SW6170401 - The Crossings at Cumberland (6)

a
Stormwater Calculations
For
Project:
The Crossings at Cumberland
Fayetteville, NC
Owner:
Cumberland AL Investors, LLC
, r r ►rrr
O �.
SEAL `
NGIPIE� <c,
Prepared by:
61_!IJI ENGINEERING -SURVEYING - DESIGNING - DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P.O. Box 53787
1333 Morganton Road, Suite 201
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28305
P. [phone] F. [phone]
www.LKandA.com
Firm License #: C-887

, f
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Stormwater Narrative SC-1
Infil. Basin #1
WQV Calculations SC-2
Time to Peak Calculations - Post-Development SC-3
Pond Volumes SC-4
Infil. Basin#2
WQV Calculations SC-5
Time to Peak Calculations - Post-Development SC-6
Pond Volumes SC-7
Infil. Basin #3
WQV Calculations SC-8
Time to Peak Calculations - Post-Development SC-9
Pond Volumes SC-10
Pond Volumes SC-11 -
Basin Routing Calculations APPENDIX A
Misc. Erosion Control Calculations APPENDIX B
Site Maps APPENDIX C
Soils Report APPENDIX D
Site Deed APPENDIX E
1

STORMWATER NARRATIVE
This project is a proposed assisted living facility located on an undeveloped 7 acre +/- parcel. The
undeveloped parcel is at 7051 Rockfish Road. It is bounded by single-family residential to the east and
north and undeveloped rural land to the south and west.
The site is planned to utilize three infiltration basins places around the site to capture runoff from the
parking lots and building. Six separate soil bores were taken around the site to determine seasonal high .
water table depths and infiltration rates. Bores were initially taken in the middle of anticipated basin
locations, but basin locations changed as the project evolved.
Overall, the site has very good infiltration rates varying between 0.51 in/hr and 11.52 in/hr. Bores
adjacent to Infiltration Basin #1 tested at 10.88 in/hr with another bore showing 0.51 in/hr. Basin #1 is
designed with an assumed 0.5 in/hr.
The bore for Basin#2 range is 3.14 in/hr. The basin is designed with an assumed 2 in/hr.
Bores adjacent to Basin #3 range from 3.89 in/hr to 11.52 in/hr. The basin is designed with an assumed
3 in/hr.
A stormwater access easement is provided for maintenance access to the wet detention basin.
Supplemental calculations are attached.
i
SC-1

� 1
on ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Water Quality Volume Calculation
Project Name: P 16.420E he �ross`ings„at C rii r nd.`.
Outlet: ,DA'',41.g,F;s:R11510,00
Calculate Runoff Coefficient
A= 2.12 acreszR:: 92;'1`67 sf Watershed area
Ai= 1 04 acres uRag-14, sf Impervious area
la= 0.49 Impervious fraction
Rv=0.05+0.9*la
Rv= 0.49 Runoff Coefficient
Calculate Runoff Volume Required to be Controlled
Rd=3%31:::]=41!in Design storm rainfall depth (typically 1” or 1.5")
V=3630*Rd*Rv*A
WQV= 3,790 cf Volume of runoff that must be
1.04 Ac in controlled for specified design storm
Calculate Required Pond Surface Area for Infiltration System
SA=DV/(FS*(K*T))
SA=Surface Area (sf)
DV=Design Volume s 612 1 4' :cf(10yr Volume)
FS=Factor of Safety '
K= Hydraulic Conductivity of Soilnz 'T' :` 5 in/hr
T=Max Dewatering TimeF%a ` °"r .72r hrs
SA= 377.0 sf Required Surface Area
Drawdown Times
T=DV/(FS*(K*SA))
SA=Surface Area (sf) -°°,76£92°sf(Bottom of Pond)
DV=Design Volume 4 ,; °3'79p'Fcf(1"WQV)
DV=Design Volume 'r 27,:145jcf(10yr Volume)
FS=Factor of Safety
K= Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil '_; r �0151 in/hr
T= 1.00 hr for 1"WQV
T= 7.14 hr for 10yr Volume
SC-2

, r
ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Time to Peak Calculations
Project Name: P16-120 The Crossings at Cumberland
Outlet: DA-1
Calculate Time to Peak&Volume of Runoff
QP °x:. ;96)cfs DA= ; x2`1,2a acres
Rational C=s{: '1 x xe0 6
P=.17,41201' >` 1701 in (10yr/24hr storm) .
Cn=ab+cx"d a= 50.82581
b+xAd b= 1.461704
c= 165.6338
d= 1.350661
Cn= 80 x= Rational C
S= 2.48 (1000/CN)-10
Q.= 3.53 in
TP 33.76 min
Volume of Runoff(10 Year Storm)
Vol=1.39*Qp*Tp
Vol= 27,145 cf
Hydrograph Shape
t ;;:;.,.; 6 min
Ascending limb= 5.63
Decending limb= 9.40
SC-3

on ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Pond Volume Calculations
Project Name: P16-120 The Crossings at Cumberland
Outlet: DA-1
Infiltration Basin Forebay Volume Required
Elev. Contour Accum. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol. Stage Elev.Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) NO (cf) (cf) (ft) (ft) (sf) (cf) (cf)
178 0.0 7,602 0 0 178 0.0 7,602 0 0
179 1.0 10,151 8,877 8,877 179 1.0 10,151 8,877 8,877
180 1.0 12,865 11,508 20,385 180 1.0 12,865 11,508 20,385
181 1.0 15,718 14,292 34,676 20%of Volume 4,077
Forebay Volume Provided 4,270 20.9%
Forebay
Elev. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) (St) (cf) (cf)
178 0.0 1,305 0 0
179 1.0 2,100 1,703 1,703
180 1.0 3,034 2,567 4,270
20%of Volume 4,077
SC-4

® ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Water Quality Volume Calculation
Project Name: xP1:61201Ttie"Clossiri satFCu% fberlandx'
Outlet:
Calculate Runoff Coefficient
A= 2.02 acres tr 216; sf Watershed area
Ai= 1 09 acres . :4.7 35p.sf Impervious area
la= - 0.54 Impervious fraction
Rv=0.05+0.9*la
Rv= 0.53 Runoff Coefficient
Calculate Runoff Volume Required to be Controlled
Rd i':4],71'!1•011.,„ ;I in Design storm rainfall depth (typically 1”or 1.5")
V=3630*Rd*Rv*A
WQV= 3,918 cf Volume of runoff that must be
1.08 Ac in controlled for specified design storm
Calculate Required Pond Surface Area for Infiltration System
SA=DV/(FS*(K*T))
SA=Surface Area (sf)
DV=Design Volume ,'2`6'58i cf(10yr Volume)
FS=Factor of Safety
K= Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil ;" 3,in/hr
T=Max Dewatering Time " x :'.r' °=72°hrs
SA= 61.5 sf Required Surface Area
Drawdown Times
T=DV/(FS*(K*SA))
SA=Surface Area (sf) '=:7602;sf(Bottom of Pond)
DV=Design Volume L3,y918',cf(1"WQV)
DV=Design Volume ' 13 324.cf(10yr Volume)
FS=Factor of Safety
K= Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil '3 in/hr
T= 0.17 hr for 1"WQV
T= 0.58 hr for 10yr Volume
SC-5

ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com-F. [phone]
Time to Peak Calculations
Project Name: P16-120 The Crossings at Cumberland
Outlet: DA-2
Calculate Time to Peak&Volume of Runoff
QP i x' %; Rx97 cfs DA= ; rxg2x.0Z acres
Rational C= ?Fx 'xKx02
P= .'i ', r5`° Q4in (10yr/24hr storm) .
:SRR
Cn=ab+cx^d a= 50.82581
b+x^d b= 1.461704
c= 165.6338
d= 1.350661
Cn= 81 x= Rational C
S= 2.33 (1000/CN)-10
Q'= 3.62 in
TP 32.89 min
Volume of Runoff(10 Year Storm)
Vol=1.39 *Qp*Tp
Vol= 26,581 cf
Hydrograph Shape
tc=«<.4:. ,<: 6§min
Ascending limb= 5.48
Decending limb= 9.15
•
SC-6
{

on ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Pond Volume Calculations
Project Name: P16-120 The Crossings at Cumberland
Outlet: DA-2
Infiltration Basin Forebay Volume Required
Elev. Contour Accum. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol. Stage Elev.Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) (sf) (cf) (cf) (ft) (ft) (sf) (cf) (cf)
178 6 0 0 13,324 0 0 178.6 0.0 13,324 0 0
179.5 0.9 16,088 13,235 13,235 179.5 0 9 16,088 13,235 13,235
180 5 1 0 19,213 17,651 30,886 180 0.5 17,345 8,358 21,594
20%of Volume 4,319
Forebay Volume Provided 4,230 19 6%
Forebay East
Elev. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) (sf) (cf) (cf)
178.6 0.0 962 0 0
179 0.4 1,132 419 419
180 1.0 1,734 1,433 1,852
43%of Volume 1,857
Forebay West
Elev. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) (sf) (cf) (CO
178.6 0.0 1,300 0 0
179 0.4 1,519 564 564
180 1.0 2,109 1,814 2,378
57%of Volume 2,289
SC-7

® ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Water Quality Volume Calculation
Project Name: rP,16120TIe Crossings at%=runberland.''
Outlet:
Calculate Runoff Coefficient
A= 1.56 acres oi68,0481 sf Watershed area
Ai= 0.70 acres , .x`'30;447 sf Impervious area
la= 0.45 Impervious fraction
Rv=0.05+0.9*Ia
Rv= 0 45 Runoff Coefficient
Calculate Runoff Volume Required to be Controlled
Rd=i.:!:-1;,:igiE5Et in Design storm rainfall depth (typically 1"or 1.5")
V=3630*Rd*Rv*A
WQV= 2,567 cf Volume of runoff that must be
0.71 Ac in controlled for specified design storm
Calculate Required Pond Surface Area for Infiltration System
SA=DV/(FS*(K*T))
SA=Surface Area (sf)
DV=Design Volume .;;1'5;829 cf(10yr Volume)
FS=Factor of Safety = 2°
K= Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil „„%°,s ,.Y2e in/hr
T=Max Dewatering Time .' 72x'hrs
SA= 55.0 sf Required Surface Area
Drawdown Times
T=DV/(FS*(K*SA))
SA=Surface Area (sf) ` ::';;:8;633 sf(Bottom of Pond)
DV=Design Volume 12567,cf(1"WQV)
DV=Design Volume ;x z 15,830;cf(10yr Volume)
FS=Factor of Safety
K= Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil "i'4.2(in/hr
T= 0.15 hr for 1"WQV
T= 0.92 hr for 10yr Volume
SC-8

A
on ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Time to Peak Calculations
Project Name: P16-120 The Crossings at Cumberland
Outlet: DA-3
Calculate Time to Peak&Volume of Runoff
Qp= 5 4 cfs DA= ,:;;Ai4;i14'i.56 acres
Rational C=Alvj0-545:i
P= 5 70 in (10yr/24hr storm)
Cn=ab+cx^d a= 50.82581
b+x^d b= 1.461704
c= 165.6338
d= 1.350661
Cn= 72 x= Rational C
S= 3.79 (1000/CN)-10
Q*= 2.80 in
Tp= 35.41 min
Volume of Runoff(10 Year Storm)
Vol=1.39*Qp*Tp
Vol= 15,829 cf
Hydrograph Shape
tc= 01 min
Ascending limb= 5.90
Decending limb= 9.86
SC-9

on ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-DESIGNING-DRAFTING
Larry King & Associates, R.L.S., P.A.
P. [phone] www.LKandA.com F. [phone]
Pond Volume Calculations
Project Name: P16-120 The Crossings at Cumberland
Outlet: DA-3
Infiltration Basin Forebay Volume Required
Elev. Contour Accum. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol. Stage Elev.Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) (Sfl (cf) (cf) (ft) (ft) (sf) (cf) (cf)
178 0 0 8,633 0 0 178 0.0 8,633 0 0
179 1.0 13,095 10,864 10,864 179 1.0 13,095 10,864 10,864
1.80 1.0 17,735 15,415 26,2.79 179 5 0.5 15,401 7,124 17,988
20%of Volume 3,598
Forebay Volume Provided 3,692 20 5%
Forebay West
Elev. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) (Sfl (cf) (cf)
178 0.0 997 0 0
179 1.0 1,721 1,359 1,359
179 5 0.5 2,143 966 2,325
60%of Volume 2,159
Forebay East
Elev. Contour Accum.
Stage Diff Area Incr.Vol. Vol.
(ft) (ft) NO (cf) (CO
178 0.0 561 0 0
179 1.0 1,019 790 790
179.5 0.5 1,290 577 1,367
40%of Volume 1,439
SC-10

Drainage Areas Breakdown
1 otal Area-
l�i<FI.o",mryn°rg,esm,,",p�n�,'%'A'A,',�•�<rt,e.a:;1i.'t?w"r�v� 6C�.r�7x,�7'";:"=: ;,s.ti�f,�3J;��:i�,t�,,;`:t.G�nszFa.,,FdtJi,-4,.i�;:jY t:;,^g`G3���'.F"i.N;,-,ti."p`t,;.y;.«'f.;"s2�„:,s-Gr,.3„';..T..sa3,,';.I,c,i„=;.S.Y
;..;LF
cilalw92,187IsR ' ; '”
,r7e6*p4` 45,409
e
.„-
, 6,11
6t
„m.,.Y,.,}/.y�► A^/ .-, _ .„„.„« �„,:,r���t.,Vic”' as§"�TI�;".Niitt,��7""� ���`�y:���w-«y.W'�,`..`W_ „b"«, a8, ','F�;:�m�<.. :�.. ,"�7{
>,vs
1.757, 2=tac noalAea- 88,125
fI pAfeaa,,, 47350isfk"
, alu
,et,,ti,>`
•Are1
, :
'��"t;,,; „� zgt "rq.Gn£` �- s fi,,`:;mr•. ='me.;,,�,,�; .rr....,, M�'"�''r
Total Are 68,04o s � 4,„4,41,0„,,,,,,•'
,d�•. x '� 'f. S`t;Yn;,'"3^" .`.ssk.%;+ ,dx4.=d o-,>:�
I Are` 30 447 is r:`; `'�t3�;:". �,;i "'". ;°;;:
�'St �°;1'''
P,,e
Com C . - ', 0.5
SC-11

b xipuaddy

•
Table of Contents The Crossings at Cumberland gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hydrograph Return Period Recap 1
1 - Year
Summary Report 2
Hydrograph Reports 3
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, DA-2 3
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, DA-3 4
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, DA-2 POST 5
Pond Report 6
Hydrograph No. 4, Reservoir, DA-3 POST 7
Pond Report 8
Hydrograph No. 5, Rational, DA 1 9
Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, DA-1 POST 10
Pond Report 11
10 - Year
Summary Report 12
Hydrograph Reports 13
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, DA-2 13
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, DA-3 14
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, DA-2 POST 15
Pond Report 16
Hydrograph No. 4, Reservoir, DA-3 POST 17
Pond Report 18
Hydrograph No. 5, Rational, DA 1 19
Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, DA-1 POST 20
Pond Report 21
100 - Year
Summary Report 22
Hydrograph Reports 23
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, DA-2 23
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, DA-3 24
Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, DA-2 POST 25
Pond Report 26
Hydrograph No. 4, Reservoir, DA-3 POST 27
Pond Report 28
Hydrograph No. 5, Rational, DA 1 29
Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, DA-1 POST 30
Pond Report 31

'1
Hydrograph Return Period Recap
Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow(cfs) Hydrograph
No. type Hyd(s) description
(origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr
1 Rational ----- 6 17 — -- — 9.49 12 36 DA-2
2 Rational 3 48 ------ 5 36 6 97 DA-3
3 Reservoir 1 0 62 ----- 0.70 0 78 DA-2 POST
4 Reservoir 2 0 66 ------ 0 94 1 02 DA-3 POST
5 Rational ----- 6 27 9 64 12 55 DA 1
6 Reservoir 5 0 14 0 16 0 18 DA-1 POST
Pro]. file: The Crossings at Cumberland.gpw Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 :37 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intel'solve

4
2
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 Rational 6.17 1 33 16,246 ---- ----- DA-2
2 Rational 3.48 1 35 9,873 ---- DA-3
3 Reservoir 0.62 1 82 15,896 1 179 56 14,122 DA-2 POST
4 Reservoir 0 66 1 83 9,802 2 178 72 7,849 DA-3 POST
5 Rational 6.27 1 34 16,952 ---- DA 1
6 Reservoir 0 14 1 89 14,649 5 179 64 16,255 DA-1 POST
The Crossings at Cumberland.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 :37 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve

3
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intehsolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 1
DA-2
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 6.17 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 2.020 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.62
Intensity = 4.926 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve, = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.48/9.15
Hydrograph Volume=16,246 cuft
DA-2
Q (cfs) Hyd No. 1 -- 1 Yr Q (cfs)
7.007 00
6.00 6.00
5.00 5.00
4.00 4 00
3.00 3 00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1 00
0 00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.3 0 5 0.7 0 8 1.0 1 2 1 3 1 5
Time (hrs)
Hyd No 1

4
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intel'solve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1.37 PM
Hyd. No. 2
DA-3
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 3.48 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 1.570 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.45
Intensity = 4.926 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.9/9.86
Hydrograph Volume=9,873 cuft
DA-3
Q (cfs) Hyd No. 2 -- 1 Yr Q (cfs)
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0 00
00 02 03 05 07 08 10 12 13 15 17
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 2

5
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intel'solve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 3
DA-2 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.62 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 179.56 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #2 Max. Storage = 14,122 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume=15,896 cult
DA-2 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 3-- 1 Yr Q (cfs)
700 700
6.00 ( 6.00
-
5.00 5 00
4 00 4 00
3.00 3 00
2.00 2.00
\ __ _ __ _ _
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 1

1
Pond Report 6
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017,1 37 PM
Pond No. 3 - Infil Basin#2 . ,
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used.
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0 00 178 60 13,100 0 0
0 90 179 50 15,831 13,019 13,019
1 90 180 50 18,927 17,379 30,398
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
• Span(in) = 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Weir Type = --- --- --- ---
Length(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00
N-Value = 000 .000 000 .000
Orif.Coeff. ' = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 2 000 in/hr(Contour) Tailwater Elev = 0 00 ft
Note Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
2 00 2 00
1 80 1 80
1 60 1 60
1.40 1 40
1.20 1 20
1.00 1 00
0 80 0 80
0 60 '� 0 60
0.40 0.40
020 020
0.00 0 00
0 00 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

, 7
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intel'solve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 4
DA-3 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.66 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Max. Elevation = 178.72 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #3 Max. Storage = 7,849 cult
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume=9,802 cuft
DA-3 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4-- 1 Yr Q (cfs)
4.00 4 00
1 -
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 ___ 0.00
0.0 1.7 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 11.7 13.3 15.0 167 183
• Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 4 Hyd No. 2

A
Pond Report 8
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Pond No. 4 - Infil Basin#3
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas Average end area method used
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0.00 178 00 8,633 0 0
1 00 179 00 13,095 10,864 10,864
2 00 180.00 17,735 15,415 26,279
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] - [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0.00 0.00 0 00
Span(in) = 0.00- 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Weir Type = --- --- ---
Length(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
N-Value = .000 000 .000 000
Orif.Coeff. = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 3 000 in/hr(Contour) Tailwater Elev = 0 00 ft
Note Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/ Discharge Stage(ft)
200 200
1.80 1 80
1.60 1 60
1.40 1 40
1 20 1 20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0 80
060 060
0.40 0 40
0.20 0 20
000 000
0.00 0 50 1 00 1 50 2 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q •

,
9
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM 1
Hyd. No. 5
DA 1
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 6.27 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area . = 2.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.6
Intensity = 4.926 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.63/9.4
Hydrograph Volume= 16,952 cuft
DA 1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 5 -- 1 Yr Q (cfs)
7.00 7.00
6 00 6 00
5.00 5 00
4 004.00
3.00 3:00
2.00 2 00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0 00
0.0 0.2 0.3 0 5 0 7 0 8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 5

10
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intel'solve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1'37 PM
Hyd. No. 6
DA-1 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.14 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 5 Max. Elevation = 179.64 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #1 Max. Storage = 16,255 cult
Storage Indication method used Hydrograph Volume=14,649 cuft
DA-1 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Yr Q (cfs)
7.00 7.00
6.00 I6.00
5.00 5.00
4 00 4.00
3.00 3 00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1 00
0.00 -- •
0.00
0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48
Time (hrs)
Hyd No 6 Hyd No. 5

Pond Report 7i
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Pond No. 2 - Infil Basin#1
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas Average end area method used
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0 00 178 00 7,596 0 0
1 00 179 00 10,157 8,877 8,877
2 00 180 00 12,875 11,516 20,393
3.00 181 00 15,750 14,313 34,705
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Span(in) = 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Weir Type = --- --- --- ---
Length(ft) = 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00' Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
' N-Value = 000 000 000 000
Orif.Coeff. = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0.00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 0 500 in/hr(Contour) Tapwater Elev = 0 00 ft
Note Culvert/Onfice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
3.00 3 00
200 200
1.00 1 00
0.00 0 00
0 00 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

12
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description ,
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft)
1 Rational 9 49 1 33 24,999 ---- ----- , DA-2
2 Rational 5.36 1 35 15,192 ---- DA-3
3 Reservoir 0.70 1 83 24,471 1 180 03 22,203 DA-2 POST
4 Reservoir 0.94 1 84 15,090 2 179 08 12,141 DA-3 POST
5 Rational 9 64 1 34 26,085 ---- ----- ---- DA 1
6 Reservoir 0 16 1 89 21,149 5 180 33 25,170 DA-1 POST
The Crossings at Cumberland.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 :37 PM
Flvdraflow Hvdroaraphs by Intelisolve

t
13
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 1
DA-2
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 9.49 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 2.020 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.62
Intensity = 7.580 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.48/9.15
Hydrograph Volume=24,999 cuft
DA-2
Q (cfs) Hyd No. 1 -- 10 Yr Q (cfs)
10.00 10.00
8.00 8 00
6.00 6.00
4.00 4.00
2.00 - 2.00
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0 3 0 5 0.7 0 8 1 0 1 2 1.3 1 5
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 1

t 14
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intel'solve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 2
DA-3
i
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 5.36 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min 1
Drainage area = 1.570 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.45
Intensity = 7.580 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.9/9.86
Hydrograph Volume=15,192 cult
DA-3
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 2-- 10 Yr Q (cfs)
6.00 1 6 00
5 00 5.00
4.00 4 00
3.00 3 00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1 00
000 0.00
0 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 7 0 8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1 5 1.7
Time (hrs)
Hyd No 2

• 15
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 3
DA-2 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.70 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 180.03 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #2 Max. Storage = 22,203 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume=24,471 cult
DA-2 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 3-- 10 Yr Q (cfs)
10.00 10 00
8.00 8 00
6.00 6 00
4.00 4 00
2.00 - 2.00
r ----------____
0.00 _ ..a... 0 00
0 3 6 10 13 16 19 22 25 29 32 35
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 1

I
1 t
Pond Report 16
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Pond No. 3 - Infil Basin#2
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas Average end area method used
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0 00 178 60 13,100 0 0
0.90 179 50 15,831 13,019 13,019
1 90 180 50 18,927 17,379 30,398
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Span(in) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 Weir Type = --- --- --- ---
Length(ft) = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
N-Value = .000 000 000 000
Orif.Coeff. = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0.00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 2 000 in/hr(Contour) Tailwater Elev = 0 00 ft
Note Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/ Discharge Stage(ft)
2 00 2 00
1 80 1 80
160 160
140 140
1 20 1 20
1 00 1.00
080 080
060 060
0.40 0 40
020 020
0.00 0 00
0 00 0.10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

17
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 4
DA-3 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.94 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Max. Elevation = 179.08 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #3 Max. Storage = 12,141 cuft
Storage Indication method used Hydrograph Volume=15,090 cuft
DA-3 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4-- 10 Yr Q (cfs)
6.00 6.00
-- ----- ---- - - -- - -- --- - ----- --- - -- -- - ---- -------- - ---- --
500 500
4.00 4.00
3.00 3 00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0 00 0.00
00 1.7 3.3 50 6.7 83 10.0 117 13.3 150 16.7 183
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 4 Hyd No.-2

Pond Report 18
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday, Mar 31 2017,1 37 PM
Pond No. 4 - Infil Basin#3
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas Average end area method used.
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total etorage(cuft)
0 00 178.00 8,633 0 0
1.00 179.00 13,095 10,864 10,864
2 00 180.00 17,735 15,415 26,279
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Span(in) = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Weir Type = --- --- --- ---
Length(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00
N-Value = 000 000 000 000
Orif.Coeff. = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 3 000 in/hr(Contour) Tai!water Elev.= 0 00 ft
• Note Culvert/Orlfice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
•
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
2.00 2 00
1 80 1.80
160 160
140 140
1 20 1 20
100 100
0 80 0.80
060 060
040 040
0 20 0 20
0 00 0 00
0.00 0 50 1 00 1 50 2.00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

19
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 5
DA 1
Hydrograph type ' = Rational Peak discharge = 9.64 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 2.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.6
Intensity = 7.580 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.63/9.4
Hydrograph Volume=26,085 cuft
DA 1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5 -- 10 Yr Q (cfs)
10.00 10.00
8.00 8 00
600 600
4.00 4 00
2 00 2.00
0 00 0 00
00 02 03 0.5 07 08 10 12 13 1.5
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 5

20
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 6
DA-1 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.16 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 5 Max. Elevation = 180.33 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #1 Max. Storage = 25,170 cuft
Storage Indication method used Hydrograph Volume=21,149 cuft
DA-1 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 6-- 10 Yr Q (cfs)
10.00 10.00
8.00 8.00
6.00 6 00
4 00 4.00
2 00 2.00
0.00 ' 1 - 0.00
0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 .44 48
• Time (hrs)
Hyd No 6 Hyd No 5

Pond Report 21
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Pond No. 2 - Infil Basin#1
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas Average end area method used.
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0 00 178.00 7,596 0 0
1.00 179 00 10,157 8,877 8,877
2 00 180 00 12,875 11,516 20,393
3.00 181 00 15,750 14,313 34,705
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Span(in) = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No. Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Weir Type = --- --- ---
Length(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 00
N-Value = 000 000 000 000
Orif.Coeff. = 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 0 500 in/hr(Contour) Tapwater Elev = 0 00 ft
Note CulverUOnfice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
3.00 3.00
2 00 2 00
1 00 1 00
0.00 0 00
0 00 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0.60 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

22
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph
No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cult)
1 Rational 12 36 1 33 32,550 ---- ----- DA-2
2 Rational 6.97 1 35 19,781 ---- DA-3
3 Reservoir 0 78 1 84 31,869 1 180 44 29,289 DA-2 POST
4 Reservoir 1.02 1 85 19,651 2 179 34 16,181 DA-3 POST
5 Rational 12.55 1 34 33,964 ---- ---- DA 1
6 ' Reservoir 0 18 1 89 25,113 5 180 87 32,876 DA-1 POST
The Crossings at Cumberland.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1:37 PM
Hydraflow Hydroqraphs by Intelisolve

23
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 1
DA-2
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 12.36 cfs
" Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 2.020 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.62
Intensity = 9.870 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.48/9.15
Hydrograph Volume=32,550 cuft
DA-2
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 1 -- 100 Yr Q (cfs)
14 00 14 00
12.00 12 00
10.00 10.00
8.00 8.00
6.00 6.00
4.00 4.00
2.00 - 2.00
0.00 0 00
0.0 0.2 0 3 0.5 0.7 0 8 1 0 1 2 1 3 1 5
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 1

24
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1'37 PM
Hyd. No. 2
DA-3
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 6.97 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 1.570 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.45
Intensity = 9.870 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.9/9.86
Hydrograph Volume=19,781 cuft
DA-3
Q (cfs) Hyd No 2 -- 100 Yr Q (cfs)
7.00 7 00
I
6.00 1 6.00
5 00 5.00
4.00 4.00
---- - 1 - - i
3.00 3.00
2.00 200
---- - - - -
1.00 1 00
000 0.00
0 0 0 2 0 3 0.5 0 7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1 7
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 2

25
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1:37 PM
Hyd. No. 3
DA-2 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.78 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 180.44 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #2 Max. Storage = 29,289 cuft
Storage Indication method used Hydrograph Volume=31,869 cuft
DA-2 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 3-- 100 Yr Q (cfs)
14.00 14.00
12.00 I 12.00
10.00 -- 10.00
8 00 8 00
600 6.00
4.00 4 00
2 00 1 2.00
0.00 11 ---—_ 0.00
0 3 7 10 13 17 20 23 27 30 33 37
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 1

Pond Report 26
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Pond No. 3 - Infil Basin#2
Pond Data
' Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cult) Total storage(cult)
0.00 178.60 13,100 0 0
0 90 179 50 15,831 13,019 13,019
1 90 180 50 18,927 17,379 30,398
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [0]
Rise(in) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00
Span(in) = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Weir Type = --- --- --- ---
Length(ft) _.0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
N-Value = 000 000 000 .000
Orif.Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 2 000 In/hr(Contour) Tapwater Elev.= 0 00 ft
Note Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
2.00 2 00
1 80 1.80
1 60 1.60 1
1 40 1 40
1 20 1 20
100 100
080 080
0.60 0 60
0 40 0 40
020 020
0.00 0 00
0 00 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

27
Hydrograph Piot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intehsolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1:37 PM
Hyd. No. 4
DA-3 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.02 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 Max. Elevation = 179.34 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #3 Max. Storage = 16,181 cuft
Storage Indication method used Hydrograph Volume=19,651 cuft
DA-3 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4-- 100 Yr Q (cfs)
7.00 7.00
6.00 6 00
5.00 5.00
4.004.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1 00 — 1.00
0.00 - 0 00
0.0 18 37 5.5 73 9.2 11.0 128 147 165 18.3
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 4 Hyd No. 2

Pond Report 28
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inteltsolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1.37 PM
Pond No. 4 - Infil Basin#3
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0 00 178.00 8,633 0 0
1 00 179 00 13,095 10,864 10,864
2.00 180 00 17,735 15,415 26,279
Culvert I Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] • [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Span(in) = 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Invert El.(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 Weir Type = --- — --
Length(ft) = 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00
N-Value = 000 000 000 000
Orif.Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 3 000 in/hr(Contour) Tailwater Elev = 0.00 ft
Note Culvert/Onfice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
2 00 2 00
180 180
1 60 1 60
1.40 1 40
1.20 1 20 t
1.00 1 00
0 80 0 80
0.600.60
0.40 0.40
0 20 0 20
0.00 0 00
0 00 0 50 1 00 1 50 2 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

29
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday,Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 5
DA 1
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 12.55 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 2.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.6
Intensity = 9.870 in/hr Tc by User = 6.00 min
IDF Curve = City of Fayetteville IDF.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 5.63/9.4
Hydrograph Volume=33,964 cuft
DA 1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5 -- 100 Yr Q (cfs)
14.00 14 00
12.00 12 00
•
1000 1000
8.00 8 00
6 00 6.00
4.00 4.00
2 00 2 00
0.00 0 00
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0 8 1.0 1 2 1.3 1 5
Time (hrs)
Hyd No 5

30
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intel'solve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Hyd. No. 6
DA-1 POST
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.18 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 5 Max. Elevation = 180.87 ft
Reservoir name = Infil Basin #1 Max. Storage = 32,876 cuft
Storage Indication method used Hydrograph Volume=25,113 cuft
DA-1 POST
Q (cfs) Hyd. No 6 -- 100 Yr Q (cfs)
14.00 14.00
12.00 I 12.00
10 00 10 00
8 00 8 00
6 00 6.00
4.00 4 00
2 00 2.00
0.00 '"l 0.00
0 5 10 15 19 24 29. 34 39 44 48
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 6 Hyd No 5

Pond Report 31
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Friday, Mar 31 2017, 1 37 PM
Pond No. 2 - Infil Basin#1
Pond Data .
Pond storage is based on known contour areas Average end area method used
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft)
0.00 178 00 7,596 0 0
1.00 179 00 10,157 8,877 8,877
2 00 180.00 12,875 11,516 20,393
3 00 181 00 15,750 14,313 34,705
Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise(in) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest Len(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
Span(in) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Crest El.(ft) = 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00
No.Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00
Invert El.(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 Weir Type =
Length(ft) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Multi-Stage = No No No No
Slope(%) = 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00
N-Value = .000 000 000 000
Orif.Coeff. = 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Exfiltration= 0 500 in/hr(Contour) Tallwater Elev.= 0.00 ft
Note CulverUOnfice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
3.00 3 00
2 00 2 00
100 100
0.00 0 00
0 00 0 10 0 20 0.30 0.40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 1 00
Discharge(cfs)
Total Q

,
Appendix B

F ti
DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET 'PROTECTION.
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Designed By: .JAN, PE Date: 3/2812017
Checked By: Date: : _
Company: Larry King &Assoc
Project Name: The Crossings at Cumberland
Project No.:
Site Location (City/Town) Fayetteville, NC
Culvert Id. FES-1;FES-2
Total Drainage Area (acres) -
Step 1. Determine the tailwater depth£i-or .channel,characteristics below the
pipe outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tailwater depth is less
than half the outlet pipe diameter, it is classified minimum tailwater condition_
If it is greater than half the pipe diameter, it is classified maximum condition.
Pipes that outlet onto wide flat areas with no defined channel are assumed
to have a minimum tailwater condition unless reliable flood stage elevations
show otherwise.
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.) 18
Tailwater depth (in.) 0
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Min TW (Fig. 8.06a)
Discharge (cfs) 5.8
Velocity (ft./,$) - 3.2'
Step 2. Based on the taihvater conditions determined in step 1, enter Figure
8.06a or Figure 8.06b,and determine d50 riprap size and minimum apron length
( .a). The dam,size is the median stone size in a well-graded riprap apron.
Step S. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet, the apron shape, and the
apron width at the outlet end from the same figure used in Step 2.
Minimum TW Maximum TW
KFigure,8:06a, Figure`8:06b;
Riprap d50, (ft.) 0.3'

1 �
Minimum apron length, La (it) 9
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5
Apron shape ,
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 10.5 1.5
Step 4. Determine the maximum stone diameter:
Clnux= '1.5 x '150
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.45 0
Step 5. Determine the apron thickness:
Apron thickness = 1.5 xrs,a
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) _ 0.675 0
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it level for the minimum
length, L . from Figure 8.06a or Figure 8.06b_ Extend the apron farther
downstream and along channel banks until stability is assured. Keep the
apron as straight as possible and align it with the flow of the receiving stream.
Make any necessary alignment bends near the pipe outlet so that the entrance
into the receiving stream is straight
Some locations may require lining of the entire channel cross section to assure
stability
It may be necessary to increase the size of riprap where protection of the
channel side slopes is necessary (Appendix 8.05)_ Where overfalls exist at
pipe outlets or flows are excessive, a plunge pool should be considered, see
page 8.06.8_

DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION
Userinput Data -
Calculated Value , _
Designed By: JAN,.FE Date: -= 3/28/201.7
Checked By: . Date: -
Company: ,Larry King &Assoc. _-
Project Name: ;The Crossings at Cumberland
Project No.,: _ -
Site Location (City/Town) _ Fayetteville, NC
Culvert Id. Infil Basin #2 -
Total Drainage Area (acres) ;
• Step 1. Determine the tailwater depth from channel characteristics below the
pipe outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tailwater depth is less
than half the outlet pipe diameter,it is classified minimum tailwater condition_
If it is greater than half the pipe diameter it is classified maximum condition_
Pipes that outlet onto wide flat areas with no defined channel are assumed
to have a minimum tailwater condition unless reliable flood stage elevations '
show otherwise.
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.) 18
Tailwater depth (in.) 12
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW-(Fig. 8.06b)'
Discharge (cfs) 6,
Velocity (ft./s) _ 4.6
Step 2. Based on the tailwater conditions determined in step 1, enter Figure
8.06a or Figure 8.06b,and determine d50 riprap size and minimum apron length
(La). The d .size is the median stone size in a well-graded riprap apron_
Step 3. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet,the apron shape, and the
apron width at the outlet end from the same figure used in Step 2.
Minimum TW Maximum TW
w :3,. 'F Figure.8.06a a `, y: .figure 8 06b a
Riprap d50, (ft.) 0.1

t i
Minimum apron length, La (it) 9
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4:5
Apron shape
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 1.5 - 5.1
Step 4. Determine the maximum stone diameter:
drn K = 1.5xdso
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft) 0 -. 0.15
Step 5. Determine the apron thickness:
Apron thickness = 1 5 x dmax
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 0 0.225-
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it level for the minimum
length, L . from Figure 8_06a or Figure 8_06b_ Extend the apron farther
downstream and along channel banks until stability, is assured. Keep the
apron as straight as possible and align it with the flow of the receiving stream.
Make any necessary alignment bends near the pipe outlet so that the entrance
into the receiving stream is straight.
Some locations may require lining of the entire channel cross section to assure
stability.
It may be necessary to increase the size of riprap where protection of the
channel side slopes is necessary (Appendix S.05)_ Where overfalls exist at
pipe outlets or flows are excessive, a plunge pool should be considered, see
page 8.06.8.
•

t
DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION
User Input Data •
'Calculated Value -=
Designed By: ;JAN, PE Date: 3/28/2017,
Checked By: Date:
Company: :Larry King,&Assoc,
Project Name: The Crossings at,Cumberland
Project No.:
Site Location (City/Town) Fayetteville, NC -
Culvert Id. FES-3
Total Drainage Area (acres)
Step 1. Determine the tailwater depth from channel characteristics below the
pipe outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tailwater depth is less
than half the outlet pipe diameter,it is classified minimum tailli.Tater condition.
•
If it is greater than half the pipe diameter, it is classified maximum condition_
Pipes that outlet onto wide flat areas with no defined channel are assumed
to have a minimum tailwater condition unless reliable flood stage elevations
show otherwise.
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.) 18 -
Tailwater depth (in.) 12
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW.(Fig.'8.06b)
- Discharge (cfs) 6
Velocity (ft./s) 4,6,
Step 2. Based on the tailwater conditions determined in step 1, enter Figure
8.06a or Figure 8.06b,and determine d50 riprap size and minimum apron length
(La). The dm size is the median stone size in a well-graded riprap apron.
Step 3. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet, the apron shape, and the
apron width at the outlet end from the same figure used in Step 2.
Minimum TW Maximum TW
.'-��-�=''Figure�8.06az`��k`�;- �,< •Figurer_8�08b�r��-
Riprap d50, (ft.) 0.1

Minimum apron length, La (ft.) , 9
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5
Apron shape
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 1.5 5.1-
Step 4. Determine the maximum stone diameter:
dam.= .5 x 60
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0 0.15
Step 5. Determine the apron thickness:
Apron thickness = -1_5 x dry,
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 0 0.225
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it level for the minimum
length, L�, from Figure 8_06a or Figure S.O6b. Extend the apron farther
downstream and along channel banks until stability is assured. Keep the
apron as straight as possible and align it with the flow of the receiving stream_
Make any necessary alignment bends near the pipe outlet so that the entrance
into the receiving stream is straight_
Some locations may require lining of the entire channel cross section to assure
stability
It may be necessary to increase the size of riprap where protection of the
channel side slopes is necessary (Appendix 8.05). Where overfalls exist at
pipe outlets or flows are excessive, a plunge pool should be considered, see
page 8.06.5.

•
DESIGN.OF RIPRAP:OUTLET PR TECTI I
User Input Data ,
Calculated Value
Designed By: JAN, PE Date: 3/28/2017
Checked By: Date:
Company: Larry King &Assoc,
Project Name: The`Crossings at Cumberland
Project No.:
Site Location (City/Town) Fayetteville, NC
Culvert Id. Infil Basin #3
Total Drainage Area (acres)
Step I. Determine the tailwater depth from channel characteristics below the
pipe outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tailwater depth is less
than half the outlet pipe diameter,it is classified minimum tailwater condition.
If it is greater than half the pipe diameter, it is classified maximum condition_
Pipes that outlet onto wide flat areas with no defined channel are assumed
to have a minimum tailwater condition unless reliable flood stage elevations
show otherwise.
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.) 18
Tailwater depth (in.) 12
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs) 6,
Velocity (ft./s) 4:6'
Step 2. Based on the tailwater conditions determined in step 1, enter Figure
8.06a or Figure 8.O6b,and determine cl5G riprap size and minimum apron length
(La). The d,s size is the median stone size in a well-graded riprap apron_
Step 3. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet, the apron shape, and the
apron width at,the outlet end from the sane figure used in Step 2.
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8:06a' ', %Ffgure-0:08bF<: ;`
Riprap d50, (ft.) 0.1'

5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.) 9
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5 -
Apron shape
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 1.5 5.1
Step 4. Determine the maximum stone diameter:
dax = '1.5xdsa
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0 0.15
Step 5. Determine the apron thickness:
Apron thickness = t5 x d..
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 0 - 0.225
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it level for the minimum
length, La' from Figure 8.06a or Figure 8_06b_ Extend the apron farther
downstream and along channel banks until stability is assured. Keep the
apron as straight as possible and align it with the flow of the receiving stream_
Make any necessary alignment bends near the pipe outlet so that the entrance
into the receiving strewm is straight_
Some locations may require lining of the entire channel cross section to assure
stability
It may be necessary to increase the size of riprap where protection of the
channel side slopes is necessary (Appendix S.05). Where overfalls exist at
pipe outlets or flows are excessive, a plunge pool should be considered, see
page 8.06.8_

Appendix C

F' \F'lb—II U SM11H—PACKLI ROCKFISH ROAD\CADD\CIVIL\P16-120\dwg\z—DRAINAGE AREA MAP dwg, 3/31/2017 2 40 44 PM, jnobles, 1 33
/ 'n
£ NN -
ili
5
pp ggiiir t lif:
g
R g MAR -1NO
�
1r' ,AN_rN
rill ,❑=q , 75 Dog i91 A
W , 31
I I
11®o®p.® 9(rx. a F
\, \@� , �, ,,1�'
\ I �\ I
I ;11 ,
\\ I 1 J\ t e•
\
n I
\ / \ Z 1 I F I IX
\ / I// / /
1 / Ia I
I
I:
j3
I
f II,
c_%l If''2:
'
i' e'
1 i
1:1111.—\ tr-,,,,. .„. _ ,441:11£".'' --rittl., „-
1 �+�2' i�x T Lr l e a 41
1 III`\ 4Yn,Td 1Y� d} 1�� 1 Yd I % 3"
1.1:14 714 Or
F
ill g 2 6 r `1' "TA i
21 1<21 1 vi II`,--rt 1 ; + F 714.114, °' ii _ 1 i
2 R~ 7 ,�•i i
.. .� �� a SI T fr. t �
yi'yi_�f yS�tr ° 6110,„mill"eF1r3I
i? 4 I ,4411/4-41 rzi lTic I. i
zit I1r a. !7 1di -M-
V1thR1i ; - ry 1 t 1 Ipt7 _41/JIIII ( 4.-\
'
ire i "Mai 071), •r;,......=. 1411 0 Ill ; I ' I
42E
i 416
:171-t /eye
i,)Vi :g
�F I
I r
•
1 �'
1
3 ; d E_ i z a C}C 1[0 s „r ®r.-.7a;=.77.17;,PA
'P E R I:Ip e o n 11`•ga m a 90 Box 53787
yV�
D 5 P h�17 9 ti zA 3 'af gOit,s 13il hb,Om�on Road s,n1e 201
L `?G a F L-�H "' L`Y9 h y &',111;
fwenevdle Na,m cmor o 28305
['y7[',� yy P 19101 483 4302 F 1910)48".,0.52
z _-`a c y N !B - a��[. NC FrLKondA com-0BRI
hh77 a g � + www

1 3/30/2017 CCJPB Map
i'ftg f ' Cumberland County Planning Department 1 M (..'
to*
r�;' Fayetteville,North Carolina
The Crossings at Rockfish Parcel Data
Created by Public on Thursday,30 March 2017
k 'v,4 L^:_�„,"':;, -+( ✓`� ;rsi i
` - ,,,..•
'- Illy--r_T
-------11 i:13.1 ' - "i i 1 li
ii
I ..1 !inkit
I CUD' r —"�I 02E \s
`
,,.
T___ !!) ,
�� :3:11:: '
•-a-- !i
5110E2
r 4 1�5 '3120
9`510 `'. -- �. ,�.� p ?old
' , ' '',,":',..1 0,1 wi iiiO4,$ 6al
; 't„,1) II ii
61r q, p -
/ r
m a1
'1. b>' ., - .,
IA /''';,. .t...-.._41 ,... ”' A
\ 3.1 ..!
it I -.--- 4 ii--
\ 1
iii ) , ,:, 3 63,3i1
'r1
# '
�_,-------'\ �.
r"', •ter 1 1.TI, , `_3=" 1
Ft = �','., '-:,, Bin; :saps m,� not reflect the
�` ;i. �._.,_.— oflici location and/or
- H4r�s,.t--2 t 400 600 _ -,. - 580, Isuo ;�. �,.�. --. /` r
.Tot '� - 5 16 '1,�..s"��
- _=j-''\ litl11 .-r-- :"---SX80 name4e-.-.4. , 1>n
;.!$' i_ - t`.\ �sss; .....13---:":--;---1.- n\ , Cu `berlaridlevunty
'5 ../ _.,..1.01 --.----- 1....,'". ‘..---:::--".."---A-"-Th!\'.. _.----1, \ _:\f---r;'-'-' ../>\\\ !
Map Zoom: 3357 survey ft

I 3/30/2b17 CCJPB Map
Info Results
Table: Parcel Details [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Total Total
Pin Owner Owner Deed Deed Plat Plat Subdivision Total Assessed Assessed Lot Lot Calculated Deed
Name Address Book Page Book Page and Lot Assessment Land Build. Frontage Depth,Acres Acreage
Value Value
9494-JOHNSON 6834 CAMDEN
96- BARBARA RD 02856 0539 $633702 $614709 $0 0 ft. 0 ft. 66.08 65.94
1873 M FAYETTEVILLE
NC 28306
Table: Zoning Info [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Case#Zone_Class Conditional Use Pin Owner Name Disclaimer
RR 9494-96-1873-JOHNSON,BARBARA M Call(910)678-7603 to Verify Zoning Classification
Table: Hyperlink to Assessor Data [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Table: Register of Deeds Plat Image [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Table: Register of Deeds Deed Image [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Table: Virtual Maps Page [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Centered On...
9494-96-1873-
Table: 911 Address and Zip Code Lookup [Count: 1, Base: 1]
911 Address Assignment Date
6850 CAMDEN RD 06-11-1998
Table: 2030 Land We Plan [Count: 1, Base: 1]
2030 Land Use
Urban Area
Table: Area Plans Details [Count: 5, Base: 1]
Detailed Plans Land Use
Low Density Residential
Open Space
Office Institutional&Parks
Medium Density Residential
Heavy Commercial
Table: Municipal Influence Area [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Municipal or Farmland A rea
Hope Mills
Table: Within Urban Services Area or Farmland [Count: 1, Base: 1]
Area Name
urban area
About This Map Disclaimer
This map has been created for the purpose of showning Planning This map is a representation of the information currently held by
information in Cumberland County.Any error should be reported to the Cumberland County.While every effort has been made to ensure the
Cumberland County Joint Planning Dept.at accuracy of the product,Cumberland County accepts no responsibilityfor
www.co.cumberland.nc.us/ping/staff.html. any errors or ommisions.Any feedback on ommisions or errors would be
appreciated.

t 3/30/2017 CCJPB Map
"g: , `k` Cumberland CountyPlanningDepartment itl*c •t� . � '
k‘' Fayetteville,North Carolina
mss,..s
The Crossings at Cumberland Zoning Map
Created by Public on Thursday,30 March 2017
ti *'-:----..--.1,-z--
,y.,- »�_ —7 1'' i ---i i1 al\ ', \ ` v"" —7-- 1-.."- )1 1 1 tt�;�c
S541
Q J_— _--�_ _ .� 'L.S. -y_" ti ids, i.,r7, li,ftl,i�`rfl
pr_i_._ _____ I
,_____y______,.._____. il iLL 1LrT,S -iu T:°14`Y-�:✓:..•--.-, �! i'1 _ t .I 1-'
— 1_tl-jrJT I,'l'ill i!)a"IJ i;�la-lv",`� :f:1-,„,-1,,,,,....,....a,.�1
---- — ;! i'-ail_ 1CIIii J�,L71''. e.,Jd.I2 1 .-ti= ., - ,i -qI
d F ,. 1,; ,;izla
�,,rr�lrl4�>�J ii�i t,'141J la_J�_Js IJ ry f `�,- 1 t�-,i� ,
-��-r.l �'4 �'' ,ll�Ju-lh =is-la1 i��e lirle-7a=luiu- ��- ���� ((( -�; II '" E�,,i`'i,i
India,'1",ra irrla_ilLificiq Y,n g'
' I lr1"7"0121i 1iltirinrPr'' p,.— ' I x1:y",.,
11 ''I,` — _"(
,Dr _ifirli-1'cto J=licitiv i. t - -1'
';i I y«°i,']n„"l,l
>)• ��—_� _ �=j�y '1111-,,-i4,4,-62,,
i1 1a IG-IIi liJu,r-III i I� ffiEti �I. :-`; _ -�. ��i��}
++ ,_L+___+' ._ i' _._ ���R 11-1 0,
,ICj�' ,,-�+•2,, ii-b G_l� 'Ilir;_wS!' , _ ' hlige�l! ,I
-- �riC� � 1✓Il�ltl�E _ ��4!�, ill
lIl ,„4 1'-'
Oreo asiv�nt'i �I w 1® l `'' :0 ��; e'r�PTiil
lit ;a lillu-Ir�-.J7i,-_1 - - li _ ?4�ir4��till,
bt.
., Il� +CIri; la 11 . s,i' 64111 a'L. ,- rtTr ----,.. '�. I , ^i. 1,12.1\ ,t, �;,. •2„,i 1
„I,:; ..I I IlIlLILIL 'q■ .tn-t�t[,i ®tris.. V.-• -- - - -_ 11.1;', 1 ciri sof i!} .1�I
i' ,. Ilij ,•Lir rnr I iirlia ria a_01CPi '111 -lark.
' _ a,,�f, N r!n i� i j' , . _3� , ,ii.:;' ,,� _ . ' t . --1 - Il' _ Ci"JIflu .A /EM 'IN
d G' 1 1 oanpriiN 0A, ,; ��i Ci w . , an our1' t a u'i r�{�! ,561®I•r CIC!'r�CIc{ , C rlop+ ,�,/ I I ( ,,,.i,,
- I CIL,7_ 7C, . .14.4'"1F tC,CI ri -•---,:::___.,_c '',I+91;4, O •La57�'
1 t 1Ll' H�LI�iLJI�fgS�16' 3E1. - --,...1.� 1 ` ' }in„
!,,,r1
,I•j t{IICJLI[LItii;lifi_ r.u.„?
„;,:I I', : l 4 , 7” I III,
' ' 1
til hn
1 - y'''
IFT.
RIRA la g I'\
Va e _ , Tf4e, (4:ii''S'A3J
1
Woiii _.,_- ,. 1)
1.
s ail
s , �! 1
.,;--,,,,,,.,„..,„,, ii:'
,,,,(/ ,: ___7.........„,,,,.,. , ,. .
.-----r, _ , '1'' .1„1, .1, .
' '-- ''' ,"- -/,-, 'r-tiliti , i ;9 T. \
"" - --4I " ,,-3,,1 IT !
�.,r ,:- ..r i Till. i it dingit
aps a no flet#the
. +�, ,•"”)i.i , ti. location
x'• -D (..2�Q,� s c 600 >�f 3'r� a,4'-',••;,•"”)i-
3308- •N inn , I nnd/ar f
15i'$r) :1*'"` 1 816 F if 9 8(1_1-'''''.--,
1 1� .,-...-=''',1-----7; - �JO
lk
-P.:,','i• $ -_ " i-F- .. -Kd`.,� f, e-;;;,---17,--,..:){u �' y'{u�y.yny! �ri0,� ......ft�rr���+�y�(It� fi 1/r__ Cu' erlan tv
1Ip -"71:'-' � J, v�-Y�~t. A♦;IJYs'L' ,s-;":1;;:",:l'-;'"---'` fyl?i r)l kII-+�.A Yom- ,I' fr 4++.‘...., jl�l9rll), t
. �•`-`c y.._ ,-,,+ i'',.=•••••-17.,-,1-.,X+,;:,.;•1. ' l ',5:j',_._.G-!-;•:t.•_,;+:.$1," -ll d. w . _ ,_ _._._—_ -_ L�I^.'�
I
I
Map Zoom: 3357 survey ft
I
hHn l/o.,r.n rn r,,,.dw�l o...,....„ IC......nl-ll.....�....l..i......•......"•..a,......nn".�."_ _i'___nr.��n�i_e .�,,n,- a__i. .,i_... __r_..<r_,_r...- .,,. 1

t
Appendix 0

T �
Southeastern n ;.. Environ, t 1 Associates9 Inc®
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville,NC 28311
Phone/Fax[phone]
Email mike @ southeasternsod.com
December 242016
Mrs. Lori Epler
Larry King&Associates; RLS,PA
1333 Morganton Road, Suite 201
Fayetteville,NC 28305
Re: Hydraulic conductivity(permeability) analysis&seasonal water table
determination(SHWT)for proposed stormyvater retention area, Smith Packett Project,
Rockfish Road, Cumberland County,North Carolina
Dear Mrs. Epler;
An evaluation of:soil properties.and hydraulic conductivity(Ksat)has been conducted at
your request on the aforementioned property. The purpose of the investigation was to
determine soil water table depths(SHWT)based on soil profiles. In addition,Ksat was
to be provided ata depth 2.0 feet above the-SHWT elevation for use vvith.stotmwater
retention basin design.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the unsaturated zone was measured in a similar
method as described in the Soil Science Society of America Journal,Vol. 53,no 5, Sept. -
Oct. 1989, "A-Constant Permeameter for Measuring Saturated.Hydraulic Conductivity of
the Vadose Zone' and Comparison of the Glover Solution with the Simultaneous
Equations Approach for Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity." This consists of advancing
a small diameter bore hole to a predetermined depth(typically 2 feet above SHWT). At
this depth,a constant head(pressure)was established and maintained. Flow
measurements were made at timed intervals after flow stabilized.
Soils at the proposed basin-site are most similar to the,Autryville soil series (see attached
boring logs). Three borings were advanced to at least 8.0 feet below the soil surface.
Seasonal High Water Table(SHWT) as determined by evidence of colors of chroma 2 or
less(and/or concentrations of high redox mottles)was encountered at depths ranging
from 49 to 69 inches below the ground surface(see chart attached).
SOIUSITE EVALUATION •SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS'•LAND USE/SUBDIV1SION PLANNING•WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION&DESIGN

{ 5
Three compact constant head permeameter(CCHP)tests were conducted at depths of
2.00 feet above the SHWT level. The measured_IKsat rates ranged between 1.29 and
29.27 em/hr(equivalent to 0.51 to 11.52 inches/hour).
The attached map 'shows locations of the sample points as well as.Ksat locations.
It should be noted that the-reported SHWT does not necessarily reflect the.elevation of
static groundwater(due to variations in groundwater recharge rates,animal rainfall,
drought conditions, etc.).
The-data p•resented in this report are limited by a number of considerations. The primary
consideration is'that soil formations can be.highly variable. The soils found on.this,site
can be subject to inclusions of other soil types,perched water, artesian conditions and/or
layers ofundulating low permeability clay seams. These and other soil conditions can
have an effect on the steady state of groundwater flow. To the extent possible,lwe have
identified the soil types that will impact the flow of groundwater,and have provided a
professional opinion as,to the depth of SHWT.
I trust this is the information you require at this time.
Sincerely,
SOIL
Mike Eaker ` ' t~l_D
NC'Licensed Soil Scientist#1030 f ' °
04,0
d Mem
! � 1i• 4...
ayy `� r
101
• .eft Y, � 4' t J }

t L
Southeastern o l fEnviron .o.1 issociAes, inc.
PLO.Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax[phone]
Email [e-mail]
Measured Ksat Rates, Smith Packett, Rockfish.Road, Cumberland
County,NC
Ksat Ksat
Location Depth (in) cmihr in/hr
1 25 1.29 0.51
2 45 9.90 3.89
3 36 29.27 11.52
SOIUSITE EVALUATION I SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING•WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,EVALUATION&DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
'RO,Box 9321
Fayetteville,NC 28311
Phone/Fax[phone]
Email mike@southeastemsoiLcom
SIIWT depths, Smith Packett,Rockfish,Road, Cumberland County, NC
BORING SHWT;DEPTH(inches) Observed Water(inches)
1 49 48
2 69 75,
3 62 69
SOIUSITE EVALUATION c SOIL"PHYSICAL"ANALYSIS'LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING c WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER.ORAINAGE/MOUNDING 6 SURFACE/SUBSURFACE'WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,EVALUATION&DESIGN

t •
Southeastern Soil & EnvironSental A'ssoci tes9 enc®
PO. Box 9321
Fayetteyille, NC 28311
Phone/Fax[phone]
Email [e-mail],
Typical Soil Boring Log,Smith Packett Project,Rockfish Road,Cumberland
County,NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils that formed in loamy sediments on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent.
A- 0 to 9 inches; dark grayish brown(10YR 4/2)loamy sand;weak fine granular
structure;very friable;common-fine and medium roots;abrupt smooth boundary.
E- 9 to 22 inches; light yellowish brown,(10YR.6/4) sand;weak medium granular
structure; very friable;few fine roots; clear•smooth boundary.
Btl -22 to 39 inches;brownish yellow(10YR 616) sandy loam;weak fine subangular
blocky structure;,friable; gradual wavy boundary.
Bt2 -39 to 65-inches; brownish yellow(10YR 6/6) sandy loam;many medium prominent
reddish yellow(5YR 6/8)mottles;weak fine granular structure;very friable; gradual
wavy boundary.
BC -65 to 69 inches; brownish yellow(10YR 6/6) sandy loam;many medium prominent
reddish yellow(5YR 6/8)and few fine prominent gray(10YR 6/1)mottles; weak fine
granular structure;very friable; gradual wavy boundary.
C- 69 to'96 inches;mixed mottled reddish yellow (5YR 6/8)and gray (10YR 6/1) loamy
sand;friable;massive structure.
SHWT @ 49-inches (10YR 6/1)in boring 1
SHWT @ 69 inches(10YR 6/1)in boring,2
SIIWT @ 62 inches(10YR 6/1) in boring 3
SOIUSITE EVALUATION •SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS•LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING•WETLANDS
GROUNDWAI-ER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,EVALUATION&DESIGN

i e.
_ theastt xia -!,...`4-11-- ., }ir - < e } t `t 0.; s ; "`&'S i a.,-.--5, .+S I is
.P.O. B'ox 9321
Fayetteville,NC ,1 _ _ _
--" Phone/Fax[phone] L_
Email mike @ southeasternsoiLcom — r
I �
N4480n
i.
I
rt,e1------ / i
/
I
I
s-7 721 i 1 I
_J 1
1e- 1
X
N44700 _ X )C -
�''
L.
I 1
\ ,
\ ,
1
1 1
\ ...,..-- ,
t. - _ .„_]
-
1
Soil Boring/Ksat Location, Smtih Packett Project
Rockfish Road, Hope Mills, NC
US State Plane-1983 Scale 1:4,000 R121909A.SSF
North Carolina 3200 N
NAD 1983(Conus) 0 500.0 12/21/2016
I E W___
GPS PathfinderOffice
II Feet 60-Trimble. 1
SOIUSITE EVALUATION •SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS 0 LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING•WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,EVALUATION&DESIGN

� 5
Southeastern ..: . 118LE vironm ::..ntal :: . ;• iates9 Inc
P.O. BoX 9321
Fayetteville,NC 28311
Phone/Fax[phone]
Email [e-mail]
February 28,2017
Mr. Jeffrey Nobles,PE
Larry King&Associates,RLS,PA
1333 Morganton Road, Suite 201
Fayetteville,NC 28305
Re: Additional hydraulic conductivity(permeability) analysis & seasonal water table
determination(SHWT)for potential stormwater retention areas,'Smith Packett Project,
Rockfish Road, Cumberland County,North Carolina
Dear Mr.Nobles,
An evaluation of soil properties and hydraulic conductivity(Ksat)has been conductedat
your request on the aforementioned property. The purpose of the investigation was to
determine soil water table depths(SHWT)based on soil profiles. In addition, I(sat was
to be provided at a depth of at least,2.0 feet above the SEIWT elevation for use with
stormwater retention basin design.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the unsaturated zone,was measured in a similar
method as described in the Soil Science Society of America Journal,Vol. 53,no 5, Sept. -
Oct..1989,"A Constant Per neameter for Measuring Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of
the Vadose Zone"and Comparison of the Glover Solution with the Simultaneous
Equations Approach for Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity." This consists of advancing
a small diameter bore hole to a predetermined depth(typically 2 feetabove SHWT). At
this depth,a constant head(pressure)was established and maintained. Flow
measurements were made at timed intervals after flow stabilized.
Soils at the proposed basin site are most similar to the Autryville soil series (see attached
boring logs). Three additional borings were advanced to 8.0 feet below the soil surface.
Seasonal High Water Table,(SHWT) as determined by evidence of colors of chroma 2 or
less(and/or concentrations of high redox mottles)was encountered at depths ranging
from 51 to 82 inches below the ground surface (see chart attached).
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION •SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS•LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING•WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,EVALUATION&DESIGN

Three compact,constant head permeameter(CCHP)'tests were conducted at depths of at
least 2.00.feet above the SHWT level The:measured Ksat rates ranged between 7.983
and 27.489 cm/hr(equivalent to 3.143 to 10.822 inches/hour).
The attached map shows locations of the sample points as well as.Ksatlocations.
It should be noted-that the reported SHWT does-not i eceSsarily reflectthe elevation of
static groundwater(due to variations in groundwater recharge rates,-annual rainfall,
drought conditions, etc.).
The,data presented in this report are limited by a number of considerations. The primary
consideration:is that soil formations can be highly variable. The soils found on this site
can be subject to inclusions of other soil,types,perched water,artesian conditions and/or
layers of undulating low permeability clay seams. These and other soil conditions can
have an effect on the steady state-of groundwater flow. To the extent possible,we have
identified the soil types that will impactthe flow of groundwater,and have provided a
professional opinion as to the depth of SHWT.
I trust this is the information you require at this time.
Sincerely,
‘11426-(--- $®dL
Mike Faker -E ` tom,`
NC Licensed Soil Scientist#1030 *... v .
• RriffIVTiett. 1 e
ifteW
a
I

1 �
Southeastern Soil & Environmental Ass ciates, Inc.
P.O.Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax[phone]
Email [e-mail]
Measured-Ksat Rates, Smith Packett,Rockfish Road, Cumberland
County,NC
Ksat Ksat
Location Depth (in) cm/hr in/hr
4 58 27.489 10.822
5 44 7.983 1143
6 27 25.946' 10.215
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION •SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS•LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING•WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT-SYSTEMS;EVALUATION&DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & EnvironmentalAssociates1 Inc.
P.O.Box 9321 -
Fayetteville, NG 28311
Phone/Fax(91Q),822-4540
Email mike @southeasternsoil,com
SHWT depths, Smith Packett Project,Rockfish 1oad,,Cuinberiand
County,NC
BORING SHWT DEPTH(inches) SHWT DEPTH("ms1Z
4 82 175.52
-5 68 176,59
-6 51 176.72
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION a SOIL Pt1Y5ICALANALYSIS a LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING•WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,EVALUATION&DESIGN

Southeastern Soil Environmental rr cit _sInce
P.O.Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax[phone]
Email [e-mail]
Typica1Soil BoringLog,Smith Packett Project,Rockfish Road,Cumberland
County,NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils that formed in loamy sediments on uplands.
Slopes range,from 0 to 1 percent.
A-0 to 8 inches; dark grayish brown(10YR 4/2) loamy sand;weak fine granular
structure;very friable; common fine,and medium roots; abrupt,smooth boundary.
E- 8.to 20 inches;light yellowish brown(10YR 6/4) sand;weak medium granular
structure;very.friable; few,fine roots; clear smooth boundary.
Bt—20 to 35 inches;brownish yellow(10YR 6/6,) sandy loam;weak fine,subangular
blocky structure;friable; gradual wavy boundary.
E' -35 to 68 inches; brownish yellow(10YR 6/8) sand; single grained; loose; common
medium pockets of'clean sand grains; gradual wavy boundary.
BC 68 to 78 inches;brownish yellow(10YR.6/8)loamy sand; common medium distinct
red(2.5YR 4/8)and light gray(10YR 7/1)mottles;massive structure; very friable;
gradual wavy boundary.
C -78 96 inches;,light,gray(-10'YR 7/1) coarse sand;many medium prominent brownish
yellow(10YR 6/8)mottles;very friable;massive structure.
STTWT @ 82•inches in boring 4(10YR 3/2)
SHWT @ 68 inches in boring 5 (10YR 7/1)
SHWT @ 51 inches in boring 6(10YR 7/1)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION o SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS°LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING-WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING•SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,EVALUATION&DESIGN

1•\I•I11•IYU,,1111-'AUkLI'PM Mr 111I ICUAU\C'Nl UVI/VI 6\I'I6-ILO\dwq\OOJ-C,ICAUI;.,UICAIN.dwO,?/21/_3017 6.48 3! PA.1661.10y, I.3$6326
qif, ii.Fn'
A\ , r
.j_.I I I
\ \-i\'\\ .1
ak
i :i'. 1. ..-a
) '-,/ , /
1 -
Vrel.. ,,./ ` 7
a / 9 .
. Ly _�._,S" y a, o
. o- i f-
ig
111li-:1
iPTIP'MPO' .'f ...4..2{1':IT IL\\\‘` c.---- le ;;1;1 .,\... '
14 la iii I 6.h T.
1' Vy:__.. ,1� QygY' m ,i I
W' /I it' ii 6 V.' 1, • ________________
'• '6.0-'4 \ /,i' fi— V£
— A , 1
ffi _2
/
. ... :`,• 6 e 'er '
. .1 i.--:03 -,•,', i Fa ! —' 2. 1 .i.:`
F.
i
tl ;1
fA -Cle',3-:mih
2E
mai
i ,
e. -
PE ti 111E
�1y ° § ' .T 0 ®ten a�6 i asmclolcls LIS..P.a,1t1y1I��
" ?..z.,3-,,, /: [k]a 1:-,E.'43 ,9,M - 1 .6 :f ¢¢ggxx 1XCNa 'Raad ftla:Ol
CF77 '''ll1S kr.n�.wa:ncwrro.x7os
W 4 2 c 2 9 Z 9 0 >•''E T v, in, $ 3 r Mop.m�f.1v1aId1•�
g I ry x fi, ' g° H l rlC®

A. 9
Appendix E

2856
0539 - .•
tnOY98 ��++
5U 1 nE539 t`
Exet,e Tax 0 0 Recording Time.Book tad Page
Tax Lot No. . _ Parcel Identifier No.
Verified by County on the. day of - . ,19.
by .. ... . . . . - -
Mail after recording to John Blackwell, Jr. „ ,
„ P,O. Box 469, Fayetteville, Nc,28302 ,
This Instrument was prepared by John Blackwell, Jr, • .
Brief description for the Index Tracts, Rockfish Twp
NORTH CAROLINA NON-WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made the 30th day of October 19 81 ,by and between
GRANTOR GRANTEE
BARBARA M. JOHNSON, Executrix BARBARA M. JOHNSON
of the Estate of John Gilbert Rt Fayettev2 ille, NC 28306
Johnson
L -
Tatar to appeapdate Meek for each party:name,address,ad.If appnpoiale,dander of entity,eq.corporation or partnenkip.
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include acid parties,their heirs,,uccessors,and assigns,and
shall include singular,plural,masculine,feminine or neuter a,required by context.
WITNESSETH,that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged,has and by theme presents does grant,bargain,,ell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple,all that
ROCkfi sh Township
certain lot or parcel of land situated In ,the City of-
Cumber;and County,North Carolina and more particularly described ns foliose:
FIRST TRACT: BEGINNING at a stake in the old Baker line, it being the
Northeast corner of the tract of which this is a part, and runs thence with
the old line South 1 degree 30 minutes West B chains and 22 links to a
stake; thence North 87 West, 36 chains and 50 links to a stake in the old
line; thence North 1 degree 30 minutes East 8 chains 22 links to a stake an
old corner; thence with another old line South 87 degrees East 36 chains
and 50 links to the beginning containing 30 acres, more or less.
SECOND TRACT; _BEGINNING at a stake on the south side of the Wire Road, and
running thence North 3 degrees West 42 chains to a corner, black jack
pointers; thence West 20 chains to a corner, in the head of a branch; „ .
thence South 3 degrees East 3 chains to a corner; thence South 5 degrees
East 18 chains 50 links to a corner; thence South 70 degrees East 16 chains
31 links to a corner; thence South 5 degrees East 23 chains 50 links to a
corner; thence North 85 degrees East 26 chains to the beginning, containing
13511 acres, more or less. There is excepted from the Second Tract the 6
acres as excepted in Deed recorded in Book 2405, Page 706, Cumberland
County Registry.
n
C Nur weave.r.m Ne 1 L 1111
•
1