SW7070121_HISTORICAL FILE_20070503

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
'j7D�p`Jj
YYYYMMDD

TO: HBA
1 Columbus Center
Suite 1000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Attn: Mr. Joe Bovee. A.I.A.
June 28, 2005
RECEIVED
MAY - 3.2007
DWQ WAR®
RE: Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. 1
Dear Mr. Bovee:
Pursuant to your request, G E T Solutions, Inc. is submitting this preliminary report to
provide the results of our field exploration services and preliminaryfoundation and earthwork
design recommendations. Following the completion of our laboratory testing services we will
submit a final report, which will finalize our recommendations.
Site and Project Information
The project site is located within the Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity complex in the
town of Hertford, North Carolina., More specifically, the proposed construction area is located
at the north end of First Street. The site is a combination of wooded areas and open grass
covered areas, which contains several existing single story structures. The existing site
grade elevation changes were visually estimated to range less than 1-foot in 50 linear feet.
As an exception existing drainage ditches were observed within the proposed construction
areas. These drainage ditches were visually estimated to range from 3 to 5-feet in width and
2 to 5-feet in depth.
504 East Elizabeth Street, Suite 2 Elizabeth City, NC 27909 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
[e-mail] -

iW - iAM

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. 1
6/28/05
The construction at this site is planned to consist of building three (3) new single -story
structures with associated asphalt paved parking and roadway areas. The structures are to
be constructed of structural steel frame design supported by shallow foundations. The
maximum column and wall foundation loads associated with the structures are expected to
be on the order of 40 to 50 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. The first floor of the
structures are anticipated to consist of a slab -on -grade design with the distributed floor loads
not expected to exceed 250 psf. The proposed first floor finished elevation (FFE) of the
structures was not known at the time of this reporting. However, it is anticipated that cut and
fill operations will range from approximately 1 to 2-feet to establish the design grade
elevations.
Field Exploration and Subsurface Soil Conditions
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation design parameters, five (5) 30 to 40-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings (designated as B-1, B-2, and B-4 through B-6) and one (1) 100-foot deep SPT
boring (designated as B-3) were drilled by G E T Solutions, Inc. within the anticipated
construction areas.. Due to the encountered soil conditions borings B-1 and B-5 were
extended an additional 10 feet (total depth of 40-feet below existing grades as opposed to
the original proposed depths of 30 feet). The boring schedule noting the boring depths and
locations is presented in Table I.
Table I — Boring Schedule
The SPT boring locations were established and identified in the field by representati ^�-
G E T Solutions, Inc. by measuring from existing landmarks. These locations are s 1
on the "Boring Location Plan" attached to this report (Appendix 1, Figure 1). This s '
2
GrolerhnfroF FirruannrenmFTvling

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and 6/28/05
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. 1
was developed based on site observations, measurements, and the project plan, which
were provided to G E T Solutions, Inc. by HBA.
TOPSOIL was encountered at each of the boring locations and
depth ranging from approximately _6 to 10_ilclies_below existinc
soils recovered from be
consistent at the boring I
the
and were arranged in a
were
The initial soil layer extended from beneath the TOPSOIL to
18-feet belOW eXlStlnd dfar�PS ThP Milc of thie Ia%7ar cro nri,
were comprised of CLAY
was noted to extend to a
The subsurface
from of 2 to
.,. �r....w..,
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results, N-values, recorded within this soil layer
ranged from 3 to 13 blows -per -foot (BPF) indicating a very soft to very stiff consistency. A
deposit of very loose to medium dense SAND (SM) was encountered at the location of
Borings B-1, B-2, B-5, and B-6, which extended from depths ranging from 2 to 13-feet
below existing grades.
The second and final soil layer extended f
nature
of SAND with
SM, SM, SC). The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results, N values recorded within this
soil layer ranged from W.O.H. (Weight Of Hammer) to 84 blows -per -foot (BPF) indicating a
very loose to very dense relative density. Deposits of very soft to stiff Silty CLAY (CL, CL-
ML, CH) with varying amounts of sand, Silty Fibrous PEAT (PT), and Silty Organic CLAY
(OL) were encountered at the location of borings B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-5. These deposits
ranged in thickness from 4 to 10 feet at a depth ranging from 23 to 88.5 feet below existing
grades.
The subsurface description is of.a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration included in Appendix II (Log
of Boring sheet) and the Generalized Soil Profile presented in Appendix III should be
reviewed for specific information as to individual borings. The stratifications shown on the
records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring
location. Variations may occur and should be expected throughout the site. The
stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the
transition may be gradual.
GET
;il-ItI_IYOI]_Sf. tI1_C.!+.-'.'M•°
A

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and 6/28/05
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T.
Preliminary Report No. 1
Groundwater Information
The groundwater table depth was measured at each of the boring locations during drilling
operations and was found to occur at a depth ranging from approximately 3 to 4 feet below
the existing site grades.
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,
such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,
such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains, and areas of covered soil (paved
parking lots, side walks, etc.). It is estimated, normal seasonal high groundwater level will
fluctuate within 2 feet above the current levels. We recommend that the contractor.
determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to determine
groundwater impact on this project, if needed.
Clearing and Grading
The proposed construction areas should be cleared by means of removing the existing
trees and/or low-lying vegetation (grass), associated root mat, and topsoil. It is expected
that a cut depth up to approximately 12-inches below existing grades will be required to
remove the majority of the surface organic soils within the wooded areas. This cut is
expected to extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of organic soils, or
unsuitable soils which become evident during the clearing. Clean topsoil should be
stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas. The construction areas, which encroach on
the existing drainage ditches, should be "de -mucked" to remove very soft soils and alluvial
deposits. Based on our experience with similar soils conditions, the cut required to "de -
muck" the soils in the base and sides of the ditches is estimated to range from 12 to 18
inches. It is recommended that the clearing operations extend laterally at least 5 feet
beyond the perimeter of the proposed construction areas.
Sa(u6ons Inc` ` ? `i
lu'

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and . 6/28/05
Geotechnical Engineering Services I .
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
:Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. t
The shallow subgrade soils, extending to a depth ranging from 2 to 18-feet, recovered at
the boring locations typically contained appreciable amounts of fines. Also, based on our
experience with similar soil conditions, the estimated current (natural) moisture contents of
the surface soils at the explored locations were near their estimated optimum moisture.
Accordingly, combinations of excess surface moisture from precipitation ponding on the
site and the construction traffic, including heavy compaction equipment, may create
pumping and general deterioration of the bearing capabilities of the surface soils.
Therefore, undercutting to remove very soft soils should be anticipated. The extent of the
undercut will be determined in the field during construction, based on the outcome of the
field-testing procedures (subgrade proofroll). In this regard, and in order to reduce
undercutting, care should be exercised during the grading and construction operations at
the site.
Furthermore, inherently wet subgrade soils combined with potential poor site drainage
make this site particularly susceptible to subgrade deterioration. Thus, grading should be
performed during a dry season if at all possible. This should minimize these potential
problems, although they may not be eliminated. The project's budget should include an
allowance for subgrade improvements (undercut and backfill with select fill).
Control of surface water is very important to the successful completion of the proposed
construction. The contractor should plan his grading activities to control surface water and
minimize erosion of exposed cut or fill material. This may include constructing temporary
berms, ditches, flumes and/or slope drains to intercept runoff and discharge it in a
controlled fashion, while complying with state and local regulations.
The deeper subsurface soils (SM, SP-SM, SP) encountered at depths in excess of 18 to
33-feet below existing grades appear to be suitable for re -use as structural fill and/or select
backfill material. Based on the visual and laboratory test results,. these soils appear to
meet industry standard characteristics of typical structural fill material. They may need to Q
be dried by means of stockpiling prior to their use.. For optimum grading and compaction
these soils should be stockpiled separately from the unsuitable structural fill soils (SM with Ip
clay, SC, CL, CH, CL-MQ and/or Topsoil materials when encountered.

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and 6/28/05
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. 1
Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation and prior to site grading or any fill placement, the
subgrade soils should be evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the
subgrade soils should be proofrolled to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a
crust of better soil. Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded
dump truck over the construction areas, with the successive passes aligned
perpendicularly. The number of passes will be determined in.the field by the Geotechnical
Engineer depending on the soils conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed
during proofrolling (beyond the initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the
directions of the Geotechnical Engineer. .
Following the proofroll and approval by the engineer, it is recommended that, within the
construction areas, natural soils below stripped grade should be compacted to a dry
density of at least 100 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D
698), as tested to a depth of 12-inches. This densification will require the use of a large
vibratory roller and should be further evaluated in the field during construction.
Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid
transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In
this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away from
existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small,. hand -operated
compaction equipment.
Structural Fill and Placement
Following the proper compaction and approval of the natural subgrade soils by the
Geotechnical Engineer, the placement of the fill required to establish the design grades
may begin. Any material to be used for backfill or structural fill should be evaluated and
tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the
intended use. Suitable structural fill material: should consist of sand or gravel containing
less than 20 percent by weight of fines (SP, SM, SW; GP, GW), having a liquid limit less
than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris
and other unsuitable material.

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and 6/28105
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. 1
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 100 percent of the
Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). In general, the compaction should
be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of G E
T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure that
adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural
fill (as described above), and should be compacted to at least 100 percent of ASTM D 698.
This fill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is
used.
Foundation Design Recommendations - Preliminary
Provided that the previously recommended earthwork construction procedures are properly
performed, the proposed addition can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing
over firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill material. The footings can be
designed using a net allowable soil pressure of up to 2000 pounds per square foot (psf). In
using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over the footings, including the
weight of the floor slab, need not be considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the
finished floor need to be used for dimensioning the footings.
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity, the base of the footings should
have an embedment of 24 inches beneath finished grades, and wall footings should have a
minimum width of 24 inches. In addition, isolated square column footings are
recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing capacity
consideration. The recommended 24-inch footing embedment is considered sufficient to
provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.
Foundation Excavations
Following the approval of the foundation bearing soils by G E T Solutions, Inc.'s
Geotechnical Engineer and immediately priorto reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested
that the natural granular bearing surfaces in the base of these footing areas be compacted
using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at Ieast,100 percent of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) as tested to a depth of 12 inches for.
bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized areas which have been
loosened by excavation operations should be adequately.re-compacted.

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and 6/28/05
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. 1
In addition to compaction testing, hand auger borings and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) Testing should be performed within the base of the foundation excavations to
ensure that the footing bearing soils are suitable for foundation support. Should it be
considered necessary to undercutthe foundation bearing soils, due to loose and/or organic
characteristics of the recovered. soils, the resulting excavations should be backfilled as
previously indicated.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory and remedied foundation excavations should
be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical
disturbance, rain or frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the
excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed
the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should
be adequately protected.
Foundation Settlements - Preliminary
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting total settlement of
the proposed foundations should be less than about 1 inch. The maximum differential
settlement magnitude is expected to be less than %-inch between adjacent footings (wall
footings and column footings of widely varying loading conditions). The settlements were
estimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration tests and our experience with
similar soil conditions. Careful field control will contribute substantially towards minimizing
the settlements.
Building Floor Slabs
The floor slabs may be constructed as slab -on -grade members provided the previously
recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is
recommended that all ground floor slabs be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of
relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5
percent passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act
as a capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.
It is recommended that all ground floor slabs be "floating" if no turn down slab/foundation
system is implemented. That is, generally ground supported and not rigidly connected to
walls or foundations. This is to minimize the possibility of cracking and displacement of the
floor slabs because of differential movements between the slab and the foundation.

Preliminary Report of Subsurface Investigation and 6128/05
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Administration, Warehouse, and Shop Buildings
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC05-230T
Preliminary Report No. 1
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When,floorfinishes, site conditions or other
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection, consideration should be given
to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
Seismic Design Recommendations:
It is noted that, in accordance with the NC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site would be
classified as site Class D, based on which seismic designs should be incorporated. This
recommendation is based on the data obtained from the 100-foot deep SPT Boring
(designated as B-3) and the requirements indicated in Table 1615.1.1 of the North Carolina
State Building Code (2000 International Building Code with North Carolina Amendments).
We appreciate the opportunity to offer our services to you, and trust that you will call our
Elizabeth City office with any questions that you may have.
Respectfully Submitted,
G E T Solutions, Inc.
Gerald W. Stalls Jr., E.I.T.
Senior Project Manager
Attachments: Boring Location Plan
Log of Borings
Generalized Soil Profile
Copies: (3) Client
0'
Camille A. Kaftan, P.E.
Principal Engineer
NC Lic. # 14103

PROPOSED
ADMIN
PROPOSED
SHOP
B-3o
------------
-------------
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF. PROPOSED
STRUCTURES
—'-- — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING
STRUCTURES
P.POPO��a .BGzx'
EXISTING _ —fdew �j/7E fGGG��
STRUCTURES NEXT pA��
PROPOSED
WAREHOUSE
Project'Nane,
utlons, Inc, "�` ` °-CJOb Drawn By, GWS
-- Date, 6/26/05 Floure No., I
BORING LOCATION PLAN SCALE,
NOT TO SCALE

H(
LC
DI
_6 - 5 --
T— 5 �
FF-8.20
8
IOUSE �F�
Ic)
8.0
ZZq
iCC3 y
x ri
W Wm
�riN.o IYIJT�7" v
dTN ,3EGavY GP4TJ�
C-rRalJNl� GY.4T�.�/
ELE•1/.4T/�N �p
(gam) iF,E.
AGE
TER - 6.0
INV • 5.0
NV • 1.75
' 3.5
•M01 -6 IL 016
A�—
—�
ROAD A 2
SWM DITCH.OUTLET CONTROL
CATCH BASIN
TOP - 6.83
THROAT INV IN - 6.0
THROAT INV OUT - 6.0
6" PERF. INV IN'- 2.75
6" OVERFLOW INV IN 4.5
6" PVC INV OUT - 3.50
TLANDS��
a
T 03 `
ROAD B
- i
EXISTING
BUILDING7-12
I I'
B `v1 q
g
I
l
0 {yam
IV 40
1
e 1
La. i O6 SWM POND OUTLET CONTROL
CATCH BASIN
TOP • 7.50
THROAT INV IN 6.5
i TOP OF BAFFLE - 6.5
6" PERF, INV IN 3.8
6" OVERFLOW INV IN 5,25
1 6" PVC INV OUT - 3.80
I POND STORAGE (INTERIOR)
\ TOP OF WATER - 6.5
\I 1 STORAGE VOLUME - 10.200 CF

PROJECT: Proposed Administrative, Warehouse, &Shop Buildings
lseo )M"tCLIENT: HBA
ental
PROJECT LOCATION: Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity,NC
ons, Inc. LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan
LOG of BORING. DRILLER: FisbbumeDrlllingInc..
DRILLING METHOD: MudRotarv(wash)
NO. B-1 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: -U 4-feet AFTER 24 HOURS:
PROJECT NO.: EC05-230G
ELEVATION: INA
LOGGED BY: G.Stalls, EJ.T
DATE: 6-24-05
7- CAVING> ..G
L V
o
4l N O
TEST RESULTS
�
o " Description m
0,2
E z o 'oc
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
- t7
0) m c0 "
Water Content- •
e
Penetration -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
6-inches Topsoil
2
ray, moist, Silty CLAY (Cli) with trace sand, very
2
a.....
wsoft10
a
.. ...-. ..................
ailty
fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, very loose to ::: i
: g
.....:....
i.....:...., c....
3
medium dense
_........c. ........
from 4-feetWet
�2:Tan
from 4-feet :::::
4 s
.............:......:...........Gray
[Gr
from 8-feeta
2-Gray,
wet, Silty Sandy CLAY (CL), very softz
.............-..........:...........a
'
r
A
18 . . . . .
..................... ................. ......
Tan -Brown, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
s
a
.....
7 .....:.....:......
2
..
0
_T
za Dark Gray and trace clay from 23-feet
WOH
C
�
ia
a
a
0
28 '
Dark Brown -Black, wet, SiltyFibrous PEAT (P�, medium stiff
s
_:....E . .... ... .
9
°
Gray, wet, Silty CLAY (CM with trace sand, medium stiff
33. ..
...
......:.....:......:..... '....
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly ' t ' r j,
10 a
graded fine to medium SAATD (SP-SM) with silt, loose to dense .1 a. r +
a
.
36
f.l.
...
.:.... : ....:.. ..:......:
.l'J:
iCi i +71
20
21
Boring terminated at 40 ft.
zi
_:...... .. ..:..... ......:.....:.....
42
W.O.H = Weight OJHammer
PD(,F 'I of 1

• N y::
PROJECT: Proposed Administrative, Warehouse; & Shop Buildings
PROJECT NO.: EC05-230G
0 .c CLIENT; HBA
En
. mental
PROJECT LOCATION: Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity, NC
,lions, Inc. LOCATION: See Atiached Boring Location Plan
ELEVATION: INA
LOG OF BORING DRILLER: FishbumeDrilling, Inc.
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E1.T
DRILLINGMETHOD: Mud Rotary(wash)
DATE: 6-24-05
NO. B-2 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: S 3-feet
AFTER 24 HOURS:
Zr CAVING> L
TEST RESULTS
v d Description
E Z o
Plastic Limit , Liquid Limit
o=
rE rn mp "
Water Content- .•
Penetration - -
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
8-inches Topsoil
1
.:.....:....
Mottled Tan -Gray, moist, Silty CLAY (CH) with trace sand, soft
3
a+
o
.....
Gray, moist, Silty fie SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose to medium ; ?
3t
:` ? 2
>
dense
15
4
z
6 Tan from 3-feet
:' 3 s
a
.....
Wet from 3-feet
5
....................
7
a
Gray from 8-feet
m
5 5
a
4 ....:.....;.
....:.....:.....:.....:.....:.....
u
n
12
a
13 .....
Mottled Tan -Gray, wet, Silty CLAY (CM, very soft
0
6
t
0
C
SB 18
:.
Tan -Brown, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
:
a.
7 s
2
............ .
z.
0
T
23
N...
24 Gray, wet, Silty CLAY (CH) with trace sand, very soft
;
.... .... .... .....:..
6
...... ..:.. ..... .
Y.........................
.... ........ .... ... ...
d
a
0
m....:.................
€
28
:...........:..... :'.. ...
R
Dark Brown -Black, wet, Silty Fibrous PEAT (PT), soft
z
......... .:......:.....:....
_S
.'t' 3o r
9 3
°""'-'"'""""'"''"'
E
Tan, wet, poorly graded finetomedium SAND (SP-SM)with silt,
loose
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
36
.................................................
42
........................
......-....._......... ..
Pin ira PA('F I of I
'

rvcal
PROJECT: Proposed Administrative. Warebouse & Sbop Buildings
PROJECT NO.: EC05-230G
'F
En men al
CLIENT: MA
`may;. 3'e
PROJECT LOCATION: Harvey Point Defense Testing
Activity, NC
tions,Inc.
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan
ELEVATION: INA
LOG OF BORING
DRILLER: FishbuneDrilling, Inc.
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.LT
DRILLINGMETHOD: MudRotary(wash)
DATE: 6-24-05
No. B-3
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL; S 4-feet AFTER 24 HOURS:
CAVING> .G
s
o
TEST RESULTS
a v
d d
z
Description
Plastic Limit Liquid
uid Limit
C
Water Content - •
Penetration -
a;
8-inches Topsoil
0.67
Mottled Tan -Gray, moist, Silty CLAY (CFI) with trace sand, soft to
medium stiff
Wet from 4-feet
Gray from 8-feet
With sand from 13-feet
z
2
3
..
... ..... .. .. .......... ..... ... ......... ...
2 a
4
4
....
:.. .. .:. ... .:.. ...:... .:..... :. ....:. ...
3 5
4
...
:... .: ....:.....:.. ...:.....:. ....:.....
5
4
5
.....:.....:.................. :..... :..... :.. ...
5 4
1
ICI
Tan -Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
2
i i
.....
7
1
........................
2
23
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
:..
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense to
i :r. t •i'
8
12 ..:.. ..: ... _..:.. .:.. ..:.
1a
very dense
......
i C t 1
.....:.....:.....: .....:.....:.. ...:.....:...
h F 1 1
...................................
:Ix [1
15 .....:. ... .:..........:..................
:.....
1e
. ..
21-....:.....:..........
:............ ...... :.....
..
4 ii•H�I
.
....
..........
-i,.r t r
21 ..... .... .:.....:.......
.
......................
10
2e
;I; I:CC7
31 .....:.....: ............ :...... .....
.....:. ....
. .... ... ...
fine to coarse SAND from 38-feet
7;I:[LI
11
_..___.
35
L:rri.
40
39 ....._..._ ..........:.............._..._..
C;-. ­
PAf_`G I of q

PROJECT: Proposed Administrative, Warehouse, & Shop Buildings
CLIENT': HBA
ental
PROJECT LOCATION: Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity, NC
.En1-3-T,ons,Inc. LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan
LOG OF BORING DRILLER: FishbumeDrilling,lnc.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash)
No. B-3 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: $ 4-feet AFTER 24 HOURS:
PROJECT NO.: EC05-23OG
ELEVATION: INA
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls. E.I.T
DATE: 6-24-05
T- CAVING> -C
Y
TEST RESULTS
o w Description
E
m o
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
z
�
Water Content- •
Penetration -
10 20 30 40
50 60 70
16
.......... ... .. .......: .....:.....
:...........
1:li a
N
ae
:tC
:....:.....;
°
i:l: t r
ae. ::::: 2
.....:.....:...
Dark Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with marine shell fragments,
:: ; i : 13 2
—' ............ ''
....
very loose to medium dense
' ' ' ' 2
'a
a
N
m
54
5
6
w
.. ..
cTrace
clay and mica from 58-feet
s
_
60
.... 15 it
.
........ .. .:.. ......... ....:.....
........ ....
N
'
N
C,
C
.. ... ................
... ... .:.....:.....
:..... ......
16 9
66
T
.....
7
n
13
c
E
72
..
o`
`c
.... ..
2
7a
..... .......
........ ... ....:..... ...
...:......
76. 6
..
..
Dark Gray, wet, Silty Sandy CLAY (CI. ML), stiff
19 6
7
B4
83
Dark Gray, wet, Silty CLAY (CIS with trace sand, stiff
20 i
"`" " ` .
e
E7;-."r PAI,F 7 nf'�

.tf * ,L;..,
T, 1.
PROJECT: Proposed Administrative, Warehouse, & Shop Buildings
PROJECT NO.: EC05-23OG
,' ; ieb[
.En '
_'cel
'mental
"
CLIENT: HDA
PROJECT LOCATION: Harvey
Point Defense Testing Activity, W
'._
'ons, Inc.
LOCATION: See Attached Boring
Location Plan
ELEVATION: . INA
LOG OF
BORING
DRILLER: FishbumeDrilling,Inc.
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.LT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
(wash)
DATE: 6-24-05 .
No.
B-3
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
v. 4-fee[ AFTER 24 HOURS:
r CAVING> L
o
TEST RESULTS
_
v
Description
o o
E Z
Plastic Limit t----i Liquid Limit
o
o
w in v
Water Content - •
.
Penetration
m
C:. , .^ D6 ,G � of �

�;k• e,:.
PROJECT: Proposed Administrative Warehouse, & Shop Buildings PROJECT NO.: EC05=230G
E en
cal CLIENT: HBA '
Envir `mental
PROJECT LOCATION: Harvey Point Defense TestingAcSvity, NC
tions,Inc., LOCATION: See AttacbedBoring Location Plan ELEVATION: INA
DRILLER: Fishbume Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T
LOG OF BORING
DRILLINGMETHOD: Mud Rotary(wash) DATE: 6-25-05
No. B-4 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: $ 4-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: a CAVING> G
H S TEST RESULTS
4 Plastic Limit 1 Liquid Limit
o v Description " Z in v v Water Content - s
c� o
Penetration -
rGra
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
6-inches Topsoil 7
1 2:.... :...... :.....:.:........:.....:.....:.....
, moist, Silty CLAY (CIS with trace sand, soft 2
..................... _......................:
m3
, moist, Silty Sandy CLAY (CL), medium stiff 2 n
.............................................
Wet from 4-feet 4 ......... c .....:..... .... i..... i, ........
3 5
u. .... :......:. .. .. :............wet, Silty CLAY (CM with trace sand, soft to5 a
medium stiff 3Gray-Tan from 13-feet2..................:06 2...:.....:.....:................2
............:...........
18 ................:..... ... ...:.....:.....:...
N
Tan -Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, very loose 2
7 . ............. ..:..... :.....:.....:.....:.....
0 2
G
...............
a.... ...... ... .. .... ......... .:'.
r .....
23 a.f f CI M
... _..........24 Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly . a'1ograded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense to .1a: t l'dense :1:1: t i
t3:rl.
9 a
30 :I :I:CI 26
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
36
42 .
Gim iro PA(,F I of I

'
-'-' s;;_,
PROJECT: Proposed Administrative.Warehovse,&Sho➢Buildings PROJECT NO.: EC05-23OG
al
EnPROJECT
��1r,
CLIENT: HBA
LOCATION: Harvey Point Defense TestingActivity.NC
?ons, Inc.
LOCATION: See Attached Boring LocaGonPlan ELEVATION: INA
LOG OF BORING
DRILLER: FishbumeDrilling,Inc. LOGGED BY: G.Stans E.LT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 6-25-05
No. B-5
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: V 3-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: T CAVING> _L
o
a
w
o TEST RESULTS
N Plastic Limit !— Liquid Limit
Description
z m
c
p
rn
Water Content- •
Penetration -
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
10-inches Topsoil
4
-
.13
1
4
.........:....:......:.....:.....:. ....:.....
Mottled Tan -Gray, moist, Silty CLAY (CIS with trace sand,
:..
3
2
r
medium stiff
3
3
4
...... _................ :....
Mottled Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay,
6
loose to medium dense
::::
3
- 6
:....:... .:.....:......:.....:...........
Wet from 3-feet
6
c
_
.....
7
Mottled Tan -Gray, wet, Sandy SILT (AM) with clay, medium stiff
a
7
N
5
3
.0
a
3
n 12
13
.....:.....:.....:......:.................::....
a
Mottled Reddish Tan -Gray, wet, Silty CLAY (CM with trace sand,
soft
6
z
a
N,
Cis
N
18
......................:...............
Tan -Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, very loose
2
.....
2
................................. ... .........
N
L
O
.....
T
23
.....
.
24
y
Dark Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, very loose
WOH
.....
WOH
:.....:...... :............ :. '
.....
..... .....
u
c
0
E
26
w
Dark Brown, wet, Silty Fibrous PEAT (PT) , soft
2
..... . - ........... i....
30
2
9
Z
-
Dark Brown, wet, Silty Organic CLAY (OL) ,sofa
t
-33
................
:.. ....
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP) to poorly graded IJ.
tJ.
s
fine to Coarse SAND(SP-SM) with silt, very dense .lXfr
10
30
so
—. ........
36
a: C'I:
24
33
.............................. _....:.....82..
:.....:.....
:I
I:C]
49
............._..:._..
_. ...:.....
Boring terminated at 40 ft.
.
42
W.O.H. = Weight Of Hammer
C.a.— D4(]G 4 of I

I
�;,.,;
PROJECT: Proposed Administrative, Warehouse &ShoDBuildinRs
PROJECT NO.: EC05-230G
�,....rr
`.t` 'cal
Env' ""mental
En"
CLIENT: HBA
NC
PROJECT LOCATION: Harvey
Point Defense Testing Activity
'om, Inc.
LOCATION: See Attached Boring
Location Plan
ELEVATION: INA
_
DRILLER: Fishbume Drilling, Inc
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T
LOG OF BORING
DRILLINGMETHOD: MudRotarv(wash)
DATE: 6-25-05
NO, B-G
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
49- 4-feet AFTER 24 HOURS:
v CAVING> -C
TEST RESULTS
Descriptionm
n
a o
z
o
2 Ni oo
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
w m
❑ ...
f7
u7
too
U
v,
o
Water Content- o
_
Penetration -
6-inches Topsoil
Mottled Tan -Gray, moist, Silty CLAY (CH) with trace sand,
medium stiff to stiff
ttled Tan -Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay,10
to medium dense
Mottled Tan -Gray, wet, Silty CLAY (CH) with trace sand, soft
Tan -Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, loose
Dark Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, very loose
Dark Brown, wet, Silty Fibrous PEAT (PT) to Silty Organic CLAY
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
W.O.H. = Weight Of Hammer
4
t 4
4
4
2 5
6
3 a
+2
4
4 5
+2
5
1�5
4
4
6 2
2
+
4
3
WOH
$ WOH
7
WOH
9
0

Symbol Description
Strata symbols
71
High plasticity
clay
Silty sand
Low plasticity
clay
Peat
Poorly graded sand
with silt
® Silty low plasticity
clay
Clayey sand
®
Silt
® Low plasticity
organic silts
Description not given for:
Misc. Symbols
Water table during
drilling
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 6-25-05 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or
when re -checked the following day.
3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan.
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
on the logs.

21
2 12 0
3
3]
10 _ 3 3
15
0 11
12 4 5
...: 5
2 3 4 5
14
b'¢
,2
2 12
WOH
1
1
13
4 2 3 28
4
9.4.
3
•I• ! i • I
35
I;hp
xirl 20zi
21
Strata sMbois
�JI
High plasticity
clay
Silty sand _
GET Solutions, Inc. -
®Low
plasticity
clay
- GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE.
scn�e DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN
Peat
GWS 6/30/2005
Proposed Administrative, Warehouse, & Shop
!``r1
Poorly greded sand
with sill
B Hdln S
PROJECT NO. EC05-230G FIGURE NUMBE

40
so
Strata symbols
High plasticity
clay
. Sillysand .
MPoorly graded sand
with silt
Silly low plasticity
I r clay
Clayey sand
/ 33
4
45
4
54
4
51
J
JJ
4
2
.I:I• C rj 8 12
.I. F l: • 13
1518
A I [ L I 21
'L'J: [.1, 2129
31
• 3540
r.r L 1: 1 39
{:j: j 12 ib
L7:[}, a
22
2
: 5 b
-e
BB
11
7 10
13
57
1
5'7
B
1.0 15
1
14 15
10
GET Solutions; Inc,
0
f00
DATE
& Shop
PROJECT NO. EC05-230G
AV

Shale symbols
P]�
High plasticity
clay
®Low
plasticity
clay
EM
Silty sand
Poorly graded sand
with slit
silt
12
2 44
3 44
33
4 3J
3 45
45 1
4a =
2 as
S a 12
3 4 10 3 f 4 `4
21
2 "21 14
..... m 3
.
1010
H
M
WOH
H
WOH
M
1,t:ifJ
d:C4 t
i:I'.C'CI
1318
26
2 2
2
MH
1
�
0
Peat
®LOW plasticity
organic silts
Description not given for
40"
f TL1' 15
5030
LY f.i.
t a: C 1•
I •I:hj •
f 11'. L •I: 2433
49
GET Solutions, Inc.
RALIZED SOIL PF
Proposed Administrative, W
Buildin s
PROJECT NO. EC05-230G
14
LE
JE DRAWN
5/30/2005
& Shori

KEY TO SYMBOLS
Symbol Description
Strata symbols
High plasticity
clay
Low plasticity
clay
Silty sand
Poorly graded sand
` "'"
with silt
®
Silt.
Peat
Low plasticity
®
organic silts
Description not given for:
Misc. Svmbols
s Water table during
drilling
Notes.:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 6-25-05 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or
when re -checked the following day.
3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan.
i
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this. report.
5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
on the logs.

Harvey Point - Stormwater Permits
Subject: Harvey Point - Stormwater Permits
From: Bill Moore <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:48:27 -0500
To: Sarah Taylor <[e-mail]>
CC: Mike Basinger <[e-mail]>
Good Afternoon Sarah & Mike,
Good news first: stormwater permit for Administration Headquarters is finished,
in the sign pile, should go out in Thursdays mail. Not Good news:. CTEC project
does not meet low density; we will have to rethink/redesign stormwater measures; this
one will need to have some engineered type control measures and be permitted as high
density. If you choose to use Extended Dry Basins in combination with swales, then
the revised plans/package should be similar to the Admin HQ project. I will reset the
clock on this project; you should get the necessary revisions to me by May 4, 2007.
If you have questions, give me a call.
I will try to get you the low density permit for the New Range C project in a
couple of weeks.,
I of 1 4/4/2007 12:48 PM

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE
RECEIVED
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
CTEC Facilities JAN 16. 2007
November 8, 2006 DWQ-WARO
This is a brief description of the drainage philosophy currently shown on the design
drawings. Water quality for this development is achieved by sheet flowing runoff from
the proposed building and pavement through grassed / vegetative buffers.
Small buildings that use to house trainees have been removed and the other two
remaining buildings will be renovated for the new user. A new shop and warehouse and
a hotel type structure will replace the former buildings. The surrounding adjacent area
has been declared wetlands and will not be disturbed with this project. The site area is
approximately 4.4 acres, with Approximately 3.3 acres being disturbed with new
construction. Approximately 2150 feet of sanitary sewer will be installed off -site.
The drainage plan for the CTEC facilities is relatively flat because the site and the
surroundings are very flat, with only 1 drainage outfall location for the disturbed area.
E&S is handled through a combination of seeding, mulching, top soiling, a construction
entrance and a sediment trap. The sediment trap achieves the required volume through the
use of the proposed permanent swale that surrounds the north and east sides of the site.
The proposed swale/sediment trap and construction entrance are required prior to any
land disturbance. Thposed swale outfalls into an existing swale that runs north from
the site approximately 400 feet to the Perquimans River

Hankins and Anderson
Consulting Engineers
November 8, 2006
RECEIVED
JAN 16 2007
Mr. William J. Moore DWQ-WARO
Environmental Engineer
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889-3532
Re: CTEC Facilities for HPDTA
Stormwater Management Permit Application
H&A Project No. 5219.00
Dear Mr. Moore:
Attached are the Stormwater Management Permit Application documents for the New
CTEC Facilities at Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity, Hertford, North Carolina.
An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan has also been submitted to the land
Quality Division. Included in this package are:
• Stormwater Management Narrative
• Stormwater Management Permit application forms ("Low -Density"
Development)
• Check for $420.00
• Two sets of drawings. On the drawings you will find:
1) Grading and drainage plan (C400)
2) Drainage Areas (C402)
3) Sections (C500)
4) Vicinity & Location Maps (Cover Sheet)
We have tried to maintain the grading and drainage concept that would classify this
project as "low density".
4880 Sadler Road, Suite 300
Glenn Allen, Virginia 23060
804.285.4171
804.217.8529 Fax
www.haengineers.com

Mr. William). Moore
November 8, 2006
Page 2
We hope the attached documents are satisfactory. Please feel free to call us at any
time should any questions arise.
Very truly yours,
HANKINS AND ANDERSON, INC.
Mike Basinger
IMB/alh
Enclosure
C: Larry J. Willis, P.E. — Hankins and Anderson, Inc.
File

Permit No
(to be provided by UWQ)
State of North Carolina RIECEIVE®
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
JAN 16 2�D
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
DWQ-LIAR®
LOW DENSITY SUPPLEMENT
This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
A low density project is one that meets the appropriate criteria for built upon area and transports stormwater
runoff primarily through vegetated conveyances. Low density projects should not have a discrete stormwater
collection system as defined by 15A NCAC 2H .1002(18). Low density requirements and density factors can be
found in 15A NCAC 21-1 .1005 through .1007.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name : G I E L
Contact Person: S0rc.l6, To, I I o r Phone Number: (252 i f} 26 - 436 0
Number of Lots: 1411A Allowable Built Upon Area Per Lot*: N I A
*If lot sizes are not uniform, attach a table indicating the number of lots, lot sizes and allowable built upon area
for each lot. The attachment must include the project name, phase, page numbers and provide area subtotals
and totals.
IL BUILT UPON AREA
See the Stonmwater Management Permit Application for specific language that must be recorded in the deed
restrictions for all subdivisions.
For uniform lot sizes, complete the following calculation in the space provided below where:
• SA Site Area - the total project area above Mean High Water. Wetlands may be excluded when the
development results in high density pockets.
• DF Density Factor - the appropriate percent built upon area divided by 100.
• RA Road Area - the total impervious surface occupied by roadways.
• OA Other Area - the total area of impervious surfaces such as clubhouses, tennis courts, sidewalks, etc.
• No. Lots - the total number of lots in the subdivision.
• BUA/Lot - the computed allowable built upon area for each lot including driveways and impervious
surfaces located between the front lot line and the edge of pavement.
Form SWU-104 Rev 3.99 Page I of 2

(SA x DF) - RA - OA = BUA
No. Lots Lot
Calculation:
1, 35 AC
4. 4 AC juror Abe Area -
AC
r"-'� = 7 S
HL REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided to indicate that the following requirements have been met and supporting
documentation is provided as necessary. If the applicant has designated an agent on the Stormwater
Management Permit Application Form, the agent may initial below.
Applicants Initials
—fR 13 a. A 30 foot vegetative buffer is provided adjacent to surface waters. Projects in the Neuse
River basin may require additional buffers.
b. Deed restriction language as required on form SWU-101 shall be recorded as a restrictive
covenant. A copy of the recorded document shall be provided to DWQ within 30 days of
platting and prior to sale of any lots.
TR P5 c. Built upon area calculations are provided for the overall project and all lots.
7Rb d. Project conforms to low density requirements within the ORW AEC (if applicable).
[15A NCAC 2H .I007(2)(b)]
Form SWU-104 Rev 3.99 Page 2 of 2

CTEC Facilities
Harvey Point Defense Testing Activity
Hertford, North Carolina RECEIVED
JAN 16 2007
DWQ-WARQ
Erosion & Sediment Control
Calculations
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Defense
November 8, 2006
Prepared by

11
Area*C Calculation
Calculate Area*C
Area
1.10
acres
C
0.40
Area*C
0.44
is Calculation
Calculate t�
tovedand
15.00
min
tchannel
0.00
min
tpipe
0.00
min
to
15.00
min
I Values
2 Year
3.88
in/hr
5 Year
0.00
in/hr
10 Year
5.60
in/hr
25 Year
0.00
in/hr
50 Year
6.63
in/hr
100 Year
7.09
in/hr
Flow Rate
QZ
1.71
cfs
Q5
0.00
cfs
Qio
2.46
cfs
Q25
0.00
cfs
Q50
2.92
cfs
Q100
3.12
cfs
Area*C Known
0.00
t, Known
0.00 min
Calculate Weighted C
A C Description
acres
Total Area 0.00
Weighted C 0.00
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 11:45 AM 11/7/2006 Page 1 of 8

C
Area*C Calculation
Calculate Area*C
Area 2.02 acres
C 0.40
Area*C 0.81
is Calculation
Calculate to
tovedand 15.00 min
tchannel 0.00 min
tPipe 0.00 I711n
tc 15.00 min
I Values
2 Year
5 Year
10 Year
25 Year
50 Year
100 Year
Flow Rate
Q2
Q5
Q10
Q25
Q50
Q 100
3.88
in/hr
0.00
in/hr
5.60
in/hr
0.00
in/hr
6.63
in/hr
7.09
in/hr
3.14 cfs
0.00 cfs
4.52 cfs
0.00 cfs
5.35 cfs
5.73 cfs
Area*C Known
0.00
tc Known
0.00 min
Calculate Weighted C
A C Description
acres
Total Area 0.00
Weighted C 0.00
Hankins and Anderson, Inc.
11:45 AM 11/7/2006 Page 2 of 8

I
Area*C Calculation
Calculate Area*C Area*C Known
Area 4.34 acres 0.00
C 0.55
Area*C 2.39
t,. Calculation
Calculate to
t, Known
tnverland
25.00 min 0.00 min
tchannel
0.00 min
tpipe
0.00 min
to
25.00 min
I Values
2 Year
3.01
in/hr
5 Year
0.00
in/hr
10 Year
4.52
in/hr
25 Year
0.00
in/hr
50 Year
5.30
in/hr
100 Year
5.75
in/hr
Flow Rate
QZ
7.19
cfs
Q5
0.00
cfs
Q10
10.79
cfs
Q25
0.00
cfs
Q50
12.65
cfs
Q100
13.74
cfs
Calculate Weighted C
A C Description
acres
Total Area 0.00
Weighted C 0.00
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 11:45 AM 11/7/2006 Page 3 of 8

E
Area*C Calculation
Calculate Area*C Area*C Known
Area 2.21 acres 0.00
C 0.72
Area*C 1.59
t,. Calculation
Calculate t, t, Known
toverland 7.00 min 0.00 min
tchannel 0.00 min
tpipe 0.00 min
tc 7.00 min
I Values
2 Year
5.06
in/hr
5 Year
0.00
in/hr
10 Year
6.91
in/hr
25 Year
0.00
in/hr
50 Year
8.28
in/hr
100 Year
8.71
in/hr
Flow Rate
QZ
8.06
cfs
Q5
0.00
cfs
Qla
11.01
cfs
Q25
0.00
cfs
Q50
13.20
cfs
Q100
13.88
cfs
Calculate Weighted C
A C Description
acres
Total Area 0.00
Weighted C 0.00
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 11:45 AM 11/7/2006 Page 4 of 8

F
Area*C Calculation
Calculate Area*C Area*C Known
Area 6.36 acres 0.00
C 0.55
Area*C 3.50
t, Calculation
Calculate 4 tc Known
toverland 30.00 min 0.00 min
tchannel 0.00 min
ti,ipL 0.00 min
tc 30.00 min
I Values
2 Year
2.71
in/hr
5 Year
0.00
in/hr
10 Year
4.12
in/hr
25 Year
0.00
in/hr
50 Year
4.82
in/hr
100 Year
5.26
in/hr
Flow Rate
Q2
9.47
cfs
Q5
0.00
cfs
Qlo
14.42
cfs
Q25
0.00
cfs
Q50
16.85
cfs
Qlao
18.39
cfs
Calculate Weighted C
A C Description
acres
Total Area 0.00
Weighted C 0.00
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 11:45 AM 11/7/2006 Page 5 of 8

SWALE B-10 yr n =.02
Channel Flow Calculations
Flow Characteristics
Q
2.46 cfs
s
0.0025 ft/ft
n
0.02
RECEIVF.E)
Channel Dimensions
Base Width
2 ft
JAN 16 2007
Left Side Slope
3 : 1
Right Side Slope
3 : 1
®WQ.WARO.
Channel Calculated Results
Flow Area
1.46 ft2
Wetted Perimeter
4.78 ft
Flow Depth
0.44 ft
Velocity
1.68 fps
11:27 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Channel Calculations.xls Page 1 of 7

SWALE C - 10 yr n=.02
Channel Flow Calculations
Flow Characteristics
Q 4.52 cfs
s 0.0025 ft/ft
n 0.02
Channel Dimensions
Base Width 2 ft
Left Side Slope 3 : 1
Right Side Slope 3 : 1
Channel Calculated Results
Flow Area
2.28 ftz
Wetted Perimeter
5.79 ft
Flow Depth
0.60 ft
Velocity
1.99 fps
11:27 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Channel Calculations.xls Page 3 of 7

SWALE E-10 yr n=.02
Channel Flow Calculations
Flow Characteristics
Q 11.01 cfs
s 0.0025 ft/ft
n 0.02
Channel Dimensions
Base Width 4 ft
Left Side Slope 9 : 1
Right Side Slope 16 : 1
Channel Calculated Results
Flow Area
6.16 ft'
Wetted Perimeter
18.05 ft
Flow Depth
0.56 ft
Velocity
1.81 fps
11:27 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Channel Calculations.xls Page 6 of 7

RECEIVED
JAN 16 2007
DWQ-WAR®
Turf/Grass Lined Channel Calculations

SWALE B-10y
Channel Flow Calculations
Flow Characteristics
Q 2.46 cfs
s 0.0025 ft/ft
n 0.3
Channel Dimensions
Base Width 2 ft
Left Side Slope 3 : 1
Right Side Slope 3 : 1
Channel Calculated Results
Flow Area
10.76 ft2
Wetted Perimeter
12.06 ft
Flow Depth
1.59 ft
Velocity
0.23 fps
Hydraulic Radius
0.89
VR
0.21
11:27 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Channel Calculations.xls Page 2 of 7

SWALE C-10 y
Channel Flow Calculations
Flow Characteristics
Q 4.52 cfs
s 0.0025 ft/ft
n 0.3
Channel Dimensions
Base Width 2 ft
Left Side Slope 3 : 1
Right Side Slope 3 : 1
Channel Calculated Results
Flow Area
16.99 ft2
Wetted Perimeter
15.09 ft
Flow Depth
2.07 ft
Velocity
0.27 fps
Hydraulic -Radius
1.13
VR
0.30
11:27 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Channel Calculations.xls Page 4 of 7

EXISTING SWALE D-10y
Channel Flow Calculations
Flow Characteristics
Q 10.79 cfs
s 0.011 ft/ft
n 0.3
Channel Dimensions
Base Width 0 ft
Left Side Slope 1.5 : 1
Right Side Slope 3.5 : 1
Channel Calculated Results
Flow Area
18.09 ft'
Wetted Perimeter
14.64 ft
Flow Depth
2.69 ft
Velocity
0.60 fps
Hydraulic Radius
1.24
VR
0.74
11:27 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Channel Calculations.xls Page 5 of 7

SWALE E-10 y
Channel Flow Calculations
Flow Characteristics
Q 11.01 cfs
s 0.0025 ft/ft
n 0.3
Channel Dimensions
Base Width 4 ft
Left Side Slope 9 : 1
Right Side Slope 16 : 1
Channel Calculated Results
Flow Area
46.24 ftz
Wetted Perimeter
48.40 ft
Flow Depth
1.77 ft
Velocity
0.24 fps
Hydraulic Radius
0.96
VR
0.23
11:27 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Channel Calculations.xls Page 7 of 7

Existing Swale F
Channel Flow Calculations
Depth
4.190 ft
Slope
0.006 ft/ft
n Value
0.3
Channel Calculated Results
Total Area
57.0 sf
Total WP
71.77 ft
Q
18.729 cfs
V
0.33 fps
WSE
7.09
Station
Elevation
Cross Section of Creek
—x—Cross Section
O Water Surface Elevation
8.0
X�X O
X—=X—=X X0
O o X
c
0
6.0 -
4.0
v
u
2.0
0.0
0+00 0+10 0+20
0+30 0+40 0+50
0+60 0+70 0+80
Station
11:29 AM 11/7/2006
Hankins and Anderson, Inc. 5219.00 Irregular Channel Calculations.xls Page 1 of 1

fib
JAN 1 6.2007
DWQ-WARD
Culvert Calculations

z
CIRCULAR CULVERT DESIGN FORM
PROJECT: CTEC
JOB NUMBER: 5219
STATION: 2 TO 1 DESIGNER: TRB
SHEET: C400 DATE: November 7, 2006
HYDROLOGICAL DATA
PIPE VARIABLES
METHOD: RATIONAL
CULVERT MATERIAL RCP
DRAINAGE AREA: 0.59 AC
ENTRANCE TYPE:
WALL
p„
C FACTOR 0.85
(PROJECT, FILL SLOPE, WALL)
Fish
TIME OF CONC. 5.0 MIN
A
MNNING'S'N'-
0.013
Ke -
0.50
_
TW
DESIGN FLOWS /TAILWATER
CULVERT PROFILE
R.I. (YEARS) I (IN/HR) Q (CFS) T(FIT
W
2 5.47 2.74 0.00
ELi-
5.31
FT
5 0.00 0.00 0.00
Elo-
5.15
FT
10 7.34 3.68 0.00
EUr-
7.70
FT
ELi
m
25 0.00 0.00 0.00
ELsh-
7.70
FT
��
--pl
50 8.83 4.43 0.00
L-
62.34
FT
100 9.24 4.64 0.0o
S-
0.002567
FT/FT
CULVERT DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
FLOW
I FLOW
PER
I
HEADWATER
CALCULATIONS
CONTROL
HW
OUTLET
VEIOCITYI
COMMENTS
DESIGN FLOW SIZE QUANTITY
INLET CONTROL
OUTLET CONTROL
HWLT
HWi
ELlhi)
TW
do
(dc+DY2 ho
Re
H
EL(ho)
(YEAR) (INCH) IN)
Q
BARREL
ELEN
(CFS)
/N
IFTI
(Fn
(FT)
(FO
(FIT IFn
AFT)
(FT)
FT
IFP51
10 15 1
3.7
3.7 0.93
1A6 6.47
0.00
0.78
1.02 1.02 0.5
0.41
6.58
6.58
3.00 OUTLET CONTROL.
100 15 1
4.6
4.6 1.10
1.37 6.68
0.00
0.88
1.07 1.07 0.5
0.65
6.87
6.87
3.78 OUTLET CONTROL.
ADDTIIONAL COMMENTS
1) HWi BASED ON POLYNOMIAL BEST41T EQUATIONS FROM THE FHA PUBLICATION
ENTITLED CALCULATOR DESIGN SERIES N3
2) HWi MAY NOT BE ACCURATE FOR VALUES < 0.5D AND > 4.5D
3) EUhi) - HWi + ELi (INVERT OF INLET CONTROL SECTION)
4) TW BASED ON DOWNSTREAM CONTROL OR FLOW DEPTH IN CHANNEL
9:52 AM 11/7/2006
P:\ProjecB\521900\Civl\Calculations\5219.00 Culvert Calculations.xls
5) ho - TW OR Or. DY2 WHICHEVER 15 GREATER
6)H-0+Ke+(29 n'2 U/R'1.33)V 2/2g
A EUho)- EL. +H+ho

El
CIRCULAR CULVERT DESIGN FORM
PROJECT: CTEC
JOB NUMBER: 5219
STATION: 4 to 3 DESIGNER: TRB
SHEET: C400 DATE: November 7, 2006
HYDROLOGICAL DATA
PIPE VARIABLES
METHOD: RATIONAL
CULVERT MATERIAL: RCP
DRAINAGE AREA: 0.65 AC
ENTRANCE TYPE:
WALL
tLr
C FACFOR 0.45
(PROJECT,
FILL SLOPE, WALL)
FL6
TIME OF CONC. 5.0 MIN
MANNING'S'N' -
0.013
Ke -
0.50
"
®
Tw
DESIGN FLOWS /TAILWATER
CULVERT PROFILE
RI. (YEARS) I (INMR) Q ICES) TW (FT)
2 5.47 1.60 0.0o
Eli-
6.00
FT
5 0.00 0.00 0.00
00-
5.30
FT
10 7.34 2.15 0.00
EUr-
8.38
FT
Eli
N^
25 0.00 0.00 0.00
ELsh-
8.38
FT
IcJ
^�
-p
50 8.83 2.59 0.00
L-
64.20
Er
100 9.24 2.71 0.00
S-
I
0.010903
FT/FT
CULVERT DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
FLOW
I FLOW
PER
1
HEADWATER
CALCULATIONS
CONTROL
HW
OUTLET
VELOCITY]
COMMENTS
DESIGN FLOW SIZE QUANTITY
INLET CONTROL
OUTLET CONTROL
HWJO
HWi EUhi)
TW
do
(dc+DY2 ho
Ke
IT
EL(ho)
(YEAR) (INCH) 0)
Q
BARREL
ELEV.
ICES)
/N I
I (FTI (FTI
I
ITT)
IF TI
IFT) IFT)
IFT)
(EL)
(FT)
(FPS)
10 15 1
2.2
2.2 0.66
0.83 6.83
0.00
0.59
0.92 0.92
0.5
0.14
6.36
6.83
4.88
INLET CONTROL.
100 15 1
2.7
2.7 0.76
0.95 6.95
0.00
0.67
0.96 0.96
0.5
0.23
6.48
6.95
5.19
INLET CONTROL.
ADDTIIONAL COMMENTS
TECHNICAL FOOTNOTES :
1) HWi BASED ON POLYNOMIAL BEST{IT EQUATIONS FROM THE FHA PUBLICATION
ENTITLED CALCULATOR DESIGN SERIES R3
2) HWi MAY NOT BE ACCURATE FOR VALUES < 0.5D AND > 4.5D
3) FLO) - HWi + ELi (INVERT OF INLET CONTROL SECTIONJ
4) TW BASED ON DOWNSTREAM CONTROL OR FLOW DEPTH IN CHANNEL
9:52 AM 11/7/2006
P:\Projects\521900\Civl\Calculations\5219.00 Culvert Calculations.xls
5) ho - TW OR Idc+DY2 WHICHEVER 15 GREATER
6)H-11+Ke+(29 W2 U/ R'1.33) V"2/2g
7) EL(ho) - ELo + H + ho

0
CIRCULAR CULVERT DESIGN FORM
PROJECT: CTEC
JOB NUMBER: 5219
STATION: 6TO5 DESIGNER: TRB
SHEET: C400 DATE: November 7, 2006
HYDROLOGICAL DATA
PIPE VARIABLES
METHOD: RATIONAL
CULVERT MATERIAL RCP
DRAINAGE AREA: 2.21 AC
ENTRANCE TYPE:
WALL
Qy,
C FACTOR 0.72
(PROJECT, FILL SLOPE, WALL)
F3eh
TIME OF CONC 7.0 MIN
MANNING'S'N' -
0.013
Re -
0.50
_
0
0
Tw
DESIGN FLOWS / TAILWATER
CULVERT PROFILE
RI.(YEARS) I(IN/HR) Q(CFS) TW(FT)
2 5.06 8.06 o.00
ELi-
4.78
FT
5 0.00 0.00 0.00
Elo-
4.64
FT
10 6.91 11.01 0.00
EUr-
8.12
FT
HU
d^
25 0.00 0.00 0.00
ELsh-
7.67
FT
50 8.28 13.20 Om
L-
54.77
FT
100 8.71 13.88 0.00
S-
0.002556
FT/FT
CULVERT DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
FLOW
I FLOW
PER
I
HEADWATER
CALCULATIONS
CONTROL
HW
OUTLET
VELOCITY]
COMMENTS
DESIGN FLOW SIZE QUANTITY
INLETCONTROL
OUTLET CONTROL
HWVD
HWi EL(hi)
TW
do
(dc+DV2 ho
Ke
H
EHho1
(YEAR] (INCH) 1#)
Q
BARREL
ELI
(CFS)
/N
(FT IFT)
(FT
(FT)
LIFT] (FT
IFT
(Fn
IF
(FPS)
10 15 2
11.0
5.5 1.27
1.59 6.37
0.00
0.96
1.10 1.10
0.5
0.86
6.61
6.61
4.49
OUTLET CONTROL.
100 15 2
13.9
6.9 1.63
2.03 6.81
0.00
1.06
1.16 1.16
0.5
1.37
7.17
7.17
5.66
OUTLET CONTROL.
ADDTIIONAL COMMENTS
rwlrvUln:
1) HWi BASED ON POLYNOMIAL BEST -FIT EQUATIONS FROM THE FHA PUBLICATION
ENTITLED CALCULATOR DESIGN SERIES #3
2) HWi MAY NOT BE ACCURATE FOR VALUES < 0.5D AND > 4.50
3) Fl- hi) - HWi + ELi (INVERT OF INLET CONTROL SECTION)
4) TV BASED ON DOWNSTREAM CONTROL OR FLOW DEPTH IN CHANNEL
10:58 AM 11/7/2006
P:\Projects\521900\CivRCalculations\5219.00 Culvert Caltulations.xls
5) ho - TW OR (dc+DY2 WHICHEVER IS GREATER
WILL! -IT+ Re+(29n'2U/R"1.33)V'2/28
7) EL(ho) - ELo + H + ho

REGEOVED
t JAN18 2007 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY /OWNERSHIP FORM
q�SEDIMENTATION POLLUTION CONTROL ACT l/I%-/�
-WARO on may initiate gland -disturbing ac[ivin on one or more acres as covered by the Act before this form
and an acceptable erosion and sedimentation control plan have been completed and approved by the Land Quaiin
Section, NC Department of Environment, and Natural Resources. (Please type or print and, if question is not
applicable, place N/ A in the blank).
Part A
1. Project Name Harvey Point Defense Testine Activity - CTEC Faciltities
2. Location of land -disturbing activity: County Perquimans
City or Township Hertford , and Highway/Street 2535 Harvev Point Road
3. Approximate date land -disturbing activity will be commenced: Sorin2 2007
4. Purpose of development (residential, commercial. industrial. etc.): U.S. Governmem
5. Total acreage disturbed or uncovered (including off -site barrow and vaste areas):
6. Amount of fee enclosed S'_50
7. Has an erosion and sedimentation control plan been filed" Yes — No ,Enclosed X
S. Person to contact should sediment control issues arise durins land-dismrbin'= activir\-,_
Name Sarah Tavlor Telephone ' 5 26_o-=360 �= - _c2--
9. Landowner(s) of Record (Use blank page to list additional owners):
Harvev Point Defense Testing Activiry ! �_
Name(s)
2535 Harvev Point Road
Current Mailing Address
Hertford, NC 27944
City State Zip
10. Recorded in Deed Book No.
Part B.
Curent Street Address
Cif State Zip
Page No.
Person(s) or firm(s) who are financially responsible for this land-disturbin_ activity (Use a blank pare to lis:
additional persons or firms):
Gary Sheeres - Harvev Point Defense Testine A-tiviry
Name of Person(s) or Firm(s)
2535 Harvev Point Road
Current Mailing Address
Hertford NC 279^-4
City State Zip
Current Street Address
Telephone [phone] Teleoho r
gate

2. (a) If the Financially Responsible Parry is not a resident of North Carolina give name and street address of a
North Carolina Agent.
Name
Mailing Address
y State Zip
Telephone
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone
(b) If the Financially Responsible Pam' is a Partnership or other person engaging in business under an
assumed name, attach a copy of the certificate of assumed name. If the Financially Responsible Parr is a
Corporation give name and street address of the Registered Agent.
I .-
Name of Registered Agent
Mailing Address
City State Zip
Telephone
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone
The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and was provided by me
under oath. (This form must be signed by the financially responsible person if an individual or his attorney -
in -fact or if not an individual by an officer, director, partner, or registered agent with authorin'to execute
instruments for the financially responsible person). I agree to provide corrected information should :here be
any change in the information provided herein.
Type or not name
Signature
ry'.� CiD4�
Title or Authority
Date
Z/6
I. il' l ' k-Ptr4-;. a Notary Public of the County of ✓ I v ��y t S
State of North Carolina, hereby certifythat(�(�Y\/
appeared personally before me this day and being duly sworn acknowledged that the above form was
executed by him.
Witness my hand and notarial seal. this day of ��� , lc�
Seal N otary
/ �`f r,
My commission expires�;_i_%�-j!_- ; )