SW8080653_HISTORICAL FILE_20081119

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 0$0\,DG3
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
200Cd\\ \°\
YYYYMMDD

NIAT�c
Michael r_Caslcy, Governor
YWilliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
[— North Carolina Department or Environment and Natural Resources
O Y Coleco 11. Sullins Director
Division or Water Quality
November 19, 2008
Commanding Officer c/o Mr. Carl H. Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
USMCB Camp Lejeune
1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 25847
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 080653
MICAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651)
High Density Commercial Wet Pond Project
County County
Dear Mr. Baker:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete State Stormwater Management Permit
Application for MICAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651) on November 12,
2008. Staff review of the plans and specifications has determined that the project, as
proposed, will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Session Law 2006-246 and
Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8 080653, dated November 19,
2008, for the construction and operation of the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until November 19, 2018, and shall be
subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to
the Operation and Maintenance requirements in this permit. Failure to establish an adequate
system for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system will result in
future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have
the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days
following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands
are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please
contact Christine Nelson, or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Georgette Scott
Stormwater Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
ENB/can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\PERMIT\080653.nov08
cc: Onslow County Inspections
Christine Nelson
r-Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
No thcarolina
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Internet. st tvw.ncw:uenp�lilv.org Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080653
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Commanding Officer & Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer &
USMCB Camp Lejeune
MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651)
Campbell Street, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a wet detention pond and filter strip in
compliance with the provisions of Session Law 2006-246 and 15A NCAC 2H .1000
(hereafter referred to as the "stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater
management plans and specifications and other supporting data as -attached and on file
with and approved by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until November 19, 2018, and
shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described in Section 1.7 and 1.8 of this permit. The stormwater controls
have been designed to handle the runoff from a total of 180,525 square feet of
impervious area.
3. The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated in Section I
and 1.8 on page 3 of this permit, and per approved plans.
4. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either
dedicated common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project
will be recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the
approved plans.
5. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area of this
project must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
6. The built -upon areas associated with this project shall be located at least 30 feet
landward of all perennial and intermittent surface waters.
Page 2 of 8

f .
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080653
A 30 foot filter strip has been provided for the 1,731 square feet of built -upon
area added to the hanger parking apron and must be maintained at design
condition
The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention pond and
must be maintained at design condition:
a.
Drainage Area, acres:
8.43
Onsite, ft :
355726
Offsite, ft2:
11296
b.
Total Impervioss Surfaces, ft2:
178,794
Buildings, ft :
73,774
Roads/Parking, ft2:
101,481
Sidewalk & Concrete, ft2:
1,729
Offsite, ft2:
1,810
c.
Average Pond Design Depth, feet:
3.08
d.
TSS removal efficiency:
90%
e.
Design Storm:
1.5"
f.
Basin Bottom Elev., FMSL:
5.0
g.
Sediment Cleanout Elev., FMSL:
6.0
h.
Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSL:
10.0
i.
Permanent Pool Surface Area, ft :
36,797
j.
Storage Elevation, FMSL:
1.1.4
k.
Permitted Storage Volume, ft3:
58,767
I.
Predevelopment 1-yr 24-hr discharge rate, ft3/s:
14.77
m.
Controlling Orifice:
2" O pipe
n.
Post developmer� treatment volume
discharge rate, ft s:
0.10
o.
Permanent Pool Volume, ft3:
103,290
p.
Forebay Volume, ft3:
20,995
q.
Maximum Fountain Horsepower:
1/3
r.
Receiving Stream / River Basin:
New River / White Oak
S.
Stream Index Number:
19-(15.5)
t.
Classification of Water Body:
"Sc, NSW"
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety,
vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any
built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all time provide the operation and maintenance necessary
to assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum efficiency. The
approved Operation and Maintenance Plan must be followed in its entirety and
maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals including, but not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing and re -vegetation of slopes and the vegetated filter strip.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans and
specifications.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of outlet structure, orifice device, level
spreader, filter strip, catch basins and piping.
Q. Access to the outlet structure must be available at all times.
Page 3 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080653
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept for each permitted BMP. The
records will indicate the date, activity, name of person performing the work and
what actions were taken.
Decorative spray fountains will be allowed in the stormwater treatment system,
subject to the following criteria:
a. The fountain must draw its water from less than 2' below the permanent
pool surface.
b. Separated units, where the nozzle, pump and intake are connected by
tubing, may be used only if they draw water from the surface in the
deepest part of the pond.
c. The falling water from the fountain must be centered in the pond, away
from the shoreline.
d. The maximum horsepower for a fountain in this pond is 1/3 horsepower.
The permittee shall submit to the Division of Water Quality an annual summary
report of the maintenance inspection records for each BMP. The report shall
summarize the inspection dates, results of the inspections, and the maintenance
work performed at each inspection.
Access to the stormwater facilities shall be maintained via appropriate
easements at all times.
8. The facilities shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans.. This permit
shall become void unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the
conditions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting data.
9. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received
from an appropriate designer for the system installed certifying that the permitted
facility has been installed in accordance with this permit, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting documentation. Any deviations from the
approved plans and specifications must be noted on the Certification.
10. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be
restored to design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device,
and prior to occupancy of the facility.
11. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of all or part of the project
area. The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee,
for which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval or a CAMA
Major permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
Page 4 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080653
12. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
13. The permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans for any permitted
future areas shown on the approved plans, prior to construction.
14. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee for a minimum of ten years from the date of the completion of
construction.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable except after notice to and approval by the Director.
In the event of a change of ownership, or a name change, the permittee must
submit a completed Name/Ownership Change form, to the Division of Water
Quality, signed by both parties, and accompanied by supporting documentation
as listed on page 2 of the form. The project must be in good standing with the
Division. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or
may not be approved.
2. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such
time as the Division approves the transfer request.
3. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation
of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
6. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable parts of the permit.
Page 5 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080653
10. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit
as allowed by the laws, rules and regulations contained in Session Law 2006-
246, Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000, and NCGS 143-215.1 et.al.
11. The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing
address changes at least 30 days prior to making such changes.
12. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal application at least 180 days prior to
the expiration date of this permit. The renewal request must include the
appropriate documentation and the processing fee.
Permit issued this the 191h day of November 2008.
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 6 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080653
MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651)
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 080653
Onslow County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/ full
time) the construction of the project,
(Project)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 7 of 8

. f .
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080653
Certification Requirements:
1. The drainage.area to the system contains approximately the permitted
acreage.
2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted
amount of built -upon area.
3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the
runoff drains to the system.
4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
5. The outlet/bypass structure elevations are per the approved plan.
6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet/bypass structure.
8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized per the approved plans.
13. All required design depths are provided.
14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf,
and a forebay.
15. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office
Onslow County Building Inspections

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use os on original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Applicants name (specify the name of the corporation, individual, etc, who owns the project):
2. Print Owner/Signing Official's name and title (person legally responsible for facility and compliance):
3. Mailing Address for person listed in item 2 above:
IW5 Michael Road
City:Camo_gjeune State:NC Zip:25847
Phone: (910 ) 451-213 Fax: ( 1
4. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name -should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
MCAS New River Aircrak Maintenance Hangar (P-52UP 1)
5. Location of Project (street address):
located end of _ : 11 ! _ll St.and :;lil feet . , ..1 at the existingAirfield- ! 1 ,9 1
6. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
!11 N: �S:!:1t :.1 •. 1':.
:..
.
_1.1
.:_L: K.'
1 ,I :11..� :1�.•
,, , 1: �1,
7. Latitude:34° 43' 01" N Longitude:770 26' 27" W of project
8. Contact person who can answer questions about the project:
Name:Ryan Hambleton. PE Telephone Number: (212 1 %6.4819
Email:RHambletonOStewart-eng com
H. PERMIT INFORMATION:
FormSWU-101 Version03.27.08
®C a r= 1 �7 8 �
Page I of DD
OCT 0 8 �00
DWQ
PROJ #

NOV 1 2 2008 V1. Specify whether project is (check one): NNew [-]Renewal❑Mication
.�—_
2. If this application is being submitted as the result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit, list the
existing permit numberN/A and its issue date (if known)
3. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ❑High Density ❑Redevelop ❑General Permit ❑Universal SMP ❑Other
4. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑LAMA Major ❑Sedimentation/Erosion Control ❑404/401 Permit ❑NPDES Stormwater
III. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, summarize how stormwater will be treated. Also attach a detailed narrative
(one to two pages) describing stormwater management for the project.
Stormwater from the site (new parking lot and new hangar) will be 12iped to one wet detention pond for water
quality treatment. The captured stormwater will treat the 1.5" storm and will be sized to remove the 90% TSS.
2. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin.
3. Total Property Area: N/A acres 4. Total Wetlands Area: 0 acres
5. 100' Wide Strip of Wetland Area: N/A acres (not applicable if no wetlands exist on site)
6. Total Project Area":14.6 acres 7. Project Built Upon Area:41.3 %
8. How many drainage areas does the project have? 2
9. Complete the following information for each drainage area. If there are more than two drainage areas in the
project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area provided in the same format as below.
For high density projects, complete the table with one drainage area for each engineered stormwater device.
Basin Information
Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2
Receiving Stream Name
New River
New River
Stream Class &Index No.
19-(15.5) �.3c f t5A
19-(15.5) 5C y
Total Drainage Area (so
367,022 sf 8 ,q 3Qc
4,451 sf
On -site Drainage Area (so
355,726 sf
4,451 sf
Off -site Drainage Area (so
11,296 sf
-
Existing Impervious" Area (so
91,479 sf
-
Proposed Impervious"Area (so
178,794 sf
1,731 sf
% Impervious` Area (total)
48.7 %
38.9 %
Impervious" Surface Area
Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2
On -site Buildings (so
73,774 sf (jjar t
On -site Streets (so
19,332 IAp o L.A,pho
On -site Parking (so
82,149 sf
1,731 sf
On -site Sidewalks (so
1,579 sf
Other on -site (so
150 sf
Off -site (so
1,810 sf 10-4fL'A
Total (so:
178,794 sf
1,731 sf
Fonn SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 2 of 4

finpernious arm is de fined as the built upon area including, but not lindled to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidelvalks, gravel area's, etc.
"'Total project orea shall be calculated fussed oo llte current policy regarding inelusion of roellmnds itt the built upon area
percentage calculation. This is the area used to calcubde percent project built upon area (Blbl).
10. How was the off -site impervious area listed above derived?Topographic survey of site
IV. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
One of the following deed restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded for all subdivisions,
outparcels and future development prior to the sale of any lot. if lot sizes vary significantly, a table listing each lot
number, size and the allowable built -upon area for each lot must be provided as an attachment. Forms can be
downloaded from http://h2o enr state nc us/su/bmp forme htm - deed restrictions.
Form DRPC-1
High Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-2
High Density Developments with Outparcels
Form 13RPC-3
High Density Residential Subdivisions
Form DRPC- I
Low Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-5
Low Density Residential Subdivisions
Form DR15C-6
Low Density Residential Subdivisions with Curb Outlets
By your signature below, you certify that the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants for this
project shall include all the applicable items required in the above form, that the covenants will be binding on
all parties and persons claiming under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants
cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the State, and that they will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
'rhe applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each
BMP specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status
and availability of these forms. Forms can be downloaded from bttp://h2o.enr state nc us/sti/bmp forme htm.
Form SW401-Low Density
Form SW401-Curb Outlet System
Form SW401-Off-Site System
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Trench
Form SW401-13ioretention Cell
Form SW401-1-evel Spreader
Form SW401-Wetland
Form SW401-Grassed Swale
Form SW401-Sand Filler
Form SW401-Permeable Pavement
Form SWU-101 Version 03 27.08
Low Density Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Off -Site System Supplement
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Level Spreader/Filter Strip/Restored Riparian Buffer Supplement
Constructed Welland Supplement
Grassed Swale Supplement
Sand Filter Supplement
Permeable Pavement Supplement
j�E C E I V ED
OCT 0 8 2008
DWO
Page 3 u1.4 PROJ #

i'
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (Appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at hup:f/h2o.enc.stote.nc.us/su/msi mans.hun)
1. Please indicate that you have provided the following required information by initialing in the space.provided
next to each item.
Initials
• Original and one copy of the stormwater Management Permit Application Form VIA/—��
• Original and one copy of the Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants Form (if_
required as per Part IV above) �, L
• Original of the applicable Supplement Forms) and O&M agreement(s) for 13MP /4C7
• Permit application processing fee of $505 (Express: $4,000 for HD, $2,000 for LD)
payable to NCDENR
• Calculations & detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management
• Copy of any applicable soils report tot
• Two copies of plans and specifications (sealed, signed &dated), including:
- Development/Project name
- Engineer and firm
- Legend
- North arrow
- Scale
- Revision number & date
- Mean high water line
- Dimensioned property/project boundary
- Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
- Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
- Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures
- Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
- Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations
- Drainage areas delineated
- Vegetated buffers (where required)
VI1. AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If you wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide information on your
behalf, please complete this section. (ex. designing engineer or firm)
Designated agent (individual or firm): Siewart l::ngineerinf Ryan Hambleton
Mailing Address: 421 Fayetteville St.. Suitc 400
City: Raleigh Statc:NC Zip:_ 27601
Phone. ( 919 1 866-4891 Fax: [phone]
Email: �2ALY" b%'>< M ®S/ac
Vlll. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION /�J•�/! ��
1, (print or type name of person listed in General h fonaation, itent 2)
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with theapproved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covetyn s will be rec d, and that the.proposcd project complies with the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2F1.1000. / J n A
Date: /a— —06
FonnSWU-101 Version03.27.08 Page 4of4

P. 01
t TRANSACTION REPORT
NOV-20-2008 THU 08:10 AM
FOR: NCDENR 910 350 2004
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
NOV-20 08:08 AM 919104512927 1'47" 9 FAX TX OK 600
TOTAL 1M 47S PAGES: 9
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor FAX COVER SHEET
Date: ��
To: 0 2'"r l—
Co:�-
Fax:
Re: `L
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
No. Pages (excl. cover):
Express Permitting
From: Sa:ndr� a E� xurn
Phone: M0296"7265
Fax:
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 29405 • (910) 79&7215 • An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
i
I

P. 01
TRANSACTION REPORT
NOV-20-2008 THU 08:13 AM
FOR: NCDENR 910 360 2004
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
NOV-20 08:10 AM 919193808752 2'12" 9 FAX TX OK 601
l TOTAL 2M 12S PAGES: 9
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Michael F. Earley, Governor
FAX COVER SHEET
William C. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Date:No. Pages (excl. cover):
4 Express Permitting
To: r is a itit eL_ From: Sandra Gxum
Q Phone [phone]
Fax: Far: [phone]_
Re:
Hard Copy to follow
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

www.crewere-env.com
S ` No, 1
O BY�Sb
S T E WA R T November 11, 2008
Christine Nelson
Division of Water Quality - Wilmington Regional Office
r 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Request for Additional information comments
Dear Ms. Nelson
Please find below are the comment responses for the request for additional information
for Stormwater project No. SW8 056053.
1. Please find 3 copies of the revised application sheet 3 (revised section III.9) and
3 copies of sheet CGO02 (revised area's) to be slipped into the previous
submittal.
2. The wet detention pond supplement has been rvised. The "Storage Volume: Non -
SR Waters, Volume Provided" has been revised to the volume provided up to the
next outlet.
3. The area shown for the bottom of the vegetated shelf (31,768) is based on the
polyline area calculated using CAD. The two area's under the storage tables were
calculated using CAD at elevation 9.5 for the forebay and the pond. This was
done using an offset from elevation 9.0 and does not count in the berm area as
this calculation is primarily to show 20% forebay volume. Because of the way
the computer offsets and the way the pond would be built these area's would not
necessarily add up to the entire pond surface area at the bottom of vegetated
shelf. See color coded sketch for clarification.
4. The drawdown rate for the temporary pool has been revised. We are calculating
the head from the next outlet(10 - 11.4) using 1-1/3 and the area of the design
storm to calculate the orifice size. This changed the drawdown pipe from a 3" to
a 2". The plan sheet (CG105 has also been revised and 3 sets of that plan sheet
is included.
5. The calculation for depth (option 2) has been revised to include the depth of the
pond from bottom of pond (discounting sediment storage depth) to the bottom of
the vegetated shelf. The calculation along with comments on the supplemental
form have been revised.
6. Check included with submittal.
7.
Sincerely, ��J 4 /
Ryan A. Hamblefon, PEAS
Project Engineer
Rhambleton(a)stewart-eng.com
Enclosures
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS.T" 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752

I
STEWART
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
I i Nuv �• gggg
f BY: o�t,v� o�ocp
TO FROM
Christine Nelson
Ryan Hambleton
NCDNER Stormwater Section
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Project Manager,
Civil Department,
Stewart Engineering, Inc
910-796-7323
[phone]
DATE SENT VIA
11.11.08 UPS Next Day Air (10:30 a.m.)
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME
C8020 MCAS New River Maintenance Hangar
COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
1
11.11.08
revised application sheet 2.
1
11.11.08
su emental forms
3
11.11.08
REvised calculation sheets
3
11.11.08
Revised Sheets CGO02 and CG105
For approval
For review & comment
Returned for corrections
For your use
Approved as submitted
Returned after review
As requested
Approved as noted
El
Resubmit copies for approval
COMMENTS
Christine,
Please find enclosed additional information.
Thank you,
SIGNED
Ryan A. Hambleton, P.E.
COPIED TO
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS.' 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
--I
`C Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
November 4, 2008
Commanding Officer, c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
USMCB Camp Lejeune
1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 25847
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 080653
MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651)
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a State Stormwater Management Permit Application
for MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651) on October 9, 2008. A
preliminary review of that information has determined that the following information is needed
to continue the stormwater review:
1. The information submitted on October 30, 2008 in response to the previous request for
additional information indicates that the drainage area has been reduced from 367,793
sq ft to 367,022 sq ft. Please update Section 111.9 of the application and plan sheet
CGO02 to ensure the documents are consistent.
2. On page 1 of the wet detention pond supplement under "Storage Volume: Non -SR
Waters, Volume Provided", please present the actual storage volume not the required
storage volume.
3. The surface area identified for the bottom of the vegetated shelf (31,768 sq ft) on the
supplement and other documentation is inconsistent with the areas presented in the
stage, storage tables (6,560 sq ft + 24,050 sq ft = 30,610 sq ft). Please verify the
information is accurate.
4. The drawdown rate for the temporary pool should be based on the required storage
volume, not the actual storage volume. The head should be based on the distance to
the next available outlet, not the distance to the required storage volume. With the
current orifice size of 3", it appears that the required storage volume will drawdown in
less than two days. Please resize the orifice so that the drawdown rate for the required
minimum storage volume is between 2 and 5 days. Please see the attached schematic
previously created by Linda Lewis for clarification. Also refer to Section VI. B.1 of the
wet pond Application Review Checklist available on the BMP website if further
clarification is needed.
The following comment was not identified in the original review, therefore was not
considered in the assignment of the fee for additional information.
NOw hCarolina
744tum!/y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: www.ncwaterqualityorg Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAffrmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled110 % Post Consumer Paper

Carl Baker
November 4, 2008
Stormwater Application No. SW8 080653
According to Figure 10-2b of the BMP errata sheet, the depth variable used in
the optional average depth calculation should be the distance between the
bottom of the vegetated shelf and the bottom of the pond (excluding the sediment
accumulation level). The provided calculations appear to use the permanent
pool elevation instead of the elevation for the bottom of the vegetated shelf.
Please re -calculate the average depth based on the correct depth. Adjust the
subsequent calculations based on the resultant average depth, if necessary.
6. Please submit a $500 fee for the additional review required for this application.
7. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and
require the calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be
updated. Verify all numbers are accurate and consistent in the application
documents.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary
review. The requested information should be received in this Office by November 12,
2008, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will
necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under
an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and
is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have
any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or
email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
�- 906W.-ID
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
ENB/can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\ADDINFO\2008\080653.nov08
cc: Ryan Hambleton, Stewart Engineering
Christine Nelson
CWilmington=Regional-Office
Page 2 of 2

EXAMPLE AVERAGE HEAD / DRAWDOWN
CALCULATION
(with outlet set above the calculated min. Temp. Pool Elevation)
Given: Required volume to store = 25,000 cubic feet
Permanent Pool Elevation = 10.0
Calculated minimum 1" storage elevation = 11.35
Outlet weir set at elevation 13.0 (Temporary Pool Elevation)
Total Head, H, = (13.0 - 10.0) = 3.0
Average Head =%(3, 0) = 1.0' (Approximate)
Q2 (2 day flowrate) = 25,000 / 172,800 = .145 cfs
Qs (5 day flowrate) = 25,000 / 432,000 = .058 cfs
Rearrange the orifice equation and solve for Area:
A = Q / (Cd (2gh)05) where
A is the orifice area in square feet
Q is the 2 and 5 day flowrates, cfs
Cd is 0.6
g = 32.2 f/S2
And h = average head, feet
A2 for the 2 day flowrate = .145 / (.6 (2*32.2*1.0)0 5) = .0301 ft2
A5 for the 5 day flowrate = .058 / (.6 (2*32.2*1.0)05) = .0120 ft2
.0301 x 144 in /ft2 = 4.33 square inches
.0120 x 144 in2/ft2 = 1.73 square inches
Solving for the radius, R and diameter D:
A=TrxR2 R=(A/Tr)0.5
R2 = (4.33 / Tr)05 = 1.17 inches D2 = 2R2 = 2.35 inches
R5 = 0.73 / Tr)05 = 0.74 inches D5 = 2R5 = 1.48 inches
T.PE. = 13.0
._I YL,��PPE =10.0
EXAMPLE AVERAGE HEAD / DRAWDOWN
CALCULATION
(with outlet set at the calculated min. Temp. Pool Elevation)
Given: Required volume to store = 25,000 cubic feet
Permanent pool Elevation = 10.0
Calculated minimum 1" storage elevation = 11.35
Outlet weir set at elevation 11.35 (Temporary Pool Elevation)
Total Head, H, = (11.35 - 10.0) = 1.35 feet
Average Head, h, ='/3 (1.35) = 0.45' (Approximate)
Q2 (2 day flowrate) = 25,000 / 172,800 = .145 cfs
Q5 (5 day flowrate) = 25,000 / 432,000 = .058 cfs
Rearrange the orifice equation and solve for Area:
A = Q / (Cd (2gh)0 5) where
A is the orifice area in square feet
Q is the 2 and 5 day flowrates, cfs
Cd is 0.6
g = 32.2 ft/s2
And h = average head, feet
A2 for the 2 day flowrate = .145 / (.6 (2*32.2*0.45)0 5) = .045 ft2
A5 for the 5 day flowrate = .058 / (.6 (2*32.2*0.45)0 5) = .018 ft2
.045 x 144 in2/ft2 = 6.46 square inches
.018 x 144 in2/ft2 = 2.59 square inches
Solving for the radius, R and diameter D:
A = Tr x R2 R = (A / Tr)o.s
R2 = (6.46 / Tr)0 5 = 1.43 inches D2 = 2R2 = 2.87 inches
R5 = (2.59 / Tr)0 5 = 0.907 inches Ds = 2R5 = 1.81 inches
s
ofH
c 00- 1 _ 1 1: •.
5:%Wc,Q5\ 5tormw2+erg Gt~idance\
T-P.E_=11.35
-10.0

request fdr additional info: SW Project No. 080653 WAS New River...
Subject: request for additional info: SW Project No. 080653 MCAS New River Aircraft Hanger
From: Christine Nelson <Christine.Nelson@ncmaiLneV
Date: TUC, 04 Nov 2008 14:19:27 -0500
To: Ryan klambleton <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC: David Towler <[e-mail]>, Joe Puckett <[e-mail]>, Janet Russell
<Janet. Russel I@ncmaiLneV
Gentlemen,
I have attached a pdf version of my second request for additional information for
Stormwater Project SW8 080653 - MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger
(P-526/P-651). I have also attached a schematic that will hopefully help clarify the
drawdown calculations. You will also receive copies of this letter in the mail.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Thanks!
Christine
Express Stormwater Permitting
NC-DENR
080653.nov08.pdf, Content -Type: application/pdf
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Type: application/pdf
Average Head & Drawdown Calculation.pdf I
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 11/4/2008 2:20 PM

www.fbwarlan9.tOm
03)
STEWART
October 29, 2008
Christine Nelson
Division of Water Quality - Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Request for appeal of additional review fee.
Dear Ms. Nelson
OCT 3 0 2008
3
Q,Q
C;ftoarcOk `DCO�
Please find below are the comment responses for the request for additional information
for Stormwater project No. SW8 056053.
1. Please find original O&M agreement for the Filter strip. We had thought the
"copy" sent with the original submittal was an original.
2. Non -SR Water storage Volume in the wet detention basin supplement has been
filled in. Volume used is for "volume provided was for the design storm (non -
routed).
3. Supplement - "Temporary pool elevation" was calculated using the 1.5" storm
water surface. We will revise to put the surface area of the next riser elevation
on the form.
4. The permanent pool surface is correct on the supplement. We have revised the
calculations sheet.
5. We will provide "additional important elevations" on page 3 of the calculations.
Bottom of pond, Bottom of Veg. Shelf, Normal pool already included. We will add
Top of Veg. Shelf, temporary pool (next riser), and design pool surface area to
that calculation sheet. As you noted the bottom of vegetated shelf is slightly
different in the calculations then the supplement and both have been revised to
match.
6. We have revised our calculations to not include the 1-foot sediment accumulation
depth and associated volume. We also included the Option 2 Volume calculation
for average depth which does provide over 3 foot depth. Per your comment we .
have revised our numbers in the calculations and supplement.
7. Our numbers within the example calculation was incorrect but the formula used
to calculate the OP2 depth was correct. We have revised both to match the new
surface area's.
B. We have revised our calculations for determining average head from 1-1/2 to 1-1/3.
We had not realized that the calculation had been changed as no one else had
made a comment on it over the past year. Thank you for pointing it out.
9. You state that the drawdown rate for the temporary pool should be based on the
design storm volume, not the actual temporary pool volume. This goes counter
to past comments from Linda Lewis and per 10.3.9 "outlet design", "the outlet
device shall be designed to release the temporary pool volume over a period of
48 to 120 hours. The very next figure (figure 10-4) shows the temporary pool
elevation at the next outlet (outlet box). If this is a change to the "standard
calculating procedure" for calculating the drawdown we will change the
calculations for all future projects. For this we have provided calculation with all
the possible variations - using drawdown of 1-1/3 and the design storm (storage .
required), drawdown from the design storm (as routed in hydro flow taking into
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS." 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752

STEWART
account the outlet flow), and drawdown from the temporary pool elevation (next
outlet (elev - 11.40') and the resulting pipe for a drawdown rate of 2 - 5 days
remains 3 inches.
10. We will provide a plan showing the swale from the driveway pipes. See revised
grading sheet CG104 and CG105. We have removed one set of culverts at the
southern drive entrance and re -directed the flow from that area to 11-FES. The.
offsite drainage area #4 was reduced by 700sf b/c of this change.
11. Additional spot elevations for the mechanical equipment enclosures are provided.
The enclosures drain from back to front into the proposed swale. The drainage
area map CGO02 was be revised. The impervious area for the entire enclosure(s)
has already been included with the calculations (900sf)
12. Spots added to parking lot for clarity.
13. The 6" drawdown orifice is intended for maintenance and / or emergency. Note
was added to plans and supplement.
14. Plantings revised and selected by registered Landscape Architect using Table 9-1
of the BMP manual.
15. BMP plants added to planting list and plan to add variety of species.
16. I'm hopefull that I've caught and revised all the numbers to match.
17. Having heard nothing of my appeal we are including the $1,000 re -review fee.
18. Based on responses from the grading contractor the GC has elected to not grade
the "triangle apron add on" toward the northern wash rack area. The triangle
area will be graded toward a filter strip per the original plan. We do Thank you
for your consideration of the proposed change though.
Sincerely
Ryan.A. Ha�bleto/n,
PE
`
Project Engineer
[e-mail]
Enclosures
2of2

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
STEWART
RECEIVED
OCT 1 3 2008
BY -
TO
FROM
Christine Nelson
Ryan Hambleton
NCDNER Stormwater Section
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Project Manager,
Civil Department,
Stewart Engineering, Inc
910-796-7323
[phone]
DATE SENT VIA
10.8.08 UPS Next Day Air (10:30 a.m.)
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME
C8020 MCAS New River Maintenance Hangar
COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
1
10.7.08
Si ned SIA cover sheet.
1
10.9.08
su lemental forms
For approval
For review & comment
Returned for corrections
For your use
Approved as submitted
Returned after review
As requested
Approved as noted
El
Resubmit copies for approval
COMMENTS
Christine,
Please find the signature page for the SIA and supplemental forms.
Thank you,
SIGNED
Ryan A. Hambleton, P.E.
COPIED TO
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTION S.T" 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752

r
Reque.5t Appeal to RE -review fee for SW Project No. 080653 MCAS...
Subject: Request Appeal to RE -review fee for SW Project No. 080653 MCAS New River Aircraft
Hanger
From: "Ryan Hambleton" <rhambleton cdstewart-eng.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:26:43 -0400
To: <ed. beck@ncmai 1. net>, <georgette.scott@ncmai 1. net>
CC: "Christine Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Dear Mr. Beck,
I am emailing you to request an appeal to a re -review fee required
by my reviewer of the MCAS New River Aircraft Hangar project. I have
included the original comments and a preliminary response to each in my
letter along with what I feel is the reason why the re -review fee should
not be required.
Upon reviewing the comments I found that most were small errors in
transference of numbers between our calculations and the supplement or
in the calculations of the pond volume and drawdown, some of which we
have not been commented on before. None of the comments resulted in a
change to the design of the pond and the changes to the calculations and
numbers were incrementally small ... as it's been said we are not making
watches.
In general if someone could let me know what standard is established
for requiring a re -review fee as it seems to be.different between .
reviewers and please let me know the status of my appeal as soon as
possible as I am required to re -submit by Thursday.
I appreciate your time and thank you in advance to any response to my
appeal.
Ryan Hambleton, PE
Project Manager
STEWART ENGINEERING
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Direct 919.866.4819
Fax [phone]
Engineering. Innovation. Solutions.
-----Original Message -----
From: Christine Nelson[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:33 PM
To: Ryan Hambleton; David Towler; [e-mail]
Cc: Joe Puckett; Janet Russell
Subject: request for additional info: SW Project No. 080653 MCAS New
River Aircraft Hanger
Gentlemen,
I have attached a pdf version of my request for additional information
for Stormwater Project SW8 080653 - MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance
Hanger (2-526/P-651). I will also send copies via mail. Please let me
know if you have questions.
Thanks!
Christine
Express Stormwater Permitting
NC-DENR
Content -Description: 080653.oct08. pd f
l of 2 10/27/2008 1:03 PM

Request Appeal to RE -review fee for SW Project No. 080653 WAS...
Content -Type:
Content -Encoding:
application/pdf
base64
[Content -Description: Appeal of Re -review fee.pdf
[Appeal of Re -review fee.pdf' Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Content -Encoding: base64
2 of 2 10/27/2008 1:03 PM

C($)
S T E WA R T October 24, 2008
Ed Beck
Division of Water Quality - Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Request for appeal of additional review fee.
Dear Mr. Beck
I am requesting that the enclosed comment #17 be waived requesting $1,000 additional
fee for the "additional review required". Past reviews by other reviewers have required
additional information above and beyond what is asked here and yet no "re -review" fee
was required. What is the standard for when a re -review fee is required?
I have gone through the comments and find that of the 17 only one requires an actual
change to the design, which is the addition of a Swale and rip rap area. The remaining
comments relate to tiny incremental changes in numbers and design, none of which
result in a design change of the pond or the project.
❑ 3 are for additional info for grading which resulted in the minor change to the plan
❑ 3 are calculation errors or omissions in transferring from the supplement to the
calculations sheet or vice versa but none were major changes.
CI 2 are omission of items like the original O&M sheet we thought had been sent and a
volume for SR waters which was in the original supplement but didn't get transferred.
❑ 3 are design comments that run counter to what we typically do or are changes that
we have not seen within the BMP manual (like the 1-1/2 vs. 1-1/3, or using the design
storm volume for drawdown versus the next outlet.
❑ And 2 are landscape comments that may result in changing some plant types in the
vegetative shelf.
Below are the preliminary comment responses for your preview.
1. We will provide an original O&M agreement for the Filter strip. We had thought
the "copy" sent was an original.
2. Non -SR Water storage Volume in the wet detention basin supplement will be filled
in. We had this information in our original submission but we needed to resubmit
a supplement and that information did not get transposed onto the new
supplement. In an effort to link our calculations to the supplement we had
modified the excel spreadsheet. This was not acceptable to the reviewer and the
data link was lost.
3. Supplement - "Temporary pool elevation" was calculated using the 1.5" storm
water surface and put on the supplement. We will revise to put the next riser
elevation on the form.
4. The permanent pool surface is correct on the supplement. We have revised the
calculations sheet. The difference is 2% between the numbers in the supplement
and the calculations in the SIA, which does not effect the design of the pond.
5. We will provide "additional important elevations" on page 3 of the calculations.
Bottom of pond, Bottomo f Veg. Shelf, Normal pool already included. We will add
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS." 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC 1919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380,8752

S T E WA R T
Top of Veg. Shelf, temporary pool (next riser), and design pool surface area to
that calculation sheet. As you noted the bottom of vegetated shelf is slightly
different in the calculations then the supplement.
6.
We have revised our calculations to not include the 1-foot sediment accumulation
depth and associated volume. We also included the Option 2 Volume calculation
for average depth which does provide over 3 foot depth. Per your comment you
asked
7.
Our numbers within the example calculation was incorrect but the formula used
to calculate the OP2 depth was correct.
8.
We have revised our calculations for determining average head from H/2 to 1-1/3.
We had not realized that the calculation had been changed as no one else had
made a comment on it over the past year. Thank you for pointing it out.
9.
You state that the drawdown rate for the temporary pool should be based on the
design storm volume, not the actual temporary pool volume. This goes counter
to past comments from Linda Lewis and per 10.3.9 "outlet design", "the outlet
device shall be designed to release the temporary pool volume over a period of
48 to 120 hours. The very next figure (figure 10-4) shows the temporary pool
elevation at the next outlet (outlet box). If this is a change to the "standard
calculating procedure" for calculating the drawdown we will change the
calculations for all future projects. For this we have provided calculation with all
CnCC�Y�`-
the possible variations - using drawdown of H/3 and the design storm (storage
u`
required), drawdown from the design storm (as routed in hydro flow taking into
'account flow),
dux C A1C.�
U
the outlet and drawdown from the temporary pool elevation (next
outlet (elev - 11.40') and the resulting pipe for a drawdown rate of 2 - S days
remains 3 inches.
10.
We will provide a plan showing the swale from the driveway pipes. See revised
grading sheet CG104 and CG105.
11.
Additional spot elevations for the mechanical equipment enclosures are provided.
The enclosures drain from back to front into the proposed Swale. The drainage
area map CG002 will be revised. The impervious area for the entire enclosure(s)
has already been included with the calculations (900sf)
12.
Spots added to parking lot for clarity. I'm a little confused as to why you needed
them as there were contours available and it was obvious that drainage was
going into the storm system.
13.
The 6" drawdown orifice is intended for maintenance and / or emergency. Note
was added to plans and supplement
14.
TBD
15.
TBD
16.
OK
17.
We wish to appeal this decision of requiring a $1,000 re -review fee.
If someone could please review the comments, responses, and provide us with the
reason this particular project falls into a "re -review fee" option.
Sincerely,
Ryan A. Hambleton, PE
Project Engineer
Rhambleton(ulstewart-eng.com
Enclosures
2of2

WA74 90
O Y
October 22, 2008
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Commanding Officer, c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
USMCB Camp Lejeune
1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 25847
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 080653
MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651)
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
The Wilmington Regional Office received a State Stormwater Management Permit Application
for MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hanger (P-526/P-651) on October 9, 2008. A
preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not complete. The
following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
mNv,of 1. It appears that the Filter Strip, Buffer, and Level Spreader O&M agreement provided
with the application is a copy. Please provide a filter strip O&M agreement with the
original signatures.
YY fv)'F 2. Complete the Storage Volume: Non -SR Waters section in the wet detention basin
supplement.
YYIIAof 3. The temporary pool elevation listed on the wet detention pond supplement should be
the next available outlet on the pond outlet structure. Please verify the elevation
presented in the supplement is consistent with the other documentation.
Jhc�n^s The permanent pool surface area identified in the supplement (36,797 sq ft) is
inconsistent with the surface area provided on page 3 of the calculations (35,956 sq. ft).
Please verify all values are presented accurately and consistently in the various
documents.
_Jpco>1Ts5}- 5. On page 3 of the calculations, please include additional important elevations in the
stage -storage tables in order to ensure consistency among the provided documents
(vegetated shelf elevations and temporary pool elevation). For instance, page 3 of the
calculations indicates that the surface area at the bottom of the vegetated shelf is
31,495 sq ft, ,however the supplement indicates it is 33,877 sq ft.
M,6: f 6. It appears that the permanent pool volume, average depth (OP1), and associated
calculations include the 1-foot sediment accumulation depth and associated volume.
The depth of the permanent pool is considered to be difference between the permanent
pool elevation and the top elevation of the sediment storage and does not include the
minimum 1-foot sediment accumulation depth (refer to Figure 10-2b, Figure 10-3, and
Section 10.3.4 of the 2007 BMP manual). Please revise the calculations and
supplement to consider just the permanent pool in the pond calculations.
NOr. hCarolina
1rtura//;
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: w ,ncvvaterauality.org Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmalive Action Employer — 50 % Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Carl Baker
October 22, 2008
Stormwater Application No. SW8 080653
7. The average depth calculation (OP2) listed on page 3 of the calculations appears
to use inconsistent values. For instance, the average depth calculation (OP2)
indicates that 15,679 sq ft is used for both the surface area at the bottom of the
pond (ie top of sediment storage elevation) as well as for the area at the bottom
of the vegetated shelf. Also, verify the values used in the calculation are
consistent with the other documents.
8.
The average head used to calculate the discharge rate and drawdown time from
the pond should be calculated based on Section 3.5.2 of the 2007 BMP manual.
The September 28, 2007 version of the BMP Manual changed the average head
equation from H/2 to H/3.
Y11a�o�� 9.
The drawdown rate for the temporary pool should be based on the design storm
Morey
and required storage volume, not the actual storage volume. It appears that with
the current orifice size of 3", the required storage volume will drawdown in less
than two days. Please resize the orifice so that the drawdown rate for the
required storage volume is between 2 and 5 days.
(YV �O� 10.
Plan sheet CG104 indicates that the driveway pipes will drain to the north
through a drainage swale. Please provide a plan detailing where that swale
drains. Please note that the drainage area map provided with the application
indicates that this area is included in the drainage area for the pond, in which
case all runoff from the drainage area should be captured and treated by the
pond.
11. Please provide additional proposed spot elevations for the mechanical equipment
enclosures. According to the drainage area map, CG002, a portion of these
enclosures are not included in the drainage area of the pond.
Mc:�o,i 12. Please provide additional proposed spot elevations for the southern portion of the
parking lot similar to the spot elevations in the northern part of the lot and
surrounding storm drain inlets 03-YI and 02-YI.
13.The pond riser detail on plan sheet CG105 indicates that a 6" drawdown orifice
with a plug valve is proposed at the bottom of the riser. Please detail the
purpose of this drawdown orifice and when it will be utilized. If intended for use
during maintenance or emergencies, please identify it on the supplement in the
last item under Section II. Design Information.
nor 14.According to plan sheet L101, it appears that the pond side slopes above the
vegetated shelf are to be planted with soft rush. Please keep in mind that the
O&M agreement for wet ponds requires the vegetation around the perimeter of
the wet basin to be maintained at approximately 6 inches. Soft rush is not
usually used for the side slopes above the vegetated shelf as it can cause
erosion problems between the vegetation clumps. Because of maintenance
requirements, grass or sod is often used for side slope vegetation.
15. Please increase the variety of plant species selected for the vegetated shelf.
Section 10.3.7 of the BMP manual recommends selecting several species of
wetland vegetation for the vegetated shelf in order to increase the chance some
species will survive permanent pool water level changes.
Page 2 of 3

Carl Baker
October 22, 2008
Stormwater Application No. SW8 080653
16. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and
require the calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be
updated. Verify all numbers are accurate and consistent in the application
documents.
17. Please submit a $1,000 fee for the additional review required for this application.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary
review. The requested information should be received in this Office prior to October
30, 2008, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will
necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under
an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and
is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have
any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or
email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely, ry -
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
ENB/can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\ADDINFO\2008\080653.oct08
cc: Ryan Hambleton, Stewart Engineering
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 3 of 3

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
C(::S�"
;
STEWART TO
FROM
Christine Nelson
Ryan Hambleton
NCDNER Stormwater Section
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Project Manager,
Civil Department,
Stewart Engineering, Inc
910-796-7323
[phone]
DATE SENT VIA
10.7.08 UPS Next Day Air (10:30 a.m.)
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME
C8020 MICAS New River Maintenance Hangar
COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
1
10.7.08
On inal 0&M A reement for Filter Strip
1
10.7.08
Calculations and Narrative (inlcuding supplemental forms,
SHWT determination letter report and Geotechnical report)
2
10.7.08
Stormwater Plans folded
For approval
For review & comment
Returned for corrections
For your use
Approved as submitted
Returned after review
As requested
Approved as noted
EJ
Resubmit copies for approval
COMMENTS
Christine,
Please find enclosed the package for stormwater permit for the MCAS New River
Maintenance Hangar. Another package directly from David Towler will include the
following;
original + copy of Stormwater Management Application
Original O&M agreement for Wet Pond
SIGNED
Ryan A. Hambleton, P.E.
COPIED TO
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS.'" 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752

aboutblank
Ryan:
To confirm your telephone message of today.... You will mail in the stormwater submittal package for
Christine's review so that she will receive the package on October 8. The package will be logged in as
received on,October S�for processing.
Do not hesitate to contact me if there are problems, 910 796-7421.
Thanks,
Janet
` 130106 �N1�
I of 1 9/30/2008 3:04 PM

RE: FW: New River Maintenance Hangar
Subject: RE: FW: New River Maintenance Hangar
From: "Ryan Flambleton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:05:19 -0400
To: "Christine Nelson" <Christine.Nelson a ncmai1.net>, "Janet Russell" <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>
CC: "Joe Puckett" <[e-mail]>
Janet / Christine;
I was emailing to request a submittal date for the MCAS New River Maintenance
Hangar. Based on conversations between Christine and Joe Pucket at our office I.
understand we are at least on track with our calculations.
Can we submit Thursday, October 2nd?
Please let me know if that works with your schedule.
Thanks,
Ryan
From: Christine Nelson[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thu 9/25/2008 11:40 AM
To: Ryan Hambleton
Cc: Janet Russell; James Phillips
Subject: Re: FW: New River Maintenance Hangar
Ryan,
I have shown Linda your e-mail with Jim's
that his experience is ok for determining
questions.
Christine
Ryan Hambleton wrote:
Christine,
expanded soils experience. She has agreed
the SHWT. Let me know if you have
I talked with Jim Phillips (our environmental manager who made the
call) and have a couple "soil qualifications" that he has completed.
Graduate studies under Dr. Jim Gregory, CPSS at NCSU 1994 -
1998
Hydric soil determinations in Great Dismal Swamp
Wildlife Refuge
Dare County Bombing range
Wetland delineations (which require hydric soil determinations)
Stewart Engineering (various projects)
2000 - 2008
Wetland delineation field training course (NCSU)
2006
Stream Determinations for calls on stream locations (submitted to Corp.
of Engineers and DWQ)
Stewart Engineering (various projects) 2000 -
2008
Let me know if wetland determinatins and stream calls qualify him for
this type of work. I can get a list of actual projects and
Environmental Assessments that he has submitted in the past.
Thanks for checking in on his qualifications.
I of 2 9/29/2008 8:40 AM

Re: FW: New River Maintenance Hangar
Subject: Re: FW: New River Maintenance Hangar
From: Christine Nelson <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:40:03 -0400
To: Ryan Hambleton <rhambleton cr stewart-eng.com>
CC: Janet Russell <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>, James Phillips <jphi llips@stewart,eng.com>
Ryan,
I have shown Linda your e-mail with Jim's expanded soils experience. She has agreed that his
experience is ok for determining the SHWT. Let me know if you have questions.
Christine
Ryan Hambleton wrote:
Christine,
I talked with Jim Phillips (our environmental manager who made the
call) and have a couple "soil qualifications" that he has completed.
Graduate studies under Dr. Jim Gregory, CPSS at NCSU 1994 -
1998
Hydric soil determinations in Great Dismal Swamp
Wildlife Refuge
Dare County Bombing range
Wetland delineations (which require hydric soil determinations)
Stewart Engineering (various projects)
2000 - 2008
Wetland delineation field training course (NCSU)
2006
Stream Determinations for calls on stream locations (submitted to Corp.
of Engineers and DWQ)
Stewart Engineering (various projects) 2000 -
2008
Let me know if wetland determinatins and stream calls qualify him for
this type of work. I can get a list of actual projects and
Environmental Assessments that he has submitted in the past.
Thanks for checking in on his qualifications.
Ryan
-----Original Message -----
From: Christine Nelsontmailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:19 PM
To: Ryan Hambleton
Cc: Janet Russell
Subject: Re: FW: New River Maintenance Hangar
Ryan,
I have discussed this project with my supervisor, Georgette Scott, as to
whether it can be accepted into program even with the outstanding SHWT
issues. She supports the decision not to accept the project until the
soils issue has been resolved. The SHWT needs to be nailed down so we
all know how to proceed.
Were you able to identify any soils qualifications for the person that
made the calls? Soil workshops, training, other soil reports they had
completed?
I of 2 9/25/2008 11:40 AM

(:
FW: StpIT to Normal Pool Calculation for MCAS New River
7
Subject: FW: SHWT to Normal Pool Calculation for MCAS New River
From: "Joe Puckett" <jpuckett cr stewart-eng.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:41:37 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Christine,
When you get this email, please feel free to call and I will be happy to explain the following
attachments. [phone].
Summary
I calculated the groundwater seepage into the pond using a flow net. A flow net is a graphical
solution for steady, two-dimensional, incompressible fluid through a homogenous medium. Using
the permeability of a fine sand as determined in the geotechnical report yields; k=1E-4 cm/s:
Below 10 feet the permeability is much less because the site has clays which have a typically
permeability of 1E-7 cm/s. The attached calculations show using the following equation:
Q=kHI N�m�
which is a modification to Darcy's Law for groundwater seepage from flow nets; yielded an average
flow of 0.2296 cubic feet foot of dam per day. If the SHWT was equal to the existing ground
surface and this rate applied into the 33,761 Surface Area at Normal Pool Pond, then the normal
pool would rise 0.34 inches in 5 days with the assumption of zero discharge from the
pond.
Also, attached is an updated stormwater cross section sheet, where we ran the pond with the
assumption that the normal pool was at 10.75 feet above mean sea level (original proposed normal
pool at 9). Because the average of the two SHWT bores previously taken average to 10.75. This
routing of the pond required the riser rim to be adjusted to an elevation of 11.40 feet above mean
sea level to insure that the 1.5" event was captured and discharged over 2-5 days during a SHWT
event. This routing assumes that the seasonal high water elevation raises the starting water
surface elevation regardless of the soil permeability.
With these two calculations it appears that the pond design and methodology we are proposing
should be acceptable for submission regardless of what the actual SHWT is determined to be,
because of the low permeability of the soils. Based on the soil k value and the proposed routing of
the pond using a starting water surface elevation of 10.75' we believe that no matter what the
SHWT is determined to be that our design will meet the necessary requirements.
Please review and call/email with any questions.
Joe Puckett, PE, LEED5 AP
Project Engineer
STEWART
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27601
T 919.380.8750 x229
F 919.380.8752
D 919.866.4829
Engineering. Innovation. Solutions.
PPlease consider the environment before printing this email
I oft 9/24/2008 12:48 PM

21-6 CIYIL IMOINIIRINO Rli[RINC[ YIMYfL
Example 21.1
A 9 in (25 ) dimteter well u pumped In the rate of
W gal/min (0.2 ma/ran). The aquifer Is HIS it (30 m)
thick. After some time, the well .ide, care in and are
reptaced with an 6 in (20 an) diameter tube. The draw
-
dowm e 6 ft (2 m). The waver :able rerovere its original
thick.,, 2500 It (7:10 at from the well. N91at will be
the xleanly flow from thr new wen'.'
SI Solution
25 cut _ 12.5 ran (0.125 m)
y'=30m-21.=2Sm
❑arrange Eq. 21.25 to determine hydraulic rondurtir-
iq foam lire gi..v odeaca flor.
F = Qlz(r2)
Too, - YD
�n° i50m1
0.2 � �10 �0126m
=0.001774 al (0.007957 .n/I)
Far the relined well,
z _ 20 ere = loan (0. 10 m)
Use, Fq- 21.25 to sou far life new flow race.
Q
_ ft(VI-VI)
.
s
In ra� I I I (.30 m)x - (26 uQx l
= r. (Sl-( 14 min ) 00 m /II
hI �LLIO mI
= 0.195 on,,/will
Curlommy U.S. Solution
J in = 0.375 It
rz= / in\
2h1
yx=l/m rt-Eft=94 It.OIY222t
\I Q= I .f0 m n 1 �O
= 0.1114 ha//sw
lie.trrwtge :.G. 21,23 to Hall 111e Irvdraalk r awn,ti,im
QIn \rx�
K = z
:(yz , -vx)
m ft
�50 gal �14.10 II-� In
fens liar 11.375 ft
r. ((1an I,,- - (94 f I I
= 173.4 gal/day-ft'
For the relined will.
8 it, _ = Oxii it
2)(12�
Use Fq_ 21.25 Intent— far the new Sow rate
_ rh'(y/i -y:)
Q In Po)
rw3A gi1, ((10Yh)x-(94a)=)
Cay.ft
= trJ n S
I,1
= 71.012 gal/dm'
12. UNSTEADY FLOW
When awamg fit bogins the refereed wirer also
runte, flow the aender alwac the .gmitbrow, acne of
depresiew. TO ..far,. hit. 21.2G rfmrfm he wr& and It
noveeallibnum wwle,go Is mI,01111.
9ouceailibrium solutions to wool problems here been
foraulateal in t,,w, of diutelnlonless nnmbn- cFor
sanall drawdowos corrpand with the initial thickness
of [Ire soils,, the Thel...... jinn for 11f, drawdowr of
a distance r from the well load attar pumping for tlnw 1
_ (Q) let,.)
_ W u) 2128
I:T
it,(.) is a th o .wiodra. weli fealfwa. 'I bought it is pru-
siblecoobtain W(a) from Ir, fwrroctin& u from ;I (a) is
acre diffit,uh, The USatiansbip bctwar n wall W(r) is
ofteu 8i,,i in tabnlar nr grnphiaJ &urn. In Eq. 21, t0,
S Is the :uluifer etompn rmrstuul.
11(a)=-0.57721E-)1'11 fun a 2c
.l u1
' (3)lT) (4)(C))_
2r29
rz5 _ rz5 21.30
Y-4EYi 47'1
A .... dingly, for au, two different cinaes in the puntplug
pie.
It rsz=Ye-0=1 Q I(IS '(ul)-1;(uz))21.31
4,KY
14
� 1 If n <O.GI. then JnroSs equation can M trod_
03
j
1-
., 17, PUMPING POWER
' Pario:I, tt" of pumps are used in wells Pmblout,
will,eveasive actual lift we avoided b. the m-e of sill.
racrsfole. pumps.
f"utopia, pile,, con he determined front tF.o b,drarlie
(water) alwcr.ryamiom..,wilted in Ch. 18. The total
jOctal 1 Set a .f stmn. fife. veloc i bred lire down i rl fat .ad ruin., errirancel the u
! tt"'woe,a i sce,no. The thow.-Williona, eltulakar I,
I$nowonl, I,,] with awe'6mew ofC=1011todt.
r n. the piPL friction.
i
•. 14. FLOW NETS
l Croundwaler serMge it from location- .thigh h�hanlin
held to location, of lower hydraulic had. Relatively
`, mmplex tw..dunetdoual problew calf, be ccloluarterl
( -mg a graphical technical, that how. _. the &,e lee
1• if, htdrauh, head along the flow path The result.
„PIng goLpIIX ruprra titmion of preinre and flow, path i
called It ffom rot.
...... R•RT[R 21-7
The flow net mneept hrn• is limited w o I-,
where file flaw is swady, lwr.dilanusional. incompress-
ible, and through a homo,neous mrdinm, wed where
the liquid has a mrlstant v ,c siq, Thi, it,,he nital rase
of,rovnawater seepage.
Flow net' are conurecteIt from s,racolme, aid egol,w.
semis line. Shrwahara (flow fines) ,how, the Path
Luken by In, ",ra'a Equl"'wital Sol, are c.mour
limn: of instant hydraulic it,
The object u. a Kraphwal Out net snluaion is to
retrnet a network of Ilaw paths (mitred by Wa
stmwainro) and ryaal .unsure drops (horcfard byLrlui-
pmenCal liars) N. ]]full ll s wrcc,,. rcrn.mes and It
untstaut anaaunt of fired Slow+brtwo..n am two r rewn-
lines. .
Pot, net= are according m I!It faiteen,
ful­
Rule 21.1: StU,.mi n.m enter and lean• Pervious ,,[a, Its
Perpendicular to those surfers.
Ruf Ell: StletUallues Uflunath tn.l f senpg.
Salute,n f there byllocontattic I r ) Its) p-
t C all t l._ pars 1 [art ,rwl udli I P ,adnn')
that surface.
Rule 21.3: SI fw.lims I...• pwallci to but Iwu:ot .omit
mpereaw, ewfac . that arc etreemlo s.
RWe 21-6: Streamlines xre 1uv:Jlel to the flmr di:ecainn.
Rate 21.5: Fiptflag,wgOl din., are drawn perpendicular
to strearallinet,such hat tho re,arldn,cells n 1 mxj
t h>q w Ill i t. I ere Te
areucall it .hould la. p...Ihle m draw a peffirr rode
within reachlet] lh.rt coach. all four M 1 -o. urn
though fit, MI i, rot m.t a 11 1 :are.
uWat 21.3 Wofl Fm1C1Yn Wall for Various Varucs o: v
I0 TO 3.0 4.0
50
Sib
7.0
6.0
0.0
xi
U219
0.049
0.013
0.0038
UWlI
O.CA036
0.00012
1.ONKt,
0.000012
nl0-t
I.S2
122
0.91
0,70
0.56
0.45
0.37
0.31
0.211
.10-2
.LM
3,35
296
2.66
2,47
L W
2.15
2.01,3
!.92
sio-a
Cu
5.61
a.23
1.9.5
.1.73
4.54
1,39
4.2G
.1.14
x10-'
6.63
7,94
7.60
7.25
7.02
6.64
6,69
6.51,
6a4
x10-.•
I0,94
10,24
9.E4
9.55
9.33
9A.1
8.m
6.gi
S.T4
•• x10-s
1:121
12.5.5
123:
1LE5
11.63
11,15
IL2J
11.1G
11U4
x in-,
15.51
14.85
14a.
II.15,
13.93
13,75
1360
13.46
13.34
x 10-
17.61
17.13
16.74
16.46
16.23
16.05
15.90
1111.76
15.65
x 10-o
20,15
19.45
1905
16,76
18.51
18.35
16.20
18.07
17-95
xto-tn
2145
21,76
21.35
21.06
2U.84
20-m
20.50
20.37
21125
" x10-U
21.75
2406
13,65
23.36
23.11
22.96_
12.81
12.61
x10-1t
27.05
2636
25.96
25.G7
25414
25,26
25.11
21.97
24.66
.. 110-^
29.36
2n.6G
26.26
27.97
27.75
27.56
27.11
27.26
27.16
If10-er1
31.66
30.97
30.56
30,27
30.05
29.87
29.71
29.56
29.46
x10-Io
33.9E
X3,27
32.86
32.58
32.35
32,17
31U2
31.8E
31.76
Y u wpdnrad bon L. K. VVr:al, '%Innab lot Rvmmfnirg rume.bal,tr N Nuer Ihuany 11.I, L .uh s,n 1 un-f .
;° •x In o vtugfop, tCaf]mhaI U.S. c.vlogia Sur.e1, I9J2, te.ter-9upwb ram'+ s;.
V NOilff10N 11 ♦YlLIC1T10Nf INC. i1=11laY ..Of [f R 10N1L iY1 OLI CT10Nf•INC.
;wVmv_�'.

21-8 CIVIL IMOIM![RINO P[IIPINC[ YRNYIL �_
ill 21 1 Etwintillatild l 1. not' I 1 r
ons.uf P la'ad.
,colar to t1losis selfines
%tar, ff. ral trill, differing d 1, fland an be
door d II p l o I cararet. certerall,
three to Five, streamlines, are suffineat for usual graph-
ical evaluation.. The dze of the tells ie detennin d by
the amnlam of haerser:ing slreamfims and Narnaren-
Ind Imlvs. As long a, the rulm are folleard. the ratio
Of not flow chmmeLw to e.IriPo:ential tiro, will he
apnfoxfina l real leg;udlecs of wl"ther are grid
is roars. or lines
ii,ae Lt 3 h s Slav net,for ndoeldl n Cases.
A alfill t f a flea, ia.t, will le-111 t. 1141ify the
ado and lial, 'rel hand.
1S. SEEPAGE FROM FLOW_HETS
On H t net I, donell. it arr he used to calculate
the. ,arg Fill the le f Hall, d I \l,
berms the s,,vl is owlet Then. the m ter
of I, d,,ea,mI drop fin. betxren lailaileteld ho's
,, nated. The total hydraalk head. 11, is determined
;a it function of the water surface, level..
Q=hlf `�I [widthr, 21m
11=HI—Ha / 21a
18. HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE
ALONG FLOW PATH
The hydrostatic prell at egaipolealad drop j (mura-
ing the last if., on the dowrulreon side as rtroJ in a
fl. net with a canal of A'v equipou+mial drops 6 given
to fal. 0-1.35. If the point .near, im'Istigi nd is along
tile, tn.uom of a dun; or older arurmra. the hydnntrall
pia ore is referr..i ro a, ui fife przaare. Since gdif, dre
to velocity is negligible, a0 aliifi is tine to the neutral
'pare pnvnrc. Therefore. nentmf 11111rro L, a, --
moll wish uplift Prosare.
P. = IIf'. 2L35
1
®®�oiasmii���
me.mDo.®e�®
dos
O 9e
1 _ t 'ee of fata c
MI \'aactiar.1Pow _
} eanr data
to gin of now
drain
a is n;L �I'll2 'i l'tc tr re, to rs rt
Fqun 2f.3 lbttt al f ens
If tho point Irving i oestigard is lamwi n di.umn::
below the datum, then the poe—on, at the Paint is,ill'a
by 1,1. 21.36 If file point being in"'Idatd b ubme
rho datuur z i negalive
The nctoal uplift filer I,., urfa,, of erco A ln,ean by
Eq 137 \ is he to,foral t,,, Oaffici,of. reined
,be feartion rifle ( that I, - o tit fit,! hellos
,liti,flelne. no oil,\ t H fill f t rd
rock tv. parents Firestone, a- itona, it villas
front 05 In 1.0. For natiterviera,, material ch as n.0
ble or gfanib,_ it ran be as low a 0-1,
H=0'ptIA 21.37
A,'I'abin 21.1 indirmes wine clay l.,, ut in"'.
trionidt m prohibit We Passing of ware', thrower, the
hydrostatic uplift Prosare beltra, a day laver wn will
be tranatoiud thmngh the clay layer, The transfer
gearetri for a' k hotel is coniplex.finding f,tanatel,
1 the alraha Of iffliftf Ce i'IF.It. UPWardfrit:
,it p 1 rot d ostm 'oessate hi
s, known as, neon. A famor of •atm, agalmr slave of
at teat 1.5 is dilatable.
that sward prevnre
(FS)he,.,= n tifr vote 2138
a p pre:
17. INFILTRATION
Aftifersean b, nvhalgd (refilled) in a runes of md-
ant and ortihri'd x;p'e. 'Phi Horton "nation gins
n totter hind on the fnffftoone. caprcit, (in fnchea
Or rainfall Per unit time), fliel, is the capacity of all
agni@a to absorb rater floor a saturated source abate,
:ion of time. When the rainfall supply exnrds
the infil:ra thou calamity, infilnatiou deroa. eywnen-
tialty over that. In Hy. 21.39. f, is the final or a I&
Iiblear tonal fo is the initial infiltration raparily,
and f, i :he ad lmTJon .,.il, at lime 1. k is an
infiltration dome evaalln tilh dinneaia, of title-'
dew,ur d full if denad, riry InfJbution tell.
Ill =fe+(fr—M, ` 2I.s2
GROUNDWATER 21-9
The cumulall,, ndiltr;diial x'lll lrl e:artespond :o tilt'
joar,ine, in Ivate, table de,litioadto h ff t f
Pu Fkave,er. fit.,. in t table
1
lion an be cilrennumdf lanowldi, cifthe rattler
Pert
Infiltration rates file a:tenldara. silly wlix are appeal
in;ately 50t/o of those for .and. Cla. infiltration rates
ue a fin vinmtely 10%of Ihas for sand. The actuld ir-
%hratlon rate at any time b egnal (in the Horton model)
to fire ,made, of the rairbill intecniin ill).. and ;he in-
statavenne refill
f =i li < fll 2140
f=f; 1i>hl 21.41
The cvmaletwe infiltration o er Late rs
F,=fd}(')(1—e—it) 214
The average infiltration are a found n, dividing Eq. 21A2
In the aurat nt of iafihorta on
F' 21,13
faean.r..
•POIf\f 10 N A •V[L I C A T 1 0 N[ INC. ] IRO![11 S10N A I I C A T I O NS I INC.

I MtAS - IIEW T-44M
I
I
PROJECT
PAGE
OF
I
I
c
REFERENCE
PROJECT NO,
I
I
I
CLIENT
DESIGNFP
DATE
STEVVART
I
I
I
CIIECFEP
DATE
r
a
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS:' 2'ulm^u•x;I cr, � 1Z ,ILE,!d: e.+iq.,gn qe E.n
tPw.r.nvwmuv.wln
STEC .)E60 ,0.6350. E:i

� \ V
SHWT BORE # EXISTING DEPTH TO APPROXIMATE
GHOUNO ELEV. SHWT SHWT ELEV.
\ \ I 11b0 12 1 11 50
PUM' J 11 SO _ 18 10.00
-eVG SHWT IN POND = 10.75
\9\
1 I \
GT10
\ /r
®ems #a
' �---------- - - - - - - ----------=s
Y % Y -
WET DETENTION BASIN

NORMAL POOL o 9.0
S

m
0

F�
M
Nr
-s

0

C(v
S T E WA R T September 16, 2008
NCDENR - DWQ Permitting (Wilmington)
Christine Nelson
127 Cardinal Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: MCAS New River Maintenance Hangar
Seasonal High Water Table Findings;
Dear Ms. Christine Nelson;
We are submitting this report of findings for the Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT)
at the proposed wet pond for the MCAS New River Maintenance Hangar Project.
The soil investigation was conducted on September 12" by Stewart Engineering, Inc
using a hand auger at the locations attached to determine the soil conditions for the
SHWT at the proposed wet pond. The surrounding area is an open field located
just north of the air field and adjacent to the existing wet pond. We observe that
the field is most likely a fill area and is generally flat draining west to east. A report
will be submitted separately to NCDENR (c/o Vincent Lewis) with the following
information.
Two borings were made using a hand auger (Bore #1 and Bore #2) to determine
the SHWT. Mottling of the soil indicated that the SHWT was found approximately
12" below surface at bore #1 and 18" below at bore #2.
Boring
Approx. Existing
Depth to
Approx.
Proposed
Ground Elevation
SHWT
Elevation of
Normal Pool
SHWT
#1
12.5
12"
11.5
9.5
#2
11.5
18"
10.0
9.5
The proposed pond is located adjacent to an existing wet pond which normal pool
elevation is at elevation 6.5 feet. The proposed pond location was selected to
prevent BASH (Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard) at the airfield. The discharge point for
the pond is located below 7'. Additionally the current design uses minimum pipe
slope from the proposed hangar to the pond with the inflow pipe invert at 9.0'.
Based on the SHWT at the pond we propose to raise our normal pool elevation to
9.5' which would bring it to within 6" of one of the findings. This normal pool would
inundate approximately 100' of pipe which we proposed to be gasket sealed.
Please let me know as soon as possible how we can move forward with the
submittal for this project.
Sincerely,
Ryan A. Hambleton, PE
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS." 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH, NC T 919.380.8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380.8752

t
I
-_
IfLXVI `}
------I `� I�------------ -------- r-------- r j/
9
B10-RETENT ON BASIN
YD R5ER OR4L
zw. nrvLnw
scx .mo.
- waoxo cvRiav [m
Qo - JKICw ew
® rruu .ru w2 Rds IR
me.w ww
rw - RCQ 1[I3X 1dY OM:s%UI
ro sror+snrz.
t
�TEWART i
GRAPHIC SCALE
wvs�c
Vff `
PACNAGEt
fINX
6UBNIi K
0896V!

RE: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Subject: RE: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
From: "Towler CIV David W" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:40:02 -0400
To: 'Janet Russell" <[e-mail]>, "Ryan I-Iambleton" <[e-mail]>
September 11, at 11:00 is good for me. Thanks.
V/r,
David W. Towler, EI
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
Civil Engineer
Public Works Division, Bldg 1005
Civil Design Branch
Phone: [phone] ext. 3284
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russel].(mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 15:10
To: Towler CIV David W; Ryan Hambleton
Subject: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
August 29, 2008*
MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar*
Ryan & David:
The Express stormwater submittal meeting for the Maintenance Hangar has been
scheduled with *Christine Nelson on September 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM* here in
the Wilmington Regional Office.
Please review the submittal requirements, attached. Particularly note that
wepreferthe plans to be folded, 9" x 14" if possible.
Please respond ASAP to reserve and confirm the submittal meeting date /
time.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 9/3/2008 3:37 PM

RE: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Subject: RE: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Flangar
From: "Ryan Hambleton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:37:43 -0400
To: "Janet Russell" <[e-mail]>, "Towler CIV David W" <[e-mail]>
Janet,
I just realized I didn't respond to your email from Friday. I wanted
to make sure we are still good for the llth at llam for the MCAS
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar.
Thanks,
Ryan
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 3:10 PM
To: Towler CIV David W; Ryan Hambleton
Subject: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
August 29, 2008*
MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar*
Ryan & David:
The Express stormwater submittal meeting for the Maintenance Hangar has
been scheduled with *Christine Nelson on September 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM*
here in the Wilmington Regional Office.
Please review the submittal requirements, attached. Particularly note
that we prefer the plans to be folded, 9" x 14" if possible.
Please respond ASAP to reserve and confirm the submittal meeting date /
time.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 9/3/2008 3:37 PM

aboutblank
August 29, 2008
MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Ryan & David:
The Express stormwater submittal meeting for the Maintenance Hangar has been scheduled with
Christine Nelson on September 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM here in the Wilmington Regional Office.
Please review the submittal requirements, attached. Particularly note that we prefer the plans to be
folded, 9" x 14" if possible.
Please respond ASAP to reserve and confirm the submittal meeting date / time.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 8/29/2008 3:10 PM

RE: MCAS New River Hangar
Subject: RE: MCAS New River Hangar
From: "Ryan Hambleton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:44:36 -0400
To: "Janet Russell" <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>
11 qP +�.r- l0 t 3j
I can do the 12th at 11 am.
the 15thbetween 12:00 and 2:30 or the 16th at
See if those times work...
Thanks,
Ryan
any time.
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:36 AM
To: Ryan Hambleton
Subject: Re: MCAS New River Hangar
Rryan:
Christine will be on vacation a couple of days that week. Please give
me 2 or 3 additional dates to take to her. The llth may be a
possibility, but the loth is not available.
Thanks,
Janet
Ryan Hambleton wrote:
Janet,
I would like to schedule the Express review submittal meeting for the MCAS New
River Hangar project. Can you please let me know if Christine and yourself are
available for either of the following days;
Wednesday September loth (anytime after 10:30 am - or before 2:30pm)
Thursday September llth (anytime after 10:30 am - or before 2:30pm)
Thanks,
Ryan
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 2:27 PM
To: Christine Nelson
Cc: Joe Puckett; Ryan Hambleton; Feinman, Wes; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCAS New River Hangar
Please don't forget to get your submittal meeting scheduled.
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
Christine Nelson wrote:
Joe,
The concept seems fine with me. Does that existing pond have a state
stormwater permit? If so, you might consider modifying the existing
pond to accept the additional stormwater.
Christine
Joe Puckett wrote:
I of 2 8/29/2008 I0:52 AM

aboutblank
Thank you. We're all set then for the 24th.
Janet
Ryan Hambleton wrote:
Thank you Janet,
Carol said we will not need to meet since we had a seeping meeting,
so the July 24th date is good with Christine and we can drop off the
package for Carol's review at that time.
Thanks,
Ryan
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2006 9:27 AM
To: Ryan Hambleton; Baker CIV Carl H; Towler GS05 David W; Carol Miller
Subject: MCAS New River Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
July 15, 2008
*MCAS NEW RIVER AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR
*Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with
*Christine Nelson on July 24, 2008 at 10:00 AMA here in the Wilmington
Regional Office. The applicant is required to attend the meeting.
Please review the submittal requirements attachment prior to the
meeting.
Unfortunately, Carol Miller is not available to meet with you for the
erosion control submittal next week. Please contact Carol directly to
schedule the erosion control plan submittal. Carol's email address is
above; her direct telephone number is 910 796- 7313. If we need to push
the stormwater meeting until the following week so that you can meet
with everyone when you come to Wilmington, let me know and I'll set that
up with Carol & Christine.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 7/15/2008 12:09 PM

aboutNank
July 15, 2008
MCAS NEW RIVER AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR
Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with Christine Nelson on July 24, 2008
at 10:00 AM here in the Wilmington Regional Office. The applicant is required to attend the meeting.
Please review the submittal requirements attachment prior to the meeting.
Unfortunately, Carol Miller is not available to meet with you for the erosion control submittal next
week. Please contact Carol directly to schedule the erosion control plan submittal. Carol's email address
is above; her direct telephone number is 910 796- 7313. If we need to push the stormwater meeting until
the following week so that you can meet with everyone when you come to Wilmington, let me know and
I'll set that up with Carol & Christine.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
1 of 1 7/15/2008 9:26 AM

Stormwater Routing and Calculations
For the proposed
MCAS New River Hangar
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Prepared for
Whiting -Turner Associates
Prepared By
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
S
STEWART
July 14, 2008
Revised September 8, 2008
Revised October 8, 2008
Revised October 28, 2008
C�'T
OlFar,7�
CT 3 0 2008
BY: 6L 7Y0

Stormwater Routing and Calculations
For
MCAS New River Hangar
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
.Prepared for:
Whiting -Turner Associates
0333117Q Z
iO-yfr��
Prepared by:
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
421 Fayetteville St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.380.8750
Stewart Project No. C8020
July 22, 2008
Revised September 8, 2008
Revised October 8, 2008
Revised October 28, 2008

Table of Contents
1. Table of Contents & Narrative
a. Groundwater Infiltration Consideration
2. Site Information
a. QUAD Map
b. FEMA Map
c. Soils Map
d. Pre-Dev and Post-Dev Drainage Area Maps
e. Rainfall Data
3. Hydraulic Calculations I
a. 10 Year & 25 Year HGL Profiles - StormCAD
b. Peak Flow Analysis - HYDRAFLOW
4. Hydraulic Calculations II
a. Pollutant Calculations
b. BMP Supplemental Forms
i. Wetpond Basin
ii. Filter Strip
c. Dissipater Calculations
d. Buoyancy Check
e. Ditch Flow at Pond Outlet

STORMWATER ROUTING AND CALCULATIONS
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION
CAMP LE]EUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the hydraulic calculations for the storm drainage
system and BMP's onsite. The site is located in Camp Lejeune, NC at Marine Corps
Air Station New River. The proposed project is a New Maintenance Hangar and
associated parking. The new hangar is proposed to be constructed on existing
impervious, while the parking is proposed to be located in an existing open field.
The hangar and parking are proposed to be treated by a Wetpond Basin. The
design storm for this project is the 1.5" storm. According to the NC State BMP
Manual, the design storm should be discharged level spreader unless the basin has
been designed for removal of 90%, which is the case for this project.
Site Information
The existing Project site is located at Campbell Street and McAvoy Street in
Marine Corps. Air Station (MCAS) New River, NC and is currently a mix of an
existing gravel parking lot, existing tarmac, and open areas.
The site drains to the New River and is outside of any known floodplains,
wetlands, and Water Supply Watersheds. The latest version of the United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Onslow County,
North Carolina map indicates that the on -site soils are Urban Lands and Goldsboro
- Urban Land which are classified as Hydrologic Soil Group D. Per FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Map 37204364001, dated November 3, 2005, no 100-yr Floodplain
is present within the project site.
Proposed Improvements
The proposed improvements associated with this project include the
demolition of the tarmac. A new Hangar is proposed for the site with approximately
72,971 sf of building footprint along with associated sidewalks, driveways and
parking (approx. 78,524 sf). As a result of the demolition of existing impervious
surface and the proposed parking the project will result in 78,524 sf net increase in
impervious area.
Design Requirements
Due the location of the site, the project must capture and treat the runoff
from the 1.5" storm. Since the site is located within the BASH (Bird Aircraft Stirke
Hazard) zone for the MCAS airfield, the Wetpond is proposed on the northern most
portion of the site adjacent to an existing Wetpond.
Conclusions
Based on the results of this analysis, the Wetpond is adequate to treat the
proposed new impervious on site. The table below is a summary of the results from
Hydraflow Hydrographs. The proposed future condition was modeled for each sub -
basin going to a storm inlet. The results also show that we modeled just the 1.5"
design storm (In the calculations provided this is labeled as the 3-Yr storm due to

limitations in the software this label cannot be revised.) The table below shows
that the entire design storm goes to the Wetpond Basin and that the Combined Post
Developed Flow is less than the Pre -Developed Flow for the entire project for the 1-
Year 24 hour storm event.
Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflows (cfs)
No. Type Hyd(s) Description
1-Yr 2-Yr 1.5" 5-Yr 10•Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr
1
SCS
--
14.77
21.58
2.28
34.89
45.39
60.78
73.65
88.09
PRE
3
SCS
4.16
5.21
1.82
7.17
8.69
10.89
12.73
14.80
PARKING 02-YI
4
SCS
2.78
3.49
1.22
4.80
5.82
7.29
8.52
9.91
PARKING 03-YI
5
SCS
7.28
9.13
3.18
12.57
15.22
19.08
22.30
25.93
PARKING 04-YI
6
SCS
7.42
10.80
1.15
17.41
22.62
30.29
36.72
43.93
TOWER 0541
7
SCS
11.29
16.45
1.74
26.52
34.44
46.13
55.92
66.90
Other
8
Combine
3, 4, 5, 6
21.55
28.56
7.31
41.92
52.33
67.55
80.28
94.57
Area to Wet and
9
Reservoir
8
0.40
1.85
0.14
10.28
1933.
34.87
45.48
56.51
Wet Pond Route
11
Combine
7,9
11.47
16.66
1.82
26.80
43.29
72.83
93.02
113.67
Post Dev
SHWT
Two Seasonal High Water Table borings were performed in the proposed wet
detention pond; one in the forebay and one in the main pond. These borings
showed evidence of the Seasonal High Water Table at 12" and 18" below the
existing ground surface. Which yielded an average SHWT elevation of
approximately 10.75 feet above mean sea level; included in Appendix 4 are
calculations using Darcy's Law for groundwater seepage into the wet
detention pond. This calculation shows that the SHWT will not affect the
normal pool of the pond significantly (approx. rise of 0.01 feet). Therefore,
the proposed normal pool of 10.00 feet should not be affected by the
Seasonal High Water Table. However, the pond was also routed with a
starting Water Surface Elevation equal to the average SHWT elevation:
10.75. The drawdown orifice was checked to ensure that the drawdown time
of the design storm (1.5") was still between 2 and 5 days. Additionally, with
the starting water surface of 10.75 the riser rim was adjusted so that the
design storm (1.5") could be completely stored above the starting water
surface elevation without discharging over the riser rim. These calculations
are provided in Appendix 3 with the Hydraflow Hygrograph's analysis.
Outlet from Stormwater Basin
The wet detention basin outlet's tailwater condition was also considered as
part of this analysis. A proposed tail -ditch from the pond outlet at 7.0 to an
existing ditch for an existing pond at elevation 3.0 and is approximately 200
linear feet north of the outlet of the pond. The one, ten and one hundred
year storm were evaluated in the proposed tail -ditch, and the calculations

show that the proposed ditch will be able to carry these flows without
impending the proposed outlet of the wet detention basin; please see
Appendix 4 for HGL Profiles on the proposed tail -ditch. The tail-ditch's
tailwater condition was assumed to be the top of bank of the existing ditch.
As can be seen in the above mentioned profiles this tailwater condition does
back water up in the proposed tail -ditch but does not affect the outlet from
the proposed wet detention basin.

CS
S T E WA R T September 16, 2008
NCDENR - DWQ Permitting (Wilmington)
127 Cardinal Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: MICAS New River Maintenance Hangar Wet Pond
Seasonal High Water Table Findings;
We are submitting this report of findings for the Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT)
at the proposed wet pond for the MICAS New River Maintenance Hangar Project.
The soil investigation was conducted on September 121" by Stewart Engineering, Inc
using a hand auger at the locations attached to determine the soil conditions for the
SHWT at the proposed wet pond. The surrounding area is an open field located
just north of the air field and adjacent to the existing wet pond. We observed that
the field is most likely a fill area and is generally Flat draining west to east.
Two borings were made using a hand auger (Bore #1 and Bore #2) to determine
the SHWT. Mottling of the soil indicated that the SHWT was found approximately
12" below surface at bore #1 and 18" below at bore #2.
Boring
Approx. Existing
Depth to
Approx.
Proposed
Ground Elevation
SHWT
Elevation of
Normal Pool
SHWT
#1
12.5
12"
11.5
9.5
#2
11.5
18"
10.0
9.5
Manager
Enclosures
ENGINEERING. INNOVATION. SOLUTIONS." 421 FAYETTEVILLE STREET RALEIGH. NC T 919.380,8750
SUITE 400 27601 F 919.380,8752

Of
rc.
STEWART
I
PULPCIICE PPOTLC u0 -
_I
CllClll D[SIGNfD DATE
�. I ._._-_._.-.....-
C14CI(CP DATE
.ex
LAIOb k-t
N'FI.�-A T
Y�tckl. Poe
� Nc9lA .
-
� 1 1•
Ix 8 ti'
.....
- � IZ6
. . .
X•T z'
. . .
•
1Lt
rt
(I.S•
�•01
4S(.' -��
.li �:C�t
!t :� ,Sfi
C"A .V
CI[✓1
..
/SJ / lr
J l
7�r578 er
1J.1 �.oG
8
i
R'Ssr„-t
7�c%„IS
7
Fri
12/. ?G
- ..
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .- .
FSGI,VEERING.INNOVAiIOtJ. SOLUTIONS.' - .' ` ` `•••"'•••�+N••"Pram

GIGE
LM
CS
STEWART
FEI'Ex HICL nxPllC� i•O '
ICurN+ IoE $IG NI II - lDAZE
C,.r C"E nAEE
Z
S i
It
-
U
I
,
r+
W
b
E it
It
At
W
w
s
o
=
i
f,
ENGINEEMNG INNOVATION 9OLUIIO•IS

AAvaendix 2
2. Site Information
a. QUAD Map
b. FEMA Map
C. Soils Map
d. Pre-Dev and Post-Dev Drainage
Area Map
e. Rainfall Data

N
0
0
n
0
i f
o
n�
�
O O
r (D
N
O
O �
3
O
F
3�
0
'
a=
to v
�N
n
ax
' Z V
Q
n
• ti

my LCCLyW
ac
o P 3
y
W oseP�€� 8 z s, •:�f
E Eg ¢n
O mCT E
L16 x 1Ow e w g#%
"Suit a
,s—E
E LL C
• � E m
e•m
«& }
?x x.
FO 4S 113MON,
ri N
1
.. W '
a-
'ksx,.y3N4yNS O wo F x
r � a •• i� ''' � ', r Q
Au
� � M

dm
W N
A
' N
O O
�. O
W W

Soil Map-Onslow County, North Carolina
MAPLEGEND
Area of Interest (A01)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Solis
Soil Map Units
Special
Point Features
Blowout
®
Borrow Pit
X
Clay Spot
♦
Closed Depression
Y.
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
©
Landfill
A
Lava Flow
,6
Marsh
yt
Mine or Quarry
®
Miscellaneous Water
0
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
}
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
o
Sinkhole
yt
Slide or Slip
0
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Q
Stony Spot
�n Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Gully
Short Steep Slope
Other
Political Features
Municipalities
8 Cities
OUrban Areas
Water Features
Oceans
�..,. Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Roads
�y Interstate Highways
US Routes
State Highways
N Local Roads
Other Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale.
Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the
original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper
map measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http:/Avebsoilsu"ey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 18N
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Onslow County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Mar 21, 2008
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 1999
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 6/24/2008
eiaw Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map-Onslow County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Onslow County, North Carolina (NC1133)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres In AOI
Percent of AOI
GpB
Goldsboro -Urban land
complex, 0 to 5 percent
slopes
6.4
83.2%
Ur
Urban land
1.3
16.8%
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
7.71 100.0%
� Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 6/24/2008
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

c
Em
Bull
Al-
MM.
W
LEGEND
I (m W) - EOPM �T �A
JIL
+
.AIMT
lj
KEY PLAN ay
LEGEND
GRAPHIC SCALE
CGOO 1
7 2 3 4 5

GMQIECf MU � IA.6 AC
LEGEND
ON-SIM DMN< c MG
O -SIZE pR E ME
0"-SM DRU E ME M TO
PiOIER I»fKn NMwILv Rp5 SOVIx
LN.II)3 SF� - 1WS IYP (INCILCED W
RiOIER uuus
4
� fxx) - Q61eW SPot OFv11V1
♦ xx - i�D 9Jl OIVAMN
- 4Oi AM1p
O _ g61ff0 CO'lIM II96
® - UIIN BA91
OO - JIXCI4M BS
- f1A�ID EIO 4LIYX
P5 sNn PR
sm - 1F9CN [aW
ro sTM 1M rvw wwlsat
wu srslw
®STEWART �
VNI
134 IF
Vi�

2 3 4
NOTES
------ ------ — SEE SNEEr CGIOSA FOR CONTI"TION ---------
WAR
wr
rk LEGEND
M.G Wl
10
-.S.m
MSmrIsnI[Y
-3
KEY PLAN fps
L
�7
Ai
41— ';1
osTCWART
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 w 1.
NO �M HAVE SEEN
4 �.M-;90 DENTFIEDONMSVTE
04
Ali
CG101
5

i
o I
'
z
cf)
I
;II
i.l
o
I
I
D
WET DETENTION BASIN
POND CRD sECI S TI
I
I
Y
r
61
ea
. u..W -.. mar I.
msYHe 4 TC An
O _ pfNHO [OIIOA lA9R
®-GIdB4V
OO _1R[WI BL
�( - IUR➢ fIQ 4CIVH
ro smr, mm
_�1I S
j w ; ®TEWART �
R® GRAPHIC SCALE
mm RSE rvwwa 0 i5' 0W
n.
pOrvO RSER DETUL
m
4 S

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 1 of 4
POINT PRECIPITATION
FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
FROM NOAA ATLAS 14
North Carolina 34.543 N 77.456 W 49 feet
from "Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of,he United States" NOAA Atlas 14. Volume 2, Version 3
G.M. Bonin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M.Yekta, and D. Riley
NOAA, National Weather Scrviee. Silver Spring, Maryland, 2004
Extracted: Fri Jun 27 2008
Confidence Limits Location Maps Other Info. GIS data Maps Help Docs U.S. Map
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
AP*
E
(1-in-
5
min
10
-
min
IS
_
ram
30
-
ram
60
-
min
120
-
min
3 hr
6 hr
❑❑❑❑❑❑
12 hr
24 hr
48 hr
4 da
7 da
10
da
20
da .
30
da
45
da .
60
da
0.54
0.86
LOS
L50
1.88
2.31
2.50
3.05
3.60
4.12
4.76
5.29
6.07
6.69
8.75
10.76
13.49
3:0
0
0.67
1.07
1.35
1.92
2.47
3.12
3.38
4.14
4.91
5.65
6.49
7.13
8.1 I
8.81
11.30
13.72
17.07
20.38
10
0.76
1.21
1.53
2.22
2.89
3.72
4.07
4.98
5.94
6.83
7.83
8.51
9.60
10.34
13. 22
15.77
19.57
23.13
25
0,86
1.37
1.74
2.57
3.43
4.54
5.02
6.16
7.40
8.55
9.78j
10.45
11.68
12,46
15.59
18.46
22.90
26.677
50
0.94
1.49
1.89
2.84
3.85
5.20
5.82
7.16
8.65
9.99
11.45
12.07
13.37
14.178
1Z55
20.54
25.50
29.34
100
1.01
1.61
2E
3.11
4.29
5.91
6.69
EE
10.05
11.61
EE
13.82
15.19
16.02
Efl
Efl
28.19
32.074
200
1.09
1.72
2.17
3.38
4.75
6.68
7.64
9.48
11.60
I3.41
15.40
15.73
17.15
17.98
21.80
2 4.88
30.98
34.77
500
1.18
1,87
2.36
3.75
5.38
7.77
9.05
11.28
13.92
16.13
18.56
18.81
20.00
20.81
24.87
27.88
34.84
38.44
1000
1.26
1.99
2.50
4.05
5.91
8.69
10.27
12.83
15.97
18.48
21.30
21.45
22.37
23.14
27.35
30.24
37.90
41.26
These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima series AEP is the Annual Exceedance Probability.
Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Formamng forces estimates near zero to appear as zem.
* Upper bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation h�edsa)
Frequencyhr
6a0y
1rara
hEstimates
�d(ianyc
in-
ram ram ram �hr d
y min day tiny
MF
0.58
0.93
1.17
1.62
2.03
2.49
2.70
3.32
3.95
4.53
5.28
5.84
6.65
7.33
9.47
I L55
14.61
I 4:8
0
0.72
1.15
1.46
2.07
2.66
3.36
3.65
4.51
5.38
6.20
7.19
7.86
8.87
9.64
12.23
14.72
18.51
21.94
10
0.81
1.30
1.65
2.39
3.11
4.01
4.39
5.42
6.52
7.48
8.66
9.37
10.49
11.30
14. 77
16.92
21.22
24.77
25
0.92
1.47
1.87
2.77
3.68
4.88
5.40
6.69
8.10
9.34
10.81
11.48
12.71
13.59
16.8T,
9 821
24.86
28.56
50
Lol
1.60
2.03
3.06
4.14
5.59
6.26
7.77
9.44
10.91
12.67
13.23
14.57
15.47
88.94
22.08
27.68
31.43
100
1.09
1.73
2.19
3.35
4.62
6.36
7.19
8.95
10.5
12.66
14.73
15.19
16.57
17.49
21.22
24.41
30.65
34.34
200
1.17
1.86
2.35
3.65
5.12
7.18
8.22
10.27
12.63
14.64
17.09
17.4
18.75
19.69
23.64
26 8 5--
33.70
37.39
500
L28
2.03
2.55
4.06
5.83
8.38
9.76
12.23
15.19
17.67
20.69
20.83
22.03
22.94
27.16
30.27
38.07
4L56
1000
1.37
2.16
2.71
4.40
6.42
9.40
11.09
13.95
17.44
20.37
23.88
23.94
24.80
25.65
30.01
32.98
41.63
44.86
I he upper bound of me co mdence interval at 90% commence level Is me value *rnch b%of me simulated quanule values tor a given frequency are greater roan.
•' These precipitation frequency estimates am based on an annual maxima series AEP is the Annual Exceedance Probability.
Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Formatting prevents estimates near zero to appear as zem.
* Lower bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Freauenev Estimates (inches)
(l� II 11 II II II I ) 14 II 41 II II 10 II 10 II 30 I 45 ) 60
in[ min m m m n hr hr hrr ay I d vIl Il iay day day day day day
11 2 110.50 110.80 111.01 111.39 111.75 112.15 112.33 112.82 113.28 113.78 114.34 114.82 115.58 116.15 118.11 1110.061112.551115.3011
http://hdsc.nws. noaa.gov/cgi-binlhdsclbuildout.perl?type=pf&units=us&series=am&staten... 6/27/2008

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 2 of 4
0
u
0.62
L!L2-d
1.78
2.29
2.89
3.14
3.81
4.47 5.18
5.89
6.48 7.43
8.08
10.45 12.82
15.86
19.09
10
0.70
1.12
1.41 2.05
2.67
3.44
3.76
4.57
5.39 6.24
7.07
7.70 8.76
9.45
12.10 14.70
18.15
21.63
25
0.79
1.26
1.60 2.37
3.15
4.17
4.61
5.62
6.66 7.73
8.76
9.40 10.60
11.33
14.29 17.16
2L13
24.84
50
0.86
1.36
1.73 2.60
3.53
4.75
5.30
6.48
7.73 8.96
00.18
10.78 12.06
12.82
16.00 18.99
EE
27.24
100
0.92
1.47
1.85 2.84
3.91
5.36
6.04
7.41
8.91 10.31
I1.72
12.23 13.58
14.38
17.77 20.86
25.73
29.59
200
0.99
1.56
1.97 3.07
4.30
6.02
6.85
8.41
10. 77 11.76
13.36
13.78 15.19
15.97
19.56 22.70
28.06
31.92
500
1.06
1.68
2.12 3.37
4.83
6.93
8.01
9.87
12.04 13.88
15.78
16.20 17.45
18.24
21.98 25.18
3I.16
34.96
1000
1.12
1.77
2.22 3.60
5.26
7.69
8.98
ILII
13.61 15.66
17.81
18.2I 19.26
20.02
23.93 27.08
33.55
37.26
' The lower
bound of
the confidence
interval at 90%confidence
level
Is the value
which
5%of the simulated
ouandle values
for a alven heauencv
are
less than.
- These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima aeries AEP is the Annual Exceedance Probability.
Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Formatting prevents estimates near zero to appear as zero.
Text version of tables
Annual Maxima based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 3
34.543 N 77.456 N 49 ft
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
v 28
S
+� 26
a
c 24
22
20
m le
a 16
14
U
a 12
L
a. 10
8
6
4
2
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 80 100 140 200 300 500 700 1000
Annual Exoeedanoe Probability (1-in-Y)
Fri Jun 27 09:54:47 2008
Duration
-min
12U-m -+-
- r -x-
-Gay -x-
10-min -a-
3-hr -tt-
4-day -+-
45-day �
15-min -r-
6-hr -
7-day
60-day -a-
30-min
12-hr -r-
10-day
60-min -w-
24-hp -e-
20-day -e-
http://hdsc. nws.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/hdsc/bui Idout. perl?type=pf&units=us&series=am&staten... 6/27/2008

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 3 of 4
0
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
L 28
n 26
oe 24
22
20
18
16
14
0 12
10
a 8
6
4
2
0
Annual Maxima based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 3
34.543 M 77.456 W 49 ft
■
■
■
■
■
■III'
=��=Nm■�■��■
N d N b m m .+ .-
Co d m D4rdt3 on ^ ^ N m V N
Fri Jun 27 09:54:47 2008
Maps -
Annual xcee ante Probability
(l-in-V)
n 2 1 in —
1 in 5 1 in 200 -s-
1 in 10 -a- 1 in 500 -+-
1 to 25 t in 1000 -e-
t in 50
These maps were produced using a direct map request horn the
U,S :Census Bureau Mapping and Cartographic Resources
Tiger Map Server.
Please read disclaimer! r more inf rmarion.
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/cgi-binlhdscfbuildout.perl?type=pf&units=us&series=am&staten... 6/27/2008

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 4 of 4
Other Maps/Photographs -
LEGEND
— State
— Connector
— County
® Stream
0 Indian Resv
Military Area
Lake/Pond/Ocean
National Park
— Street
® Other Park
— Expressway
City
— Highway .0
C_Runty_6 .8 mi
Scale 1:228583 12
*average --true scale depends on mon[iitor19res11olution
View USCS digital orthophoto quadrangle (DOQ) covering this location from TenmServer; USCS Aerial Photograph may
also be available
from this site. A DOQ is a computer -generated image of an aerial photograph in which image displacement caused by terrain relief
and camera tilts has been removed. It combines the image characteristics of a photograph with the geometric qualities of a map.
Visit the USGS for more information.
Watershed/Stream Flow Information -
Find the Watershed for this location using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's site.
Climate Data Sources -
Precipitation frequency results are based on data from a variety ofsources, but largely NCDC. The following links provide
general information
about observing .rites in the area, regardless of if their data was used in this study. For detailed information about the stations
used in this study,
please refer to our documentation.
Using the National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC station search engine, locate other climate stations within:
+/-30:minutes ..,OR... +/_1 degree of this location (34.543/-77.456). Digital ASCII data can be obtained
directly from NCDC.
Hydrnneleorological Design Studies Center
DOCINOAA/National Weather Service
1325 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Me 20910
[phone]
Questions?: HDSC.Questi.r. Qroaa.gov
Disclaimer
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/cgi-binlhdsc/bui ldout.perl?type=pf&units=us&series=am&statcn... 6/27/2008

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 1 of 4
POINT PRECIPITATION '�
FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
`i' FROM NOAA ATLAS 14
North Carolina 34.543 N 77.456 W 49 feet
from "Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of the United States" NOAA Atlas 14. Volume 2, Version 3
G.M. Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M.Yekm, and D. Riley
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 2004
Extracted: Toe Jun 24 2008
Confidence Limits - " Location M� ' Other Ind . G1S data M� Heir) ID�II U.S. Mar)
Precipitation Intensity Estimates (in/hr)
(*60
l
F5mi,
m n
m n
m n
min
min
3 hr
6 hr
hr
hr.
hr
141411
d y
d_ay
914
E
F2
6.46
5.17
4.34
2.99
1E
EE
Ej
0.51
0.30
0.17
0.10
0.06
0.04
FO 0-31
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
8.02
6.42
5.42
3.85
2.47
1.56
1.13
0.69
0.41
0.24
0.14
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0. 11
10
9.08
7.25
6.12
4.43
2.89
1.86
1.35
0.83
0.49
0.28
0.16
0. 99
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
25
10.33
8.22
6.95
5.15
3.43
2.27
1.67
1.03
0.61
0.36
0.20
0.11
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
50
11.22
8.93
7.54
5.68
3.85
2.60
1.94
1.20
0.72
0.42
0.24
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
100
22.14
9.65
8.13
6.22
4.29
2.9E
2.23
1.38
0.83
0.48
0.28
0.14
0.09
El0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
200
13.04
10.34
8-
6.77
4.75
3.34
2.55
L58
0.96
0.56
0.32
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
500
14.21
11.24
9.43
7.5E
5.38
3.89
3.01
1.88
1.1E
0.67
0.39
0.20
0.1E
OF097
0.05
0.04
OF037
0.03
1000
15.17
11.95
10.00
8.09
5.91
4.35
3.42
2.14
1.33
0.77
0.44
0.22
0.13
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
' These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima series AEP is the Annual Exce alanco Probability.
Please refer to the documentation for mass information. NOTE: Formatting forces estimates near zero to appear as zero.
* Upper bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Intensity Estimates (in/hr)
(�IS 30 60
20 30 45 60tra❑m
m❑ IEEE[ ❑ ddy
F2
6.98
5.59
4.68
3.23
2.03
1.25
0.90
0.55
0.33
0.19
0.11
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
Ej
0. 11
0
8.65
6.92
5.84
4.15
2.66
1.68
L22
0.75
0.45
0.26
0.15
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
IO
9.78.
7.82
6.59
4.78
3.11
2.00
1.46
0.90
0.54
0.31
0.18
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
25
11.09
R.84
7.47
5.53
3.68
2.44
1.80
1.12
0.67
0.39
0.23
0.12
0.08
0.06
W
0.03
0.02
0.02
50
I2.07
9.62
8.12
6.11
4.14
2.R0
2.08
1.30
0.78
0.45
0.26
0.14
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
100
13.08
10.39
8.75
6.71
4.62
3.18
2.39
1.49
0.91
0.53
0.31
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.03
-
021
200
14.08
11.16
9.39
7.31
5.12
3.59
2.74
1.71
1.05
0.61
0.36
0.18
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
500
15.39
12.17
10.21
8.13
5.83
4.19
3.25
2.04
1.26
0.74
0.43
0.22
0.13
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
1000
I6.48
12.97
10.86
8.79
6.42
4.70
3.69
2.33
1.45
0.85
0.50
0.25
0.15
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
The upper bound of the confidence interval at 90% confidence level Is die value which 5%of the simulated quantle values for a given frequency are greater than.
These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima series AEP is the Annual Exceedance Probability.
Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Formatting prevents estimates near zero to appear as zem.
* Lower bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Intensity Estimates (in/hr)
ra0 IS 30 60 120 ❑❑12 24 48 ❑❑10 30 d4a5y Edy
n* [.5in m
ddy
61141
4403122781117511108 0079 04770�z710�7009 OS10�17O03 0002 001 0�]1
http://hdsc. nws.noaa.gov/cgi-binihdsclbuildout.perl?type=idf&units=us&series=am&state... 6/24/2008

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 2 of 4
10
1 5J
7.44
5.95 1
5.o2
3.57
2.29
1.45
I.OS
0.6
0.37 1
k22J
0.12
0.07
I0.04 I
0.03
0.02
I0.o2 I
I0.01 I
0.01
10
8.40
6.71
5.66
4.10
2.67
1.72
1.25
0.76
0.45
0.26
0.15
OF081
OF057
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
25
9.49
7.56
6.39
4.73
3.15
2.08
1.53
0.94
O.EE
0.32
O.IR
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
50
10.28
8.19
6.91
5.21
3.53
2.38
1.76
1.08
0.64
0.37
0.21
0.11
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.0E
0.02
100
11.07
8.79
7.41
5.67
3.91
2.68
2.01
L24
0.74
0.43
0.24
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.04
OA3
0.02
0.02
200
11.83
9.38
7.88
6.14
4.30
3.01
2.28
1.40
0.84
0.49
0.28
0.14
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
500
12.75
00.09
8.47
6.73
KE
3.47
2.67
1.65
1.00
0.58
0.33
0.17
EE
0.08
0.0E
0.03
0.03
0.02
1000
13.49
10.63
8.90
7.20
E.26
3.84
2.99
1.85
1.13
0.65
0.37
0.19
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
'The lower
bound of the
confidence
interval
at 90%confidene,
level is the
value which
5%of
the simulated
nuanfile
values
for a aiven
freauenw
are less
than.
- These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima series AEP is the Annual Exceedance Probability.
Please refer to the docimentation for more information. NOTE: Formatting prevents estimates near zem to appear as zem.
Text version of tables
001
Annual Maxima based Point IDF Curves - Version: 3
34.543 M 77.456 M 49 ft
NINE
=MM
2
L 0
.1 up
Tue Jun 24 08:53:53 2008
Maps -
N e N N N N e N
S L L L m
i i i i i i a a a a a a s a a s
ti N M V M V N A Q N 0 0 N Duration n: m o
Annual Exceedance Probability
(I-in-Y)
2-year 1 0-year -
5-year 200-year -e-
10-year, 500-year
25-year -x- 1000-year -a-
50-uear -o-
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/cgi-binlhdscibuildout.perl?type=idf&units=us&series=am&state... 6/24/2008
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/cgi-binlhdscibuildout.perl?type=idf&units=us&series=am&state... 6/24/2008

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 3 of 4
t 2o^'w » o"w I on-w an"w no`"w 70114
These maps were produced using a direct map redness from the
U.S. Census Bureau Mapping and Canographic Resources
Tiger Map Server.
Please reed dsrle.....rfar more Informnriun.
LEGEND
--- State
— Connector
- County
Min Stream
Indian Resv
Military Area
Lake/Pond/Ocean
National Park
Street
poe Other Park
— Expressway
City
—Highway 0
f---, Cgunty6 B
Scale 1:220503 1.
mt
2 B11
*average --true scale depends
on monitor resolution
Other Maps/Photographs -
View USGS digital orthophoto quadrangle (DOQ) covering this location from TerraServer; USGS Aerial Photograph may
also be available
from this site. A DOQ is a computer -generated image of an aerial photograph in which image displacement caused by terrain relief
and camera tilts has been removed. It combines the image characteristics of a photograph with the geometric qualities of a map.
Visit the USGS for more information.
Watershed/Stream Flow Information -
I in(] the 1b'atershed for this location using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's site.
Climate Data Sources -
Precipitation fi-equener re.vultc are based on darn fto n a varieb, of sources, but largely NCDC. The following links provide
general infornrntiun
about observing .cites in the area, regardless c/if their data was used in this .study. For deviled information ahout the stations
used in this .study,
please refer to our tlafnmentation.
Using the National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC) station search engine, locate other climate stations within:
http://hdsc. nws. noaa. gov/cgi-binlhdsc/bui ldout. perl?type=idf&units=us&series=ain&state... 6/24/2008

Appendix 3
3. Hydraulic Calculations I
a. 10 Year & 25 Year HGL Profiles -
StormCAD
b. Peak Flow Analysis - HYDRAFLOW

Start Node
Stop Node
Elevation
Ground
Startft
Elevation
Ground
(Stop)ft
Invert
(Upstream)
ft
Invert
(Downstream)
ft
Length
ft
()
Diameter
i
( n )
Material
Slope
(Calculated)
%
Flow (ft, /s)
Velocity
(Average)
ft/s
02-YI
01-FES
16.65
12.00
11.62
10.18
286
30
RCP
0.50
32.80
6.68
03-YI
02-YI
16.50
16.65
11.85
11.62
45
30
RCP
0.51
30.07
6.80
04-YI
03-YI
16.53
16.50
13.22
11.85
275
30
RCP
0.50
23.71
6.58
05-MH
04-YI
17.00
16.53
14.21
13.22
198
24
RCP
0.50
17.34
5.52
06-MH
05-MH
17.17
17.00
14.54
14.21
67
24
RCP
0.49
17.46
5.56
07-MH
06-MH
18.25
17.17
14.84
14.54
60
24
RCP
0.50
13.96
5.74
08-MH
07-MH
18.00
18.25
15.50
14.84
133
18
RCP
0.50
6.33
3.58
10-MH
07-MH
19.70
18.25
17.70
15.25
427
18
RCP
0.57
8.29
5.11
09-FES
06-MH
16.75
17.17
14.92
14.54
75
18
RCP
0.51
3.77
2.14
11-FES
05-MH
16.00
17.00
14.71
14.21
100
12
RCP
0.50
0.00
0.00
21-MH
20-FES
14.00
15.00
10.14
10.00
25
24
RCP
0.56
5.31
4.77
22-MH
21-MH
17.00
14.00
10.80
10.14
123
24
RCP
0.54
5.39
4.71
23-MH
22-MH
15.00
17.00
12.32
10.80
229
15
RCP
0.66
5.51
5.81
24-YI
23-MH
17.00
15.00
12.84
12.32
104
15
RCP
0.50
3.36
5.24
25-CB
24-YI
18.75
17.00
13.40
12.84
113
15
RCP
0.50
3.40
5.54
31-FES
30-FES
17.00
17.00
14.52
14.15
71
15
CL IV IRCP
0.52
2.70
3.38
51-RI
50-FES
1 12.00
1 11.00
1 7.50
1 7.00
1 34
1 24
1 RCP
1 1.47
5.10
6.68

k|
IF!. A

t2 �2 t2 �2 t2 t2 �2 t� :t :t
U uo!12-13

■
U0112AG13

8
9
\'\;��:
\\\����
��/\\\
\�\\\\�
6

(q) U0110"13

J F
F I
I F
ii
iL
p F
II
.... .... ... .... .... .
(1j) UOIJOAD13
i

Elevation (ft)
9
Z�

Profile -2 -25YR
FLZW 07J
........... . -- ---- ..... ... . . T
... . . . . ... . ........ . -1 1 - I -.1--l-I -1--l-,
is -
178 -
17.6 -
17.4- -
17.2 -
17
16.8
16.6
16.4
16,2
Is
15.8-
".6,
5,4-
5,
I
14
4
7 1
C
6 Ib 20 30 40 W SiO 76 86 90 im 110 Im
31 LOB
11 107
to
S6S
72
15.91
1825
1181
... .... .... ... ....
33 1 06A
17.17
14.54
--------- -- --
193
EOL
E

8
�2
(11) UOjjRA8j3

Profile ^4^26YR
calm Basen
,ou-
1/�5
EGL,,|-U' - '~-- ' ------�---��--------�---� �-----�-------�----
1s
m
`»
,z,
D.
,z
vs
«
.�
,o
m

F4
F r

Table of Contents
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
W etpond_20080922.gpw
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:47 PM
Hydrograph Return Period Recap............................................................................ 1
1 - Year '
Summary Report
.....
Hydrograph Reports
Hydrograph No.
1,
Hydrograph No.
3,
Hydrograph No.
4,
Hydrograph No.
5,
Hydrograph No.
6,
Hydrograph No.
7,
Hydrograph No.
8,
.................................................................................................................
SCSRunoff, PRE.....................................................................................
SCS Runoff, PARKING (02-YI)................................................................
SCS Runoff, PARKING (03-YI)................................................................
SCS Runoff, PARKING (04-YI)................................................................
SCS Runoff, TOWER (05-YI)...................................................................
SCSRunoff, Other...................................................................................
Combine, Area to WetPond.....................................................................
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Hydrograph No. 9, Reservoir, Wet Pond Route.................................................................... 10
PondReport ..................................................................................................................... 11
Hydrograph No. 11, Combine, Post Dev.............................................................................. 12

iydrograph Return Period Recap
Hyd.
Hydrograph
Inflow
Peak Outflow(cfs)
Hydrograph
No.
type
Hyd(s)
description
(origin)
1-Yr
2-Yr
3-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
25-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
1
SCS Runoff
14.77
21.58
2.28
34.89
45.39
60.78
73.65
88.09
PRE
3
SCS Runoff
4.16
5.21
1.82
7.17
8.69
10.89
12.73
14.80
PARKING (02-YI)
4
SCS Runoff
2.78
3.49
1.22
4.80
5.82
7.29
8.52
9.91
PARKING (03-YI)
5
SCS Runoff
7.28
9.13
3.18
12.57
15.22
19.08
22.30
25.93
PARKING (04-YI)
6
SCS Runoff
--
7.42
10.80
1.15
17.41
22.62
30.29
36.72
43.93
TOWER (05-YI)
7
SCS Runoff
11.29
16.45
1.74
26.52
34.44
46.13
55.92
66.90
Other
8,
Combine
3, 4, 5, 6,
21.55
28.56
7.31
41.92
52.33
67.55
80.28
94.57
Area to WetPond
9
Reservoir
8
0.40
1.85
0.14
10.28
19.23
29.16
38.36
49.38
Wet Pond Route
11
Combine
7, 9,
11.47
16.66
1.82
26.80
43.29
72.83
93.02
113.67
Post Dev
Proj. file: Wetpond_20080922.gpw
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:46 PM

iydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
Interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(cuft)
Hydrograph
description
1
SCS Runoff
14.77
1
729
56,082
—
--
PRE
3
SCS Runoff
4.16
1
724
14,386
—
PARKING (02-YI)
4
SCS Runoff
2.78
1
724
9,633
—
PARKING (03-YI)
5
SCS Runoff
7.28
1
724
25,214
—
PARKING (04-YI)
6
SCS Runoff
7.42
1
725
22,992
—
TOWER (05-YI)
7
SCS Runoff
11.29
1
725
35,008
—
--
Other
8
Combine
21.55
1
724
72,225
3, 4, 5, 6,
Area to WetPond
9
Reservoir
0.40
1
1089
34,728
8
11.41
58,741
Wet Pond Route
11
Combine
11.47
1
725
69,735
7, 9,
Post Dev
Wetpond_20080922.gpw
Return Period: 1 Year
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:46 PM

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
PRE
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Drainage area
= 10.610 ac
Basin Slope
= 0.5 %
Tc method
= KIRPICH
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
9.00
6.00
3.00
000
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:46 PM
Peak discharge
= 14.77 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Curve number
= 80
Hydraulic length
= 1000 ft
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 12.25 min
Distribution
= Type III
Shape factor
= 484
Hydrograph Volume = 56,082 cuft
PRE
Hyd. No. 1 — 1 Yr
0 2 5 7 9 12 14 16 19 21 23 26
— Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inlelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:46 PM
Hyd. No. 3
PARKING (02-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 4.16 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 1.253 ac
Curve number
= 98
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Hydrograph Volume = 14,386 cult
PARKING (02-YI)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:46 PM
Hyd. No. 4
PARKING (03-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 2.78 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 0.839 ac
Curve number
= 98
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
PARKING (03-YI)
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 4 — 1 Yr
3.00
191I1111
W
Hydrograph Volume = 9,633 cuR
Q (cfs)
3.00
WA1I11
1.00
EMW
0.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.3 11.7 14.0 16.3 18.7 21.0 23.3
— Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:46 PM
Hyd. No. 5
PARKING (04-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 7.28 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 2.196 ac
Curve number
= 98
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
8.00
CX4I11I
2.00
2.3
Hyd No. 5
4.7 7.0
PARKING (04-YI)
Hyd. No. 5 -- 1 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 25,214 cuft
Q (cfs)
8.00
4.00
2.00
i 1 ' 0.00
9.3 11.7 14.0 16.3 18.7 21.0 23.3
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
HydraBow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:46 PM
Hyd. No. 6
TOWER (05-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 7.42 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 4.152 ac
Curve number
= 80
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
8.00
. M
4.00
NM
2 5
Hyd No. 6
7
TOWER (05-YI)
Hyd. No. 6 — 1 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 22,992 cult
Q (cfs)
8.00
4.00
2.00
- 0.00
9 12 14 16 19 21 23 26
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:47 PM
Hyd. No. 7
Other
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 11.29 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 6.322 ac
Curve number
= 80
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of cone. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
E:10I111
11111111111MIll
4.00
2.00
Emmons
Other
Hyd. No. 7 -- 1 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 35,008 tuft
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
11MR0
0 2 5 7 9 12 14 16 19 21 23 26
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 7

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by IMelisolve Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:47 PM
Hyd. No. 8
Area to WetPond
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 21.55 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 3, 4, 5, 6
Hydrograph Volume = 72,225 cult
Area to WetPond

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inlelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:47 PM
Hyd. No. 9
Wet Pond Route
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.40 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No.
= 8
Max. Elevation
= 11.41 ft
Reservoir name
= Wet Pond
Max. Storage
= 58,741 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
4.00
Wet Pond Route
Hyd. No. 9 — 1 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 34,728 cult
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
4.00
0.00 -' — r L 0.00
0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 9 —Hyd No. 8

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:47 PM
Pond No. 1 - Wet Pond
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
10.00
36,797
0
0
1.00
11.00
43,570
40,184
40,184
2.00
12.00
46,785
45,178
85,361
3.00
13.00
50,057
48,421
133,782
3.50
13.50
51,714
25,443
159,225
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[BI
[C]
[D]
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (In)
= 24.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 12.00 20.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 24.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 11.40 12.25
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
1
- 0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33 2.60
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 7.50
10.00
0.00
0.00
Welr Type
= Riser Broad
--
-
Length (ft)
= 30.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= .013
.013
.000
.000
Orif. Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= n/a
Yes
No
No
Exflltratlon = 0.000 in/hr (Contour) Tailwater
Elev. = 0.00 ft
Note: CuN 410nrice euNows have Seen analyzed under inlet and meet central.
Stage (it) Stage / Discharge Stage (it)
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 I 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00
Discharge (cfs)
- Total O

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:47 PM
Hyd. No. 11
Post Dev
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 11.47 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 7, 9
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
M
AM
4.00
2.00
Post Dev
Hyd. No. 11 -- 1 Yr
Hydrograph Volume = 69,735 cuff
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
4.00
WA1I11
0.00 1 ' 1 - ) ' I ' 0.00
0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 11 —Hyd No. 7 —Hyd No. 9

Table of Contents
Hydrallow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
W etpond_20080922.gpw
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:44 PM
Hydrograph Return Period Recap............................................................................ 1
1 -Year
SummaryReport .......................................................................................................................
Hydrograph Reports ...................
Hydrograph No.
1, SCS Runoff,
Hydrograph No.
3, SCS Runoff,
Hydrograph No.
4, SCS Runoff,
Hydrograph No.
5, SCS Runoff,
Hydrograph No.
6, SCS Runoff,
Hydrograph No.
7, SCS Runoff,
Hydrograph No. 8, Combine, Area to WetPond
Hydrograph No. 9, Reservoir, Wet Pond Route
Pond Report
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
.....................................................................................................................
Hydrograph No. 11, Combine, Post Dev.............................................................................. 12

iydrograph Return Period Recap
Hyd.
Hydrograph
Inflow
Peak Outflow (cfs)
Hydrograph
No.
type
Hyd(s)
description
(origin)
1-Yr
2-Yr
3-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
25-Yr
50-Yr
100-Yr
1
SCS Runoff
--
14.77
21.58
2.28
34.89
45.39
60.78
73.65
88.09
PRE
3
SCS Runoff
4.16
5.21
1.82
7.17
8.69
10.89
12.73
14.80
PARKING (02-YI)
4
SCS Runoff
--
2.78
3.49
1.22
4.80
5.82
7.29
8.52
9.91
PARKING (03-YI)
5
SCS Runoff
7.28
9.13
3.18
12.57
15.22
19.08
22.30
25.93
PARKING (04-YI)
6
SCS Runoff
7.42
10.80
1.15
17.41
22.62
30.29
36.72
43.93
TOWER (05-YI)
7
SCS Runoff
11.29
16.45
1.74
26.52
34.44
46A3
55.92
66.90
Other
8
Combine
3, 4, 5, 6,
21.55
28.56
7.31
41.92
52.33
67.55
80.28
94.57
Area to WetPond
9
Reservoir
8
4.50
9.52
0.13
20.36
26.59
32.71
40.35
50.13
Wet Pond Route
11
Combine
7, 9,
11.47
16.66
1.82
26.80
43.29
72.83
93.02
113.67
Post Dev
Proj. file: Wetpond_20080922.gpw
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM

iydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
Interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(cuft)
Hydrograph
description
1
SCS Runoff
14.77
1
729
56,082
—
PRE
3
SCS Runoff
4.16
1
724
14,386
—
PARKING (02-YI)
4
SCS Runoff
2.78
1
724
9,633
—
PARKING (03-YI)
5
SCS Runoff
7.28
1
724
25,214
—
PARKING (04-YI)
6
SCS Runoff
7.42
1
725
22,992
—
--
--
TOWER (05-YI)
7
SCS Runoff
11.29
1
725
35.008
—
Other
8
Combine
21.55
1
724
72,225
3, 4, 5, 6,
Area to WetPond
9
Reservoir
4.50
1
750
55,646
8
11.62
38,994
Wet Pond Route
11
Combine
11.47
1
725
69,735
7, 9,
Post Dev
Wetpond_20080922.gpw
Return Period: 1 Year
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM

Hydrograph Plot
HydraFlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 1
PRE
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Drainage area
= 10.610 ac
Basin Slope
= 0.5 %
Tc method
= KIRPICH
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
3.00
yir�
PRE
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Yr
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM
Peak discharge
= 14.77 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Curve number
= 80
Hydraulic length
= 1000 ft
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 12.25 min
Distribution
= Type III
Shape factor
= 484
Hydrograph Volume = 56,082 cult
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
• 1#
3.00
Now
0 2 5 7 9 12 14 16 19 21 23 26
— Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM
Hyd. No. 3
PARKING (02-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 4.16 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 1.253 ac
Curve number
= 98
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
PARKING (02-YI)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Yr
5.00 ,
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
W1111
Hydrograph Volume = 14,386 cuff
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.3 11.7 14.0 16.3 18.7 21.0 23.3
— Hyd No. 3 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hyd. No. 4
PARKING (03-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Drainage area
= 0.839 ac
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Tc method
= USER
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Q (cfs)
3.00
KI
1.00
rTaTa�
PARKING (03-YI)
Hyd. No. 4 — 1 Yr
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM
Peak discharge
= 2.78 cfs
Time interval
= 1 min
Curve number
= 98
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Distribution
= Type III
Shape factor
= 484
Hydrograph Volume = 9,633 cult
Q (cfs)
3.00
2.00
1.00
Mww
0.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.3 11.7 14.0 16.3 18.7 21.0 23.3
— Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM
Hyd. No. 5
PARKING (04-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 7.28 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 2.196 ac
Curve number
= 98
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Hydrograph Volume = 25,214 cuft
PARKING (04-YI)
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5 — 1 Yr Q (cfs)
8.00 8.00
6.00 6.00
4.00 4.00
2.00 - — - 2.00
0.00 - 0.00
0.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 9.3 11.7 14.0 16.3 18.7 21.0 23.3
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 5

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Inlelisolve Tuesday, Oct 2008, 3:43 PM
Hyd. No. 6
TOWER (05-YI)
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 7.42 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 4.152 ac
Curve number
= 80
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Q (cfs)
8.00
.IM
4.00
2.00
0.00 1 11
0 2 5
— Hyd No. 6
Hydrograph Volume = 22,992 cult
TOWER (05-YI)
Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Yr
7 9 12 14 16 19 21
Q (cfs)
8.00
CX1U1
2.00
- 0.00
23 26
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM
Hyd. No. 7
Other
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 11.29 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 6.322 ac
Curve number
= 80
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= USER
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.30 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Hydrograph Volume = 35,008 cult
Other
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7 -- 1 Yr Q (cfs)
12.00 12.00
10.00 10.00
8.00 8.00
6.00 6.00
4.00 - 4.00
2.00 — 2.00
000 - 0 00
0 2 5 7 9 12 14 16 19 21 23 26
— Hyd No. 7 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Plot
Hydrallow Hydrographs by Intellsolve Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:43 PM
Hyd. No. 8
Area to WetPond
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 21.55 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 3, 4, 5, 6
Hydrograph Volume = 72,225 cult
Area to WetPond

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:44 PM
Hyd. No. 9
Wet Pond Route
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 4.50 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No.
= 8
Max. Elevation
= 11.62 ft
Reservoir name
= Wet Pond @ 10.75
Max. Storage
= 38,994 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (Cfs)
24.00
WzOISIO t
16.00
12.00
ie
4.00
Hydrograph Volume = 55,646 cult
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
EMU,
4.00
0.00 -' — ' l 0.00
0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 9 —Hyd No. 8

Pond Report
Hydratlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:44 PM
Pond No. 2 - Wet Pond @ 10.75
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas.
Average end area method used.
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cuft)
Total storage (cuft)
0.00 10.75 42,774
0
0
0.25 11.00 43,570
10,793
10,793
1.25 12.00 46,785
45,178
55,971
2.25 13.00 50,057
48,421
104,392
2.75 13.50 51,714
25,443
129,834
Culvert / Orifice Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 24.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 24.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
1
0
0
Invert El. (ft)
= 7.50
10.75
0.00
0.00
Length (ft)
= 30.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Slope (%)
= 1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
N•Value
= .013
.013
.000
.000
Dint. Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.00
0.00
Multistage
= Na
Yes
No
No
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
fir➢1
Weir Structures
[A]
Crest Len (ft)
= 12.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 11.40
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
Weir Type
= Riser
Multistage
= Yes
[B]
[C]
[D]
20.00
0.00
0.00
12.25
0.00
0.00
2.60
0.00
0.00
Broad
-
-
No
No
No
Exflltration = 0.000 inthr (Contour) Tailwater Elev. = 0.00 it
Note: CulvorlfOntlee outflows have boon analyzed under inlet and outlet control.
Stage / Discharge
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
000
WbTbTS�
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00
Discharge (cis)
- Total O

Hydrograph Plot
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Oct 7 2008, 3:44 PM
Hyd. No. 11
Post Dev
Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 11.47 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyds. = 7, 9
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
000
Hydrograph Volume = 69,735 cult
Post Dev
Hyd. No. 11 -- 1 Yr
0 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48 V VV
Time (hrs)
— Hyd No. 11 —Hyd No. 7 —Hyd No. 9

Appendix 4
4. Hydraulic Calculations II
a.
Pollutant Calculations
b.
BMP Supplemental Form
i. Wetpond Basin
ii. Filter Strip
b.
Dissipater Calculations
C.
Buoyancy Check
e.
Ditch Flow at Pond Outlet

STEWART
Wet Detention Pond Sizing - WETPOND A
(for 90% TSS removal)
Project: MCAS New River Hangar
Number: C8020
Date: 28-Oct-08
Required Surface Area
Re uired Storage
for 1st 1.5" of runoff
Total Drainage Area =
8.43 ac
Simple Method
Total Impervious Area =
4.10 ac
Percent Impervious =
49%
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I)
Design Rainfall Depth =
1.5 in
I = % impervious =
49%
Max. Perm. Pool Depth =
3 ft
SA/DA Ratio =
5.60
Rv =
0.49 in
Surface Area Required =
20552 sf
Volume =
22408 cf
—
0.47 ac
Calculation Methods are taken from DEHNR Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Latest Version
Surface Area Provided at Normal Pool = 36797 sf
Temporary Volume Provided = 22583 cf
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

STEWART
Stage -Storage Anaylsis - Pond A
(Above Normal Pool Only)
Contour
ft)
Area
(ft2)
Incr
Vol
(ft3
Accum
Vol
ft3
Stage
Z
ft
In S
In Z
Zest
10
36797
0
0
0
10.5
41983
19695
19695
0.5
9.8881
-0.693
0.5029
11
43570
21388
41083
1
10.623
0
0.9955
12
1 467851
451781
86261
1 2
111.365
0.6931
1.9825
13
1 50057
148421
134682
3
111.811
1.0986
2.9985
13.75
1 517141
38164
11728461
3.75
1 12.06
1.3218
3.7804
Intercept = 10.6283 b = 1.08
R sq = 0.9999 Ks = 41284.9
41
0-
a
1.0768x + 10.628
s
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
421 Fayetteville St., Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

Q
STEWART
Volume Calculations - Pond A
Forebay Bottom Elev =
5 ft
Forebay Berm Elev =
10 ft
Main Pond Bottom Elev =
5 ft
Bottom Of Veg. Shelf Elev =
9.5 ft
Normal Pool Elev =
10 ft
Top Of Veg. Shelf Elev =
10.5 R
Top of Dam Elev =
13.75 ft
Forebav Volume
Contour
k
Area
(ft2)
Incr
Vol
(R3)
Accum
Vol
ft3
5
2700
0
0
6
3460
0
0
7
4270
3865
3865
8
5150
4710
8575
9
6080
5615
14190
9.5
6560
3160
17350
10
8020
3645
20995
Pond Volume
Contour
(ft)
Area
(ft2)
Incr
Vol
R3)
Accum
Vol
(R3
5
13415
0
0
6
15680
0
0
7
18000
16840
16840
8
20380
19190
36030
9
22800
21590
57620
9.5
24050
11713
69333
10
1 27800
12963
82295
Volume above Normal Pool
Contour
R
Area
112
Incr
Vol
R3
Accum
Vol
R3
10
36797
0
0
10.5
41983
19695
19695
11
43570
21388
41083
12
46785
45176
86261
13
50057
48421
134682
13.75
51714
38164
172846
Bottom Of Pond Area = 15680 sq ft
Bottom Of Veg. Shelf Area = 31768 sq ft
Normal Pool Area = 36797 sq ft
Top of Veg. Shelf Area = 41983 sq ft
Design Storm (routed 10.48') = 41770 sq ft
Temporary Pool (next outlet 11.4') = 44850 sq ft
Dav OP1 2.81 (Total Vol / Normal Pool)
av OP2 3.45
Forbay Vol (NP) = 20995 Fd_
/ l j'/ \ /
Total Vol (NP)= 103290 A^^�A°°�2A^°�0.25x '+ /IJ+LI` JJ
Forebay equals 20.3% of total volume. x�-I� m
r ((( 31768ft2
ji,2 +1568ofti loft-6ftd=o.25x(1+797ft')]+[(31768
)x(31,768jt2)
2
r_�x C� + 317(,S� � 31?to8 -f15�
\L_J 3Gl4 7 ;L 31 �6a
a37)y
J, q? -}
y 3_5
'51,G7
(0 1 ; 3.0'
421 Fayetteville St., Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewan-eng.com

STEWART
Volume Calculations - Pond A
Forebay Bottom Elev =
5 ft
Forebay Berm Elev =
10 ft
Main Pond Bottom Elev =
5 ft
Bottom Of Veg. Shelf Elev =
9.S ft
Normal Pool Elev =
10 ft
Top Of Veg. Shelf Elev =
10.5 ft
Top of Dam Elev =
13.75 ft
Forebay Volume
Contour
ft
Area
ft2
Incr
Vol
ft3
Accum
Vol
ft3
5
2700
0
0
6
3460
0
0
7
4270
3865
3865
8
5150
4710
8575
9
6080
5615
14190
9.5
6560
3160
17350
10
8020
3645
20995
Pond Volume
Contour
ft
Area
ft2
Incr
Vol
ft3
Accum
Vol
ft3
5
13415
0
0
6
15680
0
0
7
18000
16840
16840
8
20380
19190
36030
9
22800
21590
57620
9.5
24050
11713
69333
10
27800
1
182295
Forbay Vol(NP) = 20995
Total Vol (NP)= 103290
Volume above Normal Pool
Contour
ft
Area
ft2
Incr
Vol
ft3
Accum
Vol
ft3
10
36797
0
0
10.5
41983
19695
19695
11
43570
21388
41083
11.4
44850
17684
58767
12
46785
27491
86258
13
50057
48421
134679
13.75
5171438164
172843
Bottom Of Pond Area = 15680 sq ft
Bottom Of Veg. Shelf Area = 31768 sq ft
Normal Pool Area = 36797 sq ft
Top of Veg. Shelf Area = 41983 sq ft
Design Storm (routed 10.48') = 41770 sq ft
Temporary Pool (next outlet 11.4') = 44850 sq ft
Forebay equals 20.3% of total volume.
Dav OPI
Fav OP2
NOV 1 2 2008
2.81 (Total Vol / Normal Pool)
3.08
d,,,, =
31768 2 ][3l768t2
0.25 x 1 +'fr+f
[ (
+15680 t2
x
( ) (31,768
36797 ft2)
2 ft2
421 Fayetteville St., Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] w .stewart-eng.com

S
STEWART
RE
NOV 1 2 2008
BY:
Water Quality Drawdown Calculation - Pond A
(1st 1.5inch of rainfall)
Characteristics
Total Drainage Area =
8.425207 ac
Pond Invert =
7.00 ft
Total Impervious Area =
4.104545 ac
Normal Pool Elevation =
10.00 ft
Percent Impervious =
49%
Next Structure El. =
11.40 ft
Storage Depth =
1.40 ft
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I)
Average Head (1-1/3) =
0.47 ft
I = % impervious =
49%
Ks =
41213
Rv =
0.49 in
b=
1.08
Minimum depth
Runoff Vol. = 22408 cf
required for storage =
0.57 ft
Find orfice size for 2-day drawdown time
Flow Rate = Volume (cf) / Time (sec)
0.1297 cfs
Q=Cp*A*(2*g*h)A(1/2) (Orifice Equation - solve for A (area))
A= 0.03942 ft'
5.67709 in
Orfice Size 2 day) = 2.69 in dia
Find orfice size for 5-day drawdown time
Flow Rate = Volume (cf) / Time (sec)
= 0.0519 cfs
Q=Co*A*(2*g*h)A(1/2) (Orfice Equation - solve for A (area))
A= 0.01577 ft'
2.27084 in
Orfice Size 5 day) = 1.70 in dia
Select orfice size between 2 and 5 day size
Size selected = 2 " dia
Actual Drawdown Time
Volume =
22408 cf
Pipe Size =
2 "dia
Area =
0.021817 ftZ
Flow Rate =
0.07176 cfs
Drawdown Time =
3.61 days
NOTE - Drawdown calculated using the head to the next outlet with the area for the design sto m.
421 Fayetteville St., Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

1 11
STEWART
Project
Project No.
Outlet ID
RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
MCAS New River Hangar
C8020
O1-FES
Outlet flowrate
32.81
cfs
Pipe diameter
30
inches
Outlet pipe slope
0.52
percent
Full flow velocity
6.7
ft/sec
Date 18-Jul-08
Designer JWP
l
t 1
Zone from graph above = 2
Outlet pipe diameter
30 in.
Outlet flowrate
32.8 cfs
Outlet velocity
6.7 ft/sec
Material =
Class B
Length =
15.0 ft.
Width =
7.5 ft.
Stone diameter =
6 in.
Thickness=
22 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
Thickness
Length
Width
1
Class A
3
9
4 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
2
Class B
6
22
6 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
3
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
4
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
5
Class 11
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
6
Class 11
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
7
Special study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

0
STEWART
Project
Project No.
Outlet ID
RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
MCAS New River Ilangar
C8020
20-FES
Outlet flowrate
5.29
cfs
Pipe diameter
24
inches
Outlet pipe slope
0.56
percent
Full flow velocity
1.7
ft/sec
Date 18-Jul-08
Designer JWP
I.
WOMEN
OE =
w� �wriravc�--
t t
Zone from graph above =
Outlet pipe diameter
24 in.
Outlet flowrate
5.3 cfs
Outlet velocity
1.7 ft/sec
Material =
Class A
Length =
8.0 ft.
Width =
6.0 ft.
Stone diameter =
3 in.
Thickness =
9 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
I Thickness
Length
Width
I
Class A
3
9
4 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
2
Class B
6
22
6 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
3
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
4
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
5
Class II
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
6
Class II
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
7
Special study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

T!
STEWART
RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
Project MCAS New River Hangar
Project No. C8020
Outlet ID 30-FES
Outlet flowrate
2.67
cfs
Pipe diameter
15
inches
Outlet pipe slope
0.35
percent
Full flow velocity
2.2
ft/sec
Date 18-Jul-08
Designer JWP
1
1 1
Zone from graph above =
Outlet pipe diameter
15 in.
Outlet flowrate
2.7 cfs
Outlet velocity
2.2 ft/sec
Material =
Class A
Length =
5.0 ft.
Width =
3.8 ft.
Stone diameter =
3 in.
Thickness =
9 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
Thickness
Length
Width
I
Class A
3
9
4 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
2
Class B
6
22
6 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
3
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
4
Class I
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
5
Class 11
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
6
Class 11
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
7
1 Special study require
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

cwl
STEWART
RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
Project
MCAS New River Hangar Date I8-Jul-08
Project No.
C8020 Designer JWP
Outlet ID
40-FES
Outlet flowrate
1.13 cfs
Pipe diameter
15 inches
Outlet pipe slope
0.32 percent
Full flow velocity
0.9 ft/sec
.i
1 1
Zone from graph above =
Outlet pipe diameter
15 in.
Outlet flowrate
1.1 cfs
Outlet velocity
0.9 ft/sec
Material =
Class A
Length = 5.0 ft.
Width = 3.8 ft.
Stone diameter = 3 in.
Thickness = 9 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
Thickness
Length
Width
I
Class A
3
9
4 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
2
Class B
6
22
6 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
3
Class I
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
4
Class I
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
5
Class 11
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
6
Class II
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
7
Special study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

l
STEWART
Project
Project No.
Outlet ID
RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
MCAS New River Hangar
C8020
27-FES
Outlet flowrate
5.08
cfs
Pipe diameter
24
inches
Outlet pipe slope
1.06
percent
Full flow velocity
1.6
fVsec
Date 18-Jul-08
Designer JWP
ZIUMMA11111M
1
1 1
Zone from graph above =
Outlet pipe diameter
24 in.
Outlet flowrate
5.1 cfs
Outlet velocity
1.6 ft/sec
Material =
Class A
Length = 8.0 ft.
Width = 6.0 ft.
Stone diameter = 3 in.
Thickness= 9in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
I Thickness
Length
Width
1
Class A
3
9
4 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
2
Class B
6
22
6 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
3
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
4
Class 1
13
22
8 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
5
Class 11
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
6
Class 11
23
27
10 x D(o)
3 x D(o)
7
S ecial study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel [phone] Fax [phone] www.stewart-eng.com

Buoyancy Check for Wetpond Riser
C8020
Inside Dimensions
Width
4.00 ft
Length
4.00 ft
Heigth
2.42 ft
Wall Thickness
0.50 ft
Bottom Thickness
0.50 ft
Slab Len
5.00 ft
Slab Wid
5.00 ft
Slab Thic
1.00 ft
Top Thick
0.50 ft
Top Grate wid
3.00 ft
Top Grate len
3.00 ft
Wiser
60.50 cf
Vbrick
21.78 cf
Vconc
8.00 cf
Vslab
25.00 cf
Vtop
3.50 cf
Fb
3,775.20 lb
Factor of Safety
1.32
Fw must >
4,964.39 lb
Fsubmerged solids
5,105.33 lb
RISER IS :
OK

Start Node
Stop Node
Elevation
Ground
Start ft
Elevation
Ground
Sto ft
Invert
(Upstream)
ft
Invert
(Downstream)
ft
Length
(ft)
Diameter
(n )
Material
Slope
(Calculated)
%
Flow (ft, /s)
Velocity
(Average)
ft/s
T-2
OF-11
11.00
5.00
7.00
3.00
298
12
Bare soil
1.34
2.89
2.68

0
SEESHEET W1WCW0OW5NUATION —_—_
r :M1Sa.n
////k attry-one'
ec(j!1„. ro
r�
J 'lid
3
J
NOTES
sa sm arar mX smNr mew¢ I.az
Au mmXu'nm suu eE n Nxwnwa mX KRIX
ixowa. wmm mXnvE sPcaK.nor¢
wo m-n.®rs Amm� rw.is ue rtrNaXurxcT ewn
imruma aaN:rm m na warm ccn:Ra xs=[cmX wu
E mxwom m ce om¢a n .vnnG nawwc sum+¢
mx amulve m mr nva er IK wumt IK
norunm eu a •rr¢.mr .arEKrrm.
EwwX NZOIgVQ MM K 0R4 SUM6 M9 RNF
wwrs. s1muXAlw onwaE aunAuz swu eE
SPECM1D Bi M m:IPxlm. IS£[ma 9w1 m rtFia.Ye [/
K CWIReGim Y1FP WI S1flM Mllf 6 M IOl m
w.mc mr aX[ .¢ni NmrcnoX wKr. raM s1vaA0
rsrEcinx rswrtis s>ws a Nenran xn soen .Im mrEs
xovm m IK oNan. umnEEr. eno msnax. ar TK
smm+r /wawa mra sty, a aacuo s rK
IIPKIgt mli. Up 0.N[[ 6 t0 H uwfv'6 m Fd/Cw
s/�
rawirr AmnX.nrc« x5s mAu® as xur M cvrnr m
mAR
IL,N
WlgrelEP N I16 AR 611 WPo.wR 5-6 Rl HICA
smXu uE aTrtur smK�wE ro-w uo m-w nr wx
r r[ews EwN ramorm xvrwe a rrtoArw xrw+Nz
Em.Nrt .r.X smcrmx �
Xmf wmN a' Nc CPVKfIw wx smF Aw awm Al
w�manee
mc+� sty mn
s&.mut nw XAIw n9f mNa N K nT tY-rr .s
wrc« sr rrNo eae Tm mX ooa r¢PXEswrArnT m anal
I (y v) - E...16[VAINn 9\/
smE wo.
0 _ Nio-mn Etyma raet _ _
O-.wclim eo. 9E E
K - nA� rio Qcvw
- r xom wAua rwa armor 9 yw,_
�r msma snro ❑per
�N
KEY PUN
4 sa g
¢ ®TEWART I e<�L¢
a
GRAPHIC SCALE e
rims

N k4d,
I r

a�
af���
oni i
+,
' ;
`
i
�,
I
�
Iv
r�
I�7
0l
V��.
���
c�£
L
£
2

II
i
11)) UGIIQAB]g

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED AIRCRAFT
MAINTENANCE HANGAR (P-526)
MCAS New River
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Stewart Project No.: F8008.00
Prepared For:
TRANSYSTEMS, INC.
Town Point Center
150 Boush Street, Suite 1000
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Prepared By:
STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
June 6, 2008

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR (P-526)
MCAS New River
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Stewart Project No.: F8008.00
Prepared For:
TRANSYSTEMS,INC.
Town Point Center
150 Boush Street, Suite 1000
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
June 6, 2008
i
STEWART
a w eao,eRe 06/06/08
gyp.
Donald V 'mown Jr., P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer

r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 1
2 PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................2
2.1 Site Location and Description.............................................................................
2
2.2 Project Understanding......................................................................................
2
2.3 Scope of Services.............................................................................................
2
3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................
4
3.1 Geology Overview............................................................................................
4
3.2 Field Testing....................................................................................................
4
3.3 Soil Classification & Laboratory Testing...............................................................
4
3.4 Soil Conditions................................................................................................
5
3.5 Groundwater...................................................................................................6
4 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
............................................. 7
4.1 General Discussion...........................................................................................
7
4.2 Site Preparation...............................................................................................
7
4.2.1 General...............................................................................................7
4.2.2 Parking Lot...........................................................................................
7
4.2.3 Hangar................................................................................................8
4.3 Structural Fill..................................................................................................
8
4.4 Seismic..........................................................................................................
9
4.5 Foundations...................................................................................................10
4.5.1 Driven PCPS Concrete Piles....................................................................11
4.5.2 Micropiles...........................................................................................12
4.6 Slabs-On-Grade..............................................................................................13
5 CLOSING..................................................................................................................14
Appendix
o Site Location Map (Figure No. 1)
o Test Location Diagram (Figure No. 2)
o Boring/CPT Logs
o General Soil Profile (Figure Nos. 3 & 4)
o Laboratory Test Results
o Liquefaction Analyses
o Lateral Pile Capacity p-y Curves
o Legend To Soil Descriptions (Figure No. 5)

1IJ
Stewart Engineering, Inc. (Stewart) has completed a geotechnical exploration at the site of the proposed
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (P-526) at MCAS New River in Jacksonville, North Carolina. A summary of
our findings, opinions and recommendations are provided below.
Condition
Comment
Total Number of SPT Borings/CPTs
8/7
Test Depth (ft)
10 to 70
Soil Types Encountered (USCS)
CH, CL, ML, OL, SM, SC, SP, SW
Groundwater (ft)
5 to 10
Seismic Site Characterization
F
Recommended Foundation Systems
1.
Driven Concrete Piles
2.
Micro -piles
1.
Relatively soft/loose subgrade soil, coupled
with the heavy structural loading
(compression, uplift and lateral), will require
deep foundations as noted above.
Other Items of Note
2.
Liquefaction is expected during a seismic
event, which would result in ground
subsidence (settlements) and foundation
strength loss.
3.
Soft, plastic clays in the parking lot will require
special treatment and staging.
The owner/designer/contractor should not rely solely upon the summary table above. This report should
be read in its entirety prior to implementing the recommendations in the preparation of design and
construction documents. Stewart Engineering should be retained to perform sufficient services to
determine plan/specification compliance with the recommendations in this report.

Page 2
2 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Location and Description
The subject site is located southeast of Foster Street, south of its intersection with Campbell Street in
Jacksonville, North Carolina. More specifically the site is located east of an existing aircraft hangar on the
MCAS New River complex. See Figure No. 1 in the Appendix of this report for the general site area.
The main site area is currently developed as a concrete -paved aircraft parking area. The area is generally
Flat with about 2 feet of fall (downward elevation change) from west to east within the proposed building
footprint. The ground surface just north of the concrete pad sloped downward to the north approximately
3 to 6 feet, into a large undeveloped grass field. A drainage feature is located in the southern portion of
the field. In addition, numerous buried utilities including water, communications, steam and electric were
marked by others during our time onsite.
2.2 Project Understanding
We understand that the proposed hangar (P-526) will be a one- to two-story, 72,800 square foot (560
feet by 130 feet in plan view) building with steel framing and non -load bearing masonry walls. The
prototypical foundation is a pre -cast, pre -stressed concrete pile system. Maximum compression loads are
anticipated to range from 400 to 1,500 kips. The ground Floor is intended to be a grade -supported
concrete slab, which will either require new fill placement or will be stepped down to accommodate for the
existing elevation change within the building footprint. The slab will be subjected to a maximum of 2.5
kips from concentrated aircraft wheel loads.
® The area north of the proposed hanger will be developed into a new vehicle parking area. The parking lot
will be about 552.feet long and 185 feet wide. It will be asphalt -paved. Immediately north of the parking
lot, a storm water detention system will be construction. The type of system is not certain at this time.
We anticipate less than 1 foot of cut or fill will be required to establish finished subgrade elevations in the
proposed building area; however, the parking lot may require up to 6 feet of fill to raise it to the same
grade as the proposed building pad.
The information presented in this section was utilized in the geotechnical analysis. Therefore, if any of the
noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform us so that we may amend the
recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate or necessary.
2.3 Scope of Services
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to gather pertinent subsurface information at this site in
order to provide opinions and recommendations regarding the design of foundation system as well as
geotechnical and construction guidelines with regards to the understanding of the proposed site
development. For this project, the following scope of services was performed:
• Coordinated the location of the existing underground utilities in the general area;
• Visited the site to observe/document the general surface conditions and mark test
locations;
• Advanced a total of eight soil test borings with standard penetration testing and seven
cone penetration tests;
• Prepared a Boring Log or CPT Log for each test location that stratifies the types of soil
encountered, presents the results of the Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) or cone
resistances, as well as other relevant geotechnical information;
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 3
• Prepared a Site Location Map to show the site vicinity and a Test Location Diagram to
illustrate the approximate test locations;
• Conducted a geotechnical engineering assessment of the data collected in the field and
prepared this report to provide recommendations for:
o foundation support system(s) including recommend capacities and estimated
settlements (total and differential);
o slab -on -grade design considerations, including subgrade reaction modulus;
o seismic site classification;
o liquefaction assessment; and
o construction considerations, such as fill soil suitability, grading, subgrade
preparation, compaction, foundation installation, excavation, groundwater
management and quality control.
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 4
3.1 Geology Overview
The subject site is located within Onslow County, North Carolina, which lies within the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province of the eastern United States. This province is characterized by gently sloping
plains with numerous broad, slowly moving rivers with broad flood plains. Low-lying marsh and swamp
regions are also prevalent. The Coastal Plain is comprised of sediments (mainly sands and clays) that
have been transported eastward from highlands to the west by erosional forces. Some of these sediments
have been consolidated to form sedimentary rock beds such as sandstone and mudstone; however, often
the sediments are poorly consolidated or unconsolidated. This process began approximately 200 million
years ago and, based on seismic refraction and well data, the depth of these sediments to the
underlying basement rock ranges from less than 10 feet at the fall line (the western boundary of the
Coastal Plain and the eastern boundary of the Piedmont) to approximately 10,000 feet at Cape
Hatteras. Deposition commonly occurred beneath the sea and numerous lenses and beds of hard
limestone also occur within the Coastal Plain strata.
Review of the Geologic Map of North Carolina (compiled by the North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985)
indicates that the subject site is underlain by the River Bend Formation (Tor), comprised of "limestone
calcarenite overlain by intercalated with indurated sandy molluscan -mold limestone".
3.2 Field Testing
Upon arrival, the concrete slab was cored using a thin -walled concrete core barrel at six test locations to
allow access to the subgrade. Subsequently, the subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated with a
total of eight soil test borings (B-1, B-3, B-4 B-6, PL-1, PL-3, PL-4 and SD-1). The borings extended to
depths of approximately 10 to 70 feet below the current ground surface. The test locations were marked in
the field by Stewart Engineering's survey personnel. A Test Location Diagram (Figure No. 2), which
indicates the approximate test locations, is presented in the Appendix of this report.
Soil test borings were advanced at this site utilizing a trailer -mounted CME 45 drilling rig using mud -rotary
drilling methods. All boring and sampling operations were conducted in general compliance with ASTM
D1586. At predetermined intervals, soil samples were obtained with a split -barrel sampler (standard 2-
inch O.D.). The sampler was rested on the bottom of the borehole and driven to a penetration of 18
inches (or fraction thereof) with blows of a manual 140-pound drop hammer falling 30 inches. Of the 18
inches, the number of hammer blows required to achieve 6 inches of penetration is recorded for three
consecutive segments. The sum of the blow counts for the second and third 6-inch segment is termed the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance, or N-value.
Testing also involved performing seven Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) at B-2, B-5, B-7, B-8, B-9, PL-2 and
PL-5. The Cone Penetration Tests were conducted with a track -mounted CPT unit. CPT is a continuous
testing process, by which the cone penetrometer device is advanced into the ground with a slender rod
that is mobilized by a hydraulic press. The penetrometer is comprised of a 60-degree cone tip, a cylindrical
sleeve and internal load transducers. As the penetrometer is pushed into the ground, resistance readings
at the tip and along the sides of the sleeve are transmitted back to the rig via cabling and continuously
recorded by a laptop computer. The penetrometer utilized on this site was also equipped to record relative
pore water pressure and shear wave velocity.
Infiltration testing for the proposed storm water detention pond, which is included in our scope, was not
conducted as part of the initial site testing. The infiltration testing will be completed at a later date and the
results will be forwarded in a report addendum.
3.3 Soil Classification & Laboratory Testing
The soil samples obtained during the drilling operation were classified and logged in the field by a
Professional Engineer in general accordance with ASTM D2488. The samples were then placed in sealed
containers and transported to our laboratory for further analyses and testing. The Boring Logs, CPT Logs
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 5
and the "Legend To Soil Descriptions", which explain the terms and symbols used on the logs, are included
in the Appendix of this report. Unless otherwise requested, all samples will be disposed of after 2 months.
Select soil samples were also subjected to laboratory testing, which included moisture/water content and
gradation. The proposed Atterberg Limits tests were foregone due to the main soil type being sand and
instead additional sieve analyses were conducted. The results of the testing are provided in the Appendix
of this report, as well as on the respective boring log.
3.4 Soil Conditions
Details of subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration program are shown on the
individual logs included in the Appendix of this report. The existing site topography shown on the plan
provided to us was utilized to estimate the ground surface elevations. As such, the ground surface
elevations presented on the Boring Logs or referenced in this report should be considered
approximate. Please note that no ground surface elevations were available for the grass field to receive
the new parking lot, therefore none are referenced in that area.
The following subsurface description is of a generalized nature, provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The stratification of the subgrade materials illustrated on the boring logs
represents the conditions in the actual test locations; therefore, variations should be expected
between borings. Stratigraphy boundaries only represent the approximate depth/elevation of a noticed
material change, and the transition between material types is typically gradual. Furthermore, it is
often difficult to discern between clean fill soil and native material.
A brief summary of the soils encountered is below
GROUND COVER - Initially, tests B-4 through B-9 encountered approximately 6 to 10 inches of
concrete. Tests B-2, B-3, PL-1 through PL-5 and SD-1 encountered approximately 6 to 8 inches of
topsoil at the ground surface. Test B-1 encountered a 2-inch layer of asphalt at the surface, with
no stone base course.
® FILL SOILS - Fill soils were encountered in the concrete pad area (tests B-1 through B-9) to
approximately 4 to 6 feet below grade. The fill soils generally consist of SANDS (SW, SM and
SC) with some lesser clay layers.
NATIVE SOILS - The native soils, which are Coastal Plain sedimentary deposits, generally
consisted of a layer of soft CLAYS (CH and CL), soft SILTS (ML and OL) underlain by very
loose to very dense SANDS (SP-SM and SM) were encountered below the fill or ground cover.
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 6
3.5 Groundwater
Groundwater level measurements were recorded at the time of completion of testing at each of the
borings performed at the site. The soil test borings within the proposed building footprint were left
open for about 15 hours for a stabilized groundwater reading. The depths to groundwater are
presented in the following table.
Table 1: Groundwater Depths
O-Hr Reading
15-Hour Reading
B-1
10
10
B-3
8
9
B-4
8
9
B-6
9.5
10
PL-1
6
Not Measured
PL-3
5
Not Measured
PL-4
5
Not Measured
SD-6
5
Not Measured
® The reported groundwater conditions represent the conditions at the time of the exploration. Fluctuations
in groundwater levels are common and should be expected. Common factors that influence groundwater
levels include, but are not limited to, soil stratification, climate/weather, nearby bodies of water (lakes,
ponds, etc.), underground springs, streams, rivers and surface water discharge. At the onset, as well as
continually throughout the construction process, the contractor should monitor groundwater levels if
determined to be detrimental to the project. Management of groundwater can significantly impact
construction procedures/practices, schedules and project budgets.
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 7
4
4.1 General Discussion
In general, the site appears to be readily adaptable for the proposed construction; however, due to the
loose/soft subgrade soil conditions and the heavy loading, the proposed structure will require a deep
foundation system. Also due to the loose sands, there is a high potential for liquefaction in the event of a
seismic event. This condition will be needed to be addressed in the design of the structure.
4.2 Site Preparation
4.2.1 General
Initially, all concrete, asphalt, utilities and trench backfll, vegetation, debris and any other deleterious
materials should be cleared from the proposed areas scheduled for site development. The existing grass
field, which will be developed into the vehicle parking lot, should be thoroughly stripped with all topsoil
and root mat removed. This also applies to the grass strip along the northern edge of the existing concrete
pad and the existing slope. Based on the borings, we recommend a stripping depth of 1 foot, but deeper
isolated pockets may be encountered that will require removal. Stripping should extend a lateral distance
of at least 2 feet beyond the limits of the new construction.
Prior to fill placement in low areas (including undercut areas) and prior to stone base placement in areas
at grade, the near -surface soils should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer. This is typically
accomplished by proofrolling, but the soft condition at the site will likely require other means of evaluation.
This may include probing with a 1/2-inch diameter T-rod or testing with a dual -mass (Kessler) dynamic
cone penetrometer (DCP). In areas where proofrolling is determined to be viable, particularly at the
finished subgrade elevation, this should be accomplished with a loaded tandem -axle dump truck with
repeated passes over the subject area. Areas that yield (rut, pump or deflect excessively) during
proofrolling, or are otherwise deemed unsatisfactory for fill placement or pavement support, should be
repaired as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typically, repair will require undercutting and
replacement. Where applicable, geogrid may be used to lessen the depth of undercutting required.
4.2.2 Parking Lot
Boring PL-1 encountered organic silt (OL), which is unsuitable for pavement support, to a depth of
approximately 5 feet below the existing grade. To prevent long term pavement issues in this area, the
organic silt should be completely removed and replaced. However, the cost and time associated with doing
so is expected to be unfavorable. Depending on the depth of fill to be placed in this area, some or all of
the OL-material can be left in place if the owner acknowledges the risk associated with doing so. These
risks, which wouldn't likely be evident for several years, include compromised pavement performance
including subsidence (birdbaths), potholes and pavement cracking. Utilities traversing this area may also
be affected by the gradual compression/deterioration of the OL-material.
Aside from the above mentioned organic silt layer, the proposed parking lot area is generally underlain by
highly plastic clays and clayey sands. The plastic clays are poor pavement support materials that could
possibly undergo volume change (shrink -swell) with changes in water content and will lose considerable
strength when wetted. These soils are expected to cause premature pavement failure (cracking, potholes,
etc.) if left in place to provide direct support the pavement structure. As such, we recommend that these
soils be undercut and replaced or bridged with granular structural fill. Based on the soft consistency of the
clays, we expect that a minimum of 3 feet of undercut or bridging will be necessary. We also expect that a
layer of geogrid will be required to establish a stable base on which to begin filling, regardless of whether
the subgrade is undercut or not. We recommend using a biaxial geogrid such as Tensar BX-1200 or
equivalent. Depending on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction, a layer of crushed
aggregate may be necessary directly on top of the geogrid.
In the absence of proposed grading plans at the time of this report, we have assumed that 3 to 6 feet of
fill will be placed to raise the proposed parking lot grades. In doing so, the weight of the new fill will cause
the underlying clays to consolidate, causing settlement at the ground surface. Also, if loose bridging is
required, this material will also undergo some settlement. No specific laboratory testing was conducted to
Proposed Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 8
assess the magnitude of consolidation or time rate of settlement for the clays; however, we estimate
these to be on the order of 4-8 inches over four to six months (without surcharging). As such, we
recommend placing the fill in the proposed parking lot area early in the construction phase to allow the
consolidation process to be reach completion before final grading and paving operation begin.
Where new fill will be placed against the existing slope, located along the north side of the proposed
hangar, the existing slope should be benched to allow for proper placement and compaction of the new fill.
Benches should not exceed 3 feet in height and the bench width should be 2 to 3 times the bench height.
4.2.3 Hangar
The near surface soils across the proposed building pad consist of sands with varying amounts of silt
and/or clay. Once the existing concrete slab is removed, the surface soils should be compacted in -place to
achieve 100 percent compaction, based on a Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D1557). Scarification and
moisture conditioning may be required.
Similar to the parking lot area discussed above, addition of fill on the building pad will result in
consolidation of the existing subgrade soil. Based on a fill thickness of 2 feet, we estimate as much as 2
inches of settlement, which will likely require two months (without surcharging). Surcharging could reduce
this delay by one-third to one-half. During the settlement period, work would have to be shifted to other
areas of the site since the settlement would damage overlying construction. This settlement would also
result additional down -drag on a pile foundation so pile installation would also need to be delayed. Given
the impact of new fill in the building pad, we recommend that Whiting-Tumer's proposal to step-down the
slab be given serious consideration as this would significantly reduce or eliminate settlements stemming
from new fill.
4.3 Structural Fill
Structural fill should possess a maximum dry density (MDD) of 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) or
greater as determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557). Any material utilized as
structural fill should not contain rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter or greater than 25% retained
on the 3/4-inch sieve. Structural fill material should not contain more than 6% (by weight) of organic
matter or other deleterious material. It is preferable for the Plasticity Index (PI) of structural fill soil to
not exceed 20 and the Liquid Limit (LL) not exceed 40, as determined by Atterberg Limit testing
(ASTM D4318). This corresponds to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designations of GIN, GM,
GC, SW, SM, ML and some SC and CL.
Structural fill required to establish subgrade elevations should be placed in 8-inch thick (or less) loose lifts.
Fill soils should be compacted to the minimum percentages in Table 2, which is based on a Modified
Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557). The moisture content of fill soils should be maintained within
f2% of the material's optimum moisture content as determined by the same standard. Some moisture
conditioning of fill material may be necessary prior to placement, of which drying during the wet
season always proves to be the most challenging, particularly with clay -rich soil. Aggregate Base
Course stone below pavements and slabs should be compacted to 100% of the material's maximum dry
density as determined by a Modified Proctor Test, within t2% of the stone's optimum moisture content.
Table 2: Compaction Reauirements
Fill Soil Locati
Compaction
Building Pad
95
Parking Lot
95
Airfield Pavement
100 - Upper 24 inches
95 - Below 24 inches
Non -Structural Areas
90
;Percent of the material's maximum dry density per ASTM D155Z
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 9
It is recommended that the placement and compaction of structural fill be monitored by an Engineering
Technician, working under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. We also offer the following
recommendations for compaction testing frequency:
• Building Pad - 1 test per lift per 1,500 square feet of fill placed
• Parking Lot - 1 test per lift per 4,000 square feet of fill placed
• Trench backfill - 1 test per lift per 100 linear feet of trench backfill
4.4 Seismic
Per the International Building Code, 2006 Edition (IBC2006), the design of structures must consider
dynamic forces resulting from seismic events, regardless of their likelihood of occurrence. These
forces are dependent upon the magnitude of the earthquake event as well as the properties of the
soils that underlie the site. As part of a generalized procedure to estimate seismic forces, the code
assigns a Seismic Site Classification (letter designation of Class A through F). The classification is
based on the subgrade soil/rock conditions within the upper 100 feet of the ground surface at the
subject site. To define the Seismic Site Class for this project, we have interpreted the results of soil
test borings and the shear wave velocity data collected within the project site. Below the termination
depths, the soil properties were conservatively estimated to a depth of 100 feet.
The average shear wave velocity and average SPT N-values are consistent with a Seismic Site Class
"D"; however, as defined in Table 1613.5.2 of theIBC2006, the presence of liquefiable sands
automatically downgrade the site to a Seismic Site Classification "F". As such, Seismic Site Class "F"
should be used in the design of the proposed structures. The associated USGS-NEHRP (2002)
probabilistic ground acceleration values and site coefficients for the general site area were obtained
via the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Ground Motion Parameter Calculator at the geohazards webpage
(http://earthguake.usgs.ciov/research/hazmar)s/design) and are presented in the following table.
These values are based on a Seismic Site Classification "D", as permitted by "Note b" in the IBC2006
Tables 1613.5.3 (1 & 2) that defers to ASCE 7 as stating: "...for structures with periods of vibration
equal to or less then 0.5 seconds, values of F for liquefiable soils are permitted to be taken equal to
the values for the site class determined without regard to liquefaction ...." In the event that the
structure is determined to have a period greater than 0.5 seconds, a site -specific seismic response
analysis will be required.
Table 3: Ground Motion Values*
Adjusted Design
Spectral Spectral
Acceleration Acceleration
mmm (g) i i . (g)
0.2 Ss 0.204 Fa 1.6 ,0.326 Sos .21217
1.0 St 0.076 F„ 2.4 SrnISni0.183 0.2
SDI
'2 % Probability of Event in 50 years for Latitude 34.717289 and Longitude-77.440938.
"MCE random horizontal component of acceleration at 8-C interface (i.e. top of bedrock).
MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake
For Seismic Design Category designations of C, D, E or F, which are contingent on the structure's "Seismic
Use Group", the code requires an assessment of slope stability, liquefaction potential and surface rupture
due to faulting or lateral spreading. Detailed evaluations of these factors were beyond the scope of this
study. However, the following table presents a qualitative assessment of these issues considering the site
class, the subsurface soil properties, the groundwater elevation and probabilistic ground motions.
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 10
Table 4: Qualitative Seismic Site Assessments
Hazard
I Comments
In the event of an earthquake with a USGS
recommended design Mean Moment Magnitude (Mw)
Liquefaction
High
6.76, some of the sands below the water table are
likely to liquefy.
Please refer to Table 5.
Slope Stability*
Low
Based on the presumed grading, significant cut and fill
slopes are not planned for construction.
No known active faults underlie the site and no lateral
Surface Rupture
Low
spreading or boils are anticipated during a seismic
event.
*A slope stability analysis, including it's stability during a seismic event, was beyond the scope of work.
Based on our assessment using Liquefy 5 computer software, the potential for liquefaction is isolated to a
loose sand zone generally encountered from about 29 to 36 feet below the existing grade (approximate
elevation -10 to -17 feet MSL). According to the CPT soundings, this weak zone is fairly consistent across
the site. The table below presents the liquefiable zones established in our analysis as well as the estimated
post -liquefaction settlement/subsidence at the ground surface.
Table 5: Liquefaction Zones
Test Location
Liquefiable
Zone
(feet)
Liquefaction -Induced
Settlement
(inches)
Liquefaction -induced foundation settlement will jeopardize the proposed deep foundations and concrete
slab -on -grade; therefore, the Owner and Structural Engineer must choose whether mitigation of
liquefaction -induced settlement is absolutely necessary for the facility to perform as intended.
Furthermore, it should be noted that liquefaction mitigation measures are intended to reduce the likelihood
of catastrophic failure and should not be misconstrued as a preventative measure against settlement
and/or other structural damage since such conditions cannot be completely avoided during an earthquake.
Mitigation measures typically involve a ground modification via an extensive array of earthquake drains or
vibro-replacement (stone columns), penetrating into the liquefiable layer, to relieve excess pore water
pressure that builds up and cause liquefaction during an earthquake. Another approach would be to
designing for full effects of liquefaction (e.g. fully reinforced floor slabs spanning between pile -supported
grade beams, using reduced pile capacities, etc.). Additional engineering analyses will be necessary to
provide recommendations for liquefaction mitigation systems.
4.5 Foundations
The provided project narrative indicates that the prototypical foundation system uses driven 12-inch pre-
cast, pre -stressed (PCPS) concrete piles. While we agree that piles are a viable foundation system, they
are limited in capacity during an earthquake due to strength losses associated with liquefaction and their
relatively shallow bearing depth. As such, we are also providing recommendations for 14-inch PCPS
concrete piles and micro -piles as alternatives to consider.
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 11
4.5.1 Driven PCPS Concrete Piles
Based on the subgrade conditions and the heavy structural loads, driven pre -cast, pre -stressed concrete
piles are considered a suitable foundation system. We recommend using a 12-inch or 14-inch square pile.
Driven displacement piles such as these will derive their strength from both end bearing conditions and the
shaft (skin) resistance along the pile sides. Based on our testing we estimate that piles can be driven to
an approximate tip depth of 55 feet (f5 feet); however, pile drivability should be verified by the pile
installer by using the equation method taking into account the proposed pile driving equipment (IBC2006,
Section 1808.2.8.2). At a tip depth of 55 feet, we recommend the following capacities to limit post -
construction settlements:
Table 6: Pile
12-inch PCPS 80 [30] 40 (30] 6 9 13
Concrete
14-inch PCPS Concrete 1 100 [40] 60 [50] 8 12 18
Note: The capacity values in this table are per pile. The capacity values in brackets
account for the reduced capacity and down -drag forces expected dunng liquefaction.
'Free -head condition.
As discussed in the previous section, liquefaction of the loose sands below the site will significantly impact
the proposed foundation. During liquefaction, the piles will loose bearing capacity due to loss of side
® friction. In fact, the liquefaction will create negative skin friction (down -drag) as the soil settle around the
pile causing additional loading on the pile. As such, we are recommending the bracketed ([]) pile
capacities in Table 6 if liquefaction is not mitigated. If liquefaction is mitigated, the higher pile capacity
may be used.
Piles should be constructed according to IBC2006 with concrete having a minimum compressive strength
of 5,000 psi and a 700 psi pre -stress load. Piles should be spaced a minimum of three times the pile width
(3xD). Selection, construction and installation of the piles should also be in accordance with the IBC2006
1809.2.3.
Proper pile handling and driving are critical to pile strength and longevity. Piles should be transported and
handled in a manner that will not cause damage to the concrete or reinforcing steel. All piles should be
inspected prior to driving to verify their condition. Also, pile driving equipment should be appropriately
sized to drive the piles to the planned depths, but should not overstress the pile. We recommend that the
pile driving contractor submit pile driving plans to the Geotechnical Engineer for review prior to
mobilization of pile driving equipment. This should, at minimum, include the hammer and cushion
specifications, pile drivability verification (WEAP analysis) and quality control plan. It is imperative that the
pile driving contractor verify that the piles can be driven to the design depth without causing damage to
the pile so that any necessary design changes can be made before mobilization.
We recommend the following pile load testing program options:
Dynamic Testing - We recommend driving 12 test piles, evenly spaced across the site,
prior to construction. These piles should be instrumented and analyzed with a Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA) according to ASTM D4945. These piles should be used as a benchmark for
verifying the design and for ordering the production piles.
Static Testing - In the absence of dynamic load testing, we recommend performing a
minimum of three static load tests prior to construction. Two should be a compression
load test in accordance with ASTM D1143 while the other should be a tension load test in
accordance with ASTM D3689. Since battered piles are expected to be required to resist
O Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 12
® the large lateral loads, we do not see the need for lateral load testing. Static load tests
should be performed to 21/2 times the design load.
Since the sands below the site may exhibit "quick" conditions (i.e. significant instantaneous strength loss
due to excessive pore water pressure build-up), some piles may not achieve the prescribed resistance at
the anticipated depths during initial driving. As such, capacities at re -strike should also be considered.
A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should be contracted to observe and document the
installation of the test and production piles as well as the load testing procedures.
4.5.2 Microoiles
As an alternative to driven piles, we recommend considering a micro -pile (a.k.a. pin pile and mini -pile)
foundation system. Micro -piles are relatively small diameter, bored and cast -in -place piles. The piles are
constructed using neat grout and reinforcing steel (pipe and/or bar). While some end bearing is attained
by each micro -pile, it is ignored and designed solely on the side friction resistance which is achieved
through the grout -to -soil bond. One distinct advantage to micro -piles is that their penetration depths are
not limited by dense soil layers, unlike driven piles. This allows the micro -piles to be installed to greater
depths and in this case develop additional capacity needed in the event of liquefaction. One disadvantage
to such a system is the reduced lateral capacity requiring additional battered piles when compared to PCPS
piles.
Based on typical bond strengths provided in the Federal Highway Administration's Micropile Design and
Construction Guidelines manual (FHWA-SA-91-070), we have estimated the capacities in Table 7 for an 8-
inch diameter micropile. Please note these values are for preliminary design only and the design -build
foundation contractor should verify actual pile capacities and material strengths. In fact, we recommend
conducting a test program consisting of at least two static load tests at the site to determine/verify bond
strengths to maximize the pile design.
Table 7: Microoile Capacities
•-LILaptaecral
Compres) ion] Qons)�]
85 130 [60] 130 (120)
1.5 EE
100 160 [90] 160[150]
Note: The capacity values in this table are per pile based on a grout compressive strength of 5,000
psi and 75 ksl steel. The capacity values in brackets account for the reduced capacity and down -
drag forces expected dunng liquefaction.
Design, construction and installation of the micropiles should also be in accordance with the IBC2006
1810.8. We recommend a minimum grout compression strength of 5,000 psi and 75 ksi (minimum)
reinforcing steel. As with the PCPS Concrete piles, load testing will be required per IBC2006 section
1808.2.8.2 to utilize the capacities/stresses in Table 7. Micropiles should be spaced a minimum of three
times the pile diameter (3xD). A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should be contracted to
observe and document the installation of the test and production piles as well as the load testing.
O Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008. 00

Page 13
4.6 Slabs -On -Grade
For grade -supported concrete slabs constructed over a properly prepared subgrade, we recommend a
modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 110 pounds per cubic inch (pci). This value is estimated based on
correlations to a plate load test (30-inch diameter) without consideration of liquefaction.
We recommend that floor slabs be underlain by a minimum of 8 inches of compacted aggregate base
course material. The aggregate base course material should be compacted in accordance with Section
4.3 of this report. Open -graded crushed stone, such as No. 57-sized aggregate, may also be used;
however, it is our experience that open graded crushed stone can collect water during periods of rain
and cause saturation and softening of the subgrade soils prior to placement of the floor slab.
Therefore, construction sequencing/timing and the season in which the stone is placed should be
taken into consideration.
It is important to point out that cracking of concrete is normal and should be expected. Proper jointing of
slabs is paramount in the control of cracking. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommends a
maximum panel size (in feet) equal to approximately three times the thickness of the slab (in inches) in
both directions. Controlling the water -cement ratio of the concrete, particularly after batching, and
including fiber reinforcement in the mix can also help reduce shrinkage cracking.
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008.00

Page 14
PEORTOTUM
The opinions and recommendations herein are based on the subsurface information collected during our
exploration and the provided design details for the proposed project. Change to the proposed
development plans should be made known to Stewart Engineering so that any necessary adjustments to
our recommendations can be made prior to final design. If not, Stewart Engineering cannot be held
responsible for any resulting discrepancies.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of TranSystems, Inc. for the specific application to
the proposed Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (P-526) at the MCAS New River Facility in Jacksonville,
North Carolina. The engineering recommendations contained within this report are in general accordance
with the accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices and the industry's standard of care in
this region. No warranties or guarantees are expressed and should not otherwise be implied.
Stewart Engineering would be pleased to review the final project documents to check compliance with the
recommendation within this report. Also, we can provide materials testing and special inspection should
the need arise on this project. When you feel the time is appropriate to discuss these additional services,
please do not hesitate to call us.
Proposed Aircraft Maintenence Hangar (P-526)
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Stewart Project No. F8008.00

Figure No. 1: Site Location Diagram

SD -I
2 TW)
="te
PL-2
j3 j3 Nei j;
-2
.4 20'
CLEM
—�XFV— MCE
Yfa
S-9
B-4 -5
PROPOSED
AIRCRAFT -IkIAINTEM C.
HA P_52 :/GAR
P_651
B �I Z;7
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM :a7 wIr F8(008�2`O0O NTS
STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.BRAWNG MMDM BY. DAM
421 FAYE7rEVILLE STREET, SUITE 400 New Aircraft Maintenance Hangar others 05-28-083p �er �mm RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601 MCAS New River FIBT,
Jacksonville, NC DWB 2

C�
Ste Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER B-1
Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
CStewart
PAGE 1 OF 1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSystems Inc. PROJECT NAME MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5/15108 COMPLETED 5/16108 GROUND ELEVATION 19 ft BORING DEPTH 701t
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Drilling 0-HR GWL 10 ft STAB. GWL 10 ft CAVE41N 25 ft
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.25-inch NOTES
DRILL RIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGED BY DWB
♦ SPT N-VALUE (BPF)
m
a
o
a
1020 w 40 W6070 ao 90
PL MC LL
O
c
M
w
j
n
10 zor3o ao 5�0 so 7orao 90
jF
N
a�
L¢i
3Z
❑ FINES CONTENT (%) ❑
w
p
j
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
< m
N m 0
Z
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
18.8
0.2
Sp
ASPHALT PAVEMENT (2 INCHES, NO GRAVEL BASE)
SS
1
5 5 4
9
SM
POSSIBLE FILL - TAN COARSE SAND - MOIST
15.0
4.0
SS
1 2 2
4
..:...;..:......:.. ...:.
POSSIBLE FILL - BROWN, SILTY FINE SAND WITH THIN CLAY
SEAMS - MOIST
2
CH
3
2 3 2
5
SOFT TO FIRM, BROWN TO DARK GRAY, FINE SANDY SILT -
10.5
8.&
MOIST
SS
4
1
2 1 2
3
VERY LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE GRAY SAND WITH SOME SILT
AND CLAY - WET TO SATURATED
•
SS
5
7 8 9
17
... .... i...i......:...
SP
'.
SM
:
SS
7
o:
-8.51
27.5
"
...:..:..:.......y...: ..:...:...:..
'
MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE, LIGHT GRAY TO TAN, COARSE
:'.
SAND AND FRACTURED LIMESTONE WITH SHELLS AND SOME
g
1 0 1
1
..:.. _..:...:...:.. _..:..........
. CLAY/SILT - SATURATED
''.
SS
1 1 2
3
°i...:..:...... ...�.....:...:.
9
SS
9 15 13
28
:..
SS
11
7 8 10
18
...i..:..:... i...i...:..;.
SM
.:.
SS
11 11 10
21
., .:
SS
13
23 27 38
65
...... _..:...:..... _..:...:...:.
SS 14
10 11 9
20
.:
SS
15
9 12 16
28
...; ..:..:...:...:..:...;...:.
-48.01
67.
: +.
...:.. _.....:...:.. _..:...:...:..
...>..;...;......;.
DENSE, OLIVE -TAN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE SHELLS AND
-51.0
70.0
SM
TRACE LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS - SATURATED
16
12 20 27
47
Bottom of borehole at 70.0 feet.
r/we: srrewca,c, arere-e+rn�6 dper�ennwsmnvtays ouv,�oreo.

MAD.
�e
Operator Donald B Coogan Cone Number DSGO867 Date And Time 511412008 1:02:00 PM
J
{
'LA J' Job Number F8008.00 Location New River Air Station Hole Number B-2
CO
Water Table Depth 0.00 tt
GPS 3443.0617N, 07726.4703W
Stewart Engineering
o
W
REMARKS
I>_
Wp
Tip Resistance Pore Pressure Friction Ratio SPT N'
O w a
0 Ot TSF 600 .20 Pw PSI 60 0 Fs/Ct M 4 0 60% Hammer 90
0 U) m
0
10
20
i I I
_ . I !
. I
I i I i
...........
'ill
Ilil
... I ..I ... ..
I i i l
! I I
I I
.... L I .
i! I
II !II
'.i iil
_ _I , ... i_... .I I..
I I I
II
fl
II
II
30
I
L..._
L... 1.....
L......a I
I
... _....._ ........_L. ..
...
.. _L. ........
....._ ...._I.
.. ..........
I
I
40
I I I I
I I I
I I I
I III
I i l
50
I l i
I l l
III
L I I-_!
i I
I l i
I
11 I I
!
I
i t ; I I I
I f III
i
II
II III iII
I I11'll
�.
I
I
I
l
❑ 1 - sensitive fine grained ■ 4 - silty clay to clay 07. silty sand to sandy silt ■ 10 - gravelly sand to sand
02. organic material ■ 5 - clayey silt to silty clay O 8 - sand to silty sand ■ 11 - verystiff fine grained(*)
■ 3 - clay ■ 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt D 9 - sand IN 12 - sand to clayey sand (•)

Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER B-3
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
CStewart
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSystems, Inc. PROJECT NAME MICAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5/14/08 COMPLETED 5/14/08 GROUND ELEVATION 19 ft BORING DEPTH 50 ft
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Drilling 04HR GWL 8 it STAB. GWL 9 it CAVE-IN 19 it
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.25-inch NOTES
DRILL RIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGEDBY DWB
♦ SPT N-VALUE (BPF)
m
Q.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90
PL MC LL
Z
c
>
w
w
>
a
n
u1
10 zo 30 40 so 0 70 e0 so
❑FINES CONTENT (%) ❑
w
o
j
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Q Z
3
N m 0
Z
10 20 30 40 50 su 70 W so
TOPSOIL (8 inches) SS
9 7 9 8 17
FILL - BROWN AND GRAY, CLAYEY SAND WITH SANDY CLAY (CL) 1 """""""""""""""'
SC
LAYERS - MOIST SS ...:
5 6 6 12 ......�..............:..:..
13.0
6.0
2
FIRM, GRAY SANDY CLAY - MOIST 3S 3 2 3 5
CL
10.3
8.
LOOSE, GRAY, CLAYEY SAND -MOIST TO WET 4 2 4 1 5
SC
FIRM, GRAY AND TAN SILTY CLAY - WET TO SATURATED
CH
4.7
142
SS 0 0 9 9 .. i..............i..;..
LIGHT GRAY SAND WITH SOME SILT AND CLAY - SATURATED 5
is
..
...:....:...:...:.. _..:...:.
SS A
6 11 12 12 24.
SP
".
s 5 6 10 16 °.:.. ..:...:...:.. _..:...:.
SM
COLOR TRANSITIONS TO BLUE -GRAY -26 FEET
SS ...'...:..:.......... .
e 6 52 7
SS 3 1 2 3 ................. .:...:...:...
9
7.0
36.0
DENSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, LIGHT GRAY CLAYEY SILTY COARSE
SAND AND FRACTURED LIMESTONE - SATURATED:o% <;<
SS
10 12 16 25 41
SM;.:'
SS i...i..:...;.
11 10 11 5 16 ...>......:... ..:...:..
-31.0
50.0
SZ 9 11 15 26
Bottom of borehole at 50.0 feet.
rwre: sviaewca.n erere-erxne,, m�wao, �a 4oree.

Stewart Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER B-4
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite
1 PAGE 1 OF 1
Raleigh,
r � r Raleigh, North Carolina 2760
\\VJ/ Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSystems. Inc. PROJECT NAME MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5/15/08 COMPLETED 5/15108 GROUND ELEVATION 19 It BORING DEPTH 50 ft
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Drilling 0-HR GWL 81t STAB. GWL 9 ft CAVE-IN 20If
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.25-inch NOTES SS2SAMPLE NOT OBTAINED
DRILL RIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGED BY DWB
• SPT N-VALUE (BPF)
zm
a
❑
n
1020304050607080w
O
v
r K
W
>
PL MC LL
>
W
10203040M60 is e0N
j
r=-
N
a
O
3z
D
❑ FINES CONTENT (%) ❑
w
W
h
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
¢ Z
3
a � 0
>
W
❑
N op
(0
w (n o
Z
10 20 30 40 50 60 20 e0 W
"
CONCRETE (10 INCHES)
SM
5 5 6 11 '
FILL -BROWN -TAN, CLAYEY SILTY SAND - MOIST 1 ... ... """". 1...
14.5
4Ajj
SOFT. BLACK AND DARK GRAY, FINE SANDY SILT WITH SOME
ML
_
ORGANICS -MOIST TO WET 3S 2 2 2 4
11.0
8.0
...:..;... i...i...:..:.
MEDIUM DENSE, TAN AND LIGHT GRAY, CLAYEY SILTY FINE - 5 7 8 15
'
SM
SAND -SATURATED 4 ...: .i.. %...i...i...:.. i.
6.0
13.
• :
...:. :..:...:...:.._..:...:...:..
MEDIUM DENSE TO LOOSE, TAN -GRAY SAND WITH SOME SILT SS 6 6 9 15
.';
AND CLAY -SATURATED 5
COLOR TRANSITIONS TO BLUE-GRAYAT -23 FEET SS
6 8 11 11 22
SP.':
SM
.:
7 4 6 11 17 ...:.. ..:...:...:.._
'
0 1 1 2 :..,...,..
COLOR TRANSITIONS TO DARK GRAY @ - 26 FEET SS
-15.9
34.
.•
SS W O R 0 .A... �......:...:.
MEDIUM DENSE, LIGHT GRAY TO TAN, CLAYEY SILTY COARSE ..: . ..:...:...:..:...:...:...:.
'.
SAND AND FRACTURED LIMESTONE - SATURATED
:'.
••••;•
DRILLING FLUID LOSS AT-36 FEET "' "'^"'""?"'''
SS
.'.
13 13 11 24
10 .
SM
... i...i...
11
-27.0
46.0
DENSE, TAN CLAYEY SILTY SAND WITH LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS
'
SM
-SATURATED ...:..-..=...:...=. -
-31.0
50.0
12 15 14 20 34
Bottom of borehole at 50.0 feel.
rive: saretw cu.w �repa-era«,.,d�waaca�w.m mmn

n
Operator Donald ISCoogan Cone Number DSG0867 Date And Time 5/1412008 2:40:40 PM
To
Job Number F8008.00 Location New River Air Station Hole Number B-5
Water Table Depth 0.00 It
GPS 3443.0528N, 07726.4423W
Stewart Engineering
F
a w
REMARKS
D
a
O
Wp
Tip Resistance
Pore Pressure Friction Ratio SPT N•
W
N 03
0 Ot TSF
350
-10 Pw PSI 60
0 Fs/Ot % 8
0 60% Hammer
60
,
0
I,
I
5
I
�
I
i I
I
1
I
III
1
I
L,
L .I
iIII!
1
10
I-II
15
I
20
III
I I
I
i .III
� I I
I
�
II
!
i
25
I i
.._.......
I III
i
... ...
__. .... ._ _ ....._
I I
._._..
_...._
I!III�I
f'f
.........
._I.._ .........i
l i i
.... .._.
l
•.
�I
I
�!
30
35
40
ii
f
.I
D t -
l
l
17
, �
sensitive fine grained
■ 4 - silty clay to clay ■ 7 - silty sand to sandy silt
■ 10 - gravelly sand to sand
O 2 -
organic material
■ 5 - clayey slit to silty clay O 8 - sand to silty sand
111111 - very stiff fine grained (•)
8 3 -
clay
0 6 - sandy slit to clayey slit D 9 - sand
0 12 - sand to clayey sand (')

Stewart Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER B-6
Fayetteville Street, Suite
O421
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSystems Inc. PROJECT NAME MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5/15/08 COMPLETED 5/15108 GROUND ELEVATION 19 ft BORING DEPTH 70 It
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Drilling 0-HR GWL 9.5 it STAB. GWL 10 ft CAVE-IN 22 It
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.25-inch NOTES
DRILLRIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGED BY DWB
x
♦ SPT N-VALUE (BPF)
Z
m
a
10 20 30 40 50 BD 70 80 90
PL MC LL
c
>
r m
w
w
>
w
Q
=
N
U
n
~
D
10 20 30 400 80 90
❑FINES CONTENT (%) ❑
w
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
< m
3:
N m O
Z
o
C
10 20 30 40 60 80 70 80 90
C
CONCRETE (61NCHES)
SS
8 9 9
18
SM
1
SS
4 4 4
8
"""""""""""""""
"' ""
FILL - TAN CLAYEY COARSE SAND - MOIST
FILL - GRAY AND BROWN, CLAYEY SILTY SAND - MOIST
13.5
5.5
SS
10 10 10
20
.:...:...:...
'
SM
' '
:
' MEDIUM DENSE, DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE
11.0
8.0
�'
ROOTLETS - MOIST TO WET
3
SS
0 0 1
1
...:. .: ..:...:...>...;..;...;...;..
VERY SOFT, DARK GRAY SANDY SILTY CLAY - SATURATED
CH
4.5
14.
SS
S
0 1 10
11
.. ...:..;... i...i........i.
MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY LOOSE, GRAY SAND WITH SOME SILT
AND CLAY -SATURATED
... ............. `........'.
SS
4 5 5
10
SS
4 11 12
23
°...................:...:.
SP
' :.
...:.. :...:...i...i...:..:...i...i..
SM
' .:'
SS
8
1 1 0
1
...'...;..:...:...:...:.. ;.
'.
SS
9
1 1 1
2
.....:..:...�...; ..:...
-19.0
38.0
SS
14 18 20
38
' MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, TAN -GRAY, CLAYEY SILTY COARSE
SAND AND FRACTURED LIMESTONE - SATURATED
70
...`..:...1..>'
.':
SS
it
14 8 9
17
...;..: "t...i...i.....i...i...i.
.;.
::.
SS
12
11 13 21
34
: .
- - .
...i...:..: .i...i...:..:... i.
ONLY TRACE LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS BELOW -50 FEET
SM:.;:
...:..:...:... ..:..::..:......:..
'
SS
13
29 18 35
53
...:.. _..:...:.....:..:...:...:..
'X
SS
9 9 9
18
' _......:...:..
14
...:.. ..:...:...:..
15
16 23 25
48
48.0
67.101
........................:... i...i...
SM'•
' '
' DENSE, OLIVE -TAN, SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE SHELLS AND
-51.0
70.0
TRACE LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS - SATURATED
16
12 45 25
70
Bottom of borehole at 70.0 feet.
Abre: Sa7�6n av��alrerx{u�

kA
e
y ?' Operator Donald B Coogan Cone Number DSG0867 Date And Time 5/14/2008 5:31:03 PM
to s Job Number F8008.00 Location New River Air Station Hole Number B-7
co
Water Table Depth 0.00 ft
GPS 3443.0350N, 07726.5076W

M A" .
ao
v +' Operator Donald B Coogan Cone Number DSG0867 Dale And Time 5/14/2008 4:45:57 PM
J.
Job Number F8008.00 Location New River Air Station Hole Number B-8
aA o
co
Water Table Depth 0.001t
GPS 3443.0395N, 07726.4588W
Of
Stewart Engineering
a
W
REMARKS
o
a
O
pr
Tip Resistance Pore Pressure Friction Ratio SPT N'
w
� 0]
0 Ot TSF 300 -15 PW PSI 40 0 FslOt M 5 0 60%Hammer 60
,
0
T i
r ...
5
...«.. I ..
10
15
20
i
25
._I .. ..... ..
'..._ ......
.. .. ...........
i
i
30
7_1
_.
II
i
35
40
0 1 - sensitive fine grained ■ 4 - silty clay to clay ■ 7 - silty sand to sandy silt ■ 10 - gravelly sand to sand
0 2 - organic material ■ 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 0 8 - sand to silty sand ■ 11 - very stiff fine grained (•)
■ 3 - clay 0 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 0 9 - sand 11112 - sand to clayey sand (•)

MAD
�e
iV
Operator Donald B Coogan Cone Number DSG0867 Date And Time 5/14/2008 3:49:51 PM
r•Job Number F8008.00 Location New River Air Station Hole Number B-9
co
Water Table Depth 0.00 ft
GPS 3443.0387N, 07726.4036W
tY
Stewart Engineering
Q
W
REMARKS
EL
dxa
pTip
Resistance
Pore Pressure Friction Ratio SPT N'
0 W
0 Ot TSF
300
-10 Pw PSI 30
0 Fs/Qt % 9
0 60% Hammer
50.
0
I
17i
510
I
15
20
25
..,. .............
..........
... .. .............
...........,.... .... .........
i ..
........:. .._.... .......'
...
30
I i
,
35
L.......
I I
.
I
�....._
...
...... ... ... i.. L......I
1 1 1
..L.....,j.
I I
..._..
1 ,.
I
j
40
I
L.....
I
;-..... . .1
.:.. ....
...
... ..; ....
_. .. .I_.._..�
...
.i.......;. l ...... I_. .I .....
. _..
D 'I -
•
sensitive fine grained
■ 4 - silty clay to clay ■ 7 - silty sand to sandy silt
■ 10 - gravelly sand to sand
D 2 -
organic material
■ 5 - clayey silt to silty clay ❑ 8 - sand to silty sand
N 11 - very stiff fine grained (')
03.
clay
8 6 - sandy slit to clayey silt 09. sand
0 12 - sand to clayey sand (')

Stewart Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER PLA
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
i Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 PAGE 1 OF 1
OS
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSystems. Inc. PROJECT NAME MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5/16/08 COMPLETED 5/16108 GROUND ELEVATION 13 it BORING DEPTH 10 ft
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Drilling 0-HR GWL 6 it STAB. GWL CAVE-IN 10 ft
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.25-inch NOTES Elevation assumed -no survey data available at time of exploration
DRILL RIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGED BY DWB
♦ SPT N-VALUE (BPF)
m
a
o
n
10203040 W 807080w
O
w
>
w
PL MC LL
>
wa
w w
rn
z
Q
2---0
10 20 80 40 58 80 78 80 W
❑ FINES CONTENT 1%) 0
w
w
w
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
z
N m 0
i
r020 W 40 s9 ro]08090
O
—
TOPSOIL (8 INCHES) SS ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
OL
FIRMTOVERY SOFT, BLACK, SANDY ORGANIC SILT - MOIST TO 1 1 3 3 6...i...:..:...:...:...:..;......i.
—
WET SS ..;...;..;... i...;...;..;......;..
2 0
VERY SOFT, GRAY AND TAN, SILTY CLAY - WET TO SATURATED SS Q ..... _........... .._....... .
25
CH
3 31 1 2
3.0
10.0
4S 1 1 1 2
Bottom of borehole at 10.0 feet.
Here: sPreuw cw�mereo4r8 rya wasan� n�

�e
Operator Donald B Coogan Cone Number DSG0867 Date And Time 511412008 6:15:54 PM
Job Number F8008.00 Location New River Alr Station Hole Number PL•2
V
Water Table Depth 0.00 ft
GPS 3443.1060N, 07726.4272W
Stewart Engineering
a
F
w
REMARKS
a
owo
wp r
Tip Resistance Pore Pressure Friction Ratio SPT N`
/n 03
0 Ot TSF 100-10 Pw PSI 30 0 Fs/Ct % 6 0 60%Hammer 18
12
0
iII I
l
I Ill
I',Il'
2
'.
J.....i..
I .... L...
.....
.. � .' _...
.__.....
........I :.......i
III
it
I I I
l
I I
II '�!I�
iII
�II
I I
I
I
III'
10
I,, I III
I I I
I
I I I I
I !!I
i�'ll'III
I
0 1 - sensitive fine grained ■ 4 - silty clay to clay ■ 7 - silty sand to sandy slit ■ 10 - gravelly sand to sand
132 - organic material ■ 5 - clayey slit to silty clay 0 8 - sand to silty sand M 11 - very stiff fine grained (')
■ 3 - clay 0 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 0 9 - sand 0 12 - sand to clayey sand (`)

Ei
Stewart Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER PL-3
Fayetteville Street, Suite
Ral NorthPAGE 1 OF 1
Raleigh, NOCarolina 27601
C
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TmnSystems, Inc. PROJECT NAME MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5116/08 COMPLETED 5/16108 GROUND ELEVATION 14 it BORING DEPTH 10 ft
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Drilling 04IR GWL 5 H STAB. GWL CAVE4N 10 ft
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.25-inch NOTES Elevation assumed - no survey data available at time of exploration
DRILLRIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGED BY DWB
♦ SPT N-VALUE (SPF) A
m
a
6
10 20 30 40 W 607060 W
O
v
>
w
>
n
PL MC LL
~
to
ww
m
j
y
3
w
10 20r00 40 W 60 70 r60 W
El FINES CONTENT (%) ❑
w
w
m
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Z
a O
?
w
O
D
to o6
(7
w m u
2
10 20 00 40 50 60 70 60 90
1.1
L
TOPSOIL (8 INCHES)SS
SC
'
LOOSE, TAN, CLAYEY FINE SAND - MOIST 1 1 3 2 5 ...:...: ..:...:...:..;...;...;.
0.5
5.5
SS
2 Q 2 1 3 4 ......... :........................
MEDIUM DENSE, LIGHT GRAY, SILTY FINE SAND - SATURATED SS
3 4 8 7 15
VERY SOFT, DARK GRAY, SILTY CLAY - SATURATED SS
6.5
7.5
SM
t'.
CH
4.0
10.0
4 W 0 H 0
Bottom of borehole at 10.0 feet.
ride: Svrflew ca�naereadfi`w;aa

Stewart Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER PL-4
Fayetteville Street, Suite
1 PAGE 1 OF 1
Raleigh, North Carolina 2760
O Raleigh,
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSystems Inc. PROJECT NAME MICAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5116/08 COMPLETED 5116108 GROUND ELEVATION 15 it BORING DEPTH 10 ft
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Ddllinq 04HR GWL 51t STAB. GWL CAVE-IN 10 ft
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.25-inch NOTES Elevation assumed - no survey data available at time of exploration
DRILL RIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGED BY DWB
A SPT N-VALUE (BPF)
zm
d
❑
n
10 20 Wd0 50 W]0 BO 90
PL MC LL
O
w
>
Q
_
NCe
U
3
w
J
10 20 30 401 0 80 70t80 90
❑ FINES CONTENT (%) ❑
w
y
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Q z
3
a o
>
w
❑
D
W o
(0
N m U
z
10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 90
'
TOPSOIL (8 INCHES) SS '
3 2 2 4
SOFT TO FIRM, TAN TO GRAY, SANDY SILTY CLAY - MOIST TO 1 """""""""""' ......
CHVIA
WET SS ° '
9.5
5.5
2 1 2 4 6............:...................
VERY LOOSE, TAN, COARSE SAND - SATURATED SS ..=................ ........
3 222 4
VERY SOFT, DARK GRAY, SILTY CLAY - SATURATED SS f f
7.5
7.5
SP
'
":'.
CH
5.0
10.0
4 W O R 0
Bottom of borehole at 10.0 feet.
d :S Ta Caws ere W6F dp b W aererx4vs edeE.

Operator Donald B Coogan Cone Number DSG0867 Date And Time 5/14/2008 6:32:11 PM
A v.
�n ' Job Number F8008.00 Location New River Air Station Hole Number PL-5
bo
Water Table Depth 0.00 It
GPS 3443.1689N, 07726.4537W
Of
Stewart Engineering
a
W
REMARKS
a
p V
Tip Resistance Pore Pressure Friction Ratio SPT N.
wo
o0 m
0 Ot TSF 50.10 Pw PSI 25 0 Fs/Ol % 6 0 60%Hammer 14,
0
2
I
i
II
4
i
III
I
i......
II
... _,.......
..
8
i�Il�lli
D 1 - sensitive One grained ■ 4 - siltyclay to clay ■ 7 - silty sand to sandy slit ■ 10 - gravelly sand to sand
D 2 - organic material ■ 5 - clayey slit to silty clay G 8 - sand to silty sand ■ 11 - very stiff One grained (')
■ 3 - clay 0 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt D 9 - sand 0 12 - sand to clayey sand (•)

Stewart Engineering, Inc. BORING NUMBER SDA
A 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 PAGE 1 OF 1
J`
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TmnSystems, Inc. PROJECT NAME MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00 PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville, NC
DATE STARTED 5/16/08 COMPLETED 5116108 GROUND ELEVATION 15 ft BORING DEPTH 10 ft
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Mid -Atlantic Drilling 0-HR GWL 5 ft STAB. GWL CAVEaN 10 ft
DRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary AUGER SIZE 2.254nch NOTES Elevation assumed -no survey data available at time of exploration
DRILL RIG CME 45 (Trailer) HAMMER TYPE Manual
LOGGED BY DWB
♦ SPT N-VALUE (BPF)
m
w
(1
n
10203040 M W 70 WW
PL MC LL
p
v
Y
w
j
w
n
w
j
vNi
aj
3z
<
1020304� 70 SO
❑FINES CONTENT (%) ❑
o
W
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ro
N m O
i
w
1020304050W 70 fi0 W
O
SC
TOPSOIL (8 INCHES) SS 1 2 2 4
VERY LOOSE, TAN, CLAYEY FINE SAND - MOIST 1 "''"""""""""""""""'
FIRM TO VERY SOFT, LIGHT GRAY, SILTY CLAY -MOIST TO 2S 1 2 3 5 Q ' ''"''" ... . . . !" .
11.5
3.5
SATURATED - .. . .....:...:...:.......:.
-"
CH
3s 1 1 2 3
i.
5.0
10.0
..i..:..•;...;..•i.. •y..;...
aS 1 1 1 2
Bottom of borehole at 10.0 feet.
Nae: spratw cww��.sna�d�buaru,�ouar»+mnaee.

Stewart Engineering, Inc.
OSSteteFayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSvstems Inc.
PROJECTNUMBER F8008.00
S-
c
0
N
W
30...............................................................................
20..81
..........
........... .....................
.......................... e<.
9
4
5
10 ..
.
........... ................. .... .......................
3
..........:
17
,_...............................................................:
t........
18
28
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Figure No.:3
PROJECT NAME MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECT LOCATION Jacksonville NC
.............................................................................................................................
....................................................... B-3
..................................................................
17
12
5
......................................................IM*
5...............................................................
9
......................................................24..............................................................
16
......................................................7...............................................................
3
.................................................................................................16
...................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
Distance Along Baseline
REFER TO FIGURE 5 FOR LEGEND

Stewart Engineering, Inc.
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CLIENT TranSysterns. Inc.
PROJECT NUMBER F8008.00
C
0
LLI
2
2
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Figure No.A
PROJECT NAME MICAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
PROJECTILOCATION Jacksonville, INC
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
PL4
........................................ . . . ...................................................................
P L 3
....................................... ..................................................................
. .
4
Distance Along Baseline
REFER TO FIGURE 5 FOR LEGEND

Material Description
* Poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SM
* Poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SM
* Poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SM
Project No. F8008.00 Client: TranSysterns, Inc.
Remarks:
Project: MCAS Aircraft M
* Location: B I Depth: 18.5-20 Sample Number: S6
* Location: B I Depth: 23.5-25 Sample Number: S7
* Location: B I Depth: 28.5-30 Sample Number: S8
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
Figure
Tested By:

FAR
Project No. F8008.00 Client: TranSysterns, Inc.
Project: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
o Source ofSample: BI . Depth: 33.5-35 Sample Number: S9
Stewart Engineering' Inc.
Raleigh, NC
Tested By:

Material Description
0 Poorly graded sand with silt
io Silty sand with limestone fragments
Project No. F8008.00 Client: TranSystems, Inc.
Remarks:
Project: WAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
* Location: B3 Depth : 23.5-25 Sample Number: S7
* Location: 133 Depth: 38.5-40 Sample Number: SIO
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
Fi
Tested By: • John Creech ■ JC

IM
M.
iiiiiiiisillillimmillililimililillin
Material Description
o gaded sand with silt
Project No. F8008.00 Client: TrunSystents, Inc.
Remarks:
Project: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
o Source of Sample: 134 Depth: 33.5-35 Sample Number: S9
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
-Raleigh, NC
Figure L-4
Tested By: JC

Material Description
* Poorly graded sand with silt
* Poorly graded sand with silt
Project No. F8008.00 Client: TranSysterns, Inc.
Remarks:
Project: MCAS Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
* Source of Sample: B6 Depth: 13.5-15 Sample Number: S5
* Source of Sample: 136 Depth: 23.5-25 Sample Number: S7
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
Figure
Tested By: JC

LIQUEFACTION
ANALYSIS
New
Aircraft
Maintenance
Hangar
Hole No.=B-1 Water Depth=8.5
It
Surface Elev.=19
Magnitude=6.76
Acceleration=.0873g
Sheer Stress Redo
Fectoro/Sehy
S.Mement
Soll Descnpnon
Raw unit Fines
!M
0 t
0 1
5
0(in) 10
SPTWeIghl %
0
9 120 20
1111 T
SILTY SAND
q NoLq
SANDY CLAY
C7
—
SAND WITH SILT AND CLAY
10
.
3 6
�
%,j•J1
17 6
20
zD 6
80'•''•'�•
1 10
M1
3 8
�.,'
SILTY SAND AND FRACTURED
40
LIMESTONE
28 15
I
18 15
50
i'
21 15
E
8
e
65 15
i
S
—60
20 15
pSe
5
28 15
p
70
1.1.00-�
S = 3.76In.
4] 15
SaNrehd —
F
C R — CSR h1 —
$
Shaded Zone has Llquetacdun Polendal
ur..Wnat.
MCAS New River, NC LIQ1
l51}STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
New Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Hole No.=B-3 Water Depth=8 R Surface Elev.=19 Magnitude=6.76
Acceleration=.0873g
Sheer Shoes Ratio Factor of Safety Selllerrent Sall Description Rew Unit Fines
(IQ 0 1 0 1 5 OfInJ 1° SP71z We1z8l h140 %
'-'�TRT CLAYEY SAND wrrN CLAY rocKers
° I+'��
12 40
j SANDY CLAY
i
5 NOLq
10 i SANDY CLAY
CLAYEY SA
CLAYEYND s zD
SAND WRR SLT AND CLAY
L 20 24 5
"( 16 5
(•'ii
F[
JO:, 7 5
Ff
;•�;i 3 5
SILTY SAND AND FRACTURED
LNIESTONE
16 14
I
11-1.00 S = 1.29 In.
50 28 14
CRR — CSR Isf� Sewreied —
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Unethical. —
�k
--60
6
i
g
70
NICAS New River, NC L102
l J N STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.
0

0
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
New Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Hole Ho. B-4 Water Depth=8.5 ft Surface Elev.=f9 Magnitude=6.76
Acceleration=.0873g
shear Stress Ratio Factor f Safety Sedler,ent Soil Description
in) 0 0 t o 1 5 0 (in.)m
..... . SLTY SAM
I�
SANDY SLT
— SLTY SAND
10 I
I �
N'%'%,•`w SANOWRNSLTANOCLAY
L20
30
SLTY SANG AM FRAMN
I. LWSTONE
a0
i
z—
_—
I
is •L00 S•4.29 In.
�so CRR — CSR Isf— Sat..I.d —
jr
$haded Zone has Liquefaction potential unseturaL —
YraS)O
r.
60
A
5_
F
i
70
—— — — -----____.
MCAS New River, NC —---_----LIQ3
lJ),'STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
New Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Hole Ho =B-6 Water Depth=8.5 It Surface Elev.=19 Magnitude=6.76
Acceleration=.0873g
Sheer Stress Ratio Factor of Win, Sells.." Soil Description Re sr Unit Fines
(R) 0 1 0 1 5 0 on.) 10 SPT 4Ve: hl %
0 i� CLAYEY -SA 18 ,z8 30
�
a 30
i
SANDY CLAY
10 I 1 NOLp
SAND 11 5
I
10 10 5
SAND
3
23 5
L I
M CLAYEY SAND
C30 1 5
2 5
I
10 � ' -'. 38 15
17 15
— i
50 i 34 15
i
53 15
eo
48 15
SLTY SAND
1.1.00 s•e.ao in.
g
Ta TD is
CRR — CSR 1.1Saturated =
Shaded zone has Liquefaction Potential Unsawre:.
MCAS New River, NC LIQ4
l' It STEWART ENGINEERING, INC.

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD DEAGGREGATION
b Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation
roe MCAS_New_River 77.441° W, 34.717 N.
N Peak Horiz. Ground Accci.>-0.08737 g
Mean Return Time 2175 yews
Mean (R,M,Ep) 172.2 km, 6.76. 0.45
0 N Modal (R,M,E,) - 232.3 kin, 736. 0.70 (from peak R.M bin)
Modal (R,M,e-) —2324 km, 736, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E
CO Binning: DeltaR 25. km, deltaM-0.2. DeltaE=1.0
1:
J
m
ti
C
s
<maElan I RN
>mtlion
ea<.2
r-_'<CO<-1
0<ea<0.5��
�T
��
a
0.5<ca<l\�
0-1<%<-0.5
n
I<ea<" 0
?<r,<3
Cr
010.5 <ea <0
0
1.5 <f0<2 2W3
update USGS PSWI
®xmr.I±ry,o.nau® .....-...,...n nn.. COIr . w.. YM�InI,O��ta�IGaue,e

SPECTRAL ACCELERATION VALUES
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Latitude = 34.717289
Longitude =-77.440938
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0
Data are based on a 0.05 deg grid spacing
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.204 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.076 (S1, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Latitude = 34.717289
Longitude =-77.440938
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1
SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.6 ,Fv = 2.4
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.326 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.183 (SM1, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions
Latitude = 34.717289
Longitude =-77.440938
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.6 ,Fv = 2.4
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.217 (SDs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.122 (SD1, Site Class D)

N
L
a
a>
IN
Lateral Deflection vs. Depth
Deflection, in.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
= 1-inch deflection — 12-inch deflection
—114-inch deflection
LPILE Plus 5. 0, (c) 2007 by Ensoft Inc.
w
Shear Force vs. Depth
Shear Force, kips
-5 0 5 10
-------------------------
—1-inch deflection —12-inch deflection
— 114-inch deflection
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2007 by EnsoR, Inc.
Bending Moment vs. Depth
Bending Moment, kips -in.
0 200 400 600
—1-inch deflection — 112-inch deflection
—114-inch deflection
LPILE Plus 5. 0, (c) 2007 by Ensoft Inc.
12-inch PCPS
Concrete Piles

V
Lateral Deflection vs. Depth
Deflection, in.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
i
9
-------------------------
— 1-inch deflection — 1f2-inch deflection
— 1I4-inch deflection
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2007 by EnsoR, Inc.
Shear Force vs. Depth
Shear Force, kips
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
— 1-inch deflection —1 f2-inch deflection
— 1l4-inch deflection
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2007 by EnsoR, Mc.
Bending Moment vs. Depth
Bending Moment, kips -in.
0 200 400 600 800 1.00
— 1-inch deflection — 1!2-inch tleflecion
— 1/4-inch deflection
LPILE Plus 5. 0, (c) 2007 by EnsoR, Inc.
14-inch PCPS
Concrete Piles

CJ
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487)
MATERIAL
CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES
GROUP
SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND
TYPES
SYMBOL
GRAVELS
CLEAN GRAVELS
ac
C°><AND I<3
GIN
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL
•a•
Cu><AND 1>U>3
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
>50% OF COARSE
<5% FINES
p z
O
FRACTION RETAINED
O
NO w j
ON NO 4. SIEVE
GRAVELS WITH FINES
FINES CLASSIFYa AS ML OR
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
p
^d
> 12% FINES
Z4W
0
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
0
SANDS
CLEAN SANDS
CV>6 AND I<U,3
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND
O
W o z
<5% FINES
Cu>6 aN01>Q>3
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
< n
>50% OF COARSE
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR
SM
SILTY SAND
00
FRACTION PASSES
ON NO 4. SIEVE
SANDS AND FINES
>12%FINES
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
SC
CLAYEY SAND
SILTS AND CLAYS
PI>z AND Mors>'A•LINE
CL
LEAN CLAY
INORGANIC
OO
LIQUID LIMIT<50
PI>4 AND <v UNE
ML
SILT
w j
wain
zao
ORGANIC
u(oren dflMVU-(mt drMn)<o.75
OL
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
= _
--
4n. ^I
SILTS AND CLAYS
PI PLOTS > a• LINE
CH
FAT CLAY
l7 l0n p
INORGANIC
WAz
LIQUID LIMIT>50
MPILOTS <•A•UNE
MH
ELASTIC SILT
ORGANIC
u(o.m aH•e)/u I. dHeo)<o.zs
OH
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR
PT
PEAT
— —
SAMPLE TYPES
OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS
' POOdy Graded Sand Sand
SAM Spoon
with Clay
Clayey Sand Silt
Sandy Silt Well Graded Gravelly Sand
Low to High Plasticity ClayGravelly SiltADDITIONAL
i
ABBREVIATIONS &SYMBOLS
Poorly Gaded Gavelly SanAsphalt
SPr - srANDARD PENETRATION TEST L—� _ O.HR GROUNDWATER LEVEL
BFP - BLOWS PER FOOT
>
=: Topsoil Boulders and Cobble
M. P C UNIT
U- - LIQUID LIMIT SFABN2ED GROUNDWATER LEVEL
MC - MOISTURE CONTEM
Well Gaded Gavel
• with Clay
SS - SPLIT SPOON PLO CAVE-IN LEVEL
J�
GWL GROUNDWATER LEVEL (AT LAST OWL READING)
Well Graded Gravel
USES- UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSEM
• with Silt
WON - WEIGHT OF HAMMER
WO0. - WEIGHT OF RODS
PLASTICITY CHART
BO
ro
W
f
p
CL
w
F1
ONBMN
d A P
10
ML OL
0
NUMBER
OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FAIIJNG 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 21NCH CO.
D 10 A 30 40 50 AD
70 so BE LEE 110 Im (1-3/8
INCH I.O.)SPLIT-EVAREL SIMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN IO-INCH DRIVE
LIQUID LIMIT(%)
(ASTM-I5B6 STANDARD PENEIMTION TEST).
Stewart Engineering, Inc.
LEGEND TO SOIL
Figure Numbe
�
/
DESCRIPTIONS
5
Job No. F8008.00
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(RECORDED A5 BLOWS / 0.5 F7)
(RECORDED
SAND 6 GRAVEL
a CLAY
COMPRESSIVE
RELATIVE DENSITY
BLOWS/FOOT'
CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT'
STRENGTH (TSF)
WHY LOOSE
o-4
VERY soFr
o-z
D-0.2s
LOOSE
S. m
soFr
3-4
o.z6-os0
MEDIUM 0EN5E
I1-30
MEDIUM STIFF (FIRM)
5-B
0.53-1.0
OF1SE
II-50
STIW
9-t5
L1-3.0
VEM OE115E
OVER
VERY STIFF
I6-30
3.1 -i.0
HARn
OVER 30
OVER 4.0

V-1. 5�8 080 (o53
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
A7A Request for Express Permit Review
NCDENR
For DENR Use ONLY
Reviewer: G 13
Submit
Time:
Confirm}.rt-
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed form to Express
Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application package
of the project location. Include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296-4698;alison.davidson(dncmail.net
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919.791-4203; david.lee(a)ncmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663.3772 or patrick.grogan(&.ncmail.net
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946-9215 or lyn.hardison(cDncmail.net
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-350-2004 or ianet.russell(dncmail.net
NOTE Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day. I
Project Name: MICAS NEW RIVER AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR County: ONSLOW
Applicant: CARL BAKER Company: MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, DESIGN BRANCH PUBLIC WORKS DIVI
Address:1005 MICHAEL ROAD City: CAMP LEJEUNE, State: NC Zip: 28547 D E C E I V E D
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone] Email: cad.h.baker(ausmc.mil
Project is Drains into SC waters Project Located in NEW RIVER River Basin JUL 14 2008
Engineer/Consultant: RYAN HAMBLETON Company: STEWART ENGINEERING, INC
Address: 421 FAYETTEVILLE ST. SUITE 400 City: RALEIGH, State: NC Zip: 27603 DWQ
Phone: [phone] Fax::[phone] Email: Rhambleton(u)Stewart-eng.com PROJ k
(Check all that apply)
❑ Scoping Meeting ONLY ® DWQ, ❑ DCM, ® DLR, ❑ OTHER:
❑ Stream Origin Determination: # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
® State Stormwater ® General ❑ SFR, ❑Bkhd & St Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW (Provide permit #)]
❑ High Density -Detention Pond _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
® High Density -Bio-Retention 2 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density —Constructive Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems ❑ MODIFICATION SW _ (Provide permit #)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
® Land Quality ® Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with 10.3 acres to be disturbed.(CK # (for DENR use))
WETLANDS QUESTIONS MUST SE ADDRESSED BELOW
❑ Wetlands (401): Check all that apply
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ❑ Yes ❑ No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ❑ Yes ❑ No
404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE: ❑ Yes ❑ No
Permit Received from US ACOE ❑ Yes ❑ No
Fee Split for multiple permits: (Check #
Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ❑ No
Buffer Impacts: ❑ No ❑ YES: acre(s)
Minor Variance: ❑ No ❑ YES
Major General Variance ❑ No ❑ YES
401 Application required: ❑Yes ❑ No If YES, ❑ Regular
Perennial, Blue line stream, etc on site ❑ yes ❑ No
For DENR use only
Total Fee Amount $
SUBMITTAL DATES
I Fee
I SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
$
Variance ❑ Ma'; ❑ Min
$
SW ❑ HD, ❑ LID, ❑ Gen
$
401:
$
Los
$
Stream Deter,_
$
Cup;C'6' +b Cook 0r\ 9'3-05

RE: Express Info
Subject: RE: Express Info
From: "Ryan Hambleton" <rambleton cr stewart-eng.com>
Date: Fri, l 1 Jul 2008 17:21:09 -0400
To: "Janet Russell" <Janet. Russelln ncmail.net>
Janet,
I am sending you this express review request for the New River Hangar
Project. I am including only the express review application as I have
already sent the narrative and map with the scoping meeting request.
Please let me know if there is anything else you need to set the meeting
up. Also - I have a couple questions on applications and where I can
get submittal requirements for the express review to ensure I bring
everything.
Please try for a start time after loam or before 3pm on the following
dates;
July 22nd
July 23rd
OR in the morning between 9am and llam on July 24th or 25th
Ryan
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell[mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Ryan Hambleton
Subject: Express Info
Ryan:
To get into the Express Program, please submit the Express Request,
complete stormwater narrative, vicinity map, and pdf site plan (if
available). This gets you scheduled. Also, indicate any dates/times
that you are not available in the next couple of weeks.
For Onslow County, a phase II county, the Session Law outlines the
design criteria which is more strict that the non -Phase II counties.
Start reading around page 13. It is attached. You can request a
"scoping" meeting if you feel you need one or go straight for the
submittal meeting. At a submittal meeting, we won't take an incomplete
application package anyway and it could turn into a "scoping" meeting.
Janet Russell
Express -Coordinator
910 796-7421
Content -Description: Express Review Request
(New River Hangar).doc
Express Review Request (New River Hangar).doc
Content -Type: application/msword
Content -Encoding: base64
I of 1 7/11/2008 5:38 PM

.. . >- a-

I..
X si e�'
-05
f

:j
III.
�.
i
�i
��
�
�
III
�� ��

i
i
,,_
'.
�I
iii...._
''.
iI
!
I
!,'il

New River Hanger
Subject: New River Hanger
From: 'Joe Puckett" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:02:11 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Ryan Hambleton" <[e-mail]>
Christine,
We met with you about the New River Hanger at Camp Lejeune earlier this week. Attached is a pdf
of how we plan to divert the stormwater in excess of the design volume to a filter strip. Would you
have a few minutes to look at this sketch and discuss any issues with this design on the phone?
Thank you in advance.
Joe Puckett, PE, LEEDA AP
Project Engineer
STEWART
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27601
T 919.380.8750 x229
F 919.380.8752
D 919.866.4829
Engineering, Innovation. Solutions.
PPlease consider the environment before printing this email
Content -Description: Hanger SWM.pdf
Hanger SWM.pdf Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Content -Encoding: base64
I of 1 7/16/2008 8:35 AM

MCAS New River Aircraft Maint. Manger
Subject: MCAS New River Aircraft Maint. Hanger
From: Carol Miller <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:29:12 -0400
To: Janet Russell <[e-mail]>
Janet,
please let me know when they get this scheduled as the will want to do the E&SCP at
the same time.
thx!
I of 1 7/10/2008 8:33 AM

RE: New River Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Subject: RE: New River Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
From: "Ryan Hambleton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:40:28 -0400
To: "Janet Russell" <[e-mail]>, "Towler GS05 David W" <david.towler cr usme.mil>
I am confirming the Express Stormwater submittal scoping meeting (aka
pre -express review meeting) for Tuesday, July 8th at 1:30pm with
Christine Nelson.
Ryan
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:21 PM
To: Ryan Hambleton; Towler GS05 David W
Subject: New River Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
June 26, 2008
*New River Aircraft Maintenance Hangar*
Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with
*Christine Nelson on July 8, 2008 at 1:30 PM* here in the Wilmington
Regional Office, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., 28405.
Please review the submittal requirements, attached. Note that we prefer
plans folded to fit into the file system, 9" x 14" .
Please respond within 2 business days to confirm and reserve the
submittal meeting date.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 6/30/2008 2:10 PM

aboutblank
June 26, 2008
New River Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with Christine Nelson on July 8, 2008
at 1:30 PM here in the Wilmington Regional Office, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., 28405.
Please review the submittal requirements, attached. Note that we prefer plans folded to fit into the file
system, 9" x 14" .
Please respond within 2 business days to confirm and reserve the submittal meeting date.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of] 6/26/2008 6:20 PM

RE: Express Info
Subject: RE: Express Info
From: "Ryan Hambleton" <rambleton c stewart-eng.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:37:54 -0400
To: "Janet Russell" <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>
CC: "Joe Puckett" <[e-mail]>
Janet,
Please find attach our request for a scoping meeting on the MCAS New
River Maintenance Hangar, located in Jacksonville, NC. Also attached is
a stormwater narrative and site plan for information prior to the
scoping meeting.
We would like to have the meeting sometime between July 8th and July
loth with both DWQ and DLR personnel. If you need anything else please
let me know.
Thank you,
Ryan Hambleton, PE
Project Manager
STEWART ENGINEERING
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Direct 919.866.4819
Fax [phone]
Engineering. Innovation. Solutions.----- Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Ryan Hambleton
Subject: Express Info
Ryan:
To get into the Express Program, please submit the Express Request,
complete stormwater narrative, vicinity map, and pdf site plan (if
available). This gets you scheduled. Also, indicate any dates/times
that you are not available in the next couple of weeks.
For Onslow County, a phase II county, the Session Law outlines the
design criteria which is more strict that the non -Phase II counties.
Start reading around page 13. It is attached. You can request a
"scoping" meeting if you feel you need one or go straight for the
submittal meeting. At a submittal meeting, we won't take an incomplete
application package anyway and it could turn into a "scoping" meeting.
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
910 796-7421
Express Request
Content -Description: Application (Scoping
Express Request Application (Scoping Meeting).doc Meeting).doc
Content -Type: application/msword
Content -Encoding: base64
Content -Description: Express Review App. Site Plan.pdf'
Express Review App. Site Plan.pdf Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Content -Encoding: base64
I of 2 6/26/2008 9:24 AM

MCAS Neiv River Hangar Scope Meeting
Subject: MCAS New River Flangar Scope Meeting
From: "Ryan 1-lambleton" <rhambleton a Stewart-eng.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:09:12 -0400
To: "Janet Russell" <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>
Janet,
I just sent you a request for scope meeting on the New River Hangar project in Jacksonville.
When setting up the meeting can you ensure that the meeting NOT be set up before 2pm on
Wednesday, July 9th
I forgot I have another commitment Wednesday morning.
Ryan Hambleton, PE, LEED APd
Project Manager
STEWART ENGINEERING
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Direct 919.866.4819
Fax [phone]
Engineering. Innovation. Solutions.
I of] 6/26/2008 9:18 AM

For DENR Use
ONLY
North Carolina Department of Environment and Reviewer:-
Natural Resources Submit '1-$
NCDENR Request for Express Permit Review Time: l �o
Confirm � NA�•r�•r}t
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed form to Express
Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application package
of the project location. Include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296.4698;alison.davidson(&.ncmaiLnet
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791-4203; david.lee(@ncmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663-3772 or patrick.grogan(( ncmail.net
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946-9215 or Ivn.hardison(dncmail.net
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-350.2004 or ianet.russell(a)ncmail.net
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day.
Project Name: MICAS NEW RIVER AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR County: ONSLOW
Applicant: CARL BAKER Company: MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, DESIGN BRANCH PUBLIC WORKS DIVI
Address: 1005 MICHAEL ROAD City: CAMP LEJEUNE, State: NC Zip: 28547
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone] Email: RHambleton(o)Stewart-enq.com n E C E I V E
Project is Drains into SC waters Project Located in NEW RIVER River Basin
Engineer/Consultant: RYAN HAMBLETON Company: STEWART ENGINEERING, INC JUN 2 6 20G8 [u ;u{ r
L
Address: 21 FAYETTEVILLE ST. SUITE 400. City: RALEIGH, State: INC Zip: 27603
Phone: [phone] Fax::[phone] Email: Cad.h.Baker(a)usmc.mil DWQ
(Check all that apply) RROJ k ------
IN Scoping Meeting ONLY ® DWQ, ❑ DCM, ® DLR, ❑ OTHER:
❑ Stream Origin Determination: # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
® State Stormwater ® General ❑ SFR, ❑Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW (Provide permit #)]
❑ High Density -Detention Pond _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
.® High Density -Bio-Retention 2 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density —Constructive Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems ElMODIFICATION SW _ (Provide permit #)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
ka® Land Quality ® Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with acres to be disturbed.(CK #_ (for DENR use))
S /WETLANDS QUESTIONS MUST BE ADDRESSED BELOW eeC f-\'MrA V ��
❑ Wetlands (401): Check all that apply
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ❑ Yes ❑ No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ❑ Yes ❑ No
404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE: ❑ Yes ❑ No
Permit Received from US ACOE ❑ Yes ❑ No
Fee Split for multiple permits: (Check #
Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ❑ No
Buffer Impacts: ❑ No ❑ YES: acre(s)
Minor Variance: ❑ No ❑ YES
Major General Variance ❑ No ❑ YES
401 Application required: ❑Yes ❑ No If YES, ❑ Regular
Perennial, Blue line stream, etc on site ❑ yes ❑ No
For DENR use only
Total Fee Amount $
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
I SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
$
Variance ❑ Ma'; ❑Min
$
SW ❑ HD, ❑ LD, ❑ Gen
$
401:
$
LQS
$
Stream Deter,_
$

NOTES
1
i. xo wrx v a..ENEE uxn . WIN
M9 vYfx ¢r S-0.N.,u ..N.f NEN`.
aaow, ON O1NT Lan G6113.rtE .c .n .a. m
I `
\l
_ _ _ —
— I
N MMI ME MFASUF[° IN PM. TO SIC[ a WE
z. wouim
To WISOE WE a WIWw6. wo/°a t° c[xrpNeE ENLE5
uwEwee .
1 1E iEW.[ d6TNL . MO OIIIEi ftlt PENPIMV pIR .T
C
r — — — _
I
�
4lOG'PS MO N THE WNS IfL/.IFOW TK [WnYS
I I I
I
rsrvic wmmtu:vs onvtn w ocnamn aaxs
mxI.". swu W aa✓cW m IKE'. r. 1ro
Mi4w1 <CxP1iM uq 10 Ix[ .1519 p.. ENE axxm.
5. El. LW 13 t0 9E WdN "E[ N.
.u.ur Nuns .xo , w T° 'HE WK
I / I
1 I I
N .a. E . F rauE w we.wo ss.1 W r 1
n vrs uE E NOT roF taurcws rta sc s ay. uaaJ
1311
I I II
14 as.rsff—.oacarm�. sun.<rs vis rrEr
9.wNEiP S TEE MDNEI[N RWS 2N
KIILL DNS Y9 P.149 NS 6 THE BA➢W6.
I
—
I I
I _ I
I I
I I
I ! I
s e
—
m
1�
It
pry r
I II
mU
z F
5
KEY PLAN
®
STEWART
g _^
—¢
GRAPHIC SCALE
P-
v e:_
�cs;o,
n it Im o�$
U M
I p 3 —q- 5 ------
DW Q
PROJ # ��
D
C
B
A

I&
STEWART Storm Water Narrative
MCAS NEW RIVER MAINTANANCE HANGAR
P-526
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
June 25, 2008
General Information
This Stormwater Narrative has been prepared specifically to address the
requirements for the Express Review for general permit. The project site does not
drain to Outstanding Resource Waters nor is it within one-half mile of SA waters or
unnamed tributaries of SA water. The project is located within Onslow county and
therefore, stormwater management must be in accordance with NPDF.SPhase //Post
Construction rules and Senate Law 1566.
Site Information
The MCAS New River Maintenance Hangar site is located on Marine Corp Air
Station (MCAS) New River off of Curtis road just east of existing aircraft hangar 504
(see vicinity Map). The site lies within the New River basin and is just outside 1/2
miles from the coastal waters of the New River, which per mapping provided by the
Navy for Camp Lejeune and MCAS New River are considered SC waters. The
following information is providedL ffory ExExpress Review;
1n. n, a (/kFor0 l_JM
V
�✓�iR
r Na '
�
e + 1 Marfns �
corps C3
'Atr Sta
PRC
A17 No
� nh Rnn
—J It
RIVER HANGAR
D U
1UN 2 6 2009
PROJ #
DW O

a. Acres Being Disturbed - 8.46 acrs
b. Acres in Wetlands - None
f. Ownership Information -
g. Description of Development Proposal - See below;
h. Tax parcel ID Number
The project site is not located within the 100-yr flood elevation as defined by
FIRM 37204364003 nor are there any wetlands identified within the site
The site is comprised of existing impervious (airfield concrete apron) and an
undeveloped open field to the north of the apron. Both area's of the site currently
drain to an existing ditch and culvert system which outfalls offsite to wetlands and
thence the New River to the east and south of the site. The overall drainage
patterns will remain the same in the proposed condition.
Proposed Improvements
The project area consists of the existing apron which the proposed new
maintenance hangar will be located. This existing concrete slab and base will be
completely removed under the structure only. The remaining existing concrete slab
proposed to be demolished will have the individual slab units removed (leaving the
base stone in place) as necessary to promote positive drainage away from the
proposed hangar. A 200+ car parking lot and sidewalk is proposed north of the
proposed hangar within the existing open field.
�E C E 1 V E n
JUN 2 6 2oc8
PROJ N _ DWO