wetlands? Yes Rl No ❑ NIA
(lf, yes, a physical means to prevent the dewatering of the wetland must be provided, or the
$HWT must be provided to demonstrate that the permanent pool of the BMP is above the
SHWT and will not dewater the wetlands over time. Where possible, all BMP's and swales
should outlet into back the wetland (with level spreaders).
12. For infiltration projects, a site visa must be completed with the DENR soils scientist to verify the
soil type, water table and infiltration rate provided in the soils report.
What is/was the scheduled she visit date? NIA
(Include a copy of the consultant's soil report with the application.)
13. Level Spreaders are required at the outlet of all engineered controls ad swales prior to entering
surface waters or wetlands. Will the plans reflect level spreaders? Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
(The purpose of the level spreader is to reduce the energy of the incoming runoff and to
promote diffuse sheet flow to prevent erosion and scour into the receiving waters or wetlands.)
14. Is this project 8 A modification to an existing permit
A lot that will be treated in an existing, previously permitted BMP?
What is the name of the existing permitted facility? M
What is the permit number of the existing permitted facility? SW8 WA
Is the permitted facility in compliance with its permit? Yes No N/A
Have the deed restrictions been recorded? Yes No N/A
Have the deed restrictions been submitted? Yes No NIA
Has the Designer's Certification been submitted? Yes No NIA
15, Do the plans reflect all information in 15A NCAC 2H.1003 (g)? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA
16. Will all of the design requirements for each proposed BMP be met? ® Yea ❑ No ❑ NIA
(If not, attach a separate explanation sheet. Please note that the Express program is not set up
to handle any type of deviation from the standard design.)
17. For each BMP in all high density projects, and low density curb outlet swale projects, the
individual drainage area for each proposed BMP must be clearly delineated.
18. Any revisions made to the application as a result of this review may cause changes to the other
documentation. Plans, calculations, application, and supplements should be reviewed for any
necessary changes. For example, changing the orifice size will require a modification to the
calculations, the pond details on the plans, and page 1 of the supplement.
nE C E I V E DI
Page 2 of 2 �pppn►(pp� I
OCT 2 5 2007 11
i
DWO
PROD k

Oct.25. 2007 4:27PM FREELAND&KAUFFMAN No.1434 P. 5
PROJECT NARRATIVE — Lowe's of Jacksonville
This narrative outlines the storm water management system for the proposed Lowe's
Home Center located off of NC HWY 24 and Yopp Road in Onslow County, Jacksonville,
NC. This site will be developed to contain an 181,650 square foot Lowe's, associated
parking areas, entrance drives, utilities and landscaping. Along with the Lowe's
development, the storm water management system will also serve eight (8) outlots that
are to be developed in the future. The total area of the properties is +/-24.0 acres, thus
the pond has been sized for all properties in the developed condition.
The subject property is within the Freedom Way Subdivision and on the south side of the
newly relocated Yopp Road. The relocated Yopp Road connects NC HWY 24'and US 17
Local. A Wal-Mart is currently being constructed within the subdivision and it is located
to the west of the Lowe's property.
The pond will be designed as a wet detention basin, which will maintain a permanent pool,
with a depth that will not be less than 4-fL A staged outlet structure will be designed to
properly regulate the outflows for the storm events. The storm water management system
will outfall to an existing 36" culvert located on the south side of the development The
culvert runs under the new US 17 Bypass and drains to Brinson Creek .
An underground storm drain system will be installed with the construction of the Lowe's
property, and this system will drain the Lowe's property and the one (1) outlet located on
the north side of the property, A storm drain pipe will be stubbed from the eastern side of
the forebay of the pond for the seven (7) outlots that are to be developed in the future.
This stub is being installed in an effort to keep from having to perform any grading
activities within the pond limits in the future. These outlots are located to the east of the
Lowe's property, but they are within the Freedom Way Subdivision,
A 2006 Corps Jurisdictional Determination (JD) exists for the proposed Lowe's site, and it
was determined that there are no wetlands or streams present on the Lowe's property.
E C E I V E'
OCT 2 5 2007
i
Dwo
PROJ 0 _ I

Oct.25. 2007 4:27PM FREELAND&KAUFFMAN No.1434 P. 6
VICINITY MAP - NOT TO SCALE
J
nE C E I V ED
IUUUnUUUf
OCT 2 5 2007 I
DWU

Oct.25. 2007 4:26PM FREELAND&KAUFFMAN
No.1434 P. 1
FREELANR and KAUFFMAN, INC,
ENGJNEM • LANMVEARGYlll M
To:k',l'eAL � Zg. kLyr t From: 16-144 �tb-�A
Fax: �11? ^35a eno y Pages: (Including Cover Page)
Phone: Date: /D1Z3—/ 7
Re: CC:
❑ Ureent ❑ For Redev ❑ Pleme Conned d Plmw Re* ❑ Plan Rmyde
Affiliate
Freeland-raufnian
and Fredeen, Inc.
Bentonville, Arkansas
I V ED
2007
DWQ
PROd #
209 West Stone Avenue • Greenville, South Carolina 29609 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]

aboutblank
Lowes of Jacksonville
October 26, 2007
Gentlemen:
The Express Permitting Group is in receipt of your request for an express stormwater submittal
meeting date. The submittal meeting has been scheduled with Christine Nelson on December 3,
2007 at 2:00 PM here in the Wilmington Regional Office. Mr. Flattery or his assistant from Jemsite
Development must attend the meeting with the project engineer.
Please review the attachment which may have information helpful to the submittal process.
Please respond within 2 business days to confirm and reserve the December 3rd submittal date with
Christine.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Permitting
1 of 1 10/26/2007 4:48 PM

Express Permitting Review Date - Lowe's of Jacksonville
Subject: Express Permitting Review Date - Lowe's of Jacksonville
From: "Stephanie Bright" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:02:35 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Alan Johnson" <[e-mail]>
Janet -
In response to your e-mail below, we would like to confirm that our project engineer (Alan Johnson) and
a representative from Jemsite (Melvin Cline) will be in attendance at the express permitting meeting for
the subject site on December 3. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me via
e-mail or at the number listed below.
'thanks.
Stephanie
Stephanie G. Bright
Freeland & Kauffman, Inc.
209 W. Stone Avenue
Greenville, SC 29609
P - 864-672-3425
F - 864-233-8915
[e-mail]
_*Lowes of Jacksonville*_
October 26, 2007
Gentlemen:
The Express Permitting Group is in receipt of your request for an express stormwater submittal meeting
date. The submittal meeting has been scheduled with *Christine Nelson on December 3, 2007 at 2:00
PM* here in the Wilmington Regional Office. Mr. Flattery or his assistant from Jemsite Development
must attend the meeting with the project engineer.
Please review the attachment which may have information helpful to the submittal process.
Please respond within 2 business days to confirm and reserve the December 3rd submittal date with
Christine.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Permitting
1 of 1 10/30/2007 1:25 PM

EASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
153 Br=ini Court, Suite C • Greenville, South Carolina 29615
Phonei.[phone] Fax:[phone]
August 15, 2007
JEMSITE Development, LLC
1608 Highway 221 North
Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
Attention: Mr. Melvin Cline
Reference: Report of Subsurface Exploration and
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Proposed Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse
Jacksonville, North Carolina
EAS Project Number: EAS 07-184
Dear Mr. Cline:
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the subsurface exploration program and
geotechnical engineering analyses undertaken by.Engineering and Surveying Professionals. Inc.
(EAS) in connection with the above referenced project in Jacksonville. North Carolina. The
attached report presents our understanding of the project information provided to EAS, reviews our
exploration procedures, describes existing site and general subsurface conditions, and presents our
evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations_
We have enjoyed working with you on this project, and we are prepared to assist you with the
recommended quality assurance monitoring and testing services during construction. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further
service. \ CAk0�//��
Sincerely,
EAS PROFESSIONALS, INC. : o. ' SEAL tr; ?
031220
Ry .Ra :ki Douglas R.Dunko PE �ctASIIRi%NJ\\`
Project Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
North Carolina Registration No. 31220
GEOTECHNICAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING • CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL • LABORATORY TESTING • LAND SURVEYING • SPECIALTY INSPECTIONS -

HAS
PROFESSIONALS, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE.............................................................................1
2.0
SCOPE OF SERVICES......................................................................................................3
3.0
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................4
4.0
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION.....................................................................................6
5.0
ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................10
5.1 Liquefaction Hazard Mitigation / Ground Improvement.................................1
1
5.1.1 OPTION 1 — Undercut and Densify upper 8 to 12 feet of site soils
........ 1 1
5.1.2 OPTION 2 — Deep Dynamic Compaction...............................................13
5.1.3 OPTION 3 — Stone Columns...................................................................13
5.2 Site Preparation Recommendations.................................................................14
5.3 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction......................................................15
5.4 Cut and Fill Slopes...........................................................................................16
5.5 Building Foundations.......................................................................................17
5.6 Estimated Non-Scismic/Liquefaction induced Settlements .............................18
5.7 Floor Slabs.......................................................................................................19
5.8 Site Seismic Considerations.............................................................................19
5.8.1 Liquefaction Evaluation...........................................................................19
5.8.2 Evaluation Methodology..........................................................................20
5.8.3 Calculation of Cyclic Stress Ratio(CSR)................................................20
5.8.4 Calculation of Cyclic Resistance Ratio(CRR)........................................22
5.8.5 Factor of Safety — Liquefaction...............................................................22
5.8.6 Liquefaction Induced Settlement........................................................
:.... 23
5.8.7 Mitigated Site Classification and Seismic Design Category ...................23
5.9 Pavement Design and Recommendations........................................................24
5.10 Temporary Excavation Recommendations......................................................27
6.0
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL....................................................................28
7.0
LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................28
FIGURES SITE VICINITY PLAN, FIGURE No. I
BORING LOCATION PLAN, FIGURE No. 2
SUBSURFACE" PROFILE A — A', FIGURE No. 3
SUBSURFACE PROFILE B — B', FIGURE No. 4
SUBSURFACE PROFILE C — C', FIGURE No. 5
APPENDIX A FIELD PROCEDURES
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
BORING LOGS
APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

HEAS
PROFESSIONALS, INC.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE
The executive summary is provided solely for purposes of overview. Any party who relies on
this report must read the full report. The executive summary omits a number of details, any one
of which could be critical to the proper application of this report.
Site Preparation
• Any surficial and organic laden soils, existing utilities, and other deleterious non -soil
materials should be stripped or removed from the proposed construction area. The
existing drainage Swale along the southern portion of the site as well as other drainage
ditches observed on site will likely contain soft alluvial water deposited soils that may
require removal and or densification prior to backfilling and/or placing new structural
fill. Any existing utilities (e.g., sanitary sewer lines, storm water lines, water lines,
etc.) that are encountered within the proposed development area should be abandoned
and/or removed. Open pipes or conduits, if any, left in -place adjacent to the
construction area should be bulkheaded and grouted as they might serve as conduits
for subsurface erosion.
• Liquefaction Hazard Mitigation/Ground Improvement/Subgrade stabilization: Loose,
moist to wet, fine sandy soils as well as a shallow ground water table (24-hour ground
water observations between 4 and 7 feet below existing site grades) were encountered
at all of the soil test borings. The soil test borings typically encountered a layer of
very loose to medium dense, clayey and/or silty SAND (SC/SM) soils to
approximately 6 to 8 feet below existing site grades overlying very loose to loose,
slightly silty SAND (SP-SM) soils that were encountered to approximately 15 to 20
feet where medium dense to very dense silty SAND (SP-SM) soils were encountered
to assigned soil test boring termination depths. Based on the subgrade conditions
encountered at the soil test borings, we anticipate that the site's susceptibility to
liquefaction can be improved (mitigated) by densifying the upper 15 to 20 feet of the
site sandy soils prior to placement of the planned structural fill (approximately 5 to 7
feet) within the building footprint. Foundation support for the planned building will
also be significantly improved by densifying the site sandy soils. The use of
geosynthetics and/or horizontal wick drains may also be needed/used to provide a
stable base for the placement of engineered fill, especially in areas where minimal
structural fill is required within planned pavement areas on the northern portion of the
site).
• Shallow ground water (24-hour ground water observations between 4 and 7 feet) will
likely affect grading within building and pavement areas. Grading during the
seasonally wet limes of the year (typically October to May) may result in soft
subgrade conditions, difficulties in properly placing and compacting the on -site soils,
and possible undercutting in excess than would otherwise be expected. The grading
contractor should be prepared to lower the shallow ground water table and/or install
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse
Jacksonville, North Carolina
I
F.AS project No. 07-1 84
August I5, 2007

stabilization geotextiles with select materials to achieve a stable base for engineered
fill in planned pavement areas where minimal structural fill is required.
• Protect the moisture sensitive subgrade from becoming wet through proper surface
water runoff drainage.
Structural Fill
• Based on the provided site plan, approximately 2 to 7 feet of structural fill will
generally be required to achieve planned finished site grades within building and
pavement areas. Imported structural fill required to complete site grading should be
approved by EAS's project geolechnical engineer and meet the following minimum
criteria: consist of a low plasticity soil (LL<40, PI<20), have a maximum dry density
of at least 100 pcf, and be free of organic and other deleterious materials. Soils
similar to the site silty and/or clayey SAND (SP-SM/SC) should be suitable for use as
structural fill.
Building Foundation
• Foundations: Designed for a 3,000 psf maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure.
Reinforced with rebar to resist differential settlement. Actual foundation sizes and
steel reinforcement should be determined by the project structural engineer based on
actual design loads, building code requirements and other structural considerations.
Site Seismic Classification (existing/un-improved/un-mitigated site)
• Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered at the soil test borings and in
accordance with section 1615.1.1 of the 2006 IBC, the subject site currently meets the
conditions for a Site Classification E, for sites with a soft soil profile where the
average N-value < 15 bpf. The upper approximately 20 feet of site soils are relatively
loose and may be susceptible to liquefaction which further reduces the site
classification to a Site Classification F.
• Based on the design spectral response accelerations for Site Class E and the
structure's seismic use group (assumed as Use Group II), the site is assigned a
Seismic Design Category C for Sos and SDI in general accordance with the
procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the IBC 2006.
Site Seismic Classification (improved/mitigated site)
• Provided the recommendations of this report are followed, the site classification can
be upgraded to a Site Classification D, for sites with a stiff soil profile where 15 <
average N-value < 50 bpf.
1,owe's Home Improvement Warehouse 2 EA Project No. 07-1 84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

EASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
• Based on the design spectral response accelerations for Site Class D and the
structure's seismic use group (assumed as Use Group 11), the site is assigned a
Seismic Design Category B for Sns and SDI in general accordance with the
procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the IBC 2006.
Pavements
• Based on review of the provided topographic survey and our observation of in -place
fill during our site visit, we anticipate that up to approximately 2 to 3 feet of structural
fill will be required to achieve finish grades in the majority of the planned paved
parking/drive areas. Provided the structural fill is placed in accordance with
structural fill recommendations as outlined in this report, we recommend the
following Lowe's standard flexible and/or rigid pavement sections over a prepared
subgrade.
• Asphaltic Concrete M: Standard Duty: 3 inches asphaltic concrete over 6 inches of
aggregate base course; Heavy Duty: 3 inches asphaltic concrete over S inches
aggregate base course; and
• Portland Cement concrete M: Standard Duty: 5 inches Portland Cement concrete
overlying 6 inches of aggregate base course; Heavy Duty: 6 inches Portland Cement
concrete overlying 6 inches of aggregate base course.
(t) Design based on EAS's engineers and/or technician being retained to provide the
recommended observation and testing during construction.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purposes of our involvement on this project were as follows: 1) provide general descriptions
of the subsurface conditions encountered at the project site, 2) provide shallow foundation, slope
stability, and pavement design recommendations, and 3) comment on geotechnical aspects of the
proposed construction. In order to accomplish the above objectives, we undertook the following
scope of services:
1) Visited the site to observe existing surface conditions and to field locate the soil test
boring locations;
2) Coordinated utility clearance with applicable utility services;
3) Reviewed readily available geologic and subsurface information relative to the project
site;
4) Executed a subsurface exploration consisting of thirty (30) soil test borings including (5)
Cone penetrometer Tests (CPT) and (1) Seismic Cone Test: eighteen borings within the
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 3 F.AS Project No.07—I R4
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

t
PROFESSIONALS, INC.
proposed building footprint and twelve borings within the proposed paved parking and
drive areas. The borings were drilled to planned depths ranging from 16'/2 feel to 611/2
feet.
5) Performed a laboratory -testing program consisting of a California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
with Standard Proctor test, pH level testing and soil classification tests (Atterberg Limits,
Sieve Analysis, Wash # 200 and Hydrometer);
6) Evaluated the findings of the test borings, cone penetrometer tests, seismic cone test and
laboratory tests relative to general subsurface characterization, foundation and pavement
support, liquefaction potential and other geotechnical aspects of the project; and
7) Prepared this written report summarizing our services for the project, providing
descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered, laboratory test results, site
preparation recommendations, foundation, and pavement design recommendations, as
well as geotechnical considerations for construction. Copies of the boring logs and
laboratory test results are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively.
Our scope of services did not include quantity estimates, preparation of plans or specifications,
or the identification and evaluation of environmental aspects of the project site.
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Description
The subject property consists of approximately 15.8 acres of land, located adjacent to Yopp Road
in the general east quadrant created by the intersection of US Highway 258/NC Highway 24
(Richlands Highway) and US Highway 17 Bypass in Jacksonville, North Carolina (See Figures
No. 1 and 2). The roadway alignment of Yopp Road was recently changed/realigned for planned
commercial development including the observed Wal Mart (under construction during our site
visit) and the planned Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse. The project site generally
consisted of an open field with moderate underbrush, slumps and debris where trees were
previously cut and removed. A large drainage ravine was observed along the southern boundary
of the site. Several recently excavated ditches, evidenced by observed excavated soils, were also
observed within the planned construction area. The ravine and ditches were observed in a dry
condition at the time of our site visit. An overhead power line was observed along the eastern
boundary of the site. The site topography can be described as relatively flat with minimal
elevation change. The observed drainage ravine flows from west to east along the southern
boundary of the site.
Lowe's Nome improvement Warehouse 4 F.AS Project No. 07-1 R4
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

EASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
Proiect Description and Existing Site Topography
We understand that Lowe's Companies, Inc. is considering construction of a new home
improvement store located on the south side of Yopp Road in the general east quadrant created
by the intersection of US Highway 258/NC Highway 24 (Richlands Highway) and US Highway
17 Bypass in Jacksonville, North Carolina (See Figures No. I and 2). The project involves
construction of a Lowe's building footprint (Lowe's 117K Deep) having planned dimensions of
approximately 300 feet by 400 feet.
Mr. Alan Johnson with Freeland & Kauffman, Inc. provided project information including a
topographic Preliminary Site Plan (Figure No. 2) for the site. Based on review of the provided
preliminary Site Plan, it is estimated that approximately 5 to 7 feet of structural fill will be
required within the planned building footprint area to achieve the planned Finish Floor Elevation
(FFE) of 24.5 feet, mean sea level (msl). Additionally, it is estimated that up to approximately 8
feet (deeper fill depths will be required within the observed ravine) of structural fill will be
required in the planned heavy duty pavement areas at the rear (south) of the planned Lowes
building with minimal fill (approximately 2 to 3 feet) being required in planned paved
parking/drive areas north of the building. We understand that some the planned structural fill
will be derived from site cut grading to achieve the planned finish subgrade elevations for the
planned storm water detention ponds. However, we anticipate that imported structural fill will
be required to complete site grading.
Detailed structural drawings and actual foundation loads were not provided at the time of
preparing our report. However, we anticipate that the building's structural system will be similar
to other Lowe's stores. A typical Lowe's store building consists of a steel -frame and masonry -
wall structure. Based on Lowe's Development Criteria, Section 600, we have assumed a
maximum column load of 100 kips, a maximum wall load of 6 kips per linear foot (klf), and a
floor slab design pressure of 300 psf. In addition to construction of the proposed building, we
understand that pavement areas will be developed for parking and loading activities used in the
day-to-day operations of the proposed store. Based on Section 600, the proposed pavement areas
are anticipated to support 20-25 trucks per day in heavy-duty areas and 2,500 cars per day in
parking -lot areas.
The elevations of the soil test borings (reference to the preliminary topographic survey)
performed within the proposed building area (Borings B-1 through B-18) range in elevation from
approximately 17± to 20± feet, msl, thereby indicating approximately 3 feel of elevation
differential across the proposed building area at the locations of the soil test borings. Based on
existing site grades and the assumed building FFE, estimated fill depths required to achieve the
assumed FFE of 24.5 (assumed finished subgrade of El. 23.5) are estimated in the following
table exclusive of site preparation activities).
I,owe's Home Improvement Warehouse 5 F.AS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

Fwal Z PROFESSIONALS , INC.
Building Test Boring
Lowe's
Jacksonville, NC
ApproximateExisting
Elevation (ft) Referenced _
to Survey
Approximate CudFil]
Required to Achieve Finished
Subgrade = El. 23.5 feet +
(in feet)
B-1
20.0
+3.5 (Fill)
B-2
19.0
+4.5 (Fill)
B-3
19.0
+4.5 (Fill)
B-4
19.5
+4.0 (Fill)
B-5
19.5
+4.0 (Fill)
B-6
19.7
+3.8 (Fill)
B-7
18.0
+5.5 (Fill)
B-8
18.3
+5.2 (Fill)
B-9
18.6
+4.9 (Fill)
B-10
19.0
+4.5 (Fill)
B-11
19.0
+4.5 (Fill)
B-12
20.0
+3.5 (Fill)
B-13
19.0
+4.5 (Fill)
B-14
19.0
+4.5 (Fill)
B-15
18.3
+5.2 (Fill)
B-16
18.0
+5.5 (Fill)
B-17
17.4
+6.1 (Fill)
B-18
18.0
+5.5 (Fill)
Should site grades significantly differ by more the 2± feet from those indicated herein, we should
be contacted and some revision to the recommendations presented in this report may be
necessary.
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Thirty (30) soil test borings were drilled for this project to depths ranging from approximately
16'/z to 611/s feet below existing site grades. The approximate test boring locations are indicated
on the Boring Location Plan (Figure No. 2) enclosed in the Appendix to this report. Copies of
the Boring Logs and laboratory test results as well as field and laboratory test procedures are
enclosed in Appendix A and B,respectively.
Subsurface Conditions
This section of the report provides a general discussion of the subsurface conditions encountered
within areas of proposed construction at the project site. The subsurface conditions discussed in
the following paragraphs and those shown on the boring logs represent an estimate of the
subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted
geotechnical engineering judgments. The transitions between different soil strata are usually less
distinct than those shown on the boring logs. Although individual test borings are representative
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 6 F.AS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

EASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily
indicative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times.
Below the existing ground surface, the test borings encountered organic laden surficial soils or
existing fill soils underlain by coastal plain soils. The materials encountered in our soil test
borings are generally discussed in the following paragraphs. The following discussion of the
subsurface conditions has been simplified for ease of report interpretation. More detailed
descriptions of the subsurface conditions at the individual boring locations are presented on the
Boring Logs in Appendix A.
Surficial/Organic Laden Soils
Surficial soils typically contain root mat and/or other fibrous organic matter and are generally
unsuitable for engineering purposes. Surficial soils were encountered to a depth ranging from
about 6 to 8 inches at the majority of the test borings performed. Actual surficial soil depths may
vary in unexplored areas of the site. For stripping estimates, we do not anticipate that the
surficial soil depths will vary greatly from those encountered at the soil test borings.
Fill Soils
Fill soils were encountered at borings P-1, P-2, P-9 and B-2 (generally within planned paved
parking/drive areas on the western portion of the site). Based on our site observations, it appears
that the fill soils were placed recently during development of the adjacent Wal Mart store. The
fill soils were observed at depths ranging from approximately 2 to 3 feet. The fill materials
generally consisted of silty fine SAND (SP-SM) soils. No information was available regarding
testing and or other documentation regarding the fill placed at the site.
Coastal Plain Soils
Coastal plain soils were encountered at all of the soil test borings below the organic laden soils
and/or fill soils to termination depths ranging from approximately 16'/2 to 61'/2 feet below
existing site grades. Sampled soils were generally described as very loose to medium dense,
silty and/or clayey, fine SAND (SP-SM/SC) to depths up to approximately 20 feet overlying
dense to very dense (cemented), fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM). These very loose to medium
dense soils had Standard penetration resistance (N-values) ranging from weight of hammer
(WON) to 20 blows per foot (bpf) and the dense to very dense soils had N-values ranging from
40 to 100 bpf.
Corrosion Potential
A total of 4 soil samples from borings B-2, B-9, B-13 and B-17 (SPT) obtained from depths 5 —
6.5 feet, respectively, below the existing ground surface were tested to determine the soil pH
levels. Tests indicate pH levels ranging from 4.1 to 4.9 with the average pH of 4.5. The pH
of a soil is a measure of the hydrogen -ion concentration and indicates the intensity of acidity or
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 7 F.A.S Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, Noah Carolina August 15, 2007

EASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
alkalinity of the soil. A pH value of 7 indicates neutrality; higher values, alkalinity; lower
values, acidity. Generally, soils with a pH < 5 are typically considered to be highly corrosive,
soils with pH's between 5 and 6.75 are considered questionable with respect to corrosion
potential, soils with pH's >6.75 are considered to be non -corrosive. Laboratory test indicated
a soil pH of approximately 4.5. Therefore the site soils tested are considered to have
corrosive potential.
Ground Water
Ground water was encountered at all 30 of the soil test borings during drilling activities at depths
ranging from approximately 4 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface. Stabilized ground
water levels (up to approximately 24 hours after drilling) were generally observed at similar
depths below existing site grades.
Based on these ground water observations and available information regarding site grading, it
appears that shallow ground water will likely affect site grading within the planned building
and pavement areas. Grading during the seasonally wet times of the year (typically October to
May) may result in loose/soft subgrade conditions, difficulties in properly placing and
compacting the on -site soils, and possible undercutting/rework in excess than would otherwise
be expected. The grading contractor should be prepared to lower the ground water table and/or
install stabilization geotextiles with select materials to achieve a stable base for engineered fill,
especially in planned pavement areas north of the planned building where minimal fill is
anticipated.
We note that the elevation of the ground water table is dependent upon seasonal factors such as
precipitation and temperature. Therefore, the elevation of the ground water table may be
different at other times of the year and from the elevations presented in this report. Generally,
the highest ground water levels occur in late winter and early spring and the lowest levels in late
summer and fall.
Laboratory Testing
EAS performed laboratory tests on selected samples (split -spoon, undisturbed, or bulk samples)
collected in the field during drilling activities. in general accordance with ASTM standards, the
samples were brought to our laboratory for analysis and classification. We classified the samples
in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in conjunction with
ASTM Practice D2488. Laboratory testing consisted of:
• Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of
Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM Test Method D2216);
• Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 (75-um)
Sieve (ASTM Test Method D 1140);
• Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils -Hydrometer (ASTM D 422);
Lowe's flame Improvemen( Warehouse 8 F.AS Project No.07—I R4
Jacksonville, North Carolina August I5, 2007

EASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
• pH level testing (AASHTO T-289);
• Standard Proctor moisture -density relationship (ASTM D 698);
• Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory -Compacted
Soils (ASTM Test Method D1883); and
The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in the following tables.
Standard Proctor and CBR Test Summary
Sample
Optimum
Maximum
CBR
Boring
Depth
Sample
Moisture
Dry Density
(9 std
No
(feet)
Type
Content
(pcf)
cctor)
Proctor)
(ale)
P-9
1 - 2
Bulk
14.0
107.6
17
pH Test Summary
Boring
ph
Sample
No.
De
Type
P H
(feet)
B-2
5 — 6.5
SPT
4.9
B-9
5 — 6.5
SPT
4.6
B-13
5 — 6.5
SPT
4.3
B-17
5-6.5
SPT
4.1
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 9 EAS Project No. 07-1 X4
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HAS
PROFESSIONALS, INC.
Regional Geology
Based on review of the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985) the project is located within the
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain is characterized by
flat land to gently rolling hills and valleys. Soils in the Coastal Plain are the result of deposition of
sediments in a former marine environment. The soils in this province are typical of those laid down
in a shallow sloping sea bottom; sands, silts and clays with irregular deposits of shells. These soils
vary from sands and clays to interbedded deposits of both sand and clay.
Coastal Plain
.. C.asmlPimn
Q Blue Ridge Belt I] Raleigh Celt Charlotte Belt
Coastal Plain Carolina Slate Belt tings Mountain Belt
® Inner Piedmont itiassic basin (] Uwphy Felt
® Eastern Slate Belt M Milton Celt
i. Quite often, the upper soils along drainage features and in flood plain areas are water deposited
materials termed "alluvial" that have been eroded and washed down from adjacent higher ground.
These alluvial soils are usually soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by pressures
in excess of their current present overburden.
5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Development Considerations
The following evaluations and recommendations contained in this section of the report are based on
the results of the 30 soil test borings (including 5 cone penetrometer tests and 1 seismic cone test),
site observations, interpretation of the field and laboratory data obtained during this exploration,
results of our site specific liquefaction evaluation, and information provided regarding the proposed
development. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If
structure locations, loadings, or elevations are changed, we request that we be advised so that we
may re-evaluate our recommendations.
Based on the results of our subsurface and seismic evaluations, the upper approximately 15 to 20
feet of site soils are potentially liquefiable. EAS recommends that the potentially liquefiable
soils be improved (mitigated) to be resistant to the hazards associated with liquefaction and to
thereby reduce and/or eliminate possible damage to the planned structure.
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 10 F.AS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
On the basis of our findings and observations, the site appears feasible for the planned
development provided one of the following three ground improvement options provided in this
report is executed to improve the upper 15 to 20 feet of potentially liquefiable soils and the
recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report are followed throughout the
design and construction phases of this project.
The proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse facility can be supported on conventional
shallow spread foundations, bearing on properly compacted structural earthen fill, placed over an
approved stabilized (mitigated) subgrade. Additional foundation recommendations are presented
herein.
We understand approximately 5 to 7 feet of new structural (engineered) fill grading will be required
within the new Lowe's building footprint and pavement areas. We understand the majority of the
required fill soils will come from an offsite borrow source with possibly some from the onsite storm
water pond(s). Based on our laboratory testing of a composite sample of existing on -site fill soils,
the site soils should be suitable for use as engineering fill. Additional fill recommendations are
presented herein.
5.1 LIQUEFACTION HAZARD MITIGATION / GROUND IMPROVEMENT
Based on the results of our subsurface and seismic evaluations, we recommend the
following three options for mitigating the building area of this site for the proposed
construction.
5.1.1 OPTION 1 — Undercut and Density upper 8 to 12 feet of site soils
Generally, this option includes undercutting to a minimal depth (4 to 6 feet below existing
ground elevations) to allow for a heavy vibratory roller to densify the undercut subgrade and
upper 8 to 12 feet of the loose site soils (improve subsurface soils to achieve Standard
penetration resistance (N-values) > 8 bpf to depths of 8 to 10 feet below existing ground
surface).
Based on the results of the soil test borings, the existing stabilized ground water level generally
appears to be within 4 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the anticipated
groundwater levels, some temporary ground water control measures will most likely be required
within the building footprint area to allow for the following recommended undercut,
densification, and subsequent placement and compaction of the planned new fill within the
undercut excavation. At a minimum, the grading contractor should anticipate the excavation of
gravity ditches to effectively drain the undercut excavation.
Typically, SAND (SP-SM) soils that are above the groundwater table with less than 10 to 15
percent silt size particles (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) can be compacted to depths of 6 to
8 feet using relatively heavy compaction equipment (30 ton vibratory roller, e.g. CAT 825H).
Some clayey SAND (SC) soils were encountered in the upper 4 to 6 feet of the borings drilled
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse II F.A.S Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

„ PROFESSIONALS, INC.
within the building foot print. Generally, these soils will need to be removed/undercut to allow
compaction of the underlying SAND (SP-SM) soils.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the planned compaction equipment and/or to evaluate the
method for lowering the ground water, EAS recommends a test area (approximately 100 feet by
100 feet) be performed using the recommended densification with gravity ditches and pumping
from deeper sump pits and/or using a well point system. The test section should be evaluated
with soil test borings to determine if the required minimum Standard penetration resistance (N-
values > 8 bpf) is being achieved. Generally, the procedure for this option would include:
1. Perform site preparation recommendations in general accordance with the
recommendations in subsequent sections of this report;
2. Lowering the ground water within 20 feet outside the building footprint to depths of
approximately 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface (this will likely require
gravity ditches, pumping from sump pits, and/or well point installations to effectively
drain the undercut excavation);
3. Undercut the upper approximately 5 to 7 feet of silty and/or clayey SAND (SM/SC)
soils within the entire building pad area. Over excavate laterally at least 15 feet
outside the building footprint;
4. Heavy compaction equipment (CAT 825H or similar) should be used to densify the
site sandy soils to depths of approximately 6 to 8 feet below the undercut excavation
bottom;
5. EAS should be retained to direct a subsurface drilling program to document
achievement of the required minimum Standard Penetration Value, N-values > 8 bpf.
6. Upon completion of the densification effort, soil borings using rotary wash boring
techniques for borehole stabilization, with continuous sampling and SPT tests should
be performed at 6 locations across the building pad area. The borings should extend
to a depth of 20 feet below the excavation bottom to confirm the identified loose to
very loose sands have achieved minimum uncorrected N-values of 8 bpf.
7. After documentation of adequate ground improvement, backfill undercut excavation
with new engineered fill and place engineered fill to the planned finish subgrade
elevations within the building area (plus 10 feet beyond the building perimeter) per
the recommendations in subsequent sections of this report (see Structural Fill
Placement and Compaction). The excavated soils from the undercut excavation
should be suitable for re -use as engineered fill.
While this option may be the most economical, it should be noted that areas beneath the building
footprint will have a relatively thin layer (approximately 5 to 8 feel) of potentially liquefiable
loose sandy soils between the densified upper sandy soils and the existing dense soils
encountered at depths of 15 to 20 feet below existing site grades. Based on our analysis, we have
conservatively estimated up to 3 inches of settlement could occur below the densificd upper
soils. However, it is important to note that the potentially liquefiable soils are not continuous
across the site and the upper 12 to 14 feet of dense soils would likely bridge over the settled
areas with less than 1 inch of near surface settlement occurring.
lowe's Nome Improvement Warehouse 12 EAS project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HAS PROFESSIONALS, INC.
5.1.2 OPTION 2 — Deep Dynamic Compaction
Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) is the dropping of heavy weights on the ground surface to
densify soils at depth. DDC will effectively minimize liquefaction potential and reduce
foundation settlements in the encountered very loose to loose site sandy soils. Some clayey
SAND (SC) soils were encountered in the upper 4 to 6 feet of the borings drilled within the
building footprint and may cause problems with extracting the drop weight. Lowering the
ground water and/or undercutting the clayey soils may be required prior to performing the DDC.
A specialty sub -contractor should be retained to perform deep dynamic compaction throughout
the building footprint plus 10 feet beyond the building perimeter. Generally, the procedure for
this option would include:
1. Perform site preparation recommendations in general accordance with the
recommendations in subsequent sections of this report, and rough grade the building
footprint area to proposed subgrade. Do not backfill any areas below proposed grade
within the building footprint (plus 10 feet) until after completion of the deep dynamic
compaction work and not until the receipt of a report documenting adequate ground
improvement has been achieved;
2. Use a performance based specification for verification of the DDC work. Within the
performance specifications, define adequate ground improvement as the achievement
of a minimum Standard Penetration Value, N-values > 8 bpf (as per ASTM 131586)
within 20 feet of the anticipated bottom of footing elevation at 23.0 (final grade
elevation minus 1'/2 feet of embedment);
3. If DDC is selected to densify the subsurface soils, we recommend that EAS be
retained to calculate the drop weight, spacing and number of passes prior to selecting
the DDC contractor. EAS should also direct a subsurface drilling program to
document achievement of the required minimum Standard Penetration Value, N-
values > 8 bpf. After documentation of adequate ground improvement, backfill the
building area (plus 10 feet beyond the building perimeter) with compacted engineered
fill as per the recommendations in subsequent sections of this report (see Structural
Fill Placement and Compaction).
5.1.3 OPTION 3 — Stone Columns
Stone columns are likely the most costly of the three options provided. Stone columns will
create a column of compacted stone extending through the encountered loose soils to depths
where dense soils are encountered. The stone columns have been shown to reduce and/or
eliminate liquefaction by providing a path for pore water pressures to dissipate during a seismic
event. Also, during the installation and compaction process, the surrounding soils are typically
densified. However, the designer should consider the apparent low lateral load capacity of the
very loose subsurface soils, and should factor in possible down drag due to settlement from
placement of the planned 5 to 7 feet of engineer fill to achieve the planned finish subgrade
elevation. Based on the results of the soil test borings, we anticipate that the stone columns
would need to extend to depths of 20 to 25 feet below existing site grades. Also due to the
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 13 EAS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
relatively shallow ground water conditions at the site, ground water controls will likely be
required to prevent the planned building subgrade from becoming saturated above the stone
column area. If stone columns are selected for subgrade improvement, we recommend EAS be
retained to assist in design of the stone columns and underdrain system.
5.2 SITE PREPARATION RFCOMMENDATIONS
EAS's geotechnical engineer or qualified engineering technician working under the supervision of
our geotechnical engineer should observe site preparation activities on a full time basis.
Initial site preparation should include removal of any surficial and organic laden soils, pavements,
existing utilities, and other deleterious non -soil materials from within the proposed development
area. As previously discussed, a drainage ravine and several ditches were observed within the
planned building and pavement areas. The grading contractor should be prepared to undercut soft,
alluvial soils within the drainage features prior to placement of structural fill. Any existing
utilities (existing storm water lines, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, etc.) that are encountered
within the proposed development area, should be abandoned and/or removed. The resulting
excavations should be backfilled with controlled structural fill placed in accordance with the
recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report. Open pipes or conduits, if any,
left in -place adjacent to the construction area should be bulkheaded and grouted as they might
serve as conduits for subsurface erosion. During the clearing and stripping operations, positive
surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the accumulation of water in construction areas.
Based on the results of the soil test borings, loose soil conditions should be anticipated near
existing site grades within pavement areas in the northern portion of the site outside the
previously recommended subgrade stabilization area to improve the liquefaction potential within
the planned building footprint. As such, subgrade stabilization will be critical in these areas to
achieve a stable base for the planned pavement sections. We recommend our geotechnical
engineer observe the planned pavement subgrade (proofroll) to determine the needlextent of
subgrade stabilization within this area prior to placement of the planned 2 to 3 feet of structural
fill. The grading contractor should be prepared to undercut and/or use geotextiles to
stabilize areas that pump and/or rut during proofrolling.
The on -site silty and/or clayey SAND (SM/SC) soils encountered at the soil test borings are
moisture sensitive and can become unstable during normal construction traffic and activities
when wet. As such, during earthwork and construction activities, surface water runoff should be
drained away from the construction areas to prevent water from pending on or saturating the
soils within excavations or on subgrades. Earthwork construction during seasonally wet times of
the year (typically October to May) may result in soft subgrade conditions, difficulties in
properly placing and compacting the on -site soils and possible undercutting in excess than would
otherwise be expected.
We recommend that EAS's geotechnical engineer and/or engineering technician, working under
the direction of our geotechnical engineer, be onsite during site preparation activities to assist in
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 14 F.AS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

selection of areas that will require undercutting and/or stabilization prior to placement of the
planned engineering fill.
Ground Water Control
The existing stabilized ground water level generally appears to be within 4 to 7 feet below the
existing ground surface. Based on the observed ground water levels, some temporary ground
water control measures will most likely be required within the building areas to allow for
placement and compaction of the planned new fill within the undercut excavation.
Soft/loose areas within the undercut and/or areas that do not become stable after lowering the site
ground water may need to be stabilized with a thickened bridge lift of select materials, surge stone,
washed stone, and/or using stabilization geotextiles with select materials. Depending on ground
water conditions at the base of the undercut excavations within the building footprint and
pavement areas, the grading contractor will likely need to install and pump water from deeper
sump pits and/or install a 1 to 2-foot thick layer of washed stone sandwiched between stabilization
geotextiles in order to achieve a stable base on which to place overlying engineered fill.
5.3 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACFMFNT AND COMPACTION
Structural fill required to achieve the planned finish site grades will be imported from off -site.
Imported structural fill should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to use.
Imported structural fill should consist of low plasticity soil (LL<40, Pf<20), have a maximum
dry density of at least 100 pcf, and be free of organic and other deleterious materials. We
recommend that our geotechnical engineer or his representative should observe the borrow pit
operations to help identify the best -suited engineering fill soils. Imported structural fill similar to
the site silty and/or clayey SAND (SP-SM/SC) should be suitable for reuse.
As previously stated, the predominant, soil types on this site consist of moisture sensitive; fine
silty or clayey SAND (SP-SM/SC soils). While these soils are typical of the area, they are
moisture sensitive and can be difficult to properly place and compact especially during
seasonally wet periods. As such, EAS recommends that earthwork operations be performed
during the seasonally drier months (typically May to October) when weather conditions are more
conducive to soil moisture conditioning (e.g. drying) and achieving proper compaction of
structural fill. It should also be noted that the soils that are intended to be re -used as structural
fill may be wet of optimum conditions, which will also require adequate drying time prior to use
as structural fill. If earthwork is performed during the seasonally wet months, it may be
more difficult to properly compact structural fill and additional subgrade undercutting
and repair will likely be required.
New fill should be adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade soils. All structural
earth fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches (for sandy soils with < 30
percent fines) and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM D-698. The top 18 inches of fill in load bearing areas (building
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 15 F.AS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HALSPROFESSIONALS, INC.
and pavement areas) should be compacted to 100 percent of the soil(s) standard Proctor
maximum dry density value(s). EAS recommends that all structural fill material be compacted at
a moisture content ±3 percent of the optimum moisture content (as determined by ASTM Test
Method D-698). All structural fill should be placed under the full-time control and supervision
of EAS's geotechnical engineer or engineering technician working under the direction of our
geotechnical engineer. The placement and compaction of all fill material should be tested
frequently in order to confirm that the recommended degree of compaction is obtained.
We recommend that the contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and
wetting of fill soils. Moisture control may be difficult during winter months or extended periods of
rain. As previously discussed, EAS recommends that earthwork operations be performed during the
seasonally drier months (typically May to October) when weather conditions are more conducive to
soil moisture conditioning (e.g. drying) and achieving proper compaction of structural fill. During
fill operations, positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the accumulation of water.
Attempts to work the soils when wet can be expected to result in deterioration of otherwise suitable
soil conditions or of previously placed and properly compacted fill. Where construction traffic or
weather has disturbed the subgrade, the upper 8 inches of soils intended for structural support
should be scarified and re -compacted.
5.4 CUT AND Fat, SLOPES
Relatively shallow cut slopes (less than 10 feet) will be excavated for the planed storm water
detention ponds at the southeast portion of the site and relatively shallow fill slopes (5 to 7 feet)
will be required to complete structural fill grading along the southern boundary of the site
adjacent to planned heavy duty pavement areas along the rear of the new Lowe's building.
Generally, permanent project earthen fill and cut slopes should be designed at a minimum of 2.5
horizontal to 1 vertical (2.5H: IV) or flatter and minimum 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H: IV) or
flatter, respectively, to promote long and short tern stability. Permanent slopes of 3:1 (Horizontal:
Vertical) or flatter are desired for mowing. Relatively shallow 2H: IV fill slopes required to
complete structural fill grading, such as those anticipated surrounding structural fill areas along the
southern portion of the site, are concluded to be marginally stable and will require a high degree of
compaction (minimum 98% of standard Proctor) and full time observation and monitoring by
EAS's Geotechnical engineer and/or technician during construction. The site preparation
recommendations of this report should be strictly followed prior to beginning construction of any
site slopes. If (2H: IV) fill slopes are to be constructed they should be constructed by overbuilding
and cutting back to obtain adequate compaction along the slope face. The tops and bases of all
slopes should be located a minimum of 10 feet from structural limits. Fill slopes placed over
existing slopes should be adequately benched keyed into the existing slopes so that engineering fill
is not placed and/or compacted on a sloping subgrade. All fill slopes should be compacted as
structural fill, as outlined in the structural fill placement and compaction section of this report, and
all slopes should be seeded and maintained as soon as possible after construction. Due to the
erodable characteristics of the on -site soils, all slopes should be protected by silt fencing during
construction, stabilized and hydro -seeded or similarly seeded for permanent protection. We note
1,owe's Home Improvement Warehouse 16 EAS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

EASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
that surficial sloughing of the slope face soils are most likely to occur until the face of the slopes are
completely stabilized with vegetation.
Any slopes that are constructed within the design, post construction; 100-year flood plain
(anticipated at this site) should also have the toe of planned slope, up to approximately 2 feet
above the maximum flood height elevation, protected with rip rap to protect the slope from
scour and erosion. EAS recommends reinforcing the toe of the fill slopes within the 100-year
flood plain with geogrids and/or protecting the slope toe with geotextile and several feel of riprap.
We recommend a non -woven geotextile be placed between the face of the slope and the rip rap to
prevent migration/washout of slope soils through the relatively open graded rip rap materials.
Properly prepared site slopes will be stable from a slope stability standpoint provided the site
preparation recommendations of this report are strictly followed, the above reinforcement
recommendations are followed, the reinforced and un-reinforced fill slopes are constructed of
properly compacted select engineering fill, and the toe area of the planned slopes are not allowed to
be saturated.
During construction and as part of the final design, we recommend that drainage and/or run off
from nearby structures be directed away from the crest and toe of both cut and fill slopes. We
note that diversion of surface water away from the slope crest and face is critical to reducing the
potential of surface erosion and shallow failures. For erosion protection, a protective cover of
grass or other vegetation should be established on permanent soil slopes as soon as possible.
Seepage and surface runoff may cause parts of the slopes to slough and erode resulting in
shallow surface failures. The soil slopes should be vegetated as soon as possible to prevent
surface sloughing and erosion. If sloughing or erosion occurs, the use of a vegetation mat or
geotextile and large stone may be required to stabilize the slopes. A swale or shallow ditch
should be constructed near the top of slopes to prevent surface water from flowing onto the
slopes. We recommend that all cut and fill slopes be observed by a geotechnical engineer or his
representative during construction. Additional slope drainage and protection measures may be
required in certain areas depending upon conditions observed at the time of slope construction.
5.5 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
The proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse facility can be supported on conventional
shallow spread foundations bearing on properly compacted structural earth fill placed over an
approved stabilized subgrade using one of the ground improvement options outlined in Section
5.1. Spread foundations constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this
report can be proportioned for net allowable soil bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. All exterior
foundations should bear at least 1 '/2 feet below the adjacent finished grade for bearing capacity
and frost protection considerations. Interior foundations should bear at a nominal depth of at
least 1-foot. Wall and column foundations should have minimum widths of 24 and 30 inches,
respectively. Final foundation sizes should be determined by the project structural engineer
based on the actual design loads, building code requirements and other structural considerations.
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 17 EAS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

PROFESSIONALS, INC.
We recommend that EAS's geotechnical engineer or his representative evaluate the footing
excavations and bearing grades prior to installation of reinforcing steel or concrete. The
anticipated foundation bearing soils are anticipated to be new -engineered fill suitable to support
the recommended bearing pressure. Although not anticipated, soft zones of soils could be
encountered during construction at the, foundation bearing level that may require selective
undercutting to repair these areas. If low consistency soils are encountered during foundation
construction, localized undercutting and/or in -place stabilization of foundation subgrades will be
required. The actual need for, and extent of, undercutting should be based on field observations
and testing performed by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. The field-testing
may consist of performing shallow hand auger borings and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
testing of the bearing grade soils in selected areas. If soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable soils are
encountered at the footing bearing level, undercutting and repair of footing subgrades will likely
be recommended.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if excavations
remain open for long periods of time. The foundation -bearing surface should be level or suitably
benched and free of loose soil, ponded water and debris. If the bearing soils are softened by
surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation
excavation immediately prior to placement of concrete. Foundation excavations must be
maintained in a drained/de-watered condition throughout the foundation construction process. If
the foundation excavations must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while
the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a 2 to 4 inch thick "mud mat" of lean concrete
(1,500 psi) be placed on the bearing soils before placing the reinforcing steel. In addition, EAS
stresses the need for positive perimeter surface drainage around the building area to direct all
runoff water away from the building and foundations.
5.6 ESTMIATED NON-SEISMIC/LiQUEFACTION INDUCED SETTLEMENTS
EAS recommends that the potentially liquefiable soils be improved (mitigated) to be resistant to the
hazards associated with liquefaction and to thereby reduce and/or eliminate possible damage to the
planned structure. Calculated settlements due to potential liquefaction are provided in Section 5.8.6
of this report.
EAS performed settlement calculations based on the building footprint being mitigated per one of
the recommended options being implemented and the placement of 5 to 7 feet of new structural fill
over the mitigated area. We estimated the total and differential settlement that could be anticipated
to be less than I inch and 1/2 inch, respectively.
The potential for unacceptable differential settlement may be reduced through aggressive
undercutting of soft/loose and/or unsuitable bearing materials, which may be found during site
preparation and/or foundation excavation activities by our Geotechnical staff professional.
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 18 F.AS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August IS, 2007

M AS
PROFESSIONALS, INC.
5.7 FLOOR SLABS
Ground floor slabs may be designed as a slab -on -grade supported by newly placed controlled
structural fill. We recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 125 pounds per cubic
inch (pci) be used for slab design. Slab -on -grade support is contingent upon successful
completion of the subgrade evaluation process as described in the Site Preparation section of this
report. Some subgrade undercutting and/or in -place stabilization may be necessary in soil
supported slab areas underlain by low -consistency residual soils. The subgrade soils for support
of floor slabs should be prepared as outlined in previous sections of this report. The floor slab
should be supported on at least 4 inches of ABC stone to provide a uniform well -compacted
material immediately beneath the slab.
A vapor barrier should be used beneath ground floor slabs that will be covered by tile, wood,
carpet, impermeable floor coatings, and/or if other moisture -sensitive equipment or materials will
be in contact with the floor. However, the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of
floor slabs during curing. We refer the floor slab designer to ACI 302.1 R-96, Sections 4.1.5 and
11.11, for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to minimize concrete
shrinkage and curling.
Proper jointing of the ground floor slab is also essential to minimize cracking. ACI suggests that
unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacings of 24 to 36 times the slab thickness,
up to a maximum spacing of 18 feet. Floor slab construction should incorporate isolation joints
around column locations, utility penetrations and along bearing walls and to allow minor
differential movements to occur without damage to the floor. Utility or other construction
excavations in the prepared floor slab subgrade should be backfilled in accordance with previously
referenced structural fill criteria to aid in providing uniform floor support.
5.8 SITE SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
5.8.1 Liquefaction Evaluation
The subject site was tentatively classified as Site Classification F based upon the identification of
potentially liquefiable soil deposits at the site. Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of
granular material from a solid to a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore -water
pressure and resulting reduced effective stress. Increased pore -water pressure is induced by the
tendency of granular materials to compact when subjected to cyclic shear deformations, such as
those induced by earthquake ground motions. The change of state occurs most readily in loose
to moderately dense granular soils with poor drainage, such as silty sands or sand and gravels
capped by or containing seams of impermeable sediment. As liquefaction occurs, the soil
stratum loosens, allowing large cyclic deformations to occur. In loose materials, the softening is
also accompanied by a loss of shear strength that may lead to large shear deformations or even
flow failure under moderate to high shear stresses, such as beneath foundations or sloping
ground. (T.L. Youd, et. al. 2001).
Lowe's Home improvement Warehouse 19 EAS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

b PROFESSIONALS, INC.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data suggests there is a zone of loose to very loose clean
SAND (SP) and/or silty SAND (SM) above and below the existing water table between 4 and 20
feet below the ground surface. This zone exhibited layers with average uncorrected SPT N-
values of < 4 blows per foot (bpf), which was tentatively identified as potentially liquefiable, and
is assumed to be present across the proposed building area. The soils below 20 feet were
predominantly medium dense to very dense cemented sands. The SPT N-values below 20 feet
were typically above 20 bpf and generally increased with depth.
The design peak horizontal ground surface acceleration value, a. m,x, for Site Classifications EIF
(un-mitigated site) and Site Classification D (mitigated site) were derived using the design
spectrum development procedures outlined in the NEHRP Recommended Provisions. A
liquefaction analysis was then performed for the existing site conditions and for the assumed
minimum site conditions following mitigation procedures of this report.
5.8.2 Evaluation Methodology
Calculation, or estimation, of two variables is required for evaluation of liquefaction resistance
of soils: 1) the seismic demand on a soil layer, expressed in terms of Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR);
and 2) the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction, expressed in terms of Cyclic Resistance
Ratio (CRR). In summary, an evaluation must be performed to determine the probability or
factor of safety that the driving forces of the design earthquake event (CSR) will not exceed the
ability of the soil layers (CRR) to resist these forces.
Over the past 25 years, a methodology termed the "simplified procedure" has evolved as a
standard practice for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of soils. The simplified procedure
was developed by Seed and Idriss in 1971 following disastrous effects of liquefaction from
earthquakes in Alaska and Niigata, Japan. That procedure has been modified and refined
periodically through the years, most notably in 1985 and more recently in 1996 through the
efforts of the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) and the National
Science Foundation (NSF).
In January 1996, T.L. Youd and I.M. Idriss convened a workshop of 20 experts to update the
"simplified method" and to incorporate research findings from the previous decade. The
outcome of the workshop was detailed in a paper titled Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:
Summary Report From the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
October 2001. The methods outlined in this paper are considered the current standard of practice,
and were used to evaluate the liquefaction potential for the project site.
5.8.3 Calculation of Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)
Seed and Idriss (1971) formulated the following relationship for calculation of the Cyclic Stress
Ratio (CSR):
CSR = T av
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 20 EAS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

iMq PROFESSIONALS, INC.
Where, 2 av = average horizontal shear stress on soil during earthquake event,
6 effective overburden pressure.
From the above relationship, Seed and idris (1971) derived an equation to calculate the CSR
which was published as follows:
CSR=0.65(a max/ g)(C �,16' vo)rd
Where, a max = peak horizontal acceleration at ground surface,
g = acceleration of gravity,
a va = total overburden pressure,
u'vo = effective overburden pressure,
rd = stress reduction coefficient.
EAS used a subroutine available in the SHAKE2000 computer program to perform the CSR
calculations for the site. The subsurface soils were divided into layers representing the observed
breaks in soil type, consistency, or relative density, which was derived from the soil test boring,
CPT, field, and laboratory test data.
Design peak horizontal ground surface acceleration values, a max, for the un-mitigated and
mitigated sites of 0.136g and 0.087g, respectively were calculated for this analysis and were
derived using the design spectrum development procedures outlined in the NEHRP
Recommended Provisions. The related Probabilistic Ground Motion Values and Site Design
Spectral Response Acceleration factors are provided on Table 1 and 2, respectively. The stress
reduction coefficient was derived using procedures published by Seed & Idriss (1971). The
results of the calculations of the CSR for the identified soil layers are shown below in Table
5.8.3. As previously described, these values represent the average "driving force" at each soil
layer that would result from the design earthquake.
TABLE 5.8.3: Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) Calculations
„Unit ;
,,Total
Effective -
Reduction
CSR
Layer '`
Thickness"
`' Weight, -
Depth
Stress
Stress
Factor
(armed&ldris,
f
` (p °
I97Ij
(ft)
(ft)
(psf)
(paO
(Rd)
r
s.
1
5
110
2.25
275
275
0.996
0.056
2
15
100
12.5
1,300
832
0.973
0.085
3
30
120
35
3,850
1,978
0.89
0.097
Notes: CSR Analysis using Seed Et Idriss (1971)
Earthquake used for Analysis: Charleston M-7.5
Peak Ground Acceleration - amax-0. 14g
Stress Reduction Factor: Seed Et Idriss (1971)
Depth to water - 5 feet
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 21 EA•S Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
5.8.4 Calculation of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)
The major focus of the 1996 NCEER Workshop was to refine procedures to evaluate the
liquefaction resistance of soils. One method would be to retrieve and test undisturbed samples in
the laboratory using dynamic testing protocols such as resonant column or cyclic triaxial
evaluation. Unfortunately, in -situ stress states generally cannot be reestablished in the laboratory,
and specimens of granular soils retrieved with conventional geotechnical sampling techniques
are too disturbed to yield meaningful results.
To avoid the difficulties associated with sampling and laboratory testing, field tests have become
the state -of -practice for routine liquefaction resistance. Several field tests have gained common
usage for evaluation of liquefaction resistance, including standard penetration tests (SPT), the
cone penetration test (CPT), shear wave velocity measurements (Vs), and the Becker Penetration
Test (BPT). These tests were discussed in great detail in the NCEER publication along with
associated criteria for evaluation of liquefaction resistance. The workshop group made a
conscientious attempt to correlate liquefaction resistance criteria from each of the various field
tests to provide generally consistent results, no matter which test is applied (Youd, et.al., 2001).
EAS performed CRR calculations using the subroutine available in the SHAKE 2000 program
and the geotechnical field and lab data collected from the soil test borings and CPT results. The
CRR was evaluated using the SPT data obtained from the upper 20 feet at each boring and from
below 20 feet at the one deep boring (B-9). The CRR evaluation using SPT results requires that
the N-values be normalized to an overburden pressure of approximately 1 OOkPa and a hammer
efficiency of 60%. These normalized N-Values were then compared to curves developed from
historical liquefaction case studies which were derived from sites where liquefaction effects were
or were not observed following past earthquakes with magnitudes of approximately 7.5
(modified from Seed, et. al, 1985).
Recognizing that the fines content of soils has been shown to affect the ability of a soil to trigger
liquefaction conditions, curves were developed for granular soils with fines content of 5% or
less, 15%, and greater than 35%. it is noted that the curves for the SPT based correlations are
only valid for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes. However, the NCEER Workshop presented correction
factors that could be used to scale the CRR upwards or downwards using a Magnification
Scaling Factor (MSF). For the purposes of this site, an earthquake magnitude of 7.5 was used,
which is consistent with the design earthquake (Charleston, 1886) typically used for this region.
The results of the CRR evaluation based upon the SPT test data are presented on Table 5.8.4, on
the last page of this report.
5.8.5 Factor of Safety — Liquefaction
The purpose of our liquefaction evaluation was to establish the probability or factor of safety
(FS) for the site to exhibit liquefiable soils. The factor of safety against liquefaction is
determined using the following equation:
FS=(CRR7.5/CSR)(MS F)(Ka)(Ka)
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 22 F.AS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HAS
PROFESSIONALS, INC.
where, CRR 7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio determined for magnitude 7.5 earthquake
CSR =Cyclic Stress Ratio induced by ground motion from design earthquake
MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
KG =Correction Factor for high overburden stresses (>I00 Kpa)
Ku =Correction Factor for static shear stresses (sloping ground).
A minimum FS of 1.2 is typically considered acceptable for liquefaction evaluation.
Based upon subsurface evaluation, this site exhibits the potential for liquefaction and is
considered under Site Classification "F" for liquefaction. We have provided 3 options for
liquefaction mitigation - reference Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.1.3 of this report to address
the liquefaction issue and allow for subsequent design of the structure using the Site Class
"D" soil conditions determined by improving the upper at least 10 feet to have minimum
Standard Penetration Value, N-values > 4 bpf (uncorrected N-values).
The recommended site preparations are needed to reduce:
- Potential for sand blows and lateral spreading resulting in localized bearing failure of
shallow column and continuous wall footings; and,
- Reduce potential post liquefaction differential settlement of shallow footings and
grade slabs.
The far right column of Table 5.8.4, on the last page of this report provides the calculation of
factor of safety against liquefaction based upon SPT data. As indicated in Table 5.8.4, the Factor
of Safely against liquefaction is below 1.0 for the layer represented by the SPT test data from 15
to 20 feet (FS=0.59).
5.8.6 Liquefaction Induced Settlement
Based upon settlement calculations using methods proposed by Tokimatsu & Seed (1987), we have
estimated that post liquefaction total settlements on the order of 8 inches are possible at the site if
the upper loose to very loose soils are not mitigated per the recommendations of this report.
Provided the recommendations of this report are followed, the calculated estimated post liquefaction
settlements would result in approximately 1 inch or less differential settlement per 100 lineal feet
the buildings foundations and/or slabs. We recommend that the building foundations be suitably
reinforced to resist movement from potential differential settlement. Walls and slabs should
incorporate control joints to minimize effects of differential settlement.
5.8.7 Mitigated Site Classification and Seismic Design Category
The liquefaction potential of the site must be taken into consideration before applying the
building code N-value methodology and/or assigning a seismic Design Category. It should be
noted; for sites classified as "F", the IBC requires that a site specific analysis be performed in
order to determine a site specific spectral response. However, Section 4.1.2.4 of NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures
(FEM 368) states that a site specific analysis is not required for structures with periods of
I.owe's Home Improvement Warehouse 23 F.AS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

40�, AS
A PROFESSIONALS, INC.
vibration less than 0.5 seconds, which we assume this structure to be (i.e. less than 3 to 5 stories
in height). Therefore, the general Procedure of Section 1615.1.4 of IBC was used to determine
the spectral response data. If the structure has a fundamental period in excess of 0.5 seconds, or
if a site specific analysis is desired, please contact us to discuss.
The following recommended Site Classification and corresponding Seismic Design
Category are based on densifying (mitigating) the existing site subsurface soils per the
recommendations of this report to reduce and/or eliminate the risk of liquefaction. Our
recommendations are provided following Section 1615.1.1 (Site Class Definitions) of the 2006
International Building Code (IBC). IBC 2006 provides a methodology for interpretation of
Standard Penetration Test resistance values (N-values) to determine a Site Class Definition. This
method involves averaging of N values over the top 100 feet of the subsurface profile. We note
boring B-9 was extended to the assigned depth of approximately 60 feet below existing site
grades and our geotechnical engineer (registered Professional) estimated soil properties for 60 to
100 feet for seismic design purposes. Our engineer also reviewed site specific CPT and seismic
cone results to assist in the estimated soil properties.
Based upon the subsurface conditions described herein, and in accordance with section 1615.1.1
of the 2006 IBC, the mitigated site will meet the conditions for a Site Classification D. The
D classification is assigned for sites with a stiff soil profile where 15 bpf < the average N-value <
50 bpf. Based on a site class D determination, the geographical site location, and the mapped
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motion for 0.2 and 1.0-second spectral
response acceleration, we have estimated the following design mitigated site spectral response
coefficients:
PERIOD
(sec)
MCE, Sa
%
Fa
F,
SDS
SDI
0.2
20.4
1.6
-
0.218
-
1
7.6
-
2.4
E
0.122
The Seismic Design Category for a structure is based on the structure's seismic use group and
the design spectral response acceleration, Sos and SDI, determined in accordance with Section
1615.1.3 or 1615.2.5 and the most severe seismic design category in accordance with Table
1616.3(1) or 1616.3(2). Based on the above "mitigated site" design spectral response
accelerations and the structure's seismic use group (assumed as Use Group it), the mitigated site
is assigned a Seismic Design Category B for Sos and Sol in general accordance with the
procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the IBC .2006®. The project architect and/or structural
engineer should verifv the above information taking into account the anorooriate Seismic Use
Group and other code specific requirements
5.9 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In designing the proposed new roads and parking lots, the existing subgrade conditions must be
considered together with the expected traffic use and loading conditions. The conditions that
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 24 F,AS Project No.07—I84
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

EALSPROFESSIONALS, INC.
influence pavement design include vehicular traffic in terms of expected load and frequency for
the life of the pavement; bearing values of the subgrade represented by California Bearing Ratio
values; groundwater conditions, expansive conditions, and the necessity for under drains; and,
availability of suitable materials to be used in construction of the pavement.
We understand most of the parking and drives in the front (north) of the new Lowe's building
will require minimal structural fill (approximately 2 to 3 feet) to achieve planned finish subgrade
elevations. As previously discussed, very loose to loose soil conditions were encountered up to
approximately 15 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. It may be possible to densify the
upper 2 to 4 feel of the very loose to loose sandy soils to provide a stable base for the planned 2
to 3 feet of structural fill within planned pavement areas in the northern portion of the site.
However, any remaining soft/loose areas will require some undercutting and/or stabilization of
the upper approximately 1 to 1 1/7. feet to help stabilize the area for the planned structural fill
placement. We recommend the following two options to provide a stable base for the planned
pavement sections depending on the severity of the condition of the subgrade coupled with the
anticipated loading conditions (we recommend option 2 for all heavy duty pavement sections and
driveway sections where heavy wheel loading is anticipated):
Pavement Subgrade Improvement Option #1 (marginally poor subgrade)
1. Undercut the upper 1 1/2 to 2 feet of loose/soft soils;
2. Compact the exposed undercut surface with a heavy sheeps foot roller;
3. Place a layer of BP Propex 2006 geotextile stabilization fabric or similar over the
compacted undercut surface. Overlap the geotextile a minimum of 4 to 6 inches;
4. Place clean granular SAND fill to planned finish subgrade elevations.
Pavement Subgrade Improvement Option #1 (very poor subgrade)
1. Undercut the soft/loose approximately 6 to 8 inches and compact the exposed undercut
surface with a heavy sheeps foot roller;
2. Place a layer of TESAR BX1100 geogrid over the compacted subgrade. Overlap the
geogrid a minimum of 4 to 6 inches;
3. Place a 6-inch layer of washed stone (No. 57) or similar open graded aggregate to allow
for drainage. Extend the washed stone under the parking lot curbing on the lowest
elevations of the site to allow for water to seep out of the stone layer;
4. Place a layer of BP Propex 2006 geotextile stabilization fabric or similar over the
washed stone layer. Overlap the geotextile a minimum of 4 to 6 inches;
5. Place the recommended thickness of compacted select stone or macadam base course as
recommended below;
6. Place the recommended standard and/or heavy duty asphalt or concrete pavement
sections over the compacted stone base course.
Parking and drive areas along the sides and back of the store (within the ground improvement
area outlined in Section 5.1) can be constructed without the using the above reinforced sections.
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 25 F.A.S Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

PROFESSIONALS, INC.
However, the grading contractor should be prepared to stabilize the subgrade areas for the
planned new fill using geogrids and/or stabilization geotextiles and/or surge stone.
For the purpose of evaluating the proposed pavement the following traffic loading scenarios have
been used to evaluate two different loading conditions:
• Standard -duty proposed parking lot areas - we have assumed a daily traffic count of
approximately 2,500 cars, 10 lightly loaded dual wheel delivery trucks and no heavy
tractor -trailers or other similar heavy truck traffic.
• Heavy-duty truck delivery and entrance drive areas - we have assumed a daily traffic
count of approximately 2,500 cars, and 20 heavy tractor -trailers.
Based on the assumed traffic volume, a 15-year pavement life span, and achieving an assumed
minimum insitu subgrade CBR value of approximately 171t1 (new compacted engineering fill
materials) we recommend the following Lowe's standard flexible and/or rigid pavement sections
over prepared subgrade:
Proposed Customer Parking (Standard Duty)
Flexible Pavement:
1-1/2-inches minimum asphaltic concrete surface course, overlying
1-1/2-inches minimum asphaltic concrete binder course, overlying
6- inches minimum select aggregate or stabilized macadam base course.
Proposed Entrance and Delivery Truck (Heavy Duty)
Flexible Pavement:
1-1/2 inches minimum asphaltic concrete surface course, overlying
1-1/2 - inches minimum asphaltic concrete binder course, overlying
8 - inches minimum select aggregate or stabilized macadam base course.
Rigid Pavement (Standard Duty)
5-inches minimum 4,000-psi (650 psf flexural strength) air entrained Portland cement
concrete, overlying
6-inches minimum select aggregate or stabilized macadam base course.
Rigid Pavement (Heavy Duty)
6-inches minimum 4,000-psi (650 psf flexural strength) air entrained Portland cement
concrete, overlying
8-inches minimum select aggregate or stabilized macadam base course.
(l) Results of our laboratory CBR Test indicated a CBR value of 17 (compacted to 98% of
standard Proctor) for the existing on -site compacted silty SAND (SP-SM) soils.
In general, long-term pavement performance requires good drainage, performance of periodic
maintenance activities, and particular attention to subgrade preparation. EAS recommends that
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 26 F_AS Project No.07-1 R4
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

rigid concrete pavement be used in loading dock areas, dumpster areas or any other area
subjected to concentrated truck loading.
Pavement areas should be compacted, proofrolled and inspected as recommended within this
report. Fill placed within pavement and drive areas adjacent to the planned building should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
Test Method D698. The upper twelve inches of all pavement soil subgrades should be
compacted to at least 98 percent of the same index. The aggregate base course should be
compacted to least 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
Test Method D1557. Density testing should be performed at a sufficient frequency to verify that
the fill and aggregate base course have been compacted in accordance with the guidelines of this
report or project specification requirements. Some undercutting of the identified soft alluvial
materials should be anticipated if encountered during proofrolling of the proposed paved areas.
We emphasize that good base course drainage is essential for successful pavement performance.
The aggregate base course should be maintained in a drained condition at all times. Water build-
up in the base course could result in premature pavement failures. Subsurface drains are
typically utilized beneath a pavement where water may enter the pavement from below or above.
Based on the anticipated subgrade improvement and structural fill depths below the planned
pavement sections, we do not anticipate that sub drains are required for this site. However site
drainage problems may be revealed during construction that requires sub drains.
Proper drainage may be aided by grading the site such that surface water is directed away from
pavements and by construction of swales adjacent to the pavements. All pavements should be
graded such that surface water is directed towards the outer limits of the paved area or to catch
basins located such that surface water does not remain on the pavement. A minimum pavement
grade of 2 percent is recommended.
Flexible asphalt pavements, concrete pavements and bases should be constructed in accordance
with the guidelines of the latest applicable North Carolina Department of Transportation
Specifications. Materials, weather limitations, placement and compaction are specified under
appropriate sections of this publication. Concrete pavement construction should be in
accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines.
5.10 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project must be performed
in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other applicable
jurisdictional codes for permissible temporary side -slope ratios and/or shoring requirements. The
OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas and protective systems by
a "competent person" for evidence of situations that could result in cave-ins, indications of failure of
a protective system, or other hazardous conditions.
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse 27 F.AS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

MASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
Based on the results of the 30 soil test borings for this evaluation, the upper site soils are very loose
and/or soft and will likely cave off during trench excavations below 3 to 4 feet. The operation of
heavy and/or vibratory equipment adjacent to open trenches will likely cause additional instability.
6.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL
As previously discussed, the Geotechnical Engineer of record should be retained to monitor and
test earthwork activities, and subgrade preparations for foundations, floor slabs and pavements. It
should be noted that the actual soil conditions at the various subgrade levels and footing bearing
grades will vary across this site and thus the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his
representative during construction will serve to validate the subsurface conditions and
recommendations presented in this report. We also stress the importance of conducting hand
auger borings and DCP testing in the footing excavations in order to confirm the anticipated
subsurface conditions and identify footings that should be undercut and repaired as outlined in this
report.
We recommend that EAS be employed to monitor the earthwork and foundation construction, and
to report that the recommendations contained in this report are completed in a satisfactory manner.
Our continued involvement on the project will aid in the proper implementation of the
recommendations discussed herein. The following is a recommended scope of services:
• Observe, document and verify the selected liquefaction mitigation;
• Observe the earthwork process to document that subsurface conditions encountered
during construction are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report;
• Observe the subgrade conditions before placing structural fill including proofroll
observations;
• Observe the placement and compaction of all structural fill and backfill, and perform
laboratory and field compaction testing of the fill; and
• Observe all foundation excavations and footing bearing grades for compliance with
the recommended design soil bearing capacity.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the ]EMSITE Development, LLC and
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for specific application to the referenced property in accordance with
generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or
implied, is made. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on design information
furnished to us; the data obtained from the previously described subsurface exploration program,
and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The conclusions and
recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions which could exist
Loive's Home Improvement Warehouse 28 FAS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HAS
PROFESSIONALS, INC.
intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site. Should such variations
become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our conclusions and
recommendations based upon on -site observations of the conditions.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that
conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not
as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions.
Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate earthwork, pavement, and
foundation construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist.
Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts,
specifications, or recommendations.
In the event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed structure, the
recommendations presented in the report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are
reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and/or verified in writing. Prior to
final design, EAS should be afforded the opportunity to review the site grading and layout plans
to determine if additional or modified recommendations are necessary. If this report is copied or
transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its entirety, including text,
attachments, and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part of this report may not be valid.
1,owe's home Improvement Warehouse 29 FAS Project No.07-184
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

HASPROFESSIONALS, INC.
Table 5.8.4: Cyclic Resistance Ratio Calculations
SPT -
,No.
'
'Dept I
'.h_ `'
;
_C0.)
N-
Field
,,.
@L>0
Energy:
Factor -�
-
-Rod
Fac.
-Simpler
1� .
Factor
''
Borehbl
,.e �::
-
Fac
Total
Stress
' - .-
(psf) a
'ECL
Stress`
z
,(pso `
I Cn
'r -
N1,60
(bpf)'
-
;;Fines
°(%n)
N1.,60 _
'(cs) ..
Ksig,
=. -
Alpha
;,
K-
Alph
.a
CRR
q.
_
CSR
FS
-
1
3
7
LI
1
1.1
1
326.25
326.25
1.7
14.3
20
19
1
---
-
-
0.057
--
2
5
9
1.1
1
1.1
1
531.25
531.25
1.7
18.5
15
21.8
1
---
---
---
0.063
---
3
7.5
4
LI
1
1.1
1
787.50
631.50
1.7
8.2
8
8.6
1
---
---
0.10
0.070
1.42
4
10
4
1.1
1
1.1
1
1,043.73
73 E75
1.7
8.2
5
8.2
I
--
---
0.097
0.077
1.25
5
15
1
LI
1
1.1
1
1,583.33
959.33
1.48
1.7
5
1.7
I
--
-
0.051
0.086
0.59
6
20
40
1.1
1
1.1
1
2,150.00
1,214.00
1.32
63.8
5
63.8
1
---
---
NL
0.089
---
7
25
22
1.1
I
1.1
1
2,716.66
1,468.66
1.2
31.9
5 -
31.9
1
---
---
NL
0.091
---
8
30
27
1.1
1
1.1
1
3,283.33
1,723.33
1.1
35.9
5
35.9
1
--
--
NL
0,094
---
9
35
22
1.1
I
1.1
1
3,850.00
1978.00
1.03
27.4
5
27.4
1
---
--
0.349
0.097
3.59
Notes: CRR analysis using SPT Data and Seed, at. at. Method in 1997 NCEER Workshop
Cn Corrections using Llao Et Whitman (1986)
SPT Energy Ratio: Automatic Trip Hammer
Loge's Home Improvement Warehouse 30 EAS Project No.07-I H4
Jacksonville, North Carolina August 15, 2007

GENERAL FIELD PROCEDURES
Test Boring Locations and Elevations
The soil test borings were located in the field by an EAS representative by making tape
measurements from known site features. The ground surface elevation at each boring location
was determined based on interpolation from the provided topographic plan. Given the method of
determination, the boring locations and ground surface elevations should only be considered
approximate.
Soil Test Borings
The soil test borings were performed in accordance with generally accepted practice using a
truck -mounted CME-55 rotary drill rig. Our drill crew conducted standard penetration testing
and representative split -spoon soil sampling at pre -selected depth intervals in general accordance
with ASTM Standards. The soil test borings were advanced using hollow stem augers for
borehole stabilization. Representative soil samples were obtained using a standard two-inch
outside diameter (O.D.) split -barrel sampler without the inner liner in general compliance with
ASTM Standards. The split -barrel sampler is driven in to the subsoil with a 140-pound hammer,
free -falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the split
barrel sampler three consecutive 6-inch increments is recorded and the summation of hammer -
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of an 18 inch sample interval is defined as
the `Standard Penetration Resistancd' or'N-value:' The N-value is representative is the soils'
resistance to penetration. The N-value is therefore an index of the relative density if granular
soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils. Standard Penetration Tests were
performed at frequent intervals to evaluate the consistency and general engineering properties of
the subsurface soils.
Representative portions of the soil samples obtained from each SPT interval are collected, sealed
in a container, labeled and transported to our laboratory for final classification by our
professional staff. In the laboratory, the soil samples were evaluated in general accordance with
techniques outlined in the visual -manual identification procedure (ASTM D 2488) and the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The classifications are reported on the Boring Logs
for each soil test boring.
Split -spoon soil samples recovered on this project will be stored at EAS's office for a period of
ninety days. After ninety days, the samples will be discarded unless prior notification is
provided to us in writing.

KEY TO BORING LOG SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Soil Identification
Identification of soil type is made on the basis of an estimate of particle size
for predominantly coarse -grained soils and on the basis of cohesiveness (plasticity)
for predominantly fine-grained soils. When a soil sample consists of two or more
soil types, the percentages of the types are estimated by weight and indicated by
descriptive terminology.
Sou Descriptive
Soil Type Particle Size Component Term
Boulder
>12 in.
Major
Uppercase Letters
Cobble
3 - 12 in.
Gravel - Coarse
3/4 - 3 in.
Secondary
Adjective
- Fine
#4 - 3/4 in.
Sand - Coarse
#10 - #4
Others
Some
- Medium
#40 - #10
- Fine
#200 - #40
Little
Silt (non -cohesive)
<#200
Clay (cohesive)
<#200
Trace
Percentage
>50%
20 - 50%
20 - 35%
10 - 20%
0-10%
Notes: 1) Particle size is designated by U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes.
2) Atterberg Limit deteminations are often used to classify fine-grained soils (silts and clays).
Relative Density or Consistency
The standard penetration resistance values (N-Values) are used to describe the relative
density of coarse -grained soils or the consistency of fine-grained soils.
RELATIVE DENSITY
CONSISTENCY
Term
N-Value
Term
N-Value
Very Loose
0-4
Very Soft
0-1
Loose
5 - 10
Soft
2-4
Medium -Dense
11 - 30
Medium Stiff
5-8
Dense
31 - 50
Stiff
9 - 15
Very Dense
>50
Very Stiff
16 - 30
Hard
>30
I he N-value is the number or blows of a 14U Ib. hammer freely tailing 3U inches required
to drive a standard split spoon sampler (2.0 in. O.D., 1 3/8 in. I.D.) 12 inches into the soil
after properly seating the sampler into undisturbed soils.
2) Large gravel size particles are often not recovered by the standard split -spoon sampler
and therefore the true percentage of gravel is not accurately estimated.
3) When encountered, large gravel size particles often increase the N-value of the standard .
penetration test.
EAS Professlonals, Inc.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200500704 County: Onslow U.S.G.S. Quad: Jacksonville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner:
Address:
Telephone No.:
Property description:
Size (acres)
Nearest Waterway
USGS HUC
Location description
Bailey and Associates
405 Western
Jacksonville NC 28546
910-256 8443
Indicate Which of the Followin Apply:
Agent:
aW" Belcher
701 Town Center Drive, Suite 600
Newport News, VA 23606.4296
757-873-8700
Nearest Town Jacksonville
River Basin White Oak
Coordinates N 34 45.23 W 77 27.86
.A.._.,-- .. -- -
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described prohave
perty. We strongly suggest you
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)jurisdiction. To be considered younal, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the US including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the US including wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
notification. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period no[ to exceed five years from the date of this
X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City at 252-808-2808 to determine their
requirements.
Page 1 of 2

t Action ID: 200500704
Placement of dredged or fill materialwithinwaters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding Permit
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Brad Shaver at 910-251-4611
Basis For Determination: The subject arpa•
Remarks:
to bank measurement.
-----••• �•�o• • auuwm me centerline and at least i
Corps Regulatory Official: 1
Date 4/22/2005 d
Expiration Date 422/20I0
Corps Regulatory Official (initial): Jl:t
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal' form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Page 2 of 2

NOTIFICATION OF ADNIMSTRA _ APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS ND
( ' REQUEST FOR APPEAL,
;
Applicant: 130ey and Associates File Number: 200500704 Date: 4/22/2005 µV
Attached is: D
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D .
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at htti)://www.usace.4my.niil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERrIIT: You may acceptor object to the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
I
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit
` • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
I authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
U: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

D: APPROVED JURISE
provide new information.
TION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
' Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This forth must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,
I R: FK I LMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
' information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
Lil�1Y" 1
REASONSR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
)bjections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
I this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
lDDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
I review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
lay add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
ie location of information that is already in the administrative record.
ACT
Fyou have questions regarding this decisic
nd/or the appeal process you may contact:
Brad Shaver
egulatory Specialist
0. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
m
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
may also contact:
Mr. Michael Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
wanta, c9eor a 30303-8801
IGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of -entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
ill be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
vestiQations.
Telephone
of appellant or
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

State of North Carolina
Department of the Secretary of State
SOSID: 550976
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Date Filed: 5. Marshall all PM
F
Elaine F. Ma
0 0 9 7
9 0 8 7 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION North Carolina Secretary of State
Pursuant to 357C-2-20 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the undersigned does hereby submit these Articles of
Organization for the purpose of forming a limited liability company.
1. The name of the limited liability company is: JemSite Development, LLC
2. If the limited liability company is to dissolve by a specific date, the latest date on which the limited liability
company is to dissolve: (If no date for dissolution is specified, there shall be no limit on the duration of the limited
liability company.) N/A
3. (Optional) The name and address of the initial member(s) of the limited liability company is as follows:
4. The name and address of each person executing these articles of organization is as follows: (State whether each
person is executing these articles of organization in the capacity of a member or an organizer.)
Bernard B. Clark, Organizer
100 North Tryon Street, Floor 47
Charlotte, North Carolina 282024003
5. The street address and county of the initial registered office of the limited liability company is
Number and Street 1608 Hiehwav 221 North
City, State, Zip Code Jefferson, NC 28640 County Ashe
6. The mailing address if different from the street address of the initial registered office is:
P.O. Box 1000 Jefferson North Carolina 28640
7. The name of the initial registered agent is: Jeffrey E. Flattery
8. Check one of the following:
X (i) Member -managed LLC: all of the members by virtue of their status as members shall be managers of this
limited liability company.
(ii) Manager -managed LLC: except as provided by N.C.G.S. §57C-3-20(a), the members of this limited
liability company shall not be managers by virtue of their status as members.
9. Any other provisions which the limited liability company elects to include are attached.
10. These articles will be effective upon filing, unless a date and/or time is specified:
This the 5 day of April, 2000
IN
Bernard B. Clark, Organizer
NOTES:
1. Filing fee is $125. Thus document and one exact or conformed copy of these articles must tc filed with the Secretary of Srare.
CORPORATIONS DIVISION 300 N. SALISBURY STREET RALEIGH, NC 276035909
CHARIW9757_ I

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
ANNUAL REPORT
C200710300291
SOSID: 0885004
Date Filed: 4/13/2007 3:53:00 PM
Elaine F. Marshall
North Carolina Secretary of State
C2141710300291
NAME OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY: JEMS I TE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
STATE OF INCORPORATION: NC
SECRETARY OF STATE L.L.C. ID NUMBER:
NATURE OFBUSINEss: REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
REGISTERED AGENT: JEFF>REY E FLATTERY
REGISTERED OFFICE MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 635
JEFFERSON
REGISTERED OFFICE STREET ADDRESS: PO BOX 635
JEFFERSON
ASHE
SIGNATURE OF THE NEW REGISTERED AGENT: _
FEDERAL EMPLOYER ID NUMBER: 31-17 8 67 04
NC 28640
NC 28640
SIGNATURE CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO THE APPOINTMENT
PRINCIPAL OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBER:
PRINCIPAL OFFICE MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 635
JEFFERSON NC 28640
PRINCIPAL OFFICE STREET ADDRESS:
MANAGERS/MEMB ERS/ORGANIZERS:
Name: JEFFREY E FLATTERY
Title:
Name: J. MARK VANNOY
Title:
Name: WILLIAM E. VANNOY
Title:
Address: 2874 CHESTNUT GROVE RD
City: SPARTA state: NC zip: 26675
Address: PO BOX 635
City: JEFFERSON
Address: PO BOX 635
City: JEFFERSON
CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT MUST BE COMPLETED BY ALL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES
State: NC Zip: 28640
State: NC Zip 2 0 6 4 0
;;� & -102 -
q TE
tr(/ec mrl- l
TYPE OR PRINT TITLE
ANNUAL REPORT FEE: $200 MAIL TO: Secretary of State • Corporations Division • Past Office Box 29525 • Raleigh, NC 27626.0525
r�y' LAWNS & COMPANY, t9LW
6&1029162
-LIP 16a 04 Bat 1?/7, 8!slenville. NC 2Uf8?-1147