SW8080313_HISTORICAL FILE_20120713

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 oaa31
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
201-2- 0713
YYYYMMDD

0
MCDEMR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E.
Governor Director
July 13, 2012
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
Building 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 080313
P-1184 Dining Facility and P-1286 Rifle Range BEQ
High Density infiltration Basin Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete, modified Stormwater Management Permit
Application for P-1184 Dining Facility,) P-1286 Rifle Range BEQ on June 19, 2012, with final
information received on July 13, 2012. Staff review of the plans and specifications has determined that
the project, -as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Session Law 2008-
211 and Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000. We are forwarding modified Permit No. SW8 080313 dated July 13,
2012, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the built -upon areas and BMP's associated
with the subject project.
On August 5, 2009, the Governor signed Session Law 2009-406, This law impacts any development
approval issued by the Division of Water Quality under Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General
Statutes, which is current and valid at any point between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2010.
The law extends the effective period of any stormwater permit that is set to expire during this time
frame to three (3) years from its current expiration date. On August 2, 2010, the Governor signed
Session Law 2010-177, which grants an extra year for a total of up to four (4) years extension. Please
note that the expiration date of this permit has been adjusted to reflect this extension.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until December 30, 2021, 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), certification of the BMP's,
procedures for changing ownership, transferring the permit, and renewing the permit. Failure to.
establish an adequate system for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system,
to certify the BMP's, to transfer the permit, or to renew the permit, will result in future compliance
problems.
The following modifications are covered by and added to this permit:
1. Eliminates or revises infiltration basins 1, 3 and 4 from the April 29, 2008 permitted Stone Bay
Dining Hall P-1184. The previously permitted infiltration basins 2 and 5 for Stone Bay Dining Hall P-
1184 are unchanged and remain under this permit.
2. Eliminates the infiltration basin permitted for the Shooters Parking Lot Rifle Range under SW8
040912, which will be rescinded upon the installation of new Basins 6 and 7. The parking lot itself
will remain as part of the BEQ project.
3. The plans previously approved on April 29, 2008 for the Stone Bay Dining Hall P-1184, are
considered part of the approved plans for this modification only in regard to the grading, layout and
details of the Dining Hall project, Basins 2 and 5 and the vegetated filters.
4. Adds the Rifle Range BEQ P-1286 with five (5) new infiltration basins 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9, to treat
runoff from the new Rifle Range BEQ P-1286 and from the existing Stone Bay Dining Hall P-1184
and from the existing Shooters Parking Lot, SW8 040912, for a total of seven (7) permitted
infiltration basins.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] DENR Assistance' 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarohna
Internet: www.ncwaterquality,org An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Actwn Employer Naturally "�']bLntlura//y

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
Please note that a portion of the proposed Rifle Range BEQ encroached into the MARSOC
project boundary. The permit for MARSOC, SW8 070847, has been modified to reflect this loss
of project area.
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
Linda Lewis at [phone].
Sincerely,
7,n ACharlesTakif1d, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
GDSfarl: S:1WQS1StormwateAPermits 8 Projects12008080313 HDQ012 07 permit 080313
cc: Melissa Pritchard, P.E., Parsons Brinckerhoff
David Towler, MCB Camp Lejeune
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Page 2 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Commanding Officer, MCB Camp Lejeune
P-1184 Stone Bay Dining Facility and P-1286 Rifle Range BEQ
Rifle Range Road, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of seven (7) infiltration basins in compliance
with the provisions of Session Law 2008-211 and 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (hereafter
referred to as the "stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater management plans
and specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved
by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until December 30, 2021, 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. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described in Section 1.8 of this permit. The seven stormwater controls
labeled DA1, DA2, DA3, DA5, DAP, DA7 angDA9 have been designed to handle
the runoff srom a total of 99,550 ft ; 23,705 ft ; 53,429 ft2; 16,553 ft ; 151,310 ft ;
165,414 ft ; and 16,293 ft2; of impervious area, respectively.
3. Each infiltration basin must be operated with a 50' level spreader and vegetated
filter strip.
4. Each infiltration basin will be limited to the treatment of that amount of built -upon
area indicated in Sections 1.2 and 1.8 of this permit, and as shown on the
approved plans. The built -upon area for future development is limited to 3,160
square feet within DA 5.
5. The runoff from all built -upon areas within the permitted drainage areas of this
project must be directed into the appropriate permitted stormwater control
system.
Page 3 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
6. Projects covered by this permit will maintain a minimum 50-foot-wide vegetated
buffer adjacent surface waters, measured horizontally from and perpendicular to
the normal pool of impounded structures, the top of bank of each side of streams
and rivers, and the mean high water line of tidal waters.
7. The following design criteria have been permitted for the infiltration basins and
must be provided and maintained at design condition. The receiving stream for
all basins is Stones Creek, WOK02, Index #19-30-3, classified SA W.
Design Criteria
DA1
DA2
DA3
DA5
DAB
a. Drainage Area: acres
3.44
1.16
3.23
0.78
7.21
-Onsite, ft2
149,975
50,530
140,526
33,812
313,894
-Offsite, ft2
0
0
0
0
1,067
b,Total Impervious Surfaces, ft2
99,550
23,705
53,429
16,553
151,310
-Buildings, ft2
25,961
860
280
7,575
31,670
-Parking, ft2
54,619
21,715
0
0
63,139
-Street, ft2
0
0
0
4,480
11,056
-Sidewalks:, ft2
8.545
1,130
12,226
1,338
13,477
-Other, ft2
0
❑
0
0
7,349
-Offsite, ft2
0
0
0
0
1.067
-Future, ft2
0
0
0
3,160
0
-Existing, ft
10,425
0
40,923
0
23,552
c. Desi n Storm, in. 1 yr 24 hr)
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
d. Difference in the pre- and post-
development 1- r, 24-hr runoff, ft3
26,878
6,365
14,426
4,444
4D,854
e. Basin Bottom Elev., FMSL:
47.5
47.87
45.50
50.13
46.5
f. Basin Bottom Surface Area, ft2:
10,552
3,941
6,233
2,946
17,671
g. Bypass Weir Elevation, FMSL:
49.73
49.17
47.51
51 A0
48.6
h. Permitted Storage Volume, ft3:
26,935
6,469
14,453
4,500
40,854
L Type of Soil:
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
'. Expected Infiltration Rate, in/hr:
6.54
7.7
0.73
5,0
10.3
k. Seasonal High Water Table, FMSL-
45.33
45.87
43.5
48,13
44.5
I, Draw Down Time, hrs:
4.7
2.5
38.1
3.6
2.7
Design Criteria
DA7
DA9
m. Drainage Area: acres
6.59
1.8
-Onsite, ft2
287,276
78,292
-Offsite, ft2
0
0
n. Total Impervious Surfaces, ft2
165,414
16,293
-Buildings, ft2
1,992
0
-Parking, ft2
0
0
-Street, ft2
0
14,358
-Sidewalks, ft2
14,229
1,935
-Other, ft2
0
0
-Offsite, ft2
0
0
-Future, ft2
0
0
-Existing, ft2
149,193
0
o. Design Storm, in. (1 yr 24 hr)
3.6
3.6
_
p. Difference in the pre- and post-
44,662
4,399
development 1- r, 24-hr runoff, ft3
Basin Bottom Elev., FMSL:
45.5
47.5
r. Basin Bottom Surface Area, ft :
17,283
2,856
s, Bypass Weir Elevation, FMSL:
47.79
49.78
t. Permitted Storage Volume, ft3:
44,674
8,839
u, Type of Soil:
Sand
Sand
v, Expected Infiltration Rate, in/hr:
10.3
5.2
w. Seasonal High Water Table, FMSL:
43.5
45.5
x. Draw Down Time, hrs:
3.0
3.6
Page 4 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety,
vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any
built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance
necessary to assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum
efficiency. The approved Operation and Maintenance Plan must be followed in
its entirety and maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals including, but
not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowing and revegetation of slopes and the vegetated filter.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans and
specifications.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of bypass structure, infiltration media,
level spreader, catch basins, piping and vegetated filter.
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept for each permitted BMP. The
reports will indicate the date, activity, name of person performing the work and
what actions were taken.
5. The facilities shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans. This permit
shall become voidable unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with
the conditions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting data.
6. Infiltration systems should not be used as Erosion Control devices. Separate
appropriately sized and approved erosion control measures shall be provided
and shall remain in place until the infiltration basins are constructed. The
infiltration basins shall be constructed immediately after the drainage area is
stabilized. The erosion control measures may be removed after the infiltration
basins are constructed.
7. 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.
8. Access to the stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance shall be
provided and maintained at all times.
9. 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.
Page 5 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
10. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
C. Overlapping of the project area with another project on Base.
d. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
11, The permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans for any permitted
future areas shown on the approved plans, prior to construction.
12. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee for a minimum of ten years from the date of the completion of
construction.
Ill, GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and
approval by the Director. The permittee shall notify the Director of a desire to
transfer the permit or to change the name of the owner or of the project, or to
change the permittee's mailing address, by submitting a completed and signed
Name/Ownership Change form to the Division of Water Quality at least 60 days
prior to the effective date of the change. The form must be accompanied by the
appropriate 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 a request to transfer the permit.
3. Any person or entity found to be in noncompliance with the stormwater rules or
with the terms and conditions of a stormwater permit is subject to enforcement
action by the Division of Water Quality, in accordance with North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation
of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
6. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
7. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
S. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
controls must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
Page 6 of 9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
9. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable parts of the permit.
10. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit
as allowed by the laws, rules and regulations contained in Session Law 2006-
246, Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000, and NCGS 143-215.1 et. al.
Permit modified and reissued this the 131" day of July 2012.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
ror unanes vvaonia, r.�., uirector
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 7of9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
Camp Lejeune - P-1184 Dining Facility and P-1286 Rifle Range BEQ
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 080313 Mod.
Onslow County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/ full
time) the construction of the project,
(Project)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 8of9

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080313
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 bypass structure weir elevation is per the approved plan.
6. The bypass structure is located per the approved plans.
7. A Trash Racy is provided on the bypass structure_
8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
12, All required design depths are provided.
13. All required parts of the system are provided.
14. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
cc'. NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office
David Towler, MCB Camp Lejeune
Page 9 of 9

DWQ USE ONLY
Date Received
Feo Paid
Permit Number
ix5
Applicable Rules: ❑ Coastal SW - ❑ Coastal SW - 2008 ❑ Ph II - Post Construction
(select all that apply) ❑ Non -Coastal SW- I-IQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ M >mt Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
'I'ltis fonit )1117Y he pltotocopicrl far trse ns all original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - should be consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
P-1286 BACHELOR'S ENLISTED QUARTERS RIFLE: RANGE-
2.' Location of Project (street address):
RANGE ROAD
City:CAMP LEiEUNE County:ONSLOW Zip:28547-2539
3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN 51'ONE BAY RIFLE RANGE ACCESSED OI-T HWY 2"10 BETWEEN HWY 17
TO THE NORTH AND HWY "172 TO'1'HE SOU`I'I-I
4. Latitude:34° 34' 48" N Longitude:77° 2700" W of the main entrance to the project.
11. PERMIT INFORMATION:
"I.a.Specify whether project is (check one): ❑New ®Modification
b.lf this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing
permit numberSW8 080313 , its issue date (if known)APRIL 29, 2008 , and the status of
construction: ❑Not Started ❑Partially Completed* ®Completed* *provide a designer's
certification
2. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ®I-Iigh Density ❑Drains to an Offsite Stormwater System ❑Other
3. If this application is being submitted as the result of a previously returned application or a letter from
DWQ requesting a state Stormwater management permit application, list the stormwater project number,
if assigned, N/A and the previous name of the project, if different than currently
proposed, N/A
4. a.Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑CAMA Major
❑NPDI:S Industrial Stormwater
®Sedimentation/hrosion Control: 22 ac of Disturbed Area
❑404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts
b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name, Project/Permit
Number, issue date and the type of each permit:
JUN 19 2012
H Y:
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page I of

[I1. CONTACT INFORMATION
•l. a. [Tint Applicant / Signing Official's name and title (specifically the developer, property owner, lessee,
designated government official, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Applicant/Organization:MCB CAMP LEIEUNE Tt�
Signing Official & Title:CARL BAKER - DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS OFFICER
b.Contact information for person listed in item In above:
Street Address:BLDG 1005 MICHAEL ROAD
City:MCI3 CAMP_LEIFUNE _ _ State:NC T Zip:28542
Mailing Address (if applicable):
City: State: "Zip:
Phone: (910 ) 451-2213
Email:[e-mail]
Fax: (910 ) _45-1-2927
c. Please check the appropriate box- The applicant listed above is:
® The property owner (Skip to Contact Information, item 3a)
❑ Lessee* (Attach a copy of the lease agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below)
❑ Purchaser* (Attach a copy of the pending sales agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a
and 2b below)
❑ Developer* (Complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below.)
2. a. Print Property Owner's name and title below, if you are the lessee, purchaser or developer. (This is the
person who owns the property that the project is located on):
Property Owner/Organization:
Signing Official & Ti
b.Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:
Mailing Address (if applicable):
City:_
Phone:
Emai
State: Zip:
Fax: ( )
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact Person/Organization:
Signing Official & Title:
b.Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:
City: State: Zi
Phone: ( —)- - - - Fax: ( )
Email:
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: CAMP LE, [EUNl
Point of Contact: Phone #:
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 2 of

4V. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, briefly summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
RUNOFF WILL BE DIRECTED TO "I WE"T DETENTION BASIN AND 6 INFILTRATION 13ASINS VIA
GRASSED SWALES AND STORM SEWER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. PROPOSED BEOS ROOD
DRAINAGE WILL BE CAP"I'URED WITH ROOK DRAINS AND DIRECTED TO AN UNDERGROUND
CISTERN WHICH WILL OVERFLOW INTO A STORM SEWER SYSTEM THAT OUTFALLS INTO A 13MP
2. a.If claiming vested rights, identify the supporting docLiments provided and the date they were approved:
❑ Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan or PUD Approval Date:
❑ Valid Building Permit Issued Date:
® Other: EX. SW PERMIT Date: 4-29-08
b.If claiming vested rights, identify the regulation(s) the project has been designed in accordance with:
❑! Coastal SW - 1995 ® Ph II - Post Construction
3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the WFIITE OAK River basin.
4. Total Property Area: 30 acres
5. 'Total Coastal Wetlands Area: 0 acres
6. Total Surface Water Area: 0 acres
7. 'Total Property Area (4) - Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5) -Total Surface Water Area (6) = Total Project
Area*: 30 acres
Total project area shall be calculated to exclude the following: the rrornrrrl pool of impounded structures, the area
between the banks of streams and rivers, the area beloeu the Normal High Water (NHW) line or Mean HiSh Water
(MHW) line, and coastal wetlands landivard from the NNW (or MHW) line.. The resultant project area is used to
calculate overall percent built rrporr area (B2_IA). Non -coastal zoetlands laudzoard of the NHW (or MHW) line may
be included in the total project area.
8. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X "100 � 48
9. I-Iow many drainage areas does the project have?8 (For high der rsity, count I for each proposers engineered
stornlWater BMA. For lozo density and other projects, use 1 for the ullrole property area)
10_ Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project Information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each
area provided in the same format as below.
EC.EIVE
JUN 19 2012
Dorm 5 WU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 3 of 9

Basin Information ..
'Drains a Area.
Drains a Area
Drains e Area _
'Draina a Area
Receiving Stream Name
Stream Class
Stream Index Number
Total Drainage Area (so
SEE
NEXT
TWO
PAGES
On -site Drainage Area (so
Off -site Drainage: Area (sf)
Proposed Impervious Area"
s
% Impervious Area** total
Im ervious" Surface°Area
'Mainf e Area- -
Drainage Area T
I )rains e Area __,.Drainage
Area
On -site Buildings/Lots (so
On -Site Streets (so
On -site Parking (so
On -site Sidewalks (so
Other on -site (SO
SEE
NEXT
TWO
PAGES
Future (so
Off -site (so
Existing BUA*** (so
Total (so:
Stream Class and Intlex Niunber can be deterneined at: Ld4i://JtorIaLncdew:.org wmb/iiL s&sy, classi icatious
Ien}x:rvions area is defined as the built upon aria including, but not !united to, buildings, roads, parking area
sidewalks, gravel Areas, etc.
***Report only that anzount of existing BUA that will remain rafter development. Do not report any existing 8LIA that
is to be rcuroved said Which will be replaced lnj new BZIA.
I I . How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation. EXISTING
SURVEY
Farm SWU-101 Version 07,lun2010 Page 4 of

Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2
Drainage Area 3
Drainage Area 5
Basin Information
(P1286)
(131184 Dining Facility)
(P1286)
(P1164 Dining Facility)
Receiving Stream Name
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stream Class & Index Number
SA; HQW 19-30-3
SA; HQW 19-30-3
5A; HQW 19-30-3
SA; HQW 19-30-3
Total Drainage Area
149975
50530
140526
33812
On -site Drainage Area
149975
50530
140526
33812
Off -site Drainage Area -
0
0
0
0
Proposed Impervious Area
99550
23705
53429
16553
Total % Impervious Area
66%
47%
38%
49%
Impervious Surface Area
On -site Buildings/Lots
25961
860
280
7575
On -site Streets
0 r
0
0
4480
On -site Parking
54619
21715
0
0
On -site Sidewalks
8545
1130
12226
1338
Other on -site
0
0
0
0
Future
0
0
0
3160
Off -site
0
0
0
0
Existing BUA
10425
0
40923
0
Total Impervious Area
99550
23705
53429
16553
G
j
4
?
c.a
�
C
a
N
��

garnwe
(P1164 Dining
Drainage Area 6
Drainage Area 7
Drainage Area 9
Basin Inform' t on
facility)
(1121286)
(P1286)
(P1286)
Receiving Stream Name
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stream Class°& Index Number
; HQWV9-30-
SA; HQW 19-30-3
SA; HQW 19-30-3
SA; HQW 19-30-3
Total Drainage Area
4579
313894
287276
78292
On -site Drainage Area
435
312827
287276
78292
Off -site Drainage Area
0
1067
0
0
Proposed Impervious Area
04
151310
165414
16293
Total % Impervious Area
1
48%
58%
21%
Impervious Surface Area
On -site Buildings/Lots
0
31670
1992
0
On -site Streets
5540
11056
0
14358
On -site Parking
0
63139
0
0
On -site Sidewalks
1500
13477
14229
1935
Other on -site
0
7349
0
0
Future
0
0
0
0
Off -site
0
1067
0
0
Existing BUA
0
23552
149193
0
Total Impervious Area
7040
151310
1 165414
1 16293

Projects in Union County: Contact DWQ Central Office staff to check if the project is located within a Threatened &
Endangered Species watershed that may be subject to more stringent stormwater requirements as per NCAC 02B .0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maintenance (O&M) forms
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms can be downloaded
from httl2://12ortal.ncLienr.org/web/wq/ws/su/bml2-manual.
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application instruction sheet
and BMP checklists are available from httl2://portal.ncdenr.org/web/­wq /ws/su/statesw/ forms _docs. The
complete application package should be submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (The appropriate office
may be found by locating project on the interactive online map at
htti?://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/`wssu ma s.)
Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in. the space
provided for each item. All original documents MUST be signed and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest
versions for each submitted application package from
httl2://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/foryns docs.
n}tipl
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form. tu
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part V11 below) � p
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (sealed, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each BMP.
4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to _
http://www,envhelp.org/12ages/onestol2express.html for information on the Express program
and the associated fees. Contact the appropriate regional office Express Permit Coordinator for
additional information and to schedule the required application meeting.)
5. A detailed narrative (one to two pages) describing the stormwater treatment/management for
6. A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the _
receiving stream drains to class SA waters within 1/2 mile of the site boundary, include the 1/2
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations.
8. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x 14" (sealed, signed, & dated), including: nkf
a. Development/Project name.
b. Engineer and firm.
c. -Location map with named streets and NCSR numbers.
d. Legend.
e. North arrow.
f. Scale.
g. Revision number and dates.
h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the normal pool elevation of
impounded structures, the banks of streams and rivers, the MHW or NHW line of tidal
waters, and any coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NHW lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures, the banks of streams or rivers, and the MHW (or NHW) of tidal waters.
i. Dimensioned property/project boundary with bearings & distances.
j. Site layout with all BUA identified and dimensioned.
k. Existing contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations.
1. Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures.
m. Wetlands delineated, or a note on the plans that none exist. (Must be delineated by a
qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who
made the determination on the plans.
n. Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculatigri .� @Ir -
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans, not as a separate document).
p. Vegetated buffers (where required). yUN g 2�12
t
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 7 of 61

9. Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations (Please identify
elevations in addition to depths) as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing
elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"xll" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also
include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration rate.
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visit for DWQ to verifij the SH1N7 prior
to submittal, [phone].) i
10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: Page No:
11. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NC
Secretary of State or other official -documentation, which supports the titles and positions held
by the persons listed in Contact Information, item 1a, 2a, and/or 3a per NCAC 2H.1003(e). The
corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC
Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned.
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corl2orations/CSearch.aspx
VII. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
For all subdivisions, outparcels, and future development, the appropriate property restrictions and protective
covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed
BUA'allocations vary, a table listing each lot number, lot size, and the allowable built -upon area must be
provided as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed
restrictions and protective covenants forms can be downloaded from
htti2://portal.ncdenr.org/web/w/ws/su_/statesw/forms does. Download the latest versions for each
submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and
protective covenants for this project, if required, shall include all the items required in the permit and listed
on the forms available on the website, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming
under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the NC DWQ and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
VIII. CONSULTANT INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION
Applicant: Complete this section if you wish to designate authority to another individual and/or firm (such as a
consulting engineer and/or firm) so that they may provide information on your behalf for this project (such as
addressing requests for additional information).
Consulting Engineer:MELISSA PRITCHARD
Consulting Firm: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Mailing Address:999 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 3200
City:SEATTLE State:W�An 2OZip:98104
Phone: (206 ] 382-6325 Fax:
Email: [e-mail]
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section)
I, (print or hjpe name of person listed in Contact Information, item 2a) , certify that I
own the property identified in this permit application, and thus give permission to (print or hjpe name of person
listed in Contact Information, itent la) with (print or hjpe name of organization listed in
Contact Information, item 1a) to develop the project as currently proposed. A copy
of the lease agreement or pending property sales contract has been provided with the submittal, which indicates
the party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system.
ECE0 V
JUN 19 2012
8r:
Form SWU-101 Version 077un2010 Page 8 of 9

As the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my
designated agent (entity listed in Contact Information, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or
defaults on their lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DWQ Stormwater
permit reverts back to me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DWQ
immediately and submit a completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be
operating a stormwater treatment facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a
stormwater treatment facility without a valid permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may
result in appropriate enforcement action including the assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day,
pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Signature: Date:
a Notary Public for the State of . County of
do hereby certify that
before me this — day of
personally appeared
. and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
SEAL
My commission expires
X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
1, (print or hjpe name of person listed in Contact Inforntntion, itent 1a) Car 1 H, 19-1iL,-1-
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recorded, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
applicable sto7nyater rules der NC C 2H .1000, SL 2006-246 (Ph. I -Post Construction) or 5L 2008-211.
s
Signa
tu
re- //ll /Date:
I,/�� �� !!J a Notary Public for the State of County of
Ill do hereby certify thatpersonally appeared
before me this _ day of AlY and ackno edge the duq execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal, -�`
�-
EALICE A. BONNETTE
Notary Public
nslow County of North Caro ina
ssion Ex ires n'HI Z
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010
SEAL
My commission expires
EGEIVE
JUN 19 2012
Page 9 of 9 BY. -

Permit No. SG� p C� �O3✓r 3
(to be provided by DWQ)
o
���p WArEfi G
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
o
NCDENR
401 CERTIFICATtON APPLICATION FORM
INFILTRATION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part lit) must be printed, fitted out and submitted along with all of
the required informarion.
I:'�PROJECTkINFORMATION' O-°
:,;r ..,.: "x.�rsits
-`s° "`
Project Name
P-1286 Bachelors Enlisted Quarters Rifle Range
Contact Person
Carl Baker
Phone Number
910-451.2213
Date
412512012
Drainage Area Number
9
16DESIGN'INF,ORMATION . • _ ,. ,'T. ';� t , r;.` R
Site Characteristics
Drainage area
78,292.00
Impervious area
16,293.00 1?
Percent impervious
20.81 %
Design rainfall depth
3.60 in
Peak Flow Calculations
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth
3.60 in
1-yr, 24-hr intensity
0.16 in/hr
Pre -development 1-yr, 24-hr discharge
0.04 Osec
Post -development l-yr, 24-hrdischarge
0.09 1131sec
PrelPost 1-yr, 24-hr peak Flow control
0.05 ft3lsec
Storage Volume: Non -SA Waters
Minimum design volume required
no ft3
Design volume provided
na ft3 OK for non -SA waters
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5' runoff volume
ft3
Pre -development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff volume
1,174.00 ft3
Post -development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff vdume
5,573.00 63
Minimum required volume
4399.00 to
Volume provided
8,839.00 ft3 OK
Soils Report Summary
Soil type
sand
Infiltration rate
5,15 inthr
SHWT elevation
45.50 fmsl
Basin Design Parameters
Drawdown time
0,34 days OK
Basin side slopes
100 :1 OK
Basin bottom elevation
47.50 fmsl OK
Storage elevation
49.78 fmsl
Storage Surface Area
4,953.00 e
RECEIVED
Top elevation
50.00 fmsl
Basin Bottom Dimensions
JUL ] Zfl�Z
Basin length
118.00 ft
Basin width
24,00 It
Bottom Surface Area
2,856.00 f?
$Y;.SW ? 6 ?U 31
Form SW461•Inrillration Basin-Rev.5 11Apr2011 Parts I. & ii. Design Summary, Page 1 or 2

f

Permit No.
(to be provided by DWQ)
Additional Information
Maximum runoff to each inlet to the basin?
0.37
ac-in
OK
Length of vegetative filter for overflow
50.00
ft
OK
Distance to structure
530.00
ft
OK
Distance from surface waters
15000
ft
OK
Distance from water supply well(s)
na
ft
OK
Separation from impervious soil layer
6,00
ft
OK
Naturally occuring soil above shwt
3.00
It
OK
Bottom covered with 4-in of clean sand?
Y
(Y or N)
OK
Proposed drainage easement provided?
na
(Y or N)
OK
Capures all runoff at ultimate build -out?
Y
(Y or N)
OK
Bypass provided for larger storms?
Y
(Y or N)
OK
Pretreatment device provided
forebay
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin-Rev.5 11Apr2011 Parts I. & tl- Design Summary, Page 2 of 2

Permit No.
(to be provided by D WQ)
III. REQUIREDITEMS-CHECKLIST
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will
result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may initial below. If a
requirement has not been met, attach justification.
Page! Plan
Initials Sheet No.
CG 1 . 17
1. Plans (1" - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
C S 1 . 01
Design at ultimate build -out,
CG1 . 02
Off -site drainage (if applicable),
- Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Basin dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
CG1 - 02 2. Partial plan (1" = 30' or larger) and details for the infiltration basin snowing:
- Bypass structure,
- Maintenance access,
- Basin bottom dimensions,
- Basin cross-section with benchmark for sediment cleanout,
Flow distribution detail for inflow,
Vegetated filter, and
Pretreatment device.
CU5 . 08 3. Section view of the infiltration basin (V = 20' or larger) showing:
Pretreatment and treatment areas, and
Inlet and outlet structures.
p . 7 4. A table of elevations, areas, incremental volumes & accumulated volumes to verify the volume provided.
ATTACHED 5. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. The
results of the soils report must be verified in the field by DWQ, by completing & submitting the soils
investigation request form. County soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information.
C 0 . 0 2 6. A construction sequence that shows how the infitlration basin will be protected from sediment until the
entire drainage area is stabilized.
SEE 7. The supporting calculations
SUPPLEMENT
ATTACHED 8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
N/R
9. A copy of the deed restrictions (if required). ` V
1�
11
JUN 19 2012
BY:
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin-Rev,4 Page 1 of 1 Part III. Required Items Checklist, Page 1 of 1

t
r
Permit Number: SiN p 090315
(to be provided by DWQ)
Drainage Area Number: q
Infiltration Basin Operation and Maintenance Agreement
I will keep a maintenance record on this BMP. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient BMP elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity
of structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
Important maintenance procedures:
The drainage area will be carefully managed to reduce the sediment load to the
infiltration basin.
Immediately after the infiltration basin is established, the vegetation will be
watered twice weekly if needed until the plants become established (commonly
six weeks).
— No portion of the infiltration basin will be fertilized after the initial fertilization
that is required to establish the vegetation.
— The vegetation in and around the basin will be maintained at a height of
approximately six inches.
After the infiltration basin is established, it will be inspected once a quarter and within
24 hours after every storm event greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a Coastal
County). Records of operation and maintenance will be kept in a known set location
and will be available upon request.
Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall
be repaired immediately.
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The entire BMP
Trash/debris is present.
Remove the trash/debris.
The perimeter of the
Areas of bare soil and/or
Regrade the soil if necessary to
infiltration basin
erosive gullies have formed.
remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
one-time fertilizer application.
The inlet device: pipe or
The pipe is clogged (if
Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
swale
a licable).
sediment off -site.
The pipe is cracked or
Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged (if
applicable).
Erosion is occurring in the
Regrade the swale if necessary to
swale (if applicable).
smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
EG r
JUN 1 g 2412
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin O&M -Rev.') t3Y: -----" Page of 3

BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate the roblem:
The forebay
Sediment has accumulated
Search for the source of the
and reduced the depth to 75%
of the original design depth.
sediment and remedy the problem if
possible. Remove the sediment and
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Erosion has occurred or
Provide additional erosion
riprap is displaced.
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticides are used, wipe
them on the plants rather than
-spraying.
The main treatment area
A visible layer of sediment
Search for the source of the
has accumulated.
sediment and remedy the problem if
possible. Remove the sediment and
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP. Replace any media that
was removed in the process.
Revegetate disturbed areas
immediately.
Water is standing more than
Replace the top few inches of filter
5 days after a storm event.
media and see if this corrects the
standing water problem If so,
revegetate immediately. If not,
consult an appropriate professional
for a more extensive repair,
Weeds and noxious plants are
Remove the plants by hand or by
growing in the main
wiping them with pesticide (do not
treatment area.
spray
The embankment
Shrubs or trees have started
Remove shrubs or trees
to grow on the embankment.
immediately.
An annual inspection by an
Make all needed repairs.
appropriate professional
shows that the embankment
needs repair.
The outlet device
Clogging has occurred.
Clean out the outlet device. Dispose
of the sediment off -site.
The outlet device is damaged
Repair or replace the outlet device.
The receiving water
Erosion or other signs of
Contact the NC Division of Water
damage have occurred at the
Quality 401 Oversight Unit at 919-
outlet.
733-1786.
Form SW40I-Infiltration Basin 0&M-Rev.3
SUN 19 2012 '
4t
Y"-Page 2 ofJ� 3 �~

Permit Number: _--Vv'U' f o 8'o3 t 3
(to be provided by DWQ)
I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any
problems with the system or prior to any changes to the system or responsible party.
Projecl name:P1286 BACHELOR'S ENLISTED QUARTERS RIFLE RANGE
BMP drainage area number:
Print name:Carl Baker
Title:Deput•y Public Works Officer
Address:Building 1005 Michael Road. MCB Camp Leicune. NC. 28542
Phon
S ign:
Date
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president,
I. Alk. // �, a Notary Public for the State of
C County of do hereby certify that
personally appeared before me this
day of , g: /,e -, and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing infiltration basin maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official seal,
//' X �
ALICE A. 13ONNETTE
Notary Public
Onslow County
State of North Caro ina����
M Comntlssiort E ire Gv7f
SEAL
My commission expires
Form 5W401-Infiltration Basin O&M-Rev.3
�Vp
12
jo 19 24
bY:—Page 3 of'3

5
I • � �
_. � .. '. .. r ,�}• 1. r�
. Iw' .
� ,+ I'Y
• �.�� �
r • N �. , 1
r l' , r

Permit Number SW8080313
Program Category
State SW
Permit Type
State Stormwater
Primary Reviewer
linda.lewis
Coastal SW Rule
Coastal Stormwater - 2008
Permitted Flow
Facility Name
P1184 Dining Hall and P1286 Rifle Range BEQ
Location Address
Range Rd
Camp Lejeune NC 28542
Owner
7i 0��:55
Central Files: APS— SWP_
07/13/12
Permit Tracking Slip
Status
Project Type
Active
Major modification
Version
Permit Classification
1.10
Individual
Permit Contact Affiliation
MajorlMinor Region
Minor Wilmington
County
Onslow
Facility Contact Affiliation
Owner Name Owner Type
Commanding Officer US Marine Corps - Camp Lejeune Government - Federal
Owner Affiliation
Carl H. Baker Jr.
Deputy Director Public Works of
1005 Michael Rd
Dates/Events Camp Lejeune NC 285472521
Scheduled
orig Issue App Received Draft Initiated Issuance
Public Notice Issue Effective
Expiration
04/29/08 06/19/12 07/13/12
07/13/12 07/13/12
12/30/21
Regulated Activities
Requested/Received Events
State Stormwater - HD - Infiltration
Deed restriction requested
Deed restriction received
Additional information requested
06/28/12
Additional information received
07/05112
Additional information requested
07/10/12
Additional information received
07/13/12
Outfall NULL
Waterbody Name Stream Index Number Current Class Subbasin

MEMORY TRANSMISSION REPORT
TIME :07-13—'12 15 A5
FAX N0.1 :910-350-2018
NAME :DENR Wilmington
FILE NO.
897
DATE
07.13 15:33
TO
R 919104512927
DOCUMENT PAGES
10
START TIME
07.13 15:33
END TIME
07.13 15:35
PAGES SENT
10
STATUS
OK
*** SUCCESSFUL TX NOTICE ***
9 torte of Nvrid Cwro!►aa
�y.rrlina�n• oT Rnvjrvaa.ov4 .4d Na4u rvl R�rsou rcw.
W61m{nn4on R.aad>m�w
B—� IF— 4'• +•e — FAX C(7YR1W 913EET
ITne 1 is�e�p. sarlro[.ry
No. Paz=" Cexcl. covert'.
-r—: .�� 23 O ''rel Fr M-. ao coelnfir
F*v%--a:
V ax: {910i 3 �23L4�1
�-��� •� �-.� S rim -c✓ --- �� � d ,,,,� e�®� .��ro » - • �- �'--�
127 c—dinel Chive Nc i10403 r (910) 79G-77 i 9 - An 1?q..3 Opp-r nity A.Pd—X.UI O Aullu..

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVED SHEET Dee Freeman, Secretary
Date: -_ �;r �� " l � _- No. Pages (exel_ cover):
To: f �G�c,,,,�From: Jo Casmer
Co: '-;w Ze � , Phone: [phone]
Fax: ��� 'Sf'� �� Fax: [phone]
Re:
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

MERRY TRANSMISSION REPORT
TIME :07-13-'12 15:44
FAX NO.1 :910-350-2018
NAME :DENR Wilmington
FILE NO.
698
DATE
C7.13 15:42
TO
8 912063825222
DOCUMENT PAGES
10
START TIME
07.13 15:42
END TIME
07.13 15:44
PAGES SENT
10
STATUS
OK
*** SUCCESSFUL TX NOTICE ***
State of NortL C'w rvlintt
D�pa"t eftt of J1e.w1--MwwL -od Natural Rosourcw
W[iminQton Reglertal 43m—
Br,rr[y Pf�rdr.r, Go.oroor P'A-7 COVER lSi.[EICT vK i...oar. Sec"twry
Aato: �� ����- No. Pam-. Ca+xc1, .suvcr):
From: f0_ 1U T
Co: ��/J//�S'4 /�S �/'i I1G.•����� ��'G. Phc�i.e= i910]_7�5��36 ..
.lam-�i» . "-� _ ���� -.�'�� � •®�✓ � � � �r�y � _ ��. � � - - -
127 Cardin.[ 9'3 lv Y.%l On lir Wil—n W.-, Nr' ylewnK - [phone] S - An C4qua117p1.. rtu 1W A}[7rr tff Action P+ WJuyer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER SHEET Dee Freeman, Secretary
Date:
To:GiSSi
Fax:��—�—
Re: . "7
No. Pages (excl. cover):
From: Jo Casmer
Phone: (9l0) 796-7336__
Fax: (9 [ 0) 350-2004 _ ^�
-;-14 e
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

INFILTRATION BASIN ANALYSIS
FILENAME: s:lwgslstormwatertpermits & projects12008t080313 HD12012 07 excel_IB 080313
PROJECT NUMBER: SW8
080313
First Run Date:
3/27/2008
PROJECT NAME: Camp Lejeune Dining Fac & BEQ Rifle
Range
Last Modified:
13-Jul-12
REVIEWER:
L. Lewis
Basin 1 I
Basin 2
Basin 3
Basin 5
Basin 6
Basin7
Basin 9
P-1286
P-1184
P-1286
P-1164
P-1286
P-1286
P-1286
Receiving Stream
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
Stones Creek
River Basin
WOK02
WOK02
WOK02
WOK02
WOK02
WOK02
WOK02
Index Number
19-30-3
19-30-3
19-30-3
19-30-3
19-30-3
19-30-3
19-30-3
Classification
SA; HOW
SA; HOW
SA: HOW
SA; HOW
SA; HOW
SA; HOW
SA HOW
IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATION
Onsite DA, sf
149975
50530
140526
33812
312827
287276
78292
Of6site DA, sf
0
0
0
0
1067
0
0
Drainage Area, sq ft =
149975
50530
140526
33812
313894
287276
78292 sr
Drainage Area, ac =
3.44
1.16
3.23
0.78
7.21
6.59
1.80 ac
Buildings
25961
860
2_80
7575
31670
1992
1.00
Streets
-__
_ _
_-
_ _
11056
63139
_
_°
1435- 8 1 0.98
0.98
4480 _
Parking 54619
21715
_
(Sidewalk _ _
8545
1130
12226
_ 1338_
_ 13477_
7349
14229
19_35 0.95
0.95
Other
Future
-
--
3160
1067
j 0.98
0.98
D.95
_-
_. -_� _
Offsite
_- w_
40923
_
Existing 10425
23552
149193��
TOTAL
E799550
23705
53429
16553
151310
165414
16293 Isf
0.544
1.227
0.380
3.474
3.797
2.285
0,374 ac
% Impervious, 1, sq ft=
66.38%
46.91 %
38.02%
48.96%
48.20%
57-58%
20.81%
Cc=
0.65
0.57
0,21
0.36
1 0.47
0.14
0.18
VOLUME CALCULATION
Design Storm = 3.6
3.58
3.6
3.58
3.6
3.6
3.6 in
Rv, pre (0%)= 0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Rv, post- 0.65
0.47
0.39
0.49
0.48
0.57
0.24
SHWT Elev.= 45.33
45.87
43.50
48.13
44.50
43.5
45.5 fmsl
Infiltration Rate, Inlhr = 6.54
7.70
0.73
5.00
10.30
10.30
5.20 inrhr
Bottom Elevation= 47.5
47.87
45.5
50.13
46.5
45.5
47.5 fmsl
Bottom Surface Area = 10552
3941
6233
2946
17671
17283
2856 sf
Storage Elevation = 49.73
49.17
47.51
51.4
48.6
47.79
49.78 rmsl
Storage SA = 13655
6011
8187
4362
21286
21788
4953 sf
Pre -development volume 2249.6
753.7
2107.9
504.4
4708.4
4309.1
1174.4 1 yr 2
Post -development volume 29128.1
7118.5
16533.7
4948.8
45562.1
48970.9
5573.5 1 yr 2
6365
14426
4444
40854
44662
Design Volume = 1 26879
4399 cr
6469
14492
4641
40905
44736
Total Volume Provided= 26991
8902 lef
as acre -in 7.44
1.78
3.99
1.28
11,27
12.32
2,45 ac-in
Is the Vol Provided? OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Storage met at elevation= 49.72
49.15
47.50
51.35
48.60
47.79
48.63 finsl
Bypass Weir Elev. 49.73
49.17
47.51
51.40
48.60
47.79
49.78 fmsl
Time to Draw Down = 4.67
2.52
38.05
3.62
2.69
3.01
155 hrs

Lewis,Linda
From: Pritchard, Melissa J. ([e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:17 PM
To: Lewis,Linda
Cc: Russell, Janet; Chen, Teresa; Rice, Ronald (PSHA)
Subject: RE: SW8 080313
Linda --
I am okay with you adding the contour elevation from the supplemental sheets. Thank you for doing that.
Melissa
Melissa J. Pritchard, PE, LEED AP
Senior Stormwater Engineer
Parsons Brinckerhoff
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98104
Desk 206.382.6325
Cell 586.855.8647
www.pbworld.com
From: Lewis,Linda [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:06 PM
To: Pritchard, Melissa J.
Cc: Russell, Janet; Chen, Teresa; Rice, Ronald (PBHA)
Subject: RE: SW8 080313
Thanks Melissa.
There's nothing you need to do as far as the previously approved Mess Hall plans go. They will be reapproved
and incorporated into the new plan set, included in the modified permit and become an enforceable part of the
permit.
Yes, the bottom contour elevation will need to be added to the plans. My previous addinfo letter requested that
whatever contour you chose to provide dimensions for, that you label its elevation. With your permission, I can
add the bottom contour elevation listed on the supplement forms to each of the dimensioned basins on the
plans.
now understand how the bypass and level spreader elevations are related. Thanks.
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Pritchard, Melissa J.[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:46 PM
To: Lewis,Linda

Lewis,Linda
From: Lewis, Linda
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:15 AM
To: 'Pritchard, Melissa J.'
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: SW8 080313 Mod. Dining Hall / BEQ Rifle Range Road
Melissa
As I was writing up the permit, I discovered 2 minor discrepancies between the supplements and calculations
for Basins 1 and 9:
BMP #1 - The Bottom surface area is reported on the supplement as 7,904 sf, but the calculations use 10,552
sf. If it's 7,904, please check the reported 26,935 cf volume provided that is reported on the supplement, as
that may change as a result. Please submit signed, sealed and dated revised calculations as necessary.
BMP #9 -- The volume provided is reported on the supplement as 9,953 cf, but the calculations only come up
with 8,839 cf at the storage elevation.
That's all I got, everything else looks great and the permit is drafted. Please submit the revisions (via email
attachment is fine) by July 17, 2012.
Thanks.
Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.

MML
Ot PARSONS
BRINCKFRHOFF
July 2nd, 2012
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
C/o Linda Lewis
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Subject: Request for Additional Information — Express Review Stormwater Project No. SW8 080313
P-1286 BEQ Rifle Range and P-1184 Dining Facility Onslow County
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Parsons Brinckerhoff received a request for additional information regarding Express modified State
Stormwater Management Permit Application SW8 080313 for P-1286 BEQ Rifle Range and P-1184 Dining
Facility on June 28, 2012. Parsons Brinckerhoff has addressed the request for additional information.
Please find the response to your requests bolded below:
1. In order to reduce the thickness of the application documents, I have used just one of the
signed O&M agreements for the four proposed modified/new LS/VFS systems in DA's 1, 3, 6
and 7.
PB: Noted.
2. As we discussed previously, it is not necessary to report DA 6A on the application since that is
runoff from an existing not subject road, and there is no corresponding BMP to treat that
runoff. Additionally, it appears that there is a typographical error (transposition) in the
number reported for either the onsite DA or the total DA for DA 6A.
PB: DA 6A has been removed from the application and overall permit boundary plan sheet.
New drainage area information for the application and the overall permit boundary plan
sheet has been resubmitted with this response.
3. Please label the existing previously approved Dining Hall and 8MP's 2 and 5 on the geometry
and grading plans. These are still covered by this permit. Because you have not labeled or
detailed these items on the plans, we will need to come up with a way to incorporate the
previously approved geometry plan, grading plan and details for the Dining Facility and the
two existing BMP's, 2 and 5.
PB: The Dining Hail and BIVIPs 2 and 5 have been labeled on the geometry and grading plans.
New plan sheets have been submitted with this response.
4. Please expand the provided infiltration basin dimensions to include each line and arc of the
bottom contour. Providing only 2 dimensions for a multiple -sided and curved BMP contour is
not sufficient. Please be sure to label which contour is being dimensioned with its
corresponding elevation.
PB: The bottom of basin contour has been dimensioned for each BMP. New plan sheets
have been submitted with this response.

MED PARSONS
BRINCKFRHOFF
J --125
5. Please add a note to the B2 detail on sheet CU5.08 (Bypass Structure Typical —1, 3, 7 and 9) to
refer to Table 1 on that sheet for the pertinent sizes and elevations.
PB: Note has been added to the B2 detail on sheet CUS.08 and resubmitted with this
response.
6. In Table 1 on sheet CU5.08, the bypass elevations for Basins 6 and 7 are 42.8 and 47.79,
respectively. However, the associated elevation "A" in the Level Spreader Elevations table for
these basins is 43 and 48. How is this possible?
PB: Bypass elevation for BMP 6 is 48.60' which is maintained by the overflow weir inside
bypass structure 6 (shown in detail B4). Elevation "A" is the level spreader lip which is 43'
for BMP 6. Bypass elevation for BMP 7 is 47.79' which is maintained by bypass structure 7
whose overflow orifice (at elevation 47.79') outflows into the blind Swale adjacent to the
level spreader lip. Elevation "A" is the level spreader lip which is 48' for BMP 7.
Please revise the "Top View" of the Bypass Structure Typical detail on sheet CU5.08 to show
the overflow location.
PB: Overflow location arrow has been added to detail on sheet CU5.08 and resubmitted.
Please contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Melissa !. Pritchard, P.E., L D AP
Parsons Brinckerhoff

Lewis, Linda
From: Pritchard, Melissa J. [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:46 PM
To_ Lewis,Linda
Cc: Russell, Janet; Chen, Teresa; Rice, Ronald (PBHA)
Subject: RE: SW8 080313
Attachments: SW8 080313 Request for Information Response.pdf
Linda —
Please find attached the response letter that was supposed to accompany our last submittal. I'm sorry that it was left
out. As for your additional questions:
1. 1 am okay with referencing the Dining Facility plans for those BMPs that are remaining as part of the permit. Do I
need to do anything for this, perhaps redo a page of the application?
2. The dimension labeled is the bottom of the basin, as described in the response letter. Do we need to add this
note to the plans?
3. The bypass structure outfalls into the blind swale adjacent the level spreader at elevation 47.79.Once the blind
swale fills to elevation 48', the water flows over the level spreader. This is the design for each LS-VFS.
Thank you --
Melissa
Melissa J. Pritchard, PE, LEED AP
Senior Stormwater Engineer
Parsons Brinckerhoff
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98104
Desk 206,382.6325
Cell 586,855,8647
www.pbworld.com
From: Lewis,Unda[mailto:linda.lewist&ncdenr.99y]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:02 AM
To: Pritchard, Melissa J.
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: SW8 080313
Melissa
I received the revised information, but there was no accompanying letter of explanation.
1. How do you want to handle the incorporation of the previously approved plan set for 080313? As
previously mentioned, the Mess Hall and the basins 2 and 5 are still covered by this permit. The plans
contain the approved layout, grading and basin details, which are still an enforceable part of the permit.
My suggestion would be to refer to the old approved plans in the new permit.
2. While you have added more to the dimensions of the infiltration basins, I still don't know what contour is
being dimensioned because it was not labeled on the revised plans.
3. .The bypass elevation for Basin #7 in Table 1 on sheet CU5.08 remains at 47.79, and the downstream
level spreader lip remains at elevation 48. This is still not possible, as runoff will have to flow uphill
leaving the bypass structure to get to the level spreader. Have a missed something?
Please resubmit the requested information by July 17, 2012.

k:Linda Lewis
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7215
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
NOncc,: 'Phis communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration,
dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this
message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

Mr. Baker
June 28, 2012
Stormwater Application No. SW8 080313 Mod
June 28, 2012
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Carl Baker, P.E., Deputy Public Works Officer
Building 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: Request for Additional Information — Express Review
Stormwater Project No. SW8 080313
P-1286 BEQ Rifle Range and P-1184 Dining Facility
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker. -
The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express modified State Stormwater
Management Permit Application for SW8 080313 for P-1286 BEQ Rifle Range and P-
1184 Dining Facility on June 19, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has
determined that the application is not complete. The following information is needed to
continue the stormwater review:
In order to reduce the thickness of the application documents, I have used
just one of the signed O&M agreements for the four proposed
modified/new LSNFS systems in DA's 1, 3, 6 and 7.
2. As we discussed previously, it is not necessary to report DA 6A on the
application since that is runoff from an existing not subject road, and there
is no corresponding BMP to treat that runoff. Additionally, it appears that
there is a typographical error (transposition) in the number reported for
either the onsite DA or the total DA for DA 6A,
3. Please label the existing previously approved Dining Hall and BMP's 2
and 5 on the geometry and grading plans. These are still covered by this
permit. Because you have not labeled or detailed these items on the
plans, we will need to come up with a way to incorporate the previously
approved geometry plan, grading plan and details for the Dining Facility
and the two existing BMP's, 2 and 5.
4. Please expand the provided infiltration basin dimensions to include each
line and arc of the bottom contour. Providing only 2 dimensions for a
multiple -sided and curved BMP contour is not sufficient. Please be sure to
label which contour is being dimensioned with its corresponding elevation.
5. Please add a note to the B2 detail on sheet CU5.08 (Bypass Structure
Typical — 1, 3, 7 and 9) to refer to Table 1 on that sheet for the pertinent
sizes and elevations.
Page 1 of 2

Mr. Baker
June 28, 2012
Stormwater Application No. SW8 080313 Mod.
6_ In Table 1 on sheet CU5.08, the bypass elevations for Basins 6 and 7 are
42.8 and 47.79, respectively. However, the associated elevation "A" in the
Level Spreader Elevations table for these basins is 43 and 48. How is this
possible?
7. Please revise the "Top View" of the Bypass Structure Typical detail on
sheet CU5.08 to show the overflow location.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary
review. The requested information should be received in this Office prior to July 5,
2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will
necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail, email or fax your
request for a time extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom
of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit the
required information. In the Express program, no more than 2 time extensions may be
granted, for a total of 10 days.
If this is a new project, the construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a
construction entrance under an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a
violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS
143-215.6A. The proposed modification may not be constructed until the permit
modification is approved and issued.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any
original documents that need to be revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All
original documents must be returned or new originals must be provided. Copies are not
acceptable. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me
at [phone] or email me at [e-mail]
Sincerely,
Linda Lewis
Environmental Engineer III
GDSlarl: S:IWQS1Stormwater\\Permits & ProjectsQO081080313 HD12012 06 addinfo 080313
CC: Melissa Pritchard, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Page 2 of 2

Lewis,Linds
From: Lewis, Linda
Seat: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:53 AM
To: 'Pritchard, Melissa J.'
Cc: Baker CIV Carl H; Towler GS03 David- Bradshaw CiV Thomas C
Subject: Ecpress Review Comments SW8 080313
Attachments: 2012 06 addinfo 080313.pdf
Please see the attached Express review comments for the subject project.
Linda

A h
����
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
June 28, 2012
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakiid, P. E.
Director
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Carl Baker, P.E., Deputy Public Works Officer
Building 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: Request for Additional Information — Express Review
Stormwater Project No. SW8 080313
P-1286 BEQ Rifle Range and P-1184 Dining Facility
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express modified State Stormwater
Management Permit Application for SW8 080313 for P-1286 BEQ Rifle Range and P-
1184 Dining Facility on June 19, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has
determined that the application is not complete. The following information is needed to
continue the stormwater review:
In order to reduce the thickness of the application documents, I have used
just one of the signed O&M agreements for the four proposed
modified/new LSNFS systems in DA's 1, 3, 6 and 7.
2. As we discussed previously, it is not necessary to report DA 6A on the
application since that is runoff from an existing not subject road, and there
is no corresponding BMP to treat that runoff. Additionally, it appears that
there is a typographical error (transposition) in the number reported for
either the onsite DA or the total DA of DA 6A.
3. Please label the existing previously approved Dining Hall and BMP's 2
and 5 on the geometry and grading plans. These are still covered by this
permit. Because you have not labeled or detailed these items on the
plans, we will need to come up with a way to incorporate the previously
approved geometry plan, grading plan and details for the Dining Facility
and the two existing BMP's, 2 and 5.
4. Please expand the provided infiltration basin dimensions to include each
line and arc of the bottom contour. Providing only 2 dimensions for a
multiple -sided and curved BMP contour is not sufficient. Please be sure to
label which contour is being dimensioned with its corresponding elevation.
5. Please add a note to the B2 detail on sheet CU5.08 (Bypass Structure
Typical — 1, 3, 7 and 9) to refer to Table 1 on that sheet for the pertinent
sizes and elevations.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAK 910-350-20041 DENR Assistance: 1-877-623.6748 NorthCarolina
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org Aaturally
An Equal Opportunity 4 Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Baker
' June 28, 2012
Stormwater Application No. SW8 080313 Mod.
6. In Table 1 on sheet CU5.08, the bypass elevations for Basins 6 and 7 are
42.8 and 47.79, respectively. However, the associated elevation "A" in the
Level Spreader Elevations table for these basins is 43 and 48, How is this
possible?
7. Please revise the "Top View" of the Bypass Structure Typical detail on
sheet CU5.08 to show the overflow location.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary
review. The requested information should be received in this Office prior to July 5,
2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will
necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail, email or fax your
request for a time extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom
of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit the
required information. In the Express program, no more than 2 time extensions may be
granted, for a total of 10 days.
If this is a new project, the construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a
construction entrance under an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a
violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS
143-215.6A. The proposed modification may not be constructed until the permit
modification is approved and issued.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any
original documents that need to be revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All
original documents must be returned or new originals must be provided. Copies are not
acceptable. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me
at [phone] or email me at linda.lewis(a)ncdenr.gov
Sincerely,
,t!! � ;c4z
Linda Lewis
Environmental Engineer III
GDSlarl: S:IWQSIStormwater\\Permits & Projects120081080313 HD12012 06 addinfo 080313
CC: Melissa Pritchard, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Page 2 of 2

P1286 BACHELOR'S ENLISTED QUARTERS RIFLE RANGE
PREPARED FOR:
NAVAL FACILITIES
ENGINEERING COMMAND
MID -ATLANTIC
PREPARED BY:
PARSONS
BRINCKER14OFF
APRIL 2012
R131'1sEi) f UNE 2012
999 Third Avenue
Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone:[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
jug 1
's9 20i2
�v-ya3
aY:w
-- PARSONS
BRINCKERHOFF
ass
VE4FS

Table of Contents
Introduction ...............................................
Project Description .................................
Existing Conditions .................................
Hydrology...................................................
Pre- and Post -Development Conditions ......
Water Quality and Quantity Analysis..........
BMP-1....................................................
BMP-3....................................................
BMP-6....................................................
BMP-7....................................................
BMP-9....................................................
Conclusion ..................................................
Supplemental Calculations .........................
IN
uN � 9 Zot2
1
2
2
2
3
5
....5
5
6
6
7
7
.... 8
1

Introduction
Project Description
The project site is located in the cantonment area of the Marine Corps Special Operations Command
(MARSOC) at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. The project consists of two three-story Bachelor
Enlisted Quarters (BEQs) with associated parking areas, paved roads, BMP stormwater management,
and utilities, as part of a larger effort to build a campus like atmosphere. The 30 acre site is located in
Onslow County approximately 15 miles south of Jacksonville, North Carolina off of Route 210 Dixon
Sneads Ferry Road (see Vicinity Map).
The purpose of this report is to analyze the stormwater management design of the project area and
determine necessary measures to comply with North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) requirements to modify existing state stormwater management permits.
Existing Conditions
The project terrain is average with slopes between 1% and 7%. Grade slopes downhill east and west
from the middle of the site and stormwater drains into surrounding riparian wetlands. The site is
covered with pines, caliper 3"-6" deciduous trees, dirt piles, gravel and some dense wooded areas.
There is no evidence of severe erosion potential. The project site outfalls to the SA waters of Stones
Creek and then eventually to Stones Bay. Stones Creek is located in the White Oak river basin, its Index
number is 19-30-3 and its class is SA;HQW.
There are three (3) existing state stormwater permits impacted by this project. They are as follows:
• SW8 080313 -- P1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
• SW8 040912 — Shooters Parking Lot Rifle Range
• SW8 070847 — MARSOC Complex
Existing SW8 080313 consists of five (5) infiltration basins with bypass level spreaders and one (1)
grassed swale. Existing SW8 040912 consists of one (1) infiltration basin with a bypass structure. To
obtain a stormwater permit for the BEQs Rifle Range project, a permit modification of SW8 080313 is
required and permit SW8 040912 will be rescinded. Two (2) existing infiltration basins and an existing
grassed Swale will not be affected by this modification. A separate modification is required for permit
SW8 070847 MARSOC Complex. The MARSOC Complex permit boundary has been modified to remove
the BEQs at Rifle Range project from its limits. Permit documents, wetland delineation, a geotechnical
report and NRCS soils report are provided separately from this narrative.
Hydrology
In accordance with NCDENR, the Modified Rational method was used for stormwater management
design. The rainfall intensity values were found using the NOAA rainfall data for Snead's Ferry rain
gauge. There are eight (8) primary drainage areas onsite.
JUN 19 2012 2

Drainage area 1 is 149,911 square feet located on the east side of Range Road and drains east by
overland flow to a storm sewer system, Swale or forebay and then into an infiltration basin (BMP 1).
BMP 1 has a bypass structure which outfalls into a swale and then flows over a level spreader to an
engineered vegetated filter strip before reaching wetlands.
Drainage area 2 is 50,530 square feet located on the east side of Range Road and drains to an existing
infiltration basin. This drainage area is unaffected by this modification.
Drainage area 3 is 140,526 square feet located on the east side of Range Road and drains east by
overland flow to a Swale or forebay and then into an infiltration basin (BMP 3). BMP 3 has a bypass
structure which outfalls into a swale and then flows over a level spreader to an engineered vegetated
filter strip before reaching wetlands.
Drainage area 5 is 33,812 square feet located on the east side of Range Road and drains to an existing
infiltration basin. This drainage area is unaffected by this modification.
Drainage area 6 is 313,864 square feet located on the west side of Range Road and drains west by
overland flow to a swale or storm sewer system and then into the forebay of an infiltration basin (BMP
6). BMP 6 has a bypass structure which outfalls to a level spreader and engineered vegetated filter strip
before reaching wetlands. BMP 6 also has a flow splitter structure for diverting peak 10-year storm flows
exceeding 10 cfs to a lined channel.
Drainage area 6A is 45,739 square feet located on the east side of Range Road and drains to an existing
grassed swale and then into an existing storm sewer system offsite. This drainage area is unaffected by
this modification.
Drainage area 7 is 287,276 square feet located on the west side of Range Road and drains west by
overland flow to a Swale or storm sewer system and then into the forebay of an infiltration basin (BMP
7). BMP 7 has a bypass structure which outfalls to a level spreader and engineered vegetated filter strip
before reaching wetlands.
Drainage area 9 is 78,292 square feet located on the north side of Rifle Range Road and drains west by
overland flow to a Swale and then into an infiltration basin (BMP 9). BMP 9 has a bypass structure which
outfalls to a roadside Swale.
Pre- and Post -Development Conditions
Five (5) new infiltration basins, two (2) existing infiltration basins, and one (1) existing grassed Swale are
onsite to provide stormwater treatment and reduce runoff from existing and proposed development.
The BEQs at Rifle Range project requires the removal of three (3) existing infiltration basins onsite.
These infiltration basins were treating existing impervious and the new infiltration basins will need to
compensate for the loss of these existing basins. To provide adequate treatment on the proposed site
the proposed infiltration basins have been designed based off a predevelopment condition of
undeveloped land. Table 1 below provides the 1-year, 24 hour pre- and post -development discharge for
- jf y 3

proposed stormwater management facilities. Table 2 below provides the 1-, 2-, and 10-year pre- and
post -development peak flows for proposed stormwater management facilities. Peak flows were found
using the Rational Method and NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall intensities from Sneads Ferry rain gauge located
approximately 3 miles from Camp 1-ejeune.
Table 1 -1-year, 24 hour Peak Flows
BMP
Pre-
development
(cfs)
Post
Development
(cfs)
Post Development
from BMPs (cfs)
1
0.08
0.33
0
3
0.07
0.22
0
6
0.16
0.58
0
7
0.15
0.59
0
9
0.04
0.09
0
Table 2 - Rational Method Peak Flows
BMP
Pre -development (cfs)
Post Development (cfs)
Post Development from BMPs
(cfs)
1-yr
2-yr
10-yr
1-yr
2-yr
10-yr
1-yr
2-yr
10-yr
1
2.30
2.74
3.58
4.90
5.89
7.91
0
0
0
3
1.92
2.29
3.02
3.22
3.81
5.19
0
0
0
6
4.03
4.82
1 6.38
8.30
9.82
13.40
0
0
1 0
7
3.69
4.41
5.84
8.21
8.88
9.18
0
0
0
9
0.87
1.04
1.41
1.28
1.54
2.10
0
0
0
The proposed BEQs at Rifle Range project site is considered high density development at 47% with
622,370 square feet of impervious land cover. Table 3 below provides the minimum storage volume
required to provide adequate treatment for each drainage area. Pre R values for BMP 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, and
10 reflect the predevelopment condition of undeveloped as previously stated.
Table 3 - Storage Volume Required by NCDENR
DA
Pre R.
Pre IA
Pre Volume
(CF)
Post R„
Post IA
Post
Volume
(CF)
Minimum
Volume
(Post -Pre)
(CF)
1
0.05
0
2250
0.65
0.66
29128
26879
3
0.05
0
2108
0.39
0.38
16534
14426
6
0.05
0
4708
0.48
0.48
45562
40854
7
0.05
0
4309
0.57
0.56
48971
44662
9
0.05
0
1174
0.24
0.21
5573
439
Noe
N SAW
�u

The design rainfall depth for coastal North Carolina is 3.6 inches. This rainfall depth is two (2) times the
95'n percentile event required by United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-210-ION therefore the infiltration
basins for BEQs at Rifle Range are compliant with UFC 3-210-ION and provide twice the amount of
treatment. Table 4 provides volume required to comply with UFC 3-210-10N.
Table 4 - Storage Volume Required by UFC 3-210-ION
DA
Design
Rainfall
Depth
(in)
Area
Developed
(SF)
Minimum
Volume
(CF)
Storage
Volume
Provided
(CF)
1
1.8
93788
14068
26935
3
1.8
53316
7997
14453
6
1.8
151310
22697
40854
7
1.8
152352
22853
44674
9
1 1.8
L 16293 1
2444
1 8839
Water Quality and Quantity Analysis
BMP-1
BMP-1 is an infiltration basin that provides storage and treatment of stormwater runoff from all of
drainage area 1. A forebay collects runoff from the drainage area to provide pretreatment. The basin has
a bypass device that direct larger storms to an 80-foot level spreader with a 50-foot vegetative filter
strip. The table below provides stage -storage for the basin.
Bottom
Storage Vol.
Top
BMP-3
BMP-1
Elevation
(FT)
Area (SF)
Incremental
Volume (CF)
Accumulative
Volume (CF)
47.5
10552
0
0
48
11223
5443
5443
49
12608
11909
17352
49.73
13655
9583
26935
50
14050
3740
30675
BMP-3 is an infiltration basin that provides storage and treatment'of stormwater runoff from all of
drainage area 3. Two forebays collect runoff from the drainage area to provide pretreatment. The basin
has a bypass device that directs larger storms to a 52-foot level spreader with a 50-foot vegetative filter
strip. The table below provides stage -storage for the basin.
i yri t,
.r , 5

Bottom
Storage Vol.
Top
BMP-6
BMP-3
Elevation
(FT)
Area (SF)
Incremental
Volume (CF)
Accumulative
Volume (CF)
45.5
6233
0
0
46
6698
3232
3232
47
7669
7178
10410
47.51
8187
4043
14453
48
8698
4136
18589
BMP-6 is an infiltration basin that provides storage and treatment of stormwater runoff from all of
drainage area 6. A forebay collects runoff from the drainage area to provide pretreatment. The basin has
a bypass device that directs larger storms to a 52-foot level spreader with a 50-foot vegetative filter
strip. The table below provides stage -storage for the basin.
Bottom
Storage Vol.
Top
BMP-7
BMP-6
Elevation
(FT)
Area (SF)
Incremental
Volume (CF)
Accumulative
Volume (CF)
46.5
17671
0
0
47
18508
9044
9044
48
20223
19359
28403
48.6
21286
12451
40854
49
21996
8656
49510
BMP-7 is an infiltration basin that provides storage and treatment of stormwater runoff from all of
drainage area 7. A forebay collects runoff from the drainage area to provide pretreatment. The basin has
a bypass device that directs larger storms to a 95-foot level spreader with a 50-foot vegetative filter
strip. The table below provides stage -storage for the basin.
Bottom
Storage Vol.
Top
BMP-7
Elevation
(FT)
Area (SF)
Incremental
Volume (CF)
Accumulative
Volume (CF)
45.5
17283
0
'0
46
18241
8880
8880
47
20201
19213
28093
47.79
21788
16582
44674
48
22216
4620
49295
M

BMP-9 is an infiltration basin that provides storage and treatment of stormwater runoff from all of
drainage area 9. A forebay collects runoff from the drainage area to provide pretreatment. The basin has
a bypass device that directs larger storms to a roadside swale. In order to waive the vegetated filter
strip requirement, BMP-9 has been designed to provide storage for two (2) times the regulated design
storm and infiltrate within five (5) days using an infiltration rate of one-half the infiltration rate reported
in the soils report. The table below provides stage -storage for the basin.
Bottom
Storage Vol.
Top
BMP-9
Elevation.
(FT)
Area (SF)
Incremental
Volume (CF)
Accumulative
Volume (CF)
47.5
2856
0
0
48
3290
1535
1535
49
4203
3737
5272
49.78
4953
3567
8839
50
5171
1114
9953
Conclusion
This report summarizes the stormwater management for Camp Lejeune's P-1286 Bachelor's Enlisted
Quarters project_ Existing state stromwater permit SW8 040912 will be rescinded and state stormwater
permit SW8 080313 will be modified to include the entire Stone Bay BEQ project and the Existing dining
facility. Also, the MARSOC complex permit boundary (permit SW8 070847) will be modified to remove
the BEQs at Rifle Range project from within its limits.
7

Supplemental Calculations

Section Report
Date: 6111 /2012
Project: Stone Bay SEQs - Accomack
Ditch No: 1 Section No: 1
Section Data
Discharge (2-Year):
Section Elev, U/S:
Slope:
Left Side Slope:
Mannings:
Section Analysis Results
Depth of Flow:
Top Width of Flow:
Flow Velocity:
Shear:
Lining Recommended
1.00
cfs
Discharge (10-Year):
3.40
cfs
40.10
ft
Section Elev. D/S:
39,00
ft
0.055
ft/ft
Bottom Width:
4.00
ft
6.00
HAV
Right Side Slope:
6.00
HAV
0.05
2-Year
10-Year
0.130
ft
0.258 ft
4.78
ft
7.10 ft
1.609
ft/sec
2.375 ft/sec
0.446
lb/ft
0.885 lb/ft
Std. EC-2
Ditch No 1 10-YEAR FLOW SECTION
Section No 1
1 1
0258tt= r f�i , t;
4 44..0011 i
V:H Scale 1 M0
DitchSoftVA by Ensoftec, Inc.

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY .SUN 0 5 LOl1
INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATION
Complete and email this form to Wncent Lewis itca r.` v liloie new,email'address'for Vince t.ewisj. if
there are more than 7 areas to be tested, attach a second sheet.
State Soil Scientist Confirmation Visit date/time:
Project Name: County: 04S UDW
Street Address: i �L 1 R.ok1�> Co futo L-G.,.,lt✓ utlic
Directions from the nearest intersection of two major roads:
w oR--r'14 w a 10 C- SOUTH
>1 acre being disturbed? �}'ll'ES []NO CAMA Major required? []YES (SNO
Consultant Name: Et,I& A ��1�"c-1 i F'-- Phone: cola - 38a lyd5
Consultant Firm Name: PA-(2,SbIJS
Bore Number ES -MP L+-
1
3
4
At 1K
, .6 ', .:
?
-aExistin Ground Elevation
.S
q(a •5
SD
43'5
` <3 °
.L�to
b) Proposed Bottom Elevation
1-S
NS
• 5
3 - S
.. 4
,k
c Difference a minus b
S
d Add 2 ft. Min. Bore Depth)
e Hardpan Depth?
"03d
niR
/iA
NA
,gA' `
Approx. Elev. Of SHWT
.5
3 545
41
.45,.
4;6;Z..
Max. lowest bottom elev.
4 '?
43
1
' 4 4
h Infiltration Rate OK? "
i Confirmation of SHWT "
5a '
36 u
!o
/�
For. projects requiring more than 5 hand borings, manpower or equipment to
conduct the excavation must be provided by the consultant.
*State Soil Scientist Use ONLY
Comments 'FD�- DO e5-n Q1,3S brAS 1'I~' C11-Ll-- '1�4\- (1-OU�"�;
Required Attachments:
1. Legible vicinity map.
2. Complete Soils Report.
3. PDF formatted site plan with the boring locations to be tested. Site plans should
be emailed or hand -delivered only. Illegible faxed maps will not be accepted.
All proposed infiltration areas and existing, active utility lines located within the proposed
basinitrench must be marked and flagged. If these areas are not flagged, the Soils Scientist
reserves the right to decline to do the investigation. If the proposed infiltration system will be
located in an area of existing pavement and there is no open area nearby, equipment capable of
breaking through the impervious layer must be provided. The soils investigation does not take
the place of a soils report prepared by an appropriate professional. The Soils Scientist will only
verify the soil conditions that are reported in the Soils Report, and make a determination as to
the suitability of the site to meet the infiltration design requirements under NCAC 2H. 9000, and
assumes no liability should the system fail.
SAWQSIStormWaterlForms & TemplateslApplication Formslinfiltration site visit Revised 3112

3 �4A h gl�rApvOh 36
S �A Z 6 4
� ika � li, /I ohSoltyi1c 44, be-�Qh t 16"4117
UB 5XCi5V JV f0 RD f-J up S1,Dc, fr",^ 6r,,91,n4/ SI�<

IG f
2
3
m[T Tal[S_..'i'
M "�-]11'i--T+
C•:t:i�llLa7il..�i(�+�RY(.�:�Z:
' - � 'ER�'i-ii�
ILA-
o ,
�d DAtA=45.7395E � O ^•-Q'-_O "�_- 'rf `
l-r�LF-ff (,.05 AC)
',.;r,:• �t cam= u`k �.r- b _ �_=n '•��; ; .�;-1
;`7 _ 3 �•4 - - - -•� '-.1' LEGEND;
1 p_ y c r" it '�;^ -, `l • �� y��11 ' ,'{•. I�I I PERMIT BOUNDARY
L,... I I,%�J. '. ,^ 111 -•r• � ''� f -- .V; :.N �._ I I -. �. `�� 4 , DRAINAGE AREA �®
r "s .l.r _ ��•T �L'rj1 L'i,
`✓:• �,• ___ l �; 1`L{ DA 7.287.2788E _ __ ;;r%''r tee.l-r-- J� __6 r I �S INFILTRATION BASIN
l
(B59ACI - --:,.;. _
-,, _ A.: ' 'S•"-`,,,7,', �' - - 1 ❑2 INFILTRATION
r`• "_.�.+s•• a_ T + 39,8725E TIO BASIN
tih L` -' ` u. '. •, J--• - -ice 1'"' _ �• 50.530 SF ,,i2_' --�-� ❑3 INFILTRATION BASIN �,.a `•
II; -� � �: ;7 ."h", - -i` +_.,�: - ga•h„ �,,. _ ', i 7(i'16 ACl INFILTRATION BASIN !: ••
• ']SIr - I ( QS INFILTRATION BASIN n. `` - _ .�I .i7���•tf ,` ® Ir _-. . �,•: -I .:� r 0 =_�?
INFILTRATION BASIN
. •
•r'o-.• ' h � h x FF �•�—' I IMFEL7FV,NON BASIN Pail,
7 \ '1 `• .mom
_•: ,r ! ,'. _ ® INFLTRATION BASIN
111.
�roe•.� 8188E
i - :- _�• hti<L ~ 1�• .r.,` - _ 4S 19T8 AC)_= y ..,, O GRASSED 5WALE
yr; �;� '• il, - -_ �[ OA8.MAW SF I -_ -149,9788E - - -�_�1,
(8.98 _
AC) - W !�-� _
T--�-,�-'
(znAcs
SERVE RAINING CENTER �'x _l�� !/f: .�• i 1�•wi:�. `,ire"(-y'x,�•_. '\�: iS
fTTF.I] 8Y OT}tERS
�' � aII I+ �1 �. �� f;';.�,• (PERM )
oI�
IfC4_L!
DA, - ra.z92 3F
(1.80 AC) TO BASIN SMEI 1 100.
1 2 1 3 i4 4 1 S

3 Soil Sheets for, Storm Water
Management Plan
iz. 3�)- 1zaZ(
ye&/ e'cp olz�e
fo, 0000 3r 3

CIVIL CALCULATIONS
Stormwater
10 March 2008
Revised 14 April 2008
Revised 22 April 2008
Lngineer (s): Joshua Hurst, P.E.
jeffrcyj. Bass
Brian Wilson
NC4S1.4
Stone Bay — Dining Facility
\ \`\\V\\\V5Vµ44511 I I I 11111111!/1j1'
�N �ARO�/���''�%
O� \`\\VVVV44S ISl`I11/1j�
►� SEAL'
33574 = _
NOSH U A,
','''//j/r1/!!l11111114451515j111\\�
E
IvED2 2 20CE

4 � - 1�
t � � �. / %4_..i./rye=-�..rL�
l . � .} ,,.
•
•�
y
5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................I
1.1 PROJI:?C'I' LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................I.....1
1.2 Pi oJl;;crDI.-SCRIPTION.........................................................................................................1
1.3 GI'3OTITIINICfV..INVI S'I'IGA1'ION..........................................................................................2
DESIGNAPPROACH................................................................................................................2
1.4 31'011M DRAINAGE PIP]NC..................................................................................................... 2
2.0 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS.......................................................................................3
2.1 INFIt TRA'I'!ON BASIN DE.SIGN................................................................................................3
2.2 'WA'1'1: R QUAI.I'lY CAI..CUIi..,VTtONs..........................................................................................4
3.0 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS....................................................................................4
3.1 .....................................................................................I....4
3.2 POST s.......... ............................................................................. 5
APPENDIX A: DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS AND MAPS
APPENDIX B: STORM SYSTEM CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX D: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX E: INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPENDIX F. LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS
APPENDIX G: WETLAND DETERMINATION

P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay NC 461.4
Slonmvalcr Calculations Clark*Ncxsen
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site of P-1184 is located on the east side of Rifle Range Road approximately 300 feet
north of 13ooker T. Washington Road in the Stone Bay Area of Camp Lejeune. The site is
approximately 7.6 acres and eight percent impervious, consisting of five residential units and
associated improvements and landscaping. The land is wooded to the east of the residential area,
beginning 200 to 300 feet east of Rifle Range Road. The ground is relatively flat and is sloping
generally to the east at less than two percent. The ground within the wooded area slopes at
approxin-atcly three percent towards a tributary of the New Ritter. Overhead and underground
power and communication lines and an underground steam line run in the north -south direction
through the center of the site. A 6 inch water line, a roadside ditch and an 8 inch sanitary sever
line run along the east side of Rifle Mange Road.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site work will include the construction of a dining facility and associated site improvements. A
parking lot with 160 spaces will be provided on the south side of the dining facility and will be
accessed by two entrance driveways from Rifle Range Road. Service access will be provided
through a separate north entrance from Rifle Range Road to the loading dock on the rear side of
the building. Access to the loading area will be restricted by a swing gate. The gate will be located
so that a truck is able to pull up to the swing gate without interfering with the normal operation
of Rifle Range Road. Bicycle, handicap, energy efficient vehicle and fast food pick-up parking
will be located closest to the south side of the building. A minimum anti -terrorism and force
protection setback of 82 feet will be provided between roads and parking areas except in the
loading area where controlled access will be provided. Sidewalks will be provided for pedestrian
circulation between the parking area and the building.
'!'he drainage area map and drainage area calculation indicate that the total drainage area for the
post development condition is 6.92 acres. "11e post development conditions are 39%
impervious with an impervious area of 2.67 acres, and a pervious area of 4.25 acres. "1'he
drainage area map and drainage area calculation indicate that the total drainage area for the

P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
Su,miwater Calculations
NC48t.4
C1ark*Ncxscn
predevelopment condition is 6.88 acres. The predevelopment conditions are 9.3% impervious
with an impervious area of 0.64 acres, and a pcnrious area of 6.24 acres.
The project site has two outfall indicated in the drainage area maps. Sixteen percent of the site
drains west to a roadside ditch along Rifle Range Road. The rest of the site drains east towards
the wetlands. The predevelopment and post development drainage area maps are included in
Appendix A.
1.3 GEOTECHNICAI.INVESTIGATION
Geotechnical investigation was performed by Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. A copy of
the Geotechnical report is included in Appendix D. An infiltration investigation was performed
by 17CS Carolinas, LLP and is included in Appendix E.
DESIGN APPROACH
1.4 STORM DRAINAGE PIPING
Permanent storm drainage piping systems are designed for a 10-year storm event using the
Rational Method for rainfall analysis. Rainfall intensity values were taken from the NOAA
website. Runoff coefficients are based on the following values:
Description Runoff Coefficient, C
Paved and Roof Areas 0.95
Undisturbed areas and Lawns 0.20
Using Haestad StormCAD version 5.5, -the post development storm water collection system
comprised of existing and proposed pipes and structures was modeled. An analysis of the
hydraulic grade line for the 10-year design rainfall event found the existing and proposed
structures' rim elevations to be above the water level. See Appendix B for detailed information
of the analysis.
The proposed system of pipes and inicts will collect storm water runoff from roof runoff, a
portion of the parking area and some lawn areas. The proposed collection system will outfall
into a grass swale and into an infiltration basin. On -site storm piping will be reinforced concrete
pipe for the main storm line. Storm drainage calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
2

P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
Stonnwaler Calculations
NC481.4
Clark*Nexsen
The dining facility will have roof drains. Roof runoff will be collected by roof laterals and roof
drain main lines. The minimum size of the roof laterals will be 6 inches and the collector pipes
will be 12 inches PVC pipe.
2.0 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
This project is located within half a mile of SA waters and is considered to be a high -density
development. As specified in section 2.4.1.1 SA waters, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Stormwater Best Management Practices
(13N P) Tvlanual, September, 2007, an infiltration system is required. The calculation of an
infiltration basin area volume is based on the post constriction runoff volume minus the pre -
construction runoff volume requirement that utilizes the 1-year 24 hour rainfall depth.
According to the manual, the design approach is based on the Simple Method of calculating
runoff volume and calculating the effective infiltrating area based on the dewatering
requirements to achieve the required TSS removal rate. The infiltration basins will eventually
outfall in 50' filter strips before flowing into the nearby wetlands.
2.1 INFILTRATION BASIN DESIGN
The design of the infiltration basin was determined from Chapter 16 of the NCDENR
Stormwater BMP Manual. The infiltration basin has vegetated side slopes of 3:1 (maximum), 4"
clean sand layer at the bottom, and pretreatement devices such as a forebay or grass swale.
Volume in excess of the treatment volume shall bypass the infiltration basin by means of a weir
that is located near the infiltration basin and will discharge to a grass swale that eventually
discharges to a filter strip. "The discharge rates for the infiltration basins shall be equal to or less
than the pre -development discharge peak rate for the 1-year 24-hour storm. All bypass
structures for this project have an outlet pipe that is sized to handle the 1-year flow rate from the
proposed drainage area, all flows in excess of the 1-year flow rate and above the storage
elevation will overflow the bypass structure. The overflow for each bypass structure is treated as
weir flow through the top of the structure.
3

P-1184 Dining facility at Stone Bay
Stormwatcr Calculations
2.2 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS
N C481.4
Clark*Nexsen
According to the NCDENR Design Guide, the stormwater treatment systems should be
designed to remove 85 percent of the average annual post development total suspended solids
(1 SS), 30% of the average annual post development nitrogen, and 35 percent of the average
annual post development total phosphorus (i I'), by implementing Best Management Practices
(BM1''s).
The use of grassed swales and infiltration devices will be utilized for the stormwater best
management practices. The assumed Total Suspended Solids (1SS) is 35% TSS removal for
grassed swales.
3.0 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS
1-he stormwater basin routing was performed using the triangular hydrograph storage estimation
method in the I-Iydroflow I-Iydrographs 2002 computer program. The analysis provides the total
site post development condition peak runoff for the 1-year, 2-year, 10-year and 100-year design
storms.
3.1 PREDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
The total development area is 0.88 acres. The majority of the site, 5.74 acres, drains to the
wetland area to the east while the remaining 1.14 acres drain to an existing roadside ditch to the
west. Both sub areas ultimately drain to the New River. The table below summarizes the
predevelopment conditions peak runoff
Ptedevelopment Condition Peak Runoff Summary
1-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
2-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
10-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
100-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
Area to the DA-1
0.65
0.70
1.07
1.57
Area to the DA-2
2.47
2.62
3.99
5.89
Area to the DA-3
0.54
0.57
0.87
1.28
Total Existing
Condition
3.66
3.89
5.93
8.74
4

P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
Storinwaler Calculations
3.2 POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
N C481.4
Clark*Nessen
The majority of the post development site continues to drain east to the wetland area, 5.10 acres
of the site drain into infiltration basins then eventually discharge to filter strips located 50' from
the wetlands. The remaining 1.82 acres drain to an existing roadside ditch to the west. Drainage
Area 5 of the post development drainages to a proposed infiltration basin then discharges to the
existing roadside ditch through a filter strip. Drainage Area G (DA-C), shown on map DA-3 of
the post development, could not be treated for water quality without disturbing the existing
roadway because of the terrain between the proposed building and existing grass swale. The
existing grass Swale does provide minimal water duality treatment, but only a 35% of total
suspended solids, 20% of nitrogen and 20% of phosphorus.
The required storage volume and proposed infiltration basin volumes are provided in Appendix
C. The routing information for this project was analyzed using Hydraflow Hydrographs
Extension for AutoCAD Civil 3D.
All infiltration basins were modeled without subtracting the flows infiltrating into the ground.
When the flows infiltrating into the ground were subtracted from the primary basin flow most
infiltration basins did not discharge any flows. In modeling the infiltration basin without taking
into consideration the ground infiltration a flow could be generated that was then used to
calculate the filter strips needed for each basin. In an effort to consolidate on space for this
project the level spreader and Filter strip for basins 1, 3, & 4 were combined to minimize land
disturbance. The level spreaders for all basins were designed using the requirement of 13 ft for 1
cfs of flow, based on grass filter strip. All flows for the level spreader design were based on a 10
year storm to provide maximum effectiveness.
See Supplements for Filter Strips for calculations.
The table below summarizes the post development conditions peak runoff without subtracting
the infiltration flows into the infiltration basins or the roadside ditch on Range Road.
5

P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
Stonnwater Calculations
NC481.4
Clark*Ncxsen
Post development Condition Peak Runoff Summary
1-year Peak
2-year Peak
10-year Peak
100-year
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Peak Runoff
(cfs)
Area to the DA-1
1.09
1.34
1.98
2.34
Basin #1
Area to the DA-2
0.76
0.77
0.82
0.89
Basin #2
Area to the DA-3
0.98
1.05
1.57
2.31
Basin #3
Area to the DA-4
0.43
0.46
0.71
1 A
Basin #4
Area to the DA 5
0.10
0.12
0.17
025
Basin #S
Area to the DA-6
0.99
1.08
1.65
2.41
(Roadside ditch)
Total Post Development
4.35
4.82
6.90
927
Condition
The analysis shows a slight increase in post development runoff. The table below summarizes
die total predevelopment and post development runoff for the project.
1-year Peak I
2-year Peak
10-year Peak
100-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Total Predevelopment
3.66
3.89
5.93
8.74
Runoff
Total Post development
4.35
4.82
6.90 19.27
Runoff
Net Difference in Runoff
0.69
0.93
0.97
0.53
'the table below summarizes the post development conditions peak and subtracts the infiltration
flows into the infiltration basins or the roadside ditch on Range Road.
M.

P-1184 pining Facility at Stone Bay
Stor nwatcr Calculations
NC481.4
Clark*Ncxsen
Post development Condition Peak Runoff Summary
1-year Peak
2-year Peak
10-year Peak
100-year
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Peak Runoff
(cfs)
Area to the DA-1
OM
0.00
0.00
0.00
Basin #1
Area to the DA-2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0A0
Basin #2)
Area to the DA-3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Basin #3
Area to the DA-4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Basin #4
Area to the DA-5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Basin #5
Area to the DA-b
0.99
1.08
1.65
2.41
(Roadside ditch)
Total Post Development
0.99
1.08
1.65
2.41
Condition
The summary of the post development conditions when routed through hydraflow hydrographs,
and the infiltration flows are subtracted illustrates the dramatic decrease in post development runoff
flows. The dramatic decrease is a result of the high infiltration rates that ranged from 5 in/hr to 18
in/hr.. Additional information has been provided in appendix C for the routing information
generated for all drainage areas and basins. A storage curve is also provided in appendix C that was
utilized to make sure the maximum volume requirement was not exceeded for each infiltration basin.
7

APPENDIX A
Drainage Area Calculations and Maps

Rational Method,
F2)n10HL1A&1E L MPI 91L@UL1V1Q)H2
DATE 3/2412009 COMPLY= BY UT1 D BY AB
COMM NO. NC481.A CHECKED BY CKED BY Kni
PROJECT Stone Bav Dining S1 [EI.T NO. HELL NO. I of 2
PREDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
Area
Name
Area (acres)
Total Area
Composite
C
Time of
Conc. (min)
C=0.95
C=0.20
(acres)
DA - 1
0.000
1.140
1.140
0.20
See pond
DA - 2
0.000
4.680
4.680
1 0.20
1 See pond
DA - 3
0.000
1.060
1.060
0.20
See pond
SUM
0.000
6.880
0.20
NIA

POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
INFILTRATION DEVICE #1
Area
Name
Area (acres)
Total Area
Composite
C
Time of
Conc. (min]
C=0.95
C=0.20
acres
DA-1
0.550
0.430
0.980
0.62
See Storm
POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
INFILTRATION DEVICE #2
Area
Name
Area (acres)
I Total Area
Composite
C
Time of
Conc. (min)
C=0.95
C=0.20
(acres)
DA-2
0.540
1 0.620
1 1.160
0.55
See pond
POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
INFILTRATION DEVICE #3
Area
Name
Area (acres)
Total Area
Composite
C
Time of
Conc. (min)
C=0.95
C=0.20
(acres)
DA-3
0.560
1 1.180
1.740
0.44
See pond
POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
INFILTRATION DEVICE #4
Area
Name
Area (acres)
Total Area
Composite
C
Time of
Conc. (min)
C=0.95
C=0.20
(acres)
DA-4
0.480
0.740
1.220
0.50
See Storm
POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
INFILTRATION DEVICE #5
Area
Name
Area (acres)
Total Area
Composite
C
Time of
Conc. (min)
C=0.95 C=0.20
(acres)
DA5
0.380 1 0.390
0.770
0.57
See pond
POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
OFFSITE DRAINAGE TO RANGE ROAD
Area
Name
Area (acres)
Total Area
Composite
C
Time of
Conc. (min)
C=0.95 40.890
=0.20
(acres)
DA-6
0.160
1.050
0.31
See pond

V +
r!f +
+
++
QNo
- f
/ I {
Dh-2- 9 11
16 Ac totol 1
Impervious Area = 0.54 Acc [1 !
= oA-�—
0
0
��—-- ——--— ---
7FF`,�
r
DINING HAUL— J
FACILITY I
Ial F.F.E. 55.001
DA-4
0.38 Ac 1.22 Ac tot I
�pervious a
,FUTURE EXPANSION D—o--Icm= p.50
a l
i4,74 Ac ,total I
i I Imr o4us Are1
� I
Iw .!
1 L UIL
1 —
�8 Pc total
i I �Impervious Ar i I 1 c—
OWN —
AREA TO BE PICIIEP UP IN
THE FUTURE USi
�fi(1WA�CO�1 _
w
3
I
05 A n, cotar- n � 52 w 1 Ln s 53
c = .�i � L "_-52
1
w w w w w w w + w w w w w w w w w
r aw
-Z I n
r-��
+++
� + { + ++
+ ++++
++++ +
uM
NAfFAC
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
/ CDW
r' SUBMITTAL C
10 05'2007
sop
I� ■
I�
.aoe . ss� b
ra mrrm ..c
I T`�
I`
m xxx
rrtaco e.
I 1
I t
! I
r�
!4Q
f i
I
1
1
B
UZ
=off
Z�
�0
U
W
z
w4
U
Z
w
o
N-
a>-
Z�
oZ
00
Cn U
wQ
n
cn
OC
W
C�
Q
z
❑
�
fn
~
W 00
IZ
■
}—
`� lL
M
� �
lk
o,eop P-1184
an 0 30' 60' 120'
i-t.]V'
WEE'r p
DA-3

APPENDIX. S
Storm System. Calculations

.r
c,
APPENDIX C
Stoxmmatcr Management Calculations.

C
Infiltration Basin 1
SA WATERS
Pre Development
Post Development
DA=
-0`980
Ac
DA=
-' .980 Ac
A =
0
Ac
limp, A
-/ 50 Ac
la= 0.000
la= /"0.561
Rv= 050
Rv f 0.555
Rd= inches
iRd= 3.58 inches
K= `,18,4
jr04r--
18.4 in/hr
V 636 S,rfft
V 7069.4976 tuft
Post Dev. ,re Dev. _
6432.7 cult
Total Vprf. e uried V =
_ 2.7 cult
Effe v Area A=
4 .0 s ft
Dr own time (T)=
0.04 days
wdown time (T)=
0.84 hours
Infiltration Basin 3
SA WATERS
Pre Development
Post Development/
DA=
1.740
Ac�lrnp.
DA= = Z 774
Ac
A=
OAcA
q -Z/ 0.56Ac
la=
la= Z/ 0,322
Rv=
Rv-:X 0.340
Rd= 3.58 'inche/s.
Rd'--- 3.5B inches
/-_
K= 14:,2 irilhr
K= in/hr
V 1 j S'Y cuft
V 768Q- 4 cuft
Post Dev!'/Pre Dev. =
6549.7 cuft
Total Vo . Re uried(V)=
6549.7 cuft
Effe+rt'Ve Area (A )=
6802.0 s ft
DrWdown time (T)=
0.03 days
Drawdown time (T)=
0.81 hours
goal 7260
Infiltration Basin 2
SA WATERS
Pre Development
Post Development
DA=
1, � 1:16
Ac
DA=
= .:=_: 1'' 16
Ac
Imp. A =
- °• 0
Aclimp,
A
`--%-0:54
Ac
la= 0
la= 0.466
Rv= 0.05
Rv= 0.469
Rd= 3.58 inches
Rd= 3.58 inches
K= I � 7:71 in/hr
K= �._ 7.7 in/hr
V 753.7 cuft
IV 7069,4976 cult
Post Dev, - Pre Dev. =
6315.8 cult
Total Vol. Re uried V =
6315.8 cult
Effective Area A =
4029.0 sft
Drawdown time (T)=
0.10 days
Drawdown time (T)=
1
2.44 hours
Infiltration Basin 4
SA WATERS
Pre Development
Post Development
DA=
'1:220
Ac
limp.
DA= I 1.22
Ac
Imp
.000
Ac
A Q-48
Ac
_N.N1
1011/
la= 0.000z\
la= 0r39344262
Rv= 0.050 N�'*%,
Rv= oO,,rY40409836
Rd= 3.513 inches<
�/ 3.58 inches
Rd�/�
'4
K= -- 111.81 inlhr�/
K= ' 11.8 in/hr
V 792.7,cuff
V 64QK322 cult
Post Dev. -,Pt Dev. =
561 cuft
Total Vo1eRe uried V =
5614'. �, uft
Effecthig'Area A =
4903.0 sqft
Drawdown time (T)=
0.05 days
Drawdown time (T)=
1.16 hours
Infiltration Basin 5
SA WATERS
Pre Development
Post Development
DA=
0:770
Ac
DA=
= 0.770
Ac
A !21 =
0.000
Ac
Imp. A
0,38
Ac
la= 0.000
la= 0.49351
Rv= 0.050
Rv= 0.49416
Rd= 3.58 inches
Rd= 3.58 inches
K= :in/hr
JK= y- 71,1:2 inlhr
V 500.3 cuft
IV 4944.75 cuft
Post Dev. - Pre Dev. =
4444.4 cuft
Total Vol. Re uried(V)=
4444.4 cuft
Effective Area (A )=
2945,0 sqft
Drawdown time T =
0.07 da s
Drawdown time (T)=
1,62 hours

APPENDIX C
SHEETS OF S
r
Sol
w .MEN
i
s
! ■■.I,_i_-■
_-■.-■■mligill
NOR
O...s��►-�.7i.
jp
' '
r
CHART C 200.7

r t1Ltl,iWtrtnr f'EULIUC.'Illy LJ[ttZt f'U. _Ic 1 014
" POINT PRECIPITATION
yr
FREQUENCY ESTIMATES:
1
FROM NOAA ATLAS 14
Confidence Limits
it ARIA'
North Carolina 34.672 N 77.456 W 9 feet
rrom "Precipitulion•f rcquoncy Atlas of the Uniicd 5tatcs' NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version
G.M. Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parn'hok, lY1.Yekla, and D. Riley
NOAA, National XVeather $en -ice. Silver Spring. Maryland. 2004
Extraorud: Fri Feb S 2098
Location Maps j Other Info_ IF15 data maps � Help I C
reauency Estimates (`niches)
10
15
30
bU
7}10
20
4
min
J'2'
min
3 lxr RRRRF'y
ada
da
da
da
y
da
da
yrnlRm>tnmmnun
0.78 0.98 1.34 F-67]2FO3]E]2.66]EE]3F58114.17 4.66 5.41 5.06 8.10 9.94 12,46 15.09
0.93 1.16 1.61 2.02 2.46 2.66 3.23 3.81 4.36 5.05 5.63 6.52 .7.27 9.64 11.80 I4.73 17.80
L07 1.36 1.93 2.48 3.10 3.36 4.10 4.86 5.63 6.48 7,15 8.20 9A1 ll.73 14.19 17.55 20.93
1.20 1.52 2.2I 2.87 3- 4.0 ] 4.90 5.83 6.73 7.7I 8.43 9.59 10.45 ] 3.45 ] 6.1 ] 19.84 23.44
1.35 1.72 2.54 3.38 4.46 492 6.03 7.23 8.39 9.59 10.30 11.60 12.53 15.90 18.76 23.05 26.83
1.47 1.87 2.81 3.81 F5 13]ET 7A4 8.49 9.83 I1.23 11.91 13.29 14.26 17.9I 20.89 25.63 29.49
1.59 2.01 3.08 4.24 5,84 6.60 8.14 9.88 1I.44 13.b6 13. 55 15.11 16.12 20.03 23.06 2$.30 32.18
.88
1.71 2.15 3.35 4.70 6.62 7.56 92 .35 1I.44 13.25 I5.12 15.57 17.08 18.11 22.27 5.30 31.05 34
1.86 2.33 3.72 5.33 7.72 8.97 1I.16 I3.77 16.00 18.25 1$.56 19.94 20.99 25.44 28.38 34.87 38.52
1.98 2.48 4.02 5.87 8.68 10.23 I2.77 15.$7 1$.39 20.96 21.13 22.32 23.36 28.00 30.80 37.89 41.30
Text yersion of table `These precipitation frequency estimates are based on a partial duration Series. ARE is the Average Recurrence Interval.
Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Fom>abrig forces es9males new zero to appear as zero.
x Upper bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
ARI** 5 10 1145 30 16?120 3 b 12 24 4$ 4 7 10 20 34 45 GQ(years) min min min min hr hr 1tr hr hr day[dayday day day day day 1
1 10.53
0.85
1_06 1.46 i.$i 2.21 2.40 2.94
3.50 3.96 4:61 5.12 5.92 6.62 8.74 10.66
13.39 16.I0
0.63
10.72
10 0.$1
25 0.92
1.00
1.I6
1.30
i.46
1.26 1.74 2.18 2.68 2.91 3.56
4.23 4.81 5.58 6.2b 7.12 7.93 10.41 12.67 15.84
19.00
1.47 2.09 2.b8 3.37 3.67 4.52 5.40 6.21 7.16 7.86 8.45 9.82 12.67 15.22 18.87
22.34
I.64 Z 3.10 3.99 RT 5.39 E.4D 7.41 8.51 9.26 10.46 1].38 I4.51 17.27 21.34 24.99
1.85 2.74 3.65 4.83 5.36 6.62 5.00 9.21 10.57 11.30 12.63 13.63 17.14 20.12 24.8 ] 28.61
SO
100
LOfl
1.08
1.59
1.72
2.0]
2.17
3.03
4.11 5.56 6.24 7.72 9.38 14.74 12.34 13.05 14.49 15.54 19.33 22,4]
27.61 31.48
3.33
4.58 6.34 7.18 891 10.90 12.57 14.43 15.01 ] 6.5 ]
17.59 21.6$ 24.80
30.54 34.4I
ZOD 1.16
1.85
2.33
3.63 5.08
7.17 8.23 10.24 12.61 14.57 16.76 17.16 18,70
19.82 24.17 27.36 33.58 37.42
500 I.27
2.01
2.53
4.03 5.78
8.39 9.78
12.23 15.19 17.67 20.33 20,57 22.00
23.12 27,79 30.79 37.88 41.54
1040 l_36
2.15
2.70
4.37 6.3$ 9.46 i1.18
14.02 I7.53 20.41
23.50 23.61
24.78
25.90 30.76
33.Sb
41.38
44.78
The upper bound of the confidence interval at 90% confidence level is the value which 5%of the simulated quantize values for a given frequency are greater man.
" These precipitation frequency estimates are based on a partidLdurg ron seliki.. ARl i5 the Average Recurrence Interval.
Please refer to the doamntation for more information. NOTE: Formatting prevents estimates near zero to appear as zero.
Lower bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
120n4 hrn10 15 3i0 btt F:6248 d�hnMnmn mmin Ilr aday �dn_y
20 11 30 11 45 11 60
day 11 day day ]Lda)

I I"IIMILIII)II !'Ik:kjU :r14. J_JM 1. 01.;1 VC,:I
rtt<:C.4 c11
Q.78 i.24 1.57 2.33 3.IQ 4.Q7 4.48 5.45 6.47 7,-
0.84 1.35 1.70 2.37 3.48 4.66 5.17 6:32 7.54 8.79
8.6I 9.31 10.55 I1.43
1fl.Q0 1Q.68 12.O1 12.93
14.64 17.43
21.39
25-p8
16.39
19.30
23.65
27.48
'The tourer bound of the confidence intelvaf at 90 %confidence level is the value which 5% of the simulated qum%values for a given fr quenty are less Lean.
"These precipitaiion frequency estimates are based on a partial duration maxima series. ARI is the Average Recurrence Interval.
Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Forrnatfing prevents estimates near zero to appear as zero.
n
N
Pit
4.
to
Q
U
a
a
42
40
3s
36
34
32
30
2s
86
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
18
6
4
2�
8
Partial duration basest Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 3
34.672 H 77.455 u 9 ft
-14
.l_..,«.lr
41
IF
_ -
�r�"......r�` �.�-...I-.I�..
y._
' '3".'-r"i."-rT
��.�w-•"r=�
Vµ
i
i
.i:
1
e 3 4 5 6 7 8 ?10 20 30 40 50 SO 100 140 200 300
Average Recurrence Interval (years)
Fri Feb 03 10:22:45 2008
$00 706 1000
Duration
5-min ---
48-hr -k-- o0-day-
1 a-m i n -
..-hI, i
4-day T .
15-ruin
"-,,Jr; -
7-day - 60-day - -
9-m i n
12-hr -
16-day i-
60-m i ry T
24-hr -e-
20-ds+a -�-
. I , ... _:� __-� ._ _ .� �,,e L�YCPYYAC=tlllRrct'i -- 2/R/?_f10R

l i k.. l.[ I i l 1 U t 1 k; l l i I1.1-i U1.I 11.V "UtII )UI N'l:-I
M
Partial duration fazed Point Precipitation Frequency Estimat?s - V rzi0n: 3
34.672 N 77.456 W ? fit
42
46
36
36
34
32
v 30
28
a 26
p 24
22
20
� 18
16
a I4
d 12
t 10
a
3
s
4
2
0
L L L L L L
L
L
71 7h Mh
`M1
Z,
7-
n
7,
M T
-
L z r s-C
E S
ro m M
M.
M
+a
M
M
m m
_0
.0
I I I I
1
I l
v _U C
S
3
'..
i'3
I7
I I I 1 I I N S"1 4 W W rll [0
V'
. 4l
1 I I
I
1
I
I
I
I I
u7
cJ
MIr
CI) -r to
h
m
t 7
9
In Q
•• �, m m Duration
'"
'"
ru
M
-r
Fri Feb 08 10:22:45 2008
Maps -
T
Average Reourrence Interval
(Uear5)
1 --4- .
£ 00 -
10 a— 5013 --
25 - - 1006 -�
�1 b
....�.... ..�.. Q
These maps were produced using a direct map request from the
U,S..CeoWu Bureau_Mapping.and Cartographic Resources
Tiger Map Server,

Pond Report 17
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2008 by Autodesk, to %6.052 Saturday, Apr 12, 2008
Pond No. 2 - BASIN 2
Ponca Data
Contours - User -defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calcuiafign. Begirting Elevation = 47.87 ft
Stage 1 Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cult).
0.00 47.87 3,941 0 0 "1
0.13 48.00 4,146 526 526
1,13 49.00 5,588 4,867 5,393
1,63 49.50 6,833 3,105 8,498 .A'
Culvert ! Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A],�
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 4.00
0.00
400
0.00
Span (in)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest EI. (ft)
= 49:17
0.00
6.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 0
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
=�3.33
3.33
3:33
3.33
Invert El, (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= �Ciplti
-
-
-
Length (ft)
= 0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
Multi -Stage
sjr= No
No
No `.
No
Slope (%)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
nla
N-Value
= .013
.013
.013
n/a
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.6D
0,60
0.60
0,60
Exffl.(inthr)r
= 7.700 (by Contour)
Multi -Stage
= nla
No
No
No
TW EIeY:-ft)
= 0.00
Note: CulverUOr = oudlows are aTWyted under inlet (it) and outlet (oc} Control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (10) and submergence (s).
Stage 1 Storage 1 Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv a Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total
ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cis
0.00 0 47.87 --- 0.00 - - - 0.000 - 0.000
0.13 526 48.00 --- -- - - 0.00 - 0.739 -- 0.739
1.13 5r393 49.00 --- - -- 0.00 --- -- 0.996 --- 0.996
1.63 8,498 49.50 -- - - - 2.53 -- - --- 1.218 -- 3.743

18
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2008 todesk, Inc. v6.052 Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 0
Hyd. No. 10 0
DRAINAGE AREA 3
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Time interval
Drainage area
Intensity
OF Curve
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
i
R ional
Peak discharge
= 1.616 cfs
= 1
Time to peak
= 34 min
= 1 m
Hyd. volume
= 3,296 cuft
= 1.740 .
Runoff coeff.
= 0.44
= 2.111 1 hr
Tc by TR55
= 34.00 min
= Wilm'Ingt, nNC.idf
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 111
i
DR AGE AREA 3
Hyd. • 10 -- 1 Year
Q {cfs)
e
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 i
Time (mir4
Hyd No. 10

•
Pond Report
30
•
•
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for
AutoCAD5 Civil 3136 2008 by Autodesk, Inc, v6.052
Saturday, Apr 12,
2008
Pond No. 5 - BASIN 5
Pond Data
•
Contours - User -defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 50.13 ft
.
Stage I Storage Table
•
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (tuft)
•
t�
0,00 50.13
2,946
0 t
0
•
0.90 51.00
3,656
2,965
2,965
1.40 51.50
4,539
2,D45
5,010
.
Culvert I Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
•
[A]
[B] [C] [PrfRsr]
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
•
Rise (in) = 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 5.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
•
Span (in) = 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 51.40 0.00
0.00
0.00
.
No. Barrels = 0
D 0 0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33 3.33
3.33
3.33
Invert El. (ft) = 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Type
= Ciplti --
--
-
Length (ft) = 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Multi -Stage
= 'No No
No
No
Slope (%) = 0,00
0.00 0.00 nfa
•
N-Value = .D13
.013 .D13 n1a
•
Orifice Coeff, = 0.60
0.60 0.60 0.60
Exfil.(in/hr)
= 5,000 (by Contour)
Multi -Stage = n1a
No No No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00'.
Note: Culvertlnrifico outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice condikions 00 and submergence is).
•
Stage 1 Storage I Discharge Table
11�
Stage Storage Elevation
CIv A Clv B Clv
C PrfRsr Wr A
Wr B Wr C
Wr D
Exfil User
Total
ft tuft ft
cfs cfs cfs
cfs cfs
cfs cfs
cfs
cfs cfs
cfs
•
0.00 0 50.13
_ -
-f, 0.00
xt --
-
0,000 ---
0.000
•
0.90 2,965 51.00
- - -
0.00
--- ' -
-
0.423 -
0.423
1.40 5,010 51.50
-__ __
--_ 0.53
- V-
--
0,525 -
1.052
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

e
•
•Hydrograph Report
•Hyd raflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3b@) 2008 by Autodesk. Inc, v6.052
•Hyd. No. 16
•INFILTRATION BASIN #5
•Hydrograph type =
Rervoir
*Storm frequency =
1 yr
•Time interval =
1 m�{�t,
Inflow hyd. No. =
•Reservoir
15 - D,RAINAGE ARE
name =
BASIN'S
•
• Storage Indication method used.
Outflow includeexfltration.
•
•
•
• Q (cfs)
INFIL RATION BASIN #5
Hy No. 16 — 1 Year
. 2.DD
•
•
•
•
1. DO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 0.00
• 0 60
120 180 240 300 360
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
420
29
Saturday, Apr 12, 20D8
= 0,099 cfs
= 15 min
= 733 cult
= 50.34 ft
= 691 cuff
480 540
• Hyd No. 16 Hyd No. 15 I®1 Total storage used = 691 cult
•
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
— 1 0.00
600
Time (min)

Worksheef for BMP 1 Bypass Orifice
Solve For Diameter
Discharge
2.25
Wis
Headwater Elevation
49.83
ft
Centroid Elevation
49.33
ft
Tailwater Elevation
48.83
ft
Discharge Coefficient
0.60
Diameter N.92Headwater Height Above CentroidTailwater Height Above Centr ' Flow Area .
Velocity 3.40 fUs
Notes since the diameter of the orifice is
approximately 11 inches we will use
a standard 12 inch pipe for the
orifice.
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster [OB.01,071.00]
41121260E 4:31:04 PM 27 Slemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

_ Worksheet for BMP 2 Bypass Orifice _
r-d�h"�'"Jr:�F3rk
,T�9 J"'.i 4i^.' 1 r' � ,�� [1';:7i"��k �;r� ° n t" J;.�•� 1 u�f� �i"'� K "�.�i�i.
:1;1791 �Descnption�
Discharge
~ 1.75 ft'!s -
Headwater Elevation�ra8.78
ft
Centroid Elevation
' 48.28 ft
N�
Taitwater Elevation
47.7E ft
Discharge Coefficient
0,605k:
•i
Diameter
0.81
ft ti
Headwater Height Above Centroid
0.50
ft
Tailwater Height Above Centroid
-0.50
ft
Flow Area
0.51
ft=
Velocity
3,40
ft/s
Notes
4M 212008 4:30:56 PM
since the diameter of the orifice is
approximately 10 inches we will use
a standard 12 inch pipe for the
orifice.
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowlVaster i08.01.671.001
27 Siomons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755.1666 Page 1 of 1

Worksheet for BMP S Bypass Orifice_
PM^rn �x�En. nl !r, e�i`� 'P.
1-11 III IIn-
w 1ir 4he T n, �Ef- 4,rAl:r'1 �C;ypG PR
`S�5•} a y€ NY'" , ,�,�. pF y r-:.
��lV}! l !��j I, �Jyr( )•
Project De$C L�p`��uY v. aY. F ."NSTµI 4 .� «. ) YI . J w1 fi�ri. " : P, 0 P., 1111105•� IVIE. A I:. iw �'1
Solve For
Diameter
�, a ..� • .. i A �r
P Da �p4'� ,?�',���:lr'� ."�. 5 � !fir �', �4*��,„�Pii"�r�}� & �? � ,a�a �� � '�• I:- .r IJlIIFY:14 4�.. Y �4 x .'wY,. ��. J li'k ii LuuA I I..�x', 7�J.' 'ar .n.f.: �..•..1. � �
Discharge
D.77
ft is
Headwater Elevation
50.93
ft
Centroid Elevation
50.53
ft
Tailwater Elevation
50.13
ft
Discharge Coefficient
0.60
Diameter
0.57
ft
Headwater Height Above Centroid
0.41
ft
Tailwater Height Above Centroid
-0.39
ft
Flow Area
0.25
ft2
Velocity
3.06
ft1S
Notes since the diameter of the orifice is
approximately 7 inches we will use a
standard & inch pipe for the orifice.
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster [08.01.071.001
4/12/2008 4:30:10 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Sulfe 200 W Watertown, CT D6795 USA t1-203.755-1666 Page 1 of 1

Pond Routings (flows from infiltration
have been subtracted from outflows)

APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Report

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB
Camp Lejeunc, North Carolina
Trigon Project No. 031-07-057

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. wwwlrigoneng.com
700 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 101 • Raleigh, NC 27606 - p 919.755.5011 • f919.755.1414
The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company
Attn: Mr. Keith Tricome
P.O. Box 8478
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Field Office
Corner of McHugh and Gonzales Blvd.
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28547
Re: Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejenne, North Carolina
Trigon Projcct No. 031-07-057
Dear Mr. Tricome:
November 14, 2007
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Trigon) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical
evaluation for the above referenced project. The work was performed in general accordance with the
Agreement for Engineering and Design Services (Trade Contract Transmittal 11765-01B-Geotechnical /
Subsurface Investigations, dated October 25, 2007). The purpose of this exploration was to explore the
general subsurface conditions present at the site. This report presents our findings along with our
conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction.
These recommendations are presented on the basis of our understanding of the project as described herein and
through the application of generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranties,
expressed or implied, are made or offered. Should there be any changes in the scope of the project, as stated
herein, we should be notified so that we may review these changes and modify our recommendations, if
required.
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. appreciates the opportuniity to provide geotechnical engineering services
to Whiting -Turner Contracting Company. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not
hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully submitted, :, ...
TRIGON ENGINE, ERIN CO w• �11Qn ;
•gam S� � :� ��
stopper V. Norville, P.E. ��' Dana J. oodnight, P.G. -
Geotechnical Engineer _ Project Geologist
HA 0310 QwTmje=0007403107057-St0nC Bay Dining Feci01y1Rep0rt%03107057.D0C

The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project No. 031-07-037
Stone flay Dining Facilil)? at MCB Camp L!�eune; Camp Lejeune, NC November 14, 2907
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter
...................i
Table of Contents ............................................ ............ ......................................................... ..........
ii
1.0 PROJECT DESCIZIPTION ..................
2.0 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ........................... I ..... I ....... I........... ................I.............1.1
2.1 Field Exploration....................................................................................................... I
2.2 Laboratory Testing....................................................................................................2
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................................4
3.1 Site Conditions ................ .... ............. I ................................... .................4
3.2 Site Geology.............................................................................................................. 4
3.3 Subsurface Conditions...............................................................................................4
3.4 Groundwater Conditions............................................................................................ 6
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................6
4.I General.......................................................................................................................6
4.2 Project Design........................................................ ............ .......... ..............................
7
4.2.1 Foundation Support .........................................................................................
7
4.2.2 Slabs-on-Grade..............................................---....._.....---....----..........._-.-...__.....8
4.2.3 Seismic Site Classification..............................................................................
S
4.2.4 Cut and Fill Slopes.....................................................................I..............
S
4.2.5 Asphalt Pavements..........................................................................................
9
4.3 Project Construction...............................................................................................10
4.3.1 Site Preparation.............................................................................................10
4.3.2 Groundwater..................................................................................................11
4.3.3 Fill Material and Placement..........................................................................12
43.4 Excavation Conditions ................ -.................................................. ..............
13
4.3.5 Foundation Construction ................................................ ...13
43.6 Construction Monitoring...............................................................................14
5.0 CLOSURE............................................................
APPENDIX
Figure 1: Site Vicinity -Hap
Figure 2: Boring Location Diagram
Figures 3a and 3b: Subsurface Profiles
Site Photographs
Test Boring Logs
Moisture -Density Relationship Test Sheet
Report of California Bearing Ratio Test
Key to.Test Boring Lags
Soil Classification Chart
..................14
-TRlGON ENGWEERINC_CONSULTAA75, INC_ ._—_ . _ .. .... _... _. _ . _ _ _ . _._ . _ . _ ,_ --Page- H-- --

m
O
O
The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project No. 031.07-057
U
Slone Bay Dining facility at MCB Camp Lejeune: Camp L fjeune. NC November 19, 2007
O
Q
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATTON
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
0
Trigon Project No. 031-07-057
a
0
S
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will consist of constructing a new, single -story dining facility and associated driveway
and parking areas. Demolition and removal of the remaining existing house structures and. concrete driveways
.
at the site will be required before construction of the dining facility and parking areas. We understand that the
dining facility is approximately 20,700 square feet and will be constructed of load bearing concrete masonry
units (CMU) and will have steel framing. Interior and exterior load -bearing walls will support concrete floors
above crawl space at the kitchen area with light -gauge metal roof trusses above. Dining rooms will be
constructed of steel frame with metal stud walls and brick veneer. Steel frames will support light -gauge metal
roof trusses above and the floor will be slab on grade. We understand that the proposed finished floor
elevation (FFE) for the dining facility will be approximately 51.5 feet. Specific foundation loadings were not
provided to us at the -time of this report. However, we anticipate that the structure will have light to moderate
foundation and slab loads, and will be supported by shallow foundations. Heavy-duty asphalt and concrete
paving design will be required within the project for vehicle access at the loading dock lot and ramp. Regular
duty asphalt paving design will be required within the project at POV parking areas. Specific details pertaining
to grading plans were not provided to us at the time of this report. However, we assume that site grading will
be very minimal (i.e. the site will be utilized at or very near existing grades).
2.0 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for this project was performed with a CME 55 ATV -mounted drilling rig between
October 29 and November 1, 2007. The test boring program consisted of fifteen (15) soil test borings,
designated as B-1 through B-15. The boring depths ranged from 10 to 88.5 feet below existing grades.
The borings were performed at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Diagram (Figure
2)---included in the Appendix. —Boring locations were selectedbyThe Whiting -Turner Contracting
Company/Clark-Nexsen Architecture and were located in the field by Trigon personnel, using the
• - - - -- - -- • T-MOON-ENGINEERING CONSULTAM'S, INC-- page I
•
i

The Whiting -Turner Contracting Companv Trigon Project No. 031-07-051
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune; Camp Lejerne. NC November 14. 2007
provided maps, existing site features, and rneasuring distances at right angles. Top -of -boring elevations
were estimated by interpolating between contour lines shown on a topographic map of the site provided
by The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company (P-1184 MARSOC Dining Facility at Stolle Bay, Drawing
CL101, dated 1010512007). The boring locations shown on the Boring Location Diagram, and top -of -
boring elevations shown on the test boring logs and subsurface profiles, are approximate and should be
considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used.
Soil sampling and penetration testing for die borings were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586-67.
The borings were advanced with wash drilling (mud rotary) and hollow stem auger drilling techniques. At
standard intervals, soil samples were obtained in advance of the augers with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch
O.D., split -tube sampler. The sampler was first seated six (6) inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then
driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows
required to drive the sampler the final foot was recorded and is designated the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
N-Value. The Standard Penetration Test, when properly evaluated, is an index to soil strength, density, and
ability to support foundations.
Upon completion of the boring program, all samples recovered therein were returned to Trigons soils and
materials testing laboratory where they were placed in groups of like materials. A laboratory log of each
boring . has been prepared based upon the driller's field log, laboratory test results, and the project -
geologist's visual -manual classification. Test boring logs are included in the Appendix. Indicated on
each log are the primary strata encountered, the approximate depth and elevation of each stratum change,
Standard Penetration Test results, laboratory test results, and groundwater conditions. The lines
designating the interfaces between various strata are approximate. The transition between strata may be
gradual in both the vertical and horizontal directions.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
All soil samples collected from the site were visually -manually classified by geotechnical personnel in
general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS classifications and
laboratory testing results are included on the boring logs and in the Appendix. Selected soil samples were
subjected to routine index property testing to establish their engineering characteristics, to determine their
potential use for site fill and as site subgrades, and to evaluate their remolded soil properties with respect
to subgrade support. The index property testing performed for this project consisted of thirty-seven (37)
-- natural moisture content tests performed on selected -split -spoon samples and a bulk soil sample collected
from the site, and one (1) each of Atterberg limits plasticity testing, percent fines gradation testing,
TRIGON.CNGIhTERING CONSULTANTS,.INC_ . Page 2

The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project No. 03I-07-057
Stone Bay Dining Facbhyy at MCB Camp Leieune: Camp Lejeune, NC November 14. 2007
standard Proctor moisture/density relationship testing, and CBR testing on a selected bulk soil sample or
selected split -spoon sample collected from the site.
The moisture content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to
the weight of the solid particles. This test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The test results
are presented on the attached boring logs and on the attached Moisture -Density Relationship Test sheet.
Atterberg Limits testing is performed to determine the soil's plasticity characteristics. The Plasticity Index (PI)
is representative of this characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL).
The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid and the Plastic
Limit is the moisture content at which the soil begins to lose its plasticity. The testing was conducted in
accordance with ASTM D 4318. The test results are presented on the applicable boring log included in the
Appendix.
In the percent fines test, the soil sample is dried and then washed over a standard No, 200 sieve. The per-
centage of soil, by weight, passing the sieve is the percentage of fines or portion of the sample in the silt and
clay size range. This test was conducted in accordance with ASTM Designation D 1140. The test results are
presented on the attached Moisture -Density Relationship Test sheet.
A representative bulk sample of the near surface on -site soil was obtained with a shovel near boring B-8.
Standard Proctor Compaction Testing (ASTM D698) was performed on this selected bulk soil sample to
determine its -compaction characteristics, including maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The
test results are presented in the Appendix, on the Moisture -Density Relationship Test sheet,
The results of the standard Proctor compaction test described above were utilized in compacting a sample for
laboratory CBR testing. The California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D-1883) is a punching shear test, which
provides a semi -empirical index of the strength and deflection characteristics of a soil which has been
correlated with pavement performance. The test is performed on a six (6)-inch diameter, 4.61 inch thick disc
of compacted soil that is confined in a steel cylinder. Before testing, the sample is inundated under a
confining pressure approximately equal to the weight of the future pavement in order to determine the
potential swelling, and to simulate the worst -case conditions that can occur in the field. A piston
approximately two (2) inches in diameter is then forced into the soil at a standard rate to determine the
resistance to penetration. The CBR value -is the ratio -expressed as a -percentage of the actual load required Co-
produce a 0.1-inch deflection to that required to produce the same deflection in a standardized crushed stone.
--- =RUGOYENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. —

The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project No. 031-07-057
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lefeane,, Camp Lejeune NC- November 14. 2007
The results of the CBR test are shown on the attached California Bearing Ratio Test Result Sheet_
3.0 SITE and SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1. SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located on the east side of Range Road, approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of Range
Road and Powder Lane, within the base of Camp L ejeunc. More precisely, the site consists of the former
residential properties with addresses RR 39 to RR 43 Range Road on the base of Camp Lcjeune, North
Carolina. The approximate site location is depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1) included in the
Appendix. At the time of our subsurface investigation the site was mostly open and relatively flat, with several
of the house structures still standing and several in the process of being demolished and removed. A formerly
wooded area on the eastern side of the site had been mostly cleared except for a small patch of trees east of
structure RR 43. Playground equipment and a number of large hardwood trees were located in the yard areas
around the houses. The site topography in the vicinity of the proposed construction is relatively fiat. The
ground surface gently slopes down from west to east with elevations ranging from a high elevation of
approximately 54 feet at boring B-5 (near structure at RR 40) to 47 feet just east of boring B-3 in the former
wooded area.
3.2 SITE GEOLOGY
The site is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. According to the 1985
Geologic Map of North Carolina, the Coastal Plain deposits at the site are from the Riverbend Formation
(Tor). This sedimentary unit is primarily comprised of "limestone, calcarenite overlain by and intercalated
with indurated, sandy, moluscan-mold limestone." Surfcial sands and organic -rich seams from fluvial action
are typical in the site vicinity.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The generalized subsurface conditions, as interpolated from our borings, are described below. For
descriptions and stratification at a particular boring location, the respective Boring Log or the Subsurface
Profiles (Figures 3a and 3b) should be reviewed. Subsurface conditions between boring locations or
elsewhere on the site'may vary, and subsurface anomalies may exist between boring locations, and were
not detected.
TMOON I_NG[NEERIPIG CONSULTAWS, INC. —. _- ____ -- _..... . _ _. _ Paga 4... ,

The fVhiting-Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project No. 031-07-057
Stage Bay Dining Facility a1 MCB Camp Lejeune; Camp Lejeune, NC November 14, 2007
Topsoil was encountered in most of the borings to a depth of 0.3 to 1.0 feet (4 to 12 inches) below the
existing ground surface. Topsoil is comprised of varying amounts of sand, silt, clay and organic materials.
Borings B-5, B-10, B-12, and B-14 did not encounter significant amounts of topsoil at the ground surface.
Underlying the topsoil in most of the borings, and at the ground surface at B-5, B-10, B-12, and B-14,
Coastal Plain deposits were encountered to the boring termination depths. Coastal plain deposits at this
site are ancient marine sediments, deposited in -place as the Atlantic Ocean retreated to its current
position. The Coastal Plain materials at this site generally consisted of fine sands or slightly silty sands
(SP), silty sands (SM), sandy clayey silts (ML), and moderately plastic sandy silty clays (CL). Some
sandy limestone (Riverbend Formation - Tor) with potential voids was encountered in the deepest boring,
but was described as clayey sand (SC) with limestone fragments based on the sampled material obtained.
The typical strata sequence underlying the topsoil material was as follows: fine sand (SP) was
encountered to a depth of 17.0 feet below the existing ground surface; underlying the clean fine sands,
silty sand (SM) or sandy silt (ML) with varying amounts of organic material was encountered to a depth
of 22 feet; based on the soils from the deeper (seismic) boring, underlying the silty sands or sandy silts
with organics, sandy clayey silt (ML) was encountered, extending to a depth of 27 feet below the ground
surface; and underlying the sandy clayey silt, sandy silty clay (CL) was encountered to a depth of 49 feet;
underlying the clay, silty sand (SM) with limestone fragments was encountered to a depth of 57 feet;
underlying the sand with limestone fragments, silty clayey sand (SC) with abundant shell -fragments was
encountered to a depth of 67 feet; below the clayey sand with shells, clayey silty sand (SM) was
encountered to a depth of 77 feet; underlying this sand, very dense silty sand (SM) or silty sand with
limestone fragments were encountered to the boring termination depth of 88.5 feet below the ground
surface. Water loss occurred at 88.5 feet in the limestone material, presumably due to voids in the
carbonate material.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values measured within the fine sands (SP) in the upper 17 feet ranged
from 2 to 39 blows per foot (bpf), but were generally between 5 and 22 bpf, indicating typical
consistencies of loose to very firm. A sharp drop in N-values occurred generally between 17 and 20 feet
below the existing ground surface in wet to very wet silty sand (SM) or fine sand (SP), with N-values
typically ranging from 0 to 6 bpf. The layers of silt and clay occurring at depths from 22 to 49 feet below
the ground surface had N-values of 0 bpf. Silty sands and clayey sands occurring at depths between 49
and 77 feet below the ground surface had typical N-values between 18 and 40 bpf. The sands and sandy
limestone. material from- 77 to 88.5 feet -had N-values equivalent to weathered -rock (5012 to 501.3). The
natural moisture contents measured for the sands in the upper 5 feet (soils above the groundwater level)
------- --TRIGONENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. - - -. - ..--- -- - - - --. .Page-5-_ . ..

10
The Whiting -Turner Coniracring Company Trigo+r Noject No. 03I-07-057
Stone Say Dining Facility at MCS Camp Lejeune: Camp Lejeune. NC November 14, 2007
generally ranged from 6 to 18 percent, indicating dry to moist soils. The natural moisture contents
measured for deeper sands (soils at and below the groundwater table) typically ranged from 17 to 28
percent, indicating moist to wet soils. The natural moisture contents measured for silts and clays ranged
frorn 36 to 85 percent, but were typically 36 to 40 percent.
3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Groundwater readings within the borings indicated that groundwater is present across the site at depths
ranging from 5.7 to 11.0 feet below existing grades (elevations of 39.5 to 45.5 feet). It should be noted
that fluctuations in groundwater levels will occur due to seasonal changes in precipitation and surface
water runoff. Seasonally high groundwater levels usually occur during or just after the typically wetter
months of the year. However, the groundwater measurements for this investigation were made during a
prolonged moderate drought period in this region of North Carolina. It is likely that groundwater levels
measured during this investigation in November 2007 are lower than the normal groundwater level for this
site, due to the drought conditions. Therefore, groundwater conditions during the construction phase may be
different from those described in this report; and are likely to be at a higher elevation than those reported
herein, during normal or wet weather seasonal periods.
4,0 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GENERAL
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the project as outlined above
and on the data obtained from our field and laboratory -testing program. If the assumed structural loading,
structure locations, or assumed site grades are changed or are different from those outlined herein, or if
subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from those indicated by our borings, we will
require the opportunity to review these changed conditions and matte any necessary modifications to the
recommendations presented in this report. The recommendations outlined in this report should not be
construed to address moisture or water intrusion effects after construction is completed. Proper design of
landscaping, surface and subsurface water control measures are required to properly address these issues.
In addition, proper operation and maintenance of building systems is required to minimize the effects of
moisture or water intrusion. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of waterproofing and
damp -proofing systems are beyond the scope of our services for this project.
4.2 PROJECT DESIGN N -- -
._ __.. - - TRIGONENGINEr-)UNG.CONSULTANT5,JNC_ ...__ . . _.___ _ _ . .-.__ . _ .-_ _. __ . ._.... Page 6_

0
0
0
The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project No. 031-07-057 0
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune; Camp Lejeune, NC November 14, 2007 0
4.2.1 Foundation Support 0
Provided similar soil conditions exist between the boring locations and the site preparation and
foundation construction recommendations outlined within this report are followed during construction,
the proposed structure can be adequately supported on shallow foundation systems consisting of shallow
spread footings. A net allowable bearing pressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used
for design of these shallow foundations bearing on suitable bearing soils. For this site, suitable bearing
soils should be defined as firm in -place sands (SP) encountered above the water table, in -place sands that
have been improved (re -compacted) to a firm consistency, or new compacted sandy structural fill
overlying the same. The net allowable bearing pressure is that pressure which may be transmitted to the v
soil in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure without creating structurally intolerable
settlements.
0
For calculation of uplift resistance on foundations, a line at 20 degrees from vertical may be drawn up
from the edges of the bottom of footing outward away from the footing to define the wedge of soil which
acts to resist uplift forces. The weight of the footing concrete and the weight of the wedge of soil that is
within the 20 degree line may be used to calculate the uplift resistance weight. A moist soil unit weight
(y,u) of 115 pef can be used to calculate the weight of the soils. The footings should be sized to provide
for a factor of safety of 1.5 against transient uplift loads.
Based on the information outlined in this report, our experience with similar projects, and provided that
our recommendations are implemented, the estimated total and differential settlement potential for lightly
loaded shallow foundations (spread footings) should be less than 1 inch and % inch, respectively. The
actual magnitude of settlement that will occur beneath the structure will depend on variations in the subsurface
soil profile, the actual geometry of the footings, and the quality of earthwork operations and foundation
construction. Most of the settlement should occur fairly quickly during construction and upon initial loading,
since the majority of the near surface soils are granular sands. Minimum strip and rectangular footing
dimensions of 16 and 24 inches should be maintained to reduce the possibility of a localized, "punching"
type, shear failure. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be designed to bear at
least 18 inches below finished grades for frost protection.
4.2.2 Slabs -on -Grade
Ground -level floor slabs may be supported on firm in -place sands (SP) encountered above the water table,
in -place sands that have been improved (ie-compacted)" Eo a firm consistency, or new compacted sandy
structural fill overlying the firm in -place sands.. A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of up to 150 pounds
--- . -..--- TFiooNE-NonrRERIIJGCONsuLTANTs,-1NC— — -- - ----- - -- - - - -- ------- ..... -- --Pegs-7 _.. . .

The Whiting -Turner Conrracting Company Trigon Project No, 031-07-057
Stone Bav Dining F ocilio, at MCB Camp Lejeune; Camp Leieune. NC November 14, 2007
per cubic inch may be used for floor slab design on the above mentioned subgrade materials, A minimum
4-inch-thick layer of washed stone (NCDOT No. 57 or 67, or equivalent locally available clean gravel)
should be provided beneath all building floor slabs to provide more uniform bearing and to prevent
capillary rise of water-
4.2.3 Seismic Site Classification
Based on the 2006 international Building Code, an evaluation of the upper 100 feet of the material below
the ground surface and its characteristics is required to determine site classification. The subsurface
investigation for this project included one soil boring (B-8) that was advanced to a depth of 88.5 feet, In -
situ shear wave velocity measurements were beyond the scope of our services for this project, but can be
performed as an additional service, if so requested. Utilizing the weighted average technique outlined in
the 2006 IBC for the Standard Penetration Resistance (N value) in the upper 100 feet at boring B-8, we
have determined that the site would be classified as a Site Class E.
4.2.4 Cut and Fill Slopes
Pennanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 3(H):1(V) and should be properly seeded and
mulched to minimize erosion. Temporary slopes in shallow confined or open excavations should perform
satisfactorily at inclinations of i(f1):1(V), unless groundwater will act on the excavation sidewalls. Any
slopes built -within the groundwater level should be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer at the time of
construction and may require temporary dcwatering and/or other forms of stabilization/shoring. All con-
fined excavations, such as trenches and footing excavations, should conform to applicable OSHA
regulations. The crests of all slopes should be maintained at least five (5) feet horizontally from building
and pavement limits. Surface runoff should be diverted away from the slope faces. Appropriately sized
ditches should extend above and parallel to the crest of all permanent slopes.
4.2.5 Asphalt Pavements
Based on our analysis of the borings and our understanding of proposed site grades, we anticipate that the
soils at the design pavement subgrade elevations will primarily consist of in -place firm sand soils (SP),
unproved (re -compacted) in -place sands, or similar, newly placed sand structural fill soils overlying the
same. The near surface fine sands (SP) are generally fair to good for pavement support when prepared to
a very firm uniform consistency, and typically exhibit soaked CBR values of 6 to 12 percent, in our
experience. Laboratory -California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing of a bulk sample of the on -site near
surface sand soils yielded a soaked CBR value of 11 percent. Based on the near surface soil types
encountered in the test -borings, the reported laboratory CBR results, and provided the site preparation
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,WC. Page$__

The Whiring-Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project AV 031-07-057
Slone Bay dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune: CaMe Lejeune, NC - November 14. 2007
recommendations outlined in this report arc implemented, we recommend a CBR value of I I percent be used
in design of the project pavements.
Based on a soaked CBR value of 11 percent and the anticipated traffic volumes for this facility, we
recommend the following typical pavement sections be considered for this site:
Recommended Typical Pavement Sections
Ileavy Duty
Medium Duty
Light Duty
Surface Asphalt (inches)
(NCDOT Type 1-1,1-2, or S3.5X)
3.5
2-5
2.0
Aggregate Base Course (inches)
(NCDOT CABC or Equivalent)
$-0
8.0
6.0
'total Section Thickness (inches)
11.5
10.5
8,0
Light -duty pavements should be designated for car traffic and car parking areas. Medium -duty
pavements should be designated for occasional light trucks and main travel lanes in parking lots. Heavy-
duty pavements should be designated for entrance and exit drives, access roads, truck lanes, loading
docks and lanes where trucks or heavy equipment will regularly operate. A minimum eight (8) inch thick,
reinforced concrete slab should be utilized at any designated loading/unloading areas where concentrated
and repeated heavy wheel loads are expected, and should extend to at least the extent of static axle
loading.
Pavements and bases should be constructed in accordance with the guidelines of the latest applicable
"Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures", published by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Materials, weather limitations, placement and compaction are specified under appropriate
sections of this publication. The long-term performance of any flexible pavement section is related to
drainage of the base and subgrade. We emphasize that good base course drainage is absolutely essential
for successful pavement performance. Water buildup in the base course will result in premature
pavement failures. The subgrade and pavement should be graded to provide rapid runoff to either the
outer limits. -of -the paved -area or to catch basins so that standing water will- not accumulate on the
. .. .--•-TEUGON-F-NGINEENNGCONSULTAN-TS;I4C. —_... -_ .. ...----- - ------... ..._— Page.9—

The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company Trigon Project No. 031-07-057
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCQ Camp Lejeune,- Camp Lejeune, NC Noremher 14. 2007
subgrade or pavement. Any areas of Iandscaping with sprinkler systems, or areas of cut that would allow
water to enter the pavement system, will likely need sub drains (french drains) installed to prevent entry.
The majority of flexible pavement sections incur their heaviest loads in curves, at the bases of hills, and
during the construction process. Frequently, the construction loads may be in excess of the design loads.
For this reason, we recommend that construction be staged to allow final preparation of the base course
and paving to be performed near the end of the project. In the event that the paved area is needed for
construction access, we recommend that an asphaltic binder course be applied for use during construction
and this temporary course be overlaid with the final surface course near the end of construction. However,
the binder course should be thoroughly inspected for deficiencies, and repaired prior to final paving.
4.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
4.3.1 Site Preparation
The proposed construction area should be stripped of all topsoil, organic material, gravel, concrete,
demolition debris, and other soft or unsuitable material within the construction limits utilizing low -
bearing pressure (i.e. wide -tracked) construction equipment to limit disturbance to exposed subgrades.
Typical stripping depths of six inches should be anticipated to remove the majority of the topsoil
encountered at the ground surface. Deeper grubbing depths should be anticipated in heavily vegetated and
wooded areas of the site to remove root -mat, tree roots, root -balls, and forest floor decayed materials.
Topsoil, root -mat, and other soils removed during stripping operations may be stockpiled and reused in
landscaped or nonstructural areas of the site, but should not be used in structural fills.
After stripping operations, and prior to commencing grading operations, all exposed soil subgrades should
be proof -rolled to detect loose, wet, or unsuitable soils. Proof rolling should be performed after a suitable
period of dry weather to avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade. Proof rolling should be
performed with a landem-axle dump truck or similar construction equipment loaded as directed by the
geotechnical engineer or his authorized representative. The geotechnical engineer or his representative
should observe proof -rolling operations to aid in delineating problem soil areas. Any soils that continue
to rut or deflect under the proof -rolling operations should be repaired as directed by the geotechnical
engineer or his representative. Based on the borings, we do not anticipate the need for widespread
undercutting. However, isolated areas of undercutting are always a possibility. Based on the field and lab
data, we anticipate that some moisture conditioning of the -near surface sands will be -needed if they are
excavated or used in -place as a finished subgrade. Soils encountered at and below the groundwater level
_. TRicoN ENnu4Fx.R[No CoNsuLTANrs,.1Nc_ .. Page 10.-

The fiMting-Turner Contracting Companv Trigon Projecl No. 031-07-057
Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune; Camp Lejeune. NC November 14. 2007
will require significant drying due to their wet to saturated conditions. Drying operations are often time
consuming and the results are weather dependent.
Underlying the surface topsoil, exposed soil subgrades will consist primarily of loose to firm coastal plain
fine sands (SP). If found to be loose and unstable, the loose in -place soils will need to be improved in -
place prior to utilizing them as a finished subgrades for foundations, slabs, roadway and parking lot areas,
and/or prior to placing new structural fill over them, It is our opinion that any loose sandy soils
encountered from approximately l to 5 feet below the existing ground surface across this site (i.e. soils
encountered above the groundwater level) can be readily improved in -place by compacting thorn with a
medium size vibratory, smooth drum roller from the exposed subgrade surface. A smooth drum vibratory
roller rated at 10-15 tons should be sufficient for this relatively shallow sand densification operation. This
operation will densify the sands encountered above the groundwater level and increase their bearing
capacity (for building support and pavement support), as well as pre -consolidate the soils, reducing post -
construction foundation settlements. A minimum of 3 to 4 passes over any observed loose subgrade areas
(in each direction) should be anticipated. This operation may draw groundwater up to near the ground
surface and make the subgrades temporarily wet and unstable in some areas, especially in areas where the
groundwater is somewhat shallow. This would be a temporary situation, and the relatively permeable sand
subgrade soils should drain, and the groundwater levels equalize within approximately 24 to 36 hours
- --after completing the ground improvement operations and -removing all compaction equipment and
construction traffic from the areas.
4.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered across the site at depths ranging from 5.7 to 11.0 feet below the existing
ground surface (elevations 39.5 to 45.5). Since groundwater was not encountered in the test borings above
depths of 5.5 feet (elevations greater than 45.5 feet), and minimal grading changes are anticipated across
the site, we do not anticipate a need for extensive dewatering measures to facilitate the majority of
anticipated construction. However, it should be noted that the current groundwater conditions may be
somewhat lower than the normal groundwater levels at the site, due to the moderate drought conditions
that have persisted in the region prior to our groundwater measurements being made. Any excavations
that extend to depths greater than 3 to 5 feet, such as utility trenches, removal of foundation debris where
existing . structures have been demolished, or any site undercutting, may encounter groundwater
conditions and will require temporary dewatering measures to facilitate construction. This will be
dependent -upon the actual plan excavation depths for foundations and any -planned utility trenches, which
were not available to us at the time of this report. The groundwater level can be temporarily lowered in
---- -^ TWro'4 Hl4rLNEERiNG CONSULTANTS; ING.- - --- .------- - ...— . .-- - - -- --- -- -. -Pagel l

l�
The !Whiting -Turner Contracting Company Trigan Project No. 031-07-057
November 14, 2007
Stone Rgv Dining Facility at MCR Camp Lejemzer Camp Lejeune, NC
smaller areas by pumping from sumps in the excavation bottoms. For larger structures, which will require
O
that excavations be open for significant periods, sumps can also be utilized, but can be expected to extend
deeper below the working surface. The sumps could be placed in excavations or within well point
O
casings placed throughout the site. The presence of saturated soils within the excavation bottoms will
�O
significantly hinder the progress of conventional excavation to the subgrade level and hinder shallow
foundation excavations.
4.3.3 Fill Material and Placement
The preferred structural fill and backfill should generally consist of a predominantly granular, low to
moderate plasticity soil (plasticity index less than 15) that is free of organic material, debris, and gravel or
shells larger than 2 inches. These fill soils should classify as sands such as SM, SP, SW, SP-SM, SW-
•
•
SM, SC, or gravels (GM and GC) in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. All
structural fill should exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 90 pounds per cubic foot as determined by a
•
Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698). All fill in structural areas should be placed during the
I�
initial stages of site development and prior to any foundation construction. This will assist in the
consolidation of in -place soils below the load imposed by the fill.
,.
The near surface on -site sandy soils are generally acceptable as structural fill as described above. Near
f• surface sands across the site (upper 5 feet) exhibited in -place natural moisture contents ranging from 6 to
18 percent. Therefore some amount of moisture conditioning (adding moisture or drying) will likely be
�• needed prior to using these sands as fill, if excavated. Any soils excavated from below the groundwater
• level will be saturated to wet, and will require significant drying time. A bulk sample of near surface on -
site soil from the upper 5 feet was subjected to standard Proctor testing to determine its compaction
characteristics, including maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The bulk sample indicated
that the sampled SP sandy soils have a maximum dry density of 103 pounds per cubic foot at an optimum
moisture content of 15.5 percent.
All structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 to 10 inches loose thickness for large powered
compaction equipment, and not exceeding 4 inches loose thickness for smaller hand operated compaction
equipment. All structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its Standard Proctor maximum dry
density. The upper 18 inches, in structural areas and paved areas should be compacted to not less than 98
percent of its Standard Proctor density. Aggregate bases for paved areas should be compacted to not less than
100 percent of.its Standard -.-Proctor density. The preferred moisture content for optimum placement of
structural fill should be within f 2 percent of the optimum moisture content for maximum density. However,
• ._ __. - __-. _ ..-rRSGON GNMNEEmr, CONSULTANTS,-INC—
Page 12

The Whiting -Turner Contracting Company rrigon Project No. 031-07-057
Sione Bay Dining Facility at MC8 Camp Lejeune. Camp Lejeune. NC November 14.2007
fill could be placed slightly dry or wet of the preferred range, recognizing that soils placed significantly wet of
optimum must also satisfy the requirement of remaining stable under heavy pneumatic -tired construction
traffic, We recommend that field density and moisture content tests be perfonned on the structural till as it is
being placed, at a frequency determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer or soils technician, to verify
that proper moisture content and compaction is achieved.
4.3.4 Excavation Conditions
Based on the subsurface information, it appears that the existing coastal plain soils can be readily
excavated with conventional construction equipment to the anticipated depths of construction. We
recommend that low -bearing pressure (i.e. wide -tracked) construction equipment be utilized at the site to
limit disturbance to exposed subgrades. Upon excavation to the design bearing/subgrade elevations, the
exposed sandy subgrades should be tamped in place to compact any soils disturbed by the excavation
equipment. Concrete associated with the existing driveways and previous on -site structure foundations,
as well as abandoned buried utility pipes near the structures being demolished, may be removed with
conventional construction equipment, but at a slower rate.
4.3.5 Foundation Construction
Bearing surfaces for foundations should not be disturbed or left exposed during inclement"weather.
Saturation of the on -site soils can cause a loss of strength and increased compressibility. Excavations for
footings should be completed with a smooth bucket backhoe or be trimmed by hand following excavation
to minimize disturbance of the subgrade soils. Upon their exposure, all bearing grades should have
excess and loosened material removed. The final grades should be firm and stable, and free of any loose
soil, organics, mud, water, or frost. Foundation bearing surfaces should be observed by a geotechnical
engineer or his authorized representative prior to concrete placement to confirm that suitable soils are
present at the bearing elevation. Loose or unsuitable areas observed at the bearing elevation should be
undercut or repaired as recommended by a geotechiucal engineer (such as recompaction). If construction
occurs during inclement weather and concreting of the foundation is not possible at the time it is
excavated, a layer of lean concrete should be placed on the bearing surface for protection. Concrete
should not be placed on frozen subgrades.
4.3.6 Construction Monitoring
Quality 'assurance' observations and testirigrelated to earthwork and foiuidatioris should be performed by --
competent personnel under the general administrative supervision of a geotechnical engineer familiar with the
- • ---,I)UCioN-ENOENEERENGCONSftUANrs,-INc: --- ... ..... - - - - - -- Page 13

The Whiting -Turner Contracting Comparnv Trigan ProjectAlo. 031-07-057
5torte Bay pining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune; Camp Lejeune. NC November 14, 2007
design requirements and considerations of this project. As a minimum, we recommend that qualified
geotechnical personnel observe and test foundation excavations and subgrades, evaluate and test the materials
to be used as structural fill, and test the moisture and compaction of all structural fill and backfill. Foundation
bearing grades should be tested during construction to confirm the recorrunended allowable bearing
pressure. We recommend that dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests be performed at a rate determined
by a geotechnical engineer or experienced soils technician. The DCP tests should be completed to a
minimum depth of 3 to 4 feet below the foundation bearing elevation, or as directed by the geotechnical
engineer.
5.0 CLOSURE
Regardless of the thoroughness of the geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that subsurface
conditions will be different from those at the boring locations, conditions will not be as anticipated by the
designers, or the construction process will alter soil conditions. Qualified geotechnical personnel should
continuously observe and test the preparation, earthwork, shallow foundation, and pavement subgrade
construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated in the design actually exist.
.. _.-.R oN.ENmNEERimoCoNsuLTANCs, INC..---

APPENDIX
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Boring Location Diagram
Figure 3a and 3h: Subsurface Profiles
Site Photographs
Test Boring Logs
Moisture -Density Relationship Test Sheet
Report of California Bearing Ratio Test
Key to Test Boring Logs
Soil Classification Chart
i
TRIGONENGINEERMG CONSULTANTS, INC- Page 15 •

4iata tise.sv4jsct to rc, nse..
to 21144 DeLorme ;Street Atlas U5lss,?tl,05:
wwititlelmine.cmn .
Street Atlas USA* 20D5
0: 444 BEo: 1200 -IBM
DataZoorri 14.0
SITE VICINITY MAP
Trigon Engineering Consultants STONE BAY DINING FACILITY AT MCB CAMP LEJEUNE
700 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 101 CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CARO_LINA
,..Raleigh, North Carrilins 27606
(P) 919,755.5011 PROJECT: 031-07-057 DATE: 11107
.1414
TRIG13N 'w wagon eng.c
www.trigoneng.cam DRAWN BY: DJG
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,iNG SCALE: AS Shown FIGURE:

CS1:i9:1
:I
50 q 50 100
Graphic Scale (feet)
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC.
Trig on Engineering Consultants
700 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27506
(P) 9 19.75 5.5011
(F) 919.755.1414
www.trigoneng.com
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
STONE BAY DINING FACILITY AT MCB CAMP LEJEUNE
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLiNA
PROJECT: 031-07-057
DRAWN BY: DJG
SCALE.- As Shown
DATE: 1 11 /07
FIGURE: 1 2

09 0 000000000
ELEV, SUBSURFACE PROFILE (BUILDING PAD)----..—.- ELEV.
60 PRuPOSED FFE FOR 01t4ING FACILITY 51,
SP7
DOWT
11-12 B-13 B-14 B-15
bo T_ic •4
...........
II
QD %
ap I . . i . 1<�i) sp
c PA 1. SUM cz;lk ".. .
QD : - --, �.'
c.PPLA: (D KD 1 Z7"'lA eft
sp
CD
0/31107 1, -i(E) 140
4010 �h77 X 121
. . V, �A
I 1a107 X67 ..*...' . .] C
i7.0
31
17 7, 17 47. BT
17 ; c "p. iv
cpkt, cmp" VV�
20. 20.
.. .. .. I3T- BT BT
uc 2 2D 2
IQ
30 22, . ...... BTIQ BT-- BT 30
ML LI-O-)
c
0.
57.0
-10
cm
-20
77,0
-3D
B2,a
su 88
-40
BT
20
10
_1u
.... . . NOTES:I-20
1. BORINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE HORIZONTALLY.
O 2, REFER TO BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM FOR ACTUAL LOCATIONS.
3. SP=FINE SAND; SM=SILTY SAND: SC=CLAYEY SAND; ML=SANDY SILT. CLmSANDY SILTY CLAY.
BT= BORING TERMINATED; CPM=COASTAL PLAIN MATERIAL,
i
-30
MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL
IGINFERiNG CONSULTANTS. IN
SUBSURFACE PROFILE (BUILDING PAD)
Trigon Engineering Consultants STONE BAY DINING FACILITY AT MCB CAMP LEJEUNE
700 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 101 CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
(P) 9ig.755.5011 PROJECT: 031-07-057 DATE: 11/07
(F) 919.755.1414
www.trigoneng-com DRAWN BY: DJG
SCALE-. As Shown FIGURE.' 3a

SUBSURFACE PROFILE (PARKING & DRIVE AREAS)
I
ELEV.
60_
I.
B-5 SPT
55 .............
SpT
...... .... . . .......-
MBLOW
B-1B40.0
sar 0 C°N
B-6
BLOW B-2 T
SPT
50 TOL0 COUNT SPT B-3 0. ..... ... 0. D
K
renw BLOW
.....SPT ' 2
cPtaD. COUNT BLOW
5.5. 0.fi
PM.0csPJ. O. LO:E COUNT
CPM;
11i07 i3, - 19 1,1 'Sp 16 110 `' 22 1i105f0 ICD
11R1 T
C M� 20 $ 27 1110907 � 22 i 0. 8T � BT � �-WK
.� 1s
40 14, CPM: S. ..
Bl . .. ..... ......6P 10 27 c ui: BT s� 10.c_ 12
BT
35 ....
17.
k-.
30 ....... Su20.
BT
25 .............. .. ........... _ .. ..
20 NOTES:
1. BORINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE HORIZONTALLY.
2. REFER TO BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM FOR ACTUAL LOCATIONS.
iI 3. SP=FINE SAND; SM=SILTY SAND; CPM=COASTAL PLAIN MATERIAL.
7r = MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL.
W
SPT
BLOW
spread COUNT
S P I(D
5
I
11 iD5T07 8.
SPM o
20-c -- z,
BT
ELEV.
60
55
50
45
40
i
1135
30
1
25
20
SUBSURFACE PROFILE (PARKING & DRIVE AREAS)
Trigon Engineering Consultants STONE BAY DINING FACILITY AT MCB CAMP LEJEUNE
700 Blue Ridge Road, Suite 101 CAMP LEJELINE, NORTH CAROLINA
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
(P)919.755.5011 PROJECT: 031-07-057 DATE.-
11107
TR[GON (F) v,higo enq.G
vnww,trigoneng.com DRAWN BY: DJG
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. SCALE AS ShownFIGURE: 3b

9
Wma

w
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
SOMNG LOG
PAr,F 1 nF 1
PROJECT NO, 031-07-057 1 ID No. NA COUNTY Onsiow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-1 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR, 8.5
COLLAR ELEV. 50.5 ft
NORTHING
FASTING
24 HR. 7.0
TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 ft
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD HSA HAMMER TYPE 140Ib. Manual
DATE STARTED 1111/07 COMPLETED 11/1107 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
(R)
DEPTH
(ft)
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 80 1 DD
SAMP.
NO.
0
MOI
L
0
G
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.5ft
D_5ft
0,5R
50.5
Stl.S D.
49-5
1.0
. , . . , , . ,
s . , . . , . . ,
�2 • . • .
10 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
20
SS-1
6.8
14.9
20.4
22.2
Topsoil 6 inches)
47.0
3.5
2
3
6
Coastal Alain Material: Loose, Dry to Moist,
°75 Tan -Gray, Fine SAND (SP 3.0
44.5
6.0
8
7
6
SS-2
•'
Coastal Plain Material: Firm, Moist to Wet,
Brown, Slightly Silty, Fine SAND (SP)
42-5 8.n
SS-3
42,0
7
9
10
8.5
8
9
11
SS-4
•'
Coastal Plain Materal: Firm, Wet,
4e.5 Tan -Brown, Fine SAND (SP) to.D
Boring Terminated at 10.0 Feet
Nate:
See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring Localien

IM&
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC
BORING LOG
PAGE I OF I
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No, NA COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-2 BORING LOCATION OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 9.0
COLLAR ELEV. 49.0 ft
NORTHING EASTING
24 HR. 5.7
TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 ft
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD HSA HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 1111107 COMPLETED 1111107 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
SAMP.
Q
L
0 20 40 60 BO 100
NO
0
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
fl.5fi
O.Sft
0.5ft
(ft)
(ft)
MOI
G
49.0
49.0 o.00
48.0
1.
_ . . . . . . . . . . .
s .
55-1
Q
Topsoil (5 inches)
3
4
1 5
Coastal Plain Material: Loose, Moist, Gray
45.5
3.5
. 1s . . . . . .
M
46.0 and Brown, Fine SAND (SP) with a Trace of 3.0
Organics Rootlets
B
10
9
55-2
SS-3
Coastal Plain Materiai: Firm to Very Firm,
Moist, Brawn, Slightly Silty, Fine SAND (SP)
43.0
6.0
27
9
12
15
M
,
77
W
41.0 e.0
40.5
6.5
9
16
11
SS-4
Coastal Plain Material: Very Firm, Wet,
z7
39.0 Tan -Brown, Fine SAND (SP) 10.0
Boring Terminated at 10.0 feet
Nate:
See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring Location

13
u
2
u
C
[h
C
V
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No. NA COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE IESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. 6-3 BORING LOCATION OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. NGWE
COLLAR ELEV. 48.0 ft
NORTHING EASTING
24 HR. 5.8
TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 ft
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD HSA HAMMER TYPE 140 Ib. Manual
DATE STARTED 1111107 COMPLETED 1111/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
SAMP,
L
20 0 40 60 BO 100
NO.
O
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0-5fi
D,SR
MOI
G
48.0
aa.a 0-00
4
14
$S-1
7.2
Topsoil (6 inches)
Coastal Plain Material: Finn, Dry, Tan -Gray,
4
7
7
44.5
3.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'18. . • . . . • . . .
21.0
45.0 Fine SAND (SP) 3.0
-
9
B
10
SS-2
''
Coastal Plain Material: Firm to Very Firm,
42.0
610
22.7
Molst to Wet, Brown, Slightly Silty, Fine
SAND (SP)
SS-3
7
11
11
23.7
40-0 8.0
39.5
&.5
5
fi
B
$S�
'--
Coastal Plain Material: Firm Wet, Tan, Fine
38.0 SAND(SP) .0
Boring Terminated at 10.0 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate boring
Location
2. NGWE = No Groundwater Encountered

WE
TRIGS _
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057
ID No. NA COUNTY Onslaw GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-4 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. NGWE
COLLAR ELEV. 52.0 ft NORTHING
EASTING
24 HR, 8.9
TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 It DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD HSA HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 1111107 COMPLETED 1111107 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
(ft)
DEPTH
(ft)
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 BO 100
SAMP.
NO.
MO!
L
O
G
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.5fl
0.5ft
0.5f1
52.0
52.0 a.00
51.0
1.
�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . .B . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . .
z2 . . . . . .
SS t
6.1
5.6
3.4
VF
19.6
''
, , '.
Topsail(5inches)
Coastal Plain Material: Loose to Very Firm,
Dry to Wet, Tan to Light Gray, Fine SAND
(SP)
42.0 10.0
40.5
3.5
1
2
3
SS-2
46.0
6.0
4
4
4
SS-3
43.5
8.5
4
7
9
SS-4
8
10
12
i
f!
I
Boring Terminated at 10.0 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring
Location
2. NGWE = No Groundwater Encountered

N
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PA('�F 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO, 031-07-057 1 ID No. NA COUNTY Onstow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MGB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. 8-5 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HP. NGWE
COLLAR ELEV. 54.0 ft
NORTHING
FASTING
24 Hi2_ 9.6
TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 ft
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD HSA HAMMER TYPE 1401h. Manual
DATE STARTED 11/1107 COMPLETED 1111107 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
(ft}
DEPTH
[ft)
SLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
D 20 40 66 80 100
SAMP.
NO
7/
OI
L
O
G
SOIL ANO ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.5ft
0.5ft
0,5fl
54.0
54.0 a-00
53.0
1-
so . . . . .
i2 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_ _
. . ' . . ' ' . ' .
SS-i
D
M
M
Coastal Plain Material: Loose to Firm, Dry to
Moist, fan to Light Gray. Fine SAND (SP)
40.5 5.5
50.5
3.5
2
3
7
SS-2
48.0
6.0
3
5
7
3
4
3
SS-3
Coastal Plain Material: Loose, Moist. Brown,
480 Slightly $illy, Fine SAND (SP) 8.0
45.5
8.5
3
2
2
SS-4
_
44 o Coastal Plain Material: Very Lapse, Wet,
Tan, Fine SAND (5P) 10.0
Boring Terminated at 10.0 Feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring
Location
2. NGW1= = No Groundwater Encountered

TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAnF 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No. NA COUNTY Qnslo>v GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Slone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-6 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 6.0
COLLAR ELEV. 50.0 ft NORTHING
EASTING
24 HR. 6.8
TOTAL DEPTH 2O.0 ft DRILL MACHINE CME 55
DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 1111107 COMPLETED 11l1107 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
(K)
DEPTH
(ft)
BLOW COUNT BLOWS PER FOOT
0.5K 0.5K Q.Sft 0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP.
NO
�
MOI
L
O
G
SOIL ANDROGKDESCRIPTION
50.0
5a.0 0-00
10 �17.
6 . . . 15 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
10 6 . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 3.. • • . . •
. . . . .
19 . . . . . 35
WOR
SS-1
D
M
W
M
W
VW
'.
Topsoil (6 Inches
46.5
3.5
5 7
Coastal Piain Material: Firm to Dense, Dry to
Wet, Tan to Light Brown, Slightly Siity, Fine
SAND (SP)
33", 17.0
SS-2
44.0
6.0
4 7
SS 3
41.5
8.5
5 ti
SS-4
36.5
13.5
7 21
31.5
18.5
9 16
SS-5
SS 6
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose, Very
Wet, Dark Brown, Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
30.0 20.0
WOR WOR
i
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring
Location
2. NGWE = No Groundwater Encountered
3. WOR = Weight of Rods
r

4
Q
2
U
U
WIF
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAC,F 1 nF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No. NA
I COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Slone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-7 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
4 HR. 5.0
COLLAR ELEV. 50.5 ft NORTHING
FASTING
24 HR. 77
TOTAL DEPTH 20.0 ft DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE 14O lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 11)11D7 COMPLETED 1111/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV,
(ft)
DEPTH
(ft)
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP.
NO.
®
MOI
L
O
G
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.SR
O.5ft
0.5ft
50.5
sa.s 0.00
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
y
. . . . . . . . . .
23. . . . . .
5. . .
. • . .
its . . • . • . • .
. . . . .. . . . . .
i1
SS-1
D
W
-+
Topsail 6 inches)
47.0
3.5
3
4
5
Coastal Plain Material Loose to Very Firm,
Dry 10 Moist, Tan, Fine SAND (SP)
42.5 e.0
SS-2
44.5
6.0
3
2
3
SS-3
EMI
VW
W
W
42.0
8.5
7
10
13
37.0
13.5
WOR
2
3
SS-4
Coastal n Loose, Very Wet,
Dark Browlnl. SlilghtlyaSilty. Fine SAND (SP)
36.5 12.0
SS-5
Coastal Plain Material: Firm to Very Firm,
Wet, Tan to Gray, Fine SAND (SP)
30.5 2a.o
32.0
18.5
1
4
11
SS 6
7
9
12
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring
Location
2. NGWE = No Groundwater Encountered
3. WOR = Weight of Rods

7®\
T IGON
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC-
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 2
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 1 ID No. NA COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST 0. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-8 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. NGWE
COLLAR ELEV. 51.0 0 NORTHING
EASTING I 24 HR. 8-0
TOTAL DEPTH 88.5 ft DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary I HAMMER TYPE 1401h. Manual
DATE STARTED 10/24/07 COMPLETED 10/24/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT BLOWS PER FOOT
SAMP.
L
0.5ft 0.5ft 0.5ft Q 20 40 60 80 140
NO
O
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
(it)
(fl)
MOI
G
51.0
s1 o a on
i-
. . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 , . , • . . _ _
SS-1
9.0
Topsoil (6 inches
4
4
7
Coastal Plain Material: Firm to Very Firm,
47.5
3.5
. . • • • . . . . • • • .
. . . . . Z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.0
..
Dry to Wet, Tan, Fine SAND (SP)
SS-2
7
9
11
45.0
6.0
17 , . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
15.2
'
SS-3
42.5
8.5
5
7
10
8
13
15
29. . . . . . . . . .
SS-4
19.6
•'.
37.5
13.5
• . • ..........
. . . . . . .26 . . . . . . . . . . . .
SS-5
22-7
9
12
17
- - -
34.0 17.0
Coastal Plain Material: Soft, Very Wet, Black,
Highly Organic, Fine Sandy, SILT (ML)
32.5
18.5
• • . . . . . • .
• . . . . ' •
85.2
6
2
1
S8-6
a
29.0 22.0
Coastal Plain Material: Very Soft, Wet, Gray,
Fine Sandy, Clayey, SILT- (ML)
27.5
23.5
. . . . . . -
' '
SS-7
37.8
WOH
WOH
WOH
p ....................
24.0 27A
22.5
28.5
' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . ' ' '
. . .
SSA
39-6
Coastal Plain Material. Very Soft, Wet, Gray,
Fine Sandy, Silty, CLAY (CL)
WOH
WOH
WOH
q.
......
-
. . . . . . . . .
(SS-10) Atterberg Limits,
. . . . .
LL=41,PL=17,PI=24
17.5
33.5
.... ... I .
p' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W
WOH
WOH
WOH
SS-9
12.5
38.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SS-10
36A
WOH
WOH
WOH
7.5
43.5
..... ..............
...... .
fl' ' . . • ' . . ' • •
SS-11
38.9
WOH
WOH
WOH
2.5
48.5
77
SS 12
3fi.0
2.0 49.0
7
21 SO
Coastal Plain Material: Very Dense to Firm,
Wet, Dark Gray, Silty, Coarse to Fine SAND
(SM) wiih Limestone Fragments
-2.5 -53.5
.. ........
' ' ' ' ' . • '
SS-13
31.0
•: -
-
T..........
12
14 i 16
Coastal Plain Material: Flrm to Very Firm,
Wet, Gray, Silty, Clayey, Coarse to Fine
7.5 58.5
. . . . . . .
SS-14
23.3
7
9
9
. . . . . . . . .
SAND (SC) with Abundant Shell Fragments
-12.5
6315
.....
. . . . . . . . .
(24
20.1
8
11
13
SS-15
-
Plain Material_ Dense, Wet. Gray,13
Clayey, Silty, Fine SAND (SM) with a Trace of
-17.5
68-5
-
. - -Coastal
28.1
18SS-16
. . . . . . . .
Shell Fragments at 63.5-65.0 feet
....14
27.7
'.
19
21
SS-17

TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAGF 2 OF 2
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No. NA COUNTY Onsiow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejetine
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-8 I BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. NGWE
COLLAR ELEV. 51.0 ft
NORTHING
EASTING
24 HR. &0
TOTAL DEPTH 88.5 ft
DRILL MACHINE r-ME 55 DRII.L METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE i40 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 10124/07
COMPLETED 10/24/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
{ft)
DEPTH
(ft}
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP.
NO
0
MOI
L
O
G
501E AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0,5ft
0.5ft
D.Sft
-23.8
Continued from previous page
-27 5
78.5
. . . . . . . .
. . . . • 501.2�
. . . . . . . . . . . .
- - _ -
. . . . . .
501,3
• . . . . , . . . • . .
SS-18
22.2
24.5
zs, n.a
Caastal Plain Material: Very Dense, Wet,
Gray, Silty, F-fm SAND (SM) (Possible
Limestone)
-31.0 82.R
-32.5
83.5
501.2I
SS-19
-
CDastal Plain Material: Very Dense, Very
Wet, Gray, Silty. Coarse to trine SAND (SM)
with Shell and Limestone Fragments
J7.5 89.G
21
501.3
Boring Terminated at 88.5 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Bering
iocatlan
2• NGWE = Na Groundwater Encountered
3. All Water Circulation Was Lost at 8B.5 feet
and Hate Caved
4. WOK = Weight of Hammer

TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
[H
C
fALV
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 1 ID No. NA
COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCS Camp Lejeune j
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-9 I BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 5.0
COLLAR ELEV. 50.0 ft
NORTHING
EASTiNG
24 HR. 10.5
TOTAL DEPTH 2O.0 ft
DRILL MACHINE CME 55
DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary
HAMMER TYPE 140 ib. Manual
DATE STARTED 10/31/07 COMPLETED 10/31107 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV,
{ft)
DEPTH
(ft)
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP.
NO
MOI
L
O
G
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.5ft
0.5ft
0.5ft
50.0
50.p 0.00
1.
. . , , _ . , _ _ .
10
. . . • • • .
15 '
4
.. ....
. . . . . 31. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
6
SS-1
D
W
�.
'.
'.
.
4 Topsals 12Inches)
Coastai Pialn Material: Loose to Dense, Dry
to Wet, Tan to Brawn, Fine SAND (SP)
46.5
3.5
6
6
4
SS-2
44.0
6.0
5
7
8
SS-3
W
W
41.5
8.5
7
9
13
SS-4
36.5
13.5
B
11
13
5S-5
W
W
31 5
18.5
12
14
17
SS 6
Coastal Plain Material: Loose, Wet, Tan and
Black, Slightly Organic., Clayey, Silty, Fine
3a.o SAND (SM.) 2oA
Boring 7orminated al 20,0 feet
Note:
See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring Location
2
3
3

FA
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 1 ID No. NA COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCS Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO, B-10 BORING LOCATION
JOFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 3.0
COLLAR ELEV. 51.0 ft
NORTHING
EASTING
24 HR, 9.0
TOTAL DEPTH 2O.0 It
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE 140 lb, Manual
DATE STARTED 10131107 COMPLETED 10131/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
SAMP.
0
L
0 2D 40 60 80 100
Np
O
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPT)ON
0.5ft
0-5ft
0,6h
(ftT
(ft)
MOl
G
51.0
51.a o.0a
1.
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
.q . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SS71
10.3
Coastal Slain Material: Very Loose to Dense,
Dry to Viet, Tan to Light Brown, Fine SAND
3
2
2
47.5
3.5
. . . . . ..
v
(SP)
4
5
5
tis
SS-2
17.5
:.
SS-3
45-0
6-0
g . . . . . . . .
17.1
:.
5
7
9
42.5
8.5
3. . . . . . . . . . .
23.6
S34
13
18
21
37,5
13.5
. . . . �. . . . . .
•3t1
SS-5
22.8
9
17
19
34.0 17.0
32.5
18.5
. . . . . . . . . .
SS_6
25.5
Coastal Plain Material: Loose, Wet, Brown,
Highly Organic, Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
3
2
2
4
31.0 20.3
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring
Location
2. Drillers Noted a Soft Zone of Black,
Possibly Organic Rich Material at 10.5-12.5
feet Based on Mill Rate and Circulating
Water

PEP
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PACE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 1D No. NA COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-11 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 3.0
COLLAR ELEV. 51.0 ft NORTHING
FASTING
24 HR, 11.0
TOTAL DEPTH 2O.0 ft DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 10/31/07 COMPLETED 10/31/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
DEPTH
SLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT SAMP.
L
.
0 20 40 60 80 100 NO.
O SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.5ft
0.5ft
0.5fl
(ft)
(ft)
MOl
G
51.0
1 51.0 0.00
1.
9 . SS-1 D
Topsail (4 inches)
Coastal Plain Material: Loose to Very Firm,
4
4
5
47.5
3.5
. . . . . . .
. . .15 . . . . . . . . . . . SS-2 M
Dry to Wet, Tan to Gray, Fine SAND (SP)
4
7
8
45.0
6.0
15 SS-3 W
4
8
7
42.5
8.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.8 . . . . . . . . . SS-4 W
5
7
9
37.5
13.5
... .... ........ ...
27. . . . . . . . . . . . SS-5 W
'.
9
12
15
34.0 17A
stal Plain Material: Very Loose, Wet,
Coatack, Highly Organic, Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
32.5
18.5
ss� w
WOR
WOR
WOR-
0
31 0 20.0
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
Notes:
1. Black, Soft Zone at 11.0-13.0 feet Based
on Drill Rate and Circulating Water
2, See Figure 2 for Approximate Bcring
Location
I
3. WOR = Weight of Rods

TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No. NA COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-12 BORING LOCATION
OFFSET
ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 1.0
COLLAR ELEV. 51.0 ft
NORTHING
FASTING
24 HR. 9.0
TOTAL DEPTH 2O.0 ft
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 10/31107
COMPLETED 10130t01 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
(ft}
DEPTH
(ft}
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 2D 40 80 84 100
SAMP.
NO.
®
MOI
L
G
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTICN
0.5N
D.Sft
O.5ft
51-0
51,0 0.00
. . . . . . .
t,t . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 . . . .
y
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 2U . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• . . .
• . • . . • . • •
z
SS-1
D
M
M
W
VW
'.
Wet, Tan, , Fine SA D(S IP) to Firm. Dry to
34.0 17.0
47.5
3.5
4
B
5
SS-2
45.0
6.0
fi
5
5
SS-3
SS-4
42.5
8.5
5
S
8
37.5
13.5
fi
8
11
SS-5
32.5
18.5
5
6
14
55 6
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose, Very
Wet. Tan and Brown, SIigtttiy Organic,
31.o Slightly Silty, Fine SAND (SP) 20•4
3
1
1
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
Note:
See Figure 2 for Approximate Baring Location

CF
C
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No. NA COUNTY Onslow
GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-13 BORING LOCATION OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 4.0
COLLAR ELEV. 51.5 ft NORTHING EASTING
24 HR. 7.5
TOTAL DEPTH 20.0 ft DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 10131/07 COMPLETED 10/31/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
(ft)
DEPTH
(n)
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP.
NO.
MOI
L
O
G
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.51t
O.5ft
0.5ft
51.5
51.5 0 o0
50,5
1.0-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a _ . , .
. . . . • . . . . . .
5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 • . . . . . . . . .
22 . , . . . .
.. ... .... .
. . . 22. . . .
. . . . .
s
SS-1
D
C'7
M
IMF
Topsoil (4 inches)
48.0
3.5
4
2
2
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose to Very
Firm, Dry to Wet, Tan to Gray, Fine SAND
(SP)
34.5 17.0
SS-2
SS-3
45.5
6.0
3
3
2
43.0
8.5
5
8
9
SS-4
M
W
VW
38.0
13.5
7
9
13
SS-5
33.0
18.5
6
10
12
SS 6
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose, Very
Wet, Tan and Brown, Slightly Organic,
31_5 Slightly Silty, Fine SAND (SP) z0.o
4
2
1
i
i
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
Note:
See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring Location

[F
C
M
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO, 031-07-057 1 ID No. NA COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-14
BORING LOCATION
OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. NGWE
COLLAR ELEV. 52.0 ft
NORTHING
EASTING
24 HR. 6_5
TOTAL DEPTH 15.0 fl
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD HSA HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 10/31/07 COMPLETED 10131/07 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
(fr)
DEPTH
(f
BLOW CCUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 BD 100
SAMP.
NO.MOI
Ld
G
SOIL AND ROCK ❑ESCRI?TION
0.5f
D.5
0,5
52.0
5z.o o,aR
1 •
3 . . . . . .
t3 . . . . . . . . . . .
12. , . .
. •
z
. . . . . . . .
sfl
SS-1
M
M
+�
M
VW
W
'
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose to Firm,
Dry to Moist, Tan, Fine SAND (SP)
45.0 Tc
48.5
3.5
2
2
1
g5_2
46A
6.0
4
6
7
SS-3
43.5
8.5
5
5
7
S5 4
SS.5
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose, Very
Wet, Tan and Brown, Slightly Organic,
Slightly Silty, Fine SAND ($P)
40.0 t2.0
38.5
13.5
1
1
1
Coastal Plain Material: Vory Firm, Wet, Tan,
x70 Fine SAND (SP) t5.0
8
13
17
Boring Terminated at 15.0 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring
Location
2. NGWE = No Groundwater Encountered
Ir1
00

[F
C
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC
BORING LOG
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO. 031-07-057 ID No. NA I COUNTY Onslow GEOLOGIST D. Goodnight
SITE DESCRIPTION Stone Bay Dining Facility at MCB Camp Lejeune
GROUND WATER (ft)
BORING NO. B-15 BORING LOCATION OFFSET ALIGNMENT
0 HR. 4.0
COLLAR ELEV. 52.0 K
NORTHING EASTING
24 HR. See Nate
TOTAL DEPTH 2O.0 ft
DRILL MACHINE CME 55 DRILL METHOD Wash Rotary HAMMER TYPE 140 lb. Manual
DATE STARTED 1111107 COMPLETED 11l1107 SURFACE WATER DEPTH
ELEV.
DEPTH
(ft)
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 4fl 60 80 100
SAMP.
NOO
/-7a
L(K)
G
SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTION
0.5K
0.5K
�.5K
52.0
52.0 a.aa
51.0
1.
a .
s . . . . . . . . . . . .
i2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i7. . . . . . . . . -
. . . . . 22. . . . . . . . . . . .
• • • • . • . • •
0.
55-1
D
n
M
M
W
W
VW
'.
Topsoil (6 inches)
48.5
3.5
2
2
2
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose to Very
Firm, Dry to Wet, Tan to Gray, Fine SAND
(SP)
35.0 17.0
SS-2
46.0
6.0
2
3
3
SS-3
43.5
8.5
3
4
8
SS-4
38.5
13.5
6
8
9
SS-5
33.5
18.5
7
10
12
SS-6
Coastal Plain Material: Very Loose, Wet,
320 Black, Highly Organic, Silty, Fine SAND (SM) 20.0
WOR
WOR
VYOR
Boring Terminated at 20.0 feet
Notes:
1. See Figure 2 for Approximate Boring
Location
2. Unable to Get 24-hour Water Level Due to
Demolition Debris Covering Boring
3. WOR = Weight of Rods

rigon K agmeermg
Uonsultants, Inc.
150
145
Boring, B-8
Sample Depth-
1-5.0 ft.

REPORT OF CALIFOWNIA BEARING RA.T10'f EST
ASTM D 1883
Job Name: Stone Bay Dining Facility
Job Number: 031-07-057 Boring Number. B-8
Sample Number. S-1
1. Method of Preparation: ASTM D 698
2. Description of Sample: Gray Fine SAND (SP)_
3. Dry Density Before Soaking: 98.0 pcf
4. Swell: 0.17%
5. Dry Density After Soaking: 98.5 pcf
6. Moisture Content:
Before Soaking: 17.6%
After Soaking (Ave.): 18.0%
7. Bearing Ratio c@r 0.1 inch: 11.0
3000
280.0
260.0
240.0
220.0
20o.0
m 160.fl
a
0
< 15CA
J
0 140.0
r
a 120.0
10010
ej'' 80.0
60,0
40.0
20.0
00
Date: 1 1 / 1312007
•
Sarnp[e Type; Bulk
Sample Depth: 1.0-5.0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
PENETRATION, inches 0—Top

TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
KEY TO TEST BORING and CORING LOGS
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS:
SOIL CLASSIFICATION BY GAIN
S€ZE(USCS)
Coarse Sand
2.0 - 4,75 mm
Medium Sand
0.425 — 2.0 mm
Fine Sand
0.002 — 0,075 mm
Clay
<0.002 mm
SOIL CONSISTENCY DESIGNATIONS
Sandy Sojls:
SPT N-Values (bpf)
Relative Consistency
04
VeryLoose
5-40
Loose
11-20
Firm
21-30
Very Firm
31-50
Dense
51.100
Very Dense
100+
Partially Weathered Rock
SOIL MOISTURE DESIGNATIONS
M=Moist W=Wet D=Dry
ROCK CHARACTERISTICS:
a9CK WEATHERING DESIGNATIONS
Silty
1 Clayey Soils:
SPT N-Values (bpf)
Relative Consistency
0-1
Very Soft
2-4
Soft
5-8
Firm
9-15
Stiff
16-30
Very Stiff
31-50
hoard
51-100
Very Hard
100+
Partially Weathered Rock
Fresh Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joint$ may show slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline
Very Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show thin clay coatings if open, crystals on a broken specimen
(V.SI-Q face shine brightly. Rock rings under hammer blows if of a crystalline nature,
Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 inch. Open joints may contain clay. In
(SLI.) granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer
blows.
Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration arid weathering effects_ in granitoid rocks, most feldspars are dull and
(MOD.) discolored, some show clay. Rock has dull sound under hammer blows and show significant loss of strength as
compared with fresh rock.
Moderately All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars dull and discolored and a majority show
Severe kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength & can be excavated with geologist's pick. Rock gives "clunk"
(MOD.SEV.) sound when struck. Comparable to hard weathered rock.
Severe All rocks except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric" clear and evident but reduced in strength to strong soil.
(SEV.) In granitoid rocks all feldspars are kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of strong rock usually remain.
Comparable to soft weathered rock.
Very Sever All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock fabric elements are discernible but the mass is effectively reduced
(V.SEV.) to soli status, with only fragments of strong rock remaining. Saprolite is an example of rock weathered to a degree
such that only minor vestiges of the original rock fabric remain. Comparable to soil
Complete Rock reduced to soil, Rock fabric not discernible only in small and scattered concentrations. Quartz may be present
as dikes or stringers. Saprolite is also an example. Comparable to soil.
ROCK CONTINUITY DESIGNATIONS
Sound - Core Pieces Larger Than 8 Inches
Slightly Fractured (SLI.FRAC.) - Core Pieces Between 4 Inches And 8 Inches
Moderately Fractured (MOD.FRAC.)- Core pieces between 1 inch and 4 inches
Extremely Fractured (EXT.FRAC.) - Core pieces less than 1 inch
Percent Recovery (REG) Percentage of rock core recovered
Percent Rock Quality Designation (ROD) Percentage of rock core specimens greater than 4 inches long
GENERAL. NOTES:
• Elevations and Depths Presented in English Units with Feet as Primary Unit of Measurement
SS = split spoon sample IRS = Rock Sample For Compressive Strength Testing NGWE = No Groundwater Encountered (in boring)

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPH
LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
0
° �° °° �°
o DQo D
Q ❑ o�
° a
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
'
Gp
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
°
+
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND -
SILTMIXTURES
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50°h
OF MATERIAL IS
SAND
AND
CLEAN SANDS
SW
-GRADED SANDS,
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO F NREASVELLY
S P
POORLY -GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SANDY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
„ -
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
S C
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
M L
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT
AND LESS THAN 50
CLAYS
C'L
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL 15
SMALLER THAN
NO, 200 SIEVE
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
slz�
SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT
AND
LAYS GREATER THAN 50
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT. HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

APPENDIX E
Infiltration System Investigation Report

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATION
Complete and email this form to [e-mail]. If there are more than 7 areas to be tested,
attach a second sheet.
Scheduled Site Visit Date: 0 f - 2 S - W9 Time:
'i6 P
Project Name: r-i ttH FALzrl(?5Tcnki &y County: QNsl.o+J
Street Address: NI//% - ON -Ct=LI' XAu�5 Ro. iwarn of 6:ox=R I. QAsii A :Ta�ljW.
Directions from the nearest intersection of two major roads:
5Z."ik 4S LocAi v J-CT1i1NI SIC NC bAY F1iFLC- P_Aor.0 Ncfes5tFD ^_r=F lrwy 21to
-3 _TWEa0 RV.?y_ i r 7�> Tar VOIZr.# AV,► i4w y 172 r o -rNr 5ou"r Ai, —
>1 acre Being disturbed? DYES []NO
t
Consultant Name: � - sk- , `ors+, [
Consultant Firm Name: C Lk9lc s !Qe7xseW
$-If. a-0
CAMA Major required? DYES ❑✓ NO
Phone:
Bore Number
1
2
3
1 4
5
6
7
a) Existinq Ground Elevation
s-o,
iw. z
yo. s
q?, -7
49.9
S z. 7
t7 Proposed Bottom Elevation
yc
Lit
of
U
q6
q8
c Difference a minus b
I. ff
Z, z
i, s-
1,7
$, 1
`117
d Add 2 ft. Min. Bore Depth)
C.8
q, z
4.5, 1
9,7
S.
6,7
e Hardpan Depth?
32"
3z'r
iq"lA
rJ A
f Infiltration Rate OK?
'"Ar
it.Z rhlkr
I$,4 ,/i,
Aeprox. Elev. Of SHWT
i
qs, 5
y7, 3
IX. 7
q5, -7
47.-7
h Max. lowest bottom elev.
so, 1
q7. s
Y�.3
117. 7 1
17.7
y1. 7
Comments W=TR THE -TmFi_TAAir,,iJ RAT-3 AS Ni&N A5 THEY ARF nN
ilil5 SaTz IT If 7HE7 OR-r^1i.04 OF TOE EN61WE799 THAT �tirFiCTiq�Dn1
ASIM4 AN TgENc14&S 4.50viP OPPEJZAT1r AS p�STC."kz' �> _ WITH -THF &)70M
ELEVA-rloNl WITHTN 2 r 0r 7fi'~ 5 H LJ T
Required Attachments:
1 . Legible vicinity map.
2. Complete Soils Report.
3. PDF formatted site plan with the boring locations to be tested. Site plans should.
be emailed or hand -delivered only. Illegible faxed maps will not be accepted.
All proposed infiltration areas and existing, active utility lines located vuthin the proposed
basin/trench must be marked and flagged. If these areas are not flagged, the Soils Scientist
reserves the right to decline to do the investigation. If the pnposed infiltration system will be
located in an area of existing pavement and there is no open area nearby, equipment capable of
breaking through the impervious.layer must_be provided. -The soils investigation does not take
-the place of a soils report- prepared by an appropriate professional. The Soils Scientist will -only
verify the soil conditions that are reported in the Soils Report, and make a determination as to
the suitability of the site to met the infiltration design requirements cinder NCAC 2H.1000, and
assumes no liability should the system fail_
__.S--IWQSISTO.RMW.ATERIFQRMSIinfiltration site visit.tor.__,.. Revised 8.07 _ _

•
CPk '.
[I•
i •
CAROLINA
Geotech.nical d Construction Materials - Environmental • Facilities
•
Mr. Aaron Volek
Whiting -Turner Contracting
•
900 Ridgefield Drive Suite 130
•
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
'
Re: Infiltration Evaluation
P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
•
Holly Ridge, North Carolina
•
Dcar b& Volek,
January 22, 2008
ECS Project No. 22.13737
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) recantly conducted an infiltration evaluation for the proposed
infiltration area at the site located off of Rifle Range Road in Holly Ridge, North Carolina. This
letter, with attachments, is the report of our evaluation.
Field Testing Q�
2
W
On January 21, 2008 ECS met with Mr. Ben Thomas with Writing -Turner on site in order to Q
provide the requested test locations (boring numbers B-16 through B-21). The boring locations v
Were staked by personnel with Whiting -Turner. ECS then conducted an exploration of the 12
- subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the six requested locations shown on the attached oaL I
Site DiagramThe purpose of this exploration was to obtain subsurface information of the u�
0
suitability of the in -place soils for the proposed infiltration area. We explored the subsurface
soil and ground water conditions by advancing one hand auger boring into the existing ground -j
surface at the six requested boring locations. We visually classified the subsurface soils and z 3
U
obtained representative L samples of each. soil type encountered.- We also recorded. the- ground .. �n J
water level observed at the time of each hand auger boring. The attached Infiltration Evaluation
Form provides a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at each nand auger boring _ lZ
location, Q LY
The ground water level and the seasonal high ground water level (SIfV L) were estimated at
each boring location below the existing grade elevation, Below is a summary of each boring
location. .
Location
Water Level
SHWL
B-16
65 inches
32 inch 32 '
B-17
60 inches
32 inch s -bt
= B-19
70 inches
— 36 inc s S6
B-20
80 inches
50 inchfo
B-21
90 inches
60 inch 60 `y
7211 Ogden Business Paik - Suite 201- - Wilmizigton, NC-28411 • (910)-686-9114 ' Fax-(910)' 686-9666 ' .=dinited com-
Asheville, NC Charlotte, NC - Greensboro, NC • Greenville, SC - Raleigh. NC • Swansboro. NC # Wilmington, NC
"testing services only

Infiltration Evaluation
P-1184 Dining Facility
Holly Ridge, North Carolina
i CS Project No. 22.13737
We have conducted six infiltration tests near hand auger borings to estimate the infiltration rate
for the subsurface sons. The infiltration tests are typically conducted at two feet above the
914WL.
Field Testy Results
Below is a summary of the infiltration test results:
Location
Description
Depth.
i Iuehes/hour
Inches/minute
B-16
Brown fine
SAND
12 inches
5,0
0.08
13-17
Grey fine SAND
12 inches
7.7
0.13
B-18
-Grey fine SAND
10 inches
2.2
0.03
B-19
Grey/white fine
SAND
12 inches
14.7
0.25
B-20
Tan/yellow fine
SAND
26 inches
11.2
0.18
B-21
Tan/yellow fine
SAND
36 inches
18.4
0.30
Infiltration rates and SHWL may vary within the proposed site due to changes in elevation and
subsurface conditions.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us at [phone].
RespectfuIly,
ECS CAR.OLINAS, LLP
le �" �f "//
K. Brooks Wall
Staff Geologist
Attachments: Site Diagram
-Infiltration Evaluation
w4m #I - ML—'
Walid M. Sobh, P. E.
Principal Engineer
NC License No. 22983

t 2 3
tELm_ 1
IX • S� �� f
LID t aR10 ~• 617,1 MMI
�i 'WA Ilr�� line y` 1
M.LLP
PIE ERITE�'f LoutTLa1
Q TO ® 110 IF IF a O,Yl
E1�-ic7 r v41r, A/c—
V47
�dR
Project No.
13�7
Drawinq No.
A -
Drawn By
Al F F,
Scale
&TS

Infilltration Evaluation
P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
Holly Ridge, North Carolina.
ECS Project No. 22.13737
January 21, 2008
Location Depth Soil Description
B-16 0-20" Brown fine SAND
20"-32" Grey fine SAND
32"40" Hardpan
40"-85" Tan/Brown/Grey fine SAND
85"-120" Hardpan
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 32 inches below the existing
grade elevation.
Infiltration Rate: 0.08 inches per minute (5.0 inches per hour)
Test was conducted at 12 inches below existing grade elevation
Ground water was encountered at 65 inches below the existing grade elevation.
Location D- gpth Soil Description
B-17 0-8" Black sixty SAND
8"-32" Grey fine SAND
32"-65" Hardpan
65"-85" Dark brown fine SAND
85" Cave in
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 32 inches below the existing
grade elevation.
.Infiltration Rate: 0.13 inches per minute (7.7 inches per hour)
Test was conducted. at 12 inches below existing grade elevation
Ground water was encountered at 60 inches below the existing grade elevation.
Location Depth Soil _Description
B-18 0=6" Grey silty SAND
6"-14" Grey fine SAND
142'340" Hardpan
40"-85" Black/grey silty SAND
8 5" Cave in
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 14 inches below the existing
grade elevation.
Infiltration Rate: 0.03 inches per minute (2.2 inches per hour)
Test was conducted at 10 inches below existing -grade elevation
Ground water was encountered at 40 inches below the existing grade elevation

Infiltration Evaluation
P-11 84 Dining Facility at Stone Bair
Holly Ridge, Noah Carolina
ECS Project No. 22.13737
January 21, 2008
Location Depth Soil Description
B-19 0-10" PEAT
10"-16" Grey fine SAND w/silt
16"-3 6" Grey/white fine SAND
36"-70" Black/grey silty SAND
70"-120" Brown fine SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 36 inches below the existing
grade elevation.
Infiltration Rate: 0.25 inches per minute (14.7 inches per hour)
Vest was conducted at 12 inches below existing grade elevation
Ground water was encountered at 70 inches below the existing grade elevation
Location Depth Soil Description
B-20 0-3" Grass/topsoil
3"-10" Grey fine SAND w/silt
10"-20" Grey fine SAND
20"-60" Tan/yellow fine SAND
60"-120" White/grey fine SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 50 inches below the existing
grade elevation.
Infiltration Rate: 0.18 inches per minute (11.2 inches per hour)
Test was conducted at 26 inches below existing grade elevation
Ground water was encountered at 80 inches below the existing grade elevation
Location Depth Soil Description
B-20 0-3" Grass/topsoil
3 "- 10" Grey fine SAND w/silt
10"-60" Tan/yellow fine SAND
60"-90" White/tan fine SAND
90"-120" Grey fine SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 60 inches below the existing
grade elevation.
Infiltration. Rate.- 0.30 inches per minute (18.4 inchesper hour)..
Test was conducted at 36 inches below existing grade elevation
Ground water was encountered at 90 inches below the existing grade elevation

REVOME
>
gr CO
m?y
Tx
—xv
POKER LAHE
it >>
RLXly,� 1 All
I.h Ln
0AW
4j Ig " -1
hl ter,
:t
ILA
c,
j
- zr�, - ---------
A
rd
%
E:lt
Uv Ki4y'I! ;+ ._;1I�r �kr ti9 ', \ ` -+r. r ,
po LF �
0
rn m
2f— I rIP 5
wl t
po
J fiki J%
r�- I .4 N 1 � _ � � j fr �
fP lic 11. I I chAIZI
M, ffjj r JaRt4'
T
L
po
y4a 1�
it c
�A
Tim N
U
05
k
g
)Msw-w
xm
AM
vp
CA
It
�ON.a
v-
OW &POI av
M;4 TV
0
0 Ij
-7�
4-0
LT1 'AT
A
df.
ME
I qllj
D
7
ww 2pj
11 -- fir., fjrr
U-1
r
Cu
0
PD X
z ll-� Nil I!.. il .4,
DO
4 -j
co
TIJ
- � i1iiV dill � + � r .'� fj ■rl �; r cXl - Itv,'
co
0- -0 (D 0- 0 0 oao® o y o o 1
i� Cl 0
>
m
4 f-I
C3
uu 1>
C)
rlP @ z
>
.14 N t In
7-
C
00
f --)
7V 7�
cl)
>
r1l
Irl — I I
DRAFITNIEW 09 TA NAw NAVAL. FACILRIES ENGINEERING GBp;MAPID
yy Jg NAVAL FACUTiIIES ENGINEL41ING COMMAND MILT -ATLANTIC
p a WKR *QEHCy-(lFr/mWCc/MFlU) K"I. SrAnoH - Nawmv,
MC9 CAMP LEJEUNE JACKSONVILLE, NO
P-1184 DINING FACILITY
0 K at STONE BAY
DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN
> I co

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATION
Complete and email this form to [e-mail]. If there are more than 7 areas to be tested,
attach a second sheet. j
State Soil Scientist Confirmation Visit dateltime: Oq
9Ar
Project Name: 1194 D,wiNo Autu-rY air SU-6 County: ON6LGL-,
Street Address: EtiF«' k4o&E Izo, NoRrN OF 800V e T. WJ"106TRiv bRe
Directions from the nearest intersection of two major roads:
tT� 1s w10113 S'an+6 g y 12-tFLE LA06f_ AcrEfsAb QE F yVUY 710 Be*c.tiXh
W Y 1-7 -r,? `T'M I= NOUP A r+D N WY 1-12 i"a T+k£ S 0" M
>1 acre being disturbed? [YES []NO LAMA Major required? []YES 2NO
Consultant Name: K- J051WA NvesT, P.C. Phone: q19- V?9'--1874,
Consultant Firm Name: CLAi?K NF_XgN
92--l-S it
Bore Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a Existing Ground Elevation
51, o
52.5
b Proposed Bottom Elevation
17J
`17.-I
c Difference a minus b
3
y'
d Add 2 ft. Min. Bore Depth)
5.3'
G.8'
e Hardpan Depth?
qZ"
so"
Approx. Elev. Of SHWT
q7.5
qg.3
Max. lowest bottom elev.
g17.5'
50.3
h Infiltration Rate OK? *
i Confirmation of SHWT *
*State Soil Scientist Use ONLY
Comments
Required Attachments:
1. Legible vicinity map.
2. Complete Soils Report.
3. PDF formatted site plan with the boring locations to be tested. Site plans should
be emailed or hand -delivered only. Illegible faxed maps will not be accepted.
All proposed infiltration areas and existing, active utility lines located within the proposed
basin trench must be marked and flagged. If these areas are not flagged, the Soils Scientist
reserves the right to decline to do the investigation. If the proposed infiltration system will be
located in an area of existing pavement and there is no open area nearby, equipment capable of
breaking through the impervious layer must be provided. The soils investigation does not take
the place of a soils report prepared by an appropriate professional. The Soils Scientist will only
verify the soil conditions that are reported in the Soils Report, and make a determination as to
the suitability of the site to meet the infiltration design requirements under NCAC 21-1.1000, and
assumes no liability should the system fail.
S:1WQSISTORMWATERIFORMSIinfiltration site visit Revised 10.07

ECS Carolinas, LLP
Geotechnical o Construction Materials Y Environmental
April 8, 2008
Mr. K. Joshua Hurst, P.E.
CLARK NEXSEN
4000 Westchase Boulevard Suite 280
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Re: Infiltration Evaluation
P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 22.13944
Dear Mr. Hurst,
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) recently conducted an infiltration evaluation for the proposed
infiltration areas at the above site located off of Rifle Range Road in Sneads Ferry, North
Carolina. This letter, with attachments, is the report of our evaluation.
Field Testing
On April 8, 2008 ECS conducted an exploration of the subsurface soil and ground water
conditions at two requested locations. The boring locations were surveyed by Clark Nexen and
are shown on the attached Site Diagram . The purpose of this exploration' was to obtain
subsurface information of the suitability of the in place soils for the proposed infiltration area.
We explored 'the subsurface soil and ground water conditions, by advancing one hand auger
boring into the existing ground surface at the two requested boring locations. , We visually
classified the subsurface soils and obtained representative samples of each soil type.
encountered. We also recorded the ground water level observed at the time of each hand auger
boring. The attached Infiltration Evaluation Form provides a' s rnmary of the subsurface
conditions encountered at each hand auger boring location
The ground water level and the seasonal high ground water level (SYiWL) were estimated at
each boring location below the existing grade elevation. Below is a summary of each boring
location.
Location
Water Level
SHWL
B-22
70 inches
42 inches
B-23
85 inches
50 inches
We have conducted two infiltration tests utilizing a compact constant head permeameter near
hand auger borings to estimate the infiltration rate for the. subsurface soils. The infiltration tests
are typically conducted at two feet above the SHWL.
7211 Ogden Business Park • Suite 201 • Wilmington, NC 28411 • [phone] • Fax [phone]

Infiltration Evaluation
P-1184 Dining Hali at Stone Bay
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 22.13944
Field Test Results
Below is a summary of the infiltration test results:
Location
Descr tion
Depth
Inches/hour
Inches/minute
B-22
Tan fine SAND
18 inches
18.4
0.30
B-23
Tan fine SAND
26 inches
11.8
0.20
Infiltration rates and SHWL may vary within the proposed site due to changes in elevation and
subsurface conditions.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us at [phone].
Respectfully,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
/2�� +or
K. Brooks Wall
Staff Geologist
Attachments: Site Diagram
Infiltration Evaluation
Navffl-.d�p
Walid M. Sobh, P. E.
Principal Engineer
NC License No. 22983

& :Test Location
Sourm Clark Nexm
P-1184 Dining Facility at Stone Bay
Sneads Ferry, North Carolina �
ti.
ECS Project No. 22-13944
April 8, 2008

•
•
• Infiltration Evaluation
• P-1184 Dining Hall at Stone Bay
• Sneads Ferry, North Carolina
• ECS Project No. 22.13944
• April 8, 2008
•
Location Depth Soil Description
•
B-22 0-6" Grey fine SAND w/silt
•
6"-40" Tan fine SAND
•
40"-70" White fine SAND
•
•
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 42 inches below the existing
•
grade elevation.
•
Infiltration Rate: 0.30 inches per minute (18.4 inches per hour)
Test was conducted at 18 inches below existing grade elevation
Ground water was encountered at 70 inches below the existing grade elevation.
•
•
Location D pth Soil Description
•
B-23 0-6" Grey fine SAND w/silt
•
6"-65" Tan fine SAND
•
65"45" White fine SAND
•
•
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 50 inches below the existing
•
grade elevation.
•
Infiltration Rate: 0.20 inches per minute (11.8 inches per hour)
Test was conducted at 26 inches below existing grade elevation
•
Ground water was encountered at 85 inches below the existing grade elevation.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

APPENDIX F
Location and Vicinity Maps

0 0.3 0.6 0.a 1.2 1.5 km 05(n. = ;
i
I 4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 3 mi
i UTM 18 273420E 3830285N (NADS3/WGSS4)
USGS Sneads Perry (NIC) Quadrangle
Projection is UTM Zone ?8 NADS3 Datum cit_},351
i
I k 1 {{
ova^n�Teert�..1i5 �crnn,� ,nc' µSAS 5A .aK1cc cteTsrw;rnS��

rA LOCATfON MAP
SCALE: 0.2 mile = V--0-
IF"% VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 0.5 mile = 1'-0"
6160 KEMPWLLE CIRCLE
NORFOLK, VIRGMA 23502 �
757-455,SM FAX 757.455.wa
W1AV1. AW4DGEN,COM Architecture & Engineering

APPENDIX G
Wetland Determination

U.S.- ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WMAIINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2007 286 067 County: Onslow U.S-G.S. Quad: SneadN-Verry
NOTITICATION Or XURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner. Commanding Officer. U514IC, C.�imn Leieure Agent: Gco-Ms^trlmze Inc.
...�.
Address: aftn; Martin Korcrick atta: Jasenh Campo. PITO
PSC Box 20004 2713 Maargderfflvd, Suite D
Canin Leicune, NC 23542-0004 Hampton, VA 23666-1572
Property description:
Size (acres) +/- 1500 Nearest Town Sneads Etrry
Nearest Waterway Stones Ray River Basin White Qalt
USGS HUC 03030001 Coordinates 34.58570N, 77.4546°W
Location description Tlic site is Ioemed within the existing Stone Ray Rifle RMtre accessed off Hwy 210 hetweeai
Hwy 17 to We North and Hwv 172 to the south, Onslow County.
I:ndica.te Whieh of the F'ollorvina Anniv:
A. Prelitniji try Determination
Based on pretnninary infnrmntion, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Progmw Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 Cl RPart 331).
B. Approved Determinatiou
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the. Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the CIem Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification. _
There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344)_ T uIess there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determinatian may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of ".notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation hi a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps_
The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed- Upon completion, this srvvey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all arias subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
X The wetlands have been delinaated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on 8/271200T. Unless there is a change in the law or our putblished regulations, this
determinatioa maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the data of this notification.
Origkals forwarded to Surye or for distrihuffim
There are iio Viatep ofthe U.S-, to include wetlands, present on.the above desenbed property which are subjectto the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USG 1344); Unless there is a change im the law or our
published regulations, this determuiadon may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

The property is located is one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC at 252-808-2809 to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material widain waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
cansdtate a violation of Stction 3M of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Ifyou have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory prop m, please contact Brad Shaver at Il 51-46I1.
C. Basis For Determination
e saub'ect area erhi its wetland criteria as descrfbed in the 1987 Ce s Delineation Manna/Manna/and is ad'acent and
abnfftng wetlands of St nes Creek and unnamed tributap: of 9-tones-Bay. Onslnw Cann .
D. Remarks
The site was field ve iBed b rlmfn- on Field Staff' on July 31. 2006 and Au st 1. 2006.
E. Appeals Wormatio-o (J"bis information applies only to approved jarisdictional determinations as indicated in
R.above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 33I . Enclosed you will find. a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determunation you must submit a completed RFA form to the South Atlantic Division, Division Office at the Following
address:
lair. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appe31 Review Officer
CESAD-BT-Co R
U.S. Array Corps of Fx&oers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Streets Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia. 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that ii meets the critmia for
appeal under 33 CFRpart 331-5, and that it has been received bythe Division Office within 60 days of 96 date of the NAP.
Should you dxide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 10R7t7
"It is not necessary to submit an RFA four to the Division Office if you do not abject to the determination in this
correspondence.*
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 8/2_ _7/200
Expiration Date 81l_ Z20
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer SEutisiaction Survey or visit
l�#p 1/v+pvva_-sawn ce.armylnil/WE L_;4 S/indear html to complete the survey online.
Copy f anisbed:
cc: C'x>mmander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic 6506 Vampion Blvd. Norfolk, VA, 23308-1278 .
Clurr3e31':1Cigy a,rd_'.stotiiarss, fr�r. P.O. Box 1570 Jacksonville, NC 2854 1-1570

ol 1
CAfCiQMT HX-fEC.T lU.� - ONSLOW DUI Y
1 640,r DA:7-- f1-L 26. 2047
OF -TA 1a,%L.tITS 54SM W KDRTL$ WROLINA STA,i
CC r-,D Tt-S ARE Gitr-N 114 FQT54
OETLA. S C rf"D 5Y
4,2841 J. CWPD, Fh.D.
SEl4IG W%*AQmm-T(lL FRt:--CT MkNAC-ER
GEO-iSr W, 1HG
Vlwr VA4PLOD� EILILLEVAFC, S,fn D
K im lvf. ;�Zsse
FA: {7tq} ETZ-3703
SL FLVE-frM Wrr Fg-EFARED BY
C V.ARLESt F. fW46 E AWSCOAin_. INC.
JAl U? E- NC- 2041
Ta- ffeS$) 4SS-0E77
FAX; &Sc} (45-£0
FP0FL--SM&L L" V,0,-EmYfm L- 2SS1
�(r�i'� !•€f7 its'
Z. T,ir-- SURICEY IS TIED 70 XdD AtO it% DATUM IS NAD-83,
Y.. TrIIS EJFXC' S FfiEFAFM- N.THJOUT Tf•C EEt iT CF A Tlii.£ F—ORT AND MAY
W T uf7lCR7.. ki DmL% ERA1lD= ON Trr PROF-EaTP_
4. irIIS S..lkr E-T 4S alc:.-Zi TO fi_L EASEI-EXT" A; RE-il.ER-i- AiZ fu li:-OFi-WAY
CF RECaRD Frn-Z : TO THE DATE OF THE SURVEY
�. -IHIS' V-ft'L-`Y IS CiF xTrE 13ETAM-E: £DL@:CiA=--- OF MARSM CANTMENT FaOfC7
AREA fN 01-T ..OW Ca: 43Y. PLC 1E, D2-&.f-ATcD 6Y C-_fl-M:F'4hr AND S]RY-Y=D BY
C Rgri .-C* I`. � V F: 12 A£Gf]^�A i cS INC.
F. THZ DC 5 SL IRW, W4S, Fes, USING A. {PdMBLE CZ HS UN a (P/N
0-C O-ID) V61H AN'' E] 1M- +BF@, rafFi Lath YiRL ANTONA. FiAMMG SUEMETER
ACCVRkl'` T�]E STAIR.G 7E 'M S' {,- OK TNJS F.ARDWAR OVU. KNOM POINTS
DUM14C. THS 5MRICY Sri� A WASS71 r FYZZ4NTAL AL' FACY OF i ME -Ft it OR
in> &Wr- IS A VMTiRM ---IRVTC EsJ HAS NOT SEMN AEFOEWED BY A LOCAi
C0VC?4iE-'W AGD40T FOR V3MJA6LE 111iri Aiff APPLICABLE LAND 0--vao'PMENT
FEGULik-tigt,,S AVO FrZ-RE't Z DOS U07 V,--T THE IANlVUM STANDARDS F(A
� w_r to .L LAK73 SiJRVr-. MR, CM-jIFY THAT
iKS MFP WAS DF.A,iV t.%vCJM PW r,O ,iH AC'FLlAL GPS p3RVEY
- C WX is--, VT SLY��:t!',.mt -Irm-C Tr3 �a:x 1WA4 -MOWED TV
SUS-V2-4U 4 ACCURA' ;: W�Eq Ertl ,1, "1 l TrS mza E
OETA&M EY P0Si-?F^+OCEc-',tS C E J � - T` �ri�r -11AS
SlW- Wks FP.�Wla> rfKv V, ,,, I1S134G
coop--Fh.4Ft'S fNZ F.F-,Zf-Z m Cbl la1-:-TA t iE PLAN '.+j > N rlf
CAROU A ra❑r VWD ; �. CIMP rl €s SEAL {
UJ�-/ Qr
TF;� CFPWII- rt-xlr THE CC81t' w ;rxiS FL IT r7raqW -,"-RS AND
Y, TV34S FDL 0.fVS Or ikVTAU.S fWZ WETLA&MrS PECUL 7ED PURSUANT TO
S`C701 i 4k CrfrlE C LFK0 i£ ,-Ta 4;CT AS CV-rnMINCD BY HE L010ERSIGINM
ON KI5 Dl,-Z WLE.5� Tim iS F. CH-WOGE W 1-Z LAZY, DR UUR REGULATIONS.
DE t ,T,7 VJ-T EE F lip lam', FUR A FOUDD 40T i3 ECC`t" D F14VIE
rr- RS F�CIP TrIlS &A:M KS. 15"ci- iAB:A:: Ld ms mASf E l)im,IG TxE 1987
CC-7FS OF Dr--N� Wr,-LWL* t`+c4s`tON utNUA.L
kda a
SHEET 2 OF SCE 1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
WIRO Regional Office
FILE ACCESS RECORD
SECTION SWP DATE/TIME
NAME / >> �` _ __ REPRESENTING C�'✓�.�
Guidelines for Access: The staff of the Regional Office is dedicated to making public records in our
custody readily available to the public for review and copying. We also have the responsibility to the public
to safeguard these records and to carry out our day-to-day program obligations. Please read carefully the
following before signing the form.
1, Due to the large public demand for file access, we request that you call at least a day in
advance to schedule an appointment for file review so you can be accommodated.
Appointments are scheduled between 9:00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. Viewing time ends at 4:45
..m. Anyone arriving without an appointment may view the files to the extent that time and
staff supervision are available.
2. You must specify files you want to review by facility name or incident number, as
appropriate. The number of files that you may review at one appointment will be limited to
five.
3.. You may make copies of a file when the copier is not in use by the staff and if time permits.
There is no charge for 25 or less co ies. � cost per copy after the initial 25 is 2.5 per copy.
Payment is to be made by check, money order, or cash in the administrative offices.
4. Files must be kept in the order you received them. Files may not be taken from the Office.
No briefcases, large totes, etc. are permitted in the file review area. To remove, alter,
deface, mutilate, or destroy material in public files is a misdemeanor for which you can be
fined up to $500.00.
5. In accordance with GS 25-3-512, a $25.00 processing fee will be charged and collected for
checks on which payment has been refused.
5. The customer must present a photo ID, sign -in, and receive a visitor sticker prior to
reviewing files.
FACILITY NAME COUNTY
2.
3,
4.
5.
VinaturelName ofFirmor siness Date Time Jn Time Out
ase attach business car o form if available)
# Copes; _ Amt. Pd: