SW8120302_HISTORICAL FILE_20120405

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
© HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
2o12/oylo5
YYYYMMDD

MC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
April 12, 2012
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P. E.
Director
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
Building 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28547
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 120302
French Creek Exchange
High Density Commercial Wet Detention Pond Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit
Application for the French Creek Exchange on April 5, 2012. Staff review of the plans and
specifications has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater
Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and Session Law 2008-211. We are
forwarding Permit No. SW8 120302 dated April 12, 2012, for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the BMP's and built -upon areas associated with the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until April 12, 2020, and shall be subject
to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to the
conditions listed in this permit regarding the Operation and Maintenance of the BMP(s),
recordation of deed restrictions, procedures for changes of ownership, transferring the permit,
and renewing the permit.. Failure to establish an adequate system for operation and
maintenance of the stormwater management system, to record deed restrictions, to transfer the
permit, or to renew the permit, 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 by filing a written petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). The written petition must conform to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and must be filed with the OAH within thirty (30) days of receipt of
this permit. You should contact the OAH with all questions regarding the filing fee (if a filing fee
is required) and/or the details of the filing process at 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-6714, or via telephone at 919-431-3000, or visit their website at www.NCOAH.com.
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, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles Wakild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
GDS/ can: S:1WQS1StormwatehPermits & Projects120121120302 HD12012 04 permit 120302
cc: Zak Shipman, Timmons Group
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] DENR Assistance: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org y �']���1 y�� l/�
An Equal Opportunity V Affirmative Action Employer �/

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120302
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
US Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
French Creek Exchange
intersection of Gonzalez Blvd and River Road, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of one (1) wet detention pond(s) and an area of
redevelopment in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law
2008-211 (hereafter collectively referred to as the "stormwater rules') 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 April 12, 2020, and shall be
subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
1. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. A drainage area of 91,742 square feet that contains 62,631 square feet of impervious
area has been found to meet the redevelopment exclusion criteria under the following
conditions: 1) The project must be constructed as shown on the plans submitted to
this Office; 2) The proposed redevelopment built -upon area of 62,631 square feet
does not exceed the existing built -upon area of 1.5 acres (approx 65,340 square feet),
and, 3) The proposed stormwater control, sheet flow and a stormwater collection as
well as a wet detention pond designed to treat the additional built upon area, provides
equal protection of surface waters as the existing stormwater control of sheet flow and
a stormwater collection system.
3. This stormwater system for the additional development on this site has been approved
for the management of stormwater runoff as described in Section 1.9 of this permit.
The stormwater control has been designed to handle the runoff from 38,244 square
feet of additional impervious area.
4. A 50' wide vegetative buffer must be provided and maintained adjacent surface
waters, measured horizontally from and perpendicular to the normal pool of
impounded structures, the top of bank of both sides of streams and rivers and the
mean high water line of tidal waters.
Page 2 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120302
5. A vegetated filter strip is not required for this pond as it has been designed for a 90%
total suspended solids removal efficiency.
6. The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated in this permit, and
per approved plans. This permit does not provide any allocation of built -upon area for
the future development.
7. 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.
8. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area(s) of this project
must be directed into the permitted stormwater
control system.
9. The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention pond and must
be maintained at design condition:
a. Drainage Area, 9cres:
1.35
Onsite, ft :
58,795
Offsite, ft2:
none
b. Total Impervioul Surfaces, ft2:
38,244
Onsite, ft :
38,244
Offsite, ft2:
none
C. Design Storm, inches:
1.5
d. Average Pond Design Depth, feet:
3.0
e. TSS removal efficiency:
90%
f. Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSL:
20.0
g. Permanent Pool Surface Are.9, ft2:
6,128
h. Permitted Storage Volume, ft :
5,009
i. Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL:
20.7
j. Pre-dev. 1 yr-24 hr. discharge rate, cfs:
13.49
k. Controlling Orifice:
1.0" 0 pipe
I. Orifice flowrate, cfs:
0.01
M. Permitted Forebay Volume, ft3:
2.805
n. Fountain Horsepower
nla
o. Receiving Stream/River Basin:
Cogdels Creek 1 White.Oak
P. Stream Index Number:
19-23
q. Classification of Water Body:
"Sc, NSW"
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Under Section .1003 (b) of the stormwater rules, the entire common plan of
development must be permitted. Therefore, any future development or changes to the
proposed development, including, but not limited to, the relocation of built -upon area
and the construction of additional built -upon area, may require approval or a
Stormwater Management permit application and permit issuance from the Division of
Water Quality prior to any construction. Construction of the project prior to receipt of
the required approval or permit or failure to maintain compliance with the exclusion
conditions, are violations of Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and Session Law 2008-211, and
may result in the initiation of appropriate enforcement action.
2. 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.
3. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of the
system will be repaired immediately.
Page 3 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120302
4. The permittee shall, at all times, provide the operation and maintenance necessary to
assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum efficiency. The signed
and approved Operation and Maintenance Agreement must be followed in its entirety
and maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals.
5. Records of maintenance activities must be kept and made available upon request to
authorized personnel of DWQ. The records will indicate the date, activity, name of
person performing the work and what actions were taken.
6. Decorative spray fountains will not be allowed in the stormwater treatment system
since the permanent pool volume is less than 30,000 fta.
7. 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.
8. 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. A modification may be required for
those deviations.
9. 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.
10. Access to the stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance shall be maintained
via appropriate recorded easements at all times.
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 {clans, 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. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
C. Further development, subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of any, 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.
d. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
12. Prior to the construction of any permitted future areas shown on the approved plans,
the permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans to the Division for
approval.
13. 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.
14. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and
are enforceable parts of the permit. A copy of the approved plans and specifications
shall be maintained on file by the Permittee at all times.
Page 4of7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120302
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and
approval by the Director. At least 30 days prior to a change of ownership, or a name
change of the permittee or of the protect, or a mailing address change, the permittee
must submit a completed and signed Name/Ownership Change Form to the Division
of Water Quality, accompanied by the supporting documentation as listed on the form.
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. Neither the sale of the project in whole
or in part, nor the conveyance of common area to a third party constitutes an
approved transfer of the stormwater permit.
3. Any individual or entity found to be in noncompliance with the provisions of this
storrmwater management permit or the requirements of the Stormwater rules is
subject to enforcement procedures as set forth in G.S. 143 Article 21.
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.
5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, 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.
7. The permit remains in force and effect until modified, revoked, terminated or renewed.
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.
8. 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.
9. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal request 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 12i" day of April, 2012.
NO TH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
a �=S�L
arles akild, P.E., Director
ivision of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 5 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120302
French Creek Exchange
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 120302
Onslow County
Designer's Certification
1, , 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
`roject 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 specifications:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 6 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120302
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 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 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 and located 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.
16. All components of the stormwater BMP are located in either recorded common
areas, or recorded easements.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office
Page 7 of 7

'i ,
Nelson, Christine
From: Zak Shipman [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:26 AM
To: Nelson, Christine
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: quick question on the French Creek Exchange
Christine,
The elevation at the boring location is approximately 23.7 +/-. Since we didn't have a boring directly on -top of the BMP
(which I usually like to do), we consulted with our resident soils scientist to provide an extrapolation on the SHWT call to
the BMP location. We felt like that was an appropriate action given that we didn't have exact boring information in the
precise BMP location, and since the boring that was done was in close proximity to the BMP both horizontally and
vertically.
These soils are mapped as Baymead, which is confirmed by the boring logs. After looking at those boring logs, our LSS
concluded that the SHWT most likely followed the topographic surface of the land for very slight slopes such as what we
have here. Since the low spot at the location of the pond permanent pool is approximately 22.5 +/-, we used 20.5 as our
SHWT depth.
Thanks,
Zak Shipman, PE
Project Engineer 111
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 112 1 Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: 919.866.49371 Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone] [e-mail]
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
From: Nelson, Christine[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 12:09 PM
To: Zak Shipman
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: quick question on the French Creek Exchange
Zac,
You will need to provide more details. The lowest contour elevation that I see on the plans is 23. Please give me the
ground elevation at the boring sites and better details on how you arrived at the SHWT in the BMP. For the next time,
try to get the soil borings at the location of the BMP.
Thanks,
Christine
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Zak Shipman [mailto:Zak.Shipman timmons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:33 AM
To: Nelson, Christine

Od Cc: jim.kleinCfbisfei.com
Subject: Re: quick question on the French Creek Exchange
Christine,
We compared the SHWT borings with the geotech report to come up with our elevation. The SHWT and groundwater
elevations seem to consistently be located at 24 inches and 6 feet below the surface, respectively. Given the short
horizontal distance and the consistent water table and soils types, we determined 20.5 was the elevation at the location
of the pond permanent pool.
Thanks,
ZS
From: Nelson, Christine Finailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:37 PM
To: Zak Shipman; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C <thomas. brads haw(@usmc.mil>
Cc: Russell, Janet <janet.russelMncdenr.gov>
Subject: quick question on the French Creek Exchange
Zak,
Can you help explain how a SHWT elevation of 20.5 was determined for the pond? The soils report indicates that the
SHWT was found 24 inches below the ground surface. From the plans, it appears that the ground elevation in the area
of the borings is approximately 24 ft, which would mean a SHWT elevation of 22 ft.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
State Stormwater Program
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Caw
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.

Stormwater Calculations
French Creek Exchange
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Owners: united States Marine Corps
Prepared by: Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road Suite 112
Raleigh, NC 27607
Date: 3/28/12
Soo*&a1
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR V11I0N ACH16VF0 THROUGH OURS
•ww.[Imm.m.[�m
cL
SEA ter[
035027 �• "

French Creek Exchange
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
5tormwater Design Narrative
Prot Overview and Site Existing Conditions
The French Creek Exchange involves the redevelopment and ex ansio.n of an existing Exchange facility
located near the intersection of River Road at Camp Lejeune. An existing building, parking, and other
vehicle and pedestrian amenities currently occupy the site. An expansion of the existing parking facility
is proposed, as well as an expansion to the current building. Topography is mild and the existing soils on
site are sandy and well drained, although they are not suitable for infiltration type BMP devices. The
Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) was observed to be approximately 24" below grade, making an
infiltration device or bioretention cell impractical.
5tormwater Design and Methodology
Due to the proposed increase in built -upon -area over existing impervious areas, a wet detention basin is
proposed as a stormwater BMP on the site. The design approach, as required by the Division of Water
Quality, was to seek credit for existing impervious areas on the site and provide water quality treatment
for new impervious surfaces to the 90% TSS removal standard and 1.5 inches of runoff.
Pre -development hydrology on the parcel includes an existing impervious cover of approximately 1.5
acres in the form of an existing building, parking, and sidewalks. Proposed improvements to the site,
including a building expansion and parking improvements, will expand the existing impervious area to
approximately 2.31 acres. The resulting new impervious area of approximately 0.81 acres becomes the
target area for water quality treatment.
The design team has engineered a pipe network which produces a drainage area of approximately 1.35
acres with an impervious area of 0.87 acres. This allows treatment for runoff generated from an area
equivalent to that of the newly constructed impervious areas. Runoff from other portions of the site will
be piped into the existing drainage network.
The wet -detention pond will incorporate all of the design features required by the BMP manual,
including a 10:1 safety bench, inverted siphon drawdown orifice, pretreatment forebay, and engineered
outlet device. The water quality volume will be slowly released over a period of approximately four
days. The seasonal high water table is such that we do not anticipate any issues maintaining a
permanent pool in the basin.

Water Quality Runoff Calculation -Simple Method
Watershed Number:
Drainage Area
Impervious Area
Storm Design Rainfall Depth, Rd
Rv=0.05+0.9*ia
V=3630*Rd*Rv*A
1
1.35 ac. % Irnp.= 64.969b
0.877 ac.
1.50 inches
0.63
4665 cf Use 4670 CIF

French Creek Exchange Wet Detention Pond
Camp Lo]ourne, North Carolina
Designed by: wzS Datw 31712012
Stage -Storage Relatfor7shlps
Elevation
Contour Area
Inc. Vo!umo
Accumulated Volume
Stage
can
W)
(err)
20
6128
0
0
0
21
9366
7747
7747
1
22
10951
10159
17908
2
23
12594
11773
29678
3
Overflow Stet Slago: 0.7 fl
Orifice CoMroid Siage: 0 Qa 107 fl (Assumes 1' OriTice)
$tomgo Below slot Elovali 5009 ja S-Ks'Z"b
2 To 5 Day Drawdown Calculatlon
Temporary Pool Volume= a870 cf
Average Driving Head- 0,22 It
2 Day Flow- 0.0270 cfs
5 Day Flow- 0.0108 Cis
2 Day Orillce Miniver- 1,46 in.
5 Day Orifice Diameter= 0.94 in
Use a 1.00 inch orifte
Dnawdown Time= 1 4.40 days
Cafculatod S-S Paramotors:
111— 1,2225
Ks= 7747.000Q
'Drtving Head is Ho/3 per BMP Manual
Chapter 3.5.2 for decreasing drawdowrl

Elevation
Foretiay Conlour Area
plain Pond Aron
Forebay Irr. Volume
Forobay Cum. VO!urlte
Pord lrw. Val
Pond Cum. Vol.
15
83
1271
0
0
0
0
10
168
1575
120
126
1423
1423
17
282
1900
225
351
1736
3161
18
421
2246
355
705
2073
5234
10
786
2818
607
1312
2431
7865
20
2201
3690
1494
2805
3253
10018
Totals
% o1 Total Volemv
2805
10918
20.44

Watershed Model SchematL9raflowHydrographsExtension for AutoCAD®C1,01304D2012byAutodesk,Inc. v9
Drainage Area 1 Post
2 - Wet Pond flouting
4 - Drainage Area 2 Post
ED
ralnage Areal Pre
Project: BMP Routing.gpw
Wednesday, 00 28, 2012

Hydrograph Return Period Rifloprographs Eitension for AutoCADS Civil 3DS 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9
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
—
5.888
7.237
----
----
12.00
14.07
--
17,63
Drainage Area 1 Post
2
Reservoir
1
0.777
1.826
- ---
-- -
4.432
7.371
- - -
12.04
Wet Pond Routing
3
SCS Runoff
------
13.49
16.98
- - -
- -
29.40
34.82
— --
44.12
Drainage Area 1 Pre
4
SCS Runoff
-•----
9.463
11.57
- -»-
18.99
22.23
— --
27.79
Drainage Area 2 Post
Prof. file: BMP Routing.gpw
Wednesday, 00 28, 2012

3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Wednesday, 00 28, 2012
Hyd. No. 1
Drainage Area 1 Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 5.888 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.93 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 12,454 cult
Drainage area
= 1.340 ac
Curve number
= 91
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total, precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area1CN) = [(0.870 x 98) + (0.470 x 79)] 11.340
Drainage Area 1 Post
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year Q (cfs)
6.00 6.00
5.00 5.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0_00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
--- Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs)

4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO2012 by Autodesk, Inc. 0 Wednesday, 00 28, 2012
Hyd. No. 2
Wet Pond Routing
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.777 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.13 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 11,056 cult
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - Drainage Area 1 Post
Max. Elevation
= 20.90 ft
Reservoir name
= Wet Pond 1
Max. Storage
= 6,907 cult
Storage Indication method used,
Q (cfs)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Wet Pond Routing
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
0.00
0 10 20 30 40
--- Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 1
Q (cfs)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
50 60 70 80 90 100
411.r[_ITI Total storage used = 6,907 cult Time (hrs)

Pond Report
Hydratiow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9
Wednesday, 00 28, 2012
Pond No. 1 - Wet Pond 1
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas.
Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 20.00 ft
Stage 1 Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cuff)
0.00 20.00
6,128
0
0
1.00 21.00
9.366
7.689
7,669
2.00 22.00
10.951
10,147
17,836
3.00 23.00
12,594
11.762
29,598
Culvert 1 Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[gl
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A] [gl
[C] [D]
Rise (in) = 24,00
1.00
6.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 16.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Span (in) = 24,00
1.00
30.00
0.00
Crest El. (fl)
= 21.50 0.00
0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1
1
1
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3,33 3.33
3.33 3.33
Invert El. (ft) = 19.50
20.00
20.70
0.00
Weir Type
= 1 -
--- ---
Length(ft) = 375.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes No
No No
Slope (%) = 0.60
0.00
0.00
nla
N-Value = .013
.013
.013
n/a
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Exfil.(inthr)
= 0.000 (by Wet area)
Multi -Stage = n/a
Yes
Yes
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 -1 r
0,00 2.00
Total Q
Note: CulvodlOdfice oureowa are analyzed underinlet (ic) and outlet (cc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (1c) and submergence (a).
Stage / Discharge
4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Elev (ft)
23.00
22.00
21.00
' 20.00
18.00 20.00
Discharge (cis)

6
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Wednesday, 00 28, 2012
Hyd. No. 3
Drainage Area 1 Pre
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 13.49 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.93 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 27,743 cult
Drainage area
= 3.450 ac
Curve number
= 87*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= Oft
Tc method
= User
Time of cone. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type Il
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
" Composite (Area1CN) = ((1.530 x 98) + (1.920 x 79)] 13.450
Drainage Area 1 Pre
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 --1 Year Q (cfs)
14.00 14.00
12.00 12.00
10.00 10.00
8.00 8.00
6.00 6.00
4.00 4.00
2.00 2.00
0.00 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
---- Hyd No. 3 Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Report
Hydratlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D@ 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Wednesday, 00 28, 2012
Hyd. No. 4
Drainage Area 2 Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 9.463 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.93 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 20,214 cult
Drainage area
= 2.100 ac
Curve number
= 92*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area1CN) _ [(1.430 x 98) + (0.670 x 79)] 12.100
Drainage Area 2 Post
Q (cfs} Hyd. No. 4 -- 1 Year (cfs)
10.00 10.00
8,00 8.00
6.00 6.00
4.00 4.00
2.00 2.00
0.00 0,00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Hyd No. 4 Time (hrs)

24
Hydraflow Rainfall Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. v9 Wednesday, 00 28, 2012
Return
Period
Intensity -Duration -Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
(Yrs)
B
D
E
(NIA)
1
0.0000
0.0000
0,0000
---
2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
---- ----
3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
--
5
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
---
10
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
--------
25
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
50
0.0000
0,0000
0.0000
--------
'100
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
---
Flie name: SamplaFHA.idf
Intensity = B 1(Tc + MAE
Return
Period
Intensity Values (inlhr)
(Yrs)
5 min
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50
0.00
0100
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
:1102130032 Camp Leieune Pre -Trial Detainee Facilitv\CalclStm\Onslaw County Deoth-Duration (Hvdraflow).pcq
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Storm
Distribution
1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
SCS 24-hour
3.70
4.40
0.00
3.30
6.90
8.00
6.80
9.90
SCS 6-Hr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff -1st
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.75
0.00
0.00
6.50
0.00
Huff-2nd
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-3rd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Muff-4th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-Indy
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Custom
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.80
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00

FP.mv4ew C24e2K &cAh"G . p&e VS, (vasT A.QW(L+s.� 1 YM-. 4-MMtA
�b�/•1P�{gl'i �=Cb'• 5�ks �C�>eS { 150, 5�sr+ S1°l .
WE1614 ED CIJ s 017
P� t.1-tw PLA-, s: Ca = 13 ,km cat
f 055 MVSL N►EtlTr 'SfTl—=
0 rbs---oSVStorp-ALa„rr
FbNy
biZP,4wAb
�r.�6Rv�q� �¢�r`." o • d� �}c . � 3Y,�� 2+{� s�� CGN- 98}.
�it" ICLA A m"- o.W? Ate55 I Sr-
WXlbAlto C-W ' 4 )
swp�Rvrove Aa�gs w4 7 A,,
,M"&A6 Nax- ' t,, Leg
(AkI641ED CLJZ 92
0.-7 17 G ej. /12,3 tf3 ka.:•V e.P&
rd, yy d�S I,$, 43Lo cFSP

Cas%er; Jo
From:
Casmer, Jo
Sent:
Friday, April 13, 2012 2:53 PM
To:
'[e-mail]'
Subject:
French Creek Exchange SW8 120302
Attachments:
20U 04 permit 120302.doc
Hi Zak: Normally we fax the permit to the owner and consultant when it is issued, however I couldn't get the
fax to go thru to you so I am attaching via email. Camp Lejeune has received their copy.
_Jo GAsxter
Administrative Assistant IV
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality -Surface Water Protection section
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

�4.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER SHEET
Date: Y�J "-j Z
To:
Co: �/ i rn 12-2 a rJ 5 Gam- �cP rJ Lam'
Fax:
Dee Freeman, Secretary
No. Pages (excl. cover):
From: Jo Casmer
Phone. [phone] _ ._
Fax: [phone]
v
Jllir�D
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] 9 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

/rt,
Nelson, Christine
From:
Nelson, Christine
Sent:
Monday, March 26, 2012 4:34 PM
To:
'Bradshaw CIV Thomas C'; [e-mail]
Cc:
Towler CIV David W
Subject:
RE: FC425 Pre-1988 Proof
Thank you Thomas! The site plan was what I was looking for.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other
regulation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bradshaw CIV Thomas C [mailto:thomas.bradshaw usmc.mil]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:08 PM
To: Nelson, Christine; Zak_.Shipman(ntimmons.com
Cc: Towler CIV David W
Subject: RE: FC425 Pre-1988 Proof
Here is the full plan set Christine. It should give you some clarification as to what all
this project covered. I will send it in 5 parts.
Thanks,
Thomas Bradshaw, EIT
Public Works Design, Civil Branch
Camp Lejeune, NC
910-451-3238 ext3285
-----Original Message -----
From: Nelson, Christine jm_ailto:christine.nelson(ncdenr.g-ov_]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 15:51
To: Bradshaw CIV Thomas C; [e-mail]
Cc: Towler CIV David W
Subject: RE: FC425 Pre-1988 Proof
Thomas,
Do you have anything showing, in more detail, what was actually covered or built by these
plans?
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other
regulation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bradshaw CIV Thomas C[mailto:thomas.bradsha4usmc.mil]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 3:09 PM
To: Zak.Shipman(atimmons.com
Cc: Nelson, Christine; Towler CIV David W
Subject: FC425 Pre-1988 Proof

y Zak and Christine,
Attached is the cover page of the design drawings showing the date being 1981 for
design of this building in the bottom corner of the title block.
Thanks,
Thomas Bradshaw, EIT
Public Works Design, Civil Branch
Camp Lejeune, NC
910-451-3238 ext3285
2

( ,C�
3
!Ia
ror. j�"-& vt!A4w&
e. /p��
l oz-e cA
V<�

vi

2 ,,\ d ncfiz_�k,\5
C_ LP 'k 11 r,o 1J . For DENR Use ONLY
_'t � {� 1 Reviewer: Li
North aro 'na Department of Environment and m
_ iSubmit
Natural Resources Time:
e ue
NCDENR Rst for Express Permit Review rme: l
Confirm -c �o 3
FILL -IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. Call and Email the completed form to the
Permit Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan(PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application
ap ckage of the project location. Please include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296-4698;alison.davidson(ancdenr.q_ov
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791-4203; david.leeAncdenr.gov
• Mooresville & Winston Salem Region - Patrick Grogan 704-235-2107 o►patrick.grogan(ZDncdenr.gov
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-948-3842 or l n.hardison ncdenr. ov
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-796-7302 or •anet.russell ncdenr. ov
• Wilmington Region -Cameron Weaver 00-796-7303 or cameron.weave ncdenr.gov
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day.
r ) tQQ
Project Name: FRENCH CREEK EXCHANGE County: ONSLOW 3! � , ! "7 -3 d V
Applicant: KELLY SNOOK Company: CENTENNIAL CONTRACTORS ENTERPRISES INC.
Address: 405 EAST GUDE DR. SUITE 206 City: ROCKVILLE , State: MD Zip: 20850.5330
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
Physical Location:ADJACENT TO INTERSECT —ION OF GONZALEZ BLVD AND RIVER ROAD 1 ^ Z �r
Project Drains into NON -SA waters — Water classification SC (for classification see-http:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/bimsireports/reportsWB.htmi
Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? N, within Y2 mile and draining to class SA waters N or within 1 mile
and draining to class HOW waters? N
Engineer/Consultant: JIM KLEIN Company: BIS ENGINEERING INC 0 ce'"
Address: 15933 CLAYTON RD City: BALLWIN, State: MO Zip: 63011 "1---w I
Phone: [phone], Fax! 636-391-4497, Email: iim.klein(@bisfei.com
SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY FEB 2 1
Enter Related SW
Permits of Reguest
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
❑ Scoping Meeting ONLY ❑ DWQ, ❑ DCM, ❑ DLR. ❑ OTHER:
SECTION TWO:
❑ 401 Unit ❑ Stream Origin Determination: _ # of stream calls -- Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions 4 � ,a a
❑ IntermittentlPerennial Determination: — # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions o C
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification ❑ Isolated Wetland (linear ft or acres) 4 0 0
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance o 0
rlfl5� _
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑ SFR < 1 ac. ❑ Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility ❑ Other
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter — # Curb Outlet Swaies ❑ Off -site [SW (Provide permit #)]
® High Density -Detention Pond T # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration ` #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density —SW Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems / ❑ MOD:❑ Major []'Minor ❑ Plan Revision ❑ Redev. Exclusion 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 3_5 acres to be disturbed.(CK # (for DENR use))
SECTION THREE — PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT {for both scopiing and express meetinq_requestl
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ❑ Yes ® No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ❑ Yes ® No
Received from US ACOE ❑ Yes ® No
Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: —acre(s)
Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ® No
404 Application in Process wi US ALOE: ❑ Yes ® No Permit
For DENR use only
Fee Split for multiple permits•. (Check N 1 Total Fee Amount $
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
$
Variance (❑ Mai; ❑ Min)
$
SW (❑ HD, ❑ LD, ❑ Gen)
$
401:
$
LQS
$
Stream Deter—
$
5�ce�a4r1 AAev-r � r oJ­c k-
NCDENR EXPRESS June 2011 ^ n �� } p j C VN �- L5.
Lei ?

Q1 ��r1or�S Grot..le
S\--�viT
4-0 3
1,
VN CA • C , � 5, o •. s o *� � o r. � dG k-� ,1 CJ � � ^z 4 vo
\d�V=, PVl 6� 0 - S C a re.-41\ovR.` e,\e-�,�- vAa n
--a �$ 4 , ono C_l, c c :-
�- e�- I -c c- — C} c- , n a S e� Prr` S o r v
Ut�
{� 4
mproof
� r u� e C T n Pr- rn- t- Uv
aF Suk Cl,e-,(\ A-
0 u- r. J Uk
V C e�. s l-.
err\ d► S o
C� •,v ear- s ; d �, d , �-c.� r."S � ►�
5 � s L\n w,r,
d d re s5 r 0, i � h �-�-.� � � .r e . S� � ► I •zfk � o
rfin C -L,
�1 down Pv� r. us r-- ..J C)CA
S a r ore. nSle L4,000
5oca G i, c r� 1 C-0 %o n 5

\Nll�
/
1
1V
V
FINT L
`a.l� -
v, 1 UT � �►

Wei Sta S * t,,
S J ir�. 11 C-. For OENR Use ON
Reviewer:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Mkcs
AG41),V. Natural Resources sUa
NCDENR Request for Express Permit Review ime: l l
Confirm:
FiLL-iN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. Call and Email the completed form to the
Permit Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative. site plan (PDF file) and vicinity man (same items expected in the application
ap ckage of the project location. Please include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296-4698;aiison.davidson ncdenr.gov
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791-4203; david.iee(@.ncdenr.pov
• Mooresville & Winston Salem Region - Patrick Grogan 704-235-2107 or patrick.grogan ncdenr.gov
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-948-3842 or lyn.hardisonAncdear.gov
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-796-7302 or 'anet.russell ncdenr. ov
• Wilmington Region -Cameron Weaver 910-796-7303 or cameron.weaverAncdenr.gov
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day.
Project Name: FRENCH CREEK EXCHANGE County: ONSLOW Z P , 3 � ? � 318
Applicant: KELLY SNOOK Company: CENTENNIAL CONTRACTORS ENTERPRISES, INC.
Address: 405 EAST GUIDE DR. SUITE 206 City: ROCKVILLE , State: MD Zip: 20850-5330 �3 13 3 J l �(13 I I�
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail] On
Physical Location:ADJACENT TO INTERSECTION OF GONZALEZ BLVD AND RIVER ROAD l 2�.
Project Drains into NON -SA waters - Water classification SC (for classification see-http:llh2o.enr. state. nc.usibimslreportsireportsWB.html)
Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? N, within'h mile and draining to class SA waters N= or within 1 mile
and draining to class HQW waters? N
Engineer/Consultant: JIM KLEIN Company: BIS ENGINEERING INC d Ce pr -)
Address: 15933 CLAYTON RD City: BALLWIN, State: MO Zip: 63011 ECE_ IVED
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: 'i� [e-mail] 11
SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY FEB 2 1 Z012
❑ Scoping Meeting ONLY ❑ DWQ, ❑ DCM, ❑ DLR, ❑ OTHER:
Enter Related SW
Permits of Request
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SECTION TWO: CHECK ONLY
❑ 401 Unit ❑ Stream Origin Determination: _ # of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination: # of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification ❑ Isolated Wetland (_linear ft or _acres)
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑ SFR < 1 ac. ❑ Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility ❑ Other
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter — # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW (Provide permit #)]
® High Density -Detention Pond 1 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -SW Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems / ❑ MOD:❑ Major ❑ Minor ❑ Plan Revision ❑ Redev. Exclusion SW (Provide permit N)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
® Land Quality ® Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with 3_5 acres to be disturbed.(CK #. (for DENR use))
SECTION THREE -.PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT (for both_scoping and express meeting request)
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: _acre(s)
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ❑ Yes ® No Isolated wetland on Property [:1 Yes ® No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ❑ Yes ® No 404 Application in Process wl US ACOE: ❑ Yes ® No Permit
Received from US ACOE [-I Yes ® No
For DENR use on]y
Fee Split for multiple permits: (Check # 1 Total Fee Amount $
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
SUBMITTAL. DATES
Fee
LAMA
$
Variance (❑ Mai; ❑ Min)
$
SW (❑ FED, ❑ LD, ❑ Gen)
1
$
401:
$
LQS
$
Stream Deter,_
$
c,JIr.A� �I c.+4-{' �.X�s� • S�M,.�c�ui'v CorlSfirw.c�c�- ?
r oJ_�c_k- d r-+ , n s Jkv
NCDENR EXPRESS June 2011 4 C) n CAJ- 4) l�, Cp" tS 1"1
P t
fi
y ot,.` c �Z. no-� CJAW-r� l n S
Lej �

�
t
�
2
LU
. y �

Russell, Janet
From: Klein, Jim [Jim. [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10.29 AM
To: Russell, Janet
Cc: Towler CIV David W; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C; Zak Shipman; Brinson, Dick
Subject: RE: French Creek Exchange
Janet,
To answer your questions:
- Carl Baker is the representative for Camp Lejeune and is the acting owner and applicant
- The existing structure was constructed before 1988 and it does not have an existing stormwater permit.
- The project drains to Cogdels Creek (class SC -NSW)
- The project does not drain to SA waters.
Let me know if you have any other questions/comments. Thanks.
Jim Klein, PE, MBA
BIS Engineering Inc.
Civil Engineer
15933 Clayton Road, Suite 305
Ballwin, MO 63011
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: jim.klein(d,)bisfei.com
htt-,Itwww.bisfei.com
A member of the Bilfinger Berger Industrial Services Group
Please consider the environment before printing.
From: Russell, Janet[ma ilto_janet. [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:27 PM
To: Klein, Jim
Cc: Towler CIV David W; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C
Subject: French Creek Exchange
Jim
The Express Stormwater and Erosion Control Meeting has been scheduled with Christine Nelson and Rhonda Hall on
Tuesday, March 6 at 11:00AM here in the Wilmington Regional Office.
I have attached a handout that could have some helpful information on it. Also, I am forwarding by separate email a link
to the erosion control requirements that are above and beyond what is in the Erosion Design Manual. These were
required by the EPA and are being implemented by NC DENR.

Russell, Janet
From:
Klein, Jim [Jim,[e-mail]
Sent:
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:26 PM
To:
Russell, Janet
Cc:
Brinson, Dick; [e-mail]; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C; Snook, Kelly;
[e-mail]; Kleekamp, Sandy
Subject:
RE: Onslow Beach Marine Mart Exclusion and French Creek Exchange Express Submittals
Attachments:
C-102.pdf; French Creek Vicinity Mapx•pdf; REQUESTEXPRESS2011.pdf; SW Design
Narrative 9-19-11 x.pdf; USGS Map French Creek.pdf; 018 - Janet Russell - Express SW and
Erosion prelim.pdf
Janet,
I've attached the requested items for your review.
Also, our team is available to meet 3/6 through 3/8 as well as 3/13 through 3/15. Some will be traveling so the best time
would be between 10:00am and 2:00 pm on any of those dates.
Please let me know as soon as you can when would be best for you so that we can make travel arrangements. Thanks,
Janet.
Jim Klein, PE, MBA
BIS Engineering Inc.
Civil Engineer
15933 Clayton Road; Suite 305
Ballwin, MO 63011
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
hftp://www.bisfei.com
A member of the Bilfinger Berger Industrial Services Group
Please consider the environment before printing.
From: Russell, Janetfmailto:ianet.russellCabncdenr.aovl
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:48 PM
To: Klein, Jim
Subject: RE: Onslow Beach Marine Mart Exclusion and French Creek Exchange Express Submittals
Jim:
I am the Coordinator for the Express Program here in Wilmington (401 Wetlands, Coastal Mgt., Stormwater and Erosion
Control). I have attached an Express Request Form. Please email that completed form to me along with the following:
1. Vicinity Map with Road Names f VE
2. Pdf Site Plan
3. Project Narrative (brief, don't need erosion control details) FEB 2 1 L�lZ
4. USGS Quad Sheet Section with the Project Located On It
5. 3 or 4 dates when you and your client are available to meet
I will need a separate Request for each 12roaect.
Once we receive this information, we will get an Express Meeting scheduled. All project submittals are done in person
through a meeting. We go over the pieces and parts of the application and plans in the meeting to make sure

ECS C A R O L I N A S, LLP "setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical - Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Er4neeringFirm F-1078
August 17, 2011
Mr. Jim Klein, P.E.
BIS Frucon Engineering Inc,
15933 Clayton Road, Suite 305
Ballwin, Missouri 63011
Reference: Report of Infiltration Testing
French Creek Exchange
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 22.16976
Dear Mr. Klein:
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) recently conducted infiltration testing for the proposed
stormwater best management practice (BMP) areas off of Gonzalez Boulevard, on
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina. This letter, with attachments, is the
report of our testing.
Field Testing
On August 5, 2011, ECS met with Mr. Vincent Lewis with NCDENR in order to locate
the requested boring locations and conduct an exploration of the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions at two requested locations shown on the attached Test
Location Plan (Figure 1). The test areas were located by using a boring location plan
provided by BIS Frucon Engineering, Inc. The purpose of this exploration was to
obtain subsurface information of the in -place soils for the proposed stormwater BMP
area. ECS explored the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by advancing one
hand auger boring into the existing ground surface at the requested boring locations.
ECS visually classified the subsurface soils and obtained representative samples of
each soil type encountered. ECS also recorded the groundwater level and the
seasonal high water table (SHWT) observed at the time of the hand auger borings. The
attached Infiltration Testing Form provides a summary of the subsurface conditions
encountered at the hand auger boring locations.
The groundwater level and the SHWT were estimated at the boring locations below the
existing grade elevation. A summary of the findings are as follows:
Locafiidn
_ ... SHWT
1
241nches
2
24 inches
ECS has conducted two infiltration tests utilizing a compact constant head
permeameter near the hand auger borings to estimate the infiltration rate for the
subsurface soils. infiltration tests are typically conducted at two feet above the SHWT.
If the SHWT is less than three feet, the tests are' conducted at ten inches below that,
surface elevation. I � �V% �► 1
MAR 2 6 2012
3Y:
7211 Ogden Business Park, Suite 201, Wilmington, NC 28411 • T. 910-686-9114 - F: 910-686-9666 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC - ECS Midwest, LLC - ECS Mid-Manbc, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

Report of Infiltration Testing
French Creek Exchange
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina'
ECS Project No. 22.16975
August 17, 2011
Field Test Results
Below is a summary of the infiltration test results:
Location
Des'dfiptiorii
Dd t1i
10hesl,
::.
hour
1
Gray/tan/orange clayey SAND
10 inches
0.40
2
Gra ttanloran a clayey SAND
10 inches
0.10
Infiltration rates and SHWT may vary within the proposed site due to changes in
elevation and subsurface conditions.
Closure
The activities and evaluative approaches used in this assessment are consistent with
those normally employed in assessments of this type. ECS's testing of site conditions has
been based on our understanding of the project information and the data obtained daring
our field activities.
ECS appreciates the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you
have any questions concerning this report or this project, please contact us at (910) 686-
9114.
Respectfully,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
K. Brooks Wall Kris J. tamm
Project Manager Principal
Attachments: Figure 1 - Test Location Plan
Infiltration Testing Form
.,may7V
4.D
MAR 2 6 Z012
2 ��

•,
W
� #• G L —{off ' r
•...5 ! �r �r _
•
.w
� a
4�1
Vlgf. �
_ ..
_.
w•:
��]�y�F�
I
I
I 1
NAf W
�
i
r
_
® APPROXIMATE TEST LOCATIONS
French Creek Exchange
Camp Lejeune, NC
ECS Project # 22.16975
August 5, 2011
KBW
Figure 1—Test Location Plan
Provided by: BIS Frucon Eng. Inc.
-LLP
MAR 2 6 201Z
RV.

Infiltration Testing Form
French Cr(§ek Exchange Site
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 22.16975
August 5, 2011
Location Depth Soil Description
1 0-36" Gray/tan/orange clayey SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 24 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Infiltration Rate: 0.40 inches per hour
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
Location Depth Soil Description
2 0-36" Gray/tan/orange clayey SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 24 inches below the
existing grade elevation.
Infiltration Rate: 0.10 inches per hour
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing grade elevation
MAR 2 6 2012
BY i

LE
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS
FRENCH CREEK EXCHANGE ADDITION
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Its
PREPARED FOR:
MR. RICHARD BRINSON
BIS FRUCON ENGINEERING, INC.
15933 CLAYTON ROAD
SUITE 305
BALLWIN, MISSOURI 63011
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP PROJECT NO.: 22.16810
JUNE 27, 2011
SD
MAR 2 S 2012
V.

E c S C A R o L i N A S, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnicai - Construction Materials • Environmental - Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F-1078
Jane 27, 2011
Mr. Richard Brinson
BIS Frucon Engineering, Inc.
15933 Clayton Road
Suite 305
Ballwin, Missouri 63011
Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
Dear Mr. Brinson:
As authorized by your execution of the Stab -consultant Agreement No. 801012.01-9001,
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed a subsurface exploration for the subject
project. This report presents the results of the field exploration and engineering
analysis, along with our recommendations for design of geotechnical related items.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of this
project and look forward to our continued involvement during the construction phase. If
you have any questions concerning the information and recommendations presented in
this report, please contact us at [phone] for further assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Micah F. Hatch, E.I.
Project Manager
[tL�kxD t
Winslow E. Goins, P.E.
Project Engineer
North Carolina License No. 033751
IZ14e J-K -
Walid M. Sobh, P.E.
Principal Engineer
North Carolina License No. 022983
7211 Ogden Business Park, Suite 201, Wilmington, NC 28411 - T 910-686-9114 • R 910-686-9666 - www.ecs[imited.com
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Carolinas, LLP - ECS Florida, LLC • ECS MGdwest, LLC • ECS Mid Mantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS
FRENCH CREEK EXCHANGE ADDITION
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
MR. RICHARD BRINSON
BIS FRUCON ENGINEERING, INC.
15933 CLAYTON ROAD
SUITE 306
BALLWIN, MISSOURI 63011
PREPARED BY:
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
7211 OGDEN BUSINESS PARK
SUITE 201
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28411
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP PROJECT NO.: 22.16810
FIRM NO. F-1087
,�++fllJl�l�
W11 ®1�L dJbINS. P.E.
�,'�'
O �
J/O � '
AFL Q� KEr
51
)VA
N't� � 33751
JUNE 27, 2011
MAR 2 6 2012
3X:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................2
2.1 Project Information..........................................................................................................2
2.2 Scope of Work.................................................................................................................2
2.3 Purpose of Exploration....................................................................................................2
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES..........................................................................................3
3.1 Subsurface Exploration Procedures.................................................................................3
3.1.1 Soil Test Boring.......................................................................................................3
3.2 Laboratory Testing Program............................................................................................3
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS..............................................................................................I....4
4.1 Site Conditions................................................................................................................4
4.2 Regional Geology............................................................................................................4
4.3 Soil Conditions.................................................................................................................4
4.4 Groundwater Conditions.................................................................................................. 5
4.5 Laboratory Test Results..................................................................................................5
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................6
5.1
Subgrade Preparation......................................................................................................6
5.2
Engineered Fill Placement...............................................................................................7
5.3
Foundations Design.........................................................................................................8
5.4
Floor Slab Design............................................................................................................9
5.5
Lateral Earth Pressures..................................................................................................9
5.6
Excavation Conditions and Dewatering.........................................................................10
5.7
Pavement Design Considerations..................................................................................10
5.8
Site Drainage.. ........................................................................... . ..................................
11
5.9
Construction Considerations.........................................................................................12
6.0 CLOSING...........................................................................................................................13
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -FIGURES
APPENDIX B-SPT BORING LOGS AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, DESCRIPTION, AND TERMINOLOGY
APPENDIX C-LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX D-GE NERAL CONDITIONS
APPENDIX E-PROCEDURES REGARDING FIELD LOGS, LABORATORY DATA SHEETS, AND SAMPLES

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the proposed site located in MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The project is
located on Gonzalez Boulevard. The site is currently occupied by a Marine Corps Exchange
(MCX) and asphalt paved parking lot. The site is relatively level with typical elevations' ranging
from 8 to 10 feet referencing the benchmark (bottom lip of existing hydrant 5-199-6) elevation as
10 feet
ECS understands that the construction will consist of an approximately 4,000 square foot addition
to the existing Exchange building. The maximum column loads are estimated at 75 kips.
Additional project information including site grading was not available at the time this report was
prepared.
Approximately 2 inches of asphalt pavement underlain by 6 inches of ABC stone was reported
by the drillers at the boring locations. Beneath the surface materials to a depth of
approximately 12 feet, the test borings typically encountered intermittent layers of medium
dense and dense silty and clean sands (SM, SP). From 12 feet to depths of approximately 25
feet, the test borings typically encountered Intermittent layers of loose, medium dense, and very
dense silty and clean sands (SM, SP) and very soft sandy clays (CL).
In summary, the proposed building can be supported on conventional shallow foundations. For
foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this
report, a net allowable soil bearing pressures of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is
recommended for use'lln proportioning shallow foundations. We request the opportunity to
review our foundation recommendations and make any necessary changes once building
location, structural loads, and site design grades are determined.
Specific information regarding the subsurface exploration procedures used, the site and
subsurface conditions at the time of our exploration, and our conclusions and recommendations
concerning the geotechnical design and construction aspects of the project are discussed in
detail in the subsequent sections of this report. Please note this Executive Summary is an
important part of this report and should be considered a "summary" only. The subsequent
sections of this report constitute our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in their
entirety.
Prepared By:
Micah F. Hatch, E.I.
Project Manager
Reviewed By:
Winslow E. Goins, P.E.
Project Engineer
Walid M. Sobh, P.E.
Principal Engineer
MAR 2 6 1012
,

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
2.1 Prolect Information
Our understanding of the proposed project is based upon on our discussions with BIS Frucon
Engineering, Inc. and a review of the Project Validation Assessment document provided by BIS
Frucon Engineering, Inc. The proposed site is located on Gonzalez Boulevard on MCB Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina. The site is currently occupied by a Marine Corps Exchange (MCX) and
asphalt paved parking lot. The site is relatively level with typical elevations ranging from 8 to 10
feet referencing the benchmark (bottom lip of existing hydrant 5-199-6) elevation as 10 feet.
ECS understands that the construction will consist of an approximately 4,000 square foot addition
to the' existing Exchange building. The maximum column loads are estimated at 75 kips.
Additional project information including site grading was not available at the time this report was
prepared.
2.2 Scope of Work
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of:
• two standard penetration test soil borings (SPT),
• visual examination of the samples obtained during our field exploration,
• the results of select laboratory index and engineering properties testing,
engineering analyses of the field and laboratory findings with respect to the provided project
information.
2.3 Purposes of Exploration
The purpose of this exploration program was to determine the soil and groundwater conditions
at the site and to develop engineering recommendations to assist in the design and
construction of the proposed project. We accomplished these objectives by:
• performing a site reconnaissance to evaluate the existing site conditions,
• drilling test borings to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions,
• performing laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples from the borings
to evaluate pertinent engineering properties; and
• analyzing the field data to develop appropriate geotechnical engineering design and
construction recommendations.
K

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MOB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
3.1 Subsurface Explorafion Procedures
3.1.1.Soll Test Borings
The four soil test borings drilled on the site were performed using a trailer -mounted CME 450
drill rig utilizing various cutting bits and mud rotary drilling to advance the bore holes.
Representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split -barrel sampling procedure in
general conformance with ASTM D-1586. In this procedure, a 24nch O.D., split -barrel sampler
Is driven into the soil a distance of 18 or 24 inches by a 140-pound hammer failing 30 inches.
The number of blows required to drive the sampler through a 12-inch interval is termed the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) value and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs in
Appendix B.
The SPT value can be Used as a qualitative indication of the in -place relative density of
cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, It also indicates the consistency of cohesive soils.
This Indication Is qualitative, since many factors can affect the standard penetration resistance
value (i.e., differences between drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer -rod -
sampler assemblies) and prevent a direct correlation between SPT resistance value, or N-
Value, and the consistency or relative density of the tested soil. Split -spoon samples were
obtained continuously within the upper 10 feet and at approximately 5-foot intervals thereafter.
The approximate locations of the soil test borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan in
Appendix A of this report.
The drilling crew maintained a field log of the soils encountered in the borings. After recovery,
each sample was removed from the sampler and visually classified. Representative portions of
each soil sample were then sealed in air -tight containers• and brought to our laboratory in
Wilmington, North Carolina for visual examination and formal classification by a geotechnical
engineer in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System guidelines.
3.2 Laboratory Testina Program
Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were selected and tested in
our laboratory to check field classifications and to determine 'pertinent engineering properties.
The laboratory testing program included:
• visual classifications of soil according to ASTM D 2487;
• index property testing included natural moisture content determinations (ASTM D 2216),
Atterberg limits analysis (ASTM D 4318), and grain size analysis (ASTM D 1140).
All data obtained from the laboratory tests. are included on the Laboratory Testing Summary
and in Appendix C of this report.
The soil samples collected for this investigation will be retained at our laboratory for a period of
sixty (60) days, after which they will be discarded unless other instructions are received as to
their disposition.
MAR 2 6 tU1Z

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnlcal Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Additlon
MCS Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS
4.1 Site Conditions
The proposed site' Is located at the intersection of Beach Road and Ocean Drive on MCB Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina. The site is currently occupied by a one story building and asphalt paved
parking lots. The site is relatively level with typical elevations ranging from 8 to 10 feet referencing
the benchmark (bottom lip of existing hydrant 5-199-6) elevation as 10 feet.
4.2 Realonai Geolo�ly
The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal
Plain is composed of seven terraces, each representing a former level of the Atlantic Ocean.
Soils in this area generally consist of sedimentary materials transported from other areas by the
ocean or rivers. These deposits vary in thickness from a thin veneer along the western edge of
the region to more than 10,000 feet near the coast. The sedimentary deposits of the Coastal
Plain rest upon consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the Piedmont and Mountain
Physiographic Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement within the
overlying soils is largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs primarily by
infiltration along higher elevations and typically discharges into streams or other surface water
bodies. The elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly with seasonal
fluctuations in precipitation.
4.3 Soil Conditions
SPT Borings: Approximately 2 inches of asphalt pavement underlain by 6 inches of ABC stone
was reported by the drillers at the boring locations. Beneath the surface materials to a depth of
approximately 12 feet, the test borings typically encountered intermittent layers of medium
dense and dense silty and clean sands (SM, SP). Standard penetration test resistances (N-
values) in these soils generally ranged from 12 to 34 blows per foot (bpf).
From 12 feet to depths of approximately 25 feet, the test borings typically encountered
intermittent layers of loose, medium dense, and very dense silty and clean sands (SM, SP) and
very soft sandy clays (CL). Standard penetration test resistances (N-values) in these soils
generally ranged from W.O.H (Weight of Hammer) to 51 bpf.
The descriptions provided in this section are a general summary of the subsurface conditions
encountered within the test borings. The Test Boring Records in Appendix B contain detailed
information recorded at each of the boring locations and represent the geotechnical engineer's
interpretation of the data based on visual examination of the soil samples obtained during the
field exploration. The stratification lines on the Test Boring Records represent approximate
boundaries between material types and the actual transition between strata is expected to be
gradual.
4

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
4A Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater observations were made at the completion of drilling .operations and 24 hours
after the completion of drilling operations at all boring locations. Furthermore, visual
observations of the samples retrieved during drilling exploration were also used in evaluating
time groundwater conditions. The groundwater depths were observed as 3.4 and 4.3 feet below
the existing grade after completion of the borings. The groundwater depths were observed as
6.1 and 6.6 feet below the existing grades 24 hours after completion of the borings.
The highest groundwater observations are normally encountered In the late winter and early
spring. Variations in the location of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes
in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, and other factors not immediately apparent at
the time of this exploration. If long term water levels are crucial to the development of this site,
it would be prudent to verify water levels with the use of perforated pipes or piezometers.
4.6 Laboratory Test Results
Index and engineering properties tests were performed on select samples of the sample soils
encountered within the test borings. In summary, the tested samples had in -situ moisture
contents of 15.8 and 42.3 percent.
The grain size analysis of the tested sample indicated that the tested material had 26.2 percent
fines passing the number 200 sieve.
The Atterberg limits analysis of the tested sample indicated a liquid limit of 40, a plastic limit of
20 and a plasticity index of. 20.
The modified Proctor test of the bulk sample obtained from the upper three feet near Boring B-1
resulted in maximum dry density of 114.0 and optimum moisture content of 9.9.
The CBR test of the bulk sample obtained from the upper three feet near Boring B-1 resulted in
a CBR value of 35.6 at 0.1 inches of penetration. ECS recommends that a maximum CBR
value of 10 be used for pavement design.
Specific laboratory test results are provided in the Laboratory Testing Summary and in
Appendix D of this report.
5
MAR 2 6 Z01Z

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Crook Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the
proposed construction, the information provided to us during this study and our past experience
With similar conditions. Should any of the information provided to us be changed prior to final
design, ECS should be notified to review these recommendations and make appropriate
revisions, if necessary.
5.1 Subarade Preparation
The first step in preparing the site for the proposed construction should be to remove all
vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, deleterious materials, existing pavement, foundations and utilities
and any other soft or unsuitable materials from the existing ground surface. These operations
should extend at least 10 feet, where possible, beyond the planned limits of the proposed
building and pavements.
After proper clearing, stripping, grubbing, and prior to fill placement, foundation, slab, or
roadway construction, the exposed subgrade soils should be carefully evaluated by an
experienced geotechnical engineer to identify any localized unstable or otherwise unsuitable
materials. After evaluating the exposed soils, loose and yielding areas should be identified by
proofrolling the exposed subgrades, if site and subsurface conditions allow, with an approved
piece of equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, having a single -axle weight of at least 10
tons. During this process, it may be necessary to allow groundwater brought to the surface
during densification to recede prior to continued densification or subsequent fill placement. Any
soft or unsuitable materials identified during proofrolling operations should be either repaired in -
place or removed and replaced with an approved backfili placed and compacted in accordance
with recommendations of this report.
Site subgrade conditions will be significantly influenced by weather conditions. Subgrades that
are evaluated after periods of rainfall will not respond as well to proofrolling as subgrades that
are evaluated after periods of more favorable weather. We strongly recommend that rubber
fire equipment not be used if subgrade conditions exhibit elevated moisture conditions. The
contractor should use tracked equipment to minimize the degradation of marginally stable
subgrade..
The preparation of fill subgrades, as well as proposed building subgrades, should be observed
on a full-time basis by a representative of ECS. These observations should be performed by an
experienced geotechnical engineer, or his representative, to ensure that all unsuitable materials
have been removed and that the prepared subgrade is suitable for support of the proposed
construction and/or fills.
6

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creels Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
5.2 Enla€neered Pill Placement
Following the removal of deleterious surface and subsurface materials, and after achieving a
stable subgrade, engineered fills .can be placed and compacted to achieve the desired site
grades. All till for support of the proposed construction and for backflll of utility lines within
expanded building and pavement limits should consist of an approved material, free of organic
matter and debris and cobbles greater than 3 inches, and have a Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity
Index (PI) less than 40 and 20, respectively. We also recommend that all fills within structural
areas have a modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557) maximum dry density of at least 100 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf).
Unsuitable fill materials Include topsoil, organic materials (OH, OL), and high plasticity clays
and silts (CH, MH). All such materials removed during grading operations should be either
stockpiled for later use in landscape fills, or placed In approved on or off -site disposal areas.
An examination of the soils recovered during our current exploration, and our previous
experience in the area, indicates that the majority of the on -site soils will generally be suitable
for re -use as engineered fill. However, it is expected that moisture condltloning of the fill soils
will be required during placement to facilitate proper compaction. In some areas, substantial
drying may be needed and it may not be feasible to attempt to re -use such materials as
engineered fill.
Existing soils containing significant amounts of organic matter will not be suitable for re -use as
engineered fill. As such, the organic content of the near surface soils should be evaluated to
determine if some of these soils will be suitable for reuse as engineered fill. Natural fine-
grained soils classified as clays or silts (CL, ML) with LL and Pl greater than 40 and 20,
respectively, should be evaluated by the geatechnical engineer at the time of construction to
determine their suitability for use as engineered fill.
Prior to the commencement of fill operations and/or utilization of any off -site borrow materials,
the contractor should provide representative samples of the proposed fill soils to the
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer can determine the material's suitability for
use as an engineered fill and develop moisture -density relationships in accordance with the
recommendations provided herein. Samples should be provided to the geotechnical engineer
at least 3 to 5 days prior to their use in the field to allow for the appropriate laboratory testing to
be performed.
Fill materials placed within the building and pavement areas should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in loose lift thickness and moisture conditioned to within their working range
of optimum moisture content. The fills should then be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
of the soil's modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557) maximum dry density to within 12 inches below
finished subgrade. - The upper 12 inches of fills placed beneath structural development should
be compacted to 98 percent of the soil's modified Proctor maximum dry density. The typical
working range of optimum moisture for the natural Coastal Plain soils at the site is expected to
be within approximately 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Care should also be taken
to provide a smooth, gently sloping ground surface at the end of each days earthwork activities
to help reduce the potential for ponding and absorption of surface water.
EauL�
MAR 2 6 Z412
By;

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, Norttr Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
Grade controls should also be maintained throughout the filling operations. All filling operations
should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified representative of ECS to determine that
the required degrees of compaction are being achieved. We recommend that a minimum of
one compaction test per 2,000-square-foot area be performed for each lift of controlled fill. The
elevation and location of the tests should be clearly identified at the time of fill placement.
Areas which fail to achieve the required degree of compaction should be re worked until the
specified degree of compaction is achieved. Failing test areas may require moisture
adjustments or other suitable remedial activities In order to achieve the required compaction.
Fill materials should not be placed on frozen, frost -heaved, and/or soils which have been
recently subjected to precipitation. All wet or frozen soils should be removed prior to the
continuation of site grading and fill placement. Borrow fill materials, if required, should not
contain excessively wet or frozen materials at the time of placement. Additionally, if grading
operations occur during the winter months, all frost -heaved soils should be removed prior to
placement of engineered fill, granular sub -base materials, foundation or slab concrete, and
asphalt pavement materials.
If problems are encountered during the site grading operations, or if the actual site conditions
differ from those encountered during our subsurface exploration, the geotechnical engineer
should be notified immediately.
5.3 Foundations -Rea
ommendations
Provided the subgrade preparation and earthwork operations are completed in strict
accordance with the recommendations of this report, the proposed construction can be
supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on approved natural materials and/or
properly compacted fill. We recommend a net allowable design soil bearing pressure of 2,000
psf for proportioning continuous and isolated column footings. To reduce the possibility of
foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local shear or "punching" failures,
we recommend that continuous footings have a minimum width of 18 Inches and that isolated
column footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 30 inches. Furthermore, all footings
should bear at a depth to provide adequate frost cover protection. For this region, we
recommend the bearing elevation be a, minimum depth of 12 inches below the finished exterior
grade or in accordance with the local building code requirements. We request the opportunity
to review our foundation recommendations -and make any necessary changes once structural
loads and site design grades are determined.
The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted to the
foundation bearing soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The
final footing elevation must be evaluated by ECS personnel to verify that the bearing soils are
capable of supporting the recommended net allowable bearing pressure and suitable for
foundation construction. These evaluations should include visual observations; hand rod
probing, and dynamic cone penetrometer (ASTM STP 399) testing, or other methods deemed
appropriate by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, in each column footing
excavation and at intervals not greater than 20 feet in continuous footing excavations.
8

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creak Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejaune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.. 22.16810
The settlement of a structure is a function of the compressibility of the bearing materials,
bearing pressure, actual structural loads, fill depths, and the bearing elevation of footings with
respect to the final ground surface elevation. Estimates of settlement for foundations bearing
on engineered or non -engineered fills are strongly dependent on the quality of fill placed.
Factors which may affect the quality of fill include maximum loose lift thickness of the fills
placed and the amount of compactive effort placed on each lift. Provided the recommendations
outlined in this report are strictly adhered to, we expect that total settlements for the proposed
construction are expected to be in the range of 1 Inch or less, while the differential settlement
will be approximately % of the anticipated total settlement. This evaluation is based on our
engineering experience and the structural loadings provided for this type of structure, and is
Intended to aid the structural engineer with his design.
5.4 Floor Slab Dead
Provided a suitable subgrade will be prepared as recommended herein, ground level slabs can
be designed as slabs -on -grade with out surcharging the building pad. Our findings indicate that
a modulus of subgrade reaction (kJ of 150 pci is appropriate for design provided that upper 12
Inches of the slab subgrade soils have been uniformly compacted to at least 98 percent of their
modified Proctor maximum dry density.
We also recommend that all slabs -on -grade be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of open
graded aggregate to help prevent the capillary rise of subsurface moisture from adversely
affecting the slab. If floor covering such as the or carpet will be utilized for interior finishes, a
Polyethylene vapor barrier may be used . beneath the floor slab for moisture control
considerations.
5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures
Any below -grade or retaining walls utilized for this project should be designed to withstand the
lateral earth pressures exerted upon them. In the design of below -grade retaining walls to
restrain compacted sandy engineered fill or sandy in -situ natural soils, the following soil
parameters can be utilized:
Coefficient
Coefficient
Coefficient
Friction
Effective Unit
Soil
of Active
of Passive
of At Rest
Angie far
Cohesion
Weight
Property
Earth
Earth
Earth
Sail
for Sail
(below water
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
table)
0-12 Feet
Below
0.29
3.39
0.45
33
0
110 pcf
Existing
(47.6 pcf)
Grade
12-25 Feet
Below
Existing
0.36
2.77
0.53
28
0
42.6 pcf
Grade
g
MAR 2 6 ZU1Z
'ICI.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
These recommendations have assumed no surcharge loads. The recommended coefficient of
friction is 0.40 for concrete over soil. The Increased lateral -pressures generated by surcharge
loads (i.e. slopes, parking and building areas, etc.) should be considered in the design. Based
on our subsurface findings, shallow groundwater levels were measured at the site. We
anticipate that the below grade walls will be properly and adequately waterproofed. The wall
should be designed to resist hydro static pressures.
For wall conditions where wall movement cannot be tolerated or where the wall Is restrained at
the top, the "At Rest" earth pressure should be used. For wall conditions where outward wall
movement in the range of 0.5 to 1 percent of the wall height can be tolerated, the "Active" earth
pressure should be used. In evaluating the resistance of soil to lateral loads imposed by
structures, the `Passive" earth pressure should be used. Please note that the full development
of passive pressure requires deflections toward the soil mass on the order of 1 to 4 percent of
the wall height. Furthermore, the passive contribution within the zone of frost penetration (12
inches) should be neglected.
The type of retaining wall used should be carefully selected considering adjacent areas and
construction. Irrespective of the retaining wall system chosen, we recommend that the design
of the new retaining walls consider their global stability. We recommend that the global factor
of safety should be at least 1.5. Other factors of safety shall be as follows:
Factor of Safety against Sliding > 1.5
Factor of Safety against Overturning > 2.0
Factor of Safety against Bearing Capacity Failure > 2.0
5.6 Excavation Conditions and Dewaterinci Recommendations
For excavations deeper than 6 feet, dewatering operations will likely be required. A series of
well point systems will likely be required to draw down the water table and allow for construction.
We recommend that this be implemented at the earliest possible date, as it may require several
days If not weeks to lower the water table. We recommend budgeting for schedule delays and
additional costs associated difficult excavation due to site dewatering.
The site soils are OSHA Type B and C soils for the purpose of temporary excavation support.
Excavations should be constructed in compliance with current OSHA standards for excavation
and trenching safety. Excavations should be observed by a "competent person", as defined by
OSHA, who should evaluate the specific soil type and other conditions, which may control the
excavation side slopes or the need for shoring or bracing.
The soils encountered in the soil test borings will likely not present difficult excavation
conditions.
10

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
5.7 Pavement Desion Considerations
For the design and construction of exterior pavements, the subgrades should be prepared in
strict accordance with the recommendations in the "Subgrade Preparation" and "Engineered Fill
Placement" sections of this report. An important consideration with the design and construction
of pavements is surface and subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, either on
the pavement surface or within the base course layer, softening of the subgrade and other
problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected. Furthermore, good
drainage should minimize the possibility of the subgrade materials becoming saturated during
the normal service period of the pavement.
Depending on the type and frequency of traffic loads, a flexible pavement section may consist
of 2 inches of surface SF9.5 mix overlying 6 inches of compacted crushed stone in the light
pedestrian type vehicle areas and 3.0 inches of surface SF9.5 mix overlying 8 inches of
compacted gushed stone in the main heavily traveled drive areas, in truck delivery and
dumpster areas. ECS recommends that heavy duty asphalt pavement be placed In two.11fts of
1.5 inches.
Depending on the type and frequency of traffic loads, a light duty rigid pavement section may
consist of 5 inches of 650 psi flexural strength (5,500 psi compressive strength) Portland
cement concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base course. A heavy duty rigid pavement section
may consist of 6 inches of 650 psi flexural strength (5,500 psi compressive strength) Portland
cement concrete over 5 inches of aggregate base course.
Regardless of the section and type of construction utilized, saturation of the subgrade materials
and asphalt pavement areas results in a softening of the subgrade material and shortened life
span for the pavement. Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and subsurface
materials for the pavement be properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade drainage. By
quickly removing surface and subsurface water, softening of the subgrade can be reduced and
the performance of the parking area can be improved. Site preparation for the parking areas
should be similar to that for the building area including stripping, proofrolling, and the placement
of compacted structural fill. These pavement sections will depend on the type and frequency of
traffic and my require adjustments.
Please note that large, concentrated loads typically results in rutting of bituminous pavements
and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Consequently, we recommend the use of
an 8 inch thick, mesh reinforced concrete slab that extends the entire length of the loaded area.
Concrete pavements should be properly jointed and reinforced as needed to help reduce the
potential for cracking and to permit proper load transfer.
5.8 Site Drainane .
Positive drainage should be provided around the .perimeter of the structure to minimize the
potential for moisture infiltration into the foundation and slab subgrade soils. We recommend
that landscaped areas adjacent to these structures be sloped away from the construction and
maintain a fall of at least 6 inches for the first 10 feet outward from the structures. The parking
lots, sidewalks, and any other paved areas should also be sloped to divert surface water away
from the proposed building.
11 MAR 2 6 Z012

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
The proper diversion of surface water during site grading and construction will help reduce the
potential for delays associated with periods of inclement weather. The proper diversion of
surface water is especially critical since portions of the site soils are expected to be moisture
sensitive. Based upon our past experience, the use of "crowning" large areas of exposed soils
should be useful to help divert surface water from the prepared subgrades.
Please note that the need for construction dewatering should be determined at the time of
construction. If grading operations are performed during the wet seasons (i.e. fail and winter)
the use of gravity flow ditches may be necessary to divert precipitation and surface water away
from the construction areas.
5.9 Construction Considerations.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing elevation if the
foundation excavations remain exposed during periods of inclement weather. Therefore,
foundation concrete should be placed the same day that proper excavation is achieved and the
design bearing pressure verified. If the bearing soils are.softened by surface water absorption
or exposure to the environment, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation
excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain
open overnight, or if inclement weather becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed,
we recommend that a 1 to 3 inch thick "mud -mar of "lean" concrete be placed over the
exposed bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.
it is imperative to maintaln good site drainage during earthwork operations to help maintain the
integrity of the surface soils. The surface of the site should be kept properly graded to enhance
drainage of surface water away from the proposed construction areas during the earthwork
phase of this project. We recommend that surface drainage be diverted away from the
proposed building and pavements areas without significantly interrupting Its flow. Other
practices would involve sealing the exposed soils daily with a smooth -drum roller at the end of
the days work to reduce the potential for infiltration of surface water into the exposed soils.
The key to minimizing disturbance problems with the soils is to have proper control of the
earthwork operations. Specifically, it should be the earthwork contractors responsibility to
maintain the site soils within a workable moisture content range to obtain the required In -place
density and maintain a stable subgrade. Scarifying and drying operations should be included in
the contractor's price and not be considered an extra to the contract. in addition, construction
equipment cannot be permitted to randomly run across the site, especially once the desired
final grades have been established. Construction equipment should be limited to designated
lanes and areas, especially during wet periods to minimize disturbance of the site subgrades. It
will likely be necessary to utilize tracked equipment during grading operations particularly if the
subgrade soils exhibit elevated moisture conditions.
12

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis
French Creek Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
ECS Project No.: 22.16810
6.0 CLOSING
Our geotechnical evaluation of the site has been based on our understanding of the site, the
project information provided to us, and the data obtained during our exploration. The general
subsurface conditions utilized in our evaluations have been based on interpolation of
subsurface data between the borings. If the project information provided to us is changed,
please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed and appropriate revisions
provided, if necessary. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during construction
which deviate from the data outlined in this exploration should be reported to us for our review,
evaluation and revision of our recommendations, if necessary. The assessment of site
environmental conditions for the presence of pollutants In the soil and groundwater of the site Is
beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration.
13 MAR 2 6 Z01Z

BORING LOCATION
DIAGRAMo.
MAR 2 6 zolz
LEGEND
APPROX.BENCH ARK LOCATION
APPROX. BORIM LOCATION
French Creek
SCALE (IN FEET)
40 80
sa a
Exchange Addition
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
ENGINEER
SCALE
WEG
1" = 80'
DRAFTSMAN
PROJECT NO.
WEG
22-16810
REVISIONS
SHEET
1of1
BY:

APPENDIX B
SPT BORING LOGS
AND
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, DESCRIPTION AND TERMINOLOGY

Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM Designation D 248')
Major Division
Group Symbol
Typical Names
Classification Criteria
GW
Well -graded gravels and gravel-
C„ = D,5(/D10 Greater than 4
o
sand mixtures, little or no fines
fl
1 and 3 1 en
� _ �� iDio�6o) Betwe
v
e
GP
�
Poorly graded gravels and gravel-
o
Not meeting both criteria for GW
osand
mixtures, little or no fines o Vi
Ln o
�
"A"
GM
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -sigh o,;
A limits plot below line or
N
mixtures 08
plasticity index less than 4
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay o
Atterberg limits plot above A line
$
mixtures
and plasticity index greater than 7
SW
Well -graded sands and gravelly
C. = D60010 Greats than 6
sands, little or no fines S
C,, _ (D3o)1/(i0xD60) Between 1 and 3
U Ln
1
SP
Poorly graded sands and gravelly
z
Not meeting both criteria for SW
�o
sands, little or no Mies
a
SM
n
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
j
Atterberg limits plot below "A" Iine or
plasticity index less than 4
5C
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures
Atterberg limits plot above "A" line
and plasticity index greater than 7
ML
In,',�Qp�,ie silts,very fine sands xmmuam >VMfinh ru.mdrraomb
•'�C�••�'J )
M
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
fbr nzhuW mils(anphCab Mwmin4. /iBDA-D=7.
g
sands m
� N
gz
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium A
i
ao
o `o
Plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy s
clays, silty clays, lean clays
.9
OL
Organic silts and organic silty m
��' CH ar ON
clays of low plasticity
MH w off
$
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
'
�
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
aL..oL
,
elastic silts
'
qqq
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticitiy, c
o
fat clays
io m
ao p w m al b m ioo iw
umno um r, L.L
OH
Organic clays of medium to high Plasticity chart for the classification of fine Wad soils.
plasticity
Tests made on fraction finer than No. 40 sieve
Highly organic soils
Pt
Peat, muck and other highly
Fibrous organic matter; will
organic soils
char, bum, or glow
UNIFIED SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
• -�-
SYSTEM
�g C�om,vac, 1]P
MAR 2 6 Z01Z

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
I. Drilling and Sampling Symbols:
SS:
Split Spoon Sampler
RB:
Rock Bit Drilling
ST:
Shelby Tube Sampler
BS:
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
RC:
Rock Core; NY., BY, AX
PA:
Power Auger (no sample)
PM:
Pressucremeter
HSA:
Hollow Stem Auger
DC:
Dutch Cone Penetrometer
WS:
Wash Sample
Standard Penetration (Blows/Ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2
inch O.D. split spoon sample, as specified in ASTM D-1586. The blow count is commonly referred to as
the N value.
II. Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Sod Properties:
Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
SPT-N
Madyc ensi
SFT-N Consistency
0-4
Very Loose
0-2
Very Soft
5 - 10
Loose
3-4
Soft
11 - 30
Medium Dense
5-8
Firm
31 - 50
Dense
9 -15
Stiff
51 or more
Very Dense
16 - 30
Very Stiff
31 - 50
Hard
50 or more VeryHard
III. Unified Soil Classification Symbols:
GP:
Poorly Graded Gravel
ML:
Low Plasticity Silts
GW:
Well Graded Gravel
. MH:
High Plasticity Silts
GM:
Silty Gravel
CL:
Low Plasticity Clays
GC:
Clayey Gravel
CH:
High Plasticity Clays
SP:
Poorly Graded Sands
OL:
Low Plasticity Organics
SW:
Well Graded Sands
OH:
High Plasticity Organics
SM:
Silty Sands
CL - ML:
Dual Classification (Typical)
SC:
Clayey Sands
W. Wateit Level Measurement Symbols:
WL: Water Level
BCR:
Before Casing Removal
WS: While Sampling
ACR:
After Casing Removal
WD: While Drilling
WCI:
Wet Cave In
DCI:
Dry Cave In
The water levels are those water levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the
symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when auguring, without adding fluids, in a granular soil.
In clays and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for the water
level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.
The elevations indicated on the boring logs should be considered approximate and were not determined
using accepted surveying techniques.
J

C um
BIS Frucon Engineering, Inc.
JOB #
16810
BORING f SLIM
1 B-1 1 OF 1
- E.
PROJECT NAME
French Creek Exchange Addltion
ARCIi1T>SCP-ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
Gonzalez Blvd, CaMp Le'eune, NC
-0- cammv% P 7 1e=
PL"nc WAM uQUID
L= x CONTENT x LIUM x
� a
ROCK QUAU'Y DESIGNATION k RECOVERY
20%l---40X-6OYd-- Ox--1
8 mx'ARD PENS14tA'l'i0N
>lD go so sa so+
Ie:
DESCRD'YZON OF IdATERIAL. E NGLTt31L UNM
BOTTOM OF CASING W- LOSS OF CIRCULATION 10
�
SURFACE FI.k'VAY[ON
8.73
0
5
1
15
20
25
3
Asphalt depth 2"
23:(io-t3-to)
12 (ten
21
: (6-testa} 34
20 : 4042.3
(1�4-23-28 51
MAR 2 S ZO, Z
BX:
1
SS
18
15
ABC Stone Depth 6"
Medium Dense. Brawn to Tan, Silty, Fine
SAND, (SM)
2
5S
18
18
Medium Dense to Dense, Tan to Gray, Fine
to Medium Dense SAND, (SP)
3
SS
18
14
4
SS
18
1B
Very Soft, Gray, Sandy CLAY, (CL)
5
SS
18
18
G
SS
113
18
Ve Dense, Gray, Fine to Medium SAND,
(SP1
7.74
7
SS
18
15
-
-
END OF BORING ® 25.0'
THE STRATIFICATIOM LILIES REPRESEMT THE APPROXIMATE BOIR1MY LIVES BETWEN SOIL TYPES IN -SITU THE TRAKSITIOM MY BE GRADUAL
:9vL 3.40 ® OR xD
BORINc STA-UMD 06/09/ 1 1
DRILLER: Mid —Atlantic Drilling, Inc.
T'NL(BCR) TMUACR)
BORING ODIU19M 06 09 1 1
CAVE IN DSPTS e
TTL 6.10
RIG 45B ATV FoREI[AN RS
DR=WG YBTBOD Mud Rotary

CLIENT
BIS Frucon Engineering, Inc.
JOB BORING
16810 1 B-2
SH M
1 OF 1
1
kk— �
PROJECT NAidE
French Creek Exchange Addition
ARCWTECT-9NGINEER
SITE LOCATION
Gonzalez Blvd, Cam Le'eune, NC
-0- CMMRATED PENLrI�FT.�oMCM
x 2 '0 s 4 6+
PLASTIC RATER LIQUID
LDIIT N CONTENT x LDaT X
x n
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVM
ROD%-- --- r. REC.X
26X-40%fi0Yk---80Xr-10
® STAND � PZnMATION
fo EO so 40 60+
a
sa
F
DESCRIPTION OF MATEEiiAL ENGLiBfi UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING W— LOSS OF CIRCUUTION 100
9
z
p
SURFACE ELEVATION 8.78
0
1
20
25
.30
Asphalt Depth 2"
;(to-20-* 34
20
: 15.8
• 19 (7-4-10)
25 (10-11-14)
.8 (10-4-2)
OFK*H-WOH-0)
20 {1=8-11)
= =
i
1
SS
18
18
ABC Stone Depth 6"
Dense to Medium Dense. Brown, Silty,
Fine to Medium SAND, (SM)
2
SS
IS
19
Medium Dense to Loose. Tan to Brown.
Fine to Medium SAND, (SP)
3
SS
16
15
4
SS
1B
17
5
SS
1B
12
Very Soft, Dark Gray, Sandy CLAY, (CL)
6
SS
18
18
7
SS
19
18
Medium Dense. Dark Gray, Silty, Fine to
Medium SAND, (SM)
END OF BORING @ 25.0'
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPRO)QMATE BOUNDARY LINM BETWEEN SOIL TYPES I1-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL i
VwL 4.30 e'er OR 11)
BORING STARTED 06/09/1 1
i
DRILLER: Mid -Atlantic Drilling, Inc.
TlIL(BCR) TWL(ACR)
BORING COMPIE ED 06 09 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH 0
ZWL 6.60
RIG 45B ATV FOFm" RS
DRILLING XMTHOD Mud Rotary
I

APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
MAR 2 6 201Z

IL
J
J
l�
c
U)
W
LL
m
0
co
a^�
N
N
LL
V1
7
C
O
w_
Q
m
V
t
C3
G
m
I IININIIIII
� I Ilpllllu!',
ieiuunn
jlnnnn�nmm i
I�INlulllll�l��� �'
mnNnnniii �
',1�� IIIIINIIIINI,
NI Illlldllllll�
II�011ln
C
O
r O A U
=�au4i
II n u
TasAN
z()a0
C
O
r O A U
=�au4i
II n u
TasAN
z()a0

f , 7
■
■ ■■■ ■■-■■
■■ ■■■ ■■
■- ■ ■ ■■I
■■■■M=MM■■■■
M=MM■■■■■■■■e
,, ■■■■��■■■■■■■7■■■ice■■■■1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■W=M==■■■■■f
�����r,��■���r,�r,����r,�r,��
1 ,
1
:I�Wemrrt
Pawing No. 2DO Steve
A
. .::,
A :
MediumMaximum
Dense,.
.
Fine SAND,il
A
Speciflo Gravity of Soil
Specific Gnwlty of Soil Determination
Method
I.
Project No.
Name:
1
FrenchProject F L I C Addition
Micah►
R 1
:. .,
Printed on(dute): = 22,2011

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT
ASTM D 1883-05
1000
Soo
N
3
v 600
C
C
O
400
C
m
a
200
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
Penetration Depth (in.)
Molded
Soaked
CBR %
Linearity
Surcharge
Max.
Density
Percent of
Moisture
Density
Percent of
Moisture
0in.
D za [n .
Correction
{fbs.)1
swell
(pc1)
Max. Dons.
(%)
(pcf)
Max. Dana.
1%I
.10
Pn.)
1 0
113.7
99.7
9.4
113.7
99.8
12.5
35.6
44.9
0.018
10.0
0
2 d
3 ❑
Material Description
USCS
Max_
Dens.
optimum
Moisture
LL
PI
Brown to Tan, Silty, Fine SAND
SM
114.0
9.9
Project No: 16810
Test Descrlption/Remarks:
Project: French Creek Exchange Addition
Mod. Proctor Comp. ASTM D1557
Location: Bulk 1
Sample Number: S-1
Date: 6/24/11
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
7211 Ogden Business Park, Suite 201, Wilmington NC, 25411
�„� Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Figure

4318) Test Summary
80
70
80
50
Q1
ch
C
(n
—T 30
IL
20
MH or
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 g0 100 110
Liquid Limit, LL
i 7 i �
j!
i•
i II
ii
I i
i
..ra
r
i
i
All samples are prepared using 'DRY' method unless otherwise noted
Boring Number Depth Teat me % Pening % Sam*
Sample Number {teat] Symbol Descriptlon N Ll. PL PI MG Slow* Retained on NOW
"0 sieve
B-11 54 1 &50 -15M A Very San, tray, hardy CLAY. (CL) 42.3 40 20 20 20.0
Project No. 16810 -7-1-. r . � J - `z ECS Carolinas, LLP
Project Name- French Creek Exchange AddlBon
PM: Micah F. Hatch MAR 2 G Z 01 Z
PE: Waltd M. Sobh Ect
Wilmington, NC
Printed on(date): June 20, 2011

Grain Size (ASTM D 422) Test Summary
OMVEL
BAND
SILT OR CLAY
COBBLES
CanRSE
FJ'JE
CQARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
SILT
CLAY
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE
OPENING IN INCHES
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
HYDROMETER
3 1.5 314 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200
100
90
— _
_..,
..
_..
-
80 LD
—
70
CIS 60
50
40
30
_
-
I=_
1.
LU 20
__ _
--�_
10
0
100 to 1 0.1 0.01 0.002 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Sorft Number
Semple Number
Depth
(feet)
Test
5yntbol
LL
PI
Description
B-2 / 8-2
3.60 - 5.00
—
—
Dense to Medium Dense, Brown, Stightty Silty, Fine to Medium SAND, (SM)
Project No. 16810
ECS Carolinas, LLP
Project Name: French Creek Exchange Addition
PM: Micah F. Hatch
PE: Walla M. Sobh
Wilmington, NC
Printed on(data): June 21, 2011

APPENDIX D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
MAR 2 6 Z01Z
BY:

General Conditions
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the
investigation previously outlined and the data collected at the points shown on the attached
location plan. This report does not reflect specific variations that may occur between test
locations. The borings were located where site conditions permitted and where it is believed
representative conditions occur, but the full nature and extent of variations between borings and
of subsurface conditions not encountered by any boring may not become evident until the
course of construction. If variations become evident at any time before or during the course of
construction, it will be necessary to make a re-evaluation of the conclusions and
recommendations of this report and further exploration, observation, andfor testing may be
required.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices and makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the
professional advice under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. The
recommendations contained herein are made with the understanding that the contract
documents between the owner and foundation or earthwork contractor or between the owner
and the general contractor and the foundation, excavating and earthwork subcontractors, If any,
shall require that the contractor certify that all work in connection with foundations, plies,
caissons, compacted fills and other elements of the foundation or other support components
are in place at the locations, with proper dimensions and plumb, as shown on the plans and
specifications for the project.
Further, It is understood the contract documents will specify that the contractor will, upon
becoming aware of apparent or latent subsurface conditions differing from those disclosed by
the original soil investigation work, promptly notify the owner, both verbally to permit immediate
verification of the change, and in writing, as to the nature and extent of the differing conditions
and that no claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the
plans and specifications and disclosed by the soil studies will be allowed under the contract
unless the contractor has so notified the owner both verbally and in writing, as required above,
of such changed conditions. The owner will, in turn, promptly notify this firm of the existence of
such unanticipated conditions and will authorize such further investigation as may be required
to properly evaluate these conditions.
Further, it is understood that any specific recommendations made In this report as to on -site
construction review by this firm will be authorized and funds and facilities for such review will be
provided at the times recommended if we are to be held responsible for the design
recommendations.

APPENDIX E
PROCEDURES REGARDING FIELD LOGS, LABORATORY DATA SHEETS AND SAMPLES
MAR 2 6 2012

Procedures Reoarding Field Loos, Laboratory Data Sheets and Samples
In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are
followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation
engineering.
Specifically, field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations
which are intended to portray essentially field occurrences, sampling locations, and other
information.
Samples obtained In the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification
in the laboratory by more experienced soil engineers, and differences between the field logs
and the final logs exist.
The engineer preparing the report reviews the field and laboratory logs, classifications and test
data, and his judgment in interpreting this data, may make further changes.
Samples are taken In the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are
retained in our laboratory for sixty (60) days and are then discarded unless special disposition is
requested by our client. Samples retained over a long period of time, even if sealed in jars, are
subject to moisture loss which changes the apparent strength of cohesive soil generally
increasing the strength from what was originally encountered in the field. Since they are then
no longer representative of the moisture conditions initially encountered, an inspection of these
samples should recognize this factor.
It is common practice in the soil and foundation engineering profession that field logs and
laboratory data sheets not be included in engineering reports because they do not represent the
engineer's final opinions as to appropriate descriptions for conditions encountered in the
exploration and testing work. On the other hand, we are aware that perhaps certain contractors
submitting bids or proposals on work may have an interest in studying these documents before
submitting a bid or proposal. For this reason, the field logs will be retained in our office for
inspection by all contractors submitting a bid or proposal. We would welcome the opportunity to
explain any changes that have been and typically are made in the preparation of our final
reports, to the contractor or subcontractors, before the firm submits the bid or proposal, and to
describe how the information was obtained to the extent the contractor or subcontractor wishes.
Results of the laboratory tests are generally shown on the boring logs or described in the extent
of the report, as appropriate.
The descriptive terms and symbols used on the logs are described on the attached sheet,
entitled General Notes.

S
10 id
l4
q � P
YL9
S IN;ee9�g a1 Yli e. �}- �w
prqtl�
aft
_ aaa s 3M., za :: M :, M �
A
:LLI_ r--L Y •t'y��}+,-s'S���M'•v-¢t1 �FFC[ti.;•:��'1'y'.:1
2 V � 1 �. � •_�.i
LLI
W Cl) U _
■ '
J
J.
J�-0
Z
I - a
LU
C,
J (� W.
W o
arv.
ui Z CL
W
Ix .W;.«
e
3 P
W
IL

r
o au s� m� Egg
s�W� iT
`r uuu sst�i<� w.n ud tiii wwwwww— '
logr p
s
N
0.
DWI
qx ZZ
S
n�
a
f0
a=2i.
��
y
Oc7gi O
C
0).
W J Y C
i
�Z
=6 W:._
•
�Q
saQb•F00
. �
Q
�f °°
ui
8
z :
y, oil
MU
_
MrNe"•
it
C.A
%17
C rs+'+:zm•
� �
o�
S �
,

�Wvy 1U uW
"iJ�Z� Ol IF 7Uu 1 O
z
X
' 4 IX
[z�iim+aan��M a�rnu i�a�urv1 � n•�
IVF •j � > �s
Ly o

I II)I O is a� 4, <Q M60 LA I rc oa LED aF�<
uiJj� d
R
O
V � 3
2
_.__..-------------------------- —-----
—__—__— -----
--________--
a� 8sst
44
I�
i Y
F R
N
Lu
S- r 54 y'f a
', ` n
1.1.! R
ou
jam
n sl jz!
O E
l YL .l
_M -]-3]
1b--3W --
M L3L11�J 9 9L!%13NW
�b
LL�vNdsr) '�
aiminnaa Z3TdZN09
.o EDrEOFMSPHLL
llVdl lNFldbY 1 ]NN11 dSY

French Creek Exchange
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Stormwater Design Narrative
Proiect Overview and Site Existing Conditions
The French Creek Exchange involves the redevelopment and expansion of an existing Exchange facility
located near the intersection of River Road. An existing building, parking, and other vehicle and
pedestrian amenities currently occupy the site. An expansion of the existing parking facility is proposed,
as well as an expansion to the current building. Topography is mild and the existing soils on site are
sandy and well drained, although they are not suitable for infiltration type BMP devices. The Seasonal
High Water Table (SHWT) was observed to be approximately 24" below grade, making an infiltration
device unpractical.
Stormwater Design and Methodology
Due to the increase in built -upon -area over existing impervious areas, a wet detention basin is proposed
as a stormwater BMP on the site. The design approach, as required by the Division of Water Quality,
was to treat the difference in the pre -versus -post development impervious areas for 90% TSS removal
and 1.5 inches of runoff. An analysis of the pre -development required surface area and treatment
volume was analyzed against the post -development surface area and treatment volume. These
parameters were used to size the wet detention pond permanent pool area for the difference in runoff,
as well as locate the water quality temporary pool, determine the drawdown orifice sizing, and
drawdown timing. Flood routings were performed on the pond watershed to provide water surface
elevations for the 10, 25, and 100 year storm events.
FEB 2 1 L01�
i
�r,