SW8920114_Historical File_19910130

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Bob Jamieson
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary January 30, 1991 Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
�Z, III
Mr. R. James Garner, Partner
Queens Creek Company
6200 Fall of Neuse Road, Suite 200 tau
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Subject: Certification of Compliance
with Stormwater Regulations
Stormwater Project No. 900617
Queens Creek Plaza
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Garner:
This Certification is pursuant to the application for
Queens Creek Plaza received on June 19, 1990, with final
information received on January 25, 1991. Based on our review of
the project plans and specifications, we have determined that the
stormwater control system complies with the Stormwater
Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1003(i). The runoff
will be treated in two detention ponds sized to achieve 85%
reduction in Total Suspended Solids.
This Certification shall be effective from the date of
issuance until rescinded. The project shall be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the final plans and specifications
approved by the Wilmington Regional Office.
A professional engineer must certify that the stormwater
systemhas been installed in accordance with the approved plans
and specifications. The attached certification should be
received by this office within 30 days of completion of
construction.
Continued
07225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-3696 0 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]

Mr. Garner
January 30, 1991
Page Two
----------------
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
call Alexis Finn or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
ave Adkins
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Attachment
DA/AIF: 900617.JAN
cc: Johnny Glenn Tew, Godwin -Jordan & Associates, P.A.
Marshall Batchlor
Bill Mills
Alexis Finn
Central Files

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Evaluation of Sturmwa"Lei Treatment and Disposal System
PROJECT DATA
Project Name: Queens Creek Plaza Shopping Center
Project No.: 900617
Location (County, Township/Municipality, Address):
N.C.S.R. 1509
Swansboro, North Carolina
Onslow County
Applicant Name: Mr. R. James Garner, Partner
Mailing Address: Queens Creek Company
6200 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Submittal Date: June 19, 1990
Water Body Receiving Stormwater Runoff: Cartwheel Branch
Classification of Water Body: "SA"
WET DETENTION POND EVALUATION
1. Yes No The design storage is for the runoff from all
impervious surfaces resulting from 1-inch of
rainfall and is located above the permanent
pool.
2. Yes No The permanent pool is designed for 85% TSS
removal.
3. Yes No The runoff completely draws down to the
permanent pool in 5 days, but not less than 2
days.
4. Yes No The mean depth of the permanent pool is a
minimum of 3 feet.
5. Yes No The inlet structure is designed to minimize
turbulence and short circuiting.
6. Yes No All overflow and discharge flows through a
vegetative filter at least 30 feet in length.
7. Yes No A method is used to provide even distribution of
runoff over the length of the vegetative filter.
Continued
x

WET DETENTION POND EVALUATION CONTINUED
8.
Yes
No
9.
Yes
No
10.
Yes
No
11.
Yes
No
The slope and width of the vegetative filter
provides non -erosive flow for the 10-year and
24-hour storm with a 10-year, 1-hour intensity.
The vegetative filter has a slope of 5% or less.
The vegetative filter is natural, grassed or
artificially planted wetland vegetation.
An appropriate operation and maintenance plan
has been provided for the system.
12. Yes No THIS PROJECT MEETS THE STORMWATER CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS OF 15A NCAC 2H. (g), (i), (j), (k),
and (1) (For Yes, 1 through 11 must all be
circled Yes.)
Brief Explanation: Two detention ponds have been designed to
remove 85% total suspended solids and will therefore be operated
with a vegetative filter.
The site location relative to the SA waters of Cartwheel
Branch has been evaluated in accordance with the Forth Directive;
September 10, 1990. Chloride concentrations were found to be 21
and 25 PPM 2640 ft. downstream of the detention pond outlets. As
these concentrations were found to be considerably less than 500
PPM, the detention pond was determined to be a viable stormwater
control which is not expected to degrade the receiving water
body.
A

DIVISION OF EN"VIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SILGM-OFF
Wilmington Regional Office
3� 9j
Date
I /* 9
Dat
cc: Applicant/WiRO/Mills/CF
i
In ividual Evaluating Form/Plans
A MO..)
�6'alter Quality Supervisor
R

Engineer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered
Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina, having
been authorized to observe (periodically/weekly/full time) the
construction of the project,
Project)
for the
hereby state that, to
(Project Owner)
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.
Signature
Registration Number
Date
M

OZ
Godwin Jordan & Associates, P.A. RECEIVED
ENGINEERING. SURVEYING & PLANNING
102 WEST BROAD STREET 1ZIP 283341
r
JOE E. GODWIN. SR. P.E. R.L.S. P. O. BOX 240 PHOM83.1480
RONNIE E. JORDAN, R.L.S. DUNN 19101 802.4160
JAMES E. GODWIN DUNN. N. C. 28335 FAX: [phone]
T R A N S M I T T A L L E T T E R
PROJECT: _�ljAnDATE: �e
G L
TO-.- �• eso ces LOCATION: SWOLAs DCiv�a �, G.
------' --=- --- -------------}----------
� ATTENTION: A(e- )cl S _ P77 N f2-------------
--
WE TRANSMIT: (✓) HEREWITH THE FOLLOWING: ( ✓) DRAWINGS
(•✓) IN ACCORDANCE ( ) PRELIMINARY
WITH YOUR REQUEST ( ) OTHER
FOR YOUR: ( v) APPROVAL DISTRIBUTION ( )
( ) USE RECORD ( l
( ) REVIEW & COMMENT
COPIES DATE
I---i
--
2 / q/
-------DESCRIPTION--------------------------
S �'J. w�7'� r---�'►� a �1 a - —6----------------------
C
--------
r-------------------
----------
-
----=# —J?-- --------------------------
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�''3,
30PIES TO: _TRANSMITTED BY:

NdiE: OelF CF C P0AWk3)
[9 CNef5+3C4.
Project #: 900617 File Name: DET617 Reviewer:Alexis Finn
Project Name: QUEENS CREEK PLAZA Date: 1/17/91
******************DETENTION POND ANALYSIS************************
POND NUMBER 1 & 2, (note only one outlet) AREA MEASUREMENTS:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Drainage Area, DA:
DA=
313151.3
ft-2
##
[DA (acre)] / [43560 ft^2/acre]=
DA=
7.188965
Acres
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS:
Structure Surface Area, A Runoff Coef., C
sf
Buildings (plus outparcels) 174644 1 Adjusted
Surface Area = A
* C =
174644
ft'2
##
Parking/sidewalks/streets: 107281 0.95 Adjusted
Surface Area = A
* C =
101916.9
ft-2
##
Green Areas: 182952 0.2 Adjusted
Surface Area = A
* C =
36590.4
ft'2
##
TOTAL:
313151.3
ft-2
##
Percent Impervious, %I: note: SA=(BUILDING + PARKING..)=
281925 sf
[SA/DA]*100=
[ 281925 / 313151.3 ]*100=
$I=
90.03%%
Note: If %I < 30% check Density Option.
If %I > 30%, require engineered system to minimize non -point stream degradation.
POND SIZING:
------------
Minimum Required Storage Volume, VOLreq: note: SA has been
multiplied by runoff coefficients
[SA (ft-2) * (1 inch of runoff) * (1 ft/12 inch)]=
[ 313151.3 ft-2 * 1 inch * 0.083333 ft/inch]=
VOLreq=
26095.94
ft^3
POND SIZING:
------------
Bottom Elevation, ELb:
ELb
23.5
ft
##
Permanent Pool Elevation, ELpp:
ELpp=
29.5
ft
##
Area of Permanent Pool, App:
App =
16896
ft^2
##
Storage Pond Elevation, Esp:
ELsp=
31.75
ft
##
Area of Storage Pond, Asp:
Asp =
24225
ft-2
##
Runoff Storage Depth, d:
(via project engineer's design: d ELsp ELpp)
d=
2.25
ft
##
Storage Volume Provided, VOLpro: Side Slope:
3:1 ####
Volume 1, V1= App * d = 16896 ft^2 * 2.25
ft =
V1=
38016
ft-3
Volume 2, V2= (Asp - App) * d * 0.5 =
V2=
8245.125
ft^3
VOLpro = V1 + V2 = 38016 ft-3 + 8245.125
ft-3
VOLpro=
46261.12
ft^3
Note: VOLreq < VOLpro, therefore Pond Size is acceptable.
<--------
----- % !.zcess Storagz =,'VO2raq / vOLpro) * 10L
4 Exvs_s Storage
=
43.59%<--------

DETENTION POND ANALYSIS CONTINUED: PAGE TWO
PERMENANT POOL:
Perm. Pool at Normal Level= 29.5 ft
Bottom of Pond = 23.5 ft
SA/DA CALCULATION:
to
By Chart #l" @ PA TSS:
µ (J go
Depth, D = 6 ft
% Impervious = 90.03%
DA = 7.188965 Acres
SA/DA % = 5.2 ####
Area of
Permanent Pool Required - (SA/DA %) * DA
Area of
Permanent Pool Required = 5.2 * 7.168965 Acres
Area of
Permanent Pool Required = 0.373826 Acres
Area of
Permanent Pool Required = 16283.87 ft^2
Area o'
PlPn'a47E=?T F'O L .-z ^'redY _„�$3.'�' .._ • : rZovidp-.. C., 1d39Z
- ' Yam_ e:iSa
of s--
- ..
vi{ay'� :x iif;. ].^iau.. Pe.
ORIFICE
/ OUTLET
SIZING:
VOLpro =
46261.12,
Orifice
outflow,
2 Day Drawdown = Volpro/[(2 day) * (86400 sec/day)]
Orifice
outflow,
2 Day Drawdown = 46261.12 ft^3 / 172800 sec =
Q2=
0.267714
cfs
Orifice
C.S. Area, A:
A= Q/[Cd((2gh)^0.5))]
A= 0.267714 / [0.6*((2*32.2*2.25)-0.5))]=
A2=
0.037066
ft^2
A2=
5.337642
inch-2
Pipe diameter, d:
d2=
2.606932
inch
Note: Head, h = maximum pond level - permanent pond level =
2.25 ft
Coeficient of Discharge, Cd = 0.6
Orifice
outflow,
5 Day Drawdown = Volpro/[(5 day) * (86400 sec/day)]
Orifice
outflow,
5 Day Drawdown = 46261.12 ft^3 / 432000 sec =
Q5=
0.107085
cfs
Orifice
C.S. Area, A:
A= Q/[Cd((2gh)-0.5))]
A= 0.107085 / [0.6*((2*32.2*2.25)-0.5))]=
A5=
0.014826
ft-2
A5=
2.135057
inch-2
Pipe diameter, d:
d5=
1.648768
inch
CHECK:
d < drrn.ided
, d2 1.6 c 2.0 < 2.F <------ Okny , Orifice Is
sized
correctly.

Page 3
FIVE- N--JBWR 3, AREA MEASUREMENTS:
----------------------------------------
Total Drainage Area, DA:
DA=
182952
ft'2
##
[DA (acre)] / [43550 ft-2/acre]=
DA=
4.2
Acres
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS:
Structure Surface Area, A Runoff Coef_, C
sf
Buildings (plus outparcels) 19985.4 1 Adjusted
Surface Area = A
* C =
19985.4
ft"2
##
Parking/sidewalks/streets: 55998 0.95 Adjusted
Surface Area = A
* C =
53198.1
ft-2
##
Green Areas: 0 0.2 Adjusted
Surface Area = A
* C =
0
ft-2
##
Note: Green areas do not drain to pond
TOTAL:
73183.5
ft^2
##
Percent Impervious, %I: note: SA=(BUILDING + PARKING..)=
75983.4 sf
[SA/DA]*100=
[ 75983.4 / 182952 ]*100=
%I=
41.53%
Note: If %I < 30% check Density Option.
If %I > 30%, require engineered system to minimize non -point stream degradation.
POND SIZING:
------------
Minimum Required Storage Volume, VOLreq: note: SA has been
multiplied by runoff coefficients
[SA (ft-2) * (1 inch of runoff) * (1 ft/12 inch)]=
[ 73183.5 ft-2 * 1 inch * 0.083333 ft/inch]=
VOLreq=
6098.625
ft-3
POND SIZING:
------------
Bottom Elevation, ELb:
ELb =
23.5
ft
##
Permanent Pool Elevation, ELpp:
ELpp=
29.5
ft
##
Area of Permanent Pool, App:
App =
9939
ft^2
##
Storage Pond Elevation, Esp:
ELsp=
31
ft
##
Area of Storage Pond, Asp:
Asp =
11780
ft-2
##
Runoff Storage Depth, d:
(via project engineer's design: d ELsp - ELpp)
d=
1.5
ft
##
Storage Volume Provided, VOLpro: Side Slope:
3:1 ####
Volume 1, V1= App * d = 9939 ft-2 * 1.5
ft =
V1=
14908.5
ft^3
Volume 2, V2= (Asp - App) * d * 0.5 =
V2=
1380.75
ft^3
VOLpro = V1 + V2 = 14908.5 ft-3 + 1380.75
ft^3
VOLpro=
16289.25
ft-3
Note: VOLreq > VOLpro, therefore Pond Size is unacceptable.
<--------
----- Excess Staxage-'VQLreq / VUL'prai * 100
� Excess Storage
52.568<--------

DETENTION POND ANALYSIS CONTINUED: PAGE TWO
PERMENANT POOL:
Perm. Pool at Normal Level= 29.5 ft
Bottom of Pond = 23.5 ft
Depth Provided, D - r: ft
SA/DA CALCULATION:
By Chart #4; @ 90% TSS:
Depth, D = 6 ft
% Impervious = 41.53%
DA = 4.2 Acres
SA/DA % = 2.15 ####
Area of
Permanent Pool Required = (SA/DA $) * DA
Area of
Permanent Pool Required = 2.15 * 4.2 Acres
Area of
Permanent Pool Required = 0.0903 Acres
Area of
Permanent Pool Required = 3933.468 ft^2
A:r�a cf
rzmmp.Z'7cy� om ?aqui,:::'_ ? ."%3.:5° si - 'r:cr_. ac: arFa c` 29
s <----CXXY:
s":zffiCion t
ORIFICE
/ OUTLET
SIZING:
VOLpro =
16289.25
Orifice
outflow,
2 Day Drawdown = Volpro/[(2 day) * (86400 sec/day)]
Orifice
outflow,
2 Day Drawdown = 16289.25 ft^3 / 172800 sec =
Q2=
0.094266
cfs
Orifice
C.S. Area, A:
A= Q/[Cd((2gh)^0.5))]
A= 0.094266 / [0.6*((2*32.2*l.5)-0.5))]=
A2=
0.015985
ft-2
A2=
2.301865
inch^2
Pipe diameter, d:
d2-
1.711965
inch
Note: Head, h = maximum pond level - permanent pond level =
1.5
ft
Coeficient of Discharge, Cd = 0.6
Orifice
outflow,
5 Day Drawdown = Volpro/[(5 day) * (86400 sec/day)]
Orifice
outflow,
5 Day Drawdown = 16289.25 ft-3 / 432000 sec =
Q5=
0.037705
cfs
Orifice
C.S. Area, A:
A= Q/[Cd((2gh)-0.5))]
A= 0.037706 / [0.6*((2*32.2*1.5)-0.5))]=
A5=
0.006394
ft^2
A5=
0.920746
inch-2
Pipe diameter, d:
d5=
1.082742
inch
CHECK:
d5 < dprovided < d2 11.1 < 2.0 < 1.7 <------ WARNING...; Orifice
is sized
incorrectly.

�rrnitrrEnlllci. nU1ivFYttld A PLA1111111d
lot wt;nr nnoAb AfntEt
P. V. "OX 1..te
111 r.. lal+t+�lrf, n.l .e, t+Urnt, N. C. leee f FlfnNtf r I A t+ !!! t 1! 1
A !.. eeewrrt bUttll jl!•tte/
111Attg11MAL LGIIL+'ll
-------------..------------------------------------=-----------------------------
t IlUJC:C l 1 _Lip eell S _ _ -S iA
LUCA I luttl SVJ'kf,S Do raC-
o C.
__
lut C-:nd__�_at _Resov►ces AIIGltllvtll __ ���cs5___r %nrL__ __
In!ilwl;•,� n /�Ze9;onG-Q o-� rce-__` o�► Me�'i''� i ;r e e.r
�
WE 11t11115n111
l/� Irel elril.11
t III eccaftlntlte trl%ll your tequent. 1 ECE:IVED
run Multl 2 1990
I� nt�rrtaval 1 1 dint tbullatl !tt pollee �6 itlrrnl Owes
\ IiTpq
t 1 trgn. - 1 ? Fetatd '
1 I tevlewl camm'ellt 1 I
111E t-ULLOwnlUt
1 %'I�ritnalnah �
R
E E�d�
I I I,leilmlltnly. D -
1 I
cut•iCg I IA l m • liptsuttir I lure D E M
PROI
--------- -- ---- --------------------------------------------------------
•----------�,/20_ _�zvise�_„$�'orw� Wa1C�'-�MunrA�� p�r�..� ,S—z
--------------
tlt;IlA[tKSr �eXi S I `
----_-_--�--._,,�5-�r GM/✓' A l�oH �. G.an ✓C rS a"'�"rc�,.� �__=�_-�-c� v e - yru�� �f�l t
��owllnq _ Me.t/;.Siiris___-,1 _Ye I�ii avl C�oe1one . ehar.ca l�i$jOC Y�, - o+-�lv✓hC� S
CUt'IEd lut 1ttAttSnlllEtf d/l�t L
`less" ;bee-m ct-JwfrL;C( 'an dc4-,/i,SA� a�� T�✓nr@ �C,�cci� ha-S lech /'tiadi�iac�
1
��f'r.�ai at-ild+ .T ,2) hcav�t y%Cvi.S,eA �e e.1 e VaL-�,.V j
"i
t D r! ?'! c e -�o e /,- ✓et 3J/ s /r/ S G ^ A.ci v e- p e sracle-( -� Ae /+ec� w o'1
e �roj��•I- S;tc so ffit l'fie, bcJ1', . A,� -me Fear-FIvrHe- is A vi
Tljrg SNou %� Sa�v f'_ -tAe - -Ae. S foPaaJ ✓a lvmi e- eA Grpa L ai1�tY
Tm on de �o �Qi�I G��� S�ora� � /Ic�E �f�lG-r�,e�l
b43;h /-# 2 a.S )� tv Gah ,Sef? _ M,y SAo",l Kati boc-k)�r

QUEENS CREEK SHOPPING CENTER
STORM WATER RETENTION CALCULATIONS
Storage Analysis - Permanent Retention Basin #1 and #2 (acting as one basin)
Off site drainage area = 4.2 Acres
On site drainage area (developed) (to basin #2) = 2.55 Acres
On site drainage area (developed) (to basin #1) = 1.0 Acres
On site (undeveloped,out parcel "A.") (to basin 01) = 1.01 Acres
On site (undeveloped out parcel "B") (to basin K) = 0.88 Acres
On siK (undeveloped outparcel "D") (to basin #1) = 0.91 Acres
On site (undeveloped 3/4 out parcel "C") (to basin #1) = 0.60 Acres
Total Drainage Area to basin #1 and #2 combination = 11.15 Acres
Volume required for 1" storage = 40,313 ft3
Volume provided for storage = 16,120 ft3 + 26,640 ft3 = 42,760 ft3
5A/DA Analysis - Permanent Retention Basin #1 and #2 (acting as one basin)
Assume 90% total suspended solids removal
Assume 90% impervious surface for 3.55 Acres developed on site
Assume 90% impervious surface for 3.4 Acres undeveloped out parcels
Assume 20% impervious surface for 4.2 Acres off -site area
5A/DA factor for 6' depth, 90% impervious area = 3.8
SA/DA factor for 6' depth, 20% impervious area = 0.8
Surface area required for 90% impervious area = 0.038 x 6.95 = 0.264 Acres
Surface area required for 20% impervious area = 0.008 x 4.2 = 0.0336 Acres
Total surface area required = 6.297 Acre = 12,963 ft2
Total surface area provided = 4976 ft2 + 8004 ft2 = 12,980 ft2
Draw down time for basin *1 and #2 combination for one inch storm volume will
be 40,313 ft3 j 0.12 ft3/sec = 3.89 days
,
K»
U�UaU�x�� �
- i
��i Y�� ' LD
��° / `� |��6 DEC� � ���
--� ° ~* �w�
sko[K officd
___
�
�
t

Storage Analysis - Permanent Retention Basin 03
Off site drainage area = 0 Acres (all off site water is diverted by Swale "A")
On Medrainage drainage area (developed) (to basin #3) = 2.33 Acres
On site drainage (undeveloped) (1/4 out parcel "C") = 0.24 Acres
On site drainage (undeveloped) (phase II Area) = 1.63 Acres
-
Total drainage area to basin #3 = 4.2 Acres
Volume required for 1" storage = 15,185ft3
Volume provided for storage =
SA/DA Analysis - Permanent Retention Basin #3
Assume 90% total suspended solids removal
Assume 90% impervious surface for 4.2 Acres (on site)
SA/DA factor for 6' depth, 90% impervious area = 0.038
Surface area required for 90% impervious area = 0.038 x 4.2 = 0.159 Acres =
6926 ft2 Total surface area provided =
MUM
Drawdown time for basin #3 for one inch storm volume will be 15,185 ft3 0 08
ft3/sec = 2.2 day-..-: ^ ^
� 0» 8� 8 k0 'Vw ��
*�^
'
RECEIVED
E~-
0���1���OD
m�w �=^��"
�
�
WilminstonRegloWl 0MC6
--

Jmsamommw.SR. P.E. R.L.S.
noww/sE./ono^m.��S.
December 7, 1990
8
Godwin ~Jordan & AWNsociates^P.A.
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING &PLANNING
,00WEST BROAD STREET (ZIP oonnw
r�o.BOX p49
owmm.w. C.omn3w
State of North Carolin�
Department of Environmen�, Heal�h
& Natural Resourses
W�lmirig ton Regional Office
7225 Wriohtsville A,enue
Wilmington, �. C. 28433-3696
ATTENTION: ALEXIS I. FINN
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
REFERENCE: QUEENS CREEK PLAZA
STORM WATER PROJECT NO. 900617
Dea, �s. Finn:
PHONES: FAY. *wn'/4me
oumm/o,ww9u'w/nm
r^x*wm'`4me
In reSri ooIn. se to your review letter of Nov27,
furnishing with this cor�espondence a revised storm r nan��ement
plan an'd related, information as per your request. �e have a6dres�e�
t�e items in your letter in the following manner:
1) We have redesigned the risers on the outIet devices such that the
re�uire4 1" storage volume will be retained between tIe riser
e�eva�ion and the permanent pool elevation. Also we have redesigned
the storac�e drair| device to allow for the volume to drain within the
2 to 5 dZ%y period as per re0uzrements. Also we have redesigned the
ponds to provide for the required surface area for the permanent
�oo�s. �ach of these calculations is outlined on the attache�
calculations sheets.
2) We �re �roviding with this correspondence a letter of
authorization from the owner which authorizes Godwin -Jordan �
Associates to submit the storm water retention -plan for him.
�> We have provided end sections and rip ran at the outlets
of all pipes as well as the inlet for the 36' RCP pipe at Retention
Pit #1. The veloczties of the approaching wa�er in the other swale
areas are of such slow velocities that. a flared end section is not
needed. As per calculations previously submitted the 0100 velocity
in 5waB" was determined to be 2.64 ft/sec ap d the Q100 velocity
in Swale "C" was determined +o be 2
- m
� -�---- -- - -- --�� �-Uf-
k^^ �
'
_ U
RECEIVED
----
11990 BEC 1.3 1990
WiNmirgWn Regional Offloo
?R�17���~~-�~~~~-- �
�

4) We have revised the cross sections of Swale "A" "B" and "C" to
show side slopes of 3' horizontal to 1' vertical. '
5) We have provided for your information a copy of the preliminary
lay out for the water and the sewer for this project.
6) We have redesigned the outlet structures in Retention Basin Y!
and #3 to reflect the inverted outlet orifice design. 7he inverted
orifice is a 2" Opipe with a strainer and hardware cloth cover as
per your comment.
Should you have questions concerninq this revised plan and additional
information submitted for your approval, please contact us.
Sincerely,
G0D00IN—J0RDAN & ASSOCATES, P.A.
~Johnnynlenn Tew, P.E.
JGT:dl
��oD�D00�
� �
'* � u � �
hx� |
U� LU
J"C 1
=� '199
L) E M
RECEIVED
B�D � ���0
' —.' ° -~ °^°=
�
�
WilmingWn Regional Offift

1JIM GARNER
and
Associates
6200 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
[phone]
December 10, 1990
Mr. Glen Tew, P.E.
Godwin - Jordan & Associates, P.A.
1.02 West Broad Street
Post Office Box 249
Dunn, North Carolina 28334
Re: Application for Stormwater Certification
Stormwater Project No. 9006.17
Queens Creek Plaza
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Tew:
Pursuant to the letter of October 23, 1990 from the Division of Environmental Management,
please consider this letter as formal authorization of Queens Creek Company for you to
sign the request for Stormwater Certification in our behalf.
Should you require any additional information or assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,.
QUEEN CREEKCOM ANY
C
P.. J s Gamer
Ge I Partner
RJG:Ics
5taw Of ICJ. ,c ,,,t(iC.�KQ.
a, .moo
Nwary p u &Y
UA
D E-u 1' 11990
DEM.
'xoJ © �'
RECEIVED
O U 1 7a i990
`ViLnnington F.egional Office
rs-�4

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Bob Jamieson
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary November 27, 1990 Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Johnny Glenn Tew, P.E.
Godwin -Jordan & Associates, P.A.
Post Office Box 249
Dunn, North Carolina 28344
Subject: Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. 900617
Queens Creek Plaza
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Tew:
The Wilmington Regional Office received additional information
regarding the Stormwater submittal for Queens Creek Plaza on
November 16, 1990. A review of that information has determined
that the following is needed to complete our review:
i+. 1. Pond Number 1 and 2 provide insufficient storage --- volume, as well as insufficient permanent pool surface
12jtyi90 area. Both outlets (ponds #2 and #3) have oversized
orifices. This may be in part a result of using the
overflow weir elevations as the storage pond
elevations. The Riser elevation should be used to
determine depth of runoff storage.
►W`ao 2. The signature authority requested by this Office on
October 23, 1990, has not been received to -date.
►I3Iq� 3. All inlets need flared end sections and rip rap or
calculations which determine that these energy
dissipators arp unnecessary.
-� 4. Swales require a 3:1, N:V side slopes,
5. Locations and elevations of the sanitary sewer and
water lines need to shown on the site plan.
Continued
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 2M3-3696 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Fpual nnnnm!.;. , e u rrr:.... a Action F-n!n,--

Mr. Tew
November 27, 1990
Page Two
------------------
6. This Office recommends the use of an inverted orifice
as opposed to a horizontal orifice. The orifice below
the permanent pool surface should diminish the
likelihood of clogging with floating surface debris.
The use of hardware cloth to cover the orifice is also
recommended.
This information should be received by this Office no later than
December 28, 1990, or the subject file will be closed and
construction may experience subsequent delay. If you have any
questions, please.call me at telephone number [phone].
Sinter
Alexis I. Finn
Environmental Engineer
AIF: 900617.NOV
cc: Bill Mills
(2) Alexis Finn
Central Files

JOE E. GonWIm.SR. n17- RA.S�
euww/E E. ^pnp^m. R.L.S.
October 30, 1990
8
Godwin ~Jordan & Associates, P.A.
swGImeER/ws. SURVEYING & PLmmm,Ns
,om wsSr BROAD mrRsmr
P. 0. BOX 2=9
owmw, N. C. 2833+
State of North Carolina
Department of Enyironment' Health & Natural Resourses
Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C.08403-3696
ATTENTION: DAVE ADK%NS
WATER QUALITY REGIONAL SUPERVISOR
REFERENCE: ON SITE DETENTION PONDS
QUEENS CREEK PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
SWANSBORO~ N.C.
Dear Mr. Adkins:
PHONES: FAY. wwnvwww
DUNN Boa -Oise
DEM
IR'��l #--2MG' 1-7
As per the requirements of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resourses, we are submitting this operation and maintenance plan -
for the permanent retention basins #1, 42 and #3 for the above referenced
project. These wet retention basins will be used as temporary sediment
retention storage devices during the construction phase of the project. During
construction, the 6' permanent pool zones will be used to trap and retain
sediment generated by the construction process. The grading contractor will be
responsible for maintaining the basin as a temporary sediment pit during
construction. When the site is stabilized against construction sedimentation,
the grading contractor is to remove all sediment from the permanent pool zone,
the slopes are to be final graded and grassed as per the grade plan and as per
the project seeding specifications.
Also a 4' high chain link fence with provisions to allow construction traffic
entry will be installed around the perimeter of each basin, as shown on the
project grading plan.

Godwin ~Jordan & Associates' P.A. u� U E
smGIwEEexmm. sumVsYIme& PLANNING - - -
,nu WEmr BROAD promsr
P. �� om� �� N�U
JqscGnoW,m.S�po R.L.S.
. . . . p�pm��' ra� �wm',�mw
nwmw/cs.Joonxm R.L.S.ouwm N. C. �w���
. ' ' D_ E (d uvpm 892-5159
QUEENS CREEK SHOPPING CENTER
STORM WATER RETENTION CALCULATIONS
Storage'A alysis - Permanent Retention Basin #1 and #2 (Acting as 1 Basin)
Off site drainage area = 4.2 Acres ,
Developed - On site drainage area (to basin #2) = 2.55 Acres
Developed - On site drainage area (to basin #1) = 1.0 Acres
Undeveloped - On -Site - Out Parcel "A" (to basin #1) = 1.01 Acres
Undeveloped - On -Site - Out Parcel "B" (to basin #1) = 0.88 Acres
Undeveloped - On -Site - Out Parcel "D" (to basin #1) = 0.91 Acres
Undeveloped - On -Site - 3/4 Out Parcel "C" (to basin #1) = 0.60 Acres
Total Drainage Area to basin #1 and #2 combination = 11.15 Ac. volume required
for 1" storage = 38,856 ft3 - volume provided for storage = 20,145ft3 +
30,290 ft3 = 50,435 f03
SA/DA Analysis - Permanent Retention Basin #1 and #2 (acting as one basin)
Assume 90% total suspended soilds removal - without vegatation filter -
Assume 90% impervious surface for 3.55 acres developed on site
Assume 90% imperivous surface for 3.4 acres undeveloped out parcels
Assume 20% imperivous surface for 4.2 acres off -site area
SA/DA factor for 6' depth, 90% impervious area = 5.2
SA/DA factor for 6' depth, 20% impervious area = 1.2
�ired for 90% impervious area =
0.052 x 6 95 = 0 36
�urface area required . . . Surface area required for 20% impervious area = 0.012 x 4.2 = 0.0504
Total surface area required = 0.41 acre = 17,860 ft2
Total surface are provided = 9,687 ft2 + 8,176 ft2 = 17,863 ft2
Drawdown time for basin #1 and #2 combination
Drawdown time above 12" outlet = 28,285 ft3 3.68 ft3/sec = 2.14 hrs
Drawdown time above 6" outlet = 22,150 ft3 0.70 ft3/sec = 8.79 hrs
Total Drawdown Time 10.93 hrs

^
Storage Analysis - Permanent Retention Basin 43
Off -site drainage area = 0 Acres (all off -site water diverted by ditch)
Developed on -site drainage area (to Basin #3) = 2.33 acres
Undeveloped on -site 1/4 out parcel "C" = 0.24 acres
Undeveloped on -site (Phase II Area) = 1.63 acres
Total Drainage Area to Basin #3 = 4.2 acres
Volume required for 1" storage = 14,636 ft3
Volume provided for storage = 19,52e +t3
SA/DA Analysis - Permanent Retention Basin #3
Assume 90% total suspended solids removal - without vegatative filter
Assume 90% impervious surface for 4.2 acres (total on -site)
SA/DA factor for 6' depth, 90% impervious area = 5.2
Surface area required for 90% impervious area = 0.052 x 4.2 = 0.218 acres
Total surface area required (ft2) = 9,514 ft2
Total surface are provided = 11,072 ft2
Drawdown time for Basin #3
Drawdown time above 12" outlet = 5,428 ft3 2.0 ft3/sec = 0.75 hrs
Drawdown time above 6" outlet = 14,100 ft3 0.70 ft3/sec = 5.60 hrs
Total Drwdown Time = 6.35 hrs

0
Godwin - Jordan & Associates, P.A.
ENGINEERING. SURVEYING & PLANNING
102 WEST BROAD STREET
P. O. BOX 249 n
JOE E. GODWIN, BR. P.E. R.L.B. 4b ,�1 P N � FAY. 4d9-1469
RONNIE E. JORDAN, R.L.S. DUNN. N. C. 28884 p'FAY 882-:1:9
JAMES E. GODWIN
D EM
November 7, 1990
State of North Carolina Department
�1���
of Environment, Health & Natural Resourses
Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403-3696
1�lilmi�gtc+n R�nalsal (34ficA
Attention Mr. Dave Adkins
RE: STORMWATER PROJECT NO. 900617
QUEENSCREEK PLAZA, ONSLOW COUNTY, NC
Dear Mr. Adkins:
In response to your review letter of October 23, 1990, we are
submitting to you with this correspondence a revised
stormwater management plan sheet, detail sheet and maintenance
agreement.
We have addressed each of the items mentioned in your letter
in the following manner.
✓1. As shown on the plan the offsite drainage entering the
site is noted in two locations. The 4.2 Acres offsite
drainage area at the Southwest portion of the site will
pass through the site. The retention basins #1 and #2 in
combination is sized adequately to provide storage and
settlement capacity for this offsite area. The 16 Acres
offsite drainage area at the Southeast portion of the
site will be intercepted by the new Swale "A" as shown on
the plans and this flow will be diverted around the
project site.
✓2. As can be seen on the grading plan, the asphalt grades on
the entrance drives are sloped so that all runoff will
flow to the interior of the project site where the water
will be routed through the permanent retention basins.

Mr. Dave Adkins
Page 2
November 7, 1990
3. invert elevations of all pipes have been shown on the
grade plan. Also pipe size, grade and flow velocities
have been noted on the grade plan. A detail sheet has
been provided which shows a scaled detail of the outlet
structure for each basin.
4. The outparcels have been included in the sizing of the
retention ponds. This is verified on the calculations
sheet for the retention basins which is also included
with this correspondence.
S. We have provided scaled details of the outlet devices and
scaled cross sections of each pond on the detail sheet.
The orifice sizes for the outlet devices are shown on the
detail. The 6" outlet orifice is at the permanent pool
elevation and there is no outlet orifice below the
permanent pool level. An outlet below the permanent pool
level is not feasible due to the elevations of the drain
pipes at Hwy. 24. The cross section details of the ponds
show all pertiment water levels and slopes.
6. The outlet swale detail for each pond is shown on the
grade plan to have a bottom width of 15' and typical
side slopes of the 6 horizontal to 1 vertical.
7. The extent of swales "A", "H" and "C" have been specified
on the grade plan.
8. A detail of the concrete flumes from the parking areas to
the retention pits has been added to the plans.
9. The plans have been stamped, signed and dated. A North
arrow is shown on the grading plan.
10. A sheet of the calculations has been provided which shows
the total areas, percent impervious area and 1" run-off
volume required and provided for each basin. Also the
SA/DA calculations are shown along with the dewatering
of storage pool times for each basin.
11. There are no sanitary sewer septic tanks or wells on the
property.

Mr. Dave Adkins
Page 3
November 7, 1990
12a-12g. A revised operation and maintenance plan has been
prepared, signed and submitted along with this
correspondence. This revised maintenance plan
incorporates the items as listed in 12a through 12g.
Should you required further information for approval of this
stormwater management plan, please contact us.
Sincerely,
GODWIN-JORDAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
bhennyllenn Tew, P.E.
JGT: dl

d,
Permanent maintenance will consist of : (1) Removal of debris and sediment,
which is normally transmitted from parking lot run-off. Sediment is to be
removed at a frequency required to maintain a depth of water in the permanent
pool of 3 ft. or deeper. (2) Vegatation on pond perimeter and within the
vegatative filter must be seeded, fertilized, mulched, and maintained to ensure
vigorus growth of such vegatation. (3) Pond slope or perimeter areas which
exhibit sloughing, erosion, or vegatative washout must be immediately repaired
and replaced with sod or stabilized with rooted vegatation. (4) After each
rainfall event producing run-off, inspections will be made of trash rocks,
weirs, and orifices to remove trash, debris, or any potentially clogging medium
found. (5) A routine inspection of the swales, including inlets and outlets,
will be performed to determine if heavy flows have displaced rip rap or eroded
surrounding areas. Should such areas be found during inspection, additional
rip rap will be placed and/or repositioned as required immediately upon finding
erosive conditions.
By signature of this letter, my company is taking the responsibility for
permanent maintenance of all areas of the wet pond retention basins in
accordance with the terms specified in this letter or as deemed necessary by
the State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resourses.
Qvia�x�s I
C P, �) t - (i M_
(OWNER)
--------�7�---------------r--
.ADDRESS)
V.
- 471479Y� Z62 � i _ J 61A &e, k ____ ___
4,X
-.7 Z5_-:a
TELEPHONE
ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION
STORMWATER PROJECT NO. 900617
QUEENS CREEK PLAZA, ONSLOW COUNTY
This is to certify that the stormwater control structures have been installed
for the above referenced project and are consistent with the plans and
specifications approved by the Wilmington Regional Office of Water Quality.
_____________________________
PROJECT ENGINEER (TYPED)
__________________________________________________________________-------------
PROJECT ENGINEER SEAL DATE
(SIGNATURE)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Bob Jamieson
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 23, 1990 Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Glen Tew, P.E.
Godwin - Jordan & Associates, p.A.
102 West Broad Street
Post Office Box 249
Dunn, North Carolina 28334
Subject: Application for Stormwater
Certification
Additional Information Request
Stormwater Project No. 900617
Queens Creek Plaza
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Tew:
1 The individual who signs the request quest for a Stormwater
Certification is often the owner of the property or the developer
of a property. In cases where the request is not submitted by
the owner or developer, the person signing the submittal should
be duly authorized to do so by the owner or developer. The
authorization should be in the form of a signed and notarized
statement in original form granting the agent signature
authority for obtaining the Certification. A request submitted
by a corporation must be signed by a principal executive officer
of at least the level of vice president, or his duly authorized
representative, if such representative is responsible for the
overall operation of the facility described in the submittal. In
the case of a partnership or a sole proprietorship, the request
must be signed by the general partner or the proprietor,
respectively. In the case of a municipal, State, Federal, or
other public facility, the request must be signed by either a
principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or other
duly authorized employee.
Please provide the Wilmington Regional Office the
information described above such that this Office may continue
it's review of the Queens Creek Plaza stormwater management
submittal. In addition, the following' information should be
included for the submittal to be evaluated:
1. Provide an estimate of the amount of runoff which
enters the site from surrounding areas. Offsite
drainage which enters the sites needs to either be
treated or diverted such that the runoff does not enter
the site.
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-3696 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Ar, Fram! 0nrk-injPflrV Affinwowe A" rio— FmnL—r

Mr. Tew
r October 23, 1990
Page Two
----------------
2. Runoff must be prevented from leaving the site at the
entrance northwest of parcel C.
3. Provide invert elevations on all piping, pond inlets,
and outlets. Specifically provide, the invert
elevations on the connection between basins 1 & 2, and
also on the 36" RCP which connects the rip rap section
of Basin 1 with the rip rap section containing both a
36" & 12" pipe (border of parcels A & B). Also include
the grade, inlet velocities, and details of inlets.
4. Outparcels must be included in pond sizing
calculations. Please see the attached Directive which
addresses outparcels.
5. Provide scaled outlet details (top and side views)'for
both ponds. The details should include the following:
orifice location (below permanent pool) and size, pond
bottom elevation, permanent pool elevations,. storage
pool elevation, and side slopes of pond.
6. Swales require a 5:1, H:V side slope (or flatter) and
ponds require a 3:1, H:V (unless stabilized).
7. Please locate and label swale "A" on the site plan. '
8. Provide a detail of curb breaks.
9. The P.E. stamp needs to be signed and dated. Include a
North arrow on the plans.
10. Provide calculation: site area, impervious area, 1 inch
runoff volume, SA/DA calculation, dewatering time of
storage pool, and orifice sizing.
11. Locations of ss/septic and well/water lines.
12. Additions to the Operation and Maintenance Plan need to
include the following:
12a. A stamped Engineer's Certification for
(project name) shall be provided to the Division of
Environmental Management by (Engineering
firm contracted to preform final site inspection) within 30
days of construction completion. This certification will
ensure that the stormwater control structures are consistent
with the plans and specifications approved by the Wilmington
Regional Office of Water Quality.

Mr. Tew
October 23, 1990
Page Three
----------------
12b. Vegetation on pond perimeter and within the vegetative
filter must be seeded, fertilized, mulched, and
maintained to ensure vigorous growth of such
vegetation.
12c. Areas which exhibit sloughing, erosion, or vegetative
washout must be immediately repaired and replaced with
sod or stabilized with rooted vegetation.
12d. After each rainfall event producing runoff inspect
trash rack, weir, and orifice and remove trash, debris,
or any potentially clogging medium found.
12e. The permanent pool level must be maintained at 3 ft. or
greater. Thus, the sediment removal shall be preformed
when permanent pool is at 3 ft. or before. Please
revise your sentence regarding "sediment removal at 50%
.." to reflect these regulatory requirements.
12f. It is recommended that a routine inspection of the
swales, as well as inspection of swale inlets and
outlets, be preformed to determine if heavy flows have
displaced rip rap or eroded surrounding areas.
Additional rip rap must be placed and/or repositioning
of displaced rip rap will be preformed immediately.upon
finding erosive conditions.
12g. Signature, date signed, name, address, and telephone
number of the individual responsible for overseeing
that this maintenance will be preformed must be
included in the plan. `
This information should be received by this Office no later than
November 23, 1990, or your project will be returned as
incomplete. This request for information is preliminary.
Please be reminded that construction of the subject project may
not commence prior to approval of the Stormwater Management Plan.
If you have any questions, please call me at telephone number
[phone].
Sincerely,
- a Adkins
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: (2) Alexis Finn
Wilmington Regional Files
Central Files

11-4 ►J _ i�
-!,. ;r4-9 --,Jp
A -. LN . (OH o sr,
G.,
---FoTAL.--,rrr= ACEA p-I o
2 = ll-)1,11:1 !��;

m
LC
tom-
(1021(go
A: 'K4401SP
19 00(o-A
1415 1
.
.. .... ....
pcj ":r,-
0

40 -6e,- rOLx-+ ea -4 o- -;.:a cri �.Or%
re I-Okx+eck sc, cAN -kI-x e c e-. pip} o -V"o
51 f%At E ?A)l
It %oof&c-w- cse ex(rcic A Zap— �n_ I'l
42r,+'raf&- Nvj
a, pk�c, %J%-e'LJ cA Uc
Crt
Olt

JOE E. GODWIN. SR. P.E. R.L.S.
RONNIE E. JORDAN. R.L.S.
JAMES E. GODWIN
October io, 1990
S
Godwin - Jordan & Associates, P.A.
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & PLANNING
102 WEST BROAD STREET
P. O. BOX 249
DUNN, N. C. 28334
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resourses
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, I.I.C. 2S4O3-3696
ATTENTION: ALEXIS I. FINN
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
REFERENCE: QUEENS CREEK PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
SWANSRORO, N.C.
Dear Ms. Finn:
PHONES: FAY. 463-1488
DUNN 892-5159
11
- I 19901
0 E M
As per your request, stated in your letter of 9/ 11 /9s i, we have
conducted a survey of the chloride concentrations 2640' downstream from
the proposed retention basins #1 and #3 at the above referenced site.
You will find attached to this correspondence a statement of
"Description Of Survey Work" as performed by Charles F. Riggs and
Associates, Inc. and you will find a copy of the laboratory results as
furnished by Oxford Laboratories, Inc. .
It appears to urn that the chloride concentrations are well below those ,
which would classify the stream as SA waters.
If this is true we request that the review of this project be completed
as soon as possible.
Should you have questions concerning this survey, please contact us.
Sincerely,
GODWIN—JORD�ANN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Johnny Glenn Tew, P.E.
JGT:d'1

CHARLES F. RI86S AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
419 JOHNSON BOULEVARD
P. O. BOX 1570
JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28541-1570
[phone]
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1990
INVOICE NUMBER: 90-09-09
PROJECT NUMBER: 90-09-09
BILL TO: MR. GLEN TEW
GODWIN—JORDAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
102 WEST BROAD STREET
P.O. BOX 249
DUNN, N.C. 28334
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED:
WATER SAMPLE OBTAINED 2640' ALONG DRAINAGE PATTERN FROM
OUTLET OF RETENTION BASIN #1 AND RETENTION BASIN #3
— BOTH LIE WITHIN CARTWRIGHT BRANCH
CHLORIDE TESTS PERFORMED ON WATER SAMPLES
FEE: $ 400.00
CHRRLES F. R16 .L.S.
PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT OF INVOIC
AN INTEREST CHARGE OF 1 1/2% PER MONTH WILL BE APDED TQ''ALY-6
ACCOUNTS 30 DAYS PAST DUE.
n
U�
u�E*=wECxwrED
. Mffipp
QEM
- �

Oxford Laboratories, Inc. .Analytical and Consulting Chemists
DATE RECEIVED 9-24-90 1316 South Fifth Street
DATE REPORTED 9-27-90 Wilmington, N.C. 28401
9 0 W 5 2 0 9 [phone]
PAGE 1 OF 1
BEACHAM LAB P.O. #
640 WILMINGTON HWY
JACKSONVILLE , N.C. 28540
ATTENTION: CLAUDIA MUNDY
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: CHARLES RIGGS & ASSOC. INC.
1. RETENTION BASIN #1
2. RETENTION BASIN #3
RESULTS
1 2
Chloride , as Cl , PPM 21 25
ROGER C. OXFORD CHEMIST
FZECEIVED,
orT 1 1 1990
wilthrnan e409nei

M i,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Bob Jamieson
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary September 11, 1990 Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Glen Tew, P.E.
Godwin - Jordan & Associates, P.A.
Post Office Box 249
Dunn, North Carolina 28334
Subject: Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. 900617
Queens Creek Plaza
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Tew:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a Stormwater Submittal
for Queens Creek Plaza on June 19, 1990. To date, the submittal
is not complete. To recap our telephone conversation on
September 7, 1990, the following information is needed:
The proposed project appears to be draining to Cartwheel
Branch, classified SA waters. State Regulations 15A NCAC
2H.1003 prohibit detention pond discharges in SA classified
watersheds. However, if the chlorides in the stream are
less than 500 mg/l at a point at least 2640 LF from the pond
outlet, the stream will not be considered SA and the
detention pond may be considered a viable stormwater
control. Thus, a stream sample must be taken at least 2640
LF from the pond outlet and analyzed (by a certified
laboratory) for chloride concentrations. The sample needs
to be taken on a day when no measurable rainfall has
occurred for the previous 72 hours.
This information is necessary such that this Office can continue
the review of your stormwater submittal. The above information
should be received by this Office no later than November 1, 1990
or your project will be returned as incomplete.
Continued
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C..28403-3696 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
n r 1 C, . ro . .- r

Mr. Tew
September 11, 1990
Page Two
--------------
Please be reminded that construction of the subject project may
not commence prior to approval of the Stormwater Management Plan.
We will make every attempt to assist you. If you have any
questions, please call me at telephone number [phone].
Sincer y,
Alexis I. Finn
Environmental Engineer
AIF:900617.SEP
cc: Jim Herstine
John Parker, DCM
Bill Mills
2AIF, CF

JOE E. GODWIN. SR. P.E. R.L.S.
RONNIE E. JORDAN. R.L.B.
JAMES E. GODWIN
S
Godwin - Jordan & Associates, P.A.
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & PLANNING
102 WEST BROAD STREET
P. O. BOX 249
DUNN, N. C. 28334
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
PHONES: FAY. 493-1409
DUNN 892-5109
PROJECT: --- =�=*=� — ( --L— DATE: ---- 2-1-4— 9 0------- r
� � �a �. G .
LOCATION: �-+�31�= � / _
`';" , 7zo
T0:--1 —----------------- ATTENTION:
WE TRANSMIT:`
FOR YOUR:
(P"')' herewith
( ) in accordance with your request
( ) approval ( ) distribution to parties
( ) use (kf record
( ) review & comment
THE FOLLOWING:
( ) drawings
( ) preliminary
COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED
JUL 1 01990
VIMMInVon Ifagional Ofrme I
bEM
KeAlAmb: -------------------------------------------------
D.E-=i- ------
M
------------------------- ------------------------------ - --------
COPIES TO- TO- TRANSMITTED BY:
t

June 14, 1990
North Carolina Department of Natural Resourses
And Community Development
1424 Carolina Avenue
P.O. Box 1507
Washington, N.C. 27889
ATTENTION: MR. WWILLIAM J. MOORE
REFERENCE: ON SITE DETENTION PONDS
QUEENS CREEK PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
SWANSBORO, N.C.
Dear Mr. Moore;
As per the requirements of the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resourses and Community Development, we are submitting this operation and
maintenance plan for the permanent retention basins #1, #2 and #3 for the
above reference project. These wet retention basins will be used as
temporary sediment retention storage devices during the construction phase
of the project. During construction, the 3" permanent pool zones will be
used to trap and retain sediment generated by the construction process. The
grading contractor will be responsible for maintaining the basin as a
temporary sediment pit during construction. When the site is stabilized
against construction sedimentation, the grading contractor is to remove all
sediment from the permanent pool zone, the slopes are to be final graded and
grassed as per the grade plan and as per the project seeding specifications.
Also a 4' high chain link fence with provisions to allow construction
traffic entry will be installed around the perimeter of each basin` as shown
on the project grading plan.
Permanent maintenance will consist of removal of debris and sediment, which
is normally transmitted from parking lot runoff. This sediment removal
process will be undertaken when the permament pool zone has become 50% full
of accumulated debris. Any slopes or seeded areas, which are disturbed by
the sediment removal process, will be regraded to correct grade and
reseeded.
By signature of this letter, my company is taking the responsibility for
permament maintenance of all areas of the wet pond retention basins in
accordance with the terms specified in this letter or as deemed necessary by
the North Carolina Department of Natural Resourses and Community
Development.
Sincerely,
k0 k�
v _
UU
"~ JHt
D E M

QUEENS CREEK PLAZA - STORM WATER ANALYSIS
Retention Basin #1 & #2 (will act together as one basin)
0100 = C % A = (0.8) (9.5) (6.95 Ac) = 52.82 cfs
Using time concentration equals time to peak = 5 minutes
Using increments of 1/2 minute we dmovelope and inflow hydrograph
T(min)Inflow Time Inflow _{cfs) Time Inflow _
0
0
7.5
33.80
0-5
1.27
8.0
29.05
1.0
5.02
8.5
25.35
1.5
11.09
9.0
22.18
2.0
18.49
9.5
19.01
2.5
26.41
10.0
16.37
3.0
34.33
10.5
14.26
3.5
41.73
11.0
12.68
4.0
47.54
11.5
10.56
4.5
51.76
12.0
9.51
5.0
52.82
12.5
7.92
5.:5
51.76
13.0
6.87
6.0
47.54
13.5
6.13
6.5
44.89
14.0
5.32
7.0
39.08
14.5
4.62
STAGE VS STORAGE
BASIN #1 BASIN #2
Stage Storage ft3 Stage ft Storage ft3
______Total______ -___________________Total______
15.0
4.00
%5.5
3.48
16.0
3.02
16.5
2.62
17.0
2.27
17.5
1.97
18.0
1.71
12.68
1.48
19.0
1.29
19.5
1.12
2{).A
0.97
BASIN #1 & #2
Stage ft Storage +t3
Total
0.5
21634
0.50
4,104
0.5
6,738
1.0
5,590
1.0
89566
1.0
14,156
1.5
8,797
1.5
13,353
1.5
22,150
2.0
12,291
2.0
18,509
2.0
30,800
2.5
16,066
2.5
24,144
2.5
40,210
3.0
20,145
3.0
30,290
3.0
50,435
LUJ
- ��Y| Y u $��M
��~ . , ^^v~
) � ' D.
-r' 7 -'s

STAGE VS DISCHARGING
Stage ft
Discharge ft3/sec
0
U
0.5
0
1.0
0
1.5
0
2.0
2.7
2.5
3.8
3.0
4.7
Q = C. a V 29h
H = 0.5' Q = 0.6 (0.79)
Q = 2.7 cfs
H = 1.0' > Q = 3.80 cfs
H = 1.5' Q = 4.66 cfs
(32. 2) 0.5
Time
Inflow
Storage
Outflow
Time In -Flow
Storage Outflow
min
cfs
ft3
cfs __--_-__--min
cfs
t3cfs__
---f
0
0
0
0
11.0 12.68
17,485 3.80
0..5
1.27
38.10
0
11.5 10.56
17,688 3.80
1.0
5.02
188.70
0
12.0 9.51
17,859 3.80
1.5
11.09
521.40
0
12.5 7.92
17,983 3.80
2.0
18.49
1,076.10
0
13.0 6.87
18,075 3.80
2.5
26.46
1,B68.40
0
13.5 6.13
18,145 3.80
3.0
34.33
2,898.30
0
14.0 5.32
18,190 3.80
3.5
41.73
41150.20
0
14.5 4.62
18,215 3.80
4.0
47.54
5,576.40
0
15.0 4.00
18,221 3.90
4i.5
51.76
71129.20
0
5.0
52.82
8,713.80
0
5.5
51.76
10,267.00
1.3
6.0
47.54
11,654.00
1.3
6.5
44.89
12, 962. 00
2.7
*Mere �rc P gak
S fav*L a o✓; i1 be
7.0
7.5
39.08
33.8
14, 053.00
14,969.00
3.25
3.25
18, {-t3 at e l t v«f��H
�Y R 1
�,�r�X:r►att
below l-W
8.0
29.05
15, 743. 00
3.25
j).cio es
fAe ever-f
9.0
22.18
16,31.1.00
3.80
Wier eleva-N.-I •+
3Z.50. sjtould -Ae
9.5
19.01
16,767.00
3.80
d�„nafio+l of e
S+�+r�++ 6e sv�l, mat
10.0
16.37
17, 144.00
3.80
d
10.5
14.26
17, 458. 00
3.80
- lie o✓er P~ is used ►f is ars•.ore
Wi4-h ry r-P a.s
Per plans.
RETENTION BASIN #3
Q100 = CIA (0.8) (9.5 in/hr) (5.0 Ac) = 38.0 cfs
Using time concentration equals time to peak = 5 minutes
Using increments of 1/2 minute we development an inflow hydrpgraph
Page 2

Time Inflow Time Inflow Time Inflow
min. --------cfs-------- ---min. .--------cfs_---------- min. ---------cfs------------
0
0
6.0
34.2
12.0
6.84
0.5
0.91
6.5
32.3
12.5
5.70
1.0
3.61
7.0
28.12
13.0
4.94
1.5
7.98
7.5
24.32
13.5
4.41
2.0
13.30
8.0
20.9
14.0
3.83
2.5
19.0
8.5
18.24
14.5
3.32
3.0
24.7
9.0
15.96
15.0
2.88
3.5
30.0
9.5
13.68
15.5
2.50
4.0
34.2
10.0
11 '. 78
16.0
2.16
4.5
37.24
1o.5
10.26
16.5
5.0
38.0
11.0
9.12
17.0
5.5
37.24
11.5
7.60
17.5
STAGE
VS STORAGE
STAGE VS
DISCHARGE
Stage -------- Storage -------------------------- Stage ---------Discharge
0
0
is
0
0.5
4,372
0.5
0
1.0
91084
1.0
0
1.5
14,100
1.5
0
2.0
19,528
2.0
2.7
Time
Inflow
Storage
Outflow
Time
Inflow
Storage
Outflow
min
cfs--------ft3--------cfs
min
------cfs--------ft3--------cfs---
0
0
0
0
10.5
10.26
139768
0
0.5
0.91
27.3
0
11.0
9.12
14.042
0
1.0
3.61
135.6
0
11.5
7.60
14,270
0
1.5
7.98
375
0
12.0
6.84
14,475
0
2.0
13.3
774
0
12.5
5.70
149646
0
2.5
19.0
1,344
0
13.0
4.94
14,794
0
3.0
24.7
2,085
0
13.5
4.41
14,926
0
3.5
30.0
2,985
0
14.0
3.83
15,041
0
4.0
34.2
4,011
0
14.5
3.32
15,141
0
4.5
37.24
5,128
0
15.0
2.88
15,227
0
5.0
38.0
6,358
0
15.5
2.50
159302
0
5.5
37.24
71475
0
16.0
2.16
15,367
0
6.0
34.2
8,501
0
16.5
6.5
32.3
91470
0
17.0
7.0
28.12
10,314
0
17.5
7.5
24.32
11,044
0
18.0
(3.0
9.5
20.9
18.24
11,671
12,218
0
0
18.5
19. •"',•
)k?pertlkrp
s�'oi+rsa� w� rl be
9.0
15.96
12,697
0
19.5�ro,ri6++wtelj.
f+sa.4
9.'5
13.68
13,107
0
20.0
elevat;-n 31.00
. ?liJs is
Below
10.0
11.78
13,460
0
ovt�'-jcIri-,,,
w;er e,lev�t�or�s Sl�otilcl
e rr+tfio�t
cl
of fine S'%Dr/Jl
�g S�
j
Page
3
.
'ttafcs v2 r'�Fkiw / s
js Pnov;JeJ
-T'or as Pe -'A
PIanS.

UUdrrlll - Jordan & Assoclatest P.A...........
�rrulNE�niNd, aunv�rlNa d rL1fNrnNd LAO
toi wt>.et ffnoAb itntitt
h. O. 11mt AA/ f A+.O 4)�'�`f
hlfofMv ►Ar, e!'llet led.
tot It. llebvvut. Pn. P.P. O.L.N. bo►ff1. It. e.:eliA J Li o 1 b J`jtjo b0lifl lei site.
hc+jjrjf► fr. lc7nbl14. n.l.�.
JI1611� R. OobMvlf)
Wilmington Regional :Qtf'ice
ITEM
IVAI15111IIAL LEIIM {
-------------------
---- --_---____--___--_4...___—_________—.._—_____.As.—____..
1'EIUJEC l't _ Q v_ e eA Cv, e_e --- �� 3 VAI Et----- -------
Ce,-4-c e
AI I E11I IUI Itlot
�-
�Z�
WE l"11S111It
1 herewith
l ) In accordance *H11 your request.
Fort t uunt '
1 vf" nl,proval 1 1 dist.rlbution to partleN
t ) use 1 ) tecord
t ) review A comment t )------------- - --
IIM FULLUWIIIUt
t of drawingh
t ) .preliminary
CUPIES VAIE UESCRIPIlull
---= -----------------------------
---! ---- --%a --- - D�=-- -==----- -- ------------- ------
---1 --------'�---ter`_ ✓a`_r___—'-------------------------------
----------------------------------------
---------------------
YL � Olt • - (1G1 n �. . M i/7 G.� .. _��-==�=L�._ �/�-�I-�•-� �
CUi'IES V
'lU: II1N151113 E1) 'S!t j�
® M
I

QUEENS CREEK SHOPPING CENTER
SWANSBORO, N.C.
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
Drainagg_Swale_"A"
z
1. Assume upstream drainage area = 7 acres �
2. Use design Q = CIA = (0.40) (10 in/hr) (7 ac.) = 28 cis
y. Assume bermuda grass established
4. Assume easily erodible soil with "V" allowable = 4.5 ft/sec
5. Slope = 0. 3%
Check stability of ditch with grass established under design conditions Q =
1.49 Ak 2/3 S 1/2
n
try d = 2'
Q100 = 1_49 (12) (1.064) (0.05477) = 27.42 cis o.k.
(0.038)
V100 __ Q= 27.42 cis = 2.29 ft/sec o.k.
A 12rf t2r _
bs
Therefore, the ditch will4stable when permament grass is established. When we
check the need for temporary liner we use Q2 = (0.4) (5.0) (7 ac) = 14 cis
Q = 1.49 AR 2/3 S 1 /2
n
try d = 1. 5' a= a.039
Q2 = 1__49 (7.5) (0.905) (0.05477) = 14.2 cis o.k.
V2 = Q =-14.2 cis = 1.89 ft/sec
A 7.5
Therefore there is no need for a temporary liner to be installed.
Drainage_Swale_"D" I
r
1. Assume upstream drainage Area 4.4 Ac.
z P 6� z
2. Use design Q100 = CIA = (0.8) (10 in/hr) (4.4 Ac.) = 35.2 cis
3. Assume bermuda grass established
4. Assume easily erodible soil with "V" allowable = 4.5 ft/sec
5. Slope = 0. 3%
1991

Check stability of swale with grass established under design conditions
0 = 1. 49 AR 2/3 S 1/2
n
try d = 1.75
0100 1._49 (16.63) (1.1316) (0.05477) = 43.87 cfs o.k
f0. 035)
V100 = 2.64 ft%sec therefore the swale will be stable when grass is established.
When we check the need for temporary liner we use 02 = (0.8) (5 in/hr) (4.4) _
17.6 cfs
Q = 1.49 AR 2/3 S 1/2
n
try d = 1.251-
02 = 1.49 (9.02) (0.8798) (0.05477) = 16.60 cfs o.k.
(0. 039)
V2 = 1.84 ft/sec
Therefore, there is no need for a temporary liner to be installed
S�
Drainage-Swalg_"C"
2-
1. Assume upstream drainage area = 5.0 Acres
2. Use design Q100 = CIA = (0.8) (10 in/hr) (5 Ac) - 40 cfs
3. Assume Bermuda grass established
4. Assume easily erodible sail with "V" allowable = 4.5 ft/sec
5. Slope = 0. 4%
Check stability of swale with grass established under design conditions
Q 1.49 AR 2/3 S 1/2
n
try d = V
0100 1.49 (17) (0.913) (0.0632) = 37.47 cfs o.k.
(0.039)
V100 = 2.20 ft/sec
Therefore the swale will be stable when grass is established . Also there will
be no need for temporary lining of swale.
Overflow Wier at Retention Basin #1
1. Design 0100 = (0.8) (10 in/hr) (4.4 Ac) = 35.2 cfs
2. Assume bermuda grass established
3. Assume easily erodible soil with "V" allowable = 4.5 ft/sec
4. Slope = 9. 4%
Page 2
a

Check stability of swale with grass established
0100 = 1.49 AR 2/3 S 1/2
n
try d = 0.5'
DiOO = 1_49 (9) (0.565) (0.3066) = 49.43 cfs-+ o.k.
(0.047)
OiOO = 5.5 ft/sec
Therefore this section will not be stable under grassed conditions. Check
stability of overflow wier.using Rip Rap d5O = 9"
0100 = 1.49 AR 2/3 S 1/2
n
try d = 0.5'
MOO = 1.49 (9) (0.565) (0.3066) = 34.16 cfs o.k.
(0.068)
Check stability of 9" Rip Rap. Actual shear stress = rd S = (62.4 lbs/ft3) (0.5
ft) (0.094) = 2.93 lbs/ft2
Permitted shear stress for 9" Rip Rap = 3.80 lbs/ft2
Therefore d5O = 9" Rip Rap is adequate. We have shown Rip Rap from the crest of
the overflow wier to the inlet of the 36" pipe.
Overflow Weir at Retention Basin #3
-----------------------------------
A. Design 9100 = (0.8) (10 in/hr) (5 Ac) = 40 cfs
2. Assume bernuda grass established
3. Assume easily erodible soil with "V" allowable = 4.5 ft/sec
4. Slope = 5%
Check stability of swale with grass established
DiOO = 1.49 AR 2/3 S 1/2
n --
try d = 0.55
OiOO = 1.49 (10.06) (0.5976) (0.2236) = 44 cfs -3-o.k.
(O. 045)
ViOO = 4.42 cfs therefore the overflow wier will be stable when grass is
established
b
Page 3 is
i ,

RePort of Subsurface investigation
Queens Creek Plaza
Swansboro, North Carolina
Westinghouse Project NO. 1051-90-250
min 1 4 1990
D E Nk

Westinghouse Environmental
and Geotechnical Services, Inc.
May 15, 1990
Ashland Construction Ccapany
4601 Atlantic Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Attention: Mr. Robert Boyette
Reference: Report of Subsurface Investigation
Queens Creek Plaza
Swansboro, North Carolina
Westinghouse Project No. 1051-90-250
Gentlemen:
3109 Spring Forest Road
P.O. Box 58069
Raleigh. North Carolina 27658-8069
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Westinghouse Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc.
(Westinghouse) has completed the authorized subsurface investigation at the
site of the proposed Queens Creek Plaza Shopping Center to be constructed in
Swansboro, North Carolina. Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated
by performing nine soil test borings at the approximate locations shown on the
attached Site Plan. The test borings were located in the field by measuring
distances and estimating right angles from existing roadways and property
boundaries. As such, the indicated borirxd locations should be considered as
approximate. The test boring depths ranged from 5 to 15 feet below existing
ground surface and all test borings were sampled at selected intervals using
standard penetration test procedures designated in ASTM D-1586. This report
presents the findings of the investigation and our recommendations for site
grading and foundation support based on these findings.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project site is located at the southwest corner of
the intersection of N.C. Highway 24 and Queens Creek Road in Swansboro, North
Carolina. The proposed project will consist of the construction of a strip
center which will comprise a total of about 48,700 square feet. The center
will include a Food Lion store as an anchor which will consist of 25,000 square
feet along with a drug store and other small shops. No detailed information
A Westinghouse Electric Corporation subsidiary.

.Ashland Construction Co.
May 15, 1990
Project R90-250
Page 2
concerning structural loads was available at this time, however, based on our
?! experience with similar type projects, we anticipate that maximum column loads
Will be on the order of 60 kips with wall loads ranging from 3 to 5 kips per
linear. Additionally, no detailed information concerning finished floor
elevation was available at this time, however, based on our visual observations
of the site, we anticipate that the structure will likely be built at or near
existing ground surface.
At the time of our investigation, the majority of the site
consisted of cleared open fields or cultivated areas. Several drainage ditches
were observed crossing the site and one of the ditches crossed directly through
the proposed building location. The drainage ditches were approximately 3 feet
in depth and were overgrown with brush and small trees. No detailed
information concerning site topography was available at this time, however,
based on our visual observations, the site appears to be relatively flat.
SUBSURFACE CITIONS
A generalized subsurface profile prepared from the test boring
data is attached to this report as Figure 2 to graphically illustrate
subsurface conditions encountered at this site. More detailed descriptions of
the conditions encountered in the individual test boring locations are then
presented on the attached Test Boring Records
The subsurface profile encountered at this site consists of
approximately 3 to 6 inches of topsoil underlain by a stratum of sandy clay and
clayey sand which extends to depths ranging from approximately 6 to 8 feet
below existing site grade. Penetration resistances within the upper 2 to 3
feet generally range from 5 to 7 blows per foot (bpf). Below a depth of 3
feet, penetration resistances typically increase to values ranging from 7 to 15
bpf with the exception of borings B-1 and B-7 which encountered resistances of
5 to 6 bpf at depths of 5 feet below grade. Underlying the near surface clay
stratum, the soils transitioned into slightly silty sands which exhibit

.Ashland Construction Co.
May 15, 1990
Project R90-250
Page 3
,) penetration resistances in the range of 9 to 23 bpf. These soils typically
extend to 15 feet, the maximum boring depth except at location B-1 which
encountered clayey sands below a depth of 10 feet.
Ground water was encountered at depths ranging from 4.2 to 5.5
feet below existing ground surface at the time of boring completion. Due to
the clayey near surface soils, higher ground water conditions may occur during
periods of wet weather due to perching of surface water on these soils. In
addition, regional ground water levels will fluctuate with seasonal and
climatic variations and may be different at other times.
IRECOMMENDATIONS
The following reccmnendaticns are based on a review of the
attached test boring data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and
past experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. If structural
loads will be significantly heavier than those anticipated, we would appreciate
an opportunity to review and comment upon the recommendations of this report so
that they may be confirmed, extended., or modified as necessary. Additionally,
if subsurface conditions adverse to those indicated by this report are
encountered during construction, those conditions should be reported to us for
review and comment.
Site Grading Considerations - The soils at existing grade are
moisture sensitive and will be difficult to compact during the typically wetter
winter months of December through April or May. To avoid delays during site
grading operations, we recommend that earthwork activities be scheduled after
May and prior to mid -December, if possible, in order to facilitate site grading
work.
y Site grading should begin with the removal of all trees and
topsoil from those areas designated for construction of the new building and
adjoining parking facilities. Once stripping is completed, we recommend that
the surface of those areas at grade or designated to receive fill be

Ashland Construction Co.
May 15, 1990
Project R90-250
Page 4
proofrolled with a partially loaded dump truck or similar piece of* equipment to
identify areas necessitating additional repair. Any area which ruts or pumps
excessively in the opinion of the engineer should be undercut to firm bearing
or as directed by the engineer. Based on the soils encountered by the borings,
we anticipate that significant subgrade repairs will be required on the
majority of the site. Provided that site grading operations are completed
during the drier summer months of the year, we anticipate that these repairs
can likely be implemented by undercutting, discing, drying, and reconpacting
the upper 2 feet of soils on the site to provide a suitable subgrade for
building foundation support. If site grading is completed during the wetter
months of the year, we anticipate that replacement with clean sandy materials
will likely be required after undercutting.
If site grade will be raised 18 inches or more after stripping of
topsoil, the need for subgrade repairs will be greatly reduced provided the
fill materials utilized on the site are clean sands containing less than 10
percent passing the No. 200 sieve. These soils will likely provide a bridge
lift which will provide suitable support for pavements and slab on grades. If
the site grade is raised 18 inches and the site graded during dry weather, the
only repairs which will likely be required will be some isolated soft areas and
repair of footings. We do anticipate that some additional undercutting may be
required in the existing ditches due to the presence of water softened soils
and loose sediments which have washed into the ditches.
As previously discussed, the need for site repairs can be reduced
by raising site grade approximately 18 inches utilizing a clean sand containing
less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. We recommend that all fill
materials placed on the site be ccmpacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
standard Proctor max mxn dry density except in the final foot beneath pavements
and floor slabs where this requirement should be increased to 98 percent of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Foundation Support Considerations - The proposed structure may be
supported on shallow spread footings or continuous wall footing foundations
designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf for bearing in

<Ashland Construction Co.
May 15, 1990
Project R90-250
Page 5
existing soils or properly compacted structural fill. Column and wall footings
should have minimum
dimensions of 24 and 16 inches, respectively, and all
footings should bear at least 18 inches below finished grade for frost
protection. We recatmend that all footing excavations be inspected by a
geotechn_ical engineer to verify that subgrade soils have adequate strength to
support the anticipated loads. Any areas with soft or yielding soils can be
evaluated and repairs recommended at the time of field inspection. If the site
will be constructed on, at, or near existing grade and the previously discussed
subgrade repairs are implemented, we anticipate that minimal amounts of repair
will be required in footing subgrades provided that footing excavations are not
exposed to inclement weather. If the site grade is raised approximately 18
inches to reduce the need for overall subgrade repairs, we anticipate that sane
repairs involving undercutting footings to firm bearing and backfilling to
design footing subgrade elevation with washed stone such as No. 57 or No. 67
stone will be required. _ These repairs can be implemented by over -excavating
neat line to firm bearing and backfilling with uniformly graded stone where
needed.
Provided the site is prepared as previously discussed, we
anticipate that this design will limit total and differential settlements to
approximately 1 inch and 0.5 inches, respectively. These -magnitudes of
settlement are typically considered to be acceptable for structures such as
those proposed for this site, however, this should be confirmed by the
structural engineer for the project.
Floor slabs for the proposed structure may be designed for an
assumed subgrade modulus of 100 pci providing that subgrade soils are reworked
to a minimum of 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Any
proposed retaining walls, such as truck load
ing docks, should be designed for a
triangular lateral earth pressure distribution based on the assumption that
soils behind the wall act as an equivalent fluid weighing 45 pounds per cubic
foot. Backfill placed within three feet of walls should be compacted with hand
tamps rather than with heavy mechanized equipment to maintain pressures within
this assumption and the walls should be designed with weepholes or other
drainage to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressure.

Ashland Construction Co.
May 15, 1990
Project R90-250
Page 6
General Pavement Considerations - Detailed information concerning
traffic loading was not available at this time to enable us to perform a
oemplete pavement design. However, a typical pavement section for a shopping
center would be 2 inches of asphalt overlying 6 inches of CABC base course
stone in areas subject to light traffic only such as car parking stalls and a
section consisting of 2 to 3 inches of asphalt overlying 8 inches of CABC base
` course stone in areas subject to channelized car traffic or occasional truck
traffic. In areas such as at the rear of the facility where significant
amounts of truck traffic will be expected, we recommend utilizing 3 inches of
asphalt overlying 8 inches of CABC base course stone as a minimum.
Additionally, in areas where garbage trucks will be loading and unloading
dumpsters, we recommend that consideration be given to utilizing a rigid
pavement section consisting of 5 inches of concrete overlying 4 inches of CABC
base course stone.
As previously discussed, the near surface soils exhibit marginal
strength characteristics and and will likely require repairs in the upper 2
feet to provide a suitable subgrade for support of a pavement structure.
Provided the site is graded during the drier months of the year, these repairs
can likely be implemented by undercutting the site, discing, dr_vina; and
recanpacting the existing soils. If site grading is completed during the
wetter periods of the year, it is likely that these soils cannot be dried
sufficiently and replacement with a select off site borrow material will be
required. Alternately, if site grades can be raised approximately 18 inches
with clean sand, the underlying marginal soils can likely be bridged over
eliminating the need for extensive subgrade repairs. We recemnend that all
soils within the final foot beneath pavement subgrades be compacted to a
minimum of 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Additionally, all pavement areas should be properly graded to promote runoff of
water and prevent ponding on the pavement surface which can result in
saturation of the subgrade soils and a loss of pavement subgrade support.

Ashland Construction Co.
May 15, 1990
Project R90-250
Page 7
In summary, subsurface conditions at this site appear suitable
for the proposed construction. Due to marginally suitable soils within the
upper 2 to 3 feet, we anticipate that significant subgrade repairs involving
discing, drying and recompacting or undercutting and replacement with select
fill will be required provided the structure is constructed at or near existing
grade. If site grades can be raised approximately 18 inches with a clean sand,
the need for subgrade repairs can be greatly reduced. Following bridging of
the site with a select material or repair of the marginal soils if constructed
at existing grade, the site should provide suitable support for construction of
foundations designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds
MA per square foot. Because the near surface soils are moisture sensitive, we
recommend that earthwork activities be completed during the drier months of May
through November. if possible.
We appreciate the opportunity to have provided you with our
services during this phase of the project. Please contact us if you have any
questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
.I
DLI/EBH/ss:R90-250
I
Westinghouse Envircnmmtal
and Geotecbnical Services, Inc.
Da id L. Is ael, VE
N.C. Registration No. 14319
Edward B. Hearn, P.E.
N.C. Registration No. 9520
71

W ; I'
a=
LO
tin
r
• � i s ,71
m
r Aooti .'+'aA.eLc Y� N
S_ o
t-
rrih
0
—
m
J
W
�
In
i
IL
U-
�a
u
1
Lo
Z
C y
ev
Z
` d
z
z
_
N
J
LL M
cr
m •`—'
C
O t3
W
NU
cm
C y
C7
dM
O
y
Wz
3
wo
0
U
O
(n m
zv)
w3
0
O
f N
W
W
LL
W
J
Q
U O
O
Q _
O
0 cn
cr
d
a
a
0

133d NI H1d30
O to o
I
kI
m
mm
m
— —
'
111
1
LLI
J
10
_
to
LL-
— —
fy-
!,
d.
1
1,1
1
w
U
N
rn
:D—
m
;1
Lo
M
to=
I�
N
LLJ
11
a
111
cr
1
Ld
z
to
rn
CO
~
LLJ
INN
—-
1
ICI
•
O O to
l I 1 1
1333 NI Hld3a
O
to
Z (V
3: O
O
2 i
In to
to O
Q
O
W Z
J
Q Co
U O
N �
NI
O
Z
(9
LL
O
C
o
Ccoi
CO Co
C .
W
Q
L CO
CO
�
Z
Cn
C
en
O
LJJ M
w
Z
LL
tn.
>-
o
w
.� .Co
CM
z
ai
U)
vCM
.
F=
z
0-
a
W •�
0
t7i
o
IL
a
w
m
z
Ld
Eno
J
Q
a
U)
w
0
Q
�Lli
J
O
F-
to
W
�
Z
Z
s
C-
H
N
F-
J
to
Q Q
U U
O
0
JO
y
E"i"�7
®
®
M @
®
®
CD
0
111
'
Q
z_
J
O
Qa
N U
Q =
J p--
FLQ�
Y O
W Z
�-
W cr-
U
UO
W
to m
O
Z to
WZ
m
d
?3
O to

E
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.5
7.0
10.0
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
n 1 n 20 4n tin 1nn
TOPSOIL
�
3-2-3
i 2
5-7-7
9-7-13
CL
Firm tray Fine Sandy CLAY
Medium Dense Tan Fine Slightly Silty
SAND
SP
SM
Medium Dense Tan Fine Silty Clayey
Sc
Boring Terminated at 15'
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-1
DATE 5-10-90
PAGE 1 OF 1
S&ME

r�
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.4
2.5
6.5
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
n 1 n 2n An an 1 nn
TOPSOIL
3-3-3
5-5-5
5.3
5-5-7
6-6-7
Firm Gray Fine to Medium Sandy CLAY
Sc
Medium Dense Gray and Brown Fine to
Medium Silty Clayey SAND
Medium Dense Tan Fine Slightly Silty
SAND
Sp
SM
Boring Terminated at 15'
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET FOR EXPLANATIONR AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-2
DATE 5-10-90 S&ME
PAGE 1 OF 1

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.1
4.0
7.0
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
TOPSOIL
ML
U lU
ZU
40
60
100
3-2-3
2-4-5
5.0
6-6-10
7-8-9
Firm Dark Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
Stiff Gray Fine to Medium Sandy CLAY
CL
Medium Dense Gray Fine Slightly Silty
SAND
SP
SM
Boring Terminated at 15 '
REFER TO ATTACHED SKEET FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-3
DATE 5-9-90
1 �
PAGE 1 OF 1
I

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
0 10 20 40 60 100
0.0
0.4
3.0
7.0
12.0
15.0
TOPSOIL
\ /
3-3-2
5-4-7
5.5
1-3-4
10-12-11
t=-
Firm Tan and Gray Fine to Medium
Sandy CLAY
SC.
Medium Dense Gray and Brown Fine
Clayey SAND
Loose Gray Fine Slightly Silty SAND
SP
SM
Medium Dense Tan Fine Slightly Silty
SAND
SP
SM
Boring Terminated at 15'
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET -FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-4
DATE 5-10-90
PAGE 1 OF 1
0
S&ME

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
0 10 20 40 60 100
0.0
0.3
3.0
6.0
11.0
15.0
TOPSOIL
I
3_g_g
4-5-10 4.5
6-6-3
12-9-10
=-r
Loose Gray Fine to Medium Clayey SAND`
Medium Dense Gray and Brown Fine to
Medium Clayey SAND
Sc
Loose Tan Fine Slightly Silty SAND
SP
SM
Medium Dense Tan Fine Slightly Silty
SAND
SP
SM
Boring Terminated at 15'
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-5
DATE 5-10-90
1
PAGE .1 OF 1
S&ME

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
0 10 20 40 60 100
0.0
0.1
3.0
6.5
10.0
15.0
r TOPSOIL i
CL
4-2-;
4-5-6
5.5 -
6-7-6
8-9-9
Firm Brown Fine to Medium Sandy CLAY
Stiff Brown and Gray Fine to Medium
Sandy CLAY
CL
Medium Dense Gray Fine Clayey Silty
SAND
SM
Medium .Dense Gray Fine Slightly Silty
SAND
SP
SM
Boring Terminated at 15'
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-6
DATE 5-9-90
PAGE 1 OF 1
S&ME

DEPTH
(FT.) 0 10 20 40 60 luu
0.0 TOPSOIL __ 3-3-3
0.4
3.5
7.5
10.0
15.0
11 TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.)
BLOWS PER
SIX IN.
Firm Gray Fine to Medium Sandy CLAY
Firm Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT ML 2-2-3
4.8
Mi' - 4
Medium Dense Gray Fine Silty SAND SM
8-9-12
Medium -Dense Gray Fine Slightly Silty SP
SAND SM
8-9-8
Boring Terminated at 15'
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-7
DATE ) 5-9-90
PAGE 1 OF 1
S&ME

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
0 10 20 40 60 100
0.0
0.4
2.5
5.0
TOPSOIL
2-3-4
4-5-6
Firm Brown Fine Sandy CLAY
Sc
Medium Dense Gray Fine Silty Clayey
SAND
Boring Terminated at 5'
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER 1051-90-250
BORING NUMBER B-8
DATE 5-10-90
1
PAGE 1 OF 1
S&ME

r.r
DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.5
2.5
5.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX IN.
n , n 2n An sn loo
REFER TO ATTACHED SHEET FOR EXPLANATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
i
PAGE 1 OF 1
1051-90-250
B-9
5-10-90
S&ME

RECEIVED
kE'd 2 01989
WiL—,ins on Regional office
ncee
State of Noah Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environir.ental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
November 15, 1989
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMO TO: Roger Thorpe
Preston Howard
FROM: Steve Tedder
Subject: Coastal Stormwater Regulations (Third Directive)
Out -Parcels and Curb and Gutter Considerations
R. Paul Wilms
Director
In some developments it has apparently become a common
practice for developers to designa-e small outlying areas of
their site as out -parcels. These areas are generally one acre or
less and under 15 NCAC 2H .1003 (a; are being excluded from
consideration in designing stormwater control measures. It is
our understanding that these areas are being designated similar
to the following example.
1
2
3
T-4
A
Total Area of Site —> 12 acres I
Parcel A —> 8 acres, commercial development
shopping center, parking, etc.
Out -parcels 1-4 —> 1 acre sites
not to be developed at
this time
15 NCAC 2H .1003 (f) and (g) require that, regardless of the
size of the plots, as long as these parcels are draining to the
site to be developed they should. also be accounted for in
drainage and stormwater control calculations. In determining the
runoff from these sites impervious cover should be taken as the
ultimate 'build -out potential for the area. In most cases, this

Memo To: Roger Thorpe
Preston Howard
November 15, 1989
Page 2
will probably approach 100% impervious cover or at least the
maximum allowed development density for which the area is zoned.
Also, any contiguous land areas that drain to the development
site, regardless of whether they are owned by the developer or
not, should be accounted for in drainage and stormwater
considerations. This is consistent with earlier guidance on
Coastal Stormwater Regulations as outlined in a memo from Chuck
Wakild dated April 7, 1989. A copy of the related section of
this earlier memo is attached.
A second issue involves projects that adhere to all
the low density requirements except that they use curb and
gutters. We have required the developer to treat the road runoff -
in these cases. One acceptable method is to utilize curb inlets
or breaks in the curb to convey stormwater to grassed swales for
treatment. The grassed swales should direct flow to wetland
areas or filter strips before flowing into streams or other
surface waters.
In analyzing the effectiveness of this system, the following
should be considered:
1. As outlined in 15 NCAC 2H .1003 (j) (2), the swale must be
able to carry the peak flow from the 10-yr storm and the
velocity from this storm must be non -erosive.
2. Longitudinal slope of swales should be held as low as
permissible and should not exceed five percent.
3. Side slopes of the swales should be no steeper than 5:1
(h:v).
4. The minimum length of the swale should be 100 feet.
5. Connection of flow from the curb to the swales should
allow for dispersion of the -flow throughout the swale to
avoid erosive potential of concentrated flow.
6. At the outlet of the swales, the flow should be dispersed
in a manner that promotes sheet flow through wetlands or
filter strips. ^
7. In sensitive areas check dams - rock or wooden- may be
added to increase detention time within the swale.
8. Other requirements from 15 NCAC 2H .1003 for infiltration
systems, vegetative filters and channels also apply.
As a method for analyzing the velocity within the swales, refer
to Appendix 8.05 in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Design Manual.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Alan Klimek at [phone].
Attachment
thirdir.mem/tbb.2 DECEIVED
f'--IOV 210 1989
Wilnington Regional Office

=n : i7e5��n off' $�-ormwg-�cr Conkrol �a��l�kies
MEMO TO: Roger Thorpe
Preston Howard
April 7, 1988
Page Two
(� A project should be.subject to the January 1, igee version
yof the regulations if it did not have an approved sedimentation
and erosion control plan and a CAMA major development permit
(whichever is required and/or both if appropriate) before January
1, igee.
Some projects will be submitted in which th.e only immediate
activity will be the grading of roads. The type of site
development will not be determined until a later -time. In these
cases, we should' approve this activity, but state that their
application is incomplete until we receive a stormwater
management plan for the proposed development. We should have the
developer request we put his project on administrative hold until
he decides what to do .
Land areas outside of the project boundary which drain to
an infiltration or wet detention basin must be included in
calculations to determine the needed basin volume. Percent
impervious cover of this upstream area should be conservatively
estimated if the area is not already fully developed. Even a
completely pervious sub -watershed that drains to the
basin contributes some amount of runoff that must be accounted
for in determining basin volumes. The following runoff
coefficients are suggested (from Design and Constructiion of
Sanitary and Storm Sewers, ASCE Manual of Practice No. 37, 1970):
Surface Character Runoff Coefficient
Lawns, Sandy Soil
'Flat 2% 0.08
Average 2-7% 0.12
Steep >7% 0.1e
Lawns, Heavy Soil s
Flat 2% 0.15
Average 2-7% 0.20
Steep >714 0.30
Parks, Golf Courses 0.20
To assist design professional, whose projects drain to SA
waters and exceed the requirements for the low density option,
you may wish to give them a copy of the draft Guidance for
Evaluating Infiltration Systems, DEM-Water Quality Section, April
1986 (copy enclosed). While this is based upon the 2 year storm,
it adequately summarizes the principles and issues of concern in
designing infiltration systems. Hopefully the wor4t-,p#'C.Qg �.cts
will allow us to further refine this guidance. t�C.
` i' +NOV 2 1989