20080965 Ver 3_Application_20090224

Mansour Edlin Consulting
1515 Mockingbird Ln. Suite 802
Charlotte, NC 28209
704-672-1560 Phone
704-672-1562 Fax
February 18, 2009
Mr. Joseph Gyamfi
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27669
Re: Crate & Barrel Distribution Center
DWQ Express #08-0965V3
Lincoln County
Dear Joseph:
Attached, please find the plans and supporting documents for the storm water
management plan for the above referenced project. The following documents
have been enclosed:
1. Original & two copies of the storm water management plan application
2. Singed & notarized inspection & maintenance agreement
3. Application fee in the amount f $1,500.00
4. Three copies of the supplement forms and check list for each
5. Three copies of the construction plans including planting plans
6. Copy of the soil report for the site
7. Supporting calculation for BMP
8. CD containing the full scale drawings in pdf format
On behalf of our client, we are submitting the above documents for review &
approval and should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sinc el
M s )S. Edlin, PE 0 15?L? V
U
FEB 2 4 2009
Attachment
DENR - WATER (AJAU1Y
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Mansour Edlin Consulting
1515 Mockingbird Ln. Suite 802
Charlotte, NC 28209
704-672-1560 Phone
704-672-1562 Fax
February 18, 2009
Mr. Joseph Gyamfi
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27669
Re: Crate & Barrel Distribution Center
DWQ Express #08-0965V3
Lincoln County
Dear Joseph:
FEB 2 4 2009
DENR . WATER QUAU'n
WETLWS AND STORHWATER BRANCH
Attached, please find the plans and supporting documents for the storm water
management plan for the above referenced project. The following documents
have been enclosed:
1. Original & two copies of the storm water management plan application
2. Singed & notarized inspection & maintenance agreement
3. Application fee in the amount f $1,500.00
4. Three copies of the supplement forms and check list for each
5. Three copies of the construction plans including planting plans
6. Copy of the soil report for the site
7. Supporting calculation for BMP
8. CD containing the full scale drawings in pdf format
On behalf of our client, we are submitting the above documents for review &
approval and should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
!?,
Vn
r S. Edlin, PE
Attachment
Mansour Edlin Consulting
1515 Mockingbird Ln.
Suite 802
Charlotte, NC 28209
704-672-1560 Phone
704-672-1562 Fax
Subject: Project Narrative
Proposed Crate & Barrel Distribution Center
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Project Description
k[2@99WIR N
FEB 2 4 2009
OENR - WA( ER UUALfi Y
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
The Crate & Barrel Distribution Center project proposes to create approximately 800,000
square feet of warehouse, retail outlet, and office space in Lincoln County, NC. The
project will ultimately include the warehouse buildings with associated entrance road,
parking lots, truck courts and loading/unloading bays. A small retail component is also
planned. Infrastructure components of the project will include water and sewer lines,
and stormwater management facilities.
The subject site encompasses approximately 95 acres of undeveloped mostly woodland,
bounded by Larkard Creek to the north and east, a vacant lot to the south, and Finger
Mill Road to the west. Approximately 60 acres are being developed for the proposed
facility including the expansion of the building and associated parking as noted on the
development site plan.
Background
As noted on aerial photography (1999) viewed on Lincoln County GIS, and verified by
field review, the subject site is comprised primarily of undeveloped mostly woodland.
Surrounding land use is mostly residential and commercial development. The
predominant soil within the site is Hydrologic Group B.
Storm water Management Plan
The Storm water Management Plan (SWMP) for the site is designed in substantial
compliance with North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) standards.
The SWMP is designed to meet the following criteria:
1. Control and treat the first 1.0" of rain
2. Discharge the storage volume at a peak rate equal to or less than the re-
development discharge rate for the 1-year 24 hour storm event
3. Provide 90% removal of total suspended solids from the collected stormwater
The storm water treatment BMPs will be provided by collecting stormwater runoff from
impervious areas of the site and directing the collected stormwater runoff into three wet
detention ponds that are located between the proposed distribution center and the
floodplain of Larkard Creek.
The storm water will first enter the forebay of the wet detention ponds, promoting the
majority of the suspended solids to fall out of the water column. The stormwater leaving
the forebay will enter the detention portion of the wet pond for the remaining treatment.
Treated stormwater will be discharged through the outlet structure and into the existing
woods, up slope of the Larkard Creek floodplain.
Below is a summary of each wet pond:
Pond #1 Pond #2 Pond #3
Drainage Area: 24.0 AC 18.0 AC 16.0 AC
Impervious Area 12.0 AC 12.6 AC 9.6 AC
Built Upon Area: 50.0% 70.0% 60.0%
The above wet ponds are sized for the anticipated full development of the site as shown
on the overall site development plan.
The proposed wet ponds will be used as temporary sediment basins during the site
grading phase of the project. Upon stabilization of each drainage area, the accumulated
sediment will be removed and each pond will be restored to the design contours.
During Phase I of the project, the entire development footprint will be graded as
preparation for the building pads, but only the western portion (Building I and associated
access and parking areas) of the project site will be constructed. The graded building
pad area for phase II will be seeded to provide soil stabilization.
2
•
•
USGS Site
STV/Ralph Whitehead Location
Associates
• I Lincoln County, NC
FIGURE 2
Crate & Barrel Distribution
Center
•
•
•
(Crate & Barrel Distribution
Center
Lincoln County, NC
STV/Ralph Whitehead Soil Survey Map
Associates
FIGURE 3
FEB 2 4 2009
ncuu. ws1T-R ouAUTY
OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received Fee Paid Permit Number(s)
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality 401/Wetlands Unit
EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM STORMWATF,R MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. APPLICANT'S NAME (specify the name of the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project):
TKC CXXVIII, LLC
2.OWNER/SIGNING OFFICIAL'S NAME AND TITLE (person legally responsible for facility and
compliance): KENNETH R. BEULEY
3. OWNER MAILING ADDRESS (for person listed in item 2 above):
5935 CARNEGIE BLVD. SUITE 200
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
4. OWNER ADDITIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION:
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
5. PROJECT NAME (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - should be consistent with project name
on plans, specifications, letters, inspection and maintenance agreements, etc.):
CRATE & BARREL DISTRIBUTION CENTER
6. PROJECT LOCATION:
Street Address: FINGER MILL ROAD (SR 1276)
City: LINCOLNTON County: LINCOLN State: NC Zip Code: 28092
Latitude: 35-32-00 N Longitude: 81-12-55 W
7. DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE (from nearest major intersection):
U.S. HWY 321 NORTH, TO MAIDEN EXIST, LEFT ONTO FINGER MILL ROAD
8. CONTACT PERSON (who can answer stormwater-related questions about the project):
Name: MANSOUR S. EDLIN, PE Company: MANSOUR EDLIN CONSULTING
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
1/2009 Version 1.1 Page I of 5
It. PERMIT INFORMATION
1. THE PROJECT IS (check one): 0 NEW ? A RENEWAL ? A MODIFICATION
2. OTHER JURISDICTIONS:
Which local government(s) has jurisdiction over the project (e.g. Town of Cary or Johnston County)?:
LINCOLN COUNTY
3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Check all of the state-approved stormwater management programs (implemented by either the State or
local government) that apply to your project:
? Phase It Post Construction ? Water Supply Watershed ? Neuse or Tar-Pamlico NSW
? Randleman WSWS ? USMP ? Coastal Counties ? HQW ? ORW
4. PERMIT HISTORY (renewal or modification requests must complete this item):
Existing DWQ Permit Number: Date Issued:
5. PROJECT TYPE (check one): ? Low Density* Q High Density*
* Low Density projects shall be under 24% Impervious with only vegetated stormwater conveyances. A
curb and gutter or pipe system for stormwater conveyance shall result in reclassification of project as
High Density even if below 24%, except when pipes are used for road or driveway crossing purposes.
6. ADDITIONAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (check all that apply):
? CAMA Major ?X Sedimentation/Erosion Control ? NPDES Stormwater
?X 404/401 Permit ? Non-404 Jurisdictional Permit ? Other:
Note: Information on required state permits can be obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at
1-877-623-6748
III. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. STORMWATER TREATMENT METHODS (Describe briefly how stormwater will be treated):
STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT SITE IS BEING COLLECTED AND DIRECTED TO THREE
(3) WET PONDS WHICH HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE 90%TSS REMOVAL
Important Note: attach a detailed narrative (one to two pages) describing stormwater management for the
project.
2. RIVER BASIN/STREAM INFORMATION
a. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to which River Basin?: CATAWBA
b. Nearest named stream: LARKARD CREEK
c. Water quality classification of nearest named stream: CLASS C 11-129-5-8
1/2009 Version 1.1 Page 2 of 5
3. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 1 60 (acres)
4. PROJECT BUILT UPON AREA: 1 59%
1 5. DRAINAGE AdAS (How many drainage areas does the project have?): THREE (3)
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 LARKARD CREEK LARKARD CREEK
Receiving Stream Class CLASS C 11-129-5-8 CLASS C 11-129-5-8
Drainage Area 24.0 ACRES 18.0 ACRES
Existing Impervious* Area 0 0
Proposed Impervious*Area 12.0 CARES 12.6 ACRES
% Impervious* Area (total) 50% 70%
Impervious* Surface Area Determination (Breakdown)
Impervious* Surface Area Drainage Area 1 Drainage Area 2
On-site Buildings 250,000 SF 350,000 SF
On-site Streets 50,000 SF 15,000 SF
On-site Parking 180,000 SF 180,000 SF
On-site Sidewalks 5,000 SF 5,000 SF
Other on-site 35,000 SF (PARKING EXPANSION) O
Oft-site 0 0
Total: 520,000.00 SF Total: 550,000 SF
* Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking
areas, sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
6. EXPLAIN HOW THE OFF-SITE IMPERVIOUS AREA WAS DERIVED:
NA NO OFF-SITE IS ASSOCAITTED WITH THIS PROJECT
FOR DRAINAGE AREA # 3, SEE ATTACHMENT
IV. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
Deed restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded for all subdivisions, outparcels and
future development draining to the proposed stormwater management devices prior to the sale of any lot. If
applicable, please complete and submit a copy of the deed restrictions and protective covenants along with
your application.
1/2009 Version LI Page 3 of5
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
1. The applicable stormwater management supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each
BMP specified for this project. The most current form(s) located on the 401/wetlands unit website at
http://112o.enr.state.ne.us/su/brnp forms.htm must be used. Please include both the Design Summary and
the Required Items Checklist along with all required items and supporting design calculations.
(Check the supplement forms that will be required for your project):
? Bioretention Supplement
? Dry Detention Supplement
? Grassed Swale Supplement
? Infiltration Basin Supplement
? Infiltration Trench Supplement
? Level Spreader/Filter Strip/Restored Buffer
Supplement
? Sand Filter Supplement
? Stormwater Wetland Supplement
?X Wet Detention Supplement
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 DWQ Central Office.
1. Please indicate that you have provided the following required information by initialing in the space
provided next to each item.
Initials
• Original and two copies of the Express Review Stormwater Management Application
• Signed and Notarized Inspection and Maintenance Agreement
• Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP
• Application processing fee (payable to DWQ)
• Detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management _ AA!' _
• Three copies of plans and specifications, including: AAl-75
® Development/Project name
?X Engineer and firm
?X Legend
?X North arrow
?X Scale
?X Revision number & date
?X Mean high water line
?X Dimensioned property/project boundary
?X Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
?X Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
?X Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and Stormwater control measures
?X Wetlands and streams delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
?X Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations
?X Drainage areas delineated
&Ak ? Vegetated buffers (where required)
1/2009 Version 1.1 Page 4 of 5
VII. AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If you wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide infonnation on your
behalf, please complete this section.
1 1. DESIGNATED AGENT (individual or firm): MANSOUR S. EDLIN, PE
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
MANSOUR EDLIN CONSULTING
1515 MOCKINGBIRD LANE, SUITE 802
CHARLOTTE, NC 28209
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
VIII. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
1, (print or type name of person listed in General Information, item 2)
KENNETH R. BEULEY , certify that the information included on this 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 (if applicable) will be recorded, and that the
proposed project complies with the requirejpents of 15A NCAC 2H .1000.
Signature: _ Date: 09
- - ?
F--
0
1/2009 Version LI Page 5 of 5
OM,A-
,C-TEC
engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
October 7, 2008
Mr. Derek Salfia
The Keith Corporation
5935 Carnegie Boulevard
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28209 1:/ (ems
FE? ?
Subject: Summary of Pond Observations 4 20o9
Nk.YYATE", 4t' ieY
LiCrate & Barrel DSMD
ncolnton, North Carolina S'004kij1 BRANCH
MACTEC Project No. 6234-084713
Dear Mr. Salfia:
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc (MACTEC) is currently providing
construction material testing services for the Crate & Barrel project in Lincoln County, North
Carolina. During the course of our testing services, we have periodically observed the sediment
ponds at the site. The ponds are identified as Ponds One, Two, and Three, and are generally
located to the North and West of the Phase I Building near Larkard Creek. We understand that
the ponds were designed by others to be wet ponds, currently consist of residual soils at the pond
bottom, and do not have synthetic liners.
During this period of periodic observations, four days of heavy rain produced seven inches of
rainfall from August 25 to August 28, 2008. Rainfall from the four days of rain filled Pond Two
to the top of its bank. This pond was observed to hold the water over the following weeks
without significant signs of seepage. It appears from our observations that the pond has
functioned as a wet pond as currently constructed.
Sincerely,
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.
Michael J. ReppucVVci, E.I. nelY. ring, P.E.
Staff Engineer Principal Engineer
Registered, North Carolina 8696
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
2801 Yorkmont Road, Suite 100 • Charlotte, NC 28208 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] www.mactec.com
MACTEC
?---- engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
January 25, 2008
Mr. Derek Salfia
TKC CXXI, LLC
c/o The Keith Corporation
5935 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed Powell Property Development
Finger Mill Road at US 321 Business
Lincolnton, North Carolina
MACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442
Dear Mr. Salfia:
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC) has completed a geotechnical exploration for the
above referenced site. The work was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No.
PROP07CHLT0615, dated November 15, 2007. The objective of our work was to acquire information about
the general subsurface conditions of the site and to provide recommendations for construction for the
proposed building in the Lincoln County Industrial Park. Results of our Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment were provided under separate cover.
Project Information
Recent project information was provided by Mr. Derek Salfia of The Keith Corporation during the period of
November 9, 2007 to January 17, 2008. We have been provided with a site plan prepared by Mansour Edlin
Consulting on November 14, 2007 (undated). The site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection
of Finger Mill Road and US 321 Business in Lincolnton, Lincoln County, North Carolina.
The site currently consists of relatively heavily wooded, undeveloped parcels of land with a total area of
approximately 135 acres. The proposed project will involve the construction of an approximate 850,000
square foot, one-story warehouse-type building. The construction will likely be done in several phases,
with the initial construction to include 388,300 square feet on the western end of the site near Finger Mill
Road. The remaining two expansion areas will be located to the east of the initial building, and will
consist of 388,300 square feet and 73,400 square feet. The construction will also include a concrete truck
court to the north and south of the proposed building and expansion areas, and a new asphalt access
roadway south of the southern truck court. Based on our previous experience with sites in the Lincoln
County Industrial Park, we anticipate that the building will consist of concrete tilt-panel wall construction
and a concrete slab-on-grade.
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
2801 Yorkmont Road, Suite 100 • Charlotte, NC 28208 • Phone: [phone] • 704.357.8638
www.mactec.com
Powell Property Development - Report of Geotechnical Exploration January 25, 2005
,gACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 2
The project is at an early stage, and thus finalized design information, including proposed finished floor
elevation and site grading information, are not available at this time. Based on an estimate from Mr.
Mansour Edlin, we understand that the finished floor elevation will be approximately 880 feet. The
elevation of the site as shown on the furnished topographic site plan in the area of development ranges
from about 910 feet at the southwest corner to 840 feet at the northeast portion of the site. As such, we
assume that out and fill depths of up to approximately 30 and 40 feet, respectively, will be necessary to
achieve finished grades. Two northerly trending drainage features cross the site, located through
approximately the middle of both the initial western and future eastern building areas. Based on our
experience with previous projects in the Lincoln County Industrial Park, we have assumed that maximum
column loads will be on the order of 100 kips, maximum wall loads will be on the order of 4 kips per
linear foot, and floor slab loads will not exceed 200 psf.
Field Exploration
In order to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, a total of 46 soil test borings (B-1 through B-48;
Borings B-44 and B-46 were omitted at the request of Mr. Derek Salfia of TKC) were drilled in the building
and pavement areas at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1, "Boring Location Plan". The soil test
boring locations were selected by a MACTEC representatives. The borings were located in the field by a
survey crew from R.B. Pharr, working under a contract with TKC. R.B. Pharr also furnished us with a site
plan indicating the boring locations and elevations at each location. The borings were drilled to depths of 10
to 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were
estimated to the nearest foot using the topographic information famished to us from R.B. Pharr.
The soil test borings were performed using hollow-stem, continuous flight auger drilling techniques. Soil
sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTIv1 D 1586. At assigned
intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split-tube sampler. The
sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate loose cuttings, and then driven an additional 12 inches with
blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler 12 inches after seating was recorded and is designated as the penetration resistance (N-value).
When properly evaluated, the penetration testing provides an index for estimating soil strength, relative
density, and foundation support capability.
Representative portions of the split-spoon samples obtained during the penetration testing were sealed in
glass jars and transported to our Charlotte office where they were visually examined and classified in
general accordance with ASTM D 2488, using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Area Geology
The project site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, an area underlain by ancient igneous and
metamorphic rocks. The virgin soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in-place chemical
weathering of rock which was similar to the rock presently underlying the site. In areas not altered by
erosion or disturbed by the activities of man, the typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the
surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands. The boundary
between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone termed "partially weathered rock" is
normally found overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineeru-ig purposes,
as residual material with standard penetration resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot. Weathering is
facilitated by fractures, joints and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of
the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances.
Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within
the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.
Powell Property Development - Report of Geotechnical Exploration January 25, 2005
MACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 3
Often, the upper soils along drainage features and in flood plain areas are water-deposited (alluvial)
materials that have been eroded and washed down from adjacent higher ground. These alluvial soils may
be soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by pressures in excess of their present
overburden.
Subsurface Conditions
The soil conditions outlined below highlight the major subsurface stratification. The Soil Boring Test
Records in the Appendix should be consulted for detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions
encountered at each boring location. When reviewing the boring records and the subsurface profile, it
should be understood that soil conditions may vary between and away from the boring locations.
Soil Conditions
In general, the borings initially encountered topsoil in the upper 2 to 13 inches. Several of the borings were
located on a bulldozed access road and the original topsoil thicknesses were disturbed by the bulldozing
activity. Topsoil depths will vary across the site and may be greater in some areas than found at the borings.
We recommend an average topsoil thickness of about 8 to 10 inches be used for estimating purposes.
The topsoil was underlain by alluvial soils in Borings B-16 and B-29 to depths of 51/2 to 8'V2 feet below the
ground surface, respectively. The alluvial soils consisted of silty sands and clayey sands with traces of roots,
nuca, quartz, and rock fragments. The standard penetration resistances in the alluvial soils ranged from 2 to
6 blows per foot (bpf). Although other borings did not encounter alluvial soils, it should be anticipated that
they will be encountered along the two primary drainage features that cross the site (one through the
proposed building, and one through the expansion area).
Beneath the topsoil (and beneath the alluvial soils in Borings B-16 and B-29), the borings encountered
residual soils to the maximum depth drilled. The sampled residual soils generally consisted of loose to very
dense micaceous silty fine to medium sand, clayey fine sand, and firm to hard micaceous fine sandy silt.
Most of the samples contained varying quantities of mica flakes, rock fragments, and quartz fragments. The
upper 3 to 4 feet of sampled soil in Borings B-1, B-7, B-13, B-15, B-20, B-35, B-36, B-38, and B-41 of
clayey silts and clayey sands with estimated low to moderate plasticity. We note that these borings are
generally located in the vicinity of the two primary drainage features, which is an indication of the likely
presence of additional moderate (to high) plasticity residual and/or alluvial soils associated with the features.
The standard penetration resistances in the residual soils ranged from 5 to 75 blows per foot.
Layers of partially weathered rock (defined as material with blow counts greater than 50 blows for 6 inches
of split-spoon penetration) were encountered at or near the boring temunation depths in Borings B-6, B-8,
B-14, B-19, B-21, B-30, and B-47. Interbedded layers of partially weathered rock were encountered in
Borings B-3, B-25, B-27, and B-38 at depths of approximately 4 to 28 feet below the existing ground
surface. The interbedded layers of partially weathered rock may represent the presence of boulders in the
subsurface soils.
Refusal to the mechanical augers was encountered in Borings B-6, B-21, and B-30. Refusal may result
from boulders, lenses, ledges or layers or relatively hard rock underlain by partially weathered rock or
residual soil; refusal may also represent the surface of relatively continuous bedrock. Core drilling
procedures are required to penetrate refusal materials and deternune their character and continuity. Core
drilling was beyond the scope of this exploration.
In addition to the borings, we have also reviewed the soil conditions outlined in the soil survey maps for
Lincoln County, North Carolina, as published by the Uzuted States Department of Agriculture Natural
Powell Property Development - Report of Geotechnical Exploration January 25, 2008
MACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 4
Resources Conservation Service (dated as "current" on the USDA NRCS website). The predominant soils in
this area are in the Pacolet series. The Pacolet series soils have a low to moderate plasticity to a depth of 80+
inches. Highly plastic clay was not encountered in the samples obtained in our borings; however, as noted
above, some borings encountered moderately plastic soils. Based on the existing site elevation contours, it
appears that two drainage paths or features exist down the approximate center of the proposed building and
in the expansion, and that surface water would likely flow from high to low areas of the site along these
paths. The presence of the moderate plasticity alluvial soils encountered in several of our borings and
the likely drainage path down the approximate center of the proposed building and expansion could
be an indicator that more highly plastic soil pockets (bull's tallow) may be encountered in isolated
areas of the site.
Groundwater Levels
Groundwater was not encountered by the borings at the time of drilling or following a period of 24 hours or
more after the completion of drilling. The borings were caved and dry upon observation after a period of 24
hours or more after drilling was completed. The boreholes had caved at depths ranging from approximately
6 to 33 feet. Caved depths may indicate groundwater is present at or just below the depth and caused the
soils to collapse into the hole. Caved depths may also be the result of soil cuttings left in the hole when the
hollow stem flight augers were removed at the end of drilling. The caved depths typically occurred within
about 5 ft above the bottom of the boreholes, tending to indicate they are due to soil fall-in in most cases.
We note that some caved depths were encountered above the proposed finished floor elevation, which may
be an indication of the presence of ground water above finished floor. Groundwater levels may fluctuate
several feet with seasonal and rainfall variations. Normally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late
winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall. Previous drought conditions may
have caused the groundwater levels at the site to be depressed below the "normal" seasonal groundwater
levels.
Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations
Based on the boring data and our past experience with similar soils, the residual soil and new compacted
structural fill should provide adequate support for shallow foundations for the proposed structure, assuming
the foundation and site preparation recommendations presented in this report are followed.
For foundations bearing in the stiff or dense low plasticity residual soils (with standard penetration resistance
blow counts of greater than 8 blows per foot) or in properly compacted fill soils, we recommend an allowable
net soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf, based on the assumed total foundation loads. Foundations should be
extended through plastic clay (if encountered) and alluvial soils, or, alternatively, the plastic clay and
alluvium should be removed and replaced with suitable, compacted structural fill to provide direct foundation
support. For foundations bearing in structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum
dry density and placed on a properly prepared residual soil surface, we recommend a maximum net bearing
pressure of 3,000 psf be used to size the foundations. Up to eight feet or more of undercut of alluvial soils
may be required in the vicinity of the two primary drainage features across the site. Alternatively, these soils
may be bridged over in lieu of complete undercut and replacement, as outlined later in this report.
We recommend that the minimum widths for individual colurrm and continuous wall footings be 24 and
18 inches, respectively. The minimum widths are considered advisable to provide a margin of safety
against a local or punching shear failure of the foundation soils. Footings should bear at least 18 inches
below final exterior grade and finished floor elevation to provide frost protection (for exterior footings)
and protective embedment. Based on an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf and our experience with
similar structures and empirical relationships for bearing and settlement, we have estimated that the total and
Powell Property Development- Report of Geotechnical Exploration January 25, 2008
MA CTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 5
differential settlement of the foundation and slabs for the proposed structure will be less than 1 inch and %z
inch, respectively.
General Foundation Recommendations
We recommend that masonry walls be provided with periodically spaced suitable construction joints, in
order to accommodate some possible differential settlement and thermal stress. Individual column footings
should bear entirely in either very firm residual soil or new structural fill over their entire bearing area.
In order to verify that the soils encountered in footing excavations are similar to those encountered in the
soil test borings, we recommend that foundation excavations be examined and checked with a dynamic hand
penetrometer by an experienced engineering technician from our office working under the direct supervision
of the geoteclulical engineer.
Exposure to the environment and construction traffic may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if
the foundation excavations remain open for long periods of time. Therefore, we recommend that all
footing excavations be extended to final grade and the footings constructed as soon as possible to
minimize the potential damage to bearing soils. The foundation bearing area should be level or suitably
benched and be free of loose soil, ponded water and debris. Foundation concrete should not be placed on
soils that have been disturbed by seepage. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or
exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior
to placement of concrete. If the excavation 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" (2000
psi) concrete be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.
Ground Floor Slab Support
The grade slab may be soil supported in accordance with the recommendations in this report. We
recommend that a minimum of three feet of separation be provided between the bottom of grade slabs and
plastic clays that may be encountered. The grade slab should be jointed around columns and along footing
supported walls so that the slab and foundations can settle differentially without damage. Joints containing
dowels may be used in the slab to permit movement between parts of the slab without cracking or sharp
vertical displacements. We recommend that a suitable vapor barrier be placed below the slabs to minimize
potential for soil moisture transmission through the slab. It would also be desirable to place 4 to 6 inches
of well-compacted crusher run gravel placed on the prepared subgrade to serve as a working surface
during construction and to provide an added degree of subgrade support at construction joints.
Lateral Earth Pressures
Walls that may be constructed must be capable of resisting the lateral earth pressures that will be imposed
on them. No triaxial shear testing was performed on soil samples to assist in the determination of lateral
earth pressure coefficients for design of such walls. Based on testing of reasonably similar soils on other
projects, the following earth pressure coefficients are recommended. Walls which will be prevented from
rotating, such as basement walls braced against the upper floor level, should be designed to resist the "at-
rest" lateral earth pressure. The at-rest coefficient to be used in design will depend upon the type of backfill
used. If soil similar to the non-plastic (PI<10) residual soils without clay encountered by the test borings are
used for backfill behind walls, we recommend that an at-rest coefficient (Ko) of 0.6 be used. If more
granular material such as compacted clean washed sand is used as backfill, a lower at-rest coefficient of 0.45
could be used. In order for this coefficient to be used, the soil wedge within an angle of 45 degrees from the
base of the wall to about 2 feet below the exterior grade should be excavated and replaced with compacted
clean washed sand.
Powell Property Development-Report of Geotechnical Exploration January 2S, 2008
MACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 6
Walls such as exterior retaining walls which are permitted to rotate at the top may be designed to resist
"active" lateral earth pressure. Typically, a top rotation of about 1 inch per 10 feet height of wall is
sufficient to develop active pressure conditions in soils similar to those encountered at the site. We
recommend that an active earth pressure coefficient (Ka) of 0.4 be used for design of such walls if on-site
non-plastic (PI<10) residual soils without clay are used for backfill. If a properly compacted clean washed
sand is used as backfill behind the wall within the active failure zone, a lower active earth pressure
coefficient of 030 can be used.
The compacted mass unit weight of the backfill soil (which we estimate as 110 to 115 pcf) should be used
with the above earth pressure coefficients to calculate lateral earth pressures. Lateral pressure arising from
surcharge loading, earthquake loading, and groundwater, should be added to the above soil earth pressures
to determine the total lateral pressures which the walls must resist. A pre-engineered wall drain system is
recommended behind the exterior retaining walls to minimize potential for lateral pressure due to
groundwater. In addition, transient loads imposed on the walls by construction equipment during
backfilling should be taken into consideration during design and construction. Excessively heavy grading
equipment (that could inpose temporary excessive pressures or long term excessive residual pressures
against the constructed walls) should not be allowed within about 5 feet (horizontally) of the walls.
Site Preparation and Grading
Existing topsoil, vegetation, tree stumps, stockpiled soils, plastic clay, alluvial soils, and disturbed soils
should be stepped or undercut from within the proposed building and paved areas. After stripping and
rough excavation grading, we recommend that areas to provide support for the foundations, floor slab,
structural fill and pavements be carefully inspected for soft surficial soils and proofrolled with a 25 to 35-
ton, four-wheeled, rubber-tired roller, a loaded dumptruck or similar approved equipment. The proofroller
should make at least four passes over each location, with the last two passes perpendicular to the first two.
Areas which wave, rut or deflect excessively and continue to do so after several passes of the proofroller
should be undercut to fanner soils. The undercut areas should be backfilled in thin lifts with suitable
compacted fill materials. The proofrolling and undercutting operations should be carefully monitored by
an experienced engineering technician working under the direct supervision of the geotechnical engineer.
We anticipate undercut of alluvial soils (up to 8 feet or more, as encountered by our borings) will be
required in the drainage feature areas.
Depending on the depth of new fill to be placed, and the consistency of the alluvium, it may be feasible to
bridge over some of the alluvium by using an engineering geogrid or engineering fabric, covered with one
or more feet of granular fill. As discussed later in this report, sufficient time will have to be allowed for
the fill and underlying alluvium left in place to "settle out" prior to building construction. The feasibility
of bridging over alluvium versus undercutting and replacement will need to be determined by the
geotechnical engineer or an engineering technician working under his direction, based on the local
conditions encountered.
The residual soils at the site may be somewhat elastic in nature due to the presence of mica. These
nucaceous soils may rebound elastically or "fluff-up" within the upper 12 to 24 inches after the removal
of several feet of confining overburden soils. In cuts where this condition may exist, the elastic rebound
problem may be handled by compacting the exposed surface in cut with proper compaction equipment,
analogous to man-made fill. Another method which may prevent the elastic rebound problem is to place a
2 to 4-inch thick, "mud-mat" of "lean" concrete immediately after the excavation has been completed.
Ground Water
The borings did not encounter ground water within the expected shallow construction depths. However,
the contractor should be prepared to promptly remove surface water, perched water, or ground water from
Powell Properly Development-Report of'Geotechnical Exploration January 25, 2008
MACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 7
the construction area. This has been done effectively on past jobs by means of gravity ditches and
pumping from filtered sumps.
If, during construction, ground water levels are encountered within 3 feet below the design floor elevation
(potentially in large cut areas on the south portion of the site), it may be necessary for permanent
underslab drainage. This would consist of a filtered blanket of washed stone below the slab, with
periodically spaced filtered trench drains to collect water and discharge it by gravity flow to an outfall.
The need for and strategic placement of the underdrain system can best be determined at the time of
construction, based on the ground water conditions encountered and the final finished floor elevation.
Structural Fill or Backfill
Fill that is used for raising site grade or for replacement of material that is undercut should be uniformly
compacted in thin lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D
698). In addition, at least the upper 18 inches of subgrade fill beneath light duty pavements, footings, and
floor slabs and 24 inches below pavements subject to truck traffic should be compacted to 100 percent of
the same specification. Specific pavement or floor slab designs may require further compaction. In cut
areas of the site, properly compacted fill soils should provide adequate floor slab and footing support after
proofrolling. In general, soils containing more than 5 percent (by weight) fibrous organic materials or
having a Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 30 (less than 15 is preferable) should not be used for fill. We have
not performed laboratory classification or compaction testing as part of this exploration: however, based
on our visual examination and experience with similar soil types, most of the soils in cut areas should be
suitable for re-use as structural fill, after moisture adjustment as required.
Before filling operations begin, representative samples of the proposed fill material should be collected and
tested to determine the compaction and classification characteristics. The maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content should be determined. Once compaction begins, a sufficient number of density
tests should be performed by an experienced engineering technician working under the direct supervision of
the geotechnical engineer to measure the degree of compaction being obtained.
In site areas where several feet of structural fill will be placed to achieve proposed grades, we recommend
that construction be delayed to allow time for the underlying soils and fill to "settle out" as they adjust to the
overlying weight of materials. In the deepest fill areas, a period of several weeks may be required for this
adjustment. Settlement pins installed at the top of the fill and monitored with a precision level would aid in
determining when settlements are negligible and construction could begin.
The edge of the structural fill should extend horizontally beyond the outside edge of the building
foundations at least 10 feet or a distance equivalent to one-third the height of fill to be placed, whichever is
greater, before sloping. The outer edge of fill should be at least 5 feet beyond paved areas. We have not
performed any laboratory triaxial shear tests for slope stability calculations, but our experience suggests that
permanent cut and fill slopes placed on a suitable foundation should be constructed at 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical) and 2.5:1, respectively, or flatter. Undercutting of loose or soft alluvial soils below fill slopes will
typically be required to provide a firm foundation. Fill slopes should be adequately compacted. Cut and fill
slope surfaces should be protected from erosion by grassing or other means. Permanent slopes of 3:1 or
flatter may be desirable for mowing.
The surface of compacted subgrade soils can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
environmental changes and construction activity. Deterioration can occur in the form of freezing, formation
of erosion gullies, extreme drying, exposure for a long period of time or rutting by construction traffic. We
recommend that the surfaces of floor slab and pavement subgrades that have deteriorated or softened be
proofrolled, scarified and recompacted (and additional fill placed, if necessary) immediately prior to
Powell Property Development - Report of Geotechnical Exploration Jaixuaiy 25, 2008
MACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 8
construction of the floor slab or pavement. Additionally, any excavations through the subgrade soils (such as
utility trenches) should be properly backfilled in compacted lifts. Reeompaetion of subgrade surfaces and
compaction of backfill should be checked with a sufficient number of density tests to determine if adequate
compaction is being achieved.
Much of the sampled soils are micaceous and fine-grained and will be moisture sensitive. Close control of
moisture content may be required to obtain compaction and may require moisture content adjustment to
optimum moisture or drier, as determined by laboratory compaction testing.
Excavation
Partially weathered rock was encountered in Boring B-38 above the assumed design finished floor
elevation of 880 feet, and within 2 to 4 feet of the finished floor elevation in Borings B-8, B-27, and B-
47. In addition to the partially weathered rock, very dense and very hard soils with rock and quartz
fragments were encountered in Borings B-28, B-32, B-33, B-34, and B-45 above or within 3 feet below
the finished floor elevation of 880 feet. The partially weathered rock, along with very dense soils, may
present excavation difficulty. Our general evaluation of relative difficulty of excavation of these materials
is given below:
Partially weathered rock with N-values ranging from 50 blows per 6 inches to 50 blows per
3 inches can often be excavated with bulldozers or powerful tractor-drawn rippers without
blasting, although often with extreme difficulty. Much can depend on the quality of the
equipment and the experience of the operators, as well as the exact nature of the material
itself (i.e., presence and direction of more weathered seams, bedding planes, etc.). Partially
weathered rock harder than 50 blows per 2 inches generally requires some blasting to
loosen it for efficient removal.
2. Materials hard enough to present refusal to drilling equipment will require blasting for
excavation if they are continuous and do not represent relatively small boulders or lenses of
harder rock. As described previously, the rock profile in this geologic area generally is
uneven and variable, and occasional knobs or ridges or harder rock may exist at higher
elevations in other locations between the borings.
3. Confined excavations (foundations, utility trenches, etc.) in partially weathered rock (even
partially weathered rock softer than 50 blows per 5 inches) may require ripping tools,
pneumatic hammers, or even blasting. In addition, some light blasting may be necessary to
efficiently remove the more resistant rock and large boulders that could be present within
confined excavation depths.
Pavement
Pavement subgrades should be compacted to a density of at least 100 percent of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density to a depth at least 18 inches below the bottom of the pavement base course, or to a
depth of at least 24 inches below the bottom of the pavement base course where truck traffic is anticipated.
Prevention of infiltration of water into the subgrade is essential for the successful performance of
pavements. To prevent the subgrade from becoming saturated, thereby reducing its support capabilities,
we recommend that the soil subgrade be graded to provide positive drainage away from the pavement
areas. To obtain positive drainage, the design should provide minimum slopes of one to two percent
away from parking areas in all directions to help establish rapid runoff of surface water and prevent the
subgrade from beconung saturated.
Powell Property Development -Report of Geotechnical Exploration January 25, 2008
MACTEC Project No. 6234-07-4442 Page 9
An experienced materials engineering technician working under the direct supervision of an experienced
materials engineer should monitor the construction of pavements. The materials engineering technician's
duties should include density testing of the soil backfill; observation of proofrolling activities; density
testing of the base course; testing of the asphaltic cement concrete.
Site Seismic Class
Based on the results of the borings, the site classifies as seismic site class D by the average N-
value method of International Building Code (IBC) 2003, incorporated within the current North Carolina
Building Code.
Qualification of Report
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the site and project
information and the data obtained in our exploration. The general subsurface conditions utilized in our
foundation evaluation have been based on the subsurface data observed in the borings. When reviewing the
boring records and the subsurface profile, it should be understood that soil conditions may vary between and
away from the boring locations. In evaluating the boring data, we have examined previous correlations
between penetration resistances and foundation bearing pressures observed in soil conditions similar to
those at the subject site. If the project information (including structural loading or grading information) is
incorrect or if the structure location (horizontal or vertical) and/or dimensions are changed, please contact us
so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during
construction which deviate from the data outlined in this exploration should be reported to us for our
evaluation. The assessment of site environmental conditions or the presence of pollutants in the soil, rock
and ground water of the site was beyond the scope of this exploration.
Closing
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you our professional geotechnical services during this phase of
your project. Please contact us when we can be of further service or if you have any questions concerning
this report. We look forward to working with you throughout the successful completion of this project.
Sincerely,
pie. as xt. r tac tat ar ra rr
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC. ti,°`;
r ?) S i rr a °'i''s
- it
SEAL
Steven E. Kiser, P.E. Mel Y. Bwning, P.E. c o9a
Senior Engineer Principal Engineer "y'•?IDcF:
North Carolina Registration No. 30630 North Carolina Registratic"8bt'`?????
+' .t4?;? Ay0
f3 RO'
r"?lllalll tl }16151U?1ySL?'
Distribution: The Keith Corporation - Mr. Derek Salfia (3)
MACTEC Project File (1)
p1 O O
?o j G -
D
O Rl ? ? / ? ? ? ?w
/
f

c? o
C)
Cn
C)
r- o
r
m
z
F7
F71 a
? o

171
/4
CTI
cD
ci
co
?..
CID
0 ND zip,
?- a
a ,__;,
A /
Ilk,
;u C
W ??Z Aa Il \ -? ??
70
O
} D Z?????
o
m
l
-P
11,

00

z
F-D
T
H
(O1
k
k
C'
10
IS
20
L
i
r
v5
r
30
35
0
40
J
:r
v
q
0
45
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CN E 45, Automatic Hammer
IVIETHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: C
CHECKED BY: pl 8
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TlIvIES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.

E SAMPLES P NIv1 (?o) 1-11
L N-COUNT
E D T ? FINES (%)
V E o
P
P • SPT (bpf)
E
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
85
.
SS-1 3-4-8 12
i

854
0 SS-2 6-10-16
6
. 5
SS-3 4-7-7 I

849
0 SS-4 4-8-8
6
. I i 10
844
0
. 15
839
0
.
i 20
834
0
. 25

829
0 i
. 30
i
824
0-
. 35
319
0
. 40
I

814
0
.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORLNG TEST RECORD 1?
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B- I
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED. January 14; 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1
lYLgCTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
D
P
E
T
H
L
I
L
10
15.
20
25
30
35
40
4s
SOIL CLASSIFICATION ! L E SAMPLES PP (? .) NM (%) LL

AND RENII?RKS E
G L
E
D
T COUNT
j N- =
A FINES (%)

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF E
N V E
N Y
E i ? -
0 SPT (bat)
SYMBOLS AND .ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft) T
- 70 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T T to r ximately 3 Inches '.? -.
81
8.0
RESIDUUM - Firm Orange Brown Slightly Clayey _ I
Silty Fine SAND with Trace Mica

a' : rr
C . SS-1 4-5-6
Firm Orange Brown Silty Fine SAND with Trace
Mica

8
3
0- SS-2 4-6-8 oil .
1
.
Firm Orange Brown Silty Fine SAND with Trace
Rock Fragments and Mica
SS-3 6-8-10 18
Loose Light Gray Brown Micaceous Silty Fine STt ... .: (} :'.
SS-4 4-5-5 4 1
10
Boring Terminated at 10 ft. 868.0 10
Borehole Caved and Dry at 7.2 Ft on 1/15108.
863
0
. 15
I
sss
o ?
. 0
ss3
o
. 25
848
0
. 30
843
0
. 35
I
838
0
. 40

s33.o
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: h $
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
-LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
IU 2U A 4U 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B- 2
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 14, 2008
`PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
0
a
L
O
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TI1vIES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B- 3
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January I4, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
NLA,CTC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
C
V
L
L
V
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT : CI LE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auer
HOLE D[A.: G'
REMARK&
PREPARED BY: (;?L
CHECKED BY: A 6
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MA's' BE GRADUAL.
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Propertv BORING NO.: B- 4
COORD N:
COORD E.
MILLED: January 14, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
O
N
G
L
C
DRILLER: L. Everhart-, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hamner
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: (;"-
CHECKED BY: A,, (3
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE E`{PLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TEVIES MAY DIFFER.
IN'T'ERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA y1AY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B- 5
COORD N:
COORD E.
DRILLED: January I5, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
C
L
L
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:?
CHECKED BY: /K 8
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TEVIES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXA LATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA' AY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 40 100
11 SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.. B- 6
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 16, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUII'N1ENT: CME 45, Automatic Hanuner
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 8"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: qb
CHECKED BY: /k Pj
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPRO,YIIvIATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
1U GU iU 4U N bU 7U SO 90 100
17- SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B- 7
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 7, 2008
PROD. NO.. 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auer
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
C'
PREP.-MUD BY: ?1?-
CHECKED BY: /V d
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES /LAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA. ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B- 8
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRELLED: January 14, 2008
PRO.J. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

E SOIL CLASSLFICATION L E
I StiIPLES PL (°o) N1vl j of LL (11%
o
AND REINLA RKS E
G L
E
I I
T N-COUNT

'
T E V D Y ? ? FINES (°
o)
H SEE KEY SY1vIBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N • SPT (bp fl
i

i
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
D
(ft) E

10 20 30 40
0
0
I
TOPSOIL (Annroximateiv 7 Inches) 871.0 5 60 70 80 90 100
RESIDUUM - Loose to Firm Orange Brown Red
Micaceous Clayey Siltv Fine SAVwith Trace Roots
SS-1 3 5 10
- .' . SS-2 3-4-7
11
866.0-
Loose to Firm Orange Brown White Micaceous

Slightly Silty Fine SAND 1
SS-3 6-8-8 6

10
861
0 SS-4 4 4-5
9
. 10

15 . . SS-5 4-5-6
11
Boring Terminated at 15 R. 856.0 5
Borehole Caved and Dry at 10.7 Ft on 1/15/08.
20

30
35
40
c
L 45
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REN ARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES iVIAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STR TI A ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
851.0
846.0
841.0
836.0
831.0
826.0
I U [Mffl 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1C
20
25
30
35
40 1
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B- 9
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 14, 2008

PROD. NO.: I
6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF I

MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
D
T
H
lft.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
40
0
?r
C7
Jf-
C
? L 45
SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E S A MPLES PL Nti r(9%
?ND REi\/LA-IZKS E D T -COUNT i
E V E Y
-
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N P 2 7
= I S SP

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
D
(ft)
T E N
i
10 ZO 30 40
T P t A
roxmi tely 2 Inches)
854.0
RESIDUUM T Orange Fine Sandy SILT with
-S
1
I
Mica 7
? SS-1 4-5-6 I1
Firm or Tan Silty Fine SAND with Trace Mica and j
Quartz Fragments
r

S49
0- SS-2 5-6-8 •1
.
SS-3 5-6-8 1

?- 544
0 SS-4 10-9-10
19
.
Firm Tan Silty Fine SAND with Trace Micaceous
(Moist)
539
0 SS-5 4-6-6 2
h .

Verv Dense Red Dark Brown, Orange Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND with Mica Flakes
Q
t
F
t
`
,
ur
z
agmen
s
and Schist Rock Fragments • ?
SS-6
12-22-32
Boring Terminated at 20 Ft. 834.0 -
Borehole Caved and Dry at 16 Ft at Boring
Completion.
-S29
0-
.

0-
-819
.
814
0
. r
509.0
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CIME 45. Automatic Hammer
NIETHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:<3&
CHECKED BY: /h f3
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATIOr
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXINLATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
5
IO
15
?0
.5
S0
;5
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-10
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9; 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1
NL,kCTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
r--
D
I
H
T
I- (ft)
0
III
]0
15
20
L
IL 25
30
35
R - 40
cE
SOIL CLASSIFICATION I L E SANfPLES
/
PL NNI ("ioI LL (00
AND REIVLIRKS C E D T N COUNT 2
2
°
E V s FINES (
,/o)

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
N E
N
P
• SPT (bpO
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft)
T E
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T PS A
roximately 3 Inches)
874 0
-
RESiDUU Yl Very Stiff Red Orange Fine to Coarse
Sandy SILT with Rock Fragments and Mica
SS-1 5-8-11
19
Firm Light Orange Silty Fine SAND with Mica ? .?. `
869
0- SS-2 7-8-12 120
. 5
Very Firnt to Dense Light Brown Orange Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND with ?Mica and Schist Rock Fragments
SS-3 12-13-15 8

864
0
SS-4
10-18-30
8
. 0
?
_ _ _ _ _
r
Very Firm Orange Silty Fine toNledium SAND with l
Trace Mica and Schist Rock Fragments
SS-5 11-12-15

Bonng Terminated at 15 Ft. 859.0
15
Borehole. Caved and Dry at 11.5 Ft at Boring
Completion.

J I

4
s
o ? ^
_
. ,o
1
849
0
. 25
844
0
. 30
839.0
35
834
0
. 40

829.0
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE D1A.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: 9L
CHECKED BY: /bt 8
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES NIAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA AREA PPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAYBE GRADUAL.
iU w )U 4U _)U bU 7U 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-11
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
?PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1 J
M.A. CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
D SOIL- CLASSTICATION E E
P
AMID RE1 /LARKS
0 I
E
T
r-
V
H
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
N
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
) D (ft)
860
(
0 RESIDUUM - Very Stiff Red Fine Sandy SILT, .
with Quartz Fragments

I Very Dense Red. Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND,
h
J Micaceous, with Rock Fragments

C 855.0

10
y Boring Terminated at 10 Ft.
? No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Boring. 8'0'C
Borehole Caved and Dry at 7.5 Ft at Boring
15 -
I
J
I
J
20
25
30
r
35
40 -?
v
c
v
0
45
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
NIETHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: M B
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORSTIOl`
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA NIAY BE GRADUAL.
845.C
S40.C
835.0
830.0
825.0
820.0
815.0
H ? ? ? ? M1 -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.. B-12
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
LNLA,CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: M 0
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT T14E EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES,ti1AY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 30 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-13
COORD N:
COORD E:
DPJ LED: January 16, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF I
iMACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

t SOIL CLASSLFICATION
E L
T AND REMARKS G E
E V
H I SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N

o?
s
c
o_
c?
?L
- (ft) SYMBOLS AND ,ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft)
0
- 5
- 10
- 15
- 20
- 25
- 30
- 35
. 40
,T P A roxin, tItl 4 Inches
RESIDUUM - ery Stiff Orange Fine Sandy SILT,
with Mica
Very Firm and Firm Orange, Brown Tan Silty Fine to
SAND
Mi
M
i
M
Fl
k
d G
um
,
caceous,
ed
ica
a
es, an
Quartz
Fragments
Grading to Red, Brown

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - Sampled as
I Gray, Brown Fine to Coarse SAND, Micaceous,
Sch,st Rock Frasments
Boring Terminated at 24.3 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time or Boring.
Borehole Caved and Dry at 22.8 Ft at Boring
Completion.
. 45
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPNIENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stein Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE E`TLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS 'BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
858.0
883.0
-878.0
873.0
868.0
863.0
858.0-
853.0-
348.0-
10 3.0 -
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Il SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-14
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: December- 20, 2007
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
J ?1 V1? L?J PL (%) NM (%) LL "lo)
1 N-COUNT 2
D T A, FINES (%)
E Y
N P
E = ?
= Fi -, • SPT (bpt)
T
0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
?
SS-1
7-11-14
2
- I
SS-2 9-9-11 :20

SS-3 8-9-16 -) -
SS-4 6-8-11 41 .19

1 10
SS-5 16-9-10 . 19
Ili
SS-6 7-9-13
20
SS-7 28-30/3"
100

30
i
i
35

40
0
C7
U
O
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY,
CHECKED BY,
g
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES .MAY DIFFER.
INT R,°ACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA IVLAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-15
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 14, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
v
c
c:
0

DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: C.ME 45, Automatic Hammer
NIETHOD: Hollow-stem :Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY.
CHECKED BY: /Aq tl
THIS RECORD IS .A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TDVEES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA M.AY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
[::::::?SS01L BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-16
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: Januarv 9; 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
NL4CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

N L E SA MPLES PL vti1,o%? LL
SOIL CLASSIFICATIO
E
L
COUNT
N ?c

-AND REMARKS G E
D - .TIES
T

A
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
E
N

D
?

(ft)

E
N Y
o
P - ?
E

• SPT (bpfl
SYMBOLS AiND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
( T 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0 875.0
P t A or ximate1v 2 [riches
RESIDUUM Dense Brown, Red Clavev Fine to
Coarse SAND with Rock Fragments and Mica
?
SS-I
8-i2 ?0
Hand Drilling at 2 Ft
Dense to Very Dense Brown Silty Fine to Coarse
SAND
-Gravelly Rock Fragments

F

'
'
?
SS-2
25-26-25 S 1

5
..
. x70.0
L
SS-3 20-24--=7 51
Verv Firm Red Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Trace
Mica
Gravelly Rock Fragments
I

SS -4

6-9-20

?9

10
10 865.0

Verv Dense Brown, Tan Silty Fine to Coarse SAND
Schist Rock Fragments
SS-5 10-22-49
? 71
1
1
15
15 860.0
Boring Terminated at 15 Ft.
Borehole. Caved and Dry at I I Ft at Boring 7
20
25
30
35
40
v
vi
0
C
0 45
DRILLER: L. Everhan, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CIvIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REIVIARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY, /tl d
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATIOr
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TINIES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA NLNY BE GRADUAL.
855.0 -? I 1 1 1 1 1 i1 1 ? 20
350.0 -{ I I 25
845.0 --? . 30
840.0 - I I f i 1 1 1---1 -1 -1-135
835.0 -1 40
530.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL: BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-17
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
? J
H
(ft
0
5
10
k
15
20
2,
30
r
35
m
40
jk
JE
45
SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES PLNM LL

AND RENLARKS E
G L
E I
D v-COUNT
3 _ I Z 2
? FINES (°/a)
E V E Y; o
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR _D? L.?NATION OF N N P =
= • SPT (bpl
? SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (fr) T g
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90 100
T [ (A
roximately 5 Inches ?
867.0
-
RESIDUUM Loose Brown Red Clayey Fine Sandy
j
SILT
SS-1 3-3-6
V'erv Firm to Dense Brown Red Tan Micaceous Silty
Fine SAND with Some to Many Rock and Quartz ?
?
Fragments
Hard DrillinQ
Noted at 4.5 Ft
862
0- SS-2 10-18-19 7
g .
SS-3 10-11-11
Firm Brown Red Micaceous Silty Fine SAND

857
0 SS-4 4-5-9
1
. 10

' SS-5 7-9-i0
9
Boring Terminated at 15 Ft. _.0
85 15
Borehole Caved and Dry at 11.5 Ft on 1/16/08.
347
0 ?
7
I ?
. 20

- 842
0
I . ? _5
537
0
.
1 30
532
0
. 35
827
0
L . 40
522.0
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: W,
CHECKED BY: /Ilk b
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ATTHE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SL-BSLRFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXEVIATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
iu ?u .w 4U 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-18
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 15, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
i
NIACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
r-
F
F
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
40
0
L45
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auer
HOLE DIA.: 8"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: (j
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TINES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA NIAY BE GRADUAL.

E SIMNTLES PL (%i NM (%)
N-COUNT
V D Y A FINES (%)
E I

N D
c 2
• SPT (bpfl
ft T E
887 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

SS-1 3-5-6 1
SS-2 6-8-8 1
882
0 6 -
.
SS-3 4-4-5 9
SS -4 5-6-8
877
0
. ]0
SS-5 10-20-30
372.0 0
15

SS-6 I
30-50/3"

367.0 100
-
)0
.862.0-
-5
57.0
30
52.0
35
X7
0
. 40
342
0
.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-19
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 7, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
----------------
LkCTEC Engineering & Consulting; Inc. 7

SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E Sti L?'LES Ntvt
c
n
I E

ANTD REVLA-RKS E L I

O

T N-COUNT

? INEc i°i°)
T I Y V Ic
B i SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FORE? PL.?NATION OF N N = • SPT (bp7

(
) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D i
(R) T
876
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 TOPSOIL AND ROOT MAT (Approximately 8 0 . "L lj . i
Inches
RESIDUUM: Loose Red, Brown. Tan Clavev Fine
SAND with Fine Gravelly Quartz Fragments, Silt and - SS-1 3-2-5
Mica (Moist)
Brown Siltv Fine SAND
Red
Firm and Loose Tan ;
,
,
with with Quartz Fragments and Mica
SS-2 6-6-6
2
5
Grading to Tan, Yellow, White
SS-3 3-4-5 41 9
Firm to Loose Tan, Yellow, White, Brown Silty Fine
SAND, with Mica and Quartz Fragments (Moist)
SS -4
4-4-6
1
010
10 866.0

Becoming Wet
SS-5 4-6-5 11
1 Boring Terminated at 15 Ft. 861.0
No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Boring.
Borehole Caved and Dry at 12.5 Ft at Boring
0
°k
?I
0
°f
-20-,
-_5 -i
- 30 -{
- 35
- 40
- 4?
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hanuner
METHOD: Hollow-stern Auger
HOLE DLA.: 8"
RE.NLARKS:
PREPARED BY: -
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE ERPLORATIO1
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA VLAY BE GRADUAL.
5
10
15
856.0-? I 1 1 1 -'? 1 1 1 120
851.0 - I 1 25
846.0 -? I 1 1-f-1 1 1 1 1 1 130
841.0 -1 1 35
836.0 - 40
831.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-20
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 7, 2008
PROJ. NO.. 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

D

i T

SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E

I S,?MPLES

L (
°) NM LL
(°,'ol (%)
P ?ND RENIARKS E
G E T N coLwr A, FINES (%)
E V
N Y
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N E N I i SPT (bpfl
(ft) SYMBOLS ANDABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D ft) T 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1
0 49' 0
TOPSO(L A r ximatel: 6 Inches)
RESIDUUM - irm Dark Red, Brown Silty Fine to
V
di
SAND
Mi
M
?
ery
e
um
,
caceous ? .
: :. SS-I 7-7-8
Dense Orange, Tan Silty Fine to Medium SAND with
Rock Fragments and Mica
SS -2 10-14-17
31
- 5 892.0
_ _
Very Firm Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND, Very
Micaceous
SS-3 9-14-15 -)g
Stiff Dark Red Fine Sandy SILT with Rock Fragments
and Mica

- l0
887
0 SS-4 9-7-5 12
-
. 1

Very Firm Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with
Rock Fragments and Mica
- 15 SS-5 8-9-12

1
_
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Loose Brown Olive, Tan Silty Fine to Medium SAND
with Mica (N oast)

- 20
377
0
-?
SS-6
6-4-4 -
.

Very Dense Brown Fine to Coarse SAND with Fine -4

Gravelly Rock Fragments, Trace Silt and Mica 1

- 25
87, 0 SS-7 16-34-23
7

1
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - Sampled as SS-8 5013"
1 White, Dark Gray Fine to Coarse Sandy Fine
RAV ramtic R ck Fra ent
30 Au
er Ref
l
t 28
5 Ft
g
usa
a
.
.
Boring Terminated at 28.5 Ft. -867.0 -
No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Boring.
Borehole Caved and Dry at 26.9 Ft at Boring
r 35
40
?r
45 -
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPIvIENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BYC,;V-
CHECKED BY: !t?,
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA ivIAY BE GRADUAL.
862.0
857.0
352.0
5
10
15
20
25
1 100
30
35
40
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-21
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: December 20, 2007
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I

NTZ -1 ?l?
CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
D
P
T
H
(0
5
10
15
- 20
25
30
35
40
CD
0
0
c
45
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CiNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: G'
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: ?j
SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SALES PL f%) Mm '%') L-

AND REYIARKS
G
E I N-COUNT
? D ? T A FINES (%)
E V E Y °
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N
? 0 SPT b f)
P
=
SYIi [BOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D ('r) E
E
T
77
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TOPSOIL a roximateiv 3 Inches)
8
0
RESIDUUM - Loose Orange Broom Clavey Fine I

Sandy SILT with Trace Rock Fragments " J
SS-1 3-3-6
i
Verv Dense Brown Red Silty Fine SAND with Many
Rock and Quartz Fragments

s72
o 55-2 10-35-34
-,
'
.
Firm Orange Brown Silty Fine SAND with Some
Rock Fragments
SS-3 8-9-11 20
Loose to Very Firm Lii?gght Brown Red Grav Micaceous {; : •:
Slightly Silty Fine SAND with Trace Rock Fragments

Sb7
0 SS I 6-7-11
18
I: ?
. 10

f
862
0
SS-5
5-5-8 I
•1
. IS
' r
:...:. :
857
0- SS-6 4-1-5
9
. 20

:i
'
852
0 SS-7 8-11-15 6
.: .1
k [ .

f L SS
8

847
0 - 10-11-10
-
. 30

I Very? Firm Dark Red Brown Micaceous Silty Fine -
SA1VL

I

842
0 SS-9 9-12-13 )
- -
. 35
Firm to Very Firm Orange Gray Micaceous Slightly
1 Fine SAND

837
0 SS-10 10-li-14
. 40
r
y
:`{I SS-11 5-7-9 6
8310
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE E.?TLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTt-IER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TFviES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-22
COORD N:
COORD E.
DRILLED: January i5, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 2
N ACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
D
n
T
H
(eft)
50
SOIL CLASSIFICATION L I i
AMID REMARKS E E
E ?
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (fi
83:
3oring Terminated at 50 Ft. 827,
3orehole Caved and Dry at 32 Ft on 1/16/08.
822
60
65
70
75
80
85
cL
c?
?E
90
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:Q/_
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIN ATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
817.
812.
807.i
802.(
797.C
792.0
787.0
IU 2u A Q 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORLNG TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property
BORING NO.: B-22
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 15, 2008
PROD. NO.. 6234-07-4442 PAGE 2 OF 2
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAY?'LES PL (°%) NM (?o) LL (°1.)
P \-Ni D REMARKS G I E I I N COUNT
T1
2

H
E
1 V
Y = A
FINES (°io)
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR E\PLANATION OF N N P ?
= • SPT (bpfl
?) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft) T E I
??
10 20 30 40 50 60 7
T P A r xim tely - inched
8T.0
0
80 90
RESIDUUM - inn Red, Orange Silty Fine to
Medium SAND with Micaceous
.
? 1
: SS-1 6-8-12
VeryDense Light Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND
(Dry)
Schist Rock Fragments SS-2 12-30-28

5 870.0 58
Verv Firm Light Brown, Red Silty Fine to Medium
SAND with Mica
SS-3 10-II-li
Finn to Very Firnl Orange Silty Fine SAND with Mica
(Dry) I
0
865.0 SS-4 4-5-7 12

Verv Firm Dark Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND
with Trace Mica
Schist Rock Fragments
15 SS-5 9-13-9
Boring Terminated at 15 Ft 860.0
1 .
Borehole Caved and Dry at 11.5 Ft at Boring
20 ? I ? 855.0
75 1 I L 850.0
30
35
°r
!I- 40
C, ?
In
0
v
Or
c L 45 -1
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY..
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA-MAYBE GRADUAL.
845.0
840.0
835.0
00
5
10
15
20
?5
30 .
35
40
830.0 I I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-23
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 11, 2008 i
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF I
NIACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc
r
l
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
NIFTHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY.
S?-
CHECKED BY: 1
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXINIATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA ivIAY BE GRADUAL.
vJ v 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-24
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
LPROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
NIACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
0
O
n
DRILLER. L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hamner
YrETHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: a
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS k REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIIVLATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
iU M 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
JL SOIL BORING TEST RECORD 11
PROJECT: TX-C Powell Property BORING NO.: B-25
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 11, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc
0
v
c
C
C
0
n
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hamner
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 8"
RENLARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA .ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA 1VLAY BE GRADUAL_
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-26
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 7, 2008
PROJ. NO.. 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

E SOIL CLASSIFICATION L 1 E SA1,1PLES
P AMID RETVIA KS I G E T. coUNT
H E V D
E Y c
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N P -
ft) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
0 D 8) T E

?TOPSOI 'A roximattely= Inches) 893.0
1 RESIDUUM - imF i Orange. Red Silty Fine to
Medium SAND with Rock Fragments
1 SS-1 7-8-12

Dense Brown, Light Red Silty Fine to Medium SAND
with Rock Fragments
SS-2 11-18-27
- ? 888.0
SS-3 12-17-15
Very Dense Dark Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND : ;
1 with Fine Gravelly Rock Fragments, Micaceous .
10 -
883.0 SS-4 17-26-30

li PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK - Sampled as SS-5 20-44-5015"
Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Rock 878.0
Fragment . Mic
Dense to Verv Dense Brown Silty Fine to Coarse
SAND with Rock Fragments and Mica
20 $$ 873
0 SS-6 17-15-22
.
25 S68.0 SS-7 15-17-29

30
Boring Terminated at 30 Ft
863.0 SS-8 19-34-48
rtered at Time of Boring.
at 27.8 Ft at Boring
35 7 I k- 858.0
o?
40
L
L
C
L
C
J
_J
C
45
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, .Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES NIAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
853.0
PL (%) NM (°'o) LL (%)
2A Fl-ES (%)
• SPT Ibpfl
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
5
10
20
25
30
35
40
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 30 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-27
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: December 20, 2007
PROD. NO, 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
NIACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
i ?
I r
H
?0
5
10
i
15
?- 20
L
25
r
30
r
35
40
of
-: r
0
c
of
45

SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES PL (°b) NM (%'o) Li (%)

AND REi\/LARKS E
G !
E
I
i T N' NCO
? FINES (°/o)
E V D
E iY _
I T
'c 7c
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N E = • SPT (bpfl
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft) T N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T P' i 4 r t ely 3
oxi
m
h
e
1 n c
891.
RESIDUUM - Stif
f R
ed ine
and
y SILT with Mica
S
(Moist)

I SS-1 4-5-7
? -
oil,
Very Dense Orange io
Brown Silty Fine to Coarse
1 g
SA?? with Rocl< Framents and Ylica

886
0 SS-2 6-16-27 4

i . 5

SS-3 12-20-24

881
0 SS-4 15-25-25 50
. 10
Firm Orange to Brown Siltv Fine to Coarse SAND
with Roclc?ragmems, Mica and Quartz Fragments

876
0 SS-5 5-8-8
6
. 15

871
0 SS-6 5-8-8 ? 6

-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , ? _0
Very Firm to Dense Orange and Dark Brown Silty
Fi
ne to Medium SAND with Trace Rock Fragments
and Mica
?
866
0 SS 7 5-9-14 _ _ 23 ''
. 5
SS-8 12-17-26 a
Boring Terminated at 30 Ft. 861.0 30
Borehole Caved and Dry at 24 Ft after Boring
Completion.
556
0
. 35
851
0 1
. 40

846.0
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: /k J3
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES VIAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXINLATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GR .DUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-28
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 8, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MkCTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
J
Y
T
i H
iC
I
r 5
i0
15
i
20
I
F 25
30
35
40
c;
a ?-
Q
O
45
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
NIETHOD: Hollow-stem Auer
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: IQL
CHECKED BY: At 4

z J ??T S ?'_ ( o) NMf LL (°/o)
L N-COUNT e -
1
E . T A FINES (°a)
D
V E Yi
E 0 SPT (bpf)
N
E
T 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1
360.0 ?

- i
i
-? SS-1 3-3-3 r 1

SS-2
Z
3-3-3 • i
855.0

SS-3 1-1-1

SSA I
r
3-5-4

q
850.0

I SS-5 13-16-24 40
845.0
840.0 -
835.0 25
830.0 30
i
825.0 35
I
820.0 ! 40
I
815.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-29
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: Januarv 15. 2008
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
DRILLER: G. Sko0und
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Au?er
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: (iU-
CT.-MCKED BY. /1k
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE E?,TTORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXUV ATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-30
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1
lY1gCTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
P
E
T
H
r
I
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
40
o?
c
oL
`n 45
SOIL CLASSIFICATION L 1 E S:?'ttiiPLES
(aol NM (o%) LLi°o)
PL
AND RE VLARKS G E T N-COUNT "
a
P 2

E

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET F
N
N
V

E Y

P a

- = A?
INES (
o)
OR EXPLA
ATION OF N _ • SPT (boo
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (it) T E ? r,
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RESIDUUM - Dense Dark Red. Orange. Brown
870 0
Silty Fine to Nledium SAND with Rcc c Fragments
' ?:. :.
Mica
and
r SS-1 9-I5-21 • 6

865
0 SS-2 16-I3-25
38
. 5
7
Fine Gravelly Rock Fragments
_
-- 1 SS-3 9-10-22 32
Fim' Brown. Tan, Orange Silty Fine to Medium
SAND with Rock Fragments, Micaceous

860
0 SS -4 7$-11 4 119
. 10

1 i
Stiff Orange SILT with Trace Mica
? SS-5 5-6-9 •1 -
Boring Terminated at 15 Ft. 85'.0 15
No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Boring.
Borehole Caved and Dry at 13.E Ft at Boring
Completion.
F 850.0

I
, 20
845.0
25
840.0
30
835.0
35
830
0
1
. I 40
i T
1 i
825.0
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hanuner
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
RENLQ_RKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: /11
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TINES NLSY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
iu _U w 4U ?U 6U 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-31
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07 4442 P kGE I OF I
NIIkCTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
I

D
SOIL CLASSIFICATION r SAMPLES
AND REMARKS D ' N coUT
T v
E Y
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N E = 7
(ft) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft)
901
0 T
0 TOPSOIL AND ROOT MAT (Approximately.
)
I
h '
nc
es
RESIDUUM - Stiff Orange, Brown Fine Sandy
SILT with Quartz Fragments and Mica Flakes SS-1 3-3-6
Firm Orange, Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND
with Q
C 5 - ' t 396.0 SS-2 4-8-I1
Very Dense Orange. Brown, Dark Brown, Tan Fine to
Medium SAND with Silt, Quartz Fragments and Mica
Gravelly Quartz Lense from 6 to 6.5 Ft. SS-3 20-25-28
Very Firm Orange. Dark Brown, Tan Fine to Medium
SAND with Silt, Very Micaceous, Mica Flakes,
Quartz Fragments SS-4 11-10-11

10
_ uartz Gravel Lodged in Split Spoon Shoe
0.
5.1.0
Q
6 Ft Recoverv
=R Chattenngat9.5 Ft
r
Firm to Dense Orange, Brown Silty Fine SAIND with
Traces of Quartz Fragments, Very -Micaceous i
.. SS-5 5-7-9
15 -886.0-
SS-6
10-15.17
20 58 1.0
?
r Firm White, Yellow, Tan Silty Fine SAND with Trace
of Quartz Fragments and Mica (Dry)

25
876.0- SS-7
X
6-7-7
Grading to Red. Pink, Orange
Becoming Moist SS-8 5-7-10
30 8 1 1 0
Very Micaceous
35 866.0 SS-9 6-7-9

Becoming Moist to Wet

40 SS-10 6-5-10

Boring Terminated at 40 Ft. 861.0-
No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Boring.
Borehole Caved and Dry at 33.8 Ft at Boring
Como letion.
45
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 8"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: M,5
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TEVIES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXROATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
NM (%) LD (9,a)
A FINES (°/o)
i SPT (bpf)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 So 90 1
5
10
15
20
?S
30
35
40
-? 856.0 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD NIACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

D SOIL CLASSIFICATION L I
T AND R-ENLARKS I G

F
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF E
I N
(ol SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. I D I (;
T P I 1A r ximateiv 3 lnches 59
1 RESIDUUM - irm Orange Silty Fine to Medium
SAND with Quartz Fragments

Vey Dense Orange. Brown, Red Silty Fine to Coarse
SAryND with Rock Fra
ment
Mi
g
s,
caceous i r 88•
10 58:
Verv Stiff Yeilow, Tan Fine to Medium Sandy SILT
with Rock Fragments and Mica.
15 --I I I I I F 577
rirm r euow, t an ?Ilty rme to Nledium SAND with
Rock Fragments and Mica
20
872
Very Dense Brown, Dark Brown Fine to Medium
SAiVD with Silt, Very Micaceous
25 867.
Veryr yFirm. Dari<Brown, Brown, STlty Fine to Medium -
Sr1ND, with Rock Fragments, Very
Micaceous ff L
30 I:.: ... ? i.
Boring Terminated at 30 Ft. 862.1
No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Boring. r
Borehole Caved and Dry at 28.2 Ft at Boring
('mm?larinn
35
40
0
c

of
"' L 45
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: G'
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY,
CHECKED BY: /k lj 1
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SLBSLRFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIDIES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA NLAY BE GRADUAL.
857.C
552.0
847.0
to 2U 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-33
COORD N.
COORD E:
DRILLED: December 26, 2007
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
E E SOIL CLASSIFICATION
I

P I A N-D RENLARKS E
G L
E
T
H E V
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N
(ft) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft)
T P t A roximately 2 Indies 900.0
RESIDUUM - Stiff Brown, Red Fine Sandy
SILT
1 I
with Roots and Mica (Moist) C
I 1=i Light Uranee Silty Fine to Medium SAND with :.?
Roots and iNfica ('Dry)
? ? 395.0
-- - - - - - - - - - -
1 Firm Dark Brown. Red Silty Fine to Coarse
SA, D with Mica and Quartz Fragments
Schist Rock Fragments r
10 - ':!-.eon n
L
C I
?
Very Dense to Dense Brown, Orange Silty Fine to
15 Coarse SAND
Schist Rock Fragments
885.0
1
20 880.0
Firm Orange, White Silty Fine SAND with Mica and
Quartz Fra
m
t
M
st
W
g
en
s (
oi
to
et)
25 .'. -875
0-
. .
C
30 r

370.0 -
Very Dense White, Gray Silty Fine to Coarse SAND
?
Gravelly Quartz Fragments and Muscovite Sheets M. . ` ..
35 865.0 -

r Very Dense Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND
r I Gravelly Schist Rock Fragments
F 40
-- I Boring Terminated at 40 Ft. 860.0-

o° Bo ol he Caved and Dry at 33.5 Ft at Boring
Completion.
-

c {
I
0
45
355.0 -
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:`?L
CHECKED BY: /k fj
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES N1AY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GR3DLAL.
J A YIYLbS PL i°o) NM (%) LL
1 N-COUNT
D T = _ J FINES (%)
E P o
N = ? • SPT (biDo
,I. E - N M
0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L
SS-I 5-5-5 ?10
SS-2 4-8-10 18
5
SS-3 5-6-7
I
SS-4 7-10-12 ?n
--
I 10
SS-5 10-16-17

15
SS-6 25-26-32
58 ' '
'0
SS-7 6-6-10 6
i ?5
SS-8 4-5-8

30
SS-9 10-18-38
6
35
SS-10 25-30-25 ?S_
40
iU _U w 4u DU bU 7U 8U 9o 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Poweil Property BORING NO.: B-34
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 8, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
NL-A,CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
0
O
V
C
C
J
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CME 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: Gk-
CHECKED BY: It, j
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
1U ZU 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-35
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 8, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
0
c
0
DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUU)MENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Augger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:C?1_
CHECKED BY M rj
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXTI-ORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TLMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROYIlVIATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
S A MPLES PL (%) NNI L_'

T ? FINES (4io)
• SPT (bpO
0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -
SS-1
SS-2 6-8-11
15-19-15 9

SS-3
SS-4
X
X
6-14-17
13-18-29

7 5
10

SS-6

7-9-23
I ?

i IS

25

i 30
35
40
i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.. B-36
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 8, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
0
c
c

DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
iv w w 4U DU bO 7U 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-37
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1
NIACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
E
P
T
H
(ft
0)
10
i5
20
L
25
30
35
40
c
r
L 45
SOIL CLASSIFICATION L j E SAvIPLES
(?a>
'I L c%) NM LL

f_ND RENL4RkS E
G L
E 1
D T N-COUNT o
? FEN"ES (/)
E V E o

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
N

N P

E - ' - SPT b
•
(Pfl
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft) T
912 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TOPSOIL (Approximately 13 inches) -
I j
RESIDUUM - Stiff Orange Brown Micaceous Silty 1
Fine Sandy CLAY SS-1 3-5-8 1
Firm to Verv FiY Orange Light Brown Micaceous
Silty Fine SAND

907
0 SS-2 6-10-13
-
- .: . . 5
SS-3 6-9-11
j

902
0 SS -4
7-9-11

-
. 10
se Light Gray Brown Micaceous Slightly Silty Fine
Lo
o
L
897
0- SS-5 5-5-5 0
. 15
?

Dense Orange Brown Micaceous Silty Fine SAND

892
0 SS-6 10-13-24
2
Hard Drilling Noted at 20 Ft . 0

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK- Sampled as
Dense Orange Brown Micaceous Silty Fine SAt,ID (
\
887
0 SS-7 24-50/5" 1100
. I
Dense Orange Gray Brown Silty Fine SAND with
Some Rock and Quartz Fragments
. 1: SS-8 10-12-23
. . 852.0 ' _' 30
Firm Grav Brown Red Slightly Silty Fine SAND with I
Some Rock and Quartz Fragments

877
0- SS-9 6-7-10
4
7
. 35

Bormg Terminated at 40 Ft. 872.0 40
Borehole Caved and Dry at 33.2 Ft on 1/9/08.
?
I
1

L i
R6,70 I I I I
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CIME 45, Automatic Hammer
NIETHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: Ck
CHECKED BY: /ik 0
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXDVLkTE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
1u 1U A 4U D0 b0 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-38
COOK) N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 8, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF i
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

E SOIL CLASSIFICATION
L
E
SANEPLES
PL (°'°} NM

P
AVD REAR
I?S E
G
I E I I N-COUNT

T
T .
E
V D ? FINES (%)
H i SEE [BEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N
I ? N • SPT (bpt)
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft) T E
0 902
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
T P 1 fA r xi matelv2Inches) .
RESIDUUM - Loose Orange. Brown Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND with Rock Fragments, Roots and r
Mica (Moist) SS-1 4-4-5 9
Firm Light Orange Silty Fine to Medium SAND with
' ?
Rock Fragments and Mica (
Dry)
`.
:.
` .
-897
0 SS-2 6-6-11
7
- -
Loose to Firm White. Light Brown Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND with Rock Fragments and Quartz
}
} .
. 5
Fragments SS-3 3-3-4
0 L
892
0 SS-4 5-5-7
-
. 10
5
ss7
o SS-5 4-4-6 10
. 15

Verv Stiff White. Light Brown Fine to Coarse Sandy
SILT with Rock Fragments, Mica and Ouartz
70 I III r 882.0 -I SS-6 5 6 8
rum venire. Lignt tsrown J lty Pine to Coarse SAND
with Rock Fragments, Mica and Quartz Fragments

(Moist) 1
25 " 877.0 SS -7 5-5-7
:.:
30
872.0 SS-8 8-8-12
Verv Stiff Brown Fine to Medium Sandy SILT with
Rock Fragments and Mica (Moist to Wet)
35 SS-9 10-11-13
Boring Terminated at 35 Ft. 867.0
Borehole Caved and Dry at 27.4 Ft After Boring
0
40
0
u
0
45
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIll aNT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auer
HOLE DIA.: 6" v
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:Q-
CHECKED BY: tit, Jj
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE E,OLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TRvIES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIM,A=.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
862.0
20
25
30
35
40
857.0 1 ' 1 1 I 1 ' I I I 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-39
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 11, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
NL CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
I
I
(f
r
5
2C
25
30
35
°I
d ? 40
v
0
c
L 45
SOIL CLASSIFICATION E E SAMPLES PL (-o) NNf

AND RETTVIARKS
G
? E
D
T
N-COUNT a
- - I A FRTES (%)
E V Y
SEE- KEY SYIVIBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N E = • SPT (bpt)
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D (ft) T
10 20 30 ?0 50 60 70 80 90 100

TOPS (A roximateiv ! 874.0
Inch)
RESIDUUM - Firm to Stiff White Tan, Light Gray
Fine to Coarse Sandv SILT with Mica and Quartz
~ Fragments (Moist to Wet) SS-1 3-4-5
9

SS-2 2-3.2

869
0 5
. 5
SS-3 2.7.3 5

1
SS-4 2-2-3
5
Boring Terminated at 10 Ft. 864.0 10
Borehole Caved and Dry at 8.2 Ft on 1/9/08.

-859.0 i
?
'
? 15
354
0
. 20
-849.0-
I 25

844.0
30
-i
839.0
35

834
0
r . 40
I
829.0
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CIVIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: y
CHECK--D BY: ?j
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DUTFEER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
iV LU -)U 4V DU bU /U SU 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-40
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 8, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF i
_MA.CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
0
-,L 40
c?
of
0
c

DRILLER: G. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REYIARKS:
PREPARED BY:Qz,
CHECKED BY: l3
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
8.0-
3.0-
40
r
iU lU -)U aU ?U bU !U SU 9U 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-41
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 9, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
VLA,CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
0
0
o'
DRILLER: L. Everhari, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
91-
CHECKED BY: /k 0
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES NIAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.. B-42
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 11, 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE 1 OF 1
I
NLkCTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
D
P
T
H
0?
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
?r
qL
L 45
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AN ,-D REMARKS

SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPL.AdNATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
E
E ;
N
D
Firm to Verv Dense Orange,
RESIDUUM - Very
"
di
Tan Silty Fine to Me um SAND
with Rock
Fragments, Micaceous
f.. '
. r
1
Boring Terminated at 10 Ft.
Borehole Caved and Dry at S.6 Ft at Boring
Completion.
F
? r
r
J
y
DRILLER: C. Skoglund
EQUIPMENT: D-50, Automatic Hamner
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY: 'k
CHECKED BY: M S
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSLRF'ACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES YIAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BET',I?EEN STRATA MAY BE GR4DUAL..
j S2?-MPLES PL ;°,oj Nlv1'0o) iL
L N-COIN"
T _ ? FINES (%)
N P - • SPT (bpo
T r m
ft) E
3S2.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100
0
172.0 -
;67.0 -
562.0 -
X57.0 -
52.0 -
47.0 -
42.0 -
37.0 -
SS-1 7-10-15 ? - I

SS-2 13-12-27
39

SS-3 14-20-20
I 40
1
SS-3 19-21-31 52
10

15

20

1
0
j ? 35

i 40
lU -U .iU 4U ?U bU 7U 6U 90 IOU
L SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-43
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 8, 2008
PROJ. NO.. 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF 1
MA CTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
1
1
I
S
2C
'0
35
0
40
L 45
SOIL- CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES ! PL (°ro; N V1 (?%) LL (a%)
E
AND REVL4RKS
G L
E I I T I N-COUNT
2
I FINES (%)
E I V E Y
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF I N N P SPT (bpf)
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW. D fr)
T
i
t
10 20 30 40 30 60 70 30 90 100
TOPSOIL LApnroximately 6 Inched
RESIDUUM -Stiff Red Fine to Coarse Sandy
SILT with Rock Frag rents I 1
SS-1 3-6-]I 7
Dense to Verv Dense Brown Silty Fine to Coarse 7
SAND with Mica and Quartz Fragments

895
0 SS-2 7-17-25
-
. 5

? •: _. .: :. : SS-3 13-18-25
7
SS-4 30-31-33
6
Boring Terminated at 10 Ft. 890.0 10
Borehole Caved and Dry at 7.5 Ft at Boring
Completion.
-885
0-
. , 15
L
880.0
10
875.0

L 870.0

i 30

865.0 i
I
T
35
860
0 L j
. 1 40

855.0
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPNIENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
METHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY
CHECKED BY: [k 13
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROX114ATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
,u Lv DU iV DU bU /U 2U 90 100
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-45
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 11. 2008
PROD. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
D
H
(0
r
L
I_
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
40
0
J L
45
DRILLER: L. Everhart, Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
NIETHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY: /L\ t3
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TEYLES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.

SAMPLES PL Nm LL '%'i
L

V

f)
887
0

c
D
E
T

Y

P
E N-COUNT

?

=
2 :r2

1 FINES (%)
• SPT (bpt)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
.
SS-1
3-5-8
i L
1 I
88
0 ?
SS-2
8-12-I5 I
_.
SS-3 8-10-10

877
0- SS-4 27-50/6"
.
872
0
.
1

S67
0- I
.
,3 62
0
. i
857
0-
.
852
0-
.

-)
847
0
,

J
s17
o
-
.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1
?j ' SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.. B-47
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 7; 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I J
I
TMACTEC Engineering & Consultinc, Inc.
C
C
C
C
DRILLER: L. Everhart. Tech Drill
EQUIPMENT: CNIE 45, Automatic Hammer
IVIETHOD: Hollow-stem Auger
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS:
PREP.kRED BY:
CHECKED BY: 7t,\ D
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
SOIL BORING TEST RECORD
PROJECT: TKC Powell Property BORING NO.: B-48
COORD N:
COORD E:
DRILLED: January 16, 2008
PROJ. NO.: 6234-07-4442 PAGE I OF I
N ACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100
Project Name: CRATE & BARREL
LINCOLN COUNTY
POND #1 1 PHASE 1
DETERMINE SURFACE AREA (S.A.) FOR 90% TSS REMOVAL
Drainage area=
% Impervious=
Pond depth=
SA/DA=
S.A. required=
S.A. provided=
24 Ac.
50
5 ft.
2%
0.48 Ac.
0.53 Ac. 23000 SF
DETERMINE VOLUME TO BE CONTROLLED BY 1" STORM
Rv= 0.05 + 0.009(% impervious)
0.50 in/in
Volume req'd=1" x Rv x 1112 (ft/in) x Drainage area
1.00 Ac-ft = 43560
q? s??'? L J 3 ?., a.
q >2
e
S a7L;sL
s ?
.d?Ja 1. pp' /iJ `/
,j?? s! ? ? f[/J JJJ
0.528 AT NPWSEL 843.0
DRAWDOWN STORM IN 2-5 DAYS (ESTIMATE AN ORIFICE SIZE FOR WQ - CHECK TO FOLLOW)
2A x (sgrt(h))
t= Ca(sgrt(2g))
t= time to drawdown (sec)=
a= area of orifice (sq.ft.)=
A= pond s.a. (sq.ft.)=
g= gravity constant (ft/s2)=
h= change in head ft)=
C= orifice coefficient=
2A x (sgrt(h))
a= Ct(sgrt(2g)) a=
diameter of orifice, d= 3.05 in.
TRY d= 3.0 in.
259,200 (3days)
will solve
23000.00 0.53 ac
32.2
1.89 (Vol/s.a.)
0.6
0.051 sq.ft.
?91 k@01111RWRI
FEB 2 4 2009
DEW - WATER UUAd N
WETLANDS MD STORMWAMR BRAWN
orifice area= 0.049 sq.ft. therefore,
t (now)= 267974.82 seconds = 3.1 days
DRAWDOWN STORM IN 2-5 DAYS (CHECK ORIFICE SIZE USED IN OUTLET STRUCTURE)
NPWSEL = 843.0
d Used = 3.0
Peak elev. = 845.0
change in head = 0.7
S.A. at peak el = 0.68
S.A. at NWE = 0.53
S.A. to use for drawdown eq
ft.
in. orifice area= 0.049 sq.ft.
ft.
ft. (1 yr storm x 0.33)
Ac. = 29620.8 sq.ft
Ac. = 23086.8 sq.ft
26353.8 sq.ft (average area between peak and nwe)
t (now)= 181259.74 seconds = 2.1 days Okay
r?
SIZE POND EMERGENCY DRAIN
Drain pond within 24 hours (86400 sec)
t= time to drawdown (sec)=
a= area of orifice (sq.ft.)=
A= area at NWE _
A= area at bottom =
A= S.A. to use for drawdown eq.=
g= gravity constant (fUs2)=
h= change in head (ft.)=
C= orifice coefficient=
2A x (sgrt(h))
a= Ct(sgrt(2g)) a=
diameter of orifice, d= 5.46 in.
86,400 (1day)
will solve
0.53 Ac. = 23086.8 sq.ft
0.30 Ac. = 13068 sq.ft
18077.4 sq.ft (average area between bottom and nwe)
32.2
3.5
0.6
0.163 sq.ft.
(pond depth x 0.33)
Use min. d= 8.0 in. orifice area= 0.349 sq.ft. therefore,
t (now)= 40264.16 seconds = 11.2 hours
a?
x

NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual Chapter Revised 09-28-
Table 10-1 i
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achietve 85 I? roent TSS
Pollutant Removal Efficiencvin Hip A/101177 fail? mid P1PfiMn17f RPOionq Arlania ifinm TiricrnTl IC)RF)
Percent
lmperviou.s
Cover

3.0

4.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ft)

5,0 6.0 7.0

8.0

9.0
t
0 0.59 0.49 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.26
0 % 0.97 0.79 0.70 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.44
30 % 1.34 1.08 0.97 0.83 0.70 0.64 0.62
40% 1.73 1.43 1.25 1.05 0.90 0.82 0.77
50% 2:06 _._,.1.73 1.50 1.30 1.09 1.00 0.92
60 %
--- 2:40__. . ...... ....... -2..03 1.71 1.51 1.29 1.18 1.10
70% 2.88 2.40 2.07 1.79 1.54 1.35 1.26
80% 3.36 2.78 2.38 2.10 1.86 .1.60 1.42
90% 3.74 3,10 2.66 2.34 2.11 1.83 1.67
Table.10-2
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to AchieveCp?cenf TSS
Pollutant Removal Ffficiprievin flip (-'nnGlnl RPOinn A(ipntarl Frnm llr;cr' 3 IQR4
Percent
Impervious
Cover

3.0

3.5

4.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ft)

4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5'
10% 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
20% 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 1:0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
30% 2.5 22 1.9 1.8 1:6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 019
40% 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0
50% 4.2 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3
60% 5.0 4.5 3.8 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.6
70% 6.0 5.2 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.3a 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8
80% 6.8 6.0 5.2 47 4.2 3.7 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.0
90% 7.5 6.5 5.8 5.3 4:8 4.3 3.8 3.3 2.8 1.3
100% 8.2 7.4 6.8 6.2 5:6 5.0 4.4 3,8 3.2 2.6
Table 10-3 , ---
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permaneht Pool Sizing to Achi ve 90 ercent TSS
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Mowfain and P4eitiiioiit Regioi2s Ada?te om Driscoll, 1986
Percent
Innpervious
Cover

3.0

3.5

4.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ft)
-
4. 5 0 ` 5:5 6.0 6.5 7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0
10% 0.9 0.8 .0.8 0, 8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
20% 1.5 1,3 1':1 1:0. 1:0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7
30% 1.9 1..8 1:9
+ 1.5. 1:4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
° 2.5 2.3 20 1:9 1.T 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1..1
50° _ ?,.Oa? 1.9 1.9 1:8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5
°. 3,5 3.2 2.8 2. 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7
70 %'' 4:0 3.7 3.3 3,1 2 8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9
80% 4.5 4.1 3.8 315 33 3.0 218 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0
90% 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4
Wet Detention Basin 7.0 9 July 2007
?13
?!? illt,4119V

ti
Project Name: CRATE & BARREL
Project No.: LINCOLN COUNTY
POND #2 I PHASE I
DETERMINE SURFACE AREA (S.A.) FOR 90% TSS REMOVAL
Drainage area= 18 Ac.
% Impervious= 70
Pond depth= 5 ft.
SA/DA= 2.8%
S.A. required= 0.50 Ac.
S.A. provided= 0.62 Ac. 27000 SF
DETERMINE VOLUME TO BE CONTROLLED BY 1" STORM
0.620 AT NPWSEL 843.0
Rv= 0.05 + 0.009(% impervious)
0.68 in/in
Volume req'd=1" x Rv x 1/12 (ft/in) x Drainage area
1.02 Ac-ft = 44431.2 cuft
DRAWDOWN STORM IN 2-5 DAYS (ESTIMATE AN ORIFICE SIZE FOR WQ - CHECK TO FOLLOW)
A= pond s.a. (sq.ft.)= 27000.00 0.62 ac. L O [NU !/
g= gravity constant (ft/s2)= 32.2 E V L9
D
h= change in head (ft.)= 1.65 (vol/s.a.) FEB 2 4 2009
C= orifice coefficient= 0.6
2A x (sgrt(h))
t= Ca(sgrt(2g))
t= time to drawdown (sec)= 259,200 (3days)
a= area of orifice (sq ft )= will solve
0.056 sq.ft.
DENT; • WAFER WAU>Y
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
TRY d= 3.0 in. orifice area= 0.049 sq.ft. therefore,
t (now)= 293232.46 seconds = 3.4 days
DRAWDOWN STORM IN 2-5 DAYS (CHECK ORIFICE SIZE USED IN OUTLET STRUCTURE)
2A x (sqrt(h))
a= Ct(sgrt(2g)) a=
diameter of orifice, d= 3.19 in.
NPWSEL = 843.0
d Used = 3.0
Peak elev. = 845.0
change in head = 0.7
S.A. at peak el = 0.80
S.A. at NWE = 0.62
S.A. to use for drawdown eq.=
ft.
in. orifice area= 0.049 sq.ft.
ft.
ft. (1yr storm x 0.33)
Ac. = 34978.68 sq.ft
Ac. = 27007.2 sq.ft
30992.94 sq.ft (average area between peak and nwe)
t (now)= 213167.45 seconds = 2.5 days
0+111eto,ft
e?.a 9? vl CAP'o
Sty
L
h
h
? h
Okay
c
r
43
SIZE POND EMERGENCY DRAIN
Drain pond within 24 hours (86400 sec)
t= time to drawdown (sec)= 86,400 (1day)
a= area of orifice (sq.ft.)= will solve
A= area at NWE = 0.62 Ac. = 27007.2 sq.ft
A= area at bottom = 0.36 Ac. = 15681.6 sq.ft
A= S.A. to use for drawdown eq.= 21344.4 sq.ft (average area between bottom and nwe)
g= gravity constant (ft/s2)= 32.2
h= change in head (ft.)= 3.5 (pond depth x 0.33)
C= orifice coefficient= 0.6
2A x (sgrt(h))
a= Ct(sgrt(2g)) a= 0.192 sq.ft.
diameter of orifice, d= 5.93 in.
Use min. d= 8.0 in.
orifice area= 0.349 sq.ft. therefore,
t (now)= 47540.82 seconds = 13.2 hours
i
E
e cent
impervious
Coven

( 3.0

4.0 Per amens Pool Average De-o&, (ft)

5.G 6.0 7.0

8.0

9..0
1.0011
0.59
0.49
6.43
0.35
031
029
026
20% I 0.971 0.79 0.70 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.44
30 % ! 1..34 1.08 0.97 0.83 0.70 0.64 0.62
40 % 1.73 1.43 1.25 1.05 0.90 0.82 0.77
50 % 106 _ .1..73 1.50 1.30 1.09 1.00 0.92
60W,

?_.
2.49_-..
.....---2.03
1.71 1.51 .20
1.18
1.10
70 % 2.88 140 2.07 1.79 1.54 1.35 1.26
80% 3.36 2.78 238 2.10 1.86 .L60 1.42
900,
3.74
3.10
2.66
2.34
111
1.83
1.67
Table.10-2 ?-`-..
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ra.lao for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achievk PPrcent TSS
Pollutant- RP-m VAI FFfir;o„?? ;,+?,o r TJ,,,,4,,,., n„ ti;, 9ooc
C
Percent
1-1-0-pervious
Cover

3.0

3.5

4.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ft)

4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5'
10%. 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0. 0 0 0 0
20 % 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 140 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0:5
30% 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.8 146 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9
40% 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0
50% 4.2 3.7 33 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3
60 % 5.0 4.5 3.8 0.5 3
2
2_9
2.6
2.3
2.0
i.6
70% 6,0 5.2 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.3. 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8
L
80% 6.8 6.0 5.2 4.7 4.2 3.7 3.2 2.7 22 2.0
90% 7.5 6.5 5.8 5.3 4:8 4.3 3.8 3.3 2.8 1.3
100% 8.2 7.4 6,8 6.2 5:6 5.0 4.4 1,8 32 2.6
Table 10-3
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Perrnane:nt Pool Sizing to A ve 9 rceizt TSS
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Moiiiitdv tiiiil PiMiiioizt Regions Aciap Driscoll, 1986
Percent
Impervious
Cover

3.0

3.5 4.0 Permanent Pool.Average Depth (ft)

4:5. 5 0 ' 'S:5 6.0 6.5 7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0
10% 0.9 0.8 0.8 0<7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0 0.4
20% 1.5 1.3 1i 2:0. 1':0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 07
30%
40% 1.9
2 1..8 i,7 1. 1:4 1.4 1.3 1:1 1.0 1.0 1,0 0.9 0.9
.5 2.3 20 179 1:8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
500,
_
- 3-01.9
1.9
1:8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
° 3w5 3.2 8 2:7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 L7
70° 4.0 3.7 3.3 3: L8:: 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 11 2.0 2.0 1.9
i°
900/ 4.5

5.0 4.1 3.8

4.5 4.0 3:51

3:8 3 3.0

3.5 33 2:8

3.0 2.7

2.9 2.6

18 2.4

2.7 23

2.6 2.1

2.5 10

24
VJet Deieirtio.n Basin
NCDEENR Stormwater T3NL- Manual CizaPte Revised
09-_ -
Table 10-1-.
I
Su face Area to Drainage Area Ratio fo 1 ermanent Pool Sizing to Ague, E 8 1?> scent TSS .?(/?
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the 10.01171fcti7-L and ried772071: Reg-ioi,,s Adaptec!?TLou/lDriscoIl. 1-986 '10-9

Tuh= 2007
a ?

?_ %,
F.
ti •

Project Name: CRATE & BARREL
Project No.: LINCOLN COUNTY
POND #3 t PHASE II
DETERMINE SURFACE AREA (S.A.) FOR 90% TSS REMOVAL
Drainage area=
% Impervious=
Pond depth=
SA/DA=
S.A. required=
S.A. provided=
16 Ac.
60
5 ft.
2.5%
0.40 Ac.
0.46 Ac. 20000 SF
DETERMINE VOLUME TO BE CONTROLLED BY 1" STORM
,,??1b1911PP!!!e,
CAPO
. @0 ?q
SEAL
15722
"""90 UR S.
??!!! P l l l l l l1 ? l/?
0.459 AT NPWSEL 846.0
Rv= 0.05 + 0.009(% impervious)
0.59 in/in
Volume req'd=1" x Rv x 1/12 (ft/in) x Drainage area
= 0.79 Ac-ft = 34267.2 cuft
DRAWDOWN STORM IN 2-5 DAYS (ESTIMATE AN ORIFICE SIZE FOR WO - CHECK TO FOLLOW)
2A x (sqrt(h))
t= Ca(sgrt(2g))
t= time to drawdown (sec)=
a= area of orifice (sq.ft.)=
A= pond s.a. (sq.ft.)=
g= gravity constant (ft/s2)=
h= change in head (ft.)=
C= orifice coefficient=
2A x (sqrt(h))
a= Ct(sgrt(2g)) a=
diameter of orifice, d= 2.77 in.
TRY d= 3.0 in.
259,200 (3days)
will solve
20000.00 0.46 ac.
32.2
1.71 (vol/s.a.)
0.6
0.042 sq.ft.
R r?@ L- ME
FEB 2 4 2009
ftAiEkf iUALf+Y
WETLANDS AND STORIAWATER BRANCH
orifice area= 0.049 sq.ft. therefore,
t (now)= 221636.07 seconds = 2.6 days
DRAWDOWN STORM IN 2-5 DAYS (CHECK ORIFICE SIZE USED IN OUTLET STRUCTURE)
NPWSEL = 846.0 ft.
d Used = 3.0 in. orifice area= 0.049 sq.ft.
Peak elev. = 848.0 ft.
change in head = 0.7 ft. ( 1 yr storm x 0.33)
S.A. at peak el = 0.60 Ac. = 26136 sq.ft
S.A. at NWE = 0.46 Ac. = 20037.6 sq.ft
S.A. to use for drawdown eq.= 23086.8 sq.ft (average area between peak and nwe)
t (now)= 158789.52 seconds = 1.8 days okay
,.
., ?s

SIZE POND EMERGENCY DRAIN
Drain pond within 24 hours (86400 sec)
t= time to drawdown (sec)=
a= area of orifice (sq.ft.)=
A= area at NWE _
A= area at bottom =
A= S.A. to use for drawdown eq.=
g= gravity constant (ft/s2)=
h= change in head (ft.)=
C= orifice coefficient=
2A x (sqrt(h))
a= Ct(sgrt(2g)) a=
diameter of orifice, d= 5.01 in.
Use min. d= 8.0 in.
86,400 (1day)
will solve
0.46 Ac. = 20037.6 sq.ft
0.27 Ac. = 11761.2 sq.ft
15899.4 sq.ft (average area between bottom and nwe)
32.2
3.2
0.6
0.137 sq.ft.
(pond depth x 0.7)
orifice area= 0.349 sq.ft. therefore,
t (now)= 33861.36 seconds = 9.4 hours
Y
I
NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual Chapter Revised 09-28-0
Table 10-1 ....
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to AchiI4 85 ),cent TSS
Pollutant Removal Rffirianrv;,, flip A l--i,,;,, .-I P, 1,,, .,a T7 n a _t J r
c
80%
Table 10-2
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achieved 5 P cent TSS
Pollutant RnrnnVal FFFi ;o, ,, ; , .F1,,, ('...,..1..t n _.._ A -3---, - ?
Percent
Impervious
Cover

3.0

4.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ft)

5.0 6.0 7.0

8.0

9.0
10% 0.59 0.49 0.43 0.35 0.31. 0.29 0.26
20% 0.97 0.79 0.70 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.44
30% 1.34 1.08 0.97 0.83 0.70 0.64 0.62
40% 1.73 1..43 1.25 1.05 0.90 0.82 0.77
50% 2:06 1.73 1.50 1.30 1.09 1.00 0.92
60 % 2.40_...... 2.03 1.71 1.51 1.2.9 1.18 1.10
70% 2.88 2.40 2.07 1.79 1.54 1.35 1.26
3.36 2.78 2.38 2.10 1.86 .1.60
1.42
90 % 3.74 3.10 2.66 2.34 2.11 1.83 1.67
Percent
Impervious
Cover

3.0

3.5

4.0 Permanennt Pool Average Depth (ft)

4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5'
10% 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
20% 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
30% 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.8 1:6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9
40% 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0
50% 4.2 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3
60% 5.0 4.5 3.8 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.6
70% 6.0 5.2 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.3a 19 2.5 2.1 1,8
80% 6.8 6.0 5.2 4.7 4.2 3.7 12 2.7 2.2 2.0
90% 7.5 6.5 5.8 5.3 4:8 4.3 3.8 3.3 2.8 1.3
1 00 % 8.2 7.4 6.8 6.2 5.6 5.0 4.4 3,8 3.2 2.6
Percent
Impervious
Cover

3.0

3.5

• 4.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ft)

4.5 5:0 015.5 6,0
6.5 7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0
10% 0.9 0.8 0.8 07 :6 0.6. --
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
20% 1.5 1.3 1.1 1:0, 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7
30% 1.9 1.8 1.:7 7.,5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
40% 2.5 2.3 2.0 19 1,8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1..1
2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1
5 5
1
60°
0°/- 3.5
40 3,2
3
7 2.8
3.3Y 2:7
" 14 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 .
1.8 .
1.7
. 3.
l 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9
800/. 4.5 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 10
90% 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4
Table 10-3
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ra do for Permanent Pool Sizing to Ac r ve 90 rcent TSS
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Nlour tain rind PieitntonE Regions, Adapt m Driscoll, 1986
Wet Detention Basin t0-9
July 2007
U3 ' ,
.`.
;,;;
a`
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Drainage Area Number:
Wet Detention Basin Operation and Maintenance Agree nt
I 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 operation 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: Potential problem: How I will remediate the problem:
The entire BMP Trash/debris is resent. Remove the trash/ debris.
The perimeter of the wet Areas of bare soil and/or Regrade the soil if necessary to
detention basin erosive gullies have formed. 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. approximately six inches.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev.3 Page 1 of 4

Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Drainage Area Number:
BMP element: Potential problem: How I will remediate the problem:
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.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev. 3 Page 2 of 4
't

Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Drainage Area Number:
BMP element: Potential problem: How I will rernediate the problem:
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 feet in the main pond, the
sediment shall be removed.
When the permanent pool depth reads feet in the forebay, the sediment
shall be removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
(fill in the blanks)
Permanent Pool Elevation 643.v
Sediment Removal
Bottom
rc uianeu
--- - Volume
-ft Min.
Sediment
Storage
FOREBAY
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev. 3
Pool
Sediment Removal Elevation U36'0 Volume
------------------------------------------- ------
Bottom Elevation ? 54 1-ft 1f
MAIN POND
Page 3 of 4
Storage

Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
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.
Project name: Crate & Barrel Distribution Center Lincoln County
BMP drainage area number:Drainage Area #3 / Pond #3
Print name:Ken Bueley
Title: Authorized Member
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.
I /,/Y L Q er" z
a Notary Public for the State of
/I?orf/ 4r# An oL , County of AVG 14 l en As, raj, do hereby certify that
An,o 7e k' i6e Lt I-e-y personally appeared before me this 6
day of K tt.S T /? , and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing wet detention basin maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official
seal,
\`\\\\\\\?\?P gl I C/?
Notary Public
Gaston County
My Commission expires:
07/08/2012 Q'
20? ?
cp"RO
??llll111MO
r4, 06
C"01141
SEAL
My commission expires 7A/9 0/
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev. 3
Page 4 of 4
Address-5935 Carnegie Blvd. Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28209

,,,??98rtttJJJ?o?
VA CA
Mansour Edlin Consulting ?, ` •, =
1515 Mockingbird Ln. Suite 802 8
E-AL /
75782 Z
Charlotte, NC 28209'• r?
Project: Crate & Barrel / Lincoln County ;'?? o •E©?y.?'?
??Jf7?J11111?f=?
The Hydroflow program was utilized to compute pre & post development runoff and
routing of post development through each pond.
Please note that storm water detention is NOT required for this site
Pond #1:
Event Pre Post Routed Elevation
1 Yr. 3.6 39.6 1.5 845.5
2 Yr. 7.3 52.3 3.2 845.9
10 Yr. 23.1 93.0 15.9 847.2
25 Yr. 29.4 107.0 27.1 847.7
50 Yr. 43.3 135.3 54.5 848.4
100 Yr. 46.3 141.0 58.9 848.5
Normal pool: 843.0
EMG. Spillway: 847.0
Pond #2:
Water quality orifice: 845.0
Top of dam: 850.0
Event Pre Post Routed Elevation
1 Yr. 2.7 49.0 1.5 845.2
2 Yr. 5.5 60.8 2.8 845.6
10 Yr. 17.3 96.3 7.7 846.7
25 Yr. 22.0 108.2 9.8 847.1
50 Yr. 32.5 131.7 22.8 847.7
100 Yr. 34.7 136.4 26.4 847.9
Normal pool: 843.0
EMG. Spillway: 847.0
Pond #3:
Water quality orifice: 845.0
Top of dam: 850.0
Event Pre Post Routed Elevation
1 Yr. 3.0 36.6 1.2 848.9
2 Yr. 5.9 46.7 1.9 849.4
10 Yr. 18.5 77.9 7.0 850.5
25 Yr. 23.7 88.4 8.3 850.9
50 Yr. 35.0 109.5 18.6 851.6
100 Yr. 37.3 113.7 21.9 851.7
Normal pool: 847.0 Water quality orifice: 849.0
EMG. Spillway: 850.0 Top of dam: 853.0
1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN 1 PRE
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
= SCS Runoff
= 1 yrs
= 24.00 ac
= 5.0%
= LAG
= 3.00 in
= 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 3.63 cfs
Time interval = 5 min
Curve number = 60
Hydraulic length = 1200 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 28.5 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 29,948 cuft
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN 1 PRE
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 2 yrs
Drainage area = 24.00 ac
Basin Slope = 5.0%
Tc method = LAG
Total precip. = 3.50 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 7.30 cfs
Time interval = 5 min
Curve number = 60
Hydraulic length = 1200 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 28.5 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 47,746 cuft
1 - SCS Runoff - 2 Yr - Qp = 7.30 cfs
N
V
).
U.U 1.5 b.U 1.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN 1 PRE
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
SCS Runoff
10 yrs
24.00 ac
5.0%
LAG
5.00 in
24 hrs
Peak discharge = 23.11 cfs
Time interval = 5 min
Curve number = 60
Hydraulic length = 1200 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 28.5 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 116,892 cuft
a
1 - SCS Runoff - 10 Yr - Qp = 23.11 cfs
U.U 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN 1 PRE
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 25 yrs
Drainage area = 24.00 ac
Basin Slope = 5.0%
Tc method = LAG
Total precip. = 5.50 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 29.42 cfs
Time interval = 5 min
Curve number = 60
Hydraulic length = 1200 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 28.5 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 143,978 cuft
1 - SCS Runoff - 25 Yr - Qp = 29.42 cfs
3
2
2
U
1
D =
u.u 2.4 4.b (.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN 1 PRE
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 50 yrs
Drainage area = 24.00 ac
Basin Slope = 5.0%
Tc method = LAG
Total precip. = 6.50 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 43.35 cfs
Time interval = 5 min
Curve number = 60
Hydraulic length = 1200 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 28.5 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 202,673 cult
4(
3(
Cl
2(
1(
1 - SCS Runoff - 50 Yr - Qp = 43.35 cfs
50
0.0 2.4 4.8
i
' II
? I
0
1.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN 1 PRE
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Drainage area = 24.00 ac
Basin Slope = 5.0 %
Tc method = LAG
Total precip. = 6.70 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 46.32 cfs
Time interval = 5 min
Curve number = 60
Hydraulic length = 1200 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 28.5 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 215,033 cuft
1 - SCS Runoff - 100 Yr - Qp = 46.32 cfs
c?
0.0 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN #1 POST
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Drainage area = 24.00 ac
Basin Slope = 3.0%
Tc method = USER
Total precip. = 3.00 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 39.57 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Curve number = 80
Hydraulic length = 1500 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 108,900 cuft
1 - SCS Runoff - 1 Yr - Qp = 39.57 cfs
c?
0.0 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by InteRsolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN #1 POST
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
= SCS Runoff
= 2 yrs
= 24.00 ac
= 3.0%
= USER
= 3.50 in
= 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 52.34 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Curve number = 80
Hydraulic length = 1500 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 142,560 cuft
1 - SCS Runoff - 2 Yr - Qp = 52.34 cfs
o?
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
0.0 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN #1 POST
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
SCS Runoff
10 yrs
24.00 ac
3.0%
USER
5.00 in
24 hrs
Peak discharge = 93.03 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Curve number = 80
Hydraulic length = 1500 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 252,026 cuft
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intefisoive
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN #1 POST
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 25 yrs
Drainage area = 24.00 ac
Basin Slope = 3.0%
Tc method = USER
Total precip. = 5.50 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 107.02 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Curve number = 80
Hydraulic length = 1500 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 290,400 cuft
150
10
V
5
1 - SCS Runoff - 25 Yr - Qp = 107.02 cfs
0.0 2.4 4.8 7.2
? i? II II
0
i
0
9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs) _
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BASIN #1 POST
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
= SCS Runoff
= 50 yrs
= 24.00 ac
= 3.0%
= USER
= 6.50 in
= 24 hrs
Peak discharge = 135.31 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Curve number = 80
Hydraulic length = 1500 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 368,979 cuft
1 - SCS Runoff - 50 Yr - Qp = 135.31 cfs
150
10(
0
5(
0.0 2.4 4.8 7.2
I
I
i
i
I I
0
9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
BAS IN #1 POST
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Basin Slope
Tc method
Total precip.
Storm duration
SCS Runoff
100 yrs
24.00 ac
3.0%
USER
6.70 in
24 hrs
Peak discharge = 141.00 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Curve number = 80
Hydraulic length = 1500 ft
Time of conc. (Tc) = 10 min
Distribution = Type II
Shape factor = 484
Hydrograph Volume = 384,930 cuft
10(
V
5(
1 - SCS Runoff - 100 Yr - Qp = 141.00 cfs
150
0.0 2.4 4.8 7.2
j
i
' II
0
9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1
Hydrograph Summary Report
Page 1
yd. Hydrograph
- No. type
(origin) Peak
j flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Volume

(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Maximum
storage
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 SCS Runoff 39.57 3 720 108,900 ---- ------ ------ BASIN #1 POST
2
i

?
-- i Reservoir

I 1.46

i

I

j 3

I 921 91,813 1

i 845.50 69,926

i Pond #1 Routed

I
I
Proj. file: BASIN 1 ROUT 01282009t.barn Period: 1 yr I
Run date: 02-03-2009
_ Hydraflow Hydroqraphs by Intelisolve
Hydrograph Summary Report
Page 1
yd.
-No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Volume

(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Maximum
storage
(cuft) Hydrograph
description

1 i
SCS Runoff
52.34
3
720
142,560
----
------
------
BASIN #1 POST
2
?

I

i

I Reservoir

I 3.17 3 810

i

! 125,108

i

i 1
I 845.85

I 80,939

I Pond #1 Routed
Proj. file: BASIN 1 ROUT 01282, Own Period: 2 yr Run date: 02-03-2009
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hydrograph Summary Report
Page 1
yd.
No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) l Peak
; flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Volume

(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Maximum
storage
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 SCS Runoff 93.03 3 720 252,026 ---- ------ ------ BASIN #1 POST
2
I

I

I Reservoir 12.31

I

I 3

I 750 233,917

j
'

i 1

I 847.35

? 130,710

i

i

i Pond #1 Routed
Proj. file: BASIN 1 ROUT 01282109?9"n Period: 10 yr I Run date: 02-03-2009
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive
Hydrograph Summary Report
Page 1
;yd.
- No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Volume

(cult) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Maximum
storage
(cuft) Hydrograph
description

1
SCS Runoff
107.02
3
720
290,400 I
----
------
------
BASIN #1 POST
2

I

i Reservoir

i

?

' 22.21

I

i

I 3

i

i

I 738
I
i
i
i
I

I

I 272,147

i 1

I

I

I 847.76

I

I

I 145,008 Pond #1 Routed
Proj. file: BASIN 1 ROUT 01282 Darn Period: 25 yr Run date: 02-03-2009
vdraf ow Hvdrooraohs by Inteiisolve
Hydrograph Summary Report
Page 1

;yd.
-No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume

(cuft)
Inflow
hyd(s) i
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(cuft)
Hydrograph
description
1 SCS Runoff 135.31 3 720 368,979 ---- ------ ------ BASIN #1 POST
2

i

i
i Reservoir 52.84 3

i 732 350,488 1

i 848.46 170,438 Pond #1 Routed
i
i

?
Proj. file: BASIN 1 ROUT 01282009R#wn Period: 50 yr Run date: 02-03-2009
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisoive
Hydrograph Summary Report
Page 1
,yd.
-'No. Hydrograph
type
(origin) Peak
flow
(cfs) Time
interval
(min) Time to
peak
(min) Volume

(cuft) Inflow
hyd(s) Maximum
elevation
(ft) Maximum
storage
(cuft) Hydrograph
description
1 SCS Runoff 141.00 3 720 384,930 ---- ------ ------ BASIN #1 POST
2
i
I

i Reservoir

I 58.36

I

I
i

I
I
i 3

?
I

I

I

i

i 732

I 366,398 1

I 848.58

i 174,995

I

I Pond #1 Routed

I

I

'

I

Proj. file: BASIN 1 ROUT 01282Q09R@#rn Period: 100 yr Run date: 02-03-2009
Hvdraflow Hvdrooraohs by Intelisolve
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.46 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 3 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Elevation = 845.50 ft Max. Storage = 69,926 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 91,813 tuft
2 - Reservoir - 1 Yr - Qp = 1.46 cfs
4
3
42
v 2
Cl
1
Dl
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
U.U 7.2 14.4 21.6 28.8 36.0 43.2 50.4 57.6 64.8 72.0
Time (hrs)
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.17 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 3 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Elevation = 845.85 ft Max. Storage = 80,939 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 125,108 cuft
2 - Reservoir - 2 Yr - Qp = 3.17 cfs
60
j 50
40
4..
30
C
20
10
0
0.0 7.2 14.4 21.6 28.8 36.0 43.2 50.4 57.6 64.8 72.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inteiisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Inflow hyd. No. = 1
Max. Elevation = 847.24 ft
Storage Indication method used.
Peak discharge
Time interval
Reservoir name
Max. Storage
= 15.86 cfs
= 3 min
= POND #1
= 126,925 cuft
Hydrograph Volume = 233,923 cuft
2 - Reservoir - 10 Yr - Qp = 15.86 cfs
100
80
? 60
Cl
40
20
0
0.0 7.2 14.4 21.6 28.8 36.0 43.2 56.4 5i.6 64.8 72.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 27.16 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 3 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Elevation = 847.65 ft Max. Storage = 141,103 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 272,153 cuft
2 - Reservoir - 25 Yr - Qp = 27.16 cfs
150-
100-
a
U
C1
50
i
0
0.0 7.2 14.4 21'.6 26.8 36.0 43.2 50.4 57.6 64.8 72.O
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
I
Hydrograph Plot
HydraFlow Hydrographs by Intelisoive
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 54.54 cfs
Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time interval = 3 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Elevation = 848.35 ft Max. Storage = 166,632 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 350,494 cuft
2 - Reservoir - 50 Yr - Qp = 54.54 cfs
150
I
100
CI
50
I
0
0.0 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.0 22.5 27.0 31.5 36.0 40.5 45.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Inflow hyd. No.
Max. Elevation
= Reservoir
= 100 yrs
= 1
= 848.49 ft
Peak discharge
Time interval
Reservoir name
Max. Storage
= 58.95 cfs
= 3 min
= POND #1
= 171,565 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 366,405 cult
2 - Reservoir - 100 Yr - Qp = 58.95 cfs
150
10
C1
5
1 1
15.6 19.5 23.4 27.3 31.2 35.1 39.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
I
I
0
0
0
0.0 3.9 7.8 11.7
Reservoir Report
Page 1
Reservoir No. 1 - POND #1 Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
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)
0.00 843.00 23,000 0 0
1.00 844.00 28,000 25,500 25,500
2.00 845.00 30,000 29,000 54,500
3.00 846.00 32,000 31,000 85,500
4.00 847.00 34,000 33,000 118,500
5.00 848.00 36,000 35,000 153,500
6.00 849.00 38,000 37,000 190,500
7.00 850.00 40,000 39,000 229,500
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise in = 36.0 3.0 15.0 0.0 Crest Len ft = 6.00 10.00 0.00 0.00
Span in = 36.0 3.0 15.0 0.0 Crest El. ft = 846.70 848.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 1 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.30 3.33 3.33
Invert El. ft = 843.00 843.00 845.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect Broad --- ---
Length ft = 100.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Multi-Stage = Yes Yes No No
Slope % = 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 013 .013 .013
Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a Yes Yes No Exfiltration Ra te = 0.00 in/hr/sqft Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 ft
- Note: All outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control.
Stage /Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D ExfiI Total
ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00 0 843.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- 0.00
1.00 25,500 844.00 0.23 0.22 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- --- 0.22
2.00 54,500 845.00 0.33 0.32 0.00 --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- 0.32
3.00 85,500 846.00 4.09 0.36 3.58 --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- 3.94
4.00 118,500 847.00 10.75 0.39 6.93 --- 3.28 0.00 --- --- --- 10.60
5.00 153,500 848.00 38.78 0.35 8.81 --- 29.61 0.00 --- --- --- 38.78
6.00 190,500 849.00 69.11 0.14 3.62 --- 39.91 25.42 --- --- - 69.10
7.00 229,500 850.00 78.90 0.08 2.08 --- 39.50 37.23 -- --- --- 78.90
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Inflow hyd. No. = 1
Max. Elevation = 845.50 ft
Peak discharge
Time interval
Reservoir name
Max. Storage
= 1.46 cfs
= 3 min
= POND #1
= 69,926 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 91,813 cuft
2 - Reservoir - 1 Yr - Qp = 1.46 cfs
40
4
Cl
36.0 43.2 50.4 57.6 64.8 72.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2

30 i
?
20

10 i
0

0.0 7.2 14.4 21.6 28 .8
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.17 cfs
Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 3 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Elevation = 845.85 ft Max. Storage = 80,939 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 125,108 cuft
2 - Reservoir - 2 Yr - Qp = 3.17 cfs
60
50
40
402
V 30
CY
20
10
0
0.0 7.2 14.4 21.6 28.8 36.0 43.2 50.4 57.6 64.8 72.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Inflow hyd. No. = 1
Max. Elevation = 847.35 ft
Peak discharge = 12.31 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Storage = 130,710 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 233,917 cuft
100
8(
6(
Y
CI
4(
2(
0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
2 - Reservoir - 10 Yr - Qp = 12.31 cfs
I
I

I I
I
i
).0 7.2 14 .421.628 .836.043 .250 .457.664 A79
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 22.21 cfs
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time interval = 3 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Elevation = 847.76 ft Max. Storage = 145,008 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrograph Volume = 272,147 tuft
2 - Reservoir - 25 Yr - Qp = 22.21 cfs
150
100
rn
Cl
50
i
I
0
ILI - ---- --
0.0 7.2 14.4 21.6 28.8 36.0 4i2 56.4 57.6 64.8 72.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 50 yrs
Inflow hyd. No. = 1
Max. Elevation = 848.46 ft
Peak discharge
Time interval
Reservoir name
Max. Storage
= 52.84 cfs
= 3 min
= POND #1
= 170,438 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 350,488 cuft
2 - Reservoir - 50 Yr - Qp = 52.84 cfs
150
i
100
402
U
Cl
50
0
0.0 4.8 9.6 14.4 19.2 24.0 28.8 3i16 38'.4 431.2 481.0
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 2
Pond #1 Routed
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Inflow hyd. No. = 1
Max. Elevation = 848.58 ft
Peak discharge = 58.36 cfs
Time interval = 3 min
Reservoir name = POND #1
Max. Storage = 174,995 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Hydrograph Volume = 366,398 cuft
150
10(
v
CI
5(
C
2 - Reservoir - 100 Yr - Qp = 58.36 cfs
I

I
0 4

8

12 1

6 2

0 2

4 2

8 3 i

2 3

6 41
Time (hrs)
/ Hyd. 1 / Hyd. 2
y M `
Re: Crate & Barrel Distribution Center
Lincoln County
Velocity & Rip Rap Apron Data at the Outlet
4*0
ass ?1?<.[.....,••t/
O, ? •••L'?.yf L.?F?ft! ' i?7
?r
f •
!!1000 // •
p
OUW S`??%%

Pond # 1: 36" RCP Outh
Q1: 1,5 cfs
Q2: 3.2 cfs
Q10: 15.9 cfs
Rip rap apron required:
Rip rap apron provided:
?t: Qfull = 102 cfs velocity = 14 fps
Velocity V / V full = 0.2 2.8 fps
Velocity: V / V full = 0.3 4.2 fps
Velocity: V / V full = 0.5 7.0 fps
18'Lx10.2'Wx18"class )
30' L x 12' W x 18" class
Pond # 2: 36" RCP Outlet
Q1: 1.5 cfs Velocity: V / V full = 0.2 2.8 fps
Q2: 2.8 cfs Velocity: V / V full = 0.3 4.2 fps
010: 7.7 cfs Velocity: V / V full = 0.4 5.6 fps
Rip rap apron required: 18' L x 10.2'W x 18" class I
Rip rap apron provided: 30' L x 12'W x 18" class
Pond # 3: 36" RCP Outlet:
Q 1: 1.2 cfs
Q2: 1.9 cfs
Q10: 7.0 cfs
Velocity: V / V full = 0.2 2.8 fps
Velocity: V / V full = 0.3 4.2 fps
Velocity: V / V full = 0.4 5.6 fps
Rip rap apron required: 18' L x 10.2'W x 18" class I tI7 ??!Rip rap apron provided: 30' L x 15'W x 18" class I 2 41n9
DENR yyp1 EK UU t iwtq"
1

J
II i D Pue Ijn, ? sluawala OilnejpAy
/? 9 (J? [*? v 1 ? 0 Z 0 C 0
a•n R,0 /'n q"0

t
i

i .' ?? !S

/
'
l ' ?11D0?6n '. .

i

i

u 516uiuuei,q

?- _
' Jue?suoo u ----------
- I yjdaq glin n alge»en
------------------------
t - - - -
0

0
OF

Q
7' 0
E
'v
a
e
0
a
3,0 20
L'0
TO
6'0

tlnf u r x°1

A&
NCDENR
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part 111) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
O=?F. WATf?OG
d
!. PROJECT ]AFB RMATION
Project name L,Ec_ E & BARRELL
Contact person MANSOUR EDLIN CONSULTING
Phone number 704 6721560
Date 1/2012009
Drainage area number DRAINAGE AREA 1 / POND #1
ll. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 1 'A',440.00 fe
Impervious area 522,720.00 fe
% impervious 50.00 %
Design rainfall depth 1.00 in
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters
Minimum volume required 43,560.00 ft3
Volume provided 54,500,00 ft3
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth m in
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff - ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required ft3
Volume provided ft3
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth in
Rational C, pre-development (unitless)
Rational C, post-development (unitless)
Rainfall intensity:)-yr, 24-hr storm in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow Wlsec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow ft3/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control ft3/sec
Basin Elevations
Basin bottom elevation 837.00 ft
Sediment cleanout elevation 838,00 - ft
Bottom of shelf elevation 843.00 ft
Permanent pool elevation 843.00 ft
SHWT elevation 830.00 ft
Top of shelf elevation 844.00 ft
Temporary pool elevation 845.00 ft
Forth SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4 Parts I & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
t_
r Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Volume and Surface Area Calculations
SA/DA ratio 2.0h (unitless)
Surface area at the bottom of shelf 23,000.00 ft2
Volume at the bottom of shelf 90,000.00 ft3
Permanent pool, surface area required 20.900.00 ft
Permanent pool, surface area provided 23,000.00 ft2 OK
Permanent pool volume 90,000.00 ft3
Average depth for SA/DA tables 3.91 It OK
Surface area at the top of shelf 28.000.00 fe
Volume at the top of shelf 29,000.00 ft3
Forebay volume 17,300.00 ft3
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 19.22 % OK
Temporary pool, surface area provided 30,000.00 fe
Drawdown Calculations
Treatment volume drawdown time 3.10 days OK
Treatment volume discharge rate 1.00 ft3/s
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge 3.60 ff3/s OK
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge 1.50 ft3/s OK
Additional Information
Diameter of orifice 3 in
Design TSS removal 90 %
Basin side slopes 3.00 :1 OK
Vegetated shelf slope 10.00°- :1 OK
Vegetated shelf width 10.00 ft OK
Length of flowpath to width ratio 3.00 :1 OK
Length to width ratio 2.50 :1 OK
Trash rack for overflow & orifice? Y (Y or N) OK
Freeboard provided 1.00 ft OK
Vegetated filter provided? n (Y or N) Design must be based on 90% TSS removal
Recorded drainage easement provided? y (Y or N) OK
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out? Y (Y or N) OK
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies DRAIN WITH VALVE'
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2

Permit No
(to be provided by DWQ)
III. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
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.
ME '5 w,yAVD 2.o 1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
ME
NA
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Design at ultimate build-out,
5LvyrA? Z Off-site drainage (if applicable),
$ WM P 3. 1 Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Basin dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Overflow device, and
???? Z+? Boundaries of drainage easement.
lop
SWMP 3.0 2. Partial plan (1" =X 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 - S'tvW-0 L I 1. -L-
Filter strip.
NA 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.
SWMP 3.0 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.
SWMP 3.0 5. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebay,
to verify volume provided.
SWMP 3.0 6. A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
Attached 7. The supporting calculations.
Attached 8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
NA 9. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
ME Attached 10. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. County
soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4 Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1
., Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
NCDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part III) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
o??F w n rc??c
? -i
p
1. P T INFORMATION
Project name CRA7c'& BARRELL
Contact person MANSOUR EDLIN CONSULTING
Phone number 704 6721560
Date 1/2012009
Drainage area number DRAINAGE AREA 2 / POND #2
IIIWINFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area '54,080.00 ft
Impervious area 548,856.00 ftz
% impervious 70.00 %
Design rainfall depth 1.00 in
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters
Minimum volume required 44,431.00 ft3
Volume provided 55,500.00 ft3
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Minimum volume required
Volume provided
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth
Rational C, pre-development
Rational C, post-development
Rainfall intensity: 1-yr, 24-hr storm
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control
Basin Elevations
Basin bottom elevation
Sediment cleanout elevation
Bottom of shelf elevation
Permanent pool elevation
SHWT elevation
Top of shelf elevation
Temporary pool elevation
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4
837.00
in
ft3
ft3
ft3
ft3
in
(unitless)
(unitless)
in/hr
ft3/sec
ft3/sec
ft3/sec
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
838.00
843.00
843.00
830.00
844.00
Mr) nn

Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
' • •? Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
11. DESIGN INFORMATION
Volume and Surface Area Calculations
SA/DA ratio 2.80 (unitless)
Surface area at the bottom of shelf 27,000 00 fe
Volume at the bottom of shelf 104,000.00 ft3
Permanent pool, surface area required 21,,780.00 e
Permanent pool, surface area provided 27,000.00 ftz OK
Permanent pool volume 104,000.00 ft3
Average depth for SA/DA tables 3.85 ft OK
Surface area at the top of shelf 33.000.00 ftz
Volume at the top of shelf 30.000.00 ft3
Forebay volume 20,400.00 ft3
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 19.62 % OK
Temporary pool, surface area provided 35,000,00 ft2
Drawdown Calculations
Treatment volume drawdown time
Treatment volume discharge rate
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Additional Information
Diameter of orifice
Design TSS removal
Basin side slopes
Vegetated shelf slope
Vegetated shelf width
Length of flowpath to width ratio
Length to width ratio
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?
Freeboard provided
Vegetated filter provided?
Recorded drainage easement provided?
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out?
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies
3.40 days OK
1.00 ft3/s
2.70 ft3/s OK
1.50 ft31s OK
3 in
90 %
3.00 :1 OK
10.00 :1 OK
10.00 ft OK
3.00 :1 OK
2.50 :1 OK
Y (Y or N) OK
1.00 ft OK
n (Y or N) Design must be based on 90% TSS removal
y (Y or N) OK
Y' (Y or N) OK
DRAIN WITH VALVE
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
III. mQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
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.
Page/ Plan
Initials Sheet No.
ME C w m n V
J 7
' 1. Plans (1" 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
,
? Design at ultimate build-out,
S ln1 V
1
(W U Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
_ Basin dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Overflow device, and

ME
?.' Boundaries of drainage easement.
2. Partial plan (1" = 39 -arger) and details for the wet detention basin showing:
S A r1 Outlet structure with trash rack or similar,
Maintenance access,
Permanent pool dimensions,
Forebay and main pond with hardened emergency spillway,
Basin cross-section, ,r L2
m
Vegetation specification for planting shelf, and 9W I
Filter strip.
NA NA 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.
ME SWMP 4.0 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.
ME SWMP 4.0 5. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebay,
to verify volume provided.
ME SWMP 4.0 6. A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
ME Attached 7. The supporting calculations.
ME Attached 8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
NA 9. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
ME Attached 10. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. County
soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4 Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1
v
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
WWWA
OF W ATER
NCQENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part 111) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name RAT ?s,?RELL
Contact person MAN50UR EDLIN CONSULTING
Phone number 7046721560
Date 112012009
Drainage area number DRAINAGE AREA 3 / POND #7
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 696,960.00 ftz
Impervious area 418,176:00 ft2
% impervious 60.00 %
Design rainfall depth 1.00'" in
Storage Volume: Non-SR Waters
Minimum volume required
Volume provided
Storage Volume: SR Waters
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff
Minimum volume required
Volume provided
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth
Rational C, pre-development
Rational C, post-development
Rainfall intensity: 1 -yr, 24-hr storm
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control
Basin Elevations
Basin bottom elevation
Sediment cleanout elevation
Bottom of shelf elevation
Permanent pool elevation
SHWT elevation
Top of shelf elevation
Temporary pool elevation
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4
34,267.00 ft3
48.000.00 ft3
in
ft3
ft3
ft3
ft3
in
(unitless)
(unitless)
in/hr
ft3lsec
ft3lsec
ft3lsec
840.00 ft
841.00 ft
846!00 ft
846.00 ft
830.00 ft
847.00 ft
848.00 ft
Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2

11

Permit
(to be provided by DWQ)
11. DESIGNINFORMATION
Volume and Surface Area Calculations
SA/DA ratio 2.50 (unitless)
Surface area at the bottom of shelf 20,000.00 ft2
Volume at the bottom of shelf 78,000.00 ft3
Permanent pool, surface area required 17,424`00 ftz
Permanent pool, surface area provided 20,000.00 e OK
Permanent pool volume 78,000.00 ft3
Average depth for SA/DA tables 3.90 ft OK
Surface area at the top of shelf 25,000.00 ftz
Volume at the top of shelf 25,500.00 ft3
Forebay volume 15,000.00 ft3
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 19.23 % OK
Temporary pool, surface area provided 26,000.00 ftz
Drawdown Calculations
Treatment volume drawdown time
Treatment volume discharge rate
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
Additional Information
Diameter of orifice
Design TSS removal
Basin side slopes
Vegetated shelf slope
Vegetated shelf width
Length of flowpath to width ratio
Length to width ratio
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?
Freeboard provided
Vegetated filter provided?
Recorded drainage easement provided?
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out?
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4
2.60 days OK
1.50 ft3/s
3.00 ft3/s OK
1.20 ft3/s OK
3 in
90 %
3:00 :1 OK
10.00 :1 OK
10.00 ft OK
3.00 :1 OK
2.50 :1 OK
Y (Y or N) OK
1.00 ft OK
N (Y or N) Design must be based on 90% TSS removal
y (Y or N) OK
Y (Y or N) OK
DRAIN WITH VALVE
Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2
Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
III. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
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.
ME 1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
n Design at ultimate build-out,
" 2' Z
5?,1j11 Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Basin dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
ME Sk/94 2 2 2. Partial plan (1" = 30' or larger) and details for the wet detention basin showing:
Outlet structure with trash rack or similar,
S Maintenance access,
Permanent pool dimensions,
Forebay and main pond with hardened emergency spillway,
Basin cross-section,
Vegetation specification for planting shelf, and
Filter strip.
NA NA 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.
ME SWMP 5.0 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.
ME SWMP 5.0 5. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes for overall pond and for forebay,
to verify volume provided.
ME SWMP 5.0 6. A construction sequence that shows how the wet detention basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
ME Attached 7. The supporting calculations.
ME Attached 8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
NA 9. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required).
ME Attached 10. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. County
soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.4 Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1
CRATE & BARREL / LINCOLN COUNTY
FLOTATION CALCULATIONS
PMPP IN
``,ureter a rrr?p`,o
`?? ?•?Ys CAR0?
•????S3tpA •, ? ?
e
e b5 ?' ? r
U?
Elev. @ Top of riser
Elev. @ Bot. of riser
H
Area of riser: 5.71x 5.7'
Volume of riser (cf)
Weight of water displaced (Ibs)
Upward force w/10% factor of safety (Ibs)
'Weight of concrete base: 8'x8'x 1.5'
Weight of riser (1500 lb/ft)
Weight of top slab (Ibs)
Total downward force (Ibs)
:BfS !:et
846.0
830.0
16.0
32.5
520.0
32448.0
35692.8
14400,0
24000.0
1600.0
40000.0
RISER #2
Elev. @ Top of riser 846.0.
Elev. @ Bot. of riser 835.0
H 11.0
Area of riser: 5.7'x 5.7' 32.5
Volume of riser (cf) 357.5
Weight of water displaced (Ibs) 22308.0
Upward force w/10% factor of safety (Ibs) 24538.8
Jeight of concrete base: 8'x 8'x 15 14400.0
Jeight of riser (1500 lb/ft) 16500.0
Jeight of top slab (Ibs) 1500.0
otal downward force (Lbs) 32400.0 4t-
RISER #3
Elev. @ Top of riser 850.5
Elev. @ Bot. of riser 835.0
H 15.5
Area of riser: 5.7'x 5.7' 315
Volume of riser (cf) 503.8
Weight of water displaced (Ibs) 31434.0
Upward force w/ 10% factor of safety (Ibs) 34577.4
Weight of concrete base: 8'x 8'x 1.5 14400.0
Weight of riser (1500 lb/ft) 23250.0
Weight of top slab (Ibs) 1600.0
Total downward force (Ibs) 39250.0 q--
CRATE & BARREL / LINCOLN COUNTY
FLOTATION CALCULATIONS
RtSFR *1
,,1t?1tt1lttt/f?j,®
® s_
Y?? 6 ° cam`
_ _ L
,ECt
Z,
F ? @
O E F ?
o•r
m? "?

Elev. @ Top of riser ecru s:
846.0
Elev. @ Bot. of riser 830.0
H 16.0
Area of riser: 5.7'x 57 32.5
Volume of riser (cf) 520.0
Weight of water displaced (Ibs) 32448.0
Upward force w/10% factor of safety (Ibs) 35692.8
Weight of concrete base: 8'x8'x 1.5' 14400.0
Weight of riser (1500 lb/ft) 24000.0
(Weight of top slab (Ibs) 1600.0
Total downward force (Ibs) 40000.0
RISER #2
Elev. @ Top of riser 846.0
Elev. @ Bot. of riser 835.0
H 11.0
Area of riser: 5.7'x 5.7' 32.5
Volume of riser (cf) 357.5
Weight of water displaced (Ibs) 22308.0
Upward force w/10% factor of safety (Ibs) 24538.8
Weight of concrete base: 8'x 8'x 1.5' 14400.0
Weight of riser (1500 lb/ft) 16500.0
Weight of top slab (Ibs) 1500.0
Total downward force (Lbs) 32400.0
RISER #3
Elev. @ Top of riser 850.5
Elev. @ Bot. of riser 835.0
H 15.5
Area of riser: 5.Tx 5.7' 32.5
Volume of riser (cf) 503.8
Weight of water displaced (Ibs) 31434.0
Upward force w/ 10% factor of safety (Ibs) 34577.4
Weight of concrete base: 8'x 8'x 1.5' 14400.0
Weight of riser (1500 lb/ft) 23250.0
Weight of top slab (Ibs) 1600.0
Total downward force (Ibs) 39250.0
•
CRATE & BARREL / LINCOLN COUNTY
FLOTATION CALCULATIONS
FE
FetiCARDt??
. e / a Cc
m
C
?t ?p?t*o ve v ?`t..
RICFR *1
Elev. @ Top of riser
Elev. @ Bot. of riser
H
Area of riser: 5.7'x 5.7'
Volume of riser (cf)
Weight of water displaced (Ibs)
Upward force w/10% factor of safety (Ibs)
Jeight of concrete base: 8'x8'x 15
Jeight of riser (1500 lb/ft)
Jeight of top slab (Ibs)
otal downward force (Ibs)
846.0
830.0
16.0
32.5
520.0
32448.0
35692.8
14400.0
24000.0
1600.0
40000.0
RISER #2
Elev. @ Top of riser 846.0
Elev. @ Bot. of riser 835.0
H 11.0
Area of riser: 5.7' x 5.7' 32.5
Volume of riser (cf) 357.5
Weight of water displaced (Ibs) 22308.0
Upward force w/10% factor of safety (Ibs) 24538.8
'Weight of concrete base: 8'x 8'x 1.5' 14400.0
{Weight of riser (1500 lb/ft) 16500.0
Weight of top slab (Ibs) 1500.0
Total downward force (Lbs) 32400.0
RISER #3
Elev. @ Top of riser 850.5
Elev. @ Bot. of riser 835.0
H 15.5
Area of riser: 5.Tx 5.7' 32.5
Volume of riser (cf) 503.8
Weight of water displaced (Ibs) 31434.0
Upward force w/ 10% factor of safety (Ibs) 34577.4
Weight of concrete base: 8'x 8'x 1.5' 14400.0
Weight of riser (1500 lb/ft) 23250.0
Weight of top slab (Ibs) 1600.0
Total downward force (Ibs) 39250.0